Interpol Isn’t the New World Order


It feels so wrong to be using the terms “liberal” and “conservative” to describe the various voices within the blogosphere because a majority of those really deserve to be classified as “certifiable” instead.

I have always considered myself a progressive, a liberal, and a Democrat, although I’ve never required that my thoughts and ideals strictly adhere to those three labels.  Given the current state of these denominations – with the rigid believers denouncing anything the other says, it sure feels like competing religions more than political parties – I don’t know how to even start to classify myself anymore.  Independent would be nice in theory, but then Sen. Lieberman kind of ruined that safe haven.  Moderate probably fits me best given the options, but even that has a weird connotation, much like the political equivalent of an agnostic: someone who can’t commit either way, believer or non-believer, just somewhere in limbo.

The one thing I do know is that I can safely say that I am not a conservative nor a Republican.

Here’s the way the conservative blogosphere handles anything related to Obama and the Democrats do:  start by declaring only the most extreme, worst-case-scenario rationale possible as the reason for everything they do, and then demand overwhelming evidence to prove otherwise (which they’ll never buy) so they can continue with their threadbare belief that there’s a massive conspiracy being perpetrated by the government against the American citizenry.  It used to be the ultra-conservative, conspiracy theorist’s wet dream and now it’s just business-as-usual in the conservative blogosphere.

Today’s iteration?

President Obama signed an Executive Order on December 17th that grants Interpol – the international police organization – certain immunities, including to search and seizure of its property.  Conservatives read this as meaning that Interpol will now be able to come to America and capture any Americans they wish without due process or any ability to retaliate, essentially giving up US sovereignty.   There are countless places to read about some of their deluded ideas, but here are a few choice spots:

ThreatsWatch – where all of this outrage started

Michelle Malkin – who only uses this to supply evidence for her claim of liberal bias in the MSM rather than actually weigh in on the news item herself

Reflections From a Murky Pond – who thinks that Obama doesn’t believe in US sovereignty and calls for him to be impeached, tried for treason, and punished to the full extent of the law.

These aren’t just some fringe outliers; this is a good temperature reading of the political right.  Feel free to Google “interpol obama” and soak up the delusion.  The culture of fearmongering and demonizing the Democrats has completely permeated the vast majority of conservatives, creating an extremely vocal minority of conspiracy theorists masquerading as patriots.

Once I caught wind of this development, I had to do some research.  Even though I know that almost everything I read from certain sources online are beyond biased, there’s almost always a small fact nestled inside the cluster of paranoid fantasy and I needed to find out just how much was fact and how much wasn’t.  And then, I needed to learn more about Interpol, the specific executive order itself, and what it all means.  Now, I am not a trained constitutional lawyer, so I really can’t come to a definitive explanation for everything on my own, but with some research I deduced that the uproar from the Right is simply bogus.

ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper dishes out the facts:

On June 16, 1983, President Reagan signed Executive Order 12425, which designated the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) as a public international organization entitled to enjoy the privileges, exemptions and immunities conferred by the International Organizations Immunities Act.

The International Organizations Immunities Act, signed into law in 1945, established a special group of foreign or international organizations whose members could work in the U.S. and enjoy certain exemptions from US taxes and search and seizure laws.

Experts say there are about 75 organizations in the US covered by the International Organizations Immunities Act — including the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the International Monetary Fund, the International Committee of the Red Cross, even the International Pacific Halibut Commission and Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission.

(These privileges are not the same as the rights afforded under “diplomatic immunity,” they are considerably less. “Diplomatic immunity” comes from the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which states that a “diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State.” That is NOT what the International Organizations Immunities Act is.)

Basically, recognizing a group under the International Organizations Immunities Act means officials from those organizations are exempt from some taxes and customs fees, and that their records cannot be seized.

This, I’m told, is so these organizations can work throughout the world without different countries spying on each other by accessing the records of these groups.

My bold at the end for emphasis.

Here’s the deal: Interpol isn’t some shadowy, New World Order-style, fascist Gestapo unit.  Interpol doesn’t have an international prison.  Interpol agents don’t make arrests.  From what I’ve learned, Interpol agents are essentially intelligence liaisons who assist police agencies from different countries who are tracking suspects across international borders.  Up until 2004, Interpol didn’t even have an office here in America, and even now it’s part of the Department of Justice.

Seems that a large portion of conservatives embrace and perpetrate the culture of fear created by the Bush Administration and are convinced that everything Obama does is another step toward destroying the United States despite there being absolutely zero evidence or reason to back up this belief.  Conspiracy theorists use the lack of evidence as evidence and that’s exactly what these conservative bloggers are doing.

The fantastical ideas the conservatives are conjuring up of Interpol agents as some sort of world police – like a global FBI or KGB – who will swoop down in the night and snatch Americans who dare speak out against the government and take them away, never to be seen again, are exactly that: fantasy.

Paranoid, delusional, political fantasy.


  1. I don’t understand the supposed conclusion to your “research?” Why is this not ceding sovereignty? Your comments are too conclusory. The fact that you don’t fear the amendment does not support your attack of those that take issue with it.

    • First off, Jared, there are no quotes needed around the word research. I really did do research as is evident by the links that I found while looking for information. If you think that the information I found wasn’t really reliable information then please refute those sources.

      As for my conclusion, I was pretty clear. I even put it bold to add emphasis. Please take a look above to see to what I’m referring.

      It’s not ceding sovereignty as much as you want it to be, Jared. Having soveriegnty is being the supreme lawmaking authority, and in no way is President Obama declaring that Interpol now supersedes the US Constitution as the supreme law of America, any more than the laws of the Red Cross or the United Nations supersede American law – which they don’t. Interpol is not a governing body.

      My comments are too conclusory? I have a number of facts from a number of sources that I have cited with links. My comments aren’t based on some paranoid delusion that President Obama wants to destroy America. You can’t start with that unfounded belief and then only look at things that might support your theory without taking into account all the other possibilities. In this case, there’s a clear explanation for why Obama did this. If you choose to not believe it and think that there’s this giant conspiracy, then you’re being irrational and delusional. You’re the one being conclusory. You’re doing exactly what I wrote about in this post: using the lack of evidence as evidence to prove your theory. It doesn’t work that way.

      It’s one thing to fear an executive order’s ramifications and that should spark a genuine interest in finding out just why the president would do this and what would come of it. But, to take it all the way in the other direction and claim that this is one step closer to ceding total sovereignty because Obama hates America is paranoid, delusional fantasy and it’s dangerous and ignorant. My issue is with people dismissing facts – actual, cited truths – because it doesn’t fit into their warped world view. My attack is on people fearing things that aren’t true, haven’t happened, or can’t happen, and are based on falsities. If you fear Interpol for what it’s not, then that irrational fear is unfounded and the conclusions you come to based on that unfounded irrational fear are irrelevant.

      This isn’t an ideological battle between what I believe versus what you believe. It’s about facts. It’s about understanding what the true ramifications are, not these insane “what ifs.” What if Interpol comes and snatches away American citizens with immunity? Interpol doesn’t make arrests – plain and simple – so that won’t happen any more than people are being snatched away by the Red Cross or the UN. Your issues with the EO make no logical sense in the real world and that’s what I take issue with.

  2. Obviously we speak different languages. You do offer links to supposed facts. The conclusion you draw doesn’t (necessarily) follow. My challenege was really for you to link it up:

    “This isn’t an ideological battle between what I believe versus what you believe. It’s about facts. It’s about understanding what the true ramifications are, not these insane “what ifs.”

    I posed no “what ifs,” conspracy theories, nor allegations of any kind. You read that into the comment becuase I was critical of your incohate analysis.

    Simply asking for clarification. No need to rant about something that wasn’t even said. This is your blog — not mine.

    • Fair enough. The rant could’ve been saved for another place, although when someone uses quotes around the word research simply because he doesn’t agree with the facts, that person loses most credibility in the discussion.

      We do speak different languages in that you don’t believe in facts. My conclusions come from these facts from established sources. I don’t need to vet these sources further. If you choose to not believe in these facts, that is your separation from reality. The onus is on you to prove that these sources are tainted, or provide other, established sources that provide facts that refute what I’ve currently found as opposed to just saying you disagree with them. Your opinion doesn’t count as a source for which to base your disagreement with the facts I linked.

      The fear of the amendment as I refuted – not yours since I don’t know how you feel, but to the ones that I linked to in my post – are unfounded, as I argued in my post. You offered no evidence or facts or sources to back up your fears that you claim to have with this executive order. I did. Please, provide some evidence to support your worries and I’ll be very interested in reading them. I am not an Obama defender; I am a defender of facts and logical thinking. So, I have no problem with saying that Obama did something dumb/bad/wrong/etc. if that were really the case. But, the unbased fear of Obama ceding US sovereignty claim holds no water and until someone provides some real evidence otherwise – not ridiculous conspiracy theories – that will remain my stance.

  3. Boy we would probably get into a fist fight if we were at a bar and had few beofe discussing this.

    “You offered no evidence or facts or sources to back up your fears that you claim to have with this executive order. . . Please, provide some evidence to support your worries and I’ll be very interested in reading them. I am not an Obama defender; I am a defender of facts and logical thinking.”

    Again, I made no such claims nor did I express worry. Your repeated assertions to the contrary are not only wrong, they are profoundly hypocritical.

    And again, I haven’t disputed any “facts” whatsoever. I am as curious about the subject as you are. My problem is that you haven’t assembled what you refer to as facts to support your conclusions. Frankly I wondered whether you paused for a moment as you typed out the subjective and pejorative attacks of you’ve leveled against others, including me(e.g. “embracing and perpetrating the culture of fear created by the Bush Administration” etc.).

    Obviously you have the same capacity to dismiss anything critical of the executive’s use of its authority as those looking for the next conspiracy from this administration.

    I think it would be helpful to find out more about how the amendment came into being before deciding for yourself that Obama didn’t do something “dumb/bad/wrong/etc.”

    p.s. I consider myself liberal, but generally disillusioned by this president’s performance and the rhetoric of those that defend him no matter how valid the criticism.

  4. I’m not much of a fighter so I doubt we would come to blows on my end.

    Your initial comment felt as though you were a skeptic, to the point where you used quotes around research to imply that the sources of my information were shakey at best. If you have problems with those then say so. You keep talking about my “facts” but don’t say what you don’t believe or what should be refuted.

    I don’t know the exact reason for why Obama signed this order at this moment. Others who have more knowledge and closer experience to the matter have written their speculations. The main point of what I was trying to say in my original post was that the likely reason for it is not the extreme explanation, like: the president hates America and wants to give up US sovereignty to the international community. But that when people are already convinced of that from the get-go, they won’t let themselves see things for being relatively benign.

    I am not one who defends Obama indiscriminately. I have agreed with much of what he has done but I’m not on the far left who idolizes him as a savior. To liken my positions as equal to those conspiracy theorists on the right is to be blind. I don’t claim to be perfect or right on every topic; these are merely my stances on topics, not textbooks. But I think it’s clear that I don’t exist in a factless, conspiracy-laden dreamworld where many conservative bloggers reside.

    My words weren’t meant as an attack, more of a challenge to those who spout off extreme accusations from either side with little to no basis and what facts there are don’t support those claims. If you aren’t a fearmongering writer who supports enhanced interrogation or wants to have Obama deported because of his supposed illegitimacy due to his birth certificate, then I’m not talking about you.

  5. Just because your paranoid doesn’t mean someone isn’t following you!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: