Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Topic Author
Posts: 11208
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

Did Obama Waive US 4th Amendment?

Wed Dec 23, 2009 10:31 pm

It seems President Obama changed an Excutive Order originally signed by President Reagan. EO #12425 has been modified giving Interpol, the international police organization, diplomatic immunity. Apparently, now Interpol can withold US documents from FOIA requests and the US Courts. Also, Interpol now has the authority to go into any American home and search it withou a search warrent, or even escort by local law enforcement.

Can they also arrest Americans, remove them from the country, and not give them their US Constitutional rights?

http://www.theobamafile.com/_eligibility/EO12425.htm

http://www.examiner.com/x-33619-Denv...-Kiss-the-Fourth-Amendment-goodbye

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/012966.html

http://whatreallyhappened.com/conten...-international-organization-entitl

Of course, the lapdog news media has yet to report on this. Not even FoxNews, or the Drudge Report.

But the White House has released a press report confirming the change to President Reagan's order.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...der-amending-executive-order-12425
 
N104UA
Posts: 302
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 11:27 pm

RE: Did Obama Waive US 4th Amendment?

Wed Dec 23, 2009 10:49 pm

This is how Regan's executive order now reads
"By virtue of the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and statutes of the United States, including Section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669, 22 U.S.C. 288), it is hereby ordered that the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), in which the United States participates pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 263a, is hereby designated as a public international organization entitled to enjoy the privileges, exemptions and immunities conferred by the International Organizations Immunities Act;This designation is not intended to abridge in any respect the privileges, exemptions or immunities which such organization may have acquired or may acquire by international agreement or by Congressional action."


I do not see how INTERPOL can use unreasonable search and seizure, so I do not see this violates the 4th Amendment. If you read Obama's executive order and Executive order 12971 from Clinton, it just deleted one sentance from Regan's executive order

so dont get your panties in a bunch and next time wait for real news sources (CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, Newspapers, AP) to confirm something before you go claiming that Obama is violating the constitution. Remember that he was a Constitutional Law Professor at The University of Chicago before he became a U.S. Senator so I think he will know if he violates the constitution.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
Of course, the lapdog news media has yet to report on this. Not even FoxNews, or the Drudge Report.

Well maybe all of those websites are not accredited, and that is why Right Wing Media is not even reporting it.
"Learn the rules, so you know how to break them properly." -H.H. The Dalai Lama
 
shizzlmizzl
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:06 pm

RE: Did Obama Waive US 4th Amendment?

Wed Dec 23, 2009 10:57 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
Can they also arrest Americans, remove them from the country, and not give them their US Constitutional rights?

If the CIA could do that in other countries, Interpol sure can do that in the US  duck 
 
Airstud
Posts: 4900
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2000 11:57 am

RE: Did Obama Waive US 4th Amendment?

Wed Dec 23, 2009 11:01 pm



Quoting N104UA (Reply 1):
I think he will know if he violates the constitution.

Whether he knows it is a separate issue from whether he's doing it.

Quoting Shizzlmizzl (Reply 2):
If the CIA could do that in other countries, Interpol sure can do that in the US

True dat.
Pancakes are delicious.
 
CPH-R
Posts: 6167
Joined: Thu May 03, 2001 5:19 pm

RE: Did Obama Waive US 4th Amendment?

Wed Dec 23, 2009 11:25 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
http://whatreallyhappened.com/conten...-international-organization-entitl

Seriously?

I mean.. Seriously?

Do you even look at the site you're linking to? WRH is tinfoil hat territory in extremis  Yeah sure
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Topic Author
Posts: 11208
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Did Obama Waive US 4th Amendment?

Thu Dec 24, 2009 12:28 am



Quoting N104UA (Reply 1):
This is how Regan's executive order now reads

It is no longer President Reagan's EO, it now has Obama's signature on it.

Quoting N104UA (Reply 1):
so dont get your panties in a bunch and next time wait for real news sources (CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, Newspapers, AP) to confirm something before you go claiming that Obama is violating the constitution.



Quoting N104UA (Reply 1):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
Of course, the lapdog news media has yet to report on this. Not even FoxNews, or the Drudge Report.

Well maybe all of those websites are not accredited, and that is why Right Wing Media is not even reporting it.

I also posted the White House Press Release.

Quoting Shizzlmizzl (Reply 2):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
Can they also arrest Americans, remove them from the country, and not give them their US Constitutional rights?

If the CIA could do that in other countries, Interpol sure can do that in the US



Quoting Airstud (Reply 3):
True dat.

The CIA does not "arrest" people in other countries, those countries arrest the person then turn him/her over to the CIA.

Quoting Airstud (Reply 3):
Quoting N104UA (Reply 1):
I think he will know if he violates the constitution.

Whether he knows it is a separate issue from whether he's doing it.

Correct

Quoting CPH-R (Reply 4):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
http://whatreallyhappened.com/conten...-international-organization-entitl

Seriously?

I mean.. Seriously?

I also posted;

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...der-amending-executive-order-12425

Quoting N104UA (Reply 1):
"By virtue of the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and statutes of the United States, including Section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669, 22 U.S.C. 288), it is hereby ordered that the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), in which the United States participates pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 263a, is hereby designated as a public international organization entitled to enjoy the privileges, exemptions and immunities conferred by the International Organizations Immunities Act;This designation is not intended to abridge in any respect the privileges, exemptions or immunities which such organization may have acquired or may acquire by international agreement or by Congressional action."

No, this is how it reads, off the White House Press Release;

For Immediate Release December 17, 2009 Executive Order -- Amending Executive Order 12425
EXECUTIVE ORDER
- - - - - - -
AMENDING EXECUTIVE ORDER 12425 DESIGNATING INTERPOL
AS A PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION ENTITLED TO
ENJOY CERTAIN PRIVILEGES, EXEMPTIONS, AND IMMUNITIES

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words "except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act" and the semicolon that immediately precedes them.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,
December 16, 2009.


Here are the sections of Search 22 U.S.C. § 288a : US Code - Section 288A: Privileges, exemptions, and immunities of international organizations the President granted immunity to Interpol from;

International organizations shall enjoy the status, immunities,
exemptions, and privileges set forth in this section, as follows:
(a) International organizations shall, to the extent consistent
with the instrument creating them, possess the capacity -
(i) to contract;
(ii) to acquire and dispose of real and personal property;
(iii) to institute legal proceedings.
(b) International organizations, their property and their assets,
wherever located, and by whomsoever held, shall enjoy the same
immunity from suit and every form of judicial process as is enjoyed
by foreign governments, except to the extent that such
organizations may expressly waive their immunity for the purpose of
any proceedings or by the terms of any contract.
(c) Property and assets of international organizations, wherever
located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless
such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation. The
archives of international organizations shall be inviolable.
(d) Insofar as concerns customs duties and internal-revenue taxes
imposed upon or by reason of importation, and the procedures in
connection therewith; the registration of foreign agents; and the
treatment of official communications, the privileges, exemptions,
and immunities to which international organizations shall be
entitled shall be those accorded under similar circumstances to
foreign governments.

Pursuant to regulations prescribed by the Commissioner of Customs
with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, the baggage and
effects of alien officers and employees of international
organizations, or of aliens designated by foreign governments to
serve as their representatives in or to such organizations, or of
the families, suites, and servants of such officers, employees, or
representatives shall be admitted (when imported in connection with
the arrival of the owner) free of customs duties and free of
internal-revenue taxes imposed upon or by reason of importation.

Here is President Reagan's EO;

Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983

International Criminal Police Organizations

By virtue of the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and statutes of the United States, including Section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669, 22 U.S.C. 288), it is hereby ordered that the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), in which the United States participates pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 263a, is hereby designated as a public international organization entitled to enjoy the privileges, exemptions and immunities conferred by the International Organizations Immunities Act; except those provided by Section 2(c), the portions of Section 2(d) and Section 3 relating to customs duties and federal internal-revenue importation taxes, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act. This designation is not intended to abridge in any respect the privileges, exemptions or immunities which such organization may have acquired or may acquire by international agreement or by Congressional action.

Ronald Reagan
The White House,
June 16, 1983.

Here is the results of Obama changing this EO;

Interpol is the shorthand for the International Criminal Police Organization. It was established in 1923 and operates in about 188 countries. By executive order 12425, issued in 1983, President Reagan recognized Interpol as an international organization and gave it some of the privileges and immunities customarily extended to foreign diplomats. Interpol, however, is also an active law-enforcement agency, so critical privileges and immunities (set forth in Section 2(c) of the International Organizations Immunities Act) were withheld. Specifically, Interpol's property and assets remained subject to search and seizure, and its archived records remained subject to public scrutiny under provisions like the Freedom of Information Act. Being constrained by the Fourth Amendment, FOIA, and other limitations of the Constitution and federal law that protect the liberty and privacy of Americans is what prevents law-enforcement and its controlling government authority from becoming tyrannical

On Wednesday, however, for no apparent reason, President Obama issued an executive order removing the Reagan limitations. That is, Interpol's property and assets are no longer subject to search and confiscation, and its archives are now considered inviolable. This international police force (whose U.S. headquarters is in the Justice Department in Washington) will be unrestrained by the U.S. Constitution and American law while it operates in the United States and affects both Americans and American interests outside the United States.

Interpol works closely with international tribunals (such as the International Criminal Court — which the United States has refused to join because of its sovereignty surrendering provisions, though top Obama officials want us in it). It also works closely with foreign courts and law-enforcement authorities (such as those in Europe that are investigating former Bush administration officials for purported war crimes — i.e., for actions taken in America's defense).

http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...RjZmYwMGU1ZjZhOGJmNmQ0NmJiZDNmMDY=

Congress needs to look at this, as even they can be refused documents and information Interpol has, or is holding for the Justice Department.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 22183
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Did Obama Waive US 4th Amendment?

Thu Dec 24, 2009 1:44 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):

On Wednesday, however, for no apparent reason, President Obama issued an executive order removing the Reagan limitations. That is, Interpol's property and assets are no longer subject to search and confiscation, and its archives are now considered inviolable. This international police force (whose U.S. headquarters is in the Justice Department in Washington) will be unrestrained by the U.S. Constitution and American law while it operates in the United States and affects both Americans and American interests outside the United States.

But INTERPOL does not have the right to search any property in the U.S. INTERPOL is an international organization that works with local and national security and law enforcement agencies. And just because they have diplomatic immunity doesn't mean that they can't be thrown out of the country for misbehaving.

I am curious as to why this change was made, though.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
ltbewr
Posts: 15659
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: Did Obama Waive US 4th Amendment?

Thu Dec 24, 2009 2:06 am

Probably this change was made to the advantages of both the USA and INTERPOL.
One is that it closes a loophole to access USA government documents shared with INTERPOL. That could be critical as to those seeking documents at to Terrorism and more importantly as to the renditions program for example the USA government does not want available to the public for sound and political reasons.
Second, it assures that any evidence or investigative information they have in their possession when in travel across borders cannot be seen by US Customs agents, preventing possible damaging police and criminal investigations, tipping off of criminals here and so on.
Third, it may put our CIA, FBI and other police/investigative agencies in a position to have diplomatic like immunity from other countries.
 
N104UA
Posts: 302
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 11:27 pm

RE: Did Obama Waive US 4th Amendment?

Thu Dec 24, 2009 6:07 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):

Quoting N104UA (Reply 1):
This is how Regan's executive order now reads

It is no longer President Reagan's EO, it now has Obama's signature on it.

It is still Reagan's EO, Obama just removed a sentence from it.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
Quoting N104UA (Reply 1):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
Of course, the lapdog news media has yet to report on this. Not even FoxNews, or the Drudge Report.

Well maybe all of those websites are not accredited, and that is why Right Wing Media is not even reporting it.

I also posted the White House Press Release.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
Quoting N104UA (Reply 1):
"By virtue of the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and statutes of the United States, including Section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669, 22 U.S.C. 288), it is hereby ordered that the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), in which the United States participates pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 263a, is hereby designated as a public international organization entitled to enjoy the privileges, exemptions and immunities conferred by the International Organizations Immunities Act;This designation is not intended to abridge in any respect the privileges, exemptions or immunities which such organization may have acquired or may acquire by international agreement or by Congressional action."

No, this is how it reads, off the White House Press Release;

For Immediate Release December 17, 2009 Executive Order -- Amending Executive Order 12425
EXECUTIVE ORDER
- - - - - - -
AMENDING EXECUTIVE ORDER 12425 DESIGNATING INTERPOL
AS A PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION ENTITLED TO
ENJOY CERTAIN PRIVILEGES, EXEMPTIONS, AND IMMUNITIES

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words "except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act" and the semicolon that immediately precedes them.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,
December 16, 2009.

AGAIN just read the EO from Obama all it is doing is removing a sentence from Reagan's EO, so that is what I posted was the revised EO of Reagan's
"Learn the rules, so you know how to break them properly." -H.H. The Dalai Lama
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: Did Obama Waive US 4th Amendment?

Thu Dec 24, 2009 6:10 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
The CIA does not "arrest" people in other countries, those countries arrest the person then turn him/her over to the CIA.

That is how it is supposed to work. In practice, I doubt that this is always the case, especially in cases where the other country is harboring whatever thug we are after.

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 7):
Third, it may put our CIA, FBI and other police/investigative agencies in a position to have diplomatic like immunity from other countries.

Many people are embedded in embassies anyway so they would already have diplomatic immunity. But, this may further legitimize their actions.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
Ken777
Posts: 10153
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Did Obama Waive US 4th Amendment?

Thu Dec 24, 2009 6:20 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
Interpol works closely with . . .

The FBI and other US law enforcement agencies and departments.

Basically we work hard to get along - even in Reagan's day.
 
Maverick623
Posts: 4726
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:13 am

RE: Did Obama Waive US 4th Amendment?

Thu Dec 24, 2009 6:42 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
diplomatic immunity.

You obviously have no idea what that term means.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
Also, Interpol now has the authority to go into any American home and search it withou a search warrent, or even escort by local law enforcement.

I've heard crazy stuff before, but c'mon.
"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 22183
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Did Obama Waive US 4th Amendment?

Thu Dec 24, 2009 7:05 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
Also, Interpol now has the authority to go into any American home and search it withou a search warrent, or even escort by local law enforcement.

Yeah, where did you get this? My god, man, you actually BELIEVE this crap?

-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
Yellowstone
Posts: 2821
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:32 am

RE: Did Obama Waive US 4th Amendment?

Thu Dec 24, 2009 7:16 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
Apparently, now Interpol can withold US documents from FOIA requests and the US Courts.

But the US organizations that created those documents cannot.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
Also, Interpol now has the authority to go into any American home and search it withou a search warrent, or even escort by local law enforcement.

No, that's a lie. The articles you cite that claim that this circumvents the 4th Amendment have got it backwards. This change has nothing to do with searches/seizures carried out by Interpol, but of searches/seizures carried out against Interpol. Before, the US government could search or seize Interpol property via standard 4th Amendment channels. Now, they cannot carry out such searches. This immunity is granted to nearly all international organizations in the US, and there's no reason I can see why Interpol should be treated differently.
Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
 
IADCA
Posts: 2294
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:24 am

RE: Did Obama Waive US 4th Amendment?

Thu Dec 24, 2009 4:09 pm

This thread is a microcosm of everything wrong with American politics today. Each side is just out to stick it to the other, regardless of what the facts are, how the law actually reads, etc. Although, I do feel compelled to add that this is such an egregious misreading of the facts (let alone the law) that I cannot escape the conclusion that it's a knowing and intentional distortion.

First, what Yellowstone said is exactly right. Nothing in here confers search and seizure authority on Interpol. Rather, it protects INTERPOL against search and seizure by domestic authorities. To do the opposite would be unconstitutional. That leads us to the next point: if a provision in an EO is unconstitutional, then it's null. It's amazing that people seem to forget that the Supremacy Clause exists.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
Interpol works closely with international tribunals (such as the International Criminal Court — which the United States has refused to join because of its sovereignty surrendering provisions, though top Obama officials want us in it)

Well, gee, let's see how INTERPOL is somehow going to get a US defendant before the ICC without the US signing that treaty. Anybody? Bueller? Didn't think so.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
This international police force (whose U.S. headquarters is in the Justice Department in Washington) will be unrestrained by the U.S. Constitution and American law while it operates in the United States and affects both Americans and American interests outside the United States.

Deeeeeeeeep breaths. Perhaps you might want to take a read of INTERPOL's website and see that they don't in fact arrest anyone. It's a coordinating organization created to help coordinate local law enforcement efforts in regards to international crimes.

Look, I don't mean to be any more rude than necessary, but you seem intelligent enough not to believe that stuff. If people didn't actually believe this crap, it would be quite funny.
 
shizzlmizzl
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:06 pm

RE: Did Obama Waive US 4th Amendment?

Thu Dec 24, 2009 4:46 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):

The CIA does not "arrest" people in other countries, those countries arrest the person then turn him/her over to the CIA.

Ah please come on, should i say kidnap them, take them to an airfield and fly them to some secret prison...
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Topic Author
Posts: 11208
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Did Obama Waive US 4th Amendment?

Thu Dec 24, 2009 4:59 pm



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 6):
I am curious as to why this change was made, though.

So am I. What has changed in the status of Interpol in the US, and why?

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 7):
it may put our CIA, FBI and other police/investigative agencies in a position to have diplomatic like immunity from other countries.

Some countries, like most in Europe already extend some limited diplomatic immunity to FBI and CIA agants, other nations do not.

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 7):
that it closes a loophole to access USA government documents shared with INTERPOL. That could be critical as to those seeking documents at to Terrorism and more importantly as to the renditions program for example the USA government does not want available to the public for sound and political reasons.

Then why didn't Bush close the "loop hole" years ago, when the GWOT began?

Quoting N104UA (Reply 8):
It is no longer President Reagan's EO, it now has Obama's signature on it.

It is still Reagan's EO, Obama just removed a sentence from it.

He signed it too.

Quoting N104UA (Reply 8):
AGAIN just read the EO from Obama all it is doing is removing a sentence from Reagan's EO, so that is what I posted was the revised EO of Reagan's

Why? Why did the EO need to be revised, and why do it now? Why not do it years ago under Bush 41, Clinton or Bush 43? What is Obama's modivation to do it, and why do it secretly in the middle on the night and as quire as possible?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 9):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
The CIA does not "arrest" people in other countries, those countries arrest the person then turn him/her over to the CIA.

That is how it is supposed to work. In practice, I doubt that this is always the case, especially in cases where the other country is harboring whatever thug we are after.

In thoise cases, we just wait until theat person flys somewhere else, then we get him in the new country, if allowed.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 9):
Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 7):
Third, it may put our CIA, FBI and other police/investigative agencies in a position to have diplomatic like immunity from other countries.

Many people are embedded in embassies anyway so they would already have diplomatic immunity. But, this may further legitimize their actions.

Their immunity is limited, by international agreements.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 10):
The FBI and other US law enforcement agencies and departments.

Basically we work hard to get along - even in Reagan's day.

Agreed, but what has changed nopw to change the policy?

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 11):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
diplomatic immunity.

You obviously have no idea what that term means.

Well, Mr. Smart guy, 'splain it to me. Let's see what you know about diplomatic immunity, what a diplomate is actually immune to, and what they are not.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 11):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
Also, Interpol now has the authority to go into any American home and search it withou a search warrent, or even escort by local law enforcement.


I've heard crazy stuff before, but c'mon.

So, you blindy trust any and all reasons behind the decision to change the EO?

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 13):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
Apparently, now Interpol can withold US documents from FOIA requests and the US Courts.

But the US organizations that created those documents cannot.

Not if they hide such documents within the Interpol Offices at the Justice Dept.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 13):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
Also, Interpol now has the authority to go into any American home and search it withou a search warrent, or even escort by local law enforcement.

No, that's a lie. The articles you cite that claim that this circumvents the 4th Amendment have got it backwards. This change has nothing to do with searches/seizures carried out by Interpol, but of searches/seizures carried out against Interpol.

It give Interpol immunity to conduct their own possible criminal investigation s within the boarders of the US and its terrortories

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 13):
Before, the US government could search or seize Interpol property via standard 4th Amendment channels. Now, they cannot carry out such searches. This immunity is granted to nearly all international organizations in the US, and there's no reason I can see why Interpol should be treated differently.

Interpol Agents were not protected by the 4th, or any Amendment of the Constitution. No, this immunity is not granted to any international organization, only 4 organizations are covered, currently, by diplomatic immunity, the UN, EU, NATO, and now Interpol. Arabic/Muslum organizations, the International Red Cross/Cresent, and hundreds of other international organizations have no such diplomatic immunity.

Quoting IADCA (Reply 14):
First, what Yellowstone said is exactly right.

Of course he is.  Yeah sure
 
Maverick623
Posts: 4726
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:13 am

RE: Did Obama Waive US 4th Amendment?

Thu Dec 24, 2009 6:08 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):

It give Interpol immunity to conduct their own possible criminal investigation s within the boarders of the US and its terrortories

Ok. Again..... how exactly does that give them the right to conduct warrantless searches? I'll answer that for you. It doesn't.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
So, you blindy trust any and all reasons behind the decision to change the EO?

Absolutely. As opposed to you, who didn't even understand what the decision meant, yet used it as a vehicle to bash the Obama administration (and, perhaps, subtly expose your xenophobia)

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
Let's see what you know about diplomatic immunity, what a diplomate is actually immune to, and what they are not.

I don't have time right now to get into specifics, but just in the same way diplomats are responsible for parking tickets, they are responsible for violating the rights of ordinary Americans.
"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
 
IADCA
Posts: 2294
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:24 am

RE: Did Obama Waive US 4th Amendment?

Thu Dec 24, 2009 7:29 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
Of course he is. Yeah sure

Alright, pal. Here's the thing. My profession is law. Three years of law school, despite its opacity and general tendency towards personal irritation, does teach you about the Constitution and its interaction with other parts of the legislative and executive machinery of our nation. Likewise, I did a lot of international law stuff - mostly investment-related, but also related to relations between states and international and non-governmental organizations. What he said is exactly right, and the ridiculous stuff you're coming back with is absolutely wrong. I assume you'd fight back if I typed ridiculous stuff about airfield operations at DFW, but that's not the issue here.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
Interpol Agents were not protected by the 4th, or any Amendment of the Constitution. No, this immunity is not granted to any international organization, only 4 organizations are covered, currently, by diplomatic immunity, the UN, EU, NATO, and now Interpol. Arabic/Muslum organizations, the International Red Cross/Cresent, and hundreds of other international organizations have no such diplomatic immunity.

You have just demonstrated very clearly that you don't understand the difference between intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations. This fundamental and paramount difference goes a long way to explaining why, as a matter of comity, the US chooses not to exercise domestic enforcement powers against the former and not the latter. Chew on that one for a while.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
It give Interpol immunity to conduct their own possible criminal investigation s within the boarders of the US and its terrortories

No, it doesn't. Why don't you describe exactly what you think INTERPOL's activities inside the US are? I'll give you a hint: http://www.interpol.int/Public/Region/Americas/Default.asp.

Again, INTERPOL is a coordinating organization. Its office over at DOJ is staffed by Americans. These people are experienced law enforcement officers from various US jurisdictions, though most are former Feds. Hell, the head of the entirety of INTERPOL is American. Basically, it's an information-sharing service. The probable reason for this change is that as INTERPOL's functioning picks up, more and more sensitive information belonging to the police branches of sovereign governments (think, other countries' equivalents of FBI) is now accessible from the INTERPOL NCB at Justice.

The change is to ensure that the results of investigations in other countries cannot be seized without permission by US law enforcement services, as that would circumvent INTERPOL and violate its coordinating and organizing function. How would you feel, for example, if the results of a sensitive FBI investigation into terrorists ended up in a German courtroom because of a domestic investigation in Germany? What this change does is just protect against the reverse. Now, calm down, for Chrissakes.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Topic Author
Posts: 11208
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Did Obama Waive US 4th Amendment?

Thu Dec 24, 2009 7:56 pm



Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 17):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):

It give Interpol immunity to conduct their own possible criminal investigation s within the boarders of the US and its terrortories

Ok. Again..... how exactly does that give them the right to conduct warrantless searches? I'll answer that for you. It doesn't.

It exempts them from procsocution under Federal or state laws, as is all diplomatic immunity in the US.

While the vast majority of diplomats do obey local laws, there have been many diplomats that have absued their privledge. Those abuses range from parking ticket violations to murder and espionage.

Violation of the law by diplomats has included espionage, smuggling, child custody law violations, and even murder: in London in 1984, policewoman Yvonne Fletcher was killed on the street by a person shooting from inside the Libyan embassy. The incident caused a breakdown in diplomatic relations until Libya admitted "general responsibility" in 1999.[

A particular problem is the immunity of diplomatic vehicles to ordinary traffic regulations such as prohibitions on double parking.[7] Occasionally, such problems may take a most serious turn, when disregard for traffic rules leads to bodily harm or death.[8] Illustrating how widespread this problem is that France, between November 2003 and 2004, there were 2,590 cases of diplomatic cars caught speeding by automatic radars

This also includes parking violations. In New York City, the home of the United Nations Headquarters (and hence thousands of diplomats), the City regularly protests to the Department of State about non-payment of parking tickets because of diplomatic status. Diplomatic missions have their own regulations, but many require their staff to pay any fines due for parking violations. A 2006 study by two economists found that there was a significant correlation between home-country corruption (as measured by Transparency International) and unpaid parking fines; nonetheless, approximately 30 countries (or 20%) had fewer than one unpaid fine per diplomat over a five year period, and 20 had none at all. Six countries had in excess of 100 violations per diplomat

[edit] Injury and death
The deputy ambassador of the Republic of Georgia to the United States, Gueorgui Makharadze, caused an accident in January 1997 that injured four people and killed a sixteen-year-old girl. He was found to have a blood-alcohol level of 0.15[clarification needed : which units?], but was released from custody because he was a diplomat. The U.S. government asked the Georgian government to waive his immunity, which they did and Makharadze was tried and convicted of manslaughter by the U.S. and sentenced to seven to twenty-one years in prison. However after serving 3 years of his sentence, he was returned to his home country where he spent 2 more years in jail before being paroled.[8]
An American Marine serving his embassy in Bucharest, Romania collided with a taxi and killed the popular Romanian musician Teo Peter on December 3, 2004.[10] Christopher Van Goethem, allegedly drunk, did not obey a traffic signal to stop, which resulted in the collision of his Ford Expedition with the taxi the rock star was travelling in. Van Goethem's blood alcohol content was estimated at 0.09[clarification needed : which units?] from a breathalyser test, but he refused to give a blood sample for further testing and left for Germany before charges could be filed in Romania.[11] The Romanian government requested the American government lift his immunity, which it has refused to do.[citation needed] In a court-martial, he was acquitted of manslaughter and adultery but was convicted of obstruction of justice and making false statements.[12]
A Russian diplomat accredited to Ottawa, Canada drove his car into two pedestrians on a quiet residential street in January 2001, killing one and seriously injuring the other. Andrei Knyazev had previously been stopped by Ottawa police on two separate occasions on suspicion of impaired driving. The Canadian government requested that Russia waive the diplomat's immunity, although this request was refused. Knyazev was subsequently prosecuted in Russia for involuntary manslaughter, and sentenced to four years in prison. His appeal of the sentence was denied and he served time in a penal colony.[13][14][15]
An American diplomat, Consul General Douglas Kent, stationed in Vladivostok, Russia was involved in a car accident on October 27, 1998, that left a young man, Alexander Kashin, crippled. Kent was not prosecuted in a U.S. court. Under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963, diplomatic immunity does not apply to civil actions relating to vehicular accidents. However, on 10 August 2006, a U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that since he was using his own vehicle for consular purposes, Kent may not be sued civilly.[16][17]
The Burmese Ambassador in Sri Lanka in 1979 shot his wife as she got out of the car after seeing a player in a night-club band of whom she was enamoured. As recalled by Gerald Hensley, then Vice-Dean of the Diplomatic Corps in Sri Lanka; Hensley was based in Singapore and accredited from New Zealand as High Commissioner to Sri Lanka as well:
The next morning the neighbours in Cinammon Gardens (Colombo) were surprised to see the ambassador stacking wood on the back lawn and, conoisseurs of cremation, quickly grasped that he was building a pyre. When the police were called the ambassador opened the metal front gates just enough to say that there was no trouble and to remind them that his house was Burmese territory. Then he went back to work. The houses around his long back garden were now alive with fascinated spectators as he emerged with the body of his wife, placed it on the pyre and set it alight. He was ... well connected at home but after an awkward interval he was recalled.

Diplomatic immunity from local employment and labor law when employing staff from the host country has precipitated abuse. When the employer is a diplomat, the employees are in a legal limbo where the laws of neither the host country nor the diplomat's country are enforceable. There is an inherent conflict of interest, as the diplomat is the chief representative of his country and its laws, and is not forced to obey local law, so that an abusive diplomat employer can act with virtual impunity. Diplomats have ignored local laws concerning minimum wages, maximum working hours, vacation and holidays. The worst abusers have imprisoned the employees in their homes, deprived them of their earned wages, passports and from communication and access to the outside world, abused them physically and emotionally, deprived them of food, and invaded their privacy.[22][23] In the case of corrupt countries and abusive diplomats, it has been virtually impossible to enforce payment of wages, or any standards whatsoever.South Africa however, was criticised for claiming immunity from labor laws at their ambassador’s residence in Ireland.

On April 24, 2008, Mexican press attaché Rafael Quintero Curiel was taped stealing Blackberry PDA units from a White House press meeting room in New Orleans, LA. Curiel made it all the way to the airport before members of the United States Secret Service caught up with him. After denying any wrong doing, he was shown the DVD of the surveillance video. Curiel claimed the incident was accidental, stated his diplomatic immunity, and left the country, but was eventually fired for the incident.[25]

Diplomats are exempt from import duty and tariffs for items for their personal use. In some countries, this has led to charges that diplomatic agents are profiting personally from resale of "tax free" goods. The receiving state may choose to impose restrictions on what may reasonably constitute personal use (for example, only a certain quantity of cigarettes per day). When enacted, such restrictions are generally quite generous (so as to avoid tit-for-tat responses).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_immunity

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...le/2009/09/19/AR2009091901864.html

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7672967

http://www.afrol.com/articles/21829

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 17):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
So, you blindy trust any and all reasons behind the decision to change the EO?


Absolutely.

Well, of course, I should have guessed that.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 17):
As opposed to you, who didn't even understand what the decision meant, yet used it as a vehicle to bash the Obama administration (and, perhaps, subtly expose your xenophobia)

I see no reason for the decision, nor has Obama explained why he did it. No I don't trust Obama, or his cronies from Chicago. He has done nothing but lie to the American people since he took office only 11 months ago.
He has lied about global warming
He has lied about crap and tax (cap and trade)
He has lied about health care
He has lied about the stimulus package saving the economy
He has lied about unemployment
He has lied about having a transparent administration
He has lied about corruption within his administration
He has lied about TARP
He has lied about taking over the auto companies, banks, and housing industries.

Why should I trrust him about this?

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 17):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
Let's see what you know about diplomatic immunity, what a diplomate is actually immune to, and what they are not.

I don't have time right now to get into specifics, but just in the same way diplomats are responsible for parking tickets, they are responsible for violating the rights of ordinary Americans

I can see you don't have any clue what diplomatic immunity is. I'm going to ask you to prove your statement.
 
IADCA
Posts: 2294
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:24 am

RE: Did Obama Waive US 4th Amendment?

Thu Dec 24, 2009 8:14 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
I can see you don't have any clue what diplomatic immunity is.

And the tiny kernel of knowledge you have is from Wikipedia. If you actually understood the purposes of diplomatic immunity, you'd understand the logic behind giving immunity from 4A searches to the offices of INTERPOL.

And here, since you seem to be ignoring it, is the central point: INTERPOL DOESN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT ANY SEARCHES IN THE US, WARRANTLESS OR OTHERWISE. They couldn't search you before this and they can't now. What about this is so hard to understand? Interpol doesn't search anyone and it doesn't arrest anyone. It can't. It doesn't have an enforcement arm nor the legal power to arrest anyone anywhere. It can't even issue the Red Notice (sometimes erroneously called the "international arrest warrant") until a national government requests one, and all a Red Notice does is facilitate extradition. The organization itself doesn't arrest anyone or search anything. All it does is coordinate between domestic crime-prevention forces in each member state. Whenever a news organization claims someone was "arrested by Interpol," what actually happened is Interpol coordinated a worldwide investigation on an international level, followed by arrests made by domestic police forces. PLEASE stop ignoring facts.

[Edited 2009-12-24 12:36:48]
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Did Obama Waive US 4th Amendment?

Thu Dec 24, 2009 8:36 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
I see no reason for the decision, nor has Obama explained why he did it. No I don't trust Obama, or his cronies from Chicago. He has done nothing but lie to the American people since he took office only 11 months ago.
He has lied about global warming
He has lied about crap and tax (cap and trade)
He has lied about health care
He has lied about the stimulus package saving the economy
He has lied about unemployment
He has lied about having a transparent administration
He has lied about corruption within his administration
He has lied about TARP
He has lied about taking over the auto companies, banks, and housing industries.

Actually, that entire litany is your opinion only. If he said the sky was blue, you'd say he was lying. Fact is, you show me where he's lied? Source? Proof? Especially on the last one, which is a load of garbage ,and you know it. CITI just paid back it's TARP loan, and the government has released any control of it, so who is lying here?
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: Did Obama Waive US 4th Amendment?

Thu Dec 24, 2009 9:09 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
In thoise cases, we just wait until theat person flys somewhere else, then we get him in the new country, if allowed.

That is the diplomatic and strictly legal way of doing it. I suspect that reality does not always work that way.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Topic Author
Posts: 11208
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Did Obama Waive US 4th Amendment?

Fri Dec 25, 2009 3:06 pm

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 21):
Actually, that entire litany is your opinion only. If he said the sky was blue, you'd say he was lying. Fact is, you show me where he's lied? Source? Proof? Especially on the last one, which is a load of garbage ,and you know it. CITI just paid back it's TARP loan, and the government has released any control of it, so who is lying here?

What was unemployment when he signed the stimulus bill in Feb. and what is it now? He promised unemployment would not go above 8%, it is 10% now.

The global warming going on is not a result on man, as he claims. The "science" was rigged.

Health care will bankrupt the US, it is not "budget nuteral" as he claims.

How is having 43 Czars helping his transparency? Why did he change this AO in the middle of the night? Why is everthing his administration done behind closed doors? Why does he need to control the news media?

The government has not released full control of CITI, they are still telling a public stock option bank what to pay their execs. The government has given the UAW its voting rights for GM and Chrysler.



But, it appears Interpol has arrested people as recently as October 2009. They arrested Former Rwandan deputy intelligence chief Idelphonse Nizeyimana in Rwandan and have taken him to Tanzania for charges in front of the ICTR.

http://www.operationbrokensilence.org/?p=2441

[Edited 2009-12-29 16:25:09 by srbmod]
 
NoUFO
Posts: 7397
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 7:40 am

RE: Did Obama Waive US 4th Amendment?

Fri Dec 25, 2009 4:12 pm

While I'm not really familiar with what you mentioned KC135, I believe Obama predicted not promised unemployment rate would stay below 8 percent. The stimulus package was, if I remember correctly, one of the first things he pushed through after his inauguration. I don't think he or anyone new in his administration could really promise anything without knowing the full extend of the financial crisis.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):
The global warming going on is not a result on man, as he claims. The "science" was rigged.

Well that is your opinion only.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):
Health care will bankrupt the US, it is not "budget nuteral" as he claims.

The U.S. didn't go bankrupt during the Iraq war, and neither will a universal health care which details aren't sorted out yet. However, fewer families will go bankrupt after a family member gets chronically or seriously ill. So this is again your opinion only.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):
But, it appears Interpol has arrested people as recently as October 2009. They arrested Former Rwandan deputy intelligence chief Idelphonse Nizeyimana in Rwandan

No, that was the Ugandan police: "INTERPOL praises arrest by Ugandan police of key Rwandan genocide fugitive subject of Red Notice"
http://www.interpol.int/public/ICPO/PressReleases/PR2009/PR200991.asp
I support the right to arm bears
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Topic Author
Posts: 11208
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Did Obama Waive US 4th Amendment?

Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:01 pm



Quoting NoUFO (Reply 26):
While I'm not really familiar with what you mentioned KC135, I believe Obama predicted not promised unemployment rate would stay below 8 percent. The stimulus package was, if I remember correctly, one of the first things he pushed through after his inauguration. I don't think he or anyone new in his administration could really promise anything without knowing the full extend of the financial crisis.

If you read the law, you will see that only 30% of the $787B was to be spent in 2009, most of it will be spent just prior to the 2010 elections. Obama knew this when he signed the bill into law, or at least should have known what he was signing into law. With only 30% of the money being spent in 2009, there was no way the bill could have kept unemployment rates around 8%. A lot of the stimulus money spent in 2009 went to give aways, not the "shovel ready" projects Congress kept saying it would go to. ACORN got their chunk of cash, and so did Hillary's campagin fund rasier (I believe he got $6M towards her campagin debts). There were some construction projects started, like the tunnel under a road in Florida, so turtles can cross the street without getting squished. Thayt project got something like $500K.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 26):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):
The global warming going on is not a result on man, as he claims. The "science" was rigged.


Well that is your opinion only.

Well, it is also the opinion of several prominete scientists.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 26):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):
Health care will bankrupt the US, it is not "budget nuteral" as he claims.

The U.S. didn't go bankrupt during the Iraq war, and neither will a universal health care which details aren't sorted out yet. However, fewer families will go bankrupt after a family member gets chronically or seriously ill. So this is again your opinion only.

In both versions that are in the House/Senate Conference Committee, the taxes are all up front, meaning they are in effect as soon as the law is signed. Benefits do not begin until 4 years after the bill is signed. That is how they can show it is budget neutral for the first 10 years, you pay for it for 10 years and only get 6 years of benefits. Have you ever noticed that no one on the Democrate side is talking about the second 10 years? That is where the expenses exceed the tax intake by as much as 60%.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 26):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):
But, it appears Interpol has arrested people as recently as October 2009. They arrested Former Rwandan deputy intelligence chief Idelphonse Nizeyimana in Rwandan

No, that was the Ugandan police: "INTERPOL praises arrest by Ugandan police of key Rwandan genocide fugitive subject of Red Notice"
http://www.interpol.int/public/ICPO/...1.asp



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):
http://www.operationbrokensilence.org/?p=2441

Interpol says one thing and the news media says the opposite.
 
shizzlmizzl
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:06 pm

RE: Did Obama Waive US 4th Amendment?

Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:43 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 27):
Interpol says one thing and the news media says the opposite.

Yes most media doesnt even say who arrested him...
Are you trying to justify your opinion with this one rather unclear example?
Is all this really your really biggest concern or are you just trying blame Obama for some small little bullshit?
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 22183
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Did Obama Waive US 4th Amendment?

Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:58 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 27):

Well, it is also the opinion of several prominete scientists.

Yes, and I can find yahoo scientists who claim that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, a certain biochemist who is a staunch Creationist, and there's even still a guy who claims that DNA is not the genetic material, but rather it is a set of proteins and DNA is purely structural.

And they ALL claim that the establishment is ganging up against them and is failing to look at the evidence!

They remind me a lot of you. Once your mind is made up that you hate Obama, the man could turn out to be the Messiah himself and you wouldn't be convinced.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
Mortyman
Posts: 5939
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:26 pm

RE: Did Obama Waive US 4th Amendment?

Fri Dec 25, 2009 11:36 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
The CIA does not "arrest" people in other countries, those countries arrest the person then turn him/her over to the CIA.

Not true

Some time ago, the CIA wanted to " Pick up " a wanted alleged terrorist here in Norway, but was afraid that the Norwegian police would open fire and canned the idea. It was some of the same CIA agents that some time ago was convicted in absentia for abducting a wanted terrorist in Italy.

http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article3359627.ece

[Edited 2009-12-25 15:39:25]
 
IADCA
Posts: 2294
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:24 am

RE: Did Obama Waive US 4th Amendment?

Sat Dec 26, 2009 12:47 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):
But, it appears Interpol has arrested people as recently as October 2009. They arrested Former Rwandan deputy intelligence chief Idelphonse Nizeyimana in Rwandan and have taken him to Tanzania for charges in front of the ICTR.

http://www.operationbrokensilence.org/?p=2441

Not so sure about that. This one says "The Ugandan Police have arrested top Rwandan genocide suspect Idelphonse Nizeyimana." They also state "His arrest was a collaborative work between the ICTR, Interpol and Ugandan authorities," which is the typical structure of an Interpol operation. The only way you can confuse it with an Interpol arrest is if both local officers and Interpol are involved in the arrest operation, which can happen if the tip that causes the arrest comes in through Interpol channels.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...g6so-1225783787278?from=public_rss

This article makes it more clear that that's what Nizeyimana's arrest was:

http://m.guardian.co.uk/?id=102202&s...a-genocide-suspect-arrested-uganda

Finally, here's the detailed article from the Kampala, Uganda Daily Monitor (actually a pretty good paper, but tends to be a bit sketchy on details, particularly in politically-sensitive situations, such as here, where attributing too much responsibility to the Ugandan agents could get the government into a lot of trouble regionally): http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/-/688324/720900/-/blhwcp/-/index.html

It makes quite clear that the arrest was a joint operation between Interpol operatives flown in from France and Ugandan police, with the information provided by Interpol, the operation was joint (though headed by a Ugandan), and crucially, the actual arrest made by the Ugandan investigative officer:

"On Saturday, the combined team of Interpol operatives had a meeting with a senior detective attached to Interpol, Uganda.

The investigative officer, who has requested to remain anonymous because of the sensitivity of the matter, was appointed head of the operation to arrest the former Intelligence and military operations commander, who is accused of setting special military units to carry out genocide."

They then took him to a Ugandan police station before he was turned over to the UN. Interpol internally gave itself credit (see the citation to the "secret" document), as they probably did do the bulk of the work in the operation. However, legally, the arrests have to be done with local involvement. That is, the local police must be involved, and they must actually make the formal arrest. Somehow exempting Interpol from the Constitution still doesn't get around this requirement. I know it's confusing when news organizations screw these things up. They're even worse generally with law stuff than they are with aviation, especially when it comes down to matters like this - where factually it's only important to 99% of readers that he was arrested in a joint operation, but legally it might be tremendously significant who actually put the cuffs on. It drives me the f*** up the wall, and there are tons of instances of it.

However, it's simply a paranoid fantasy to think Interpol can arrest anyone in the US. It can't. I don't know of any way to irretrievably prove a negative, so I'm going to stop trying. If you're determined to revel in a paranoid fantasy in

These are legitimate news organizations, so you can hardly claim the "news media" says something else with a unified voice. Also, to call that website you cite the "news media" is a bit of a stretch: Operation Broken Silence is an obscure two-year-old NGO with, as far as I can tell, no real reputation. I have some background studying ICL in Africa and I've never heard of them, although I do laud their mission - see and sign the petition against Joseph Kony (a truly awful human). Basically, this is a tiny American NGO with no presence in Africa, and you want to trust them over major international news media and Interpol itself?

And are you seriously claiming that Interpol, organization dedicated to the suppression of transnational crime would, in a rare instance of arresting someone, give the credit to others? That would make no sense.

Now, we'll talk about the organization the EO pertains to, the NCB of Interpol in the US. You can read about it here: http://www.justice.gov/usncb/programs/index.php

Notice, they seek information, seek this, seek that. They do not arrest anyone themselves. Again: Interpol cannot arrest anyone itself. I've said this probably a half-dozen times. Another poster posted a link from Interpol itself citing the arrest by Ugandan police.

Go here: http://www.interpol.int/ and find the organization discussing its capacity to arrest people. Don't you think they'd be proud of the arrests they'd made, if they in fact had made any?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):
I said he waived parts of it, that means he is ignoring it.

That is not what the word "waived" means. From Black's Law Dictionary:

waive, vb. 1. To abandon, renounce, or surrender (a claim, privilege, right, etc.); to give up (a right or claim) voluntarily. • Ordinarily, to waive a right one must do it knowingly — with knowledge of the relevant facts. [Cases: Estoppel Key Number52.10. C.J.S. Estoppel §§ 67–68, 70–72, 75–76, 79, 159–160.]

From M-W:

4 a : to relinquish voluntarily (as a legal right) b : to refrain from pressing or enforcing (as a claim or rule) : forgo

While the second part is a bit closer, this isn't a case of someone merely refraining: you're accusing him of acting to nullify the Fourth Amendment. That just isn't the case.

[Edited 2009-12-25 17:31:14]
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Topic Author
Posts: 11208
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Did Obama Waive US 4th Amendment?

Sat Dec 26, 2009 3:49 pm



Quoting Shizzlmizzl (Reply 28):
Yes most media doesnt even say who arrested him...
Are you trying to justify your opinion with this one rather unclear example?



Quoting Shizzlmizzl (Reply 28):
or are you just trying blame Obama for some small little bullshit?

It is not just this "samll little" BS that I disagree with from the President.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 29):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 27):

Well, it is also the opinion of several prominete scientists.


Yes, and I can find yahoo scientists who claim that HIV doesn't cause AIDS,

That may be true. I do not follow the HIV/AIDS debate, It does not effect me personally. I do not know anyone with HIV/AIDS, but agree it is a serious subject. I do follow globalwarming/climate change caused by man, as well as US politics, as those subjects do effect me personally.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 29):
Once your mind is made up that you hate Obama, the man could turn out to be the Messiah himself and you wouldn't be convinced.

I have never met President Obama. I do not hate the man, I do not know him on a personal bases. I wish the man no harm. To me the Messiah lived some 2000 years ago, and he is not the POTUS today. I only have strong disagreements with his political views, that is all.

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 30):
http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article3359627.ece

Sorry, I cannot read Norwegion

Quoting IADCA (Reply 31):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):
I said he waived parts of it, that means he is ignoring it.

That is not what the word "waived" means. From Black's Law Dictionary:

waive, vb. 1. To abandon, renounce, or surrender (a claim, privilege, right, etc.); to give up (a right or claim) voluntarily.

Then you, as an attorney, should know the most common use of the word "wavier" in the US, for legal procedures, generally only means to surrender or give up a right voluntarily, such as in waving your "Maranda Rights" to a Police Officer, or the "Right to a Trial by Jury" to a Judge. While the word also means to abandon or renounce, most Americans, when they want to express those meanings use those words directly such as "renouncing US citizenship".
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 22183
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Did Obama Waive US 4th Amendment?

Sat Dec 26, 2009 4:34 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 32):
I only have strong disagreements with his political views, that is all.

Strong enough that you are willing to lie (he who repeats a lie without first checking the facts is also a liar) to prove how bad he is? That goes beyond a "strong disagreement."

The lie was that the President authorized Interpol to conduct warrantless searches and seizures in the U.S. A reasonable person would have double checked that with a balanced source. You did not. Your mind was made up that this is what happened, and that if this President did it, it must automatically be unconstitutional and illegal.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 22183
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Did Obama Waive US 4th Amendment?

Sat Dec 26, 2009 4:45 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 22):
It takes 4 years in the US,

Law school in the U.S. is three years.

Another thing you conveniently didn't look up first?
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
IADCA
Posts: 2294
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:24 am

RE: Did Obama Waive US 4th Amendment?

Sat Dec 26, 2009 7:49 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 32):

the most common use of the word "wavier" in the US, for legal procedures, generally only means to surrender or give up a right voluntarily, such as in waving your "Maranda Rights" to a Police Officer, or the "Right to a Trial by Jury" to a Judge.

First: it's spelled "waiver." Second, it's Miranda. Third, as this thread demonstrates, you're not exactly in a position to lecture me on concepts we cover in about 3 minutes during the first year of law school. One doesn't need to be a lawyer actively practicing American law (as I'm clearly not, given my English residence) to say anything I have on this thread. Any second-year law student could handle it pretty ably. Fourth, that's exactly what the definition I provided elucidates. Obama can't "waive" the Constitution because it's not a personal legal right of his to waive, as are the two correct examples you provided. This is the exact point I was making. You didn't seem to disagree with what I said. So, what's your point?

[Edited 2009-12-26 12:22:57]
 
IADCA
Posts: 2294
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:24 am

RE: Did Obama Waive US 4th Amendment?

Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:42 pm



Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 37):
I have yet to see a credible source proving that this Executive Order is in fact real.

It's definitely a real Order. It just doesn't do what KC135 claims it does. See it at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...der-amending-executive-order-12425

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 38):
Let's not pretend that this phenomenon is limited to conservatives.

Indeed.
 
Boeing4ever
Posts: 4479
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2001 12:06 pm

RE: Did Obama Waive US 4th Amendment?

Sat Dec 26, 2009 11:17 pm



Quoting IADCA (Reply 39):
It's definitely a real Order. It just doesn't do what KC135 claims it does. See it at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...12425

So bottom line, Interpol is still bound to operate with local law enforcement and cannot break into my house at will.

Yawn, another day passes.

 airplane B4e-Forever New Frontiers airplane 
 
N104UA
Posts: 302
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 11:27 pm

RE: Did Obama Waive US 4th Amendment?

Sun Dec 27, 2009 6:26 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
Why not do it years ago under Bush 41, Clinton or Bush 43?

It was also revised under Clinton
"Learn the rules, so you know how to break them properly." -H.H. The Dalai Lama
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 13422
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: Did Obama Waive US 4th Amendment?

Sun Dec 27, 2009 8:28 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
In New York City, the home of the United Nations Headquarters (and hence thousands of diplomats), the City regularly protests to the Department of State about non-payment of parking tickets because of diplomatic status. Diplomatic missions have their own regulations, but many require their staff to pay any fines due for parking violations.

That's a bit of a laugh, US Embassy personal in London won't pay the congestion charge and claim diplomatic immunity. You lot owe the City of London more than 3 million pounds.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...s-embassy-pay-3m-c-charge-fines.do
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Topic Author
Posts: 11208
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Did Obama Waive US 4th Amendment?

Sun Dec 27, 2009 8:15 pm



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 33):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 32):
I only have strong disagreements with his political views, that is all.

Strong enough that you are willing to lie (he who repeats a lie without first checking the facts is also a liar) to prove how bad he is? That goes beyond a "strong disagreement."

What lie, Doc?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 33):
The lie was that the President authorized Interpol to conduct warrantless searches and seizures in the U.S. A reasonable person would have double checked that with a balanced source. You did not. Your mind was made up that this is what happened, and that if this President did it, it must automatically be unconstitutional and illegal.

Really? Apparently it is an opinion shared by many conservitive constitutional lawyers, too.

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 34):
A person, with a biased agenda



Quoting 777236ER (Reply 34):
People feel that with no professional training or experience they can accurately comment on anything.

Well, as you know, here in the US, political disagreements are a way of life here. There are those of us who refuse to wear blinders and blindly follow the party in control of the government. Then again, you also have the right to blindly follow Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Frank, Kerry, and the others who are leading the US down the road to socialism and bankruptcy.

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 34):
See KC135TopBoom's attack on someone who's actually been to law school.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 22):
Wow, 3 years of law school, I'm impressed. In other words, you are still in law school, unless, of course 3 years is good enough in the UK (I don't think it is). It takes 4 years in the US, and someone your age just coming out of school usually works for a judge or resaercher in a law firm somewhere. You also fully understand the US Constitution? Wow, some of the SCOTUS Justices still don't understand it. How did you do on the Magna-Carta (that is British, you know)?



Quoting 777236ER (Reply 34):
He doesn't respect the idea of education, infact he seems to mock it.



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 35):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 22):
It takes 4 years in the US,

Law school in the U.S. is three years.

Another thing you conveniently didn't look up first?

Convenient you didn't read my follow up reply in reply # 25, where I apoligised for reply #22, isn't it?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):
BTW, I am apoligising for the 4 year law school remark, it is 3 years long,



Quoting 777236ER (Reply 34):
I think we can call these problems with debate the 'Fox Newsification' of discussion. People with little or no knowledge of subjects discussing 'news' with their own political bias clearly visible.

Well, how can 777236ER or DocLightning think that of me when you don't even read all that I write?

Ever one of us here is politically biased, incase you have not noticed, that includes you and me. All of us are perfectly smart enough about any given political issue to make an intellegent response and form an intellegent opinion. Only IADCA is a lawyer, yet you and Doc seem to have an opinion, and want to deny me mine.

Quoting IADCA (Reply 36):
One doesn't need to be a lawyer actively practicing American law (as I'm clearly not, given my English residence) to say anything I have on this thread.

I finally agree with you, you do not have to be an attorney to have a comment or opinion on this, or any other thread.

Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 37):
Like him or hate him, KC, Obama is not Hugo Chavez.

Where have I ever said he was? In fact, I believe I said if I ever met President Obama, I am sure I would like him on a personal level. I did say this to Doc when he brought it up earlier, saying I hate the President.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 32):
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 29):
Once your mind is made up that you hate Obama, the man could turn out to be the Messiah himself and you wouldn't be convinced.

I have never met President Obama. I do not hate the man, I do not know him on a personal bases. I wish the man no harm. To me the Messiah lived some 2000 years ago, and he is not the POTUS today. I only have strong disagreements with his political views, that is all.



Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 37):
I have yet to see a credible source proving that this Executive Order is in fact real.

Again, not reading all of my posts, but you do like to critisize how much I know?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...der-amending-executive-order-12425



Quoting IADCA (Reply 39):
It's definitely a real Order. It just doesn't do what KC135 claims it does.

I posted the full content of the EO, as President Obama changed it. I also posted the relevent law that would now be exempt from Interpol.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
Here are the sections of Search 22 U.S.C. § 288a : US Code - Section 288A: Privileges, exemptions, and immunities of international organizations

But, I find it interesting that none of you who disagree with my interpetation of the changed EO can say why Obama decided to change it, or why he did it in the middle of the night.

I find the timing sneaky and suspicous.

Quoting N104UA (Reply 41):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
Why not do it years ago under Bush 41, Clinton or Bush 43?

It was also revised under Clinton

Not to the extent Obama changed it.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 42):
That's a bit of a laugh, US Embassy personal in London won't pay the congestion charge and claim diplomatic immunity. You lot owe the City of London more than 3 million pounds.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...es.do

The London Congestion Charges put inplace by the TfL is nothing more than a local tax, which diplomates are exempt from, anyway. This is not like getting a parking ticket in NYC, it is a tax just to drive within London. NYC has a similar tax, but diplomats at the UN are exempt from it, just as US Diplomates, and other diplomates are in London. The individual diplomate can decide to pay it, or can ignor it. It is funny it is only the Mayor of London talking about this and not PM Brown, or PM Blair before him.

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 43):
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 38):
Let's not pretend that this phenomenon is limited to conservatives.

I'd say in this thread it's limited to KC135TopBoom.

Then why don't you suggest the thread be deleted? If you honestly feel that way, why are you commenting?
 
Mortyman
Posts: 5939
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:26 pm

RE: Did Obama Waive US 4th Amendment?

Sun Dec 27, 2009 8:31 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 44):
leading the US down the road to socialism and bankruptcy


Technically, the USA is already bankrupt and has been so for several years..... and not because of socialism but because of total lack of sobernes in the economical department.

[Edited 2009-12-27 12:32:43]
 
evomutant
Posts: 377
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 8:47 am

RE: Did Obama Waive US 4th Amendment?

Sun Dec 27, 2009 8:45 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 44):
The London Congestion Charges put inplace by the TfL is nothing more than a local tax, which diplomates are exempt from, anyway. This is not like getting a parking ticket in NYC, it is a tax just to drive within London. NYC has a similar tax, but diplomats at the UN are exempt from it, just as US Diplomates, and other diplomates are in London. The individual diplomate can decide to pay it, or can ignor it. It is funny it is only the Mayor of London talking about this and not PM Brown, or PM Blair before him.

Why would Brown or Blair care? It's a scheme operated by a competent (in the legal sense) authority, who collect and spend the revenue themselves. It is of no concern whatsoever to the central government of the United Kingdom, because they never see a penny of the money raised.

It is also interesting, don't you think, that the US has no problem with congestion charging in Oslo or Singapore (to quote Wikipedia, which you will have no problem with).
 
Boeing4ever
Posts: 4479
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2001 12:06 pm

RE: Did Obama Waive US 4th Amendment?

Sun Dec 27, 2009 9:18 pm



Quoting 777236ER (Reply 43):
Err...no. Hypocritical maybe, but not ironic. Any English student will tell you that any definition of irony includes the idea that that the apparent meaning and the underlying meaning of what is said are not the same.

See the following for more info: http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardia...kend2

Hypocritical, definately. I don't even need to point it out.

The irony is what newer users will experience when they read what you've posted here about political discourse then see some of your other posts later on. A cruel ruse really.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 44):
Where have I ever said he was? In fact, I believe I said if I ever met President Obama, I am sure I would like him on a personal level. I did say this to Doc when he brought it up earlier, saying I hate the President.

I hate to name names, but you, Dreadnought, Falcon84, and DocLightining, plus a few others really have been flooding this forum with endless Left vs. Right threads. To be fair, you all slam each other as being hypocrites, but you really only demonstrate your own bias, at least in the eyes of the politically unaffiliated observer. You're suggesting that Obama has given away the 4th Amendment rights of Americans and that INTERPOL can bust down my door for whatever reason. Well they can't. They just have some dipolmatic immunity, which in worst case, means they'll get away with more parking tickets. But if an INTERPOL agent forcefully breaks into my home WITHOUT the presense and supervision of local law enforcment, then that agent is at my mercy. That said...

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 44):
Again, not reading all of my posts, but you do like to critisize how much I know?

I jumped the gun and didn't see that particular part of the thread. That is my bad, and I apologize. You did have a legit source for this Executive Order.

Cheers.

 airplane B4e-Forever New Frontiers airplane 
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 13422
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: Did Obama Waive US 4th Amendment?

Sun Dec 27, 2009 11:21 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 44):
The London Congestion Charges put inplace by the TfL is nothing more than a local tax, which diplomates are exempt from, anyway. This is not like getting a parking ticket in NYC, it is a tax just to drive within London. NYC has a similar tax, but diplomats at the UN are exempt from it, just as US Diplomates, and other diplomates are in London. The individual diplomate can decide to pay it, or can ignor it. It is funny it is only the Mayor of London talking about this and not PM Brown, or PM Blair before him.

It's not a tax, it's a toll, rather like any other toll road or toll bridge, which makes it even more daft considering Oslo has a toll system for cars travelling into the city centre and the US Embassy has no problem paying them. Most of the other Emabssies in London are now paying the charge.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Topic Author
Posts: 11208
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Did Obama Waive US 4th Amendment?

Sun Dec 27, 2009 11:31 pm



Quoting Mortyman (Reply 45):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 44):
leading the US down the road to socialism and bankruptcy


Technically, the USA is already bankrupt and has been so for several years.....

We have been able to pay the bills and interest when it was due, that is not the definition of bankrupt. But you are close, at the rate the US is spending, borrowing, and printing money, there will be a day in the not to distant future where we will not be able to meet the interest and payment obligations.

Quoting Evomutant (Reply 46):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 44):
The London Congestion Charges put inplace by the TfL is nothing more than a local tax, which diplomates are exempt from, anyway. This is not like getting a parking ticket in NYC, it is a tax just to drive within London. NYC has a similar tax, but diplomats at the UN are exempt from it, just as US Diplomates, and other diplomates are in London. The individual diplomate can decide to pay it, or can ignor it. It is funny it is only the Mayor of London talking about this and not PM Brown, or PM Blair before him.

Why would Brown or Blair care? It's a scheme operated by a competent (in the legal sense) authority, who collect and spend the revenue themselves. It is of no concern whatsoever to the central government of the United Kingdom, because they never see a penny of the money raised.

Mayors do not deal with international diplomates, the senior government officials do, in this case it would be PM Brown, or PM Blair before him. By international agreements, diplomates do not have to pay local taxes, or tolls to use the local streets.

Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 47):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 44):
Where have I ever said he was? In fact, I believe I said if I ever met President Obama, I am sure I would like him on a personal level. I did say this to Doc when he brought it up earlier, saying I hate the President.

I hate to name names, but you, Dreadnought, Falcon84, and DocLightining, plus a few others really have been flooding this forum with endless Left vs. Right threads. To be fair, you all slam each other as being hypocrites, but you really only demonstrate your own bias, at least in the eyes of the politically unaffiliated observer.

Well, I have to admit that I am guilty there, along with those you mentioned, FuturePilot16, Yellowstone, and others. I am just as guilty as they are. But, I don't thing DocLightning, FuturePilot16, Yellowstone, Falcon84, Dreadnought, or myself have ever said anything different than being biased in each one of our political positions.

Perhaps we should present our views in a more civil way and debate them more civilly? I would go along with that. US Politics is a blood sport, but it does not have to be. My views are right, but perhaps I should not be cutting someone from the left off at the knees.

Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 47):
I jumped the gun and didn't see that particular part of the thread. That is my bad, and I apologize

Not a problem, my friend. We all miss something every now and then.
 
evomutant
Posts: 377
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 8:47 am

RE: Did Obama Waive US 4th Amendment?

Sun Dec 27, 2009 11:49 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 49):
By international agreements, diplomates do not have to pay local taxes, or tolls to use the local streets.

So why does the US government pay congestion charging is Oslo and Singapore?

Truth is, Robert Tuttle, the old ambassador, was a bit of a tit. That's all. It was a local decision made in London, not some directive from on high.
 
Boeing4ever
Posts: 4479
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2001 12:06 pm

RE: Did Obama Waive US 4th Amendment?

Sun Dec 27, 2009 11:55 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 49):
Perhaps we should present our views in a more civil way and debate them more civilly? I would go along with that. US Politics is a blood sport, but it does not have to be. My views are right, but perhaps I should not be cutting someone from the left off at the knees.

I think with some effort we can achieve this. Lately we've all gotten bad at this. I know even I should be less willing to just charge into a political thread and shoot anything and everything that moves.

Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays and New Year to all.

 airplane B4e-Forever New Frontiers airplane 
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Did Obama Waive US 4th Amendment?

Mon Dec 28, 2009 3:00 am



Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 53):
Please. You try your best to present yourself and unbiased and balanced when all you do is stir things up for your own benefit.

You're taking one word out of context as the entire grounds to attack me personally?

Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 53):
You shouldn't have come back.



Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 52):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 49):
Perhaps we should present our views in a more civil way and debate them more civilly? I would go along with that. US Politics is a blood sport, but it does not have to be. My views are right, but perhaps I should not be cutting someone from the left off at the knees.

I think with some effort we can achieve this. Lately we've all gotten bad at this. I know even I should be less willing to just charge into a political thread and shoot anything and everything that moves.

Your bone's got a little machine
 
Boeing4ever
Posts: 4479
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2001 12:06 pm

RE: Did Obama Waive US 4th Amendment?

Mon Dec 28, 2009 3:19 am



Quoting 777236ER (Reply 55):
You're taking one word out of context as the entire grounds to attack me personally?

One word? Please. I base this off of your history on this site. You've already tried justifying violence towards a man based on politics/religion/etc in another thread.

You're exempt from "anything and everything that moves".

Have a Happy New Year.

 airplane B4e-Forever New Frontiers airplane 
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Did Obama Waive US 4th Amendment?

Mon Dec 28, 2009 11:20 am



Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 56):
One word? Please. I base this off of your history on this site.

I'm glad you've admitted that you are personally attacking me, and it's due to having a different political view to me.
Your bone's got a little machine
 
Boeing4ever
Posts: 4479
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2001 12:06 pm

RE: Did Obama Waive US 4th Amendment?

Mon Dec 28, 2009 4:42 pm



Quoting 777236ER (Reply 57):
I'm glad you've admitted that you are personally attacking me, and it's due to having a different political view to me.

The only reason I focus on you has nothing to do with your politics but with the fact that you're a hypocrite, especially when posting about political discourse while you yourself do NOTHING to help it. Unlike you, I see both sides of the coin and recognize this thread as little more than an overreaction simply because it's Obama. It's the same exact pattern as all of the Bush threads. Someone doesn't like him, so now we see all sorts of wild accusations...."He's gonna take over the world", "He's a fascist", "He's a socialist", "He's just out for oil!", "He wasn't even born in this country!", etc.

Here, you are the one who makes half of those statements.

And you happily admitted it.

 airplane B4e-Forever New Frontiers airplane 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: LCDFlight and 152 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos