Please enlighten me and others with your “legal” knowledge. And so you know, I’ve read the both complete EOs AND the Act in question. If I’m missing some “relevant law” please also help us tell the real your story.

I’ve never heard of Interpol agents in this country scooping up anybody, and as far as I can see they have no more power to do that now than they did before.

I suspect — and that’s all it is — that the reason behind this is that the US government doesn’t want terrorist groups or their sympathizers learning the identity, activity and movements of Interpol agents. They are conduits for very sensitive information between national security agencies. It may be that US agencies want to be able to bring in foreign law enforcement people from time to time who have expertise we need … maybe someone fluent in Arabic who can walk into a mosque, understand what’s going on, and not arouse suspicion. Not many of those on our local police forces.

This is only a guess, but imagine that a friendly government of a Muslim country is willing to lend us a few people under the cover of Interpol, but if word got out that the country’s government was supplying the US with people to spy on fellow-Muslims, there would be hell to pay politically, and the agents themselves would have a good chance of being murdered. What if an Islamist-front organization were to sue the US government for violating their constitutional rights by spying on them using Interpol, and subpoena Interpol’s records as relevant evidence, even though Interpol and its agents themselves can’t be sued?

Islamist organizations are learning how to use our Constitution and our courts for their own purposes, and if I were a lawyer working for a friendly foreign government, I’d certainly raise the issue. There are probably ways that the US government could intervene and block discovery, but it would be far better to cut it off at the pass, with no mess, no arguments about national security, just “no.”

Immunities are there for a reason, they are given because we want other nations’ cooperation, and they are almost always reciprocal. We probably have our own people in other countries with the knowledge and permission of the other government’s security/law enforcement agencies who are “off the books.”

It looks like President Obama was using his lawful powers under the Act, and since it involves Interpol, it’s likely that he can’t come out and explain publicly who wanted the change and why. As I said, I’m guessing, but my guess seems a lot more plausible than that President Obama just happened to think it would be a good idea to expand Interpol’s immunities, much less make it easier for other countries to violate our national sovereignty by abducting our citizens.

Got to go. Happy New Year, and God bless America.

Let’s say Interpol has a target because in some fictitious international court that court decided that an American violated the “law.” Well, Interpol can scoop that person up in the dark of night with people our government doesn’t even know is in the country because they don’t have to register. If we get wind of the abduction, we can’t force them to release their records because they now have immunity.

I don’t want the president to withdraw authority AFTER an entity abuses their power. I don’t want them to have the power EVER! That’s the point you’re missing. They didn’t have that power until President Obama gave it to them. Reagan knew the power it would have given them and had the foresight to exempt them from those provisions. Obama is a NWO adherent leaps above the first President Bush!

It’s not that don’t understand my concern, it’s that you won’t. I’m not saying any of this WILL happen. I’m saying that Obama made it POSSIBLE and put Americans in undue risk.

I am going by the text of the International Organizations Immunities Act at the link you posted, and I assume that it is currently the law.

Section I authorizes the President, by executive order, to grant to any international organization in which the US participates the privileges and immunities listed in “this titile,” i.e., “Title I” of the statute, and to condition, withhold, or limit any of those privileges.

You say that President Reagan issued an order granting to Interpol the privileges and immunities provided, “…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,” and that President Obama in an executive order has declared that Interpol now has all of the privileges and immunities provided under the Act without exception.

I looked at those privileges and immunities that President Reagan’s order withheld and President Obama’s order grants. I just don’t see anything that affect my civil rights.

Section 2(c), which now applies to Interpol, reads:

“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.”

Whether or not this is a good idea, this doesn’t allow Interpol to abduct or detain anyone. And under the Act the President has the authority to withdraw any of the privileges under the Act if it is abused.

The “portions of Section 2(d) and Section 3 relating to customs duties and federal internal-revenue importation taxes,” that President Reagan withheld and that President Obama has granted, do not, so far as I can see, impact the civil liberties of Americans, nor do Sections 4, 5 and 6, which relate to the collection and payment of US income taxes, social security taxes, and property taxes respectively.

All other privileges and immunities listed in the Act were not exempted by President Reagan’s order, so Interpol has had them all along.

So what am I missing? I don’t want Interpol at my door; I just don’t understand your concern.