An amendment to an executive order secretly signed by President Barack Obama on December 16, 2009 gives police officers from foreign governments police powers in the United States.
What is most disturbing to police chiefs and officers in the US is that the President has provided foreign officers and international agencies exemptions from laws and regulations to which US cops must comply.
For example, foreign cops operating in the US will not be forced to comply with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. The government has already given the International Criminal Police Organization, or INTERPOL, most of privileges enjoyed by foreign diplomats in the US.
“This Obama executive order is a slap in the face of US cops — who must adhere to laws and regulations including FOIA — but also a slap in the face of American citizens who may be abused by these non-citizen cops from countries that don’t recognize our constitutional protections,” warns former New York City detective and Marine intelligence officer Sidney Franes.
He also pointed out that INTERPOL member countries include Venezuela, Syria, Yemen, Bolivia, Cuba, Iran and Somalia — all countries unfriendly to the U.S.
When President Ronald Reagan’s passed an executive order addressing INTERPOL, it clearly spelled out limitations such as requiring that INTERPOL operations be subject to several U.S. laws such as the Freedom of Information Act. While many opposed Reagan’s executive order, it was unchallenged due to the Cold War.
“Under the Obama administration such limitations have been kicked to the wayside by a globalist White House,” said Frances.
Obama’s executive order reads as follows:
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,” Obama wrote.
“What Obama has done is he’s given foreign police agencies more power than our own police have or should have. What’s next? INTERPOL cops raiding American homes based on unlawfully obtained information?” asks political strategist Mike Baker.
“This executive order signing received almost no media coverage and follows the recent creation of an International Intelligence Agency,” he said.
In December 2009, officials unveiled a United Kingdom government security plan examined by reporters from the London-based Daily Telegraph, that suggested several countries — U.S., U.K., France, Germany, etc. — will submit classified information into a central intelligence unit so that any member nation will have access to it.
But the proposals risk hard won intelligence gathered by U.S. agents being leaked by less scrupulous security services, particularly in the former Communist states of Eastern Europe. Although the Government has contributed to the proposals being drawn up as part of unifying European countries and their resources, Britain’s security services — MI5, its internal agency, and MI6, its foreign intelligence agency — will likely put up stiff opposition to these plans, claim Waterfield and Gardham.
“This is serious business even for the United States,” said former NYPD detective Frances.
“The United States shares top secret intelligence with the British intelligence and law enforcement agencies. That means that very soon, U.S. secrets will be distributed to nations that should not have access to our military and law enforcement secrets,” claims the decorated Marine and cop.
“What worries me is that the people who these Internationalists will spy on, just may be you and me,” he added.
Historically British intelligence officers have enjoyed a good relationship with their U.S. counterparts, regularly exchanging information particularly in the fight against terrorism.
However, there has been a degree of mistrust between the British authorities and European security agencies. In the 1990s the French intelligence service was blamed for leaking information shared by MI6 to the Serbian military,
The intelligence-sharing plan from the European Union Future Group is expected to form the basis of legislation next year and calls on countries to abandon the “principle of confidentiality” which has governed the sharing of intelligence for decades.
The proposals stop short of calling for a European spy agency but say there is a need for “increased synergies between police and security intelligence services.”
It suggests a network of “antiterrorist centers” in each country coordinated by SitCen, the European Union’s intelligence assessment center in Brussels.
“While the U.S. won’t directly be involved in consolidating intelligence, any secrets we share with Britain, France, Germany or other countries will be open to espionage by enemy nations or terrorist groups,” warns Det. Frances.
“Once we submit classified information to foreign entities, we no longer have control over what groups have access to our secrets,” he added.
Other proposals suggest standardizing police surveillance techniques and extending the sharing of DNA and fingerprint databases to include CCTV video footage and material gathered by “spy drones.”
The plans are based on the idea that the EU can do better than national governments with the report adding: “It appears that this sector cannot be managed politically by individual member states.”
Other proposals include the formation of a paramilitary police force which can be deployed by a Brussels “mission command” in international hotspots outside the EU’s borders.
The latest Obama executive order has alarmed conservatives and civil libertarians, who view it as both an erosion of national sovereignty and a threat to freedom.