It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by TimeOfZera
Since Fast and Furious was a crime and act of war against the soveriegn nation of Mexico by arming drug lords and rebels against civilians, it should also be considered a crime against humanity.
Holder can be taken down by.....INTERPOL......LOL . Remember Obama gave Interpol immunity to conduct investigation and arrest inside the US? They used to have to ask permission with the Justice Dept.
Eric Holder in a Mexican prison ... it don't get any better than that, except now that he would be out of the way the Obama administration would have no protection!
Originally posted by TimeOfZera
I'm nervous about posting this but here it goes anyway. Right now in DC we have the fox guarding the hen house. Does Congress have the power to send a request to the Justice Dept to arrest Eric Holder? Can Holder investigate Holder? Can Satan cast out Satan? Of course this post revolves around fast and furious.
Since Fast and Furious was a crime and act of war against the soveriegn nation of Mexico by arming drug lords and rebels against civilians, it should also be considered a crime against humanity.
Holder can be taken down by.....INTERPOL......LOL . Remember Obama gave Interpol immunity to conduct investigation and arrest inside the US? They used to have to ask permission with the Justice Dept.
Eric Holder in a Mexican prison ... it don't get any better than that, except now that he would be out of the way the Obama administration would have no protection!
Originally posted by TimeOfZera
Remember Obama gave Interpol immunity to conduct investigation and arrest inside the US?
President Obama’s Executive Order of Dec. 16 does nothing except grant to Interpol – the International Criminal Police Organization – certain privileges and immunities that the U.S. gives to dozens of other international groups under the International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945.
...Despite what some have been saying, however, the order doesn’t mean that a global police force can now operate unfettered on U.S. soil.
Nor is it true that "Interpol will now have the right of search and seizure on our shores without due process or any subpoenas," as the question above states. That’s a mangled interpretation of one of the impacts of the order, which is to make Interpol’s own property and records immune from search and seizure, just like those of many other international groups operating in the U.S.
Obama’s action also doesn’t "alter our legal protections," as another message queried. And it doesn’t bring the U.S. any closer to "allow[ing] foreign countries to try Americans, at the Hague, for any ‘crimes’ not recognized as such by the U.S. that were ‘committed’ without the person having left the U.S.," as another e-mail we received said.
Bringing Interpol fully under the International Organizations Immunities Act is a process that was started by President Reagan in 1983. With Executive Order 12425, Reagan declared that Interpol was covered by the act and all of its provisions except a few that had to do with exemptions from paying U.S. income, Social Security and property taxes, and several other issues.
President Clinton in 1995 took things a step further, ordering that Interpol be granted exemptions under the act for purposes of customs duties and importation restrictions. Now, with Obama’s order, the law enforcement group is fully normalized under the law, just like the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Inter-American Development Bank, the North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission and nearly 100 other organizations.
...But – take note, aspiring James Bonds – [Interpol] doesn’t send agents out to do their own investigations and make arrests; it’s more of a facilitator. And its site also maintains that "[a]ction is taken within the limits of existing laws in different countries."
They used to have to ask permission with the Justice Dept.
Originally posted by TimeOfZera
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
Niether Congress or Senate nor the Military or anyone could stop the arrest if Interpol went after him since it is at a treaty level.
Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order which further defines the law for purposes of enforcement. 5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office. 5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law, 5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”. The fourth federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine.
The definition of “advocate” is further specified in Executive Order 10450 which for the purposes of enforcement supplements 5 U.S.C. 7311. One provision of Executive Order 10450 specifies it is a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 for any person taking the oath of office to advocate “the alteration ... of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.” Our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States. It can only be “altered” by constitutional amendment. Thus, according to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331which alters the form of government other by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311.
18 USC § 1621 - Perjury generally
Whoever—
(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or
(2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;
is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.