Posts Tagged ‘Civil Liberties’

In the dead of night on December 17, 2009, President Barack Hussein Obama placed the United States of America under the authority of the international police organization known as INTERPOL, granting the organization full immunity to operate within the United States.

Last Thursday, December 17, 2009, The White House released an Executive Order, 13524,  ”Amending Executive Order 12425.”

It grants INTERPOL (International Criminal Police Organization) a new level of full diplomatic immunity afforded to foreign embassies and select other “International Organizations” as set forth in the United States International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945.

By removing language from President Reagan’s 1983 Executive Order 12425, this international law enforcement body now operates – now operates – on American soil beyond the reach of our own top law enforcement arm, the FBI, and is immune from Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

What, exactly does this mean?  It means that INTERPOL now has the full authority to conduct investigations and other law enforcement activities on U.S. soil, with full immunity from U.S. laws such as the Freedom of Information Act and with complete independence from oversight from the FBI.

In short, a global law enforcement entity now has full law-enforcement authority in the U.S. without any check on its power afforded by U.S. law and U.S. law enforcement agencies.

A bit of background is in order here, and Hot Air provides it:

During his presidency, Ronald Reagan granted the global police agency Interpol the status of diplomatic personnel in order to engage more constructively on international law enforcement.  In Executive Order 12425, Reagan made two exceptions to that status.  The first had to do with taxation, but the second was to make sure that Interpol had the same accountability for its actions as American law enforcement — namely, they had to produce records when demanded by courts and could not have immunity for their actions.

Barack Obama unexpectedly revoked those exceptions in a change to EO 12425 last (week)…

Thus, Interpol now can conduct its operations on U.S. soil with ZERO accountability to anyone in this country.

And you beginning to understand now just what the ‘end game’ is on the part of those who are currently running the U.S. Government?

Let’s go a step further in fleshing out exactly what this means in practical terms.  It gets ugly…and scary.  Again, from ThreatsWatch:

Section 2c of the United States International Organizations Immunities Act is the crucial piece.
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. (Emphasis added.)

Inviolable archives means INTERPOL records are beyond US citizens’ Freedom of Information Act requests and from American legal or investigative discovery (“unless such immunity be expressly waived.”)

Property and assets being immune from search and confiscation means precisely that. Wherever they may be in the United States. This could conceivably include human assets – Americans arrested on our soil by INTERPOL officers.

Why would INTERPOL be arresting American citizens on our own soil, without oversight from our own law enforcement agencies?  And remember, citizens who are thusly arrested would have no legal authority to demand full documentation from the International Police concerning the charges brought against them.

Andy McCarthy at National Review asks these crucial, sobering questions of the secretive Obama order:

Why would we elevate an international police force above American law? Why would we immunize an international police force from the limitations that constrain the FBI and other American law-enforcement agencies? Why is it suddenly necessary to have, within the Justice Department, a repository for stashing government files which, therefore, will be beyond the ability of Congress, American law-enforcement, the media, and the American people to scrutinize?

At least one answer to these questions is very clear.  A coup is underway in the United States of America, the goal of which is to establish complete, unquestioned authority over the citizens–a ‘fundamental change’ to the United States where citizens have no legal recourse against an authoritarian central government.

American Police Force hits Hardin, Montana
Residents surprised to see Mercedes SUVs marked ‘Hardin police’

This week, something very interesting and disturbing, happened in the small town of Hardin Montana. A privately owned group called “The American Police Force” or APF,  moved into the town. Could this be the “Civilian Security Force that is as well funded as the military” that Obama was talking about?
According to a local media report, APF representatives were recently seen in the tiny town of Hardin, Montana, driving black SUV’s with a peculiar logo and, inexplicably, “City of Hardin Police Department” stamped on the door.

However, Hardin does not have a police force.

The town instead contracts with the Big Horn County Sheriff’s Department for patrols, according to KULR 8 in Billings, Montana.

According to the news agency, APF was never given permission to assume policing duties. Instead, the firm — which the Associated Press reported to be unregistered in government databases — gained its contract with the town on the promise of bringing inmates to an unpopulated prison complex.

An image on KULR’s Web site shows the insignia on the APF vehicles, which has caused some concern on the Internet as being of conspiratorial origin.

APF’s coat of arms, a clearer version of which appeared on the group’s Web site (which had been taken down at time of this writing but is viewable here), shows a double-headed eagle with a red shield and white cross borne on its breast.

The coat appears to be very similar to that of Serbian Prince Aleksandar Karageorgevich, based on RAW STORY’s analysis of images hosted by Burke’s Peerage & Gentry International Register of Arms.

However, the significance or implied nationality of the insignia’s crown could not immediately be identified.

The double-headed eagle itself has been used repeatedly throughout history by many cultures as a symbol of empire, dominance and power.

Hardin, home to about 3,400 people, is in the state’s poorest county. Its unoccupied, 460-bed prison cost $27 million to construct. The town made national headlines earlier this year when local officials pleaded to have Guantanamo Bay inmates sent to the jail.

Montana Democratic Senator Max Baucus and other Republican lawmakers have stood in the way of moving Guantanamo inmates stateside, claiming they would present an increased security risk. The political calculation has led the White House to caution that its promise to close the controversial facility in January may not materialize on schedule.

PTE did a bit of snooping around and found some interesting pieces of information about APF.

Corporation:
AMERICAN PRIVATE POLICE FORCE ORG INC.
Number: C3202431 Date Filed: 3/2/2009 Status: active
Jurisdiction: California
Address
10501 BROOKHURST ST
ANAHEIM, CA 92804
Agent for Service of Process
MICHAEL HILTON
10501 BROOKHURST ST
ANAHEIM, CA 92804

Michael Hilton.

Montengro Flag (If you notice the emblem on the police car, it too is brandishing a double eagle)

This is the Serbian Coat Of Arms( also a double eagle) that matches the APF logo perfectly

The server for APF’s website happens to host Defense Product Solutions’ website. This company registered its domain name on June 19, 2009. Note that both APF and DPS use the double-headed eagle for their corporate logos.

AlliedDefenseSystems.com (registered March 2007) appears to be a related site. This website’s administrative contact is Mohammad Abdalla. Mr. Abdalla is listed as the COO for this company in Anaheim, CA.

Here’s where it gets more strange. The admin e-mail is for a Mr. Edward Angelino, who just happens to be listed as a small business contact for Defense Logistics Services, Inc., a company that appears to be providing foreign military sales support for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Mr. Angelino has an interesting tracking record when it comes to both lawsuits and government contracts.

DESCRIPTION: Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Support to Kingdom of Saudia Arabia Logistical, Financial Management, Analysis, and Administrative Support

According to the California Secretary of State’s office, Defense Logistics Services, Inc. was formed in 2004 but is dissolved.

There is, however, an American Private Police Force Org Inc. that was incorporated March 2, 2009, and is based in Anaheim too. In addition to being the corporation’s agent for service of process, a Mr. Michael Hilton is the self-designated “Captain” of the APF.

The APF claims it is the subsidiary of a parent company but won’t identify the parent company or where APF is getting its money. The company’s Washington, D.C. address is a virtual office. Its Santa Ana, California office appears to be in an office complex with a Spanish-speaking church, a dental lab, and insurance agency.

http://mikeyounglaw.com/wp/2009/09/2…internet-scam/

So the first question in all of this is, “Why is a private organization being hired to occupy a small Montana town?

And  a well supplied and armed organization at that.

Why is their emblem of foreign origin?

From The APF Webite

Click on Weapon & Equipment Sales – INTL Only

Apparently they sell the following:

• Security Systems Military Supplies.
• Duffle bags, tritium compasses, Alice packs, pistol belt, thermo gear, 1st aid kits, and M17 bags.
• Shields, riot gear, police and military uniforms, cooling vests, body armor, ballistics vests, hazmat suites.
• Police Cars, trucks, command and control vehicles, fire trucks, ambulances, towing trucks, fuel trucks, general shop vehicles, passenger busses, vans, water transport trucks, 4 WD trucks and other specialty vehicles.
• All United States made handguns, shot guns and U.S. major selection weapons.
• Fire Machine Guns and associated accessories including cleaning kits.
• 9mm hand guns & AK 47′s.
• Unit level armors kit, ammunitions.
• Telecommunication (Thuraya Satellite telephone, cell/mobile phones, Motorola GP 320 Handheld UHF/VHF Radios, battery cells and more).
• IT Systems (computers, laptops, fax machines, copiers, scanners, cartridges, scanners, printers, etc).
• Body Armor, batons, fire glass riot helmet, and shin guards, & megaphones.
• Armored cars and vehicles (Vans, SUVs, Cars, and trucks).
• Police riot equipment.
• Force Protection- WMD.
• Nuclear/Biological/Chemical (WMD). ??????????
• Monitoring and Access Control Systems.
• X Ray, robot systems, mine clearing, tools, explosives/perforators, and disposal containers.

Draw your own conclusions on this one. We are still scratching our heads.
P.S. Another news story you wont hear about in “Mainstream Media”

Update:

Channel 8 news Montana

MotherJones.com

A new bill would give the President emergency authority to halt web traffic and access private data.
—By Steve Aquino

Should President Obama have the power to shut down domestic Internet traffic during a state of emergency?

Senators John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) think so. On Wednesday they introduced a bill to establish the Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor—an arm of the executive branch that would have vast power to monitor and control Internet traffic to protect against threats to critical cyber infrastructure. That broad power is rattling some civil libertarians.

The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (PDF) gives the president the ability to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” and shut down or limit Internet traffic in any “critical” information network “in the interest of national security.” The bill does not define a critical information network or a cybersecurity emergency. That definition would be left to the president.

The bill does not only add to the power of the president. It also grants the Secretary of Commerce “access to all relevant data concerning [critical] networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access.” This means he or she can monitor or access any data on private or public networks without regard to privacy laws.

Rockefeller made cybersecurity one of his key issues as a member of the Senate intelligence committee, which he chaired until last year. He now heads the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, which will take up this bill.

“We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs—from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records—the list goes on,” Rockefeller said in a statement. Snowe echoed her colleague, saying, “if we fail to take swift action, we, regrettably, risk a cyber-Katrina.”

But the wide powers outlined in the Rockefeller-Snowe legislation has at least one Internet advocacy group worried. “The cybersecurity threat is real,” says Leslie Harris, head of the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), “but such a drastic federal intervention in private communications technology and networks could harm both security and privacy.”

The bill could undermine the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), says CDT senior counsel Greg Nojeim. That law, enacted in the mid ’80s, requires law enforcement seek a warrant before tapping in to data transmissions between computers.

“It’s an incredibly broad authority,” Nojeim says, pointing out that existing privacy laws “could fall to this authority.”

Jennifer Granick, civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says that granting such power to the Commerce secretary could actually cause networks to be less safe. When one person can access all information on a network, “it makes it more vulnerable to intruders,” Granick says. “You’ve basically established a path for the bad guys to skip down.”

The bill’s scope, she says, is “contrary to what the Constitution promises us.” That’s because of the impact it could have on Internet users’ privacy rights: If the Commerce Department uncovers evidence of illegal activity when accessing “critical” networks, that information could be used against a potential defendant, even if the department never had the intent to find incriminating evidence. And this might violate the Constitutional protection against searches without cause.

“Once information is accessed, it can be used for whatever purpose, no matter the original reason for accessing something,” Granick says. “Who’s interested in this [bill]? Law enforcement and people in the security industry who want to ensure more government dollars go to them.”

Nojeim, though, thinks it’s possible the bill’s powers could be trimmed as it moves through Congress. “We will be working with them to clarify just what is needed and how to accomplish that,” he says. “We’re hopeful that some of the very broad powers that the bill would confer won’t be included.”