Anger over broadened police powers to search people

[FL Patriot]

A GEELONG lawyer has slammed new laws that allow police to search people in designated public areas as an "outrageous breach of human rights".

The laws, which came into effect on Wednesday, give police sweeping powers to search people at random, including strip searches.

James Farrell, who works for pro-bono legal organisation PILCH, said evidence showed such laws did nothing to prevent crime.

Should police be able to search mall rats for knives? Have your say on the feedback form below

"Rather than pretending to be tough on crime by introducing ineffective measures, government should base policies on sound evidence that will improve community safety and outcomes for individuals," he said.

Under the legislation:

POLICE can search anybody in a "designated area" even if officers do not have any reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing and can proceed to a strip search if the circumstances warrant it.

ANY area where there has been an incident of violence involving a weapon in the past year can be deemed a designated area; as can any place where police suspect there may be trouble; or any major event precinct.

A NEW offence of disorderly conduct has been created, with $234 on-the-spot fines.

Mr Farrell said the legislation included provisions to strip search minors in "mystery" designated areas.

"There was a bit of a misconception around that these places were going to be advertised and seven days notice given, but there is provision in the legislation that they do not have to be advertised," he said. "So you can be walking down the street in front of your house and be asked to undergo a search."

Police and Emergency Services Minister Bob Cameron said laws enabling searches for weapons had been strengthened to help protect police.

"All these new laws provide the police with pre-emptive tools designed to diffuse situations and deter unacceptable behaviour so Victorians can safely enjoy public places in peace," he said.

"These critical new reforms will boost Victoria Police's ability to deal with drunkenness, disorder in public places and violence."

Mr Farrell said the legislation included hefty new fines for the "vague" new offence of disorderly conduct and for existing offences of drunk and disorderly and drunk.

"We can now be slogged $234 for walking home from the pub," he said.

"The new offence of disorderly conduct is not defined and relies upon the subjective and arbitrary judgment of individual police officers."

Anger over broadened police powers to search people - Local News - Geelong, VIC, Australia

[Imbar]

This is outrageous!

When will the people engage the system?

[Imbar]

Obama exempts INTERPOL from search and seizure on US lands

December 29, 2009



(BlackListedNews – Clyde Middleton)

World Net Daily is now talking about it. Big time, eh? Also, here’s the full list of every entity ever granted such privileges under American law.
This post is based on a post at Brutally Honest. See also my follow-up piece here.

The concept of granting immunity to foreign nationals in our country goes back at least as early as 1790 when we passed “An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes against the United States,” wherein immunity was granted to foreign diplomats. (This Act was revised in 1798 by the (in)famous “Sedition Act.”)

The immunities were not as broad as one would think, and that lack of a broad immunity has been tagged as a reason, among many, why the League of Nations failed. In 1945, at the same time as the United Nations was formed, we passed the United States International Organizations Immunities Act. This Act gave foreign diplomats many of the same rights as citizens and permanent residents – to enter into contracts, own real property, etc. Additional rights were given, and in particular was this:

Section 2(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.

This section of the Act is the legal force behind all those “diplomatic pouches” we see in movies that cannot be inspected.
Before we get our knickers in a bunch, there is logic to this immunity. While we like our Constitution and laws, other countries like their Constitution and laws. It doesn’t matter if the concept of personal freedom is more expansive here. If we expect immunity in their country, we have to extend it to them here. So we’re somewhat stuck – we need to dwell in reciprocity.

The issue has been litigated plenty, with DeLuca v. the United Nations, (41 F.3d 1502 (1994)) being one of the most important of recent vintage. Our courts have consistently upheld the concept of immunity for international organizations – even though to do so leaves an aggrieved American plaintiff with no legal recourse to correct their injury.
Along comes INTERPOL: The International Criminal Police Organization. INTERPOL “facilitates cross-border police co-operation, and supports and assists all organizations, authorities and services whose mission is to prevent or combat international crime.”
In 1983, President Reagan signed Executive Order 12425:

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.

Through EO 12425, President Reagan extended to INTERPOL recognition as an “International Organization.” In short, the privileges and immunities afforded foreign diplomats was extended to INTERPOL. Two sets of important privileges and immunities were withheld: Section 2(c) (presented in full text above), and the remaining sections cited (all of which deal with differing taxes).
And then comes December 17, 2009, and President Obama. The exemptions in EO 12425 were removed:

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.

What does this mean? It means that we have an international police force authorized to act within the United States that is no longer subject to 4th Amendment Search and Seizure. The “property and assets of [INTERPOL], wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation.”
INTERPOL, an international criminal police organization, is now poised to reside above the United States Constitution – in a place of sanctity beyond our FBI, CIA, DIA, and all other criminal investigatory domestic organizations.

President Obama has just placed our Constitutional rights under international law.

[30.06]

YouTube- Poker Face- Control

YouTube- Poker Face- Control

http://www.pokerface.org