Obama's Executive Order 12425 and Interpol

The right wing is asking: Is Obama's amendment to 12425 a surrender of American sovereignty to globalists, in general, and the International Criminal Court, in particular? The answer seems to be "no," although I have yet to hear any experts in this area weigh in.

The executive order is here, and the document it refers to is here (PDF).

Volokh, the law blog, indicates there isn't a big problem :

But the e-mails keep coming, and on the theory that some readers might be interested in my vague reaction nonetheless, here’s my tentative take: I have a somewhat hard time seeing what the genuine issues are with Obama’s Executive order.

The New York Times, meanwhile, is doing what the NYT always does. They're taking an issue that could harm Obama and pointing out how ridiculous it is to complain:

“We don’t send officers into the field to arrest people; we don’t have agents that go investigate crimes,” said Rachel Billington, an Interpol spokeswoman. “This is always done by the national police in the member country under their national laws.”

The NYT, along with the Los Angeles Times, CNN, and other socialist media, rushes to defend Obama almost as fast as they used to inflate any minor gripe about Bush. It must be nice to have your man in office.

Right wingers (or as lefties call them, Reich Wingers) are rattled because Obama, as an inexperienced communist of dubious origin, should never have become president, and needs to be watched closely.