<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_04_178247</id>
	<title>INTERPOL Granted Diplomatic Immunity In the US</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1262604900000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>ShakaUVM writes <i>"A couple of weeks ago without any fanfare or notice in the media, President Obama <a href="http://biggovernment.com/2010/01/01/executive-order-international-police-granted-full-immunity-in-us-and-not-subject-to-foia-requests/">granted INTERPOL full diplomatic immunity</a> while conducting investigations on American soil. While INTERPOL has been allowed to operate in the US in the past, under an executive order by President Reagan, they've had to follow the same rules as the FBI, CIA, etc., while on American soil. This means, among other things, the <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-amending-executive-order-12425">new executive order</a> makes INTERPOL immune to Freedom of Information Act requests and that INTERPOL agents cannot be punished for most any crimes they may commit. Hopefully the worst we'll see from this is INTERPOL agents ignoring their speeding tickets."</i> <b>Update: 01/05 02:57 GMT</b> by <b> <a href="http://slashdot.org/~kdawson/">KD</a> </b>: Reader davecb pointed out an ABC News blog that comes to <a href="http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/12/just-what-did-president-obamas-executive-order-regarding-interpol-do.html">pretty much the opposite conclusion</a> as to the import of the executive order.</htmltext>
<tokenext>ShakaUVM writes " A couple of weeks ago without any fanfare or notice in the media , President Obama granted INTERPOL full diplomatic immunity while conducting investigations on American soil .
While INTERPOL has been allowed to operate in the US in the past , under an executive order by President Reagan , they 've had to follow the same rules as the FBI , CIA , etc. , while on American soil .
This means , among other things , the new executive order makes INTERPOL immune to Freedom of Information Act requests and that INTERPOL agents can not be punished for most any crimes they may commit .
Hopefully the worst we 'll see from this is INTERPOL agents ignoring their speeding tickets .
" Update : 01/05 02 : 57 GMT by KD : Reader davecb pointed out an ABC News blog that comes to pretty much the opposite conclusion as to the import of the executive order .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ShakaUVM writes "A couple of weeks ago without any fanfare or notice in the media, President Obama granted INTERPOL full diplomatic immunity while conducting investigations on American soil.
While INTERPOL has been allowed to operate in the US in the past, under an executive order by President Reagan, they've had to follow the same rules as the FBI, CIA, etc., while on American soil.
This means, among other things, the new executive order makes INTERPOL immune to Freedom of Information Act requests and that INTERPOL agents cannot be punished for most any crimes they may commit.
Hopefully the worst we'll see from this is INTERPOL agents ignoring their speeding tickets.
" Update: 01/05 02:57 GMT by  KD : Reader davecb pointed out an ABC News blog that comes to pretty much the opposite conclusion as to the import of the executive order.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648518</id>
	<title>Right-wing propaganda</title>
	<author>Bananenrepublik</author>
	<datestamp>1262609880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why are you linking to this "article"?  It contains no information, only the Obama-bashing expected from your American right-wingers and unsupported hypotheses.</p><p>If you care about facts, you can find them, a few seconds of searching revealed <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/world/31interpol.html?\_r=1&amp;scp=1&amp;sq=interpol&amp;st=cse" title="nytimes.com">this</a> [nytimes.com] for instance.</p><p>Quote:</p><blockquote><div><p>Contrary to its portrayal in some movies, Interpol has no police force that conducts investigations and makes arrests. Rather, it serves its 188 member countries by working as a clearinghouse for police departments in different nations to share law enforcement information &mdash; like files on wanted criminals and terrorists, stolen cars and passports, and notices that a law enforcement agency has issued an arrest warrant for a fugitive.</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>&ldquo;We don&rsquo;t send officers into the field to arrest people; we don&rsquo;t have agents that go investigate crimes,&rdquo; said Rachel Billington, an Interpol spokeswoman. &ldquo;This is always done by the national police in the member country under their national laws.&rdquo;</p><p>When public international organizations are operating on United States soil, a law allows the president to grant them certain rights and immunities, just as foreign embassies receive privileges. More than 70 organizations &mdash; including the International Committee of the Red Cross, the World Bank and the International Pacific Halibut Commission &mdash; receive those rights.</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>But Mr. Reagan&rsquo;s order did not include other standard privileges &mdash; like immunity from certain tax requirements and from having its property or records subject to search and seizure &mdash; because at the time, Interpol had no permanent office or employees on United States soil.</p><p>That changed in 2004, when Interpol opened a liaison office at the United Nations in New York City.</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>The State Department recommended approving the request, but the Bush White House did not complete the matter before its term ended, and so it rolled over.</p></div></blockquote><p>In other words there appears to be nothing to get worked up about.  Even if you believe whatever republicans do is right.  Because they would have done the same.</p><p>You Americans are crazy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are you linking to this " article " ?
It contains no information , only the Obama-bashing expected from your American right-wingers and unsupported hypotheses.If you care about facts , you can find them , a few seconds of searching revealed this [ nytimes.com ] for instance.Quote : Contrary to its portrayal in some movies , Interpol has no police force that conducts investigations and makes arrests .
Rather , it serves its 188 member countries by working as a clearinghouse for police departments in different nations to share law enforcement information    like files on wanted criminals and terrorists , stolen cars and passports , and notices that a law enforcement agency has issued an arrest warrant for a fugitive .
...    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.    When public international organizations are operating on United States soil , a law allows the president to grant them certain rights and immunities , just as foreign embassies receive privileges .
More than 70 organizations    including the International Committee of the Red Cross , the World Bank and the International Pacific Halibut Commission    receive those rights .
...But Mr. Reagan    s order did not include other standard privileges    like immunity from certain tax requirements and from having its property or records subject to search and seizure    because at the time , Interpol had no permanent office or employees on United States soil.That changed in 2004 , when Interpol opened a liaison office at the United Nations in New York City .
...The State Department recommended approving the request , but the Bush White House did not complete the matter before its term ended , and so it rolled over.In other words there appears to be nothing to get worked up about .
Even if you believe whatever republicans do is right .
Because they would have done the same.You Americans are crazy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are you linking to this "article"?
It contains no information, only the Obama-bashing expected from your American right-wingers and unsupported hypotheses.If you care about facts, you can find them, a few seconds of searching revealed this [nytimes.com] for instance.Quote:Contrary to its portrayal in some movies, Interpol has no police force that conducts investigations and makes arrests.
Rather, it serves its 188 member countries by working as a clearinghouse for police departments in different nations to share law enforcement information — like files on wanted criminals and terrorists, stolen cars and passports, and notices that a law enforcement agency has issued an arrest warrant for a fugitive.
...“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.”When public international organizations are operating on United States soil, a law allows the president to grant them certain rights and immunities, just as foreign embassies receive privileges.
More than 70 organizations — including the International Committee of the Red Cross, the World Bank and the International Pacific Halibut Commission — receive those rights.
...But Mr. Reagan’s order did not include other standard privileges — like immunity from certain tax requirements and from having its property or records subject to search and seizure — because at the time, Interpol had no permanent office or employees on United States soil.That changed in 2004, when Interpol opened a liaison office at the United Nations in New York City.
...The State Department recommended approving the request, but the Bush White House did not complete the matter before its term ended, and so it rolled over.In other words there appears to be nothing to get worked up about.
Even if you believe whatever republicans do is right.
Because they would have done the same.You Americans are crazy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648378</id>
	<title>Interpol was never subject to FOIA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262609220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because it is not a US government agency, Interpol has never been subject to FOIA requests, therefore this change does NOT make them "immune to Freedom of Information Act requests."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because it is not a US government agency , Interpol has never been subject to FOIA requests , therefore this change does NOT make them " immune to Freedom of Information Act requests .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because it is not a US government agency, Interpol has never been subject to FOIA requests, therefore this change does NOT make them "immune to Freedom of Information Act requests.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649358</id>
	<title>Is interpol actually relevant?</title>
	<author>damn\_registrars</author>
	<datestamp>1262613540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It seems like for many criminal offenses, the US laws are more severe than the international counterparts anyways; as far as I know very few international fugitives would ever opt to hide out here. So why would interpol even bother to poke around here?  I suspect there are more than a few people here in the US who would like to see interpol start enforcing US-style laws in other countries; especially when you see how rabid some Americans get when it comes to international spammers / phishers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems like for many criminal offenses , the US laws are more severe than the international counterparts anyways ; as far as I know very few international fugitives would ever opt to hide out here .
So why would interpol even bother to poke around here ?
I suspect there are more than a few people here in the US who would like to see interpol start enforcing US-style laws in other countries ; especially when you see how rabid some Americans get when it comes to international spammers / phishers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems like for many criminal offenses, the US laws are more severe than the international counterparts anyways; as far as I know very few international fugitives would ever opt to hide out here.
So why would interpol even bother to poke around here?
I suspect there are more than a few people here in the US who would like to see interpol start enforcing US-style laws in other countries; especially when you see how rabid some Americans get when it comes to international spammers / phishers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648290</id>
	<title>but...</title>
	<author>bsDaemon</author>
	<datestamp>1262608860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>But the question on everyone's mind is, can RadioHead expect the same deal?</htmltext>
<tokenext>But the question on everyone 's mind is , can RadioHead expect the same deal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the question on everyone's mind is, can RadioHead expect the same deal?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30657438</id>
	<title>Re:This can't mean what they say it means.</title>
	<author>calmofthestorm</author>
	<datestamp>1262716680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That would be if they had diplomatic immunity, which they don't. Basically it means we can't tax them, can't seize their records, and they don't have to pay social security. They're still subject to criminal law. Article summary is very misleading and alarmist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That would be if they had diplomatic immunity , which they do n't .
Basically it means we ca n't tax them , ca n't seize their records , and they do n't have to pay social security .
They 're still subject to criminal law .
Article summary is very misleading and alarmist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would be if they had diplomatic immunity, which they don't.
Basically it means we can't tax them, can't seize their records, and they don't have to pay social security.
They're still subject to criminal law.
Article summary is very misleading and alarmist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648598</id>
	<title>Diplomatic immunity</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1262610120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Means they can break into people's houses to conduct illegal searches without recourse?
</p><p>
And kidnap Americans, to take them across the border, for interrogation,  also without judicial recourse?
</p><p>
Doesn't it?</p><p>
Congratulations Mr. President... you just made a successful end-run around the constitution's 11th, 14th, 3rd ammendment, 4th ammendment, 5th ammendment, 6th ammendment, and the rule of law.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Means they can break into people 's houses to conduct illegal searches without recourse ?
And kidnap Americans , to take them across the border , for interrogation , also without judicial recourse ?
Does n't it ?
Congratulations Mr. President... you just made a successful end-run around the constitution 's 11th , 14th , 3rd ammendment , 4th ammendment , 5th ammendment , 6th ammendment , and the rule of law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Means they can break into people's houses to conduct illegal searches without recourse?
And kidnap Americans, to take them across the border, for interrogation,  also without judicial recourse?
Doesn't it?
Congratulations Mr. President... you just made a successful end-run around the constitution's 11th, 14th, 3rd ammendment, 4th ammendment, 5th ammendment, 6th ammendment, and the rule of law.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648216</id>
	<title>About time to arm ourselves</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262608560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This country soverignty has been slowly eroded over the years. The founding father's effort is now all lost. Time to fight the 2nd Independence war in 2012.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This country soverignty has been slowly eroded over the years .
The founding father 's effort is now all lost .
Time to fight the 2nd Independence war in 2012 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This country soverignty has been slowly eroded over the years.
The founding father's effort is now all lost.
Time to fight the 2nd Independence war in 2012.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648450</id>
	<title>Re:How's this different from embassies?</title>
	<author>DNS-and-BIND</author>
	<datestamp>1262609580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Embassy personnel are representatives of their countries.  The diplomatic immunity is just something they threw in to benefit themselves.  It also makes negotiating easier because the diplomats can't be beheaded like they used to be.  If they screw up or get caught spying or kill some family in a drunk driving accident, they can be declared "persona non grata" and expelled.  This happens regularly.</p><p>Also of note is reciprocity.  America grants diplomatic immunity but also receives it at embassies abroad.  Where is the equality with a non-state actor like INTERPOL?  How do you declare them persona non grata and expel them?  Where would they go to, they're an international organization just like the UN.</p><p>This is just a move towards internationalisation.  The dream of the UN and other <a href="http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/archives\_roll/2002\_04-06/fonte\_ideological/fonte\_ideological.html" title="unc.edu">transnational progressivists</a> [unc.edu] is sort of a Star Trek-type or Futurama-type "Earth Government".  It's not like they're making a big secret of it, either.  I mean, what the hell, US law has just been trumped!  An in a very incomprehensible way, too.  "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."  WTH is this crap?  What happened to Obama's vaunted transparency in government?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Embassy personnel are representatives of their countries .
The diplomatic immunity is just something they threw in to benefit themselves .
It also makes negotiating easier because the diplomats ca n't be beheaded like they used to be .
If they screw up or get caught spying or kill some family in a drunk driving accident , they can be declared " persona non grata " and expelled .
This happens regularly.Also of note is reciprocity .
America grants diplomatic immunity but also receives it at embassies abroad .
Where is the equality with a non-state actor like INTERPOL ?
How do you declare them persona non grata and expel them ?
Where would they go to , they 're an international organization just like the UN.This is just a move towards internationalisation .
The dream of the UN and other transnational progressivists [ unc.edu ] is sort of a Star Trek-type or Futurama-type " Earth Government " .
It 's not like they 're making a big secret of it , either .
I mean , what the hell , US law has just been trumped !
An in a very incomprehensible way , too .
" 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 .
" WTH is this crap ?
What happened to Obama 's vaunted transparency in government ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Embassy personnel are representatives of their countries.
The diplomatic immunity is just something they threw in to benefit themselves.
It also makes negotiating easier because the diplomats can't be beheaded like they used to be.
If they screw up or get caught spying or kill some family in a drunk driving accident, they can be declared "persona non grata" and expelled.
This happens regularly.Also of note is reciprocity.
America grants diplomatic immunity but also receives it at embassies abroad.
Where is the equality with a non-state actor like INTERPOL?
How do you declare them persona non grata and expel them?
Where would they go to, they're an international organization just like the UN.This is just a move towards internationalisation.
The dream of the UN and other transnational progressivists [unc.edu] is sort of a Star Trek-type or Futurama-type "Earth Government".
It's not like they're making a big secret of it, either.
I mean, what the hell, US law has just been trumped!
An in a very incomprehensible way, too.
"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.
"  WTH is this crap?
What happened to Obama's vaunted transparency in government?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30651308</id>
	<title>QUID PRO QUO ?</title>
	<author>redelm</author>
	<datestamp>1262627400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... left unstated (perhaps to save embarrassement) is what others are giving up to get the INTERPOL immunity.  Perhaps US SecSvc or FBI dipl.immunity in the EU / G-8 ?</p><p>Diplomatic negotiations like these are always on a like-for-like reciprocal exchange, so I'd bet it is for US services to operate abroad as they do inside the US.  There have been quite some incidents with the US SecSvc running afoul of national police during POTUS and other protectee visits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... left unstated ( perhaps to save embarrassement ) is what others are giving up to get the INTERPOL immunity .
Perhaps US SecSvc or FBI dipl.immunity in the EU / G-8 ? Diplomatic negotiations like these are always on a like-for-like reciprocal exchange , so I 'd bet it is for US services to operate abroad as they do inside the US .
There have been quite some incidents with the US SecSvc running afoul of national police during POTUS and other protectee visits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... left unstated (perhaps to save embarrassement) is what others are giving up to get the INTERPOL immunity.
Perhaps US SecSvc or FBI dipl.immunity in the EU / G-8 ?Diplomatic negotiations like these are always on a like-for-like reciprocal exchange, so I'd bet it is for US services to operate abroad as they do inside the US.
There have been quite some incidents with the US SecSvc running afoul of national police during POTUS and other protectee visits.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649000</id>
	<title>Should have RTFA</title>
	<author>Zebra\_X</author>
	<datestamp>1262611860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This modification specifically allows INTERPOL the ability to enter into contracts, own and dispose property and has some ancillary language regarding taxes and immigration.</p><p>The real provision that is possibly dangerous is Section 7. (b) <i>Representatives of foreign governments in or to international organizations and officers and employees of such organizations shall be immune from suit and legal process relating to acts performed by them in their official capacity<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</i> <a href="http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/International\_Organizations\_Immunities\_Act#Title\_I" title="wikisource.org">http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/International\_Organizations\_Immunities\_Act#Title\_I</a> [wikisource.org]</p><p>If an agent of INTERPOL is "just doing his job" then he can do whatever he wants. Fortunately for us INTERPOL is very limited in what it can do.</p><p>INTERPOL's constitution is very clear as Article 3 states: <i>It is strictly forbidden for the Organization to undertake any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character.</i> <a href="http://www.interpol.int/public/icpo/legalmaterials/constitution/constitutiongenreg/constitution.asp" title="interpol.int">http://www.interpol.int/public/icpo/legalmaterials/constitution/constitutiongenreg/constitution.asp</a> [interpol.int]</p><p>Thus, we are safe from the administration asking INTERPOL to conduct operations on US soil. If that charter were to change though... it would be a different story.</p><p>Also, Obama's actions have had no change on their status in this regard. They have always had this status.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This modification specifically allows INTERPOL the ability to enter into contracts , own and dispose property and has some ancillary language regarding taxes and immigration.The real provision that is possibly dangerous is Section 7 .
( b ) Representatives of foreign governments in or to international organizations and officers and employees of such organizations shall be immune from suit and legal process relating to acts performed by them in their official capacity ... http : //en.wikisource.org/wiki/International \ _Organizations \ _Immunities \ _Act # Title \ _I [ wikisource.org ] If an agent of INTERPOL is " just doing his job " then he can do whatever he wants .
Fortunately for us INTERPOL is very limited in what it can do.INTERPOL 's constitution is very clear as Article 3 states : It is strictly forbidden for the Organization to undertake any intervention or activities of a political , military , religious or racial character .
http : //www.interpol.int/public/icpo/legalmaterials/constitution/constitutiongenreg/constitution.asp [ interpol.int ] Thus , we are safe from the administration asking INTERPOL to conduct operations on US soil .
If that charter were to change though... it would be a different story.Also , Obama 's actions have had no change on their status in this regard .
They have always had this status .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This modification specifically allows INTERPOL the ability to enter into contracts, own and dispose property and has some ancillary language regarding taxes and immigration.The real provision that is possibly dangerous is Section 7.
(b) Representatives of foreign governments in or to international organizations and officers and employees of such organizations shall be immune from suit and legal process relating to acts performed by them in their official capacity ... http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/International\_Organizations\_Immunities\_Act#Title\_I [wikisource.org]If an agent of INTERPOL is "just doing his job" then he can do whatever he wants.
Fortunately for us INTERPOL is very limited in what it can do.INTERPOL's constitution is very clear as Article 3 states: It is strictly forbidden for the Organization to undertake any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character.
http://www.interpol.int/public/icpo/legalmaterials/constitution/constitutiongenreg/constitution.asp [interpol.int]Thus, we are safe from the administration asking INTERPOL to conduct operations on US soil.
If that charter were to change though... it would be a different story.Also, Obama's actions have had no change on their status in this regard.
They have always had this status.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648352</id>
	<title>Re:How's this different from embassies?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262609100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, but embassy staff are not here to function in a police role.</p><p>This effectively creates a (secret) police force that is above the law.</p><p>This should be the last nail in the coffin for anyone who believes in the illusion of a free society in the US.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but embassy staff are not here to function in a police role.This effectively creates a ( secret ) police force that is above the law.This should be the last nail in the coffin for anyone who believes in the illusion of a free society in the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but embassy staff are not here to function in a police role.This effectively creates a (secret) police force that is above the law.This should be the last nail in the coffin for anyone who believes in the illusion of a free society in the US.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649278</id>
	<title>Re:Right-wing propaganda</title>
	<author>SuperBanana</author>
	<datestamp>1262613180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>like immunity from certain tax requirements and from having its property or records subject to search and seizure</i></p><p><i><i> <i>You Americans are crazy.</i>

</i></i></p><p><i><i>Yeah, imagine that, wanting to be able to have the freedom to investigate a foreign organization for corruption or illegal activities.</i></i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>like immunity from certain tax requirements and from having its property or records subject to search and seizure You Americans are crazy .
Yeah , imagine that , wanting to be able to have the freedom to investigate a foreign organization for corruption or illegal activities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> like immunity from certain tax requirements and from having its property or records subject to search and seizure You Americans are crazy.
Yeah, imagine that, wanting to be able to have the freedom to investigate a foreign organization for corruption or illegal activities.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30651152</id>
	<title>Re:Right-wing propaganda</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262626020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't like a supposedly right-leaning document (I didn't bother to read it), so you go and find the most publicized, left-leaning document that America has to offer: The NY Times.</p><p>Bravo.</p><p>If you read the act, then you see a different story:</p><blockquote><div><p>(b) International organizations, their property and their assets, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall enjoy the same immunity from suit and every form of Judicial process as is enjoyed by foreign governments, except to the extent that such organizations may expressly waive their immunity for the purpose of any proceedings or by the terms of any contract.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't like a supposedly right-leaning document ( I did n't bother to read it ) , so you go and find the most publicized , left-leaning document that America has to offer : The NY Times.Bravo.If you read the act , then you see a different story : ( b ) International organizations , their property and their assets , wherever located and by whomsoever held , shall enjoy the same immunity from suit and every form of Judicial process as is enjoyed by foreign governments , except to the extent that such organizations may expressly waive their immunity for the purpose of any proceedings or by the terms of any contract .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't like a supposedly right-leaning document (I didn't bother to read it), so you go and find the most publicized, left-leaning document that America has to offer: The NY Times.Bravo.If you read the act, then you see a different story:(b) International organizations, their property and their assets, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall enjoy the same immunity from suit and every form of Judicial process as is enjoyed by foreign governments, except to the extent that such organizations may expressly waive their immunity for the purpose of any proceedings or by the terms of any contract.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649154</id>
	<title>INTERPOL isn't a police agency!</title>
	<author>canajin56</author>
	<datestamp>1262612640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>They don't have any of those things, still...they have immunity from search and seizure, meaning they can now send things to and from the USA via diplomatic packages, something they can do in almost every other county in the world, now.  The FOI immunity is retarded, because you've never been able to, and it certainly wasn't anywhere in the executive order.  The reason you've never been able to, is that INTERPOL isn't part of the US government.  You can't send FOI requests to the Canadian Consulate in NYC, either.  Well, I'm sure you can send them one, but don't expect an answer.  Additionally, this is INTERPOL itself.  This means, yes, official documents sent by them can't be searched at the border, and their offices can't be searched, either.  It doesn't mean a person who happens to work for INTERPOL can't be searched if they're suspected of a crime, unlike a diplomat.  They can be searched, and they can be arrested.  I imagine they could say "That suspicious package is property of INTERPOL, not me, you can't search it."  Which is true, but if somebody else at INTERPOL says "No it isn't" they can go ahead and search it.  No diplomatic plates for their car, either, they can still get a ticket.  Further, they don't even actually have their own office, they use desks at the DoJ, so there's no real reason the DoJ would ever need to be trying to search their stuff, anyways!  So if it doesn't matter, why make an executive order of it?  Like I said, now they can use diplomatic pouches for sensitive information, so it does matter.  Finally, as you've already been told, INTERPOL isn't a police agency.  Only in "Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego" do they have actual powers to arrest people.  They're just a agency responsible for forwarading information on international criminals from one nations police to others who might need to know about it.  An INTERPOL "agent" can't arrest you, he can tell the FBI that there's an outstanding arrest warrant for you in France, and then the FBI goes and arrests you, while the INTERPOL "agent" stays at his desk at the DoJ.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They do n't have any of those things , still...they have immunity from search and seizure , meaning they can now send things to and from the USA via diplomatic packages , something they can do in almost every other county in the world , now .
The FOI immunity is retarded , because you 've never been able to , and it certainly was n't anywhere in the executive order .
The reason you 've never been able to , is that INTERPOL is n't part of the US government .
You ca n't send FOI requests to the Canadian Consulate in NYC , either .
Well , I 'm sure you can send them one , but do n't expect an answer .
Additionally , this is INTERPOL itself .
This means , yes , official documents sent by them ca n't be searched at the border , and their offices ca n't be searched , either .
It does n't mean a person who happens to work for INTERPOL ca n't be searched if they 're suspected of a crime , unlike a diplomat .
They can be searched , and they can be arrested .
I imagine they could say " That suspicious package is property of INTERPOL , not me , you ca n't search it .
" Which is true , but if somebody else at INTERPOL says " No it is n't " they can go ahead and search it .
No diplomatic plates for their car , either , they can still get a ticket .
Further , they do n't even actually have their own office , they use desks at the DoJ , so there 's no real reason the DoJ would ever need to be trying to search their stuff , anyways !
So if it does n't matter , why make an executive order of it ?
Like I said , now they can use diplomatic pouches for sensitive information , so it does matter .
Finally , as you 've already been told , INTERPOL is n't a police agency .
Only in " Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego " do they have actual powers to arrest people .
They 're just a agency responsible for forwarading information on international criminals from one nations police to others who might need to know about it .
An INTERPOL " agent " ca n't arrest you , he can tell the FBI that there 's an outstanding arrest warrant for you in France , and then the FBI goes and arrests you , while the INTERPOL " agent " stays at his desk at the DoJ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They don't have any of those things, still...they have immunity from search and seizure, meaning they can now send things to and from the USA via diplomatic packages, something they can do in almost every other county in the world, now.
The FOI immunity is retarded, because you've never been able to, and it certainly wasn't anywhere in the executive order.
The reason you've never been able to, is that INTERPOL isn't part of the US government.
You can't send FOI requests to the Canadian Consulate in NYC, either.
Well, I'm sure you can send them one, but don't expect an answer.
Additionally, this is INTERPOL itself.
This means, yes, official documents sent by them can't be searched at the border, and their offices can't be searched, either.
It doesn't mean a person who happens to work for INTERPOL can't be searched if they're suspected of a crime, unlike a diplomat.
They can be searched, and they can be arrested.
I imagine they could say "That suspicious package is property of INTERPOL, not me, you can't search it.
"  Which is true, but if somebody else at INTERPOL says "No it isn't" they can go ahead and search it.
No diplomatic plates for their car, either, they can still get a ticket.
Further, they don't even actually have their own office, they use desks at the DoJ, so there's no real reason the DoJ would ever need to be trying to search their stuff, anyways!
So if it doesn't matter, why make an executive order of it?
Like I said, now they can use diplomatic pouches for sensitive information, so it does matter.
Finally, as you've already been told, INTERPOL isn't a police agency.
Only in "Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego" do they have actual powers to arrest people.
They're just a agency responsible for forwarading information on international criminals from one nations police to others who might need to know about it.
An INTERPOL "agent" can't arrest you, he can tell the FBI that there's an outstanding arrest warrant for you in France, and then the FBI goes and arrests you, while the INTERPOL "agent" stays at his desk at the DoJ.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649104</id>
	<title>A fabricated summary</title>
	<author>NameIsDavid</author>
	<datestamp>1262612340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This flat out lying on Slashdot for the sake of pushing politics has to end. Anyone can read Obama's executive order. It's on the White House website. All it does is give INTERPOL the rights from the 1945 International Organizations Immunity Act. Previously, there were some exemptions placed on INTERPOL that the new order removes. It grants nothing beyond the original 1945 act, however, which is completely different from diplomatic immunity. The article summary is flat out sensationalist nonsense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This flat out lying on Slashdot for the sake of pushing politics has to end .
Anyone can read Obama 's executive order .
It 's on the White House website .
All it does is give INTERPOL the rights from the 1945 International Organizations Immunity Act .
Previously , there were some exemptions placed on INTERPOL that the new order removes .
It grants nothing beyond the original 1945 act , however , which is completely different from diplomatic immunity .
The article summary is flat out sensationalist nonsense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This flat out lying on Slashdot for the sake of pushing politics has to end.
Anyone can read Obama's executive order.
It's on the White House website.
All it does is give INTERPOL the rights from the 1945 International Organizations Immunity Act.
Previously, there were some exemptions placed on INTERPOL that the new order removes.
It grants nothing beyond the original 1945 act, however, which is completely different from diplomatic immunity.
The article summary is flat out sensationalist nonsense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648458</id>
	<title>WTF?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262609580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What makes INTERPOL so special? Other rock stars like the who, avril lavigne have been ignoring US laws forever by trashing their hotel rooms</htmltext>
<tokenext>What makes INTERPOL so special ?
Other rock stars like the who , avril lavigne have been ignoring US laws forever by trashing their hotel rooms</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What makes INTERPOL so special?
Other rock stars like the who, avril lavigne have been ignoring US laws forever by trashing their hotel rooms</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30650488</id>
	<title>Constitutional workaround.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262620500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>c.f. the Echelon arrangement - GCHQ do NSA's dirty work.<br>This is just a framework to let Interpol go where the FBI/CIA can't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>c.f .
the Echelon arrangement - GCHQ do NSA 's dirty work.This is just a framework to let Interpol go where the FBI/CIA ca n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>c.f.
the Echelon arrangement - GCHQ do NSA's dirty work.This is just a framework to let Interpol go where the FBI/CIA can't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649208</id>
	<title>Re:Her Majesty's Secret Service....</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1262612880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Bond's license to kill came from the British government. He understood the risks when performing assassination on foreign soil. If he was caught, he would be killed or at least tried for murder.</p></div></blockquote><p>

If an MI6 agent performed an assassination on an American target on US soil do you honestly think they'd be doing it without US permission? Certainly not in the last 50 years. Same with INTERPOL, this is just making the unofficial courtesy official.<br> <br>

The US isn't like performing an assassination in the ME or Asia, chances are if MI6 really needs a yank taken out, with the level of intelligence sharing between the US and UK they'll just handball it to the yanks. After all why risk a British agent when there are perfectly good American agents with more local experience.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bond 's license to kill came from the British government .
He understood the risks when performing assassination on foreign soil .
If he was caught , he would be killed or at least tried for murder .
If an MI6 agent performed an assassination on an American target on US soil do you honestly think they 'd be doing it without US permission ?
Certainly not in the last 50 years .
Same with INTERPOL , this is just making the unofficial courtesy official .
The US is n't like performing an assassination in the ME or Asia , chances are if MI6 really needs a yank taken out , with the level of intelligence sharing between the US and UK they 'll just handball it to the yanks .
After all why risk a British agent when there are perfectly good American agents with more local experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bond's license to kill came from the British government.
He understood the risks when performing assassination on foreign soil.
If he was caught, he would be killed or at least tried for murder.
If an MI6 agent performed an assassination on an American target on US soil do you honestly think they'd be doing it without US permission?
Certainly not in the last 50 years.
Same with INTERPOL, this is just making the unofficial courtesy official.
The US isn't like performing an assassination in the ME or Asia, chances are if MI6 really needs a yank taken out, with the level of intelligence sharing between the US and UK they'll just handball it to the yanks.
After all why risk a British agent when there are perfectly good American agents with more local experience.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648386</id>
	<title>Interpol agents?? What Interpol agents??</title>
	<author>Bazzargh</author>
	<datestamp>1262609280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's no such thing as an interpol agent. They delegate to national agencies (ie the DoJ) who do<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/not/ get immunity. What they do have is a bunch of committees and advisors, and a (shared) database of people 'of interest'.</p><p>Somebody's been watching the man from UNCLE a few too many times</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no such thing as an interpol agent .
They delegate to national agencies ( ie the DoJ ) who do /not/ get immunity .
What they do have is a bunch of committees and advisors , and a ( shared ) database of people 'of interest'.Somebody 's been watching the man from UNCLE a few too many times</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's no such thing as an interpol agent.
They delegate to national agencies (ie the DoJ) who do /not/ get immunity.
What they do have is a bunch of committees and advisors, and a (shared) database of people 'of interest'.Somebody's been watching the man from UNCLE a few too many times</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648354</id>
	<title>This can't mean what they say it means.</title>
	<author>d474</author>
	<datestamp>1262609100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Diplomatic Immunity doesn't mean they get to violate our laws, it just means they don't go to jail for violating our laws.  If complaints start to pile up (thanks to the ACLU I'm sure) then they will loose their immunity.

<br> <br>Right?  Or am I acting like a sheeple?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Diplomatic Immunity does n't mean they get to violate our laws , it just means they do n't go to jail for violating our laws .
If complaints start to pile up ( thanks to the ACLU I 'm sure ) then they will loose their immunity .
Right ? Or am I acting like a sheeple ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Diplomatic Immunity doesn't mean they get to violate our laws, it just means they don't go to jail for violating our laws.
If complaints start to pile up (thanks to the ACLU I'm sure) then they will loose their immunity.
Right?  Or am I acting like a sheeple?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648308</id>
	<title>Your Rights Online?</title>
	<author>LostCluster</author>
	<datestamp>1262608920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not quite sure this story got filed right. Nothing to do with our online rights... this has more to do with all our rights.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not quite sure this story got filed right .
Nothing to do with our online rights... this has more to do with all our rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not quite sure this story got filed right.
Nothing to do with our online rights... this has more to do with all our rights.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30653038</id>
	<title>Re:wish I lived in Texas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262690100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you ever see an interpol agent, you may want to shoot it and put it up for display.
They are said to be very rare indeed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you ever see an interpol agent , you may want to shoot it and put it up for display .
They are said to be very rare indeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you ever see an interpol agent, you may want to shoot it and put it up for display.
They are said to be very rare indeed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30652552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30651886</id>
	<title>Re:Very common for US troops in foreign soil</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262633820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Argentina, joint naval exercises like Unitas are cancelled because our government don't want to give immunity to US army.</p><p>Compare reputation of INTERPOL (Karma: Excellent) to reputation of US Armed Forces on foreign soul (Karma: Bad).</p><p>See the difference? Easy to explain, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Argentina , joint naval exercises like Unitas are cancelled because our government do n't want to give immunity to US army.Compare reputation of INTERPOL ( Karma : Excellent ) to reputation of US Armed Forces on foreign soul ( Karma : Bad ) .See the difference ?
Easy to explain , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Argentina, joint naval exercises like Unitas are cancelled because our government don't want to give immunity to US army.Compare reputation of INTERPOL (Karma: Excellent) to reputation of US Armed Forces on foreign soul (Karma: Bad).See the difference?
Easy to explain, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648656</id>
	<title>Gee, I suppose our police and CIA have the same?</title>
	<author>meburke</author>
	<datestamp>1262610480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a dumb move; it undermines our sovereignty and diminishes our status in the rest of the world. It may be constitutionally unsound to the extent that it deprives citizens and residents of the USA full protection under the Constitution. Co-operation is one thing, but this may be an assault on our civil rights by giving Interpol powers denied our own law enforcement agencies under the Constitution.</p><p>On the other hand, we've been bullying less powerful countries into fighting our legal disputes for years. It is only fitting that a more powerful government entity than the USA would make us buckle under, too.</p><p>This is the most a**-kissing president in US history. Where's Teddy Roosevelt when you need him?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a dumb move ; it undermines our sovereignty and diminishes our status in the rest of the world .
It may be constitutionally unsound to the extent that it deprives citizens and residents of the USA full protection under the Constitution .
Co-operation is one thing , but this may be an assault on our civil rights by giving Interpol powers denied our own law enforcement agencies under the Constitution.On the other hand , we 've been bullying less powerful countries into fighting our legal disputes for years .
It is only fitting that a more powerful government entity than the USA would make us buckle under , too.This is the most a * * -kissing president in US history .
Where 's Teddy Roosevelt when you need him ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a dumb move; it undermines our sovereignty and diminishes our status in the rest of the world.
It may be constitutionally unsound to the extent that it deprives citizens and residents of the USA full protection under the Constitution.
Co-operation is one thing, but this may be an assault on our civil rights by giving Interpol powers denied our own law enforcement agencies under the Constitution.On the other hand, we've been bullying less powerful countries into fighting our legal disputes for years.
It is only fitting that a more powerful government entity than the USA would make us buckle under, too.This is the most a**-kissing president in US history.
Where's Teddy Roosevelt when you need him?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30651990</id>
	<title>Never let the truth...</title>
	<author>The Famous Druid</author>
	<datestamp>1262634840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>...get in the way of a paranoid panic attack. <p>
Don't the tinfoil-hat brigade even bother to read articles before deciding they confirm their worst nightmares?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...get in the way of a paranoid panic attack .
Do n't the tinfoil-hat brigade even bother to read articles before deciding they confirm their worst nightmares ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...get in the way of a paranoid panic attack.
Don't the tinfoil-hat brigade even bother to read articles before deciding they confirm their worst nightmares?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648942</id>
	<title>Re:Clever</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262611620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They spy on us with impunity and share the intelligence with our government. In return our government does the same for them.</p><p>Both countries get to perform full-scale spying on their own citizens without violating any laws or causing an uproar.</p></div><p>Those poor peasants in INTERPOLISTAN.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They spy on us with impunity and share the intelligence with our government .
In return our government does the same for them.Both countries get to perform full-scale spying on their own citizens without violating any laws or causing an uproar.Those poor peasants in INTERPOLISTAN .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They spy on us with impunity and share the intelligence with our government.
In return our government does the same for them.Both countries get to perform full-scale spying on their own citizens without violating any laws or causing an uproar.Those poor peasants in INTERPOLISTAN.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649146</id>
	<title>Re:Thank you Obama</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1262612580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You are, officially, an asshole.</p></div></blockquote><p>

You only just figured this out.<br> <br>

Allow me to clue you in, all politicians are arseholes, automatically assume they are going to be arseholes from the outset and you avoid this unpleasantness.<br> <br>

There are two saving graces however,<br>
1. We get to pick which arsehole we don't want running the show.<br>
2. Every now and then they remember they are our arsehole.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are , officially , an asshole .
You only just figured this out .
Allow me to clue you in , all politicians are arseholes , automatically assume they are going to be arseholes from the outset and you avoid this unpleasantness .
There are two saving graces however , 1 .
We get to pick which arsehole we do n't want running the show .
2. Every now and then they remember they are our arsehole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are, officially, an asshole.
You only just figured this out.
Allow me to clue you in, all politicians are arseholes, automatically assume they are going to be arseholes from the outset and you avoid this unpleasantness.
There are two saving graces however,
1.
We get to pick which arsehole we don't want running the show.
2. Every now and then they remember they are our arsehole.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649100</id>
	<title>Re:Headline is wrong</title>
	<author>ShakaUVM</author>
	<datestamp>1262612280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;The actual article says:</p><p>Which they added to my submission. I just linked to the actual executive order, and to a story about UN parking tickets. The inclusion of the ABC News story was standard Slashdot editor brilliance. Especially since it's wrong.</p><p>&gt;&gt;"diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State." That is NOT what the International Organizations Immunities Act is.</p><p>In actuality, INTERPOL employees now have full diplomatic immunity when operating in an official capacity on American soil, and are immune to suit and legal proceedings for anything they do as part of their job.</p><p>So ABCNews is wrong, not me.</p><p>Don't believe me? Read section 7:<br><a href="http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/International\_Organizations\_Immunities\_Act#Sec.\_7" title="wikisource.org">http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/International\_Organizations\_Immunities\_Act#Sec.\_7</a> [wikisource.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; The actual article says : Which they added to my submission .
I just linked to the actual executive order , and to a story about UN parking tickets .
The inclusion of the ABC News story was standard Slashdot editor brilliance .
Especially since it 's wrong. &gt; &gt; " diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State .
" That is NOT what the International Organizations Immunities Act is.In actuality , INTERPOL employees now have full diplomatic immunity when operating in an official capacity on American soil , and are immune to suit and legal proceedings for anything they do as part of their job.So ABCNews is wrong , not me.Do n't believe me ?
Read section 7 : http : //en.wikisource.org/wiki/International \ _Organizations \ _Immunities \ _Act # Sec. \ _7 [ wikisource.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;The actual article says:Which they added to my submission.
I just linked to the actual executive order, and to a story about UN parking tickets.
The inclusion of the ABC News story was standard Slashdot editor brilliance.
Especially since it's wrong.&gt;&gt;"diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State.
" That is NOT what the International Organizations Immunities Act is.In actuality, INTERPOL employees now have full diplomatic immunity when operating in an official capacity on American soil, and are immune to suit and legal proceedings for anything they do as part of their job.So ABCNews is wrong, not me.Don't believe me?
Read section 7:http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/International\_Organizations\_Immunities\_Act#Sec.\_7 [wikisource.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30663466</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1262698800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>That is sheer insanity. So we grant a foreign agency extra-legal protections to operate within our borders.</p></div> </blockquote><p>How are the protections defined in a law passed by Congress in 1945 concerning protections for international organizations extra-legal? They are protections that (1) exist in statute law, (2) are given the INTERPOL by the process defined in the law delineating the protections available. They would seem to be <i>legal</i>, not extra-legal.</p><blockquote><div><p>We put limitations (with damned good reasons) on our own law enforcement agencies but we turn around and grant Interpol (not even responsible to any one particular government) near unlimited authority within our country.</p></div></blockquote><p>The protections at issue do not constitute "near unlimited authority".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is sheer insanity .
So we grant a foreign agency extra-legal protections to operate within our borders .
How are the protections defined in a law passed by Congress in 1945 concerning protections for international organizations extra-legal ?
They are protections that ( 1 ) exist in statute law , ( 2 ) are given the INTERPOL by the process defined in the law delineating the protections available .
They would seem to be legal , not extra-legal.We put limitations ( with damned good reasons ) on our own law enforcement agencies but we turn around and grant Interpol ( not even responsible to any one particular government ) near unlimited authority within our country.The protections at issue do not constitute " near unlimited authority " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is sheer insanity.
So we grant a foreign agency extra-legal protections to operate within our borders.
How are the protections defined in a law passed by Congress in 1945 concerning protections for international organizations extra-legal?
They are protections that (1) exist in statute law, (2) are given the INTERPOL by the process defined in the law delineating the protections available.
They would seem to be legal, not extra-legal.We put limitations (with damned good reasons) on our own law enforcement agencies but we turn around and grant Interpol (not even responsible to any one particular government) near unlimited authority within our country.The protections at issue do not constitute "near unlimited authority".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30676152</id>
	<title>Re:Right-wing propaganda</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262778180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you cared about facts you would not be reading and certainly not citing the New York Times.</p><p>We will ignore the rest of your "stupid Americans" rant because you are obviously living in your parents basement and are pathetic enough that I do not need to remind you of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you cared about facts you would not be reading and certainly not citing the New York Times.We will ignore the rest of your " stupid Americans " rant because you are obviously living in your parents basement and are pathetic enough that I do not need to remind you of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you cared about facts you would not be reading and certainly not citing the New York Times.We will ignore the rest of your "stupid Americans" rant because you are obviously living in your parents basement and are pathetic enough that I do not need to remind you of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648350</id>
	<title>Uuuh... WTF!?!?!</title>
	<author>SkydiverFL</author>
	<datestamp>1262609100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, basically, we trust foreign agents more than our own?  HOLY CRAP!  Exit stage left, already!</p><p>As for foreign officials having similar rights, that's more for political courtesy and to keep the whole cultural difference thing out of our courts.  That's somewhat understood.  However, there is a CLEAR difference from some over-the-hill politician getting pulled over for speeding compared to an amped-up INTERPOL cop on the verge of a conviction.  The mindset, purpose, emotions... hell, the whole scenario... is completely different.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , basically , we trust foreign agents more than our own ?
HOLY CRAP !
Exit stage left , already ! As for foreign officials having similar rights , that 's more for political courtesy and to keep the whole cultural difference thing out of our courts .
That 's somewhat understood .
However , there is a CLEAR difference from some over-the-hill politician getting pulled over for speeding compared to an amped-up INTERPOL cop on the verge of a conviction .
The mindset , purpose , emotions... hell , the whole scenario... is completely different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, basically, we trust foreign agents more than our own?
HOLY CRAP!
Exit stage left, already!As for foreign officials having similar rights, that's more for political courtesy and to keep the whole cultural difference thing out of our courts.
That's somewhat understood.
However, there is a CLEAR difference from some over-the-hill politician getting pulled over for speeding compared to an amped-up INTERPOL cop on the verge of a conviction.
The mindset, purpose, emotions... hell, the whole scenario... is completely different.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648462</id>
	<title>Re:Don't be silly.</title>
	<author>LostCluster</author>
	<datestamp>1262609640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And basically this is saying that records INTERPOL passes back are free from being intercepted by anybody in the feds who want them. If the feds need them, the correct call in your example should be to the LAPD.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And basically this is saying that records INTERPOL passes back are free from being intercepted by anybody in the feds who want them .
If the feds need them , the correct call in your example should be to the LAPD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And basically this is saying that records INTERPOL passes back are free from being intercepted by anybody in the feds who want them.
If the feds need them, the correct call in your example should be to the LAPD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648758</id>
	<title>Re:Misleading title</title>
	<author>ShakaUVM</author>
	<datestamp>1262610960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;The title and summary are pretty misleading, it appears the only thing Obama did was exempt INTERPOL from certain taxes and provided them with immunity from search and seizure. The article explicitly states that it is not the same thing as diplomatic immunity.</p><p>That's because they edited my submission and mangled it.</p><p>For the actual law in question, read this:<br><a href="http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/International\_Organizations\_Immunities\_Act" title="wikisource.org">http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/International\_Organizations\_Immunities\_Act</a> [wikisource.org]</p><p>INTERPOL is already immune to suit and legal process (Section 7). This made them immune to search, seizure, and paying taxes. And their families, if I'm reading it right.</p><p>There's different kinds of diplomatic immunity, read this for more information:<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic\_immunity#Diplomatic\_immunity\_in\_the\_United\_States" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic\_immunity#Diplomatic\_immunity\_in\_the\_United\_States</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>They now have all the entries on that table, so if you don't want to call it full diplomatic immunity, you're welcome to come up with a better term.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; The title and summary are pretty misleading , it appears the only thing Obama did was exempt INTERPOL from certain taxes and provided them with immunity from search and seizure .
The article explicitly states that it is not the same thing as diplomatic immunity.That 's because they edited my submission and mangled it.For the actual law in question , read this : http : //en.wikisource.org/wiki/International \ _Organizations \ _Immunities \ _Act [ wikisource.org ] INTERPOL is already immune to suit and legal process ( Section 7 ) .
This made them immune to search , seizure , and paying taxes .
And their families , if I 'm reading it right.There 's different kinds of diplomatic immunity , read this for more information : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic \ _immunity # Diplomatic \ _immunity \ _in \ _the \ _United \ _States [ wikipedia.org ] They now have all the entries on that table , so if you do n't want to call it full diplomatic immunity , you 're welcome to come up with a better term .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;The title and summary are pretty misleading, it appears the only thing Obama did was exempt INTERPOL from certain taxes and provided them with immunity from search and seizure.
The article explicitly states that it is not the same thing as diplomatic immunity.That's because they edited my submission and mangled it.For the actual law in question, read this:http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/International\_Organizations\_Immunities\_Act [wikisource.org]INTERPOL is already immune to suit and legal process (Section 7).
This made them immune to search, seizure, and paying taxes.
And their families, if I'm reading it right.There's different kinds of diplomatic immunity, read this for more information:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic\_immunity#Diplomatic\_immunity\_in\_the\_United\_States [wikipedia.org]They now have all the entries on that table, so if you don't want to call it full diplomatic immunity, you're welcome to come up with a better term.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648372</id>
	<title>Re:How's this different from embassies?</title>
	<author>jabbathewocket</author>
	<datestamp>1262609160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Embassy staffers generally do not run around with guns 'investigating' crimes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. with carte blanche to break every local law.. up to and including murdering the suspect.

"this guy fled to america, go shoot him while trying to escape, its cheapr than a trial here in  anyhow.."

I would say its a VERY far cry from giving ambassadors and their families immunity from traffic tickets/full body searches</htmltext>
<tokenext>Embassy staffers generally do not run around with guns 'investigating ' crimes .. with carte blanche to break every local law.. up to and including murdering the suspect .
" this guy fled to america , go shoot him while trying to escape , its cheapr than a trial here in anyhow.. " I would say its a VERY far cry from giving ambassadors and their families immunity from traffic tickets/full body searches</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Embassy staffers generally do not run around with guns 'investigating' crimes .. with carte blanche to break every local law.. up to and including murdering the suspect.
"this guy fled to america, go shoot him while trying to escape, its cheapr than a trial here in  anyhow.."

I would say its a VERY far cry from giving ambassadors and their families immunity from traffic tickets/full body searches</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30653694</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>tobe</author>
	<datestamp>1262699280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Hopefully the worst we'll see from this is INTERPOL agents ignoring their speeding tickets"

 Good.. I hope they don't.. at least until the American Embassy in London gets round to clearing the &gt; &pound;200,000 they owe the city for their unpaid congestion charge.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Hopefully the worst we 'll see from this is INTERPOL agents ignoring their speeding tickets " Good.. I hope they do n't.. at least until the American Embassy in London gets round to clearing the &gt;   200,000 they owe the city for their unpaid congestion charge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Hopefully the worst we'll see from this is INTERPOL agents ignoring their speeding tickets"

 Good.. I hope they don't.. at least until the American Embassy in London gets round to clearing the &gt; £200,000 they owe the city for their unpaid congestion charge.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649870</id>
	<title>How are things on the West Coast?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262616660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought Interpol was a band based out of NYC</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought Interpol was a band based out of NYC</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought Interpol was a band based out of NYC</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648524</id>
	<title>Re:Don't be silly.</title>
	<author>DoofusOfDeath</author>
	<datestamp>1262609880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Come on, you're telling me that INTERPOL now has the same protection as the "International Pacific Halibut Commission and Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission".</p></div></blockquote><p>I'm not worried, as long as they lack the powers of the British Dental Association.  Those guys are freakin' crazy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on , you 're telling me that INTERPOL now has the same protection as the " International Pacific Halibut Commission and Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission " .I 'm not worried , as long as they lack the powers of the British Dental Association .
Those guys are freakin ' crazy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come on, you're telling me that INTERPOL now has the same protection as the "International Pacific Halibut Commission and Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission".I'm not worried, as long as they lack the powers of the British Dental Association.
Those guys are freakin' crazy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30653670</id>
	<title>Re:Your Rights Online?</title>
	<author>js\_sebastian</author>
	<datestamp>1262699100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Not quite sure this story got filed right. Nothing to do with our online rights... this has more to do with all our rights.</p></div><p>How is this insightful? for the umpteenth time, YRO means "your rights, discussed online". It is in no now way restricted to protecting your right to download porn (sacred as that right may be).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not quite sure this story got filed right .
Nothing to do with our online rights... this has more to do with all our rights.How is this insightful ?
for the umpteenth time , YRO means " your rights , discussed online " .
It is in no now way restricted to protecting your right to download porn ( sacred as that right may be ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not quite sure this story got filed right.
Nothing to do with our online rights... this has more to do with all our rights.How is this insightful?
for the umpteenth time, YRO means "your rights, discussed online".
It is in no now way restricted to protecting your right to download porn (sacred as that right may be).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30650096</id>
	<title>Likely in response to illegal kidnapping by USA</title>
	<author>deksza</author>
	<datestamp>1262617980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>In December of 2009 the FDA duped Interpol to achieve illegal kidnapping and deportation of herbal formulator Greg Caton: <a href="http://www.naturalnews.com/027750\_Greg\_Caton\_FDA.html" title="naturalnews.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.naturalnews.com/027750\_Greg\_Caton\_FDA.html</a> [naturalnews.com]    Whatever you may think of Greg Caton and his herbal products, this was an illegal kidnapping by US officials. This executive order was likely to cover their asses after the fact.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In December of 2009 the FDA duped Interpol to achieve illegal kidnapping and deportation of herbal formulator Greg Caton : http : //www.naturalnews.com/027750 \ _Greg \ _Caton \ _FDA.html [ naturalnews.com ] Whatever you may think of Greg Caton and his herbal products , this was an illegal kidnapping by US officials .
This executive order was likely to cover their asses after the fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In December of 2009 the FDA duped Interpol to achieve illegal kidnapping and deportation of herbal formulator Greg Caton: http://www.naturalnews.com/027750\_Greg\_Caton\_FDA.html [naturalnews.com]    Whatever you may think of Greg Caton and his herbal products, this was an illegal kidnapping by US officials.
This executive order was likely to cover their asses after the fact.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648500</id>
	<title>Re:How's this different from embassies?</title>
	<author>BitterOak</author>
	<datestamp>1262609760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My first reaction is WTH, but on the other hand don't embassy staffers have pretty much the same deal?</p></div><p>Yes, but embassy staffers aren't law enforcement agents.  They don't have the job mandate or inclination to go around arresting people and removing them to foreign jurisdictions.  With diplomatic immunity what's to stop Interpol agents from arresting U.S. citizens on U.S. soil and taking them off to the Hague to stand trial?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My first reaction is WTH , but on the other hand do n't embassy staffers have pretty much the same deal ? Yes , but embassy staffers are n't law enforcement agents .
They do n't have the job mandate or inclination to go around arresting people and removing them to foreign jurisdictions .
With diplomatic immunity what 's to stop Interpol agents from arresting U.S. citizens on U.S. soil and taking them off to the Hague to stand trial ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My first reaction is WTH, but on the other hand don't embassy staffers have pretty much the same deal?Yes, but embassy staffers aren't law enforcement agents.
They don't have the job mandate or inclination to go around arresting people and removing them to foreign jurisdictions.
With diplomatic immunity what's to stop Interpol agents from arresting U.S. citizens on U.S. soil and taking them off to the Hague to stand trial?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30653806</id>
	<title>Re:Don't be silly.</title>
	<author>YourExperiment</author>
	<datestamp>1262700720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yeapsireee, gotta watch out for those rouge Halbut operatives</p></div><p>Nah, they're just a red herring.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeapsireee , got ta watch out for those rouge Halbut operativesNah , they 're just a red herring .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeapsireee, gotta watch out for those rouge Halbut operativesNah, they're just a red herring.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30652552</id>
	<title>wish I lived in Texas</title>
	<author>OrangeTide</author>
	<datestamp>1262684340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do state's rights fit in? If I lived in Texas could shoot INTERPOL agents for trespassing? They aren't United State law enforcement officers on official business, so the laws of some states likely are not prepared to grant INTERPOL agents the same protections.</p><p>I think people forget that it is very difficult to make a decision on a national scale in the US, and usually requires a fair amount of cooperation from the states. or at least not an excessive amount of non-cooperation from the states.</p><p>(ps-I don't think I'm allowed to shoot anyone in California, unless they actually committed murder against me first. Or maybe I just won't care about the civil and criminal repercussions postmortem)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do state 's rights fit in ?
If I lived in Texas could shoot INTERPOL agents for trespassing ?
They are n't United State law enforcement officers on official business , so the laws of some states likely are not prepared to grant INTERPOL agents the same protections.I think people forget that it is very difficult to make a decision on a national scale in the US , and usually requires a fair amount of cooperation from the states .
or at least not an excessive amount of non-cooperation from the states .
( ps-I do n't think I 'm allowed to shoot anyone in California , unless they actually committed murder against me first .
Or maybe I just wo n't care about the civil and criminal repercussions postmortem )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do state's rights fit in?
If I lived in Texas could shoot INTERPOL agents for trespassing?
They aren't United State law enforcement officers on official business, so the laws of some states likely are not prepared to grant INTERPOL agents the same protections.I think people forget that it is very difficult to make a decision on a national scale in the US, and usually requires a fair amount of cooperation from the states.
or at least not an excessive amount of non-cooperation from the states.
(ps-I don't think I'm allowed to shoot anyone in California, unless they actually committed murder against me first.
Or maybe I just won't care about the civil and criminal repercussions postmortem)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649256</id>
	<title>but, but, but</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1262613060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're blick.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're blick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're blick.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649588</id>
	<title>Interpol "agents"? No such fucking thing</title>
	<author>Nicolas MONNET</author>
	<datestamp>1262614800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interpol is an organisation whose member are nations and their police. They coordinate information sharing between member states. They don't do police work themselves. The only Interpol employees stricto sensu are administrative staff. That's it. The only "agents" are those of the FBI in the US, or the RMCP in Canada, and so on and so forth for other members. Nobody's going to show up at your door with an Interpol badge -- ever. Or maybe as a joke or a fraud.</p><p>That slashdot falls for this right wing scaremongering bullshit is disheartening. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpol" title="wikipedia.org">Goddamn it, it's not that hard to look shit up on Wikipedia, morons</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interpol is an organisation whose member are nations and their police .
They coordinate information sharing between member states .
They do n't do police work themselves .
The only Interpol employees stricto sensu are administrative staff .
That 's it .
The only " agents " are those of the FBI in the US , or the RMCP in Canada , and so on and so forth for other members .
Nobody 's going to show up at your door with an Interpol badge -- ever .
Or maybe as a joke or a fraud.That slashdot falls for this right wing scaremongering bullshit is disheartening .
Goddamn it , it 's not that hard to look shit up on Wikipedia , morons [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interpol is an organisation whose member are nations and their police.
They coordinate information sharing between member states.
They don't do police work themselves.
The only Interpol employees stricto sensu are administrative staff.
That's it.
The only "agents" are those of the FBI in the US, or the RMCP in Canada, and so on and so forth for other members.
Nobody's going to show up at your door with an Interpol badge -- ever.
Or maybe as a joke or a fraud.That slashdot falls for this right wing scaremongering bullshit is disheartening.
Goddamn it, it's not that hard to look shit up on Wikipedia, morons [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648446</id>
	<title>How about the RIAA with no FOI?</title>
	<author>SubstormGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1262609520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hell, all they have to do is say that filesharing is an international crime, pay off some corrupt UN bureaucrat to sic INTERPOL on folks, then all those pesky FOI suits go away.  And that is only one of the least damaging outcomes.  Obama just wants to kiss multinational UN ass.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hell , all they have to do is say that filesharing is an international crime , pay off some corrupt UN bureaucrat to sic INTERPOL on folks , then all those pesky FOI suits go away .
And that is only one of the least damaging outcomes .
Obama just wants to kiss multinational UN ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hell, all they have to do is say that filesharing is an international crime, pay off some corrupt UN bureaucrat to sic INTERPOL on folks, then all those pesky FOI suits go away.
And that is only one of the least damaging outcomes.
Obama just wants to kiss multinational UN ass.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30659014</id>
	<title>Re:Right-wing propaganda</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262722860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why are you linking to this "article"?  It contains no information, only the Obama-bashing expected from your American right-wingers and unsupported hypotheses.</p><p>If you care about facts, you can find them, a few seconds of searching revealed <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/world/31interpol.html?\_r=1&amp;scp=1&amp;sq=interpol&amp;st=cse" title="nytimes.com" rel="nofollow">this</a> [nytimes.com] for instance.</p><p>Quote:</p><blockquote><div><p>Contrary to its portrayal in some movies, Interpol has no police force that conducts investigations and makes arrests. Rather, it serves its 188 member countries by working as a clearinghouse for police departments in different nations to share law enforcement information &mdash; like files on wanted criminals and terrorists, stolen cars and passports, and notices that a law enforcement agency has issued an arrest warrant for a fugitive.</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>&ldquo;We don&rsquo;t send officers into the field to arrest people; we don&rsquo;t have agents that go investigate crimes,&rdquo; said Rachel Billington, an Interpol spokeswoman. &ldquo;This is always done by the national police in the member country under their national laws.&rdquo;</p><p>When public international organizations are operating on United States soil, a law allows the president to grant them certain rights and immunities, just as foreign embassies receive privileges. More than 70 organizations &mdash; including the International Committee of the Red Cross, the World Bank and the International Pacific Halibut Commission &mdash; receive those rights.</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>But Mr. Reagan&rsquo;s order did not include other standard privileges &mdash; like immunity from certain tax requirements and from having its property or records subject to search and seizure &mdash; because at the time, Interpol had no permanent office or employees on United States soil.</p><p>That changed in 2004, when Interpol opened a liaison office at the United Nations in New York City.</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>The State Department recommended approving the request, but the Bush White House did not complete the matter before its term ended, and so it rolled over.</p></div></blockquote><p>In other words there appears to be nothing to get worked up about.  Even if you believe whatever republicans do is right.  Because they would have done the same.</p><p>You Americans are crazy.</p></div><p>you better watch out we'll invade your country next!<br>We are Amerika We are Right We Are Alpha and Omega.<br>WE are sheep we are slaves we are ignorant we are impotent we are nothing...we are the terrorist</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are you linking to this " article " ?
It contains no information , only the Obama-bashing expected from your American right-wingers and unsupported hypotheses.If you care about facts , you can find them , a few seconds of searching revealed this [ nytimes.com ] for instance.Quote : Contrary to its portrayal in some movies , Interpol has no police force that conducts investigations and makes arrests .
Rather , it serves its 188 member countries by working as a clearinghouse for police departments in different nations to share law enforcement information    like files on wanted criminals and terrorists , stolen cars and passports , and notices that a law enforcement agency has issued an arrest warrant for a fugitive .
...    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.    When public international organizations are operating on United States soil , a law allows the president to grant them certain rights and immunities , just as foreign embassies receive privileges .
More than 70 organizations    including the International Committee of the Red Cross , the World Bank and the International Pacific Halibut Commission    receive those rights .
...But Mr. Reagan    s order did not include other standard privileges    like immunity from certain tax requirements and from having its property or records subject to search and seizure    because at the time , Interpol had no permanent office or employees on United States soil.That changed in 2004 , when Interpol opened a liaison office at the United Nations in New York City .
...The State Department recommended approving the request , but the Bush White House did not complete the matter before its term ended , and so it rolled over.In other words there appears to be nothing to get worked up about .
Even if you believe whatever republicans do is right .
Because they would have done the same.You Americans are crazy.you better watch out we 'll invade your country next ! We are Amerika We are Right We Are Alpha and Omega.WE are sheep we are slaves we are ignorant we are impotent we are nothing...we are the terrorist</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are you linking to this "article"?
It contains no information, only the Obama-bashing expected from your American right-wingers and unsupported hypotheses.If you care about facts, you can find them, a few seconds of searching revealed this [nytimes.com] for instance.Quote:Contrary to its portrayal in some movies, Interpol has no police force that conducts investigations and makes arrests.
Rather, it serves its 188 member countries by working as a clearinghouse for police departments in different nations to share law enforcement information — like files on wanted criminals and terrorists, stolen cars and passports, and notices that a law enforcement agency has issued an arrest warrant for a fugitive.
...“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.”When public international organizations are operating on United States soil, a law allows the president to grant them certain rights and immunities, just as foreign embassies receive privileges.
More than 70 organizations — including the International Committee of the Red Cross, the World Bank and the International Pacific Halibut Commission — receive those rights.
...But Mr. Reagan’s order did not include other standard privileges — like immunity from certain tax requirements and from having its property or records subject to search and seizure — because at the time, Interpol had no permanent office or employees on United States soil.That changed in 2004, when Interpol opened a liaison office at the United Nations in New York City.
...The State Department recommended approving the request, but the Bush White House did not complete the matter before its term ended, and so it rolled over.In other words there appears to be nothing to get worked up about.
Even if you believe whatever republicans do is right.
Because they would have done the same.You Americans are crazy.you better watch out we'll invade your country next!We are Amerika We are Right We Are Alpha and Omega.WE are sheep we are slaves we are ignorant we are impotent we are nothing...we are the terrorist
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648964</id>
	<title>Re:Very common for US troops in foreign soil</title>
	<author>PolygamousRanchKid </author>
	<datestamp>1262611680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>US armed forces operating in foreign countries are usually covered by a "Status of Forces Agreement": <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status\_of\_Forces\_Agreement" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status\_of\_Forces\_Agreement</a> [wikipedia.org]
</p><p>This basically means, that if your tank runs over a farmer's cow, you're covered.
</p><p>If you rape his 15 year old daughter .  . . well, sorry, you're subject to local laws.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>US armed forces operating in foreign countries are usually covered by a " Status of Forces Agreement " : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status \ _of \ _Forces \ _Agreement [ wikipedia.org ] This basically means , that if your tank runs over a farmer 's cow , you 're covered .
If you rape his 15 year old daughter .
. .
well , sorry , you 're subject to local laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>US armed forces operating in foreign countries are usually covered by a "Status of Forces Agreement": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status\_of\_Forces\_Agreement [wikipedia.org]
This basically means, that if your tank runs over a farmer's cow, you're covered.
If you rape his 15 year old daughter .
. .
well, sorry, you're subject to local laws.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648888</id>
	<title>Automatic wepaons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262611380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they don't have to pay federal taxes, does this mean they can now have automatic weapons in the US?  Please don't discount it out of turn.  The only thing that keeps US citizens from owning automatic weapons is the fact that the US government demands a tax on those items that they stopped allowing us to pay in 1986.  Owning a Class III automatic weapon without having it registered with the BATFE and paying your taxes is really just a tax violation.  So, if they are no longer required to pay taxes on property, does this mean that INTERPOL agents in the US can have automatic weapons?  That would be a hell of a tax loophole!</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they do n't have to pay federal taxes , does this mean they can now have automatic weapons in the US ?
Please do n't discount it out of turn .
The only thing that keeps US citizens from owning automatic weapons is the fact that the US government demands a tax on those items that they stopped allowing us to pay in 1986 .
Owning a Class III automatic weapon without having it registered with the BATFE and paying your taxes is really just a tax violation .
So , if they are no longer required to pay taxes on property , does this mean that INTERPOL agents in the US can have automatic weapons ?
That would be a hell of a tax loophole !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they don't have to pay federal taxes, does this mean they can now have automatic weapons in the US?
Please don't discount it out of turn.
The only thing that keeps US citizens from owning automatic weapons is the fact that the US government demands a tax on those items that they stopped allowing us to pay in 1986.
Owning a Class III automatic weapon without having it registered with the BATFE and paying your taxes is really just a tax violation.
So, if they are no longer required to pay taxes on property, does this mean that INTERPOL agents in the US can have automatic weapons?
That would be a hell of a tax loophole!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648494</id>
	<title>Dawson? You logged on as someone else today?</title>
	<author>dtolman</author>
	<datestamp>1262609760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I mean... it seems like an article posted by him. Inaccurate headline (they did not get a grant of full "diplomatic" immunity). Inaccurate summary (agents? INTERPOL is a coordinating entity - there ARE no agents!).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean... it seems like an article posted by him .
Inaccurate headline ( they did not get a grant of full " diplomatic " immunity ) .
Inaccurate summary ( agents ?
INTERPOL is a coordinating entity - there ARE no agents !
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean... it seems like an article posted by him.
Inaccurate headline (they did not get a grant of full "diplomatic" immunity).
Inaccurate summary (agents?
INTERPOL is a coordinating entity - there ARE no agents!
).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648264</id>
	<title>How's this different from embassies?</title>
	<author>VampireByte</author>
	<datestamp>1262608740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My first reaction is WTH, but on the other hand don't embassy staffers have pretty much the same deal?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My first reaction is WTH , but on the other hand do n't embassy staffers have pretty much the same deal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My first reaction is WTH, but on the other hand don't embassy staffers have pretty much the same deal?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648986</id>
	<title>Re:Diplomatic immunity</title>
	<author>grcumb</author>
	<datestamp>1262611800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>
Means they can break into people's houses to conduct illegal searches without recourse?
</p><p>
And kidnap Americans, to take them across the border, for interrogation,  also without judicial recourse?
</p><p>
Doesn't it?</p></div><p>Yes, that's right. It also gives them special X-Ray Vision, which allows them to see hot chicks nekkid in their clothes, as well as giving them their own drive-through lane and allowing them to bowl free on Wednesdays.</p><p>But that's not all it does. President Obama has also exempted them from the laws of thermodynamics, so it won't be long before mustachioed INTERPOL agents in their secret mountain lair will be aiming their death ray at the Pentagon while anti-grav ships hover menacingly overhead.</p><p>But wait! There's more! INTERPOL also received permission to travel in time and fuck your mother when she was still hot. So when INTERPOL comes for you, young Skywalker, before you reach for your light saber, consider that the big guy in black with the asthma problem just might be your dad.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Means they can break into people 's houses to conduct illegal searches without recourse ?
And kidnap Americans , to take them across the border , for interrogation , also without judicial recourse ?
Does n't it ? Yes , that 's right .
It also gives them special X-Ray Vision , which allows them to see hot chicks nekkid in their clothes , as well as giving them their own drive-through lane and allowing them to bowl free on Wednesdays.But that 's not all it does .
President Obama has also exempted them from the laws of thermodynamics , so it wo n't be long before mustachioed INTERPOL agents in their secret mountain lair will be aiming their death ray at the Pentagon while anti-grav ships hover menacingly overhead.But wait !
There 's more !
INTERPOL also received permission to travel in time and fuck your mother when she was still hot .
So when INTERPOL comes for you , young Skywalker , before you reach for your light saber , consider that the big guy in black with the asthma problem just might be your dad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Means they can break into people's houses to conduct illegal searches without recourse?
And kidnap Americans, to take them across the border, for interrogation,  also without judicial recourse?
Doesn't it?Yes, that's right.
It also gives them special X-Ray Vision, which allows them to see hot chicks nekkid in their clothes, as well as giving them their own drive-through lane and allowing them to bowl free on Wednesdays.But that's not all it does.
President Obama has also exempted them from the laws of thermodynamics, so it won't be long before mustachioed INTERPOL agents in their secret mountain lair will be aiming their death ray at the Pentagon while anti-grav ships hover menacingly overhead.But wait!
There's more!
INTERPOL also received permission to travel in time and fuck your mother when she was still hot.
So when INTERPOL comes for you, young Skywalker, before you reach for your light saber, consider that the big guy in black with the asthma problem just might be your dad.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30654416</id>
	<title>Re:Right-wing propaganda</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262705100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, I guess it's <i>all good</i> if the NY Times says it is; that (im)moral, (un)ethical, (in)fallible bastion of (un)Truth!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , I guess it 's all good if the NY Times says it is ; that ( im ) moral , ( un ) ethical , ( in ) fallible bastion of ( un ) Truth !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, I guess it's all good if the NY Times says it is; that (im)moral, (un)ethical, (in)fallible bastion of (un)Truth!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648548</id>
	<title>Re:Don't be silly.</title>
	<author>noz</author>
	<datestamp>1262609940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Frog dropped in boiling water jumps out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Frog dropped in boiling water jumps out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frog dropped in boiling water jumps out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648698</id>
	<title>Re:Interpol agents?? What Interpol agents??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262610660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then WHO was this done for?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then WHO was this done for ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then WHO was this done for?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648542</id>
	<title>Re:Her Majesty's Secret Service....</title>
	<author>bcmm</author>
	<datestamp>1262609940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What INTERPOL has is *BETTER* than a license to kill!!! It says, you can use deadly force within the US, and can't be prosecuted by the US! It's a get out jail free card!!!!</p></div></blockquote><p>

If International Organisation Immunity were actually diplomatic immunity, which it isn't, it wouldn't be a "license to kill". It would be a license to be expelled from the country and tried by your own country, possibly for treason (or whatever your own country does to people who cause international incidents) as well as whatever you did.<br> <br>Diplomatic immunity is granted to ambassadors and an awful lot of embassy staff already*, including those of countries that don't get on well with the host country, but international organisation immunity is not the same thing. For a start, it <b>doesn't grant immunity from local prosecution</b> (except for official acts - which murder is most certainly not).
<br> <br>* This works fairly well, apart from things like traffic violations, which aren't really worth expelling ambassadors over and are therefore commonplace amongst diplomats the world over.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What INTERPOL has is * BETTER * than a license to kill ! ! !
It says , you can use deadly force within the US , and ca n't be prosecuted by the US !
It 's a get out jail free card ! ! ! !
If International Organisation Immunity were actually diplomatic immunity , which it is n't , it would n't be a " license to kill " .
It would be a license to be expelled from the country and tried by your own country , possibly for treason ( or whatever your own country does to people who cause international incidents ) as well as whatever you did .
Diplomatic immunity is granted to ambassadors and an awful lot of embassy staff already * , including those of countries that do n't get on well with the host country , but international organisation immunity is not the same thing .
For a start , it does n't grant immunity from local prosecution ( except for official acts - which murder is most certainly not ) .
* This works fairly well , apart from things like traffic violations , which are n't really worth expelling ambassadors over and are therefore commonplace amongst diplomats the world over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What INTERPOL has is *BETTER* than a license to kill!!!
It says, you can use deadly force within the US, and can't be prosecuted by the US!
It's a get out jail free card!!!!
If International Organisation Immunity were actually diplomatic immunity, which it isn't, it wouldn't be a "license to kill".
It would be a license to be expelled from the country and tried by your own country, possibly for treason (or whatever your own country does to people who cause international incidents) as well as whatever you did.
Diplomatic immunity is granted to ambassadors and an awful lot of embassy staff already*, including those of countries that don't get on well with the host country, but international organisation immunity is not the same thing.
For a start, it doesn't grant immunity from local prosecution (except for official acts - which murder is most certainly not).
* This works fairly well, apart from things like traffic violations, which aren't really worth expelling ambassadors over and are therefore commonplace amongst diplomats the world over.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649198</id>
	<title>No agents?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262612880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems really strange that if interpol has no agents, that tons of movies, bbc shows, books show interpol agents knocking on doors introducing themselves as interpol, chasing people down shouting stop interpol, etc.   Guess all these shows/books have gotten it wrong for years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems really strange that if interpol has no agents , that tons of movies , bbc shows , books show interpol agents knocking on doors introducing themselves as interpol , chasing people down shouting stop interpol , etc .
Guess all these shows/books have gotten it wrong for years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems really strange that if interpol has no agents, that tons of movies, bbc shows, books show interpol agents knocking on doors introducing themselves as interpol, chasing people down shouting stop interpol, etc.
Guess all these shows/books have gotten it wrong for years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648348</id>
	<title>Just like the FBI is not under local jurisdiction</title>
	<author>viking80</author>
	<datestamp>1262609100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is not diplomatic immunity. This is just protection against searches, IRS, etc. This basically allows a law enforcement officer to carry out his duties. It is identical to when the FBI comes to a local town to investigate, they can not be hindered or stopped by the local law enforcement. This is obvious and should not raise any issues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not diplomatic immunity .
This is just protection against searches , IRS , etc .
This basically allows a law enforcement officer to carry out his duties .
It is identical to when the FBI comes to a local town to investigate , they can not be hindered or stopped by the local law enforcement .
This is obvious and should not raise any issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not diplomatic immunity.
This is just protection against searches, IRS, etc.
This basically allows a law enforcement officer to carry out his duties.
It is identical to when the FBI comes to a local town to investigate, they can not be hindered or stopped by the local law enforcement.
This is obvious and should not raise any issues.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648394</id>
	<title>Re:How's this different from embassies?</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1262609280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, except an Embassy is an area of land, and its Ambassadors have very few diplomatic immunities when they leave that area of land. And even SOME restrictions are imposed on that land (meaning I can't set off a Nuke in the Canadian Embassy and think I'll be free of all American Charges in California).</p><p>Interpol however, is an Organization of international police officers, and from time to time we've observed that police officers get corrupted. They've essentially granted a Gestapo Force in the States that is not directly controlled by the countries own government.</p><p>Now - I have nothing against Interpol, and as far as I know they're a great organization that go after drug busts and murderers. I just don't see why they can't operate under the same rules as the local Police (Essentially the same job) as the country they are working in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , except an Embassy is an area of land , and its Ambassadors have very few diplomatic immunities when they leave that area of land .
And even SOME restrictions are imposed on that land ( meaning I ca n't set off a Nuke in the Canadian Embassy and think I 'll be free of all American Charges in California ) .Interpol however , is an Organization of international police officers , and from time to time we 've observed that police officers get corrupted .
They 've essentially granted a Gestapo Force in the States that is not directly controlled by the countries own government.Now - I have nothing against Interpol , and as far as I know they 're a great organization that go after drug busts and murderers .
I just do n't see why they ca n't operate under the same rules as the local Police ( Essentially the same job ) as the country they are working in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, except an Embassy is an area of land, and its Ambassadors have very few diplomatic immunities when they leave that area of land.
And even SOME restrictions are imposed on that land (meaning I can't set off a Nuke in the Canadian Embassy and think I'll be free of all American Charges in California).Interpol however, is an Organization of international police officers, and from time to time we've observed that police officers get corrupted.
They've essentially granted a Gestapo Force in the States that is not directly controlled by the countries own government.Now - I have nothing against Interpol, and as far as I know they're a great organization that go after drug busts and murderers.
I just don't see why they can't operate under the same rules as the local Police (Essentially the same job) as the country they are working in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648324</id>
	<title>Her Majesty's Secret Service....</title>
	<author>GPLDAN</author>
	<datestamp>1262608980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bond's license to kill came from the British government. He understood the risks when performing assassination on foreign soil. If he was caught, he would be killed or at least tried for murder. <br> <br>
What INTERPOL has is *BETTER* than a license to kill!!! It says, you can use deadly force within the US, and can't be prosecuted by the US! It's a get out jail free card!!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bond 's license to kill came from the British government .
He understood the risks when performing assassination on foreign soil .
If he was caught , he would be killed or at least tried for murder .
What INTERPOL has is * BETTER * than a license to kill ! ! !
It says , you can use deadly force within the US , and ca n't be prosecuted by the US !
It 's a get out jail free card ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bond's license to kill came from the British government.
He understood the risks when performing assassination on foreign soil.
If he was caught, he would be killed or at least tried for murder.
What INTERPOL has is *BETTER* than a license to kill!!!
It says, you can use deadly force within the US, and can't be prosecuted by the US!
It's a get out jail free card!!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648370</id>
	<title>INTERPOL is a police agency!</title>
	<author>SubstormGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1262609160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How would you feel about any other police agency that was immune to FOI requests or legal challenges to misbehavior?  How about legal authorities working on behalf of the RIAA?  Isn't filesharing international?   Another brilliant move from this administration.  What could go wrong?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How would you feel about any other police agency that was immune to FOI requests or legal challenges to misbehavior ?
How about legal authorities working on behalf of the RIAA ?
Is n't filesharing international ?
Another brilliant move from this administration .
What could go wrong ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How would you feel about any other police agency that was immune to FOI requests or legal challenges to misbehavior?
How about legal authorities working on behalf of the RIAA?
Isn't filesharing international?
Another brilliant move from this administration.
What could go wrong?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30661164</id>
	<title>Re:This can't mean what they say it means.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262688300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The latter.  Diplomatic immunity for ANY group has been revoked exactly 3 times.  It was a major deal.</p><p>Now that they have it, they pretty much have it.  Sure, in theory the next Executive could wipe it out.  Unlikely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The latter .
Diplomatic immunity for ANY group has been revoked exactly 3 times .
It was a major deal.Now that they have it , they pretty much have it .
Sure , in theory the next Executive could wipe it out .
Unlikely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The latter.
Diplomatic immunity for ANY group has been revoked exactly 3 times.
It was a major deal.Now that they have it, they pretty much have it.
Sure, in theory the next Executive could wipe it out.
Unlikely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648732</id>
	<title>Re:Don't be silly.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262610840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>gotta watch out for those rouge Halbut operatives</i></p><p>Jesus Hernandez Christ, it is ROGUE.  Pronounced ROWG, like row your boat with a at the end.  Rouge is red in French or a light red makeup people put on their cheeks to give themselves some facial color.  Pronounced rooj.  Like rooster with a j and no ster.</p><p>The reason I go on about this is that it's so bloody common.</p><p>And it makes the ENTIRE THIEVE'S GUILD SIGH HEAVILY.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>got ta watch out for those rouge Halbut operativesJesus Hernandez Christ , it is ROGUE .
Pronounced ROWG , like row your boat with a at the end .
Rouge is red in French or a light red makeup people put on their cheeks to give themselves some facial color .
Pronounced rooj .
Like rooster with a j and no ster.The reason I go on about this is that it 's so bloody common.And it makes the ENTIRE THIEVE 'S GUILD SIGH HEAVILY .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>gotta watch out for those rouge Halbut operativesJesus Hernandez Christ, it is ROGUE.
Pronounced ROWG, like row your boat with a at the end.
Rouge is red in French or a light red makeup people put on their cheeks to give themselves some facial color.
Pronounced rooj.
Like rooster with a j and no ster.The reason I go on about this is that it's so bloody common.And it makes the ENTIRE THIEVE'S GUILD SIGH HEAVILY.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648300</id>
	<title>Headline is wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262608920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the headline says:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>INTERPOL Granted Diplomatic Immunity In the US</p></div><p>The <a href="http://www.examiner.com/x-27672-Portland-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2010m1d1-BHOs-INTERPOL-executive-order-harmless" title="examiner.com">actual article</a> [examiner.com] says:
<b>
"these privileges are not the same as the rights afforded under "diplomatic immunity," they are considerably less. "Diplomatic immunity" comes from the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which states that a "diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State." That is NOT what the International Organizations Immunities Act is.</b>
</p><p>The headline seems to be wrong.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the headline says : INTERPOL Granted Diplomatic Immunity In the USThe actual article [ examiner.com ] says : " these privileges are not the same as the rights afforded under " diplomatic immunity , " they are considerably less .
" Diplomatic immunity " comes from the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations , which states that a " diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State .
" That is NOT what the International Organizations Immunities Act is .
The headline seems to be wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the headline says:INTERPOL Granted Diplomatic Immunity In the USThe actual article [examiner.com] says:

"these privileges are not the same as the rights afforded under "diplomatic immunity," they are considerably less.
"Diplomatic immunity" comes from the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which states that a "diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State.
" That is NOT what the International Organizations Immunities Act is.
The headline seems to be wrong.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648814</id>
	<title>Re:Gee, I suppose our police and CIA have the same</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262611140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RTFA.  The summary is wrong.  Interpol is not being granted diplomatic immunity.</p><p>Stupid be-atch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>RTFA .
The summary is wrong .
Interpol is not being granted diplomatic immunity.Stupid be-atch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RTFA.
The summary is wrong.
Interpol is not being granted diplomatic immunity.Stupid be-atch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648314</id>
	<title>A police force fully outside the rules</title>
	<author>rolfwind</author>
	<datestamp>1262608980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And bounds of the Constitution?</p><p>Is this the hope and change you wanted?  Imagine the reaction if Bush did this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And bounds of the Constitution ? Is this the hope and change you wanted ?
Imagine the reaction if Bush did this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And bounds of the Constitution?Is this the hope and change you wanted?
Imagine the reaction if Bush did this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648828</id>
	<title>This is smart.</title>
	<author>CrAlt</author>
	<datestamp>1262611200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So your in government and you want your office to keep certain records and info free from FOIA. You also want to keep tabs on the "other team" but on the DL...</p><p>What do you do?</p><p>1) Give all your records to an outside organization.<br>2) Grant that organization immunity from FOIA.<br>3) And for an added bonus make this organization immune from search and seizure laws..<br>4) ???<br>5) Profit!</p><p>Now they can do all your digging for you with out the hassles of warrants or probable cause..  and anything they find is untouchable..</p><p>It really is a brilliant idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So your in government and you want your office to keep certain records and info free from FOIA .
You also want to keep tabs on the " other team " but on the DL...What do you do ? 1 ) Give all your records to an outside organization.2 ) Grant that organization immunity from FOIA.3 ) And for an added bonus make this organization immune from search and seizure laws..4 ) ? ?
? 5 ) Profit ! Now they can do all your digging for you with out the hassles of warrants or probable cause.. and anything they find is untouchable..It really is a brilliant idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So your in government and you want your office to keep certain records and info free from FOIA.
You also want to keep tabs on the "other team" but on the DL...What do you do?1) Give all your records to an outside organization.2) Grant that organization immunity from FOIA.3) And for an added bonus make this organization immune from search and seizure laws..4) ??
?5) Profit!Now they can do all your digging for you with out the hassles of warrants or probable cause..  and anything they find is untouchable..It really is a brilliant idea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648882</id>
	<title>Re:Right-wing propaganda</title>
	<author>Attack DAWWG</author>
	<datestamp>1262611380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It contains no information, only the Obama-bashing expected from your American right-wingers and unsupported hypotheses.</p></div></blockquote><p>Which makes it perfect for Slashdot.</p><p>(I'm an American, by the way. Just not a right-winger.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It contains no information , only the Obama-bashing expected from your American right-wingers and unsupported hypotheses.Which makes it perfect for Slashdot .
( I 'm an American , by the way .
Just not a right-winger .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It contains no information, only the Obama-bashing expected from your American right-wingers and unsupported hypotheses.Which makes it perfect for Slashdot.
(I'm an American, by the way.
Just not a right-winger.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30662844</id>
	<title>Re:Right-wing propaganda</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262695920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"That changed in 2004, when Interpol opened a liaison office at the United Nations in New York City."</p><p>The United Nations does not sit on US soil.  The land that the UN occupies is international land.  If the Interpol office is indeed on the property allotted to the UN then Interpol still has no office in the US.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" That changed in 2004 , when Interpol opened a liaison office at the United Nations in New York City .
" The United Nations does not sit on US soil .
The land that the UN occupies is international land .
If the Interpol office is indeed on the property allotted to the UN then Interpol still has no office in the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"That changed in 2004, when Interpol opened a liaison office at the United Nations in New York City.
"The United Nations does not sit on US soil.
The land that the UN occupies is international land.
If the Interpol office is indeed on the property allotted to the UN then Interpol still has no office in the US.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30654890</id>
	<title>Re:Right-wing propaganda</title>
	<author>Antique Geekmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1262707260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agents or not, they should not be trusted more than any other police department, because they can and do make profound mistakes. Take a good look at what happened to anon.penet.fi, the anonymous remailer, described at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penet\_remailer" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penet\_remailer</a> [wikipedia.org]. Interpol cooperated in serving what was a fundamentally fraudulent warrant. Told that an anonymous remailer was used to "steal files from Scientology", the warrant demanded the real contact information of all anonymous users of the service. The manager of the site managed to talk the off-duty police serving the warrant into accepting a single specific name, but it caused the manager of the site to give up what had been a wonderfully helpful and effective service for people discussing emotional problems, medical problems, whistleblowing, or just trying to date online.</p><p>And of course, nothing happened to Interpol for cooperating with such a stupid request, nor did they ever file charges for the alleged "theft".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agents or not , they should not be trusted more than any other police department , because they can and do make profound mistakes .
Take a good look at what happened to anon.penet.fi , the anonymous remailer , described at http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penet \ _remailer [ wikipedia.org ] .
Interpol cooperated in serving what was a fundamentally fraudulent warrant .
Told that an anonymous remailer was used to " steal files from Scientology " , the warrant demanded the real contact information of all anonymous users of the service .
The manager of the site managed to talk the off-duty police serving the warrant into accepting a single specific name , but it caused the manager of the site to give up what had been a wonderfully helpful and effective service for people discussing emotional problems , medical problems , whistleblowing , or just trying to date online.And of course , nothing happened to Interpol for cooperating with such a stupid request , nor did they ever file charges for the alleged " theft " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agents or not, they should not be trusted more than any other police department, because they can and do make profound mistakes.
Take a good look at what happened to anon.penet.fi, the anonymous remailer, described at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penet\_remailer [wikipedia.org].
Interpol cooperated in serving what was a fundamentally fraudulent warrant.
Told that an anonymous remailer was used to "steal files from Scientology", the warrant demanded the real contact information of all anonymous users of the service.
The manager of the site managed to talk the off-duty police serving the warrant into accepting a single specific name, but it caused the manager of the site to give up what had been a wonderfully helpful and effective service for people discussing emotional problems, medical problems, whistleblowing, or just trying to date online.And of course, nothing happened to Interpol for cooperating with such a stupid request, nor did they ever file charges for the alleged "theft".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648318</id>
	<title>I wouuld say Unconstitutional</title>
	<author>badass fish</author>
	<datestamp>1262608980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If in the conduct of their business does that mean they can ignore habeaus corpus or bill of rights in regard to suspects?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If in the conduct of their business does that mean they can ignore habeaus corpus or bill of rights in regard to suspects ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If in the conduct of their business does that mean they can ignore habeaus corpus or bill of rights in regard to suspects?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30653034</id>
	<title>Re:How is this different</title>
	<author>JasterBobaMereel</author>
	<datestamp>1262690040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are no agents<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... they do not have the right, authority or power to tap phones in any country including the USA, they cannot conduct searches legal or illegal</p><p>In fact the only thing they can do is hand over the results of illegal wiretaps searches etc conducted in one country to the cops of another<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....they could do this before but now they can do this and not be searched at airports, or in the offices they do not have (their desks in the DOJ cannot be searches now?)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p><p>The evidence still has to be justified and an illegal search is still an illegal search and so will still be stuck out as evidence in a US (or almost any other countries) court<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p><p>If fact you are much more likely to be convicted thanks to wiretap or search evidence conducted in a dubious manor done by US agents in the US than any evidence supplied by Interpol</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are no agents .... they do not have the right , authority or power to tap phones in any country including the USA , they can not conduct searches legal or illegalIn fact the only thing they can do is hand over the results of illegal wiretaps searches etc conducted in one country to the cops of another ....they could do this before but now they can do this and not be searched at airports , or in the offices they do not have ( their desks in the DOJ can not be searches now ?
) ....The evidence still has to be justified and an illegal search is still an illegal search and so will still be stuck out as evidence in a US ( or almost any other countries ) court ....If fact you are much more likely to be convicted thanks to wiretap or search evidence conducted in a dubious manor done by US agents in the US than any evidence supplied by Interpol</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are no agents .... they do not have the right, authority or power to tap phones in any country including the USA, they cannot conduct searches legal or illegalIn fact the only thing they can do is hand over the results of illegal wiretaps searches etc conducted in one country to the cops of another ....they could do this before but now they can do this and not be searched at airports, or in the offices they do not have (their desks in the DOJ cannot be searches now?
) ....The evidence still has to be justified and an illegal search is still an illegal search and so will still be stuck out as evidence in a US (or almost any other countries) court ....If fact you are much more likely to be convicted thanks to wiretap or search evidence conducted in a dubious manor done by US agents in the US than any evidence supplied by Interpol</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649366</id>
	<title>Teabagger Bullshit</title>
	<author>Doc Ruby</author>
	<datestamp>1262613600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA:</p><blockquote><div><p>I'm told INTERPOL didn't have a permanent office in the US until 2004, which is why it wasn't until this month afforded the same full privileges given, say, the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission by President Kennedy in 1962.<br>[...]<br>So what does the counterterrorism official from the Bush years think of this?</p><p>He can't believe it's taken this long.</p></div></blockquote><p>Interpol now has the kinds of diplomatic immunity that are an extension of its previous immunities, which allow it to do its work properly in the US. Like counterterrorism and against drug (and human) smuggling. The kinds of things teabaggers usually want, even though this teabagger is attacking the immunity because it was signed by Obama.</p><p>But for 8 solid nightmare years, while George Bush Jr ran the country and the world as his private police state, complete with torturing fake confessions for fake evidence to start a very real war he only faked an interest in winning, these teabaggers couldn't get enough of it.</p><p>These teabaggers are completely insane with bullshit. They're schizophrenic: living in their own bizarre, contradictory, hellish fantasy worlds. There's enough actually wrong with the country, and with Obama, to actually get riled up about without these teabaggers and their global apocalypse bullshit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : I 'm told INTERPOL did n't have a permanent office in the US until 2004 , which is why it was n't until this month afforded the same full privileges given , say , the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission by President Kennedy in 1962. [ .. .
] So what does the counterterrorism official from the Bush years think of this ? He ca n't believe it 's taken this long.Interpol now has the kinds of diplomatic immunity that are an extension of its previous immunities , which allow it to do its work properly in the US .
Like counterterrorism and against drug ( and human ) smuggling .
The kinds of things teabaggers usually want , even though this teabagger is attacking the immunity because it was signed by Obama.But for 8 solid nightmare years , while George Bush Jr ran the country and the world as his private police state , complete with torturing fake confessions for fake evidence to start a very real war he only faked an interest in winning , these teabaggers could n't get enough of it.These teabaggers are completely insane with bullshit .
They 're schizophrenic : living in their own bizarre , contradictory , hellish fantasy worlds .
There 's enough actually wrong with the country , and with Obama , to actually get riled up about without these teabaggers and their global apocalypse bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA:I'm told INTERPOL didn't have a permanent office in the US until 2004, which is why it wasn't until this month afforded the same full privileges given, say, the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission by President Kennedy in 1962.[...
]So what does the counterterrorism official from the Bush years think of this?He can't believe it's taken this long.Interpol now has the kinds of diplomatic immunity that are an extension of its previous immunities, which allow it to do its work properly in the US.
Like counterterrorism and against drug (and human) smuggling.
The kinds of things teabaggers usually want, even though this teabagger is attacking the immunity because it was signed by Obama.But for 8 solid nightmare years, while George Bush Jr ran the country and the world as his private police state, complete with torturing fake confessions for fake evidence to start a very real war he only faked an interest in winning, these teabaggers couldn't get enough of it.These teabaggers are completely insane with bullshit.
They're schizophrenic: living in their own bizarre, contradictory, hellish fantasy worlds.
There's enough actually wrong with the country, and with Obama, to actually get riled up about without these teabaggers and their global apocalypse bullshit.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648788</id>
	<title>How is this different</title>
	<author>overshoot</author>
	<datestamp>1262611080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... from domestic cops, who can pretty much do anything they like without serious fear of prosecution?<p>

In theory, it makes for a handy way around Constitutional protections: the Interpol cops can tap phones, conduct illegal searches, etc. and then hand over the results to US authorities who can use it (if not admit it at trial.)  However, in practice the Bush and Obama administrations haven't bothered with warrants for wiretaps, searches, etc. anyway.</p><p>

Domestic cops can get away with crap like shooting an unarmed and unresisting "suspect" dead (on video camera!) and still avoid prosecution, so it's not like diplomatic immunity matters all that much either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... from domestic cops , who can pretty much do anything they like without serious fear of prosecution ?
In theory , it makes for a handy way around Constitutional protections : the Interpol cops can tap phones , conduct illegal searches , etc .
and then hand over the results to US authorities who can use it ( if not admit it at trial .
) However , in practice the Bush and Obama administrations have n't bothered with warrants for wiretaps , searches , etc .
anyway . Domestic cops can get away with crap like shooting an unarmed and unresisting " suspect " dead ( on video camera !
) and still avoid prosecution , so it 's not like diplomatic immunity matters all that much either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... from domestic cops, who can pretty much do anything they like without serious fear of prosecution?
In theory, it makes for a handy way around Constitutional protections: the Interpol cops can tap phones, conduct illegal searches, etc.
and then hand over the results to US authorities who can use it (if not admit it at trial.
)  However, in practice the Bush and Obama administrations haven't bothered with warrants for wiretaps, searches, etc.
anyway.

Domestic cops can get away with crap like shooting an unarmed and unresisting "suspect" dead (on video camera!
) and still avoid prosecution, so it's not like diplomatic immunity matters all that much either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648556</id>
	<title>Re:Change I can believe in</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262610000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you shitting me?  Are you really so ignorant of 1) what Interpol is, and 2) what Obama signed that you're actually believing Alex Jones now?</p><p>Obama granted Interpol the same diplomatic status as the International Pacific Halibut Commission.  Interpol has no agents; they investigate no crimes and bring no charges.  They're an information sharing/clearinghouse staffed by international bureaucrats, and nothing else.</p><p>Now, go change your underwear, and quit listening to Glenn Beck, and to your coworker who repeats everything he says.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you shitting me ?
Are you really so ignorant of 1 ) what Interpol is , and 2 ) what Obama signed that you 're actually believing Alex Jones now ? Obama granted Interpol the same diplomatic status as the International Pacific Halibut Commission .
Interpol has no agents ; they investigate no crimes and bring no charges .
They 're an information sharing/clearinghouse staffed by international bureaucrats , and nothing else.Now , go change your underwear , and quit listening to Glenn Beck , and to your coworker who repeats everything he says .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you shitting me?
Are you really so ignorant of 1) what Interpol is, and 2) what Obama signed that you're actually believing Alex Jones now?Obama granted Interpol the same diplomatic status as the International Pacific Halibut Commission.
Interpol has no agents; they investigate no crimes and bring no charges.
They're an information sharing/clearinghouse staffed by international bureaucrats, and nothing else.Now, go change your underwear, and quit listening to Glenn Beck, and to your coworker who repeats everything he says.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648916</id>
	<title>Re:How is this different</title>
	<author>J053</author>
	<datestamp>1262611500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you not read either the FA or any of the previous comments? INTERPOL is not a police force - they do not make arrests, conduct searches, or perform any other police functions. They act as a clearinghouse and co-ordinating body for various national and local police forces - that's it. And besides, they have not been granted "diplomatic immunity".</p><p>It's obvious the right-wingnuts have found something else to get all frothed about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you not read either the FA or any of the previous comments ?
INTERPOL is not a police force - they do not make arrests , conduct searches , or perform any other police functions .
They act as a clearinghouse and co-ordinating body for various national and local police forces - that 's it .
And besides , they have not been granted " diplomatic immunity " .It 's obvious the right-wingnuts have found something else to get all frothed about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you not read either the FA or any of the previous comments?
INTERPOL is not a police force - they do not make arrests, conduct searches, or perform any other police functions.
They act as a clearinghouse and co-ordinating body for various national and local police forces - that's it.
And besides, they have not been granted "diplomatic immunity".It's obvious the right-wingnuts have found something else to get all frothed about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648952</id>
	<title>Another EO to watch as well</title>
	<author>ProfM</author>
	<datestamp>1262611680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information" title="whitehouse.gov" rel="nofollow">http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information</a> [whitehouse.gov]</p><p>This EO allows various people to classify or reclassify documents.</p><p>But most specifically, Section 1.7(d) states:</p><blockquote><div><p>(d)  Information that has not previously been disclosed to the public under proper authority may be classified or reclassified after an agency has received a request for it under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), the Presidential Records Act, 44 U.S.C. 2204(c)(1), the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a)</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information [ whitehouse.gov ] This EO allows various people to classify or reclassify documents.But most specifically , Section 1.7 ( d ) states : ( d ) Information that has not previously been disclosed to the public under proper authority may be classified or reclassified after an agency has received a request for it under the Freedom of Information Act ( 5 U.S.C .
552 ) , the Presidential Records Act , 44 U.S.C .
2204 ( c ) ( 1 ) , the Privacy Act of 1974 ( 5 U.S.C .
552a )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information [whitehouse.gov]This EO allows various people to classify or reclassify documents.But most specifically, Section 1.7(d) states:(d)  Information that has not previously been disclosed to the public under proper authority may be classified or reclassified after an agency has received a request for it under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C.
552), the Presidential Records Act, 44 U.S.C.
2204(c)(1), the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C.
552a)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648508</id>
	<title>More Importantly...</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1262609820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I didn't RTFA because I am on my way out the door, but does anyone know whether or not INTERPOL has to respect our Constitution while operating here? As in, no unlawful searches and seizures, no requirement to house troops (would an international police agency qualify as troops?), protection against self-incrimination, etc. What about Miranda Rights, does INTERPOL know about them? Anyone?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't RTFA because I am on my way out the door , but does anyone know whether or not INTERPOL has to respect our Constitution while operating here ?
As in , no unlawful searches and seizures , no requirement to house troops ( would an international police agency qualify as troops ?
) , protection against self-incrimination , etc .
What about Miranda Rights , does INTERPOL know about them ?
Anyone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't RTFA because I am on my way out the door, but does anyone know whether or not INTERPOL has to respect our Constitution while operating here?
As in, no unlawful searches and seizures, no requirement to house troops (would an international police agency qualify as troops?
), protection against self-incrimination, etc.
What about Miranda Rights, does INTERPOL know about them?
Anyone?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30650198</id>
	<title>There are no "Interpol agents"</title>
	<author>Nicolas MONNET</author>
	<datestamp>1262618580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Goddamnit. They have no power. They're an information center.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Goddamnit .
They have no power .
They 're an information center .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Goddamnit.
They have no power.
They're an information center.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648780</id>
	<title>After Lethal Weapon 2, Diplomatic Immunity ....</title>
	<author>cpu\_fusion</author>
	<datestamp>1262611020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After Lethal Weapon 2, the words "Diplomatic Immunity" will always sound a certain way when I read them in my mind's eye.</p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiXNUaSjXRY" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiXNUaSjXRY</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After Lethal Weapon 2 , the words " Diplomatic Immunity " will always sound a certain way when I read them in my mind 's eye.http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = SiXNUaSjXRY [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After Lethal Weapon 2, the words "Diplomatic Immunity" will always sound a certain way when I read them in my mind's eye.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiXNUaSjXRY [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648476</id>
	<title>Very common for US troops in foreign soil</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262609700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In countries like Paraguay, Argentina and others in South America, this is pretty standard. Now (since very few years) with left governments immunity is being revoked.<br>From 2005 in Paraguay:</p><p>"the U.S. troops in Paraguay could not be taken before the International Criminal Court if they were accused of crimes against humanity, genocide or war crimes. "</p><p>In Argentina, joint naval exercises like Unitas are cancelled because our government don't want to give immunity to US army.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In countries like Paraguay , Argentina and others in South America , this is pretty standard .
Now ( since very few years ) with left governments immunity is being revoked.From 2005 in Paraguay : " the U.S. troops in Paraguay could not be taken before the International Criminal Court if they were accused of crimes against humanity , genocide or war crimes .
" In Argentina , joint naval exercises like Unitas are cancelled because our government do n't want to give immunity to US army .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In countries like Paraguay, Argentina and others in South America, this is pretty standard.
Now (since very few years) with left governments immunity is being revoked.From 2005 in Paraguay:"the U.S. troops in Paraguay could not be taken before the International Criminal Court if they were accused of crimes against humanity, genocide or war crimes.
"In Argentina, joint naval exercises like Unitas are cancelled because our government don't want to give immunity to US army.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649226</id>
	<title>I CRY FOUL!</title>
	<author>Mage...</author>
	<datestamp>1262613000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, I am astonished at such a Troll-Baiting headline on Slashdot.

This executive order did not grant diplomatic immunity to INTERPOL.  What it did do was:
<ul> <li>Allow their records to be protected from search and seizure, unless specifically allowed by the President. Section 2(c)</li>
<li>They don't have to pay customs duties or import taxes on their belongings. Section 3</li>
<li>They don't have to pay income taxes, for either their employees, or their investments. Section 4</li>
<li>They don't have to pay Social Security taxes. Section 5</li>
<li>They don't have to pay property taxes. Section 6</li>
</ul><p>

As for FOIA, they were never bound by the FOIA, since they are not a part of the US Government.  If you tried to sue them and use discovery to gain access to their records, that was not possible since they were already covered by Section 2(b), which protects them from judicial processes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , I am astonished at such a Troll-Baiting headline on Slashdot .
This executive order did not grant diplomatic immunity to INTERPOL .
What it did do was : Allow their records to be protected from search and seizure , unless specifically allowed by the President .
Section 2 ( c ) They do n't have to pay customs duties or import taxes on their belongings .
Section 3 They do n't have to pay income taxes , for either their employees , or their investments .
Section 4 They do n't have to pay Social Security taxes .
Section 5 They do n't have to pay property taxes .
Section 6 As for FOIA , they were never bound by the FOIA , since they are not a part of the US Government .
If you tried to sue them and use discovery to gain access to their records , that was not possible since they were already covered by Section 2 ( b ) , which protects them from judicial processes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, I am astonished at such a Troll-Baiting headline on Slashdot.
This executive order did not grant diplomatic immunity to INTERPOL.
What it did do was:
 Allow their records to be protected from search and seizure, unless specifically allowed by the President.
Section 2(c)
They don't have to pay customs duties or import taxes on their belongings.
Section 3
They don't have to pay income taxes, for either their employees, or their investments.
Section 4
They don't have to pay Social Security taxes.
Section 5
They don't have to pay property taxes.
Section 6


As for FOIA, they were never bound by the FOIA, since they are not a part of the US Government.
If you tried to sue them and use discovery to gain access to their records, that was not possible since they were already covered by Section 2(b), which protects them from judicial processes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649026</id>
	<title>Re:Classic slashdot summary</title>
	<author>ShakaUVM</author>
	<datestamp>1262611980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;How fucking classic is it that the submitter linked the words "granted INTERPOL full diplomatic immunity" to an article that explicitly states in caps and everything that this is NOT a granting of diplomatic immunity?</p><p>Because the Slashdot editors mangled my entry. There was no link to the ABC News article in what I submitted, but I did have a link to the story on unpaid UN parking tickets.</p><p>What really irks me is that this actually is a granting of full diplomatic immunity. If you go through the list of all the possible options for diplomatic immunity (it comes in different kinds), INTERPOL now has them all. So, yeah, I called it full diplomatic immunity.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic\_immunity#Diplomatic\_immunity\_in\_the\_United\_States" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic\_immunity#Diplomatic\_immunity\_in\_the\_United\_States</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>&gt;&gt;what it didn't do is grant diplomatic immunity, and what it did do is grant a limited amount of immunity mostly related to taxes and document seizure</p><p>It did grant full diplomatic immunity. They had partial immunity before.</p><p>&gt;&gt;INTERPOL to do their work without participating nations worrying that the U.S. will spy on them by reading these organization's records.</p><p>Yes, heaven forfend we have transparency in our law enforcement agencies.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:p</p><p>&gt;&gt;but that's a hell of a lot less than diplomatic immunity and not as hard to revoke</p><p>It's full diplomatic immunity.</p><p>&gt;&gt;I'm not sure how I feel about it, but I do know the summary was classic bullshit.</p><p>If you weren't wrong, I'd agree with you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; How fucking classic is it that the submitter linked the words " granted INTERPOL full diplomatic immunity " to an article that explicitly states in caps and everything that this is NOT a granting of diplomatic immunity ? Because the Slashdot editors mangled my entry .
There was no link to the ABC News article in what I submitted , but I did have a link to the story on unpaid UN parking tickets.What really irks me is that this actually is a granting of full diplomatic immunity .
If you go through the list of all the possible options for diplomatic immunity ( it comes in different kinds ) , INTERPOL now has them all .
So , yeah , I called it full diplomatic immunity.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic \ _immunity # Diplomatic \ _immunity \ _in \ _the \ _United \ _States [ wikipedia.org ] &gt; &gt; what it did n't do is grant diplomatic immunity , and what it did do is grant a limited amount of immunity mostly related to taxes and document seizureIt did grant full diplomatic immunity .
They had partial immunity before. &gt; &gt; INTERPOL to do their work without participating nations worrying that the U.S. will spy on them by reading these organization 's records.Yes , heaven forfend we have transparency in our law enforcement agencies .
: p &gt; &gt; but that 's a hell of a lot less than diplomatic immunity and not as hard to revokeIt 's full diplomatic immunity. &gt; &gt; I 'm not sure how I feel about it , but I do know the summary was classic bullshit.If you were n't wrong , I 'd agree with you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;How fucking classic is it that the submitter linked the words "granted INTERPOL full diplomatic immunity" to an article that explicitly states in caps and everything that this is NOT a granting of diplomatic immunity?Because the Slashdot editors mangled my entry.
There was no link to the ABC News article in what I submitted, but I did have a link to the story on unpaid UN parking tickets.What really irks me is that this actually is a granting of full diplomatic immunity.
If you go through the list of all the possible options for diplomatic immunity (it comes in different kinds), INTERPOL now has them all.
So, yeah, I called it full diplomatic immunity.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic\_immunity#Diplomatic\_immunity\_in\_the\_United\_States [wikipedia.org]&gt;&gt;what it didn't do is grant diplomatic immunity, and what it did do is grant a limited amount of immunity mostly related to taxes and document seizureIt did grant full diplomatic immunity.
They had partial immunity before.&gt;&gt;INTERPOL to do their work without participating nations worrying that the U.S. will spy on them by reading these organization's records.Yes, heaven forfend we have transparency in our law enforcement agencies.
:p&gt;&gt;but that's a hell of a lot less than diplomatic immunity and not as hard to revokeIt's full diplomatic immunity.&gt;&gt;I'm not sure how I feel about it, but I do know the summary was classic bullshit.If you weren't wrong, I'd agree with you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648336</id>
	<title>Re:How's this different from embassies?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262609040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Read the article.<br>INTERPOL has not been given diplomatic immunity.<br>They've been granted a very limited immunity from certain taxes and from records seizure.<br>They are not, as the original submitter suggests but the article refutes, immune from "most any crimes they may commit".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Read the article.INTERPOL has not been given diplomatic immunity.They 've been granted a very limited immunity from certain taxes and from records seizure.They are not , as the original submitter suggests but the article refutes , immune from " most any crimes they may commit " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read the article.INTERPOL has not been given diplomatic immunity.They've been granted a very limited immunity from certain taxes and from records seizure.They are not, as the original submitter suggests but the article refutes, immune from "most any crimes they may commit".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30650210</id>
	<title>Re:Clever</title>
	<author>tygt</author>
	<datestamp>1262618700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Both countries...</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
I understand the "our country" probably referring to the USA. What is the other country in the "both countries" that you're referring to? You <i>are</i> aware, I hope, that INTERPOL is an organization comprised of 188 nations... including the USA?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Both countries.. . I understand the " our country " probably referring to the USA .
What is the other country in the " both countries " that you 're referring to ?
You are aware , I hope , that INTERPOL is an organization comprised of 188 nations... including the USA ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both countries...

I understand the "our country" probably referring to the USA.
What is the other country in the "both countries" that you're referring to?
You are aware, I hope, that INTERPOL is an organization comprised of 188 nations... including the USA?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648990</id>
	<title>Re:Clever</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262611800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>welcome to the real obama.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>welcome to the real obama .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>welcome to the real obama.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648812</id>
	<title>Re:Diplomatic immunity</title>
	<author>jjohnson</author>
	<datestamp>1262611140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, diplomatic immunity doesn't mean that, but that's beside the point, because Interpol didn't get diplomatic immunity.  They got a lesser form of administrative consideration that puts them on the same footing as the International Pacific Halibut Commission (among others).</p><p>But beyond that, you ignorant twit, Interpol has no agents, they don't investigate crimes, and they certainly don't kidnap people.  They co-ordinate information sharing between police agencies--that's it.  They're staffed by international bureaucrats, and all they do is push paper around all day, between committee meetings.</p><p>If you learn not to wet your pants so much, your laundry bills will be lower.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , diplomatic immunity does n't mean that , but that 's beside the point , because Interpol did n't get diplomatic immunity .
They got a lesser form of administrative consideration that puts them on the same footing as the International Pacific Halibut Commission ( among others ) .But beyond that , you ignorant twit , Interpol has no agents , they do n't investigate crimes , and they certainly do n't kidnap people .
They co-ordinate information sharing between police agencies--that 's it .
They 're staffed by international bureaucrats , and all they do is push paper around all day , between committee meetings.If you learn not to wet your pants so much , your laundry bills will be lower .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, diplomatic immunity doesn't mean that, but that's beside the point, because Interpol didn't get diplomatic immunity.
They got a lesser form of administrative consideration that puts them on the same footing as the International Pacific Halibut Commission (among others).But beyond that, you ignorant twit, Interpol has no agents, they don't investigate crimes, and they certainly don't kidnap people.
They co-ordinate information sharing between police agencies--that's it.
They're staffed by international bureaucrats, and all they do is push paper around all day, between committee meetings.If you learn not to wet your pants so much, your laundry bills will be lower.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649002</id>
	<title>Re:Clever</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262611860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is what makes this an absolutely terrifying development. No government/police agency should have that much power on their own soil.. and they definitely shouldn't have it on foreign soil.<br>Think about it... some poor sap running a bittorrent client on his broadband connection downloading the latest greatest version of ubuntu or debian.. but some Interpol guy gets it in his craw that he's a major pirate because he participates in a TOR, and something nasty uses his TOR node for it's outbound connection.  So.. Interpol shows up at this guy's door in the U.S. kidnaps him, takes him out of the country and then lord only knows what... and he &amp; his family have *ZERO* recourse for the actions?</p><p>Not to mention as you mentioned.. the sharing of information/intelligence = US. spying second-handedly on it's citizenry because there are no curbs on what is allowed.. since it's all being "volunteered" by some other friendly party.. (who hasn't commited a crime.. even though if a U.S. government agency did the same they would have.)</p><p>It's a terrifying prospect, and I certainly hope there is an enormous public outcry over this!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is what makes this an absolutely terrifying development .
No government/police agency should have that much power on their own soil.. and they definitely should n't have it on foreign soil.Think about it... some poor sap running a bittorrent client on his broadband connection downloading the latest greatest version of ubuntu or debian.. but some Interpol guy gets it in his craw that he 's a major pirate because he participates in a TOR , and something nasty uses his TOR node for it 's outbound connection .
So.. Interpol shows up at this guy 's door in the U.S. kidnaps him , takes him out of the country and then lord only knows what... and he &amp; his family have * ZERO * recourse for the actions ? Not to mention as you mentioned.. the sharing of information/intelligence = US .
spying second-handedly on it 's citizenry because there are no curbs on what is allowed.. since it 's all being " volunteered " by some other friendly party.. ( who has n't commited a crime.. even though if a U.S. government agency did the same they would have .
) It 's a terrifying prospect , and I certainly hope there is an enormous public outcry over this !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is what makes this an absolutely terrifying development.
No government/police agency should have that much power on their own soil.. and they definitely shouldn't have it on foreign soil.Think about it... some poor sap running a bittorrent client on his broadband connection downloading the latest greatest version of ubuntu or debian.. but some Interpol guy gets it in his craw that he's a major pirate because he participates in a TOR, and something nasty uses his TOR node for it's outbound connection.
So.. Interpol shows up at this guy's door in the U.S. kidnaps him, takes him out of the country and then lord only knows what... and he &amp; his family have *ZERO* recourse for the actions?Not to mention as you mentioned.. the sharing of information/intelligence = US.
spying second-handedly on it's citizenry because there are no curbs on what is allowed.. since it's all being "volunteered" by some other friendly party.. (who hasn't commited a crime.. even though if a U.S. government agency did the same they would have.
)It's a terrifying prospect, and I certainly hope there is an enormous public outcry over this!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648770</id>
	<title>Re:Classic slashdot summary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262611020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe cause every time we hear it won't happen, won't pass, and won't hurt people, yet suddenly  it magically manages to destroy people, get sneaked through, and does pass. Where headlines have basically become a war for your mind. When people bite, the US govt tightens the screws.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe cause every time we hear it wo n't happen , wo n't pass , and wo n't hurt people , yet suddenly it magically manages to destroy people , get sneaked through , and does pass .
Where headlines have basically become a war for your mind .
When people bite , the US govt tightens the screws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe cause every time we hear it won't happen, won't pass, and won't hurt people, yet suddenly  it magically manages to destroy people, get sneaked through, and does pass.
Where headlines have basically become a war for your mind.
When people bite, the US govt tightens the screws.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648312</id>
	<title>Don't be silly.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262608980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Come on, you're telling me that INTERPOL now has the same protection as the "International Pacific Halibut Commission and Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission".</p><p>Yeapsireee, gotta watch out for those rouge Halbut operatives.  Goodness me.</p><p>More seriously, remember INTERPOL actually has very little power - they're a coordination agency.  They have no powers of arrest.  They don't even DO investigations.  What they DO is if a cop in Australia is tracking down a criminal who's fled to Los Angeles and therefore needs the LAPD assistance, INTERPOL is the agency that makes that inter-police-force connection happen.  There are no "INTERPOL" officers in L.A. that do the arrest - that's for the LAPD (or FBI).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on , you 're telling me that INTERPOL now has the same protection as the " International Pacific Halibut Commission and Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission " .Yeapsireee , got ta watch out for those rouge Halbut operatives .
Goodness me.More seriously , remember INTERPOL actually has very little power - they 're a coordination agency .
They have no powers of arrest .
They do n't even DO investigations .
What they DO is if a cop in Australia is tracking down a criminal who 's fled to Los Angeles and therefore needs the LAPD assistance , INTERPOL is the agency that makes that inter-police-force connection happen .
There are no " INTERPOL " officers in L.A. that do the arrest - that 's for the LAPD ( or FBI ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come on, you're telling me that INTERPOL now has the same protection as the "International Pacific Halibut Commission and Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission".Yeapsireee, gotta watch out for those rouge Halbut operatives.
Goodness me.More seriously, remember INTERPOL actually has very little power - they're a coordination agency.
They have no powers of arrest.
They don't even DO investigations.
What they DO is if a cop in Australia is tracking down a criminal who's fled to Los Angeles and therefore needs the LAPD assistance, INTERPOL is the agency that makes that inter-police-force connection happen.
There are no "INTERPOL" officers in L.A. that do the arrest - that's for the LAPD (or FBI).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30654460</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1262705400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I was mistaken regarding the mission of INTERPOL. However, it is only because the INTERPOL constitution specifically prohibits "undertak(ing) any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character (...)" that this is a non-issue. The act does grant judicial immunity to people carrying out their "job" under this act.  <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1497072&amp;cid=30649000" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1497072&amp;cid=30649000</a> [slashdot.org]  </i></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was mistaken regarding the mission of INTERPOL .
However , it is only because the INTERPOL constitution specifically prohibits " undertak ( ing ) any intervention or activities of a political , military , religious or racial character ( ... ) " that this is a non-issue .
The act does grant judicial immunity to people carrying out their " job " under this act .
http : //slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1497072&amp;cid = 30649000 [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was mistaken regarding the mission of INTERPOL.
However, it is only because the INTERPOL constitution specifically prohibits "undertak(ing) any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character (...)" that this is a non-issue.
The act does grant judicial immunity to people carrying out their "job" under this act.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1497072&amp;cid=30649000 [slashdot.org]  </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648316</id>
	<title>Thank you Obama</title>
	<author>retech</author>
	<datestamp>1262608980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are, officially, an asshole.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are , officially , an asshole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are, officially, an asshole.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649972</id>
	<title>Re:How's this different from embassies?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262617320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>as far as I know they're a great organization that go after drug busts and murderers</p></div><p>One of those is nothing like the other.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>as far as I know they 're a great organization that go after drug busts and murderersOne of those is nothing like the other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as far as I know they're a great organization that go after drug busts and murderersOne of those is nothing like the other.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648628</id>
	<title>Classic slashdot summary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262610300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How fucking classic is it that the submitter linked the words "granted INTERPOL full diplomatic immunity" to an article that explicitly states in caps and everything that this is NOT a granting of diplomatic immunity?</p><p>According to the article titled "Just What Did President Obama's Executive Order regarding INTERPOL Do?", what it didn't do is grant diplomatic immunity, and what it did do is grant a limited amount of immunity mostly related to taxes and document seizure.  The idea seems to be to to allow international organizations like Red Cross, IAEA, IMF, and now INTERPOL to do their work without participating nations worrying that the U.S. will spy on them by reading these organization's records.</p><p>Now I'm not sure I like granting a police force <i>any</i> more immunity of any kind, but that's a hell of a lot less than diplomatic immunity and not as hard to revoke.  Maybe other countries were getting concerned about the U.S.'s nosiness and this will enhance international cooperation.  I'm not sure how I feel about it, but I do know the summary was classic bullshit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How fucking classic is it that the submitter linked the words " granted INTERPOL full diplomatic immunity " to an article that explicitly states in caps and everything that this is NOT a granting of diplomatic immunity ? According to the article titled " Just What Did President Obama 's Executive Order regarding INTERPOL Do ?
" , what it did n't do is grant diplomatic immunity , and what it did do is grant a limited amount of immunity mostly related to taxes and document seizure .
The idea seems to be to to allow international organizations like Red Cross , IAEA , IMF , and now INTERPOL to do their work without participating nations worrying that the U.S. will spy on them by reading these organization 's records.Now I 'm not sure I like granting a police force any more immunity of any kind , but that 's a hell of a lot less than diplomatic immunity and not as hard to revoke .
Maybe other countries were getting concerned about the U.S. 's nosiness and this will enhance international cooperation .
I 'm not sure how I feel about it , but I do know the summary was classic bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How fucking classic is it that the submitter linked the words "granted INTERPOL full diplomatic immunity" to an article that explicitly states in caps and everything that this is NOT a granting of diplomatic immunity?According to the article titled "Just What Did President Obama's Executive Order regarding INTERPOL Do?
", what it didn't do is grant diplomatic immunity, and what it did do is grant a limited amount of immunity mostly related to taxes and document seizure.
The idea seems to be to to allow international organizations like Red Cross, IAEA, IMF, and now INTERPOL to do their work without participating nations worrying that the U.S. will spy on them by reading these organization's records.Now I'm not sure I like granting a police force any more immunity of any kind, but that's a hell of a lot less than diplomatic immunity and not as hard to revoke.
Maybe other countries were getting concerned about the U.S.'s nosiness and this will enhance international cooperation.
I'm not sure how I feel about it, but I do know the summary was classic bullshit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648490</id>
	<title>Hold the Phone, or even better Read the Article</title>
	<author>starseeker</author>
	<datestamp>1262609760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here are the sections that were addressed by the order, according to the linked article:</p><p>
&nbsp; Section 2(c), which provided officials immunity from their property and assets being searched and confiscated; including their archives;<br>
&nbsp; the portions of Section 2(d) and Section 3 relating to customs duties and federal internal-revenue importation taxes;<br>
&nbsp; Section 4, dealing with federal taxes;<br>
&nbsp; Section 5, dealing with Social Security; and<br>
&nbsp; Section 6, dealing with property taxes.</p><p>Whether or not they have criminal immunity (don't know offhand), there doesn't seem to be ANYTHING in the above executive order addressing such matters.  Might have FOIA implications, but doesn't seem to have anything to do with punishment of crimes committed by agents.  Summary is wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here are the sections that were addressed by the order , according to the linked article :   Section 2 ( c ) , which provided officials immunity from their property and assets being searched and confiscated ; including their archives ;   the portions of Section 2 ( d ) and Section 3 relating to customs duties and federal internal-revenue importation taxes ;   Section 4 , dealing with federal taxes ;   Section 5 , dealing with Social Security ; and   Section 6 , dealing with property taxes.Whether or not they have criminal immunity ( do n't know offhand ) , there does n't seem to be ANYTHING in the above executive order addressing such matters .
Might have FOIA implications , but does n't seem to have anything to do with punishment of crimes committed by agents .
Summary is wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here are the sections that were addressed by the order, according to the linked article:
  Section 2(c), which provided officials immunity from their property and assets being searched and confiscated; including their archives;
  the portions of Section 2(d) and Section 3 relating to customs duties and federal internal-revenue importation taxes;
  Section 4, dealing with federal taxes;
  Section 5, dealing with Social Security; and
  Section 6, dealing with property taxes.Whether or not they have criminal immunity (don't know offhand), there doesn't seem to be ANYTHING in the above executive order addressing such matters.
Might have FOIA implications, but doesn't seem to have anything to do with punishment of crimes committed by agents.
Summary is wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30653046</id>
	<title>Re:This is smart.</title>
	<author>JasterBobaMereel</author>
	<datestamp>1262690220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To prosecute they have to get the info back from Interpol<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... at which point you can get it with a FOIA<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... unless the agency declares it not in the public interest to do so<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To prosecute they have to get the info back from Interpol ... at which point you can get it with a FOIA .... unless the agency declares it not in the public interest to do so ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To prosecute they have to get the info back from Interpol ... at which point you can get it with a FOIA .... unless the agency declares it not in the public interest to do so ....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30650912</id>
	<title>Re:Don't be silly.</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1262623860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hear the gooseberries are doing well this year, and so are the mangos.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hear the gooseberries are doing well this year , and so are the mangos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hear the gooseberries are doing well this year, and so are the mangos.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30650042</id>
	<title>Re:Right-wing propaganda</title>
	<author>cli\_rules!</author>
	<datestamp>1262617680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You <b>Republicans</b> are crazy.</p></div><p>This will be modded troll, but fixed anyways.
</p><p>
My father's AM radio (dial only turns to the right) has been giving off fumes all day long. </p><p> Sigh.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You Republicans are crazy.This will be modded troll , but fixed anyways .
My father 's AM radio ( dial only turns to the right ) has been giving off fumes all day long .
Sigh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You Republicans are crazy.This will be modded troll, but fixed anyways.
My father's AM radio (dial only turns to the right) has been giving off fumes all day long.
Sigh.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649884</id>
	<title>Re:How's this different from embassies?</title>
	<author>shaitand</author>
	<datestamp>1262616720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes diplomats have immunity but they aren't police officers and don't work for a police organization. In fact, most lower level diplomats don't have immunity either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes diplomats have immunity but they are n't police officers and do n't work for a police organization .
In fact , most lower level diplomats do n't have immunity either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes diplomats have immunity but they aren't police officers and don't work for a police organization.
In fact, most lower level diplomats don't have immunity either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648776</id>
	<title>Re:Diplomatic immunity</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1262611020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would mean that, if that's actually what happened.  I suggest reading the article misleadingly linked as "granted INTERPOL full diplomatic immunity", since it will inform you that this is definitely NOT what happened.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would mean that , if that 's actually what happened .
I suggest reading the article misleadingly linked as " granted INTERPOL full diplomatic immunity " , since it will inform you that this is definitely NOT what happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would mean that, if that's actually what happened.
I suggest reading the article misleadingly linked as "granted INTERPOL full diplomatic immunity", since it will inform you that this is definitely NOT what happened.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649194</id>
	<title>so, dippy right wing morons punk slashdot again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262612820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>how surprising.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>how surprising .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how surprising.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648344</id>
	<title>Insanity</title>
	<author>Tisha\_AH</author>
	<datestamp>1262609100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is sheer insanity. So we grant a foreign agency extra-legal protections to operate within our borders. There must be some sort of protections for American citizens to prevent us from being subject to tyranny. We put limitations (with damned good reasons) on our own law enforcement agencies but we turn around and grant Interpol (not even responsible to any one particular government) near unlimited authority within our country.</p><p>The long espoused fears of a world government (something that has been claimed as a threat by right-wingers) suddenly looms much larger in the rear-view mirror.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is sheer insanity .
So we grant a foreign agency extra-legal protections to operate within our borders .
There must be some sort of protections for American citizens to prevent us from being subject to tyranny .
We put limitations ( with damned good reasons ) on our own law enforcement agencies but we turn around and grant Interpol ( not even responsible to any one particular government ) near unlimited authority within our country.The long espoused fears of a world government ( something that has been claimed as a threat by right-wingers ) suddenly looms much larger in the rear-view mirror .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is sheer insanity.
So we grant a foreign agency extra-legal protections to operate within our borders.
There must be some sort of protections for American citizens to prevent us from being subject to tyranny.
We put limitations (with damned good reasons) on our own law enforcement agencies but we turn around and grant Interpol (not even responsible to any one particular government) near unlimited authority within our country.The long espoused fears of a world government (something that has been claimed as a threat by right-wingers) suddenly looms much larger in the rear-view mirror.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649558</id>
	<title>Re:How's this different from embassies?</title>
	<author>canajin56</author>
	<datestamp>1262614560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The same thing that stops the International Red Cross from doing the same, of course.  The fact that it's absurd!  They do have the exact same immunities, by the way, and have for decades.  What stops the Red Cross from doing this, is the immunity is only insofar as they are performing their official duties as members of a public organization.  Arresting people isn't in the official duties of a Red Cross employee, and it's only in the official duties of an INTERPOL clerk if play "Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego", and if you're gauging their powers off of that, INTERPOL also has a fucking time machine.  Did I say clerk, not "agent"?  That's right, they're not agents, their only job is to facilitate communication between national police and investigatory forces.  They forward warrants and notes on investigations.  If somebody robs a bank in Germany and escapes, they forward information about him to all the countries he's likely to have fled to.  So, the FBI gets a mug shot and some other info in the mail.  Well, the INTERPOL staffer hands it to somebody at the DoJ, and that somebody hands it to the FBI.  They can't investigate, and they can't arrest.  And Regan gave them immunity from arrest and civil suit.  Obama just extended that to the right to use Diplomatic Pouches, just like the Red Cross has.  Why does the Red Cross need immunity from search?  I dunno, ask them!  But I can see why INTERPOL does.  When you're at the airport, and that dour security guard wants to search your briefcase and read your notes, do you know he works for?  A private security firm.  That's a potential security breech, right there.  Do you want him having a glance at the FBI's classified files on potential Al Quida cells in France?  The FBI doesn't either, so they can't possibly use INTERPOL to forward that info around, they'll have to go through diplomatic channels, which can be slow.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The same thing that stops the International Red Cross from doing the same , of course .
The fact that it 's absurd !
They do have the exact same immunities , by the way , and have for decades .
What stops the Red Cross from doing this , is the immunity is only insofar as they are performing their official duties as members of a public organization .
Arresting people is n't in the official duties of a Red Cross employee , and it 's only in the official duties of an INTERPOL clerk if play " Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego " , and if you 're gauging their powers off of that , INTERPOL also has a fucking time machine .
Did I say clerk , not " agent " ?
That 's right , they 're not agents , their only job is to facilitate communication between national police and investigatory forces .
They forward warrants and notes on investigations .
If somebody robs a bank in Germany and escapes , they forward information about him to all the countries he 's likely to have fled to .
So , the FBI gets a mug shot and some other info in the mail .
Well , the INTERPOL staffer hands it to somebody at the DoJ , and that somebody hands it to the FBI .
They ca n't investigate , and they ca n't arrest .
And Regan gave them immunity from arrest and civil suit .
Obama just extended that to the right to use Diplomatic Pouches , just like the Red Cross has .
Why does the Red Cross need immunity from search ?
I dunno , ask them !
But I can see why INTERPOL does .
When you 're at the airport , and that dour security guard wants to search your briefcase and read your notes , do you know he works for ?
A private security firm .
That 's a potential security breech , right there .
Do you want him having a glance at the FBI 's classified files on potential Al Quida cells in France ?
The FBI does n't either , so they ca n't possibly use INTERPOL to forward that info around , they 'll have to go through diplomatic channels , which can be slow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The same thing that stops the International Red Cross from doing the same, of course.
The fact that it's absurd!
They do have the exact same immunities, by the way, and have for decades.
What stops the Red Cross from doing this, is the immunity is only insofar as they are performing their official duties as members of a public organization.
Arresting people isn't in the official duties of a Red Cross employee, and it's only in the official duties of an INTERPOL clerk if play "Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego", and if you're gauging their powers off of that, INTERPOL also has a fucking time machine.
Did I say clerk, not "agent"?
That's right, they're not agents, their only job is to facilitate communication between national police and investigatory forces.
They forward warrants and notes on investigations.
If somebody robs a bank in Germany and escapes, they forward information about him to all the countries he's likely to have fled to.
So, the FBI gets a mug shot and some other info in the mail.
Well, the INTERPOL staffer hands it to somebody at the DoJ, and that somebody hands it to the FBI.
They can't investigate, and they can't arrest.
And Regan gave them immunity from arrest and civil suit.
Obama just extended that to the right to use Diplomatic Pouches, just like the Red Cross has.
Why does the Red Cross need immunity from search?
I dunno, ask them!
But I can see why INTERPOL does.
When you're at the airport, and that dour security guard wants to search your briefcase and read your notes, do you know he works for?
A private security firm.
That's a potential security breech, right there.
Do you want him having a glance at the FBI's classified files on potential Al Quida cells in France?
The FBI doesn't either, so they can't possibly use INTERPOL to forward that info around, they'll have to go through diplomatic channels, which can be slow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649680</id>
	<title>Re:How's this different from embassies?</title>
	<author>canajin56</author>
	<datestamp>1262615400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's different from embassies because diplomats have diplomatic immunity, and despite the lies in the summary, TFA notes that INTERPOL was not granted diplomatic immunity.  In particular, a diplomat is immune from prosecution while in the USA.  An INTERPOL staffer is immune from civil suit insofar as his/her actions were performed as an official duty.  Meaning, if in his official capacity, he wrongs you, you can't sue him.  If, in his official capacity, he commits a crime, he can't be arrested.  But all INTERPOL staffers in the USA work IN the DoJ building.  IN IT.  There categorically is nothing they could do in an official capacity that is illegal, because ALL they do is forward warrants and other useful bit of information between the police and investigatory agencies of the 188 countries that are INTERPOL members.  So, their immunity from civil suit really just means, that if they pass on bad info to the FBI, who arrests you and tazes you, you can't sue INTERPOL, I guess.  Not that you'd really have much of a case if you could?  But if that same staffer calls you stupid and smelly on national television, go right ahead and sue him all you want.  Unlike a diplomat, he's only immune as part of his official duties.  Anything that's not his job, is fair game.  Oh yeah, one final thing?  Regan gave them their so-called "diplomatic immunity".  Obama just removed a couple of the exceptions Regan tacked on, the only "worrisome" one is that they're now immune to search and seizure, just like the Red Cross and the Pacific Halibut Committee.  And unlike those two, they actually do have a potentially legitimate reason for wanting to use diplomatic pouches to send sensitive information to their branches in other countries.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's different from embassies because diplomats have diplomatic immunity , and despite the lies in the summary , TFA notes that INTERPOL was not granted diplomatic immunity .
In particular , a diplomat is immune from prosecution while in the USA .
An INTERPOL staffer is immune from civil suit insofar as his/her actions were performed as an official duty .
Meaning , if in his official capacity , he wrongs you , you ca n't sue him .
If , in his official capacity , he commits a crime , he ca n't be arrested .
But all INTERPOL staffers in the USA work IN the DoJ building .
IN IT .
There categorically is nothing they could do in an official capacity that is illegal , because ALL they do is forward warrants and other useful bit of information between the police and investigatory agencies of the 188 countries that are INTERPOL members .
So , their immunity from civil suit really just means , that if they pass on bad info to the FBI , who arrests you and tazes you , you ca n't sue INTERPOL , I guess .
Not that you 'd really have much of a case if you could ?
But if that same staffer calls you stupid and smelly on national television , go right ahead and sue him all you want .
Unlike a diplomat , he 's only immune as part of his official duties .
Anything that 's not his job , is fair game .
Oh yeah , one final thing ?
Regan gave them their so-called " diplomatic immunity " .
Obama just removed a couple of the exceptions Regan tacked on , the only " worrisome " one is that they 're now immune to search and seizure , just like the Red Cross and the Pacific Halibut Committee .
And unlike those two , they actually do have a potentially legitimate reason for wanting to use diplomatic pouches to send sensitive information to their branches in other countries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's different from embassies because diplomats have diplomatic immunity, and despite the lies in the summary, TFA notes that INTERPOL was not granted diplomatic immunity.
In particular, a diplomat is immune from prosecution while in the USA.
An INTERPOL staffer is immune from civil suit insofar as his/her actions were performed as an official duty.
Meaning, if in his official capacity, he wrongs you, you can't sue him.
If, in his official capacity, he commits a crime, he can't be arrested.
But all INTERPOL staffers in the USA work IN the DoJ building.
IN IT.
There categorically is nothing they could do in an official capacity that is illegal, because ALL they do is forward warrants and other useful bit of information between the police and investigatory agencies of the 188 countries that are INTERPOL members.
So, their immunity from civil suit really just means, that if they pass on bad info to the FBI, who arrests you and tazes you, you can't sue INTERPOL, I guess.
Not that you'd really have much of a case if you could?
But if that same staffer calls you stupid and smelly on national television, go right ahead and sue him all you want.
Unlike a diplomat, he's only immune as part of his official duties.
Anything that's not his job, is fair game.
Oh yeah, one final thing?
Regan gave them their so-called "diplomatic immunity".
Obama just removed a couple of the exceptions Regan tacked on, the only "worrisome" one is that they're now immune to search and seizure, just like the Red Cross and the Pacific Halibut Committee.
And unlike those two, they actually do have a potentially legitimate reason for wanting to use diplomatic pouches to send sensitive information to their branches in other countries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30650524</id>
	<title>Re:Should have RTFA</title>
	<author>Jeeeb</author>
	<datestamp>1262620860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>If an agent of INTERPOL is "just doing his job" then he can do whatever he wants. Fortunately for us INTERPOL is very limited in what it can do.

INTERPOL's constitution is very clear as Article 3 states: It is strictly forbidden for the Organization to undertake any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character. <a href="http://www.interpol.int/public/icpo/legalmaterials/constitution/constitutiongenreg/constitution.asp" title="interpol.int">http://www.interpol.int/public/icpo/legalmaterials/constitution/constitutiongenreg/constitution.asp</a> [interpol.int] [interpol.int]</i> <br> <br>

Interpol doesn't even have agents or conduct investigations. Which makes any uproar even more silly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If an agent of INTERPOL is " just doing his job " then he can do whatever he wants .
Fortunately for us INTERPOL is very limited in what it can do .
INTERPOL 's constitution is very clear as Article 3 states : It is strictly forbidden for the Organization to undertake any intervention or activities of a political , military , religious or racial character .
http : //www.interpol.int/public/icpo/legalmaterials/constitution/constitutiongenreg/constitution.asp [ interpol.int ] [ interpol.int ] Interpol does n't even have agents or conduct investigations .
Which makes any uproar even more silly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If an agent of INTERPOL is "just doing his job" then he can do whatever he wants.
Fortunately for us INTERPOL is very limited in what it can do.
INTERPOL's constitution is very clear as Article 3 states: It is strictly forbidden for the Organization to undertake any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character.
http://www.interpol.int/public/icpo/legalmaterials/constitution/constitutiongenreg/constitution.asp [interpol.int] [interpol.int]  

Interpol doesn't even have agents or conduct investigations.
Which makes any uproar even more silly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648358</id>
	<title>Smarter than taking off our shoes and underwear.</title>
	<author>LostCluster</author>
	<datestamp>1262609100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Think about this in context. We just had a near-disaster of a plane exploding in Detroit and US airport screening is worthless to block this threat because the attacker boarded elsewhere. So, the response is to give INTERPOL agents here more power, and most likely the hope is that our INTERPOL guys elsewhere get the same powers so they can do their job there are we don't have to worry about who's being flown in here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Think about this in context .
We just had a near-disaster of a plane exploding in Detroit and US airport screening is worthless to block this threat because the attacker boarded elsewhere .
So , the response is to give INTERPOL agents here more power , and most likely the hope is that our INTERPOL guys elsewhere get the same powers so they can do their job there are we do n't have to worry about who 's being flown in here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think about this in context.
We just had a near-disaster of a plane exploding in Detroit and US airport screening is worthless to block this threat because the attacker boarded elsewhere.
So, the response is to give INTERPOL agents here more power, and most likely the hope is that our INTERPOL guys elsewhere get the same powers so they can do their job there are we don't have to worry about who's being flown in here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30653798</id>
	<title>al qaeda travels freely</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1262700600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so we need a global police force. this is obviously superior to one country being the world's police force, right? so interpol in the usa, and everywhere else, obviously makes sense</p><p>however, you have american nationalist retards who believe its some sort of horrible insult to sovereignty. its not, morons, its just common sense in a complicated world. so get your heads out of your asses, its not a secret plot to destroy the usa. get your paranoid schizophrenia treated and take more medication please</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so we need a global police force .
this is obviously superior to one country being the world 's police force , right ?
so interpol in the usa , and everywhere else , obviously makes sensehowever , you have american nationalist retards who believe its some sort of horrible insult to sovereignty .
its not , morons , its just common sense in a complicated world .
so get your heads out of your asses , its not a secret plot to destroy the usa .
get your paranoid schizophrenia treated and take more medication please</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so we need a global police force.
this is obviously superior to one country being the world's police force, right?
so interpol in the usa, and everywhere else, obviously makes sensehowever, you have american nationalist retards who believe its some sort of horrible insult to sovereignty.
its not, morons, its just common sense in a complicated world.
so get your heads out of your asses, its not a secret plot to destroy the usa.
get your paranoid schizophrenia treated and take more medication please</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30655352</id>
	<title>Re:Misleading title</title>
	<author>mshannon78660</author>
	<datestamp>1262709420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did you read the law you linked to?  Section 8(c):<blockquote><div><p>(c) No person shall, by reason of the provisions of this title, be considered as receiving diplomatic status or as receiving any of the privileges incident thereto other than such as are specifically set forth herein.</p></div></blockquote><p>Seems like that pretty explicity states that this is not diplomatic immunity.  Also, there is nothing in that law that says anything about immunity to local prosecution - which is the main thing that most people think of when they hear 'diplomatic immunity'.  This act only grants immunity from suits or civil actions "relating to acts performed by them in their official capacity and falling within their functions as such representatives, officers, or employees".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you read the law you linked to ?
Section 8 ( c ) : ( c ) No person shall , by reason of the provisions of this title , be considered as receiving diplomatic status or as receiving any of the privileges incident thereto other than such as are specifically set forth herein.Seems like that pretty explicity states that this is not diplomatic immunity .
Also , there is nothing in that law that says anything about immunity to local prosecution - which is the main thing that most people think of when they hear 'diplomatic immunity' .
This act only grants immunity from suits or civil actions " relating to acts performed by them in their official capacity and falling within their functions as such representatives , officers , or employees " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you read the law you linked to?
Section 8(c):(c) No person shall, by reason of the provisions of this title, be considered as receiving diplomatic status or as receiving any of the privileges incident thereto other than such as are specifically set forth herein.Seems like that pretty explicity states that this is not diplomatic immunity.
Also, there is nothing in that law that says anything about immunity to local prosecution - which is the main thing that most people think of when they hear 'diplomatic immunity'.
This act only grants immunity from suits or civil actions "relating to acts performed by them in their official capacity and falling within their functions as such representatives, officers, or employees".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648292</id>
	<title>Clever</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262608860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They spy on us with impunity and share the intelligence with our government. In return our government does the same for them.
<br> <br>
Both countries get to perform full-scale spying on their own citizens without violating any laws or causing an uproar.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They spy on us with impunity and share the intelligence with our government .
In return our government does the same for them .
Both countries get to perform full-scale spying on their own citizens without violating any laws or causing an uproar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They spy on us with impunity and share the intelligence with our government.
In return our government does the same for them.
Both countries get to perform full-scale spying on their own citizens without violating any laws or causing an uproar.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649214</id>
	<title>Re:Change I can believe in</title>
	<author>digitalchinky</author>
	<datestamp>1262612880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have no idea who Alex Jones or Glen Beck are, but an international information sharing entity that is exempt from prying eyes through immunity. Think about it.</p><p>Have you ever known someone in politics to do anything unconditionally or altruistically? I can't say that I have.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have no idea who Alex Jones or Glen Beck are , but an international information sharing entity that is exempt from prying eyes through immunity .
Think about it.Have you ever known someone in politics to do anything unconditionally or altruistically ?
I ca n't say that I have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have no idea who Alex Jones or Glen Beck are, but an international information sharing entity that is exempt from prying eyes through immunity.
Think about it.Have you ever known someone in politics to do anything unconditionally or altruistically?
I can't say that I have.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649482</id>
	<title>Important questions</title>
	<author>Derling Whirvish</author>
	<datestamp>1262614080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What does President Obama expect Interpol to do that would require this immunity? What are they expected to do with this immunity that they could not do without it? Why make this change?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What does President Obama expect Interpol to do that would require this immunity ?
What are they expected to do with this immunity that they could not do without it ?
Why make this change ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What does President Obama expect Interpol to do that would require this immunity?
What are they expected to do with this immunity that they could not do without it?
Why make this change?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30650260</id>
	<title>Hey moron: INTERPOL IS NOT A POLICE FORCE</title>
	<author>Nicolas MONNET</author>
	<datestamp>1262619180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not an "Organization of international police officers", it's an international organization of police forces, in the same way as the Universal Postal  Union is NOT an Organization of International Postal Workers, but an <b>international organization of postal services</b>.</p><p>Do you know of any UPU post offices? Ever gotten a letter delivered to you by an UPU truck? No, you haven't, because such things are just as unreal as an Interpol police officer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not an " Organization of international police officers " , it 's an international organization of police forces , in the same way as the Universal Postal Union is NOT an Organization of International Postal Workers , but an international organization of postal services.Do you know of any UPU post offices ?
Ever gotten a letter delivered to you by an UPU truck ?
No , you have n't , because such things are just as unreal as an Interpol police officer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not an "Organization of international police officers", it's an international organization of police forces, in the same way as the Universal Postal  Union is NOT an Organization of International Postal Workers, but an international organization of postal services.Do you know of any UPU post offices?
Ever gotten a letter delivered to you by an UPU truck?
No, you haven't, because such things are just as unreal as an Interpol police officer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648282</id>
	<title>Rendition of Americans from American soil in....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262608860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>three... two...

A shame really as from the outside it looked as if at least the rule of law existed in the land of the free even if its foreign policy was to deny it to the rest of the world.</htmltext>
<tokenext>three... two.. . A shame really as from the outside it looked as if at least the rule of law existed in the land of the free even if its foreign policy was to deny it to the rest of the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>three... two...

A shame really as from the outside it looked as if at least the rule of law existed in the land of the free even if its foreign policy was to deny it to the rest of the world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649062</id>
	<title>Re:Diplomatic immunity</title>
	<author>Vairon</author>
	<datestamp>1262612100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No. The summary is wrong. Obama did not give them diplomatic immunity. The article says so quite clearly. What Obama granted their organization was an exemption from some taxes and customs fees, and that their records cannot be seized.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
The summary is wrong .
Obama did not give them diplomatic immunity .
The article says so quite clearly .
What Obama granted their organization was an exemption from some taxes and customs fees , and that their records can not be seized .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
The summary is wrong.
Obama did not give them diplomatic immunity.
The article says so quite clearly.
What Obama granted their organization was an exemption from some taxes and customs fees, and that their records cannot be seized.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648340</id>
	<title>Change I can believe in</title>
	<author>MindlessAutomata</author>
	<datestamp>1262609040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obama literally gave a certain group of people a license to kill.</p><p>Obama is f-ing twisted.  This is actually making me start to believe the Alex Jones NEW WORLD ORDER guys.  Ugh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama literally gave a certain group of people a license to kill.Obama is f-ing twisted .
This is actually making me start to believe the Alex Jones NEW WORLD ORDER guys .
Ugh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama literally gave a certain group of people a license to kill.Obama is f-ing twisted.
This is actually making me start to believe the Alex Jones NEW WORLD ORDER guys.
Ugh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30653148</id>
	<title>Re: Just like the FBI is not under local jurisdict</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1262691840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>This basically allows a law enforcement officer to carry out his duties.</i> <br> <br>Why, exactly, do they need this protection? Especially given that criminal infiltration of law enforcement is something to guard against.<br> <br> <i>It is identical to when the FBI comes to a local town to investigate, they can not be hindered or stopped by the local law enforcement.</i> <br> <br>What if they hinder otherwise interfere with the investigations of local law enforcement? What if they break the law in the course of their activities?<br> <br> <i>This is obvious and should not raise any issues.</i> <br> <br>Anyone being "above the law" comes with a whole host of issues. Even more so if they are "law enforcement".</htmltext>
<tokenext>This basically allows a law enforcement officer to carry out his duties .
Why , exactly , do they need this protection ?
Especially given that criminal infiltration of law enforcement is something to guard against .
It is identical to when the FBI comes to a local town to investigate , they can not be hindered or stopped by the local law enforcement .
What if they hinder otherwise interfere with the investigations of local law enforcement ?
What if they break the law in the course of their activities ?
This is obvious and should not raise any issues .
Anyone being " above the law " comes with a whole host of issues .
Even more so if they are " law enforcement " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This basically allows a law enforcement officer to carry out his duties.
Why, exactly, do they need this protection?
Especially given that criminal infiltration of law enforcement is something to guard against.
It is identical to when the FBI comes to a local town to investigate, they can not be hindered or stopped by the local law enforcement.
What if they hinder otherwise interfere with the investigations of local law enforcement?
What if they break the law in the course of their activities?
This is obvious and should not raise any issues.
Anyone being "above the law" comes with a whole host of issues.
Even more so if they are "law enforcement".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648994</id>
	<title>Re:Clever</title>
	<author>J053</author>
	<datestamp>1262611800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would be clever, if there were such a thing as an "INTERPOL agent" who could "spy on us with impunity and share the intelligence with our government". Of course, let's not let facts interfere with a good rant...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be clever , if there were such a thing as an " INTERPOL agent " who could " spy on us with impunity and share the intelligence with our government " .
Of course , let 's not let facts interfere with a good rant.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be clever, if there were such a thing as an "INTERPOL agent" who could "spy on us with impunity and share the intelligence with our government".
Of course, let's not let facts interfere with a good rant...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30651894</id>
	<title>One question:</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1262633940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are they hiring?</p><p>Because I bet every criminal in existence will want to &ldquo;work&rdquo; there (read: terrorize others, rape, steal and kill).</p><p>INTERPOL: The SS of the 21st century? Now global!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are they hiring ? Because I bet every criminal in existence will want to    work    there ( read : terrorize others , rape , steal and kill ) .INTERPOL : The SS of the 21st century ?
Now global !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are they hiring?Because I bet every criminal in existence will want to “work” there (read: terrorize others, rape, steal and kill).INTERPOL: The SS of the 21st century?
Now global!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648366</id>
	<title>Misleading title</title>
	<author>Gudeldar</author>
	<datestamp>1262609160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The title and summary are pretty misleading, it appears the only thing Obama did was exempt INTERPOL from certain taxes and provided them with immunity from search and seizure.

The article explicitly states that it is not the same thing as diplomatic immunity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The title and summary are pretty misleading , it appears the only thing Obama did was exempt INTERPOL from certain taxes and provided them with immunity from search and seizure .
The article explicitly states that it is not the same thing as diplomatic immunity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The title and summary are pretty misleading, it appears the only thing Obama did was exempt INTERPOL from certain taxes and provided them with immunity from search and seizure.
The article explicitly states that it is not the same thing as diplomatic immunity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30654134</id>
	<title>Krykiies</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1262703480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is really not good, when you give a governing body a full pass on your laws...all the need to do in any event is to outsource perticular aspects of a case, (like planting wiretaps without a warrant) which could be challenged in court, and<br>then accompanied by charges for breaking the law, they get to do what they need without so much as batting an eyelash.</p><p>The FBI could call them when they need something beyond their power to get, and INTERPOL could get some extra money for using their "services" this way. No one is safe anymore...thank you Obama, thank you very much!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is really not good , when you give a governing body a full pass on your laws...all the need to do in any event is to outsource perticular aspects of a case , ( like planting wiretaps without a warrant ) which could be challenged in court , andthen accompanied by charges for breaking the law , they get to do what they need without so much as batting an eyelash.The FBI could call them when they need something beyond their power to get , and INTERPOL could get some extra money for using their " services " this way .
No one is safe anymore...thank you Obama , thank you very much !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is really not good, when you give a governing body a full pass on your laws...all the need to do in any event is to outsource perticular aspects of a case, (like planting wiretaps without a warrant) which could be challenged in court, andthen accompanied by charges for breaking the law, they get to do what they need without so much as batting an eyelash.The FBI could call them when they need something beyond their power to get, and INTERPOL could get some extra money for using their "services" this way.
No one is safe anymore...thank you Obama, thank you very much!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30655060</id>
	<title>Re:How's this different from embassies?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262708100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interpol is not a law enforcement agency</p><p>It has no agents</p><p>Hence cannot make arrests etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interpol is not a law enforcement agencyIt has no agentsHence can not make arrests etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interpol is not a law enforcement agencyIt has no agentsHence cannot make arrests etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648406</id>
	<title>Print yourself an  INTERPOL ID . . . ?</title>
	<author>PolygamousRanchKid </author>
	<datestamp>1262609340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> . . . there's an app for that!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.
. .
there 's an app for that !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> .
. .
there's an app for that!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30650158</id>
	<title>Your right to paranoid delusions</title>
	<author>Nicolas MONNET</author>
	<datestamp>1262618340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is probably guaranteed by the Constitution.</p><p>It doesn't make them real, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is probably guaranteed by the Constitution.It does n't make them real , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is probably guaranteed by the Constitution.It doesn't make them real, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649990</id>
	<title>Re:Clever</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262617440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is what makes this an absolutely terrifying development.</p></div><p>It doesn't make it an absolutely terrifying development! That's their whole point! That is what's clever. It's such a careful and gradual transition that most people don't see the long term objective - elimination of public rights (by slow erosion). A development such as this is like a single raindrop in a storm: most give it no notice. And that is terrifying.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is what makes this an absolutely terrifying development.It does n't make it an absolutely terrifying development !
That 's their whole point !
That is what 's clever .
It 's such a careful and gradual transition that most people do n't see the long term objective - elimination of public rights ( by slow erosion ) .
A development such as this is like a single raindrop in a storm : most give it no notice .
And that is terrifying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is what makes this an absolutely terrifying development.It doesn't make it an absolutely terrifying development!
That's their whole point!
That is what's clever.
It's such a careful and gradual transition that most people don't see the long term objective - elimination of public rights (by slow erosion).
A development such as this is like a single raindrop in a storm: most give it no notice.
And that is terrifying.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649002</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30653670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30650198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30650524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30655060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30650260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30651152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30662844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30650042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30653046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30657438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30653148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30663466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30653034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30652552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30653038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30654416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30651886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30653806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30654890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30650210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30650158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30676152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30655352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30661164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30650912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30659014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_178247_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_178247.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648952
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_178247.36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30650210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649002
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648942
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_178247.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648318
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_178247.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649198
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_178247.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30652552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30653038
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_178247.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30650198
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_178247.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30653034
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_178247.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648350
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_178247.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30650524
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_178247.37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648314
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_178247.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649256
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_178247.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30650158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30653670
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_178247.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648290
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_178247.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648282
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_178247.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649358
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_178247.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649482
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_178247.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30653046
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_178247.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648758
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30655352
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_178247.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648986
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_178247.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30651886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648964
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_178247.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648490
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_178247.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30663466
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_178247.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648508
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_178247.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648814
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_178247.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649154
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_178247.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648216
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_178247.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30653806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648524
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30650912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648462
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_178247.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648556
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649214
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_178247.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648518
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30654890
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30654416
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30662844
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30650042
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649278
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648882
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30676152
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30659014
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30651152
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_178247.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30653148
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_178247.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30661164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30657438
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_178247.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648542
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_178247.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649146
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_178247.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648698
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_178247.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648500
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30655060
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648394
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30650260
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649972
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648628
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648770
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649026
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_178247.35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648888
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_178247.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30649588
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_178247.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_178247.30648494
</commentlist>
</conversation>
