Grading PolitiFact: Newt Gingrich and Interpol

The issue:

The fact checkers:

Kevin Robillard:  writer, researcher
Greg Joyce:  editor

Analysis:

Do we need additional evidence that PolitiFact routinely disregards standards for objective reporting?  Have a look at Robillard's first two paragraphs:

Conservatives have long feared that America is losing its sovereignty to international organizations, dating back to the John Birch Society issuing warnings about "one world government" in the 1950s.

And perhaps nothing evokes this fear more than the possibility of an international police or military force with power over American citizens. A recent executive order signed by President Barack Obama dealing with the International Criminal Police Organization, or Interpol, has reignited those fears.

Robillard is not reporting.  He has presented an argument, an argumentum ad hominem (argument to the person), suggesting that his subject is motivated by fear.  It is the stuff of editorial journalism.  I checked for any conspicuous sign from PolitiFact that might, for the reader's sake, distinguish Robillard's piece from objective journalism.  I failed to find one.

Now that we are suitably primed with the expectation that Newt Gingrich will offer his statement out of fear,

let us see how PolitiFact presents the central issue:

During a Jan. 4, 2010, appearance on The O'Reilly Factor, former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich said: "The president recently signed very quietly an executive order that basically releases Interpol from all American constraints. Freedom of Information Acts don't apply. All the constraints that you as a citizen could use against an American police force, based on a recent Obama-signed executive order, give Interpol, which has relationships with Syria, with Libya, with Iran, it gives them all sorts of extralegality in the United States in a way that has never ever before been offered to Interpol. And I'm very curious as to why the president is doing this. ... What I'm told is that it could lead to a number of investigations by Interpol in the United States, potentially aimed at American officials. And the question I would raise is, why would the president of the United States give that kind of extralegal protection to an international police force?"

"So you're saying that if there was any abuse by the CIA or something like that, that Interpol now has more authority to come into the United States and investigate it?" O'Reilly asked.

"Yes," the Georgia Republican replied.
(yellow highlight added)

Robillard's presents the situation fairly .  I added the highlight to bring attention to his use of an ellipsis.  In AP style, the news reporting standard, an ellipsis represents omitted material, not a pause by the speaker.  Post-ellipsis, Gingrich responded to a question from Bill O'Reilly:  "What's the importance of giving Interpol more authority, uh, what's the importance of that?"

Revisit the deck portion of the PolitiFact story (the image above).  PolitiFact claimed that Gingrich said that Obama's executive order will allow Interpol to investigate American officials.  Yet Gingrich clearly attributed that view to others who had informed him of as much.  PolitiFact gets a "Barely True" for this particular shenanigan.

Robillard:

So Gingrich was raising the specter of an unaccountable group of foreigners coming to the United States with the approval of President Obama and arresting CIA officers or other American government officials.

Apparently it's OK for PolitiFact to engage in hyperbole without bending the "Truth-O-Meter" toward "False."  If only some of PolitiFact's targets were so lucky.  Gingrich said nothing about unaccountable foreigners or presidential approval of their actions, at least with respect to arrests.  That's Robillard feeding into his editorial "fear" theme.

Robillard continues:

The key problem with this notion is that Interpol couldn't investigate CIA or American officials, because Interpol doesn't do investigations. Although Interpol is often portrayed in movies as an international police force, solving crimes and arresting bad guys, its actual purposes are modest: It helps police organizations in different countries communicate and coordinate actions, provides databases of crime information (fingerprints, stolen artwork, names of suspected terrorists), training and other support services. It doesn't arrest anyone, and doesn't even have its own officers. Instead, police forces from around the world loan their officers to the organization.

"All investigations are done by national police," Interpol spokeswoman Rachel Billington said. "We don't have powers of arrest."

As to why Interpol could not investigate CIA or American officials using loaned officers, Robillard does not say.

Robillard:

So if this executive order doesn't surrender American authority, what does it do? It ensures Interpol is treated the same way any other international organization that operates on American soil is treated. Like diplomats, international organizations in the United States are given certain immunities and privileges. A 1983 executive order signed by President Ronald Reagan gave Interpol some of these privileges, but others were withheld because the organization didn't have an office on U.S. soil at the time. In 2004, Interpol opened an office near the United Nations in New York, and the Obama administration has just gotten around to giving it the rights most other international organizations have.

What are these rights? Most of them deal with federal and customs taxes, but one grants Interpol immunity from having its property -- including its archives -- searched or seized.
(yellow highlight added)

I highlighted the first sentence because I failed to detect where Robillard ruled out the surrendering of U.S. authority.  The U.S. surrenders at least some authority any time it grants immunity from its laws. Robillard proceeds to explain exactly that after his by-now-ironic initial sentence.

Robillard contacted Gingrich's representatives.  Gingrich spokesman Joe DeSantis pointed out that once immunity was granted, it was up to Interpol whether or not to investigate American officials.

Robillard took it on himself to reply to that:

But there's no reason to believe Interpol will suddenly reverse 87 years of precedent and begin to investigate and prosecute crimes. And for an organization based around the sharing of information, it's hard to think it will begin top-secret investigations of high-profile Americans, particularly when the current head of Interpol, Ronald Noble, is an American who served as a top official in the Treasury Department under President Bill Clinton.

Yes, Mr. Robillard, there is reason to think that Interpol will reverse precedent--perhaps even suddenly, though the mention of imminence is a red herring--and begin to investigate and prosecute crimes.  That reason is summed up in two words:  International politics. It takes a two-thirds vote of member nations for Interpol to alter its constitution.

Robillard again:

DeSantis pointed us to a National Review Online piece by Andy McCarthy. It argues that even if Interpol has no plans to investigate Americans, the "order removes the negative legal restraints that block Interpol from conducting unauthorized police activity." Even if no one thought other law enforcement organizations -- he cites the New York Police Department and the FBI -- were going to abuse their police powers, McCarthy argues, we still wouldn't remove the congressional and judicial checks that prevent them from doing so.

But, again, Interpol doesn't have police powers to abuse. It can't arrest anyone, and it doesn't conduct investigations. And even if it did, the organization's constitution bounds it to operate "within the limits of the laws existing in the different countries." The only relevant law Obama's executive order waives covers search and seizure, and that right can be reclaimed if the president deems it necessary.

"Interpol doesn't have police powers to abuse"?  That is up to Interpol.  If Interpol decides to arrest somebody and removes that person from the U.S., it's too late by then to protect that person by rescinding immunity--supposing the sitting president is so inclined.  Would Mr. Obama object if Berkeley police operating as Interpol volunteers picked up George W. Bush and sent him to Belgium for trial?  I do not know that he would.  International politics.

Robillard yet again:

Much of the teeth-gnashing likely has roots in Interpol's relationship with the International Criminal Court in the Hague ...

One can hardly think of a more objectively neutral description than "teeth-gnashing."  Robillard goes on about the International Criminal Court for a bit, but as Gingrich offered no mention of it we can drop it as irrelevant.  Interpol need not operate through the ICC, but might work as an arm of nations claiming international jurisdiction for their court systems, such as Spain and Belgium.

Robillard:

The sheer impossibility of the claims hasn't stopped them from becoming conservative talking points. After apparently originating on the blog ThreatsWatch, the claims spread to the aforementioned National Review piece, RedState.com, a column by Chuck Norris on WorldNetDaily and have been mentioned by Glenn Beck on his TV show.

The claims are impossible?  That is clearly up to Interpol when it comes to asserting police power and appointing law-enforcement agents.  Some of the claims are not only possible but spot on, such as the claim that the statutes from which Interpol is now immune serve as traditional checks on police power within the United States.

Robillard:

While (t)he (New York) Times did report on the executive order, the story debunked many of the claims being made about it. Charlie Savage, the reporter who wrote the story, wrote in a Twitter message: "Debunking hysterical conspiracy theories about Obama's Interpol executive order."

One may hope that the Times did a better job of debunking claims than does PolitiFact.  But that hope is difficult to sustain when Savage refers to Andrew McCarthy as a "commentator" without recognizing that McCarthy is a respected attorney.  Robillard seems equally oblivious to McCarthy's credibility.

These supposed debunking efforts point out that Interpol does not have its own police powers now, despite the fact that Gingrich (and McCarthy) emphasize nothing to the contrary.  Evaluating changes to the law involves anticipating the legal consequences, and a thorough anticipation of legal consequences will take into account that the scope of Interpol's future powers is not under the control of the United States.

Robillard, in conclusion:

That's exactly what Gingrich's claims are: conspiracy theories, based on wild conjecture, not reality. For fanning the flames of paranoia, Gringrich's claims earn a Pants on Fire.

Robillard, evidently, has no clue as to what is involved in evaluating changes to the law.  He conflates the identification of possible consequences with the assertion of likely consequences.  The latter might qualify as a conspiracy theory.  The former is not.  By identifying Gingrich's "Why?" question along with its foundation in legal analysis by a respected lawyer (McCarthy) as "conspiracy theories, based on wild conjecture," Robillard will earn his grade.

The grades:

Kevin Robillard:  F
Greg Joyce:  F

Until PolitiFact starts to provide some obvious admission that its stories are not to be taken as objective journalism, I will consider Robillard's type of editorializing sufficient reason to flunk PolitiFact writers and editors.  But Robillard and Joyce would have flunked this one anyway, based on their missing the point (just as Gingrich explained to PolitiFact).

Gingrich covered himself by referring the legal opinion to a third party or parties.  And resting it ultimately on Andrew McCarthy's analysis placed him in a good position.  Not that PolitiFact would notice.

Do you suppose Robillard realizes even now that McCarthy was a federal prosecutor and taught law?


April 13, 2010:  Replaced "sovereignty" with "jurisdiction" in the paragraph referring to Spanish and Belgian courts.