>>That's because I was searching only at the same place where I found the most recent amendment. Either whitehouse.gov is very sloppy with putting the remaining 12000 executive orders in the same table, or the labyrinthine ways one has to explore to find the full text are set up intentionally. Can't they just publish the text as it is now? I hated the practice when it was done by communists back home, then hated it even more when Milošević was doing it, and now I have to wade through the same stool again? Why can't one person put the text together (don't tell me the Cabinet doesn't have staff for that), but instead anyone of the remaining 300 million potentially interested people (plus some forei... international ones) have to piece it together on their own? That's rule by obfuscation.
>
>Would you apply the same logic to, say, making changes to a class library. 'Oh - I've made some changes to this. Here's the new version. If you want to know what the changes are then just read the entire old and new versions and work it out for yourself'.'

No - have both. In source code, if you ever used a diff application, you see both versions with differences redlined and highlighted. For legal code, that would also be nice (and I'd use the same apps :), but - to turn this around, would you like to have just diffgrams between versions of class libraries, while having to google the actual libraries yourself? Or would you like (as they had the nice habit when I was elected into the city hall) to have it like "paragraph 45(w) is changed by adding "or any other ice cream" after the words "left shoe" and now reads "the visitors are entitled to an apple, umbrela and/or left shoe or any other ice cream". I.e. both the diffgram and the current text, not the endless tapeworm of references.

Shouldn't be too hard to do - as I say, I saw it done - and would actually make the government less obscure. A little measure of deobfuscation, IMO, is always welcome.

>>>This is truly scary stuff - granting Interpol the same exemptions as those already enjoyed by, amongst others, the International Pacific Halibut Commission and The International Cotton Advisory Committee. At least they apparently had enough sense to revoke the exemption for the Coffee Study Group! :-}
>>
>>That's exactly the technique that's applied whenever something covert is done - bundle it with a few completely unrelated items, often to a humorous effect, ha, ha. Anyone who cares to read it carefully can be safely laughed away, ha, ha, nothing to see here, move on.
>
>Great logic:
>(a)This is a humourous response
>(b) The International Halibut Commission is not Interpol.
>Conclusion: This is a conspiracy to allow (non-existent) Interpol agents to gun-down innocent Americans with impunity.....

Again you made it funny, Q.E.D.

>FCS, this is Interpol - not the "Man From Uncle" . It's only a glorified criminal information clearing house. There is no operational arm.
>Anyway, given that the original executive order has been in place for 25 years isn't it a bit late to start worrying about it ?
>Or enough time for someone to come up with examples of Interpols mis-use of the rights ?

Back then, the exemptions mentioned were put in place there as not applicable to Interpol for some good reason (which we don't know today, but I guess it can be found somewhere). What is the reason to revoke them NOW, after 26 years? Interpol kept complaining and DC couldn't sleep from the noise they were making, so finally had enough and let them off the hook?