I’ve suddenly got an overwhelming desire to don a puffy shirt, grab my cutlass, and shout “Shiver me timbers!” as I destroy the Taliban forces. I could be wrong and I don’t have a cite but I thought we did away with letters of marque with a treaty long ago.
On the practical side of things why bother with letters of marque? It isn’t as if we’re going to cripple Afghanistan economically by plundering their booty. I suppose privateers could attack their drug trade. But such people would probably rather take over their drug trade since that is so much more profitable then privateering would be.
All in all bringing back the Privateer doesn’t seem like such a hot idea to me.
I certainly hope that Ron Paul is thrown out by his poor constituents now that he has demonstrated the intelligence of a rock and the morals of a Crip or Mafioso.
The international community agreed to outlaw that sort of thuggery over 150 years ago. If we decided to call upon a long obsolete clause in the Constitution in total disregard of the international community, we would further hinder our ability to hold together the tenuous coalition of support that we are currently striving for.
One does not demonstrate support for a claim to be pursuing lawful ends by engaging people to commit criminal acts on one’s behalf.
Issuance of letters of marque is a crime against the human race and is forbidden by internaitonal law, convention, and common decency. Piracy or countenancing piracy is just about the worst thing you can possibly do.
Rep. Paul is apparently an idiot. Hiring pirates and criminals to do your work just results in the proliferation of pirates and criminals.
As a slight aside, I had heard a rumour that a bunch of New York bankers had put a bounty on Osama bin Laden’s head of $1 billion. No doubt there is no substance to this, but I’d be interested to see if anyone else has heard of this.
Not really. Our helping the contras was the covert funding and supplying of a domestic Nicaraguan resistance movement. Issuing a letter of marque is the overt commisioning of private individuals to make war against an enemy state.
Well, assuming the nation that caught you recognized the letters and didn’t just say, “Hang him anyway.” If the Spanish had caught Sir Francis Drake or Sir Henry Morgan, the two of them would be finding it hard to breathe. Or you might end up like Captain Kidd, who probably has the most pitiful and pathetic story in the history of piracy.
First, keep in mind the Constitution supercedes treaties. If we sign a treaty that goes against the constitution, the treaty is unconstitutional. As long as the Constitution says our gov’t can grant letters of M&R then our government can do it. It would take a constitutional amendment, not a treaty, to prevent that.
Second, I don’t think Rep. Ron Paul is suggesting that we go and pay private citizens to hop in their boats and commit piracy against the Taliban/Al Queda navy. As far as I know, there is no Taliban/Al Queda fleet. A letter of M&R in the sense that Ron Paul desires is simply an official US gov’t bounty on Osama’s head. Not only do I see nothing wrong with that, but the fact that our founding fathers put that in the constitution is quite significant. I think it is a mistake NOT to issue letters of M&R on Bin Laden, et al.
As far as I know, there is already a big reward for the capture of Bin Laden. Why not make it offical with some letters of M&R? We’re not talking about letting people with peg-legs and parrots go crazy. And if any “treaty” says we can’t do it, that treaty is void.
It is not a matter of treaties, it is a matter of recognized international law. We could, theoretically, dance around the law issue by claiming that the laws are simply “agreements” among countries with the force of “treaties.” However, for a treaty to be illegal, it would have to violate the constitution. The Constitution stipulates the divisions of government that may or may not perform various actions (including the issuance of letters of marque). It does not enshrine in law the principle that the U.S. is supposed to issue letters of marque, so it is not a violation of the Constitution to refrain from issuing such documents. U. S. Constitution On the Paris Declaration
To the specific point, however: as has been noted, we are attempting to build a coalition of diverse (and not always friendly) countries for the purpose of opposing terrorism on the grounds that it is lawless. If we then break from the ranks of the international community and issue such letters, violating the commonly accepted view of their illegality, we will be handing our opponents a huge propaganda victory as they point to our lawlessness. Countries that currently offer lukewarm support will feel free to withdraw support entirely. Countries whose citizenship is sharply divided between those who support and those who oppose the U.S. will find it difficult to continue support in the face of calls that the U.S. is a lawless country.
It is a no-win situation for the U.S. to begin issuing letters of marque or reprisal.
The FBI’s reward is for information “leading to the capture of” (Bush’s rhetoric notwithstanding). The understanding is that once the information has been provided, legal means will be used to apprehend him. (I would never rule out the possibility that the U.S. might choose to kidnap him or engage in other illegal activities to seize him, but the reward, as offered, does not imply that illegal means must be used. Hiring private agents to carry out the seizure would be illegal from the outset.)
This is quite different than saying, “We will authorize you to plunder any citizens of a specific country, allowing you to keep the proceeds of any capture you make, provided only that you sell the plunder on an internationally recognized market” (when said markets no longer exist). Note that while the U.S. has begun freezing (and perhaps seizing) assets of suspected terrorists, it has not encouraged any of the corporations or citizens hurt in the WTC attack to seize that property on their own (which would require a Letter of Reprisal).
Letters/Commissions of Marque/Reprisal were initially documents issued to private citizens who (felt they) had been wronged by citizens of another country to authorize them to go recover their loss from the actual perpetrator when, in the absence of international courts, and at a time countries routinely refused to hear torts brought by foreign nationals, the aggrieved citizen of the first country had no other hope of recovery.
Later, countries began issuing those documents as a way to extend their navies by authorizing the plunder of other nations’ merchant marine.
At no time have Letters of Marque been (legitimately) used to authorize private citizens to simply wage war. (That is the role of mercenaries–a practice which the U.S. has routinely condemned when not funding their use in Nicaragua.)
So, even if we were to authorize a Letter of Reprisal to, say, Ross Perot, the most that he could do would be to engage in air piracy or truck hijacking of Afghan-owned planes or trucks (there being no Afghan navy or merchant marine) in order to sell the seized goods for a fair market price. Such commissions do not authorize any further action.
We’re going to violate international agreements to do that?
All this is purely academic so long as the challenge of locating bin Laden and defeating his bodyguard remains so monumental. Modern military logistics are required for such an operation to have any chance of success. What private entities anywhere have that kind of capability?
Of course if the right-wing militias wanted to parachute into Afghanistan I wouldn’t stop them.
We can’t plunder their booty cause they don’t have any booty. We can’t bomb them back to the stone age cause they’re already in the stone age. What should we do?
