We have been at this for 3 decades.

[Danno 1,228]

Was the answer in the Constitution the whole time?

Letters of Marque and Reprisal

by Fred E. Foldvary, Senior Editor

Many people disapprove of the U.S. war against terror, or of how it is being conducted. But what is the alternative, other than changes in U.S. foreign policy?

One alternative to U.S. military action against terrorists who have attacked the U.S. and other countries, and are threatening further attacks, is to enact Letters of Marque and Reprisal. Article I, Section 8, paragraph 11 of the U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to "grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water." A "reprisal" means an action taken in return for some injury. A reprisal could be a seizing of property or guilty persons in retaliation for an attack and injury. It could include forced used against the perpetrators for the redress of grievances. A reprisal could even involve killing a terrorist who is threatening further harm and cannot be captured.

"Marque" is related to "marching" and means crossing or marching across a border in order to do a reprisal. So a Letter of Marque and Reprisal would authorize a private person, not in the U.S. armed forces, to conduct reprisal operations outside the borders of the U.S.A.

Such Letters are grantable not just by the U.S. Constitution, but also by international law, which is why it was able to be included in the Constitution. The Letters are grantable whenever the citizens or subjects of one country are injured by those in another country and justice is denied by the government of that country, as happened with the attack by persons who were in Afghanistan.

In October 2001, Ron Paul, U.S. representative from Texas, introduced bills H.R. 3074, Air Piracy Reprisal and Capture Act of 2001, and H.R. 3076, September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001, to authorize the U.S. State Department to issue such Letters. Private U.S. citizens would then be able to hunt down, attack and collect assets from terrorists who have or are planning to commit hostile acts against the U.S. and its citizens. (See Ron Paul's Press Release.)

The Founders of the U.S. Constitution included Marque and Reprisal in addition to authorizing Congress to declare war, so that in some cases, the U.S. government would not have to engage the military and have a costly war. The risk would then be concentrated on those who chose to engage in the reprisal. This empowers private citizens to protect themselves and other Americans.

The Letters combined with high rewards for the capture of terrorists would create an incentive for Americans to conduct these operations. It would supplement U.S. government activity such as seeking out and eliminating the financial networks that terrorists use.

There has been little discussion in the mass media about Letters of Marque and Reprisal. Since these are authorized by the U.S. Constitution, introduced in a bill in Congress, and provide a possible alternative or supplement to U.S. military action, there should be more discussion and then action taken on this possibility. The terrorist threat seems to me to be a good example of the attacks that the Founders of the U.S. Constitution thought would be remedied by such Letters.

It's good that at least one member of the U.S. House of Representatives is familiar with the U.S. Constitution and has taken action to implement this dormant power against attacks on the U.S. Why have other members of Congress not joined Paul to pass his bill on Letters of Marque and Reprisal?

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Danno, are you seriously suggesting US Citizens, not trained soldiers, armed only with a desire to make money, take up the fight in Iraq and Afghanistan???? Where in the name of all that is holy do you get these ideas???

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Letters of marque were granted in the 17th century, during the age of piracy. It granted pirates the permission to rob, murder, rape and pillage, but legitimixed their activities by giving them legal immunity because they were essentially working for one of the major powers.

The only way you could bring that back in a modern context is to pay private mercenaries (e.g. Blackwater) to act carte blanche, or to turn a blind eye to the actions of extremist groups opposed to Al Qaeda.

The former I believe is already illegal, and the latter likely happens already, just without official approval - probably because it means that our politicians would be directly advocating torture and the like.

No, its not a terribly great idea...

Edited February 7, 2010 by Gene Hunt

[Danno 1,228]

Danno, are you seriously suggesting US Citizens, not trained soldiers, armed only with a desire to make money, take up the fight in Iraq and Afghanistan???? Where in the name of all that is holy do you get these ideas???

I wish I could take credit but clearly since I posted a link you can see the idea was not mine.

Not sure where you got the idea average Joe-Blow would be carrying out these operations?

YOu are aware we have private contractors doing much of this same work right now, though under a different legal status.

They are trained...... and their use would eliminate or minimize these "nation building" entanglements we get into when we use the Military.

[mRx 16]

Many people disapprove of the U.S. war against terror, or of how it is being conducted. But what is the alternative, other than changes in U.S. foreign policy?

Why not just change the foreign policy?

Terrorists don't build their foundation of support on "Western evils" like pork hot dogs, G-strings, and Lady Gaga.

[Danno 1,228]

Why not just change the foreign policy?

Terrorists don't build their foundation of support on "Western evils" like pork hot dogs, G-strings, and Lady Gaga.

Don't stop now: what changes would insulate us from being the Terrorists main world target?

[ready4ONE 5,400]

I wish I could take credit but clearly since I posted a link you can see the idea was not mine.

Not sure where you got the idea average Joe-Blow would be carrying out these operations?

YOu are aware we have private contractors doing much of this same work right now, though under a different legal status.

They are trained...... and their use would eliminate or minimize these "nation building" entanglements we get into when we use the Military.

You posted an article, no link. But whoever had the idea, it is a bad one.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

You posted an article, no link. But whoever had the idea, it is a bad one.

Is the link THAT hard to find?

http://www.progress.org/fold232.htm

[scandal 951]

"Western evils" like pork hot dogs, G-strings, and Lady Gaga.

Well, 2 of those things are pretty evil, come to think of it (pork hot dogs and Lady Gaga). G strings should be in the "naughty but nice" category

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Is the link THAT hard to find?

http://www.progress.org/fold232.htm

No but Danno didn't post the link...

[Danno 1,228]

No but Danno didn't post the link...

You are correct, I did not post a link however it did have the authors name.. and probably good english which might have tipped you off that I didn't write it.

BUt more to the point of the topic, we have gone into Iraq Afgan and now into Pakistan. We know these enemies are in a dozen other countries plotting and planning and sending out trained persons to do us harm.

There is no change in Foreign policy which would work fast enough or go far enough to stop this threat against our country and people.

Does anyone believe with 100% certainty we do not already have squads of military or civilians carrying out this work.

Why not do it in a constitutionally legal way.

Does anyone think conventional forces is anyway to fight these type of challenges?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Its not constitutionally legal, its an archaic law that has no precedent in the modern era. Its probably also against international law.

No government is going to officially rubber stamp torture or the "right kind" of terrorism. It removes the plausible deniability that allows the government to say that they don't do those things.

Fact is, the CIA does this sort of thing anyway, but it rarely gets public exposure (not surprisingly). If the government started officially endorsing everything the CIA does, how do you think that would go down with the American public?

Now if George W Bush wouldn't go that far, isn't it highly dubious that any other president would do it either? Its political suicide.

Edited February 8, 2010 by Gene Hunt