Posted on 01/22/2008 11:41:45 AM PST by BGHater
It has been over 6 years since the atrocities of September 11 were committed and there are still some very basic measures that need to be taken to bring the perpetrators to justice and make America safer. I have proposed legislation to help with these efforts and will continue to fight in Congress for the safety and security of the American people.
My legislation entitled The Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007 (HR 3216) makes the surgical strike option available to the President in our mission to capture Bin Laden. Our military has been pursuing him without result for far too long now, and it is high time ALL constitutional tools were utilized in the hunt for this dangerous madman. As an American it sickens me to know that Bin Laden and top leaders of al Qaeda remain at large and thumbing their noses at us, while we unravel the sacred fabric of our constitution out of fear. It is Osama Bin Laden and the perpetrators of terrorist attacks that ought to be afraid of us, not the other way around. The answers are found in the Constitution. We should boldly root out the perpetrators and not let them get away with their crimes against us. As the home of the brave we should use Letters of Marque and Reprisal to bring Bin Laden to justice.
Also, we need to take serious steps to prevent terrorists from gaining easy access to targets on our soil. Quite alarmingly, even with the knowledge that the 19 terrorist hijackers entered our country legally, and that 15 of them were from Saudi Arabia , student visas from terrorist sponsoring countries are still far too easily obtained. In a baffling move President Bush struck a deal with Saudi King Abdullah in 2005 to allow 21,000 more Saudi young men into the US on student Visas. Of course, not all students from terror sponsoring countries are terrorists, but I place a higher premium on the security of the American people than the convenience of citizens of hostile countries. We should not be making the goals of would-be terrorists easier to accomplish, but rather should be vigilant about defending against enemies at every turn. They should not be slipping through our doors so easily, using our immigration laws against us, and that is why I proposed the Terror Immigration Elimination Act (HR 3217) to toughen standards for VISAS from countries on the State Department's list of terrorist sponsoring countries in addition to Saudi Arabia . Just as you decide who to invite to a dinner party in your home, we should be in charge of who we allow in this country, without apology.
A lot has been done to fight the War on Terror and much of it has been misdirected, but there are some tools still needed and more progress to be made. My bills The Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007 and The Terror Immigration Elimination Act are logical steps in the right direction.
Sounds like a DNC talking point.
This is BS to cover his a$$ for the stupid answer he gave in that debate. We know what he really thinks and that is it was our fault they hit us.
What a load of crap
Ron Paul wants to wait for the terrorists to build up and come over here first. Insane is he!
Letters of marque and reprisal have not carried legal force for 150 years.
They have no relevance, and have nothing to do with any "surgical strike" capability as far as the President is concerned.
The two phenomena are completely unrelated.
And the President has already put in place measures that are vastly superior to letters of marque and reprisal, even if letters of marque and reprisal were still valid.
Aye...
But “The Farce” is strong within him...
Some day it will have to happen, but no one has the guts to do it today.
DECLARE WAR ON ISLAM.
They’ve already declared war on us, since their inception.
You have three choices, as far as they are concerned:
Conversion, Subjugation (Dhimmitude), DIE.
Time to take the threat seriously.
Great, Ron.....how many countries are we going to invade to find one man in a Constitutional “Reprisal”?
What mercenaries shall we grant a Letter of Marquis in order to carry out these multiple invasions?
Seeing as Ron Paul doesn’t seem to know it’s later than 1780, I’m not surprised he would suggest this.
Hear! Hear!
How long is Afghanistan's coastline? Waziristan's?
Instead we resort to trillions of dollars of _borrowed_ money to wage conventional warfare against asymetrical leadship structures. This hasn't gotten him.
Perhaps being a Republican or Democrat isn't as important as being a Constitutional American. As for me and my household, we defend the US Constitution aginast all enemies, foreign and domestic. Hence this post...
This statement demonstrates that you do not know what letters of marque and reprisal were (the operative word being "were" since they can no longer exist).
I guess RP knows just where these guys are!
I believe that if we knew where they were, there’d be a Special Op set in motion to kill them on the QT.
Bottom line, Letters of Marque work only if all parties agree to them. Without such agreement, privateering is simply called piracy. No one has recognized Letters of Marque in one hundred and fifty years.
Second, Paul opposes putting the military or national guard on the border as he claims it is outside their Constitutional role (and voted against using them on the border at least five times, several times after 9/11.) It is easy for him to say that now because it is popular, but he can’t run from his record on this.
This is exactly why we're in so much trouble.
Long live the Constitutional Republic, in spite of those who know not what it is...
Yes, but sometimes I wonder if Paul has considering he ignores subsection 10 of Article 8 which does allow for military action or any other action without the need for a declaration of war in subsection 11 that he often cites.
RP has some good points and is right about a few things,but what would really help him,,,not being freakin nuts! His ideas seem good for a few things but not for the USA in todays world.
If only George W. Nixon were as determined to win the war on terror as Americans who support the war are.
Hear, hear!
When the Constitution was written in 1787, the European powers and Britain recognized - as a matter of international law - that governments could depute private citizens to act on behalf of a government during hostilities.
Specifically, letters of marque and reprisal allowed private citizens to attack and seize vessels of a hostile nation.
If a third party tried to intervene, the holders of the letters could present them to the third party and say: "despite the fact that we are not wearing uniforms or displaying an ensign, we are still acting as agents of the letter-issuing government and to interfere with our attack on or seizure of this vessel will constitute an act of war against the government who issued these letters."
Basically, it was a method of multiplying your navy very cheaply: you did not have to pay the holders of the letters - they were entitled to keep whatever they could confiscate. So you basically got a good amount of volunteer sailors and, more importantly, volunteer ships without having to pay a penny up front.
However, these privateers did not always follow the laws of war, they were prone to prey upon the shipping of innocent third party nations if they couldn't find any enemy ships, and they basically began to cause more trouble than they were worth. Any half-cocked privateer could cause an international incident that might widen the scope of a war.
So, by the 1850s the European powers and Britain decided to no longer honor letters of marque and reprisal. Today, no country on earth recognizes or honors letters of marque and reprisal.
They are a relic of the past.
Why letters of marque and reprisal as a proposed solution to Al-Qaeda are a stupid idea:
(1) Letters of marque and reprisal do not exist any more. No country, including our own, would ever recognize another country's letters of marque and reprisal as having any validity. If the US Congress were to issue them today pursuant to the constitutional provision, they would be a useless collector's item, since they would afford the holder no legal protection of any kind.
(2) Letters of marque and reprisal, when they still worked, only worked on the sea. No nation ever recognized any alleged right of any foreigner, no matter what papers they carried, to set foot on their sovereign territory in pursuit of a target. Ever.
Osama Bin Laden is not currently imagined to be roaming around at sea.
(3) Letters of marque and reprisal were never, despite your erroneous claim in your post, contracts. No one was ever paid or offered money to take letters of marque and reprisal - they were licenses to steal cargo, not contracts for payment.
Most holders of such letters wound up losing substantial sums of money - but every once in a while one privateer would be lucky enough to seize a valuable cargo, hence ensuring their continued popularity.
Right now there is a $50MM bounty on Bin Laden's head. Given the choice between a letter of marque and reprisal - which guaranteed no reward of any kind and offered absolutely no legally enforceable protection of any kind - and a guaranteed prize of $50MM, no sane bounty hunter in 2008 would choose the former.
(4) The basic point of letters of marque and reprisal was not for privateers to actually battle the enemy's warships, but to disrupt their trade by seizing merchant ships bearing the enemy country's flag.
Al-Qaeda's trade -such as it is - occurs on the soil of foreign nations and they are supplied by land or by wire. They are not a country and they have no national ships as a result. Letters of marque and reprisal were issued against sovereigns, not private individuals.
Al-Qaeda supporters do not transport gold bullion from one country to another by boat to finance Al-Qaeda. They use wire transfers and credit cards. Al-Qaeda does not order shipments of rifles and munitions from vendors who ship caches of ordinance by sea: they are supplied by the government of Iran and by purchases of weapons across the various land borders of central Asia, which is awash in Soviet and Chinese small arms.
THANK YOU for posting a rational and factual response.
My tagline seems even truer to me every day.
Apparently, knowledge and reason are now enemies of the US Constitution....
Letters of Marque?
So Eighteenth Century. This may have worked with La Belle Epoque European nobility, but I seriously doubt the sinister forces of Seventh Century Islamist barbarism will understand such protocols and diplomatic niceties.
This just further cements my opinion that Paul is a dangerous kook.
You mean fictional response? Paul is a nitwit...JK
As when President Jefferson sent the Navy and Marines to Tripoli Harbor to deal with the Islamic extremists called the Barbary Pirates.
Looks like we have a clan of great deceivers here:
Article I Section. 8. US Constitution
Scroll to paragraph 11 to read the truth for yourself.
1.The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
2.To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
3.To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
4.To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
5.To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
6.To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
7.To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
8.To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
9.To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
10.To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
11.To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
12.To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
13.To provide and maintain a Navy;
14.To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
15. To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
16.To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
17.To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And
18. To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Yes, this is a valid tool. Yes it covers land and sea. Yes, it’s still a part of our Constitution.
Don’t be fooled by the deceivers here.
Thank you :)
No it isn't.
A letter of marque and reprisal is called a "letter" for a reason. Why? Because it is addressed to someone: i.e. the sovereign government of anyone who reads it. The letter asks that the bearer be considered an agent of the letter issuing government.
However, no country in the entire world - including our own - recognizes such letters as having any legal force whatever.
For those in Yorba Linda, it's like showing up at a Hannah Montana concert with Beatles tickets and demanding to be let in.
A tool cannot be a valid tool if it is impossible to ever use it in any set of circumstances.
Yes it covers land and sea.
Not really. You see, back in the days of the Founding Fathers, there were vast tracts of land that were of disputed sovereignty, with various claims, none of which were definitively recognized in international law.
In theory at that time there was land which was open and sovereignless as the high seas.
In practical terms today, there is almost no truly disputed land outside of Antarctica where such provisions regarding land captures could apply.
However, even in the days of the Founding Fathers, land captures were almost completely unknown since any place worth fleeing to generally had a settled sovereign. By 1787, land captures were already a fading memory.
Yes, it’s still a part of our Constitution.
As is the part of the Constitution allocating electoral weight to the numbers of slaves in a given state. It's in there - but as slavery has since been abolished, that provision is a museum piece of no legal weight.
Like legalized slavery, legalized privateering is a thing of the past.
Don’t be fooled by the deceivers here.
You, my Paulestinian friend, are the deceiver.
Cutting and pasting is not an argument - sometimes you need to actually address the reality around you.
The Devil can quote Scripture for his own purposes - that doesn't mean the Devil's exegesis is correct.
Likewise, Ron Paul can quote the Constitution for his own purposes - but that doesn't mean is interpretation is correct.
Thomas Jefferson's early championing of privateering in 1801 led to the shame and ignominy of the United States paying tribute to a Muslim princeling.
Privateering failed, and Jefferson responded with forceful military action and triumphed.
Now Ron Paul wants to return to privateering to deal with another Muslim princeling, despite the clear lessons of history.
The mealy-mouthed advice of a lickspittle who wrings his hands over America's imagined guilt for the grievances of Islamist maniacs is worthless.
Your defense of his cravenness marks you as both deceiver and deceived.
You shouldn’t thank people who deliberately insult your intelligence.
“However, no country in the entire world - including our own - recognizes such letters as having any legal force whatever.”
True, but if they don’t recognize it, then we get to declare war.
bump 33- brillant and true answer.
Ron Paul has shown he’s a completely unqualified to hold any elected office with this statement.
Oh boy, they’re having a (con)niption fit now. Apparently they don’t like to have their deceptions exposed.
No? Gee, and I’m not even blonde :)
...It is considered a retaliatory measure short of a full declaration of war, and, by maintaining a rough proportionality, has been intended to justify the action to other nations, who might otherwise consider it an act of war or piracy. As with a domestic search, arrest, seizure, or death warrant, to be considered lawful it needs to have a certain degree of specificity to ensure that the agent does not exceed one’s authority and the intent of the issuing authority.
...Article 1 of the United States Constitution lists issuing letters of marque and reprisal in Section 8 as one of the enumerated powers of Congress, alongside the power to declare war. One question is whether the marque and reprisal clause requires the President to obtain such a letter from Congress as an authorization for limited offensive warlike operations outside the territory of the United States. The origins of this clause and the framers’ intent fit well with modern notions of irregular warfare, supporting the view that the President’s use of troops in foreign military operations, including covert paramilitary actions, is illegal absent Congress’ authorization.[1]
Some scholars, however, view this clause as contemplating action only by private contractors, and not as a limit on presidential power. For example, in 2002, Douglas Kmiec, then dean of the Columbus School of Law at the Catholic University of America, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that:
“ Letters of Marque and Reprisal are grants of authority from Congress to private citizens, not the President. Their purpose is to expressly authorize seizure and forfeiture of goods by such citizens in the context of undeclared hostilities. Without such authorization, the citizen could be treated under international law as a pirate. Occasions where one’s citizens undertake hostile activity can often entangle the larger sovereignty, and therefore, it was sensible for Congress to desire to have a regulatory check upon it. Authorizing Congress to moderate or oversee private action, however, says absolutely nothing about the President’s responsibilities under the Constitution.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque
It was still considered a valid option in 2002 as shown above. I always figured it meant Congress was declaring open season on someone, short of declaring war. And in essence, was a back up rather than disavowing all knowledge type thing if the contractor/bounty hunter/special forces team were caught. I may have that wrong though. Sort of like permission to assassinate some one. Really kind of blood thirsty if you think about it. Seems like we’ve done that before, just didn’t do it publically.
The more I listen to and read about Ron Paul, the more I realize he’s not a pacifist by any stretch of the imagination. He was deadly serious in the debate about the Iranian boats threatening the US Navy. Paraphased, no reason to be upset, the Navy could blow them out of the water :) and I expect as President he would have authorized that type action.
Your right.
Now let me see, which candidate out there is against illegals, against nafta, proLife and has served in the military?
We haven’t used this tool in a long time, time to use it now.
If Mitty can change what he said about killing innocent unborn babies... can Pual change what he said about Iraq?
SLIM PICKINS IS WHAT WE HAVE
“And in essence, was a back up rather than disavowing all knowledge type thing if the contractor/bounty hunter/special forces team were caught. I may have that wrong though. “
It would be difficult to deny with the LoM in hand. Without the LoM, the contractor would be just another pirate/terrorist.
Why would anyone seek to protect Bin Laden? Why not issue a LoM for him? What’s their (deceivers) problem? They don’t want to do everything within our power to capture Bin Laden?
Who are these people?
Let’s say you are a government agent that gets a letter from the US that says give this group free passage to find Bin Laden. Otherwise we will take it that you are against us and protecting him. We only have to act once before others take us seriously.
Speak softly and carry a big stick.
Personally, I think Bin Laden is dead and has been since Tora Bora. Also I think the President knows it or is pretty sure that it is a fact.
Yes, exactly :) Go to war with Pakistan or show them a LoM? What can they do except cooperate? Kind of cool when you think about it.
So, in other words, you anticipate the following scenario:
Freddie the bounty hunter applies to Congress for a letter of marque and reprisal.
Freddie then heads out to Afghanistan or the border area of Pakistan.
Freddie is somehow able to track down Osama Bin Laden - perhaps he has taken a crash course in Pashto or something.
Freddie seizes Bin Laden, cuffs him and then brings him to an airport in Kabul or Islamabad and when the local authorities stop him and say: "Sorry, pal, but he is our prisoner now" - Freddie will call up the local US consulate and complain that his letters are not being recognized.
The US consulate will then respond: "Even though you failed to inform the US military of Bin Laden's whereabouts and have created a delicate international situation, we will declare war against Hamid Karzai's government or Pervez Musharraf's government on your account. We will begin bombing our nuclear-armed regional ally in five minutes. You're the man, Freddie."
The number of FReepers who think through the implications of their comments is dwindling.
How dare you blame America!!!!11!1!
Everybody knows we had to pay tribute because the Muslim princeling hated us for our freedoms . . . just ask Giuliani or Hannity.
Since all the foucs of this thread has been on the Letters of Marquis, I guess that means we all agree about this second proposal.
It's pretty clear that I blamed Jefferson for the inadequacy of his initial response - not America for being harassed by predators.
Everybody knows we had to pay tribute because the Muslim princeling hated us for our freedoms
The Muslim princeling in question asserted that he had a right to kidnap and murder American seafarers and exact tribute from America because Americans were infidels.
Pretty much the precise arguments made by Al-Qaeda today to justify their actions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.