Replies

The problem with letters of marque and reprisal is that the US and a number of other nations signed a treaty to stop issuing them back in the early 19th century. 7 Posted on 09/17/2001 12:26:24 PDT by JAWs

Nope. I know the the Treaty of which you are thinking; but while it was considered, it was never signed by the US.

On April 16, 1856, most of the major maritime powers signed an international agreement called the Declaration Respecting Maritime Law—more popularly known as the Declaration of Paris—which abolished privateering. The United States declined to sign on the grounds that its navy was so small that letters of marque were required to bolster it during war. Without the letters the United States would be at a disadvantage versus European nations with large standing navies.

If there is not a signed, binding Treaty, prohibiting these Letters, the Congress may issue them at any time.

(Even if there were such a treaty, I believe it would only be binding in respect to the Parties in contract -- no such Treaty protections would extend to son-signatories such as Bin Laden).

Ready the Letters of Reprisal.

If there is not a signed, binding Treaty, prohibiting these Letters, the Congress may issue them at any time.

There's evidence that Congress can modify any treaty using simple legislation, since treaties are given only equal, if not lesser, standing with legislation in Article 6, section 2.