Posted on 10/10/2001 12:44:32 PM PDT by Demidog
I just received a call from my contact at Ron Paul's office.
Ron Paul today introduced two bills into the House of Representatives which would authorize the State Department to issue letters of Marque authorizing privateers to attack and collect assets from terrorists who commit hostile acts against the U.S.
This means that you (yes you personallywould be able to help to bring down the rogue and nationless enemies of the United States provided you meet a few requirements.
The precendence for this bill is based on specific Constitutional powers and was seen as a remedy by our founders for those nationaless terrorists who committed acts against U.S. merchant ships on the high seas. We're dealing with Pirates here and a significant effort has been made by Ron Paul's team to create a legal definition for "Air Piracy" which would include hijackings.
The text of the Bills have not been published yet but I will update everyone the moment the text becomes available.
The Bills are: H.R. 3074 and H.R. 3076
Please call your congressman and tell him that you want them to either sponsor or support this bill.
AMEN brother! Great job.
Now, I don't know that a shortage exists. I rather doubt it given the number of people who are jumping at the chance to do something here to help.
Some of us feel encouraged by this idea because it might bring about justice simply because it allows those interested parties to act without concern for political correctness, public perception, or international quid pro quo.
(Put another way, it gives someone the freedom to be totally, utterly, and unabashedly invested in smashing the crap out of terrorists).
Thank you. Where do these people get off criticizing the only decent and principled Congressman in DC? You always know where Congressman Paul will stand on an issue, and it will ALWAYS be on the side of freedom. There isn't one other Congressman you can say that about.
Wait til you see the bill. What people don't appear to realize is that not just anyone can get a letter of Marque.
It requires a bond at least and more than likely a background check although I'd be fine without the latter because if you can come up with the bond, you already have to be trustworthy.
Secondly, historically the letter of Marque was simply a license to steal. If you didn't bring back your haul to the maritime court, you would lose your bond, and would be listed as a pirate. Hung if caught.
It's serious business. The crips, bloods and the hells angels won't be getting letters of Marque anytime soon.
The constitution isn't a document you can disregard simply because it is inconvenient. There is only one body that can declare war and there is nothing in it that says Congress or the President can make war to circumvent some international rules which we are not subject to.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. War is war. When you send a soldier anywhere you are making war. And the only body that can authorize that is Congress.
Screw international "rules." There's the constitution or nothing.
Of course, any self-respecting privateer has to realize that they are on their own. If they are caught, it's their tough luck. And it is exactly the lack of government involvement in the actual mission that allows this to be succesful. It could not be carried out by the government because of diplomacy, etc.
You miss the point completely. Why are the Army Rangers after the terrorists? Because the terrorists succeeded. If they hadn't, we would be doing the same thing about terrorism that we were doing before 9/11 - jack diddly squat.
This does not mean we do not need an trained Army or Special Ops or B2s or any such thing. It is simply, in my mind, an acceptance of the reality that is at hand. We face a new enemy that does not line up in formation to engage us in battle. Instead they strike at civilian targets, guerilla warfare against the masses. Can our military possibly take on every single terrorist group out there? Never. They don't have the time. Could we build a coalition against each individual terrorist cell? We haven't the time.
This is in addition to our Armed Forces. I would suspect that most (if not all) of the privateers would be ex-military who would more than gladly get out of the way of true military action and rely on military intelligence and direction. Turf wars? Sure. But nothing that would destroy the Armed forces or the privateers.
Even though I've taken courses in the Constitution at a major law school, I must have skipped class when we covered the part that states what you said. Please point me to the section that says that use of our armed forces requires a Declaration of War.
I'm quite sure that you can't do it, because it's not there. Only Congress can declare war, but there is nothing that requires them to do so before our troops are employed.
Before you lecture me about disregarding the Constitution, please read it yourself.
The only proper use of the military is listed in the Constitution. According to it, there are only three legitimate uses of the military. If it isn't listed then it isn't authorized.
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
And you're correct. There is no requirement that war be declared. But the President isn't the commander in chief until and unless the Militia is called forth.
Section. 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States
Sending soldiers for "humanitarian" purposes overseas is not authorized. Sending them abroad to make war is not authorized either. They are only authorized for use upon our own soil. OR do you dispute that the Constitution says that specifically?
Now then, the militia act gave the President the power to call up the militia in certain circumstances. Basically only when Congress cannot be convened. And even then for a very short period of time (30 days). And furthermore only when we are in danger of being invaded.
There are ZERO authorizations anywhere in the Militia act or the constitution which allow for the invasion of another country and I defy you to find it.
Well, it won't if it doesn't get out of the House. Hence, the "grandstanding
I doubt that it'll pass so long as the USA remans a signator to the 1860 Treaty of Vienna, in which most major nations agreed not to issue further Letters of Marque and Reprisal.
It would make for a better end for America's aging fleet of mothballed and decomissioned naval vessels rotting away in harbours though, particularly older US submarines, even though opportunities for activities against landlocked Afghanistan would seem rather limited. But some of the airceraft in storage at the MASD facility at Davis-Monthan AFB near Tucson might find interesting applications.
-archy-/-
Additionally,
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States
means only that the President is ALSO Commander in Chief of the Militia if it is called, NOT a requirement that the Militia be called into service before the President is Commander in Chief of the armed forces.
With that in mind, the Constitution doesn't provide specified uses for the armed forces, other than their establishment. It does provide, however, in Article 1 section 8 that Congress shall
make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forceswhich is consistent with its stipulation that only Congress can declare War.
Please explain to me how Congress is NOT empowered by that to pass resolutions on the use of the armed forces outside of our own borders.
Abandon that libertarian idea that laws should be Constitutional.
Now whatever a simple plurality want they get and we can just shut up and take it.
We can change the meaning of the English language later to make anything Constitutional.
The COMMUNE(ity) has rights now. People have none UNLESS they agree with the COMMUNE(ity).
A kid told me this,
CATO
We must also guard against those wrap themselves in a misguided interpretation of the Constitution.
I'm sure you would agree.
Here's the thing about the Constitution. It isn't a document where one says "it's not in there so it must be authorized."
It's the opposite. The only powers that are authorized in the Constitution are those listed. Since the only use listed for the Military is to repel invasions and put down insurections, there is no authority in the document which gives anyone the power to engage in wars overseas. You can't find it. And it is your burden to show where the document lists any of the creative uses of the military you wish existed.
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.