Breaking: Text of H.R. 3076- September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001

Thomas ^ | 10/16/2001 | Ron Paul

[Deb]

Hey! I'm bumpin' the friggin' thread, ain't I?

[philman_36]

I'll be surprised if this is even brought up in committee in this session of Congress.

I actually agree with you. Anything that enpowers the Citizens of this great nation is bound to fail. The government is the problem solver, not them.
Can't have those pesky Citizens actually thinking that they have power now can we.

[Demidog]

Can't this be turned on the gun-owners?

No. Letters of Marque have to be directed at foreign attackers. Nationless rogues who commit acts of war on the U.S. Although, in many cases, the merchent ships of the nation which put up the pirates ( or terrorists in this case) were targeted.

The letter of Marque is basically a license to steal but all booty has to be presented in a court subject to claims of ownership by the rightful owners should the privateer take goods which were on their way to somebody who had already purchased them (merchant ships). Hey, if the government agents had to put up a bond before they could sieze the property of citizens i.e. drug busts, and were subject to suit should they perform this work in error I'd feel alot better.

[Demidog]

Oh, I just meant Deb, that I think of you as a broad and not a lady and I mean that in the most complimentary way, I can assure you. :)

[Demidog]

Somebody's been in the Ripple.

Rodney Allen Ripple?

[arimus]

"to seize outside the geographic boundaries of the United States and its territories the person and property of Osama bin Laden, of any al Qaeda co-conspirator...."

Terrorists within our borders do NOT fall under this.

[nunya bidness]

Wanna hit? Tempest in a teapot.

[Dog Gone]

It's called freedom. If you don't like it, there are other countries that will be more than happy to oblige you in whatever self-flaggelating fantasy you happen to entertain.

Oh, that's sweet. If I don't like this bad idea, I have your permission to leave the country. Too funny.

[Dog Gone]

Right. A military appropriation bill cannot be for a period for more than two years. That's not a prohibition against a standing army. Are you suggesting that it is?

[moonhawk]

Right. A military appropriation bill cannot be for a period for more than two years. That's not a prohibition against a standing army. Are you suggesting that it is?

Well, I suppose I always considered it a "prohibition" on its face...Are you saying it depends on what the meaning of "is" is?

Seriously, I'm no Constitutional scholar, so I guess I'd have to look into that one a little more.

[cajungirl]

I find freepers have a pretty good conversation about any question which is more fun and enlightening than google. And you sir have very bad manners. And you are rude. And you are impertinent. Apologise now.

[RnMomof7]

Apologise now.

Only if he can find it on google:)