Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Breaking: Text of H.R. 3076- September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001
Thomas ^ | 10/16/2001 | Ron Paul

Posted on 10/16/2001 5:25:12 PM PDT by Demidog

September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 (Introduced in the House) HR 3076 IH

107th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 3076

To authorize the President of the United States to issue letters of marque and reprisal with respect to certain acts of air piracy upon the United States on September 11, 2001, and other similar acts of war planned for the future.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

October 10, 2001

Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations

A BILL

To authorize the President of the United States to issue letters of marque and reprisal with respect to certain acts of air piracy upon the United States on September 11, 2001, and other similar acts of war planned for the future.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:

(1) That the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 upon the United States were acts of air piracy contrary to the law of nations.

(2) That the terrorist attacks were acts of war perpetrated by enemy belligerents to destroy the sovereign independence of the United States of America contrary to the law of nations.

(3) That the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks were actively aided and abetted by a conspiracy involving one Osama bin Laden and others known and unknown, either knowingly and actively affiliated with a terrorist organization known as al Qaeda or knowingly and actively conspiring with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, both of whom are dedicated to the destruction of the United States of America as a sovereign and independent nation.

(4) That the al Qaeda conspiracy is a continuing one among Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, and others known and unknown with plans to commit additional acts of air piracy and other similar acts of war upon the United States of America and her people.

(5) That the act of war committed on September 11, 2001, by the al Qaeda conspirators, and the other acts of war planned by the al Qaeda conspirators, are contrary to the law of nations.

(6) That under Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, Congress has the power to grant letters of marque and reprisal to punish, deter, and prevent the piratical aggressions and depredations and other acts of war of the al Qaeda conspirators.

SEC. 3. AUTHORITY OF PRESIDENT.

(a) The President of the United States is authorized and requested to commission, under officially issued letters of marque and reprisal, so many of privately armed and equipped persons and entities as, in his judgment, the service may require, with suitable instructions to the leaders thereof, to employ all means reasonably necessary 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, and of any conspirator with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda who are responsible for the air piratical aggressions and depredations perpetrated upon the United States of America on September 11, 2001, and for any planned future air piratical aggressions and depredations or other acts of war upon the United States of America and her people.

(b) The President of the United States is authorized to place a money bounty, drawn in his discretion from the $40,000,000,000 appropriated on September 14, 2001, in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery from and Response to Terrorists Attacks on the United States or from private sources, for the capture, alive or dead, of Osama bin Laden or any other al Qaeda conspirator responsible for the act of air piracy upon the United States on September 11, 2001, under the authority of any letter of marque or reprisal issued under this Act.

(c) No letter of marque and reprisal shall be issued by the President without requiring the posting of a security bond in such amount as the President shall determine is sufficient to ensure that the letter be executed according to the terms and conditions thereof.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-152 last
To: Demidog
Hey! I'm bumpin' the friggin' thread, ain't I?
141 posted on 10/17/2001 12:43:22 AM PDT by Deb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
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.

142 posted on 10/17/2001 12:54:39 AM PDT by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Deb
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.

143 posted on 10/17/2001 1:19:21 AM PDT by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Deb
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. :)
144 posted on 10/17/2001 1:20:58 AM PDT by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Deb
Somebody's been in the Ripple.

Rodney Allen Ripple?

145 posted on 10/17/2001 1:22:23 AM PDT by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Deb
"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.

146 posted on 10/17/2001 2:03:28 AM PDT by arimus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Deb
Wanna hit? Tempest in a teapot.
147 posted on 10/17/2001 2:19:56 AM PDT by nunya bidness
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Demidog
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.

148 posted on 10/17/2001 5:56:52 AM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: 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?
149 posted on 10/17/2001 5:59:07 AM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone; Styria; Demidog
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.

150 posted on 10/17/2001 6:18:42 AM PDT by moonhawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: hadit2here
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.
151 posted on 10/17/2001 7:26:27 AM PDT by cajungirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: cajungirl
Apologise now.

Only if he can find it on google:)

152 posted on 10/17/2001 8:46:22 AM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-152 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson