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.
Just kiddin' (only partially). I can't remember back so far as my Catholic elementary school days enough to be able to tell you exactly about the term, but it is pronounced as "mark" (not "mar-kay").
The express power to "grant letters of marque and reprisal"... is often a measure of peace, to prevent the necessity of a resort to war. Thus, individuals of a nation sometimes suffer from the depredations of foreign potentates; and yet it may not be deemed either expedient or necessary to redress such grievances by a general declaration of war. Under such circumstances the law of nations authorizes the sovereign of the injured individual to grant him this mode of redress, whenever justice is denied to him by the state, to which the party, who has done the injury, belongs. In this case the letters of marque and reprisal...contain an authority to seize the bodies or goods of the subjects of the offending state, wherever they may be found, until satisfaction is made for the injury...
Put "marque and reprisal" into Google search engine and you should get numerous pages that will describe them for you. This is also a good way to research things before you type in a "stoopid" qwestion that can be quickly answered by a short search on the internet. (Ain't computers wunnerful?)
Contrary to Mr. Sinkspur's ignorant view, the Constitution- where the "letters of marque and reprisal" are contained- is not a "living document", but one of the most superbly crafted and thought out pieces of ideology that has been created in the history of the world. If it is written in the Constitution, I have found that there is usually a d*mn good reason for it and idiots who poo-poo it usually have brown eyes (due to where their head is usually positioned.)
It may be a tritely worded and seemingly anachronistic idea -letters of marque and reprisal, that is- but I have the feeling that it still will serve its purpose exceedingly well for our Country.
"History repeats itself; it has to, nobody ever listens"
We didn't sign it? Please let me know where you learned that, because I've read that we did.
But you're right, we're under no obligation to give up our ability to deal with terrorism. It's just that this stupid idea would interfere with that ability.
We disagree. You've made your statements known.
Yea.
I can see a pot-bellied, Bo-Gritz-like character in his night vision gear running around in Afghanistan with absolutely no satellite data, no intelligence data, nothing but testosterone and his "letters of marque."
It's laughable Rob, no matter how "Constitutional" it is.
Let the pros handle this. They know what they're doing, and the country is behind them.
I'll be surprised if this is even brought up in committee in this session of Congress.
Please, PLEASE, I BEG you don't mention 'white powder'!
As have you. Am I supposed to be silent simply because you started a new thread on the same subject?
And please provide the proof that we didn't sign a treaty which renounced this practice. Thanks.
To the others, I doubt this is about mercenaries in Afghanistan. Someone with a letter of marque and reprisal against al Qaeda (and its allies, hopefully) might be able to get away with targetting them anywhere. And they could be informally told to go into Iran or some other problem country we aren't officially messing with over this yet, do their thing, and we could claim they're acting outside the letter while doing nothing about it.
I would like letters of marque and reprisal to be available, but I'm not brave enough to try acting under one. And whoever has them will have the nightmare of infiltrating countries where the people look different and speak different languages.
Currently we have thousands of troops deployed overseas to fight terrorism -- all of them risking their lives. The commander in chief of these forces is the president. Does President Bush support this bill?
Ron Paul is neither a Republican or Democrat, therefore he has voluntarily marginalized his voice for a noble, albeit a lost, cause.
His proposal, regardless of its merit, will be summarily dismissed by the parties in power.
Who says the "named and unnamed" are in Afghanistan? There are plenty of terrorists in countries that we don't want to go to war with. This sounds like a way to deal with that problem very well.
That's why the Congress is cranking up the dollars for the CIA and covert ops.
I've got no problem with somebody shooting and taking out terrorists and their networks. Knock yourselves out if you want to do this.
Just don't make me pay for your funeral when your white face gives you away.
Any law that is Constitutional is not stupid? I don't think so. There are plenty of stupid Constitutional laws.
A lot of things are Constitutional and still stupid. You can't really mean that.
If we sign a treaty that outlaws marque and reprisal, it's not unconstitutional to pass such a law, but it would be illegal for us to permit it to be implemented.
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.