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

Thomas ^ | 10/16/2001 | Ron Paul

[sinkspur]

Well a group of 20 terrorists without the benefit of US satellite and intelligence data was able to destroy 2 buildings and kill thousands of people.

Yea, and NOBODY, including homegrown mercenaries, knew anything about Mohammed Atta and his crew. Your example is lame, and you know it.

Seems to me that it is not at all far fetched that private organizations could do the job.

As long as they stay out of the way of the professional military, and nobody squeals if they get taken out by the terrorists or our own men on the ground.

[Demidog]

There are plenty of stupid Constitutional laws.

Name one.

[Demidog]

That's why the Congress is cranking up the dollars for the CIA and covert ops.

And they were so effective re: September 11.

[Demidog]

His proposal, regardless of its merit, will be summarily dismissed by the parties in power.

Unless you get involved. Activism works.

[Dog Gone]

Letters of Marque

A letter of marque—or letter of reprisal—is the means by which a government authorizes a civilian to arm a private ship in order to attack and plunder the merchant ships of an enemy nation during war. This is the meaning the term had acquired by the eighteenth century. In earlier use, it referred to the means by which a government righted a private wrong against one of its citizens. For example, if an English trader had his goods stolen in Holland and could not receive satisfaction through the Dutch legal system, the English government might grant him a letter of marque. He was then authorized to seize any Dutch ship to regain the value of the goods stolen from him. By 1700, however, the letter of marque had become an instrument of state by which government could expand its naval power during war.

Private parties who met certain requirements, such as the posting of a security bond, could arm what was called a "private ship of war" and legally plunder enemy merchant ships. Such authorized parties were called privateers by their own government and pirates by the enemy. After being adjudged as "lawful prize" by a court, the seized goods became the property of the privateer. This was his payment. Thus, the government was able to disrupt the commerce of an enemy nation without spending money.

Letters of marque assumed importance in American history as a response to the Prohibitory Act passed by Great Britain in 1775. By this Act, the rebellious colonies were stripped of protection by the English crown. Trade between the colonies and British merchants was forbidden; the seizure and plunder of American ships was encouraged. In turn, the Continental Congress issued letters of marque and reprisal that empowered colonial privateers to loot British merchant ships.

The "Instructions to the captains and commanders of private armed vessels which shall have commissions of letters of marque and reprisal," issued by Congress on May 2, 1780, offer a sense of the restrictions placed on privateers. The primary restriction limited attacks to vessels owned by traders of the enemy nation. The private ships of war were "to pay a sacred regard to the rights of neutral powers." The purpose of this restriction was partly to conform with international law and partly to avoid turning neutral nations into hostile ones. The privateer was ordered to "bring such ships . . . to some convenient port" where an Admiralty court could judge whether the plunder was lawful. Privateers were not to "kill or maim,—or, by torture or otherwise, cruelly, inhumanly, and contrary to common practice of civilized nations in war, treat any person or persons surprised in the ship."

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.

During the Spanish-American War (1898), Spain and America—neither of which was a party to the Declaration of Paris—agreed to eschew privateering. It was not until the Hague Conferences at the dawn of the twentieth century, however, that the United States officially renounced the use of letters of marque and reprisal. Thus, the term is antiquated in that it no longer applies to an activity in practice.

link

Annex to the Convention

REGULATIONS RESPECTING THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR ON LAND

SECTION I.--ON BELLIGERENTS

CHAPTER I.--On the Qualifications of Belligerents

Article 1

The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps, fulfilling the following conditions:

To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;

To carry arms openly; and

To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army."

link

[Justin Raimondo]

Is it me, or does this "marque & reprisal" stuff sound kind of ... oddly archaic? Maybe 'quaint' is the word. Tell me this: if we're paying billions to finance the mightiest military on the face of the earth, what's up with this "marque & reprisal" business?

[FreeReign]

There are plenty of stupid Constitutional laws. Name one.

The no-parking zone in front of my house. You can't name any? You believe that the constitution micro-manages us and protects us from stupid laws?

[sinkspur]

And they were so effective re: September 11.

They weren't, thanks to Bill Clinton.

You may as well temper your enthusiasm over this legislation; it's not going to see the light of day.

It is simply unnecessary.

[clee1]

My representation notified.

[Larousse2]

ROTFLMAO!

Hktd on foniks werkd 4 mee.

[clee1]

pronounced "mark" and is an ancient document of providing authority to plain citizens for acts of aggression against stated enemies. Sir Francis Drake operated for England under a "Letter of Marque".

[FreeReign]

You never answered my question in post #33 -- Demidog.

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?

[StriperSniper]

when your white face gives you away.

I know my tan has already faded, but I'm talking about this giving us the ability to hire local talent to plug the gaps in our own operations.

[America's Resolve]

It's just that this stupid idea would interfere with that ability.

I'm not so sure Dog. I have difficulty envisioning our monolithic military bringing these little guys down. For some reason, I get the image of an elephant being scared of a mouse.

I'd rather have my children taught in a private school instead of a public school (not that I can afford such an option), because private enterprise can OFTEN do things more efficiently than public institutions. They have a profit motive to spur them on that patriotism can't always match (and now there's the profit motive AND patriotism, a potent combination to the West).

I suspect that private companies of former seals, rangers, specops etc, given all the resources needed by the govt would be sleek and trim enough to get these guys.

You may well be right and this is foolish (doubtful illegal tho). On the other hand, I get the feeling that the military has NO idea where he's at. A private company willing to spread around money, might well be able to get info that the military can't.

Just a thought

Godspeed

[Demidog]

Yea, and NOBODY, including homegrown mercenaries, knew anything about Mohammed Atta and his crew.

And bounty hunters don't know anything about the people they are after when they start.

[LincolnLover]

Decided to do a little research:

i n t r o d u c t i o n

Final Act Of the International Peace Conference. The Hague, 29 July 1899.

General title First Peace Conference of The Hague, 1899.

Forum of adoption International Peace Conference 1899

The First Hague Peace Conference of 1899 was convened on the initiative of the Czar of Russia, Nicholas II, "with the object of seeking the most effective means of ensuring to all peoples the benefits of a real and lasting peace, and, above all, of limiting the progressive development of existing armaments" (Russian note of 30 December 1898/11 January 1899). The Conference, at which 26 governments were represented, assembled on 18 May 1899 and adjourned on 29 July 1899. It failed to reach agreement on the primary object for which it was called, namely the limitation or reduction of armaments, but adopted the three Conventions and the other acts mentioned in the Final Protocol. Provision was made for the convening of a second conference. This conference lasted from 15 June until 18 October 1907. The Final Acts constitute authoritative statements of the results achieved. They were signed by the delegates but not ratified by the participating states.

They have no binding force.

Meetings of forum 18.05.1899 - 29.07.1899, The Hague

Dade of adoption 29/07/1899

Number of articles 6 wishes

Authentic text French

Source D.Schindler and J.Toman, The Laws of Armed Conflicts, Martinus Nihjoff Publisher, 1988, pp.50-51.

Keywords CONFERENCE; PEACE; RESOLUTION; CONDUCT OF THE HOSTILITIES; INTERNATIONAL ARMED CONFLICT

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

The Constitution specifically allows the government to issue Letters of Marque for situations where a full military response isn't necessarily appropriate. We have companies in this country that are all former seals, special forces, army rangers etc that make VERY capable mercenaries. Mercenaries to hunt down Mercenaries :)

I don't doubt you for a minute. One thing I am greatly concerned with is another Bill Clinton slithering into office. He could hire mercenaries. In fact, I could envision a Clinton who is loved by soldiers. Most Clintonesque tyrants are more military.

So he hires mercenaries. Well, he would just love to give them some Apache helicopters. Who can blame him? He would just love to give them NSA and CIA contacts. Who can blame him? And he sees an Aspirin Factory that needs bombing. Only this time, it's right inside the US. Not just one aspirin factory, though. He keeps finding more to attack.... Delta would do only so much for this Clinton. Just Waco apparently. Mercenaries would do a lot more for the next Clinton, especially if he is tight in military circles.

[FreeReign]

sinkspur-->Why are mercenaries needed when the U.S. and Britain have 30,000 troops waiting to march into Afghanistan after the Special Ops guys do their work.?

Carbon-->Because troops are controlled by the gov't and it's agenda -- mercenaries aren't.

So then Carbon, just because something is controlled by the gov't, that makes it bad. Why have any gov't then??

[RnMomof7]

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?)

I have always believed there is no such thing as a "stupid" question.

In order to ask a revelant question one has to be engaged in the topic..the stupid never are...

It is my guess that there are areas where you have to run to a search engine to get an answer...only google doesn't call you "stupid"

Your mocking tone reveals alot about you.

I worked in the inner city for many years..some of the wisest men I met picked cotten and never learned to read.But they had a quality of humility and common sense that most of the computer generation could use!