Letter of Marque and Reprisal

[Skm1091]

Ron Paul a while back suggested we use the Letter of Marque and Reprisal to deal with Al Qaeda. I thought marque and reprisal was used for pirates out at sea. So can someone explain how it would have worked with terrorist/insurgent groups.

[MrBogosity]

Letters of Marque and Reprisal are used whenever the enemy isn't a country. So any band of foreign robbers, militants, etc. who attack the US but aren't a part of any army or anything can have these letters used to target them.

[Skm1091]

Letters of Marque and Reprisal are used whenever the enemy isn't a country. So any band of foreign robbers, militants, etc. who attack the US but aren't a part of any army or anything can have these letters used to target them.

So we can use mercenary soldiers and bounty hunters to take down terrorist? Neat.

I think that would have been a very good idea. Remember the civil war in Sierra Leone? Executive Outcomes stopped the RUF dead in their tracks with only 100 troops. Comparing that to how the UN did that is a hell of a lot better.



Executive Outcomes

[R.E.H.W.R.]

So we can use mercenary soldiers and bounty hunters to take down terrorist? Neat.

I think that would have been a very good idea. Remember the civil war in Sierra Leone? Executive Outcomes stopped the RUF dead in their tracks with only 100 troops. Comparing that to how the UN did that is a hell of a lot better.

I find it ironic that the country went back to war after UN peacekeeping troops replaced them.

[evensgrey]

It would be awkward to use Letters of Marque.  The US is a signatory to a treaty banning their use.

[Ibrahim90]

It would be awkward to use Letters of Marque.  The US is a signatory to a treaty banning their use.

lolwut?

[Skm1091]

It would be awkward to use Letters of Marque.  The US is a signatory to a treaty banning their use.

can't the US just pull out of that treaty?

I seriously wondered if they ended their use because they were afraid of competition.

[Skm1091]

lolwut?

Real Bonehead move wouldn't ya say?

[Ibrahim90]

Real Bonehead move wouldn't ya say?

yeah, to say the least.

well, think of it this way: treaties have the force of an amendment IIRC. Now, we all know how the government treats those, right? (i.e., jizzing all over it). So why not ignore the treaty, and issue the letters or marque and reprisal?

besides, the idea of banning privateers is retarded: they have their own operating costs, so could save any government or other organization much money. And they are ideal for pettit guerre type stuff, as the numbers are small, and are not as easy to track as a whole bloody army.

[MrBogosity]

well, think of it this way: treaties have the force of an amendment IIRC.

Not if it contradicts something in the Constitution.

[Ibrahim90]

Not if it contradicts something in the Constitution.

true that, but I'm sure that's still how the politicians will justify that....

[dallen68]

Not if it contradicts something in the Constitution.

The way I read it, the treaty becomes part of the Constitution; it therefore cannot contradict something in the constitution. As a matter of fact, clause C of Article VI Para. 2 says:  any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. [Dr. Cullen's emphasis removed and replaced with my own]. In other words, if something in the treaty is not congruent with something in the rest of the constitution, the treaty wins. (At least in as far as the matters and peoples directly affected in the treaty are concerned.

[MrBogosity]

Read the part about how the treaty has to be made under the authority of the United States. If it isn't in the Constitution, or is expressly prohibited by it, then the treaty wasn't made under such authority because that comes from the Constitution to begin with.

[dallen68]

Being made under the authority of the United States speaks to the manner in which the treaty is made. IIRC, that means it's an agreement between the sitting administration (or it's duly authorized representative) and another sovereign power AND it's ratified by 2/3rds of Congress.

Also, (this part is just my opinion): Like any other amendment, if something in the treaty contradicts something else in the constitution, it essentially acts as a (limited to the scope of the treaty) appeal of the other part (which is why the 2/3rds thing is there).

[MrBogosity]

Being made under the authority of the United States speaks to the manner in which the treaty is made. IIRC, that means it's an agreement between the sitting administration (or it's duly authorized representative) and another sovereign power AND it's ratified by 2/3rds of Congress.

Also, (this part is just my opinion): Like any other amendment, if something in the treaty contradicts something else in the constitution, it essentially acts as a (limited to the scope of the treaty) appeal of the other part (which is why the 2/3rds thing is there).

Wow. So, if they pass a treaty saying the US sets up a theocratic government, then the First Amendment no longer applies?

The 2/3rds thing is just a red herring. Three-fourths of the states are required to change the Constitution. It CANNOT be done with a treaty.