Discuss Why Marque & Reprisal Would Be Better

[NoMoreApathy]

How could this work in today's world?

 

[integrity]

why has todays world changed from yesterdays world? there are still bad people who need to be dealt with specifically, like the pirates of the past..

 

[MayTheRonBeWithYou]

Groups like Dyncorp are packed with ex-SEALS and delta force and ex-CIA. Without all the fuss and hooplah of these trillion dollar wars, bin Laden would probably not be in such deep hiding. He could have been hunted down and killed while his movement still only had about 300 people. Now there are tens of thousands of people willing to join bin Laden, thanks to our stupid wars.

 

[nate895]

There still are pirates, plus I see no difference between pirates and terrorists.

 

[NoMoreApathy]

Guys, you're not saying anything I don't already agree with. I'm talking about serious discussion, with answers to responses like this:

think you can make an argument for implementation. But from a practical standpoint, what difference do you think it would make?

And even if it did, do you think any government in this day and age wants private elements they can't control running around with their express endorsement? I don't.

Yeah but Blackwater is at least technically operating under the control of the U.S. military. Obviously, that control isn't very good.

With Letters of Marque and Reprisal you're sending off private entities with no even supposed control by the military. If you know enough to know what letters of Marque and Reprisal are, you probably also know the guys who had them back when they were used weren't always the best guys in the world - look at some of what went on.

Also, Letter of Marque and Reprisal were used a lot to deal with areas where there really wasn't much governmental authority to bring to bear. Loosely-controlled areas that one country or other might have said they claimed, but where whoever was running the city was more important and these guys were often as not corrupt to begin with. Today, you have well-established borders controlled by various countries. And there isn't the issue of a military not being able to realistically act halfway around the world - we can. And you've got fragile alliances to consider. Issues Letters of M&R for people to go after bin Laden, and where are they going to go? Pakistan. Doing who-knows-what when they get there and probably ensuring whatever hold Musharaf still has will vanish when these "privateers" authorized by the U.S. government come into the country.

I think it's a really bad idea. But we can differ.

 

[integrity]

I would say these private entities would have to get permission from cooperating foreign governments to operate there.

 

[kotetu]

When Ross Perot's employees were kidnapped and imprisoned by Iran, he organized a rescue team to go in and them - I am pretty sure the Iranian government would not have sanctioned it. It's a good example of how it does in fact work.

Just prior to the 1979 Iranian Revolution, the government of Iran imprisoned two of his employees in a contract dispute. Perot organized and sponsored a successful rescue. The rescue team was led by retired U.S. Army Special Forces Colonel Arthur D. ('Bull') Simons. When the team couldn't find a way to extract their two prisoners, they decided to wait for a mob of pro-Ayatollah revolutionaries to storm the jail and free all 10,000 inmates, many of whom were political prisoners. The two prisoners then connected with the rescue team, and the team spirited them out of Iran via a risky border crossing into Turkey. The exploit was recounted in a book, On Wings of Eagles by Ken Follett, which became a best-seller. In the 1986 miniseries, Perot was portrayed by Richard Crenna.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot

 

[cheese]

the point is:

• bin Ladin is in Pakistan after the military refused to venture into pakistan territory.
• the military can't move into pakistan, it would be a diplomatic and political nightnare.
• Marque & Reprisal is the only way we could pursue bin Ladin into pakistan.

 

[Kregener]

I would say these private entities would have to get permission from cooperating foreign governments to operate there.

Like the CIA and Navy SEAL teams do?

 

[Cindy]

Since todays world is more heavily populated and packed with expensive infrastructure, it would work better at reducing collateral damage.

Picture sending in ninja type assasins in after the sole targets, instead of carpet bombing civilian areas. Why destroy a countries infratructure and cause civilian casaulties when you are just going after Individual criminals?

 

[pacelli]

the point is:

• bin Ladin is in Pakistan after the military refused to venture into pakistan territory.
• the military can't move into pakistan, it would be a diplomatic and political nightnare.
• Marque & Reprisal is the only way we could pursue bin Ladin into pakistan.

CIA didn't seem to have a problem moving into Pakistan 2 days ago:

Feb 1, 2008: Abu Laith al-Libi, a wanted al Qaeda terrorist, was killed in Pakistan by a CIA airstrike, three U.S. officials told CNN Thursday.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/01/31/alqaeda.death/

 

[kotetu]

The origins of this clause and the framers' intent fit well with modern notions of irregular warfare, supporting the view that the President's use of troops in foreign military operations, including covert paramilitary actions, is illegal absent Congress' authorization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque

The issue of Marque and Reprisal was raised before Congress after the September 11, 2001 attacks, and again on July 21, 2007 by congressman Ron Paul. The attacks were defined as acts of "air piracy," and the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 was introduced, which would have granted the president the authority to use Letters of Marque and Reprisal against the specific terrorists, instead of warring against a foreign state. The terrorists were compared to pirates in that they are difficult to fight by traditional military means.

 

[Lord Abaddon]

I think that in the broader sense Dr. Paul was speaking about targeting criminals/terrorists directly. Right now there is an agreement between nations to not commit assisinations, however that applies only to authorized government officials as I understand it, and does not count for terrorists or criminals.

Consider the Israeli Mossad going in to get Adolf Eichmann or even President Reagan sending our planes to intercept the Achille Lauro hijackers to bring them to the USA for criminal charges. Nations have done it, but not as a general program. With the way terrorists work, especially Al Queada, this makes great sense to me to actually target them individually and hunt them down like the cowardly scum they are.

Thank you for Ron Paul's information kotetu! I had missed that and I completely agree!

 

[NoMoreApathy]

When you have a legit government who tells the truth, and the media REPORTS that truth, this could work.

All they have to do is run stories on the news saying terrorists are in Iran, and that Iran is not playing ball on a Marque & Reprisal, and you got yourself a full out war against a state instead.

Pakistan won't LET us perform military operations in the region where Bin Laden is supposed to be, so why would they approve of M&R?

M&R is basically our government officially endorsing private action, in the hopes that the other country involved agrees.

It's too easy for our media and government to tell us that specific countries aid and abet terrorist activities, and people instead would rather see us invade and change regimes.

How do we sell this idea to people who think so many countries are our enemies?

 

[boberino]

Independent bounty hunters are more effective than the US Army.

 

[rexsolomon]

How could this work in today's world?

The statement is primarily to establish legal and Constitutional precedent. Nothing about Marque and Reprisal is 'anachronistic'.

How would this work in today's world?

1.) A Marque and Reprisal bill will first be authorized by Congress, much in the same way that Congress can declare war - with essentially the same effect.

2.) The very best in the U.S. military will be 'retrenched' after the 'appropriate de-briefing'.

The 'retrenched' teams will go after the terrorists/pirates as a team working on the basis of 'project completion'. No results, no 'pay'. Read Sun Tzu's 'Art of War' with regard to the rationale behind the 'generosity' required for these endeavors (how it is far, far less expensive than trillions of dollars for several wars waged without Congressional approval).

After the 'tasks' are done, these teams may be 'rehired' and most certainly promoted to higher ranks and responsibilities.

3.) Foreign consulates will be informed - if required - through the U.S. embassies (and the CIA). If foreign military action is taken against the M&R teams, that military force will most probably meet full U.S. military retaliation.

Finally, I am certain Dr. Paul is aware of the Frankenstein factor and will nip that in the bud. By that I mean that ex-military mercenaries currently in Iraq will likely be excluded unless re-assessed and re-qualified for the 'task'.

These are 'interesting times' we are living in.

 

[Sandman]

My opinion on the matter is it looks like this would be a Boom for the mercenary trade.Why spend trillions of dollars and thousands of lives in a futile war.When all thats really needed is volunteers from elite units...They could be outfitted by the military and let loose on there target.once evidence of there success has been established they would be paid a handsome sum and treated to a huge parade.