Letters of marque and reprisal

[SeanEdwards]

The fact doesn't change that Letters of Marque are useless scraps of paper unless the warring parties recognize them. No one has for over 150 years.

Any nation that disregarded a letter of marque issued by the U.S. government, and treated such people as common criminals would be very bold indeed.

 

[erikm]

The problem is that letters of marque and reprisal only work if all parties agree to them. The reason that American privateers with Letters of Marque preyed on British shipping during the War of 1812 was because British privateers with Letters of Marque also preyed on American ships. Americans recognized British Letters of Marque and the British recognized the American letters. Any ship captured without a Letter of Marque was considered to be a pirate.

The reason that Letters of Marque don't work today is that as an instrument of international law they were abolished in the 1850s by the Treaty of Paris which also ended the Crimean War. The US was not signatory to the treaty but used it during the Civil War and the Spanish-American War to act against privateers sailing for the Confederacy and for Spain.

Bottom line, since about 1856 Letters of Marque and Reprisal are worthless pieces of paper. They have zero standing in the international community. In this case Dr. Paul is about 150 years behind the times.

All true. There's also the bit that the letter of marque has, historically, IIRC mainly applied to private warships. Lastly there are the Geneva conventions, which frown on mercenaries. Privateers with US letters of marque (they don't actually have to be american) would be considered mercs by most or all other countries and dealt with as such. The term 'Unlawful Combatant' comes to mind. Wikipedia pages on Mercenary, Laws of War and the like make fascinating reading.

Working around the international aspects may be possible but would probably require the private contractor company to raise and second complete units to the military as independent attachments. While on deployment the troops would, on paper, be considered part of the military. Bonding and troop nationality would be serious issues. A unit, in this example, could vary from a short (counter-)sniper squad to a platoon (or company) providing truck convoy escort to a convoy escort corvette.

Some sort of 'Special Service Warrant Branch' as part of the DOD to handle all 'shooter' (as opposed to mundane) contracts seems to be in order.

Cheers,
ErikM

 

[RickSp]

Any nation that disregarded a letter of marque issued by the U.S. government, and treated such people as common criminals would be very bold indeed.

Not at all. Mexico does not have a reciprocal bounty hunter law so US bountry hunters who try to arrest US bail jumpers in Mexico have been arrested.

Letters of Marque didn't work particularly well when they were part of international law. Pirates often mascaraded as privateers. Now that Letters of Marque and Reprisal are part of the distant past, they are not likely to work at all.

 

[hawks4ronpaul]

Not at all. Mexico does not have a reciprocal bounty hunter law so US bountry hunters who try to arrest US bail jumpers in Mexico have been arrested.

Letters of Marque didn't work particularly well when they were part of international law. Pirates often mascaraded as privateers. Now that Letters of Marque and Reprisal are part of the distant past, they are not likely to work at all.

Unlike the Iraq War, which went over so well with the rest of the world?

Foreign countries also arrest US soldiers.

It is not that letters are without problems, it is that everything else (war, bounties) has similar problems.

http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

 

[erikm]

Not at all. Mexico does not have a reciprocal bounty hunter law so US bountry hunters who try to arrest US bail jumpers in Mexico have been arrested.

This also happened to a couple of chumps who tried to haul someone back from Canada to the US. The RCMP weren't amused.

Since bounty hunters tend not to be accredited law enforcers, they're considered civilians outside the US. Tracking someone down won't be frowned upon, but them forceing their way inside somewhere, capturing someone or trying to take them back to the US without their consent will be considered home invasion, false imprisonment (probably) and kidnapping respectively. If BHs really want someone to haul someone back, they'll have to contact the local police. The problem for the BHs in that case is that they probably won't collect the bounty.

Cheers,
ErikM

 

[SeanEdwards]

Not at all. Mexico does not have a reciprocal bounty hunter law so US bountry hunters who try to arrest US bail jumpers in Mexico have been arrested.

Letters of Marque didn't work particularly well when they were part of international law. Pirates often mascaraded as privateers. Now that Letters of Marque and Reprisal are part of the distant past, they are not likely to work at all.

Yeah, apparently our government agrees with you. That must be why instead of following the process laid out in the Constitution, they choose instead to secretly hand money and weapons to various and sundry militant groups around the world.

 

[unknown]

i for one would much prefer American agents to kill Bin Laden and his pals. I don't trust the middle eastern governments. But Ron Paul has yet to specify who would receive the contract. Probably cuz no one has asked, but i doubt he would entrust it to foreigners

With due process of-course.