Now we're at war with...... Somalia!

[Michael Landon]

Quick question, did Bush start bombing Pakistan or was that Obama?

- ML

 

[amy31416]

Quick question, did Bush start bombing Pakistan or was that Obama?

- ML

As far as I know, Bush did not go into Pakistan at all. Started right around Obama's inauguration.

 

[flightlesskiwi]

Quick question, did Bush start bombing Pakistan or was that Obama?

- ML

the cia has been drone bombing Pakistan since 2004-ish. the attacks increased to match the change in focus from iraq to afghanistan under obama. for your viewing pleasure: hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan

 

[Imaginos]

World police! Someone has to do it!

Fuck yeah!
Bomb baby bomb!

 

[Imaginos]

We can't get enough!
We need more action!
Let's start war vs. China!
China war will pump our adrenaline level off the chart!

 

[Pericles]

Yes, but the proper way to do it (for the time being) is issuance of letters of marque and reprisal. This is why RP is correct in calling the WoT a hostile invasion rather than a war.

Strictly speaking, a Letter of Marque is license for a privately owned ship to participate in a war - example:

Letter of Marque​

James Madison, president of the United States of America
To all who shall see these presents, greetings:
Be it known that in pursuance of an act of congress passed on the fifth day of June one thousand eight hundred and twelve, I have commissioned, and by these presents do commission, the private armed Schooner called the Lucy of the burden of twenty-five tons, or thereabouts, owned by John Lawton in the city of Taunton state of Massachusetts mounting four carriage guns, and navigated by twenty-six men, hereby authorizing John Lawton Captain, and Perez Drinkwater Lieutenant of the said Lucy and the other officers and crew thereof to: Subdue, seize and take any armed of unarmed British vessel, public or private, which shall be found within the jurisdictional limits of the United States or elsewhere on the high seas, or within the waters of the British dominions.
And each captured vessel with her apparel, guns and appurtenances, and the goods or effects which shall be found on board the same, together with all the British persons and others who shall be found acting on board, to bring within some port of the United States.
And also to retake any vessel, goods or effects of the people of the United States, which may have been captured by any British armed vessel, in order that proceedings may be had concerning each capture or recapture in due form of law, and as to right and justice shall appertain. The said John Lawton is further authorized to detain, seize and take all vessels and effects, to whomsoever belonging, which shall be liable thereto according to the law of Nations and the rights of the United States as a power at war, and to bring the same within some port of the United States in order that due proceedings may be had thereon.
This commission to continue in force during the pleasure of the President of the United States for the time being.
Given under my hand and the seal of the United States of America at the city of Washington, the twenty second day of December in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and fourteen and the independence of the said states the thirty ninth.

By the President, James Madison James Monroe, Secretary of State

Congress makes rules for such captures, which were usually sold at auction, with the proceeds then split between the US and the owner of the vessel. The owner then paid the Captain, Officers, and crew prize money from the proceeds of the sale of all captures. Up until the mid 19th Century, the British Navy also awarded its captains, officers, and crews prize money for captures, which is why the ambitious Brit sought a career as an officer of the Royal Navy - a good captain could rake in a pile of cash.

 

[Pericles]

Do letters of marque and reprisal allow our military to kill individual terrorists? Or does it just apply to private citizens?

Private citizens - the letter of Reprisal is government authorization for an individual to take a specific military action on behalf of himself or the government - example:

Letter of Reprisal ​

​

The keepers of the libertie of England by authority of Parliment,
To all whom these presents shall come. Greetings &c.

Know ye, therefore, that we have licensed and authorized, and by these presents do license and authorize the said Captain William Gerraway and William Williams, and
John Harris, owners to set forth to sea the said shippe called the William of London.
And therewith by force of arms to set upon, apprehend, and take any shippe or shippes, merchandises, or goodes of the French King, or any of his subjects, upon the seas. Provided that such apprehension, seizure, or taking be not made upon or within any ports, heavens, or roads belonging to this Commonwealth, and in their possession, or to the said French King, except the ship, merchandises, and goods of the offenders, which shall be there found.
And the said shippe or shippes, merchandises, and goods, being so apprehended, seized, and taken, and brought into some port of this land, and thereof an inventory taken, appraisement made, and judgement given in the said high Court of Admiraltie for the approbation of the same to be lawfull prize in manner and form as aforesaid, to have and keep the same in his possession, or in the possession of his assigne or assignes, as true proprierters thereof; and the same to sell and dispose of at his pleasure, according to the tenor and effect of the said judgment, and true intent and meaning thereof, without any trouble or molestation whatsoever, saving to such parties finding themselves aggrieved thereby their right of appeal.
And it shall be lawful for any person of this Commonwealth whatsoever, or any other, either in his own person to serve or otherwise bear charge or adventure, or in any sort further or set forward the said enterprise by virtue of these reprisals.
And also that is shall be lawful for all persons whatsoever, as well as of this Commonwealth as any other person, to contract, bargain for, or buy the said shippe or shippes, merchandises, or goods so apprehended, seized, and taken, adjudged for lawful prize and ordered to be sold as perishable or for any other cause seeming fit to the said judges of the Admiraltie, without any danger of molestation whatsoever.
Witnessed this xxvii day of January in the year of our Lord sixteen hundred and fifty.

 

[amy31416]

the cia has been drone bombing Pakistan since 2004-ish. the attacks increased to match the change in focus from iraq to afghanistan under obama. for your viewing pleasure: hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan

Shit. My bad--thanks for the correction.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Private citizens - the letter of Reprisal is government authorization for an individual to take a specific military action on behalf of himself or the government - example:

Letter of Reprisal ​

​

The keepers of the libertie of England by authority of Parliment,
To all whom these presents shall come. Greetings &c.

Know ye, therefore, that we have licensed and authorized, and by these presents do license and authorize the said Captain William Gerraway and William Williams, and
John Harris, owners to set forth to sea the said shippe called the William of London.
And therewith by force of arms to set upon, apprehend, and take any shippe or shippes, merchandises, or goodes of the French King, or any of his subjects, upon the seas. Provided that such apprehension, seizure, or taking be not made upon or within any ports, heavens, or roads belonging to this Commonwealth, and in their possession, or to the said French King, except the ship, merchandises, and goods of the offenders, which shall be there found.
And the said shippe or shippes, merchandises, and goods, being so apprehended, seized, and taken, and brought into some port of this land, and thereof an inventory taken, appraisement made, and judgement given in the said high Court of Admiraltie for the approbation of the same to be lawfull prize in manner and form as aforesaid, to have and keep the same in his possession, or in the possession of his assigne or assignes, as true proprierters thereof; and the same to sell and dispose of at his pleasure, according to the tenor and effect of the said judgment, and true intent and meaning thereof, without any trouble or molestation whatsoever, saving to such parties finding themselves aggrieved thereby their right of appeal.
And it shall be lawful for any person of this Commonwealth whatsoever, or any other, either in his own person to serve or otherwise bear charge or adventure, or in any sort further or set forward the said enterprise by virtue of these reprisals.
And also that is shall be lawful for all persons whatsoever, as well as of this Commonwealth as any other person, to contract, bargain for, or buy the said shippe or shippes, merchandises, or goods so apprehended, seized, and taken, adjudged for lawful prize and ordered to be sold as perishable or for any other cause seeming fit to the said judges of the Admiraltie, without any danger of molestation whatsoever.
Witnessed this xxvii day of January in the year of our Lord sixteen hundred and fifty.

In this country, Letters of Marque and Reprisal (per Article I, section 8) are used instead of a declaration of war in the case of stateless hostile actors (the Barbary Pirates in the 19th century, "terrorists" today).

 

[Pericles]

In this country, Letters of Marque and Reprisal (per Article I, section 8) are used instead of a declaration of war in the case of stateless hostile actors (the Barbary Pirates in the 19th century, "terrorists" today).

Or, the Armed Forces of the United States deal with it - such as with the Barbary pirates.

A Letter of Marque is issued during a declared war (see the one from the War of 1812 above) to make provision for non state forces to participate in a war on behalf of a state with all of the rights and privileges of combatants.

A Letter of Reprisal is issued to an individual to engage in hostilities on behalf of a state because of a previous injury inflicted by someone not subject to the jusridiction of the state issuing the letter.

In the case of OBL, the US could have issued an Letter of Reprisal to those wanting to kill or capture OBL, but not a Letter of Marque.

 

[pcosmar]

Strictly speaking, a Letter of Marque is license for a privately owned ship to participate in a war - example:

Thank you.
It is a rather little known law. Old law, but still on the books.
I was once again impressed with Ron Paul, First that he knew of this obscure statute, and that he actually recommended it.

I found and studied it some years ago when I was somewhat more mercenary. (pirate)

 

[flightlesskiwi]

Or, the Armed Forces of the United States deal with it - such as with the Barbary pirates.

A Letter of Marque is issued during a declared war (see the one from the War of 1812 above) to make provision for non state forces to participate in a war on behalf of a state with all of the rights and privileges of combatants.

A Letter of Reprisal is issued to an individual to engage in hostilities on behalf of a state because of a previous injury inflicted by someone not subject to the jusridiction of the state issuing the letter.

In the case of OBL, the US could have issued an Letter of Reprisal to those wanting to kill or capture OBL, but not a Letter of Marque.

could have, should have. i have no doubt this would have worked and it would have allowed for OBL's (and his lackeys) death/capture expediently.

unfortunately, the consensus (haha!) in government follows comrade Emanuel's ideal to a perfect t: "never let a serious crisis go to waste. what i mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before."

this is why i say we, as individuals, must get over the idea that the US military is being used to make us safer as a nation. the .mil is merely the hammer by which the president-king uses to enact radical new foreign policy by means of their absolute, unquestioned loyalty in the face of (non) crises.

 

[affa]

Since Al-Quaeda attacked us on 9-11, I think it's morally justified to respond to the attacks and kill members of Al-Qaeda. Yes, I understand the whole blowback theory, but I still think we have the right to defend ourselves and respond to attacks on our own soil. I'm 100% opposed to using our military to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan, and I support withdrawing from those countries immediately. It's ridiculous to use our military to build infrastructure in those countries. As an alternative, I believe that we should use our intelligence capabilities to locate members of Al-Quaeda, and we should take them out either through drone strikes or special operation forces. This would be a much more efficient and cost effective option than nation building in the Middle East.

The problem I have with this is your use of "since 9/11".

So, because of this one attack, we can now kill anyone, from that date until the end of the world that we label Al-Quaeda... on another countries sovereign soil, without need to show evidence, no trial, and no followup inquiry?

Now, on one hand, I completely agree that specific strikes are better than war. But I don't understand how one event 'morally justifies' eternal killing.

And that's even assuming all parties on our side are honest with integrity -- that Al-Quaeda doesn't become (hasn't become, cough) a catch all phrase to refer to anyone our gov't wants dead in that part of the world.

 

[libertygrl]

Not that I know anything about Code Pink, because I don't, but most of the anti-war activists I do know during Bush years are -extremely- unhappy with Obama. It's a terrible mistake to write them off - it's not about being anti-republican -- you're absolutely wrong on that point. It's abotu being anti-war.

Then where are Code Pink??? My point is that they were out protesting the war when Bush was in power but where are they now? Just pointing out the hypocracy.

 

[oyarde]

As far as I know, Bush did not go into Pakistan at all. Started right around Obama's inauguration.

Going on , but not at current scale .

 

[oyarde]

In this country, Letters of Marque and Reprisal (per Article I, section 8) are used instead of a declaration of war in the case of stateless hostile actors (the Barbary Pirates in the 19th century, "terrorists" today).

I liken them to the Somalian pirates of today .

 

[Brett85]

The problem I have with this is your use of "since 9/11".

So, because of this one attack, we can now kill anyone, from that date until the end of the world that we label Al-Quaeda... on another countries sovereign soil, without need to show evidence, no trial, and no followup inquiry?

Now, on one hand, I completely agree that specific strikes are better than war. But I don't understand how one event 'morally justifies' eternal killing.

And that's even assuming all parties on our side are honest with integrity -- that Al-Quaeda doesn't become (hasn't become, cough) a catch all phrase to refer to anyone our gov't wants dead in that part of the world.

I understand what you're saying. I certainly don't like the idea of perpetual war or even perpetual military strikes. But at the same time, I don't really like the idea of simply allowing members of Al-Quaeda to form training camps anywhere they want to around the world. I don't think it would be good for our national security interests to allow Al Quaeda to expand their influence and operations around the world.

Neo-conservatives who basically want to stay in Afghanistan forever always argue that if we leave, Al-Quaeda will simply have a safe haven from which to form training camps and launch attacks against the United States. I simply argue to them that we could withdraw our troops from Afghanistan, and we could simply bomb the terrorist training camps from the air if we needed to. That seems like a better argument than simply advocating a policy in which the United States simply ignores terrorists in Afghanistan and other countries.

 

[AbVag]

Then where are Code Pink??? My point is that they were out protesting the war when Bush was in power but where are they now? Just pointing out the hypocracy.

Are you basing this on media coverage? Because they are still out there, but since it's a Democrat doing this, Code Pink is being ignored.

 

[amy31416]

Are you basing this on media coverage? Because they are still out there, but since it's a Democrat doing this, Code Pink is being ignored.

There was a point, early in Obama's administration, where Code Pink were "supporting" the war in Afghanistan in order to "save the women." http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2009/1006/p06s10-wosc.html

If this has changed, good on them...but I don't particularly have any warm and fuzzy feelings about the group since then.