Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Paulie, Feb 3, 2008.
Pros and Cons.
My guess is most of you have never heard of this.
Not really used these days, I think. I know Ron Paul advocated their use in response to 9/11. You probably have links to that info already (or does Wiki mention it?). I think people stopped using this back in the 1800s. Not sure if there was any use of it in WWI, but I suspect not.
You're not saying anything that people who know about Marque and Reprisal don't already know. Yes, RP introduced legislation after 9/11 that contained M&R as a more appropriate response.
The clause itself was MEANT for attacks on the state by individuals, instead of other states.
I mean, we put out a 25 million dollar bounty on Bin Laden's head...that's a step towards M&R as it is. Why not just follow the constitution and the founders, and actually implement this clause?
I 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.
What do you think Blackwater, Halliburton, et al are doing?
I could almost agree with using private mercenary companies like Blackwater, had they been used correctly and constitutionally via a M&R letter, and didn't have obvious conflicts of interest regarding cronyism between their board members and our government.
Instead, we're DOUBLE teaming a country that had nothing to do with the attack that prompted the War on Terror to begin with, and we're going bankrupt doing so.
M&R is supposed to be an alternative to having to commit the military. We're at war against an ideology, and a shadowy group of people, not a specific state. We're letting Bin Laden and his boys live in caves and produce home movies, and instead we're looting a completely different country, and leaving our borders wide open while doing so.
The Founders are doing fucking barrell rolls in their graves right now.
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.
Shit, I just typed out a big response and it got deleted. I'll be back later to continue, I don't have time to re-type all that right now.
No problem. I hate when that happens.
It's an outdated concept. It may have made sense in the era of pirates and privateers. But, today it effectively means hiring mercenaries.
Blackwater comes to mind.
Separate names with a comma.