PDA

View Full Version : Give the Contract to Blackwater to Take Out Osama




michaelwise
09-20-2007, 01:14 AM
The letters of mark and reprisal can be implemented to take out OBL. Give the contract to Balackwater to do the job. They seem to have plenty of time on their hands, now that they are banned from Iraq.

http://www.smartvoter.org/2006/11/07/ca/state/vote/keller_j/paper2.html

austin356
09-20-2007, 01:21 AM
What can the neocons disagree about letting their best buddies Blackwater make a Billion dollars?

Seriously, they could take on 90% of the world's governments in a military battle, and they are only a decade or so old!!!!

ctb619
09-20-2007, 01:22 AM
I doubt they'll be leaving....you think we care what the Iraqis want?

michaelwise
09-20-2007, 01:38 AM
The so-called "War on Terror" has itself been disastrous for American freedom. Rather than a "war," we need to issue letters of mark and reprisal against al Qaeda.
There's a popular myth that terrorism is something that our country has never faced before, and that the Constitution is therefore not equipped to allow us to combat terrorism.
That myth is 100% wrong.

In fact, when the Constitution was written, the Founding Fathers were dealing with a very real, very deadly form of terrorism. Today we romanticize it. These terrorists were called "pirates." They marauded on the high seas, seizing vessels at will, killing civilians at random, and even attacking whole towns. They were often associated with foreign governments, who used them deliberately to undermine other nations and coerce them into changing their foreign policies. This meets all our modern definitions of terrorism.

And then, the pirates disappeared.

Did the pirates just decide to go away, or did the nations of the world actually have an effective method of dealing with terrorists that is now forgotten?

The technique used, very effectively, by the nations of the world to deal with these terrorists was called a letter of mark and reprisal. The Constitution grants Congress permission to issue letters of mark and reprisal. They work.

A letter of mark and reprisal is simply a decree that a person (say, Blackbeard or Osama bin Laden) or an entity (say, the Barbary Pirates or al Qaeda) is "marked." That gives the military (and in some cases private individuals) the authority to seize life, liberty, or property of said person or entity.

Because letters of mark and reprisal are, by their very nature, targeted, there's no vague "authorization for the use of force" necessary. With a letter or mark and reprisal, the military can kill an al Qaeda operative without the specter of it being an "extra-judicial execution." Any law enforcement agency that encounters a terrorist can arrest them without waiting for a specific warrant. If private entities are allowed to seize property, then banks can assist in combating terrorists by freezing assets.

In other words, a letter of mark and reprisal does legally what the authorization for the use of force and other legislation do illegally, without needed to declare "war" and without giving the President freedom to continually re-interpret who he is authorized to attack.

We stopped the pirates. We can stop the terrorists. And we can do it without ignoring the Constitution of the United States.

winston84
09-20-2007, 03:05 AM
Blackwater needs to be banned from the world.

MicroBalrog
09-20-2007, 05:36 AM
Blackwater needs to be banned from the world.

Care a decent argument as to why?

TheEvilDetector
09-20-2007, 06:04 AM
The so-called "War on Terror" has itself been disastrous for American freedom. Rather than a "war," we need to issue letters of mark and reprisal against al Qaeda.
There's a popular myth that terrorism is something that our country has never faced before, and that the Constitution is therefore not equipped to allow us to combat terrorism.
That myth is 100% wrong.

In fact, when the Constitution was written, the Founding Fathers were dealing with a very real, very deadly form of terrorism. Today we romanticize it. These terrorists were called "pirates." They marauded on the high seas, seizing vessels at will, killing civilians at random, and even attacking whole towns. They were often associated with foreign governments, who used them deliberately to undermine other nations and coerce them into changing their foreign policies. This meets all our modern definitions of terrorism.

And then, the pirates disappeared.

Did the pirates just decide to go away, or did the nations of the world actually have an effective method of dealing with terrorists that is now forgotten?

The technique used, very effectively, by the nations of the world to deal with these terrorists was called a letter of mark and reprisal. The Constitution grants Congress permission to issue letters of mark and reprisal. They work.

A letter of mark and reprisal is simply a decree that a person (say, Blackbeard or Osama bin Laden) or an entity (say, the Barbary Pirates or al Qaeda) is "marked." That gives the military (and in some cases private individuals) the authority to seize life, liberty, or property of said person or entity.

Because letters of mark and reprisal are, by their very nature, targeted, there's no vague "authorization for the use of force" necessary. With a letter or mark and reprisal, the military can kill an al Qaeda operative without the specter of it being an "extra-judicial execution." Any law enforcement agency that encounters a terrorist can arrest them without waiting for a specific warrant. If private entities are allowed to seize property, then banks can assist in combating terrorists by freezing assets.

In other words, a letter of mark and reprisal does legally what the authorization for the use of force and other legislation do illegally, without needed to declare "war" and without giving the President freedom to continually re-interpret who he is authorized to attack.

We stopped the pirates. We can stop the terrorists. And we can do it without ignoring the Constitution of the United States.

You know I am 100% behind Ron Paul and Constitution, however there is something here that is bugging me.

If you grant a letter of marque and reprisal, you are essentially saying that the target is fair game.

However, think about this, the people who are now looking for these people, are taking the law into their own hands. If they find someone THEY think is the target and execute them and then it is later found that they got the wrong man, they have committed murder.

Given that there is not even a trial before the person is executed, the chances of such an event happening are far greater.
Not too mention the fact that private entities are doing all of this in completely secret manner.

So here is what I think should be done.

Letter of Marque and Reprisal should absolutely be used. You won't find me disagreeing with that.

However, these letters should only authorise capture of target individuals.

Otherwise, you unleash hell.

Imagine private parties, going around executing people who THEY think are the targets in complete secrecy, this is against the principles of the constitution.

So in my mind those letters are simply alternatives to arrest warrants, where anyone who is brave enough can execute them.
If the prize is as follows:

alive capture $1,000,000,000
dead capture where deadly force was used to overcome resistance is $50,000,000
dead capture where deadly force was used without justification $0

If we base reward on such a structure then we have a workable system in the spirit of the constitution and one that
encourages an intelligent operation and suppression of firearm use in the execution.

Of course if the person who is being seized in conjunction with the letter,
puts up resistance all reasonable force must be used to make sure the letter is executed.

That is why, intelligent means would be used, such as operations with an element of surprise.

Bottom line is that I simply find abhorrent, that a government can issue a letter authorising executions
without trial, jury or judge.

Think about it.

johngr
09-20-2007, 07:40 AM
What can the neocons disagree about letting their best buddies Blackwater make a Billion dollars?

The other 999+ billion.

Perry
09-20-2007, 09:24 AM
Forget about blackwater. They don't deserve the glory that will come with killing Bin Laden. Instead hire some decent mercenaries for the job.

Perry
09-20-2007, 09:27 AM
What can the neocons disagree about letting their best buddies Blackwater make a Billion dollars?

Seriously, they could take on 90% of the world's governments in a military battle, and they are only a decade or so old!!!!

Because maybe they've been sidetracked and aren't thinking about Bin Laden?
Let blackwater rot. They give the military and other private security companies a bad name.

libertarianguy
09-20-2007, 09:40 AM
test

1000-points-of-fright
09-20-2007, 10:51 AM
I like the idea of LMR, but still have questions. If these privateers are acting as agents on behalf of the US government, what's the difference between them and a bunch of Delta Force guys violating Pakistan's sovereignty. It's still the US send armed men into someone else's territory without their permission.

Which brings me to my other question. It's legal as far as we're concerned, but who says anyone else has to accept it as legal. They can still view it as an act of aggression.

MicroBalrog
09-20-2007, 10:53 AM
Issuing Letters of Marque against a nation has always been considered an act of war.

amonasro
09-20-2007, 10:56 AM
Can you imagine how many people, from our government and others, would go after Bin Laden if the bounty was A BILLION DOLLARS? I might even try.

ItsTime
09-20-2007, 11:00 AM
Is it bad that I read the title of the thread "obama?"

1000-points-of-fright
09-20-2007, 11:18 AM
Issuing Letters of Marque against a nation has always been considered an act of war.

Obviously. That's not what I'm saying. Here's what I mean...

Scenario 1: US military special ops troops payed by the US government enter a sovereign nation and kill or capture people and blow shit up.

Scenario 2: Blackwater agents payed by the US Government enter a sovereign nation and kill or capture people and blow shit up.

What's the difference? Don't tell me it's because one involves the official armed forces and the other doesn't. Both can be seen as an act of aggression unless you get permission to enter their territory.

giskard
09-20-2007, 07:07 PM
Maybe the neocons think it's convenient to keep OBL alive, because they can more easily continue the War on Terror.

randolphus maximus
09-20-2007, 07:38 PM
The bounty on bin laden's head, the last time I checked, was $50 million. Why hasn't that bounty been consistently increased, like that Mel Gibson movie Ransom? If it were a billion dollars, how many people would be willing to go after him? to rat him out? A billion dollars would buy a lot of anonymity for the person who collects the cash.

ItsTime
09-20-2007, 07:40 PM
The bounty on bin laden's head, the last time I checked, was $50 million. Why hasn't that bounty been consistently increased, like that Mel Gibson movie Ransom? If it were a billion dollars, how many people would be willing to go after him? to rat him out? A billion dollars would buy a lot of anonymity for the person who collects the cash.

Maybe the state that he is hiding in would turn him in for that much too.