Letters of Marque and Reprisal; Privatize the war on ISIS

It appears the President is hesitant. Obama

Elected on the pledge to return our troops home there seems to be mounting evidence they should have stayed.
ISIS
Back when the United States Constitution was first framed, it was not uncommon for a country to grant a license to a privately owned and armed ship to sail out onto the seas and sink, burn or capture as a prize the vessels of an enemy. Navy’s are expensive, and the entire enterprise is risky. Why not shift that risk, with the associated rewards, to some one else?

So at Article I, Section 8, part 11 it is reserved to Congress to:

Declare war, issues letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;privateer

Sure, Halliburton and Blackwater have given privatizing war a bad name in the present day, but as far back as Francis Drake (d. 1596 ) these men have been considered one piece of paper away from pirates. And that piece of paper made everything all legal. drake

Plenty of prizes await say, Shell Oil, in the region.

The President is hesitant, Congress should act. Let us issue letters of marque and reprisal to tame the beast that has engulfed Mesopotamia.
congress

Advertisements

How Many Stars Would You Give the United States Constitution?

I recently bought a copy of the constitution on Amazon. My reward is an opportunity to review the document on their website. The question seems a bit obscene, given the gravity of the document, as it has asked me to rate it as if it were a motion picture. constitution

Our constitution embodies a foundational understanding of what it means to be an American. It sets forth a rule of law for us all to count on, no matter who may be in office or what should transpire.

The idea that the foundational laws of a country should be set forth in a single document was rather radical at the time it was adopted, 1788. The precedent Articles of Confederation (1781) failed to work out, and shortly it appeared the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts authored by John Adams (1780) seemed to be the most workable frame for government; a bicameral legislature, an executive and an independent judiciary.John Adams

Britain, by contrast has a series of documents starting with the Magna Carta (1215), each of which reflects the prevailing concerns of the age.magna carta
We now see a great constitutional debate in our mother country, The United Kingdom, whose Prime Minister has proposed what appears to be more of a federation like our own. uk

This is feasible. The historical documents delineating the role of the monarch, Parliament and the judiciary remains a workable collection of documents and practices subject to change from time to time.

Our Constitution, by contrast, is treated as Holy Writ, authored by now God like men referred to commonly as “the Founding Fathers” making changing it a heresy. James Madison, the documents author, was an extraordinary man. But he was still just a man.

I am beginning to have my doubts the American Revolution was necessary or has really served us in the long term. I have yet to meet any Americans who agree with me. The British generally feel differently of course. washington crossing the deleware

The British seem to be able to get things done. Sure, it is a much smaller country, but troubles here seem to perpetuate due to the weight given to the terms of a document which certainly allows for amendment, but doesn’t seem to be all that flexible until a Supreme Court is willing to either overrule itself or find a new logic to come to a different result.

Take the 2nd Amendment for example. We seem powerless to address the twin and competing needs to curb gun violence while respecting American desire to own and carry firearms. Change is out of reach. george washington armed

This is our law. It is good thing for any American to read from time to time. One might ponder the number of comma’s in the 2nd Amendment, which might be read as error and tend to cut the Founding Fathers down to a humanity that may lead to America rising from it’s bended knee before this document and addressing the challenges we face today.
sandy hook

War Crimes

Something that has always bothered me, as a lawyer, was the authority or law that allowed one nation or group of nations to charge war crimes against the combatants of another? I mean, where is it written down that it is a crime to mistreat your POW’s, or that civilians should not be killed? prisioner of war

It turns out in many places. The Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, adopted July 27th, 1927, for an example.

But enforcement depends on politics. Take the Japanese treatment of our POW’s during WWII for example. Horrible. Death marches, random executions, poor conditions, little food, little shelter. Those responsible were tried and convicted of several breaches of international law.

How did the Russians treat their captured Germans in the same war? Horrible. Death marches, random executions, poor conditions, little food, little shelter. Those responsible were NOT tried and convicted of several breaches of international law.

Why? Well perhaps it was the 24 million soldiers and citizens that died during the conflict that somehow shifted the moral weight in their favor. More probably it was because the Russians were on the winning side. war crimes

Curtis Lemay, commander of our strategic bomber air forces over Japan late in the war famously said that if America had lost the war he would be tried for war crimes. This is probable. curtis lemay

In 1907 a general protocol referred to as the Hague Convention of the Laws and Customs of War on Land was adopted. Among its provisions bombardment of civilian areas or undefended ports was prohibited by naval forces. Following World War I in an arbitration between Greece and Germany held in 1927, this provision was held to extend to aerial bombardment.

Ten years later the Germans elected to ignore international law for a town called Guernica Spain. guernica

By World War II the bombing of civilian targets was common. To end the war against Japan, we the Americans, dropped two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but not before we firebombed the other wooden cities for months, creating firestorms only occasionally seen in the European Theater. Curtis Lemay was the ground officer in charge of the mission.

There were no trials about bombardment of civilian populations following World War II. How could that hypocrisy be heard anywhere?

As a human I know right from wrong. It is wrong to round up a class of persons, say the Jews, and attempt to exterminate them. That is just murder and everyone knows that. You don’t have to go to law school to know this. The War Crimes Tribunals, where they may have lacked authority, asserted this as a crime against humanity, and they were right to do so. nuremberg 2

But there was actually a precedent placing everyone on notice the killing of civilians would be called a crime. The Ottoman Empire had practiced a genocide against the Armenians during the First World War. Several nations later declared this to be a “Crime Against Humanity”.

And this satisfies the lawyer part of me that needs some law, some decision or other authority to point to in order to prosecute and punish these acts. For lawyers anything less is just victors justice.