3 ms·

> Not under US law (even if it still wouldn’t make any sense under international law for the reasons described above), since Constitutionally that would require

> Not under US law (even if it still wouldn’t make any sense under international law for the reasons described above), since Constitutionally that would require an active of Congress authorizing such letters, which has not occurred. You can imagine what you want, but its simply not a reality. As we all know, the US defense apparatus, particularly its clandestine branch, has never done anything illegal.

gattilorenz 3y ago
> the US defense apparatus, particularly its clandestine branch, has never done anything illegal. That’s irrelevant: the point of the letter is exactly to make it not illegal. If anything, it proves they didn’t have a (literal) letter of marque.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> As we all know, the US defense apparatus, particularly its clandestine branch, has never done anything illegal. A letter of marque is a specific legal instrument. If the US (or Russian) government is recruiting and employing private sector hacking groups as cyberwarfare agents (as both probably are), whehter or not they are doing so legally under domestic and/or international law, they aren’t issuing letters of marque.
- pclmulqdq 3y ago
  If they're issuing "non-prosecution agreements" or "immunity agreements" (which is likely what they're actually doing) isn't that fundamentally the same thing? The difference is essentially just semantics. It's like how the US hasn't officially been to war since World War II.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > If they’re issuing “non-prosecution agreements” or “immunity agreements” (which is likely what they’re actually doing) isn’t that fundamentally the same thing? No. A letter of marque makes you not pirates but lawful combatants under international law, where there has long been a norm that pirates (but not lawful combatants) are the common enemy of all humanity (hostis humani generis) and subject to summary punishment by any nation, for piracy against the shipping of any nation, without limit. Whereas privateers are, to other nations, of the same legal status as military forces of the sponsoring power. A nonprosecution agreement gives you immunity from punishment under the domestic law of the country issuing it. Not the same thing at all. > It’s like how the US hasn’t officially been to war since World War II. So, a popular myth? US Courts have long rejected the notion that any particular magic words are necessary for Congress to exercise its power to declare war, and that a Congressional authorization of military force that does not use terms like “declaration of war” (the earliest of which was issued in 1798, this is not a new practice) nevertheless is an exercise of the power to declare war. There are some statutes to which magic words are relevant, but that’s a choice of Congress to structure other statutes that way, not something inherent it what makes a state of war under US law.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
    Immunity is "the country we represent won't prosecute you". Marque is "we'll take credit for you officially, such that other countries won't be allowed to hang you as pirates". Big difference.

gattilorenz 3y ago

> the US defense apparatus, particularly its clandestine branch, has never done anything illegal. That’s irrelevant: the point of the letter is exactly to make it not illegal. If anything, it proves they didn’t have a (literal) letter of marque.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> As we all know, the US defense apparatus, particularly its clandestine branch, has never done anything illegal. A letter of marque is a specific legal instrument. If the US (or Russian) government is recruiting and employing private sector hacking groups as cyberwarfare agents (as both probably are), whehter or not they are doing so legally under domestic and/or international law, they aren’t issuing letters of marque.

pclmulqdq 3y ago
If they're issuing "non-prosecution agreements" or "immunity agreements" (which is likely what they're actually doing) isn't that fundamentally the same thing? The difference is essentially just semantics. It's like how the US hasn't officially been to war since World War II.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > If they’re issuing “non-prosecution agreements” or “immunity agreements” (which is likely what they’re actually doing) isn’t that fundamentally the same thing? No. A letter of marque makes you not pirates but lawful combatants under international law, where there has long been a norm that pirates (but not lawful combatants) are the common enemy of all humanity (hostis humani generis) and subject to summary punishment by any nation, for piracy against the shipping of any nation, without limit. Whereas privateers are, to other nations, of the same legal status as military forces of the sponsoring power. A nonprosecution agreement gives you immunity from punishment under the domestic law of the country issuing it. Not the same thing at all. > It’s like how the US hasn’t officially been to war since World War II. So, a popular myth? US Courts have long rejected the notion that any particular magic words are necessary for Congress to exercise its power to declare war, and that a Congressional authorization of military force that does not use terms like “declaration of war” (the earliest of which was issued in 1798, this is not a new practice) nevertheless is an exercise of the power to declare war. There are some statutes to which magic words are relevant, but that’s a choice of Congress to structure other statutes that way, not something inherent it what makes a state of war under US law.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
  Immunity is "the country we represent won't prosecute you". Marque is "we'll take credit for you officially, such that other countries won't be allowed to hang you as pirates". Big difference.