4 ms·

It does not need such letters anymore. The US got a better thing called "sanctions", which apparently allow US Navy to forcefully detain ships on the high seas

by fuoqi 3y ago

It does not need such letters anymore. The US got a better thing called "sanctions", which apparently allow US Navy to forcefully detain ships on the high seas and sell their stuff on the grounds of them being engaged in "illegal trade", despite the ship having nothing to do with the US.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> It does not need such letters anymore. True, its hard to imagine a situation where privateers would add any measurable capacity to the US Navy. > The US got a better thing called “sanctions”, which apparently allow US Navy to forcefully detain ships on the high seas and sell their stuff on the grounds of them being engaged in “illegal trade”, despite the ship having nothing to do with the US. That kind of sanctions, don’t replace letters of marque (letters of marque are a way of getting private ships to perform functions for which you would otherwise need to use a Navy, which can include commerce raiding or, I suppose, enforcing sanctions – though the era of privateering and the kind of sanctions at issue don’t really overlap), enforcing sanctions is something you do with ships you have. If anything, the “new thing” of sanctions would increase, not decrease, the appeal of letters of marque. What decreases them is having a professional Navy that overmatches the rest of the world combined, making adding private combatant ships, for any purpose, not really attractive.
emmelaich 3y ago
Or executive orders. Where can you find congress agree to drone strike some dwelling in Afghanistan?
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Where can you find congress agree to drone strike some dwelling in Afghanistan? Congress generally doesn’t seek to separately and redundantly authorize specific attacks once it has generally authorized the President to use military force, whether it was the bill passed in 1941 stating “the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan”, or the bill passed in 2001 stating “the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”
  - emmelaich 3y ago
    Thank you, that's enlightening.
mistrial9 3y ago
ok - unless you are talking about fishing past ecological boundaries, or gangs of boats trading "silent running" to enter internationally protected waters to do fishing. In that case, as a human being, yes, stop them. Tax revenue on another countries brand of cigarettes, sure, hands-off.. agree Actual piracy with weapons? how about losing a gun battle with US Navy and going to jail, yes. In other words "it depends" .. a lot

by fuoqi 3y ago

dragonwriter 3y ago

> It does not need such letters anymore. True, its hard to imagine a situation where privateers would add any measurable capacity to the US Navy. > The US got a better thing called “sanctions”, which apparently allow US Navy to forcefully detain ships on the high seas and sell their stuff on the grounds of them being engaged in “illegal trade”, despite the ship having nothing to do with the US. That kind of sanctions, don’t replace letters of marque (letters of marque are a way of getting private ships to perform functions for which you would otherwise need to use a Navy, which can include commerce raiding or, I suppose, enforcing sanctions – though the era of privateering and the kind of sanctions at issue don’t really overlap), enforcing sanctions is something you do with ships you have. If anything, the “new thing” of sanctions would increase, not decrease, the appeal of letters of marque. What decreases them is having a professional Navy that overmatches the rest of the world combined, making adding private combatant ships, for any purpose, not really attractive.

emmelaich 3y ago

Or executive orders. Where can you find congress agree to drone strike some dwelling in Afghanistan?

dragonwriter 3y ago
> Where can you find congress agree to drone strike some dwelling in Afghanistan? Congress generally doesn’t seek to separately and redundantly authorize specific attacks once it has generally authorized the President to use military force, whether it was the bill passed in 1941 stating “the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan”, or the bill passed in 2001 stating “the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”
- emmelaich 3y ago
  Thank you, that's enlightening.

mistrial9 3y ago

ok - unless you are talking about fishing past ecological boundaries, or gangs of boats trading "silent running" to enter internationally protected waters to do fishing. In that case, as a human being, yes, stop them. Tax revenue on another countries brand of cigarettes, sure, hands-off.. agree Actual piracy with weapons? how about losing a gun battle with US Navy and going to jail, yes. In other words "it depends" .. a lot