> Article I of the United States Constitution lists issuing letters of marque and reprisal in Section 8 as one of the enumerated powers of Congress, alongside the power to tax and to declare war.
“It is a power enumerated in the Constitution of 1789” does not mean “It is a practice still relevant in the world of 2023”. The US hasn’t issued any Letters of Marque and Reprisal since 1815, and while it remains a Constitutional power of the US government that a couple Republican members of Congress keep trying to breathe active life into since 9/11, it seems well and truly dead in practice.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.”
I read up on this topic; there was a conference in Paris in 1856 after the Second Crimean War where almost everyone abolished the Letter of Marques, but not the US even though the last letter was written in 1815 (41 years prior).
You can't get one from Spain, France, the Netherlands, or Germany – all nations with a tradition of Privateering, but you could get one from the US — maybe in Trumps second term, all it needs is a pirate cryptocoin
> Reportedly the Russian government has issued letters of marque to hacking and cybercrime groups.
Those would only be metaphorical (and even then not a particular apt metaphor) letters of marque and reprisal; a literal letter of marque and reprisal is to a private vessel to attack and seize property from enemy vessels, converting acts which would otherwise be piracy under international law into lawful armed combat.
Cyberhacking groups aren’t vessels, and what they are doing isn’t something that would be piracy under international law without being under the umbrella of government war efforts.
> I can imagine the same has happened in the US.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
>and what they are doing isn’t something that would be piracy under international law without being under the umbrella of government war efforts.
But committing copyright violations is piracy, according to many legal experts apparently. How can there be much difference between cyberhacking groups and naval vessels, when there's really no difference at all between copying a floppy and attacking a merchant vessel on the high seas?
A better example might be North Korean hackers who are explicitly legal under their government and quite proficient at revenue generation on the cyber seas.
> Cyberhacking groups aren’t vessels, and what they are doing isn’t something that would be piracy under international law without being under the umbrella of government war efforts.
Well obviously the cyberspace and information superhighway metaphor needs to morph into the cybersea, and information ocean gyres, and...you get the idea.
It's still a thing