I wanted to enter this into the record for LoM related stuff. This is interesting that there seems to be more discussion going on about Article 1, Section 8, and finally we might get some serious critique on the matter. For an idea to be strong, it needs to be forged in the furnace of debate and criticism. So I like hearing the concepts being thrown around.
One of the things I have been researching with the LoM lately is the reasoning why it still exists in the Constitution. With that, I had to go back to the Civil War during the 1860’s and see what the factors were during the signing of the Declaration of Paris in 1857. I thought this was some very intriguing history and it indicated how crucial the LoM was to wartime strategy for the US in it’s early wars–politically and militarily. It is also interesting how the Confederate Privateer’s wikipedia only presents part of the story about why the US did not sign the Declaration of Paris in 1857, and they make no mention of the Union paying blockaders (or basically private naval forces) to enforce the blockades necessary to stop the Confederate privateers. Ha! But there is certainly enough info about it all if someone cared to make the connections.(like me, hee hee)
Nor do they make any mention in this Confederate Privateer wiki of the Marcy Amendment or how the US thought privateering was necessary for a country who did not have a navy as strong as the European navies. Back in 1857, the US was all about privateering, and 4 years later, they were still all about privateering. I think Lincoln only publicly protested the concept because his enemy was using privateers and issuing LoMs to Americans and anyone in the world that qualified and wanted one.
Well, back to the article below. It is important to get the history and record straight as to what the real deal is about the Letter of Marque and why the US did not remove it from the US constitution. Because if there ever was an effort to bring back the LoM as a tool of warfare, this history will be crucial to the intellectual and legal discussion about such things. Interesting stuff. (all Civil War/Declaration of Paris information is at the end of this post) –Matt
——————————————————————
Is It Legal to Kill Osama bin Laden?
Not really. But if you act alone, you’re probably in the clear.
BY JOSHUA E. KEATING
JUNE 22, 2010
Gary Faulkner, the American man detained in Pakistan while trying to kill Osama bin Laden, will be released this week without charges, according to his family. The 52-year-old Colorado construction worker was arrested last week in northwest Pakistan for carrying weapons — including a pistol and 40-inch sword — without a permit. Questions of practicality (and sanity) aside, had Faulkner succeeded, could he have been charged with murder?
Probably not. Faulkner probably couldn’t be charged with murder if he killed bin Laden and then returned to the United States, since the murder would have happened abroad where U.S. courts have no say. “Universal jurisdiction” for crimes against humanity is an increasingly popular notion in human rights law, and one that’s been gaining some traction in the United States — a U.S. citizen was convicted of committing torture abroad for the first time last year — but a simple murder, particularly when the victim is the world’s most infamous terrorist, probably wouldn’t qualify.