Happy Tuesday everyone! We have a post from Stephen today! Thank you Stephen, as always.
Woot’s observations about the true nature of a recent idea sponsored by the US State department is absolutely correct. https://truepundit.com/u-s-confirms-cash-offer-to-tanker-captains-to-seize-iranian-vessels/
You, dear reader, may recall that this is surprisingly not the first time this topic has been broached in the pages of FreedomReconnection.com having been the topic of a previous post by your vaguely humble author over two years hence: https://www.freedomreconnection.com/2017/07/10/letters-of-marque-and-reprisal/
However, the present day context is even more direct in its implementation of that antiquated practice in the present day, overtly offering not merely possession of the vessel thus seized but a cash reward, though it is unclear from the article whether the cash reward is in leu of the ownership of the property seized or in addition to the privateer’s booty.
Unlike those instances and practices referenced in the prior article of other nations employing the concept against our nation and other western powers, the present instance is of the United States engaging in that practice against other foreign powers, in this instance Iran.
This is . . . problematic . . . in a number of ways.
Without question the seizure of the ships of a foreign nation are a hostile act, the seizure of a military ship being tantamount to an act of war, while the seizure of merchant ships being an affront but not typically sufficient to spark open conflict between the hostile nations.
You surely recall the Chinese forcing an American military plane to land on Hainan Island in April of 2001, which ramped up international tensions and the very real possibility of America going to war with China. Fortunately, calmer head presided and a diplomatic resolution was reached, the events and tensions of that time becoming occluded naturally due to other international incidents later that same year. http://fly.historicwings.com/2013/04/the-hainan-island-incident/
Of course, more pertinent to the situation with Iran was the 2016 incident involving the capture of two US Navy patrol boats by Iranian forces, though this did not rise to the level of seriousness of the incident with China, it has set the stage for increasing aggression by Iran since the incident. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/world/middleeast/us-navy-iran.html
After an attack on two Japanese operated tanker in the Straights of Hormuz, in June of this year, after four previous explosions on other tankers in the region, America blamed Iran for that attack which Iran naturally denied. More recently, in July, after the UK briefly seized an Iranian Oil tanker claimed to be bound for Syria, a UK Tanker was seized by Iran, seemingly in retaliation.
It is not an exaggeration that activity is increasing in the waters off the coast of Iran, and that the primary targets being oil tankers these hostilities have global implications from Britain to America to Japan. Thus the idea that the US would openly encourage private seizure of Iranian vessels in not an isolated event.
That is merely one thing that becomes disturbing and problematic about this action by the US State Department akin to the issuance of Letters of Marque and Reprisal, identical in all but name and form, but it is not the only problem.
When did the State Department become Congress? The list of powers granted specifically to Congress include the power to “. . . grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” – Paragraph 11, Section 8, Article I, US Constitution.
This is what is most disturbing in the article, yet completely omitted from any reference in the article. No mention is made that this power granted exclusively to Congress is being usurped by an executive branch agency, the State Department.
Of course, some may point to the War Powers Act which grants the executive branch certain leeway (ironically a nautical term) to act militarily in an emergency situation if the US is attacked or threatened for a limited time of up to 60 days, which is based on the idea that if attacked or threatened the urgent necessity precluded the ability to seek formal declaration of a state of war.
However, this is specifically not military action and said act cannot apply. This is a clear usurpation of the authority granted to Congress by the State Department.
It seems abundantly clear to anyone who has given it much thought that no law can abrogate the duties or authorities of any branch or level of government specifically assigned to it in the Constitution just as no mere law can supercede the authority of the Constitution itself. Congress may not by law assign their duties and powers executive control thus ceding their authority in defiance of the Constitution.
Thus any rule concerning the capture of a foreign vessel must be established by Congress itself, not the State Department. Numerous facts which argue for the State Department engaging in such actions cannot overcome this basic fault.
Clearly, the Iranians have exhibited sufficient hostility towards their fellow nations that the issuance of Letters of Marque and Reprisal are certainly warranted.
In the absence of such counter aggression it is highly probable that Iran’s aggressions and hostilities will increase if only to divert attention of their own populace from the increasing breakdown of their economy and internal political control.
Obviously, our current divided Congress with a Democrat controlled House of Representative openly hostile to both the Republican President and the Republican Senate precludes the current Congress from ever effecting such a foreign policy scheme.
It also appears distressingly certain that the same disfunctional Congress would be incapable of uniting to assert their Constitutional power over this provision against an executive bureaucracy and President determined to unconstitutionally exercise this power and the spending power to divert funds from their intended purposes.
Yet, in spite of all of this, the Constitutional provision investing in Congress the sole authority to create rules regarding the capture of foreign vessels at sea by that so closely akin to the Letters of Marque and Reprisal, which prevent such captain and crews of private vessels engaging in such seizures from being hung from the highest yardarm or gibbet for blatant acts of piracy on the high seas, the State Department openly admits this unconstitutional usurpation.
Interestingly, this lawless act by the State Department makes them accessories to any act of piracy conducted upon their behalf, by their command, and rewarded by them. Who would have thought that our US State Department would have turned pirate?
If there is no rule of law, if the law is taken for naught, then that government cannot be respected among civilized men. I do not disagree with the policy, but they have no authority to enact such a policy. That authority is essential. The political party in power makes no difference in the necessity to follow the law. Let Congress act, or do not act, there is no other alternative.
