US To Bring Back Pirates To Seize Russian Yachts - Look at me, I'm the Pirate now

From Zerohedge (a)

Via SovereignMan.com,

Centuries ago, whenever Kings and Queens wanted to quietly wage an unofficial war against their enemies, they issued something called a “Letter of Marque” to private sailors known as Privateers.

The Letter would legally authorize these Privateers (which was just a polite way of saying ‘Pirate’) to seize other kingdom’s ships and cargo while at sea.

It was essentially government-sanctioned theft.

Well, the United States Congress is bringing back this practice.

A recent bill that was introduced would “authorize the President of the United States to issue letters of marque and reprisal for the purpose of seizing the assets of certain Russian citizens.”

So, if the bill passes, children can once again legitimately dream of becoming a pirate when they grow up.

The last time the US authorized privateers was during the War of 1812.

Read the full bill

Arrgg!

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

Every human rights NGO on the planet would be so far up the US's ass it would be one of the biggest legal shitshows in american history

No they wouldn't lol, """""human rights""""" NGOs are all in the pocket of the elite. Look at the double standards they apply to the wars in Syria and Ukraine, or for that matter the United States in Afghanistan or Iraq.

 

[BelUwUga]

Ok, but can the coast guard still pull you over for drinking while boating? I ain't gonna be a pirate without rum. That's like a cheeseburger without cheese.

Well the workaround for that is quite simple, pick somewhere lacking a blue water navy as your country of registration. Why the fuck would you want to venture into Liberian territorial waters? Sure drinking and captaining might still be illegal, but enforcement literally doesn't exist for most of the globe. It's great.

 

[mrpatapon]

Being a privateer is the lowest of the low. Imagine needing government permission to be an absolute menace on the open ocean. What a joke.

Well if you're going out to plunder the seas, you might as well make some extra cash by taking a contract from a friendly government to do something you were already going to do anyway regardless of their permission.

 

[draggs]

Sure is.

But the United States declared war on the Russian Federation weeks ago. We're just pretending that's not what's going on here.

Not by the customs of war and international relations it isn't. But since it hasn't been used since the golden age of sail... those customs have been lapsed for like 300 years. Privateering today would probably be considered different than it was in the days of James I or whoever

Supplying a belligerent with arms or refusing to do business with a belligerent has also never been considered an act or declaration of war

 

[TowinKarz]

As if a true and honest Russian oligarch upon learning people intend to seize his shit once he leaves territorial waters won't elect to just chill in port or hire a couple ice cube chewing psychos to shoot you if you get within a ship's length of them after ignoring warning shots.

 

[Bum Driller]

Although I highly doubt that this would be true, if it were it would be the coolest thing to happen in a long time.

 

[Ser Prize]

The WEF and pals gotta kick off that population reduction somehow

They are trying so hard for WW3.

 

[kcbbq]

As if a true and honest Russian oligarch upon learning people intend to seize his shit once he leaves territorial waters won't elect to just chill in port or hire a couple ice cube chewing psychos to shoot you if you get within a ship's length of them after ignoring warning shots.

You can defend yourself against privateers, it's just that privateering, by definition isn't piracy, and isn't a crime against humanity. You can't summarily execute a privateer, but you can a pirate as long as you aren't stupid and offer them surrender. Executing a privateer pretty much lets whatever country issued the Marque's Navy to come shooting because of the violation. One little document makes all the difference. Privateers are also have to get everyone on the ships they take to a port, have to keep them safe and cared for, and can't do anything considered a crime at sea. They're also agents of whatever state issued the Marque and not exactly considered civilian or merchant vessels, so they're fair game to the other side's navy.

The laws of the sea are complex and sometimes strange traditions, many centuries old that are followed pretty zealously so everyone knows the line not to cross. Crossing those lines makes you a pariah not allowed to dock anywhere useful at best. No sailor wants to go to sea knowing ships in the area will ignore you when something goes wrong. Bitter enemies drop everything to help you out if you're in good standing and something goes wrong. Sometimes the rules make no sense but they usually work well.

Privateering isn't going to ve very effective anymore, anyway, the difference between ships private citizens can afford and naval vessels is huge and has been for over a century, but the Russian Navy is all rusty hulks and their submarines are more likely to kill the crew from fires or radiation leaks than any anything useful even in peacetime, so who knows.

 

[Radical Cadre]

Supplying a belligerent with arms or refusing to do business with a belligerent has also never been considered an act or declaration of war

But it is.

 

[Snekposter]

Russian citizens are just that, russian citizens. The US government can't just tell the president 'you can steal shit because he's russian.' Its a massive violation of international law and has been since privateering was banned by the hague conference in 1907

Unlawful privateer activities are an explicit act of war. It'll also get the US government sued out its ass by any foreign citizens for trying to steal non military private property owned by civilians. There is also the fact anyone this is exercised against could claim discrimination based on ethnicity and ethnic origin, which is a prohibited as a hate crime, same as religion, race, gender, etc.... under US law. Every human rights NGO on the planet would be so far up the US's ass it would be one of the biggest legal shitshows in american history

So what is the US going to do? issue a privateer license that violates international law, then tell some captain in the US navy to seize some russian civilians ship? and do what when they refuse? Fire on a civilian vessel? Oh yeah, that will end well i'm sure. Does the US navy know what an act of war is? Does the US navy know what international law is? Just how many laws is the US trying to violate here?

I'm pretty sure Putin's invasion special military operation into Ukraine violates a very long list all on its own, never mind there's enough evidence out there war crimes trials will absolutely be necessary should Ukraine win... assuming of course anyone has the balls to actually try and do so against a nuclear-armed country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Conventions_of_1899_and_1907#Hague_Convention_of_1899
I'm 99% certain Russia's actions are the diplomatic equivalent of shredding them, pissing on them, then feeding the pee-soaked scraps to pigs, but what do I know?

I could be entirely wrong, but I think I heard that the US never originally had a Navy per se because they couldn't afford it and barely wanted it until it got its first taste of international control with the Barbary Pirates.

Na, we could, but the Feds were cheapskates and decided the money was better spent elsewhere, and then you had Thomas Jefferson going "Navy? Pffft, we'll just arm merchantmen in case of war!" Also it was the Quasi-War with France of non-declared hostilities that had us panic and try and build a Navy... and then after things were resolved we let the ships we ordered sit there uncompleted because again, Congress felt the money would be better spent domestically. Sadly nothing new or unique there at all. When we tried to get a Navy going again in the 1870's things turned into a clusterfuck, the dreadnought era was even worse, Congress mandating we build a ship 2,000 tons smaller than foreign counterparts, and it wasn't until the Washington Naval Treaty set nice, comfy limits on ships that Congress finally relented and let the Navy actually build what it wanted.

You can defend yourself against privateers, it's just that privateering, by definition isn't piracy, and isn't a crime against humanity. You can't summarily execute a privateer, but you can a pirate as long as you aren't stupid and offer them surrender. Executing a privateer pretty much lets whatever country issued the Marque's Navy to come shooting because of the violation. One little document makes all the difference. Privateers are also have to get everyone on the ships they take to a port, have to keep them safe and cared for, and can't do anything considered a crime at sea. They're also agents of whatever state issued the Marque and not exactly considered civilian or merchant vessels, so they're fair game to the other side's navy.

The laws of the sea are complex and sometimes strange traditions, many centuries old that are followed pretty zealously so everyone knows the line not to cross. Crossing those lines makes you a pariah not allowed to dock anywhere useful at best. No sailor wants to go to sea knowing ships in the area will ignore you when something goes wrong. Bitter enemies drop everything to help you out if you're in good standing and something goes wrong. Sometimes the rules make no sense but they usually work well.

Privateering isn't going to ve very effective anymore, anyway, the difference between ships private citizens can afford and naval vessels is huge and has been for over a century, but the Russian Navy is all rusty hulks and their submarines are more likely to kill the crew from fires or radiation leaks than any anything useful even in peacetime, so who knows.

You know what, considering the Texans were the only people to ever defeat a steamship with a sailing ship during their war for independence against Mexico, my money's on the privateers.