"modern privateers?" Topic

link

Is it time to issue letters of marque?

"We've heard a bit about letters of marque and reprisal recently. Sen. Mike Lee has proposed bringing back letters of marque in a thread on X, suggesting them as a tool for going after Mexican drug cartels. Erik Prince, who founded Blackwater, the private security company (it's rude to call them "mercenaries") has also weighed in in favor of this approach. My own Congressman, Tim Burchett (R-TN) has introduced legislation allowing the President to issue letters of marque and reprisal against cartels, the Cartel Marque and Reprisal Reauthorization Act of 2025, co-sponsored with Rep. Mark Messmer, (R-IN). (The full text of the bill is here.)

This isn't a new idea, really. Letters of marque and reprisal date back centuries; and even in this century there have been proposals to use them again, particularly after 9/11 when they were proposed, particularly by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) as a way of going after terrorists. More recently, people have proposed "Cyber Letters of Marque and Reprisal" to go after hackers.

Is there anything to these ideas, or do they just appeal to our swashbuckling side? Let's talk."

And by all means check out Grok's idea of a modern privateer!

According to the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Congress has the authority to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal.

See the Wikipedia article, which I shall not reproduce here in full, despite recent precedent.

link

Considering the madcap antics of the recent current administration, it's possible. But I would not consider it advisable.
For one thing, the Paris Declaration of 1856 sought to abolish Letters of Marque and Reprisal.
link
It was the first such "treaty" to invite later signatories to participate in and sign on.
The United States abides by this but is NOT a signatory.
All the more reason for this madcap administration to thumb its nose at bloody foreigners. It would be consistent.

But I note that all the recent attempts were to "authorize the President" to issue such Letters, keeping with Constitutional niceties. I've noted that the current administration seems to consider the Constitution a mere suggestion, and not actually mandatory, so who knows if he really think he "needs" such authorization?
The legal and technical aspects boggle the mind. Perhaps the innocent January 6 lads with naval experience might be interested. Let THEM invade Mexico and Canada!

Privateers were usually self funded, and covered their costs through the sale of cargo taken from prizes, so if the target for privateering is the drug cartels and their shipments …. :)

@David Manley
Exactly. They must finance this themselves. And how do they profit? Traditionally, they would have their booty condemned in a Prize Court. Then what happens to the loot? 🤷
But then, as I alluded to above, mere technicalities.

John, did you read Reynolds' piece? He discusses all that.

"Writing in Proceedings of the U.S. Naval Institute in 2007, Claude Berube suggests that you don't even need a letter of marque:

It is unlikely Congress would issue letters of marque, particularly since no nation has exercised them in more than a century. Instead, the United States might employ a 21st-century iteration, perhaps "contracts of marque" issued to private naval companies. Authorization for such companies already exists in Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which states: "The President, through any agency of the Department of Defense designated by him, may arm, have armed, or allow to be armed, any watercraft or aircraft that is capable of being used as a means of transportation on, over, or under water, and is documented, registered, or licensed under the laws of the United States." . . .

It is important to emphasize that private naval companies would not supplant conventional, symmetric naval missions against navies of other nations in potential conflicts, but given proper embedded oversight and held accountable, their benefits could be harnessed and provide an asymmetric, demand-stimulated force multiplier against the asymmetric forces of non-state actors."

Yes. I read it. And I don't think he addresses my issues in any meaningful way. He simply talks around and past them. But, if it's on the Internet, it has to be true! 🙄
Please explain the difference between a "Letter of Marque" and a "Contract of Marque". I see none. Nor do I think that signatories to the Paris accord would.

Now, I realize that the current administration has no concept of "rules" etc, particularly when they get in the way, but I do not see this as a practical solution to anything.

Oh. "Contractors". 🙄
That's the term I was raking my old brain for.
Yeah. Those undisciplined yahoos. Fits right in with the current mindset.
Yeah. Sure. Fine.
Why not?

"The President, through any agency of the Department of Defense designated by him, may arm, have armed, or allow to be armed, any watercraft or aircraft that is capable of being used as a means of transportation on, over, or under water, and is documented, registered, or licensed under the laws of the United States." . . .

And that bypasses the explicit phrasing of Article 1, Section 8? How, exactly?
Oh, I get it. Congress passes the buck, just like we haven't had a Budget since 2008?

It's a terrible idea.

Well, they'd be just like any PMC …

Now, I realize that the current administration has no concept of "rules" etc, particularly when they get in the way, but I do not see this as a practical solution to anything.

I think the last admin had the same MO … IMO actually worse … But … the finger pointing will continue … 👈👉☝👆👇🤘 No clean hands …

Great idea. What could possibly go wrong?

Plenty….Blackwater over the years was controversial and politicized. Billions in tax dollars spent on services, but also mistakes. Connections to Russia have been the subject of speculation.

Assuming that Letters were to be issued, as noted, funding may be an issue. Traditionally, vessels taking a prize under a letter had to bring that prize to a port where a prize court would determine whether the prize was lawfully taken and then assign a value to the prize and its cargo, based upon the anticipated sale of the prize and cargo. [A prize could be taken to any port, not just a port of the country issuing the letters of marque.] As drugs or other unlawful contraband could not be legally sold, the financial allure of the enterprise is lost, unless the government would be willing to pay for the contraband. If the government was to pay for the contraband, the illegal drug industry could probably make as much money as it currently does by seizing its own drugs. The value of the drugs in the prize court would constantly increase as the supply in the market dried-up. Plus, as the value of drugs in the market increased, new players would enter the market to take advantage of the increased profit potential.

With large commercial vessels, which are generally owned by financial institutions, owners are usually not liable, subject to certain fines, etc., for having drugs found on board vessels they own. If a financial institution that owns a fleet of tankers, for example, as part of its investment portfolio, would find itself liable for something that occurs in connection with crewmen on one of its tankers, that financial institution would liquidate that investment as well as any other marine investment it may hold. That would be the same with any other legal owner of vessels, for investment purposes. [As an aside, just about every country has legislation or is a signatory to international treaties that allows the owner of a vessel to limit its liability in the event of a casualty involving the ship. Simply put, the U.S. allows the shipowner to limit its liability to the after occurrence value of the ship. The limitation fund of the TITANIC in the U.S. was the value of the 13 lifeboats recovered. Under the most common international treaty, liability is limited based upon a value assigned for the tonnage of the vessel. This protection is in place to foster investment is shipping. Without a robust maritime industry, international trade comes to a halt and the world's economy dies.]

There is already legislation in place that allows the U.S. to seize any vessel on which contraband is found. This includes merchant vessels that are found to have drugs on board. It is up to the owner of the vessel to establish that it was not complicit in the smuggling operation, directly or through lax policies. Commercial vessel operators can avail themselves of a U.S. program that allows the government to audit the operator's policies to combat smuggling and as long as the operator is in compliance with the policies, they will be less likely to lose their vessel or have a large fine assessed, in the event of contraband being found onboard. Generally, there would be a fine and new policies would have to be put in place.

In 2019 a large container vessel was seized in Philadelphia with over $1 USD-B in drugs found on board. It turned out that some members of the crew allegedly acted in concert with the drug suppliers to load the drugs on the vessel at sea and to try to hide the drugs on the container vessel. The owners and operator of the vessel, which had thousands of containers of cargo belonging to innocent shippers on board, had to post a significant amount of financial security to allow the vessel to sail. Ultimately, the operator of the container vessel had to put policies in place, including policies that removed crew members from a certain country from trade lanes that had a significant potential for drug smuggling.

There is a practical problem, how would private contractors determine if drugs are on board a vessel? It would be problematic to allow a privateer to stop and board a vessel at sea. To allow such a thing would cause insurmountable disruption to maritime commerce. How would a privateer locate drugs or contraband on board a vessel? They could not search each of the up to 20,000 sealed containers on board a container vessel. Plus, the vessel itself can be over 1,000 feet long and 10 stories high. It is physically impossible to open most of the containers on board and even if possible, the seal on the container is a keystone to international trade finance. The sealed container is also the last line of defense against terrorists smuggling explosives or other contraband into the U.S. Each seal number is reported to Homeland Security before the vessel sails on a voyage to the U.S. It is not as if there is a large flashing sign with an arrow saying "illegal drugs here."

It would be impossible to bring vessels into a port to conduct a search because there is not a lot of port space available where a vessel could be secured pending search. There are not enough longshoremen available to assist in the search. Even if there was enough space and enough labor, the cost of docking a commercial vessel alongside a pier is astronomical. Who would pay for the wharfage expense and who would negotiate with the Longshoremens union? Most ports are "closed shops" when it comes to port labor.

Unlike the romantic days of old, there is no place for private enforcement of maritime smuggling laws, absent a declared war that could allow for the capture and sale of vessels owned by a combatant nation. Even then, there would be a problem because most commercial vessels are registered in flag of convenience jurisdictions where the actual ownership is obscured. This includes most of the vessels owned by U.S corporations. U.S. interests set-up the first flag of convenience ship's registry and have been very active up to this day in a successful effort to avoid expensive regulations associated with U.S. flagged vessels.

We have all heard stories about drug cartels buying commercial vessels in which to carry their drugs. I am unaware of any proof that such a situation has occurred. The day of the "tramp" operator is gone. For the most part, small owners rely upon operating agencies to manage their ships. There are still some small operators (Asia, S. America, Africa), however, few of them would regularly call to the U.S. There are small operators sailing from the U.S. to Gulf of America ports and South America. Because of the drug smuggling potential, those vessels are subject to extra scrutiny by U.S. officials when calling at a U.S. port. I guess buying a sixth or seventh hand small vessel sailing from the Miami River to carry $1 USD-B worth of drugs to the U.S. would be "cost effective" as far as the ship is concerned, the issue would be the amount of lost product?

I believe that there are rewards given to individuals that provide a tip to law enforcement about contraband being trafficked into the country. It seems to me that advertising that type of program and protecting the identity of the whistle-blower would be significantly more helpful to stop the traffic in drugs as opposed to the issuance of letters of marque. Absent limiting legislation as to liability, a holder of a letter of marque could face liability running into millions or billions of dollars if they get it wrong. Maritime transport is more than just carrying cargo, it includes getting cargo to destination in good condition and at a particular time. If a vessel is delayed, demurrage amounting the tens of thousands of dollars a day could become due. The standard force majeure clause in a contract will exclude liability for governmental actions, however, I doubt that letters of marque are within the contemplation of most contract parties. Worldwide commercial interests would not stand for that kind of interruption. Love him or hate him, the President is a businessman.

Another point, the section of Title 10 quoted by docmcb above states that the watercraft must be registered or licensed under the laws of the U.S. Generally, to be registered under the laws of the U.S., the vessel must be built in the U.S. and crewed by U.S. citizens. There are ways to get around the registration regulations or new regulations could be issued, however, that is probably not as easy as it sounds. The ship building lobby is still very strong and is partly based upon the need for ship builders in the event of war. No congressman will be willing to take a stand against a national defense argument.

The use of letters of marque to fight modern drug smuggling is simply a bad idea. There is just about nothing associated with modern maritime commerce that would make the issuance of letters of marque useful or workable. There are certainly different types of programs currently in place or that could easily be put into place that would be more helpful.

I am really sorry, I did not realize that I wrote so much.

At least it's your own words, and not copy and paste.
I found your contribution much more interesting because it's your own thoughts and interpretation.

Thanks John

"… Gulf of America ports…"
The satire just about writes itself. 😄

Not too long Red Jacket, nice job…

I am really sorry, I did not realize that I wrote so much.

That's one of the best posts I've read on any board, mate. Interesting and informative. So need need to apologise.

That should read "no need to apologise".

Not an expert on naval history or maritime law, but I understood that letters of marque normally authorised the bearer to operate against the shipping of a country against whom the issuing power was at war. So does issuing marque against the drug cartels effectively recognise them as sovereign states?

GurKhan, maybe they would be considered insurrectionist elements of the Republic of Mexico? According to the University of New Brunswick online, the Lord High Admiral or his Commissioners issued 2,285 letters of marque during the American Revolution, allowing private vessels to interdict Colonial shipping. Given the size of the Royal Navy, I never even considered the fact that England would use privateers. Then again, there have been allegations that the English aristocracy, including the King, had financed privateers sailing under letters of marque. I have read that Captain Kidd was on a privateer voyage under letters of marque when he took the prize that resulted in his arrest and execution. From what I read, several high-ranking government officials (perhaps even the King) were investors on that voyage and they received their share of the booty that cost Kidd his life. While 70 years before the Revolutionary War, Kidd is proof that letters of marque and a lucky captain were a short-cut to wealth. Again, based upon research for a speech I gave, when he lived in New York, William Kidd was one of, if not the richest men in the colony.

Another interesting question, the Continental Congress issued letters of marque when no other nation had recognized our country's existence. Would all of the successful American privateers been treated as pirates had the colonies not become the United States? Probably not because all of the captured riches were being sold in French and Spanish prize courts. It really does always come down to a question of money.

So many points to show why it would be a "bad idea".
Which guarantees that it will be implemented! 😄

Red Jacket, yes, British privateers were a big threat to Virginia's "eastern frontier." The Virginia State Navy was too small, and there were too many rivers, to do much against them. Tidewater counties maintained militia outposts at the head of each river to give an alarm, which was about all that could be done. This was a major drain of Virginia's manpower throughout the war. And I have done some great skirmish games of privateers raiding plantations. Slaves were a favored form of "loot," being mobile and having a ready market in the Indies. Then there was "the Battle of the Barges."

John Cropper had served as colonel of a Virginia Continental Regiment, and then returned home to be appointed county lieutenant of Accomack County on the Eastern Shore. (The county lieutenant was a British institution, the king's representative, or in Virginia the governor's rep.) He led a company of his militia serving as marines on a fleet of Maryland State barges,who fought a loody battle against a fleet of British privateers.

link

"Throughout the Revolutionary War British barges plundered and harassed farmers living on the Maryland and Virginia Eastern Shore creeks. By 1782 the state of Maryland had had enough and ordered Commodore Zedechiah Whaley of the Maryland State Navy to clear the Chesapeake Bay of this British threat. Commodore Whaley in command of a flotilla of 4 sail and oar driven barges spotted the enemy in Tangier Sound. Determining that the British force was too strong for his lightly manned barges, Commodore Whaley sailed into Onancock creek on 28 November 1782, and asked Lieutenant Colonel John Cropper (County Lieutenant of Accomack County) to assist him with volunteers to man his barges. Colonel Cropper gathered up 25 local men and boarded Whaley's flagship PROTECTOR. Officers with Colonel Cropper were Captain Tom Parker, William Gibb, and Major Smith Snead. Underway the following day the American flotilla sighted the British force east of Tangier Island heading north at a fast pace.

After a 24-hour chase the Maryland fleet caught up with the six British barges at the head of Kedges Strait, the water that divides Smith Island and South Marsh Island to the north. Whaley ordered his fleet to attack and in a short while they had closed the enemy to 300 yards. Encountering heavy cannon and musket fire 3 of the 4 Maryland barges turned back leaving PROTECTOR and its 65-man crew alone to fight the British.

As the battle pressed on, gunpowder on PROTECTOR exploded killing four men. Others jumped overboard in flames. A musket ball killed commodore Whaley. In hand to hand fighting Colonel Cropper was badly wounded. Overwhelmed by a superior force, PROTECTOR surrendered. Of the 65 men who went into action aboard PROTECTOR, 25 were killed or drowned, 29 were wounded and only 11 escaped. By 3 December Colonel Cropper and the other American prisoners were released and were back in Onancock. The Battle of the Barges was over. Ironically the battle had occurred on the same day that the Treaty of Peace between Great Britain and the United States was signed.

So many points to show why it would be a "bad idea".
Which guarantees that it will be implemented!

I wouldn't doubt there are PMCs doing something this already …

I hope not.

There is so much going on that is classified we will never know. And if PMCs are targeting cartels, gangs, etc. I'd hope they do a lot damage to them.

The US Gov't has drones, orbital assets, etc. running recon and surveillance. It probably has been going on for a while. But like the border coming under positive control in less than a month. I'm sure drone, etc. missions have picked up too. The last POTUS didn't make national security a priority.

The US with drones, TLAMs, etc. mapping out where the cartel/gangs leaders, etc. are. It wouldn't be too hard to eliminate them with our assets from the air. Killing many bad guys and yes, there will be collateral damage. Mitigating it is the best that could be done.

But without Mexico's permission it would be an act of war. However, telling the Mex gov't what we were going to do. Would guarantee that with all the members of that gov't being on the take. The strikes would not be successful as they could.

And with the POTUS designating many of the cartels/gangs as terrorists. We have more options …

It seems like with Hamas, ISIS, AQ, and the cartels being terrorists. Eliminating as many of them as often as possible may certainly be worthwhile …