Pain in the Ass

Lexington Green`:

January 7th, 2009 at 1:11 am

Should Congress issue letters of marque and reprisal to go after these guys? 

Eddie:

January 7th, 2009 at 1:28 am

Get a name and I’ll have someone list them as a sex offender on the open-source criminal sites. Between the harassment from locals and the chances it will show up during a future employment screening, it would be a fitting response in kind.

Dave Schuler:

January 7th, 2009 at 2:19 am

Should Congress issue letters of marque and reprisal to go after these guys?

I’ve advocated as much from time to time. Would it be constitutional?

Lexington Green`:

January 7th, 2009 at 2:23 am

"Would it be constitutional?"
.
Declaration of Paris did away with maritime privateering.  Unless we amend it. 
.
Other — creative — uses of the Constitution’s "letters of marque and reprisal" provision?
.
I say, issue one and see what happens. 

jeffrey:

January 7th, 2009 at 5:15 am

SoftLayer and The Planet are two of the worst offenders in selling services to cyber criminals and hackers. I documented SoftLayer’s role in the Russia/Georgia cyber war here: http://intelfusion.net/wordpress/?p=452

purpleslog:

January 7th, 2009 at 5:28 pm

FYI: LinkedIn is a pretty good pl;ace to do recon for actual names attached to companies.

purpleslog:

January 7th, 2009 at 5:32 pm

Note: I am not advising active counter measures against the company or any of its employees.

Re: The Declaration of Paris. So what? The US Constitution allows it, and that trumps any treaty the US signs.

Dave Schuler:

January 7th, 2009 at 5:52 pm

Hmm, purpleslog.  That’s not the way I understand the Constitution.  Here’s Article VI:
.
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
.
As I understand it that means that treaties have a status below the Constitution but above other federal law.  To implement letters of marque and reprisal Congress would need to enact it via statute which the treaty prevents, thereby nullifying Congress’s power in that regard.  Congress could always amend the treaty (as Lex notes) but, again as I understand it, they can’t just ignore it.

purpleslog:

January 7th, 2009 at 7:51 pm

Dave, I understand how you are interpreting its and that sounds reasonable to me. I am not a lawyer and do not pretend to be.

Its too bad though.  I liked the images in my head of Blackwater going after spammers.

Lexington Green`:

January 7th, 2009 at 8:18 pm

Dave and Purpleslog, I agree with Dave’s analysis.  I also think this provision of the Constitution is so old and so little used and it runs against so much of the grain of modern international treaties and customs and practices, that it would take careful crafting to enact viable legislation to put it into effect.  That said, I do think this provision potentially has utility under current conditions.  It would be good to see someone with the time and expertise think through how it could be used. 

Seerov:

January 10th, 2009 at 4:01 am

What is this person doing to you?