Pirates Strike Back!

[Cinder & Smoke]

So is there some legal reason why they can't be armed then?

YES - there are some legal reasons; and a lot of moral / personal reasons that
Merchant Ships should NOT be armed with guns ...

Legal Reasons:
* Many ports forbid armed Navy vessels from entering without special permission
* Armed vessels may have to dock far from populated areas
* Seamen's Unions will probably oppose arming their members without offering extra pay
* Without extensive (and expensive) training, an armed Seaman is a liability to
his own shipmates and the general public.

Moral / Personal reasons not to arm:
* Bad guys are more likely to *shoot* if they THINK the Good guys might
* Civilian Ships are not armored - poorly suited to withstand gunfire
* Civilian Seamen joined to sail the ship - not play Marine
* Where do you draw the line? How BIG a gun is OK?

My suggestion - let the Navy Guys *sink* a few more pirates and the
*thrill* of hijacking may start to fade a bit.

GO NAVY!!

[blue]

Article I, Section 8, paragraph 11 of the Constitution.

[Cinder & Smoke]

Article I, Section 8, paragraph 11 of the Constitution.

Says WHAT?

(I don't have my pocket reference copy handy.)

[blue]

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water

Source.

[Lady's Human]

Just a couple quick notes....

Merchant ships being unarmed is a recent anomaly, historically. Until the 20th century merchantmen were routinely armed to deal with (drum roll, please) Pirates. Piracy had largely though not completely) been eradicated by the Royal Navy and the US Navy, removing the need to arm merchant ships. Even into the early 20th century merchantmen normally had a small arms locker to deal with issues.

If Letters of Marque have been granted by Congress anytime in the last 200 years, I'm unaware of it. Handy way to deal with unspoken wars (basically a letter of marque is legalized piracy), but I don't believe we have used them in the post revolutionary period.

[blue]

Letters of Marque are at least Constitutional. LOMs where also used during the War of 1812 against the BNT.

The bounties on Bin Laden and other terrorists currently in place today seem similar to LOMs.

Allocating Naval vessels to combat piracy would likely be far more expensive then issuing LOMs to private contractors.

[Lady's Human]

I could argue semantics, but I won't. (The US wasn't really treated by the Great Powers as a serious player until after the war of 1812, and even after that it was a very, very grudging respect. Hence the post-revolutionary qualifier.....it's like arguing when WW2 started......it all depends on whose perspective you're looking at the question from)

After doing a little looking we used 1 letter of marque in WW2, for an airship used in searching for submarines on the coast.

As to using naval vessels to combat piracy, that's pretty much what got the original 6 frigates constructed. It would be very, very difficult to argue that using the US Navy to combat piracy is unconstitutional. Keeping the sea lanes open for merchant traffic has been priority number one for ANY navy for centuries.

[Cinder & Smoke]

Letters of Marque are at least Constitutional.

Allocating Naval vessels to combat piracy would likely be
far more expensive then issuing LOMs to private contractors.

Letting the Navies of the World combat high seas piracy rather than farm out the
anit-piracy operations would no doubt result in better control and coordination
of the efforts ... and less bad press when incidents like the Blackwater / Iraq
civilian shootings happen during a Letter of Marque operation.

PS: NICE to see ya, Fred!