Quote:Ron Paul's plan to fend off pirates

Erika Lovley – Wed Apr 15, 5:16 am ET

A little-known congressional power could help the federal government keep the Somali pirates in check — and possibly do it for a discount price.

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and a growing number of national security experts are calling on Congress to consider using letters of marque and reprisal, a power written into the Constitution that allows the United States to hire private citizens to keep international waters safe.

Used heavily during the Revolution and the War of 1812, letters of marque serve as official warrants from the government, allowing privateers to seize or destroy enemies, their loot and their vessels in exchange for bounty money.

The letters also require would-be thrill seekers to post a bond promising to abide by international rules of war.

In a YouTube video earlier this week, Paul suggested lawmakers consider issuing letters, which could relieve American naval ships from being the nation’s primary pirate responders — a free-market solution to make the high seas safer for cargo ships.

“I think if every potential pirate knew this would be the case, they would have second thoughts because they could probably be blown out of the water rather easily if those were the conditions,” Paul said.

Theoretically, hiring bounty hunters would also be a cheaper option.

National security experts estimate that this week’s ship captain rescue by Navy SEALs cost tens of millions, although a Navy spokesman says the military cannot confirm the exact cost of the mission.

Instead, privateers would be incentivized to patrol the ocean looking for key targets — and money would be paid only to the contractor who completed the job.

“If we have 100 American wanna-be Rambos patrolling the seas, it’s probably a good way of getting the job done,” said Competitive Enterprise Institute senior fellow and security expert Eli Lehrer. “Right now we have a Navy designed mostly to fight other navies. The weapons we have are all excellent, but they may not be the best ones to fight these kinds of pirates. The only cost under letters of marque would be some sort of bounty for the pirates.”

According to Senate historians, Congress hasn’t issued a letter of marquee since the War of 1812, but the Confederate States of America issued them during the Civil War to deliver supplies behind enemy lines. There are also some indications that a letter was granted to a flying band of armed civilians during World War II to operate the Resolute, a Goodyear Blimp used to patrol the ocean for enemy submarines, but the issuance isn’t apparent in the Congressional Record.

If Congress were to revisit the antiquated process, a serious makeover would be required.

In the past, privateers were allowed to keep the ship and treasure they captured in an enemy encounter.

“That isn’t a viable way of funding in today’s world,” said Lehrer. “These pirates don’t really have treasure chests, and their money is tied up in Swiss Bank accounts. Congress would probably have to attach sizable bounties to people.”

Bounties are not a new idea — there is still a $25 million bounty on Osama bin Laden, and millions have been awarded by the government for other enemy captures.



The U.S. State Department earlier this month put a $5 million bounty on the head of the top Pakistani Taliban leader, and even local police departments use rewards to solve cold cases.

University of Oregon economics professor Bill Harbaugh argues the setup could potentially work better than some of the United States’ relationships with modern-day security contractors.

“Obviously, this is somewhat like the contract the government had with Blackwater, except we forgot the bond part of the contract, he said. “If Congress had used this contract from 1776, it would have been more sophisticated than the one they issued with Blackwater.”

Harbaugh’s fifth great-grandfather, Silas Talbot, worked as an early privateer for the United States in 1780 after serving in the Revolutionary War. His letter of marque shows he set out with 12 carriage guns and a crew of 50 men to attack and seize cargo ships coming from Great Britain on the high seas.

Could it really work again?

“It may work in the sense that if you give people incentives to fight piracy, you’ll see more action taken against it,” said Andrew Grotto, a senior national security analyst with the Center for American Progress. “The ocean is huge and, practically speaking, there’s no way the Navy can prevent piracy; it’s too big. But just given the experience in Iraq with private contractors, that effort showcases the difficulties dealing with folks who aren’t answerable to anyone but shareholders.”

But Paul has already thought through a number of these updates.

Days after Sept. 11, Paul introduced legislation allowing President Bush to allow private citizens to go after Osama bin Laden and other identified terrorists and put a bounty price on the heads of targets responsible for the New York attacks. Contractors would also be required to post a play-by-the-rules bond and turn over any terrorists — and their seized property —to U.S. authorities.

“The Constitution gives Congress the power to issue letters of marque and reprisal when a precise declaration of war is impossible due to the vagueness of the enemy,” Paul wrote in a press release. “Once letters of marque and reprisal are issued, every terrorist is essentially a marked man.”

But national security experts and legal analysts warn that applying a colonial-era policy to a modern-day problem could be wrought with legal pitfalls that the Founding Fathers never encountered.

If bounty hunters chase pirates into territorial coastal waters or on to the shore of another country, the problem would fall under the jurisdiction of that country. And any plundering activity that takes place in coastal waters is no longer considered piracy, according to College of William and Mary national security law professor Linda Malone.

Not to mention that there’s also no clear indication where and how the captured pirates should be prosecuted.

“You have to find a stable court system nearby to have them tried for these offenses, but that can be quite complicated,” Malone said. “The fact that the pirates are from Somalia doesn’t make them state actors. They are doing this for private gain.”

And how to determine exactly who is a pirate — and what constitutes pirate activity — could get fuzzy.

“What happens when a ship flying under Congress accidentally takes out an aid ship bound for Somalia?” Grotto said. “At what time does an act seem pirate-like enough to cross the line? Do we really want these snap judgments being made on the fly in waters thousands of miles away from Washington? This is not Johnny Depp we’re dealing with.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/2009041...tico/21245

(04-15-2009 10:36 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

Quote:Ron Paul's plan to fend off pirates

Erika Lovley – Wed Apr 15, 5:16 am ET

A little-known congressional power could help the federal government keep the Somali pirates in check — and possibly do it for a discount price.

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and a growing number of national security experts are calling on Congress to consider using letters of marque and reprisal, a power written into the Constitution that allows the United States to hire private citizens to keep international waters safe.

Used heavily during the Revolution and the War of 1812, letters of marque serve as official warrants from the government, allowing privateers to seize or destroy enemies, their loot and their vessels in exchange for bounty money.

The letters also require would-be thrill seekers to post a bond promising to abide by international rules of war.

In a YouTube video earlier this week, Paul suggested lawmakers consider issuing letters, which could relieve American naval ships from being the nation’s primary pirate responders — a free-market solution to make the high seas safer for cargo ships.

“I think if every potential pirate knew this would be the case, they would have second thoughts because they could probably be blown out of the water rather easily if those were the conditions,” Paul said.

Theoretically, hiring bounty hunters would also be a cheaper option.

National security experts estimate that this week’s ship captain rescue by Navy SEALs cost tens of millions, although a Navy spokesman says the military cannot confirm the exact cost of the mission.

Instead, privateers would be incentivized to patrol the ocean looking for key targets — and money would be paid only to the contractor who completed the job.

“If we have 100 American wanna-be Rambos patrolling the seas, it’s probably a good way of getting the job done,” said Competitive Enterprise Institute senior fellow and security expert Eli Lehrer. “Right now we have a Navy designed mostly to fight other navies. The weapons we have are all excellent, but they may not be the best ones to fight these kinds of pirates. The only cost under letters of marque would be some sort of bounty for the pirates.”

According to Senate historians, Congress hasn’t issued a letter of marquee since the War of 1812, but the Confederate States of America issued them during the Civil War to deliver supplies behind enemy lines. There are also some indications that a letter was granted to a flying band of armed civilians during World War II to operate the Resolute, a Goodyear Blimp used to patrol the ocean for enemy submarines, but the issuance isn’t apparent in the Congressional Record.

If Congress were to revisit the antiquated process, a serious makeover would be required.

In the past, privateers were allowed to keep the ship and treasure they captured in an enemy encounter.

“That isn’t a viable way of funding in today’s world,” said Lehrer. “These pirates don’t really have treasure chests, and their money is tied up in Swiss Bank accounts. Congress would probably have to attach sizable bounties to people.”

Bounties are not a new idea — there is still a $25 million bounty on Osama bin Laden, and millions have been awarded by the government for other enemy captures.



The U.S. State Department earlier this month put a $5 million bounty on the head of the top Pakistani Taliban leader, and even local police departments use rewards to solve cold cases.

University of Oregon economics professor Bill Harbaugh argues the setup could potentially work better than some of the United States’ relationships with modern-day security contractors.

“Obviously, this is somewhat like the contract the government had with Blackwater, except we forgot the bond part of the contract, he said. “If Congress had used this contract from 1776, it would have been more sophisticated than the one they issued with Blackwater.”

Harbaugh’s fifth great-grandfather, Silas Talbot, worked as an early privateer for the United States in 1780 after serving in the Revolutionary War. His letter of marque shows he set out with 12 carriage guns and a crew of 50 men to attack and seize cargo ships coming from Great Britain on the high seas.

Could it really work again?

“It may work in the sense that if you give people incentives to fight piracy, you’ll see more action taken against it,” said Andrew Grotto, a senior national security analyst with the Center for American Progress. “The ocean is huge and, practically speaking, there’s no way the Navy can prevent piracy; it’s too big. But just given the experience in Iraq with private contractors, that effort showcases the difficulties dealing with folks who aren’t answerable to anyone but shareholders.”

But Paul has already thought through a number of these updates.

Days after Sept. 11, Paul introduced legislation allowing President Bush to allow private citizens to go after Osama bin Laden and other identified terrorists and put a bounty price on the heads of targets responsible for the New York attacks. Contractors would also be required to post a play-by-the-rules bond and turn over any terrorists — and their seized property —to U.S. authorities.

“The Constitution gives Congress the power to issue letters of marque and reprisal when a precise declaration of war is impossible due to the vagueness of the enemy,” Paul wrote in a press release. “Once letters of marque and reprisal are issued, every terrorist is essentially a marked man.”

But national security experts and legal analysts warn that applying a colonial-era policy to a modern-day problem could be wrought with legal pitfalls that the Founding Fathers never encountered.

If bounty hunters chase pirates into territorial coastal waters or on to the shore of another country, the problem would fall under the jurisdiction of that country. And any plundering activity that takes place in coastal waters is no longer considered piracy, according to College of William and Mary national security law professor Linda Malone.

Not to mention that there’s also no clear indication where and how the captured pirates should be prosecuted.

“You have to find a stable court system nearby to have them tried for these offenses, but that can be quite complicated,” Malone said. “The fact that the pirates are from Somalia doesn’t make them state actors. They are doing this for private gain.”

And how to determine exactly who is a pirate — and what constitutes pirate activity — could get fuzzy.

“What happens when a ship flying under Congress accidentally takes out an aid ship bound for Somalia?” Grotto said. “At what time does an act seem pirate-like enough to cross the line? Do we really want these snap judgments being made on the fly in waters thousands of miles away from Washington? This is not Johnny Depp we’re dealing with.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/2009041...tico/21245

Same approach could have been used to go after those responsible for 911. He got on the floor and brought this up. No one listened then...I doubt they listen now.

an actual Free Market solution, would start with Privatizing the Oceans, specifically in that area. Nobody owns them, and they fall under Vague International Law which wasn't present in the old days of the 1700's. They aren't private in the 21st century world, which is one problem with this, though I'm not suprised in the least he is unaware of this option and why Letters have been used like this since 1812. Although, the modern version of this is alive and well, if you want to get rich quick find Bin Ladens head and you'll get $25 million bucks.

anyway, the counterpoint can be found here:

http://www.poligazette.com/2009/04/15/it...-rep-paul/

I don't agree completely with either side, since I'd prefer the Ocean be privatized. Then most likely the shipping companies and their partners would make sure the area was safe, you tend to take care of what you own.

Bounty Hunters with a twist. Go after Drug Dealers, human traffickers, or how about illegal immigrants. Papers, Please.

Privatize the oceans? How exactly would you determine who "owns" an ocean? How many companies do you think would be willing (or have the capital) to police an ocean against heavily armed pirates with highly sophisticated communications, navigation, etc. equipment? If "ownership" fell into the wrong hands, or if the owners became corrupt and accepted the pirates' bribe money, what could you do about it? Start sailing all the way around the Cape of Good Hope like they did before the Suez Canal was built?

same way we do with land, claim it to be so or atleast getting the G7 nations together, maybe G20, and auctioning off the rights to these specific Waters off the coast of Somalia, since no Govt. of Somolia exist to take ownership of these waters, and whoever becomes owner would then have incentive, for profit purposes, to keep the Shipping lanes safe(i.e. police the waters, kill the Pirates without fear of some Govt. prosecuting them under some International Law b.s.).



the absence of ownership of these waters means no one has had much incentive to prevent activities that destroy their value , things like Piracy.


This probably has about as much chance of happening as Social Security getting privatized does, I admit.

Sorry, the pitfalls of this ideas are well documented in the article.

Add to this the public's negative perception of Blackwater-esque security contrators, and this is a non-starter.

It's a fun read though.

How do you auction something off that doesn't belong to you in the first place? If you buy something from someone who is not really the owner of it, you've just been suckered. G7/G20 countries should not be able to just claim ownership of an ocean or shipping route because they want to. That just does not sound like a "free-market solution" to me. It sounds like another expansion of gov't that will be covered with bureaucratic red tape.

Why don't we fit the sides of merchants with twin .50 caliber turrets similiar to the ones in the old B-17's. Put four of those on each ship that traverses the waters. Pirates approach they get blown out of the water. They wouldn't be able to board. Problem solved.

(04-15-2009 02:02 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Why don't we fit the sides of merchants with twin .50 caliber turrets similiar to the ones in the old B-17's. Put four of those on each ship that traverses the waters. Pirates approach they get blown out of the water. They wouldn't be able to board. Problem solved.

Actually, problem identified.

From Ace of Spades

Sorry to be a killjoy -- I am a big fan of guns and self-defense -- but I have to point out a few things as someone who works in logistics, and deals with container shipping on a daily basis.

There are good reasons for not allowing crews to be armed, some of which include the fact that the vessel could then be categorized as military. The insurance issues alone of this are so complicated I can't even describe it.

Also, crews do not sign up to be part of a defensive force. Pay, etc., would have to change, as would screening. What if another boat was under attack? Under maritime regulations if you are in a position to assist you are obligated to do so. Would an armed container ship then be legally and morally obligated to save an unarmed ship? Or armed ship that was still being attacked? Perhaps from another country?

As you can see, it's unfortunately much more complicated than it seems. Like almost everything.

Are banks considered military for having armed guards? I see it as the same thing.

Quote:The use of Letters of Marque was discontinued by many countries who signed the Declaration of Paris in 1856. The United States as well as several other countries signed the International Treaty much later. The US was at that time much more dependent on their use to increase their Maritime power because they lacked a Large Navy.

Like I said, there are good reasons why the Govt. hasn't done this since 1812.

things that aren't that easy to reverse.

What we are doing now is similar to what the British did when they dominated the Waters with their Royal Navy in the 17th and 18th centuries with the Barbary Pirates

(04-15-2009 03:03 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Are banks considered military for having armed guards? I see it as the same thing.

I see it more apples and oranges.

Banks are not regulated by maritime regulations. A bank guard is under no obligation to render aid to another distressed bank....

Bank guards don't have to register their firearms everytime they dock in a foreign country......

Bank guards are not state flagged......

Etc etc

btw, "constitutional" and "Free Market" approach huh, as if what the SEALS did was "Unconstituional"?

Oh yeah, Thomas Jefferson was also trashing the Constiution he helped create long time ago I guess?

Given he also had to deal with muslim Pirates in the Barbary States, similar to this. This is how he created the Marines and built up the Navy and sent them to them to kick their tales. All via Executive implied Article II powers without ever going to Congress for consent, just future votes for funding.

the result shamed the British, world leader at the time, into getting their act together and eventually whiping out the Barbary Pirates.


Historical Sidenote, the USS Constitution was built during this time. It is on display in Boston, however shortly after 9/11 it was on lockdown for several months because it was beleived to be a possible spot for a Terrorist Attack for Symbolic Reasons.

(04-15-2009 10:36 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

Quote:Ron Paul's plan to fend off pirates

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and a growing number of national security experts are calling on Congress to consider using letters of marque and reprisal, a power written into the Constitution that allows the United States to hire private citizens to keep international waters safe.

Used heavily during the Revolution and the War of 1812, letters of marque serve as official warrants from the government, allowing privateers to seize or destroy enemies, their loot and their vessels in exchange for bounty money.

What exactly is the legal distinction between pirates and privateers? Are we really going to have the "one person's pirate is another person's privateer" discussion?

(04-15-2009 03:55 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(04-15-2009 03:03 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Are banks considered military for having armed guards? I see it as the same thing.

I see it more apples and oranges.

Banks are not regulated by maritime regulations. A bank guard is under no obligation to render aid to another distressed bank....

Bank guards don't have to register their firearms everytime they dock in a foreign country......

Bank guards are not state flagged......

Etc etc

They're more similar than you might think.

(04-15-2009 05:01 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(04-15-2009 03:55 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(04-15-2009 03:03 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Are banks considered military for having armed guards? I see it as the same thing.

I see it more apples and oranges.

Banks are not regulated by maritime regulations. A bank guard is under no obligation to render aid to another distressed bank....

Bank guards don't have to register their firearms everytime they dock in a foreign country......

Bank guards are not state flagged......

Etc etc

They're more similar than you might think.

No they are not similar, they are........

(watches YouTube clip)

(04-15-2009 12:13 PM)GGniner Wrote:  an actual Free Market solution, would start with Privatizing the Oceans, specifically in that area. Nobody owns them, and they fall under Vague International Law which wasn't present in the old days of the 1700's. They aren't private in the 21st century world, which is one problem with this, though I'm not suprised in the least he is unaware of this option and why Letters have been used like this since 1812. Although, the modern version of this is alive and well, if you want to get rich quick find Bin Ladens head and you'll get $25 million bucks.

anyway, the counterpoint can be found here:

http://www.poligazette.com/2009/04/15/it...-rep-paul/

I don't agree completely with either side, since I'd prefer the Ocean be privatized. Then most likely the shipping companies and their partners would make sure the area was safe, you tend to take care of what you own.

Well....You know how much I despise free market solutions to problems!

I think you are correct. The market place is perfectly capable of handling this situation. Screw the so-called regulations that prohibit these ships from protecting themselves. Allow them to either do it themselves or contract with security companies.

I understand the potential problems with private security..but..certainly these issues can also be handled by the market place through competition. The best and most reliable services will eventually be the leader in this business by responding to signals as any other business must do to retain market share. Insurance companies would also play a major part in this paradigm.

These ships are private property and I fully endorse that an owner should be able to protect his property as he sees fit. If one can not protect his property...does he actually own it?

What is happening is a direct result of governmental intervention. Some silly words on paper drawn out by some silly bureaucrats have made it so these ships must depend upon the slow and often poor response of governments for protection.

It is not the fault of Naval forces. They can not cover the expansive waterways of the world...It is impossible to protect these vessels unless they are being escorted. It is another example of how governmental systems fail at almost every task.....With of course the exception of killing and stealing from people. Governments are experts at these functions.

(04-15-2009 10:36 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  “These pirates don’t really have treasure chests, and their money is tied up in Swiss Bank accounts.

The Swiss have frozen the account of drug dealers, terrorists and money launderers, why not pirates?

I say we hire the mafia to go after the pirates, they don't care if the ACLU waves the Constitution at them and they're good at making problems disappear.

(04-15-2009 05:48 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  No they are not similar, they are........

(watches YouTube clip)

Just for grins, I've got to ask how much you typed before you hit play?