wow, thanks for finding all that, I didn’t know it was out there.
You make some very good points. And yes, by Paul’s own standards his act is unconstitutional as the Congress should be the one issuing the letters!
However, assuming his act was issued by Congress I think the other problems could be gotten around. First, a pretty high percentage of the total manpower in Iraq are private contractors, which is sort of an inbetween a state army and a letter of marque idea and there hasn’t appeared to be too many legal issues raised with at least this step.
I didn’t know the history of all those treaties you cited, my guess is that the US would have to pull out of those; sort of surprising we signed them if they contained laws restraining acts specifically authorized in our constituion...
I did cringe when I heard paul talk about ‘international law’ in the last debate, I don’t know if this was purposeful or a slip up, and the word is occasionally used by libertarians in discussing the soverignty of a nation state (a nation can go to war only after being attacked etc..), not a reference to the UN or international organizations, which, as you know, Paul would pull out of.
And I was mostly speaking of suspension of the ‘Rules of Engagement’, as easing the operational fluididity, not so much not following the laws of war and I doubt suspension of these laws is what Paul meant by ‘reasonably neccesary’. If these LM&R folks went in and started slaughtering civilians in a cleansing type fashion I’m sure the US gov wouldn’t stand for that. Yea and it would have to be worked out what would happen if these folks were captured, would the US gov military come after them? And I don’t think they would go around presenting letters of marq to natives, I think they would go in guns blazing!
“However, assuming his act was issued by Congress I think the other problems could be gotten around. First, a pretty high percentage of the total manpower in Iraq are private contractors, which is sort of an inbetween a state army and a letter of marque idea and there hasn’t appeared to be too many legal issues raised with at least this step.”
There are some significant differences between our contractors in Iraq and LMR. First, the vast majority of those contractors are not involved in combat operations, cooks, maintenance, etc. But laying that aside, there are some who do get involved usually as convoy guards. The recent incident with Blackwater comes to mind. That said, these guys are directly under our control and are not free-lanceing in another sovereign country such as Pakistan. A group operating under LMR would be conducting independent operations especially if they were to satisfy your statements about not being bound, etc., That is where the legal issues would arise.
Withdrawing from those treaties would be far easier said than done. Can you imagine the outcry when the US announces that is no longer bound by the Geneva and Hague Conventions, ie, is operating outside of the customary law of war? While you may downplay the effect of that, how do you explain that one to the American people. I guess you could try: ‘President Ron Paul has decided that we are going to withdraw from the Hague and Geneva Conventions so he can hire privateers to conduct military operations’. Good luck on that one.
As for going in with ‘guns blazing’, you’re talking major combat operations. I remind you that the Pakistani army has been rather roughly handled by the natives in the ‘Territories’ and that was with air support, artillery, tanks, amoured personnel carriers, etc. Then there is the effect of such a military operation on the Pakistanis. I believe Barak Obama was rather roughly handled by all when he suggested just such an invasion of Pakistan by US Forces. Wonder what the reaction would be to our ‘privateers’. That is assuming that the privateers could mount such an operation. You’re talking thousands in support.
I guess one could mount some sort of sneak and snatch operation if one had the intelligence to precisely locate Bin Laden. Of course, if one had that kind of intelligence, there wouldn’t be much need for privateers would there?
“You make some very good points. And yes, by Paul’s own standards his act is unconstitutional as the Congress should be the one issuing the letters!”
I guess this highlights my issues with Ron Paul’s claims to be a staunch defender of the Constitution. I find him to be less a Constitutional scholor than a bomb-thrower. He seems to pick and choose the parts he defends and chooses his positions more for theatrical effect than for defending the Constitution.
It also highlights some of my other issues with Ron Paul. Some of the things he says sound good as long as you don’t look to closely at them.