Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Breaking: Ron Paul introduces Marque and Reprisal Bills in House
Ron Paul | 10/10/01 | demidog

Posted on 10/10/2001 12:44:32 PM PDT by Demidog

I just received a call from my contact at Ron Paul's office.

Ron Paul today introduced two bills into the House of Representatives which would authorize the State Department to issue letters of Marque authorizing privateers to attack and collect assets from terrorists who commit hostile acts against the U.S.

This means that you (yes you personallywould be able to help to bring down the rogue and nationless enemies of the United States provided you meet a few requirements.

The precendence for this bill is based on specific Constitutional powers and was seen as a remedy by our founders for those nationaless terrorists who committed acts against U.S. merchant ships on the high seas. We're dealing with Pirates here and a significant effort has been made by Ron Paul's team to create a legal definition for "Air Piracy" which would include hijackings.

The text of the Bills have not been published yet but I will update everyone the moment the text becomes available.

The Bills are: H.R. 3074 and H.R. 3076

Please call your congressman and tell him that you want them to either sponsor or support this bill.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 261-279 next last
To: Demidog
Someone ought to tell the Congressman how to pronounce marque. It's a one syllable word pronounced the same as the common word mark, at least according to my OED which offers no alternates.

ML/NJ

161 posted on 10/10/2001 4:52:26 PM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chesty_puller
I do chesty.

Best I remember so did CHIEF.

162 posted on 10/10/2001 4:54:25 PM PDT by carenot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: VoodooEconomist
Great post. The saying: "A giant among pygmies" applies to Ron Paul and the U.S. Congress.
163 posted on 10/10/2001 4:54:48 PM PDT by Re-electNobody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: tophat9000
Can companys sign up?


164 posted on 10/10/2001 5:05:29 PM PDT by tophat9000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: capitoltex
Read it. Loved it. Read the sequel. Loved it, too.
165 posted on 10/10/2001 5:14:06 PM PDT by CFIIIMEIATP737
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: tophat9000
Mega-bump.
166 posted on 10/10/2001 5:17:29 PM PDT by FReethesheeples
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Demidog
bumpity.
167 posted on 10/10/2001 5:17:47 PM PDT by FReethesheeples
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Demidog
bttt
168 posted on 10/10/2001 5:34:13 PM PDT by Tares
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: carenot, chesty puller, Demidog, Travis McGee, PoohBah, D Joyce
Who really cares what Rep. No says now? ~~ I do chesty. Best I remember so did CHIEF. 162 Posted on 10/10/2001 16:54:24 PDT by carenot

CHIEF Negotiator's last vanity article was a patriotic lament that he (ex-Marine Force Recon sniper) had been denied permission to re-up by his beloved Marine Corps on account of his being "too old" (In fact, I'd bet that CHIEF was probably more fit at 53 than a civilian like me has ever been at 26 -- and I'm no couch-potato slouch. No doubt CHIEF was infinitely deadlier with a rifle, to boot).

The passage of Letters of Marque and Reprisal would've allowed him to re-enter his country's service, on his own schedule, playing by his own rule-book. It's a shame that CHIEF did not live to see the introduction of this Bill by Rep. Paul.

But there are thousands -- if not tens of thousands -- of semi-retired Special Forces like him out there in the Private Sector today. They may be "too old" for regular service by the standards of Pentagon red tape, but they sure aren't too old to call some old friends, re-establish some old contacts, and collect a Bounty. Assuming an Al-Qaeda organization of 20,000 terrorist operatives in 37 different countries, we could theoretically Bounty the heads of every single Al-Qaeda operative at a half-million bucks a head for $10 Billion dollars, plus a couple billion more in logistic support. Now, don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying that Marque-and-Reprisal sanctioned bounty hunters are mutually-exclusive with Government Military action against defined Nation-State targets; they aren't. But the US Government can hardly declare war on 37 different countries at once. Private Contractors working in two and three man groups, by contrast, can more-or-less go pretty much wherever they please.

And bear in mind that, even with Bounties averaging a half-million per scalp, the $10 Billion+ figure represents only one-quarter of the $40 Billion package already approved by Congress for this year, and one-third of the $30 Billion dollar increase in Defense spending already budgeted for next year. I think we should all recognize a bargain when we see it.

Nor is it just the money. A Private ex-military Contractor may be every bit as cost-effective (if not moreso) as Official Government forces in hunting down and terminating/apprehending Marqued terrorist operatives... but a Private ex-military Contractor is never going to ask his fellow law-abiding citizen to surrender his Second Amendment Rights, or to carry a national ID card.

Think on it. Then call your Congressmen.

169 posted on 10/10/2001 5:45:52 PM PDT by Uriel1975
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Uriel1975
Thanks.

I am not good at responding.

170 posted on 10/10/2001 5:55:32 PM PDT by carenot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Uriel1975
There's a problem. Letters of Marque and Reprisal are all well and good, but the folks executing them are generally considered "bandits" by all nations, including our allies...and issuing these would effectively pull us out of several antipiracy treaties that have done more good than all the privateers ever commissioned in the history of Western Civilization.
171 posted on 10/10/2001 5:56:41 PM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur, Demidog
Are these necessary? I thought there was already quite a large bounty on bin Laden and the other 21 "most wanted" on the list. It would seem to me that mercenaries operate best clandestinely, at arms' length from government. Again, I'm just not sure why Paul feels this kind of law is even needed. I ask that with all due respect. 102 Posted on 10/10/2001 14:13:32 PDT by sinkspur

Private Companies, acting on limited intel capacity and with little profit motivation, are unlikely to be able to extend their bounties much beyond the top 20 or so known Al-Qaeda leaders.

If only Bin Laden and some of his lieutenants are taken out, this could have the effect of martyring them, while leaving the bulk of the recruiting, training, and planning networks in place -- as many as 20,000 different operatives, in 37 countries?

This would be a bad thing.

But to repeat my points of a prior post (just above), there are thousands -- if not tens of thousands -- of semi-retired Special Forces out there in the Private Sector today. They may be "too old" for regular service by the standards of Pentagon red tape, but they sure aren't too old to call some old friends, re-establish some old contacts, and collect a Bounty. Assuming an Al-Qaeda organization of 20,000 terrorist operatives in 37 different countries, we could theoretically Bounty the heads of every single Al-Qaeda operative at a half-million bucks a head for $10 Billion dollars, plus a couple billion more in logistic support. Now, don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying that Marque-and-Reprisal sanctioned bounty hunters are mutually-exclusive with Government Military action against defined Nation-State targets; they aren't. But the US Government can hardly declare war on 37 different countries at once. Private Contractors working in two and three man groups, by contrast, can more-or-less go pretty much wherever they please.

And bear in mind that, even with Bounties averaging a half-million per scalp, the $10 Billion+ figure represents only one-quarter of the $40 Billion package already approved by Congress for this year, and one-third of the $30 Billion dollar increase in Defense spending already budgeted for next year. I think we should all recognize a bargain when we see it.

Nor is it just the money. A Private ex-military Contractor may be every bit as cost-effective (if not moreso) as Official Government forces in hunting down and terminating/apprehending Marqued terrorist operatives... but a Private ex-military Contractor is never going to ask his fellow law-abiding citizen to surrender his Second Amendment Rights, or to carry a national ID card.

Think on it. Then call your Congressmen.

172 posted on 10/10/2001 5:58:41 PM PDT by Uriel1975
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Uriel1975, Demidog
Outstanding! I'll be hounding Sarbanes and McKulski in the morning.

Well done you two.

173 posted on 10/10/2001 6:04:53 PM PDT by nunya bidness
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
There's a problem. Letters of Marque and Reprisal are all well and good, but the folks executing them are generally considered "bandits" by all nations, including our allies...and issuing these would effectively pull us out of several antipiracy treaties that have done more good than all the privateers ever commissioned in the history of Western Civilization.

Who enforces the major anti-piracy treaties?

Mainly, the major maritime/shipping powers: The USA. Great Britain. Japan. Other countries who depend on Free Commerce on the High Seas.

Even in the highly unlikely circumstance that the US employment of Marque and Reprisal against terrorists would be seen as some kind of "banditry", so you honestly think that any of the major maritime powers are actually going to complain?

Methinks it will not be seen as "banditry", and even if it were, the major maritime powers will simply say (in so many words), "We don't consider this US response to be 'banditry', and so we reagrd all anti-piracy treaties as remaining in force".

In other words, it isn't "banditry", and even if it were, all the really important maritime/shipping countries would sweep their objections under the proverbial rug.

174 posted on 10/10/2001 6:05:23 PM PDT by Uriel1975
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Uriel1975
It would be setting a bad precedent.

Sorry, I'm not buying in on this one. The day of the privateer was NOT all skittles and beer--he had a nasty tendency to chase whatever targets were available and drag his sponsor into unwanted wars.

175 posted on 10/10/2001 6:08:11 PM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Demidog
...this bill is based on specific Constitutional powers and was seen as a remedy by our founders...

Again, it looks like Ron Paul is the only person in the whole government who understands and folows his oath faithfully.

176 posted on 10/10/2001 6:08:59 PM PDT by StriperSniper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Demidog
Has Mr. Paul ever had a co-sponsor on any legislation that he has ever introduced? Just asking.
177 posted on 10/10/2001 6:11:48 PM PDT by jackbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
It would be setting a bad precedent. Sorry, I'm not buying in on this one. The day of the privateer was NOT all skittles and beer--he had a nasty tendency to chase whatever targets were available and drag his sponsor into unwanted wars.

As we are proposing it, only those terrorist organizations, and operatives thereof, who have been Marqued for Reprisal by US SecDef, will have any Bounty attached.

Why chase non-Bountied targets? What would a private Contractor get out of it, a few camels and an AK-47 or two? Hardly worth the trouble.

The Marqued-and-Bountied Targets will be the ones who will be hunted, because that's where the money is.

178 posted on 10/10/2001 6:12:35 PM PDT by Uriel1975
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Personally I don't care who gets us his head, so long as we get his head...

I bet there's a few ex-Russian special forces types that could use the cash and would love to do it - provided we provide the silver platter...

Ron Paul bump!

179 posted on 10/10/2001 6:13:33 PM PDT by DAnconia55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Oh, details.

This thread, like Paul's bill, is designed to stimulate the fantasy of weekend Rambos. This will never happen, and for a lot of good reasons including the one you mentioned.

Anything that Ron Paul does is considered brilliant by his devotees, and this is no exception. It's not even necessary. Any one of Ron Paul's fans is eligible for the current reward if they bring back Osama's head. What are they waiting for?

180 posted on 10/10/2001 6:14:53 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 261-279 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson