Breaking: Ron Paul introduces Marque and Reprisal Bills in House

Ron Paul | 10/10/01 | demidog

[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.

[Poohbah]

Sorry, the kind of guy who'd go into this would not exactly worry about collecting a bounty ONLY from Uncle.

LOTS of folks want various tangos dead.

[Uriel1975]

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.

Even given the thick skulls of many of our CongressCritters, I should think that the majority would realize that hijacking a $120 million dollar Boeing 767 certainly constitutes "Air Piracy" -- whether or not you slam it into any buildings.

Marque these terrorists for Reprisal.

[dixierat22]

The point is simple: He is providing a Constitutional method of dealing with the terrorists.

All of the actions taken by the Bush Administration to date are unconstitutional. The President cannot legally declare a war. Nor can he wage war, legally, w/o a declaration of same.

The Bush Administration has also created a potential threat to all of our freedoms with this department of Homeland Security. The former Soviet Union had such a department as do most, if not all, police states. I don't wish to see our nation become such a place.

[Uriel1975]

Sorry, the kind of guy who'd go into this would not exactly worry about collecting a bounty ONLY from Uncle. LOTS of folks want various tangos dead.

Ahem: Should you be captured in the course of your mission, the Department of Defense will disavow any knowledge or responsibility for your actions. In addition, any actions against non-Marqued targets may result in both forfeiture of any Bounties earned, and possible extradition for criminal charges. You will be left to twist in the wind.

On the other hand, kill/apprehend those whom we authorize you to hit, and we'll pay you an average of a half-million dollars per scalp.

So choose your targets wisely.

What would YOU do, given those terms? Earn your Bounty, or pursue old grudges? If you just wanted to settle an old score, with no promise of Bounty for doing so, what would stop you from doing so NOW, Poohbah?

[Uriel1975]

Any one of Ron Paul's fans is eligible for the current reward if they bring back Osama's head.

And the other 20,000 Al-Qaeda operatives, in 37 different countries?

What do you propose to do about them?

Declare war on 37 different countries at once?

[timestax]

bttt

[Dog Gone]

We don't have to declare war on anyone unless we want the international rules of war to come into play.

Congress has given the Commander-in-Chief the legal authority to use the armed forces in any manner necessary to pursue terrorists wherever they may be. It may or may not be necessary to declare war on any nation to do this. That's strictly a strategic decision that will be made at the appropriate time, and by Congress.

[rightwing2]

Yep, you did it!

[Uriel1975]

We don't have to declare war on anyone unless we want the international rules of war to come into play. Congress has given the Commander-in-Chief the legal authority to use the armed forces in any manner necessary to pursue terrorists wherever they may be. It may or may not be necessary to declare war on any nation to do this. That's strictly a strategic decision that will be made at the appropriate time, and by Congress.

Respectfully, your answer is a dodge.

Regardless of the Constitutional matter of issuing a formal Declaration Of War, do you honestly believe that the US should attempt to prosecute war (by any other name) against 37 different countries at once?

Please couch your response with examples from military history where regular military echelons attacked in 37 different directions at once, and actually succeeded.

[Cruising Speed]

A Most Excellent Libertarian Bump!!!!

[Dog Gone]

Respectfully, your question is a red herring. There are nowhere near 37 nations that are on our list of countries which sponsor state terrorism.

Can we conduct investigations and a shadow war in that many countries? Of course. Can we take out some key terrorists without declaring war on a country? Of course.

There isn't even a possible scenario out there which would require us to use force against a foreign government except in about a half dozen cases, at most. Nor is there any compelling reason why we would have to do so all at the same time. There are many reasons not to.

[Uriel1975]

Thanks for your private FReepMail.

My friend Murray Sabrin is national Vice-Chair of the Republican Liberty Caucus, and was responsible for bringing my original article of 9/14 to Congressman Paul's attention way back on 9/16, and Demidog has shepherded this with Paul's staff thereafter. Now that Paul has brought this to the floor of Congress, see my #149 for a "where do we go from here" consideration of the matter.

[Uriel1975]

Respectfully, your question is a red herring. There are nowhere near 37 nations that are on our list of countries which sponsor state terrorism. Can we conduct investigations and a shadow war in that many countries? Of course. Can we take out some key terrorists without declaring war on a country? Of course. There isn't even a possible scenario out there which would require us to use force against a foreign government except in about a half dozen cases, at most. Nor is there any compelling reason why we would have to do so all at the same time. There are many reasons not to.

Not even pertinent tot the point that I am raising.

We have X number of intel operatives and X number of counter-terrorist troops. It is a finite number. We can either employ Government assets in identifying and hunting and eliminating these terrorist cells (while swimming upstream against the fact that many of these nations are NOT going to be friendly to official US Government action, even if they pay lip service to the "counter-terror coalition"); OR, we can focus our counter-terror intelligence primarily on identification of terrorist operatives, and subcontract out a good portion of the hunter-killer work.

As I have said before, there is a pool of tens of thousands of ex-Special Forces and ex-Intel personnel who have retired to the private sector over the years. You are either going to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal so that you can use that pool of talent, or you aren't. Period. That is all that this boils down to.

[Dog Gone]

If I were President, and I faced a shortage of personnel to infiltrate those 37 or 60 or however many countries that have active terrorist cells in them, then I would certainly look to the pool of those who are retired from active service.

Now, I don't know that a shortage exists. I rather doubt it given the number of people who are jumping at the chance to do something here to help.

But let's assume that you are right, and there is a shortage. One option would be Marque and Reprisal. That creates a bunch of bounty-hunters doing who knows what.

The other option would be to actively recruit those same people to join the fight on behalf of the government. That way they could be given classified information, assistance, logistical support and it could be done in a coordinated fashion. The CIA or FBI don't want Rambo busting into a camp when they're staking out a meeting that is scheduled for two hours later.

So, if I were President, I'd veto any Marque and Reprisal bill that reached my desk, and bring these folks back into service as needed.

Marque and Reprisal pre-dates intelligence agencies and official clandestine operations. It's now a relic of a less-complicated time.

[Uriel1975]

If I were President, and I faced a shortage of personnel to infiltrate those 37 or 60 or however many countries that have active terrorist cells in them, then I would certainly look to the pool of those who are retired from active service. Now, I don't know that a shortage exists. I rather doubt it given the number of people who are jumping at the chance to do something here to help. But let's assume that you are right, and there is a shortage. One option would be Marque and Reprisal. That creates a bunch of bounty-hunters doing who knows what. The other option would be to actively recruit those same people to join the fight on behalf of the government. That way they could be given classified information, assistance, logistical support and it could be done in a coordinated fashion. The CIA or FBI don't want Rambo busting into a camp when they're staking out a meeting that is scheduled for two hours later. So, if I were President, I'd veto any Marque and Reprisal bill that reached my desk, and bring these folks back into service as needed. Marque and Reprisal pre-dates intelligence agencies and official clandestine operations. It's now a relic of a less-complicated time.

The "Weekend Rambo" characterization just doesn't hold water.

These "Weekend Rambos", let's bear in mind, are guys who have already done their twenty for God and Country, behind enemy lines and over cover of night -- not wet-behind-the-ears young college grads fresh out of Langley flying an Intel desk for the first time.

There's no need to go back to 1790 for a contrast here. Historically, in comparison between Ofiicial Government military action, and private "Yahoos", those "Yahoos" come off very well -- Very well indeed.

...as radical as the idea of resurrecting Marques and Reprisals might seem to Non-Libertarians (who tend to think in terms of purely governmental solutions), the facts of history are pretty straightforward: In 1979, American citizens were being held hostage by the radicalized, quasi-terrorist Revolutionary Islamic government of Iran. The US Government under Carter conceived, as you'll recall, a search-and-rescue operation termed "Desert One" which turned into an absolute fiasco -- a miserable failure. At the same time, Ross Perot contracted a private mercenary operation headed by former Green Beret "Bull" Simons to rescue EDS employees being held by Iran. The Private Sector action, while a little messy in execution, was (by contrast) a complete success.

[Uriel1975]

over under cover of night... etc.

Mea culpa.

[Dog Gone]

Apples and oranges. Perot was going after his own employees and Carter was trying to rescue Embassy personnel. Perot, you notice, was motivated to do his thing even in the absence of a Marque and Reprisal bill.

What you are advocating is motivating people to do actions in competition with US clandestine operations. If there are Americans who have skills in those areas, they should contact the government and offer those skills. Being a retired Marine is not sufficient qualification, IMHO.

Nevertheless, there is nothing preventing any American from boarding a plane to Pakistan tomorrow, where there are no shortage of arms for sale. A reward is already offered, so get your friends and go.

[Redbob45]

"What is the point of such grand-standing? "

Perhaps to illustrate to some that there still is a U.S. Constitution!

[StealthChild]

$1 Billion Terrorist Bounty Fund to be Set Up by L.A. Telecom Executives

News/Current Events News Keywords: BOUNTY FUND
Source: usnews.com
Published: Sept. 14, 2001 Author: Paul Bedard
Posted on 09/14/2001 19:09:28 PDT by StealthChild

Friday, September 14, 2001

WHISPER OF THE DAY

$1 Billion Bounty on Bin Laden

It was bound to happen: A group of Los Angeles telecom millionaires is setting up a "bounty fund" to raise $1 billion or more to "wipe out" the terrorists and harboring governments responsible for Tuesday's terrorist attacks in New York City, Washington, and Pennsylvania. "Now it's time to wipe out the wasp nests of terrorism," says Edward Lozzi, a West Coast PR agent lined up to handle the fund. Lozzi says in an interview that all Americans will be encouraged to donate and that the money will be used to hire mercenaries to kill or arrest those responsible. He singled out the government's top suspect: Osama bin Laden. And if the government gets there first, the money will be donated to Tuesday's victims. He wouldn't identify the business people yet but said they plan to come forward and even set up a Web page for donations once the dust settles. He described the bounty fund creators as Internet and telecommunications executives who have been big contributors to both President Bush and former President Clinton. "I don't think there's any American who wouldn't donate," he tells Whispers. Naturally, the government doesn't support mob rule, and he says the executives have considered that but are still moving forward. In fact, he adds, the business people are already raising money. Lozzi owns Edward Lozzi & Associate, a public relations and media consultant firm, [http://www.lozzipr.com/] of Beverly Hills, and is a former press aide to former President Bush.