Just wondering if you’re going to reply to my questions about why letters of marque are a ‘brilliant idea’?
I don’t think he’s written a ‘letter of marquee act’ or anything in bill form, I think he’s just talked generally about the idea. So, I don’t know the specifics, but the fundamental concept makes sense, IMO.
The last time I heard him talked about it was during an interview with Hugh Hewitt(sp) and he said that he would issue a letter of marquee to get osama and the US government would authorize a billion dollars as ‘prize money’ and various private groups would have free reign to violate the territories of other countries, Afghanistan/Pakistan to destroy Al Qaeda and capture/kill the various top members. How they did this would be up to them, whether bribing the leaders, paying off tribes, undercover cia style, or brute force invasion. They wouldn’t be hindered by rules of engagement, military bureaucracy, diplomatic niceties etc.. He said that he or his staff had talked to several groups who expressed interest in this sort of thing.
Some Americans are taking matters into their own hands regardless, do you recall the story a while back about the Ex special forces guy who with a few palls went to Afghanistan and got busted for having an ‘illegal jail’, with apparently a bunch of captured terrorists in it? They did it on their own, forget the exact story, American individual can-do; what this country was founded on. But, they got in trouble cuz the military has a monopoly on the use of force in these situations. I think the guy went to jail actually…
His thought was that the US government could accomplish using 1 billion dollars what it has spent trillions upon trillions on today, especially the nation building aspect.
The specifics notwithstanding, I think the idea clearly has merit, and certainly doesn’t deserve some of the derision expressed by some here at FR, and the same with this idea that Ron Paul is ‘soft’ on the war on terror or seeks to ‘appease’ the terrorists.