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.
Actually, Ron Paul has submitted such a bill. It’s HR 3076 September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 (Introduced in the House); October 10, 2001. Here’s a link to the text:
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=187856
There are several problems with such an act.
First, international law. You do remember in the last major debate Ron Paul argued that we have to follow international law? One can argue that such an Act violates international law. While the US was not a party to the Treaty of Paris ending the Crimea war, the US agreed during the Civil War and the Spanish American war to abide by it’s provisions that include not issuing such letters. Furthermore, the Hague Conventions of 1907, which the US did sign, made commissioning private war vessels against international law. This would limit any authority to land forces. However, this same Convention defined lawful and unlawful combatants.
You argue that those operating under such Letters “wouldn’t be hindered by rules of engagement, military bureaucracy, diplomatic niceties etc..” These ‘privateers’ (that’s the official term for those operating under a LM&R) would have to follow the Hague Conventions which include respecting the “laws and customs of war” otherwise they would be treated as ‘unlawful combatants’ and subject to summary execution upon capture. This undermines your argument that how these persons operate would be up to them.
(As an aside, in the past, those operating under Letters of Marque, also called ‘privateers’, were normally treated as pirates when captured.)
Ron Paul’s act states: “The President of the United States is authorized and requested to commission, under officially issued letters of marque and reprisal, so many of privately armed and equipped persons and entities as, in his judgment, the service may require, with suitable instructions to the leaders thereof, to employ all means reasonably necessary to seize outside the geographic boundaries of the United States and its territories the person and property of Osama bin Laden, of any al Qaeda co-conspirator, and of any conspirator with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda who are responsible for the air piratical aggressions and depredations perpetrated upon the United States of America on September 11, 2001, and for any planned future air piratical aggressions and depredations or other acts of war upon the United States of America and her people.”
Did you notice the phrase ‘reasonably necessary’? Exactly what does this mean? Does this authorize actions outside the ‘law and customs of war’ if ‘reasonably necessary’? Clearly, one can argue that this phrase violates the Hague conventions compelling ‘lawful combatants’ to respect the law and custom of war.
The US government would also incur an obligation to ensure that those receiving such a letter conform to the ‘laws and customs of war’. Ron Paul seems to recognize this requirement by requiring the President to issue specific instructions and to require the posting of a bond. Despite these provisions, it should be clear that the US could be responsible for any and all actions by the ‘privateers’ just as it is responsible for any actions by it’s military. Essentially, the impracticallity of ensuring ‘privateers’ follow these rules is the principal reasons the signing powers of the Treaty of Paris agreed to quit issuing such letters.
Second, the practical part. The Letter would authorize a private party to cross a border to kill or capture Al Qaeda operatives. Suppose Bill Bob and party encountered a group of natives within the ‘Territories’ where Bin Laden is said to be. When asked about their intentions, Billy Bob presents his Letter of Marque. Which do you think the most likely next step?
(A.) The natives invite BB and party to tea where they enter into a spirited discussion of the Ron Paul Revolution? After exchanging copies of the US Constitution and the Koran, the natives allow BB and party to proceed.
(B.) The natives invite BB and party to participate in the next ‘Jihad Beheadings Video’?
Finally. Using Ron Paul’s own logic, the act is un-Constitutional. I’m sure you’ll recall that Ron Paul claims that the Force Resolutions are un-Constitutional since the ‘delegate’ the war making powers of Congress to the President. Ron Paul also argues that any action not specifically mentioned in the Constitution is un-Constitutional.
This act provides the authority for the President to issue Letters of Marque to private individuals. The Constitution states that Congress, not the President, shall have the power to issue such letters. Using Ron Paul’s logic, there is nothing in the Constitution that specifically allows Congress to ‘delegate’ issuing Letters of Marque to the President. Therefore, his own act, by his own logic, is un-Constitutional.
There is one thing in this act that does have some merit. It allows the President to authorize a bounty of up to $40B for the capture of Bin Laden, etc. The current bounty set by Congress is $50M.