“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.
well, I recognize that Paul’s ‘by the consitution’ slogan is nearly impossible to interpret literally and there is considerable debate, even amongst libertarians, about what exactly that means. However, if you consider it as a spectrum, with completely ignoring the constition on one side and this literal interpretation on the other, he is much closer to the literal than any modern American politician.
However, another example of the point you raise is with ‘judicial review’, funny enough asked by Hewit in that same interview with Paul about L&M. Judicial review, of course, is not in the constition, but came about, I believe, as Marbury vs Madison. I think the question caught Paul a bit off gaurd and I believe he had to admit he would keep judicial review...
I’m still not convinced of the folly of the L&M. I think we’d need to examine the provisions of those treaties and I’d bet the US could opt out of just those parts, or just ignore them w/out too much trouble or political hay.
The idea makes sense from an ideolgoical point of view, because although conservatives (generally) agree that government is incompetant w/ domestic issues, libertarians believe government is also incompetant in foreign policy and even the military. The private sector, individual Americans, can do it better.
And I’ve found the opposite, the closer I look at Paul’s various positions, the more merit I have found in them. Of course, I don’t agree with many too, but most of them yes.