The thing is, you could keep any assets that you obtained in the process subject to a court approval. It's a lucrative business. How about hackers going after bin Laden's bank accounts? Think that might put a damper on his terrorist acts? I do.
Letters were "shall issue" documents but were dependent on a bond being presented. This generally kept the privateers honest. If you targetted the wrong person, the government more than likely could get sued. So your bond would cover the cost of that litigation and any damages.
Most of the people applauding on this thread are the same ones who go apoplectic over the "extra-constituionality" of the terrorism bill, so using their lame hysterics, what would stop another corrupt, Clinton-like administration from turning these Pirate Busters on American gun-owners or bong users or cyber-kiddie porn fans? What stops them from seizing your stuff when their sojourn in the dust & flea capital of the world ends? Courtesy of gun-grabbing President, John Edwards.
If it's all the same to Mr. Paul, I prefer the knowledge that the 10th Mountain Division is paying a silent visit to the Talibaniacs. But I guess a bunch of free-lance, glory boys stumbling around millions of acres of Afghan rock piles and mine fields could serve as pretty cool decoys, so...bring 'em on! It would be fun to see who signed up.