It’s Not The Barbary Pirates, Rep. Paul
Ron Paul is at it again, suggesting a 18th Century solution for a 21st Century problem. Specifically, Rep. Paul has proposed using an obscure Constitutional provision called “letters of marque and reprisal” whereby Congress (not the President) can authorize private shipowners to act on behalf of the United States against pirates in exchange for both loot and bounties.
While the idea itself appears on its face to be an innovative attempt to solve the difficult problems posed by the scourge of Somali piracy in and around the Gulf of Aden, Paul’s proposal typically romanticizes an earlier era at the cost of being non-responsive to more modern elements of the problem. Bluntly put, a policy that was effective during the time of the Barbary pirates might not be well-suited for the Somali pirates.
International law at the time of the early American republic was all but non-existent. The institution of “letters of marque and reprisal” was thus both uncontroversial and relatively functional. Because there was no international media and little concept of the post-WWII concepts of the legal and moral limits on armed conflict, it was no problem to hire untrained and unaccountable characters (criminals, really) to fill what was a serious gap in American military capabilities. Hiring pirates (called privateers after hiring) to go after pirates had little downside. Because they were allowed to keep the loot after destroying a pirate ship, the policy even had the virtue of being self-funding.
But under the post-WWII regimes of the Geneva Conventions and other limits on armed force, the modern United States does not have the option of a hands-off approach to those working under its direction. The scandals surrounding the behavior of CIA contractors at Abu Ghraib and private security companies like Blackwater in Iraq and Afghanistan indicate that both the international community and the American public demand somewhat higher standards of behavior from both American armed forces and private contractors than was the norm during the time of letters of marque and reprisal. It is at best unclear how Rep. Paul’s proposal would deal with the complex issues of training and accountability that would accompany any effort to bring back the 18th Century anti-piracy tool. The idea that holders of letters of marque and reprisal would have to “promise” to obey international law is too vague to be useful — how would such a “promise” be specified and enforced? Gauzy notions of the fight against the Barbary pirates are completely non-responsive towards this modern-day problem.
Another problem would be defining piracy at all. It is worth remembering (Rep. Paul apparently does not) that 18th Century privateers often attacked and looted targets that were not actually pirates, but were rather personal or political enemies of the privateer. In short, many privateers switched back and forth between privateering and piracy. The letters of marque and reprisal institution contains no mechanism to maintain controls or enforce limits on how the ship captains thus authorized might abuse their discretion. And since these ship captains would be acting under the authority of the United States, the U.S. government would bear the stain of whatever they might do.
The institution of letters of marque and reprisal also would threaten to seriously confuse the system of civilian control of the U.S. military. Because Congress rather than the President would issue the letters, they would fall outside of the normal channels of military command and control. This could result not only in duplication or wastage of effort, but also in actual conflicts as real U.S. naval units would be hard-pressed to differentiate holders of a legitimate letter of marque from those pirates who might merely claim to or might even forge up some documents.
The bottom line is that, like most of Rep. Paul’s proposals from an earlier time, the letters of marque and reprisal idea simply fails to respond to the complexity of the modern world. That will not, of course, slow down those who share his willful ignorance of the modern world from embracing romantically simplified notions of an easier time. But these Somali pirates are not Barbary pirates, today is not the 18th Century, the U.S. does not need its navy reinforced by amateurs, and the world does not need more privatized military forces running around without any mechanisms for controls and accountability.
What do you mean “at it again”? What other “18th century” proposals for “21st century” problems has he proposed? This is just an attempt to be dismissive of all of Ron Paul’s proposals. Remember, it was only 8 years ago that Greenspan himself defended derivatives as absolutely essential to 21st century finance. Well, here we are, genius.
Fazsha,
Well said.
Blackwater and other, similar organizations are anything but amateurish and what are the pirates other than ‘privatized military forces running around without any mechanisms for controls and accountability?’
Sounds like the tired, statist argument for centralized authority so that the feckless collective can call the shots without solving the problem.
@Fazsha
Bravo, Ron Paul! I called the White House to suggest the same thing yesterday. As long as the U.S. Military has its hands tied and is not allowed to do what needs to be done, then hiring “amateurs” as you call them makes perfect sense. Go Ron, let’s give them what they deserve!
You article doesn’t seem to reflect what Ron Paul was actually saying. If ships in the area were allowed to defended themselves then pirates would think twice before attacking one.
http://libertymaven.com/2009/04/13/ron-paul-suggests-using-letters-of-marque-and-reprisal-for-pirates/5299/
*Your*
Seems like an awesome solution. These pirates are running around in little speed boats. They are going to stop when ships start shooting .50 caliber rounds at them. It wouldn’t require any tax payer money and the shipping companies wouldn’t have to pay insane ransoms. This is a win win situation for everyone. The only nations that will have a problem are the nations supporting the pirates.
War is a declaration of open hostilities against nations….but these pirates are not nations, so a declaration of war makes no sense.
A bounty on the head of known pirates does make sense however.
the problem we face is the hired hands on these ships have no incentive to fight piracy, but our government could create that incentive. If pirates knew that those on board the ships had an incentive to fight back, they would be more reluctant to pursue aggression.
Of course then we still have the drug war type issue – so long as it is lucrative to engage in piracy, some will.
Ron Paul is spot on as usual. This isn’t a military problem, this is a criminal problem on the open seas. Declaring a war against Somalia would be insane.
However, not all Somali pirates are bad, and in the eyes of many Somalis these actions are justified. Why? Well, because there is something the media hasn’t been telling you:
http://www.sfbayview.com/2009/you-are-being-lied-to-about-pirates/
If this is Constitutional, what’s the problem?
As I recall–maybe incorrectly–some House member offered up a proposal that the author of any Bill before the Huse had to be shown to be Cnstitutional. As I also recall, it was rejected by the House! [if I'm incorrect on this please let me know!!]
This article is typical leftist cowardly babble. Screw “legal and moral limits on armed conflict”. Screw international law. Screw trials for pirates or terrorists. It is this type of defensive, weak thinking that ties the hands of our military and gets the wrong people killed. Sooner or later America will give up on this “post WWII” nonsense and revert to the natural way of human beings – kill your enemies.
If you actually read the US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, the applicable clause reads:
Congress has the power …
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
By my reading, this means that the letters can be issued, and congress can make rules concerning the way they can be executed. In other words, we would not be setting a pack of rogue mercenaries loose with no rules. Congress could set the limits, and if the limits were violated, the letters could be rescinded, at the least, and violators could be prosecuted at the most.
tonto — so your suggestion is that we change from the military fighting the pirates to having the military fight BOTH the pirates AND the rogue privateers empowered by Congress? Seems like a guaranteed way to step backward.
Eric — the presumption that international law is some kind of anti-American leftist plot is common among the more ignorant segments of the hyper-nationalist right (i.e. Paulbots), but it is fundamentally ignorant of how international law actually works. International law was championed after WWII by the United States precisely because it was a check on the sorts of things that you apparently agree with the Nazis about: a Darwinian system controlled by amoral strength motivated by unrestrained nationalism. Perhaps your image of American values is coherent with the Nazis’ visions about making sure that the “right people” get killed. But some of us prefer a more civilized vision.
Also, rejecting a multilateral world may appear all macho and cool from the faux-tough-guy world of the militia encampment filled with right-thinking Paulbots that drool about other esoteric 18th and 19th Century romanticizations that are non-responsive to how the modern world actually works (e.g. gold standard, agrarian isolationism, private roads), but it won’t appear so when the United States runs out of its already rapidly depleting resources and finds itself set upon by a coalition of enemies more powerful than us — enemies who might have been allies if we had not unwisely and short-sightedly blown them off when the option for a multilateral world was available to us. The bottom line is that whenever a power appears that seems to be overwhelming and outside of any set of rules, a coalition ALWAYS rises to counter it. Right now, if we choose to follow your emotional hyper-nationalism and xenophobia, then WE are going to be that self-destructive power.
I don’t support international law as a framework because I am an anti-American lefty. (The accusation alone proves that you haven’t read ANY of my posts on the subject of actual anti-American lefties before throwing around wild emotional language.) I support international law because I think it serves long term U.S. interests even though it may frustrate short-term nationalist emotional giddiness.
Perhaps you ranting Paulbots ought to take a step back and look at some history more recent than the gauzy tracts about 18th and 19th Century agrarian republicanism. Who sponsored the United Nations? The United States. Why? No, it wasn’t a plot by the international conspiracy of the Bilderbergs or the CFR or whatever else you heard around the fire at the militia encampment. It was as a tool for helping to organize coalitions against the Soviet Union. Human rights treaties like Helinski were not plots to undermine U.S. sovereignty, they were very successful tools to delegitimize anti-Western enemies. And the annoying process of constructing and using a modern legal framework for anti-piracy efforts is not an attempt to hamstring the United States, it is a way of maximizing the EFFICIENCY of U.S. efforts by gaining allies instead of trying to do the whole damn thing by ourselves.
@Fazsha
Fazsha that is what you call a straw man argument.
Everyday individuals take chances. You take a chance at choking and dieing when you eat food. You take a chance of falling over and snapping your neck and dieing every time you walk. When you create a business you are taking a chance. When you decide to ship over seas you are taking a chance of sinking. Jason, do you a believe in government protecting us from everything? Do you remember what Marxism did to the socialist/communist countries? (I am not implying my opinions with those questions.)
People, who take a risk doing what ever they do, should have the power to defend themselves with proper equipment. Getting the Navy involved may represent some hazards. Such as leading countries to war and angry sentiment. Take Afghanistan for example, we have invaded their country increasing much more hatred for America. I think the letter of Marque and Reprisal could have been a better answer to apprehending Osama Bin Laden and I think that holds true for the pirates. When it is hard to define an enemy and the enemy is not a country we have to play our cards right. I also think Navy involvement isn’t necessarily a bad or good thing on all levels. I can’t list all the hypotheticals but I can say this, their could be room for Navy involvement. I just think the U.S. being the “Police men of the world” and our latest “wars” we have to be careful. Any conflict or issue the Federal Government takes on concerns me because they have an OUTSTANDINGLY horrible track record. I really don’t think I have to make that list.
Jason I ask that you find out who Carrol Quigley is and then read his books “Tragedy and Hope”, and “The Anglo American Establishment”.
Ron Paul is for the people, unless you want your children to have human implant RFID chips, a National ID card and create a North American Union and see an economic collapse far worse than the great depression. Support Ron Paul he speaks the truth and the media and government is afraid of him go to http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ron+paul and you will see his large base. Get motivated America, don’t believe the lies of the media! Go Ron Paul! Value Freedom instead of corporate lies and corruption. Bypass this media blackout they are doing to Ron Paul, tell your family and friends and get involved in a local group at campaignforliberty.com make your voice heard! He will end the War In Iraq immediately, He will eliminate the IRS and wasteful government spending, and eliminate the Federal Reserve and restore power to the people and the only person not a member on the CFR. Can any other runner make these claims? **** STOP THE WAR & Corporate Corruption**** He has NEVER voted: * to raise taxes * for an unbalanced budget * to raise congressional pay * for a federal restriction on gun ownership * to increase the power of the executive branch He HAS voted: * against the Iraq war * against the inappropriately named USA PATRIOT act * against regulating the internet * against the Military Commissions Act He will eliminate the IRS, Wasteful Government Spending & Stop The Iraq War Immediately! Most importantly, he voted NO on anything in Congress that is not allowed by the Constitution.
Google: Ron Paul Today! Join The Revolution!
This article is worthless flotsam.
Jason, you lose all credibility with your juvenile usage of the term Paulbot.
That you can’t engage in civil disagreement without name calling speaks volumes about your mental makeup.
In the end, we have individuals making judgment calls.
A captain of a Naval Ship makes the call, or a captain of a privateering ship makes the call. In both cases it is still individuals prone to error and corruption. Of course the Navy has the structure in place to better coverup the mistake made, and government error leaves those negatively effected by the mistake with less recourse then if harm was committed by privateers.
If the Navy makes the wrong call and harms my family, I really have no recourse. You don’t get far suing the gover
People who dismiss Ron Paul as an anarchist, free-market cook are delusional about the state of affairs in the world today. Pirating is a private enterprise – the backbone of human progress throughout history. What better way to defeat it than by allowing privateer bounty hunters to exercise their own entrepreneurial abilities? No one is saying that the Navy should be taken completely out of the equation, but how about not spending $10 million by sending a destroyer to fight a speedboat? Wouldn’t that improve our national debt situation? Not to mention allowing the tremendous number of individuals from our own society, who have the penchant for violence, to have a productive outlet for their destructive tendencies?
These people have also forgotten their history: Jean Lafitte, a privateer, saved Andrew Jackson’s bacon with his cannon and his strategic advice at the Battle of New Orleans in the winter of 1812. Where would the United States be without individuals who chose to apply their talents to practices of questionable moral merit while still honorable enough to adhere to a negotiated contract?
You are right. Ron Paul is not a cook. He is, however, a kook.
No, because the $10 million destroyer will still have to be there to keep an eye on the people we hired in order to stop them from going rogue. All that the privateer concept does is ADD another layer of difficulty and expense.
So your argument is that because ONE hired pirate in 1812 was honorable and effective that ALL hired pirates in the 21st Century can be ASSUMED to be honorable and effective without need of monitoring or control or enforcement?
And I am the one that is supposedly delusional?
@Fazsha
Reading and following the constitution seems to be an outdated “18th century” idea. So I guess he is “at it again.”
Right. Because everyone that disagrees with Ron Paul about anything at all automatically hates the Constitution and hates America, right?
But it’s not a cult of personality or anything….
So Jason Arvak, you are wrong again and Ron Paul stands squarely right with the Constitution of the United States of America. What a surprise!
It seems we cheer Rambo types doing our dirty work on the silver screen but when it’s proposed as a Constitutional solution to such matters, all of a sudden it’s distasteful. I dare say we’d have Bin Laden by now if left to soldiers of fortune. Methinks perhaps the defense department is afraid of being trumped quick and dirty “amateurs”. The Constitution is still right, and Ron Paul represents it perfectly.
“Ron Paul is at it again, suggesting a 18th Century solution for a 21st Century problem.”
Piracy is a 21st century problem? And you claim to know history?