Liberty MavenRon Paul suggests using Letters of Marque and Reprisal for pirates
April 13th, 2009 10:20 pm | by Marc Gallagher | Published in Constitution, Foreign Policy, Liberty, Ron Paul, terrorism, War | 13 Responses
In a recently released video from Ron Paul’s Campaign For Liberty Paul worries about the Somalia pirate situation and suggests using Letters of Marque and Reprisal as a solution.
In the video Paul suggests that the situation with the pirates now is similar to the way terrorists were prior to 9-11. He worries that these recent events may cause the U.S. to spend even more money on military interventionism overseas.
He offered the Letters of Marque and Reprisal solution back in 2002 as a response to the 9/11 attacks as well. Surprise! Ron Paul follows the Constitution again. Watch his video message below.
Loading ...
April 14th, 2009 at 4:53 am (#)
At about 51 seconds into the video, Paul says, "…remember the foolish attempt (bad video edit attempt here) and Clinton went into Somalia…"
BUSH SR. ORDERED 25,000 TROOPS INTO SOMOLIA DEC,9TH 1992!!! IT WAS BUSH SR.! IT WAS Daddy BUSH!! BUSH SR.!! CLINTON got us out of Somalia!!! GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!! and STOP THE VIDEO EDITING!!
The Campaign for Liberty needs truth and transparency. If you lie about your opponent, you'll only harden your opponent's position. AND THE CAMPAIGN NEEDS ALL THE SUPPORT IT CAN GET! Including Americans who may have supported Clinton and who are currently Democrats. The Campaign can win on the facts! Why pull this political BS!?
April 14th, 2009 at 9:24 am (#)
Clinton Orders 5,300 Troops to Somalia; Vows End in 6 Months
By John M. Broder
Los Angeles Times
WASHINGTON
October 8, 1993.
President Clinton Thursday ordered 5,300 new combat troops and an aircraft carrier to Somalia "to protect our troops and to complete our mission," and at the same time he announced that he would bring all American combat forces home by March 31.
He said the objective of the new deployment was to give the Somalis a reasonable prospect of survival in conditions of near-anarchy and factional warfare. Regardless of the success of the new mission, he vowed to end the U.S. military presence in Somalia in six months.
Clinton got us out of Somalia, but he did not do so quickly. If he had wanted to, he could have stopped that fiasco as one of his first acts as President. He did not have that kind of forsight and decided to take us into Bosnia as well.
I don't think I have ever heard anyone accuse the Paul camp of being supportive of a Bush, no matter if it was 41 or 43. This is a first for me….. and in all caps too…. impressive.
April 14th, 2009 at 12:02 pm (#)
Dr Paul is, of course, correct. Article I, Section 8, says "[The Congress shall have power to] ..grant letters of marque and reprisal…" This effectively "deputises" the recipient of the letter, making that individual an agent of the US and granting that agent legal authority, up to and including the use of lethal force, to carry out the specifics of the letter outside the boundaries of the US.
It was judicious use of such letters by Queen Elizabeth I that, in the sixteenth century, started politically near-impotent England on the path to world empire–it's a powerful tool.
April 14th, 2009 at 2:58 pm (#)
Interestingly enough, the Constitution, while not allowing for a standing army, DOES allow for a Navy… and one of the named reasons for this is… (drum roll) piracy!
April 14th, 2009 at 3:18 pm (#)
Not surprising. Standing armies of the day defended governments, not countries, often as not from their own citizens. (c.f., Napoleon's "whiff of grapeshot") A Navy isn't of much use against an inland population.
The people who wrote the US Constitution were, quite justifiably, suspicious of those who would follow after them, as demonstrated by the Bill of Rights, the Amendments comprising which are very much in order of the perceived threat offered by government to the citizens.
April 14th, 2009 at 3:19 pm (#)
Wow, I'm thankful for the info on both sides of this issue. I myself wasn't aware of Clinton's deployment but did indeed remember the withdrawal. Thanks to both people for the update on that issue and once again "Ron Paul is exactly right!" I'm ashamed that so few in Congress actually stand up as Ron does
I am more than a little concerned as to who will continue to carry the flag in the coming years. But until then, carry on Ron Paul….you have my full support 
April 14th, 2009 at 8:20 pm (#)
Sorry about screaming and using caps. I was hysterical. However, It looks as though Ron Paul was saying "Bush and Clinton", but someone edited out "Bush". I'm not defending Clinton. But to only mention Clinton (at 5300 troops) and not Bush ( where it began with 25,000 troops) seems very disingenuous. I’m concerned there is a neocon thug working in the ranks of the Campaign for Liberty. There are plenty of Democrats who can be moved by Ron Paul's message. I know, I was one of those Democrats who heard Ron Paul's Non-Interventionist message and was instantly sold. I'm naive when it comes to politics so this may sound crazy, but I'm concerned the Campaign for Liberty will alienate the very people it needs for support. Both parties are equally egregious. If you are making a historical reference, base it on facts, and don’t omit anything.
April 15th, 2009 at 12:16 pm (#)
[...] couple days ago Ron Paul released a video suggesting the same method for dealing with the pirates looting and pillaging commercial ships off [...]
April 21st, 2009 at 4:03 am (#)
Too little too late. Many pweople say this is the modern age and we can't do it. For starters the United States issued letters of marque as recently as WWII for anti-sub warfare. The 1856 treaty of Paris that people invoke as the reason we can't use them is petty much moot. I personally applied directly to congress last year for letters of marque and all I received was a letter in the mail that very politely told me to go enjoy my own company. This is all grandstanding. They want to look good on tv and act like they are interested while doing nothing.
April 21st, 2009 at 9:35 pm (#)
This whole video is stupid when he says a dozen of our people were killed in Somalia he is completely dismissing the whole thing as a mistake even though thousands have been killed there apparently those people dont matter. Letters of marque isn't a good solution for individuals maybe big company tankers but never have weapons added to weapons helped an issue. He also hints to his opinion that air crafts should have been allowed to carry weapons. This adds to the security problem because if there happened to be a shoot out inside an enclosed plane those results could be disastrous. So over all I think his attitude is very ignorant, and he interprets the facts as he wants to see them.
April 22nd, 2009 at 12:46 am (#)
To address your comment that "never have weapons added to weapons helped an issue," that's one of those wishful-thinking things people often assert, but it simply isn't true. Had the US not "added weapons" during WW II, the Nazis would have won the war. It's that simple. Had the Continental Army of the American Revolution not "added weapons" to that war, the United States might never have come into existence. The assertion /might/ be true if all parties are rational and agree to it, but I seriously doubt we can expect rational behaviour from starving Somali teenagers.
Second, I'm a pilot, and type-rated in a couple of pressurised aircraft. The myth that handguns offer any significant structural or functional hazard to aircraft is just that: a myth. Planes really aren't that delicate. As to threats to the pilots and passengers, they must be weighed against the otherwise unopposed threats posed by hijackers.
April 22nd, 2009 at 8:26 pm (#)
Henry Miller is compleltey right, if the only way to solve such a problem is letters of marque, so be it. The fact is the navy cant stop everything, especially when thres thousands of miles of un patrolled coastline. Its absurd to say adding weapons only worsens the problem, i doubt you would be able to convince an illiterate somali teenager to put down his weapons
April 24th, 2009 at 12:35 am (#)
The solution to air plane hijackers is not putting guns into planes but by increasing security measures in airports. I dont think thats wishful thinking I think thats logical. And im sorry if you perceived that I was speaking against US involvment in WW2. Im stating that the issue in Somalia can be solved by other means instead of simply the obvious of firearms.