In the early history of this country, in fact even prior to that - many of the world’s governments faced a serious threat which disrupted their trade and transit of critical natural resources, murdered innocent civilians and terrorized budding settlements and colonies. This threat was unique - murderers and thieves, often with no state alligance, had declared war on the vulnerable satellites of European governments and newly established countries like the United States. Conventional armies could not hope to fight them, failing miserably in every attempt - the terrorizers were far too innovative and mobile. Even warring with the states that sometimes sponsored them bore no good results, and often only exasterbated the problem.
Pirates, though often the word now conjures a clowny, disney-type rendering with a comical accent, were the terrorists of their era. We only mock them now, because upon learning how to deal with them, they were quickly and effectively eradicated - so completely and swiftly that they seem more like myth than the very real an pressing threat that brought the pre-industrial world to it’s knees.
The Illumination of the Constitution
The US, which relied heavily on a secure flow of goods to and from Europe, made it clear in the constitution how to deal with such unconventional threats:
The Congress shall have power… to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water…
States finally realized that fire must be fought with fire - no standard army or navy could hope to rid the world of the complicated and evasive net of pirates, private or state-sponsored. Instead of mounting costly no-win wars to secure resources or fortify settlements, they issues letters of marque and reprisal. These official warrants were granted to private citizens, with the promise of a large reward, to use whatever means and innovation at their disposal to capture or kill these pirates.
Pure Efficiency
The process worked so well, that governments soon abandoned the practice with the Treaty of Paris, as the only pirates left were state-sponsored ones. France and England especially realized that, for all intents and purposes, they were really just fighting a war with the letters.
That’s right, pirates, the terrorists of their day, were wiped out. No large scale global war lasting generations and requiring continued sacrifice of its citizens was needed - there never was a “War on Pirates.” Instead, governments took a little time to think before they acted, and formulated a plan that was tremendously efficient and successful.
The Modern Solution
In modern times, the legacy of pirates has been taken over by Islamic Terrorists and the rouge states that sponsor them. These terrorists are mobile, evasive and nearly impossible to capture and bring to justice. Conventional war against them has been largely a complete waste of resources and lives. Terrorists jump from state to state, place to place despite ever increasing security measures; even “invading” peaceful nations posing as citizens to create further destruction and loss of life.
In a report published in the Indiana Law Journal, the inclination to go after terrorists is alive and well:
[A letter of marque and reprisal]—requiring at base the employment of private citizens to conduct a military operation—is far from unprecedented. During the 1979 Iranian Revolution, billionaire H. Ross Perot funded a private military team in an operation to rescue two of his company’s employees imprisoned in Iran. More recently, prominent American actor Bruce Willis has offered million-dollar bounties for the capture of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, as well as terrorist leaders Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and Ayman al-Zawahiri. With the advent of formalized privateering, it is certainly plausible to infer that other offers would surface.
The best part about this idea, is that not only is the desire to go after terrorists a popular and likely well-funded endeavor, it would be effective:
As Major Christopher M. Supernor has argued, [the private sector is] well-equipped to conduct the hunt. In rejecting a licensing system for oversight of international bounty hunters, Supernor argues that private enterprise would likely achieve greater success without governmental involvement. According to Major Supernor, governmental regulations would (1) prohibit opportunistic captures (thereby indirectly reducing the number of people engaged in the hunt), and (2) allow a host state to thwart bounty hunting efforts.
We cannot help but remember that Bill Clinton twice had Bin Laden in his scopes and failed to act. However, we must not blame Clinton, rather we should look to the very nature of governments, which are unable to deal dynamically and rapidly in the real world, being heavily burdened by bureaucracy and regulations. Whether it is George W. Bush or Clinton, the government itself is inept at fighting this kind of threat. Fortunately, history has shown that unconventional wars can be fought and won, but they require unconventional methods.
I like your article, an interesting idea… a couple things though:
One, an obvious difference to me between bounty hunters of pirates and terrorist bounty hunters is that it is much easier to promote the former since it was mostly dealt with on the high seas, where countries and governments had limited or no jurisdiction. Not really the case with the terrorists, who mostly live within countries, many of which are not friendly to westerners.
Two, the unfortunate problem is that in most Western countries, individuals have very limited rights to weapons. Only the governments are allowed to be armed with anything more dangerous than a toothpick.
I have the same concerns as Darius. Today’s terrorists live within national borders, and the governments in power won’t look kindly on private armies operating within their terrority. Then there are all sorts of extradition problems. And we’re already seeing abuses perpetrated by private contractors in Iraq; privateers would have even less oversight, so the potential for abuse is greater.
And just as a historical note, didn’t the US use letters of marque and reprisal because its navy was insufficient to handle the pirates? It wasn’t that conventional navies couldn’t deal with pirates, it was that America didn’t have any conventional navy worth speaking of.
And just as a historical note, didn’t the US use letters of marque and reprisal because its navy was insufficient to handle the pirates? It wasn’t that conventional navies couldn’t deal with pirates, it was that America didn’t have any conventional navy worth speaking of.
yes, but even the phenomenal navy of England had major problems with pirates and rouge naval forces, requiring them to use marques. I think the official US account will say that they did it in lieu of a navy, but then again, the US also didn’t have the military and economic bloat that comes along with a standing navy.
One, an obvious difference to me between bounty hunters of pirates and terrorist bounty hunters is that it is much easier to promote the former since it was mostly dealt with on the high seas, where countries and governments had limited or no jurisdiction. Not really the case with the terrorists, who mostly live within countries, many of which are not friendly to westerners.
I agree, however, we face more problems with this in terms of national armies. Take Pakistan, which is most likely where Bin Laden is now. Because of diplomacy, we cannot go in there as “THE US ARMY” - Pakistan also has a nuke. But issuing a general letter of marque does not make us near as culpable if some privateers go into Pakistan and bring back Bin Laden’s head. It’s still not a free pass, but at least it provides us a much better chance.
Two, the unfortunate problem is that in most Western countries, individuals have very limited rights to weapons. Only the governments are allowed to be armed with anything more dangerous than a toothpick.
True. However, I’d rather have a untraceable (or not as traceable) private group breaking (again, say Pakistani) weapons laws and going to jail for it if they get caught, then marching in there with US troops and starting world war 3.
In essence, I think your objections are dead on - but they apply even more strictly to the kind of conventional means we use now.
I read an article in Newsweek about the search for bin Laden. And what struck me as odd was that special forces have to fill out a form for everything they do - I mean a literal paper form. So if they came face-to-face with bin Laden, they couldn’t just shoot him on the spot; they would have to submit a typed paper form, and wait for a reply. Its no wonder they haven’t had any success, given the bureaucracy involved. They’ve been set up to fail. Granted this may have to do with past military blunders, etc. etc. I still have to wonder if the U.S. is really serious about capturing bin Laden. President Bush basically said that he is irrelevant. And I still never completely understood why they did away with the special CIA unit that was searching for bin Laden. I think they basically said these guys had gone completely insane, and were making up their own rules, yada yada.
Bin Laden is somewhat irrelevant. Fine, kill him and the terrorism stops??? This is the same insanity that is implied by calling every Islamic terrorist “Al Qaeda.” He may even be dead already, we don’t completely know. Either way, he likely has limited power.
Interesting argument, but how successful have past bounties been recently? We HAVE placed bounties on Osama and other top leaders, have those bounties turned up meaningful results? Would the “Letters of Marque” require the US to negotiate for people captured by national governments (such as Pakistan) for violating Pakistani laws? What would be the stance of the US on innocents killed by such teams (collateral damage), particularly if it resulted from tactics viewed as overly aggressive by our own military forces? Would we refuse extradition for organizations operating under “Letters of Marque”? I definitely like the idea of privatizing military operations, but the loss of control it would entail under this model could well cause a great deal of international turmoil.
We need to go after Bin Laden to bring justice! That is the most noble reason for using force! We do nothing to honor those people who were killed on 9/11 until their murderer(s) have been dealt with.
It also tells the whole world that if you bomb us, don’t worry - we’ll just go after some mid-east country and let you go scott free!
Hey, we are going after him (while still needing to honor alliances). But at the same time, for all practical reasons, Bin Laden doesn’t serve much purpose. Justice is great, but if by pursuing justice other evil that is more dangerous to people right now than Bin Laden is ignored, that’s not really helpful.
You have the pre-9/11 mentality that set us up for the WTC bombing in the first place: arrest the guys guilty of doing the terrorism, ignore the problem at large. Normal courts and justice systems CANNOT address Islamic terrorism, at least not in this country. Clinton did that, and they just kept getting more and more brazen in their attacks. You can’t solve the problem by only swatting the bee that stings you, you have to destroy the nest. You honor the “stung” (and your own intelligence) by wiping out the bee nest. Kind of silly to just sit and wait for the next bee to find you.
“We need to go after Bin Laden to bring justice! That is the most noble reason for using force! We do nothing to honor those people who were killed on 9/11 until their murderer(s) have been dealt with.”
I agree that, if bin Laden is responsible for 9/11, he should be dealt with. However, no one has been able to show me any credible links between bin Laden and 9/11. There’s no hard evidence. Even though he is wanted by the FBI for numerous other crimes, the World Trade Center bombings are not listed as one of the crimes he is wanted for. Just go to their web site.
And if anyone tries to suggest that I’m saying the Bush administration planned the attacks or some nonsense, you’re disingenuous because I never said that.
Darius, this is a momentous occasion: We agree on something! Let this be a day of celebration and feasting.
Darius, why do you say that Bin Laden is irrelevent?