Feral Jundi

Sunday, May 8, 2011

Bounties: The Truth About Geronimo…And Usama Bin Laden, By Benjamin Runkle

Filed under: Books,Bounties,History,Letter Of Marque — Tags: , , , , , , , , — Matt @ 1:19 PM

The original Geronimo campaign and the hunt for bin Laden share plenty of similarities. On May 3, 1886, more than a century before a $25 million reward was offered for information on bin Laden’s whereabouts, and almost 125 years to the day before the al-Qaeda leader’s death, the U.S. House of Representatives introduced a joint resolution “Authorizing the President to offer a reward of twenty-five thousand dollars for the killing or capture of Geronimo.”

Excellent little article about the comparisons between these two manhunts. But what is really interesting to me is that back then the President was authorized by congress to issue a bounty for the killing or capturing of Geronimo.  So does that mean that a bounty was paid to the members of Lt. Charles Gatewood’s small five man party that sealed the deal on Geronimo?  Mind you that this party was composed of ‘two Apache scouts, an interpreter and a mule-packer’.  Not bad for such a small team, and it reminds me of the effectiveness of the small teams required for the capture of UBL.(on a side note here, no one has been awarded the millions in bounties that UBL had on his head)

Which brings me to my next point.  It is not the size of force or intelligence apparatus, but the quality and effectiveness of such a thing.  In both cases, it was not a large army that was able to find these guys and put them away.  It was small teams. And in both cases, these teams were tipped off to the location of their guy by a local or a detainee.  So what does that say?

Could this indicate that small companies or units are more capable of finding people, than large cumbersome armies? I think so.  I also think that bounties can work, if they actually support a vibrant ‘offense industry’.  The bounty for Bin Laden did not support the kill or capture by companies or individuals, and only depended upon an individual to come forward with a tip.  That’s if they would come forward.  If a company was tasked with finding and capturing/killing UBL or any of the other leaders, then they too could use a bounty system to get their information locally. Or use whatever means, based on the guidelines and laws of a issued license.

The other point I wanted to make is how long and how costly this manhunt has been.  According to this author in the Atlantic, the total time for the hunt of UBL was 15 years at a cost of 3 trillion dollars. I cannot even imagine what 3 trillion dollars looks like, but I do know what cost effective is.  This hunt for UBL was not cost effective, and I definitely think that there is another way to go about this task. Not to mention the lives lost in this long war.

Finally, there is the question of violating a country’s sovereignty in order to go after an individual(s). We definitely crossed Pakistan’s border with military force, landed on their territory, killed UBL and several others, and took materials from this compound.  All of these acts were done without the permission of Pakistan, and I am sure it will have it’s repercussions.(logistics for Afghanistan come to mind) But my point is that the US authorized this act at the highest levels.  So the US has now set a precedence and has deemed this a necessary act for national security.  I agree and applaud the President for making this move, but the US must also consider that Al Qaeda is still operating and still out there.

It will take many raids, and many small teams to reach all of these groups and violate the sovereignty of many countries out there in order to accomplish what we just did in Pakistan.  If such acts are this important to the national security of the US, then I do not see how issuing Letters of Marque and Reprisal to private industry to help in this endeavor would be considered that much more of a stretch? Or we can continue to spend trillions of dollars on large scale military deployments in places like Iraq or Afghanistan, violate those country’s sovereignty with large scale occupation, all to find these people? Something to think about when talking about waging war efficiently and using the right tool/strategy for the job.

On a side note, Benjamin Runkle has put together an excellent blog to coincide with the topic of his book called Wanted Dead or Alive: Manhunts from Geronimo to bid Laden. I have put his blog in my RSS reader, and this is an area of study that everyone should take a look at if they are interested in the method behind ‘finding’ bad guys.-Matt

The truth about Geronimo .. and Osama bin Laden
By Benjamin Runkle
May 6, 2011
“Geronimo!” That was the call that went over the command net on May 1, indicating that Navy SEALs had found their man. And that code name for Osama bin Laden has angered some Native Americans, who have demanded a formal apology from the Obama administration.
Their complaints are understandable, but misguided. The code name doesn’t denigrate the Apache war captain, a hero to some students of Native American history, through comparison to the Saudi terrorist leader. The similarities are not in the men themselves but in the military campaigns that targeted them.
In May 1885, Geronimo led the breakout of 120 Chiricahua Apache from the San Carlos Reservation in what is now Arizona, creating mass hysteria in the American Southwest. The Chiricahua had legitimate grievances: Civilian “Indian agents” were corrupt and consistently cheated the Apache on their rations, while the land the tribe had been given was almost worthless for farming but still encroached upon by miners. (more…)

Thursday, April 28, 2011

Call To Action: Colorado Senate Bill 11-186 Will Free Criminals And Spell The End Of Private Bail-Vote No!

Filed under: Bounties,Call To Action,Colorado — Tags: , , , , , , , — Matt @ 10:28 PM

In the past I have written about the effectiveness of offense industries, and specifically bounty hunting.  The strength of the private bail industry comes from the profit motive of the act and from them having incentive to get their bail money back if their client runs, and that is a good thing. These men and women work hard in this industry and earn every penny they make doing a dangerous service that benefits us all.

What Colorado is trying to do here is to ruin private enterprise, and expand the size of government through another means of capturing revenue. Meanwhile, if the bail industry is destroyed by this greedy government program, who will run after the criminals that run? The police? Hell, they can’t even keep up with the current warrants in that state.

At the bottom of these articles I posted the contact information for all the state Senators in Colorado. Take your pick, or write them all, but either way, tell them to vote no on Senate Bill 11-186.  –Matt

Dog The Bounty Hunter Fighting Bill That Would Free Criminals
Apr 26, 2011
Duane “Dog” Chapman isn’t just busy yanking criminals off the street — he’s fighting the politicians trying to put them back on the street!
Dog is leading the fight in Colorado against a state Senate bill he and the bill’s critics say will put bail bondsmen out of business — and flood society with criminals.
“This time I’m not barking. I’m here to take a real bite out of crime,” Dog told RadarOnline from Colorado. “I’m here to stop tax funded bonds ?and return bail bonds to the private sector where it belongs.”
Authorities in Colorado on Tuesday will convene to vote on the divisive Senate Bill 11-186,  sponsored by Democratic Sen. John Morse and Republican Rep. Mark Waller, both of Colorado Springs.
The bill would put into play a deposit bond, which would grant pre-trial services to offer bonds to incarcerated defendants.
Here’s how it works:
If the accused cannot can’t get bonded out by a private bail company, the court will make one available to them.  Once the judge sets bond, the defendant would be able to pay up to 15 percent of the amount.
Under this system, 50 percent of the revenue would go to the court fees for the service. If the defendant is found not guilty, the other 50 percent would be returned to them. If they are found guilty, whatever funds are left would be given back to them.
One former lawman who operates his bail bonds company out of Colorado Springs, told KRDO -TV that if the bill is passed into a law, hundreds of people in his industry will be out of work.
Not only that, but who is going to chase down the criminals who don’t show up to court. Dog the Bounty Hunter told RadarOnline.com: “This state has hundreds of thousands of warrants! no Bounty Hunters ?  Ha, not,” he scoffed in a warning. (more…)

Thursday, April 7, 2011

Bounties: The US Congress Paid $100 Per British Prisoner Captured During War Of 1812

Filed under: Bounties,History,Letter Of Marque — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 3:57 PM

1814, March 19. The $25 for each prisoner captured by private armed vessels of the United States to be $100 hereafter. $200,000 appropriated.
(What cost $100 in 1814 would cost $1025.20 in 2010.)

Now this is interesting, and I found this nugget of information in the Spirit of 76, Volume 6 edition. Did you know that the US Congress authorized a bounty system for British Prisoners during the War of 1812?  Apparently back then, the British had captured a ton of American prisoners during that war. The reason for that was because there were hundreds of American privateers involved in the war that went after the enemy, and many of these privateers were captured during operations.  These privateers were not as experienced and as professionalized as the Royal Navy back then, and suffered the consequence of being ill prepared.

Another problem that popped up in the war was that many of these American privateers had no use for prisoners and often let them go.  So in 1814, that is when Congress decided to appropriate money for bounties for privateers to hang on to prisoners and turn them in to US detention. My guess is that Congress wanted to do prisoner exchanges to get all of these Americans freed from British prisons. So naturally, Congress created an industry out of capturing prisoners to solve the problem. That is on top of the prize capture system implemented by Congress, which was an industry created to destroy enemy logistics and infuse money into the US Treasury.

With that said, privateers did some damage during that war and were a very important part of the overall strategy.  Despite the risks and poor conditions, many guys were driven to join the privateer schooners in the hopes of capturing a prize (or enemy vessel).  I compare it to today’s crab fishermen in Alaska, and a good visual representation of that ‘risk versus reward’ mindset is to watch a show like the ‘Deadliest Catch‘. It is the allure of the hunt and of striking it rich, that drove these men to do what they did back then.  Plus it was the patriotic thing to do at the time, and privateering was very popular.

Another little nugget I found out recently, was the concept of Prize Tickets.  What these were, were contracts between the sailors and the privateer company in which that sailor would get his share of the prize, after all the proceedings of the prize court and after everyone was paid.  The interesting thing here is that guys didn’t know how much they would get for their efforts, and it required patience to wait for the final outcome. What happened with many privateers is that instead of waiting, they would instead sell their prize tickets to brokers who would pay a small fee.  These brokers would stand to make a killing, just because they were rich enough and patient enough to wait for the final outcome of the prize.

The other thing that I thought was interesting is that privateer and letter of marque were two types of vessels/enterprises during that war. Not only was a Letter of Marque a commission/license issued to privateers, but the name Letter of Marque was given to a certain type of enterprise/vessel in this war. A Letter of Marque was a cargo vessel whom was issued a LoM for the possible chance that they might come across an enemy vessel and make a capture. But their primary task was shipping their cargo.  A privateer was a vessel that was primarily a fighting vessel, and prize captures/commerce raiding was is it’s purpose.

For more information on the War of 1812, I highly suggest a new book that came out called the Perilous Fight: America’s Intrepid War With Great Britain On the High Sea’s 1812-1815, By Stephen Budiansky. And I really liked this quote from the product description of this book: “Never again would the great powers challenge the young republic’s sovereignty in the aftermath of the stunning performance of America’s navy and privateersmen in sea battles that ranged across half the globe. Their brilliant hit-and-run tactics against a far mightier foe would pioneer concepts of “asymmetric warfare” that would characterize the insurgency warfare of later centuries.” Pretty cool. –Matt

ACTION FOR THE BENEFIT OF REVOLUTIONARY SOLDIERS.
COMPILED FROM THE MINUTES OF CONGRESS
The Spirit of ’76, Volume 6
1812, Jan. 18. Act declaring war with Great Britain.
1812, June 26. Act concerning letters of marque, prizes and and prize goods. The 17th section says: “That two percentum on the net amount (after deducting all charges and expenditures) of the prize money arising from capture of vessels and cargoes, recaptured by the private armed vessels of the United States, shall be secured and paid over to the collector or other chief officer of the customs at the port or place in the United States at which such captured or recaptured vessels may arrive; or consul or other public agent of the United States residing at the port or place not within the United States, at which such captured or recaptured vessels may arrive. And the moneys arising therefrom shall be held, and is hereby pledged by the government of the United States as a fund for the support and maintenance of the widows and children of such persons as may be slain; and for the support and maintenance of such persons as may be wounded and disabled, on board of thte private armed vessels of the United States, in any engagement with the enemy, to be assigned and distributed in such manner as shall hereafter by law be provided.” ) (more…)

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Bounties: US Offers $5 Million In Killing Of ICE Agent, Mexico Offers 10 Million Pesos

Filed under: Bounties,Law Enforcement,Mexico — Tags: , , , , , , — Matt @ 10:15 PM

The Mexican government offered up a reward of 10 million Pesos for this deal as well, and obviously the case is going cold and they need some information to catch these guys. Hopefully this bounty will do the trick. –Matt

U.S. offers $5 million in killing of ICE agent
Two ambushed along highway, likely by a Mexican drug cartel
By Jerry Seper
March 30, 2011
The Departments of Justice, State and Homeland Security announced Wednesday a reward of up to $5 million for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the Mexican gunmen who shot and killed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Special Agent Jaime Zapata and wounded his partner, Victor Avila Jr. (more…)

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Fish And Game: North Dakota Takes Aim With Bounty On Coyotes

Filed under: Bounties,Fish and Game,North Dakota — Tags: , , , , , , — Matt @ 11:35 AM

     The number of complaints USDA Wildlife Services receives from livestock producers confirms the coyote abundance.      According to Phil Mastrangelo, director of USDA Wildlife Services in North Dakota, coyote complaints increased from 374 in 2007 to 498 last year. He said Wildlife Services has nine wildlife-control experts across the state, and coyotes account for the bulk of their workload.

     “These guys work a large area, a minimum of five counties apiece, and they’re stretched pretty thin,” he said.

    I guess the Senate Bill for this was shot down.  But the House Bill is still in play and I think something like this would be a fantastic idea.

    First, lets look at the opponent’s view on this.  Of course the North Dakota Game and Fish Department would be opposed to a bounty program because it would threaten their good deals. Meaning if a bounty program succeeds, then why fund inefficient programs in the NDGFD?  I compare this to the TSA and their opposition to private industry taking over their airport screening services.(notice how the TSA shot private industry down as well)  This is government versus private industry, or in this case, government versus private hunters.

     But if you read the quote above, they are only using nine USDA government hunters to cover 5 counties apiece! How can they possible put a dent in the coyote population there?  Let alone, if these guys are being paid by the feds, they are probably getting health care and everything else that government jobs entail.  Or they could be contractor hunters–who knows? What I do know is that the state must scale up the hunting of this animal if it want’s to reduce it’s numbers, and it is not enough to just depend upon the whims of recreational hunters to do the job or nine government hunters.

    I think a bounty program would work just fine, and it would be a way for the state to spread the work load and incentivize the process. It would also infuse money back into the local communities where jobs are scarce. Hell, if a hunter was able to bag three coyotes in a day, that would be 300 dollars. Not bad for a day’s work?

     If you want professional hunters to really get involved with the eradication of these animals, you need to make killing coyotes a viable occupation for them.  Hunters pay for their gun, bullets, a tank of gas, food, and maybe even lodging to go out and hunt recreationally. But there is no way a recreational hunter will be driven to expend this much time and treasure to continually do this, unless they have another profession or trust fund that can support this lifestyle. (and some do out there) Hell, I have to really plan and budget to make an effort to go out hunting once or twice a year.

    But if you want to ramp up interest in the task, then it must be incentivized and there must be good rules and management of the process in order for it to be effective. The end result of such an effort will be the desired outcome.  Hell, if commercialized hunting almost decimated the buffalo back in the wild west days, a coyote bounty system could equally be successful.

     Or we can continue to depend upon an inefficient and undermanned government system to do the job–and meanwhile the coyote problem continues to rise and threaten livestock and deer populations. –Matt

North Dakota takes aim with bounty on coyotes

Feb. 09, 2011

By BRAD DOKKEN

Not a day goes by, Gerald Berthold says, when he doesn’t hear coyotes howling nearby on his farm west of Arvilla, N.D.

“You can be out in the evening, and you can hear them just about in every direction howling,” Berthold said.

Coyotes have killed at least two of his calves in recent years, Berthold said. And last summer, he said two calves simply disappeared from a pasture near Emerado, N.D.

Berthold can’t say for sure it was coyotes, but he has his suspicions.

“I don’t know where else they would have went,” he said. “They were too young to take off on their own. They were still nursing. They were month-old calves.”

Coyotes have become an increasingly hot topic in North Dakota in recent years. As the population grows, so, too, have the reports of coyotes causing problems. Berthold said the increase in coyote numbers has been especially apparent the past 10 to 15 years.

“They’re definitely on the increase,” he said. “There’s no doubt about that.”

Prompted largely by hunters who believe coyotes are hurting deer populations, a couple of bills have surfaced this winter in the North Dakota Legislature taking aim at reducing coyote numbers. House Bill 1454 and Senate Bill 2224 each would establish a $100 bounty on coyotes until 2,000 are taken.

Legislators haven’t yet acted on the bills.

(more…)

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress