Feral Jundi

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Letter Of Marque: World Food Programme Privateers?

Yep, in this conference, the idea of using privateers and the Letter of Marque was brought up as a means of protecting World Food Programme vessels. How cool is that? Not only that, but the idea was brought up in a conference filled with Ambassadors, academics, UN folks, PMSC folks, NGO’s etc. Here is a quote and page number if you would like to check it out.

Potential problems with the use of PMSCs in counter-piracy efforts, according to Mr Stupart, include firstly the issue of legality, where the use of PMSCs under current international maritime law is not very clear. In order to overcome this issue, calls for the reintroduction of the Letters of Marque have been suggested. The letters of Marque refers to the definition of piracy, the jurisdiction being decided upon, and the rules of engagement being determined by the flag state under which the vessel operates. Another issue raised by Mr Stupart relates to the possible escalation of violence. If pirates feel a risk due to the arming of vessels with PMSCs, they may adopt more aggressive tactics. This will be a major problem, especially for all merchant vessels that are not escorted or guarded by PMSCs. -From the section WORLD FOOD PROGRAMME PRIVATEERS – OUTSOURCING HUMANITARIAN AID IN THE GULF OF ADEN MR JOHN STUPART, Page 18

The other interesting thing about this conference is that it goes into some of the details of PMSC involvement in Africa. Places like the Sudan or Somalia, and that is great to hear. Most of all, the support for this industry was favorable as well. We are the go to forces for protecting these humanitarian operations and it was clear to me that the conference did recognize our value.

On the other hand, the recurring theme throughout the conference was the lack of legal authority or accountability with the various PMSC’s in Africa. So yes, the humanitarian assistance industry wants to use our industry, but they also do not want to get in trouble legally because of the actions of their security forces.

And of course, the classic principal agent problem comes up, and that is a constant theme everywhere in the world when it comes to contracting. A poorly written contract, a lack of oversight over the project, etc. are all issues that need to be worked out and discussed so you can responsible contract the services of a good PMSC.

Here is another quote in the conference that summed up quite nicely why there is such an interest and demand for PMSC’s in Africa.

Mr Chris Kwaja began the fourth session with an interrogation of the rationale and centrality of non-state military and security providers in the provision and delivery of humanitarian assistance operations in Darfur/Sudan. He argued that the rise of PMSC involvement in humanitarian assistance operations was due to the rising amount of armed conflicts and the inability of states to contain these conflicts, the decline of state troop contributions, the success and popularity of neo-liberalism which encouraged private sector involvement and the weakness of states to fulfill their constitutional obligations of security provision for the masses. Mr Kwaja also stated that PMSCs were arguably able to fill the capacity gap in terms of high-tech skill provision, that national militaries lack. -From the section FROM COMBAT TO NON COMBAT ACTION: PMSCS AND HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE OPERATIONS IN DARFUR/SUDAN MR CHRIS KWAJA, Page 15

This is why I perked up with what was discussed in this conference, along with the mention of the Letter of Marque. To me, these folks were not focused on trying to get rid of us, but on’ how to use us’. Check it out. –Matt

 

Conference report on the involvement of the private security sector in humanitarian assistance operations i…

Sunday, December 18, 2011

Legal News: Congress Legalizes Cyber War

In language discussing the bill, conferees say that because there is no historical precedent for what constitutes traditional military activities in cyberspace, “it is necessary to affirm that such operations may be conducted pursuant to the same policy, principles and legal regimes that pertain to kinetic capabilities.”

This is big news, and historical. The rules and laws of kinetic war now apply to Cyber War, and this brings up all sorts of ideas. For example, will we see more Cyber Lance type activities?  Maybe a US special forces team combined with civilian hackers to locate and kill/capture enemy hackers or whomever?  Who knows, and who knows how these new rules will apply?

Perhaps we will see the same issues that have popped up for today’s modern wars. Especially with the hybrid of private and public forces in conflict. I say this, because the US does not have the monopoly on ‘hacking force’. If they want the best, they can try to develop that capability internally, but inevitably they will have to reach out to private companies or individuals that are experts in these fields and pay them to do it.

Here is one quote below that really perked me up. Check it out:

Since the military cannot afford to pay enough to recruit qualified software and Internet engineers for this sort of work, it has turned to commercial firms. There are already some out there, companies that are technically network security operations, but will also carry out offensive missions (often of questionable legality, but that has always been an aspect of the corporate security business.)
Some of these firms have quietly withdrawn from the Internet security business, gone dark, and apparently turned their efforts to the more lucrative task of creating Cyber War weapons for the Pentagon. It may have been one of these firms that created, or helped create, the Stuxnet worm.

I read this and thought, why not just fire up the Letter of Marque and Reprisal and give these firms the legal authority and protections necessary to take part in offensive operations?  The LoM is sitting right there in the War Powers clause in the US Constitution, and it just seems to me that we are missing the boat when it comes to doing this stuff. We could be legally authorizing the companies to steal funds and intellectual property from all sorts of enemies out there, and label these companies cyber privateers. (which if the military helped at all, would those commanders or the US be entitled to a cut? lol)

My other thought about all of this is when will we see a Cyber Weapon used in such a way as to actually kill like a real weapon?  And with this public/private partnership we will have, we could potentially see IT Security companies build these weapons, and possibly even launch it. Just imagine if Stuxnet actually caused deaths in some weapons plant or nuclear facility? That would definitely put the ‘War’ in Cyber War. Very interesting….-Matt 

 

America Legalizes Cyber War
December 18, 2011
The U.S. Congress approved a new law on December 14th that allows the Department of Defense to conduct offensive Cyber War operations in response to Cyber War attacks on the United States. That is, the U.S. military is now authorized to make war via the Internet. The new law stipulates that all the rules that apply to conventional war, also apply to Cyber War. This includes the international law of armed conflict (meant to prevent war crimes and horrid behavior in general) and the U.S. War Powers Resolution (which requires a U.S. president to get permission from Congress within 90 days of entering into a war).
The U.S. Department of Defense has long advocated going on the offensive against criminal gangs and foreign governments that seek (and often succeed) to penetrate U.S. government and military Internet security, and steal information, or sabotage operations. Over the past year, and without much fanfare, the Department of Defense has been making preparations to do just that.

(more…)

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Books: Samuel Smedley, Connecticut Privateer, By Jackson Kuhl

Filed under: Books,History,Letter Of Marque — Tags: , , , , — Matt @ 12:15 PM

Thanks to Kyle over at the Feral Jundi Facebook Page for sending me this link. This interview brings up some very interesting aspects of privateering back then, and I was very interested in the offense industry elements.

In the interview below, the author really delves into the prize courts, the shares that crews and owners would get from prizes, and the competition between Connecticut, Continental Congress, and the other states and how that would impact privateers like Samuel Smedley.  Meaning all of these states and the Continental Congress were creating laws and regulations that would impact their specific offense industries in the war. That the group that offered the best business environment for privateers, would get the most and best privateers in the country. Pretty cool.

I have not read this book, but I did find a copy of it in Amazon and put it in the Jundi Gear store if anyone is interested. Check it out. –Matt

 

Samuel Smedley, Connecticut Privateer
By Jackson Kuhl
Book Description
Publication Date: June 7, 2011
From the shores of Long Island Sound to the high seas of the West Indies, against British warships and letters of marque, Samuel Smedley left a stream of smoke and blood as he took prisoners and prizes alike. At twenty-three years old, Smedley, a Fairfield, Connecticut native, enlisted as a lieutenant of marines on the Connecticut ship Defence during the American Revolution. Less than a year later he was her captain, scouring the seas for British prey. Author Jackson Kuhl delves into the life and times of this Patriot, sea captain and privateer.

 

Sunday, October 30, 2011

Maritime Security: Britain To Allow Armed Guards To Combat Sea Piracy

Outstanding news. Glad to see Britain taking the necessary steps to legalize armed guards on boats. It just makes sense, and seeing how most of the maritime security companies working right now are British, this will be an added boost.

Now the question I have is how will these new laws mix with Britain’s position on privateers or the Letter of Marque? They are a signatory to the Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law. No telling what other treaties they have signed, and how these sanctioned armed guards fit into that bigger picture?

I would also be interested to see the firearms regulations on what the companies can actually use for protection duties. Remember, today’s pirates are using weapons of war, not firearms used for hunting. You must give these guards weapons that will give them advantage, or at least match the pirate’s fire power. Anything else is just unacceptable in my view. –Matt

 

Britain to allow armed guards to combat sea piracy
By DAVID STRINGER
October 30, 2011
Ships sailing under Britain’s flag will be permitted to carry armed guards on some perilous routes to combat the threat from pirates, the prime minister said Sunday.
David Cameron said Britain was reversing its opposition to the use of weapons aboard ships, amid mounting concern about the risks of vessels and crew being seized by pirates — particularly off Somalia’s coast.
Cameron’s office said the use of weapons on British-flagged ships is banned under firearms laws, but that new rules would be in place within a month.
Britain’s announcement follows the decision in February of the International Chamber of Shipping, the major trade association of ship owners, to support members hiring private security companies to provide protection.
“The evidence is that ships with armed guards don’t get attacked, don’t get taken for hostage or for ransom, and so we think this is a very important step forward,” Cameron told BBC television during a visit to a Commonwealth summit in Australia, where he discussed the issue with leaders from the Seychelles and Mauritius.

(more…)

Thursday, September 29, 2011

Legal News: Does The OMB Policy On Inherently Governmental Conflict With The Constitution?

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water. – The enumerated powers of congress, war powers clause, Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 11 of the US Constitution.

The other day I came across the OMB’s new policy letter on what the government deems ‘inherently governmental’.  I posted the Apendix A portion, because that has the most relevance to this discussion and to our industry.  For the most part, self defense or defense of others is not a problem, but contractors engaging in combat is.

With that said, let’s look at the legal definition of the Letter of Marque and Reprisal and the various sources that confirm that definition:

LETTER OF MARQUE AND REPRISAL, War. A commission granted by the government to a private individual, to take the property of a foreign state, or of the citizens or subjects of such state, as a reparation for an injury committed by such state, its citizens or subjects. A vessel loaded with merchandise, on a voyage to a friendly port, but armed for its own defence in case of attack by an enemy, is also called a letter of marque. 1 Boulay Paty, tit. 3, s. 2, p. 300. 2. By the constitution, art. 1, s. 8, cl. 11, congress has power to grant letters of marque and reprisal. Vide Chit. Law of Nat. 73; 1 Black. Com. 251; Vin. Ab. Prerogative, N a; Com. Dig. Prerogative, B 4; Molloy, B. 1, c. 2, s. 10; 2 Woodes. 440; 6 Rob. Rep. 9; 5 Id. 360; 2 Rob. Rep. 224. And vide Reprisal.

And then let’s look at the legal definition of combat.

COMBAT, Eng. law. The form of a forcible encounter between two or more persons or bodies of men; an engagement or battle. A duel.

So you can see here that in fact, the ability to grant a Letter of Marque and Reprisal is an enumerated power of congress. That by definition, authorizes private individual to take the property of a foreign state or the citizens and and subjects of that state. That is not self defense. This is totally a forcible encounter between two or more persons or bodies of men.

Now onto the question. How is the policy of the OMB on what is inherently governmental, not conflict with the constitution? You have one agency saying that a private individual engaging in combat for this country is not authorized, but you have our top legal document of the land saying that private individuals can participate in combat and seize the assets of an enemy if given a license or Letter of Marque by congress.

Or legally agencies must abide by this policy, but congress still has this right to issue the LoM?  Anyone want to take a swipe at this one? lol  –Matt 

 

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Office of Federal Procurement Policy
Publication of the Office of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) Policy
Letter 11-01, Performance of Inherently Governmental and Critical Functions
AGENCY: Office of Management and Budget, Office of Federal Procurement Policy
ACTION: Notice of Final Policy Letter
In addressing security operations, for example, the list
identifies where security operations would be inherently governmental in connection with
combat. This should not be read as a determination that all security performed in any
hostile situation other than actual combat may be performed by contractors. Rather it
means that those situations should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine what
security functions and activities are inherently governmental and what can be performed
by contractors with appropriate management and oversight.

Appendix A. Examples of inherently governmental functions
The following is an illustrative list of functions considered to be inherently governmental.
This list should be reviewed in conjunction with the list of functions closely associated
with inherently governmental functions found in Appendix B to better understand the
differences between the actions identified on each list.

Note: For most functions, the list also identifies activities performed in connection with
the stated function. In many cases, a function will include multiple activities, some of
which may not be inherently governmental.

1. The direct conduct of criminal investigation.

2. The control of prosecutions and performance of adjudicatory functions (other than
those relating to arbitration or other methods of alternative dispute resolution).

3. The command of military forces, especially the leadership of military personnel who
are performing a combat, combat support or combat service support role.

4. Combat.

(more…)

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress