Feral Jundi

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Letter Of Marque: Is It Legal To Kill Osama Bin Laden?

     I wanted to enter this into the record for LoM related stuff.  This is interesting that there seems to be more discussion going on about Article 1, Section 8, and finally we might get some serious critique on the matter. For an idea to be strong, it needs to be forged in the furnace of debate and criticism.  So I like hearing the concepts being thrown around.

     One of the things I have been researching with the LoM lately is the reasoning why it still exists in the Constitution.  With that, I had to go back to the Civil War during the 1860’s and see what the factors were during the signing of the Declaration of Paris in 1857. I thought this was some very intriguing history and it indicated how crucial the LoM was to wartime strategy for the US in it’s early wars–politically and militarily.  It is also interesting how the Confederate Privateer’s wikipedia only presents part of the story about why the US did not sign the Declaration of Paris in 1857, and they make no mention of the Union paying blockaders (or basically private naval forces) to enforce the blockades necessary to stop the Confederate privateers. Ha! But there is certainly enough info about it all if someone cared to make the connections.(like me, hee hee)

     Nor do they make any mention in this Confederate Privateer wiki of the Marcy Amendment or how the US thought privateering was necessary for a country who did not have a navy as strong as the European navies.  Back in 1857, the US was all about privateering, and 4 years later, they were still all about privateering.  I think Lincoln only publicly protested the concept because his enemy was using privateers and issuing LoMs to Americans and anyone in the world that qualified and wanted one.

   Well, back to the article below.  It is important to get the history and record straight as to what the real deal is about the Letter of Marque and why the US did not remove it from the US constitution.  Because if there ever was an effort to bring back the LoM as a tool of warfare, this history will be crucial to the intellectual and legal discussion about such things. Interesting stuff. (all Civil War/Declaration of Paris information is at the end of this post) –Matt

——————————————————————

Is It Legal to Kill Osama bin Laden?

Not really. But if you act alone, you’re probably in the clear.

BY JOSHUA E. KEATING

JUNE 22, 2010

Gary Faulkner, the American man detained in Pakistan while trying to kill Osama bin Laden, will be released this week without charges, according to his family. The 52-year-old Colorado construction worker was arrested last week in northwest Pakistan for carrying weapons — including a pistol and 40-inch sword — without a permit. Questions of practicality (and sanity) aside, had Faulkner succeeded, could he have been charged with murder?

Probably not. Faulkner probably couldn’t be charged with murder if he killed bin Laden and then returned to the United States, since the murder would have happened abroad where U.S. courts have no say. “Universal jurisdiction” for crimes against humanity is an increasingly popular notion in human rights law, and one that’s been gaining some traction in the United States — a U.S. citizen was convicted of committing torture abroad for the first time last year — but a simple murder, particularly when the victim is the world’s most infamous terrorist, probably wouldn’t qualify.

(more…)

Thursday, June 10, 2010

Maritime Security: Max Hardberger– High Seas Repo Man

     “My company has a new division called Shiprotek. I’m taking a team of ex-military guys to ride onboard ships going up the coast of Somalia and kill pirates.  Well, I shouldn’t say that — our aim is to scare them off, but our job is to protect the ship, whatever it takes. We’ll have one sniper with a Bushmaster .50 -caliber rifle, and the rest of us will have AK-47’s. There’s a chance that if we’re unable to repel the pirates, they’ll kill us.” -From Men’s Journal, High-Seas Repo Man, June 2010

***** 

     Max is certainly an interesting guy.  His background and life experiences are very colorful and I could understand why Hollywood would want to do a film about him. Be sure to check out his book Seized if you would like to learn more about what he has done.

     But this is what I was interested in.  In the latest Men’s Journal magazine, Max stated that he is taking a team to the coast of Somalia.  This is the first I have heard of Shiprotek, and I have not heard of any recruitment for this company recently. That’s great if he is hiring some guys, and hopefully we will learn more about what this company is all about.

     His other services are well known, and this is an interesting direction that he is taking.  If you are interested in working for Max or want to learn more about what he is doing, by all means contact him. (He is extremely networked online-Facebook, Twitter, website, Youtube, etc.)

   One final thing I wanted to mention.  Max is also an admiralty lawyer, and he would be uniquely qualified to discuss how a Letter of Marque might be applied to today’s modern piracy issues. I have no idea if he supports the concept or not, but it would be interesting to hear what he has to say. Also, this post is not an endorsement of Max or his company, and I am just getting the info out there for consumption. –Matt

—————————————————————-

Max Hardberger.

US firm markets commando solution to piracy threat

Edward Attwood

April 23rd, 2009

US-based Vessel Extractions LLC (VessEx) has just launched a bullish new solution to the maritime threat off Somalia: the presence of protection teams on board ships travelling on high-risk routes.”The defense of a ship under armed attack cannot be left to an untrained, unarmed civilian crew,” said Capt. Max Hardberger, VessEx’s operations director.“Our highly skilled and well-equipped teams offer effective and cost-efficient protection for ships going in harm’s way,” Hardberger added.The solution, named Shiprotek, involves placing a team of ex-Special Forces personnel on board a vessel anywhere in the world, which will then escort through troubled areas. During the voyage, the team assesses the ship’s security situation, trains the crew in anti-piracy techniques and implements procedures to minimise risk.

Story here.

——————————————————————

June 2010 — High-Seas Repo Man — Men’s Journal

Need to sneak a 10,000-ton ship out of a third-world port without a security clearance?  We’ve got your man.

Max Hardberger has worked variously as a pilot, a high school teacher, a maritime lawyer, and a marine surveyor. But it’s his 20 years recovering and repossessing ships and aircraft—the last eight of them as head of his New Orleans-based company, Vessel Extractions—that we were curious about. Here’s his story in his own words … Click here to read the full article.

——————————————————————

April 6, 2010 — The Broadway Books Imprint of Random House Releases Max Hardberger’s Memoirs

With the title of “SEIZED: A Sea Captains Adventures Battling Scoundrels and Pirates While Recovering Stolen Ships in the World’s Most Troubled Waters,” Max Hardberger’s latest book takes readers on a journey through the hellhole ports of the world.

Based on his adventures repossessing ships and sneaking them out of outlaw ports, often under the guns of the navy or coast guard, the book starts with his extraction of the M/V Naruda from an illegitimate seizure in Honduras and ends with his well-known repossession of the M/V Maya Express from Haiti during the worst days of the 2004 revolution. The hardback edition of SEIZED was released on April 6, 2010. To learn more about the Maya Express extraction, please read the Los Angeles Times article below entitled “He’s His Own Port Authority”.  And click here to read the press release from Random House announcing the release of SEIZED.

—————————————————————–

SHIPROTEK ANTI-PIRACY SERVICES (VessEx/Shiprotek)

Ship piracy incidents are increasing across the world, particularly off the coast of Africa.  Pirates have become more and more brazen in their attacks, targeting larger ships at greater distances from shore than ever before.  Ships and their crews typically transit pirate-infested waters with little, if any, protection against an increasingly sophisticated enemy.

The Piracy Problem

(more…)

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Publications: Contracting In Conflicts–The Path To Reform, By John Nagl And Richard Fontaine

     Now this is a better product and I can tell they actually listened to their contributors.  So bravo to CNAS for putting together a great report.  If you look at the cast of contributors, you will also see that they took advice from guys like Doug Brooks, David Isenberg and a whole bunch of private military companies and military professionals. For the record, I was not a direct contributor, but I know some of the ideas of FJ made it out there in one way or another.

     For one, they actually brought in Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution as a counter to Max Weber’s definition of the state. (the Second Amendment could also be looked at as a counter as well) I was beside myself when I read this in their ‘inherently governmental’ section, and I had to read it a couple of times to make sure they actually went there.  They did and bravo to them for having the courage to challenge this sacred cow of thought.

     This kind of sets the pace for the entire publication, because CNAS and all of it’s contributors were actually making the argument for the use of contractors in war time.  It is an acknowledgement of that ‘elephant in the room’ called contractors, and it is an excellent first step towards combining private industry and government for the good of the nation and the wars it fights. To me, it has always been about unity of effort and command, and ensure private industry only helps government, not hurt it.  If we can figure out how to achieve that unity of effort and command, I think the next step is what will really be radical.

     I have argued on this blog that today’s war planners, leaders and strategists should make an effort to at least acknowledge that elephant in the room called contractors or private industry.  We are getting there and I am enthused about the process.  But to me, the next level of discourse about private industry is how do you turn that animal into a war elephant?

     To me, it is not enough to just acknowledge our existence and say ‘oh well, private industry is that big dumb animal that we all have to get used to’. That is like using a pistol to hammer nails.  I would make the argument that instead, private industry should be looked at from a strategic point of view and the question should be asked is ‘how do we use private industry to help win our wars and maintain a position of strength in the world today’?  That is the next level of discourse about this subject, and that is the kind of thinking that could possibly lead to victory in our current wars. I say this, because there is a tremendous effort taking place to actually figure out how to regulate and utilize private industry during times of war, and this paper and current legislative action is proof of that process. So once we figure out how to shoot the pistol, as opposed to using it to hammer nails, we can then start discussing how to use that pistol in warfare.

     Now on to the paper.  Below I have listed some of the issues that popped up as I was reading it. Just little things that came to mind, that could help refine the product.  Ideas are cheap, and I throw them around freely here. I have also listed some interesting portions of the paper to give the reader a taste. Be sure to check out all of the contributors, to include Allison Stanger (she provided the forward). Enjoy and let me know what you think.-Matt

——————————————————————

Contracting In Conflicts: The Path To Reform

By John Nagl and Richard Fontaine

06/07/2010

CNAS

In both Iraq and Afghanistan today there are more private contractors than U.S. troops on the ground. This exploding reliance on contractors costs U.S. taxpayers tens of billions of dollars and has grown with inadequate government oversight.   This report – authored by Richard Fontaine and John Nagl – details the urgent need for comprehensive reform. The United States must embark on a path of ambitious reform that will require: new laws and regulations; an expansion of the government’s contracting workforce; a coordination mechanism within the executive branch; greater scrutiny, more transparency and clearer standards for private contractors; a strategic view of the roles contractors play in American operations; and a change in culture within the government.

Download the paper here.

Link to website here.

(more…)

Sunday, June 6, 2010

Afghanistan: Is Matiullah An Illegitimate Warlord Or Respected Businessman?

    “There is no doubt about it — the people of Oruzgan love Matiullah!” said Fareed Ayel, one of Mr. Matiullah’s officers on the route. “The government people are not honest.”

     Like many of Mr. Matiullah’s men, Mr. Ayel quit the police to join his militia, which paid him a better salary.

     Indeed, many people in Tirin Kot praise Mr. Matiullah for the toughness of his fighters and for keeping the road open. Mr. Matiullah claims to have lost more than 100 men fighting the Taliban. Recently, he and several of his fighters followed an American Special Forces unit to Geezab, where the Taliban had been expelled after six years.

*****

     I have to say, I am conflicted with this one.  Dexter brings some very compelling points to the table, and I think in this one I will lean on the side of ‘devil’s advocate’.  Is Matiullah a warlord or Al Capone type, or is he the CEO of a respected company who is actually doing a better job of taking care of the people than the government?  I seem to remember that Al Capone was famous for hearts and minds operations with soup kitchens etc. Or is this a case of a little jealousy and competition between government and private industry, like with the US Postal Service versus Fedex?

     In this case, I wouldn’t call Matiullah an enemy of the state. In this war against the Taliban, Matiullah’s men are fighting and dying for our side and that to me makes him less of an Al Capone type.  He is a businessman, and his business is security.  He has also lost over a hundred men in defense of NATO convoys, and Matiullah is employing thousands of Afghans with his businesses.

     Just look at his actions.  In order to command over these roads with his security teams, he has to go up against the same enemy forces that the coalition has to. And because he has the manpower and logistical ability, he can effectively canvass entire roads to keep them safe for convoys. This so-called warlord, is winning over the people of these districts, so he can successfully deliver these goods for NATO and the coalition. If you get the support of the people by becoming the source of income of the people, then you have effectively created a system that will support your business goals. If protecting the road and these NATO goods is the business, then that is what the local populations will be a part of. Not only that, but he is the guy providing 15,000 jobs to the locals, and he is paying a better salary than the government!

     My point is, and I keep bringing this up over and over and over again. You must pay more than your competitors, if you want to attract the best. You must also treat your people better than your competitors treat theirs.  Of course police and army officials are going to leave to join Matiullah’s PMC, if in fact he is paying more or treating them better.  And if the people respect that PMC and what it has done, then that makes the decision to join that much easier. War and business are a lot alike in this regard.

     We are also seeing this in places like Somalia, where Al Shabab is paying more than the TFG government.  And if Al Shabab or any other group has the respect of the people or is even tolerable, then the choice to ‘jump contract’ is quite easy.  Soldiers and police have to feed their families. More importantly, they have to choose the winning side or face the consequences of being associated with the losing team.(death and imprisonment for self and family come to mind)

     I also see where Dexter is going with this article.  Of course we want the government to be the top dog in our modern western way of thinking.  But it is kind of hypocritical for the US to point this fact out, when we are using over a quarter million contractors in this war. Or if we were to really put some context on this, the US used thousands of privateers during our early wars, and certainly there was no real monopoly on the use of force during that time.  Hell, we even implemented the Second Amendment in our constitution which allowed citizens the right to ‘keep and bare arms.’ Not to mention Article 1, Section 8 which allows our congress to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal.  The US is a prime example of why Max Weber’s definition of the state is flawed. There is certainly not a monopoly on the use of force in the US, and my gun locker filled with rifles and pistols is proof positive of that.  The key to Afghanistan’s future is how can they co-op with guys like Matiullah and keep him on the right side of the war.

     The Aghan government is looking at Matiullah in the wrong light.  Instead, they should be studying what he is doing and try to learn from it.  But by all means do not demonize him or force him to cross over to the enemy’s side. If anything, his business should be a source of inspiration.  After all, his contractors are dying in defense of NATO convoys and not Taliban convoys. With that kind of sacrifice, the government should be embracing Matiullah, and at the same time trying to figure out how to win over the local populations like he has done. If Matiullah is violating any laws or paying off the Taliban, then of course that should be pursued and he should face the consequence. But he should not be demonized or persecuted for running a profitable and legitimate business that employs thousands of people.

     Now if the Afghan government wanted to out do Matiullah, a good first step is to pay more than him. The second step is to out do Matiullah in protecting and serving the local population.  It is the same with the war against the Taliban.  The government must prove to the local populations that they are a better idea. –Matt

——————————————————————

With U.S. Aid, Warlord Builds Afghan Empire

By DEXTER FILKINS

June 5, 2010

TIRIN KOT, Afghanistan — The most powerful man in this arid stretch of southern Afghanistan is not the provincial governor, nor the police chief, nor even the commander of the Afghan Army.

It is Matiullah Khan, the head of a private army that earns millions of dollars guarding NATO supply convoys and fights Taliban insurgents alongside American Special Forces.

In little more than two years, Mr. Matiullah, an illiterate former highway patrol commander, has grown stronger than the government of Oruzgan Province, not only supplanting its role in providing security but usurping its other functions, his rivals say, like appointing public employees and doling out government largess. His fighters run missions with American Special Forces officers, and when Afghan officials have confronted him, he has either rebuffed them or had them removed.

“Oruzgan used to be the worst place in Afghanistan, and now it’s the safest,” Mr. Matiullah said in an interview in his compound here, where supplicants gather each day to pay homage and seek money and help. “What should we do? The officials are cowards and thieves.”

Mr. Matiullah is one of several semiofficial warlords who have emerged across Afghanistan in recent months, as American and NATO officers try to bolster — and sometimes even supplant — ineffective regular Afghan forces in their battle against the Taliban insurgency.

In some cases, these strongmen have restored order, though at the price of undermining the very institutions Americans are seeking to build: government structures like police forces and provincial administrations that one day are supposed to be strong enough to allow the Americans and other troops to leave.

In other places around the country, Afghan gunmen have come to the fore as the heads of private security companies or as militia commanders, independent of any government control. In these cases, the warlords not only have risen from anarchy but have helped to spread it.

(more…)

Tuesday, June 1, 2010

Bounties: Mexico Offers Rewards For 33 Drug Gang Suspects

    In Chihuahua City (1849) Michael H. Chevallié and Glanton may have influenced the state legislature to pass the Fifth Law over the veto of the governor, empowering Chevallié to contract with guerrillas to capture or kill troublesome Indians on an individual basis. Chevallié entered the first contract the next day, and Glanton was in his company on several successful expeditions north of the capital.- From Handbook of Texas Online on John Joel Glanton

***** 

   Wow, this is quite a list below.  You know, in my research on John Coffee Hays I also stumbled upon an infamous group called the Glanton Gang. These guys were contracted to hunt down Indians for a bounty in Mexico, and they used scalps as a proof of death.  The problem with this gang is that they ran out of Apache or Comanche warriors to kill, and they started going after innocents. In other words, the industry of killing the enemy was extremely effective.  But as soon as hunters violated the contract and tried to cheat the system, that is when the state put down the hammer.

   Mexico decided to put a bounty out on the Glanton Gang after they found out about their scheme, and that effectively ended the gang’s work in Mexico. From bounty hunter to fugitive, all due to a violation of the contract. If the Mexicans would have demanded a bond from these bounty hunters, I think that would have further kept hunters like this in check. Either way, the line of criminal behavior was crossed, and the gang instantly turned into criminals because of their actions.

   It should also be noted that John Glanton fought as a civilian scout for the US Army under John Ford, and was a Texas Ranger with Hays.  But it seemed that everywhere John went, he pissed off folks by killing the wrong guys or not playing well with others. lol So I would classify him as a guy who lacked discipline and was an extreme liability to anyone that used him. The book Blood Meridian is supposed to be based on the Glanton Gang as well.

   To get back to my point.  Mexico has a history of bounty hunting, and they have contracted outsiders before.  And seeing how the city of Juarez is now the most dangerous city in the world, maybe some consideration should be given to creating an industry that could clean it up.  They could issue Letters of Marque and Reprisals, or initiate the Fifth Law (what ever that entailed), and fire up the industry necessary to clean up these cartels. –Matt

——————————————————————

John Joel Glanton

John Joel Glanton.

Mexico offers rewards for 33 drug gang suspects

By E. EDUARDO CASTILLO

May 29, 2010

MEXICO CITY — Mexico’s government unveiled a list of 33 wanted drug suspects Friday, including three men allegedly tied to a cartel responsible for much of the bloodshed in the northern border city of Ciudad Juarez.

The Attorney General’s Office did not specify the criminal bands affiliated with each suspect.

However, a security official in the northern state of Chihuahua, where Ciudad Juarez is located, said the three at the top of the list belong to La Linea, a gang tied to the Juarez cartel. Rewards of $1.1 million (15 million pesos) were offered for each.

One of the three, Juan Pablo Ledezma, is believed to be the head of La Linea, said the official, who is with the joint army and police operation in charge of security in Chihuahua. He agreed to discuss the list only on condition of not being quoted by name, because he was not authorized to speak publicly about the matter.

A turf battle between the Juarez and Sinaloa drug cartels has turned Ciudad Juarez into one of the world’s deadliest cities. More than 4,300 people have been killed over the past three years in the city, which lies across the border from El Paso, Texas.

Five men were killed in a Ciudad Juarez shooting Friday, said Arturo Sandoval, a spokesman for the Chihuahua state prosecutors’ office.

The five were riding in a car when gunmen drove up beside them and opened fire, Sandoval said. Two of the five were killed inside the car. The others tried to flee into a restaurant but were gunned down in front of panicked customers.

The Attorney General’s Office offered rewards of $387,000 (5 million pesos) each for five other suspects on the list. The other 25 had $232,000 (3 million peso) bounties on their heads.

(more…)

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress