Feral Jundi

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Letter Of Marque: Thomas Jefferson On Privateering, July 4, 1812

Filed under: History,Letter Of Marque,Quotes — Tags: , , , , , , — Matt @ 3:43 PM

Today is the birthday of Thomas Jefferson, and I thought it would be cool to post his original paper on the concept of privateering, and why it should be used during the War of 1812.  I plan to link to this page often in the future, when ever I talk about the history of the concept and how important it was to the US strategy back then.

The other thing I wanted to point out is the article written in 1882 about the paper that Thomas Jefferson wrote, and the statistics the author presented. I have not seen these statistics before, and they are pretty interesting.  Of course the author of the article was certainly impressed with the concept of privateering and it’s effects on an enemy. The author made this point in the article, that really stuck out for me. That the British were certainly concerned about American privateers:

One at least of the London journals, the Statesman, foresaw the danger from privateers in 1812. When war was threatened, it said: “America cannot certainly pretend to wage a maritime war with us.  She has no navy to do it with.  But America has nearly a hundred thousand as good seamen as any in the world, all of whom would be actively employed against our trade on every part of the ocean, in their fast-sailing ships of war, many of which will be able to cope with our small cruisers; and they will be found to be sweeping the West India seas, and even carrying desolation into the chops of the Channel.”
All this, and more, the two hundred and fifty privateers accomplished.  They cruised in every sea, and wrought such havoc with British commerce as had never been known before.  Coggeshall’s history of the service enumerates about fifteen hundred prizes taken by them in the two and a half years of war, and these were not all of the captures by privateers alone; while the government war-vessels, in their cruises, added considerably to the number.  The fortunes of the privateers were of the most varied kind.  Some of them made long cruises without falling in with a single British merchantman of which they could make a prize.  Others took enough to enrich every man of the crew.

Very cool stuff and there is way more in this old, but extremely informative article. Check it out. –Matt


Thomas Jefferson On Privateering
July 4, 1812
“What is war?  It is simply a contest between nations of trying which can do the other the most harm.  Who carries on the war?  Armies are formed and navies manned by individuals.  How is a battle gained?  By the death of individuals.  What produces peace?  The distress of individuals.  What difference to the sufferer is it that his property is taken by a national or private armed vessel?  Did our merchants, who have lost nine hundred and seventeen vessels by British captures, feel any gratification that the most of them were taken by his Majesty’s men-of-war?  Were the spoils less rigidly exacted by a seventy-four-gun ship than by a privateer of four guns?  And were not all equally condemned? (more…)

Monday, May 24, 2010

Mexico: The Bajadores–Those That Prey On Smuggling Operations

Filed under: Crime,Law Enforcement,Mexico — Tags: , , , , , , — Matt @ 1:03 PM

   There is a great thread going on over at Tactical Forums that was the motivation for this post.  It is all about the ‘bajadores’ or rip-off crews along the border areas who basically prey on smugglers.  To me, this is land based piracy or basically stealing from other criminals and illegal immigrants, and these individuals are an interesting group.

   Now what is concerning with this is the advent of bajadores dressing up like Border Patrol or law enforcement and doing their deed.  Then you get a situation where smugglers arm themselves to protect against these types of forces, and they then view everyone as a threat.  Hence why the border is so dangerous for anyone to operate.

    The other issue I was thinking about is that we always think of these gangs floating around on the border as being hispanic.  But as this report indicates, law enforcement is aware that bajadores may also be ‘non-hispanic individuals’. My guess is that it is a small number, but as the border issue heats up and more acts of violence increase, we might actually see more citizens take the law into their own hands to combat this scourge. Good or bad, that is what happens when a government fails to do the job of protecting it’s citizenry or securing it’s borders.

   Let’s end this post with a different thought about this.  Imagine if what the bajadores was doing, was actually legal? Law enforcement seize the assets of criminals all the time during raids and arrests, and use that money to fund all sorts of toys and programs in their departments.  Citizens could also participate in this activity, and they could either work off seizing assets, a bounty system, or both. A prize court could be established in that particular state, citizens and companies could become licensed and bonded to do such an activity, and states or the feds could manage the program. In other words, I like the idea of capturing criminals and taking everything they own.  I also like getting a bounty for capturing them. Both of these acts would be called privateering and bounty hunting. –Matt

——————————————————————

Gangs are menacing ‘coyotes,’ immigrants Assaults, kidnapping are rampant

Daniel Gonzlez

Aug. 17, 2003Violent gangs have operated for years along the border, where they rob and kidnap immigrants and “coyotes” alike, usually at gunpoint.But authorities say the booming immigrant-smuggling trade has brought them northward and invaded the Phoenix area, bringing with them tactics common in drug trafficking – assaults, kidnapping and extortion – but previously uncommon in the smuggling business.

In Mexico, they are known as bajadores . In the United States, officials have dubbed those who prey on immigrant-smuggling operations “rip-off crews.”

The bajadores have been attracted by the lucrative smuggling trade, which has escalated in the Valley in recent years and grown even more profitable as the United States, by deploying more Border Patrol agents from California to Texas, has made it more difficult to cross into the country illegally, authorities say.

The enforcement buildup has turned the remote and deadly Arizona desert, where at least 127 immigrants have died this year, into the main gateway for illegal immigration into the United States.

The buildup also has made Phoenix the primary hub for transporting immigrants to other parts of the country.The bajadores prey on the smugglers by stealing the immigrants and then threatening to beat them up or kill them unless their families pay a ransom. The ransom isn’t cheap, and the bajadores often make good their threats. They typically demand $1,000 to $1,500, the price smugglers charge to transport undocumented immigrants from the border to Phoenix.  (more…)

Thursday, May 13, 2010

Letter Of Marque: Call For Private Forces To Fight Pirates

Filed under: Legal News,Letter Of Marque,Maritime Security — Tags: , , , , , , — Matt @ 3:36 AM

   I found this article over at UPI and I thought it was pretty cool.  One of my goals here at FJ is to explore unique ideas and concepts, such as the Letter of Marque , and see where it ends up.

   This article below highlights several places out there where the idea is popping up, and I am hoping that some more critical thought will be put into this unique way of fighting wars.  You will also recognize many of the references in this article, because I have posted them here under the Letter of Marque category (feel free to use the search on the right, or click on the category on the right). I have no clue who wrote this article, and you can follow the link below and make any comments there. –Matt

—————————————————————–

Call for private forces to fight pirates

May 10, 2010

MOGADISHU, Somalia, May 10 (UPI) — As Somali pirates extend their operation deeper into the Indian Ocean, Western private security firms are seeking to re-establish the centuries-old system of “letters of marque and reprisal” that allows privateers to pursue maritime marauders.

The system was introduced by King Edward III of England in the Middle Ages but it is also on U.S. statute books as Article One, paragraph 8, clauses 10 and 11, of the U.S. Constitution, and in Title 33 of the U.S. Code, paragraphs 385 and 386.

Maj. Theodore Richard, a lawyer in the Commercial Litigation Division of the U.S. Air Force, published a lengthy article in favor of reviving letters of marque in the Public Contract Law Journal in April.

On April 15, 2009, U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, advocated the use of letters of marque and reprisal against the Somali pirates. The bills he introduced weren’t passed.

Paul was instrumental in introducing the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 in Congress following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. He maintained the hijacking of U.S. airliners constituted air piracy and he wanted to grant the president the authority to issue letters of marque and reprisal against specific terrorists.

He raised the issue again on July 21, 2007, but Congress has made no move toward invoking the constitution to combat piracy.

Still, Intelligence Online, a Paris Web site that covers global security issues, reports that “several private security firms” are pressing for the U.S. government and other Western authorities to re-establish letters of marque.

These would sanction private companies to actively hunt down pirates rather than just provide security teams aboard commercial vessels. That would be in line with the wide-scale outsourcing of security missions to private security companies who are active in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan in support of U.S. and allied forces.

Allowing armed privateers to combat piracy in the Gulf of Aden would supplement U.S. and European naval task forces off Somalia.

(more…)

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Letter Of Marque: The Constitutional Law And Practice Of Privateering, By Assistant U.S. Attorney Theodore Cooperstein

Filed under: Legal News,Letter Of Marque,Publications — Tags: , , , , , , , , — Matt @ 11:42 PM

  So this is interesting.  Here is a guy that works for the US Attorneys Office, who is former special forces and a reserve Army Intel guy, that writes this fantastic paper on the subject of Letters of Marque and Reprisal.  Does anyone else find that to be cool, or am I the only constitutional law geek that likes this stuff? lol

   The thing about it folks, is that I like the LoM, and I think it is just one more tool that can be used in this long and costly war.  It gives congress a means to connect with private industry in a way that will be cost effective, and certainly effective if done properly.  The one caveat though, is that congress needs to understand the mechanisms at play with this concept, and they must have the tools on how to properly construct a LoM. It would take some modern day modifications to get it just right, but it is certainly not impossible, and all the pieces are there to put it together.

   Which leads me to my next point.  By far, Feral Jundi is the place with the most comprehensive collection and commentary about the subject of the Letter of Marque and Reprisal. I know, I search this stuff relentlessly, and have collected it all.  I invite the readership to explore all of this good stuff, and ‘build a snowmobile’ out of it. Hell, write congress and let them know about the LoM and your thoughts about it. Remind them about Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution and let’s get the word out. –Matt

—————————————————————–

Letters of Marque and Reprisal: The Constitutional Law and Practice of Privateering

Theodore M. Cooperstein, U.S. Attorneys Office (SDFL)

Abstract

The United States Constitution grants to the Congress the power, among others, to issue “Letters of Marque and Reprisal.” Although the practice seems to have fallen into disuse in this century, it was an important tool of national power for the federal government created by the Framers, who placed great import on the federal government’s role in protecting international commerce and in enforcing international law.

Privateering played a significant role before and during the Revolutionary War, and it persisted in American history as an economical way to augment naval forces against an enemy in wartime. A significant outgrowth of the practice of privateering was the body of law resulting from prize court adjudications. United States courts, in deciding title to ships and goods taken prize, determined issues both of domestic and customary international law. In this manner the federal courts significantly shaped the role of international law in the United States jurisprudence as well as assured the role of the United States in the ongoing development of customary international law. Case law concerning prizes and privateering is accordingly a useful vehicle to examine the interplay of U.S. constitutional law and customary international law as they both developed through the Nineteenth Century.

Changes in the methods of warfare during the Twentieth Century diminished the role of privateering. But the Congressional authority to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal remains. As a means to commission private actors to augment national forces in international crises, the Letter of Marque and Reprisal could yet have modern applications. It remains for innovative executive and legislative experiment to revive the ancient practice in a form befitting modern international problems.

Suggested Citation

Theodore M. Cooperstein, “Letters of Marque and Reprisal: The Constitutional Law and Practice of Privateering,” 40 J. Maritime L. & Comm. 221 (Apr. 2009)

Link to publication website here.

LinkedIn Page for Theodore M. Cooperstein here.

Download Pdf here.

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Letter Of Marque: CATO–Privateering And The Private Production Of Naval Power

Filed under: Government Work,History,Letter Of Marque,Maritime Security,Publications — Tags: , , , , , , , , — Matt @ 10:05 AM

     Another great hidden gem of a paper about one of my favorite topics.  I also really perked up on the conclusions of the paper.  That privateering did not go away because the concept sucked. Nope.  It went away, because of competition with government owned Navies who wanted to do it all. It kind of reminds me of the ridiculous fears that popped up when privatized mail and shipping companies came on to the scene.

     The post office (government) folks actually had to compete with private industry for the business of the citizenry, and despite the early fears of those folks thinking they will lose their good deal government job, that competition only helped invigorate the innovation and business processes of both groups.  And best of all, the PO and private industry are still around and still slinging it out for that business.  If you also look at the PO, they are continuing to look more and more like UPS and  Fedex all the time.

    I also like the lighthouse example listed below as well. I think private naval and military companies can exist along side the militaries and navies they are serving just fine.  Hell, we are seeing that right now with the war, with thousands of contractors being used. So to take that one step further with issuing LoM’s to companies, to help even further in the war effort, would not be a bridge too far.  It would also provide a pretty nice cost savings for the government, and the military and navies of those governments would now have competition.

     That competition would be healthy in my opinion, and with carefully constructed LoM’s and today’s technological advances, it would not be a problem at all to keep tabs on companies issued LoM’s. And like Matt Armstrong mentioned, issuing LoM’s to today’s PMC’s would be a quick fix for keeping them in line.  Either abide by the wishes of a congress and their issued contract (LoM), or instantly be turned into a criminal organization for crossing the line. That would be some serious legal control if you know what I mean. It would also cut out inefficient contracting offices and weak laws that fall short of keeping companies under control. Just some thoughts on a different way of doing business.-Matt

—————————————————————–

Privateering and the Private Production of Naval Power

Gary M. Anderson and Adam Gifford, Jr.

     The early history shows that, contrary to the belief of many economists, a lighthouse service can be provided by private enterprise. The lighthouses were built, operated, financed, and owned by private individuals. … We may conclude that economists should not use the lighthouse as an example of a service which could only be provided by the government. —Ronald Coase (1974) 

*****

Introduction

     Privatization and the “contracting-out” of services traditionally provided by means of governmental monopoly continue to attract increasing interest from both politicians and scholars. Many studies have found that private provision of certain goods and services tends to be more efficient than comparable arrangements provided directly by the government.

     One of the very few areas relatively untouched by the recent attempts at privatization, or contracting-out, of governmental services is the military. Although some economists have argued that the priva-tization of major elements of the provision of national defense would be both feasible and efficient, in modern times military forces are essentially a pure governmental monopoly. Not only are private military forces illegal, but the military force maintained by the govern-ment is invariably wholly owned and operated by the government. National defense, like lighthouses, frequently serves as a stylized illustration of the need for governmental provision of “public goods” in economics textbooks.

(more…)

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress