Is there another alternative to paying tribute to Somali pirates, other than sending a huge naval expedition force to route the pirates out of their lairs? Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) believes the Constitution’s long-neglected “marque and reprisal” provision may offer a viable option. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states: “The Congress shall have power … To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas,… To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water.”

Like the constitutional stipulation against bills of attainder, the marque and reprisal provision is largely considered an antiquated legal artifact of a bygone age. But piracy was also supposed to be relegated to the realm of storybooks and Hollywood swashbucklers. The buccaneers are back, however, as the recent spate of ship seizures has underscored. Although the coast of Somalia has seen the most activity, as the “Live Piracy Map” of the International Maritime Bureau shows, pirates infest nearly all of the world’s shipping lanes.

Unlike our young republic’s wars against the Barbary Pirates (1801-1805 and 1815), Somali pirates do not offer sovereign powers a target. When Commodores Preble, Bainbridge, and Decatur were dispatched by the United States to deal with the Barbary problem, they knew where the enemy’s operational bases were and who was in charge: the Pasha of Tripoli, the Dey of Algiers, and the Dey of Tunis. They did not have to patrol the whole Mediterranean; they went directly to the source of the crisis and forced the scurvy miscreants to cease and desist from attacking American vessels.

Somalia, as an anarchic failed state, does not offer such discrete targets. The Somali pirates, according to open source information, operate from many coastal villages and off-shore mother ships. Naval or aerial bombardment of their coastal bases would likely result in high collateral casualties to civilian population. And patrolling a couple million square miles of the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean would be impractical and cost-prohibitive for the U.S. Navy, not to mention the fact that it also would divert naval resources from the primary mission of protecting America.

Throughout history, privateers have played an important role in combating piracy, and there’s good reason to think they could do so again. As in the early years of our nation, Congress could issue letters of marque and reprisal authorizing private parties — individuals or corporations — to go after pirates and/or terrorists. Rep. Paul made the same proposal in 2001, introducing the "Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001" to target Osama bin Laden and other terrorists involved in the 9/11 terror attacks.

Placing bounties on the heads of villains would cost only a few tens of millions of dollars, versus the hundreds of billions we are spending in the ongoing misguided War on Terror. When dealing with elusive, non-state actors like pirates and terrorists, Ron Paul’s  approach would seem to make much more sense than current policies. There are very likely plenty of Special Ops/Special Forces operators who are ready, able, and willing to have a go at the Somali pirates.

Photo: AP Images

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (5)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Dr Charles H Roberts said:

... Bill: I think you've missed some important points concerning the issue of Somali pirates. John Hari pointed out in his Jan 5th article in The Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/o...25817.htmlthat actions by Somali pirates are largely the result of American and European business interests taking advantage of the anarchic conditions you refer to in your article. Since the collapse of the Somali government in 1991, Western business interests have engaged in the dumping of nuclear waste and the stealing of Somlia's ocean food supply. I think the record will show that prior to these actions Somali pirates were largely unknown. Many Somali people have died from either disease or starvation as a result of these actions. I am not saying that this gives Somali pirates the right to plunder foreign vessels but it does shed some light as to why some of the pirates are inclined to act as they do. While not necessarily agreeing with everything he wrote, I encourage you and your readers to consider the perspetive Mr Hari brings to this matter.

report abuse vote down vote up

April 17, 2009
Votes: -3

DaMav said:

OK fine Dr Roberts, can we hang the pirates now? It takes a particular blend of total idiocy to attempt to excuse the actions of pirates based on some allegation of improper dumping. The "perspective" that Hari brings to this is that the pirates are kind of like the Coast Guard. OK, got it. Now can we kill them? Or do you want to peddle another ludicrous claim about how they are all orphans (cf: Penzance).

report abuse vote down vote up

April 19, 2009
Votes: +2

Michael said:

	... Treaty of Paris, which was signed on 30 March 1856 with the US as one of the singers abolished Privateering.
	report abuse vote down vote up

April 19, 2009
Votes: +0

Jay said:

	... Too little too late. For starters the United States issued letters of marque as recently as WWII for anti-sub warfare. So the 1858 treaty is petty much moot. Second, I personally applied directly to congress last year for letters of marque and all I received was a letter in the mail that very politely told me to go F*** myself. This is all grandstanding.
	report abuse vote down vote up

April 21, 2009
Votes: +1

Dan said:

Dr. Paul is right Paul's approach is far less costly to the taxpayer and why should we provide security for businesses moving ships thru pirate waters? Dr. Roberts' suggestion that dumping of waste and fishing drove the Somali's to piracy, is no excuse. That Somali is a failed state is the Somalis' responsibility. Are they pirating ships dumping waste or fishing in their waters? No they are pirating ships with oil, weapons and foreign aid. And why do we prohibit ships from carrying armed guards? This is ridiculous. They should be able to defend themselves as the second amendment allows citizens to arm themselves.

report abuse vote down vote up

May 09, 2009
Votes: +0