A Pirate's Life For Me Redux

Mariners are being warned of a growing threat from pirates around the world after attacks on shipping rose by 20 per cent over the last year.

And unsurprisingly:

Four of the six Somali pirates arrested for kidnapping a French luxury yacht are related to Somali President Abdullah Yusuf Ahmed, the French weekly Le Point reported Monday on its website.

We're dealing with Barbary pirates--aided, abetted, harbored, and in many cases directed by corrupt thugocracies. Commodore Decatur showed us how to deal with that, but I guess the lesson has been forgotten.

Somalia is particularly interesting because of the pervasive and longstanding UN effort there. So what do the globalists at the International Maritime Organization suggest doing about piracy in international waters?

The following is from "A Pirate's Life for Me!," one of my GUNS & AMMO columns from 2002:

Hoses against weapons. Trembling behind hatches. Everything but standing up on your sea-legs and fighting. How about just opening fire on them?

The IMO's Captain Hartmut Hesse says armed guards on ships "will only increase violence, it will not deter the pirates."

The IMO guide Piracy and Armed Robbery Against Ships, cautions "The carrying and use of firearms ... is strongly discouraged. [It] may encourage attackers to carry firearms thereby escalating an already dangerous situation, and any firearms on board may themselves become an attractive target for an attacker. The use of firearms requires special training and aptitudes and the risk of accidents... is great."

...Agreeing with Captain Hesse, and chastising Lloyd's List for editorially suggesting otherwise, is Captain John Dalby of Marine Risk Management, a "maritime asset recovery and protection" company. While admitting "It is the sailors... who are being kidnaped, beached, set adrift ... or summarily killed," he warns that "only tragedy will result from inexperienced people trying to fight fire with fire. Leave intervention and reaction to those who are best equipped and trained for it."

It seems to me we're missing a lemons-out-of-lemonade opportunity here, to not only take care of the problem, but to turn it into a profitable bounty-hunting/ship capturing venture. Perhaps if privateers operated under Letters of Marque and Reprisal when American interests are involved...

What Limits on "the Militia" (That Would Be You and Me)?

Self-defense is a self-evident human right. Thankfully, a court finally has reaffirmed that the Constitution and common sense are in alignment on your right to defend yourself, using reasonable force (i.e. a handgun, but not a bazooka) within your own home.

Yeah, I wouldn't want to be forced to use a bazooka inside my home--it would not only make one hell of a mess of things, but to need one would indicate a dire situation indeed.

And not meaning to open the door on the right of Al Qaeda to carry live anthrax strains and suitcase nukes on board commercial airliners, but Dennis, it seems you're penning us in a bit tighter than the Framers intended. For instance, there was Tench Coxe, who said:

Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier...

That leads to the question of who has authority to declare such limits, and importantly, where do they derive it?

And then we have the Constitutional authority for Congress to enlist private individuals with Letters of Marque and Reprisal, which would make for very difficult operations if small arms are all we are "authorized" to keep.

It makes for an intriguing discussion--the dividing line between slippery slope and the Constitution not being "a suicide pact," a term I've often found that discourages thinking things through. I'd be interested in hearing your comments.

I have my own ideas and I'll weigh in tonight.

[Via HZ]

Mercenaries

For Erik Prince and Niccolo Machiavelli have very different ideas on the subject of mercenaries. Not that Erik Prince would even embrace that term. His employees are called "private contractors" not mercenaries. This is true in the same sense that prostitutes are now called "sex workers" to avoid the stigma.

Mike Vanderboegh examines our friends at Blackwater.

After you've read it, I have a couple questions I'd be interested in gleaning opinions on.

Per Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress has the specific enumerated power to issue letters of marque and reprisal. We know that privateers played a part in protecting American interests in the past. And no less a Constitutionalist than Ron Paul has proposed resurrecting the practice.

What would that look like? Would a Blackwater or other private actor necessarily and always be a bad thing? How would such a system work and what kind of oversights would be needed? How would that differ from what we do now? What do we do now?

Do Blackwater ops fall under military procurement regs? Are there RFPs and bids? Do they have defense contract audit oversight? Do they ever employ government equipment, and if so, do they follow federal acquisition and government property regs, etc.? Or is this a hybrid, or even a creature all its own?

If you have thoughts, please share them.

Does This Guy Every Say Anything That's Not Stupid?

"From the very beginning you weren't allowed to have certain weapons," Biden said. "You weren't allowed to own a cannon during the Revolutionary War as an individual.""Anybody think you should be able to go out and have a machine gun these days?" Biden asked. [More]

Don't tell that to Ben Franklin, who helped a volunteer militia get cannons from his business pals or  "leading Loyalist, Colonel Philip Skene ... prepared to defend his manor with cannons and his own armed schooner."  Or the privateers (Letters of Marque and Reprisal are still authorized by that Constitution this execrable dolt knows nothing about).

And guess what...?

As for mgs, somebody needs to tell this dope plenty have them, and no less an authority than the Supreme Court opined "ordinary military equipment [that] could contribute to the common defense" was protected.

This Day in History: April 3

In Congress, April 3, 1776. Resolved, That every Person intending to set forth and fit out a Private Ship or Vessel of War, and applying for a Commission or Letters of Marque and Reprisal for that Purpose, shall produce a Writing...

This Day in History: April 3

In a bill signed by John Hancock, its president, and dated April 3, 1776, the Continental Congress issued, “INSTRUCTIONS to the COMMANDERS of Private Ships or vessels of War, which shall have Commissions of Letters of Marque and Reprisal, authorizing them to make Captures of British Vessels and Cargoes.”

Not the Founders' "Well Regulated Militia"

So how would you characterize this?

A latter day marque and reprisal contractor, or "a convenient way to bypass posse comitatus"?

And would you take orders from someone acting in either capacity?

This Day in History: May 2

In Congress, May 2, 1780 : Instructions to the captains and commanders of private armed vessels which shall have commissions or letters of marque and reprisal. [More]