tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1042042552998680556.post5085527678145022001..comments2024-02-02T08:15:38.747-08:00Comments on The Elephant in the Room: READER'S POST #10 - An Indefinite War Needs a Definite Solution: Swashbuckling Somali Pirates and Al-QaedaLMEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18429716019519498131noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1042042552998680556.post-17710660610293134172012-02-11T13:35:26.412-08:002012-02-11T13:35:26.412-08:00I submitted the Act with commentary to show reader...I submitted the Act with commentary to show readers that the wartime custom of indefinite detention does not make sense in fighting the War on Terror because wartime detention of POW's ceases with the end of hostilities. Since the "end of hostilities" for the War on Terror cannot be achieved with a treaty or surrender of all terrorists (past/present/future), the loss of liberty and due process will likewise continue indefinitely. Is this not evidence enough that the Letters of Marque model for crime fighting is superior to a war model? That the trade of liberty to aid the U.S. in winning a war is only suited to declared wars for which the U.S. can definitively win. <br /><br />Wars can be won but a victory which encompasses the total elimination of particular kind of crime can not be achieved. Murder, rape, and drug trafficking have all been ills of the United States but the war model is ill suited to combat these ills. Rather, crime-stoppers, posted rewards, and Qui-Tam actions (Qui Tam being the equivalent of Letters of Marque within U.S. borders) have been quite successful for crime fighting.<br /><br />The immense cost of blood, treasure, and liberty (as shown by the Act) associated with the War on Terror have all been for little under the traditional war model. The language of the Act shows readers a codified version of the Laws of War so they can ruminate upon how the traditional war model is to operate and how it is deficient for fighting this war against criminals. My argument lies in showing readers the attractiveness of Letters of Marque compared to the traditional war model, codified by the act. That the evils of diminished liberty are contingent upon the end of hostilities and since there can be no end to crime, an international police force must be in place to pester, capture, and defund these groups. To this end, a privatized police force under the Letter of Marque driven by financial incentives can blunder the efforts of terrorists in a meaningful way with little cost to the general public.Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03856284117757020711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1042042552998680556.post-10747219403507367552012-02-10T16:24:07.471-08:002012-02-10T16:24:07.471-08:00Got it. BUt what does it have to do with what you ...Got it. BUt what does it have to do with what you wrote (which was pretty good by the way)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1042042552998680556.post-86220608330984059862012-02-10T14:52:54.208-08:002012-02-10T14:52:54.208-08:00SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED F...SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.<br /><br />(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.<br /><br />(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows:<br /><br />(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.<br /><br />(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.<br /><br />(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:<br /><br />(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.<br /><br />(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111–84)).<br /><br />(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.<br /><br />(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03856284117757020711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1042042552998680556.post-14847861532900955142012-02-10T14:52:16.080-08:002012-02-10T14:52:16.080-08:00Below is the language of the Indefinite Detention ...Below is the language of the Indefinite Detention Act. I would like to point out that section (C)(1) allows indefinite detention until the "end of hostilities." <br /><br />Although this law would make sense if Congress has declared war against a country who could end hostilities via treaty or resolution, there is no enemy governing body which the U.S. could meaningfully force a complete surrender and then exchange POWs (In the 20th century, no declared war has involved the U.S. for longer than 4 years, we tend to win wars quick). Because the War on Terror is analogous to the War on Drugs or a War on Pirates, where the enemy consists of bands of criminals, I challenge the readers to predict what the "end of hostilities" will look like and when it will occur. If indefinite detention was used in fighting the War on Drugs, we would have millions of people indefinitely detained since the 1970's to this day (the 1930's if you count Anslinger's racially charged "Reefer Madness"). <br /><br />Wars are a great tool to defeat a standing army, not policing organized crime. The loss of liberty indefinitely, stemming from the War on Terror as seen by the NDAA, is reason enough to show that a traditional war model is more outdated and less effective than Letters of Marque and Reprisal. We must remember that Letters of Marque emerged at a time when the traditional war model was indeed already ancient yet recognized as ineffective for certain hostilities. <br /><br />Perhaps the use of Letters of Marque are not the optimal solution for fighting the War on Terror. Perhaps a newer model, tailored to this new enemy, must be forged. I merely propose that Letters of Marque are better than belligerence with armies and navies for fighting unconventional enemies and without the loss of liberty. <br /><br />Finally, it is true that Dr. Paul has lead the discussion in reviving the Letter of Marque; however to brush the idea aside because of political affiliation is a knavish action. The U.S. has had a long tradition of enlightened and rational discourse for which every person owes their allegiance, not to their party, but to their country and conscious alike. Indeed, democracy demands this personal responsibility as elucidated when Cassius contemplated Caesar's tyranny, "Men at some time are masters of their fates: The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves." (The Tragedy of Julius Caesar: Act I Sc. ii).Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03856284117757020711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1042042552998680556.post-71157926655049318412012-02-10T11:03:07.289-08:002012-02-10T11:03:07.289-08:00Very well-written and interesting. Well done.Very well-written and interesting. Well done.RKennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1042042552998680556.post-54741656765513730062012-02-10T08:25:30.082-08:002012-02-10T08:25:30.082-08:00jim you got me scratching my head on this brother....jim you got me scratching my head on this brother. you think this post is spot-on brilliant and it is obviously in support of ron paul since he always talks about article 1 section 8 and yet you are voting for rick santorum who will force his religious ideology on the us which violates the constitution. please explain sirLenKY Mulenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1042042552998680556.post-79998951771677397572012-02-10T08:12:38.460-08:002012-02-10T08:12:38.460-08:00It really is. Gives position, thesis, body (even a...It really is. Gives position, thesis, body (even argues potential pros and cons, shows the author is not just one-sided) and defends it well. I've been reading this blog since November and it is big on getting people to be loudmouth elephants instead of liberal airheads. What does that mean? It means that if you have a position you intelligently articulate it with reasons and facts. Publius does that to a "T." The liberal way is to just spout chants with no backing. The most important thing is that this should be spread, emailed and seen. Americans need to understand how these wars are killing us and drowning us in debt while taking away our liberties. Go Publius!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1042042552998680556.post-25875320601557523212012-02-10T08:05:26.531-08:002012-02-10T08:05:26.531-08:00This post is spot-on brilliant!
RICK SANTORUM 201...This post is spot-on brilliant!<br /><br />RICK SANTORUM 2012Jim McKeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04302154484950586503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1042042552998680556.post-86807511428862216712012-02-10T06:27:03.097-08:002012-02-10T06:27:03.097-08:00every liberty loving american needs to see this. y...every liberty loving american needs to see this. you are a patriot mr. publius. i know what i will be talking about at work today. thank you for writing about this. <br /><br />YES! RON PAUL 2012LenKY Mulenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1042042552998680556.post-84600647480365265182012-02-10T05:43:24.087-08:002012-02-10T05:43:24.087-08:00Ron Paul - Providing 1812's solutions to the p...Ron Paul - Providing 1812's solutions to the problems of 2012. <br /><br />Get real. Keep spouting this outdated junk. I mean, come on, who would do this? <br /><br />OBAMA 2012Mamma4Obamanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1042042552998680556.post-41204956186325155012012-02-10T05:13:21.157-08:002012-02-10T05:13:21.157-08:00I like it! Can we take it a step further: Can we u...I like it! Can we take it a step further: Can we use Letters of Marque to fight online piracy instead of SOPA. Go two for two man!<br /><br />Ron Paul 2012Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com