Four Star General: What are we doing?

When are people going to wake up? Are we going to get bogged down in yet another war (in Yemen)? Will we have to kill innocent civilians in every nation until we say enough is enough? The number of people killed in the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and now Yemen are well over 250 times the number of people who died in the September 11th attacks! What are we doing?

The terrorist attacks are criminal acts, not acts of war. Clearly this calls for the use of a tool which the Founding Fathers of our country gave us, Letters of Marque and Reprisal. The Constitution is the answer!

Somali Pirate Problem Solution

The Constitution says (Article I section 8):

Congress shall have Power…To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations; To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.

The idea of using Letters of Marque and Reprisal in the case of the Somali pirates really appeals to libertarian, constitutional, and traditional principles. If this isn’t an appropriate time to use this provision, then when would it be? Are there parts of the original Articles of Confederation that are now obsolete? I don’t think so. (OK, that 3/5ths of a person thing was really dumb and a rare exception.) The only other constitutional remedy for international malice is to declare war, and this is definitely not appropriate in this case. Applying this principle would minimize government involvement. It is preferable for libertarians to solve problems without government if at all possible. It’s always best to avoid giving government a chance to abuse its authority unnecessarily. It would free up the military to attend to other more pressing matters, if necessary. The Letters would also save taxpayers a boatload of money.

Highly paid legal critics of this idea, sought by the MSM, say that this is impractical and that those participating could get into legal trouble. Without a well-defined definition of piracy, they say, we would get into a legal mess. People could take action against those who aren’t guilty of anything. I’ll admit that some innocent people may get killed, but this happens also with military involvement. Congress does have the right to define piracies and felonies committed on the high seas as well as making rules for captures on land and water (see above quote). Already existing rules may be quite adequate, but could be updated if necessary. For example, the Air Piracy Reprisal and Capture Act of 2001 (if it had passed) could have updated the federal definition of “piracy” to include acts committed in the skies. Granting the Letters would also not preclude military involvement as future option, if it became necessary. It doesn’t have to be one or the other.

Others might say, “Well, isn’t this the same thing as that Blackwater thing you people are always complaining about?” (Read about Blackwater here.) There are several distinct differences: 1. Though rewards could be given for captures of the members of the group targeted by the Letters (additional legislation would have to be passed for that), no one is paid up front. Blackwater gets the same amount of taxpayers’ money regardless of what they do wrong or how many captures they make. 2. Blackwater is a specific, private organization specially chosen by the U.S. government. The Letters apply to any person or organization. 3. Blackwater is part of an invading force that can go where it pleases. Those who would act under the authority of Letters would not be trespassing on an innocent person's property. 4. Blackwater can virtually do whatever they want with impunity. They are not really subject to any U.S., Iraqi, or U.N. oversight. Those acting under the authority of the Letters would be subject to treaties applying to the high seas as well as other laws passed in accordance with Article I section 8 (see above quote). 5. Blackwater operates in Iraq, killing people who in no way violated any U.S. or international laws. Anyone acting under the authority of the Letters who would do that would be subject to prosecution.

In conclusion, granting Letters of Marque and Reprisal is a constitutional, cost saving, and potentially life-saving way to deal with overseas offenses against the United States and its citizens.

Michael Delavar for Congress

Michael Delavar, candidate for Congress in Washington’s 3rd district, says this about terrorism:

I will support the appropriate, overwhelming and vicious response to any terrorist attack against the United States. I support hunting down Osama bin Laden and eliminating him. However, I will not support occupation for the sake of nation-building. No amount of tit-for-tat retribution will end the war on terror unless we first take their motivation away. Luckily, the Founding Fathers gave us a tool to do just that. The Constitution specifically authorizes Congress to declare war on specific individuals and organizations that act as non-state aggressors. The manner in which Congress may do this is to “issue letters of marque and reprisal.” These letters authorize military pursuit and attack of terrorist organizations that are themselves not nation-states. The beauty of this method is that it does not involve America in nation-building or being the policemen of the world. Instead, we are allowed to focus on the transnational threat of our terrorist enemies. Thomas Jefferson was the last president to use this tool against the terrorist equivalent of the Barbary Pirates.
American forces are already in Iraq and Afghanistan. Regardless of whether it was wise to invade and occupy, our troops are currently serving valiantly under harsh conditions. If we are going to succeed in the war on terror, the mission must change from occupation to reducing the incentive for jihadists. America's national security interests do not lie in refereeing a centuries old rivalry between Sunni and Shia, but in diffusing their anger toward us. Our very presence on holy Muslim soil fuels the fire of jihad against the United States and unites our enemies against us. We can and should pursue terrorists with the intent of retribution, but should not occupy Muslim lands. Furthermore, if we pay attention to the declaration of war against us by al-Qaeda, we will notice that they fight us because of our continued support for regimes that oppress Muslims. We must stop giving taxpayer money in the form of aid and support to oppressive regimes. The responsibility of the United States Federal government is to protect and defend its own citizens and its own borders. If it fails to do so, our country will soon be brought to its knees economically through proxy wars that we cannot afford.

On taxes and the economy, Delavar says:

To restore fiscal sanity in our nation’s capital, I promise to:

vote only for balanced budgets,
oppose any unconstitutional spending bills,
introduce only constitutional legislation,
speak out against the irresponsible fiscal and monetary policies that sacrifice the economic well being of our children and grandchildren.

On illegal immigration Delavar says:

To solve the problem of illegal immigration, we must:

secure our borders,
deny amnesty to illegal aliens,
stop welfare benefits for illegal aliens,
enforce existing visa rules, and
end birthright citizenship for illegal aliens.

Michael supports H.R. 1094 (Sanctity of Life Act of 2007), which defines life as beginning at conception and the H. R. 300 (We the People Act).

He is against the No Child Left Behind program and pledges to support legislation that would return control of the schools to local communities.

He believes that it would be wrong to cut Social Security payments to those who have already paid into the system, but supports giving people the option of opting out of Social Security.

He supports the right to bear arms for citizens’ protection.

On healthcare, he supports HR 3075, HR 3342, and HR 2717. These bills, he says, would provide tax credits for health insurance premiums and “negative outcomes insurance”, and stop the federal government’s influence on our healthcare choices.

Delavar’s main opponent, the incumbent Brian Baird, is pro-abortion rights and voted yes on ENDA and hate crimes legislation. He voted against the use of force in Iraq and says the war was a mistake, but has voted for recent appropriations bills to continue funding the war and says that it would be a mistake to leave now.

If you value both the sanctity of life for the unborn and our soldiers in Iraq, support Michael Delavar for Congress! Click here to contribute.