Say Anything Blog

In case you were wondering, Letters of Marque and Reprisal are a power from Article I, sec. 8 of the Constitution allowing Congress to put a bounty on someone's head (it was originally used to authorize privateers/pirates, whatever). Here is Wikipedia's blurb on it re: Ron Paul -

The issue of Marque and Reprisal was raised before Congress by Rep. Ron Paul of Texas after the September 11, 2001 attacks[2], and again on July 21, 2007. Paul, defining the attacks as an act of "air piracy," introduced the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001, which would have granted the president the authority to use Letters of Marque and Reprisal against the specific terrorists, instead of warring against a foreign state. Paul compared the terrorists to pirates in that they are difficult to fight by traditional military means.

My guess is that Paul brings this up because the rewards already being offered for Osama bin Laden, et.al., come from the executive branch, and not the legislative branch, which alone seems to have the enumerated power to do so. But putting a reward on someone's head seems to be a far different thing than the sort of semi-piracy envisioned by the Framers. Is Ron Paul arguing that, in a time of war, the President does not have the power to put out a bounty on bona fide enemies of the United States? I hope not - that would be another example of the over-fetishizing of the Constitution that libertarians are so famous for.

Crossposted from WILLisms.com