http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=12946>
Here's a key bit of that post:
The issuing of letters of marque and reprisal is a feature of the "law of sovereign nations" with international precedent and needing no 'approval' by the United Nations and no involvement of the UN's International Court, either. It also allows for "private security forces" to take on the task at hand, without having to throw the entire weight of the United States Armed Forces at the problem - and thus obviates risk of an 'international incident' that could lead to escalation (like, say, a run-in between US forces and the 5000 to 15,000 Muslim Chinese troops we've heard are in Afghanistan right now, apparently to fight alongside the Taliban in case US efforts get too, uh, 'frisky') - and is a solution that does _not_ involve sending young American sons and daughters into harm's way in Afghanistan, or at least not to the same degree.
Even more than that, though, I suspect Paul is saying, "Here's the correct, Constitutional, authorized-by-Congress remedy, Mr. President; we suggest you use it, instead of some other one."
Ya gotta understand, the events of Sept 11 2001, no matter who was back of them, were _not_ part of any other country's actually "declaring war" on the United States. THUS, there was no rational way for Congress to "declare war" in return - so, how do you fight back?
Well - in this instance, someone came up with "declaring war on terror...oh, and by the way, we won't ask Congress to declare that war; we'll just go fight it." There is _no_ Constitutional provision for doing any such thing. But there _is_ Constitutional provision for issuance of "Letters of Marque and Reprisal" - and that provision actually _does_ address the situation that needed to be confronted.
(Of course, if events of Sept 11 2001 were "an inside job", Letters of Marque and Reprisal would have authorized actions taken against the perpetrators, WHOEVER they might be - so I might understand if the White House or someone else took rather a dim view of the idea put forward by Rep. Paul. :)
As for the "gold standard" issue, Paul is on record _not_ pushing for a full return to the gold standard, but that he's interested in "value-based currency" of some sort (meaning "not fiat, debt-based currency").
I agree with TMS - there's an F1 "flavor" to that email you received. :)
--hobie
Serving Freedom
and Liberty
