Sending letters to Congress, the fun never stops

The following is being sent to the Senators for my State and Representative for my District. And, yes, this gets actual physical, dead tree printing along with email. The body of the text is given as follows:


[Congressman/Senator]
[Address from the House or Senate ]


RE: Legislation concerning Blackwater

Dear [Congressman/Senator],

Due to events in Iraq the question of the use of Blackwater for private contracting of security in a war zone or other designated conflict area has come into light along with the activities of the US State Department in utilizing such 'security contractors' outside of US Embassy grounds in such areas. While the Executive Branch does have many powers, the designation of any private organization for such activities where conflict in a foreign nation is ongoing requires Congressional approval. The clearly stated power to do so for any private company of Americans to be given legitimacy and accountability is designated to Congress in the following part of the US Constitution, Article I, Section 8 (in part):

"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;"


Clearly for Blackwater to operate under the auspices of the United States, outside the Extra-Territorial Enclave of the US Embassy require Congressional approval. The Executive may not authorize any other force, under any other oversight as the Department of State is doing by providing diplomatic coverage for Blackwater. That is the US Department of State creating its own, extra-legal military organization outside of the Congressional approval power.

For the United States Government to properly employ Blackwater in such circumstances and to extend any law to their activities, the US Code offers little opportunity in this realm, due to its restrictions to actual territory and such extensions as US maritime and airborne vessels.

May I also take a moment to point out that Congress has not done its duties under the Law of Nations to properly define the predatory warfare practiced by those using the tactic of terrorism? Congress in no way has extended the protection of the US Government properly to its Citizenry by putting forward that under the Law of Nations such warfare against any Nation is not only predatory but requires definition in the US Code beyond the High Seas version called 'piracy'. However, when captured during military operations that very same Law of Nations puts the defining power in the hands of the Commander in Chief as seen in INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE FIELD, Prepared by Francis Lieber, promulgated as General Orders No. 100 by President Lincoln, 24 April 1863.:

"Men, or squads of men, who commit hostilities, whether by fighting, or inroads for destruction or plunder, or by raids of any kind, without commission, without being part and portion of the organized hostile army, and without sharing continuously in the war, but who do so with intermitting returns to their homes and avocations, or with the occasional assumption of the semblance of peaceful pursuits, divesting themselves of the character or appearance of soldiers - such men, or squads of men, are not public enemies, and, therefore, if captured, are not entitled to the privileges of prisoners of war, but shall be treated summarily as highway robbers or pirates."

Unfortunately the Executive has been lax in properly putting such Head of State and Chief of the Armies and the Navies power under the Law of Nations to use so as to properly define the operational procedures to handle such cases as terrorists captured by the US Armed Forces. As this is a Law of Nations duty of the Head of State and Commander in Chief, Congress has little oversight on the military side, save to remind the Executive of his duties in that regard.

I hope you will give this matter some attention, as the US Congress does have some role to play in this, both on the legitimization of organizations such as Blackwater and in defining predatory warfare under the Law of Nations for the United States.

I thank you for your time in this matter.

Sincerely,







================


Why, yes, I *am* suggesting they do their jobs and properly grant Letters of Marque to Blackwater.


And , yes, I *am* suggesting that Congress has fallen down on its job, but offer the nice remedy of reminding that the President has fallen down on his job, so that some tweaking may occur.

Really, why are these two branches of Government so incapable of reading their job descriptions and realizing their duties? I feel sorry for the poor Supreme Court having to keep on nudging these two other Branches about what they need to do in such things.

From Blackwater to blue water

Ralph Peters has put out an interesting opinion piece of 20 SEP 2007, Lose the Mercenaries, in the NY Post on the Blackwater incident and the Iraqi removing their ability to be used in Iraq. An incident led to a shoot-out and that led to a sectarian hold-over in the Interior Ministry in Iraq to put the kibosh on the use of Blackwater in Iraq. This mostly hits the US State Dept, but also some other private contracting groups as well, that need outside security help to operate. I will let Mr. Peters pick up the basics and trace it back a bit:

Last weekend, a convoy ferrying nervous-Nellie diplomats (do we have any other kind?) panicked. The guards, employed by Blackwater, shot the hell out of civilians going about their business in downtown Baghdad.

Nine dead, two dozen wounded.

Given what we know now, it looks like a war crime.

It's bewildering that our anti-war crowd, while anxious to discredit our troops with lies, ignores the very real depredations of trigger-happy contractors - who don't answer to military discipline.

How did we get to this?

Both Democrats and Republicans under-funded our ground forces for so long that, faced with the demands of counterinsurgency warfare and the occupation of a major country, we just didn't have the numbers or the resources to do the job with soldiers and Marines.

So the Bush administration "outsourced" the work to thugs, vultures and cons. We wasted billions. And virtually every major contract to rebuild Iraq has failed to meet its goals.

And corporations that fail face no penalty. They just get new contracts.

One of the interesting things is that he does mis-state that it was during the Bush Administration when this started. This is done under the auspices of the A-76 system, to find those jobs that do not need to be done by government employees in DoD and that can be outsourced. I have actually seen this system at work, and it is very interesting to see individuals who have worked for 15 or 20 or 25 years at a job in DoD be asked if it can be done by an outside contractor. And such lovely folks that go around with this study, which quickly becomes a 'batten down the hatches, storm ahead' sort of deal. Now, this is not to say that there aren't some jobs that can, in truth, be done and done well by private firms! The long list of things that can be done are: janitorial work, food service, infrastructure maintenance, grounds maintenance.

Really, for such things inside the US, why have a military or civilian employee doing them?

The edge started to come, however, when other things started to go, as well: facility security, personnel security, administrative jobs, and, in my Agency when I worked at it, actual production and technical jobs that were required to meet MILSPEC for things like targeting, Bomb/Battle Damage Assessment, and even edging into R&D. It was outsourcing galore in the 1990's and the worry then, by many on the 'inside' is that the cost of that non-fixed workforce would come back to bite the US hard during a crisis. When losing skilled personnel with a decade or more of analytical experience to contractors and then having a contractor *lose* on the contract who has those individuals, you are then faced with getting green and raw personnel who know very little about the actual jobs in question.

On the larger scale, this entire concept was supposed to improve the 'tooth to tail' ratio in the armed forces. This ratio is the number of combat soldiers (the tooth end) to the number of support soldiers necessary to keep that individual supplied (the tail end). Thus a ratio of 1 : 7 indicates that for each combat soldier, there is an average requirement to have 7 support staff for things like supply, tracking, personnel, etc.

If you want to get meals in the field, that reqires folks to deliver them to the field to be eaten - that is 'tail'.

It reqires folks to move those supplies from central depots to field depots - that is 'tail'.

If it requires long distance haulage from another continent to get to the central depot - that is 'tail'.

There are folks that do the mass requisition of supplies - that is 'tail'.

There are folks that run the supply contracts - that is 'tail'.

Over time the administrative overhead to keep troops in the field has the 'tail' outnumbering the 'tooth'. That number of 1 : 7 was from the mid-point of the Vietnam war where a conscript army, flush with personnel, could afford lots of administrative overhead. Being sent to Vietnam was not necessarily a combat assignment and the number of in-theater troops just keeping things running was very, very high. Much higher than the all-volunteer forces really could endure by the 1990's. Thus the shift from in-house support to contract support, which was given a green light by both political parties.

Even worse is that the State Dept has its own 'issues' with US military security, this from Mr. Peters:

State demands authority, but flees from responsibility. Unable for years to cajole employees to volunteer for Iraq, Foggy Bottom finally made it a career near-necessity to do a few months in the Green Zone. The result? In the less-than-a-day I spent in that fantasyland last month, I heard complaints about junior State types pushing ahead of soldiers in the lunch line. (State employees are more important than folks in uniform, you see.)

Meanwhile, State is building the greatest white elephant in our diplomatic history - the largest U.S. embassy in the world - in Baghdad. Set aside the alleged corruption and incompetence riddling the project: Building a Saddam-style monument isn't just lunatic vanity, it's breathtakingly stupid - it proclaims that we intend to stay and rule.

Couldn't our diplomats try a little humility? Just once?

Yes, the State Dept. wanted its very own military force to protect it. And one held unaccountable, at that. But that is what happens when you 'streamline' the military to get a better tooth to tail ratio: at some point you stop slicing tail and start taking out vital organs. Now Mr. Peters characterizes Blackwater as 'mercenaries', and offers this as a list of recommendations:

Here's the bottom line on all of this:

* If our diplomats can't go to the latrine without an armed posse, State needs to ask Congress for funding to expand its in-house security capabilities. No more thugs.

* We should respect the Iraqi government's decision to give Blackwater the boot. Other security companies might just pay attention and explain to their employees that Iraqi civilians aren't hunting trophies.

* We need to stop the blather about "interagency responsibility-sharing" in occupations. The other guys don't show up, so our troops end up holding the bag. Our military doesn't want to do occupations, but it's the only institution with the essential knowledge, discipline and infrastructure. Get over it, general: Embrace the mission.

* We need a clear, single chain of command during military operations abroad. And the big-hat, no-cattle State Department can only have an advisory role.

Our troops have done splendidly, their leaders are doing better and better - and our diplomats still flounder. If we expect Iraqis to clean up their act, let's clean up our own.

I actually agree with some of the outlook, but the points, themselves, need a bit of refining. And for that we need some clarity of how to utilize private armed forces in the service of the US Government. Yes, there is an actual thing that can be done to not only legitimize these forces but, as Mr. Peters wants and I concur, bring them under a 'single chain of command'. What is that thing? Time to look at our favorite, the Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 8, in part:

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

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;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Notice the 'Letters' language and the surrounding language? Not only were Privateers utilized as part of the legitimate armed forces of the Union, but they had their own purview for operation and yet still were accountable to military justice for their work. The actual Letters were normally against ships of an enemy, but could also manifest in strikes against shipping, depots, harbors, facilities, and so forth. Thus we have some parts of the US Code that pertain to this, mainly in Section 10, covering the armed forces. One of the more basic is 10 USC 351:

Sec. 351. During war or threat to national security

(a) The President, through any agency of the Department of Defense designated by him, may arm, have armed, or allow to be armed, any watercraft or aircraft that is capable of being used as a means of transportation on, over, or under water, and is documented, registered, or licensed under the laws of the United States.

(b) This section applies during a war and at any other time when the President determines that the security of the United States is threatened by the application, or the imminent danger of application, of physical force by any foreign government or agency against the United States, its citizens, the property of its citizens, or their commercial interests.

(c) Section 16 of the Act of March 4, 1909 (22 U.S.C. 463) does not apply to vessels armed under this section.

Note the 'armed or allowed to be armed' part? That is the ability of the Executive - to protect the Nation, and, in this case, in which an 'agency against the United States' is threating its citizens, and also its government officials. This is any sort of vehicle for air or water transport that can be armed at need.

Ok, just as one of those freebie DLSF things... you could, under this, with the authority of the President have a different sort of craft utilized by Blackwater for their own personnel movement and transport and absolutely, positively, without pause, fit under this! Yes, my Riverine Fighting Force proposal would fit this as those sorts of vessels travel not only on the water but over it as well. Have the President designate armed hovercraft by Blackwater for this, and suddenly, you have a force protection capability that would be fully authorized by the President and right under the chain of command, while still being a contract force. So accountability via the UCMJ would be there as well as civil penalties for any breach of contract sort of deal. That does mean having to develop and build armed hovercraft... but I can think of a few things such vehicles can do and would be immune to that normal ground vehicles are not subject to.

Ok, that ends *that* digression.

What is needed, apparently, is an Act of Congress to actually start bringing these 'mercenaries' into the UCMJ as seen by Douglas Kmiec in his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on 17 APR 2002:

Some have disputed this account of the declare war clause, arguing in support of a congressional pre-condition by reference to Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 which gives Congress the power to “grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, . . .” This somewhat arcane aspect of constitutional text, however, cannot bear the weight of the claim. Letters of Marque and Reprisal are grants of authority from Congress to private citizens, not the President. Their purpose is to expressly authorize seizure and forfeiture of goods by such citizens in the context of undeclared hostilities. Without such authorization, the citizen could be treated under international law as a pirate. Occasions where one’s citizens undertake hostile activity can often entangle the larger sovereignty, and therefore, it was sensible for Congress to desire to have a regulatory check upon it. Authorizing Congress to moderate or oversee private action, however, says absolutely nothing about the President’s responsibilities under the Constitution.

Indeed, Congress can and *should* have oversight of these private groups brought in to protect the Nation. This is not just security, but combat, which goes beyond chasing down crooks but actually having to fight pitched battles in combat zones. Typically Congress may designate those getting Letters of Marque, and it is up to the President to utilize and deploy such. That is the Commander-in-Chief power so as to not let Congress fight its own private little wars. Such Letters could be specifically drafted for such individuals or companies, laying out obligations, duties and restrictions upon them. That is the 'blue water' part of this, but do note it was not unusual for Privateers to have their own ground forces like Captain Morgan, and utilize them in their Privateering.


While that lineage of forces is nearly forgotten, hearkening back to an earlier era of warfare, it is fully supported by the US Constitution. Enabling organizations to operate as Privateers in defense of the State Dept. is not only fully allowable, but Constitutional. That would then give added resources to the President to contract out such things as physical security while still having military oversight and justice available for said contractors.

I am in full agreement with Mr. Peters that unaccountable forces must be purged from the battlespace. Congress needs to realize that in authorizing the movement of so much in the way of infrastructure to civilian contracting, it has seriously put at peril civilian staff overseas. That has the older remedy of Privateers to 'pick up the slack' for pay, and allows them to additionally point out and confiscate anything the President needs from those enemies that refuse to declare themselves as Nations. Of course that just might make the State Dept. a bit edgy... but no one said being a diplomat was *easy* now, did they?

Unaccountable forces, beholden to neither military nor civil law are not to be used nor tolerated in world affairs. If Iraq has no means to hold them accountable outside of ending their welcome, then it is up to the US Congress to hear from the State Dept. on *why* they need such forces. Congress can then decide to tell the State Dept. to use regular forces, or the Congress can hand out Letters of Marque for operation to such organizations seeking contract work as a military organization and willing to be held accountable to US military justice via the UCMJ. The State Dept. falls under the Executive for operations and the use of unaccountable forces is linked not only to the President, for authorization of same, but to Congress for having laws in place to allow simple security forces to be used in combat roles. Both are at fault and the US should not be using such forces outside of the Constitutional bounds of the Nation.

If they want the contracts, let them apply for Letters so the President can legitimately use them in those roles.

Just realize that for what you get used for can change based on the President's need. It is a very dicey game, this standing up separately for your Nation under arms. One cannot be a law unto themselves in doing that, lest you be looked at as a mercenary predator accountable to no government. That is not to disparage Blackwater, but to point out the problem and how to address it. It is not in the hands of Blackwater, but that of the Nation as a whole.

A deeper look at Terrorism and Piracy, and why it matters

Just a bit ago I looked at what Piracy is and what constitutes it, along with mere terrorism. Now it is time to put those together and find out just what activities will make a group, organization or individual eligible to be considered a Pirate under the Laws of the United States.

Needless to say I am not an international law expert, just interested in the topic and its applicability to the modern world.

So to recap the offenses which make up Piracy:

Sec. 1651. Piracy under law of nations

Whoever, on the high seas, commits the crime of piracy as defined by the law of nations, and is afterwards brought into or found in the United States, shall be imprisoned for life.


Sec. 1653. Aliens as pirates

Whoever, being a citizen or subject of any foreign state, is found and taken on the sea making war upon the United States, or cruising against the vessels and property thereof, or of the citizens of the same, contrary to the provisions of any treaty existing between the United States and the state of which the offender is a citizen or subject, when by such treaty such acts are declared to be piracy, is a pirate, and shall be imprisoned for life.


Sec. 1654. Arming or serving on privateers

Whoever, being a citizen of the United States, without the limits thereof, fits out and arms, or attempts to fit out and arm or is concerned in furnishing, fitting out, or arming any private vessel of war or privateer, with intent that such vessel shall be employed to cruise or commit hostilities upon the citizens of the United States or their property; or

Whoever takes the command of or enters on board of any such vessel with such intent; or

Whoever purchases any interest in any such vessel with a view to share in the profits thereof--

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.


Sec. 1657. Corruption of seamen and confederating with pirates

Whoever attempts to corrupt any commander, master, officer, or mariner to yield up or to run away with any vessel, or any goods, wares, or merchandise, or to turn pirate or to go over to or confederate with pirates, or in any wise to trade with any pirate, knowing him to be such; or

Whoever furnishes such pirate with any ammunition, stores, or provisions of any kind; or

Whoever fits out any vessel knowingly and, with a design to trade with, supply, or correspond with any pirate or robber upon the seas; or

Whoever consults, combines, confederates, or corresponds with any pirate or robber upon the seas, knowing him to be guilty of any piracy or robbery; or

Whoever, being a seaman, confines the master of any vessel--

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.


Sec. 1661. Robbery ashore

Whoever, being engaged in any piratical cruise or enterprise, or being of the crew of any piratical vessel, lands from such vessel and commits robbery on shore, is a pirate, and shall be imprisoned for life.

Those are the basics! Piracy, strangely enough, is NOT about theft, stealing, etc., although that *also* goes on. That said this *is* extended into airspace as seen later in the US Code, first with this general provision:

The application of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 731; 49 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1301 et seq. [see 49 U.S.C. 40101 et seq.]), to the extent necessary to permit the Secretary of Transportation to accomplish the purposes and objectives of Titles III [former 49 U.S.C. 1341 et seq., see Disposition Table at beginning of this title] and XII [see 49 U.S.C. 40103(b)(3), 46307] thereof, is hereby extended to those areas of land or water outside the United States and the overlying airspace thereof over or in which the Federal Government of the United States, under international treaty, agreement or other lawful arrangement, has appropriate jurisdiction or control: Provided, That the Secretary of Transportation, prior to taking any action under the authority hereby conferred, shall first consult with the Secretary of State on matters affecting foreign relations, and with the Secretary of Defense on matters affecting national-defense interests, and shall not take any action which the Secretary of State determines to be in conflict with any international treaty or agreement to which the United States is a party, or to be inconsistent with the successful conduct of the foreign relations of the United States, or which the Secretary of Defense determines to be inconsistent with the requirements of national defense.

Needless to say the bolding and emphasis are mine, throughout. The FAA gets the overflight capability and oversight concept, but the Laws of the Sea are extended into airspace for general provisions and outlook (navigation excepted), although specific laws will be put in place the more general of the laws, being that of the High Seas is primary via precedence. Thus all the readings on Piracy are *also* extended into the air and while 'air piracy' will get its own view the general rules and customs in particular regarding making war upon the US is primary and has precedence.

This is expanded upon by the Emergency Powers of the President given a bit later in the US Code:

Sec. 40106. Emergency powers

(a) Deviations From Regulations.--Appropriate military authority may authorize aircraft of the armed forces of the United States to deviate from air traffic regulations prescribed under section 40103(b)(1) and (2) of this title when the authority decides the deviation is essential to the national defense because of a military emergency or urgent military necessity. The authority shall--

(1) give the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration prior notice of the deviation at the earliest practicable time; and

(2) to the extent time and circumstances allow, make every reasonable effort to consult with the Administrator and arrange for the deviation in advance on a mutually agreeable basis.

(b) Suspension of Authority.--(1) When the President decides that the government of a foreign country is acting inconsistently with the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft or that the government of a foreign country allows territory under its jurisdiction to be used as a base of operations or training of, or as a sanctuary for, or arms, aids, or abets, a terrorist organization that knowingly uses the unlawful seizure, or the threat of an unlawful seizure, of an aircraft as an instrument of policy, the President may suspend the authority of--

(A) an air carrier or foreign air carrier to provide foreign air transportation to and from that foreign country;

(B) a person to operate aircraft in foreign air commerce to and from that foreign country;

(C) a foreign air carrier to provide foreign air transportation between the United States and another country that maintains air service with the foreign country; and

(D) a foreign person to operate aircraft in foreign air commerce between the United States and another country that maintains air service with the foreign country.

(2) The President may act under this subsection without notice or a hearing. The suspension remains in effect for as long as the President decides is necessary to ensure the security of aircraft against unlawful seizure. Notwithstanding section 40105(b) of this title, the authority of the President to suspend rights under this subsection is a condition to a certificate of public convenience and necessity, air carrier operating certificate, foreign air carrier or foreign aircraft permit, or foreign air carrier operating specification issued by the Secretary of Transportation under this part.

(3) An air carrier or foreign air carrier may not provide foreign air transportation, and a person may not operate aircraft in foreign air commerce, in violation of a suspension of authority under this subsection.

So here the seizure part is enumerated, but this is only to cover the seizure of an aircraft via terrorist acts, which are threats, coercion and so on. Aircraft get special jurisdiction seen in this part of the US Code:

CHAPTER 465--SPECIAL AIRCRAFT JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES

Sec. 46502. Aircraft piracy

(a) In Special Aircraft Jurisdiction.--

(1) In this subsection--

(A) "aircraft piracy'' means seizing or exercising control of an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States by force, violence, threat of force or violence, or any form of intimidation, and with wrongful intent.

(B) an attempt to commit aircraft piracy is in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States although the aircraft is not in flight at the time of the attempt if the aircraft would have been in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States had the aircraft piracy been completed.

(2) An individual committing or attempting or conspiring to commit aircraft piracy--

(A) shall be imprisoned for at least 20 years; or

(B) notwithstanding section 3559(b) of title 18, if the death of another individual results from the commission or attempt, shall be put to death or imprisoned for life.

(b) Outside Special Aircraft Jurisdiction.--

(1) An individual committing or conspiring to commit an offense (as defined in the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft) on an aircraft in flight outside the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States--

(A) shall be imprisoned for at least 20 years; or

(B) notwithstanding section 3559(b) of title 18, if the death of another individual results from the commission or attempt, shall be put to death or imprisoned for life.

(2) There is jurisdiction over the offense in paragraph (1) if--

(A) a national of the United States was aboard the aircraft;

(B) an offender is a national of the United States; or

(C) an offender is afterwards found in the United States.

(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term "national of the United States'' has the meaning prescribed in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)).

Now is 'air piracy', by that, Piracy? This outlook has separate view based on the fact that it is not being defined as an act of war. The attempt is to skirt that issue by including no Treaty language, so that simple air piracy can be differentiated from war-based piracy.

Terrorism has its own overview and that is given in this section of the US Code:

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

Terrorism, then, is intimidation, coercion or threats upon civilians or governments, or attempts to to use weapons of mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping to further intimidate or coerce government. Again this are going after those things which threaten the conduct of daily life. Thus simple terrorism is different from Piracy by the *inaction* and being on the order of threats. When *action* is taken the step has been crossed from simple terrorism to Piracy. This is expanded upon by this part of the US Code:

Sec. 2332b. Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries

(a) Prohibited Acts.--

(1) Offenses.--Whoever, involving conduct transcending national boundaries and in a circumstance described in subsection (b)--

(A) kills, kidnaps, maims, commits an assault resulting in serious bodily injury, or assaults with a dangerous weapon any person within the United States; or

(B) creates a substantial risk of serious bodily injury to any other person by destroying or damaging any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property within the United States or by attempting or conspiring to destroy or damage any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property within the United States; in violation of the laws of any State, or the United States, shall be punished as prescribed in subsection (c).

(2) Treatment of threats, attempts and conspiracies.--Whoever threatens to commit an offense under paragraph (1), or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished under subsection (c).

(b) Jurisdictional Bases.--

(1) Circumstances.--The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are--

(A) the mail or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce is used in furtherance of the offense;

(B) the offense obstructs, delays, or affects interstate or foreign commerce, or would have so obstructed, delayed, or affected interstate or foreign commerce if the offense had been consummated;

(C) the victim, or intended victim, is the United States Government, a member of the uniformed services, or any official, officer, employee, or agent of the legislative, executive, or judicial branches, or of any department or agency, of the United States;

(D) the structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property is, in whole or in part, owned, possessed, or leased to the United States, or any department or agency of the United States;

(E) the offense is committed in the territorial sea (including the airspace above and the seabed and subsoil below, and artificial islands and fixed structures erected thereon) of the United States; or

(F) the offense is committed within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

(2) Co-conspirators and accessories after the fact.-- Jurisdiction shall exist over all principals and co-conspirators of an offense under this section, and accessories after the fact to any offense under this section, if at least one of the circumstances described in subparagraphs (A) through (F) of paragraph (1) is applicable to at least one offender.

So these are definitely actions taken against individuals and/or the United States itself, and is extended to killing, kidnap, assault/assault with a deadly weapon, puts individuals or property at risk for damage, and conspiracies to same WITHIN the territorial United States, which includes extra-territorial enclaves, known as Embassies. Included in the list of things are also all Federal employees or anyone working on behalf of the United States government (including contractors), and all Federally owned facilities (in whole or in part). Also note that co-conspirators and accessories *after the commission of such crimes* also fall under this statute. The inclusion, however, of all the sub-surface and airspace again gives further voice to the outlook on law extension, although this is more to define the entirety of the territory of the United States than anything else. Thus the High Seas Law under view of the Admiralty does not apply inside the United States for air traffic nor in defining terrorism.

However, by the extension of the High Seas view into airspace the breaking of a Treaty, of any sort, does apply. Thus simple 'air piracy' which breaks NO TREATY is different than Piracy inside the United States, but externally the High Seas extension and Treaty prevail as Congress cannot make law outside the United States (via the container concept I go over in this piece) save to regularize commerce via Treaty. And as non-Treaty Nations also use such air space, the more generalized rules for commerce and trade must apply, which is the High Seas.

Treaties to regularize air traffic and such are put into the US Code with suitable comments, amendments and so on here. Of these the Warsaw Convention covering international airflights is the best known, and gets printed on more air tickets and holders and such than one can easily handle, but such things as the Montreal Convention also apply with stipulations. But that is the Treaty language and requirement, so that each and every passenger knows what the international rules are. The Hague Hijacking Convention, as an example, provides for an incident to be ajudicated between Nations so that laws of both apply to the place where the incident happens. The 1973 Montreal Protocols on unlawful acts with regards to aviation talk much about civil penalties and extradition, which goes with the Hague Convention outlook. And those rules are one thing on the basis of language regarding the responsibilities of those seeking passage: vague.

All of this points to the problem of Nations treating terrorism as mere civil law violations: it does not address the fact that these are warlike acts performed by organizations that have, often, declared hostilities or war upon Nations and Peoples in an illegitimate fashion. Via this strange view, an organization can perform any level of violence via aircraft, or on the ground and not be held liable to it as an act of war that is a war crime. I looked at this in overview, previously, but the basics still hold that the activity being warlike or from a party declaring itself belligerent or at war with you then constitutes a war activity. What the High Seas outlook does, however, is place upon this view that the *activity* defines the sphere it is to be handled in. Air Piracy by an organization that has declared open hostilities is not, then, civil crime but war crime and Piracy, beyond being terrorism.

That then falls all the way back to the beginning of the post and those seeking to make war upon the United States being held to war crimes views and *not* civil crime views. The open establishment of an organization declaring itself hostile to the United States and acting in a way to bring the United States to harm then falls under the War Powers of the United States and its Piracy powers to bring such to heel. Those two things, combined, create a legitimate use of war power against such groups and, by putting them under the Piracy part of the US Code, also allows the legitimate targeting of those that aid and abet them.

By this line of thought, terrorist organizations that have declared their hostility to the United States are not *just* terrorists, but Pirates, too. So here are the categories:

• Those that target US vessels or Federally owned or held buildings on land that are involved with the maritime, Admiralty or other related business outside the United States, and damage them using warlike activities are Pirates. This, by extension, includes all air facilities overseas and landing areas owned by the US, all US owned aircraft (in whole or in part), and all personnel related to that, via the extension of the High Seas provision outside the United States. Notice that ship to aircraft transportation and trucking is *also* part of this, along with related haulage and storage facilities owned (in whole or in part) by the US. This includes all commercial vessels and aircraft, their companies and firms utilizing air or sea transport. Actually, that is a pretty long list, when you come to think about it, especially when including the overseas US Nationals running ticketing offices and such.


• Those that attack and damage or destroy US Embassies are attacking from a Foreign Nation's soil upon the extra-territorial enclave of the United States which IS part of the United States and that is an Act of War, even if it is not sanctioned by the host Nation. That activity warrants immediate reprisals and serves as a de facto Declaration of War or hostilities no matter who originates it (unless, of course, you are Jimmy Carter, in which case a retreat to the Rose Garden is in order). And as ALL US Embassies have US Marine Corps guards it is *also* an attack upon them and their offices which fall under the Admiralty, and those that do such attacks are Pirates. Ever wondered *why* USMC gets the guard duties? Fast, tough, effective and fall under the Admiralty, thus allowing the branding of Piracy *instantly*! Gotta love it!


• Skyjacking when done for personal gain or from a group not hostile to the United States openly, or done to coerce or otherwise intimidate individuals or government, and when done to a US Citizen or on-board an aircraft that has *any* US ownership involved is terrorism, up to and including killing of innocents and destruction of aircraft. This includes when it is done overseas or within the United States. Examples of this are to get to a foreign nation or for personal robbery and such. This is 'air piracy' but NOT Piracy.


• Skyjacking when done for purposes to attack the United States, its nationals, property, or is from a group that has declared open hostility with the United States is not just 'air piracy' but it is also Piracy.


• Any US national that is robbed by a group that is a general outlaw group that is waging war, or performing warlike activities in any event, has suffered from a Pirate and that individual can get imprisoned for that even if their organization has not declared open hostilities with the US.

There, that ought to straighten things out a bit!

Terrorists who are part of organizations that have declared war on the US, and attacks the vessels, aircraft, land based facilities, personnel and networks between sea and air, owned wholly, or in part, by the US or its Citizens overseas is an act of Piracy and, thus, those doing so are Pirates. Anyone associated *with* said organizations by aiding and abetting them, are liable for the help they give Pirates.

Organizations that attack and damage US Embassies are Pirates.

Skyjacking is 'air piracy' but also Piracy if conducted by a group at war with the US. Otherwise it is simple terrorism.

Terrorists are those who do not declare war on the US, do not attack US Embassies, do not attack maritime and air assets (including terminals, cargo storage areas, transport vehicles) and their staff (Federal and Civilian, owned in whole or in part by same, all staff inclusive as this is seen from the commerce power side of things), and engage solely in threats and destruction without warlike intent against the United States and its People. Of course they just might be brigands (as cited in Rose v. Himley).

Of all of the above the air coverage and maritime interaction is the one that is the hardest to figure out. International Law, as such, is basically Nation to Nation contracts and agreements with only the backing of each Nation to give it force (which I went over in this post some time back). From that, then, the provisions for the Laws of the High Seas given to Congress extended into the Air domain for regularization and such is natural as it covers the same basic concept of freedom of navigation and movement upon the High Seas amenable only to Treaty.

Even so the rest still stands relatively well and finally gives a key tool for attacking the actual Transnational Terrorist Internetwork: those that have called for the destruction of the United States are not only Terrorists but also Pirates and those that associate with them can also be put into the category of aiding and abetting to the tune of a few years in jail. The anti-Piracy statutes are very basic, plain and 19th century and, thusly, easy to understand.

By calling activities of those groups actively calling for the attack or destruction of the US to be mere terrorists does *not* allow for the wider net to be cast against those aiding them on land or at sea as the terrorism laws go after individuals but the Piracy statutes go after entire organizations by this language: "Whoever consults, combines, confederates, or corresponds with any pirate or robber upon the seas, knowing him to be guilty of any piracy or robbery". That is language to go after groups, not just individuals because they are combining or confederating together while conspiracy is working together. There is a change in substance between the two: conspiracy means working with others to plan and commit, while confederate and combine means to pitch resources together or commit them together while working together which is a material combination of commitment rather than mere spoken commitment. That is what allows organizations to be put at the pointed end of the war powers: actual, material commitment.

The terrorism statutes are harsher on the Civilian side, but the war powers allow for expansive attack of terror organizations when they are considered Pirate cabals. And when using war powers 'resisting arrest' is *not* something considered: you either surrender or you do not. None of this 'struggling with officer concept', at all as this is military and not civil jurisdiction. And as it is entire organizations that are the target, they are *all* put up as fair game. War powers are expansive to go after full organizations by membership without having to prove individual conspiracy on an act-by-act basis. It is that latter that confounds stopping organized crime: the organization is left, even when the main actors are behind bars.

That is what the war powers are about: ending those working together to bring you down, not *just* the ones who attacked you, but their confederates and allies so as to put a stop and end to them. Perhaps we can start using them some day.

There, you have it! More legal concepts mangled in a shorter space than has ever been achieved heretofore!

When Terrorists are Pirates

Running across some interesting ideas while scouting around on things and it is probably time to spell out some of what Privateers can do. Now, as part of the High Seas power of Congress law is made to address piracy and other internationally lawless activities and that is a whole area in and of itself but is pretty simple to figure out. The US Code, Title 33 covers most of the waterways portion of this and so it is worth looking at that to find out what can be done via mandate and Letters. And Title 18, Chapter 81 goes into Piracy and Privateers.

Sec. 1651. Piracy under law of nations

Whoever, on the high seas, commits the crime of piracy as defined by the law of nations, and is afterwards brought into or found in the United States, shall be imprisoned for life.

Sec. 1653. Aliens as pirates

Whoever, being a citizen or subject of any foreign state, is found and taken on the sea making war upon the United States, or cruising against the vessels and property thereof, or of the citizens of the same, contrary to the provisions of any treaty existing between the United States and the state of which the offender is a citizen or subject, when by such treaty such acts are declared to be piracy, is a pirate, and shall be imprisoned for life.


Sec. 1654. Arming or serving on privateers

Whoever, being a citizen of the United States, without the limits thereof, fits out and arms, or attempts to fit out and arm or is concerned in furnishing, fitting out, or arming any private vessel of war or privateer, with intent that such vessel shall be employed to cruise or commit hostilities upon the citizens of the United States or their property; or

Whoever takes the command of or enters on board of any such vessel with such intent; or

Whoever purchases any interest in any such vessel with a view to share in the profits thereof--

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.


Sec. 1657. Corruption of seamen and confederating with pirates

Whoever attempts to corrupt any commander, master, officer, or mariner to yield up or to run away with any vessel, or any goods, wares, or merchandise, or to turn pirate or to go over to or confederate with pirates, or in any wise to trade with any pirate, knowing him to be such; or

Whoever furnishes such pirate with any ammunition, stores, or provisions of any kind; or

Whoever fits out any vessel knowingly and, with a design to trade with, supply, or correspond with any pirate or robber upon the seas; or

Whoever consults, combines, confederates, or corresponds with any pirate or robber upon the seas, knowing him to be guilty of any piracy or robbery; or

Whoever, being a seaman, confines the master of any vessel--

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Basically you do not outfit a vessel to act in a Piratical way, nor take part in, nor own any part of a Pirate scheme, serve as a Privateer *against* the United States as a Citizen, and as a commander of such vessel you *do* put up a fight. But this one is very special to remember for later on:

Sec. 1661. Robbery ashore

Whoever, being engaged in any piratical cruise or enterprise, or being of the crew of any piratical vessel, lands from such vessel and commits robbery on shore, is a pirate, and shall be imprisoned for life.

Yes, it seems obvious, but do read on...

Chapter 113B goes over Terrorism, as such which are acts:

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

This can occur either overseas or domestically. So terrorism is a pretty broad category. These are further enumerated by those things which transcend National Boundaries:

Sec. 2332b. Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries

(a) Prohibited Acts.--

(1) Offenses.--Whoever, involving conduct transcending national boundaries and in a circumstance described in subsection (b)--

(A) kills, kidnaps, maims, commits an assault resulting in serious bodily injury, or assaults with a dangerous weapon any person within the United States; or

(B) creates a substantial risk of serious bodily injury to any other person by destroying or damaging any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property within the United States or by attempting or conspiring to destroy or damage any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property within the United States; in violation of the laws of any State, or the United States, shall be punished as prescribed in subsection (c).

(2) Treatment of threats, attempts and conspiracies.--Whoever threatens to commit an offense under paragraph (1), or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished under subsection (c).

(b) Jurisdictional Bases.--

(1) Circumstances.--The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are--

(A) the mail or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce is used in furtherance of the offense;

(B) the offense obstructs, delays, or affects interstate or foreign commerce, or would have so obstructed, delayed, or affected interstate or foreign commerce if the offense had been consummated;

(C) the victim, or intended victim, is the United States Government, a member of the uniformed services, or any official, officer, employee, or agent of the legislative, executive, or judicial branches, or of any department or agency, of the United States;

(D) the structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property is, in whole or in part, owned, possessed, or leased to the United States, or any department or agency of the United States;

(E) the offense is committed in the territorial sea (including the airspace above and the seabed and subsoil below, and artificial islands and fixed structures erected thereon) of the United States; or

(F) the offense is committed within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

(2) Co-conspirators and accessories after the fact.-- Jurisdiction shall exist over all principals and co-conspirators of an offense under this section, and accessories after the fact to any offense under this section, if at least one of the circumstances described in subparagraphs (A) through (F) of paragraph (1) is applicable to at least one offender.

So these are definitely actions taken against individuals and/or the United States itself.

Thus Chapter 7 is a good place to start on Piracy:

Sec. 381. Use of public vessels to suppress piracy

The President is authorized to employ so many of the public armed vessels as in his judgment the service may require, with suitable instructions to the commanders thereof, in protecting the merchant vessels of the United States and their crews from piratical aggressions and depredations.

Here the President is authorized to employ 'public armed vessels' in protection of merchant vessels, pretty straightforward, that.

Sec. 382. Seizure of piratical vessels generally

The President is authorized to instruct the commanders of the public armed vessels of the United States to subdue, seize, take, and send into any port of the United States, any armed vessel or boat, or any vessel or boat, the crew whereof shall be armed, and which shall have attempted or committed any piratical aggression, search, restraint, depredation, or seizure, upon any vessel of the United States, or of the citizens thereof, or upon any other vessel; and also to retake any vessel of the United States, or its citizens, which may have been unlawfully captured upon the high seas.

And those armed vessels may seize piratical vessels that have attempted acts contrary to the laws of the high seas. This is what one may do if meeting up with a pirate trying to do things contrary to those laws of the high seas:

Sec. 383. Resistance of pirates by merchant vessels

The commander and crew of any merchant vessel of the United States, owned wholly, or in part, by a citizen thereof, may oppose and defend against any aggression, search, restraint, depredation, or seizure, which shall be attempted upon such vessel, or upon any other vessel so owned, by the commander or crew of any armed vessel whatsoever, not being a public armed vessel of some nation in amity with the United States, and may subdue and capture the same; and may also retake any vessel so owned which may have been captured by the commander or crew of any such armed vessel, and send the same into any port of the United States.

Now here is where it gets to be interesting as a ship need only have part or partial ownership by a US Citizen to be eligible to fight back against piratical takeover.

Sec. 384. Condemnation of piratical vessels

Whenever any vessel, which shall have been built, purchased, fitted out in whole or in part, or held for the purpose of being employed in the commission of any piratical aggression, search, restraint, depredation, or seizure, or in the commission of any other act of piracy as defined by the law of nations, or from which any piratical aggression, search, restraint, depredation, or seizure shall have been first attempted or made, is captured and brought into or captured in any port of the United States, the same shall be adjudged and condemned to their use, and that of the captors after due process and trial in any court having admiralty jurisdiction, and which shall be holden for the district into which such captured vessel shall be brought; and the same court shall thereupon order a sale and distribution thereof accordingly, and at its discretion.

'In any court having admiralty jurisdiction', which does pertain to the high seas, of course. So, bring the pirates and their vessel in, have them adjudged being pirates and the court can immediately order the sale of the vessel. That customarily also *includes* the contents thereof.

Sec. 385. Seizure and condemnation of vessels fitted out for piracy

Any vessel built, purchased, fitted out in whole or in part, or held for the purpose of being employed in the commission of any piratical aggression, search, restraint, depredation, or seizure, or in the commission of any other act of piracy, as defined by the law of nations, shall be liable to be captured and brought into any port of the United States if found upon the high seas, or to be seized if found in any port or place within the United States, whether the same shall have actually sailed upon any piratical expedition or not, and whether any act of piracy shall have been committed or attempted upon or from such vessel or not; and any such vessel may be adjudged and condemned, if captured by a vessel authorized as mentioned in section 386 of this title to the use of the United States, and to that of the captors, and if seized by a collector, surveyor, or marshal, then to the use of the United States.

Thus the vessel itself used in piracy is liable for capture and condemnation. This is getting very interesting, to say the least!

Sec. 386. Commissioning private vessels for seizure of piratical vessels

The President is authorized to instruct the commanders of the public-armed vessels of the United States, and to authorize the commanders of any other armed vessels sailing under the authority of any letters of marque and reprisal granted by Congress, or the commanders of any other suitable vessels, to subdue, seize, take, and, if on the high seas, to send into any port of the United States, any vessel or boat built, purchased, fitted out, or held as mentioned in section 385 of this title.

This power of the President to 'authorize the commanders of any other armed vessels' under the Letters or 'the commanders of any other suitable vessels', is a broad sweeping one as that last is open to *anyone* designated by the President as 'commander' of a 'suitable vessel'. The President is fully responsible, of course, but that is the way the Executive powers work on foreign affairs: wide latitude.

Sec. 387. Duties of officers of customs and marshals as to seizure

The collectors of the several ports of entry, the surveyors of the several ports of delivery, and the marshals of the several judicial districts within the United States, shall seize any vessel or boat built, purchased, fitted out, or held as mentioned in section 385 of this title, which may be found within their respective ports or districts, and to cause the same to be proceeded against and disposed of as provided by that section.

The basic follow-up to allow the folks running ports and such to automatically seize vessels that are identified as piratical or taking part in piratical activities. So that covers the high seas part!

Next up, the air.

Here is Title 49, Subtitle VII for perusal:

Sec. 40106. Emergency powers

(a) Deviations From Regulations.--Appropriate military authority may authorize aircraft of the armed forces of the United States to deviate from air traffic regulations prescribed under section 40103(b)(1) and (2) of this title when the authority decides the deviation is essential to the national defense because of a military emergency or urgent military necessity. The authority shall--

(1) give the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration prior notice of the deviation at the earliest practicable time; and

(2) to the extent time and circumstances allow, make every reasonable effort to consult with the Administrator and arrange for the deviation in advance on a mutually agreeable basis.

(b) Suspension of Authority.--(1) When the President decides that the government of a foreign country is acting inconsistently with the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft or that the government of a foreign country allows territory under its jurisdiction to be used as a base of operations or training of, or as a sanctuary for, or arms, aids, or abets, a terrorist organization that knowingly uses the unlawful seizure, or the threat of an unlawful seizure, of an aircraft as an instrument of policy, the President may suspend the authority of--

(A) an air carrier or foreign air carrier to provide foreign air transportation to and from that foreign country;

(B) a person to operate aircraft in foreign air commerce to and from that foreign country;

(C) a foreign air carrier to provide foreign air transportation between the United States and another country that maintains air service with the foreign country; and

(D) a foreign person to operate aircraft in foreign air commerce between the United States and another country that maintains air service with the foreign country.

(2) The President may act under this subsection without notice or a hearing. The suspension remains in effect for as long as the President decides is necessary to ensure the security of aircraft against unlawful seizure. Notwithstanding section 40105(b) of this title, the authority of the President to suspend rights under this subsection is a condition to a certificate of public convenience and necessity, air carrier operating certificate, foreign air carrier or foreign aircraft permit, or foreign air carrier operating specification issued by the Secretary of Transportation under this part.

(3) An air carrier or foreign air carrier may not provide foreign air transportation, and a person may not operate aircraft in foreign air commerce, in violation of a suspension of authority under this subsection.

Here the big notice is in the Presidential waiver authority. And there is then a good 'catch-all' for extension of the high seas rights to airspace and such in the General Provisions:

The application of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 731; 49 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1301 et seq. [see 49 U.S.C. 40101 et seq.]), to the extent necessary to permit the Secretary of Transportation to accomplish the purposes and objectives of Titles III [former 49 U.S.C. 1341 et seq., see Disposition Table at beginning of this title] and XII [see 49 U.S.C. 40103(b)(3), 46307] thereof, is hereby extended to those areas of land or water outside the United States and the overlying airspace thereof over or in which the Federal Government of the United States, under international treaty, agreement or other lawful arrangement, has appropriate jurisdiction or control: Provided, That the Secretary of Transportation, prior to taking any action under the authority hereby conferred, shall first consult with the Secretary of State on matters affecting foreign relations, and with the Secretary of Defense on matters affecting national-defense interests, and shall not take any action which the Secretary of State determines to be in conflict with any international treaty or agreement to which the United States is a party, or to be inconsistent with the successful conduct of the foreign relations of the United States, or which the Secretary of Defense determines to be inconsistent with the requirements of national defense.

Which is pretty all-encompassing and even moreso in times of war given this:

Sec. 40107. Presidential transfers

(a) General Authority.--The President may transfer to the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration a duty, power, activity, or facility of a department, agency, or instrumentality of the executive branch of the United States Government, or an officer or unit of a department, agency, or instrumentality of the executive branch, related primarily to selecting, developing, testing, evaluating, establishing, operating, or maintaining a system, procedure, facility, or device for safe and efficient air navigation and air traffic control. In making a transfer, the President may transfer records and property and make officers and employees from the department, agency, instrumentality, or unit available to the Administrator.

(b) During War.--If war occurs, the President by executive order may transfer to the Secretary of Defense a duty, power, activity, or facility of the Administrator. In making the transfer, the President may transfer records, property, officers, and employees of the Administration to the Department of Defense.

Now here the modern Congressional Authorization for the Use of Force would apply. What is this getting up to? Well consider that during wartime a President may transfer the duties of the FAA for Administration to the Dept. of Defense and apply that, particularly, to those things which do not abide by the various Treaties covering the air AND the High Seas laws as set by Congress. This includes the following from Special Aircraft Jurisdiction:

CHAPTER 465--SPECIAL AIRCRAFT JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES

Sec. 46502. Aircraft piracy

(a) In Special Aircraft Jurisdiction.--

(1) In this subsection--

(A) "aircraft piracy'' means seizing or exercising control of an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States by force, violence, threat of force or violence, or any form of intimidation, and with wrongful intent.

(B) an attempt to commit aircraft piracy is in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States although the aircraft is not in flight at the time of the attempt if the aircraft would have been in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States had the aircraft piracy been completed.

(2) An individual committing or attempting or conspiring to commit aircraft piracy--

(A) shall be imprisoned for at least 20 years; or

(B) notwithstanding section 3559(b) of title 18, if the death of another individual results from the commission or attempt, shall be put to death or imprisoned for life.

(b) Outside Special Aircraft Jurisdiction.--

(1) An individual committing or conspiring to commit an offense (as defined in the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft) on an aircraft in flight outside the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States--

(A) shall be imprisoned for at least 20 years; or

(B) notwithstanding section 3559(b) of title 18, if the death of another individual results from the commission or attempt, shall be put to death or imprisoned for life.

(2) There is jurisdiction over the offense in paragraph (1) if--

(A) a national of the United States was aboard the aircraft;

(B) an offender is a national of the United States; or

(C) an offender is afterwards found in the United States.

(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term "national of the United States'' has the meaning prescribed in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)).

Fascinating stuff, no? So add up the following for wartime piracy coverage of aircraft and it will include any aircraft wholly or even partially owned by a Citizen of the United States, either directly or via company shares or if a national of the United States was on board the aircraft. This means that *any* terrorist organization that has taken part in 'air piracy' of any sort involving an aircraft owned or in-part owned via joint ownership in a company, or has had a US national on-board is considered to be a Pirate operation. That is in *addition* to being a terrorist organization!

Here the broad and sweeping anti-Piracy powers and those for terrorism *combine* to give a President quite sweeping authority against all Nations, companies, groups, organizations and individuals that traffic with, aid or support knowingly any terrorist organization that has committed attacks against the United States its 'vessels or property thereof'. Which *includes* simple 'robbery ashore', such as kidnapping a US national as part of a terrorist act and taking items from them wantonly. That is *also* Piracy! Which can incur the broad sanctions and wrath against all of those that aid and abet those terrorists, including seizure of vessels trafficking with them.

This is what I mean by 21st Century Privateers!

With Warranted Citizens and their Companies granted Letters by Congress to use warpowers of the United States, the President can then direct such to go *after* the full panoply of suppliers for terrorist organization that knowingly traffic with them and *seize* vessels and demonstrate proof of that in the closest US Admiralty Court or to other US Official of Port or Interior Authority of the Federal Government.

This, specifically *includes* aircraft as they fall under the High Seas provision 'catch-all' and the authority to stop entire air carriers during wartime then requires *only* a consultation with the Sec. Def. and Sec. State. Further, the President can then target specific air carriers for seizure by Privateers along with their property, goods and anything else they have as part of the war powers. Get it, bring it in, demonstrate proof, sell at auction or for Bounty if Congress has set such or other Prizes as allowed by Law.

What this categorically is *not* are: bounty hunters, mercenaries or any rag-tag group of individuals. Unless the President deems such as necessary to carry out such activities, but that is usually a last resort sort of deal, as Presidents have normally stuck to a bit higher up the food chain for Warranted and Sanctioned organizations. Congress can set what is necessary for that, allow armament of those groups as those groups see fit to carry out their responsibilities and then the President can set forth the goals per group or for all groups depending on scope of need.

This is known as: Asymmetrical Warfare by the Citizens of the United States and their Warranted Companies.

Every terrorist organization that has gone after US vessels or 'property' and attacked same is a Pirate organization. It may *also* be a terrorist organization, in which case the entire broad set of powers can be used against it. Thus a mere 'threat' by an organization to destroy US property makes an organization a terrorist organization. An actual attack upon US property or ships *also* makes it a Pirate organization. Intent does not matter as it is the activity that defines what is being done. Thus that perusal at Terror Knowledge Base looking for mere property damage against US Government facilities starts to yield a long, long list of groups that are not only terrorist but Piratical.

When will the United States *ever* begin to treat them as such?