After 9/11 Ron Paul suggested the US issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal. This allows privateers to practice legalized piracy against enemy shipping.
Since the 9/11 attacks were planned and funded by a group based in Afghanistan I assumed he meant to issue these against Afghan shipping. Of course Afghanistan is landlocked so I am not sure how many ships fly that flag.
Perhaps he meant that these could be used on land as well and private armies could invade, rape and rob Afghanistan in their search for Bin Laden.
In the latest debate he tried to make a point that 9/11 was the responsibility of 19 people and we should not be involved in Afghanistan at all.
I have been trying to reconcile all this in my head and I can see no rational explanation for his thinking on the subject.
The idea of Letter of Marque against a land locked country seems ludicrous on it's face.
If it is expanded to include private armies on Afghan land it seems pretty harsh to condone that type of indiscriminate rape, murder and theft against the population of any nation. Very harsh.
Now his stance seems to be that the atrocity was committed by 19 individuals who are now dead and we should take no action.
How can he do this flip flop? Why isn't he called out on it?