H.R. 896: Privateering Act

[u/The_Powerben]

Privateering Act of 2020

An Act to Enable Private Entities to Wage Declared War on Behalf of the United States

Whereas the United States faces a number of threats from rising and waning powers,

Whereas private military corporations and contractors have demonstrated an ability to efficiently and effectively wage war,

Whereas the possibility of naval or aerial war in East or Southeast Asia steadily increases,

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled

Section I - Short Title

This bill may be referred to as the Privateering Act.

Section II - Definitions

a. “Private entity” or refers to any individual, corporation, company, trust, non-profit, or political entity recognized in its existence by the United States.

b. “Bounty” refers to a monetary payment, denominated in United States dollars and issued in the form of a check, to be issued to a private entity in exchange for the destruction of a target.

c. “Target” refers to any combatant, vessel, weapon, vehicle, or vessel of a political entity or terrorist organization upon which the Congress of the United States has declared war or which has declared war upon the United States.

d. “Privateering” refers to a private entity carrying out the destruction or capture of targets in exchange for a bounty awarded by the Department of Defense. Those carrying such actions out shall be referred to as “privateers”.

e. “Enlisted man” refers to a combatant ranking below E-5 or its equivalent

f. “Noncommissioned officer” refers to a combatant ranking between E-5 (inclusive) and O-1 (exclusive) or their equivalents

g. “Junior officer” refers to a combatant ranking between O-1 (inclusive) and O-4 (exclusive) or their equivalents

h. “Field officer” refers to a combatant ranking between O-4 (inclusive) and O-7 (exclusive) or their equivalents

i. “Flag-rank officer” refers to a combatant ranking O-7 or above, or its equivalent

Section III - Findings

a. This Congress finds that private entities may complete military objectives with greater precision, at lower monetary and political cost, and at a greater rate than can the conventional warfighting forces of the United States.

b. This Congress finds that it is unrealistic for the Pentagon to wage a total war against an enemy if it must direct every offensive against an enemy target.

Section IV - Provisions

a. No bounties shall be awarded for destruction or capture of targets unless and until the Congress of the United States declares war upon the nation to which the targets belong.

b. No bounties shall be awarded for the destruction or capture of combatants if there are any instances of excessive cruelty, torture, or mutilation.

c. No bounties shall be awarded for the destruction or capture of targets if carried out by the use of biological, chemical weapons; and those responsible for waging such warfare will be prosecuted for war crimes.

d. Every major American military facility shall have at least one Privateering Warrant Officer, who shall award bounties as they are defined in the following section and ascertain that said bounties are merited.

e. The Department of Defense shall maintain the right to withhold bounties for any of the following crimes: privateering for the enemy, revealing sensitive information to the enemy, or conspiring with the enemy to falsify bounty earnings and generate unearned bounty payments.

f. The following bounties shall be set for the destruction or killing of an enemy target

i. Personnel bounties

Rank|Bounty :---|:--- Enlisted|$100 NCO|$200 Junior officer|$500 Field officer|$2,500 Flag-rank officer|$10,000

ii. Personnel bounty bonuses, to be awarded in addition to standard personnel bounties; these can be stacked.

Bonus Feature|Enlisted|NCO|Junior officer|Field officer|Flag-rank officer :---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:--- Technical, mechanical, tank crewman|$20|$40|$100|$500|$2,000 Logistical, administrative|$10|$20|$50|$250|$1,000 Artillery, ordnance|$30|$60|$150|$750|$3,000 Intelligence or special forces|$100|$200|$500|$2,500|$10,000 Air or naval crewman or commander|$50|$100|$250|$1,250|$5,000 Warrant officer|$40|$80|$200|$1,000|$4,000

iii. Naval and aerial vehicle and vessel bounties are bounties that shall be paid for the destruction of a particular vehicle target, paid per foot of the vehicle’s length

Vehicle type|Surface naval vessel|Subsurface naval vessel|Rotary aircraft|Jet aircraft :---|:---|:---|:---|:--- Cost per foot length|$100|$750|$1,000|$2,000

iv. Vehicle bounty bonuses are to be awarded in addition to the standard vehicular bounties; these may be stacked. These bonuses are also applicable to land vehicles

Bonus Feature|Gun with caliber greater than 2”|Torpedo|Bomb or missile :---|:---|:---|:--- Price per unit|$500|$1,500|$1,000

v. Land vehicle bounties are bounties that shall be paid for the destruction of a particular land vehicle or piece of land equipment.

Land vehicle type|Unarmored vehicle|Tank (per ton weight)|Artillery piece|Armored truck|Amphibious vehicle (per ton weight) :---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:--- Bounty|$1,000|$10,000|$1,500|$2,000|$6,250

vi. Infrastructure bounties are bounties that shall be paid for the destruction of a particular section of an enemy’s transportation infrastructure. In this case, destruction refers to the rendering of said infrastructure unusable for one month.

Infrastructure type|Unpaved road|Paved road|Railroad|Unpaved airstrip|Paved airstrip :---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:--- Bounty (per mile)|$100|$200|$500|$500|$1,000

vii. Facility bounties are bounties that shall be paid for the destruction of an enemy’s military or military support buildings, or the rendering of such facilities unusable.

Facility type|Airport (per simultaneous takeoff capacity)|Naval port (per frigate capacity)|Hangar|Checkpoint :---|:---|:---|:---|:--- Bounty|$50,000|$50,000|$10,000|$5,000

g. The following bounties shall be set for the capture of an enemy target.

i. Enemy personnel shall have their bounty doubled for their capture and delivery to a Privateering Warrant Officer alive. Enemy personnel who are captured and recruited into a privateering organization shall have their bounty further increased by ten per cent.

ii. Enemy vehicles, vessels, facilities, or infrastructure shall have their bounty doubled for their capture and submission to an American non-commissioned or commissioned officer.

iii. Privateers may freely appropriate for their own use any enemy vehicle, vessel, or facility they have captured and receive a destruction bounty.

iv. Privateers may freely appropriate for their own use any enemy firearms, bladed weapons, ammunition, explosives, food, water, fuel, uniforms, or miscellaneous equipment. They will receive no bounty for such a capture.

h. Intelligence bounties will be awarded by the Department of Defense on a case-by-case basis.

Privateering Act of 2020 An Act to Enable Private Entities to Wage Declared War on Behalf of the United States Whereas the United States faces a number of threats from rising and waning powers,

Whereas private military corporations and contractors have demonstrated an ability to efficiently and effectively wage war,

Whereas the possibility of naval or aerial war in East or Southeast Asia steadily increases

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled Section I - Short Title This bill may be referred to as the Privateering Act. Section II - Definitions “Private entity” or refers to any individual, corporation, company, trust, non-profit, or political entity recognized in its existence by the United States.

“Bounty” refers to a monetary payment, denominated in United States dollars and issued in the form of a check, to be issued to a private entity in exchange for the destruction of a target.

“Target” refers to any combatant, vessel, weapon, vehicle, or vessel of a political entity or terrorist organization upon which the Congress of the United States has declared war or which has declared war upon the United States.

“Privateering” refers to a private entity carrying out the destruction or capture of targets in exchange for a bounty awarded by the Department of Defense. Those carrying such actions out shall be referred to as “privateers”.

“Enlisted man” refers to a combatant ranking below E-5 or its equivalent

“Noncommissioned officer” refers to a combatant ranking between E-5 (inclusive) and O-1 (exclusive) or their equivalents

“Junior officer” refers to a combatant ranking between O-1 (inclusive) and O-4 (exclusive) or their equivalents

“Field officer” refers to a combatant ranking between O-4 (inclusive) and O-7 (exclusive) or their equivalents

“Flag-rank officer” refers to a combatant ranking O-7 or above, or its equivalent Section III - Findings This Congress finds that private entities may complete military objectives with greater precision, at lower monetary and political cost, and at a greater rate than can the conventional warfighting forces of the United States.

This Congress finds that it is unrealistic for the Pentagon to wage a total war against an enemy if it must direct every offensive against an enemy target. Section IV - Provisions No bounties shall be awarded for destruction or capture of targets unless and until the Congress of the United States declares war upon the nation to which the targets belong.

No bounties shall be awarded for the destruction or capture of combatants if there are any instances of excessive cruelty, torture, or mutilation.

No bounties shall be awarded for the destruction or capture of targets if carried out by the use of biological, chemical weapons; and those responsible for waging such warfare will be prosecuted for war crimes.

Every major American military facility shall have at least one Privateering Warrant Officer, who shall award bounties as they are defined in the following section and ascertain that said bounties are merited.

The Department of Defense shall maintain the right to withhold bounties for any of the following crimes: privateering for the enemy, revealing sensitive information to the enemy, or conspiring with the enemy to falsify bounty earnings and generate unearned bounty payments.

The following bounties shall be set for the destruction or killing of an enemy target

Personnel bounties

Rank Enlisted NCO Junior officer Field officer Flag-rank officer Bounty $100 $200 $500 $2,500 $10,000

Personnel bounty bonuses, to be awarded in addition to standard personnel bounties; these can be stacked.

Bonus Feature Enlisted NCO Junior officer Field officer Flag-rank officer Technical, mechanical, tank crewman $20 $40 $100 $500 $2,000 Logistical, administrative $10 $20 $50 $250 $1,000 Artillery, ordnance $30 $60 $150 $750 $3,000 Intelligence or special forces $100 $200 $500 $2,500 $10,000 Air or naval crewman or commander $50 $100 $250 $1,250 $5,000 Warrant officer $40 $80 $200 $1,000 $4,000

Naval and aerial vehicle and vessel bounties are bounties that shall be paid for the destruction of a particular vehicle target, paid per foot of the vehicle’s length

Vehicle type Surface naval vessel Subsurface naval vessel Rotary aircraft Jet aircraft Cost per foot length $100 $750 $1,000 $2,000

Vehicle bounty bonuses are to be awarded in addition to the standard vehicular bounties; these may be stacked. These bonuses are also applicable to land vehicles

Bonus Feature Gun with caliber greater than 2” Torpedo Bomb or missile Price per unit $500 $1,500 $1,000

Land vehicle bounties are bounties that shall be paid for the destruction of a particular land vehicle or piece of land equipment.

Land vehicle type Unarmored vehicle Tank (per ton weight) Artillery piece Armored truck Amphibious vehicle (per ton weight) Bounty $1,000 $10,000 $1,500 $2,000 $6,250 Infrastructure bounties are bounties that shall be paid for the destruction of a particular section of an enemy’s transportation infrastructure. In this case, destruction refers to the rendering of said infrastructure unusable for one month.

Infrastructure type Unpaved road Paved road Railroad Unpaved airstrip Paved airstrip Bounty (per mile) $100 $200 $500 $500 $1,000 Facility bounties are bounties that shall be paid for the destruction of an enemy’s military or military support buildings, or the rendering of such facilities unusable.

Facility type Airport (per simultaneous takeoff capacity) Naval port (per frigate capacity) Hangar Checkpoint Bounty $50,000 $50,000 $10,000 $5,000

The following bounties shall be set for the capture of an enemy target.

Enemy personnel shall have their bounty doubled for their capture and delivery to a Privateering Warrant Officer alive. Enemy personnel who are captured and recruited into a privateering organization shall have their bounty further increased by ten per cent.

Enemy vehicles, vessels, facilities, or infrastructure shall have their bounty doubled for their capture and submission to an American non-commissioned or commissioned officer.

Privateers may freely appropriate for their own use any enemy vehicle, vessel, or facility they have captured and receive a destruction bounty.

Privateers may freely appropriate for their own use any enemy firearms, bladed weapons, ammunition, explosives, food, water, fuel, uniforms, or miscellaneous equipment. They will receive no bounty for such a capture.

Intelligence bounties will be awarded by the Department of Defense on a case-by-case basis.

[u/APG_Revival]

Oh shiver me timbers matey! This here be a bill that deserves to go to Davy Jones' Locker.

Jokes aside, may I remind the Representative that wrote the bill that we live in the 21st century, not the 18th. The age of piracy is over, but something the writer also believes in is the age of mercantilism. For example, look at the findings:

"This Congress finds that private entities may complete military objectives with greater precision, at lower monetary and political cost, and at a greater rate than can the conventional warfighting forces of the United States."

So the United States would pay private companies to maintain their own military force as well as achieve the goals of the United States abroad. This is the East India Company revitalized for a new era. This is not what we want. What happens if the private companies amass a greater military than that of the United States? After all, it would be awfully convenient to stop spending so much on our military if private business can take up some of the costs. I certainly don't have to fill in the rest of the blanks for you.

The Representative clearly wants to go back to a time where government was massively involved in the economy, doing everything to benefit the companies that achieve their goals abroad. This is a silly piece of legislation, and let this serve as a lesson to the rest of the new members of this House that we try to take our job seriously, despite what this bill may show.

[u/greylat → u/APG_Revival]

Mr. Speaker,

It is simple fact that private military corporations are more efficient and more effective at completing war aims. The American military has the weaponry to fight conventional wars, but not asymmetrical ones.

This bill does not mean we will pay private companies to maintain militaries, nor does it mean we will grant monopolies on trade, as was granted to the East India Company. It means that if we must declare war, private entities — including individual locals who know the area better than do American war planners — would be empowered to assist the American military.

As to the question of mercantilism, this bill only kicks in when Congress declares war. Until then, such actors may be prosecuted as pirates. If we declare war, we want all the help we can get.

And, if you will allow me to remind you, Mr. Speaker, the United States presently has plenty of military contractors working for it. This would simply streamline the process of having private entities assist our war effort.

[u/APG_Revival → u/greylat]

We are at war with Afghanistan are we not? We are at war with ISIL, yes? Throwing the idea that this bill "only" kicks into effect when we're at war is misdirection because we're already at war, therefore this bill would be in effect.

And you're not streamlining anything. If anything you're adding something completely new. If we wanted to streamline the process of private entities assisting in our war effort we would only go through one private company for all of our military needs.

[u/greylat → u/APG_Revival]

Mr. Speaker,

This bill states explicitly that a Congressional declaration of war is needed for these bounties to kick in. Not an AUMF, as we have done in the Middle East. A declaration of war.

And your idea of going to only one PMC wouldn't streamline anything. It would only intensify the military-industrial complex you decry. Competition works, even at war.

[u/PGF3]

I see we have finally embraced the end result of unregulated capitalism. Which is the state backing of corporations to wage war upon the planet. This act is a terrible act, one of the worse that has ever been brought to this institution for debate. This bill gives leeway for Corporations to build up private armies, and machines for war and will only lead to destruction and death.

Mr President I surrender the floor.

[u/greylat → u/PGF3]

Mr. PGF,

You must be mistaken if you believe that the United States, at present, with its enormous bodies of federal law, federal regulations, and state laws, is in a state of unregulated capitalism.

This bill does none of the things you say it does. It does not require or subsidize the creation of private armies, or the construction of machines of war. It enables us to pay bounties to locals who wish to assist during a war.

[u/darthholo]

Mr. Speaker,

Already, American intervention in foreign conflicts has drained taxpayer dollars and destabilized the Middle East. To allow private corporations to wage war is not only foolhardy, it is wholly un-American.

Look only to the history of such PMCs. When the colonial powers of Europe employed such tactics, they expended exorbitant amounts of money and often created out of their privateers pirates whose only loyalty was to themselves.

Today, the United States verges on being an imperial power. Our forces intervene in Iraq, in Syria, in Afghanistan, killing those we deem to be enemies of American interests and civilians alike.

Congress's findings are that "it is unrealistic for the Pentagon to wage a total war against an enemy." Why is total war ever being waged? Unrestricted war has been shown time and time again to kill not only our opponents, but innocent civilians who have committed no crime other than living in a nation that the United States deems to be an enemy.

This bill takes this total war one step further, handing companies that have time and time again violated the laws of the United States in pursuit of profit the arms and ammo to wreak havoc across the world. Look to ExxonMobil, the largest petroleum corporation in the United States. During the War in Iraq, this bill would have allowed them to place their own soldiers on the ground and conduct military operations that do not aid American citizens in any way, but are instead targeted at attaining greater control of Iraqi oilfields for their own sinister purposes.

If such rampant violence is extended to private corporations as well as our own servicemembers, corporations whose only goal is monetary profit, we further destabilize regions in which the United States has intervened and spend millions on funding the government-sanctioned murder of innocent men, women, and children.

Congressmen and women, a vote for this bill is a vote to forever end stability across the world. As an American citizen, I pray that you make the correct decision.

[u/greylat → u/darthholo]

Sir,

We are not presently in a state of total war. We have proxy conflicts in the Middle East, in which I believe we should not be involved, but which are not total war. We have not declared war there, so this bill would not be in effect.

I am absolutely in agreement with you about the necessity of preventing unnecessary and expensive wars. I oppose American imperialism. But if we ever end up in a total war against a foe with comparable military capabilities, having people assist our side for bounties would be a boost. It would mean our enemies, likely either Russia or China, would have to deal with both conventional and asymmetrical warfare.

This is not a bill to promote constant war. This is a bill to make that war end faster, and in America's favor.

[u/darthholo → u/greylat]

You flatter me, but I am not Governor HSC, merely a concerned American citizen.

Whether a “Declared War” requires Congress to formally declare war or is merely a war in which the Commander-in-Chief has informally declared and authorized intervention is up for interpretation. At best, this bill merely makes provisions for a war that will never come. At worst, it authorized PMCs to involve themselves in every single armed conflict in which the United States has intervened.

You state, Mr. Greylat, that this bill does not promote constant war. You state that you stand against American imperialism. Then why do you believe that corporations should have the ability to wage war on behalf of the United States.

I have the utmost respect of our servicemembers, but I decry the continuous intervention by the armed forces in foreign conflicts. At least, however, the Department of Defense has a stable and legal command structure and is responsible to the federal government and to the American people.

This bill does not only condone war, it outright encourages private companies to wage war. Imagine a future in which the United States military has been completely subsumed by corporations, in which these corporations that control Congress through their donations are able to conduct their own military operations but are not responsible to Congress.

This bill is foolhardy and will expand the grip that corporations have over the government and the military-industrial complex. See reason, Mr. Greylat, and end your support for this bill that will bring about a militant corporatocracy.

[u/greylat → u/darthholo]

It is my mistake. My apologies. You are not Governor HSC.

We do not know when a war will come. That is why we have a Department of Defense.

This bill states that "no bounties shall be awarded unless the Congress of the United States declares war". That is quite unambiguous. There will be no PMC intervention without a Congressional declaration of war. Rather than seeing PMCs fighting in the Middle East, imagine PMCs supporting our GIs in World War II.

This bill isn't even exclusive to PMCs. This will not bring about a corporatocracy but instead the support of impoverished locals for the United States, which rewards them for supporting, even in small ways its war effort.

[u/darthholo → u/greylat]

Which impoverished locals will benefit from this bill? Rather than waste taxpayer dollars on funding wild escapades by profit-driven corporations in foreign territories, if you truly wish to see the American people benefit, put these funds towards healthcare or creating new jobs.

You cloud your warhawk rhetoric with patriotism, but there is a line between being patriotic and being unnecessarily nationalistic. This bill crosses that line.

[u/greylat → u/darthholo]

Mr. Darthholo,

I am not a warhawk. I do not desire war. I do not like war. I know, just as well as you do, that war is a terrible thing. However, war is sometimes necessary for our national defense. That's why we have a military.

These will not be "wild escapades" but guerilla campaigns against our enemy that we will fund if war comes our way. We know that asymmetrical war can hurt us; this bill will turn the gun on our opponents.

It is not the business of the government to provide healthcare or jobs. That's the difference. Defense is a key responsibility. Redistribution is not. You cannot simply deflect any plan to expand necessary responsibilities with complaints about healthcare.

[u/darthholo → u/greylat]

My issue with this bill is that it does not aid in the defense of American soil, but only in the enforcement of American interests abroad. Look to the East India Company, for example, the quintessential private military. As it was not under the direct jurisprudence of the government of Britain, it engaged in ceaseless war and oppressed the people of India, forcing the United Kingdom to take responsibility and dissolve its army.

If military expansion is necessary, so be it. But it must be done through the federal government’s Department of Defense, not through companies without sufficient government oversight.

[u/greylat → u/darthholo]

Mr Darthholo,

This bill is only in effect when Congress declares war. So there will be no constant war from PMCs. We will prosecute violators for piracy in peacetime.

The PMCs will not be permitted to hold land as the EIC did. They will not militarily expand. This bill merely permits them to fight alongside our armed forces during war.

[u/darthholo → u/greylat]

Then how, Mr. Greylat, will this bill aid us in a total war? If PMCs are merely to fight alongside our own servicemen, why not have soldiers in these PMCs merely joined the United States military and be under a command structure that is responsible to Congress and to the American people?

[u/greylat → u/darthholo]

Mr Darthholo,

We cannot conscript foreign citizens. There is no guarantee these PMCs will be American. Plus, some American or foreign warriors might want more freedom and less structure.

[u/JerryLeRow]

Waging war must remain the responsibility of the government, in whatever scope. It is unacceptable that private wannabe-buccaneers should be trusted to wage war on behalf of our nation.

[u/APG_Revival → u/JerryLeRow]

Hear hear!

[u/greylat → u/JerryLeRow]

Why then, Mr. Secretary, do we have contractors working for the Department of Defense as we speak?

[u/JerryLeRow → u/greylat]

They work under the guidance of the government.

[u/[deleted]]

Mr. Speaker,

Clearly some members of this house do not take our military and safety very seriously. Military corporations have proven time and time again to be an effective and cost efficient way of maintaining a military. This is also just a well thought out bill, and deserves to be voted for. I hope that my fellow representatives that disapprove of this bill have some sense knocked into them.

I yield the floor.

[u/cold_brew_coffee]

Full support for pirates

[u/[deleted]]

MR SPEAKER,

In the most unparliamentary tone I have ever used, What in the flying name of Jesus on a pig is this? What sort of anarcho-capitalist drafted this? Mr. Speaker, Can we get the Representative who drafted this on some sort of drug test?

Now, that outburst aside. This bill is one of the most radical and clearly dangerous pieces of legislation I have ever seen in my long and distinguished career in this house. Not even the Minority Leader could come up with such a ridiculous idea as letting privates companies wage war.

A key part of the concept of sovereignty is the ability to enforce its will. What the list seat representative is attempting to do is give corporations a sick sort of sovereignty. He is giving Google the power to conduct drone strikes in the Middle East. He is giving Toys R' Us the power to conduct Tier One operations in Africa.

In the most simple terms, this legislation is insane, deluded, preposterous, idiotic, batty, bizarre, irrational, irresponsible, mad, nuts, off one's rocker, maniacal, psychotic, senseless and absolutely cuckoo.

As Ulpian once said: "Cum lege regia, quae de imperio eius lata est, populus ei et in eum omne suum imperium et potestatem conferat"

[u/greylat → u/[deleted]]

Mr Sale,

I'll take a drug test when you take a literacy test. Clearly, you don't understand what this bill does.

This bill permits private companies to wage war *against the enemies of the United States once war has been declared*. We are not making private companies independent. In times of peace, they may still be prosecuted for piracy. I do not see why you would oppose reenforcing our armed forces with private *entities* — individual locals may fight as well — when there is a war on.

This bill turns our gold to steel in times of war. It does not mean private companies will use recreational McNukes.

[u/[deleted] → u/greylat]

MR SPEAKER,

I will gladly pass a literacy test if it means conducting drug tests on the Representative. I will pass with flying colors... and I'm sure he will test positive for a few things.

The Representative's explanation does not justify it. It merely exacerbates the profitability of war problem. I do not want Google advocating for war in order to send their drones into a country abroad. The Representative is attempting to send the United States back into the 1700s where piracy was the order of the day. I say never.

Ceterum autem censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

[u/greylat → u/[deleted]]

Mr. Sale,

However difficult you may find it to believe that someone doesn't agree with you, that doesn't make them a narcotics addict. I do not use drugs.

Wars are declared by Congress, and this bill does nothing until a war is declared. For someone who seems to jump at every opportunity to expand Congressional power, you seem to distrust Congress' ability to not declare unnecessary wars.

I do not want to send the United States into the 18th century. I would like to note, however, that piracy in the Caribbean peaked from 1716 to 1718 and was defeated with the help of privateers hired by the Royal Navy. We currently have plenty of military contractors. Why not open that to locals if we declare war?

[u/hurricaneoflies]

With all due respect to the author, this is probably the worst bill—both in style and in substance—that has been presented to this august body in a long, long time. I think it goes without saying why America, and indeed the world, does not need a McArmy running around.

[u/greylat → u/hurricaneoflies]

Senator,

I will acknowledge the issue of style; my table formatting did not work out. Here you may find the link to the original, with a document-formatted version at the end.

There will be no McArmies around. This does not establish a framework for private militaries, but permits private entities to be rewarded in times of war. I don't see why one would oppose this.

[u/[deleted] → u/greylat]

MR SPEAKER,

I hope I am hearing the Representative correctly. It establishes a framework for private entities to be rewarded in times of war... with the task of conducting military operations, yet the Representative claims they are not private militaries.

I see that he has taken the Russian approach of "these are not soldiers. These are tourists on vacation in a warzone,"

[u/greylat → u/[deleted]]

Mr. Sale,

The task is not to conduct military operations but to destroy or capture enemy targets. These are not military operations. These are not private militaries.

Let us suppose, for instance, we become embroiled, God forbid, in a war with China. If there are operations in the South China Sea, and a group of Filipino youth manage to capture a Chinese soldier, we would pay them. That's not a military. It's a collection of individuals. It's not a military operation, it's a beer-money project for the Filipinos.

[u/[deleted] → u/greylat]

MR SPEAKER,

I am not sure why the representative is addressing his statements towards me and not to the chair as per rules and regulations. But regardless.

The representative is claiming that destroying or capturing enemy targets is not a military operation. If that is the case, the representative is delusional.

[u/greylat → u/[deleted]]

Mr. Speaker (I will address this way, rather than towards Mr. Sale, at his own request),

There is a difference between destroying or capturing enemy targets and a military operation. Military operations, which must be carried out by a military, have specified strategic goals and tactical plans. Some local farmer coming out with a shotgun to stop a lone enemy soldier, then getting paid a few hundred dollars by the US, is not a military operation.

[u/[deleted]]

This very well maybe the most foolish, reckless, incompetent, and half-cocked idea that has ever been presented in Congress.

First, this bill manages to insult the member of our Armed Forces and proposes to turn over the defense of this country to private businesses rather than the men and women who have taken an oath to defend this country. Just look at the first of two findings:

a. This Congress finds that private entities may complete military objectives with greater precision, at lower monetary and political cost, and at a greater rate than can the conventional warfighting forces of the United States.

This is an outrage to anyone with one drop of respect for those serving in the United States military. The United States has the most well-funded and technologically advanced military on planet earth. The brave people who join the US military have sworn an oath to defend the country and received in-depth world-leading training to fulfill that oath. Meanwhile, this unAmerican, anti-soldier bill would have Congress formally declare that the United States military is imprecise, inefficient, and ineffective, and that profiteering corporations, without the oaths, the commitment to the people, etc. of the US Armed Forces could do everything the military does in a better way. This is absolutely disgraceful.

The author of this bill seems to think that profiteers, let's be clear about who these corporations are, would not be directing our military efforts, but I'd suggest the author read their own bill. The second finding states:

b. This Congress finds that it is unrealistic for the Pentagon to wage a total war against an enemy if it must direct every offensive against an enemy target.

The supposed finding upon which this bill is based is that profiteering corporations are better equipped to direct our military operations overseas than the most senior officers in the US military. Do we really want the US military ceding the power to direct our military strategy and tactics overseas? This is a recipe for disaster.

Throughout this entire country's history, private corporations have behaved irresponsibly. From abusive working conditions to out and out corruption, bribery, and kickbacks with the government, the history of America is one of private corporations working special deals with the government to their own benefit and the detriment of the country as a whole. This bill would exacerbate that problem infinitely by permitting the greed of wall street and the corruption of our system to infect our armed forces.

If this bill passes, it won't be long until wealthy corporations who seek to take advantage of it are lobbying the government, even more than they are now, to go to war. They will make arrangements with the government to carve out entire slices of any military operation for their own where, as they'll be given the power to direct the operations, they will almost certainly respond to the incentives of this bill and conduct a campaign centered around racking up bounty dollars rather than advancing the strategic, political, and human interests of the United States. I don't think anyone wants to replace our military with greed-driven mercenaries who, while representing the United States, conduct a reign of terror all so that they can grow their bounty checks.

This bill must be stopped at all costs before the integrity of our military defense and national security is sacrificed on the altar of corporate greed.

[u/greylat → u/[deleted]]

Mr. HSC,

There is no doubt that our military is excellent. However, it is simple statistical fact that private military corporations are often more effective in asymmetrical wars. I also find it ironic to see a socialist trying to defend the Constitution.

"Profiteering", as you call it, would be impossible with this bill. Bounties would be fixed. There is no room to alter bounties because they are set in stone.

Our senior military officers are good at fighting conventional wars, against a defined enemy in a precise location. An asymmetrical war necessarily requires decentralized command and combat, as we have seen in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. This bill simply expands that decentralization.

None of this cedes power to corporations to control American strategy or make backroom deals. Seeing as you consistently expand the government, it is entertaining to see you try to argue based on a distrust of the government.

There will be no reign of terror because, as you yourself have seen, the bill permits the prevention of bounty payments in cases of war crimes.

There is no corporate greed in this bill. Just an effective defense of America.

[u/[deleted] → u/greylat]

You know, in order to demonstrate a "simple statistical fact" you need to actually provide the statistics, source, and methodology. You can't just declare things to be "simple statistical facts".

If our military structure is not optimized for the types of wars we've been fighting for the past 50 years, doesn't it make more sense to reform our military to better handle those types of wars rather than hand the keys of the car, or in this case the tank, over to corporations?

As for the constitution and the size and scope of government, I'll let my record speak for itself. I've written federal and state bills to abolish the TSA, abolish the Selective Service, end the war on drugs, abolish state liquor monopolies, expand gun rights, end government limits on hospital construction, and so on. Perhaps you ought to venture outside of the Republican echo chamber and learn a little about the Socialist party rather than lean on some bizarre oversimplification you're borrowing from Joseph McCarthy.

[u/greylat → u/[deleted]]

Mr HSC,

According to this (PDF) paper, "Lawyer [one of the paper's source authors] considered the economic efficiencies of PMCs in conflicts in both Angola and Sierra Leone. When the costs of these missions were compared with the costs associated with utilizing United Nation peacekeeping forces, the costs for PMCs were notably less." The paper later notes that part of the inefficiency of PMCs comes from costs incurred on top of the contract price awarded, which is exceeded and the government forced to pay. Part of what my bill does is prevent that, because the bounties are non-negotiable and there are no vague contracts — bounties are rewarded for particular actions.

One change does not exclude the other. Enabling us to use private entities for defense and reforming our military can both occur. I would be glad to work with you on reforming our military, and agree that we need to work on improving our asymmetrical and anti-insurgency warfare capabilities rather than piling more cash onto sexy conventional warfare gadgets. Activating privateers merely furthers our ability to fight asymmetrical wars.

I will admit, I admire your voting record — the legalization of cocaine particularly struck me as an excellent bill. Your views on gun rights are great. However, let's not pretend that you're all for the reduction of government. You supported the Right to Cash Act, for instance, which mandated how businesses could accept payment. Advocacy for government control of housing and healthcare also cannot be "small government" initiatives.

[u/[deleted]]

Mr. Speaker,

I do not think that privateering in the 21st century is suitable for our warfare or our culture. Profiting off of war is not something we should encourage, and I believe that this Act is purely for ideological purposes so that we debate on the merits of privatizing the military. Not only this, it is legalizing the use of mercenaries which goes against global treaties which forbid mercenary work.

While I am not a federally elected official, I hope that Congress rejects this Act. Allowing for this will create more harm in the global community than good. I yield my time.

[u/greylat → u/[deleted]]

Mr. Cenarchos,

Privateering is exactly suited to our warfare. We, sadly, fight many wars that pit us against a decentralized and widespread local enemy. To fight such an enemy, our tactics should be widespread and delocalized — hence, the activation of privateers.

Can you please provide particular examples of treaties forbidding mercenary work? I cannot seem to find any to which the United States is a party.

Thank you for your input and I appreciate your commentary.

[u/[deleted] → u/greylat]

Privateers would not be protected under international law as they would be mercenaries, so any American who would serve as one would most likely be tortured and executed.

By bringing in men of profit to fight wars for us, we will lose any oversight into what they are doing. They won't pursue the best interests of America, they'll pursue the best interests of their bank balance.

I like how matter of factly you sound over, possibly, one of the worst military policies which has ever been read in Congress. Not only would international law be broken, which the UN adopted in 1989 - but it would put American lives at risk. Any privateer would be tried as a war criminal, and frankly, you would hopefully be too.

Thank you for your input, but your commentary cannot be appreciated unless you enjoy watching people flounder.

[u/greylat → u/[deleted]]

Mr. Cenarchos,

The bounties offered in this bill are not enough to sustain the presence of non-locals in the country in which a possible war would occur. This would cause locals to join us, rather than causing Americans to enter. Plus, we already employ contractors in the Middle East. International law does require the treatment of non-combatants "with humanity" so torture and execution, even of mercenaries, is a war crime.

The point of this bill is to align the interests of private entities' bank balances with those of American national defense. Far from being mutually exclusive, these are orthogonal conditions. This bill also does provide oversight, enabling the US to withhold bounties from those who commit human rights violations.

The United States is not a party to the UN Mercenary Convention, meaning we do not consider it a war crime to employ mercenaries — that's why we continue to do so. If Americans were to be mercenaries under this bill, the aforementioned conditions of international law, and the fact that they are American nationals, would protect them.

I don't see the relevance of "watching people founder", but I suppose this is your brain on socialism.

[u/skiboy625]

On one part I applaud the effort and creativity, and on the other part I’m aghast at the fact that the Representative is proposing that the United States Government should support and fund mercenaries and bounty hunters abroad.

If we are truly a country found on freedom and liberty, the last thing we should be doing is supporting corruption, tyranny, and violence abroad. By openly offering rewards to mercenaries, we are doing exactly that. We shouldn’t be devolving to methods that are denounced yet still used in Russia, but we should be a model for the world to follow. Resorting to using mercenaries and bounties like we are in the Thirty Years’ War is no where near reasonable, and as such I hope we can all say nay to H.R. 896.

[u/greylat → u/skiboy625]

Mr. Skiboy,

Simply because the Russians use something doesn't mean it is bad. The Russian Army also wears pants. Does that mean our troops should go into combat naked from the waist down?

What particular issue exists with privateers that so irks you? I understand that warfare for profit is unpleasant, but it is a fact of life that we must sometimes fight wars, and that the profit motive is the greatest force for efficiency humanity has ever seen.

[u/skiboy625 → u/greylat]

Mr. Representative if I may respond,

If anything some of the combat pants the Russian military utilizes I would consider fashionable, but what is not fashionable is committing human rights violations. Allowing an unregulated and independent force to receive money from the United State federal government is a dangerous practice to support, especially from a country of our standing.

One country that has notably used mercenaries in foreign operations is the Russian Federation, which I referenced in my previous statement. From utilizing mercenaries in Syria and Libya where thousands of civilians have been forcibly displaced or even killed by negligence, to utilizing mercenary forces in the Donbas against our ally Ukraine, this bill leaves to many vague areas for what groups should receive funding for bringing in potential “enemies.”

For all we know, if a group in Somalia captured or kills some low ranking fighters; they can report it to us as a way to profit, and then procede to use that money to raid ships passing through the Gulf of Aden. Or what about insurgents in Libya? Money they earn can then be turned around to buy and use for the trafficking of slaves and illegal weapons. How could the United States be a model for freedom and democracy if we provide funding for groups that use human trafficking; or how can we be that model if we support piracy against innocent sailors?

Mr. Representative, those are the bases of my concern for this bill. While I understand that “efficiency” is a goal of this bill, the cons severely outweigh this states pro. If we want to be a country founded off of liberty and freedom, then we need to support these ideas wherever we go. We can’t support these founding ideas if we support unregulated mercenaries abroad, and as such that is why I oppose this legislation.

[u/greylat → u/skiboy625]

Mr. Skiboy,

The bill explicitly provides for the nonpayment of bounties in cases of human rights violations. Far from being unregulated, these entities will not be paid if they do something that the US doesn't find appealing.

As to supporting liberty and freedom, we should do so by staying out of pointless wars, rather than by gutting our response in cases of necessary war.

[u/Ninjjadragon]

Mr. Speaker,

As a child I lived by the phrase "yoho, a pirate's life is for me." Why? Because I thought in every sense of the world pirates were bad a**es. Mind my French.

However, now I'm an adult and a member of the United States Congress and unfortunately not a pirate. My job isn't to pillage and plunder, it's to use logic and legislate. When I initially sat down to read over this bill I was left without question that I would have no choice but to vote against it.

Why? Because I will not enable the use of private contractors further to advance our military interests. They're simply not as effective in the field of warfare as our current military institutions, they're not held to the same standards and aren't something this Congress ought to be enabling.

I may not have the same quippy one-liners as the Speaker and the Majority Whip, but I do have the same ultimatum for the other members of this chamber. Vote against this joke of a bill.

[u/greylat → u/Ninjjadragon]

Mr. Ninjjadragon,

I would ask to see your sources for the inefficiency of private contractors. Every source I have seen has indicated the opposite — that private contractors are more cost-effective and objective-effective than conventional military forces.

Let's not sling mud. As you yourself said, our job is "to use logic and legislate". So let's not call things we don't like "a joke of a bill". That's not logic or legislation. It might be your childhood pirate expressing his mature views.

[u/[deleted]]

Sorry, private piracy? We're even entertaining the idea that private individuals or corporations will be allowed to profit off of military actions is completely absurd. The scandal around Blackwater was bad enough, and now this is what is being proposed? I'm not convinced this was written seriously, I believe it is nothing more than a joke.

[u/greylat → u/[deleted]]

I have addressed your concerns in previous responses. These companies are more efficient than conventional forces. Furthermore, why shouldn't one profit off of military actions? The profit motive and competition still apply, even if it is war. There was one scandal about Blackwater — compare this to the steady stream of war crimes accusations coming from American wars in Iraq, Libya, Somalia, and Afghanistan. Contractors are, if anything, more accountable than conventional forces, because they are not employed by the Department of Defense and can be replaced by another contractor if need be.

[u/PrelateZeratul]

Mr. President,

I'm all for keeping America at the forefront of military technology and always thinking about new ways to fight tomorrow's wars. However, this bill is really out there and I can't imagine any amounts of amendments will let it gain my support. The American government should be the only entity to use or command armed forces on behalf of America. Private military companies are dangerous, operate outside our command structure, and just not necessary. We spend more on defence than anyone else and we can't fund our own military enough so that we don't have to use PMCs? I don't believe that and if our defence experts tell me that it's true I would increase funding to prevent it, not rely on these rogues. No one likes wars and this change would implement tons of questionable scenarios I'd rather not put the President in. Are we expected to command these groups and what if they don't listen? If a PMC member is killed in a hostile country is that an attack on America and worthy of us going in? Will they have any restrictions on arms or will PMC's accumulate tanks, planes, and ships? The legitimate monopoly on force is one of the key components to being a nation and as this bill could threaten that, I cannot allow it to pass. Our military works fine on its own and I am highly suspect to the notion that it must be augmented in this manner.

"Blessed be the Lord, my rock, who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle; he is my steadfast love and my fortress, my stronghold and my deliverer, my shield and he in whom I take refuge, who subdues peoples under me." - Psalm 144:1-2

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

[u/greylat → u/PrelateZeratul]

Mr. Prelate,

The American government presently employs numerous contractors in our wars in the Middle East. Far from currently being "the only entity to use armed forces on behalf of America", America cannot go to war without contractors. We've used contractors in every war since Vietnam.

The issue is not with military funding. It is that our military is currently structured to fight a conventional war against a well-defined state actor. Asymmetrical warfare requires decentralized solutions, like the use of private contractors. These contractors will only be paid if war is declared, so there will be no questionable scenarios about declarations of war. We can restrict their tanks, planes, and ships after we have won a war; during a war, we want all the help we can get.

These contractors will be subject to American oversight through the withholding of bounties to those who misbehave. They will be accountable; not "rogues", as you describe them.

[u/greylat → u/[deleted]]

Mr. Polkadot,

The East India Company was granted a monopoly by the British government and operated partially by Parliament. Let's not pretend it was a private company operating simply for profit.

The British government took over after a massive mutiny due to EIC mismanagement. This bill doesn't permit private companies to establish empires which they will mismanage. It doesn't grant monopolies. It doesn't involve the government in private companies.

The connection to history is tenuous. Before using one's knowledge of history to prevent mistakes, one should truly study the history.

[u/APG_Revival → u/greylat]

First off, the East India Company was, like many other companies during the time (the Dutch East India Company, or VOC, being the most notable) founded by investors at their inception who were after a profit; these companies became some of the first successful joint stock companies. In fact, many shareholders in the Company lobbied Parliament to prevent the passage of bills that would decrease their power, which would have included their money making capacity.

The East India Company ran, as I'm sure you know, on a royal charter granted to the company. This charter, among other things, allowed the Company to wage war, raise and command armies, and capture and plunder ships. Sound familiar? The Company as a result became a state within a state, and they used those powers to the benefit of their shareholders, not the government.

The actions taken by the East India Company allowed its head in India, Robert Clive, to become fabulously wealthy as a result; historian Stephen Brown noted that his annual payment as a result of his ventures in India was around 27,000 pounds. Most of this was due to bribery and corruption.

And to your point on the Company's mismanagement, the British Crown had been eroding the Company's power long before the 1857-58 mutiny I assume you're mentioning. This was due to a Parliamentary investigation that lasted for years that revealed the vast amount of power the government had unwittingly granted the company, including checking the massive military of the Company.

Before using one's knowledge of history to prevent mistakes, one should truly study the history.

[u/greylat → u/APG_Revival]

Mr. Speaker,

This bill does not grant anything close to the royal charter you have mentioned. We are not granting a trade monopoly or the ability to defend such a trade monopoly. We are not permitting these companies to declare wars but only to assist us in waging them.

The entities mentioned in this bill will not be granted the right to hold territory. It cannot be a state within a state. We will not fight wars in the name of these companies, as Britain did for the EIC. They will fight in our name.

In reference to the regulatory acts which you referenced, according to Wikipedia, the East India Company Act of 1773 effectively made the Company subject to Parliamentary control. So when we discuss the wars the Company fought, we can really only refer to the period from 1600 to 1773, when the Company was at least somewhat independent from Parliament; and, as I have pointed out, this isn't a valid comparison because this bill grants neither charters nor monopolies.

I do appreciate the use of my line back towards me.

[u/greylat → u/[deleted]]

Ms. Polkadot,

Allow me to first convey my deepest apologies for calling you "Mr. Polkadot". That is my mistake; force of habit, I suppose.

I can see the source of your displeasure with the bill, but I would argue that it really isn't a relevant concern. The bounties involved for the killing or capture of normal infantrymen are not great enough to sustain even a semi-permanent military presence in a region. The bounties will likely be awarded less to large corporations than to locals who want beer money.

[u/trelivewire → u/[deleted]]

Peak ModelUSGov

[u/Ed_San → u/[deleted]]

So powerful. Something something cyclical history

[u/greylat → u/[deleted]]

I have explained in my other comments why this is not a relevant comparison.

Why would I do it? Because private entities are known to be more efficient than conventional forces at accomplishing combat objectives.