How else to fight terrorism?

Radical conservative talk-radio host, Neal Boortz has been on a tear, claiming that Ron Paul wouldn't defend the country against terrorism. Mr. Boortz is apparently as casual about fact checking as Michael Moore (see below).

The Constitution explicitly provides for the means to "go after" extra-national criminals, and it is a method that Paul did support. "Terrorism," in the form of Barbary Coast pirates, was a problem that the Founders had to deal with as well. The constitutional means for dealing with such extra-national threats is called a Letter of Marque and Reprisal. In 2001, immediately following the attacks, Ron Paul sponsored legislation to issue such a marque. See: PRESS RELEASE: Paul Offers President New Tool in the War on Terrorism

Had it been issued, the use of a marque in going after bin Laden would likely have been significantly cheaper (in dollars and lives) and more effective. Neither would America have destroyed its standing in the international community, nor would it have created a new generation of Islamicist hatred of America. (But, of course, a marque wouldn't have provided a means for reinvigorating America's defense industry after the fall of the Soviet Union. For that, we needed a faceless enemy and war without end.)