Trump Wants to Raise Money and Hegseth Wants Warriors; an Ancient Institution Might Please Both

The U.S. military seizing a "dark fleet" tanker carrying an embargoed load of Venezuelan crude oil marked a sea change in the way the U.S. has dealt with the problem of smuggled Iranian, Venezuelan and Russian oil  A vast fleet of unregistered, and uninsured tankers provides the means for crude oil under U.S. and UN sanctions to make its way to refineries in China and keep outlaw regimes in money. 

In my post on Saturday, I sketched out how the network of at least 397 tankers, ranging from super tankers to short-haul tankers, operates outside international law; see 'Dark Fleet' Tanker Seized Near Venezuela Ran Sanctioned Oil to China, Says House Committee – RedState. The administration obtained a warrant to seize (see Terrorism Law Now Unleashed: Feds Unseal Tanker Seizure Order – RedState), and presumably forfeit, the MT SKIPPER and its cargo based on U.S. law, specifically, 

• 18 U.S. Code § 2339B(a)(1): Materiall support to a foreign terrorist organization,
• 18 U.S. Code § 981(a)(1)(G)(1): Civil asset forfeiture of foreign and domestic property belonging to persons "planning or perpetrating" terrorism,
• 18 U.S.C. § 2332b(g)(5): Commission of terrorism, and
• 18 U.S.C. § 981(b): Asset forfeiture.

This opens the possibility of a centuries-old institution being called back into service: the Prize Court.

At the height of the Age of Sail, all maritime nations operated what were called prize courts. These institutions, frequently consisting of a single adjudicator, were responsible for the disposition of hostile warships, privateers, commercial ships, and blockade runners. It was prize courts that converted captured hostile ships into cash.

This is how prize courts operated. A captured vessel was brought into a harbor where the jurisdiction of the court was located. The first step taken was to adjudicate the legality of the capture. At this stage, the ship's owner could contest the capture, and, if the owner could prove the ship wasn't contraband, the captain bringing it in was held personally liable for damages arising from the capture and the delay caused by the capture and prize court action.

Much like modern civil asset forfeiture cases, the court tried a case in rem, that is, "against the thing." A modern civil asset forfeiture case might be called U.S. v. One Solid Gold Object In Form of A Rooster, a prize case could be U.S. vs. MV Minnow, or, in the case at hand, MT Skipper. 

• There is no jury. Under U.S. law, a federal district judge can dispose of prizes.
• There is a presumption of guilt. The ship's owner must prove that the ship was captured illegally. If the owner fails to appear, the ship is automatically condemned as a prize.
• Condemned prizes and their cargo are sold at auction.

Now this is the sweet part: the prize money is divided between the government and the forces that made the capture. 

Under Royal Navy rules, the cash remaining after the prize agent had been paid for selling the ship and cargo was divided according to a fixed hierarchy.

• Two-eighths went to the captain or commander. This often helped them become rich and powerful.
• One-eighth went to the admiral or commander-in-chief who gave the ship its orders. (If orders came directly from London, this eighth also went to the captain). [Editor's note: The commander-in-chief, in the case of the MV Skipper, would correspond to the USSOUTHCOM commander.]
• One-eighth was shared among the lieutenants, sailing master, and captain of marines.
• One-eighth was shared among the wardroom warrant officers (like the surgeon and purser), standing warrant officers (like the carpenter and boatswain), lieutenant of marines, and master's mates.
• One-eighth was shared among junior warrant and petty officers, their mates, marine sergeants, the captain's clerk, surgeon's mates, and midshipmen.
• The final two-eighths were shared among the rest of the crew. Skilled seamen got more shares than ordinary seamen, landsmen, and boys. For example, an able seaman received two shares, an ordinary seaman one and a half, a landsman one share, and a boy half a share.

To keep cut-throat competition to a minimum, a prize was shared among every ship "in sight" of the capture. Britain awarded its last prize money during World War II. Even then, it was losing its grip on manliness. The money went into a "welfare" fund to benefit all sailors.

A successful cruise could make the captain very wealthy. A commander-in-chief of a very active station like the West Indies would become incredibly rich. 

What are we looking at in terms of potential cash flow? The oil seized aboard the MT Skipper is valued at approximately $100 million. The ship itself is valued at roughly $80 million. The 143 "dark fleet" supertankers, such as MT Skipper, would be worth an eye-watering $25.7 billion. The remaining tankers of all classes are worth at least that much. Moreover, if the U.S. government purchased the ships, it would solve the intractable problem of how to supply U.S. forces in the Pacific with fuel in time of war. In a Napoleonic Wars scenario, the USSOUTHCOM commander would have pocketed over $3 billion. Under U.S. law, last updated in 1862, the prize money allocated for the capture of the MT Skipper would be half of the sale value; the other half would go to the government. The division of spoils is:

The ship’s share was divided into 20 parts, of which the captain took 3 unless he had to share with a superior when it became 2, commissioned officers divided 2, warrant officers 2, chief petty officers 3, petty officers 3, and seamen and marines 7.

The 3/20 share due to the captain of the USS Gerald R. Ford would amount to approximately $13.5 million. Each of the approximately 15,000 sailors and Marines in the task force would receive more than $2,000. Ceiba, Puerto Rico, would never recover from the fleet coming in.

Unfortunately, Congress voted to end paying prize money to sailors and marines in March 1899, but, as President Trump has shown, there are ways around laws if the president is so motivated. I think an argument could be made that the law ending prize money is an unconstitutional encroachment on the president's authority, both as commander-in-chief and as the head of the executive branch, which is in charge of selling condemned prizes. At a minimum, it would be interesting to see the dragging given anyone suing to stop the distribution of prize money.

President Trump wants to reduce the national debt without raising taxes, and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth wants to bring back the warrior ethos. I submit that instituting prize courts and imposing no season or size limit on "dark fleet" ships could make both men wildly successful while throttling Venezuela's and Iran's revenue streams and hamstringing China's ability to fight a war.

RedState is your leading source for news and views on administration, politics, culture, and conservatism. If you appreciate our reporting and commentary, please consider becoming a member and supporting our efforts. Use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.