Archive for category Legal News

Legal News: Security Contractor Philip Young Is Back Home After 2 1/2 Years In Afghan Prison

May 19

Posted by Matt in Afghanistan, Legal News | No Comments

Fantastic news, and this is the final chapter of this horrible episode that Philip Young and his family suffered. And the effort to get Philip released was awesome. From the grass roots campaign of getting the word out through social networks, to the constant legal pressure by governments and legal counsel.

Specifically I would like to mention the good work of folks like Elena Fon who tirelessly worked this issue, along with so many others, all using social networks, letter writing, petitions and blogs. The Young family, and friends of Philip worked very hard using these tools, and all together, I think the campaign for raising awareness worked very well.

I also want to thank Kimberley Motley for her steadfast work and dedication towards getting Philip released. She has tirelessly dedicated herself to the cause of justice in Afghanistan and she is awesome.

What is equally important to note is that this was a green on blue incident, that involved a fight to the death between a contractor and an Afghan. It is not the only incident like this that has involved contractors, but what makes it important to note is that Phil won this battle and lived. Unfortunately, there have been far too many of these types of incidents in the last couple of years where contractors and military folks have been killed, and it is sobering to think about.

My only suggestion is to keep in mind what General Mattis once famously said to his Marines. “Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.” This statement is as true for the military as it is for contractors, and that is the reality of this war. -Matt

 

489164340 420x0Legal News: Security Contractor Philip Young Is Back Home After 2 1/2 Years In Afghan Prison

Kimberley at Pul-e-Charkhi prison, working with Phil on his case.

3203048092Legal News: Security Contractor Philip Young Is Back Home After 2 1/2 Years In Afghan Prison

South African security contractor Philip Young arrives at Cape Town International Airport after spending time in a Afghan jail for shooting someone. Young's children, David (22), Dylan (18) and Caitlin (13) were waiting for him at the airport. Picture: Henk Kruger

SA man’s hell in Afghan jail
May 18 2012
By Daneel Knoetze

The threat of execution, al-Qaeda and Taliban members baying for his blood and a Guantanamo Bay-style lockdown. That’s what a Cape Town man endured in an Afghanistan jail for two-and-a-half years.
On arriving at Cape Town International Airport on Thursday, Philip Young spoke of the hardships he went through while held captive by authorities in Afghanistan.
Young was speaking moments after an emotional reunion with his children: David, 22, Dylan, 18, and Caitlin, 13. They hadn’t seen their father for almost three years. When she saw him Caitlin burst into tears.
“It feels great to be home. It was a long ordeal, but now it’s time to get on with my life,” said Young.
Before Young stepped off the plane David said: “It’s been very difficult to be without our dad for so long. I’ve missed the ordinary things – having a beer with him, going cycling, going camping. I can’t wait to do those things again.”
In 2010 Young was found guilty of murder in an Afghan court and sentenced to five years in prison. The sentence was increased to 16 years after the prosecutor tried to secure the death sentence through an appeal. Later it was reduced to seven years.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , ,

Industry Talk: Congress Takes Important Step To Stop Afghan Taxation Of US Aid Dollars

May 9

Posted by Matt in Afghanistan, Industry Talk, Legal News | No Comments

This is good news and I sincerely hope that Congress has taken care of this. I know Doug Brooks and the ISOA have been working hard to overturn this practice, and it is amazing to me that we have allowed Afghanistan to do this. How much money has been lost to this corrupt practice? And what an insult?

Here is a quote from ISOA’s website on what exactly the Afghan government has been doing all of these years.

The Afghanistan Ministry of Finance (MoF) has adopted the practice of taxing foreign organizations hired by the U.S. government to support reconstruction and development in Afghanistan. Despite tax exemptions negotiated by the U.S. Department of State (DoS) and the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) that are applicable to U.S. government (USG) contracts, “tax exempt” companies and organizations continue to receive tax bills from the Afghan government.  Given that the Afghan government can withhold necessary work permits in the absence of tax payments, companies and organizations have little recourse but to attempt direct negotiations with Afghan officials or to pay the tax bills.

Yeah, so that is one of the methods used to harass companies and it is pathetic. If you don’t pay the tax, you don’t get the permit. And really what is being requested by the ISOA and others, is to have Afghanistan live up to their agreements. I mean it is US taxpayer dollars that are going towards aid to help stabilize this country–and this is how Afghanistan honors that?  Here is the ISOA position on this deal.

This tax situation undermines international efforts to stabilize Afghanistan, creates barriers to effective implementation of much-needed aid programs, creates significant new opportunities for corruption within the host government and among companies, and unnecessarily penalizes American taxpayers – costing them millions of dollars – for offering assistance to a foreign nation.
USG contractors in Afghanistan are caught between USG regulations that require valid business licenses and the demands of the Afghan MoF that disputed taxes be paid in order to receive these permits.  Because DoS discourages companies and organizations from negotiating the tax issue with the Afghan government directly, USG assistance is critical. There is an urgent need for clear direction from the U.S. Congress in opposing this unacceptable tax situation.
So after all of this pressure, finally Congress does the right thing. We will see if it works. A big thanks to the ISOA for bringing attention to this matter and keeping up the pressure over the years. -Matt

Congress Takes Important Step to Stop?? Afghan Taxation of U.S. Aid Dollars
07 May 2012
The International Stability Operations Association is pleased to note that the House Armed Services Committee Chairman’s Mark for the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act contains a provision that aims to end unlawful  taxation of U.S. foreign assistance by the Afghan Ministry of Finance (MOF).  The provision requires the Secretary of Defense to determine that the MOF is not violating bilateral agreements with the U.S. before the Department may use a contracting preference for Afghan goods and services, as required under the “Afghan First” policy. ISOA has worked the Afghan Tax issue as an advocacy priority and is committed to ending this inappropriate taxation.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , , ,

Legal News: DoS Statement On The Comprehensive Contingency Contracting Reform Act Of 2012

Apr 17

Posted by Matt in Legal News | No Comments

This is cool. Patrick Kennedy is commenting on this reform act, which will certainly have an impact on contracts with the government for future and current contingency operations. There is also a video of his testimony.

What is of interest is State’s concern of how this law would negatively impact the flexibility they require in order to deal with today’s problems. The Arab Spring is just one example of how quickly things can change out there. Here is the quote:

With regard to the automatic suspension provisions set out in proposed Section 113, we believe that the current, long-standing policy requiring a reasoned decision from the SDO based on a totality of information remains a sound approach, and would have concerns with a provision that imposes automatic suspension and debarment which will likely lead to due process challenges by the affected contractor community and potential court action that could delay necessary action in crisis situations.
Reorganization of Contracting Function (Sec. 131)
We respectfully do not concur with the re-organization of our contracting function proposed in Sec. 131. Defining the acquisition organization of the Department of State in statute would reduce our flexibility and codify the structure, making future adjustments to support new 21st century challenges cumbersome and time consuming. Future legislation would have to be drafted and passed to allow the Department to adjust to the fast changing world of diplomacy, rendering the Department less agile and thereby potentially handicapping the Department’s ability to respond to contingencies. Also, the proposed re-organization would constitute a bureau with not only the contracting function but logistics, motor vehicles, diplomatic pouch, household effects, shipping and storage. If a bureau were to be formed with only the contracting program, it would not be of sufficient size to warrant bureau-level status.

Probably the most relevant section of the statement to the readers of this blog was point about PSC’s and command and control. Here is the quote:

Private Security Contractors (Sec. 202)
The Department has a long history of using contract guards for protection of facilities and personnel stretching back to the 1970s, with enhanced capabilities in the 1990s. Private security contractors (PSCs) are critical to our readiness and capability to carry out American foreign policy under dangerous and uncertain security conditions. Maintaining this capability is particularly important when the Department is taking on expanding missions in contingency operations environments or areas that are transitioning from periods of intense conflict, such as in Iraq and Afghanistan.
That said, we appreciate the intent of section 202. We have sought to reduce risks associated with using contractors through robust oversight of our PSCs, as in CWC Recommendation 4. Contractors are operationally overseen and contractually managed by direct hire Department of State personnel, and we have instituted cultural training requirements, and contractor behavioral standards of conduct to ensure the professionalism of PSC personnel. The Department is staffed to properly oversee PSC compliance with these contractual requirements in Iraq and Afghanistan.
State strongly disagrees with the language of paragraph Sec. 202 (b)(1), which has the combatant commander determining whether performance of security functions by contractor personnel for the Department of State in overseas contingency areas is appropriate and necessary. This language is too open-ended and is not acceptable as it infringes upon the Secretary of State’s primary role in leading and carrying out foreign policy. The Secretary of State and the Chief of Mission have statutory responsibility for the safety and security of personnel under Chief of Mission authority. We routinely discuss the security situation in-country with DoD and other agencies present at post; and in situations where U.S. military forces are present, that coordination is intensified and ongoing. We fully comply with OFPP’s new Policy Letter on inherently governmental and critical functions, and our PSCs never engage in combat operations. We hope to work with you and your staff to find mutually acceptable language in this section.

What is interesting here is that 202 (b) (1) is a challenge to State’s control over their security force. It also causes confusion over who is really in charge of that force, which is not good in contingency operations.

If anything, the two groups should work together to ensure State’s security force is on the same sheet of music with the mission. Unity of effort is what should be the focus. But the language of this section is vague as to who is really in control of those forces. So I think State has a point here, but that is my personal opinion. Either way, check it out. -Matt

 

The Comprehensive Contingency Contracting Reform Act of 2012
Testimony
Patrick F. Kennedy
Under Secretary for Management
Statement before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight
Washington, DC
April 17, 2012
Good morning Chairman McCaskill, Senator Portman, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you for your invitation to appear here today to discuss Senate bill 2139, the Comprehensive Contingency Contracting Reform Act of 2012.
We share the Committee’s desire to ensure that efforts continue to strengthen contingency contracting. S. 2139 raises a number of important issues. While our review of the bill is ongoing, we welcome the opportunity to discuss our initial views on the bill’s provisions.
We understand that this legislation builds on the recommendations of the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan – an independent, bipartisan panel that you, Senator McCaskill, created along with Senator Webb in 2007. The State Department worked continuously with the Commission on Wartime Contracting (CWC) from when it was formed in early 2008 until it sunset last August, and gained valuable insight from the Commission’s efforts. We have taken many steps to improve our contingency contracting over the past several years, based on the CWC’s reports, recommendations from other oversight entities, and our own lessons learned.
The Department’s participation in CWC’s study was headed by the Office of the Under Secretary for Management and the Bureau of Administration. In addition to numerous meetings with the CWC, senior Department officials testified at seven formal CWC hearings.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , , ,

Maritime Security: The Insanity Of ‘Catch And Release’

Apr 10

Posted by Matt in Legal News, Letter Of Marque, Maritime Security | No Comments

A EU NAVFOR spokesman was unable to provide Sky News with a figure for how many suspected pirates had been returned to Somalia without charge.
“I don’t have the number for those returned to Somalia – a number of reasons but largely because it was not initially considered important to maintain the number,” the spokesman told Sky News. -Link to quote here.

This is the part of our global anti-piracy campaign that absolutely kills me. It’s as if these navies are sport fishermen, and they are releasing their catch so it can grow bigger, and spawn more fish, so they have more fish to ‘catch and release’ in the future.

Now of course we are dealing with the legal mechanisms, or lack there of, of each country that has laws that deal with piracy.  So when a navy captures a pirate or suspected pirate, those navies are operating under the guidelines of those laws. Because these countries have not implemented sound anti-piracy laws, we unfortunately see pirates captured and then release because of some legal mistake or loophole. Or, those that did the arresting of the pirates did not capture and detain properly, or properly document or obtain witnesses, etc.

So who are the worst offenders of ‘catch and release’?  That is a good question and I tried to do a little search for any comprehensive reports on this problem. Below, I have found a few recent articles on Canada and the UK, and their deficient legal mechanisms in place for prosecuting pirates. Here is a sample for the UK.

Fewer than one in every five suspects picked up around the Horn of Africa over the past four years have been prosecuted for piracy-related offences, the Ministry of Defence has admitted. The figures will fuel growing criticism of Britain’s involvement in the anti-piracy operation.
Official MoD figures obtained by The Independent on Sunday show the Royal Navy has boarded 34 vessels suspected of piracy in the Indian Ocean since volunteering to lead Operation Atalanta, the EU’s first naval mission, in 2008. However, on all but six occasions, the gangs rounded up were taken to the nearest beach and released – despite often being caught with equipment including guns and ladders. A list of boardings since November 2008 shows that the navy has detained a total of 279 likely pirates but allowed 229 of them to go free, some in groups of up to 17 at a time. Fifty more were sent on for prosecution in Kenya, the Seychelles or Italy.

Amazing. This is just insane, and this practice of catch and release must end.  Also, I wanted to mention that all the nations involved have had similar catch and release stories, so the UK or Canada are not the only ones. I have been documenting this for awhile now, and it is very frustrating.

I also wanted to mention that we are missing opportunities of detention by not allowing private security companies to detain and arrest these pirates. Every engagement could turn into an arrest and a removal of these criminals off of the high seas. By issuing Letters of Marque to PSC’s or the captain on these boats, nations could give them the same arresting powers that their navies currently have.

Within the terms of the LoM, you can define exactly how arrests are to be done and the specific rules for detention and transportation of prisoners. A country can also offer bounties for each pirate that was legally detained and prosecuted. We have GPS and video filming capability, and these can all be tools required under the terms of the LoM in these modern times.

As it stands now, security companies are executing the ultimate in extreme justice on the high seas. That would be actually killing pirates during the defense. So the question I have is why is killing pirates more appropriate than detaining them? If anything, a security company should have the option of capturing those pirates instead of just killing them. It would also take a load off of the larger navies who are tasked with anti-piracy.

So why capture them alive? Well, for intelligence purposes, a pirate that is alive and talking, is far better than a dead one. Also, by capturing them, we take them out of the game.  Of course killing them takes them out of the game permanently, but sometimes killing these pirates is not feasible within the course of current rules of engagement.

In one scenario, what if the pirates attacking the ship decided to stop their attack and just give up for whatever reason? Or during their attack, their engine fails and they get within killing range–so they raise their white flag right there. Does an armed guard execute these pirates who are trying to give up, or do they detain them? Or do we just let them go?  And also, if that pirate vessel is no longer sea worthy because armed guards made it so, and now pirates are sinking, is there any obligation at all to save and detain those pirates? These are all questions that could be answered with an effective Letter of Marque regime and bounty program, that makes capturing pirates something of interest to security companies on these vessels.

I mention bounty, because even with a LoM, security companies will not be entirely motivated to detain. An effective bounty or reimbursement program would be necessary to make up for the costs of such an offense industry. You must also incentivize the process in order to create a vibrant offense industry. A company would be risking life and limb to go that extra mile to capture a pirate crew, so companies must have some mechanism in place for compensation.

So those are my thoughts on the whole thing. The laws dealing with piracy need to catch up, and we also must look at legal mechanisms that will help to make the elimination of piracy more efficient and effective. -Matt

 

4999b91530e9c50fb5494ac60865 grandeMaritime Security: The Insanity Of Catch And Release

Navy frees four out of five suspected Somali pirates
Britain criticised for ‘particularly poor record’ in international crackdown on Indian Ocean piracy
Brian Brady
Sunday, 8 April 2012
Hundreds of suspected pirates arrested by the Royal Navy off the coast of East Africa have been immediately set free – to continue threatening merchant vessels in one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes. Fewer than one in every five suspects picked up around the Horn of Africa over the past four years have been prosecuted for piracy-related offences, the Ministry of Defence has admitted. The figures will fuel growing criticism of Britain’s involvement in the anti-piracy operation.
Official MoD figures obtained by The Independent on Sunday show the Royal Navy has boarded 34 vessels suspected of piracy in the Indian Ocean since volunteering to lead Operation Atalanta, the EU’s first naval mission, in 2008. However, on all but six occasions, the gangs rounded up were taken to the nearest beach and released – despite often being caught with equipment including guns and ladders. A list of boardings since November 2008 shows that the navy has detained a total of 279 likely pirates but allowed 229 of them to go free, some in groups of up to 17 at a time. Fifty more were sent on for prosecution in Kenya, the Seychelles or Italy.
The Government has acknowledged the “catch and release” strategy is often an “unsatisfactory outcome”, although ministers also maintain it helps to disrupt pirate networks.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Legal News: GardaWorld Contractors Charged With Weapons Smuggling In Afghanistan Declared Innocent And Freed

Mar 27

Posted by Matt in Afghanistan, Legal News | No Comments

Thanks to Kimberley for giving me the heads up on this. This is great news and I am glad these two British security contractors and two local nationals (I am assuming) were freed and declared innocent. No word if the company had to use bribes or some kind of cash payment to get these guys free, or if a court of law legitimately released them based purely on their innocence.

I would also be curious about these other two local Afghan contractors, just because nothing was mentioned in the story about their status. Logic being that they were released along with the two Brits, but you never know?  Either way, it is still great news. -Matt

Edit: 04/21/2012- Just to update everyone on this, Kimberley was able to secure the release of all four contractors and they were all released the same day. She also represented all four – two Brits, two Afghans.

 

Two Britons released after Afghanistan arrest
Mar 20, 2012
Two British men arrested in Afghanistan with 30 AK-47 assault rifles have been released and cleared after a January arrest for weapons smuggling, their Canadian employer said Tuesday.
Julian Steele and James Davis were detained while driving through Kabul with the rifles, whose serial numbers had been erased. The Afghan government said the men did not have proper documentation for carrying weapons and were charged with illegal weapons smuggling.
“I can confirm that they were freed and declared innocent,” GardaWorld security firm spokeswoman Nathalie de Champlain told AFP in Montreal, without providing further details.
The firm, which provides global risk consulting and security services, has long denied the allegations, saying the weapons were “properly licensed” and were being taken to be tested at a shooting range for future purchase by GardaWorld.
Two Afghan nationals traveling with the men were also detained.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , ,

Publications: Structuring A Sustainable Letters Of Marque Regime, By Lieutenant Todd Hutchins

Mar 23

Posted by Matt in Industry Talk, Legal News, Letter Of Marque, Publications | No Comments

A big hat tip to David Isenberg for finding this paper and writing an excellent article about it. Also bravo to the California Law Review for publishing this paper and hopefully between this site and David’s, we can really promote this thing. I am always on the lookout for modern legal interpretations of, and the possible uses for the LoM.

It is also cool that the author of this paper is an officer in the US Navy and a current JAG student. Maybe he can come up and talk a little about any feedback he has received for this paper, and the reason why he chose this particular topic.

Now for a couple of points of interest. Lt. Hutchins is more focused on an international LoM system, as opposed to countries issuing LoM’s. You know, I don’t think this approach would work, just because personally speaking, I would rather answer to the laws and customs of my own country versus answering to an international court. What is to prohibit any biases towards me and my nationality in such a international court?  So personally, I would much rather have a LoM issued by a country whose legal system I trust and would give me the best odds in a trial of my peers–from my country.

I still think companies would seek an internationally issued LoM. Especially if the profit margin was there. If it is not, then the risk will definitely not equal the reward and this industry will not thrive. You really need to make the enemy into the ‘Blufin Tuna’ or ‘Buffalo’ of prizes.

Which brings me to my next point. Offense Industry requires a strong profit motive for the destruction or capture of a declared enemy. The reward must equal or be greater than the risk in this case. I tend to lean towards greater than the risk, just because we want extreme competition for this highly valuable enemy.

So the question with this is if the enemy has enough assets that can be seized and decided upon in a prize court. The guys with the money are on land or hiding out in Dubai or wherever. How will a company be able to seize their assets on the international stage?

Now privateers like Captain Morgan did do land raids to capture enemies and their assets. He was quite successful at it, and if we were to target Somali pirates, then allowing companies to raid wealthy Somali investors in Somalia or elsewhere would be key. But then that would require special agreements with those countries that these investors are hiding in. The LoM would have to be very specific and comprehensive in this regard.

Or, the issuing party could throw in bounties and create a false market out of the whole thing. To artificially attach value to these targets, as well as allow companies to seize assets. That to me would be optimum, just because you really have to sweeten the pot for companies to get involved with this thing. Perhaps the 10 percent that governments would receive via prize courts, would go back into the pot for bounties and costs of running prize courts?  Raising money for bounties is a factor when creating artificial values of targets.

I also applaud the author for identifying how expensive the current Defense Industry is for maritime security. I have mentioned in the past that DI’s are costly, and they do nothing to eliminate the problem. If anything, DI’s profit from the continuation of war or piracy, and it is against the best interest of these participants to remove the very thing that gives them their reason for existence. But DI’s have their place, and I believe that in order to reduce the costs of DI, you need to also implement an offensive capability. You will always need guards to protect that in which you love, but you must also have a force tasked with hunting the bad guys–to keep them off balance and put them on the defense. And ultimately, you would like to make piracy into a very unprofitable game for all parties thinking about getting into that business.

Finally, I would like to add one more deal to this review, just to emphasize the significance of profit and reward in warfare. This quote comes from Sun Tzu.

Now in order to kill the enemy, our men must be roused to anger; that there may be advantage from defeating the enemy, they must have their rewards…Therefore in chariot fighting, when ten or more chariots have been taken, those should be rewarded who took the first. Our own flags should be substituted for those of the enemy, and the chariots mingled and used in conjunction with ours. The captured soldiers should be kindly treated and kept….This is called, using the conquered foe to augment one’s own strength.- Paragraphs 16, 17, 18, Chapter 2, ‘Waging War’.

Even Sun Tzu understood the value of reward in war.  Might I add that the interpretation of ‘rewards’ refers to spoils, and not some ideological reward of just ‘winning’. Although that has it’s place for incentive, but feeling good about a win does not pay the bills as they say. lol

I should also note that Sun Tzu also delved into the concept of the cost of protracted war. It is expensive, and if there is no element of a strategy focused on eliminating an enemy, and industry is only used for defense, then the costs will continue to drain the treasures of those nations and companies with interest in the matter.

There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare…It is only one who is thoroughly acquainted with the evils of war that can thoroughly understand the profitable way of carrying it on. -Paragraphs 6,7, Chapter 2, ‘Waging War’.

That pretty much sums up why wars should be fought as quickly as possible, and why there should be thought about creating an industry that profits from ending it, and not ‘carrying it on’. Something to give balance or even counter strong DI’s that come about from prolonged warfare. -Matt

 

 

Structuring A Sustainable Letters Of Marque Regime: How Commissioning Privateers Can Defeat the Somali Pira…

Tags: , , , , , ,

Legal News: McCaskill, Webb Introduce Comprehensive Contracting Reform Legislation

Mar 2

Posted by Matt in Legal News | 1 Comment

Thanks to POGO for posting this news and I would love to hear some feedback from our community on this. As an American and as a tax payer, I am all about contracting reform that leads to savings and minimizing waste and fraud. As a contractor, I am also enthused because I want to see good companies rewarded, and poor companies punished in this industry. Any tools that help make this process called contingency contracting more efficient, an asset to national interest and security, and rewards good behavior/punishes bad when doing business with private industry, is a good thing.

Below I have posted two videos made by the Senators that describe this legislation and all of the work that went into it. POGO provided a basic summary of some of the key points in this legislation on their website and here is a PDF of the legislation.

I guess the only reservation I have is the secondary effects of legislation like this. It is very hard to tell how some of this stuff will impact the guy on the ground. Will it increase the quality of contracts out there?  Will it hinder my ability to provide security services on these contracts?  Will this legislation hamstring national security, or enhance it?

Another fear is that now that the wars are winding down, that the lessons learned about contracting during war time will disappear or be marginalized. They mentioned this fear in the videos below, and it is food for thought.

My final point is that bravo to both Senators for recognizing the value of contractors. We are the other ‘All Volunteer’ force that makes our current volunteer military system work. These wars would have been radically different if the forces and support forces were raised by a draft. I personally think that a military supported by a contractor force is far more effective than a ‘slave army’.

A slave army is one where many of the participants are there because they are forced to be there. There is quite the difference between a military and contractor force filled with folks who want to be there or want to fight, and a conscripted military partially filled with folks who do not want anything to do with fighting or being in a war.

This system makes all the difference for war planners and political leaders who need time and flexibility when fighting an enemy and/or country that is not easily defeated within a short period of time. They need that flexibility for the politics of war, and they need that flexibility when situations change dramatically in a war–like losing partners in a coalition.

Does it make it easier for a country to go to war?  Maybe. Or maybe we have developed a way of warfare that fits well within the mindset and fabric of a modern liberal democracy? It also fits well within the plans of strategists and leaders tasked with protecting this country and supporting national interest. -Matt


McCaskill, Webb Introduce Comprehensive Contracting Reform Legislation

Wednesday, February 29, 2012
On Wednesday, February 29, 2012, Senators Claire McCaskill and Jim Webb introduced legislation to overhaul the federal government’s planning, management, and oversight of wartime contracting.  The Senators’ comprehensive reform legislation (S. 2139) builds on the recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan – an independent, bipartisan panel that Senators McCaskill and Webb created through legislation they introduced in 2007.
Press release here.

 

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Legal News: Four GardaWorld Contractors Charged Over Weapons

Feb 1

Posted by Matt in Afghanistan, Legal News | No Comments

Here is the latest status on the four GardaWorld security contractors that were detained by Afghan authorities for transporting weapons. If GardaWorld or any friends and family would like to speak about this incident, please feel free to do so in the comments. I would also suggest to contact Kimberley Motley in Afghanistan for any legal assistance if the company is looking for resources. -Matt

 

Britons charged over Afghan guns
January 31, 2012
Two British private security contractors arrested four weeks ago in Afghanistan on suspicion of smuggling AK-47 assault rifles have been charged by Afghan authorities.
Local police detained the men, named earlier this month as Julian Steele and James Davis, along with two Afghan colleagues in the capital Kabul on January 3.
Afghan officials said they were found to be transporting 30 AK-47s with their serial numbers scratched off and did not have the necessary firearms permits.
The international security firm all four men were working for, GardaWorld, confirmed on Tuesday that a charge sheet had been filed.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , ,

Legal News: Iraq Releases 3 Security Contractors That Have Been Detained Since December 9th

Dec 27

Posted by Matt in Industry Talk, Iraq, Legal News | No Comments

I have no clue what company these guys were working for, but stuff like this burns me up. The US has had plenty of time to plan for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, and prepare the legal battlefield for security contractors and others. These folks must have legal protections or some kind of an agreement established with Iraq so that these contractors can perform the service they were hired to do.

The other thing that bothers me with this is that two of these contractors were Americans. Yet again, why isn’t the DoS fighting tooth and nail to get every reasonable protection and agreement they can with Iraq so that US citizens at the least are treated fairly and with dignity. I mean someone should be reminding Iraq about how much blood and treasure the US has expended in this whole thing. Or remind them that we did not take their oil and other treasures, like most armies would have done in the past. (yep, I went there….)

The partners of US contractors deserve to be treated fairly and with dignity as well. The Fijians have certainly lost contractors in this war doing extremely dangerous missions all over Iraq. Missions that helped support efforts to rebuild Iraq and helped to encourage peace and stability there. There are and will be other contractors from other parts of the world who are supporting the mission to rebuild post war Iraq, and to treat them with disrespect is not right.

Either way, I think most contractors in Iraq have the feeling that regardless of whatever laws or agreements that are passed or lack there of, Iraq will do whatever they want. So I expect to see more of this kind of thing over the next year or couple of years. And contractors will do in Iraq, like they normally do in all countries where there is no SOFA, or has a corrupt/weak legal system. They will accomplish the task as best they can, and take huge risks in the process. I am sure money will be thrown all over the place in order to buy off a police officer or ministry official, or free a contractor from detention, or whatever. That is how these things work…. -Matt

 

NY Rep. King: Iraq releases 3 security contractors
December 27, 2011
A U.S. congressman from New York says three security contractors, including two Americans, have been released by Iraqi Army forces after they were held for more than two weeks.
Republican Peter King announced the releases of the men Tuesday. He identifies them as an Army veteran from Long Island, a former National Guardsman from Savannah, Ga., and a man from Fiji. He says they were working for a security firm when Iraqi Ministry of Defense officials rejected paperwork prepared on their behalf by the Iraqi Ministry of Interior and held them Dec. 9.
The men weren’t charged with any crimes. King says they were released Tuesday after efforts by his office, the State Department, the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, the Defense Department and the White House.
Story here.

Tags: , , ,

Legal News: A Former Security Guard Files A Class Action Against SOC

Dec 22

Posted by Matt in Legal News | 16 Comments

This is interesting because it details a little bit of the recruiting practices of this company. I have heard about the 65,000 a year dollar number thrown around before, but I did not know that SOC was playing around with the numbers like this. Here is the quote:

Risinger, a California resident, says he was hired in 2010 to work as an armed guard at a Baghdad military base , on a 1-year assignment for a flat salary of $65,000. But when he and others arrived in Iraq, he says they were told that the salary was “calculated based upon a $17.36 hourly rate, which hourly rate would dictate class members’ actual pay based upon ‘the number of hours on your time sheet.’ At that hourly rate, without overtime, an employee would earn $36,108 a year. A worker would have to work 72 hours a week at straight time to earn $65,000 a year.

That sounds a lot like the whole ‘bait and switch game’. Meaning they recruit folks with the idea that they would get a specific amount, and then once in the war zone, they would clarify what the individual would really make. Which usually would be less money than originally offered. The IC has the option to suck it up and take the pay cut, or get on a plane and go back home. The companies usually bank on the idea that the IC will just suck it up and stay.

Although the problem with this is that usually this practice creates disgruntled workers, and with good reason. So then you have guys working the contract that could care less about doing a good job, who do not trust the company, and are doing all they can to secure another job somewhere else.

That is a horrible way to do business, and any company that thinks this is an acceptable practice is wrong. You might save a little money in the short term, but you will lose money because you have to keep hiring new guys and fly them over all of the time to deal with high attrition. Not only that, but you are in constant threat of default on contract because you have IC’s that could at any time just leave because they do not want to work for the company. You also lose out on company reputation, and you lose the most valuable asset a company could have–experienced good leaders.

Experienced good leaders are the ones that believe in the company and contract, and have stayed around long enough to know the job really well and know how to manage it. They are also good at leading people, and making sure everyone is happy and doing the job. Any company that has set up a system that does not grow and keep experienced good leaders, will certainly suffer the consequences of such poor practices.

Also, if the government was focused more on best value contracting, and stopped this practice of lowest priced technically acceptable contracting, then they could actually pick companies based on how they treat their people. A contracting officer should be able to take a look at the attrition rate of any company and ask, is this the kind of company we want protecting our camps in the war zones?  And what causes such a high attrition rate within this company?  Or even ask if the IC’s of that company are happy to be there and like the company they are working for?  If the contracting officer is getting some intense negative feedback from a multitude of disgruntled IC’s who do not trust the company, then that might be a sign that the company is not exactly the best folks to do business with. -Matt

Edit: 01/01/2012 By the way folks, the lawyer for this particular class action is reaching out to all former or current SOC contractors and employees listed within a specific time frame. If the case is successful, then expect to get a piece of the settlement or award if you are within that group. Here is the email he was sending out.

We have brought a class action lawsuit on behalf of all SOC employees (former and current) who worked for the Company between December 19, 2009 and December 19, 2011 for unpaid wages, including overtime, rest breaks, meal breaks and possible other items like medical expenses. While the class action process can be slow, we expect to be obtaining from SOC within the next 6 months the names of all individuals that would make up the class of employees. In the meantime, I am also keeping record of all persons, like yourself, who have experienced the labor code violations we allege in the complaint so that I can cross-check the list we get from SOC with the names of the people we have been contacted by to make sure that you are included in the class and any settlement unless you choose not to be a part of it. There may come a time when I do need to get declarations from persons like you to support the case and when that happens, I will certainly reach out to you.

Best, Scott

Scott E. Gizer- Partner Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae LLP,  sgizer@earlysullivan.com www.earlysullivan.com phone: 702 990 3629

 

Ripped Off in Iraq, Class of Guards Claims
By NICK DIVITO
Wednesday, December 21, 2011

A private security guard in Iraq says in a class action that his employer SOC Nevada made its employees work up to 12 hours a day, seven days a week, in “ultrahazardous conditions” without overtime pay or breaks.    “SOC’s core mission changed from ‘Securing Our Country’ to ‘Lining Its Pockets’ when it began to recruit employees … under false promises of a fixed salary and scheduled with time off,” lead plaintiff Karl Risinger says in the complaint in Clark County Court.     “[D]ue to a lack of adequate staffing driven by corporate greed,” SOC subjected its armed guards to “undue risk by jeopardizing the physical and psychological condition of the class members in the course of ultra-hazardous activities,” the complaint states.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , ,