Feral Jundi

Saturday, May 19, 2012

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

Filed under: Afghanistan,Legal News — Tags: , , — Matt @ 11:04 AM

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

 

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

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.

(more…)

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

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

Filed under: Afghanistan,Industry Talk,Legal News — Tags: , , , , , , — Matt @ 11:24 AM

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.

(more…)

Tuesday, April 17, 2012

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

Filed under: Legal News — Tags: , , , , , , — Matt @ 1:20 PM

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.

(more…)

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Maritime Security: The Insanity Of ‘Catch And Release’

Filed under: Legal News,Letter Of Marque,Maritime Security — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , — Matt @ 1:49 PM

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

 

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.

(more…)

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

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

Filed under: Afghanistan,Legal News — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 2:55 PM

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.

(more…)

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress