Feral Jundi

Sunday, December 18, 2011

Legal News: Congress Legalizes Cyber War

In language discussing the bill, conferees say that because there is no historical precedent for what constitutes traditional military activities in cyberspace, “it is necessary to affirm that such operations may be conducted pursuant to the same policy, principles and legal regimes that pertain to kinetic capabilities.”

This is big news, and historical. The rules and laws of kinetic war now apply to Cyber War, and this brings up all sorts of ideas. For example, will we see more Cyber Lance type activities?  Maybe a US special forces team combined with civilian hackers to locate and kill/capture enemy hackers or whomever?  Who knows, and who knows how these new rules will apply?

Perhaps we will see the same issues that have popped up for today’s modern wars. Especially with the hybrid of private and public forces in conflict. I say this, because the US does not have the monopoly on ‘hacking force’. If they want the best, they can try to develop that capability internally, but inevitably they will have to reach out to private companies or individuals that are experts in these fields and pay them to do it.

Here is one quote below that really perked me up. Check it out:

Since the military cannot afford to pay enough to recruit qualified software and Internet engineers for this sort of work, it has turned to commercial firms. There are already some out there, companies that are technically network security operations, but will also carry out offensive missions (often of questionable legality, but that has always been an aspect of the corporate security business.)
Some of these firms have quietly withdrawn from the Internet security business, gone dark, and apparently turned their efforts to the more lucrative task of creating Cyber War weapons for the Pentagon. It may have been one of these firms that created, or helped create, the Stuxnet worm.

I read this and thought, why not just fire up the Letter of Marque and Reprisal and give these firms the legal authority and protections necessary to take part in offensive operations?  The LoM is sitting right there in the War Powers clause in the US Constitution, and it just seems to me that we are missing the boat when it comes to doing this stuff. We could be legally authorizing the companies to steal funds and intellectual property from all sorts of enemies out there, and label these companies cyber privateers. (which if the military helped at all, would those commanders or the US be entitled to a cut? lol)

My other thought about all of this is when will we see a Cyber Weapon used in such a way as to actually kill like a real weapon?  And with this public/private partnership we will have, we could potentially see IT Security companies build these weapons, and possibly even launch it. Just imagine if Stuxnet actually caused deaths in some weapons plant or nuclear facility? That would definitely put the ‘War’ in Cyber War. Very interesting….-Matt 

 

America Legalizes Cyber War
December 18, 2011
The U.S. Congress approved a new law on December 14th that allows the Department of Defense to conduct offensive Cyber War operations in response to Cyber War attacks on the United States. That is, the U.S. military is now authorized to make war via the Internet. The new law stipulates that all the rules that apply to conventional war, also apply to Cyber War. This includes the international law of armed conflict (meant to prevent war crimes and horrid behavior in general) and the U.S. War Powers Resolution (which requires a U.S. president to get permission from Congress within 90 days of entering into a war).
The U.S. Department of Defense has long advocated going on the offensive against criminal gangs and foreign governments that seek (and often succeed) to penetrate U.S. government and military Internet security, and steal information, or sabotage operations. Over the past year, and without much fanfare, the Department of Defense has been making preparations to do just that.

(more…)

Thursday, December 15, 2011

Legal News: US Pursuing Legal Protections For Contractors Still In Iraq

Filed under: Iraq,Legal News — Tags: , , , — Matt @ 2:16 AM

You know, this would have been cool if they would have figured this out before this transition. To not have some kind of protections in place will really suck for the contractors that are operating in Iraq still. Hopefully something is put together in a reasonable time. –Matt

 

U.S. pursuing legal protections for contractors still in Iraq
By ERIK SLAVIN
December 14, 2011
The United States is still pursuing an agreement with the government of Iraq that could provide defense contractors working for the U.S. State Department with some legal protections in 2012, U.S. embassy and military officials said last week.
While diplomats and service members working for the State Department are shielded by diplomatic immunity from prosecution under Iraqi law, the thousands of private contractors who will be working for the agency have no such protections.
Contractors have lacked immunity from Iraqi law since 2009, when a new status of forces agreement excluded them.
However, with the pullout of the remaining 50,000 troops from Iraq this year, contractors say they now feel more vulnerable to danger, both from potentially corrupt Iraqi police and from anti-American groups.
“You have to cross a major Iraqi road and, should the [Iraqi police or Iraqi army] decide, they might begin detaining American personnel,” said one contractor, who asked for anonymity because his company has not authorized him to speak publicly.

(more…)

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Legal News: Contractor And MOH Recipient Dakota Meyer Sues Former Employer BAE Systems

Filed under: Legal News — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 11:53 AM

“We are taking the best gear, the best technology on the market to date and giving it to guys known to stab us in the back,” Sgt. Meyer wrote to Mr. McCreight, according to the lawsuit. “These are the same people killing our guys.”
While in the Marines, Sgt. Meyer had served along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Many in the military who have served on the border have said in interviews they view Pakistan as an unreliable ally, as likely to help Taliban insurgents as they are to aid American troops.

Wow, Smedley Butler eat your heart out. lol Although in this case, this is pretty common with contracting. Guys sue their former employers, bosses, and coworkers all the time–some with success, and some without. Although in Dakota’s case, he has a lot of visibility and celebrity backing him up. I would imagine a pretty solid law firm has backed him up as well, just because of that celebrity and visibility.

The other thing that needs to be mentioned is that Dakota is a contractor and is very much a part of this industry. That’s cool and I hope Dakota is able to use his celebrity to promote good leadership and work ethic within this industry. If anyone has anything to add to this story, please feel free to do so in the comments section below. –Matt

Edit: 12/16/2011- Well it looks like BAE and Dakota settled. Here is a quote from CNN about what the settlement said. No word on any monetary settlement.

“BAE Systems OASYS and I have settled our differences amicably,” Meyer said in a joint statement issued by the company, referring to the company by its full name. Meyer praised the defense firm’s support for veterans and generosity to the Marine Corps Scholarship Foundation.
There were no details of any possible monetary settlement.
“During my time there I became concerned about the possible sale of advanced thermal scopes to Pakistan. I expressed my concerns directly and respectfully,” Meyer said. “I am gratified to learn that BAE Systems OASYS did not ultimately sell and does not intend to sell advanced thermal scopes to Pakistan.”

 

Decorated Marine Sues Contractor
NOVEMBER 29, 2011
By JULIAN E. BARNES
Two months ago, Dakota Meyer was awarded the Medal of Honor by President Barack Obama for his service in Afghanistan, the military’s most prestigious award. On Monday, Sgt. Meyer alleged that a defense contractor has called him mentally unstable and a problem drinker, ruining his chances for a job in the defense industry.
Sgt. Dakota Meyer alleges BAE Systems blocked him from a defense-industry job by claiming he is mentally unstable and has a drinking problem.
In legal papers filed Monday, the Marine claims that BAE Systems, where he worked earlier this year, retaliated against him after he raised objections about BAE’s alleged decision to sell high-tech sniper scopes to the Pakistani military. He says his supervisor at BAE effectively blocked his hiring by another defense contractor by making the claims about drinking and his mental condition.
Sgt. Meyer’s complaint is likely to pose a more difficult challenge for BAE, a British company with extensive U.S. operations, than a typical employment dispute. In the September White House ceremony, Sgt. Meyer was hailed for braving enemy fire as he tried to save the lives of fellow Marines who had been trapped in a Taliban ambush.
BAE said it would defend itself, but comments by BAE officials Monday made clear they don’t want to be seen as denigrating a Medal of Honor recipient. “Although we strongly disagree with his claims, which we will address through the appropriate legal process, we wish him success and good fortune in his endeavors,” said Brian J. Roehrkasse, a BAE spokesman. He declined to discuss any specifics of the suit.
Through a lawyer, Sgt. Meyer declined to comment on his suit. Representatives of the Pentagon and Marine Corps said they weren’t aware of the suit.

(more…)

Friday, November 18, 2011

Legal News: Reflex Responses Hires Patton Boggs LLP For Lobbying In DC

Every once in awhile, I like to flex my ‘Google Fu’ skills and do some digging around. Low and behold, I found an interesting little tidbit about the UAE’s mercenary army called Reflex Responses Management Consultancy LLC or R2 for short.

They just hired the services of Patton Boggs LLP for lobbying in Washington DC in the ‘trade’ department. So my question here is what does R2 plan on selling to the US? Could they offer training services, or maybe even maritime security services to US flagged vessels? Who knows, but I do know that Patton Boggs LLP is no small potatoes law firm/consultancy. They also have a long history and relationship with the UAE.

It is also interesting that all of this lobbying registration happened on 10/20/2011, which was the same time that a consulting firm registered to lobby for Maersk and International Org/Masters/Mates/Pilots. Now what I speculate is that Maersk is seeing the writing on the wall when it comes to having armed guards on boats, and they need some folks in DC to help clear things up.

Maersk is up against a Jones Act based lawsuit filed by crew members involved in the famous Maersk Alabama pirate attack that happened a few years back. They are claiming that Maersk put them needlessly at risk for not providing armed security on the boat. It would make sense that Maersk would lobby DC to alleviate some of the legal concerns about having armed guards on boats.

So how does this connect with the R2 deal?  I don’t know, and maybe it is just coincidence. But it is also interesting that Secretary Clinton put out her memo in support of armed guards on boats a couple of days after these lobbyists registered. hmmmm

The other thing to note is that the UAE is on a blitz of sorts to promote anti-piracy efforts. The article I posted below lists a pretty extensive effort and strategy to tackle the problem. So does R2 play into that anti-piracy strategy?

Even if they are not connected, I think Maersk, the unions, and R2 are all interested in getting armed guards on boats. Either for capturing market share in the maritime security industry, or for liability reasons so they don’t get sued by the unions and crews for not protecting seafarers out there. Worse yet, if unions strike because vessels are not providing security, then that could have a serious impact on commerce. Hence why it behooves the government to do something about this. –Matt

 

Patton Boggs LLP for Reflex Responses Management Consultancy LLC
Issues: Trade (Domestic/Foreign)
Specific issue: Issues related to security consulting and related licensing matters.
Lobbyists: ?Farber, David J ?Garrett, John C ?McHale, Stephen (covered positions: Acting General Counsel, Treasury, Jan-Jun 2001; ActGCTreasury01 ) ?Oresman, Matthew Scott (covered positions: Sen.E.Kennedy,Intern,99;SenateJuducCom,LawClrck,05 )
Link to report here.
—————————————————————
Turner Pollard Strategies for Maersk Inc.
Issues: Defense; Marine/Maritime/Boating/Fisheries; Taxation/Internal Revenue Code; Trade (Domestic/Foreign); Transportation
Specific issue: All issues relating to the U.S.-Flag Merchant Marine, including the Jones Act, the Maritime Security Program, the establishment of a Marine Highway, Cargo Preferences Statutes, the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, the Tonnage Tax, Title XI (the Federal Ship Financing Program), and the protection of U.S. merchant ships from piracy.
Lobbyists: ?Pollard, John J III (covered positions: Staff of Rep Ike Skelton ans HASC ) ?Turner, James T
Link to report here.
—————————————————————-
Turner Pollard Strategies for International Org/Masters/Mates/Pilots
Issues: Defense; Marine/Maritime/Boating/Fisheries; Taxation/Internal Revenue Code; Trade (Domestic/Foreign); Transportation
Specific issue: All issues relating to the U.S.-Flag Merchant Marine, including the Jones Act, the Maritime Security Program, the establishment of a Marine Highway, Cargo Preference Statutes, the Harbor Maintenance Trust fund, the Tonnage Tax, Title XI (the Federal Ship Financing Program), and the protection of U.S. merchant ships from piracy.
Lobbyists: ?Pollard, John J III (covered positions: Staff of Rep Ike Skelton ans HASC ) ?Turner, James T
Link to report here.

——————————————————–

UAE renews support to all military operations and critical measures aimed at ending piracy off the Coast of Somalia
Nov 18, 2011
The United Arab Emirates renewed its strong support for all military operations and critical measures aimed at improving the process of pursuing and prosecuting those responsible and involved in piracy acts, considering these measures as a strong deterrent for preventing this phenomenon from continuing.
In an intervention made by Permanent Representative of the UAE to the United Nations Ahmed Al-Jarman before the Meeting of the Contact Group on Combating Piracy off the Coast of Somalia on Thursday at the UN Headquarters, he added : “At the same time, the UAE emphasizes that such measures are not sufficient to eliminate totally and permanently these serious acts at sea, and the international community is required to adopt a comprehensive cooperation strategy that ensures the total elimination of this phenomenon, which constitutes a form of organized crime that threatens countries and is subject to international laws”.

(more…)

Sunday, October 30, 2011

Maritime Security: Britain To Allow Armed Guards To Combat Sea Piracy

Outstanding news. Glad to see Britain taking the necessary steps to legalize armed guards on boats. It just makes sense, and seeing how most of the maritime security companies working right now are British, this will be an added boost.

Now the question I have is how will these new laws mix with Britain’s position on privateers or the Letter of Marque? They are a signatory to the Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law. No telling what other treaties they have signed, and how these sanctioned armed guards fit into that bigger picture?

I would also be interested to see the firearms regulations on what the companies can actually use for protection duties. Remember, today’s pirates are using weapons of war, not firearms used for hunting. You must give these guards weapons that will give them advantage, or at least match the pirate’s fire power. Anything else is just unacceptable in my view. –Matt

 

Britain to allow armed guards to combat sea piracy
By DAVID STRINGER
October 30, 2011
Ships sailing under Britain’s flag will be permitted to carry armed guards on some perilous routes to combat the threat from pirates, the prime minister said Sunday.
David Cameron said Britain was reversing its opposition to the use of weapons aboard ships, amid mounting concern about the risks of vessels and crew being seized by pirates — particularly off Somalia’s coast.
Cameron’s office said the use of weapons on British-flagged ships is banned under firearms laws, but that new rules would be in place within a month.
Britain’s announcement follows the decision in February of the International Chamber of Shipping, the major trade association of ship owners, to support members hiring private security companies to provide protection.
“The evidence is that ships with armed guards don’t get attacked, don’t get taken for hostage or for ransom, and so we think this is a very important step forward,” Cameron told BBC television during a visit to a Commonwealth summit in Australia, where he discussed the issue with leaders from the Seychelles and Mauritius.

(more…)

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress