Feral Jundi

Saturday, April 17, 2010

Maritime Security: The Catch And Release Saga Continues–Kenya Falters On Prisoner Deal

   Thanks to Gary for sending me this.  I read this and laughed, and then I wanted to pull my hair out.  How incredibly frustrating this must be for the navies out there that continue to capture these pirates, and then let them go?  At this point, the only real options available are either to kill these pirates, or let them go back home with a full tank of gas and some food so they can come back and do it all over again.  It is the ultimate criminal venture, because there is no punishment.

    All you have to do is survive the assault on your target, and collect your pirates salary in the form of a ransom.  If the Obama administration wanted to provide some leadership in an area of this issue, squaring away the legal mechanism for dealing with these thugs would have been an excellent move. –Matt

—————————————————————–

Diplomatic eruption over piracy aid

April 17, 2010

Kenya’s U-turn over a deal to try Somali pirate suspects is based on Nairobi’s conviction that the European Union has been slow to hand over cash promised months ago, according to people close to the situation.

Diplomatic row erupts over piracy aid payments

Kenya’s U-turn over a deal to try Somali pirate suspects is based on Nairobi”s conviction that the European Union has been slow to hand over cash promised months ago, according to people close to the situation.

The EU is now seeking a meeting with the Kenyan government to find out where it stands, and is actively looking for other countries in the region willing to undertake prosecutions. EU sources insist that Kenya has not made any formal complaints over the issue.

(more…)

Friday, April 16, 2010

Legal News: ‘To Deny Hostage Takers The Benefits Of Ransom’–W.H. Somali Piracy Policy

    U.S. government policy is “to deny hostage takers the benefits of ransom, prisoner releases, policy changes, or other acts of concession,” the White House said in a statement today.

***** 

   This is the only article I could find that listed the administration’s follow up statement on the matter.  This quote was also added as an update to this article. I have not seen a lot of stuff written on this, primarily because it is still kind of new and vague.  A reporter needs to nail down the White House on this, because I am sure there are shipping companies out there just scratching their head.  Does this new order expressly prohibit paying ransoms to pirates or not?

   If a lawyer (in the article below) states that this is vague and could be interpreted one way or the other, I tend to think that the American shipping industry is pretty confused right now.

   It could also mean that this is a hint that the administration is dropping on the US shipping industry.  A hint that says ‘you guys should probably think about doing something other than paying the salaries of Somali pirates with 3 to 5 million dollar ransoms’. Who knows, and we will see how this turns out. –Matt

—————————————————————-

Obama Order May Block Ransoms Paid to Somali Pirates

April 15, 2010 (updated)

More From Businessweek

(Adds White House comment in fifth paragraph.)

By Gregory Viscusi

President Barack Obama signed an executive order freezing the assets of Somali militias that could also make it illegal for U.S. ship owners to pay ransoms to pirates.

The executive order signed late yesterday bars any U.S. citizens and companies, as well as their overseas branches, from having financial dealings with a list of 11 militia leaders and the Islamic guerrilla group al-Shabaab, as well anyone that has “engaged in acts that directly or indirectly threaten the peace, security, or stability of Somalia.”

While never using the word “ransom,” the order includes “acts of piracy and armed robbery at sea” among those acts.

“The wording could definitely be construed to make payments of ransoms illegal,” Bruce Paulsen, a partner at Seward & Kissel in New York, who negotiated a ransom payment with Somali pirates for a U.S. owned ship hijacked in 2008, said in a telephone interview.

(more…)

Friday, April 2, 2010

Legal News: DoJ Witch Hunt Continues–Now KBR Is In Trouble For Using Security Guards

Filed under: Industry Talk,Iraq,Legal News — Tags: , , , — Matt @ 4:02 AM

   The shock of it all. Pffft.  KBR actually contracted security services in Iraq, because the Army and military was too busy with other things….. like fighting a massive insurgency in Iraq.  The DoJ witch hunt continues….. –Matt

—————————————————————–

KBR Charged With FCA Violation for Unauthorized Security Guards

By Joe Palazzolo

April 1, 2010

Defense contractor Kellogg Brown & Root Services billed the federal government for unauthorized private security guards in Iraq, the Justice Department alleged in a lawsuit.

The complaint, filed Thursday in federal district court in Washington, said 33 KBR  subcontractors, as well as the company itself, used armed guards from 2003 to 2006 without approval from the Army. The company also failed to ensure that the guards were registered with the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior, as required, the department said.

Justice Department lawyers said in the complaint that the amount of taxpayer dollars lost to the alleged fraud would be determined at trial.

KBR was under contract to provide logistical support for military operations, including food services, transportation, laundry and mail. KBR and it subcontractors were required to use military protection, according to the complaint.

In addition to allegedly submitting bills with “impermissible costs” in violation of the False Claims Act, KBR is accused of flouting subcontract terms requiring travel only in military convoys, the department said.

(more…)

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Legal News: Marine’s Father Will Not Pay Court-Ordered Funeral Protester’s Fees!!!

   This is disgusting.  These pathetic losers from the Westboro Baptist Church are a stain on society and the US.  Any court should recognize that maybe common sense and human decency should for once dictate in ruling like this?  Because if they don’t, then I could see this protest method gaining traction, and we will see even more disgusting examples of freedom of speech gone horribly wrong.

   Now if they say that the ruling should stand, and this father should pay, then that’s that.  If I was that father, I would do the time in prison or whatever for not paying and be highly vocal once in the joint.  He would become a martyr, and it will surely make a mockery of the justice system–every day he serves. It is as ridiculous as holding a court martial for the Navy SEALs who punched the terrorist in the stomach, after the animal was responsible for killing, mutilating and hanging from a bridge, the Blackwater contractors in Fallujah. What the hell is going on? –Matt

Edit: Please join the Facebook Page in support of the Snyder Family in their fight against the WBC.

—————————————————————–

Marine’s dad ordered to pay protesters’ court fees

March 30, 2010

BALTIMORE — The father of a Marine killed in Iraq and whose funeral was picketed by anti-gay protesters was ordered to pay the protesters’ appeal costs, his lawyers said Monday.

On Friday, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ordered Snyder to pay $16,510 to Fred Phelps. Phelps is the leader of the Westboro Baptist Church, which conducted protests at Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder’s funeral in 2006.

The two-page decision supplied by attorneys for Albert Snyder of York, Pa., offered no details on how the court came to its decision.

Attorneys also said Snyder is struggling to come up with fees associated with filing a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court.

The decision adds “insult to injury,” said Sean Summers, one of Snyder’s lawyers.

The high court agreed to consider whether the protesters’ message is protected by the First Amendment or limited by the competing privacy and religious rights of the mourners.

Story here.

——————————————————————

Marine’s Father Will Not Pay Court-Ordered Funeral Protesters’ Fees

March 30, 2010

The father of a Marine killed in Iraq whose funeral was picketed by anti-gay protesters told Fox News he will defy a court order and not pay the protesters’ appeal costs.

The father of a Marine killed in Iraq whose funeral was picketed by anti-gay protesters told Fox News he will defy a court order and not pay the protesters’ appeal costs.

(more…)

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Industry Talk: Can The Government Force Contractors To Unionize?

   It’s a basic question, and I have not a clue about how this would pertain to government contracts in the war.  I am sure there is some clause for overseas contingency operations that do not allow labor unions with wartime contracts.  I could be wrong, and this is an area that is way out of my lane. (any legal eagles want to step in, or maybe even the folks at IPOA)

   Plus, with how globalized contracting has become with DoD and DoS contracts, I just don’t see how you could force some Sri Lankan working at the DEFAC for KBR to pay the dues for some union.  There are just so many pieces to this, and I really have never explored this area.

   Now I have heard of numerous discussions amongst contractors while working out there, revolving around organizing. Most of the times, it was all talk born from poor labor practices of companies.  There have even been some attempts at creating unions for this industry, but nothing with any teeth or longevity. I could be wrong, and there might be some solid stuff out there that I am not aware of.  I know for CONUS, there are security related unions.  But for OCONUS, I have yet to see it.

   For fun though, what would happen if we were forced to be unionize?  Would that be a good thing, or a bad thing? –Matt

—————————————————————–

Can the Government Force Contractors to Unionize?

By Jim Garrettson

March 29, 2010

Executive order 13502 [1]from February 2009 garnered relatively little attention when it was issued.   It reads, “in order to promote the efficient administration and completion of Federal construction projects,” executive agencies are allowed to require contractors working on federal construction projects to implement “Project Labor Agreements.”

This order applies to any construction, renovation or rehabilitation project that costs over $25 million, and encompasses all agencies but the GAO.  The order also rescinded Bush’s Executive Order 13202 [2]from February, 2001, which prohibits the government from requiring contractors to abide by these agreements, or discriminating against contractors for “refusing to become or remain signatories or otherwise to adhere to agreements with one or more labor organizations, on the same or other related construction project(s).”

Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) [3] require all employees working on a specific project to abide by the same collective bargaining agreement.  This enables the hiring of non-unionized contractors, but typically requires them to pay into multi-employer union pension plans, putting non-union contractors at a financial disadvantage because they must pay for the union plan and for their existing company plan, according to the Associated Builders and Contractors [4].  Another problem for contractors is that many union pension funds are underwater, according to this recent article in the Washington Times [5].  Employers bound to collectively bargained agreements are forced to cover costs for underfunded union pensions when other contractors drop out.

(more…)

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress