Feral Jundi

Thursday, January 20, 2011

Maritime Security: Hostage Taking At Record Levels In 2010 As Pirates Use Q-ship Strategies

     IMB Director Pottengal Mukundan commented: “Whilst the use of hijacked vessels as mother ships is not a new phenomenon, the abduction of crew members could signal a significant new development.”

     At least five large hijacked cargo ships and three fishing vessels have acted as mother ships in the last couple of months, posing a new and significant threat to the safety of shipping. The five cargo vessels range in size from MT 5,000 to 72,000 in deadweight – or cargo carrying capacity – and include four tankers and a general cargo vessel. More than 100 crew members from these hijacked cargo vessels, are being forced to facilitate the attacks and in effect provide a human shield to any potential naval intervention. 

     This is infuriating to read, because the world is just standing by as a crime wave takes place.  It is frustrating from my point of view because here we have this vibrant and experienced wartime security contracting industry willing and able to protect every boat out there, and yet the response to this fast paced piracy scourge has been to throw money at them.  Keep paying ransoms and keep fueling the very industry that benefits from these criminal acts–insanity…..

     The other story here is the piracy strategies out there are evolving and these folks are able to scale up their operations because of these new strategies.  What they are doing is using one vessel to attack another larger vessel, and then using those larger vessels to prey on similar larger vessels. Then they use the hostages from the prior vessels taken as a kind of mobile human shield/hostage currency.

     This strategy is also great for false flag or Q-ship style attacks.  If vessels are unable to tell if another captured vessel is under pirate control, then these captured ships can do all sorts of interesting things.  They can maneuver closer to other ships, they can increase their speed to match that of other ships, they can pretend to be a ship in distress, and they can force all of their captured hostages to pretend to be active crew members on the top decks.  Today’s pirates certainly understand the value of Q-ships to their industry.

     Finally, today’s current anti-piracy strategy sucks.  We have billions of dollars of naval hardware from around the world, that cost millions of dollars to operate every day, and their strategies have not stopped today’s piracy. We have more hostages taken, more boats taken, and an expansion of piracy territories. In other words, we have yet to offer an effective challenge to this innovative and vibrant piracy industry.

     And now other entrepreneurs are watching and learning from today’s pirates.  So yes, it would be nice to square away Somalia on the mainland and that might put a little bit of a dent in the industry itself.  But I think what today’s strategists forget is that what we are looking at are the beginnings of an ‘open source piracy’ era. Pirates are emerging from all over the world, and they are learning from what the Somali’s are doing.  It is a very basic concept, and because there is no effective anti-piracy strategy to stop them this open source piracy will just spread and flourish.

     Of course putting armed security on the boats is a no-brainer, but that alone will not stop this open source piracy scourge.  You need to create an industry out of destroying these folks, and not just an industry that deals with the effects of piracy. We could also learn a thing or two from those that actually wiped out piracy. Guys like Pompey or Woodes Rogers did an excellent job of eradicating this scum, and yet here we are in modern times with the same problems they faced and we have yet to get organized and do what is necessary. –Matt

Hostage-taking at sea rises to record levels, says IMB

Latest attack changes dynamic of Somali piracy

Somali pirates closer to India; premiums up 

Hostage-taking at sea rises to record levels, says IMB

Monday, 17 January 2011

More people were taken hostage at sea in 2010 than in any year on record, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) International Maritime Bureau’s (IMB) global piracy report disclosed today. Pirates captured 1,181 seafarers and killed eight.  A total of 53 ships were hijacked.

The number of pirate attacks against ships has risen every year for the last four years, IMB revealed.  Ships reported 445 attacks in 2010, up 10% from 2009. While 188 crew members were taken hostage in 2006, 1,050 were taken in 2009 and 1,181 in 2010.

“These figures for the number of hostages and vessels taken are the highest we have ever seen,” said Captain Pottengal Mukundan, Director of the IMB’s Piracy Reporting Centre, which has monitored piracy worldwide since 1991. “The continued increase in these numbers is alarming.”

“As a percentage of global incidents, piracy on the high seas has increased dramatically over armed robbery in territorial waters,” said Captain Mukundan. “On the high seas off Somalia, heavily armed pirates are overpowering ocean-going fishing or merchant vessels to use as a base for further attacks.  They capture the crew and force them to sail to within attacking distance of other unsuspecting vessels.”

(more…)

Monday, January 17, 2011

Industry Talk: Afghanistan’s Push To Tax US Contractors Could Renew Tensions

     “DOD and State and the primes are telling them ‘No, you’re subs, don’t pay taxes??” the company official said. But “the Afghan government has become so hard to work with on so many fronts that I’m not sure whether this issue is still in the embassy’s top ten list of things.”

     Another contracting executive said there was “tension in the embassy” between those officials who work on helping the Afghan government collect more revenue so it can pay its own way, and those “responsible for working on behalf of U.S. business.”

     “We know we’re going to have to pay at least $8 billion to $10 billion a year for the next 10 years to keep these guys running,” the executive said. “The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank are putting heat on the government to create a tax base. Some of the biggest cash flow into the country is Western aid.”

     This is interesting.  You have two forces at play here.  There is the IMF and World Bank who want Afghanistan to have a tax base, and you have the US that is supposed to protect US business from being taxed.

     My view on it is that Afghanistan benefits from this western aid because their main goal is to get that country on it’s feet. Taxing these aid providing companies is wrong, and I certainly hope the US embassy will work to protect American companies from these blood suckers. –Matt

Afghanistan’s push to tax U.S. contractors could renew tensions

By Karen DeYoung and Joshua PartlowSunday, January 16, 2011

The Afghan government is ramping up efforts to tax U.S. contractors operating there – an effort that could raise millions for the cash-strapped government but could also provoke fresh confrontation with the United States, according to U.S. and Afghan officials.

Taxation of U.S. government assistance is barred by U.S. law, as well as by a number of bilateral accords between Afghanistan and the United States. But the wording in the documents is vague, and the two governments disagree on what “tax-exempt” means.

Non-Afghan contractors who have recently received tax bills for work done under U.S. government programs say they have appealed to the Defense and State departments to clarify the matter with the Afghans. But they have been told simply to ignore the bills and “stand up for our rights,” said one official of an American company that has multiple U.S defense contracts in Afghanistan.

(more…)

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Executive Protection: Some Thoughts On How To Protect Members Of Congress

     I thought this first article was a good little run down of some commonsense moves for protecting members of congress.  Of course all of this is coming out after the recent shooting that killed six and critically wounded Representative Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona. The other two articles detail the potential for copycat killers, and what members of congress think about their own personal security or lack of it.

     Although I would have liked to have heard more of a discussion about private security and specifically privatized executive protection services for members of congress.  We use highly trained private security specialists to protect members of congress in war zones through programs like WPS, but what about for members of congress in the US?  Perhaps a similar program could be started just to meet the needs of congress throughout the nation?

    Or a stipend could be given to members of congress with the idea that they could contract the services of competent executive protection specialists wherever they go in the nation.  To depend upon police departments purely for this type of security could be a strain on them in terms of man power and financially, or these officers could be the wrong tool for the job.  In some parts of the country, I don’t know if a member of congress would want a police officer watching their back. Meaning there are some cops out there that are very low paid and minimally trained for high end executive protection duties.  Private industry is very good at this task, and this is their bread and butter.

     Finally, the government could just ramp up the Secret Service and task them to get this going.  They could literally assign a detail to every member of congress, and give everyone custom tailored protection.  Of course the cost of this could be pretty high, but they are leaders of this country and they are public figures.  Or we could tell members of congress to wear a vest, a gun, and tell them to hope for the best. It is a dangerous world out there and executive protection services, either private or public, should be a priority. –Matt

How to Protect Members of Congress

Officials warn of Arizona copycat attacks

Lawmakers rethink security after Arizona shooting

How to Protect Members of Congress

It doesn’t have to break the budget to provide the security they need.

By Marc Ambinder

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

On Wednesday, the FBI and the U.S. Capitol Police will brief members of Congress on basic security precautions they can take when they’re interacting with constituents. Also on the agenda: an explanation of how Capitol Police officers conduct threat assessments. What the members are likely to hear may be as simple as surrounding themselves with aides wearing suits or setting up a thin rope line to create a slight barrier between them and possible danger.

They will also hear about threats beyond the shooting in Tucson, Ariz. Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Terrence Gainer told WTOP Radio on Monday that he had referred 49 threats against senators alone to the FBI within the past year. But the rarity of actual assassination attempts against members of Congress underscores the challenge for investigators.

“A lot of people will talk, but a tiny few will act; and most who act tend not to talk beforehand,” is how one current federal agent describes people who threaten public officials.

(more…)

Mexico: Juarez Cranks Up Private Security

     Oscar Macías, the Juárez-based regional director of Securitas, said that while the company’s finances have been positive overall, they have not been as high as he’d like.

     For one, he said, the company’s earnings have been eaten up by investments in equipment and salary increases.

Since 2008, Macías said, Securitas has toughened up its training and recruiting processes and upgraded technology to meet the growing expectations of an increasingly demanding clientele. 

     “We have to invest in quality to make sure the client is satisfied,” he said.

      Having to ‘invest in quality to make sure the client is satisfied’?  Now that is music to my ears. lol  Not to mention salary increases and investments in equipment sounds great too.  You have to take care of your people if you want good customer service and satisfaction.

       But most importantly, these companies have to invest in good quality management to ensure that everything operates the way it is supposed to. From the shift leader all the way up to the project manager, a company must focus on quality management. You can have high salaries for employees and the best equipment ever, but unless your guard force is well organized, trained and managed, then all of that is for not. It is that management that will ensure good customer service and satisfaction, and continuous improvement (Kaizen).

     You know what would be an interesting study is to actually do a customer and employee/contractor survey to see exactly what the companies are doing right and what they are doing wrong in Mexico. With Juarez being the most dangerous city out there, perhaps in the world, this kind of study might be pretty influential in the realm of private security research and industry best practices. –Matt

Juárez cranks up private security

Businesses spent 45 percent more than in 2009

January 2011

By Alejandro Martínez-Cabrera

JUáREZ – Confronted with the city’s bloodiest year to date, businesses in Ciudad Juárez spent 45 percent more for private security in 2010 than the year before, according to figures reported by private security companies.

Juárez “is the city with the largest increase in security investments,” said Ivette Estrada, spokeswoman for the Private Security National Council, or CNSP, an association of security firms in Mexico. It calculated the increase using data provided by its 298 members.

The average increase in private security expenditures for Mexican border cities was 33 percent, Estrada said.

At the national level, the council estimated that companies in Mexico spent an average 11.3 percent of their production costs for insurance and security services in 2010, compared to 7 percent the year before and between 3 and 5 percent in 2008.

Last year was the most violent in Ciudad Juárez so far, with a record 3,111 drug-related killings, bringing the total number of violent deaths in the city since 2008 to at least 7,488.

Faced with the inability of Mexican authorities to stem the wave of crime and brutality pummeling the city, Juarenses have invested heavily in alarm systems, closing off streets with gates and hiring private security to guard neighborhood entrances.

(more…)

Saturday, January 8, 2011

Industry Talk: DoD, GSA Tighten Standards On Contractor CAC Cards

     Thursday’s Federal Register require agencies to ensure that any form of government-furnished ID provided to a contractor be returned as soon as the card is no longer needed to perform the contract work, or as soon as the contract is complete—whichever happens first.

     The new rule will also allow agencies to withhold final payment to a vendor who fails to return all the cards issued to workers who need them as part of a contract. 

     Thanks to James for sending me this. This is a good thing because back in the day the government and the companies really never cared about securing these things.  Guys that would jump contract or resign would just hang on to their CAC cards and take them to the next gig.  Some companies would ask if you already had a CAC card and this would actually make you more marketable as a security contractor.  So folks would keep their cards for that reason, or for using it back home at a local base to buy stuff.

     But then over the last couple of years the CAC card had to be sponsored by a company to be good.  So if a contractor had one, but they were not recognized as being with any company, then the thing was no good in the system.  Although it still could be used to get into DFACs or whatever because no one scanned them. It was just show your card and go.

     Now you need that card for everything and it is scanned at DFACs and elsewhere. There seems to be more accountability with the companies and their handling of the CAC cards as well.  Many companies now require you to turn in your CAC card at the end of contract. (Or when you are fired, if you resigned, or when you go on leave). And if you read the above quote, you can understand why the companies want that little piece of plastic back. –Matt

DoD, GSA tighten standards on contractor IDs

December 30, 2010

By Jared Serbu

The government is tightening regulations on microchip-embedded IDs issued to contractors in an effort to ensure that the smart cards don’t stay in the hands of private vendors when they no longer have a justifiable need for access to government facilities or networks.

New rules developed by the General Services Administration, the Defense Department and NASA for publication in Thursday’s Federal Register require agencies to ensure that any form of government-furnished ID provided to a contractor be returned as soon as the card is no longer needed to perform the contract work, or as soon as the contract is complete—whichever happens first.

The new rule will also allow agencies to withhold final payment to a vendor who fails to return all the cards issued to workers who need them as part of a contract. The measure is intended to correct problems identified in a 2008 Department of Defense Inspector General’s report, which found that DoD lacked procedures to ensure that Common Access Cards (CACs) issued to contractors were deactivated and reclaimed by the government when vendor employees no longer had a legitimate need for them.

(more…)

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress