Feral Jundi

Saturday, December 18, 2010

Industry Talk: USTC Holdings Buys Xe Services For Estimated $200 Million

     This post by AM Law Daily had everything that I thought was pertinent to the story.  So Xe has finally been sold, and for an estimated 200 million dollars.

     I think what is really interesting with this acquisition is all the national security related stuff that goes along with buying a company like this.  When you buy Xe, you are buying all the really complex and sensitive government contracts they are involved with.  And like the article below pointed out, Michael Chertoff’s company (former Homeland Security Secretary) was heavily involved in making sure this was done correctly.

     So what will USTC Holdings do with Xe, now that they bought it?  Good question, but I am sure you won’t see a lot of change right off the get go. Matter of fact, you probably won’t see anything new with the company, other than it just having new owners. –Matt

Bingham, Mayer Brown Advising on Sale of Blackwater/Xe Services to Private Equity Group

December 17, 2010

By Brian Baxter

Xe Services, the private military contractor formerly known as Blackwater Worldwide, announced on Friday that it had been sold to a group of private equity investors with ties to company founder Erik Prince.

Terms of the transaction were not disclosed, but The New York Times puts the value of the deal at around $200 million. USTC Holdings, the investment group taking control of Xe, said in a statement that the deal includes all Xe companies that provide domestic and international security services, including the target’s training facility in Moyock, N.C.

Bloomberg reports that USTC is comprised of private equity firms Manhattan Partners and Forté Capital Advisors, whose managing partner, Jason DeYonker, has close ties to the Prince family. (Aaron Kanter serves as Forté’s chief compliance officer and in-house counsel.)

(more…)

Sunday, October 24, 2010

Legal News: Efforts To Prosecute Xe Are Collapsing

     Interviews with lawyers involved in the cases, outside legal experts and a review of some records show that federal prosecutors have failed to overcome a series of legal hurdles, including the difficulties of obtaining evidence in war zones, of gaining proper jurisdiction for prosecutions in American civilian courts, and of overcoming immunity deals given to defendants by American officials on the scene.

     “The battlefield,” said Charles Rose, a professor at Stetson University College of Law in Florida, “is not a place that lends itself to the preservation of evidence.” 

*****

     This is very interesting and troubling from a legal standpoint. This will just add to the argument against this industry that we are above the law or immune from any wrong doing.

     I am speaking for myself here, but I am sure others will echo the same sentiment. I do not view us as above the law or unaccountable, nor do I want to be looked at as ‘above the law or unaccountable’. I want us to be accountable, and the public that pays the taxes that is used by congress to contract our services in war zones must also be assured that we are accountable.

     As it stands now, the government has yet to figure this stuff out and we continue to be demonized and discredited for our service in the war. That means the security contractors who died in the war, as well as the living will continue to be looked at as less than or illegitimate. That is why it is extremely important that a legal mechanism is established that actually works.

     Now of course the justice system ran it’s course with the ruling of this individual who shot the Iraqi bodyguard. But if the DoJ can’t prosecute such a simple and clear cut case, then how does that translate with other similar cases?

     I also want to hold the FBI to some accounting as well.  If evidence in a war zone is needed, then send agents to that war zone and collect it. They can call upon military police in those jurisdictions to help. For the whole immunity deal, it needs to be made clear exactly who can give that kind of immunity and in what circumstance. This is where congress can intervene and dictate exactly how that is to be done.

    Another point to make is on the big picture. Our enemy continues to be released from Gitmo because of a lack of ‘war zone evidence’ or whatever, and they go right back to the battlefield and kill more soldiers or innocents. I don’t agree with this legal policy as well. In both the contractor and terrorist cases, a lack of coherent legal mechanisms that everyone can agree upon is not good.

     I also think that politics have certainly gotten in the way of forming and deciding upon coherent legal mechanisms. If one side thinks military tribunals is sufficient, and the other side thinks federal courts is better, and we continue to do the slow slog of debate and deliberation on determining the best way, well then the war time strategy will suffer and more people will die. Figure it out folks, because that is your job and lives depend upon it.

    Likewise, the security contracting industry has been extremely active and highly depended upon in this war, and yet an effective legal mechanism by which to govern this industry has yet to be established. I don’t get it? Especially when there is precedent for establishing a legal mechanism called Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 11 in the US Constitution. Granting a LoM is the duty of congress, and yet they have completely shirked this duty and passed on the establishment of legal mechanisms governing contractors upon the various agencies of government. Talk about passing the buck? And look how much confusion this has created?

     A LoM could have dictated exactly what laws and legal mechanisms congress wanted contractors to fall under. A LoM could also have an expiration date and be re-granted from year to year just so it stays current and based on the newest legal issues of the day. But the best part of it is it is a power granted to congress and would give them the ultimate control over the companies who wish to obtain extremely valuable government contracts. No middlemen or agencies, no lobbyists–just congress and a company in a room hashing out a reasonable LoM. If congress wants a company to fall under the UCMJ, it could become an official decree backed by the Constitution and a congress that issued the LoM. If it is MEJA or whatever, congress can make that happen through this legal mechanism.

     Or we can continue to flail in the wind and harm the war effort due to this inaction by congress. –Matt

——————————————————————

Efforts to Prosecute Blackwater Are Collapsing

October 20, 2010

By JAMES RISEN

WASHINGTON — Nearly four years after the federal government began a string of investigations and criminal prosecutions against Blackwater Worldwide personnel accused of murder and other violent crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, the cases are beginning to fall apart, burdened by a legal obstacle of the government’s own making.

In the most recent and closely watched case, the Justice Department on Monday said that it would not seek murder charges against Andrew J. Moonen, a Blackwater armorer accused of killing a guard assigned to an Iraqi vice president on Dec. 24, 2006. Justice officials said that they were abandoning the case after an investigation that began in early 2007, and included trips to Baghdad by federal prosecutors and F.B.I. agents to interview Iraqi witnesses.

The government’s decision to drop the Moonen case follows a series of failures by prosecutors around the country in cases aimed at former personnel of Blackwater, which is now known as Xe Services. In September, a Virginia jury was unable to reach a verdict in the murder trial of two former Blackwater guards accused of killing two Afghan civilians. Late last year, charges were dismissed against five former Blackwater guards who had been indicted on manslaughter and related weapons charges in a September 2007 shooting incident in Nisour Square in Baghdad, in which 17 Iraqi civilians were killed.

(more…)

Thursday, August 19, 2010

Iraq: Civilians To Take US Lead After Military Leaves Iraq

One American official said that more than 1,200 specific tasks carried out by the American military in Iraq had been identified to be handed over to the civilians, transferred to the Iraqis or phased out.

To move around Iraq without United States troops, the State Department plans to acquire 60 mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles, called MRAPs, from the Pentagon; expand its inventory of armored cars to 1,320; and create a mini-air fleet by buying three planes to add to its lone aircraft. Its helicopter fleet, which will be piloted by contractors, will grow to 29 choppers from 17.

The department’s plans to rely on 6,000 to 7,000 security contractors, who are also expected to form “quick reaction forces” to rescue civilians in trouble, is a sensitive issue, given Iraqi fury about shootings of civilians by American private guards in recent years. Administration officials said that security contractors would have no special immunity and would be required to register with the Iraqi government. In addition, one of the State Department’s regional security officers, agents who oversee security at diplomatic outposts, will be required to approve and accompany every civilian convoy, providing additional oversight.

*****

     I wanted to cut this portion out for the reader to focus in on. Does anyone see the possibility here for some real problems if the insurgents in Iraq wanted to target this ‘civilian leadership’ specifically? There is the potential here for multiple ‘Nisour Square‘ scenarios, because it will be this heavy duty contractor army that will be engaging with insurgents if they atttack. And no doubt, the bad guys will love to start a fight in highly populated areas, much like they did with the Nisour Square ambush.

     What I would like to hear is if State will stand by this ‘contractor army’ they have created, if in fact they had to actually use their weapons? I mean, you guys are arming them and giving them all of this military hardware to use? Because as much as the media, DoS, Iraq and the entire world would like to believe, civilian casualties happen in war zones, or non-permissive environments. (whatever we want to call Iraq now) It is unfortunate, but they happen. No one plans on a tragedy like this happening, except for the enemy.

     Of course no one wakes up one day and says ‘I want to kill civilians’, except for the enemy. When these types of incidents happen, it is extremely damaging to the psyche and to the morale of all involved. It is avoided at all costs, but sometimes this stuff happens. So that is why I continue to ask this question of ‘if you are going to ask these men to protect you in Iraq, and they have to use deadly force, are you going to back them up if they actually kill someone?’. Worse yet, are you guys going to back them up if a stray bullet in that fire fight accidently kills a civilian? Or will you be throwing your heroes into an Iraqi or American prison, for an accident they had no intention of committing?

     Finally, as the combat troops leave, and the ‘civilians’ take over, the realities of this war zone are still there. Only when the enemy has lost the will to fight, can you truly say the war is over. So in my mind, I totally think that Al Qaeda and company or any of the Iranian backed groups will continue to cause problems. Not only for Iraq, but for this civilian leadership and cadre left in Iraq. Contractors will be using military hardware like MRAPs and Blackhawk Helicopters, and taking over the various 1,200 military tasks in the country, but will they get the same treatment and legal protections that the military had when they were in Iraq? Because I certainly would hate to see contractors being thrown under the bus, like what happened with Xe, just for trying to do their job in a war zone. –Matt

—————————————————————-

Civilians to Take U.S. Lead After Military Leaves Iraq

By MICHAEL R. GORDON

August 18, 2010

WASHINGTON — As the United States military prepares to leave Iraq by the end of 2011, the Obama administration is planning a remarkable civilian effort, buttressed by a small army of contractors, to fill the void.

By October 2011, the State Department will assume responsibility for training the Iraqi police, a task that will largely be carried out by contractors. With no American soldiers to defuse sectarian tensions in northern Iraq, it will be up to American diplomats in two new $100 million outposts to head off potential confrontations between the Iraqi Army and Kurdish pesh merga forces.

To protect the civilians in a country that is still home to insurgents with Al Qaeda and Iranian-backed militias, the State Department is planning to more than double its private security guards, up to as many as 7,000, according to administration officials who disclosed new details of the plan. Defending five fortified compounds across the country, the security contractors would operate radars to warn of enemy rocket attacks, search for roadside bombs, fly reconnaissance drones and even staff quick reaction forces to aid civilians in distress, the officials said.

“I don’t think State has ever operated on its own, independent of the U.S. military, in an environment that is quite as threatening on such a large scale,” said James Dobbins, a former ambassador who has seen his share of trouble spots as a special envoy for Afghanistan, Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo and Somalia. “It is unprecedented in scale.”

White House officials expressed confidence that the transfer to civilians — about 2,400 people who would work at the Baghdad embassy and other diplomatic sites — would be carried out on schedule, and that they could fulfill their mission of helping bring stability to Iraq.

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Kidnap And Ransom: French Tourists May Be Billed If High-risk Trips Go Wrong

     This is curious, and it also kind of ties in with my Ross Perot’s Rescue of EDS Employees In Iran post.  If you could afford it, would you pay for the services of the government to rescue a loved one, or would you seek out the services of private industry to rescue a loved one?  Because if countries like France put the cost of rescue on the individual that is taken hostage, then you would think it would be alright for that individual to choose either a private option that is cheaper or better than a state sponsored option for rescue.

     Now of course there is always the K and R industry and their approach to getting hostages released.  But for the impossible cases, where folks are political pawns or the hostage takers have no intention of negotiating, what do you do? Or how about cases where governments refuse to do a rescue because it is politically sensitive? There are lots of cases where the standard hostage negotiation tactic just does not work in the international realm, and sometimes the only chance of survival for that hostage, is rescue. One that could be potentially violent, or one that could be sneaky and non-violent.  Either way, what are the options other than letting those folks just die?

     A great example of this, is the execution of a French hostage recently by Al Qaeda.  What if the family and friends of this hostage wanted to contract the services of lets say Xe or some similar company for the rescue of their loved one? Or even contract the services of another country’s army for a rescue? All because they either did not want to pay France for a rescue operation, or they thought that Xe or another country would be a better option–both for price and for execution?  It is an interesting thought to ponder, and especially if France wants to go down this path of forcing it’s citizens to pay for rescues. –Matt

——————————————————————-

French tourists may be billed if high-risk trips go wrong

Lizzy Davies

 5 July 2010

French tourists who run into trouble after taking unnecessary risks overseas could have to pay for their rescue and repatriation under legislation debated today by MPs in Paris.

The proposed law, put forward by a government tired of having to foot the bill, would enable the state to demand reimbursement for “all or part of the costs … of foreign rescue operations” if it deems that travellers had ventured knowingly and without “legitimate motive” into risky territory.

According to the foreign ministry, the bill is an attempt to encourage a “culture of responsibility” among French travellers at a time of frequent kidnappings, hijackings and civil instability across the world. The ministry hopes that the prospect of being saddled with paying costs such as emergency air fares home will make people think twice about venturing into territory classified as dangerous. There is no question of ransoms being included in the cost, unsurprisingly, as France insists it never pays them.

(more…)

Thursday, June 24, 2010

Industry Talk: Erik Prince On CNBC

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress