Posted on 09/12/2005 9:13:12 PM PDT by Calpernia
Just to keep your attention.
Check Wackenhut too:
Union reports significant security problems at seven Army bases
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newjersey/ny-bc-nj--armybases-securit0906sep06,0,2911337.story?coll=ny-region-apnewjersey
http://seiu23.advocateoffice.com/vertical/Sites/{2FDAD06E-E7D3-4DE0-AEF2-0C787424C292}/uploads/{670FABCD-FC61-41E2-876C-DFACACDFCEE6}.PDF
http://www.eyeonwackenhut.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={45782D1D-22C4-4AD4-A430-61BD64AEAEF9}
Perhaps, but that isn't what you were implying, or at least what I understood you to imply. Miscommunication aside, I don't believe that you understand my position at all.
I have absolutely no problem at all with the existence of private security companies, nor their employ by anyone. I never have had a problem with it, and as I've stated I've actually worked in the field myself.
Because of that, I am probably less likely than most to give a hard time to a private security guard performing his/her duties. I've been there, done that, and I didn't like someone giving me grief when I was only trying to do my job. While my experiences have taught me that not everyone wearing a private security uniform should be (no more than everyone wearing a police uniform should be either), I cannot determine, necessarily at once whether a given individual falls under one category or the other so my rule of thumb is benefit of the doubt. That is hardly being a snob, or an elitist, or even a socialist.
Where you've gotten the idea that I am against private security companies is quite beyond me, but I'm not against them. I have some reservations with the trend at present to give them more "official" law enforcement powers, but I have definite reasons for my reservations. Should a method be found to attach public accountability to private security companies, commeasurate with the powers to be granted them, then my reservations would be severely dimished, if not disappeared.
I just feel that if busines is going to get into law enforcement then they have accountability to the public at large, not just their shareholders...
the infowarrior
Then report me.
Union reports significant security problems at seven Army bases
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newjersey/ny-bc-nj--armybases-securit0906sep06,0,2911337.story?coll=ny-region-apnewjersey
(snip)
The Wackenhut security company says the union is leveling false allegations in a national campaign aimed at signing up the firm's 35,000 guards as SEIU members.
The bases are:
_Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, Ala.
_Fort Leavenworth, Leavenworth, Kan.
_Fort Leonard Wood, Waynesville, Mo.
_Fort Monmouth, Red Bank, N.J.
_Picatinny Arsenal, Dover, N.J.
_Letterkenny Depot, Chambersburg, Pa.
_Fort Lee, Petersburg, Va.
(snip)
Wackenhut, a U.S. subsidiary of a London-based company, is the second-largest security business in the United States. Its customers mostly are major private corporations, but it also does hundreds of millions of dollars worth of work each year for the federal government.
(snip)
Ana Granbury, a guard at Redstone Arsenal, said, "The company hires, issues a weapon and has an officer working before they have even completed a background check."
(snip)
Among the complaints by the 15 guards:
_"If you notice something that isn't right and report it, you can be dealt with very harshly," said Michael Liang, a fired security worker who signed on for duty after his son-in-law, a New York City firefighter, died in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Liang said: "The training was completely inadequate, especially regarding weapons handling. There was zero time at the firing range."
_"When I was manning these gates with the military, we had between 20 to 25 officers," said Stacy Adams, a guard at Fort Leavenworth. "But the normal operation for this management is 10 to 14."
_Before the private-security takeover, Army personnel carried M-16 rifles to secure the gate at Picatinny Arsenal. After Alutiiq-Wackenhut took over, no one was equipped with anything more than a handgun, reported guard Dennis Brizak.
Unless, and until, President Bush invokes the Insurrection Act, and at this point it's counterproductive to do so, she is the ultimate authority in NOLA. NG fall to the various states they come from and the NG from a given state report utimately to the governor of that state. Because certain paperwork was done prior to the NG troops from other states arriving in Louisiana, those NG troops were temporarily transferred to her authority.
Since the NG isn't Federal (unless federalized by the Insurrection Act) Posse Comatatus does not apply, and they may be used for law enforcement. The United States Coast Guard, who in times of peace fall under the Department of Transportation, likewise fall outside the purview of Posse Comatatus, and have law enforcement duties as one of their functions anyways.
Hope this helps your understanding of the military end
the infowarrior
Hmmmmmm...... military bases hiring private security???? That seems very strange, considering how well armed these bases are at least a couple that I am familiar with.
Wonder if these firms are like "first responders"?
http://seiu23.advocateoffice.com/vertical/Sites/%7B2FDAD06E-E7D3-4DE0-AEF2-0C787424C292%7D/uploads/%7B670FABCD-FC61-41E2-876C-DFACACDFCEE6%7D.PDF
The security officers report the following problems at bases where Alutiiq-Wackenhut oversees security:
Inadequate Screening—Convicted Felons Guarding U.S. Army Bases
Security officers report that Alutiiq-Wackenhut guards are routinely hired, put on post, issued weapons and granted full access to the base facilities before receiving their security clearance. This has resulted in at least two convicted felons working for weeks or months at a time as authorized security officers on U.S. Army bases. In each case, the officers report that the officers were terminated by Alutiiq-Wackenhut, but only after they had worked for several months at the base, enjoying the regular access and privileges granted to guards with full security clearances.
Poor Weapons Management
Officers report that Alutiiq-Wackenhut exercises poor supervision of company-issued weapons and ammunition. The officers report that weapons and ammunition have been left unattended in publicly accessible areas of the military installations. Unregistered weapons have been routinely allowed on bases, in violation of base policy. The company policy of weapons being handled by as many as three different people a day impacts the security force’s ability to properly maintain their weapons’ cleanliness and reliability.
Inadequate Training
Alutiiq-Wackenhut officers undergo insufficient, inadequate training to protect sensitive military installations, according to officers who came to the company after years of experience in both the military and law enforcement. From minimal training of new hires through prohibiting officers from developing or maintaining proficiency on a firing range, officers report the company’s lax attitude toward training leaves them feeling unprepared to protect their assigned installations.
Inadequate Supplies
From old and rusted ammunition to ill-fitting bullet-proof vests, officers report that the supplies provided to security officers by Alutiiq-Wackenhut are inadequate, and often outdated or faulty. Officers report that this neglect is leaving some Army bases with broken gates, no searchlights and old radios with dead batteries. Some officers report that guards at their base never received proper radio equipment, leaving them unable to communicate with other posts in the event of an emergency.
Taken together, the testimony provided by these 15 security officers suggests significant problems with security at U.S. Army bases guarded by Alutiiq-Wackenhut. Their statements - coupled with the controversy over the no-bid contract and Wackenhut's troubled history of security at nuclear facilities - raise doubts about the companies' service as government contractors at such sensitive sites.
This is nothing new. It's been done for at least the last 15 years. Now, not every military base has gone to private security manning the gates, but an ever increasing number are.
The reason most commands give for the switch is that they need their troops training for combat operations more than they need them manning gates in garrison. I can appreciate the sentiment, and have little problem with it myself...
the infowarrior
That is truely frightening.
Remember the Florida base that was broken into and had uniforms stolen?
Were they being guarded by private firms too?
I really do not have a problem with the concept, however, having grown up near one of these bases, I can tell you I would expect at least a requirement for background check for any employee allowed to man the gates to said military base.
It works both ways though, thankfully.
We do have private security firms that have taken the roll in special ops. Hence, out of the hands of the cancer that has gone wild from the clintonism days.
The problem is less the "traditional" private security functions, than it is the branching out into "privately run" correctional institutions, as I've previously stated. This is where they are getting the added "law enforcement" authority, and where the present accountability procedures need to be reviewed. Guarding a factory, or warehouse is one thing, guarding hundreds of convicted felons is quite another, wouldn't you agree?
the infowarrior
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1483299/posts?page=129#129
FOR RELEASE AT
No. 733-03
5 p.m. ET
October 6, 2003
ARMY
Akal Security Inc., Santa Cruz, N.M., was awarded on Sept. 30, 2003, a delivery order amount of $31,791,980 as part of a $102,461,165 firm-fixed-price contract for security guard services. Work will be performed at Fort Campbell, Ky. (45%), Fort Stewart, Ga. (19%), Anniston Army Depot, Ala. (13%), Blue Grass Army Depot, Ky. (13%), and Sunny Point, N.C. (10%), and is expected to be completed by Sept. 29, 2004. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. There were an unknown number of bids solicited via the World Wide Web on July 15, 2003, and 20 bids were received. The Northern Region Contracting Center, Fort Eustis, Va., is the contracting activity (DABJ01-03-D-0038).
Akal Security Inc., Santa Cruz, N.M., was awarded on Sept. 30, 2003, a delivery order amount of $18,872,191 as part of a $61,823,792 firm-fixed-price contract for security guard services. Work will be performed at Fort Hood, Texas, and is expected to be completed by Sept. 29, 2004. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. There were an unknown number of bids solicited via the World Wide Web on July 15, 2003, and 20 bids were received. The Northern Region Contracting Center, Fort Eustis, Va., is the contracting activity (DABJ01-03-D-0039).
Akal Security Inc., Santa Cruz, N.M., was awarded on Sept. 30, 2003, a delivery order amount of $12,624,931 as part of a $40,812,110 firm-fixed-price contract for security guard services. Work will be performed at Fort Lewis, Wash. (75%), Fort Riley, Kan. (25%), and is expected to be completed by Sept. 29, 2004. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. There were an unknown number of bids solicited via the World Wide Web on July 15, 2003, and 20 bids were received. The Northern Region Contracting Center, Fort Eustis, Va., is the contracting activity (DABJ01-03-D-0040).
* * *
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.