Showing posts with label kbr. Show all posts
Showing posts with label kbr. Show all posts

Thursday, May 3, 2012

Smile, you are a Civilian Internee!

By Madison Ruppert
Editor of End the Lie

As every day passes, it becomes clearer that our once-free nation is quickly turning down the path of a totalitarian police state, as embodied by thepassage of S.1867 in the Senate and H.R.1540 in the House.


With the knowledge that KBR is developing a so-called “National Quick Response Team” to man the detention centers on 72 hours’ notice, the picture only gets more grim.

This trend is also reflected in the recent United States Army job posting for Internment/Resettlement Specialists.

While this might sound tame and harmless to some, upon reading the job description a troubling picture emerges.

The Internment/Resettlement Specialist, or I/R Specialist for short, is not only tasked with handling the custody and control of individuals designated as an Enemy Prisoner of War (EPW) but also of so-called Civilian Internees (CIs).

This is a classic example of Orwellian language. You’re not an American citizen being indefinitely imprisoned by the military in a military prison; instead you’re a Civilian Internee in a Civilian Internee Camp.

In this article you will learn exactly what a Civilian Internee is, what few rights are afforded to them and just how oppressed a Civilian Internee actually is, according to the military’s own documents on the subject.

We will delve into great detail, showing the exact language and ways that Civilian Internees are controlled and prevented from making any real contact with the outside world or being able to seek out justice.

I don’t think that anyone is blind enough to find the title of Civilian Internee reassuring, especially considering the fact that Civilian Internee is the exact designation assigned to the Japanese-Americans who were locked up during World War II.

These innocent Americans were put in so-called internment camps which bore a striking resemblance to the concentration camps of Nazi-era Germany, for committing no crime other than being of a certain ancestral origin.

If our government would lock up hardworking, patriotic Americans simply for being of Japanese descent, it is not a leap to think that they would do the same for the political opposition.

Civilian Internee is actually a specific status of prisoner under the Geneva Conventions which is supposed to designate civilians who are detained during wartime, supposedly for security reasons.

However, as we all know, the Japanese people being locked up were no security threat at all, in fact, despite the grand betrayal embodied by the internment of innocent American citizens; many Americans of Japanese descent actually went and fought for the United States in World War II.

The 442nd Regimental Combat Team of the United States Army was a prime example of this, as it was a unit composed entirely of Japanese-American soldiers.

They fought in Italy, Southern France and Germany and were in fact the most highly-decorated regiment in the entire history of the armed forces of the United States with 21 recipients of the Medal of Honor.

The fact that such individuals would put their lives on the line and fight for a nation that was detaining their friends and family is almost unbelievable, but they did it and yet our government is likely going to repeat the same horrific mistakes they made in the past.

I just wonder if this time around people will actually continue to go off and fight for a country that is engaging in the exact practices we are supposed to oppose and fight against around the world.

Specifically, the job description lists under advanced responsibilities that the I/R Specialist may be involved in, “Provide command and control, staff planning, administration/logistical services, and custody/control for the operation of an Enemy Prisoner of War/Civilian Internee (EPW/CI) camp.”

There are some publicly available military documents that go into more detail about what exactly a Civilian Internee is and how they are treated.

Despite the somewhat innocent sounding designation, Civilian Internees have little to no rights and are essentially totally powerless while in military detention.

There are lots of purely ceremonial rights granted to Civilian Internees like the ability to vote for representatives to speak for the camp, but the military can refuse to allow anyone who is voted in to actually hold the position.

Therefore, the representatives of the Civilian Internees would likely be nothing more than sycophantic lapdogs who bow before the officers in charge of the camp.

Anyone who would actually represent the Civilian Internees would just be blocked by the military, as it is explicitly written that they can do exactly that.

In the Army Regulation 190-8 document also called “Enemy Prisoners of War, Retained Personnel, Civilian Internees and Other Detainees,” which is available on the Air Force’s website, some details are given on what exactly Civilian Internees are and how they are treated.

Chapter 6 of the document, entitled “Administration and Operation of CI Internment Facilities,” beginning on page 23 of the PDF (page 19 of the document), delves into some of these issues.

Beginning with section 6-3, we learn that Civilian Internees have no real right to property under this military rule.

While they pretend to give the detainees property rights, it is clear that they can strip you of your belongings at any time for any reason.

Sub-section b. states, “The personal effects that detainees are allowed to retain, but are taken from them temporarily for intelligence purposes, will be receipted for and returned as soon as practical.”

Essentially, they can claim your belongings are needed for intelligence purposes and hold them until it is deemed practical to return them.

When that would be is anyone’s guess but the language is clearly ambiguous enough to allow the military to strip Civilian Internees of any and all personal belongings for however long they please.

Section 6-4 goes over the so-called “Internee Committee” which is a two-three person committee which is “empowered to represent the camp to the protecting powers, International Committee of the Red Cross, or other authorized relief or aid organizations and U.S. military authorities.”

Once again, the military is able to determine what exactly you can do and this language clearly allows the military to deny access to any outside relief or aid organizations by saying that they are not authorized.

Under sub-section c. “Each member of the Internee Committee will be approved by the camp commander prior to assumption of duty. If the camp commander refuses to approve or dismisses an elected member, a notice to that effect with reasons for refusal or dismissal will be forwarded through channels to the Branch PWIC [Prisoner of War Information Center] for transmittal to the protecting power with a copy furnished to the NPWIC [National Prisoner of War Information Center].”

This committee is clearly a farce which is directly controlled by the military, as if those who are rounding up and detaining American citizens can be trusted with treating those prisoners fairly, which is a laughable assertion.

One of the duties of the Internee Committee is to present and transmit “petitions and complaints to the appropriate authorities,” but given that the committee can be hand selected by those who are operating the prison, there is no way that any real petitions or complaints would ever be filed by the puppet committee.

Yet it gets even worse, the Internment Committee handles, “The distribution and disposition of collective relief shipments.”

Meaning that the military’s lapdogs will be the ones with the power to distribute food and other supplies to whomever they wish.

They even handle, “The delivery of perishable goods to the infirmary when addressed to a CI undergoing disciplinary punishment.”

The Committee is also given access to postal and telegraphic facilities in order to communicate with the so-called “protecting powers,” also known as the people unjustly detaining civilians en masse without charge or trial, along with the “authorized” aid organizations.

Civilian Internees have to provide their own clothing and footwear and, “Except for work clothing or as circumstance warrant, or climatic conditions required, no replacement clothing will be issued.”

The clothing of Civilian Internees is marked with “CI” on the front and back of each sleeve in 4 inch tall black or white letters between the elbow and shoulder and on the front of pants and shorts above the knee and on the back below the belt.

The food situation is similarly unpleasant considering that “Subsistence for the CI will be issued on the basis of a master CI menu prepared by the theater commander.”

“The daily individual food ration will be sufficient in quantity, quality and variety to maintain the CI in good health and to prevent nutritional deficiencies,” although they make it clear that if you perform physical labor you receive more food depending on the kind of labor performed.

Therefore, if whatever food they decide is “sufficient in quantity, quality and variety” is not enough (which it likely won’t be) you’ll be forced to work hard manual labor to get additional food.

Although, you can use facilities to prepare “additional food received or procured by [the CI] from authorized sources.”

What these authorized sources are is unclear but it is likely the case, like in private prisons, that they will make foods available to prisoners at exorbitant prices which is all too appealing given the horrendous quality of the food provided.

Part of section 6-6, “Medical Care and Sanitation” clearly indicates that those who are unvaccinated will be forced to be vaccinated whether they like it or not.

“Each CI will be immunized or reimmunized as prescribed by theater policy,” meaning that if the commander of the theater (in this case, likely the United States of America itself) decides that certain vaccinations are mandatory, you are not allowed to be released into the general population until you receive them or as they put it “until medical fitness is determined.”

It gets even more fascinating when they get to section 6-7, “Social, Intellectual, and Religious activities,” which says, “Subject to security considerations and camp discipline, the CI will be encouraged, but not required, to participate in social, intellectual, religious, and recreational activities.”

Well, that doesn’t sound too bad, right?

The next sentence might change your mind, “Introducing political overtones into or furthering enemy propaganda objectives through these activities will not be tolerated.”

In other words, if you engage in discussing politics or the truth of the situation (which is likely to be designated as an act of furthering enemy propaganda objectives) you will not be allowed to participate in any social, intellectual, religious or recreational activities.

Furthermore, the entire ability to participate in any activities is dependent on “security considerations and camp discipline,” meaning that at any time they can suspend all activities for any reason or no reason at all.

They also delve into official visits by so-called “Duly accredited representatives of the protecting powers and of the International Committee of the Red Cross and other[s] [who] will be permitted to visit and inspect CI camps and other places of internment in the discharge of their official duties.”

However, “The inspections will be at times previously authorized by the theater commander.”

Yet again, they set up the false pretense of rights and justice just to undermine it by making it only at times authorized by the theater commander, meaning that they could easily cover up any wrongdoing long before the inspection takes place.

Even worse, they can prohibit the inspections altogether. “Such visits will not be prohibited, nor will their duration and frequency be restricted, except for reasons of imperative military necessity, and then only as a temporary measure.”

Who decides when it is an imperative military necessity and how long this temporary measure lasts? Well, of course, it is the military.

Getting regulators to regulate themselves works out so well in the case of the private Federal Reserve I can see why they would want to utilize such a tactic in a situation like this as well.

Visits with family are similarly restricted by whatever the theater commander decides to put in place. “Near relatives and other persons authorized by the theater commander will be permitted to visit the CI as frequently as possible in accordance with theater regulations. They should be advised that the taking of photographs on or about the facility is prohibited.”

They even have outlined a program to develop “vocational training projects with an immediate view of developing skills that may be useful during interment”.

While they claim that Civilian Internee clergy will be allowed to communicate with religious leaders on religious matters, they do say that it “will be subject to censorship.”

The restrictions on communications are outlined in section 6-8 and include no drawings, maps, or sketches in any outgoing correspondence, no registered certified, insured, COD, or airmail items will be allowed to be received by Civilian Internees, and “Censorship of the CI mail will be according to the policies established by the theater commander.”

This is where it gets really disturbing: “Outgoing letters and cards may be examined and read by the camp commander. The camp commander will return outgoing correspondence containing obvious deviations from regulations for rewriting.

“Camp commanders will name U.S. military personnel to supervise the opening of all mail pouches containing incoming letters and cards for CI. These items will be carefully examined by the named personnel before delivery to detainees. Those items that arrive without having been censored by appropriate censorship elements will be returned for censorship to the designated censorship elements.”

Is it just me or does this read like something out of a work of fiction? Essentially you won’t be able to read or write anything that the military overlords do not wish you to. If you attempt to report torture or other horrors to anyone on the outside they will either censor it or force you to rewrite it.

All packages received by CIs are searched and, if requested, examined by the so-called “censorship element.” They point out that they will closely examine all items and messages but also claim “undue destruction of contents of parcels will be avoided.”

Not quite reassuring, if you ask me.

To make matters even worse, if such a thing was possible, the CI is not allowed to make or receive any phone calls whatsoever.

Telegrams can be sent under certain specific conditions but they, too, are censored.

Civilian Internees may receive books but, “Books that arrive at camps uncensored will be censored by a representative of the censorship element.”

English-language newspapers and magazines published in the United States are allowed to be distributed to the camp library by approved relief or aid organizations at the camp commander’s discretion after they have been censored.

The manner in which Civilian Internees can attempt to file complaints is just as ludicrously unjust as the rest of the regulations we have gone over thus far.

Essentially they only way you can file complaints is through the Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA), Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans (ODCSOPS), National Prisoner of War Information Center (NWPIC), or in the case of “any act or allegation of inhumane treatment or other violations of this regulation will be reported to HQDA (DOMA-ODL), WASH DC 20310-0400 as a Serious Incident Report.”

Just like the other regulations we’ve gone over, there is a false impression of justice which crumbles under a moment’s scrutiny.

“Discipline and security” under section 6-10 is clearly taken seriously in the case of Civilian Internees.

The regulations state, “Measures needed to maintain discipline and security will be set up in each camp and rigidly enforced. Offensive acts against discipline will be dealt with promptly. The camp commander will record disciplinary punishments. The record will be open to inspection by the protecting power.”

Oddly enough, under this section it is written that no CI may have any political emblem, insignia, flag, or picture of a political leader unless it is a picture of a political leader that appeared in a magazine, book, or newspaper and wasn’t removed by the censorship element.

They also explicitly state that you are to be nice to your captors, “The normal civilian courtesies will be required of the CI in their relationships with military personnel.”

Under section 6-12 some of the “Disciplinary proceedings and punishments” are outlined including a list of some approved punishments.

These disciplinary measures include, “(1) Discontinuance of privileges granted over and above the treatment provided for by this regulation. (2) Confinement. (3) A fine not to exceed one-half of the wages that the CI may receive during a period of not more than 30 days. (4) Extra fatigue duties, not exceeding 2 hours daily, in connection with maintaining the internment camp.”

Any single disciplinary punishment cannot go on for more than 30 consecutive days, although further discipline can be imposed after a 3 day period between punishments of 10 days or more.

However, these regulations on discipline and judicial proceedings are likely to be waived due to the fact that the National Defense Authorization act would effectively override the need to comply with any of these regulations.

Civilian Internees can indeed be forced to perform labor. Compulsory labor is supposedly limited to: “(1) Administrative, maintenance, and domestic work in an internment camp. (2) Duties connected with the protection of the CIA against aerial bombardment or other war risks. (3) Medical duties if they are professionally and technically qualified.”

Civilian Internees are only allowed a rest period of 24 consecutive hours every week and any paid work is paid at a rate announced by the Department of the Army after the outbreak of hostilities.

The problem is not only that our government has a clearly outlined procedure for dealing with civilians who are locked up for no reason at all, but that our government has a history of doing exactly that.

It is also quite dangerous that under the NDAA, American citizens could easily be classified as Enemy Prisoners of War instead of Civilian Internees, giving them even less rights.

Furthermore, under section 1031, anyone can be shipped off to any foreign country or handed over to any foreign entity, essentially waiving what few rights are afforded under there regulations.

With our so-called representatives in Congress voting 406-17 to make portions of the meetings in which they discuss H.R.1540 and S.1867 closed to the public in order to avoid public scrutiny, we are truly entering the dark ages of American history.

Those individuals in Washington who we elected to represent us are now passing legislation that is literally waging war against the people of the United States while keeping certain aspects of the process completely secret.

These developments should be disturbing to every single American, no matter what your political persuasion.

We are watching the brutal counterterrorism apparatus that has plagued foreign nations and resulted in the pain and suffering of countless people around the globe turn back around against us.

What will it take for the people of America to stand up and demand that our rights, as outlined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, be preserved?

Will it really take seeing your friends, family and neighbors snatched up in the middle of the night, never to be seen again? If we really wait that long, I fear that it will be too late.

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

How Corporations Award Themselves Legal Immunity

Tuesday, June 28, 2011 by The Guardian/UK
Whether it's in your employment contract or the paperwork for a cell phone, it's odds on that the small print says you can't sue

by Laura Flanders
 
Worried about the influence of money in American politics, the huge cash payouts that the US supreme court waved through by its Citizens United decision – the decision that lifted most limits on election campaign spending? Corporations are having their way with American elections just as they've already had their way with our media.

But at least we have the courts, right?

Wrong. The third branch of government's in trouble, too. In fact, access to justice – like access to elected office, let alone a pundit's perch – is becoming a perk just for the rich and powerful.

Take the young woman now testifying in court in Texas. Jamie Leigh Jones claims she was drugged and gang-raped while working for military contractor KBR in Iraq (at the time, a division of Halliburton). Jones, now 26, was on her fourth day in post in Baghdad in 2005 when she says she was assaulted by seven contractors and held captive, under armed guard by two KBR police, in a shipping container.

When the criminal courts failed to act, her lawyers filed a civil suit, only to be met with Halliburton's response that all her claims were to be decided in arbitration – because she'd signed away her rights to bring the company to court when she signed her employment contract. As Leigh testified before Congress, in October 2009, "I had signed away my right to a jury trial at the age of 20 and without the advice of counsel." It was a matter of sign or resign. "I had no idea that the clause was part of the contract, what the clause actually meant," testified Jones.

You've probably done the very same thing without even knowing it. When it comes to consumer claims, mandatory arbitration is the new normal. According to research by Public Citizen and others, corporations are inserting "forced arbitration" clauses into the fine print of contracts for work, for cell phone service, for credit cards, even nursing home contracts, requiring clients to give up their right to sue if they are harmed. Arbitration is a no-judge, no-jury, no-appeal world, where arbitrators are (often by contract) selected by the company and all decisions are private – and final.

Deadly small print is not only for subprime mortgage-seekers – and neither are the costly repercussions. When corporations evade the bills for harm, no matter how huge (for medical malpractice, say, or pension fund collapse), the liability is passed on to individuals, and then to taxpayers. A new documentary, Hot Coffee, premiering 27 June, on HBO, lays out the whole picture – and it's devastating.

First-time filmmaker Susan Saladoff starts where for many Americans, the term "tort reform" first appeared. Stella Liebeck, an 81-year-old woman, sued McDonald's over coffee that was "too hot" – and became the "welfare queen" of tort reform. Pilloried in corporate-funded PR and in the media after a jury imposed an initial $2.7m in punitive damages, lobbyists used Liebeck's case to deride "frivolous" lawsuits and bludgeon congressional and state legislators into passing laws that set maximum "caps" on damages. (Politicians all the way up to President George W Bush needed no bludgeoning: "frivolous suits" became a campaign trail hit.)
But look at the pictures Saladoff shows in Hot Coffee and you'll see Liebeck's legs seared by savage, third-degree burns, which covered over 16% of her body. As any reporter could have discovered at the time, McDonalds' protocols kept its coffee at 82-87ºC (180-190ºF). Over 700 people had been burned by it. Ten years of suits and claims had forced no change. Liebeck's suit was anything but "frivolous".

Likewise, Jones's suit. Or the big-business funded effort to unseat justices opposed to "tort reform" – also profiled in Hot Coffee. It's taken Jones nearly six years and a hearing in the US Senate to force her employer, Halliburton into open court, at last, in Houston this week. Jones tells Saladoff she's driven by concern for other young women in her position – in no position, that is, thanks to mandatory arbitration, to know the truth about past claims and what they may be getting into when they sign an employment contract.

Saladoff, a plaintiff's attorney for 25 years, is driven, too – by a belief in the seventh amendment right to a jury trial. "Tort" is a complicated word for a simple thing – "harm," she explains. The courts are supposed to be the branch of government where citizens and corporations have an equal shot. The US supreme court in Dukes v Walmart recently rejected 1.6 million workers' attempt to bring a class action case – making it a whole lot harder for Americans to band together to hold corporations accountable. Go it alone and the deck is stacked, thanks to decades of effort by corporations and the politicians they pay for.

They don't pay fair wages; they don't pay their fare share of taxes. They evade liability. What gives? Says Saladoff: "When corporations harm, there should be some way to hold them accountable."

Sunday, March 27, 2011

Pentagon hires contractors to regulate contractors

(Every so often, a story comes along which epitomizes the term "ridiculous." This...is one of those stories.--jef)

+++++++

Pentagon hires contractors to regulate contractors
PressTV - Fri Mar 18, 2011

Instead of keeping watch itself, the Department of Defense today relies on contractors to monitor the work of other contractors, a risk strategy that became cemented during the Iraq War thanks to a politically-connected-and powerful-company with ties to the Bush White House.

In late 2004, the U.S. Army command overseeing logistical support for troops in Iraq had a serious problem on its hands. Army officials had hired KBR, then a subsidiary of Halliburton, which Vice President Dick Cheney had helped lead, to supply soldiers with food and other supplies. But at least $1 billion in billing by KBR was questioned by the Pentagon's Defense Contract Audit Agency, resulting in the Army deciding to withhold 15% of its payments to KBR.

Company officials fought the withholding and pressured both the Defense Department and Congress to release the money it claimed it was owed. So the Army removed those who had raised alarms over the billing and hired another company, consulting firm RCI, to conduct its own audit of KBR costs.

RCI didn't find any problem with KBR's billing and the contractor got most of its money.

"This was a form of buying the audit that you want and the Army, who was relying on KBR for the major troop support in Iraq, gave this contractor a green light for business as usual ... running up as much costs as possible with the war as an excuse," wrote Charles M. Smith and Robert H. Bauman, two former Pentagon oversight and investigative personnel, for Truthout in recalling the KBR controversy. AllGov
  • Last August, the Congressional Research Service reported that the Department of Defense workforce has 19% more contractors (207,600) than uniformed personnel (175,000) in Iraq and Afghanistan, making the wars in these two countries the most outsourced and privatized in U.S. history. World Press
  • In the 1st quarter FY 2011, the U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM) reported approximately 176,161 contractor personnel working for the Department of Defense. World Press
  • The heavy reliance on contractors in Afghanistan signals that a situation which defense planners once considered temporary has become a standard fixture of U.S. military operations. WSJ
  • According to a U.S. Senate report in October 2010, heavy U.S. reliance on private security in Afghanistan has helped to line the pockets of the Taliban.

Friday, June 4, 2010

As many as 20 women claim sex assault at KBR, says Lawyer

This can be handled easily: take the rapists and the executives who looked the other way or tried to cover it up, and hang them by their dicks by chains with hooks from trees and overpasses.

###
Friday, June 4th, 2010

The lawyer for a woman claiming she was raped by a KBR worker says that as many as 20 of the company's female employees allege they were sexually assaulted while working for the company.

Attorney Todd Kelly told ABC News that he has received calls from as many as 20 women claiming they were the victims of sex assaults while working for the company.

Kelly represents Anna Mayo, a woman who filed a lawsuit against KBR this week claiming the company's negligence allowed her to be raped by an intruder in her quarters in Iraq last year.

"From the stories that I am hearing from the women that are coming back and stories that I have heard from men that have reported these incidents, there does not appear to be any change in how KBR treats these victims or disciplines their employees," Kelly told ABC.

In a lawsuit (PDF) filed Wednesday in a federal court in Houston, the 27-year-old Mayo was woken on the night of Nov. 27, 2009, in her quarters at Joint Base Balad in Iraq by a man claiming to be a KBR maintenance worker doing an inspection on her bathroom. When she checked with a supervisor, she was told no one was authorized to enter her room.

Three days later, the individual returned, entered her room and proceeded to beat and rape her. The lawsuit states:

The door remained open as the Rapist attacked Anna, grabbing and ripping at her face. Anna tried to make it out of the open door, but the Rapist slammed it shut before she could escape. Anna fought with her attacker, which only caused him to fight harder. She tried to bite his hands through his dirty work gloves, which only caused him to bite her in return. She felt as though he was trying to rip her eyeballs out of their sockets and twist her lips off of her face. Eventually, the Rapist placed a rope around Anna’s neck and tightened it until she lost consciousness. She thought she was dying. When Anna awoke, she realized that she was face down in her bed being raped by the man from behind....

Mayo's lawsuit claims KBR was negligent in the incident because the company failed to take precautions to ensure no one was able to enter her quarters without authorization, despite having been notified of the earlier incident in which an intruder entered her quarters.

KBR denies that the alleged rapist was a company employee, ABC reports.

The lawsuit adds to a string of bad publicity for KBR, which until 2007 was a subsidiary of military contractor Halliburton. In 2007, KBR employee Jamie Leigh Jones alleged that she had been gang-raped by KBR employees, and then locked in a shipping container by KBR staff, denying her the ability to seek medical treatment.

Jones' lawsuit against KBR is ongoing. Another lawsuit, filed by Tracy Barker, was settled for $3 million last year.