US Contractors in Iraq Rely on Third-World Labor
By Guy Raz
All Things Considered, NPR
Wednesday 10 October 2007

If you thought all contractors in Iraq were gun-toting American mercenaries, think again. Only a fraction of the estimated 180,000 contractors working on behalf of the U.S. government are security contractors - and the overwhelming majority aren't even from the U.S.

Consider Salim Khan, a dishwasher at a forward operating base in the volatile Iraqi province of Diyala. For about $1.25 an hour, the Pakistan native will work two years for a Saudi-based food-services firm, Tamimi.

Tamimi is a subcontractor to KBR, which itself was, until recently, a subsidiary of Halliburton, the mega-corporation that has won most of the big money contracts in Iraq.

Across the heavily fortified American bases in Iraq, men and women like Salim Khan cook the food, clean the dishes, chop the vegetables, take out the garbage and clean the latrines.

In military parlance, they're known as "TCNs" or "third country nationals," but they might as well be called third-world nationals. Most of the cheap U.S. labor in Iraq comes from places like India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, the Philippines and India. The average wage for these workers is about $20 a day; most work 12-hour shifts, seven days a week.

The Pentagon and the State Department, under fire for the use of security contractors, have largely ignored the issue of fair labor practices among its contractors and subcontractors in Iraq and Afghanistan. Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently noted contractors "take the place of soldiers" to do other, more pressing work.

Iraq is the first war in history where contractors have played a large role. About a half a million people, including contractors, troops and U.S. government civilians, work on behalf of the Iraq mission.

Security Duty

In many of the fortress-like U.S. bases in Iraq, Ugandan soldiers pull security duty. Many American military officers confuse these Ugandans with members of the "coalition of forces" fighting the global "war on terror." But in fact, they're paid private security guards.

An estimated 1,500 Ugandans work for an American security firm called Special Operations Consulting-Security Management Group (SOC-SMG). The company is based in Minden, Nev., and was founded by two ex-Navy SEALs. Over the past two years, SOC-SMG has racked up nearly $30 million in Pentagon contracts in Iraq alone.

SOC-SMG is now the target of litigation in Uganda among former employees, many of whom claim they were misled about the amount of money they would be paid. The average Ugandan guard will earn about $3.33 an hour, leaving the bulk of the rest of the contract money in the hands of their American employers.

SOC-SMG disputes the claims and says it will fight the litigants in court.

Green Beans Coffee

For Green Beans Coffee, the war has also been good for business. The California-based company now ranks among Inc. magazine's top 500 fastest-growing private companies in America. Since Sept. 11, 2001, its growth rate has exceeded an astonishing 1,400 percent.

The company has a virtual monopoly on quality coffee at the more than 55 U.S. military installations across the Middle East, including in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Green Beans Coffee prides itself on "sustainability." In press releases, the company boasts about annual contributions it has made to charities such as the Pat Tillman fund.

Earlier this year, Ernst & Young awarded the company an award for "corporate social responsibility."

But what sets Green Beans apart from its U.S. competitors is cheap labor: Almost all of Green Beans' employees worldwide come from third world countries.

Green Beans' products, on the other hand, aren't cheap: A double latte and a muffin will cost an enlisted U.S. soldier about 15 percent of his or her average daily salary.

-------

Flying Into Career Troubles

By Ron Marsico
The New Jersey Star Ledger
Sunday October 14, 2007, 1:48 p.m.

When security breaches are exposed at airports around the country, the information frequently comes from TSA screeners or supervisors who see the problems first-hand, but making these disclosures often comes at a devastating personal cost, including harassment, reassignment, suspension and termination.

A total of 79 U.S. Transportation Security Administration employees have filed complaints since 2002 alleging retaliation by agency officials after disclosing shortcomings in aviation security, according to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, the body responsible for investigating federal employees' claims of whistleblower retaliation.

"Once they know you're going to stand up and question their authority ... you're history," said James Griffin, a TSA lead screener dismissed at Long Island's MacArthur Airport after telling a congressman that screener shortages jeopardized passenger safety. "They will make it their business to make sure you leave -- one way or the other."

Agency employees and critics say TSA screeners suffer a double-whammy: Federal regulations prohibit them from discussing agency operations with unauthorized individuals, including the media. But even telling their bosses about problems exposes the nation's 43,000 checkpoint and baggage screeners to retaliation because they are not covered by the federal Whistleblower Protection Act.

Retaliation, they say, came whether the disclosure was made to the media, a direct supervisor, further up the appropriate chain-of-command or to the inspector general of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which oversees TSA.

TSA officials call the allegations unfounded and say their practices keep critical information out of the hands of terrorists. Few cases, they say, have resulted in findings by the Office of Special Counsel that employees' rights were violated by the TSA.

"TSA has always cooperated and worked closely with OSC to ensure whistleblowers are protected," Christopher White, a TSA spokesman, wrote in an e-mail response. "All allegations of reprisal are taken seriously by TSA."

White, however, said the TSA must ensure critical agency policies and procedures are "safeguarded in order to prevent harm to the nation because release of the information could threaten national security."
The following TSA employees say they have been punished following disclosures about TSA security lapses. TSA officials declined to comment on each case:

>>> James Griffin, Lead Screener, at Long Island's MacArthur Airport:
Griffin, 49, went to a local congressman in the summer of 2003 to warn a proposed cut of screeners at already short-handed MacArthur Airport would hurt security. After the cuts were canceled, he appeared on television with the congressman and other employees.
Griffin says TSA officials tried to find evidence he falsified overtime records, wrote him up for lateness and accused him of sleeping on duty. He was suspended in February 2004 and fired in July 2004 for alleged inattention to duty.
The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) did not take his case, said Griffin, adding, "I stood up for what I felt was the right thing."

>>> Bogdan Dzakovic, Principal Security Inspector at the TSA's Virginia headquarters:
Dzakovic was a member of the Federal Aviation Administration's Red Team, which found serious problems with private airport screening before 9/11 during undercover checkpoint tests. He said the team's warnings went unheeded by authorities and he obtained federal whistleblower protection after 9/11.
After transferring to TSA, Dzakovic accused his new agency of giving him insignificant duties as punishment for his whistleblower status. At one point he had no duties; at another he was on the graveyard shift answering phones.

In March 2003, then-OSC special counsel Elaine Kaplan praised Dzakovic for having "brought public attention to issues of great national importance" and urged TSA officials "to take advantage of his expertise and insight into aviation security matters," according to an agency press release at the time.

More than four years later, Dzakovic said, his situation is only somewhat improved.

"I'm basically doing work that a high school kid could do," he said. He said his title of principal security inspector "may sound significant, but it's a bunch of hooey."

>>> Scott McHugh, Federal Security Director at Washington Dulles International Airport:
In June 2003, McHugh wrote an e-mail to East Coast colleagues, warning that screeners at Dulles were only able to screen 57 percent of checked luggage for explosives and the hub was losing at least one screener a day, according to a story then by the Washington Post.
"Up until now, we have been able to hide this fact from the public (and any terrorist surveillance teams)," McHugh said in the e-mail obtained by the Post. "We cannot wait any longer, we need to hire or transfer people here NOW!"

Within weeks, McHugh suddenly resigned. Efforts to locate McHugh, now 54, for comment were unsuccessful. A message left with a relative was not returned.

>>> Robert Cravens, TSA Screener at Honolulu International Airport in Hawaii:

Cravens, 54, a former Chicago area police officer, says he was awarded a TSA certificate of excellence and a $400 bonus before his troubles began at the airport, where he worked from February 2004 until June 2006.

He said he reported various problems with screening procedures, including unqualified personnel working on X-ray machines and improper pat downs of passengers. He also contended the agency improperly stored hazardous materials, such as confiscated cigarette lighters.

Cravens said he even appeared in "full TSA uniform" on a local newscast to warn passengers of security risks. Afterward, he said he was written up for "unprofessional conduct" and subsequently suspended.

TSA officials "just watched every move I made," said Cravens, who quit for another job. He said he does not like the term whistleblower.
"I prefer to be called a lamplighter," he said. "A lamplighter lights the way for those who are in darkness."

>>> P. Jeffrey Black, Federal Air Marshal in Las Vegas:
Black, 44, was quoted in an April 2006 United Press International story about how federal air marshals' anonymity was being jeopardized by airline layover flight reboarding procedures.

He was eventually summoned by TSA agents to discuss the matter.
In the UPI article, Black declined to specifically discuss a leaked policy directive about boarding protocol for marshals, because it contained "sensitive security information." But he told UPI that marshals "are boarded at the whim of the individual airline employees," causing inconsistencies and friction.

"I basically shut them down," asserted Black, telling the agents they were not permitted to ask him "about any off-duty activity that doesn't have a nexus to the workplace."

Finally, Black said they raised a question he deemed relevant: Did he leak the directive with "sensitive security information" to the reporter?

"No, I didn't," Black said he responded. "Is this interrogation over now?"

Black said he has "continually received retaliation" from TSA officials since testifying about air marshals' concerns before a congressional committee in 2004.

TSA declined to comment on Black's case.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2007/10/flying_into_career_troubles.html

Bush Pushes for Telecom Immunity
The Associated Press
Wednesday 10 October 2007

Washington - President Bush said Wednesday that he will not sign a new eavesdropping bill if it does not grant retroactive immunity to U.S. telecommunications companies that helped conduct electronic surveillance without court orders.

A proposed bill unveiled by Democrats on Tuesday does not include such a provision. Bush, appearing on the South Lawn as that measure was taken up in two House committees, said the measure is unacceptable for that and other reasons.

"Today the House Intelligence and Judiciary committees are considering a proposed bill that instead of making the Protect America Act permanent would take us backward," the president said.
Bush wants legislation that extends and strengthens a temporary bill passed in August. Democrats want a bill that rolls back some of the new powers it granted the government to eavesdrop without warrants on suspected foreign terrorists.

Under pressure to close what Bush officials called a dangerous gap in intelligence collection, Congress hastily passed a the temporary bill before leaving Washington for a summer break. Democratic leaders in Congress set the law to expire in six months so that it could be fine-tuned, and civil liberties groups are saying the changes they've already legislated gave too much new latitude to the administration and provided too little protection against government spying on Americans without oversight.

The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act governs when the government must obtain eavesdropping warrants from a secret intelligence court.

This year's update to the law allows the government to eavesdrop without a court order on communications conducted by a person reasonably believed to be outside the U.S., even when the communications flow through the U.S. communications network - or if an American is on one end of the conversation - so long as that person is not the intended focus or target of the surveillance. The Bush administration said this was necessary because technological advances in communications had put U.S. officials at a disadvantage.

The original law generally prohibited surveillance inside the U.S., unless a court first approved it.

Seeking to increase the pressure on the Democratic-controlled Congress, Bush said the update has already been effective, with intelligence professionals able "to gather critical information that would have been missed without this authority."

"Keeping this authority is critical to keeping America safe," he said.

The temporary law requires court review, but only four months after the fact and only involving the administration's general process of collecting the intelligence, not individual cases. Until then, the director of national intelligence and the attorney general would oversee and approve the process of targeting foreign terrorists.

Setting a collision course with the administration, the Democratic bill would provide greater jurisdiction to the secret FISA court.

If the government wants to eavesdrop on a foreign target or group of targets located outside the United States, and there is a possibility they will be communicating with Americans, the government can get an "umbrella" or "blanket" court order for up to one year. In an emergency, the government could begin surveillance without a blanket order as long as it applies for court approval within seven days, under the Democratic bill.

A top Democratic leader opened the door on Tuesday to allowing an immunity provision. But House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said the Bush administration must first detail what the companies did. About 40 pending lawsuits name telecommunications companies for alleged violations of wiretapping laws.

Bush detailed criteria that the bill must meet before he would sign it, including the immunity provision and the broad requirement that it "ensure that protections intended for the American people are not extended to terrorists overseas who are plotting to harm us."

"Congress must make a choice," he said. "Will they keep the intelligence gap closed by making this law permanent. Or will they limit our ability to collect this intelligence and keep us safe, staying a step ahead of the terrorists who want to attack us."
-------

This is a great article in www.truthout.org. It is too long to post here, so I include the page address:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/100807A.shtml

It deals with the people who've tried to be whistleblowers about the gross fraud and corruption they've witnessed with Halliburton and KBR in the Middle East.

Please support Truthout if you can!

VM

This was sent to me today. I post without further comment. -VM

Freedom of speech - Use it or lose it

”When they took away the 4th Amendment,
we were quiet,
because we didn't deal drugs.

When they took away the 6th Amendment,
we were quiet,
because we were innocent.

When they took away the 2nd Amendment,
we were quiet,
because we don't own guns.

Now they are taking away the 1st Amendment,
and very soon,
if we continue to be quiet,
we will have no choice,
but to be continue to be quiet.”

-John Perna

America First, Yahoo Whistleblower Group