Empresa G4S

[SR-71]

Es alucinante como funcionan los MQ-9, el personal de la base desde donde funcionan los maniobran para los aterrizajes/despegues etc. y los
vuelos los dirigen desde.... monitores en Arizona. (Corrígeme si me equivoco Loops). Ah! y un pequeño detalle... con tonelada y media de
carga bélica

Saludos.
SR-71

[Loopster]

Una de las empresas de inteligencia que trabajan en Pakistán manejando los Reaper tiene en su web una pequeña animación en la que se puede ver el dibujo de un Reaper con una carga de armamento que bastaría para reducir Tora Bora a escombros

En efecto, muchas operaciones de UAVs de nivel estratégico se dirigen desde territorio estadounidense, no sé si Arizona o que Estado en concreto.

[kilo009]

Desde la BA de Nellis en Nevada.

[Loopster]

La "impresión artística" del Reaper en la web de la empresa que ha tenido mucho que ver con el desarrollo de los UAVs como arma para varias agencias de inteligencia.



Da miedo el jodio bicho

[SR-71]

Me viene a la cabeza esa frase de "mírale a los ojos"... a este no se le ven...

[Loopster]

[quote="tarraco218] http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiap ... nnSTCVideo [/quote]

Y la respuesta del Departamento de Estado:

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2009/sept/128554.htm

QUESTION: Can I ask you about a report by the Project of Government Oversight about the Embassy in Kabul that lists, among other things, incredible understaffing, long hours, extreme long hours of guards, improper training, a language barrier between the guards and the staff at the Embassy, and also hazing of new recruits of guards, which has been – some of which has been listed in letters from the State Department to the contractor complaining about some of this behavior over the last two years?


MR. KELLY: Yeah. Well, Elise, we have received a long letter from the Project On Government Oversight with quite a few documents attached. You make reference to some of them. Let me just say that these are very serious allegations, and we are treating them that way. As soon as we received the documents, they were turned over immediately to our Office of the Inspector General. Secretary Clinton has been apprised of the allegations in these documents and has directed the Department and the Office of the Inspector General to take appropriate action.


And let me just say that the Secretary and the Department have made it clear that we will have zero tolerance for the type of conduct that is alleged in these documents.


QUESTION: If I might, I’d like to quote from a letter from the State Department to the contractor in June of 2007. So this was two years ago that you recognized that some of these deficiencies exist and you said these deficiencies endanger the performance of the contract to such a degree that the security of the U.S. Embassy in Kabul is in jeopardy, and that you threatened to terminate the contract.


Yet over the last two years, there are about 11 letters that have been released not just by the project, but by Senator McCaskill’s office, who is in charge of the Subcommittee on Government Oversight, that you continued to warn the contractor about these deficiencies and that you said that the security of the Embassy is in jeopardy, yet why did you continue to extend the contract?


MR. KELLY: Well, as I say, these are serious allegations. What you just read me, I would – I think they’re very serious too.


QUESTION: These aren’t allegations. These are your own words. These are your own words.


MR. KELLY: Well, I – let’s --


QUESTION: I mean, if this report came out today, yes.


MR. KELLY: Yeah.


QUESTION: But over the last two years, you’ve been continuing to warn this contractor about its performance. So does it take an independent nongovernment organization to cast light on what you’ve been kind of overlooking for the last two years?


MR. KELLY: Yeah. I mean, look, as I understand it, we have – we’ve been investigating this organization for some time now. We understand that we have made some – we have pointed out to them some of the deficiencies. And I can’t answer right now from this podium exactly what they have done in response to this letter.


QUESTION: Well, in your letters, it says that they’ve continued to let them go unaddressed.


MR. KELLY: Well, let me see if I can get you more information. But I just don’t have the information right now. And the matter is also under investigation.


QUESTION: Can I follow up with that, though?


MR. KELLY: Sure.


QUESTION: In June when Senator McCaskill held hearings, the Assistant Secretary of – Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Management William Moser told the hearing that these problems have been looked at, and that since January, they had been addressed. So on what basis did he give that testimony when, according to the POGO report, this behavior, this whole pattern that Elise just sketched out, this --


MR. KELLY: Yeah.


QUESTION: -- whole pattern has continued up to the present day, up to August?


MR. KELLY: Yeah. Well, I’ll have to ask Mr. Moser. I’m not exactly sure what he was basing his determination on when he did tell Congress that these issues have been addressed.


QUESTION: Can you tell us if, up till now, the State Department has been satisfied with the performance of ArmorGroup in providing security for the Embassy in Kabul?


MR. KELLY: I’m just not prepared to say that right now. I mean, let me just see what we can say about this congressional testimony that you --


QUESTION: The letter says Secretary Clinton says that the contract – it says the management of the contract to protect the U.S. Embassy Kabul is grossly deficient, posing a significant threat to the security of the Embassy and its personnel.


MR. KELLY: Yeah.


QUESTION: And this is a now question. Is this the case? Are you worried about how well your staff is protected?


MR. KELLY: Well, we always worry about our staff and how well they’re protected. There is no higher priority for us than the safety and well-being of our people, especially our people who are serving in a dangerous environment, like Kabul.


QUESTION: And the question of language was raised, which is that many of the staff on this security contract don’t speak English, and indeed, the State Department was made aware of that. If there are lots of security staff, something like two-thirds, who don’t speak proper English, how can you make that assurance?


MR. KELLY: Well, you’re asking a lot of good questions. But I just – I can’t comment on them. One, I don’t have the answers to them right now at this moment from this podium. And two, the matter is under investigation. I can’t comment on it.


QUESTION: Well, why is this matter under investigation, Ian? It looks like it’s been under investigation for the past two years.


MR. KELLY: I’m sorry, Elise. I can’t answer it. I’m sorry.


QUESTION: Can you answer one other matter raised in the letter, which is that POGO is saying essentially the State Department has a pattern of ineffectual oversight, and that Congress or somebody ought to give the oversight of embassy security, when you’re in a war zone to the military? Now what’s the State Department’s position on that?


MR. KELLY: Well, again, these are very serious allegations. This is – these particular recommendations are from this particular organization. We’re happy to consider them. But these are extremely serious questions that you’re asking. And I want to make sure that you get a good answer to it, because as I say, the security of our colleagues serving overseas is an extremely serious matter.


QUESTION: When did this stuff, this material, get turned over to the IG?


MR. KELLY: I don’t have an exact time, but it was – as I said when I was first asked this question, they were turned over as soon as we got them.


QUESTION: Well, which was when?


MR. KELLY: Well, I think we got the material in the last week or so. But I don’t have any --


QUESTION: Well, if you got it in the last week or so – they’re talking about letters that go back two years.


MR. KELLY: Oh – well, I mean, it’s a matter --


QUESTION: You’re saying that the IG – the IG has not been looking in --


MR. KELLY: -- a lot of this is a matter of public record --


QUESTION: -- the IG has not been looking --


MR. KELLY: -- because we testified in June.


QUESTION: -- the IG has not been looking into this since 2007? Is that --


MR. KELLY: Matt, I don’t --


QUESTION: And it’s only since you got this stuff from POGO that you’ve looked into this?


MR. KELLY: I think that we’ve been looking into – separate from some of these very serious allegations of a more recent nature in the POGO documents, I mean, we have been – as I say, we have been communicating with Congress. I know that Congress does have concerns. And we’ve also been talking to the contractors too asking them to redress some of these deficiencies.


QUESTION: Well, has the IG been looking into it since 2007, since the --


MR. KELLY: That I don’t know.


QUESTION: Well, because if they have, and it’s been two years and nothing has been done, that would suggest that you have a problem.


MR. KELLY: Yeah. Well, I just don’t know the answer to the question of when they actually started investigating.


QUESTION: That’s –


QUESTION: Well, you know, can I just make – this is unwarranted advice, but you know, you have all this stuff, you know it’s coming out, the briefing gets delayed by an hour.


MR. KELLY: Right. Well --


QUESTION: One would think that someone in the IG’s office or in a legal office or somewhere that come up – you had to anticipate these questions coming.


MR. KELLY: I – Matt, I have told you what I know. And I’ve talked to the IG Office, I’ve talked to the Office of Diplomatic Security. I understand that they have been looking into certain deficiencies in their performance. And then as soon as we got these documents relating to – the documents that you see in the POGO report, those were turned over as well.


QUESTION: They’ve been on a congressman – they’ve been on Senator McCaskill’s website for months, since June.


MR. KELLY: All of these documents?


QUESTION: Yeah.


MR. KELLY: Yeah. Sorry, I wasn’t aware of that.


QUESTION: No, I mean, not the photos of these – of this lewd – not the photos of the lewd behavior. But I mean, all of these complaints that are in the report, you’ve been --


MR. KELLY: Yeah.


QUESTION: -- making to the contractor yourself over the past two years.


MR. KELLY: All right, all right. I really – I’ve told you really all that I know, and then – and I can’t really address a lot of these issue because they’re under investigation.


QUESTION: Just back to the issue of contract – of oversight of contractors, I mean, obviously, there was a huge issue of oversight over Blackwater.


MR. KELLY: Right.


QUESTION: And there were major revisions to the procedures and all of that stuff. Didn’t at that time, considering this was going on concurrently, I mean, isn’t there a need to kind of reevaluate all of contractor oversight of the State Department, not just in particular instances where there’s a – where there’s a case of abuse?


MR. KELLY: Yeah. Well, I – I don’t know if you recall, but the Secretary herself, and I think in one of her town halls, has said that it is her view that we have to lessen our reliance on contractors for security of our embassies. And so she’s asked for a review of the whole system. Whether or not we can move to banning them, I mean, I would highly, highly doubt that. There are contracts involved, and there’s also the whole issue, as I said before, of the importance of protecting our people. And this is not something that we can do overnight.


QUESTION: Could you explain – just a factual matter – what part of the security ArmorGroup is responsible for, where their responsibility ends and DS begins?


MR. KELLY: Yeah.


QUESTION: Whether the U.S. military has any role in protecting that compound.


MR. KELLY: Yeah, yeah.


QUESTION: And of course, there are also Afghan military forces --


MR. KELLY: Right, right.


QUESTION: -- on the perimeter as well.


MR. KELLY: Yeah, yeah. I can only address that in a very general way from my own experience as a Foreign Service officer serving overseas, and I haven’t served in Kabul. But I know that the – it’s the Regional Security Office which is in charge of security basically of our perimeter, and that is usually local guards that provide that. There’s also, of course, the Marine security guard program, and they – they’re more responsible for protection of classified information and also protection of the chancery. There’s also, of course, protection of Americans themselves. A number of embassies, including at least one I served at, had a residential security program as well, where you had local guards at our residences.


So that’s just kind of a general overview. But obviously, in a place like Kabul, it has its own challenges, to put it mildly. And there’s also coordination with the military as well.


QUESTION: Could you take that question and give us an outline of what they do there, their area of --


QUESTION: Specifically what their area --


MR. KELLY: Can you repeat the exact question that I’m taking?


QUESTION: Well, the exact question is exactly what is ArmorGroup responsible for?


MR. KELLY: Okay.


QUESTION: We were told it’s what they call static security and they don’t do the so-called close protection --


MR. KELLY: Yeah.


QUESTION: -- of moving around with the ambassador.


MR. KELLY: Right.


QUESTION: But that they are fairly – that they are in charge of, except for the most outer entry point, but really all the entry points, checking cars and all that.


MR. KELLY: Okay.


QUESTION: But if you could just describe that and what is DS’s role.


MR. KELLY: Sure. I mean, DS’s role, I think, is mainly to over – the oversight of the guard program. But that’s a good question, and we’ll get you the info on it.


QUESTION: And what is the oversight of this particular contractor? Does DS have an oversight of that contractor? Because in the whole Blackwater situation there was a lot of complaints that DS didn’t have enough oversight over the contractors. So who specifically --


MR. KELLY: Well, I do have a specific answer to that question.


QUESTION: Okay.


MR. KELLY: The contracting officer is assigned here in Washington, D.C., and that person has overall responsibility for oversight of the contract and participates in weekly meetings between the program office and AGNA, or the ArmorGroup. And this person is also the one who has interactions on a more frequent basis --


QUESTION: From here?


MR. KELLY: From here in Washington.


QUESTION: So there’s no adult supervision of this contractor on the ground?


MR. KELLY: I’m getting to that.


QUESTION: Okay.


MR. KELLY: In Kabul, there are two assistant Regional Security Officers designated as the contracting officer’s representative and assistant contracting officer representative, respectively. There is also always a duty RSO who deals with the routine guard force matters such as access requests and on-compound events.


So that’s – I guess that goes some way to answer your question. Right? It does appear that they do have the guard force responsibility.


QUESTION: Meaning the Armour Guard force?


MR. KELLY: Well, I mean, it’s an embassy guard force, and Armour has the contract for it.


Can we --


QUESTION: To guard the perimeter of the embassy? Is that what they do?


MR. KELLY: Well, let’s find out exactly.


QUESTION: Okay.


MR. KELLY: New subject?

Ojo, que los Marines de la Embajada también participaban de las fiestecitas, y puestos a preguntar que miren la que se liaba con los nepalíes en la Zona Verde en 2003-2006, las barbacoas de Blackwater, el transporte de "entretenimiento" desde Kuwait, Jordania y Tailandia con contratos como personal sanitario, etc, etc.

Si es que estos anglos cojean siempre por el mismo sitio, dos copas y cambian de acera la mitad

[blackjack]

Al parecer desde que consiguieron el contrato en el 2007 el Departamento de Estado ya le había avisado a Armor Group de que sus servicios estaban fallando y que dejaban un poco que desear.
Una inspección en Marzo detectó que al menos 18 guardas no estaban en sus puestos, todo debido a una supervisión negligente.
Las chicas que AG trae a sus fiestas son bastante populares en el circuito profesional

Otro enlace con la noticia:

Afghan U.S. Embassy patrol in 'deviant' parties with booze, hookers - report
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2 ... eport.html
La verdad es que leer la noticia me ha sacado alguna que otra sonrisa (y recordado viejos tiempos )

[blackjack]

Bueno, a río revuelto ganancia de pescadores, a lo mejor ahora quedan algunas "vacantes" disponibles y podemos aprovecharnos los que estamos a la cola

[Loopster]

Blackjack, ¿estás en la cola británica o americana? Son dos empresas diferentes, aunque dependan del mismo.

La separación es precisamente debida a que los contratos con el DoS para las embajadas exigían que fuera una empresa americana.

[blackjack]

Era una coña marinera Loopster, pero yo voy a probar por la vía inglesa que creo que es la más asequible para mi en este momento (corrigeme si me equivoco)
Perdón por el off topic si he desviado mucho el asunto.