Indymedia Estrecho / Madiaq - corruption

The Hate You Hired

Thu, 06 May 2010 11:54:06 +0000

Once post 9/11 hysteria in the U.S. subsided Americans began to reflect on what happened that day and since. Our collective sense of national pride was renewed helping to make us stronger. We realized how precious our freedoms and liberties were. We became more vigilant over anything that threatened our way of life and culture. In the face of tragedy we pulled together.

These changes occurred in part because terrorists snuck up on us, caught us off guard and the feeling was awful. What was also awful was that while we were fearing for our lives certain people whose salaries come out of our pockets conned us into the war in Iraq. We sent men and women from our armed services to risk their lives in a war based on lies. We paid private security contractors twice as much as U.S. Military personnel, and sent roughly the same amount of security contractors as we did our own troops to Iraq.

Hazards inherent in hiring those contractors eventually emerged. One such pitfall was the lack of accountability on the part of those providing the security. When authorities wanted to investigate circumstances regarding a shooting in Baghdad last September they ran into some questionable road blocks. It turned out there were no laws holding private contractors accountable for criminal acts committed while under taxpayer employ.

Allegations of contractor steroid abuse were also troubling as it follows there could have been other on the job substance abuse. We cannot trust the protection of our country's future to security personnel who might be drunk on the job for example. Nor can we wait until after problems arise to investigate such circumstances. Whether a high level security outfit or <i>Joes t-shirts, z's and whatever we could get for minimum wage security guyses</i> most Americans would agree some measure of oversight is prudent.

It concerns me because while a student at The University of Connecticut from 2003 to 2006 I discovered things most Americans would find troubling. I went through harassment, abuse and discrimination sponsored by professors who were aided by some students in such behavior. The behavior was aimed at getting me to either quit, flunk or end up kicked out of the program. It was insinuated one of the students involved was not actually a student but a private security personnel hired to observe me due to my involvement in a student protest thirteen years prior to my coming to UCONN. In fact I was told outright by two fellow students, Eduardo Colon and Dan Gallagher, while at lunch with them during junior year they heard he was some kind of private security personnel hired by the school.

It made some sense because ever since I met this individual first semester of sophomore year 2003 his behavior was odd. He would follow me around school and just pop up when I was walking to class. He'd wait for me, unsolicited, sometimes a half an hour or more after class while I was doing extra work and would follow me to my car. Before ever saying hello he moved his seat from where he was sitting to a seat essentially across from me at a grouping of drafting tables.

Once when exiting a meeting held for my place of employment in a small town an hour from school located in a run down industrial area of that small town between seven and eight AM on a Saturday morning I noticed two suspicious gentlemen standing in front of a car parked facing mine with the hood up on their car. The men weren't working on their car but watching me walk to mine. Once I got into my car one of the individuals put the cell phone he was holding by his side to his ear and began talking while staring at me. When I exited the parking lot, voila, there was the strange security guy from school at the four way intersection outside the building my meeting was in. This small town was also over half an hour's drive from his hometown and I don't believe he had anything to do with my job or my meeting, but there he was waiting at the four way intersection outside the hotel driving slowly past me.

Things became more odd second semester sophomore year when he actually stopped behind me while walking to his chair, put his left hand on my left shoulder, jabbed his right hand into my lower back three or four times repeatedly and walked away. What made this even stranger was that prior to that incident the worst of the professors involved in harassing me did the exact same thing. At that point I asked him to stay away and not speak to me again. He never touched me again, but I believe he helped plan much of the harassment that went on from that point at UCONN.

I would have no problem with him being there were he simply observing me, especially given the gravity of post 9/11 concerns. I take exception to his harassing me and his participation in such. I am not a danger and anyone who knows me would confirm that. The problem is it could have been someone else in my shoes. How secure is the decision to allow someone into rooms filled with college students you deem to be a threat to the lives of those students? It would seem to be more responsible to deny the person's application which after 9/11 would have been fairly easy. That would have ended things before they started.

I don't understand why harassment and provocation of a person deemed a threat were chosen as solutions for dealing with the safety of the lives of young college students. If this were your child or yourself how would you feel about being an unwitting pawn in this hair brained scheme? What price could have been paid for this behavior. What was the cost for the services of this 'security guard?' The money was obviously wasted over the three years I dealt with this as he was ineffectual at getting me to drop out, flunk out or to get me kicked out due to the stress from all the harassment. I made a complaint and graduated.

It is shameful that people supposed to protect us could not have done better. Hate and prejudice were fomented by the very people college students looked up to in order to manipulate students into participating in criminal acts which could have threatened their safety. People were hired to aid in this effort. This was all done on the taxpayers dime without anyone notifying the taxpayers, the students or parents about what they were in for.

Apparently in Connecticut provoking an alleged threat to security in a room full of college students truly is 'good enough for the state.' Who would have guessed?

To read more about my experiences at the University of Connecticut click here and go to the "What Happened" link on the corresponding site.

How Much Does A Mercenary Cost?

Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:56:50 +0000

When the Bush Administration decided for the American public that there would be no fair bidding process to ensure the best possible deal for the taxpayers in return for support services provided during the War in Iraq they signed us on for more than just what is at face value. We know the American people are on the hook to Halliburton, its subsidiaries and all its sub-contractors for billions of dollars as long as we are in Iraq. This includes whoever Halliburton chooses for hotel services, food supplies and of course their private security contractors. Since 9/11 American concerns over private security, their costs (financial and otherwise) and their role in our national security have come under scrutiny.

US troops put their lives on the lines every day in precarious circumstances all around the world. No greater is this sacrifice displayed than in Iraq. They have sacrificed mental health, physical health and for 4,500 their time here on earth to do the job of serving their nation. As Americans we value our troops and never forget what they relinquish.
    The pay they receive seems small especially when compared to the tasks they perform. How much is it worth to put ones life on the line for one's country? How much are they worth to us as fellow countrymen and women on whose behalf they risk their lives? What's fair pay?
    Our men and women in uniform serve for country first; nonetheless they deserve the best for their service. For an unmarried soldier receiving the pay commensurate with Iraq war service with the rank of sergeant receives roughly $85 per day. If they are married that pay doubles to $170 per day. At the top of the pay scale is General David Petraeus making a reported $493 per day which is about $180,000 annually.
    Halliburton gets its money for services provided in Iraq from the US taxpayers they then subcontract companies like the Regency Hotels and ESS foods to provide services underneath them. They in turn hire private security firms to protect them and their interests in Iraq. Thus, those private security firms are getting paid via taxpayer dollars funneled down through Halliburton's no bid payments.
    One of these companies is the infamous Blackwater security firm. Blackwater is sub-contracted to provide security, train personnel and oversee command centers for these firms among other things. The average pay US taxpayers are dishing out to Blackwater personnel is much higher than what we pay for our military. That average pay is roughly $600 per day. Once you add on costs and service fees the rate we dole out increases.
    How much? The pay once costs and fees are included is $815 dollars a day in US citizen's taxpayer dollars, and that's for a mere operator. For a middle manager the average fee is $945 per day. When getting up to the level of senior managers we're paying $1,075 a day. Thus US taxpayers are paying senior managers at Blackwater overseeing a team of just 34 people more than double what we are paying General David Petraeus per day. Something isn’t right there.
    In terms of private security and national security concerns it doesn't stop with Blackwater's exorbitant fees in the middle of a recession and their well publicized less than disciplined behavior. There is another perhaps more insidious aspect of corporate militarism and its relationship to US interests. It was revealed in 2007 that about half of our National Clandestine Services operations (black ops) are also being carried out by private firms. That's right, top secret government spy services are being handled by special interest corporate firms like Lockheed-Martin, Raytheon and others.
    Of course we don't know exactly how much is being paid them as that is labeled "classified." We do know that the black ops community has an interesting way of acquiring taxpayer funds. Here is a quote from a paper written by someone who investigated these interesting phenomena:
"The CIA has the unique legal ability among all US government departments and agencies to generate funds through appropriations of other federal government agencies and other sources 'without regard to any provisions of law' and without regard to the intent behind Congressional appropriations. Every year, billions of dollars of Congressional appropriations are diverted from their Congressionally sanctioned purposes to the CIA and DoD based intelligence agencies without knowledge of the public and with the collusion of Congressional leaders. The covert world of ‘black programs’ acts with virtual impunity, overseen and regulated by itself, funding itself through secret slush funds, and is free of the limitations that come from Congressional oversight, proper auditing procedures and public scrutiny." The CIA black budget is annually in the vicinity of 1.1 trillion dollars – a truly staggering figure when one considers that the DoD budget for 2004 will be approximately 380 billion dollars. (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=CIA#Outsourcing_the_NCS)

    So when we hear of millions of dollars being unaccounted for and mysteriously missing from agencies like HUD and others, it's most likely not accounting errors. Those agencies, which are effectively being looted of taxpayer funds that we sent people to Washington to grant, are forced to simply say "well, we don't know what happened to those millions of dollars." This would account for a lot of so called Government inefficiency as far as the way the books look because there is no transparency. The CIA polices itself with regards to this practice with absolutely no oversight. We know the high prices we are forced to pay for security details in Iraq. How much do you want to guess we pay for unregulated spy services? My guess is it's even higher.
    We've seen with the recent financial crisis what leaving any industry to police itself can lead to. Would we allow anyone we were doing business with or handling thousands of dollars of our money to do with as they wish with no transparency at all or repercussions for their actions? Of course not, but that's exactly what we have been forced to do here and the figures are in the trillions of dollars. “Just trust us” is what we are being told. This is from the same people who helped sell us on WMD in Iraq.
    We are in a time of economic upheaval and need to know now more than ever where and how our money is being spent. How else are we to know when it is being wasted? 50% of our national black ops are in the hands of special interest groups who help prepare intelligence reports for the White House. Are we to just believe blindly that nothing beneficial to those companies is being slipped in? With no oversight how can we know? What the KGB couldn’t accomplish corporate America has and that’s to effectively penetrate the CIA. Hopefully our new president charged with bringing change will reverse our intelligence services being effectively infiltration by the same special interests he and his opponent campaigned so hard against.
    To read about my inspiration for this article go to www.lawsuitagainstuconn.com