When Special Interests Rule

[NousDefionsDoc]

Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/06/AR2005090601191.html)

The dumbass that came up with this idea should be punched in the face until his ID card photo has black eyes.

[Maisy]

Forgive me if this is a really dumb question, but if you wouldn't mind, could you please elaborate?

[Bill Harsey]

Ms. Maisy,
Please humor me here, what part didn't you understand?

I'm allowing for possible cultural differences.

Edited to add: Did NDD's link work at your location?

[Maisy]

As I said, it's probably (actually, almost definitely) a dumb question, but remember I have no army experience whatsoever. I am asking from a point of almost total ignorance about army life.

What exactly is NousDefionsDoc annoyed about? Have I read the implication right that it is the idea that the Army has sub-contracted out its' security in the first place?

And if so, in his *and others* experienced opinion, what are the (main) problems with this situation?

While I understand from the article that the civilians do not seem to be trained to the level of qualified army personnel, I am interested in what the members of this forum see as the major security issues that this action has raised.

Also, I am interested in the response to the point the article raised about assigning civilian security to free up more personnel to go to Iraq. Is this valid, or again a case of the media not understanding how the army is run?

I do have to plead cultural ignorance, in the army vs civilian cultural sense, yes. :o

[Huey14]

Civilian security sucks. Crap pay, treated like crap, do the job crap.

You get what you pay for.

[Detcord]

"...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."

^^^ Woudn't surprise me if those slides were welded shut too!!!

[moobob]

A civilian security guard here drew his weapon on a soldier in my unit during a vehicle inspection and was subsequently fired :rolleyes:

We went to civilian security here a little over a year ago. My father was an MP out here in the early 80's at Ft.Ord, and he told me once that they were thinking of doing some civilian security back then. There was a ride-along program where he had a civilian security guy tag along for about a week. Turns out that the guy had an arrest warrant.

[Smokin Joe]

I have had the opportunity to interact with some Whack-a-nut personal. Lets just say they are the lowest bidder for a reason.

[Yoshi]

{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."}

Granted I am just a DEP'er, but ... wow.

Yoshi

[Goggles Pizano]

I have had the opportunity to interact with some Whack-a-nut personal. Lets just say they are the lowest bidder for a reason.


Agreed. Met some of them myself over the years-veeeerry low brow.

[Martin]

Forgive me if this is a really dumb question, but if you wouldn't mind, could you please elaborate?
For example:

Non-competitive contracting at a time when it was not necessary. That brings up the costs, does not allow an overview of available services to get the best bang for the buck, suggests inappropriateness in the acquistioning process, etc.
Civilians with little or no training guarding military installations, with firearms they have little or no training using.
Civilians put in service without background checks.
Guarding of military installations with only handguns.

Martin

[QRQ 30]

As far as security goes I have seen the good and the bad and the ugly.

In Germany the "Polish Brigade" pulled almost all post security for U.S. Forces. They were good.

When talking of post security you may need to be more precise of the level of the post. I have pulled guard in many places and don't recall even having live ammo. The extent of the possibilities of stopping a vehicle was by putting the butt of a rifle through the windshield. This became more difficult with the plastic weapons of today. That is internal post security. Now, actual access to a post may be a different story.

There is nothing wrong with out-sourcing security. How it is done is a different .

You make a presumption that all NP's are school trained professionals. Things may have changed but in my day a small percent of military police attended school at Ft. Gordon. The majority were acquired through the "Hey You" method of grabbing and assigning people available with nothing better to do.

I hope I'm not getting carried away with civilians on the board but facts is facts folks.

When talking of true security sites I fully agree that only fully trained and screened should be employed -- civilian or military.

I am reminded of G. Gordo Liddy once said on the radio. Prison guards are the scum of the earth who can't get any better employment. Many are lower than the inmates.

If there are any CO's out there, Liddy said it not me!!! :rolleyes:

[Peregrino]

1. All security decisions have an economic component. You get what you pay for.
2. Professionals are expensive. Just look at the contractor salaries in the sandbox (and a lot of them are sub-par too!). "Rent-a-cops" (civilian security firms) are an "economy of force/budget" option.
3. Facilities that require real protection are hardened and manned by professionals. Defense in depth and all the rest of that stuff. Tripwires at the gates give them time to put down the coffee cup and check the ammo supply (again).
4. "Rent-a-cops" make good tripwires. Tripwires are inexpensive, disposable, and exist only to alert the professionals. Only idiots, parasites, and gov't bureaucrats waste money perfecting tripwires. (Ooops - started getting redundant there.)
5. "Rent-a-cops" are perfectly adequate to meet the requirements for every "most likely" perimeter security scenario. The threat at the gates of military installations (whatever is most likely to happen 99.5% of the time) is less than any other "rent-a-cop" faces at WalMart on a Saturday night. Extra training, expedited security screening, and enough weapons to fight a war are neither necessary, nor economically feasable.
6. This is about a union wanting to take advantage of somebody else's effort (the security contracts) and suck at the gov't tit.
7. Union officials are just another form of parasite - a vector for the Socialism disease.

Sorry - belaboring the obvious. Peregrino

Edited to add: Security levels and the attendant investments to achieve them are kind of like NOLA and hurricane protection. We can construct relatively complete protection for a Cat 3 event and have (statistically) adequate protection or we can bankrupt the government and trample everybody's sensibilities preparing for a millennial event. It's all a form of gambling. Decision makers can read actuarial tables (the odds) as well as any insurance executive/bookie. When the long shot wins, which does happen, you need to have a better emergency plan in place than NO and LA did. NOLA's loss of life after the hurricane is directly attributable to the (lack of) local and state leadership. The flooding was inevitable, I don't think the loss of life was. The levees held for a while after the storm passed. Evacuation before the storm and aggressive - forced - evacuation with the available assets after the storm could have saved untold lives.

[Martin]

Thanks for the replies. Enlightening perspective... I should have thought of that, darn it!

I would have maintained that background checks still is a good point, but in reference to multi-layered defenses and corruption... perhaps that's muted too.

Being a realistic perfectionist, I especially appreciate your comment about perfecting tripwires.

Martin

[Bill Harsey]

6. This is about a union wanting to take advantage of somebody else's effort (the security contracts) and suck at the gov't tit.


.
That's the part I got. Thank you for the rest.