I know like you are SO surprised! Quick, act surprised!
Blackwater Contracts, Short on Detail
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 8, 2007; Page D01
The State Department has released copies of its contracts for private security services with Blackwater Lodge and Training Center and Blackwater Security Consulting. It's a hefty 323-page stack, and it comes with a catch:
About 169 of the pages are blank or mostly blank.
In a cover letter, the department notes that it "gave full consideration" to deletions recommended by Blackwater officials.
A close look at the pages that have not been cut reveals some choice tidbits. The "statement of work" on Page 13 explains why Blackwater was needed
. "As a result of conflicts, wars, political unrest and more recently, terrorist activity, these areas have become extremely dangerous places in which to live and work,"the document says.
"The Bureau of Diplomatic Security is unable to provide protective services on a long-term basis from its pool of Special Agents."Page 35 specifies that "All Contracting employees working under this contract should: Be well proportioned in height and weight," among other qualities.
One unnumbered item includes a long list of things. But because it's surrounded by blank pages, it's hard to know what the list means. Among the items mentioned: battery carrier tool, quick booster kit, heavy-duty work bench, distilled water and WD-40.
see a sample of the redactions and a more complete account, go to http:/
Blackwater, Contracts and Redactions
On Oct. 3, I filed a request with the State Department for contracts with Blackwater. On Dec. 3, the Washington Post received 323 pages in response to my request. I was thrilled. I like documents.
But there was a rub. About half the pages are blank. Here's a sample section.
The federal Freedom of Information Act, widely known in this town as FOIA, theoretically gives citizens and corporations access to baseline details about how their government is being run and how their tax dollars are being spent. In this case, though, the document appears to raise more questions than it answers.
A State Department spokesman said the officials responsible for the cuts are simply trying to protect sensitive information that might put individuals at risk. But he declined to say even what kind of information was cut.
In a cover letter, the department notes that it "gave full consideration" to deletions recommended by Blackwater officials.
"By law that's what we're trying to do by this," said spokesman Rob McInturff, adding that The Post can "go back and appeal" the cuts.
I called FOIA specialist David Sobel, who said he isn't surprised by the largely empty document. More and more in recent years, government officials have deleted with impunity documents released under the act, he said. Sometimes agencies deny FOIA requests outright, citing the need to protect secrecy or information deemed proprietary by its contractors.
Every reporter knows how hard it is to get information through FOIA, and how hard it is to hold the government to account without the documents that are supposed to be accessible through the law's provisions.
"It turns the principals of FOIA on its head," said Sobel, who regularly files requests under the act as senior counsel of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "Unfortunately, this degree of withholding has become common in recent years, and often occurs in areas that have become a focus of the highest degree of public interest."
A review of the just-released documents -- papers regarding the Worldwide Personal Protective Services contract -- found that about 169 of the 323 pages released were blank or nearly so.
Dozens of the documents are devoid even of page numbers, nevermind information about spending patterns and other questions that have dominated recent congressional hearings about Blackwater's roles in a series of deadly incidents.
A typical page is limned by black lines, empty in the middle and marked at the top and bottom only by the words "UNCLASSIFIED." To one side of the empty pages are simple codes, B2 and B7(F).
In the parlance of the FOIA world, that means the State Department justifies its cuts because the information that once filled the blank spaces was related "solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency" or because it was information was "compiled for law enforcement purposes that would: (F) Endanger life or physical safety of any individual."
A close look at what is there reveals some choice tidbits.
Page 2 of the Aug. 25, 2004 contract with Blackwater says the "maximum for this indefinite quantity contract (including options) shall be $1.2 billion."
Not bad for a company whose federal government revenues were less than $100,000 a decade ago. The same page includes a "program management office base price" of $640,000 per year. But we can't know how much would be paid in the option year. Those figures were cut.
The "statement of work" on Page 13 explains why Blackwater was needed. "As a result of conflicts, wars, political unrest and more recently, terrorist activity, these areas have become extremely dangerous places in which to live and work," the document says. "The Bureau of Diplomatic Security is unable to provide protective services on a long-term basis from its pool of Special Agents."
Page 35 tells us something about what the government expects of the private security forces. "All Contracting employees working under this contract should: Be well proportioned in height and weight," it mandates, among other qualities.
One unnumbered item includes a long list of things. But because its surrounded by blank pages it's hard to know what the list means. Among the items mentioned: battery carrier tool, quick booster kit, heavy duty work bench, distilled water and WD40.
There's a "standards of conduct" section that warns that "abusive or offensive language, quarreling, intimidation by words, actions, or fighting, is considered unacceptable performance under this contract."
There's also this on page 69 of the contract:
"Guards will be polite and courteous in the performance of their duties. They will not use abusive language, be late for work, or be inattentive," it says.
"Guard personnel will not act in any manner detrimental to the reputation of their company or the United States Government."
By Robert O'Harrow | December 7, 2007; Contract workers
Previous: Intelligence Riches |
No comments:
Post a Comment