Feb 03, 2010, post by awatrobski
| *** ads by SatPRnews *** |
 Since 2003, we provide satellite Internet in Iraq and Afghanistan globally enabling Iraqi and Afghan citizens, businesses and remotely deployed personnel to have broadband Internet access, enterprise connectivity, VoIP and videoconferencing services at affordable costs.
Contact: phone +48 22 630 70 70
www.ts2.pl
|
| *** ads by SatPRnews *** |
Arms manufacturer BAE Systems developing national strategy with consortium of government agencies.
Drones could be used for civilian surveillance in the UK as early as 2012.
Police in the UK are planning to use unmanned spy drones, controversially deployed in Afghanistan, for the “routine” monitoring of antisocial motorists, protesters, agricultural thieves and fly-tippers, in a significant expansion of covert state surveillance.
The arms manufacturer BAE Systems, which produces a range of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for war zones, is adapting the military-style planes for a consortium of government agencies led by Kent police.
Documents from the South Coast Partnership, a Home Office-backed project in which Kent police and others are developing a national drone plan with BAE, have been obtained by the Guardian under the Freedom of Information Act.
They reveal the partnership intends to begin using the drones in time for the 2012 Olympics. They also indicate that police claims that the technology will be used for maritime surveillance fall well short of their intended use – which could span a range of police activity – and that officers have talked about selling the surveillance data to private companies. A prototype drone equipped with high-powered cameras and sensors is set to take to the skies for test flights later this year.
The Civil Aviation Authority, which regulates UK airspace, has been told by BAE and Kent police that civilian UAVs would “greatly extend” the government’s surveillance capacity and “revolutionise policing”. The CAA is currently reluctant to license UAVs in normal airspace because of the risk of collisions with other aircraft, but adequate “sense and avoid” systems for drones are only a few years away.
Five other police forces have signed up to the scheme, which is considered a pilot preceding the countrywide adoption of the technology for “surveillance, monitoring and evidence gathering”. The partnership’s stated mission is to introduce drones “into the routine work of the police, border authorities and other government agencies” across the UK.
Concerned about the slow pace of progress of licensing issues, Kent police’s assistant chief constable, Allyn Thomas, wrote to the CAA last March arguing that military drones would be useful “in the policing of major events, whether they be protests or the ¬Olympics”. He informed that interest in their use in the UK had “developed after the terrorist attack in Mumbai”.
Stressing that he was not seeking to interfere with the regulatory process, Thomas pointed out that there was “rather more urgency in the work since Mumbai and we have a clear deadline of the 2012 Olympics”.
BAE drones are programmed to take off and land on their own, stay airborne for up to 15 hours and reach heights of 20,000ft, making them invisible from the ground.
Far more sophisticated than the remote-controlled rotor-blade robots that hover 50-metres above the ground – which police already use – BAE UAVs are programmed to undertake specific operations. They can, for example, deviate from a routine flightpath after encountering suspicious ¬activity on the ground, or undertake numerous reconnaissance tasks simultaneously.
The surveillance data is fed back to control rooms via monitoring equipment such as high-definition cameras, radar devices and infrared sensors.
Previously, Kent police has said the drone scheme was intended for use over the English Channel to monitor shipping and detect immigrants crossing from France. However, the documents suggest the maritime focus was, at least in part, a public relations strategy designed to minimise civil liberty concerns.
“There is potential for these [maritime] uses to be projected as a ‘good news’ story to the public rather than more ‘big brother’,” a minute from the one of the earliest meetings, in July 2007, states.
Behind closed doors, the scope for UAVs has expanded significantly. Working with various policing organisations as well as the Serious and Organised Crime Agency, the Maritime and Fisheries Agency, HM Revenue and Customs and the UK Border Agency, BAE and Kent police have drawn up wider lists of potential uses.
One document lists “[detecting] theft from cash machines, preventing theft of tractors and monitoring antisocial driving” as future tasks for police drones, while another states the aircraft could be used for road and railway monitoring, search and rescue, event security and covert urban surveillance.
Under a section entitled “Other routine tasks (Local Councils) – surveillance”, another document states the drones could be used to combat “fly-posting, fly-tipping, abandoned vehicles, abnormal loads, waste management”.
Senior officers have conceded there will be “large capital costs” involved in buying the drones, but argue this will be shared by various government agencies. They also say unmanned aircraft are no more intrusive than CCTV cameras and far cheaper to run than helicopters.
Partnership officials have said the UAVs could raise revenue from private companies. At one strategy meeting it was proposed the aircraft could undertake commercial work during spare time to offset some of the running costs.
There are two models of BAE drone under consideration, neither of which has been licensed to fly in non-segregated airspace by the CAA. The Herti (High Endurance Rapid Technology Insertion) is a five-metre long aircraft that the Ministry of Defence deployed in Afghanistan for tests in 2007 and 2009.
CAA officials are sceptical that any Herti-type drone manufacturer can develop the technology to make them airworthy for the UK before 2015 at the earliest. However the South Coast Partnership has set its sights on another BAE prototype drone, the GA22 airship, developed by Lindstrand Technologies which would be subject to different regulations. BAE and Kent police believe the 22-metre long airship could be certified for civilian use by 2012.
Military drones have been used extensively by the US to assist reconnaissance and airstrikes in Afghanistan and Iraq.
But their use in war zones has been blamed for high civilian death tolls.
Jul 17, 2009, post by Artur Nowak
| *** ads by SatPRnews *** |
Since 2003, we provide satellite Internet in Iraq and Afghanistan globally enabling Iraqi and Afghan citizens, businesses and remotely deployed personnel to have broadband Internet access, enterprise connectivity, VoIP and videoconferencing services at affordable costs.
Contact: phone +48 22 630 70 70
www.ts2.pl
|
| *** ads by SatPRnews *** |
CAMP LIBERTY, Iraq – The Palletized Load System is odd looking but is touted as the vehicle backbone of the Army’s distribution and resupply system.
The 89th Transportation Company from Fort Eustis, Va., inherited sixty PLS after driving M915 tractor-trailer vehicles for two of four deployments.
Traditionally an M915 company, the 89th Trans. Co., had to take extra measures in learning to operate the PLS. Like the M915s, the PLS can carry containers and all classes of supply during a mission, however, there are some differences.
Unlike the M915, the PLS is integrated with both the cab and trailer as one. The cab of the tractor is situated in front of the motor and the first two axles in a design that dates back to the 1950s.
In the mid-1950s, the Army started looking for a better cargo truck; one that could traverse all types of terrain, carry more equipment and keep up with its highly-mobile combat forces. To do that, the Army turned to commercially owned companies that designed earth moving equipment.
Beating out two other companies, Caterpillar won the contract design of the M520 “Goer.” The Goer was an 8-ton cargo truck with articulating steering and amphibious capabilities. It was first used during the Vietnam War, but its lack of suspension and slow top speed made it inadequate for traveling on hardened surfaces.
In the 1980s, the Army replaced the Goer with Oshkosh’s Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck. The PLS is a variant of the HEMTT and entered the service in 1993, first being used in Bosnia by the 1st Infantry Division.
The PLS can carry its loads on a flat rack, which are inter-changeable, and uses a hydraulically powered hook arm to lift or lower the flat rack. This greatly reduces the need for any type of material handling equipment such as a crane or forklift.
Spc. Michael Moore, a native of Deer Park, Texas, and a PLS operator said, “It’s easy to pick up loads with the PLS. You don’t have to wait for a fork lift; you just pick up the load and go.”
According to Oshkosh, a driver can operate “without leaving the cab. The driver can load or unload the truck in less than one minute, and do the same for both truck and trailer in less than five minutes.”
“The CTIS is nice too” Moore said. The central tire inflation system allows the operator to change the amount of air in the tires with just the touch of a button.
The design of the PLS also has some added benefits unseen before Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Spc. Donald Blandini, a Saugus, Mass. Native, said “I feel safer in a PLS compared to a 915. It’s a better concept.”
While it does have advantages, the PLS has its share of disadvantages as far as the limited turning radius to maneuver in tight areas, especially in supply yards.
The 89th Trans. Co. mission has many logistical advantages as far as operating a PLS. One advantage is the container handling unit. This feature includes a big hand which extends to pick up a container without a flat rack. Some trucks also come with a material handling crane to allow loading of other various pieces of cargo.
The 89th Trans. Co., will return to its fleet of M915s but has made full-use of the PLS, a vehicle that lives up to the title backbone of the Army’s distribution and resupply system.
Jul 08, 2009, post by awatrobski
| *** ads by SatPRnews *** |
Since 2003, we provide satellite Internet in Iraq and Afghanistan globally enabling Iraqi and Afghan citizens, businesses and remotely deployed personnel to have broadband Internet access, enterprise connectivity, VoIP and videoconferencing services at affordable costs.
Contact: phone +48 22 630 70 70
www.ts2.pl
|
| *** ads by SatPRnews *** |
US desire for power and wealth is insatiable where financial resources are worshipped like God. Friendship is fragile which is contrived to take advantage and so is its commitment to treaties. The US doesn’t believe in mutually beneficial deals but goes for hegemonic monopoly over others inviting strife. Imperialism has made the West dehumanized and devoid of morality. It conquers, plunders and kills with an altruistic face of saving humanity under false pretexts and catchy slogans. In actuality, it is dehumanizing Asia. CIA is notorious for spying, rigging elections to have US pawns in power and to secure lucrative contracts. It ruthlessly smothers resistance into submission and compliance.
Although Islamic resistance confronting the sole superpower is disjointed and divided, it has however denied it the unchallenged global supremacy and caused economic global decrease.
Terrorism is a product of injustice and confined to Islamic world. Without eradicating root causes which breed terrorism, the disease cannot be cured.
War on terror is chiefly being financed by USA through drug trade in Afghanistan. Likewise, Taliban too are using drug money to finance their resistance struggle. Continued occupation of Afghanistan by US-Nato troops is the major cause of instability and militancy in Afghanistan while RAW led subversion and sabotage against Pakistan has fueled extremism and terrorism in Pakistan.
Bush led neo-cons caused worst damage to US prestige and its economy. Contrary to claims of change, Obama Administration is following policies of Bush. It prefers force over dialogue, making no effort to provide them security, justice, rule of law, jobs and basic amenities to improve their lives. It is turning a blind eye to narcotic trade in Afghanistan, spreading vices in Afghan society and funding militancy. It continues to depend upon cunning advises of RAW, Mossad, CIA and pseudo US think tanks and hence distrusts, blames and coerces Pakistan which is facing the major brunt of US war on terror.
Disregarding US said that it has won Iraq war, Peter W. Galbraith opined that Iraq war failed to serve a single major US foreign policy objective. It has not made US safer; not advanced war on terror; not made Iraq a stable state; not spread democracy to Middle East; and has not enhanced access to oil. Even now 10-15 terror attacks take place daily. The US has suffered 4321 casualties. Situation in Afghanistan is far worse where 80% of territory is under control of Taliban. UK military commander Brig Mark Carlton Smith and French and German military commanders in Afghanistan admitted that US led allied forces are not going to win the war. Troops surge and flawed Af-Pak policy will not convert defeat into victory but will reinforce failure.
USA is trying to allay fears of Pakistan that it should not worry about India but doesn’t spell out basis of its optimism. While it attentively listens to complaints of India, it turns a deaf ear to grievances of Pakistan claiming that these are misconceived and warns Pakistan to behave (Kargil conflict, suicide attack in July 2008 on Indian Embassy in Kabul, Mumbai attacks etc). Colossal amount of $32.35 billion spent on defence by India and frenzy with which it is modernizing its armed forces and upgrading its nuclear capability disturbing regional military balance do not consternate Washington. Collective defence budget of all the six neighbors of India is $5.7 billion, of which Pakistan’s share is $4 billion.
Drones have not curbed militancy in Fata or put fear in hearts of tribesmen nor has it helped US military in limiting militancy in Afghanistan. Purpose of schemers is to provoke divisive militants like pro-government Gul Bahadur and Maulvi Nazir to join hands with Baitullah and put up a unified front against Pak army in Waziristan and get locked in fatal combat. Greater the resilience shown by militants, greater will be the urge to redeploy forces from eastern to western border to fulfill another wish of USA. It is in context of leaving our eastern border unguarded that Indian COAS Gen Kapoor has rendered a hollow and babyish assurance that India poses no threat to security of Pakistan.
Does USA really think that India is preparing itself to fight China? If so, it must be dreaming since ground situation is quite different. India has 13 Corps out of which seven Corps including six strike Corps are deployed against Pakistan, marked as principle enemy. It broke Pakistan into two in 1971 and thereafter it has constantly employed covert means to destabilize Pakistan. India and Afghanistan have signed a defence pact according to which India would deploy some 1,50000 troops in Afghanistan by December 2009. It would provide Indian military in collaboration with Afghan forces another avenue for invasion against Pakistan.
Was invasion and occupation of Afghanistan justifiable and are Americans justified in imposing set of rules quite alien to local customs and traditions and their brand of democracy which has not worked anywhere else?
Is it morally correct for occupation forces to divide local population into unfriendly and friendly categories and pitch latter against the former, split them on ethnic lines and also indulge in collateral damage under the pretext of eliminating irreconcilable? Will reconcilable of today not be irreconcilable of tomorrow?
Are Americans justified in keeping majority Pashtun Afghans out of power and propping up anti-Pakistan non-Pashtun regime headed by a puppet in Kabul? Are they right in trying to block Taliban from regaining power even if locals want them?
Having been ousted from power and their country, are Afghans so terribly wrong in resisting occupation of their country by alien forces and has it happened for the first time? Are invaders who conquer, plunder and mercilessly kill inhabitants of captured country for economic and strategic gains real terrorists or resistance forces that pick up arms in self-defence to safeguard their liberty and honor?
Are Americans justified in converting Afghanistan into biggest narcotics state in the world particularly when the Taliban had rid Afghanistan of this menace? In what way Americans have made lives of Afghans more secure and prosperous than what it was during Taliban rule? Is security in Afghanistan better today than what it was during Taliban rule?
Are they justified in misusing Afghan soil for carrying out drone attacks against Pakistan killing innocent people and in alliance with other powers carrying out covert operations to destabilize Pakistan?
Is USA justified in establishing military bases in other countries, spying over them and neighboring countries, destabilizing regimes and stealing their resources? Today USA has its forces in nearly 200 foreign countries. All US military bases are tied to oil resources and oil transportation considerations. Southcom in Colombia, Pacific Command, Centcom Command keep an eye on various oil producing areas. Centcom keeps its eye on Middle East and oil rich Caspian Basin covering most of Central Asian Republics. Afghanistan is an important military base for its reach against Iran, Central Asia, China, Russia and Pakistan.
As per South Asian analyst Lisa Curtis ‘The US needs Pakistan more than Pakistan needs the US’. What if a drone is shot down when Pak army patience wears thin? Doesn’t USA know that there is no viable supply line to send arms to Kabul for US-NATO troops?
On what moral grounds USA is so keen to give India a key role in Afghanistan, thereby enabling it to stab Pakistan in the back?
Why is USA pressing Pakistan to shift more and more forces from eastern to western border without taking any practical steps to allay its genuine security concerns?
Why has USA underestimate nefarious activities of 17 Indian Intelligence units in Afghanistan and each of Indian consulates and Kabul Embassy housing two Israelis despite being repeatedly told about their involvement in Fata, Swat and Balochistan?
Isn’t it high time we stand up as a nation and say No More?
Jun 28, 2009, post by Marcin Frackiewicz
| *** ads by SatPRnews *** |
Since 2003, we provide satellite Internet in Iraq and Afghanistan globally enabling Iraqi and Afghan citizens, businesses and remotely deployed personnel to have broadband Internet access, enterprise connectivity, VoIP and videoconferencing services at affordable costs.
Contact: phone +48 22 630 70 70
www.ts2.pl
|
| *** ads by SatPRnews *** |
WARSAW, Poland, Jan. 22 /Reuters/ — TS2 Satellite Technologies‘ network in Iraq and Afghanistan has over 15,000 military users of local broadband satellite connections.
“We were among the first telecommunications operators in the satellite technology in the territory of Iraq and Afghanistan, and as such we have enjoyed a successful cooperation with the U.S. Army for several years now,” says Marcin Frackiewicz, CEO of the TS2 Satellite Technologies.
TS2 Satellite Technologies offers two-way high-speed Internet access with no phone lines, no cable and no dial-up modem. It’s always on, available virtually anywhere, and affordable. The laptop or Wi-Fi network can receive Internet signal through a special satellite VSAT modem, which was usually set up in a building or tent when deployed.
The one VSAT access point provides the following services for soldiers:
– Broadband access to the Internet (WWW, E-mail, FTP etc.)
– Data transfer to many other users simultaneously
– Telephone connections including VoIP, IP phone
– Video-conference connections
Advantages of the system:
– Short set-up time
– Fast and easy upgrades
– Possibility of guaranteed CIR
– Transmission in almost all weather conditions
The communication among the bases is possible thanks to the simultaneous lease of bands on the Intelsat 10-02, Intelsat 901 and Eutelsat W6 satellites whose coverage enables configuration of connections between any place in Europe, Middle East and Southwest Asia.
TS2′s satellite military networks are located in Al Taqaddum Air Base, Bahgram AF, Balad Base, Baquba Airfield, Brassfield-Mora, Cob Adder, Cob Speicher, Camp Al Asad Airbase, Camp Bucca Basra City, Camp Buehring, Camp Charlie Basra, Camp Eggers, Camp Fallujah, Camp Grizzly, Camp Korean Village, Camp Liberty, Camp Mejid, Camp Ramadi, Camp Slayer, Camp Stryker, Camp Taji, Camp Victory, Fob Bagram, Fob Brassfield Mora, Fob Delta Al Kut, Fob Diamondback, Fob Falcon, Fob Garryowen, Fob Gardez, Fob Ghazni, Fob Kalagush, Fob Kandahar, Fob Lagman, Fob Mchenry, Fob Marez, Fob Normandy, Fob Rustamiyah, Fob Summerall, Fob Sykes, Fob Salerno, Fob Torkham, Fob Warhorse, Fob Warrior, Herat RTC, Jallahabad Air Base, Kabul Airport, Kabul Camp Eggers, Kandahar Air Base, Lsa Anaconda Balad, Q-West Base Complex and Tallil Ab Lsa Adder.
Especially for U.S. Military Personnel, Contracting Officers and DoD Contractors, TS2 delivers satellite equipment to most of all military addresses in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Middle East, within maximum of 7 days.
Supported military locations in Iraq -
http://www.ts2.pl/en/Internet-in-Iraq-for-US-Army-Soldiers
Supported military locations in Afghanistan -
http://www.ts2.pl/en/Internet-in-Afghanistan-for-US-Army-Soldiers
Contact:
Piotr Kubiak and Michal Skrok
TS2 Satellite Technologies
phone +48 22 630 70 70
fax +48 22 630 70 71
http://www.ts2.pl
Jun 17, 2009, post by Artur Nowak
| *** ads by SatPRnews *** |
Since 2003, we provide satellite Internet in Iraq and Afghanistan globally enabling Iraqi and Afghan citizens, businesses and remotely deployed personnel to have broadband Internet access, enterprise connectivity, VoIP and videoconferencing services at affordable costs.
Contact: phone +48 22 630 70 70
www.ts2.pl
|
| *** ads by SatPRnews *** |
These are extraordinary times for our country. We are confronting an historic economic crisis. We are fighting two wars. We face a range of challenges that will define the way that Americans will live in the 21st century. There is no shortage of work to be done, or responsibilities to bear.
And we have begun to make progress. Just this week, we have taken steps to protect American consumers and homeowners, and to reform our system of government contracting so that we better protect our people while spending our money more wisely. The engines of our economy are slowly beginning to turn, and we are working toward historic reform of health care and energy. I welcome the hard work that has been done by the Congress on these and other issues.
In the midst of all these challenges, however, my single most important responsibility as President is to keep the American people safe. That is the first thing that I think about when I wake up in the morning. It is the last thing that I think about when I go to sleep at night.
This responsibility is only magnified in an era when an extremist ideology threatens our people, and technology gives a handful of terrorists the potential to do us great harm. We are less than eight years removed from the deadliest attack on American soil in our history. We know that al Qaeda is actively planning to attack us again. We know that this threat will be with us for a long time, and that we must use all elements of our power to defeat it.
Already, we have taken several steps to achieve that goal. For the first time since 2002, we are providing the necessary resources and strategic direction to take the fight to the extremists who attacked us on 9/11 in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We are investing in the 21st century military and intelligence capabilities that will allow us to stay one step ahead of a nimble enemy. We have re-energized a global non-proliferation regime to deny the world’s most dangerous people access to the world’s deadliest weapons, and launched an effort to secure all loose nuclear materials within four years. We are better protecting our border, and increasing our preparedness for any future attack or natural disaster. We are building new partnerships around the world to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates. And we have renewed American diplomacy so that we once again have the strength and standing to truly lead the world.
These steps are all critical to keeping America secure. But I believe with every fiber of my being that in the long run we also cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values. The documents that we hold in this very hall – the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights -are not simply words written into aging parchment. They are the foundation of liberty and justice in this country, and a light that shines for all who seek freedom, fairness, equality and dignity in the world.
I stand here today as someone whose own life was made possible by these documents. My father came to our shores in search of the promise that they offered. My mother made me rise before dawn to learn of their truth when I lived as a child in a foreign land. My own American journey was paved by generations of citizens who gave meaning to those simple words – “to form a more perfect union.” I have studied the Constitution as a student; I have taught it as a teacher; I have been bound by it as a lawyer and legislator. I took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief, and as a citizen, I know that we must never – ever – turn our back on its enduring principles for expedience sake.
I make this claim not simply as a matter of idealism. We uphold our most cherished values not only because doing so is right, but because it strengthens our country and keeps us safe. Time and again, our values have been our best national security asset – in war and peace; in times of ease and in eras of upheaval.
Fidelity to our values is the reason why the United States of America grew from a small string of colonies under the writ of an empire to the strongest nation in the world.
It is the reason why enemy soldiers have surrendered to us in battle, knowing they’d receive better treatment from America’s armed forces than from their own government.
It is the reason why America has benefited from strong alliances that amplified our power, and drawn a sharp and moral contrast with our adversaries.
It is the reason why we’ve been able to overpower the iron fist of fascism, outlast the iron curtain of communism, and enlist free nations and free people everywhere in common cause and common effort.
From Europe to the Pacific, we have been a nation that has shut down torture chambers and replaced tyranny with the rule of law. That is who we are. And where terrorists offer only the injustice of disorder and destruction, America must demonstrate that our values and institutions are more resilient than a hateful ideology.
After 9/11, we knew that we had entered a new era – that enemies who did not abide by any law of war would present new challenges to our application of the law; that our government would need new tools to protect the American people, and that these tools would have to allow us to prevent attacks instead of simply prosecuting those who try to carry them out.
Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions. And I believe that those decisions were motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people. But I also believe that – too often – our government made decisions based upon fear rather than foresight, and all too often trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions. Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, we too often set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford. And in this season of fear, too many of us – Democrats and Republicans; politicians, journalists and citizens – fell silent.
In other words, we went off course. And this is not my assessment alone. It was an assessment that was shared by the American people, who nominated candidates for President from both major parties who, despite our many differences, called for a new approach – one that rejected torture, and recognized the imperative of closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.
Now let me be clear: we are indeed at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates. We do need to update our institutions to deal with this threat. But we must do so with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process; in checks and balances and accountability. For reasons that I will explain, the decisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable – a framework that failed to rely on our legal traditions and time-tested institutions; that failed to use our values as a compass. And that is why I took several steps upon taking office to better protect the American people.
First, I banned the use of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques by the United States of America.
I know some have argued that brutal methods like water-boarding were necessary to keep us safe. I could not disagree more. As Commander-in-Chief, I see the intelligence, I bear responsibility for keeping this country safe, and I reject the assertion that these are the most effective means of interrogation. What’s more, they undermine the rule of law. They alienate us in the world. They serve as a recruitment tool for terrorists, and increase the will of our enemies to fight us, while decreasing the will of others to work with America. They risk the lives of our troops by making it less likely that others will surrender to them in battle, and more likely that Americans will be mistreated if they are captured. In short, they did not advance our war and counter-terrorism efforts – they undermined them, and that is why I ended them once and for all.
The arguments against these techniques did not originate from my Administration. As Senator McCain once said, torture “serves as a great propaganda tool for those who recruit people to fight against us.” And even under President Bush, there was recognition among members of his Administration – including a Secretary of State, other senior officials, and many in the military and intelligence community – that those who argued for these tactics were on the wrong side of the debate, and the wrong side of history. We must leave these methods where they belong – in the past. They are not who we are. They are not America.
The second decision that I made was to order the closing of the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay.
For over seven years, we have detained hundreds of people at Guantanamo. During that time, the system of Military Commissions at Guantanamo succeeded in convicting a grand total of three suspected terrorists. Let me repeat that: three convictions in over seven years. Instead of bringing terrorists to justice, efforts at prosecution met setbacks, cases lingered on, and in 2006 the Supreme Court invalidated the entire system. Meanwhile, over five hundred and twenty-five detainees were released from Guantanamo under the Bush Administration. Let me repeat that: two-thirds of the detainees were released before I took office and ordered the closure of Guantanamo.
There is also no question that Guantanamo set back the moral authority that is America’s strongest currency in the world. Instead of building a durable framework for the struggle against al Qaeda that drew upon our deeply held values and traditions, our government was defending positions that undermined the rule of law. Indeed, part of the rationale for establishing Guantanamo in the first place was the misplaced notion that a prison there would be beyond the law – a proposition that the Supreme Court soundly rejected. Meanwhile, instead of serving as a tool to counter-terrorism, Guantanamo became a symbol that helped al Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause. Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained.
So the record is clear: rather than keep us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security. It is a rallying cry for our enemies. It sets back the willingness of our allies to work with us in fighting an enemy that operates in scores of countries. By any measure, the costs of keeping it open far exceed the complications involved in closing it. That is why I argued that it should be closed throughout my campaign. And that is why I ordered it closed within one year.
The third decision that I made was to order a review of all the pending cases at Guantanamo.
I knew when I ordered Guantanamo closed that it would be difficult and complex. There are 240 people there who have now spent years in legal limbo. In dealing with this situation, we do not have the luxury of starting from scratch. We are cleaning up something that is – quite simply – a mess; a misguided experiment that has left in its wake a flood of legal challenges that my Administration is forced to deal with on a constant basis, and that consumes the time of government officials whose time should be spent on better protecting our country.
Indeed, the legal challenges that have sparked so much debate in recent weeks in Washington would be taking place whether or not I decided to close Guantanamo. For example, the court order to release seventeen Uighur detainees took place last fall – when George Bush was President. The Supreme Court that invalidated the system of prosecution at Guantanamo in 2006 was overwhelmingly appointed by Republican Presidents. In other words, the problem of what to do with Guantanamo detainees was not caused by my decision to close the facility; the problem exists because of the decision to open Guantanamo in the first place.
There are no neat or easy answers here. But I can tell you that the wrong answer is to pretend like this problem will go away if we maintain an unsustainable status quo. As President, I refuse to allow this problem to fester. Our security interests won’t permit it. Our courts won’t allow it. And neither should our conscience.
Now, over the last several weeks, we have seen a return of the politicization of these issues that have characterized the last several years. I understand that these problems arouse passions and concerns. They should. We are confronting some of the most complicated questions that a democracy can face. But I have no interest in spending our time re-litigating the policies of the last eight years. I want to solve these problems, and I want to solve them together as Americans.
And we will be ill-served by some of the fear-mongering that emerges whenever we discuss this issue. Listening to the recent debate, I’ve heard words that are calculated to scare people rather than educate them; words that have more to do with politics than protecting our country. So I want to take this opportunity to lay out what we are doing, and how we intend to resolve these outstanding issues. I will explain how each action that we are taking will help build a framework that protects both the American people and the values that we hold dear. And I will focus on two broad areas: first, issues relating to Guantanamo and our detention policy; second, issues relating to security and transparency.
Let me begin by disposing of one argument as plainly as I can: we are not going to release anyone if it would endanger our national security, nor will we release detainees within the United States who endanger the American people. Where demanded by justice and national security, we will seek to transfer some detainees to the same type of facilities in which we hold all manner of dangerous and violent criminals within our borders – highly secure prisons that ensure the public safety. As we make these decisions, bear in mind the following fact: nobody has ever escaped from one of our federal “supermax” prisons, which hold hundreds of convicted terrorists. As Senator Lindsey Graham said: “The idea that we cannot find a place to securely house 250-plus detainees within the United States is not rational.”
We are currently in the process of reviewing each of the detainee cases at Guantanamo to determine the appropriate policy for dealing with them. As we do so, we are acutely aware that under the last Administration, detainees were released only to return to the battlefield. That is why we are doing away with the poorly planned, haphazard approach that let those detainees go in the past. Instead, we are treating these cases with the care and attention that the law requires and our security demands. Going forward, these cases will fall into five distinct categories.
First, when feasible, we will try those who have violated American criminal laws in federal courts – courts provided for by the United States Constitution. Some have derided our federal courts as incapable of handling the trials of terrorists. They are wrong. Our courts and juries of our citizens are tough enough to convict terrorists, and the record makes that clear. Ramzi Yousef tried to blow up the World Trade Center – he was convicted in our courts, and is serving a life sentence in U.S. prison. Zaccarias Moussaoui has been identified as the 20th 9/11 hijacker – he was convicted in our courts, and he too is serving a life sentence in prison. If we can try those terrorists in our courts and hold them in our prisons, then we can do the same with detainees from Guantanamo.
Recently, we prosecuted and received a guilty plea from a detainee – al-Marri – in federal court after years of legal confusion. We are preparing to transfer another detainee to the Southern District of New York, where he will face trial on charges related to the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania – bombings that killed over 200 people. Preventing this detainee from coming to our shores would prevent his trial and conviction. And after over a decade, it is time to finally see that justice is served, and that is what we intend to do.
The second category of cases involves detainees who violate the laws of war and are best tried through Military Commissions. Military commissions have a history in the United States dating back to George Washington and the Revolutionary War. They are an appropriate venue for trying detainees for violations of the laws of war. They allow for the protection of sensitive sources and methods of intelligence-gathering; for the safety and security of participants; and for the presentation of evidence gathered from the battlefield that cannot be effectively presented in federal Courts.
Now, some have suggested that this represents a reversal on my part. They are wrong. In 2006, I did strongly oppose legislation proposed by the Bush Administration and passed by the Congress because it failed to establish a legitimate legal framework, with the kind of meaningful due process and rights for the accused that could stand up on appeal. I did, however, support the use of military commissions to try detainees, provided there were several reforms. And those are the reforms that we are making.
Instead of using the flawed Commissions of the last seven years, my Administration is bringing our Commissions in line with the rule of law. The rule will no longer permit us to use as evidence statements that have been obtained using cruel, inhuman, or degrading interrogation methods. We will no longer place the burden to prove that hearsay is unreliable on the opponent of the hearsay. And we will give detainees greater latitude in selecting their own counsel, and more protections if they refuse to testify. These reforms – among others – will make our Military Commissions a more credible and effective means of administering justice, and I will work with Congress and legal authorities across the political spectrum on legislation to ensure that these Commissions are fair, legitimate, and effective.
The third category of detainees includes those who we have been ordered released by the courts. Let me repeat what I said earlier: this has absolutely nothing to do with my decision to close Guantanamo. It has to do with the rule of law. The courts have found that there is no legitimate reason to hold twenty-one of the people currently held at Guantanamo. Twenty of these findings took place before I came into office. The United States is a nation of laws, and we must abide by these rulings.
The fourth category of cases involves detainees who we have determined can be transferred safely to another country. So far, our review team has approved fifty detainees for transfer. And my Administration is in ongoing discussions with a number of other countries about the transfer of detainees to their soil for detention and rehabilitation.
Finally, there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people.
I want to be honest: this is the toughest issue we will face. We are going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country. But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who have received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, commanded Taliban troops in battle, expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States.
As I said, I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture – like other prisoners of war – must be prevented from attacking us again. However, we must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. That is why my Administration has begun to reshape these standards to ensure they are in line with the rule of law. We must have clear, defensible and lawful standards for those who fall in this category. We must have fair procedures so that we don’t make mistakes. We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified.
I know that creating such a system poses unique challenges. Other countries have grappled with this question, and so must we. But I want to be very clear that our goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for Guantanamo detainees – not to avoid one. In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man. If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight. And so going forward, my Administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution.
As our efforts to close Guantanamo move forward, I know that the politics in Congress will be difficult. These issues are fodder for 30-second commercials and direct mail pieces that are designed to frighten. I get it. But if we continue to make decisions from within a climate of fear, we will make more mistakes. And if we refuse to deal with these issues today, then I guarantee you that they will be an albatross around our efforts to combat terrorism in the future. I have confidence that the American people are more interested in doing what is right to protect this country than in political posturing. I am not the only person in this city who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution – so did each and every member of Congress. Together we have a responsibility to enlist our values in the effort to secure our people, and to leave behind the legacy that makes it easier for future Presidents to keep this country safe.
The second set of issues that I want to discuss relates to security and transparency.
National security requires a delicate balance. Our democracy depends upon transparency, but some information must be protected from public disclosure for the sake of our security – for instance, the movements of our troops; our intelligence-gathering; or the information we have about a terrorist organization and its affiliates. In these and other cases, lives are at stake.
Several weeks ago, as part of an ongoing court case, I released memos issued by the previous Administration’s Office of Legal Counsel. I did not do this because I disagreed with the enhanced interrogation techniques that those memos authorized, or because I reject their legal rationale – although I do on both counts. I released the memos because the existence of that approach to interrogation was already widely known, the Bush Administration had acknowledged its existence, and I had already banned those methods. The argument that somehow by releasing those memos, we are providing terrorists with information about how they will be interrogated is unfounded – we will not be interrogating terrorists using that approach, because that approach is now prohibited.
In short, I released these memos because there was no overriding reason to protect them. And the ensuing debate has helped the American people better understand how these interrogation methods came to be authorized and used.
On the other hand, I recently opposed the release of certain photographs that were taken of detainees by U.S. personnel between 2002 and 2004. Individuals who violated standards of behavior in these photos have been investigated and held accountable. There is no debate as to whether what is reflected in those photos is wrong, and nothing has been concealed to absolve perpetrators of crimes. However, it was my judgment – informed by my national security team – that releasing these photos would inflame anti-American opinion, and allow our enemies to paint U.S. troops with a broad, damning and inaccurate brush, endangering them in theaters of war.
In short, there is a clear and compelling reason to not release these particular photos. There are nearly 200,000 Americans who are serving in harm’s way, and I have a solemn responsibility for their safety as Commander-in-Chief. Nothing would be gained by the release of these photos that matters more than the lives of our young men and women serving in harm’s way.
In each of these cases, I had to strike the right balance between transparency and national security. This balance brings with it a precious responsibility. And there is no doubt that the American people have seen this balance tested. In the images from Abu Ghraib and the brutal interrogation techniques made public long before I was President, the American people learned of actions taken in their name that bear no resemblance to the ideals that generations of Americans have fought for. And whether it was the run-up to the Iraq War or the revelation of secret programs, Americans often felt like part of the story had been unnecessarily withheld from them. That causes suspicion to build up. That leads to a thirst for accountability.
I ran for President promising transparency, and I meant what I said. That is why, whenever possible, we will make information available to the American people so that they can make informed judgments and hold us accountable. But I have never argued – and never will – that our most sensitive national security matters should be an open book. I will never abandon – and I will vigorously defend – the necessity of classification to defend our troops at war; to protect sources and methods; and to safeguard confidential actions that keep the American people safe. And so, whenever we cannot release certain information to the public for valid national security reasons, I will insist that there is oversight of my actions – by Congress or by the courts.
We are launching a review of current policies by all of those agencies responsible for the classification of documents to determine where reforms are possible, and to assure that the other branches of government will be in a position to review executive branch decisions on these matters. Because in our system of checks and balances, someone must always watch over the watchers – especially when it comes to sensitive information.
Along those same lines, my Administration is also confronting challenges to what is known as the “State Secrets” privilege. This is a doctrine that allows the government to challenge legal cases involving secret programs. It has been used by many past Presidents – Republican and Democrat – for many decades. And while this principle is absolutely necessary to protect national security, I am concerned that it has been over-used. We must not protect information merely because it reveals the violation of a law or embarrasses the government. That is why my Administration is nearing completion of a thorough review of this practice.
We plan to embrace several principles for reform. We will apply a stricter legal test to material that can be protected under the State Secrets privilege. We will not assert the privilege in court without first following a formal process, including review by a Justice Department committee and the personal approval of the Attorney General. Finally, each year we will voluntarily report to Congress when we have invoked the privilege and why, because there must be proper oversight of our actions.
On all of these matter related to the disclosure of sensitive information, I wish I could say that there is a simple formula. But there is not. These are tough calls involving competing concerns, and they require a surgical approach. But the common thread that runs through all of my decisions is simple: we will safeguard what we must to protect the American people, but we will also ensure the accountability and oversight that is the hallmark of our constitutional system. I will never hide the truth because it is uncomfortable. I will deal with Congress and the courts as co-equal branches of government. I will tell the American people what I know and don’t know, and when I release something publicly or keep something secret, I will tell you why.
In all of the areas that I have discussed today, the policies that I have proposed represent a new direction from the last eight years. To protect the American people and our values, we have banned enhanced interrogation techniques. We are closing the prison at Guantanamo. We are reforming Military Commissions, and we will pursue a new legal regime to detain terrorists. We are declassifying more information and embracing more oversight of our actions, and narrowing our use of the State Secrets privilege. These are dramatic changes that will put our approach to national security on a surer, safer and more sustainable footing, and their implementation will take time.
There is a core principle that we will apply to all of our actions: even as we clean up the mess at Guantanamo, we will constantly re-evaluate our approach, subject our decisions to review from the other branches of government, and seek the strongest and most sustainable legal framework for addressing these issues in the long-term. By doing that, we can leave behind a legacy that outlasts my Administration, and that endures for the next President and the President after that; a legacy that protects the American people, and enjoys broad legitimacy at home and abroad.
That is what I mean when I say that we need to focus on the future. I recognize that many still have a strong desire to focus on the past. When it comes to the actions of the last eight years, some Americans are angry; others want to re-fight debates that have been settled, most clearly at the ballot box in November. And I know that these debates lead directly to a call for a fuller accounting, perhaps through an Independent Commission.
I have opposed the creation of such a Commission because I believe that our existing democratic institutions are strong enough to deliver accountability. The Congress can review abuses of our values, and there are ongoing inquiries by the Congress into matters like enhanced interrogation techniques. The Department of Justice and our courts can work through and punish any violations of our laws.
I understand that it is no secret that there is a tendency in Washington to spend our time pointing fingers at one another. And our media culture feeds the impulses that lead to a good fight. Nothing will contribute more to that than an extended re-litigation of the last eight years. Already, we have seen how that kind of effort only leads those in Washington to different sides laying blame, and can distract us from focusing our time, our effort, and our politics on the challenges of the future.
We see that, above all, in how the recent debate has been obscured by two opposite and absolutist ends. On one side of the spectrum, there are those who make little allowance for the unique challenges posed by terrorism, and who would almost never put national security over transparency. On the other end of the spectrum, there are those who embrace a view that can be summarized in two words: “anything goes.” Their arguments suggest that the ends of fighting terrorism can be used to justify any means, and that the President should have blanket authority to do whatever he wants – provided that it is a President with whom they agree.
Both sides may be sincere in their views, but neither side is right. The American people are not absolutist, and they don’t elect us to impose a rigid ideology on our problems. They know that we need not sacrifice our security for our values, nor sacrifice our values for our security, so long as we approach difficult questions with honesty, and care, and a dose of common sense. That, after all, is the unique genius of America. That is the challenge laid down by our Constitution. That has been the source of our strength through the ages. That is what makes the United States of America different as a nation.
I can stand here today, as President of the United States, and say without exception or equivocation that we do not torture, and that we will vigorously protect our people while forging a strong and durable framework that allows us to fight terrorism while abiding by the rule of law. Make no mistake: if we fail to turn the page on the approach that was taken over the past several years, then I will not be able to say that as President. And if we cannot stand for those core values, then we are not keeping faith with the documents that are enshrined in this hall.
The Framers who drafted the Constitution could not have foreseen the challenges that have unfolded over the last two hundred and twenty two years. But our Constitution has endured through secession and civil rights – through World War and Cold War – because it provides a foundation of principles that can be applied pragmatically; it provides a compass that can help us find our way. It hasn’t always been easy. We are an imperfect people. Every now and then, there are those who think that America’s safety and success requires us to walk away from the sacred principles enshrined in this building. We hear such voices today. But the American people have resisted that temptation. And though we have made our share of mistakes and course corrections, we have held fast to the principles that have been the source of our strength, and a beacon to the world.
Now, this generation faces a great test in the specter of terrorism. Unlike the Civil War or World War II, we cannot count on a surrender ceremony to bring this journey to an end. Right now, in distant training camps and in crowded cities, there are people plotting to take American lives. That will be the case a year from now, five years from now, and – in all probability – ten years from now. Neither I nor anyone else can standing here today can say that there will not be another terrorist attack that takes American lives. But I can say with certainty that my Administration – along with our extraordinary troops and the patriotic men and women who defend our national security – will do everything in our power to keep the American people safe. And I do know with certainty that we can defeat al Qaeda. Because the terrorists can only succeed if they swell their ranks and alienate America from our allies, and they will never be able to do that if we stay true to who we are; if we forge tough and durable approaches to fighting terrorism that are anchored in our timeless ideals.
This must be our common purpose. I ran for President because I believe that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together. We will not be safe if we see national security as a wedge that divides America – it can and must be a cause that unites us as one people, as one nation. We have done so before in times that were more perilous than ours. We will do so once again. Thank you, God Bless you, and God bless the United States of America.
Jun 16, 2009, post by Artur Nowak
| *** ads by SatPRnews *** |
Since 2003, we provide satellite Internet in Iraq and Afghanistan globally enabling Iraqi and Afghan citizens, businesses and remotely deployed personnel to have broadband Internet access, enterprise connectivity, VoIP and videoconferencing services at affordable costs.
Contact: phone +48 22 630 70 70
www.ts2.pl
|
| *** ads by SatPRnews *** |
The Air Force’s newest intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance aircraft flew its first combat sortie June 10 over Iraq.
The MC-12 Liberty, assigned to the 362nd Expeditionary Reconnaissance Squadron, arrived in Iraq June 8 and took off from Joint Base Balad at approximately 2:30 p.m. local time for a four-hour mission.
“This is truly a success story,” said Brig. Gen. Brian T. Bishop, the 332nd Air Expeditionary Wing commander. “Our mission here is to deliver combat airpower and overwatch to the joint fight in-theater, and the MC-12 brings a huge ISR capability to employ in support of the ground commander.”
“This is the first combat mission for the 362nd ERS, and it was a huge success,” said Col. Mike Fantini, the 332nd Expeditionary Operations Group commander. “The milestone continues the extraordinary program to push more ISR capability to the joint-force commander.”
Landing at approximately 6:20 p.m. local time, the four-person crew was all smiles after completing the historic sortie.
“It feels good being out here and doing something good for the warfighter,” said Capt. Jason Goodale, the pilot.
“The crew was great,” the Sioux Falls, S.D., said the native deployed from Travis Air Force Base, Calif. “We performed like we trained. It is great to be part of something that is bringing a unique feature to ground forces.”
Flying alongside Captain Goodale were Lt. Col. Phillip Stewart, the mission commander deployed from Langley AFB, Va., and a native of Silver Spring, Md.; and the two sensor operators: Senior Master Sgt. Bruce Hunter, deployed from Offutt AFB, Neb., and a native of Rock Springs, Wy.; and Staff Sgt. Shaun Nelson.
“It was a great mission,” Colonel Stewart said. “It couldn’t have gone any better.”
“It feels really good to validate the training we went through,” he added. “I’m extraordinarily proud of (the Airmen of the 362nd ERS). They are a tremendous group of Airmen. All of them volunteered to come to a brand-new program not knowing what to expect because they believe in the mission and they believe in the men and women that we are protecting on the ground.”
Designed to augment information gathered by other intelligence-collection capabilities operating in-theater, the MC-12 provides real-time full-motion video and signals intelligence and allow military leaders to make battlefield decisions.
“It’s an awesome mission,” said Sergeant Nelson, deployed from Tinker AFB, Okla., and a native of Lenox, S.D. “I think we are all excited to be a part of it. It’s a big capability, and it’s nice to be able to bring this capability to more and more of the troops on the ground. The job satisfaction is amazing out here. You know you’re making a difference. You know you’re helping the guys on the ground. That’s what we are here to do.”
Jun 29, 2008, post by Marcin Frackiewicz
| *** ads by SatPRnews *** |
Since 2003, we provide satellite Internet in Iraq and Afghanistan globally enabling Iraqi and Afghan citizens, businesses and remotely deployed personnel to have broadband Internet access, enterprise connectivity, VoIP and videoconferencing services at affordable costs.
Contact: phone +48 22 630 70 70
www.ts2.pl
|
| *** ads by SatPRnews *** |
TS 2 is the prime Internet Provider for US Army soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most of all active customers are Polish and US Army soldiers, but TS 2 solutions have been implemented also for private companies and organizations. TS 2′ network in Iraq and Afghanistan has over 15 thousand military users of local broadband satellite connections.
TS 2 specializes in providing global satellite access services. They core business is broadband access to the Internet in areas with poor telecommunications infrastructure and mobile satellite phones communication. The main medium of used transmission is a two-way satellite transfer system, which provides good access to the satellite network in even the least accessible areas. It not only provides a broadband connection but also a wide range of additional data and voice services.
TS2’s satellite networks are available in Al Taqaddum Air Base, Bagram AF, Balad Base, Baquba Airfield, Brassfield-Mora, Cob Adder, Cob Speicher, Camp Al Asad Airbase, Camp Bucca Basra City, Camp Buehring, Camp Charlie Basra, Camp Eggers, Camp Fallujah, Camp Grizzly, Camp Korean Village, Camp Liberty, Camp Mejid, Camp Ramadi, Camp Slayer, Camp Stryker, Camp Taji, Camp Victory, Fob Bagram, Fob Brassfield Mora, Fob Delta Al Kut, Fob Diamondback, Fob Falcon, Fob Garryowen, Fob Gardez, Fob Ghazni, Fob Kalagush, Fob Kandahar, Fob Lagman, Fob Mchenry, Fob Marez, Fob Normandy, Fob Rustamiyah, Fob Summerall, Fob Sykes, Fob Salerno, Fob Torkham, Fob Warhorse, Fob Warrior, Herat RTC, Jallaabad Air Base, Kabul Airport, Kabul Camp Eggers, Kandahar Air Base, Lsa Anaconda Balad, Sather Air Base, Q-West Base Complex and Tallil Ab Lsa Adder. [2]
TS2 delivers telecommunication services also for Police Transition Teams in following locations: West Ramadi, Warrar, Tal-Aswad, Saqlawiyah / Saqlawiah, Rutbah, Rumanah, Ramadi District HQ, Qatanna, Mulaab, Kubaisa, Khaladiah, Karmah, Jazeera, Hit, Haqlaniyah, Hamdiyah, Habbaniyah, Forsan, Ferris, East Ramadi, Barwannah, Anah, Ameriayah and Al Qaim. [3]
Military customers in Iraq and Afghanistan
Before end of 2007 year, the TS 2 solutions have been implemented for e.g. US Marine Corps (USMC), US Army Corps of Engineers, Australian Defence Force (ADF), Command of Polish Navy, Special Military Formation GROM, 1st Special Commando Regiment, Polish National Police, Polish National Headquarters of the State Fire Services, Border Guard (Poland), World Bank Group, Lockheed Martin Information Technology, Halliburton Energy Services, KBR, General Dynamics Information Technology, General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc., L-3 Communications Vertex Aerospace, US Naval Research Laboratory, ITT Corporation Aerospace / Communications Division, Technest Holdings / EOIR Technologies, North Eastern Aeronautical Company (Neany), EchoStorm Worldwide, Jorge Scientific Corporation, Erinys International, Aegis Iraq, American Heart of Poland and more others.
TS2′s military services are used by soldiers from 1 BCT 101 ABN DIV, 1-151 CAV HHT, 1-161st FA A-BTRY, 1-206 Field Artillery Battalion, 1-25 SBCT, 1-5 INF B Co, 1-61 CAV SQDN, 1-76 FA, 1/402nd AFSB STRYKER LNO, 1038th HCC, 10TH MTN DIV, 1710 Transpotation company, 184th Ordnance Battalion, 189 CSSB, 18th EN BDE, 1AD 2BCT / TF 1-35 AR, 1AD STB/Datapath, 1BCT, 1STB 1BCT 4ID, 1st BCT 101st Airborne Div., 1st Intel Bn P&A Co AFP, 1st PLT C Co 3-21 IN, 1st Space BDE / MNC-I, 2 BCT 1ID JSS H2, 2/25 DET 1 WPNS CO MAP 3, 2/25 Det 1 H&S Comm Plt, 201st Engineer Bn., 215th ASMC Phipps Clinic, 259 CSSB 155 ICTC, 25th Signal BN, 269 TH MP CO, 269th MP CO, 27th BCT, 3/10 MPCO, 3/4 WPNS CAAT-2, 324 NSC, 330th Military Police Detachment, 345th MI BN, 351st MP CO, 368th Finance DET 4, 370th En Co 54th En Bn, 3ACR, 3D RADIO BN, 401st AFSB MRAP, 41st Fires BDE, 455 EOG/ Spawar/ ATM, 4ID, 4SB 1BCT 4ID, 4th BAT. 101st AB, 4th BCT, 504th MP BN, 527th MP CO, 527th Military Police Company, 542nd SMC, 55th EN CO, 561 MT company, 589th BSB, 58th mp co 1st plt, 5th ANGLICO HQ Det/1st BDE, 5th EN BN, 5th Eng Bn, 6-17 CAV 1-1 ARB, 715th MP CO, 752nd OD CO, 772 Military Police Company, 776 Maintenance Co., 812th MP CO, 836th Engineer Company Sapper, 84th EN BN 643 EN CO, 84th Eng Bn 643rd En Bn, 87th Eng Co, 926th EN BDE, 937th Engineer Company, 97th Trans Det 3, A 2-20 FA, A CO 1-5 IN REGT, A TRP 1-152 CAV, A co. 4SB, A-4/320th, A-BRTY 2-44 ADA, A-CO 1-21 INF, A/2-211 AVIATION, A/CO 1/21, ACO TF 1/35 AR, ALPHA TROOP 1-152, Aco 1-153 INF, Alpha Company, B 4-320th FA, B Btry 3-4 AMD Battalion, B CO Task Force Odin, B CO. Bldg 3455/CH, B Co 1-6 IN, B Co 2-112th, B Co 2-4 GSAB, B Co. Bldg 3455 / CH, B Co. Bldg 3510 / CH, B Company 1-18 Infantry, B co 1-35AR, B co 2-6 IN, B co 563D ASB, B co. 404 ASB CAB 4ID, Bco 1-184 IN L, Bco 1-21, Bco. 2-4 GSAB CAB 4ID, Bco.404 ASB, Bravo Co. 1-184th, Bravo co. 3-159 ARB, C 1/158 fa bn, C BTRY 2-5 FA, C Btry 2-8 FA 1/25 SBCT, C Co 1-12 CAV 1CD, C Co 1-24 IN, C Co. 1/168th GSAB, C Co. 4-4 ARB, C co. 4-4 ARB CAB 4ID, C trp 1-303d Cav 81st hbct, C-Btry 1/158 FA, C/Trp 6-17 CAV, CAB 4ID, CAB 4th ID, CAFFT TAJI, CAV. 2nd PLATOON, CJTF-101 CJ3 Biometrics, CSTC-A CJ6 CSC, Co. B 146 ESB, D Co 2-27 IN/ 3rd PLT, D Co. 2-327 Inf., D. Co. 1/114th INF, D/123 AVN 6-17 CAV, Delta Company 1-151, Delta Company 1-151 Warlords, Delta Troop 7-17 CAV, E CO 3-1 AVN REGT, E Co. 1-161IN, E. CO 1-66 AR, E/FSC 1-22IN 1BCT 4ID, EOD Company 1/3, F Co. 2-10 AVN, GLS/L-3/Titan, HHB 1/6 FA, HHB 2-20 FA BN, HHC 1-24 IN, HHC 1-87 INF, HHC 2-7 CAV 4 BCT 1 CD, HHC 2/327 INF Olsen Medics, HHC 25th STB 25ID G2, HHC 3-103 AR, HHC 3/2 SCR LST, HHC 51st Signal Battalion, HHC 56 SBCT, HHC 5th Engineer Battalion, HHC 710 BSB 3BCT, HHC 783rd MP BN, HHC 84th Engineers Battalion, HHC 949 BSB, HHC BTB, HQs/ 561st MP Company, HSC 834TH ASB, JCCS-1, JTF Paladin / COIC, KAF NSE Force Protection 1 Platoon, KAIA ISAF Kabul Afghanistan, KBR B4 Services, KBR/LSI C7A McHenry, L-3 Communications Iraq, L3 Vertex Aerospace Iraq, L3/GSI, NSWLOGDET TQ US NAVY, PM BIOMETRICS FWD/BAT, TF 5-09 Canadian Forces, TF Centaur, TF Fighting, TF Phoenix, Task Force 1-6 S6, Task Force ODIN, Task Force Wings and USAF FET in FOB Salerno. [5]
TS2 will provide satellite services for the Marines new bases in Afghanistan in first months of 2009 year. The government contract concerns establishing and maintaining full communication in new locations for two years for all soldiers stationed there. The USA are going to transfer 4.5 thousand Marines from Iraq to Afghanistan as early as at the beginning of 2009.
