{"id":68521,"date":"2007-02-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-02-13T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2007\/02\/13\/a-state-within-a-state-in-the-united-kingdom\/"},"modified":"2007-02-13T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2007-02-13T00:00:00","slug":"a-state-within-a-state-in-the-united-kingdom","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2007\/02\/13\/a-state-within-a-state-in-the-united-kingdom\/","title":{"rendered":"\u00abA state within a state in the United Kingdom<\/em>\u00bb"},"content":{"rendered":"

On a d\u00e9j\u00e0 d\u00e9velopp\u00e9 diverses remarques sur l’importance de BAE dans la vie politique britannique. On peut notamment consulter notre Analyse du 19 janvier<\/a> sur la Saga Yamamah<\/em>, o\u00f9 l’on retrouve cette phrase du Guardian<\/em> (la meilleure source d’information sur l’aspect politique de l’activisme de BAE) du 16 d\u00e9cembre : \u00abThe sway BAE Systems holds over the top of the British establishment is extraordinary.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tGeorge Monbiot, cet excellent chroniqueur du m\u00eame Guardian<\/em>, ajoute une pi\u00e8ce puissante au dossier, avec sa chronique du jour<\/a>. Le sujet concerne le fait que BAE est un Etat dans l’Etat, que son influence se double d’une organisation qu’on pourrait d\u00e9finir comme une organisation de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 parall\u00e8le \u00e0 l’\u00e9tat, avec son service de renseignement auquel il ne manque pas une branche Action. En effet, l’occasion de ce texte de Monbiot est le constat par l’organisation CATT, qui veut porter plainte dans le scandale Yamamah<\/em>, qu’elle a \u00e9t\u00e9 l’objet de manuvres ill\u00e9gales d’espionnage, instrument\u00e9es \u00e9videmment par BAE.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abThis week, Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) hopes to obtain a court order against BAE. The order would allow it to discover how the arms company obtained one of its confidential documents. CAAT instructed its lawyers, Leigh Day & Co, to seek a judicial review of the government’s decision to drop the corruption case against BAE, which is alleged to have paid massive bribes to members of the Saudi royal family. Leigh Day sent CAAT an email containing advice on costs and tactics. The email ended up in the hands of the arms company.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbHow? Correspondence between a plaintiff and his lawyers couldn’t be more private. The last people you would show it to are the defendants in the case. But somehow the letter found its way to BAE’s offices.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbThe arms company argues that it was the unwitting and unwilling recipient of the email. So why does it refuse to tell CAAT who sent it? Why, far from assisting CAAT’s attempt to explain this mystery, has it threatened the group with costs for seeking to reveal BAE’s source?<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tMonbiot d\u00e9crit le fonctionnement de BAE, \u00aba state within a state in the United Kingdom<\/em>\u00bb, et l’extraordinaire all\u00e9geance de Tony Blair vis-\u00e0-vis de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 d’armement britannique (et, en fait, plus US que britannique). A propos de Tony Blair, qui semble finalement pouvoir \u00eatre d\u00e9fini par ses liens avec Murdoch et avec BAE, Monbiot \u00e9crit, apr\u00e8s avoir rappel\u00e9 (avec des d\u00e9tails in\u00e9dits) son r\u00f4le dans le scandale Yamamah<\/em>: \u00abThe prime minister has never taken such a risk on behalf of one of his departments, let alone his ministers or officials (witness how Lord Levy and Ruth Turner have been left to swing). There are just two friends for whom he will put his legacy on the line: George Bush and BAE.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tCe texte est \u00e0 lire et \u00e0 conserver, pour le r\u00e9sum\u00e9 analytique convaincant qu’il donne de l’ampleur et de la profondeur de la corruption britannique vis-\u00e0-vis de BAE, de l’ampleur et de la profondeur de l’influence de BAE sur la direction britannique. On peut parler de royaume bananier, surtout lorsqu’on a \u00e0 l’esprit l’am\u00e9ricanisation de BAE et l’influence du fait sur sa politique. Il s’agit d’une puissante image de la r\u00e9alit\u00e9 britannique et anglo-saxonne. Notre \u00e9poque est celle du d\u00e9sordre, c’est-\u00e0-dire celle de la corruption ; ou bien, celle de la corruption, c’est-\u00e0-dire celle du d\u00e9sordre.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tMis en ligne le 13 f\u00e9vrier 2007 \u00e0 07H38<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On a d\u00e9j\u00e0 d\u00e9velopp\u00e9 diverses remarques sur l’importance de BAE dans la vie politique britannique. On peut notamment consulter notre Analyse du 19 janvier sur la Saga Yamamah, o\u00f9 l’on retrouve cette phrase du Guardian (la meilleure source d’information sur l’aspect politique de l’activisme de BAE) du 16 d\u00e9cembre : \u00abThe sway BAE Systems holds… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[3792,705,6429,3858,4316,4364],"class_list":["post-68521","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-bae","tag-blair","tag-catt","tag-corruption","tag-monbiot","tag-yamamah"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68521","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=68521"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68521\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=68521"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=68521"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=68521"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}