{"id":69077,"date":"2007-08-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-08-01T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2007\/08\/01\/privatisation-toujours-le-renseignement-us-cette-fois\/"},"modified":"2007-08-01T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2007-08-01T00:00:00","slug":"privatisation-toujours-le-renseignement-us-cette-fois","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2007\/08\/01\/privatisation-toujours-le-renseignement-us-cette-fois\/","title":{"rendered":"Privatisation toujours\u2026 Le renseignement US, cette fois"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><p>Puisqu&rsquo;effectivement la privatisation des services de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 nationale aux USA est \u00e0 l&rsquo;ordre du jour, notamment avec l&rsquo;article du <em>Guardian<\/em> que nous <a href=\"http:\/\/www.dedefensa.org\/article.php?art_id=4279\" class=\"gen\">commentons<\/a> deux <a href=\"http:\/\/www.dedefensa.org\/article.php?art_id=4280\" class=\"gen\">fois<\/a>, signalons \u00e9galement un tr\u00e8s int\u00e9ressant article de <em>The Nation<\/em> repris sur <em>Alternet.org<\/em> le <a href=\"http:\/\/www.alternet.org\/story\/57979\/\" class=\"gen\">31 juillet<\/a>. Il porte sur le renseignement am\u00e9ricain : \u00ab<em>what is not generally known is that the secret side of the Iraq War and the larger \u00a0\u00bbwar on terror\u00a0\u00bb is also conducted by private corporations, fielding private spies. The reach of these corporations has extended into the Oval Office. Corporations are heavily involved in creating the analytical products that underlie the nation&rsquo;s most important and most sensitive national security document, the President&rsquo;s Daily Brief (PDB).<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\tL&rsquo;article rapporte les faits suivants :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t Le Bureau du Directeur National du Renseignement (DNI) a r\u00e9v\u00e9l\u00e9 que 70% du budget du renseignement aux USA (entre $48 et $60 milliards selon les sources) vont \u00e0 des contractants priv\u00e9s.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t 70% du personnel de la nouvelle agence de renseignement anti-terroriste du Pentagone (CIFA, pour Counterintelligence Field Activity) sont des employ\u00e9s de soci\u00e9t\u00e9s priv\u00e9s sous contrat.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t En mai dernier, des avocats de la Defense Intelligence Agency ont r\u00e9v\u00e9l\u00e9 que 51% du personnel de la DIA sont \u00e9galement des employ\u00e9s de soci\u00e9t\u00e9s priv\u00e9s sous contrat.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t 50 \u00e0 60% des employ\u00e9s du National Clandestine Service (NCS), le principal service contr\u00f4lant les sources humaines de la CIA, sont \u00e9galement des employ\u00e9s du priv\u00e9 sous contrat. De m\u00eame une part importante de nombreuses activit\u00e9s de la CIA (op\u00e9rations clandestines, recrutement d&rsquo;agent, renseignement pur, analyse, etc.) est sous-trait\u00e9e aupr\u00e8s d&rsquo;organismes priv\u00e9s.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t Les services de renseignement de grandes entreprises telles que Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Booz Allen Hamilton, SAIC, etc., participent directement aux analyses de la CIA destin\u00e9es au DNI, qui \u00e9labore notamment le President Daily Digest et les rapports annuels du renseignement.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\tLe plus important \u00e0 retenir dans cette nouvelle situation est que l&rsquo;apport du priv\u00e9 est tellement important, et organis\u00e9 de telle fa\u00e7on qu&rsquo;il en es devenu incontr\u00f4lable. On ne peut plus distinguer les renseignement venant de ce domaine ni les nuancer selon le point de vue des agences.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t<a href=\"http:\/\/www.thespywhobilledme.com\/\" class=\"gen\">R.J. Hillhouse<\/a>, l&rsquo;auteur de l&rsquo;article, remarque :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00ab<em>Knowledgeable members of the intelligence community tell me that corporations have so penetrated the intelligence community that it&rsquo;s impossible to distinguish their work from the government&rsquo;s.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00bb<em>Although the President&rsquo;s Daily Brief has the seal of the ODNI, it is misleading. To be accurate, the PDB would look more like NASCAR with corporate logos plastered all over it.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00bb<em>Concerned members of the intelligence community have told me that if a corporation wanted to insert items favorable to itself or its clients into the PDB to influence the US national security agenda, at this time it would be virtually undetectable. These companies have analysts and often intelligence collectors spread throughout the system and have the access to introduce intelligence into the system.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00bb<em>To take an extreme example, a company frustrated with a government that&rsquo;s hampering its business or the business of one of its clients could introduce or spin intelligence on that government&rsquo;s suspected collaboration with terrorists in order to get the White House&rsquo;s attention and potentially shape national policy.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00bb<em>Or, more subtly, a private firm could introduce concerns about a particular government to put heat on that government to shape its energy policy in a favorable direction.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<p><p>\tMis en ligne le 1er ao\u00fbt 2007<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Puisqu&rsquo;effectivement la privatisation des services de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 nationale aux USA est \u00e0 l&rsquo;ordre du jour, notamment avec l&rsquo;article du Guardian que nous commentons deux fois, signalons \u00e9galement un tr\u00e8s int\u00e9ressant article de The Nation repris sur Alternet.org le 31 juillet. Il porte sur le renseignement am\u00e9ricain : \u00abwhat is not generally known is that the&hellip;&nbsp;<\/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":[3104,3032,6760,3501,3502,6326,2807],"class_list":["post-69077","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-cia","tag-dia","tag-hillhouse","tag-lockheed","tag-martin","tag-privatisation","tag-renseignement"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69077","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=69077"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69077\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69077"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69077"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69077"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}