{"id":69873,"date":"2008-05-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-05-06T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2008\/05\/06\/apres-avoir-achete-larabie-bae-songe-a-acheter-le-departement-de-la-justice-us\/"},"modified":"2008-05-06T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-05-06T00:00:00","slug":"apres-avoir-achete-larabie-bae-songe-a-acheter-le-departement-de-la-justice-us","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2008\/05\/06\/apres-avoir-achete-larabie-bae-songe-a-acheter-le-departement-de-la-justice-us\/","title":{"rendered":"Apr\u00e8s avoir achet\u00e9 l’Arabie, BAE songe \u00e0 acheter le d\u00e9partement de la justice US"},"content":{"rendered":"

Quand on tient une bonne m\u00e9thode, il est absurde de ne pas en user jusqu’\u00e0 plus soif. C’est ce que se dit BAE qui envisagerait, selon le Guardian<\/em> d’aujourd’hui<\/a>, d’offrir \u00e0 l’administration Bush, notamment au d\u00e9partement de la justice<\/a> (DoJ), un arrangement financier pour qu’il ne soit point fait un \u00e9cho public de ses diverses turpitudes (mais est-ce bien le mot?) saoudiennes. C’est d’une pratique courante aux USA, mais cela est g\u00e9n\u00e9ralement accompagn\u00e9 des attendus de cet arrangement et de d\u00e9tails sur le march\u00e9 conclu, ce que BAE voudrait \u00e9viter comme la peste. Le DoJ est un adversaire coriace<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abPolitical moves are being floated which would extricate the arms company BAE from corruption investigations in the US, in return for a financial settlement without admission of liability. According to senior sources close to the firm, such a deal is not currently on offer in Washington, and BAE yesterday issued a flat denial that it had approached the US authorities.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbSuch a deal would be highly attractive to the British government and the arms company, according to informed sources. BAE needs a clean sheet in the US, where it is making more sales and is considering appointing an American chief executive.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbBut a deal would involve the Department of Justice in Washington agreeing not to disclose any evidence of corruption in BAE’s sales to Saudi Arabia. BAE, which has always denied wrongdoing, said yesterday: There has been no such approach by BAE Systems to the Department of Justice and any suggestion that there has is untrue, inaccurate and misleading.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tBien, voil\u00e0 pour un probl\u00e8me dont on esp\u00e8re qu’il sera r\u00e9gl\u00e9 tambour battant, sonnant et tr\u00e9buchant. Maintenant, il y en avait un autre avec la publication, aujourd’hui m\u00eame, du rapport \u00e9thique sur la situation de BAE, confi\u00e9 \u00e0 l’honorable Lord Woolf l’ann\u00e9e derni\u00e8re par ce m\u00eame BAE. Ce rapport est ainsi d\u00e9fini, dans des termes mesur\u00e9s qui nous \u00f4tent le moindre doute sur son but: \u00abIt is the latest element in BAE’s public relations strategy to try to move on from the worldwide bribery allegations against the firm, despite unresolved criminal investigations and litigation.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLord Woolf, comme tout Lord, est honorable. Pour bien s’assurer de cette honorabilit\u00e9, pour la verrouiller en un sens, BAE, apprend-on, a pay\u00e9, depuis f\u00e9vrier 2007, Lord Woolf du salaire honorable de 6.000 honorables livres sterling par jour (pour ceux qui h\u00e9sitent \u00e0 propos de notre fran\u00e7ais : nous avons bien lu \u00a36,000 a day<\/em>). On jugera d’apr\u00e8s ces informations du m\u00eame Guardian<\/em>, aujourd’hui<\/a> \u00e9galement, concernant le rapport du m\u00eame Lord Woolf, si BAE a fait un bon ou un mauvais investissement:<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abThe arms company BAE failed to pay sufficient attention to ethical standards, laying itself open to accusations of misconduct that have tarnished its reputation, Lord Woolf said today in a report.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t()<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbCritically, both the chairman and chief executive, in discussions with us, acknowledged that the company did not in the past pay sufficient attention to ethical standards and avoid activities that had the potential to give rise to reputational damage, the report said.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbCombined with this was its acceptance of conditions which constrained its ability to explain the full circumstances of its activities. These contributed to the widely-held perceptions that it was involved in inappropriate behaviour. They recognise that, justly or otherwise, these perceptions have damaged the company’s reputation.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t()<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbThe firm had made huge improvements, Woolf said. The company had, like most companies in the past, just focused on the law. There were no ethical standards embedded in the company, he told the BBC’s Today programme.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLord Woolf n’a pas jug\u00e9 sur le fond des affaires de corruption o\u00f9 est impliqu\u00e9e BAE, ce qui n’\u00e9tait pas sa mission. Il nous semble que Woolf a m\u00e9nag\u00e9 la ch\u00e8vre et le chou, mais dans le sens du vent: hier, cela n’allait pas tr\u00e8s bien chez BAE, aujourd’hui cela va vraiment beaucoup mieux. Cela valait-il \u00a36.000 par jour? On verra. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tMis en ligne le 6 mai 2008 \u00e0 13H56<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Quand on tient une bonne m\u00e9thode, il est absurde de ne pas en user jusqu’\u00e0 plus soif. C’est ce que se dit BAE qui envisagerait, selon le Guardian d’aujourd’hui, d’offrir \u00e0 l’administration Bush, notamment au d\u00e9partement de la justice (DoJ), un arrangement financier pour qu’il ne soit point fait un \u00e9cho public de ses diverses… <\/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":[3792,6640,3471,6763],"class_list":["post-69873","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-bae","tag-doj","tag-scandale","tag-woolf"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69873","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=69873"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69873\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69873"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69873"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69873"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}