company:raytheon

  • Emirats Arabes Unis : et un nouveau contrat important à l’export pour Naval Group
    https://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/emirats-arabes-unis-et-un-nouveau-contrat-important-a-l-export-pour-naval-

    Selon des sources concordantes, qui confirment les informations publiées dans la lettre « Intelligence Online », les Emirats arabes unis (EAU) ont finalisé l’acquisition de deux corvettes Gowind de 2.700 tonnes, construites à Lorient par Naval Group. Estimé autour de 750 millions d’euros, le contrat avait été signé très discrètement le 25 mars par Abu Dhabi, selon ces mêmes sources. Dotées du système de gestion de combat (CMS) de Naval Group le SETIS, ces corvettes seront en outre armées par le missile américain anti-aérien à guidage radar (ESSM) de Raytheon et par le missile mer-mer Exocet de MBDA. Ce contrat est susceptible d’être bloqué par l’Allemagne, qui a prolongé fin mars son embargo sur les ventes d’armes vers l’Arabie Saoudite mais aussi les EAU, les corvettes Gowind étant propulsées par des moteurs MTU. Interrogé par La Tribune, Naval Group n’a souhaité faire aucun commentaire.

    Pour rappel, les Emirats participent au blocus maritime du #Yémen...

  • #Raytheon : signe un contrat de 1,5 milliards de dollars avec les #Emirats_Arabes_Unis | Zone bourse
    https://www.zonebourse.com/RAYTHEON-14299/actualite/Raytheon-signe-un-contrat-de-1-5-milliards-de-dollars-avec-les-Emirats-A

    ABOU DHABI (Reuters) - Le groupe américain de défense Raytheon a remporté un contrat de 5,7 milliards de dirhams (1,55 milliard de dollars ou 1,36 milliard d’euros) pour équiper les forces aériennes émiraties de plates-formes lance-missiles, a annoncé lundi un porte-parole militaire des Emirats Arabes Unis (EAU).

    L’accord a été signé lors du salon IDEX à Abou Dhabi et fait suite à un autre contrat de 1,3 milliard de dirhams attribué dimanche au groupe américain pour la fourniture de missiles Patriot aux EAU.

    #armes

  • EXCLUSIVE : Meet the Reporters Whose Pages Were Shut Down By Facebook - Sputnik International
    https://sputniknews.com/us/201810121068814924-Reporters-Pages-Shut-Down-By-Facebook

    C’est mon beau-frère américain qui m’a transmis l’info : sous couvert de lutte contre les #fake_news, les réseaux sociaux des #GAFA (Facebook et Twitter, notamment) ont fermé des centaines de pages et de comptes appartenant à des journalistes indépendants ou juste plutôt critiques sur la société américaine. À l’approche des #élections de mi-mandat, il s’agit d’une #censure brutale et inquiétante.

    Signalons que mon beau-frère est un Républicain plutôt progressiste, mais un Républicain quand même, même s’il n’a jamais pu blairer Trump.

    Facebook purged hundreds of pages from its platform on Thursday. But instead of the usual targets - namely Russia and Iran - Thursday’s ban shut down accounts operated by independent American reporters and activists, Sputnik News has learned.

    Facebook said the pages were “working to mislead others about who they are, and what they are doing,” but the co-founder of one of the pages, The Free Thought Project, tells Sputnik News Facebook’s claim couldn’t be further from the truth.

    Most of the pages that were banned and viewed by Sputnik News were independent media outlets and pages that advocated for marijuana legalization or shined a light on police brutality.
    Anti-Trump Facebook event posted by the Resisters page, which has been accused of being set up by the alleged Russian troll farm Internet Research Agency.
    Facebook
    The Kremlin Line? Facebook’s Latest Ban Nets Resistance Pages, Anti-Trump Events

    In total, Facebook removed 559 pages and 251 personal accounts “that have consistently broken our rules against spam and coordinated inauthentic behavior,” the social media giant said. “Given the activity we’ve seen — and its timing ahead of the US midterm elections — we wanted to give some details about the types of behavior that led to this action,” Facebook said, going on to accuse the accounts of manipulating the platform to make their content appear more popular, hawking fake products or functioning as ad farms that tricked “people into thinking that they were forums for legitimate political debate.”

    — Jon Ziegler “Reb Z” (@Rebelutionary_Z) October 12, 2018

    The founder of one of the pages — The Anti-Media — said he had no knowledge of his page engaging in any such behavior. The Free Thought Project co-founder similarly denied Facebook’s accusations. Rachel Blevins, a reporter for RT America whose personal journalism page was nixed, also denied inauthentic behavior.

    Just hours after its ban from Facebook, Twitter suspended Anti-Media from its platform, following a pattern of social media companies successively banning users that has been demonstrated in the past. For example, Facebook, YouTube and Apple all banned the far-right conspiracy theory site InfoWars around the same time. And after the CIA-funded cybersecurity firm FireEye contacted Facebook, Google and Twitter, each company banned a number of accounts allegedly linked to Iran.

    — Alex Rubinstein (@RealAlexRubi) September 6, 2018

    In the case of InfoWars, Twitter eventually followed suit.

    While many warned that the ban of InfoWars from social media would establish a slippery slope, they were often mocked and ridiculed. Thursday’s onslaught on independent media appears to have confirmed their suspicions, however.

    — Anya Parampil (@anyaparampil) August 6, 2018

    Facebook has been partnering with the Digital Forensics Lab, an arm of the Atlantic Council think tank — a neoconservative group funded by Gulf monarchies and defense giants like Raytheon — to weed out inauthentic users from its platform. Similarly, it has been partnering with the neoconservative Weekly Standard magazine to fact check so-called fake news.
    Facebook headquarters in Menlo Park, Calif.
    © AP Photo / Ben Margot
    Facebook Bans Russia-Linked Social Media Firm for Alleged ’Scraping’ of Users’ Data

    Journalist Abby Martin, who hosts “The Empire Files” on TeleSur English, told Sputnik News after TeleSur’s page was temporarily removed from Facebook, “The shuttering of progressive media amidst the ‘fake news’ and Russiagate hysteria is what activists been warning all along — tech companies, working in concert with think tanks stacked with CIA officials and defense contractors, shouldn’t have the power to curate our reality to make those already rendered invisible even more obsolete.”

    Sputnik News contacted a number of journalists caught up in the ban. Below is what they had to say, edited extremely lightly for clarity.

    Independent reporter John Vibes, who contributes to The Free Thought Project and other websites:

    This signifies a re-consolidation of the media. Cable news media controlled the narrative for most of modern history, but the internet has lowered that barrier to entry and allowed the average person to become the media themselves. This obviously took market share and influence away from the traditional media, and it has allowed for a more diverse public conversation. Now it seems the platforms that have monopolized the industry are favoring mainstream sources and silencing alternative voices. So now, instead of allowing more people to have a voice, these platforms are creating an atmosphere where only powerful media organizations are welcome, just as we had on cable news.

    People think that we are just providing an activist spin on the news, but they don’t see the families struggling to have their voice heard. For example, when someone is shot by police, mainstream media sources often just republish the press release from the police department, without presenting the victim’s side of the story. We give the victims and their families a voice, which is essential to keep power in check. This also goes for bigger issues like foreign policy as well; multiple full-scale invasions of Syria have been prevented because of information that the alternative media made viral.

    “Information exchange” activist Jason Bassler, who co-founded The Free Thought Project and solely founded Police the Police, both of which were banned:

    We were verified by Facebook with a little check mark next to our name, so they know we are a legitimate organization/outlet. They have seen our “Articles of Organization” which was issued by the state of Louisiana, which is where my partner and The Free Thought Project co-founder lives.

    We have even paid Facebook to boost our posts and for likes in the past, meaning they gladly took our money for a product that they ended up manipulating and backing out on. It wasn’t much, maybe $1,200 over the past 6 years. Do we get that money back now?

    We have already had the lawyers at Rutherford Institute (a nonprofit civil liberties organization) send them a letter late last month about unfair treatment by third-party “fact checkers,” which they ignored and never responded to.

    I was motivated [to start The Free Thought Project] by the injustices I saw on social media during Occupy Wall Street in 2011. I knew I had an obligation to get involved somehow and to share information critical for liberty and peace. I never thought I would have built fan pages of 5 million fans, nor did I ever think we would employ and give jobs to nine other activists (at one point), but I was inspired to do what I could to plant seeds and combat the mainstream media’s bullsh*t narratives, to keep police and government accountable, to make sure people knew their rights and how to interact with police.

    All that’s gone now with a click of a button. Six years of hard work, literally seven days a week, working our as*es off finding stories, researching them, writing them, making thumbnails and titles for them, making graphics and videos for them, sharing them on various social media outlets.

    What’s next? I will fight this until I am utterly exhausted. We will fight back tooth and nail. I don’t care if that means protesting in front of Facebook headquarters (which I’ve already considered doing many times in the past two years), I will make sure people know how corrupt and untrustworthy Facebook is if it’s the last thing I do. You can’t just steal years of hard work from someone and not expect there to be consequences. I will do everything I can to make their lives miserable. That’s a promise.

    Rachel Blevins, a correspondent for RT America:

    Today I was locked out of my Facebook account for four hours, and my public page was “unpublished.” There appears to be no explanation for this other than the vague claim from Facebook that my page was taken down because it was “administered by a fake account, misleading users or violating the Facebook spam policies.” I am the only person who publishes posts on my page; the only posts I publish are articles I have written or videos of my reports, and I only post one or two times a day — which rules out all of the claims that I have violated Facebook’s policies.

    My page had nearly 70,000 followers before it was taken down. I have poured the last four years into building my page as a journalist, and I have noticed recently that the reach seems to have been stifled and that the engagement on my posts was down significantly. I know that I am not the only one who has become a victim of this purge, and there are hundreds of other pages — many of which had millions of followers — that have been taken down with no warning and no explanation.

    Ford Fischer, the founder of the media startup News2Share, had a number of his live streams removed during the purge, although they were later restored:

    This attack was a long time coming. Facebook has been slowly clamping down on independent media. First, they removed more extreme pages and made it harder for the surviving ones to make a living by hurting their algorithms (unless they paid, of course!). Then they started purging those that didn’t quickly respond to their ID requests. Today, hundreds of pages belonging to the family of independent media, especially those that question state authority, were removed without explanation. This is just one step further toward the total state and corporate takeover of what you’re allowed to think.

    Nicholas Bernabe, founder of The Anti-Media:

    Our approach generally is to cover stories and angles that corporate media underreport or misreport and to amplify activist and anti-war voices and stories. All of our content is professionally fact-checked and edited.

    I got into this line of work because I felt there was a need for media that challenged mainstream assumptions and biases in politics. I wanted to shed light on corruption and wrongdoing against oppressed peoples and cover the harsh truth about American foreign policy.

    Over the last 28 days, we reached 7,088,000 people on Facebook.

    The timing of this purge is rather dubious in my view, coming shortly before the midterm elections. This could be an attempt by Facebook itself to affect the outcome of the coming elections. The Twitter suspension caught me by surprise. I can only speculate that these suspensions were a coordinated effort to stifle our message ahead of the coming elections.

    By Alexander Rubinstein.

    #démocratie

  • Saudi Arabia – #TOW_2B (#BGM-71F-Series) Missiles

    The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to Saudi Arabia of TOW 2B (BGM-71F-Series) missiles for an estimated cost of $670 million. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency delivered the required certification notifying Congress of this possible sale today.

    The Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has requested to buy up to six thousand six hundred (6,600) TOW 2B missiles (BGM-71F-Series) and ninety-six (96) TOW 2B (BGM-71F-Series) fly-to-buy lot validation missiles. Also included is government furnished equipment; technical manuals and publications; essential spares and repair parts; consumables; live fire exercise and ammunition; tools and test equipment; training; transportation; U.S. Government technical support and logistic support; contractor technical support; repair and return support; quality assurance teams; in-country Field Service Representative (FSR); other associated equipment and services in support of TOW 2B missiles; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The total estimated program cost is $670 million.

    This proposed sale will support U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives by improving the security of a friendly country which has been, and continues to be, an important force for political stability and economic growth in the Middle East. This potential sale is consistent with U.S. initiatives to provide key partners in the region with modern systems that will enhance interoperability with U.S. forces and increase stability.

    The proposed sale of TOW 2B missiles and technical support will advance the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s efforts to develop an integrated ground defense capability. A strong national defense and dedicated military force will assist Saudi Arabia to sustain itself in its efforts to maintain stability. Saudi Arabia will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces.

    The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

    The principal contractor is Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, AZ. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

    Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the permanent assignment of any U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Saudi Arabia. There will be no more than two contractor personnel in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia at any one time and all efforts will take less than two weeks in total.

    There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

    This notice of a potential sale is required by law and does not mean the sale has been concluded.

    All questions regarding this proposed Foreign Military Sale should be directed to the State Department’s Bureau of Political Military Affairs, Office of Congressional and Public Affairs, pm-cpa@state.gov.

    http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/saudi-arabia-tow-2b-bgm-71f-series-missiles
    #armes #commerce_d'armes #USA #Etats-Unis #Arabie_Saoudite

    cc @fil @reka

  • Raytheon-Jordan Border Defense Against ISIS Enters Final Phase

    A US-funded partnership between Jordan and #Raytheon is entering the final phase of a nearly $100 million program to guard the Hashemite Kingdom against infiltrators from the Islamic State group and other extremist organizations operating beyond its border with Syria and Iraq.


    https://www.defensenews.com/global/mideast-africa/2016/05/26/raytheon-jordan-border-defense-against-isis-enters-final-phase
    #Jordanie #Syrie #Irak #murs #frontières #barrières_frontalières #ISIS #EI #Etat_islamique

  • Ralph Nader : Les démocrates sont incapables de défendre les Etats-Unis face aux républicains “le plus brutal” de l’histoire The Intercept, Jon Schwarz, 25-06-2017 Traduction Les Crises
    https://www.les-crises.fr/ralph-nader-les-democrates-sont-incapables-de-defendre-les-etats-unis-fac

    LE PARTI DÉMOCRATE est à son niveau le plus bas de mémoire d’homme. Il a perdu la Maison-Blanche et les deux chambres du Congrès. A l’échelle de l’État, il s’agit du niveau le plus bas depuis 1920. Et aujourd’hui en 2017 les Démocrates n’ont gagné aucune des 4 élections spéciales destinées à élire les remplaçants des membres républicains du congrès qui ont rejoint l’administration de Trump.
    Comment en est-on arrivé là ? Personne dans le Parti démocrate ne va poser la question, mais peut être le devrait-on et c’est ce que fait le légendaire défenseur des consommateurs, trois fois candidat aux élections présidentielles, Ralph Nader.

    Nader, âgé maintenant de 83 ans et installé à Washington D.C depuis plus de 50 ans, a été aux premières loges de la lente chute des Démocrates. Après ses révélations explosives sur l’industrie automobile américaine dans son livre « Ces voitures qui tuent », lui et ses organisations ont collaboré avec les Démocrates du Congrès pour passer un kyrielle de lois visant à protéger l’environnement, les consommateurs et les lanceurs d’alerte. Le journaliste William Greider a dit de lui qu’il était l’un des trois plus grands modèles du militantisme démocratique, avec Saul Alinsky et Martin Luther King Jr. D’un autre côté, le « Memo Powell » de 1971, qui pose les bases d’une résurgence des droits des entreprises, le considère comme l’ennemi principal du « système » et l’appelle « l’unique opposant efficace au pouvoir des entreprises américaines ».


    Quoi qu’il en soit, Nader est bien évidemment devenu persona non grata dans le Parti démocrate depuis ses candidatures pour le Parti vert dans les années 2000. George W. Bush a officiellement battu Al Gore en Floride de 537 voix, avec les votes électoraux menant Bush à la Maison-Blanche bien que ce dernier n’ait pas gagné le vote populaire. En réalité, cependant, une étude approfondie, peu remarquée, publiée peu après le 11 Septembre a établi que Gore aurait gagné en Floride si tous les votes contestés avaient été recomptés.
    Les démocrates ont fustigé Nader, qui a obtenu 97 000 votes en Floride, pour avoir permis l’élection de Bush. Puisqu’ il est impossible de refaire l’histoire, il n’y a aucune manière de savoir si Gore aurait gagné sans la candidature de Nader. Certes il aurait pu gagner, mais il est possible aussi que, sans la menace Nader, qui a beaucoup poussé Gore à prendre des positions plus populaires, plus progressistes, le candidat démocrate aurait fait un score encore pire avec une élection où Nader n’aurait pas figuré.

    En tout cas, il est maintenant incontestable que le Parti démocrate a d’importants problèmes qui ne peuvent être imputés à ce qu’a fait Ralph Nader en 2000. Dans une interview récente, Nader, toujours très bien informé et riche d’une expérience de plusieurs dizaines d’années, donne son opinion sur la manière dont les États-Unis en sont arrivés là dans le domaine politique :

    JON SCHWARZ  : Je suis intéressé par l’histoire des Démocrates cédant à la pression, devenant de plus en plus désireux de faire tout ce que la droite veut, lors de ces 40 dernières années. Prenons les récentes histoires à propos de Jared Kushner. Quelle que soit l’ultime réalité ici, je pense qu’il est juste de dire que si un président démocrate avait désigné son gendre à un poste de grand pouvoir à la Maison-Blanche – si Hillary Clinton avait désigné Marc Mezvinsky le mari de Chelsea – et si les péripéties sur sa tentative de mettre en place des liens informels avec la Russie étaient sorties dans le Washington Post et le New York Times, il aurait été mis à la porte avant la fin de la journée.

    RALPH NADER  : Voulez-vous que je vous raconte l’histoire du déclin et de la décadence du Parti Démocrate ? Je vais vous donner les boulets que traîne le Parti Démocrate qui sont des événements marquants.
    Le premier grand événement fut en 1971. Tony Coelho, qui était un membre californien du Congrès, et qui s’occupait de la trésorerie de campagne des Démocrates, a convaincu les Démocrates qu’ils devraient solliciter l’argent des entreprises, et qu’ils pourraient grâce à des levées de fonds obtenir beaucoup d’argent. Pourquoi les laisser aux Républicains et simplement miser sur le socle des syndicats pour le financement, quand vous avez un énorme pot de miel dans le milieu des affaires ?

    Et ils l’ont fait. Et j’ai pu voir la différence presque immédiatement. Premièrement, ils ont perdu l’élection face à Reagan. Et ensuite ils ont commencé à devenir plus faibles au congrès. A ce moment, 1980, quelques-uns de nos plus grands alliés perdirent après la victoire écrasante de Reagan face à Carter, nous avions perdu le sénateur [Gaylord] Nelson, le sénateur [Warren] Magnuson, le sénateur [Frank] Church. Nous avions davantage de difficultés pour obtenir des audiences devant le Congrès à propos des malversations des sociétés par les dirigeants Démocrates [commission du congrès]. Quand les Démocrates regagnèrent la Maison-Blanche [en 1992] vous pouviez voir la différence dans les nominations pour les agences de réglementation, la difficulté pour leur faire améliorer la santé et les réglementations de sécurité.

    Le second boulet est le fait qu’ils ne savaient pas comment traiter avec Reagan. Et les Républicains en prirent note. Cela veut dire paroles douces, sourires… Vous pouvez dire des choses terribles et faire des choses terribles aussi longtemps que vous avez ce genre de présentation.

    [Les Démocrates] continuaient de penser que les conservateurs Républicains étaient ternes, stupides et sans humour. Ils ne s’étaient pas adaptés.

    Ronald Reagan battant le président Jimmy Carter le 4 novembre. Reagan est montré tenant une copie du 4 novembre de The News World, prédisant sa victoire écrasante sur Carter pour l’élection du Président des États-Unis. Ronald Reagan tient une copie du 4 novembre de The News World prédisant sa victoire écrasante sur Carter pour l’élection du président des États-Unis.

    RN  : De plus en plus ils commencèrent à juger leur opposition face aux Républicains à travers la quantité d’argent qu’ils levaient. Vous parliez à [Marcy] Kaptur de Cleveland, elle disait, nous allons au « caucus » démocrate à la Chambre des Représentants, nous y allons pour parler d’argent, nous continuons de parler d’argent, et nous allons sortir avec notre part d’argent…

    La conséquence est que cela a fait sortir les questions économiques de la table, celles-là qui ont permis aux Démocrates de gagner encore et encore dans les années 30 et 40. Les questions sur le travail, les questions sur le salaire minimum, la question de l’assurance maladie, les questions sur les pensions. Et ce fut bien sûr une grande aubaine pour le parti Républicain car le parti Républicain ne pouvait faire face sur la question économique. Ils faisaient face sur la question raciale, sur la question de l’intolérance, et c’est comme cela qu’ils ont commencé à prendre un contrôle sur le solide Sud démocrate après le vote des lois sur les droits civils.

    Lever de l’argent de Wall Street, des compagnies pharmaceutiques, des compagnies d’assurance santé, des sociétés énergétiques, éloignaient les Démocrates de leur principal avantage sur les Républicains, qui est, dans le langage de Roosevelt : « Le Parti Démocrate est le parti des familles de travailleurs, les Républicains sont le parti des riches ». Cela s’est complètement inversé et a laissé les Démocrates extrêmement vulnérables.

    Cela a eu pour conséquence de les faire reculer géographiquement, vers la côte est, la côte ouest et autres.

    Et ils ont créé un autre boulet : ils n’ont pas fait de campagne [présidentielle] dans les 50 États. Si vous ne faites pas campagne dans les 50 États, premièrement vous renforcez le parti adverse dans ces États que vous avez abandonnés, ils peuvent donc prendre ces États pour acquis et se concentrer sur les États qui sont dans la zone grise. C’était le raté numéro un.

    Le raté numéro deux est ce que Ben Barnes, le politicien averti au Texas, m’a dit. Il m’a dit, quand vous ne vous battez pas pour la présidentielle au Texas, cela pourrit tout le parti… jusqu’aux maires et conseils municipaux. Ainsi cela répète cette décadence et perte de pouvoir pour les années futures.

    Quand ils ont abandonné les États rouges, ils ont abandonné cinq États dans la zone de Rocky Mountain et ont commencé déjà avec un handicap de 9 ou 10 sénateurs.

    Vous devez vous souvenir de votre histoire, les deux sénateurs du Montana étaient Démocrates, le Sénateur Church de l’Idaho était un Démocrate, le Sénateur Frank Moss, grand défenseur des consommateurs, un Démocrate de l’Utah. Maintenant il n’y a presque plus personne. Les deux sénateurs du Wyoming sont Républicains, les deux sénateurs du Montana sont Républicains [John Tester,le sénateur principal du Montana, est un Démocrate], les deux sénateurs de l’Utah sont Républicains. Je pense que les Démocrates ont un siège au Colorado. Ensuite vous descendez en Arizona et c’est deux Républicains.

    Ainsi ils n’ont jamais été à l’abri d’un veto de l’opposition même à leur apogée au Sénat. Et bien sûr plus tard lorsqu’ils n’étaient pas à leur apogée cela leur coûté le Sénat encore et encore. Et maintenant ils sont dans un grand trou, avec la débâcle aux sénatoriales de 2016, ils font face à trois fois plus de Démocrates pour une réélection en 2018.
    Le [troisième] boulet est qu’ils ont décidé de faire campagne à la télévision, avec des consultants politiques les influençant et recevant leurs parts de 15-20 pour cent. Quand vous faites campagne à la télévision, avec des slogans, vous ne faites pas campagne sur de la politique.

    Le boulet suivant, les syndicats ont commencé à devenir faibles, faibles en nombre et faibles en leadership. Ils ont commencé à verser beaucoup d’argent aux Démocrates pour la télévision. Et en même temps qu’ils s’affaiblissaient ils perdirent leur capacité de mobilisation populaire au nom des Démocrates.

    Les Démocrates avaient initié le procédé où le message précède la politique. Non – la politique précède le message. Cela signifie qu’ils continuent de dire à quel point les Républicains sont mauvais. Ils ont fait campagne non pas en disant, regardez comme nous sommes bons, nous allons vous apporter l’assistance médicale [à tous], nous allons sévir face aux crimes des sociétés contre les travailleurs et les consommateurs et l’environnement, volant, mentant, vous trompant. Nous allons vous donner un salaire minimum. Nous allons avoir une défense moins importante, une meilleure défense, et investir un peu de cet argent et commencer à reconstruire vos écoles et ponts et systèmes d’eau et d’assainissement, et librairies, et cliniques.

    Au lieu de dire cela, ils ont fait campagne en disant « Pouvez-vous croire à quel point les Républicains sont mauvais ? » Un fois cela dit, ils ont piégé leur aile progressiste, car leur aile progressiste est le seul segment qui peut changer le parti en un formidable opposant. Car ils ont dit à leur aile progressiste : « vous n’avez nulle part où aller, fichez-nous la paix ».

    Et cela nous amène aux boucs émissaires de ces 20 dernières années. « Oh, c’est Nader, oh, c’est les frères Koch, oh, c’est le collège électoral, oh, c’est de la misogynie, oh, ce sont les lamentables rednecks ». Ils ne se sont jamais regardés dans la glace.

    Le bouton de campagne pour Ralph Nader, qui se présentait comme le candidat du Parti Vert au élections présidentielles de 2000.

    RN  : Les Républicains, quand ils perdent, ils se battent sur les idées, aussi terrifiantes soit-elles. Les idées du Tea Party, les idées libertaires, les mornes idées républicaines. Ils se battent. Mais les Démocrates veulent de l’uniformité, ils veulent faire taire les gens. Ainsi ils ont la transition la plus défectueuse de toutes. Ils ont la transition de Nancy Pelosi à Nancy Pelosi, quatre fois perdante face au pire Parti Républicain de l’histoire du Parti Républicain.

    Si vous mettiez aujourd’hui des politiques Républicains d’avant le fantôme de Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, et « Mr Conservateur » le sénateur Robert Taft, ils se retourneraient dans leurs tombes. C’est la forme radicalement extrémiste, cruelle, vicieuse, Wall Street, militariste du parti républicain. Cela aurait signifié que les Démocrates les auraient écrasés. Ils ne les auraient pas juste battus, ils les auraient écrasés dans le corps législatif dans tout le pays, les gouverneurs, le Président et le congrès.
    Mais non, ce sont toujours les boucs émissaires. Peut-être que Jill Stein, le petit Parti Vert, ont pris la Pennsylvanie et le Michigan au faucon Hillary.

    JS  : Les Démocrates semblent avoir assimilé les vues des Républicains sur tout ce qui concerne l’armée.

    RN  : [Un autre] boulet est qu’ils ne se sont jamais différenciés des Républicains sur la politique militaire étrangère – car ils étaient comme eux. Ils n’ont jamais remis en question le budget de l’armée, ils n’ont jamais remis en question la politique étrangère militarisée, comme le faucon Hillary sur la Libye, qui fit peur aux généraux et fuir [le secrétaire à la défense Robert] Gates qui s’était opposé à ce qu’elle aille à la Maison-Blanche pour [prôner] le renversement du régime, métastasant la violence dans sept ou huit pays africains à ce jour.
    Ainsi ils ont abandonné la politique étrangère et militaire, car ils recevaient de l’argent de Lockheed et Boeing et General Dynamics et Raytheon et d’autres. Même Elizabeth Warren quand elle a eu sa chance commença en discutant du maintien de ces contrats avec Raytheon. Voilà l’aile gauche du parti discutant avec la société Raytheon, qui est le plus grand gâchis de subvention à l’est du Pécos.

    [Un autre] boulet est : personne n’a été viré. Ils enchaînent défaite après défaite, et ne peuvent pas remplacer leurs compères par de nouvelles personnes, vigoureuses, énergiques. Même chose pour les syndicats. Ils [gardent leurs positions] des années 80 peu importe à quel point le syndicat est décalé de la réalité. Vous n’êtes pas viré quelle que soit l’envergure de la perte, à l’inverse du milieu des affaires, où vous vous faites virer.

    Le dernier boulet est qu’ils prennent leurs précautions en harcelant les tierces partis progressistes afin que ces tierces partis ne les dépassent pas. Je suis un expert dans ce domaine. Ils ont essayé de les faire disparaître du vote. Nous avions eu 24 poursuites judiciaires en 12 semaines durant l’été 2004 par le Parti démocrate pour nous faire disparaître du vote dans des dizaines d’États. Même si nous n’avions que 5 pour cent, 6 pour cent de votes, ils subiraient une forte pression pour changer de direction et changer leurs pratiques car il y aurait assez d’électeurs américains pour dire aux Démocrates, « nous avons un autre endroit où aller », un troisième parti viable. Ils les harcèlent, violent les libertés civiles, ils utilisent leurs juges Démocrates désignés pour rendre de mauvais jugements ou les harceler de dépositions. Avant que [les troisièmes partis] soient liquidés, c’est de toute façon la Fête du travail et ils ont une campagne de huit semaines.

    Il y a certaines personnes qui pensent que le Parti démocrate peut être réformé de l’intérieur sans changer le personnel. Je leur dis bonne chance. Que s’est-il passé ces 20 dernières années ? Ils se sont retranchés davantage. Débarrassez-vous de Pelosi, vous avez Steny Hoyer. Débarrassez-vous d’Harry Reid, vous avez [Charles] Schumer. Bonne chance.

    Malheureusement, en résumé, les Démocrates sont incapables de défendre les États-Unis d’Amérique du [Parti Républicain] le plus vicieux, ignorant, soumis aux entreprises, militariste, anti-syndical, contre les intérêts du consommateur, anti-environnement, contre la postérité, de l’histoire.

    Article original : https://theintercept.com/2017/06/25/ralph-nader-the-democrats-are-unable-to-defend-the-u-s-from-the-most-v
    #USA #républicains #démocrates #Ralph_Nader

  • Wash. Post Doesn’t Disclose Writer Supporting Syria Strike Is A Lobbyist For Tomahawk Missile Manufacturer
    https://mediamatters.org/blog/2017/04/11/wash-post-doesn-t-disclose-writer-supporting-syria-strike-lobbyist-tomahawk-missile-manufacturer/215976

    The Washington Post is allowing writer Ed Rogers to push for and praise military action against Syria without disclosing that he’s a lobbyist for defense contractor Raytheon, which makes the Tomahawk missiles used in the recent strike.

    Rogers is a contributor to The Washington Post’s PostPartisan blog, where he wrote an April 8 piece praising President Donald Trump for authorizing the launch of 59 Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian airbase that reportedly housed warplanes that carried out chemical attacks against civilians.

    • The Border / La Frontera

      For the native nations living along the US-Mexico border, the border is a barbed wire fence through their living room. Over the course of generations, they’ve formed connections on both sides of the border, and yet they’re considered foreigners and illegal immigrants in their ancestral homelands. In the O’odham language, there is no word for “state citizenship.” No human being is illegal.

      In this map, the territories of the #Kumeyaay, #Cocopah, #Quechan, #Tohono_O’odham, #Yaqui, #Tigua, and #Kickapoo are shown straddling the 2,000 mile border, with the red dots along the border representing official border crossings.


      https://decolonialatlas.wordpress.com/2017/03/21/the-border-la-frontera
      #cartographie #visualisation #frontières

    • No wall

      The Tohono O’odham have resided in what is now southern and
      central Arizona and northern Mexico since time immemorial.
      The Gadsden Purchase of 1853 divided the Tohono O’odham’s
      traditional lands and separated their communities. Today, the
      Nation’s reservation includes 62 miles of international border.
      The Nation is a federally recognized tribe of 34,000 members,
      including more than 2,000 residing in Mexico.

      Long before there was a border, tribal members traveled back
      and forth to visit family, participate in cultural and religious
      events, and many other practices. For these reasons and many
      others, the Nation has opposed fortified walls on the border for
      many years.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QChXZVXVLKo


      http://www.tonation-nsn.gov/nowall

    • A Standing Rock on the Border?

      Tohono O’odham activist #Ofelia_Rivas has a reputation for clashing with U.S. Border Patrol. On her tribe’s 4,500-square-mile reservation, which straddles the U.S.-Mexico border, that can be a stressful vocation. But she doesn’t show it, sharing conversational snippets and a slight, quick grin. Her skin is the color of stained clay, and she cuts a stylish figure: narrow glasses and a red-flecked scarf trailing in the slight breeze. Her black sneakers are gray with dust.


      http://progressive.org/dispatches/a-standing-rock-on-the-border-wall-180406

    • How Border Patrol Occupied the Tohono O’odham Nation

      In March 2018, Joaquin Estevan was on his way back home to Sells, Ariz., after a routine journey to fetch three pots for ceremonial use from the Tohono O’odham community of Kom Wahia in Sonora, Mexico (where he grew up)—a trek his ancestors have made for thousands of years. His cousin dropped him off on the Mexico side of the San Miguel border gate, and he could see the community van of the Tohono O’odham Nation waiting for him just beyond.

      But when Estevan handed over his tribal card for identification, as he had done for years, to the stationed Border Patrol agent, he was accused of carrying a fraudulent ID, denied entry to Arizona and sent back to Mexico.

      Tohono O’odham aboriginal land, in what is now southern Arizona, historically extended 175 miles into Mexico, before being sliced off—without the tribe’s consent—by the 1853 Gadsden Purchase. As many as 2,500 of the tribe’s more than 30,000 members still live on the Mexico side. Tohono O’odham people used to travel between the United States and Mexico fairly easily on roads without checkpoints to visit family, go to school, visit a doctor or, like Estevan, a traditional dancer, perform ceremonial duties.

      But incidents of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) aggression toward members of the Tohono O’odham Nation have become increasingly frequent since 9/11, as Border Patrol has doubled in size and further militarized its border enforcement. In 2007 and 2008, the United States built vehicle barriers on the Tohono O’odham Nation’s stretch of the U.S.-Mexico border, and restricted crossings.

      The Tohono O’odham’s struggles with Border Patrol received little attention, however, until President Donald Trump took office and pushed forward his vision for a wall along the border. Verlon Jose, Tohono O’odham vice chairman, announced in 2016 that the wall would be built “over my dead body,” a quote that went viral.

      What the border wall debate has obscured, however, is the existing 650 miles of walls and barriers on the U.S. international divide with Mexico, including the 62 miles of border that run through the Tohono O’odham Nation. An increasingly significant part of that wall is “virtual,” a network of surveillance cameras, sensors and radar systems that let Border Patrol agents from California to Texas monitor the remote desert stretches where border crossers have been deliberately pushed—a strategy that has led to thousands of migrant deaths in the dangerous desert terrain. The virtual wall expands away from the international boundary, deep into the interior of the country.

      As Trump fights Congress and the courts to get $5 billion in “emergency funding” for a border wall, Border Patrol is already tapping into existing funds to expand both physical and virtual walls. While new border barrier construction on the Tohono O’odham Nation remains in limbo, new surveillance infrastructure is moving onto the reservation.

      On March 22, the Tohono O’odham Legislative Council passed a resolution allowing CBP to contract the Israeli company Elbit Systems to build 10 integrated fixed towers, or IFTs, on the Nation’s land, surveillance infrastructure that many on the reservation see as a high-tech occupation.

      The IFTs, says Amy Juan, Tohono O’odham member and Tucson office manager at the International Indian Treaty Council, will make the Nation “the most militarized community in the United States of America.”

      Amy Juan and Nellie Jo David, members of the Tohono O’odham Hemajkam Rights Network (TOHRN), joined a delegation to the West Bank in October 2017 convened by the Palestinian organization Stop the Wall. It was a relief, Juan says, to talk “with people who understand our fears … who are dealing with militarization and technology.”

      Juan and David told a group of women in the Palestinian community about the planned IFTs, and they responded unequivocally: “Tell them no. Don’t let them build them.”

      The group was very familiar with these particular towers. Elbit Systems pioneered the towers in the West Bank. “They said that the IFTs were first tested on them and used against them,” says David. Community members described the constant buzzing sounds and the sense of being constantly watched.

      These IFTs are part of a broader surveillance apparatus that zigzags for hundreds of miles through the West Bank and includes motion sensor systems, cameras, radar, aerial surveillance and observation posts. In distant control rooms, soldiers monitor the feeds. The principal architect, former Israeli Col. Danny Tirza, explained in 2016, “It’s not enough to construct a wall. You have to construct all the system around it.”

      That is happening now in the U.S.-Mexico borderlands.

      The massive post-9/11 bolstering of border enforcement dramatically changed life on the Tohono O’odham Nation. At a UN hearing in January on the rights of indigenous peoples in the context of borders, immigration and displacement, Tohono O’odham Nation Chairman Edward Manuel testified that when he came back to the Nation in 2009 after six years living off-reservation, it had become “a military state.”

      Border Patrol has jurisdiction 100 miles inland from U.S. borders, giving it access to the entirety of the reservation. Drones fly overhead, and motion sensors track foot traffic. Vehicle barriers and surveillance cameras and trucks appeared near burial grounds and on hilltops amid ancient saguaro forests, which are sacred to the Tohono O’odham.

      “Imagine a bulldozer parking on your family graveyard, turning up bones,” then-Tohono O’odham Nation Chairman Ned Norris Jr. testified to Congress in 2008. “This is our reality.”

      Around 2007, CBP began installing interior checkpoints that monitored every exit from the reservation—not just on the U.S.-Mexico border, but toward Tucson and Phoenix.

      “As a person who once could move freely on our land, this was very new,” Amy Juan says. “We have no choice but to go through the armed agents, dogs and cameras. We are put through the traumatic experience every day just to go to work, movies, grocery shopping, to take your children to school.”

      Juan calls this “checkpoint trauma.” The most severe impact is on children, she says, recalling one case in which two kids “wet themselves” approaching a checkpoint. Previously the children had been forcefully pulled out of a car by Border Patrol agents during a secondary inspection.

      Pulling people out of their vehicles is one in a long list of abuses alleged against the Border Patrol agents on the Tohono O’odham Nation, including tailing cars, pepper spraying people and hitting them with batons. Closer to the border, people have complained about agents entering their homes without a warrant.

      In March 2014, a Border Patrol agent shot and injured two Tohono O’odham men after their truck sideswiped his vehicle. (The driver said he was swerving to avoid a bush and misjudged; Border Patrol charged him with assault with a deadly weapon.) In 2002, a Border Patrol agent ran over and killed a Tohono O’odham teenager.

      Between checkpoints and surveillance, there is a feeling of being “watched all the time,” Tohono O’odham member Joseph Flores told Tucson television station KVOA.

      “I’ve gotten flat tires, then when I come to the checkpoint the agents made comments about me having a flat earlier in the day,” says Joshua Garcia, a member of TOHRN. “I felt like they were trying to intimidate me.”

      An anonymous respondent to TOHRN’s O’odham Border Patrol Story Project said, “One time a BP told me, ‘We own the night,’ meaning that they have so much surveillance cameras and equipment on the rez, they can see everything we do all the time.”

      Undocumented migrants are the ostensible targets, but agents have long indicated that Tohono O’odham are also in the crosshairs. One Tohono O’odham youth (who wishes to remain anonymous because of fears of reprisal) says that when they complained to a Border Patrol agent in February about a camera near their house, the agent responded, “It’s your own people that are smuggling, so you really need to ask yourself what is going on in that area for a camera to be set up in the first place.” That perception is common. Geographer Kenneth Madsen quotes an agent who believed as many as 80% to 90% of residents were involved in drug or human smuggling. Madsen believes the numbers could only be that high if agents were counting humanitarian acts, such as giving water to thirsty border-crossers.

      Elder and former tribal councilman David Garcia acknowledges some “smuggling that involves tribal members.” As Tohono O’odham member Jay Juan told ABC News, there is “the enticement of easy money” in a place with a poverty rate over 40%.

      Nation Vice Chairman Verlon Jose also told ABC, “Maybe there are some of our members who may get tangled up in this web. … But the issues of border security are created by the drugs … intended for your citizen[s’] towns across America.”

      Estevan knew the agent who turned him back at the border—it was the same agent who had accused him of smuggling drugs years prior and who had ransacked his car in the search, finding nothing and leaving Estevan to do the repairs. A few days after being turned away, Estevan tried again to get home, crossing into the United States at a place known as the Vamori Wash—one of the planned locations for an IFT. He got a ride north from a friend (the kind of favor that Border Patrol might consider human smuggling). Eleven miles from the border on the crumbling Route 19, the same agent flashed his lights and pulled them over. According to Estevan, the agent yanked him out of the car, saying, “I told you that you were not supposed to come here,” and handcuffed him.

      Estevan was transported to a short-term detention cell at Border Patrol headquarters in Tucson, where he was stripped of everything “except my T-shirt and pants,” he says. The holding cell was frigid, and Border Patrol issued him what he describes as a “paper blanket.” Estevan contracted bronchitis as he was shuffled around for days, having his biometrics and picture taken for facial recognition—Border Patrol’s standard practice for updating its database.

      At one point, Estevan faced a judge and attempted to talk to a lawyer. But because he was not supplied a Tohono O’odham interpreter, he had only a vague idea of what was going on. Later, Estevan was taken 74 miles north to a detention center in Florence, Ariz., where the private company CoreCivic holds many of the people arrested by Border Patrol. Estevan was formally deported and banished from the United States. He was dropped off in the late afternoon in Nogales, Mexico.

      Estevan is far from the only Tohono O’odham from Mexico to say they have been deported, although there has not been an official count. The Supreme Council of the O’odham of Mexico—which represents the Tohono O’odham who live on the Mexican side of the border—made an official complaint to the Tohono O’odham Nation’s government in May 2018, saying the Nation was “allowing the deportation of our people from our own lands.”

      Some members of the Nation, such as Ofelia Rivas, of the Gu-Vo district, have long contended that the Legislative Council is too cozy with Border Patrol. Rivas said in a 2006 interview that the Nation “has allowed the federal government to control the northern territory [in the U.S.] and allows human rights violations to occur.” The Nation has received grants from the federal government for its police department through a program known as Operation Stonegarden. Over the years, the Legislative Council has voted to allow a checkpoint, surveillance tech and two Border Patrol substations (one a Forward Operating Base) on the reservation.

      These tensions resurfaced again around the IFTs.

      ***

      In 2006, Border Patrol began to use southern Arizona as a testing ground for its “virtual wall.” The agency awarded the Boeing Company a contract for a technology plan known as SBInet, which would build 80-foot surveillance towers in the Arizona desert.

      When Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano cancelled the plan in 2011, complaining about cost, delays and ineffectiveness, CBP launched a new project, the 2011 Arizona Border Surveillance Technology Plan. As part of it, Elbit Systems won a $145 million contract to construct 53 IFTs in 2014. As CBP’s Chief Acquisition Officer Mark Borkowski explained in 2017 at the San Antonio Border Security Expo, CBP sought technology that “already existed” elsewhere. Elbit, with its towers in the West Bank, fit the bill.

      The IFTs take the all-seeing eye of Border Patrol to a whole new level. Jacob Stukenberg, a Border Patrol public information officer, tells In These Times they are “far superior than anything else we’ve had before,” adding that “one agent can surveil an area that it might take 100 agents on foot to surveil.”

      The IFT system has high-definition cameras with night vision and a 7.5-mile radius, along with thermal sensors and a 360-degree ground-sweeping radar. The data feeds into command centers where agents are alerted if any of thousands of motion sensors are tripped. In an interview in May with the Los Angeles Times, Border Patrol tribal liaison Rafael Castillo compared IFTs to “turning on a light in a dark room.”

      As with other monitoring, the towers—some as tall as 140 feet and placed very visibly on the tops of hills—have already driven migrants into more desolate and deadly places, according to a January paper in the Journal of Borderlands Studies. The first IFT went up in January 2015, just outside of Nogales, Ariz. By 2017, according to Borkowski, nearly all the towers had been built or were about to be built around Nogales, Tucson, Douglas, Sonoita and Ajo. The holdout was the Tohono O’odham Nation.

      Between 2015 and 2018, Joshua Garcia of TOHRN gave more than 30 presentations around the Nation raising the negatives of the IFTs, including federal government encroachment on their lands, the loss of control over local roads, the potential health consequences and racism in border policing. “I didn’t expect people necessarily to agree with me,” Garcia says, “but I was surprised at how much the presentations resonated.”

      Garcia joined other tribal and community members and Sierra Club Borderlands in contesting CBP’s 2016 draft environmental assessment—required for construction to begin—which claimed the IFTs would have “no significant impact” on Tohono O’odham land. Garcia listed the sites that new roads would threaten, like a saguaro fruit-harvesting camp and his own family’s cemetery.

      The Sierra Club argued the assessment had failed to properly look at the impacts on endangered species, such as the cactus ferruginous pygmy owl and the lesser longnosed bat, and hadn’t adequately studied how electro-magnetic radiation from the towers might affect people, birds and other wildlife. CBP agreed that more study was needed of the “avian brain,” but issued its final report in March 2017: no significant impact.

      In July 2017, the Gu-Vo district passed a resolution in opposition to the IFTs. “Having the land remain open, undeveloped and home to food production and wildlife, and carbon sequestration with natural water storage is crucial to the community,” the statement read.

      At the March 22 Legislative Council meeting, Garcia, the tribal elder (and a close relative of Estevan), implored the Council not to approve the IFTs. He looked to Councilman Edward Manuel, who had two months earlier described the Border Patrol presence on the Nation as a “military state,” and said, “Veto it, if it passes.”

      The resolution passed, without veto, although with a number of stipulations, including compensation for leased land.

      Nation Vice Chairman Jose told the Los Angeles Times that the vote was intended to be a compromise to dissuade the federal government from building the wall. The Nation is “only as sovereign as the federal government allows us to be,” Jose said.

      A Border Patrol spokesperson told the Los Angeles Times, however, that there are no plans to reduce agents, and that the IFTs do not eliminate the need for a wall.

      ***

      Garcia and other resisters are up against an enormous system. Trump’s plan has never been just about a border wall: The administration wants to fortify a massive surveillance apparatus built over multiple presidencies. Asked in February what he thought about the focus on the wall, Border Patrol’s Stukenberg said it was just one component of border infrastructure. Three things are required—fence, technology and personnel, he said, to build a “very solid system.”

      The endeavor is certainly very profitable. Boeing received more than $1 billion for the cancelled SBInet technology plan. For the 49 mobile surveillance trucks now patrolling the border, CBP awarded contracts to the U.S.-based private companies FLIR Systems and Telephonics. Another contract went to General Dynamics to upgrade CBP’s Remote Video Surveillance Systems, composed of towers and monitoring systems. As of 2017, 71 such towers had been deployed in desolate areas of southern Arizona, including one on the Tohono O’odham Nation. Other major companies that have received CBP contracts include Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and KBR (a former Halliburton subsidiary).

      These companies wield tremendous lobbying power in Washington. In 2018, General Dynamics spent more than $12 million on lobbying and gave $143,000 in campaign contributions to members of the House Homeland Security Committee. To compare, the Tohono O’odham Nation spent $230,000 on lobbying and $6,900 on campaign contributions to the committee members in 2018.

      Meanwhile, at the UN hearing in January, Serena Padilla, of the nearby Akimel O’odham Nation, described an incident in which Border Patrol agents held a group of youth at gunpoint. She ended her testimony: “As a woman who is 65 years old with four children, 15 grandchildren, 33 great-grandchildren—I’ll be damned if I won’t go down fighting for my future great-great-grandchildren.”

      http://inthesetimes.com/article/21903/us-mexico-border-surveillance-tohono-oodham-nation-border-patrol

  • Obama to Israel: Our Tax Dollars Won’t Go to Your Defense Contractors | Foreign Policy
    http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/08/18/obama-to-israel-our-tax-dollars-wont-go-to-your-defense-contractors

    The United States and Israel are close to clinching a massive 10-year arms deal, but Washington is pushing to scrap a coveted provision that has allowed Israel to pump hundreds of millions of dollars directly into its defense industry.

    If successful, the administration’s push to remove the clause would inflict some real pain on Israel’s growing security sector, which already exports more arms overseas than almost any other country apart from the United States.
    […]
    The issue has been a sticking point in the talks over the new military aid package because it could deprive Israel’s security firms of roughly $10 billion over the next decade, a vast sum for a crucial sector of the country’s economy. The deal, which doesn’t involve the direct transfer of military hardware but instead a commitment from Washington to finance Israel’s weapons buying, illustrates how the two countries’ security ties remain strong enough to transcend the tensions that have plagued relations between U.S. President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

    Under the change proposed by the White House, Israel would have to spend all the funds it receives in the arms package on U.S.-made weapons instead of being allowed to spend a portion of it on Israeli-manufactured arms and fuel. That would mean American aerospace giants such as Lockheed Martin, which builds the F-35 fighter jet, and Raytheon, which sells precision-guided missiles and sensors to U.S. partners worldwide, would stand to benefit.

  • #Think_Tank Scholar or Corporate Consultant? It Depends on the Day
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/09/us/politics/think-tank-scholars-corporate-consultants.html

    An examination of 75 think tanks found an array of researchers who had simultaneously worked as registered lobbyists, members of corporate boards or outside consultants in litigation and regulatory disputes, with only intermittent disclosure of their dual roles.

    With their expertise and authority, think tank scholars offer themselves as independent arbiters, playing a vital role in Washington’s political economy. Their imprimatur helps shape government decisions that can be lucrative to corporations.

    But the examination identified dozens of examples of scholars conducting research at think tanks while corporations were paying them to help shape government policy. Many think tanks also readily confer “nonresident scholar” status on lobbyists, former government officials and others who earn their primary living working for private clients, with few restrictions on such outside work.

    Largely free from disclosure requirements, the researchers’ work is often woven into elaborate corporate lobbying campaigns.

    #lobbying #fraude

  • Mort de Raymond Samuel Tomlinson, l’inventeur de l’#email
    http://lemonde.fr/disparitions/article/2016/03/07/disparition-de-raymond-samuel-tomlinson-l-inventeur-de-l-email_4877534_3382.

    Raymond Samuel Tomlinson, considéré comme l’inventeur du courrier électronique, est mort samedi 5 mars à l’âge de 74 ans. Son décès a été confirmé par son employeur, le groupe américain Raytheon, sans autre précision.

    (…) Contrairement à une légende, il n’est pas l’inventeur de l’#arobase, qui fut utilisée pour la première fois en 1536 par un marchand florentin du nom de Francesco Lapi. « On me demande souvent pourquoi j’ai choisi ce signe, mais c’était tout à fait logique », avait détaillé M. Tomlinson, expliquant qu’il lui fallait trouver « un moyen de distinguer le courrier local du courrier transitant sur le réseau ». A l’origine, « le but du signe était d’indiquer un prix unitaire [par exemple, 10 articles @1,95 dollar]. J’ai utilisé ce signe pour indiquer que l’utilisateur était “chez” [“at” en anglais] un autre hôte et non pas situé localement ». Le fait que le sigle n’apparaît dans aucun nom propre ou nom commun en faisait un outil idéal. User@host allait devenir la norme mondiale pour les courriers électroniques.

    La première expérience réelle est effectuée en 1971. « Le premier message a été envoyé entre deux machines qui étaient littéralement côte à côte », se souvenait-il. « Le seul lien physique qui les reliait [à part le sol sur lequel elles étaient posées] était l’Arpanet. Je me suis envoyé un certain nombre de messages à moi-même d’une machine à une autre. Les textes de ces messages n’étaient pas mémorisables et je les ai oubliés. Le premier message était probablement QWERTYUIOP ou quelque chose comme cela. Lorsque j’ai estimé que le programme semblait fonctionner, j’ai envoyé un message au reste de mon groupe, expliquant comment envoyer des messages sur le réseau. La première utilisation d’un réseau de #courriel annonçait sa propre existence. »

    #histoire #informatique #personnalités

  • Quand ça n’est pas perdu pour tout le monde. Des nouvelles de Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, ...
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-usa-arms-insight-idUSKBN0TN2DA20151204?feedType=RSS&feedN
    U.S. arms makers strain to meet demand as Mideast conflicts rage
    Extrait :

    Top U.S. arms makers are straining to meet surging demand for precision missiles and other weapons being used in the U.S.-led fight against Islamic State and other conflicts in the Middle East, according to senior U.S. officials and industry executives.

    Global demand for U.S.-made missiles and so-called smart bombs has grown steadily since their use in the first Gulf War. But the United States and a host of allies are now rushing to ensure a stable supply of such weapons for what is expected to be a long fight against Islamic State, whose rise has fueled conflict in Syria and across a swathe of the Middle East.

    U.S. officials say arms makers have added shifts and hired workers, but they are bumping up against capacity constraints and may need to expand plants or even open new ones to keep weapons flowing. That could create further log-jams at a time when U.S. allies are voicing growing concern that Washington’s processing of arms sales orders is too slow.

    Islamic State’s deadly attacks in Paris last month have added urgency to the U.S.-led bombing campaign against the group in Iraq and Syria. The campaign had resulted in 8,605 strikes at an estimated cost of around $5.2 billion as of Dec. 2.

    Meanwhile, a Saudi-led coalition including Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates and backed by Washington is carrying out a nine-month-old military campaign against Iran-backed rebels in Yemen. Gulf states are also supplying U.S.-made arms to rebels fighting Syria’s government in that country’s four-year-old war.

    “It’s a huge growth area for us,” said one executive with a U.S. weapons maker, who was not authorized to speak publicly.
    “Everyone in the region is talking about building up supplies for five to ten years. This is going to be a long fight” against Islamic State.

    Et :

    Total U.S. foreign military sales approvals surged 36 percent to $46.6 billion in the year through September 2015 from around $34 billion a year earlier. Approved sales of missiles, smart bombs and other munitions to U.S. allies jumped to an estimated $6 billion in fiscal 2015 from $3.5 billion a year earlier. [...]
    In addition to approved foreign military sales, many munitions sales are overseen by the U.S. Commerce Department and negotiated directly between countries and companies. U.S. weapons makers do not routinely report such sales, and do not break down revenues by specific weapons.

  • Climate change, Katrina and refugees: military solutions, corporate opportunities - The Ecologist
    http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2985166/climate_change_katrina_and_refugees_military_solutions_corporate_oppor

    In 2012, Raytheon, one of the world’s largest defence contractors, announced “expanded business opportunities” arising from “security concerns and their possible consequences”, due to the “effects of climate change” in the form of “storms, droughts, and floods”. The rest of the defence sector has been quick to follow.

    The implications of a militarised and profit-making approach to climate adaptation and crisis-management are very disturbing - and need to be taken more seriously by anyone concerned with environmental justice, civil liberties and democracy.

    Ultimately, a security-led approach to climate change and complex emergencies not only fails to address the fundamental causes of these crises - it will often exacerbate them.

    Worldwide the increased focus on food security is already driving increased land grabbing. The diversion of resources into military spending and strategies is preventing much needed investment in crisis-prevention and tackling the root causes of human insecurity.

    Given that climate change will impact disproportionately on the poorest, a militarisation of our response merely compounds a fundamental injustice - that those least responsible for climate change will be most affected.

    #militarisation plutôt que #prévention #inégalités #climat #contestation #réfugiés #crises

  • Linux Foundation Wants to Pin a Badge on Secure Open Source Software | Community | LinuxInsider
    http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/82415.html#

    “The badging system seems too rooted in video games and social media,” said Raytheon | Websense engineer Tom O’Connor. “Building secure software is not really a game, and I worry that a badge system reduces security to checklists. That said, I can certainly see value in having some sort of rudimentary assessments of open source projects to see that they meet some minimal standards.”

  • RAF Bombs Diverted to Saudis for Yemen Strikes
    http://www.defensenews.com/story/breaking-news/2015/07/16/britain-diverts-bombs-destined--raf--help-saudi-fight--yemen/30236031

    Britain is transferring Paveway IV precision guided bombs originally earmarked for the Royal Air Force to Saudi Arabia to enable the Gulf state to build stocks of the weapon being used against targets in Yemen and Syria, sources here said.

    The Ministry of Defence has swapped delivery positions on the production line at Raytheon UK to ensure the Saudi Royal Air Force has weapon stocks to continue strike missions with the highly accurate 500-pound bomb.

  • Le Qatar achète pour 11 milliards de dollars d’armements aux Etats-Unis - La Tribune

    http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/20140715trib000839956/le-qatar-achete-pour-11-milliards-de-dollars-d-armements-aux-etats-unis.ht

    L’émirat a signé lundi avec le Pentagone un contrat pour l’achat de missiles Patriot américains (Raytheon) et d’hélicoptères d’attaque Apache. Une commande record passée avec les Etats-Unis, moins d’un mois après les échanges entre François Hollande et le cheikh qatari sur une éventuel vente d’avions Rafales.

  • Le #Qatar achète du matériel militaire pour 11 milliards
    http://www.lapresse.ca/international/moyen-orient/201407/14/01-4783739-le-qatar-achete-du-materiel-militaire-pour-11-milliards.php

    Agence France-Presse
    WASHINGTON
    L’émirat du Qatar va acquérir pour 11 milliards de dollars de missiles Patriot (Raytheon) et d’hélicoptères d’attaque Apache auprès des #États-Unis, ont annoncé des responsables du Pentagone à l’AFP lundi.

    Le ministre de la Défense du Qatar, Hamid ben Ali Al-Attiyah, a signé le contrat à l’issue d’entretiens avec son homologue américain Chuck Hagel à Washington, ont précisé ces responsables qui s’exprimaient sous le couvert de l’anonymat.

  • Conflicts of interest in the Syria debate
    http://public-accountability.org/2013/10/conflicts-of-interest-in-the-syria-debate

    Sur les liens financiers directs et indirects des « experts » et « think tanks » qui ont appelé aux frappes contre la Syrie avec l’industrie de l’armement et la non divulgation de ces liens par les médias étasuniens.

    During the public debate around the question of whether to attack Syria, Stephen Hadley, former national security adviser to George W. Bush, made a series of high-profile media appearances. Hadley argued strenuously for military intervention in appearances on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, and Bloomberg TV, and authored a Washington Post op-ed headlined “To stop Iran, Obama must enforce red lines with Assad.”

    In each case, Hadley’s audience was not informed that he serves as a director of Raytheon, the weapons manufacturer that makes the Tomahawk cruise missiles that were widely cited as a weapon of choice in a potential strike against Syria. Hadley earns $128,500 in annual cash compensation from the company and chairs its public affairs committee. He also owns 11,477 shares of Raytheon stock, which traded at all-time highs during the Syria debate ($77.65 on August 23, making Hadley’s share’s worth $891,189). Despite this financial stake, Hadley was presented to his audience as an experienced, independent national security expert.

    Though Hadley’s undisclosed conflict is particularly egregious, it is not unique. The following report documents the industry ties of Hadley, 21 other media commentators, and seven think tanks that participated in the media debate around Syria. Like Hadley, these individuals and organizations have strong ties to defense contractors and other defense- and foreign policy-focused firms with a vested interest in the Syria debate, but they were presented to their audiences with a veneer of expertise and independence, as former military officials, retired diplomats, and independent think tanks.

    The report offers a new look at an issue raised by David Barstow’s 2008 Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times series on the role military analysts played in promoting the Bush Administration’s narrative on Iraq. In addition to exposing coordination with the Pentagon, Barstow found that many cable news analysts had industry ties that were not disclosed on air.

    If the recent debate around Syria is any guide, media outlets have done very little to address the gaps in disclosure and abuses of the public trust that Barstow exposed. Some analysts have stayed the same, others are new, and the issues and range of opinion are different. But the media continues to present former military and government officials as venerated experts without informing the public of their industry ties – the personal financial interests that may be shaping their opinions of what is in the national interest.

  • ““They have enormous opportunities to cash in on their Washington experience, sometimes in ways that fund further innovation and other times in ways that might be very troubling to many people,” said Marc Rotenberg, executive director at the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington. “Both sides like to maintain a myth of distant relations. The ties have been in place for a long time.””

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/23/technology/the-pentagon-as-start-up-incubator.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1&

    #siliconvalley #hacker #CIA #NSA #FBI #sécuritéinformatique

    • The ties are more than personal; the National Security Agency is among the few organizations in the world, along with companies like Facebook and Google, with a cadre of engineers trained in mining big data.

      By working at the N.S.A., “you get to be on the bleeding edge, not just the cutting edge of what’s possible,” said Oren Falkowitz, who left the agency last year to start Sqrrl, a big data analytics company based on technology developed at the agency. Mr. Falkowitz has since left Sqrrl, which is in Boston, and is considering moving to Northern California to start working with a big data company.

      Last year, Sumit Agarwal left his post as a deputy assistant secretary of defense to join Shape Security, a Mountain View company that offers what it calls “military grade” security solutions against botnets, groups of infected computers used for attacks.

      Shape Security’s chief executive is Derek Smith, a former Pentagon consultant whose last company, Oakley Networks, which specialized in detecting insider threats, was sold to Raytheon, the military contractor, in 2007. Since its inception in 2011, Shape Security has raised $26 million in venture financing.

      Computer security experts are leaving other parts of government for start-ups, too. Sameer Bhalotra, who worked on cybersecurity issues at the White House, was recruited by a Redwood City-based security company called Impermium. And Shawn Henry, a former computer security specialist from the F.B.I., left his job in government last year to help establish CrowdStrike, a computer security firm.

  • Raytheon, Lockheed to Get U.S. Secrets for Cybersecurity - Bloomberg
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-11/raytheon-lockheed-to-get-u-s-secrets-for-cybersecurity.html

    Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT) and Raytheon Co. (RTN) are vying with telecommunications companies to defend banks and power grids from computer attacks, in a program that gives them access to classified U.S. government data on cyber threats.

  • 10 companies profiting the most from war
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/03/10/10-companies-profiting-most-from-war/1970997

    10. United Technologies (UTX) — aircraft, electronics, engines
    Arm sales: $11.6 billion, total sales: $58.2 billion
    Gross profit: $5.3 billion, total workforce: 199,900
    United Technologies makes a wide range of arms — notably military helicopters, including the Black Hawk helicopter for the U.S. Army and the Seahawk helicopter for the U.S. Navy. The company was the biggest employer in the top 10 though arms sales accounted for just 20% of revenue. UTX also produces elevators, escalators, air-conditioners and refrigerators. International sales comprised 60% of the company’s revenue in 2012.

    9. L-3 Communications (LLL) — electronics
    Arm sales: $12.5 billion, total sales: $15.2 billion
    Gross profit: $956 million, total workforce: 61,000
    Some 83% of L-3 Communications sales in 2011 came from arms sales, but this was down from what it sold the prior year. The company has four business segments: electronic systems; aircraft modernization and maintenance; national security solutions; and command, control, communications, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. Among many products manufactured, the company has become a major provider of unmanned aircraft systems.

    8. Finmeccanica — aircraft, artillery, engines, electronics, vehicles and missiles
    Arms sales, $14.6 billion, total sales: $24.1 billion
    Gross profit: $ -3.2 billion, total workforce: 70,470
    Italian company Finmeccanica makes a wide range of arms, including helicopters and security electronics. Nearly 60% of the company’s sales in 2011 were in arms. Finmeccanica lost $3.2 billion in 2011. The Italian company is currently fending off allegation that it paid bribes to win an approximately $750 million contract to provide 12 military helicopters to the Indian government in 2010. The then-head of the company, Giuseppe Orsi, was arrested in February but has denied wrongdoing. Other executives, including the head of the company’s helicopter unit, have been replaced, and the company has delayed the release of recent financial results.

    7. EADS — aircraft, electronics, missiles and space
    Arm sales: $16.4 billion, total sales: $68.3 billion
    Gross profit: $1.4 billion, total workforce: 133,120
    The European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company (EADS), based in the Netherlands, had sales in 2011 roughly in line with the prior year. Arms sales comprised just 24% of the company’s revenue. EADS and BAE Systems unsuccessfully attempted to merge for $45 billion in 2012, which would have created the world’s largest aerospace company. The deal collapsed in October after German Chancellor Angela Merkel expressed concerns about the merger.

    6. Northrop Grumman (NOC) — aircraft, electronics, missiles, ships, space
    Arm sales: $21.4 billion, total sales: $26.4 billion
    Gross profit: $2.1 billion, total workforce: 72,500
    Northrop Grumman’s 2011 arms sales comprised about 81% of total sales even after a sharp decline in arms sales year over year. The company attributed the decline to reduced government spending on defense projects. Nevertheless, the company was more profitable than in the prior year.

    5. Raytheon (RTN) — electronics, missiles
    Arm sales: $22.5 billion, total sales: $24.9 billion
    Gross profit: $1.9 billion, total workforce: 71,000
    Raytheon, based in Waltham, Mass., is one of the largest defense contractors in the U.S. The company makes the Tomahawk Cruise Missile, among others. Arms sales comprised about 90% of the company’s sales in 2011 though they as a total they were lower than in the prior year. The slide hasn’t let up. Total sales in 2012 fell 1.5%, and Raytheon is expecting sales to fall 3% in 2013, a projection which doesn’t take into account the effects of mandated budget cuts. The company can rely on overseas customers to somewhat offset weak sales at home. As of January, approximately 40% of the company’s backlog was booked overseas. The company expects approximately a 5% increase in international sales in 2013.

    4. General Dynamics (GD) — artillery, electronics, vehicles, small arms, ships
    Arm sales: $23.8 billion, total sales: $32.7 billion
    Gross profit: $2.5 billion, total workforce: 95,100
    With 18,000 transactions in 2011, General Dynamics was the third-largest contractor to the U.S. government. Of those contracts, approximately $12.9 billion worth went to the Navy, while an additional $4.6 billion went to the Army. The company’s arms sales in 2011 comprised 73% of total sales. Arms sales in 2011 were slightly below 2010 levels. The company makes a host of products, including electric boats, tracked and wheeled military vehicles, and battle tanks. The company announced layoffs in early March, blaming mandated federal budget cuts.

    3. BAE Systems — aircraft, artillery, electronics, vehicles, missiles, ships
    Arm sales: $29.2 billion, total sales: $30.7 billion
    Gross profit: $2.3 billion, total workforce: 93,500
    BAE Systems was the largest non-U.S. company based on arms sales. Arms sales represented 95% of the company’s total sales in 2011 even though they were lower as a total of overall sales compared to the prior year. The products BAE sells include the L-ROD Bar Armor System that shields defense vehicles and the Hawk Advanced Jet Trainer that provides sophisticated simulation training for military pilots. In 2013, the company said its growth would likely come from outside the U.S. and Great Britain — its home market. BAE noted that its outlook for those two countries was “constrained,” likely due to the diminished presence in international conflicts and government budget cuts.

    2. Boeing (BA) — aircraft, electronics, missiles, space
    Arm sales: $31.8 billion, total sales: $68.7 billion
    Gross profit: $4 billion, total workforce: 171,700
    Boeing was the second-largest U.S. government contractor in 2011, with about $21.5 billion worth of goods contracted. The Chicago-based company makes a wide range of arms, including strategic missile systems, laser and electro-optical systems and global positioning systems. Despite all these technologies, just 46% of the company’s total sales of $68.7 billion in 2011 came from arms. Boeing is the largest commercial airplane manufacturer in the world, making planes such as the 747, 757 and recently, the 787 Dreamliner. The company is also known for its space technology — Boeing had $1 billion worth of contracts with NASA in 2011.

    1. Lockheed Martin (LMT) — aircraft, electronics, missiles, space
    Arm sales:$36.3 billion, total sales: $46.5 billion
    Gross profit: $2.7 billion, total workforce, 123,000
    Lockheed Martin notched $36.3 billion in sales in 2011, slightly higher than the $35.7 billion the company sold in 2010. The arms sales comprised 78% of the company’s total 2011 sales. Lockheed makes a wide range of products, including aircraft, missiles, unmanned systems and radar systems. The company and its employees have been concerned about the effects of the “fiscal cliff” and sequestration, the latter of which includes significant cuts to the U.S. Department of Defense. In the fall of 2012, the company planned on issuing layoff notices to all employees before backing down at the White House’s request.

  • Software that tracks people on social media created by defence firm
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/10/software-tracks-social-media-defence

    A multinational security firm has secretly developed software capable of tracking people’s movements and predicting future behaviour by mining data from social networking websites.

    A video obtained by the Guardian reveals how an “extreme-scale analytics” system created by Raytheon, the world’s fifth largest defence contractor, can gather vast amounts of information about people from websites including Facebook, Twitter and Foursquare.

    En plus, ils ont le sens de l’humour, le bouzin s’appelle RIOT !
    #surveillance #raytheon