Pmc Cherche Sponsor Pour Attraper Satrape Africain

[Mobius]

BBC news

[Chitah]

BBC news

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Voilà quelquechose de très intéressant, je vais chercher des mises à jour de cette idée, lmais en tout cas, je rappelerai que nous avions évoqué ce genre d'idées lors de notre débat sur la guerre d'Irak de 2003.

Il s'agissait de trouver un moyen de concilier:

- le fait que SH martyrisait sa population, qui nécessitait une intervention militaire selon certains.

- le fait qu'il n'avait attaqué aucun pays, et que de trop nombreuses chancelleries se sont raccrochées à une condamnation (qui n'avait pas lieu d'être selon moi) du concept de guerre préventive, ce qui empêchait de facto toute action militaire selon d'autres.

Ca me parait être une solution tout à fait élégante à un problème épineux.

[Alex]

Ce serait marrant aussi si OBL était attrapé par une armée privée plutôt que par des marines ou seals.

[Mobius]

tu as pensé à renouveller ton abonnement à Soldier of Fortune?

[Chitah]

Je me souviens que quand je lisais feu ST MAGAZINE (le magazine des Atari ST), ça doit faire quasiment quinze ans, un des chroniqueurs était à moitié barge, n'arrétait pas de parler du test de Myers Briggs, parfois de Ayn Rand, très souvent de Richard Stallman et de la FSF.

Il racontait ses visites dans les salons de mercenaires, et était un abonné de longue date de Soldier of Fortune

[Chitah]

Si il n'était pas si jeune à l'epoque, je me demanderais si ce type n'était pas en fait Jabial, tiens.

[pankkake]

Mince alors, j'aurais voulu voir ça.

[Mobius]

Voici le texte qui rend illégal le mercenariat à la Bob denard style:

The States Parties to the present Convention,

Reaffirming the purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,

Being aware of the recruitment, use, financing and training of mercenaries for activities which violate principles of international law, such as those of sovereign equality, political independence, territorial integrity of States and self-determination of peoples,

Affirming that the recruitment, use, financing and training of mercenaries should be considered as offences of grave concern to all States and that any person committing any of these-offences should be either prosecuted or extradited,

Convinced of the necessity to develop and enhance international co-operation among States for the prevention, prosecution and punishment of such offences,

Expressing concern at new unlawful international activities linking drug traffickers and mercenaries in the perpetration of violent actions which undermine the constitutional order of States,

Also convinced that the adoption of a convention against the recruitment, use, financing and training of mercenaries would contribute to the eradication of these nefarious activities and thereby to the observance of the purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter,

Cognizant that matters not regulated by such a convention continue to be governed by the rules and principles of international law,

Have agreed as follows :

Article 1

For the purposes of the present Convention,

1. A mercenary is any person who:

(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;

( Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar rank and functions in the armed forces of that party;

© Is neither a national of a party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a party to the conflict;

(d) Is not a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict; and

(e) Has not been sent by a State which is not a party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

2. A mercenary is also any person who, in any other situation:

(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad for the purpose of participating in a concerted act of violence aimed at :

(i) Overthrowing a Government or otherwise undermining the constitutional order of a State; or

(ii) Undermining the territorial integrity of a State;

( Is motivated to take part therein essentially by the desire for significant private gain and is prompted by the promise or payment of material compensation;

© Is neither a national nor a resident of the State against which such an act is directed;

(d) Has not been sent by a State on official duty; and

(e) Is not a member of the armed forces of the State on whose territory the act is undertaken.

Article 2

Any person who recruits, uses, finances or trains mercenaries, as defined in article 1 of the present Convention, commits an offence for the purposes of the Convention.

Article 3

1. A mercenary, as defined in article 1 of the present Convention, who participates directly in hostilities or in a concerted act of violence, as the case may be, commits an offence for the purposes of the Convention.

2. Nothing in this article limits the scope of application of article 4 of the present Convention.

Article 4

An offence is committed by any person who:

(a) Attempts to commit one of the offences set forth in the present Convention;

( Is the accomplice of a person who commits or attempts to commit any of the offences set forth in the present Convention.

Article 5

1. States Parties shall note recruit, use, finance or train mercenaries and shall prohibit such activities in accordance with the provisions of the present Convention.

2. States Parties shall not recruit, use, finance or train mercenaries for the purpose of opposing the legitimate exercise of the inalienable right of peoples to self-determination, as recognized by international law, and shall take, in conformity with international law, the appropriate measures to prevent the recruitment, use, financing or training of mercenaries for that purpose.

3. They shall make the offences set forth in the present Convention punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account the grave nature of those offences.

Article 6

States Parties shall co-operate in the prevention of the offences set forth in the present Convention, particularly by :

(a) Taking all practicable measures to prevent preparations in their respective territories for the commission of those offences within or outside their territories, including the prohibition of illegal activities of persons, groups and organizations that encourage, instigate, organize or engage in the perpetration of such offences;

( Co-ordinating the taking of administrative and other measures as appropriate to prevent the commission of those offences.

Article 7

States Parties shall co-operate in taking the necessary measures for the implementation of the present Convention.

Article 8

Any State Party having reason to believe that one of the offences set forth in the present Convention has been, is being or will be committed shall, in accordance with its national law, communicate the relevant information, as soon as it comes to its knowledge, directly or through the Secretary-General of the United Nations, to the States Parties affected.

Article 9

1. Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over any of the offences set forth in the present Convention which are committed :

(a) In its territory or on board a ship or aircraft registered in that State;

( By any of its nationals or, if that State considers it appropriate, by those stateless persons who have their habitual residence in that territory.

2. Each State Party shall likewise take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences set forth in articles 2, 3 and 4 of the present Convention in cases where the alleged offender is present in its territory and it does note extradite him to any of the States mentioned in paragraph 1 of this article.

3. The present Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with national law.

Article 10

1. Upon being satisfied that the circumstances so warrant, any State Party in whose territory the alleged offender is present shall, in accordance with its laws, take him into custody or take such other measures to ensure his presence for such time as is necessary to enable any criminal or extradition proceedings to be instituted. The State Party shall immediately make a preliminary inquiry into the facts.

2. When a State Party, pursuant to this article, has taken a person into custody or has taken such other measures referred to in paragraph 1 of this article, it shall notify without delay either directly or through the Secretary-General of the United Nations:

(a) The State Party where the offence was committed;

( The State Party against which the offence has been directed or attempted;

© The State Party of which the natural or juridical person against whom the offence has been directed or attempted is a national;

(d) The State Party of which the alleged offender is a national or, if he is a stateless person, in whose territory he has his habitual residence;

(e) Any other interested State Party which it considers it appropriate to notify.

3. Any person regarding whom the measures referred to in paragraph 1 of this article are being taken shall be entitled:

(a) To communicate without delay with the nearest appropriate representative of the State of which he is a national or which is otherwise entitled to protect his rights or, if he is a stateless person, the State in whose territory he has his habitual residence;

( To be visited by a representative of that State.

4. The provisions of paragraph 3 of this article shall be without prejudice to the right of any State Party having a claim to jurisdiction in accordance with article 9, paragraph 1 (, to invite the International Committee of the Red Cross to communicate with and visit the alleged offender.

5. The State which makes the preliminary inquiry contemplated in paragraph 1 of this article shall promptly report its findings to the States referred to in paragraph 2 of this article and indicate whether it intends to exercise jurisdiction.

Article 11

Any person regarding whom proceedings are being carried out in connection with any of the offences set forth in the present Convention shall be guaranteed at all stages of the proceedings fair treatment and all the rights and guarantees provided for in the law of the State in question. Applicable norms of international law should be taken into account.

Article 12

The State Party in whose territory the alleged offender is found shall, if it does not extradite him, be obliged, without exception whatsoever and whether or not the offence was committed in its territory, to submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution through proceedings in accordance with the laws of that State. Those authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any other offence of a grave nature under the law of that State.

Article 13

1. States Parties shall afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with criminal proceedings brought in respect of the offences set forth in the present Convention, including the supply of all evidence at their disposal necessary for the proceedings. The law of the State whose assistance is requested shall apply in all cases.

2. The provisions of paragraph 1 of this article shall not affect obligations concerning mutual judicial assistance embodied in any other treaty.

Article 14

The State Party where the alleged offender is prosecuted shall in accordance with its laws communicate the final outcome of the proceedings to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit the information to the other States concerned.

Article 15

1. The offences set forth in articles 2,3 and 4 of the present Convention shall be deemed to be included as extraditable offences in any extradition treaty existing between States Parties. States Parties undertake to include such offences as extraditable offences in every extradition treaty to be concluded between them.

2. If a State Party which makes extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty receives a request for extradition from another State Party with which it has no extradition treaty, it may at its option consider the present Convention as the legal basis for extradition in respect of those offences. Extradition shall be subject to the other conditions provided by the law of the requested State.

3. States Parties which do not make extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty shall recognize those offences as extraditable offences between themselves, subject to the conditions provided by the law of the requested State.

4. The offences shall be treated, for the purpose of extradition between States Parties, as if they had been committed not only in the place in which they occurred but also in the territories of the State required to establish their jurisdiction in accordance with article 9 of the present Convention.

Article 16

The present Convention shall be applied without prejudice to:

(a) The rules relating to the international responsibility of States;

( The law of armed conflict and international humanitarian law, including the provisions relating to the status of combatant or of prisoner of war.

Article 17

1. Any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of the present Convention which is not settled by negotiation shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration. If, within six months from the date of the request for arbitration, the parties are unable to agree on the organization of the arbitration, any one of those parties may refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice by a request in conformity with the Statute of the Court.

2. Each State may, at the time of signature or ratification of the present Convention or accession thereto, declare that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of this article. The other States Parties shall not be bound by paragraph 1 of this article with respect to any State party which has made such a reservation.

3. Any State Party which has made a reservation in accordance with paragraph 2 of this article may at any time withdraw that reservation by notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Article 18

1. The present Convention shall be open for signature by all States until 31 December 1990 at United Nations Headquarters in New York.

2. The present Convention shall be subject to ratification. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

3. The present Convention shall remain open for accession by any State. The instruments of accession shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Article 19

1. The present Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day following the date of deposit of the twenty-second instrument of ratification or accession with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

2. For each State ratifying or acceding to the Convention after the deposit of the twenty-second instrument of ratification or accession, the Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after deposit by such State of its instrument of ratification or accession.

Article 20

1. Any State Party may denounce the present Convention by written notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

2. Denunciation shall take effect one year after the date on which the notification is received by the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Article 21

The original of the present Convention, of which the Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall send certified copies thereof to all States.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned, being duly authorized thereto by their respective Governments, have signed the present Convention.

ce machin est complètement débile, je dévelloperais mon argumentation demain.

[melodius]

Ca me rappelle la définition de "terroriste": l'état est toujours exempté, alors qu'il est bien plus dangereux.

[Chitah]

Une petite biographie de Charles Taylor (entre autres choses)

A Protected Friend of Terrorism

By Douglas Farah

Monday, April 25, 2005; Page A19

The Bush administration is touting the rule of law and democracy as priorities in its effort to create stability and defeat terrorism. Yet it remains curiously apathetic about the activities of one of the world's most notorious indicted war criminals, a man who is also an abettor of al Qaeda and Hezbollah. I am speaking of former Liberian president Charles Taylor, who has not only escaped answering for his crimes so far but who may be given an opportunity to repeat them if the United States does not act.

It seems to matter little here that Taylor's efforts to escape justice may well succeed because of U.S. inertia. Indicted on 17 counts of crimes against humanity, Taylor poses a clear and present danger to West Africa and U.S. interests. Yet the State Department continues to respond to congressional inquiries with bland assurances that everything is fine and Taylor is no longer a problem. It's not true.

Unless Taylor is turned over quickly to the U.N.-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone to stand trial, he will never face punishment for the crimes he committed in the region at the cost of tens of thousands of dead and hundreds of thousands of lives destroyed. The mandate of the court, largely funded by the United States, expires at the end of the year. It was established to try those "most responsible" for the atrocities in Sierra Leone. Taylor is at the top of the list.

Taylor's were brutal, vicious crimes. For more than a decade he presided over forces that murdered, raped and mutilated children; they also abducted children to use them as cannon fodder. He created "Small Boys Units" made up of specially trained children who, while high on amphetamines, were used to raze villages and murder civilians. He trained and supplied the Revolutionary United Front in neighboring Sierra Leone, whose signature atrocity was hacking off the arms, legs and ears of civilians, many of them children.

Taylor also hosted diamond buyers from al Qaeda and Hezbollah for several years, allowing the two designated terrorist groups to earn and hide their wealth in an asset that is untraceable and easily convertible to cash.

In August 2003, under siege militarily, Taylor fled to Nigeria under an asylum deal backed by the Bush administration and Britain's Tony Blair. The terms of the agreement with Nigerian president Olusegun Obasanjo were that Taylor not be allowed to participate in "active communications with anyone engaged in political, illegal or governmental activities in Liberia." In return, Obasanjo would not be criticized for harboring an indicted war criminal. Obasanjo promised to turn Taylor over only if the new Liberian government requested it.

There is clear evidence -- gathered by the court, U.N. officials in Liberia and European intelligence services -- that Taylor has made a mockery of the asylum agreement, meddling in Liberia's electoral process by phone, e-mail, fax and cash payments. The court has revealed evidence that Taylor funded and planned an unsuccessful January assassination attempt against Lansana Conte, the president of Guinea.

An investigation by the Coalition for International Justice has found that Taylor is spending some of the millions of dollars he looted to pay for campaigns of several of Liberia's presidential contenders. His financial empire, built on shell companies and businesses stretching from Nigeria to Europe and the Caribbean, is feeding resources to his longtime business associates and military loyalists. He will have the protection of whoever wins the October election. The new government will then make sure Taylor can return home and never face the court. Once he outlasts the court's mandate, he will have escaped prosecution and will continue to wreak havoc.

U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan last month told the Security Council that Taylor's "former military commanders and business associates, as well as members of his political party, maintain regular contact with him and are planning to undermine the peace process" in Liberia. David Crane, the court' s chief prosecutor, said that "Taylor is still ruling the country from his house arrest." Yet the Bush administration has offered no support for turning Taylor over to the court. The State Department has, in several recent briefings, equivocated on whether U.S. policy really supports such a move.

Part of the reason may be Taylor's long association with U.S. intelligence services. During much of the 1990s, Taylor was close to Moammar Gaddafi, the main financier of Taylor's wars. Taylor regularly reported on his meetings to U.S. intelligence agencies and was paid for the information. While the use of informants is necessary, protecting Taylor in the face of unspeakable atrocities just because of that historical relationship should not be tolerated.

Faced with the administration's apathy, a bipartisan group of legislators is taking the lead. Reps. Ed Royce (R-Calif.), Sue W. Kelly (R-N.Y.), Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.), Victor F. Snyder (D-Ark.) and Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) are co-sponsoring a concurrent resolution calling for Taylor's expeditious handover to the court.

The congressional action is helpful, but what is really needed is the administration's active support for Taylor's immediate extradition. The administration must acknowledge that Nigeria acted in the best interests of the region by taking him and thank Obasanjo for his help. Britain has already done this. But Obasanjo must have the political cover of public U.S. support to hand Taylor over. If Taylor escapes prosecution, West Africa will be endangered and U.S. moral leadership severely diminished.

The writer is a former bureau chief for The Post in West Africa. He is investigating Charles Taylor's financial network for the Coalition for International Justice, a Washington-based group.

[Chitah]

Des news sur ce Charles Taylor:

The Coalition for International Justice has released a major study "tracking Charles Taylor's money and how Taylor is using that money from his exile in Nigeria to interfere in Liberian politics and destabilize the region has just been put up on our website." Contributing Expert Douglas Farah and CIJ consultant, who has posted here on this issue, is the principal author, with assistance by the CIJ staff. The report is in three parts, available here (Acrobat files) and on the CIJ website:

1. Following Taylor's Money: A Path of War and Destruction

2. WAMCO and ATDI Flow Chart

3. Appendices: Following the Money: A Path of War and Destruction

Excerpt (page 18 of "Path of War and Destruction"): "As president, Taylor controlled access to the country, allowing him to host a variety of international criminal syndicates and terrorist organizations, ranging from Israeli, Lebanese, Russian and Ukrainian organized crime groups, to al Qaeda and Hezbollah. Each of these groups, as well as scores of businessmen seeking to enter the diamond or timber business, were obligated to pay Taylor directly, in cash, “advance taxes” on their future earnings. Usually, getting access to the diamond business required a payment of $100,000, plus a share of one third of the diamonds mined. Timber payments from large companies like the Chinese-based Oriental Timber Corporation, were up to $1 million."

Voir ici: http://counterterror.typepad.com/the_count…farahs_maj.html

[Mobius]

tombé dessus sur un site gauchiste

ceci

[Antoninov]

Et vous avez entendu parler de l'homme d'affaire suédois enlevé en Irak, libéré contre rançon et qui paie maintenant des mercenaires pour retrouver et éliminer ses ravisseurs?

Taking Care of Business

Friday, July 01, 2005

By John Gibson

I've got a blog in my hand from Sweden, and it contains an exciting and satisfying piece of news — if it is true — and I, for one, certainly hope it is.

What this blogger says is that a Swede who survived a 67-day kidnapping ordeal in Baghdad — and is now back at home in Sweden — has paid professional bounty hunters to find his captors and, one presumes by reading between the lines, kill them.

What's more, the news appears to be that the bounty hunters have already accomplished part of their assignment.

The Swede's name is Ulf Hjertstroem and he says it's no big deal. He lived in Baghdad 25 years, and he said, "This is how things are done there. It's nothing new to me."

He won't say exactly what his bounty hunters are doing, but he's quoted as saying, "They're not twiddling their thumbs." Asked to be more specific, he said he has not inquired about what they are doing exactly, but he has his suspicions.

I do, too. I think Mr. Hjertstroem 's bounty hunters are killing the captors.

And I say, "Good."

Swedes are upset about what their countryman has apparently done. They're shocked in fact.

I suppose the Italians would be upset, too. They've had a couple hostages in Iraq and what they do is pay the money and bring the hostage home to a national day of rejoicing. They don't think about going back and finding the terrorists and shooting them. But they should.

Really, until these people realize that somebody might come back at them, they pick up any Westerner as if they were nothing more than a walking, talking ATM machine.

Mr. Hjertstroem had a different idea.

He said, "OK, fine, here's your money. Now see if you can hide because I am sending my Iraqi acquaintances — who are happy to do nearly anything for money — to find you and shoot you."

Well, good for the Swede.

I am applauding him for not just taking it. And you should too.