Les surprises de Greenwald, de Snowden au Yemen

Bloc-Notes

   Forum

Il n'y a pas de commentaires associés a cet article. Vous pouvez réagir.

   Imprimer

 67

Les surprises de Greenwald, de Snowden au Yemen

Le chroniqueur et enquêteur Glenn Greenwald, du Guardian, l’indispensable équipier du whistleblower Snowden, sinon whistleblower lui-même (voir le 20 juillet 2013), a confié sa surprise à Amy Goodman, lors d’une interview à Democracy Now ! Cette surprise concerne l’extraordinaire effet, puis la non moins extraordinaire résistance, voire résilience de cet effet, tandis que des ramifications diverses naissaient de cette crise, dans toutes les directions. C’est effectivement rencontrer ce qui, à notre sens, est le caractère le plus remarquable de l'événement.

L’interview a été diffusée le 5 août 2013 par la station-radio de Democracy Now ! d’Amy Goodman, et la transcription écrite se trouve sur le site. Voici l’extrait où Greenwald exprime sa surprise sur la résilence de cette crise...

Amy Goodman: «... Glenn, as we wrap up this discussion, when you released the video of Edward Snowden and you went to Hong Kong and you released story after story about his revelations—and I want to ask if you’re going to be releasing more—did you ever expect it would come to this point several months later, two months later?»

Glenn Greenwald: «You know, honestly, I didn’t. When—I mean, I’ve been writing about surveillance issues for a long time. And for a lot of different reasons, sometimes it’s difficult to make these stories resonate, even when you’re writing about very severe abuses. I mean, remember, in 2005, The New York Times revealed that the Bush administration was spying on Americans in exactly the way that the law makes a felony, and not only were there no prosecutions from that, but the Democrats and the Republicans in Congress joined together, with very little public backlash, and essentially passed two bills in 2007 and 2008 that legalized that criminal eavesdropping program. And so, the concern, from the very first moment that I talked to Mr. Snowden—I remember really well the first conversation I had with him, and he was very clear about the fact that he had no fear about anything in terms of what he wanted to do, except for one, and that one fear he said that he had was that he would essentially sacrifice his liberty and his life and unravel his entire existence in order to make these disclosures and that these disclosures would be met by apathy and indifference on the part of the American public, the U.S. media and the political class. And so, from the beginning, our discussions were always about how to make sure that that didn’t happen, that people understood the true seriousness and the magnitude of what it was that was being revealed.

»And I have to say, I mean, two months later, to watch, you know, essentially this extraordinary and unprecedented coalition of conservatives and liberals and tea party and centrists join together in the Congress and defy the White House and the leadership for serious reform in a real way, to see huge shifts in public opinion, to see the national security state for the first time really on its heels, to see numerous countries around the world defying the United States, to see a worldwide debate in multiple countries around the globe over what the United States is doing, to see huge amounts of public support for what Mr. Snowden has done in ways that I think will be consciousness-shifting on lots of levels, has not only been really gratifying, but, yeah, honestly, it has been surprising. And I haven’t fully been able to stop and think about, you know, and analyze all the reasons why it has resonated this way, but clearly there was something kind of in the ether that was ready for this sort of political controversy. And I think that you do see enormous amounts of impact in the way that people are thinking and mobilizing, not just about surveillance, but about the role of the government and secrecy and the United States in general.»

Amy Goodman: «And will you be releasing more information?»

Glenn Greenwald: «Yeah, there’s a lot more stories that I’m working on right this very minute.»

(N.B. : selon d’autres déclarations très récentes, qui confirment des précédentes, il semble effectivement que Greenwald ait en sa possession plusieurs milliers de documents différents. Selon les déclarations, les chiffres varient entre 9 000, 15 000 et 20 000. (Voir PressTV.ir, le 6 août 2013.)

Dans la même interview, Greenwald donne également des précisions sur l’audition exceptionnelle à la Chambre, prévue pour le 31 juillet et annulée au dernier moment. Il semble qu’elle ne soit effectivement que reportée, et Snowden donne les dates du 17 ou 18 septembre pour sa tenue. (En août, le Congrès est en vacances.) Bien entendu, on peut faire l'hypothèse que, d’ici là, diverses tentatives seront faites pour repousser à nouveau ou annuler ce projet.

Amy Goodman: «Glenn, you were supposed to testify last week before Congress. That hearing was canceled because President Obama was meeting with Democrats. But instead, you released a major piece. And I want to talk about that in a second, but will you be testifying before Congress again? And would you come into the United States to testify? Last week it was going to be by Skype.»

Glenn Greenwald: «So, the hearing has—I don’t know if it’s been finalized, but I believe it’s been rescheduled for September the 17th or 18th. They definitely intend to reschedule that hearing that was canceled when President Obama suddenly developed a newfound interest in speaking with House Democrats, whom he’s traditionally ignored, which caused the cancellation of that hearing. So, I believe that it is being rescheduled. Whether I would come and physically appear or appear remotely by video depends on a number of factors, including my schedule, the reporting that I’m doing at the time, as well as the—the legal advices that I get from my lawyers. So, we’ll see whether or not that hearing takes place with me remotely there or physically there, but I absolutely intend to testify.»

Ces observations de Greenwald semblent rencontrer, dans l’esprit de la chose qui est la volonté du groupe anti-NSA de la Chambre de poursuivre son offensive, des déclarations parallèles du parlementaire républicain Justin Amash, l’auteur du projet d’amendement anti-NSA qui a failli être voté par la Chambre le 24 juillet. Dimanche, sur Fox.News, Amash a rejoint son collègue Massie en déclarant que, selon son jugement, Snowden est un whistleblower, donc un homme honorable et un héros auquel le pays doit être reconnaissant de son action, et nullement un “traître”. («Yes... As I said, he may be doing things overseas that we’d find problematic, that we’d find dangerous… we’ll find those facts out over time. But as far as Congress is concerned, sure, he’s a whistleblower. He told us what we need to know.») Russia Today, qui relaie les déclarations de Amash le 6 août 2013, rapporte les réflexions du parlementaires sur la mésinformation ou la désinformation dont sont victimes la plupart des parlementaires pour cette matière des domaines “classifiés” dont fait partie la NSA. (Un texte récent de Greenwald, du 4 août 2013, donne des exemples très concrets et très récents de cette situation. Ces points renvoient à notre F&C du 21 juin 2013, sur le «premier cercle du Système».) Russia Today :

«Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) on Sunday called former NSA contractor Edward Snowden a whistleblower, not a traitor, and said that members of Congress would have been left in the dark about the NSA’s spy tactics if it weren’t for the information leaks. [...] “Without his doing what he did, members of Congress would not have really known about [those programs],” Amash said. “Members of Congress were not really aware on the whole about what these programs were being used for and the extent to which they were being used. Members of the intelligence committee were told, but rank-and-file members really didn’t have the information.”»

Dans l’interview de Democracy Now !, Greenwald aborde aussi, à la demande d’Amy Goodman, l’alerte globale lancée par l’administration Obama à propos d’une menace d’attaque d’al Qaïda. Bien évidemment, il observe comme une évidence la manipulation que constitue cette alerte, pour tenter de redonner à la NSA un lustre et une popularité facinée dont on cherche en vain la trace aujourd’hui. Il répond à Goodman sur le point spécifique d’une intervention, dimanche dernier, du sénateur Saxby Chambliss, membre éminent de la commission sur le renseignement du Sénat (parmi les 1% du Congrès qui sont informés régulièrement à propos des activités de la NSA, d’une façon systématique durant des auditions à huis clos).

«You know, it’s so ludicrous. For eight straight years, literally, Democrats, every time there was a terrorist alert or a terrorist advisory issued by the United States government in the middle of a debate over one of the Bush-Cheney civil liberties abuses, would accuse the United States government and the national security state of exaggerating terrorism threats, of manipulating advisories, of hyping the dangers of al-Qaeda, in order to distract attention away from their abuses and to scare the population into submitting to whatever it is they wanted to do. And so, here we are in the midst of, you know, one of the most intense debates and sustained debates that we’ve had in a very long time in this country over the dangers of excess surveillance, and suddenly an administration that has spent two years claiming that it has decimated al-Qaeda decides that there is this massive threat that involves the closing of embassies and consulates throughout the world. And within literally an amount of hours, the likes of Saxby Chambliss and Lindsey Graham join with the White House and Democrats in Congress—who, remember, are the leading defenders of the NSA at this point—to exploit that terrorist threat and to insist that it shows that the NSA and these programs are necessary.»

Un prolongement particulièrement grotesque, et bien entendu révélateur une fois de plus de l’évidence qu’est la manipulation de cette alerte, concerne le Yemen, où l’on a décidé que le cœur de la menace globale décrétée par Washington se trouvait. D’une part, les nouvelles washingtoniennes décrivent un état de super-alerte, avec des troupes yéménites investissant la capitale Sanaa pour tenter de prévenir la seconde attaque du siècle (après 9/11) (Voir le Guardian le 6 août 2013.) D’autre part, McClatchy.News signale le 7 août 2013 que le gouvernement yéménite, en principe ami des USA et en lutte contre al Qaïda-qui-n’existe-plus, n’apprécie guère le comportement de Washington et proteste hautement contre l’alerte globale au terrorisme et les mesures qui sont prises par le gouvernement US, qui sous-entendraient que lui-même, le gouvernement yéménite, n’est pas capable d’assurer l’ordre chez lui. (Plus encore, comme l’observe Antiwar.com le 7 août 2013, il y a la crainte que cette alerte, avec tout le désordre qui l’accompagne, n’alimente et ne réveille des conflits locaux, au Yemen.) Sans doute, les USA ont-ils oublié d’aviser leurs amis yéménites du sens de la manœuvre et que, après tout, le haut degré d’alerte où sont placées les special forces US pourraient aussi bien signifier que ces forces se tiendraient prêtes, si al Qaïda n’agit pas selon le plan prévu, à assurer elles-mêmes l’attaque qui risquerait alors de faire défaut...

«Yemeni officials on Tuesday sharply denounced the United States’ decision to evacuate some of its staff from its embassy in the country in the first sign of a split between allies over the Obama administration’s reaction to what U.S. officials say is one of the most specific terrorism threats in years. In a statement issued by the Foreign Ministry, Yemen said it “appreciates foreign governments’ concern for the safety of their citizens.” But it added that the decision by the United States and Great Britain to evacuate “embassy staff serves the interests of the extremists and undermines the exceptional cooperation between Yemen and the international alliance against terrorism.” “Yemen has taken all necessary precautions to ensure the safety and security of foreign missions in the capital,” the statement said. “Yemen remains strongly committed to the global effort to counter the threats of al Qaida and its affiliates.”

»The statement seemed to suggest that Yemen’s government views as unnecessary the U.S. decision to close its embassies in Sanaa and 20 other countries over the weekend and to keep the closures in place in 16 nations for the remainder of the week. But analysts in the United States said the U.S. actions, which have unfolded over five days, suggested that U.S. officials were truly concerned.»

Le point remarquable que l’on peut dégager de cette rapide appréciation de divers événements s’inscrivant dans cette crise Snowden,/NSA, dans laquelle nous n’hésitons pas à placer l’alerte globale à une attaque terroriste, dans tous les cas pour ce qui est des conditions employées par l’administration et les soutiens de la NSA, c’est que ce denier aspect n’arrive pas à prendre le dessus sur l’aspect des révélations et du débat sur les activités intérieures de la NSA. De ce point de vue, l’initiative/montage de l’administration Obama est loin d’être un succès, et encore plus si l’on considère que certains partenaires extérieurs (le Yémen) commencent à se lasser de jouer les pions d’occasion dans une machination essentiellement washingtonienne. Il est possible que l’administration Obama se trouve ainsi devant des risques sérieux de “dérapages” dans son montage de l’attaque terroriste. Il est possible par conséquent que la crise Snowden/NSA se complique encore un peu plus, en nous offrant un nouveau champ d'activité pour son activisme, qui serait celui des relations des USA avec certains de ses “alliés” moyen-orientaux, en général traités comme des satellites qu’on ne se préoccupe même pas d’informer.


Mis en en ligne le 7 août 2013 à 08H31

Donations

Nous avons récolté 642 € sur 3000 €

faites un don