Forum

Pour poster un commentaire, vous devez vous identifier

A chacun son tour

Article lié :

JeFF

  10/06/2004

Fiabilité des sources, recoupement, ... y a du boulot

(en provenance de Secrecy News, http://www.fas.org)

INTEGRITY OF STATE DEPT TERRORISM REPORT QUESTIONED

A new report from the Congressional Research Service cautiously
notes that the State Department’s annual “Patterns of Global
Terrorism” report suffers from a variety of statistical and
methodological flaws, and that for the first time an errata
sheet to the latest edition will be provided.

The CRS report was first described in the Los Angeles Times
today.

See “The Department of State’s Patterns of Global Terrorism
Report: Trends, State Sponsors, and Related Issues” by Raphael
Perl, Congressional Research Service, June 1, 2004:

    http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL32417.pdf

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) was more blunt about the terrorism
report’s defects.

“It appears… that the decline in terrorism reported by the
State Department results from manipulation of the data, not an
actual decline in terrorism incidents,” he wrote to Secretary
of State Colin Powell on May 17.

“This manipulation… calls into serious doubt the integrity of
the report,” Rep. Waxman wrote.  See his letter here:
    http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2004_cr/waxman051704.pdf

Unanimisme bêlant...

Article lié : Il est très possible qu’ils lui aient donné le coup de pouce décisif pour sa réélection...

Stassen

  08/06/2004

Oui, cela en devient éreintant à la fin : subir ce “ping pong” événementiel où l’on ce dit que ce sera la der des der : on ne nous aura plus avec la rouerie de l’administration bushienne. Mais non, les retrouvailles du D-Day, émouvantes il est vrai,  passent pour la façade politiquement correcte des bonnes relations entre ces éminents représentants autours du berceau des valeurs atlantistes: parce que les valeurs communes demeurent entre nous, paraît-il…? Laissez-moi pleurer : Les juristes US estiment que Bush n’est même pas lié par le principe d’interdiction de la torture (articles ci-dessous).
Pourtant, j’y crois à cette renaissance de l’Europe, enfin adulte par sa capacité à tourner la page de ses luttes fatricides. Mais nos élites peuvent-elles assumer le poids de leur responsabilité : représenter les citoyens au travers d’institutions transparentes par un lien direct (no authority without accountability).
L’actuel (non)débat entourant les élections du parlement européen exprime de manière assourdissante le malaise induit par des échafaudages institutionnels (25 scrutins nationaux…) dont les citoyens n’entendent que puic. C’est là pourtant , qu’il faut “porter le fer” si l’on veut éviter les dérives populistes. Mais le traité constitutionnel se fait désirer… Alors, débacle imminente… Nous le saurons bientôt. Mais déjà, on entend gronder les tendances “souverainistes”...

June 8, 2004
Lawyers Decided Bans on Torture Didn’t Bind Bush
By NEIL A. LEWIS and ERIC SCHMITT
ASHINGTON, June 7 - A team of administration lawyers concluded in a March 2003 legal memorandum that President Bush was not bound by either an international treaty prohibiting torture or by a federal antitorture law because he had the authority as commander in chief to approve any technique needed to protect the nation’s security.

The memo, prepared for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, also said that any executive branch officials, including those in the military, could be immune from domestic and international prohibitions against torture for a variety of reasons.

One reason, the lawyers said, would be if military personnel believed that they were acting on orders from superiors “except where the conduct goes so far as to be patently unlawful.”

“In order to respect the president’s inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign,” the lawyers wrote in the 56-page confidential memorandum, the prohibition against torture “must be construed as inapplicable to interrogation undertaken pursuant to his commander-in-chief authority.”

Senior Pentagon officials on Monday sought to minimize the significance of the March memo, one of several obtained by The New York Times, as an interim legal analysis that had no effect on revised interrogation procedures that Mr. Rumsfeld approved in April 2003 for the American military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

“The April document was about interrogation techniques and procedures,” said Lawrence Di Rita, the Pentagon’s chief spokesman. “It was not a legal analysis.”

Mr. Di Rita said the 24 interrogation procedures permitted at Guantánamo, four of which required Mr. Rumsfeld’s explicit approval, did not constitute torture and were consistent with international treaties.

The March memorandum, which was first reported by The Wall Street Journal on Monday, is the latest internal legal study to be disclosed that shows that after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks the administration’s lawyers were set to work to find legal arguments to avoid restrictions imposed by international and American law.

A Jan. 22, 2002, memorandum from the Justice Department that provided arguments to keep American officials from being charged with war crimes for the way prisoners were detained and interrogated was used extensively as a basis for the March memorandum on avoiding proscriptions against torture.

The previously disclosed Justice Department memorandum concluded that administration officials were justified in asserting that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to detainees from the Afghanistan war.

Another memorandum obtained by The Times indicates that most of the administration’s top lawyers, with the exception of those at the State Department and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, approved of the Justice Department’s position that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to the war in Afghanistan. In addition, that memorandum, dated Feb. 2, 2002, noted that lawyers for the Central Intelligence Agency had asked for an explicit understanding that the administration’s public pledge to abide by the spirit of the conventions did not apply to its operatives.

The March memo, a copy of which was obtained by The Times, was prepared as part of a review of interrogation techniques by a working group appointed by the Defense Department’s general counsel, William J. Haynes. The group itself was led by the Air Force general counsel, Mary Walker, and included military and civilian lawyers from all branches of the armed services.

The review stemmed from concerns raised by Pentagon lawyers and interrogators at Guantánamo after Mr. Rumsfeld approved a set of harsher interrogation techniques in December 2002 to use on a Saudi detainee, Mohamed al-Kahtani, who was believed to be the planned 20th hijacker in the Sept. 11 terror plot.

Mr. Rumsfeld suspended the harsher techniques, including serving the detainee cold, prepackaged food instead of hot rations and shaving off his facial hair, on Jan. 12, pending the outcome of the working group’s review. Gen. James T. Hill, head of the military’s Southern Command, which oversees Guantánamo, told reporters last Friday that the working group “wanted to do what is humane and what is legal and consistent not only with” the Geneva Conventions, but also “what is right for our soldiers.”

Mr. Di Rita said that the Pentagon officials were focused primarily on the interrogation techniques, and that the legal rationale included in the March memo was mostly prepared by the Justice Department and White House counsel’s office.

The memo showed that not only lawyers from the Defense and Justice departments and the White House approved of the policy but also that David S. Addington, the counsel to Vice President Dick Cheney, also was involved in the deliberations. The State Department lawyer, William H. Taft IV, dissented, warning that such a position would weaken the protections of the Geneva Conventions for American troops.

The March 6 document about torture provides tightly constructed definitions of torture. For example, if an interrogator “knows that severe pain will result from his actions, if causing such harm is not his objective, he lacks the requisite specific intent even though the defendant did not act in good faith,” the report said. “Instead, a defendant is guilty of torture only if he acts with the express purpose of inflicting severe pain or suffering on a person within his control.”

The adjective “severe,” the report said, “makes plain that the infliction of pain or suffering per se, whether it is physical or mental, is insufficient to amount to torture. Instead, the text provides that pain or suffering must be `severe.’ ” The report also advised that if an interrogator “has a good faith belief his actions will not result in prolonged mental harm, he lacks the mental state necessary for his actions to constitute torture.”

The report also said that interrogators could justify breaching laws or treaties by invoking the doctrine of necessity. An interrogator using techniques that cause harm might be immune from liability if he “believed at the moment that his act is necessary and designed to avoid greater harm.”

Scott Horton, the former head of the human rights committee of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, said Monday that he believed that the March memorandum on avoiding responsibility for torture was what caused a delegation of military lawyers to visit him and complain privately about the administration’s confidential legal arguments. That visit, he said, resulted in the association undertaking a study and issuing of a report criticizing the administration. He added that the lawyers who drafted the torture memo in March could face professional sanctions.

Jamie Fellner, the director of United States programs for Human Rights Watch, said Monday, “We believe that this memo shows that at the highest levels of the Pentagon there was an interest in using torture as well as a desire to evade the criminal consequences of doing so.”

The March memorandum also contains a curious section in which the lawyers argued that any torture committed at Guantánamo would not be a violation of the anti-torture statute because the base was under American legal jurisdiction and the statute concerns only torture committed overseas. That view is in direct conflict with the position the administration has taken in the Supreme Court, where it has argued that prisoners at Guantánamo Bay are not entitled to constitutional protections because the base is outside American jurisdiction.

Kate Zernike contributed reporting for this article.

-
Memo Offered Justification for Use of Torture
Justice Dept. Gave Advice in 2002
By Dana Priest and R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, June 8, 2004; Page A01
In August 2002, the Justice Department advised the White House that torturing al Qaeda terrorists in captivity abroad “may be justified,” and that international laws against torture “may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogations” conducted in President Bush’s war on terrorism, according to a newly obtained memo.
If a government employee were to torture a suspect in captivity, “he would be doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by the Al Qaeda terrorist network,” said the memo, from the Justice Department’s office of legal counsel, written in response to a CIA request for legal guidance. It added that arguments centering on “necessity and self-defense could provide justifications that would eliminate any criminal liability” later.
The memo seems to counter the pre-Sept. 11, 2001, assumption that U.S. government personnel would never be permitted to torture captives. It was offered after the CIA began detaining and interrogating suspected al Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the wake of the attacks, according to government officials familiar with the document.
The legal reasoning in the 2002 memo, which covered treatment of al Qaeda detainees in CIA custody, was later used in a March 2003 report by Pentagon lawyers assessing interrogation rules governing the Defense Department’s detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. At that time, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had asked the lawyers to examine the logistical, policy and legal issues associated with interrogation techniques.
Bush administration officials say flatly that, despite the discussion of legal issues in the two memos, it has abided by international conventions barring torture, and that detainees at Guantanamo and elsewhere have been treated humanely, except in the cases of abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq for which seven military police soldiers have been charged.
Still, the 2002 and 2003 memos reflect the Bush administration’s desire to explore the limits on how far it could legally go in aggressively interrogating foreigners suspected of terrorism or of having information that could thwart future attacks.
In the 2002 memo, written for the CIA and addressed to White House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales, the Justice Department defined torture in a much narrower way, for example, than does the U.S. Army, which has historically carried out most wartime interrogations.
In the Justice Department’s view—contained in a 50-page document signed by Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee and obtained by The Washington Post—inflicting moderate or fleeting pain does not necessarily constitute torture. Torture, the memo says, “must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.”
By contrast, the Army’s Field Manual 34-52, titled “Intelligence Interrogations,” sets more restrictive rules. For example, the Army prohibits pain induced by chemicals or bondage; forcing an individual to stand, sit or kneel in abnormal positions for prolonged periods of time; and food deprivation. Under mental torture, the Army prohibits mock executions, sleep deprivation and chemically induced psychosis.
Human rights groups expressed dismay at the Justice Department’s legal reasoning yesterday.
“It is by leaps and bounds the worst thing I’ve seen since this whole Abu Ghraib scandal broke,” said Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch. “It appears that what they were contemplating was the commission of war crimes and looking for ways to avoid legal accountability. The effect is to throw out years of military doctrine and standards on interrogations.”
But a spokesman for the White House counsel’s office said, “The president directed the military to treat al Qaeda and Taliban humanely and consistent with the Geneva Conventions.”
Mark Corallo, the Justice Department’s chief spokesman, said “the department does not comment on specific legal advice it has provided confidentially within the executive branch.” But he added: “It is the policy of the United States to comply with all U.S. laws in the treatment of detainees—including the Constitution, federal statutes and treaties.” The CIA declined to comment.
The Justice Department’s interpretation for the CIA sought to provide guidance on what sorts of aggressive treatments might not fall within the legal definition of torture.
The 2002 memo, for example, included the interpretation that “it is difficult to take a specific act out of context and conclude that the act in isolation would constitute torture.” The memo named seven techniques that courts have considered torture, including severe beatings with truncheons and clubs, threats of imminent death, burning with cigarettes, electric shocks to genitalia, rape or sexual assault, and forcing a prisoner to watch the torture of another person.
“While we cannot say with certainty that acts falling short of these seven would not constitute torture,” the memo advised, “. . . we believe that interrogation techniques would have to be similar to these in their extreme nature and in the type of harm caused to violate law.”
“For purely mental pain or suffering to amount to torture,” the memo said, “it must result in significant psychological harm of significant duration, e.g., lasting for months or even years.” Examples include the development of mental disorders, drug-induced dementia, “post traumatic stress disorder which can last months or even years, or even chronic depression.”
Of mental torture, however, an interrogator could show he acted in good faith by “taking such steps as surveying professional literature, consulting with experts or reviewing evidence gained in past experience” to show he or she did not intend to cause severe mental pain and that the conduct, therefore, “would not amount to the acts prohibited by the statute.”
In 2003, the Defense Department conducted its own review of the limits that govern torture, in consultation with experts at the Justice Department and other agencies. The aim of the March 6, 2003, review, conducted by a working group that included representatives of the military services, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the intelligence community, was to provide a legal basis for what the group’s report called “exceptional interrogations.”
Much of the reasoning in the group’s report and in the Justice Department’s 2002 memo overlap. The documents, which address treatment of al Qaeda and Taliban detainees, were not written to apply to detainees held in Iraq.
In a draft of the working group’s report, for example, Pentagon lawyers approvingly cited the Justice Department’s 2002 position that domestic and international laws prohibiting torture could be trumped by the president’s wartime authority and any directives he issued.
At the time, the Justice Department’s legal analysis, however, shocked some of the military lawyers who were involved in crafting the new guidelines, said senior defense officials and military lawyers.
“Every flag JAG lodged complaints,” said one senior Pentagon official involved in the process, referring to the judge advocate generals who are military lawyers of each service.
“It’s really unprecedented. For almost 30 years we’ve taught the Geneva Convention one way,” said a senior military attorney. “Once you start telling people it’s okay to break the law, there’s no telling where they might stop.”
A U.S. law enacted in 1994 bars torture by U.S. military personnel anywhere in the world. But the Pentagon group’s report, prepared under the supervision of General Counsel William J. Haynes II, said that “in order to respect the President’s inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign . . . [the prohibition against torture] must be construed as inapplicable to interrogations undertaken pursuant to his Commander-in-Chief authority.”
The Pentagon group’s report, divulged yesterday by the Wall Street Journal and obtained by The Post, said further that the 1994 law barring torture “does not apply to the conduct of U.S. personnel” at Guantanamo Bay.
It also said the anti-torture law did apply to U.S. military interrogations that occurred outside U.S. “maritime and territorial jurisdiction,” such as in Iraq or Afghanistan. But it said both Congress and the Justice Department would have difficulty enforcing the law if U.S. military personnel could be shown to be acting as a result of presidential orders.
The report then parsed at length the definition of torture under domestic and international law, with an eye toward guiding military personnel about legal defenses.
The Pentagon report uses language very similar to that in the 2002 Justice Department memo written in response to the CIA’s request: “If a government defendant were to harm an enemy combatant during an interrogation in a manner that might arguably violate criminal prohibition, he would be doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by the al Qaeda terrorist network,” the draft states. “In that case, DOJ [Department of Justice] believes that he could argue that the executive branch’s constitutional authority to protect the nation from attack justified his actions.”
The draft goes on to assert that a soldier’s claim that he was following “superior orders” would be available for those engaged in “exceptional interrogations except where the conduct goes so far as to be patently unlawful.” It asserts, as does the Justice view expressed for the CIA, that the mere infliction of pain and suffering is not unlawful; the pain or suffering must be severe.
A Defense Department spokesman said last night that the March 2003 memo represented “a scholarly effort to define the perimeters of the law” but added: “What is legal and what is put into practice is a different story.” Pentagon officials said the group examined at least 35 interrogation techniques, and Rumsfeld later approved using 24 of them in a classified directive on April 16, 2003, that governed all activities at Guantanamo Bay. The Pentagon has refused to make public the 24 interrogation procedures.
Staff writer Josh White contributed to this report.

Du statistique au cas particulier ...

Article lié :

JFL

  05/06/2004

Puisque l’on en est à parler de psychiatrie ...

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4636.shtml

Bush Leagues
Bush’s Erratic Behavior Worries White House Aides
By DOUG THOMPSON
Publisher, Capitol Hill Blue
Jun 4, 2004, 06:15

President George W. Bush’s increasingly erratic behavior and wide mood swings has the halls of the West Wing buzzing lately as aides privately express growing concern over their leader’s state of mind.

In meetings with top aides and administration officials, the President goes from quoting the Bible in one breath to obscene tantrums against the media, Democrats and others that he classifies as “enemies of the state.”

Worried White House aides paint a portrait of a man on the edge, increasingly wary of those who disagree with him and paranoid of a public that no longer trusts his policies in Iraq or at home.

“It reminds me of the Nixon days,” says a longtime GOP political consultant with contacts in the White House. “Everybody is an enemy; everybody is out to get him. That’s the mood over there.”

In interviews with a number of White House staffers who were willing to talk off the record, a picture of an administration under siege has emerged, led by a man who declares his decisions to be “God’s will” and then tells aides to “fuck over” anyone they consider to be an opponent of the administration.

“We’re at war, there’s no doubt about it. What I don’t know anymore is just who the enemy might be,” says one troubled White House aide. “We seem to spend more time trying to destroy John Kerry than al Qaeda and our enemies list just keeps growing and growing.”

Aides say the President gets “hung up on minor details,” micromanaging to the extreme while ignoring the bigger picture. He will spend hours personally reviewing and approving every attack ad against his Democratic opponent and then kiss off a meeting on economic issues.

“This is what is killing us on Iraq,” one aide says. “We lost focus. The President got hung up on the weapons of mass destruction and an unproven link to al Qaeda. We could have found other justifiable reasons for the war but the President insisted the focus stay on those two, tenuous items.”

Aides who raise questions quickly find themselves shut out of access to the President or other top advisors. Among top officials, Bush’s inner circle is shrinking. Secretary of State Colin Powell has fallen out of favor because of his growing doubts about the administration’s war against Iraq.

The President’s abrupt dismissal of CIA Directory George Tenet Wednesday night is, aides say, an example of how he works.

“Tenet wanted to quit last year but the President got his back up and wouldn’t hear of it,” says an aide. “That would have been the opportune time to make a change, not in the middle of an election campaign but when the director challenged the President during the meeting Wednesday, the President cut him off by saying ‘that’s it George. I cannot abide disloyalty. I want your resignation and I want it now.”

Tenet was allowed to resign “voluntarily” and Bush informed his shocked staff of the decision Thursday morning. One aide says the President actually described the decision as “God’s will.”

God may also be the reason Attorney General John Ashcroft, the administration’s lightning rod because of his questionable actions that critics argue threatens freedoms granted by the Constitution, remains part of the power elite. West Wing staffers call Bush and Ashcroft “the Blues Brothers” because “they’re on a mission from God.”

“The Attorney General is tight with the President because of religion,” says one aide. “They both believe any action is justifiable in the name of God.”

But the President who says he rules at the behest of God can also tongue-lash those he perceives as disloyal, calling them “fucking assholes” in front of other staff, berating one cabinet official in front of others and labeling anyone who disagrees with him “unpatriotic” or “anti-American.”

“The mood here is that we’re under siege, there’s no doubt about it,” says one troubled aide who admits he is looking for work elsewhere. “In this administration, you don’t have to wear a turban or speak Farsi to be an enemy of the United States. All you have to do is disagree with the President.”

The White House did not respond to requests for comment on the record.

© Copyright 2004 Capitol Hill Blue

Les vraies raisons de TELNET commencent à poindre ...

Article lié :

alienor@coco.com

  04/06/2004

http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=212089

Par Libération.fr
vendredi 04 juin 2004 (Liberation.fr - 13:19)

Un rapport encombrant pour Tenet
Selon le «New York Times», le patron de la CIA a démissionné avant la publication d’un rapport du Sénat très gênant sur les activités de l’agence en Irak.


George Tenet, le patron de la CIA, a trébuché sur l’Irak. Selon le New York Times

de vendredi (en anglais, inscription préalable), un rapport de la commission des renseignements du Sénat démontre la légereté des accusations de l’agence sur l’existence d’armes de destruction massive en Irak. Ce rapport - encore classé, selon le quotidien américain, mais qui circule déjà dans les cercles dirigeants - aurait précipité la démission de Tenet, annoncée jeudi par George Bush. Et pour cause: le document de 400 pages est impitoyable pour la Centrale de renseignement américaine.
«Des responsables qui ont lu le rapport le décrivent comme une charge tous azimuts contre la performance de la CIA en Irak», écrit le New York Times. «Les critiques, selon eux, concernent aussi bien la collecte inadéquate de renseignements par des espions et des satellites avant la guerre qu’une analyse bâclée de la situation, basée sur des sources non recoupées et qui a abouti à la conclusion que l’Irak possédait des armes biologiques et chimiques.» D’autres responsables cités par le journal enfoncent le clou en parlant de conclusions «particulièrement embarrassantes pour la CIA, dont les experts étaient les plus actifs, dans les milieux du renseignement, à défendre l’idée que l’Irak disposait d’armement illicite». Idée qui, rappelle le quotidien new-yorkais proche des Démocrates, a justifié l’invasion du pays par l’US Army.
L’article suggère pour finir que George Tenet a peut-être voulu éviter une autre humiliation: la divulgation, prévue le mois prochain, d’un autre rapport, consacré celui-là aux attaques du 11 septembre 2001. Un document paraît-il «“très critique” pour Mr Tenet et son agence».
Lire l’événement de Libération du 5 juin: Tenet, le patron de la CIA, fusible de Bush

Hystérie paranoïaque et McCarthyisme

Article lié :

JeF

  04/06/2004

Une histoire locale, évidemment tragique pour son protagoniste, qui n’aura comme vertu que d’éclairer la tragédie globale qu’est l’état d’esprit aux USA actuellement.

The FBI’s Art Attack
Offbeat Materials at Professor’s Home Set Off Bioterror Alarm

By Lynne Duke
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 2, 2004; Page C01

NEW YORK—“A forensic investigation of FBI trash.” On the telephone, Beatriz da Costa says it wryly. Her humor sounds bitter. She’s talking about the detritus of a terror probe at the Buffalo home of her good friends, the Kurtzes.

She’s talking about the pizza boxes, Gatorade jugs, the gloves, the gas mask filters, the biohazard suits: the stuff left by police, FBI, hazmat and health investigators after they descended on the Kurtz home and quarantined the place.

The garbage tells a story of personal tragedy, a death in the Kurtz household, that sparked suspicions (later proved unfounded) of a biohazard in the neighborhood. And it tells a story of the times in which we live, with almost daily warnings about terror, and with law enforcement primed to pounce.

Steve Kurtz, a Buffalo art professor, discovered on the morning of May 11 that his wife of 20 years, Hope Kurtz, had stopped breathing. He called 911. Police and emergency personnel responded, and what they saw in the Kurtz home has triggered a full-blown probe—into the vials and bacterial cultures and strange contraptions and laboratory equipment.

The FBI is investigating. A federal grand jury has been impaneled. Witnesses have been subpoenaed, including da Costa.

Kurtz and his late wife were founders of the Critical Art Ensemble, an internationally renowned collective of “tactical media” protest and performance artists. Steve Kurtz, 48, has focused on the problems of the emergence of biotechnology, such as genetically modified food. He and the art ensemble, which also includes da Costa, have authored several books including “Digital Resistance: Explorations in Tactical Media” and “Electronic Civil Disobedience and Other Unpopular Ideas,” both published by Autonomedia/Semiotext(e).

The day of his wife’s death, Kurtz told the authorities who he is and what he does.

“He explained to them that he uses [the equipment] in connection with his art, and the next thing you know they call the FBI and a full hazmat team is deposited there from Quantico—that’s what they told me,” says Paul Cambria, the lawyer who is representing Kurtz. “And they all showed up in their suits and they’re hosing each other down and closing the street off, and all the news cameras were there and the head of the [Buffalo] FBI is granting interviews. It was a complete circus.”

Cambria, the bicoastal Buffalo and Los Angeles lawyer best known for representing pornographer Larry Flynt, calls the Kurtz episode a “colossal overreaction.”

FBI agents put Kurtz in a hotel, where they continued to question him. Cambria says Kurtz felt like a detainee over the two days he was at the hotel. Paul Moskal, spokesman for the Buffalo office of the FBI, says the bureau put Kurtz in a hotel because his home had been declared off limits. The probe, Moskal says, was a by-the-books affair from the very beginning.

“Post-9/11 protocol is such that first-responders have all been given training about unusual things and unusual situations,” Moskal says.

And obviously, says Lt. Jake Ulewski, spokesman for the Buffalo police, what the cops eyeballed raised some alarms. “He’s making cultures? That’s a little off the wall.”

Erie County health officials declared the Kurtz home a potential health risk and sealed it for two days while a state lab examined the bacterial cultures found inside. Officials won’t divulge what precisely was examined, but it turned out not to be a danger to public health. And the house was reopened for use.

Still, federal authorities think something in that house might have been illegal, Cambria surmises. But Cambria denies there was anything illegal in the house. William Hochul Jr., chief of the anti-terrorism unit for the U.S. attorney’s office in the Western District of New York, would not comment on the investigation.

Kurtz, on Cambria’s advice, isn’t speaking to the press either.

Da Costa, a professor at the University of California at Irvine who has flown to Buffalo to help out, says Kurtz is “depressed” and dealing with the loss of his wife, who died of a heart attack. Today the Buffalo arts community will memorialize her.

Adele Henderson, chair of the art department of the State University of New York at Buffalo, where Kurtz has tenure, is among the people who’ve been questioned by the FBI.

On May 21, she says, the FBI asked her about Kurtz’s art, his writings, his books; why his organization (the art ensemble) is listed as a collective rather than by its individual members; how it is funded.

“They asked me if I’d be surprised if I found out he was found to be involved in bioterrorism,” she says.

Her response? “I am absolutely certain that Steve would not be involved.”

They also asked about “his personal life,” Henderson says, but she would not describe the questions or her responses.

The investigation, she says, will have no bearing on Kurtz’s standing at the university, where he is an associate professor. (Prior to Buffalo, he taught at Carnegie Mellon University.)

“This is a free speech issue, and some people at the university remember a time during the McCarthy period when some university professors were harassed quite badly,” she says.

Nonetheless, considering the kind of art Kurtz practices and the kind of supplies he uses, “I could see how they would think it was really strange.”

For instance: the mobile DNA extracting machine used for testing food products for genetic contamination. Such a machine was in Kurtz’s home. His focus, in recent years, has been on projects that highlight the trouble with genetically modified seeds.

In November 2002, in an installation called “Molecular Invasion,” Kurtz grew genetically modified seeds in small pots beneath growth lamps at the Corcoran Gallery of Art, then engineered them in reverse with herbicide, meaning he killed them.

“We thought it was very important to have Critical Art Ensemble here because we try to have our visiting artist’s program present work that takes our curriculum to the next step,” says Denise Mullen, vice dean of the Corcoran College of Art and Design, whose Hemicycle Gallery hosted Kurtz’s molecular exhibit.

Beyond the cutting edge of art, she says, “we want work that is really bleeding edge.”

In Buffalo, in the aftermath of the bioterror probe that has found no terror, activist artists have scooped up the refuse from the Kurtz front yard and taken it away, perhaps, says da Costa, to create an art installation.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

Au recto le virtualisme, au verso, le réalisme

Article lié : Anniversaires, anniversaires, — d’une guerre l’autre

Pascal Bitsch

  02/06/2004

Ce qui se déploie chez les rédacteurs de DeDefensa comme l’analyse et la critique du virtualisme, risque de faire passer sous silence l’analyse et la critique d’un “fictionnement” du réel, c’est-à-dire de sa construction et de sa transformation au sens de l’art politique.
La part d’illusion que comporte ce processus est aisée à démasquer, tant la fiction plaquée est grossière. Néanmoins, cette facilité ne doit pas masquer que le fictionnement en cours transforme la réalité bien au delà des fables virtualistes et cela avec une possibilité de réalisme et de prospective impitoyable.

Si le virtualisme est chaque jour mis en défaut comme représentation erronnée et caricaturale du réel, comme une pure projection du système, de ses préjugés et de ses intérêts, et bien il n’en reste pas moins qu’il est participe directement à la construction d’une nouvelle réalité, de nouvelles perceptions, que par ses “provocations”, ses “maladresses”, sa “stupidité” elles-mêmes il créé une nouvelle situation, de nouvelles perceptions, de nouveaux ennemis. Les analystes commentent généralement ces ces contre-coups, ces retours de réalité comme des échecs du virtualisme, se plaçant au niveau de celui-ci, c’est à dire du commentaire du spectaculaire, alors qu’ils n’en sont que les effets. Voir dans ces effets un échec du virtualisme, c’est en rester soi-même au même premier degré et confondre le virtualisme avec le fictionnement du réel qui s’opère à travers lui et parfois à l’encontre de ses valeurs explicitées.

Or quel est le réel ainsi fictionné, créé par le virtualisme ? Quelle est la réalité du monde de demain qui se dessine par son effet combiné à celui de la force brutale. Bien-sûr pas celui qu’il vise explicitement à établir, bien qu’il ne s’en cache pas. Quel est-il ?

Tout concourre à penser que la révolution réactionnaire virtualiste à la fois révèle, masque et accomplit une vision du monde compatible avec les valeurs, les comportements et les intérêts d’une génération de dirigeants -économiques, militaires et politiques- qui ont été gagnants dans un contexte économique d’équilibre géo-capitalistique verrouillé et renforcé par un contexte de guerre larvée permanente. C’est tout simplement cette réalité-là qu’il s’agit de “recréer autrement”, autant que de conserver, bouleversée qu’elle est par la fin de la guerre froide, la prévisibilité d’une crise sociale sans précédent en Occident par suite de la mondialisation, l’émergence de la Chine comme ressource financière excédentaire à la place du Japon et qu’il s’agit d’ancrer dans la logique d’équilibre et de transferts d’investissements de confiance avec la zone déficitaire Etats-Unis et Europe.
Si telle est la réalité fictionnée sous nos yeux, de façon systématique, ostensible mais brouillée sous le bavardage virtualiste, alors même les “maladresses”, les “bévues”, les “erreurs psychologiques”, les “provocations” trouvent une explication et révèlent l’envers de la médaille du virtualisme qui montre un visage de réalisme cynique. Alors la guerre contre le terrorisme (que l’on a annoncé “globale et permanent” comme l’a été la guerre froide), de la guerre Irakienne en tant que ferment de “guerre des civilisations”, et peut-être même l’absence coupable de réaction aux annonces des événements déclencheurs du 11 septembre 2001 qui sont alors à rapprocher du précédent également annoncé à l’avance de Pearl Harbor ; alors l’appel de fond public sans précédent aux USA pour le budget de la défense, c’est à dire de capitaux asiatiques pour relancer l’économie américaine, alors la torture pornographique mise en scène et diffusée au monde arabe ainsi que ses conséquences “civilisationnelles” cessent d’être les bourdes de virtualistes dépassés par la réalité, mais se déploient sous nos yeux comme une pratique sensée conduite avec réalisme. Il est vrai que les bons sentiments sirupeux du virtualisme holliwoodien impregnent désormais à ce point les analystes politiques, économiques, les médias et le public qu’il devient presque inconcevable de formuler ou de publier tant de cynisme. Il est vrai que l’opinion publique mondiale, virtualisée et construite médiatiquement, reste circonscrite dans des modèles de comportement prévisibles, sauf erreur grossière, mais en elle-même révélatrice de l’étendue du cynisme et de la banalisation du mensonge à grande échelle d’un Aznar.

La révolution virtualiste est donc bien une révolution conservatrice. Le nouvel ordre mondial établi et maintenu par les “virtualistes” américains armés à crédit par la sueur des ouvrières chinoises pour conduire la “guerre sans fin contre le terrorisme” n’est autre que le prolongement de l’ancien ordre mondial avec quelques changements de rôles, la Chine nouvelle remplaçant le Japon rassi comme puissance investisseuse, le monde musulman et le mouvement social global assimilé au terrorisme remplaçant la menace communiste.
Face à cette perspective, outre les incalculables dégâts humains et sociaux déjà vécus et prévisibles, deux dangers guettent : la perte même de l’essence-même de l’humanité et de sa conscience d’elle-même dans la virtualité construite pour à la fois accomplir et masquer la réalité de la domination ; un scénario global sur le modèle de la catastrophe de l’Ile de Pâque sur une planête désormais trop petite pour nous permettre sans risque majeur un nouveau cycle de “croissance” de 30 ans prévisible selon ce modèle.

copyleft avec mention des sources
notv.info
Pascal Bitsch
mai 2004

"Le deculottage du..."-'004-05-31.

Article lié : Le déculottage du NYT, ou la destruction au bulldozer de “leurs valeurs”

sergio torres-abelaira.

  31/05/2004

  Clair-Nette-Precis.
  (avec Proyection Strategique)-Felisitations.
  (Grand Merci)
  a/m.Austral.
  epulev.-

Aux USA...

Article lié : Aux USA où tout est possible, un état d’esprit de plus en plus crépusculaire

sergio torres-abelaira.

  28/05/2004

  Absolument:...extraordinaires
        et tres graves.-
        (Et crisis Psycologique:ergo)-
 
        ‘004-05-28-a/m.
        AmericAustral.

La réclame aryenne de Coca-Cola s'expose à Londres

Article lié :

cococala

  27/05/2004

http://www.courrierinternational.com/article.asp?obj_id=23553&provenance=accueil&bloc=07

Courrier international - 27 mai 2004
ANTIMONDIALISME - La réclame aryenne de Coca-Cola s’expose à Londres  
Le divertissement politique fait recette, et le comédien anglais Mark Thomas l’a bien compris. Dans son émission sur la chaîne de télévision britannique Channel 4, l’équivalent anglais de Michel Moore multiplie les actions coup-de-poing contre la guerre en Irak, la cupidité des multinationales ou la privatisation du système de santé. Et c’est dans les musées qu’il entend mener son nouvel assaut. 

“En collaboration avec l’artiste Tracey Sanders-Wood, Thomas a choisi d’exposer à Londres les publicités nazies de Coca-Cola”, indique le quotidien The Independent. Il ne pouvait rêver sujet plus polémique : d’après The Independent, “la société Coca-Cola a diffusé des publicités dans les journaux nazis, s’est exposée dans les foires industrielles du parti et a même installé une usine d’embouteillage dans la région envahie des Sudètes”.

Fondée par Max Keith, la filiale allemande Coca-Cola GmbH occupait une place de choix lors de ces foires dédiées au “peuple créateur”. Elle participa même à l’effort de guerre nazi et fut dirigée par l’ancien boxeur Max Schmeling, symbole malgré lui de la suprématie aryenne. De nombreux sites antimondialistes se sont d’ailleurs fait un plaisir d’entonner avec ironie des “Coca über alles” ou autres “Coca macht frei”.

Le tour de force de Thomas et de sa comparse est d’avoir réuni quelque 400 pièces d’exposition, affiches, slogans et bouteilles, qui, selon The Independent, “se combinent de façon troublante avec la propagande hitlérienne”. Les deux artistes déclarent “vouloir faire réfléchir les gens à chaque fois qu’ils boivent un Coca”. 

Walesa en surchauffe

Article lié :

fidelix

  26/05/2004

Il est à craindre que notre grand symbole néo-européen qu’est Lech Walesa, ait attrapé une bien mauvaise maladie au contact des vrais néo-cons de Washington.
Le voilà qui vient d’oublier qu’il fut un ardent défenseur de la guerre, et insiste maintenant sur le fait qu’il a toujours été contre. D’ailleurs, eut-il été encore président de la Pologne, jamais il n’aurait envoyé des troupes.

Au passage il en profite pour assassiner la gestion de la guerre ... par les français et les allemands !

——

http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1433_A_1217538_1_A,00.html

Lech Walesa: Germany and France Share Blame for Iraq War  
 
  Walesa opposed sending Polish troops to Iraq
 
 
The former Polish president and Nobel Peace Prize winner says Germany and France are partially to blame for the Iraq war, because they failed to convince other EU members of their case against invasion.

In an interview with German public broadcasters ARD and Deutsche Welle, Lech Walesa said he would not have sent Polish troops to Iraq if he were still president. The former leader also pointed his finger at the two bigger EU members, France and Germany, blaming them for failing to prevent the Iraq war.

“If I had still been president of Poland at the time, I would not have sent troops to Iraq,” Walesa said. “I would have met with the heads of government from Germany and France and worked for a common European position. It’s not the United States that is to blame for the war, but rather the EU, and in particular Germany and France. They knew the war was coming and they failed to prevent it.”

“They neglected to bring together the old and new EU member states,” he added. “Such an important organization as the European Union should have spoken out with one voice against the war. If that had been the case, the United States could not have ignored it. Instead, France and Germany allowed Europe to split on the issue, and therefore we had war. France and Germany are responsible.”

Poland, a staunch U.S. ally in Iraq, contributed combat troops to last year’s war and now commands a multinational stabilization force that includes 2,400 of its own soldiers. After Spain pulled back its troops earlier this year, Europe looked to Poland to follow suit, but current President Aleksander Kwasniewski has said his country will not back out.

In response to the current situation Walesa said: “Some things are going wrong in Iraq at the moment. We don’t have to support that.”

Walesa, the founder of the Solidarity movement and a key figure in the toppling of communism in Poland, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1983. He was president of Poland from 1990 until 1995, when he lost his re-election bid to Kwasniewski.

In an extensive interview, Deutsche Welle asked Walesa whether he plans on running for president again and how he views the future of Poland within the EU.
———

Pour un rappel des faits, voici ce que déclarait notre prix Nobel pas plus tard que début 2003:

——-

“WARSAW, Poland - Former Polish President Lech Walesa, the winner of the 1983 Nobel Peace Prize, on Wednesday urged the U.N. Security Council to back a U.S.-led war on Iraq and criticized the United Nation’s “ineffectiveness” so far.
...
“International authorization for the United States is today the only way to solve common problems,” Walesa said in a statement. “In view of the ineffectiveness of U.N. actions, the international community must authorize the United States and its allies, as its representatives, to take the necessary action.”

“Otherwise, there will be further conflicts and mutual accusations will weaken cooperation between the nations of the democratic world,” Walesa added. “

(Retrouvé sur un site peu engageant http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archives/000202.shtml )

———

La France avait-elle raison ∫ Le mot n'a pas encore été laché mais on n'est pas loin... Le Times a des remords...

Article lié :

Alienor

  26/05/2004

Voir original http://fr.news.yahoo.com/040526/202/3tnxp.html

mercredi 26 mai 2004, 16h44

Le New York Times admet avoir été trompé par ses sources avant la guerre

NEW YORK (AFP) - Le prestigieux New York Times a reconnu mercredi ses erreurs dans sa couverture des événements et arguments ayant conduit à la guerre en Irak en mars 2003, admettant avoir été trompé par de fausses informations transmises par des exilés irakiens.

“Nous avons trouvé que plusieurs couvertures n’ont pas été aussi rigoureuses qu’elles auraient dû l’être”, écrivent les rédacteurs en chef dans un message occupant un bon tiers de page et intitulé “Le Times et l’Irak”.

Les informations, qui pouvaient déjà être sujettes à débat avant la guerre et qui aujourd’hui sont fortement contestées, ont été “insuffisamment nuancées” ou n’ont pas même été mises en doute, admettent-ils.

“Avec le recul, nous regrettons de ne pas avoir été plus pugnaces en réexaminant les affirmations alors que de nouvelles preuves émergeaient - ou manquaient”, ajoutent-ils.

Selon le Times, la plupart des articles écrits par différents journalistes dépendaient en partie d’informations transmises par des Irakiens en exil, dont la priorité était le renversement de Saddam Hussein.

Leur crédibilité a depuis été mise en cause, reconnaît le quotidien, qui mentionne l’exemple du chef du Congrès national irakien (CNI), Ahmed Chalabi, cité dans des articles du Times depuis 1991 et tombé aujourd’hui en disgrâce.

“Compliquant la tâche des journalistes, les éléments donnés par ces exilés étaient souvent confirmés avec enthousiasme par les responsables américains convaincus de la nécessité d’intervenir en Irak”, relève le journal, qui ajoute, concernant notamment la question de l’arsenal irakien, avoir “l’intention de poursuivre un travail acharné pour établir la réalité”.

Blair se rebiffe... assurément... ∫∫∫ NON !!! Une boulette de plus ou un coup d'essai ∫∫∫

Article lié :

alienor

  26/05/2004

voir original : http://fr.news.yahoo.com/040526/5/3tnww.html

mercredi 26 mai 2004, 16h28
Blair minimise les divergences avec Washington sur l’Irak

LONDRES (AP) - Le Premier ministre britannique Tony Blair a tenu mercredi à minimiser les divergences apparues la veille entre Londres et Washington sur l’interprétation de leur projet de résolution conjoint sur l’Irak.

Devant la Chambre des communes, lors de la séance des questions, une députée travailliste s’est déclarée “ravie de voir qu’il y a des divergences politiques entre (Blair) et le président Bush sur l’Irak”.

Ce à quoi Tony Blair a répondu: “je suis désolé d’avoir à décevoir mon honorable amie (...) mais nous sommes tout à fait d’accord sur le fait que la souveraineté totale doit être transférée au peuple irakien et que la force multinationale doit rester sous commandement américain”.

Reste que la veille, Tony Blair avait été plus loin que ne semble le prévoir le projet de résolution en l’état actuel: il avait estimé que le futur gouvernement provisoire irakien devrait avoir un droit de veto sur les opérations militaires majeures de la coalition. Et pris l’exemple de l’assaut américain en avril contre Falloujah: “s’il y a une décision politique à prendre, pour savoir si on va dans tel endroit d’une manière particulière, cela doit être fait avec l’accord du gouvernement irakien”, a-t-il dit lors d’une conférence de presse: “Le contrôle politique final revient au gouvernement irakien. C’est ce que le transfert de souveraineté veut dire”. Avant de juger “essentiel que, le plus vite possible, on donne la responsabilité opérationnelle de la sécurité aux Irakiens eux-mêmes”.

Interrogé sur ce son de cloche divergent venu de Londres, le Secrétaire d’Etat américain Colin Powell avait fait une mise au point, précisant que les forces armées américaines “feraient ce qui est nécessaire pour se protéger” ainsi que pour “accomplir leur mission”.

Mercredi, M. Blair a réaffirmé sa position: “la prise de décision ultime en matière stratégique et politique passe au gouvernement irakien après le 30 juin”, a-t-il déclaré devant les Communes, ajoutant que “bien sûr, une fois que les décisions stratégiques ont été prises, la gestion de toute opération est de la responsabilité de la force multinationale”. Et, bien entendu, ces forces seront en mesure de se protéger et resteront sous commandement américain ou britannique, a-t-il conclu.

Membre du Conseil de gouvernement irakien, Adnan Pachachi a estimé pour sa part que la résolution devait être “clarifiée” pour ce qui est des relations entre les forces étrangères et le futur gouvernement irakien. “Nous comprenons que toute opération devra avoir l’approbation du gouvernement irakien”, la force multinationale restant en Irak “avec le consentement” dudit gouvernement, a-t-il déclaré à la BBC.

Car le projet de résolution américano-britannique ne précise pas les relations entre le gouvernement irakien et la force multinationale. Elles devraient être fixées via un échange de lettres avec le futur gouvernement provisoire, estiment les auteurs du texte. AP

nc/v275

Une connivence Irano-Israelienne sabordée ∫

Article lié : Grand Jeu : l’Iran manipulateur (des US) ?

fidelix

  25/05/2004

Certains emettent l’hypothèse que malgré les apparences, L’Iran et Israel étaient en train d’opérer un rapprochement par l’intermédiaire de certains néo-cons:

http://www.strategic-road.com/pays/pubs/etats_unis_strategie_geopolitique_txt.htm

*****************
“Pendant la période de soi-disant durcissement à Téhéran, à quoi a-t-on assisté dans la région ? A un accord secret de désarmement par l’Iran de ses missiles à longue portée en accord avec Israël; à un rapprochement chaleureux avec la Jordanie et poli avec l’Egypte, c’est à dire avec les deux Etats arabes qui reconnaissent Israël; à une dénonciation en bonne et due forme du lobby nucléaire pakistanais pour avoir vendu du matériel très dangereux à l’Iran, ce qui a permis aux Etats-Unis d’exercer une pression décisive sur Musharraf; à une accentuation des pressions sur l’Arabie saoudite en faveur des chiites locaux et à une coopération plus grande avec l’Occident en Afghanistan, le tout couronné par une visite de courtoisie du prince Charles d’Angleterre.

A partir de ce constat, il ne fait guère de doute que l’Iran est appelée à jouer un rôle majeur au Moyen-Orient, dans l’équation des néo-conservateurs. Cependant le pragmatisme des Iraniens n’exclut pas un bras de fer sur la question du nucléaire, afin de faire montée les enchères en contrepartie d’un éventuel rénoncement. Le futur Moyen-Orient dans l’esprit des néo-conservateurs semble conduire vers la disparition des puissances arabes en tant qu’Etats forts et l’intronisation d’Israël, de la Turquie et de l’Iran, trois Etats non arabes comme puissances régionales de premier plan. L’axe Tel Aviv-Ankara est déjà opérationnel. Il ne reste plus qu’à réintégrer Téhéran, dans le jeu régional. “

*************************

Chalabi pouvait donc representer pour les israéliens comme pour les iraniens, la concrétisation de ce nouveau partenariat stratégique. Les uns voyaient la création d’un état reconnaissant leur droit à l’existence, les autres le renforcement de l’influence chiite.

Faut-il donc en conclure que le State Departement ainsi que l’armée US ont décidé de détruire la couverture de Chalabi (comme la maison Blanche l’avait fait en son temps pour Valery Plane/Wilson) de façon à saborder les plans des néo-conservateurs ?

On peut néanmoins remarquer que même dans le cadre de cette hypothèse, l’Iran ne perd pas grand chose avec Chalabi puisque d’autres chiites sont prèts à prendre sa place et regner soit sur l’Irak, soit sur un morceau de l’Irak.

En ce sens, les neocons ont effectivement pu se faire manipuler.

Et on continue d'y croire....

Article lié :

Kafhy

  25/05/2004

http://www.forbes.com/home/free_forbes/2004/0607/047.html

Useful Lesson From the Past
Caspar Weinberger, 06.07.04, 12:00 AM ET

The short, easy and wrong solution to the problems in Iraq is to turn them all over to the United Nations and urge other countries to help. This basically is Senator John Kerry’s response to any “What would you do?” questions. He and others who criticize President Bush for going to war without the UN’s permission and the support of the international community offer only this egregiously useless solution. The ignorance, misconceptions and faulty judgment displayed in such thinking are appalling.

To begin with, we have the support and participation in Iraq of some 30 countries. Not incidentally, the majority of eastern European countries are with us. They remember what it was like to be under the brutal domination of the Soviet Union.

Secondly, it seems that no one quite understands what the consequences of turning all this over to the UN would be. The UN is totally incapable of fighting a war. It can assemble troops—most of whom have not trained together—for “peacekeeping missions,” usually in areas where there is no peace. Then there is the problem of UN procedures, which enable one of the veto-holding countries—for whatever tawdry reason of trade—to block any action that most other nations would want to take. Result: impotence.

Finally, a good look at the record of Lakhdar Brahimi, UNSecretary-General Kofi Annan’s choice as the man to bring democracy to Iraq, shows how wrong the UN can be. Brahimi was hailed by the large anti-U.S. faction as a skilled, seasoned diplomat, in contrast with the U.S. and other administrators now in charge. The first demonstration of Brahimi’s seasoning was his statement that Israeli policy is “poison in the region.” He later also managed to be offensive to the Palestinians. Some seasoning. Why we ever agreed to let Brahimi in is inexplicable. William Safire of the New York Times explained the situation best: Brahimi’s strategy is “aligning the UN with those Iraqis who—having been cured of crippling despotism—now feel free to throw their crutches at the doctor.”

The daily attacks on coalition forces are, of course, designed to force our withdrawal and the admission that we can’t bring democracy to Iraq. It seems that John Kerry would virtually accept this capitulation, and the UN would almost certainly go along.

Fact, Not Fiction
Our rebuilding efforts in Iraq are giving millions of Iraqis a vastly better present and the certain prospect of a far better future. The abuses committed by the six or seven very rotten apples out of the more than 135,000 American service people there are overshadowing all that has been accomplished by the professional skills and personal bravery of these troops. The sacrifices these brave men and women make on our behalf is what we should be talking about.

The fact that we’re in the middle of a presidential election campaign explains the constant degradation of our armed forces’ accomplishments. The seeming delight of the Administration’s opponents in exploiting any reverses adds to our heavy burden.

Lest We Forget
Sometimes we can look back at a historic event and apply its lessons to the present. In May 1940 everything was going wrong for the Allies in World War II. The brown stain of the Nazi Wehrmacht covered most of Europe. France—with a huge army that its leaders were afraid to use effectively—had been broken, and the road to Paris was open. In England Winston Churchill had just become Prime Minister, but he was opposed by many of the most senior of his fellow Conservatives. His only real support in the War Cabinet came from two Labour members of the new coalition.

During a critical three days of nearly continuous War Cabinet meetings, it became apparent that France was determined to capitulate. Foreign Minister Lord Halifax repeatedly urged that Britain open negotiations with Germany, possibly using Benito Mussolini or Franklin D. Roosevelt as an intermediary. Through his matchless oratory, Churchill finally carried the day against such a move.

The notes of Hugh Dalton, Minister of Economic Warfare, show that Churchill led the entire Cabinet to understand that if Britain were to seek peace the first thing “the Germans would demand [would be] our fleet—that would be called ‘disarmament.’… We should become a slave state, though a British government which would be Hitler’s puppet would be set up—‘under [Sir Oswald] Mosley [a prominent British Fascist] or some such person.’” Churchill reminded his opponents that Britain still had immense strengths. He closed with what was to become one of his most famous sentences: “We shall go on and we shall fight it out, here or elsewhere, and if at last the long story is to end, it were better it should end, not through surrender, but only when we are rolling senseless on the ground.” There was no further talk of negotiations.

We could agree that the circumstances of 1940 were vastly different than are those of 2004. But the crucial lesson here is that giving up is no solution. Nothing but chaos and brutality would follow any U.S. withdrawal. We have already made a great many concessions in Iraq. We have agreed to a June 30 transfer of sovereignty; we have accepted in vital posts some not-yet-reeducated Baathists; and we run great risks by granting the UN too much authority.

Now is the time to make it clear, as President Bush has done, that we are totally committed to winning the war against the terrorists in Iraq and that we will stay the course until a free Iraq accepts the burden of its sovereignty and has the strength, with our help, to take its place among the democratic nations of the world. We cannot lose our resolve. We must always remember that if we want peace with freedom for ourselves and our friends, we sometimes have to fight for it.

L'Empire Etats-Uniens

Article lié : Un empire aux abois, un Président qui rétrécit avant d’être peut-être réélu

Gannier

  20/05/2004

La Situation-Empire .