{"id":65994,"date":"2004-06-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-06-04T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2004\/06\/04\/pourquoi-tenet-et-dailleurs-pourquoi-pas\/"},"modified":"2004-06-04T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2004-06-04T00:00:00","slug":"pourquoi-tenet-et-dailleurs-pourquoi-pas","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2004\/06\/04\/pourquoi-tenet-et-dailleurs-pourquoi-pas\/","title":{"rendered":"Pourquoi Tenet? Et d’ailleurs, pourquoi pas?<\/em><\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

Pourquoi Tenet? Et d’ailleurs, pourquoi pas?<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t4 juin 2004 Oui, pourquoi George Tenet a-t-il d\u00e9missionn\u00e9 ? C’est-\u00e0-dire, nul n’en doute : pourquoi a-t-il \u00e9t\u00e9 sacrifi\u00e9 ? (Ce qui reste \u00e0 voir.) Les conditions de sa d\u00e9mission sont compl\u00e8tement \u00e9tonnantes. (Selon The International Herald Tribune (IHT)<\/a> \u00ab Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, called the timing of Tenet’s resignation unusual,\u00a0\u00bb and said the reasons for it should be fully explained. I hope that this doesn’t send to the rest of the world a message of disarray.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> \u00bb) Le moment choisi, \u00e9videmment, est \u00e9tonnant : en pleine campagne \u00e9lectorale, alors que l’une des vertus affirm\u00e9es de l’administration GW, c’est sa solidit\u00e9 et son int\u00e9grit\u00e9 en tant qu’\u00e9quipe charg\u00e9e de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 nationale ; en pleine guerre d’Irak, vue comme un conflit qui est le parangon de l’esp\u00e9rance de la civilisation occidentale, l’antichambre de la IVe Mondiale derni\u00e8re, et patati, et patata.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLes arguments avanc\u00e9s en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral pour le d\u00e9part de Tenet sont douteux. On cite essentiellement la responsabilit\u00e9 de la CIA dans l’incapacit\u00e9 \u00e0 pr\u00e9venir l’attaque 9\/11 et l’absence des ADM annonc\u00e9es en Irak. La CIA n’est pas seule en cause, loin de l\u00e0, et m\u00eame elle est loin d’\u00eatre la plus critiquable dans les deux cas. Et puis, ceci, qui est l’\u00e9vidence m\u00eame : une d\u00e9mission au moment de la pol\u00e9mique, peut-\u00eatre (par exemple, janvier pour les ADM), mais maintenant o\u00f9 ces pol\u00e9miques sont \u00e9teintes, ou en tous les cas compl\u00e8tement remplac\u00e9es par d’autres qui d\u00e9filent \u00e0 la vitesse d’un train \u00e0 grande vitesse ? Aujourd’hui, on chercherait plut\u00f4t un responsable\/bouc-\u00e9missaire pour le syst\u00e8me des tortures, non ? Et, celui-l\u00e0 (Rumsfeld), au contraire on l’\u00e9pargne et on r\u00e9affirme sa l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9<\/a>. (Mais Ray McGovern, dont nous parlons ci-apr\u00e8s, signale, dans une interview \u00e0 Democracy Now<\/a>, l’id\u00e9e que Tenet n’est que le premier d’une liste de t\u00eates \u00e0 faire rouler, que Rumsfeld et Wolfowitz suivront) <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t Mais justement, les tortures, parlons-en. C’est ce que fait le m\u00eame Ray McGovern, qui fut officier de la CIA pendant un quart de si\u00e8cle. On le voit un peu plus loin, dans un extrait du texte d\u00e9j\u00e0 signal\u00e9<\/a>, o\u00f9 McGovern \u00e9voque la possibilit\u00e9 d’une action judiciaire contre GW Bush, lorsqu’il aura quitt\u00e9 la pr\u00e9sidence, s’il la quitte (justement, tout est l\u00e0), c’est-\u00e0-dire d’une inculpation pour responsabilit\u00e9 de crimes de guerre (\u00e0 cause des tortures).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t Passons maintenant \u00e0 une autre question, en revenant \u00e0 Tenet. A nouveau, la s\u00e9natrice Fernstein, cette fois cit\u00e9e par le Guardian<\/a>, qui fait cette remarque compl\u00e9t\u00e9e par rapport \u00e0 la citation de l’IHT : \u00ab We’re within a few months of a presidential election. We’re in the middle of a major alert with respect to the anticipation that there might be another attack on our own country. And to have the head of the intelligence community resign at this particular point in time is very unusual.<\/em> \u00bb.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tC’est effectivement sur cette question d’une attaque possible (Fernstein : \u00ab We’re in the middle of a major alert with respect to the anticipation that there might be another attack on our own country<\/em> \u00bb) que McGovern appuie l’essentiel de ses r\u00e9flexions \u00e9ditoriales actuellement<\/a>. Dans le texte de l’interview cit\u00e9e, l’interrogateur passe, avec une question, du cas Tenet \u00e0 un autre scandale CIA, le scandale Plame issu d’une r\u00e9v\u00e9lation faite en juillet 2002 par le journaliste Robert Novak sur l’officier de la CIA Valerie Plame : \u00abThis is happening at the same time, Ray McGovern, as George Bush is just getting his own private lawyer to deal with the Bush administration exposing of the CIA operative Valerie Plame. Now this both implicated Central Intelligence because Novak said the reporter who exposed the story said he was speaking with Bush administration officials said that he spoke with both people in the CIA as well as the White House. Can you talk about that?<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tEt la r\u00e9ponse de McGovern, \u00e9videmment, vaut d’\u00eatre pes\u00e9e (surtout le deuxi\u00e8me paragraphe) :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t\u00ab RAY MCGOVERN: Yeah, I’m just fresh actually from writing an Op-Ed on the general question of the president seeking private counsel. I think he’s learned from one very large mistake. That is he’s learned by going to a private counsel to get advice on the Valerie Plame case. I think he’s probably by now read the memorandum of 25 January 2002 that Alberto Gonzalez, his chief White House counsel wrote to him. This is the one that says, well you know, Geneva Conventions, that’s kind of a nettle here. We have US law actually, dated 1996 which makes it a crime punishable by death to rescind from or to ignore or to exempt people from the Geneva Conventions on prisoners of war. But Ashcroft says it’s okay as far as the Al Qaeda people are concerned, and I think it’s probably okay to exempt the Taliban as well. And the only downside is that exempting people is a slippery slope and people might come up with some ambiguity with respect to which prisoners qualify for such protection and which do not. And so he finished up by saying, there’s a reasonable basis in law Mr. President, that you will not be prosecuted for war crimes under the US code, War Crimes Act of 1996. Now if I’m President Bush and I finally read that thing because Newsweek has it printed, and I say, my goodness, there’s a reasonable basis in law that I won’t be prosecuted?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00ab I’m going to have a couple of really second thoughts here. One is that next time I’m in a situation like this I’m certainly going to seek independent counsel. But another is, my God, four more years becomes even more important to me and to Ashcroft and to Rumsfeld. Gonzalez specifically warns that who knows, some future administration or some future group might sue you for violating the Geneva Conventions. And not only the Geneva Conventions but to the degree that they are embedded in this US law of 1996, and so you’re really, we have a strong basis in law but we can’t exclude the possibility. So four more years? Why do I say all this? I say all this because I am more frightened now than at any time over the last three and a half years, that this administration will resort to extra-legal methods to do something to ensure that there are four more years for George Bush. And Ashcroft’s statement last week, gratuitous statement, uncoordinated with the department of, CIA, with the Department of Homeland Security, his warning that there is bound to be a terrorist strike before the US elections. That can be viewed and this can be reasonably viewed as the opening salvo in the justification for doing, taking measures to ensure that whatever happens in November comes out so that four more years can be devoted to maybe changing that war crimes act or protecting at least these vulnerable people for four more years.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tDans l’atmosph\u00e8re d’extraordinaires intrigues qui r\u00e8gne \u00e0 Washington, avec le syst\u00e8me en pleine panique et un sentiment fun\u00e8bre qui se r\u00e9pand sur le sort de ce syst\u00e8me<\/a>, il est difficile de ne pas rapprocher cette hypoth\u00e8se de McGovern sur la question d’une attaque terroriste manipul\u00e9e dans la campagne \u00e9lectorale, avec le d\u00e9part de George Tenet. L’hypoth\u00e8se devient de savoir s’il y a interf\u00e9rence entre les deux points, selon ces deux approches :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t• Tenet a-t-il \u00e9t\u00e9 chass\u00e9 parce qu’il risquait d’interf\u00e9rer dans ces manigances et manipulations autour d’un attentat terroriste aux USA ?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t• Tenet est-il parti de son plein gr\u00e9 (c’est aussi une th\u00e8se qui a ses partisans) pour s’\u00e9carter de ces manigances et ne pas devoir les affronter, d’une fa\u00e7on ou l’autre ? <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Pourquoi Tenet? Et d’ailleurs, pourquoi pas? 4 juin 2004 Oui, pourquoi George Tenet a-t-il d\u00e9missionn\u00e9 ? C’est-\u00e0-dire, nul n’en doute : pourquoi a-t-il \u00e9t\u00e9 sacrifi\u00e9 ? (Ce qui reste \u00e0 voir.) Les conditions de sa d\u00e9mission sont compl\u00e8tement \u00e9tonnantes. (Selon The International Herald Tribune (IHT) \u00ab Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, called the timing… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[569,1448],"class_list":["post-65994","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-faits-et-commentaires","tag-rumsfeld","tag-wolfowitz"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65994","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=65994"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65994\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65994"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65994"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65994"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}