La chronique de la confirmation de l’opportunit\u00e9<\/strong> de l’attaque du 11 septembre 2001 ne cesse de se renforcer. C’est le cas ici, avec les d\u00e9clarations d’un sp\u00e9cialiste de droit constitutionnel au-dessus de tout soup\u00e7on, le professeur Turley, de l’universit\u00e9 Georges Washington. Il \u00e9tait interrog\u00e9 le 15 octobre, lors de l’\u00e9mission Countdown Monday<\/em>, du redoutable (pour l’\u00e9quipe Bush) Keith Olbermann, de CNBC. RAW Story<\/em> rapporte la chose le 16 octobre<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThis administration was seeking a massive expansion of presidential power and national security powers before 9\/11. 9\/11 was highly convenient in that case, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley told Keith Olbermann on Countdown Monday night. I’m not saying that they welcomed it, but when it happened, it was a great opportunity to seize powers that they have long wanted at the FBI.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbTurley was responding to allegations aired last week by a former Qwest CEO that the National Security Agency approached telecoms as early as February 2001 about establishing secret mechanisms to spy on Americans. The former CEO, Joe Nacchio, said in court papers related to an insider trading conviction that the government withdrew lucrative contracts from his company after he raised legal objections to the proposed spy program.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbEarlier in the program, Olbermann invoked recent reports that the Pentagon used the FBI to issue secret national security letters allowing access to reams of data on Americans with even slim connections to the military.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbDoes that essentially mean that I or you dial a wrong number and it happens to belong to somebody that’s under investigation, the pentagon can go and get your information or my information as well? Olbermann asked.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThey can. And you can thank the U.S. congress for that, Turley said, noting that the Patriot Act made it very easy for the FBI to issue the letters. And what is astonishing is that the abuses of the NSLs are well documented. As soon as the FBI got this power that they were promising to use in the most judicious and cautious way, they abused it with abandon.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbToward the end of the segment, Turley noted the disconnect between the drive for expanded power, and the FBI and National Security Agency’s inability to properly analyze intelligence before Sept. 11.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThe great irony, of course, with the NSA and the FBI is that their blunders help contribute to 9\/11, he said, but they radically expanded those powers as a result of that tragedy.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbNothing succeeds like failure, Olbermann quipped.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tL’int\u00e9r\u00eat de ces d\u00e9clarations est qu’elles s’inscrivent dans un mouvement assez nouveau tendant \u00e0 montrer que l’attaque du 11 septembre n’est pas en soi une rupture mais introduit un \u00e9l\u00e9ment dramatique de continuit\u00e9 et d’acc\u00e9l\u00e9ration d’une tendance en action dans le gouvernement Bush d\u00e8s son accession au pouvoir. De ce point de vue, il importe moins de savoir s’il y a eu complot, m\u00eame si les d\u00e9clarations du professeur Turley vont \u00e9videmment, et justement, \u00eatre consid\u00e9r\u00e9es par les tenants de cette th\u00e8se comme un facteur renfor\u00e7ant celle-ci. Il suffit maintenant de savoir que l’administration GW Bush v\u00e9hiculait avec elle un \u00e9tat d’esprit alarmiste, de mobilisation g\u00e9n\u00e9rale (sans qu’il soit n\u00e9cessaire de d\u00e9signer encore l’ennemi) d\u00e8s son installation. De ce point de vue \u00e9galement, on comprend qu’il y a une continuit\u00e9 entre l’administration Clinton deuxi\u00e8me mani\u00e8re (post-attentat d’Oklahoma City, avril 1995, celle de la guerre du Kosovo) et celle de GW Bush. Le fambeau de la mobilisation et de l’alerte existait entre les deux, transmise de l’une \u00e0 l’autre, avec un pas suppl\u00e9mentaire avec l’administration GW.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tLe paradoxe d\u00e9sormais largement r\u00e9pandu est que l’existence pr\u00e9c\u00e9da l’essence. D\u00e8s janvier 2001, la NSA, le FBI, sans doute d’autres agences, recherchaient le renforcement de leurs pouvoirs non pas en raison d’un danger particulier, mais par simple volont\u00e9 de renforcer les pouvoirs policiers. De ce point de vue, 9\/11 fut \u00e9videmment le bienvenu. Tout cela aboutit aux catastrophiques \u00e9checs post-9\/11, \u00e0 l’Irak, \u00e0 une bureaucratie prolif\u00e9rante et paralysante, etc., puisqu’il appara\u00eet \u00e9vident d\u00e9sormais que le renforcement des moyens et des pouvoirs aboutit au contraire de l’efficacit\u00e9. Cela avait jou\u00e9 un r\u00f4le dans l’impr\u00e9paration grandissante, \u00e0 mesure paradoxale du renforcement, avant 9\/11. Le r\u00e9sultat fut une nouvelle acc\u00e9l\u00e9ration du mouvement aveugle de renforcement, donc de l’erreur. Le mot d\u00e9j\u00e0 dit<\/a> de nothing sucess more than failure<\/em>, raccourci en Nothing succeeds like failure<\/em> est en train de devenir la devise des USA post-modernes.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Mis en ligne le 18 octobre 2007 \u00e0 06H25<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" La chronique de la confirmation de l’opportunit\u00e9 de l’attaque du 11 septembre 2001 ne cesse de se renforcer. C’est le cas ici, avec les d\u00e9clarations d’un sp\u00e9cialiste de droit constitutionnel au-dessus de tout soup\u00e7on, le professeur Turley, de l’universit\u00e9 Georges Washington. Il \u00e9tait interrog\u00e9 le 15 octobre, lors de l’\u00e9mission Countdown Monday, du redoutable (pour… <\/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":[2],"tags":[354,370,2838,3871,7133,6347,2948],"class_list":["post-69331","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-354","tag-370","tag-fbi","tag-nsa","tag-policiers","tag-pouvoirs","tag-turley"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69331","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=69331"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69331\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69331"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69331"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69331"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}