Au moins, on ne manque pas de parler, \u00e0 Washington, et dans tous les sens, \u00e0 propos du legs de l’administration GW Bush et comment s’en arranger, ou s’en d\u00e9barrasser c’est selon. Apr\u00e8s le d\u00e9bat sur la torture et sur Guantanamo, et le retour<\/a> de Cheney, voici quelques indications int\u00e9ressantes.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tD’abord, celles du g\u00e9n\u00e9ral Petraeus, le h\u00e9ros des neocons<\/em>, le gen\u00e9ral de Bush, l’homme qui a remport\u00e9 la victoire (?), dans tous les cas m\u00e9diatique, en Irak en 2007-2008, gr\u00e2ce au fameux surge<\/em>; Petraeus devenu depuis le commandant du fameux commandement CentCom, avec des avis beaucoup moins tranch\u00e9s. Avec ces d\u00e9clarations, Petraeus ach\u00e8ve sa reconversion, du g\u00e9n\u00e9ral des extr\u00e9mistes bushistes, au g\u00e9n\u00e9ral arrangeant, chercheur de situations stabilis\u00e9es, d’ententes diplomatiques, et surtout, surtout, respectueux des lois nationales et internationales. C’est plus, beaucoup plus en phase avec l’administration BHO, et ses ambitions, notamment celle de devenir chef d’\u00e9tat major de l’U.S. Army. D’o\u00f9 une v\u00e9ritable petite bombe, avec son affirmation que les USA ont viol\u00e9 la Convention de Gen\u00e8ve avec Guantanamo et le r\u00e9seau des camps et pratiques de torture.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tAntiwar.com<\/em> r\u00e9sume la chose avec divers liens, le 30 mai 2009<\/a>. Think Progress<\/em> d\u00e9veloppe la nouvelle, le 29 mai 2009<\/a>autour d’une interview de Petraeus \u00e0 Fox.News<\/em> le m\u00eame jour.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tVoici une longue citation de l’interview (notre soulign\u00e9 en gras), au terme de laquelle Petraeus estime sans ambages ni la moindre h\u00e9sitation qu’il y a eu effectivement violation de la Conventions de Gen\u00e8ve. Les USA, selon Petraeus, doivent agir conform\u00e9ment \u00e0 leurs valeurs, ce qui ne fut certainement pas le cas.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tMcCallum<\/em><\/strong>: \u00abLet’s talk a little bit about Gitmo and what to do you know, as the president gets ready to close Gitmo. Where do you think those people should go?<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tPetraeus<\/em><\/strong> : \u00abWell it is not for a soldier to say. What I do support is what has been termed I think a responsible closure of Gitmo. Gitmo has caused us problems, there’s no question about it. I oversee a region in which the existence of Gitmo has indeed been used by the enemy against us. We have not been without missteps or mistakes in our activities since 9\/11. And again, Gitmo is a lingering reminder for the use of some in that regard. Having said that I also do not want to see those individuals back on the streets, trying to reactivate networks to return to leadership in some of these networks.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tMcCallum<\/em><\/strong>: \u00abWhat about the concern, having been so involved in all of this, that KSM or anybody of that ilk might be tried here in a u.s. court and the possibility because of some of the treatments they were used on them, they could go free?<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tPetraeus<\/em><\/strong> : \u00abWell first of all I don’t think we should be afraid to live our values. That is what we’re fighting for and it’s what we stand for. So indeed, we need to embrace them and we need to operationalize them in how we carry out what it is we’re doing on the battlefield and everywhere else. So one has to have some faith I think, in the legal system. One has to have a degree of confidence that individuals that have conducted such extremist activity would indeed be found guilty in courts of law.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tMcCallum<\/em><\/strong>: \u00abSo you’re confident that those people will never go free?<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tPetraeus<\/em><\/strong> : \u00abI certainly hope that is the case yeah.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tMcCallum<\/em><\/strong>: \u00abThe former vice president has talked about waterboarding, which I know you’ve spoken against. He says it was only used on three people and that he believes it has saved lives.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tPetraeus<\/em><\/strong> : \u00abWell my thoughts are that it is time to quit arguing about the past, probably, take the rearview mirrors off this bus in look to the future. And again if you start with the concept that we ought to live our values that is exactly what we should do as we move forward.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tMcCallum<\/em><\/strong>: \u00abThe argument for having the discussion now is there is always the possibility that a suspect could be in custody and an attack could be imminent.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tPetraeus<\/em><\/strong> : \u00abWell I mean that’s always the debate the doomsday scenario. I would be happy to leave that again with our judicial system to determine whether there might be an exception that would require extraordinary but very rapid approval to deal with.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbBut for the vast majority of the cases, our experience downrange, if you will, is that techniques that are in the army field manual that lays out how we treat detainees, how we interrogate them, those techniques work. That is our experience in this business.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tMcCallum<\/em><\/strong>: \u00abSo is sending this signal that we’re not going to use the techniques anymore, what impact will that have on those who do us harm in the field that you operate in?<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tPetraeus<\/em><\/strong> : \u00abWhat I would ask is, does that not take away from our enemies a tool, which again they have beaten us around the head and shoulders in the court of public opinion? When we have taken steps that have<\/em> violated the Geneva Convention<\/em><\/strong>, we rightly have been criticized. And so as we move forward, I think it is important to again live our values to live the agreement.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tCet reconnaissance n’a pas une simple importance morale, \u00e9vidente pour tous puisque, pendant huit ans, les USA ont v\u00e9cu sur la fiction d’une l\u00e9galit\u00e9 de ces diverses et sinistres pratiques. Il y a aussi des implications politiques. D’une part, Obama se sentira plus confort\u00e9 dans ses attaques contre l’administration Bush et pour des mesures un peu plus fermes contre ce qui reste du syst\u00e8me Bush \u00e0 cet \u00e9gard. C’est un peu un cadeau de Petraeus \u00e0 BHO, dont il doit esp\u00e9rer en retour quelque faveur pour sa carri\u00e8re. D’autre part, la pr\u00e9sence de Petraeus \u00e0 CentCom fait de lui le superviseur direct des activit\u00e9s US en Afghanistan, notamment avec le nouveau commandant US sur place McChrystal, de mauvaise r\u00e9putation<\/a>. Petraeus, homme habile pour son imge et ses relations publiques, devrait veiller \u00e0 conserver cette nouvelle image de g\u00e9n\u00e9ral humanitaire, sinon lib\u00e9ral, et devrait \u00eatre attentif \u00e0 ce qu’il n’y ait pas trop de d\u00e9bordements US en Afghanistan. Cela introduira des relations particuli\u00e8res, peut-\u00eatre difficiles, entre McChrystal et lui. (Apr\u00e8s tout, McChrystal est de ceux que Petraeus d\u00e9nonce implicitement pour avoir d\u00e9velopp\u00e9 ces pratiques qui violent la Convention de Gen\u00e8ve.) <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t Autre vol\u00e9e de bois vert \u00e0 l’encontre des ann\u00e9es Bush, celle de Lawrence Wilkerson, ancien adjoint de Colin Powell au d\u00e9partement d’Etat, qui \u00e9tait devenu tr\u00e8s critique de l’administration Bush apr\u00e8s son d\u00e9part du d\u00e9partement, d\u00e9but 2005 (en m\u00eae temps que Powell). Wilkerson r\u00e9v\u00e8le qu’il avait failli donner sa d\u00e9mission apr\u00e8s le fameux et indigne discours de Powell au Conseil de S\u00e9curit\u00e9 de l’ONU le 5 f\u00e9vrier 2003, qui d\u00e9veloppa la th\u00e8se archi-fausse et grossi\u00e8re des armes de destruction massive de Saddam. Wilkerson r\u00e9digea sa lettre de d\u00e9mission mais ne l’envoya pas. Au moins, il nous confirme que la conscience \u00e9tait compl\u00e8te \u00e0 cette \u00e9poque, dans son chef et sans doute au d\u00e9partement d’Etat, de la tromperie compl\u00e8te de ces montages. Il confirme ainsi tous les arguments antiguerres de l’opposition \u00e0 la guerre.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n