{"id":73419,"date":"2012-09-29T16:19:27","date_gmt":"2012-09-29T16:19:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2012\/09\/29\/la-terrorisation-psychologique-par-les-drones\/"},"modified":"2012-09-29T16:19:27","modified_gmt":"2012-09-29T16:19:27","slug":"la-terrorisation-psychologique-par-les-drones","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2012\/09\/29\/la-terrorisation-psychologique-par-les-drones\/","title":{"rendered":"La terrorisation psychologique par les drones<\/em>"},"content":{"rendered":"

La terrorisation psychologique par les drones<\/em><\/h3>\n<\/p>\n

\tLes drones<\/em> constituent la nouvelle arme de guerre favorite des USA, et d’ailleurs selon une m\u00e9thode qui est sp\u00e9cifique aux USA et \u00e0 l’am\u00e9ricanisme (et au bloc BAO par cons\u00e9quent), l\u00e2chet\u00e9 du proc\u00e9d\u00e9, refus du moindre risque pour les coupables de l’acte, ill\u00e9galit\u00e9 compl\u00e8te assimilant l’acte \u00e0 du pur banditisme, m\u00e9pris complet pour les principes structurants r\u00e9gissant la vie internationale (souverainet\u00e9, ind\u00e9pendance, l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9), frappe indiscrimin\u00e9e sous le couvert d’une capacit\u00e9 de s\u00e9lection des cibles d\u00e9mentie par les faits d’une fa\u00e7on assez r\u00e9guli\u00e8reme Les drones<\/em> sont d’autant plus cette arme favorite qu’on voit bien que la machine est de moins en moins inclin\u00e9e \u00e0 accepter des interf\u00e9rences humaines dans son fonctionnement, comme cela est impeccablement illustr\u00e9 avec le cas du F-22<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tL’action des drones<\/em> a fait l’objet d’une \u00e9tude extr\u00eamement fouill\u00e9e, \u00e9tude conjointe des universit\u00e9s de Stanford et de New York, donnant un rapport de 185 pages rendu public le 25 septembre 2012<\/a>. (Le rapport est intitul\u00e9 Living Under Drones: Death, injury, and trauma to civilians from U.S. drone practices in Pakistan<\/em>, \u00e9dit\u00e9 pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment et conjointement par la Stanford International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic, de la Stanford Law School et la Global Justice Clinic, de la School of Law, de l’universit\u00e9 de New York. Un site sp\u00e9cial a \u00e9t\u00e9 ouvert, concernant ce rapport : http:\/\/livingunderdrones.org\/<\/a>.) On trouvera ci-apr\u00e8s la pr\u00e9sentation et le r\u00e9sum\u00e9 du rapport, tels qu’ils sont pr\u00e9sent\u00e9s dans le document. Nous pensons que ce rapport vaut certainement que son r\u00e9sum\u00e9 soit pr\u00e9sent\u00e9 dans son int\u00e9gralit\u00e9, tant il donne d’une fa\u00e7on extr\u00eamement pr\u00e9cise et d\u00e9taill\u00e9e tous les aspects de la guerre des drones<\/em>. (On trouve dans le document original divers appels de notes et les notes \u00e0 la suite. Les soulign\u00e9s en gras dans notre texte le sont dans le document original.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abIn the United States, the dominant narrative about the use of drones in Pakistan is of a surgically precise and effective tool that makes the US safer by enabling targeted killing of terrorists, with minimal downsides or collateral impacts.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbThis narrative is false.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbFollowing nine months of intensive researchincluding two investigations in Pakistan, more than 130 interviews with victims, witnesses, and experts, and review of thousands of pages of documentation and media reportingthis report presents evidence of the damaging and counterproductive effects of current US drone strike policies. Based on extensive interviews with Pakistanis living in the regions directly affected, as well as humanitarian and medical workers, this report provides new and firsthand testimony about the negative impacts US policies are having on the civilians living under drones.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbReal threats to US security and to Pakistani civilians exist in the Pakistani border areas now targeted by drones. It is crucial that the US be able to protect itself from terrorist threats, and that the great harm caused by terrorists to Pakistani civilians be addressed. However, in light of significant evidence of harmful impacts to Pakistani civilians and to US interests, current policies to address terrorism through targeted killings and drone strikes must be carefully re-evaluated.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbIt is essential that public debate about US policies take the negative effects of current policies into account.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbFirst, while civilian casualties are rarely acknowledged by the US government, there is significant evidence that US drone strikes have injured and killed civilians.<\/em><\/strong> In public statements, the US states that there have been no or single digit civilian casualties. [2] It is difficult to obtain data on strike casualties because of US efforts to shield the drone program from democratic accountability, compounded by the obstacles to independent investigation of strikes in North Waziristan. The best currently available public aggregate data on drone strikes are provided by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ), an independent journalist organization. TBIJ reports that from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562-3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474-881 were civilians, including 176 children. TBIJ reports that these strikes also injured an additional 1,228-1,362 individuals. Where media accounts do report civilian casualties, rarely is any information provided about the victims or the communities they leave behind. This report includes the harrowing narratives of many survivors, witnesses, and family members who provided evidence of civilian injuries and deaths in drone strikes to our research team. It also presents detailed accounts of three separate strikes, for which there is evidence of civilian deaths and injuries, including a March 2011 strike on a meeting of tribal elders that killed some 40 individuals.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbSecond, US drone strike policies cause considerable and under-accounted-for harm to the daily lives of ordinary civilians, beyond death and physical injury.<\/em><\/strong> Drones hover twenty-four hours a day over communities in northwest Pakistan, striking homes, vehicles, and public spaces without warning. Their presence terrorizes men, women, and children, giving rise to anxiety and psychological trauma among civilian communities. Those living under drones have to face the constant worry that a deadly strike may be fired at any moment, and the knowledge that they are powerless to protect themselves. These fears have affected behavior. The US practice of striking one area multiple times, and evidence that it has killed rescuers, makes both community members and humanitarian workers afraid or unwilling to assist injured victims. Some community members shy away from gathering in groups, including important tribal dispute-resolution bodies, out of fear that they may attract the attention of drone operators. Some parents choose to keep their children home, and children injured or traumatized by strikes have dropped out of school. Waziris told our researchers that the strikes have undermined cultural and religious practices related to burial, and made family members afraid to attend funerals. In addition, families who lost loved ones or their homes in drone strikes now struggle to support themselves.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbThird, publicly available evidence that the strikes have made the US safer overall is ambiguous at best.<\/em><\/strong> The strikes have certainly killed alleged combatants and disrupted armed actor networks. However, serious concerns about the efficacy and counter-productive nature of drone strikes have been raised. The number of high-level targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely lowestimated at just 2%. Furthermore, evidence suggests that US strikes have facilitated recruitment to violent non-state armed groups, and motivated further violent attacks. As the New York Times has reported, drones have replaced Guant\u00e1namo as the recruiting tool of choice for militants. Drone strikes have also soured many Pakistanis on cooperation with the US and undermined US-Pakistani relations. One major study shows that 74% of Pakistanis now consider the US an enemy.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbFourth, current US targeted killings and drone strike practices undermine respect for the rule of law and international legal protections and may set dangerous precedents.<\/em><\/strong> This report casts doubt on the legality of strikes on individuals or groups not linked to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2011, and who do not pose imminent threats to the US. The US government’s failure to ensure basic transparency and accountability in its targeted killing policies, to provide necessary details about its targeted killing program, or adequately to set out the legal factors involved in decisions to strike hinders necessary democratic debate about a key aspect of US foreign and national security policy. US practices may also facilitate recourse to lethal force around the globe by establishing dangerous precedents for other governments. As drone manufacturers and officials successfully reduce export control barriers, and as more countries develop lethal drone technologies, these risks increase.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbIn light of these concerns, this report recommends that the US conduct a fundamental re-evaluation of current targeted killing practices, taking into account all available evidence, the concerns of various stakeholders, and the short and long-term costs and benefits.<\/em><\/strong> A significant rethinking of current US targeted killing and drone strike policies is long overdue. US policy-makers, and the American public, cannot continue to ignore evidence of the civilian harm and counter-productive impacts of US targeted killings and drone strikes in Pakistan.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbThis report also supports and reiterates the calls consistently made by rights groups and others for legality, accountability, and transparency in US drone strike policies:<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbThe US should fulfill its international obligations with respect to accountability and transparency, and ensure proper democratic debate about key policies. The US should:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Release the US Department of Justice memoranda<\/em><\/strong> outlining the legal basis for US targeted killing in Pakistan;<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Make public critical information concerning US drone strike policies, including as previously and repeatedly reques\u00adted by various groups and officials: the targeting criteria for so-called signature strikes; the mechanisms in place to ensure that targeting complies with international law; which laws are being applied; the nature of investigations into civilian death and injury; and mechanisms in place to track, analyze and publicly recognize civilian casualties;<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Ensure independent investigations<\/em><\/strong> into drone strike deaths, consistent with the call made by Ben Emmerson, UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism in August 2012;<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb In conjunction with robust investigations and, where appropriate, prosecutions, establish compensation programs<\/em><\/strong> for civilians harmed by US strikes in Pakistan.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbThe US should fulfill its international humanitarian and human rights law obligations with respect to the use of force,<\/em><\/strong> including by not using lethal force against individuals who are not members of armed groups with whom the US is in an armed conflict, or otherwise against individuals not posing an imminent threat to life. This includes not double-striking targets as first responders arrive.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Journalists and media outlets should cease the common practice of referring simply to militant deaths, without further explanation.<\/em><\/strong> All reporting of government accounts of militant deaths should include acknowledgment that the US government counts all adult males killed by strikes as militants, absent exonerating evidence. Media accounts relying on anonymous government sources should also highlight the fact of their single-source information and of the past record of false government reports.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n

Notre commentaire<\/h4>\n

On trouve donc une description extr\u00eamement compl\u00e8te de l’action des drones<\/em>, sans beaucoup d’impr\u00e9vus pour les pertes, les victimes collat\u00e9rales (sans doute des chiffres en-dessous de la v\u00e9rit\u00e9), l’efficacit\u00e9 r\u00e9elle de cette sorte d’action quand on la replace, comme cela doit \u00eatre fait n\u00e9cessairement, dans la situation g\u00e9n\u00e9rale des forces alli\u00e9es (US) par rapport \u00e0 leurs adversaires dans l’ensemble AfPak (Afghanistan-Pakistan), et m\u00eame dans le monde musulman. Par contre, ce qui constitue une nouveaut\u00e9, sans surprise v\u00e9ritable quand on y pense, mais encore s’agit-il d’y penser d’une fa\u00e7on circonstanci\u00e9e et r\u00e9f\u00e9renc\u00e9e, c’est l’effet psychologique massif des drones<\/em> dans les zones qui constituent leur espace d’intervention, sur la population, le tissu social et traditionnel, les relations humaines, etc. Les constats r\u00e9sum\u00e9s qu’on y trouve nous en disent beaucoup (\u00abDrones hover twenty-four hours a day over communities in northwest Pakistan, striking homes, vehicles, and public spaces without warning. Their presence terrorizes men, women, and children, giving rise to anxiety and psychological trauma among civilian communities. Those living under drones have to face the constant worry that a deadly strike may be fired at any moment, and the knowledge that they are powerless to protect themselves. These fears have affected behavior<\/em>\u00bb) Il s’agit de la barbarie, disons, \u00e0 visage technologique, comme une sorte de Guantanamo technologique et \u00e0 domicile sans souci d’aucune l\u00e9galit\u00e9 ni d’aucune r\u00e8gle et loi ; soit la barbarie de la modernit\u00e9 achev\u00e9e, arriv\u00e9e \u00e0 son stade ultime de d\u00e9structuration et de dissolution, o\u00f9 la technologie avec sa machine se d\u00e9barrassent des sapiens<\/em> comme objets encombrants pour pouvoir mieux accomplir leurs penchant irr\u00e9pressible \u00e0 la terrorisation. Il s’agit, toujours et encore, de d\u00e9structurer et de dissoudre tout ce qui est structure traditionnelle et de coh\u00e9sion humaine et sociale.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tOn pourrait aussit\u00f4t sauter \u00e0 la conclusion, bien entendu tentante, que cet objectif de terrorisation est sp\u00e9cifiquement recherch\u00e9. Nous n’y croyons certainement pas, si l’on s’en remet \u00e0 la psychologie de l’am\u00e9ricanisme, inculpabilit\u00e9 et ind\u00e9fectibilit\u00e9, que nous \u00e9voquions encore dans diverses autres occurrences, pourtant restant proches du cas consid\u00e9r\u00e9 ici, le 29 ao\u00fbt 2012<\/a>, \u00e0 propos de l’infraresponsabilit\u00e9 qui joue enti\u00e8rement son r\u00f4le ici, et le 17 septembre 2012<\/a>. Ce serait en v\u00e9rit\u00e9 faire beaucoup d’honneur au sapiens<\/em> standard de l’am\u00e9ricanisme, compl\u00e8tement subverti par le Syst\u00e8me, f\u00fbt-il \u00e9toil\u00e9 ou pr\u00e9sident, ou secr\u00e9taire d’\u00c9tat, que de le croire capable d’une telle machination, et m\u00eame, surtout s’il est \u00e9toil\u00e9, pr\u00e9sident, etc. Au contraire, ils croient tous \u00e0 l’efficacit\u00e9 de leurs machines, \u00e0 la narrative<\/em> des frappes chirurgicales, \u00e0 la d\u00e9faite de the evil<\/em> et des m\u00e9chants, et \u00e0 la grandeur de America the beautiful<\/em>, certes, gav\u00e9s qu’ils sont des performances technologiques de leur contre-civilisation, de la beaut\u00e9 de leurs horizons progressistes, de la vertu de leurs certitudes droitdel’hommesques et d\u00e9mocratiques (voyez le regard hallucin\u00e9 d’Hillary<\/a> : \u00abHow could this happen… ?<\/em>\u00bb). Au contraire, ils sont compl\u00e8tement prisonniers de leurs machines, comme l’Air Force est prisonni\u00e8re de son F-22 (et bient\u00f4t de son JSF) qui recrache les pilotes comme une surcharge aga\u00e7ante et superflue<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLe v\u00e9ritable effet, c’est l’accentuation du d\u00e9sordre et du chaos et nullement l’affirmation de la puissance US ; et le d\u00e9sordre et le chaos pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment per\u00e7us comme \u00e9tant de la responsabilit\u00e9 des USA, et qui se d\u00e9veloppent aux d\u00e9pens de toutes les positions US, de l’influence US, etc. Ce que nous montre moins le rapport, ce sont d’abord les causes fondamentales de cette terrorisation : c’est en effet l’\u00e9chec des campagnes classiques de conqu\u00eate des curs et des esprits qui a conduit au passage \u00e0 l’utilisation \u00e0 grande \u00e9chelle de ces moyens technologiques des drones<\/em>, cela devenant alors un aveu de l’\u00e9chec D’autre part, les effets g\u00e9n\u00e9raux d\u00e9coulant de cette terrorisation insupportable \u00e9chappent \u00e9galement au rapport. Nous parlons des effets sur les psychologies collectives, les jugements qui en d\u00e9coulent, les comportements, puis bient\u00f4t les politiques, les actes de riposte, d’hostilit\u00e9, l’agressivit\u00e9 et la haine g\u00e9n\u00e9rales qui explosent \u00e0 telle ou telle occasion La question est, finalement, si l’on veut : si vous n’aviez pas ces campagnes involontaires de terrorisation, auriez-vous la violence, la dur\u00e9e et les effets profonds, avec des \u00e9volutions politiques fondamentales comme par exemple celle d’un Morsi<\/a>, des r\u00e9actions obtenues par l’affaire du DVD Innocence of Muslims<\/em> ?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLa guerre des drones<\/em> se r\u00e9v\u00e8le pour ce qu’on pouvait deviner qu’elle serait : non pas l’utilisation int\u00e9gr\u00e9e et mesur\u00e9e d’une nouvelle technologie utile (cela s’\u00e9tait fait d\u00e9j\u00e0 dans les ann\u00e9es 1960, avec les premiers drones<\/em> de reconnaissance, largement utilis\u00e9s au Sud et au Nord-Vietnam), mais un substitut<\/strong> \u00e0 la guerre que le bloc BAO est devenu impuissant \u00e0 faire. La guerre des drones<\/em> interdit, par essence, toute possibilit\u00e9 de conqu\u00eate et d’apaisement, elle exacerbe les sentiments de terreur, d’hostilit\u00e9 et d’agressivit\u00e9. Elle nourrit sans aucun doute \u00e0 la fois la r\u00e9solution de l’adversaire, sa popularit\u00e9 dans les populations, etc. (Ce que ne mentionne \u00e9videmment pas l’\u00e9tude, c’est combien de volontaires nouveaux la guerre des drones<\/em> a amen\u00e9 aux talibans.) La guerre des drones<\/em> est un avatar des d\u00e9faites d’Irak et d’Afghanistan, et la r\u00e9ponse technologique du Syst\u00e8me \u00e0 un probl\u00e8me humain qu’il ne peut \u00e9videmment r\u00e9soudre : accentuer les capacit\u00e9s du comment technologique en \u00e9cartant de plus en plus les questions essentielles (Pourquoi ? Dans quel but ?). Tout cela est \u00e0 l’image de notre \u00e9volution g\u00e9n\u00e9rale, et mesure le blocage et l’effet contreproductif de la surpuissance engendr\u00e9e par le Syst\u00e8me. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tMis en ligne le 29 septembre 2012 \u00e0 16H14<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

La terrorisation psychologique par les drones Les drones constituent la nouvelle arme de guerre favorite des USA, et d’ailleurs selon une m\u00e9thode qui est sp\u00e9cifique aux USA et \u00e0 l’am\u00e9ricanisme (et au bloc BAO par cons\u00e9quent), l\u00e2chet\u00e9 du proc\u00e9d\u00e9, refus du moindre risque pour les coupables de l’acte, ill\u00e9galit\u00e9 compl\u00e8te assimilant l’acte \u00e0 du pur… <\/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":[831,8133,4270,3251,4395,7766,2604,2867,12879,2645,3256,3379,4394,3099,12457,11131,5712,6596,12869,3257],"class_list":["post-73419","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-a","tag-afpak","tag-autodestruction","tag-barbarie","tag-civiles","tag-collateraux","tag-des","tag-drones","tag-effets","tag-guerre","tag-new","tag-pakistan","tag-pertes","tag-psychologie","tag-stanford","tag-surpuissance","tag-technologique","tag-universite","tag-visage","tag-york"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/73419","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=73419"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/73419\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=73419"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=73419"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=73419"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}