A c\u00f4t\u00e9 des diverses p\u00e9rip\u00e9ties, dans divers sens, qu’on a pu relever et \u00e9ventuellement suivre dans le scandale Petraeus, ou l’affaire Petraeus, apparaît un cas particuli\u00e8rement int\u00e9ressant, \u00e9tranger au fond de l’affaire. Il s’agit de la fa\u00e7on dont a eu lieu l’enqu\u00eate du FBI sur les relations de Petraeus et de Paula Broadwell, puis, plus g\u00e9n\u00e9ralement, des relations du g\u00e9n\u00e9ral Allen avec Jill Kelley. Divers commentateurs ont commenc\u00e9 \u00e0 s’int\u00e9resser \u00e0 cet aspect de l’affaire Petraeus, \u00e0 partir du constat \u00e9vident que nous ne nous trouvons pas dans le cas de \u00ab\u00a0l’État de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 nationale\u00a0\u00bb (dito<\/em>, le Syst\u00e8me) contre le citoyen, mais dans le cas de \u00ab\u00a0l’État de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 nationale\u00a0\u00bb (dito<\/em>, le Syst\u00e8me) contre certains de ses composants, en l’esp\u00e8ce le corps des chefs militaires et la CIA dans le chef de son directeur… L’on pourrait m\u00eame avancer qu’il s’agit d’une faction de \u00ab\u00a0l’État de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 nationale\u00a0\u00bb (dito<\/em>, le Syst\u00e8me), c’est-\u00e0-dire le FBI, contre l’une et l’autre factions de \u00ab\u00a0l’État de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 nationale\u00a0\u00bb (dito<\/em>, le Syst\u00e8me), c’est-\u00e0-dire le corps des chefs militaires et la CIA.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n • On cite ici trois de ces interventions, soulignant chacune un aspect particulier de cette fa\u00e7on de prendre l’affaire. La premi\u00e8re est celle de l’excellent Glenn Greenwald, le 13 novembre 2012<\/a> dans le Guardian<\/em>. Greenwald nous dit (dans son titre) que «FBI’s abuse of the surveillance state is the real scandal needing investigation<\/em>», observation qu’il nuance aussit\u00f4t d’un aspect (soulign\u00e9 en gras par nous) qu’on verra d\u00e9velopp\u00e9 plus loin : «That the stars of America’s national security establishment are being devoured by out-of-control surveillance is<\/em> a form of sweet justice.<\/em><\/strong>». Quelques courts extraits du texte de Greenwald mettent le probl\u00e8me en situation.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n «The Petraeus scandal is receiving intense media scrutiny obviously due to its salacious aspects, leaving one, as always, to fantasize about what a stellar press corps we would have if they devoted a tiny fraction of this energy to dissecting non-sex political scandals (this unintentionally amusing New York Times headline from this morning – "Concern Grows Over Top Military Officers’ Ethics" – illustrates that point: with all the crimes committed by the US military over the last decade and long before, it’s only adultery that causes "concern" over their "ethics"). Nonetheless, several of the emerging revelations are genuinely valuable, particularly those involving the conduct of the FBI and the reach of the US surveillance state.<\/em> […]<\/p>\n<\/p>\n »…What is most striking is how sweeping, probing and invasive the FBI’s investigation then became, all without any evidence of any actual crime – or the need for any search warrant…<\/em>»<\/p>\n<\/p>\n • La deuxi\u00e8me intervention concerne l’attitude d’Obama, qui est peu intervenu dans cette enqu\u00eate, adoptant un comportement quasi compl\u00e8tement passif. Pour lui, il n’\u00e9tait pas question d’interf\u00e9rer, non seulement dans l’enqu\u00eate, mais m\u00eame dans l’initiative elle-m\u00eame du FBI d’espionner les g\u00e9n\u00e9raux. Cette attitude tr\u00e8s \u00ab\u00a0lib\u00e9rale\u00a0\u00bb renvoie \u00e9galement, et \u00e0 notre sens plus justement, \u00e0 l’aspect-T\u00e9flon du pr\u00e9sident, qui suit une politique arrangeante du \u00ab\u00a0je m’en lave les mains\u00a0\u00bb, qui permet d’\u00e9viter des implications dans telle ou telle vilaine affaire. (Reagan avait \u00e9t\u00e9 nomm\u00e9 \u00ab\u00a0le pr\u00e9sident-T\u00e9flon\u00a0\u00bb, en r\u00e9f\u00e9rence non-publicitaire \u00e0 la glorieuse po\u00eale \u00e0 frire \u00ab\u00a0qui n’attache pas\u00a0\u00bb, parce que les scandales de sa pr\u00e9sidence n’affectaient pas sa popularit\u00e9, sans d’ailleurs qu’il ait cherch\u00e9 pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment \u00e0 s’en distancer… Reagan ne cherchait rien, il laissait faire, et son aspect simple et assez b\u00e9at, son verbe primaire de type Caf\u00e9 du Commerce, son intelligence manifestement r\u00e9duite au minimum syndical et sa foi de charbonnier dans la vertu am\u00e9ricaniste et l’attention du Seigneur \u00e0 son propos, semblaient suffisants pour l’exon\u00e9rer de toutes implication. Infiniment plus intelligent, Obama en a fait une strat\u00e9gie, la strat\u00e9gie de l’irresponsabilit\u00e9 par lib\u00e9ralisme.) Antiwar.com<\/em> donne, sous la plume de Jason Ditz, le 15 novembre 2012<\/a>, des pr\u00e9cisions sur le cas.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n «Legally speaking, the FBI is supposed to inform not only the Obama Administration, but also both House and Senate intelligence communities of any investigation with national security implications. Both committees’ leadership have questioned why this wasn’t done in the investigation related to deposed CIA chief David Petraeus as soon as it was discovered that classified data had been compromised.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »President Obama is taking a remarkably different tack, insisting that not only is he fine with the FBI keeping the probe from him, but insisting that it was common practice because he doesn’t want to be accused of \u00ab\u00a0meddling\u00a0\u00bb in investigations. Obama went on to say that he personally hasn’t seen any evidence suggesting that the classified data had any impact on national security, but since he seemed to be going out of his way to avoid details on the case, that seems far from the final word on the matter.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »Indeed, Obama’s comments may bring up even bigger concerns, as his comments suggest the White House is giving the FBI complete autonomy on all investigations over concerns that it would be \u00ab\u00a0meddling\u00a0\u00bb to even keep tabs on what they are up to at any given time. Giving the FBI’s sordid past and tendency to investigate virtually everyone as \u00ab\u00a0threats,\u00a0\u00bb this lack of oversight is particularly disturbing.<\/em>»<\/p>\n<\/p>\n • Dave Lindorff, universitaire et journaliste d’investigation, auteur et fondateur du site notoirement dissident ThisCantBeHappening.net<\/a>, publie un long article sur PressTV.com<\/em>, le 17 novembre 2012<\/a>. Nombre de ses arguments se trouvaient en gestation sur ThisCantBeHappening.net<\/em>, le 12 novembre 2012<\/a>. Lindorff pousse un peu plus loin la logique du constat qu’il fait, de la facilit\u00e9 avec laquelle le FBI peut, en toute \u00ab\u00a0l\u00e9galit\u00e9\u00a0\u00bb-Syst\u00e8me sous la f\u00e9rule \u00e9vasive du pr\u00e9sident Obama, entreprendre une enqu\u00eate intrusive sur des chefs militaires, avec le principal d’entre eux qui est devenu le directeur de la CIA, «without any need for a court order, and in the absence of any evidence of a crime<\/em>». On donne quelques extraits, en soulignant de gras nous-m\u00eames l’observation essentielle de Lindorff, qui lui fournit son titre.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n «There is a delicious irony here for connoisseurs of payback. The FBI’s ability to poke around at will in personal emails is a direct result of anti-terrorism laws like the so-called PATRIOT Act, passed in the wake of the 9\/11 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, DC. In the years following that attack, Congress has passed laws unleashing the intelligence agencies to engage in domestic and global spying on Americans themselves. Further undermining of Constitutional privacy safeguards has been done via executive orders signed by both Presidents Bush and Obama, and ratified by the federal courts. All of this undermining of the nation’s vaunted civil liberties has been supported by agencies like the CIA, and endorsed by top officials like Gen. Petraeus, whose entire climb up to the top ranks of the military and the intelligence establishment is owed to the War on Terror, which he and other top leaders have continually invoked and shamelessly promoted since 2001.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »\u00ab\u00a0There should be an investigation not of the personal behavior of General Petraeus and General Allen,\u00a0\u00bb says Anthony Romero, head of the American Civil Liberties Union, an organization that defends constitutional freedoms and human rights, \u00ab\u00a0but of what surveillance powers the FBI used to look into their private lives. This is a textbook example of the blurring of lines between the private and the public.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> [….]<\/p>\n<\/p>\n »That’s the bad news for Americans – though they’re not hearing it in the country’s media, which are focusing pruriently on the sex angle.<\/em> The good news<\/em><\/strong> is that with top spy Gen. Petraeus and Gen. Allen, the commander running the Afghan War, both being \u00ab\u00a0hoist on their own petards,\u00a0\u00bb it appears that<\/em> the post-9\/11 national security state is beginning to consume its own advocates…<\/em><\/strong>»<\/p>\n<\/p>\n