• #Hong_Kong : la #loi controversée sur la #sécurité_nationale a été adoptée, selon des médias locaux

    Le parlement chinois a adopté mardi la loi controversée sur la sécurité nationale à Hong Kong, ont annoncé des médias du territoire semi-autonome, faisant craindre une #répression de toute #opposition_politique dans l’ex-colonie britannique.

    Le parlement national à Pékin a voté ce texte à l’unanimité, ont affirmé mardi matin Now TV, RTHK et le South China Morning Post.

    Cette loi, qui entend réprimer le « #séparatisme », le « #terrorisme », la « #subversion » et la « collusion avec des forces extérieures et étrangères », vise à ramener la #stabilité dans l’ex-colonie britannique secouée l’an passé par des #manifestations monstres contre le pouvoir central.

    Les opposants redoutent qu’elle serve à museler toute dissidence et à enterrer la semi-autonomie et les libertés dont jouissent les habitants de Hong Kong.

    Ce texte, élaboré en seulement six semaines et dont le contenu n’est pas connu des près de 7,5 millions de Hongkongais, contourne le conseil législatif local.

    Lors de sa conférence de presse hebdomadaire du mardi matin, la cheffe de l’exécutif local, Carrie Lam, a refusé de dire si ce texte a été effectivement adopté.

    « Je pense qu’en ce moment, il ne me revient pas de commenter les questions relatives à la loi sur la sécurité nationale », a déclaré Mme Lam.

    Pour l’opposition pro-démocratie de Hong Kong et pour plusieurs pays occidentaux dont les Etats-Unis, le G7 ou encore l’Union européenne (UE), cette loi est au contraire une attaque contre l’#autonomie et les #libertés du territoire.


  • Inside the U.S. military’s raid against its own security guards that left dozens of Afghan children dead

    It remains one of the deadliest civilian casualty events of the Afghan campaign. But the story of how the operation turned tragic has been largely hidden from the public.

    USA TODAY spent more than a year investigating the Azizabad raid and sued the Department of Defense to obtain almost 1,000 pages of investigative files previously kept secret because it had been deemed “classified national security information.” The records included photographs of the destruction in Azizabad and sworn testimony from the U.S. forces who planned and executed the operation.

    #civils #victimes_civiles #Afghanistan #sécurité_nationale #états-unis

    • The problems began in 2007 when ArmorGroup, a private security company working on a Pentagon subcontract, hired two local warlords on the U.S. intelligence payroll to provide armed guards at an airfield on the western edge of Afghanistan.

      Those warlords fought each other for control of the weapons and money ArmorGroup was giving out. The tangle of espionage and tribal infighting eventually drew in the very same military units that had helped empower the warlords in the first place.

      After two Pentagon investigations, the U.S. military denied any wrongdoing. Defense Department officials declined to comment for this story.

      A 2010 Senate Armed Services Committee inquiry laid blame with both ArmorGroup and the Defense Department for doing business with the warlords. In response to the Senate report, then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates issued a letter recognizing problems with contract oversight, which he pledged to fix.


      Lt. Colonel Rachel E. VanLandingham, a retired officer with the Judge Advocate General’s Corps and the chief of international law at Central Command’s headquarters during the Azizabad raid, said the commanders responsible for investigating the incident seemed to ignore the failures instead of learning from them. She did not know the details of the operation or the military’s response until contacted by USA TODAY.

      “The CENTCOM investigation seemed more worried about looking good than being good,” VanLandingham, now a law professor at Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles, said in an interview. “Everyone who deploys in Afghanistan should know this incident.”

      ArmorGroup agreed to a Pentagon requirement that it fill the guard positions by hiring nearby villagers. It was part of the Pentagon’s economic stimulus plan for Afghanistan, but it also was less expensive than bringing in guards from outside the country.

      "We are a commercial company, of course, we are looking to do the business as cheap as possible,” a company official later told U.S. military investigators.


      It appears that you’re visiting us from a location in the European Union.

      We are directing you to our EU Experience.

      This site does not collect personally identifiable information or persistent identifiers from, deliver a personalized experience to, or otherwise track or monitor persons reasonably identified as visiting our Site from the European Union. We do identify EU internet protocol (IP) addresses for the purpose of determining whether to direct you to USA TODAY NETWORK’s EU Experience.

      This site provides news and information of USA TODAY NETWORK. We hope you enjoy the site.

      Bref, l’article de #USA_Today sur le bombardement d’ #Azizabad n’y est pas...

  • ’National Security’ is the New ’National Defense’ - The Atlantic

    Invoke national security, and unpopular policies become law—or the law itself may even be suspended. One act of legal levitation was George Bush’s suspension of habeas corpus for foreigners, a move that enabled the Defense Department to lock up so-called “enemy combatants” in Guantanamo Bay without trial, indefinitely. Uttering the magic phrase can make other things disappear. Shelf upon shelf of government documents vanishes from public sight after being shrouded in security classifications. Poof!

    Google NGram, the number of mentions of “national defense” and “national security” in American books from 1900 to 2000.


  • National Security Pros, It’s Time to Talk About Right-Wing Extremism

    Ask any of us who works in national security what to do about ISIS, and we’d have no problem pitching you ideas. Even if we lack expertise in the topic or don’t work directly on it, we’d still have opinions and thoughts, because we’ve been swimming in a sea of articles, op-eds, books, hearings, programs, and overall research and debate for years. But ask us about right-wing extremism, a violent ideology that’s killed more Americans than ISIS in the last decade, and most of us would pause — either because we were unaware of the problem or, worse, we were afraid to speak openly about it.

    So let’s talk about it now.

    Over the last decade, individuals and groups fueled by this virulent ideology have committed 71 percent of the known politically or religiously inspired killings in our country — that is, 274 of the 387 Americans murdered by extremists. Reports now indicate it was part of the recent murder of 17 school children and teachers in Florida, just as it was part of mass shootings that have happened everywhere from California to Charleston. It has not just hit inside the US, but has struck many of our closest allies, both causing near-tragedies and horrible massacres. It is not a new threat; it has killed hundreds of Americans in past decades. But it is growing in power and influence, worrisomely being stoked by foreign nations like Russia that wish our nation harm. It is a clear, present, and proven danger to the United States. Yet we find it awkward to talk about.

    There are many reasons why we have a hard time acknowledging the deadly threat from the cluster of groups that gather inside our country under the hateful flags of white nationalism, white supremacy, anti-government militia, and Neo-Nazism. One reason is to avoid appearing too partisan, a desire to be even-handed. There is irony in that we seek to avoid appearing biased, even when the threat espouses bias to the point of justifying hating and even killing their fellow Americans. So, after each episode of right-wing violence, we avoid talking about it, even to the point of reaching in the opposite direction. For instance, after these groups united to march on Charlottesville, culminating in the killing of a young woman, major U.S. papers ran more op-eds condemning the counter-protesters, who have yet to commit a mass killing, than those who committed the crime.

    I must pause here to pre-empt the inevitable “what-aboutism” — the kind of attempts to change the conversation that wouldn’t happen in an article on a group like ISIS. Yes, far-left violence is bad. (See how easy it is to write that? There’s no need to caveat violent extremists of any flag as “very fine people.”) But over the last decade, 3 percent of extremist killings in the U.S. have been committed by members of far left-wing groups — a fraction of the 71 percent by right-wing extremists and 26 percent by Islamic extremists. Those figures are the ADL’s, which documents them case by case. If you don’t like the ADL’s categorization, you could use the data gathered by colleagues of mine at the New America Foundation, which drew on the statements of law enforcement officials to determine motivation in the various attacks. That dataset shows that attacks by right-wing extremists outnumber those by left-wing groups more than 17 to one. Or you could use the one compiled by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which since the rise of the “alt-right” in 2014, has documented 43 people killed and more than 60 injured by young men whose social media use evinced a similar ideology — and often a “lone-wolf” style familiar from other forms of terrorism. And this was before Parkland. In short, from a standpoint of scale, trends, and impact, we have a problem that shouldn’t require what-aboutism or ignoring the bulk of the problem. Nor is the “alt-left,” or “violent left,” a viable political movement. Certainly, it has not bled into the broader mainstream of party politics and key media outlets, nor held multiple armed standoffs after seizing government facilities, nor even paralyzed entire American cities in fear.

    We also have to admit that we are quiet about right-wing extremist violence out of calculation. The cost-vs.-gain equations that shape our choices are simply different from other topics. Compare the professional benefits to the potential risks of publishing an article, creating a college course, writing a book or dissertation, organizing a conference, hosting a speech, creating a university or thinktank project, funding a foundation program, etc., on right-wing extremism. It is not just that there is no great profit in it. It is that every one of these endeavors would be far more difficult, and would likely create far more headaches for us and our bosses, than a similar project on pretty much any other topic in our field.

    This isn’t to say there aren’t fantastic researchers on this topic; there are many, who have valuably shaped much of what we know about the issue. But we in the rest of the field must acknowledge that they’ve chosen a more professionally risky path than most of us, even though the very object of their study has killed more Americans over the last few years than essentially any other problem we are working on.

    The same problem plagues government. For an elected official, or, worse, a U.S. government employee, to speak about this threat carries proven political and professional risks; doing so has literally cost people their jobs. And that was before we had the first president in the modern era to express sympathy for and be celebrated by these groups.

    The result is that far-right extremism mirrors that of Islamic extremism in its forms, spread, and goals. The head of counter-terrorism policing in the U.K., which broke up four planned far-right terrorist attacks in just the last year, says both groups “create intolerance, exploit grievances, and generate distrust of state institutions.” But the politics of doing something about these two dangers are directly opposite. In America, it is politically savvy to talk strongly and repeatedly about terrorism and extremism, except the version of it that has killed the largest number of our fellow citizens over the last decade.

    Finally, we avoid talking about right-wing extremism because to do so invites personal risks and annoyances that, generally speaking, don’t much afflict other areas of security studies. These range from online harassment (via social networks that have become a breeding ground for it) to physical stalking and violence.

    I don’t have all the answers about what to do about the plague of violence fueled by right-wing hate groups. But I do know we’ll never find them as long as those of us interested in national security downplay and avoid it. It is long past time to start talking about a threat that is regularly killing our fellow citizens.

    #sécurité #sécurité_nationale #USA #Etats-Unis #extrême_droite #extrémisme #massacres #violence

    Over the last decade, individuals and groups fueled by this virulent ideology have committed 71 percent of the known politically or religiously inspired killings in our country — that is, 274 of the 387 Americans murdered by extremists.

  • Top U.S. Diplomat Backed Continuing Support for Saudi War in Yemen Over Objections of Staff - WSJ

    WASHINGTON—Secretary of State Mike Pompeo backed continued U.S. military support for Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen over the objections of staff members after being warned that a cutoff could jeopardize $2 billion in weapons sales to America’s Gulf allies, according to a classified memo and people familiar with the decision.


    En fait la poursuite de la vente d’armes n’était pas le problème ; Pompéo avait affirmé que l’Arabie Saoudite avait les plus grands égards pour les #civils du Yémen, ce qui évitait aux #Etats-Unis de renouveler quand même mais "au nom de la sécurité nationale".

    #Yémen : une sénatrice accuse Pompeo d’avoir « violé la loi » | JDM

    Une sénatrice démocrate a accusé jeudi le secrétaire d’État américain Mike Pompeo d’avoir « violé la loi » en certifiant que l’Arabie saoudite prenait des « mesures manifestes » pour épargner les civils au Yémen.


    Le Wall Street Journal a en outre rapporté jeudi, sur la foi d’un mémo confidentiel interne, que plusieurs services du département d’État avaient déconseillé à Mike Pompeo de « certifier » la bonne conduite de Ryad et Abou Dhabi. Il avait la possibilité de ne pas émettre cette certification, tout en confirmant le soutien logistique américain au nom des intérêts de #sécurité_nationale .

  • Trump’s National Security Strategy : The return of “great power” military conflict - World Socialist Web Site


    Trump’s National Security Strategy: The return of “great power” military conflict
    20 December 2017

    The new US National Security Strategy released this week and the speech delivered by President Donald Trump Monday to introduce it constitute a grim warning to humanity that US imperialism is firmly embarked on a road that leads to a nuclear third world war.

    While the document has largely been passed over in silence by the president’s ostensible political opponents in the Democratic Party and given relatively short shrift by the establishment media, more thoughtful ideologists of imperialism have noted the far-reaching changes presented in the document.

    #trump #sécurité_nationale #états_unis

  • Les #MSM étasuniens n’ont aucun problème à ce que les #multinationales poursuivent en justice leur propre pays (ou plutôt le contribuable étasunien) mais sont très inquiets quant aux poursuites judiciaires que pourraient subir les #Etats-Unis (ou plutôt les différents agents de la « #sécurité_nationale ») du fait de leurs #crimes de guerre,

    Big Papers Want Foreign Companies, Not War Crime Victims, to Sue US

    The irony is that none of these publications were overly concerned with exposing the US to foreign lawsuits when they offered support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a corporate trade deal that includes a provision for Investor-State Dispute Settlement—meaning it permits corporations to sue governments, including the US, in the event that a regulation undermines corporate profits. So increased exposure to liability to the US government when it gives more power to corporations is permissible, even desirable, but when it might provide recourse for victims of US war crimes? Not so much.

  • Google Traduction, un risque pour la sécurité nationale ?

    [Au Canada, le] gouvernement fédéral a élaboré un outil de traduction automatique pour ses fonctionnaires, en partie pour des raisons de sécurité nationale.

    De la souveraineté numérique...

    #Canada #Espionnage #Google #Google_Traduction #Service_public #Souveraineté_nationale #Souveraineté_numérique #Sécurité_nationale #Traduction_automatique #États-Unis

  • Welcome to the Age of the Commando - The New York Times

    Special Operations Command, or Socom, oversees all Special Operations Forces — our Delta Force operators, Navy SEALs, Green Berets, Army Rangers, among others. Special Operations personnel deployed to approximately 139 nations in 2015 — about 70 percent of the countries on the planet. While a vast majority of those missions involve training the defense forces of partner countries, a few involve direct combat.

    #armée #états-unis #forces_spéciales #stats

  • La #Russie se donne de nouveaux ennemis

    La nouvelle doctrine russe de #sécurité_nationale qui vient d’être adoptée place de nouveau les États-Unis et l’Otan parmi les menaces prioritaires que doit affronter Moscou, et accuse l’Union européenne d’avoir déstabilisé le continent en soutenant la rébellion ukrainienne.

    #International #diplomatie #Etats-Unis #Otan #URSS #Vladimir_Poutine

  • David Cameron on Saudi deals

    Jon Snow de la chaine britannique Channel 4 interroge David Cameron : pourquoi avez-vous aidé l’Arabie saoudite à prendre la tête des droits humains à l’#ONU ? L’intéressé ne répond (de manière très peu convaincante) qu’après des tergiversations hallucinantes.

    Sur YouTube (à partir de 5’25")

  • The rise of the inland national capital | Panethos


    Sur la tentation de déplacer la capitale du pays à l’intérieur du territoire...

    Si mes souvenirs sont bons, je crois ausi me souvenir qu’on a installé Airbus à Toulouse pour des raisons de « sécurité stratégique » à l’époque

    Below is my list of those 12 nations that have moved their capital to an inland location since 1900. The most common reason identified for these moves taking place was to:

    Centrally locate the government geographically (Brazil, Myanmar, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Tanzania)

    Other rationale cited and/or speculated include:

    Milder climate (Pakistan)
    Natural disaster (Belize – hurricane)
    Naval vulnerability (Myanmar and Pakistan)
    Political motivation/change (Albania, Russia, and Turkey)
    Political compromise (Australia)
    Population dispersal from densely populated locations (Myanmar and Nigeria)
    Whim of the leader(s) (Ivory Coast and Myanmar)

    #géographie #nation #capitale #cartographie #visualisation #déplacement #sécurité_nationale

    • il me semble que l’explication pour Naypyidaw n’est pas si claire que ça ; on évoque aussi les conseils d’un astrologue (?) ou une tentative pour le pouvoir de se mettre à l’abri d’une révolte populaire

  • Quand la #torture, « en plein essor » mondial, est « normalisée » et « glorifiée » - L’Orient-Le Jour

    La torture « a été presque normalisée, c’est devenue la routine », a regretté le secrétaire général d’#Amnesty, Salil Shetty, au cours de la conférence de presse de lancement de la campagne « Arrêtons la torture ».

    « Depuis la soi-disant guerre contre le #terrorisme, l’usage de la torture particulièrement aux #Etats-Unis et dans leurs sphères d’influence (...) a été complètement normalisé », a-t-il ajouté, expliquant ce phénomène par « les attentes en terme de #sécurité_nationale ».


    Pour Kate Allen, directrice pour le Royaume-Uni d’Amnesty, ce soutien est lié à la popularité des séries télévisées d’espionnage, particulièrement violentes. « Des séries comme +#24 Heures+ et +#Homeland+ ont glorifié la torture pour toute une génération, mais il y a une énorme différence entre la représentation dramatique créée par les scénaristes et son utilisation réelle par des agents du gouvernement dans des salles de torture », a-t-elle affirmé.

  • Délit d’"initié" à la tête de la NSA ?

    Why Was the NSA Chief Playing the Market?

    At the same time that he was running the United States’ biggest intelligence-gathering organization, former National Security Agency Director #Keith_Alexander owned and sold shares in commodities linked to China and Russia, two countries that the NSA was spying on heavily

    (remember the #NSA spies on EVERYTHING and EVERYONE)

  • Ebola, une affaire de sécurité nationale

    L’épidémie de fièvre liée au virus Ebola qui s’est déclarée en Guinée, en novembre 2013, puis s’est propagée au Liberia et en Sierra Leone, a déjà fait plus de trois mille trois cents cinquante morts depuis le début de cette année. Le nombre de personnes infectées double en moyenne tous les vingt à trente jours, une partie de l’opinion africaine hésitant entre déni et défiance. Après que les premiers malades ont été détectés hors de la zone d’origine de l’épidémie, la hantise d’une contagion générale surgit en Europe et aux Etats-Unis : ces derniers en ont fait une cause de sécurité nationale, envoyant au Liberia une force militaire de plusieurs milliers d’hommes.

  • Australia bans reporting of multi-nation corruption case involving Malaysia, Indonesia and Vietnam

    The case concerns allegations of multi-million dollar inducements made by agents of the RBA subsidiaries Securency and Note Printing Australia in order to secure contracts for the supply of Australian-style polymer bank notes to the governments of Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam and other countries.

    #Wikileaks révèle que l’#Australie couvre volontairement un scandale de #corruption international

    « Le concept de #sécurité_nationale ne doit pas agir comme une couverture afin de cacher tous les scandales de corruption qui concernent des membres du gouvernement, en Australie et partout ailleurs. C’est dans l’#intérêt_public que la presse puisse rapporter de telles affaires concernant des bénéficiaires de la #banque centrale australienne. »

  • Mish’s Global Economic Trend Analysis: Edward #Snowden on TED: More Revelations to Come; Here’s How We Take Back the #Internet

    Partial Transcript

    Speaking about Dick Cheney, Snowden says “We should be suspicious about the same overblown claims about damage to national security from these kind of officials. But, But, let’s assume these people really believe it. I would argue they have a kind of narrow conception of national security. The prerogatives of people like Dick Cheney do not keep the nation safe. The public interest is not always the same as the national interest. Going to war with people who are not our enemies in places that are not a threat doesn’t make us safe. And that applies whether it’s in Iraq or on the internet.”

    TED: It’s alleged that you have stolen 1.7 million documents. It seems only a few hundred of them have been shared with journalists so far. Are there more revelation to come?

    Snowden: There are absolutely more revelations to come. Some of the most reporting to be done is yet to come.

    TED: This is a story that for a lot of techies is the single most shocking thing that they have heard in the last few months. It’s about a program called Bull Run. Could you explain what that is?

    Snowden: Bull Run is, and we have to thank the NSA for their candor. This is a program named after a civil war battle. They reason I believe it is named that way is they target our own infrastructure. Their programs intentionally mislead corporate partners. They tell corporate partners these are safe standards. Hey, we need to work with you to secure the system. But in reality their giving bad advice to these companies that makes them degrade the security of their services. They are building in back doors, that not only the NSA can exploit, but anyone else who has time and money to research and find, to let themselves in to the world’s communications. This is really dangerous because if we lose a single standard, if we lose the trust of something like SSL, which was specifically targeted by Bull Run, we will live in a less safe world overall. We won’t be able to access our banks, and we will not be able to access commerce without worrying about people monitoring those communications and subverting them for their own use.

    TED: Do those same decisions also potentially open America up to cyber attacks from other sources?

    Snowden: Absolutely. If we hack a Chinese business and steal their secrets, if we hack a government office in Berlin and steal their secrets, that has less value to the American people than making sure that the Chinese cannot get access to our secrets. By reducing the security of our communications, they are not only putting the world at risk, they are putting America at risk in a fundamental way. Intellectual property is the foundation of our economy. If we put that at risk with weak security, we are going to be paying for it for years.

    TED: They have made a calculation it is worth doing this as part of America’s defense against terrorism.

    Snowden: When you look at the results of these programs to stop terrorism, you will see that is unfounded. You don’t have to take my word for it. The first court that has reviewed this outside the secrecy arrangement, called these program Orwellian and likely unconstitutional. Two independent White House panels that reviewed all of the classified evidence said these programs have never stopped a single terrorist attack in the United States. So is it really terrorism that we are stopping? Do these programs have any value at all?

    TED: [pointing to a newspaper clip that reads “I would love to put a bullet in his head one Pentagon official told BuzzFeed”] How are you coping with this?

    Snowden: I’ve made clear, again and again and again that I go to sleep every morning thinking about what I can do for the American people. I don’t want to harm my government. I want to help my government. But the fact they are completely willing to ignore due process, they are willing to declare guilt without ever seeing a trial, these are things we need to work against. We shouldn’t be threatening citizens. We shouldn’t be criminalizing journalists. And whatever part I can do to see that end, I am happy to do that. .....

    [Regarding optimism] Snowden: I am living proof that an individual can go head to head against the most powerful adversaries and the most powerful intelligence agencies around the world, and win. That is something we need to take hope from. Journalism is not a crime, communication is not a crime and we should not be monitored on our everyday activities. 

    TED: The New York Times called for amnesty. Would you welcome the chance to come back to America?

    Snowden: Absolutely. The principles that have been the foundation of this project have been the public interest. ... The government has hinted they want some kind of deal. That they want me to compromise the journalists with which I have been working, to come back. And i want to make it very clear, that I did not do this to be safe. I did this to do what was right. And I am not going to stop my work in the public’s interest, just to benefit myself. [applause] ... We don’t have to give up our privacy to have good government. We don’t have to give up our liberty to have security. And I think by working together, we can have both open government and private lives. And I look forward to working with everyone around the world to see that happen. Thank you very much. [Standing ovation]

    Le sous-titrage en français de la vidéo devrait suivre. (st anglais disponible) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVwAodrjZMY

    #sécurité_nationale #liberté

  • American Jihad 2014
    The New Fundamentalists
    By Tom Engelhardt


    Imagine what we call “national security” as, at heart, a proselytizing warrior religion. It has its holy orders. It has its sacred texts (classified). It has its dogma and its warrior priests. It has its sanctified promised land, known as “the homeland.” It has its seminaries, which we call think tanks. It is a monotheistic faith in that it broaches no alternatives to itself. It is Manichaean in its view of the world. As with so many religions, its god is an eye in the sky, an all-seeing Being who knows your secrets.

    #Religion #Sécurité_nationale #Etats-Unis

  • Ties With Egypt Army Constrain Washington - NYTimes.com

    La sempiternelle fumisterie de « #nos_valeurs » vs #nos_intérêts" ("notre #sécurité_nationale") avec des journalistes du New York Times comme porte-parole du régime étasunien.

    Nul allié au monde n’est plus conciliant que le #CSFA,

    Most nations, including many close allies of the United States, require up to a week’s notice before American warplanes are allowed to cross their territory. Not Egypt, which offers near-automatic approval for military overflights, to resupply the war effort in Afghanistan or to carry out counterterrorism operations in the Middle East, Southwest Asia or the Horn of Africa.

    Losing that route could significantly increase flight times to the region.

    American warships are also allowed to cut to the front of the line through the Suez Canal in times of crisis, even when oil tankers are stacked up like cars on an interstate highway at rush hour. Without Egypt’s cooperation, military missions could take days longer.

    Those are some of the largely invisible ways the Egyptian military has assisted the United States as it pursues its national security interests across the region — and why the generals now in charge in Cairo are not without their own leverage in dealing with Washington in the aftermath of President Obama’s condemnation Thursday of the military’s bloody crackdown on supporters of the former president, Mohamed Morsi.

    Même la « mesure punitive » de Obama n’était qu’une mesure de protection des troupes étasuniennes,

    In his first overtly punitive step, Mr. Obama canceled the Bright Star military exercise, the largest and most visible sign of cooperation between the armed forces of the two nations. But given the growing violence in Egypt, it might have been impossible to guarantee the safety of the thousands of American troops scheduled to deploy for the war game, and the decision to call it off might have been the wise move regardless of the politics.

    Et, affirme-t-on sans rire, de véritables mesures sont d’autant plus difficiles à prendre que « nos intérêts » coïncident avec le chemin de la démocratie en Egypte,

    For the Pentagon, which had earlier delayed the delivery of four F-16 fighter jets to the Egyptian Air Force, other steps might be more difficult.

    “We need them for the Suez Canal, we need them for the peace treaty with Israel, we need them for the overflights, and we need them for the continued fight against violent extremists who are as much of a threat to Egypt’s transition to democracy as they are to American interests,” said Gen. James N. Mattis, who retired this year as head of the military’s Central Command.

    Le message étasunien au CSFA sera donc : Frappez aussi sauvagement que vous voulez, mais terminez vite,...

    “The violence is intolerable, but clearly they feel the nation of Egypt is facing a sovereign, existential crisis,” said one Obama administration official. “So while the violence is intolerable, we may be able to eventually accept these decisions if the violence ends, and quickly.”

    ...un souhait qui a l’inconvénient d’être bancal,

    The risk is that the United States may be left standing by as its allies in the Egyptian military lose control of the crisis.

    En réalité nul allié au monde n’est plus conciliant que le CSFA pour aider le régime étasunien à commettre ses crimes dans la région...

    For decades the Egyptians have helped the American military in ways that are largely unknown to the American public, said Robert Springborg, a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif., and an expert on the Egyptian military. Mr. Springborg noted that in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 — after the Turkish Parliament refused to allow the American military to use Turkish territory for crossing into Iraq from the north — Egypt gave the Pentagon immediate access for two aircraft battle groups and accompanying aircraft through the Suez Canal and across its territory.

    Given the number of countries in the region that do not allow American military overflights, especially for combat missions, Egypt’s location makes it a vital, and relatively direct, access route to an unstable crescent of strategic importance.

    ...et aider Israël à commettre les siens,

    Egypt’s role in the Camp David agreements has also been of critical value for America’s closest ally in the region, Israel.

    En y réfléchissant bien il reste une aile de F-16 qui n’a pas encore été livrée cette année et dont la non fourniture pourrait servir de mesure punitive,...

    All of the aid for this year already has been authorized, so even an order to halt the financial assistance would not have an impact until next year. In the meantime, Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich Persian Gulf nations have increased their financial support to Egypt, far surpassing the American contribution.

    Beyond delaying shipment of the F-16 warplanes, officials said, there are few unfulfilled weapons contracts that could be held up as a punitive measure.

    ...au-delà, le « contre-productif » se profile,

    American officials looking at ways to punish the Egyptian military for the order to clear Muslim Brotherhood protest sites have looked to the lesson of Pakistan, which came under economic sanctions for its nuclear program.

    Among the actions taken was ending a program of inviting young Pakistani military officers to attend armed service academic programs in the United States. One result has been a generation of Pakistani officers with no affinity for — and, more often, hostility toward — the American military. A similar result could occur if the next generation of promising Egyptian officers were not invited to American military schools.

    Il ne reste plus qu’à souhaiter que le CSFA se rende compte que la perpétuation de la violence n’est pas bonne pour son prolifique bizness ("l’économie de l’Egypte"),...

    In the end, one powerful incentive for the generals to quickly end the civil unrest and establish order — and try to make good on promises to begin a transition to legitimate governance might be economic — to attract tourism and investment. And also to preserve Egypt’s relationship with the United States.

    ... et arrive à restaurer le moubarakisme,

    “Both sides have a strong interest in preserving it and will work to that end,” Mr. Springborg said. “The Egyptian military will take steps to clothe the military’s behind-the-scene rule with suitable civilian trappings, making it possible for the U.S. and others to deal with it.”


    • Concernant la non livraison des armes comme « mesure punitive », cet article de 2012 du même NYT reconnait que la punition concernerait réellement le contribuable étasunien, et non pas les dictateurs militaires égyptiens, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/24/world/middleeast/once-imperiled-united-states-aid-to-egypt-is-restored.html

      A delay or a cut in $1.3 billion in military aid to Egypt risked breaking existing contracts with American arms manufacturers that could have shut down production lines in the middle of President Obama’s re-election campaign and involved significant financial penalties, according to officials involved in the debate.

      Since the Pentagon buys weapons for foreign armed forces like Egypt’s, the cost of those penalties — which one senior official said could have reached $2 billion if all sales had been halted — would have been borne by the American taxpayer, not Egypt’s ruling generals.

  • Follow the Money: The Secret Heart of the Secret State

    Personne, nulle part, n’a écrit sur les implications plus profondes et plus larges des révélations #Snowden à part Arthur Silber.

    Dans une série d’essais puissants et perspicaces, Silber a, entre autres, mis à nu les dangers de l’approche déplaisante de type « gardien- gatekeeper- » des journalistes (de, ironiquement, le Guardian), notamment leur présentation goutte à goutte soigneusement auto-censurée de la célèbre présentation Powerpoint que Snowden a sécrété des entrailles de l’appareil du renseignement des Etats Stasi.

    Évitant l’approche Wikileaks, les gardiens du Guardian ne nous ont pas laisser jugé le matériel par nous-mêmes, préférant adopter, sans le savoir, la même approche que l’appareil : "nous sommes les gardiens du savoir, nous allons décider de ce que vous devez savoir". Comme Silber le note, cela ne vicie pas la valeur de ces révélations, mais cela dilue leur impact, laissant des lacunes que l’appareil - et ses apologistes vraiment repoussants des « médias libéraux » - peuvent exploiter pour continuer à brouiller les cartes.

    Il explore ces ramifications, et d’autres, dans "In Praise of Mess, Chaos and Panic" et "Fed Up With All the Bullshit ." Dans sa dernière pièce, « Intelligence, Corporatism and the Dance of Death", il va au cœur corrodé de la question, le profond, sombre, et pas si secret secret que nos gardiens de secrets tentent de masquer derrière leurs blizzards de conneries : tout est lié aux Benjamins. Après avoir constaté l’externalisation gargantuesque du « renseignement » à des entrepreneurs privés comme Booz Allen - l’entreprise même qui employait Snowden - Silber donne un précis rapide de l’essence du capitalisme soutenu par l’État.

    Le plus grand secret de polichinelle que toutes ces secousses rampantes sont en train de cacher est le secret du corporatisme (ou ce que Gabriel Kolko nomme « capitalisme politique ») :

    Il n’y a rien dans le monde qui ne puisse être transformé en une énorme affaire lucrative pour l’Etat et ses amis privilégiés dans l’entreprise « privée », en même temps que c’est utilisé pour amasser encore plus de pouvoir.

    La tendance est la même dans tous les secteurs, de l’agriculture, au secteur manufacturier, à tous les aspects du transport, à l’escroquerie de l’assurance maladie, à tout ce que vous pouvez nommer. Dans une version commune, des intérêts particuliers vont vers l’Etat exigeant régulation et protection de l’État contre les forces de "déstabilisation" qui, selon eux, menacent le bien-être de la nation (par quoi, ils signifient les concurrents qui menacent leurs profits). L’État s’exécute avec enthousiasme, les législateurs coopératifs bénéficiant de récompenses de toutes sortes et variétés. (...)

    Silber continue alors :

    ... Mais c’est de la menue monnaie. L’argent réel est ailleurs - dans, par exemple, la politique étrangère elle-même. Vous pensiez probablement que la politique étrangère avait un rapport avec les menaces contre la "sécurité nationale", la propagation de la démocratie, la paix, ainsi que tout autre slogan mensonger qu’ils jettent dans les environs comme un cadavre putride. (...) Malgré la propagande incessante du contraire, ils ne sont pas très préoccupés par les menaces graves à notre bien-être national, pour la simple raison qu’il n’y en a pas : "Aucune nation n’oserait monter une attaque sérieuse contre les Etats-Unis, précisément parce qu’ils savent combien sont puissants les États-Unis - parce que ce n’est pas secret ". (...)

    #sécurité_nationale_des_Etats-Unis #argent #prédation #crimes #banditisme

  • « Le #Livre_blanc de la défense entérine une doctrine bien peu démocratique » (Observatoire des #armements)

    On a oublié un peu trop facilement que le précédent Livre blanc (2008) avait suscité de nombreuses critiques en faisant entrer la « sécurité nationale » dans le répertoire français, un concept tout droit tiré de la politique « #anti-terroriste » américaine.

    Ce concept fait des #militaires les auxiliaires d’une politique plus large, dont le président de la République est le maître d’œuvre, aux côtés de son ministre de l’Intérieur, qui devient presque un vice-Premier ministre en cas de crise grave (attaque terroriste, crise environnementale, émeutes urbaines...).

    En pratique, la doctrine d’emploi des forces armées a été élargie au-delà de la seule réponse à une agression contre le territoire national ou les « intérêts vitaux » de la France. De fait, la doctrine de « #sécurité_nationale » donne au pouvoir en place les moyens de réagir contre toute « menace » ou « risque » qu’il estimerait susceptible d’affecter la vie de la nation.


    De même, sous bien des aspects, l’intervention française au #Mali concrétise de manière clinquante la philosophie sécuritaire du Livre blanc de 2008. La précédente livraison considérait déjà le Sahel – intégré dans « l’arc de crise » qui s’étend de la Mauritanie à la Corne de l’Afrique » – comme une périphérie menaçante pour la France.

    Le Nord du Mali présenterait toutes les caractéristiques de ces « zones grises » mettant en danger la sécurité hexagonale : présence de groupes « djihadistes » liés à Al-Qaida, plaque tournante du trafic de drogue, trafics d’armes légères…

    On le voit, la grille d’analyse est « policière » plus que « géopolitique » ou « sociale » et conduit de fait à minimiser le rôle de la gouvernance, la question du partage des richesses et des rapports de force ethno-nationaux.


    Mais l’intervention au Mali a permis aux auteurs du nouveau Livre blanc de justifier l’utilité des forces prépositionnées en Afrique : celles installées au Tchad, en Côte d’Ivoire et au Mali, alors qu’elles étaient remises en cause dans le Livre blanc de 2008 au nom de la rupture consommée avec la « #Françafrique ».

    On objectera que la ficelle est un peu grosse, mais elle fonctionne pourtant. En cela, le « hollandisme » appliqué s’inscrit dans le droit fil de ses prédécesseurs. La crise au Mali a offert à l’Élysée l’opportunité de restaurer une partie de son influence en Afrique dans un contexte très concurrentiel, où s’épuisait sa surface de rayonnement.

    Le répertoire de la guerre contre le terrorisme a fourni « les marges de manœuvre » nécessaires à cette ambition. Rappelons que l’opération au Mali a été déclenchée hors de tout mandat de l’ONU, sur simple demande du Président malien.

  • Quand la DCRI cherchent à censurer Wikipedia : les admins se dé-op… et paff l’effet Streisand : Reflets

    La Fondation Wikimedia, qui maintient l’infrastructure technique de Wikipédia, aurait donc reçu une requête de suppression de la page mais aurait refusé de s’executer au motif que la demande de la DCRI ne présentait pas de motivations suffisantes pour justifier un retrait. C’est suite à ce refus que la DCRI aurait alors jeté son dévolu sur Rémi Mathis qui jouissait alors de droits administrateur. Comme l’explique la fondation sur son blog, des pressions ont très probablement été exercées sur Rémi Mathis qui s’est vu retiré ses droits administrateur. Comme l’expliquent les discussions à propos de cette page, les droit lui ont été retirés pour le protéger des pression de la DCRI.

    Pire, TOUS les administrateurs français ayant des responsabilités à Wikimedia France ont abandonné leurs privilèges sur le site pour éviter d’avoir à subir les mêmes pressions que Rémi Mathis… merci la DCRI, ceci est une première mondiale et c’est en France que ça se passe !