Il n'y a pas de commentaires associés a cet article. Vous pouvez réagir.
637Qu’est-ce que la guerre ? Qu’est-ce que la loi (notamment le War Powers Act de 1973) par rapport à la guerre ? Pressée de tous côtés par les exigences de la législation tatillonne de la Grande République et une humeur morose et de plus en plus délétère, au Congrès et même jusque dans la presse-Système, l’administration Obama se débat dans ses définitions de ce qui est guerre et de ce qui n’est pas guerre, confrontés aux diverses contradictions distillées par un Système en mode de pilotage automatique. Les sarcasmes, les insinuations, les coups fourrés accompagnent cet exercice de haute voltige effectué dans un pot de mélasse, le tout pouvant conduire sans y prendre garde à une “crise constitutionnelle”, selon l’observation du député démocrate Dennis Kucinich.
D’abord un extrait d’un article du Washington Post du 21 juin 2011, décrivant l’administration Obama confrontée à la contradiction de ses affirmations qu’il n’y a pas de guerre, et la décision du Pentagone d’allouer une “prime de guerre” mensuelle de $225 au personnel engagé dans les opérations libyennes.
«The White House has officially declared that what’s happening in Libya is not “hostilities.” But at the Pentagon, officials have decided it’s unsafe enough there to give troops extra pay for serving in “imminent danger.”
»The Defense Department decided in April to pay an extra $225 a month in “imminent danger pay” to service members who fly planes over Libya or serve on ships within 110 nautical miles of its shores. That means the Pentagon has decided that troops in those places are “subject to the threat of physical harm or imminent danger because of civil insurrection, civil war, terrorism or wartime conditions.” There are no U.S. ground troops in Libya.
»President Obama declared last week that the three-month-old Libyan campaign should not be considered “hostilities.” That word is important, because it’s used in the 1973 War Powers Resolution: Presidents must obtain congressional authorization within a certain period after sending U.S. forces “into hostilities.”
»Obama’s reasoning was that he did not need that authorization because U.S. forces were playing a largely supportive and logistical role, and because Libyan defenses are so battered they pose little danger. U.S. drones are still carrying out some strikes against Libyan targets. Overall, the White House reasoned, “U.S. military operations [in Libya] are distinct from the kind of ‘hostilities’ contemplated by the resolution.”
»On Monday, a spokesman for House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said the Pentagon’s decision was further proof that Obama’s logic is flawed. “If members of our armed forces involved in the military action in Libya are getting ‘imminent danger’ pay, it’s one more indication that the White House claim that we aren’t involved in ‘hostilities’ just doesn’t pass the straight-face test,” said Boehner spokesman Michael Steel.
»Asked Monday whether the White House finding contradicted the Pentagon’s, an Obama spokesman declined to comment.»
Puis, pour enchaîner là-dessus, un extrait d’un discours de Ron Paul, manifestement écrit dans l’esprit d’une ironie sarcastique. Le député républicain du Texas et antiwar notoire s’exerce au jeu de savoir, selon les arguments et la position de l’administration Obama, ce qui est une guerre et ce qui n’est pas une guerre. (Sur Antiwar.com notamment, le 21 juin 2011.)
«Last week I joined six Republican and three Democratic colleagues to file a lawsuit against the Obama administration over its illegal war against Libya. Now that more than 90 days have passed since the president began bombing Libya, no one can seriously claim that the administration has complied with the clear requirements of the 1973 War Powers Resolution.
»In a remarkable act of chutzpah, the administration sent to Congress its response to the growing concern over its abuse of war powers. Its argument, in a nutshell, is that the War Powers Resolution is not relevant because U.S. armed forces are not actually engaged in hostilities because Libya is so militarily weak it cannot fight back! This explanation would be laughable if not so horrific. The administration wants us to believe that there is no real violence because the victim cannot fight back? Imagine if this standard were applied to criminal law in the United States! I am sure Libyans on the receiving end of U.S. and NATO bombs feel hostilities are quite definitely taking place.
»We must recall the origins of these attacks on Libya. The Obama administration made no claim that Libyan leader Gadhafi was killing his civilian population. Rather, the claim was that Libya might begin killing its civilians in the future. One need not defend Gadhafi’s regime—and I most certainly do not—to object to this flimsy and dangerous rationale for violating the sovereignty of another country. Imagine a scenario where the UN approves military action against the United States as a preventive humanitarian measure over U.S. enforcement of its immigration laws, for example!»
dedefensa.org
-
