L’Amérique est-elle une dictature ? La référence hitlérienne

Le déchaînement de cette pensée critique qui refuse désormais l’argument du sacrilège et en appelle à la référence hitlérienne existe également chez les critiques plus “techniques” (que dans le cas de WSWS.org). On cite ici Jacob G. Hornberger avec son texte “A Democratic Dictatorship”, du 25 août 2006, sur le site de The Future of Freedom Foundation.

Hornberger apprécie le comportement législatif de l’administration GW Bush par rapport aux arguments fondamentaux (la guerre sans fin) que cette administration s’arroge. L’analogie hitlérienne est utilisée, cette fois du point de vue législatif ; analogie d’autant plus acceptable que Hitler fut élu démocratiquement et qu’il installa au départ un fonctionnement démocratique. Hornberger en déduit qu’avec le régime mis en place aujourd’hui à Washington, on se dirigerait vers la même situation, y compris avec le fait que les forces armées US pourraient se conduire aux USA exactement comme elles se conduisent en Irak. Il remarque également que le successeur de GW Bush aura les mêmes pouvoirs discrétionnaires et la même mission (conduire la “guerre sans fin”) ; en quelque sorte, il sera prisonnier du régime mis en place par GW et le reste.

« The president cites two primary justifications for exercising omnipotent power, which he interweaves. First, he says that Congress authorized him to take whatever measures he deemed necessary to seek out and arrest or destroy the terrorists who were responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Second, he says that since we are now at war — the “war on terrorism” — he is able to exercise omnipotent powers as the nation’s military commander in chief.

» Bush’s first justification involves the congressional resolution that was enacted in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, which authorized him to use force against those who had conspired to carry out the attacks.

» Ironically, Bush’s justification is quite similar to the one that Hitler used to justify his dictatorial powers. After the terrorist attack on the German parliament building, Hitler went to his legislature and argued for a temporary suspension of civil liberties. After heated discussion and debate, including Hitler’s suggestion that such legislation was necessary to protect the freedom of the German people, the necessary number of votes for passage was finally secured. The law granting dictatorial powers to Hitler became known as the “Enabling Act.”

» How is this different, in principle, from Bush’s claim that the authorization-of-force resolution that Congress enacted immediately after 9/11 gave him omnipotent powers to deal with the “terrorists”?

(…)

» Bush’s other justification for the assumption and exercise of omnipotent powers is his role as commander in chief of the armed forces during a time of war. What war? The “war on terrorism,” which, again ironically, was the same type of war that Hitler declared after terrorists struck the Reichstag with a firebomb.

» There is one crucial difference between Hitler’s claim of power and Bush’s claim of power, however. The Enabling Act was only a temporary grant of powers. Each time it was set to expire, Hitler would duly return to the Reichstag and secure legislation “temporarily” extending it.

» Bush’s rationale for his omnipotent powers, on the other hand, is that, as the nation’s military commander in chief in the “war on terrorism,” his omnipotent powers will last as long as the war continues. Of course, since it is impossible to know with any degree of certainty when the last terrorist is exterminated or neutralized, that means that for all practical purposes the “war on terrorism” is perpetual, which means that Bush’s powers are perpetual as well (and will as well be held by his democratically elected successor in 2009).

(…)

» Here is the unvarnished truth that Americans are trying to avoid confronting: Both the president and the Pentagon have repeatedly emphasized that the nation is at war. It is a war against the “terrorists.” In this war, the entire world is the battlefield, including both Iraq and the United States.

» In this war, the president is the nation’s commander in chief and, as such, wields omnipotent powers to defeat the enemy and win the war. These powers include the power to arrest and punish Americans as illegal “enemy combatants” — denying them jury trials, due process, lawyers, or any federal court interference. They have the power to take people into custody and transport them to foreign regimes for torture. They have the power to record telephone conversations without warrants.

» In other words, the president and the Pentagon have the same powers to wage their “war on terrorism” in the United States as they have in Iraq. Yes, you read that right — Iraq. That is the logical consequence of what these people are saying. They have the power to do everything they’re doing in Iraq right here in the United States: the power to break people’s doors down and search their homes and businesses without warrants; the power to arrest and indefinitely detain people; the power to torture and abuse prisoners and detainees; the power to fire missiles into cars or apartment complexes where the “terrorists” are traveling or hiding out; the power to confiscate guns. »

Mis en ligne le 3 septembre 2006 à 06H39