General Wesley Clark: Some WWII-Style Internment Camps Are Just The Thing We Need To Fight Domestic Radicalization
from the perhaps-separate-restrooms-for-'radicals'-might-curb-their-enthusiasm dept
So, we're engaged in a war of sorts. Against capital-T "Terror." It's a very ambiguous war that couples troop deployments with a dense mesh of surveillance programs. As is the case with all wars, there are those "up top" who see the only way to fight back -- or just "secure" the nation -- is to expand the government's powers.
Many horrible decisions have been made during times of war. In the past, some of these moves may have seemed more justifiable. The enemies were more tangible. They moved above ground, using vehicles and infantry. The stakes were higher, with countries being invaded and their citizens forced to live in uninterrupted terror. The United States government did some very regrettable things -- most notably, the forced incarceration of US citizens of Japanese descent in internment camps.
Most people look back at this with disgust -- an example of what not to do during times of war. But a lot of that hindsight vanished along with the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. The government took control of the situation in the immediate aftermath, with an emphasis on "control." Spying powers and military authorities were vastly expanded. An entirely new agency -- the Department of Homeland Security -- came into being and swiftly became the Border Patrol-on-steroids, expanding "papers, please" harassment across, and into, the country. The TSA set up shop in every airport and swiftly proved more capable of abusing power than securing air travel.
Fourteen years on and very few lessons have been learned. Many government officials seem to still be under the impression that every day is another September 11th. Or would be, if not for these expanded powers. There but for Executive Order 12333 go we as a nation. Security has a cost, but the estimate keeps changing.
Officials keep hoping we can head off another attack by catching "radicals" and "extremists" before they can do any damage. The FBI has set up an entire cottage industry based on little more than entrapment. Maybe these people being "radicalized" are just too hard to find. Maybe that's why the FBI has to do 90% of the "radicalization" on its own before swooping in to save the nation from daydreamers and shit-talkers who have the misfortune of being "befriended" by its undercover agents.
General Wesley Clark has a solution. In an interview with Thomas Roberts on MSNBC, General Clark (who was last seen at Techdirt telling Congress that P2P software was a threat to national security) suggests a return to the WWII good old days might be the only way to stamp out the threat of self-radicalizing "lone wolves." (via Crooks and Liars)
We have got to identify the people who are most likely to be radicalized. We've got to cut this off at the beginning. There are always a certain number of young people who are alienated. They don't get a job, they lost a girlfriend, their family doesn't feel happy here and we can watch the signs of that. And there are members of the community who can reach out to those people and bring them back in and encourage them to look at their blessings here.So, the nation's intelligence agencies need to be looking for underemployed weirdos who can't maintain a relationship or exude positivity about their current situation. Then they need to do something about these potential "lone wolves." Like, put them all in one place where we can keep an eye on them.
But I do think on a national policy level we need to look at what self-radicalization means because we are at war with this group of terrorists. They do have an ideology. In World War II if someone supported Nazi Germany at the expense of the United States, we didn't say that was freedom of speech, we put him in a camp, they were prisoners of war.Free speech for some, indefinite detainment for others! USA! USA! USA!
So, if these people are radicalized and they don't support the United States and they are disloyal to the United States, as a matter of principle fine. It's their right and it's our right and obligation to segregate them from the normal community for the duration of the conflict. And I think we're going to have to increasingly get tough on this, not only in the United States but our allied nations like Britain, Germany and France are going to have to look at their domestic law procedures.Nothing says "you're never getting out of here" like "for the duration of the conflict." Does anyone foresee an end to the War on Terror in their lifetime? (You youngsters milling around towards the back waiting for your Ubers and Amazon drone deliveries are encouraged to speak up.) How about in their kids' lifetimes? There is no endgame. There is only constant wariness and the endless grasping for more control and power.
This is a war we can't end. We can't even bow out and awkwardly "agree to disagree" like we did in Vietnam and Korea. It is the true "forever war." Even if ISIS becomes just another Al-Qaeda and fades from prominence, something else will take its place. There will always be those who feel violence is the only way to get results. But General Clark wants certain kinds of speech to be punished with neverending imprisonment. He wants a return to one of the most morally-dark moments in American history. For national security.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: free speech, internment camps, war on terror, wesley clark
Reader Comments
The First Word
“If we aren't going to guarantee basic rights, then if we lose, the only thing that changes is who holds the prison keys.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No
Not unless the government manages to regains at least a small sliver of sanity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No
The estimate is not changing. The cost of security is freedom...
Again, we are seeing that the greatest capacity for evil comes from the institutionalization of human nature in the form of government... and this one has been rooted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No
How about if the US gov't declares war on the US gov't? That should give them an adversary that'll keep 'em busy.
Just the gov't, mind you. Keep the rest of us out of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/07/10/pentagon-concludes-america-safe-unless-conquers-wo rld-paul-craig-roberts-3/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No
I used to think that the US disliked Russia because it was communist - but it hasn't been communist for 25 years+ now and the US still seems to assume instnctively that it is an enemy - whilst states that are much further from US values such as Saudi Arabia are regarded as allies.
Thus is ironic because the terrorism that has most affected the US originated in Saudi Arabia.
So while there is a disconnect between the states /ideologies that actually sponsor terrorism and those that the US blames for it then there is no chance of any progress and the "war on terror" cannot end.
It really does help if you take on the right target.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No
Of course, you could always ask Ukraine if Russia is sponsoring terrorism. You may get a different answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No
I guess that depends on where you ask this question. The gov might say that they do but those Ukraine regions in which civilians are killed by ukraine soldiers might have a different point of view. But I guess the argument is void because only the Gov point of view counts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No
For most of that period the enemy was overwhelmingly the Soviet Union - a very different entity from Russia. The US was unwilling to recognise the change that happened between 1986 and 1991 and hence hade made Russia into more of an enemy than it should have been.
Post 1991 there was no real reason to regard Russia in a worse light than any other ex Soviet/Warsaw pact country. Unfortunately the US had formed alliances with nationalist movements in Eastern Europe, the Baltics etc on the basis that they were anti-communist - when in fact they were as much anti-Russian. Once the Soviet Union ceased to exist the West should have dropped these movements and adopted a policy of even handedness on the old national rivalries that re-surfaced. The current anti-western mood in Russia that has driven Putin's policies is the direct result of this mistake.
you could always ask Ukraine if Russia is sponsoring terrorism.
Whatever Russia might be up to in Ukraine it cannot be described as terrorism. Also it depends who you ask. To many in Ukraine it looks like the West sponsored a coup.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No
I don't see why not. We described the Taliban as terrorists, and the situations are almost identical.
And I agree that there's no real reason to regard Russia worse than the rest of the Soviet bloc, but the reality is that it is regarded as worse, and if you go around asking Americans, they'll tell you that the Soviet Union is just what Russia was called prior to 1991.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No
Taliban ruled Afghanistan was harbouring AQ and bin Laden. Russia spent most of the '90s trying to recover from the collapse of the USSR, and fighting Chechen rebels. What Russia's doing in Ukraine now is trying to protect its naval port on the Black Sea, and protect ethnic Russians from a US & NATO backed puppet regime.
How soon we forget.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No
I don't see why not. We described the Taliban as terrorists, and the situations are almost identical.
Actually we didn't describe the Taliban as terrorists. We accused them of harbouring terrorists (Al- Qaeda).
If you could point to some acts of terrorism. (ie violent acts designed to be effective by intimidation rather than by the direct defence or acquisition of territory) then you might have a point - but you can't because what Russia is doing (if it is doing anything directly) is old fashioned direct warfare.
If anything the acts of terrorism are coming from the Ukrainian government side.
the reality is that it is regarded as worse, and if you go around asking Americans, they'll tell you that the Soviet Union is just what Russia was called prior to 1991.
If that is true it is a really frightening indictment of the American public's view of the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The US had relations with the Russian Tzar.
Yes. Containment started with freakin' Wilson, a factoid omitted by most 20th century school history books.
There was a jolly time in WWII when the Soviets and the US got on, but Stalin was Stalin, and the only reason we tolerated him was because he wasn't Hitler. If it wasn't Stalin US / USSR relations might have been better.
Then there's that whole Cold War bit.
So yeah, the US government and the Russian government don't like each other very much. Speaking as a US citizen, I think Russian literature and computer games are pretty swell. And I can't even say communism got a fair shake in the USSR.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The US had relations with the Russian Tzar.
I don't believe that. Churchill was rabidly anti-communist and suckered the US into going along, and boy did the US go along once it got started. We're only now digging our way out of the hole Churchill dug in Iran with CIA footsoldiers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The US had relations with the Russian Tzar.
Nobody could have predicted that Stalin would take over the administration of the state and therefore the reins of power, and run it for his own imperialist benefit. The USSR was ostensibly a bloc of communist states but in truth it was an empire, with every member nation firmly under Mother Russia's thumb.
Remember Hungary 1956? Remember the gulags? That's the power of a centralised authoritarian administration, people. And people go along with it because they need a point of reference and a cult of personality built around a figurehead provides that. And there's nothing in communism to prevent that from happening.
So yeah, communism got a fair shake all right. It's just that blue-sky fantasies that fail to take human nature into consideration are ultimately doomed to failure.
The American system is better; if the Constitution was actually being followed it would be the best system but it's being supplanted by neoliberalism. People buy into it because they're afraid of the commie boogeyman. What they don't realise is that all authoritarianism is bad, particularly when it's centralised and runs the administration.
It doesn't matter what the tune is or who is playing it, we still end up dancing. We need to wake up to that fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Communism vs. the Truth about Human Nature
Every system of government (and every economic model) is going to have to be tweaked in order to get it right. Marxist communism as much as the American republic. And considering George W. Bush's regime, the US system has already demonstrated that our electoral system neither prevents the election of tyrants nor stops them from operating to exploit the nation's resources. We still get the Joffreys and Caligulas ...and the Stalins of our own.
SPQR lasted a millennium, so the US itself has a while to go, and if we see a state failure in the next century ours will go down in history as a pan flash then a legitimate effort to civilize. And right now, it looks like we're either going to fail or return to the same abusive plutocratic state that humans have suffered for eons, only now we are ruled by corporations that suffer from diffusion of responsibility, so they don't even feel guilty when the peasants starve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The US had relations with the Russian Tzar.
I find it worrying that you don't seem to recognise the difference between the Soviet government and the Russian government.
For a while after 1991 the Russians tried to follow the US capitalist prescriptions and the result was disaster. The country was robbed clean by the oligarchs and went down hill rapidly and, worse still, was not much rewarded diplomatically by the west for its trouble.
Putin came in and put a stop to this process and has revived the country considerably (admittedly partly aided by oil revenue). I visited in 1994 and again in 2013 and the difference is quite remarkable.
Consequently he is well like by the Russians and it will take quite a lot to change that. People remember how bad the 1990s were.
Communism was a Western invention that never really fitted Russia. It is not surprising that it didn't work there. It was better suited to Germany (indeed East Germany was quite a successful state).
The current Russian government has little to do with communism. I did see/meet a few old communists on my last visit and they were a pathetic bunch, frankly in enial aboiut what has happened.
The big story in Russia of the last 20 years is the revival of the Orthodox church - which the west has largely ignored except when it sees a way to put a negative spin on it.
In St Petersburg 2 years ago I saw a small group of communist demonstrators (maybe 10 people). Just around the corner was a queue to get into the Kazan Cathedral where the Cross of St Andrew was visiting with the Patriarch of Moscow. The queue stretched around several blocks and totalled probably amile in length. I walked along it for half an hour without reaching the end.
That is the scale of the change in Russia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The difference of government between the Soviet Russia and Contemporary Russia
You should find it worrying that my nation's government doesn't see much of a difference.
To be fair, I don't have a strong knowledge of mechanations of Russian state. I see the tons of gay-identity oppression (from which I derive that Russian state and society oppress plenty of other social misfits and counter-cultures* I saw Pussy Riot thrown in jail for dissent and then them complain about inhumane prison conditions* I saw Putin's attitude (which I cannot be certain is particularly Soviet or particularly Russian) over the Olympics re: Of course we'll be monitoring you in your bathtub. Of course we'll be arresting and detaining your gays. Of course we're going to confiscate anything that offends our delicate Russian sensibilities.
This is the news from Russia (or at least of Putin) that makes it here. Whether or not these are the products of Soviet political councils or Orthodox church pressure on elected officials is really immaterial to me, personally. It just looks like the outcome stinks regardless. And this is not to say we have it necessary better here in the US, but here we know our system is corrupt to the core. We know US democracy has failed and now serves only monied interests. We know that we're not going to see our way out of this through peaceable reform, but, short of some Gandhi-esque miracle will have to take up arms to restore rule to the people.
Oh. And I saw the sociopolitical quagmire that is the current conflict over Crimea. All I can say about that is to wish Russia and Ukraine the best of luck and reason in sorting that mess out.
And yes, the rumor around here is that Putin is ex-KGB and pines for the good old days.
* ...as is a problem here in the US. This is by no means a statement of moral superiority.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No
General Wesley Clark is no longer a general. He's retired, and the general is merely an honorific applied to his service, which I do not denegrate. When he is speaking as a partisan, then the honorific should no longer apply. He is now Wesley Clark, partisan.
As to the 'war' he speak of, it applies to the 'war on drugs', the 'war on terrorism', the 'war on (people we don't like place here)', all undeclared wars, in the legal 'congress declared war on' sense. This, however, does not preclude anyone from prosecuting those wars. How unfortunate, and what are we doing about that?
The problem comes with who defines a radicalized person. If I state that I don't like Wesley Clark, does that make me radicalized? If the FBI cooks up some plot and encompasses a marginally coherent individual, does that make them radicalized, or a manipulated person of diminished capabilities. There is a difference between being Muslim and being a fundamentalist Muslim who is determined to convert the entire world to Islam. This is NOT true for all Muslims.
Unfortunately our courts are not doing their due diligence in determining who are right and who are wrong in these and other instances. When prosecutors are allowed to hide evidence with impunity, how could the truth come out? If law enforcement is allowed to 'create' conspiracies and entrap marginal individuals in order to 'show' their capabilities with impunity, how is justice to be done?
The question that needs to be asked is, when they come for them, how are you going to stop them from coming for you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No
No idea. But if Wesley Clark states he wants to intern everyone he thinks "radicalized", it makes him a dangerous radical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did I read that right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Did I read that right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This spells trouble for most of the Techdirt readership.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Those who do not learn the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad Breakups
Wow. You lose a your girlfriend and they throw you in an internment camp? Even my worst breakups weren't that bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad Breakups
Or worse, you end up married.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bad Breakups
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Married to a secret terrorist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
-Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
It's truly sad when we need the Russians to explain reality to our military officials.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I thought that was the point of Russian lit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow...
One more piece of tinfoil-hattery actually coming true. "Next they'll advocate rounding up dissidents and putting them in internment camps!" Sure, we scoffed. Go back to your conspiracy blog. And now that's exactly what's happening. So what are the conspiracy nutters saying now that's actually going to happen in five years?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wow...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wow...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At the time of the JFK assassination...
The people knew that all sorts of crap was happening, just not specifically what, and so much of it surfaced as UFOs, alternative JFK theories, mind control lasers and so on.
Conspiracy theorists are often wrong about specifics, the notion that ours is a world with very real conspiracies towards reshaping it remains true regardless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wow...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That precedent has NEVER been overturned.
The government lost a later lawsuit about their internment camps, but only because it came out later that the government lied to the Supreme Court to win the earlier ruling. They lied by failing to disclose that their own intelligence showed the internment camps weren't doing any good at accomplishing their stated goals.
So while the case the precedent was based on got reversed, the precedent legalizing internment camps is still on the books.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey! Isn't that how we got here to begin with?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
General Clark, which country are we at a declared war with? Did you know the WWII camps were later declared unconstitutional, even though we WERE in a declared war? Do you anticipate that this "conflict" will EVER end? When? Who defines "disloyalty", the military?
General Clark, you say "It's their right" - how can you simultaneously agree that they have a right to do this, and say that they should be placed in camps for it? You say "it's our right... to segregate them from the normal community for the duration of the conflict" - what part of the Constitution gives you the right to do this to them?
I suppose it's at least a step better than droning them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It still cannot be reconciled with the right to liberty, the right to a fair and speedy trial, and the right to free speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Past Speaketh
So, if these people are radicalized and they don't support the throne and they are disloyal to the King, as a matter of principle fine. It's their right and it's my right and obligation to hang them in front of the community to set an example. And I think we're going to have to increasingly get tough on this, not only in the American colonies but all of our colonies and other nations like Germany and France are going to have to look at their domestic law procedures.
We have got to identify the people who are most likely to be radicalized. We've got to cut this off at the beginning. There are always a certain number of young people who are alienated. They don't get a job, they lost a girlfriend, their family doesn't feel happy here and we can watch the signs of that. And there are members of the community who can reach out to those people and bring them back in and encourage them to look at their blessings under the King.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Past Speaketh
All very fine when the radicals have an ideology of freedom. However the current lot of radicals don't. Their ideology is up there with the most repressive ideologies the world has ever seen.
The problem we are facing is this: Should you tolerate intolerance?
So long as the intolerance does not express itself in actions that impact on the freedom of others then yes you should (that is freedom of speech). However that does not mean that you have to be polite to those who promote intolerance. We have been too polite in the past and that has created the problem. To solve it we need to stop being polite - without resorting to force in the way that Gen Clark suggests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When he ran for president he spoke out against the GWOT. What the hell happened to make him change his mind? Maybe the answer is in the money trail...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's called 'Ensuring job security'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No US general has ever been happy with the enemy simply "losing" a war. No, they must be annihilated, their morale crushed under the iron heel of American superiority. As long as people continue to riot over police shooting black teenagers, than we have not lost the war. As long as activists continue to sue to push through FOIA requests, then we have not lost the war. Until General Clark can walk onto the set of the Late Show and brutally murder David Letterman on live TV without a single sound of protest, then he will not be satisfied in his victory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh good..
Wait.
You don't mean those terrorists, do you General Clark?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're mixing up radicals and non-radicals
Actually, no, there were quite a few you didn't. Cases in point: William Randolph Hearst, Andrew Mellon, Standard Oil of New Jersy, Ford Motor and Henry Ford, International Telephone and Telegraph, Allen Dulles, Prescott Bush, and IBM.
Today, we have HSBC, caught laundering money for drug lords and terrorists; you didn't put any of them in camps, either.
Given those examples, I have to say, General Clark, that your ideas are pretty radical. Maybe we should lock you up in one of those camps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Asteroids are overdue
1. Communism
2. Terrorism
3. Asteroids!
4. Aliens!
Generalized fear works best for this kind of campaign.
Remember the real terror is the people telling you to be afraid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Asteroids are overdue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Asteroids are overdue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Damned GOP
Oh, wait, what is that Wesley Clarks a Democrat? That can't be right, progressives would never advocate for these things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Damned GOP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Damned GOP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I thought we already had internment camps.
Camp X-Ray at Gitmo.
He wants more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I thought we already had internment camps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LMGTFY is still active!?
The top of the Google search pointed to RationalWiki page which is skeptical. DuckDuckGo (which doesn't bias based on personal preferences) shows a number of conspiracy sites, a video, a snopes discussion, but very little that's solid. Wikipedia recommends Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura specifically the Police State ep:
The "Police State" episode investigates allegations that various prison-like facilities built around the country that are operated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will be used during martial law for the internment of citizens who are deemed a threat to national security. Officials have said the facilities are emergency FEMA camps for the housing of civilians displaced by hurricanes or other natural disasters.
Now, this is not to say that known FEMA camps won't be repurposed to intern, or that there aren't secret camps being constructed for a massive detention action, but the evidence for it isn't very strong yet.
And much like the LIBOR scandal (a bunch of rich lending magnates wrecking the world economy for LOLs) when the universe hands you a perfectly good global conspiracy, you don't dismiss it because the participants have too few tentacles.
Thus, sooner than H.R. 645 FEMA camps, I'd point to the US prison system populated with people populated from a court system which is weighted heavily towards presumption of guilt, and contains the highest ratio of the population of any nation. Most people in it have committed no crime greater than drawing the attention of the police.
And yes, our extrajudicial detention and interrogation program (which continues to this day) has already demonstrated that our country is willing to set aside the rights of anybody if it suits someone important enough. The US has already ceased being a nation of free people. We'd each better hope that no VIP crosses our path and takes to coveting our partner or our assets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: LMGTFY is still active!?
Yeah, that's the funny/sad part about so many conspiracy stories. The ones repeating them, and believing in them, are so focused on 'maybes' that they're ignoring the 'ares'.
Is FEMA 'secretely' building camps to hold 'threats' to national security? Maybe.
Is the 'justice' system absolutely rigged, focused entirely on maximizing convictions, rather than ensuring justice, with a massive amount of pressure applied to those thrown into the grinder to plead guilty and 'lessen' their sentence, forcing otherwise innocent people to pay for crimes they didn't commit? Absolutely.
Conspiracy people are so focused on the trees that might be, that they're ignoring the forest that absolutely is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: LMGTFY is still active!?
The GCHQ has the JTRIG department for this, I'd guess the CIA has such a department as well, given the CIA invented the phrase "conspiracy theory" in the first place to denigrate unwanted theories..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: LMGTFY is still active!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Barbed wire, armed guards, walls.
I'm going to assume for sake of this question someone somewhere has actually confirmed that an actual FEMA camp that is allegedly for disaster relief has had armed guards, barbed wire fences and walls installed, and that this isn't speculation or rumor. So disclaimed...
Maybe we should ask them.
When we assemble a bunch of people in one place, we can generally expect that some of them are going to get rowdy and are going to misbehave (e.g. act in a way that is not conducive to the survival and cohesion of the group). One example that comes to mind is the incidents of rape and robbery at the Saints Superdome after Hurricane Katrina (today the Mercedes-Benz Superdome).
When we have more than a hundred people in one spot, we tend to need some kind of monopoly-of-force, lest all the big kids start beating up on the little kids and taking their lunch money.
My point being not that this is the justification for FEMA camp barbed wire, but it is a plausible justification for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I thought we already had internment camps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now instead of a few malcontents, you're dealing with a solid chunk of the population that are enraged with you and no longer trusting.
This is nothing more than posturing and empty threats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or, in their discontent, those loved ones might take up arms against the country that wrongly imprisoned their husband/wife/son/daughter/father/whatever.
And just like that, the business of war becomes self-perpetuating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm not so sure about that. There are some accusations such as terrorism, rape, or pedophilia that are hard to shake if unfounded. People have a lot of trust in institutions and if the "good guys" say you're a "bad guy" that's enough to weaken or destroy even close relationships.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If we keep believing it's just posturing and empty threats, it won't be long before we'll be asking "How did we ever get here?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gorky Park, USA has already been predicted.
"You are kidding yourself if you think the same thing will not happen again," when talking about Korematsu v. United States to some law student at U. Hawaii.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyone ready to stop saying "just a conspiracy theory" yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I have been tortured and I know how they operate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
A prison cell is inappropriate because often they did nothing wrong. A psych ward is inappropriate because they are physically unable to stop the torturers. A POW camp isn't the worst idea. Our country often doesn't realize or like it but we are at war because foreign aggressors won't stop their constant assaults.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How is a POW camp different from a prison, except in what we call it and who it's containing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not sure what you imagine when you think about rounding up prisoners of war. Maybe you're thinking about something that happened in some other country, or a long time ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When I think POW camp, the nicest form I can think of is the WWII Japanese internment camps in the US. And they weren't too nice.
But how nice they are, or how well governed they are, says nothing about what they are. They're prisons. POWs are prisoners. It's even in the name.
What you're advocating is to imprison people who have not violated the law. That's utterly despicable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Hey, now I know you weren't exactly fond of the USG before, but I'm sure after being locked up for several years without a trial or finding of guilt, and having been treated terribly you've changed your mind and absolutely love the government now, right?"
Also, read what he said, he's not talking about enemy soldiers being imprisoned in these internment camps, but people who hold differing opinions.
'So, if these people are radicalized and they don't support the United States and they are disloyal to the United States, as a matter of principle fine. It's their right and it's our right and obligation to segregate them from the normal community for the duration of the conflict'
Notice what he's not saying. He's not saying that if they commit crimes, or plan actual attacks, or anything actually illegal that they should be locked up. No, there's no mention of crimes, in fact he admit that what he's talking about(not being 'loyal' to the USG) is a right, but he's claiming that simply exercising that right should get someone imprisoned for life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Someone has declared a war that you are involved with. (*cough bin laden)(*cough hitler) You happen across a weapon such as a gun or something similar. They decide this is a great time to just shoot you. No one is supposed to stop them in your world view. No one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You *do* realize that the first word in "POW" is "prisoner", right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You do realize that by revoking them their rights without due process, you'd place them outside the law? And you can't hold them responsible for killing your own military personnel, because, you know, they're now "enemy combatants". (You still could hold them responsible for killing civilians, but I doubt camp guards would qualify as civilians).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At least David Cameron gave us a heads up on this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A job for FEMA
Heckuva job, Brownie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A job for FEMA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing unexpected here
That's the entire premise of the GWoT, and Clark is only acknowledging it explicitly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If we aren't going to guarantee basic rights, then if we lose, the only thing that changes is who holds the prison keys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
English isnt my first language so forgive if I missunderstant:
Why do you think basic rights only apply if the US looses? Don't they (the rights) apply if the US wins? Are you affraid that if the USA looses that those basic right violations are held against them?
Talking about basic human rights, there is no argument to hold back now. Putting people in prison for made up reasons without a lawyer, killing people without due process, bombing a wedding then wait for help to come just to throw a 2nd bomb killing the people who wanted to help, shooting parents and their children then blaming the unarmed parents for bringing their children to a war zone (aka region they live in)... that has all been done by the USA already.
It is in my opinion most definitly too late to voice concern about possible human right violations now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What he's saying is that if we were to go ahead with Clark's plan then the war on terrorism would effectively be over, because both sides would be the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't think human rights should be assessed by compare-and-contrast.
Even if your neighbor / enemy / whoever is truly despicable in how they human lives, it doesn't make you less despicable when you do so as well, only less, or to a different group, or according to religious doctrine, or were recently attacked so everyone is paranoid.
Human rights are human rights, and when our children are hungry, when we disappear and torture innocent souls, when we distrust each other enough that we need to spy on each other, all should keep us awake at night. Even when the enemy is processing people into food snacks and using human blood to water their gardens.
Respecting human rights to do better then the other guys is bullshit. We should respect human rights just to do better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm afraid we're already there.
The United States is already a nation no longer worth fighting for. It's already crossed the line. At this point we will have to walk back what we've done, and if the US cannot hand over the specific individuals responsible, then the nation will have to show contrition in their stead.
Incidentally, I'd also point to the Kim Dotcom situation, in which our department of justice is really trying to shoehorn Dotcom's business practices into some sort of crime within US jurisdiction, an incident of capture, detention and the seizing of assets that has nothing to do with the War on Terror and already has had a critical impact on the cyberlocker and cloud computing markets. In the meantime, our law enforcement have already proven they'll serve as mercenaries to whatever corporation hires them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, if we do decide to become Them
After all, our Center is the Constitution he swore to defend, and radicals are those who exist on the outer fringe. His repudiation of his oath makes him precisely one of the radicals he wants interned.
What do you suppose a domestic enemy of the Constitution looks like, if not a uniformed man who has betrayed his oath?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I totally support this idea - with one major modification...
Once we've cleared the rifraf terrorist organizations listed above, we can get down to setting up a real government of the people, by the people and for the people, which our current Government since before 9/11 have forgotten about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Radicalization is in the Eye of the Beholder
Note to retired heel-clicker Wesley Clark:
the radicalized persons you are pontificating about can be found in Washington DC at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave where the war criminal in chief convenes his terrorist cadres in what has become known as "Terror Tuesday" where the fractions of Americans operating under the charade of constitutionality pick which human targets to assassinate via drone strike.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/14/obama-secret-kill-list-disposition-matrix
Also please note dear heel-clicker Clark:
there is a place up the block from the White House called Capitol Hill, there are numerous radicalized terrorists operating within rubber stamping the use of torture, wars based wholly upon lies, the total surveillance state, indefinite incognito/incommunicado detention without charge (etal).
Additionally mein heel-clicker Clark:
There is another place radicals can be found, directly across the mighty Potomac in a place called Arlington VA where the Department of War (the Pentagon) and the radicalized heel-clicking, fruit cocktail wearing fractions of Americans plan and wage wars wholly based upon lies where they send our sons/daughters off to kill, torture and be used as canon-fodder in the name of profit.
Let us not forget heel-clicker Clark:
The other not so wonderful entity responsible for radicals it too can be found across the mighty Potomac this time in Langley VA the not so Central Intelligence Agency which has been charged with the radicalization, torture and assassination of people since it's inception in 1947 when Truman signed the National Security Act of 1947.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Act_of_1947
So there you have it heel-clicker Clark, it is readily apparent your time spent at West Point and as the Supreme Allied Commander Europe have only served to radicalize you into believing might makes right and the ends justifies the means.
World War II internment camps and Pol Pots re-education camps in Cambodia are one in the same.
Heel-clicking Clark please report the nearest internment (re-education) camp as you and your ilk are the most radical war mongers this nation has ever loosed upon the world.
How many more trillions of dollars in stolen productivity will the radicals, operating under the guise of sensible, steal from productive uses?
How many more millions of human beings will be tortured and murdered by the radicals infesting the US government while waging wars based wholly upon lies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Radicalization is in the Eye of the Beholder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Radicalization is in the Eye of the Beholder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Radicalization is in the Eye of the Beholder
Which war?
The war on drugs --- is a lie
The war on terror --- is a lie
The war in Iraq 1990-2015 --- is a lie
The war in Afghanistan --- is a lie
The war in Vietnam --- was a lie
The war in Korea --- was a lie
Do you see the common denominator?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
After a week..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
9/11 was done by the Pentagon
Look at the collapse of WTC building 7. It was clearly a controlled demolition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"It's our right...
Umm, no, it isn't. No matter how much you stamp your feet and shout that it is, no how much you want it, it still isn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blowhard for blowback. .
Our three letter agencies do this time and time again, push for policies to solve a problem that when looked at objectively are almost certain to achieve the opposite result!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Liar, liar, pants on fire.
I'll call BS on that. He just described the Tsarnaevs/Boston Bombers, and the US was previously warned (notably *by the Russians*) about them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From the Man who Brought Us
Don't forget, Clark was also commander of USSOUTHCOM during the mid 90's. USSOUTHCOM is the command that is responsible for bringing U.S. military assets to bear in the (failed and unethical) war on drugs in South America.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First they came for the....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Okay, you first, General.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FTFY, General. YW. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Muslim Training Camps in US
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Muslim Training Camps in US
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That sounds like Christian Summer Camp
...and use real marshmallow or some Kosher substitute, and not the porcine byproduct that passes for it these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That sounds like Christian Summer Camp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Halal vs. Kosher
And once upon a time Marshmallow was a plant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Halal vs. Kosher
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"which side you are on"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In honour of past soldiers and what they fought for my ass........dont like that statement Mr Gen-eral? Dont be a hypocrate then! Or a liar, a stooge, a patsy or stoopid
I confess that was more harsh then i tend to like, 80% In General, 30% For the General
Nothing wrong with my math skills, 10% emphasis
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"I wonder if Hitler thought he was doing good, too."
Adolph Hitler completely believed he was doing the right thing for Germany and for humanity.
Hitler wasn't a two-dimensional cultural icon of evil. He was a real guy. He believed he was doing right by Germany. He completely bought into the supremacy of Germany, into Social Darwinism, into blood libel and the degeneracy of non-German races. He even was convinced that God and providence were on his side.
Hitler is not caracture nor demon nor god. He was a dude, a Pragmatic politician and a product of his time. If there was no Hitler, Rohm or Goering would have stood in his place.
And if you indulge the notion that it can't happen here, you contribute to the likelihood that it will.
/rant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fighting the good fight, or fighting the competition?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOSER
WHO is REALLY "TERRIFYING" You? WHO PROFITS from terrifying you?
There are literally 100s of thousands of Domestic-Terrorists in such groups as the Bloods& Crips. The Obama AND the Repuke politicians ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to seal our borders to keep out Narco-Terrorists who STARTED the beheading "fad" and flood our streets with poison and gunfire. Now the SAME poiticians who REFUSE to stop the continuous Street-Terrorism are terrifying You with vague threats of "invisible, unstoppable, bloodthirsty, insane" mooslim terrorists. WHY? To steal your remaining shreds of freedom. As your standard of living sinks ever lower ...... they divert the blame from those responsible,THEM, and shift it to those mooslims. You LIVE with Domestic Terrorists all around you every day.
---------------------------------
https://video-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hvideo-xpf1/v/t42.1790-2/1101 2896_407775959404661_581157700_n.mp4?efg=eyJybHIiOjQwNSwicmxhIjo4NzF9&rl=405&vabr=225&oh =bc9d6cdb6a32481b6cd6686bc70735b8&oe=559FBE8A
In 2001 there were a FEW thousand terrorists, mostly just barefoot illiterates with small bases in Afghanistan and Somalia with NO presence in Iraq. Now, thanks to the superior war fighting skills and knowledge of the Military Geniuses in the Pentagon there are tens of thousands with strongholds in Libya, Nigeria, Yemen, Somalia, Syria/Iraq, Afghanistan,Pakistan, etc.
Thanks to Abu Graihb,Guantanamo, Secret Dungeons out of the Feudal Dark Ages .... Hillary Clinton bringing chaos to Lybia which spread weapons everywhere ..... ISIS is putting hostages in orange jumpsuits because the U.S. put tortured Guantanamo detainees in orange jumpsuits. And because the U.S. waterboarded Arab detainees, ISIS is waterboarding Western hostages.
Nobody gets up one day and decides to be a terrorist for no reason. They don't hate us for our freedoms. They hate us and commit acts of terror because one day, as they are going about their normal lives, there is a horrendous blast and people they have known all their lives are lying in bloody shreds at their feet, mixed in with shrapnel stamped "Made in the USA."
Thanks to mental defectives that these "military geniuses" HIRE . such as "Prince" and his mercenaries of Blackwater/XI/Ademi....he has to change his name every few months to HIDE from his own actions. These Child murdering MERCENARIES are CREATING terrorists.By the way ....... the rate of HOMOSEXUALITY among "mercenaries" is very high .... they like being in a "MANLY" environment.........
Asof January 2015 America has $18TRILLION acknowledged debt.
Now, after 5,000 dead,50,000(acknowledged) massively injured and 50% of the Vets applying for "disability"
http://www.va.gov/opa/publications/factsheets/fs_disability_compensation.pdf The largest category of veterans on the compensation scale is at 10 percent disability ($123per month), with 782,000 veterans at this rate at the beginning of fiscal year 2009 among the total 2.9 million veterans receiving disability compensation. There were 884,500 new and reopened claims requiring a disability rating received from veterans in fiscal year 2008, an average of nearly 74,000 claims filed per month.
America finds it has created a far worse organization than AlQueda/Taliban. ISIS ismore motivated, dedicated,and focused. America has burned an estimated $5TRILLION in Iraq/Afghanistan ....... burnt out many of it'sTroops and equipment ....and now finds that the fight is JUST BEGINNING.
Terrorism is CRIMINAL not "warfare" and must be handled as criminal in order or it will matastise. This is proven by the complete and total failure of America's "war on terror"
The entire purpose of terrorism is to provoke an OVER reaction by the target .....in order to create sympathy and allies for your cause. As we have seen since 9/11 ..... they have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. We have created terrorist recruits everywhere thanks to Abu Graihb, Guantanamo,torture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hopefully Wes was angling to create this debate.
The applicable section of Constitution:
"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
The founders could not have predicted the level of automation we now have available to us in rounding people up. Internment camps were justified by the word "rebellion", but the scope that this word is being used in at this time is extremely broad.
Also there is an order of operations question, in terms of the application of this clause to the bill of rights. Probably SCOTUS regards "rebellion" as taking precedence to the bill of rights, which is how they justify FISC. Of course this kind of thinking makes actual insurrection more likely over the long run.
Eventually somebody has to arrest the descending spiral of stupid (DSoS). Since we rely on the litigation process to provide such a buoy, attacking the litigation process itself, is extraordinarily reckless.
If we look at the DSoS symptomatically, we can theorize that people who shine a light on this kind of recklessness are Constitutional canaries; their health reflects the health of the whole system. Seen any such canaries lately?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Last Word
“The Past Speaketh
I do think on a monarchy policy level we need to look at what self-radicalization means because we are at war with this group of rebels. They do have an ideology of freedom.So, if these people are radicalized and they don't support the throne and they are disloyal to the King, as a matter of principle fine. It's their right and it's my right and obligation to hang them in front of the community to set an example. And I think we're going to have to increasingly get tough on this, not only in the American colonies but all of our colonies and other nations like Germany and France are going to have to look at their domestic law procedures.
We have got to identify the people who are most likely to be radicalized. We've got to cut this off at the beginning. There are always a certain number of young people who are alienated. They don't get a job, they lost a girlfriend, their family doesn't feel happy here and we can watch the signs of that. And there are members of the community who can reach out to those people and bring them back in and encourage them to look at their blessings under the King.