Ret. US General Wesley Clark Promotes Internment of 'Radicalized' US Citizens on MSNBC

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
He is 100% totally corrct and it will happen eventually, the sooner the better.

Ya screw rights and all that right?


Scary that people agree with this man.

originally posted by: beezzer
The current government need an enemy.

And I don't mean just the Obama Regime. I mean the previous administrations and probably the future administrations.

This type/style of authoritative government can only exist if it has an enemy.

If things were peaceful, if we all could get along, this government would cease to exist.

Therefor it needs, it requires enemies. Foreign and domestic.

It requires strife. It places stresses upon the citizenry in order to justify it's existence.

It creates enemies where none existed before.

It is, oh, how do you say it? Quite progressive in its behavior.

You're closer than you think. It says right there in the constitution that the federal government will provide for the common defense. A defense can only exist, if you have something to defend against. There must always be a threat in order to justify defense, policies, and budget.

a reply to: NthOther

I have been saying for many years (and been laughed at for saying)that Americas Government is heading straight towards Totalitarianism and Corporate Fascism and guys like him will eventually prove my point.
There is an old saying "All roads lead to Rome".
When Adolf rose to power in Germany he done the same thing to any citizen who had opposing views to Government.

It still amazes me that people believe that their Governments are out to protect them when infact a Country is a Human Farm,Government is the Farmer and the Citizens are the Cattle.

I think the People in Control(control freaks) are getting afraid of their own citizens and this is why they are militarizing the Police and already have started going after the guns to disarm the people so that they can keep control when the Global Economy Collapses.
They have built FEMA Camps all over the place under the guise of disaster/emergency relief but if you believe that they are internment/Extermination camps then you are accused of being loopy> FEMA concentration camps exist in the mind of a particularly loopy bunch of conspiracy theorists

Government have spent $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ on these camps because they are so concerned with their citizens wellfare in the event of a disaster.



Just remember that any Jew who tried to warn their fellow sheep that the Germans were not totally truthful about sending them to work in the East were accused of being loopy or mad aswell.

Signed

Loopy Conspiracy Theorist.

Nothings says "land of the free" than interning people in camps without trial...Merica!

a reply to: crazyewok

I often try to think of how an opponent might describe and support things in a debate.

But I can't, for the life of me, find a way where I could rationally and logically support internment camps.

Perhaps that's my problem.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: crazyewok

I often try to think of how an opponent might describe and support things in a debate.

But I can't, for the life of me, find a way where I could rationally and logically support internment camps.

Perhaps that's my problem.

I know right?

We in the west are meant to value freedom.

Internment camps fly in the face of that in the most blatent of ways.

Nothing ever good comes out if them......ever.

a reply to: Joneselius

I suggest you read the book
"The Giver"
the movie is sanitized for general consumption.

The Giver, while a children's book,
is to me nearly equal to 1984
in it's import and warning.

In the Giver, the "different thinkers"
weren't put in camps,
they were "sent to a better place"
after a loving life review,
with no pain and an injection.

a reply to: crazyewok

One thing I find extremely interesting.

The usual assortment of liberals are not on this thread.

I see the most prolific ATS progressives and liberals won't touch this thread.

Why?

I wonder if they support the camps
for "wrong thinkers"
because progressives and liberals are in power right now

or maybe philosophically they agree with
internment of "wrong thinkers" and
reeducation camps

and they know they can't defend them
without coming off as fascist totalitarians.

Anyway, interesting the lack of the usual
prolific writing
liberals contributing to the thread.

Maybe I am wrong, but I only see
right wingers
and conservatives on this thread.

Please educate me if I am wrong,
I don't know everyone. I am willing
to mea culpa.

a reply to: grandmakdw

When you have a progressive on a progressive network espousing progressive ideology, what else is there left to say?

a reply to: grandmakdw

It's possible many of them simply don't want to be seen agreeing with some of "us" (whatever that is).



No?

Ummm, progressive here (raises hand timidly)...

I don't like what he said either, but not because I think white Americans are threatened. It's Muslims I worry about here. This sounds too much like "stick all Japanese Americans in an internment camp" during WWII, only now it's stick all Muslim Americans in an internment camp. Luckily, as long as Obama is in charge, that would never happen.

Plus, I hate the man on a personal level. He dumped his wife after nearly 50 years for a cute little Asian girl who is younger than his own son. What a Creep.

a reply to: grandmakdw

Over the years I've become more liberal leaning, having said that, I don't believe in rounding up and quite possibly detaining, indefinitely, anyone seen as hostile; whatever that defines.

The NDAA has layed the foundation, section 1021 and 1022. If I am correct in its reading, it's not very specific on definitions.

Section 1021 (a)

Source

c) . .  The disposition of a person under the law of war . .  may include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force. . .

This isn't to say it will happen, however, what the general implies has been codified into law under this act.

"They don't get a job. They lost a girlfriend. Their family doesn't feel happy HERE."

WTF is wrong with this man? Mouthpiece much? Now we just need to know who he's mouthpiecing for. POS.

Many of these people were BORN here. Many of these descriptions can fit just about anyone at a given time. This is not good. And a good number of American idiots are going to agree. Even worse.

"If these people are radicalized and they don't support The United States and they're disloyal to the United States."

These people? Wow...what people? And just how are you going to prove this? And not abuse this?

"It's our right and our right to segregate them from the normal community for the duration of the conflict."

The never-ending conflict? Gitmo time.

WARNING WARNING WARNING

"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 them in a camp,"

That is an apples to oranges comparison.

First off we did not put Germans in camps for speaking out.

German Pow's were brought over here after being caputured on the battlefield. Then disbursed through out the us to make products for the 'war' effort.

The Japanese were interned for not saying squat they were thrown in 'fema' camps of their days based on nothing but because they were 'Japanese'.

The DIFFERENCE here is that both Germany, and Japan were actual STATES. Unlike 'terrorists'.

Clark looks like an idiot. Never like him that much.

originally posted by: neo96
[exnews
The Japanese were interned for not saying squat they were thrown in 'fema' camps of their days based on nothing but because they were 'Japanese'.

The DIFFERENCE here is that both Germany, and Japan were actual STATES. Unlike 'terrorists'.

Well said and bravo.

Wesley Clark is all over the place. I have wondered if his head has been screwed with. McCain, too. Just program them and let their lips fly.

I myself have been called crazy---like when I posted this thread:

Are FEMA Camps for Arab-American Internment If Major War Breaks Out in Mid-East?

Good find, Op. The picture of our future only continues to clarify.

In a revealing admission in June, 1997, the Director of Resource Management for the U.S. Army confirmed the validity of a memorandum relating to the establishment of a civilian inmate labor program under development by the Department of the Army. The document states, "Enclosed for your review and comment is the draft Army regulation on civilian inmate labor utilization" and the procedure to "establish civilian prison camps on installations."

Amid widespread rumors, Congressman Henry Gonzales clarified the question of the existence of civilian detention camps. In an interview, Gonzalez stated, "The truth is yes -- you do have these stand by provisions, and the plans are here...whereby you could, in the name of stopping terrorism...evoke the military and arrest Americans and put them in detention camps."

www.hermes-press.com...

originally posted by: Moresby
It seems Wesley Clark got paid off at some point in recent years.

He used to be critical on the so-called "war on terror".

In addition to the internment camp notion, Clark's statement also implies a "Minoritly Report" pre-crime style of justice. Get people before they do anything.

BTW, the term "self-radicalized lone wolf" is the biggest load of who-ha TPTB have fed the American public in quite awhile.

You may be right…. Clark was a Maverick lone wolf commentator who was the one that revealed the ISIS plot: the 7 Mideast countries the US planned to destroy.

His statement makes little sense since it’s the middle class who are mostly involved with dissent not the poor struggling to survive.

He may have been co-opted

But consider that the attack on a military target may have changed him...he was a general

originally posted by: NthOther
Careful what you say on TV, Wes. Some people might get the wrong idea...

"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 them in a camp," Clark continued, "They were prisoners of war."

"If these people are radicalized, and they don't support the United States, and they're disloyal to the United States, as a matter of principle, fine, that's their right, but it's our (the government's) right and our obligation to segregate them from the normal community for the duration of the conflict. And I think we're going to have to get increasingly get tough on this."

...although I don't know how else that could really be interpreted.

I thought some of you might find this interesting. I especially found the "lost a job/girlfriend" part interesting. Basically, if you're going through any kind of common difficulty in your life, you are at-risk for radicalization and need to be... looked at.

It's coming, folks. They grow more and more brazen by the minute, relying on our own ignorance as their cover.

It's ironic that he used supporters of Nazis as an example, since the US actually worked with thousands of former Nazis after WWII in Operation Paperclip. Several of our federal agencies were also staffed with former Nazis after the war.

But since he used them as an example, should we include all Neo-Nazis as "radicalized" people who need internment? And what about the Aryan Nations, Aryan Brotherhood, and KKK? After all, the guy who shot up that church full of African Americans was a white supremacist. But they never consider white supremacists as "radicalized", even though they target other American citizens. Instead, they diverted attention from those violent hate groups by singling out the Confederate flag.

a reply to: grandmakdw

Maybe not the most prolific but there is plenty if liberal minded posters here.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: grandmakdw

When you have a progressive on a progressive network espousing progressive ideology, what else is there left to say?

How is this a progressive ideology??

Since when are the progressive the ones saying we need to round up people?