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

Funny how quickly someone can come along and turn a topic that affects everyone into a political debate.

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.

Sounds about right...
It's a common tactic that's used to obfuscate the issue, making it difficult for readers of the topic to keep their eye on the ball.
Divide and Conquer folks, Divide and Conquer.

I hate to do this, but I'm going to say this guy is thinking long-term, strategically, just like a high up military officer should be. He's being reasonable.

That being said, I'm not against radicals if they are looking at things objectively. If someone is getting to the root of social issues, and willing to take a stand, more power to them, but I would sure as hell hope they have the intellect to bring about their change through non-violent means.

Years ago I was borderline being shunned from the community. I had half the people hate me, and half the people love me, and yes my views were extreme, and I did occasionally bring up the question of how to get about change at this point without violence in a systemically corrupt system. Thankfully, I had positive experiences with both the ladies (ziiing!) and men who heard me out, didn't fully disagree, but showed me alternatives. Eventually I chilled out.

That's the scenario he first talks about. If the community can deal with the troubled individual, leave it to the community. If the radical is too extreme, and shows indication of planning with violent intent, then he needs to be dealt with. I see a lot of sides here, and none of them are all too "right", but some bring better results for people than others.

Wow! Just crazy... how many times has legislation for a specific group been used for reporters, citizens and others unilaterally... Time to wake up and smell the coffee...

originally posted by: grandmakdw
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.

I love the book and the movie (though the movie was panned). You are so right

You should see the tv show "Wayward Pines", it is all about that and the latest episode the worst case scenario. Worse than camps.

originally posted by: NthOther
a reply to: Moresby

The guy is a total hypocrite, billing himself as the progressive "peace guy" when his entire career has been spent preparing and executing war plans, most notably in Kosovo.

This jackass:

Incident at Pristina Airport

"I'm not going to start World War III for you, sir."

BEWARE statists in uniform.

Honestly I don't know any specifics of the UN police action (euphemism ain't they great) in Yugoslavia; however, I do know that the war ended and the situation for the immediate future was resolved. That is a lot more then most serving Generals can claim or even aspire to any longer.

originally posted by: reldra

Regarding 'FREEDOM'

This also happens to be one of the most contested values in American life.

Progressives have a two-part definition of freedom: “freedom from” and “freedom to”.

First, we believe that all people should have freedom from undue interference by governments and others in carrying out their private affairs and personal beliefs. This includes our rights to freedom of speech, association, and religion as well as the freedom to control our own bodies and personal lives.

Second, we believe that all people should have the freedom to lead a fulfilling and secure life supported by the basic foundations of economic security and opportunity.

Source

Nice source. And needed restating.

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: beezzer

Fine, how about those that sport the tea party or conservative moniker?

How many were against the actions of our gov and it's use of GITMO?

We may be talking about 2 different things.

I'm all for GITMO because were like, um, fighting a war.

I'm not for internment camps.

I don't see anyone sane that would be for them. It's authoritarian, as I've said and disregards freedoms. I also find it amusing with progressive authoritarians that they feel themselves immune to the same anti-freedom laws that they would impose on the public.

To give you some idea of where I'm coming from. . . this is what I see the US being under with progressives in charge.

Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people.

Soft despotism gives people the illusion that they are in control, when in fact they have very little influence over their government. Soft despotism breeds fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the general populace. Alexis de Tocqueville observed that this trend was avoided in America only by the "habits of the heart" of its 19th-century populace.

en.wikipedia.org...

Breezer -

We are not fighting a war.

War has not been declared - only Congress can do that.

It's another in a long string of 'imaginary wars' that started with the 'drug war'.

You may think its a war and the 'war profiteers' certainly want us to believe and act like it's a war but it isn't a war.

originally posted by: Willtell
I don’t know why certain people associate interment camps with progressive politics.


Sounds like a Glen Beck voice is on this thread!

The most ardent voice today in the media revealing interment type politics is the well known PROGRESSIVE, the one who brought Snowden to the world, Glen Greenwald.


Many conservatives have called for Snowden's head


In the annuls of political history likely any interment camps in this country will be initiate by conservatives, though not necessarily completely.



Also Wesley Clark is hardly a progressive.


This is really not a progressive versus conservative issue.

We have internment camps already - for mexican's on US soil without proper documentation.

Refuees in many cases.

Remember that.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese

I hate to do this, but I'm going to say this guy is thinking long-term, strategically, just like a high up military officer should be. He's being reasonable.

It's reasonable to lock up people who haven't committed a crime?



You don't find that to be objectionable at all? Are you being sarcastic?

a reply to: NthOther

Chill out, the terrain changes, so must the law. We've detained people under that same flag under stressful times in the past. I guess you'd rather us allow cells to do as they please until the crime is committed?

You might want to go back to the part where I said it should only be done for extremists who are actively plotting acts of violence on US soil. Get a grip.

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."

WOAH there cowboy, that is a very large brush covering a lot of people, we have heard and seen this type of talk before, it's the type of talk that segregates people all right, into camps.



Setting off any alarm bells yet.

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.

He pretty much described the entire U.S. Is he trying to provoke the hive?

a reply to: pl3bscheese

You're talking about locking people up for what they think. You approve of this?

Just want to clarify that's what you're saying. You use past instances of tyranny and oppression to justify their use today?

I'm almost speechless. You preach non-violence for the citizenry while simultaneously endorsing violence from the state.

Or do you not think this qualifies as violence:



ETA: Ah, you edited to clarify. If they are "actively plotting", then they are committing a crime (conspiracy to commit X crime), and that crime should be dealt with by the judicial system, no?

Why internment camps?

a reply to: NthOther

Okay I see your edit I'll rewrite this post.

They're prisoners of war at that point, and if we're talking large numbers they would get put in an internment camp. The judicial process is already really backed, and many of the facilities are booked up as well. I had to wait 13 months to go before a judge for a simple charge recently, and when I get to the jail facility it was 24 hours solid of processing into the facility. That was nothing compared to a lot of the horror stories told inside. Some people were waiting close to a week to get processed, transferred, and such.

originally posted by: sageturkey

Divide and Conquer folks, Divide and Conquer.

The 'enemy' is subjugated by divide and conquer , indigenous populations are subjected to divide and rule.

Oh nooo, don't send us off to the Gulag. Anything but that. The difference between past slave labor camps, relocation and all that is its not necessary anymore.

We are all slaves to the machine already. We live in little boxes struggling overtime to earn the rent, food and utilities barely stringing along on necessities.

We already are in a gulag of sort. Do you live in megalopolis-- urban sprawl or a large city?

Do you live paycheck to paycheck?

Do you have growing debt, shrinking budget, longer hours for less pay?

Can you make their ends meet? For how much longer?

Frog pond is warmer than ever.

And if you jump out the pond, (break the millions of petty laws), they'll just put you in the growing Prison Industrial Complex.

Millions of people living there, I hear its a booming business.

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.

With today's society, despite the violence promoted, apathy and brainwashing of all kinds on T.V. I am quite surprised we aren't living in a game of thrones type of world. (Though technically game of thrones happens on the background. Its an allegory By the way).

The thing is, does anyone really want to fight anyone? Fear is the greatest tool being used to manipulate the masses into fear, which leads to anger and violence. So it makes sense to stir the crowd up for "home court advantage" and support against an "unseen force" that doesn't exist.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese

They're prisoners of war at that point...

What war?

The War on "Terruh"? The undeclared (not that it really matters), never-ending war that has no clearly defined enemy, therefore everyone is the enemy?

Do you not see how you're being set up?

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: NthOther

Okay I see your edit I'll rewrite this post.

They're prisoners of war at that point, and if we're talking large numbers they would get put in an internment camp. The judicial process is already really backed, and many of the facilities are booked up as well. I had to wait 13 months to go before a judge for a simple charge recently, and when I get to the jail facility it was 24 hours solid of processing into the facility. That was nothing compared to a lot of the horror stories told inside. Some people were waiting close to a week to get processed, transferred, and such.

Tangential SCARASM AHEAD

Another wonder of austerity.

If you're born on plot-of-land x, you must be fully patriotic and supportive of plot-of-land x, or else you will be imprisoned.
My god...crazy people, and their over active territorial primate brains...