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.


Reader Comments

The First Word

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    John Fenderson (profile), 20 Jul 2015 @ 10:24am

    No

    Does anyone foresee an end to the War on Terror in their lifetime?


    Not unless the government manages to regains at least a small sliver of sanity.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      DannyB (profile), 20 Jul 2015 @ 10:25am

      Re: No

      Suggesting the government regain any sanity could be considered radicalization.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2015 @ 3:21pm

        Re: Re: No

        "Security has a cost, but the estimate keeps changing."

        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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Karl Bode (profile), 20 Jul 2015 @ 10:27am

      Re: No

      Or perhaps gets distracted by other some other, worse war on a tactic with ambiguous, undefinable enemies.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        tqk (profile), 20 Jul 2015 @ 5:33pm

        Re: Re: No

        Or perhaps gets distracted by other some other, worse war on a tactic with ambiguous, undefinable enemies.

        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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2015 @ 11:20am

      Re: No

      Well if this interpretation is correct then ,in my opinion, they are a long way from sanity.

      http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/07/10/pentagon-concludes-america-safe-unless-conquers-wo rld-paul-craig-roberts-3/

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Richard (profile), 20 Jul 2015 @ 12:18pm

        Re: Re: No

        It is disturbing that the US seems to dislike Russia simply for being Russia.

        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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2015 @ 12:28pm

          Re: Re: Re: No

          I was using Russia because General Clark served from 1966 to 2000, during which the enemy was overwhelmingly Russia.

          Of course, you could always ask Ukraine if Russia is sponsoring terrorism. You may get a different answer.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2015 @ 1:19pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: No

            "Of course, you could always ask Ukraine if Russia is sponsoring terrorism. You may get a different answer."

            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

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Richard (profile), 20 Jul 2015 @ 1:36pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: No

            I was using Russia because General Clark served from 1966 to 2000, during which the enemy was overwhelmingly Russia.

            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.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2015 @ 1:45pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No

              Whatever Russia might be up to in Ukraine it cannot be described as terrorism

              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.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                tqk (profile), 20 Jul 2015 @ 5:51pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No

                Whatever Russia might be up to in Ukraine it cannot be described as terrorism

                We described the Taliban as terrorists, and the situations are almost identical.

                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.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Richard (profile), 21 Jul 2015 @ 9:23am

                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.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2015 @ 12:56pm

          Re: Re: Re: No

          Russians appear to still be killing americans here in america. I'm under attack. I was told some part was russia.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Uriel-238 (profile), 20 Jul 2015 @ 5:22pm

          The US had relations with the Russian Tzar.

          When the Red army beat out the White army, well, the US and Russia never got on the same since.

          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.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            tqk (profile), 20 Jul 2015 @ 5:58pm

            Re: The US had relations with the Russian Tzar.

            If it wasn't Stalin US / USSR relations might have been better.

            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.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Wendy Cockcroft, 21 Jul 2015 @ 5:22am

            Re: The US had relations with the Russian Tzar.

            The trouble with communism is it doesn't recognise the truth about human nature. It's based on a best case scenario in which everyone behaves as expected and variables such as natural disasters, etc., aren't taken into account.

            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.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Uriel-238 (profile), 21 Jul 2015 @ 11:23am

              Communism vs. the Truth about Human Nature

              The US representative democracy is also based on a best case scenario in which everyone behaves as expected and blah blah blah. The presumptions of Jefferson and Madison were that people would stay informed as to their own best interests and vote accordingly. It did not take into account that people vote differently due to several causes and that politicians campaign under completely different platforms than they operate.

              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.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Richard (profile), 21 Jul 2015 @ 10:05am

            Re: The US had relations with the Russian Tzar.

            So yeah, the US government and the Russian government don't like each other very much.

            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.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Uriel-238 (profile), 21 Jul 2015 @ 12:02pm

              The difference of government between the Soviet Russia and Contemporary Russia

              I find it worrying that you don't seem to recognise the difference between the Soviet government and the Russian government.

              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.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2015 @ 3:55pm

      Re: No

      outright rebellion against a tyrannical government could end it to

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2015 @ 5:37pm

      Re: No

      Actually, I think it might be the Military/Industrial/Intelligence/Complex that needs a large sliver of sanity. Not holding my breath.

      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?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Seegras (profile), 21 Jul 2015 @ 2:28am

        Re: Re: No

        The problem comes with who defines a radicalized person. If I state that I don't like Wesley Clark, does that make me radicalized?

        No idea. But if Wesley Clark states he wants to intern everyone he thinks "radicalized", it makes him a dangerous radical.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2015 @ 5:03pm

      Re: No

      I dont think they've lost their marbles, going by history, seems like its business as usual

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    DannyB (profile), 20 Jul 2015 @ 10:24am

    Did I read that right?

    Surely he meant internment camps "to fight domestic radical copyright inifringement".

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Wendy Cockcroft, 21 Jul 2015 @ 5:23am

      Re: Did I read that right?

      Give it five minutes. We've all seen mission creep from "Think of the children!" to "But copyright!"

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2015 @ 10:29am



    This spells trouble for most of the Techdirt readership.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2015 @ 10:32am

    Nope.

    Those who do not learn the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Charles (profile), 20 Jul 2015 @ 10:34am

    The inmates are truly running the prison.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2015 @ 10:37am

    Bad Breakups

    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.

    Wow. You lose a your girlfriend and they throw you in an internment camp? Even my worst breakups weren't that bad.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2015 @ 10:39am

    "If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"

    -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    It's truly sad when we need the Russians to explain reality to our military officials.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Peter (profile), 20 Jul 2015 @ 10:40am

    Wow...

    I truly don't believe this. If Wesley Clark REALLY did say that, then he deserves to get lampooned. I'll go look it up on MSNBC's site -- but my God, this is getting damn serious now. An internment camp -- unbelievable -- and frightening.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 20 Jul 2015 @ 7:47pm

      Re: Wow...

      I'll go look it up on MSNBC's site -- but my God, this is getting damn serious now. An internment camp -- unbelievable -- and frightening.

      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?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Wendy Cockcroft, 21 Jul 2015 @ 5:25am

        Re: Re: Wow...

        It's frightening to think that the powers that be might be reading those blogs and taking notes...

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2015 @ 12:05pm

        Re: Re: Wow...

        The problem I have with the conspiracy nutters is they continue to be proven right.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Uriel-238 (profile), 22 Jul 2015 @ 3:29pm

          At the time of the JFK assassination...

          ...there were plenty of real undercover government conspiracies going on that are now recognized parts of US history.

          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.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      b, 27 Jul 2015 @ 2:10pm

      Re: Wow...

      I agree, I don't believe this story without references.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2015 @ 10:51am

    The worst part about the Internment camps is that the Supreme Court heard a case about this many decades ago and upheld internment camps as constitutional.

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Michael, 20 Jul 2015 @ 10:52am

    So, if these people are radicalized and they don't support Great Britain and they are disloyal to Great Britain, 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.

    Hey! Isn't that how we got here to begin with?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2015 @ 10:52am

    WWII lasted about 6 years, and we were involved for about 4. It's already been about 14 years since 9/11.

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2015 @ 11:00am

      Re:

      Well, the camps were only sort of found unconstitutional - a lower court, not the Supreme Court, later found that the government had lied in such a way that the Supreme Court probably would have found the other way in the case. It hasn't been officially overturned, but the convictions have been vacated.

      It still cannot be reconciled with the right to liberty, the right to a fair and speedy trial, and the right to free speech.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    King George III, 20 Jul 2015 @ 10:53am

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Richard (profile), 21 Jul 2015 @ 10:13am

      Re: 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.

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2015 @ 10:54am

    Does General Clark not realize that these programs backfired HORRIBLY and probably radicalized more people?

    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...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 20 Jul 2015 @ 2:17pm

      It's called 'Ensuring job security'

      People like him want more 'radicals', the absolute last thing they want is less boogiemen to exist, as that might get people wondering just why the government needs all these intrusive and rights-destroying powers.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2015 @ 10:59am

    I know that it's a fairly common thing, but how can we not say that we've already lost the War on Terror? All we do now is wage one war after the other regardless of the cost in men, money, and most importantly principles.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2015 @ 11:17am

      Re:

      "I know that it's a fairly common thing, but how can we not say that we've already lost the War on Terror?"

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2015 @ 11:01am

    A dangerous radical is one who will not accept that others may have differing views from themselves, therefore General Wesley Clark should report to the internment camps for deradicalization.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2015 @ 11:03am

    It's the economy stupid

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Squirrel, 20 Jul 2015 @ 11:06am

    Oh good..

    We will have a place to put all those KKK members.

    Wait.

    You don't mean those terrorists, do you General Clark?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Coyne Tibbets (profile), 20 Jul 2015 @ 11:09am

    You're mixing up radicals and non-radicals

    General Wesley Clark: "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."

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2015 @ 11:20am

    The Asteroids are overdue

    For some reason the next step in the ratcheting up of terror, the threat from the sky that are asteroids, has failed to appear. We were warned that the threats used to seize and keep control of the world would be in order:
    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Violynne (profile), 20 Jul 2015 @ 11:26am

    It won't be long before kids are diving under their desks under the guise of "terror drills".

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    JWW (profile), 20 Jul 2015 @ 11:31am

    Damned GOP

    When are these damned GOP politicians gonna learn that this isn't acceptable?

    Oh, wait, what is that Wesley Clarks a Democrat? That can't be right, progressives would never advocate for these things.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2015 @ 11:35am

    I'm just waiting for someone in the US Government to say "You know, Adolf actually had some good ideas."

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 20 Jul 2015 @ 11:36am

    I thought we already had internment camps.

    At least one.

    Camp X-Ray at Gitmo.

    He wants more.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2015 @ 12:13pm

      Re: I thought we already had internment camps.

      I thought we already had internment camps
      Let me google that for you: FEMA concentration camps

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Uriel-238 (profile), 20 Jul 2015 @ 4:57pm

        LMGTFY is still active!?

        ...Though it's definitely showing its age.

        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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          That One Guy (profile), 20 Jul 2015 @ 5:47pm

          Re: LMGTFY is still active!?

          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.

          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.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Seegras (profile), 21 Jul 2015 @ 2:41am

            Re: Re: LMGTFY is still active!?

            There are government agencies actually fostering absurd conspiracy theories, so they can discredit theories which happen to be factual as "conspiracy theories".

            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..

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2015 @ 7:25pm

          Re: LMGTFY is still active!?

          why do FEMA camps purposed for helping people displaced by disasters need to have armed guards and barbed wire fences and walls then? What possible reasoning could there be to keep people locked away behind walls during an emergency

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Uriel-238 (profile), 21 Jul 2015 @ 12:23pm

            Barbed wire, armed guards, walls.

            why do FEMA camps purposed for helping people displaced by disasters need to have armed guards and barbed wire fences and walls then?

            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.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2015 @ 12:13pm

      Re: I thought we already had internment camps.

      I'd like to offer a different way to think of Gitmo. I suggest Auschwitz V2 @ gitmo is a better/more accurate way of thinking of that place.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2015 @ 11:38am

    if the feds actually attempted anything like this, there would be a HELL of an outcry from the loved ones of supposedly "potential" terrorists - suddenly the situation would be worse before said camps were implemented.

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2015 @ 11:49am

      Re:

      there would be a HELL of an outcry from the loved ones of supposedly "potential" terrorists

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2015 @ 12:18pm

      Re:

      >there would be a HELL of an outcry from the loved ones of supposedly "potential" terrorists

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      John Fenderson (profile), 20 Jul 2015 @ 12:43pm

      Re:

      I, too, doubt this. It depends on how they go about it, I suppose, but I note that when we rounded up US citizens of Japanese descent and put them in concentration camps during WWII, there was no effective outcry.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2015 @ 12:53pm

        Re: Re:

        It depends on how they go about it...
        Well, the Army should just call their chiefs to a big peace conference, and get the chiefs to sign a treaty. The tribes can have their own reservation, and settle down to farming, and become civilized.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Jeremy2020 (profile), 20 Jul 2015 @ 3:02pm

      Re:

      Ya know, I keep hearing that it's empty threats and then the NSA is spying on everybody, the definition of terrorist keeps changing (apparently the one place we really want to include people of all races and ethnicity), corporations become people and have a "right" to profit, etc.

      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?"

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    afn29129 (profile), 20 Jul 2015 @ 11:44am

    Gorky Park, USA has already been predicted.

    Justice Antonin Scalia said so hardly a year ago.
    "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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Irving, 20 Jul 2015 @ 11:45am

    So the "conspiracy theorists" were right again, this time about the prison camps being set up around the country.

    Anyone ready to stop saying "just a conspiracy theory" yet?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2015 @ 11:46am

    This is a valid option given some of today's circumstances. POW camps when our nation is at war is not unheard of.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      John Fenderson (profile), 20 Jul 2015 @ 12:45pm

      Re:

      Please explain why you consider this a valid option.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2015 @ 1:00pm

        Re: Re:

        Some are tortured and then turned on the country or countries that are trying to defend them. Detaining them until they realize they are being attacked by a foreign enemy so they don't end up being recruited and launching their own suicide assault is to everyones benefit.

        I have been tortured and I know how they operate.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2015 @ 1:26pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          lol wut

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          John Fenderson (profile), 20 Jul 2015 @ 1:30pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Yeah, putting victims of torture into prisons sounds like a fine idea.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2015 @ 1:38pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          If you have been tortured then you should know better because every US site that holds those guys will torture them. If you are what you pretend to be then we both have heard the unofficial stories of what goes on there. And I don't wish that on my worst enemy because I think we should be better than them.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2015 @ 1:57pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I don't want to get into a long debate on self determination, human rights, and the best way to conduct a war.

            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.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              John Fenderson (profile), 20 Jul 2015 @ 2:07pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              A POW camp is a prison.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2015 @ 2:07pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Congress (not the President, and not the military) has the power to declare war. It has not done so. Therefore, legally, we are NOT at war.

              How is a POW camp different from a prison, except in what we call it and who it's containing?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2015 @ 2:21pm

                Re: 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?
                Your average prison doesn't have a tribal constitution, tribal council, tribal court system, tribal police, BIA, et cetera. Contrariwise, when my friends who live on the rez remind me that it is a POW camp, well, I think that rez is sorta typical for a POW camp here in America.

                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.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2015 @ 2:47pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  If it isn't one of my stalkers/torturers. You can't have access to my treaty and you don't get to decide how any specific tribe conducts itself. If you get fucked over because you wish you had the legal authorizations I actually have from a treaty good.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  John Fenderson (profile), 20 Jul 2015 @ 2:50pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  A reservation is not even remotely a POW camp. In the first place, the people who live on a reservation can leave it. Try that if you're in a POW camp.

                  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.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2015 @ 3:21pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    It's not illegal (except for treason which sometimes doesn't fly under international law) for an enemy soldier to walk up to you and shoot you if you are armed. You have to stick them somewhere until they decide to stop being enemy soldiers.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      That One Guy (profile), 20 Jul 2015 @ 3:49pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      Because clearly locking someone up without a trial, and with no set end of their sentence is going to make them like you. /s

                      "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.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      John Fenderson (profile), 21 Jul 2015 @ 7:50am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      Yes, and how is that relevant?

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2015 @ 1:02pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        Are you in favor or opposed to militants shooting us? I guess I don't know which side you're on.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • icon
                          John Fenderson (profile), 22 Jul 2015 @ 8:36am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          I am opposed to murder no matter who does it. I still don't see how that's relevant to the question of whether or not we should imprison people who have broken no laws.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2015 @ 9:09am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            I'll give you an example:

                            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.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2015 @ 2:44pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                There are declarations that are still valid... The UN is supposed to help conduct them. Some old and new nazis can't let go of ww2. It's still a valid war due to old declarations and treaties and the word hilterism in a treaty/declaration from the 40s. If they would stop setting up the legal equivalent of an extermination camp wherever they can with whatever technology they can it wouldn't be a problem.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2015 @ 2:28pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              A prison cell is inappropriate because often they did nothing wrong


              You *do* realize that the first word in "POW" is "prisoner", right?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2015 @ 4:03pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              or maybe they don't stop attacking the US because the US keeps bombing their people and cities for next to no reason

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2015 @ 1:57pm

      Re:

      Yeah, that's right. It's working for North Korea.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Seegras (profile), 21 Jul 2015 @ 3:19am

      Re:

      So you would declare some of your own population as "enemy combatants"?

      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).

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2015 @ 11:49am

    "For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'."


    At least David Cameron gave us a heads up on this.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2015 @ 11:56am

    A job for FEMA

    Finally, a job that FEMA is alll set up for and capable of getting done!

    Heckuva job, Brownie.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2015 @ 12:40pm

    There are always a certain number of young people who are alienated.
    So, this guy is yelling to get those damn kids off everybody's lawn. That makes him an actually crazy crazy old man.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Ambrellite, 20 Jul 2015 @ 12:47pm

    Nothing unexpected here

    As one might expect, those in positions of authority tend to be (what else?) authoritarians, and so take seriously the idea that we just need to put all the bad guys (anti-establishment "radicals" especially) in a cage, or kill them outright.

    That's the entire premise of the GWoT, and Clark is only acknowledging it explicitly.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2015 @ 12:54pm

    The thing is, if we do this - if we decide to inter people because we don't like their beliefs - then there's no reason to even fight in the first place.

    If we aren't going to guarantee basic rights, then if we lose, the only thing that changes is who holds the prison keys.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2015 @ 1:31pm

      Re:

      "If we aren't going to guarantee basic rights, then if we lose, the only thing that changes is who holds the prison keys."

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        nasch (profile), 20 Jul 2015 @ 7:42pm

        Re: Re:

        Why do you think basic rights only apply if the US looses?

        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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 23 Jul 2015 @ 3:53pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          not even close. one side has a better human rights record so it's a losing issue

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Uriel-238 (profile), 23 Jul 2015 @ 6:54pm

            I don't think human rights should be assessed by compare-and-contrast.

            It's not enough for one country to (say) discriminate against women then to say Yes, but our enemy tortures dissenters and uses napalm on civilian targets.

            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.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Uriel-238 (profile), 20 Jul 2015 @ 5:10pm

      I'm afraid we're already there.

      Not only is the extrajudicial detention and interogation program which uses extraordinary rendition and enhanced interrogation techniques still active, but no representative in our nation has shown any repentance for it. If someone in power wants someone else disappeared and tortured, it takes no more than a phone call.

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Bergman (profile), 21 Jul 2015 @ 8:15pm

      Well, if we do decide to become Them

      We can start by interning General Clark.

      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?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    TruthHurts (profile), 20 Jul 2015 @ 1:20pm

    I totally support this idea - with one major modification...

    The terrorist / radical groups that need to be interred are the entire list of employees, management and operatives for the CIA, NSA, FBI, TSA, USAG, Executive Branch, Congressional Branch and Judicial Branch.

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Personanongrata, 20 Jul 2015 @ 1:32pm

    Radicalization is in the Eye of the Beholder

    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.

    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?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2015 @ 2:04pm

      Re: Radicalization is in the Eye of the Beholder

      I am from the US. I am in my 30's and have been a target since I was a child. As far as I can tell, no part of our war is based upon lies. It's just something from abroad that will not let go of their nazism, from wherever on the globe they grew up, and a set of uncomfortable facts about what some nations abroad wish they stood for.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Jeremy2020 (profile), 20 Jul 2015 @ 3:10pm

        Re: Re: Radicalization is in the Eye of the Beholder

        You're not too good at this trolling thing.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Personanongrata, 21 Jul 2015 @ 11:44am

        Re: Re: Radicalization is in the Eye of the Beholder

        As far as I can tell, no part of our war is based upon lies.

        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?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 20 Jul 2015 @ 1:38pm

    "If our children don't love us, we should beat them until they do." - The Hornet's Nest

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    spodula, 20 Jul 2015 @ 1:45pm

    After a week..

    of senior UK officials showing their total ignorance of the past, present, technology and the public, its good to see our brothers over the pond haven't lost their touch...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2015 @ 2:00pm

    Like the war on poverty and the war on drugs we will waste resources that which should be going to infrastructure, and instead throw those same resources down into a bottomless pit. Our money isn't worth the paper it is printed on, the military is trying to police force the world, and the NSA is wasting that worthless money like it grows on trees, spying on Grandma Brown. The terrorists won when Ed Snowden was forced to flee the country for trying to do the right thing. If you think we have representation in Washington D.C. you are sadly mistaken. Our two party system is broken. Has anyone seen the next pack of presidential contenders? Like Mr. Obama's preacher said from the pulpit, "God Damn America".

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2015 @ 2:46pm

    I thought Joe McCarthy was dead. If your covered with shit just wrap yourself in an American flag and no one will notice.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Truth, 20 Jul 2015 @ 3:02pm

    9/11 was done by the Pentagon

    All the evidence points to the Pentagon and US military contractors perpetrating 9/11.

    Look at the collapse of WTC building 7. It was clearly a controlled demolition.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2015 @ 3:47pm

    FEMA camps already exist for this purpose. I somehow doubt camps with barbed wire fences and walls armed guards patrolling and people that are sent there not being allowed to leave is somehow for the public's benefit

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2015 @ 3:49pm

    "It's our right...

    ...and obligation to segregate them from the normal community for the duration of the conflict."

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Justme, 20 Jul 2015 @ 6:33pm

    Blowhard for blowback. .

    What General Clark see's as a solution to radical's, seems ideally designed to actually create radical's!

    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!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    tqk (profile), 20 Jul 2015 @ 6:41pm

    Liar, liar, pants on fire.

    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.

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    toyotabedzrock (profile), 20 Jul 2015 @ 6:50pm

    Can we put the general in an anti-authoritarian camp?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2015 @ 7:36pm

    From the Man who Brought Us

    This from a man who carried out the military response to Waco in 1993. But who am I to judge, as long as your radicalism serves Clark's ideals he is more than happy to let you run wild. How else does one explain the fact that the Serbs were able execute so many minorities in the Balkans.

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    me@me.net, 21 Jul 2015 @ 3:37am

    First they came for the....

    You know the rest

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2015 @ 4:34am

    Internment camps for enemies of America with extremist ideas, huh?

    Okay, you first, General.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Sheogorath (profile), 21 Jul 2015 @ 6:43am

    Some WWII-style internment camps are just the thing we need to cause domestic radicalization.
    FTFY, General. YW. ;)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    No Name, 21 Jul 2015 @ 9:42am

    Muslim Training Camps in US

    How in the FUCK can there be all these Muslim Training Camps in the USA? Hollowpoint Ammo purchased by DHS NSA for domestic use? FEMA Internment camps? WTF?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      John Fenderson (profile), 21 Jul 2015 @ 9:55am

      Re: Muslim Training Camps in US

      I don't even know what a "Muslim training camp" is, unless they're talking about the Islamic version of Christian Sunday Schools.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Uriel-238 (profile), 21 Jul 2015 @ 12:27pm

        That sounds like Christian Summer Camp

        Essentially a campfire songs and marshmallow roasting camp in which they pray to Mecca five times a day.

        ...and use real marshmallow or some Kosher substitute, and not the porcine byproduct that passes for it these days.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Sheogorath (profile), 21 Jul 2015 @ 1:56pm

          Re: That sounds like Christian Summer Camp

          Halal, not Kosher. Kosher is Jewish dietary laws.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Uriel-238 (profile), 21 Jul 2015 @ 6:24pm

            Halal vs. Kosher

            In this case, the restriction against pork bi-products is the same.

            And once upon a time Marshmallow was a plant.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Sheogorath (profile), 22 Jul 2015 @ 3:15pm

              Re: Halal vs. Kosher

              Yes, the restriction against pork and its byproducts is the same, but other restrictions are different. For example, an orthodox Moslem doesn't have an issue with combining different food stuffs the way an orthodox Jew would. The fact that Judaism and Islam have certain similarities is no excuse for ignorance of the differences between the two.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 21 Jul 2015 @ 1:38pm

    "which side you are on"

    There are sides?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2015 @ 4:47pm

    I wonder if hitler thought he was doing good too

    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

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Uriel-238 (profile), 21 Jul 2015 @ 6:39pm

      "I wonder if Hitler thought he was doing good, too."

      YES!

      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

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2015 @ 4:52pm

    The emperor has spoken

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2015 @ 5:06pm

    Governments Vs terrorists

    Fighting the good fight, or fighting the competition?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    albert, 23 Jul 2015 @ 5:12am

    LOSER

    Wesley Clark --- the idiot-loser of Viet Nam.
    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Jul 2015 @ 7:22am

    Hopefully Wes was angling to create this debate.

    Kudo's to him if that was his intention.

    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?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.