Bill Clinton’s former general wants prison camps throughout Europe and the U.S.
Here is Wesley Clark:
He is quoted at Breitbart.com:
Well, we’ve 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 will reach out to those people and bring them back in, and encourage them to look at their blessings here.
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 them in a camp, we — they were prisoners of war. So, 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. It’s our 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 increasingly get tough on this, not only in the United States, but our allied nations, like Britain and Germany and France, are going to have to look at their domestic law procedures.
Where do you even begin with something like this?
Lets deal with the dangerous double speak first. Clark makes a claim about a human right—“they’re disloyal to the United States as a matter of principle, fine. That’s their right.” Except he wants people put in camps for it.
That means it is not “their right.” Clark has managed to convince himself (or is trying to convince us) that a person can enjoy their rights as long as they are not executed or tortured. Being jailed is just fine.
And notice the “crime” here. It is not because they’ve attacked anyone or even have planned such an attack. No, just for being “disloyal” to the country, whatever that means, they should be “segregated” into concentration camps. Anyone we suspect might be “radicalized” if they lose their job or girlfriend must be “segregated” now.
It is amazing that we just had Franklin Graham invoke WWII as a precedent for immigration restriction and now Wesley Clark is taking it a step further and arguing for prison camps. But even Clark is not following the history he invokes. We didn’t jail people for their sympathies. We put the Japanese in camps for their race. How can Clark say these things and not see where his rhetoric leads?
It is hard for me not to put my tinfoil hat on as I listen to Clark. Even though I thought Graham’s call for ending all Muslim immigration was extreme, it seems obvious that both here and in Europe leaders have been far too careless with Islamic immigration. They have not only allowed immigration, but in Europe they have basically adapted to their presence rather than expecting them to assimilate. Any popular opposition to this policy is derided as racism.
And now, suddenly, we are hearing from a notorious liberal that we need prison camps. Was that the endgame all along? (Again, I’m wearing my tinfoil hat.) Has immigration policy and non-enforcement of the law been used to create a situation in which the government can justify a regime of prison camps?
Whether or not that was the plan, it is what we see happening. The story about Clark in the Intercept really obsesses over his sudden change of attitude:
The comments were shockingly out of character for Clark, who after serving as supreme allied commander of NATO made a name for himself in progressive political circles. In 2004, his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination was highly critical of the Bush administration’s excessive response to the 9/11 terror attacks. Since then, he has been a critic of policies that violate the Geneva Convention, saying in 2006 that policies such as torture violate “the very values that [we] espouse.”
In a memoir written the following year, he also famously alleged that the White House under Bush had developed a massively imperialistic plan for the Middle East, which would see the administration attempt to “take out seven countries in five years,” beginning with the invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Earlier this year I spoke with Clark at the annual Lewis and Clark University Symposium on International Affairs in Portland, Oregon. The subject of our discussion was how to deal with the potential threat of foreign fighters returning from armed conflicts abroad. At the time, Clark spoke out strongly against “the politics of fear” and eroding democratic institutions and norms, while reiterating his criticism of the excesses committed by Bush-era neoconservatives under the banner of fighting terrorism.
Yeah, and when Barack Obama was elected President he was given the Nobel Peace Prize. Are we seeing a pattern here?