Wesley Clark & US Internment Camps

Comment: Wesley Clark has had some good things to say in the past ... But he's really gone AWOL on this one:

----------------------

Martin Armstrong

There is little doubt that the government has been building internment camps and they will be used during periods of civil unrest as socialism collapses. People who think this is just a conspiracy nonsense are totally unfamiliar with how those in government use the law.

I am the longest person ever held by a federal judge in prison on CIVIL CONTEMPT, which was NOT a crime. But I was being “coerced” not PUNISHED although I was placed in the same cell with another person who was being PUNISHED. You see, I personally was not in prison, it was the corporate officer in prison to be coerced because corporations have no rights. So I was legally not in prison as an individual. This is how they play with the definitions of words and intent to justify whatever they want to do.

So do not think for one second that those in government would not use interment camps or that you would actually have to do something to find yourself in one. We have CONSPIRACY, so it is only a matter of what they think you agreed to or believe. You do not have to commit any crime.

Therefore, General Wesley Clark revealed on MSNBC how people in government look down upon those they consider the great unwashed. If you disagree with them on any level, you are the enemy. Do not think otherwise. The Constitution means nothing. In a court of law you have to prove it exists and why the government should not do what it is doing. They get to do as they like and it is ALWAYS your burden to prove you have any rights whatsoever.

Read more

------------------

Comment: The following article offers a context as to how Clarke is very far from who we thought he was. His appeal to the moderate conservative is most certainly designed: 

Fmr. NATO Commander Wesley Clark calls for internment camps 'to deal with radicals' in the US and Europe

General Wesley Clark: Our friends and allies created ISIS

Zero Hedge

Not that it was really a conspiracy 'theory' but with General Wesley Clark (ret.) now openly admitting "ISIS got started through funding from our friends and allies... to fight to the death against Hezbollah" it appears the 'angel investors' cat is out of the bag. Adding that "they recruited the zealots and religious fundamentalists" Clark says 'we' create "Frankenstein." He is careful not to name names, but we ask (rhetorically of course), which of our (oil-bearing) allies has the biggest bone to pick with Hezbollah (apart from Israel of course)?

Clark on creating Frankenstein...

Read more
 

Pentagon War Plans in 2001: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, & Iran

Comment: Just in case we forget the reasons for the current chaos...

-----------------

Police State USA

U.S. General Wesley Clark (ret.) revealed that he was informed, in the days following 9/11/2001, that the Department of Defense was planning wars with Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan,  Iran.

Clark was regarded as an esteemed commander during his service from 1966 to 2000, and obtained the rank of 4-star general. He discussed the matter in an interview with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now on March 2, 2007.

Here is the transcript of Gen. Clark’s account:

CLARK: About 10 days after 9/11, I went to the Pentagon, and I saw [Defense] Secretary [Donald] Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary [Paul] Wolfowitz. I went downstairs to say hello to some of the people on the joint staff that used to work for me.

One of the generals called me in and said, “Sir, you gotta come in and talk to me.” I said, “Sir, you’re too busy.” And he said, “No, no! We’ve made the decision — we’re going to war with Iraq!” This is on or about the 28th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why!?” He said, “I don’t know!” He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.” So I said, “Did they find some information connecting Saddam to al Qaeda?” He said, “No, no, there’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.” He said, “I guess its like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.”

So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time, we were bombing in Afghanistan. And I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, its worse than that.” He said– he reached over on his desk and he picked up a piece of paper, and he said, “I just got this from upstairs,” meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office. And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years. Starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finishing off Iran.”

What can be made of this?

One explanation, as some suggest, is that it is not unexpected for the Pentagon to maintain ongoing contingency plans; keeping ready to pursue various far-fetched wars at all times. But even if that much is true, why would this seven-country invasion plan be put into official memos in the weeks following the 9/11/2001 attack? Those countries had nothing to do with the hijackings — yet American generals were being briefed about serious plans to attack. Why?

The proposed plan obviously did not pan out exactly as written, but it may have very well given us a look at the agenda of some very bloodthirsty policy-makers, as they tried to exploit the anguish felt following the collapse of the Twin Towers.

Disturbingly, we cannot even be sure that “the plan” is not still being pursued. The Pentagon has maintained a steady course of aggressive foreign interventionism throughout both the Bush and Obama administrations. As we have witnessed, much of what General Clark revealed has ultimately moved forward, albeit with a modified timeline.

Iraq’s government was toppled by the U.S. during the bloody full-scale invasion in 2003. U.S. commandos have been operating clandestinely in Sudan since at least 2005. The U.S. has been operating Somalia since 2007, clandestinely and through missile strikes. Libya’s government was toppled with the help of U.S. missile support in 2009. The U.S. began its bombing campaign in Syria in 2014. Iran’s fate remains yet to be determined, but was a frequent target of pro-war rhetoric in the ’12 election cycle.

If one subscribes to the idea that it is the U.S. military’s proper role (and the U.S. taxpayers’ economic burden) to clean up every undemocratic cesspool on the planet, then this brand of foreign policy might make sense or seem appealing. But even if that much is accepted, one must acknowledge that the leaders and policymakers clamoring for war are the same folks who gave us the Patriot Act, the NDAA, the ACA, the TSA, mass domestic spying, giant bailouts, exponential debt growth, and so many other harmful policies.

Americans’ patriotism and support of democracy have long been exploited by leaders with a far less altruistic foreign policy agenda. The country is not being kept in a state of perpetual conflict because it is good for the USA, good for the world, or destined to promote freedom.

Could it be that the purpose of pursuing war is to be at war? War is the perfect tool to centralize and expand government, degrade civilian liberties, suppress dissenting voices, maintain high levels of state secrecy, unaccountably disperse large sums of taxpayer money, militarize law enforcement, spy on the people, among other things. As Randolph Bourne famously wrote, “War is the health of the state.”

{ Support Police State USA }