If you have "no place to go," come here!

Wesley Clark Calls for Internment of 'Disloyal' Americans

Last Friday during an MSNBC interview retired General Wesley Clark called for “disloyal” Americans to be put into internment camps according to Thomas Gaist.

Apparently this was prompted by the recent “lone wolf” Chattanooga, TN shooting at a recruiting station.

Wesley Clark on MSNBC:

We have got to identify the people who are most likely to be radicalized. We’ve got to cut this off at the beginning,


On a national policy level, we need to look at what self-radicalization means, because we are at war with this group of terrorists,


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.


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.

Clark is advocating massive “round ups” of politically radicalized citizens.

During WW II in America German and Japanese Americans were interned. This was a very shameful, anti-democratic period in our history.

Clark is advocating internment for people who have committed no crime, but who ideologically are at odds with the policies of the US government.

Clark was the Supreme Commander of NATO. He was a candidate for US President in 2004 and 2008. He backed Hillary Clinton rather than Obama in 2008, and is a strong advocate for her in this election. One would expect him to achieve some serious position of authority if Hillary Clinton becomes our next president.

He is a Democratic Party high flyer who may be in a position to implement his program of what Gaist labels a “mass segregation of dissidents”.

If one starts to connect the dots of US military units conducting drills across seven states in the US right now, probable military detainment of dissident civilians is not a hard reach.

Gaist emphasizes that after Clark’s stunning statements there has been almost total silence from corporate media, including The New York Times, WAPO, and The Wall Street Journal.


This silence in the face of an open call for internment of domestic political opponents, issued by one of the country’s leading political generals, underscores the fact that the entire political and media establishment has decisively broken with centuries-old bourgeois democratic norms. The media silence will no doubt serve to encourage forces within the US military and intelligence apparatus to intensify the drive toward dictatorship.


The George W. Bush administration made further preparations for new prison camps in 2006, signing a $400 million contract with KBR to build up the Department of Homeland Security’s “detention and processing capabilities.”

The Obama administration has expanded the authoritarian legal and policy framework developed under previous administrations. Since taking office, Obama has issued annual decrees renewing the state of emergency declared by the Bush administration after 9/11 and further entrenching emergency powers granted to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

In a series of annual National Defense Authorization Acts, the Obama administration has codified the anti-democratic measures implemented under Bush, asserting unlimited power to indefinitely detain or kill individuals without trial.

Gaist points out the imposition of “de facto martial law” in Boston following the Boston Marathon bombings in 2013. Also that last year Ferguson, Missouri, was "locked down" after the murder by police of Michael Brown.


Last week, the Senate Intelligence Committee approved legislation granting the US government new powers to demand regular reporting from social media platforms about individuals suspected of ties to “terrorist activity."

Bill Van Auken also addresses Clark’s disturbing statements:

If Clark’s proposal were implemented, such “sting” operations and subsequent frame-up trials could be dispensed with, as the “self-radicalized” were identified by their thoughts, statements or Internet postings and summarily thrown into concentration camps.

The scale of his proposed response is so disproportionate to the actual threat—which has claimed far fewer victims than mass shootings carried out by individuals who have shown no sign of being “radicalized”—that it is impossible not to conclude that there are deeper and hidden motives and processes at work.

If one takes Clark’s statements at their face value, the term “Orwellian” does not do them justice. “We have got to identify people who are most likely to be radicalized,” he said in his television interview. “We’ve got to cut this off at the beginning.” In other words, the massive and ongoing surveillance of the American population must be intensified to identify potential radicals and jail them based on their alleged thoughts or expressions.

“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,” he added.


People are to be imprisoned in camps for the “duration” of the never-ending “war on terrorism” for being deemed “disloyal” or insufficiently supportive of the United States, a charge that could be leveled against anyone expressing opposition to US imperialist war abroad, police repression at home or even the profit interests of US corporations and banks.

Van Auken observes that the internment of 110,000 mostly Japanese-Americans during World War II was anti-democratically based solely on nationality and not crimes committed.

Van Auken maintains that Clark’s proposal is more in line with the actions of the Nazis in 1933 when they suspended democratic rights and habeas corpus. Germany then opened its first concentration camp in Dachau to hold political prisoners which included socialists, trade unionists and others labeled “disloyal” to the Third Reich.

Wesley Clark, explains Van Auken, is an investment banker who heads Wesley K. Clark & Associates, an international consulting firm that aids big oil companies, defense contractors and investment banks.

I'm sure these entities have a strong and wide take on "disloyal" American citizens supported by General Clark.

Van Auken stresses that this advocacy of a mass internment of dissidents is being made not by a right-wing media big mouth like Rush Limbaugh but by a man well-respected by so-called progressives. Also, again, someone tightly cronied with the corporatist elites.

According to Van Auken Justice Clarence Thomas last month after the legalization of same-sex marriage and the contention that the court had granted gay Americans "dignity" remarked on how Japanese Americans interned during World War II did not lose their dignity despite having been locked up. There was a flutter of outrage over Thomas's chilling reference.

After Clark's bald-faced pronouncement? Crickets!

Van Auken also reveals that Justice Antonin Scalia last year made reference to the Supreme Court’s 1944 decision upholding the legality of mass internment camps during WW II, which decision was never overturned. Scalia had declared, “... you are kidding yourself if you think the same thing will not happen again.”

Van Auken notes that while the NYT and other mainstream media outlets are making fun of “paranoid” citizens distressed by the Jade Helm 15 military operation across the country which happens to involve exercises for detention and internment, it is silent on this gobsmacking suggestion from Wesley Clark.

The War on Terror has certainly come home. The Patriot Act keeps on diabolically giving and giving -- that is, giving horror upon horror. The militarization of our police leading to a slow genocide of blacks and Latinos in the US or their colossally massive incarceration. The lockdowns of American cities. The incredible levels of social and economic inequality in the US due to a government captured by and serving corporatists who sociopathically put profits over humanity, even to a lethal degree.

The ruling class is preparing to even further diminish, devastate and control a citizenry that is being pushed into justified rebelliousness.

Will the majority of Americans continue to squeeze tightly into the faux-progressive bubble of evil “lesser evilism” denial -- cling to the “it could be worse, it could be happening directly to me” unspoken mantra of narcissism and authoritarian-following complacency -- and let the Orwellian unravelling of American democracy escalate to full out fascism?

After all, we big-mouthed lefties calling out the betrayals of past administrations and this one sure have been asking for it.

No votes yet


V. Arnold's picture
Submitted by V. Arnold on

That is hardly surprising in todays atmosphere; after all, we have the Donald, sounding like a modern day Mussolini (or Hitler) touting fascisti sounding epithets around immigrants, racial issues, and hatred in general.
His poll numbers are impressively frightening as he resonates with...who? Some people, obviously.
Dark clouds gathering...
Sanders is a war monger, closet racist, anti-Russia, and very pro-Israeli; given all that, what the hell difference does his faux socialism actually mean?
Shut the fuck up and we'll keep you alive?
I've never seen a darker future for the U.S.; if I were a black person (esp.), I'd be looking for a way out; and PDQ! I already did...
This is IMO, a must see;

Ta-Nehisi Coates Extended Interview on Being Black in America.

He's moving his family to France; that is a powerful statement for someone of his talent...
Good work LL, but I fear for naught; it was too late a decade ago...

Submitted by libbyliberal on

VA, so nice to hear from you and appreciate your take as always.

Yes, Donald is being incredibly frightening and his popularity horrifies even more.

I agree about Sanders. Why are progressives still cherrypicking and not connecting the dots on international policy paralleling domestic policy. Patriarchal paradigm!!! You can't do patriarchy abroad and humanism at home. You can't serve two agendas authentically.

Thanks for this link. I am listening to it now. I have seen him on the NewsHour twice and been impressed with his directness.

best, libby

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

Why are progressives still cherrypicking and not connecting the dots on international policy paralleling domestic policy.

Because some of us want a single payer health care system and are prepared to ignore a lot of bad policy in order to get it.

Submitted by libbyliberal on

Maybe, lambert. Maybe his internment rant is to attract conservatives hard on terror and dissidents. Would Hillary play it that way? I am thinking good chance. Maybe she is appealing to the conservatives using the triangulation c/o Bernie.

best, libby

jo6pac's picture
Submitted by jo6pac on

is a great plan if we start with former govt. employees going back to bush 1.

blues's picture
Submitted by blues on

Get A Real Reason To Do The Bother To Get Informed! Get: Simple Score Voting

Time for the great mutiny from those who have stolen our treasure to rule the world. Stolen our lives. To rule the world.

Simple score voting.

No more Clinton/Bush.

Stop it.

We have the old single-selection two-party. So no choice at all for you.

The "republic" is simply ruled by judges who may, for example, throw gays a bone for show now and then, but really only watch out for the rights of the people who matter -- the rich, of course.

Democracy means knowingness and good will of the PEOPLE. Not the republicist rapaciousness of the judges.

Teach the people! Trust The People! We are not the "mob"! The rich Great Gamers are the real mob. You have to know the truth and seek the truth and the truth will set you free.

There are two entirely different kinds of elections, and kinds of "contestants". An election of the president of a science fiction novel forum is not at all the same thing as an election of a United States President. The former is really a contest between two (or more) individual candidates (and their agendas), but the latter is actually a contest between the weak and the mighty — the well-supported candidates of a very few elites versus the grass-roots candidates of the vast multitude of non-elite people.

Simple score voting can be completely described in one short simple sentence: Give no vote at all, or from one to ten votes to any number of candidates you wish (up to some reasonable limit, say 20 candidates), and then simply add all the votes up.

It can be completely machine-free! If machines make tallying X time easier, they make coordinated rigging X times easier. Which can we truly afford???

One could say that simple score eliminates 90% of the spoiler effect. To illustrate: if a voter gives 10 votes to Nader and 9 votes to Gore, it is simply obvious that, if Nader does not win, the voter has only sacrificed exactly 10% of their voting power. Not 100% as they would have had they been forced to use the usual single-selection ("faux plurality") voting method.

No fancy math is necessary to compare and contrast it to every other option for effectiveness and simplicity, including single-selection (aka "plurality," our present "system") Condorcet, Borda, IRV, Range (with its tricky "averages"), Approval (which is not adequately discriminative for choice of candidates), etc.

The simple score method I advocate is the very simplest, since it only allows from 1 to 10 votes to be given, not from 0 to 9, or 0 to 10. That is simply another complication. It also has no vote-averaging that seriously complicates the "range" score method. I also seem t be the only one to point out that voters should always vote artfully (aka strategically), not artlessly or heroically (aka "honestly" or "sincerely").

(Simple score is not like approval voting at all -- it is vastly more discriminative.)

PLEASE NOTE: score voting has never been used when there were truly high stakes for the voters. The single-selection method has always been utilized to spoiler effect enforced two-party or two-candidate choices. And would three money-empowered choices be better? Did Greece and Spain with their parliamentary schemes fare well with their "systems"?

And the people MUST vote strategically -- NOT artlessly ("honestly", "sincerely")! Do the Senators and judges act with honesty and sincerity? Do they vote heroicaly? Take a wild guess!

And why do you suppose they don't have just ONE money-empowered candidate or party? Something to think about?

Political Science Is An Ancient Fraud

Who Uses Score Voting?

The Center for Election Science — Score Voting — Who uses Score Voting?

(+) The Harvey Milk Democratic Club, the largest Democratic club in San Francisco, uses Score Voting for their endorsements.

(+) The Pirate Party of North Rhine-Westphalia, the most populous of Germany’s 16 states (population: 18 million), uses Score Voting (on a -3 to +3 scale) to elect their Board of Directors. On May 13, 2012, the NRW Pirates won 7.8% of the vote in the state elections, winning 20 of the 237 seats in state parliament. (Their party list had itself been selected via multi-winner Approval Voting.) They subsequently held their first Score Voting Board of Directors election on May 29, 2012. The results of that election are here.

(+) The Pirate Party of Lower Saxony subsequently adopted Score Voting (on a 0-5 scale) to order their party list. The first use was on August 25, 2012.

--- “Overall the counting proved that we had chosen the right system. We were only slightly slower than we had expected and most people were happy with the result. They felt that with the scoring they could express their will in a very effective way.” - André, Pirate Party Member, Germany

(+) uses Score Voting to rank every NBA player from number 500 to number 1.

(+) Mozilla, the organization that makes the popular Firefox web browser, uses Score Voting to select Mentors for their Mozilla Reps program.

(+) The Fedora Project, a partnership of free software community members from around the globe, uses Score Voting to select their board members.

(+) The Central Co-op, an independent, member-owned natural foods cooperative in Seattle, WA, uses Score Voting for their Inside Trustee Elections.

--- “It’s easy to understand.” - Webster Walker, Community Outreach Administrator, Central Co-op, Seattle, WA

(+) The San Francisco FrontRunners, a running club, uses Score Voting to select which charity to donate their proceeds to.

(+) NAVA, the North American Vexillological Association, used Score Voting to identify the best and worst flags on the continent.

(+) The TV shows American Idol, The Voice, and Dancing with the Stars use Score Voting to select their winners.

(+) The Miss America Pageant uses Score Voting to select their finalists.

(+) The cooking shows Iron Chef, Top Chef, and Cupcake Wars all use Score Voting to select their winners.

(+) Many Olympic sports, such as gymnastics and figure skating, use Score Voting to select their winners.

Voting in Sanity

Success Stories:

Where is Score Voting being used?

(+) By our schools, to select the valedictorian

(+) In the Olympics, for judging athletic performances

(+) At the Internet Movie Database (IMDb), to evaluate moviegoers’ preferences

(+) On websites that feature reviews, such as, Yelp, and the Apple App Store

(+) …and it undoubtedly forms a major part of every search-engine algorithm!

Note that score voting has virtually never been used in major political elections where there were significantly high stakes for voters.

In any reasonable electoral process, simple score voting provides all voters with equal electoral power. Some people disingenuously refer to the "one man, one vote" misrepresentation. What the phase actually refers to is described below:

Wikipedia (limited reliability) -- Reynolds v. Sims [Voting; "One man, one vote"] -- 15 June 2015

Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) was a United States Supreme Court case that ruled that state legislature districts had to be roughly equal in population. The case was brought on behalf of voters in Alabama, but the decision affected both northern and southern states that had similarly failed to reapportion their legislatures in keeping with changes in state population.


The eight justices who struck down state senate inequality based their decision on the principle of "one person, one vote". In his majority decision, Chief Justice Earl Warren said "Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests."

Justice Tom C. Clark wrote a concurring opinion.

Justice Potter Stewart also issued a concurring opinion, in which he argued that while many of the schemes of representation before the court in the case were egregiously undemocratic and clearly violative of equal protection, it was not for the Court to provide any guideline beyond general reasonableness for apportionment of districts.

In dissent, Justice John Marshall Harlan II criticized the Court for ignoring the original intent of the Equal Protection Clause, which he argued did not extend to voting rights. Harlan claimed the Court was imposing its own idea of "good government" on the states, stifling creativity and violating federalism. Harlan further claimed that if Reynolds was correct, then the US Constitution's own provision for two senators from each state would be Constitutionally suspect since the fifty states don't have "substantially equal populations". "One person, one vote" was extended to Congressional (but not Senate) districts in Wesberry v. Sanders (1964).

So fuck the rich man's system! Get simple score voting, Make it worthwhile to be informed!

NO MORE Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton/ John Ellis "Jeb" Bush!!!

ENOUGH!!! Enough!!!

Vote for PEOPLE -- not corrupt parties!