Retired general and former Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark has caused a stir with an interview with MSNBC in which he appeared to call for the establishment of World War II-style internment camps to be revived for “disloyal Americans.” Clark used the infamous American internment camps for Japanese, German, and Italian Americans as a model: “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.”
Clark offered little insight into how he would designate certain people as disloyal for purposes of internment. He simply said “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.”
It is not clear how Clark rationalizes his recognition of a protected right with internment for exercise of that right. He seemed to go further in stating that “We have got to identify the people who are most likely to be radicalized. We’ve got to cut this off at the beginning. 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.” He also seemed to encourage the same measures throughout the West: “not only the United States but our allied nations like Britain, Germany and France are going to have to look at their domestic law procedures.”
Clark’s chilling comments bring back painful memories of the internment camps and the shameful role of the Supreme Court in allowing such internment in Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944). The Justices voted 6-3 to allow the internment of these citizens.
As always, in this concurrent, Justice Felix Frankfurter seemed eager to surrender authority of the judiciary:
According to my reading of Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34, it was an offense for Korematsu to be found in Military Area No. 1, the territory wherein he was previously living, except within the bounds of the established Assembly Center of that area. Even though the various orders issued by General DeWitt be deemed a comprehensive code of instructions, their tenor is clear, and not contradictory. They put upon Korematsu the obligation to leave Military Area No. 1, but only by the method prescribed in the instructions, i.e., by reporting to the Assembly Center . . .
The provisions of the Constitution which confer on the Congress and the President powers to enable this country to wage war are as much part of the Constitution as provisions looking to a nation at peace. . . . Therefore, the validity of action under the war power must be judged wholly in the context of war. That action is not to be stigmatized as lawless because like action in times of peace would be lawless. To talk about a military order that expresses an allowable judgment of war needs by those entrusted with the duty of conducting war as “an unconstitutional order” is to suffuse a part of the Constitution with an atmosphere of unconstitutionality. The respective spheres of action of military authorities and of judges are, of course, very different. . . . If a military order such as that under review does not transcend the means appropriate for conducting war, such action by the military is as constitutional as would be any authorized action by the Interstate Commerce Commission within the limits of the constitutional power to regulate commerce. And, being an exercise of the war power explicitly granted by the Constitution for safeguarding the national life by prosecuting war effectively, I find nothing in the Constitution which denies to Congress the power to enforce such a valid military order by making its violation an offense triable in the civil courts. . . . To find that the Constitution does not forbid the military measures now complained of does not carry with it approval of that which Congress and the Executive did. That is their business, not ours.
It was Justice Murphy who correctly called the camps as part of “the ugly abyss of racism,” and an example of “the abhorrent and despicable treatment of minority groups by the dictatorial tyrannies which this nation is now pledged to destroy.”
Clark seems to view this history as worth repeating even though we would be interning people for what he calls the exercise of their rights. The “disloyalty” shown in the exercise of free speech would presumably be the basis for internment since any actual disloyal acts would likely be crimes punishable in their own right. It is an unsettling recognition of how extremists like those in ISIS can radicalize those who fear or hate them. The sad truth is that our greatest wounds as a nation have been self-inflicted. It is the very danger described most famously by Justice Louis Brandeis in Olmstead:
Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.
WWDTD?
What would Donald Trump say about that courageous war-fighter and FOB, Wesley Clark?
Donald Trump is saying to people like John McCain and Lindsey Graham the very thing that many Americans would love to say to their faces. McCain slapped Trump and Trump kicked his —. McCain’s a war hero but that doesn’t give him a right to betray and destroy America by being a milquetoast “caveman” on every issue. Ditto Ms. Graham.
Life is messy. We can all be messy from time to time. Trump can be messy.
AND HE ISN’T BACKNG DOWN.
“You can stand me up at the gates of Hell and I won’t back down.” – Tom Petty
OK. Donald Trump makes minor mistakes or misstatements, but the general idea is that the people (RINOs) he criticizes have needed criticizing for a long time.
Trump tells the media to shut the —- up. It’s not the “micro-aggression” that Trump is engaging in that matters, it’s the destruction of America that has occurred for the past 50 years that needs to be substantially addressed immediately.
Trump’s corrective, sometimes punitive, action is “indicated” at this “tipping point” for America,
the petty PC complaints of the milquetoast, extremist radical, union “Neanderthal” thug, liberal collectivist media aside.
No more Mr. Nice Guy.
Nick, you are so correct. There is absolutely no similarity in the denial of due process to detainees in Gitmo and the denial of due process proposed by Wes for his camps.
Alicia, You make an interesting point. The problem for me is that it’s obvious the govt. is whipping people into a frenzy of fear so that we keep begging them to suspend our rights in exchange for making us “safe”. Many people are going to agree with Clark because they have been conditioned to experience extraordinarily fear of terrorism. Death from falls in bathtubs are many times over more likely than being attacked by terrorists.
Yet, the govt. does not declare the Global War against bathtubs, lightening strikes or cars–each much more likely to kill people than terrorist attacks. Instead, they have consistently vilified certain groups such as Muslims and other minority populations in the US who are easy targets. They whip up hatred and fear against them. Next they ask the population to sacrifice the rights of the easy targets. As things have gone along well with that tactic the govt. has successfully asked people to give up everyone’s rights as the way to keep us “safe”. Mission accomplished!
Wes is out there to fear monger and it will be effective. Whether he is a has been or not will not matter. He is one more voice of fear, floating the idea that it’s completely worth giving up rights in exchange for “safety”. If he were out there speaking alone, he wouldn’t have much power. The problem is that he isn’t alone. He’s parroting what the elites would like-the complete suspension of our rights. and overturning of the rule of law. Pretty much Mission accomplished on that front as well.
“Dream Police”
The dream police, they live inside of my head
The dream police, they come to me in my bed
The dream police, they’re coming to arrest me, oh, no
You know that talk is cheap
And those rumors ain’t nice
And when I fall asleep
I don’t think I’ll survive the night, the night
‘Cause they’re waiting for me
They’re looking for me
Every single night
They’re driving me insane
Those men inside my brain
Well, I can’t tell lies
‘Cause they’re listening to me
And when I fall asleep
Bet they’re spying on me tonight, tonight
I could see this morning, based on my experience, that Jill is incapable of distinguishing Gitmo from the internment camps that General Clark is proposing. Do you all see it now? Maybe Clark will put another idiot, General McCaffrey, in charge of these Bad Thought Camps.
Maybe Wesley Kanne is the Democrat equivalent of Donald Trump the RepubliCon. Even if he does not declare himself a candidate he can keep yakking. The Donald can pick up on what he said about internment camps here and then berate the RepubliCons who are in favor of Gitmo. We are on the slippery slope and are near where the slope meets the edge of the cliff. Bye bye Miss American Pie, took the Chevy to the levee and the levee was dry. Good ol Wesley drinking whiskey and rye. This is the way you will die. This will be the way you’ll die. Herman Goering is laughing in his grave. He is the one who burned the Reichstag Bldg and blamed it on the Communists.
I think it’s way too easy to cause a stir in this country. Gen Clark is 70 years old and has no actual power and little influence. CNN having him air his views on domestic Muslim radicals is the cable news’ equivalent of the Internet’s click bait.
His wikipedia entry (I’m not interested enough to authenticate further) says, “Clark serves as the co-chairman of Growth Energy, an ethanol lobbying group, and is on the board of directors of BNK Petroleum. Since July 2012, he also acts as an honorary special advisor to Romanian prime minister Victor Ponta on economic and security matters.”
If he’s hoping to be drafted for a presidential run, he’d better keep those day jobs. But I don’t think that’s it. I think he just wanted to get his name back on TV, and what better way? Gasps of outrage, earnest debates, shouting matches — it’s all gold.
Abraham Lincoln denied the legal and natural right to secession and divorce, suspended Habeas Corpus, confiscated private property, conducted and unconstitutional “War of Aggression” and illegally modified the Constitution with “Reconstruction Amendments” that have no legal basis, do not bear and have no weight to this day.
The American founding documents were put to death in 1861.
Slavery should have been eliminated through the use of economic tools such as the boycott and divestiture.
America doesn’t need the example of Wesley Clark to know that the Preamble, Constitution and Bill of Rights have been nullified, voided, controverted and condemned.
The unconstitutional Federal Reserve Board (i.e. corrupt international bankers), unratified “income tax,” elimination of the “utility of the currency” (General Welfare like roads and water, etc.) and removal of the “gold standard” were all imposed on Americans.
Roosevelt implemented the primary principle in the Communist Manifesto – confiscation and “Redistribution of Wealth” – which is egregiously unconstitutional and treason.
Johnson and Obama exponentially furthered redistribution with the $22 trillion “War on Poverty” (poverty won), direct payments to constituents titled “Stimulus” and Obamacare.
The Supreme Court (Extreme Court) will produce an infinitely convoluted, incoherent rationale that cavalierly redefines the English language and RULE over America by “legislating from the bench” in extreme “overreach” mode.
Comrade General Wesley Clark is but a minor epilogue.
P.S. Professor Turley, how is that constitutional “tipping point” coming along?
At some point, science acts on theory.
Einstein went from an equation to a nuclear bomb.
I can’t watch the video, but this sounds like a reaction to the extremism that led to a domestic terrorist attack on our soldiers. Sometimes free speech is hard, and clearer heads need to prevail.
I do , however, agree with terror watch lists and other efforts that investigate radicalization and ties to terrorism. Every time we prevent a terror attack is a life saving victory. I also think that moderate American imams need to do more to combat radicalization in their communities.
Jill,
Grave breaches of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions include the following acts if committed against a person protected by the convention:
As we’ve already seen they are not protected by the convention. You may be right that much of what is done is illegal under US law. But your insistence contra evidence that that US actions are against the GC means that no reasonable person could accept your evaluation of the facts and circumstances.
Look at the original assertion I objected to.
GITMO is not a POW camp. If it were the Geneva Convention would apply and the US says it doesn’t.
The issue is not whether we are doing the right thing or whether waterboarding is torture.
Rick, I just posted with a link CA 3 and now I will post CA4. We don’t get to do these things, period.
The most serious crimes are termed grave breaches, and provide a legal definition of a war crime. Grave breaches of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions include the following acts if committed against a person protected by the convention:
willful killing, torture or inhumane treatment, including biological experiments
willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
compelling a protected person to serve in the armed forces of a hostile power
willfully depriving a protected person of the right to a fair trial if accused of a war crime.
Also considered grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention are the following:
taking of hostages
extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly
unlawful deportation, transfer, or confinement.[27]
Of course we are doing these things but they are against both US and international law.
Jill,
Those obligations stay in force no matter who we are fighting.
At some point you have to stop claiming things are the way you wish they were. It’s no more compelling or reasonable than if you were to assert daylight is purple. Repeating something false does not make it true.
Common Artile 3 of GC: “Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
taking of hostages;
outrages upon dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; and
the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions
Too bad we don’t get to torture or make up things like being at war with a noun.
Obama and Bush people believe the world is a better place if the US ignores that whole CA 3 thingy! What do you mean, we can’t torture someone’s child or take a testicle? Why that’s an outrage!!!! Who says the US can’t do this? Why the nerve! They belong in Wesley’s camp!
Rick,
The people in Gitmo are entitled to a civilian trial. They were not picked up on a battlefield. They were rendered to Gitmo, Bagram and other black sites by this govt. in contravention of US law. They have and are still being tortured, also in contravention of US law. I know that Bush and Obama people are just fine with all of that, but it still isn’t legal and it certainly is morally reprehensible.
The US is bound by GC. The GC covers the obligations of the signatory nation. Those obligations stay in force no matter who we are fighting. Another example is torture. If our enemy engages in torture, the US may not {legally} claim; “Well golly gee whiz, they’re doing it so we can too! Torture is against US law and we do not get to do it. (Of course we do do it.)
Other made up claims by USG include that we are in the Global War on Terror. If you like what we’re doing to detainees and you approve of Wesley’s camps, just say so!
Jill,
It’s true we cannot legally break the GC conventions. But there are no GC conventions that apply to Guantanamo.
It doesn’t matter if the other side follows the GC or not.
According to the Geneva Convention it does matter:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions
This article states that the Geneva Conventions apply to all cases of international conflict, where at least one of the warring nations have ratified the Conventions. Primarily:
The Conventions apply to all cases of declared war between signatory nations. This is the original sense of applicability, which predates the 1949 version.
The Conventions apply to all cases of armed conflict between two or more signatory nations, even in the absence of a declaration of war. This language was added in 1949 to accommodate situations that have all the characteristics of war without the existence of a formal declaration of war, such as a police action.[12]
The Conventions apply to a signatory nation even if the opposing nation is not a signatory, but only if the opposing nation “accepts and applies the provisions” of the Conventions.[12]
Article 1 of Protocol I further clarifies that armed conflict against colonial domination and foreign occupation also qualifies as an international conflict.
When the criteria of international conflict have been met, the full protections of the Conventions are considered to apply.
Rick,
If your nation signs on, you must abide by the conventions. It doesn’t matter if the other side follows the GC or not.
Beldar – one of the problems with being taught American history by ignorant people is that they pass that ignorance on. We interred Japanese, Italians and Germans. And the Japanese were released first.
Based on Clark’s reasoning, we should put all Americans on opoids, sleeping pills, antidepressants into internment camps, since those have been clearly tied to all recent mass shooting events.
When people get suicidal tendencies associated with sleep disorders and pharmaceutical imbalances tied to all the pills people keep taking, mightn’t they be a “disloyal American”
Jill,
We are bound by it because we signed on to it.
We are bound to the terms of the GC. But the GC terms state the GC protections don’t apply to combatants whose governments don’t abide by them. So while the GC may apply the protections included in the GC do not.
Rick,
The GC applies to the US and any prisoners the US has because the US is a signatory to the convention. The other party does not have to be a signatory. We are bound by it because we signed on to it.