They’ll also go after a woman in Texas who pisses them off, and who ends up
dead in her cell three days later. I always find that piece about “they came
for the xxx and I did not speak out for them because I was not an xxx, very
compelling, very moving, and a good reminder to speak out in every situation
possible for the oppressed, those who can not or will not speak for themselves
and so on, but at the end of the day, if they come for you, unless someone rich
and/or powerful and/or influential and/or with something to offer speaks out
for you, you’re fucked.
On Jul 21, 2015, at 9:58 PM, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
They'll come for Muslims and they'll come for anyone who they think is
actually a threat to the smooth running of the empire. So they went after
Occupy, and Animal Rights people who may mess up the inhumane food supply
system, and environmentalists who will mess up the dangerous energy supply
system. They'll go after black activists because they've always been afraid
of a black uprising.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bob Hachey
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 8:15 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Wesley Clark Calls for Internment Camps for
"Radicalized" Americans
First they came for the Muslims, but I'm not a Muslim so I kept quiet.
Then they came for the African Americans, but I'm not African American.
Next they came after the married gays and lesbians but I'm not gay.
Then they came for the atheists and I'm pretty damned close to being an
atheist, (but still hanging on mightily to the agnostic label).
Bob Hachey
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Miriam Vieni
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 6:26 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Wesley Clark Calls for Internment Camps for
"Radicalized" Americans
Let's not be ridiculous. He wasn't talking about a bunch of blind left
wingers. He was talking about Muslims.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bob Hachey
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 5:45 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Wesley Clark Calls for Internment Camps for
"Radicalized" Americans
Hi Frank,
I do wonder how many of us here on this list might be targeted for one-way
trips to such an internment camp.
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Frank Ventura
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 3:17 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Wesley Clark Calls for Internment Camps for
"Radicalized" Americans
Disloyal americans? I suspect that is all of us....
Sent from my iPhone.
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Miriam Vieni
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 9:35 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Wesley Clark Calls for Internment Camps for
"Radicalized" Americans
Hussain writes: "Retired general and former Democratic presidential
candidate Wesley Clark on Friday called for World War II-style internment
camps to be revived for 'disloyal Americans.'"
Wesley Clark. (photo: Danny Johnston/AP)
Wesley Clark Calls for Internment Camps for "Radicalized" Americans By
Murtaza Hussain, The Intercept 20 July 15
Retired general and former Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark on
Friday called for World War II-style internment camps to be revived for
"disloyal Americans." In an interview with MSNBC's Thomas Roberts in the
wake of the mass shooting in Chatanooga, Tennessee, Clark said that during
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 called for a revival of internment camps to help combat Muslim extremism,
saying, "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."
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.
But on Friday, he was advocating the revival of a policy widely considered
to be among the most shameful chapters in American history: World War II
domestic internment camps. Aside from the inherent problems in criminalizing
people for their beliefs, Clark's proposal (which his MSNBC interlocutor did
not challenge him on) also appears to be based on the concept of targeting
people for government scrutiny who are not even "radicalized," but who the
government decides may be subject to radicalization in the future. That
radicalization itself is a highly amorphous and politically malleable
concept only makes this proposal more troubling.
"We have got to identify the people who are most likely to be radicalized.
We've got to cut this off at the beginning," Clark said. "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." And he added that "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."
Despite an outcry about his comments on social media, Clark has not
responded publicly. As of Monday morning, his latest tweet was from Friday,
encouraging his followers to watch his interview.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Wesley Clark. (photo: Danny Johnston/AP)
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/20/chattanooga-wesley-clark-calls
-internment-camps-disloyal-americans/https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015
/07/20/chattanooga-wesley-clark-calls-internment-camps-disloyal-americans/
Wesley Clark Calls for Internment Camps for "Radicalized" Americans By
Murtaza Hussain, The Intercept 20 July 15 etired general and former
Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark on Friday called for World
War II-style internment camps to be revived for "disloyal Americans." In an
interview with MSNBC's Thomas Roberts in the wake of the mass shooting in
Chatanooga, Tennessee, Clark said that during 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 called for a revival of internment camps to help combat Muslim extremism,
saying, "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."
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.
But on Friday, he was advocating the revival of a policy widely considered
to be among the most shameful chapters in American history: World War II
domestic internment camps. Aside from the inherent problems in criminalizing
people for their beliefs, Clark's proposal (which his MSNBC interlocutor did
not challenge him on) also appears to be based on the concept of targeting
people for government scrutiny who are not even "radicalized," but who the
government decides may be subject to radicalization in the future. That
radicalization itself is a highly amorphous and politically malleable
concept only makes this proposal more troubling.
"We have got to identify the people who are most likely to be radicalized.
We've got to cut this off at the beginning," Clark said. "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." And he added that "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."
Despite an outcry about his comments on social media, Clark has not
responded publicly. As of Monday morning, his latest tweet was from Friday,
encouraging his followers to watch his interview.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
