Home » » Wesley Clark - Retired General of the United States Army, Former Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) of NATO, and One-Time Presidential Candidate Operating Under the Auspices of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) - Publicly Supports the Enactment of Legislative Policy Mandating the Indefinite Detention of Societal Elements Deemed “Radical” or “Seditionist” by the Political Establishment in Internment Camps for the Duration of the Government’s War on Terror

Wesley Clark - Retired General of the United States Army, Former Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) of NATO, and One-Time Presidential Candidate Operating Under the Auspices of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) - Publicly Supports the Enactment of Legislative Policy Mandating the Indefinite Detention of Societal Elements Deemed “Radical” or “Seditionist” by the Political Establishment in Internment Camps for the Duration of the Government’s War on Terror

Written By Michael Reign on Sunday, August 23, 2015 | 8:56 PM

Retired and highly decorated US Army General Wesley Clark, who also served as the SCAEUR (Supreme Allied Commander Europe) of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) from 1997 to 2000 ˡ, and was actively invested in the political process during the Presidential Elections of 2004 ² - originally as a candidate in 2003 and later as a campaign organizer for then acting Massachusetts State Senator John Kerry who would become the Democratic nominee in the following years electoral cycle - and again in 2008, made a stunning pronouncement regarding the reinstitution of World War II-era civilian internment camps* and forced labor brigades for individuals deemed “disloyal” or vehemently opposed to the government’s policies and stance concerning the War on Terror during a syndicated telecast on MSNBC with the following statements:

* The subject of civilian inmate labor programs being instituted throughout the continental United States as part of a broader measure of deterrence in the incidence of domestic terrorism is detailed in the following documentation:

Army Regulation 210-35 | Civilian Inmate Labor Program

Military Field Manual 3-39.40 | Internment and Resettlement Operations

“In World War II if -uh someone supported Nazi Germany at the expense of the United States,  w-we didn’t say that was freedom of speech, -uh w-we put him in a - 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 gonna 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.”

However, as Kurt Nimmo of Infowars.com correctly pointed out, World War II was a war declared under Article I, Section 8, Clause II of the Constitution whereas the government’s War on Terror is an illegitimate enterprise that was not formally declared by Congressional mandate as is required by said provision. Another element of contention regarding the use of military force rests in the fact, that since Vietnam, U.S. combat operations have been executed in compliance with UN (United Nations) mandate, in the context of joint congressional resolutions, or within the confines of the War Powers Resolution - also known as the War Powers Act - of 1973. Another important contention that was also made mention of in the written contents of Nimmo’s article concerns the following:

The Bush Administration declared the War on Terror would last a generation or more. Senior officials within the Obama Administration - meanwhile have been quoted as saying - when formulating the “disposition matrix" to determine how terrorism suspects will be disposed of - they had reached a “broad consensus that such operations are likely to be extended at least another decade” or more.

Clark - who is himself no stranger to controversy - during a nationally televised segment of the Megyn Kelly broadcast on Fox News, openly admitted that the U.S. Federal Government exploited the resurgence of Islamic extremism during the Soviet-Afghan War as a means of fulfillment in the realization of foreign policy objectives. A fact evident in the following statement, as well as in the video accompanying it:

“Radical Islam is used -- we, the United States, used Radical Islam to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. We begged the Saudis to put the money in -- they did. And this is all part of this.”

ˡ It was in this 3 year time period that Clark, as the acting director of Operation Allied Force, coordinated several tactical military weapons offensives against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia during the height of the Kosovo War.

² Clark himself entered the 2004 race for the Democratic Party presidential nomination as a candidate in 2003 only to later withdraw following a convincing victory at the Oklahoma state primary - a sequence of events that would culminate with his endorsement of then Massachusetts State Senator John Kerry as the Democratic nominee.

The evolution of Islamic fundamentalism into its present state was also a topic of discussion that was elaborated on in detail by Michael Flynn, formerly employed as the Director for the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency), who offered the following assessment during an interview with al Jazeera’s Mehdi Hasan*:

* The contents of this dialogue being presented in interview format, inclusive of Flynn’s responses as well as Hasan’s line of questioning (This exchange beginning at 12:06 of the above feature):

HASAN: You are basically saying that even in government at the time you knew those groups were around, you saw this analysis --

FLYNN: Sure.

HASAN: -- and you were arguing against it, but who wasn’t listening?

FLYNN: I think -uh, I think the administration.

HASAN: So the administration turned a blind eye to your analysis?

FLYNN: I don’t know if they turned a blind eye. I think it was a decision. I think it was a willful decision.

HASAN: A willful decision to go support an insurgency that had Salafists, al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?

FLYNN: It was a willful decision to do what they’re doing. Which - Which you have to really -- you have to really ask the President what is it that he actually is doing with the - with the -uh policy that is in place because it is very, very confusing -- I’m still sitting here today Mehdi and I don’t - I can’t tell you exactly what that is and I’ve been at this for a long time. 

This notion of engineering the creation of a globally centralized terrorist network as a means of fulfilling certain foreign policy objectives is a subject clarified in the 19th tenet of the Illuminati/ New World Order Manifesto - the entirety of which can be found at the following link.

19) The Organization of a Globalized Terrorist Apparatus: This subject details the genesis of a federally coordinated alliance of terrorist nationals into an organized network of insurgent forces/ public dissidents through acts of negotiation. These actions attain a measure of precedence in the culmination of events deemed contrary to the establishment of international policy, and are designed to foster an atmosphere of regional instability. 

CONCLUSION: Basically, in the simplest of terms, the contents of this brief exposition serve to illustrate the fact that the creation of a globally centralized terrorist national organization and recruitment apparatus - a process that was monetarily funded by the governments of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE (United Arab Emirates), and Turkey, as well as the American taxpayer - is designed to foster an atmosphere of regional instability that would expedite the ouster of the Assad regime in Syria* on the pretext of human rights violations³. Clark’s statements regarding the revival of World War II-era practices of incarceration echo the current political administration’s stance on individuals or organizations that act in defiance of these objectives - a fact evidenced with the targeting of conservative institutions and agencies by the IRS (Internal Revenue Service) and the classification of certain segments of the population by various elements within the status quo as ‘seditionist malcontents.’ Therefore it is logical to assume - in light of this discussion - that those possessing the closest ties to the inner sanctum of the present establishment fully intend to use these threats of imprisonment as instruments of intimidation, and as part of a concerted effort designed to shape public opinion in their favor.   

* Assad’s removal from power is thought to coincide with the fact that Syria’s current system of finance operates independently from the fiscal constraints of the IMF (International Monetary Fund), and while its principal banking institution is recognized as the Central Bank of Syria, the fiduciary infrastructure of the nation itself exhibits autonomy from the pervasive influence of the Rothschild Dynastic Order. 

³ Recall that this particular tactic of involvement was attempted, based on intelligence information linking the current leader of Syria with the 2013 chemical weapons attacks that occurred in Ghouta - contrived narrative that has since been proven disingenuous - in 2014 by the Obama Administration on the basis of human rights violations as determined by the UN’s Human Rights Council.
Share this article :


Speak your mind and let your voice be heard.

This is a censorship free discussion area.

Support: Creating Website | Johny Template | Mas Template
Ωmnibus ™ and © Michael Reign. All Rights Reserved.
Template Created by Creating Website Published by Mas Template
Site modifications and enhancements by Michael Reign c/o Legerdemain Technologies