By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following reports of immigration agents killing three US citizens, the Department of Homeland Security is expanding its mass detention capabilities. A previously reported $10 billion Navy contract for migrant detention centers has ballooned to $55 billion, repurposing funds for “Territorial Integrity of the United States” and creating a “ghost network” of facilities. This expedited funding mechanism allows for rapid deployment of self-contained cities capable of housing thousands, complete with infrastructure for sustained living and “Force Protection” equipment, sparking local backlash and protests nationwide.
Read the original article here
The United States military is reportedly involved in constructing a vast network of what are being described as “concentration camps,” a revelation emerging from a Navy contract. This contract, detailed in recent reports, appears to allocate significant funds for the creation of new detention facilities, raising considerable alarm among many observers. The language used to describe these centers, often characterized as “soft-sided tents,” suggests a desire for cost-effectiveness in their construction, a point that some believe points to potential misuse of funds, with the remaining money possibly being channeled elsewhere.
The scale of these planned facilities is staggering, with sources indicating that some could house up to 10,000 individuals each. The proposed locations span across multiple states, including Louisiana, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Utah, and Kansas. This widespread development has also raised concerns about the lack of public awareness, as Department of Defense contracts can often be awarded and executed with limited input or reaction from local communities before construction begins.
A significant factor contributing to the opacity surrounding these contracts is the method of procurement. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is reportedly utilizing a “Worldwide Expeditionary Multiple Award Contract,” a mechanism also employed by the U.S. Navy. Because these contracts funnel through the Department of Defense, there’s an inherent delay in the public release of information, making it difficult to track the real-time progress, the entities involved in construction, and the exact locations of these burgeoning facilities.
Adding to the gravity of the situation, the contract’s provisions for medical needs and waste management, including specific protocols for biohazard incinerators, have been described as particularly chilling. This detail evokes deeply troubling historical parallels and raises profound questions about the intended use and the underlying intentions of these facilities. The inclusion of such measures, alongside the sheer capacity of these proposed camps, far exceeds the stated need for detaining individuals apprehended at the border, leading to speculation that these facilities may be intended for a broader purpose.
The concern is that these detention centers are not solely for the immediate apprehension and processing of undocumented immigrants but could potentially be repurposed for other populations. There’s a palpable fear that registered voters, particularly those aligned with opposition parties, could be targeted, especially given past discussions about state rosters of voters. This line of thought suggests a chilling possibility of these facilities being used to suppress dissent and consolidate power, a notion that echoes some of the darkest chapters of history.
The implications of the military’s involvement in building what are being called “concentration camps” are far-reaching. It raises fundamental questions about the role of the armed forces in domestic affairs and the ethical boundaries of such operations. The historical context of the term “concentration camp” carries immense weight, and its application in this scenario is not being taken lightly by those who draw these comparisons. The fear is that such structures, once built, could be used for purposes far beyond their initial stated objectives, potentially impacting citizens within the country.
The parallels drawn to historical atrocities are not being made in a vacuum. The scale of the planned facilities, combined with the secretive nature of their procurement and the alarming provisions within the contracts, fuels a sense of urgency and deep-seated worry. The narrative emerging from these revelations suggests a systematic effort to expand detention capacities to an unprecedented level, leading many to question the true beneficiaries and the ultimate goals of such an undertaking. The conversation often circles back to concerns about unchecked government power and the erosion of civil liberties, especially when the military is involved in building what many are unequivocally labeling as “concentration camps.”