WARNING: WALL OF TEXT

Not a lawfag, but here my 2 pence with regard to the enactment of EOs and direct military action on U.S. soil.

The President has the full authority as Commander-in-Chief of armed forces AND head of Executive branch (aka the executor or chief executive). Meaning any lawful (in accordance with the letter of the law) EOs enacted must be fulfilled by any subordinate (within Executive branch purview) departments, organizations and agencies including the Department of Homeland Securities (DHS), under which the Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) and its sister agency Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is organized. However, though the heads of these organizations serve at the pleasure of the President, they have the "prerogative" to refuse orders at the risk of being fired or otherwise removed.

TLDR: Yes, the heads of ICE and all other orgs under Executive branch MUST comply or get fired. There's not much holding back outright refusal to follow orders from the civilian agencies as the heads can do so with a mere loss of a job.

As for the military, all orders are under penalty of court martial, meaning BIG consequences for insubordination (military is the only way). EOs will be followed lest any of the brass face court martial for insubordination under Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ - 10 U.S. Code § 894).

Oh and a court martial isn't like a civilian court by any means. They will throw everything at you including article 88 (contempt towards officials) and article 94 (mutiny or sedition) so I don't see any single military commander going rogue and disobeying a direct order without a fallback in place (unlike certain heads of alphabet soup agencies who get away with perjury).

The EOs themselves are orders addressing specific issues with broad enough parameters that some operational leeway can be given to those tasked with their execution. The military commanders will likely work with Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCoS) and National Security advisor to "flesh out" the order through use of memorandums and the like.

Now for the question about 11.3:

Firstly, a synopsis for the Rip Van Winkles out there: The current working theory is that the Q drops mentioning the dates 11.3, 11.4 & 11.6 all refer not to dates but to the the subsections within the Department of Defense (DOD) Law of War Manual (pub. JUN15, updated DEC16 - direct link) Chapter XI which outline the procedures for military occupation AKA martial law or military government. If, in fact, this turns out to be correct and the military IS currently occupying Washington, D.C. as an occupying power of enemy territory, then much of what we have seen makes sense. Of course this all falls under the assumption that Biden et al have clearly and provably committed seditious acts with the aid of foreign influences.

Secondly, in standard Q fashion, we must tease out the answer and first define lawful military occupation (when military can take action on US soil):

11.2 WHEN MILITARY OCCUPATION LAW APPLIES

11.2.2 Standard for Determining When Territory Is Considered Occupied:

Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile force

[footnote 54 HAGUE IV REG. art. 42 (“Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.”)]

What constitutes a hostile force?

This can be seen in at least two ways:

1. Biden is party to hostile foreign power(s) a la election interference and thus the highest office in our land is occupied by a foreign agent. Furthermore, all subordinate agencies including DoJ can be seen as extensions of that foreign agent. In contrast, military officers swear to uphold the Constitution rather than even a duly elected President, much less an unduly elected one.
2. Washington, D.C. can be considered a city-state outside the Union, under the control of foreign powers.

The movement of military into D.C. can also be seen in two ways:

1. Liberation of Friendly territory
2. Occupation of Enemy territory

Mix 'n' Match.

11.2.2.1 “Actually Placed” – Effectiveness of Occupation:

Military occupation must be actual and effective; that is, the organized resistance must have been overcome, and the Occupying Power must have taken measures to establish its authority. It is sufficient that the occupying force can, within a reasonable time, send detachments of forces to enforce its authority within the occupied district. Military occupation does not require the presence of military forces in every populated area, although the occupying force must, inter alia, control the most important places. The city is mostly locked down but ALL places of importance are under NG control.

Similarly, as long as the occupation is effective, there is no precise number of forces that are considered necessary to constitute an effective occupation. The number of forces necessary to maintain effective occupation will depend on various considerations, such as the disposition of the inhabitants, the number and density of the population, the nature of the terrain, and similar factors

NG troop count in D.C. is winding down (rumored to be down to an estimated 7,000), but it is still effectively under occupation.

Further down:

11.2.2.2 “Under the Authority” – Suspension and Substitution of Governmental Authority:

Occupation also requires the suspension of the territorial State’s authority and the substitution of the Occupying Power’s authority for the territorial State’s authority. The territorial State must be rendered incapable of publicly exercising its authority in the territory, and the Occupying Power must substitute its authority for that of the territorial State. Invading forces in possession of the territory must have taken measures to establish their authority. For example, such measures may include establishing its own governmental authority for that area and making regulations for the conduct of temporary government. The suspension and substitution of authority may take place with local authorities continuing to administer territory subject to the paramount authority of the Occupying Power. On the other hand, routine measures necessary to provide for unit security (e.g., warning private persons not to threaten or interfere with military operations) would not necessarily constitute measures to establish authority over enemy territory. The substitution of authority by the Occupying Power may be shown by a proclamation of occupation, although such a proclamation is not required.

11.2.4 Proclamation of Occupation:

[...] the fact of military occupation and the territory over which it extends should be made known to the citizens of the occupied territory and to other States. However, there is no specific legal requirement that the Occupying Power issue a proclamation of military occupation. No need to proclaim an occupation is taking place, just need to force it. Also of note in §2.2.2: the examples of "measures to establish their authority" include "making regulations for the conduct of temporary government" whilst "[t]he suspension and substitution of authority may take place with local authorities continuing to administer territory subject to the paramount authority of the Occupying Power." What this implies: all governance and functions of government can continue to operate under the authorities in place but are subject to sole discretion of the Occupying Power (military).

TLDR for the smooth-brained: it's plausible that the military took over and is running the government. Under such considerationAll officials and authorities are effectively puppets running a puppet government for the duration of this occupation all without any announcement whatsoever.

Lastly, comes the "assumed" subsections referenced by Q. The drops only explicitly (if you can consider it so) reference §3, 4 & 6 but the fulfillment of duties under §5 is pretty much a given.

11.3 END OF OCCUPATION AND DURATION OF GC OBLIGATIONS

11.4 LEGAL POSITION OF THE OCCUPYING POWER

11.5 DUTY OF THE OCCUPYING POWER TO ENSURE PUBLIC ORDER AND SAFETY

11.6 PROTECTION OF THE POPULATION OF AN OCCUPIED TERRITORY The content of 11.4-11.6 is all self-explanatory (see titles of sections above...) and is also referenced by Q albeit indirectly (do your own research). Now for the meat and potatoes.

11.3.1 End of Occupation

[...] the status of belligerent occupation ceases when the invader no longer factually governs the occupied territory or when a hostile relationship no longer exists between the State of the occupied territory and the Occupying Power.

[...] if a new, independent government of the previously occupied territory assumes control of the territory and consents to the presence of the previously occupying forces, then such a situation would no longer be considered a belligerent occupation. Similarly, if a peace treaty legitimately transfers the territory to the sovereignty of the Occupying Power, then the Occupying Power would no longer be characterized as such.

As we all know, the legitimacy of Biden's presidency is still in question due to fraudulent elections process. Perhaps military action and subsequent military trials will clear this up and depose of Biden.

Which leads us to several possible scenarios:

1. A second election directly administered by the military
2. An election of an independent government under the auspices of the "occupying" military
3. The arrests and trials of leaders of the former government. New interim government is formed and consents to occupying force OR ratifies peace treaty to transfer the territory to the sovereignty of the occupying force

11.3.2 Duration of GC Obligations in the Case of Occupied Territory

In the home territory of parties to the conflict, the application of the GC shall cease on the general close of military operations. In the case of occupied territory, the application of the GC shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; however, the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such State exercises the functions of government in such territory, by the provisions of the following Articles of the GC: [omitted for brevity]

Perhaps this is what Q also meant when it came to future safeguarding.

Disclaimer: this is all hypothetical. If the anons' interpretation of the "dates" in the Q drops is correct, then military occupation is LIKELY what we are currently witnessing.

Originally posted as a comment in another thread, now a stand-alone post for discussion