Again, here is a copy of the Law of War manual for reference. https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/law_war_manual15.pdf
To start you off, I posted this a few months ago and it explains how the Geneva Convention rules apply when there is a foreign occupation and how the United Nations could get involved if international rules were not followed. https://greatawakening.win/p/13zg9ZWTFC/hello-patriots-i-took-some-time-/
That post led to a conversation about the start date of the occupation. If we have to wait a year, when did it begin? Did it begin when he won the election, when the election was ratified or did it start on inauguration day? I think I found the answer.
If you look at 11.2.4 (page 749) in the Law of War Manual, it says "there is no specific legal requirement that the Occupying Power issue a proclamation of military occupation."
However, it also states "A proclamation may help fix the date of the beginning of the occupation. The proclamation may also advise inhabitants of occupied territory of the rules with which they must comply. In particular, the proclamation may be used to advise inhabitants of changes to law, including penal law."
There it is! "The proclamation may also advise inhabitants of occupied territory of the rules with which they must comply" What did Biden do on his first day in office (Jan 20th)? He signed 17 executive orders telling us the rules with which we must comply. When he signed the EO's, he changed the rules and that was his proclamation of occupation.
If we go to page 1073 section 18.9.3.1 we find " Grave Breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions"
Grave breaches of the GC are those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the GC:
• willful killing;
• torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;
• willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health;
• unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person;
• compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power;
• willfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in the GC;
• taking of hostages; and
• extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.
I think it is safe to say that Biden has broken most, if not ALL, of the rules established by the GC. The grave breaches will be used to prosecute him and anyone who participated in this belligerent occupation.
If we go to page 1126, section 18.23.5 "Conspiracy"
The term conspiracy is defined as the combination of minds in an unlawful purpose.
Page 1127, section 18.23.5.1 " Conspiracy to Commit Genocide"
The Genocide Convention provides that conspiracy to commit genocide shall be punishable. Thus, mere agreement by perpetrators to commit genocide may be punishable even if no preparatory act has taken place.
Page 1119, 18.22.3 Official Position Does Not Relieve a Person of Responsibility.
The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him or her of responsibility under international law.
Page 1120, 18.22.4 Acting Pursuant to Orders Does Not Relieve a Person of Responsibility.
The fact that a person acted pursuant to orders of his or her Government or of a superior does not relieve that person from responsibility under international law, provided it was possible in fact for that person to make a moral choice.
To summarize, just following orders will not be a defense, being a head of state will not be a defense and if you conspired with this plandemic, at any level, you will be held responsible and charged with conspiracy to commit genocide. I think Fauci will be the first arrest. "First arrest will verify action and confirm future direction." Q Imagine what will go through the minds of all these liberals when he gets charged with conspiracy to commit genocide. "What did he inject me with?"
How many world leaders will be arrested along with him. It is a conspiracy, "combination of minds in an unlawful purpose".
I think it will happen soon and the cabal knows its coming.
They tried to pass HR-1 in a gutted NASA bill yesterday, They are desperate, they are panicking. Enoy the show.
I have more, I will post it later.
Stay safe my frens!!
WWG1WGA!!!
I have been reading sporadically through the manual, specifically Chapter 11 and 11.3.
The expression "one year" occurs 15 times in the document. None of these refer in any way to allowance of one year in order to be able to do "x", in in sections related to Occupation under Chapters 10 and 11, refer only to a period for the application of the Geneva Convention.
I'm really wondering where the idea that someone must wait 12 months (one year) in order to be able to do x started from, because I cannot see it in the actual manual.
Moreover, who must do the waiting? Who is the belligerent occupying force?
If the belligerent occupying force is the Cabal, and a state of war exists between the Cabal and the White Hats (legitimate US government), then why on earth would 12 months be required to do anything? In war, if your enemy takes your territory, you can fight to take it back. That's called war.
Seriously wondering where this (must wait 12 months) theory originated. Seems to me its derived from the concept that the US government has not been the legitimate US government for more than a century, because it was corporatized.
Any hints in finding my way through this maze appreciated.
can't find exact place but first I read of this was in patel patriot devolution series
Wow, really? Sure about that? OK. I must have missed it. I should go back and read.
Edit: PP devolution compares Trumps exiting the WH, etc, with MacArthur leaving the Philippines, and also with the government in exile by the legitimate govt (sovereign) of the Philippines.
I think that's a very interesting and in many ways plausible insight. However, I must have missed the part where you have to wait twelve months before you can reclaim your own territory bit.
sarc: I mean, the Mob invades your home, holds your family hostage, and you have to wait, what "10 days cooling off period" before you're allowed to attack them and defend your family?
Can you indicate where in the GC or in LoW manual where you get these assertion from. I'm open to what you are asserting if there is actual, factual evidence backing it up.
So far, zip.
Please provide quotes if you are so sure, coz as far as I can see, its not there.
Apologies for source, but:
The only references to "one year" in LoW chapter 11 refer to obligations of the belligerent occupier for one year following cessation of hostilities (aka war is finished and over). Nothing about the sovereigns being obliged.
Anyway, if you can back up your assertions with actual factual evidence, I'm really happy. Otherwise, they are weak as water.
Heres the difference between your mob analogy vs the "belligerent" occupying force.
Biden and the CCP used normal means to obtain power through our elections. They are belligerent because they are an occupying entity using illegal means to justify power.
Whereas with your mob analogy that would be a true act of war with a physical attack and would not be considered belligerent because of it known as a true enemy/threat.
Um, I'm pretty sure that "belligerent" simply refers to "war", so if it's a true act of war, then yeah, it would most definitely be considered belligerent.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/belligerent
In the mob analogy, "belligerent" becomes an adjective, meaning aggressive, hostile, etc. In LoW, "belligerent occupier" 'belligerent' means "engaged in war", ie. a participant in a war who occupies enemy territory
I think in the Biden + CCP statement you make, you're misusing the expression, as "aggressive, hostile" (which they may well be) but in discussing LoW and law surrounding belligerent occupation, it means the latter - participant in a war.
You are mistaking civil law between good folks and perps with international agreements forged throughout history from conflicts that often started by a misunderstanding (WW1 was started by a minor Austro-Hungarian royal couple getting assassinated-within weeks, everyone was rattling sabers and then, BOOM) The Civil War was nearly the last set piece war to be fought because of ranks of soldiers firing at each other to prove they could beat attrition. WW1 was the first mechanized war and men were expendable and the methods of killing were utterly insane.. these infractions of human decency finally sank in and efforts were made to codify military conduct during battle..
Perhaps you are right. But can you point to where in LoW or GC there is such a stipulation that a sovereign cannot lawfully engage in action to reclaim their territory over a period of 12 months? All LoW says is that an occupier is obliged to uphold GC for up to one year AFTER the cessation of hostilities (= war finished, doesn't it?). Says nothing about a sovereign being obliged to do squat.
I do get that there is a natural distinction between law vis-a-vis civilian life/persons/etc, and military law, but either way, where is the stipulation people keep talking about? It's certainly not in LoW manual that I can find (and I've been looking) nor has anyone been able to actually point to the content in LoW that upholds this assertion (the one year non-action clause).
PS. I went back to PP's devolution series, and in all articles 1 thru 9 there is no reference to LoW manual whatsoever. I haven't checked 10+ but I think Elle's idea that he/she first saw it in PP's content is wrong.
That was Slag's "Wartime President" actually.