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 I appreciate the response, but ... (screeches brakes) hang on, I'm asking for what???? (OK, gonna ignore that rather lamebrain remark)
If I read you right, you are talking about CCP occupying Washington DC. Is that correct?
Are you saying that 12 months is required to convince the CCP that what they are attempting to do will not work? To what effect? So that they pack up and go home? So that the Cabal says "oh well, we tried. Let's give up now"? ("cease their activity")
Or something else?
12 months, while 'reasonable' seems very arbitrary to me. And besides, the whole premise the OP is working on is that there is some legal reason why 12 months is required before the legitimate sovereign can ... what, act to reclaim its own territory.
Sorry, I cannot see how your assertion here interface with the Law of War manual, specifically Chapter 11.
There ARE Constitutional restraints that MUST be followed for a takedown of the occupiers to truly work: Law of War, the Geneva Convention and whatever other treaties The United States is a signatory of. The 'combat' aspect is the arrest of the traitors and the constitutional requirements of a fair trial that must be maintained-since the courts are hamstrung with corruption and the Maritime Law, the tribunals will be held to pursue justice in a timely manner.
BY THE BOOK, or risk being what we are prosecuting..
Not trying to be snarky, but do you believe our "judicial" system is operating under maritime law?
Very much so, the language the lawyers use obfuscates issues and as a result only lawyers can 'interpret' the law. Common law is Biblical and plain spoken..
Given that we're probably still operating under British Common Law, we should really move to American Constitutional Law instead. What the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Amendments say, goes. No more "case law," "precedents," legislating from the bench. No more black-robed tyrants wielding the power of lesser nobility.
' EXACTLY "
At this point, meng, I fail to see where the Law of War has any bearing on a 1 year period from "start of occupation" (aka Jan 20). Chapt 11 refers only to when application of GC ceases, which is one year after war is finished (hostilities) but continues otherwise during the period of occupation.
Also, how is LoW, or GC, etc, a 'constitutional' constraint?
If the Black Hats are the occupying force, how and why does the GC apply to the legitimate US sovereigns, who are not (in the scenario you describe) in occupation of the Enemy's territory? Or are they? then where?
Naturally, if the legitimate US sovereigns are holding arrested combatants, then the GC applies during the period of war (hostilities) towards treatment of those combatants.
I'm trying to put together what you are saying, but so far, it makes no sense as far as I can see.
I can't account for your mental block here.
OK. Then where do YOU think LoW stipulates this? I'm curious on that point.
"year is the period of time that the GC is in effect while the occupiers hold territory"
Um, no. Re-read Chapter 11. The GC applies during the entire period of occupation. The one year issue only kicks in after WAR is finished (end of hostilities/close of military operations (aka WAR)).
In other words, GC is ALWAYS in effect while the occupation is current. The occupier cannot merely annex the occupied territory. Claim to the territory has to take place thru a treaty or such.
"this is all being done "by the book" so that people can tell the difference"
I disagree. If it's all being "done by the book", its because the white hats ARE different from the Cabal.
Are we looking at it from the wrong perspective? Could the occupying power be the legitimate authority of the United States government in exile through devolution, with the occupying forces the States National Guard and the occupied area being the corporate entity UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?
We are the Sovereign power wronged by the occupying belligerent force and we have evacuated DC for the sake of Continuity of Government. We will exercise our reprisals according to the Book.
I think you may be missing my point about the corporate UNITED STATES OF AMERICA theories. If this were true then Washington DC is a foreign entity separate from the rest of the Nation.
This. Washington DC is a city state, like The Vatican or City of London, and is not part of the 50 states that make the republic. The act of 1871 made a separate government for Washington DC. So when we speak of occupation or occupying powers it is important that we differentiate between the different political bodies.
I am of the mind that the corporate United States that reigns in Washington DC is what is occupied currently. Even then there is more than 1 entity. There is a municipal corporation owned by the Vatican and another that is owned by the British Crown although I believe the one owned by the Crown was dissolved or is in some form of reorganization.
Yes, indeed it is. DC is a foreign entity towards the rest of the States, as it embodies the Federal Jurisdiction.
USA INC, since nov 1999, does no longer has authorization and capacity to exist as a corporation. It is rogue, with no constitution and mechanism to elect a President.
That is why you will not see a Title 4 dimension Flag. Take well note of that.
I agree totally- USA Inc is now being erased from the records. It IS a difficult aspect to realize that it is a foreign 10 square miles surrounded by states.. there are some disputations of just when USA Inc was established.
I thought it was essentially an independent (foreign) entity.
That's why they can't vote in national elections.
That's why they have no representatives.
And that's why they have that obelisk like the other two independent city-states: City of London and the Vatican.
It just might be considering they were trying to make D.C a state? Maybe to put up a black to these plans if someone fought about anyone trying this route aka Bidens mil leaders..
I am no expert on the law. But I took the "year and a day" requirement to be aimed at the occupiers, not the conquered.
In other words: If what looks like an occupying force moves into a place and occupies that place for a year and a day, that proves their intent to go right on being an occupying force.
Now they've got no other excuse to be there. Now they have proven themselves to be nothing but belligerents.
Now it's showtime.
If the conquered people rise up against them before they've proven themselves to be belligerent occupiers, then UN and/or NATO troops have the right to come in to protect civilians and keep order.
So, we wait a year and a day to:
and
Somebody feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. u/mengderen
We are NOT conquered; we are beset with traitors and other pests in DC AKA The Swamp The belligerents are outnumbered and now exist on borrowed time.
can you point to where this idea stems from? I mean, in LoW or such. (Otherwise, is it mere speculation?)
LoW appears to disagree with this idea. Reading through LoW regarding definition of occupation, etc:
11.2.2
The belligerence factor isn't determined by an occupation.
In other words, it is the FACT of occupation that determines whether some action is an occupation or not, rather than some legal agreement or other conceptual definition.