Here are links to the Geneva Convention Articles.
GC: https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/publications/icrc-002-0173.pdf
I have seen people asking about the one year rule for the GC Articles. They seem to have reservations about it. Some people think it shouldn't apply in our situation, but these rules govern all conflict regardless of the situation or location. They are designed to protect humanity. They are international laws and the US did sign on to them.
If you look at page 153 of the GC link (Article 6), it says GC rules apply to both parties if involved in armed conflict until the close of military operations.
The next paragraph:
In the case of occupation (which is where it applies to us) "In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; however, the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation.
Well, there never was any armed conflict, we were occupied (Biden as a foreign delegate of China). The clock started when Biden signed the EO's one year ago changing the rules of our country. Had patriots resisted and picked up arms against the Biden regime, the GC rules would continue to apply until one year after the close of military operations. So, it was good we didn't try to defend our nation via armed conflict. Q used the board to give us data, explain the takedown of the deepstate and encouraged us to stay peaceful bringing a close to GC rules for our occupied territory asap. (Jan 20th, 2022)
The one year rule was designed to protect human life and give time for conciliatory efforts and reach mutual agreements between the belligerent occupiers and occupied territory. If the occupied territory agrees to the occupying forces demands, all is good. In many instances the occupied territory is resistant to foreign invasions even if it is in their best interest. For example, the US can enter into war and occupy a foreign land for the purpose of overthrowing a dictator. The occupied territory may see us as a threat at first but when they see their living conditions improve after the fall of their dictatorial leader, concessions can be worked out within that one year window. Since living conditions improved, they are not living under tyranny any longer, the occupied territory would be inclined to accept the occupiers new laws. So this is why GC sets the one year timeline.
In the case for Biden, his approval ratings are plummeting, the occupied territory is not buying his bullshit and there will never be any concessions. This could be why Bidens approval rating are being discussed on a daily basis in the media. The people see this, they realize Biden will never win over the hearts and minds of the people and this gives the military (national guard) the right to step in and stop the grave breaches of GC committed by Biden.
In one of my last posts we covered what constituted grave breaches to the Geneva Convention Articles. (Page 52 Article 50 of the GC link)
• 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;
• willfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in the GC
• taking of hostages
We can all agree that the Biden regime is guilty of all of these. There may have been a couple thresholds to cross, the GC one year timeline and a disapproval rating. What is the rating they are looking for? I don't know but some suggest it might be a 80% disapproval and this is speculatory. Our military may not be waiting for a specific number but wanted to get it as low as possible when we crossed the Jan 20th timeline. Making his disapproval rating known to the general public may limit any civil disobedience when Biden is removed. It also may be why so many polls are being conducted.
Biden is guilty of war crimes, based on the DOD Law of War Manual, Biden is considered a domestic terrorist by definition. This is why he has been calling us domestic terrorists, they like to use projection and blame you for the crimes they are guilty of.
I will get into more detail about the domestic terrorism claims in my next post. There are several avenues we could use to get rid of Biden, for example, using a international tribunal for his GC beaches is one. I think this option is for countries without a worthy military. I think we will do it ourselves. If Trump signed the Insurrection Act active military could be deployed on to our streets to stop the occupation. If he didn't sign it, using national guard and US Special ops might be the answer. Remember when Chris Miller placed special ops under civilian command? Given the reluctance of our DOD to cooperate with the Biden admin, this civilian authority may still stand, I'm still digging into that.
I'm going to end it here.
Stay safe my frens!!
God Bless you all!!
WWG1WGA!!!
Thanks.
Look, I know that there's a strong temptation to be attached to one's preferred theory, but I'm actually trying to make the discussion intelligent, and for some reason, you continue to misread my comments. I find myself wondering why.
Read my comments slowly.
"I incorrectly stated what article 6 said? I think I copied it verbatim."
OK. Let's look at what you DID write: This is quoted directly from your article above.
I could copy/pasta the the 4 paragraphs of the Article (6), but is that really necessary. Even though you copy/pasted (quoited verbatim) from Art. 6, you said "look at ...(Article 6), it says GC rules apply to both"
Maybe that's your interpretation, but I see nowhere in the 4 paragraphs where it states this. That's all I'm saying.
Let's distinguish between a) quoting something verbatim and b) making a statement about what something says. I'm referring to the latter, not the former.
Does that make sense?
And please, can we really just assume or at least approach this as if we are on the same team, instead of trying to pull each other down?
Understanding only really comes through engagement (discussion). I think you'd agree with me on that. Am I wrong? So sometimes it takes a bit of extra effort to get to the point where the discussion bears fruit. IN my view, anyway. That's actually why I'm persevering in these discussions, LOL despite being downvoted and accused of NOT researching, doing my own thinking, etc.
Absolutely not! No way! (See. How interesting is that? From my position that's a bizarre conclusion! But for some reason, you got there. I'm not going to berate you for it. But I hope you'll read my response.)
What I am saying is, let's talk about the topic, but let's apply reason, empirical evidence, and logic to work through it to improve our grasp of it. If there are holes, let's find them. If it holds up, let's find how. Does that make sense?
Noone knows what is happening behind the scenes. I think conversations like this is designed to spur debate, get all the pieces of the hive mind working together till we can come to a general consensus.
Agreed, on both points (although I don't necessarily think that a general consensus is required to improve understanding.) And, as I've stated, I appreciate your posts on this topic. I'll simply admit that I do get a bit frustrated when participants of the board accuse me or berate me for asking certain questions or precepts they seem to hold as sacred!!!! (I'm not talking about you here.)
However, it seems you are trying to suggest we shut down the conversation until we have empirical evidence when it doesn't really exist.
Not by any means. However, in my opinion (and its an opinion) it is valuable and often important to acknowledge when empirical evidence is missing, and just recognize that.
Take for example, the question of what reprisals under the GC the White hats might be vulnerable to, and what content of the GC would they violate, specifically, if they acted before the lifting of the application of the articles?
For me, that's a fundamental question to the theory, and not addressing it kind of leaves the entire core premise open. I'm distinguishing here between empirical evidence in the form of actual articles of GC, etc, not in the form of what Trump is doing.
Note: It seems we are approaching this from slightly different angles, which may have caused some level of misunderstanding/miscommunication. One of the limitations of text only, and lack of face to face communication, I think.
Here is article 6 in full:
The present Convention shall apply from the outset of any conflict or occupation mentioned in Article 2.
In the territory of Parties to the conflict, the application of the present Convention shall cease on the general close of military operations.
In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention 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 Power exercises the functions of government in such territory, by the provisions of the following Articles of the present Convention: 1 to 12, 27, 29 to 34, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 59, 61 to 77, 143. Protected persons whose release, repatriation or re-establishment may take place after such dates shall meanwhile continue to benefit by the present Convention.
Second paragraph says, "In the territory of Parties to the conflict". The "parties" is plural and refers to both the occupying force and the occupied territory. It does not specifically say both parties but because it uses the term "parties", it is inferred.
This statement also uses the term "conflict", so I thought it would not apply in our situation. We didn't have a armed conflict.
The following third paragraph seemed more appropriate. The third paragraph talks about occupied territory and doesn't use the term conflict. Still it should be inferred that both parties is being discussed.
The third paragraph says, " the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; however, the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation" Again it infers that the application ends for the occupied territory while it continues for the occupied force.
Thanks for the comment.
You wrote
I think you are correct in one thing, but wrong in the other. Yes, it refers to the two parties (and therefore both) but I think you've mistakenly identified who those two parties are.
See 11.1 (p754) below:
To me, what this clarifies is that there are in fact three parties that the GC concerns: 1. Occupying party 2. Temporarily ousted sovereign and 3. the inhabitants of the occupied territory. This is important, imo. A territory itself is not a party, but a possession, asset or location.
you wrote:
Yes, but no. Why? In my view, "the parties" here refers to Numbers 1 and Number 2 (the two parties to the conflict) and they are both mentioned in order to stipulate WHAT territory (where) the GC applies (in the territories that they own, or are sovereign to). Seems pretty clear that "The Parties" refers to Occupying party but NOT to the occupied territory, but instead to the original sovereign of the occupied territory.
Let's examine using a concrete example. Govt of Germany invades the Southern Netherlands, occupies the Southern Netherlands (territory) and rules over the inhabitants of Southern Netherlands, thus removing control of the Southern Netherlands from the Govt of the Netherlands (ousted sovereign).
"The parties to the conflict" refers to govt of Germany and govt of Netherlands. (yes, two and therefore both parties) BUT not the occupied territory (the Southern Netherlands territory).
The article says:
Thus, both in all German territory (unoccupied) and all Netherlands territory (unoccupied) application of GC ceases on general close of operations.
Occupied territory in this example refers to the Southern Netherlands, which the govt of Germany now occupies. Thus, in the Southern Netherlands, application of GC will cease "one year after general close of military operations (Q: in that territory?)"
You wrote:
So I guess you are correct, kind of, although I'm a bit pedantic on the wording: To me it doesn't say this (i.e. literally) but it indicates and directly implies this.
I.e. It doesn't say "GC applies to both parties" (occupier and ousted sovereign) Rather it says GC applies in the territory of both parties, which yes, directly implies or indicates both parties.
So maybe we're both right. From my view, it doesn't say it, it implies or indicates it. From your view, the indication of the fact equals "saying" it. (In my view, these are the nuts and bolts that sometimes need to be ironed out in order to establish a common wavelength and therefore establish a clear or good communication.)
You wrote:
I guess for me there are two steps in the process here. 1 is correctly interpreting WHAT LoW is saying, 2 is figuring out if it applies to the current situation in the USA.
Whether the situation (or what happened) in the USA falls under the definition of "conflict" or "armed conflict" I don't really know, but personally, I think in the case of CCP occupying US govt jurisdiction, then yes, because cyber attack, etc, would fall under this. However, in the case where Trump is the belligerent occupier, no, as the occupation took place without a conflict.
Hmmmm. I think I disagree. "Territory" is the location or theatre where the GC applies, not the who. The territory itself is not an actor, nor a participant. The participants are 1. Occupier 2. Ousted sovereign 3. Inhabitants of the territory.
In that sense, it ends for the occupying force and the original sovereign in that location (territory), but with conditions for the occupying force, if they continue to occupy even after one year has passed.
See, here is another thing that needs to be asked: Who exactly is the belligerent occupier?
If DC is owned and controlled for decades+ by a foreign corporation (The USA, inc), then Trump moving in and taking control could equal an occupation of THEIR territory.
If DC is owned by the legitimate govt of the USA (does it exist) and thus regained by Trump, and the coup by CCP etc was the occupation, then Biden et al are the belligerent occupier.
interesting discussion here:
Patel Patriot & IET17
https://rumble.com/vsz5ev-patel-patriot-interviews-iet17-on-the-low-manual-and-more.html
Yes, the belligerent occupier is the Biden admin.
If you read 11.3 in the Law of War, it breaks it down in to much simpler terms.
There they only talk about the belligerent occupier and the occupied territory.
I think you are making this much more complicated than it needs to be.
The occupied territory would include the sovereign power (Trump) and the protected persons of the territory. (the people)
If a invading force decides to occupy a foreign country, they become the belligerent occupier and the sovereign power and the people reside in the occupied territory. So, occupied territory includes both the sovereign power and the people in the territory.
Territory is not a term that defines the ground we are standing on, it describes the area and its inhabitants.
When Biden signed all those executive orders on day one, he wasn't directing them at our soil, he was directing them at the people.
In Q post 4524 it says:
[D] + China = 11.3
https://qanon.pub/#4524
D is Democrats (Biden)
Democrats + China = 11.3
In essence he is saying the democrats teamed up with China as a belligerent occupier and created the 11.3 situation.
You said, "In that sense, it ends for the occupying force and the original sovereign", No, Article 6 distinctly says "the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation".
The occupying power remains under GC application the entire time. They are the party being belligerent and they should be the party who has the tendency to get violent, they remain under GC law until the leave the occupation.
The only party that has the GC laws lifted is the occupied territory and that occurs one year after military operations come to a close.