Of importance: My read of the usage of the term ‘belligerent’ in LoW refers to a party actively in conflict on either side. In this case, belligerent occupation refers to one party’s occupation of another party’s territory during a conflict. It doesn’t mean the aggressive asshole in a particular situation.
Additionally, due to poor optics, I think MIL would be reluctant to use all the powers described in this manual.
According to 11.1.3 and 11.1.3.2, the law of belligerent (military) occupation does NOT apply to liberation of friendly territory (the US). It defines the administration of liberated friendly territory as being governed by a civil affairs agreement between the MIL and the government of the friendly territory.
However, it further explains (and the footnote adds clarity) that if a civil affairs agreement isn’t possible due to other circumstance (like having an unrecoverable election), a military government by a belligerent power is a legal option.
The importance of respecting as much of the occupied state’s existing laws is woven into the fabric of this Manual. As such, I think any law promulgated by MIL as the occupying power will necessarily be congruent with the Constitution
Of importance: My read of the usage of the term ‘belligerent’ in LoW refers to a party actively in conflict on either side. In this case, belligerent occupation refers to one party’s occupation of another party’s territory during a conflict. It doesn’t mean the aggressive asshole in a particular situation.
Additionally, due to poor optics, I think MIL would be reluctant to use all the powers described in this manual.
The breadth of these powers, however, is NOTABLE.
According to 11.1.3 and 11.1.3.2, the law of belligerent (military) occupation does NOT apply to liberation of friendly territory (the US). It defines the administration of liberated friendly territory as being governed by a civil affairs agreement between the MIL and the government of the friendly territory.
Washington DC is not US land.
https://static-assets-1.truthsocial.com/tmtg:prime-ts-assets/media_attachments/files/109/894/905/168/720/806/original/38b4266c8b974916.png
https://static-assets-1.truthsocial.com/tmtg:prime-ts-assets/media_attachments/files/109/894/906/306/745/835/original/3e1ea97607a46829.png
However, it further explains (and the footnote adds clarity) that if a civil affairs agreement isn’t possible due to other circumstance (like having an unrecoverable election), a military government by a belligerent power is a legal option.
The importance of respecting as much of the occupied state’s existing laws is woven into the fabric of this Manual. As such, I think any law promulgated by MIL as the occupying power will necessarily be congruent with the Constitution