If Ukraine and/or China essentially has control of the White House, does that give the military authority to take it back? Was that the plan? Is this where the 11.3, 11.4, etc. things come into play? A lot of stuff in 11.2 (page 744-755 - type 771 in the PDF search at the top) talks about the definition of an occupied territory and the definition of that and when a military can then take it back.
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 forces.
This standard for when the law of belligerent occupation applies is reflected in Article 42 of the Hague IV Regulations and is regarded as customary international law.
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.
Did we misunderstand the entire time in assuming that Trump was occupying DC, when maybe it's the other way around - they had to wait for hostile force to occupy DC before there was actually anything to take back? So by China Joe taking office, now it's an enemy occupying force and the military can actually go in and take it back now? Remember he said 11.3 would be the public announcement of the arrest of Podesta and it would all start coming out after that. Maybe that's what we need to look out for?
If Ukraine and/or China essentially has control of the White House, does that give the military authority to take it back? Was that the plan? Is this where the 11.3, 11.4, etc. things come into play? A lot of stuff in 11.2 (page 744-755 - type 771 in the PDF search at the top) talks about the definition of an occupied territory and the definition of that and when a military can then take it back.
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 forces. This standard for when the law of belligerent occupation applies is reflected in Article 42 of the Hague IV Regulations and is regarded as customary international law. 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.
Did we misunderstand the entire time in assuming that Trump was occupying DC, when maybe it's the other way around - they had to wait for hostile force to occupy DC before there was actually anything to take back? So by China Joe taking office, now it's an enemy occupying force and the military can actually go in and take it back now? Remember he said 11.3 would be the public announcement of the arrest of Podesta and it would all start coming out after that. Maybe that's what we need to look out for?
If Ukraine and/or China essentially has control of the White House, does that give the military authority to take it back? Was that the plan? Is this where the 11.3, 11.4, etc. things come into play? A lot of stuff in 11.2 (page 744-755 - type 771 in the PDF search at the top) talks about the definition of an occupied territory and the definition of that and when a military can then take it back.
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 forces. This standard for when the law of belligerent occupation applies is reflected in Article 42 of the Hague IV Regulations and is regarded as customary international law. 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. Did we misunderstand the entire time in assuming that Trump was occupying DC, when maybe it's the other way around - they had to wait for hostile force to occupy DC before there was actually anything to take back? So by China Joe taking office, now it's an enemy occupying force and the military can actually go in and take it back now? Remember he said 11.3 would be the public announcement of the arrest of Podesta and it would all start coming out after that. Maybe that's what we need to look out for?
If Ukraine and/or China essentially has control of the White House, does that give the military authority to take it back? Was that the plan? Is this where the 11.3, 11.4, etc. things come into play? A lot of stuff in 11.2 (page 744-755 - type 771 in the PDF search at the top) talks about the definition of an occupied territory and the definition of that and when a military can then take it back.
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 forces.
This standard for when the law of belligerent occupation applies is reflected in Article 42 of the Hague IV Regulations and is regarded as customary international law.
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.
Did we misunderstand the entire time in assuming that Trump was occupying DC, when maybe it's the other way around - they had to wait for hostile force to occupy DC before there was actually anything to take back?