Please check my post history to see why this doesn't say what you think it does. And on the off chance you aren't satisfied, read 11.1 and 11.2 first in the document you cite. Those will make clear to you why 11.3 has nothing whatsoever to do with domestic politics. You can't just cherry pick this shit. That's not how any of this works. EDIT:

Do you understand the document you're citing? I'm not certain you understand what it's for and why it exists, nor why it runs 1100+ pages. This is how governments operate--under well-sourced policies and procedures informed by dozens of administrations, Republican and Democratic, over the course of decades.

I'm sure you noticed the document's footnotes, right? Did you notice how many different years are referenced, how many different conflicts, how many different situations? That's because it's a living document designed to guide our troops and our diplomats during wartime according to the principles of our Republic and the treaties in which we've engaged over our country's lifetime. It allows our word as a nation to "mean something" across generations.

I don't know who told you this was some guide for martial law or for Trump's coming ascendance, but that's not what this is.

And

That's specifically about the U.S. military occupation of a foreign "enemy" state. I mean, it's insane you'd cite this at all, considering all of 11.1 binds the military to standards of International Law, and even provides specific provisions in which International Law must be followed, even if the occupied territory is not a signatory (pages 756 & 767). It even provides for the supremacy of the UN Security Council in certain situations (758).

11.2 spells out the conditions under which territory is actually considered "occupied" for the purposes for 11.3. Did you read that section? (pages 763-769). Because that standard is not met.

The manual does not say what you think it does. I don't know who told you it says what you're suggesting, but they are wrong. All you have to do is ACTUALLY READ IT to see that.

Please check my post history to see why this doesn't say what you think it does. And on the off chance you aren't satisfied, read 11.1 and 11.2 first in the document you cite. Those will make clear to you why 11.3 has nothing whatsoever to do with domestic politics.

You can't just cherry pick this shit. That's not how any of this works.