Thanks for the post. I'm still grappling with the one year rule.
For example, you wrote: 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.
1, Article 6 does NOT say GC rules apply to both parties. Neither in paragraph 1, paragraph 2, paragraph 3 or paragraph 4. Article 6 deals with the beginning and end of application, not with WHO it applies to. Did you mean a separate article (if so, which one?)
2, You also state later in your post "Well, there never was any armed conflict, we were occupied"
How does this statement in 2, above, not contradict your previous statement?
As far as I understand it, the core premise behind this one year rule theory is that the non-occupying force (White Hats/US military) cannot act against the belligerent occupier (Biden/CCP) without being vulnerable to prosecution under the GC. Thus, a period for the GC application to expire is required for the White Hats to act without danger of violating international law. Do you concur?
Question: Because there was no armed conflict (or was there? - cyber attack? what defines "armed conflict"?), then occupation began Jan 6 when Biden/CCP took control over the US govt apparatus.
What exactly IN the Geneva Convention do the White Hats risk violating if they act against the Biden regime before the period of one year of application of the GC lapses? Can you point to the specific articles? Pages?
Clarifying this point would go a LONG way to validating the idea that there is no real choice for the White Hats but to wait out the one year period until GC application expires (For them).
Thanks for the post. I'm still grappling with the one year rule.
For example, you wrote: 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.
1, Article 6 does NOT say GC rules apply to both parties. Neither in paragraph 1, paragraph 2, paragraph 3 or paragraph 4. Article 6 deals with the beginning and end of application, not with WHO it applies to. Did you mean a separate article (if so, which one?)
2, You also state later in your post "Well, there never was any armed conflict, we were occupied"
How does this statement in 2, above, not contradict your previous statement?
As far as I understand it, the core premise behind this one year rule theory is that the non-occupying force (White Hats/US military) cannot act against the belligerent occupier (Biden/CCP) without being vulnerable to prosecution under the GC. Thus, a period for the GC application to expire is required for the White Hats to act without danger of violating international law. Do you concur?
Question: If there was no armed conflict, then occupation began Jan 6 when Biden/CCP took control over the US govt apparatus.
What exactly IN the Geneva Convention do the White Hats risk violating if they act against the Biden regime before the period of one year of application of the GC lapses? Can you point to the specific articles? Pages?
Clarifying this point would go a LONG way to validating the idea that there is no real choice for the White Hats but to wait out the one year period until GC application expires (For them).