Thanks for the comment.
You wrote
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.
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:
Military occupation is a temporary measure for administering territory under the control of invading forces, and involves a complicated, trilateral set of legal relations between the Occupying Power, the temporarily ousted sovereign authority, and the inhabitants of occupied territory
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:
"In the territory of Parties to the conflict". The "parties" is plural and refers to both the occupying force and the occupied territory.
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:
In the territory of Parties to the conflict the application of the present Convention shall cease on the general close of military operations
Thus, both in all German territory (unoccupied) and all Netherlands territory (unoccupied) application of GC ceases on general close of operations.
In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after
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:
"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"
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:
This statement also uses the term "conflict", so I thought it would not apply in our situation. We didn't have a armed conflict.
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.
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.
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
Thanks for the comment.
You wrote
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.
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:
Military occupation is a temporary measure for administering territory under the control of invading forces, and involves a complicated, trilateral set of legal relations between the Occupying Power, the temporarily ousted sovereign authority, and the inhabitants of occupied territory
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:
"In the territory of Parties to the conflict". The "parties" is plural and refers to both the occupying force and the occupied territory.
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:
In the territory of Parties to the conflict the application of the present Convention shall cease on the general close of military operations
Thus, both in all German territory (unoccupied) and all Netherlands territory (unoccupied) application of GC ceases on general close of operations.
In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after
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:
"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"
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:
This statement also uses the term "conflict", so I thought it would not apply in our situation. We didn't have a armed conflict.
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.
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.
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).
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
Thanks for the comment.
You wrote
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.
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:
Military occupation is a temporary measure for administering territory under the control of invading forces, and involves a complicated, trilateral set of legal relations between the Occupying Power, the temporarily ousted sovereign authority, and the inhabitants of occupied territory
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:
"In the territory of Parties to the conflict". The "parties" is plural and refers to both the occupying force and the occupied territory.
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:
In the territory of Parties to the conflict the application of the present Convention shall cease on the general close of military operations
Thus, both in all German territory (unoccupied) and all Netherlands territory (unoccupied) application of GC ceases on general close of operations.
In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after
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:
"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"
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:
This statement also uses the term "conflict", so I thought it would not apply in our situation. We didn't have a armed conflict.
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.
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.
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.
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
Thanks for the comment.
You wrote
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.
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:
Military occupation is a temporary measure for administering territory under the control of invading forces, and involves a complicated, trilateral set of legal relations between the Occupying Power, the temporarily ousted sovereign authority, and the inhabitants of occupied territory
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:
"In the territory of Parties to the conflict". The "parties" is plural and refers to both the occupying force and the occupied territory.
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:
In the territory of Parties to the conflict the application of the present Convention shall cease on the general close of military operations
Thus, both in all German territory (unoccupied) and all Netherlands territory (unoccupied) application of GC ceases on general close of operations.
In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after
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:
"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"
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.
You wrote:
This statement also uses the term "conflict", so I thought it would not apply in our situation. We didn't have a armed conflict.
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.
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.
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.
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
Thanks for the comment.
You wrote
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.
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:
Military occupation is a temporary measure for administering territory under the control of invading forces, and involves a complicated, trilateral set of legal relations between the Occupying Power, the temporarily ousted sovereign authority, and the inhabitants of occupied territory
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:
"In the territory of Parties to the conflict". The "parties" is plural and refers to both the occupying force and the occupied territory.
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:
In the territory of Parties to the conflict the application of the present Convention shall cease on the general close of military operations
Thus, both in all German territory (unoccupied) and all Netherlands territory (unoccupied) application of GC ceases on general close of operations.
In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after
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: "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"
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.
You wrote:
This statement also uses the term "conflict", so I thought it would not apply in our situation. We didn't have a armed conflict.
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.
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.
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.
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