LOLOL. Read it dude (maybe start around page 769).
First of all, this is clearly referring to American forces as the occupiers, and says that the one year term is to account for ongoing situations like post-WWII Germany and Japan.
It's about the occupier's obligations to the GC, and is basically instructions for during a wind-down after a military conflict, and while it says that "application of the GC" shall cease on the general close of conflict or in the case of occupation, one year later (because it has cease to at some point), it stipulates several important articles that stay in effect to basically prevent the occupying force (again, Americans) from being bad guys.
It also says that anyone in custody retains their GC protections and that "In addition, it may be appropriate following the end of occupation to continue to apply by analogy certain rules from the law of belligerent occupation, even if such rules do not apply as a matter of law."
So basically it's saying, let's still try to follow these rules here, even if they no longer technically apply.
That this has become twisted into some form of "we'll give you belligerents one year to get out or there will be hell to pay!" is just so stupid. Maybe before you go repeating someone's opinion about legal handwashing and allowance of war crimes, do your own research.
LOLOL. Read it dude (maybe start around page 769).
First of all, this is clearly referring to American forces as the occupiers, and says that the one year term is to account for ongoing situations like post-WWII Germany and Japan.
It's about the occupier's obligations to the GC, and is basically instructions for during a wind-down after a military conflict, and while it says that "application of the GC" shall cease on the general close of conflict or in the case of occupation, one year later (because it has cease to at some point), it stipulates several important articles that stay in effect to basically prevent the occupying force (again, Americans) from being bad guys.
It also says that anyone in custody retains their GC protections and that "In addition, it may be appropriate following the end of occupation to continue to apply by analogy certain rules from the law of belligerent occupation, even if such rules do not apply as a matter of law."
So basically it's saying, let's still try to follow these rules here, even if they no longer technically apply.
That this has become twisted into some form of "we'll give you belligerents one year to get out or there will be hell to pay!" is just so stupid. Maybe before you go repeating someone's misinformed opinion about legal handwashing and allowance of war crimes, do your own research.
LOLOL. Read it dude (maybe start around page 769).
First of all, this is clearly referring to American forces as the occupiers, and says that the one year term is to account for ongoing situations like post-WWII Germany and Japan.
It's basically instructions for during a wind-down of occupation after a military conflict, and while it says that "application of the GC" shall cease on the general close of conflict or in the case of occupation, one year later (because it has cease to at some point), it stipulates several important articles that stay in effect to basically prevent the occupying force (again, Americans) from being bad guys.
It also says that anyone in custody retains their GC protections and that "In addition, it may be appropriate following the end of occupation to continue to apply by analogy certain rules from the law of belligerent occupation, even if such rules do not apply as a matter of law."
So basically it's saying, let's still try to follow these rules here, even if they no longer technically apply.
That this has become twisted into some form of "we'll give you belligerents one year to get out or there will be hell to pay!" is just so stupid. Maybe before you go repeating someone's misinformed opinion about legal handwashing and allowance of war crimes, do your own research.
LOLOL. Read it dude (maybe start around page 769).
First of all, this is clearly referring to American forces as the occupiers, and says that the one year limit is to account for ongoing situations like post-WWII Germany and Japan.
It's basically instructions for during a wind-down of occupation after a military conflict, and while it says that "application of the GC" shall cease on the general close of conflict or in the case of occupation, one year later (because it has cease to at some point), it stipulates several important articles that stay in effect to basically prevent the occupying force (again, Americans) from being bad guys.
It also says that anyone in custody retains their GC protections and that "In addition, it may be appropriate following the end of occupation to continue to apply by analogy certain rules from the law of belligerent occupation, even if such rules do not apply as a matter of law."
So basically it's saying, let's still try to follow these rules here, even if they no longer technically apply.
That this has become twisted into some form of "we'll give you belligerents one year to get out or there will be hell to pay!" is just so stupid. Maybe before you go repeating someone's misinformed opinion about legal handwashing and allowance of war crimes, do your own research.