Forwarded from John F. Kennedy Jr
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
💥Banned video💥
HUMAN TRAFFICKING CHAIN EXPOSED!
Share to stop and protect the children‼️
Follow: @JFKAwakeningQ17
HUMAN TRAFFICKING CHAIN EXPOSED!
Share to stop and protect the children‼️
Follow: @JFKAwakeningQ17
Civilians under international humanitarian law are "persons who are not members of the armed forces" and are not "combatants if they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war".[1] It is slightly different from a non-combatant, as some non-combatants are not civilians (for example, military chaplains attached to the belligerent party or military personnel serving with a neutral country). Civilians in the territories of a party to an armed conflict are ennoscriptd to certain privileges under the customary laws of war and international treaties such as the Fourth Geneva Convention. The privileges that they enjoy under international law depends on whether the conflict is an internal one (a civil war) or an international one.
In some nations, uniformed members of civilian police or fire departments colloquially refer to members of the public as civilians.[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian
In some nations, uniformed members of civilian police or fire departments colloquially refer to members of the public as civilians.[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian
Legal usage in war
The International Committee of the Red Cross 1958 Commentary on 1949 Geneva Convention IV Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War states: "Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. We feel that this is a satisfactory solution – not only satisfying to the mind, but also, and above all, satisfactory from the humanitarian point of view."[4] The ICRC has expressed the opinion that "If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered 'unlawful' or 'unprivileged' combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action."[5][6][7][8][9]
Article 50 of the 1977 Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions provides:[9]
1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4A(1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.
2. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.
3. The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character.
The definition is negative and defines civilians as persons who do not belong to definite categories. The categories of persons mentioned in Article 4A(1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of the Protocol I are combatants. Therefore, the Commentary to the Protocol pointed that anyone who is not a member of the armed forces and does not take part of hostilities in time of war is a civilian. Civilians cannot take part in armed conflict. Civilians are given protection under the Geneva Conventions and Protocols thereto. Article 51 describes the protection that must be given to the civilian population and individual civilians.
Chapter III of Protocol I regulates the targeting of civilian objects. Article 8(2)(b)(i) of the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court also includes this in its list of war crimes: "Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking part in hostilities". Not all states have ratified 1977 Protocol I or the 1998 Rome Statute, but it is an accepted principle of international humanitarian law that the direct targeting of civilians is a breach of the customary laws of war and is binding on all belligerents.
The International Committee of the Red Cross 1958 Commentary on 1949 Geneva Convention IV Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War states: "Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. We feel that this is a satisfactory solution – not only satisfying to the mind, but also, and above all, satisfactory from the humanitarian point of view."[4] The ICRC has expressed the opinion that "If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered 'unlawful' or 'unprivileged' combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action."[5][6][7][8][9]
Article 50 of the 1977 Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions provides:[9]
1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4A(1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.
2. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.
3. The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character.
The definition is negative and defines civilians as persons who do not belong to definite categories. The categories of persons mentioned in Article 4A(1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of the Protocol I are combatants. Therefore, the Commentary to the Protocol pointed that anyone who is not a member of the armed forces and does not take part of hostilities in time of war is a civilian. Civilians cannot take part in armed conflict. Civilians are given protection under the Geneva Conventions and Protocols thereto. Article 51 describes the protection that must be given to the civilian population and individual civilians.
Chapter III of Protocol I regulates the targeting of civilian objects. Article 8(2)(b)(i) of the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court also includes this in its list of war crimes: "Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking part in hostilities". Not all states have ratified 1977 Protocol I or the 1998 Rome Statute, but it is an accepted principle of international humanitarian law that the direct targeting of civilians is a breach of the customary laws of war and is binding on all belligerents.
Civilians in modern conflicts
See also: Civilian casualties and Civilian casualty ratio
The actual position of the civilian in modern war remains problematic.[10] It is complicated by a number of phenomena, including:
the fact that many modern wars are essentially civil wars, in which the application of the laws of war is often difficult, and in which the distinction between combatants and civilians is particularly hard to maintain;
guerrilla warfare and terrorism, both of which tend to involve combatants assuming the appearance of civilians;
the growth of doctrines of "effects-based war", under which there is less focus on attacking enemy combatants than on undermining the enemy regime's sources of power, which may include apparently civilian objects such as electrical power stations;
the use of "lawfare", a term that refers to attempts to discredit the enemy by making its forces appear to be in violation of the laws of war, for example by attacking civilians who had been deliberately used as human shields;
the term becomes ambiguous in societies that use widespread connoscription, or otherwise "militarized societies," in which most adults have military training. This has been discussed with reference to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.[11]
Starting in the 1980s, it was often claimed that 90 percent of the victims of modern wars were civilians.[12][13][14][15] These claims, though widely believed, are not supported by detailed examination of the evidence, particularly that relating to wars (such as those in former Yugoslavia and in Afghanistan) that are central to the claims.[16]
Wounded civilians arrive at a hospital in Aleppo during the Syrian civil war, October 2012
In the opening years of the 21st century, despite the many problems associated with it, the legal category of the civilian has been the subject of considerable attention in public discourse, in the media and at the United Nations, and in justification of certain uses of armed force to protect endangered populations. It has "lost none of its political, legal and moral salience."[17]
Although it is often assumed that civilians are essentially passive onlookers of war, sometimes they have active roles in conflicts. These may be quasi-military, as when in November 1975 the Moroccan government organized the "green march" of civilians to cross the border into the former Spanish colony of Western Sahara to claim the territory for Morocco - all at the same time as Moroccan forces entered the territory clandestinely.[18] In addition, and without necessarily calling into question their status as non-combatants, civilians sometimes take part in campaigns of nonviolent civil resistance as a means of opposing dictatorial rule or foreign occupation: sometimes such campaigns happen at the same time as armed conflicts or guerrilla insurrections, but they are usually distinct from them as regards both their organization and participation.[19]
Officials directly involved in the maiming of civilians are conducting offensive combat operations and do not qualify as civilians.
See also: Civilian casualties and Civilian casualty ratio
The actual position of the civilian in modern war remains problematic.[10] It is complicated by a number of phenomena, including:
the fact that many modern wars are essentially civil wars, in which the application of the laws of war is often difficult, and in which the distinction between combatants and civilians is particularly hard to maintain;
guerrilla warfare and terrorism, both of which tend to involve combatants assuming the appearance of civilians;
the growth of doctrines of "effects-based war", under which there is less focus on attacking enemy combatants than on undermining the enemy regime's sources of power, which may include apparently civilian objects such as electrical power stations;
the use of "lawfare", a term that refers to attempts to discredit the enemy by making its forces appear to be in violation of the laws of war, for example by attacking civilians who had been deliberately used as human shields;
the term becomes ambiguous in societies that use widespread connoscription, or otherwise "militarized societies," in which most adults have military training. This has been discussed with reference to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.[11]
Starting in the 1980s, it was often claimed that 90 percent of the victims of modern wars were civilians.[12][13][14][15] These claims, though widely believed, are not supported by detailed examination of the evidence, particularly that relating to wars (such as those in former Yugoslavia and in Afghanistan) that are central to the claims.[16]
Wounded civilians arrive at a hospital in Aleppo during the Syrian civil war, October 2012
In the opening years of the 21st century, despite the many problems associated with it, the legal category of the civilian has been the subject of considerable attention in public discourse, in the media and at the United Nations, and in justification of certain uses of armed force to protect endangered populations. It has "lost none of its political, legal and moral salience."[17]
Although it is often assumed that civilians are essentially passive onlookers of war, sometimes they have active roles in conflicts. These may be quasi-military, as when in November 1975 the Moroccan government organized the "green march" of civilians to cross the border into the former Spanish colony of Western Sahara to claim the territory for Morocco - all at the same time as Moroccan forces entered the territory clandestinely.[18] In addition, and without necessarily calling into question their status as non-combatants, civilians sometimes take part in campaigns of nonviolent civil resistance as a means of opposing dictatorial rule or foreign occupation: sometimes such campaigns happen at the same time as armed conflicts or guerrilla insurrections, but they are usually distinct from them as regards both their organization and participation.[19]
Officials directly involved in the maiming of civilians are conducting offensive combat operations and do not qualify as civilians.
Civilians in domestic law
Most nations clearly distinguish military authorities from the civil administration via the national constitution; or else in statute law where no codified constitution exists. This usually serves to place control of military forces under the presiding civilian government. "Civilian" is frequently provided as a negative definition where anyone who is not a member of the military is (by default) a civilian. In keeping with IHL, this offers no intermediary status.[29]
Involvement and jurisdiction of the armed forces in civil affairs varies from nation to nation.
In France and Italy, the National Gendarmerie and Carabinieri are military agencies permanently tasked to supporting domestic civilian law-enforcement, usually focussed on serious organised crime and counter-terrorism. Until 2008, the South African Commando System (a volunteer militia within the South African Army) assisted the Police Service in rural areas until they were replaced by specialised Police units. Section 201 of the South African constitution allows military forces to assist Police only with Presidential approval.[30]
The British military does not intervene in law enforcement matters other than by exceptional ministerial approval. During the 1980 Iranian Embassy Siege, the Metropolitan Police were able to request military support and the Prime Minister approved deployment of the SAS. Unarmed military personnel routinely deploy in support for natural disasters, bomb disposal, etc. under MACA.[31][32] In 1969 the British Army was deployed to Northern Ireland under Operation Banner to support the local police in the wake of rioting. This deployment inflamed local tensions, with the Provisional IRA launching a guerilla campaign from 1970 to 1997, during which time controversial actions such as Operation Demetrius took place, as well as atrocities such as the Bloody Sunday massacre. Operation Banner ultimately lasted 37 years, formally ending in 2007 and becoming the British Armed Forces' longest continuous operation. The many problems faced (and arguably caused by) Operation Banner have been influential in policy-making and the reluctance to deploy military forces domestically in anything other than exceptional circumstances (usually relating to serious terrorist threats).
By contrast, German law prohibits entirely the peacetime intervention of military forces within Germany in armed roles. Military personnel may only be deployed in unarmed roles such as disaster relief. This was found to be deeply restrictive during the 1972 Munich massacre when army snipers could not be deployed to assist Munich Police. GSG 9 was later formed within the Bundesgrenzschutz to provide an armed tactical capability within the civilian law enforcement structure.[33]
In the US, the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act forbids the use of the US Army for law enforcement purposes without the approval of Congress. A 2013 directive clarified that this included the Navy, Air Force and Marine Corp. In practice there are many nuances to this. The most notable being that the US Coast Guard operates under the U.S. Department of Homeland Security during peacetime but can be transferred to the U.S. Department of the Navy and rendered "military" during times of war. The US National Guard are organised at a State level and under mixed control. Under Title 32, State Governors may deploy National Guard personnel in support of civilian law enforcement - Posse Comitatus would only apply to personnel activated under Title 10 and operating under federal control.[34][35][36]
Most nations clearly distinguish military authorities from the civil administration via the national constitution; or else in statute law where no codified constitution exists. This usually serves to place control of military forces under the presiding civilian government. "Civilian" is frequently provided as a negative definition where anyone who is not a member of the military is (by default) a civilian. In keeping with IHL, this offers no intermediary status.[29]
Involvement and jurisdiction of the armed forces in civil affairs varies from nation to nation.
In France and Italy, the National Gendarmerie and Carabinieri are military agencies permanently tasked to supporting domestic civilian law-enforcement, usually focussed on serious organised crime and counter-terrorism. Until 2008, the South African Commando System (a volunteer militia within the South African Army) assisted the Police Service in rural areas until they were replaced by specialised Police units. Section 201 of the South African constitution allows military forces to assist Police only with Presidential approval.[30]
The British military does not intervene in law enforcement matters other than by exceptional ministerial approval. During the 1980 Iranian Embassy Siege, the Metropolitan Police were able to request military support and the Prime Minister approved deployment of the SAS. Unarmed military personnel routinely deploy in support for natural disasters, bomb disposal, etc. under MACA.[31][32] In 1969 the British Army was deployed to Northern Ireland under Operation Banner to support the local police in the wake of rioting. This deployment inflamed local tensions, with the Provisional IRA launching a guerilla campaign from 1970 to 1997, during which time controversial actions such as Operation Demetrius took place, as well as atrocities such as the Bloody Sunday massacre. Operation Banner ultimately lasted 37 years, formally ending in 2007 and becoming the British Armed Forces' longest continuous operation. The many problems faced (and arguably caused by) Operation Banner have been influential in policy-making and the reluctance to deploy military forces domestically in anything other than exceptional circumstances (usually relating to serious terrorist threats).
By contrast, German law prohibits entirely the peacetime intervention of military forces within Germany in armed roles. Military personnel may only be deployed in unarmed roles such as disaster relief. This was found to be deeply restrictive during the 1972 Munich massacre when army snipers could not be deployed to assist Munich Police. GSG 9 was later formed within the Bundesgrenzschutz to provide an armed tactical capability within the civilian law enforcement structure.[33]
In the US, the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act forbids the use of the US Army for law enforcement purposes without the approval of Congress. A 2013 directive clarified that this included the Navy, Air Force and Marine Corp. In practice there are many nuances to this. The most notable being that the US Coast Guard operates under the U.S. Department of Homeland Security during peacetime but can be transferred to the U.S. Department of the Navy and rendered "military" during times of war. The US National Guard are organised at a State level and under mixed control. Under Title 32, State Governors may deploy National Guard personnel in support of civilian law enforcement - Posse Comitatus would only apply to personnel activated under Title 10 and operating under federal control.[34][35][36]
President Donald Trump awarded the Medal of Freedom to Republican Congressman Devin Nunes at the White House Monday, citing his work exposing corruption at the FBI during the 2016 presidential election and beyond. It is the Nation's highest civilian honor. "Congressman Nunes pursued the Russia Hoax at great personal risk and never stopped standing up for the truth. He had the fortitude to take on the media, the FBI, the Intelligence Community, the Democrat Party, foreign spies, and the full power of the Deep State. Devin paid a price for his courage. The media smeared him and liberal activists opened a frivolous and unjustified ethics investigation, dragging his name through the mud for eight long months. Two dozen members of his family received threatening phone calls – including his 98 year old grandmother," the statement continues. "Congressman Devin Nunes is a public servant of unmatched talent, unassailable integrity, and unwavering resolve. He uncovered the greatest scandal in American history." It has been reported Republican Congressman Jim Jordan will also receive the award at a later date. Both congressmen repeatedly pushed back against propaganda and lies spread by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and staunchly defended President Trump against impeachment in January last year. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2021/01/04/congressman-devon-nunes-receives-the-medal-of-freedom-n2582529
Townhall
White House Details Why Devin Nunes Received the Medal of Freedom
President Donald Trump awarded the Medal of Freedom to Republican Congressman Devin Nunes at the White House Monday, citing his work exposing corruption at the FBI during the 2016 presidential
These people are sick... and only in America.. are they getting away with this sick stuff.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzbRnlNkFWg
Forwarded from Su Elle
You triggered me, my daughter did not survive, they said she was an addicted drunken hermit who commit suicide, the truth she was an attorney in DC who knew too much. I learned it was Medicine Murder. No one, Dept of Justice, FBI, Police, doctors, laywers, neighbors, family, strangers, no one would listen, under National Security. The Associated Press was the only place I found information about International Adoption and Child Trafficking. At the bottom of each article it read, "not to be published in the United States". Randi was the only one to acknowledge my story, the only one not afraid to chat with me, she promised she would always be there. She was the only one. I still live isolated in solitaire, if not for Randi...she saved my soul. I refuse to die until we have justice for the children, justice for my daughter, and those of us erased and that is what Randi works for... the children, the world to be a better place.
Forwarded from Illusions/Delusions
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Remember that this is from 5 years ago.
He’s not a nobody. He mentioned being arrested to be put into protective custody. This guy knows.
He’s not a nobody. He mentioned being arrested to be put into protective custody. This guy knows.
Forwarded from Illusions/Delusions
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
“Trump is an actor who has been put into the position of starting to drain the Swamp”