Deep State Admiral Convicted of Treason

Looks like they are culling out the stupid officers. The ones that doesn’t even know who the real President is. Where he is going he will find out who the real Boss is right away. There will be no doubt no matter which way he goes. They are waiting for him.

Delusional man to think any of what he did could be supported by reasonable ppl..

I’m making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning 16,000 US dollars a month by working on the connection that was truly astounding for me. she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using
this website… 𝐖­𝐰­𝐰.𝐌­𝐨­𝐧­𝐞­𝐲­𝐏­𝐚­𝐲­𝟏.𝐜­𝐨­𝐦

Get ‘em all! Amazing how loyal they continue to remain after so many tribunals have occurred. You’d think they’d wake up by now.

ht tps://dailycaller.com/2024/03/01/opinion-even-the-justice-system-has-caught-trump-derangement-syndrome-david-bossie/

1.3.2.1
The Law of War as the Lex Specialis Governing Armed Conflict.

The maxim lex specialis derogat legi generali means that “[a]s a rule the special rule overrides the general law.”14

14 Colleanu v. German State, German-Rumanian Mixed Arbitral Tribunal, Jan. 12, 1929, reprinted in H. LAUTERPACHT, V INTERNATIONAL LAW REPORTS 438 (1929). See also GROTIUS, LAW OF WAR & PEACE 428 (2.16.29.1) (“[A]mong agreements which are equal in respect to the qualities mentioned, that should be given preference which is most specific and approaches most nearly to the subject at hand; for special provisions are ordinarily more effective than those that are general”).

The rule that is more specifically directed towards the action receives priority because it takes better account of the particular features of the context in which the law is to be applied, thus creating a more equitable result and better reflecting the intent of the authorities that have made the law. 15

15 U.N. International Law Commission, Conclusions of the work of the Study Group on the Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law 2(7) (2006) (“Rationale of the principle. That special law has priority over general law is justified by the fact that such special law, being more concrete, often takes better account of the particular features of the context in which it is to be applied than any applicable general law. Its application may also often create a more equitable result and it may often better reflect the intent of the legal subjects.”).
The law of war has been developed with special consideration of the circumstances of war and the challenges inherent in its regulation by law. Thus, for example, the exigencies of armed conflict cannot justify violating the law of war.16

16 Refer to § 2.2.2 (Military Necessity and Law of War Rules).

Moreover, lawmakers sometimes have considered peacetime rules appropriate to apply during armed conflict, and in certain of these cases, they have explicitly incorporated such concepts into the law of war.17

17 Refer to § 1.3.2.4 (Explicit Incorporation of Concepts From Other Bodies of Law Into the Law of War).

Thus, traditionally, the law of war has been described as the only “authoritative rules of action between hostile armies,” or as superseding ordinary law in the actual theater of military operations.18

18 See LIEBER CODE art. 40 (“There exists no law or body of authoritative rules of action between hostile armies, except that branch of the law of nature and nations which is called the law and usages of war on land.”). See also WINTHROP, MILITARY LAW & PRECEDENTS 773-74 (“By the term LAW OF WAR is intended that branch of International Law which prescribes the rights and obligations of belligerents, or—more broadly—those principles and usages which, in time of war, define the status and relations not only of enemies—whether or not in arms—but also of persons under military government or martial law and persons simply resident or being upon the theatre of war, and which authorizes their trial and punishment when offenders. Unlike Military Law Proper, the Law of War in this country is not a formal written code, but consists mainly of general rules derived from International Law, supplemented by acts and orders of the military power and a few legislative provisions. In general it is quite independent of the ordinary law. ‘On the actual theatre of military operations,’ as is remarked by a learned judge, ‘the ordinary laws of the land are superseded by the laws of war.

The jurisdiction of the civil magistrate is there suspended, and military authority and force are substituted.’

Finding indeed its original authority in the war powers of Congress

and the Executive, and thus constitutional in its source, the Law of War may, in its exercise, substantially supersede for the time even the Constitution itself

–as will be hereinafter indicated.”).

Similarly, law of war treaties have been viewed as a clear example of a lex specialis in relation to treaties providing peacetime norms concerning the same subjects.

Ok People can you see how complex War Is when the rules are played

the Law of War may, in its exercise, substantially supersede for the time even the Constitution itself

U.N. International Law Commission

President Trump Is Our Commander in Chief
25017-01-20 Till today

Result: 2599 daysIt is 2599 days from the start date to the end date, but not including the end date.
Or 7 years, 1 month, 12 days excluding the end date.
Or 85 month, 12 days excluding the end date

And He Did it freely with out accepting a wage

+++
Robert Gregory Boensch

Your lone wolf That can and Will protect You And teach you the Way to freedom

Knowledge is more important and only second to Us Knowing.

That their is Guidance And love from our Heavenly Father

And He always Provides For Us everything that We always need

To travel down this Path to his Kingdom

+++
RGB

1.3.1
Law of War – Notes on Terminology.

1.3.1.1
Different Definitions of the Law of War.

The law of war may be defined slightly differently in other publications. For example, DoD issuances have defined the law of war more narrowly than the definition discussed in this section (e.g., by omitting reference to that part of international law that regulates the resort to armed force).

1.2.4
Use of Signals in This Manual.
This manual uses signals to introduce the sources and cross-references in the footnotes. The table below identifies the signals used in this manual, describes their function, and provides examples of their use.

Signal Function and Examples of Use [no signal] Directly states the proposition If a person joins a levée en masse, he or she may be held as a POW even if he or she actually took no part in fighting. 1 1 1958 UK MANUAL ¶100 (“If it is shown that they joined the levée en masse, but took no part in the defence, they may be held as prisoners of war.”). Identifies the source of a quotation As the Supreme Court has explained: “Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces.” 2 2 Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 31 (1942). Identifies an authority referred to in the text There are additional provisions of the CCW Amended Mines Protocol addressing international exchanges of information and cooperation in this respect.3 3 CCW AMENDED MINES PROTOCOL art. 11. See Clearly supports the proposition but does not directly state it In addition, observers on military reconnaissance aircraft have not been regarded as acting clandestinely or under false pretenses.4 4 See HAGUE IV REG. art. 29 (“Persons sent in balloons for the purpose of carrying despatches and, generally, of maintaining communications between the different parts of an army or a territory” are not considered spies.). See also Elaborates on the proposition This means that a combatant’s “killing, wounding, or other warlike acts are not individual crimes or offenses.” 5 5 LIEBER CODE art. 57. See also WINTHROP, MILITARY LAW & PRECEDENTS 778 (“The State is represented in active war by its contending army, and the laws of war justify the killing or disabling of members of the one army by those of the other in battle or hostile operations.”). 

Cf. Supports the proposition by analogy, i.e., discusses a different proposition that is sufficiently similar to support the original proposition A person must engage in acts of espionage in the zone of operations of a belligerent to be considered a spy. “Zone of operations” has been construed broadly to include areas supporting the war effort.6 6 Cf. Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 37 (1942) (“The law of war cannot rightly treat those agents of enemy armies who enter our territory, armed with explosives intended for the destruction of war industries and supplies, as any the less belligerent enemies than are agents similarly entering for the purpose of destroying fortified places or our Armed Forces.”). Refer to Refers to another manual section that supports or elaborates on the proposition Certain categories of persons are not members of the armed forces, but are nonetheless authorized to support the armed forces in the fighting: • persons authorized to accompany the armed forces, but who are not members thereof; 7 7 Refer to § 4.15 (Persons Authorized to Accompany the Armed Forces). Compare Refers to another manual section that is analogous to the proposition Persons authorized to accompany the armed forces who provide security against criminal elements generally would not be viewed as taking a direct part in hostilities (and do not forfeit their protection from being made the object of attack).269 269 Compare § 4.23.1 (Police as Civilians). Consider Identifies a treaty that relates to the proposition but to which the United States is not a Party (e.g., AP I) Under international law, every treaty in force is binding upon the Parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.10 10 Consider VCLT art. 26 (“Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.”). 

For example, Illustrates the proposition with an example drawn from historical practice Adjusting the timing of an attack may reduce the risk of incidental harm. For example, attacking a military objective when civilians are less likely to be present may be appropriate. 11 11 For example, Jennifer O’Connor, General Counsel, Department of Defense, Remarks at New York University School of Law: Applying the Law of Targeting to the Modern Battlefield, Nov. 28, 2016 (“Given the facts of this specific situation, including the intelligence that the cash was being used to pay ISIL fighters and conduct terrorist operations, the targeting authority determined that the bulk cash was a legitimate military objective. The next step then for the targeting authority before approving the strike was to conduct a proportionality analysis. This bulk cash storage site happened to be in an area where civilians were often present—as you might expect from a building that used to be a civilian bank before ISIL turned it into a cash storage site. As a result of the high number of civilians in the area, the targeting authority took specific steps to minimize potential harm to civilians by ordering the attack to occur at a time when the potential for any civilian casualties was deemed to be the lowest.”); FINAL REPORT ON THE PERSIAN GULF WAR 100 (noting that during Operation DESERT STORM “attacks on known dual (i.e., military and civilian) use facilities normally were scheduled at night, because fewer people would be inside or on the streets outside.”). e.g., Added to any of the other signals when the cited authority is one of several authorities (some of which remain uncited) that stand for the same proposition International humanitarian law is an alternative term for the law of war that may be understood to have the same substantive meaning as the law of war. 12 12 See, e.g., Overview of the Amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, 6, Enclosure to Condoleezza Rice, Letter of Submittal, Jun. 11, 2007, MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TRANSMITTING AMENDMENT TO THE CONVENTION ON THE PHYSICAL PROTECTION OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL (THE “AMENDMENT”). A CONFERENCE OF STATES PARTIES TO THE CONVENTION ON THE PHYSICAL PROTECTION OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL, ADOPTED ON OCTOBER 28, 1979, ADOPTED THE AMENDMENT ON JULY 8, 2005, AT THE INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY IN VIENNA, TREATY DOC. 110-6, 6 (2007) (“(2) The United States of America understands that the term ‘international humanitarian law’ in Paragraph 5 of the Amendment (Article 2 of the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, as amended) has the same substantive meaning as the law of war.”)

Wasn’t reading this fun

1.2.2.5
Citation Forms.
An effort has been made to make citations forms consistent throughout the manual, and to provide enough information about each cited source to reflect its significance and to enable readers to find it. 4 This manual has not strictly adhered to an established system of citation. Although certain citation systems were consulted, modifications were made as deemed appropriate for this type of resource, to make the citation forms straightforward and simple and relatively easy for readers to understand. In regard to abbreviations, for example, this manual generally does not abbreviate the names of academic journals. Moreover, it is hoped that the quotations from the cited sources that have been included in footnotes will help readers find the cited sources electronically.

1.2.2.3
Quotes Provided From Sources.
Quotes from sources are sometimes given in parentheticals within footnotes. These parentheticals are provided to help practitioners, such as by facilitating comparison between the main text of the manual and the language used in the sources. Every effort has been made to quote sources accurately. Practitioners, however, should verify quotations using the original source. Certain formatting rules have been followed for quoted material. Two spaces have been placed after each period ending a sentence. Footnote numbers and carriage returns have been omitted from quoted text. Otherwise, quotes have not been changed unless noted through the use of ellipses, brackets, or parentheticals after the quotes indicating the changes made.

1.2.2.1
Selection of Sources.
The sources cited in the footnotes have been chosen for a variety of reasons. For example, a source may contain a particularly helpful explanation or illustration. A source may have been chosen to illustrate U.S. practice or legal interpretation. A source may have been selected because its author was a particularly influential and respected international lawyer. For example, the 1956 Department of Army Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, has been a source of legal guidance for the U.S. armed forces for more than 50 years, and was published in connection with the U.S. ratification of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. One of the persons who helped prepare the 1956 manual was Richard Baxter, a highly respected DoD lawyer, who later became a judge on the International Court of Justice. Citation to a particular source should not be interpreted to mean that the cited source  represents an official DoD position, or to be an endorsement of the source in its entirety. For example, parts of a source, such as an opinion by the International Court of Justice or a commentary published by the International Committee of the Red Cross, may reflect the DoD legal interpretation, while other parts of the source may not. Similarly, the citation of the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights should not be understood to indicate that the United States has accepted the competence of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to apply the law of war.2 

1.2
USE OF FOOTNOTES, SOURCES, CROSS-REFERENCES, AND SIGNALS IN THIS MANUAL
1.2.1
Use of Footnotes in This Manual.
This manual uses footnotes to provide sources or cross-references to other sections of the manual in order to clarify, elaborate on, or support the main text. An effort has been made to avoid introducing discussion in the footnotes that addresses different propositions than those discussed in the main text. Although providing tangential information in footnotes is common in academic legal writing, this practice has been avoided to the extent possible for principally two reasons. First, it was desirable that this manual’s main text convey as much information as possible without the reader needing to read the footnotes. For example, it was desirable to avoid the possibility that a reader might misunderstand a legal rule addressed in the main text because a notable exception to that rule was addressed only in a footnote accompanying the text. Second, tangential discussion on a given issue in footnotes would have made it much more difficult to keep the manual’s treatment of that issue consistent from section to section and to allow the reader to find all the relevant information about a single topic. Thus, tangential discussion in footnotes has been avoided, to the extent possible, in favor of cross-references to the appropriate section of the manual that addresses that topic in more detail.

1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS MANUAL

1.1.1 Purpose.
The purpose of this manual is to provide information on the law of war to DoD personnel responsible for implementing the law of war and executing military operations.1 This manual represents the legal views of the Department of Defense. This manual does not, however, preclude the Department from subsequently changing its interpretation of the law. Although the preparation of this manual has benefited from the participation of lawyers from the Department of State and the Department of Justice, this manual does not necessarily reflect the views of any other department or agency of the U.S. Government or the views of the U.S. Government as a whole. This manual is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity against the United States, its departments, agencies, or other entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.

17.1.1.2
NIAC and Internal Armed Conflict.
In some cases, the term internal armed conflict is used as a synonym for non-international armed conflict. Such usage may reflect a traditional definition of non-international armed conflict as only those armed conflicts occurring within the borders of a single State.6 Non-international armed conflicts, however, are classified as such simply based on the status of the parties to the conflict, and sometimes occur in more than one State. 7 The mere fact that an armed conflict occurs in more than one State and thus may be characterized as international “in scope” does not render it “international in character.”8

8 Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557, 630 (2006) (“The Court of Appeals thought, and the Government asserts, that Common Article 3 [of the 1949 Geneva Conventions] does not apply to Hamdan because the conflict with al Qaeda, being ‘‘international in scope,’’ does not qualify as a ‘‘conflict not of an international character.’’ 415 F. 3d, at 41. That reasoning is erroneous. The term ‘conflict not of an international character’ is used here in contradistinction to a conflict between nations.”). 

17.1.1.4
NIAC and Guerilla or Unconventional Warfare.

Guerrilla warfare may be understood to be military and paramilitary operations conducted in enemy-held or hostile territory by irregular, predominantly indigenous forces.9 Guerrilla operations or unconventional warfare are common during non-international armed conflict. Such operations, however, are a method of warfare that has been employed in international armed conflicts and occupation as well.  

9 JOINT PUBLICATION 3-05.1, Joint Special Operations Task Force Operations, GL-11 (Apr. 26, 2007) (“guerrilla warfare. Military and paramilitary operations conducted in enemy-held or hostile territory by irregular, predominantly indigenous forces. Also called GW. (JP 3-05.1)”). See also FRANCIS LIEBER, GUERRILLA PARTIES CONSIDERED WITH REFERENCE TO THE LAWS AND USAGES OF WAR 7-8 (1862) (“[B]ut it may be stated here that whatever may be our final definition, it is universally understood in this country at the present time that a guerrilla party means an irregular band of armed men, carrying on an irregular war, not being able, according to their character as a guerrilla party, to carry on what the law terms a regular war. The irregularity of the guerrilla party consists in its origin, for it is either self-constituted or constituted by the call of a single individual, not according to the general law of levy, conscription, or volunteering; it consists in its disconnection with the army, as to its pay, provision, and movements, and it is irregular as to the permanency of the band, which may be dismissed and called again together at any time.”)

17.1.1.6
NIAC and Terrorism.
Issues surrounding terrorism and the activities of terrorist groups can arise in the contexts of non-international armed conflict, international armed conflict, and, of course, can arise outside the context of armed conflict altogether. Acts of terrorism are prohibited during international armed conflict and during non-international armed conflict. 11

11 Refer to § 10.5.3.2 (Collective Penalties and Measures of Intimidation or Terrorism); § 17.6.5 (Prohibition on Acts of Terrorism).

17.1.2

Important Commonalities Between the Law Applicable to International Armed Conflict and the Law Applicable to Non-International Armed Conflict. 

17.1.2.2
Foundational Principles of the Law of War.

The foundational principles of the law of war are common to both international armed conflict and non-international armed conflict.15 Thus, reference to first principles in the law of war may be most useful in assessing the rules applicable during non-international armed conflict.16

17.1.3
Important Differences Between the Law Applicable to International Armed Conflict and the Law Applicable to Non-International Armed Conflict. 

17.1.3.2
Prevalence of Customary Law Applicable to NIAC as Opposed to Treaty Law.

There are fewer treaty provisions that address non-international armed conflict than that address international armed conflict.22 Put another way, practitioners are generally more likely to encounter situations regulated by customary law in non-international armed conflict than in international armed conflict. Certain guidelines may be helpful in assessing customary international law applicable to non-international armed conflict.