French 2024-2030 military programming law: a sign?

[WhiteMountain]

They are also preparing the way for removing informed consent in the US. The FDA took the first step allowing IRBs to violate informed consent for certain treatments FDA Exception from the Requirement to obtain Informed Consent - ECA Academy . Everyone should know ALL THESE EXECUTIVE ORDERS LAWS AGAINST INFORMED CONSENT ARE 100% ILLEGAL AND SHOULD BE AGGRESSIVELY CHALLENGED IN COURT.

While nations did not formally adopt the Nuremberg code, 174 countries signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - just about all Western governments. Article 7 of this treaty specifically gives people the right to informed consent! "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation." Nuremberg literally was the inspiration for Article 7 and is thus the background of how "free consent" should be interpreted. And treaties come above all regular laws in most countries!

Most people are not aware of this despite all the stupid mandates. I only discovered it because I researched the question of other protections myself, and I have not heard anyone else discussing it. I actually had to inform my own lawyer about this because thought there was nothing protecting people here (he even mentioned he told that to a reporter during the pandemic I think). I had him look it up, and he agreed, that would basically give people the right to avoid these treatments. Luckily they never really discussed it down here (one of the benefits of living in Paraguay is the government leaves people alone; I moved down here to avoid the whole nanny state totalitarian bullshit).

But everyone needs to inform people about this treaty. Unless this treaty is specfically un-ratified, the protections will still be there, no matter what the WHO or governments do. If you have conflicting treaty obligations the concept of void for vagueness for the coercive laws comes in.

 

[Ryan]

BTW, don't want to sound an alarmist, but I remember that the C's mentioned in a not so old session about a timeline where the military will be deployed on city streets due to some emergency reasons. Considering all the above, it makes me wonder...

This one?

Q: (L) What is the reason for the chaos?
A: Fear of losing control.
Q: (L) Well, I don't understand. Exactly what do you mean?
(Joe) I was going to say that their fear of losing control has increased in recent years, obviously. But it's been as a result of their own actions, not as a result of anything the people are doing. The people are getting agitated and thrown into chaos because of what's being done to them.
(Artemis) They're shooting themselves in the foot over and over and over again.
A: Greed is a sickness.
Q: (L) And I guess you mean not just greed for money, but greed for power?
A: Yes
Q: (L) Can you tell us any particular way that this chaos is going to manifest?
A: Increased military intervention at all levels.
Q: (L) So despite the fact that Trump was so friendly and always playing up to the military, they really still didn't want or like him because he wasn't a war monger. Is that correct?
A: Yes
Q: (L) And high mucky-muck military guys are basically war mongers.
A: Yes
Q: (Joe) When they increase military intervention at all levels, is that a reference to it being not just foreign, but domestic?
A: Yes

 

[portobello]

wait and see

I know this is something that's being said around here quite a bit, but I have to be blunt, mostly for the sake of the ones who depend on me, and ask: how is this going to help me if say tomorrow I'm forcefully drafted or jabbed against my will, for real this time, and have whatever possessions or freedoms I have left be entirely stripped off if I and my loved ones do not comply, and on top of that be shipped to god knows where to be imprisoned, isolated, "re-educated" etc until we yield or perish?

Do I just pray a solar flare supercharges my cells and endows me with "superpowers" at that point? Perhaps expect to be beamed up an STO ship only to discover it's reptiles with an appetite and genderless cyborgs in disguise? Or does it all not matter because "glory awaits us" regardless and things are going to be fine in 4D/5D...whatever D awaits us once the meatsuit expires?

Apologies if I'm being distasteful, but I'm running kinda low on copium and stoicine lately.

 

[iamthatis]

I know this is something that's being said around here quite a bit, but I have to be blunt, mostly for the sake of the ones who depend on me, and ask: how is this going to help me if say tomorrow I'm forcefully drafted or jabbed against my will, for real this time, and have whatever possessions or freedoms I have left be entirely stripped off if I and my loved ones do not comply, and on top of that be shipped to god knows where to be imprisoned, isolated, "re-educated" etc until we yield or perish?

Do I just pray a solar flare supercharges my cells and endows me with "superpowers" at that point? Perhaps expect to be beamed up an STO ship only to discover it's reptiles with an appetite and genderless cyborgs in disguise? Or does it all not matter because "glory awaits us" regardless and things are going to be fine in 4D/5D...whatever D awaits us once the meatsuit expires?

Apologies if I'm being distasteful, but I'm running kinda low on copium and stoicine lately.

Laura wrote about Ark's Event-Enhanced Quantum Theory, and it's pretty compelling to me that just by the act of observing reality correctly (ie. 'wait and see') can change our lives, and can actually change the nature of reality itself, bringing it into a more ordered and pure state.

Our universe seems to be made up of matter/energy and of consciousness.

Matter/energy by itself "prefers", as it seems, a chaotic state.

Matter/energy by itself doesn't even have a concept of "creation" or "organization". It is the consciousness that brings to life these concepts and by its interaction with matter pushes the universe towards chaos and decay or towards order and creation.

This phenomenon can modeled mathematically and simulated on a computer using EEQT (Event Enhanced Quantum Theory). Whether EEQT faithfully models the interaction of consciousness with matter, we do not know; but chances are that it does because it seems to describe correctly physical phenomena better than just the orthodox quantum mechanics or its rival theories (Bohmian mechanics, GRW etc.)

What we learn from EEQT can be described in simple terms as follows:

Let us call our material universe "the system". The system is characterized by a certain "state". It is useful to represent the state of the system as a point on a disc. The central point of the disk, its origin, is the state of chaos. We could also describe it as "Infinite Potential." The points on the boundary represents "pure states" of being, that is states with "pure, non-fuzzy, knowledge". In between there are mixed states. The closer the state is to the boundary, the more pure, more 'organized' it is.

Now, an external "observer", a "consciousness unit", has some idea - maybe accurate, maybe false or anywhere in between - about the "real state" of the system, and observes the system with this "belief" about the state. Observation, if prolonged, causes the state of the system to "jump". In this sense, you DO "create your own reality", but the devil, as always, is in the details.

The details are that the resulting state of the system under observation can be more pure, or more chaotic depending on the "direction" of the jump. The direction of the jump depends on how objective - how close to the reality of the actual state - the observation is.

According to EEQT if the expectations of the observer are close to the actual state of the system, the system jumps, more often than not, into more organized, less chaotic state.

If, on the other hand, the expectation of the observer is close to the negation of the actual state (that is when the observer's beliefs are not TRUE according to the ACTUAL state - the objective reality), then the state of the system, typically, will jump into a state that is more chaotic, less organized. Moreover, it will take, as a rule, much longer time to accomplish such a jump.

In other words, if the observer's knowledge of the actual state is close to the truth, then the very act of observation and verification causes a jump quickly, and the resulting state is more organized; pure. If the observer's knowledge of the actual state is false, then it takes usually a long time to cause a change in the state of the system, and the resulting state is more chaotic.

What this means is that order can be brought out of chaos by observing chaos as it IS and not pretending that it is otherwise.

In short, everyone who "believes" in an attempt to "create reality" that is different from what IS, adds to the increase of chaos and entropy. If your beliefs are orthogonal to the truth, no matter how strongly you believe them, you are essentially coming into conflict with how the Universe views itself and I can assure you, you ain't gonna win that contest. You are inviting destruction upon yourself and all who engage in this "staring down the universe" exercise with you.

On the other hand, if you are able to view the Universe as it views itself, objectively, without blinking, and with acceptance, you then become more "aligned" with the Creative energy of the universe and your very consciousness becomes a transducer of order energy. Your energy of observation, given unconditionally, can bring order to chaos, can create out of infinite potential.

So strangely enough, seeing reality - as it actually is, and not the way we want it to be - and accepting it seems to be a sure way of ensuring a positive change. A lot of people in the times ahead may be rushing around in a panic trying to control events far beyond our small human scale, seeing what they want to see. That will only increase the chaos. In my own experience, good 'seeing' requires being in a state of patience, stillness, quiet, not trying to force things, not 'doing-doing-doing' all the time. Although I still do that! Hard to find the balance. But anyways, the waiting and the seeing are connected, both steps in a reality-transformation process, and are super necessary for us becoming transducers of cosmic order on this poor beleaguered planet.

It's not easy tho, because as you say, what if we witness mass death and destruction on a scale rarely witnessed on this planet? The suffering of our loved ones? Or the end of the life we once knew, the end of our dreams? How are we to go about getting through all this? I think it will take a lot of humility first of all, and a high degree of acceptance of whatever is in store for us. Also releasing the strong ideas we had of our most desired future. All this is part of non-anticipation, which is no easy task. And then there's the part of processing whatever denial or anger, grief, feelings of being betrayal or unfairness that come along with that accepting and letting go. While at the same time looking and seeing and making good decisions in our daily life.

I've thought that maybe I have to bury my parents in their back yard after a plague. Or maybe I freeze to death after some extended starvation in the coming Ice Age. But I could play out dark what-if scenarios forever. It does help to consider the possibilities IMO - which likely bring more order to the system according to the EEQT model - but then also not let them turn into negative thought loops. Again, not always easy to find the balance there between preparation and acceptance, or planning and faith. It's one of the major lessons here.

Some may disappear into faith and resolve to just 'do nothing at all'. Some may want to fight against it all, against the PTB, join a revolution against the local ruling class or whatever. Everyone will make their choice. And it's the choices, the good decisions in daily life that are also super important. I don't know if you've seen Laura's Course in Knowledge and Being series, but it's awesome. Essentially, making good choices, little by little, day after day, can actually help us jump onto a better timeline. And our ability to make good choices depends on our ability to see.

Whoever knew that working to be a good person turns you into some kind of quantum time wizard?! Talk about an unexpected bonus...

 

[Bernardo GA]

Lastly, Article 47 of the present law includes adaptation provisions in various parts of the Defense Code and in other codes and legislative texts, in order to update existing cross-references.

In other words, anything in force resulting from democratic activity, which is an obstacle to military actions, will not be taken into account.
They will have to be modified, changed and/or adapted to the military program.
In other words, Dictatorship!
And what they call Decree, is more like a Coup d'Etat, than some kind of constitutional recourse for emergency cases. Emergencies that are also whatever they want them to be.
We will have to wait and see.

 

[Jones]

Has anyone been reading about the new Defense Program Law in France for the years 2024 to 2030 , and if so, do you also get the impression that it's the beginning of some serious curtailing of rights in France, and possibly other EU countries? It's supposed to just be about the modernization of the Army and such, but...

This article provides a summary of Article 47, which is one of the most creepy ones:

https://www.actualitesdudroit.fr/browse/public/droit-public-des-affaires/42345/loi-de-programmation-militaire-2024-2030-le-regime-des-requisitions-totalement-refondu

English translation:


That's just a portion of it. The entire Law is here for those interested in reading further: LOI n° 2023-703 du 1er août 2023 relative à la programmation militaire pour les années 2024 à 2030 et portant diverses dispositions intéressant la défense (1) - Légifrance

There are other parts concerning intelligence, "awareness" campaigs to prepare pleople to the case where they may HAVE to join the Army (brought to children as young as 13 years old), etc. They also add that the "threat" doesn't necessarily have to be to France, but it may be to its allies. Plus a bit of the green agenda, having rights to have "intelligence" on people whoa re against whatever.... It's quite a mix...

Even though the above is only about Article 47, the general idea behind the text can be found in the Appendix:




This comes after Macron stated that "we must at all costs prevent Russia from winning in Ukraine". And after EU countries have been signing military cooperation treaties with Ukraine as well. Fishy, isn't it?

This is only in French and English subtitles haven't been made available yet. But there is this interesting interview where an attorney (Maître Virginie de Araujo-Recchia) and Ariane Bilheran explaining some of the implications (more specifically, min 7 till 23 approximately)

(or on French SOTT, here )

They talk, for example, about how the text is so vague, that it can be applied to confiscating parts of people´s domiciles to host migrants, say. Or, about how, when added to the recent powers the WHO gained, it leaves very little room for people to escape totalitarianism. I'm also thinking about the new law against doctors or influencers who may try to promote alternative treatments. [Note that these two ladies spoke about the Covid scam, etc. I don't think they are crazy conspiracy theorists, and usually they're pretty level-headed, but others might know more.]

It makes me think of the Patriot Act, even though in this case, the narrative is not "turrorizm". I guess we can only wait and see, while keeping our eyes open. It could be just a scare tactic, or them preparing for something big? Or, like in the Patriot Act's case, it doesn't mean that all freedom is gone in one day. But I find the whole law quite creepy to be honest. It's practically stating that they may have the right to bring back compulsory conscription under the pretext of a "foreseable threat", without any needed proof...?

FWIW! It certainly caught my attention.

Some historical context has given the impression that this has been a creeping development for some time.

During the Americal Civil war, 1861-1865, General Order 100 was passed by Abraham Lincoln in 1863. It was meant as a guide for conduct of military forces in the field. It was originally written by Dr Francis Lieber and was referred to as the Lieber Code.

About Francis Lieber:

Dr. Francis Lieber​

Prof. Frances Lieber. [between 1855 and 1865]. Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division. LC-DIG-cwpbh-01402
Francis Lieber, a Prussian-born American political philosopher and public intellectual, was an internationally recognized authority on international and military law and a key legal advisor to the Lincoln administration during the Civil War. He is best known for crafting the earliest official government codification of the customary laws of war. The Lieber Code, as his text became known, was issued with Lincoln’s approval in 1863 as General Orders No. 100 under the title Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field. Previously no such formal, comprehensive code existed to guide and constrain the behavior of troops in the field. Lieber’s Code for the Union became the basis for subsequent editions of the standard manual for U.S. forces on the laws of war and inspired similar manuals in many European nations. On the international level, the code substantially influenced the development of modern treaties on the conduct of war, including the later Hague and Geneva Conventions.
Francis Lieber, born Franz, was the tenth of 12 children of an ironware dealer in Berlin, the capital of the Kingdom of Prussia. Growing up in the era of the Napoleonic wars, the boy watched with dismay as Napoleon’s troops entered Berlin in 1806. At about age 16, lying about his age, he volunteered in the Prussian Army and fought against Napoleon’s forces during the Waterloo campaign.1 He was severely wounded in the neck and chest and left for dead.
At age 19, he was arrested and detained for four months as a liberal nationalist opponent to Prussia’s existing political system. He was subsequently barred from most German universities and government employment. Despite harassment by the authorities, he received a Ph.D. degree in mathematics at the University of Jena. He then took part briefly in Greece’s struggle for independence from the Ottoman Empire, recording his experiences in “Journal in Greece” (1823). Disillusioned by that struggle, he became a tutor in Rome in the household of the Prussian ambassador and eminent historian Barthold G. Niebuhr. Through Niebuhr, he met other German intellectual luminaries, including the historian Leopold von Ranke and the brothers Alexander and Wilhelm von Humboldt.
After his return to Germany and another imprisonment as an “enemy of the state,” Lieber left for London, where he met and married his German wife Matilda, before emigrating at age 28 to Boston. There he sought unsuccessfully to introduce into the American school scene German educational innovations involving gymnastics and other recreational sports. In a much more successful venture, he compiled over five years the Encyclopaedia Americana, a work inspired by the famous 12-volume German encyclopedia by Brockhaus. Lieber’s 13-volume encyclopedia, which eventually sold more than one hundred thousand copies, became a fixture in well-to-do U.S. households, including those of presidents Jackson and Lincoln. In 1832, the year the final volume was published, Lieber, self-styled “publicist” (a word he coined), became an American citizen.
In his late 30s, he achieved his ambition of becoming a professor, first joining the faculty of what is now the University of South Carolina. During his two-decade tenure there, he “helped lay the foundations of academic political science in America.”2 His prolific academic writings included On Civil Liberty and Self Government (1853), a two-volume bestseller. Widely adopted as a standard college textbook, the book saw eight printings, the last one in 1911, forty years after his death.
Despite his substantial national intellectual reputation, Lieber was a political and cultural outsider in South Carolina and found his opportunities there limited. He disparaged what he perceived as the state’s anti-intellectualism and rigid religiosity. More crucially, he felt strong antipathy toward the institution of slavery and held anti-secessionist views. In 1857, as North–South tensions grew in the nation, he accepted a professorship in history and political science at Columbia College, the future Columbia University, and later a position in Columbia Law School.
When the Civil War broke out, Lieber was already lecturing on constitutional questions relating to the civilized conduct of hostilities in war. The Lincoln administration needed to provide guidance to Union officers on various conundrums posed by the nature of the war as a civil conflict. A vexing question, for example, was how to accord individual captured Confederate fighters the status and treatment of legitimate combatants, without recognizing the legitimacy of the Confederacy as a separate sovereign state. Most challenging of all was the question of the status of slaves in the war. The prevailing American view at the time was that freeing an enemy’s slaves was against the rules of civilized warfare, on the grounds that such a liberation constituted a confiscation of civilian property. Arming freed or fugitive slaves was likewise anathema.
General Henry Halleck, general-in-chief of the Union armies, called upon Lieber and a committee of four generals to tackle such questions in a manual that addressed what constituted permissible orders and acceptable conduct in war. The resulting Lieber Code or Lieber Instructions—the “Old Hundred” as Lieber came to call it—consisted of 157 articles written by Lieber on such topics as prisoner exchange, proscribed weapons, and the treatment of irregular fighters, prisoners of war, spies, and civilians. On the question of fugitive slaves of seceded states, he was unequivocal in arguing that they were automatically free if they came within the jurisdiction of the Union army, and, if captured as fighters, deserved the same humanitarian treatment as other prisoners of war. His code was quickly distributed to commanders in the field.
Lieber had a direct personal stake in questions concerning humanitarian constraints in war, given that all of his three sons were in uniform, two on the Union side, and one, Oscar, on the Confederate side. Oscar, the eldest, died fighting for the South, while Hamilton lost an arm. Only Norman, despite close calls in battle, escaped unscathed.
In the Civil War’s aftermath, Francis Lieber remained involved in public service. He organized for the War Department the archives of captured Confederate records, assisted by his son Norman. The elder Lieber was also active internationally in promoting his principles on humanitarian limits in war. His code served as a model for a number of national codification projects in Europe, and was the basis for deliberations for the second and fourth Hague Conventions in 1899 and 1907, as well as an influence on the later Geneva Conventions.

As noted above, the Lieber Code essentially became a part of UN Law when it was used as a foundational document for the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 and influenced later Geneva Conventions.

The full text of the Lieber Code is here, but Section II addresses seizing property for military necessity:

SECTION II​

Public and private property of the enemy - Protection of persons, and especially of women, of religion, the arts and sciences - Punishment of crimes against the inhabitants of hostile countries.​

Art. 31.​

A victorious army appropriates all public money, seizes all public movable property until further direction by its government, and sequesters for its own benefit or of that of its government all the revenues of real property belonging to the hostile government or nation. The title to such real property remains in abeyance during military occupation, and until the conquest is made complete.

Art. 32.​

A victorious army, by the martial power inherent in the same, may suspend, change, or abolish, as far as the martial power extends, the relations which arise from the services due, according to the existing laws of the invaded country, from one citizen, subject, or native of the same to another.

The commander of the army must leave it to the ultimate treaty of peace to settle the permanency of this change.

Art. 33.​

It is no longer considered lawful - on the contrary, it is held to be a serious breach of the law of war - to force the subjects of the enemy into the service of the victorious government, except the latter should proclaim, after a fair and complete conquest of the hostile country or district, that it is resolved to keep the country, district, or place permanently as its own and make it a portion of its own country.

Art. 34.​

As a general rule, the property belonging to churches, to hospitals, or other establishments of an exclusively charitable character, to establishments of education, or foundations for the promotion of knowledge, whether public schools, universities, academies of learning or observatories, museums of the fine arts, or of a scientific character such property is not to be considered public property in the sense of paragraph 31; but it may be taxed or used when the public service may require it.

Art. 35.​

Classical works of art, libraries, scientific collections, or precious instruments, such as astronomical telescopes, as well as hospitals, must be secured against all avoidable injury, even when they are contained in fortified places whilst besieged or bombarded.

Art. 36.​

If such works of art, libraries, collections, or instruments belonging to a hostile nation or government, can be removed without injury, the ruler of the conquering state or nation may order them to be seized and removed for the benefit of the said nation. The ultimate ownership is to be settled by the ensuing treaty of peace.

In no case shall they be sold or given away, if captured by the armies of the United States, nor shall they ever be privately appropriated, or wantonly destroyed or injured.

Art. 37.​

The United States acknowledge and protect, in hostile countries occupied by them, religion and morality; strictly private property; the persons of the inhabitants, especially those of women: and the sacredness of domestic relations. Offenses to the contrary shall be rigorously punished.

This rule does not interfere with the right of the victorious invader to tax the people or their property, to levy forced loans, to billet soldiers, or to appropriate property, especially houses, lands, boats or ships, and churches, for temporary and military uses

Art. 38.​

Private property, unless forfeited by crimes or by offenses of the owner, can be seized only by way of military necessity, for the support or other benefit of the army or of the United States.

If the owner has not fled, the commanding officer will cause receipts to be given, which may serve the spoliated owner to obtain indemnity.

Art. 39.​

The salaries of civil officers of the hostile government who remain in the invaded territory, and continue the work of their office, and can continue it according to the circumstances arising out of the war - such as judges, administrative or police officers, officers

of city or communal governments - are paid from the public revenue of the invaded territory, until the military government has reason wholly or partially to discontinue it. Salaries or incomes connected with purely honorary titles are always stopped.

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.

Art. 41.​

All municipal law of the ground on which the armies stand, or of the countries to which they belong, is silent and of no effect between armies in the field.

Art. 42.​

Slavery, complicating and confounding the ideas of property, (that is of a thing,) and of personality, (that is of humanity,) exists according to municipal or local law only. The law of nature and nations has never acknowledged it. The digest of the Roman law enacts the early dictum of the pagan jurist, that "so far as the law of nature is concerned, all men are equal." Fugitives escaping from a country in which they were slaves, villains, or serfs, into another country, have, for centuries past, been held free and acknowledged free by judicial decisions of European countries, even though the municipal law of the country in which the slave had taken refuge acknowledged slavery within its own dominions.

Art. 43.​

Therefore, in a war between the United States and a belligerent which admits of slavery, if a person held in bondage by that belligerent be captured by or come as a fugitive under the protection of the military forces of the United States, such person is immediately entitled to the rights and privileges of a freeman To return such person into slavery would amount to enslaving a free person, and neither the United States nor any officer under their authority can enslave any human being. Moreover, a person so made free by the law of war is under the shield of the law of nations, and the former owner or State can have, by the law of postliminy, no belligerent lien or claim of service.

Art. 44.​

All wanton violence committed against persons in the invaded country, all destruction of property not commanded by the authorized officer, all robbery, all pillage or sacking, even after taking a place by main force, all rape, wounding, maiming, or killing of such inhabitants, are prohibited under the penalty of death, or such other severe punishment as may seem adequate for the gravity of the offense.

A soldier, officer or private, in the act of committing such violence, and disobeying a superior ordering him to abstain from it, may be lawfully killed on the spot by such superior.

Art. 45.​

All captures and booty belong, according to the modern law of war, primarily to the government of the captor.

Prize money, whether on sea or land, can now only be claimed under local law.

Art. 46.​

Neither officers nor soldiers are allowed to make use of their position or power in the hostile country for private gain, not even for commercial transactions otherwise legitimate. Offenses to the contrary committed by commissioned officers will be punished with cashiering or such other punishment as the nature of the offense may require; if by soldiers, they shall be punished according to the nature of the offense.

Art. 47.​

Crimes punishable by all penal codes, such as arson, murder, maiming, assaults, highway robbery, theft, burglary, fraud, forgery, and rape, if committed by an American soldier in a hostile country against its inhabitants, are not only punishable as at home, but in all cases in which death is not inflicted, the severer punishment shall be preferred.

Notable points from a historical perspective are that Constitutions were originally written to limit the powers of Governments. But even constitutions have wiggle room built into them to allow the executive government to take control and abrogate laws during war or domestic threat.

This is also mentioned in the Lieber Code, which is also part of UN Law:

Martial Law - Military jurisdiction - Military necessity - Retaliation​

Article 1.​

A place, district, or country occupied by an enemy stands, in consequence of the occupation, under the Martial Law of the invading or occupying army, whether any proclamation declaring Martial Law, or any public warning to the inhabitants, has been issued or not. Martial Law is the immediate and direct effect and consequence of occupation or conquest.

The presence of a hostile army proclaims its Martial Law.

Art. 2.​

Martial Law does not cease during the hostile occupation, except by special proclamation, ordered by the commander in chief; or by special mention in the treaty of peace concluding the war, when the occupation of a place or territory continues beyond the conclusion of peace as one of the conditions of the same.

Art. 3.​

Martial Law in a hostile country consists in the suspension, by the occupying military authority, of the criminal and civil law, and of the domestic administration and government in the occupied place or territory, and in the substitution of military rule and force for the same, as well as in the dictation of general laws, as far as military necessity requires this suspension, substitution, or dictation.

The commander of the forces may proclaim that the administration of all civil and penal law shall continue either wholly or in part, as in times of peace, unless otherwise ordered by the military authority.

Art. 4.​

Martial Law is simply military authority exercised in accordance with the laws and usages of war. Military oppression is not Martial Law: it is the abuse of the power which that law confers. As Martial Law is executed by military force, it is incumbent upon those who administer it to be strictly guided by the principles of justice, honor, and humanity - virtues adorning a soldier even more than other men, for the very reason that he possesses the power of his arms against the unarmed.

Art. 5.​

Martial Law should be less stringent in places and countries fully occupied and fairly conquered. Much greater severity may be exercised in places or regions where actual hostilities exist, or are expected and must be prepared for. Its most complete sway is allowed - even in the commander's own country - when face to face with the enemy, because of the absolute necessities of the case, and of the paramount duty to defend the country against invasion.

To save the country is paramount to all other considerations.

Art. 6.​

All civil and penal law shall continue to take its usual course in the enemy's places and territories under Martial Law, unless interrupted or stopped by order of the occupying military power; but all the functions of the hostile government - legislative executive, or administrative - whether of a general, provincial, or local character, cease under Martial Law, or continue only with the sanction, or, if deemed necessary, the participation of the occupier or invader.

Art. 7.​

Martial Law extends to property, and to persons, whether they are subjects of the enemy or aliens to that government.

Art. 8.​

Consuls, among American and European nations, are not diplomatic agents. Nevertheless, their offices and persons will be subjected to Martial Law in cases of urgent necessity only: their property and business are not exempted. Any delinquency they commit against the established military rule may be punished as in the case of any other inhabitant, and such punishment furnishes no reasonable ground for international complaint.

Art. 9.​

The functions of Ambassadors, Ministers, or other diplomatic agents accredited by neutral powers to the hostile government, cease, so far as regards the displaced government; but the conquering or occupying power usually recognizes them as temporarily accredited to itself.

Art. 10.​

Martial Law affects chiefly the police and collection of public revenue and taxes, whether imposed by the expelled government or by the invader, and refers mainly to the support and efficiency of the army, its safety, and the safety of its operations.

Art. 11.​

The law of war does not only disclaim all cruelty and bad faith concerning engagements concluded with the enemy during the war, but also the breaking of stipulations solemnly contracted by the belligerents in time of peace, and avowedly intended to remain in force in case of war between the contracting powers.

It disclaims all extortions and other transactions for individual gain; all acts of private revenge, or connivance at such acts.

Offenses to the contrary shall be severely punished, and especially so if committed by officers.

Art. 12.​

Whenever feasible, Martial Law is carried out in cases of individual offenders by Military Courts; but sentences of death shall be executed only with the approval of the chief executive, provided the urgency of the case does not require a speedier execution, and then only with the approval of the chief commander.

Art. 13.​

Military jurisdiction is of two kinds: First, that which is conferred and defined by statute; second, that which is derived from the common law of war. Military offenses under the statute law must be tried in the manner therein directed; but military offenses which do not come within the statute must be tried and punished under the common law of war. The character of the courts which exercise these jurisdictions depends upon the local laws of each particular country.

In the armies of the United States the first is exercised by courts-martial, while cases which do not come within the "Rules and Articles of War," or the jurisdiction conferred by statute on courts-martial, are tried by military commissions.

Art. 14.​

Military necessity, as understood by modern civilized nations, consists in the necessity of those measures which are indispensable for securing the ends of the war, and which are lawful according to the modern law and usages of war.

Art. 15.​

Military necessity admits of all direct destruction of life or limb of armed enemies, and of other persons whose destruction is incidentally unavoidable in the armed contests of the war; it allows of the capturing of every armed enemy, and every enemy of importance to the hostile government, or of peculiar danger to the captor; it allows of all destruction of property, and obstruction of the ways and channels of traffic, travel, or communication, and of all withholding of sustenance or means of life from the enemy; of the appropriation of whatever an enemy's country affords necessary for the subsistence and safety of the army, and of such deception as does not involve the breaking of good faith either positively pledged, regarding agreements entered into during the war, or supposed by the modern law of war to exist. Men who take up arms against one another in public war do not cease on this account to be moral beings, responsible to one another and to God.

Art. 16.​

Military necessity does not admit of cruelty - that is, the infliction of suffering for the sake of suffering or for revenge, nor of maiming or wounding except in fight, nor of torture to extort confessions. It does not admit of the use of poison in any way, nor of the wanton devastation of a district. It admits of deception, but disclaims acts of perfidy; and, in general, military necessity does not include any act of hostility which makes the return to peace unnecessarily difficult.

Art. 17.​

War is not carried on by arms alone. It is lawful to starve the hostile belligerent, armed or unarmed, so that it leads to the speedier subjection of the enemy.

Art. 18.​

When a commander of a besieged place expels the noncombatants, in order to lessen the number of those who consume his stock of provisions, it is lawful, though an extreme measure, to drive them back, so as to hasten on the surrender.

Art. 19.​

Commanders, whenever admissible, inform the enemy of their intention to bombard a place, so that the noncombatants, and especially the women and children, may be removed before the bombardment commences. But it is no infraction of the common law of war to omit thus to inform the enemy. Surprise may be a necessity.

Art. 20.​

Public war is a state of armed hostility between sovereign nations or governments. It is a law and requisite of civilized existence that men live in political, continuous societies, forming organized units, called states or nations, whose constituents bear, enjoy, suffer, advance and retrograde together, in peace and in war.

Art. 21.​

The citizen or native of a hostile country is thus an enemy, as one of the constituents of the hostile state or nation, and as such is subjected to the hardships of the war.

Art. 22.​

Nevertheless, as civilization has advanced during the last centuries, so has likewise steadily advanced, especially in war on land, the distinction between the private individual belonging to a hostile country and the hostile country itself, with its men in arms. The principle has been more and more acknowledged that the unarmed citizen is to be spared in person, property, and honor as much as the exigencies of war will admit.

Art. 23.​

Private citizens are no longer murdered, enslaved, or carried off to distant parts, and the inoffensive individual is as little disturbed in his private relations as the commander of the hostile troops can afford to grant in the overruling demands of a vigorous war.

Art. 24.​

The almost universal rule in remote times was, and continues to be with barbarous armies, that the private individual of the hostile country is destined to suffer every privation of liberty and protection, and every disruption of family ties. Protection was, and still is with uncivilized people, the exception.

Art. 25.​

In modern regular wars of the Europeans, and their descendants in other portions of the globe, protection of the inoffensive citizen of the hostile country is the rule; privation and disturbance of private relations are the exceptions.

Art. 26.​

Commanding generals may cause the magistrates and civil officers of the hostile country to take the oath of temporary allegiance or an oath of fidelity to their own victorious government or rulers, and they may expel everyone who declines to do so. But whether they do so or not, the people and their civil officers owe strict obedience to them as long as they hold sway over the district or country, at the peril of their lives.

Art. 27.​

The law of war can no more wholly dispense with retaliation than can the law of nations, of which it is a branch. Yet civilized nations acknowledge retaliation as the sternest feature of war. A reckless enemy often leaves to his opponent no other means of securing himself against the repetition of barbarous outrage

Art. 28.​

Retaliation will, therefore, never be resorted to as a measure of mere revenge, but only as a means of protective retribution, and moreover, cautiously and unavoidably; that is to say, retaliation shall only be resorted to after careful inquiry into the real occurrence, and the character of the misdeeds that may demand retribution.

Unjust or inconsiderate retaliation removes the belligerents farther and farther from the mitigating rules of regular war, and by rapid steps leads them nearer to the internecine wars of savages.

Art. 29.​

Modern times are distinguished from earlier ages by the existence, at one and the same time, of many nations and great governments related to one another in close intercourse.

Peace is their normal condition; war is the exception. The ultimate object of all modern war is a renewed state of peace.

The more vigorously wars are pursued, the better it is for humanity. Sharp wars are brief.

Art. 30.​

Ever since the formation and coexistence of modern nations, and ever since wars have become great national wars, war has come to be acknowledged not to be its own end, but the means to obtain great ends of state, or to consist in defense against wrong; and no conventional restriction of the modes adopted to injure the enemy is any longer admitted; but the law of war imposes many limitations and restrictions on principles of justice, faith, and honor.

Over the years there have been many signs that while UN Law has the facade of being for international arbitration between countries in the area's of war and commerce and trade, that many UN countries have shifted away from their domestic laws and constitutions and instead apply UN Law domestically as well where citizens began to be treated as the enemy or threat. War rhetoric began to be used by Nixon in the US and McMahon in Australia in 1971 and was followed by other countries. Since this all occurred in the early 70's, there may be some connection to the question posed by @Approaching Infinity about what happened in 1972 as the early 70's seem to be another nexus point where how the laws were applied shifted. The war on drugs, for example, allowed military styled jurisdiction to seize property and other assets. In the words of Gabor Mate, the war on drugs was a war on traumatised people, but more than that, because any large drug suppliers who were not big pharma could have all their assets seized - for military necessity if you can believe it. As the Lieber Code specifies, officers and military cannon fodder in the field are not to use such seized property for their own personal enrichment but the value goes somewhere. Scott Morrison in Australia announced a war on waste, which was interesting because at a cursory glance that would seem to be about rubbish or trash, but the legal definition of waste is:

Spoil or destruction in houses, gardens, trees, or other corporeal hereditaments, to the disherison of the reversioner or remainderman in fee simple; whatever is done which tends to the destruction or impairment of value of the inheritance. See Busbee’s Law (N. C.) 91, 57 Am. Dec. 574. See, also, Equitable waste; Voluntary waste.

In other words, it's all to do with property, estates, trusts and inheritances!

In Australia, things heated up along these lines when Gough Whitlam became Prime Minister succeeding McMahon. Prior to his time in the early '70's, there were only 3-400 pieces of legislation that limited the powers of government. Since that time the pile of legislation has grown to almost 40,000 that increasingly moved away from limiting the powers of government towards limiting the freedoms of the people. Whitlam also signed Australia up to UNIDROIT and enacted the 1973 Seas and Submerged Lands Act which was the for runner of the implementation of the Australian Exclusive Economic Zone in 1991. Thing about EEZ's is that they are governed by UN Law and Maritime Law, Maritime Law being a combination of the Laws of War and the Laws of Commerce and Trade which is basically UN Law anyway - not the domestic laws or constitutions of the country, and are certainly not democracies.

Here's a map of the French EEZ:



And the Australian EEZ:



Then, in June 2019 the UN signed a strategic partnership with the WEF to finance and speed up the implementation of agenda 2030 most probably by the use of the laws of war and the laws of commerce and trade - where property can be seized for military necessity, and where it's most probable, IMO, that elites will increase 'wars' against the population and the fact that elections are even held is probably just to give the illusion of democracy - you know, so that we can all own nothing and be happy.

Was checking WEF articles about the great reset and come across this one where the UN signed a strategic partnership with WEF back in June 2019 to usher in the reset. That's interesting timing in the virus timeline!



Reading over the WEF articles clarifies a few things.

Businesses or those parts of businesses that are seen as non-essential at the moment seem to be those businesses or services that could be provided online. Labelling a business or service non-essential seems to be a way of pressuring to adapt to the online environment to survive or be left in the dust.

This WEF article addresses agility and digital services taxes. Apparently France has already tried imposing a digital service tax and Trump responded by threatening a 100% tariff on French products.

In December 2019, WEF acknowledged that trust in governments and institutions was at an all time low so trust had to be 'redefined' and they mention 'Trust 4.0'. They acknowledge that trust is more stable in a democracy. They define Trust 1.0 as being interpersonal: "we lived in small communities and maintained close, direct relationships.[....] Trust at that time was centred on villages, tribes and other local networks. People trusted their own group and were sceptical of outsiders." Then during the industrial revolution, "Trust 2.0 became institutional. Corporations, governments and even schools became rigid structures to help build trust and maintain social cohesion as we navigated life in larger groups". Then the digital revolution redefined trust again when personal computers allowed people to connect with others that they didn't know and begin to trust the wisdom of the crowd - this was Trust 3.0.

On Trust 4.0 they say:



I haven't found a clue as to what plans are to bring this trust 4.0 about - but I'm guessing it has to do with censorship. Also there's an odd situation here in Australia with new political parties, they seem to be springing up and tapping into the concerns of those that haven't bought into the virus narrative. I wonder if they're doing that just to give a sense of trust. It seems to me that they would be more effective if they united. I'm reckon there's a bait and switch on it's way but it's hard to tell which angle it would come from at the moment. The seeming incompetence of the current governments are almost like a set up for presenting a candidate that present as more trustworthy.

In this 2016 article about the 4th Industrial Revolution they say:



I wonder if there is something about this new technology and the way that it changes people that is hidden by face masks and the idea behind the insistence of face masks despite all the evidence against using them is to change as many people as possible before the changes become apparent to the wider community?

Recently, RFK Jr. gave a speech about the SMO in Ukraine where he tracks property changing hands through the use of war and notes that it's an old, old game.

Transcript of recent RFK Jr. speech:

This is a war that shouldn’t have happened. This is a war that the Russians tried repeatedly to settle on terms that were very, very beneficial to Ukraine and us and the major thing they wanted was for us to keep NATO out of the Ukraine. The big military contractors want to add new countries to NATO all the time. Why? Because then that country has to conform it military purchases to NATO weapons specification which means certain companies, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Boeing, and Lockheed get a trapped market. In March of 2022 we committed 113 Billion dollars. Just to give you an example, we could have built a home for almost every homeless person in this country. We then committed another 24 billion since then, two months ago. And now President Biden’s asking for another $60 billion. But the big, big expenses are going to come after the war, when we have to rebuild all the things that we destroyed. Mitch McConnell was asked, “Can we really afford to spend $113 billion to the Ukraine?” He said, “Don’t worry. It’s not really going to Ukraine, it’s going to American defense manufacturers.” So he just admitted it’s a money laundering scheme. And who do you think owns every one of those companies? Yeah, BlackRock. So Tim Scott, during the Republican debate said, “Don’t worry, it’s not a gift to Ukraine, it’s a loan.” Raise your hand if you think that loan is ever getting paid back. Yeah, of course it’s not. So why do they call it a loan? Because if they call it a loan, they can impose loan conditions. And what are the loan conditions that we impose on them? Number one, an extreme austerity program, so that if you’re poor in Ukraine, you’re going to be poor forever. Number two, most important, Ukraine has to put all of it’s government owned assets up for sale to multinational corporations, including all of it’s agricultural land – the biggest single asset in Europe, in Ukraine. There’s been a thousand years of war fought over that land. It’s the richest farmland in the world. It’s the breadbasket of Europe. 500,000 kids almost – Ukrainian kids have died – to keep that land as part of Ukraine. They almost certainly didn’t know about this loan condition. They’ve already sold 30% of it. The buyers were Dupont, Cargill, and Monsanto. Who do you think owns all of those companies? Yeah, BlackRock. And then in December, President Biden gave out the contract to rebuild Ukraine, and who do you think got that contract? BlackRock. So they’re doing this right in front of us. They don’t even care that we know anymore, because they know they can get away with it. And how do they know that? Because they have a strategy and that strategy is an old, old strategy, which is they keep us at war with each other. They keep us hating on each other. They keep the Republicans and Democrats fighting each other, and black against white, and all these divisions that they sow.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Then there is the recent Tucker Carlson interview with Mike Benz:

The End of Democracy: "What I'm Describing is Military Rule"

If you wish to understand how democracy ended in the United States and the European Union, please watch this interview with Tucker Carlson and Mike Benz. It is full of the most stunning revelations that I have heard in a very long time. The...

www.sott.net

I strongly suspect that all member states of the UN will have similar legislation being passed as France, thing is, it might not be so easy to find. It can be that some clauses will be spread out among a number of different pieces of legislation and titles of legislation can be different from country to country. Also, all applicable clauses may not appear in a single piece of legislation, but rather something along lines of 'in accordence with section x of y' legislation will be written into the new acts meaning that it may be necessary to read lots of different pieces of legislation to get a gist of what they actually mean by that clause!

 

[fifty_five]

Those who had doubts since the pandemic, about the military origin are now served. And yes. Since the origin (well before the pandemic) all professional registers stipulated state ownership over the "liberal professions" (professions libérales). I find it funny that physical persons will be requisitioned based on their psychic abilities .

 

[Cosmos]

I think what we can see is that France (along with other leading European countries like Germany) is basically spearheading towards confrontation towards Russia probably partly under pressure from the US. And willfully destroying their countries by fulfilling their "Great Reset" plans at the same time. Frankly speaking, I don't see much hope for France, Germany and many other European countries. They are steering towards the cliff rapidly and it gets absurder every day. I'm afraid that those countries are in for "learning" lessons the hard way in one way or the other. While a lot comes from the top down, I agree, I unfortunately think that far too many ordinary people are so full of hypocrisy, lies, deceit, and generally, so dumped down, that there won't be much resistance to the "crazy train" anytime soon. Yes, in Germany they also recently started to tell people how good it would be to have a "real military" again against Russia and to reinstate "conscriptions" and similar crazy ideas. I think the US probably wants to sacrifice Europe for their own gains against Russia and that this is what we see. And Europe just goes along quite nicely. But, Europeans in themselves are at least as crazy themselves. The only thing that can stop this for Europeans is hard reality, I think. Europeans (and especially leading countries like Germany) have wallowed in "living the good life" of the golden billion for so long, that they have become so full of themselves and so utterly ignorant, that only big shocks could even "readjust" their trajectory towards utter insanity. Europe has lost it.

 

[artofdream]

Indeed, this is something which has been there for quite some time in France but not so much in the open as it is lately.

I forgot to add to the new laws and such, some other "funny" relatively new entity (created in 2021):

VIGINUM — Wikipédia

fr.wikipedia.org

It's like the new French "NSA", sort of. They are not supposed to judge the content, and they are only supposedly interested in "foreign influence", right? Like the Macron leaks by "evil foreign detractors".

Well, not quite. For example: VIGINUM : NON au nouveau Ministère de la Vérité en France ! texte - Tocsin



It's chief is also a military guy: Lieutenant-Colonel Marc-Antoine Brillant

few more info on VIGINUM on the following post though parts are in French, is also interesting to have a look at the initiative it is built upon (DISARM) and the related frameworks DISARM Red Team Framework (attacking side) & DISARM Blue Team Framework (defending side)

well some follow up more globally on security, disinformation and the rest.
I usually keep an eye on such topic and have been looking at the following: DISARM Foundation

The DISARM initiative relates to CTIL, and come to the forefront in regard to VIGINUM in France

https://twitter.com/x/status/1760416962717356356

and more globally

https://twitter.com/x/status/1760416962717356356

View attachment 92245

Some Context

As a side note, the following interview in French can clarify the context in France:

• SGDSN (Secretariat General de la Defense et de la Securite Nationale | French General Directorate for National Security and Defense): Accueil | SGDSN & wikipedia

• VIGINUM

Moreover, some of the equivalents (in French below)


Framework

As I got curious I went to the opensource GitHub repository and went through the framework, specifically on the 2 following usual framework delt with in cybersecurity: DISARM Red Team Framework (attacking side) & DISARM Blue Team Framework (defending side)

It is pretty interesting to go through the different strategy, tactics, objectives and scope within the framework to get a good idea of what they do consider.

Still going through the details of the framework but reminds me of "full spectrum dominance" Snowden described years ago... now powered by open source ...

 

[wilfried]

There is this guy who made the job to put in light the disarm-viginum process. in France. A lot of long video and article that fulfill the study.
Quite impossible to resume his work but for just one exemple in this part, Leo explain with fact how the french dgsn or secret service are only rewrite in french the usa secret service report.

VIGINUM, (ou le DISARM de la SGDSN*)

Le plus grand scandale lié à la liberté d’expression a éclaté récemment aux États-Unis, avec des répercussions qui touchent aussi la France. Un lanceur avait rendu public des documents qui nous…

adnm.live

Leo had also describe the links between gafam and the 3 letters agency; in this following link. He prooves that IA is driving internet by showing a chat gpt conversation and a lot of others info.

Facebook, Google, et services de renseignements américains

Google et Meta sont devenus des prolongements de la communauté du renseignement américain, avec des responsables tels que Jacqueline Lopour et Aaron Berman, tous deux anciens officiers de la CIA…

adnm.live

 

[mkrnhr]

I talked to an old French citizen (a retired scientist) who decided never to go to France ever again, and he gave one reason with no further embellishment: "fascism". Another one, of about the same age (a retired musician) used the same term. Some people can see it, other cannot.

 

[Jacques]

and he gave one reason with no further embellishment: "fascism".

Indeed but the sad fact is fascism is present in so many contries these days.

 

[seve]

Fascism is above all European and globalist. It is creeping up and nibbling away at all European societies, and France is no exception.

 

[Don Cesar]

The most surprising thing is that many French people and also my close friends, often on the left, to whom we always present what is extreme right and evil, are unable to sort things out, they see that something is wrong, but they don't realize that it's evil that tells them so...

 

[Chu]

Fascism is above all European and globalist. It is creeping up and nibbling away at all European societies, and France is no exception.

Yes, and pretty much the entire West. It's as if they were preparing for "something" in a desperate state (like the quote Ryan shared), and thinking they are covering several bases, but possibly going too far.

I know this is something that's being said around here quite a bit, but I have to be blunt, mostly for the sake of the ones who depend on me, and ask: how is this going to help me if say tomorrow I'm forcefully drafted or jabbed against my will, for real this time, and have whatever possessions or freedoms I have left be entirely stripped off if I and my loved ones do not comply, and on top of that be shipped to god knows where to be imprisoned, isolated, "re-educated" etc until we yield or perish?

Do I just pray a solar flare supercharges my cells and endows me with "superpowers" at that point? Perhaps expect to be beamed up an STO ship only to discover it's reptiles with an appetite and genderless cyborgs in disguise? Or does it all not matter because "glory awaits us" regardless and things are going to be fine in 4D/5D...whatever D awaits us once the meatsuit expires?

Apologies if I'm being distasteful, but I'm running kinda low on copium and stoicine lately.

Well, this is where "knowledge protects" comes in. It's not a passive "Wait and see", with our arms crossed, not paying much attention, wishfully thinking that it may never affects us, etc. Just as it's important to consider that the scenarios you described in the first paragraph are only ONE possible future among many. I also wouldn't bet on 4D or glory or whatever, because for as long as we are in this reality, it means that we fit in and are exactly where we need to be. But there is a) a lot to learn, b) some things we CAN do in terms of preparedness, c) networking.

In that sense, Covid gave us a lot more awareness, for example. And if you are paying attention, you can take some preemptive measures. And I think that not letting the lies get to you, and acting accordingly (even if "they" try to curtail more freedoms or whatever), can help a lot. For one, simply understanding what is going on, and being psychologically and practically ready (to the extent that we can be) to different types of scenarios, can reduce stress to the extent to which we can think and act better when circumstances change. Having a network really helps. So, I would suggest that you network more, and read threads related to these issues. We can't let fear of those horrible scenarios take over. We can keep them in mind, but it's best if we "wait and see" in the present, while being the best we can be. I hope it makes sense.