You are here:   Forums
Register   |  Login
etter_Future_Ahead_01

Welcome to the Crimes Against Fathers Forums

Minimize
 
ForumForumDiscussionsDiscussionsGeneral Parent ForumGeneral Parent ForumGeneralGeneralOccupying Forces, Protected Persons, Outlawry Occupying Forces, Protected Persons, Outlawry
Previous Previous
 
Next Next
New Post
 11/16/2011 12:32 AM
 

Gentlemen? For those of you who wish to delve a bit deeper into the reasons why the Illuminati minions like Julia Gillard and Robert McClelland are trying to SHUT ME UP. Read through this append. I know it is long but bear with me.

Those who claim they are your masters do NOT want you to know this information. They are going to be PISSED that I have published this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_C...

The Geneva Conventions comprise four treaties and three additional protocols that set the standards in international law for humanitarian treatment of the victims of war. The singular term Geneva Convention refers to the agreements of 1949, negotiated in the aftermath of World War II, updating the terms of the first three treaties and adding a fourth treaty. The language is extensive, with articles defining the basic rights of those captured during a military conflict, establishing protections for the wounded, and addressing protections for civilians in and around a war zone. The treaties of 1949 have been ratified, in whole or with reservations, by 194 countries.[1]

Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall, at all times, be humanely treated, and shall be protected, especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity. Women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honour, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault. Without prejudice to the provisions relating to their state of health, age and sex, all protected persons shall be treated with the same consideration by the Party to the conflict in whose power they are, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, religion or political opinion. However, the Parties to the conflict may take such measures of control and security in regard to protected persons as may be necessary as a result of the war.

 

This begs the questions.
What is a ‘protected person’?
What protections do Protected Persons have?
Are there any conditions in which a person can waive or nullify their ‘protected person status’?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_G...

The Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, commonly referred to as the Fourth Geneva Convention and abbreviated as GCIV, is one of the four treaties of the Geneva Conventions. It was adopted in August 1949, and defines humanitarian protections for civilians in a war zone, and outlaws the practice of total war. There are currently 194 countries party to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, including this fourth treaty but also including the other three.[1]


In 1993, the United Nations Security Council adopted a report from the Secretary-General and a Commission of Experts which concluded that the Geneva Conventions had passed into the body of customary international law, thus making them binding on non-signatories to the Conventions whenever they engage in armed conflicts.[2]

Gentlemen, Note this provision.

“Article 3 states that even where there is not a conflict of international character the parties must as a minimum adhere to minimal protections described as: noncombatants, members of armed forces who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, with the following prohibitions:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.”


The following comment means that you are a protected person in your land. You are being subject to a war by ‘THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA’ which is a FOREIGN POWER. It is a legal entity listed on the UN Securities and Exchange commission. It is NOT the Sovereign Nation as you have been lied to that it is.


“Article 4 defines who is a Protected person: Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals. But it explicitly excludes Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention and the citizens of a neutral state or an allied state if that state has normal diplomatic relations within the State in whose hands they are.”


Please note:

Article 32. A protected person/s shall not have anything done to them of such a character as to cause physical suffering or extermination ... the physical suffering or extermination of protected persons in their hands. This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment'

While popular debate remains on what constitutes a legal definition of torture (see discussion on the Torture page), the ban on corporal punishment simplifies the matter; even the most mundane physical abuse is thereby forbidden by Article 32, as a precaution against alternate definitions of torture.


Well? Are fathers subject to treatment that causes them ‘physical suffering or extermination’? Yes. They are. And they are killing themselves in record numbers.

Article 33. No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.


Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions collective punishments are a war crime. By collective punishment, the drafters of the Geneva Conventions had in mind the reprisal killings of World Wars I and World War II. In the First World War, Germans executed Belgian villagers in mass retribution for resistance activity. In World War II, Nazis carried out a form of collective punishment to suppress resistance. Entire villages or towns or districts were held responsible for any resistance activity that took place there.


Well? Are fathers punished ‘collectively’? Are they punished for actual ‘crimes’? Yes and Yes.

 

The re-presentatives of THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA is committing WAR CRIMES. By THEIR OWN STANDARDS.


Now…let’s look a little further…..Try reading THIS.


Grave breaches

Not all violations of the treaty are treated equally. The most serious crimes are termed grave breaches, and provide a legal definition of a war crime. Grave breaches of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions include the following acts if committed against a person protected by the convention:

  • willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments
  • willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
  • compelling someone to serve in the forces of a hostile power
  • willfully depriving someone of the right to a fair trial

Also considered grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention are the following:

  • taking of hostages
  • extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly
  • unlawful deportation, transfer, or confinement.[11]


Nations who are party to these treaties must enact and enforce legislation penalizing any of these crimes.[12] Nations are also obligated to search for persons alleged to commit these crimes, or ordered them to be committed, and to bring them to trial regardless of their nationality and regardless of the place where the crimes took place.

The principle of universal jurisdiction also applies to the enforcement of grave breaches. Toward this end, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia were established by the United Nations to prosecute alleged violations.


And if you look in here (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL... )  you will see:

It was established during the Nuremberg Tribunals after World War II that persons who commit war crimes or crimes against humanity may be held individually accountable, whether they are members of the military or civilians.”

International Law. Members of the armed forces of a party to an international armed conflict may be held individually liable for breaches of the law of war, including for maltreatment of prisoners under their control, whether such prisoners are under their immediate control or indirect control through the chain of command. It is not a defense against a charge of any grave breach of the Geneva Conventions that an accused was merely following orders,60 although such circumstances may mitigate liability. Commanders may be held vicariously liable for abuses committed by persons under their command even where no orders were issued, if it can be proven that the commander knew or should have known that such abuses were taking place.



History of Assassination.

Men might want to take note that BOTH the US and Israel support ‘targeted killings’. Aka….Assassination. The largest purveyor of assassinations in the world are the US and Israel, in my opinion. Hard to prove that though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_...

 

United States

In 1943, the United States military used knowledge from decoded transmissions to carry out a targeted killing of the Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto.[10]

During the Cold War, the U.S. attempted several times to assassinate Cuban President Fidel Castro.[11]


In 1981, President Ronald Reagan issued Executive Order 12333, which codified a policy first laid down in 1976 by the Ford administration. It stated, "No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination."[12]


In 1986, the American air strikes against Libya included an attack on the barracks where Muammar al-Gaddafi was known to be sleeping. It was claimed that the attack resulted in the death of Qaddafi's infant daughter but reporter Barbara Slavin of USA Today who was in Libya at the time, set the record straight. "His adopted daughter was not killed," she said. "An infant girl was killed. I actually saw her body. She was adopted posthumously by Gadhafi. She was not related to Gadhafi."[13]


During the 1991 Gulf War, the U.S. struck many of Iraq’s most important command bunkers with bunker-busting bombs in hopes of killing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.[citation needed]


Since the rise of al-Qaeda, both the Clinton and Bush administrations have backed "targeted killings." In 1998, in retaliation for the al-Qaeda attacks on U.S. embassies in East Africa, the Clinton administration launched cruise missiles against a training camp in Afghanistan where bin Laden had been hours before. Reportedly, the U.S. nearly killed the leader of Taliban, Mullah Omar, with a Predator-launched Hellfire missile on the first night of Operation Enduring Freedom. In May 2002, the CIA launched a Hellfire missile from a Predator drone in an effort to kill the Afghan warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.[citation needed]


On November 3, 2002, a US Central Intelligence Agency-operated MQ-1 Predator unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) fired a Hellfire missile that destroyed a car carrying six suspected al-Qaeda operatives in Yemen. The target of the attack was Qaed Salim Sinan al-Harethi, the top al-Qaeda operative in Yemen. Among those killed in the attack was a US citizen, Yemeni-American Ahmed Hijazi. Priest, Dana (2002-11-08). "CIA Killed U.S. Citizen In Yemen Missile Strike". Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-.... Retrieved 2008-02-28.[citation needed]


According to Bush administration, the killing of an American in this fashion was legal. "I can assure you that no constitutional questions are raised here. There are authorities that the president can give to officials. He's well within the balance of accepted practice and the letter of his constitutional authority," said Condoleezza Rice, the US national security adviser.[14][15]


During the press-conference, the US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said that Washington's reasons for opposing the targeted killings of Palestinians might not apply in other circumstances and denied allegation that by staging the Yemen operation the US may be using double standards towards Israeli policy: "We all understand the situation with regard to Israeli-Palestinian issues and the prospects of peace and the prospects of negotiation... and of the need to create an atmosphere for progress... A lot of different things come into play there... Our policy on targeted killings in the Israeli-Palestinian context has not changed."[16]


On December 3, 2005, the US was blamed for another incident, in which alleged al-Qaeda #3 man (operations chief Abu Hamza Rabia) was reportedly killed in Pakistan by an airborne missile, together with four associates. However, Pakistani officials claim the group was killed while preparing explosives, not from any targeted military operation.,[17][18] The US has made no official comment about the incident.

On January 13, 2006 US CIA-operated unmanned Predator drones launched four Hellfire missiles into the Pakistani village of Damadola, about 7 km (4.5 miles) from the Afghan border, killing at least 18 people. The attack targeted Ayman al-Zawahiri who was thought to be in the village. Pakistani officials later said that al-Zawahiri was not there and that the U.S. had acted on faulty intelligence.[19]


On June 7, 2006, US Forces dropped one laser-guided bomb and one GPS-guided bomb on a safehouse north of Baqubah, Iraq, where Al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was believed to be meeting with several aides. His death was confirmed the next day.


The Use of Torture Against Fathers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture

Torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is:

...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.

—UN Convention Against Torture[1]

Please note:
“, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind”

So here is a question.

Are fathers intimidated or coerced for any reason based on discrimination of any kind? Well?

YES

It is the unique characteristic of being a FATHER that has THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA inflict “severe pain and suffering”. By THEIR OWN RULES the re-presentatives of  THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA are guilty of inflicting torture.

Here is the list of parties to the Geneva Conventions: You will find Australia on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_...


CONCLUSION?

THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA is an ‘Occupying Power’ and under THEIR definitions all Australians are ‘Protected Persons’. THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA is running a declared war. THEY have declared it and are operating under military rules. It’s just that the people of Australia do not know this has been done.

What do the Geneva Conventions Say About This?
http://www.un-documents.net/gc-4.htm

Note these two articles.

 Article 147.

Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the present Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in the present Convention, taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.

Article 148.

No High Contracting Party shall be allowed to absolve itself or any other High Contracting Party of any liability incurred by itself or by another High Contracting Party in respect of breaches referred to in the preceding Article.

So this comes down to the question.
If it is the case that

“Nations who are party to these treaties must enact and enforce legislation penalizing any of these crimes.[12] Nations are also obligated to search for persons alleged to commit these crimes, or ordered them to be committed, and to bring them to trial regardless of their nationality and regardless of the place where the crimes took place.

The principle of universal jurisdiction also applies to the enforcement of grave breaches. Toward this end, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia were established by the United Nations to prosecute alleged violations.”

AND those who persecute us ARE those governments? What are the solutions to this problem?

Well? Clearly one is declared warfare. THEY have declared war on US. All that is required to make lawfully the killing of members of the Occupying Force is to declare war on them in return. The declaration of war has been a time honoured legitimisation of taking up arms and throwing off oppressors.

And WHO exactly, would men declare war on? Well? Those people who claim to be the leaders of THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA as they know full well they are an Occupying Power. What about the members of the Law Society? Well they are an interesting bunch. THEY have sworn an oath to the Law Society and become members of the BAR.  As far as I know the BAR is the ‘British Accredited Register’ and the Australian Law Society is a subsidiary of the British Law Society. It would seem to me that the Australian Law Society is also an ‘Occupying Power’ and that those who volunteer to be a part of it may also be subject to a declaration of war from the people of the land known as Australia.

If people are waging war on you, even by deception, they can hardly complain when you declare war on them in return.

The other option is to use the common law and the Outlawry section of Common Law which all members of THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA have signed up to.

So. Let’s read about that a bit

Outlawry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlawry


An outlaw in historical legal systems is a person declared as outside the protection of the law. In pre-modern societies, this takes the burden of active persecution of a criminal from the authorities. Instead, the criminal is withdrawn all legal protection, so that anyone is legally empowered to persecute or kill them. Outlawry was thus one of the harshest penalties in the legal system, since the outlaw had only himself to protect himself, but it also required no enforcement on the part of the justice system. In early Germanic law, the death penalty is conspicuosly absent, and outlawing is the most extreme punishment, presumably amounting to a death sentence in practice.

The term bandit (introduced to English via Italian around 1590) originates with the early Germanic legal practice of outlawing criminals, termed *bannan (English ban). The legal term in the Holy Roman Empire was Acht or Reichsacht, translated as "Imperial ban".

The concept is known from Roman law, as the status of homo sacer, and persisted throughout the Middle Ages. It was only in the modern period that the principle of Habeas Corpus was established, requiring that criminals must be judged in person by a court of law before they can legally be punished.

In the common law of England, a "Writ of Outlawry" made the pronouncement Caput gerat lupinum ("Let his be a wolf's head," literally "May he bear a wolfish head") with respect to its subject, using "head" to refer to the entire person (cf. "per capita") and equating that person with a wolf in the eyes of the law: Not only was the subject deprived of all legal rights of the law being "out"side of the "law", but others could kill him on sight as if he were a wolf or other wild animal.


Please note:

“Instead, the criminal is withdrawn all legal protection, so that anyone is legally empowered to persecute or kill them”


People have made out that I am somehow ‘supporting violence’ by using the term ‘lawful assassination’ when even the US, ISRAELI AND AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENTS are in the business of ‘lawful killings’ without due process of law or trials! And how about the relative ability of the US, ISRAELI AND AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENTS to commit a ‘lawful killing without due process’ compared to me?

Gentlemen. It is really simple. The governments who are shouting the loudest about ‘no violence’ and suppressing the voice as to the lawfulness of persecution up to and including killing someone who has waived the protection of law ARE THE VERY ONES UNLAWFULLY KILLING THE MOST PEOPLE!!!

Gentlemen, our guvments are criminal enterprises running an occupation under military laws as an Occupying Power. Try asking Julia Gillard to deny that THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA is a foreign power under oath and producing some evidence for that. See what SHE says of this.

And given that THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA is an Occupying Power and that all the avenues of ‘appeal’ are similarly controlled by the same criminals? There are only two main options:

    1. Engage in a lawfully and rightfully declared war. And this would mean civil war in Australia where THEY have all the guns.
    2. Engage Common Law (or Originie Law) and fairly and justly try those who are accused ourselves while retaining the RIGHT to Outlaw any party found guilty by a Jury of 12 honest men of honour and integrity.

 That is. Being able to withdraw the protection of the LAW OF THE PEOPLE from the those who are waging war on us. In short? It would become ‘open season’ on such men and women,.

So. Gentlemen? These topics are something that your masters do NOT want you to know. They do NOT want you to know that they are an Occupying Force of a Foreign Power. And they do NOT want you to know that it is lawful, just and indeed right to declare war in return. They do NOT want you to know that they are subject to the Common Law . They do NOT want you to know that they are subject to being outlawed by you in a properly convened trial.

THAT is why they are trying so hard to SHUT ME UP.

I am the guy who did his homework.


 

Other interesting links

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/380-6...
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

 

 

 

Previous Previous
 
Next Next
ForumForumDiscussionsDiscussionsGeneral Parent ForumGeneral Parent ForumGeneralGeneralOccupying Forces, Protected Persons, Outlawry Occupying Forces, Protected Persons, Outlawry