The 1949 conventions have been modified with three amendment protocols:
- Protocol I (1977) relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts
- Protocol II (1977) relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts
- Protocol III (2005) relating to the Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem.
[edit] Application
The Geneva Conventions apply at times of war and armed conflict to governments who have ratified its terms. The details of applicability are spelled out in Common Articles 2 and 3. The topic of applicability has generated some controversy. When the Geneva Conventions apply, governments have surrendered some of their national sovereignty by signing these treaties.[edit] Common Article 2 relating to International Armed Conflicts
This article states that the Geneva Conventions apply to all cases of international conflict, where at least one of the warring nations have ratified the Conventions. Primarily:- The Conventions apply to all cases of declared war between signatory nations. This is the original sense of applicability, which predates the 1949 version.
- The Conventions apply to all cases of armed conflict between two or more signatory nations, even in the absence of a declaration of war. This language was added in 1949 to accommodate situations that have all the characteristics of war without the existence of a formal declaration of war, such as a police action.[14]
- The Conventions apply to a signatory nation even if the opposing nation is not a signatory, but only if the opposing nation "accepts and applies the provisions" of the Conventions.[14]
When the criteria of international conflict have been met, the full protections of the Conventions are considered to apply.
[edit] Common Article 3 relating to Non-International Armed Conflict
This article states that the certain minimum rules of war apply to armed conflicts that are not of an international character, but that are contained within the boundaries of a single country. The applicability of this article rests on the interpretation of the term armed conflict.[14] For example it would apply to conflicts between the Government and rebel forces, or between two rebel forces, or to other conflicts that have all the characteristics of war but that are carried out within the confines of a single country. A handful of individuals attacking a police station would not be considered an armed conflict subject to this article, but only subject to the laws of the country in question.[14]The other Geneva Conventions are not applicable in this situation but only the provisions contained within Article 3,[14] and additionally within the language of Protocol II. The rationale for the limitation is to avoid conflict with the rights of Sovereign States that were not part of the treaties. When the provisions of this article apply, it states that:[15]
- Persons taking no active part in hostilities, including military persons who have ceased to be active as a result of sickness, injury, or detention, should be treated humanely and that the following acts are prohibited:
- violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
- taking of hostages;
- outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; and
- 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 wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
[edit] Enforcement
[edit] Enforcement authority of the United Nations Security Council
The final international tribunal for all issues related to the Geneva Conventions and other treaties is the United Nations Security Council. As a charter, the UN Charter is a constituent treaty, and all members are bound by its articles. The UN Charter's Article 25 and others[16] require that obligations to the United Nations prevail over all other treaty obligations. The UNSC rarely invokes its authority regarding the Geneva Conventions and so most issues are resolved by regional treaties or by national law.[edit] Protecting powers
The term protecting power has a specific meaning under these Conventions. A protecting power is a state that is not taking part in the armed conflict, but that has agreed to look after the interests of a state that is a party to the conflict. The protecting power is a mediator enabling the flow of communication between the parties to the conflict. The protecting power also monitors implementation of these Conventions, such as by visiting the zone of conflict and prisoners of war. The protecting power must act as an advocate for prisoners, the wounded, and civilians.[edit] Grave breaches
- willful killing, torture or inhumane 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 if accused of a war crime.
- 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.[17]
***********
The United States and Canada committed all of the above violations that I highlighted in red. The only one that does not apply is willingfully depriving someone of the right to fair trail if accused of a war crime, and while I have been willfully deprived of the right to fair trail, by both U.S. and Canadian governments, it was not over my being accused of a war crime. I can speak for myself on that matter, and I can't speak for my parents, as to whether or not they feel they have been accused of some war crime and not given fair trial. Both the U.S. and Canada are signatories to this Convention and they are both guilty of crimes against humanity. I am sure other countries have members who contributed, but I cannot accuse their entire country of criminal participation when I was not in their country and under their authority and jurisdiction or knowingly being assaulted by their state-personnel. Because I was in Canada and the U.S., and in their own federal or official detention centers and on their property, and because I was accosted and harmed by officials and authorities that clearly worked for the governments, I can say without any doubt that both governments and entire countries are liable for war crimes. If a single person or official from another country is involved, I am sure. I have no doubt that various other officials from other countries are involved, but I cannot accuse their entire country or government due to insufficient evidence and lack of jurisdictional basis to accuse. Complicitity, yes, and should the others be held accountable? yes. But for purposes of proof I can name The United States of America and Canada: Member of The Commonwealth.
"Transfer" rules do not apply. The U.S. was declared by me to be an enemy state, so it was not our state of nationality or origin when it was and is a hostile state. We have always been protected by Geneva, even in the country where we were born, the U.S., because the U.S. is our enemy and I attempted to flee for political asylum and the U.S. detained us unlawfully, kidnapped us, and held us hostage. The U.S. let me go from the Knoxville prison when I mentioned Geneva, because they know I am protected under Geneva, because THEY have been the ones to treat my family as hostages and enemies and they know I was leaving with my son.
My son and I were protected by Geneva in both Canada and the U.S. The only time we might have lost our protection by Geneva is if we had been in a country where our rights were respected and we were not treated as prisoners of war and hostages. If my son and I had been sent to another country, which is what Canada knows they were required to do, under international law, then we might have lost the Geneva protection because clearly we didn't need it and it didn't apply anymore because we were no longer in enemy territory.
The U.S. is enemy of me and my son. So is Canada. They made the choices, not us. They are the criminal countries and they torture innocent babies.
Also, the destruction and purging of my records and correspondence is a willful attempt by the United States and Canada to obstruct and pervert justice. It is destruction of evidence. My accounts are not being blocked or purged so someone can "read" my mail. They've been reading my mail all along and there is nothing in it to incriminate me of anything. I have nothing to worry about. They have a LOT to worry about, on the other hand.
Destruction of records is what Nazis did when they were worried about the Allies coming in to rescue prisoners. They were worried they were going to get caught and began destroying records and documentation, and right after they did this, they began murdering prisoners. First clean their slate. Then murder and they don't have to worry about the trail of blood leading to them. Then, they try to present an innocent looking face to everyone. Look at the companies who are responsible for purging my accounts and destroying or tampering with my correspondence and evidence.
How about some good old fashioned Nazi-corporation comrades?
AOL (closed family accounts that had correspondence from me and purged history)
Microsoft (closed family accounts that had corres. and purged history; blocking me from my account)
Wells Fargo Bank (closed accounts and purged history without notice to me)
IRS (purged history)
Department of Education (incorrectly billing me, delayed financial aid, and harasses me by telling colleges to cut me off of financial aid, sending little "alerts" every couple of months, only recently)
Department of Homeland Security (purged history and colluded with Canada)
Canadian Border Patrol (purged history, falsified documents and colluded with U.S.)
FBI (falsified records, altered testimony)
CIA (supposedly they destroy records but they don't, they just hide them)
University of Washington Hospital (research hospital--altered medical records)
Salt Lake City University Hospital (research hospital, connected to VA--altered medical records)
Dental offices (altered medical records)
Columbia Valley Community Health (federal medical clinic--purged history, and refused ordered services)
Recovery Act/CAP (federal agency--cut off services without notice and without cause to force me into homelessness)
Department of Human and Health Services (refused to comply with FOIA--altered records)
Offices of the Inspector General (ignored)
Shannon Borg and her Canadian partner (who know Geoff Rasmussen, whose Uncle is an FBI agent--stole personal documents and records)
Judge Paul Lipscomb (withheld records against the law, USCs)
Spokane, WA Federal Courthouse (withheld records, against the law, USCs)
Portland, OR U.S. Bankruptcy Courthouse (federal--withheld records, against the law, USCs)
Attorney General (Seattle, WA--colluded to commit crimes of kidnapping and fraud)
Canadian medical offices in Penticton (medical records for Oliver--altered or purged records)
Canadian tow company that purged history of record of my vehicle (purged records upon acquisition of my vehicle)
Genext, LLC (refuses to provide my account/billing info to me)
Central Washington Hospital (altered medical records--refused standard of care)
Chelan-Douglas Courthouse and Jail (withheld records, violation of USCs)
Middleton Mental Health (falsified records and gave wrong information about drugs doses)
Oregon Health and Sciences University (research hospital--altered medical records, intimidated parents to not authorize a necessary surgery for my knee in 1993)
Portland Police Department (refused records request, refused duty, refused documentation/case#)
Mt. Angel Police Department (refused records request, refused duty, refused documentatin/case#)
Oregon State Police (refused records requrest, refused duty,)
Washington State Police (refused records request, refused duty, refused documentation/case #)
Wenatchee City Police Department (destroyed evidence, refused duty, refused records documentation)
Knoxville, TN Police Department (altered police records after I brought up Geneva Convention)
Washington D.C. Police Department (refused duty, refused documentation/case #)
Maryland Police Department (refused duty)
Steve Mays (connected to police--stole records, diaries)
Chris Rozollo (stole my jacket and gave it to Middleton)
Catherine and Halea Meyers (stole diary)
Mykal Holt (Department of State--made false complaint about me, about a knife)
Maryland CIA-Department of State employees (made false complaint about me, about a knife)
Starbucks (headquartered in Seattle, WA, used employee to call Nashville, TN police about me)
Mike (Birch Bay, WA) (Homeland Security? gave personal records away)
Moses Lake Good Samaritan Hospital (refused to answer my request for medical records)
No comments:
Post a Comment