अनुलिपि 🔗
Sue Selle: We're going to begin with Article 48, Basic Rule. I'll put a link to this website in the description. Article 48 Basic Rule In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants, and between civilian objects and military objectives, and, accordingly, shall direct their operations only against military objectives. When Trump says he's going to be destroying power plants and bridges, that is civilian infrastructure. And that would be in direct violation of Article 48 of the Geneva Convention from 1977. Let's take a look at Article 52, General Protection of Civilian Objects. 1. Civilian objects shall not be the object of attack or of reprisals. Civilian objects are all objects which are not military objectives, as defined in paragraph 2. 2. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. Insofar as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose, or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture, or neutralization in the circumstances ruling at the time offers a definitive military advantage. And three, in case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling, or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used. In other words, if they think that there's a power plant that is being used both for military purposes and civilian purposes, that is no longer a military objective because it is a civilian object. And finally, let's take a look at Article 54. protection of objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population. One, starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited. Do you hear that, BB? 2. It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove, or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations, and supplies, and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population. or to the adverse party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away or for any other motive. Any other motive would include retribution or reprisal such as getting back at them for not opening the fucking straight. Three, the prohibitions in paragraph two shall not apply to such of the objects covered by it as are used by an adverse party, A, as sustenance solely from the member of its armed forces. So for example, if there was a farm that was only like a farmed table for just the military, they could attack that farm. ⁓ be, if not a sustenance than a direct support of military action, provided, however, that in no event shall actions against these objects be taken which may be expected to leave the civilian population with such inadequate food or water as to cause its starvation or to force its movement. So in this case, if they were to destroy, if Trump were to destroy bridges, that would disrupt the supply, the food supply, the water supply, it would make it so that people would have to either move or that they wouldn't be able to get what they need. Additionally, by destroying power plants, they are destroying heat, cooling, refrigeration. and other things that are needed in the 21st century for people to stay alive. Number four, these objects shall not be made the objects of reprisals. And five, in recognition of the vital requirements of any party to the conflict in the defense of its national territory against invasion, derogation from the prohibitions contained in paragraph two may be made by a party to the conflict within such territory under its own control where required by imperative military necessity. I'll be honest, I don't fully understand that last section, but number four right above it, is enough to show that Trump would be in violation of Article 54 because this is, as he directly stated in his true social post in retribution or reprisal for not opening the straight of Hormuz.