Armed Mod

[Reggie Lamborn]

Localgovernment officials and administrators frequently come under attack by a wide array of armed actors, from cartels waging turf wars in Mexico to Russian occupying forces in Ukraine. In order to better analyze this trend and its impacts, ACLED has launched a project to systematically track incidents of violence targeting local officials.

The United States Crisis Monitor provides in-depth coverage of demonstration and political violence trends across the US in the lead-up to the 2024 presidential elections. It features monthly in-depth reporting on key election-related themes and an interactive map used to visualize demonstration trends and extremist activity.

ACLED (Armed Conflict Location and Event Data) is an independent, impartial, international non-profit organization collecting data on violent conflict and protest in all countries and territories in the world. ACLED is a registered non-profit organization with 501(c)(3) status in the United States.

This website uses cookies to monitor anonymous usage and to help improve your online experience. Learn more. You can choose to accept all cookies, deny all cookies or customize your preference. You can change your cookie setting at anytime.

We use various third-party cookies to provide social media features and to analyze our traffic. Please use the options below to manage your cookie settings. You can change your cookie settings at any time. Please be aware, if you deny cookies, certain features of our website may not work.

Today, it monitors more than 110 armed conflicts and provides information about parties, the latest developments, and applicable international law. Some of these conflicts make the headlines, others do not. Some of them started recently, while others have lasted for more than 50 years.

This is, in numbers, the most affected region: more than 45 armed conflicts are currently taking place throughout the Middle East and North Africa in the following territories: Cyprus, Egypt, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Morocco, Palestine, Syria, Turkey, Yemen and Western Sahara.

In the case concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), the DRC founded the jurisdiction of the Court on the declarations of acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court made by the two States. On 19 June 2000, the DRC filed a Request for the indication of provisional measures to put a stop to all military activity and violations of human rights and of the sovereignty of the DRC by Uganda. On 1 July 2000, the Court ordered each of the two Parties to prevent and refrain from any armed action which might prejudice the rights of the other Party or aggravate the dispute, to take all measures necessary to comply with all of their obligations under international law and also to ensure full respect for fundamental human rights and for the applicable provisions of humanitarian law.

Uganda subsequently filed a Counter-Memorial containing three counter-claims. By an Order of 29 November 2001, the Court found that two of the counter-claims (acts of aggression allegedly committed by the DRC against Uganda; and attacks on Ugandan diplomatic premises and personnel in Kinshasa and on Ugandan nationals for which the DRC is alleged to be responsible) were admissible as such and formed part of the proceedings.

The Court also found that, by actively extending military, logistic, economic and financial support to irregular forces operating on the territory of the DRC, the Republic of Uganda had violated the principle of non-use of force in international relations and the principle of non-intervention.

In respect of the first counter-claim of Uganda (see above concerning the Order of 29 November 2011), the Court found that Uganda had not produced sufficient evidence to show that the DRC had provided political and military support to anti-Ugandan rebel groups operating in its territory, or even to prove that the DRC had breached its duty of vigilance by tolerating anti-Ugandan rebels on its territory. The Court thus rejected the first counter-claim submitted by Uganda in its entirety.

As for the second counter-claim of Uganda (see above concerning the Order of 29 November 2011), the Court first declared inadmissible the part of that claim relating to the alleged maltreatment of Ugandan nationals not enjoying diplomatic status at Ndjili International Airport. Regarding the merits of the claim, it found, on the other hand, that there was sufficient evidence to prove that there were attacks against the Embassy and acts of maltreatment against Ugandan diplomats at Ndjili International Airport. Consequently, it found that the DRC had breached its obligations under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The removal of property and archives from the Ugandan Embassy was also in violation of the rules of international law on diplomatic relations.

The Court noted in its Judgment that the nature, form and amount of compensation owed by each Party had been reserved and would only be submitted to the Court should the Parties be unable to reach agreement on the basis of the Judgment just rendered by the Court. Following the delivery of the Judgment, the Parties have regularly informed the Court on the progress of negotiations.

On 13 May 2015, noting that the negotiations with Uganda on this question had failed, the DRC asked the Court to determine the amount of reparation owed by Uganda. While Uganda maintained that this request was premature, the Court, in an Order of 1 July 2015, observed that although the Parties had tried to settle the question directly, they had clearly been unable to reach an agreement. The Parties have subsequently filed written pleadings on the question of reparations.

By an Order of 8 September 2020, the Court decided to arrange for an expert opinion, in accordance with Article 67, paragraph 1, of its Rules, on some heads of damage claimed by the DRC, namely the loss of human life, the loss of natural resources and property damage. By an Order of 12 October 2020, the Court appointed four independent experts for that purpose, who submitted a report on reparations on 19 December 2020.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces exercises worldwide appellate jurisdiction over members of the armed forces on active duty and other persons subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The Court is composed of five civilian judges appointed for 15-year terms by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

NOTICE: This Government Computer System is provided as a public service by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. It is intended for use by the public for viewing and retrieving information only. Unauthorized attempts to upload information or change information on this service are strictly prohibited and are punishable under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986. Unless otherwise indicated, all information on this system is public information and is available to copy or distribute. Please see the full privacy and security notice. Viewers are invited to submit comments or suggestions to: The Clerk of The Court, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 450 E. Street N.W., Washington, DC 20442. Comments on this Web site can also be emailed to: uscaa...@armfor.uscourts.gov.

Law enforcement officers must meet all federal qualifications to fly armed, unless otherwise authorized by TSA. Be a federal law enforcement officer or a full-time municipal, county, state, tribal or territorial law enforcement officer who is a direct government agency employee.

In addition to the above requirements, municipal, county, state, tribal or territorial officers must present an operational need to have the weapon accessible from the time they would otherwise check the weapon, until the time it would be claimed after deplaning. The need to have the weapon accessible aboard the aircraft must be determined by the employing agency and based on one of the following:

Law enforcement agencies with an operational need to fly armed must select a single instructor/point-of-contact to request training material. This point of contact must request the training material to instruct the law enforcement officers within their agency who meet federal regulations to fly armed. Please complete the fillable form provided at the link below.

State, local, territorial, tribal and approved railroad law enforcement officers flying armed must submit a National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System message at least 24 hours prior to travel. More information on this procedure is contained in the training program.

If you are currently licensed as an Unarmed Private Security Officer in a state, territory, or district of the United States you may qualify for licensure by endorsement. Click here for approved jurisdictions and additional information.

Just 75 years ago today, President Harry S. Truman signed into law the Women's Armed Services Integration Act, which allowed, for the first time, women to serve as regular members of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps.

"Of course ... women have always stepped up to defend our country," said Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III during a commemorative event today in the Pentagon. "In our Revolutionary War, women operated behind enemy lines as spies. In the Civil War, some 3,000 women served as nurses for the Union Army. And during World War I, women were translators and accountants, and they operated switchboards."

In the audience at the event were four women veterans from World War II, including Marine Corps veteran Norma Rambow, who served as a field cook and in Marine mess halls; Army veteran Marion Marques, who served as a cryptographer and later a dental hygienist; Navy veteran Corrine Robinson, who served as a corpsman in the U.S. Naval Woman's Reserve; and Army veteran Hilary Rosado, who served as an imagery analyst.

Following the WWII service of those women, and others like them, Austin said, U.S. military leaders began to endorse making women full and permanent members of the U.S. armed forces. It was a challenge, he said.

3a8082e126