Incomplete question. Attached is the missing image.
<u>Explanation:</u>
1. The shows a <u>weak</u> prisoner forced to make a statement against his will, he is been forced to say what the man (representing the dictator, Hitler) behind him tells him to say.
2. Many people conclude that the fact Hitler had absolute authority in Nazi Germany makes him personally responsible for the way in which German minorities were treated.
3. Because failing to do so as is often the case would result in their own death, just as the cartoon shows a gun pointed at the head of the prisoner.
4. So he appears to be their messiah or savior.
Answer:
This concept is used by European countries.
Explanation:
The concept of Victimhood adopted by the European countries especially United States of America to invade Afghanistan and control the Asian region. The 9/11 incident is caused by the America itself to get a sympathy vote and a reason just like the incident of pearl harbor to invade Afghanistan to control the region. The main aim of these European countries to control the spreading of communism and not to control the terrorist so this Victimhood helps many countries to get their goals.
The answer is B Qualifications for governor
The given statement “It is well understood and specified that the privileges prolonged under the Habeas corpus writ is not suspended until unless there is a case of rebel” is true.
Answer: Option 1
<u>Explanation:
</u>
The case where there is rebel or in case of invasion, the suspension is achieved for the Habeas corpus writ. This is in accordance to the suspension clause of the constitution with the section of 9 in clause second under the Article 1.
The rebel or invasion is for the requirement of public safety as in regard. If in the case raised, then the President, only one who had the power to suspend it as per the constitution.
Answer: When the law is so vast that it cant be understood by the one supposedly breaking the law, the person can be found guilty of a crime based on the interpretation as others see the law which might conflict someone elses interpretation.
Explanation: We all have a right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness but how can you restrict that by writing more laws that contradict this right?
