Let's talk about Trump and the 'manifestly unlawful'.... - Belle of the Ranch

[TexasTowelie]

Well, howdy there Internet people. It's Belle again. So, today we're going to talk about Trump suits and the manifestly unlawful.

For more than three months, we've been using two terms and saying they're the dividing line between orders being followed and them being disobeyed. We've also talked extensively about the process and how reality differs from how people think the duty to disobey works. The terms are patently unlawful and manifestly unlawful. The terms mean that something is unlawful and there is no debate or nuance. And I'll link some videos below if you want to go back to get a deeper context. But when it comes to a soldier's duty to disobey, that's the line that matters.

Now, we have a complaint against the US government from the families of two people killed. The complaint alleges the October 14th strike was “unprecedented and manifestly unlawful.” Now, it's not really unprecedented, but they don't have to demonstrate that. They need to demonstrate it was manifestly unlawful. Their complaint is pretty compelling. I said a while back I couldn't think of a way in which the strikes would be in accordance with law. I focus on combatant status.

The complaint takes a different road to get to the same conclusion. The complaint takes the route of saying that under the plain terms of the laws of war, there is no actual armed conflict that could justify the use of lethal military force against the boat. Since no armed conflict exists, the strikes violate both international law and federal law. Then it preempts the argument that there is a conflict by stating, "These air strikes would still be illegal under that established body of law." Indeed, given that top US officials ordered the direct, intentional, and unjustified killings of civilians, their actions amount to grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

So instead of looking at the status of the combatants, the complaint looks at the status of the conflict itself and what laws would apply. The complaint comes to the conclusion that it doesn't matter which set of laws are applied. The strike was out of bounds.

So now we have a suit that is alleging violations of the conventions. If it is determined that the strikes were in fact “manifestly unlawful”, expect this to take a whole new turn with major potential liability for those who ordered it. The Pentagon has decided to “no comment” the development, saying, "Per longstanding department policy, we don't comment on ongoing litigation." Yeah, we should ask Mark Kelly if he believes that.

But regardless of the rest of the news cycle, this will continue to pop back up until there's a resolution. The lawsuit was filed in Massachusetts because they have a history of deciding admiralty cases. What's interesting is that most of those who are familiar with the case and the overall situation from the legal side of things keep saying something very telling. They keep describing this as the first complaint filed. That might be foreshadowing.

Anyway, it's just a thought. Y'all have a good day.