Well, howdy there, internet people it spell 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 then 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 U.S. government

from the families of two people killed.

The complaint alleges the October 14th strike

was, quote,

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

quote, these airstrikes would still be illegal under that established body of law. Indeed, given that

...