It’s better than I feared, but not as good as I hoped. She can’t seem to decide if the war itself is wrong or if war without Congressional approval is wrong. She says some good things here, I like that she called out the blatant aggression, but it’s mixed with this weak liberal garbage about Congress’s authority and the Constitution that undermines her condemnation.
What will she say if there is a vote, and the warmongers that control Congress vote for war?
She spends the first four paragraphs calling it out as immoral, and at the end includes that it’s also illegal. She isn’t undermining her point by calling on congress to limit executive authority for military action, the war would still be everything she described it as in the first four paragraphs.
She can’t call it an illegal war of aggression without calling it illegal.
What the OP means by an “illegal war” and what she means by “This war is unlawful.” seems different. The OP is talking about international law: wars of aggression are illegal. AOC seems to only be saying it’s unlawful because it lacks Congressional approval.
That seems like it’s wholly up for interpretation - she calls it unlawful, then after several paragraphs outlining it’s fundemental immorality she points out that it’s illegal under US law. If you choose to interpret that as her saying it’s only illegal under US law I can’t stop you, but I think that’s a very unfair reading since she lays it out clearly as a war of aggression.
The fact that it’s up for interpretation actually demonstrates my point, that’s what I mean by “she can’t seem to decide” and that it’s mixed with “weak liberal garbage.” This isn’t a strong enough statement for me to be satisfied.
Though, like I said, it’s better than I feared. European liberals are coming out much more strongly in support of the war.
I think that’s just shotgun argumentation. Say all the reasons something’s wrong so that if one doesn’t move someone the other might. The problem in the “think of the process” argument is when it becomes the primary argument because it assumes the “don’t kill people” one isn’t important.
If it’s both “war is wrong” and “presidents siezing war powers is wrong” and Congress gives its approval, then that doesn’t take away her other criticism. She spends a lot more space taking about why the war is wrong than the process issue, but the process issue is also important because without taking back war powers statements of moral opposition mean nothing.
If Congress gives its approval she’s going to need to sharpen her “war is wrong” critique a lot more than this, and that’s one thing that would be really good about a War Powers Resolution. It’ll force the anti-war voices to stop hiding behind proceduralism like this and to actually make the case against war outside of appealing to the Constitution or whatever.
It’s better than I feared, but not as good as I hoped. She can’t seem to decide if the war itself is wrong or if war without Congressional approval is wrong. She says some good things here, I like that she called out the blatant aggression, but it’s mixed with this weak liberal garbage about Congress’s authority and the Constitution that undermines her condemnation.
What will she say if there is a vote, and the warmongers that control Congress vote for war?
She spends the first four paragraphs calling it out as immoral, and at the end includes that it’s also illegal. She isn’t undermining her point by calling on congress to limit executive authority for military action, the war would still be everything she described it as in the first four paragraphs.
She can’t call it an illegal war of aggression without calling it illegal.
What the OP means by an “illegal war” and what she means by “This war is unlawful.” seems different. The OP is talking about international law: wars of aggression are illegal. AOC seems to only be saying it’s unlawful because it lacks Congressional approval.
That seems like it’s wholly up for interpretation - she calls it unlawful, then after several paragraphs outlining it’s fundemental immorality she points out that it’s illegal under US law. If you choose to interpret that as her saying it’s only illegal under US law I can’t stop you, but I think that’s a very unfair reading since she lays it out clearly as a war of aggression.
The fact that it’s up for interpretation actually demonstrates my point, that’s what I mean by “she can’t seem to decide” and that it’s mixed with “weak liberal garbage.” This isn’t a strong enough statement for me to be satisfied.
Though, like I said, it’s better than I feared. European liberals are coming out much more strongly in support of the war.
I think that’s just shotgun argumentation. Say all the reasons something’s wrong so that if one doesn’t move someone the other might. The problem in the “think of the process” argument is when it becomes the primary argument because it assumes the “don’t kill people” one isn’t important.
If it’s both “war is wrong” and “presidents siezing war powers is wrong” and Congress gives its approval, then that doesn’t take away her other criticism. She spends a lot more space taking about why the war is wrong than the process issue, but the process issue is also important because without taking back war powers statements of moral opposition mean nothing.
If Congress gives its approval she’s going to need to sharpen her “war is wrong” critique a lot more than this, and that’s one thing that would be really good about a War Powers Resolution. It’ll force the anti-war voices to stop hiding behind proceduralism like this and to actually make the case against war outside of appealing to the Constitution or whatever.