She's a politician. War is a definitive term in politics. I don't know how US laws exactly dictate it, but I'd guess it needs to be somehow declared and it has legal consequences and whatever else it includes. However, as there's no congress approval for it then it, by definition, can't be a war. So it's a 'combat operation'. Just like Russia claimed their attack was 'special operation' instead of 'war'.

So, she's, for all intents and purposes, saying that it's illegal war operation, but keeping it politically/legally truthful, which is a pretty big deal on her job.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Trump proved you can just say shit and there aren't consequences.

Just call it a war. What are they gonna do about it?

[+] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml -8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

No, that's not how this works at all.

[–] IsoKiero@sopuli.xyz 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It's excactly how it works. USA has not been, from their legal point of view, in war since second world war. Their 'special operation' equivalent is (based on a very quick search) 'armed conflict' or 'prolonged period of sustained combat involving U.S. Armed Forces'.

If you insist on the term 'illegal war' the proper legal equivalent would be 'act of war'. In politics correct use of terms at least used to be pretty important, but obviously today, and specially in the USA, that goal has been flushed down the golden toilet multiple times. But that doesn't change the fact that she condemned the attacks while defending their constitution and that fact doesn't change even if you try to twist that to something else.

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago

Saying words confidently doesn't mean you understand how politics works.

Also AOC didn't condemn the attacks at all