Jack Goldsmith
@jacklgoldsmith
·
9d
The statement by Goldsmith engages in public discourse as it addresses the legality of a potential Venezuela invasion, a significant public issue involving international law and executive power. The tone is analytical and critical, questioning the legality of the action under the U.N. Charter while acknowledging the historical precedents used to justify such actions.
- The statement does not directly cause harm but raises concerns about the legality of actions that could lead to harm, thus indirectly aligning with the principle. [+1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement promotes understanding by analyzing the legal framework and precedents, fostering a more informed public discussion. [+2]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in constructive criticism of executive actions without resorting to personal attacks, focusing on legal analysis. [+2]Principle 4:I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
- The statement upholds free speech by responsibly discussing a complex legal issue, contributing to civic dialogue with integrity. [+2]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.