5 ms·

Confirmed - strike on Venezuela and capture of Maduro. https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/03/trump-us-operation-captured-venezuela-president-nicolas-maduro.html https

Confirmed - strike on Venezuela and capture of Maduro. https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/03/trump-us-operation-captured-venezuela-president-nicolas-maduro.html https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/03/trump-us-operation-captured-...

embedding-shape 10mo ago
Did the US not used to require congress authorization before engaging in violent repression against other sovereign nations? Or is that not needed anymore? Seems it was a long time ago the US actually followed their own practices, was this capturing of Maduro basically Russia's "Special Operations" but somehow "actually good this time" or something like that?
- jimkleiber 10mo ago
  Especially for the supposed capturing of a foreign leader. But maybe we did this with Gaddafi and Hussein, not sure what Congressional approval there was for those either. Apparently H.W. Bush also ordered the capture of Noriega for drug trafficking charges. I'm tired of the US thinking that military forceful action is the way to resolve conflicts, especially the way to win the "war on drugs." We should be much more effective at reducing drug addiction if we realized that it's not so much about the drugs, it's about our growing culture of conflict and emotional avoidance. When a population lets itself feel sadness, feel pain, and reinterpret conflicts from the assumed "they don't care about me" to "they care more about me than I may ever realize," then I am willing to bet the drug industry will shrink significantly. Punishing those who sell drugs often just perpetuates this idea that punishment resolves conflict, which I'm very willing to bet actually _increases_ our tendency to be addicted to drugs.
  - NoLinkToMe 10mo ago
    Agreed, but this has nothing to do with drugs.
    - chneu 10mo ago
      This whole thing is an oil grab. Simple as that.
      - cyanydeez 10mo ago
        Ok, but to be clear, its a capitalist oil grab to protect business interests and oligarchy. People seem to conflate whats supposed to be separate in these realms Like, when we talk about farmer subsidies, wedont call it food grab, when its functionally the same. Shouldnt we just drop this american democracy facade for a hybrid corporatocracy with optional citizen input? Anyway, oil grab suggests American government, rather than business interests, benefits.
      - pstuart 10mo ago
        It's not just oil, it's minerals too: https://thehill.com/opinion/international/5642398-venezuela-minerals-us-strategy/ https://thehill.com/opinion/international/5642398-venezuela-...
    - analognoise 10mo ago
      Operation: Epstein Distraction is go.
  - Saline9515 10mo ago
    Every culture consumes drugs. There was a massive heroine consumption problem before WWI in the US, which was largely mitigated by making it illegal to sell it over-the-counter. It's far easier to reduce consumption by cutting the supply entering your country, than solving the self-actualization issues (is it even one?) of your population. People selling drugs such as fentanyl or cocaine have various techniques to hook consumers and keep them addicted regardless of their mental state. Selling hard drugs is criminalized for a good reason.
    - embedding-shape 10mo ago
      > It's far easier to reduce consumption by cutting the supply entering your country So easy. Exactly why Sweden have had a "zero tolerance" policy against drugs, particularly Cannabis, yet usage keeps growing no matter how much resources they keep throwing at stricter border controls and trying to reduce both supply and demand by arresting everyone with even traces of Cannabinoids in their blood. https://www.euda.europa.eu/publications/country-drug-reports/2019/sweden_en https://www.euda.europa.eu/publications/country-drug-reports... > People selling drugs such as fentanyl or cocaine have various techniques to hook consumers and keep them addicted regardless of their mental state. Selling hard drugs is criminalized for a good reason. You're making the argument for why these things should be sold in controlled circumstances, rather than by private individuals who don't care about anything else but themselves, yet you end with "is criminalized for a good reason". Completely opposite, you're making the argument for why it needs to be legalized.
      - Saline9515 10mo ago
        There is a difference between "0 tolerance", which affects mainly users, and "no entry", which prevents the product to reach your border. In the case of Sweden, it is mainly a symptom of non-european immigration, using their criminal networks to import the product. Netherland is dominated by Moroccan mafia, France by the Algerian mafia, and so on. Remigrating them would likely solve a big part of the problem. > controlled selling Yes, that's already the case in most countries: I can get opioids such as morphine in the case of surgical operation. Many ADHD teens get derivatives of amphetamines. No one is against this.
- unsupp0rted 10mo ago
  Most organizations ignore their policies and stated missions and do whatever they were going to do anyway, then justify it after the fact (or when they get in trouble)
  - embedding-shape 10mo ago
    > Most organizations Most? I doubt that. Many? Yes. But because "many" can't avoid being hypocrites constantly, doesn't mean we suddenly should stop calling it out when we see it, don't you agree?
    - unsupp0rted 10mo ago
      I would say almost all organizations ignore their missions and operate orthogonal to their stated policies, after 100 years or so “Calling it out” is meaningless
      - embedding-shape 10mo ago
        > I would say almost all organizations ignore their missions There are countless of organizations who follow their stated missions even after 100, 200, 400 or even 800 years. I'm not sure you should judge it based on some young US organizations, or whatever you're going by. > “Calling it out” is meaningless Not calling it out is cowardice and complacency. "Calling it out" might have a tiny effect, but it surely beats nothing.
- satvikpendem 10mo ago
  The War Powers Resolution of 1973 allows the president 60 days to engage in conflicts without Congress express' approval.
- porridgeraisin 10mo ago
  Post 9/11 US president is allowed to take action against terrorists without any approval(AUMF). Hence the months/years long messaging around "narcoterrorism" and it's links to venezuela. Not saying the drugs don't exist, but AUMF is selectively applied to say the least. Now the real reason is that venezuela is a "hostile influence in the western hemisphere" both from a russia/china perspective as well as an energy security perspective so this was a matter of when not if (monroe doctrine and all that). This is not the first time the US has intervened in LatAm, and it won't be the last. Being the sole influence in N and S america is a defining feature of america and all americans, and has been so since 1823.
  - embedding-shape 10mo ago
    > and it won't be the last The current US administration seemed to prefer isolationism (at least up until today), and seems hellbent on destroying the US economy. If they're successful in their goals, this might very well be the last SA intervention from the US for a very long time. Maybe they're aware of this, and this is some sort of dead-cat bounce or whatnot.
    - porridgeraisin 10mo ago
      Isolationism will never become so strong that they limit influence to literally the country USA. If anything, they will refocus efforts on the americas, taiwan, rest of the pacific, away from the middle east and the indopac[1]. This means making sure japan, phillipines and taiwan are US allied, and of course that they are the sole influence in the Americas. [1] which they have taken a lot of massive steps towards recently
      - embedding-shape 10mo ago
        That would require a functional economy though, which is why the US been able to do what they've been doing. Without it, I'm not sure how they're hoping to achieve this, but I'm guessing "oil" somehow is involved in the calculation, considering today's actions.
- esseph 10mo ago
  Senate Armed Services committee didn't even know.
  - senectus1 10mo ago
    hes a king... why would they need to know?
- beloch 10mo ago
  "The last time the United States formally declared war, using specific terminology, on any nation was in 1942, when war was declared against Axis-aligned Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania, because President Franklin Roosevelt thought it was improper to engage in hostilities against a country without a formal declaration of war. Since then, every American president has used military force without a declaration of war.[1]" ------------ [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_Unit... Korea was not a war. Vietnam was not a war. Iraq I and II were not wars. Afghanistan was not a war. The "War on Terror" was not a war. You could be forgiven for thinking this invasion of a sovereign foreign country is a war, but it's not a war according to any law that is likely to be enforced within the USA. Power accumulates in places it shouldn't be permitted unless the people occasionally claw it back and redistribute it. Unfortunately, Americans failed to claw back the power to declare war from the POTUS almost a century ago. Trump's reasons for declaring not-war (cough Wag the dog. cough Epstein. cough) are more unprecedented than his methods in this particular case.
- 0manrho 10mo ago
  I keep seeing this comment regarding congressional authorization for war all over social media this morning, and am wondering why everyone seems to be aware of that, but not aware of the 80+ years of eroding those checks and balances and abandoning that precedent time and time again. It's the 2020's, not 1920's. Congress hasn't declared war since WW2, and that hasn't stopped us from engaging the dozens of wars and armed conflicts we've been directly involved in since then. To be clear, I'm not happy/proud of that fact. I think it's a moral and systemic failing, and do not support America's actions in Venezuela this morning. I'm just perplexed why everyone seems to think a precedent we abandonded long before most of us were even born suddenly applies today, or why they know about that law but don't know that we've violated it more times than we've observed it (without consequences), or don't know about the War Powers Act, or think that Congress would do anything but further enable him. In short, why does everyone suddenly think that's relevant while also ignoring all the other relevant history that establishes we do not and have not observed that precedent in the modern era. Again, we *Should*, but did anyone honestly expect it to happen, or that congress wouldn't go along with it, or that the current POTUS would respect such law/precedent? TL;DR: I don't think we should be going to war or engaging in armed conflict without congressional approval either, but the law and well established precedent both say POTUS legally has that power, at least in the short term, and we're not even 24hours into the 60 day period the War Powers act (which is 50 years old and passed by congress btw) grants.
- throwaway777x 10mo ago
  I don't think the US Congress has declared war since Word War 2. I would say this is the exact same thing we did with Manuel Noriega in 1988. Personally, I hate that we do these things but it is certainly not impossible in the long run the lives of the Venezuelans will be improved. It is hard to get an exact figure but inflation last year was 150-200% and that is an improvement from what they had. 50,000% hyperinflation at the end of the last decade. Given I was just annoyed at my grocery bill an hour ago because of 3% inflation I really can't imagine what life is like with that level of inflation.
  - inglor_cz 10mo ago
    The last declared war was in 1942 against Romania and Bulgaria, IIRC.
- anonymousiam 10mo ago
  Your legal concerns are covered here in detail: https://jonathanturley.org/2026/01/03/the-united-states-captures-nicolas-maduro-and-his-wife/ https://jonathanturley.org/2026/01/03/the-united-states-capt...
artninja1988 10mo ago
I don't get it. How's this help america?
- tclancy 10mo ago
  That is an out of date question unfortunately. Now you just have to ask how it benefits the criminal oligarchy currently in charge of our country. Short term it gives them bread and circuses for their base. Longer term, oil wealth. That’s a way of viewing it, but of course it assumes logical planning by reasonably bright individuals. So it’s begging the question somewhat.
  - magicalhippo 10mo ago
    > Short term it gives them bread and circuses for their base And a nice distraction from the Epstein files.
- jimkleiber 10mo ago
  there are many people who believe that punishment creates fear and fear creates compliance and compliance solves problems. So if someone in America believes this, then they probably think this will punish people for trafficking drugs (or disobeying US demands) and instill fear in them with regards to trafficking and will get them to stop trafficking drugs and therefore Americans will no longer be addicted to drugs. The problem is that fear-based problem solving often just becomes problem avoidance. People become afraid to say there's a problem so it _looks_ as if the problem is solved, but the problem just becomes more buried and actually gets worse. So, it might help Americans _think_ that the drug problem is solved, but not actually help us solve the drug problem. And I suppose when we push punishment, we're mostly pushing problem avoidance, and so it helps people Americans avoid problems more, so I guess it'd be successful in that.
- JeremyNT 10mo ago
  Same as with Iraq. A more friendly regime that would be willing to let American companies extract its natural resources, and a proxy state used to coerce neighbors on behalf of the US. I think even Bush would recognise it didn't really work out that way with Iraq, but hey, maybe this administration has unlocked the secret.
rich_sasha 10mo ago
I'm confused why this isn't bigger news internationally. Sure, it's the tip headline everywhere, but seems less emphasised than football world cup final results. More like, "Very large rain occured somewhere". Trump, without even Congress' authority, never mind UN or any allied country consultation presumably, kidnaps a foreign president, "elected" likely fraudulently but still the head of his state, over accusations even more tenuous than WMD in Iraq. What's next? Danish PM held hostage until Greenland is handed over? This seems like a really hostile move by the US, and the reaction seems to be, oh yeah, something's up.

embedding-shape 10mo ago

Did the US not used to require congress authorization before engaging in violent repression against other sovereign nations? Or is that not needed anymore? Seems it was a long time ago the US actually followed their own practices, was this capturing of Maduro basically Russia's "Special Operations" but somehow "actually good this time" or something like that?

jimkleiber 10mo ago
Especially for the supposed capturing of a foreign leader. But maybe we did this with Gaddafi and Hussein, not sure what Congressional approval there was for those either. Apparently H.W. Bush also ordered the capture of Noriega for drug trafficking charges. I'm tired of the US thinking that military forceful action is the way to resolve conflicts, especially the way to win the "war on drugs." We should be much more effective at reducing drug addiction if we realized that it's not so much about the drugs, it's about our growing culture of conflict and emotional avoidance. When a population lets itself feel sadness, feel pain, and reinterpret conflicts from the assumed "they don't care about me" to "they care more about me than I may ever realize," then I am willing to bet the drug industry will shrink significantly. Punishing those who sell drugs often just perpetuates this idea that punishment resolves conflict, which I'm very willing to bet actually _increases_ our tendency to be addicted to drugs.
- NoLinkToMe 10mo ago
  Agreed, but this has nothing to do with drugs.
  - chneu 10mo ago
    This whole thing is an oil grab. Simple as that.
    - cyanydeez 10mo ago
      Ok, but to be clear, its a capitalist oil grab to protect business interests and oligarchy. People seem to conflate whats supposed to be separate in these realms Like, when we talk about farmer subsidies, wedont call it food grab, when its functionally the same. Shouldnt we just drop this american democracy facade for a hybrid corporatocracy with optional citizen input? Anyway, oil grab suggests American government, rather than business interests, benefits.
    - pstuart 10mo ago
      It's not just oil, it's minerals too: https://thehill.com/opinion/international/5642398-venezuela-minerals-us-strategy/ https://thehill.com/opinion/international/5642398-venezuela-...
  - analognoise 10mo ago
    Operation: Epstein Distraction is go.
- Saline9515 10mo ago
  Every culture consumes drugs. There was a massive heroine consumption problem before WWI in the US, which was largely mitigated by making it illegal to sell it over-the-counter. It's far easier to reduce consumption by cutting the supply entering your country, than solving the self-actualization issues (is it even one?) of your population. People selling drugs such as fentanyl or cocaine have various techniques to hook consumers and keep them addicted regardless of their mental state. Selling hard drugs is criminalized for a good reason.
  - embedding-shape 10mo ago
    > It's far easier to reduce consumption by cutting the supply entering your country So easy. Exactly why Sweden have had a "zero tolerance" policy against drugs, particularly Cannabis, yet usage keeps growing no matter how much resources they keep throwing at stricter border controls and trying to reduce both supply and demand by arresting everyone with even traces of Cannabinoids in their blood. https://www.euda.europa.eu/publications/country-drug-reports/2019/sweden_en https://www.euda.europa.eu/publications/country-drug-reports... > People selling drugs such as fentanyl or cocaine have various techniques to hook consumers and keep them addicted regardless of their mental state. Selling hard drugs is criminalized for a good reason. You're making the argument for why these things should be sold in controlled circumstances, rather than by private individuals who don't care about anything else but themselves, yet you end with "is criminalized for a good reason". Completely opposite, you're making the argument for why it needs to be legalized.
    - Saline9515 10mo ago
      There is a difference between "0 tolerance", which affects mainly users, and "no entry", which prevents the product to reach your border. In the case of Sweden, it is mainly a symptom of non-european immigration, using their criminal networks to import the product. Netherland is dominated by Moroccan mafia, France by the Algerian mafia, and so on. Remigrating them would likely solve a big part of the problem. > controlled selling Yes, that's already the case in most countries: I can get opioids such as morphine in the case of surgical operation. Many ADHD teens get derivatives of amphetamines. No one is against this.
unsupp0rted 10mo ago
Most organizations ignore their policies and stated missions and do whatever they were going to do anyway, then justify it after the fact (or when they get in trouble)
- embedding-shape 10mo ago
  > Most organizations Most? I doubt that. Many? Yes. But because "many" can't avoid being hypocrites constantly, doesn't mean we suddenly should stop calling it out when we see it, don't you agree?
  - unsupp0rted 10mo ago
    I would say almost all organizations ignore their missions and operate orthogonal to their stated policies, after 100 years or so “Calling it out” is meaningless
    - embedding-shape 10mo ago
      > I would say almost all organizations ignore their missions There are countless of organizations who follow their stated missions even after 100, 200, 400 or even 800 years. I'm not sure you should judge it based on some young US organizations, or whatever you're going by. > “Calling it out” is meaningless Not calling it out is cowardice and complacency. "Calling it out" might have a tiny effect, but it surely beats nothing.
satvikpendem 10mo ago
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 allows the president 60 days to engage in conflicts without Congress express' approval.
porridgeraisin 10mo ago
Post 9/11 US president is allowed to take action against terrorists without any approval(AUMF). Hence the months/years long messaging around "narcoterrorism" and it's links to venezuela. Not saying the drugs don't exist, but AUMF is selectively applied to say the least. Now the real reason is that venezuela is a "hostile influence in the western hemisphere" both from a russia/china perspective as well as an energy security perspective so this was a matter of when not if (monroe doctrine and all that). This is not the first time the US has intervened in LatAm, and it won't be the last. Being the sole influence in N and S america is a defining feature of america and all americans, and has been so since 1823.
- embedding-shape 10mo ago
  > and it won't be the last The current US administration seemed to prefer isolationism (at least up until today), and seems hellbent on destroying the US economy. If they're successful in their goals, this might very well be the last SA intervention from the US for a very long time. Maybe they're aware of this, and this is some sort of dead-cat bounce or whatnot.
  - porridgeraisin 10mo ago
    Isolationism will never become so strong that they limit influence to literally the country USA. If anything, they will refocus efforts on the americas, taiwan, rest of the pacific, away from the middle east and the indopac[1]. This means making sure japan, phillipines and taiwan are US allied, and of course that they are the sole influence in the Americas. [1] which they have taken a lot of massive steps towards recently
    - embedding-shape 10mo ago
      That would require a functional economy though, which is why the US been able to do what they've been doing. Without it, I'm not sure how they're hoping to achieve this, but I'm guessing "oil" somehow is involved in the calculation, considering today's actions.
esseph 10mo ago
Senate Armed Services committee didn't even know.
- senectus1 10mo ago
  hes a king... why would they need to know?
beloch 10mo ago
"The last time the United States formally declared war, using specific terminology, on any nation was in 1942, when war was declared against Axis-aligned Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania, because President Franklin Roosevelt thought it was improper to engage in hostilities against a country without a formal declaration of war. Since then, every American president has used military force without a declaration of war.[1]" ------------ [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_Unit... Korea was not a war. Vietnam was not a war. Iraq I and II were not wars. Afghanistan was not a war. The "War on Terror" was not a war. You could be forgiven for thinking this invasion of a sovereign foreign country is a war, but it's not a war according to any law that is likely to be enforced within the USA. Power accumulates in places it shouldn't be permitted unless the people occasionally claw it back and redistribute it. Unfortunately, Americans failed to claw back the power to declare war from the POTUS almost a century ago. Trump's reasons for declaring not-war (cough Wag the dog. cough Epstein. cough) are more unprecedented than his methods in this particular case.
0manrho 10mo ago
I keep seeing this comment regarding congressional authorization for war all over social media this morning, and am wondering why everyone seems to be aware of that, but not aware of the 80+ years of eroding those checks and balances and abandoning that precedent time and time again. It's the 2020's, not 1920's. Congress hasn't declared war since WW2, and that hasn't stopped us from engaging the dozens of wars and armed conflicts we've been directly involved in since then. To be clear, I'm not happy/proud of that fact. I think it's a moral and systemic failing, and do not support America's actions in Venezuela this morning. I'm just perplexed why everyone seems to think a precedent we abandonded long before most of us were even born suddenly applies today, or why they know about that law but don't know that we've violated it more times than we've observed it (without consequences), or don't know about the War Powers Act, or think that Congress would do anything but further enable him. In short, why does everyone suddenly think that's relevant while also ignoring all the other relevant history that establishes we do not and have not observed that precedent in the modern era. Again, we *Should*, but did anyone honestly expect it to happen, or that congress wouldn't go along with it, or that the current POTUS would respect such law/precedent? TL;DR: I don't think we should be going to war or engaging in armed conflict without congressional approval either, but the law and well established precedent both say POTUS legally has that power, at least in the short term, and we're not even 24hours into the 60 day period the War Powers act (which is 50 years old and passed by congress btw) grants.
throwaway777x 10mo ago
I don't think the US Congress has declared war since Word War 2. I would say this is the exact same thing we did with Manuel Noriega in 1988. Personally, I hate that we do these things but it is certainly not impossible in the long run the lives of the Venezuelans will be improved. It is hard to get an exact figure but inflation last year was 150-200% and that is an improvement from what they had. 50,000% hyperinflation at the end of the last decade. Given I was just annoyed at my grocery bill an hour ago because of 3% inflation I really can't imagine what life is like with that level of inflation.
- inglor_cz 10mo ago
  The last declared war was in 1942 against Romania and Bulgaria, IIRC.
anonymousiam 10mo ago
Your legal concerns are covered here in detail: https://jonathanturley.org/2026/01/03/the-united-states-captures-nicolas-maduro-and-his-wife/ https://jonathanturley.org/2026/01/03/the-united-states-capt...

artninja1988 10mo ago

I don't get it. How's this help america?

tclancy 10mo ago
That is an out of date question unfortunately. Now you just have to ask how it benefits the criminal oligarchy currently in charge of our country. Short term it gives them bread and circuses for their base. Longer term, oil wealth. That’s a way of viewing it, but of course it assumes logical planning by reasonably bright individuals. So it’s begging the question somewhat.
- magicalhippo 10mo ago
  > Short term it gives them bread and circuses for their base And a nice distraction from the Epstein files.
jimkleiber 10mo ago
there are many people who believe that punishment creates fear and fear creates compliance and compliance solves problems. So if someone in America believes this, then they probably think this will punish people for trafficking drugs (or disobeying US demands) and instill fear in them with regards to trafficking and will get them to stop trafficking drugs and therefore Americans will no longer be addicted to drugs. The problem is that fear-based problem solving often just becomes problem avoidance. People become afraid to say there's a problem so it _looks_ as if the problem is solved, but the problem just becomes more buried and actually gets worse. So, it might help Americans _think_ that the drug problem is solved, but not actually help us solve the drug problem. And I suppose when we push punishment, we're mostly pushing problem avoidance, and so it helps people Americans avoid problems more, so I guess it'd be successful in that.
JeremyNT 10mo ago
Same as with Iraq. A more friendly regime that would be willing to let American companies extract its natural resources, and a proxy state used to coerce neighbors on behalf of the US. I think even Bush would recognise it didn't really work out that way with Iraq, but hey, maybe this administration has unlocked the secret.

rich_sasha 10mo ago

I'm confused why this isn't bigger news internationally. Sure, it's the tip headline everywhere, but seems less emphasised than football world cup final results. More like, "Very large rain occured somewhere". Trump, without even Congress' authority, never mind UN or any allied country consultation presumably, kidnaps a foreign president, "elected" likely fraudulently but still the head of his state, over accusations even more tenuous than WMD in Iraq. What's next? Danish PM held hostage until Greenland is handed over? This seems like a really hostile move by the US, and the reaction seems to be, oh yeah, something's up.