6 ms·

This is all irrelevant - it's completely unacceptable for the US President to send the military into another without Congressional approval, and to kidnap a lea

by Arainach 10mo ago

This is all irrelevant - it's completely unacceptable for the US President to send the military into another without Congressional approval, and to kidnap a leader at all (especially without a declaration or war or UN authorization).

phyalow 10mo ago
As Jonathan Turley reports 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... this operation will be justified as executing the criminal warrant (issued by the Biden DOJ and outstanding since 2029) and responding to an international drug cartel, a very similar legal framework to the one used against Noriega in 1989 - which was tested in multiple US courts. So like it or not there is longstanding court affirmed precedent supporting that earlier operation, which will now be used to defend the actions in Venezuela.
- greenavocado 10mo ago
  "This paper we wrote shows the legal justification for the kidnapping, so the kidnapping we performed is completely legal."
  - phyalow 10mo ago
    Unfortunately thats how the politics and economics of violence work when you are the most powerful country in the world (n.b. I am not American and think this situation is deplorable, but the legal facts and construction support Trump’s actions)
    - blurbleblurble 10mo ago
      No they do not
  - BobbyJo 10mo ago
    Well, in this case, yes. This is the trouble with growing executive power, they can indeed give themselves permission.
    - blurbleblurble 10mo ago
      They don't have jurisdiction over another country that's not how this works
      - carlosjobim 10mo ago
        Reality is reality. There is only one reality and the man is on the ship. No matter what you think. Reality is "how this works".
        el_jay 10mo ago
        Indeed, why bother having states of law at all? Jungle law works well enough in reality.
        carlosjobim 10mo ago
        You believe in something which has never existed and will never exist. In international relations, there has never been anything besides "might is right". Anything else is an illusion. At most something that leaders pay lip service to, when it aligns with their own goals. The law of the jungle is reality. World War II was won by terror bombing civilians. It is lamentable, but reality is reality. So to say "that's not how it works" is denying reality.
        el_jay 10mo ago
        “Never”? Not once in the Story of Us has any dispute between large groups of humans been resolved by anything other than a superior application of brute force? Strong claim, but I’ll run with it. And you appear to believe this is a pretext for humans to ignore their own laws and commit atrocities, when they could choose otherwise. It may be reality that jungle law is currently how humans almost always handle conflict at nation-state scale. Non sequitur that it should remain so.
  - Lionga 10mo ago
    That is how any legal system works, just to be clear.
    - blurbleblurble 10mo ago
      That's not how the international legal system works
      - XenophileJKO 10mo ago
        I mean to be fair.. the "international legal system" generally doesn't really work. It only works when governments think it works for them. This usually means weaker (militarily/economically) countries banding together to hopefully provide some dis-incentives for strong arming. It only works until someone calls the bluff.
      - ChrisGreenHeur 10mo ago
        what is "the international legal system"?
  - lostmsu 10mo ago
    Every arrest is a kidnapping.
- anigbrowl 10mo ago
  Does this mean trump will be pardoning Maduro on receipt of a sufficiently large bribe? That seems like the only explanation for recent pardon of former Honduran president Juan Hernandez.
  - jacquesm 10mo ago
    I assume that's rhetorical question?
  - sigwinch 10mo ago
    Even before Trump v. United States, Maduro would have enjoyed immunity as a head of state. They still need him as a source of info on the generals. And if the drug smuggling explanation works, cartel details justifying maneuvers in Mexico.
- Joker_vD 10mo ago
  The USA does not have jurisdiction outside the US borders. Shocking, I know. But it doesn't, so the charges of "possession of machineguns" [0] is an utter bullshit. Talk about kangaroo courts... [0] https://xcancel.com/AGPamBondi/status/2007428087143686611 https://xcancel.com/AGPamBondi/status/2007428087143686611
- rkeene2 10mo ago
  So a thought experiment: If China were to put out a warrant for Trump's (the most unpopular president in US History, someone the majority of Americans disapprove of, a convicted criminal, and a pedophile who raped young people and has not been brought to account for these crimes as of yet) under the pretense that some of his victims were Chinese nationals and then invaded the Whitehouse to forcibly remove him to China, would that also be legal and justified ? What would you expect the reaction in the US to be ? To be very clear I do not support this -- out leaders should be held to account to their people, not foreign invaders deciding for us. Even if it seems unlikely that they ever will be, it's our process and people. This argument doesn't really hold water because the jurisdiction of a nation isn't the whole world. If we have a warrant for a Sovereign or someone else with Diplomatic Immunity we -- at the very least -- should not invade their territory to carry it out. That's not how the civilized society works, and that's not how we want it to work as evidenced by the thought experiment above. If we are at war with a nation or people, and reject the premise of their fundamental sovereign or diplomatic nature of course it's a different story since we are talking about a fundamental disagreement of reality. There's a separate process for that weighty decision by the US people's representatives.
  - tguvot 10mo ago
    well, there are ICC warrants. They do ignore diplomatic immunity. And opinion of many people that, for example, Netanyahu should be at least arrested if he lands in Europe and at most "somebody" should send extraction team to kidnap him
    - rkeene2 10mo ago
      It seems like we should not invade another sovereign country unless we are at war -- a weighty process we should undergo because it's how the will of the people manifest in power. The US isn't a participant to the ICC, so I'm not sure what exactly your implication is... ? I do not think we should invade Israel and kidnap their leader. I believe the people of that country should self-govern within their sovereign rights. I don't think China should invade the US and kidnap it's leader. I believe the people of the US should self-govern within their sovereign rights. I don't believe the US should invade Venezuela and kidnap their leader. I believe the people of Venezuela should self-govern within their sovereign rights.
IncreasePosts 10mo ago
Why? It's not a war they were just capturing someone to face charges. In the same way we didn't need to declare war against Pakistan to go in and get Osama
- cdelsolar 10mo ago
  charges for what? he is a Venezuelan in Venezuela. You can't say "he broke our laws" and take him to fucking New York.
  - blurbleblurble 10mo ago
    That said some people in the US ought to catch international charges for human rights violations of all sorts
  - d0gsg0w00f 10mo ago
    I have yet to see it in this thread, but the WSJ reported that the "crime" they "extradited" him for is running a drug cartel and dumping tons of cocaine into the US.
    - the_af 10mo ago
      I know this is what they claim (well, they also say because of oil and because he was friends with US rivals, but that's less defensible), but anyone really believe this is about drugs? Was there ever any proof Maduro was a cartel boss? They are getting their message very confused. Is this about drugs? About the Venezuelan elections? About oil? All of the above? None of the above? Who knows anymore.
  - IncreasePosts 10mo ago
    Sure you can. Why do you think we could go into Pakistan and assassinate someone there?
- blurbleblurble 10mo ago
  Who is "we"?
jumpman_miya 10mo ago
[dead]
mensetmanusman 10mo ago
“ it's completely unacceptable” How do you reach this conclusion that you can’t help suffering?
ahallock 10mo ago
You act as if they don't have loopholes for this or that there will be consequences when the military industrial complex is behind things. Were there any consequences for Iraq WMD BS
sigzero 10mo ago
The War Powers Act actually does allow this. Congress has to be back filled within 48 hours after the action (and they were). He can also station troops up to 60 days without congressional approval.

phyalow 10mo ago

As Jonathan Turley reports 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... this operation will be justified as executing the criminal warrant (issued by the Biden DOJ and outstanding since 2029) and responding to an international drug cartel, a very similar legal framework to the one used against Noriega in 1989 - which was tested in multiple US courts. So like it or not there is longstanding court affirmed precedent supporting that earlier operation, which will now be used to defend the actions in Venezuela.

greenavocado 10mo ago
"This paper we wrote shows the legal justification for the kidnapping, so the kidnapping we performed is completely legal."
- phyalow 10mo ago
  Unfortunately thats how the politics and economics of violence work when you are the most powerful country in the world (n.b. I am not American and think this situation is deplorable, but the legal facts and construction support Trump’s actions)
  - blurbleblurble 10mo ago
    No they do not
- BobbyJo 10mo ago
  Well, in this case, yes. This is the trouble with growing executive power, they can indeed give themselves permission.
  - blurbleblurble 10mo ago
    They don't have jurisdiction over another country that's not how this works
    - carlosjobim 10mo ago
      Reality is reality. There is only one reality and the man is on the ship. No matter what you think. Reality is "how this works".
      - el_jay 10mo ago
        Indeed, why bother having states of law at all? Jungle law works well enough in reality.
        carlosjobim 10mo ago
        You believe in something which has never existed and will never exist. In international relations, there has never been anything besides "might is right". Anything else is an illusion. At most something that leaders pay lip service to, when it aligns with their own goals. The law of the jungle is reality. World War II was won by terror bombing civilians. It is lamentable, but reality is reality. So to say "that's not how it works" is denying reality.
        el_jay 10mo ago
        “Never”? Not once in the Story of Us has any dispute between large groups of humans been resolved by anything other than a superior application of brute force? Strong claim, but I’ll run with it. And you appear to believe this is a pretext for humans to ignore their own laws and commit atrocities, when they could choose otherwise. It may be reality that jungle law is currently how humans almost always handle conflict at nation-state scale. Non sequitur that it should remain so.
- Lionga 10mo ago
  That is how any legal system works, just to be clear.
  - blurbleblurble 10mo ago
    That's not how the international legal system works
    - XenophileJKO 10mo ago
      I mean to be fair.. the "international legal system" generally doesn't really work. It only works when governments think it works for them. This usually means weaker (militarily/economically) countries banding together to hopefully provide some dis-incentives for strong arming. It only works until someone calls the bluff.
    - ChrisGreenHeur 10mo ago
      what is "the international legal system"?
- lostmsu 10mo ago
  Every arrest is a kidnapping.
anigbrowl 10mo ago
Does this mean trump will be pardoning Maduro on receipt of a sufficiently large bribe? That seems like the only explanation for recent pardon of former Honduran president Juan Hernandez.
- jacquesm 10mo ago
  I assume that's rhetorical question?
- sigwinch 10mo ago
  Even before Trump v. United States, Maduro would have enjoyed immunity as a head of state. They still need him as a source of info on the generals. And if the drug smuggling explanation works, cartel details justifying maneuvers in Mexico.
Joker_vD 10mo ago
The USA does not have jurisdiction outside the US borders. Shocking, I know. But it doesn't, so the charges of "possession of machineguns" [0] is an utter bullshit. Talk about kangaroo courts... [0] https://xcancel.com/AGPamBondi/status/2007428087143686611 https://xcancel.com/AGPamBondi/status/2007428087143686611
rkeene2 10mo ago
So a thought experiment: If China were to put out a warrant for Trump's (the most unpopular president in US History, someone the majority of Americans disapprove of, a convicted criminal, and a pedophile who raped young people and has not been brought to account for these crimes as of yet) under the pretense that some of his victims were Chinese nationals and then invaded the Whitehouse to forcibly remove him to China, would that also be legal and justified ? What would you expect the reaction in the US to be ? To be very clear I do not support this -- out leaders should be held to account to their people, not foreign invaders deciding for us. Even if it seems unlikely that they ever will be, it's our process and people. This argument doesn't really hold water because the jurisdiction of a nation isn't the whole world. If we have a warrant for a Sovereign or someone else with Diplomatic Immunity we -- at the very least -- should not invade their territory to carry it out. That's not how the civilized society works, and that's not how we want it to work as evidenced by the thought experiment above. If we are at war with a nation or people, and reject the premise of their fundamental sovereign or diplomatic nature of course it's a different story since we are talking about a fundamental disagreement of reality. There's a separate process for that weighty decision by the US people's representatives.
- tguvot 10mo ago
  well, there are ICC warrants. They do ignore diplomatic immunity. And opinion of many people that, for example, Netanyahu should be at least arrested if he lands in Europe and at most "somebody" should send extraction team to kidnap him
  - rkeene2 10mo ago
    It seems like we should not invade another sovereign country unless we are at war -- a weighty process we should undergo because it's how the will of the people manifest in power. The US isn't a participant to the ICC, so I'm not sure what exactly your implication is... ? I do not think we should invade Israel and kidnap their leader. I believe the people of that country should self-govern within their sovereign rights. I don't think China should invade the US and kidnap it's leader. I believe the people of the US should self-govern within their sovereign rights. I don't believe the US should invade Venezuela and kidnap their leader. I believe the people of Venezuela should self-govern within their sovereign rights.

IncreasePosts 10mo ago

Why? It's not a war they were just capturing someone to face charges. In the same way we didn't need to declare war against Pakistan to go in and get Osama

cdelsolar 10mo ago
charges for what? he is a Venezuelan in Venezuela. You can't say "he broke our laws" and take him to fucking New York.
- blurbleblurble 10mo ago
  That said some people in the US ought to catch international charges for human rights violations of all sorts
- d0gsg0w00f 10mo ago
  I have yet to see it in this thread, but the WSJ reported that the "crime" they "extradited" him for is running a drug cartel and dumping tons of cocaine into the US.
  - the_af 10mo ago
    I know this is what they claim (well, they also say because of oil and because he was friends with US rivals, but that's less defensible), but anyone really believe this is about drugs? Was there ever any proof Maduro was a cartel boss? They are getting their message very confused. Is this about drugs? About the Venezuelan elections? About oil? All of the above? None of the above? Who knows anymore.
- IncreasePosts 10mo ago
  Sure you can. Why do you think we could go into Pakistan and assassinate someone there?
blurbleblurble 10mo ago
Who is "we"?

jumpman_miya 10mo ago

[dead]

mensetmanusman 10mo ago

“ it's completely unacceptable” How do you reach this conclusion that you can’t help suffering?

ahallock 10mo ago

You act as if they don't have loopholes for this or that there will be consequences when the military industrial complex is behind things. Were there any consequences for Iraq WMD BS

sigzero 10mo ago

The War Powers Act actually does allow this. Congress has to be back filled within 48 hours after the action (and they were). He can also station troops up to 60 days without congressional approval.