5 ms·

> Which ratified treaty did the US's operation in Venezuela violate? Even if it hadn't violated a ratified treaty (it did violate several, starting with the UN

> Which ratified treaty did the US's operation in Venezuela violate? Even if it hadn't violated a ratified treaty (it did violate several, starting with the UN Charter and OAS Charter), it would still violate international law; the US has recognized (among other places, in the London Charter of 1945 establishing the International Military Tribunal) that the crime of aggressive war exists independently of the crime of waging war in violation of international treaties.

spwa4 9mo ago
And how are you supposed to act against states that openly violate international law? In Venezuela's case, law they explicitly agreed to uphold. https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/americas/south-america/venezuela/report-venezuela/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/americas/south-america/v... E.g. at least 2 children were executed by Maduro for protesting against him, along with at least hundreds of adults. Mass political arrests by masked men have been common since Chavez came to power, there have been executions of entire families. Torture of prisoners. It goes on and on and on and on, and all of it violates the core of international law: the Geneva convention. Maduro's violations of international treaties include attacks on neighboring states (Maduro's "war on terror" (yes, really) included raids on Columbian territory, plus his promise to attack Guyana). Maduro's violations of international treaties includes, ironically, abducting foreign nationals. And before you say "but ICE". First, this started more than a decade before ICE, it is actually about far more people than ICE, and with ICE there is at least the allegation that those people violated US law (immigration law). So no, it is not the same. ICE comes disturbingly close, true, but this is still a LOT worse. So what is your point? Obviously Venezuela since more than a decade did not respect international law. Is your point that since international law exists, Venezuela should have been attacked way sooner, in fact as soon as it became clear what Chavez was doing? Or do you argue that US/Trump's attack is fine since international law can be ignored anyway? Including Maduro's abduction I think it's very easy to argue that the US behavior is much more in line with international law than Venezuela's. So what is your point? I mean, what reasoning, exactly, leads to your conclusion that Venezuela/Maduro is the victim here? Or should I put it differently and state the obvious: that your reasoning only makes sense if it defends the idea that Maduro's regime is allowed to kill and attack, and the US is not.
- croes 9mo ago
  International law is the victim. Next time Putin will kidnap Zelenskyy with the exact same reasoning. Don’t forget that the US don’t put him on trial for what he did to the people of Venezuela but some bogus crimes.
  - spwa4 9mo ago
    > Next time Putin will kidnap Zelenskyy with the exact same reasoning. Putin DID do that. He ordered him kidnapped. And it wasn't international law stopping him, it was the Ukrainian army and apparently some regular Ukrainians. Putin has tried to kidnap him at least twice, and sent out murder squads for him probably several dozen times now. Putin did not face consequences for this, in fact a number of countries that profess to respect international law protected him against International law: South Africa, China, Mongolia, Belarus, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Azerbeidjan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, and India. Also, as I pointed out, "international law" didn't stop Maduro from committing warcrimes, he also sent out murder squads that even killed children, it didn't stop Putin from doing the same. Nothing at all changed for international law at all. The only thing victimized is people's illusions about international law. Maduro is himself a war criminal! So using international law grounded arguments to protect him ... fuck that, even if you're technically right.
    - croes 9mo ago
      He obviously did not, he tried. The point of international law isn’t protection but to distinguish wrong from right. What do you think why even Putin made some bogus claims why his actions are justified? In which war did Maduro commit war crimes? > So using international law grounded arguments to protect him ... fuck that, even if you're technically right. Law protects also criminals to a certain degree because the alternative is anarchy, chaos and global wars. International war was a lesson learned from the world wars. Seems like we need to learn again the hard way. Tue right way of doing those things is rarely the glorious, it’s bureaucratic
      - spwa4 9mo ago

spwa4 9mo ago

And how are you supposed to act against states that openly violate international law? In Venezuela's case, law they explicitly agreed to uphold. https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/americas/south-america/venezuela/report-venezuela/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/americas/south-america/v... E.g. at least 2 children were executed by Maduro for protesting against him, along with at least hundreds of adults. Mass political arrests by masked men have been common since Chavez came to power, there have been executions of entire families. Torture of prisoners. It goes on and on and on and on, and all of it violates the core of international law: the Geneva convention. Maduro's violations of international treaties include attacks on neighboring states (Maduro's "war on terror" (yes, really) included raids on Columbian territory, plus his promise to attack Guyana). Maduro's violations of international treaties includes, ironically, abducting foreign nationals. And before you say "but ICE". First, this started more than a decade before ICE, it is actually about far more people than ICE, and with ICE there is at least the allegation that those people violated US law (immigration law). So no, it is not the same. ICE comes disturbingly close, true, but this is still a LOT worse. So what is your point? Obviously Venezuela since more than a decade did not respect international law. Is your point that since international law exists, Venezuela should have been attacked way sooner, in fact as soon as it became clear what Chavez was doing? Or do you argue that US/Trump's attack is fine since international law can be ignored anyway? Including Maduro's abduction I think it's very easy to argue that the US behavior is much more in line with international law than Venezuela's. So what is your point? I mean, what reasoning, exactly, leads to your conclusion that Venezuela/Maduro is the victim here? Or should I put it differently and state the obvious: that your reasoning only makes sense if it defends the idea that Maduro's regime is allowed to kill and attack, and the US is not.

croes 9mo ago
International law is the victim. Next time Putin will kidnap Zelenskyy with the exact same reasoning. Don’t forget that the US don’t put him on trial for what he did to the people of Venezuela but some bogus crimes.
- spwa4 9mo ago
  > Next time Putin will kidnap Zelenskyy with the exact same reasoning. Putin DID do that. He ordered him kidnapped. And it wasn't international law stopping him, it was the Ukrainian army and apparently some regular Ukrainians. Putin has tried to kidnap him at least twice, and sent out murder squads for him probably several dozen times now. Putin did not face consequences for this, in fact a number of countries that profess to respect international law protected him against International law: South Africa, China, Mongolia, Belarus, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Azerbeidjan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, and India. Also, as I pointed out, "international law" didn't stop Maduro from committing warcrimes, he also sent out murder squads that even killed children, it didn't stop Putin from doing the same. Nothing at all changed for international law at all. The only thing victimized is people's illusions about international law. Maduro is himself a war criminal! So using international law grounded arguments to protect him ... fuck that, even if you're technically right.
  - croes 9mo ago
    He obviously did not, he tried. The point of international law isn’t protection but to distinguish wrong from right. What do you think why even Putin made some bogus claims why his actions are justified? In which war did Maduro commit war crimes? > So using international law grounded arguments to protect him ... fuck that, even if you're technically right. Law protects also criminals to a certain degree because the alternative is anarchy, chaos and global wars. International war was a lesson learned from the world wars. Seems like we need to learn again the hard way. Tue right way of doing those things is rarely the glorious, it’s bureaucratic
    - spwa4 9mo ago