7 ms·

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/t

by phyalow 9mo 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 9mo ago
"This paper we wrote shows the legal justification for the kidnapping, so the kidnapping we performed is completely legal."
- phyalow 9mo 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 9mo ago
    No they do not
- BobbyJo 9mo ago
  Well, in this case, yes. This is the trouble with growing executive power, they can indeed give themselves permission.
  - blurbleblurble 9mo ago
    They don't have jurisdiction over another country that's not how this works
    - carlosjobim 9mo 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 9mo ago
        Indeed, why bother having states of law at all? Jungle law works well enough in reality.
        carlosjobim 9mo 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 9mo 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.
        BobbyJo 9mo ago
        No one is claiming that humans should be at war with, or rely on violence to assert authority over, one another.
      - 1718627440 9mo ago
        Just because something is happening doesn't mean it's according to the law or even morally justified. We are discussing whether it is lawful, not whether it actually happened or whether they are capable of doing it with or without consequences.
- Lionga 9mo ago
  That is how any legal system works, just to be clear.
  - blurbleblurble 9mo ago
    That's not how the international legal system works
    - XenophileJKO 9mo 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 9mo ago
      what is "the international legal system"?
- lostmsu 9mo ago
  Every arrest is a kidnapping.
anigbrowl 9mo 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 9mo ago
  I assume that's rhetorical question?
- sigwinch 9mo 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 9mo 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 9mo 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 9mo 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 9mo 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.

by phyalow 9mo ago

greenavocado 9mo ago

"This paper we wrote shows the legal justification for the kidnapping, so the kidnapping we performed is completely legal."

phyalow 9mo 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 9mo ago
  No they do not
BobbyJo 9mo ago
Well, in this case, yes. This is the trouble with growing executive power, they can indeed give themselves permission.
- blurbleblurble 9mo ago
  They don't have jurisdiction over another country that's not how this works
  - carlosjobim 9mo 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 9mo ago
      Indeed, why bother having states of law at all? Jungle law works well enough in reality.
      - carlosjobim 9mo 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 9mo 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.
        BobbyJo 9mo ago
        No one is claiming that humans should be at war with, or rely on violence to assert authority over, one another.
    - 1718627440 9mo ago
      Just because something is happening doesn't mean it's according to the law or even morally justified. We are discussing whether it is lawful, not whether it actually happened or whether they are capable of doing it with or without consequences.
Lionga 9mo ago
That is how any legal system works, just to be clear.
- blurbleblurble 9mo ago
  That's not how the international legal system works
  - XenophileJKO 9mo 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 9mo ago
    what is "the international legal system"?
lostmsu 9mo ago
Every arrest is a kidnapping.

anigbrowl 9mo 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 9mo ago
I assume that's rhetorical question?
sigwinch 9mo 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 9mo 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 9mo 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 9mo 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 9mo 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.