pull down to refresh
What’s the actual legal basis for bombing Caracas and arresting a sitting head of state without Congressional authorization, a UN mandate, or Venezuela’s consent? That’s now the standard under Article II?
I’m not defending Maduro or pretending he isn’t authoritarian. The repression and exodus are real. But those facts explain why people want him gone, not what legal authority exists for cross-border strikes and a forced regime change operation.
If this is justified as “protecting U.S. personnel” or self-defense, where’s the evidence of an actual or imminent armed threat? What’s the specific authority here: imminent threat doctrine, Congressional authorization, UN Security Council resolution, or host-nation consent? Because without one of those, this is just “act first, find the legal justification later.“
Its not a war so no Congressional auth is needed. Please tell me what the UN actually does there mandates mean nothing and if anything the UN is just something the US funds. Venezuela's rightful election winning opposition also has called for strikes and the arrest of Maduro just check her Noble Speech and everything she has said before and after.
Trump did not declare war nor did he ask Congress to declare war. Presidential strikes going back decades have no required Congressional Authorization either and both sides use strikes all the time when in the White House.
The DOJ just dropped the indictment of Maduro his wife and his son feel free to read it. President Trump will be talking in half an hour.
According to a brief skim of what the DOJ said this was 110% legal on the basis of him using his position going back to being Foreign Minister to launder Mexican cartel money and help facilitate drug trafficking using his position as a head of state to traffic drugs through Mexico.
Calling it “not a war” doesn’t answer the question: what’s the actual legal authority for using force and executing a cross-border arrest? Is it imminent self-defense, host-nation consent, Congressional authorization, or something else?
I’m not defending Maduro. But “Maduro is bad” and “DOJ filed charges” don’t automatically mean the U.S. can lawfully conduct strikes and arrest a head of state inside another sovereign country.
If the goal is removing Maduro or disrupting trafficking, fine, but what publicly stated authority governed this operation? “UN means nothing” or “it worked so it’s legal” isn’t a legal framework.
And let’s be real about what’s at stake here: Venezuela sits on roughly 303 billion barrels of proved crude reserves, about 17-19% of the world’s total depending on how you count it. That context matters when we’re talking about what drives these decisions.
For “no Congressional auth needed” and “110% legal” to be more than just a vibe, we need clear answers on: (1) what threat made this self-defense, (2) whether Venezuela consented, and (3) what legal theory allows executing an indictment with military force abroad.
So which one is the administration actually claiming: imminent threat, consent, or specific statutory authorization? And where is that claim stated?
Read the DOJ indictment. Its pretty clear there. Also historical president of this is clear no one rallies against the 1989 removal of Panama's dictator who was charged with running drugs as well.
Again.... drug trafficking resulting in the death of Americans fulfills your imminent threat. Or you could go with the Opposition and rightful government calling for the US to strike the regime and remove Maduro like I mentioned above. This is something the US has done before this is almost a carbon copy of 1989 Panama mission.
And let’s be real about what’s at stake here: Venezuela sits on roughly 303 billion barrels of proved crude reserves, about 17-19% of the world’s total depending on how you count it. That context matters when we’re talking about what drives these decisions.
Also this just wrong.... this is straight up Monroe doctrine. This is cleaning up our backyard. Plus the rare earths and other critical minerals are much more important than the heavy crude that Venezuela has but we have built up our infrastructure to use Canadian.
An indictment plus “we’ve done strikes before” doesn’t answer the core question: what authority allows the U.S. to use force inside another sovereign state to execute a U.S. warrant?
“Imminent” can’t mean “drug deaths,” because that’s a permanent condition, not a time-bounded threat. The U.S. treated heroin (60s/70s) and crack (80s) domestically, including separate crack vs. powder sentencing, not as an open-ended war-powers trigger.
I’m not defending Maduro, and I’m not disputing that trafficking and repression are real. But those facts don’t automatically create lawful authority for strikes and a snatch operation.
If the goal is removing Maduro or stopping trafficking, then tell me the mechanism: which legal basis is actually being asserted: host-nation consent, congressional authorization, or a specific, evidence-backed imminent armed attack? “It’s not a war so it’s fine” isn’t an answer.
Yes, Panama 1989 happened. But “we did it before” is just a precedent of behavior, and those precedents are exactly why people ask for standards in the first place.
And look, Venezuela sits on roughly one-fifth of global proved oil reserves and is aligned with China, Russia, and Iran financially and security-wise. Those are obvious strategic incentives. You don’t need “petrodollar” conspiracy theories to see why interventions often get sold as law/justice/drugs while the underlying drivers include resources, leverage, and rival powers.
John Perkins’ “economic hitman” story is useful here not as gospel, but as a reminder: interventions are often sold as law/justice/drugs, while the underlying incentives include resources, leverage, and rival powers.
So which is it: consent, Congress, or a specific imminent armed threat? And where is that standard stated publicly?
Why do you keep ignoring points I am making? Why aren't you looking at key points I mention? Its classic dodging points that address what you want.
The U.S. used narco-terrorism charges against Noriega and it fulfilled the imminent threat. Also with recent prisoner swaps prisoners have stated they were kidnapped from countries like Columbia and brought into the Venezuela where they were beaten, starved, plus numerous other human rights abuses so what is your legal basis for what imminent death?
Until you do go ahead and spam away in the comments with copy and pasted talking points.
I’m not ignoring you. Your points don’t supply the missing piece: legal authority for strikes + executing a U.S. warrant inside another sovereign state.
Panama/Noriega is history, not a standard; an indictment isn’t cross-border authority; human rights abuses aren’t, by themselves, a stated legal basis for unilateral force.
So name one mechanism and cite it:
1. Host-nation consent (who/when/where), or
2. Congressional authorization (which statute/AUMF), or
3. Self-defense tied to a specific imminent armed attack (what evidence/timeline).
If you can’t point to 1–3, then the claim is simply: the U.S. can do this because it has the power and it’s been done before.
What American logic are you talking about? One of the few things that both Republicans and Democrats are united in is the sheer oppression and ruthless nature of Maduro's illegal Regime. It's a joke to say that he had a government and no one thought he did except Russia.
You are aware that a third of the population has fled under Maduro right? It is the second greatest humanitarian disaster (population displacement wise) in the world behind Syria. The Latin American population in the US, one of the largest voting blocks and growing now, hates him and has been a driving force in policy changes when it comes to Venezuela over the years.
So you are factually incorrect in your statement. Polls have shown that Maduro was hated and the US population wanted him to go. They did not want a war and that what was avoided by this. The similarity to the 1989 Panama mission is wild. No Americans died, no planes or helicopters were shot down, there are some reports that one got hit with small arms fire however it was still able to carry out it tasks and return to base.
This is American first logic at its finest. It is cleaning up our backyard.