pull down to refresh
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.
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?