The basic thrust here is saying the the "Barr Memo" is flawed thus brings into question any actions following that memo (ie. Maduro capture).
It could be that this particular argument is correct, I'm not a lawyer and it all goes a bit over my head anyway.....however it seems there is a suitable counter-argument.
"Self-defense" is always permitted via international law.
So, what if a head-of-state is intentionally conspiring to break your laws? Importing drugs, causing cartel violence, rigging voting machines to alter elections, etc.
At what point does it become justified to take action against that head-of-state?
The counter-counter-argument to this will say "sue in the International Court of Justice (ie. The Hague)" - however if you need permission from 3rd party body to perform self-defense then (a) that itself denies you the inherent right to self-defense, and (b) it ultimately undermines your sovereignty.
It is a messy issue though....what if a country declared on completely made up charges that another head-of-state was breaking some local law....you can see how it would spiral out of control.
I'm willing to bet they are going to push Maduro to "confess and/or admit guilt", which in case that happens it will provide a stronger case to the administration on why this was justified....
The basic thrust here is saying the the "Barr Memo" is flawed thus brings into question any actions following that memo (ie. Maduro capture).
It could be that this particular argument is correct, I'm not a lawyer and it all goes a bit over my head anyway.....however it seems there is a suitable counter-argument.
"Self-defense" is always permitted via international law.
So, what if a head-of-state is intentionally conspiring to break your laws? Importing drugs, causing cartel violence, rigging voting machines to alter elections, etc.
At what point does it become justified to take action against that head-of-state?
The counter-counter-argument to this will say "sue in the International Court of Justice (ie. The Hague)" - however if you need permission from 3rd party body to perform self-defense then (a) that itself denies you the inherent right to self-defense, and (b) it ultimately undermines your sovereignty.
It is a messy issue though....what if a country declared on completely made up charges that another head-of-state was breaking some local law....you can see how it would spiral out of control.
I'm willing to bet they are going to push Maduro to "confess and/or admit guilt", which in case that happens it will provide a stronger case to the administration on why this was justified....