Venezuelan War

[kalm]

You’d think the facts could stand on their own without needing to embellish them, eh CH?

[BDKJMU]

[Caribbean Hen]

You’d think the facts could stand on their own without needing to embellish them, eh CH?

Never seen any of those videos

Why are you surprised at fake videos? Everyone on here knows you are the King of fake

[Caribbean Hen]

You continue to ignore that people in Congress hate Trump and everything he does at the same level that you do

The operation would’ve been totally compromised / leaked if he went through Congress….. and besides the timing of the operation was in flux because of the weather, so despite your incessant whining like a fan on a hot summer night…. The people of Venezuela have to have an opportunity to be free and prosperous once again.

It would have be inconvenient doesn't justify ignoring the Constitution / international law. The Constitution is a not some flexible document that you can ignore when it gets in the way (of your blind devotion to trump and anything he says and does). If you can then you can kiss the right to bear arms goodbye because liberals can use that same "flexibility" to ignore the 2nd Amendment.

You also can't be the party of "law and order" and ignore the Constitution and international law. The two are incompatible.

Ignoring?

Trump has every right to defend the United States

Next

[Baldy]

You continue to ignore that people in Congress hate Trump and everything he does at the same level that you do

The operation would’ve been totally compromised / leaked if he went through Congress….. and besides the timing of the operation was in flux because of the weather, so despite your incessant whining like a fan on a hot summer night…. The people of Venezuela have to have an opportunity to be free and prosperous once again.

It would have be inconvenient doesn't justify ignoring the Constitution / international law. The Constitution is a not some flexible document that you can ignore when it gets in the way (of your blind devotion to trump and anything he says and does). If you can then you can kiss the right to bear arms goodbye because liberals can use that same "flexibility" to ignore the 2nd Amendment.

You also can't be the party of "law and order" and ignore the Constitution and international law. The two are incompatible.

That is your opinion, and your opinion doesn't match current legal precedent.

[UNI88]

It would have be inconvenient doesn't justify ignoring the Constitution / international law. The Constitution is a not some flexible document that you can ignore when it gets in the way (of your blind devotion to trump and anything he says and does). If you can then you can kiss the right to bear arms goodbye because liberals can use that same "flexibility" to ignore the 2nd Amendment.

You also can't be the party of "law and order" and ignore the Constitution and international law. The two are incompatible.

That is your opinion, and your opinion doesn't match current legal precedent.

Care to back that up? What legal precedent does my opinion not match?

[UNI88]

It would have be inconvenient doesn't justify ignoring the Constitution / international law. The Constitution is a not some flexible document that you can ignore when it gets in the way (of your blind devotion to trump and anything he says and does). If you can then you can kiss the right to bear arms goodbye because liberals can use that same "flexibility" to ignore the 2nd Amendment.

You also can't be the party of "law and order" and ignore the Constitution and international law. The two are incompatible.

Ignoring?

Trump has every right to defend the United States

Next

His first duty is to uphold and defend the Constitution. Without the Constitution there is no United States to defend. It is the foundation of this nation.

[Caribbean Hen]

Ignoring?

Trump has every right to defend the United States

Next

His first duty is to uphold and defend the Constitution. Without the Constitution there is no United States to defend. It is the foundation of this nation.

If the President does not defend the United States there will be no constitution

[Baldy]

That is your opinion, and your opinion doesn't match current legal precedent.

Care to back that up? What legal precedent does my opinion not match?

The Noriega decision from 1991 where courts upheld the right for the US to abduct foreign leaders for domestic crimes, use of force, prosecuting heads of state, etc, etc, etc.

Google is your friend.

[kalm]

Lindsey Graham in this clip…….

Cuba is next.

[kalm]

Interesting take and I’ve heard it from other forces too.

[UNI88]

Care to back that up? What legal precedent does my opinion not match?

The Noriega decision from 1991 where courts upheld the right for the US to abduct foreign leaders for domestic crimes, use of force, prosecuting heads of state, etc, etc, etc.

Google is your friend.

You're oversimplifying it - that is ONE element to be considered - but it isn't that cut and dried ...

In the interest of balance (and to give MotherCaribbeanHen something to chirp about) I asked ChatGPT about the legality of the operation.

Below is a balanced legal breakdown of the main arguments that have emerged about the legality of the operation — both those justifying and disputing it — grounded in contemporary international/legal reaction to the event.

Justifying Arguments (Pro-Legality)

1. Law Enforcement Basis
   The Trump administration (reported) claims Maduro was seized to enforce valid U.S. federal indictments — narco-terrorism, drug trafficking and related charges — and brought to the U.S. to face those charges. They frame it as an enforcement of criminal law, not regime change.
   Legal point: Arrest warrants and indictments can give rise to law-enforcement jurisdiction in U.S. courts — though not on their own the right to use military force overseas.
2. Alleged Threat to U.S. Security
   U.S. officials pointed to Maduro’s alleged leadership of drug trafficking networks affecting U.S. homeland security, asserting that criminality posed a transnational “armed conflict” type threat warranting extraordinary action.
   Legal point: Some U.S. national-security lawyers might argue an expansive notion of self-defense if they treat transnational criminal organizations as threats akin to armed groups — though this is highly contested in international law.
3. Comparison to Historical Precedent
   Supporters sometimes reference past instances where the U.S. captured foreign leaders accused of crimes — e.g., Manuel Noriega of Panama in 1989 — as examples of enforcement-oriented operations.
   Legal point: The Noriega precedent involved a declared military action tied to broader U.S. interests and arguably some host-government considerations; it remains contested in scholarly debate.

Disputing Arguments (Against Legality)

1. Violation of Sovereignty and Use of Force
   Almost all independent legal experts and foreign governments have said the U.S. operation violates the core rule of the UN Charter that prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state unless authorized by the UN Security Council or justified by self-defense — neither of which clearly applied here.
   Legal point: Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and customary international law make foreign military intervention unlawful absent clear exceptions.
2. Absence of Consent or International Authorization
   Venezuela did not consent to the action, and there was no UN Security Council resolution authorizing force or extradition.
   Legal point: Sovereign consent is a key lawful basis for cross-border law-enforcement action when it does occur.
3. Head-of-State Immunity
   Sitting heads of state have personal immunity from arrest in foreign domestic courts under customary international law. U.S. courts must normally defer to that immunity absent specific treaty provisions (e.g., International Criminal Court context).
   Legal point: Immunity protects a head of state from prosecution or arrest by another state’s domestic courts while in office.
4. Characterization as Use of Military Power
   The operation involved military strikes and deployment of U.S. forces, which many international law scholars characterize as a use of armed force — not a mere law-enforcement action — making it subject to the strict limits of international humanitarian law and the UN Charter.
   Legal point: Law enforcement does not justify military force absent exceptional circumstances.
5. No Clear Self-Defense Justification
   Experts argue that drug trafficking and transnational criminal activity, even if harmful, do not meet the threshold for lawful self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter.
   Legal point: Self-defense must respond to an armed attack by a state or non-state actor with clear evidence of imminent threat.
6. Potential Crime of Aggression
   Some scholars and institutions have suggested the U.S. strikes and capture could be considered a crime of aggression under international law because the operation involved the use of force to overthrow another government.
   Legal point: Crime of aggression refers to planning or executing acts of force violating the UN Charter.

It also focuses on the capture as a law enforcement activity which would not extend to Rodriguez.

[Baldy]

The Noriega decision from 1991 where courts upheld the right for the US to abduct foreign leaders for domestic crimes, use of force, prosecuting heads of state, etc, etc, etc.

Google is your friend.

You're oversimplifying it - that is ONE element to be considered - but it isn't that cut and dried ...

In the interest of balance (and to give MotherCaribbeanHen something to chirp about) I asked ChatGPT about the legality of the operation.

It also focuses on the capture as a law enforcement activity which would not extend to Rodriguez.

Ummm...you might want to try and use another AI spam bot to make your argument. The Invasion of Panama was not a 'declared military action'. It was authorized by the President. Just like the capture of Maduro.

[Caribbean Hen]

Lindsey Graham in this clip…….

Cuba is next.

Cuba is not doing well and it’s only gonna get worse now because Maduro won’t be around to send them some spare change… The electrical grid is on its last legs but nobody should be surprised

[Baldy]

Interesting take and I’ve heard it from other forces too.

[Baldy]

Lindsey Graham in this clip…….

Cuba is next.

Cuba is not doing well and it’s only gonna get worse now because Maduro won’t be around to send them some spare change… The electrical grid is on its last legs but nobody should be surprised

Lindsey is such a flappy little pussy.

Cuba's lifeline has been cut off. Unless something drastic happens, their days as a Soviet satellite nation are numbered.

[BDKJMU]

[BDKJMU]

Lawl this don’t age well.
Schumer steps it in yet again- BIGLY!.

[kalm]

The Donroe Doctrine will please Putin and Xi.

[UNI88]

You're oversimplifying it - that is ONE element to be considered - but it isn't that cut and dried ...

It also focuses on the capture as a law enforcement activity which would not extend to Rodriguez.

Ummm...you might want to try and use another AI spam bot to make your argument. The Invasion of Panama was not a 'declared military action'. It was authorized by the President. Just like the capture of Maduro.

Doesn't change the realty that:
- you're oversimplifying it, the Noriega "precedent" is one element to be considered but not the only one.
- it focuses on the capture as a law enforcement activity which would not extend to Rodriguez.

[Baldy]

Ummm...you might want to try and use another AI spam bot to make your argument. The Invasion of Panama was not a 'declared military action'. It was authorized by the President. Just like the capture of Maduro.

Doesn't change the realty that:
- you're oversimplifying it, the Noriega "precedent" is one element to be considered but not the only one.
- it focuses on the capture as a law enforcement activity which would not extend to Rodriguez.

You're just trying to muddy the water. Your argument is moot on the surface. Rodriguez wasn't the leader, nor was she arrested and extradited.

[UNI88]

Doesn't change the realty that:
- you're oversimplifying it, the Noriega "precedent" is one element to be considered but not the only one.
- it focuses on the capture as a law enforcement activity which would not extend to Rodriguez.

You're just trying to muddy the water. Your argument is moot on the surface. Rodriguez wasn't the leader, nor was she arrested and extradited.

One, you continue to skip over the reality that you're oversimplifying it, the Noriega "precedent" is one element to be considered but not the only one.

Two, I brought up Rodriguez earlier because trump himself said she would "pay a big price" if she doesn't cooperate and you responded ...

Trump warns acting Venezuelan leader will ‘pay a big price’ if she doesn’t cooperate

Is trump putting the cart (his ego) before the horse (any hope of legality)?

Has Rodriguez been indicted for narco-terrorism, conspiracy to import cocaine, and corruption?

Rodriguez is still part of an illegitimate regime that stole the Venezuelan elections in 2024. Not keeping the heat on her would be disastrous on our part.

If they arrest Rodriguez it throws the whole "law enforcement operation" reasoning under a bus and makes it obvious to anyone with common sense and a functioning brain stem that it's about regime change.

trump, the stable genius and master strategist, has painted himself into a corner if he wants to abduct Rodriguez. If he does have her abducted, I'm sure he'll spout some gobblygook bullsh!t reasoning that MAQA yahoos will lap up like loyal little lick kkkult member spittle's.

[kalm]

You're just trying to muddy the water. Your argument is moot on the surface. Rodriguez wasn't the leader, nor was she arrested and extradited.

One, you continue to skip over the reality that you're oversimplifying it, the Noriega "precedent" is one element to be considered but not the only one.

Two, I brought up Rodriguez earlier because trump himself said she would "pay a big price" if she doesn't cooperate and you responded ...

Rodriguez is still part of an illegitimate regime that stole the Venezuelan elections in 2024. Not keeping the heat on her would be disastrous on our part.

If they arrest Rodriguez it throws the whole "law enforcement operation" reasoning under a bus and makes it obvious to anyone with common sense and a functioning brain stem that it's about regime change.

trump, the stable genius and master strategist, has painted himself into a corner if he wants to abduct Rodriguez. If he does have her abducted, I'm sure he'll spout some gobblygook bullsh!t reasoning that MAQA yahoos will lap up like loyal little lick kkkult member spittle's.

If we’re going to leave Maduro government intact in a hands off/supervisory approach including the VP, why in the fuck did we do this in the first place?

[Baldy]

You're just trying to muddy the water. Your argument is moot on the surface. Rodriguez wasn't the leader, nor was she arrested and extradited.

One, you continue to skip over the reality that you're oversimplifying it, the Noriega "precedent" is one element to be considered but not the only one.

Two, I brought up Rodriguez earlier because trump himself said she would "pay a big price" if she doesn't cooperate and you responded ...

Rodriguez is still part of an illegitimate regime that stole the Venezuelan elections in 2024. Not keeping the heat on her would be disastrous on our part.

If they arrest Rodriguez it throws the whole "law enforcement operation" reasoning under a bus and makes it obvious to anyone with common sense and a functioning brain stem that it's about regime change.

trump, the stable genius and master strategist, has painted himself into a corner if he wants to abduct Rodriguez. If he does have her abducted, I'm sure he'll spout some gobblygook bullsh!t reasoning that MAQA yahoos will lap up like loyal little lick kkkult member spittle's.

Really, it is that simple. I imagine you're intentionally being this obtuse because you realize you don't really have a leg to stand on in this argument. Your raging anti-Trump boner has sucked up all the blood out of your gourd and your unhealthy obsession just won't allow you to quit.
I'll humor you since you don't know how to put the shovel down.

The Noriega Precedent is the main element in this case. The facts and circumstances in the Noriega case closely resemble and in many areas even mirror the facts in this case. If the suits want to argue it out in court, fine. Until another court strikes down the current precedent, capturing Maduro was 100% legitimate and legal. In the end, it doesn't matter. Maduro is going to end up exactly like Noriega. He's gonna die in prison.

As far as I'm aware, Rodriguez isn't under indictment for anything in the US, so there wouldn't be any reason to "abduct"(really?) her. However, no country in North or South America (except for Bolivia) or Europe recognize her as the legitimate VP of Venezuela, so hopefully she will be on an extremely short leash until legitimate elections can be held.

[kalm]