Venezuelan War

[UNI88]

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 ...

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.

The Noriega "Precedent" is itself disputed (it's not considered a legal precedent) and it does not resemble the maduro situation quite as closely as you might think.
- Guillermo Endara beat Noriega in the election and formed an opposition government.
- Edmundo González might have beaten maduro but there was no opposition government.

Guillermo Endara also enjoyed greater international recognition as the winner of the election than Edmundo González did.

You keep trying to make it seem cut and dried that trump was legally justified when it's more complicated than that.

[kalm]

We’re so fucking hypocritical. For example, we’re not a signee of the ICC but use rule of law as justification for whatever the hell we want to do.

And how many brutal dictators and criminals have we placed in power or have supported over the years?

We are a bad faith actor in the world.

[Baldy]

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.

The Noriega "Precedent" is itself disputed (it's not considered a legal precedent) and it does not resemble the maduro situation quite as closely as you might think.
- Guillermo Endara beat Noriega in the election and formed an opposition government.
- Edmundo González might have beaten maduro but there was no opposition government.

Guillermo Endara also enjoyed greater international recognition as the winner of the election than Edmundo González did.

You keep trying to make it seem cut and dried that trump was legally justified when it's more complicated than that.

Jeezus...my turn to use an AI chat bot.

Yes, the Noriega case is considered a significant legal precedent, establishing that U.S. courts have jurisdiction to try individuals forcibly brought to the country, even by military action, for violating U.S. law, largely relying on the "Ker-Frisbie doctrine" and a controversial 1989 Justice Department memo that asserted inherent presidential power to abduct foreign nationals. While not a Supreme Court ruling on the invasion, courts upheld the principle that unlawful seizure doesn't bar prosecution, solidifying a framework for trying foreign leaders, as seen with the recent Maduro case.
Key Aspects of the Noriega Precedent
Jurisdiction Over Abduction: The courts ruled that Noriega could be prosecuted in the U.S. despite being forcibly removed from Panama by U.S. forces, a principle extending from older cases like Ker v. Illinois.
Separation of Executive & Judicial Roles: Federal courts avoided judging the legality of the Panama invasion (Operation Just Cause), focusing solely on whether Noriega could be tried for the charges.
William Barr's Opinion: A 1989 memo by then-Assistant Attorney General William Barr argued the President has "inherent constitutional authority" to order such abductions to enforce U.S. law, overriding international law concerns.
Application to Maduro: Legal experts widely cite the Noriega case as the controlling precedent for the prosecution of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, who was also indicted by the U.S. for drug trafficking.
Why it's Precedent (Even if Controversial)
Judicial Validation: Federal courts validated the underlying legal framework for prosecuting foreign leaders abducted by the U.S., making it settled law.
Executive Justification: The Barr memo provided a legal justification for the executive branch to act, influencing future actions.
In essence, the Noriega case established a powerful, though debated, legal pathway for the U.S. to bring foreign nationals, even heads of state, to justice for domestic crimes, regardless of the methods used to acquire them.

[UNI88]

The Noriega "Precedent" is itself disputed (it's not considered a legal precedent) and it does not resemble the maduro situation quite as closely as you might think.
- Guillermo Endara beat Noriega in the election and formed an opposition government.
- Edmundo González might have beaten maduro but there was no opposition government.

Guillermo Endara also enjoyed greater international recognition as the winner of the election than Edmundo González did.

You keep trying to make it seem cut and dried that trump was legally justified when it's more complicated than that.

Jeezus...my turn to use an AI chat bot.

Yes, the Noriega case is considered a significant legal precedent, establishing that U.S. courts have jurisdiction to try individuals forcibly brought to the country, even by military action, for violating U.S. law, largely relying on the "Ker-Frisbie doctrine" and a controversial 1989 Justice Department memo that asserted inherent presidential power to abduct foreign nationals. While not a Supreme Court ruling on the invasion, courts upheld the principle that unlawful seizure doesn't bar prosecution, solidifying a framework for trying foreign leaders, as seen with the recent Maduro case.
Key Aspects of the Noriega Precedent
Jurisdiction Over Abduction: The courts ruled that Noriega could be prosecuted in the U.S. despite being forcibly removed from Panama by U.S. forces, a principle extending from older cases like Ker v. Illinois.
Separation of Executive & Judicial Roles: Federal courts avoided judging the legality of the Panama invasion (Operation Just Cause), focusing solely on whether Noriega could be tried for the charges.
William Barr's Opinion: A 1989 memo by then-Assistant Attorney General William Barr argued the President has "inherent constitutional authority" to order such abductions to enforce U.S. law, overriding international law concerns.
Application to Maduro: Legal experts widely cite the Noriega case as the controlling precedent for the prosecution of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, who was also indicted by the U.S. for drug trafficking.
Why it's Precedent (Even if Controversial)
Judicial Validation: Federal courts validated the underlying legal framework for prosecuting foreign leaders abducted by the U.S., making it settled law.
Executive Justification: The Barr memo provided a legal justification for the executive branch to act, influencing future actions.
In essence, the Noriega case established a powerful, though debated, legal pathway for the U.S. to bring foreign nationals, even heads of state, to justice for domestic crimes, regardless of the methods used to acquire them.

Which AI did you use and what question(s) did you prompt it with?

Noriega is precedent only for what courts do after a defendant is before them. It is not a significant precedent for the capture or abduction itself.

I asked ChatGPT - "Is the Noriega case is considered a significant legal precedent?"

It depends on which legal system you mean — but overall, no, the Noriega case is not considered a significant legal precedent for the use of force.
It is significant in a few narrow legal niches. Here’s the clean breakdown.

Short answer

1. International law (use of force / sovereignty): Not significant precedent
2. U.S. domestic criminal law & procedure: Significant (but narrow) precedent
3. Head-of-state immunity in U.S. courts: Moderately significant

...
2. U.S. domestic law: Yes, but very narrow

Noriega is a significant precedent inside U.S. courts, but only for limited doctrines:

A. Jurisdiction despite illegal capture

U.S. courts relied on Noriega to reaffirm the Ker–Frisbie doctrine:

• A defendant can be tried in U.S. court even if brought there unlawfully.
• Courts will not dismiss charges because of how the defendant was captured abroad.

This remains important and frequently cited.

B. Political question doctrine

Courts held that:

• The legality of the invasion itself was a political question, not for judges.
• This reinforced judicial deference to the executive on foreign military actions.

Again: important domestically, but procedural, not substantive approval of the invasion.

[Caribbean Hen]

Well, there goes the neighborhood when ChatGPT TDS MSNBC 88 only posts AI Q&A sessions

Fucking yuck

[kalm]

Well, there goes the neighborhood when ChatGPT TDS MSNBC 88 only posts AI Q&A sessions

Fucking yuck

Versus the well source and well cited information you share?

[UNI88]

Well, there goes the neighborhood when ChatGPT TDS MSNBC 88 only posts AI Q&A sessions

Fucking yuck

Versus the well source and well cited information you share?

I know I’m living rent free in his head when he gives me 3 simultaneous nicknames.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Baldy]

Jeezus...my turn to use an AI chat bot.

Yes, the Noriega case is considered a significant legal precedent, establishing that U.S. courts have jurisdiction to try individuals forcibly brought to the country, even by military action, for violating U.S. law, largely relying on the "Ker-Frisbie doctrine" and a controversial 1989 Justice Department memo that asserted inherent presidential power to abduct foreign nationals. While not a Supreme Court ruling on the invasion, courts upheld the principle that unlawful seizure doesn't bar prosecution, solidifying a framework for trying foreign leaders, as seen with the recent Maduro case.
Key Aspects of the Noriega Precedent
Jurisdiction Over Abduction: The courts ruled that Noriega could be prosecuted in the U.S. despite being forcibly removed from Panama by U.S. forces, a principle extending from older cases like Ker v. Illinois.
Separation of Executive & Judicial Roles: Federal courts avoided judging the legality of the Panama invasion (Operation Just Cause), focusing solely on whether Noriega could be tried for the charges.
William Barr's Opinion: A 1989 memo by then-Assistant Attorney General William Barr argued the President has "inherent constitutional authority" to order such abductions to enforce U.S. law, overriding international law concerns.
Application to Maduro: Legal experts widely cite the Noriega case as the controlling precedent for the prosecution of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, who was also indicted by the U.S. for drug trafficking.
Why it's Precedent (Even if Controversial)
Judicial Validation: Federal courts validated the underlying legal framework for prosecuting foreign leaders abducted by the U.S., making it settled law.
Executive Justification: The Barr memo provided a legal justification for the executive branch to act, influencing future actions.
In essence, the Noriega case established a powerful, though debated, legal pathway for the U.S. to bring foreign nationals, even heads of state, to justice for domestic crimes, regardless of the methods used to acquire them.

Which AI did you use and what question(s) did you prompt it with?

Noriega is precedent only for what courts do after a defendant is before them. It is not a significant precedent for the capture or abduction itself.

I asked ChatGPT - "Is the Noriega case is considered a significant legal precedent?"

It depends on which legal system you mean — but overall, no, the Noriega case is not considered a significant legal precedent for the use of force.
It is significant in a few narrow legal niches. Here’s the clean breakdown.

Short answer

1. International law (use of force / sovereignty): Not significant precedent
2. U.S. domestic criminal law & procedure: Significant (but narrow) precedent
3. Head-of-state immunity in U.S. courts: Moderately significant

...
2. U.S. domestic law: Yes, but very narrow

Noriega is a significant precedent inside U.S. courts, but only for limited doctrines:

A. Jurisdiction despite illegal capture

U.S. courts relied on Noriega to reaffirm the Ker–Frisbie doctrine:

• A defendant can be tried in U.S. court even if brought there unlawfully.
• Courts will not dismiss charges because of how the defendant was captured abroad.

This remains important and frequently cited.

B. Political question doctrine

Courts held that:

• The legality of the invasion itself was a political question, not for judges.
• This reinforced judicial deference to the executive on foreign military actions.

Again: important domestically, but procedural, not substantive approval of the invasion.

You said the Noriega case wasn't precedent. It was...clearly.
Correct. The courts don't care how he got there. The judiciary defers to the executive on foreign military actions because the President has very broad authority.
It can be debated from now until the end of time if you want. Don't care. It doesn't take away from the fact that it was 100% legal and proper to go in and capture Maduro, just like it was to capture Noriega.

[kalm]

Interesting take here based on the realities of what the Trump admin has stated and the potential benefits to the U.S.

The Trump administration has offered multiple high-minded explanations for its toppling of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, none of which make much sense.

Vice President JD Vance suggested, for example, that the operation was about bringing drug kingpins to justice: In 2020, a US court indicted Maduro on charges of trafficking cocaine to the United States, among other offenses. “You don’t get to avoid justice for drug trafficking in the United States because you live in a palace in Caracas,” Vance declared on X.

In this account, President Donald Trump is fiercely committed to imprisoning Latin American leaders who export drugs — so committed that he’s willing to risk American lives and nullify the UN charter to bring them to justice.

But we know this isn’t true. Just last month, Trump pardoned a former Honduran president who’d been convicted of trafficking narcotics to the United States.

[kalm]

JFC. They really have no plan.

[houndawg]

JFC. They really have no plan.

His career should have peaked as a platoon leader in the Mess-kit Repair Batallion

[UNI88]

Which AI did you use and what question(s) did you prompt it with?

Noriega is precedent only for what courts do after a defendant is before them. It is not a significant precedent for the capture or abduction itself.

I asked ChatGPT - "Is the Noriega case is considered a significant legal precedent?"

You said the Noriega case wasn't precedent. It was...clearly.
Correct. The courts don't care how he got there. The judiciary defers to the executive on foreign military actions because the President has very broad authority.
It can be debated from now until the end of time if you want. Don't care. It doesn't take away from the fact that it was 100% legal and proper to go in and capture Maduro, just like it was to capture Noriega.

Care to quote exactly where I said "the Noriega case wasn't precedent"?

I said it was disputed and the AI information we both provided was clear that any precedent was in regard to whether he can be tried once he was here not whether it was legal to go in and get him.

It is your OPINION that it was "100% legal and proper to go in and capture Maduro, just like it was to capture Noriega." Your opinion while you are entitled to it is disputed by plenty of legal experts and scholars and artificial intelligence.

[UNI88]

JFC. They really have no plan.

His career should have peaked as a platoon leader in the Mess-kit Repair Batallion

I know he wasn't qualified to run a lemonade stand in my old driveway. He would have driven it into bankruptcy.

Is he qualified to peel potatoes on KP?

[houndawg]

His career should have peaked as a platoon leader in the Mess-kit Repair Batallion

I know he wasn't qualified to run a lemonade stand in my old driveway. He would have driven it into bankruptcy.

Is he qualified to peel potatoes on KP?

Anybody whoever wore the uniform sees right through that poseur.

[Caribbean Hen]

I know he wasn't qualified to run a lemonade stand in my old driveway. He would have driven it into bankruptcy.

Is he qualified to peel potatoes on KP?

Anybody whoever wore the uniform sees right through that poseur.

It’s good to see you guys are finally starting to see the truth about that moron governor of Minnesota. Timmy The Fraud

[Caribbean Hen]

Jan. 6 (UPI) -- Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado praised U.S. President Donald Trump for ousting former President Nicolas Maduro, calling it a giant achievement for humanity, for which Trump should rightly receive the Nobel Peace Prize.

"Jan. 3 will go down in history as the day justice defeated tyranny. It's a milestone, and it's not only huge for the Venezuelan people and our future, I think it's a huge step for humanity, for freedom, and human dignity," Machado told Fox News on Monday night

[UNI88]

Anybody whoever wore the uniform sees right through that poseur.

It’s good to see you guys are finally starting to see the truth about that moron secretary of Defense. Lil Petey WhiskeyLeaks

[kalm]

Jan. 6 (UPI) -- Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado praised U.S. President Donald Trump for ousting former President Nicolas Maduro, calling it a giant achievement for humanity, for which Trump should rightly receive the Nobel Peace Prize.

"Jan. 3 will go down in history as the day justice defeated tyranny. It's a milestone, and it's not only huge for the Venezuelan people and our future, I think it's a huge step for humanity, for freedom, and human dignity," Machado told Fox News on Monday night

Yeah! Bomb, abduct, and steal natural resources! That definitely deserves the PEACE prize.

[Baldy]

You said the Noriega case wasn't precedent. It was...clearly.
Correct. The courts don't care how he got there. The judiciary defers to the executive on foreign military actions because the President has very broad authority.
It can be debated from now until the end of time if you want. Don't care. It doesn't take away from the fact that it was 100% legal and proper to go in and capture Maduro, just like it was to capture Noriega.

Care to quote exactly where I said "the Noriega case wasn't precedent"?

I said it was disputed and the AI information we both provided was clear that any precedent was in regard to whether he can be tried once he was here not whether it was legal to go in and get him.

It is your OPINION that it was "100% legal and proper to go in and capture Maduro, just like it was to capture Noriega." Your opinion while you are entitled to it is disputed by plenty of legal experts and scholars and artificial intelligence.

Really?

The Noriega "Precedent" is itself disputed (it's not considered a legal precedent)

I know you're going to contort yourself into a knot trying to explain it away and deflect, but those are your words.

The pointy headed faux intelligentsia can debate all they want, but as for now, the precedent stands clear. It was 100% legal.

[UNI88]

Care to quote exactly where I said "the Noriega case wasn't precedent"?

I said it was disputed and the AI information we both provided was clear that any precedent was in regard to whether he can be tried once he was here not whether it was legal to go in and get him.

It is your OPINION that it was "100% legal and proper to go in and capture Maduro, just like it was to capture Noriega." Your opinion while you are entitled to it is disputed by plenty of legal experts and scholars and artificial intelligence.

Really?

The Noriega "Precedent" is itself disputed (it's not considered a legal precedent)

I know you're going to contort yourself into a knot trying to explain it away and deflect, but those are your words.

The pointy headed faux intelligentsia can debate all they want, but as for now, the precedent stands clear. It was 100% legal under US law to try Noriega in the US.

One, you got me. See how I did that - I took ownership of my mistake, maybe trump could take a lesson from that and be a real leader who owns his mistakes rather than blaming others, spouting gibberish and/or contorting himself into pretzels.

Two, it is limited in that it only applies to whether the defendant can be tried in the US. It does not establish a precedent with regard to the legality of the capture of Noriega (or maduro). FYP to reflect what was legal.

[Caribbean Hen]

Jan. 6 (UPI) -- Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado praised U.S. President Donald Trump for ousting former President Nicolas Maduro, calling it a giant achievement for humanity, for which Trump should rightly receive the Nobel Peace Prize.

"Jan. 3 will go down in history as the day justice defeated tyranny. It's a milestone, and it's not only huge for the Venezuelan people and our future, I think it's a huge step for humanity, for freedom, and human dignity," Machado told Fox News on Monday night

Yeah! Bomb, abduct, and steal natural resources! That definitely deserves the PEACE prize.

Nope

That’s what Chavez and Maduro did when the

[BDKJMU]

Jan. 6 (UPI) -- Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado praised U.S. President Donald Trump for ousting former President Nicolas Maduro, calling it a giant achievement for humanity, for which Trump should rightly receive the Nobel Peace Prize.

"Jan. 3 will go down in history as the day justice defeated tyranny. It's a milestone, and it's not only huge for the Venezuelan people and our future, I think it's a huge step for humanity, for freedom, and human dignity," Machado told Fox News on Monday night

Yeah! Bomb, abduct, and steal natural resources! That definitely deserves the PEACE prize.

Steal? The Venezuelans were producing 3.5 million barrels of oil a day before your socialist heroes Chavez and Maduro took over. Under Maduro that had fallen to 800k barrels of oils a day due to corruption, incompetence, and falling apart infrastructure.

Legal judgements mandate Venezuela owes US oil companies billions due to broken contracts after Chavez took over. They also defaulted on 60 billion in bonds. The US is going to invest billions rebuilding their infrastructure. Damn straight the US taxpayers and US oil companies should be able to recoup that.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/venezu ... investment

[BDKJMU]

[BDKJMU]

The Donroe Doctrine will please Putin and Xi.

Lawl, just the opposite. The Donroe doctrine is the US is going to dominate in the Western Hemisphere, and it isn’t going to let the Chicoms and Russia elbow their way in. It is a reinforcement of the Monroe Doctrine.

[BDKJMU]

Rare done with common sense. Maybe more donks need to suffer strokes.