General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe New Yorker: The Brazen Illegality of Trump's Venezuela Operation
A scholar of international law on the implications of the U.S. arrest of President Nicolás Maduro.
Unfortunately, I dont think there is a legal basis for what were seeing in Venezuela. There are certainly legal arguments that the Administration is going to make, but all the arguments that Ive heard so far dont hold water. None of them really justify what the President seems to have ordered to take place in Venezuela.
What are the arguments that youve heard from either people in the Administration or from their supporters?
Were still in the early hours, but the arguments that have been made in the run-up to this full-scale effort have largely focussed on self-defense against drug traffickers, who they claim are being supported or maybe even directed by Maduro and his administration. The problem is that that really doesnt work under international law. There is a right of self-defense under the United Nations charter, which allows states to use force in self-defense against an armed attack. But its never been used for something like drug trafficking. And so all of these boat strikes that have been taking place over the past couple of months, which have been justified as self-defense, dont fall within anything that anyone would recognize as self-defense under international law. Self-defense generally requires that theres actually an armed attack. And it seems like theyre making a similar argument here to justify the capture of Maduro and the use of force on land in Venezuela.
What do you think of the argument that lots of people in America die from drug overdoses and so this is a form of self-defense?
Look, when the U.N. charter was written eighty years ago, it included a critical prohibition on the use of force by states. States are not allowed to decide on their own that they want to use force against other states. It was meant to reinforce this relatively new idea at the time that states couldnt just go to war whenever they wanted to. In the old world, the pre-U.N. charter world, it would have been fine to use force if you felt like drug trafficking was hurting you, and you could come up with legal justification that that was the case. But the whole point of the U.N. charter was basically to say, Were not going to go to war for those reasons anymore.
The charter included a very narrow exception, which was an exception for the use of self-defense. The idea there was that surely we shouldnt have to wait for the Security Council to authorize a use of force in order to defend ourselves if were attacked. But that was meant to be a narrow exception.
If drug trafficking is a reasonable justification, then a whole range of possible arguments can be made that basically mean that self-defense is no longer a real exception. Its the new rule. Why couldnt you make the same argument about communicable diseases?
Theres bird flu coming from a country, and therefore we have a legal justification for the use of military force. Once we start going down that road, the idea that theres any limit evaporates. I mean, yes, drugs are horrific. Do they cause loss of life in the United States? Absolutely. Theres no doubt about that. Its a terrible scourge, but the idea that because drugs are coming from a country it justifies an invasion and a change of administration in that country basically gets rid of any kind of limits on the use of force.
What other arguments have you heard from the Administration?
One of the claims is that Maduro is not, in fact, the leader of Venezuela. This is something that theyve been saying for a while nowthat hes not the legitimate leader of the country, that they dont recognize him as the head of state. And that might justify his seizure and indictment, although using military force to do that would not be justified. I dont know how they get from there to an argument that they can use military force in Venezuela.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/the-brazen-illegality-of-trumps-venezuela-operation
Paywall free: http://archive.today/mkq9F
LisaL
(47,358 posts)but we don't see republicans wanting to do anything to prevent gun violence, do we?
Aussie105
(7,653 posts)If there is no one to enforce them and there are no consequences.
You don't even have to come up with plausible or intelligent reasons for doing what you did.
And since when is going sneakily into another country and taking its leader captive by force called an 'arrest'?
Waiting for a global reaction of indignation and WTF-ism.
Here is mine: WTF, Donald?
ecstatic
(35,012 posts)Apparently, he can do anything he wants. He's grabbing the entire world by the pussy now.
mysteryowl
(8,050 posts)I think there is a limit to what the world will put up with. The stress of tariffs and now this affects the world.
calimary
(89,041 posts)Havent seen that theory tested yet, though.
mysteryowl
(8,050 posts)I would support a country taking care of our trump problem.
IronLionZion
(50,822 posts)And how would we feel if another country did that in the US? (for a normal president, not this idiot)
RainCaster
(13,385 posts)I would vote to nullify the orange sumbitch.
Martin Eden
(15,363 posts)Trump has already telegraphed the REAL motivation -- control of Venezuelan resources, principally oil.
I think this would have gone forward with or without Epstein and bad poll numbers.
AKwannabe
(6,877 posts)Arrest him
BidenRocks
(2,783 posts)Shoot him!
Grim Chieftain
(1,250 posts)I cannot believe he gets away with everything.
calimary
(89,041 posts)I keep reminding myself that nothing lasts forever, not even the donald. So far, though, he seems to be doing just fine.
And I keep asking WHEN does this end?