There are a lot of opinions going around about the lawfulness of the US strikes in Venezuela. Some are explained in this Guardian article.
A fairly blunt question then: does the lawfulness of what Trump and the US has just done, and what they might do now in Venezuela, concern you? Does it make a difference to you if it is in accordance with US law but in violation of international law?
If you think what he's done was legal, would you disapprove of the actions if it turns out it was illegal?
If your position is that what Trump has done is entirely above board and legal, is there any authority or statutory body who could determine that it was/is illegal that you would acknowledge and subsequently change your position?
AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views.
For all participants:
Flair is required to participate
Be excellent to each other
For Nonsupporters/Undecided:
No top level comments
All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position
For Trump Supporters:
Helpful links for more info:
Rules | Rule Exceptions | Posting Guidelines | Commenting Guidelines
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
I’m against any regime change, including this one.
Sadly it happened, and I think a lot of Trump supporters are disappointed that he seems to be bowing against the deep state again.
For now it happened, luckily with until now very few deaths, hopefully it will not another Libya. I wish the venezuelans themselves best.
Few things:
Edit: I’ll take your commentless downvotes as compliments boys 😘
Have you considered the reason we're downvoting is because whataboutism is arguing in bad faith? Have you considered that we might agree that these actions taken by liberal governments are ALSO outrageous? Do you really believe "Liberals did it first and liberal voters weren't mad then" (Huge assumption on your part) justifies Trump's Actions?
ok show me the many liberal talking heads talking about libya and clinton/obama and what kind of disgusting war hawk clinton is and i change my mind. I haven’t seen them.
only Cenk. I like the young turks in general.
But pointing to someone’s double standards is absolutely relevant. Just shouting “whataboutism” doesn’t change that.
It’s the lazy argument of hypocrites.
Have you considered you're not talking to talking heads? You're talking to actual voters. Should I only consider views from Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro, nick Fuentes, Trump, etc to represent the views of Trump supporters?
Have you considered not assuming other random people you talk to on the internet are hypocrites and instead assuming you're talking to someone who honestly wants to have a reasonable discussion about current events? To argue in good faith?
Dude. The fact is that the same people who hand-waved Obama drone-striking the Middle East (and killing an American citizen, by the way), and capturing and killing Bin Laden, and who were okay with Saddam being pulled out of hiding, his sons murdered, and he himself hung, are the same people who suddenly "have a problem" with this. Such hypocrites.
Personally I was never in favor of the drone strikes under Obama's admin, especially killing American citizens without a trial.
Are you sure it's the same people in both cases, or are you just assuming? I could make a lot of similar arguments with regards to Trump- many Trump supporters freely used the "Sleepy Joe" moniker to mock Biden's perceived decline, yet I don't see any concern from conservatives about Trump's leadership capability despite the fact that practically every day there's a new photo of Trump falling asleep in a meeting or on stage at an event. Are you concerned about Trump's mental acuity and fitness to serve as president for the rest of his term?
Those are actual quotes from Trump.
What are your thoughts about Trump's pivot from the above quotes to bombing Venezuela and capturing Maduro?
Killing Bin Laden is entirely different from capturing Maduro since unlike Maduro, A) Bin Laden provoked the US by orchestrating the 9/11 attacks, and B) Bin Laden was not the leader of a sovereign nation.
And just to be clear, Venezula isn't a major source of drugs that enter the US and the Trump administration has provided no evidence about the type or quantity of drugs on the 32 Venezuelan boats that they directed our military to attack.
It sounds like you're conflating two different things. There are feelings about the leaders (Hussein/Maduro) and there are feelings about foreign military intervention and how it's handled.
I don't think anyone is defending the leaders (Hussein/Maduro). I think we all agree that Hussein & Maduro were/are autocrats and that the people in their respective countries deserve better, duly elected leaders. So when I say that I don't like this action by the Tump admin, it's not because I have any love for Maduro or his leadership and it's not because I don't think he should stand trial for his crimes against Venezuela. But just because I believe Venezuelans deserve justice does not mean I support sending our military to do it. And it was done unilaterally by the president without the consent of Congress, which is a whole other can of worms. And unfortunately the parallels between Venezuela and Iraq do not end with their crappy leaders.
Prior to Maduro's capture, Fox News talking heads were already calling Venezuelan boats "weapons of mass destruction" and "chemical weapons" as a pretext, just as we saw prior to sending US troops to Iraq. Iraq was linked to terrorist groups, just as the Trump admin are connecting Venezuela to groups like Hezbollah. And politicians and talking heads keep telling us "quick and easy" military intervention will be in Venezuela. The same was said about Iraq, which is still going over 20 years later. But we're supposed to believe that it will actually be quick this time?
Stop trying to lawyer your way out of this. In all of these cases, a global leader of some sort was captured by America, and dealt with. This always occurred inside of another sovereign country - who sometimes was not even aware of our operation, nor was our target aware.
Stop nitpicking about 9/11 or that Congress didn't approve. That's all bullshit, and you know it. The President is the "Commander in Chief" and has that authority to do so. Congress has hardly approved of any military action since WWII. We certainly haven't declared war. So stop putting up all these qualifiers that you did not put up for the other instances.
"BHUT DERE'S NO EVIDUNCE!!11!!"
You really need to stop using this phrase. It's detrimental to your argument, and makes you sound stupid. All it means is that you didn't bother looking, and are okay with being ignorant. Can you post some of those photos of those "fishing boats" that were blown up?
Pakistan certainly was not aware of our raid to get Bin Laden, but we still invaded their country to do it. So, stop with the overly verbose excuses. It's the same thing. Stop being a hypocrite.
Oh, but Trump previously said stuff about not doing regime changes and nation building? Dang, no politician has ever done that before, and I am sure that those comments are taken completely in context, right? Then I change my mind. I regret voting for Trump. You finally got me. /s
Those comments are at least partially out of context. He was someone who went on New York City airwaves a lot - like the Howard Stern show - and was very critical of the second Iraq war. That was regime change. That was nation building.
Removing a dictator and putting in an acting President in their place - a nation which is so broken that animals in the zoo have starved to death, and citizens have eaten them - is not "regime change" or "nation building". The average Venezuelan citizen has lost 20 pounds due to starvation. So, there is no need for your overreaction and hypocrisy here.
Lawyer my way out of what? We're having a conversation, there's nothing for me to "lawyer my way out" of.
So you don't see a difference between capturing the leader of a terrorist organization that orchestrated the world's deadliest terror attack in history against America, and a despot who has not provoked us in any way?
I don't think it's nitpicking to point out that there is supposed to be a procedure which was not followed. The fact that it's been done before is irrelevant to whether or not it should be done. But even if we ignore congressional approval, congress wasn't even notified beforehand. And before you try to tell me that this was to prevent leaks before it was carried out, Trump himself said he briefed oil company CEOs both before and after.
We have not formally declared war because that would require the process of congressional approval that I mentioned previously, but capturing the leader of a nation is pretty universally seen by every country as an act of war.
I don't know what qualifiers or other instances you're referring to.
I only used the phrase once, and I stand by it. What is your opposition to evidence?
How exactly is pointing out the lack of evidence detrimental to my argument? The onus is on the Trump administration to justify those boat strikes to the American people (and the rest of the world) with proof that they are actually trafficking narcotics. I checked to see if any such evidence has been provided to the public, and there was none. But if you have seen some evidence I'm not aware of, feel free to show me and I'll take a look at it.
I could, but to what end? Can you explain how to tell by looking at a boat whether it's a fishing boat or one that's smuggling narcotics? Then explain why a drug trafficker wouldn't simply use a fishing boat to disguise their operation instead of an (apparently) easily identified drug boat.
Ok. What's your point?
Whataboutism is not a convincing argument. Something being done in the past doesn't make it acceptable in the present. Every crime has been committed before, yet they remain crimes. Politicians lying is not new, but that does not mean we should accept it.
I don't think I took those quotes out of context, but you can see for yourself. The first quote is from a rally in 2020. Here's the video. He says it at about 12:06.
I didn't find the video of the other quote, but I found this video of Trump expressing a similar sentiment in 2018, during his first term.
"We more and more are not wanting to be the policemen of the world. We're spending tremendous amounts of money for decades on policing the world, and that shouldn't be our priority."
Yeah. Our conversation is done. I'm just going to end it with this last part, where you finally put up an entire quote:
Again, he was referring to the wars that we were tangled up in for decades in the Middle East. He was very critical of those wars, going all the way back to 2003.
We aren't, and we didn't, and this exercise is no different. If history is any barometer, Trump has a pattern of not getting involved with global stuff much at all, and getting us out of stuff that we are already tangled up in. So, to think that this would be any different, well, there's no evidence of that.
I specifically remember, during Trump's first term, Pakistan and India started poking at each other. In case you don't know, both are nuclear powers, and they hate each other. Well, they started making a lot of noise on the global theater - and apparently both were trying to get the rest of the world, and America, to pick sides. Trump addressed it once. He said, "We are not getting involved." Then the two countries shut up.
This operation into Venezuela took, I think, three hours? I haven't heard how many people killed, if any, or how many helicopters we used, or how many soldiers were involved, but I can't imagine it was many. In and out. Surgical. Exacting. A clear and simple focus and goal.
This is a different quote from the one I originally cited. I didn't use an incomplete quote, but I couldn't find the full video for the quote I used, so I posted this video with a similar quote instead. I don't think the meaning is different though.
Does it matter which instance of world policing he was talking about? Why is it better to be the world police for Venezuela than it was for Iraq?
In his first term, sure, Trump mostly stayed out of foreign affairs. But we're only 1 year into his second term and he's already tariffed every other country including our allies, and bombed Iran & Venezuela. He is already more involved in global affairs. So there is, in fact, evidence of that.
I don't recall it happening this way, but if you can provide a source for your claim that Trump single-handedly got India and Pakistan to stop squabbling, I'm happy to look at it.
Sure, capturing Maduro took 3 hours. But Trump said we're going to run Venezuela and take their oil. How long will that take? How many soldiers? Money? Helicopters? Weapons? No one knows.
well i need some publicly verifiable proof for the claim that you make.
i can look at your profile but i see zero about libya. so where were your outrage comments back then?
find me some other leftist in this sub that had an outrage comment about libya. also fine.
happy to change opinions if you do but pretty sure you will not find them. how do i know? i talked to enough of them during that period. they just follow the main narrative pushed by the msm.
[removed]
so you make a claim “many leftist were outraged back then too” and then have to give zero proof for that claim while my own experience is that I encountered majority of leftists defending it (because it was the MSM narrative).
(and neocons too. but neocons are not maga)
I can't speak to your experience, but I know many people who were mad about Obama's drone strikes. Have you considered the left is not a monolith and the MSM narrative doesn't represent people on the ground? How many one on one conversations have you had with liberals OUTSIDE of anonymously on the internet?
a lot. i’m dutch btw.
but anyway, i hope on a new left platform that is based on peace, not one where dick cheney aligns with. so if there is consistency on obamadrones, trumps venezuela intervention and the biden admin provoked proxy war in ukraine i’m fine with that.
Do you really expect consistency from any political party?
[removed]
I would say the fact that Hillary lost 2016 election showed that liberal voters were outraged, they didn’t vote for her. Don’t you think that is publicly available evidence?
"Bad faith"? Sheesh.
Remember when we had two "No Kings" protest days, against a guy who won the popular vote, but then those same people didn't do anything on July 4th, the actual No Kings day holiday? Good times.
Remember when, at the end of Trump's first term, Brennan and Milley were afraid that Trump was going to start a war with Iran or China, so they suggested that his title of "Commander in Chief" be suspended, and Nancy Pelosi wanted to strip Trump of his nuclear authority, and they were all "preparing" for Trump not willingly leaving the White House at the end of his term, like a dictator, and they might have to get the military involved - yet these same people are raging against Trump and the Venezuelan people when Trump removed an actual dictator from power, who refused to leave after he lost an election? Good times.
You guys look really stupid.
Thank you. I agree with all that you said. I want to live in a world where there is a rules based international order such as that founded at the end of WWII. I have no tolerance for hypocrisy from anyone. My deepest fear with Trump is that he’s is destroying those rules and moving us back to a pre 1930s world where might was the only rule and conquest for plunder was accepted. Do you share my concern?
You mean the "rules" based "order" built on atomic bombs?
Our "order" is fundamentally no different than the Roman "order" or the Mongolian "order".
As the other TS also listed, we've constantly ignored law, order, or diplomacy to get what we want.
I'm legitimately shocked liberals sincerely believe we lived in The West Wing until Trump came along.
I personally think you should investigate a bit USA regime change policies since WW2. It’s not a Trump thing, the only difference is he does it in the open.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change
I am a little bit worried the deep state gets in his ear again, but I truly believe that he hates war (as in: working class people dying by the tens of thousands)
how do you define "deep state"?
I see the phrase tossed around a lot, but from my understanding, trump seems to be the deep state, he seems to be the swamp that he wanted to drain so badly but has instead filled with more dirty, stagnant water.
Not OP
The Deep State is the body of unelected officials that create and enforce policy for Empire.
They're basically the same as eunuchs who ran some older empires, and it's a fitting description for effeminate, detached technocrats.
I understand you cannot speak for open, but do you view trumps close relations with tech bros (heritage foundation, musk, bezos, zuckerberg, cz, etc) and his ability to be influenced by outside oligarchal forces to be akin to this alleged deep state?
would those ties make him a part of that loose "organization"?
There's no "alleged" Deep State.
It's a literal reality that unelected officials hold influential power. One can debate whether it's cohesive, how much power it holds, etc., but it does exist.
Think Tanks are essential to the American Deep State, but I wouldn't consider them the same thing.
Individual capitalists can have influence, but I wouldn't consider them the same thing either.
I find Techno-Libertarians retarded scum, and in a perfect world, they'd be shit shovelers.
you start with a question and then just spawn a paragraph of anti trump rhetoric. doesnt seem you want an answer.
that was a genuine question.
from the standpoint of pretty much everyone who isnt maga we see the very blatant corruption, hypocrisy and gross abuse of power.
so, what is the deep state you people refer to and have been going on about for a decade? what is the swamp?
(e: can you define these terms for me, so we are on the same page? I have my understanding of them, but they seem to differ from maga definitions).
what are solutions to these issues?
Sorry I feel lazy:
The deep state is "entrenched bureaucratic power":
This is documented in: - Declassified memos - Congressional investigations (e.g., Church Committee, 1975) - Bureaucratic politics theory (Allison, Halperin)
the way youre defining this, the deep state sounds like the heritage foundation and the tech broligarchs trump surrounds himself with.
do you honestly not see a difference?
tech bros are also lobbyists yes. where did i say they don’t influence politicians?
do you agree that the cia and other unelected bureaucrats can get ideologies that are not in sync with the democratic elected officials?
My personal responses to your points about liberals: 1) that Hillary quote is gross. I’ve never been a big fan of her and this is a good example of why. As far as outrage…idk man. I wasn’t very politically aware at the time. Had I known what I know now, I would be afraid of Libya descending into turmoil, which of course is what happened. 2) killing the head of a terrorist organization who is known to have orchestrated 9/11 is very different, in my mind, from kidnapping a dictator of an oil-rich country, informing oil executives before congress of the intent, and planning to “run the country” for the foreseeable future with no apparent plan for a stabilized regime change. I realize the question was about the legality of the operation, but I feel (and I would think most folks who are concerned about this would feel) that the greater concern is the muck Trump is likely getting us into. 3) I’m not really in favor of US interventionism in general, so I don’t fully support that decision by the Biden admin, but raising a bounty and capturing a dictator are different things and I’m not sure why it’s relevant to compare the two, especially when the question is about the legality of the arrest. 4) I have seen a lot of conservatives complaining about progressives lecturing Venezuelans about how to feel about this. I have not seen a single progressive person do so or express any sentiment remotely close to “Venezuelans should feel x”. I’m sure it is happening on twitter or something, but to consider that representative of the left as a whole is similar to a progressive painting all maga as nazis (when only some are literal nazis).
So I guess all that said, yeah, the left is often inconsistent in its standards. Or rather, the left is not a monolith, just like a right isn’t. And this action seems very inconsistent with Trump’s own promises, including less interventionism and no new wars. Does this change your opinion about Trump in any way?
Item 2 boils down to "it's different" which has no impact on OP question on legality
I mean, strictly you’re right, but I’m responding to someone who’s doing a lot of whataboutism, and if you’re going to whatabout in response to a question, it’s reasonable to point out important differences between the scenarios.
That said, sure. Let’s look at it from a strictly legal standpoint. Both actions violated international law. Obama did not seek congress’s approval before his action, but it was justified under the AUMF. Trump on the other hand has no clear justification for invading Venezuela without congressional approval (correct me if I’m wrong here). So from a constitutionally legal standpoint, they are still not comparable. Do you disagree? Why?
so now it’s not about international law anymore? so international law suddenly doesn’t matter? and all the other 195 countries should shut up anyway? murica!!!
seems like a moving goal post to me 🤷♂️
A supplemental question for #2 - didn’t Obama use AUMF 2001 to justify unaliving Bin Laden?
“authorizes military force against Al-Qaeda and those responsible for 9/11”
He didn’t get permission from the sovereign country but he did have permission from Congress.
so now it’s not about international law anymore? so international law suddenly doesn’t matter? and all the other 195 countries should shut up anyway? murica!!!
seems like a moving goal post to me 🤷♂️
Im not moving goalposts, Im pointing out an inconsistency that I see… are Trump supporters about upholding the U.S. Constitution? Or they about upholding International Law? Or neither? You made the comment I’m asking a follow up question.
i’m not even north american ,i’m dutch.
i like trump because he is not a globalist, trying to give away all power to bureaucratic institutions and at least tries diplomacy in the worst human suffering of the last two decades - the ukraine war.
once again i was against the intervention in venezuela. i just not pretend this is the first time “international laws” are broken. the west does it constantly.
about your constitution i don’t care at all. the usa is a country run by warmongers and the industrial military complex causing the most human suffering in the last decades. doesn’t matter democrats or republicans.
I’m definitely disappointed by Trump, but still less amount of suffering then the proxy war started with the biden admin in ukraine.
it is important what is going to happen in venezuela now. if it becomes libya 2.0 for sure i’m done with him.
so yeah, sadly lesser of two evils.
At what point will you come to the conclusion that republicans holding a majority in most branches of government makes them the deep state? Why is Trump powerless against this entity which has no formal acknowledgement, location, or member list?
What exactly is it that you think the deep state wants overall?
I hope you'll believe I'm responding in good faith. We are in agreement about being against regime change so I'll start there.
I figure it's worth responding to your bullet points before asking my clarifying question though (I do have one).
This applies to both the right and the left but it's important to remember that the "left" changes over time. I was 22 when the video you linked was posted, I'm 36 now. Many on the "left" you may talk to today couldn't even vote when Bin Ladin or Qaddafi were killed. Both the "left" and "right" have held evolving views as new generations have come of age. Personally, I think it's a weak argument to hold someone who couldn't vote in 2011 accountable for the opinions and response of the mainstream "left" during that time.
Again, I won't disagree with you on the facts (although, realistically "illegal" in international law is kind of meaningless since we don't assent to being subject to any authority that could enforce international law) but don't you think this is a little missing the forest for the trees? Countries violate airspace and borders all the time, not saying I agree with it but it's pretty routine and not usually cause for a huge incident.
Do you think comparing entering Pakistan without their consent to deal with an internationally agreed upon terrorist who was responsible for the single deadliest attack ever to occur on US soil is comparable to entering Venezuela to capture their (disputed) head of state using only a US Federal indictment as the justification? I guess while yes both did violate international law one seemed more justified and didn't set an idea that another country could invade you and arrest your leader if they charged them with a crime within their borders.
I don't think it's ignored, I just don't think it's relevant. If Maduro had been arrested by Venezuelan police and extradited or he visited another nation who chose to arrest him and send him here I don't think most on the left would care (and yes there would still be questions of international law but I think that's beside the point). The issue isn't the fact he's in custody, it's the fact we invaded a foreign nation with our military to get him that most people I know don't like (myself included).
To be clear I haven't seen this behavior but I'm sure it's happened somewhere. I don't agree with it. The people of Venezuela deserve to make up their own mind. If they are happy about this and want to embrace the US as saviors then great! If they're pissed that the US invaded their country and instigated a regime change then they have a right to be pissed (I know I'd be pissed if Canada came invaded the US and arrested President Trump, even if I don't like him).
For my clarifying question though, are you at all wavering in your support for the President given he actively ran on a "get us out of foreign conflicts" and "America first" platform that he often seems to just abandon? I'm not asking if you'd support a Democrat but more are you near the point of losing faith in President Trump/his inner circle to the point you'd be wanting to look for another candidate/group that also aligns with your views but doesn't have the history when it comes to involvement in foreign conflict President Trump does?
The White House’s response is amazing. As long as we don’t occupy the country I’m quietly optimistic that this will help Venezuelans. We need to do more to impact policy in the America’s to benefit everyone.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar
THEN: “I have of course supported bringing in the new president and delegitimizing the Maduro government. You always leave things on the table.” (5/2/19)
NOW: “I have strongly opposed sending American forces into harm’s way in Venezuela without authorization from Congress. We should not put Americans at risk in this way without careful deliberation among the people’s elected representatives. Wars for regime change can lead to unintended consequences.”(1/3/26)
Sen. Chuck Schumer
THEN: “And the President brags about his Venezuela policy. Give us a break. He hasn’t brought an end to the Maduro regime. The Maduro regime is more powerful today and more entrenched today than it was when the President began.” (2/5/20)
NOW: “This is reckless. And the American people are just, this morning, in fear of what’s going to happen here.” (1/4/26)
what does "we're going to be running [Venezuela]" signal to you if not occupation?
What is different about this intervention in Latin America that makes you believe it will benefit Venezuela in the long term? All other interventions have had long term negative effects on the countries involved.
I would argue that you, and most of the Republican party, are conflating two ideals that don't belong together. Democrats believe that Maduro is an authoritarian who stole an election and shouldn't have been in power. I haven't seen much, if any, support and defense for Maduro himself but the right is spreading falsehoods that Democrats are pro-Maduro.
What the left is saying is that the president, Dept of Justice, and Dept of War (aka the executive branch) do not and should not have the authority to decide on their own that we can indict, capture, and return to the US a foreign leader. The Democrats are defending the rule of law and the sanctity of law, not Maduro as a person or leader.
The executive/leader of a nation should not be able to essentially kidnap a foreign leader from their home to try them for crimes without some sort of oversight and agreement from other governing bodies (ie Congress or even the UN).
It would be an identical situation if China decided to retaliate by indicting Donald Trump for crimes in China, bombing DC, and attempting to capture and fly Trump to Beijing. Or if Russia did it. Or Iran. Or any of Maduro's allies or our enemies.
And hey, you're in luck because we aren't fully occupying Venezuela. Trump has decided that Maduro's Vice President will remain in charge... His Vice President that, by definition, is also holding an illegitimate position but just got promoted to Numero Uno. Frankly, it doesn't really seem like Trump gives a damn if Venezuela is free or under authoritarian control as long as the US, led by Stephen Miller seemingly, has its fingers in the Venezuelan pie. And by pie I mean oil. Raw, crude oil that American oil companies are going to now be able to seize. After all, Trump did tell us that he tipped off American oil executives to the Maduro capture before it occurred. And he didn't even tell Congress.
What is your opinion on keeping, for lack of a better term, a pseudo-Maduro regime in charge while America focuses its efforts on the natural resources of Venezuela?
Biden did that with Hernandez. Obama did that with Bin Laden. Bush did that with Hussein. So, what's different now?
Juan Orlando Hernandez was extradited to the United States at the request of the DEA by Honduran police. He was then charged with his crimes.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-61174692
Bin Laden was killed at Obama's command under the protection of the Authorization to Use Military Force Act of September 18th, 2001 which allowed for the capture or killing of those responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ40/PLAW-107publ40.pdf
Saddam Hussein was captured during the Iraq War with the use of the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. He was then handed over to Iraqi authorities for conviction and trial.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-joint-resolution/114
What is different is that each of these presidents went through the proper channels in order to guarantee that their missions were carried out legally, safely, and with the knowledge and approval of the appropriate governing bodies (ie; Honduran officials, Congress, and Congress respectively.)
Is there anything like that for the capture of Maduro, to maintain the bare minimum amounts of responsibility and accountability?
Stop lying. Pakistan had no idea about our raid into their country to capture and/or kill Osama Bin Laden.
We had destroyed Iraq, and that "policy" of yours is only an American policy. We still kidnapped/captured the leader of that country and had him executed, and also killed his sons.
Hernandez was arrested in Mexico, and then Mexico extradited him to America. He didn't commit any crimes in America, but Hernandez was still arrested under the pretense of drug trafficking - just like Maduro.
You could just as easily say that what Trump did was definitely legal because of his executive order to do so. You did not demonstrate any differences. All you did was describe what happened.
So hypocritical. You guys look so stupid.
International law isn't the issue here. Domestic law is. American law appears to not grant the power to the president to kidnap or kill a head of state, legitimate or not, without a AUMF. Trump does not appear to have one or be getting one. An executive order is not a AUMF. So why do you think it is stupid to care about about perceived violations of law and order?
So wrong. So incorrect. The AUMF is the authorization that does make incursions like this legal. It doesn't prevent them. It permits them - just like it has over the past 25 years, in 22 different countries, and four administrations, so far.
Secondly, this goes back to the issue of Presidential immunity. Yes, Presidents are immune from certain laws that would prevent them from performing their duties and responsibilities of that role. For instance, the President cannot be arrested for accessory to murder, or solicitation of murder, for ordering soldiers to, say, kill Osama Bin Laden, or offer bounties against them.
If Congress feels that the President ever exceeds those powers, then they can impeach the President to remove those protections - which we saw Trump get impeached, but acquitted, twice during his first term.
I guess the warrants issued, and the 25 million dollar bounty the state department approved wasn't strong enough to make the results of those things legal?
"Although the crimes over which the United States has extraterritorial jurisdiction may be many, so are the obstacles to their enforcement. For both practical and diplomatic reasons, criminal investigations within another country require the acquiescence, consent, or preferably the assistance, of the authorities of the host country."
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RS22497#:~:text=Although%20the%20crimes%20over%20which,trials%20of%20depositions%20taken%20abroad.
According to Congressional documentation, no.
Why do you think President Trump wasn't willing to follow the procedures legally required of him to carry out an operation like this? And do you think it could set a harmful diplomatic precedent for President Trump to essentially kidnap a foreign leader in the name of law enforcement?
That documentation says specifically if those operations involve American citizens.
It then goes on to explain that we can pursue enforcement of our laws in cases of multi-jurisdictional crimes...
It also mentions the constitution supports enforcing American law for felonies committed on high seas.
That's not a great document to use to support your ideas or viewpoint. It's also just a report that obviously doesn't hold much weight.
Because all of the Presidents before him and after him since 2001 used the Authorization for Use of Military Force resolution. That gives the President alone the authority to do such things - just like how Bush, Obama, and Biden all did. It doesn't require Congress, or some random federal judge. The President, being the Commander in Chief, can just do it. Why is it okay for those other Presidents to all use it, but not Trump? Why are you so biased?
The AUMF was intended for use to target the perpetrators of 9/11. The presidents since its passage have used weak justifications to strike numerous targets either vaguely related to 9/11 or not related at all. I don't think this is okay. I think the AUMF should be repealed and war powers should go back to Congress rather than the president.
I'm not biased in my beliefs. I don't believe that Trump, Biden, Obama, or any future presidents should be able to make these types of decisions on their own.
However, Donald Trump and his administration claim that the strikes on Venezuela and the boat strikes are not acts of war but instead, acts of law enforcement which makes things increasingly muddy. (On purpose, IMO, because Trump doesn't want to be seen as starting a war after running a campaign on "no new wars")
The AUMF would not cover an act of law enforcement. But Trump wants to have it both ways. He wants the benefits of a law enforcement operation with none of its caveats and the benefits of a wartime operation with none of its caveats. And he's counting on enough support from MAGA voters to act as a shield against accountability for any sort of wrongdoing he may have committed over the course of this situation.
And now, the Senate has advanced a bill to block any future military action in Venezuela. Do you support this or would you want President Trump to continue military operations in the country?
Blah blah blah.
The AUMF has been repeatedly used by other Presidents for very similar circumstances and purposes as this. You are just suffering from confirmation bias, because there is no difference.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/new-doj-opinion-offers-legal-justification-maduro-seizure-officials-te-rcna253008
The Department of Justice has begun to tell Congresspeople their legal reasoning for why bringing in Maduro like this is legal. That would lead me to believe that no one has specified the AUMF is at all part of this decision.
Unless I just haven't seen this bit of news, has President Trump or his administration cited the AUMF as a factor in the determination of the legality of this matter at any point?
Do you realize none of this has anything to do with Maduro? Are there dictators in Greenland? How about dictators in Canada? Do you not realize ww3 has officially started unless they are stopped?
Did you reply to the wrong comment? Because mine was very pointedly about Maduro and Venezuela...
I apologize, I mixed two responses into one apparently? Am I the only one freaking out, watching news all night and not sleeping?
Can you explain what those quotes mean to you? I don't see how they are relevant or (presumably) hypocritical.
Question, for you personally, if it did come to require boots on the ground, would this affect your support for the issue & Trump?
At that point yes.
Do you really think this is about helping Venezuelans though? If it was, wouldn't we have installed the person they actually voted for in the last election? instead we've literally put Maduro's right-hand woman in charge. I'm perfectly fine with saying it's about oil and other resources and geopolitics, but to say that we care about the Venezuelan people seems like a stretch. What are your thoughts?
I am in favor of doing what serves America's interest.
There is literally is no such thing as international law since there is no enforcement mechanism for it. Yes I know you could point at things that call themselves international law, but they are toothless.
Venezuela was providing facilities and resources for our enemies. Iran, Russia and China it had to be a stopped.
Does a country doing business with our enemies give us the right to depose their leader? Granted - Maduro was an illegitimate leader. Perhaps that is what justifies the action. Or is it both of these facts in combination that makes the action justifiable?
Or perhaps you think neither illegitimacy of leader nor dealings with foreign adversaries should be considered at all, and a country should simply depose a foreign leader if it’s in their interest?
Military aid and bases of operation? Yeah, we are going to stop that shit.
Could you be more specific about what facilities/resources were being provided for Iran/Russia/China that are no longer being provided now that Maduro has been removed?
That still remains to be seen. What is certain is, we had no levers to stop it before we arrested Maduro. Now we do.
What exactly did we want to stop, and what levers do we now have to stop it that we didn’t before?
I don't support the actions and I would prefer that we leave them alone, but to answer the questions you actually asked: no and no. The alternative is what, that international law is literally morally binding? I find that incomprehensible. I'm America First, not UN first.
But is it really moral to impede sovereignty of another nation? Like shouldn’t United States as most powerful nation on Earth be most moral one too? Like would it be ok for you to hurt another family just to benefit your own?
I am not on principle opposed to violating the sovereignty of another country. I'm sure you have a good enough imagination (or knowledge of history!) to come up with examples where you think this would be appropriate as well.
The question you're asking me doesn't follow, unless you literally think that the highest moral value is not interfering with another country. I think it's extremely unlikely that this is your actual belief, though. Is it?
Well, so I take you don’t agree with the belief “There is no us vs them, only us. ALL HUMANs!”
I take you disagree with it, right? Personally, I think this should be pledge of EVERY US president. But I take you disagree?
No, the American president should put America first. Anything else is a massive betrayal, comparable to a husband who doesn't put his wife and kids above strangers.
But maybe he shouldn’t do it at foreigners expanse? How about policies that are GREAT for Americans and completely harmless and/or NEUTRAL for foreigners? Like, you would benefit your family at expanse of another family, would you?
I agree that there are moral limits here. I'm just saying that if our interests conflict, then we have to take our own side (as opposed to "we must literally weigh the well-being of every single person on Earth equally").
Great points. Could you please tell me full Venezuela story and how does taking their oil save American lives? If it does, you have me convinced!
I don't think it does save American lives or serve our interests, which is why I started my original post by saying I don't support it.
Well thank you for this discussion! Curiously, how will buying Greenland serve US interests?
It's not lawfulness but constitutionality. The supreme court will decide that but it will not be relevant. There is a national security mandate that applies to Venezuela. Russia was building weapons factories there and China was extracting oil in violation of US sanctions.
I'm not concerned.
it wasn't illegal.
And when China uses the same logic to kidnap the president of Taiwan due to his sedition against China?
And when they take over the country?
Or how is this different than Russia’s excuse with Ukraine?
You are so naive on global politics and peoples' psychology. Look, all through human history, whoever was speaking at the time decided who were the "good guys" and who were the "bad guys". And, through experience, we have decided, as a collective, which forms of government are "good", and which forms are "bad".
But, except if you are the leaders of those countries, then you see yourself as the good guy.
If someone commits a crime, why do we even have a trial for them? It's because we have to be judged, by our peers, on the context and reason for whatever we did. Murder is usually fine, as long as it is in self-defense.
No nuance at all with you, huh?
For your retort to have any legitimacy, you would have to defend communism in China, and Putin's regime in Russia. Ridiculous.
I’m saying that the excuse that “no one can stop me so it’s okay”
Or
“It’s okay by MY rules, screw what international laws I break”
Is exactly what Russia has been doing in the Ukraine and now opens the door for China to do so in Taiwan.
It’s the fact that Russia and China also see themselves as in the right and if the USA can violate international sovereignty whenever we feel like it, they will also.
It doesn’t mean I think they are right, just that it gives them more leverage to do so doesn’t it?
The difference is the situation and what the people of the country wanted. I understand your point on the macro but the micro matters. The people of Venezuela did not want this leadership and voted heavily against it. As for the macro, yes very similar in that it’s directly a strategic advantage for each country relatively as well as its proximity.
According to Trump, the American people did not want Biden in 2020 and that the 2020 election was rigged.
Do you think Trump would have supported say China or Russia kidnapping Biden to get Trump into power?
They can try if they want.
Did you mean to imply that there would be a challenge from somebody other than Taiwan itself?
Yes, we'd most likely slap them down for it.
Given Trump's total lack of regard for the US's allies so far, what gives you the confidence that this time would be different?
Is there anyone or any authority, if they ruled it was an illegal action, that you would acknowledge and subsequently change your position? Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm assuming you're not an expert in whatever laws are relevant here, so perhaps an expert body would know more than you?
In short, what I'm asking is, if it was in fact illegal, would you care? Would that matter to you?
It depends. I might concede if a ruling came from the Supreme Court, but we can see from recent appointees that unfortunately they also can be incredibly stupid if enough activists are assigned the right spots in government.
Domestically, does Trump not need a AUMF to conduct strikes against another nation? What legal ability does he have to act unilaterally?
There’s precedent for this… we captured Noriega in a similar manner and put him on trial and he was sentenced for time. Panama then transitioned to a stable democracy.
I think it’s perfectly legal.
The lawfulness/legality is my only real question mark. Certainly we snatch people all the time; certainly Maduro deserved to be snatched; certainly a strong move in terms of real geopolitics; certainly it was executed well. If Maduro were a legitimate head of state? .... but he isn't, he's one of those "threats to democracy" I hear so much about, a gangster, a thug. Certainly Venezuelan people seem happy he's gone, but.... does all of that add up to "oh yeah, you can just snatch him," I don't know. Generally international law boils down to "if you can, you can," and certainly, we CAN, but I don't know.
The Trump administration is justifying it by saying that he is indicted in our country. Whether a legitimate ruler or not, Maduro was the head-of-state of another country. Using Trump's own reasoning, does that mean if another country indicted our president they could legally justify just snatching and extraditing him in the middle of the night?
Exactly the question mark I'm talking about. I don't know. I don't have any issues with the raid except for this aspect. In fairness the Monroe Doctrine has been policy for 200 years, but we don't usually act on it quite like this. I don't know.
The Monroe Doctrine was specifically about ending the colonization of South and Central American countries by European powers. I see lots of Trump supporters using this doctrine as justification for us seizing control of Venezuela, but I just don't see it. To me, it feels like we're the colonizers now; that this defensive doctrine is being twisted and misused in a self-dealing way to justify taking over another country and seizing its assets to satisfy our own lust for oil. Does that make sense?
Exactly. We usually feel confident as a nation that we hold the moral high ground when we take action on the international stage, and I feel that same unease as you do that we do not have the moral high ground here.
We could've shot Maduro dead on the spot and we would still have the moral high ground. The legal high ground is the only thing I'm not sure about.
To the rest, again I repeat, exactly.
No. No. Yes. No.
I'm never going to feel sorry for holding a fascist aka leftist like Maduro accountable for his actions.
Also, maduro is on record inviting trump to come get him.
Can you explain how fascism is synonymous with leftist to you?
Because history has proven fascism comes from the left. In fact, there hasn't ever been a single instance of fascism coming from the right in history.
Fascism is the final form of socialism/communism. Once those command market systems breakdown (which they always do) the government moves to fascism to stay in power which is exactly what maduro did.
[removed]
... yeah the leader of the national SOCIALIST party? What about him..
[removed]
Wow, it's been a long time since I've seen someone attempt this talking point.
Okay, so why would a socialist's first major order in office be using his paramilitary force (presumably also socialist) to extrajudicially purge leftists from government, effectively kneecapping his power?
Leftists or was it people who were openly against him? Do you see how the actual facts change what you're claiming?
Leftists, regardless if they openly criticized him. Meanwhile he was openly praised from the right, what "socialist" gets praised by conservatives?
Do you see how you proved yourself wrong? It doesn't matter where they were aligned. They were locked up because they openly criticized him. Remember, it's important to learn history and be honest about it.
They were not locked up because they were socialists. That is a fact.
Who said they were locked up? Hitler had them executed.
Rule 1 does not give you free reign to talk down on us, especially after outing yourself as lacking historical facts.
Have you ever heard of Pastor Martin Niemöller? He wrote a rather well-known poem that would explain a bit, if you're actually interested in learning about the topic you should read it and look into the context.
(Not the OP)
Yeah we've all heard of his goofy ass poem. It should start with a line that says "first they campaigned on doing all the things I'm about to complain about...then I voted for them enthusiastically". How anyone can find this poem to be moving is incomprehensible to me.
Have you asked your Jewish friends how they feel about the poem?
No. What do you think they would say?
Edit: I'm genuinely curious here. I get why Jews would find the intended message of the poem to be politically/ethnically/religiously advantageous and a sentiment that they would like to encourage. They could agree with that and also agree with what I wrote, though. There is no contradiction!
Can you give me some of your own possible examples?
Because even surface level research about textbook fascist states in history (Nazi-Germany, Italy, Francoist Spain) says that they were authoritarian, ultranationalists and anti-communist so it sort of feels like you are trying to tell me “up” is actually “down” with no real evidence to back it up.
"Because even surface level research about textbook"
You mean propaganda written by leftist.
Yeah, they don't get to decide history. People's actions get to decide history.
For example, you said nazi-germany... you mean when the leader of the national SOCIALIST party ruled?
Your username is Trump drains the swamp but do you truly believe that has happened?
Do you believe North Korea is a Democratic Republic?
So we cant go off of historical evidence, because written history is leftist propaganda, but we can say Nazis were actually Socialists because they called themselves that even though they identified and exterminated the socialists that they could and every other characteristic of the regime was fascist? Thats a rational and intelligent thought process?
"So we cant go off of historical evidence,"
why can't we?
" because written history is leftist propaganda"
yea but what does that have to do with historical evidence? You're not making any sense now .
You’re the one that seems confused here,
Historical evidence are things documented through laws, institutions, government records, leaders writings etc. and we have these for fascist states in history.
This is how we know about them, this is how we know things like how they were anti-socialist and actually targeted socialists/communist, which directly contradicts your claim that fascists are actually socialists.
That isnt theoretical or inferred, it’s proven fact. Or maybe you just call this leftist propaganda because it proves you wrong?
Does it worry you that you fit the stereotype of stupidity for Trump supporters with this nonsense?
Hey I’m curious! Do you have any sources where you find the Nazis described as the left or socialists?
I’m wondering because every historical source shows Hitler aligned conservative, and acting against communists, socialists and leftists, actually killing, jailing, and banning them and removing democracy from Germany.
As you said, history is determined by actions, not labels.
So in spite of the inclusion of the word “socialist” in the name, which seems like a holdover from before Hitler joined the party (which had been formed a year or two before he joined) what actions do you think make Nazis from “the left,” and do you have any links I could read showing this perspective?
Here’s a quote from encyclopedia Britannica:
“Hitler allied himself with leaders of German conservative and nationalist movements, and in January 1933 German President Paul von Hindenburg appointed him chancellor. Hitler’s Third Reich had been born, and it was entirely fascist in character. Within two months Hitler achieved full dictatorial power through the Enabling Act. In April 1933 communists, socialists, democrats, and Jews were purged from the German civil service, and trade unions were outlawed the following month. That July Hitler banned all political parties other than his own, and prominent members of the German Communist Party and the Social Democratic Party were arrested and imprisoned in concentration camps. Lest there be any remaining questions about the political character of the Nazi revolution, Hitler ordered the murder of Gregor Strasser, an act that was carried out on June 30, 1934, during the Night of the Long Knives. Any remaining traces of socialist thought in the Nazi Party had been extinguished.”
https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists
Can you give examples of socialist policies implemented by Hitler and the National Socialist party?
Was Pinochet a leftist?
No, he overthrew a fascist leader.
Fascism: "a populist political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual, that is associated with a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, and that is characterized by severe economic and social regimentation and by forcible suppression of opposition" - from Webster.
Nation above the individual ... This gets confused with "Nationalism" - which is the Nation of individuals above other nations, not above the individual. Honestly this doesn't fit broadly either party in the US, the Republicans are pro Nation, but also pro individual liberty. The democrats appear to be all other nations / globalism above the individual. However Maduro definitively held "his" nation above its own individuals.
Centralized autocratic government - This is far more inline with the democrats / progressives here in the Unites states that want big government that manages everything - regulates all aspects of your life (from vehicles, to property rights, to what kind of stove you can by, where you buy your groceries, etc etc). Also very much the definition of Maduro's government.
Dictatorial leader - doesn't fit the US but definitely fits Maduro.
Economic and social regimentation. Since this is a Maduro thread - is there ANY question this was his style, really? As for synonymous with leftist: the democrat's censorship campaign that really ramped up against conservatives and anything COVID, progressive taxes, the entire woke rule set, regulation of everything mentioned above.
Just the tip of the iceberg so to speak, but ya every time I hear someon call Trump and his supporters I have to laugh. The only trait even close is Nationalism, and as stated above Trump's kind of Nationalism (and that of myself) is not above the individual citizens of said nation.
When you're dealing with military action against a foreign power the lawfulness doesn't really matter. International law is nothing like law within a country. It's just a series of treaties, and countries can choose whether or not to abide by treaties or to try to enforce treaties on a case by case basis.
I don't support the move, but "legality" is nowhere near why I disagree with the actions.
I don't agree with regime change operations. That being said, domestically this is entirely legal so far. Internationally with the rules-based order, anything America does is allowable.
So doing this without the approval of Congress (illegal) is acceptable? Letting oil executives know before Congress is acceptable?
No approval needed for a short term action. Trump can notify who he wants to as the head of the executive branch.
Congressional approval is not needed for military actions shorter than ( I Think ) 48 hours
idk, dude. Rolling over and not taking care of our hemisphere leaves us sitting ducks to China and Russia. If they start playing by the rules, then maybe we can leave Cuba alone.
Venezeula isn't a country. You can't have war with it. It's basically unclaimed territory. Russia and China are countries. We have to win our conflict with them while preventing war. And by that I mean real war, with real weapons like nukes.
China takes Hong Kong, Russia takes Ukraine, we take Venezeula, Cuba, and Greenland.
Im curious about what you think constitutes a country?
A country that competes in a Great Power struggle. Mostly requires nukes, but Japan gets in mainly because they've been hit by nukes, so that counts.
... so you're saying there's only about 9 countries on the planet, and the rest of the world is "unclaimed territory?"
Yeah, well, nine might be it.
There's China/Taiwan, Japan, India, Pakistan, the remains of the USSR in some fashion, the EU, Turkey, and some account of the remains of the British Empire, and the USA and Israel. So, yeah, I guess that's like 9. Libya, Iran, Korea, and South Africa are emerging or quasi-emerging states. I'd suggest Saudi Arabia is also a significant emerging player in a complex web with Qatar, Oman, Kuwait, Bahrain, and the UAE.
Everyone else is allowed to be a country because these players have collectively decided not to wipe them off the map. Brazil and Mexico might be the only exceptions.
It's not quite the terrifying world of 1984, where there's only three countries... but we are close.
What? Who told you that?
What makes Venezuela not a country? Would Venezuelans agree with your sentiment that they are living in “unclaimed territory”?
No nukes mainly.
They'd probably say they're living in the ruins of the Spanish Empire. They used to be a country, but then they fell apart.
Isn't that what the Mexican irredentists say? That LA and Colorado are part of New Spain and therefore ethnically hispanic?
But... none of the successors of New Spain have nukes! Too bad... when the Soviets were claiming Cuba, they almost got their first nukes, but Kennedy stopped them.
Was the United States not a country then, before 1945?
No, the rules changed at the end of WW2.
You probably posted right as I was adding a lot of detail to my comment. I think my new edits answer your question. Countries like the Spanish Empire were definitely countries even though they didn't have missiles or fighter jets.
Do you know what people from Latin America think about their nations? Venezuela has a 200+ year history, what makes you think they lack any sort of national awareness?
Suppose you don’t have any guns. Someone bursts into your house with an assault rifle and tells you that houses without guns in them aren’t owned by anyone, and thus he is legally allowed to take your house away from you. Do you accept this?
Venezuela's government wanted to become part of China's sphere of influence. Independance was never on the table.
We attacked later the same day as high level accession talks were occuring with China.
This is called the "Donroe Doctrine"
Do you believe that a country which is part of a sphere of influence lacks sovereignty? Would your answer have been the same in, say, 2010?
It's a question without a clear answer. The concept of client states, and suzerainty (cf. sovereignity), is a long standing issue in history. Even if you did have clear lines to follow, getting access to the real, honest data is itself a serious challenge.
War and international relations are messy.
Agreed there. But doesn’t self-determination go beyond de jure power relations? The British Empire was the most powerful country in the world, and yet American colonists believed they had more right to govern themselves than London did. Was the American Revolution illegitimate, since it went up against THE global superpower?
Should every sovereign nation be rushing to build their own nukes then?
Most developed nations have the technical capacity to have nukes within a decade if they put their backs into it. Even North Korea managed that. Should Denmark be responding to Trump's 'need' for Greenland by starting up a nuclear program? If an alliance as old as theirs with the US aren't having their territory respected.
Should any country under the U.S's nuclear umbrella, let alone outside of it, feel like their own sovereignty is safe? How about Columbia? Mexico? Etc etc
Well, there is definitely pressure to do so, right? To prove independence from the Great Powers and arm with nukes? And that's why N.Korea and Libya want nukes.
But, those countries need to be prepared to fight a war of independance to do so. They might get nuked in the process.
Cuba, for example, became part of the Soviet Union's sphere of influence, and then tried to get nukes. They failed, but even if they succeeded, they wouldn't have been indpendent. Just a Soviet puppet state.
Which brings us to the war in Ukraine. Is Ukraine a country? No body knows, there's a complicated nuke history there. So, the Russians invaded it to insist it was not, and the Europeans insist it is... or, perhaps more accurately, that it's part of the European Union.
And, no, as long as China and Russia continue to fight a great power war, no country is safe. America tries to let countries live peacefully and in harmony with everyone. That's why we're the good guys. But it isn't working. China took Hong Kong, is trying to take Venezeula and Panama, and we must stop that.
Yeah that's what NATO is supposed to be for. (mainly) the US promises to defend the sovereignty of its non-nuclear allies, and they don't get themselves nukes.
Which seems preferable to everyone having nukes. But it only works so long as everyone believes article 5 will be honoured and America ain't into some neocolonialism.
If not, well there are plenty of non nuclear countries with highly sophisticated defence sectors who could knock some warheads together.
Do you think that more nukes in more countries under the control of regimes of varying stability and sanity is likely to let us all remain un-nuked long-term? I don't.
Why stop at the Western Hemisphere? Why not assert dominion over the Northern Hemisphere also?
Also, wasn't the handover of Hong Kong a) from the United Kingdom not the United States, and b) fully planned and agreed to by both parties as the end of the UK's lease? Can you explain how that's in the same ballpark here?
Finally, where did you come up with this notion about what makes a country? I'd like to learn more about the theory if it's something more than your own idea.
It's called realpolitik. It's essential for understanding Putin. He literally has said Ukraine is not a country.
You're talking about the 1999 handover. I'm talking about the 2021? political take over. The 1999 was one country, two systems. The recent one used force to become one country, one system.
Asserting over the Northern Hemisphere, yes, so, that'd probably be best seen in the collapse of the USSR. That was the American victory in the Cold War. However, Putin has been challenging that in Ukraine, and China has been adding to its sphere of influence in the Pacific, in Africa, and in Latin America.
In a way, the end of WW2 followed by the end of the Cold War was the American conquest of the "Northern Hemisphere"... except Putin was the one man who stopped it, with Georgia and then Ukraine. Of course, I'm being a little generous with terms here.
I believe it was a legal law enforcement action.
Who makes "international law"? Do we get to vote for them?
Possibly. But I don't doubt that there was a comprehensive legal analysis and finding that this is legal. They don't have to share it with us.
The Supreme Court.
Are you not aware how international law is made?
Not at all. What international law am I under? Who makes it? Where can I read it? Who will arrest me if I violate it?
I don’t know if I’m allowed to answer questions but… It all depends what country you’re in and what treaties, conventions, and agreements your country agree to. The international community makes it, we come together and agree to laws that will create a more diplomatic and cooperative world. A simple Google search will help, the UN.org website will also help. Again it depends on your country or what country you’re in, there’s no direct enforcement agency but usually the international community works together to alert each other of violations and the country decides what to do from there… does that help?
It all sounds pretty nebulous.
I can agree with that, most, international law is non-binding, it’s up to the individual country to decide to be a part of the agreement or to even enforce it. USA has signed but not ratified some major agreements (Rome Statute, CRC, etc), but we still follow the agreement or have protections that go beyond the agreement. It really depends on your country. Overall, International Law is designed to keep us all talking and cooperating rather than jumping to armed conflict over disputes, does that help?
(Sorry i just don’t want to trigger a ban because I’m not asking a question)
From an international law perspective, I don't perceive international law as constitutive to and therefore binding on the political community in which I live (the United States), therefore I don't care whether something the United States did could be evaluated as legal or illegal from that perspective. This is of course true for all the members of the UN Security Council, all of whom enjoy veto immunity.
From the perspective of US law, I don't believe sufficient notice was given to Congress to make the actions in Venezuela "legal" to the letter of the law. However, legality flows from the purpose or spirit of the law, which is to preserve the Republic. I believe Maduro needed to go, and that his relationships with China and Russia were existential issues (on however long a fuse) for the United States. Also, as a purely practical matter, the War Powers Act appears to contemplate a much larger military action, not a targeted operation. Providing notice to Congress would have resulted in a much bloodier and possibly much less successful result.
I don't see any lawfulness issues. I do not recognize any "international law" that was made without representation - I did not elect those that wrote the "law". The UN is worthless indeed, and is a waste of time and money IMO.
Most of those in this country that are complaining about Trumps actions in Venezuela complained he didn't do this, or outright called for this action under other presidents - they're just upset that Trump did something good, and have to work to paint the "orange man bad".
El Presidente Maduro says it's illegal to steal El Presidentes from Venezuela.
Hope this helps!