Trump’s kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and statements that the U.S. administration will “run” the foreign nation, are driving a number of legal experts to call the escapade an “illegal and criminal” action.
The midnight raid kidnapped Maduro as well as his wife, and transported them to New York, where they soon faced charges of narco-terrorism conspiracy, among other claims.
In a previous article, the Spark pointed out that Trump’s principal charge – that Maduro worked with the Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua (TDA), in a drug-funneling scheme to ‘destroy America’ – is fanciful, but obviously untrue. The Spark added that Trump’s own spy networks tell him that Maduro was not working with the gang in any capacity. When possible, he even worked to attack the group and put its members in prison – hardly the action of a partner.
“[Redacted] Venezuelan intelligence, military and police services view TDA as a security threat [Redacted],” declared an eye-opening Intelligence Assessment memo sent to Trump last March, “and operate against it in ways that make it highly unlikely the two sides would cooperate in a strategic or consistent way, according to [Redacted] and press reporting [Redacted]. In late January, at least two Venezuelan National Guard units arrested TDA members in Venezuela in separate operations,” continued the intelligence memo.
Since Maduro was not working with TDA, the chief, fevered rationale for the kidnappings fall to the ground. And since Trump also knew his rationale was without evidence or merit, the kidnappings are deliberate international crimes.
Legal experts agree that the kidnappings of a foreign president and his wife on disproven claims is a stunningly obvious crime.
“This is clearly a blatant, illegal and criminal act,” declared Jimmy Gurule, a professor at the Notre Dame Law School and former assistant United States attorney.
In fact, these experts further have stated that the aggressive escalation surpasses even the fruitless nation-building and Easter egg hunt for WMD in Iraq. The “extraordinary development followed a surprise U.S. incursion that reportedly rocked the Venezuelan capital with overnight explosions,” declared an article in the Independent.
Michael Schmitt, a U.S. Naval War College professor emeritus and a former Air Force lawyer, declared Trump’s entire activity against Venezuela – the Maduro kidnapping, the earlier bombings of boats (also based on questionable evidence) – blatantly violates international law.
“Lawyers call it international armed conflict,” declared Schmitt. “Lay people call it war. So as a matter of law,” continued Schmitt, “we are now at war with Venezuela because the use of hostilities between two states clearly triggers an internal armed conflict.”
It is a war without authorization from Congress – a potential violation of the War Powers Resolution. That makes it different form a simple, ‘national security action.’
“Courts give great deference to the president on issues related to national security,” said Notre Dame’s Gurule. “But great deference does not mean absolute deference and unfettered authority to do anything.”
Johann Wadephul, Germany’s Foreign Minister, declared during a discussion between himself and Deutschlandfunk public radio “that the US must explain to the international community the legal basis for its intervention,” according to Deutsche Welle (DW).
Christoph Safferling, an international legal expert at the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, goes farther.
“The US has violated the prohibition of the use of force under international law,” stated Safferling, “as guaranteed in Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter. According to this, states must respect each other’s political independence and territorial sovereignty,” he informed DW via a written statement.
Only an act of self-defense – as defined by the UN Charter’s Article 51 – may serve as a justification for the employment of force against another country, said DW, apparently using the written statement from Safferling as its source.
“But for that, Venezuela would have to have launched an ‘armed attack’ against the US, which was not the case,” wrote Safferling. “Drug trafficking does not justify using force.”
Safferling openly calls Maduro’s seizure a kidnapping.
“Capture pursuant to a US arrest warrant is possible in principle, but not in an international context,” wrote Safferling. “Such action may only be taken with the express consent of the Venezuelan government or by the Venezuelan authorities themselves,” he added.
“Neither of these conditions was met, which means that the capture was unlawful and therefore constitutes kidnapping,” wrote Safferling.
How will this play out on the international stage is anyone’s guess. But a president may only perform so many international crimes before the world starts hitting back, as Russia proved with its equally unlawful invasion of Ukraine.
