Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

AStern

(693 posts)
Sat Jan 3, 2026, 05:06 PM Saturday

The New Yorker: The Brazen Illegality of Trump's Venezuela Operation

What is the legal basis, such as it is, for this action?

A scholar of international law on the implications of the U.S. arrest of President Nicolás Maduro.

Unfortunately, I don’t think there is a legal basis for what we’re seeing in Venezuela. There are certainly legal arguments that the Administration is going to make, but all the arguments that I’ve heard so far don’t hold water. None of them really justify what the President seems to have ordered to take place in Venezuela.

What are the arguments that you’ve heard from either people in the Administration or from their supporters?

We’re 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 doesn’t 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 it’s 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, don’t fall within anything that anyone would recognize as self-defense under international law. Self-defense generally requires that there’s actually an armed attack. And it seems like they’re 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 couldn’t 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, “We’re 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 shouldn’t have to wait for the Security Council to authorize a use of force in order to defend ourselves if we’re 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. It’s the new rule. Why couldn’t you make the same argument about communicable diseases?

There’s 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 there’s any limit evaporates. I mean, yes, drugs are horrific. Do they cause loss of life in the United States? Absolutely. There’s no doubt about that. It’s 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 they’ve been saying for a while now—that he’s not the legitimate leader of the country, that they don’t 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 don’t 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
13 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The New Yorker: The Brazen Illegality of Trump's Venezuela Operation (Original Post) AStern Saturday OP
Add to that, a lot of people are dying from gun violence, LisaL Saturday #1
Rules and laws don't matter nohow. Aussie105 Saturday #2
trump keeps testing the water to see what he can get away with ecstatic Saturday #3
If he does this again and again with other countries mysteryowl Saturday #4
I HOPE there's a limit to what the world will put up with. calimary Saturday #11
He already talking about Mexico mysteryowl Saturday #13
Who's going to hold him accountable? IronLionZion Saturday #5
If I was on Maduros jury... RainCaster Saturday #6
Even their official rational doesn't hold up, because fentanyl isn't coming from Venezuela Martin Eden Saturday #7
tRump is not the legitimate leader of the US AKwannabe Saturday #8
He's resisting! BidenRocks Saturday #9
Yep, and he has thirty-four felonies Grim Chieftain Saturday #10
It's utterly galling. calimary Saturday #12

LisaL

(47,358 posts)
1. Add to that, a lot of people are dying from gun violence,
Sat Jan 3, 2026, 05:09 PM
Saturday

but we don't see republicans wanting to do anything to prevent gun violence, do we?

Aussie105

(7,654 posts)
2. Rules and laws don't matter nohow.
Sat Jan 3, 2026, 05:18 PM
Saturday

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)
3. trump keeps testing the water to see what he can get away with
Sat Jan 3, 2026, 05:43 PM
Saturday

Apparently, he can do anything he wants. He's grabbing the entire world by the pussy now.

mysteryowl

(8,078 posts)
4. If he does this again and again with other countries
Sat Jan 3, 2026, 06:53 PM
Saturday

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

(89,047 posts)
11. I HOPE there's a limit to what the world will put up with.
Sat Jan 3, 2026, 08:42 PM
Saturday

Haven’t seen that theory tested yet, though.

mysteryowl

(8,078 posts)
13. He already talking about Mexico
Sat Jan 3, 2026, 10:03 PM
Saturday


I would support a country taking care of our trump problem.

IronLionZion

(50,830 posts)
5. Who's going to hold him accountable?
Sat Jan 3, 2026, 06:58 PM
Saturday

And how would we feel if another country did that in the US? (for a normal president, not this idiot)

Martin Eden

(15,366 posts)
7. Even their official rational doesn't hold up, because fentanyl isn't coming from Venezuela
Sat Jan 3, 2026, 07:14 PM
Saturday

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.

calimary

(89,047 posts)
12. It's utterly galling.
Sat Jan 3, 2026, 08:44 PM
Saturday

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?

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The New Yorker: The Braze...