Rep. Jim Himes says Maduro capture is "clearly illegal under international law"
Source: CBS News
January 4, 2026 / 2:16 PM EST
Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said Sunday that the operation to capture former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro was "clearly illegal under international law," while pointing to broader implications.
"Think of what Russia and China just learned," Himes said on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan." "Russia and China just learned that all you need to do if you want to go into Estonia is to say that the leader of Estonia is a bad person. You don't even need to make a particularly good case."
The U.S. carried out airstrikes in Venezuela and captured Maduro early Saturday morning. He arrived Saturday night at a detention center in New York City, where he is set to be arraigned Monday on federal charges related to drug trafficking and working with gangs designated as terrorist organizations. Maduro has denied the charges.
President Trump and his administration have lauded the operation to bring the "outlaw dictator" to justice. But Himes said "there's no national security expert saying that Venezuela was a mortal threat to the United States." "So what China and Russia just learned is that the beacon of liberty and rule of law in the world has now green lighted snatch-and-grab operations in Estonia, in Taiwan, wherever Xi and Putin decide they want to go next," Himes said.
Read more: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jim-himes-maduro-capture-clearly-illegal-face-the-nation/
Lovie777
(21,765 posts)every shit this current administration plus Republican Party have done be it within or outside of the USA is extremely suspect. Laws international and USA have been split on.
wiggs
(8,684 posts)an unprecedented commitment to self-dealing and grift. Shoot first, ask questions later.
Much of the top layers of NSA, DHS, and CIA has been booted. What makes ANYONE assume TSF and WH can all of a sudden become knowledgable and competent, giving this situation the best chance of not being disastrous? Why discuss and analyze these actions in the MSM without first stating that the US and the world have no confidence in the WH decision making? What assume the best when it has been proven that the worst is more likely?
nilram
(3,471 posts)Occupy our own US cities? "Posse comitatus, schmossee comitatus."
3825-87867
(1,806 posts)I understood he's only immune from "OFFICIAL ACTS"
from Wikipedia:
Overview of the Immunity Ruling
On July 1, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a significant ruling regarding presidential immunity in the case of Trump v. United States. The Court decided that former presidents have a presumption of immunity from criminal prosecution for actions related to their official duties. This ruling was made in a 6-3 decision.
Key Points of the Ruling
Immunity Scope
Absolute Immunity: The Court established that presidents have absolute immunity for acts performed within their core constitutional powers, such as military command and law execution.
Presumptive Immunity: There is a presumption of immunity for official acts that fall within the outer perimeter of a president's responsibilities.
No Immunity for Unofficial Acts: The ruling clarified that presidents do not have immunity for actions that are deemed unofficial or personal.
Implications for Trump
The ruling allows for the possibility that charges against Donald Trump, related to his actions during the 2020 election, can proceed if they are based on his unofficial conduct.
The case was sent back to lower courts to determine whether Trump's alleged actions were official or unofficial, which may delay any trial.
Reactions to the Ruling
Criticism: The decision has faced backlash from legal experts and politicians who argue it undermines accountability and sets a dangerous precedent for future presidents.
Support: Some commentators believe the ruling does not grant unchecked power to the presidency and emphasizes the need for careful legal interpretation in future cases.
This ruling marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing legal discussions surrounding presidential powers and accountability.
Seems like Supine Court Toilet Paper!
Polybius
(21,513 posts)It could be argued that anything a President orders is official.
Beartracks
(14,352 posts)DJ Synikus Makisimus
(1,184 posts)ImmigrantsWGTJD
(6 posts)*rump learned from Putin - probably discussed this with him. China is the one that is rubbing their hands on this one. What leg do we have to stand on now?
popsdenver
(1,562 posts)the Republican's wholly owned subsidiary, the US Supreme Court, disagrees with Himes.
Haven't heard yet from the U.N. and Hague.....
We have the very best Politicians and Justices that the Republicans can buy, and own.....
And, I think this invasion, proves once and for all, that the Republicans now own the U.S. Military.....
Their Coup of the Military appears to be complete......
Aussie105
(7,652 posts)Sending in forces to a foreign country, bombing their capital, killing civilians, kidnapping people 'of interest', all in a surprise attack is illegal!
And a sham trial on US soil to follow!
Who would have thought?
Other countries are watching, and some are drawing some major conclusions from this.
Where to from here, should be the real question.
25th?