I get that both involved removing indicted leaders. But the similarities end there. Everything else is different, including the objectives. There have been ~80 reported casualties, and while I hope this is the end of it, assuming so would be foolish given what has already happened and what the POTUS continues to say publicly about running Venezuela, controlling its oil, and threatening other countries in the Western Hemisphere. In Panama, the objective was not simply to arrest Noriega. The U.S. goal was to end his control of the state by defeating the PDF, protect US nationals and the Panama Canal, restore the annulled 1989 election, and then bring Noriega to justice. The action was justified based on a direct attack on US personnel, escalating harassment of US forces, and explicit treaty obligations under the 1977 Torrijos–Carter Treaties. Those treaties also required the US to leave Panama, which it ultimately did. The canal remained operational, the US did not retain or exploit the asset, did not attempt to run Panama's government, and exited relatively quickly without a long-term occupation. In Venezuela, none of those conditions exist. There is no treaty, no shared infrastructure, no comparable legal obligation, and no longstanding US military presence creating a duty to protect civilians or strategic assets. The administration's stated objectives have been internally inconsistent. The POTUS has publicly described the operation in terms of running the country and controlling its oil, while senior officials like SoS have characterized it as limited pressure or a law-enforcement-style action and denied that the US is governing Venezuela. Those are materially different claims. That contradiction matters because the legal justification depends on which description is accurate. A limited strike or arrest operation is very different from asserting control over a sovereign state or its resources. And if this were truly just a law enforcement operation to arrest one individual, it is difficult to explain why roughly 80 people were reportedly killed, including civilians and members of security forces. I suspect the senior officials understand how unpopular the POTUS view is and are trying to politically protect him, but either aren't willing or aren't capable of reining him in. The inconsistency also matters morally. A defensive response to an attack on U.S. personnel is not the same as initiating force to arrest a foreign leader or seize control of another country's resources. If the objective is regime change or resource control, the moral footing is far weaker. You say the main objective was to capture Maduro and bring him to justice. But the POTUS himself has repeatedly stated the objective is to run Venezuela and control its oil. US military forces remain deployed there. The administration is threatening the current (VP Rodriguez) Venezuelan leadership and has explicitly warned of or threatened military action against Cuba, Colombia, and has made similar statements regarding Greenland and the Panama Canal. SoS Rubio has declared that Cuba is "in a lot of trouble," the POUTS has threatened military action against Colombia over drug trafficking, and he continues to insist on taking control of Greenland and the Panama Canal, refusing to rule out military force. That does not resemble a limited law enforcement action... it looks like exactly what the POTUS says it is. Many people assumed this would remain limited because they thought he was bluffing. Even after Trump threatened Maduro, demanded he leave power, and claimed that Venezuela had stolen US oil and land that needed to be returned, the prevailing view was that none of this would actually happen. Senator Tim Kaine said Republican colleagues told him, "we think the president's bluffing" or "this is not really going to happen." That assumption was wrong. He acted, removed the leader, and has now explicitly stated that the US is running the country. The point is simple: take his words seriously. Panama and Venezuela are fundamentally different because the objectives in Panama were limited, legally grounded, and tied to specific conditions, whereas the stated objectives in Venezuela are open-ended, legally questionable, and morally weaker and part of a broader pattern of threats extending across the Western Hemisphere.
solid reporting gift link, no paywall Trump Was Skeptical of Ousting Maduro—Until He Wasn’t Fed up with repeated efforts to persuade Maduro to leave office, the president decided in favor of military action https://www.wsj.com/politics/trump-...4?st=As5Lp5&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
All the other things Trump said about controlling Venezuelan Oil can be ignored then? Trump threatening the now-in-charge Venezuelan VP that worse things would happen to her, if she did not do as Trumps says can be ignored then? How do you chose what Trump lie to believe?
BUT CHINA. COMMUSION. SOCIALISM. meanwhile: "The billionaire mega donor that just got control of Citgo. Our service members were used directly to move the interests of Trump’s donors."
I thought that the DoJ was seeking charges on violations of a 1930s gun law. [AP] Maduro says 'I was captured' as he pleads not guilty on drug trafficking charges A 25-page indictment made public Saturday accuses Maduro and others of working with drug cartels to facilitate the shipment of thousands of tons of cocaine into the U.S. They could face life in prison if convicted.
Right - and replace you with your VP…. In your same party… while said VP tells the world that the USA is a POS. Didn’t turn out to be the flex it seemed right after it happened.
If you are bored I highly recommend reading this indictment which reads almost more like a Trump Truth Social post than a legal indictment from a seasoned prosecutor. It's truly something. It begs the question that if you are serious about bringing Maduro to justice, why on earth would you do what the Trump regime has done here? If they are serious about trying him here in the US court system, why on earth would you bring this case in such an amateur flimsy way? The last thing needed is Maduro to walk Scott free, and now be out there in the streets of an American city making a fool of Trump. Bringing an indictment in this way makes that risk very real. If I was Rubio, or someone on the inside I would be trying like hell to extradite him to another country that is a bit more loose on the rule of law, and fair trials. Apparently the guy wasn't even read his Miranda rights. That alone is problematic for the prosecution.
I am surprised that Trump did not have Maduro sent to Gitmo. That removes the federal judiciary from the equation. Those pesky federal judges take their oath to uphold the Constitution seriously. ETA: The Maduro prosecution may be a bumpy ride for the DoJ.
I wonder how many people that were working at the MCC when Epstein "comitted suicide" got transfered to the MDC when the MCC was shut down and are now guarding Maduro. Sudden onset of suicidal depression in a distraught Maduro would certainly solve a bunch of the awkward problems surrounding the prosecution. According to Google, its like a 10 minute walk from one to the other.
Is Maduro the Head of State of Venezuela? Not according to the US, Mexico, Canada, All EU countries, Australia, NZ, Japan, and most Latin American Countries. What countries lead the charge for recognizing Maduro as legitimate? China, Russia, Iran, Syria, as well as three Latin American Countries: Cuba, Nicaragua, and Bolivia. What Latin American Countries did not recognize Maduro as the head of state? Argentina, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, Mexico, Brazil, and Columbia. Who issued the warrant for Maduro's arrest? The US DOJ along with Southern District of New York (SDNY) unsealed charges against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and other officials, accusing them of narco-terrorism, drug trafficking, corruption, and conspiracy to flood the U.S. with cocaine, alleging they used state resources to protect drug shipments linked to Colombia's FARC rebels in 2020. What was the reward for Maduro's capture? Initially the reward was $15 million under the Trump administration. Joe Biden raised the reward to $25 million to match the amount offered for Osama Bin Laden. This was done with additional restrictions and economic sanction from the EU, Canada and UK to thwart Maduro's power grabs and bring him to justice. Trump's second administration saw the reward raised to $50 million. Who was killed in the attack to arrest Maduro? Approx. 80 people were killed according to Venezuela, including ~30-40 Cuban soldiers charged with his defense. Where is Maduro now? Maduro is in custody in New York and has pleaded not guilty to all charges. His wife has also pleaded not guilty. They have requested consular consultation from the Venezuelan consulate as citizens of Venezuela. Maduro's attorney has asked for dismissal on account of Maduro still "being President" and "Head of State". Unfortunately, as mentioned, his legitimacy as head of state has not been recognized in the US, EU, Canada, Australia, NZ, Japan, and most Latin America countries.
