FLASH
Shkruar nga Pamfleti
Officially, the operation is presented as limited to the removal of Maduro. But the very fact that strikes were carried out within the country's territory, a circumstance that had previously been considered illegal without parliamentary authorization, calls this narrative into question.
The American attack on Venezuela is opening a serious debate over the legality of the intervention, as the Trump administration itself had previously admitted that ground strikes on Venezuelan territory required approval from Congress.
On November 2, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles told Vanity Fair that any ground military action in Venezuela would constitute an act of war and, as such, would require authorization from the United States Congress. Donald Trump administration officials privately conveyed the same message to lawmakers just days later, acknowledging that there was no legal basis for strikes on ground targets in Venezuela.
Yet, just two months later, the administration did exactly what it had said it could not do: it launched a large-scale attack inside Venezuela and arrested President Nicolás Maduro, without any approval from Congress.
Officially, the operation is presented as limited to the removal of Maduro. But the very fact that strikes were carried out inside the country's territory, a circumstance that had previously been considered illegal without parliamentary authorization, calls this narrative into question. According to CNN, the administration had requested a new legal opinion from the Department of Justice in November to justify such an action.
Doubts deepened even further after Trump's statements at the press conference, where he spoke not only about arresting Maduro, but also about "ruling" Venezuela and taking control of its oil, which clearly suggests that the operation went beyond a simple police action.
Legally questionable strikes on foreign countries are not unknown in American history, but even in this context, the case of Venezuela is considered exceptional, due to the lack of transparency and coherence in the reasoning.
The Trump administration has not yet presented a clear legal framework for the attack and, in all likelihood, has not notified Congress in advance, which usually constitutes the procedural minimum in such cases.
The justifications have changed over time. Republican Senator Mike Lee said that Secretary of State Marco Rubio told him that the strike was necessary to “protect forces executing the arrest warrant” for Maduro. This was presented as part of the president’s authority under Article II of the Constitution to protect American personnel from an imminent threat.
Then, Vice President JD Vance argued that Maduro was facing multiple narco-terrorism indictments in the US and could not escape justice. Rubio reinforced this line, calling the intervention “support for a law enforcement function.”
But experts point out that the US does not typically launch military strikes against other countries to arrest indicted individuals, even when they are facing federal charges.
At various stages, the administration has cited the war on drug traffickers as justification, then the claim that Venezuela had sent "dangerous elements" to the US, and finally Trump himself openly declared the intention to recover "the oil, land and assets that were stolen from us."
So vague was the official line that even hardline Senator Lindsey Graham acknowledged in December that the administration lacked clarity in its message. “If the goal is to remove him from power because he poses a threat to the United States, then say so. And what happens next?” he said.
Essentially, the attack on Venezuela is being seen less and less as a legal action and more and more as a dangerous precedent, where military force is used without parliamentary approval and without a solid basis in international law. / Adapted from “CNN”
Lini një Përgjigje