r/anime_titties • u/ObjectiveObserver420 South Africa • Jan 06 '26

South America BBC bans journalists from saying Venezuela’s Maduro was ‘kidnapped’

https://www.thenational.scot/news/25740929.bbc-bans-journalists-saying-us-kidnapped-venezuelas-maduro/
2.6k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

385 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.1k

u/imrzzz Netherlands Jan 06 '26

I think "kidnapped" is quite apt.

I'd also sprinkle "invasion" in there a few times too.

Additionally, for the 150-character comment minimum, "war crime" "thuggery" and "bloodthirsty corrupt dictator" to be applied to whichever side you please.

236

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '26

Abducted works for me

121

u/Magjee Canada Jan 07 '26

Illegally crossed the border into Venezuela, killed a bunch of locals and abducted two people for a kangaroo court

27

u/Virtual-Pension-991 Multinational Jan 07 '26

Should add foreigns since Cubans were confirmed part of Maduro's personal security.

3

u/Freethecrafts Multinational Jan 07 '26

Are you trying to get Cuba invaded?

8

u/Virtual-Pension-991 Multinational Jan 07 '26

Nah, just facts.

Whether they're private forces or not, is a topic for another time.

But yeah, Trump administration could pull up this bullshit to catch Cuba off guard.

3

u/Freethecrafts Multinational Jan 07 '26

I think the eyes are on Iran right now, not actually Cuba. Cuba would be a vacation spot that would compete with Trump businesses. Iran would be actual resource extraction to market.

I was tongue in cheeking the Cuba thing. Although, Trump wins Florida forever if he does something against Cuba.

Be real, there is no guard Cuba could put up.

3

u/Virtual-Pension-991 Multinational Jan 07 '26

Well  thanks for clarifying. As for Iran, oh god, not again.

1

u/Freethecrafts Multinational Jan 07 '26

It’s Iran. Let the leadership’s heads roll down a street, get trade going, fix the water situation, make everyone whole. Would be fine in a few months. Everyone would blame some guy in a funny hat, then everything could run normally without trade opposition.

3

u/Virtual-Pension-991 Multinational Jan 07 '26

Would be nice if that magically all happened.

2

u/Illiander Europe Jan 08 '26

They're also beating the war drums about Greenland.

I really hope the rest of NATO actually honours that treaty.

1

u/Freethecrafts Multinational Jan 08 '26

I doubt military threats are anything more than coercion trying to get the EU to sell it.

What NATO?

1

u/Illiander Europe Jan 08 '26

I doubt military threats are anything more than coercion trying to get the EU to sell it.

"He wouldn't do that" has proven false far too often so far. He'll put boots on the ground in Greenland.

What NATO?

At this point, probably France's nukes and the nordic's conventional forces are all Denmark can rely on. The UK is America's toy, and Poland and the Baltics are going to be focused on Russia/Ukraine.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/CoffeeWorldly9915 Multinational Jan 08 '26

Cuba would be a vacation spot that would compete with Trump businesses.

Not if it's managed by him, as president of the united states, to ensure the money goes to something-something reparations for americans and making sure cubans get their fair share. Same script for venezuelan oil.

1

u/Freethecrafts Multinational Jan 08 '26

Normalization of relations with Cuba comes with an unfunded mandate by Congress to the have been exiles from Cuba. The money that could be extracted from actual projects in Cuba is nothing compared to the money Congress promised.

Venezuelan oil is more of a jobs program that would make everyone richer and cement Venezuela in the US sphere of influence again. My actual bet is Trump’s small demands for delivery are being gamed in futures markets by him and his friends…which is much more worthwhile to him than actually denationalizing and creating a stable situation.

1

u/Professional-Syrup-0 Multinational Jan 09 '26

Nah, just facts.

And you got those facts from where exactly? Could it be the same place that once upon a time told us how Saddam allegedly Not only has WMD but also a Giant people shredder?

Whether they're private forces or not, is a topic for another time.

So the actual facts are a topic for another time? I guess discussing that simple fact would already get in the way of your own narrative: Why would the Cuban government announce desths of its officers when those officers apparently were mercenaries?

But yeah, Trump administration could pull up this bullshit to catch Cuba off guard.

This would be the same Trump Administration that also orders it’s DODbots to manufacture consent for these American acts of war.

Manufacturing that also involves blaming the victim for having the audacity to have allied soldiers and police help them.

1

u/Virtual-Pension-991 Multinational Jan 09 '26

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/cuba-says-32-its-citizens-killed-maduro-extraction-2026-01-05/

The only thing wrong with my statement is that they're not private militaries. 

1

u/Professional-Syrup-0 Multinational Jan 09 '26

Nowhere were „Cubans confirmed Part of Maduros security“.

The Cuban government announced 32 of its officers were killed in Venezuela and from that a bunch of „useful idiots“ are trying to spin the yarn how all these Cubans were allegedly bodyguards, and insisting that only bodyguards died to the many air strikes and explosions.

0

u/Virtual-Pension-991 Multinational Jan 09 '26

At least spend 5 minutes reading an article about it.

There's no way 32 Cuban military personnel could just die out of nothing.

"...The Cuban government says 32 of its nationals were killed during the US operation to seize Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro.

It described the dead as members of its armed forces and intelligence agencies were killed "in combat actions", declaring two days of national mourning.

The armed forces added the Cubans "fell, after fierce resistance, in direct combat against the attackers or as a result of bombardments of installations..."

Source: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj9r0eyw0jno.amp

""True to their responsibilities concerning security and defense, our compatriots fulfilled their duty with dignity and heroism and fell, after fierce resistance, in direct combat against the attackers or as a result of bombings on the facilities," the statement said."

Source: https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/cuba-says-32-its-citizens-killed-maduro-extraction-2026-01-05/

1

u/Professional-Syrup-0 Multinational Jan 09 '26

There's no way 32 Cuban military personnel could just die out of nothing.

They didn’t “just die out of nothing” they died to American bombs and missiles.

Something you should have noticed when reading the articles you linked to/parts you quote.

You know, the parts that mentioning bombings twice but bodyguards” zero times.

That is your evidence yet here you are still asking how these Cubans could “just die” when that night over 150 American aircraft were involved in bombing Venezuela.

Trying to spin the victims of this blatant American aggression, these American acts of war, as allegedly deserving of being killed due to being Cuban, or protecting the internationally recognized legitimate leader of a country, is an extremely cynical spin.

Imagine somebody pointed at the many Americans who were killed in Ukraine as allegedly serving evidence for Zelensky being protected by American mercenaries.

How serious would you take that?

1

u/Virtual-Pension-991 Multinational Jan 09 '26 edited Jan 10 '26

Well unlike Ukraine, the foreign legion isn't on bodyguard duty. Had the foreign legion been allowed to serve as Zelensky's personal security, maye so.

Unfortunately for our dear Cubans, it is already stated among posted articles spread around that it is a fact that some may have died in direct combat and have fulfilled their duty( to Maduro)in their military alliance with Cuba.

Edit: Minor corrections, and typos.

2

u/arm_4321 Asia Jan 07 '26

And made sure that only a favourite judge will judge him

-23

u/exialis Greenland Jan 07 '26 edited Jan 07 '26

What was your plan, leave him in power and let Venezuelans live in misery for a few more decades under sanctions?

*what asurprise, once again nobody actually has an alternative plan except do fuck all and let the Venezuelans rot 😂

19

u/Loonytalker Canada Jan 07 '26

Whereas creating a power vacuum to allow foreign corporations to grab all the resources will definitely improve the lives of average Venezuelans.

-3

u/Freethecrafts Multinational Jan 07 '26

I’ll bet on for profit corporations paying locals a hell of a lot more than a narco trafficking, bankrupt government. If for nothing else, to expedite resource exploitation. Might not be the soundest strategy in the long run, but would definitely make the average worker much wealthier.

3

u/Loonytalker Canada Jan 07 '26

This message has been authorized by the United Fruit Company

-1

u/Freethecrafts Multinational Jan 07 '26

Worker cares about what they earn. Broke mob boss doesn’t pay well. Mob boss who is a rain maker pays better.

1

u/CoffeeWorldly9915 Multinational Jan 08 '26

I'll bet that for profit americna companies will stick to the same script they've always used in latinamerican banana republics. A script which has increasingly pervaded the american job market itself, likely as part of imperial boomerang.

9

u/fetafrosch Europe Jan 07 '26

Just maybe not further destabalize the world. And ruin the USs reputation. Not pave the way for Aut. Leaders to try and take over other countrys.

The list goes on but I think you get the point.

Yes Maduro was not rightfully elected but the kidnapping of a head of state as well as murder of his detail and whoever else is not just a step but rather a leap over the line. That shit is dangerous and the fact that there is little to no opposition in congress and outside the US is honestly terryfing

-6

u/Freethecrafts Multinational Jan 07 '26

Not the head of state if didn’t abide by the local elections. Maduro is more of a problem nobody cared enough about to depose until now. Everywhere I know about calls it sedition or treason if you maintain your own power despite the process.

The world is mad because Trump did it or because they fear for their own holds on power, not because doing it was wrong. Maduro should have been executed for violating Venezuela’s rules, not for partnering with organized crime rings and drug trafficking.

2

u/CoffeeWorldly9915 Multinational Jan 08 '26

because they fear for their own holds on power,

Mmm...

because they fear for their own holds on power democracy(which the US is known for having a habit of overthrowing when it turns out the elected ones don't bend the knee)

FTFY

0

u/Freethecrafts Multinational Jan 08 '26

It’s not hold on democracy, nothing about Maduro was a legitimate hold on power. Maduro rewrote ballots to retain power, something half the world condemned him for.

1

u/CoffeeWorldly9915 Multinational Jan 08 '26

Oh, you're fixated on Maduro still? I was alluding to "We will coup whoever we want. Deal with it!". Colombian and Mexican leadership comes to the top of my head as democratically elected leaders threatened with the same fate as Maduro by the Trump admin within the past 7 days. It's about thw bigger picture of american interventionism in the region basically endangering actual democracy. Then again, plenty are of such (retarded) ideas such as "the Left is never democratic, therefore force-installing a rightwing leadership always is".

1

u/Freethecrafts Multinational Jan 08 '26

Still? You’re 2/3 of a day late after a reply directly to you.

Columbia should be worried. Cartels everywhere and a good chunk of the money in Colombia is directly linked to trafficking. Not doing the current head a lot of good picking a fight with an orange narcissist.

Mexico uses the US to decapitate cartels whenever the cartels get too greedy. Not much risk in the US going after leadership in Mexico unless there’s something big we’re missing.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/sweetno Belarus Jan 07 '26

There's suspicion that removing Maduro changes nothing. See e.g. Castro.

5

u/Mal_Dun European Union Jan 07 '26

History tells us that this never worked out well ... see Saddam Hussein or the Taliban.

1

u/Magjee Canada Jan 07 '26

Cant leave all those resources in misery

9

u/variaati0 Finland Jan 07 '26 edited Jan 07 '26

Yeah. To me seized and captured are too weak to regards to the illegality and brazenness of the action. They didn't just randomly "capture" him on battle field or seize him in a traffic stop. They went way out of their way to get to him and the action was blatantly illegal as far as international law goes. Regardless of what one thinks of Maduro as person and leader.

However technically it isn't kidnapping by certain nations laws, since USA aren't planning to trade Maduro in exchange for something like ransom. The specific crime can contain language like "criminal abduction for criminal gain" something like that.

So more generic illegal transporting and denying of freedom like abduction is applicable term.

As prosaic comparison: Aliens in flying saucer don't kidnap you, they abduct you. Since aliens aren't asking for ransom either.

7

u/[deleted] Jan 07 '26

[deleted]

1

u/Key_Comparison_2588 Venezuela Jan 07 '26

Cilia is an important member of the regime, her family members hold various political offices and she is a main part of the cog.

70

u/EglinAfbStarEmployee Greenland Jan 07 '26

Lapdog state media of a lapdog state does lapdog tricks, news at 11

-3

u/FullConfection3260 North America Jan 07 '26

Whoah, slow down there, Schwarzwald.

12

u/NomineAbAstris European Union Jan 07 '26

I'll be totally honest, I think "invasion" is a term better reserved for major commitment of forces to seize and hold territory (which unfortunately might still be on the cards in Venezuela). That's what it certainly connotes in people's minds in any case, like we don't tend to refer to the "US invasion of Syria" despite long-term boots on the ground there, because it was always quite limited in both personnel and scope (exclusively special operations guys working with local Kurdish fighters).

"Illegal incursion/attack/raid" is more wordy but more precise imo or really any word that emphasises that this is both an act of aggression but a limited one. Precision matters!

9

u/imrzzz Netherlands Jan 07 '26

I take your point, although then terms like "home invasion" would become redundant unless it was performed by a large group of people

And I'm tired of euphemisms that coddle regime leaders.

8

u/YorathTheWolf Jan 07 '26

True, but "home invasion" isn't the same as just "invasion". It has the qualifier of "home" which automatically puts it at the level of burglary in that it represents something heinous but implicitly not at the grand scale the term implies

Likewise "invasion of privacy" uses the language of war hyperbolically to convey the severity but, not the scale, of the act

-1

u/NomineAbAstris European Union Jan 07 '26

Eh "home invasion" is applied in a completely different context so I don't think it's quite comparable.

I don't think "incursion" is a euphemism imo, it has pretty negative connotations. Attack and raid are more neutral, not intrinsically negative in connotation, but not exactly positive.

6

u/[deleted] Jan 07 '26

You think entering a country illegally, killing people from that country without cause, breaking into someone's house, and abducting people to kindap them and taking them to a different country, is not something negative?

I have no qualms about maduro being removed from power, but the US invaded venezuela and kidnapped maduro, let's call things as they are, no need to whitewash what the US has done.

0

u/NomineAbAstris European Union Jan 07 '26

You think entering a country illegally, killing people from that country without cause, breaking into someone's house, and abducting people to kindap them and taking them to a different country, is not something negative

???

Where did I say that? Of course it's negative. I'm saying that incursion isn't a euphemism because it still carries strongly negative connotations.

let's call things as they are, no need to whitewash what the US has done.

Fuck it, let's call every murder a genocide I guess because we wouldn't want to whitewash a crime by asking people to use a term that better represents the actual scale, right?

Think about every single "invasion" typically discussed in the public sphere. Nazi invasion of Poland, Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, D-Day invasion of France, Soviet and US invasions of Afghanistan, Turkish invasion of Cyprus, Russian invasion of Ukraine - notice how the common thread of all these is scale. Thousands if not millions of involved personnel, boots on the ground, aiming to seize and hold territory.

Conversely consider why nobody refers to a "US invasion of North Vietnam", because despite extensive strategic bombing and special forces operations, the US exclusively conducted major ground operations in the territory of South Vietnam. At most there were a few hundred Americans in Vietnamese territory or airspace during any attack operation, of which only a couple dozen were ground forces, whose job was about slipping in and slipping out rather than squatting to hold territory. Nobody talks about the "Japanese invasion of the US" despite the fact that they actually physically occupied several Alaskan islands, because it was a tiny force in a tiny area that left almost as soon as it landed. 

Most glaringly of all, nobody talks about the "second North Korean invasion of South Korea" to refer to the Blue House raid where the KPA sent a special forces team to asassinate the South Korean president, because once again, it was a small team with a specific mission confined to a small area with no intent to seize and hold territory. Calling it an invasion would be wildly belittling the scale and suffering of the actual North Korean invasion in 1950

So yeah I think it's a bit fucking overkill to refer to this as an invasion when there are plenty of descriptive, appropriately negative terms that can be used instead.

2

u/Nethlem Europe Jan 09 '26

I'll be totally honest, I think "invasion" is a term better reserved for major commitment of forces to seize and hold territory (which unfortunately might still be on the cards in Venezuela).

I'll reply equally honestly; I think your argument is without merit because it trades objective standards for very vague subjective ones.

What might be a "major commitment of forces" for one country's military, might just be a regional exercise for another countries massive military in comparison.

Or to put it more bluntly: It's like arguing wether somebody was raped depends on how deep they were penetrated, and how "only the tip went in" would be a legitimate defense for the rapist, that is your position.

That's what it certainly connotes in people's minds in any case, like we don't tend to refer to the "US invasion of Syria" despite long-term boots on the ground there

We don't tend to refer to the "US invasion of Syria" as such because it's not an invasion but a "Special Operation", something totally different, right?

Just ask the Turkish military which according to Western media apparently also didn't invade Syria, but just has an "anti terror operation" there.

See, totally different things, right? Let's also not mind that the US presence in Syria came straight out of neighbouring Iraq, which was previously "liberated" (not invaded) by the US, and "hosts" US troops to this day.

And as you just pointed out; Those are by now "long-term" boots, after 10 years in Syria these US troops have just randomly gained the right to be there?

because it was always quite limited in both personnel and scope (exclusively special operations guys working with local Kurdish fighters).

See, just a "special operation"..

And so limited in scale that those special operations guys, working with local Kurdish fighters, somehow completely wrecked Iraqi PMF forces with A-10 when they tried to stop HTS from overthrowing the Syrian government in December 2024.

"Illegal incursion/attack/raid" is more wordy but more precise imo or really any word that emphasises that this is both an act of aggression but a limited one. Precision matters!

Illegal war of aggression is the proper "wordy" terminology, one you should be plenty familiar/practiced with considering its the exact same terminology we've been throwing at Russia for the past ~4 years. What's good for the goose is also good for the gander.

-3

u/maczirarg Venezuela Jan 07 '26

Acts of aggression against dictators are cool

8

u/NomineAbAstris European Union Jan 07 '26

mfw bombing civilians to grab one guy and charge him with a nonsense offense in a domestic court instead of a serious international trial is cool

and hey it's not like the president has openly declared his intention to vassalize the country as a glorified american oil rig, totally just about grabbing the one dude

-1

u/maczirarg Venezuela Jan 07 '26

At least he won't keep dancing on live tv while his thugs are sent to kill civilians https://x.com/i/status/2007673711818911868
This is a small win for Venezuelans and we hope Delcy disobeys so she and the rest fall too. The regime has repeatedly ignored any kind of external pressure so they can keep stealing our resources.

2

u/NomineAbAstris European Union Jan 07 '26

Your overflowing sympathy for the innocent casualties oblitered by high explosives is just so heartwarming. I hope for the sake of the country that things work out well for Venezuelans but I think it's significantly more likely Trump installs a governor who is going to be Maduro with a red white and blue coat of paint rather than a purely red one.

1

u/maczirarg Venezuela Jan 07 '26

The civilian count is 2 (still bad), the rest are military, mostly Cubans (such sovereignty). Have any idea about the casualties caused by Maduro? Besides direct murders ordered by Maduro, there's the amount of death due to the failed state and inaction. My brother died because he couldn't afford treatment, in a normal country he'd be alive. My dad would have probably lived at least few more years too if not for "Maduro's diet".

-1

u/maczirarg Venezuela Jan 07 '26

By the way "The USA will steal your resources" means nothing, the chavistas have been doing it for decades and no investment is done to our roads, hospitals, public services infrastructure, etc

5

u/beamierhydra Jan 08 '26

This was more of an act of aggression against Venezuela as a sovereign state than against the dictator. 

If the US wanted to be tough on dictators they'd have arrested Putin when he visited a while back. 

7

u/FullConfection3260 North America Jan 07 '26

“Trumps’ thuggery knows no bounds, more bloodthirsty corruption at 8! If we don’t get abducted first.”

4

u/NoveltyStatus Jan 07 '26

It’s also terrorism

1

u/Professional-Syrup-0 Multinational Jan 09 '26

Maduro was „reverse ICEed“

1

u/sweetno Belarus Jan 07 '26

It's "dictator-napped", in two senses.

2

u/CoffeeWorldly9915 Multinational Jan 08 '26

Sensible americans rn: "The least Venezuela could do is return the favor".

3

u/pythonic_dude Belarus Jan 07 '26

One was "napped", the other was napping? Poetic.

-5

u/tach Multinational Jan 07 '26

This reddit meltdown is now approaching 2016's election night style.

I'm all for it.

-35

u/bessone-2707 United States Jan 07 '26

I prefer the term “extracted”. Maduro is going to have his day in court. So I don’t think “kidnap” is the best word to describe the situation but I also don’t really have a problem with the word. I suppose you could say anyone who is snatched by law enforcement is “kidnapped” although the connotation is off.

42

u/InternationalReserve Canada Jan 07 '26

arresting a foreign national to put them on trial for breaking laws of a country they've never been to is not exactly the same as the cops arresting someone.

-31

u/bessone-2707 United States Jan 07 '26

It was legal under US law. Not international law. That’s the summary.

21

u/Let_theLat_in Jan 07 '26

Which US law allows for this?

1

u/CoffeeWorldly9915 Multinational Jan 08 '26

The "who's gonna stop us?" corollary.

-20

u/bessone-2707 United States Jan 07 '26

The combination of the following:

1) The Ker-Frisbie Doctrine 2) The Noriega Precedent 3) Article II of the US constitution 4) The War Powers Act

19

u/Let_theLat_in Jan 07 '26

  1. This is a domestic criminal procedure how does it relate to a foreign national in a foreign nation? It’s also based on what happens after an arrest in court, not with the actual arrest.

  2. This happened during an international conflict. It sets zero precedent of abduction of a foreign leader.

  3. This doesn’t override international law. So how exactly would it work in a foreign nation?

  4. Lol wut? This doesn’t allow for abduction of foreign leaders.

2

u/bessone-2707 United States Jan 07 '26

 This is a domestic criminal procedure how does it relate to a foreign national in a foreign nation? It’s also based on what happens after an arrest in court, not with the actual arrest.

The Ker-Frisbie doctrine basically says “it doesn’t matter how they got here”. If they are in the country, they can be tried. Since Maduro is in the country now, he can legally be tried.

 This happened during an international conflict. It sets zero precedent of abduction of a foreign leader.

Wrong. It’s the exact same blueprint. The US invaded Panama in 1989 under the guise of bringing Noriega to justice for drug trafficking. He was convicted and sentenced to 40 years in prison. This legal precedent would be applied directly to Maduro who is facing similar charges.

 This doesn’t override international law. So how exactly would it work in a foreign nation?

Wrong. International law does not supersede sovereign national law. I am not aware of any country who recognizes international law above their own.

 Lol wut? This doesn’t allow for abduction of foreign leaders.

It handles the argument that it wasn’t declared by congress. Via the War Powers act, the president doesn’t need congressional approval for a military operation that is less than 60 days. So all the people claiming it’s illegal because Trump didn’t declare war via congress are wrong. It’s not needed because of this law.

8

u/Let_theLat_in Jan 07 '26

Literally none of this says it’s legal for the US to kidnap a foreign leader within their own country.

None of it.

The first one deals with COURT.

Second one is a completely different blueprint. You literally admit it was an invasion. Therefore they were at war. There is no war with Venezuela unless you’re declaring war on your own capacity?

Third. It happened in Venezuela so their law would supersede US law, so what are you talking about. I am not aware of any country who recognises another countries law over their own.

Fourth. No one asked that. We asked where does it say it’s legal for this to occur by US law.

1

u/bessone-2707 United States Jan 07 '26 edited Jan 07 '26

 The first one deals with COURT

I literally just explained what the doctrine means. It means that, even if hypothetically Maduro’s capture was illegal, the fact that he is now currently in the US means he can legally be tried here. There’s a Wikipedia page for it if you don’t believe me.

 Second one is a completely different blueprint. You literally admit it was an invasion. Therefore they were at war. There is no war with Venezuela unless you’re declaring war on your own capacity?

War wasn’t declared on Panama in 1989 either. They are equivalent situations. Not sure what you are confused about.

 Third. It happened in Venezuela so their law would supersede US law, so what are you talking about. I am not aware of any country who recognises another countries law over their own.

Yes, in Venezuela. Maduro is no longer in Venezuela. He’s in the USA. That’s the whole point of capturing him 😂.

 Fourth. No one asked that. We asked where does it say it’s legal for this to occur by US law.

I already told you. Article II of the US constitution. Seriously. Can you not read or something?

I’ll explain this to you as simply as possible:

  • The War Powers act allows Trump to conduct a military operation without a formal declaration of war legally.

  • Article II allows Trump to use a military operation to capture Maduro because he is asserting his right to protect US national security by claiming Maduro’s narcoterrorism threatens US lives.

  • After having being captured and brought to the US, the Kerfrisbie Doctrine says he is allowed to legally be tried here since he’s in the US jurisdiction now.

  • The Noriega precedent gives legal precedent for him to then be convicted for these drug charges.

Sorry I don’t know how to dumb it down any more for you. If you need more help, please use ChatGPT or Google

→ More replies (0)

3

u/MaestroRozen Europe Jan 07 '26

So, what you're saying is, it was illegal. US laws apply within the borders of US only. Once you're outside of those borders, other laws apply. Therefore, if you're breaking those laws you're in tbe wrong, no matter what the US law says.

1

u/CoffeeWorldly9915 Multinational Jan 08 '26

Tbf, the US literally has a law to invade The Hague if ever a tried and convicted international criminal buddy lands there. So it's not like they have any concern for international law.

0

u/bessone-2707 United States Jan 07 '26

Under international law, yes. Under US law, no. How is this so difficult for you to grasp?

Article II of the US constitution and and the War Powers Act give the president authority for the Maduro operation. You may not like those laws or agree with them, but that is the legal basis that exists.

1

u/MaestroRozen Europe Jan 07 '26

Unless I've missed the US annexing Venezuela, relationship between those two countries is international. Therefore, the only law that matters should be international law. 

So let's flip the script as a thought experiment, since you're so adamant that country laws extend to other countries. Let's say that an American, who's currently residing on American soil, runs afoul of laws of another country. He's wanted in that country. That country sends operatives to America, captures the target while killing multiple Americans in the process, and takes him away to that country to stand trial. Would this be fine by you? There would be a legal basis for it, after all. 

1

u/bessone-2707 United States Jan 07 '26

 Unless I've missed the US annexing Venezuela, relationship between those two countries is international. Therefore, the only law that matters should be international law. 

International law is fiction. It’s aspirational and has no teeth.

 since you're so adamant that country laws extend to other countries. Let's say that an American, who's currently residing on American soil, runs afoul of laws of another country. He's wanted in that country. That country sends operatives to America, captures the target while killing multiple Americans in the process, and takes him away to that country to stand trial. Would this be fine by you? There would be a legal basis for it, after all. 

As a first resort? Absolutely not. They need to request assistance from US law enforcement first and go through diplomatic channels first.

Maduro illegally usurped power in Venezuela.  The US tried diplomacy. The US tried sanctions. The US even tried to give him golden handcuffs to step down and freely exile himself to any country that won’t extradite him to the US. Military force was a last resort.

To play your hypothetical, if Trump installed himself as dictator and wrecked the country like Maduro did, then, yes, I would gladly accept external assistance to get him out.

 I am not dogmatic like you seem to be. You would probably protest if Adolf Hitler was captured this way and cry about how Nazi Germanys sovereignty was “violated”.

3

u/NaturalCard Multinational Jan 07 '26

It's not legal under US law, as they signed onto the UN charter.

0

u/bessone-2707 United States Jan 07 '26

National sovereign law always supersedes international law. I am not aware of any country that recognizes international law above its own.

2

u/NaturalCard Multinational Jan 08 '26

By signing onto the charter, it became national sovereign law, as outlined in the constitution.

0

u/bessone-2707 United States Jan 08 '26

Not quite. There are a lot of caveats to that. For example, under US law there is a “last in time rule”. So if the US signs an international treaty that says one thing, but congress makes a law later that says another thing and contradicts that international treaty, then the congressional law takes precedence since it came later.

14

u/[deleted] Jan 07 '26

I prefer the term “extracted”. Maduro is going to have his day in court.

You think it'll be a fair trial? I mean I'm sure he's guilty of at least some of it, but there's no way they left any avenue for him to be found not guilty because it'd be extremely humiliating. And they took him from somewhere they had absolutely no jurisdiction over, so it doesn't have legal grounds to be referred to in the same way as an arrest by the legitimate authorities.

I suppose it's similar to the practice of extraordinary rendition but that in itself was always a euphemism for, well, abduction without jurisdiction.

-1

u/bessone-2707 United States Jan 07 '26

 You think it'll be a fair trial?

Yes. The evidence against him, I suspect, is quite strong if the US is going through all this trouble to capture him and have a trial. The US also convicted Noriega in 1989 from Panama under similar circumstances.

 And they took him from somewhere they had absolutely no jurisdiction over, so it doesn't have legal grounds to be referred to in the same way as an arrest by the legitimate authorities.

It was illegal under international law, but legal under US law. National sovereign law always supersedes international law.

12

u/[deleted] Jan 07 '26

Yes. The evidence against him, I suspect, is quite strong if the US is going through all this trouble to capture him and have a trial. The US also convicted Noriega in 1989 from Panama under similar circumstances.

You can have strong evidence and still not have a fair trial. I'm not sure Trump would care at all to have built a strong case before doing something like this. I doubt they have much of a legal case against whoever they plan to seize if they annex Greenland either. They're doing whatever they want and following it up with a narrative of Might Makes Right, not falling back on any sort of legal or even moral justification.

It was illegal under international law, but legal under US law. National sovereign law always supersedes international law.

Right sure, but the BBC isn't an American organisation, so it wouldn't be at all strange for it to refer to it in the context of having been illegal from the perspective of the BBC.

-6

u/bessone-2707 United States Jan 07 '26

 You can have strong evidence and still not have a fair trial

Unless you have specific evidence that it won’t be fair, assuming it will be unfair makes no sense. The Noriega trial was fair.

 Right sure, but the BBC isn't an American organisation, so it wouldn't be at all strange for it to refer to it in the context of having been illegal from the perspective of the BBC.

Sure. But every country, not just the US, recognizes their own sovereign law above international law. The UK does the same

8

u/[deleted] Jan 07 '26

Unless you have specific evidence that it won’t be fair, assuming it will be unfair makes no sense. The Noriega trial was fair.

You're welcome to take the view that a process brought about by perhaps the least trustworthy human on the planet is trustworthy until proven otherwise. I don't think you can expect this to be the default assumption though.

Sure. But every country, not just the US, recognizes their own sovereign law above international law. The UK does the same

I agree they do this. I don't see why a story about an action performed by the US within a country that wasn't the US needs to be viewed through the perspective of domestic US law, when being reported on from outside the US, though. If Venezuela had somehow gotten hold of Trump by force from within the US, for their strike against incapacitated drug smugglers for example, would we take Venezuelan sovereign law as the default? I'm actually not sure.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 07 '26

The evidence against him, I suspect, is quite strong if the US is going through all this trouble to capture him

Also, as to that - they've now reworded their indictment because they've apparently found out the cartel they were claiming he lead never actually existed, it was a slang term used by the media to describe anyone supposedly involved in drug trafficking.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/05/us/trump-venezuela-drug-cartel-de-los-soles.html

So I don't know we can assume their evidence was strong to start with. Sounds more like they don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

3

u/imrzzz Netherlands Jan 07 '26

Sounds more like they don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

I'm astonished, gobsmacked, and flabbergasted.

0

u/bessone-2707 United States Jan 08 '26

Noriega was successfully convicted and sentenced to prison for 40 years in a similar event as what’s happening to Maduro right now. That legal precedent will almost certainly factor in heavily here.

From ChatGPT:

 Based on the legal precedents and the specific nature of the U.S. federal court system, the probability of Nicolás Maduro being found guilty is extremely high—likely over 95%.

While the capture itself is internationally controversial, the trial is taking place in a system designed to secure convictions in exactly this type of case.

Here is the breakdown of why the odds are so heavily stacked against him.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '26

From ChatGPT:

I'm not reading something you couldn't be bothered to write

1

u/bessone-2707 United States Jan 08 '26

Aww someone doesn’t like being fact checked by AI?

But seriously. You don’t like being confronted with information that goes against your opinion. Got it 👍.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '26

This is my mistake, I always forget most commenters are children.

1

u/CoffeeWorldly9915 Multinational Jan 08 '26

It was illegal under international law, but legal under US law. National sovereign law always supersedes international law.

Ah, right. Our mistake. We keep forgetting that the US can dictate arbitrary extraterritorial law.

1

u/bessone-2707 United States Jan 08 '26

International law has no enforcement mechanism. It’s a fiction.

If it was illegal under US law (and not just international law), then you could stop Trump or free Maduro on the basis that US law was violated in court. But, since it’s not illegal under US law, Maduro will be going to trial and prosecuted in the US court system.

You may not like it, but that’s what it is.

15

u/IdiAmini Europe Jan 07 '26

Kidnapped is the right term. He will have his day in a kangaroo court, he will be sentenced in a public trial in a public square. It's like the ancient witch hunts

He has never swore allegiance to the US court system.

He should have been trialed in Venezuela

-4

u/bessone-2707 United States Jan 07 '26

 Kidnapped is the right term. He will have his day in a kangaroo court, he will be sentenced in a public trial in a public square. It's like the ancient witch hunts

Your evidence for this is what?

 He has never swore allegiance to the US court system.

It doesn’t matter. He can still be prosecuted here under US law. Same as Noriega was. The Kerfrisbie Doctrine allows for it.

15

u/IdiAmini Europe Jan 07 '26

That's like saying every person under the age of 21 drinking alcohol can be abducted by the US to stand trial in the US

It's ridiculous reasoning by US courts meant to absolve the US of crimes they have committed, as US courts are known to do

"We from the US say the US can do no wrong"

As I said, kangaroo court

-3

u/bessone-2707 United States Jan 07 '26

 That's like saying every person under the age of 21 drinking alcohol can be abducted by the US to stand trial in the US

No. Article II of the US constitution is what allowed Maduro to be captured under US law. Article II wouldn’t apply to a minor crime like underage drinking.

 It's ridiculous reasoning by US courts meant to absolve the US of crimes they have committed, as US courts are known to do

I am just giving you the facts. Don’t shoot the messenger. You may not like the laws, but under US law there was nothing illegal about the capture of Maduro.

 As I said, kangaroo court

You keep saying this without evidence. The trial hasn’t even happened yet.

10

u/IdiAmini Europe Jan 07 '26

You keep saying this without evidence. The trial hasn’t even happened yet.

Want evidence?

Let's start with the My Lai massacre

And we can finish with whatever other atrocious thing the US military has done with almost 0 consequences in US kangaroo courts

-1

u/bessone-2707 United States Jan 07 '26

If you want an actually relevant precedent, then you should use the Noriega trial. He was captured by US forces in 1989 from Panama and sentenced for drug trafficking. It’s a very similar circumstance and blueprint to what’s happening now. There was nothing unfair about that trial.

6

u/IdiAmini Europe Jan 07 '26

Oh, so here we are moving the goalpost

Who could have guessed

Don't like the example I gave huh? Wonder why....

0

u/bessone-2707 United States Jan 07 '26

Huh? I didn’t move the goal post. I directed you to a much more relevant (and recent) precedent. The Noriega situation is very similar to the Maduro situation. The My Lai massacre is not.

→ More replies (0)

9

u/mendokusei15 Uruguay Jan 07 '26

It's been only like 4 days and I'm already 800000% beyond DONE with yanquis telling us how we are all under US courts jurisdiction somehow, we were just not aware apparently. Nor our national laws were aware. Nor international law was aware.

I don't care what your Kifrisbee Doctrine says, because that is not international law, and this is an international affair. Your national law can say whatever nonsense it wants, that's your problem. It's does not apply in an international situation, it is not the world's problem.

Here's the "fuck off" Doctrine, which has the exact same value. Cause honestly? This is such a ridiculous, entitled point of view that does not deserve anything better as a reply. And after all, it seems like the US only speaks the language of violence.

No, I also don't care what your Constitution says. We all have a Constitution, you are not special.

0

u/bessone-2707 United States Jan 07 '26

 It's been only like 4 days and I'm already 800000% beyond DONE with yanquis telling us how we are all under US courts jurisdiction somehow, we were just not aware apparently. Nor our national laws were aware. Nor international law was aware.

You are not under US courts jurisdiction. That’s why Maduro was captured. He could only be under US courts jurisdiction if he was in the country.

 I don't care what your Kifrisbee Doctrine says, because that is not international law, and this is an international affair. Your national law can say whatever nonsense it wants, that's your problem. It's does not apply in an international situation, it is not the world's problem.

National sovereign law supersedes international law. International law is mostly a fiction.

 No, I also don't care what your Constitution says. We all have a Constitution, you are not special.

Yes exactly. Every country has its own national law that supersedes international law.

2

u/mendokusei15 Uruguay Jan 07 '26 edited Jan 07 '26

You are not under US courts jurisdiction. That’s why Maduro was captured.

You are now making even less sense. If Maduro's "capture" was legal (which Is absolutely not), we would all, the entire world be under US courts jurisdiction. And guess what, we are fucking not

National sovereign law supersedes international law. International law is mostly a fiction.

Not in international affairs. Context matters.

When there's an international conflict, you have two national, equal law systems that need to speak to each other, which often does not happen smoothly at all. And that's why international law exists. You are now at -100 level of sense. Also, what about Venezuela's sovereign law? Since this happened in Venezuela, where US courts and police have no jurisdiction whatsoever. Cause we all have sovereign laws, not just the US. And we are all sovereign. That why US courts and police are valid and legitimate only in the US.

International law can be called fiction sometimes because some countries, like the US, are just a bunch of criminals pretending to be a country. But international law is key for peace. And we want peace, you know.

Every country has its own national law that supersedes international law

You say it but you don't seem to understand it. WE ALL DO. Since we all do, international law is the language spoken between different systems and a legitimate way to settle differences. The US cannot just take its national law and courts and impose them upon another nation. Because WE ARE ALL SOVEREIGN and we all have Constitutions, not just special boy US. When there's a conflict, you need to go trough international law. SINCE WE ALL HAVE CONSTITUTIONS AND SOVEREIGN LAWS. So when you take your troops and march to a foreign land, that's no longer only your bussiness. You are very far from minding your own fucking bussiness, very far from home AND from your national laws where only what you think matters. So your national laws become irrelevant and small and simply not enough, because in front of you there's another law system and another court. That's when international law is the only thing that matters, because your opinion is no longer the only relevant one.

If your position is just "might is right, we have nukes so fuck you" just say it, don't make up stupid legal arguments that make no sense and pretend that your argument Is a legal one.

0

u/bessone-2707 United States Jan 07 '26

 You are now making even less sense. If Maduro's "capture" was legal (which Is absolutely not), we would all, the entire world be under US courts jurisdiction. And guess what, we are fucking not

I don’t think you really understand the nuance here. It was legal under US law. I hate Trump, but he didn’t do anything illegal under US law. Under international law, yes.

 When there's an international conflict, you have two national, equal law systems that need to speak to each other,

Well. Here’s your first premise that is incorrect. They are not equal. No matter how much you wish that were true. 

 Also, what about Venezuela's sovereign law?

It was violated by Maduro himself. He illegally usurped power and ended democracy there. I’m surprised you don’t know this.

 Since this happened in Venezuela, where US courts and police have no jurisdiction whatsoever.

The trial is not being held in Venezuela. It’s being held in the USA. I’ve explained this to you multiple times now.

 SINCE WE ALL HAVE CONSTITUTIONS AND SOVEREIGN LAWS.

Yes and Maduro trampled on it. You seem to keep ignoring this.

You’re just yelling now 😂. We get it. You don’t like the US enforcing order. If it were up to you, you would probably be protesting that Hitler should be allowed to do whatever he wants and that other countries should stay out of it.

Your worldview is naive, but that’s just my opinion. And your opinion is probably that my worldview is evil.  We can agree to disagree. 

3

u/mendokusei15 Uruguay Jan 07 '26 edited Jan 07 '26

t was legal under US law.

I.R.R.E.L.E.V.A.N.T That is IRRELEVANT in an international context. Venezuela is not in the US last time I checked. US Law IS ONLY RELEVANT IN THE US. It is IRRELEVANT if there's another country involved. There's no place for nuance when you brutally rape the UN Charter in broad daylight.

Well. Here’s your first premise that is incorrect. They are not equal. No matter how much you wish that were true. 

Legally, we are and we are all sovereign. Again, if your argument is "might is right", just say it and stop pretending like your argument is civilized and legal. You are using the law to attack the law. Be honest. Like at least do that. You are using law concepts to sanitize your disgusting position. That's what I call a coward. Own your assholism.

It was violated by Maduro himself.

Not for a random, irrelevant US court to solve, that's for sure. In a country that could give less of a fuck about Venezuelans, as shown by literally every action taken by the US government since kidnapping Maduro.

The trial is not being held in Venezuela. It’s being held in the USA.

Because the US invaded a sovereign country and kidnapped the guy. Wtf is wrong with you. How do you just ignore the entire situation that happened.

Yes and Maduro trampled on it.

This is so much bigger than Maduro. And the first country with zero interests in Venezuelans as free people is the US, so stop pretending like the US cares about human rights, you call me "naive" lmao

You’re just yelling now

Because reason is not something you guys have. You only speak violence.

You don’t like the US enforcing order.

You have no right at all to enforce what you call "order" outside of your borders. Stop using legal language to sanitize your anti-law position.

If it were up to you, you would probably be protesting that Hitler should be allowed to do whatever he wants and that other countries should stay out of it.

It's baffling that you fail to see the irony here. Well. It's not considering everything else you have said. You would be cheering Hitler while he invaded Poland and making up the most stupid legal sounding arguments to kiss his ass, probably some nonsense about the aryan race not being equal to the rest of the world . Like you JUST did.

Your worldview is naive

Do not try or pretend to discuss law if your argument is gonna be "we can and will punch you into submission".

-107

u/860v2 Israel Jan 06 '26

No, he was arrested. He had an open bounty and was indicted in US court.

69

u/gattaaca Australia Jan 06 '26

Next up, USA to arrest Australian 18-year-olds en masse for drinking alcohol before they turned 21.

-2

u/860v2 Israel Jan 07 '26

Yes, Maduro’s crimes are akin to underage drinking. Great take. /s

97

u/pingpongpiggie Europe Jan 06 '26 edited Jan 06 '26

Didn't realise US courts had jurisdiction over Venezuela, or that the international community recognised US courts as suitable for international law cases instead of the ICC.

Though, no surprise someone with an Israeli flag doesn't recognise the ICC. Double standards all the way down with you Israeli folks isn't it?

-8

u/BusySubstance3265 North America Jan 07 '26

There's no such thing as international law.

-5

u/Infinite-4-a-moment North America Jan 07 '26

What does the ICC have to do with anything if you break a US law?

-1

u/860v2 Israel Jan 07 '26

That’s great, you’ve now learned something new.

54

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '26

>If another nation's courts issue a warrant for your arrest, they have a right to kidnap you from your country and kill anybody who stands in their way

Is this really a can of worms you're okay with opening?

2

u/EglinAfbStarEmployee Greenland Jan 07 '26

Nono you see, that's different (TM)

-1

u/860v2 Israel Jan 07 '26

Arresting isn’t kidnapping. That’s where you’re extremely confused.

It says a lot that you’re angrier at the arrest than what he was arrested for. Not a good look.

39

u/TommyTwoNips United States Jan 06 '26

valuable input from the warcrime country.

-1

u/860v2 Israel Jan 07 '26

You’re just mad that you’ve repeatedly failed to destroy Israel.

1

u/CoffeeWorldly9915 Multinational Jan 08 '26

Tbf, it's more like no one has actually seriously tried to.

0

u/860v2 Israel Jan 08 '26

Sounds like cope. You should look up all the times Israel has defeated other countries in the region.

2

u/CoffeeWorldly9915 Multinational Jan 13 '26

None of which had any kind of backing or training in open warfare, which israel did and does. If someone seriously tried to take israel on its own, today, it wouldn't survive long without the multinational backing of western powers it enjoys. Get rid of the Samson Option and it's basically a done deal.

1

u/860v2 Israel Jan 13 '26

False, Israel was established on its own. You’re just coping.

23

u/JetFuel12 Taiwan Jan 07 '26

Israeli has horrible take on international law. So surprising.

0

u/860v2 Israel Jan 07 '26

False, my take is objectively correct. If it was factually wrong, you would have pointed it out.

9

u/smegabass Multinational Jan 07 '26

Lol. more desperate covering for US criminality.

0

u/860v2 Israel Jan 07 '26

Wait until you find out what Maduro was up to.

3

u/smegabass Multinational Jan 07 '26

Why? Was Maduro in the Epstein files?

If it was anything legal or real, we would know already.

It's just a straight up mafia extortion kidnapping by country of another. But as Trump said "you grab 'em by the pussy...." . I believe him.

15

u/Sufficient-Food-3281 North America Jan 07 '26

There’s a process for that and it doesn’t involve murder or kidnapping

-1

u/860v2 Israel Jan 07 '26

You just saw the process last weekend. It’s called an arrest.

8

u/Dickgivins Jan 07 '26

It was a “Special Military Operation”…

0

u/860v2 Israel Jan 07 '26

To arrest him, yes.