Petro Dollars

christiefan915 said:
Search Assist

No, the U.S. is not permitted by law to invade a foreign country and kidnap its leader, as such actions violate international law and the principles of national sovereignty. Legal experts have stated that the recent U.S. military operation in Venezuela, which involved the capture of President Nicolás Maduro, is a clear violation of both international law and U.S. law.

opiniojuris.org

Legality of U.S. Military Action Against Foreign Leaders​

International Law Perspective​

  • The United Nations Charter prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of states.
  • Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter specifically bans such interventions unless authorized by the Security Council or justified under self-defense.
  • Historical precedents, like the Corfu Channel case, emphasize that powerful states should not intervene in the affairs of weaker states.

U.S. Law Perspective​

  • The U.S. Constitution requires congressional authorization for military actions, particularly those involving the use of force against another nation.
  • Recent actions, such as the capture of Nicolás Maduro, have been criticized as unauthorized and illegal under U.S. law, as Congress did not approve military intervention in Venezuela.

Implications of Recent Actions​

  • The U.S. operation to capture Maduro has been labeled a violation of both international law and U.S. law.
  • Legal experts argue that such actions set a dangerous precedent for international relations and could lead to further disregard for national sovereignty.
In summary, both international and U.S. law generally prohibit the invasion of a foreign country to kidnap its leader without proper legal justification or authorization.
opiniojuris.org
Click to expand...
But they did.
Panama. Iraq, Venezuela, Iran and how many others have I forgotten?
 
FastLane said:
You question was based on a false premise
Click to expand...
More avoidance. Venezuela was invaded on a false premise and its leader was taken to another country against his will. That's called kidnapping, no matter how much you try to sugar coat it. Who the people chose for their leader is not our business, if it was we'd be concentrating on invading Russia and kidnapping Putin... a real threat to our nation.
 
christiefan915 said:
More avoidance. Venezuela was invaded on a false premise and its leader was taken to another country against his will. That's called kidnapping, no matter how much you try to sugar coat it. Who the people chose for their leader is not our business, if it was we'd be concentrating on invading Russia and kidnapping Putin... a real threat to our nation.
Click to expand...
Well there is a 92 year old Federal Judge in NYC that has no love for Trump that disagrees with your legal opinions. I trust his legal opinions over yours. Stick with options on cats instead of the law. :laugh: This is no different than arresting El Chapo or Noreaga
 
Last edited:
FastLane said:
Well their is a 92 year old Federal Judge in NYC that has no love for Trump that disagrees with your legal opinions. I trust his legal opinions over yours. Stick with options on cats instead of the law. :laugh: This is no different than arresting El Chapo or Noreaga
Click to expand...
I suspect Maduro has helped to kill more Americans than Putin has.
 
christiefan915 said:
Search Assist

No, the U.S. is not permitted by law to invade a foreign country and kidnap its leader, as such actions violate international law and the principles of national sovereignty. Legal experts have stated that the recent U.S. military operation in Venezuela, which involved the capture of President Nicolás Maduro, is a clear violation of both international law and U.S. law.

opiniojuris.org

Legality of U.S. Military Action Against Foreign Leaders​

International Law Perspective​

  • The United Nations Charter prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of states.
  • Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter specifically bans such interventions unless authorized by the Security Council or justified under self-defense.
  • Historical precedents, like the Corfu Channel case, emphasize that powerful states should not intervene in the affairs of weaker states.

U.S. Law Perspective​

  • The U.S. Constitution requires congressional authorization for military actions, particularly those involving the use of force against another nation.
  • Recent actions, such as the capture of Nicolás Maduro, have been criticized as unauthorized and illegal under U.S. law, as Congress did not approve military intervention in Venezuela.

Implications of Recent Actions​

  • The U.S. operation to capture Maduro has been labeled a violation of both international law and U.S. law.
  • Legal experts argue that such actions set a dangerous precedent for international relations and could lead to further disregard for national sovereignty.
In summary, both international and U.S. law generally prohibit the invasion of a foreign country to kidnap its leader without proper legal justification or authorization.
opiniojuris.org
Click to expand...
He lost the 2024 election so he is just a thug not a foreign leader.
 
FastLane said:
Well there is a 92 year old Federal Judge in NYC that has no love for Trump that disagrees with your legal opinions. I trust his legal opinions over yours. Stick with options on cats instead of the law. :laugh: This is no different than arresting El Chapo or Noreaga
Click to expand...
Noriega surrendered to the US, dummy. Furthermore, the US used him before they threw him under the bus. I guess you think that was okay. And El Chapo wasn't in government, he was a garden-variety drug lord.

"Noriega had come on the payroll of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) by the 1970s. As per media reports Noriega helped the US curb the spread of communism in Central America by allowing US forces to set up listening posts in Panama, and use the country to funnel aid to pro-American militaries in the region."

 
christiefan915 said:
Noriega surrendered to the US, dummy. Furthermore, the US used him before they threw him under the bus. I guess you think that was okay. And El Chapo wasn't in government, he was a garden-variety drug lord.

"Noriega had come on the payroll of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) by the 1970s. As per media reports Noriega helped the US curb the spread of communism in Central America by allowing US forces to set up listening posts in Panama, and use the country to funnel aid to pro-American militaries in the region."

Click to expand...
Yep Noriega once cooperated with the US before he got too big for his own pants. The US went into Panama where he did not invite us we surrounded the Vatican embassy where he was taking sanctuary. They eventually kicked him out into the waiting arms of the US military. So what exactly is your point.
 
FastLane said:
Yep Noriega once cooperated with the US before he got too big for his own pants. The US went into Panama where he did not invite us we surrounded the Vatican embassy where he was taking sanctuary. They eventually kicked him out into the waiting arms of the US military. So what exactly is your point.
Click to expand...
My point is that the US was complicit but overlooked his crimes because he was a spy.

"Noriega's dictatorship was marked by repression of the media, an expansion of the military, and the persecution of political opponents, effectively controlling the outcomes of any elections. He relied upon military nationalism to maintain his support, and did not espouse a specific social or economic ideology. Noriega was known for his complicated relationship with the U.S., and was described as being its ally and adversary simultaneously."
 
christiefan915 said:
My point is that the US was complicit but overlooked his crimes because he was a spy.

"Noriega's dictatorship was marked by repression of the media, an expansion of the military, and the persecution of political opponents, effectively controlling the outcomes of any elections. He relied upon military nationalism to maintain his support, and did not espouse a specific social or economic ideology. Noriega was known for his complicated relationship with the U.S., and was described as being its ally and adversary simultaneously."
Click to expand...
And that affects Maduro's case ...how? You seem to be chasing red herrings. The bottom line is Noriega was the dictator leader of Panama he pissed the US off when he smuggled drugs into the US we sent the army and arrested him and put him on trial and put him in prison. Those are the only important issues.
 
FastLane said:
And that affects Maduro's case ...how? You seem to be chasing red herrings. The bottom line is Noriega was the dictator leader of Panama he pissed the US off when he smuggled drugs into the US we sent the army and arrested him and put him on trial and put him in prison. Those are the only important issues.
Click to expand...
You're making false comparisons. GHWB didn't invade Panama and said he was going to grab its resources and "run the country" like trump did about Venezuela. You're just desperate to ignore the truth about trump's motivation.

Btw trump's been threatening to "take" Greenland, bet you'd support that, too.
 
christiefan915 said:
You're making false comparisons. GHWB didn't invade Panama and said he was going to grab its resources and "run the country" like trump did about Venezuela. You're just desperate to ignore the truth about trump's motivation.

Btw trump's been threatening to "take" Greenland, bet you'd support that, too.
Click to expand...
Did Bush invaded Panama?


Christie do you ever get tired of being wrong.

AI Overview



Yes, President
George H.W. Bush ordered the U.S. invasion of Panama, known as Operation Just Cause, in December 1989 to overthrow Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega, safeguard American lives, combat drug trafficking, and protect the Panama Canal treaties. The operation successfully removed Noriega, who was brought to the U.S. for trial, but resulted in significant casualties and displacement, according to.
 
FastLane said:
Did Bush invaded Panama?


AI Overview



Yes, President
George H.W. Bush ordered the U.S. invasion of Panama, known as Operation Just Cause, in December 1989 to overthrow Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega, safeguard American lives, combat drug trafficking, and protect the Panama Canal treaties. The operation successfully removed Noriega, who was brought to the U.S. for trial, but resulted in significant casualties and displacement, according to.
Click to expand...
Thanks, so it was worse than I thought. 500 dead civilians is unconscionable.
  • Casualties: The invasion resulted in the deaths of 23 U.S. soldiers and an estimated 500 Panamanian civilians, along with significant military casualties on both sides.
 
christiefan915 said:
You're making false comparisons. GHWB didn't invade Panama and said he was going to grab its resources and "run the country" like trump did about Venezuela. You're just desperate to ignore the truth about trump's motivation.

Btw trump's been threatening to "take" Greenland, bet you'd support that, too.
Click to expand...
I think he is trying to convince Denmark that NATO needs a strong Greenland and Denmark can't really give them protection. when airlines fly to Europe they have to fly over Greenland we can't let China or Russia to control them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top