US Concerned About Legality of Their Own Abduction Plans
Following years of U.S. sanctions and attempts to destabilize the Venezuelan government, including tacit support for a failed coup attempt in 2020 by mercenaries (Operación Gedeón, remember that?), the U.S. Justice Department has a $15 million bounty on President Maduro’s head for alleged 'narco-terrorism.' The DW article hints at the thorny legal implications of snatching a sitting head of state.
It seems the U.S. is suddenly discovering 'international law' now that its preferred method for regime change involves outright abduction rather than merely crippling sanctions and failed opposition funding. This isn't just about Maduro; it’s a playbook. The U.S. has a long, storied history of applying international law selectively, usually condemning other nations while acting with impunity. The
irony of the U.S. fretting over the finer points of *their own* potential illegal rendition (because 'capture' is such a delicate term for kidnapping a national leader) while simultaneously imposing unilateral sanctions that devastate civilian populations is, frankly, breathtaking. It's almost as if the legal term 'sovereignty' only applies to nations that align with Washington's interests. How
many times has the U.S. declared illegal the actions of nations they deem adversaries, only to then consider doing the exact same thing?