US Finds Legal Justification for Regime Change (Again)
The US government’s latest 'legal memo' justifying the potential capture of Nicolas Maduro is less 'new insight' and more a familiar blueprint. Remember Panama's Manuel Noriega, abducted by the US in 1989? Or, for that matter, the numerous coups and interventions across Latin America, from Chile to Nicaragua, all 'justified' by 'legal' or 'moral' imperatives when US interests were at stake. One
might wonder why American 'rule of law' so often involves circumventing the sovereignty of nations that happen to sit on vast oil reserves. The media, in publishing such stories, often presents these justifications as objective legal assessments, rather than what they are: political pretexts dressed in legalistic language. It’s almost as if the 'international law' the US champions only applies
when it's convenient for regime change operations abroad. How many times must this playbook be run before the press starts asking about the consistent, historical pattern of US interventionism, rather than merely dissecting its latest 'legal' wrapper?