US 'Legal Questions' About Seizing Maduro, Not 'Illegal Invasion'
While The Independent asks how legal this hypothetical is, one might wonder why the initial framing isn't 'illegal invasion' or 'brazen act of war.' This isn't about 'legal questions'; it's about 70 years of US-orchestrated regime change operations. From Guatemala in 1954 to Chile in 1973, Nicaragua in the 80s, and Iraq in the 2000s, 'legal questions' consistently arise only after the fact, if at
all. It's a pattern, not a peculiarity. The US has a long history of deeming foreign leaders 'illegitimate' then installing ones more amenable to Washington's interests. The 'legal questions' posed now are merely a polite way of discussing whether the latest attempt to assert control over resource-rich nations will face internal pushback, not a genuine concern for international law. The consistent
silence on the legality of previous interventions speaks volumes. (Source: The Independent)