US 'Legal Questions' Only Arise When Latin America Doesn't Play Ball
Apparently, violating international law and national sovereignty only becomes a 'legal question' when it's presented hypothetically and involves a white-collar crime charge. The article cites law professors decrying the 'blatant, illegal and criminal act,' as if this would be a novel approach for Washington. We're meant to ponder the legality of seizing a foreign leader while the actual,
documented history of coups, destabilization, and regime change operations from Grenada to Chile to Panama is neatly filed away in the 'operational necessities' drawer. The US, with its unindicted records of violating sovereignty, seemingly develops a conscience only when fictional. Perhaps the gravitas of 'narcoterrorism charges' is just the shiny new wrapping paper for the same old
interventionist package. The real legal question isn't whether seizing Maduro is lawful, but why the AP pretends US foreign policy hasn't been doing precisely that, by proxy or direct action, for over a century—without a single 'legal question' raised so emphatically by mainstream outlets until now.