US Ponders Legality of Arresting Maduro While Orchestrating Coups Abroad
The Hill meticulously dissects the supposed 'legality' of arresting a foreign head of state, citing U.S. federal law and presidential authority without so much as a wink at America's own extensive history of regime change operations. The article breathlessly documents Trump's maneuvers to target Maduro, including placing a $15 million bounty on his head in 2020. This 'legal' analysis conveniently
bypasses decades of U.S. interventions, sanctions, and proxy wars against sovereign nations that didn't align with Washington's interests. (One wonders, which international court ruled the 1973 overthrow of Chile's democratically elected Salvador Allende 'legal'?) It appears 'international law' is less a universal standard and more a bespoke garment, tailored specifically to fit U.S. foreign
policy objectives. The question isn't whether Maduro's arrest was legal, but whether Washington's obsession with Venezuela ever was. Perhaps The Hill could follow the money on how much defense contractors and oil lobbyists stand to gain from 'regime change,' that might add a bit of context.