Maduro’s arrest and Trump’s claim that the United States will run Venezuela raise new legal questions

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration’s arrest of Venezuela’s president and its plans to “run” the country raise stark new questions about the legitimacy of U.S. actions as part of a broader campaign against the South American country.

He watches: Trump says the United States will “run” Venezuela until the transfer of power after Maduro’s arrest

The midnight seizure of Nicolas Maduro, who was transported aboard a U.S. warship to face terrorism and drug conspiracy charges in New York, goes beyond even high-profile historical examples of aggressive U.S. actions toward authoritarian governments in Panama, Iraq and beyond, legal experts said. This came after a sudden American incursion into the Venezuelan capital, which was rocked by explosions during the night.

“This is clearly a blatant, illegal and criminal act,” said Jamie Gurule, a professor at the University of Notre Dame Law School and a former assistant U.S. attorney.

“I don’t see any legal basis for us to go to another country and take a leader without an extradition treaty,” said Mark Nevitt, a former Navy lawyer who now teaches at Emory University School of Law.

This astonishing development comes as a culmination of months of aggressive US military action in the region, including the bombing of boats accused of drug smuggling and the seizure of oil tankers off the coast of Venezuela. The administration has launched 35 known boat strikes against ships, killing more than 115 people since September.

Read more: A timeline of the US military escalation against Venezuela leading to Maduro’s arrest

Michael Schmidt, a former Air Force lawyer and professor emeritus at the U.S. Naval War College, said the entire operation — the boat strikes as well as Maduro’s arrest — represents a clear violation of international law.

Maduro’s arrest on the anniversary of Noriega’s surrender

Maduro’s arrest came 36 years after the surrender of Panamanian strongman Manuel Noriega, marking a milestone in US intervention in the Western Hemisphere. The United States invaded Panama in 1989 to arrest Noriega on drug smuggling charges.

But in Panama, US national security interests were directly at stake regarding the Panama Canal, as well as the safety of US citizens and US military installations in the country.

By contrast, Congress has not authorized any US military strike or law enforcement action against Venezuela.

While US agents have a long history of kidnapping defendants abroad to execute warrants, federal courts have long deferred to the White House on matters of foreign policy and national security.

For example, bounty hunters in the United States, working under the supervision of the Drug Enforcement Administration, kidnapped in Mexico in 1990 a doctor accused of killing DEA agent Enrique “Kiki” Camarena.

“The courts give great deference to the president in cases related to national security,” said Gurule, who led the prosecution against Camarena’s killers. “But great respect does not mean absolute respect and absolute authority to do anything.”

Congress has not yet authorized or prohibited US actions

The Trump administration has declared drug cartels operating from Venezuela to be illegal combatants and said the United States is now in “armed conflict” with them, according to an administration memo obtained by The Associated Press in October.

Read more: Trump declares that the United States is in a “non-international armed conflict” with drug cartels

The memo appears to represent an unusual assertion of presidential war powers, with Trump effectively declaring that drug trafficking into the United States rises to the level of an armed conflict requiring the use of military force. This is the new rationale for past and future actions.

Congress, which has broad power to authorize or prohibit the president’s war powers, has failed to do either, even as lawmakers from both political parties grow increasingly uneasy about military actions in the region, especially after revelations that U.S. forces killed two survivors of a boat attack in a subsequent strike.

Schmidt said there was no other way to describe what happened other than “a state of war between the United States and Venezuela.”

“Lawyers call it an international armed conflict,” Schmidt said. “Secularists call it a war. Therefore, legally, we are now at war with Venezuela because the use of hostilities between two countries clearly leads to an internal armed conflict,” he added.

War powers vote forward

Leaders of the “Gang of Eight” in Congress, which includes House and Senate leaders from both political parties as well as leading lawmakers on the intelligence committees, were notified early Saturday after operations began, according to a person who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive issue.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Los Angeles, said the administration is “working to schedule briefings” for lawmakers when they return to Washington next week.

But Democratic lawmakers warned that the administration, in deviating from the rule of law, could give the green light to other countries like China or Russia to do the same.

“Once that line is crossed, the rules constraining global chaos begin to break down, and authoritarian regimes will be the first to exploit them,” said Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

“America’s strength comes from our commitment to the rule of law, democratic standards, and constitutional restraint,” he said. “When we abandon these principles, even in the name of confronting bad actors, we weaken our credibility, put global stability at risk, and invite abuses of power that will outlast any single presidency.”

Next week, the Senate is expected to again try to limit Trump’s actions, with a vote expected on a bipartisan war powers resolution that would prevent the use of US forces against Venezuela unless authorized by Congress.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said he was grateful to the armed forces “who implemented this necessary measure.” He said he spoke to Secretary of State Marco Rubio and wanted more information.

“I look forward to receiving further briefings from the administration on this operation as part of its comprehensive counternarcotics strategy when the Senate returns to Washington next week,” Thune said.

Because of the surprise nature of the operation, it could not have been shared in advance with lawmakers, Rubio said in a Saturday news conference with Trump.

Goodman reported from Miami.