So, We’re Kidnapping Heads of State Now | Once More Around Eternity

Well, that escalated quickly. We’ve gone from blowing up boats in international waters, to kidnapping foreign heads of state.

According to statements coming out of Washington, the United States has decided that international law is more of a suggestion than a binding framework and has chosen to resolve its long-running grievances with Venezuela by launching military action and physically removing its sitting president, Nicolás Maduro, from his own country on January 3, 2026.

Some are calling this “justice.” Others are calling it “decisive leadership.” A few are openly cheering.

But the only ones calling it “justice” and “decisive leadership”, are the same ones who would use the same terms if Trump ordered an air strike on a bubble gum factory because he didn’t like the taste of the product (that’s probably next).

Whether you’re cheering this on, or scratching your head, there’s one thing that isn’t up for debate among international lawyers and world leaders: this represents a massive break with the rules that have governed international relations for nearly eighty years.

Why? Because what just happened is not actually “law enforcement”, not “accountability”, and certainly not some brave new chapter in international cooperation.

It is, by definition, an illegal use of force and the extrajudicial kidnapping of a head of state. And yes, words matter here — especially when bombs, soldiers, and especially Trump, are involved.

Let’s Start With the Inconvenient Part: This IS Actually Illegal

The bedrock of the modern international system is the principle that no state may use military force against another without legitimate authority.

Under Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter – a document the United States helped write, and has signed, ratified, and supposedly still recognizes – nations are prohibited from using military force against any other sovereign state. The wording is clear enough:

“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State…”
— UN Charter Article 2(4)

In plain English: you can’t invade another country just because you don’t like its leader, no matter how unpopular or authoritarian that leader might be.

Only Two Exceptions

There are exactly two narrow exceptions:

Self-defense against an armed attack, or
Explicit authorization by the U.N. Security Council

This situation meets neither.

Venezuela did not attack the United States. And there was no Security Council authorization to invade, strike, or “extract” anyone from Caracas. No matter how unpleasant Maduro may be, disliking a foreign leader does not grant invasion privileges. Neither does the claim that it was simply an “arrest” of a wanted alleged criminal.

Calling this an “arrest” is linguistic gymnastics of Olympic proportions.

Arrests do not involve airstrikes, troop deployments, and violations of sovereign borders. That’s not policing – that’s war, or at the very least an unjustified act of aggression.

What Makes This Illegal

By Trump’s action authorizing the invasion of Venezuela for the purpose of kidnapping Maduro, the head of state of Venezuela, as well as his wife – who is not a head of state – Trump has committed (beyond the kidnapping of a Maduro’s wife, a private individual) the following illegal acts – and involved the military forces involved in these actions in these same illegal acts:

The List of Laws And Trump’s Violations

18 U.S. Code § 112 – Protection of Foreign Officials
- Prohibits assault, kidnapping, or threats against internationally protected persons, including foreign heads of state.
  - Violation: Kidnapping a foreign president is a direct breach of this law.
18 U.S. Code § 956 – Conspiracy to Commit Offenses Outside the U.S.
- Criminalizes planning or conspiring to commit violent acts abroad, including abduction.
  - Violation: Coordinating a kidnapping or military strike without lawful basis.
18 U.S. Code § 2441 – War Crimes
- Applies Geneva Convention standards to U.S. nationals.
  - Violation: Unlawful treatment of protected persons, including heads of state, during an armed conflict.
War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. §§ 1541–1548)
- Requires the President to consult Congress before introducing U.S. forces into hostilities.
  - Violation: Launching a war without Congressional authorization or proper notification.
U.S. Constitution – Article I, Section 8
- Grants Congress the sole power to declare war.
  - Violation: Any president who unilaterally initiates war action, breaches constitutional separation of powers.
United Nations Charter – Article 2(4)
- Prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
  - Violation: Military aggression against Venezuela without UN Security Council approval.
Geneva Conventions – Common Article 3
- Protects persons not actively participating in hostilities, including political leaders.
  - Violation: Kidnapping or harming a head of state during a conflict.
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC)
- Defines crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression.
  - Violation: Unlawful war initiation and abduction may qualify as crimes of aggression and war crimes.
Hague Convention (1907) – Laws of War
- Prohibits treacherous acts and mistreatment of protected persons.
  - Violation: Deceptive seizure of a foreign leader violates wartime conduct norms.

The Charges That Can Be Levied Against Trump

Kidnapping of a legally-defined protected person
Unlawful use of military force
Abuse of executive power
War crimes
Violation of international sovereignty

The Far-Right Spin Room Gears Up

Some allied to the far-right (and consequently to Trump’s backside) have claimed that Trump had every right to commit these actions because there was a bounty on Maduro’s head (not surprisingly, ONLY by the U.S.), and/or that he was a “narco-terrorist” (a made up term that has no international legal classification), and/or that the U.S. has done this type of thing before and gotten away with it.

Some of them, including “My Faith Votes“, a proven fake-Christian political front for the far-right, point to other activities by the U.S. as some sort of “justification” for Trump’s current action. Their list includes:

Truman sending troops to Korea
Kennedy and Johnson sending troops to Vietnam
Nixon’s bombing of Cambodia
Reagan’s invasion of Grenada
George H. W. Bush’s invasion of Panama
Clinton’s bombing of Iraq and Yugoslavia
George W. Bush’s interventions in Afghanistan
Obama’s bombing of Libya
Trump’s (first-term) bombing of Syria

The “My Faith Votes” author compounds his/her idiocy and ignorance of history by claiming that all of the above were done “without Congress.” To add fuel to the dung pile of the “My Faith Votes” stupidity, the post author pointed to Noriega’s capture in Panama, as being the “same situation as Maduro”:

“Manuel Noriega was captured in Panama in 1990 during the invasion under George H.W. Bush because of drug trafficking and racketeering. He was brought to the U.S. to face justice.”
– MyFaithVotes comment on 1/3/2026 post on their Facebook page

The Far-Right, Falling Flat

However, this is where political extremists of both parties (let’s be balanced here) tend to fall on their faces and eat dirt – they always ignore actual facts when those facts don’t fit with their agenda.

Noriega and Maduro are NOT the same.

Unlike Maduro, Noriega was not recognized as Panama’s head of state at the time of his capture. Another Panamanian government was officially recognized well before Bush’s action, which removed any claim of head-of-state immunity from Noriega.

Ignoring Historical Context

Beyond this, any attempt to claim that it was alright for Trump to commit these illegal actions without Congress because “we did it before”, completely ignores the condemnation that the U.S. received for those other illegal actions.

It also rather “conveniently” glosses over the fact that Congress actually did agree with Truman’s Korea action, because it was under a UN mandate. Kennedy and Johnson’s Vietnam actions were specifically authorized by Congress via the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

As for the actions in Grenada, Panama, Iraq and Yugoslavia (under Clinton), Congress actively appropriated funds for each action and largely acquiesced to them, despite not actually making any formal declarations of war.

With Or Without Congress?

Bush’s action in Afghanistan was given explicit Congressional authorization under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed on September 18, 2001, that allowed the President to use military force against those responsible for the September 11 attacks.

We’ve seen in U.S. constitutional practice since WWII, that funding and authorization statutes have largely replaced formal declarations of war.

Thus, “no declaration of war” does not equal “without Congress.”

The Venezuela issue is different however, because no credible evidence has emerged as of this writing, to indicate that Trump consulted Congress or requested funding or authorization for his actions before committing them.

Domestic Acquiescence Doesn’t Equal International Legality

While some of the U.S. actions in the past were tolerated in the U.S., many still remain disputed, criticized, or considered blatantly illegal under international law:

Korea (Truman): Generally viewed as lawful internationally due to UN Security Council authorization.
Vietnam (Kennedy, Johnson): Increasingly viewed as violating international law once it expanded beyond self-defense.
Cambodia (Nixon): Widely regarded as a violation of international law (state sovereignty).
Grenada (Reagan): Largely condemned internationally as unlawful, despite U.S. justifications.
Panama (Bush): Highly controversial; many states viewed it as violating international law, despite U.S. claims of self-defense and treaty protection.
Yugoslavia (Clinton): No UN Security Council authorization; widely considered illegal but defended as “humanitarian intervention.”
Iraq (Clinton): Legally disputed; tied to prior UN resolutions but never clearly authorized.
Libya (Obama): Initially lawful under UN Security Council Resolution 1973, later criticized for exceeding the mandate.
Syria (Trump): Legally disputed internationally; no UN authorization, justified by the U.S. as deterrence/humanitarian necessity.

Now I personally don’t give a crap which political party is committing controversial, disputed, or openly illegal actions. This isn’t technically a “Republican vs Democrat” issue, since both political parties have had Presidents who have been engaged in questionable activities internationally.

The big issue I have with this – as should any patriotic American – is the fact that committing such acts makes us look like lawless bullies willing to commit whatever crimes we want and expect to get away with them. It certainly doesn’t make America look “great.”

Charges Don’t Automatically Equal Proof Of Guilt

Now, let’s be clear here. Maduro is no doubt, a bad actor. I’ve said elsewhere on social media, that I personally think he’s an idiot.

While a number of charges have been lobbed at him, the major point here is this:

As of the moment of this writing, no credible foreign or international court has convicted Nicolás Maduro of criminal activity outside Venezuela.

A Venezuelan “Supreme Tribunal of Justice (TSJ) in exile” (a body set up by opposition and exiled judicial figures) claimed to have sentenced Maduro to 18+ years in prison for corruption in 2018.

However, the TSJ in exile is not universally recognized as a legitimate judicial authority under international law. It has no enforcement power inside Venezuela or outside without international enforcement mechanisms. And while its rulings may seem politically weighty, they are not legally binding like a conviction by a recognized sovereign court.

So while this tribunal has issued a sentence, it is not the same as a conviction in a recognized foreign criminal court.

Thus, while there are legal actions and accusations pending or made by jurisdictions other than Venezuela – these are only indictments, allegations, or non-state judgments, not convictions by a recognized court outside Venezuela.

Which brings us to…

The Other Legal Wrinkle

There’s another huge legal wrinkle that Trump and his merry band of fascist misfits are completely ignoring.

Personal immunity.

Arresting a foreign head of state isn’t like arresting a fugitive criminal.

International law recognizes that sitting heads of state enjoy personal immunity (immunity ratione personae) from arrest, detention, and criminal jurisdiction by foreign states. This rule is grounded in customary international law and authoritatively affirmed by the International Court of Justice in the 2002 Arrest Warrant case.

Immunity Matters

The immunity applies regardless of alleged crimes while the individual remains in office and reflects the principles of sovereign equality and non-intervention under the UN Charter.

Ironically, it’s the very thing that Trump himself argued he had, when he was attempting to escape prosecution on various criminal acts he was accused of (and was convicted of) prior to 2025.

The concept of personal immunity for a sitting head of state flows directly from these UN articles:

Article 2(1) — Sovereign equality of states
Article 2(4) — Prohibition on use of force
Article 2(7) — Non-intervention in domestic affairs

Arresting or abducting a sitting head of state would violate all three. But this is precisely what Trump has done.

The rules exist to protect the functioning of the international system. So, even if the head of state is widely disliked or accused of horrible abuses, it doesn’t make him subject to the whims of rogue actors like Trump.

There are exactly three narrow exceptions – for genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity – but those must come through multilateral institutions like the International Criminal Court (ICC), not through unilateral missile strikes and shelling.

Which brings me to…

There Are Legal, Peaceful Avenues — We’re Just Ignoring Them

We didn’t need to invade a country, destroy property and probably kill people, just to get Maduro. This was the wrong way – the illegal way – to accomplish the desired result.

It also happens to be a fascist approach. Trump is literally saying here, “I can do whatever I want, whenever and wherever I want, and no one can stop me, because I’m the president of the United States.”

Well, right now, the president of the United States made us look like a bunch of outlaws and thugs, not like statesmen looking for diplomatic solutions to alleged international criminal activity (alleged is the operative term here, because as of this writing, Maduro has not been actually proven guilty of anything).

The proper avenues to achieve a desired result are:

United Nations Security Council

If a state’s conduct is genuinely a threat to peace – and it usually takes a serious consensus to prove that – then the UN Security Council is the only body actually empowered to authorize collective action.

Unilateral action bypasses that process and therefore undercuts the Charter itself.

International Criminal Court

If evidence exists tying Maduro to international crimes, then the ICC – populated by 124 member states – is the proper forum for investigating and prosecuting those allegations. No amount of political theater in Washington changes that process.

Instead, the reported U.S. approach – militarized force and seizure – looks eerily like a regime-change operation dressed up as law enforcement, and that’s exactly why experts are calling it illegal.

Why Sovereignty Still Matters (Even When It’s Inconvenient)

Here’s the part that always seems to irritate people: international law does not exist to protect good governments – it exists to restrain powerful ones.

Sovereignty isn’t a reward for moral behavior. It’s the baseline rule that prevents the global order from devolving into “whoever has the biggest military gets to decide.”

If the U.S. can decide – unilaterally – that another country’s leader is illegitimate and therefore removable by force, then congratulations: we have just endorsed the same logic Russia uses for its illegal actions in Ukraine, the same logic China could use in any illegal action against Taiwan, and the same logic every aspiring regional bully dreams of using.

And no, saying “but Maduro is bad” is not a rebuttal. It’s an emotional reaction, not a legal argument, and certainly not a justification for what Trump did.

This Is Literally Why the UN and ICC Exist

If there are credible allegations of crimes against humanity – and there have been such allegations regarding the Venezuelan government – then there are established mechanisms for addressing them:

International Criminal Court investigations
Multilateral diplomatic pressure
Targeted sanctions
U.N.-authorized actions, if warranted

What you don’t do – unless you’re a rogue bully intent on dismantling the post-World War II international framework – is bypass all of that and opt for a military snatch-and-grab.

That’s not justice. That’s vigilante geopolitics.

And it’s worth noting that when powerful countries ignore international courts and processes, they don’t weaken dictators – they strengthen dictators, and weaken the courts themselves.

Funny how that keeps coming back to haunt us.

Yes, The World Is Condemning This — For Good Reason

So, if you think that condemning Trump’s illegal actions is an “isolated” opinion or just a “Democrat” viewpoint, think again.

Predictably, a broad range of governments and international bodies have condemned the action. These include (though not an exhaustive list):

The UN Secretary-General described the U.S. action as setting a “dangerous precedent,” because it violates the UN Charter.
Brazil, Mexico, China, France, and the EU have criticized the use of force and warned about destabilizing effects.
UN human rights specialists have explicitly said U.S. covert actions and threats against Venezuela violate Venezuela’s sovereignty and the UN Charter.
South Africa’s government has stated the operation is a “clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations,” and called for multilateral engagement instead of force.
Even Russia, a long ally of the Maduro regime, has come out condemning Trump’s illegal actions, and going so far as to demand an immediate UN Security Council session, in perhaps the most ironic condemnation of the American action, given that Russia basically did the same thing that Trump did by invading another country without justification.

The global consensus among governments outside U.S. official channels is that force without UN council approval or imminent self-defense justification is ILLEGAL.

No Love Lost

This isn’t because they suddenly love Maduro – not many people do, including I’d suspect many of his own countrymen.

It’s because they understand something that Trump’s fascist lackeys like Pam “push it in harder Mr President!” Bondi and the far-right cable news panels rarely do: rules only matter when they’re applied consistently, especially by those who claim to champion them.

Once the “rules-based international order” becomes optional for the most powerful country on Earth, it stops being rules-based and starts being despotic theater.

The Icing On The Stale Fruitcake

This is where it gets even more eyebrow-raising. It would be intellectually dishonest to ignore who is ordering this.

Donald Trump is not a figure known for reverence toward legal norms, institutional restraint, or constitutional boundaries. He is a former president with felony convictions, multiple indictments, and a long public record of testing – and often crossing – legal and ethical lines.

He is a political figure re-elected under dubious circumstances, who both champions the consistent ignoring of Federal and international law, and is championed by those who have shown the same unpatriotic disregard for law and order, while ironically claiming that Trump adheres to the concept of law and order.

A Case Study in Modern Dictatorship

Donald Trump’s legal track record is a case study in dictatorship. He famously has a long catalogue of legal controversies in his own country, from felony convictions to multiple ongoing prosecutions and constitutional fights over executive authority. This makes for a fascinating irony that his administration appears to be trumpeting an action that the international community nearly universally says violates both U.S. and international law.

This is the same man who:

Openly pressured officials to illegally overturn an election,
Regularly treats courts and laws as personal obstacles,
And has consistently framed legality as something that applies to others, not himself.

So when this individual authorizes a unilateral military action that legal scholars immediately flag as unlawful, skepticism is not only warranted – it’s required. So is condemnation and push-back.

You don’t strengthen the rule of law by breaking it loudly and constantly, and calling it leadership.

Whether or not you’re inclined to agree with Trump’s domestic legal battles, the broader point is this:

A president who struggles with legal norms at home, shouldn’t be setting new ones abroad by launching illegal actions internationally.

The Precedent Is the Point

This isn’t really about Maduro. Sure, he’s out of the Venezuelan picture for now, and because of this action, Venezuela’s future remains uncertain.

Any claim that Trump or his MAGA minions would cough out like a 10-day-old hairball that “it’s eliminating a drug trafficking ring” falls flat when seen through historical context.

Just like cocaine trafficking didn’t stop when kingpin Pablo Escobar was killed in Columbia in 1993, any allegedly illegal drug or other activity that Maduro may have been involved in, won’t stop now.

Someone always steps up to the plate to fill the shoes of the “boss” when the boss leaves. Always.

So, this isn’t just about Maduro. It’s about what does endure: precedent.

With Trump’s illegal actions, we are normalizing the idea that international law can be ignored when it’s inconvenient, that military force can replace legal process, and that sovereignty is conditional on Washington’s approval.

That’s not a safer world. It’s a more chaotic one – and history suggests it never ends well.

What Trump Really Wants (He Already Told Us)

Let’s be clear: the reason most countries oppose what’s happened isn’t because they love the Venezuelan government – it’s because they all know that if you allow one country to bomb another and seize its leaders, the whole system unravels.

But this is precisely what Trump has done, and he has already told us why. Trump recently announced that he’s going to take over Venezuela and control the country.

But he’s following his standard tactic of saying:

“I’m going to do _____ (fill in the blank), and it’s going to be the greatest/biggest/most spectacular _____, greater/bigger/more spectacular than anyone else’s _____, only because I’m doing it!”

At the same time he says such things, he never – ever – gives any explanation of exactly how, when, or how much money or resources it’s going to take, to accomplish what he says (with narcissistic bravado) that he’s going to do.

Seeing Past the Facade

Strip away the shiny facade of god-like patriotic hero that Trump wants everyone to believe of him.

See the real Donald Trump: the vicious, greedy, narcissistic, misogynistic, racist, white supremacist, fake-Republican, even faker-Christian, sexual predator and massive criminal that he is, and you see what he really wants from Venezuela.

He doesn’t want to make America “safer” by taking out an alleged “narco-terrorist” and by doing so, becoming the “savior” of America from illicit drugs. Taking Maduro out won’t change illegal drug traffic into this country – not one bit.

Follow The Money, Honey

How many times do we have to tell people: Donald Trump doesn’t give two sh*ts about you. Donald Trump cares about Donald Trump, and ONLY Donald Trump.

So what does he want from Venezuela? Simple. Follow the money, honey.

He wants to control Venezuela’s vast oil reserves. Period.

If he can claim control of a whole foreign nation with vast natural resources, he can place all of those natural resources under his personal command and control, and reap all of the profits from it.

Despots Just Gonna Be Despots

While in the past, even illegal actions taken by former presidents may have had some good come out of them in the end; for example, Clinton claimed humanitarian intervention for the Yugoslavia action during the Bosnian war.

But Trump has no actual legitimate reason for invading a country and kidnapping its leader, much less for involving the US military in these crimes. The only justification is in his own head: a power grab of a foreign country, and a greedy capture and control of its resources.

In this respect, Trump’s actions are similar to Hitler’s actions in World War II, when Hitler invaded various nations and stole every resource he could lay his hands on.

Yes, I said it: Trump is acting like Hitler did. That isn’t some “anti-Trump” rhetoric. It’s actual fact that can be verified through even the most cursory comparison.

Allow Me An Aside: TDS Isn’t Real

As an aside, right at this point if any pro-Trump people have gotten down this far in the article (they rarely do because they don’t have the attention span), we’d usually hear the tired trope “Get help for your TDS!”

What the vast majority of the easily-brainwashed MAGA minions don’t understand – because they’ve been told otherwise – is that “Trump Derangement Syndrome” (TDS) isn’t an actual disease or disorder.

In fact, the “derangement syndrome” concept didn’t even start with Trump. It started during George W. Bush’s presidency, coined in 2003 by Charles Krauthammer, a conservative political columnist, describing what he felt was “irrational hostility” toward Bush by some critics, simply because people were criticizing Bush’s actions or decisions.

While Krauthammer originated the derangement syndrome concept, the specific phrase “Trump Derangement Syndrome” appears to have been first used publicly in an August 2015 op-ed in The American Spectator by Esther Goldberg (likely a far-right commentator) who applied the phrase to what she saw as extreme reactions by so-called “establishment Republicans” toward Donald Trump shortly after he announced his presidential candidacy.

And the perverseness of the language just blossomed from there. Linguists call “Trump derangement syndrome” an informal fallacy. It is in fact, a pejorative term, used as an insult against anyone who dares even in the least bit, to criticize Trump or indeed anything/anyone remotely associated with him.

But what it is NOT – is any kind of mental or medical disease or disorder.

Now, back to the topic at hand…

Perverted Justice

Historically, the U.N. Charter and associated international law were explicitly designed to prevent the very kind of unilateral intervention now being touted in Washington. Those laws exist because governments recognized that powerful nations would otherwise feel free to do whatever they want to weaker ones.

So no: Maduro’s kidnapping and the invasion of Venezuela is ABSOLUTELY NOT “justice finally being served” like Trump’s MAGA minions have been programmed to believe.

What just happened is a clear example of naked power being exercised without restraint and legality being treated as optional.

Callin’ It What It Is: A Criminal Act

What happened in Venezuela isn’t a lawful “arrest.” It’s a blatant violation of international law. Trump bypassed the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force. He ignored international procedures for holding leaders accountable.

His illegal actions risk the dismantling the very norms that keep smaller countries from being bulldozed by larger powers, which invites tit-for-tat behavior from less benevolent states like Russia or China.

In short: this isn’t justice served – it’s a dangerous precedent. And the world isn’t shy about saying so.

If that doesn’t bother you now, it will – the moment someone else decides to abandon the same rules that we just abandoned.

Thanks to Trump, America has now become the “vicious outlaw thug”, and no better at all than Putin and Russia. If this goes any further, someone is going to take a crack at us. And it won’t be pretty. And it will be all Trump’s fault.

Depose The Criminal

So let’s stop the rot where it started, and impeach Trump and remove him from office – so he can stand trial for his international crimes to go along with the 34 Federal crimes of which he’s already been proven guilty.

Oh, and while we’re at it, let’s rid both political parties of their extremists. You know, those dogmatic gorillas who believe that only they are right, everyone else is wrong, and only their political view is ordained by G-d to survive while all others – and those who believe in them – are “destroyed” one way or another.

Americans need to wake up and smell the coffee, realize what’s going on here and what’s really at stake for our country. Then we may be able to finally put an end to this disgusting fascist dictatorship, restore the Republican party to what it was before Trump stole it, and move this country forward the right way,