![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
invasions and justifications
So some time last night President Trump, with no authorization from either Congress (so it violates the US Constitution and the War Powers Act) or the UN (so it violates the UN Charter, to which the US is a signatory), sent air strikes and Special Forces into Venezuela, capturing and abducting President Maduro. There are cheers and dancing in the streets in Venezuela and in Venezuelan ex-pat communities, and defiant speeches from Maduro supporters about President Trump's illegal actions.
Naturally, members of Congress (mostly Democrats) have pointed out that only Congress can declare war, that previous Presidents' abrupt military actions against Iraq, Iran, Syria, Panama, Libya, etc. had at least a "temporary authorization for the use of force", and that any "emergency action" authority he might have with respect to Venezuela expired over a month ago, 90 days after he started the clock ticking by attacking an alleged drug-smuggling boat from Venezuela on Sept. 2.
And naturally, Trump responded by calling them "stupid, weak people" who "should be saying 'good job!' rather than 'gee, it might not be constitutional'." The Constitution and the rule of law are just bureaucratic obstacles in the way of strong men doing what needs to be done.
He might get away with this, politically, on the "ends justify the means" theory: "I got rid of a bad guy, so why are you quibbling about how many laws I broke in order to do it? Likewise, if I deport a gang member who sells illegal drugs, why are you quibbling about things like due process and evidence? As long as my targets are unsympathetic, I don't have to follow any rules. And once people are accustomed to the President not having to follow any rules, I can widen the definition of 'unsympathetic' to include anybody who criticizes or opposes me."
Thing is, Nicolas Maduro really is a bastard, a sadistic dictator, and a criminal who's used the levers of government to enrich himself and his cronies and steal an election he actually lost, his economic policies have been a disaster for his country, and the majority of the Venezuelan people despise him and will be happy to see him go. Is that a legal justification for the United States to unilaterally attack his country, kidnap him, and "run Venezuela" until it can conduct a proper election?
Come to think of it, Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández was also a bastard, a sadistic dictator, and a criminal who used the levers of government to enrich himself and his cronies and steal an election that he probably actually lost, his economic policies were a disaster for his country, and the majority of the Honduran people despised him and celebrated when he was convicted by a U.S. court and sentenced to 45 years in prison for drug-smuggling. And Donald Trump gave him a complete pardon last month, with the justification that "he was treated very unfairly, just like the Biden administration treated a guy named Trump, and that didn't work out very well for them."
Come to think of it, Donald Trump is also a bastard, a sadistic (would-be) dictator, and a criminal who's used the levers of government to enrich himself and his cronies and (try to) steal an election he actually lost, his economic policies have been a disaster for his country, and the majority of the American people despise him and would be happy to see him go. So does that mean other countries have legal justification to attack the United States, kidnap him, and "run the United States" until it can conduct a proper election?
But I guess "legal justification" is a quaint, old-fashioned concept: the only justification you need is power. If you think you can get away with it, do it.
Naturally, members of Congress (mostly Democrats) have pointed out that only Congress can declare war, that previous Presidents' abrupt military actions against Iraq, Iran, Syria, Panama, Libya, etc. had at least a "temporary authorization for the use of force", and that any "emergency action" authority he might have with respect to Venezuela expired over a month ago, 90 days after he started the clock ticking by attacking an alleged drug-smuggling boat from Venezuela on Sept. 2.
And naturally, Trump responded by calling them "stupid, weak people" who "should be saying 'good job!' rather than 'gee, it might not be constitutional'." The Constitution and the rule of law are just bureaucratic obstacles in the way of strong men doing what needs to be done.
He might get away with this, politically, on the "ends justify the means" theory: "I got rid of a bad guy, so why are you quibbling about how many laws I broke in order to do it? Likewise, if I deport a gang member who sells illegal drugs, why are you quibbling about things like due process and evidence? As long as my targets are unsympathetic, I don't have to follow any rules. And once people are accustomed to the President not having to follow any rules, I can widen the definition of 'unsympathetic' to include anybody who criticizes or opposes me."
Thing is, Nicolas Maduro really is a bastard, a sadistic dictator, and a criminal who's used the levers of government to enrich himself and his cronies and steal an election he actually lost, his economic policies have been a disaster for his country, and the majority of the Venezuelan people despise him and will be happy to see him go. Is that a legal justification for the United States to unilaterally attack his country, kidnap him, and "run Venezuela" until it can conduct a proper election?
Come to think of it, Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández was also a bastard, a sadistic dictator, and a criminal who used the levers of government to enrich himself and his cronies and steal an election that he probably actually lost, his economic policies were a disaster for his country, and the majority of the Honduran people despised him and celebrated when he was convicted by a U.S. court and sentenced to 45 years in prison for drug-smuggling. And Donald Trump gave him a complete pardon last month, with the justification that "he was treated very unfairly, just like the Biden administration treated a guy named Trump, and that didn't work out very well for them."
Come to think of it, Donald Trump is also a bastard, a sadistic (would-be) dictator, and a criminal who's used the levers of government to enrich himself and his cronies and (try to) steal an election he actually lost, his economic policies have been a disaster for his country, and the majority of the American people despise him and would be happy to see him go. So does that mean other countries have legal justification to attack the United States, kidnap him, and "run the United States" until it can conduct a proper election?
But I guess "legal justification" is a quaint, old-fashioned concept: the only justification you need is power. If you think you can get away with it, do it.
no subject
It's also awfully convenient that he's using the same playbook as Putin -- conquest for ego and financial gains -- so it would now be "wrong" for the US to continue to support Ukraine, sorry Zelenskyy (no not sorry). The nudge-nudge wink-wink understanding is that Russia won't interfere with Trump's unjustified aggressions in the Americas so long as the US doesn't interfere with Putin's unjustified aggressions. The strongmen carve up the world and everyone else shuts up for fear of being eliminated.
no subject
This is the way international relations worked, pretty much from the development of nation-states until 1947, when a bunch of world leaders who had witnessed two world wars decided to set up a system of international law that they all promised to more-or-less abide by. The result hasn't been peace, exactly, but we've had no direct great-powers conflicts since 1947, historically few people dying in cross-border military actions, and historically rapid improvement in quality of life for ordinary people around the world. Returning to the previous system seems like throwing all that away.