We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
I am delighted Maduro is gone… So soon into 2026, I am delighted Maduro is gone… just as I was delighted when Saddam Hussain was overthrown in 2003. Yet in retrospect, I had no idea how unwise successive US governments would be when it came to handling the aftermath in Iraq.
Trump says what will follow in Venezuela will not be ‘nation building’ so much as literal direct rule by the USA “until a proper and judicious transition” (whatever that means).
Yet is there any indication the US actually has control of Venezuela? To what extent has Maduro’s United Socialist Party of Venezuela been dismantled, if at all? One night of air strikes will not have eliminated the regime’s security apparatus. Will there be a Marine Expeditionary Force in Caracas in the next few days?
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
I dont know what the answer is for nation states with dictators at their helm. The UN is compromised by dictators. The US has got an appalling track record of going into such states. Politics is largely driven by greed and money. I personally dont think there can be any justification for going into another state unless they’ve physically attacked you. I believe its up to the people of any state to police their government.
Stuart Noyes – your requirement has been fulfilled, the socialist regime in Venezuela did indeed support armed gangs that killed Americans – inside the United States. Indeed these Social Justice gangs or murderers hold Mr Maduro to be their leader.
Both you, and Senator Rand Paul, should accept that this fulfills your requirement.
As for telling Congress in advance, as there are many traitors in Congress (yes I did use the “T word”) giving them advance warning of operations against Collectivists, outside or inside the United States, would be unwise.
It is also no surprise that Mayor Mamdani (like his father Professor Mamadani – neither father or son should have been allowed into the United States or any other Western country – and BOTH should be deported) has come out in support of Mr Maduro.
Can you point me to any info on these gangs in the US please Paul?
Ilya Somin, at Reason, sums up my own take better than I can, and deals with various points.
I shed no tears for Maduro, who is a brutally oppressive dictator and not the legitimate ruler of his country (given his falsification of the 2024 election results). His real crime is not drug smuggling or “narco-terrorism” but repression and murder on a massive scale, creating the biggest refugee crisis in the history of the Western Hemisphere. The recent history of Venezuela is an abject lesson in the perils of “democratic socialism.” That sort of regime leads to poverty and massive human rights violations – and doesn’t stay democratic for long.
If Maduro ends up spending the rest of his life in a US prison, it will be just punishment for his many crimes, though drug smuggling is not what he really deserves to be punished for. The US War on Drugs is itself deeply unjust and turning it into a real war makes it worse.
But, the evils of Maduro notwithstanding, the US attack is still illegal, because lacking proper congressional authorization. I have long argued (most recently here) that the initiation of any large-scale military action requires congressional authorization, and this case surely fits the bill. Extensive air strikes combined with insertion of ground forces to seize a national leader is more than just some minor action that the president can take on his own authority. That’s even more true if Trump really plans to have the US “run” Venezuela until a new government can be established. Doing that would likely require a much larger US military intervention.
Defenders of the legality of Trump’s actions cite the 1989 invasion of Panama, which was undertaken in large part for the purpose of apprehending Panamian dictator Manuel Noriega; like Maduro, Noriega was charged with smuggling illegal drugs into the US. But the 1989 Panama precedent does not actually justify Trump’s actions. On December 15, 1989 (five days before the US invasion), Noriega foolishly announced that Panama and the US were in a “state of war,” thereby creating conflict between the two countries that did not exist in the Venezuela case. In addition, Panamanian forces had killed or wounded two US military personnel in the Panama Canal area, and detained other American citizens. Unlike Noriega in 1989, the Venezuelan regime did not declare war on the US or otherwise initiate a military conflict. Thus, congressional authorization is needed to make any US military intervention constitutional.
Mr Trump may have sold the idea to the American public that this will be a brief engagement, but you don’t have to be a critics of US foreign interventions down the decades not to worry about where this will lead. Even if I took Trump’s justification for this act on face value (bear with me), I’d want to know how exactly the US intends to “run” this country, and with what end-point in mind?
What is also clear is that those Republicans who voted for Mr Trump in the hope of ending military adventures abroad might need to re-think. And seriously, if he is going to engage in a war without Congressional approval, what exactly is Congress for?
Thank God we have U.K. bloggers to tell Americans what we’ve done wrong.
IrishOtter, well , why are you here?
Take all the time you need. It’s a Sunday.
Why are you commenting on a UK blog then? I’m sure there are a load of American ones where you only have to listen to other Americans.
Stuart Noyes – I am one of the most techno ignorant people on the planet – I can not even use a mobile telephone, or “cut and paste” (whatever that means), so if I can use a search engine (which I can) – you, with far greater technical skills, can do so.
There is also the little matter than the handful of conservative television stations and websites that exist have been reporting on this matter for several years.
It is irregular warfare (I grant you that – for it is true) – but still warfare. Via the gangs the government of Venezuela has been waging war on the United States for years.
The clearing out of Venezuelan prisons and mental hospitals (into the United States) was also a tactic in that irregular warfare – a tactic they copied from their fellow socialists in the Cuban regime.
The action of President Trump was NOT “illegal”, the legal precedents were set many years ago (not even CNN has claimed it was “illegal”), and in this particular case – the United States government did not recognize the regime in Venezuela.
The election in Venezuela in 2024 was as bent as the American election of 2020 – even the Biden Administration did not recognize the outcome in Venezuela, “do not do as we did – do as we say” was their position.
Mr Maduro was wanted in the United States on serious charges – he will now appear in court (although, like Mr Ed, I would prefer to see him before a court in, say, rural Alabama, than in New York) – as Venezuela had no legitimate government, that legitimate government was not violated (because it did not exist), and the regime in Venezuela had, via its gangs, being waging irregular warfare against the United States for years.
But if the media want to side with Maduro fine – after all the media have form in the United States as well, for example denying obvious election fraud in both 2020 and 2022 (the “conservative” Wall Street Journal included), and backing despicable behaviour during Covid – namely the smearing of Early Treatment (which could have saved the lives of the people who died – a fact that the establishment knew very well), covering up the role of American and British people (such as Tony Fauci and Peter Daszak – he of the Eco Health Alliance and World Health Organisation) in funding the creation of the disease in China (from where it either “escaped” from the lab or was deliberately released – which is still NOT known), supporting the obscene “lockdowns” (which have done terrible harm), and the dangerous Covid “vaccines” (which were not vaccines at all) – although President Trump himself was gullible enough to believe the government and corporate people on the “vaccines”.
I wish I could say the media had changed – but their almost total indifference to the endless Billions of Dollars of fraud uncovered in various States, shows they have NOT changed. The narrative that mass immigration is a “Good Thing” (TM) must not be contradicted by nasty things called facts. Instead we get the lie machine “migrants are less likely to commit crimes than Americans”, “the snow line is retreating – due to Carbon Dioxide”, “racism is the reason that black people are poor”, “Mr George Floyd was murdered”, “the United States Presidential election of 2020 was honest” and on and on.
“Maduro was the legitimate President of Venezuela – arresting him is illegal” would, sadly, be par for the course as regards the media.
Although, that being said, I still hope the media does NOT go down that road.
Millions of people were driven out of Venezuela – millions of people.
It is time for the media to stop – and I still hope they will stop.
As for the approval of Congress.
Congress contains many traitors – to tell them of an operation in advance, would be the same as shooting American servicemen in the back.
Confidential military operations are not put before Congress first – because it would be insane to do so.
I remind people that, for example, Mr Adam Schiff is NOT in prison (as he should be) – he is in fact a member of the United States Senate.
Does anyone think telling “Senator Schiff” about a military operation in advance would be good idea? How about telling Senator “Bernie” Sanders – last seen celebrating with Mayor Mamdani (why Mayor Mamdani, and his father, Professor Mamdani, were allowed into the United States has not been satisfactorily explained – neither man has ever disguised their intense hatred for the United States, any more than “the Squad” in the House of Representatives do).
It is not even a question of a few individuals – they are many, very many, people in both the Senate and the House who can not be trusted (to put the matter mildly) – and not all of them are Democrats.
“But the Constitution….”
When gold and silver coin are the only legal tender in any State (Article One, Section Ten) – then people can talk about “the Constitution”.
Saw this quote on YT:
@Paul Marks.
When gold and silver coin are the only legal tender in any State (Article One, Section Ten) – then people can talk about “the Constitution”.
So because the judiciary is so lax in enforcing one part of the constitution then an appeal to the constitution is no longer valid? Shall we toss aside free speech, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to trial by jury, or three fold government of competing branches? After all, the Supreme court has interpreted the “interstate commerce” far to broadly and largely ignored the tenth amendment. Or shall we instead try to keep those parts we can?
I am reminded of a saying about babies and bathwater.
From the Somyn quote (provided by J. Pearce):
Somyn being a legal scholar, he should consider that the US government has no standing wrt “repression and murder” (and starvation) in Venezuela.
Having said that: That the abduction of Maduro is (presumably) in the interest of the Venezuelan people, is in my opinion a key argument for the “moral legitimization” of the raid.
Equally important, however, were Maduro’s links to Iran and China (and Russia, too). In my book, there is a prima facie case for hitting the friend of my enemy.
Barely “abroad.”
I think people forget about maps, and basic geography.
Pop up a world map. Look at Venezuela, and where it lies relative to the US.
Now consider that Maduro was courting Iran, and China, and others.
There is simply no way that this was going to be accepted given his location.
Millions of people were driven from Venezuela – millions. And a lot of them are in the United States – as are the gangs who regard Maduro as their leader (although he was really a puppet of Cuba and Iran – and, via them, of the People’s Republic of China).
So it is not “abroad” – bobby b is correct, although Maduro was not “courting” Cuba, Iran and (most importantly their own puppet master the People’s Republic of China) he was their puppet.
It is also interesting that some people who say they are very upset about Mr Putin being in Ukraine – have no problem at all with his influence in Venezuela, Brazil and Mexico.
To those who do not know – Venezuela, Brazil and Mexico are much closer to the United States, and are far more important to American interests than Ukraine is. Although Mr Putin himself is, these days, a puppet of the People’s Republic of China.
The ignorant (or worse) people who make up “the media” also pretend that “Trump is bullying Greenland – bullying Denmark” – pretending they do not know that this is also a conflict with the People’s Republic of China.
Greenland has no more chance of standing up to the PRC (and its puppet Mr Putin) than the town of Kettering has.
Stop obsessing with how big Greenland looks on a map – look at its size of population and the strength of its military forces. And look at the military power of Denmark as well.
If we had journalists, rather than “the media”, I would not need to type this.
Presidents since George Washington have been using military force WITHOUT the consent of Congress.
So unless you want to dig up President Washington and put his corpse on trial (for the crushing of the anti tax Whiskey Rebellion, and for operations against “Native Americans”) – stop talking rubbish about what President Trump has done being “unconstitutional”.
As for “illegal” – the War Powers Act of 1973 says the President has to inform Congress within 48 hours AFTER the military operation.
So it is not “unconstitutional” and it is not “illegal”.
Congress may indeed overrule the President – by a two thirds vote in both House and Senate.
Roger Sherman did not want an elected President – he thought the position would be too powerful.
But Roger Sherman lost that debate in Philadelphia.