Jan
4
2026

Venezuela!

Today's Eye Candy is explained at GettyImages: "Venezuelan citizens living in the city of Medellin, Colombia, celebrate the capture of President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, following an attack by the United States."

The young lady's sign, fed to Google Translate, seems to be something like: "We want to return home, away from the dictatorship."

It was just a few days ago I mentioned my weakness on foreign policy stuff, "torn between a sensible isolationism on one hand, and not wanting to see bad guys win on the other." Add in an old-fashioned fealty to the Constitution, which (Article I, Section 8, Clause 11) says that war-declaration is a Congressional power, not the President's.

And of course, Maduro is one of the baddest of the bad guys. Shorn of other concerns, it's a win when he's taken off the board.

I am idly wondering what any of the six Democrats who gratuitously urged the military to "refuse illegal orders" back in November are saying now. Do they consider Trump's action illegal? Do they think the troops involved should have Just Said No?

One of those D's: New Hampshire's CongressCritter, Maggie Goodlander. Here's her Official Tweet:

Any service member looking for guidance from Maggie about whether to "refuse illegal orders" in this case will not find any definite advice here.

So, as I've said many times in the past: I link, you decide. First up is Clark Nelly from Cato: Venezuela—Indictments, Invasions, and the Constitution’s Crumbling Guardrails.

Last night, US forces attacked various locations in Venezuela in an operation to capture the loathsome President Nicolás Maduro and bring him to New York to face federal weapons and drug-trafficking charges for which he and other Venezuelan officials were indicted in 2020. Much ink has already been spilled regarding the legality of that operation and whether it transgresses the allocation of power over foreign affairs between the legislative and executive branches.

The short answer is that while the operation, which appears to have been more about regime change than law enforcement, raises profound constitutional concerns, the courts will almost certainly bless the ensuing prosecution and leave to Congress the decision whether to punish the president for overstepping his authority or claw back its war-making and foreign-policy responsibilities from an increasingly ambitious executive.

Nelly notes that the United States (under George H.W. Bush) did something similar to Panama's Noriega back in 1989, and that precedent might apply here. (Noriega died in prison back in 2017. I had to look that up.)

Jonathan Turley is OK with it: The United States Captures Nicolás Maduro and his Wife. He also invokes the Noriega Precedent.

Democratic members quickly denounced the operation as unlawful. They may want to review past cases, particularly the decision related to the Noriega prosecution after his capture by President George H.W. Bush in 1989.

Representative Jim McGovern (D., Mass) declared:

“Without authorization from Congress, and with the vast majority of Americans opposed to military action, Trump just launched an unjustified, illegal strike on Venezuela. He says we don’t have enough money for healthcare for Americans—but somehow we have unlimited funds for war??”

Trump does not need congressional approval for this type of operation. Presidents, including Democratic presidents, have launched lethal attacks regularly against individuals. President Barack Obama killed an American citizen under this “kill list” policy. If Obama can vaporize an American citizen without even a criminal charge, Trump can capture a foreign citizen with a pending criminal indictment without prior congressional approval.

But check out George Will's take: Trump goes monster-hunting, untainted by a whiff of legality. (WaPo gifted link) Skipping down to the bottom line:

Meanwhile, the Trump administration must devise justifications for the Venezuelan intervention without employing categories by which Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping can give a patina of faux legality to forcibly ending nearby regimes they dislike. The Trump administration’s incantations of its newly minted and nonsensical phrase “narco-terrorism” will not suffice.

Andrew C. McCarthy, the conservative lawyer who prosecuted terrorists convicted of the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, says this phrase “has no standing as a legal term — no significance in the extensive bodies of federal law defining narcotics trafficking and terrorism.”

As Bishop Joseph Butler (1692-1752) said, “Everything is what it is, and not another thing.” Narcotics trafficking is a serious crime. It is not a terrorist activity. Neither is the self-“poisoning” of Americans who ingest drugs.

And perhaps with this: When Theodore Roosevelt asked Attorney General Philander Knox to concoct a legal justification for the unsavory U.S. measures that enabled construction of the Panama Canal, Knox replied, “Oh, Mr. President, do not let so great an achievement suffer from any taint of legality.”

Speaking of Andrew C. McCarthy: I don't think he's weighed in yet over at National Review. As I type, anyway.

Also of note:

  • Steven Greenhut urges New Year Resolutions for the GOP: In 2026, Republicans will have to decide what comes after Trump.

    We've become numb to narcissistic rage posts from our president, but the highly publicized Turning Point USA convention last week offers a preview into where the Republican Party is going after Donald Trump exits the stage. It's not pretty. As we've seen recently in other squabbles within the conservative movement, the fireworks centered on the rhetoric of some conspiracy minded—but highly popular—right-wing personalities. TPUSA had it all: in-fighting, name-calling and innuendo.

    In the old days, the conservative movement tried to police itself, as it shoved authoritarians and conspiracy theorists to the sidelines. Buckley took on the John Birch Society, which in its zealous anti-communism argued the United States government was controlled by communists. Standing up to the Evil Empire was a core part of conservative philosophy, but Buckley realized that allowing the fever swamps to engulf his movement only tarnished that goal.

    Some critics argue Buckley wasn't all that successful, but he was successful enough to keep the party from becoming what it has become now—where reasonable voices are drowned out by the likes of Nick Fuentes, Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens. If there are no adults in charge—and the party's leader acts like a toddler, as he savages his foes in petty tantrums, renames buildings after himself and adds insulting White House plaques below the portraits of former presidents—then the whole trashy movement will one day be heaved into the dumpster.

    I'd only make the point that to a limited extent the MSM are also guilty of amplifying the kooky/evil volces of Fuentes, Carlson, Owens, et al. They love to showcase those guys. (Much like, back in 2015-6, they loved to cover Trump, to the detriment of the less wacky candidates.)