United States government officials went on to cite the invasion of Panamain 1989, as a legal precedent to justify the military operation carried out in Venezuela, in the early hours of this Saturday (3), without authorization from the American Congress, according to sources heard by the CNN.
According to people familiar with the matter, members of the Trump administration are appealing to a legal opinion issued in 1989, which concluded that the US president has the constitutional authority to employ the FBI abroad to investigate and arrest people accused of violating US laws, even if those actions contravene international law.
During the operation carried out on Saturday night (3), FBI agents worked on Venezuelan soil alongside soldiers from the military force to capture President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores.
One of the sources stated that the presence of the FBI would have acted as a “legal loophole” to support the legality of the action based on this opinion.
The 1989 document was used by the then government to support the invasion of Panama, also without authorization from Congress, which resulted in the arrest of dictator Manuel Noriega. At the time, Noriega was taken to the United States and convicted in Miami of drug trafficking, money laundering and criminal association.
As in the Panamanian case, Maduro was captured by American forces after a military operation carried out without approval from the Legislature and will be tried in New York on charges related to drug trafficking.
The legal opinion also maintains that the president can override provisions of the United Nations Charter that prohibit the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another State.
For Brian Finucane, former legal advisor at the State Department and currently a member of the International Crisis Group, the use of this argument is not sustainable from the point of view of international law. He classified the action as a “blatant violation of the UN Charter”, although he recognized that, from the perspective of US domestic legislation, the government may be protected.
Maduro’s immunity thesis and trial
Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro on Monday afternoon (5), after being captured.
The defense must argue that the arrest violated international law and that Maduro has sovereign immunityaccording to the legal analyst at CNN and former federal prosecutor Elie Honig.
According to Honig, lawyers must maintain that Maduro could not be prosecuted for acts carried out as head of state of a foreign country.
According to Honig, it is still difficult to predict how the case will be handled, as there is no identical example in recent history.
The closest precedent, according to him, is that of the former leader of Panama Manuel Noriega, arrested by American forces and later convicted of drug trafficking in 1991, receiving a 40-year prison sentence. Noriega argued similar arguments to sovereign immunity.
Honig stated that it is unlikely that the judge will dismiss the case, as there are precedents that recognize the US Executive Branch with broad authority for decisions involving military actions and national security.
