A redacted version of the paper provides fresh insight into the legal reasoning behind Maduro’s removal. WASHINGTON: Trump administration attorneys praised the U.S. military operation that overthrew Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela a few days prior, stating that it would “not rise to the level of war in the constitutional sense” and would serve “important national interests,” according to a legal opinion that expresses a strong view of presidential power.
The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel decision, which was heavily redacted and made public this week, provides further insight into how the administration arrived to the conclusion that it was lawfully allowed to remove Maduro as president of Venezuela in a dramatic military operation that took place in the middle of the night on January 3. The December 23 opinion was written for the White House National Security Council’s legal advisor. Lawyers from the Office of Legal Counsel, which has traditionally been tasked with resolving complex legal issues for the executive branch, wrote the 22-page brief.
In this case, the ruling addresses whether President Donald Trump might direct the military to assist law enforcement in overthrowing Maduro so that he could be charged with a crime in the United States. The opinion stated that the answer was “yes.” The “severe” accusations against Maduro in a drug-trafficking conspiracy indictment, the “numerous other highly dangerous activities” he and his associates were allegedly involved in, the potential need for military force to protect civilians in Venezuela and abroad from Venezuela, and the possibility that US personnel would run into “armed resistance” defending Maduro were just a few of the five reasons it listed.
According to the opinion, “we were told to assume that there were up to 200 armed guards in a literal fort who were sent from and armed by another country purely to ensure Maduro’s safety.” “The need for military forces to provide security for law enforcement personnel carrying out the rendition is supported by this level of anticipated armed resistance.” Depending in part on Maduro’s exact position at the time of the strike, administration attorneys assessed a low possibility that the military operation would result in an all-out war that would require congressional permission, despite the conclusion identifying what it claimed were considerable risks.
Republican leaders claim they were not informed in advance of the raid to apprehend Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. Senate Republicans voted on Wednesday to reject a proposal that would have restricted Trump’s capacity to launch more assaults against Venezuela due to pressure from the president. “We were assured that there is no contingency plan to engage in any substantial and sustained operation that would amount to a constitutional war, even though we cannot speculate as to any presidential decision in response to the significant loss of U.S. servicemembers,” the ruling stated. We were also reassured that, in the event that Maduro’s resignation causes civil turmoil in Venezuela, there is no backup plan that would entail the use of American military to invade the country.
“We do not currently plan any action that would amount to a constitutional war based on that assessment of U.S. intentions,” the statement continued. A president “can lawfully authorize the operation does not by itself render any and all use of force in its completion lawful,” according to the legal judgment. The ruling stated that the staff in question “must implement his lawful order in a reasonable way.”
