01/04/2026
WAS THE CAPTURE OF MADURO LEGAL?
Which side are you on?
Some say yes. Some say absolutely not.
Here’s why this moment matters...
The Case For Legality
Nicolás Maduro has long been indicted by the U.S. on narco-terrorism charges. The U.S. has argued for years that Maduro is not a legitimate president, but a dictator tied to criminal networks. Supporters point to precedent:
Manuel Noriega was a sitting head of state
He was captured by U.S. forces (1989), removed from power, and tried in U.S. courts. From this view, criminal leaders don’t get sovereign immunity. This wasn't an act of war. It was exercising an arrest warring for a criminal.
The Case Against Legality
Maduro was still recognized as Venezuela’s president by many BRICS countries. Capturing a sitting head of state without UN authorization challenges international law. Critics argue this crosses from law enforcement into regime change by force.
What one side calls “arrest,” the other calls kidnapping
The Real Issue
This isn’t just about Maduro. Its clearly about oil as well as China.
It’s also about who gets to decide legitimacy:
The U.S. and its allies: dictator, terrorist, criminal.
Venezuela and its allies: lawfully elected president.
That exact tension existed with Noriega — and the U.S. acted anyway.