304
US not at war with Venezuela, Rubio says, as Maduro held in New York jail - live updates (www.bbc.com)
submitted 8 months ago by to c/news@lemmy.world
60 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

As promised, here are the key points from US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who has spoken to US media outlets this morning.

  • This is "not a war against Venezuela", he says - this follows strikes on the country on Saturday and the extraction of its president, Nicolás Maduro
  • The US will judge Venezuela by "what they do" next, Rubio says, adding that Washington will keep "multiple levers of leverage" to protect its interests
  • Speaking to ABC, Rubio says congressional authorisation wasn't needed before the operation "because this wasn't an invasion"
  • He says that he hopes Maduro's removal will lead to "a better Venezuela", but adds that the "number one objective is America"
  • Asked whether he thinks Interim President Delcy Rodríguez is now the legitimate president of Venezuela, he says the US does not believe the regime is legitimate
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -6 points 8 months ago (4 children)

The ICJ called for the arrest of Putin and Netanyahu. The US saw this and realised that it's now ok to arrest the leader of a sovereign country.

China is currently conducting military operations in Taiwan which is technically not a sovereign country. Taiwan exists as a defacto independent country based on the strategic ambiguity that that US might defend it if were attacked by China. According to international law that would be the US going to war with China over internal Chinese dispute. So technically speaking, defending democratic Taiwan from aggression from an authoritarian regime may be against international law.

Iran gives material support to terrorist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. These terrorist groups use weapons supplied by Iran to attack Israel (and in the case of the Houthis basically any country they feel like). Many people have been killed by Iranian weapons. Iran is most certainly engaged in a proxy war against Israel. This includes the genocidal massacre that occurred on October 7, 2023. Iran is complicit in genocide, but I guess that's ok according to international law.

You see, international law is more of a vibe than anything real. The UN is made up of people, many of whom are appointed by very corrupt countries and what is against international law is probably just decided cliques in the cafeteria in the UN HQ.

Like really, what is the basis that's used to determine which world leaders you think it's acceptable to arrest? Just your feelings on who you like and who you don't like? That's not how legal systems are supposed to work you know.

The only difference between the actions of the UN and the actions of the US is the US actually has the power to actually arrest world leaders and the UN does not.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago* (2 children)

    The ICJ called for the arrest of Putin and Netanyahu. The US saw this and realised that it’s now ok to arrest the leader of a sovereign country.

    Why am I not surprised that you don't understand the difference between a court and a government, much less between the International Court of Justice legitimised by the countries agreeing about its jurisdiction and a "Fuck the law, international and domestic, and any jurisdiction because I just do whatever I want"-wannabe dictator?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Maduro was indicted in a federal court.

    Why am I not surprised you think only courts that indict the people you don't like are legitimate? Why is it fundamentally different for a US court to do something different from a UN court? Other than the fact the UN court isn't capable of actually arresting foreign leaders and the leaders they indict are people you don't like. For the law to be legitimate, it should just prosecute the people it's popular to go after. There's plenty of dictators in the world that have done far worse than Netanyahu, where are the arrest warrants?

    The ICJ is making political moves and that's not what justice is supposed to be about and damages it's legitimacy. The fact that actions by the US that are basically identical to the ICJ's actions are labeled authoritarian, colonialist, actions of a rogue state, just goes to prove the illegtimacy of the the ICJ. You can't have it both ways, either courts can indict foreign leaders and countries can execute arrests on them or they can't. And it shouldn't be down to a court conforming to political opinions, justice is subservient to politics is not justice at all. The ICJ seems intent on using it's power to effect political change, same as Trump.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •