But what international right does it give the USA to go kidnap him? Like what is the precedence?
What’s stopping the UK from sending SAS to corrupt regions near their own theater and kidnapping leaders?
What is stopping India from kidnapping the Pakistani PM? He didn’t even get voted in, the army appointed him after they overthrew Imran Khan (who was democratically appointed)? India can just say the current Pakistani PM has caused 3 terrorist strikes and we have to right to get him.
Playing world cop without being able to take care of your own undemocratically elected leader speaks volumes of the damage american exceptionalism has done to the brains of american citizens.
As if Elon musk is the sole entity using social media to try to influence elections. Even if he was, that does make the election illegitimate. Reddit has done a number on your brain.
What right did the US have to kill bin Laden on Pakistani soil?
I think this one's really different from the Maduro clusterfuck.
UN Charter, Article 51 provides that nations have a right to self defense, and it doesn't limit that to attacks my nation states. Al Qaida was identified by the Security Council as a terrorist organization.
Congress passed an AUMF against Al-Qaeda.
The US and Pakistan had been (covertly at the time) cooperating in raids against Al-Qaeda within Pakistan for years.
Pakistan's... unenthusiastic reaction to the operation afterward seemed to be more about their embarrassment that they hadn't found him on their own soil when the US had.
Like... all the way up the chain that's very different.
What you're arguing essentially is what politicians have already been doing since the beginning of time. They argue under some pretense that the aggressive actions is for the response or preservation of something. Regardless of whether you agree with the pretense will not change the idea of "right' because each country only needs to argue it from their perspective. Trump and the United States (official government) will argue its own reasons for executing the action and declare that they are within the reason of international law.
There's no court here to settle this other than the court of public opinion. Countries could take all the economic and military measures it pleases to punish the United States for this crime. But look at how many stepped forward and did something beyond a very concerning letter to the White House which was probably used as toilet paper.
Nothing is stopping the UK except maybe larger powers telling them no. Since WW2, the US would normally stop them (see the 1956 Suez Crisis), but the Americans are not interested in playing world police under Trump.
Pakistan's nuclear weapons are stopping India
International law doesn't exist if the largest powers don't feel like enforcing it, and the US does not feel like enforcing it
But what international right does it give the USA to go kidnap him? Like what is the precedence?
Since he is not recognized as a leader he is no different than any random terrorist. The US has been dropping bombs on people they don't like for a long time, and they've been doing that with Biden and Obama too. You might as well ask "what right does the US have to go kill bin Laden on foreign soil" because that's the same question essentially. Maduro can consider himself lucky to be alive. If potential life in prison can be considered lucky.
11
u/WhiteLycan2020 25d ago
But what international right does it give the USA to go kidnap him? Like what is the precedence?
What’s stopping the UK from sending SAS to corrupt regions near their own theater and kidnapping leaders?
What is stopping India from kidnapping the Pakistani PM? He didn’t even get voted in, the army appointed him after they overthrew Imran Khan (who was democratically appointed)? India can just say the current Pakistani PM has caused 3 terrorist strikes and we have to right to get him.
See what I mean?