Venezuela - President Nicolas Maduro & his wife "captured and flown out of country" by U.S. Army Delta Force during "large scale attack" - Jan 3, 2026

[Hexe]

To clear some things out, let's start with a definition of a sovereign state. From the Cambridge Dictionary:

an area of land with fixed borders that has full control over its own government and laws and is not controlled by any other country:

That means American laws are executed in USofA by American governmental bodies. Venezuelan laws are executed in Venezuela by Venezuelan governmental bodies.

The Department of Justice is an American governmental body. As the Cornell Law School's page informs us, it's mission is

enforcing federal law

As in: a federal law of United States of America. As the definition of the sovereign state teaches us each government has a control over the law and it's enforcement in their own state only. So the American DoJ deals with American federal law on the American soil only. Doing it in other countries would be an infringement of their sovereignity. That's why the legal enforcement does not and cannot have any jurisdiction in another sovereign state.
So, yes, it is a fact that Department of Justice has no jurisdiction in Venezuela.

You cannot arrest anyone outside of the States with the arrest warrant from American LE for the reasons I put above. You cannot just drag that person to your country and arrest them there, because taking someone by force and against their will without any legal foundation is plain kidnapping.

Imagine for a sec China gets fed up with Trump, so Chinese troops land in Washington, drag him and Melania out of White House and take to Bejing for trial. Would you be fine with it because the Chinese have an arrest warrant issued by Chinese law enforcement?

 

[Sundog]

You cannot arrest anyone outside of the States with the arrest warrant from American LE for the reasons I put above. You cannot just drag that person to your country and arrest them, because taking someone by force and against their will without any legal foundation is plain kidnapping.

<Snipped for focus>

Apparently, you can. An indictment is the legal foundation.

“Federal courts held that the manner in which a defendant is brought before a US court—even by force, even from foreign soil—does not defeat criminal jurisdiction,” Neily wrote.

https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/04/politics/noriega-trial-maduro-legal-battle

Like Maduro, Noriega was accused of participating in a large-scale operation to smuggle drugs into the United States. And Noriega was also captured in a military operation in his home country.

Noriega’s attorneys quickly launched an aggressive defense of the military leader, accusing President George H.W. Bush’s Justice Department of violating both international law and due process protections by invading Panama and arresting him abroad.

Noriega’s arguments were ultimately unsuccessful — he was tried and convicted in 1991 and given a 40-year prison sentence.

A critical factor in his failed defense was that US courts “refused to consider the legality of the invasion itself,” Clark Neily of the libertarian think-tank Cato Institute pointed out in an article Saturday.

“Federal courts held that the manner in which a defendant is brought before a US court—even by force, even from foreign soil—does not defeat criminal jurisdiction,” Neily wrote.

 

[Hexe]

Apparently, you can. An indictment is the legal foundation.

“Federal courts held that the manner in which a defendant is brought before a US court—even by force, even from foreign soil—does not defeat criminal jurisdiction,” Neily wrote.

It's against the international law.

 

[Sundog]

It's against the international law.

The prosecution of Maduro will be based on U.S. criminal law. There is an indictment, an arrest, and the court will proceed with the criminal charges against him. Hopefully he will spend the rest of his life in prison, like Noriega.

 

[justtrish]

By objective measure, seems the operators were 100 outta 100 near-perfect.

Now suppose it's revealed that one of the breakthrough capabilities is something that can only be used once. Sometimes that happens in conflict -- like exploding pagers. My opinion is it's wasted here.

Save that capability for an emergency where a nation might have to RESCUE, not arrest. Seems a no-brainer.

If so, was this a failure of priorities?

Is this a hypothetical about "breakthrough capabilities" or do you have something specific in mind? I haven't heard of anything being used that was a single use or wasted.

 

[otto]

The US threatens Colombia, and Edmundo González declares himself Commander and Chief in Venezuela. Trump repeats that the US is in charge.

"Speaking to reporters on Air Force One, President Trump said that “Cuba looks like it is ready to fall,” adding: “I don’t know if they’re going to hold out, but Cuba now has no income. They got all their income from Venezuela, from the Venezuelan oil.”
...

"President Trump threatened Colombia and its president, Gustavo Petro, on Sunday night, saying it is “run by a sick man who likes making cocaine and selling it to the United States.”

“He’s not going to be doing it for very long,” Trump told reporters on Air Force One. “He has cocaine mills and cocaine factories. He’s not going to be doing it.” Asked whether the U.S. would conduct an operation against Colombia, he said “it sounds good to me.”
...

Edmundo González, the exiled former diplomat who is widely regarded as the legitimate winner of Venezeula’s 2024 presidential elections, posted a video Sunday in which he called for the liberation of political prisoners and referred to himself as “commander in chief.”

Mr. González, 76, was the proxy presidential candidate for the more popular opposition leader, María Corina Machado, who was barred from running."

Venezuela Projects Defiance as Trump Administration Pressures Maduro Allies: Live Updates

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said a military “quarantine” of Venezuela and its oil industry would remain in place. Late Sunday, President Trump threatened Colombia and its president.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Diddian]

The Biden administration had a $25 million reward for the arrest or conviction of Maduro, and the current administration increased it to $50 million. The U.S. criminal charges against Maduro were the same under both administrations, I assume, and now Maduro will face these charges in U.S. court.

The Biden U.S. Department of State and the Trump U.S. Department of State announced the reward money and charges against Maduro.

Technical Difficulties

In March 2020, the DOJ in the first Trump administration announced the indictment of Maduro and the Trump administration set a $15 million reward for Maduro's arrest and conviction.

DOJ Charges Nicolas Maduro with Narco-Terrorism | Law & Crime

The indictment, filed in the Southern District of New York (SDNY), alleges that Maduro and his cohorts were actively engaged in a “corrupt and violent narco-terrorism conspiracy between the Venezuelan Cartel de Los Soles and the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC)”--a...

lawandcrime.com

January 2025, the Biden administration increased the reward to $25 million at the same time that it extended protections for Venezuelan migrants in our country.

Biden raises bounty for Venezuela's Maduro to $25 million

BOGOTA, Colombia – The Biden administration said Friday that it was offering $25 million for information leading to the arrest of Nicolás Maduro, the president of Venezuela, after he assumed a third term in office despite evidence suggesting that he lost Venezuela’s recent election.

www.spokesman.com

August 2025, the current Trump administration raised the reward to $50 million.

Link to State Department press release:

Technical Difficulties

 

[zleuther]

Is this a hypothetical about "breakthrough capabilities" or do you have something specific in mind? I haven't heard of anything being used that was a single use or wasted.

Could be many possibilities, the sky's the limit.

Spies, drones and blowtorches: How the US captured Maduro - BBC News

An extraordinary mission dubbed "Operation Absolute Resolve" saw elite troops breach the Venezuelan president's fortified compound.

www.bbc.com

"The lights of Caracas were largely turned off due to a certain expertise that we have," he said. "It was dark and it was deadly."

Back to my priority question, I'm trying to remember if the raid on Entebbe revealed any secrets.

 

[Snoopster]

I am late to this topic, so please bear with me if I've missed something.

But can anyone tell me what gives the right of one government to step in and take over another government....particularly if there is no global support for it? What would stop the US from going into Canada and kidnapping their Prime Minister?
What would stop the US from going into Greenland and taking over?

Why isn't the US going into North Korea to 'take over'?

Why can't any country in the world decide to kidnap the President of the US if they don't agree with their policies and consider the President's actions illegal? Then the President would be tried under the legal rules of that country.

Is this kidnapping possibly about getting access to Venezuela's oil? Is that possibly a motive?
I don't know, but I am perturbed that the US unilaterally invaded another country. It seems that other world leaders have the same question.

Again, I don't understand the complete dynamics here, so I'd love to hear your opinions about why it's ok to invade another nation.

The prosecution of Maduro will be based on U.S. criminal law. There is an indictment, an arrest, and the court will proceed with the criminal charges against him. Hopefully he will spend the rest of his life in prison, like Noriega.

 

[otto]

Any attack against Greenland requires that all NATO countries will assist Greenland. The NATO country USA has been told to stop threatening the NATO country Denmark and the Kingdom of Denmark.

"Several leaders are calling on the United States to stop threatening Greenland. US President Trump said yesterday that the US "absolutely needs" Greenland due to its security and strategic location.

According to Danish Prime Minister Frederiksen, this claim is "absolutely absurd." "The US has no legal basis to annex any of the three countries of the Kingdom of Denmark."

Prime Minister Nielsen called the statement that the US needs Greenland "very rude and disrespectful." "Our country should not be seen as a means to an end."

Leiders roepen VS op te stoppen met bedreigen Groenland

De Amerikaanse president Trump zei gisteren dat de VS Groenland absoluut nodig heeft. Dat slaat nergens op, vindt de Deense premier. Groenland heeft sinds 2009 zelfbestuur, maar valt nog altijd onder het Deense koninkrijk.

nos.nl

Article 5

"Article 5 states that if a NATO Ally sustains an armed attack, every other member of the Alliance will consider this as an armed attack against all members, and will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the attacked Ally."

Collective defence and Article 5

On 4 April 1949, 12 countries from Europe and North America came together in Washington, D.C. to sign the North Atlantic Treaty. NATO’s founding treaty is not long – only 14 articles, just over 1,000 words – and its core purpose is clear and simple: a joint pledge by each country to assist the...

www.nato.int

 

[subaw0067]

I am late to this topic, so please bear with me if I've missed something.

But can anyone tell me what gives the right of one government to step in and take over another government....particularly if there is no global support for it? What would stop the US from going into Canada and kidnapping their Prime Minister?
What would stop the US from going into Greenland and taking over?

Why isn't the US going into North Korea to 'take over'?

Why can't any country in the world decide to kidnap the President of the US if they don't agree with their policies and consider the President's actions illegal? Then the President would be tried under the legal rules of that country.

Is this kidnapping possibly about getting access to Venezuela's oil? Is that possibly a motive?
I don't know, but I am perturbed that the US unilaterally invaded another country. It seems that other world leaders have the same question.

Again, I don't understand the complete dynamics here, so I'd love to hear your opinions about why it's ok to invade another nation.

Mostly the threat of nuclear response

 

[Snoopster]

Mostly the threat of nuclear response

What?
Aren't North Korea and Pakistan more of a nuclear threat? Nobody considers Venezuela a major nuclear threat.
(Sorry if I misunderstood your post.)

 

[sunshineray]

What crime did his wife commit?

The 25 page indictment

https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1422326/dl

Nicolás Maduro's wife, Cilia Flores, and his son, Nicolás Ernesto Maduro Guerra, were included in a superseding indictment because U.S. authorities allege they were knowing and active participants in the same long-running drug trafficking and narco-terrorism conspiracy that enriched the entire Maduro regime. The superseding indictment provided specific details of their individual alleged involvement.
Specific Allegations
Cilia Flores (Maduro's Wife)

• Accepting Bribes: Flores is accused of accepting bribes in 2007 to arrange a meeting between a drug trafficker and the director of Venezuela's National Anti-Drug Office.
• Facilitating Trafficking: This meeting allegedly led to a deal where the trafficker paid monthly bribes for "safe passage" of cocaine flights, with some funds going to Flores.
• Conspiracy and Violence: She is also alleged to have worked with her husband to use state-sponsored gangs to protect drug operations and was allegedly involved in ordering violence against those who interfered.

Nicolás Ernesto Maduro Guerra (Maduro's Son)

• Organizing Illegal Activities: Appointed to a government position by his father, "The Prince" allegedly used his role to help organize drug trafficking activities.
• Using State Assets: He is accused of using state-owned planes for drug transport.
• Dealing with Terrorist Groups: The indictment claims he was responsible for dealings with groups like the FARC to traffic drugs and guns.
• Specific Shipments: He allegedly shipped cocaine from Venezuela to Miami in 2017.

 

[otto]

Delcy Rodriguez Instagram Post to the World

---

delcyrodriguezv

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

 

[Warwick1991]

Could be many possibilities, the sky's the limit.

Spies, drones and blowtorches: How the US captured Maduro - BBC News

An extraordinary mission dubbed "Operation Absolute Resolve" saw elite troops breach the Venezuelan president's fortified compound.

www.bbc.com

"The lights of Caracas were largely turned off due to a certain expertise that we have," he said. "It was dark and it was deadly."

Back to my priority question, I'm trying to remember if the raid on Entebbe revealed any secrets.

The 1976 raid on Entebbe was during a less sophisticated era as far as technology was concerned. Uganda, a landlocked country except for Lake Victoria, didn't have much in the way of air defenses or radar, and I think the raid was confined to the airport on Ugandan territory. Ugandan planes were obsolete MiGs, and destroyed on the ground. I don't think it is really relevant to today's military operations, except perhaps for showing the necessity of logistical planning and drills beforehand for an extraction.

I'm guessing that the US operation in Venezuela used electronic warfare/jamming, stealth aircraft, and other more recent technologies. From what I've read so far, most of their military bases were struck.

 

[subaw0067]

What?
Aren't North Korea and Pakistan more of a nuclear threat? Nobody considers Venezuela a major nuclear threat.
(Sorry if I misunderstood your post.)

In response to “why doesn’t the US do this to other countries like North Korea”. Because NK has nukes.

 

[Snoopster]

In response to “why doesn’t the US do this to other countries like North Korea”. Because NK has nukes.

True.
And they don't have resources (like oil).

 

[Sundog]

I am late to this topic, so please bear with me if I've missed something.

But can anyone tell me what gives the right of one government to step in and take over another government....particularly if there is no global support for it? What would stop the US from going into Canada and kidnapping their Prime Minister?
What would stop the US from going into Greenland and taking over?

Why isn't the US going into North Korea to 'take over'?

Why can't any country in the world decide to kidnap the President of the US if they don't agree with their policies and consider the President's actions illegal? Then the President would be tried under the legal rules of that country.

Is this kidnapping possibly about getting access to Venezuela's oil? Is that possibly a motive?
I don't know, but I am perturbed that the US unilaterally invaded another country. It seems that other world leaders have the same question.

Again, I don't understand the complete dynamics here, so I'd love to hear your opinions about why it's ok to invade another nation.

Is there some reason that you quoted my post? It as nothing to do with what you are talking about in your post. It was posted in response to another poster who was questioning how a U.S. judge would handle this case.

 

[sunshineray]

I am late to this topic, so please bear with me if I've missed something.

But can anyone tell me what gives the right of one government to step in and take over another government....particularly if there is no global support for it? What would stop the US from going into Canada and kidnapping their Prime Minister?
What would stop the US from going into Greenland and taking over?

Why isn't the US going into North Korea to 'take over'?

Why can't any country in the world decide to kidnap the President of the US if they don't agree with their policies and consider the President's actions illegal? Then the President would be tried under the legal rules of that country.

Is this kidnapping possibly about getting access to Venezuela's oil? Is that possibly a motive?
I don't know, but I am perturbed that the US unilaterally invaded another country. It seems that other world leaders have the same question.

Again, I don't understand the complete dynamics here, so I'd love to hear your opinions about why it's ok to invade another nation.

Well I can tell you the why of it but maybe not the true why of it...if that makes any sense. The why is Maduro was an indicted drug trafficker, in 2020. (Like the former President of Honduras was but he was also convicted as charged)
The same thing was done 37-ish years ago in Panama with Manuel Noriega...and a whole range of corrupt things branched off on that one too.

So the real why with Maduro is certainly more involved, Russia buddy-ing up and moving in supposedly, China getting lots of oil and possibly/probably? and looking to cop some uranium, Iran supposedly laundering monies to then send to arm Hamas and others waging terror and Cuba, it appears, just giving strong moral and physical support in the form of armed bodyguards/militia? All that tied in with Venezuela supposedly acting like a clearing house for Columbia's cocaine, supposedly.

That all said, the actions taking by Trump were against the agreed upon UN statutes and most likely, to me, widely overstepping the President's power. Congress wasn't even informed beforehand. This is an administration gone wild...that's the nicest way I can put it and the only way for now. I will say there may be more charges levied in the future, but domestically. AJMO

 

[Sundog]

MSN

Venezuela’s new leader is a hardline socialist like Maduro​