Rep. Jim Himes on the Legality of the Maduro Capture

Jim Himes, the leading Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, criticized the U.S. operation to detain Nicolás Maduro, terming it 'undoubtedly illegal' by international standards.

Himes remarked during an interview on 'Face the Nation' that recent actions in Venezuela send a clear message to nations like Russia and China.

He indicated that a dangerous precedent has been set, suggesting that countries could justify invasions by merely labeling foreign leaders as unsuitable or corrupt.

The United States executed airstrikes in Venezuela, leading to Maduro's detention. He is currently in New York, facing federal charges of drug trafficking and alliances with terrorist groups, charges he rebuffs.

Despite Trump's administration's move to prosecute Maduro, Himes argues that there's hardly a case for Venezuela posing a dire threat to U.S. interests.

Himes expressed concerns that such actions might embolden figures like Putin and Xi to pursue aggressive tactics globally. This, according to him, undermines the U.S. reputation as a beacon of legality and liberty.

Himes further noted that the operation bypassed constitutional mandates, emphasizing the requirement for Congress to be involved in approving military interventions—something notably absent in this instance.

Expressing discontent over the lack of communication from the administration, Himes highlighted how the current legal obligations to inform Congress appear to be partisan.

Defending the administration's actions, officials referenced past indictments of Maduro by U.S. prosecutors in connection to narcotics and criminal networks.

Himes noted the initial thrill among some lawmakers and officials about the military's capability, drawing parallels to past military actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya.

Reflecting on historical military interventions, Himes cautioned against the oversimplification of rebuilding a nation post-intervention, emphasizing the challenges of sustainable governance.

During a public briefing, Trump mentioned a U.S. commitment to oversee Venezuelan governance temporarily to ensure a stable transition.

Senator Chris Van Hollen voiced his opposition on the same program, arguing that the U.S. operation diverts from its stated anti-drug agenda and focuses on accessing Venezuela's petroleum wealth.

Van Hollen accused Trump of exploiting the situation for economic gain, particularly highlighting Trump's emphasis on Venezuela's vast oil reserves.

He criticized the administration's motives, suggesting the operation was more about seizing oil resources than genuine geopolitical concerns.