Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair

There are, of course, many interesting aspects of the Trump regime’s illegal and deadly intervention in Venezuela:

1. The mainstream press’s reaction to the operation, at least in comparison to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, is interesting. After the latter invasion, all we heard was “Aggression! Aggression! Aggression! Russia is threatening the world with its aggression!”

One does not see that terminology with respect to the military attack on Venezuela. There is detailed analysis, maybe even criticism, but there is no big emotional outburst of “Aggression! Aggression! Aggression! The United States is threatening the world with its aggression!”

Yet, as illegal and deadly as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was, at least Russia had an excuse: That the U.S.-controlled NATO knowingly and deliberately provoked Russia into invading by threatening to absorb Ukraine into NATO, an action that U.S. officials had previously promised not to do. There was no such excuse with respect to the U.S. military aggression against Venezuela. It was pure, unadulterated aggression.

2. The U.S. government had no legal authority to attack Venezuela and kill people in the attempt to bring Maduro to the United States to stand trial for having allegedly violated U.S. drug laws. That’s what extradition agreements between nation-states are all about. Nations enter into such agreements as a mutual way to get suspected criminal defendants sent to a country to stand trial. If no extradition treaty exists, then under the law the suspected criminal simply remains where he is and there is nothing that the accusing nation can do about it.

There is actually an extradition treaty between........

© CounterPunch