The Indictment of Maduro

 This article first appeared in New English Review.

As a retired DEA agent, I could not help but feel a sense of pride seeing Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro being led into the DEA office in New York to be processed (fingerprinted and photographed). It was very similar to my feeling of pride in 1989 when Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega was brought to the US by DEA agents. Like Noriega, Maduro is not charged with being a dictator or a political foe of the US. Like Noriega, Maduro is faced with serious charges for his involvement in facilitating the smuggling of drugs into the US. Noriega was convicted and served 3 decades in prison in the US, France, and Panama. Maduro's guilt or innocence will be decided by a federal court as well.

As for the military action that resulted in Maduro's arrest in terms of international law, that will be widely discussed in the days, weeks, and months ahead. What happens in Venezuela now is open to question. Whether it will follow the path of Panama after Noriega or Iraq after Saddam Hussein, I have no idea. Much of that will depend on how the Venezuelan military and the populace react.

I am not a lawyer, so take it for what it's worth. In my view, in terms of US law, there is little to debate, although the Democrat left has already condemned the action. Some are already demanding that Maduro be returned to Venezuela. That will not happen. These legal points were argued and settled in the Noriega case. No US law has been violated in bringing Maduro to justice.

For the benefit of those who may not know, under American conspiracy statutes, those who are involved in the importation of drugs to the US are chargeable, even if they have never previously set foot in the US. Drugs destined for the US represent a crime against the US, and everyone involved in that activity is indictable. Among the charges Maduro is facing are 21 USC 841 (a) (1) pertaining to manufacture, possession, and distribution of controlled substances, 21 USC 952 pertaining to importation of controlled substances, and 21 USC 963, conspiracy to commit the above offenses. Since the drugs in question were destined for the US, our courts have jurisdiction.

It is also legally irrelevant how the defendant came into the custody of US authorities-unless such action violates the "conscience of the court". Albeit vague, the term does have legal implications. In this case, it is a result of a military action. Are the courts going to rule that the invasion of Venezuela was unconstitutional?

I will leave the questions of international law, failure to consult with Congress, and the righteousness of going into Venezuela to the experts and the local bartenders. I have my own opinion and concerns, but the main point here is that legally, the prosecution of Maduro et al. is on solid ground. 

Final comment: Today DHS Secretary Kristi Noem made a statement praising the work of her department, the military, the FBI, and the CIA. Call it inter-agency rivalry or whatever, but I was taken aback that she did not mention DEA. I was not following the case over the years as to who was doing what, and I am certain that many agencies had a part in this. But there must be a reason that Maduro was processed in the DEA office.