NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Ousted Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro appeared for the first time in federal court in the U.S. on Monday, where the presiding judge ticked through the charges filed against him: narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, and weapons charges.
Maduro, who pleaded not guilty, was defiant. “I’m still the president of my country,” he said, furiously scribbling on a legal pad for the duration of the arraignment. “I’m a prisoner of war,” he proclaimed later, as he was led out of the court and back to the Brooklyn detention center where he is being held.
Maduro’s remarks underpinned a key argument his legal team is expected to use in defending him – arguing that he was illegally captured by U.S. troops, and that he is immune from prosecution in the U.S. as the leader of a sovereign foreign nation.
His lawyers won’t be the first to try to advance that argument in court. In fact, Maduro’s case bears some notable (if early) parallels to the U.S. invasion of another Latin American country, 36 years prior, in which 26,000 U.S. troops descended into Panama to arrest the country’s authoritarian leader, Manuel Noriega, and bring him to the U.S. to be tried on federal criminal charges in Miami. The U.S. arrest of Noriega, dubbed Operation “Just Cause,” could be used as a playbook of sorts for prosecutors as they present their case against Maduro and his wife in the Southern District in New York.
Here are some of the biggest similarities, and differences, between the two cases.
DEFIANT MADURO DECLARES HE IS A ‘PRISONER OF WAR’ IN FIRST US COURT APPEARANCE
SIMILARITIES
On Dec. 20, 1989, under then-President George H.W. Bush, U.S. forces launched a surprise invasion of Panama that resulted in Noriega’s arrest nearly two weeks later.
Like Maduro, Noriega’s lawyers centered their case on the argument that he was arrested illegally by U.S. troops in his home country, and that as a foreign leader, he could not be criminally charged in other countries.
But Maduro’s argument here could be stronger than the Panamanian strongman. That’s because Noriega was never formally elected to lead Panama – instead, he was in charge of the country’s military, and leveraged power via “shadow” or puppet presidents that he installed.
Maduro’s argument that he is a foreign sovereign is likely to be rebuffed by prosecutors, since the U.S. and other democratic countries do not recognize his “victory” in the 2024 presidential election as legitimate.
Still, Maduro’s actions could warrant a higher level of scrutiny, since he was at one time the recognized, legitimate leader of Venezuela. How, or to what degree, this will factor into Maduro’s case remains unclear.
MADURO MET CHINESE ENVOY HOURS BEFORE US CAPTURE FROM CARACAS AS BEIJING SLAMS OPERATION
DRUG CHARGES
Like Maduro, Noriega was a Latin American strongman whose country held significant strategic assets for the U.S. and others in the region. Both arrests came as drug trafficking – and the flow of drugs into the U.S. – had taken on outsize importance, including in the late 1980s under then-President George H.W. Bush and now under the Trump administration, said Will Freeman, a fellow for Latin America studies at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
Both Noriega and Maduro are accused of participating in large-scale drug smuggling operations in their respective countries, according to copies of both criminal indictments reviewed by Fox News Digital.
Noriega was charged with conspiring with drug traffickers to funnel cocaine into the U.S., among other things. Maduro is accused of heading up a corrupt and illegitimate government that the indictment against him says has “leveraged government power to protect and promote illegal activity,” including drug activity, for decades, according to the newly unsealed criminal indictment. It also alleges that he used his post to help run “state-sponsored gangs” such as Tren de Aragua (TdA).
“The defendants, together and with others, engaged in a relentless campaign of cocaine trafficking throughout the time period charged in this superseding indictment, resulting in the distribution of thousands of tons of cocaine to the United States,” federal prosecutors said in Maduro’s indictment.
One similarity underpinning the arrests of both Latin American leaders was a heightened domestic focus on cracking down on drug trafficking. In the run-up to Maduro’s arrest, and Noriega’s some three decades prior, drug trafficking “had become this very salient issue for the U.S. public,” Freeman told Fox News Digital in an interview.
“First, because of the crack cocaine epidemic,” under the H.W. Bush administration, “and now, with the fentanyl epidemic.”
“There was this focus, or need, to legitimately find out who in the region was in some sense an accomplice in both cases,” he added.
MADURO-BACKED TDA GANG’S EXPANSION INTO US CITIES EMERGES AS KEY FOCUS OF SWEEPING DOJ INDICTMENT
STRATEGIC ASSETS
In Noriega’s case, it was the Panama Canal, the geographically strategic and economically vital waypoint that currently accounts for some 40% of U.S. container ship traffic, or some $270 billion in cargo annually.
Noriega at the time had signaled that the government “might do something to disrupt the canal, or let other actors do that,” said Freeman, the Latin American fellow for the Council on Foreign Relations,.
Venezuela, of course, is home to vast oilfields that are believed to be crucial to meeting the projected demand forecasts for the years ahead.
Venezuela has the largest amount of oil reserves compared to any other country in the world, experts noted – making it a strategically crucial location in the coming years, despite the significant investments needed in infrastructure before its fields can produce.
Perhaps the most important distinction between the two cases is the fact that in Panama, the “Just Cause” operation that resulted in Noriega’s arrest was carried out after the Panamanian general assembly had already formally declared war against the U.S., as Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck noted in his Substack newsletter.
A U.S. Marine “had been shot and killed before President George H.W. Bush authorized the underlying operation,” Vladeck said, a point noted by Freeman, as well.
“The tougher nuts for prosecutors to crack will be Maduro’s arguments that he’s entitled to some kind of immunity,” Vladeck continued: “Whether because he was Venezuela’s ‘head of state’ or because, even if he wasn’t, his alleged crimes all arise from official acts conducted with governmental authority.”
LEGAL JUSTIFICATION
Still, prosecutors could enjoy a wider degree of latitude in Maduro’s case, in yet another echo of Noriega’s trial. Noriega was convicted in the U.S. on eight of the 10 charges brought against him in his April 1992 criminal trial, and sentenced to serve 17 years in prison. He was extradited to France for money laundering convictions, and then again to Panama, in 2011, where he was sentenced to 60 years in prison. (Noriega died in 2017.)
Then-Assistant U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr had authored a memo in 1989 that argued that a president has the “inherent constitutional authority” to order the FBI take people into custody on foreign soil. It was published months before Noriega’s arrest, and was crucial for prosecutors in defending against some of the claims from his defense attorneys and arguing the legitimacy of their case.
The same memo could be referenced by prosecutors in Maduro’s case as well, should they face any hurdles in arguing his arrest was legitimate.
Another key issue that weighed in Noriega’s favor is the ability for the U.S. courts to even consider the legality of the invasion. In Noriega’s case, the federal courts “refused to consider the legality of the invasion itself,” Clark Neily, the senior vice president for legal studies at the CATO Institute, said in a post published on the site after Maduro’s capture.
“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 said.
In Panama, a more “classic national security type [of observer] or a realist could say, ‘Okay, there’s a reason that stability and having influence in Panama is extremely important to us,'” Freeman said.
In Venezuela, the through-line between the country’s actions and the harm to U.S. interests is slightly less clear, he said, prompting some to question why the U.S. is getting so involved.
This has been the position taken by at least two Republicans, including Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., two outspoken Trump critics.
Massie, who has broken with Trump on several notable recent occasions, appeared more skeptical of the criminal charges the U.S. used in justifying Maduro’s arrest, noting on social media that the 25-page indictment made “no mention of fentanyl or stolen oil” cited by President Donald Trump.
Greene also criticized the operation, noting, “this is what many in MAGA thought they voted to end.”
Read the full article here
