Susan's Place Transgender Resources

Every LGBTQ+ Congress member blasts Trump's invasion of Venezuela

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2026/01/every-lgbtq-congress-member-blasts-trumps-of-venezuela/

Alex Bollinger (5 Jan 2026)

Every out LGBTQ+ Congress member denounced President Donald Trump's January 3 invasion of Venezuela and his concurrent arrest of Venezuela's dictatorial President Nicolas Maduro. The U.S. military operation resulted in at least 80 people's deaths, and Trump then said that the U.S. is now "in charge" of the country.

Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), the only out LGBTQ+ person currently serving in the Senate, called out the invasion, saying in a statement, "I'm committed to stopping the flow of illegal drugs and standing up to illegitimate dictators like Maduro, but President Trump has made a unilateral decision to initiate regime change, deploy American troops on the ground, and seemingly take control of Venezuela, all without congressional approval."

"The President does not have the unilateral authority to invade foreign countries, oust their governments, and seize their resources. Under the Constitution, the power to go to war lies with the people's branch. It's time for Republicans and Democrats in Congress to reassert our constitutional role in authorizing military force when needed and holding President Trump accountable before the United States is engaged in another war the American people did not choose."

Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI) called the invasion "Iraq 2.0" and posted a graph that implied that the invasion was for oil, something that Trump openly admitted. Pocan also said that the invasion was unconstitutional.

Quote from: Jessica_Rose on January 05, 2026, 03:41:51 PMRep. Mark Pocan (D-WI) called the invasion "Iraq 2.0" and posted a graph that implied that the invasion was for oil, something that Trump openly admitted. Pocan also said that the invasion was unconstitutional.

I told ya so...
a year ago.

https://www.susans.org/index.php?topic=250087.msg2292494#msg2292494

@Devlyn @Lori Dee  @Jessica_Rose  @Sarah B  @Mariah

Here are some of the mostly forgotten nationalizations of USA companies.

Venezuela has conducted several waves of nationalization affecting the multi-billion
dollar assets of U.S. oil companies over the years.

1976 Nationalization: The government of Carlos Andrés Pérez nationalized the entire
industry, creating state- owned PDVSA. This impacted subsidiaries of Exxon, Mobil, and
Gulf Oil, which had invested over $5 billion.
   
2007 Expropriations: Under Hugo Chávez, the Venezuelan government seized majority
control of projects in the Orinoco Belt, a vast, resource-rich area in eastern Venezuela,
holding the world's largest proven petroleum reserves, primarily in the form of heavy and
extra-heavy crude oil which is more difficult and expensive to refine.

ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips refused to accept minority stakes and exited the country
after their assets were seized and taken over, without any compensation.

Chevron accepted the new terms and remains the only major U.S. oil company still operating
in Venezuela. (with limited profitability]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

NOTE: Similar forgotten nationalizations of various USA companies have taken place in Cuba, Mexico,
IRAQ, IRAN, and Lybia...  and in in the early 1900's in Russia.

Danielle[Northern Star Girl]

Hi Everyone

TL:DR Nothing to see here.  Move along.

---

Report on the Use of Force Against Venezuela and the Capture of President Nicolás Maduro
Background and Reported Events
In early January 2026 multiple international media outlets reported that United States military forces conducted a direct operation in Venezuelan territory resulting in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife.  According to reporting the operation involved targeted strikes against Venezuelan maritime assets followed by the physical seizure of Maduro who was then transported to the United States.  Upon arrival he was presented before a federal court in New York where he entered a plea of not guilty to charges related to narcotics trafficking and alleged narco terrorism activities.

The Venezuelan government and Maduro's legal representatives described the operation as an unlawful abduction of a sitting head of state.  Several foreign governments and international organisations expressed concern over the precedent such an action could set.  Maduro himself claimed prisoner of war status and asserted that his capture violated both Venezuelan sovereignty and international legal norms.

United States Constitutional and Statutory Law Considerations
Under the United States Constitution the authority to declare war is vested in Congress.  The President acts as Commander in Chief of the armed forces but does not possess unlimited authority to initiate hostilities against another sovereign state.  The constitutional design deliberately separates military command from the political decision to engage in war.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 provides limited circumstances under which a president may deploy US armed forces without prior congressional authorisation.  These circumstances include repelling an actual or imminent armed attack against the United States or its forces.  Even in such cases the president is required to notify Congress within forty eight hours and must terminate the use of force within sixty to ninety days unless Congress provides approval.

In the case of Venezuela no formal declaration of war was issued and no specific authorisation for the use of military force against Venezuela was publicly passed by Congress.  The administration framed the action as a counter narcotics and national security operation rather than a war.  This framing placed the operation in a legal grey area.  While maritime interdiction and counter drug operations are often conducted under existing statutory authorities the direct seizure of a foreign head of state on sovereign territory goes well beyond routine enforcement actions.

Despite these concerns no US court has issued a ruling declaring the operation unconstitutional.  Importantly no criminal charges have been filed against the president related to the operation.  Under US law an action does not become a crime solely because it is controversial.  It becomes a crime only if prosecutors bring charges and courts adjudicate guilt.  As of the latest reporting neither has occurred.

International Law and Sovereignty Issues
Under international law the use of force against another state is generally prohibited by the United Nations Charter.  Exceptions exist only for self defence against an armed attack or when authorised by the UN Security Council.  In the Venezuelan case no Security Council authorisation was granted and no immediate armed attack by Venezuela against the United States was asserted as justification.

International legal scholars have therefore argued that the operation violated fundamental principles of state sovereignty and territorial integrity.  The forcible removal of a sitting head of state is viewed by many as an act that ordinarily constitutes aggression under international law.

Another major issue is head of state immunity.  Sitting heads of state traditionally enjoy immunity from the jurisdiction of foreign domestic courts.  This immunity exists to preserve stable international relations and prevent politically motivated prosecutions.  Maduro's legal team has indicated it will argue that his capture and prosecution violate this principle.  Whether US courts accept that argument remains unresolved and will likely involve complex interaction between domestic law and international obligations.

Impeachment and Congressional Oversight
The US Constitution provides impeachment as the principal mechanism for holding a president accountable for serious abuses of power.  Ordering military force without congressional authorisation could potentially fall within the category of high crimes and misdemeanours if Congress determines that constitutional boundaries were violated.

However impeachment is a political process rather than a judicial one.  It requires action by the House of Representatives and conviction by a two thirds vote in the Senate.  In this instance no impeachment proceedings specific to the Venezuela operation have been initiated.  Without congressional will to pursue impeachment the matter remains politically contested but institutionally dormant.

This absence of impeachment action reinforces the reality that constitutional checks depend on political alignment and consensus not merely on the existence of legal arguments.

The "Business as Usual" Outcome
Despite the severity of the event and the intensity of media coverage the political system continued to operate without structural disruption.  Courts have not ruled the action unlawful.  Congress has not authorised or formally condemned the operation through binding legislation.  No impeachment process has begun.  As a result no immediate legal consequences have been filed against the president.

This gap between dramatic international events and domestic legal outcomes illustrates a recurring pattern in modern geopolitics.  Actions taken in the name of national security may provoke outrage and debate yet still result in no formal accountability unless institutions actively intervene.

In practical terms this has led many observers to characterise the situation as "nothing to see here move along".  Not because the event lacks significance but because without judicial findings or congressional action it produces no enforceable consequences within the US system.

Conclusion
The reported capture of President Nicolás Maduro by US forces represents a significant and controversial use of military power.  Under US constitutional law the action raises unresolved questions about war powers and executive authority.  Under international law it raises serious concerns regarding sovereignty and head of state immunity.  However no court has ruled the action illegal and no impeachment proceedings have been pursued.  As a result the event remains legally unsettled and politically absorbed into normal operations.  The controversy persists but the system continues unchanged.

---

It is likely that Maduro will remain in US custody and will not voluntarily return to Venezuela, as a successor government would have strong incentives to detain or prosecute him. The only factor that could alter this outcome would be an adverse legal ruling on jurisdiction or immunity.

Best Wishes Always
Sarah B
Global Moderator

Regardless of the reasons or excuses being given to justify the action, the fact remains that a foreign country arrested a head of state in their home. A crime does not need to be adjudicated to become a crime. Adjudication only punishes the criminal. Many crimes go unpunished.


I asked Chat-GPT: Is it legal for a foreign country to arrest a head of state in their home?

Short answer: usually no, but there are important exceptions.

Here's the clear breakdown under international law:

General rule: No, it's not legal

A sitting head of state (like a president, king, or prime minister) has personal immunity under international law, called immunity ratione personae.

That immunity means:

They cannot be arrested or prosecuted by another country's courts

This applies even for very serious crimes

It covers actions both official and private

It applies while they are in office

So a foreign country cannot legally send agents into another country and arrest that country's head of state. Doing so would violate:

State sovereignty

Diplomatic immunity rules

International law

It would likely be considered an illegal act and possibly an act of aggression.

Major exceptions (when it can happen)
1. International criminal courts

Courts like the International Criminal Court (ICC) can issue arrest warrants

This applies if:

The country is a party to the ICC or

The UN Security Council authorizes it

Even then, the arrest must be carried out by states, not by foreign agents acting illegally


2. Consent of the home country

If the country agrees to the arrest (for example, after a coup or political change), it can be legal

No consent = illegal

3. After they leave office

Once a leader is no longer head of state, they lose personal immunity

They may still have functional immunity for official acts, but:

This does not protect against international crimes like genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity

4. Extradition (very rare for heads of state)

A country could theoretically extradite its own leader, but this is extremely uncommon and politically explosive

What is never legal

Secretly abducting a sitting head of state

Sending foreign police or military into another country without permission

Arresting a head of state unilaterally in their own country

That would be a serious breach of international law.

One-sentence summary

A foreign country generally cannot legally arrest a sitting head of state in their own country, except through international courts, with consent, or after they leave office.

Well apparently, all of the LGBTQ+ Members of congress are idiots.

LGBTQ+ activity in Venezuela is a crime.  Wikipedia paints a mild picture of the situation gay and lesbian couples face, saying they face hardships not encountered my heterosexual couples.  It's actual much worse.  Even though it's not explicitly against the law there is wide spread abuse of the gay community by law enforcement and the military.

Un-top of that, inflection has been over 100% for decades.  Often in the 200-300% range.  In 2018 it hit 130,060%.

For those of you that don't understand how inflation work let's look at just 100% inflation:
5 years under 100% inflation:
Year one a loaf of bread that cost $4 is now $40.
Year two - same loaf of bread is now $400.
Year three - same loaf of bread is now $4000.
Year four - ....well you get the point.
That one year of 9% inflation we had five years ago doesn't seem that bad.

Prior to Chavez and Maduro Venezuela was one of the richest countries in the wester hemisphere.  Better than a lot of the rest of the world too.  On the verge of becoming a first world country. 

It's estimated over 25% of the population of Venezuela has fled the country and more would if they could.  There have been wide spread open celebrations all across the US.  Literally, the only two Venezuela citizens in the US that are not celebrating this action by the US are Maduro and his wife.

It's not a regime change, Trump left the vice present of Venezuela in charge of Venezuela.  (He did tell him to toe the line or there's be hell to pay) 

As far as international law.  F- international law.  China is on the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.  Along with a slew of s-hole African countries where being gay is punished by death.  Please note I used "punished" by death and not "punishable" because death is pretty much guaranteed.  Try being trans in any of these countries.

Am I generally in support of this type of action, No!  In this case I don't have an issue with it.  In fact, I do support it. 

As far as congress goes, they need to get off their asses and repeal the war powers act.  They need to do their job instead of yielding to the president, whether Republican or Democrat.  Both sides are guilty of it.   

Paulie

By that reasoning, I guess it should be acceptable if another country's leader comes to the US and kidnaps our president for whatever abuses warrant it. Plenty to choose from. I suspect folks don't see it as working both ways, though.

Either laws are enforced or they are meaningless. And when one law becomes meaningless, they all do for the people who are allowed to violate them. We are seeing that daily now in the US.