Trump and some other us gov officials says it is legal what they did.

Let me break that down.  Property destruction is illegal, bombs going off at night OR in the day is illegal, disturbing the peace, at the very least.  Many civilians died, that is MURDER, which, obviously is illegal.  So where is Trump and some of these others backing up the legality? Large explosions, in the wee hours of the morning, is most definitely illegal, it is called disturbing the peace..

EVEN if he was running drugs, that is what courts are about.  So all those people had to suffer to capture 2 individuals?  Same with Saddam Hussein.  Then the oil rigs and us oil corporations just move in.  Like, oh, hint, hint, no will notice that.  They do as they please, rules are to be followed by everyone, americans and the rest of world..

Is there any legal justification for the US attack on Venezuela?

International law experts expect Washington to claim self-defence and face little serious pushback

Donald Trump said on Saturday morning that US troops had carried out a “large-scale strike” on Venezuela and captured its president, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife, Cilia Flores. The couple has now been indicted in New York on terrorism and drugs charges. Trump has accused Maduro of running a “narco terrorist organisation”.

However, the legality of the operation has been called into question – with even some of Trump’s allies suggesting it violated international law.

The Guardian spoke to leading experts in the field of international law to ask for their view on the unfolding events in Venezuela.

---

Is the US operation in Venezuela justified under international law?

The experts the Guardian spoke to agreed that the US is likely to have violated the terms of the UN charter, which was signed in October 1945 and designed to prevent another conflict on the scale of the second world war. A central provision of this agreement – known as article 2(4) – rules that states must refrain from using military force against other countries and must respect their sovereignty.

Geoffrey Robertson KC, a founding head of Doughty Street Chambers and a former president of the UN war crimes court in Sierra Leone, said the attack on Venezuela was contrary to article 2(4) of the charter. “The reality is that America is in breach of the United Nations charter,” he added. “It has committed the crime of aggression, which the court at Nuremberg described as the supreme crime, it’s the worst crime of all.”

Elvira Domínguez-Redondo, a professor of international law at Kingston University, described the operation as a “crime of aggression and unlawful use of force against another country”. Susan Breau, a professor of international law and a senior associate research fellow at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, agreed that the attack could have only been considered lawful if the US had a resolution from the UN security council or was acting in self-defence. “There is just no evidence whatsoever on either of those fronts,” Breau said.

---

How is the US likely to defend its actions?

The US may try to argue that it attacked Venezuela in self-defence, to counter the alleged threat from the “narco terrorist organisation” it accuses Maduro of leading. Both the UN charter and its own domestic laws make some provision for the use of military force in self-defence.

However, Robertson said: “There is no conceivable way America can claim, although no doubt it will, that the action was taken in self-defence. If you are going to use self-defence you have to have a real and honest belief that you are about to be attacked by force. No one has suggested that the Venezuelan army is about to attack the United States … The idea that [Maduro] is some sort of drug supremo cannot prevail against the rule that invasion for the sake of regime change is unlawful.”