How Trump’s outlaw criminal prosecution of Maduro could hurt Trump

4 January 2026, by Eric Zuesse. (All of my recent articles can be seen here.)

The outlaw in this case is Trump, far more than Maduro.

On January 4th, the George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley was headlined on the Republican Party propaganda ‘news’ network Fox News, “JONATHAN TURLEY: Maduro operation was legal, but Trump makes it complicated”, and he said that “Some of us had written that Trump had a winning legal argument by focusing on the operation as the seizure of two indicted individuals in reliance on past judicial rulings, including the decisions in the case of former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega.” Professor Turley alleged that if Trump had only stuck to that excuse as his basis for prosecuting Maduro, the prosecution’s case against Maduro and his wife would be unassailably strong. Though I am no lawyer, I shall here lay out my legal case that the criminal in this matter is undeniably Trump, regardless of whether or not there exists any valid reason for Maduro to be tried in a U.S. court for possibly having commited a crime under U.S. laws. Turley, like Trump, confuses the U.S. nation’s criminal laws, with global, international, criminal laws, which have a very different domain of applicability.A 53-page detailed analysis by a team at the Peter A. Allard School of Law In Vancouver Canada, dated in 2016, headlined “Accountability in Foreign Courts for State Officials’ Serious Illegal Acts: When Do Immunities Apply?”, and it stated on page 9 of the pdf:

The personal immunity of Heads of State has long been recognized in treaties, customary international law, and decisions from international and national judiciaries.23 Immunity for these officials is rooted in the historic notion that the Head of State is both the personification of the State itself and its chief organ at the domestic and international levels.24 That said, if a foreign jurisdiction does not recognize an individual as the Head of State, personal immunity may not apply.25

And footnote 25 leads to “25 See United States v Noriega, 746 F Supp 1506 (SD Fla 1990) [Noriega]; Lafontant v Aristide, 844 F Supp 128 (ED NY 1994) [Aristide].” However, the cited Noriega case based its acceptance of that domestic U.S. court ruling, upon NOT any INTERNATIONAL law, but purely on domestic U.S. internal law being applied to Noriega, that “his actions … are considered individual and not sovereign actions.”103” (“considered” so BY a U.S. court, NOT by any international court). In other words: that domestic U.S. court ruling was being handled in this article AS-IF if that ruling were an international-court ruling, though it was not. No merely NATIONAL court possesses the authority to define in INTERNATIONAL law the meaning of an international law, but ONLY of its OWN nation’s laws; and, so, that case against Noriega was decided on false grounds, by an irrelevant court (that U.S. court).

Whereas the earlier (1990) Noriega case, “United States v. Noriega”, was summarily ACCEPTED (instead of rejected) by the U.S. domestic court:

I. JURISDICTION OVER THE OFFENSE

The first issue confronting the Court is whether the United States may exercise jurisdiction over Noriega’s alleged criminal activities. [...] In sum, because Noriega’s conduct in Panama is alleged to have resulted in a direct effect within the United States, the Court concludes that extraterritorial jurisdiction is appropriate as a matter of international law. [...] Jurisdiction over Defendant’s extraterritorial conduct is therefore appropriate both as a matter of international law and statutory construction.

II. SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY

The Court next turns to Noriega’s assertion that he is immune from prosecution based on head of state immunity, the act of state doctrine, and diplomatic immunity. [...]

That’s the ONLY time in the ruling in which either the phrase “head of state immunity” or “diplomatic immunity” (the broader category which INCLUDES “head of state immunity”) was so much as even mentioned. The rest of the decision ignores the entire issue of diplomatic (in this case head-of-state) immunity, and instead mentions, two times, the phrase, “sovereign immunity” (which is quite different — it’s the ancient idea that “a king can do no wrong”), and four more times uses simply the single term “immunity.” Noriega’s lawyers never even so much as even raised in his defense the phrase “diplomatic immunity” (under which category the “head-of-state immunity” belongs). On that false basis, the final ruling turned out to be that “As there is no basis for continuing the stay imposed by this Court, that stay is lifted as of 5:00 p.m. today, with the understanding that Defendant will complete the term of his previously imposed sentence and not be released until September 9, 2007.” However, upon his release, Noriega was then imprisoned in France in 2010, and then in Panama in 2011, where he died in 2017 — after 27 years in prison, which had been started (falsely) in the U.S., by a merely national court that actually had no jurisdiction over this international matter.

Regarding the 1994 U.S. court case, “Lafontant v. Aristide”, against Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the head-of-state of Haiti, the court’s “MEMORANDUM AND ORDER” opened: “The question posed by this case is whether the recognized head of a state who has violated the civil rights of a person by having him killed can avoid civil prosecution in this country *130 by virtue of his status. The answer is yes. Defendant [Aristide] seeks dismissal as a matter of law. For purposes of this opinion only it must be assumed that plaintiffs allegations are true.” It then said: “A final judgment, quashing service of process on President Jean-Bertrand Aristide and dismissing the action was promptly entered. This memorandum explains why this result is required.” It closed: “This court has subject matter jurisdiction, but it cannot exercise in personam jurisdiction over defendant because of his head-of-state immunity. The case is dismissed.” Aristide was released specifically because of head-of-state immunity — a type of diplomatic immunity.

A 14 july 2025 article at the “Legal Clarity” site headlined “Does Diplomatic Immunity Cover All Crimes?”, and it opens:

Diplomatic immunity is a principle of international law restricting how a host country can exercise jurisdiction over foreign diplomats. Its purpose is to allow diplomats to perform their duties without fear of coercion or harassment from the host nation. The rules for these protections are codified in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961, which sets the standard for interactions between diplomatic representatives.

Levels of Diplomatic Immunity

The protections afforded by diplomatic immunity are not uniform and directly correspond to an individual’s role within the mission. The highest tier of protection is granted to diplomatic agents, such as ambassadors and ministers, who are the official representatives of their country. These individuals, along with their immediate family members living in the same household, receive the broadest scope of immunity available under international law.

Where it says that “The highest tier of protection is granted to diplomatic agents, such as ambassadors and ministers, who are the official representatives of their country,” that includes (though the article fails to mention this) a nation’s Prime Minister or other head-of-state (such as President). Furthermore: where it says “along with their immediate family,” that includes Maduro’s wife.

Trump can ignore this; Turley can ignore this; but, if the U.S. WILL ignore it (as Trump obviously intends), then every head-of-state and every OTHER Government official in every other country will recognize that the U.S. is a rogue regime that feels it has the right to dictate to every other nation’s Government. And, then, at least SOME other Governments will come to recognize that the U.S. Government is their enemy. Perhaps Trump is so aggressive that he wouldn’t mind that, but lots of other Americans would find very disturbing their nation’s then acquiring a global pariah status — considered to be a pariah by virtually every other Government.

Maybe the U.S. imperial regime’s decades-long effort to replace the U.N.’s international-laws based order, by its very own international-rules based order, will then finally come crashing to an extremely embarrassing end.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.