It's good Maduro is out of Venezuela. But is it legal? | Opinion

Early on Jan. 3, U.S. law enforcement and military personnel conducted an operation that captured Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro. He was indicted in federal court on weapon and drug charges. 

Maduro’s capture is good for the United States and good for the people of Venezuela. America was morally and practically justified in acting, even if some legal debates remain. 

At the outset, I want to say the most important thing here: It is good that Maduro is no longer in power. The caveat is that, though I like the end result, President Donald Trump should have sought authorization from Congress, even though his actions are in line with those of past presidents in that regard.

Regime change in Venezuela is a noble goal and in America's interest

Maduro was an illegitimate leader who stole elections and locked up those who protested.

There was ample evidence that he had used his power to traffic narcotics into the United States, and the Venezuelan regime oppresses its own citizens. Mass shortages from these policies have led to malnutrition and starvation. 

The liberation of the Venezuelan people from such a regime would be a good thing, and if America is in the business of nation-building, I pray we succeed. There are difficulties with achieving that result, and there will surely be intense debates over what role the United States should play in the future of Venezuela. However, removing Maduro from the picture is the essential first step. The celebrations from Venezuelans both in-country and abroad should put a smile on all of our faces. 

So, too, is it good for the United States that Maduro is gone. It is good to uproot a regime that traffics drugs into our country, likely contributing to the deaths of many Americans and the destruction of even more lives.

It is good for America to have one less hostile regime that is allied with Russia, China, Cuba and Iran in our hemisphere. 

Reasserting our control over our region is a noble goal. The anxiety felt by Mexican drug cartels and the hostile Cuban regime stemming from this ought to serve as a powerful deterrent against their own anti-American actions. 

Those who think such functions of the federal government are not in the interest of America are shortsighted. If we can prevent drug trafficking, we should do so. If we can uproot hostile regimes in our immediate surroundings without entering into full-scale war, we should do so. If we can weaken China, Russia, Cuba, Iran or any other country that hates us, we should do so.

These functions are essential to U.S. security and dominance. 

The legality of Trump administration's Maduro operation is gray 

The legality of the operation is far less cut and dry than the moral and practical rationales. The ability to make war resides in Congress, and the president must seek authorization from the legislative branch. 

The Trump administration has tried to get around this by labeling it a primarily law-enforcement operation, but that's an argument of semantics and doesn’t truly change the legality of the operation.

In addition, the fact that we are now entertaining the possibility of running the country to some degree undermines the pure law-enforcement explanation. 

Regardless of the motivation, we took hostile action to interfere with another nation’s sovereignty, and that does require congressional approval. Trump should have gone to Congress to get authorization for the mission. Fears of leaks are understandable, but that doesn’t change the demands of the Constitution. 

That being said, the military actions of presidents this century have more or less set the precedent that Trump can act in such a manner without congressional authorization. The fact that this is the status quo doesn’t make it right, but it does eliminate the partisan angles of these actions, given that Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Joe Biden have all taken actions outside of congressional authorization. At no point has Congress actually taken up the mantle of reasserting its war powers as a body.

A proper interpretation of the presidential war powers would mean that Trump went through Congress to take action in Venezuela. Congress should be on board with such actions, but Trump did not give them a chance to be on the right side of this one. Trump’s actions are in line with the status quo of presidential war powers, but not in line with the constitutionally proper interpretation. 

Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.