This link is to a detailed, deep dive into a coherent legal theory (constitutionally questionable) that asserts a US president has power to interfere with other nations’ internal affairs, including kidnapping leaders, rigging elections and staging coups. The article is entitled Imperial Prerogative: How the Panama Invasion and the “Barr Doctrine” Set the Stage for the Maduro “Snatch” Operation. This is based on a published analysis by the non-profit group calling itself the National Security Archive (the Archive).
According to the Archive analysis, Bill Barr was a key architect that helped cook up the legal reasoning that asserts US presidents have power to, more or less, wreck other nations, including democracies. The article focuses on the US involvement with Panama in the 1980s, but extrapolates that to US operations in Venezuela in 2026. The article notes that Barr’s 1989 legal memos asserted that a US president has “inherent constitutional authority” to act unilaterally and “contravene customary international law”. Right there is a basis for the US to “legally” ignore international laws it wants to ignore.
One can wonder what the point of international law is.
The Archive analysis points out that in 1989, Barr, then Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), wrote at least five legal opinions related to US efforts to remove Panamanian strongman Manuel Noriega from power. At least two of the Barr memos are still classified. Chief among them was a finding that the President had the inherent constitutional authority to arrest individuals abroad even if those actions contravene customary international law and even if they contravene unexecuted treaties or treaty provisions, such as Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter. The UN charter bars threats and use of force among member states except in self-defense.
The Archive analysis points out that both Operation Just Cause (Panama 1989) and Operation Absolute Resolve (Venezuela 2026), are strikingly similar. Both rely on (1) executive branch legal memoranda claiming inherent constitutional authority unconstrained by international law, (2) invocation of drug enforcement as justification, and (3) significant civilian casualties, and clear violations of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. The legal foundation for the US invasion of Venezuela was laid out in a classified December 2025 memo drafted by Elliot Gaiser, the 36-year-old Assistant Attorney General for the OLC. The heavily redacted memo, released publicly on January 13, 2026, cites the 1989 Barr opinion extensively. Glaiser’s legal analysis adopted Barr’s legal reasoning. Also, Glaiser’s memo asserts that the United States’ use of force against Venezuela is lawful despite being unlawful in violating UN Charter Article 2(4) and customary international law prohibitions on the use of force. This argument extends Barr’s 1989 reasoning that international laws do not limit US presidential action.
Apparently, the US operation in Venezuela today is illegal under international law. And the reasons for intervention, narco-terrorism and drug enforcement, appear to be nonsense.
Q: Is it better to keep the American people in the dark about the bad things the US government does to other countries? Or should we be kept reasonably well informed** so that the public knows what is going on and can express informed support or disapproval?
** Just reasonably informed, not completely informed about things that reasonably need to be kept secret from us.