Today, when Nicolas Maduro walks into a federal courtroom in Manhattan, it will mark a historic moment: one of the world’s most corrupt strongmen facing the American justice system. Both parties in Washington have long wanted him to stand trial.
The Biden administration wasn’t just on board with charges against the Venezuelan strongman. In its final days, the Biden White House hiked the bounty to $25 million for information leading to his arrest and/or conviction.
So amid the battles over the U.S. military operation that brought him here, this court appearance should unite Americans. But it doesn’t — and that’s a direct result of our media ecosystem.
Big Media has made a mess of the coverage, leaving Americans unaware of whether a court proceeding like this can even legally exist. The short answer is: Yes, it can, no matter how Maduro got here, thanks to a doctrine that both parties have long stood behind.
All over the media, you’re reading, hearing, and seeing claims about presidential powers (which I addressed here) and, even more disastrously, “international law.” There’s a reason one of the earliest episodes of They Stand Corrected focused on that term. It’s one of the biggest, clearest signs of media malpractice.
For decades, the biggest news agencies have misused this term. In my CNN days, when people would make claims about “international law,” I’d often ask which “law” they were referring to. They virtually never had an answer.
The term has become a nebulous tool used as a smear, rather than an opportunity to educate Americans.
So it’s no wonder that new New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani — who has long parroted the media in falsely accusing Israel of violating “international law” — rushed to present himself as an expert.
In this week’s episode, I’ll talk you through some of the latest bad reporting about Maduro. Be sure to subscribe so it pops up in your inbox.
Key points to know today
A few basics are essential for understanding what happens today.
First, since the United States and many other countries don’t consider Maduro a legitimate leader, they can argue that he is not covered by international agreements protecting heads of state from arrest by foreign countries.
Next, for as long as certain international agreements (referred to as “international law”) have existed, every U.S. administration has argued that the country maintains the right to carry out military actions and arrests in other countries.
When it comes to assessing the legality of this operation, only a handful of people are actual experts worth hearing from. They must have detailed knowledge of: the complex web of international agreements; how those agreements have been applied all over the world; and the specifics of this case. But news agencies routinely quote and book talking heads who have no such expertise.
Perhaps most important, the Ker-Frisbie Doctrine establishes that the government may prosecute defendants without regard to how they were brought into the country.
I spent the weekend piecing through news disasters and reading international treaties so you don’t have to. Buy me a coffee! Your contributions keep this mission alive.
So much more to say, and I will in the coming newsletters and episode.
What questions do you have? Paid subscribers: Post questions in the comments or message me.
This article asserts that "only a handful of people are actual experts worth hearing from" on the legality of this operation. I'd be curious to know a couple people that you believe fit this description and why. Thank you.