How Claims of Prosecution Cannot Substitute for Custody, Law, or Humanity

By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News

What Is Claimed—and What Is Still Missing

Since the initial U.S. military action against Venezuela, administration officials and allies have advanced a new narrative: that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife were captured, transferred to the United States, and will be prosecuted in New York.

These are claims.

They are not accompanied by independent verification, neutral confirmation, or publicly released proof of life. No court appearance has occurred. No verified images, recordings, or third-party attestations have been produced. Venezuelan authorities continue to demand proof that the president and his wife are alive.

This matters because assertion is not custody, and rhetoric is not evidence.

Criminal Charges Do Not Authorize War—or Seizure

The administration’s attempt to reframe a cross-border military operation as law enforcement collapses under minimal scrutiny.

Domestic criminal indictments—however serious—do not authorize:

  • the use of armed force in another sovereign state,
  • the seizure of foreign political leaders,
  • or their transfer without due process and international oversight.

No domestic charging document transforms a military strike into a lawful arrest. Conflating the two is not a technical mistake; it is a category error with grave consequences.

Trump’s Own Words Widen the Legal Gap

In public remarks following the operation, Donald Trump described the United States as preparing to “run” Venezuela temporarily and referenced U.S. oil companies rebuilding the country’s energy sector.

This language matters. It is not the language of extradition or criminal procedure. It is the language of control.

Occupation-style rhetoric directly contradicts claims that this was a narrow law-enforcement action. It reinforces the conclusion that the operation was political and coercive—precisely what international law prohibits.

Proof of Life: The Minimum Standard

When a state claims custody of individuals seized during hostilities—especially a head of state and spouse—proof of life is the baseline obligation.

That obligation exists to:

  • prevent enforced disappearance,
  • reduce escalation risk,
  • and preserve the most basic human-rights norms.

Providing proof of life does not concede legitimacy to any government. It does not prejudice legal arguments. It does not compromise security. It simply confirms that the individuals exist, are alive, and are being held under identifiable authority.

The refusal to do so is not neutral. It is consequential.

Enforced Disappearance Is a Continuing Violation

Under international human-rights law, enforced disappearance occurs when authorities:

  • deprive individuals of liberty,
  • refuse to acknowledge their fate or whereabouts,
  • or place them outside the protection of the law.

If U.S. officials claim custody while declining to produce proof of life or lawful detention status, the violation is ongoing, not historical.

This is why time matters. Every hour without clarification deepens the legal exposure and the risk of miscalculation—by Venezuela, by regional actors, and by the broader international system.

Regional Alarm Is Not Imagined

Governments across South America and the Caribbean have publicly condemned the use of force and called for adherence to international law. Major global powers have echoed those concerns. Regional organizations are discussing emergency consultations.

This is not performative outrage. It reflects a shared understanding that unilateral seizures of political leaders—especially when cloaked in criminal rhetoric—set a precedent that endangers everyone.

Naming Units Is Not Accountability

The president’s public claim that elite U.S. special operations forces were used—without confirmation or context—does not advance transparency. It does the opposite.

Operators execute missions. They do not authorize wars, seizures, or prosecutions. Naming units while withholding proof of life shifts attention downward and away from the authorizing chain and legal basis—where responsibility actually resides.

Editorial Condemnation

WPS News condemns the continued failure to provide proof of life for the individuals the U.S. government claims to hold.

Claims of transfer to New York, talk of prosecution, and public speeches cannot substitute for evidence. If the United States believes its actions were lawful, it can meet the minimum standard required by law and humanity: confirm custody, confirm condition, and confirm authority.

Until then, this remains not only a crisis of legality—but a continuing human-rights violation with escalating regional consequences.

APA Citations

United Nations. (1945). Charter of the United Nations.

United Nations General Assembly. (1974). Resolution 3314 (XXIX): Definition of Aggression.

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2010). International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance.

Discover more from WPS News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.