I'm not sure how folks around the world, including some in the US, are able to creatively twist Maduro's capture into a "kidnapping". Normally, kidnappings involve a ransom demand and a promise of release if the ransom is paid, and neither of those apply in this case. By that logic, ANY capture and arrest of ANY criminal should be classed as a "kidnapping", which would make the "no borders" Leftist claims of "kidnapping" of illegal aliens who are arrested for violations of law during immigration sweeps correct.
Nevertheless, many things in life are merely matters of perspective. One man's "kidnapping" is another man's "capture", and one man's "freedom fighter" is another man's "terrorist". Same thing, just a matter of perspective.
Another anomaly, from my perspective,are the constant claims of "violation of intentional law". I've yet to hear any of the pundits of such a claim cite which international law they are referring to, or when the US signed off on such law. All international law is based upon treaty obligations, and as such various nations are exempt based upon whether or not they are party to that particular treaty. Now, I'm not saying that no such treaty has been broken in this case, I'm just saying that the proponents of that theory seem to be having difficulty in dredging up the particulars that would support their claims.
Since there is no international governing body, sovereign states are only bound by the treaty obligations they have ratified, and have not withdrawn from. Some more, some less, and their sovereignty seems to be governed more by the enforcement of their borders than anything else - freely violateable borders are not really borders at all, so the sovereignty of any nation seems to hinge upon whether they assert their sovereignty by controlling their borders. As an example, during the Biden years, the United States abdicated it's sovereignty by a willful failure to enforce it's borders, whereas during the Trump years, the US has reclaimed that sovereignty by the simple expedient of enforcing it's borders..
.
Nevertheless, many things in life are merely matters of perspective. One man's "kidnapping" is another man's "capture", and one man's "freedom fighter" is another man's "terrorist". Same thing, just a matter of perspective.
Another anomaly, from my perspective,are the constant claims of "violation of intentional law". I've yet to hear any of the pundits of such a claim cite which international law they are referring to, or when the US signed off on such law. All international law is based upon treaty obligations, and as such various nations are exempt based upon whether or not they are party to that particular treaty. Now, I'm not saying that no such treaty has been broken in this case, I'm just saying that the proponents of that theory seem to be having difficulty in dredging up the particulars that would support their claims.
Since there is no international governing body, sovereign states are only bound by the treaty obligations they have ratified, and have not withdrawn from. Some more, some less, and their sovereignty seems to be governed more by the enforcement of their borders than anything else - freely violateable borders are not really borders at all, so the sovereignty of any nation seems to hinge upon whether they assert their sovereignty by controlling their borders. As an example, during the Biden years, the United States abdicated it's sovereignty by a willful failure to enforce it's borders, whereas during the Trump years, the US has reclaimed that sovereignty by the simple expedient of enforcing it's borders..
.
“Trouble rather the tiger in his lair than the sage among his books. For to you kingdoms and their armies are things mighty and enduring, but to him they are but toys of the moment, to be overturned with the flick of a finger.”
― Gordon R. Dickson, Tactics of Mistake
― Gordon R. Dickson, Tactics of Mistake
![[Image: F2FW3RqQ_o.jpg]](https://images2.imgbox.com/84/80/F2FW3RqQ_o.jpg)
![[Image: S2CBKk58_o.jpg]](https://images2.imgbox.com/e9/57/S2CBKk58_o.jpg)