Timothy Parlatore, a prominent defense lawyer who has advised President Donald Trump and War Secretary Pete Hegseth, on Saturday offered Just the News his analysis of the legal justification for the use of military assets to capture Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro on narco-terrorism charges. 

Parlatore is also a Navy reservist but offered his analysis in his private capacity. He was not involved in this particular operation and his opinions are his own, not that of the Department. 

He offered the analysis hours after the Trump administration announced that Marduro and his wife had been taken overnight from their home on a Venezuelan military base. The couple was put aboard U.S. warship headed to New York, where they were to face the criminal charges.

"This bold move, announced by President Donald Trump himself, marks a watershed moment in American foreign policy, one that echoes the 1989-1990 operation against Panamanian strongman Manuel Noriega, yet surpasses it in efficiency and restraint," Parlatore wrote. "The Maduro operation is not only entirely lawful under established precedents but also far more effective, given its limited scope amid Venezuela's vastly superior defenses. Critics decrying it as overreach ignore history and the facts on the ground."

He also wrote at about the same time Trump said the U.S. planned to run Venezuela until a transition of power can take place. 

"Let's revisit the Noriega precedent, which set the legal foundation for such interventions. In December 1989, under President George H.W. Bush, the U.S. launched Operation Just Cause – a full-scale invasion of Panama involving over 27,000 troops," Parlatore continued. 

"The objective was to depose Noriega, who had been indicted in 1988 on drug trafficking and racketeering charges in U.S. federal court. Noriega, once a CIA asset, had transformed Panama into a narco-hub, flooding American streets with cocaine while rigging elections and brutalizing his people. After annulling the 1989 Panamanian elections, he declared war on the U.S., prompting the invasion.

"The operation's legality hinged on several pillars: Noriega's status as a criminal fugitive under U.S. indictment, the protection of American citizens in Panama (including attacks on U.S. personnel), and the restoration of democracy. Courts upheld this framework post-capture; Noriega was tried and convicted in Miami, serving time until his death. International law experts, including those at the United Nations, debated the action but ultimately recognized it as a legitimate response to a rogue leader's threats. 

"The precedent was clear: When a foreign leader operates as a criminal enterprise head, indictments strip away sovereign immunity, justifying extraterritorial arrest.

"Fast-forward to Maduro. Indicted in 2020 by the U.S. Department of Justice for narco-terrorism, corruption, and leading the "Cartel of the Suns"—a regime accused of trafficking tons of cocaine into the U.S. – Maduro mirrored Noriega's playbook. 

"His 2018 and 2024 "elections" were blatant frauds, condemned by the U.S., EU, and dozens of nations as rigged spectacles that suppressed opposition leaders like Juan Guaidó and María Corina Machado. Maduro's rule precipitated a humanitarian catastrophe: millions fleeing Venezuela, economic collapse, and alliances with adversaries like Russia, China, and Iran. Like Noriega, he rejected exile offers and clung to power through military might and repression.

"The legal parallels are undeniable. Maduro's capture rests on the same indictments and bounties ($15 million in his case) that justified Noriega's. U.S. forces acted not as invaders but as law enforcers, executing a warrant on a fugitive whose regime posed direct threats to American security through drug flows and regional instability. If Noriega's operation was lawful – and decades of jurisprudence affirm it was – then Maduro's is a textbook application of that precedent. 

"Detractors invoking sovereignty overlook that both men forfeited such protections by running narco-states. As the Supreme Court has long held in extradition cases, criminals cannot hide behind borders.

"Yet, where the Maduro operation truly excels is in its effectiveness and restraint – a masterclass in modern warfare that outshines the Noriega invasion. Operation Just Cause was a blunt instrument: weeks of combat, hundreds of casualties (including civilians), and a massive troop commitment against Panama's paltry defense force of about 16,000, many of whom surrendered quickly. It worked, but at a cost – financially, in lives, and in international optics, with U.N. condemnation lingering.

"Contrast that with Maduro's takedown: Targeted airstrikes on key sites in Caracas, a special operations raid supported by the air assets, and a rapid airlift out. 

"No broad ground invasion, no occupation. This surgical strike neutralized Maduro and his wife despite Venezuela's formidable defenses – over 120,000 active troops, plus armed militias, Russian-supplied weaponry, and a sprawling geography dwarfing Panama's. 

"The operation's limited nature minimized casualties, avoided prolonged entanglement, and leveraged intelligence from agencies like the CIA and NSA, much as in Noriega's case but with superior tech and precision.

"Why more effective? Scale and strategy. Venezuela's military is a "harder nut to crack," as analysts have noted, with alliances that could invite proxy escalations. A full invasion might have spiraled into a quagmire akin to Iraq or Libya, costing billions and lives while alienating Latin America. Instead, this operation achieved regime decapitation with minimal footprint, paving the way for a Venezuelan-led transition. 

"It's a testament to evolved U.S. capabilities: Drones, cyber tools, and elite units that render massive deployments obsolete.

"Of course, risks remain – potential instability in Venezuela or backlash from Maduro's backers. But the alternative was inaction, allowing a narco-dictator to fester. This operation reaffirms that America can enforce justice without imperial overreach.

"As we reflect on these events, policymakers should embrace this model: Lawful, precedent-based actions that prioritize efficiency over excess. In an era of great-power competition, such precision protects American interests while upholding the rule of law."