Core Question: Would the operation violate international law, including the UN Charter?

Conclusions:
— The operation does not constitute “war” under international law.
— It may qualify as law enforcement action or self-defense against ongoing threats (narco-terrorism).

The memo argues: Brief, targeted use of force does not automatically trigger armed conflict.

Even if it technically violates sovereignty, international law does not clearly prohibit such an action in these circumstances.

Courts have consistently held that:
— Illegal or irregular capture does not bar prosecution.
— This includes abductions from foreign countries.

Maduro could argue:
— Violation of international law.
— Lack of presidential authority.

Memo concludes:
— These arguments are unlikely to succeed.
— Individual U.S. personnel could face foreign legal risk, but are protected under U.S. law if acting lawfully.

🇺🇸 The President may authorize the operation under:
— Commander-in-Chief authority.
— Power to protect national security.
— Authority to enforce U.S. criminal law abroad.
📝The memo relies heavily on historical precedents where Presidents used force without congressional authorization.

Operation Absolute Resolve does not trigger Congress’s war powers:
❌ No need for advance congressional authorization
❌ No declaration of war
❌ No violation of the War Powers Resolution
✅ President can act unilaterally under Article II

📝Operation Absolute Resolve does not rise to the level of “war” requiring prior congressional approval.

Three national interests that justify unilateral action here:
— Protecting U.S. national security
— Enforcing federal criminal law
— Protecting U.S. personnel conducting lawful missions

The DOJ's key points:
— The mission is capture-only
— Killing Maduro would fundamentally change the legal analysis
— Use of force must be incidental, not the objective
📝The operation must be designed to seize Maduro alive.

🪖 Military assistance is lawful if law enforcement retains the arrest purpose.