Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law Enforcement

@Necrothesp: Pinging you because you're the first person on the participant list who seems active, and I desire a prompt reply.

Is 2026 United States strikes in Venezuela within scope? There's currently a number of editors uninvolved in this project arguing about this at the talk page. To summarise, some people believe that the operation is within scope, because it was carried out, in part, by law enforcement agencies, to accomplish what the US government purports to be the enforcement of US law. The other side seems to believe it's warfare, and therefore not in scope. Dieknon (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

I would say it is in scope. Although primarily a military action, its purported purpose was to bring Maduro to justice and he has now been brought before the US courts, legitimately or otherwise. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:07, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, the editor who just yesterday was trying to get it removed is now making yet another request to get it removed, once again without discussion with this Wikiproject and against the guidelines in WP:SCOPEWAR. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 16:47, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I have posted on Talk:2026 United States strikes in Venezuela that I don't believe it is within the scope of this project. Melbguy05 (talk) 09:41, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

This whole project is about building consensus, many countries have condemned the operation as an egregious violation of Venezuela's sovereignty. The government of Venezuela describes it as a 'kidnap'. That this was a 'law enforcement' operation is entirely the Trump administration POV. Even people in the US have condemned the operation and called for the rules-based world order to be upheld (i.e. international law). I don't believe the article is in scope. Accuratelibrarian (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

because it was carried out, in part, by law enforcement agencies. The US armed forces along with the CIA planned and executed the operation, the FBI alone couldn't have done it, so it was a military operation, the FBI participation is secondary. I doubt the Venezuelan government gave permission for this operation to be carried out on its soil, without their consent it is not 'law enforcement' it is a breach of sovereignty and thus a crime.Accuratelibrarian (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

To accomplish what the US government purports to be the enforcement of US law. This is entirely the Trump administration POV, also you cannot enforce your domestic laws in other countries unless there is an agreement. Accuratelibrarian (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

I totally agree with the remarks made by Accuratelibrarian. Melbguy05 (talk) 02:52, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

You mean an agreement like... Treaty Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Venezuela on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, signed at Caracas on October 12, 1997 which has been ratified and in force since 1998? That kind of agreement to enforce U.S. domestic laws? One that covers our ability to investigate and prosecute a variety of offenses, including drug trafficking, terrorism, other violent crimes, and money laundering and other white-collar crime ... and which includes locating or identifying persons or items; serving documents; transferring persons in custody, or persons subject to criminal proceedings, for testimony or other purposes; executing requests for searches and seizures; assisting in proceedings related to immobilization and forfeiture of assets, restitution, and collection of fines; executing procedures involving experts; and any other form of assistance appropriate under the laws of the Requested State and also explicitly states The scope of the Treaty includes not only the investigation, prosecution, and prevention of criminal offenses, but also proceedings related to criminal matters, which may be civil or administrative in nature, including proceedings relating to the immobilization and forfeiture of assets, restitution, and collection of fines.? ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 08:46, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

If he had of been extradited (an extradition treaty in place between Venezuela and the US) and a few FBI or DEA agents went and escorted him on a civilian/chartered aircraft to the US. Or under a Interpol red notice. Those two scenarios would fall within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject. Melbguy05 (talk) 09:15, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Reading the 1997 treaty, it says that it can be terminated at any time by either the US or Venezuela. Do you know if the Venezuelan government has terminated it? Also, the treaty states that the person has to consent in writing to being transfered between the states (i.e. Venezuela to the US) and both Venezuela and the US have to agree to the transfer. Melbguy05 (talk) 11:39, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I think this official US joint statement sums it up "The United States pursued every lawful option to resolve this matter peacefully".^[1] Melbguy05 (talk) 12:04, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

The point is that Accuratelibrarian's oft-repeated claim that US domestic law cannot be enforced in Venezuela is incorrect -- it can, and there are in fact agreements about it. Whether this particular operation complied with them or not is besides the point when the core of their objection seems to be the mistaken belief that the U.S. cannot undertake any law enforcement actions outside its own borders whatsoever, which is simply not true. Again, whether we violated any treaties or international laws or not does not change the law-enforcement nature of this action. It's possibly the world's most notable arrest right now, for a U.S. federal criminal crime, conducted by the US's premier federal law enforcement agency. It remains related to law enforcement regardless of whether the military was involved, and regardless of whether the US broke the law in the process. US law enforcement breaks the law all the time conducting their actions, that's nothing new. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 15:57, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

US federal agents were outside their jurisdiction and had no powers to detain him and transport him to the US. You could say that it was an unlawful US law enforcement operation. But overwhelmingly, it was a military operation in which the role of law enforcement personnel resembled that of military personnel. "The Department of War led this" operation.^[1] I have never come across a civilian law enforcement operation that had been directed by a nation's military. Melbguy05 (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I have previously posted some sources which show the position in the US on international law; the Justice department (Bush Administration) in a memo (comments foot of section) indicated the FBI can ignore international law with regards to extraterratorial arrests. US is not part of the Rome Statute (didn't ratify) near foot of section again. I would think knowing if it is illegal internationally would require a thorough investigation of relevant documents and not arguments which could be winning or convincing as I think editors maybe feel the temptation to proceed to do. As to my own research - the current legal situation I would say "non-ratify RS" & a possible precedence "memo" means the US is not subject to international law - that's obvious. As to - it breaches international law which the US is not subject to (no agreement to obey before the Venezuala act / actions) - in my subjective opinion - if the DOJ has sufficient evidence to know Maduro is guilty and can therefore prove it unquestionably in a court then it should be thought of as enforcement - if bad=harm is occuring to people and the cause is a known individual it is a moral obligation to act. To think it is illegal is like stating "Maduro should be freed" to then return to Venezuala and continue to governmentally support illegal drug operations globally. On the balance of problems I'm sure no-one would think: Maduro cannot be brought to justice because doing so would be illegal - instead every organisation/government should sit around powerless to do anything collecting evidence but with no authority to do anything at all - that would be silly because Maduro (if there is sufficient evidence) is doing alot of illegal things and the US hasn't done much at all on the balance of illegal to stop him - I think like this: as a response attacking-striking looks bad=people died it was an aggressive choice - but it was the responsible choice not an irresponsible choice - the government responded to the problem. In synopsis: in US it is legal - in international law it is illegal - I'm not a lawyer - currently the evidence I've seen indicates. Cattenion (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

The death penalty is not a law in many nations - is death a form of law-enforcement? in the US and / or internationally? - non-military killing. Cattenion (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

The memo suggests that because the UN Charter (specifically Article 2(4) regarding the use of force) is "non-self-executing" (meaning it doesn't provide a rule for U.S. courts to follow) it is therefore not binding on the President. The author, Brian Finucane, points out that the Take Care Clause of the Constitution requires the President to "faithfully execute" the "Laws." Under U.S. constitutional history and Supreme Court precedent (like In re Neagle), treaties are considered "Laws." Therefore, the President is constitutionally obligated to follow them, regardless of whether a private citizen can sue over them in court.

You mentioned that if the U.S. has evidence of Maduro’s guilt, taking action should be seen as "enforcement" rather than an illegal act. However, the U.S. helped create the UN Charter specifically to prevent nations from unilaterally deciding when to use force based on their own "moral obligations" or subjective evidence. By using the Override Opinion to "brush aside" Article 2(4), the President is essentially claiming that "if the president can get away with it [because it isn't judicially enforceable], then it must be legal." This is a circular and dangerous logic that undermines the "scourge of war" protections the U.S. originally championed.

While you noted the U.S. hasn't ratified the Rome Statute (ICC), it did ratify the UN Charter. Under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, ratified treaties are the "supreme Law of the Land." The Senate Foreign Relations Committee and previous administrations (like Truman’s) have consistently held that even non-self-executing treaties are laws that the President must execute. Thus, the idea that the U.S. is "not subject" to international law in this context is a specific, contested interpretation by the OLC, rather than a settled fact of domestic law.

Your point about the "moral obligation" to stop a criminal leader versus the "silliness" of sitting around powerless is exactly what the Override Opinion seeks to facilitate. However, this "practical license to violate foundational rules" has implications far beyond one individual case. If the Executive Branch can unilaterally decide which treaties to "override" based on political necessity, it removes the legal checks intended to prevent the Executive from acting as a law unto itself.

Source: Revisiting the Office of Legal Counsel’s Override Opinion Accuratelibrarian (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

having scan read your source Finucane 2020 the relevant un.org Article 2(4) "use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." - the operation wasn't territorial (i.e. the US didn't annex / there is no border dispute), isn't a threat to the political independence - the vice-president is currently the acting president - so this would necessitate the 3rd element - which I can't comment on as I'm not familiar with "the purposes of the" UN at this time and would require further investigation which I haven't currently made. Just as an opinion - the whole idea of the United Nations as a force for good - which is "good" being the idea of advancement of those things which humans hold dear=which are inherently valuable "international peace and security, to develop friendly relations among states, to promote international cooperation" (which s simply a copy from the wikipedia article) - suggesting some type of international law is a protectorate of crime isn't something which is the purposes of the UN - i.e. the protection of UN law is not an excuse for allowing crime. Even if the UN law is in force and the president of the US was illegally functoning to allow the operation this still makes Maduro an illegal individual is his own nation (see: Legal status of cocaine) should it be that the evidence of his activity as a cocaine trader or involved in the selling of cocaine be proven - is not in harmony with the general puposes of the UN - it would be a corruption of the principles to cohabit the international arena with such an individual; in addition to which the charges "machine guns" are infact in contravention of clause 3: "international peace". The probability of the operation being illegal would depend on the outcome of the court hearing - if the judge decides in the favour of Maduro and the 1st lady - this seems mostly not possible / impossible since Maduro is indicted on a previous occasion - if there is no corruption / alternate agenda in the motivations of the president etc and the judge and legal proceedings are sound then this doesn't provide any scope for legality of Maduro on the basis alone of "m.g." not being an activity harmonious with peace. Cattenion (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Zaid 1993 "1989 MEMO" (archive) published in the International Enforcement Law Reporter 9 (2): https://ielr.com/ Cattenion (talk) 02:03, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

"22,678 cocaine-related overdose deaths - 12-month period ending in October 2024" "Approximately 84 percent of the domestic cocaine seized in 2024 of Columbian orign" - source dea.gov April 2025 Cattenion (talk) 02:41, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

[the] claim that US domestic law cannot be enforced in Venezuela is incorrect says who? Does that only work one way or is Venezuelan domestic law enforceable in the US? M.Bitton (talk) 12:29, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Says both the U.S. and Venezuelan governments, as well as the entire body of international law surrounding mutual legal assistance treaties. Please scroll up to the beginning of this discussion where I linked to the MLAT treaty between the USA and Venezuela on quite literally this issue. Of course, there are countless other examples of the enforcement of country A's domestic laws internationally against country B -- see e.g., Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, Foreign Extortion Prevention Technical Corrections Act, the UK's Bribery Act, OFAC secondary sanctions.... how do y'all think the GDPR is applied internationally against non-European entities? So no, the idea that any nation's domestic laws cannot be enforced internationally is simply facially untrue. There are constraints and caveats to *when* and *how* those may be enforced. But that's not the argument that the OP was making in the original discussion -- they were saying categorically that it could never happen under any circumstances, which is patently and demonstrably false.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:05, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Mutual legal assistance treaty doesn't include abducting a president of a sovereign nation. M.Bitton (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Can we keep the goalposts in one fixed location? You were asking "who says US domestic law cannot be enforced in Venezuela". I gave you numerous examples. This entire line of discussion was about the OP's statement about how international law enforcement works *categorically*, not just in this scenario. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:29, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

You compared apples to oranges. M.Bitton (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

My dude, this is metaphorically a discussion of fruits. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!}

No, it's about what the US did, i.e., the abduction of the president of a sovereign nation. M.Bitton (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

No, as I've told you already, you're responding in a subthread that was about the OP's claim about how international law enforcement works categorically speaking. (OP: "US law doesn't apply in Venezuela, so you cannot 'enforce' it"). This thread is a continuation of that now archived discussion. If you can't be bothered to familiarize yourself with the discussion you're bullheadedly diving into, don't expect me to waste my time catching you up.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:40, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

You don't get to decide what the discussion is about and nobody's obliging you to respond to my comments. As far as I'm concerned, they are right and you are wrong. M.Bitton (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Bless your little heart. Have a great day. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:45, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Accepting Maduro & First Lady guilty of a serious crime while in office that any ordinary and responsible citizen would expect a law enforcement agancy to respond. If one person is allowed to live in contradiction to the law then that sets a precedence for all people - when the law stands every human is subject to that law - non-one is above the law - that is how humans govern themselves; better to remove the person at the top of a criminal organisation than to spend numerous years piecemeal removing people at the bottom of the hierarchy. Removing the everyday dealing to the people drug dealer makes little difference to the the flow of illict trade - in a war against drugs that is simply rank and file soldiers. It is a pre-stated "war on drugs", there is never going to be a nice and civilized way to enforce happy civilized laws in a situation supposedly of war (though no declaration of official war is made). In my opinion - cocaine is a national/continental plant and resource in Venezuala - and it isn't really any affair of a foreign nation of Venezuala to go meddling in the affairs of another nation - but the topic here is transnational crime - which is cocaine is illegal and associated with the president - I don't see how there is any argument a president/sovereign is simply an empty title if the individual doesn't fulfill thier obligated responsibilities in office (impeachment exists). If Maduro had ultimately caused legality of cocaine in his own nation while in office then the argument would be different. Nitobe "men should be judged by their deeds, not their lineage" - men (should be) are judged by the choices they make not by titles or names - nobility is in the act not the name. Cattenion (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Who nominated the US (a country that has no respect for international law) as the judge and jury? M.Bitton (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

"The United States pursued every lawful option to resolve this matter peacefully" sums up the US complete disregard for international law. M.Bitton (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Killing of Renee Good#Requested move 10 January 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vestrian24Bio 09:28, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Talk:List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States,_2009#Split_by_month about spliting the list by month. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Declaring a Crime Emergency in the District of Columbia#Requested move 1 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vestrian24Bio 13:48, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Deaths, detentions and deportations of American citizens in the second Trump administration#Requested move 4 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Abesca (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Rapid Action Battalion#Requested move 3 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vestrian24Bio 13:01, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Federal Highway Police (Brazil)#Requested move 26 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 07:46, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Florence, South Carolina shooting#Requested move 4 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 14:02, 12 March 2026 (UTC)