--- author: New York Times Podcasts date: '2026-01-05' guest: '' layout: post.njk source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pi2-YhsU_MU speaker: New York Times Podcasts tags: - international-law - domestic-law - head-of-state-immunity - drug-trafficking - military-operation title: 从总统到被告：马杜罗案的法律审视 summary: 本期节目深入探讨了委内瑞拉总统**尼古拉斯·马杜罗**被捕后的法律案件。主持人**迈克尔·巴巴罗**与国家安全和法律政策记者**查理·萨维奇**讨论了逮捕行动的合法性，包括国际法和国内法层面的争议，并回顾了1989年美国入侵巴拿马逮捕**曼努埃尔·诺列加**的先例。节目还分析了马杜罗面临的可卡因贩运指控、其可能的国家元首豁免权辩护，以及**特朗普政府**行动背后的地缘政治动机。最终，讨论指出无论审判结果如何，马杜罗的政治生涯可能已不可逆转。 insight: '' draft: true series: '' category: geopolitics area: geopolitics project: [] people: - Nicholas Maduro - Manuel Noriega - Bill Barr companies_orgs: - The New York Times - FBI - DEA - FARC - United Nations - Justice Department products_models: [] media_books: - The Daily - The Atlantic status: evergreen --- ### 马杜罗被捕及其法律背景 **Michael Barbaro**: 这是一个寒冷的周日下午，我正站在布鲁克林日落公园的**大都会拘留中心**前。令人难以置信的是，委内瑞拉总统**尼古拉斯·马杜罗**和他的妻子今天早上就是在这里醒来的，此前他们周末在**加拉加斯**被美军惊人地抓获。这真是一个超现实的场景，因为在担任一个拥有约3000万公民的拉丁美洲主要国家的全能独裁者12年之后，**马杜罗**最终被关进了这个离我公寓几分钟路程、离最近的Costco只有几个街区的监狱。这与他几天前的身份形成了鲜明的对比。据我们所知，**马杜罗**将至少在这个拘留中心待到他在曼哈顿被提审，我们认为最早可能在周一早上。届时，美国政府将对他提出指控，**马杜罗**的未来将突然掌握在美国法官和陪审团手中。这里是**《纽约时报》**的**迈克尔·巴巴罗**，这是**《The Daily》**节目。今天，我们将讨论针对**尼古拉斯·马杜罗**的法律案件，以及抓捕他的非凡行动的合法性是否会破坏这个案件。我采访了我的同事**查理·萨维奇**，他为《泰晤士报》撰写国家安全和法律政策方面的文章。今天是1月5日，星期一。
Original English **Michael Barbaro**: So, it is a frigid Sunday afternoon and I am standing in front of the **Metropolitan Detention Center** in **Sunset Park, Brooklyn**, which improbably is where Venezuelan President **Nicholas Maduro** and his wife woke up this morning after their stunning capture by American troops in **Caracas** over the weekend. And it's this truly surreal scene because after 12 years as the all powerful dictator of a major Latin American country, a country with something like 30 million citizens, **Maduro** has ended up in this jail next to the highway a few minutes from my apartment and a couple blocks from the nearest Costco. It's just such a juxtaposition from what he was just a few days ago to what he is now. And as best we can tell, **Maduro** is going to remain in this detention center at least until he is arraigned. We think as early as Monday morning in Manhattan. And it's at that point that the US government is going to present its charges against him. And **Maduro**'s future will suddenly be in the hands of an American judge and an American jury. From the **New York Times**, I'm **Michael Barbaro**. This is **The Daily**. Today, the legal case against **Nicholas Maduro** and whether the lawfulness of the extraordinary operation to capture him could undermine that case. I spoke with my colleague **Charlie Savage** who writes about national security and legal policy for the Times. It's Monday, January 5th.
**Michael Barbaro**: **查理**，感谢你在周日抽出时间。非常感谢。
Original English **Michael Barbaro**: **Charlie**, thank you for making time for us on a Sunday. Appreciate it.
**Charlie Savage**: 不客气。为了让大家了解情况，我们制作了一期特别的周日版**《The Daily》**，详细介绍了导致**尼古拉斯·马杜罗**被捕并目前被拘留在布鲁克林的整个军事行动，离这里不远。**查理**，我们想和你讨论的是，这一整个非同寻常的局势所引发的，以及随着案件进入法院系统，可能最终进入**马杜罗**的审判阶段，将继续引发的所有法律问题。但我想从军事行动本身以及用于证明其合理性的法律依据开始。对于采取这种行动，存在或不存在什么样的法律先例？**特朗普政府**提出的论点，我们在周日节目中也简要提及，是这是一项支持逮捕被控违反美国法律的人的军事行动。这是否使其合法？
Original English **Charlie Savage**: My pleasure. Just to orient folks, we made a special Sunday episode of **The Daily** that detailed the entire military operation that resulted in **Nicholas Maduro**'s capture and his current detainment in Brooklyn, not that far from here. What we want to talk with you about, **Charlie**, are all the legal questions that this entire extraordinary situation has raised and will probably keep raising as this case moves through the court system into presumably a trial of **Maduro**. But I want to start with the military operation itself and the legal rationale that was used to justify carrying it out. What kind of legal precedent exists or doesn't for undertaking it. The argument that the **Trump administration** has put forward, and we briefly touched on this in our Sunday episode, is that this was a military operation in support of an arrest of somebody charged with breaking US law. Does that make it lawful?
**Charlie Savage**: 嗯，很抱歉，这个问题没有简单的答案。原因在于有两种不同的法律：国内法和国际法。一件事可能在一个层面上是合法的，而在另一个层面上是非法的。
Original English **Charlie Savage**: So, I'm sorry to say that there is not a simple answer to this. And the reason is there's two different kinds of law. There's domestic law. There's international law. Something that could be lawful on one level and illegal on the other level.
**Michael Barbaro**: 它们彼此独立运作。更糟糕的是，有时它们会相互渗透。
Original English **Michael Barbaro**: They operate independently of each other. And then even worse than that, sometimes they bleed into each other.
**Charlie Savage**: 所以，这里只是提供一个概述，这在国际法上可能是非法的。
Original English **Charlie Savage**: So here, just to provide an overview, this was probably illegal as a matter of international law.
**Michael Barbaro**: 为什么？
Original English **Michael Barbaro**: Why?
**Charlie Savage**: **《联合国宪章》**规定，一个国家未经他国同意、没有自卫理由或未经**联合国安理会**许可，不得在他国主权领土内使用武力。
Original English **Charlie Savage**: The **United Nations Charter** makes it illegal for a country to use force in another country's sovereign territory without its consent, a self-defense rationale, or the permission of the **UN Security Council**.
**Michael Barbaro**: 这些条件都不存在。
Original English **Michael Barbaro**: None of which were present.
**Charlie Savage**: 这些条件在这里都不存在。这是一次逮捕行动。所以，在国际法上可能是非法的；而在纯粹的国内法上，可能是合法的。**FBI**、**DEA**有权逮捕面临指控的人。他们有国会授予的明确授权来做这件事。法规并没有说这种权力在美国边境就停止了。军队可以向执法部门提供支持，以执行其逮捕人员的权力。所以，在国内法层面上，这可能没问题。但最后再补充一点，还有一个问题是，**《联合国宪章》**在国际法上使其非法，但它在美国是一项已批准的条约，而**《宪法》**规定已批准的条约是国家的最高法律。
Original English **Charlie Savage**: None of these are present here. This was an arrest operation. So probably illegal as a matter of international law, as a matter of pure domestic law, probably legal. The **FBI**, the **DEA** has the ability to go arrest people who are facing charges. It has affirmative authority from Congress to do that. Statutes don't say that that authority stops at the edge of the United States. Military can provide support to law enforcement and carrying out its authority to arrest people. So maybe that's okay on an a domestic law level. But just to add the final twist, there's the question of well, what about the fact that the **UN Charter** that makes it illegal as an international law matter is a ratified treaty in the United States and the **Constitution** says ratified treaties are the supreme law of the land.
**Michael Barbaro**: 对吧？作为国内宪法问题。这是否违法，因为**特朗普**有宪法义务遵守**《联合国宪章》**？
Original English **Michael Barbaro**: Right? as a matter of domestic constitutional law. Was this unlawful because **Trump** had a constitutional duty to obey the **UN Charter**?
**Charlie Savage**: 所以，这就是你必须理清的混乱，才能理解这次非同寻常的行动。
Original English **Charlie Savage**: And so this is the mess you have to sort through to make sense of this extraordinary operation.
### 诺列加先例与行政权力 **Michael Barbaro**: 在这里，美国法律和地缘政治历史上的一个先例，对于理解这个周末发生的事情，是一个重要的指导。晚上好。今晚，数千名美军在巴拿马占据了关键阵地，此前他们今天凌晨发动袭击，旨在推翻独裁者**诺列加将军**。这个先例就是1989年**老布什政府**入侵**巴拿马**，目的是逮捕**曼努埃尔·诺列加**，他像**马杜罗**一样，是该国的领导人，在美国面临贩毒指控。**诺列加将军**因毒品相关指控被起诉，总统已尽一切努力通过谈判和平解决局势。**诺列加将军**不再掌权。他不再指挥政府机构或他长期用来残害巴拿马人民的镇压力量。那么，请解释一下当时的美国总统是如何根据围绕国内法和国际法的复杂法律问题，为进入外国**巴拿马**逮捕**诺列加**辩护的。
Original English **Michael Barbaro**: And here a precedent in American law and geopolitical history is important as a guidepost to sorting through what just happened this weekend. Good evening. Thousands of American troops are tonight holding key positions in Panama after launching an attack early this morning to oust the dictator **General Noriega**. And that precedent is the **1989 invasion of Panama** by the **George H.W. Bush administration** for the purpose of arresting **Manuel Noriega** who like **Maduro** was a leader of that country facing drug trafficking charges back in the United States. **General Noriega** is under indictment for drug related charges and the president has made every effort peacefully to resolve the situation through negotiations under the opaces. **General Noriega** is no longer in power. He no longer commands the instruments of government or the forces of repression uh that he's used for so long to brutalize the Panamanian people. Well, just explain how the US president at the time justified entering a foreign country, Panama, to arrest **Noriega**, based on that thicket of complex legal questions surrounding domestic and international law.
**Charlie Savage**: 嗯，我认为没有多少人认为1989年入侵**巴拿马**在国际法上是合法的。在过去的半小时里，**联合国大会**通过了一项决议，谴责美国对**巴拿马**的干预。
Original English **Charlie Savage**: Well, I don't think very many people think that the **1989 invasion of Panama** was legal as a matter of international law. In the last half hour, the **United Nations General Assembly** has adopted a resolution deploring the United States intervention in Panama.
**Michael Barbaro**: **联合国大会**以压倒性多数宣布其非法。
Original English **Michael Barbaro**: It was declared unlawful overwhelmingly by the **United Nations General Assembly**,
**Charlie Savage**: **联合国安理会**多数成员投票谴责了它，但美国当然否决了该决议。因此，就**巴拿马**入侵相当明显地违反国际法而言，**老布什总统**得以逍遥法外。没有人能以任何有效的方式阻止他。所以，当时对**布什**来说更棘手的问题是国内法怎么办？1989年发生的事情是，**司法部法律顾问办公室**研究了这个问题，当时由一位名叫**比尔·巴尔**的年轻律师负责，他后来成为**布什**的司法部长，然后又在**特朗普**任内再次担任司法部长。
Original English **Charlie Savage**: a majority of the **UN Security Council** voted to condemn it, but the United States of course vetoed that resolution. So to the extent that the **Panama invasion** fairly clearly violated international law, President **George H.W. Bush** got away with it. There was no one to say you can't do this in any effective way. So the trickier question for **Bush** back in the day was what about domestic law? And what happened back in 1989 was that the **Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel** took a look at this issue and it was then run by a young lawyer named **Bill Barr** who would someday become attorney general for **Bush** and then reprised that role as attorney general for **Trump**.
**Michael Barbaro**: 年轻的**比尔·巴尔**对行政权力持非常宽泛的看法，他写了一份备忘录，称总统根据**《宪法》**拥有固有权力，可以派遣**FBI**到国外执行逮捕逃犯的任务。**《宪法》**赋予总统本质上是凌驾于国际法之上的权力，即违反国际法是允许的。
Original English **Michael Barbaro**: Young **Bill Barr** had a very expansive view of executive power. and he wrote a memo that said that the president had inherent power under the **Constitution** to dispatch the **FBI** in that case abroad to carry out its mission of arresting people who were fugitives from charges. And the **Constitution** empowered the president essentially to override international law, that it was okay to violate international law,
**Charlie Savage**: 至少作为国内宪法问题。**巴尔**的这份备忘录在发布时引起了很大的争议。许多法律学者批评它，他们认为**巴尔**在分析已批准的条约是否属于总统有义务忠实执行的法律类型时是错误的。但这就是1989年的推理。我认为可以肯定地假设，这可能也是这个周末行动的推理。
Original English **Charlie Savage**: at least as a matter of domestic constitutional law. And that memo by **Barr** was very controversial when it came out. It's been criticized by many legal scholars who think **Barr** was wrong about his approach to analyzing whether or not a ratified treaty is the kind of law that the president has a duty to see is faithfully executed. But that was the reasoning in 1989. And I think it's safe to assume that's probably what the reasoning was for this weekend as well.
### 使用致命武力的合法性 **Michael Barbaro**: 好的，这就是我们应该如何看待这次行动的合法性，它在国际法下似乎是非法的，并且在国内法下是法律争议的主题。我想谈谈行动中发生的事情。我们知道，在**马杜罗**被捕和撤离期间，至少有40名委内瑞拉人，其中一些是平民，被杀。这只是初步统计，很可能会大幅上升。在追捕逮捕行动中，像我们刚刚目睹的那样，杀死外国公民和士兵是否合法？在这种情况下使用致命武力有哪些考量？
Original English **Michael Barbaro**: Okay, so that's how we should think about the legality of the operation, which seems illegal under international law and is the subject of legally contested debate under domestic law. I want to turn to what happened during the operation. We know that at least 40 Venezuelans, some number of them civilians, were killed during **Maduro**'s capture and extraction. And that's just a preliminary count likely to go up perhaps by a lot. Is killing foreign citizens and soldiers in pursuit of an arrest like the one we just witnessed, is that legal? What are the calculations around using lethal force in a situation like this?
**Charlie Savage**: 嗯，再次强调，就国际法而言，美军的入侵从一开始就几乎肯定是非法的。
Original English **Charlie Savage**: Well, again, as a matter of international law, the incursion by American forces was illegal to begin with, almost certainly.
**Michael Barbaro**: 嗯。
Original English **Michael Barbaro**: Mhm.
**Charlie Savage**: 从国内法来看，在**委内瑞拉**炸毁东西的权力是什么？嗯，这已经是一次逮捕行动了。从**鲁比奥**显然对**参议员迈克·李**说的一些评论来看，**迈克·李**在事发当晚曾说：“这怎么可能合法？我等待着关于军队未经国会授权如何进入的理论。”然后**鲁比奥**给他打电话，**李**报告了**鲁比奥**所说的话。**李**基本上表示满意。听起来他们是在炸毁防空系统，以保护直升机和撤离小组通过的走廊。后来，**参谋长联席会议主席丹·凯恩将军**也说，有些人向直升机开枪，他们进行了还击。
Original English **Charlie Savage**: From a matter of domestic law, what's the authority to blow things up in **Venezuela**? Well, this is already an arrest operation. And from some comments that **Rubio** evidently made to **Senator Mike Lee**, **Mike Lee** overnight when this was happening was saying, "How could this possibly be legal? I I await the theory of how the military can go in without a authorization from Congress." Then **Rubio** calls him and **Lee** reports what **Rubio** said. And **Lee** is basically satisfied. And what it sounds like is they were blowing up air defenses to protect the corridor where the helicopters with the extraction team were going to pass through. And then also later on, **General Dan Kaine**, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said some people shot at the helicopters and they returned fire.
**Michael Barbaro**: 对吧？
Original English **Michael Barbaro**: Right?
**Charlie Savage**: 所以这些都是自卫和保护的形式。有一系列可以追溯到19世纪末的案例或主张，围绕着总统根据**《宪法》**拥有固有权力，无需国会立法即可保护联邦特工、联邦机构执行联邦职能的理念。我们最近在围绕**特朗普**向**洛杉矶**派遣军队的争议的法庭文件中，看到了这种所谓的固有保护权力的援引，因为他们是为了保护**ICE特工**免受抗议者的侵害而被派去的。此外，当你部署军事单位时，大家基本上都同意，如果有人向他们开枪，他们可以还击自卫。这被称为单位自卫。因此，单位自卫和保护权力将是解释为什么这次行动中炸毁东西和杀人，在美国国内法上是合法的论点。所以，无论最初行动在国际法下的合法性如何，一旦军队处于危险之中，就有国内法律依据进行反击，使用自卫，即使这意味着杀人。
Original English **Charlie Savage**: So these are forms of self-defense and protection. There's a long-standing line of cases or claims going back to the late 19th century surrounding the idea that the president has inherent power under the **Constitution**, no need for a statute from Congress to protect federal agents, federal institutions carrying out federal functions. We actually saw this invocation of the inherent protective power, as it's called, recently in court filings around the dispute about **Trump** sending troops into **Los Angeles**. because they were being sent in in the name of protecting **ICE agents** from protesters. Also, when you deploy military units, everyone basically agrees they if someone shoots at them, they can shoot back to defend themselves. That's called unit self-defense. And so that would be both unit self-defense and a protective power would be the argument for why blowing things up and killing people as part of this operation was lawful as a matter of US domestic law. So no matter the legality of the initial action under international law, once the troops are in jeopardy, there is a domestic legal rationale for fighting back using self-defense, even if that means killing people.
**Michael Barbaro**: 完全正确。
Original English **Michael Barbaro**: Exactly.
### 美国对委内瑞拉的控制权 **Michael Barbaro**: 好的。那么，现在**尼古拉斯·马杜罗**已经被捕，**特朗普政府**有什么权力控制**委内瑞拉**呢？**特朗普**在**马杜罗**被捕后的新闻发布会上明确表示，美国将寻求管理**委内瑞拉**。他没有具体说明这将如何运作，但他表示美国将寻求这样做。美国是否有法律依据以任何方式试图管理**委内瑞拉**呢？对吧？所以，如果这只是**特朗普**告诉**委内瑞拉**副总统该怎么做，并且他成功地胁迫她服从，那么法律在那一点上真的与此无关，对吧？
Original English **Michael Barbaro**: Okay. So then there is the question of what authority the **Trump administration** has to control **Venezuela** now that **Nicholas Maduro** has been arrested. **Trump** during his news conference after **Maduro**'s arrest quite explicitly said that the US will seek to run **Venezuela**. He didn't say exactly how that would work, but he said that the US would seek to do this. Does the US have legal grounds for in any way trying to run **Venezuela**, right? So, if this is just **Trump** telling the vice president of **Venezuela** what to do and he's successful in coercing her to comply, law doesn't really have anything to do with it at that point, right?
**Charlie Savage**: 他只是在欺凌她，而且奏效了。所以真正的问题是，如果她不合作，你知道，拒绝服从到**特朗普白宫**想要更直接地干预并实际接管控制权的地步，它能做到吗？这很难看出如何会是合法的。回到**诺列加**和**巴拿马**，当时这个问题出现过吗？美国在逮捕**诺列加**后是否试图控制**巴拿马**？
Original English **Charlie Savage**: He's just bullying her and it's working. So the real question is if she bs and you know resists complying to the point that the **Trump White House** wants to intervene more directly and actually take the reigns can it and it's very hard to see how that would be lawful. Just to go back to **Noriega** and to **Panama**, did this question come up back then? Did the US seek to control **Panama** after arresting **Noriega**?
**Michael Barbaro**: 那么**巴拿马**发生的事情是，1989年早些时候举行了一次选举，在**诺列加**支持的候选人和反对派候选人之间。反对派候选人，他的名字叫**加尔莫·因达拉**，可能赢了。但随后**诺列加**直接宣布结果无效，并派了一些暴徒去殴打他。
Original English **Michael Barbaro**: So what happened in **Panama** is there had been an election earlier in 1989 between a candidate that was backed by **Noriega** and a opposition candidate. And the opposition candidate, his name was **Garmmo Indara**, probably won. But then **Noriega** just nullified the results and had some thugs go beat him up.
**Michael Barbaro**: 晚上好。今天**巴拿马**发生暴力事件，亲**诺列加**势力袭击了反对派领导人及其追随者。
Original English **Michael Barbaro**: Good evening. Violence in Panama today as pro- **Noriega** forces attacked opposition leaders and their followers.
**Charlie Savage**: 所以当美国进来抓捕**诺列加**时，他们立即，就在当晚，让**因达拉**宣誓就任**巴拿马**的实际总统。
Original English **Charlie Savage**: So when the US came in and grabbed **Noriega**, they immediately like that same night swore in **Indara** as the actual president of **Panama**.
**Michael Barbaro**: 他在美国军事基地宣誓就职。
Original English **Michael Barbaro**: He was sworn in on a US military base.
**Michael Barbaro**: 哇。
Original English **Michael Barbaro**: Wow.
**Charlie Savage**: 所以这表明美军在当时发生的事情中扮演了重要角色，但做决定的是他。**乔治·布什**并没有声称要直接管理**巴拿马**。
Original English **Charlie Savage**: So that shows you that the US military had a strong hand in what was happening, but he was the one making the decisions. **George Bush** was not purporting to just run **Panama**.
**Michael Barbaro**: 所以这可能成为**特朗普**在这里的一个模式。
Original English **Michael Barbaro**: So that potentially could be a model for **Trump** here.
**Charlie Savage**: 这可能是一个模式，但是，你知道，这就是你遇到实际问题的地方，这些问题使得**委内瑞拉**与**巴拿马**不同，它们作为我们正在讨论的这些法律问题的某种叠加。你知道，**巴拿马**是一个小国，美国在那里有一个主要的基地。考虑管理**委内瑞拉**，一个人口更多、地理范围更广阔的国家，美国在那里根本没有军事存在，这并不是一个那么艰巨的任务。**委内瑞拉**军队仍然在那里。政府仍然在那里。他们将不得不派遣主要的地面部队，这些部队可能需要先与人作战，然后才能为新宣誓就职的**委内瑞拉**替代总统提供支持。这远不如1989年的**巴拿马**那么简单。
Original English **Charlie Savage**: It could be a model, but you, you know, this is where you get into the practical issues that make **Venezuela** different than **Panama** that act as sort of an overlay to these legal issues we're discussing. You know, **Panama** is a small country and the US had a major base there. It was not as daunting a task as thinking about running **Venezuela**, vastly more populous, vastly more geographically sprawling country where the US has no military presence to begin with. Venezuelan military is still there. The government is still there. They would have to go in with major ground forces that would presumably need to fight people before they'd be in a position to provide support to a newly sworn in alternative president of **Venezuela**. This is not nearly as simple a situation as **Panama** was in 1989.
### 马杜罗案件的法律辩护 **Michael Barbaro**: 好的，我想这把我们带到了针对**马杜罗**本人的法律案件。我想问题是，他的逮捕方式和合法性，特别是现在被描述为违反国际法的情况，是否会影响美国法官是否会允许对他提出的指控成立？这是否可能在任何审判之前让**马杜罗**脱身？
Original English **Michael Barbaro**: Okay, I think that brings us to the legal case against **Maduro** himself. And I guess the question is does the manner of his arrest and the legality of it, especially what is now being described as the violation of international law in particular? Does that have any bearing on whether a US judge will let the charges against him stand? Could that end up getting **Maduro** off the hook before there's any kind of a trial?
**Charlie Savage**: 可能不会。我确信他的律师会提出这个问题，因为他们会提出所有问题。但即使**马杜罗**和他的辩护团队能够有力地证明他的逮捕在国际法上是非法的，美国法院也可能会说这无关紧要，他们仍然有管辖权继续审理对他的起诉。
Original English **Charlie Savage**: Probably not. I'm sure that his lawyers will raise this issue because they'll raise every issue. But even if it were the case that **Maduro** and his defense team could make out a strong case that his arrest was unlawful as a matter of international law, probably courts in the US would say that is irrelevant and that they still have jurisdiction to proceed with trying him on this indictment.
**Michael Barbaro**: 想法是，重要的是被告在法庭上的存在，而不是他如何到达那里。这就是为什么我们应该仔细审视针对**马杜罗**的案件，因为听你所说，它很可能会成立，我们将在休息后立即进行。
Original English **Michael Barbaro**: the idea is what matters is the defendant's presence before the court and not how he got there. Which is why we should take a really close look at the case against **Maduro** cuz it sounds from what you're saying like it's very much going to stand and we're going to do that right after the break.
### 马杜罗面临的指控 **Michael Barbaro**: 那么**查理**，既然我们知道针对**马杜罗**的指控很可能不会因为他的逮捕方式而被法官驳回，让我们来谈谈美国对他提出的法律案件。这是逮捕他并在美国拘留他的理由，现在也将成为起诉他的依据。我们知道些什么？
Original English **Michael Barbaro**: So **Charlie**, now that we know that the charges against **Maduro** are quite likely to not be tossed out by a judge based on the manner in which he was arrested. Let's talk about the legal case that the US is making against him. that was the rationale for arresting him and for detaining him in the US and that's now going to be the basis for prosecuting him. What do we know?
**Charlie Savage**: 嗯，**马杜罗**最初是在2020年初，**特朗普政府**执政期间，在纽约被起诉的，指控他参与了一项复杂的、长期进行的可卡因贩运阴谋。想法是，他和起诉书中提到的其他人多年来一直与邻国**哥伦比亚**的马克思主义反叛组织**FARC**合作，将可卡因输送到美国和其他地方。他深度参与其中。
Original English **Charlie Savage**: Well, **Maduro** was originally indicted in early 2020 during the first **Trump administration** in New York on a complicated longunning allegation of a cocaine trafficking conspiracy. The idea was that he and others who were named in that indictment had for years worked with the **FARC**, the Marxist rebel group in neighboring **Colombia** to funnel cocaine towards the United States and elsewhere. And he was intimately involved in this.
**Michael Barbaro**: 对。声称他不仅仅是任其发生，而是他本人深度参与其中。
Original English **Michael Barbaro**: Right. The claim being not that he simply let this happen, but that he was himself deeply deeply involved in it.
**Charlie Savage**: 是的。他是一个积极的参与者，与**FARC**合谋，本质上是将可卡因作为武器涌入美国，这些指控附带了各种罪名。在周六早些时候他被抓获后，**司法部**公布了一份替代起诉书。它取代了之前的起诉书，改变了一些被告，增加了一些故事，但仍然将**马杜罗**置于其声称的多年可卡因贩运阴谋的核心。
Original English **Charlie Savage**: Yes. was an active participant conspiring with the **FARC** to flood the United States with cocaine as a weapon essentially and a variety of charges were attached to those allegations. And after the seizure of him early Saturday, the **Justice Department** unveiled a superseding indictment. So that replaces that earlier one, changed around some of the defendants, added some stories, but keeps **Maduro** at the heart of what it still alleges is a yearslong cocaine trafficking conspiracy.
**Michael Barbaro**: 谈谈这份替代起诉书为支持**马杜罗**积极参与这项国际贩毒阴谋的主张所列出的证据。
Original English **Michael Barbaro**: And talk about the evidence that this superseding indictment lays out to support this claim that **Maduro** is an active participant in this international drug trafficking conspiracy.
**Charlie Savage**: 这是一份非常长的起诉书，30页。这不是一份骨架式的、只有指控的、法庭见的文件。它有时被称为“陈述性起诉书”，检察官利用这份文件讲述一个故事。它谈到了发生的具体行为：在**墨西哥**查获一批可卡因，在**巴黎**查获一批，**马杜罗**和其他人进行的具体对话。它谈到了具体的贿赂，包括给他的妻子，这是第二份起诉书中新增的内容。
Original English **Charlie Savage**: So, this is a very long indictment, 30 pages. This is not a bare bones, here's some charges, see you in court. It's what is sometimes called a speaking indictment where the prosecutors are using this filing to tell a story. And it talks about specific acts that have happened. The seizure of a cocaine shipment in **Mexico**, seizure of one in **Paris**, specific conversations **Maduro** and others had. It talks about specific bribes that were handed over, including to his wife, which was something that was added for the second one.
**Michael Barbaro**: 嗯。所以，我们不知道所有这些阴谋的例子具体来自哪里，但这里有很多具体的、有形的事件。这不是模糊、抽象的指控。所以这告诉你，他们多年来已经建立了一套证据体系，其中肯定包括合作证人。
Original English **Michael Barbaro**: Mhm. So, we don't know specifically where all these examples of a conspiracy are coming from, but there's a lot of concrete tangible episodes here. This is not vague, abstract charges. And so what that tells you is that they have built over the years a body of evidence that must include cooperating witnesses
**Charlie Savage**: 如果有审判，他们很可能会出庭作证，说“我看到**马杜罗**说了这个，我当时在房间里，他做了那个。”
Original English **Charlie Savage**: who will presumably if there is a trial come on for the prosecution and say I saw **Maduro** say this and I saw was there in the room when he did that.
**Michael Barbaro**: 事实上，2020年起诉书中最初的两个人后来被捕并达成了认罪协议，一个在2023年，一个在去年。
Original English **Michael Barbaro**: In fact two of the original people who were in the 2020 indictment were later captured and reached plea deals. one in 2023 and one last year.
**Charlie Savage**: 所以，我认为可以肯定地说，作为认罪协议的一部分，他们必须合作。但重点是，这里有很多材料，这里有一个正在展开的故事，如果检察官有足够的证据支持，那将是审判的样子。那么，鉴于此，我们应该如何看待**马杜罗**的辩护呢？我想声明一点，我理解我们正处于过程的早期阶段。**马杜罗**刚刚被带到美国。他可能还没有律师，或者刚刚与他的律师见面，但我们可能会期待什么，特别是考虑到**诺列加**的先例，一个外国领导人可能会为自己辩护，反对这份起诉书中的内容？
Original English **Charlie Savage**: So, I think that it's safe to say that they as part of the plea deal would have to cooperate. But the point is that there's a lot of material here and there's a story that's unfolding here that if the prosecutors have the goods to back it would be what the trial would look like. Well, given that, how should we think about what **Maduro**'s defense may be here? And I want to stipulate. I understand how early we are in the process. **Maduro** just got brought to the United States. He may not have a lawyer or just met with his lawyer, but what might we expect, especially given the **Noriega** precedent, that the leader of a foreign country might argue on his own behalf against what's in this indictment?
### 国家元首豁免权 **Charlie Savage**: 嗯，我们在**诺列加**案中看到的最重要的事情，并且在这里极有可能再次发生的是豁免权问题。国家领导人拥有所谓的**外国元首豁免权**。这是国际法的一个古老部分，即一个国家的主权者不能被拖入另一个国家的法庭、被拘留、被起诉。**诺列加**说：“嘿，我是**巴拿马**的国家元首。”最终，一名地区法院法官驳回了这一主张，上诉法院维持了该裁决。所以**诺列加**在这方面败诉了。我确信**马杜罗**和他的辩护团队会再次提出这个问题。而且他比**诺列加**有更强的理由。
Original English **Charlie Savage**: Well, the most important thing that we saw in the **Noriega** case that seems extremely likely to recur here is the question of immunity. Hm. Leaders of countries have something called foreign **head of state immunity**. And this is an ancient part of international law that this the sovereign of an one country can't be dragged into court, detained, prosecuted in another country. And **Noriega** said, "Hey, I was the head of state in **Panama**." And eventually a district court judge rejected that claim and an appeals court upheld that ruling. And so **Noriega** lost on it. I'm sure
**Michael Barbaro**: 为什么？
Original English **Michael Barbaro**: Why?
**Charlie Savage**: 嗯，首先，**诺列加**在政治上并非真正合法的**巴拿马**国家元首。他是一名军事官员，通过政变上台，在幕后操控一切。但**巴拿马**的**《宪法》**规定应该有一位民选总统。所以**布什**说：“我不承认这个人是**巴拿马**的合法领导人。”而**巴拿马**的**《宪法》**也没有说明他为什么可能是国家元首。
Original English **Charlie Savage**: Well, for one thing, **Noriega** wasn't really in any politically legitimate way the head of state in **Panama**. He was a military officer who had just taken over in essentially a coup and was running things behind the scenes. But **Panama** had a constitution that said it was supposed to have a president who was elected. And so **Bush** said, "I don't recognize this guy as the legitimate leader of **Panama**." And the Panamanian **Constitution** didn't have anything to say about why he could possibly be the head of state. It
**Michael Barbaro**: 我觉得**特朗普政府**正在提出类似的论点，即在**马杜罗**的案件中，他们认为他不是**委内瑞拉**的合法领导人。他们声称他是在一次欺诈性选举中上台的，因此不应该是总统。
Original English **Michael Barbaro**: it strikes me that the **Trump administration** is making a similar argument, which is that in the case of **Maduro**, he is not in their telling the legitimate leader of **Venezuela**. He was brought to power in a fraudulent election, they claim, and therefore shouldn't be the president.
**Charlie Savage**: 正确。2018年**委内瑞拉**选举和2024年**委内瑞拉**选举都存在大量舞弊。在这两种情况下，**马杜罗**都被宣布为获胜者，而外部观察员则表示：“那不是一次干净的选举。”嗯。
Original English **Charlie Savage**: Correct. There was a lot of fraud in the 2018 election in **Venezuela** and the 2024 election in **Venezuela**. In both cases, **Maduro**'s the declared winner and outside observers are like, "That was not a clean election." Mhm.
**Michael Barbaro**: **特朗普政府**在2019年撤回了对**马杜罗**作为**委内瑞拉**合法总统的官方承认。**乔·拜登**在2024年或2025年初也做了同样的事情。他说：“我不承认你是这次选举的获胜者。你不是合法的获胜者。”反对派候选人实际上赢得了这次选举。对。
Original English **Michael Barbaro**: The **Trump administration** in 2019 withdrew official recognition of **Maduro** as the legitimate president of **Venezuela**. **Joe Biden** in 2024 or early 2025 does the same. He said, "I'm not recognizing you as the winner of this election. You are not the legitimate winner." The opposition candidate actually won this. Right.
**Charlie Savage**: 尽管如此，**委内瑞拉**的执政机构确实承认他。他确实声称自己是总统。他确实在2013年赢得了一次选举，当时美国也承认他是总统。所以这使他在提出国家元首豁免权主张方面比**诺列加**处于更有利的地位。所以我确信，在**马杜罗**的案件能够开庭审理之前，这将是一个需要大量诉讼的问题。我想知道**特朗普总统**在逮捕**马杜罗**之前和之后所说和所做的一些事情，是否会使美国对他提出的案件复杂化。让我举两个例子。首先是总统非常公开地强调，逮捕**马杜罗**将为美国企业打开**委内瑞拉**的大门。事实上，你可以说他在公开演讲中，对一个没有**马杜罗**的**委内瑞拉**的经济机会的强调，超过了他对贩毒指控的强调。这有关系吗？这会损害总统的案件吗？就此而言，**特朗普总统**赦免了**洪都拉斯**前总统的事实，他曾在美国被判犯有重大贩毒罪，这会影响这个案件吗？因为它表明，就**特朗普**而言，他在执行美国的毒品政策时非常有选择性。
Original English **Charlie Savage**: Nevertheless, the governing structures in **Venezuela** do recognize him as such. He does purport to be the president. He did win an election in 2013 and the United States did recognize him as the president at the time. And so that just puts him in a much stronger position to make **head of state immunity** claims than **Noriega** ever was. So I'm sure that this is something that will be litigated heavily before **Maduro**'s case can ever go to trial. H I wonder if some of the things that President **Trump** has said and done before and around the arrest of **Maduro** are going to at all complicate the US case against him. And let me give you two examples. The first is that the president has very publicly emphasized that **Maduro**'s arrest is going to be opening **Venezuela** up to American business. In fact, you could argue that he's put more emphasis on the economic opportunities in a **Maduro** free **Venezuela** than he has put on drug trafficking charges in his public speeches. Does that matter at all? Does that undermine the president's case? And for that matter, does the fact that President **Trump** pardoned the former president of **Honduras**, who was convicted in the US of major drug trafficking charges, influence this case at all? Because it suggests that when it comes to **Trump**, he's very selective in enforcing America's drug policies.
### 政治动机与选择性起诉 **Charlie Savage**: 所以，我认为这既很重要，又完全不重要。对于我们这些旁观者来说，它很重要，我们试图理解最近事件的真实政治情况，以及历史将如何看待向**委内瑞拉**派兵抓捕**马杜罗**的决定。显然，**委内瑞拉**石油是**特朗普**一直在思考并公开谈论的事情，对吧？在一个没有那种自然资源、没有这种历史的国家，同样的情况会发生吗？你如何理解**特朗普**在12月赦免了**洪都拉斯**前总统，他曾在美国被判犯有贩毒阴谋罪，这与现在针对**马杜罗**的指控完全相同，但他却说追捕**马杜罗**非常重要。这毫无意义，除非存在比“这个人是否参与了贩毒阴谋”更大的幕后动机和地缘政治利益。
Original English **Charlie Savage**: So, I think it it both matters a lot and it matters not at all. It matters a lot for us watching what's happening, trying to understand what's really going on in a real politic account of recent events and how history will think about the decision to send forces into **Venezuela** to grab **Maduro**. Clearly, Venezuelan oil was something **Trump** was thinking about and talking openly about, right? In a country that didn't have those kinds of natural resources, didn't have this kind of history, would the same situation have played out? How do you make sense of **Trump** in December pardoning the former president of **Honduras** convicted of a drug trafficking conspiracy here in the United States, exactly the same charges against **Maduro** now, and yet saying it's really important we got to go after **Maduro**. It makes no sense unless there's ulterior motives and geopolitical interests that are bigger than was this particular guy involved in a drug trafficking conspiracy.
**Michael Barbaro**: 对。所有这些是否能成为**马杜罗**辩护的一部分，这基本上是我好奇的。
Original English **Michael Barbaro**: Right. Can any of this become part of **Maduro**'s defense is basically what I'm curious about.
**Charlie Savage**: 我确信，如果**马杜罗**的辩护团队做了你期望任何有能力的辩护团队会做的事情，他们会竭尽全力，而某种报复性的选择性起诉挑战，正是基于我们刚刚讨论的原因而存在的。
Original English **Charlie Savage**: I'm sure that if **Maduro**'s defense team does what and you would expect any competent defense team to do, they will throw everything they can against the wall and some kind of vindictive selective prosecution challenge to the indictment is sitting right there for the reasons we've just discussed.
**Michael Barbaro**: 嗯。
Original English **Michael Barbaro**: Mhm.
**Charlie Savage**: 我非常怀疑这会奏效。总统围绕一个案件所说的话，特别是当地缘政治影响，超出执法范围的事情，我认为法院很可能会认为这与对他提出的起诉是否基于他实施了这些行为的证据无关。
Original English **Charlie Savage**: I'm very doubtful that will work. What is said around a case by a president, especially when there's geopolitical implications, things that go way beyond law enforcement, is, I'm think, likely to be found by the court to be just irrelevant to whether or not this indictment of him is based on evidence that he'd committed these acts.
**Michael Barbaro**: 但这并不意味着辩方不会提出这一点，这会消耗大量时间，并在此过程中产生法律简报和一些头条新闻。明白了。**查理**，请提醒我们**诺列加**被捕后，他的案件和指控最终是如何处理的。
Original English **Michael Barbaro**: But that doesn't mean that it won't be something that a defense raises and that will consume a lot of time and create legal briefs and some headlines along the way. Understood. **Charlie**, just remind us what ultimately ends up happening with **Noriega** and the charges against him after he was captured and arrested in **Panama**.
**Charlie Savage**: 所以，他提出了所有这些挑战，其中一些我们在这里已经提到，但最终他被迈阿密的一个陪审团判决10项罪名中的8项成立，并在监狱中度过了余生。
Original English **Charlie Savage**: So, he brought all these sorts of challenges, some of which we've touched on here, but ultimately he was convicted on by a jury in Miami of eight of the 10 counts against him, and he spent the rest of his life in prison.
**Michael Barbaro**: 那么，我们是否应该将**诺列加**的定罪视为验证了**比尔·巴尔**的法律论点，即真正重要的是国内法而非国际法？如果**马杜罗**被判有罪，我们是否应该得出同样的结论，即法院可能两次验证了这种军事行动？
Original English **Michael Barbaro**: So, should we think about **Noriega**'s conviction as validating **Bill Barr**'s legal argument that what really matters is not international law? And if **Maduro** is found guilty, should we come to the same conclusion that the courts are validating this kind of military operation perhaps twice?
**Charlie Savage**: **迈克尔**，我只是不认为这是正确的思考方式。法院没有处理美国通过进入另一个国家主权领土而涉嫌违反国际法的行为。法院只关注针对这个特定被告的刑事案件和指控。但我也要说，现在就说“这会像1989年那样发展”还为时过早。
Original English **Charlie Savage**: I I just don't think that's the right way to think about it, **Michael**. The courts are not addressing the alleged violation of international law that the United States committed by going into another country's sovereign territory. The courts are only looking at the criminal case and allegations against this particular defendant. But also, I would say it's pretty early to say, well, this is going to play out like it did in 1989.
**Michael Barbaro**: 嗯。现在**委内瑞拉**会发生什么，还有待观察。
Original English **Michael Barbaro**: Mhm. And what's going to happen now in **Venezuela** is yet to be seen.
### 马杜罗若被无罪释放 **Michael Barbaro**: 嗯，关于我们不知道这里会发生什么这一点，如果**马杜罗**被判无罪呢？美国会把他送回**委内瑞拉**吗？
Original English **Michael Barbaro**: Well, to the point about us not knowing what's going to happen here, what if **Maduro** is found not guilty? Does the US just return him to **Venezuela**?
**Charlie Savage**: 所以，在一种他没有达成某种认罪协议，而是接受审判，并且陪审团宣判他无罪的情况下，就没有权力继续拘留他。
Original English **Charlie Savage**: So, in a situation which he doesn't strike some kind of plea deal, goes to trial, and a jury acquits him, there's no authority to keep holding him.
**Michael Barbaro**: 所以他们必须放他走。
Original English **Michael Barbaro**: so they would have to let him go
**Charlie Savage**: 对，如果发生这种情况，大概会有一段相当长的时间过去，在此期间**马杜罗**不再是**委内瑞拉**的领导人。也许这个国家会继续前进，其政治会摆脱**马杜罗**。在这种情况下，**特朗普政府**可能在法庭上不会获胜，但他们仍然可以非常大地实现取代**马杜罗**作为国家领导人并改变**委内瑞拉**与美国和美国企业之间关系的总体目标。
Original English **Charlie Savage**: right and if that happens presumably some meaningful amount of time will have passed during which **Maduro** is not the leader of **Venezuela** anymore. Perhaps the country moves on, its politics move on from **Maduro**, in which case **Trump administration** might not prevail in court, but they could still very much accomplish the overriding goal of replacing **Maduro** as the country's leader and changing **Venezuela**'s entire relationship to the US and to American business.
**Michael Barbaro**: 嗯，我确实认为这很可能。我的意思是，历史已经发生。**马杜罗**已经被物理上从**委内瑞拉**移除了，即使在他被无罪释放的情况下。那将是很久以后的事情了。这不会是下周甚至明年发生的事情。我们已经谈论了各种必须在审判之前进行诉讼的事情，豁免权主张等等。那将不得不提交到**最高法院**。我认为，当这个案件的任何结果出来时，**特朗普**甚至都不会是总统了。所以在此期间，很难想象**马杜罗**，即使被无罪释放，还能回到**委内瑞拉**并继续担任总统。这似乎是不可逆转的。**查理**，非常感谢你。我们很感激。
Original English **Michael Barbaro**: Well, I I do think that that's likely. I mean, the history has happened now. **Maduro** is physically removed from **Venezuela**, even in a scenario in which he is acquitted. That's a long time from now. This is not going to be something that happens next week or even next year. We've talked about all kinds of stuff that's going to have to be litigated before there can be a trial, immunity claims, and so forth. That's going to have to go up to the **Supreme Court**. And I don't think **Trump** will even still be president when whatever happens in this case is over. And so in the meantime, it's hard to see a scenario in which **Maduro**, even if acquitted, goes back to **Venezuela** and is still president. This seems irreversible. Well, **Charlie**, thank you very much. We appreciate it.
**Charlie Savage**: 谢谢你。
Original English **Charlie Savage**: Thank you.
### 后续发展与国会反应 **Michael Barbaro**: 周日，美国和**委内瑞拉**继续公开争论美国在**委内瑞拉**未来中的角色。在迈阿密，国务卿**马可·鲁比奥**概述了一项计划，旨在胁迫**委内瑞拉**领导人，而非治理该国。**特朗普总统**通过对**委内瑞拉**临时总统**德利·罗德里格斯**的威胁，强化了这项计划。在接受**《大西洋》杂志**采访时，**特朗普**说：“如果她不做得对，她将付出非常大的代价，可能比**马杜罗**更大。”与此同时，在**加拉加斯**，**罗德里格斯**采取了和解的姿态，在一份声明中表示她寻求与美国合作和共存。她写道：“我们的人民和我们的地区，值得和平与对话，而不是战争。”我们马上回来。以下是今天你还需要知道的其他事情。周末，国会民主党人抱怨说，尽管他们要求获得关于**委内瑞拉**军事行动的机密简报，但他们仍然被蒙在鼓里。白宫官员声称，由于这次行动是为了支持逮捕，而不是入侵**委内瑞拉**，他们没有义务事先或事后咨询国会。但这一说法遭到了康涅狄格州众议员**吉姆·海因斯**等立法者的抗议，他是**众议院情报委员会**的资深成员。
Original English **Michael Barbaro**: On Sunday, the United States and **Venezuela** continued to publicly wrangle over the role of the United States in **Venezuela**'s future. In Miami, Secretary of State **Marco Rubio** outlined a plan to coersse **Venezuela**'s leaders rather than govern the country. a plan President **Trump** reinforced with what appeared to be a threat against **Venezuela**'s interim president **Deli Rodriguez**. In an interview with **The Atlantic** magazine, **Trump** said, quote, "If she doesn't do what's right, she's going to pay a very big price, probably bigger than **Maduro**." Meanwhile, in **Caracas**, **Rodriguez** struck a consiliatory tone, saying in a statement that she sought cooperation and coexistence with the United States. "Our people and our region," she wrote, deserve peace and dialogue, not war. We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know today. Over the weekend, congressional Democrats complained that they were still being kept in the dark about the military operation in **Venezuela** despite their demands for classified briefings about the mission. White House officials claimed that because the operation was in support of an arrest and not an invasion of **Venezuela**, they were not obligated to consult with Congress either beforehand or afterhand. But that claim drew protest from lawmakers like Representative **Jim Hines** of Connecticut, the ranking member of the **House Intelligence Committee**.
**Jim Hines**: 已经超过24小时了。行政部门有人向你汇报过吗？
Original English **Jim Hines**: It's been more than 24 hours. Have you been briefed by anybody in the administration?
**Michael Barbaro**: 仍然没有接到电话。看，这是一个长期模式，也是本届政府不把美国国会放在眼里的一个特别恶劣的例子。顺便说一句，今天的节目由**里奇·内茨基**和**妮娜·费尔德曼**制作。由**迈克尔·贝努瓦**和**帕特里夏·威林斯**编辑。包含**玛丽安·洛萨诺**、**艾丽西亚·鲍勃**、**丹·鲍威尔**和**罗文·伊斯特**的音乐。由**克里斯·伍德**担任工程师。**《The Daily》**节目到此结束。我是**迈克尔·巴巴罗**。明天见。
Original English **Michael Barbaro**: Still haven't got a phone call. Look, this is a long pattern and a particularly egregious example of a pattern of this administration not giving a hoot about the United States Congress, which by the way, today's episode was produced by **Ricky Netski** and **Nina Feldman**. It was edited by **Michael Benois** and **Patricia Willins**. Contains music by **Marian Lozano**, **Alicia Baube**, **Dan Powell**, and **Rowan Yisto**. and was engineered by **Chris Wood**. That's it for **The Daily**. I'm **Michael Barbaro**. See you tomorrow.