Connect with us

Politics

Maduro case to test US narcoterrorism law with limited trial success

Published

on

Maduro case to test US narcoterrorism law with limited trial success


Venezuelas captured President Nicolas Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores attend their arraignment with defense lawyers Barry Pollack and Mark Donnelly to face US federal charges including narco-terrorism, conspiracy, drug trafficking, money laundering and others, at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse in Manhattan, New York City, US, January 5, 2026 in this courtroom sketch. — Reuters
Venezuela’s captured President Nicolas Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores attend their arraignment with defense lawyers Barry Pollack and Mark Donnelly to face US federal charges including narco-terrorism, conspiracy, drug trafficking, money laundering and others, at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse in Manhattan, New York City, US, January 5, 2026 in this courtroom sketch. — Reuters 
  • Witness credibility looms large in the case.
  • Two of three trial convictions have been overturned.
  • Cocaine importation conspiracy among Maduro’s charges.

Ousted Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro returns to a US court on Thursday on criminal charges including narcoterrorism, a statute that has rarely been tested at trial and has a limited record of success.

Maduro, 63, led Venezuela from 2013 through his capture in Caracas by US special forces on January 3. He pleaded not guilty on January 5 to all US charges against him.

The 2006 statute at issue, enacted to target drug trafficking tied to activities the United ‌States considers terrorism, has produced just four trial convictions, a Reuters review of federal court records shows — and two were later overturned over issues stemming from witness credibility.

The mixed record highlights what could be a central challenge for prosecutors in the Maduro case: persuading jurors that evidence from cooperating insiders credibly establishes a knowing link between alleged drug crimes and terrorism.

“The lesson of these two cases is not that the narcoterrorism statute is unworkable,” said Alamdar Hamdani, a partner at law firm Bracewell and former US Attorney in Houston.

“It is that the statute’s most demanding element — proving the defendant’s knowledge of the terrorism nexus — requires a quality of evidence and a standard of prosecutorial diligence that leaves no room for institutional gaps, name-spelling errors, or uncritical acceptance of what your witnesses tell you,” he said.

Prosecutors have yet to disclose who will testify against Maduro. But one former Venezuelan general indicted alongside Maduro has told Reuters he is willing to cooperate.

Maduro accused of helping Colombian rebels

Congress created the narcoterrorism statute 20 years ago to target drug traffickers who finance activities the United States considers terrorism. Since then, 83 people, including Maduro, have been charged with violating it. Thirty-one pleaded guilty to narcoterrorism or lesser charges, eight are awaiting trial, and dozens are not in US custody, according to the review.

The conviction reversals do not affect Maduro’s case, and defendants in those cases faced additional charges that were not overturned. Maduro also faces three other counts, including cocaine importation conspiracy.

Maduro, a socialist, is accused of leading a conspiracy in which officials in his government helped move cocaine through Venezuela in collaboration with traffickers including the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), which the US labeled a terrorist organisation from 1997 to 2021. Maduro and his fellow indicted officials have always denied wrongdoing, saying the US charges are part of an imperialist conspiracy to harm Venezuela.

His lawyer, Barry Pollack, did not respond to requests for comment about the narcoterrorism law’s trial record or possible witnesses against Maduro.

A spokesman for the Manhattan US Attorney’s office declined to comment on the same subjects.

Law defines terrorism broadly

Narcoterrorism carries a 20-year mandatory minimum sentence, twice the minimum penalty for ordinary drug trafficking. Both can result in life imprisonment.

The narcoterrorism law defines terrorism as premeditated, politically motivated violence against non-combatants.

“If you take the legal definition of terrorism and terrorist activity, you can paint a pretty broad brush with the kind of activity we’re talking about,” said Shane Stansbury, a professor at Duke University School of Law and former federal prosecutor.

To convict ‌Maduro, prosecutors ⁠must show that he knew the drug trafficking he allegedly facilitated resulted in a financial benefit for a group that engaged in activities the United States considered terrorism, even if he had other aims.

“It doesn’t have to be the motivation,” said Artie McConnell, a former federal prosecutor and current partner at law firm BakerHostetler.

In the first narcoterrorism trial in 2008, an Afghan man with alleged ties to the Taliban was convicted of helping a Drug Enforcement Administration informant buy opium and heroin. But in 2021, a judge threw out the narcoterrorism count after an appeals court ruled his lawyer failed to adequately challenge the only witness tying him to the Taliban.

In another case, a jury deadlocked in the 2011 trial of an accused Afghan trafficker. He was convicted at a second trial in 2012, but the narcoterrorism count was thrown out in 2015 after ⁠prosecutors acknowledged that a US government agency considered the cooperating witness who linked him to the Taliban a “fabricator.”

The 2015 narcoterrorism trial conviction of a Colombian man for trying to ship cocaine for the FARC and attempting to buy weapons for the group has been upheld.

A fourth narcoterrorism trial resulted in a guilty verdict earlier this week.

Case could rely on cooperating witnesses

Legal experts say the government’s case against Maduro could include testimony from two former Venezuelan generals indicted alongside him in 2020: Cliver Alcalá and Hugo Carvajal. Both have pleaded guilty to charges linked to their dealings ⁠with the FARC, but neither agreed to cooperate at the time of their pleas.

In a telephone interview from federal prison in Cumberland, Maryland, Alcalá said he was willing to cooperate. But he said prosecutors had previously insisted that he admit to involvement in drug trafficking, which he denies, as a condition for cooperation.

“I cannot, in order to reduce my sentence, declare myself to be a drug trafficker when I am not,” he said.

Alcalá retired from Venezuela’s military shortly after Maduro took office in 2013. He later became ⁠an outspoken critic of Maduro’s government.

Asked whether the charges against Maduro were true, Alcalá said he thought there was “some basis” and said he believed Maduro had ties to a drug trafficker jailed in Caracas. He did not offer specifics.

Alcalá, 64, is serving a nearly 22-year prison sentence after pleading guilty in 2023 to providing material support to the FARC. In court, he admitted supplying the group with weapons — which he says he did under orders from former Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez — but denied helping traffickers move cocaine.

Carvajal’s sentencing is scheduled for April 16. His lawyer declined to comment on whether he would cooperate with prosecutors.





Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

Indian court rules historic Bhojshala mosque site a temple

Published

on

Indian court rules historic Bhojshala mosque site a temple


The main entrance to the Bhojshala complex in Dhar, Madhya Pradesh, India, on January 29, 2003. — AFP
The main entrance to the Bhojshala complex in Dhar, Madhya Pradesh, India, on January 29, 2003. — AFP
  • Two-decade worship arrangement ended.
  • Muslim side plans Supreme Court challenge.
  • Critics warn of a grave threat.

Muslims will no longer be able to offer Friday prayer at a disputed mosque-temple complex in India’s Madhya Pradesh after a court declared the site a Hindu temple and authorities allowed daily Hindu worship there.

An Indian court ruling has ended a two-decade worship arrangement at the Bhojshala-Kamal Maula mosque complex, with the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) allowing daily Hindu prayers after the site was declared a temple.

The Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that the complex in Dhar district was a temple dedicated to goddess Vagdevi, also known as Saraswati, Indian media reported.

Following the ruling, the ASI issued a May 16 order allowing Hindu devotees unrestricted daily worship rights at the site. The order superseded previous directives, including a 2003 arrangement under which Hindus were allowed to worship on Tuesdays and Muslims were allowed to offer Friday prayer.

Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, who represented the Hindu petitioners, said Hindus could now visit and worship at the complex “without any restriction”.

The ASI said the site would remain a protected monument under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, while worship timings would be determined by the superintending archaeologist in consultation with the district administration.

The court relied on a 2024 ASI report which said the Bhojshala-Kamal Maula mosque complex was constructed using remnants of earlier temples, with the mosque built centuries later, according to Indian media.

The court also said the Muslim side could approach the state government for land at an alternative site in Dhar district to build a mosque. Dhar city Qazi Waqar Sadiq indicated that the Muslim petitioners would approach the Supreme Court, adding that the Muslim community had no intention of accepting alternative land.

The protected monument has long been contested, with Hindu groups claiming it is a temple dedicated to Saraswati and Muslims maintaining that it is the Kamal Maula mosque.

According to Al Jazeera, the ruling has placed the mosque out of bounds for Muslims in Dhar, where it had been used for prayer for decades.

The decision has drawn criticism from Muslim-side lawyers, historians and politicians, who argue that it threatens protections for Muslim places of worship in India. Lawyer Ashhar Warsi, who argued from the Muslim side, called the verdict “an erroneous judgement” and “a clear violation of the established rule of law”.

Asaduddin Owaisi, a five-time member of parliament, told Al Jazeera that the ruling sent a message of “grave threat” to Muslim places of worship in India. He also said the Babri judgement had “opened the floodgates” for similar claims.

Al Jazeera also quoted historian Audrey Truschke as saying the current trend of targeting mosques in India was part of the “entrenched Islamophobia of Hindu nationalism”.

The dispute comes amid a wider Hindutva push targeting medieval mosques and Islamic-era monuments in India, with campaigners claiming that they were built over Hindu temples. Such claims have gained momentum since Prime Minister Narendra Modi came to power in 2014.





Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Iran says peace proposal includes reparations for war damage, US troop withdrawal

Published

on

Iran says peace proposal includes reparations for war damage, US troop withdrawal


People walk next to a mural on a street in Tehran, Iran, May 18, 2026. — Reuters
People walk next to a mural on a street in Tehran, Iran, May 18, 2026. — Reuters
  • US shows some flexibility on frozen funds, nuclear activity: sources.
  • Adds Washington denies oil sanctions waiver for Iran.
  • Fragile ceasefire holds after US-Israeli strikes against Iran.

Tehran’s latest peace proposal to the United States involves ending hostilities on all fronts, including Lebanon, the exit of US forces from areas close to Iran, and reparations for destruction caused by the US-Israeli war, state media reported on Tuesday.

In Tehran’s first comments on the proposal, Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said Tehran also sought the lifting of sanctions, the release of frozen funds and an end to the US marine blockade on the country, according to IRNA news agency.

The terms as described in the Iranian reports appeared little changed from Iran’s previous offer, which US President Donald Trump rejected last week as “garbage”.

Trump said on Monday he had paused a planned resumption of attacks on Iran after Tehran sent a new peace proposal to Washington, and that there was now a “very good chance” of reaching a deal limiting Iran’s nuclear programme.

Reuters could not determine whether preparations had been made for strikes that would mark a renewal of the war Trump started in late February.

Under pressure to reach an accord that would reopen the Strait of Hormuz — a key supply route for global supplies of oil and other commodities — Trump has previously expressed hope that a deal was close on ending the conflict, and similarly threatened heavy strikes on Iran if Tehran did not reach a deal.

In a social media post, Trump said the leaders of Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates had requested that he hold off on the attack because “a Deal will be made, which will be very acceptable to the United States of America, as well as all Countries in the Middle East, and beyond.”

A Pakistani source confirmed that Islamabad, which has conveyed messages between the sides since hosting the only round of peace talks last month, had shared the Iranian proposal with Washington.

Although neither side has publicly disclosed any concessions in negotiations that have been stalled for a month, a senior Iranian official suggested on Monday that Washington may be softening some of its demands.

The source said the US had agreed to release a quarter of Iran’s frozen funds — totalling tens of billions of dollars — held in foreign banks. Iran wants all the assets released.

And the source said Washington had shown more flexibility in agreeing to let Iran continue some peaceful nuclear activity under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency.





Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump says held off on new Iran attack, upbeat for agreement

Published

on

Trump says held off on new Iran attack, upbeat for agreement


US President Donald Trump delivers remarks about health care costs and affordability from an auditorium on the White House campus in Washington, DC, US, May 18, 2026. — Reuters
US President Donald Trump delivers remarks about health care costs and affordability from an auditorium on the White House campus in Washington, DC, US, May 18, 2026. — Reuters 
  • Trump hopes for securing agreement to end the war.
  • US president says had prepared a new attack for Tuesday.
  • Trump warns of large-scale attack if no agreement reached.

US President Donald Trump said he was planning a major new assault on Iran on Tuesday, but held off as he saw hope for securing a so far elusive agreement to end the war.

Trump said that he stopped his purported attack plan at the urging of Gulf Arab allies, which Iran has threatened with reciprocal attacks if the United States and Israel end a nearly six-week ceasefire.

Trump, who had indefinitely extended the truce and made clear he wants to exit a war that has proven to be a political liability, said he had prepared a new attack for Tuesday after Iran refused his outlines of a deal.

The leaders of Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates asked him “to hold off on our planned Military attack of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which was scheduled for tomorrow, in that serious negotiations are now taking place,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.

But Trump added he had instructed the US military to be “prepared to go forward with a full, large scale assault of Iran, on a moment’s notice, in the event that an acceptable Deal is not reached.”

Speaking later at a White House event, Trump said there had been a “very positive development” and that Arab allies said a deal was near that would leave Iran without nuclear weapons, which Tehran denies pursuing.

“There seems to be a very good chance that they can work something out. If we can do that without bombing the hell out of them, I’d be very happy,” Trump said.

Iran has repeatedly rebuffed Trump’s offers and has exerted control over the Strait of Hormuz, the vital waterway into the Gulf, sending global oil prices spiraling.

Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei confirmed exchanges with the United States through mediator Pakistan and said Tehran made clear its “concerns.”

The Islamic republic, whose supreme leader was killed in the initial strikes on February 28 but has proven resilient, is demanding the release of Iranian assets frozen abroad, the lifting of long-standing sanctions and reparations for the war.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, considered a moderate in a system increasingly dominated since the war by the hardline Revolutionary Guards, said that speaking with Washington “does not mean surrender” and that Iran would defend its “dignity” and rights.

Iran’s Fars news agency said Sunday that Washington had presented a five-point list, which included a demand for Iran to keep only one nuclear site in operation and transfer its stockpile of highly enriched uranium to the United States.

US authorities had refused to release “even 25%” of Iran’s frozen assets or pay any reparations, Fars said.

But Iran’s Tasnim news agency, citing an unnamed source close to the Iranian negotiating team, said the United States made one new step forward in the latest text by agreeing to waive oil sanctions while negotiations were underway.

New Hormuz body

In an earlier proposal, which was sent last week, Iran had called for an end to the war on all fronts, including Israel’s campaign in Lebanon, as well as a halt to a US naval blockade on Iranian ports in place since April 13.

Fars said the Iranian proposal had emphasised that Tehran would continue to manage the strategic Strait of Hormuz, a vital energy conduit which Iran has largely kept closed since the start of the war.

On Monday, the Persian Gulf Strait Authority, a new body Iran has set up to manage the strait, said it would provide “real-time updates” on the waterway via X.

The Revolutionary Guards also said Monday that internet fiber optic cables passing through the strait could be brought under an Iranian system of permits.

Hoping to control oil prices, the US Treasury extended by 30 days a sanctions waiver for Russian oil cargoes already at sea, continuing to ease the pressure on Moscow since its 2022 invasion of Ukraine.





Source link

Continue Reading

Trending