I do not think it means what you think it means. In reading the opinion pieces about Venezuela the authors repeatedly claim “justification” for the raid. All of the pieces cited above repeat it.
Something can only be justified if it is just. To be just an act of war must be conducted under just authority, used just means, and had just ends. The first is not true. The second is not true since under the UN Charter to which the U. S. is signatory we must eschew the use of military force other than in self-defense. The third may or may not be true—it is too early to tell. The raid and arrest of Maduro were not just under U. S. or international law. They were rational which is a very different thing.
The implicit argument is that might makes right. Do they really want to make that argument?
I’ve said from the start that the tensions with Venezuela were not about drugs, but oil: specifically Guyanese oil. When Maduro started threatening an invasion of Guyana to seize their oil assets (built by Exxon), this is when I believe he sealed his fate and Trump began escalating the situation. I think the drug charges are cover (even though Biden had put a bounty on him for this charge).
If Maduro was planning an invasion, and Trump captured him to prevent that, I would consider that a just use of force to prevent a war. Was this the case? No idea. I don’t get that kind of intelligence briefing.