Was the capture of Maduro legally justified?

To many countries, including I suspect the Labour government in the UK, the US military operation authorised by Donald Trump to seize Nicolas Maduro and bring him to justice in New York was illegal and in breach of pretty much everything to do with international law. But if you are a lawyer given the task of putting legal weight behind Operation Absolute Resolve, then I guess you would argue that Maduro, if he is linked inextricably with the worst drug gangsters in Venezuela as the White House claims, posed a threat to the prosperity and happiness of the people of the United States because they are being tempted to take and become addicted to the drugs coming out of Venezuela. It's a fairly tortuous argument but it could be made. Maduro himself did not pose a threat to the US homeland, either militarily or economically but Maduro plus drug traffickers could at a stretch be viewed as causing instability and risk and ill health and death in the United States as a result of the smuggled drugs. Few judges would give time for this argument. But Trump has stated in his national security strategy that the Western Hemisphere is his top priority because it is in America's backyard, and, therefore, anything in Venezuela or Colombia or Peru etc, that disturbs the stability and prosperity of the United States is seen as a legitimate target for action, military or diplomatic. Again, it's a stretch but it's an argument. There is a good chance that Venezuela will become a better place for its suffering people without Maduro at the helm. That's probably Trump's best argument. But he hasn't made this his reason for sending in such a mighty military force to capture Maduro and his wife, who now look very sorry figures in handcuffs and the likelihood of a long prison sentence.