Extradition is not revenge — it’s a legal tool. If credible evidence ties any political family, left or right, to narcotics trafficking or corruption, the rule of law demands transparency and prosecution. Honduras has been trapped for decades between cartel violence, political factionalism, and foreign leverage. That cycle only breaks when prosecutions are evidence-driven rather than politically choreographed. The goal cannot be settling ideological scores; it must be restoring public trust. If sealed files, financial trails, or recorded negotiations exist, put them before a court. Justice must be methodical, lawful, and provable. That’s how a nation heals — not through slogans, but through accountable institutions.
The US has no reason to extradite someone in a foreign country for breaking a US law unless that person committed a crime in the US and fled. Quit blaming problems in the US on other countries.
The US should solve its own drug problem after which it could provide guidance to others. NOT BEFORE!
Says someone who’s obviously never been involved in drug trafficking or AML investigations! Yes, we certainly DO have the right to extradite because the crimes are taking place here.
When two countries have extradition treaties, and agree to recognize certain laws as being eligible for extradition within those agreements, then absolutely, according to the norms of international agreements, extradition is a LEGAL means for rectification.
I was NOT arguing otherwise, simply recognizing that one who may direct activities in one jurisdiction from one's "home" jurisdiction does not automatically become an offense committed in another.
That said, I stand by saying that the US should take care of its demand. Problem, and there are other ways to do it without incentivizing criminal organizations. Lots of ways. I will post a rebuttal to the Oregon situation mentioned by another poster below.
The Zelaya family was never in the United States so how could they possibly have broken US law? US laws do not extend beyond its borders. Furthermore, I have seen how many of these trials work in the US. The govt provides limited immunity to a lower level trafficker to provide information on those higher up in the organization. How can anything they say be believed when they are benefiting from ratting someone else out?
Like I said, the crimes were committed here. That’s why we extradite and have these treaties established with other countries. If US dollars are going towards any sort of illicit financial activity due to all the money laundering through American banks it’s a crime here even if the perp isn’t in the country.
Extradition treaties exist to enable governments to return suspects, accused criminals, or convicted individuals who have fled across international borders to face justice in the country where their crime was committed. These legal agreements prevent criminals from using national borders to evade prosecution and ensure cooperation in law enforcement.
I trust you are aware that when they are used against narcos, often they are used strictly for political gain and/or to get rid of the competition. How is it even possible that the Biden administration extradited the ex-president of Honduras and Trump pardoned the same person if this were not true?
Better to follow Ron Paul's advice, and heed the lessons of the failed era of Prohibition. LEGALIZE, LEGALIZE.
That's how you cut off the cartel violence Ron Paul asked the cnadidate debate audience to raise their hands if they would use heroin if legalized. Nobody raised their hand.
Oregon tried that and the place fell apart and the people (and these are very left of center people) had to vote to undo most of that. Legalization doesn't work because you can hook people when they are young and stupid or older but temporarily down and out and then they can't get off. And if it's legal, you can't force them to get off even if they would want you to.
Hooking people happens at ANY AGE. The reference case for this discussion is the "Era of Prohibition". At least in those years the U.S. recognized that they had to have a constitutional amendment to prohibit a drug, in that case, alcohol.
You mention Oregon, which does have a bigger problem today. If you look at what is happening in Oregon "on the ground" you can see that criminalization is not working at all, which the state tacitly recognizing by distributing crack pipes and other materials that do not mitigate any problem at all.
About getting them young, there are laws against "corruption of minors". Criminalizing the drug trade or any other just drives activity underground plus multiplies the "illegality" premium, driving the market to the worst elements of society,
PORTUGAL is a much better case study. They legalized drugs and did not have nearly the problems that you mention about Oregon. I did marijuana awhile in college, shut down the idea from some friends about trying heroin. It was de facto legal on campus, and the CIA with the LSD guru push even pushed the pro-drug rock music.
Like the Rolling Stones ("Monkey on my back"), and Jefferson Airplane ("White Rabbit"), and Grateful Dead ("Drivin' that train, high on cocaine"), and others of that era. They've gotten more sophisticated now.
LIKE THE CIA NOW PUSHING THE DRUG TRADE to finance operations.
The novel "Brave New World" shows that a drug-addled population is manageable by people with no morals.
I think the main reason Juan Orlando Hernandez was put in prison by the Biden administration was that he shot down a plane taking off from Honduran territory carrying a load of drugs and escorted by two DEA agents. after the DEA told him to leave them alone.
Legalization works when drugs are administered with a doctor's prescription and under their care. It does not work well when it is a free for all. Imagine if alcohol was available to anyone including children. Or if painkillers could be obtained at your local pharmacy at any age without a prescription.
You stated that it doesn't work because you can hook people ..., this is the exactly the same situation the US finds itself in today. Just because something is illegal does not signify that it does not occur. Much like having a driver's license has nothing to do with begin able to drive or not. Unless one is stopped, you could drive your entire life without a license.
We tried the doctor prescription part and wound up with the book Hillbilly Elegy. It doesn't work either. The harder you make something the more expensive it gets, the more violent it gets and the less of it you get. But the upsides outweigh the downsides and over time, with enough pressure on the cartels, the border and the population you can get this down to very low levels. You can see it in authoritarian counties like China and less authoritarian countries like in the middle east.
Also, the power of the cartels declines as their revenue declines. You sited countries like Portugal where legalization works and I'll site Holland where it stopped working and they are forced to deal with the destruction caused by drugs and their laws.
There are no easy solutions and our adversaries are doing everything they can to make it hard.
1. Illegality creates an incentive to sell because Illegality results directly in an extra premium sellers can charge. Obviously.
2. Illegality increases the power of government to claim control over your choices.
3. Illegality incentivizes more intrusion by "I said so" political busybodies over you and yoor body. Causes more disputes over what to control. The feds put marijuana in the same dangerous category as heroin! Insane!
4. What your supposed bad examples of legalization show is not that legalization but other bigge problems in those societies. For example those same effects happened in Portugal but then fizzled after the novely wore off.
PLUS legality returns the responsibility to parents and family to intervene.
The DEA is an offshoot of the law enforcement agencies that were used during prohibition. Once prohibition was overturned they no longer had a reason to exist.
Communism is piracy. A small group of thieves take from producers by promising it to non-producers, but keep it by force and kill the non-producer useful idiots, once power is secured by deception.
My wife is from Honduras, and we were enthusiastically hoping for Asfura to win that election. Especially after she went to get the ID she needed to vote for him. Because the LIBRE-appointed clerk in charge of the desk said that the person wtih that name and "celula" number had already claimed the ID. The whole regime was a criminal regime, and she wasn't the only one. Later she finally got it but too late to vote.
She was from the same "departamento" as Manuel Zelaya. And all that departamento knew that Manuel's father was the murderous killer of a group of Catholic clergy that got stranded late late at night on the hightwy by his ranch and asked for shelter. But the whole ggroup was massacred (search Los Horcones) because one of the nuns rejected the dad's sexual advances. Like father like son.
My wife was in the same class as Manuel Zelaya, considered a bit clow. When he announced to the class during a civics lesson that he was going to be president one day. the entire class roared with laughter. That was about 4th or 5th grade.
Communism portrays itself as a liberator but it rules like a despot.
Extradition is not revenge — it’s a legal tool. If credible evidence ties any political family, left or right, to narcotics trafficking or corruption, the rule of law demands transparency and prosecution. Honduras has been trapped for decades between cartel violence, political factionalism, and foreign leverage. That cycle only breaks when prosecutions are evidence-driven rather than politically choreographed. The goal cannot be settling ideological scores; it must be restoring public trust. If sealed files, financial trails, or recorded negotiations exist, put them before a court. Justice must be methodical, lawful, and provable. That’s how a nation heals — not through slogans, but through accountable institutions.
The US has no reason to extradite someone in a foreign country for breaking a US law unless that person committed a crime in the US and fled. Quit blaming problems in the US on other countries.
The US should solve its own drug problem after which it could provide guidance to others. NOT BEFORE!
Says someone who’s obviously never been involved in drug trafficking or AML investigations! Yes, we certainly DO have the right to extradite because the crimes are taking place here.
When two countries have extradition treaties, and agree to recognize certain laws as being eligible for extradition within those agreements, then absolutely, according to the norms of international agreements, extradition is a LEGAL means for rectification.
I was NOT arguing otherwise, simply recognizing that one who may direct activities in one jurisdiction from one's "home" jurisdiction does not automatically become an offense committed in another.
That said, I stand by saying that the US should take care of its demand. Problem, and there are other ways to do it without incentivizing criminal organizations. Lots of ways. I will post a rebuttal to the Oregon situation mentioned by another poster below.
The Zelaya family was never in the United States so how could they possibly have broken US law? US laws do not extend beyond its borders. Furthermore, I have seen how many of these trials work in the US. The govt provides limited immunity to a lower level trafficker to provide information on those higher up in the organization. How can anything they say be believed when they are benefiting from ratting someone else out?
Like I said, the crimes were committed here. That’s why we extradite and have these treaties established with other countries. If US dollars are going towards any sort of illicit financial activity due to all the money laundering through American banks it’s a crime here even if the perp isn’t in the country.
Extradition treaties exist to enable governments to return suspects, accused criminals, or convicted individuals who have fled across international borders to face justice in the country where their crime was committed. These legal agreements prevent criminals from using national borders to evade prosecution and ensure cooperation in law enforcement.
I trust you are aware that when they are used against narcos, often they are used strictly for political gain and/or to get rid of the competition. How is it even possible that the Biden administration extradited the ex-president of Honduras and Trump pardoned the same person if this were not true?
Better to follow Ron Paul's advice, and heed the lessons of the failed era of Prohibition. LEGALIZE, LEGALIZE.
That's how you cut off the cartel violence Ron Paul asked the cnadidate debate audience to raise their hands if they would use heroin if legalized. Nobody raised their hand.
Oregon tried that and the place fell apart and the people (and these are very left of center people) had to vote to undo most of that. Legalization doesn't work because you can hook people when they are young and stupid or older but temporarily down and out and then they can't get off. And if it's legal, you can't force them to get off even if they would want you to.
Hooking people happens at ANY AGE. The reference case for this discussion is the "Era of Prohibition". At least in those years the U.S. recognized that they had to have a constitutional amendment to prohibit a drug, in that case, alcohol.
You mention Oregon, which does have a bigger problem today. If you look at what is happening in Oregon "on the ground" you can see that criminalization is not working at all, which the state tacitly recognizing by distributing crack pipes and other materials that do not mitigate any problem at all.
About getting them young, there are laws against "corruption of minors". Criminalizing the drug trade or any other just drives activity underground plus multiplies the "illegality" premium, driving the market to the worst elements of society,
PORTUGAL is a much better case study. They legalized drugs and did not have nearly the problems that you mention about Oregon. I did marijuana awhile in college, shut down the idea from some friends about trying heroin. It was de facto legal on campus, and the CIA with the LSD guru push even pushed the pro-drug rock music.
Like the Rolling Stones ("Monkey on my back"), and Jefferson Airplane ("White Rabbit"), and Grateful Dead ("Drivin' that train, high on cocaine"), and others of that era. They've gotten more sophisticated now.
LIKE THE CIA NOW PUSHING THE DRUG TRADE to finance operations.
The novel "Brave New World" shows that a drug-addled population is manageable by people with no morals.
I think the main reason Juan Orlando Hernandez was put in prison by the Biden administration was that he shot down a plane taking off from Honduran territory carrying a load of drugs and escorted by two DEA agents. after the DEA told him to leave them alone.
Legalization works when drugs are administered with a doctor's prescription and under their care. It does not work well when it is a free for all. Imagine if alcohol was available to anyone including children. Or if painkillers could be obtained at your local pharmacy at any age without a prescription.
You stated that it doesn't work because you can hook people ..., this is the exactly the same situation the US finds itself in today. Just because something is illegal does not signify that it does not occur. Much like having a driver's license has nothing to do with begin able to drive or not. Unless one is stopped, you could drive your entire life without a license.
We tried the doctor prescription part and wound up with the book Hillbilly Elegy. It doesn't work either. The harder you make something the more expensive it gets, the more violent it gets and the less of it you get. But the upsides outweigh the downsides and over time, with enough pressure on the cartels, the border and the population you can get this down to very low levels. You can see it in authoritarian counties like China and less authoritarian countries like in the middle east.
Also, the power of the cartels declines as their revenue declines. You sited countries like Portugal where legalization works and I'll site Holland where it stopped working and they are forced to deal with the destruction caused by drugs and their laws.
There are no easy solutions and our adversaries are doing everything they can to make it hard.
Another factor in places where it "did not work" is that it does not work when you give up too quickly.
It's like forfeiting a baseball game in the 5th inning because you're losing to the other team already anyway.
1. Illegality creates an incentive to sell because Illegality results directly in an extra premium sellers can charge. Obviously.
2. Illegality increases the power of government to claim control over your choices.
3. Illegality incentivizes more intrusion by "I said so" political busybodies over you and yoor body. Causes more disputes over what to control. The feds put marijuana in the same dangerous category as heroin! Insane!
4. What your supposed bad examples of legalization show is not that legalization but other bigge problems in those societies. For example those same effects happened in Portugal but then fizzled after the novely wore off.
PLUS legality returns the responsibility to parents and family to intervene.
The DEA is an offshoot of the law enforcement agencies that were used during prohibition. Once prohibition was overturned they no longer had a reason to exist.
Communism is piracy. A small group of thieves take from producers by promising it to non-producers, but keep it by force and kill the non-producer useful idiots, once power is secured by deception.
My wife is from Honduras, and we were enthusiastically hoping for Asfura to win that election. Especially after she went to get the ID she needed to vote for him. Because the LIBRE-appointed clerk in charge of the desk said that the person wtih that name and "celula" number had already claimed the ID. The whole regime was a criminal regime, and she wasn't the only one. Later she finally got it but too late to vote.
She was from the same "departamento" as Manuel Zelaya. And all that departamento knew that Manuel's father was the murderous killer of a group of Catholic clergy that got stranded late late at night on the hightwy by his ranch and asked for shelter. But the whole ggroup was massacred (search Los Horcones) because one of the nuns rejected the dad's sexual advances. Like father like son.
My wife was in the same class as Manuel Zelaya, considered a bit clow. When he announced to the class during a civics lesson that he was going to be president one day. the entire class roared with laughter. That was about 4th or 5th grade.