By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Thank you for subscribing to the NP Posted newsletter. You will receive a welcome email shortly, so be sure to check your junk folder if it doesn’t appear in your inbox. The next issue of NP Posted will be delivered to your email address soon. By subscribing, you agree to receive future newsletters from Postmedia Network Inc.
Read the original article here
Trump says he will pardon ex-Honduras leader convicted of drug trafficking: The announcement is certainly a bombshell, especially when considered in the context of the actions his administration has taken, or rather, *was* taking, regarding drug trafficking. It’s a jarring contrast: a show of force against suspected drug operations in the Caribbean and Pacific, resulting in over 80 deaths without trial, followed by a promise of clemency for a convicted drug kingpin. It raises some very serious questions about the motivations and principles at play here.
Trump’s assertion that Juan Orlando Hernandez, the former Honduran president, was “treated very harshly and unfairly” feels particularly off-key. Hernandez was convicted and sentenced to 45 years in prison for his role in smuggling hundreds of tons of cocaine into the United States. His actions weren’t merely accusations; they were the basis of a conviction, supported by evidence. It is one thing to have reservations about the fairness of a trial; it is another to declare a proven offender “harshly” treated.
The timing is interesting as well. The statement from Trump comes in close proximity to the news of a new election in Honduras. The connection to “financial success” within the region is certainly another eyebrow-raiser. One can only imagine the type of negotiations that may have preceded this announcement.
Considering the swift action taken against alleged drug operations at sea – without the due process of law – it’s difficult not to see a major disparity in application. The families of those killed on the boats certainly didn’t receive the same consideration as Hernandez. If there was no trial, then the people on the boats were not found guilty. Where’s the mercy there? Where’s the fairness? The contradiction is impossible to ignore.
It’s also impossible to miss the potential for quid pro quo. Was the promise of a pardon in exchange for something? Perhaps political support? Financial gain? The details of any such deal would be deeply troubling. One can only wonder what the “something” would be that resulted in a convicted felon being pardoned.
The broader implications are equally concerning. Trump’s actions, or inactions, tend to undermine the rule of law. If convictions, which are supposed to hold weight in a justice system, can be overturned simply because of political connections, the system loses its credibility. It erodes trust.
There’s also a question of consistency. The tough stance against drug cartels seems to be, in this case, selective, not based on the severity of the crimes, but on something else. What’s the goal of a “war on drugs” if the “worst offenders” are given a free pass?
The hypocrisy is undeniable. Trump’s actions in this regard contradict the very idea of enforcing the law. If there is a “stop the drugs” policy, then where is the line? And the fact that this comes on the heels of the strikes in the Caribbean and Pacific, in which over 80 people were killed without a trial, paints a picture of a system where justice is not equal for all.
Furthermore, these actions make it hard to ignore the potential for personal gain. Is there money involved? Perhaps. Was there political maneuvering to be done? Probably. It casts a shadow over everything, from foreign policy to national security.
The lack of transparency is another factor. The public deserves to know the reasoning behind this decision. What led to the conclusion that Hernandez was treated unfairly? What were the considerations that led to the pardon?
This situation also draws attention to the role of big oil and the potential for a cynical use of the “war on drugs.” Is this administration more interested in securing oil resources than actually stopping the drug trade? Is the goal to control a region’s resources?
And of course, the reactions of Trump’s supporters are worth noting. Will they support this? Will they make excuses? Or will this cause them to question their loyalty?
All in all, the whole situation is a troubling example of political expediency over fundamental principles. The implications are far-reaching and potentially damaging to the very fabric of justice and the idea of equal application of the law. The message is simple: there are some who are above the law.