Re: Response to mischaracterization of Jan. 20 letter.
My letter was not an argument. Mr. Philip Wasserman (letters, “A Thing About Pardons,” Jan. 31) writes that “the central flaw in her argument is the claim that Hernández was merely ‘a drug dealer, not the state of Honduras.’” I never made that implication. His insertion of the word “merely” fundamentally alters the meaning of my statement and creates an argument I did not make.
In fact, I stated explicitly in paragraph two of my letter: “This is not about whether Hernández was a good man. He was convicted of serious crimes, and a pardon does not erase corruption, violence, or the harm caused by narcotics trafficking. That is not in dispute.”
When I wrote, “Hernández was a drug dealer, not the state of Honduras,” I was making a jurisdictional and institutional distinction, not a moral defense. Even when a head of state abuses power, criminal liability attaches to the individual; the state itself does not become the criminal defendant unless charged as such.
Mr. Wasserman then responds at length to claims about the quantity of cocaine, the use of military and police resources, and the jury’s verdict. None of those points were disputed in my letter. His response appears to assume that acknowledging foreign-policy consequences is equivalent to opposing prosecution. It is not. A prosecution may be lawful and serious while still carrying diplomatic and geopolitical consequences. Both can be true at the same time. I did not argue that prosecutors should “stand down,” only that prosecutions of sitting or former heads of state inevitably have broader foreign-policy implications. Analysis is not advocacy, and context is not justification.
History bears this out. The prosecutions of Manuel Noriega and the attempted prosecution of Augusto Pinochet, among others, carried profound foreign-policy consequences while remaining legally valid. Acknowledging those consequences is not the same as opposing prosecution.
Mr. Wasserman also asserts, “This is not a separation-of-powers issue,” noting that the Justice Department is part of the executive branch. I never said the DOJ was not part of the executive branch nor acted unconstitutionally. My point concerned institutional roles and consequences: The DOJ may act lawfully, while the foreign-policy ramifications of that action are borne by the broader executive branch — and, ultimately, the nation.
Finally, Mr. Wasserman states that Hernández is “reportedly currently living in the United States.” No public confirmation from the DOJ, Department of Homeland Security or Interpol has established this as fact. Public reporting has relied largely on statements attributed to family members rather than official records. If verifiable evidence exists, it should be cited; if not, such claims should be treated with appropriate caution.
Disagreement is fair. Rebutting arguments that were never made is not.
Nancy Fairbanks
Valencia
