Recent policy moves reveal a stark contrast in enforcement approaches. On one hand, there's authorization for extreme measures against suspected maritime drug operations—no trial, no evidence presentation required. On the other, a former head of state from Honduras walks free despite prosecutors building a substantial case with documented evidence.

The gap between these two positions raises questions about consistency in how justice gets applied. When does suspicion justify immediate action, and when does evidence demand thorough process? Different standards for different scenarios, or strategic calculation?

This pattern isn't new in power structures—selective enforcement has always existed. But the optics here are particularly sharp: swift punishment for some, clemency for others. Worth watching how this plays out and what precedents it sets for future enforcement decisions.