[harperlee]

I think you should build your argument a little bit more.

I’d say, why not say that also for drug cartels? The only reasonable argument that comes to my mind is that some big cartel head might have local government influence, but that does not apply to Kim and New Zealand, right?

Another possible argument would be that the damage has been done elsewhere. But in the case of the dtug cartel, if there are victims in 20 countries that why would any third party have priority for enforcing their law?

[Blot2882]

> if there are victims in 20 countries that why would any third party have priority for enforcing their law

That's not really relevant. No one is arguing priority. "Priority" implies there's 20 countries fighting to prosecute someone and we need to resolve it. In this case, it was a cooperation between multiple countries who agreed someone needed to be prosecuted, regardless of which country did it.

[harperlee]

The point being why should any argument in this line end up with “lets extradite him to the US”, when he is already in a cooperating country that will enforce acceptable local law. And his own country, where he resides, and where the did the purported crimes.

[Blot2882]

> The point being why should any argument in this line end up with “lets extradite him to the US”

Because New Zealand is willing to and he broke the law in the U.S. as well? Why would there be an argument at all?

You were criticizing someone's argument and brought up two points of your own that don't make sense to me. Drug cartel members DO get extradited.