A very good paper.
The following paper received a 5. It received a 5 for the following reasons:
1. It clearly explains what the terms of extradition were between the US and Colombia. It mentions the treaty.
2. It explains how Pablo felt about this extradition treaty and how he responded to it.
3. It explains the response: killing and bribing (plato o plomo).
4. It is clear, well organized and well edited. It uses the past tense to talk about most of this because this is history -- so much of it must be in the past tense! No other choice is possible.
5. It doesnt give any unnecessary information or waste time and ink on a lengthy introduction.
What this prompt means is that Pablo, as patriotic as he liked to be, hated extradtion and he would do anything to avoid being prosecuted in another country, the United States in particular.
In 1979, Colombia and the US signed a treaty stating that smuggling drugs into the U.S. was a crime against the U.S. and the smugglers would face criminal charges in the U.S., thus extradition. Men like Pablo, who knew the justice system of Colombia could not harm them, were starting to fear the U.S. justice.
Pablo himself once said hes rather to have a grave in Colombia, his home country, than sitting in a jail in the U.S. As a result, he bribed policemen, officials, etc., to avoid extradition. If money didnt work, then hed kill those who were for extradition. Many judges were killed in the 1980s. No one was willing to oppose him, and Pablo could still walk on the streets of Colombia while he was officially a fugitive.