In an international framework, law is whatever a particular country can enforce. In other words, whoever has the biggest stick will ultimately have their way. This has nothing to do with technology, but fundamental political facts of life that are unlikely to change.

The players might change, but the game is the same.

Indeed, in all ages of man, groups took political hostages and traded them. Might makes right.

I don't see how this is complicated. US has a lot of allies and those allies have agreed to this. Turkey does not have a lot of allies (or at least as strong of allies as the US has/had) and thus doesn't have the same agreements in place.

You can't see how it's complicated? Not at all? No historical events pop out as "it's not normal precedence to arrest people in other countries for crimes in your country"?

I mean look at the international outrage when people from country A commit a crime INSIDE country B and country B punishes based on their own laws. The north Korea prisoner who was tortured and died shortly after release stands out, but there are plenty of other examples.

To just say "I don't see how anyone has a problem with this" makes you sound like a shill or someone trying to look enlightened, because it's not hard at all to see how this is complicated.

It's fairly complicated because it is geopolitics and international law. Why? Because that's what the government's have worked out between each other. Usually between representatives who were put there through Democratic means.

I'm hoping that he is extradited and stands trial because I can't think of an alternative. It will settle the issue as best as we humans can.

The US is claiming that he illegally accessed a government system and that is why they have jurisdiction. Whether or not he actually did that is questionable.

There is a difference between posting anti-government opinions, and aiding and abetting the theft of state secrets. Eliding then into one thing is intellectually dishonest.

I think it’s totally reasonable to argue that Assange did not do what he is accused of, but what he is accused of is not journalism or simply the expression of free speech.

Aiding and abetting is a lesser crime than the actual theft crime. Eliding those things into one is intellectually dishonest.

Further, the person who actually committed theft has been pardoned serving less time than Julian spent in the embassy. It makes no sense that he would receive any punishment at this point for the lesser crime.

Who is eliding those things?

It is the current imperialism in the USA.

you can steal money using internet while you’re not in the same country. This case is no different

Where your analogy is mistaken is he didn't steal anything.