Assange lied about Seth Rich being a source.[1]

Assange has said that he had information on the Trump campaign but decided not to publish it[2].

Assange is accused of taking an active role in hacking/cracking.[3] Also you don't have to be a US citizen to be charged for a crime by the US government.

Any idea that he is an independent journalist is now gone. He's not a force for radical transparency like he originally billed himself to be. He's only concerned about transparency when it benefits him personally or politically and is happy to lie about or coverup anything else.

[1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/20/us/mueller-report-seth-ri...

[2] - https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/2934...

[3] - https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/wikileaks...

I said up front that he's a pompous ass, I'm not defending his character.

> Also you don't have to be a US citizen to be charged for a crime by the US government.

You sure about that? I mean, if a non-US citizen commits murder on our shores, fine, charge them, but the espionage act for non-citizens who didn't personally commit any espionage? Really? Shit, even if they did, they're not Americans, you want to extradite every non-American who isn't sufficiently pro-America?

I will admit that aiding and abetting is a gray area, but we are all subject to the laws of countries that we decide to travel to or associate with. If it is true that Assange attempted to solicit classified information and did not simply act as a neutral publisher for a whistleblower, then charging him would fall pretty well in line with both the letter and spirit of the espionage act.

If a US citizen blew a whistle on some abuse in Russia or China, would you be in favor of handing them over to be tried by local authorities?

How much of this argument relies on "we are the good guys of history, so we get carte blanche and if you disagree you are bad"?

But there’s the problem right there. Your analogy is incongruent with the Assange case. Assange is not a whistleblower. Again, if Assange merely published information that he was given (unsolicited), then he should be protected by the first amendment and is not guilty of a crime. However, if he sought out classified information and instructed someone on how to exfiltrate that information, then he clearly broke US espionage laws.

Again, he's not American.

Also, "sought out information".. you're gonna take that as an exception for rights of the press? No publishing about watergate if the editor and journalist "sought out" the information?

> Again, he's not American.

What is your point? Espionage laws are typically intended for foreign nationals.

> Also, "sought out information".. you're gonna take that as an exception for rights of the press? No publishing about watergate if the editor and journalist "sought out" the information?

The press has the right to publish classified information as long as they are solely publishing the information and do not partake in accessing or gathering that information. This was the finding of the Supreme Court in NYT vs US[1].

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_S...

We don't have extradition treaties with those countries so that hypothetical would never happen. It is the same reason that Snowden isn't facing trial in Russia.

Part of being a "good guy" is standing by your word. We have extradition treaties with the UK. Unless there is some belief that the wanted person couldn't get a fair trial in the UK, we would follow the same process that they are putting Assange through.

You do know that the US has not joined the Rome treaty (which establishes the International Criminal court) and one of the arguments being is that it would allow the trial of Americans who have committed crimes on American soil which is unconstitutional. The US has also be threatening that they would invade the Netherlands to free held American personal. Sounds to me not much like a good guy, but more like a bully saying "do as I say not as I do" .