In weev's case, the court rejected New Jersey as venue because no overt act in commission of the crime occurred in New Jersey, since neither weev nor the AT&T servers were in the state. The prosecutors argued that NJ was proper since many of the victims (AT&T customers) were in New Jersey, an argument the court didn't buy.
It's certainly strongly implied. "Rule of law" implies that governments have clear geographic borders. It's ludicrous to suggest that every person must obey every law that exists anywhere in the world or fear prosecution.
Governments also have treaties. If geographic locations A and B have an extradition agreement, living in A will not protect you from prosecution/conviction/incarceration if you conspire with criminals to commit a crime in B. If the government of A receives the proper request (with whatever degree of evidence that government requires for extradition), it will arrest you and ship you to B to face charges. It happens that Kansas and California have an extradition agreement.
If you read the details of the appeal (others have posted it in these threads) it's clear the guy in the article knew he was conspiring to traffic drugs; you don't describe the volume of a space in "kilos" unless you're referencing a substance which is packed in standard-sized one-kilo packages which other people would catch the reference to if you made it. Whether or not you agree with the drug war in general, don't make this into something it's not by feigning ignorance on the guy's behalf.
Here, Anaya never saw or touched drugs. He had no hand in planning any drug smuggling operations. He was never told what was going on, and had no legal duty to ask. That is not willful blindness.
I think a better analogy is the store clerk who sells rolling papers and blunt wrappers to the same people who never buy tobacco. Would you say that a store clerk under those facts is also guilty of a crime?
Seeing the crime being committed or participating in it directly is not necessary for a conspiracy charge. He knowingly helped people smuggle drugs. I think that's a perfectly valid charge.
I think our drug laws are pretty messed up overall, and 24 years is a ridiculously unfair sentence for this sort of thing, but I think the evidence gathered by the prosecution very adequately painted Anaya as a co-conspirator.
Second, the fact that a particular act might be legal does not mean that it is legal to do it in connection with a crime. There is nothing illegal about driving a car. There is something illegal about driving robbers in a car away from a crime scene.
Third, willful blindness is not a defense to any charge that requires showing knowledge. Anaya purposefully profited from criminal activity, and even if he didn't know the specifics of the plan, it's only because he purposefully tried to avoid learning of them. The law simply imposes a higher level of social responsibility than that.
Now, it's a fair criticism that drug enforcement is a waste of resources and drug sentences are too long. But that's quite a separate issue to the points you raise. Say that instead that Anaya was installing traps to help members of child prostitution rings convey cash around. The analysis of his involvement would be the same.