> According to the indictment, Assange was running a whole operation where he was recruiting hackers to get sensitive data from protected computer systems.

This is an accusation, and is not fact. You'd be wise not to treat it as such until it's proven.

The main issue with the course that you seem to suggest is that by the time he might obtain a jury trial in the US, he will already be subject to US imprisonment, and thus, torture (which is precisely what happened to Manning). Countries that purport to be free (such as the UK) should prevent extradition to countries that torture suspects prior to trial, such as the US.

> This is an accusation, and is not fact. You'd be wise not to treat it as such until it's proven.

Sure. But extradition hearings necessarily operate on allegations because they come before a jury trial that will determine the facts.

I presume we don't have a treaty with Russia, otherwise we might indeed. And Snowden would be rotting in a US prison right now.

To be fair, it also seems like Putin doesn't much need the help anyway. He has no problem taking care of the supposed "criminal" in situ

> You’re positing that we should basically have vigilante hackers that expropriate and publish confidential data so long as they purport to be acting in the public interest.

That's not what they said at all. That's just a straw-man you created. What they said is that Juries are the law, they're part of the English tradition because a Jury is the law.

That's not what the commenter said. They outlined a classic stance on the concept of civil disobedience which is that one way of fighting unjust laws is to refuse to obey them. (the corollary to that is to be ready to face the consequences)