(I) This is a case where it's possible the act by the non-citizen is criminal in the US as well; plus the stock exchanges of the world are interlinked in various way, so it has some not-very-indirect negative impact on US companies and citizens. Also, do such things ever happen?
(II) You're establishing GP's point, which is that a special law was needed for extradition in this case.
----------
About your Journalist vs Criminal dichotomy:
* You only mentioned 5 scenarios but refer to a sixth... let's assume you mean just 5.
* GP can't be construed as having discussed option (5), but rather options (1) - (3).
* Something may be defined as a crime by law but be unconstitutional; and the law may yet be struck down by the courts. Law strike-downs happen occasionally in the US, after all.
* Can you provide reference to the claim that (5) is squarely a (federal) crime in the US? That is, that established journalists have been found guilty of doing this?
* Would you claim that scenario (6) is also a crime in the US, where in this scenario the journalist does not tell the source what to look for, and only provides guidance on how to use computing systems and networks discreetly and securely?
> (II) You're establishing GP's point, which is that a special law was needed for extradition in this case.
I beg to differ. A law was needed to establish jurisdiction and a crime just like a law is required for every such case. If you commit a similar crime on Australian soil, it's only illegal because a law exists to make it so (rightly).
> Can you provide reference to the claim that (5) is squarely a (federal) crime in the US?
My point is that every "right" in the US constitution is not absolute or without exceptions. Every single one. The above is a thought experiment to prove that. Put another way: the First Amendment is not a blanket defense. In procuring a story that you publish, you will reach a limit on your actions beyond which you've committed a crime and the First Amendment won't shield you from that.
Like... that's just obvious.
So what particular circumstances lead to a journalist committing a crime is irrelevant. The point is that there is a line, not what the particular line is.
(I) This is a case where it's possible the act by the non-citizen is criminal in the US as well; plus the stock exchanges of the world are interlinked in various way, so it has some not-very-indirect negative impact on US companies and citizens. Also, do such things ever happen?
(II) You're establishing GP's point, which is that a special law was needed for extradition in this case.
----------
About your Journalist vs Criminal dichotomy:
* You only mentioned 5 scenarios but refer to a sixth... let's assume you mean just 5.
* GP can't be construed as having discussed option (5), but rather options (1) - (3).
* Something may be defined as a crime by law but be unconstitutional; and the law may yet be struck down by the courts. Law strike-downs happen occasionally in the US, after all.
* Can you provide reference to the claim that (5) is squarely a (federal) crime in the US? That is, that established journalists have been found guilty of doing this?
* Would you claim that scenario (6) is also a crime in the US, where in this scenario the journalist does not tell the source what to look for, and only provides guidance on how to use computing systems and networks discreetly and securely?