Was Assange in the US at the time of the hacking? What has bothered me most is that he is a non-citizen, a journalist, being dragged across the world to face US Law
It may or may not be the case for Assange depending on the facts of the case and on your own opinion, but treating the location of the crime as "where the server is" does seem like a sensible way to deal with the problem.
Yes, the person should be allowed to get away with it, because the sovereignty of that country is important.
Should every country apply their laws globally, or just the US...?
You may not be physically present in the same location as the server in the GP's hypothetical but the crime you committed was within the territory of that particular country.
To me, the equivalent is flying over to the country, committing a crime, then flying back before the crime had been detected and using that as a defence for why you shouldn't be extradited.
That's just my opinion though. I do agree that the age of the internet has made the issue of legal jurisdictions a murky one.
If a US citizen in the 1960s sent a leaflet containing some thought crime to the Soviet Union should the US be under any obligation to extradite that person to the USSR?
By communicating with a computer in another country you're just sending information across the high-tech equivalent of the postal system. It's up to the receiving country how strict they're going to be in auditing information crossing their borders.
Interesting example, and as I understand it, the USSR would have considered it a crime and would have requested extradition. That is their right as a sovereign nation, and it's the reason why extradition treaties exist. That's kind of the point I was making - countries get to decide what crimes have taken place within their borders, and extradition treaties are the way we decide whether or not we move people to where they need be in order to answer for their actions. Geography has never really been a way of avoiding prosecution (but using the lack of extradition treaties between rival nations absolutely has).
Only if (a) an extradition treaty between the two countries existed and (b) the actions of the US citizen were a crime in the US as well as in the USSR. In general, you can only be extradited for something that's a crime in the country you're being extradited from.
A specific action punishable by a year in prison in my home country might be punished with a decade in another; the conditions of my home country's prison might not be the same as in a foreign country, etc.
If I had to serve a one year sentence where I live for something I consider moral I wouldn't be too bothered (not that I'd welcome it of course), but serving a year in an American prison is a terrifying thought.
Not every country has the power to apply their laws globally, the US can.
Not many places in the world would consider that a crime, but of course he is a symbol of free information and they want him taken out
If Alice in Canada, a Canadian citizen and permanent resident, tells Bob in the US that thepiratebay lets them download copyrighted content, can the US request extradition of Alice from Canada and charge them with US crimes?
Basically everyone in the world can be subject to US Law, set by a government they didn't vote for.
0. Country A has an extradition treaty with country B.
1. Break a law in Country A that is also a law in Country B but the effects of breaking that law happen in country B.
2. Courts in Country A decide whether the extradition treaty applies.
3. If it's a citizen that breaks the law there are a myriad of ways for Country A to say no. If It's a non-citizen then they get exported with a quickness, usually.
Countries like Iceland usually say no to the US, see: Bobby Fischer. Other countries vary quite a lot.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but most countries only extradite their own citizens (sometimes or never) in the case where laws are broken in both countries and there's a ton of political pressure. It's not completely willy nilly though it's worse than I'd like.