You look at the Australian journalist who was working in China as a journalist and was imprisoned for vague charges, and there's an outcry.
Look at the Australian citizen who was captured half a world away they're trying to drag to the US for crimes under US law that weren't committed in that country - is there a difference? It could be argued the case of Assange is even worse. Imagine if China decided Assange was guilty of crimes under Chinese law and reached out like this, the outrage would be palpable.
Even the deputy PM has recently came out and said Assange shouldn't be extradited - https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-12-14/barnaby-joyce-opposes... and said similar things.
That’s what I appreciate about the US system and the words of its founders - it’s basically set up assuming whoever gets power will eventually abuse it. It’s just human nature - we’re great at convincing ourselves we’re in the right.
You think China or the Taliban think they’re bad people? Of course not, everything they do is for the greater good.
So it’s not surprising when a group of journalists, when given the choice (for any number of reasons) chose the status quo and their position of power in it, versus their journalistic idealism.
Let me put it another way, how would you go about increasing peoples freedom (or reducing the authoritarianism you perceive) in such a way that they started meeting your expectations of behaviour?