Where do you get those check marks from? There is not a single word in the article that has a proof of what he did.
Imagine if Russia captured US citizen in Argentina saying he is American hacker who they think hacked Russian servers, I can imagine the outrage of the US and its European puppets.
Also nytimes is incredibly biased against Russia, I would not trust a single word it says.
Did you see a check mark convicting him of hacking? I do not. First you arrest. Then, you arraign. Then, you spend months building a case and allowing the defense to build theirs. Then you try the case. Then you convict.
Would you like me to add a final line: "Dude is convicted of hacking in US: NO CHECK!"? I can, if you think that clears anything up.
These check marks have a meaning only if they have a proof that he is guilty and is subject to extradition, otherwise they don't mean anything in this context
One is generally subject to extradition if they are charged with an offense covered by an extradition treaty (there are often procedural details here, but IIRC they generally don't extend much beyond verifying that there is a minimally plausible basis for the charges, similar to a preliminary hearing.)
Guilt or innocence is determined at trial after extradition; guilt isn't a question to be resolved to determine whether one is a subject to extradition.
You're getting downvoted like crazy, but I really think you're just making a simple mistake in interpretation. You seem to think extradition occurs after trial, so that the convicted accused serve their sentence somewhere else. No, that's not how extradition works. The accused is extradited to face trial somewhere else.
I don't think it's so much a mistake as a disagreement with the process of extradition. Government wants person so they can abridge their freedom from across the globe to satisfy the government's belief that they have the right person.
It's understood the trial ultimately determines the person's fate but it does seem like more proof or evidence should be made public before taking a rather rather drastic action like this. They don't have to show their whole hand, but something that is convincing enough that they have the right guy.
Again completely
Realize that's not how extradition works it's just it does seem like a raw deal that flies in the face of the U.S. Justice system ideals
In most of the cases we've seen with extraditions to the US for hacking, the burden placed on the US to justify the extradition has been pretty significant. We have in fact lost extradition cases where few of the underlying facts were in doubt.
I'm also not sure how bringing suspects to trial in the US flies in the face of US justice system ideals.
Well in this instance I'm suggesting that the uprooting and deprivation of freedom using foreign law as a basis is unreasonable. I fully admit this is a lay person interpretation and the law likely disagrees, but I would imagine that a more fair process would first let an international court or the local governing body determine in full if they cooperate, not instead have a blanket extradition treaty. Unless I am misunderstanding the entirety of extradition treaties, it just seems the burden of proof that they have the right person to even start questioning is low and not subject to scrutiny except from within.
The exception being the European arrest warrant. Assange was going to be extradited from the UK to Sweden for something that is not a crime in the UK. (Failure to use a condom is considered extremely rude but is not a crime in the UK.)
Imagine if Russia captured US citizen in Argentina saying he is American hacker who they think hacked Russian servers, I can imagine the outrage of the US and its European puppets.
Also nytimes is incredibly biased against Russia, I would not trust a single word it says.