> How is he subject to US law but not the US constitution?
The Constitutional rights of foreign foreign nationals is complicated [1]. Long story short, the Constitution may not protect them as fully as it does U.S. persons (Americans and foreigners on American soil).
Thanks for posting the article, it's pretty well summarized by:
> ... it is not surprising that many members of the general public presume that noncitizens do not deserve the
same rights as citizens. But the presumption is wrong in many more respects than it is right. While some distinctions between foreign nationals and citizens are normatively justified and consistent with constitutional and international law, most are not.
Non-citizens don't have a fundamental right to vote, or to enter the country. Non-citizens cannot hold federal office. Non-citizens accused of crimes may be held in jail pending their trial in situations where citizens would be free pending trial. But that's a pretty short list. In fact nearly all fundamental freedoms of the Bill of Rights (speech/press/religion/assembly) and rights to a fair trial apply to citizens and non-citizens alike.
Because if a state goes against this principle then the US might just kick it off the inter-back clearance system (SWIFT), or invade it, or engineer a coup against its government, or a combination of the above.
People somehow lose their ability to utilize Aristotelian logic when it comes to Assange. The unparalleled wave of propaganda unified against Assange makes people unable to question the narrative.
