I don't mean to be rude, but how is this the top voted comment? Extradition exists for a reason, and this comment lacks a serious depth of thinking and belongs on reddit.
I think part of the grandparent posters's complaint is that nirvana's claim seems more like wishful thinking on what nirvana wants the law to be, rather than how it works in practice. The comments below discuss the issues surrounding this extradition, while the top comment is relatively content-free. I'm guessing about this, of course, but if that's what motivated his post I'm inclined to agree.
Assume for a moment, that he had stolen money from American Paypal accounts through phishing. Does the argument still make sense? I think is does not. The argument is visceral, nothing more. She makes a straw man argument about '.com' and '.net' that is completely irrelevant, but attracts the pitchforks and fools.
How does the original comment have anything to do with jurisdiction?
Start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition
Form arguments based on the restrictions outlined.