I think the authorities largely did. The US weren’t publicly pursuing him at all, Sweden dropped their case and the UK only ever had a simple outstanding warrant for jumping bail. The attention was in the UK media, with Assange and WikiLeaks throwing another random statement or allegation at the trash tabloids whenever things got quiet for them. I’m sure it all helped keep the donations rolling in.
I thought Sweden reopened their case against Assange. Aren't they requesting extradition as well?
I think WikiLeaks will still go on, with or without Assange. No doubt there will be plenty of those who would want to continue to do that kind of crusade against excessive governmental secrecy. I don't think that punishing Assange would thwart or discourage very many people from doing what he did.
The fact that he gets donations and is thought of as a hero in various circles is actually a sad commentary on the culture of government (mainly in the US, although it seems to be similar in other Western countries). This has very little to do with Assange; he may very well be a bad person with a hidden agenda.
But the fact that anyone can capitalize on the widespread cynicism and mistrust regarding the US and other Western governments is an indication that government and its media supporters have been doing a poor job at fostering trust and goodwill among the body politic.
It's too late to cry foul if someone gets hold of their dirty laundry and airs it out in public, because it's still their dirty laundry. The whole focus on Assange is to distract people and turn their attention away from their dirty laundry and make the messenger into a scapegoat (or martyr, depending on one's point of view).
Again, I think the difference is between reporting specific claims (even embarrassing of false ones) and promoting the mass theft and publication of any and all government data they can get their hands on (and maybe not with as balanced and neutral a basis as they claim).
If it was like that, then I guess they could be criticized for not organizing their data in any coherent way. But that's more a matter of form and presentation.
But I would also say that it depends on what is actually being released and under what circumstances. I mentioned in an earlier post that the US is not currently at war with any nation - at least not any official, declared war with another sovereign country. If it's during a war and someone publishes secret battle plans of an impending attack, then I could see why they would try to stop that. We don't want the enemy to know our battle plans or any secret weapons or laboratories. In some cases, we don't even want our friends to find out about these things.
But if it's involving government atrocities, malfeasance, corruption, black ops, or any attempts to cover things up and hide the truth from the public, then that's a different kettle of fish.