Many countries do have a policy not to extradite for charges that carry the death penalty. They don't have such a policy for life incarceration. Meanwhile, having him extradited for only very minor offenses would be very transparent subterfuge considering the extreme rhetoric that's going around. Not that they've been exactly subtle so far.

I'm not saying there is any bait and switch going on (I think they're above petty revenge killing), but are there any previous instances where the USG charged someone for a "parking violation" style minor crime to facilitate extradition?

> I'm not saying there is any bait and switch going on (I think they're above petty revenge killing), but are there any previous instances where the USG charged someone for a "parking violation" style minor crime to facilitate extradition?

I can't remember the exact case but the U.S. has done this before, IIRC, to Canada. Something about a state extraditing someone for trial in a state court (with a firm agreement to leave off the death penalty) and then the Federal prosecutor swoops in out of nowhere to bring Federal charges that do carry the death penalty.

Edit: Take the above with a grain of salt though, I've spent some time searching for this case (which should be quite famous) and have come up with nothing. The closest was the Söring case where the U.K. has to obtain assurances from both Virginia and the U.S. that the death penalty would not be applied... and it wasn't.

True, there have been calls from very senior USG officials to do just that though. Still the chance of that happening near 0 (but not exactly 0) especially given the frequency with which that particular charge is mode.

What senior USG official called for Snowden to be charged with treason? Remember, in our system of government, individual congresscritters aren't officials; they have extremely limited authority to do anything but contribute to the lawmaking process.

Remember, many of the noisest and most obnoxious people in Congress were elected by mere thousands of voters from American backwaters.

Boehner and Feinstein, possibly others.

I don't quite follow the argument that those are not senior officials (the speaker of the house definitely qualifies as such, being second in line after the VP to be named President). The fact that people in a position like that are making such calls surely carries some weight with other, less senior officials and might sway a bunch of them to agree with it if only to not be seen as weak.

The thousands of voters from American backwaters collectively seem to command a rather large chunk of the legislative power in the USA.

Boehner was elected with something like 200,000 votes from Cincinattans. He can say the word "treason" until he's blue in the face, but on the question of what Snowden will be charged with, his words carry no more force than those of a Redstate.com blogger.

The numbers scale up a bit for Feinstein, who at least holds statewide office, but the end result is no different.

This isn't a fiddly technical point. The separation of powers between the Legislative and Executive branches is fundamental to our system of government. In cases where dingbat representatives try to rabble-rouse for unwarranted treason charges, you can see why the founders were smart to divest the Legislature of the power to enforce the laws they enact.

It would be hard to convince european countries that a grave criminal needed to be found at all costs if all he was charged with is a traffic violation. Besides, his leaks are too public for that to hold water. Do I think they'll bait and switch? It's hard to rule out the possibility.

It's hard to rule out any possibility. Such is the nature of ruling things out.