James Woolsey, former CIA director, on Edward Snowden today on Fox News:

“He should be prosecuted for treason. If convicted by a jury of his peers, he should be hanged by his neck until he is dead."

That's pretty close to a death threat, I guess it's a death wish on Woolsey's part. Snowden does not face the death penalty. He's not charged with treason. Woolsey says he "should" be charged with treason, a capital felony. Snowden is charged with "conveying classified information to an unauthorized party,"  "disclosing communications intelligence information," and theft of government property. The maximum sentence he faces is 30 years in prison. That's the max. It's not even life. So in Woolsey's opinion, that of an extremely high ranking former government official, the American state is wrong: Snowden "should be" charged with a capital felony. And then if found guilty by a jury, which guilt Woolsey has already found for himself, "should be" "hanged by his neck until he is dead."  Which is pretty descriptive.

Does the American federal government still hang? I read an article earlier today in which federal judge Richard Leon, he of the NSA spying violated the Constitution which spying was revealed by Snowden, Judge Leon ruled against the State's use of some chemical solution which when injected causes death, the case involving a Guantanamo condemned, which leads me to believe that the American State does not hang which would mean Woolsey is also urging a method of killing not authorized by the State's laws but Woolsey seems to know what he's talking about...Um, strike "Woolsey seems to know what he's talking about" and substitute "maybe I'm wrong and I'll give Woolsey the benefit of the doubt."

So in Woolsey's opinion the American State should kill Snowden. "All things considered," Woolsey's stature, his previous position, his disagreement with the State's charges and the penalties "if" guilty, that really is pretty doggone close to a death threat made public on national television but, giving Woolsey the benefit of the doubt, I don't think it is a death threat so a counter death threat on Woolsey would, I find, be "disproportional." I will be proportional: To be proportional, it would be "Woolsey should be prosecuted for treason" and after due process "hanged by the neck until he is dead."  But, I don't know if Woolsey has committed treason so to be proportional and to give Woolsey the benefit of the doubt I will say I wish I was convinced--regardless of whether the American State thinks so--that Woolsey should be charged with treason and then I would wish Woolsey to be hung by the neck until he's dead, but I'm against the death penalty, but not in cases of treason but I will give Woolsey the benefit of the doubt and say I wish, upon evidence sufficient to me that Woolsey be charged with treason and hung by the neck until he is not dead. Or that he be guilty of some lesser felony or misdemeanor that, notwithstanding the State's proscribed punishment therefore, I would still wish him to be hanged by the neck until not dead.