I don't see why you quibble over the use of 'rendition,' then turn around and minimize the generally understood. If he was just being extradited via official and lawful process, shouldn't that be the term, rather than apparently grabbed via secret flights and skullduggery?
You also can't say what the intentions of the US government were regarding bringing Snowden back to US soil, and even if that were the case it doesn't seem to mean much especially as it seems the Chicago Police are operating a "black-site" on US soil in contravention of the Constitution.
In fact, I would say the evidence is far stronger for the supposition that Snowden was intended to be "extraordinarily" renditioned than simply and lawfully extradited and your post subjects are ill-argued.
You talk elsewhere in this thread about being charitable in your arguments. You are either being deliberately obtuse or distinctly uncharitable in this comment.
The GP (I believe) is making the point that the CIA doesn't hold a monopoly on abduction under color of law. Furthermore I think GP is questioning the assertion that this was not an extraordinary rendition mission, being that this seems not to fit the pattern of a simple extradition.
You also can't say what the intentions of the US government were regarding bringing Snowden back to US soil, and even if that were the case it doesn't seem to mean much especially as it seems the Chicago Police are operating a "black-site" on US soil in contravention of the Constitution.
In fact, I would say the evidence is far stronger for the supposition that Snowden was intended to be "extraordinarily" renditioned than simply and lawfully extradited and your post subjects are ill-argued.