Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
So you have to identify that they are undercover? Was it known that she worked for the CIA previously? Because if she had a fake job, like Jennifer Garner in Alias, then saying she works for the CIA when she ostensibly works for something else makes it pretty clear that she must be undercover.

Yes, you must have knowingly identified her as undercover and she must have worked undercover on foreign soil in the last 5 years for a crime to have been committed.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
If I understand it correctly, the salient point is that he did not identify her as spy (i.e., he did not "out" her). There is nothing illegal in saying that person X works for the CIA in WMD.

Is this the statute? Seems that if she's covert, then that's enough.

BTW, doesn't "knowingly" mean that the person knew what they were doing, but not necessarily that it was a crime? I.e., it wasn't a slip of the tongue.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Y But this Fitzgerald fellow might be tough to deal with. From what I've read, he's a really principled fellow who digs in and doesn't let go for any political reason. Lets hope the characterization is accurate. Purging Karl Rove from politics is a step in the right direction for everyone.

The one problem is that apparently there's no obligation to issue a report, so if he finds no crime, he doesn't have to say anything. (although I suspect he would give at least a brief statement as to why he concluded no crime has been committed--e.g., Plame wasn't a covert agent).

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Yes, you must have knowingly identified her as undercover and she must have worked undercover on foreign soil in the last 5 years for a crime to have been committed.

So what is the meaning of "is"?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Yes, you must have knowingly identified her as undercover and she must have worked undercover on foreign soil in the last 5 years for a crime to have been committed.

Where are you getting the 5 years from? The relevant statute that I've found is here. Is there another?

On a side note, it pains me to know that 50 USC § 111-113 Interference With Homing Pigeons Owned by United States has been repealed.

ETA: never mind, found definition of Covert Agent here.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Is this the statute? Seems that if she's covert, then that's enough.

BTW, doesn't "knowingly" mean that the person knew what they were doing, but not necessarily that it was a crime? I.e., it wasn't a slip of the tongue.

If I my recollection serves me, the phrase "and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States," has some gloss on it in another section or reg that have the 5 year requirement.

ETA: See RT's post above.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Gattigap
If this was the conversation, I really don't get the distinction that Rove is drawing when he says "yeah, but I didn't mention her name -- so you'll neva get me, coppas!."

So? He said that it was Plame's wife, but it matters whether or not he said that Plame's wife's name was Valerie?

I don't get it.

Because, moron, he said it was Wilson's wife, not "Plame's wife." If that lesbian feminazi had taken her husband's name like God intended, then it would be a crime, but at this point it's her fault.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Yes, you must have knowingly identified her as undercover and she must have worked undercover on foreign soil in the last 5 years for a crime to have been committed.

Can you post a quick memo that quotes all the code sections that modify Burger's quoted section to add the "identify as undercover" and "has worked undercover on foreign soil in the last 5 years" requirements? I can see the "has worked undercover on foreign soil in the last 5 years" being in the definition of "covert agent" but I'm not seeing that he would have had to say "Wilson's wife got him the job . . . she works undercover at the CIA in WMD."

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
So what is the meaning of "is"?

No, we have statutes that define what actions constitute crimes. Either the statute has been violated or it hasn't. Other than the scienter component (which I don't think we even been an issue, given the other requirements), this is a very straight forward question.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Because, moron, he said it was Wilson's wife, not "Plame's wife." If that lesbian feminazi had taken her husband's name like God intended, then it would be a crime, but at this point it's her fault.

The NYT article says she prefers to be called Valerie Wilson. I'm sure that's just the VLWC trying to make her more sympathetic to the soccer moms.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
No, we have statutes that define what actions constitute crimes. Either the statute has been violated or it hasn't. Other than the scienter component (which I don't think we even been an issue, given the other requirements), this is a very straight forward question.

If this is Rove's defense to identifying a covert CIA operative to a reporter because her husband dared to debunk Bush's "yellowcake uranium" story, then hallelujah and praise be.

Even more so if the Admin lines up behind it.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
No, we have statutes that define what actions constitute crimes. Either the statute has been violated or it hasn't. Other than the scienter component (which I don't think we even been an issue, given the other requirements), this is a very straight forward question.

Are you saying that for sure, she had not worked overseas as a covert whatever for at least 5 years prior to Rove trying to discredit Wilson's assertions about the uranium? Which, I think, were true, right?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I was aware of that -- but Spanky's post was that the peace movement made WWII "a thousand times worse." That is what I was questioning.

It wasn't a "peace movement" stopping the US from joining the war, but isolationist sentiment.

there was a strong "jews are at fault" thing going on too. Focus brings out some stuff that I've never heard of elsewhere.

And while the recent movie makes the anti-semitism seem symbolic for generic racism, the book written soon after was pretty clearly talking about raw anti-semetism.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
If this is Rove's defense to identifying a covert CIA operative to a reporter because her husband dared to debunk Bush's "yellowcake uranium" story, then hallelujah and praise be.

Even more so if the Admin lines up behind it.

I'm not saying it wasn't unseemingly (if intentionally done and the reports are true and all that).

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Are you saying that for sure, she had not worked overseas as a covert whatever for at least 5 years prior to Rove trying to discredit Wilson's assertions about the uranium? Which, I think, were true, right?

I recall reading something a couple of years ago which, though circumstantial, suggested it would have been unlikely that she was overseas in the last 5 years.