--- In [email protected], anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...] > Unless the bill defines "undercover" in an unusual way, > > the agency would be the one to consult on that matter, not the > > lawmakers. > > No, if there is a dispute, it is handled by the judiciary, not the > CIA. At least not yet. But the CIA is the one that asked for the investigation. In their eyes, at least, a crime or crimes were broken... > > IMO Rove acted in a sleazy scuzzball way by messing with classified > information and leaking it to reporters. I think he may, well > deservedly be, in deep political shit, depending on how the case > unfolds. It just seems that according the the quite focussed and > limited statute, per the available facts to date, Rove has a limited > vulnerability to prosecution. There's at least two statutes involved: the 1917 Espionage Act, which makes leaking classified info a crime, period, and the 1982 Intelligence Identities Act, which is what we've been talking about. THe full text of the latter can be found at the URL below. I don't see any definition of "United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources" in the Act itself, so unless it is defined outside the text of the Act, the definition would be common useage, i.e., whatever an intelligence agency of the USA defines as "United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources." http://foi.missouri.edu/bushinfopolicies/protection.html To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
