explain something to me

Karl Rove’s defense up until now, if I understand it correctly, is that he didn’t identify undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame-Wilson “by name,” and thereby he shouldn’t be prosecuted. Apparently, at least in his reading of the law, one has to say something to the effect of, “Valerie Plame-Willson is spy,” and not just “Ambassador Joseph Willson’s wife is a spy,” in order to be found guilty of violating the statute in question. It seems like a bit of a reach, but let’s say it’s accepted by the courts… Would it then be legal, let’s say, for an American citizen in another country to point out a CIA operative to the secret police of a hostile nation, as long, of course, as they didn’t use his or her full name? Could I, for instance, tap an Iranian government official on the arm and say, “You know that woman who’s teaching your wife’s Jazzercise class? Well, he’s a spy,” and get away with it? If so, that’s one hell of a fucking loophole.

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.


  1. mark
    Posted July 19, 2005 at 10:33 pm | Permalink

    Someone left this note and I deleted it, thinking that it was spam. Having second thoughts, I then went back and looked at it and found that the links weren’t selling anything, though… So, here it is again. Sorry about the over-enthusiastic spam filtering:

    from: Daith

  2. srah
    Posted July 19, 2005 at 11:14 pm | Permalink

    Outing the Jazzercise teacher, Austin Powers style: She’s also a MAN, baby!!!!!!!!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


BUY LOCAL... or shop at Amazon through this link Banner Initiative VG Kids name