One person's "name calling", is another person's detailing of the the absurd. Just saying.
And, you compound your absurdity by not extending your argument to its logical conclusion. If you believe the FBI is in violation of US code for "corresponding" with pirates, then if you are going to be intellectually honest, you must also believe that any US Navy personnel who correspond with the same pirates would be equally culpable.
And no, that not a straw man argument, that's just a hypothetical extension of your posited theory.
Law enforcement agents negotiating the surrender of criminals, or a peaceful release of illegally detained citizens, are not after the fact criminal accomplices. But, that's EXACTLY the argument you're making. I'm not sure what else to call it, other than "facially absurd". I'm sorry that you think that's "name calling".
I cede the field. I still don’t think the FBI should be negotiating with pirates, and I am more than a little concerned about how much operational control of a Navy mission they may have had. Clearly the USC shouldn’t be applied to agent of the government acting in official capacity, however I would be curious as to where that is defined.
They just leave a trail of dead bodies -- the families and friends of others. Like Chief Moose during the DC Sniper era -- the wrong men in the wrong place at the wrong time ends up killing people. Yet they still can claim that they were fully professional and fully legal.
Get out of the way! Let the right men in. That's duty. It's also law too.
There's a civil and administrative culpability at some point.