Well here are some news tidbits that caught my attention, but I still haven't formed any definite opinions:
Ali H. Soufan was a CIA operative working closely with Al Qaeda for years. Now he is writing a memoir, and the CIA is trying to force cuts to the book which apparently claims the CIA withheld information from the FBI which could have stopped the attack on 9/11. He also states the CIA is perhaps a bit overenthusiastic in interrogation techniques. The super-odd part of the CIA's redactions is that none of the information Soufan included is actually new. Most of it has been released during Congressional hearings and the such not. The CIA claims they only redact information which is classified, and that how the information reflects on the Agency is not a consideration.
Having never read the book (obviously) and not being a CIA agent, I don't feel I can make a firm statement as to the validity of the redactions. What the article actually got me thinking about was Free Speech v. National Security. If a CIA agent writes a tell-all book about foreign operations, does it clue others in to CIA procedures and so on? Does it harm American interests? Should final say on what is in the book fall to the CIA? Or is that a violation of free speech and more harmful to America? Thoughts?
Source: Huffington Post
Alex Crawford, a reporter for Sky News, boldly stated that it was "really insulting and very, very sexist" when people questioned her ability to be both a war correspondent and a mother. Not surprisingly, her colleague, who has three children, is never asked the same question. He's a father. Because of course, his children have a mother at home to take care of them. Crawford? Yep, she has a husband (who is a STAY-AT-HOME DAD). But we all know that doesn't count.
Obviously, I absolutely agree with Crawford and do think those questions are sexist. What the article got me thinking about is if those questions would be insulting if both mothers and fathers were asked. What sort of reaction would we have if parents with dangerous jobs were questioned (or even attacked) about their ability to juggle being a parent and being a frontline journalist/soldier/race car driver/cop/etc.? Would we still find the question inappropriate?
Source: The Guardian
So what do you guys think?
Re the Crawford bit, I also hate when newspaper articles comment on what a female politician wears, but I never see it done for males. Even women reporters do that.
ReplyDeleteI don't know the law exactly, but I would think that endangering Americans by publishing confidential data would override freedom of speech. But what do I know? I don't understand the scuffle about this though because like you said, this story has been scooped years ago.
ReplyDeleteAs for the other topic, I don't think it is anyone's damn business to question what kind of parents we are based on our jobs. Unless this child is being neglected or put in danger, people need to keep their self-righteous mouths shut. I would bargain that there are many high-octane career women (or men) out there that are better parents than some stay-at-home ones.
On the 2nd topic: So no one but childless people should be soldiers, cops, firefighters, coalminers, fishermen, etc? Because aren't they high risk jobs? That would rule out a lot of people. Not only is it offensive to mothers but fathers as well because it sends the message that dads aren't as important as moms and hey, if they die, it's no big deal. It just shows how judgmental the media is towards women.
ReplyDeleteI don't feel like judgement should be made about men and women's careers in respect to their raising children. I agree with Sandy on this one. If the children are being neglected, or otherwise uncared for, then, you can judge, but up until that time, it's really nobody's business what kind of career a mother or a father has.
ReplyDeleteRemember back when George Bush's cabinet leaked the identity of a C.I.A. operative to punish her husband for speaking up against their policies? I just don't believe national security is ever really the main issue when it comes to government censorship. I think, in the long run, we the people are always safer when we know more than we are when we know less. 9-ll attacks were ten years ago. I think we're ready for the truth.
ReplyDeleteAnd I do think people should be able to choose the careers they want, as long as they can find someone who'll hire them. But having kids has to factor in to the decision. Once you have kids, you are responsible for them. They will require sacrifice. Moms and Dads should both be ready to make them. This may or may not mean forgoing dangerous work or work that takes you away from your children. My father was career Navy and away from home for months at a time as a result. He and I both paid a price for that.
In regards to the second topic, that really just irritates me. I simply don't understand why there continues to be such a double standard. And when women contribute to it! BAH!
ReplyDeleteTotal double standard on the second one. It is such a personal decision for the people involved and not really relevant to anyon else I think.
ReplyDeleteAs for the first one…I just don't trust most things the governments says/does anyway so I'm just assuming they are trying to stop things that are unflattering.
That line between coming out with the truth and protecting national security information can be so murky. I'm sure that because the author was in a very sensitive position that could be the reason that the CIA is taking issue with what he has to say.
ReplyDeleteI have never given much thought about whether books written by CIA agents and the like are potentially harming our safety. I will admit to liking these types of books. I feel they give a different side of the story that we don't normally get and I feel more informed as a result. I tend to agree with C.B. James that we are better off knowing more than knowing less.
ReplyDeleteI read Valerie Plame's book (the CIA operative that C.B. James is referring to) titled Fair Game: My Life as a Spy, My Betrayal by the White House. I found it to be very eye-opening, thought-provoking, and an interesting peek at what life is really like for a spy. There were a lot of redactions, but curiously enough there were addendums written by other people included at the end that filled in the missing gaps.
-jehara