 |
| David Petraeus |
Upon reading an article from The New York Times, I learned that the C.I.A. has violated his personal privacy by going through personal information such as emails and online photographs in an action called 'cyber-stalking'. According to Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union,“This is a textbook example of the blurring of lines between the private and the public.” I agree with Romero: what began as a personal matter between two women and one married man, has become a high-trafficked issue appropriate for the tabloids, and certainly not one to be performed by such a high ranking official. Constitutionly, Petraeus has the right to his own privacy and intimacy. But, the fact that he is who he is in the Central Intelligence Agency and the women who has he has had an affair with, Paula Broadwell, also had high power with her security clearance as his biographer, they are in fact putting themselves out in the open in the public.
I find this issue between the C.I.A. and the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) to be fascinating. To what extent do you think that government officials should be subject to the fine line of public and private accounts? How has this been viewed and used in the past?
In my opinion, when you accept a position of such prominence as director of the CIA, you accept that the boundaries between your personal and professional lives are going to be blurred. America has the right to know when high-powered wheels in government organizations commit errors of judgement. In order to have government by the people, the people need to be well-informed. If the information to be released had had military ramifications, they could claim need-to-know based on the potential fallout should data fall into unfriendly hands. Since it doesn't, Petraeus is fair game. When you hold an important office, you are stepping into the media's line of fire, and have to expect they will take whatever potshots they can.
ReplyDeleteSarah,
ReplyDeleteNice job blogging this term! I like this post a great deal -- the currency of the event, the links your provide,a nd the tension between public and private you observe. It'd be nice to quote the articles you link to and to analyze that language. I'd also like to see you extend this discussion in relation to our perilous times discussion of the Bill of Rights. Still, overall, good work!