~Alan Burnside, lawyer in Nothing but the Truth
Given my own interest in writing and politics, I was drawn to Nothing but the Truth, especially after recently watching State of Play. Both explore what it looks like to be a journalist with integrity given the complexities of national security and relational loyalty. After watching Nothing but the Truth this morning, I'm convinced that it, too, is a compelling film and worth some reflection.
Besides revealing again that Matt Dillon--even if he is a thoughtful person--is really good at playing an asshole on the screen (think back to Crash), the movie parallels the life of two women: journalist Rachel Armstrong (Kate Beckinsdale) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operative Erica Van Doren (Vera Farmiga).
Armstrong becomes a martyr of sorts by writing a story--with an unidentified source--exposing Van Doren (whose child goes to the same school as Armstrong) as a CIA agent who had recently been in Venezuela and concluded that the South American nation was not involved in an a recent assassination attempt. Things began to go fall apart when Van Doren's husband--a former Ambassador--expressed his public disgust with the Administration's decision to attack Venezuela. Given the "national security" implications, Armstrong ended up being jailed for her refusal to reveal a source, losing her marriage and damaging her relationship with her young son in the process. Likewise, Van Doren also lost her marriage and was even killed for her supposed political conclusions that contradicted the president's decision.
The story is loosely but clearly based on events that transpired during the (George W.) Bush Administration. In 2003, Robert Novak--long-time Chicago Sun Times columnist--revealed Valerie Plame (wife of diplomat Joseph Wilson) as a CIA operative. The husband-wife team concluded that Iraq had not purchased uranium yellowcake from Niger. They ran into trouble when Wilson became more vocal and public in his criticism of the president's decisions to invade Iraq, given the ambiguity of intelligence at the time. (To be fair, other intelligence concluded the opposite). Though it was Novak who penned the article in question about Plame, it was Judith Miller--Washington correspondent for the New York Times who winded up briefly in jail. It is unclear to me the relationship between Miller's source and information and Novak's article. Miller was eventually released from jail after 85 days when "Scooter" Libby--Chief of Staff to Vice President Dick Cheney--gave her permission to reveal him as the source in question. Libby was then convicted of four crimes and sentenced to thirty months of prison, which Bush "commuted," even as he chose not to pardon him. Even so, there seems to be some agreement that Deputy Secretary of State (2001-2005) Richard Armitage may have been the biggest beneficiary of the Libby fall, as hindsight suggests he may have been more of a primary leak than Libby.
The "Hollywood version" was much different than the actual events (and focused as much on sex and relationship as it did on politics), but like most good fiction, the story was believable, even to the point that I'm sure comparable circumstances have probably occurred more than once. It is not uncommon for familial and professional commitments to come into conflict. In the movie, Armstrong and Van Doren (representing Miller and Plame in real life) both went to bed at night keeping professional secrets--one as a journalist, the other as a CIA agent--from their spouses. Not quite Mr. and Mrs. Smith, but this trend has to do something to the trust of the many relationships in this country in which secrecy is the norm.
Some might suggest that both Armstrong and Van Doren held on to their respective professional integrity in the movie--Armstrong refusing to reveal her source, Van Doren refusing to take the blame for the leak--but with grave consequences. I have no desire to judge who was right or wrong, good or evil, but I would like to suggest that there is a problem with the extent that people have to make those decisions between family and job and also that choosing the job (as both women did) is viewed as the right decision. In what kind of sick society is that choice somehow "honorable"? I think we can do better. The underwriting is that of fragmentation--compartmentalization is the psychological word--that we can can be one person at work and another at home and somehow completely keep them separate.
Even if that were possible (it's not, of course), it would still be tragic. Much more tragic, even, than revealing the identity of a CIA agent and "jeopardizing national security."
And so may we find ways to encourage a more seamless relationship between family and professional commitments, and--where that is impossible--may we have the courage and correct priorities to choose family over professionalism.
2 comments:
The interesting thing about the Plame "outing" trial and all the money wasted at tax payer expense, was they knew all along it was Armitage who "outed" her.
Armitage says he didn't come forward because "the special counsel, once he was appointed, asked me not to discuss this and I honored his request."
The special prosecuter knew who did it so the purpose of the trial was to put Rove and Libby on the stand for hours hoping to catch them in a misstatement which they were finally successful at doing.
Thanks Mom, that was actually something I had overlooked and seems to be quite factually accurate.
Post a Comment