keep in mind... this just happens to be a case that's hit the public eye... the vast majority probably don't...When Gary Berntsen sat down for dinner last year with the CIA's executive director, Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, the agency's No. 3 tried to talk him out of resigning from the National Clandestine Service. Foggo even offered him a university position as a placeholder until the CIA's new director, Porter J. Goss, could fix the broken personnel system and other issues that frustrated him, according to Berntsen.
But the Capital Grille meal quickly degenerated when Berntsen told Foggo that not only was he planning to resign but he intended to write a book about his experiences.
Foggo, according to Berntsen, stated flatly that Goss wanted no more books published by current or former CIA officials. Actually, according to a statement Berntsen filed last week in his ongoing lawsuit against the agency, Foggo's language was a little more colorful: "Mr. Foggo stated 'we will have no more books. I will redact censor the [expletive] out of your book so no one will want to read it.' "
yes, "censor" is my add... but, it does raise what i believe is the right question... what constitutes legitimate "redaction" and what constitutes outright censorship...?re·dactPronunciation: ri-'dakt
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin redactus, past participle of redigere
1 : to put in writing : FRAME
2 : to select or adapt (as by obscuring or removing sensitive information) for publication or release; broadly : EDIT
3 : to obscure or remove (text) from a document prior to publication or releasecensorFunction: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): cen·sored; cen·sor·ing /'sen(t)-s&-ri[ng], 'sen(t)s-ri[ng]/
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable
hmmm... not as different as i thought... seems like the major difference is that one sounds almost respectable and the other doesn't...
Submit To Propeller
[Permalink]
0 comments