Season 2 Why could Syd not tell Francie the truth?

Something still bothers me about the fall of SD-6.

Why did Syd still have to lie to Francie about her real job?

SD-6 and the Alliance were gone, no more undercover work, but she didn't tell her the truth about working for the CIA.
 
There are security reasons for not advertising your affiliation with the CIA, even if you are not undercover. I know that in the past, many people who worked for the CIA were designated as "state department." Besides, even though Sydney wasn't undercover, she was still going out on missions on a regular basis and had reasons to conceal her identity on those missions. Why advertise her status and bring the extra attention?
✌️
 
verdantheart said:
There are security reasons for not advertising your affiliation with the CIA, even if you are not undercover. I know that in the past, many people who worked for the CIA were designated as "state department." Besides, even though Sydney wasn't undercover, she was still going out on missions on a regular basis and had reasons to conceal her identity on those missions. Why advertise her status and bring the extra attention?
✌️
[post="1031845"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

That's thorough! ✌️

Plus, consider that Sydney still had to go after Sloane and Sloane threatened that he'd kill her if she got in his way... it was just not safe to involve anyone, like Francie, in any way, in her CIA life, even just telling her the truth.
 
Miroslav_Kozlova said:
dixon told the truth to HIS wife :\
[post="1103578"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​
Only after he discovered that he had been working for all those years at SD-6 under false pretenses--at the time he told her the truth he was not working for any intelligence agency at all. When he was working for SD-6, he did not tell her what he was doing. When he hired on with the CIA, Diane already knew his intelligence background. Meanwhile, Jack has expressed regret over his own candor with his wife.

I'm not sure quite what you're getting at. Could you go into more detail?
 
Since SD-6 blew up in Dixon's face and he told Diane about that, she knew about his involvement in intelligence. So when he joined the CIA, there's no need for--or even a possible risk in--secrecy. By this I mean that Dixon came under such stress because of his discovery that he had been betrayed, that he could not join the CIA without the knowledge of his wife without the risk of emotional stress from his marriage (a security risk). And if Diane had discovered that Dixon had gone against her wishes without her knowledge (she didn't want him to join the CIA after all), she could inadvertently cause a security risk. Certainly her awareness of his past would heighten any possible suspicions she might have regarding his actions or excuses. Diane, once she knows about Dixon, is "in the game."

Francie, however, is not "in the game." She doesn't know about Sydney's second life. Who knows, maybe Sloane broke some sort of etiquette by involving her--after all, no one involved Emily until she became a security risk and Sloane was forced to drag her into his schemes. (What is it, spies don't involve noncombatants, terrorists/criminals do?) And, BTW, when Sydney finally told "Francie" her secret, it was a mistake, wasn't it? ;)
 
i think she could have, but there still would have been risks and probably the bigger issue was just that she had been lying to francie for years and syd knew she wouldnt react well when she told her the truth.
 
Something still bothers me about the fall of SD-6.

Why did Syd still have to lie to Francie about her real job?

SD-6 and the Alliance were gone, no more undercover work, but she didn't tell her the truth about working for the CIA.


I know, I wonder that too!

Of course she needed to protect Francie and all - but it was killing Sydney to lie to Francie about her job, and the end of SD-6 meant that she could tell her the truth without risking Francie being killed.
 
Back
Top