No, you didn't answer the best you could. All you had to say was, "I would keep my mouth shut", or "I would spill my guts", or "It would be really tough and I don't know what I would do", but you didn't. You didn't answer at all, you merely threw the ball in my court and hoped I wouldn't notice.
It's an impossible scenario and I tried to show that such dilemma would be available to people who are not dual nationals.
It's not an impossible scenario, it's merely a hypothetical question, and I already know that you don't need dual citizenship to have divided loyalties.
If you are attempting to question my specific loyalty to the US, that is not your place: even if I had not made my feeling about the US very clear over many years on this site.
I was attempting to use a real-life example to prove my larger point, not to single you out in particular and give you a "loyalty" test. If you'd have just answered the question, it would never have gotten to this point. But anyway, I won't bring it up any more.
I would rather ask you another question, since someone mentioned you're a lawyer. If the US Army applies its "no top security clearance for dual citizens" rule equally across all nationalities, does this Mr. Pine have a discrimination case? And do you know what the outcome was of the guy who sued the CIA for ruining his career by taking away his security clearance? The author of the article conveniently neglected to mention the status of the case.
One could make an argument that since the status of dual citizenship is permitted, it would be illegal for the Government to discriminate. But then national security is allowed certain prerogatives. The courts keep busy because anything can be argued.
And because they are kept busy, unless that CIA case was settled, its probably pending.
I believe the CIA entered into settlement negotiations. Since this hasn’t been in the news for a couple of years I’d guess they were successful. If you review some of the articles on the Ciralsky case (do a search, you'll find plenty) you will find that the real issue was not dual-citizenship, but that he was an observant Jew. Among the criticisms noted in his file, buying Israeli bonds, donations to the United Jewish Appeal, attending an Orthodox synagogue having a “rich Jewish” daddy and "rich Jewish friends", wearing a yarmulke to work, a minor in college in Judaic studies, travel to Israel, and an apparently bogus polygraph test (his case has often been cited in reference to the unreliability of polygraphs). In general, the information used to strip him of his clearance was, according to George Tenet, “"insensitive, unprofessional and highly inappropriate,".
Ironically, the clearance he was denied was necessitated by a transfer to the Clinton White House.