this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2024
945 points (99.5% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
6591 readers
576 users here now
A community for your defence shitposting needs
Rules
1. Be nice
Do not make personal attacks against each other, call for violence against anyone, or intentionally antagonize people in the comment sections.
2. Explain incorrect defense articles and takes
If you want to post a non-credible take, it must be from a "credible" source (news article, politician, or military leader) and must have a comment laying out exactly why it's non-credible. Low-hanging fruit such as random Twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Matrix chat.
3. Content must be relevant
Posts must be about military hardware or international security/defense. This is not the page to fawn over Youtube personalities, simp over political leaders, or discuss other areas of international policy.
4. No racism / hatespeech
No slurs. No advocating for the killing of people or insulting them based on physical, religious, or ideological traits.
5. No politics
We don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Stalinist, Baathist, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door. This applies to comments as well.
6. No seriousposting
We don't want your uncut war footage, fundraisers, credible news articles, or other such things. The world is already serious enough as it is.
7. No classified material
Classified ‘western’ information is off limits regardless of how "open source" and "easy to find" it is.
8. Source artwork
If you use somebody's art in your post or as your post, the OP must provide a direct link to the art's source in the comment section, or a good reason why this was not possible (such as the artist deleting their account). The source should be a place that the artist themselves uploaded the art. A booru is not a source. A watermark is not a source.
9. No low-effort posts
No egregiously low effort posts. E.g. screenshots, recent reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Matrix chat instead.
10. Don't get us banned
No brigading or harassing other communities. Do not post memes with a "haha people that I hate died… haha" punchline or violating the sh.itjust.works rules (below). This includes content illegal in Canada.
11. No misinformation
NCD exists to make fun of misinformation, not to spread it. Make outlandish claims, but if your take doesn’t show signs of satire or exaggeration it will be removed. Misleading content may result in a ban. Regardless of source, don’t post obvious propaganda or fake news. Double-check facts and don't be an idiot.
Join our Matrix chatroom
Other communities you may be interested in
Banner made by u/Fertility18
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Knowingly owning or using classified info without proper clearance is, in fact, a crime.
That’s a large part of what Trump’s classified document raid was for. Former presidents usually have a lot of classified stuff to turn over after leaving office. It’s standard practice, (and perfectly legal) to simply send it back (via the proper channels) as soon as you discover you have it. But if you conceal it and refuse to return it (like Trump did) then that’ll land you in some hot water.
It's my understanding that you're only required to protect the information if you've actually agreed to do so, which is obviously a retirement for being given access. Elected officials are a weird area where they have a much easier time getting clearance, but they've still made agreements to protect the information.
Trump was authorized to handle classified information in the first place, which is why his mishandling was a problem. I haven't read the actual law, but I'm pretty sure ordinary people who happen across classified information have no duty at all in any direction. If you can show me an example of a random person getting in trouble for sharing classified information that they didn't steal or get others to steal, well, let me know.
So, hypothetically, you find a source who leaks data to you, then claim you were sent it anonymously, then all good, you're not the one who leaked it and the source is unknown. I slightly doubt that it works that way, but I don't have specific cases to prove it
No case exists that can't exist
Publishing classified info can get you espionage charges, just ask Julian Assange.
AFAIK it's part of being given some clearance. In most Western countries it's fine to republish already leaked material as a private citizen. How would the media do it otherwise?
What hot water has it landed Trump in?
None, because Trump deployed an appropriately-speced Cannon as a countermeasure.
Edit: Cannon is extremely effective countermeasure, wow.
No, his problem is that he was supposed to have access at some point wherein you agree to secure documents in certain ways. If you're given it or find it you do not have that duty. Defense secrets are much more protected but still not that much of you aren't supposed to have access.