5 ms·
The reason for that is that classified information doesn't magically become unclassified when it is leaked. It keeps it's classification until it is formally d
by AYBABTME 13y ago
The reason for that is that classified information doesn't magically become unclassified when it is leaked. It keeps it's classification until it is formally declassified.
This has nothing to do with censorship, it has to do with the zeal of some to follow the rule to the letter, even when it makes no sense.
- shawndumas 13y agothat would require confirming said information was a leak.
- pyre 13y agoIf none of this information was really a leak of actual classified information, then there would be no reason to block the Guardian. Blocking The Guardian implicitly confirms that some of the information that they are released really is classified information.
- vidarh 13y agoWhy exactly do you think the NSA would confirm or deny to the US Army whether or not any of the released documents are actual classified information?
- freyr 13y agoNot really. The Guardian claims to be sitting on a pile of additional information that it hasen't yet released. So blocking the site could be a preemptive measure to deal with potentially classified information potentially being published at any given time in the future.
- gngeal 13y agothe US Army was restricting access to the UK version of The Guardian's website So you're saying that because it's classified information, trusted Americans (the soldiers) are going to be prevented access but the rest of the world will be able to read it freely. Yes, that makes perfect sense.
- AYBABTME 13y agoI'm not saying it make sense. I was serving in Afgh when the Afghan Warlog were leaked, and we were told not to read the released leaks because that would constitute a breach of our 'NDA' or whatever that document we all signed that hold us responsible for proper handling of classified documents. "Reading" enters their definition of "handling". You can't consume classified info for which you don't have the required security clearance.
- antocv 13y agoYou were for sure reminded that you where out there giving your with sweat and blood for democracy and free speech. While others, more important people, told you what to read and explained to you the difference between handling and reading and the meaning of security clearance. Big brother knows what is best for you.
- fogus 13y agoI think you're forgetting that when you enter the military you're submitting yourself to being told what to do. That's part of the contract.
- unknsldr 13y agoYou also swear to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. You further face UCMJ action for following unlawful orders. When the soldier is not qualified to know the difference between a lawful and unlawful order, they default to obeying the orders of senior commissioned officers. Thus the directive from the senior most command. The soldier has no choice but to obey a lawful order and this is meant to clarify the lawfulness. This is making the access of certain unclassified, public systems unlawful according to UCMJ. We are in a position to reject this notion and speak out against it. The soldiers are not. We have an obligation here. I do not believe our obligation is to remind soldiers of the contract.
- 13y ago
- sneak 13y agoYour accurate assertion in the first paragraph does not support your claim in the second. It's still censorship. It's just censorship with a "reasonable" explanation.
- chris_mahan 13y agoOooh, it has everything to do with censorship.
- ramblerman 13y ago"it has to do with the zeal of some to follow the rule to the letter, even when it makes no sense." Without context it sounds like that phrase describes religious fundamentalists.