this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2024
948 points (99.5% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

6368 readers
1172 users here now

A community for your defence shitposting needs

Rules

1. Be niceDo 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. Random twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Low Hanging Fruit thread.

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 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. These include Social media screenshots with a title punchline / no punchline, recent (after the start of the Ukraine War) reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Low effort thread 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.


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
[–] [email protected] 96 points 1 month ago (21 children)

From what I’ve seen it’s usually that Gaijin have something wrong about the vehicle and so people leak actual classified information because they want it to be corrected.

MilSim people can be an odd bunch sometimes

[–] [email protected] 59 points 1 month ago (18 children)

And the devs are like "Are you fucking dumb? We won't use classified info in our game."

[–] [email protected] 35 points 1 month ago (16 children)

Well if it’s something like a turn radius, they can always claim that they just guessed right.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Are they under any obligation to protect the classified information if they're not the ones who leaked it?

[–] [email protected] 52 points 1 month ago (4 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago

No case exists that can't exist

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Publishing classified info can get you espionage charges, just ask Julian Assange.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

What hot water has it landed Trump in?

[–] [email protected] 33 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

None, because Trump deployed an appropriately-speced Cannon as a countermeasure.

Edit: Cannon is extremely effective countermeasure, wow.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

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?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago (1 children)

No. You can publish it if you like. This is how journalists work. You cannot get someone to commit a crime towards getting classified documents (Assange tried to teach people to hack shit and pled guilty to this). But accepting them and publishing them is fine and good.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That is not what Assange plead guilty to whatsoever.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

“He pleaded guilty to conspiring to unlawfully obtain and disseminate classified information relating to the national defense of the United States” - https://apnews.com/article/assange-wikileaks-plea-deal-39b72e6be6a775dae9b008728a46e595

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

yea, not to teaching people how to hack...

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

obtaining and disseminating classified information is called investigative journalism...

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

While they are, as stated by another commenter, I wonder if those documents count as working in intelligence and they have some External Security Colonel working on "moderation"

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)