[dabigv13]

I'm still trying to figure out what exactly the problem is.

If somebody has a security clearance can they not be in the same room as a copy of the NYT? If somebody in the room is talking about a story they read about Ukraine in the NYT do they have to cover their ears? I think obviously not. They just shouldn't pipe in and say- "all the stuff in that story is true, and furthermore.....".

If somebody posts a link to a story regarding the documents, it seems simple for anybody worried about this issue to just not discuss whatever part of the article or link they are concerned about. Most of the article I just posted was about Bakhmut with interviews with soldiers there, and some assessments by the intelligence community that were in the leaked documents (that were previously referenced in open source reports before the leaks, we had heard before for instance about western concerns about how long Bakhmut could hold out, probably from national security staffers discussing ostensibly classified information with a reporter). Seems silly to not be able to post or discuss such an article.

I interpreted BC's initial comment to mean that we shouldn't post links to the actual leaked documents. I subsequently have posted several articles that referenced things that were discussed in those leaked documents and this is the first time that has been called out as some sort of problem.

[dabigv13]

I'm still trying to figure out what exactly the problem is.

If somebody has a security clearance can they not be in the same room as a copy of the NYT? If somebody in the room is talking about a story they read about Ukraine in the NYT do they have to cover their ears? I think obviously not. They just shouldn't pipe in and say- "all the stuff in that story is true, and furthermore.....".

If somebody posts a link to a story regarding the documents, it seems simple for anybody worried about this issue to just not discuss whatever part of the article or link they are concerned about. Most of the article I just posted was about Bakhmut with interviews with soldiers there, and some assessments by the intelligence community that were in the leaked documents (that were previously referenced in open source reports before the leaks, we had heard before for instance about western concerns about how long Bakhmut could hold out, probably from national security staffers discussing ostensibly classified information with a reporter). Seems silly to not be able to post or discuss such an article.

I interpreted BC's initial comment to mean that we shouldn't post links to the actual leaked documents. I subsequently have posted several articles that referenced things that were discussed in those leaked documents and this is the first time that has been called out as some sort of problem.