Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: angkor
Unless the NYT has clearance, this isn't true.

Baloney. Lack of official status does not suddenly make you immune to the law regarding classified material. I work for a defense contractor; of course, not all of our employees carry security clearances. However the gub'mint specialists who come in each year to brief our employees make it quite clear: ignorance of the law is no defense. Those without a clearance have the same obligation to protect classified data as those with one.

307 posted on 12/30/2005 8:23:38 AM PST by liberty_lvr (Those who stand for nothing fall for anything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies ]


To: liberty_lvr
Those without a clearance have the same obligation to protect classified data as those with one.

Unless you can provide a specific legal statute (e.g., from the US Code), I don't believe that's true. It's certainly never been my understanding.

And in any case it's illogical: classified information shouldn't be in the hands of people lacking clearance.

You may be referring to a company policy - and certainly a cleared contractor would have many restrictions imposed by that status - but as for the individual uncleared person, not so.

395 posted on 12/30/2005 8:39:43 AM PST by angkor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson