My interpretation of the clause "as it related to U. S. security" is that the restriction only applies to those details that are actually relevant to US security. For example, names of informants, encryption protocols, capabilities of classified weapons, etc.
Battle stories not involving any of that, would NOT be covered.
“Battle stories not involving any of that, would NOT be covered.”
Yes, I am aware of that. The point of my post was to remind some to be diligent in what they post. I was hoping that they would take the criticism positively but unfortunately they took everything personally and attacked me.
Maybe I could have been a bit more diplomatic. ;-)