4 ms·

For what its worth, I used to hold a clearance in the US nuclear navy and the story on wikipedia is what I was always told. Im not sure there is anything of val

For what its worth, I used to hold a clearance in the US nuclear navy and the story on wikipedia is what I was always told. Im not sure there is anything of value in the documents to be released, but im sure curious to find out.

Alupis 7y ago
Sure, but a great deal of people hold clearances in and outside of the US Military (over 1.5 million hold Top Secret according to Wikipedia) - doesn't mean you were privy to information that was sensitive or you didn't need to know. Not saying there's anything more to the USS Thresher itself, just commenting that a clearance doesn't automatically entitle you to all the information about everything.
- kryogen1c 7y ago
  Definitely true, but the article is about releasing unclassified documents
  - Alupis 7y ago
    > unclassified documents That part seems odd from the article. If they were not classified, seems the FOIA request would have had an easier time getting them released... or they would have been released already. The Navy generates enough paperwork that it's not reasonable to expect all unclassified documents to be released... but these seem to have been a little more closely guarded than that. They are releasing them in batches after they are reviewed too - which is usually part of a declassification process. I'd wager they are being unclassified as part of the release here.
    - vonmoltke 7y ago
      From the wording of the article > The requested documents – more than 50 years old – should be unclassified and releasable by now under federal declassification rules ... > “The plaintiff believes this document review is overly complex,” Eatinger said during the hearing. “When we filed this case, the records were in an automatic 50-year review project. We were told it would be complete in May 2019.” these are (or should be) formerly classified documents. The Navy seems to be dragging its feet with the mandatory declassification review. As Eatinger said, it is well past time that the review should have completed and de- or re-classified as appropriate.
      - kryogen1c 7y ago
        Eh. betting on incompetence over malignance is easy money. Could this be a conspiracy? Sure thing. Subs do all kinds of very secretive things, and select few subs have singular missions of international importance. More likely two or three quality assurance & design failures occured and american sailors died.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- oneepic 7y ago
  OP never implied he knew everything.
  - duxup 7y ago
    I think it is important to clarify that "have clearance" here is effectively meaningless all by itself.
    - bootycamp 7y ago
      I think it's important to clarify that you here are effectively meaningless.
    - kryogen1c 7y ago
      What a strange thing to say. You think people with clearances hanging around other people with clearances know the same amount as civilians and uncleared service members? Surely you jest.
      - duxup 7y ago
        That's simply not how security clearances work. They don't just get access to things unilaterally, nor do they share.
      - kelnos 7y ago
        Across a wide range of topics, yes, that is actually how it works. Having a particular clearance level doesn't automatically give you access to all materials classified at that level; it just allows you access to those materials if your superiors deem it necessary to give them to you. Someone with, say, Top Secret clearance, who works in a relatively small area, will have access to a small quantity of Top Secret materials. For the most part, across the wide breadth of possible materials, they will have a similar level of knowledge as civilians and uncleared service members. They'll only have an edge in their particular area.
dctoedt 7y ago
Forty years ago I was chief-engineer qualified in the nuclear navy (surface fleet - USS Enterprise); the Wikipedia account is what I remember our being told about the Thresher's loss. (I don't remember that we were told much, possibly because we were "skimmers," or as the sub sailors say, "targets.")

Alupis 7y ago

Sure, but a great deal of people hold clearances in and outside of the US Military (over 1.5 million hold Top Secret according to Wikipedia) - doesn't mean you were privy to information that was sensitive or you didn't need to know. Not saying there's anything more to the USS Thresher itself, just commenting that a clearance doesn't automatically entitle you to all the information about everything.

kryogen1c 7y ago
Definitely true, but the article is about releasing unclassified documents
- Alupis 7y ago
  > unclassified documents That part seems odd from the article. If they were not classified, seems the FOIA request would have had an easier time getting them released... or they would have been released already. The Navy generates enough paperwork that it's not reasonable to expect all unclassified documents to be released... but these seem to have been a little more closely guarded than that. They are releasing them in batches after they are reviewed too - which is usually part of a declassification process. I'd wager they are being unclassified as part of the release here.
  - vonmoltke 7y ago
    From the wording of the article > The requested documents – more than 50 years old – should be unclassified and releasable by now under federal declassification rules ... > “The plaintiff believes this document review is overly complex,” Eatinger said during the hearing. “When we filed this case, the records were in an automatic 50-year review project. We were told it would be complete in May 2019.” these are (or should be) formerly classified documents. The Navy seems to be dragging its feet with the mandatory declassification review. As Eatinger said, it is well past time that the review should have completed and de- or re-classified as appropriate.
    - kryogen1c 7y ago
      Eh. betting on incompetence over malignance is easy money. Could this be a conspiracy? Sure thing. Subs do all kinds of very secretive things, and select few subs have singular missions of international importance. More likely two or three quality assurance & design failures occured and american sailors died.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
oneepic 7y ago
OP never implied he knew everything.
- duxup 7y ago
  I think it is important to clarify that "have clearance" here is effectively meaningless all by itself.
  - bootycamp 7y ago
    I think it's important to clarify that you here are effectively meaningless.
  - kryogen1c 7y ago
    What a strange thing to say. You think people with clearances hanging around other people with clearances know the same amount as civilians and uncleared service members? Surely you jest.
    - duxup 7y ago
      That's simply not how security clearances work. They don't just get access to things unilaterally, nor do they share.
    - kelnos 7y ago
      Across a wide range of topics, yes, that is actually how it works. Having a particular clearance level doesn't automatically give you access to all materials classified at that level; it just allows you access to those materials if your superiors deem it necessary to give them to you. Someone with, say, Top Secret clearance, who works in a relatively small area, will have access to a small quantity of Top Secret materials. For the most part, across the wide breadth of possible materials, they will have a similar level of knowledge as civilians and uncleared service members. They'll only have an edge in their particular area.

dctoedt 7y ago

Forty years ago I was chief-engineer qualified in the nuclear navy (surface fleet - USS Enterprise); the Wikipedia account is what I remember our being told about the Thresher's loss. (I don't remember that we were told much, possibly because we were "skimmers," or as the sub sailors say, "targets.")