USS Liberty

[Roguish Lawyer]

I'm in the middle of Body of Secrets, a book about the history of the NSA. I was terribly disturbed by the chapter on the Liberty incident, and did some checking. I think the following article is of interest and wonder if anyone has anything to add. I note that the article does not address the issue of Liberty's top speed being quite low . . .

Copyright 2001 New Republic, Inc.
The New Republic

July 23, 2001

SECTION: Pg. 20

LENGTH: 2890 words

HEADLINE: Unfriendly Fire;
Why did Israeli troops attack the USS Liberty?

BYLINE: By Michael Oren

BODY:
Michael Oren is a senior fellow at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem. His book on the 1967 Six Day War will be published by Oxford University Press in 2002.

In 1967, at the height of the Six Day War, Israeli jets strafed and firebombed a seemingly hostile ship near the Sinai coast. Israeli torpedo boats quickly converged to finish the job, then abruptly ceased fire and offered assistance to the battered crew. Israel had attacked the USS Liberty. In all, 34 Americans died, and 171 were injured. Israeli leaders apologized promptly and profusely, explaining that they had mistaken the Liberty for an enemy vessel--an explanation that subsequent investigations in both the United States and Israel upheld. Israel compensated the injured sailors and the families of those killed. And that's where the story should have ended. After all, accidental attacks, though tragic, are common in war. In 1967 alone, "friendly fire" killed 5,373 Americans fighting in Vietnam.

But the controversy over the Liberty attack has endured, generating conspiracy theories, ethnic defamation, and charges of mass homicide. And, although a series of recently declassified documents seem to exonerate the Israelis once and for all, a new book, Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency, has resurrected the canard by setting forth what is arguably the most audacious theory of all: that the Israelis deliberately attacked the Liberty to cover up a massacre of Egyptian prisoners of war. Written by James Bamford, a former ABC News producer, and published by Doubleday, the book has enjoyed a largely respectful, and frequently credulous, reception in the American press. Yet Body of Secrets has no more basis in fact than its predecessors. Indeed, it may be the shoddiest screed of all.

The Liberty's fateful voyage began on June 2, 1967, when it set sail from Spain for the Middle East. Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser had just ousted U.N. peacekeepers from the Sinai, blockaded Israeli shipping through the Tiran Straits, and prepared the Arab world for a war of Israel's destruction. A wary White House instructed the Sixth Fleet to stay "outside an arc whose radius is 240 miles from $(the Egyptian city of $) Port Said." But, according to communications recently released by the National Archives, the Liberty's handlers in the National Security Agency ignored the order and directed the ship to a point just outside Egypt's territorial waters, a mere 12.5 miles, where it could eavesdrop on Egyptian officers and their Soviet advisers. Five subsequent cables from the Navy's European headquarters warned the Liberty to pull back to at least 100 miles, but the Navy's overly sophisticated radio system diverted them to the Philippines, and none reached the ship in time.

Approaching the battle area at dawn, the Liberty's skipper, Commander William L. McGonagle, requested a destroyer escort, only to be reminded by the commander of the Sixth Fleet that the "Liberty is a clearly marked United States ship in international waters ... and not a reasonable subject for attack by any nation." Israel, meanwhile, requested that the United States provide a naval liaison to facilitate its communication with the Navy. Israeli Ambassador Avraham Harman had warned the White House that "if war breaks out, we would have no telephone number to call, no code for plane recognition, and no way to get in touch with the U.S. Sixth Fleet." The United States never approved the liaison, nor did it inform Israel of the Liberty's arrival in the area.

Although it arrived too late to fulfill its original mission--most of Sinai had already fallen to Israel, so there were no Egyptian troops there to spy on--the Liberty nevertheless began patrolling between Port Said and Gaza, in a lane rarely used by commercial freighters and declared by Egypt as off-limits to neutral shipping. On June 8, just before six o'clock in the morning, an Israeli pilot reported finding a naval craft ("gray, bulky, with its bridge amidships") 70 miles west of Gaza. Though he did not report seeing a flag, he made out the hull marking "GTR-5," which was enough for Israeli commanders to identify the ship as the USS Liberty and to mark it as a neutral vessel on their control board. But at eleven o'clock in the morning, the watch at Israeli naval headquarters changed. The new officers, following procedures for removing old information and assuming the Liberty had sailed away, cleaned the board. For Israeli forces, the Liberty had ceased to exist.

It would prove a key error. Less than a half-hour later, Israeli soldiers in the Sinai coastal town of El Arish heard a violent explosion. The cause was probably a detonation in an ammunition dump, but when the Israelis saw a ship off the coast, they assumed it was bombarding them, prompting the Israeli navy to dispatch three torpedo boats. The boats' commanders had standing orders to fire on any vessel going faster than 20 knots--a speed then attainable only by warships--and, miscalculating their target's speed as 30 knots, they prepared to attack.

At that point, the Liberty turned toward Egypt. Worried they would lose their prey, Israeli naval commanders called in the air force. Two Mirages quickly swooped in. Returning from a bombing run, they were armed only with 30millimeter cannons and air-to-air missiles--hardly ideal for attacking a boat. But, failing to see either flags or markings on the ship, they strafed it. Minutes later came a second group of planes, equally ill-suited for a naval engagement: They carried napalm, a weapon used against land targets. But they dropped their canisters anyway, and one set fire to the deck, enshrouding the ship in smoke.

It was at this junction that one Israeli pilot finally recognized Latin, not Arabic, letters on the hull, prompting Israeli air controllers to call off the action immediately. But, thanks to a breakdown in communications--again, a common occurrence in the heat of battle--the order never reached the navy. Israeli torpedo boats caught up with the Liberty just as one of the American sailors on board, heedless of McGonagle's order not to fire on the approaching craft, opened up with a deck gun. The Israeli captain consulted his intelligence manual, concluded that the ship shooting at him was the Egyptian naval freighter El Quseir, and fired back torpedoes. Just one hit, but it killed 25 men. The torpedo boats then closed in and circled the ship, strafing it with machine-gun fire, until the captain of one boat saw "GTR-5" on the hull. He immediately halted fire, extended help to the Liberty, and called for rescue helicopters.

For many years following the attack, these details remained unknown--hidden in classified U.S. documents. And, in their absence, conspiracy theories flourished. The most damning made its debut in 1979, when Jim Ennes Jr., a former officer from the Liberty, published a book, Assault on the Liberty, arguing that the Israelis knew precisely who and what they were attacking. The Liberty's hull was distinctly marked, Ennes wrote, and a large American flag flew from its mast; yet Israeli ships and planes fired anyway. The motive? Israel, Ennes said, wanted to hide its impending conquest of Syria's Golan Heights, an invasion Washington opposed. The fact that the Israelis offered to assist the ship when they could easily have sunk it, or were unlikely to risk conflict with their most important ally, did not daunt Ennes.

Ennes's theory found its way into Donald Neff's Warriors for Jerusalem (a pseudo-history of the Six Day War) and Stephen Green's sensationalist Taking
Sides: America's Secret Relations with a Militant Israel. Rowland Evans and Robert Novak took up the charge in their syndicated political column, as did a 1987 special on ABC's "20/20." Joining the cavalcade was Bamford, whose 1982 book The Puzzle Palace denounced Israel for masking its Golan aggression with "a violent act of terrorism" against the Liberty. Former American officials, such as Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Thomas Moorer and U.N. Ambassador George Ball, have endorsed Ennes's theory. By 1995 an article in The International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence could claim that "all serious scholarship on the subject accepts Israel's assault as having been perpetrated quite deliberately." (Ironically, only Arab authors believed the attack was accidental, insisting that the Liberty had actually been spying for Israel.)

Then, in 1997, American and Israeli archives, observing the 30-year declassification rule, began releasing top-secret documents relevant to the case. On the U.S. side, these included the minutes of the Naval Board of Inquiry; communications between the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the White House, and the Sixth Fleet; and internal CIA and National Security Agency (NSA) memoranda. Jerusalem made available the findings of three military investigations and a wealth of relevant diplomatic correspondence. Together, the new sources enabled researchers to reconstruct the precise sequence of events as described above. They also provided one other crucial piece of
evidence: Diplomatic cables showed that Israel had informed Washington of its intention to attack Syria and that Washington had not objected--which eliminated Israel's supposed motive for the crime.

So why are we still talking about the Liberty? Because Bamford, in his book, has discovered a new motive for Israel's alleged conspiracy. The day of the attack, he says, Israeli soldiers slaughtered 1,000 Egyptian civilians and prisoners of war near El Arish because they had become "nuisances" to their captors. The Liberty, Bamford goes on to explain, intercepted messages about the murders--and the Israelis feared word of their deeds might leak out. And so, Bamford concludes, they dispatched their armed forces with orders to kill. "$(T$)he Israelis had massacred civilians and prisoners in the desert," he writes, "and now they were prepared to ensure that no American survived the sinking of the Liberty."

There are a lot of reasons to question Bamford's credibility, starting with his rather curious reading of Middle Eastern history. For example, Bamford says Israel initiated hostilities against Syria and Jordan, when it happened the other way around. There's also the fact that he cites not one shred of evidence to prove that the Liberty ever intercepted a message about the alleged massacre. And then there's the question of whether such a massacre occurred at all. Israel captured more than 10,000 Egyptians in the Six Day War, but there are no known records--Israeli, American, Egyptian, or U.N.--of the Israelis mistreating them, let alone shooting them. Egypt has ruled the Sinai for over 20 years, yet it has never uncovered any mass grave. While there were certainly isolated incidents of Israeli abuses, there's simply no reason to believe the massacre of 1,000 Egyptians ever took place. Indeed, Bamford's evidence on this point, which consists of a few testimonials, falls apart under even light scrutiny.

Consider, first, the statement of Gabi Bron, who today covers the Knesset for Yediot Aharonot, Israel's largest daily. In the book, Bamford says Bron witnessed a massacre of 150 Egyptian prisoners at El Arish, citing a press clipping in which Bron is quoted as follows: "The Egyptian prisoners of war were ordered to dig pits and then army police shot them to death." But the Bron statement refers not to a mass killing of Egyptians but to an isolated
incident: the execution of five Palestinian guerrillas who had posed as Egyptian soldiers after killing Israelis. Bamford would have learned this if, instead of relying on a clip, he had actually spoken to Bron, who is easily reachable. "The one hundred and fifty POWs were not shot, and there were no mass murders," Bron told me when I called. "In fact, we helped prisoners, gave them water, and in most cases just sent them in the direction of the $(Suez$) Canal."

As further corroborating evidence, Bamford cites a statement by Aryeh Yitzhaki, a former historian of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). In the statement--which Bamford also clipped from the press--Yitzhaki talks of compiling a report, which the army later suppressed, on mass killings. "Defense Minister Moshe Dayan and Chief of Staff $(Yitzhak$) Rabin and the generals knew about these things," Yitzhaki is quoted as saying. "No one bothered to denounce them." But, once again, the source himself contradicts Bamford's interpretation. "In no case did Israel initiate massacres," Yitzhaki wrote me. "On the contrary, it did everything it could to prevent them." Yitzhaki admits that hundreds of Palestinian commandos were killed around El Arish. But that was in combat, he says, after they ambushed the IDF supply columns. Moreover, that battle took place on the night of June 9, more than a day after the attack on the Liberty.

Bamford does cite an anonymous Egyptian who confirms the massacre. But, being anonymous, the source is impossible to verify. In addition, Bamford tries to prove guilt by association--or, at least, proximity--by noting that Israeli troops near El Arish were commanded by Ariel Sharon, the man "indirectly responsible" for the 1982 massacres in Lebanon. But Sharon's divisions were in Nakhle, more than 40 miles from El Arish; the coastal area was under the command of Israel Tal, a man not known for right-wing views.

Finally, Bamford relies on the recollections of Marvin E. Nowicki. Today, Nowicki is a retired political scientist from Southern Illinois University. In 1967 he was a chief petty officer aboard an NSA aircraft spying on Israel. Fluent in Hebrew and Russian, Nowicki was listening to Israeli transmissions on the afternoon of June 8 when another translator mentioned hearing something about an "American flag." The voice emanated from a surface vessel, which Nowicki later deduced was one of the torpedo boats.

Bamford seizes on that as grounds for indictment: "If the Israelis did see a flag, then the attack was cold-blooded murder--like the hundreds of earlier murders committed that day at El Arish." Cunningly, he inserts Nowicki's recollections immediately before his description of the torpedo attack, creating the impression that the Israelis first saw the flag, then fired. Further spliced into Nowicki's account are bloodthirsty quotes from Israeli pilots, as if Bamford were in possession of the spy plane's tapes. But the quotes were snipped, out of context, from a transcript of IDF communications made available to a 1987 Thames Television special on the Liberty. That very same transcript proved that the pilots went to great lengths to identify the ship and took considerable risks to rescue its survivors, whom they assumed were Egyptian.

Nowicki had given Bamford his written testimony in the misguided belief that the author planned to extol the NSA's legacy. That document, provided to me by Judge A. Jay Cristol, a former naval aviator and author of a forthcoming book on the Liberty, unequivocally states: "Our intercepts showed the attack to be an accident on the part of the Israelis." Nowicki explains that the torpedo boats reported sighting the flag after the action had begun and stopped firing immediately. He later reiterated this conviction in a letter to The Wall Street Journal, affirming that "the aircraft and MTBs $(Motor Torpedo Boats$) prosecuted the Liberty until their operators had an opportunity to get close-in and see the flag, hence the references to the flag."

Having laid out his theory of the attack, Bamford moves on to the alleged cover-up. Following the assault on the Liberty, he writes, American Jewish organizations conspired with the Johnson administration to quash any investigation of Israel. "With an election coming up, no one in the weak-kneed House and Senate wanted to offend powerful pro-Israel groups and lose their fat campaign contributions." No evidence whatsoever is presented to support this slur, which belies Bamford's contention that "critics $(of
Israel$) are regularly silenced by outrageous charges of anti-Semitism."

One would hardly expect such shoddy work to garner serious attention. But it has. Writing in The New York Times on April 23 ("book says israel intended 1967 attack on u.s. ship"), James Risen relayed Bamford's claims intact, without any attempt to solicit a countervailing view. In The Wall Street Journal, Timothy Naftali lauded Body of Secrets as an "authoritative and engaging book." National Public Radio invited Bamford on the syndicated talk show "Fresh Air," where he accused Israel of committing "massive war crimes" against Egyptian soldiers and civilians. The interviewer, Neal Conan, never challenged him. Indeed, only one critique to date--Joseph Finder's in The New York Times Book Review--dared to question Bamford's sources or the logic of Israel "perpetrating one massacre in order to cover up another."

In his book, Bamford accuses Israel of fomenting "lies about who started the $(1967 $) war, lies to the American President, lies to the U.N. Security Council, lies to the press, lies to the public." But Bamford is the one peddling untruths. And it's time the American press called him on it.

[fish78]

What was the Liberty really doing? This comes up from time to time. There are several theories on the what, why and why not of the incident...there is a former SF personnel who used to read this board that has a very interesting story of how he and some Teammates spent those 6 days...its his story and I will not relay what little he has shared with me...

My thought is that McNamara and Johnson were deathly afraid of getting into a Nuclear War with Russia, and did not want to bring attention to what the Liberty was really doing where it was and why.

I know what I have posted is sketchy and incomplete, but some of the information I have, I am not allowed to repeat, until I get that permission I can only say what I have.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Interesting. Thanks, Fish.

Here is a longer treatment by Oren:

http://www.shalem.org.il/azure/9-Oren.htm

[Hoepoe]

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/315934.html

U.S. agency confirms sinking of USS Liberty was accident
By Nathan Guttman, Haaretz Correspondent

WASHINGTON - New documents released this week by
America's National Security Agency support
Israel's version of a long-festering controversy
between the two countries: Israel's sinking of an
American spy ship, the USS Liberty, off the coast
of Gaza during the 1967 Six-Day War.


Israel has always said it had no
idea the ship was American, but
conspiracy theorists and
anti-Israel propagandists still
claim Israel sank the ship in
the full knowledge that it was
American.

The documents, originally
defined as top secret, were

made public by Florida Judge Jay Cristol, who
has been investigating the Liberty incident for
years and published a book on the subject last
year. On Monday, the NSA gave him a transcript
of conversations held by two Israeli Air Force
helicopter pilots who were hovering over the
Liberty as it was sinking, and these tapes
confirm Israel's claim that the sinking of the
ship, which killed 34 American servicemen and
wounded 171, was a tragic error.

After the Liberty was bombed by both the Israel
Air Force and the Israel Navy, the two
helicopter pilots were summoned from their base
to assess the damage and evaluate the
possibility of rescuing the surviving crew
members. An American spy plane, which had been
sent to the area as soon as the NSA learned of
the attack, recorded their conversations, which
took place between 2:30 and 3:37 P.M. on June
8, the third day of the war.

The spy plane also recorded the orders radioed
to the pilots by their supervisor at Hatzor
Base, which instructed them to search for
Egyptian survivors from the "Egyptian warship"
that had just been bombed - thus supporting
Israel's claim that it had believed the ship
was Egyptian when it ordered it attacked. "Pay
attention. The ship is now identified as
Egyptian," the pilots were told.

Nine minutes later, Hatzor informed the pilots
that it was not an Egyptian warship, but an
Egyptian cargo ship. Only at 3:07 were the
pilots first informed that the ship might not
have been Egyptian at all: Hatzor told them
that if they found Arabic-speaking survivors,
they should be taken to El-Arish, but if they
found English-speaking survivors, they should
be taken to Lod. "Clarify by the first man that
you bring up, what nationality he is, and
report to me immediately," the supervisor
instructed, according to the transcript. "It's
important to know."

Then, at 3:12, one of the pilots informed Hatzor
that he saw an American flag flying over the
damaged ship. He was asked to investigate and
determine whether it was really an American
ship.

This is not the first time such transcripts have
been made public: Israel gave its own
recordings of the pilots' conversations to the
British television station Thames in 1987. But
conspiracy theorists charged that Israel had
doctored the tapes before handing them over to
the station in order to hide the fact that it
sank the Liberty intentionally. No such
imputation can be made about these new
transcripts, as they were never in Israeli
hands.

Israel has always said it attacked the Liberty,
which America sent to the region to gather
intelligence on the progress of the war,
because it believed it was an Egyptian supply
ship ferrying supplies to the Egyptian troops
that Israel was then fighting. When it
discovered the error, it immediately informed
the Americans, apologized and paid compensation
to the victims' families.

The incident was investigated by inquiry
commissions in both Israel and the United
States, and both concluded that it had, indeed,
been a tragic error. Nevertheless, the
controversy never died. In 1979, one of the
survivors, James Ennes, published a book
accusing Israel of bombing the American ship
deliberately. Ennes claimed an Israeli spy
plane had hovered over the ship all morning and
had surely identified it as American, since the
American flag was clearly visible.

A later book, written by James Bamford, charged
that Israel sank the ship in order to keep
America from learning of its plans to attack
Syria, and further claimed that the NSA had
tapes of conversations among Israeli pilots
that not only confirmed this, but also proved
that the tapes released by Israel had been
doctored.

Another claim that appears frequently on the
dozens of Internet sites devoted to the affair
is that Israel sank the ship to conceal a mass
murder of Egyptian soldiers on the Sinai
peninsula.

In its letter to Cristol, the NSA stressed that,
contrary to the claims that often appear in
such books and Web sites - that the agency has
tapes from both the Liberty and from a nearby
American submarine that confirm Israel's guilt
- the only tapes that exist were those made by
the spy plane and given to Cristol this week.

"It's the last piece of intelligence that
remained classified, and every rational person
that will read it will understand that there is
no truth in these conspiracy theories against
Israel," Cristol said Tuesday. But he added:
"Those who hate Israel, who hate Jews, and
those who believe in conspiracy will not be
convinced by anything."

Cristol, a former U.S. navy pilot and legal
officer, began investigating the Liberty
incident 14 years ago. Since publishing his
book, which vindicates Israel, he has received
threats and been accused of being an Israeli
agent. "I take this lightly, but I am saddened
to learn that there is this kind of hate toward
Israel," he said.

[Kid A]

with the USS Liberty incident is that anyone who questions the "facts" as presented by Israel is labled anti-semitic and anyone who believes the stories of they US sailors' accounts is labled a conspiracy theorist.

[G-Shock]

The reason for that is, by and large, anti-semites and conspircy theorists love the story and drag it up every couple of years for their own agenda.

To question what happened doesn't make you an anti-semite or conspiracy theorist. However, one does become suspect when uncorroborated, shakey evidence is favored over more rational, provable, and logical explanations.

As far as the sailors that were aboard the Liberty-- when you are the victim of such a tradgedy...losing friends and surviving such a harrowing experience, it is normal to feel bitterness and look for some REASON that it happened. Words like mistake, tradgedy, accident, and unfortunate do not do much in the way of consoling. Reasons are preferred, no matter what they are.

The fact remains that, in the midst of war, terrible mistakes were made that border on gross negligence by Israeli combatant commanders. But that is still a far cry from being deliberate.

The account by Oren (posted by Roguish Lawyer) is a good one, that I think addresses any doubts and that it was NOT deliberate.

[sta marine]

Mistakes happen... Blue on blue happens. In fact the U.S. probably is the biggest friendly fire risk in the world. (ask the Brits) we blow up British tanks, British aircraft, an Iranian passanger jet, our own aircraft... So to say Israel attacked the USS Liberty on purpose is just like saying we attacked britian on purpose or Iran, or whoever.

[nikto]

When I first heard about the USS Liberty incident, it shocked me. I read a little about it, and started to worry it might be true. But when I read some more, my B.S. meter started going off.

If the whole reason why they Israelis attacked the Liberty was to prevent the Liberty from disclosing secrets it discovered, why let anyone survive? It just didn't make sense. And finally, after reading even more about it, the conspiracy theory just doesn't hold water. Applying a little common sense to stories like this seems to be the best remedy.

[Kid A]

Originally posted by sta marine
So to say Israel attacked the USS Liberty on purpose is just like saying we attacked britian on purpose or Iran, or whoever.

I disagree because that assumes that any attack is a mistake because we made mistakes. I've got volumes and volumes of papers on the USS Liberty from the Library of Congress - just haven't made it all the way through it yet. One thing that irks me is when the statement to the effect that "this has been investigated X number of times...blah blah" which is false. It has never fallen under Congressional Inquiry.

Was it a mistake? Possibly. However the survivors seem to have a differing account than the Israelis. Was it a mistake for us to be there? Possibly. Was mistake compounded on mistake? Surely.

But hey, as a military guy I almost alway defer to a survivors account (especially numerous survivors who were threatened not to discuss what happened, were shuttled away, and basically had gag orders on them), over the government of any nation, including my own.

[Kid A]

Originally posted by nikto
If the whole reason why they Israelis attacked the Liberty was to prevent the Liberty from disclosing secrets it discovered, why let anyone survive?

Remember that the USS Liberty was already sending out distress signals.

The Israeli's discovered that the distress signal, along with the identification of the attackers as Israeli's, had gone out over the airwaves. Think they're going to sit around and continue shooting? Nope.

Why were the liferafts shot up in the water if this was a mistake?

The Israeli's COULD (and this is something I don't necessarily believe) ahve thought that a quick and fast strike would have sunk the ship before they could be identified - once the signals went out, that theory went out the window.

At any rate, I believe this was a pretty in-depth discussion last year around the March-April time-frame so that discussion is searchable. I'm going to defer to my points raised then rather than continue this again here.

[sta marine]

Remember that the USS Liberty was already sending out distress signals.

The Israeli's discovered that the distress signal, along with the identification of the attackers as Israeli's, had gone out over the airwaves. Think they're going to sit around and continue shooting? Nope.



LOL, Now your taking evidence that is PRO Israeli and putting a negative spin on it... So its not possible that when they heard the distress signal they realized their mistake???

Of course the men on the Liberty have a diffrent view. They were being attacked. The Israelis Attacked the boat. On purpose and with agression. They just didnt know it was American.

Also, how can you say this is diffrent that us shooting down a passenger jet? or killing British tank crews? It's all friendly fire.

[Kid A]

[i]Also, how can you say this is diffrent that us shooting down a passenger jet? or killing British tank crews? It's all friendly fire. [/B]

Friendly fire because of the length of the attack, the proximity of the attackers to the boat, the evidence that earlier israeli pilots had flown over and waggled their wings in a pilot's wave to the Americans, that the American ship clearly didn't look anything like the Egyptian ship the Israeli's claim that they "thought" it was, or the fact that the American ship was flying an American flag during the entire time of the attack.

Flying over, straffing the ship once and saying "oh shit, that's an American ship" is one thing.

Repeated straffing the ship, along with firing at the lifeboats, etc, etc etc is something entirely different. Especially when it lasts between 25 and 45 minutes.

[Hoepoe]

The lives that were lost, were lost unneccesarily and in tragic circumstances, no-one can argue that. Will the reasons make a difference now when the US and Israel are closest allies? I think not...My advice to all on this thread is to look forward as allies and not back for what might have or might not have been the cause of a tragedy...

The facts are interesting indeed, but it is evident that no matter what the source of these facts is, there will be other facts that differ, i'm sure a few people know what really happened, but rest assured, we never will...


Hoepoe

i'm tired, forgive me if that made no sense at all!!

:-)

[Silent_warrior]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1057723800324

[Roguish Lawyer]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/12/us.israel.ussliberty/index.html

U.S.: Israel was negligent in 1967 ship attack
Survivors not satisfied with review's conclusion
From Elise Labott
CNN Washington Bureau
Monday, January 12, 2004 Posted: 9:21 PM EST (0221 GMT)


The USS Liberty was damaged in the attack.


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- After reviewing documents dating back 36 years, the State Department has concluded that Israel's attack on a U.S. spy ship in 1967 was an act of gross negligence for which it should be held responsible.

The USS Liberty was attacked off the Egyptian coast June 8, 1967, during the Six-Day War, while gathering electronic intelligence. The attack killed 34 Americans and injured another 171.

"In many respects this is kind of a classic bi-national case of Murphy's Law," a State Department official said Monday. "Everything that could possibly go wrong, on either side, did."

The official said that though Israel should be held responsible for the attack, the United States was also negligent for failing to notify Israel the Liberty was in international waters and for failing to withdraw the ship from the war zone.

"This is a ship that should have been hundreds of miles away from the war zone," the official said.

Israel fought the combined forces of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and other Arab states, emerging victorious after six days.

The State Department opened a two-day conference on U.S. foreign policy during the period, with a panel dealing with the USS Liberty attack. The conference was scheduled around the release of historical documents about the war.

The Israelis have always said the attack on the Liberty, which was monitoring communications in the war, was a tragic accident. The Johnson administration never formally challenged the Israelis' account. But some survivors and senior U.S. officials at the time have said they believe the attack was a deliberate effort to stop American surveillance of Israeli activities during the conflict.

In July the National Security Archive released tapes of Israeli pilots and ground control speaking in Hebrew, along with English transcripts. The recordings were made by a nearby American surveillance aircraft after the attack. (Full story)

The NSA released the tapes and transcripts under the Freedom of Information Act in response to a request from Judge Jay Cristol of Miami, Florida. Cristol, who wrote a book about the attack, said the tapes show it was a tragic accident in a time of war -- that the Israelis mistook the ship for an Egyptian one.

"There was no indication they had any knowledge they were attacking a U.S. ship," Cristol told participants at the conference.

The State Department official said that though some maintain the Israeli military was too good to make such a mistake, "if they were that good and if they were that efficient and they deliberately sought to sink a ship, they damned well would have sunk it."

The official noted the Israelis attacked the ship first with cannon fire and then napalm, not specialized air-to-sea weapons.

The State Department's analysis, the official said, is "that if it was a deliberate, planned attack, you would think an air force as good as the Israelis' would have served up their best bombers, with their biggest bombs. They would have sunk this ship in 30 seconds flat, no witnesses, no evidence, no fingerprints. That didn't happen."

James Bamford, the author of a history of the NSA, believes the released tapes suggest the Israelis may have deliberately attacked the Liberty, perhaps fearing -- for some reason not known -- that it was spying on them.

Calling for a formal investigation of the incident, Bamford said, "The Israelis said it was a mistake. Maybe it was and maybe it wasn't.

"There were cover-ups," he added, referring to an affidavit by a retired Navy captain, Ward Boston, who charged that then-President Johnson and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara ordered a Navy inquiry to "conclude that the attack was a case of 'mistaken identity' despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary."

Phil Tourney, who was injured in the attack and is now president of the USS Liberty Survivors' Association, said the association is not satisfied with the "gross negligence" conclusion. Tourney said the survivors were kept from telling their ordeal.

"War crimes were committed by the Israelis that day," Tourney said. "A thorough investigation should be done, and the Israelis should be held accountable."

CNN's David Ensor and Beth Lewandowski contributed to this report.

[matt_d]

I did a little reaserch on this for a paper back in highschool and found this particular site interesting. It has lots of pictures and comparisons (particularly a comparison of the Liberty and the El Quseir which was an Egyptian boat the Israelies said they mistook Liberty for)

http://home.cfl.rr.com/gidusko/liberty/

[Spinner]

Supposedly, this is everything they have.

http://www.nsa.gov/liberty/

[Brianj]

I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I resist the Oren thing as definitive, "close the book" evidence on the incident. I've always found it difficult to fathom that Israeli forces prosecuted an inadvertent, sustained attack on the Liberty for - at the very least, according to any source that I've read - thirty minutes, at close range, with aircraft and torpedo boats having constant eyes on the target. Implausible, at best.

Sure, mistakes happen. Friendly fire incidents happen. This is simply not, IMO, an explicable friendly fire incident. Not from what's being claimed as definitive evidence by Oren.

Liberty hadn't steamed that far from the position she was last reported and logged by the Israelis as a known friendly surface contact. Then - supposedly due to shitty passdown from the offgoing watch - it's assumed that that contact had left the area? Let me get this straight - you're all jacked up and about to go to war, and you're assuming something that was there all morning, that you've had aircraft overfly anywhere between four and eight times in the span of about five hours - has simply sailed away? Ever stand a surface plot watch onboard ship, or in an ops center? It's set up to be pretty hard to lose shit, so somebody had to say, "What happened to this guy, who we had all morning?". And they assumed he'd gone, and in no way might be the surface contact the patrol boats were reporting. Okay.

Liberty confused for an Egyptian freighter? One of the many you'd sure as shit have been monitoring and POREPing for weeks, so you'd probably require that your guys note the absence of 5-meter satcoms dishes and multiple antenna arrays before ID-ing it as the Al-Quasir and a legitimate target. The following pictures - from the U.S. Naval archives - reportedly were taken during the attack. An Israeli Dassault - one of several - flying overhead at just over masthead height misses all this. And the U.S ensign on the masthead. Okay.

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/u120000/u123755.jpg

Again, supposedly taken during the attack:

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/u120000/u123753.jpg

There's no way to tell when that picture was taken, but assuming this is during the attack, there'd have been NO WAY for trained Israeli naval personnel to mistake Liberty for anything other than a U.S. naval vessel. Note weather and visibility clear, too. Here's a shot, taken after the attack, of the ensign on the masthead - hard to miss. Side number "GTR-5" on the hull, too.

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/u120000/u123118.jpg

So, your aircraft put a few cannon shells into what they think is a legitimate target. Then your boats press a torpedo attack at close range, and follow up with machine gun fire. For at least thirty minutes. And then you catch your mistake...

[CTA]

There are a lot of CTs listed on the NSA wall, but an unusually high number of them paid the ultimate price because of events on that particular day: June 08, 1967 (the fortieth anniversary was last Friday on the day of the new material release). I would be remiss if I did not mention that, unfortunately, a few good Marines and one NSA representative are also listed as well.

Here is a link for Captain McGonagle’s MOH Citation: http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/pers-us/uspers-m/w-mcgngl.htm

There were also a considerable amount of wounded (172). Here is the list from the memorial wall of those thirty-four that made the ultimate sacrifice.

Fair winds and following seas…

Allen M. Blue, NSA
Cpl Edward E. Rehmeyer, USMC
CT2 Anthony P. Mendle, USN
CT2 Richard W. Keene, Jr., USN
CT2 Robert B. Eisenberg, USN
CT2 Ronnie J. Campbell, USN
CT3 Duane R. Marggraf, USN
CT3 Jerry L. Converse, USN
CT3 Jerry L. Goss, USN
CT3 Philippe C. Tiedtke, USN
CT3 Thomas R. Thornton, USN
CT3 William B. Allenbaugh, USN
CTC Melvin D. Smith, USN
CTC Raymond E. Linn, USN
CTI Curtis A. Graves, USN
CTI Frederick J. Walton, USN
CTI James M. Lupton, USN
CTI John C. Smith, Jr., USN
CTI Warren E. Hersey, USN
CTSN Alan Higgins, USN
CTSN Carl C. Nygren, USN
CTSN David W. Marlborough, USN
CTSN James L. Lenau, USN
CTSN Lawrence P. Hayden, USN
GMG3 Alexander N. Thompson, Jr., USN
ICFN David Skolak, USN
LCDR Philip M. Armstrong, Jr. USN
LT James C. Pierce, USN
LT Stephen S. Toth, USN
PC2 John C. Spicher, USN
Sgt Jack L. Raper, USMC
SN Carl L. Hoar, USN
SN Francis Brown, USN
SN Gary R. Blanchard, USN

[HOLLiS]

WHo is Kid A?

How many of you have been in friendly fire incidents?

How many read Judge Cristol report?

Initially the government left many issues unanswered. People filed in the blanks. Those hostile to Israel wrote to condemn the Israelis, those friendly did not.

Often those involved only have a sliver view of the big picture. Their stories can be truthful but still very inaccurate based on the "big picture".

FF, I witness,

My own company opening fire on it's rear element on a horse shoe shape ridge line.

A grenade thrown, hit a tree, bounce back and kill another Marine.

Also, Lima 3/3 9 long round hit their CP group, Killing 3 Marines and 2 Corpsman.

Time Summer of 1969.

I am not discounting the view of the survivors of the USS Liberty, they were only in one position to view the events.

I would suggest reading the complete article from Judge Cristol. The Israel pilot was never interviewed until pretty recently, even though there are statements credited to him published that he never made.

Propaganda is a interesting weapon.

edited to add:

One thing is for certain, the original investigation was poorly done and left to many unanswered questions.

[CTA]

I really don't care to toss in my dos centavos regarding culpability, who’s at fault, blah, blah, blah... etc. My only intent with my last post was to recognize those 172 WIA and 34 KIA on the anniversary of the event and to say they are not forgotten.

Rest in peace….

[HOLLiS]

I really don't care to toss in my dos centavos regarding culpability, who’s at fault, blah, blah, blah... etc. My only intent with my last post was to recognize those 172 WIA and 34 KIA on the anniversary of the event and to say they are not forgotten.

Rest in peace….


When a issue get so heavily politicized, it looses some of it's real meaning.

Thank you for bring us back on course.


Rest In Peace. A good life for the survivors.

[ralph conner]

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070608/news_lz1e8boston.html

Washington, DC (June 8, 2007) – The following op-ed in today's San Diego Union Tribune is by Ward Boston, the chief counsel for the Navy's Court of Inquiry into Israel's attack on the U.S.S. Liberty, which killed 34 Americans and wounded 172 on June 8th, 1967, forty years ago today.


###
Forty Years Later, Searching for Truth
Ward Boston, Jr.
The San Diego Union Tribune
June 8, 2007

Forty years ago this week, I was asked to investigate the heaviest attack on an American ship since World War II. As senior legal counsel to the Navy Court of Inquiry it was my job to help uncover the truth regarding Israel's June 8th 1967 bombing of the USS Liberty.

On that sunny, clear day 40 years ago, Israel's combined air and naval forces attacked our American intelligence-gathering ship for two hours, inflicting 70 percent casualties. Thirty-four American sailors died and 172 were injured. The USS Liberty remained afloat only by the crew's heroic efforts.

Israel claimed it was an accident. Yet I know from personal conversations with the late Admiral Isaac C. Kidd -- president of the Court of Inquiry -- that President Johnson and Secretary of Defense McNamara ordered him to conclude that the attack was a case of "mistaken identity." The ensuing cover-up has haunted us for forty years. What does it imply for our national security, not to mention our ability to honestly broker peace in the Middle East, when we cannot question Israel's actions – even when they kill Americans?

On June 8th, survivors of Israel's cruel attack will gather in Washington, DC to honor their dead shipmates as well as the mothers, sisters, widows and children they left behind. They will continue to ask for a fair and impartial congressional inquiry that, for the first time, would allow the survivors themselves to testify publicly.

For decades, I have remained silent. I am a military man and when orders come in from the Secretary of Defense and President of the United States, I follow them. However, attempts to rewrite history and concern for my country compel me to share the truth.



Admiral Kidd and I were given only one week to gather evidence for the Navy’s official investigation, though we both estimated that a proper Court of Inquiry would take at least six months.

We boarded the crippled ship at sea and interviewed survivors. The evidence was clear. We both believed with certainty that this attack was a deliberate effort to sink an American ship and murder its entire crew.

I am certain the Israeli pilots and commanders who had ordered the attack knew the ship was American. I saw the bullet-riddled American flag that had been raised by the crew after their first flag had been shot down completely. I heard testimony that made it clear the Israelis intended there be no survivors. Not only did they attack with napalm, gunfire, and missiles, Israeli torpedo boats machine-gunned at close range three life rafts that had been launched in an attempt to save the most seriously wounded.

I am outraged at the efforts of Israel’s apologists to claim this attack was a case of "mistaken identity."

Admiral Kidd told me that after receiving the President's cover-up orders, he was instructed to sit down with two civilians from either the White House or the Defense Department, and rewrite portions of the Court’s findings. He said, "Ward, they're not interested in the facts. It’s a political matter and we cannot talk about it." We were to "put a lid on it" and caution everyone involved never to speak of it again.

I know that the Court of Inquiry transcript that has been released to the public is not the same one that I certified and sent to Washington. I know this because it was necessary, due to the exigencies of time, to hand correct and initial a substantial number of pages. I have examined the released version of the transcript and did not see any pages that bore my hand corrections and initials. Also, the original did not have any deliberately blank pages, as the released version does. In addition, the testimony of Lt. Lloyd Painter concerning the deliberate machine-gunning of the life rafts by the Israeli torpedo boat crews, which I distinctly recall being given at the Court of Inquiry and including in the original transcript, is now missing.

I join the survivors in their call for an honest inquiry. Why is there no room to question Israel – even when they kill Americans -- in the halls of Congress?

Let the survivors testify. Let me testify. Let former intelligence officers testify that they received real-time Hebrew translations of Israeli commanders instructing their pilots to sink "the American ship."

Surely uncovering the truth about what happened to American servicemen in a bloody attack is more important than protecting Israel. And surely forty years is long enough to wait.

In addition to serving as chief counsel to the Navy’s Court of Inquiry into the attack on USS Liberty, Ward Boston served as a naval aviator in World War II on the carrier Yorktown, and as an FBI agent prior to his assignment to the Navy’s Judge Advocates General Corps. He is a graduate of the Law School of the College of William and Mary, and a resident of Coronado, California.

[HOLLiS]

http://www.nsa.gov/liberty/

[ralph conner]

will rebroadcast ;

The History Channel program, featuring extensive interviews with Liberty crew members, was originally scheduled to air some months ago, but was postponed in order to also include interviews with Israeli representatives, who had originally been excluded from the documentary.

Here's the original announcement ;

http://www.ussliberty.org/history405.htm

[Parajuevos]

I recently read an article about this incident in the American Legion Magazine. I believe that it is the June 2007 issue. I don't have access to my copy at this time but I believe that the author of the article is James Ennis and it pretty much echoes what he has said in the past.

I've never read the opposing accounts and am glad that I have had the opportunity to read them here because, frankly, they make more sense to me than the ones offered up by the conspiracy theorists.

I was never able to make sense, in my mind, of the theory that the Israelis would purposely attack a US Naval vessel that was clearly marked by the American flag.

Edit to add: I hope that it was a mistake. I would hate to think that an ally of ours would attack us and if they did I would certainly like to know why they did.

One thing that is certain is that the crew, from the Captain on down, performed their military duties heroically and paid a horrible price in the loss of life and injury which occured.

Another thing that the Legion article pointed out, which I found odd, was the fact that the President did not personally present the Medal of Honor to the Captain as is the tradition.

[HOLLiS]

Edit to add: I hope that it was a mistake. I would hate to think that an ally of ours would attack us and if they did I would certainly like to know why they did.

One thing that is certain is that the crew, from the Captain on down, performed their military duties heroically and paid a horrible price in the loss of life and injury which occured.

Another thing that the Legion article pointed out, which I found odd, was the fact that the President did not personally present the Medal of Honor to the Captain as is the tradition.

The transcripts from the Israeli pilot proves they did not know the ship was a American Naval Vessel until after the attack.

I agree with the rest of your points, I never understood what Israel had to gain for a deliberate attack on a US Naval ship. I could easily understand why people tried to spin the even to cast Israel as some evil nation. There is a belief that if the US would not support Israel it would easy fall.

It was strange time, I really don't know why important information was never released until now that proved Israel did not deliberately attacked the USS Liberty, then when you add the President did not award the MOH to the Captain,.......... egads stuff conspirators love to put a spin too.

[ralph conner]

should have a link to their award winning website which is considered by the University on Kansas as the 'Best Military History Website on the Web!" It's only fair they should have their say.

http://www.ussliberty.org/

And, they have their own theories about what Israel may have had to gain by the attack. http://www.ussliberty.org/why.htm

For me, when the IDF released the fake gun camera footage, I was forced to concur with the concensus of the USS Liberty survivors which is, the IDF is lying. http://www.ussliberty.org/photofraud.htm

In U.S. law, if a litigant submits fake evidence it's 'case closed'. They're guilty!

The ship's bow markings were deleted from the images. They couldn't very well assert that they thought the ship was an Egyptian Horse carrier with 'ATGR5' in the middle of their gunsights!

Plus each supposed 'strafing run' camera footage is taken from the exact same angle. :rolleyes:

Additionally, they've got an excellent (IMHO) 'debunking' of Mr. Cristol's false assertion about "13 congressional investigations!".

http://www.ussliberty.org/gotcheraug05.htm

This official government document would seem to be the final word on the subject of if there were congressional investigations of the incident : http://www.ussliberty.org/thebiglie.htm

[JumpmasterK]

Almost every angle of this tragedy is filled with questions, very few answers, and much speculation.

My question is if the entire tragedy occurred because the Israelis wanted to prevent the Liberty from finding out about and/or reporting on Israeli atrocities or intentions, why didn't they "finish the job"? It seems quite obvious that they ended all attacks on the vessel when they realized that it was an American ship. If the original intent was to destroy the vessel, it would never have made it out of the area.

[ralph conner]

4337

[SOTB]

This is the final word on that subject....Wrong, stud.

Obviously if your link was the "final word" there would be no debate today. Be VERY careful bringing your opinions forward in such a forceful manner. People here are quite capable of coming to different conclusions than you have come to, and will do so, even when presented with what you believe to be info leading to only one outcome.

Furthermore, as someone who states ZERO mil time in your profile, you should realize that you are on the lowest of the rungs of posting privileges and credibility on this board. Strong rants and posts are not in your best interests....

[ralph conner]

Wrong, stud.

Obviously if your link was the "final word" there would be no debate today. Be VERY careful bringing your opinions forward in such a forceful manner. People here are quite capable of coming to different conclusions than you have come to, and will do so, even when presented with what you believe to be info leading to only one outcome.

Furthermore, as someone who states ZERO mil time in your profile, you should realize that you are on the lowest of the rungs of posting privileges and credibility on this board. Strong rants and posts are not in your best interests....

Understood.

I should have qualified my 'final word' as specfically relating to the assertion of Mr. Cristol that, "there were 13 congressional investigatons of the USS Liberty incedent."

From my link :

The full reply:
From: hssref@loc.gov
Date: Jul 25, 2006 12:06 PM
Subject: Library Question - Answer [Question #1727003]
To: joe@ussliberty.com

Dear Patron:

Thank you for your query.

After checking numerous resources, including the CIS (Congressional Information Service) Indexes to Congressional Hearings (both published and unpublished), and the Public Documents Masterfile, I could find no evidence that the Congress ever held hearings or launched an investigation into the June 8, 1967 incident with the USS Liberty.

The Library of Congress does have the following titles concerning the USS Liberty in the Library's collections:

LC Control Number: 98135843
Type of Material: Book (Print, Microform, Electronic, etc.)
Personal Name: Cristol, A. Jay, 1929-
Main Title: The Liberty incident : a dissertation / A. Jay Cristol.
Published/Created: [Coral Gables, FL : s.n., 1997]
Description: v, 481 leaves ; 29 cm.
Notes: Dissertation (Ph. D.)--University of Miami, 1997.

So it was not just 'an opinion'.

I will be sure to be more precise concerning qualifying facts as opposed to opinions if this is an accurate interpretation of your moderation.

[JumpmasterK]

4337
U.S. Navy A-7 Corsair II. Nice aircraft, but what is your reason for posting it?

[ralph conner]

U.S. Navy A-7 Corsair II. Nice aircraft, but what is your reason for posting it?

It was reply to your comment ;

why didn't they "finish the job"?

And meant to postulate that the attack could not be completed by IDF due to the response from the aircraft carriers America and Saratoga.

Please refer to this comment from Admiral Thomas Moorer, Commander-in-Chief US Atlantic Fleet in June, 1967, when Liberty was attacked concerning this response ; http://www.ussliberty.org/moorer4.htm.

And BTW, the A7 picture I posted was supposed to be an A7 Corsair. I purposely didn't post a pic of the A7 Corsair II as I was trying to not get 'smacked down' for posting a pic of an aircraft not in theatre at that time!

[JumpmasterK]

the A7 picture I posted was supposed to be an A7 Corsair.

The A-7 is an air to ground attack aircraft. In any U.S. response to an aerial assault, F-4 Phantom IIs would be the aircraft launched to protect the Liberty.

Where did you get the idea that A-7s were in the area?

[JumpmasterK]

Please refer to this comment from Admiral Thomas Moorer, Commander-in-Chief US Atlantic Fleet in June, 1967, when Liberty was attacked concerning this response ; http://www.ussliberty.org/moorer4.htm.

Nowhere in that statement is the A-7 mentioned. Yet, it was important enough that you post a picture of it. Please cite your source for that.

[JumpmasterK]

It was reply to your comment ;



And meant to postulate that the attack could not be completed by IDF due to the response from the aircraft carriers America and Saratoga.

Please refer to this comment from Admiral Thomas Moorer, Commander-in-Chief US Atlantic Fleet in June, 1967, when Liberty was attacked concerning this response ; http://www.ussliberty.org/moorer4.htm.

And BTW, the A7 picture I posted was supposed to be an A7 Corsair. I purposely didn't post a pic of the A7 Corsair II as I was trying to not get 'smacked down' for posting a pic of an aircraft not in theatre at that time!
The differences between the Corsair and Corsair II are quite signinicant. The Corsair is the F4U, a propeller driven aircraft that you may have seen in "Baa Baa Blacksheep" or "The Blacksheep Squadron". Pappy Boyington and his Marine Heroes flew those aircraft. Any A-7, regardless of its provenance, is a Corsair II.

Again, please state what its significance might be regarding the USS Liberty.

[JumpmasterK]

And BTW, the A7 picture I posted was supposed to be an A7 Corsair. I purposely didn't post a pic of the A7 Corsair II as I was trying to not get 'smacked down' for posting a pic of an aircraft not in theatre at that time!

Consider that you are being "smacked down". Read the above post and you MIGHT understand.

[ralph conner]

The differences between the Corsair and Corsair II are quite signinicant. The Corsair is the F4U, a propeller driven aircraft that you may have seen in "Baa Baa Blacksheep" or "The Blacksheep Squadron". Pappy Boyington and his Marine Heroes flew those aircraft. Any A-7, regardless of its provenance, is a Corsair II..

Thank you for the clarification.

Again, please state what its significance might be regarding the USS Liberty

The aircraft picture was a visual aid to establish the point which I described to you. Which was to, 'illustrate a response by Naval Aviation.' The aircraft type is irrelevent as far as my point is concerned.

JumpmasterK : The differences between the Corsair and Corsair II are quite signinicant. The Corsair is the F4U, a propeller driven aircraft that you may have seen in "Baa Baa Blacksheep" or "The Blacksheep Squadron". Pappy Boyington and his Marine Heroes flew those aircraft. Any A-7, regardless of its provenance, is a Corsair II.

I did not say Corsair, I said A7 Corsair?

Consider that you are being "smacked down". MIGHT understand.

No. I do not see the significance of the aircraft type since I explained my purpose for using the image.

If you like, I do admit to missidentifying the aircraft.

[JumpmasterK]

The aircraft picture was a visual aid to establish the point which I described to you. Which was to, 'illustrate a response by Naval Aviation.' The aircraft type is irrelevent as far as my point is concerned.

It is extremely relevant. US Sailors DIED; that's pretty Goddamn relevant.

You posted it and then tried to defend it.

'illustrate a response by Naval Aviation.' The aircraft type is irrelevent as far as my point is concerned.

And yet you found it necessary to attempt to describe the difference between a Corsair and Corsair II. Should not your first response have been "The aircraft type is irrelevent as far as my point is concerned"? So much for visual aids. :rolleyes:

[JumpmasterK]

And BTW, the A7 picture I posted was supposed to be an A7 Corsair. I purposely didn't post a pic of the A7 Corsair II as I was trying to not get 'smacked down' for posting a pic of an aircraft not in theatre at that time!

THAT above is what you posted. Is THAT irrelevant?

[ralph conner]

It is extremely relevant. US Sailors DIED; that's pretty Goddamn relevant.

You posted it and then tried to defend it.



And yet you found it necessary to attempt to describe the difference between a Corsair and Corsair II. Should not your first response have been "The aircraft type is irrelevent as far as my point is concerned"? So much for visual aids. :rolleyes:

That is because you were unclear about what your point might have been.

Examples :

Nowhere in that statement is the A-7 mentioned. Yet, it was important enough that you post a picture of it. Please cite your source for that.

The A-7 is an air to ground attack aircraft. In any U.S. response to an aerial assault, F-4 Phantom IIs would be the aircraft launched to protect the Liberty.

Where did you get the idea that A-7s were in the area?

When you clarified what your point was ;

And BTW, the A7 picture I posted was supposed to be an A7 Corsair. I purposely didn't post a pic of the A7 Corsair II as I was trying to not get 'smacked down' for posting a pic of an aircraft not in theatre at that time!

THAT above is what you posted. Is THAT irrelevant?

I admitted that I had missidentified the aircraft, i.e. a distinction between
an A7 Corsair and an A7 Corsair II.

So, there has been no discrepant or surrepeticious posting on my part in case you're implying that. Back on topic?

[JumpmasterK]

I admitted that I had missidentified the aircraft, i.e. a distinction between an A7 Corsair and an A7 Corsair II.

Dude, I don't care about the exact identification of the aircraft. You posted a picture of an airplane in order to imply that US aircraft stopped the attack. Let us agree that the aircraft is irrelevant; what else do you have?

[ralph conner]

JumpmasterK]Dude, I don't care about the exact identification of the aircraft. You posted a picture of an airplane in order to imply that US aircraft stopped the attack.

Actually, I meant to imply that the 'response' from the U.S. aircraft carriers may have stopped the attack. No U.S. aircraft arrived on scene in time to stop the attack. Unfortunately.

Let us agree that the aircraft is irrelevant; what else do you have?

Copy that.

Well, if you like you might take a look at the AFFIDAVIT of Ward Boston: http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/ul-boston.html which is more imflammatory than I would post here. I posted his Union Tribune article which seems to be a condensation of this document which is much more 'candid'.

My purpose is/was simply to post relevent data from the survivor's website, from their perspective in reply to folks posts here. And yeah, there's a lot more

The fact that this subject is being discussed here without any reference to the USS Liberty survivor's website is a situation I thought appropriate to rectify. Plus the website's one of the best on the web.

And it is absolutely not my intention to pi** you or anybody else off in so doing!!!!

Hey, ya'll having the same heat wave we're having out here? 89F today!

[JumpmasterK]

Actually, I meant to imply that the 'response' from the U.S. aircraft carriers may have stopped the attack.
Why "imply" a response when you can actually respond? Your 'implication' was bad in that you messed up and then tried to justify it (read the thread).

If you think that Israel attacked the Liberty for some reason, then SAY IT. My contention is that it was a tragic mistake; what say you?

[ralph conner]

Why "imply" a response when you can actually respond? Your 'implication' was bad in that you messed up and then tried to justify it (read the thread).

Yes. You could even say I suck at web dialog. (Since it's been 'mentioned' in this thread.)

The reason that I 'implied' that our Naval air response may have caused a cessation of the attack, is because that it's the opinion of a non mil Socnet 'Probate!'

If you think that Israel attacked the Liberty for some reason, then SAY IT. My contention is that it was a tragic mistake; what say you?

I did, BTW. And in no uncertain terms :

For me, when the IDF released the fake gun camera footage, I was forced to concur with the concensus of the USS Liberty survivors which is, the IDF is lying. http://www.ussliberty.org/photofraud.htm

I say it was 100% on purpose.

[JumpmasterK]

I say it was 100% on purpose.

Finally. After all those posts. Allow me to present my perspective:

Analysis of the Liberty incident:

My profession for the last 20 years has been that of a Signals Intelligence Analyst; I look at the NSA “declassified” information about the Liberty incident, and I have developed my own take on the entire tragedy.

My job is to read the “traffic” (radio intercepts) and develop a comprehensible picture of the situation to present to the decision makers. I analyze all of the intercepted communications and then report on my analysis. I am bound to report on “SIGINT Fact” (if it’s not in the communications, I can’t report otherwise). Reading the declassified intercepts of the Israeli pilots and their controller shows that there was no knowledge of or intention to attack the USS Liberty.

My report (were I to write one) would indicate that the pilots were simply following the guidance of their GC (ground controller). I would also report that the pilots were only following the directions of the control tower. The control tower would only know that there was a potentially dangerous vessel, and direct the pilots to deal with it. The pilots would only know to kill the dangerous vessel.

Following that, my report would state that the pilots and the Israelis were concerned with rescuing the crewmembers of the vessel. I would probably state that the pilots returned to their base, and that the ultimate disposition of the vessel was undetermined.

[ralph conner]

I see what you were getting at with your 'direct' questions. About the A7!!:rolleyes: Dude, I would've answered a direct question!

(But given your professed background, I fully understand your disapproval with my sloppy presentation!)

I fully agree with your analysis, but not your conclusion.

The key word for me, in your analysis is 'declassified.'

If there was a 'coverup', wouldn't the only info released for 'analysis' be that which correlated the desired, 'conclusion'?

I appreciate your position. Honestly.

I have absolutely no doubt that your interpretation is exactly in conjunction with the data you were persented to extrapolate it from.

There's not the slightest chance anything contradicting the conclusion you're led to, would 've been 'declassified.'

With comments like ;

which I confirmed from the commanders of the aircraft carriers America and Saratoga, was the most disgraceful act I witnessed in my entire military career.
http://www.ussliberty.org/moorer4.htm

from 'America's highest ranking Naval officer' (just to name one of the close to 100 similarly credentialed people's similar consensus on that website)
(and not to mention, the eye witness's unamimous concensus)

What other conslusion would you expect someone to come to? And why?

A 'coverup' is accepted as tantamont to proof of guilt in most countries. If the list of people who were involved doesn't at the very least establish that there was some kind of coverup.

Since I know I'm going to quickly be presented with the standard, "just another conspiracy theory" line, let me be proactive and present those so disposed with the list of (decorated veterans) asserting the 'conspiracy' which they will have to 'debunk' and (generally demean) to assert this particular rejoinder : http://www.ussliberty.org/supporters.htm

[JumpmasterK]

I fully agree with your analysis, but not your conclusion.

The key word for me, in your analysis is 'declassified.'

Right on. We agree to disagree. You believe what you believe, and I know what I know. ;)

[HOLLiS]

Maybe part of the problem is CYA. Who is doing it and why, I don't think we will ever known. I can see no tactical reason for Israel to attack a US ship, I can see no tactical reasons for the US to stage a event.

It seems more like a massive screw up from second guessing, clandestine ops, CYA, and ????

I doubt if someone is going to come forward and explain this FUBAR. I has been very politically advantageous for the enemies of Israel to have this happen. Whether or not they are involved or not, they have use this incident to weave their web of deceit.

Mistakes are made, people do try to CYA and sometimes the truth gets lost in all the smoke and mirrors.

US ships have been attacked and Sailor take hostage after this event, buy powers hostile to the US. Yet the political repercussions of this event is still hot, almost as hot as when it happened. That leads me to believe, this was more a mistake on several people's part that has been very advantageous to those people/groups that would love to see Israel and US part company and to keep the issue alive.

For those that died, may the Rest In Peace.

[ralph conner]

Right on. We agree to disagree. You believe what you believe, and I know what I know. ;)

Cool! I can appreciate people even when they disagree with me. (And are wrong!;) )

Seriously, I have strong beliefs. And I'm happy to qualify them with logic.

But since I was not there I am fully aware I could be wrong.

[JumpmasterK]

Seriously, I have strong beliefs. And I'm happy to qualify them with logic.
I guess your logic includes aircraft that never existed? Cool for you, I guess. :rolleyes:

[Remington Raider]

Well, for all you snickering about conspriacy theories and willing to accept OOPS, the offical U.S. Government position has always been there were no POW's left in Nam. Could be. But POLITICS has a way of affecting the truth. I guess it's just whose ox is being gored.

[ralph conner]

I guess your logic includes aircraft that never existed? Cool for you, I guess. :rolleyes:

Thought we 'agreed' :

Let us agree that the aircraft is irrelevant;

:confused:

Of course, you are free to change your mind. My point is though that since, through all of your posts, 'you've not addressed or challenged one of the points, or conclusions from the people involved with the U.S. Liberty coverup.' I can only conclude it's because you can't refute any of the points. Please feel free to prove any of the points wrong.

Your 'beliefs' based on your conclusions derived from your analysis which you profess force me to either believe, Lt. General William Oden

That the attack was deliberate "just wasn't a disputed issue" within the National Security Agency

http://www.hudson.org/learn/index.cfm?fuseaction=staff_bio&eid=OdomWill

or,

Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, former Chief of Naval Operations and later Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff writing for Americans for Middle East Understanding, June 8, 1997

"I have never believed that the attack on the USS Liberty was a case of mistaken identity. That is ridiculous. Israel knew perfectly well that the ship was American."

or ,

The Secratary of the United States when he illustrates the official position of the United States regarding the Liberty Incedent :

Accordingly, there is every reason to believe that the U.S.S. Liberty was identified, or at least her nationality determined, by Israeli aircraft approximately one hour before the attack. In these circumstances, the later military attack by Israeli aircraft on the U.S.S. Liberty is quite literally incomprehensible. [At] a minimum, the attack must be condemned as an act of military recklessness reflecting wanton disregard for human life.

http://www.ussliberty.org/ruskreply.htm

or .......

Yes, I can see the reason for your multi post focus on the A7.

(I do appreciate the diversion, though. Aside from helping me make my point, it encouraged me to go back & look at carrier ops of the 60's and 70's. Great Stuff!)