Cover-Up Alleged in Probe of USS Liberty

[adlep]

Aegion:

It certainly puts an extreme amount of doubt on the accuracy claim that the ship was jammed. Do you have evidence that the Israelis secretly has this sophisticated equipment?

No, it doesn't...
Why?
I would expect the crew of the ship which does radio electronic walfare to know and to be able to recognize a jamming.

I mean doh, it was their main job/training, to know the radioelectronic equipment..
So the Israelis have tired to jamm the signals, but they failed because of the complexity of the systems used by USS Liberty.
BTW,
USS Libery was carring few big Satelite Dishes pointed toward the sky, in the 60-ties that must have been looked like a some kind of a Si-Fi ship carring all these advanced antennas and radio equipment. Now, how come you could confuse this ship with an old Egiptian Horse Carrier I dont know...

 

[Aegion]

As far as I can determine, the response from several of you to me pointing out EVIDENCE and FACTS that put whether the attack is deliberate in doubt is to simply assume the arguments must be bogus. Significantly, there seem to be TWO seperate problems with jamming the liberty. Israel apparently lacked the equipment to do so, and the jamming would have been detectible from elsewhere. Partial jamming should not have been enough to prevent the Liberty from communicating with other ships. To the best of my knowledge, no-one has asked the crew of the Liberty how do you know it was jamming as opposed to battle damage causing your communication problems, until you hear an answer, you can't say the Liberty crewmen knew it was jamming for certain. I realize some of you enjoy the idea it must be a conspiracy theory too much to give it up, but I'll let anyone still reading the thread who hasn't made up their mind already come to their own conclusions.

 

[Aegion]

Originally posted by: Spencer278
Did that aricle just say the attack wasn't deliberate? I think that is about all one needs to see from that to guess about the quality of reporting done. Wow good shoots for being able to take out life boats ( I won't ask how a "speedboat" was able to depoly life boats at full speed ) at a range of 4 to 8 miles no I think the boats were closer but good try.

No one reading this thread who hasn't made up their mind is going to take you seriously unless you actually consider the article instead of saying its poor reporting because it disagrees with you opinion. On the rest, if you actually read the link to the article before complaining about the "flaw" you'd see the article is discussing the situation while the Israeli navy is approaching the Liberty, and before they acutally engaged it, which is described later.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Aegion

Originally posted by: Spencer278
Did that aricle just say the attack wasn't deliberate? I think that is about all one needs to see from that to guess about the quality of reporting done. Wow good shoots for being able to take out life boats ( I won't ask how a "speedboat" was able to depoly life boats at full speed ) at a range of 4 to 8 miles no I think the boats were closer but good try.

No one reading this thread who hasn't made up their mind is going to take you seriously unless you actually consider the article instead of saying its poor reporting because it disagrees with you opinion. On the rest, if you actually read the link to the article before complaining about the "flaw" you'd see the article is discussing the situation while the Israeli navy is approaching the Liberty, and before they acutally engaged it, which is described later.

Yes, if a source says something stupid it does cast a shadow on the rest of the piece. There is no way that the attack wasn't "deliberate" it might not have been planned but to say the attack wasn't deliberate is a lie. An attack that is not deliberate would be a bomb missed its traget and hit a different building not a plane attacking a ship with no other ships around.

 

[Aegion]

Originally posted by: Spencer278
Yes, if a source says something stupid it does cast a shadow on the rest of the piece. There is no way that the attack wasn't "deliberate" it might not have been planned but to say the attack wasn't deliberate is a lie. An attack that is not deliberate would be a bomb missed its traget and hit a different building not a plane attacking a ship with no other ships around.

You are the one arguing the attack was deliberate, clearly he is not lying but voicing his opinion. Unless you can point to a specific fact which he clearly intentionally fabricated, you certainly can't claim he lied, but can only justifiably question his interpretation of the facts of the event. Calling the author of a piece you disagree with nasty names does not help your case in general. While they did intentionally attack the ship, this is because they thought it was an Egyptian one in his interpretation, or in others words attacking the Liberty instead of an Egyptian ship was a mistake. He never said the precise statement you are complaining about, but argues Israeli incompetence caused them to missidentify their target. He also cites two incidents involving Israeli naval incompetence within the next six years after the Liberty incident to bolster his argument.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Aegion

Originally posted by: Spencer278
Yes, if a source says something stupid it does cast a shadow on the rest of the piece. There is no way that the attack wasn't "deliberate" it might not have been planned but to say the attack wasn't deliberate is a lie. An attack that is not deliberate would be a bomb missed its traget and hit a different building not a plane attacking a ship with no other ships around.

You are the one arguing the attack was deliberate, clearly he is not lying but voicing his opinion. Unless you can point to a specific fact which he clearly intentionally fabricated, you certainly can't claim he lied, but can only justifiably question his interpretation of the facts of the event. Calling the author of a piece you disagree with nasty names does not help your case in general. While they did intentionally attack the ship, this is because they thought it was an Egyptian one in his interpretation, or in others words attacking the Liberty instead of an Egyptian ship was a mistake. He never said the precise statement you are complaining about, but argues Israeli incompetence caused them to missidentify their target. He also cites two incidents involving Israeli naval incompetence within the next six years after the Liberty incident to bolster his argument.

Yes he did it is in bold in the first time I quoted the statment. Should I edit the post to highlight it to?

 

[Aegion]

Originally posted by: Spencer278
Yes he did it is in bold in the first time I quoted the statment. Should I edit the post to highlight it to?

You're guilty of taking the statement out of context. He was refering to the idea that it was deliberate pre-planned attack, and making the legitimate point of wondering why they wouldn't have had Mirages loaded with bombs if the attack had been pre-planned. The statement perhaps could have been phrased in a more precise manner, but you are definately ignoring the clear intent intent of the author when he wrote that statement.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Aegion

Originally posted by: Spencer278
Yes he did it is in bold in the first time I quoted the statment. Should I edit the post to highlight it to?

You're guilty of taking the statement out of context. He was refering to the idea that it was deliberate pre-planned attack, and making the legitimate point of wondering why they wouldn't have had Mirages loaded with bombs if the attack had been pre-planned. The statement perhaps could have been phrased in a more precise manner, but you are definately ignoring the clear intent intent of the author when he wrote that statement.

The clear intenation of the author is to put isreal in the best light and I would like to ignore it. I don't see how not pre planning means they didn't know it was a US ship.

 

[hagbard]

Ummm...they locked my link to antiwar.com on this topic saying it was a repost, but I haven't seen it posted anywhere. Anyway, here is another good article on this topic:

National Security Agency Documents on Attack on USS Liberty Prove What?

 

[Aegion]

Originally posted by: hagbard
Ummm...they locked my link to antiwar.com on this topic saying it was a repost, but I haven't seen it posted anywhere. Anyway, here is another good article on this topic:

National Security Agency Documents on Attack on USS Liberty Prove What?

Its noteworthy to me that when he talks about only the helicopter tapes being released, he conveniently argues that the other ones have been destroyed so he doesn't have to explain how they continue to be secret. He also takes his sweet time getting this point and initially leaves the impression the NSA is simply refusing to release the tapes. If you believe the NSA is part of a conspiracy this may not matter to you, but its certainly a relevant fact to consider for those not as familiar with the issue. The other noteworthy thing is how heavily he relies on hearsay. The individuals cited by him may have never even been in a position to hear the evidence he's claiming, but if the NSA points this out, this can be dismissed as just being part of the coverup. Certainly if this was a court case, much of his evidence would not be admissable. The other obvious problem is if the US government is supposedly so heavily involved with a coverup, doesn't that mean basicly no evidence can't be dismissed as being falsified no matter what it is?

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: Aegion

Originally posted by: hagbard
Ummm...they locked my link to antiwar.com on this topic saying it was a repost, but I haven't seen it posted anywhere. Anyway, here is another good article on this topic:

National Security Agency Documents on Attack on USS Liberty Prove What?

Its noteworthy to me that when he talks about only the helicopter tapes being released, he conveniently argues that the other ones have been destroyed so he doesn't have to explain how they continue to be secret. He also takes his sweet time getting this point and initially leaves the impression the NSA is simply refusing to release the tapes. If you believe the NSA is part of a conspiracy this may not matter to you, but its certainly a relevant fact to consider for those not as familiar with the issue. The other noteworthy thing is how heavily he relies on hearsay. The individuals cited by him may have never even been in a position to hear the evidence he's claiming, but if the NSA points this out, this can be dismissed as just being part of the coverup. Certainly if this was a court case, much of his evidence would not be admissable. The other obvious problem is if the US government is supposedly so heavily involved with a coverup, doesn't that mean basicly no evidence can't be dismissed as being falsified no matter what it is?

The truth is no more likely to come out in this than any other matter related to Israel, 9/11 or the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq (or Iran and Syria in the coming years).

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Taken from Myths and Facts - The 1967 Six Day War

MYTH

"During the 1967 War, Israel deliberately attacked the USS Liberty."

FACT

The Israeli attack on the USS Liberty was a grievous error, largely attributable to the fact that it occurred in the midst of the confusion of a full-scale war in 1967. Ten official United States investigations and three official Israeli inquiries have all conclusively established the attack was a tragic mistake.

On June 8, 1967, the fourth day of the Six-Day War, the Israeli high command received reports that Israeli troops in El Arish were being fired upon from the sea, presumably by an Egyptian vessel, as they had a day before. The United States had announced that it had no naval forces within hundreds of miles of the battle front on the floor of the United Nations a few days earlier; however, the USS Liberty, an American intelligence ship assigned to monitor the fighting, arrived in the area, 14 miles off the Sinai coast, as a result of a series of United States communication failures, whereby messages directing the ship not to approach within 100 miles were not received by the Liberty. The Israelis mistakenly thought this was the ship doing the shelling and war planes and torpedo boats attacked, killing 34 members of the Liberty's crew and wounding 171.

Numerous mistakes were made by both the United States and Israel. For example, the Liberty was first reported ? incorrectly, as it turned out ? to be cruising at 30 knots (it was later recalculated to be 28 knots). Under Israeli (and U.S.) naval doctrine at the time, a ship proceeding at that speed was presumed to be a warship. The sea was calm and the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry found that the Liberty's flag was very likely drooped and not discernible; moreover, members of the crew, including the Captain, Commander William McGonagle, testified that the flag was knocked down after the first or second assault.

According to Israeli Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin's memoirs, there were standing orders to attack any unidentified vessel near the shore.28 The day fighting began, Israel had asked that American ships be removed from its coast or that it be notified of the precise location of U.S. vessels.29 The Sixth Fleet was moved because President Johnson feared being drawn into a confrontation with the Soviet Union. He also ordered that no aircraft be sent near Sinai.

A CIA report on the incident issued June 13, 1967, also found that an overzealous pilot could mistake the Liberty for an Egyptian ship, the El Quseir. After the air raid, Israeli torpedo boats identified the Liberty as an Egyptian naval vessel. When the Liberty began shooting at the Israelis, they responded with the torpedo attack, which killed 28 of the sailors.

Initially, the Israelis were terrified that they had attacked a Soviet ship and might have provoked the Soviets to join the fighting.30 Once the Israelis were sure what had happened, they reported the incident to the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv and offered to provide a helicopter for the Americans to fly out to the ship and any help they required to evacuate the injured and salvage the ship. The offer was accepted and a U.S. naval attaché was flown to the Liberty.

Many of the survivors of the Liberty remain bitter, and are convinced the attack was deliberate as they make clear on their web site. In 1991, columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak trumpeted their discovery of an American who said he had been in the Israeli war room when the decision was made to knowingly attack the American ship.31 In fact, that individual, Seth Mintz, wrote a letter to the Washington Post on November 9, 1991, in which he said he was misquoted by Evans and Novak and that the attack, was, in fact, a "case of mistaken identity." Moreover, the man who Mintz originally said had been with him, a Gen. Benni Matti, does not exist.

Also, contrary to claims that an Israeli pilot identified the ship as American on a radio tape, no one has ever produced this tape. In fact, the official Israeli Air Force tape clearly established that no such identification of the ship was made by the Israeli pilots prior to the attack. It also indicates that once the pilots became concerned about the identity of the ship, by virtue of reading its hull number, they terminated the attack. The tapes do not contain any statement suggesting the pilots saw a U.S. flag before the attack.32 Critics claimed the Israeli tape was doctored, but the National Security Agency of the United States released formerly top secret transcripts in July 2003 that confirmed the Israeli version.

A U.S. spy plane was sent to the area as soon as the NSA learned of the attack on the Liberty and recorded the conversations of two Israeli Air Force helicopter pilots, which took place between 2:30 and 3:37 p.m. on June 8. The orders radioed to the pilots by their supervisor at the Hatzor base instructing them to search for Egyptian survivors from the "Egyptian warship" that had just been bombed were also recorded by the NSA. "Pay attention. The ship is now identified as Egyptian," the pilots were informed. Nine minutes later, Hatzor told the pilots the ship was believed to be an Egyptian cargo ship. At 3:07, the pilots were first told the ship might not be Egyptian and were instructed to search for survivors and inform the base immediately the nationality of the first person they rescued. It was not until 3:12 that one of the pilots reported that he saw an American flag flying over the ship at which point he was instructed to verify if it was indeed a U.S. vessel.33

In October 2003, the first Israeli pilot to reach the ship broke his 36-year silence on the attack. Brig.-Gen. Yiftah Spector, a triple ace, who shot down 15 enemy aircraft and took part in the 1981 raid on the Iraqi nuclear reactor, said he had been told an Egyptian ship was off the Gaza coast. "This ship positively did not have any symbol or flag that I could see. What I was concerned with was that it was not one of ours. I looked for the symbol of our navy, which was a large white cross on its deck. This was not there, so it wasn't one of ours." The Jerusalem Post obtained a recording of Spector's radio transmission in which he said, "I can't identify it, but in any case it's a military ship."34

None of Israel's accusers can explain why Israel would deliberately attack an American ship at a time when the United States was Israel's only friend and supporter in the world. Confusion in a long line of communications, which occurred in a tense atmosphere on both the American and Israeli sides (five messages from the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the ship to remain at least 25 miles ? the last four said 100 miles ? off the Egyptian coast arrived after the attack was over) is a more probable explanation.

Accidents caused by ?friendly fire? are common in wartime. In 1988, the U.S. Navy mistakenly downed an Iranian passenger plane, killing 290 civilians. During the Gulf War, 35 of the 148 Americans who died in battle were killed by ?friendly fire.? In April 1994, two U.S. Black Hawk helicopters with large U.S. flags painted on each side were shot down by U.S. Air Force F-15s on a clear day in the ?no fly? zone of Iraq, killing 26 people. In April 2002, an American F-16 dropped a bomb that killed four Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan. In fact, the day before the Liberty was attacked, Israeli pilots accidentally bombed one of their own armored columns.35

Retired Admiral, Shlomo Erell, who was Chief of the Navy in Israel in June 1967, told the Associated Press (June 5, 1977): ?No one would ever have dreamt that an American ship would be there. Even the United States didn't know where its ship was. We were advised by the proper authorities that there was no American ship within 100 miles.?

Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara told Congress on July 26, 1967: ?It was the conclusion of the investigatory body, headed by an admiral of the Navy in whom we have great confidence, that the attack was not intentional.?

In 1987, McNamara repeated his belief that the attack was a mistake, telling a caller on the ?Larry King Show? that he had seen nothing in the 20 years since to change his mind that there had been no ?cover­up.?36

Israel apologized for the tragedy and paid nearly $13 million in humanitarian reparations to the United States and to the families of the victims in amounts established by the U.S. State Department. The matter was officially closed between the two governments by an exchange of diplomatic notes on December 17, 1987.

28For the most comprehensive analysis, see A. Jay Cristol, The Liberty Incident. (Washington, D.C.: Brassey's Inc., 2002);Yitzhak Rabin, The Rabin Memoirs, (CA: University of California Press, 1996), pp. 108-109.
29Rabin, p. 110.
30Dan Kurzman, Soldier of Peace: The Life of Yitzhak Rabin, (NY: HarperCollins, 1998), pp. 224-227; Rabin, p. 108-109.
31Washington Post, (November 6, 1991).
32Hirsh Goodman, ?Messrs. Errors and No Facts,? Jerusalem Report, (November 21, 1991).
33Nathan Guttman, "Memos show Liberty attack was an error," Ha'aretz, (July 9, 2003).
34?Pilot who bombed 'Liberty' talks to 'Post,? Jerusalem Post (October 10, 2003).
35Hirsh Goodman and Ze'ev Schiff, ?The Attack on the Liberty,? Atlantic Monthly, (September 1984).
36?The Larry King Show? (radio), (February 5, 1987).

 

[kage69]

Yet another needless link from the Pro-Israel website *yawn*

Have you not read any of this thread? If you're a zealot like Aegion though I guess it wouldn't matter...

 

[kage69]

Pilots the world over are selected for their intelligence, vision, and coordination, yet somehow this was a problem. And that's not taking into account the vessel ID on the bow, or the American flag flying from the tower.

I'd like to hear the Sharon-strokers present their case to this guy.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Originally posted by: kage69
Pilots the world over are selected for their intelligence, vision, and coordination, yet somehow this was a problem. And that's not taking into account the vessel ID on the bow, or the American flag flying from the tower.

I'd like to hear the Sharon-strokers present their case to this guy.

to quote:

The sea was calm and the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry found that the Liberty's flag was very likely drooped and not discernible; moreover, members of the crew, including the Captain, Commander William McGonagle, testified that the flag was knocked down after the first or second assault.

You make it sound like pliots NEVER make mistakes.

Friendly fire accidents happen all the time in war. In World War II, for example, friendly fire accounted for as many as 21 percent. For the Korean War, estimates range from 2 percent to 18 percent; and for Vietnam from 2 percent to 39 percent.

Anyone who has been in combat will tell you its nothing but mass confusion. The :"Fog of War" is a very real problem even for todays military, not to mention in 1967.

Either way Israel apologized and paid nearly $13 million to the families of the victims.

 

[Doboji]

www.thelibertyincident.com

This is such an old conspiracy theory.... before you make bullcrap conclusions about what happened... why not go and read some of the documentation itself...

Things like one of the major claims from the crew of the Liberty was that they intercepted transmissions from the Israeli pilots identifying the ship as american... only how could they do that considering they had no Hebrew-speakers on board?....

And why is it people have such a hard time believing that a friendly fire incident could happen?... they happen all the time... more people died of friendly fire incidents in the 1st Gulf War than died of hostile fire. And the numbers are pretty high in the recent conflict in Iraq. Mistakes happen... and when mistakes happen with missles... they hurt bad.

Another claim conspiracists love to make is that the IAF tried to destroy the liberty outright and leave no survivors... the IAF was able to destroy the entire Egyptian airforce in 1967 in a few hours... and yet they were unable to sink the Liberty?... Fact is when they realized what the ship was, they backed off.... I assure you that 3 torpedo boats, and numerous IAF fighters, could have very easily sank the Liberty, ESPECIALLY in the condition it was towards the end of the attack.

Sometimes things really are what they seem.

-Max

 

[kage69]

...and sometimes people believe in all the bullshit coming from the Jewish-American lobby.

And here's some more info that I'm sure, in your rabid defense of Israel, you either won't read or refuse to address.




Statement by former Air Force intelligence analyst Stephen Forslund:

For many years I have periodically been reminded of those days in June 1967 that had such an impact on me as a young man. It has been frustrating that, for all that time, I have had to stifle the shout I wanted to make over the injustice that was committed.

I finally feel the overwhelming compulsion to say something about what I witnessed. I do so with fear and discomfort because of the oath of secrecy we all took and the uncertainty over the legality of speaking out. What motivates me to speak is the fact that nothing I can add will harm our nation or compromise our intelligence sources at this late date. I can be written off as a liar or "conspiracy weirdo" or prosecuted if they want to admit that what I say is true.

Much discussion has gone on about what the NSA archives hold about the Liberty attack. The latest I read, stated that the only and final "tapes" that the NSA has released show that helicopters sent by Israel to the site of the attack on the Liberty, after the attack, were unaware of her nationality. Much importance is put on this issue by different factions in this debate. Parties state that these are the only tapes of intercepts that exist. That may very well be true, now. Nothing I can say will change anyone's mind but I have to state, for my own peace of mind, what I witnessed as an all source intelligence analyst for the U.S. Air Force during the 6 day war.

There were other intercepts, and I and many others like me, read transcripts of the air-to-air and air-to-ground communications of the fighters who attacked the USS Liberty. We read these in real time during the day the attack occurred. These intercepts were preceded by many others we read that week that started with the opening attack by Israel in the war and included intercepts of messages between the USA and Israel in which our government stated their knowledge of the Israeli's pre-emptive attack that began the war and warned Israel to cease their activities.

On the day of the attack on the Liberty, I read yellow teletype sheets that spewed from the machines in front of me all day. We obtained our input from a variety of sources including the NSA. The teletypes were raw translations of intercepts of Israeli air-to-air and air-to-ground communications between jet aircraft and their ground controller. I read page after page of these transcripts that day as it went on and on. The transcripts made specific reference to the efforts to direct the jets to the target which was identified as American numerous times by the ground controller. Upon arrival, the aircraft specifically identified the target and mentioned the American flag she was flying. There were frequent operational transmissions from the pilots to the ground base describing the strafing runs. The ground control began asking about the status of the target and whether it was sinking. They stressed that the target must be sunk and leave no trace. The pilots stated they had made several runs and the target was still floating. The ground control station re-iterated that it was urgent that the target be sunk, leaving no trace. There was a detectable level of frustration evident in the transmissions over the fact that the aircraft were unable to accomplish the mission quickly and totally.

The aircraft eventually broke off and we received no further transcripts of the event. I have since learned in later descriptions of the attack that torpedo boats attacked the Liberty also. I saw neither intercepts nor analyses that addressed that attack. An hour or two later I was discussing the event with a team member and he stated they had received, during the time frame of the attack, an intercept of a US State Department message to Israel stating that the United States had full evidence of what had occurred in the attack on the Liberty and strongly warning Israel to cease activities immediately.

Imagine my surprise when, upon going home that night, I was watching the evening news and a short piece that gave vague reference to a mistaken attack by Israel upon an American ship off Sinai came on. The next day there was a small article buried in the A section of the paper stating that there had been an accidental attack on the USS Liberty and that the governments involved were in discussions. I saw little mention after that in the popular press and, of course, said nothing for the next 36 years.

I read these discussions debating whether Israel intentionally attacked the USS Liberty and what their motivation would have been for a deliberate attack. I can't debate their motivation. But, I will carry the memory of those transcripts with me until I die. We all lost our virginity that day.

Steve Forslund
sgmsteve@comcast.net

 

[kage69]

here's another one...




DECLARATION OF JAMES RONALD GOTCHER
I, JAMES RONALD GOTCHER, DO DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS TRUE AND COMPLETE, AND BASED ENTIRELY UPON MY PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE GAINED THROUGH DIRECT OBSERVATON, UNLESS SPECIFICALLY STATED OTHERWISE:

1. My true, full, and correct name is James Ronald Gotcher, III.

2. I am a resident of the State of California.

3. On June 8, 1967, I was a Sergeant in the United States Air Force, assigned to the 6924th Security Squadron, Da Nang, Republic of Vietnam.

4. During the early evening (local time) of June 8, 1967 we received a CRITIC message, informing us that USS Liberty was under attack by Israeli aircraft. Shortly thereafter, we began receiving rough translations of the Israeli air to air and air to ground communications.

5. The next day, we received the final translations of the intercepts. There will virtually no difference between the two versions.

6. While I have a clear recollection of reading transcripts of conversations between pilots and controllers, I do not recall ever reading anything similar to the transcripts recently released by the National Security Agency concerning Israeli helicopter pilots.

7. It was clear from the explicit statements made by both the aircraft crews and the controllers that the aircraft were flying a planned mission to find and sink USS Liberty.

8. My understanding of what I read led me to conclude that the Israeli pilots were making every effort possible to sink USS Liberty and were very frustrated by their inability to do so.

9. Approximately ten days to two weeks later, we received an internal NSA report, summarizing the Agency?s findings. The report stated, in no uncertain terms, that the attack was planned in advance and deliberately executed. The mission was to sink USS Liberty.

10. A few days after the report arrived, another message came through directing the document control officer to gather and destroy all copies of both the rough and final intercept translations, as well as the subsequently issued report.

11. After the destruction of those documents, I saw nothing further on this subject.

12. I have read the translated transcripts, released by the Israeli government, which purport to be actual transcripts of the air to ground communications between the controllers and the attacking aircraft. I know this document to be a fabrication because I have read the actual intercepts and they were nothing like this. It is not possible that the differences could be due to different translations being used.

13. If called upon to testify, I am competent to testify to all of the foregoing on the basis of direct observation and personal knowledge.

Dated: September 2, 2003

 

[kage69]

Admiral Isaac C. Kidd, President of the Navy Court of Inquiry. According to Kidd's legal counsel, Captain Ward Boston, USN, Kidd discussed with him his belief that the attackers were aware they were attacking an American ship. The Court ruled otherwise because they were so directed by Washington. (Navy Times, 6/26/2002)

Captain Ward Boston, legal counsel to the Navy Court of Inquiry. "I feel the Israelis knew what they were doing. They knew they were shooting at a U.S. Navy ship." (Navy Times, 6/26/2002)

George Christian, Press Secretary to President Lyndon Johnson. "No one in the White House believed that the attack was an accident." Letter to James Ennes, 1978.

Dean Rusk, US Secretary of State. Accidents don't occur through repeated attacks by surface vessels and aircraft. It obviously was a decision made pretty high up on the Israeli side, because it involved combined forces. The ship was flying an American flag. My judgment was that somewhere along the line some fairly senior official gave the go ahead. I personally did not accept the Israeli explanation. (Recorded interview, www.ussliberty.org)

Rear Admiral (then captain) Merlin Staring, Staff Legal Office for Commander in Chief US Naval Forces Europe and later Chief Judge Advocate General of the Navy. After reviewing the Court of Inquiry, he concluded that the evidence did not support the findings that the attack was an accident and declined to recommend that his Commander sign and forward it to Washington. (Statement to Navy Times, 3 June 2002 and elsewhere)

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

Richard Helms, former director, Central Intelligence Agency. "It was no accident." (Navy Times, 6/26/2002) Asked to say more, Helms remarked that he did not want to spend the rest of his life testifying in court about the attack. (A Look Over My Shoulder by Richard Helms)

Rufus Taylor, Admiral, Deputy CIA director, told Helms, "To me, the picture thus far presents the distinct possibility that the Israelis knew that Liberty might be their target and attacked anyway. (A Look Over My Shoulder by Richard Helms)

John Morrison, Major General, US Air Force, Deputy Chief NSA Operations during the attack and later Chief of NSA Operations. "....did not buy the Israeli ?mistake' explanations either. Nobody believes that explanation." When informed by author Bamford of gruesome war crime (killing of large numbers of POWs) at nearby El Arish, Morrison saw the connection. "That would be enough," he said. "They wouldn't want us in on that. You've got the motive. What a hell of a thing to do." (Body of Secrets by James Bamford, p233).

Oliver Kirby, former deputy director for operations/production, National Security Agency. "I can tell you for an absolute certainty that they knew they were attacking an American ship." Kirby participated in NSA's investigation of the attack and reviewed translations of intercepted communications between pilots and their headquarters which he reports show conclusively that they knew their target was an American ship. Kirby is considered the "Godfather" of the USS Liberty and USS Pueblo intercept programs. (Telephone interviews with James Ennes and David Walsh for Friendless Fire, Proceedings, June 2003)

William Odom, former director, National Security Agency, reported that on the strength of intercept transcripts of pilots conversation during the attack, the question of the attack's deliberateness "just wasn't a disputed issue" within the agency. (Interview with David Walsh on March 3, 2003, reported in Naval Institute Proceedings, June, 2003)

Bobby Ray Inman, Admiral, USN, Director National Security Agency 1977-1981. Inman said he "flatly rejected" the Cristol thesis that the attack was an accident. "It is just exceedingly difficult to believe that [USS Liberty] was not correctly identified" based on his talks with NSA seniors at the time having direct knowledge of intercepted communications. No NSA official could be found who dissented from the "deliberate" conclusion. (Proceedings, June, 2003)

Captain William L. McGonagle, Commanding Officer, USS Liberty. "USS Liberty is the only US Navy ship attacked by a foreign nation, involving large loss of life...that has never been accorded a full Congressional hearing."

George Ball, former under secretary of state. "The Liberty's presence and function were well known to Israel's leaders. ...Israel's leaders concluded that nothing they might do would offend the Americans to the point of reprisal. If American leaders did not have the courage to punish Israel for the blatant murder of American citizens, it seemed clear that their American friends would let them get away with almost anything. (The Passionate Attachment: America's Involvement with Israel, pages 57-58.

Clark Clifford, Secretary of Defense under Lyndon Johnson. "Inconceivable that it was an accident ? 3 strafing passes, 3 torpedo boats. Set forth facts. Punish Israelis responsible. (Minutes of NSC Special Committee Meeting, 9 June 1967)

Dr. Louis Tordella, former deputy director, National Security Agency. Believed that the attack was deliberate and that the Israeli government attempted to cover it up. Tordella expressed that view to authors James Ennes and James Bamford and to Congressman George Mahon (D-Texas), and in an internal memorandum for the record. He noted "a nice whitewash" in the margin of the official Israeli excuse for the attack. ("A nice whitewash" remark was noted in NSA Gerhard report 1982)

Norman Finkelstein, PhD, author, professor of political science, DePaul University. (In a review of "Six Days of War" by Michael Oren.) "Oren...frequently descends to vulgar propaganda. Deeming the Israeli combined air and naval assault on the USS Liberty ...an accident,' Oren rehashes official Israeli tales and embellishes them with his own whoppers." (Journal of Palestine Studies, Spring, 2003, p85)

Marshal Carter, former director, National Security Agency, in a telephone interview with James Ennes, described the attack as clearly deliberate.

Lucius Battle, former presidential advisor, as keynote speaker for 1982 USS Liberty reunion described attack as clearly deliberate.

FBI Officials. "FBI officials counter that ?friendly' spying can be as damaging as spying for enemies, they note, as in 1967 when Israeli jets deliberately attacked the electronic intelligence- gathering ship USS Liberty...." (Washington Times, November 26, 1998)

James Akins, former US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia. "How much better if Congress would....call to account those who were involved in spreading lies about the tragedy." (Special Report, The Israeli Attack on the USS Liberty, June 8, 1967, The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, December, 1999)

Victor Ostrovsky, author and former Mossad officer. "The attack was deliberate and not an accident." (Telephone conversation with Memo to File, former Congressman Pete McCloskey, October 10, 1991, and several conversations with James Ennes.)

Dwight Porter, former US Ambassador to Lebanon, who saw transcripts of Israeli communications during the attack. "It's an American ship!" the pilot of an Israeli Mirage fighter- bomber radioed Tel Aviv as he sighted the USS Liberty on June 8, 1967. Israeli headquarters ordered the pilot to carry out his mission, he reports. (Syndicated column "Remembering the Liberty" by Rowland Evans and Robert Novak, November 6, 1991.)

Sergeev Oleg Korneevitch, retired Colonel, Soviet GRU. "The historical event which took place in June 1967 can hardly be called enigmatic and mysterious. ...It is difficult to understand that the Israelis could not identity the USS Liberty, since the ship had a unique antenna and equipment and especially since the Israelis had identified the ship with long term observation." (Translated from a taped interview.)

Walter L. Jacobsen, Lieutenant Commander, US Navy. "The government of Israel intentionally attacked the ship. ...The attack was not legally justified. ...(there were) two further violations of international law...the use of unmarked military aircraft (and)...the wanton destruction of life rafts." (Naval Law Review, Vol 36, Winter 1986)

Stephen Green, author. "He indicates that the attack was not an accident." (Antelope Valley Press, April 5, 1984)

Paul Findley, author and former Member of Congress 1961-1983. "Certain facts are clear. The attack was no accident. The Liberty was assaulted in broad daylight by Israeli forces who knew the ship's identity. ...The public, however, was kept in the dark. Even before the American public learned of the attack, U.S. government officials began to promote an account satisfactory to Israel. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee worked through Congressmen to keep the story under control. The President of the United States, Lyndon B. Johnson, ordered and led a cover-up so thorough that years after he left office the episode is still largely unknown...." (They Dare to Speak Out, by Paul Findley, 1985, page 166)

William F. Buckley, journalist and publisher. "Is the Liberty episode being erased from history. So it would seem...What has happened to our prying journalistic corps and our editors, normally so indignant of attempted suppression of the news?...We believe that a joint select committee of Congress should investigate the strange case of the USS Liberty..." (National Review, June 27, 1967)

Lloyd M. "Pete" Bucher, US Navy, Commanding Officer USS Pueblo when captured by North Korea in January 1968. "The attack on the USS Liberty was planned and there is and was a cover-up." "If the very valuable lessons of the Liberty were known, the capture of the USS Pueblo could not have happened." (Telephone conversations with James Ennes and on September 6, 2002, with Richard Schmucker)

Donald Neff, author. "Nearly everyone who is not affiliated with Israel...and who has seriously looked into the attack believes that it was deliberate. ...The bare facts of the attack rule out any other conclusion." (Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, August, 2002, p29)

Adlai E. Stevenson, former United States Senator. In 1980, Senator Stevenson announced his interest in holding Congressional hearings on the attack. He pointed out that the survivors have been consistent in their accounts of what happened and that the attack was, in his word, "premeditated." (William J. Small, United Press International, September 28, 1980)

Ralph Hoppe, Colonel, US Army, retired. Hoppe reports that dozens of intelligence reports soon after the attack described the attack as deliberate including a "consensus report" which summarized the collective view of the US intelligence community. Soon orders came from Washington to collect and destroy all such reports. Nothing more in official channels described the attack as deliberate. (Aerotech News and Review, March 2, 2001, by John Borne, PhD, and conversations with James Ennes)

Andrew and Leslie Cockburn, authors. "It is clear that the Israelis knew that they were attacking a vessel of the US Navy, especially as it was flying a large Stars and Stripes at the time. The fact that they spent six hours reconnoitering and executing the attack, which included machine-gunning the lifeboats, attest to the deadly intent of the operation. ("Dangerous Liaison, the Inside Story of the US-Israeli Covert Relationship," by Andrew and Leslie Cockburn, p152.)

Professor Hayden Peake, author, former CIA officer and member, Association of Former Intelligence Officers. "...A. Jay Cristol's virtual minority of one assessment is not supported by the detailed non-technical common sense evidence to the contrary in "Body of Secrets" (by James Bamford). "There is nothing surprising in Bamford's conclusion that the attack was deliberate. Liberty survivors have made that case convincingly for years." (The Intelligencer, Vol. 12, No.1, Summer 2001)

Ahron Bregman, PhD, author. Book reviews transcripts of communications during the attack which establish that the attack was deliberate. (Israel's Wars, 1947-1993, by Ahron Bregman)

USS Liberty Survivors. Survivors of the attack are unanimous in their conviction that the attack was deliberate. Among other things, their belief is based upon the intense pre-attack reconnaissance, the fact that the firing continued from close range long after the attackers examined the ship and its markings from a few feet away, and because the Israeli version of events as reported to the United States is grossly untrue.

 

[adlep]

You make it sound like pliots NEVER make mistakes.

Friendly fire accidents happen all the time in war. In World War II, for example, friendly fire accounted for as many as 21 percent. For the Korean War, estimates range from 2 percent to 18 percent; and for Vietnam from 2 percent to 39 percent.

Anyone who has been in combat will tell you its nothing but mass confusion. The :"Fog of War" is a very real problem even for todays military, not to mention in 1967.

Either way Israel apologized and paid nearly $13 million to the families of the victims.

This is not an exuse.
Fog of war might happen durring the stormy wether of at night.
But durring the daylight, in the beautiful weather?
Give me a break...
Aslo, the posts above by kage69 should convince you...
Ageon try to argue with that...lol...

 

[kage69]

It wasn't an excuse, it was a diversion. For example, I never said anything to the tune of 'pilots never making mistakes,' yet he ignores that and uses it to focus on a woefully obvious factoid of combat, all the while ignoring the plethora of evidence that indicates, yes - there has been a cover up. Typical Jewish-American-errand-boy disinformation.

 

[Doboji]

Kage69,

Whats with all the venom towards Jewish-Americans.... as if to indicate that simply by being a Jewish-American my statements are somehow invalid.... thats bullcrap... whats your nationality, and background?

In your posts you include statements from the likes of Norman Finklestein, who is well known for his comparisons of the IDF to the Nazis... and Paul FIndley who has spoken at conventions accusing the Holocaust itself of being a hoax... (which raises an interesting question to you.... are you one of those who denies the holocaust as well?).

Look up each of the names in the postings and see first of all.... whether they have any position to make a good judgement call regarding this incident... and further what their political motivations are...

I'm not going to sit here and post a zillion pounds of information from all the various pro-israel versions of the story... I can list just as many counter supporters with just as high credentials.... instead of trying to win the argument by posting an enourmous pile of garbage... I put up a good link to A Jay Cristol's site. An excellent place to hear arguments that the attack was a mistake.

I'll simply state my opinion... I've read both accounts of the story... A Jay Cristol's, Jim Erne(sp?), US reports, Israeli reports, etc etc etc... and I believe the Israeli/Cristol/US story....

I advise everyone to go on the internet, do lots of searches, buy both Cristol's and Erne's book... and come to your own conclusion. Research the people behind each document... and research the origins of each document... be thorough....


-Max

 

[kage69]

You're doing it again.

I don't have a problem with Jewish Americans, I never said I did. I had no idea you were Jewish-American - not only do I not care what your nationality is, but it has no bearing on the topic at hand. Save us your poor, victimized sentiments for another thread. Many crew members of the Liberty were Jewish-American; am I somehow a rascist for supporting them while at the same time slighting your unknown (and irrelevent) ethnicity? Please. My rancor is reserved for the Jewish-American lackeys who work to influence Congress at the behest of Tel Aviv. They did everything they could to discredit and smear the Liberty survivors, and I consider them amoungst the most lowly excuses for human beings.

I'm not going to sit here and post a zillion pounds of information from all the various pro-israel versions of the story... I can list just as many counter supporters with just as high credentials.... instead of trying to win the argument by posting an enourmous pile of garbage... I put up a good link to A Jay Cristol's site. An excellent place to hear arguments that the attack was a mistake.

Of course you're not, mindless supporters like you don't need to bother with objective research. Please though, it would be amusing to see all these "counter supporters with just as high credentials" in the text, so to speak, especially when you go on to say that many of those names are just an "enourmous pile of garbage." Niiiiiiiice.

Seems you and Cristol have a lot more in common than pretending the Liberty attack was an accident.

 

[Doboji]

Kage 69,

You're doing it again.

What disagreeing with your ill concieved assumptions....

Save us your poor, victimized sentiments for another thread.

Victimized?.... how ya figure... you're the one dismissing all the "jewish lobby" claims because they're from the "jewish lobby".

mindless supporters like you don't need to bother with objective research

Mindless?... Maybe you weren't listening when I said I've read numerous accounts of the story from multiple perspectives. Or maybe you're just not reading the whole post.... before jumping to your conclusions.

Please though, it would be amusing to see all these "counter supporters with just as high credentials" in the text, so to speak, especially when you go on to say that many of those names are just an "enourmous pile of garbage." Niiiiiiiice.

Oh for godsakes... you know what I meant... lets not be children about the semantics?

You asked for it....

"After years of research for this book, Judge A. Jay Cristol has reached a similar conclusion to one my father reached in his June 18, 1967, endorsement of the findings of the court of inquiry. I commend Judge Cristol for his thoroughness and fairness, and I commend this work."
- SEN. JOHN McCAIN

"The Liberty Incident puts twenty-five years of conspiracy theories and political confusion to rest and marks the culmination of your exhaustive research. With your in-depth analysis of what really occurred on June 8th, 1967, you have shown the light of knowledge into the darkest corners of mistrust and misconceptions. [...] You truly deserve to be commended for your extensive research, analysis and conclusions resulting in the writing of The Liberty Incident. [Full text]"
- SEN. BOB GRAHAM
Chair, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

"Only those with an ulterior motive can still cling to the conspiracy theories after Judge Jay Cristol's excellent coverage documents each detail that led to the tragic mistaken attack."
- ADM. LEON A. (BUD) EDNEY, USN (Ret.);
former NATO supreme allied commander, Atlantic;
and commander-in-chief, U.S. Atlantic command

"This is a story of mistakes in war as old as history and as current as today's headlines. Jay Cristol is well qualified to write this exhaustive history after analyzing, collecting, and cross-checking decades of interviews and reams of written material."
- ADM. DAVID E. JEREMIAH, USN (Ret.),
former vice chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff

Hank Roth is a former cryptologist in the White House for the President of the United States, and in the War Room at the Pentagon for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

And like I said before... read A Jay Cristol's book.... it will shed a light of truth on the situation.... And if you're going to dispute Cristol... do it with facts... otherwise shut the hell up.

I'll look up some more quotes later.... if you need more...

-Max

 

[adlep]

Whats with all the venom towards Jewish-Americans.... as if to indicate that simply by being a Jewish-American my statements are somehow invalid.... thats bullcrap... whats your nationality, and background

Right,

Anti-semite label....
Works well every time....
Also, Doboji the link you have provided doesn't add up....
What kind of a place is it anyway?
Looks like it is very Pro Israeli and it is run by the Jewish guy...
He will be really "objective".....