USS Liberty [Archive]

Cpt.Fantastic

2nd July 2008, 09:34 PM

Hey guys, first time poster ~

I came across this forum having a debate on another forum regarding 9/11, I began with the standpoint that 9/11 may have been an inside job but the facts do not support the case, though I do feel something is being covered up, gross incompetence perhaps.

Anyhow I came across the USS Liberty. A very interesting case indeed, any rational individual can figure out the attack was intentional and that the ship was known to be an US ship.

First I'll say why I think the attack was intentional and why I feel it is idiotic to not see this as the case.

8 Flyovers happened before the attack where the crew report waving to the pilot(s) and having the wave returned, they said they felt rather safe knowing the Isralies knew they where there... This was in the morning and the USS Liberty continued on the same course at around 5 knots.

Remember this was a blue sky day and the US flag was flying high on the ship for all to see. Around two o'clock the attack started, estimates are of around 30 sorties... This wasn't a small attack by any means 'In Malta, crewmen were later assigned the task of
counting all of the holes in the ship that were the size of a man’s hand or larger. They
found a total of 861 such holes, in addition to “thousands” of .50 caliber machine gun
holes.'

After the the Air attack 3 Isreali PT boats fired 6 torpedoes at the USS Liberty and thanks to the commander he missed 5, sadly one did hit killing 25 crew members instantly which tore a hole in the side of the ship under the waterline and seriously compromised the hull.

Additionally after all of this Israeli helicopters showed up with heavily armed men aboard.

You have quite a few reports from numerous credible witnesses saying they heard the communication between the pilots and of the war room... 'It is an American ship... You have your orders... It is an American ship... You have your orders' words to that extent. You also have an Israeli pilot coming forward recently and saying how he was arrested after the incident for failing to carry out his orders...

This Report is filed by the USS Liberty Veterans Association, Inc. a California
non-profit corporation, recognized by the Internal Revenue Service as a Section
501(c)(3) tax exempt veterans organization, acting on behalf of the surviving crewmembers
of USS Liberty.

- Fail report link gah first post

Findings of the Independent Commission of Inquiry into the Israeli Attack on the USS Liberty, the Recall of Military Rescue Support Aircraft while the Ship was Under Attack, and the Subsequent Cover-up by the United States Government

CAPITOL HILL, WASHINGTON, D.C.
OCTOBER 22, 2003

ADMIRAL THOMAS H. MOORER, UNITED STATES NAVY, (RET.)
Former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
Chairman, Liberty Alliance

GENERAL RAYMOND G. DAVIS, UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS, (RET.)*
Former Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps
Congressional Medal of Honor Recipient
Vice Chairman, Liberty Alliance

REAR ADMIRAL MERLIN STARING, UNITED STATES NAVY, (RET.)
Former Judge Advocate General of the Navy
Director, Liberty Alliance

AMBASSADOR JAMES AKINS, (RET.)
Former United States Ambassador to Saudi Arabia
Director, Liberty Alliance

-fail link gah

Failed False Flag Operation? Israel covering up genocide? Something else?

p.s my first post so I cannot put url's in my post... That's handy = / I see why though, dam spammers. If anyone wants the links pm me or so.

gtc

2nd July 2008, 09:48 PM

Welcome aboard,

You can still post links like this:

www . link . com

Dave Rogers

3rd July 2008, 03:58 AM

gumboot

3rd July 2008, 04:51 AM

Based on a general appreciation of naval history in the 20th Century, I find it utterly beyond credibility that a competent naval force could attack a lightly armed merchant ship using fighter-bombers and motor torpedo boats and yet leave that ship still afloat. Any kind of co-ordination between the two attacks, or simply equipping the fighters with some kind of anti-shipping weapon, would easily have been able to sink the USS Liberty leaving no survivors. I can understand the survivors still being angry at the deaths of their crewmates, but the conspiracy theory simply doesn't pass the common sense test. Mistakes like this are common in war.

Dave

The testimony of the survivors themselves confirms that the torpedo boats approached while signaling (although the crew couldn't tell what the message was because of the smoke from the fires) and that the crew of the Liberty fired on the torpedo boats first.

According to the Israelis the torpedo boats were dispatched to assist the Liberty once it became clear the boat was American, and signaled in accordance with this, upon which the Liberty fired at them so they defended themselves and returned fire.

These two accounts are, in fact, totally consistent with each other.

kookbreaker

3rd July 2008, 05:44 AM

I would point out to those who claim that misidentification was 'impossible'.

Remember this was not the Isreali front line troops attacking. The planes were the equivalent of the National Guard. They had limited experience with sea-based identification. Seaborne IDing can be very tricky as there is no real basis for size comparison.

Flybys by Isreali planes in the morning are of little relevance to an attack that took place in the afternoon.

For another incident, I would point out that during WW2, during the hunt for the German Ship Bismark, several Swordfish torpedo bombers accidently attacked the HMS Sheffied, a ship with 1/6 the displacement of the Bismark.

So the Swordfish bombers attacked the Shefflield despite:

a) The size difference
b) The much lower speed of the Swordfish
c) The pilots much greater familiarity with the Sheffield

Yet, somehow pilots flying high speed jets are supposed to see a single flag when Swordfish pilots could not spot the British flag on the familiar Sheffield.

This was not the only misidentification incident. Experienced Egyptian pilots misidentified oil tankers as five-times-the-displacement Aircraft Carriers.

Doctor Evil

3rd July 2008, 05:57 AM

Hey guys, first time poster ~

I came across this forum having a debate on another forum regarding 9/11, I began with the standpoint that 9/11 may have been an inside job but the facts do not support the case, though I do feel something is being covered up, gross incompetence perhaps.

Anyhow I came across the USS Liberty. A very interesting case indeed, any rational individual can figure out the attack was intentional and that the ship was known to be an US ship.

First I'll say why I think the attack was intentional and why I feel it is idiotic to not see this as the case.

8 Flyovers happened before the attack where the crew report waving to the pilot(s) and having the wave returned, they said they felt rather safe knowing the Isralies knew they where there... This was in the morning and the USS Liberty continued on the same course at around 5 knots.

Remember this was a blue sky day and the US flag was flying high on the ship for all to see. Around two o'clock the attack started, estimates are of around 30 sorties... This wasn't a small attack by any means 'In Malta, crewmen were later assigned the task of
counting all of the holes in the ship that were the size of a man’s hand or larger. They
found a total of 861 such holes, in addition to “thousands” of .50 caliber machine gun
holes.'

After the the Air attack 3 Isreali PT boats fired 6 torpedoes at the USS Liberty and thanks to the commander he missed 5, sadly one did hit killing 25 crew members instantly which tore a hole in the side of the ship under the waterline and seriously compromised the hull.

Additionally after all of this Israeli helicopters showed up with heavily armed men aboard.

You have quite a few reports from numerous credible witnesses saying they heard the communication between the pilots and of the war room... 'It is an American ship... You have your orders... It is an American ship... You have your orders' words to that extent. You also have an Israeli pilot coming forward recently and saying how he was arrested after the incident for failing to carry out his orders...

- Fail report link gah first post

-fail link gah

Failed False Flag Operation? Israel covering up genocide? Something else?

p.s my first post so I cannot put url's in my post... That's handy = / I see why though, dam spammers. If anyone wants the links pm me or so.

Even with my meager knowledge I have found some issues with the way you present things.

As was already mentioned, the Israeli Torpedo boats fired only after fired upon, a fact which you do not mention. Not mentioning relevant fact such as this will be frowned upon here.

Next, you mention the Israeli helicopters, and remark
Additionally after all of this Israeli helicopters showed up with heavily armed men aboard.
Wow, they had armed men aboard? In war? I am shocked, I tell ya.

More seriously, what is that comment supposed to convey? These helicopters are of interest since their communications with their control tower were intercepted by the NSA. They were declassified in 2003 and you can read the transcripts here (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/nsaliberty.html).

Note that these transcripts were intercepted after the attack, when these helicopters were sent to investigate and save survivors (under the assumption there were man in water). It is clear that at first the control tower considered the ship to be Egyptian. As far as I know these are the only transcripts of relevant Israeli communications that the NSA had.

Failed False Flag Operation? Israel covering up genocide? Something else?
genocide? WTF? :jaw-dropp
You spring 'teh crazy' at the end. Are you really suggesting Israel was performing genocide are the mostly empty desert.

And false flag? False flag is a name to an operation where you are supposed to blame someone else for the operation. All Israeli units involved were clearly marked.

If you ask for my opinion, I believe that the helicopters transcript give strong evidence that Israeli command had no idea that the ship was a US vessel. Should they have known, possibly. Is it possible that the some Israelis polished the truth to cover their asses, after realizing they messed things? Probably. An example would be the claim of the Torpedo boats commander that they identified the ship and being Egyptian. I think that their behaviour is more consistent with not identifying the ship at all, but that just a speculation.

MRC_Hans

3rd July 2008, 06:09 AM

I have only studied the accounts of this incident superficially, but to me, it looks like a typical friendly fire accident. In these incidents, which are, and have always been, quite common, it is typical that once a misidentification has happened, and one unit has opened fire, the subsequent units simply follow suit, without even trying to identify the target. After all, they consider it already identified.

A common scenario is also that the target, once attacked, will return the fire, and indeed fire on practically anything in range, confounding the problem.

In other words, the sequence of events is quite consistent with a friendly fire accident.

In contrast, a subversive or false flag operation would rarely involve so many units, especially not both air and sea units. The risk of disclosure is simply too great.

A false flag operation would be aiming at one of two goals:

1) To eliminate the unit. In this case, a single torpedo unit (surface or U-boat) could easily move within firing range under the guise of friendship, fire a volley of torpedoes, then finish off any survivors with guns. Simple and relatively easy, and leaving no witnesses.

2) To provide a provocation, presumably to serve as an excuse for some other action. In this case, there would be no need for a massive attack; a single plane with false markings raking the ship with gunfire and then disappearing would be adequate.

In other words, the scenario fits an accidental attack.

Hans

~enigma~

3rd July 2008, 06:13 AM

and why I feel it is idiotic to not see this as the case.
Stopped reading here. Have any idea why Sherlock?

Cpt.Fantastic

3rd July 2008, 06:18 AM

Fantastic, some opposition to disprove.

You're all obviously oblivious as to your ignorance on this matter, I'm glad the bait was seized upon. Don't be offended my friends, alls well.

Based on a general appreciation of naval history in the 20th Century, I find it utterly beyond credibility that a competent naval force could attack a lightly armed merchant ship using fighter-bombers and motor torpedo boats and yet leave that ship still afloat. Any kind of co-ordination between the two attacks, or simply equipping the fighters with some kind of anti-shipping weapon, would easily have been able to sink the USS Liberty leaving no survivors. I can understand the survivors still being angry at the deaths of their crewmates, but the conspiracy theory simply doesn't pass the common sense test. Mistakes like this are common in war.

Dave

Logic would tell you that wouldn't it? Sadly a lot of the time logic doesn't stand testament to the real world. The 3 Israeli patrol boats had two torpedoes each all of which they fired. Due to the skill of the Capitan/Israeli error he avoided 5 of these torpedoes though one managed to hit doing severe damage to the hull, the ship took on a lot of water but the damage control teams managed to do some DIY.

Additionally the Air Attack lasted for around 25minutes according to the report I have posted below. It involved 12 planes and an estimated 25 sorties. The entire time of which the American flag was raised, this is not in question. The sky was blue and we have reputable people confirmed by the NSA tapes that the Isrealies acknowledged that it was an American ship.

Also to the people claiming that it was mis-identified, have you actually read the sworn testament of the sailors of that ship? One of the most highly decorated crews of one of the most highly decorated ships of the United States Navy. It does not account for the theories put forth by the governments of the United States and of Israel. Nor has there ever been a congressional investigation into the incident despite much objection.

The quotes after are from a report by

ADMIRAL THOMAS H. MOORER, UNITED STATES NAVY, (RET.)
Former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
Chairman, Liberty Alliance

GENERAL RAYMOND G. DAVIS, UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS, (RET.)*
Former Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps
Congressional Medal of Honor Recipient
Vice Chairman, Liberty Alliance

REAR ADMIRAL MERLIN STARING, UNITED STATES NAVY, (RET.)
Former Judge Advocate General of the Navy
Director, Liberty Alliance

AMBASSADOR JAMES AKINS, (RET.)
Former United States Ambassador to Saudi Arabia
Director, Liberty Alliance

We, the undersigned, having undertaken an independent investigation of Israel’s attack on the USS Liberty, including eyewitness testimony from surviving crewmembers, a review of naval and other official records, an examination of official statements by the Israeli and American governments, a study of the conclusions of all previous official inquiries, and a consideration of important new evidence and recent statements from individuals having direct knowledge of the attack or the cover up, hereby find the following: **

That the Israeli air attack lasted approximately 25 minutes, during which time unmarked Israeli aircraft dropped napalm canisters on the Liberty’s bridge, and fired 30mm cannons and rockets into our ship, causing 821 holes, more than 100 of which were rocket-size; survivors estimate 30 or more sorties were flown over the ship by a minimum of 12 attacking Israeli planes which were jamming all five American emergency radio channels;

That the torpedo boat attack involved not only the firing of torpedoes, but the machine-gunning of the Liberty’s firefighters and stretcher-bearers as they struggled to save their ship and crew; the Israeli torpedo boats later returned to machine-gun at close range three of the Liberty’s life rafts that had been lowered into the water by survivors to rescue the most seriously wounded;

[3] New evidence of intercepted radio communications between attacking Israeli pilots and the Israeli War Room, recorded by a U.S. Navy EC-121 spy plane, in which the Israeli pilots report seeing the Liberty’s American flag flying, has been collected by investigative author James Bamford - for 9 years the Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings (and author of Body of Secrets, which includes a chapter entitled Blood about the attack on the Liberty). A similar radio message was intercepted by the EC-121 from the Israeli motor torpedo boats. This corroborates statements by surviving crewmembers, by Ambassador Dwight Porter, and by senior National Security Agency officials concerning NSA intercepts of Israeli pilot communications identifying the ship as American.

So hey if you guys want to call me names, please provide evidence to the contrary of these very reputable men.

Loss Leader

3rd July 2008, 06:22 AM

Got in himmel. The Liberty? Again?

For all the conspiracists out there, let me repeat some basic truths: The USS Liberty was an acknowledged spy ship sitting five miles off of the coast of a war zone after the US had declared that it had no ships in the area. After several inquiries by the US Military, the US Congress, and Israel, all of them agreed it was a friendly fire incident. Israel appologized and paid millions of dollars in damages.

And all of this happened forty-one years ago.

Get over it.

Cpt.Fantastic

3rd July 2008, 06:28 AM

It was covered up, I know most of you here have your ******** detectors turned to %120 due to the 9/11 movement but read the report by these men, you'll be surprised what happened.

That and hear/read the testimony of the crew.

Doctor Evil

3rd July 2008, 06:47 AM

Here is a report (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/liberty1.html) of the incident by an Israeli historian. He actually give the name of one of the Isaeli pilots invloved, which had talked about the incident recently.

The torpedo boats gave chase, but even at their maximum speed of 36 knots, they did not expect to overtake their target before it reached Egypt. Rahav therefore alerted the air force, and two Mirage III fighters were diverted from the Suez Canal, northeast to the sea. When they arrived, the vessel they saw was "gray with two guns in the forecastle, a mast and funnel." Making two passes at 3,000 feet, formation commander Capt. Spector (IDF records do not provide pilots' first names) reckoned that the ship was a "Z" or Hunt-class destroyer without the deck markings (a white cross on a red background) of the Israeli navy. Spector then spoke with air force commander Gen. Motti Hod, who asked him repeatedly whether he could see a flag. The answer was "Negative." Nor were there any distinguishing marks other than some "black letters" painted on the hull.
IAF Intelligence Chief Col. Yeshayahu Bareket also claimed to have contacted American Naval Attaché Castle at this point in an attempt to ascertain whether the suspect ship was the Liberty, but the latter professed no knowledge of the Liberty's schedule - a claim later denied by Castle but, strangely, confirmed by McGonagle.24 One fact is clear, however: After two low sweeps by the lead plane, at 1:58 p.m., the Mirages were cleared to attack.
The first salvos caught the Liberty's crew in "stand-down" mode; several officers were sunning themselves on the deck, unaware of the Israeli jets bearing down on them. Before they could take shelter, rockets and 30-mm cannon shells stitched the ship from bow to stern, severing the antennas and setting oil drums on fire. Nine men were killed in the initial assault, and several times that number wounded, among them McGonagle. Radio operators on board found most of their frequencies inoperable and barely managed to send an SOS to the Sixth Fleet. The Mirages made three strafing runs and were then joined by two additional aircraft, Israeli Super-Mysteres returning from the Mitla Pass with a payload of napalm. After fourteen minutes of action, the pilots reported having made good hits - over eight hundred holes would later be counted in the hull. The entire superstructure of the ship, from the main deck to the bridge, was aflame.
Throughout these sorties, no one aboard the Liberty suspected that the planes were Israeli. Indeed, rumors spread that the attackers were Egyptian MiGs. After the first strike, the visibility that had enabled crewmen to identify IAF reconnaissance craft earlier in the day was lost to the smoke of battle. One of the Israeli pilots, curious as to why the vessel had not returned fire, made a final pass at ninety feet. "I see no flag," he told headquarters. "But there are markings on the hull - Charlie-Tango-Romeo-five."25
While Egyptian naval ships were known to disguise their identities with Western markings, they usually displayed Arabic letters and numbers only. The fact that the ship had Western markings led Rabin to fear that it was Soviet, and he immediately called off the jets. Two IAF Hornet helicopters were sent to look for survivors - Spector had reported seeing men overboard - while the torpedo boat squadron was ordered to hold its fire pending further attempts at identification. Though that order was recorded in the torpedo boat's log, Oren claimed he never received it.26 It was now 2:20 in the afternoon; twenty-four minutes would pass before the squadron made contact with the Liberty.

As you can see, everyone agrees that the Israeli planes hit the Liberty many times. This claim is not under contention and does not help one determine whether this was a friendly fire incident, or an intentional attack. The report seems to contradict the claims that there were 12 planes involved (mentions 4 planes).

Cpt.Fantastic

3rd July 2008, 07:18 AM

roundhead

3rd July 2008, 07:35 AM

The most telling fact here, and it was barely mentioned, is that the Israeli boats were machine gunning Liberty lifeboats at a range of 50-75 yards.

Do you know how large the letters are on the bow of an American ship.

The name can be seen with the naked eye easily several hundred yards away. I have identified many ships entering port at Norfolk in this way. And i err on the side of caution.

Anybody who thinks the boats directly standing by the ship, could not be identified by merely reading the name of the ship , is insane.

Then of course we have air assets on the way to rescue the ship being intentionally turned back by LBJ.

The fact the Israeli's were aware of incoming help is why they left. They in no way intended to leave any survivors or the ship still afloat.

Of course we also have Admiral Mc Cain refusing to allow anybody from the court of inquiry to go to Israel to question anybody. That is criminal.

US Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, and Joint Chiefs of Staff head, Admiral Thomas Moorer, insisted the Israeli attack was deliberate and designed to sink 'Liberty.' So did three CIA reports; one asserted Israel's Defense Minister, Gen. Moshe Dayan, had personally ordered the attack.

The attack on 'Liberty' was fading into obscurity until last week, when intelligence expert James Bamford came out with Body of Secrets, his latest book about the National Security Agency. In a stunning revelation, Bamford writes that unknown to Israel, a US Navy EC-121 intelligence aircraft was flying high overhead the 'Liberty,' electronically recorded the attack. The US aircraft crew provides evidence that the Israeli pilots knew full well that they were attacking a US Navy ship flying the American flag.

Doctor Evil

3rd July 2008, 07:37 AM

Doctor Evil, there are only two sides to this story.

It's either the Israelis where right up next to the vessel shooting firefighters and stretcher bearers or that it was a mistake.

The 10 American reports and the 4 Israeli reports all commissioned by the government all say it was a friendly fire accident.

The only independent investigation(blue-ribbon) by the men I've listed say all of those reports are wrong.

Look, its clear that this investigation was form since the people involved disagreed with the result of the previous 14 investigations. You can call it independent as it had nothing to do with the government, but it would take some motivation to re-investigate this incident again. In any case, the identity of the people in the commission, or their motivation is to the issue here. The evidence is the issue here.

You qoute:

[3] New evidence of intercepted radio communications between attacking Israeli pilots and the Israeli War Room, recorded by a U.S. Navy EC-121 spy plane, in which the Israeli pilots report seeing the Liberty’s American flag flying, has been collected by investigative author James Bamford - for 9 years the Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings (and author of Body of Secrets, which includes a chapter entitled Blood about the attack on the Liberty). A similar radio message was intercepted by the EC-121 from the Israeli motor torpedo boats. This corroborates statements by surviving crewmembers, by Ambassador Dwight Porter, and by senior National Security Agency officials concerning NSA intercepts of Israeli pilot communications identifying the ship as American.

The only transcripts I was able to find, which were declassified in 2003, are not those. In fact, they point in the other direction. Your quote implies that other transcript exist and are known, Can you find a link to these? (Mind, not a link to someone who heard about them. A link to the transcripts.) The transcript I have cited clearly show that the control tower directing the helicopters considered the ship to be Egyptian. This is primary evidence, which was recorded at that time.

Loss Leader

3rd July 2008, 07:39 AM

The most telling fact here, and it was barely mentioned, is that the Israeli boats were machine gunning Liberty lifeboats at a range of 50-75 yards.

It's hardly a "fact." Not even the survivors of the Liberty agree that this happened. And it was forty-one years ago.

roundhead

3rd July 2008, 07:43 AM

~enigma~

3rd July 2008, 07:43 AM

Someone tell me that bringing up anti-Israel baloney 41 years after the fact isn't rooted FIRMLY in anti-semitism and in my opinion isn't far removed from holocaust denial. The OP is on ignore...

Doctor Evil

3rd July 2008, 07:49 AM

Commander McGonagle was quietly awarded the Medal of Honor for his and his men's heroism – not in the White House, as is usual, but in an obscure ceremony at the Washington Navy Yard. Crew member's graves were inscribed, 'died in the Eastern Mediterranean..' as if they had be killed by disease, rather than hostile action.

Since Israel never denied that it had attacked the ship, and in fact, paid compensations, this bears no light on the nature of the incident. At best this is a complaint about the way the US navy dealt with its casualties and survivors. Was that the purpose of this post?

Loss Leader

3rd July 2008, 07:53 AM

Commander McGonagle was quietly awarded the Medal of Honor for his and his men's heroism – not in the White House, as is usual, but in an obscure ceremony at the Washington Navy Yard. Crew member's graves were inscribed, 'died in the Eastern Mediterranean..' as if they had be killed by disease, rather than hostile action.

Considering the fact that the it was an intelligence ship on a secret intelligence mission, how strange is it that the crew members' graves don't give more detail? Are the details of intelligence missions usually spelled out on gravestones?

Also, considering the fact that Israel admitted to attacking the Liberty and paid millions of dollars in damages, why are the gravestones evidence of anything? There can't passibly have been a cover-up as to their cause of death because Israel admitted it.

~enigma~

3rd July 2008, 07:54 AM

Was that the purpose of this post?
To convince the naive and weak brained that Israel is evil because they are run by a zionist government so it is justified to hate, persecute and I personally wouldn't be surprised if this Aryan ******* said kill jews.

Donal

3rd July 2008, 07:57 AM

The 10 American reports and the 4 Israeli reports all commissioned by the government all say it was a friendly fire accident.

The only independent investigation(blue-ribbon) by the men I've listed say all of those reports are wrong.

So why is the one that opposes the others the right one?

roundhead

3rd July 2008, 07:57 AM

This feature article, from 2007 in the Chicago Tribune very ably sums up the event.

Read it carefully and note the corraborating witnesses who state Israel was well aware of what and whom they were attacking.
And contrary to a previous posters assertions, she was 13 miles out at sea when the attack began, in international waters.

New revelations in attack on American spy ship
Veterans, documents suggest U.S., Israel didn't tell full story of deadly '67 incident

By John Crewdson | Tribune senior correspondent
October 2, 2007
Breach of rule 4 removed.

kookbreaker

3rd July 2008, 08:00 AM

Your 'Blue Ribbon Panel' was self-selected, which invalidates any objectivity they might have had. In addition, Adm. Moorer has always been anti-Isreali, and quite frankly a bit of a rabid anti-communist.

Furthermore, the man is a political nutbar. He 'predicted' a Chinese takeover of the Panama Canal would take place immediately after we turned the canal over to the government of Panama, and bitterly criticized Bill Clinton for upholding a treaty! Moorer has also fallen for TWA800 conspiracy theories and a load of other nonsense. His claims about the Liberty are nothing more than opinion, not backed with evidence.

However, under his watch as CNO, Moorer approved one of the US Court Navy findings! Such hypocrisy! He would have had to been part of the coverup he so codemned! Not much a patriot if he won't stick his neck out when his political career was on the line!

kookbreaker

3rd July 2008, 08:05 AM

How the Israeli attack unfolded Graphic "They tried to lie their way out of it!" Lockwood shouts. "I don't believe that for a minute! You just don't shoot at a ship at sea without identifying it, making sure of your target!"

----------

Yeah, right. Tell that to the HMS Shefflield, or Iran Flight 655.

Donal

3rd July 2008, 08:06 AM

Do you know how large the letters are on the bow of an American ship.

The name can be seen with the naked eye easily several hundred yards away. I have identified many ships entering port at Norfolk in this way. And i err on the side of caution.

Anybody who thinks the boats directly standing by the ship, could not be identified by merely reading the name of the ship , is insane.

How many of those boats were you engaged in a fire fight with?

roundhead

3rd July 2008, 08:36 AM

Yeah, right. Tell that to the HMS Shefflield, or Iran Flight 655.

Little different situation dont you think regarding the Sheffield. Weather, etc.

These Torpedo boats machine gunned guys at CLOSE range.

People bring up Moorer's background, but that hardly affect the corraborated testimony of a number of military people(who didnt know each other)who heard the exact same reports and came to the exact same conclusions.

Any defender of Israel in this incident is beyond help. As i said, creafully read the article. Do you feel she wasnt flying the flag and all the corraborated reports of pilots asking for confirmation to attack arent ably supported is loony, and anti American .

Dave Rogers

3rd July 2008, 08:46 AM

You're all obviously oblivious as to your ignorance on this matter, I'm glad the bait was seized upon. Don't be offended my friends, alls well.

I'm not your friend, and if you're going to continue to be this patronising the situation is unlikely to change.

Logic would tell you that wouldn't it? Sadly a lot of the time logic doesn't stand testament to the real world. The 3 Israeli patrol boats had two torpedoes each all of which they fired. Due to the skill of the Capitan/Israeli error he avoided 5 of these torpedoes though one managed to hit doing severe damage to the hull, the ship took on a lot of water but the damage control teams managed to do some DIY.

Additionally the Air Attack lasted for around 25minutes according to the report I have posted below. It involved 12 planes and an estimated 25 sorties. The entire time of which the American flag was raised, this is not in question. The sky was blue and we have reputable people confirmed by the NSA tapes that the Isrealies acknowledged that it was an American ship.

Also to the people claiming that it was mis-identified, have you actually read the sworn testament of the sailors of that ship? One of the most highly decorated crews of one of the most highly decorated ships of the United States Navy. It does not account for the theories put forth by the governments of the United States and of Israel. Nor has there ever been a congressional investigation into the incident despite much objection.

Taking these in reverse order:

Do you have any idea how ridiculous it is to dispute the identification of the ship based on the testimony of the crew? They are the last people in a position to understand what the pilots did and did not see. And what possible relevance do their decorations have to the argument? Should the pilots have been dazzled by the medal ribbons? Misidentification is common in warfare, even in apparently ideal conditions. When your life depends on being certain that the target isn't hostile if you don't attack, it's easy to err on the side of survival.

Your suggestion that the air attack involved 12 planes and 25 sorties indicates either a lack of understanding of military jargon or a willingness to believe the impossible. By "sorties", do you really mean complete missions from takeoff to landing, or do you mean strafing runs? If the former, your position is absurd. If the latter, then it's completely inconsistent with the idea of a sneak attack to sink the ship without anyone knowing; 25 strafing runs without a kill makes is quite clear that the planes weren't equipped for anti-shipping operations. A squadron of Beaufighters in 1944 would have been ashamed of a result like that; they wouldn't have needed more than a single pass each with cannon and rockets to sink a ship the size and construction of the Liberty.

As for the torpedo boats, if the idea was to sink the Liberty, why did they wait till after the air attack when there was no possibility of surprise? The only chance the Liberty could have had was to avoid the torpedoes, and surprise would have made that very much harder. And why do you persist in refusing to admit that the PT boats only attacked after the Liberty had fired on them, as the crew of the Liberty admit?

Finally, you've carefully sidestepped the point that two separate, unco-ordinated attacks are far less likely to succeed than a single simultaneous attack from sea and air. As usual with conspiracy theorists, you require your conspirators to be simultaneously fiendishly clever and laughably incompetent.

Dave

Big Les

3rd July 2008, 08:49 AM

This has been done to death here already.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=117496&goto=newpost
http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.php/t-9531.html
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=12199
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=71596
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=76069

Dave Rogers

3rd July 2008, 08:55 AM

Little different situation dont you think regarding the Sheffield. Weather, etc.

These Torpedo boats machine gunned guys at CLOSE range.

The PT boats believed the Liberty was American when they closed to offer assistance. When the Liberty started shooting at them, who knows what they thought? They fired back.

Dave

kookbreaker

3rd July 2008, 08:58 AM

Little different situation dont you think regarding the Sheffield. Weather, etc.

Different situation? Sure! The pliots were flying much slower Swordfish biplane torpedo bombers, rather than high speed jet planes, and they were much, much, much more familiar with the Sheffield than the Isreali pilots were with the Liberty.

Weather? It was good enough to fly biplanes in. Good enough to find targets.

As for Iran Air 665, how much better weather do you want?

These Torpedo boats machine gunned guys at CLOSE range.

No. They did not. The torpedo boats didn't get closer than 2000 yards. They launched torpedoes when fired upon (probably by accident).

Read the Liberty's logs:

http://www.libertyincident.com/docs/Logs1-24.pdf

People bring up Moorer's background, but that hardly affect the corraborated testimony of a number of military people(who didnt know each other)who heard the exact same reports and came to the exact same conclusions.

And even more realise that this was a tragic accident. It is funny how the nutjobs seem to rise to the top of the cream in the 'they dun it on purpose' crowd, eh?

Any defender of Israel in this incident is beyond help. As i said, creafully read the article. Do you feel she wasnt flying the flag and all the corraborated reports of pilots asking for confirmation to attack arent ably supported is loony, and anti American .

She was flying the flag. Just as the HMS Shefflield was flying the Union Jack.

I don't bother with biased, assumptive articles, I work with source material when possible. Liberty has tons of source material:

http://www.libertyincident.com/documents.html

kookbreaker

3rd July 2008, 09:03 AM

The PT boats believed the Liberty was American when they closed to offer assistance. When the Liberty started shooting at them, who knows what they thought? They fired back.

Dave

The Torpedo boats, by all the logs and evidence, never got closer than 2000 yards. They attempted to signal, but smoke obscured the Liberty signal. The Liberty fired at the Torpedo boats and they in turn launched torpedoes.

I don't consider 2000 yards to be close range in small boat tactics.

roundhead

3rd July 2008, 09:09 AM

The PT boats believed the Liberty was American when they closed to offer assistance. When the Liberty started shooting at them, who knows what they thought? They fired back.

Dave

The fired a friggin torpedo, in fact a few of them. Remember the ship had alreday been attacked an napalmed when the PT boats showed up. The hull number on the bow would be visible from quite a ways off, certainly from machine gun range. The "5" on the bow is clearly as big as the anchor.

Its an ancillary point. There is irrefutable proof that the planes knew exactly who she was, and in fact asked for direction after verifing that fcat

Dave Rogers

3rd July 2008, 09:21 AM

The fired a friggin torpedo, in fact a few of them. Remember the ship had alreday been attacked an napalmed when the PT boats showed up. The hull number on the bow would be visible from quite a ways off, certainly from machine gun range. The "5" on the bow is clearly as big as the anchor.

And the Egyptians would never think to paint a number 5 on the bow of one of their ships, because they don't use Arabic numbers. Hang on...

But who cares? The PT boats were fighting a war. When someone shoots at you, and you're not certain they're on your side, you fire back until they stop, with whatever you've got.

Its an ancillary point. There is irrefutable proof that the planes knew exactly who she was, and in fact asked for direction after verifing that fcat

So the guys back at control screwed up. That's pretty much the story Israel admitted to and paid compensation for, isn't it?

Dave

kookbreaker

3rd July 2008, 10:22 AM

Its an ancillary point. There is irrefutable proof that the planes knew exactly who she was, and in fact asked for direction after verifing that fcat

Wrong. The helicoptor pilots may have done that, but not the pilots of the planes.

Present this 'irrefutable proof', if you don't mind.

roundhead

3rd July 2008, 11:14 AM

Wrong. The helicoptor pilots may have done that, but not the pilots of the planes.

Present this 'irrefutable proof', if you don't mind.

Sure........

USAF intelligence analyst Steve Forsland (attached to 544 Air Recon Tech wing)
James Gotcher USAF 6224 security squadron
Captain Richard Block CO of Crypto Unit
Dwight Porter Ambassador to Labanon
Andrew Kilgore Ambassador to Quatar

All these guys are quoted as having listened in real time to intercepts of Israeli ATC traffic where pilots were asking controllers what to do as the vessel was American.

In addition, two crew members of a Navy EC -121 , Hebrew linguist Mike Prostinak, and navigator Charles Tiffany, along with a third crew member who asked his name not be used in the story say the exact same thing.

So we have a number of people, not stationed together, in the case of the first four names who all state hearing the same intercept, and come to the same conclusion.

Either every one of them are lying, or they're statements provide corroborated proof that the pilots were aware she was American, and asked for confirmation to attack because of that, and were given that authority by Israeli ATC.

I would say the exact same conclusion reached by people who had never met each other is extremely convincing.

corroborate

The Oxford Pocket Thesaurus of Current English | Date: 2008
corroborate
• verb
synonyms: confirm, verify, bear out, authenticate, validate, certify, endorse, ratify, substantiate, back up, uphold, support, attest to, sustain, evidence

Loss Leader

3rd July 2008, 11:50 AM

USAF intelligence analyst Steve Forsland (attached to 544 Air Recon Tech wing)
James Gotcher USAF 6224 security squadron
Captain Richard Block CO of Crypto Unit
Dwight Porter Ambassador to Labanon
Andrew Kilgore Ambassador to Quatar

All these guys are quoted as having listened in real time to intercepts of Israeli ATC traffic where pilots were asking controllers what to do as the vessel was American.

Well, first of all, this isn't true.

Second of all, why would the US ambassador to Quatar be listening in real time to intercepted Israeli communications during an attack on the Liberty? And when did he learn Hebrew?

ETA: Oh. I found your source material. Kilgore never once claimed to have heard any intercepts either live or after the fact. He did mention that Porter once discussed with him that Porter had seen translations of transcripts. And that's only if you believe the article. so, to summarize, a journalist says that Kilgore said that Porter said that he had briefly seen an english-language translation of a transcript made long after the actual attack.

Here's the article (http://www.buchanan.org/blog/2008/06/uss-liberty-new-revelations-in-attack-on-american-spy-ship/), based mostly on hearsay upon hearsay and no actual documents.

kookbreaker

3rd July 2008, 12:06 PM

Sure........

USAF intelligence analyst Steve Forsland (attached to 544 Air Recon Tech wing)
James Gotcher USAF 6224 security squadron
Captain Richard Block CO of Crypto Unit
Dwight Porter Ambassador to Labanon
Andrew Kilgore Ambassador to Quatar

All these guys are quoted as having listened in real time to intercepts of Israeli ATC traffic where pilots were asking controllers what to do as the vessel was American.

This is hardly impressive, and is in fact rather deceptive.

Why were two ambassadors listening to Isreali ATC when the attack was a surprise even to the Liberty? Rather strange hobby, isn't it?

Well no, because neither Porter nor Kilgore listened in real time. Porter claims to have seen NSA transcripts after the fact. The NSA has said for some time that they had no such intercepts.

Kilgore, BTW, believes that the Mossad was behind the assasination of JFK.

http://www.juancole.com/2004_05_01_juancole_archive.html#10845124701382208 5

Nothing unites like a little anti-semitism, eh?

For the others, I can say that Ron Gotcher has been very vocal about putting the blame on Isreal. He's hardly detached from that crowd.

In addition, two crew members of a Navy EC -121 , Hebrew linguist Mike Prostinak, and navigator Charles Tiffany, along with a third crew member who asked his name not be used in the story say the exact same thing.

So we have a number of people, not stationed together, in the case of the first four names who all state hearing the same intercept, and come to the same conclusion.

This is hardly 'irrefultable'. Most of these folks came out with their claims long after the events. This is hardly a case where a bunch of folks were saying the same thing just after the event. These were folks who over their years decided to get their name on the 'dun it on purpose' list without one scrap of evidence or documentation to back them up.

Doctor Evil

3rd July 2008, 12:13 PM

roundhead

3rd July 2008, 12:19 PM

This is hardly impressive, and is in fact rather deceptive.

Why were two ambassadors listening to Isreali ATC when the attack was a surprise even to the Liberty? Rather strange hobby, isn't it?

Well no, because neither Porter nor Kilgore listened in real time. Porter claims to have seen NSA transcripts after the fact. The NSA has said for some time that they had no such intercepts.

Kilgore, BTW, believes that the Mossad was behind the assasination of JFK.

http://www.juancole.com/2004_05_01_juancole_archive.html#10845124701382208 5

Nothing unites like a little anti-semitism, eh?

For the others, I can say that Ron Gotcher has been very vocal about putting the blame on Isreal. He's hardly detached from that crowd.

This is hardly 'irrefultable'. Most of these folks came out with their claims long after the events. This is hardly a case where a bunch of folks were saying the same thing just after the event. These were folks who over their years decided to get their name on the 'dun it on purpose' list without one scrap of evidence or documentation to back them up.

The source is the Chicago paper

I wondered when anti semiyism would enter this thread.

No matter quite a few people say the same thing, and its corraborated, as i said..the guys in the plane alone would be extremely convincing at a real hearing, not to mention the first four names.

You talk about people stepping up at a later date, so what. According to reports, people were told to shut up about it at the time.

Dont forget, 60 sailors who were aboard and were injured were never allowed to testify at the original hearing. It surely isnt because they didnt want to.

Loss Leader

3rd July 2008, 12:33 PM

roundhead

3rd July 2008, 01:12 PM

Do you have any response to the fact that at least two of the people on your list (Porter and Kilgore) never claimed to have heard any intercepts at all, let alone in real time? Do you have any response to the fact that you were wrong on that issue?

I cede not in real time, but not that they werent aware of what the intercepts said.As US ambassadors, why wouldnt they be credible, and in the loop.

The others i listed were, and there is zero reason to deem them not credible.

Go read what those two said, they support what i said. The others did hear in real time, and i find it credible and corroborated.

Google chicago paper uss liberty.

Re opening and having a CREDIBLE investigation would tear this wide open, and any sane person is well aware of this.

kookbreaker

3rd July 2008, 01:29 PM

The source is the Chicago paper

I wondered when anti semiyism would enter this thread.

No matter quite a few people say the same thing, and its corraborated, as i said..the guys in the plane alone would be extremely convincing at a real hearing, not to mention the first four names.

The first names wouldn't be very interesting. At least two did not hear any 'real-time'. The rest have no documentation to support them and don't really add much but their own interpetation.

Its also possible that these folks heard the helicoptor pilots after the attacks. Or they heard the IAF pilots who flew by them in the morning and did identify them properly.

As Dr. Evil points out, they weren't the only ones listening. How do you account for the documentation Nowicki has?

You talk about people stepping up at a later date, so what. According to reports, people were told to shut up about it at the time.

Not true. Name me one survivor who is documented as facing any charges or prison time for speaking.

Dont forget, 60 sailors who were aboard and were injured were never allowed to testify at the original hearing. It surely isnt because they didnt want to.

There has been more than one hearing.
There have been 10 in the US alone. These folks were being heard, from the start in press interviews right after the incident.

But it still doesn't add up to any real evidence, let alone anything 'irrefutable'.

roundhead

3rd July 2008, 01:34 PM

roundhead

3rd July 2008, 01:41 PM

You avoided answering why 60 sailrs werent allowed to testify, and why the inquiry was forced to be held with only one week to prepare, in spite of counsel stating a proper investigation would take 6 months???

Statement of survivor James M. Ennes, Jr., Exhibit 12.

"Almost every man on that ship recalls -- as I personally recall very clearly from my position outside the wardroom -- that the torpedo boats then circled the ship for a long time firing at close range at anything that moved. Men trying to aid their wounded shipmates on deck were fired upon. Men fighting fires were fired upon and recall seeing their fire hoses punctured by machine gun fire. This went on for several minutes. At one point the boatmen concentrated their fire near the waterline amidships, presumably hoping to blow up the boilers to hasten our demise. Finally they pulled a distance back from the ship."

Statement by survivor Ken Ecker , Exhibit 35

"Immediately following the attack I was threatened with court-martial if I discussed the incident with the press or anyone else. One of the warnings was also not to discuss the attack even with my immediate family or friends. In my case these warnings were repeated upon my transfer from each duty station I left along with the standard security clearance de-briefing. I was also periodically taken aside and reminded of the original threat even when not being transferred. Though never told the reason for these one on one "advisory" sessions, I personally believe they were the result of some action that raised the possibility of further publicity that our government wanted to suppress.

I want no personal recognition, but I will not rest until the 34 brave men that sacrificed their lives are finally given the long overdue honor they so justly deserve. Hopefully with the help of all concerned this long denied justice will be forthcoming"

kookbreaker

3rd July 2008, 01:53 PM

You avoided answering why 60 sailrs werent allowed to testify, and why the inquiry was forced to be held with only one week to prepare, in spite of counsel stating a proper investigation would take 6 months???

Might be an issue if there hadn't been 9 more inquiries!

Statement of survivor James M. Ennes, Jr., Exhibit 12.

"Almost every man on that ship recalls -- as I personally recall very clearly from my position outside the wardroom -- that the torpedo boats then circled the ship for a long time firing at close range at anything that moved. Men trying to aid their wounded shipmates on deck were fired upon. Men fighting fires were fired upon and recall seeing their fire hoses punctured by machine gun fire. This went on for several minutes. At one point the boatmen concentrated their fire near the waterline amidships, presumably hoping to blow up the boilers to hasten our demise. Finally they pulled a distance back from the ship."

Directly contradicted by the Captain, several other members of the crew as well as the Ship's Logs.

Ennes make a lot of claims, including that he was officer of the deck. At this stage I could not take his testimony seriously.

kookbreaker

3rd July 2008, 01:57 PM

Statement by survivor Ken Ecker , Exhibit 35

"Immediately following the attack I was threatened with court-martial if I discussed the incident with the press or anyone else. One of the warnings was also not to discuss the attack even with my immediate family or friends. In my case these warnings were repeated upon my transfer from each duty station I left along with the standard security clearance de-briefing. I was also periodically taken aside and reminded of the original threat even when not being transferred. Though never told the reason for these one on one "advisory" sessions, I personally believe they were the result of some action that raised the possibility of further publicity that our government wanted to suppress.

I want no personal recognition, but I will not rest until the 34 brave men that sacrificed their lives are finally given the long overdue honor they so justly deserve. Hopefully with the help of all concerned this long denied justice will be forthcoming"

So when the National Review stated, in their 9/5/67 issue that:

During the past month, press service interviews with survivors of the attack (emphasis added) have turned up a uniform conviction that the attack was deliberate. Sailors point to the morning-long aerial surveillance; the presence of the flag; the known configuration of the Liberty; her name in English on the stern; her slow progression in international waters. All of these factors support the crew's conclusion that the assault was no accident.

They were just making it up?

I think someone is making things up, and its not the National Review.

roundhead

3rd July 2008, 02:08 PM

The US Navy supervisor on the EC-121 was called Dr. Marvin Nowicki. He was one of the Hebrew speaking crew. He believes that the attack was accidental. You can find some information here (http://www.libertyincident.com/nowicki.html).

I Read his statement. The guy i cited above was actually listening, and heatedly telling others what was going on and to listen as well. Nowicki only listened after some time, and hadnt been listening to the intercepts at all, until told to.

He did however say this, and i quote him

"Despite replaying portions of the tapes, we still did not have a complete understanding of what transpired except for the likelihood that a ship flying the American flag was being attacked by Israeli air and surface forces."

This is YOUR witness who said this.

Also, it should be noted, others on there said tapes they made came up missing where the US flag was mentioned in regards these intercepts, and couldnt be found.

YOUR witness seems here to confirm they in fact were made.

All in all, the weight of the case made by guys on that plane backs my contention, and the only guy you cite confirms what the others said to a degree. Not to mention the USAF INTERCEPT PERSONEL WHO WERE LISTENING TO THE SAME THING.

If, as Israel claims, and did so repeatedly, that the ship wasnt flying a flag, or it wasnt seen, YOUR witness sure seems to confirm it was in fact discussed. Had it been an Egyptian Ship as Israel said, there would be zero reason for the Amnerican flag to have been mentioned whatsoever by any Israeli that was attacking.

Your owned.................

Doctor Evil

3rd July 2008, 02:17 PM

Letter from Marvin E. Nowicki, Ph.D., published in The Wall Street Journal, Wednesday, May 16, 2001, page A-23:
Tragic "Gross Error" In a 1967 Attack
In regard to Timothy Naftali's review of James Bamford's book "Body of Secrets" (Leisure & Arts, May 9): Mr. Naftali doesn't quite have it right concerning the book portion dealing with the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty in 1967. I know because I am the person to whom Mr. Natfali [sic] refers as the "chief Hebrew-language analyst" aboard the U.S. Navy (not Air Force) EC121 aircraft. He says that I recall one of my teammates telling me of hearing references to "a U.S. flag" from Israeli pilots.
For the record, we (my teammate and I) both heard and recorded the references to the U.S. flag made by the pilots and captains of the motor torpedo boats. My personal recollection remains after 34 years that the aircraft and MTBs prosecuted the Liberty until their operators had an opportunity to get close-in and see the flag, hence the references to the flag.
My position, which is opposite of Mr. Bamford's, is that the attack, though terrible and tragic especially to the crew members and their families on that ill-fated day in June 1967, was a gross error. How can I prove it? I can't unless the transcripts/tapes are found and released to the public. I last saw them in a desk drawer at NSA in the late 1970s before I left the service.
MARVIN E. NOWICKI, PH.D.
Ashley, Ill.

No comment needed.

van_dutch

3rd July 2008, 02:43 PM

van_dutch

3rd July 2008, 02:47 PM

I suggest you read over http://www.thelibertyincident.com/ there is a lot of great information there about this situation.

roundhead

3rd July 2008, 03:04 PM

Israel owned up to this. They admitted they messed up. The helicopter pilots thought they were rescuing Egyptians. This is shown in the translation of the intercepted communications (see page 3 and pages 6 of the first transcript here: http://www.nsa.gov/liberty/recordings.cfm). Israel even paid $13 million, I believe to the US government and the sailors and families because they messed up. It was a war. War is stressful. The Israeli military is filled with people. People are known to make mistakes. More stress means more mistakes. It's sad and unfortunate, but it happens.

Ony three tapes are there, several are missing.The plane guys state there were 5 or 6, and know there were more than the three that turned up.

Two at least, that are missing, was during the times of the actual attack. With the numerous references to the ATC being asked what to do, its an American ship.

Concludes one of the declassified NSA documents: "Every official interview of numerous Liberty crewmen gave consistent evidence that indeed the Liberty was flying an American flag -- and, further, the weather conditions were ideal to ensure its easy observance and identification."

The ground control station stated that the target was American and for the aircraft to confirm it," Forslund recalled. "The aircraft did confirm the identity of the target as American, by the American flag.

"The ground control station ordered the aircraft to attack and sink the target and ensure they left no survivors."

Forslund said he clearly recalled "the obvious frustration of the controller over the inability of the pilots to sink the target quickly and completely."

"He kept insisting the mission had to sink the target, and was frustrated with the pilots' responses that it didn't sink."

Nor, Forslund said, was he the only member of his unit to have read the transcripts. "Everybody saw these," said Forslund, now retired after 26 years in the military.

Forslund's recollections are supported by those of two other Air Force intelligence specialists, working in widely separate locations, who say they also saw the transcripts of the attacking Israeli pilots' communications.

Perhaps the most persuasive suggestion that such transcripts existed comes from the Israelis themselves, in a pair of diplomatic cables sent by the Israeli ambassador in Washington, Avraham Harman, to Foreign Minister Abba Eban in Tel Aviv.

Five days after the Liberty attack, Harman cabled Eban that a source the Israelis code-named "Hamlet" was reporting that the Americans had "clear proof that from a certain stage the pilot discovered the identity of the ship and continued the attack anyway."

Harman repeated the warning three days later, advising Eban, who is now dead, that the White House was "very angry," and that "the reason for this is that the Americans probably have findings showing that our pilots indeed knew that the ship was American."

kookbreaker

3rd July 2008, 03:18 PM

Ony three tapes are there, several are missing.The plane guys state there were 5 or 6, and know there were more than the three that turned up.

Two at least, that are missing, was during the times of the actual attack. With the numerous references to the ATC being asked what to do, its an American ship.

So in other words, nothing

Concludes one of the declassified NSA documents: "Every official interview of numerous Liberty crewmen gave consistent evidence that indeed the Liberty was flying an American flag -- and, further, the weather conditions were ideal to ensure its easy observance and identification."

Which as we have already established, means little for identification.

The ground control station stated that the target was American and for the aircraft to confirm it," Forslund recalled. "The aircraft did confirm the identity of the target as American, by the American flag.

"The ground control station ordered the aircraft to attack and sink the target and ensure they left no survivors."

Forslund said he clearly recalled "the obvious frustration of the controller over the inability of the pilots to sink the target quickly and completely."

"He kept insisting the mission had to sink the target, and was frustrated with the pilots' responses that it didn't sink."

This is getting ludicrous. Even the most poorly trained pilots have to know that a missiles, bullets, and napalm are not the tools for sinking ships. This makes me think this guy is telling tales.

Nor, Forslund said, was he the only member of his unit to have read the transcripts. "Everybody saw these," said Forslund, now retired after 26 years in the military.

Forslund's recollections are supported by those of two other Air Force intelligence specialists, working in widely separate locations, who say they also saw the transcripts of the attacking Israeli pilots' communications.

So 'everbody saw these' but only two other folks can say they saw them or heard them?

Doubtful.

gumboot

3rd July 2008, 03:20 PM

For all the conspiracists out there, let me repeat some basic truths: The USS Liberty was an acknowledged spy ship sitting five miles off of the coast of a war zone after the US had declared that it had no ships in the area.

This is worth pointing out because too often it is overlooked. There's pretty good evidence the USS Liberty breached the coastal buffer zone that Israel had said they would defend during the war.

Simply put the US stuck its nose into a conflict it had no business being nosey about, and got a smack for it.

Cpt.Fantastic

3rd July 2008, 03:52 PM

We talk of the USS Liberty incident and get accused of Hating on Jews?

Very *********** weak.

SDC

3rd July 2008, 04:15 PM

Yeah, things are tough all over.

In reading this thread (heaven help me), what leaps out is people saying, over and over again, that Israel owned up, paid compensation, so on so forth. But Roundhead (when will the Cavaliers show up, I wonder) and Cpl Fantastic seem unable to accept that. They claim, I think, that there has to be something more. What is that more that they want? That's my question.

Cpt.Fantastic

3rd July 2008, 04:17 PM

I've put my faith in the crew for this one, by their own words they've been lied to, told to shut up and pushed under the carpet.

SDC

3rd July 2008, 04:22 PM

I've put my faith in the crew for this one, by their own words they've been lied to, told to shut up and pushed under the carpet.

OK, that's your position. But again, as I ask in post 61, what is the "more" you are looking for? Israel owned up to the attack and paid compensation. You seem to want more than that. What is the "more"?

I'd ask Roundhead the same.

Cpt.Fantastic

3rd July 2008, 04:31 PM

Well it has been covered up as an friendly fire incident where the crew's testimony completely contradicts this.

It is obvious it has been covered up upon looking at the 14 reports (not that I've read them all) as they all claim the opposite to the crew's testimony. They where told in very harsh words not to talk about it and most of the crew didn't say anything for 20 + years.

We're not even really debating what happened, we're debating pre-held conceptions as to what can and cannot happen. Obviously this cannot happen under the preconceptions of many therefore the crew are wrong.

So unless the crew are Jew Haters and Holocaust deniers I've no reason to contradict their testimony.

Given Israel did intentionally attack the vessel it raises many questions as to why. This is much harder to figure out than whether or not the ship was intentionally attacked.

SDC

3rd July 2008, 04:37 PM

My impression is that, in fact, there is not complete agreement among the survivors. (If there were complete agreement, I'd be suspicious.) But that's beside the point.

OK, what's your remedy? More compensation from Israel? Medals from the US for those killed and injured (or for everyone; I don't know how these things are handled, typically)? An armed strike against Tel Aviv as retribution?

I still don't know what your point is, or what your proposed remedy is. A public trial of the Israeli individuals who were immediately involved? The commanders involved? It's too late for the government leaders, who probably all have died in the interim. That generation of Israeli politicians is gone, except Peres I suppose.

Do people remember ... There was a fellow obsessed with the possible image of the Liberty's mast in some photos and what it did or did not mean. Boy, there was a character.

ETA: I await. Roundhead, you may answer as well. I've heard this argument a number of times and never understood what was expected.

Cpt.Fantastic

3rd July 2008, 05:05 PM

OK, what's your remedy? More compensation from Israel? Medals from the US for those killed and injured (or for everyone; I don't know how these things are handled, typically)? An armed strike against Tel Aviv as retribution?

I still don't know what your point is, or what your proposed remedy is. A public trial of the Israeli individuals who were immediately involved? The commanders involved? It's too late for the government leaders, who probably all have died in the interim. That generation of Israeli politicians is gone, except Peres I suppose.

Sorry didn't understand what you were getting at exactly, a very good question indeed.

First a better understanding of the events must first happen, the independent investigation was a good start but as we see a lot of people still won't accept what happened. Not that I see this happening for given the commissions reports are fact no-one in the United States Government or the Israeli Government would want to see it.

And before anything else happens the motives must first be understood, I'm not asking for Israel to be dragged across hot coals. I don't know why the attack happened so making recommendations is pointless.

twinstead

3rd July 2008, 05:13 PM

Do people remember ... There was a fellow obsessed with the possible image of the Liberty's mast in some photos and what it did or did not mean. Boy, there was a character.

Ah yes. Good times.

SDC

3rd July 2008, 05:14 PM

Well, you are convinced, mostly I think by the survivors' accounts, that it must have been deliberate. (The other sources brought in by roundhead seem weak.) Well, it was certainly deliberate in the sense that some people actually did something. If they knew it was an American ship, which I think you believe, then you need to consider motive. And you have to ask how high up the chain of command the decision went. Motive could be as simple as giving a bloody nose to a foreign ship in wartime. (Remember, Israel was much less dependent on US support in 1967.) It would be hard to figure any other special motive -- if the idea was to slaughter the whole crew so that the Egyptians might somehow be blamed, then they did a damned poor job of it.

As for the chain of command, I know nothing about how such things work and couldn't give anything like a halfway sensible opinion.

The only thing I do believe which is relevant is that war is a goddamned untidy mess. As Napoleon (?) said, no plan survives the first encounter.

kookbreaker

3rd July 2008, 05:28 PM

I've put my faith in the crew for this one, by their own words they've been lied to, told to shut up and pushed under the carpet.

I have not put that much faith in the crew's statements, especially the embellished accounts by the more 'hotheaded' crew members, such as Ennes, who is clearly embellishing, and has added to his tale as the years go by.

As was mentioned earlier, nothing has kept the crews quiet. Some were talking about it being deliberate from the start.

But their basis is weak. They are sailors and they assume by flying the US flag and having some numbers on the side makes them as identifiable to anyone. That simply is not true and I think several of my posts in this thread make that clear.

The independent investigation is, in my very informed opinion, a sham. It was a self-selected group making up a kangaroo court that was led by an Admiral who has an open and virulent anti-Isreali agenda, as well as several other crackpot opinions as well.

Worse, he's a hypocrite of the FIRST ORDER! He was CNO during the naval investigation yet he signed off on the reports from the Naval investigation that stated without any doubt that the attack was an accident! This Admiral has so little integrity that he wouldn't stick out his neck to get to the bottom of the matter? Spare me.

Five congressional investigations have been made concerning the Liberty under five very different congresses. All five have come to the same conclusion: It was an accident. All the documents indicate it, sworn testimony during investigations indicate it.

Its over, the Liberty Incident was an accident. All the added tales and misunderstandings won't change that.

Cpt.Fantastic

3rd July 2008, 07:04 PM

Five congressional investigations have been made concerning the Liberty under five very different congresses. All five have come to the same conclusion: It was an accident. All the documents indicate it, sworn testimony during investigations indicate it.

I was under the impression this was a lie, can you provide evidence please? I'm interested.

kookbreaker

3rd July 2008, 07:18 PM

I was under the impression this was a lie, can you provide evidence please? I'm interested.

Sure:

http://libertyincident.com/documents.html

Its a lot to go through. But the bottom line is that the CT crowd cannot produce any documents supporting their claims in any ironclad fashion.

Big Les

4th July 2008, 02:46 AM

Do people remember ... There was a fellow obsessed with the possible image of the Liberty's mast in some photos and what it did or did not mean. Boy, there was a character.

I do indeed - two of the links I posted further up are David Carmichael threads.

Cuddles

4th July 2008, 07:57 AM

Nowicki only listened after some time, and hadnt been listening to the intercepts at all, until told to.

So let me get this straight, you provide a list of people who either freely admit to not listening to any intercepts, claim to have listened but can't prove it or claim to have listened to something that doesn't exist, and you are now complaining that someone who contradicts you isn't any good because he only listened to intercepts after being told to. That's, well, a little inconsistent don't you think?

Loss Leader

4th July 2008, 09:45 AM

I cede not in real time, but not that they werent aware of what the intercepts said.As US ambassadors, why wouldnt they be credible, and in the loop.

Let me just ask: do you have any idea how silly that sounds?

The Chicago Tribune article that you yourself cited didn't say anything that you are now claiming. All that it said about Andrew Kilgore was that, after Dwight Porter had died, Kilgore said that he remembered that Porter once told him that Porter had once seen english translations of transcripts. That is all that the article says about Kilgore. Every single thing that Kilgore claimed to know about the Liberty came from Porter. That's not my opinion - that's what Kilgore himself said.

It is impossible for Kilgore to know more about the Liberty incident than Porter. It is impossible to say that he should know because he was "in the loop." Kilgore admitted that he didn't know anything that Porter told him. So, Kilgore can only ever be as credible as Porter.

And Kilgore might be far less credible. The reporter might be lying about Kilgore's comments; the reporter might be mistaken about Kilgore's comments; the reporter might not remember Kilgore's exact comments; Kilgore may have been lying about hearing anything from Porter; Kilgore's memory might be wrong about Porter; Kilgore may have misunderstood Porter; Porter may have been lying to Kilgore; Porter's memory might have been wrong; Porter might have misunderstood what he saw; etc.

And nobody can ask Porter because Porter was dead before Kilgore spoke about it.

Kilgore's testimony is nothing but hearsay.

He was not "in the loop." He doesn't claim to have been "in the loop." Your statement that he is a credible source is just plain silly.

quicknthedead

4th July 2008, 01:06 PM

OK, that's your position. But again, as I ask in post 61, what is the "more" you are looking for? Israel owned up to the attack and paid compensation. You seem to want more than that. What is the "more"?

I'd ask Roundhead the same.

Yes, Israel owned up to the attack and paid compensation, but in doing so declared it simply a terrible accident and a mistake. However, if the attacks were done with Israeli prior knowledge of the ship being American, this changes everything. If this were true, your question of "what is the "more" you are looking for?" could be narrowed to:
Why was this attack deliberately made?

More from the Oct 2, 2007 Chicago Tribune story:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/printedition/tuesday/chi-liberty_tuesoct02,0,1050179.story?page=6&coll=chi_business_ugc

Oliver Kirby, the NSA's deputy director for operations at the time of the Liberty attack, confirmed the existence of NSA transcripts.

Asked whether he had personally read such transcripts, Kirby replied, "I sure did. I certainly did."

"They said, 'We've got him in the zero,'" Kirby recalled, "whatever that meant -- I guess the sights or something. And then one of them said, 'Can you see the flag?' They said 'Yes, it's U.S, it's U.S.' They said it several times, so there wasn't any doubt in anybody's mind that they knew it."

Kirby, now 86 and retired in Texas, said the transcripts were "something that's bothered me all my life. I'm willing to swear on a stack of Bibles that we knew they knew."

and also...

One set of transcripts apparently survived in the archives of the U.S. Army's intelligence school, then located at Ft. Holabird in Maryland.

W. Patrick Lang, a retired Army colonel who spent eight years as chief of Middle East intelligence for the Defense Intelligence Agency, said the transcripts were used as "course material" in an advanced class for intelligence officers on the clandestine interception of voice transmissions.

"The flight leader spoke to his base to report that he had the ship in view, that it was the same ship that he had been briefed on and that it was clearly marked with the U.S. flag," Lang recalled in an e-mail.

"The flight commander was reluctant," Lang said in a subsequent interview. "That was very clear. He didn't want to do this. He asked them a couple of times, 'Do you really want me to do this?' I've remembered it ever since. It was very striking. I've been harboring this memory for all these years."

This is why there is a demand for a Liberty investigation. Some who suffer or lose loved ones will relentlessly seek the truth and justice. Israel should want to put this matter to rest once and for all.

2 Samuel 23:3
The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God.

SDC

4th July 2008, 01:50 PM

So, Roundhead (any Cavaliers out there, too?) your point, your "more" is that you want another investigation which, presumably, will reveal the truth. Let's say it does. Then what? I asked Cpl Fantastic this: more compensation from Israel? a trial of the pilots or others? An armed strike on Tel Aviv in revenge? What?

If it was a deliberate attack -- of course, any action is "deliberate" in a sense -- the next questions become motive, and I refer to what I said earlier, that none seems forthcoming; and matters of chain of command, i.e. who makes the decision vs who carries them out, and I have nothing useful to say about them because I know nothing about how they work.

Loss Leader

4th July 2008, 05:13 PM

Why was this attack deliberately made?

Well, here's what we know: Liberty was a spy ship. It was sitting just off the coast of two countries who were at war. The US had denied that it had any ships in the area. Immediately after the attack, Israel admitted it.

So what is the absolute worst reason that Israel could have attacked? What is the most terrible, nefarious reason you can think of?

It couldn't have been a false-flag operation to make the US think that Egypt had attacked. Israel admitted it right away.

Let's say the following: Israel believed that the US did not fully support it in the war and, in fact, that the US was giving intelligence about its troop movements to the Egyptians. Egypt, after all, had nothing like the signals intelligence of the US or even of Israel. Its air force was almost non-existent by the time of the Liberty incident. It was basically blind to Israeli movements. And at the same time, the US did not favor Israeli expansion into the Sinai. And the US offered zero military support of the Israeli war effort.

So, let's agree that forty-one years ago, Israel purposefully attacked the Liberty with the intention of destroying it because they thought it was a threat to their war effort.

SO WHAT?

What should happen TODAY because of that?

If Israel admitted everything that I wrote above, what should happen?

What is the point of a new investigation, of knowing the "truth" or of anything else you want? What should happen as a result of your new investigation?

My guess is that you have no answer. Still, I wait to hear from any of the people who have been arguing in favor of a new investigation.

SDC

4th July 2008, 05:37 PM

Reminds me of the calls for a new investigation into 9/11. Go ahead, good luck, don't think of using my taxpayer dollars. If your arguments are valid and your evidence good, you will win. Meanwhile, I'm not betting on that.

defaultdotxbe

4th July 2008, 06:45 PM

So, Roundhead (any Cavaliers out there, too?) your point, your "more" is that you want another investigation which, presumably, will reveal the truth. Let's say it does. Then what?

and what if it doesnt? then do we call for a 12th inquiry? and a 13th? and a 14th until something agrees with the CTs

but what if it only finds israelis acted with the intentions of bringing the US into the war, do we need a 15th, 16th and 17th inquiry until we find pres johnson was involved too?

then more to find it was the illuminati, or the reptilians? every single investigation will be a whitewash to some nutjob

fuelair

4th July 2008, 11:14 PM

To convince the naive and weak brained that Israel is evil because they are run by a zionist government so it is justified to hate, persecute and I personally wouldn't be surprised if this Aryan ******* said kill jews.You assume much here. I suggest you pop to a few of my posts on Israel and Israelis before making that assumption - because I was around when it happened and heard about it at the time and have seen/heard/read about it very much over the 41 years since it happened - and I am 90%* certain that it was known (that it was a US ship) to the Israelis at the time of the attacks- but I am in no way anti-Semitic and loathe those who are. I don't know the two guys who are agreeing on this - and I have no idea why now - but that they bring it up does not make them anti-semitic to me. They will have to go beyond this for that to happen.

*Two years ago I was 100% certain.

Travis

5th July 2008, 02:44 AM

SDC

5th July 2008, 03:59 AM

You assume much here. I suggest you pop to a few of my posts on Israel and Israelis before making that assumption - because I was around when it happened and heard about it at the time and have seen/heard/read about it very much over the 41 years since it happened - and I am 90%* certain that it was known (that it was a US ship) to the Israelis at the time of the attacks- but I am in no way anti-Semitic and loathe those who are. I don't know the two guys who are agreeing on this - and I have no idea why now - but that they bring it up does not make them anti-semitic to me. They will have to go beyond this for that to happen.

*Two years ago I was 100% certain.

My bolding. Then the question becomes: known to which Israelis? The prime minister? the military high command? some local unit commander(s)? I don't know how, particularly, this kind of stuff works in war time, and wouldn't know where to begin. There is a tendency to assume a kind of unitary mind -- we all talk this way, the "Israelis knew", the "Americans knew", the "Yankees have given up for the year" -- but when we stop and think we realize it isn't true.

Doctor Evil

5th July 2008, 05:24 AM

Here are some of my more speculative thoughts regarding this subject.

The most important piece of evidence are the communication transcripts. For many years there were rumours that such transcripts exist. Finally, in 2003 the NSA released three such transcripts which cover communications between two Israeli Helicopters and the control tower. These Helicopters were sent to check on the ship shortly after the attacks. (A side note, these were released after a lawsuit by Crystol, who is a federal Judge, and did his Ph.D. on this topic. His conclusion is that a serious of mistakes caused the attack.)

I have linked to the transcripts previously. From reading them it is clear that the control tower considered the ship to be Egyptian at first. Only later they start asking the pilots to find out the nationality of the ship's crew. I assume this is due to information they receive from the Israeli navy. (That is further reports from the torpedo boats.) There are several mentions of the US in these transcripts, including for the US flag.

After the release of these transcripts, there were claims that further transcripts exist. You can find them in several earlier posts in this thread. This leaves two options (please, no remarks about false dichotomy):

1. Other transcripts exist, but are covered up. The attack was deliberate.
2. There are no other transcripts. However, the existing transcripts were misinterpreted by several people. The Israelis misidentified the ship.

I support option 2. I think about this in the following way. Imagine you read a part of these transcripts but no one makes it clear to you that it refers to the Helicopters. You may naturally assume the transcripts involve the pilots which attacked the ship. Then, due to several mentions of the US, or US flag, you conclude that the attack was deliberate. Now, you are asked about these 30-40 years later, and naturally some of the details are changed by memory.

One of the points that lends support for my speculation is that the people who were more directly involved in recording these transcripts tend to be of the opinion that the attack was not deliberate. One is Marvin Nowicki (http://libertyincident.com/nowicki.html), mentioned earlier. Another is Richard W. Hickman (http://libertyincident.com/hebrewlinguist3.html), which translated the transcripts.

All this is somewhat speculative. However, we have one piece of evidence which is not speculative, namely the transcripts of communications mentioned earlier, between the Helicopters and their control tower, taken after the attack. They are direct and clear evidence that the control tower (initially) did not know that this was a US ship.

Based on that my conclusion is that the attack was not deliberate, but rather due to misidentification. You may want to ask me what type of evidence would change my mind. This is a fair question, and I will therefore answer it in advance. I would need a contradicting piece of direct evidence. For instance one of the transcripts which are claimed to be missing. Alternatively, I would need some proof that the transcripts we have were faked.

I have taken time to explain my reasoning and conclusion regarding this incident because I do not expect any further information, relevant to my line of reasoning, to appear here. As a result I expect this to be my last post in this thread.

roundhead

5th July 2008, 07:22 AM

If you're going to deliberately attack a naval vessel why use planes outfitted with ground attack weapons and then fly them with reservist pilots? Why not finish the attack with sinking the ship? Why leave it afloat with survivors? And....why, if it was deliberate, admit it was you that attacked as soon as it's all over?

They were aware of the carriers in the Med, and were aware a call had been sent for help.It makes sense they wouldnt hang around with fighters inbound.

They couldnt have been aware that LBJ would turn them around. Per the intercepts, the ATC's indeed wanted her sunk.

You must have missed the point that torpedo equipped boats did put a torpedo in her, and missed with several other attempts.

Regarding reservists, it might be because others were fighting in a war?????

roundhead

5th July 2008, 07:37 AM

I guess what i want out of this is OUR govt to admit it was an attack on purpose, and an apology to the crew from our Govt for playing politics, and turning our back on them when carrier born assets of ours might have come to the rescue and saved some lives.

In short, i want our govt to apologize to those guys who were doing they're duty and were basically spat on for it.
And be more concerned with trating OUR own people properly , than kissing anybodies behind.

roundhead

5th July 2008, 08:00 AM

whoever it is posting the WRONG info about her location, cease. She was in international waters, thirteen miles out, not 5.
The Washington post even reports this just this year. Here is a quote:

Capt. Boston was assigned as a legal adviser to a military board of inquiry investigating the attack on the Liberty, an electronic-intelligence-gathering ship that was cruising international waters off the Egyptian coast June 8, 1967. Israeli planes and torpedo boats opened fire on the Liberty in the midst

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

Our Liberty Alliance, on 27 July 2005, sent a detailed letter to the Secretary of the Navy in support of the efforts of the Liberty Veterans Association (the LVA) to obtain a full, fair, and objective U. S. Government investigation of that 1967 Israeli attack on the LIBERTY. When we thus wrote to the Secretary of the Navy, we had only recently learned of a 16 March 2005 admission by the Department of the Navy, in an official letter reply to a Congressional inquiry, that the only investigation that the United States Government had ever made into that attack was a Navy Court of Inquiry which was conducted - and concluded -- within ten days after the attack had occurred. In our letter to the Secretary we presented facts of official record which demonstrated that the investigation conducted by that Navy Court of Inquiry, to put it most charitably, was a hasty, a superficial, an incomplete, and a totally inadequate inquiry into the extremely complex and important matter that had prompted it. In addition, we have within the past two years developed additional evidence, in the form of testimony and an affidavit by the Navy judge advocate counsel to that Court of Inquiry, that the conclusions recorded by the Court were ordered by the President of the United States and his Secretary of Defense and were inconsistent with and were contrary to any evidence the Court of Inquiry had adduced.

roundhead

5th July 2008, 08:11 AM

LIBERTY SURVIVORS PUT UP $10,000 CHALLENGE!!!

The Liberty Veterans Association offers a $10,000 reward to anyone who can establish the truth of A. Jay Cristol's claim:

"After ten official US investigations (including five congressional
investigations), there was never any evidence that the attack was
made with knowledge that the target was a US ship."
The LVA has disputed the truth of this statement for years. We know it is untrue. The claim that there have been any official Congressional investigations into the culpability for the Israeli attack on USS Liberty is patently false. There have been NO official Congressional investigations on this subject. We believe that the best way to prove that the above statement is untrue is to offer a reward to anyone (including Mr. Cristol) who can prove that it is true.

gumboot

5th July 2008, 09:20 AM

It's pretty clear, when you look into it, that the Liberty was a victim of bad luck more than anything else.

-Due to communication problems they didn't receive the orders to close no closer than 100 nmi from the coast.
-Due to simple bad luck it happened to be in the vicinity of where Israeli forces believed an Egyptian ship was shelling El Arish.
-Due to bad luck an Israeli pilot mistook one of the ship's antennae for a gun.
-Due to back luck the MTBs couldn't signal the Liberty clearly.
-Due to bad luck one of the 50cal guns on the Liberty began firing at the MTBs due to ammunition exploding.
-Due to bad luck one of the crewmen on the Liberty misheard the Captain's order to ceasefire and instead opened fire on the MTBs.
-Due to bad luck the officers on the MTBs misidentified the Liberty and interpreted her movements and actions as a hostile response to their signaling.

All in all it's pretty clear what happened.

However what wasn't bad luck was that on June 5 Israel told the USA they would defend the coastline with all means at their disposal including sinking unidentified ships, and that the USA responded by claiming all of their forces were hundreds of miles away, and never once telling Israel that the Liberty was in the Eastern Med.

The reason the US did this is pretty obvious - the Liberty was spying on the progress of the war. That makes them a belligerent, and therefore a legitimate military target.

fuelair

5th July 2008, 09:45 AM

My bolding. Then the question becomes: known to which Israelis? The prime minister? the military high command? some local unit commander(s)? I don't know how, particularly, this kind of stuff works in war time, and wouldn't know where to begin. There is a tendency to assume a kind of unitary mind -- we all talk this way, the "Israelis knew", the "Americans knew", the "Yankees have given up for the year" -- but when we stop and think we realize it isn't true.
My specific assumption, whatever the field forces knew is that it was organized, on purpose, because of where the ship was and it was, at least known to top military leaders in CofC, the PM and possibly limited members of the Knesset. The assumption in "Israelis knew", "Americans knew" (etc.) is that the upper echelon of governance and side persons directly needing to be involved were the ones who knew. Note that I said assumption and I said 90% convinced. I am 100% convinced that the survivors who were interviewed on film/tape for a documentary some years back believed it. None are/were actors/ none were/are politicians none sounded or looked in any way like they were lying. I mostly stay away from this one, but I find calling people who accept/believe it anti-semitic unless there is some other evidence to hang that label on them with to be offensive.

Outside of movies, and outside of true idiot friendly fire, this would never be done by any rational country without approval at the highest level of authority. I am 90% certain that that approval was initiated and given by/at the behest of the PM of Israel for the reason I noted above and carried out the way it was to conceal for public purposes that that is how it happened. I do not know that or state that as a fact, but under the circumstances I doubt that any data proving otherwise with unbreakable back up/verification can or will be brought up/out/to anyone's attention. If it is, I will happily admit my error. I would prefer to think that it was truly a friendly fire accident, I would be more comfortable if I could think that. But, at this point, I really cannot.

roundhead

5th July 2008, 09:46 AM

fuelair

5th July 2008, 09:53 AM

SDC

5th July 2008, 09:57 AM

If that is how and why, as I pretty much believe, and I had been President, an investigation would not have needed to be made, Israel would not have had a chance to make that mistake a second time. But then LBJ was better than the other choice, but still a real tool.

1/ In what way would they not "have had the chance to make that mistake a second time"?

2/ LBJ was a "real tool" of whom or what?

Let's speak precisely.

quicknthedead

5th July 2008, 10:07 AM

1. Other transcripts exist, but are covered up. The attack was deliberate.
2. There are no other transcripts. However, the existing transcripts were misinterpreted by several people. The Israelis misidentified the ship.

I support option 2. I think about this in the following way. Imagine you read a part of these transcripts but no one makes it clear to you that it refers to the Helicopters. You may naturally assume the transcripts involve the pilots which attacked the ship. Then, due to several mentions of the US, or US flag, you conclude that the attack was deliberate. Now, you are asked about these 30-40 years later, and naturally some of the details are changed by memory.

One of the points that lends support for my speculation is that the people who were more directly involved in recording these transcripts tend to be of the opinion that the attack was not deliberate. One is Marvin Nowicki (http://libertyincident.com/nowicki.html), mentioned earlier. Another is Richard W. Hickman (http://libertyincident.com/hebrewlinguist3.html), which translated the transcripts.

Regarding your statement in the above bolded, did you read the two statements by Kirby and Lang inside my post#75?

I read Nowicki, who does seem forthright and believable; Hickman stated he was only involved in transcribing the intercept of the Israeli rescue helicopters after the incident. Nevertheless, Kirby and Lang have entirely different perspectives and testimonies, were directly involved at the time, and also sound convincing and believable.

Thanks.

jmeadors

5th July 2008, 10:49 AM

As someone who has more than a passing interest in the USS Liberty I have been a sometimes-poster, sometimes-lurker in other forums who are discussing the attack on our ship.

I was recently made aware of the discussion currently underway in the JREF forum and have read most of the notes that have been posted.

While I welcome the discussion that is ongoing and hope that it will continue I would appreciate it if someone would take the time to apply the techniques employed by James Randi and Steve Novella, et al, in their analysis of the evidence currently available about the attack.

I’m particularly interested in someone employing these techniques in analyzing the research of Jay Cristol as codified in his book, The Liberty Incident

Warmest regards,

Joe Meadors
USS Liberty Survivor
joe@ussliberty.com

Loss Leader

5th July 2008, 11:05 AM

Joe Meadors
USS Liberty Survivor

Mr. Meadors - The vast weight of the available evidence indicates that your ship was spying on two countries that were at war with each other, far closer to their coasts than it should have been after your government assured Israel it had no ships in the area.

The attack on the Liberty was a friendly fire incident that was at least partially the fault of the superiors who sent you there. Israel admitted its mistake and paid compensation.

Thank you for your service to our nation.

Loss Leader

5th July 2008, 11:09 AM

not a legit target when in International waters, and not at war.

Are you contending that it was impossible for an Egyptian ship to be in international waters while Egypt was attacking Israel? Are you honestly arguing that the concept of "intentational waters" means anything when a nation conducts a sneak attack upon another nation?

You know what? Never mind. Evidence means nothing to you.

Doctor Evil

5th July 2008, 11:20 AM

Regarding your statement in the above bolded, did you read the two statements by Kirby and Lang inside my post#75?

I read Nowicki, who does seem forthright and believable; Hickman stated he was only involved in transcribing the intercept of the Israeli rescue helicopters after the incident. Nevertheless, Kirby and Lang have entirely different perspectives and testimonies, were directly involved at the time, and also sound convincing and believable.

Thanks.

W. PATRICK LANG, was in the Army and not NSA. I count not find a bio which specifies exactly where and when he served. I did find one (http://www.turcopolier.com/biography.html) which states that he served two years in Vietnam. He started his Mideast specialization in the 70's and it is unlikely that he saw the transcripts before that. Moreover, his story does not make sense. You have a highly classified tapes, supposedly suppressed by NSA, which are used as a course material in the Army?

As far as I could find Kirby did serve in the NSA at the time. On the other hand, the details he gives are consistent with the transcripts that we already have, namely the ones between the Helicopters and the control tower. I am not sure whether he read the transcripts at the time. (The information that Nowicki gives suggests that the tapes were not treated as urgent material, and were probably not known to the first inquiry.) I think it is possible that Kirby saw the transcripts we have and mistook these to be communications with the fighter planes. Furthermore, why do you assume that Kirby was directly involved at the time. Your link does not say this, it just say that he served in the NSA at the time, and saw the transcripts. He could have seen these at any later time.

One more note, there is no evidence that either Kirby or Lang spoke Hebrew. If there were more transcripts someone should have taken them. Furthermore, someone should have translated them. Nowicki claims he discussed his material with other Hebrew linguists at the time, and they were of the same opinion as him. Wouldn't he have heard if other transmissions were recorded?

Lastly, the transcripts that we have show clearly that the air control directing the Helicopters did not know that the ship was a US vessel. This is a clear piece of evidence, which is furthermore unaffected by time.

jmeadors

5th July 2008, 11:37 AM

Mr. Meadors - The vast weight of the available evidence indicates that your ship was spying on two countries that were at war with each other, far closer to their coasts than it should have been after your government assured Israel it had no ships in the area.

The attack on the Liberty was a friendly fire incident that was at least partially the fault of the superiors who sent you there. Israel admitted its mistake and paid compensation.

Thank you for your service to our nation.

Even if your characterization of the currently available evidence is correct, listening to electromagnetic propagation from international waters is not a crime. Perhaps a skeptical analysis of your position will show it is not supported by the facts.

If the attack was simply a case of friendly fire as you suggest can you explain the need to jam our radios on both US Navy and international maritime distress frequencies, to have the torpedo boats deliberately destroy life rafts we had dropped over the side in anticipation of abandoning ship and to have the torpedo boats slowly circle the ship while firing from close range at USS Liberty crewmen who ventured topside to help their wounded shipmates?

Warmest regards,

Joe

gumboot

5th July 2008, 12:02 PM

not a legit target when in International waters, and not at war.

The location of a belligerent is irrelevant. The USS Liberty was spying on two nations that were at war. Neither nation could be sure if the USA was sharing that intelligence with the enemy, therefore either nation was justified in attacking the ship.

roundhead

5th July 2008, 12:18 PM

Are you contending that it was impossible for an Egyptian ship to be in international waters while Egypt was attacking Israel? Are you honestly arguing that the concept of "intentational waters" means anything when a nation conducts a sneak attack upon another nation?

You know what? Never mind. Evidence means nothing to you.

A poster i am not going to bother going back and rementioning says repeatedly she was 5 miles off, i have found 13 milies and "international waters" to be the case.

Have yopu looked at those two ships and seen the STARK DIFFERENCES in them, its laughable.

Then,of course the Liberty was flying the flag.

I find it IMPOSSIBLE that if not the naked eye, with an eyeglass the PT boats wouldnt have seen it... Its impossible everyone on the ship says the flag was flying and those boats didnt see it, impossible.

And the above ASSUMES the planes didnt, very unlikely itself, especially when the reports regarding the transcripts are weighed

And again, for those who must have missed it, that Israeli diplomatic cable is very damning evidence that i quoted earlier.

I wonder if the fine sailor from Liberty would comment HERE on what the crew concensus was regarding how far off those Torpedo boats stood off her??

Thanks, and i appreciate your fine service to our country.

gumboot

5th July 2008, 12:18 PM

Even if your characterization of the currently available evidence is correct, listening to electromagnetic propagation from international waters is not a crime.

Where was it suggested it was? Has anyone suggested that the Israeli attack on the ship was a law enforcement action?

If the attack was simply a case of friendly fire as you suggest can you explain the need to jam our radios on both US Navy and international maritime distress frequencies

The Navy Court of Inquiry found that the Saratoga received radio transmissions from the Liberty and successfully passed these on to the 6th Fleet. This would indicate that radio jamming did not occur. Fighter aircraft were initially scrambled in response to these communications, but recalled because they were carrying nuclear payloads.

to have the torpedo boats deliberately destroy life rafts we had dropped over the side in anticipation of abandoning ship and to have the torpedo boats slowly circle the ship while firing from close range at USS Liberty crewmen who ventured topside to help their wounded shipmates?

Lloyd Painter and Glenn Oliphant are the only two survivors who claimed to have seen the torpedo boats fire on life rafts, correct? The Captain, in contrast, claims that the MTBs offered assistance after realising their mistake, and that he told them to stay away. Neither the Captain nor any other survivors on the deck testified to these actions by the torpedo boats.

gumboot

5th July 2008, 12:27 PM

I find it IMPOSSIBLE that if not the naked eye, with an eyeglass the PT boats wouldnt have seen it... Its impossible everyone on the ship says the flag was flying and those boats didnt see it, impossible

According to the logs the closest the MTBs ever closed was 2000 yards which is quite a considerable distance. In addition, since Joe here was the signalman he can confirm that smoke from the fires made it impossible for him to read the MTBs signals, just as the Israelis claim they could not see his signals clearly. Thus we cannot assume the MTBs saw the US flag.

Finally, even assuming the MTBs did know it was a US ship that they approached (which, in fact, is what the Israeli account states), the Liberty fired on them first, and thus the MTBs had absolute right to return fire. For all they know it could have been an Egyptian ship conducting a false flag attack (I can almost taste the irony of that suggestion).

Whether is was reasonable for the Liberty to fire on the MTBs or not is entirely beside the point as determining guilt during acts of war is based solely on the person's situational perception, and not on what was actually happening.

roundhead

5th July 2008, 12:28 PM

i would like somebody to assess this quote...........

Perhaps the most persuasive suggestion that such transcripts existed comes from the Israelis themselves, in a pair of diplomatic cables sent by the Israeli ambassador in Washington, Avraham Harman, to Foreign Minister Abba Eban in Tel Aviv.

Five days after the Liberty attack, Harman cabled Eban that a source the Israelis code-named "Hamlet" was reporting that the Americans had "clear proof that from a certain stage the pilot discovered the identity of the ship and continued the attack anyway."

Harman repeated the warning three days later, advising Eban, who is now dead, that the White House was "very angry," and that "the reason for this is that the Americans probably have findings showing that our pilots indeed knew that the ship was American."

Btw, there has only been ONE official investigation. And as far as i can tell,only 17 crew testified.

The official investigation was a VERY HASTY affair that began 10 DAYS after the incident.

Think about that , 10 days when counsel figured 6 months would be needed to get to the bottom of it.

LBJ whitewashed it, and swept it under the rug as quickly as posible, its plain as day.

And ANYBODY in authority would be scared to death to have a Congressional investigation of the incident, because of its ramifications.

jmeadors

5th July 2008, 12:36 PM

The location of a belligerent is irrelevant. The USS Liberty was spying on two nations that were at war. Neither nation could be sure if the USA was sharing that intelligence with the enemy, therefore either nation was justified in attacking the ship.

Under that scenario the combatants were justified in attacking any ship in the area.

defaultdotxbe

5th July 2008, 12:38 PM

The official investigation was a VERY HASTY affair that began 10 DAYS after the incident.

Think about that , 10 days when counsel figured 6 months would be needed to get to the bottom of it.

so they should have waited 6 months, then started investigating? im not sure what you are trying to say here

roundhead

5th July 2008, 12:40 PM

Based on a general appreciation of naval history in the 20th Century, I find it utterly beyond credibility that a competent naval force could attack a lightly armed merchant ship using fighter-bombers and motor torpedo boats and yet leave that ship still afloat. Any kind of co-ordination between the two attacks, or simply equipping the fighters with some kind of anti-shipping weapon, would easily have been able to sink the USS Liberty leaving no survivors. I can understand the survivors still being angry at the deaths of their crewmates, but the conspiracy theory simply doesn't pass the common sense test. Mistakes like this are common in war.

Dave

No, DAVE, mistakes like thiswhere the attackers state its American, and are ordered to attack anyway, are extremely rare.

Clear day, flag easily seen, ship looks NOTHING like the Egyptian ship she was supposed to be mistaken for.

I would bet my life the controllers knew exactly what ship they sent those pilots after, and the chatter is the result of the pilots not being told , and of couse needing reassurance after noting it was American, to fire on her.

A Congressional investigation at this point would be very embarrasing to Israel.

gumboot

5th July 2008, 12:42 PM

Under that scenario the combatants were justified in attacking any ship in the area.

Which is exactly what Israel told the USA they would do.

roundhead

5th July 2008, 12:46 PM

so they should have waited 6 months, then started investigating? im not sure what you are trying to say here

Are you truly this dense???

Admiral Mc Cain, on instruction forbade anybody from traveling to Israel to speak with anyone involved in the attack, in spite of counsel's objections to this.

60 sailors in sick bay injured, were not allowed to testify at the hearing. Easy to go bedsite and take accounts.

It commenced within 10 days.

And open and shut murder case takes way longer than that, and only a fool would argue with this rational that "why is 10 days an issue"

That is flat unpatriotic and sinister.

I didnt say "we should wait 6 months"...i said counsel said it would take about six months to do a full inquiry so as to get all the facts. In a case of this magnitude, involving a huge loss of life, i think 6 months is actually extremely timely.

SDC

5th July 2008, 12:47 PM

No, DAVE, mistakes like thiswhere the attackers state its American, and are ordered to attack anyway, are extremely rare.

Clear day, flag easily seen, ship looks NOTHING like the Egyptian ship she was supposed to be mistaken for.

I would bet my life the controllers knew exactly what ship they sent those pilots after, and the chatter is the result of the pilots not being told , and of couse needing reassurance after noting it was American, to fire on her.

A Congressional investigation at this point would be very embarrasing to Israel.

OK Roundhead, you have bet your life. Now you refer to embarrassing Israel as a relevant issue, even though the Israeli authorities apologized and provided compensation. Earlier you said you really wanted the US government to own up to its responsibility. What, in fact, do you really want? I asked you before: Israel to say again that they did it? further compensation? An attack on Tel Aviv? Some sort of medal for the crew? Another congressional investigation -- for which go ahead, please, convince Congress, by the way. Be my guest, use your best arguments.

Mr Meadors, likewise, I guess. What exactly do you want? To punish Israel further, to get something out of the US government, or what?

LBJ is dead, incidentally. 1973. I believe it was at the insistence of the North Vietnamese. ("OK, Henry, we'll take the deal, but you've got to get rid of the old Texas b*stard or it's no dice.")

Klimax

5th July 2008, 12:51 PM

jmeadors

5th July 2008, 12:52 PM

Where was it suggested it was? Has anyone suggested that the Israeli attack on the ship was a law enforcement action?

[quote=gumboot;3835329]The Navy Court of Inquiry found that the Saratoga received radio transmissions from the Liberty and successfully passed these on to the 6th Fleet. This would indicate that radio jamming did not occur. Fighter aircraft were initially scrambled in response to these communications, but recalled because they were carrying nuclear payloads.

I cannot recall specifically if it was included in the Court of Inquiry or not but will find out. I do know it was in a written statement from Capt. Tully of the Saratoga that he ordered the launch of his ready strike force within minutes of the beginning of the attack and before those aircraft reached the horizon they were recalled. The nuclear armed aircraft were on the America -- not the Saratoga. We have not yet been able to verify the claim sufficiently to be confident that it is correct.

If you are unsure about the jamming you might try getting hold of USS Liberty survivors who witnessed it so you can get a first-person account.

Lloyd Painter and Glenn Oliphant are the only two survivors who claimed to have seen the torpedo boats fire on life rafts, correct? The Captain, in contrast, claims that the MTBs offered assistance after realising their mistake, and that he told them to stay away. Neither the Captain nor any other survivors on the deck testified to these actions by the torpedo boats.

Lloyd Painter testified about witnessing the deliberate machine gunning of our life rafts in the water during the Court of Inquiry but his testimony does not appear in the record of the court.

Other survivors who were on deck were interviewed by Court officials but were not called to testify.

SDC

5th July 2008, 12:55 PM

defaultdotxbe

5th July 2008, 12:58 PM

Are you truly this dense???

Admiral Mc Cain, on instruction forbade anybody from traveling to Israel to speak with anyone involved in the attack, in spite of counsel's objections to this.

60 sailors in sick bay injured, were not allowed to testify at the hearing. Easy to go bedsite and take accounts.

It commenced within 10 days.

And open and shut murder case takes way longer than that, and only a fool would argue with this rational that "why is 10 days an issue"

That is flat unpatriotic and sinister.

I didnt say "we should wait 6 months"...i said counsel said it would take about six months to do a full inquiry so as to get all the facts. In a case of this magnitude, involving a huge loss of life, i think 6 months is actually extremely timely.
your point seems to be how long the investigation took, which is why i cant understand why when it began is apparently an issue

The official investigation was a VERY HASTY affair that began 10 DAYS after the incident.

Think about that , 10 days when counsel figured 6 months would be needed to get to the bottom of it.

the argument you appear to be waiting is that they should have waited 6 months before beginning the investigation

jmeadors

5th July 2008, 01:20 PM

Mr Meadors, again, what is your remedy? More apologies/ compensation from Israel? Apology/ compensation/ medals from the US? An attack on Tel Aviv? A strike against LBJ's gravesite? (Does the ranch still exist?) Please clarify.

All we want is to have the attack investigated. Just like the attacks on the USS Pueblo, USS Stark and USS Cole were investigated. Contrary to the claims that have been made here and elsewhere the attack on the USS Liberty has never been investigated by the US government.

SDC

5th July 2008, 01:24 PM

jmeadors

5th July 2008, 01:34 PM

Then do it. Contact your congressional rep. That's the only way to get an investigation, or at least I would think so.

Work at convincing them that it is necessary. Avoid anything lunatic (like what Roundhead said about the ambassadors to Lebanon or Qatar listening to the Israelis, in Hebrew, in real time in 1967 -- that's nuts). Put together your best case and insist.

We've been trying to get a Congressional investigation for decades but not a single Member of Congress thinks an attack on a US Navy ship that includes the deliberate machine gunning of American life rafts in the water and the abandoning of a US Navy ship while that ship is still under fire is worthy of Congressional scrutiny. Compare that to the investigations that followed the death of Pat Tillman.

I wouldn't unilaterally discount everything anyone says. In fact we know that the attack was being monitored in Lebanon and Morocco as well as other stations in Europe.

Fear not. We will continue the fight until the attack on our ship is finally investigated. We owe nothing less to our fallen shipmates and their families.

Doctor Evil

5th July 2008, 01:47 PM

I wouldn't unilaterally discount everything anyone says. In fact we know that the attack was being monitored in Lebanon and Morocco as well as other stations in Europe.

This seems unlikely due to radio range. Anyone with more knowledge can comment about that, considering available technology at the time?

Mr. Meadors, I freely admit I am not sure if it was possible to monitor transmissions at those distances. That is why I am asking others to comment. My first guess is that the radios of the units involved were not strong enough to reach such distances. If you want to convince Congress to start another investigation you should try to avoid any claims that will weaken your case.

defaultdotxbe

5th July 2008, 02:31 PM

All we want is to have the attack investigated. Just like the attacks on the USS Pueblo, USS Stark and USS Cole were investigated. Contrary to the claims that have been made here and elsewhere the attack on the USS Liberty has never been investigated by the US government.

The CIA Report of 1967 (http://www.thelibertyincident.com/docs/CIAreports.pdf)
The Clark Clifford Report of 1967 (http://www.thelibertyincident.com/clifford.html)
The Joint Chief of Staff's Report (http://www.thelibertyincident.com/docs/JCSreport.pdf), on U.S. communications failures.
The NSA Report of 1981 (http://www.nsa.gov/liberty/) including recordings of intercepted Israeli military radio transmissions and translated transcripts of post-attack helicopter pilots.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee Testimony of 1967 (http://www.thelibertyincident.com/docs/SenateInvestigation.pdf)
The U.S. Naval Court of Inquiry (http://www.thelibertyincident.com/docs/CourtOfInquiry.pdf) as released under FOIA

jmeadors

5th July 2008, 03:19 PM

Mr. Meadors, I freely admit I am not sure if it was possible to monitor transmissions at those distances. That is why I am asking others to comment. My first guess is that the radios of the units involved were not strong enough to reach such distances. If you want to convince Congress to start another investigation you should try to avoid any claims that will weaken your case.

I appreciate your advice. To correct you on one point, the US government has never conducted an investigation of the attack on the USS Liberty.

jmeadors

5th July 2008, 03:27 PM

NB--I had to remove the links in your note since I have not achieved the 15 posts required to allow me to post hyperlinks. Joe

Of course we're familiar with all of the documents to which you refer.

Unfortunately none is the result of a US government investigation of the attack on the USS Liberty.

jmeadors

5th July 2008, 03:36 PM

Let me give you some points to consider.

If you want to perform an analysis of them using the skeptical techniques employed by James Randi, etc., be my guest.

A Congressional Research Service Staff Member concludes that the US government has never conducted an investigation of the attack on the USS Liberty and the Senate Historian cannot find any evidence in available records of any Congressional investigation of the attack on our ship.

The Legal Advisor to the US Navy Court of Inquiry says some Findings of Fact were determined prior to the taking of any testimony.

The statements of some 65 USS Liberty survivors which were prepared and submitted to the Court at its request have been removed from the record of the Court.

A detailed statement presented to a member of the Court by the Officer of the Deck during the morning of the attack has been removed from the record of the Court.

The sworn testimony of Lloyd Painter regarding the deliberate machine gunning of our life rafts in the water by the torpedo boats has been removed from the record of the Court.

The US Navy has unilaterally waived its obligation under the Department of Defense Law of War Program which requires it to thoroughly investigate all alleged violations of the laws of war whether committed by or against the United States when it refused to investigate the allegations contained in our War Crimes Report of June 8, 2006. The Navy claims they investigated the allegations in 1967 but cannot find anyone who can speak authoritatively on the subject.

USS Liberty survivors' testimony has been removed from the record and we have never been invited to testify before any Congressional Committee. Contrast this to the attacks on the USS Pueblo, USS Stark and USS Cole. Indeed, contrast this to the myriad of investigations following the death of Pat Tillman. One man dies. A multitude of investigations follow. 34 men are killed on the USS Liberty. A US Navy ship is totally destroyed and no Congressional testimony by any member of the USS Liberty crew.

Sword_Of_Truth

5th July 2008, 04:03 PM

I appreciate your advice. To correct you on one point, the US government has never conducted an investigation of the attack on the USS Liberty.

The CIA, NSA, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Naval Court of Inquiry are not arms or agencies of the US government?

quicknthedead

5th July 2008, 04:27 PM

W. PATRICK LANG, was in the Army and not NSA. I count not find a bio which specifies exactly where and when he served. I did find one (http://www.turcopolier.com/biography.html) which states that he served two years in Vietnam. He started his Mideast specialization in the 70's and it is unlikely that he saw the transcripts before that. Moreover, his story does not make sense. You have a highly classified tapes, supposedly suppressed by NSA, which are used as a course material in the Army?

I disagree--his story does make sense.

Reiterating, Lang said these intercepted communications were "course material" used in an advanced class for intelligence officers on the clandestine interception of voice transmissions.

I've sent him an email on your question today, and here is his bio:
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/about.html
Colonel W. Patrick Lang is a retired senior officer of U.S. Military Intelligence and U.S. Army Special Forces (The Green Berets). He served in the Department of Defense both as a serving officer and then as a member of the Defense Senior Executive Service for many years. He is a highly decorated veteran of several of America’s overseas conflicts including the war in Vietnam. He was trained and educated as a specialist in the Middle East by the U.S. Army and served in that region for many years. He was the first Professor of the Arabic Language at the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York. In the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) he was the “Defense Intelligence Officer for the Middle East, South Asia and Terrorism,” and later the first Director of the Defense Humint Service.” For his service in DIA, he was awarded the “Presidential Rank of Distinguished Executive.” This is the equivalent of a British knighthood. He is an analyst consultant for many television and radio broadcasts.

His credentials are not unimpressive.
Again from the Tribune article, Patrick Lang's words:
"The flight leader spoke to his base to report that he had the ship in view, that it was the same ship that he had been briefed on and that it was clearly marked with the U.S. flag," Lang recalled in an e-mail.
"The flight commander was reluctant," Lang said in a subsequent interview. "That was very clear. He didn't want to do this. He asked them a couple of times, 'Do you really want me to do this?' I've remembered it ever since. It was very striking. I've been harboring this memory for all these years."

As far as I could find Kirby did serve in the NSA at the time. On the other hand, the details he gives are consistent with the transcripts that we already have, namely the ones between the Helicopters and the control tower. I am not sure whether he read the transcripts at the time. (The information that Nowicki gives suggests that the tapes were not treated as urgent material, and were probably not known to the first inquiry.) I think it is possible that Kirby saw the transcripts we have and mistook these to be communications with the fighter planes. Furthermore, why do you assume that Kirby was directly involved at the time. Your link does not say this, it just say that he served in the NSA at the time, and saw the transcripts. He could have seen these at any later time.

My use of "at the time" was not precise. I meant they claimed seeing the translated transcripts back then, thereby interjecting them into the case. Pardon my being unclear. I simply should have written "involved".

Nevertheless, what Kirby said and what the transcripts state are entirely two different things, your idea that Kirby was "mixed up" is conjecture, and whatever Kirby read has bothered him all these years.

His testimony again, as well as the transcripts for comparison:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/printedition/tuesday/chi-liberty_tuesoct02,0,1050179.story?page=6&coll=chi_business_ugc
Asked whether he had personally read such transcripts, Kirby replied, "I sure did. I certainly did."
"They said, 'We've got him in the zero," Kirby recalled, "whatever that meant -- I guess the sights or something. And then one of them said, 'Can you see the flag?' They said 'Yes, it's U.S, it's U.S.' They said it several times, so there wasn't any doubt in anybody's mind that they knew it."
Kirby, now 86 and retired in Texas, said the transcripts were "something that's bothered me all my life. I'm willing to swear on a stack of Bibles that we knew they knew."
Transcripts:
http://www.nsa.gov/liberty/recordings.cfm

One more note, there is no evidence that either Kirby or Lang spoke Hebrew. If there were more transcripts someone should have taken them. Furthermore, someone should have translated them. Nowicki claims he discussed his material with other Hebrew linguists at the time, and they were of the same opinion as him. Wouldn't he have heard if other transmissions were recorded?

There were also transcripts collected by the Air Force that were separate from the Navy (and Nowicki). From Liberty survivor James Ennes: http://www.washington-report.org/archives/sept03/0309025.html
Recently I called Oliver Kirby, a former NSA Operations boss who was called back in 1967 to look into the circumstances of the attack. He has never before discussed this with anyone outside the confines of the NSA complex, but the first words out of his mouth were, "I can tell you for an absolute certainty that they knew they were attacking an American ship."
How did he know? He saw transcripts of Israeli communications during the attack. There was a Navy EC121 overhead (reported recently by James Bamford) and an Air Force C130 a few miles away. Both were recording communications. The Navy intake was merely recorded; the Air Force product was sent securely in real time via the nation's top secret signals intelligence communications system to Air Force intelligence centers worldwide, where it was seen by hundreds of people. Many of those people now are coming forward to describe what they saw. These are the same intercepts that were seen by Oliver Kirby and other top analysts and officials at the National Security Agency. These transcripts are the reason so many top intelligence officials are certain that this attack was no accident.

Lastly, the transcripts that we have show clearly that the air control directing the Helicopters did not know that the ship was a US vessel. This is a clear piece of evidence, which is furthermore unaffected by time.

Their air control did claim it did not know the identity of the vessel after the attack, but this is not pertinent when considering the heart of the matter. Israel claims it did not know whose ship it was before it attacked, yet there is evidence to the contrary.

Now there are relevant transcripts missing that many have read and claimed as evidence Israel knew the USS Liberty was an American ship before shots were ever fired. How did these transcripts go missing?

Why did they go missing?

jmeadors

5th July 2008, 04:44 PM

The CIA, NSA, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Naval Court of Inquiry are not arms or agencies of the US government?

They are.

Doctor Evil

5th July 2008, 05:16 PM

Their air control did claim it did not know the identity of the vessel after the attack, but this is not pertinent when considering the heart of the matter. Israel claims it did not know whose ship it was before it attacked, yet there is evidence to the contrary.

Now there are relevant transcripts missing that many have read and claimed as evidence Israel knew the USS Liberty was an American ship before shots were ever fired. How did these transcripts go missing?

Why did they go missing?

1. I never claimed that Lang's record is not impressive. I have suggested that his exposure to the tapes/transcripts was several years after 1967. I have also stated that this is a guess. I have also stated that, to my opinion, it seems strange that a tape which is supposed to be covered up is used in a course. By the way, do you know whether Lang is fluent in Hebrew?

2. Regarding Kirby, I merely suggested that his story may fit my speculation. That is, that it will refer to the known transcripts. You are free to disagree. I definitely do not have enough information to know for sure.

3. I do not understand how you ignore the transcripts we do have. They are not a "claim" of the Israeli air control. In fact the Israeli air control could not know that this transmission was recorded. As a result, it records what the control thought at the time, not what the IDF told the US government later. Read the transcripts. It is clear that the Helicopters were directed to the area under the impression that the ship was Egyptian. This was after the first air attack.

I can not stress enough the importance of these transcripts, as they do reflect the knowledge at the Israeli air control at the time. I am aware to the fact that you claim that other transcript exist. You can convince me by finding these other transcripts.

defaultdotxbe

5th July 2008, 05:22 PM

They are.
as im sure yo uknow, the government is not a single monolithic entity, it consists of a great number of agencies, administrations and bodies, of which the CIA, NSA, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Naval Court of Inquiry are all a part

however you apparently do not consider them "the government" in this case, so which agency do you think should investigate the incident?

Loss Leader

5th July 2008, 06:00 PM

Under that scenario the combatants were justified in attacking any ship in the area.

Yes.

If you purposefully drive into a war zone, you should expect that some of the war might spill over onto you.

There is no disrespect meant to Mr. Meadors. Neither he nor any of his shipmates (save one) were responsible for the location of the Liberty that day.

Sword_Of_Truth

5th July 2008, 06:14 PM

They are.

Then I would suggest that your claim that the US Government never investigated the USS Liberty incident is inaccurate.

gumboot

5th July 2008, 06:50 PM

Can someone explain to me how the Israeli attack on the Liberty constitutes a war crime?

fuelair

5th July 2008, 07:13 PM

1/ In what way would they not "have had the chance to make that mistake a second time"?

2/ LBJ was a "real tool" of whom or what?

Let's speak precisely.In that long distant time, a "real tool" was the same as a real penis (polite obscuration). Has/had nothing to do with being some other person/agency/country's tool (working for same). Hopefully that one is clear enough now.
The second was quite clear I thought. Possibly you could not believe I meant it, wanted to make sure I meant it or some such - and/or assumed I would not say the "real thing" I clearly meant. To clarify - when hammass and butt friends were some smallish time ago attacking Israel I expressed my firm belief that Israel had the right - indeed the duty - to send their butts to Allah - and those of anyone hiding/helping them. In the case of the Liberty, IFF it was clearly an assault due to it's presence and information gathering AND if I was in charge
Israel would, by the end of that day, have had no ships or planes to send out to kill Americans and no ports/air or sea to put them in. (Just in case the IFF confuses you - IFF+ if and only if). If it was immediately proven in an absolutely transparent way that it was an accident, no. My allies only get one time to shoot me down - not even that if I am properly prepared. Hopefully that covers what you were wondering about!:)

As to the anti-semite thing against others that got me writing about this again
please understand that my response would be the same to any allies IFF they decided to make some point by attacking a US anything. You do not do that. Or there should be really large consequences.

quicknthedead

5th July 2008, 08:56 PM

3. I do not understand how you ignore the transcripts we do have. They are not a "claim" of the Israeli air control. In fact the Israeli air control could not know that this transmission was recorded. As a result, it records what the control thought at the time, not what the IDF told the US government later. Read the transcripts. It is clear that the Helicopters were directed to the area under the impression that the ship was Egyptian. This was after the first air attack.

I can not stress enough the importance of these transcripts, as they do reflect the knowledge at the Israeli air control at the time. I am aware to the fact that you claim that other transcript exist. You can convince me by finding these other transcripts.

I understand what you mean, I am not ignoring those transcripts (yes, they are important), and I agree from where you are coming from. Unfortunately we are looking at an incident done in the fog of war through a 40-year time tunnel, so carefulness in conclusions is critical (as always) and evidence must be solid.

I read the IDF transcripts multiple times, and yes, it would be great to locate those Air Force intercept transcripts.

I received word back from Col. Lang who kindly wrote:
"The material in the transcripts was not highly classified. The intercepts had been of plain voice, unencrypted Hebrew and from the point of view of NSA they were not particularly sensitive. If NSA later “suppressed” the materials that must have been a political decision made in the White House. My exposure to this material had nothing to do with my later specialization in the Middle East. The MIOAC {Military Intelligence Officer Advanced Course at Ft. Holabird, Maryland} was a course designed to equip career Army intelligence officers for a broad spectrum of management duties both in Army intelligence and throughout the intelligence community."

He attended this course in 1967 - 1968. You can read more on this at his blogsite he gave: http://turcopolier.typepad.com/the_athenaeum/2007/10/what-i-know-abo.html

As far as I am concerned, the jury is still out on this one.

quicknthedead

5th July 2008, 09:32 PM

Can someone explain to me how the Israeli attack on the Liberty constitutes a war crime?

I am not a lawyer, but this document shows this line of thought may have been on the minds of the IDF Court of Inquiry on Jun 18, 1967:
http://www.nsa.gov/liberty/51652/3068921.pdf

2.A. IT IS CONCLUDED CLEARLY AND UNIMPEACHABLY FROM THE EVIDENCE AND FROM COMPARISON OF WAR DIARIES THAT THE ATTACK ON USS LIBERTY WAS NOT IN MALICE; THERE WAS NO CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE AND THE ATTACK WAS MADE BY INNOCENT MISTAKE.

gumboot

6th July 2008, 01:01 AM

I am not a lawyer, but this document shows this line of thought may have been on the minds of the IDF Court of Inquiry on Jun 18, 1967:
http://www.nsa.gov/liberty/51652/3068921.pdf

2.A. IT IS CONCLUDED CLEARLY AND UNIMPEACHABLY FROM THE EVIDENCE AND FROM COMPARISON OF WAR DIARIES THAT THE ATTACK ON USS LIBERTY WAS NOT IN MALICE; THERE WAS NO CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE AND THE ATTACK WAS MADE BY INNOCENT MISTAKE.

That doesn't really answer the question. That's almost certainly referring to domestic IDF laws. I want to hear how the attack on the Liberty constitutes a breach of the ILAC.

Doctor Evil

6th July 2008, 05:05 AM

I understand what you mean, I am not ignoring those transcripts (yes, they are important), and I agree from where you are coming from. Unfortunately we are looking at an incident done in the fog of war through a 40-year time tunnel, so carefulness in conclusions is critical (as always) and evidence must be solid.

I read the IDF transcripts multiple times, and yes, it would be great to locate those Air Force intercept transcripts.

I received word back from Col. Lang who kindly wrote:
"The material in the transcripts was not highly classified. The intercepts had been of plain voice, unencrypted Hebrew and from the point of view of NSA they were not particularly sensitive. If NSA later “suppressed” the materials that must have been a political decision made in the White House. My exposure to this material had nothing to do with my later specialization in the Middle East. The MIOAC {Military Intelligence Officer Advanced Course at Ft. Holabird, Maryland} was a course designed to equip career Army intelligence officers for a broad spectrum of management duties both in Army intelligence and throughout the intelligence community."

He attended this course in 1967 - 1968. You can read more on this at his blogsite he gave: http://turcopolier.typepad.com/the_athenaeum/2007/10/what-i-know-abo.html

As far as I am concerned, the jury is still out on this one.

Thank you for that, it does clarify the time frame (few months after the attack.)

This leaves us where I expected to be. Only the Israeli communications can clarify without a doubt what the Israelis new at the time, and we have conflicting information regarding these. On one hand we have transcripts pointing out that the Israelis thought this was an Egyptian ship. On the other hand, we have several reliable witnesses claiming to see other transcripts which demonstrate otherwise. These were interviewed many years after their exposure to the material.

You choose to value the claims of the witnesses. I see your point, and understand where you come from. On the other hand, I tend to have a poor opinion on human memory as a whole. (Maybe because mine is not that good.) As a result I think the best piece of evidence is the one which does not depend on that, namely the transcripts we have.

I think this can only be resolved by finding these other transcripts. If we will continue to argue this point we are likely to say the same things over and over again. I want to avoid that. I wish you the best of luck looking for these transcripts.

SDC

6th July 2008, 05:28 AM

In that long distant time, a "real tool" was the same as a real penis (polite obscuration). Has/had nothing to do with being some other person/agency/country's tool (working for same). Hopefully that one is clear enough now.
The second was quite clear I thought. Possibly you could not believe I meant it, wanted to make sure I meant it or some such - and/or assumed I would not say the "real thing" I clearly meant. To clarify - when hammass and butt friends were some smallish time ago attacking Israel I expressed my firm belief that Israel had the right - indeed the duty - to send their butts to Allah - and those of anyone hiding/helping them. In the case of the Liberty, IFF it was clearly an assault due to it's presence and information gathering AND if I was in charge
Israel would, by the end of that day, have had no ships or planes to send out to kill Americans and no ports/air or sea to put them in. (Just in case the IFF confuses you - IFF+ if and only if). If it was immediately proven in an absolutely transparent way that it was an accident, no. My allies only get one time to shoot me down - not even that if I am properly prepared. Hopefully that covers what you were wondering about!:)

As to the anti-semite thing against others that got me writing about this again
please understand that my response would be the same to any allies IFF they decided to make some point by attacking a US anything. You do not do that. Or there should be really large consequences.

My bolding, and off the specific Liberty topic: well, I think any UK or Canadian readers (at least) would have something to say about the Americans and friendly fire incidents -- that is, from reading the UK and Canadian press, there is a general feeling that we Yanks are entirely too likely to be the ones firing. In contemporary warfare, things happen in split seconds. I think everyone would do well to remember that. In fact... I can't source this, but I remember reading that friendly fire has increased significantly in percentage terms as a source of casualties among the highest tech militaries, over the decades.

Older stories ... I remember reading (John Keegan, Six Armies in Normandy?) that the 8th Air Force was referred to bitterly by ground forces as the "8th Luftwaffe" because of a number of mistakes.

I would also say that it sounds like you are requiring your allies to prove their innocence. That is always the harder thing to do. Not a way to keep allies who will support you militarily, ultimately.

ETA: for the kiddies out there: "Normandy" refers to WW2. I shouldn't have to say that, but well... grump, grump.

Loss Leader

6th July 2008, 06:58 AM

I clearly meant. To clarify - when hammass and butt friends were some smallish time ago attacking Israel I expressed my firm belief that Israel had the right - indeed the duty - to send their butts to Allah - and those of anyone hiding/helping them. In the case of the Liberty, IFF it was clearly an assault due to it's presence and information gathering AND if I was in charge
Israel would, by the end of that day, have had no ships or planes to send out to kill Americans and no ports/air or sea to put them in. (Just in case the IFF confuses you - IFF+ if and only if). If it was immediately proven in an absolutely transparent way that it was an accident, no. My allies only get one time to shoot me down - not even that if I am properly prepared. Hopefully that covers what you were wondering about!

Well, that shows ... an astonishing lack of insight.

Does the US bear no responsibility whatsoever for its behavior? For sending a ship to spy on two nations it wasn't at war with? For sending that ship just a couple miles from the war's front? For sending the ship within the zone in which the war was conducted? For promising Israel that it would not do so? For reassuring Israel that it had no ships in the area?

If my firend and I are having a water balloon fight on the street in front of our apartments, do you really assert the right into the middle of the fight to stop and take pictures of us without getting the least bit wet?

How many friends do you think you would keep with that attitude?

SDC

6th July 2008, 07:40 AM

quicknthedead

6th July 2008, 09:12 AM

Thank you for that, it does clarify the time frame (few months after the attack.)

This leaves us where I expected to be. Only the Israeli communications can clarify without a doubt what the Israelis new at the time, and we have conflicting information regarding these. On one hand we have transcripts pointing out that the Israelis thought this was an Egyptian ship. On the other hand, we have several reliable witnesses claiming to see other transcripts which demonstrate otherwise. These were interviewed many years after their exposure to the material.

You choose to value the claims of the witnesses. I see your point, and understand where you come from. On the other hand, I tend to have a poor opinion on human memory as a whole. (Maybe because mine is not that good.) As a result I think the best piece of evidence is the one which does not depend on that, namely the transcripts we have.

I think this can only be resolved by finding these other transcripts. If we will continue to argue this point we are likely to say the same things over and over again. I want to avoid that. I wish you the best of luck looking for these transcripts.

I agree. These transcripts (or "harder" corroborative evidence of them) need to be found.

I is interesting that among all the official reports I have gone through, I have yet to find even one instance of their mention. Investigation into that Jun 8, 1967 Air Force flight in the vicinity of the Liberty might yield some information.

fuelair

6th July 2008, 09:39 AM

Well, that shows ... an astonishing lack of insight.

Does the US bear no responsibility whatsoever for its behavior? For sending a ship to spy on two nations it wasn't at war with? For sending that ship just a couple miles from the war's front? For sending the ship within the zone in which the war was conducted? For promising Israel that it would not do so? For reassuring Israel that it had no ships in the area?

If my firend and I are having a water balloon fight on the street in front of our apartments, do you really assert the right into the middle of the fight to stop and take pictures of us without getting the least bit wet?

How many friends do you think you would keep with that attitude?Sorry, I don't see US sailers being murdered as equivalent to a friend with a camera getting wet. My lack of insight I guess.

By the by, I assume you have read all my posts and are aware that I have consistantly distinguished the following: A)Although I strongly suspect it was on purpose, I B) accept that it may have been accidental, but C) I believe certain factors militate against that (B) being correct. And D) my statement about retaliation stands fully if A) was indeed correct (for then - obviously it would be pointless to do it now - but at the time.......).

SDC

6th July 2008, 09:46 AM

Loss Leader

6th July 2008, 10:24 AM

Sorry, I don't see US sailers being murdered as equivalent to a friend with a camera getting wet. My lack of insight I guess.

You just don't believe that the US government bears any responsibility for what it chooses to do with the lives of its own soldiers and sailors.

Or, at least, that the US government bears no responsibility in this instance for driving a secret ship into a war zone for the purpose of secretly spying on the warring countries after telling them that they had no ships in the area.

Sword_Of_Truth

6th July 2008, 11:10 AM

I'm kind of nervously waiting for Brits and Canadians to come thundering in. There have been major incidents in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Well, I should explain I mean British and Canadian posters. I don't mean that there is much possibility of hordes coming across the Peace Bridge from Canada nor armed UK mobs taking over the streets of Manhattan. Though with the US dollar low it feels that way sometimes.

I am a Canadian.

The Tarnak Farm Incident which you describe, was indeed a tragedy. The four members of the Princess Patricias Canadian Light Infantry who died were not only my countrymen but one of them was also a member of my faith. As a Canadian, I place more blame on the one trigger happy F-16 pilot than I do the US military or the American people as a whole. The pilot in question was placed on trial by his fellow Americans, publicly reprimanded by a US military court and forced to retire in disgrace. He will never fly a high performance fighter jet or wear the uniform of a US military officer with pride again.

I continue to hold my countries largest economic trading partner and closest ally in time of war in the highest regard.

quicknthedead

6th July 2008, 11:59 AM

That doesn't really answer the question. That's almost certainly referring to domestic IDF laws. I want to hear how the attack on the Liberty constitutes a breach of the ILAC.

If you could find this report, it might help you:
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51a/023.html

The Liberty attack was a war crime

The attack on USS Liberty was itself a war crime. US Navy Commander Walter Jacobsen, a Navy Legal Officer then doing graduate work at George Washington University, conducted an extensive legal analysis of the attack.

His conclusion, reported in the Winter, 1986, Naval Law Review, was that several aspects of the attack violated provisions of the Geneva Conventions -- war crimes. Specifically, Commander Jacobsen found that the attack was not legally justified, that it constituted an act of aggression under the United Nations Charter, that the use of unmarked aircraft, the wanton destruction of life rafts in the water, the jamming of international radio distress frequencies, and the failure of the torpedo boat commanders to render immediate assistance to a disabled and helpless enemy were all violations of international law.

SDC

6th July 2008, 12:38 PM

I wish Fuelair would answer, but I guess I am out of luck. Well, if it was a war crime, don't you think the US government should start proceedings? Of course, it would come out that US officials and/ or military authorities bore some significant measure of responsibility for sending a lightly armed intelligence gathering ship into, at least, the fringe of a war zone.

Also, the individual Israelis would need to be punished. Any high officials are almost certainly dead or retired. LBJ, well... OK, how about just an armed strike on Tel Aviv?

Then maybe the Canadians can attack the US, or the Brits can attack the US, over some of those so-called friendly fire incidents. Let's really mix things up!

kookbreaker

6th July 2008, 12:41 PM

that the use of unmarked aircraft,

This is untrue. At least one member of the crew saw the Star of David on teh planes in his testimony. The boats were also flying the Star of David.

the wanton destruction of life rafts in the water,

Had this happened, it might come close. But the fact is, there is no real evidence that it happened. The torpedo boats never came closer than 2000 yards by sworn accounts and documentation.

the jamming of international radio distress frequencies,

The evidence for this is laughable. the planes that attacked could not have jamming gear, and the sudden 'fix' of the radio was likely from Ennes' screwing up the radio.

and the failure of the torpedo boat commanders to render immediate assistance to a disabled and helpless enemy were all violations of international law.

This is just horsecrap. The torpedo tried to signal the Liberty and was fired upon! They then commenced a torpedo attack, hitting the Liberty. Once they got indications that he Liberty was a US vessel they then signaled asking if the Liberty required assistance. It was refused. What were they supposed to do? Force asisstance on the Liberty?!

It is no surprise the article was written by Ennes. Its also no surprise that the NLR article is widely criticized for using very suspect sources of information. THis is like the Free-Mumia people who declare that Mumia is a 'political prisoner' and not in jail for murdering a cop. IANAL, but I seriously doubt that Jacobsens' claims would stand the test of any courts.

quicknthedead

6th July 2008, 12:59 PM

To update, I received another interesting email from Col. W. Patrick Lang today (I had asked him about the missing Air Force C130 NSA transcripts he had seen in his intelligence course back in 1967 - 1968).

Here is his reply:

CTF

The only reason I ever wrote this down was that one of the ship’s officers asked me to do so. He had heard from a friend that I had seen this material and asked me for a statement. After staying silent about it for so long, I felt it was the right thing to do, but this is in no way a “cause” of mine. It doesn’t really matter to me if anyone believes it or not.

The transcripts were in bound booklet form and were probably only part of the transcript material in the possession of NSA at that time. These transcripts were just one section of the exemplar materials in the book. In other words there were other examples of useful voice intercepts in the booklet. The instructional booklet was brought to the MI school by NSA cryptologic personnel from the NSA School along with other course materials. This particular elective course on cryptology had several sub-courses; traffic analysis, cryptanalysis and voice intercept operations are the three that I remember. They brought their materials and since they were sensitive, took them away with them afterwards.

I was then married to my present wife. She remembers that I came home one day after classes at Holabird and told her that I had seen this material.

Pat

I believe Col. Lang. Here is a man who gave dedicated years of service to his country, and yes, in this instance he did the right thing.

Thanks, Colonel.

Investigating the USS Liberty incident should take a critical look into these missing NSA tape transcripts. What exactly was in them, do any copies still exist, why were they never referenced or mentioned in any of the official reports, and why did they go missing?

quicknthedead

6th July 2008, 01:02 PM

Here is a synopsis on the missing NSA transcripts captured by the Air Force C130 Jun 8, 1967:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040328/news_mz1e29libert.html

Two former NSA directors – Adm. Bobby Ray Inman, Gen. William Odom – and two ex-deputy directors – Gen. John Morrison and Oliver Kirby – told me that there has never been any question at the agency but that Israel's attack on the Liberty was deliberate.

Kirby, for example, is "absolutely certain" about this. A storied career NSA official, Kirby had founded the ELINT program under which the Liberty and her several sister ships operated. "It was my baby," he said in an interview last year.

In an interview Feb. 24, 2003, retired Air Force Major General John Morrison, the agency's then second in command (and Kirby's successor), said he had been informed at the time of Kirby's findings and endorsed them. William Odom, former NSA Director and retired Army lieutenant general, said on March 3, 2003 that on the strength of such data, the attack's deliberateness "just wasn't a disputed issue" within the agency.

On March 5, 2003, retired Navy Admiral Bobby Ray Inman, NSA director from 1977-81, said he "flatly rejected" the Cristol/Israeli thesis. "It is just exceedingly difficult to believe that [the Liberty] was not correctly identified." Inman said his conclusions were based on his talks with NSA senior officials who had direct knowledge at the time. All four officials said they were unaware of any agency official at any time who dissented from the "deliberate," conclusion, based on the intelligence. These men's comments undergird those recorded by other writers over at least two decades.

USS Liberty Veterans Association historian James Ennes (author of the 1980 book "Assault on the Liberty," now updated) says more apostates to the official Israeli – and United States – position are being heard from in sworn affidavits. For example, two ex-USAF Intelligence personnel state that the damning electronic signals they monitored had been captured by an NSA-operated EC-130 flying near the attack, translated and disseminated worldwide. Hundreds of technicians and intelligence specialists around the world had access to these intercepts {for instance, Col. W. Patrick Lang}. At least a few are now coming forward to discuss what they saw.

Here it's worth reiterating something key to this dimension of the accidentalists vs. deliberates contest. The intercepts referenced by Odom, Helms, Kirby et al (whose existence the NSA officially denies) were real-time intelligence gleaned as the attack commenced. By contrast, the NSA-held material Cristol succeeded in declassifying, which he insists validates his view, appear limited to after-action reports by Israeli helicopter pilots. They'd arrived to survey the damage from the attack and played no role in it.

fuelair

6th July 2008, 01:18 PM

Fuelair, when you say "murder" you have pretty well prejudged your case. How would you respond to my responses, upthread, about treatment of allies, forcing allies to prove their innocence, the apparent explosion (sorry about that word) of friendly fire incidents in modern high-tech warfare, and such? (#135)I also said (and I have no intention of repeating this anymore because I have already said it multiple times) The word/phrase used several places above was IFF (If and only if). I have also said, multiple times, and will not bother repeating it again either, that I am pretty certain it was not an accident but I am not absolutely certain it was not. Combining those two, you get: I am 90% certain (not 100%) that it was murder. If the chance was 10% it would still be way more serious than being sprayed with water. Wet is wet, death is permanent.

I will also not repeat this one - it is inherent in everything I said above and previous. No matter where the ship was, it was identifiably (no one seems to have explained that away - though some attempts have been made) American. It should never have been fired on by Israelis unless it was A)shelling Israel (I heard no reports of that), B)fired on non-attacking Israeli ships or aircraft BEFORE they fired on it(no reports of that)or C) suddenly ran up an Egyptian flag (nope- not that either). And, going from the exact phrasing of the splashing each other, picture taking friend wet story, that SOUNDS like someone saying it was legitimate for Israel to shoot a non-attacking US ship that was simply gathering information (taking pictures) in an area where Israel and a "friend" were fighting. I could semi-buy that as accidental wetting of the camera guy if there had been Egyptian and Israeli air and/or watercaraft shooting at each other and missed shots (thrown water) hit the Liberty (camera using guy) - but there was just the Liberty (camera using guy) and the Israelis (one of the two guys who were gonna throw water, not both). Ship was in the middle of nothing, did not fire first, was identifiable if any real attempt was made to do so. The example given does nothing to convince me of any errors in my thinking and simply sounds (to me) like saying that the Israelis purposefully attacked the ship (as the two friends might purposefully throw water at their friend with the camera) (oh, and, at least in Florida, if he dies from it it's murder/manslaughter. Your mileage may vary).

quicknthedead

6th July 2008, 01:41 PM

This is untrue. At least one member of the crew saw the Star of David on teh planes in his testimony. The boats were also flying the Star of David.
I noticed this too and agree. However, the law review report is what I was aiming at specifically in this post (regarding points of law).

Had this happened, it might come close. But the fact is, there is no real evidence that it happened. The torpedo boats never came closer than 2000 yards by sworn accounts and documentation.
From my readings, this is account is debatable; therefore, in substance I would agree with you again.

The evidence for this is laughable. the planes that attacked could not have jamming gear, and the sudden 'fix' of the radio was likely from Ennes' screwing up the radio.
I am not technically savvy on this to comment; however, the Liberty did communicate with the USS Saratoga, and it did communicate via HICOM voice capability throughout the day, so this seems not much of a point, especially in the fog of war. I therefore agree with you again.

This is just horsecrap. The torpedo tried to signal the Liberty and was fired upon! They then commenced a torpedo attack, hitting the Liberty. Once they got indications that he Liberty was a US vessel they then signaled asking if the Liberty required assistance. It was refused. What were they supposed to do? Force asisstance on the Liberty?!

It is no surprise the article was written by Ennes. Its also no surprise that the NLR article is widely criticized for using very suspect sources of information. THis is like the Free-Mumia people who declare that Mumia is a 'political prisoner' and not in jail for murdering a cop. IANAL, but I seriously doubt that Jacobsens' claims would stand the test of any courts.

What I have read validates you correct again about the MTB trying to first signal while the Liberty ended up firing on them. I agree again.

Nevertheless, I posted this to alert gumboot where he might want to look regarding information on war crimes and how this case might be viewed (gumboot is one of the finest investigators here at JREF...and I owe him much). Indeed, when I read the two paragraphs in my post (before I hit the "submit" button), I realized everything you say, kookbreaker.

However, one thing I did not see in my post was any mention about communications captured by our Air Force C130.

If these tapes are discovered and brought to light, and their contents indicate Israeli aircraft knew for certain beforehand they were attacking our ship, then information on laws regarding war crimes may become all to relevant.

SDC

6th July 2008, 02:04 PM

Fuelair, I said nothing about water-throwing incidents. I was talking about modern war. I'm sorry that you didn't respond to my questions. 'Bye.

gumboot

6th July 2008, 04:22 PM

If you could find this report, it might help you:
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51a/023.html

Few issues there. Firstly, the UN Charter makes no mention of an "act of Aggression" and certainly does not define what one is. So that argument's out.

Secondly, the aircraft were not unmarked, and the Laws of War do not require aircraft to be marked anyway.

Thirdly, the destruction of life rafts is questionable, and again not a violation of the laws of war.

Fourthly, the ship's radio frequencies were not jammed (and they indeed managed to broadcast their distress signals fine).

Fifthly, the Liberty was neither disabled nor helpless - indeed it was firing on the MTBs and assuming some of its monitoring capabilities were still in action, it was still participating in military action.

And sixthly, according to both the MTB crew and the Captain of the Liberty the MTBs did offer assistance, and the Captain turned down their request.

And lastly, the Geneva Conventions are for the care of the sick and wounded and POWs during war time, and do not in any way dictate terms for the waging of war on water.

In conclusion I am left wondering what Lieutenant Commander Walter L. Jacobsen thought he was doing, since he seems oblivious to what the actual Laws of War are.

Interestingly enough, under the Hague Convention on the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Wartime, the Liberty was committing a war crime by monitoring Israeli military action from within the warzone.

gumboot

6th July 2008, 04:37 PM

Here is a synopsis on the missing NSA transcripts captured by the Air Force C130 Jun 8, 1967:

For example, two ex-USAF Intelligence personnel state that the damning electronic signals they monitored had been captured by an NSA-operated EC-130 flying near the attack, translated and disseminated worldwide. Hundreds of technicians and intelligence specialists around the world had access to these intercepts {for instance, Col. W. Patrick Lang}. At least a few are now coming forward to discuss what they saw.

I find this fascinating. An NSA EC-130 in 1967?

I find that remarkable because the EC-130 Commando Solo was first put into service in 1983, only six were ever built, and they're all operated by the 193rd Special Operations Group of the USAF, not the NSA. Further, the EC-130 is a PSYOPS broadcast platform, not a surveillance platform.

Perhaps they meant the EC-121 Warning Star?

Doctor Evil

6th July 2008, 04:44 PM

I find this fascinating. An NSA EC-130 in 1967?

I find that remarkable because the EC-130 Commando Solo was first put into service in 1983, only six were ever built, and they're all operated by the 193rd Special Operations Group of the USAF, not the NSA. Further, the EC-130 is a PSYOPS broadcast platform, not a surveillance platform.

Perhaps they meant the EC-121 Warning Star?

There are EC-121 transcripts linked earlier in this thread, describing communications between two IDF Helicopters and the control tower. These point out towards a mistaken identity. He claims there should have been more transcripts.

gumboot

6th July 2008, 04:58 PM

However, one thing I did not see in my post was any mention about communications captured by our Air Force C130.

If these tapes are discovered and brought to light, and their contents indicate Israeli aircraft knew for certain beforehand they were attacking our ship, then information on laws regarding war crimes may become all to relevant.

The general argument, it appears, is that an EC-130, alternatively either a USAF or NSA aircraft, conducting signals intelligence, intercepted the attacks, and that a second US Navy EC-121M Warning Star of VQ-2, carrying Marvin Nowicki, intercepted only the after-incident efforts of IDF helicopters.

There are issues with this scenario. Firstly, it is implausible that two independent SIGINT aircraft would be in the same airspace, and each by sheer coincidence only capture half of an incident.

Secondly, Nowicki claims his aircraft was present for the entire incident and that it was clear the attack was an accident.

Thirdly, the EC-130 did not exist in 1967, and has never been operated by the NSA, and is not a SIGINT aircraft anyway.

In conclusion, we can assume that the EC130 was in fact Nowicki's EC-121M, that it was present for the entire attack, and that either:

-The NSA only gained recordings of the aftermath of the attack and others are lying about NSA recordings during the attack
or
-The NSA gained recordings of the entire attack but is lying about not having recordings during the attack
or
-The NSA gained recordings of the entire attack but has since lost or disposed of the recordings during the attack.

And further:

-That Nowicki is telling the truth; the attack was accidental as he monitored from his aircraft, and others claiming to have read transcripts otherwise are lying or mistaken.
-That Nowicki is lying and either he did not monitor the actual attack, or did monitor it but it was not an accident.

With certainty, those talking about an EC-130 are unquestionably either lying or mistaken.

It bears comment that I find it utterly unbelievable that an intelligence course for the US army would use sensitive intelligence gathered that same year for the purposes of a classroom exercise. Anyone who has worked in intelligence can no doubt confirm how utterly absurd such a suggestion is. To then take it further and suggest that within a year of the incident the NSA had decided to use this current intelligence as an example in an instruction manual simply defies belief.

In conclusion we have only a single person who claims to have actually been present when these alleged recordings were intercepted. He states clearly that the attack was not deliberate.

No one has been able to provide evidence to contradict this.

gumboot

6th July 2008, 05:21 PM

ETA. A possibility is that the C-130 transcripts refer to intelligence gathered by a C-130A-II Airborne COMINT Recon Platform (ARCP) of the 7406th Special Operations Squadron which was based at Rhein-Main Airbase in Germany and flew recon/intelligence flights over the Middle East (Nowicki mentions their typical flight paths in his account).

A problem is that according to Nowicki the ARDP flights had no Hewbrew linguists.

A further problem is that according to Nowicki their aircraft and the ARDP were taking turns at providing coverage of the warzone, and as such when they were covering the warzone during the Liberty attack there were no ARDP flights on station.

And a final problem is that Nowicki quite clearly claims to have heard not just the recovery operations, but the attack on the Liberty by the MTBs, although at the time he wasn't aware that's what was happening.

ETA.

In June 1967 the 7406th only had two C-130s to call on - 56-0484 and 56-0535 according to the history (http://www.7406suppron.com/main.asp) of the squadron. This would support Nowicki's account and explain why their aircraft was deployed to the same mission - the 7406th had insufficient aircraft to maintain surveillance during the war.

SDC

6th July 2008, 05:42 PM

Excellent, remarkably thorough work, Gumboot. It's a perspective on the case which seems to have been ignored; the actual, technical facts. Like your work on 9/11.

quicknthedead

6th July 2008, 10:23 PM

I find this fascinating. An NSA EC-130 in 1967?

I find that remarkable because the EC-130 Commando Solo was first put into service in 1983, only six were ever built, and they're all operated by the 193rd Special Operations Group of the USAF, not the NSA. Further, the EC-130 is a PSYOPS broadcast platform, not a surveillance platform.

Perhaps they meant the EC-121 Warning Star?

"EC-130" has to be a mistake.

It is claimed that the "missing" intercepts were almost simultaneously translated and broadcast from a US Air Force C130 near the scene to an intelligence site at Crete where they were sent to Washington and to other stations as "Critical Intelligence," the fastest and most secure means available. Known as CRITICs, these reports routinely arrived in the White House, State Department and Pentagon within ten minutes or less.
http://www.ussliberty.org/smoking.htm

quicknthedead

6th July 2008, 11:20 PM

The general argument, it appears, is that an EC-130, alternatively either a USAF or NSA aircraft, conducting signals intelligence, intercepted the attacks, and that a second US Navy EC-121M Warning Star of VQ-2, carrying Marvin Nowicki, intercepted only the after-incident efforts of IDF helicopters.

There are issues with this scenario. Firstly, it is implausible that two independent SIGINT aircraft would be in the same airspace, and each by sheer coincidence only capture half of an incident.

Implausible? Maybe not. It was not an EC-130 but an Air Force C130, and it was in the local area, and this was a newly instigated war by our ally, Israel, so the decision to use both planes at the same time does not seem beyond the realms of possibility.

The following is from Nowicki's report upon his arriving in Athens just before the incident:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=16388&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=10&sid=1aea29f7c900f04b13dfda48fada5a4d
We--the Evaluator, one or two VQ officers, and I--were still on the base, having made our way to the USA-512J compound to stow mission materials and receive an intelligence update from the US Air Force.

USA-512J was a US Air Force Security Service (AFSS) station set-up in 1966 in conjunction with DIRNSA on the Greek Air Force side of the Athens international airport to process, at least preliminarily, the SIGINT collected from USAF ACRP C130 and US Navy VQ-2 EC121M and EA3B aircraft operating in the East Med.

This C130 Nowicki mentions must be the one referred to that was on station Jun 8, 1967 that intercepted communications made before and during the air attacks, messages that proved at the time that Israel knew the Liberty was American but decided to attack her anyway and gave orders to sink her and destroy all hands on board. This is what is reported to have been in these intercepts by those who read them, people from all around the world at the time (these were sent as CRITICs).

It bears comment that I find it utterly unbelievable that an intelligence course for the US army would use sensitive intelligence gathered that same year for the purposes of a classroom exercise. Anyone who has worked in intelligence can no doubt confirm how utterly absurd such a suggestion is. To then take it further and suggest that within a year of the incident the NSA had decided to use this current intelligence as an example in an instruction manual simply defies belief.

I believe Lang. Why on earth would he lie and make up such a story, and such a story it is; it seems highly unusual, enough so to be the truth. Besides, he comes across as credible; I have nothing indicating otherwise, and we have other witnesses who state they also saw these same damning transcripts from this C130.

In conclusion we have only a single person who claims to have actually been present when these alleged recordings were intercepted. He states clearly that the attack was not deliberate.

No one has been able to provide evidence to contradict this.

Are you talking about Nowicki? If you are, he was only involved in the MTB attacks and the helicopters on their rescue mission, which are entirely different from these all-important missing transcripts of the air attacks.

a_unique_person

6th July 2008, 11:31 PM

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=9531&highlight=Liberty

http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/printedition/tuesday/chi-liberty_tuesoct02,1,3803697.story

Bryce Lockwood, Marine staff sergeant, Russian-language expert, recipient of the Silver Star for heroism, ordained Baptist minister, is shouting into the phone.

"I'm angry! I'm seething with anger! Forty years, and I'm seething with anger!"

Lockwood was aboard the USS Liberty, a super-secret spy ship on station in the eastern Mediterranean, when four Israeli fighter jets flew out of the afternoon sun to strafe and bomb the virtually defenseless vessel on June 8, 1967, the fourth day of what would become known as the Six-Day War.

For Lockwood and many other survivors, the anger is mixed with incredulity: that Israel would attack an important ally, then attribute the attack to a case of mistaken identity by Israeli pilots who had confused the U.S. Navy's most distinctive ship with an Egyptian horse-cavalry transport that was half its size and had a dissimilar profile. And they're also incredulous that, for years, their own government would reject their calls for a thorough investigation.

"They tried to lie their way out of it!" Lockwood shouts. "I don't believe that for a minute! You just don't shoot at a ship at sea without identifying it, making sure of your target!"

Four decades later, many of the more than two dozen Liberty survivors located and interviewed by the Tribune cannot talk about the attack without shouting or weeping.

Their anger has been stoked by the declassification of government documents and the recollections of former military personnel, including some quoted in this article for the first time, which strengthen doubts about the U.S. National Security Agency (http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/politics/defense/security-measures/national-security-agency-ORGOV0000104.topic)'s position that it never intercepted the communications of the attacking Israeli pilots -- communications, according to those who remember seeing them, that showed the Israelis knew they were attacking an American naval vessel.

The documents also suggest that the U.S. government, anxious to spare Israel's reputation and preserve its alliance with the U.S., closed the case with what even some of its participants now say was a hasty and seriously flawed investigation.

In declassifying the most recent and largest batch of materials last June 8, the 40th anniversary of the attack, the NSA, this country's chief U.S. electronic-intelligence-gatherer and code-breaker, acknowledged that the attack had "become the center of considerable controversy and debate." It was not the agency's intention, it said, "to prove or disprove any one set of conclusions, many of which can be drawn from a thorough review of this material," available at http://www.nsa.gov/liberty .

An Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman, Mark Regev, called the attack on the Liberty "a tragic and terrible accident, a case of mistaken identity, for which Israel has officially apologized." Israel also paid reparations of $6.7 million to the injured survivors and the families of those killed in the attack, and another $6 million for the loss of the Liberty itself.

But for those who lost their sons and husbands, neither the Israelis' apology nor the passing of time has lessened their grief.

One is Pat Blue, who still remembers having her lunch in Washington's Farragut Square park on "a beautiful June afternoon" when she was a 22-year-old secretary for a law firm.

Blue heard somebody's portable radio saying a U.S. Navy ship had been torpedoed in the eastern Mediterranean. A few weeks before, Blue's husband of two years, an Arab-language expert with the NSA, had been hurriedly dispatched overseas.

As she listened to the news report, "it just all came together." Soon afterward, the NSA confirmed that Allen Blue was among the missing.

"I never felt young again," she said.

Aircraft on the horizon

Beginning before dawn on June 8, Israeli aircraft regularly appeared on the horizon and circled the Liberty.

The Israeli Air Force had gained control of the skies on the first day of the war by destroying the Egyptian air force on the ground. America was Israel's ally, and the Israelis knew the Americans were there. The ship's mission was to monitor the communications of Israel's Arab enemies and their Soviet advisers, but not Israeli communications. The Liberty felt safe.

Then the jets started shooting at the officers and enlisted men stretched out on the deck for a lunch-hour sun bath. Theodore Arfsten, a quartermaster, remembered watching a Jewish officer cry when he saw the blue Star of David on the planes' fuselages. At first, crew members below decks had no idea whose planes were shooting at their ship.

It's quite a long article, from the Chicago Tribune.

You can even write to one of the survivors, if you want. I did. He was very bitter about being called an anti-semite for years.

SDC

7th July 2008, 02:53 AM

The US and Israel were not allies, in any formal sense, in 1967. That is a kind of backwards historical projection by the newspaper writer. Which may seem a minor point but is not, in fact.

Anger is not a historian's friend. Dispassion is.

ETA: OK, I'm not a historian of this event and I don't plan to become one. This is a topic in which there is much more heat than light being generated. Many rumors apparently about who said what to whom which then get endlessly repeated.

What I don't understand is the lack of anger at the US government from the survivors. The Israelis admitted the attack and paid compensation. What about LBJ?

'Bye.

gumboot

7th July 2008, 03:33 AM

It is claimed that the "missing" intercepts were almost simultaneously translated and broadcast from a US Air Force C130 near the scene to an intelligence site at Crete where they were sent to Washington and to other stations as "Critical Intelligence," the fastest and most secure means available. Known as CRITICs, these reports routinely arrived in the White House, State Department and Pentagon within ten minutes or less.
http://www.ussliberty.org/smoking.htm

Implausible? Maybe not. It was not an EC-130 but an Air Force C130, and it was in the local area, and this was a newly instigated war by our ally, Israel, so the decision to use both planes at the same time does not seem beyond the realms of possibility.

The following is from Nowicki's report upon his arriving in Athens just before the incident:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=16388&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=10&sid=1aea29f7c900f04b13dfda48fada5a4d
We--the Evaluator, one or two VQ officers, and I--were still on the base, having made our way to the USA-512J compound to stow mission materials and receive an intelligence update from the US Air Force.

USA-512J was a US Air Force Security Service (AFSS) station set-up in 1966 in conjunction with DIRNSA on the Greek Air Force side of the Athens international airport to process, at least preliminarily, the SIGINT collected from USAF ACRP C130 and US Navy VQ-2 EC121M and EA3B aircraft operating in the East Med.

This C130 Nowicki mentions must be the one referred to that was on station Jun 8, 1967 that intercepted communications made before and during the air attacks, messages that proved at the time that Israel knew the Liberty was American but decided to attack her anyway and gave orders to sink her and destroy all hands on board. This is what is reported to have been in these intercepts by those who read them, people from all around the world at the time (these were sent as CRITICs).

Some gaping issues with this theory. Clearing some initial issues, Israel was not even remotely the USA's ally in 1967. This fantasy that Israel has long been an ally of the USA is a piece of propaganda created by Islamic Militants, and is not supported by history. Further, there's absolutely no evidence these other intercepts even exist, and the only people who allegedly saw them (as a piece of evidence, not as a lesson in an instruction manual) are dead.

Now on to the real issues:

Firstly, as Nowicki's account suggest, and is confirmed by the status of the 7406th at the time, the entire reason Nowicki's aircraft was deployed to the base was because the 7406th only had two aircraft and therefore were incapable of maintaining constant surveillance.

If you read his account it's clear that the two C-130As and the EC-121M took turns monitoring the war. They took shifts, as one would expect, with only a little overlap when the replacement arrived and then the previous aircraft departed.

Given that the attacks occurred well into the EC-121Ms shift on station, clearly neither of the C-130As would have been on station.

Additionally, neither the EC-121 nor the C-130As had air to ground communication capabilities. These capabilities did not exist in 1967. Intelligence was recorded on board and then translated on the ground. Nowicki tells us how because the C-130A crews had no linguists on board who knew Hebrew, they just recorded everything they heard, and as such additional civilian NSA staff had to be brought in to USA-512J to translate the C-130 recordings and clear the backlog.

Further, again as Nowicki's account tells us, CRITICs are reserved for intelligence that is less than 15 minutes old. Because of the inability to broadcast the intelligence from the aircraft to the ground, any intelligence gathered by either the EC-121s or the C-130s would necessarily be over 15 minutes old, and therefore would not qualify for CRITIC.

Finally, Nowicki claims only to have personally heard the attacks by the MTBs, however given the time frame of the aircraft's time in the air, and given the previous report from one of his subordinates regarding an Israeli attack and mention of a US flag, it is clear that Nowicki's aircraft was overhead and monitoring communications during the entire attack on the Liberty.

I believe Lang. Why on earth would he lie and make up such a story, and such a story it is; it seems highly unusual, enough so to be the truth.

That's rather flawed reasoning. It's unusual in the sort of way that suggests ignorance of how these things work. It's a good indication that the story's crap. Why would people make up such a story? People make up exactly those sorts of stories all the time. Why would half of all those claiming money due to illness caused by the 9/11 attacks be people that in no way whatsoever were affected by the attacks? Why would people claim they assassinated JFK when they didn't? Why would people claim they saw aliens when they didn't? Lots of people have a burning desire to be part of something. They invent themselves into historic events to make themselves into heroes. It happens all the time.

Lang's story lacks details, and has some serious flaws. His entire premise is utterly absurd. In contrast Nowicki's story is chock full of details that check out and match the facts, and his basic premise is sensible and again confirmed by other accounts of the event.

Besides, he comes across as credible; I have nothing indicating otherwise, and we have other witnesses who state they also saw these same damning transcripts from this C130.

No we don't. Not really. We have people who you seem to think claim they heard it, but that's far from certain.

Are you talking about Nowicki? If you are, he was only involved in the MTB attacks and the helicopters on their rescue mission, which are entirely different from these all-important missing transcripts of the air attacks.

My point is that his aircraft was on station during the entire attack.

a_unique_person

7th July 2008, 05:02 AM

SDC

7th July 2008, 06:17 AM

AFAIK, the US and Israel were not close, like they are today. The US was not, however, an enemy, either.

Quite true. But whereas the US had formal alliances in 1967 with (for example) the UK and Australia, nothing of the kind applied for Israel. In fact, the US had a somewhat hands-off relationship with the whole middle east conflict for years, I think till the 1973 war and Nixon days.

This is not a persnickety little point. In international relations, these kinds of points are important ones.

Again, however, why isn't anyone angry at LBJ or the rest of the US government over the Liberty case? They were responsible for their own forces, including putting them in a very tense region.

roundhead

7th July 2008, 07:56 AM

Nowicki keeps getting mentioned in this thread, but this guy doesnt.His account is here, as reported in the Tribune story........

Two of the recordings were made by Michael Prostinak, a Hebrew linguist aboard a U.S. Navy EC-121, a lumbering propeller-driven aircraft specially equipped to gather electronic intelligence.

But Prostinak said he was certain that more than three recordings were made that day.

"I can tell you there were more tapes than just the three on the Internet," he said. "No doubt in my mind, more than three tapes."

Trimmed for rule 4 - and cite sources:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/printedition/tuesday/chi-liberty_tuesoct02,0,1050179.story?page=6

Loss Leader

7th July 2008, 09:26 AM

Well, that's compelling evidence of nothing.

kookbreaker

7th July 2008, 11:35 AM

Why is all the evidence for the more 'savory' acts by the Isrealis always conveniently missing?

If these tapes existed, and so many folks knew about them, why did Adm. Moorer as CNO sign off on the naval report that stated the exact opposite? Why didn't he get a hold of the tapes at the very least?

van_dutch

7th July 2008, 12:02 PM

If these tapes exist and everyone knows about them, why hasn't somebody sued under the Freedom of Information Act for their release? That is how the ones that I linked to previously have been released.

roundhead

7th July 2008, 01:03 PM

This Adm Moorer, CNO and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs(Note his mention of 100 feet, vice 2000 yards)

America's HIghest Ranking Naval Officer
Admiral Thomas Moorer (1912 - 2004)
Former Chief of Naval Operations
and
Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
Rejects the Israeli Excuse

MEMORANDUM:
From: Admiral Thomas H. Moorer

Subject: Attack on the USS Liberty June 8, 1967

Date: June 8, 1997

I have never believed that the attack on the USS Liberty was a case of mistaken identity. That is ridiculous. I have flown over the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, thousands of hours, searching for ships and identifying all types of ships at sea. The Liberty was the ugliest, strangest looking ship in the U.S. Navy. As a communications intelligence ship, it was sprouting every kind of antenna. It looked like a lobster with all those projections moving every which way.
Trimmed for rule 4 - and cite sources:
http://www.ussliberty.org/moorer3.txt

roundhead

7th July 2008, 01:15 PM

Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C.

October 22, 2003

Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, United States Navy, (Ret.)
Former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff

General Raymond G. Davis, United States Marine Corps, (MOH)*
Former Assistant Commandant of The Marine Corps

Rear Admiral Merlin Staring, United States Navy, (Ret.)
Former Judge Advocate General Of The Navy

Ambassador James Akins, (Ret.)
Former United States Ambassador to Saudi Arabia

We, the undersigned, having undertaken an independent investigation of Israel's attack on USS Liberty, including eyewitness testimony from surviving crewmembers, a review of naval and other official records, an examination of official statements by the Israeli and American governments, a study of the conclusions of all previous official inquiries, and a consideration of important new evidence and recent statements from individuals having direct knowledge of the attack or the cover up, hereby find the following: **

1. That on June 8, 1967, after eight hours of aerial surveillance, Israel launched a two-hour air and naval attack against USS Liberty, the world's most sophisticated intelligence ship, inflicting 34 dead and 173 wounded American servicemen (a casualty rate of seventy percent, in a crew of 294);
Trimmed for rule 4 - and always cite sources:
http://www.usslibertyinquiry.com/evidence/usreports/moorer.html

Loss Leader

7th July 2008, 01:30 PM

I am confident that Israel knew the Liberty could intercept radio messages from all parties and potential parties to the ongoing war, then in its fourth day, and that Israel was preparing to seize the Golan Heights from Syria despite President Johnson's known opposition to such a move.

So, a war ship in a war zone was fired on by a warring nation durring a war.

I am aghast.

I'm not, really. I think expecting any different would be nuts.

Doctor Evil

7th July 2008, 02:30 PM

Sigh. Roundhead, I was not planning to post in this thread again, but after your post I would like to ask you two questions. Firstly, have you read you member agreement? Secondly, have you in fact read what other posters have posted in this thread?

1. According to your membership agreement you should not copy and paste full articles. You should instead pick a paragraph or two, give a link, and add your argument, in your words. Two of your posts, 1 and 28, in this thread, have violated this, and now you add two more (168 and 169).

2. The self appointed investigation (your post 169) was already cited here twice, see posts 6 and 14. Many of the points raised there were discussed in later posts, with several posters disagreeing with the claims raised there. In fact, you were involved in some of the discussions. I must ask you what is the purpose of citing the investigation again? Do you want the posters involved in the discussion to copy and post their comments again?

Post #168 seems to me to be new here. So I will give a short comment about it.

I am confident that Israel knew the Liberty could intercept radio messages from all parties and potential parties to the ongoing war, then in its fourth day, and that Israel was preparing to seize the Golan Heights from Syria despite President Johnson's known opposition to such a move. I think they realized that if we learned in advance of their plan, there would be a tremendous amount of negotiating between Tel Aviv and Washington.

The Liberty was near Egypt, which is a fair distance from the Golan heights. It is highly unlikely that the Liberty could have intercepted any communication relevant to Israeli plans to take the Golan heights. Furthermore, the Liberty had no Hebrew linguists. If the Israelis knew so much about the ship it is likely that they would have known also that. In that case the Liberty would have not been deemed a security risk. Moreover, I seem to vaguely remember that at the time the Israelis have not made a final decision whether to take the Golan heights or not.

So, from your post I learn that Admiral Moorer believed in essentially unfounded scenarios. Furthermore, you just have shown that he had these opinions for years before he served in the inquiry. This just gives more credence to the claims that the inquiry was not a proper inquiry. Would you select someone to judge a case after he already told you he think the defendant is guilty?

roundhead

7th July 2008, 02:49 PM

Sigh. Roundhead, I was not planning to post in this thread again, but after your post I would like to ask you two questions. Firstly, have you read you member agreement? Secondly, have you in fact read what other posters have posted in this thread?

1. According to your membership agreement you should not copy and paste full articles. You should instead pick a paragraph or two, give a link, and add your argument, in your words. Two of your posts, 1 and 28, in this thread, have violated this, and now you add two more (168 and 169).

2. The self appointed investigation (your post 169) was already cited here twice, see posts 6 and 14. Many of the points raised there were discussed in later posts, with several posters disagreeing with the claims raised there. In fact, you were involved in some of the discussions. I must ask you what is the purpose of citing the investigation again? Do you want the posters involved in the discussion to copy and post their comments again?

Post #168 seems to me to be new here. So I will give a short comment about it.

The Liberty was near Egypt, which is a fair distance from the Golan heights. It is highly unlikely that the Liberty could have intercepted any communication relevant to Israeli plans to take the Golan heights. Furthermore, the Liberty had no Hebrew linguists. If the Israelis knew so much about the ship it is likely that they would have known also that. In that case the Liberty would have not been deemed a security risk. Moreover, I seem to vaguely remember that at the time the Israelis have not made a final decision whether to take the Golan heights or not.

So, from your post I learn that Admiral Moorer believed in essentially unfounded scenarios. Furthermore, you just have shown that he had these opinions for years before he served in the inquiry. This just gives more credence to the claims that the inquiry was not a proper inquiry. Would you select someone to judge a case after he already told you he think the defendant is guilty?

As this incident happened in 67, and HIS inquiry gave its results in 2003, its fair to say he may well(as the highest ranking member in our nations military)have become privvy to information someone not in his position might not have.Or quite simply may have stewed for years after being told to keep his mouth shut. And at an old age decided it was worth the risk to stick up for his fellow sailors.

To say the Admiral, along with other extremely high ranking people came to this conclusion, paints a very poor picture of the LBJ and more present administrations.

For instance, if the current joint chief and others very high up said today all the sudden that 9/11 was an inside job, it would demand MSN attention and be very embarrasing to the Govt.

The fact people this high up (and in the know)say what they say should raise an eyebrow to any sane person that this wasnt a case of mistaken identity.

SDC

7th July 2008, 04:08 PM

Roundhead, in your next to last paragraph, I hope you meant "MSM" and are not suggesting that MicroSoft is, in fact, in charge. If that were true, I for one would flee... There would be nowhere to flee.

I'd suggest, more seriously, that 9/11 was a rather more important event than the Liberty case. Poor analogy. I would also say that there is no special reason to take Moorer's word for much of anything. Who knows his motivations, this late in the game? "May" and "perhaps" are rarely the friends of a historical investigation.

Loss Leader

7th July 2008, 04:19 PM

As this incident happened in 67, and HIS inquiry gave its results in 2003, its fair to say he may well(as the highest ranking member in our nations military)have become privvy to information someone not in his position might not have.Or quite simply may have stewed for years after being told to keep his mouth shut. And at an old age decided it was worth the risk to stick up for his fellow sailors.

To say the Admiral, along with other extremely high ranking people came to this conclusion, paints a very poor picture of the LBJ and more present administrations.

For instance, if the current joint chief and others very high up said today all the sudden that 9/11 was an inside job, it would demand MSN attention and be very embarrasing to the Govt.

The fact people this high up (and in the know)say what they say should raise an eyebrow to any sane person that this wasnt a case of mistaken identity.

You are comitting the logical fallacy of assuming the consequent.

1. I think Admiral Whatshisname was telling the truth.
2. Maybe he had special, secret information.
3. If he did, and he didn't tell anyone, he may have been told to keep his mouth shut.
4. You could see how a military person coming forward would embarrass an administration.
5. So, the fact that he said it means that he had special, secret information.
6. And he was telling the truth.

Your argument is logical nonsense. You should read a book on critical thinking. I recommend the terrific: Logic And Mr. Limbaugh

a_unique_person

7th July 2008, 04:31 PM

I also said (and I have no intention of repeating this anymore because I have already said it multiple times) The word/phrase used several places above was IFF (If and only if). I have also said, multiple times, and will not bother repeating it again either, that I am pretty certain it was not an accident but I am not absolutely certain it was not. Combining those two, you get: I am 90% certain (not 100%) that it was murder. If the chance was 10% it would still be way more serious than being sprayed with water. Wet is wet, death is permanent.

I will also not repeat this one - it is inherent in everything I said above and previous. No matter where the ship was, it was identifiably (no one seems to have explained that away - though some attempts have been made) American. It should never have been fired on by Israelis unless it was A)shelling Israel (I heard no reports of that), B)fired on non-attacking Israeli ships or aircraft BEFORE they fired on it(no reports of that)or C) suddenly ran up an Egyptian flag (nope- not that either). And, going from the exact phrasing of the splashing each other, picture taking friend wet story, that SOUNDS like someone saying it was legitimate for Israel to shoot a non-attacking US ship that was simply gathering information (taking pictures) in an area where Israel and a "friend" were fighting. I could semi-buy that as accidental wetting of the camera guy if there had been Egyptian and Israeli air and/or watercaraft shooting at each other and missed shots (thrown water) hit the Liberty (camera using guy) - but there was just the Liberty (camera using guy) and the Israelis (one of the two guys who were gonna throw water, not both). Ship was in the middle of nothing, did not fire first, was identifiable if any real attempt was made to do so. The example given does nothing to convince me of any errors in my thinking and simply sounds (to me) like saying that the Israelis purposefully attacked the ship (as the two friends might purposefully throw water at their friend with the camera) (oh, and, at least in Florida, if he dies from it it's murder/manslaughter. Your mileage may vary).

Occam's razor. The attack was all an innoccent accident only 'if' too many assumptions on Israel's side are taken. The eyewitness accounts are there, and they are pretty clear. The IDF spent considerable time assesing the vessel, and attacking it. You can write to a survivor and ask him yourself. I did. His response was quite bitter about the fact that for years he was attacked as an anti-semite. That this happened indicates guilt, to me. Attacking the man and not the facts is a sure sign that the facts don't stand up.

a_unique_person

7th July 2008, 04:35 PM

kookbreaker

7th July 2008, 04:57 PM

As this incident happened in 67, and HIS inquiry gave its results in 2003, its fair to say he may well(as the highest ranking member in our nations military)have become privvy to information someone not in his position might not have.Or quite simply may have stewed for years after being told to keep his mouth shut. And at an old age decided it was worth the risk to stick up for his fellow sailors.

Doubtful. Verrrrry doubtful. As mentioned before Moorer signed off on findings of fact regarding Liberty at a time when he was CNO. This means that when he was at the very height of his career and influence he was

a) Unable to find documents, tapes, or transcripts that others say 'everyone' knew existed.

and

b) Didn't have the guts to stand up for his sailors when he felt they were wronged - all in the name of his peaked career.

To say the Admiral, along with other extremely high ranking people came to this conclusion, paints a very poor picture of the LBJ and more present administrations.

Knowing what I know about the cranky Admiral, I'd be inclined to say that other factors were involved. Remember, this was the loon who predicted the Chinese would seize the Panama Canal and absolutely blitzed Clinton for adhering to a treaty signed 20 years before. He also fell for the TWA800 missile theories, when he should have known better. I don't think his comments reflect on LBJ, they reflect on Moorer.

Bobert

7th July 2008, 05:00 PM

I wonder who around here doesnt think Israel didnt intentionally attack this ship, kill US servicemen, and then have our govt cower so as not to make our little buddies mad, in spite of the murder of her own soldiers

Oops nevermind got the USS Cole and Liberty mixed up

Slayhamlet

7th July 2008, 05:11 PM

Occam's razor. The attack was all an innoccent accident only 'if' too many assumptions on Israel's side are taken. The eyewitness accounts are there, and they are pretty clear. The IDF spent considerable time assesing the vessel, and attacking it. You can write to a survivor and ask him yourself. I did. His response was quite bitter about the fact that for years he was attacked as an anti-semite. That this happened indicates guilt, to me. Attacking the man and not the facts is a sure sign that the facts don't stand up.

I'm sorry, but this post is utterly idiotic. Instead of making weak emotional appeals and taking one-sided and irrelevant passions as the final word on a very complex historical event, why not try arguing the facts? Others have, and I've noticed a lot of good arguments on both sides. This doesn't cut it.

a_unique_person

7th July 2008, 05:38 PM

I'm sorry, but this post is utterly idiotic. Instead of making weak emotional appeals and taking one-sided and irrelevant passions as the final word on a very complex historical event, why not try arguing the facts? Others have, and I've noticed a lot of good arguments on both sides. This doesn't cut it.

You're welcome.

Loss Leader

7th July 2008, 05:56 PM

His response was quite bitter about the fact that for years he was attacked as an anti-semite. That this happened indicates guilt, to me. Attacking the man and not the facts is a sure sign that the facts don't stand up.

How does this indicate guilt? Were the guilty parties the ones calling him anti-semitic? Were the people calling him anti-semitic pivvy to any special or secret information that the rest of the world did not have?

How does it prove his argument if people who don't know the facts call him names?

How does the mere fact of calling him anti-semitic transform someone into a knowledgeable member of a conspiracy?

If John Ramsey calls me a jerk, does that mean that he killed JonBenet?

George W. Bush calls me an anti-semite, does that mean that he robbed QuickerLiquor last night at 11:00?

Your logic is ... absent.

a_unique_person

7th July 2008, 08:44 PM

How does this indicate guilt? Were the guilty parties the ones calling him anti-semitic? Were the people calling him anti-semitic pivvy to any special or secret information that the rest of the world did not have?

How does it prove his argument if people who don't know the facts call him names?

How does the mere fact of calling him anti-semitic transform someone into a knowledgeable member of a conspiracy?

If John Ramsey calls me a jerk, does that mean that he killed JonBenet?

George W. Bush calls me an anti-semite, does that mean that he robbed QuickerLiquor last night at 11:00?

Your logic is ... absent.

You are a sailor on a ship. It is attacked by the IAF. You say what happened, and explain how it cannot be an accident. People tell you to shut up, it was an accident. You explain again how it cannot be an accident. You are then abused, acused of being an anti-semite, and are told you deserve to die??? It's standard form in many debates, when you can't rebut an argument, attack the other person.

quicknthedead

7th July 2008, 08:45 PM

Some gaping issues with this theory. Clearing some initial issues, Israel was not even remotely the USA's ally in 1967. This fantasy that Israel has long been an ally of the USA is a piece of propaganda created by Islamic Militants, and is not supported by history.

Israel was not even remotely an ally?

Let me answer a question that was floated awhile back on this thread: Israel paid compensation and said it was a mistake...what else do you want?

In view of the plentiful evidence out there (research it yourself; I have done it to my satisfaction; you do it to yours), here is my answer to that question.

ANSWER: Full investigation and disclosure from both sides in order to attempt to arrive at the truth. If this is not done, then all funding to Israel should be cut off until it is.

Fair and just. Wouldn't take too long to get it done, either. Will this ever happen. I doubt it.

Now, you say Israel was not an ally even remotely.

Well, why don't we add up all the US dollars freely given to Israel since day one until now? Why don't we also look at the history of the Israeli lobby in this country regarding this funding from day one until now. I'd like to see this graphed.

Money talks, and sometimes you can even buy allies (quid pro quo).
Israel was definitely a type of ally at the time.

Further, there's absolutely no evidence these other intercepts even exist, and the only people who allegedly saw them (as a piece of evidence, not as a lesson in an instruction manual) are dead.

There is plenty of evidence these transcripts did exist UNTIL EVIDENCE OF THEM WAS COLLECTED EN MASS WORLD WIDE AND THEN DESTROYED. Many have referred to them or evidence that was in them.

There might still be a copy or two lying around somewhere. You never know.

Now on to the real issues:

No thanks. I think you believe what you want to believe and ignore much on this. I have done enough research to recognize a national disgrace done by our government.

Coverup...yes.

One week to have the Court of Inquiry done and wrapped up...disgraceful.

Everyone involved, and I mean EVERYONE, had to take an oath never to speak of this matter under threat of prosecution...disgraceful.

I could go on but this will do.

There are many over the years who have seen evidence, large and small, that this attack was done deliberately with malice of forethought.

Further, again as Nowicki's account tells us, CRITICs are reserved for intelligence that is less than 15 minutes old. Because of the inability to broadcast the intelligence from the aircraft to the ground, any intelligence gathered by either the EC-121s or the C-130s would necessarily be over 15 minutes old, and therefore would not qualify for CRITIC.

Forslund said he read many CRITICs. Is he a liar?
http://www.ussliberty.org/smoking.htm
http://www.ussliberty.org/forslund.htm

Is Gotcher lying?
http://www.ussliberty.org/gotcher.htm

That's rather flawed reasoning. It's unusual in the sort of way that suggests ignorance of how these things work. It's a good indication that the story's crap. Why would people make up such a story? People make up exactly those sorts of stories all the time. Why would half of all those claiming money due to illness caused by the 9/11 attacks be people that in no way whatsoever were affected by the attacks? Why would people claim they assassinated JFK when they didn't? Why would people claim they saw aliens when they didn't? Lots of people have a burning desire to be part of something. They invent themselves into historic events to make themselves into heroes. It happens all the time.

Lang's story lacks details, and has some serious flaws. His entire premise is utterly absurd. In contrast Nowicki's story is chock full of details that check out and match the facts, and his basic premise is sensible and again confirmed by other accounts of the event.

I disagree. He seemed to have said as much as he had to say after all these years.

On the contrary, your dismissing him with nothing but your opinion, making him out to be a liar, seems to demonstrate lack of objectivity. Is this a good indication your reasoning is cr*p? You still did not give a reason why he would make it up that makes sense. The truth is most people in this controversial situation would not want to get involved when they know the truth; this is due to a foreboding of derision, contempt, frustration, etc.

You only THINK his story is flawed, but you do not KNOW it is.

Here's one last tidbit for your "objective" mind.
It's from John P. Stenbit, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence (C3I), 2003:

The Israelis called us up one day and said, “If you don’t get that ship, the Liberty, out of this place we’re going to sink it in twenty-four hours.” We couldn’t tell the ship to move when we got the data back because it was already under the water, because it took more than twenty-four hours for the data to wander in through the system and come out at the other end.

http://www.pirp.harvard.edu/pubs_pdf/stenbit%5Cstenbit-i03-1.pdf

Thanks for the radar information on the seismic paper. Now we are even.
Adios

a_unique_person

7th July 2008, 08:55 PM

Few issues there. Firstly, the UN Charter makes no mention of an "act of Aggression" and certainly does not define what one is. So that argument's out.

Secondly, the aircraft were not unmarked, and the Laws of War do not require aircraft to be marked anyway.

Thirdly, the destruction of life rafts is questionable, and again not a violation of the laws of war.

Fourthly, the ship's radio frequencies were not jammed (and they indeed managed to broadcast their distress signals fine).

Fifthly, the Liberty was neither disabled nor helpless - indeed it was firing on the MTBs and assuming some of its monitoring capabilities were still in action, it was still participating in military action.

And sixthly, according to both the MTB crew and the Captain of the Liberty the MTBs did offer assistance, and the Captain turned down their request.

And lastly, the Geneva Conventions are for the care of the sick and wounded and POWs during war time, and do not in any way dictate terms for the waging of war on water.

In conclusion I am left wondering what Lieutenant Commander Walter L. Jacobsen thought he was doing, since he seems oblivious to what the actual Laws of War are.

Interestingly enough, under the Hague Convention on the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Wartime, the Liberty was committing a war crime by monitoring Israeli military action from within the warzone.

For all its apparent complexity, the attack on the Liberty can be reduced to a single question: Was the ship flying the American flag at the time of the attack, and was that flag visible from the air?

The survivors interviewed by the Tribune uniformly agree that the Liberty was flying the Stars and Stripes before, during and after the attack, except for a brief period in which one flag that had been shot down was replaced with another, larger flag -- the ship's "holiday colors" -- that measured 13 feet long.

Concludes one of the declassified NSA documents: "Every official interview of numerous Liberty crewmen gave consistent evidence that indeed the Liberty was flying an American flag -- and, further, the weather conditions were ideal to ensure its easy observance and identification."

The Israeli court of inquiry that examined the attack, and absolved the Israeli military of criminal culpability, came to precisely the opposite conclusion.

"Throughout the contact," it declared, "no American or any other flag appeared on the ship."

The attack, the court said, had been prompted by a report, which later proved erroneous, that a ship was shelling Israeli-held positions in the Sinai Peninsula. The Liberty had no guns capable of shelling the shore, but the court concluded that the U.S. ship had been mistakenly identified as the source of the shelling.

Yiftah Spector, the first Israeli pilot to attack the ship, told the Jerusalem Post in 2003 that when he first spotted the Liberty, "I circled it twice and it did not fire on me. My assumption was that it was likely to open fire at me and nevertheless I slowed down and I looked and there was positively no flag."

But the Liberty crewmen interviewed by the Tribune said the Israeli jets simply appeared and began shooting. They also said the Liberty did not open fire on the planes because it was armed only with four .50-caliber machine guns intended to repel boarders.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/printedition/tuesday/chi-liberty_tuesoct02,1,3803697.story?page=3

gumboot

7th July 2008, 09:13 PM

http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/printedition/tuesday/chi-liberty_tuesoct02,1,3803697.story?page=3

That article is terrible. To be honest most of your sources are terrible. Of all of the Liberty survivors, Ennes is by far the least reliable, and his version of events (which has changed a lot) is directly at odds with a lot of people.

gumboot

7th July 2008, 09:21 PM

Well, why don't we add up all the US dollars freely given to Israel since day one until now?

Between 1948 and 1967 many private American citizens may have freely given money to the state of Israel. This does not mean that the two nations were allied. I have no doubt that during World War Two some American citizens freely gave money to Nazi Germany. Indeed, during World War Two some American citizens fought for Nazi Germany. Does this make them allies? Ridiculous.

The fact is, which very few people seem to have grasped, that the US government did not support Israel until the Yom Kippur War. Prior to that Israel's primary source of support was France and the United Kingdom. The only reason Israel even turned to the US was because the threat of an Arab oil embargo had forced European nations to cease supplying Israel. This relationship with the US was so fragile in 1973 that Israel decided not to carry out a pre-emptive strike six hours before the Yom Kippur War started because they knew if they were seen to have started the war they would not have the USA's support. Henry Kissinger confirms this was correct by stating that, had Israel struck first, the US would not have given them "so much as a nail".

a_unique_person

7th July 2008, 09:23 PM

That article is terrible. To be honest most of your sources are terrible. Of all of the Liberty survivors, Ennes is by far the least reliable, and his version of events (which has changed a lot) is directly at odds with a lot of people.

I'd say versions have changed on both sides.

gtc

7th July 2008, 10:17 PM

One person not being able to rebut another person's argument is not evidence that a third party is guilty.

quicknthedead

7th July 2008, 10:25 PM

Between 1948 and 1967 many private American citizens may have freely given money to the state of Israel. This does not mean that the two nations were allied. I have no doubt that during World War Two some American citizens freely gave money to Nazi Germany. Indeed, during World War Two some American citizens fought for Nazi Germany. Does this make them allies? Ridiculous.

The US-Israeli relationship historically has always been almost like looking at multi-colored fabric. Here are two such views.

From the Embassy of Israel in Washington D.C. on US Israel Relations:
http://www.israelemb.org/US-Israel-Relations/US_presidents.html

U.S. Presidents: Historical Commitment to Israel

President Harry Truman
"I had faith in Israel before it was established, I have in it now. I believe it has a glorious future before it - not just another sovereign nation, but as an embodiment of the great ideals of our civilization."

President Dwight Eisenhower
"Our forces saved the remnant of the Jewish people of Europe for a new life and a new hope in the reborn land of Israel. Along with all men of good will, I salute the young state and wish it well."

President John F. Kennedy
"Israel was not created in order to disappear-Israel will endure and flourish. It is the child of hope and home of the brave. It can neither be broken by adversity nor demoralized by success. It carries the shield of democracy and it honors the sword of freedom."

President Lyndon Johnson
"Our society is illuminated by the spiritual insights of the Hebrew prophets. American and Israel have a common love of human freedom, and they have a common faith in a democratic way of life."

For another view, Jay Cristol provides an interesting look near the time we are considering, beginning when Israel managed to get a hold of a MiG-21:
http://hnn.us/articles/751.html

Excerpt:

In 1966, the MiG-21 was the Soviet first line jet fighter and no Western country had been able to get near one.

While the official U.S.-Israeli relationship had been first indifferent from 1948 until 1956, and then cold from 1956 into the 1960s, one slender strand of cooperation had remained intact. During World War II, Palestinian Jews had cooperated with the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) in the fight against Nazi Germany. Following WWII, the OSS became the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The U.S. Chief of Counter Intelligence, James Jesus Angelton, developed, maintained, and nurtured a symbiotic relationship between the CIA and those Palestinian Jews who evolved into the Israeli Mossad.

The Israelis assigned Colonel Danny Shapira to study the MiG-21 and after a short time, they turned it over to the United States Central Intelligence Agency. (Danny Shapira trained a U.S. Air Force F-111 Test Pilot, Lt. Joe Jordan to fly it and the MiG-21 was sent to the United States where it spent a lot of time in an Aggressor Squadron at a U.S. Air Force Base in Nevada.)

Needless to say, the CIA and the U.S. Air Force were delighted with access to the Soviet's first line fighter and the chill of the Eisenhower/Dulles years began to thaw.

Following the turning over of the MiG-21, President Johnson invited Prime Minister Levi Eshkol to his ranch in Texas and Eshkol arrived with a long shopping list. He left with promises of future U.S. military supplies, including A-4 attack aircraft. Although the U.S. military hardware did not arrive in time for the 1967 war, it ultimately replaced the French source for military hardware and the U.S.-Israel special relationship became closer and warmer.

In 1967, Israel was threatened with destruction by Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and other Arab countries and the June 1967 war occurred. An excellent account of this war, commonly called the "Six Day War," was recently published by Michael Oren - Six Days of War (Oxford Press, 2002). Prior to the Six Day War, the continued existence of Israel was in doubt. The U.S. relationship was becoming warmer but at best the U.S. was a friendly neutral. Dean Rusk said that being neutral was not an expression of indifference, but Israel was not an ally. At the outbreak of the Six Day War, State Department Spokesman Robert McClosky announced on behalf of the United States: "Our position [on the war] is neutral in thought, word, and deed."

Following Israel's stunning victory in the Six Day War, a euphoria set in around the world and strong support for the state of Israel developed in the United States. American public opinion swung dramatically in favor of Israel and for the first time in history, a majority of American Jews became Zionists, that is they supported the concept of a Jewish state.

From 1967 forward, the special relationship between the United States and Israel developed and grew. It has had its ups and downs on the political level as U.S. national interests, especially the need for oil, make it expedient for the U.S. Government to court favor with various Arab states, but the relationship remained relatively constant and strong at both the military and intelligence levels.

a_unique_person

7th July 2008, 11:59 PM

One person not being able to rebut another person's argument is not evidence that a third party is guilty.

I didn't say the people who accused him of being an anti semite were guilty. The IDF did it, but one eyed Israel supporters seem to be unable to accept that someone says Israel did something wrong, and choose to attack him, instead.

a_unique_person

8th July 2008, 12:02 AM

Fifthly, the Liberty was neither disabled nor helpless - indeed it was firing on the MTBs and assuming some of its monitoring capabilities were still in action, it was still participating in military action.

It had many injured, and was damaged. It was only armed with four machine guns.

And sixthly, according to both the MTB crew and the Captain of the Liberty the MTBs did offer assistance, and the Captain turned down their request.

Which is no reason to torpedo it. An MTB is quite capable of standing off at a safe distance from machine guns.

a_unique_person

8th July 2008, 12:39 AM

Analyst: Israelis wanted it sunk

The transcript published by the Jerusalem Post bore scant resemblance to the one that in 1967 rolled off the teletype machine behind the sealed vault door at Offutt Air Force Base in Omaha, where Steve Forslund worked as an intelligence analyst for the 544th Air Reconnaissance Technical Wing, then the highest-level strategic planning office in the Air Force.

"The ground control station stated that the target was American and for the aircraft to confirm it," Forslund recalled. "The aircraft did confirm the identity of the target as American, by the American flag.

"The ground control station ordered the aircraft to attack and sink the target and ensure they left no survivors."

Forslund said he clearly recalled "the obvious frustration of the controller over the inability of the pilots to sink the target quickly and completely."

"He kept insisting the mission had to sink the target, and was frustrated with the pilots' responses that it didn't sink."

Nor, Forslund said, was he the only member of his unit to have read the transcripts. "Everybody saw these," said Forslund, now retired after 26 years in the military.

Forslund's recollections are supported by those of two other Air Force intelligence specialists, working in widely separate locations, who say they also saw the transcripts of the attacking Israeli pilots' communications.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/printedition/tuesday/chi-liberty_tuesoct02,1,3803697.story?page=4

Sword_Of_Truth

8th July 2008, 01:24 AM

Here is his email address jim@ennes.com, it is public, taken from his website.

His response to me, pointing out the chicago tribune article.

"The badguys have mostly stopped saying, "You are liars. It didn't happen," and now are saying, "You are antiSemites. You deserve to die.""

Please list the JREF forum members who have called Mr. Ennes an anti-semite and wished death on him. And provide links to where they said these things.

If you cannot do this then retract this statement. All you are doing is whipping up the emotions of the participants in this discussion.

a_unique_person

8th July 2008, 04:44 AM

Please list the JREF forum members who have called Mr. Ennes an anti-semite and wished death on him. And provide links to where they said these things.

If you cannot do this then retract this statement. All you are doing is whipping up the emotions of the participants in this discussion.

:confused: How can I withdraw it if I never claimed it?

Loss Leader

8th July 2008, 05:17 AM

You are a sailor on a ship. It is attacked by the IAF. You say what happened, and explain how it cannot be an accident. People tell you to shut up, it was an accident. You explain again how it cannot be an accident. You are then abused, acused of being an anti-semite, and are told you deserve to die??? It's standard form in many debates, when you can't rebut an argument, attack the other person.

Okay, let's assume that all of that is true.

How does that indicate that Israel knowingly attacked the Liberty?

How do the statements of uninvolved third parties implicate Israel?

How do the statements of people who do not know and have no special access to the facts become evidence of guilt?

Did the US government or, for tht matter, the Israeli government ever call these people anti-semites?

If not, what does it matter? How does it add evidence to your case?

a_unique_person

8th July 2008, 06:19 AM

Okay, let's assume that all of that is true.

How does that indicate that Israel knowingly attacked the Liberty?

I'm not saying it does, I'm saying it's a typical response from people who have no other response. The case, as far as I know, is made out in that article in the Chicago Tribune.

How do the statements of uninvolved third parties implicate Israel?

How do the statements of people who do not know and have no special access to the facts become evidence of guilt?

Did the US government or, for tht matter, the Israeli government ever call these people anti-semites?

Not that I know of, I was only refering to the people who abused that person.

Loss Leader

8th July 2008, 06:33 AM

His response was quite bitter about the fact that for years he was attacked as an anti-semite. That this happened indicates guilt, to me. Attacking the man and not the facts is a sure sign that the facts don't stand up.
Okay, let's assume that all of that is true.

How does that indicate that Israel knowingly attacked the Liberty?

I'm not saying it does

<sigh>

MaGZ

8th July 2008, 06:34 AM

The testimony of the survivors themselves confirms that the torpedo boats approached while signaling (although the crew couldn't tell what the message was because of the smoke from the fires) and that the crew of the Liberty fired on the torpedo boats first.

According to the Israelis the torpedo boats were dispatched to assist the Liberty once it became clear the boat was American, and signaled in accordance with this, upon which the Liberty fired at them so they defended themselves and returned fire.

These two accounts are, in fact, totally consistent with each other.

Instead of returning fire why couldn’t the torpedo boats just leave the area?

Cpt.Fantastic

8th July 2008, 08:01 AM

Loss Leader

8th July 2008, 08:35 AM

where easily able to identify the ship which was very distinctive in shape and with her flag flying high on the mast.

This is nothing but your conjecture. It holds no more weight than my conjecture which is that you don't understand the facts.

Doctor Evil

8th July 2008, 09:01 AM

Loss Leader, I gather that you are a lawyer. Can you please read the following:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/foia/cristol.html

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
The National Security Agency (NSA), by and through its attorneys, answers Plaintiff's complaint [Docket #1] as follows:

First Defense

The NSA has conducted a search of its records and found no records responsive to Plaintiff's first and second requests.
Second Defense
On July 2, 2003, the NSA declassified, and released to Plaintiff via overnight courier, all of the actual recordings and English translations (including summaries of those translations) held by the NSA that relate to the USS Liberty incident (http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/liberty.html).

Can I take the second defence as an official declaration of the NSA, stating to the court that they have no further transcripts.

Doctor Evil

8th July 2008, 09:05 AM

The attack on the Liberty took 25 minutes, there where multiple aircraft... The Liberty took a severe beating and the scars show it.

The Israelis flew over the Liberty multiple times and where easily able to identify the ship which was very distinctive in shape and with her flag flying high on the mast.

You then tell me the Israelis didn't know it was an American ship and this is merely another blue on blue incident and I'm supposed to believe you?

Please show me other instances where similar things have happened. Not a single plane attacking a ship but a joint attack with multiple planes on a clear day lasting for 25 minutes...

Your question was already addressed by kookbreaker here:

I would point out to those who claim that misidentification was 'impossible'.

Remember this was not the Isreali front line troops attacking. The planes were the equivalent of the National Guard. They had limited experience with sea-based identification. Seaborne IDing can be very tricky as there is no real basis for size comparison.

Flybys by Isreali planes in the morning are of little relevance to an attack that took place in the afternoon.

For another incident, I would point out that during WW2, during the hunt for the German Ship Bismark, several Swordfish torpedo bombers accidently attacked the HMS Sheffied, a ship with 1/6 the displacement of the Bismark.

So the Swordfish bombers attacked the Shefflield despite:

a) The size difference
b) The much lower speed of the Swordfish
c) The pilots much greater familiarity with the Sheffield

Yet, somehow pilots flying high speed jets are supposed to see a single flag when Swordfish pilots could not spot the British flag on the familiar Sheffield.

This was not the only misidentification incident. Experienced Egyptian pilots misidentified oil tankers as five-times-the-displacement Aircraft Carriers.

Loss Leader

8th July 2008, 09:32 AM

Can I take the second defence as an official declaration of the NSA, stating to the court that they have no further transcripts.

Well, I don't know what an "official declaration" is.

The NSA stated to the court that they did not believe they were in possession of any transcripts that had not already been made public.

Even if the NSA was lying, I doubt this statement could be used against them by anyone other than the Plaintiff in any civil capacity.

Cpt.Fantastic

8th July 2008, 10:45 AM

This is nothing but your conjecture. It holds no more weight than my conjecture which is that you don't understand the facts.

Do not turn this objective argument into a subjective argument. My understanding of the incident comes from many sources and of people whom have worked in the field and are aware of reality.

You have not answered my questions to a satisfactory level, you merely claim to.

Remember this was not the Isreali front line troops attacking. The planes were the equivalent of the National Guard.

Firstly this is completely wrong, the Air force that a few days earlier completely decimated the combined enemy air forces with an amazing surprise attack and you turn them into second tier weekend warriors? Have a read into Operation Focus...

The Israeli military is a very effective military force as is her Air Force and for you to claim that they attacked this ship for 25 minutes with estimates from the crew of around 20 plus sorties flown against the ship... For these aircraft to not notice the flag and the writing on the vessel is absurd.

That is what we would call divine intervention, considering I'm not a religious man I wouldn't give much weight to the case as with your ability to filter information logically.

And to cover the point of the Swordfish attacking a friendly ship with torpedoes. The swordfish is a very rudimentary aircraft from a time long since passed, those aircraft would have done a run on the aircraft from afar due to their payload, the cockpits have no visors and they're wearing goggles traveling very slowly and near to the water due to firing the torpedo and of the abilities of the aircraft...

During the Liberty incident the Israeli jets where buzzing the ship, flying directly over her at low level, circling back for another run... Had I 15 posts I would give you a link to a picture of such a thing yet I cannot.

Please don't claim to have answers when you haven't.

Loss Leader

8th July 2008, 11:10 AM

Remember this was not the Isreali front line troops attacking. The planes were the equivalent of the National Guard.

Firstly this is completely wrong ...

You attribute the above quote to me. I didn't say it. I didn't say anything like it.

You're still wrong. Now you're even wrong about who you are debating.

For these aircraft to not notice the flag and the writing on the vessel is absurd.

That is not a matter of fact. It is your opinion. And it is wrong.

Cpt.Fantastic

8th July 2008, 11:23 AM

You attribute the above quote to me. I didn't say it. I didn't say anything like it.

You're still wrong. Now you're even wrong about who you are debating.
.

I'm perfectly aware you didn't say it, don't think I care for you that much.

That is not a matter of fact. It is your opinion. And it is wrong.

How is it wrong? If your plea to me is of logic please account for the lapse of training, eyesight and logic for 25 minutes from multiple entities in very close proximity. A good place to start would be finding a similar incident...

Sword_Of_Truth

8th July 2008, 01:46 PM

:confused: How can I withdraw it if I never claimed it?

You are the one who placed the accusation here on the JREF forum.

Now either show us who here wished death upon Mr. Ennes or apologize.

Doctor Evil

8th July 2008, 02:39 PM

Well, I don't know what an "official declaration" is.

The NSA stated to the court that they did not believe they were in possession of any transcripts that had not already been made public.

Even if the NSA was lying, I doubt this statement could be used against them by anyone other than the Plaintiff in any civil capacity.

Thanks. Not as strongly binding as I would have guessed. I do think that this is all they got. They gave a fairly straight answer.

gumboot

8th July 2008, 03:38 PM

It had many injured, and was damaged. It was only armed with four machine guns.

Point?

Which is no reason to torpedo it. An MTB is quite capable of standing off at a safe distance from machine guns.

It's not about what they're capable of doing, it's about what they're entitled to do. They were military forces actively engaged in a war, and they were fired upon. They are entitled to return fire and destroy the enemy.

a_unique_person

8th July 2008, 04:07 PM

Point?

It's not about what they're capable of doing, it's about what they're entitled to do. They were military forces actively engaged in a war, and they were fired upon. They are entitled to return fire and destroy the enemy.

:rolleyes: Sure, that's how you treat an enemy. I thought they had made a mistake and wanted to help the crew.

a_unique_person

8th July 2008, 04:11 PM

You are the one who placed the accusation here on the JREF forum.

Now either show us who here wished death upon Mr. Ennes or apologize.

I never said anyone here did.

a_unique_person

8th July 2008, 04:13 PM

<sigh>

Guilt on the part of those who made those attacks. I have no idea who they are, other than they see Ennes as an anti semite and blame him for stating his story.

gumboot

8th July 2008, 04:13 PM

The Israelis flew over the Liberty multiple times and where easily able to identify the ship which was very distinctive in shape and with her flag flying high on the mast.

It would be nice to dismiss this ridiculous myth that the Liberty had a very distinctive shape. The Liberty was so named because she was a converted Victory Ship - a WW2 era cargo ship and an improved version of the Liberty Ship. In all, over 3,000 Liberty and Victory ships were built, of almost the exact shape, making them the most common single ship design ever.

After World War Two both Liberty and Victory ships were sold to private shipping firms and foreign nations alike.

Just like Victory ships, the Egyptian ship that the Israelis mistook her for was also a cargo ship. Further, if you actually compare the Liberty and the El Quseir they're in fact very much alike. While a close and clear inspection would reveal their difference, at distance, through smoke, under the stress of battle, and while being fired upon the misidentification would be almost a certainty.

As for the flag, anyone who thinks they could guarantee immediate identification of a US flag while passing it at 500MPH, 500ft above, in the cockpit of a fighter, is dreaming.

It's funny that when some Liberty survivors fail to see the markings on the aircraft, this is taken as evidence that the aircraft are not marked, but when some IDF pilots likewise fail to see the markings on the ship it's taken as evidence of the IDF lying to cover something up.

gumboot

8th July 2008, 04:16 PM

I thought they had made a mistake and wanted to help the crew.

Why would you think that? They approached an unknown (suspected of being Egyptian) ship, signalled demanding that she identify herself. She fired upon them. So they returned fire. When they identified the US ensign they ceased fire and offered assistance, which was refused.

a_unique_person

8th July 2008, 04:18 PM

Your question was already addressed by kookbreaker here:

Mistakes often happen in war. These are usually noticed within a reasonable time, and don't go on for a sustained period of time. There are also the claims in the article that the attackers knew this was an American ship. That they were continually passed over makes the 'heat of the battle' claim dubious.

a_unique_person

8th July 2008, 04:22 PM

Why would you think that? They approached an unknown (suspected of being Egyptian) ship, signalled demanding that she identify herself. She fired upon them. So they returned fire. When they identified the US ensign they ceased fire and offered assistance, which was refused.

You didn't say that. You said they went to offer assistance. There were the intercepted communications, referred to in the Chicago Tribune article, that say they already knew it was a US ship. The Chicago Tribune is not a hate site, CS site, or anything of the sort.

Doctor Evil

8th July 2008, 04:49 PM

Mistakes often happen in war. These are usually noticed within a reasonable time, and don't go on for a sustained period of time. There are also the claims in the article that the attackers knew this was an American ship. That they were continually passed over makes the 'heat of the battle' claim dubious.

These claims were discussed here. At least some of them have problems. For instance, some claims have included receiving communications at fairly far places, beyond the range where they are likely to be received. Other tell us that top secret material appeared all over the globe (Lebanon, Germany and Vietnam, etc.) This is not the way top secret material is typically handled. Maybe Gamboot have more concrete information about the way the NSA handled such material and their CRITIC system?

In contrast, the Hebrew linguists we know, which handled the transcripts directly, had other conclusions. Furthermore, the transcripts we have show the IDF control tower expected the ship to be Egyptian, and only had started to think otherwise later (presumably due to information from the IDF navy). This is a direct evidence to what (a part) of the IDF forces really thought. I can not stress this enough.

There may be other transcripts, but as I pointed out the claims about them are not problem free. I will remain doubtful until they are found.

kookbreaker

8th July 2008, 05:57 PM

Firstly this is completely wrong, the Air force that a few days earlier completely decimated the combined enemy air forces with an amazing surprise attack and you turn them into second tier weekend warriors? Have a read into Operation Focus...

By and large these were not the airmen who were destroying the Arab armies forces (most of which was via ground attack, btw). These were second tier pilots. More importantly, they had no training in identifying ships at sea.

The Israeli military is a very effective military force as is her Air Force and for you to claim that they attacked this ship for 25 minutes with estimates from the crew of around 20 plus sorties flown against the ship... For these aircraft to not notice the flag and the writing on the vessel is absurd.

A flag at 5 knots is not much to see, and quite frankly reading the back of ship isn't going to tell much. (Some folks have even made hay about the number '5' being hung from the back of the ship as if the arabs didn't use arabic numerals!)

Before we go claiming that the Isreali defenses were some kind of superarmy, let us recall that during the 6 day war they almost had several incidences where they would have ended up firing on their fellow troops. In the 1956 conflicts there were points where Isreali soldiers fought their fellow soldiers due to mistakes in identification. Even more incidences took place in '73.

That is what we would call divine intervention, considering I'm not a religious man I wouldn't give much weight to the case as with your ability to filter information logically.

And to cover the point of the Swordfish attacking a friendly ship with torpedoes. The swordfish is a very rudimentary aircraft from a time long since passed, those aircraft would have done a run on the aircraft from afar due to their payload, the cockpits have no visors and they're wearing goggles traveling very slowly and near to the water due to firing the torpedo and of the abilities of the aircraft...

But at the same time they were flying much, much , much slower than the jets that attacked the Liberty, and more to the point they were familiar with the Sheffield and saw it almost every day! Even more to their advantage: These were pilots trained to identify ships at sea!

During the Liberty incident the Israeli jets where buzzing the ship, flying directly over her at low level, circling back for another run... Had I 15 posts I would give you a link to a picture of such a thing yet I cannot.

I'm not impressed. The Liberty as hit with napalm, which would have obscured views. The fires were enough to obscure signal lights much later on. Yet somehow pilots are supposed to see limp flags and read stuff on ships?!

Loss Leader

8th July 2008, 08:32 PM

Guilt on the part of those who made those attacks. I have no idea who they are, other than they see Ennes as an anti semite and blame him for stating his story.

Your argument makes a perfect circle. It could be used to teach high school trig.

Hans

8th July 2008, 09:31 PM

One correction

(Some folks have even made hay about the number '5' being hung from the back of the ship as if the arabs didn't use arabic numerals!)

Arab speakers cannot read what in the west we call "Arabic numbers". They use what they call "Hindi" numbers. Hebrews also cannot read western numbers (but most Isreali piltots would have been educated in their use due to the instruments using them)

Our numbers came from northern Africa (Spain) while the western arabs used

(٠.١.٢.٣.٤.٥.٦.٧.٨.٩)

The reason that (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) are known as Arabic numerals despite their Indian heritage is that it was the Arabs who adopted the system from India in the ninth century and introduced it to Europe in the tenth. Europeans therefore attributed the numerals to the Arabs, even though the Arabs themselves called them "Hindu numerals".

Oh I've taught Arab students math - trust me, they cannot read western "arabic" numbers!

quicknthedead

8th July 2008, 10:08 PM

Fact: High officials in US intelligence publicly stated {23 years apart} Israelis deliberately planned to sink USS Liberty--it was no accident:

John P. Stenbit, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence (C3I), 2003:
http://www.pirp.harvard.edu/pubs_pdf/stenbit%5Cstenbit-i03-1.pdf

"The Israelis called us up one day and said, 'If you don’t get that ship, the Liberty, out of this place we’re going to sink it in twenty-four hours.' We couldn’t tell the ship to move when we got the data back because it was already under the water, because it took more than twenty-four hours for the data to wander in through the system and come out at the other end."

Raymond Tate, formerly Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy and Deputy Director of the National Security Agency, "Worldwide C3I and Telecommunications" (1980, pp. 25-47):
http://pirp.harvard.edu/pubs_pdf/tate/tate-i80-6.pdf

"The Israeli Intelligence Service knew that the ship was there, and knew what was being done with it, a fact which has made this event extremely controversial for a long time. The context in our terms here is that the commander of the Sixth Fleet was informed by the Washington Intelligence Apparatus that it had evidence that the Liberty was going to be attacked and to provide protection for it. That message was never really acted upon, and the ship was dead in the water when it was hit. So the end result was no accident."

Both men refer to the same problem of slow communications of the urgent message that had to get through to the Liberty in time to save her.

This indicates they were referring to the same intelligence that prompted this critical communication to get the Liberty to move from her exposed position.

Because both of these men deal in the area of improvements in military communications, the focus in their statements was on slow US military communication systems back on Jun 8, 1967. However, our focus is on whether or not the attack on USS Liberty was deliberately made by the Israelis.

Their statements are clear: Based upon pre-intelligence, the attack was deliberate and no accident.

Comments?

a_unique_person

8th July 2008, 10:27 PM

Your argument makes a perfect circle. It could be used to teach high school trig.

It was never an argument, it was an observation on his email. The evidence is the article.

gumboot

8th July 2008, 11:35 PM

Other tell us that top secret material appeared all over the globe (Lebanon, Germany and Vietnam, etc.)

I've got a theory on where this notion came from. You're quite right to say that a CRITIC would not just be transmitted willy nilly to everyone and anyone all over the world. A ridiculous notion.

However NSA claims that within hours of the attack they sent out urgent transmissions to every single intercept station they had, asking for all any any recordings of the incident.

I'm willing to bet that this NSA request for intercepts somehow turned into intercepts being broadcast all over the world.

gumboot

9th July 2008, 12:05 AM

One correction

Arab speakers cannot read what in the west we call "Arabic numbers". They use what they call "Hindi" numbers. Hebrews also cannot read western numbers (but most Isreali piltots would have been educated in their use due to the instruments using them)

Our numbers came from northern Africa (Spain) while the western arabs used

(٠.١.٢.٣.٤.٥.٦.٧.٨.٩)

The reason that (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) are known as Arabic numerals despite their Indian heritage is that it was the Arabs who adopted the system from India in the ninth century and introduced it to Europe in the tenth. Europeans therefore attributed the numerals to the Arabs, even though the Arabs themselves called them "Hindu numerals".

Oh I've taught Arab students math - trust me, they cannot read western "arabic" numbers!

Just a nitpick... the numerals above you attribute to "western arabs" are used in Egypt, Sudan, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and parts of India. The "arabic numerals" we use in the west with the Latin alphabet are also used across North Africa including many arabic speaking nations, and more specifically, including numerous nations that Israel has historically been at war with.

The markings on the ship are entirely irrelevant. The likelihood of fighter pilots actually being able to read them is slim, and in case anyone was actually interested in knowing, both the Egyptian Air Force and Egyptian Navy using the same "arabic numerals" the west use on their aircraft and ships.

Egyptian F-16 (http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/071020-F-3188A-221.jpg)
Egyptian Fast Attack Ship (http://farm1.static.flickr.com/60/161157094_57848a6bc2_o.jpg)
Egyptian Fast Attack Ship (http://lh4.ggpht.com/pingbosun/R-5nfVtsa6I/AAAAAAAAuCg/s6ZXJFpZcdU/Egyptian%20Warship%20-%20El%20Yarmouk.JPG)

In fact, if you look through photos of Egyptian ships searching for the wreckage of Flash Airlines Flight 604 (crashed into the Red Sea on January 3rd, 2004) you'll see Egyptian ships sporting not just arabic numerals, but latin alphabet letters as well.

So basically the "it had western numbers" argument is nonsense.

tsig

9th July 2008, 01:48 AM

We've been trying to get a Congressional investigation for decades but not a single Member of Congress thinks an attack on a US Navy ship that includes the deliberate machine gunning of American life rafts in the water and the abandoning of a US Navy ship while that ship is still under fire is worthy of Congressional scrutiny. Compare that to the investigations that followed the death of Pat Tillman.

I wouldn't unilaterally discount everything anyone says. In fact we know that the attack was being monitored in Lebanon and Morocco as well as other stations in Europe.

Fear not. We will continue the fight until the attack on our ship is finally investigated. We owe nothing less to our fallen shipmates and their families.

Oh sob away you are doing it for your own ego. It's bigger than the ship.

tsig

9th July 2008, 02:01 AM

Sorry, I don't see US sailers being murdered as equivalent to a friend with a camera getting wet. My lack of insight I guess.

By the by, I assume you have read all my posts and are aware that I have consistantly distinguished the following: A)Although I strongly suspect it was on purpose, I B) accept that it may have been accidental, but C) I believe certain factors militate against that (B) being correct. And D) my statement about retaliation stands fully if A) was indeed correct (for then - obviously it would be pointless to do it now - but at the time.......).

When you are in the military you are not murdered but KIA.

Hans

9th July 2008, 08:45 AM

So basically the "it had western numbers" argument is nonsense.

Yes I was just pointing out a common fallacy that our term western "Arabic numbers", doesn't mean the Arabs use them in their native language, they use Hindi numbers. Most pilots in Arab countries and Isreali would have come from a well-educated middle or upper class background and would have been familar with English/western numbering systems.

jmeadors

9th July 2008, 05:35 PM

as im sure yo uknow, the government is not a single monolithic entity, it consists of a great number of agencies, administrations and bodies, of which the CIA, NSA, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Naval Court of Inquiry are all a part

however you apparently do not consider them "the government" in this case, so which agency do you think should investigate the incident?

They are part of the US government but none of them has conducted an investigation of the attack on the USS Liberty.

Congress has historically conducted investigations of the attacks on the USS Purblo, USS Stark, USS Cole, etc. Perhaps it would be appropriate for them to conduct an investigation of the attack on the USS Liberty as well.

jmeadors

9th July 2008, 05:39 PM

Yes.

If you purposefully drive into a war zone, you should expect that some of the war might spill over onto you.

There is no disrespect meant to Mr. Meadors. Neither he nor any of his shipmates (save one) were responsible for the location of the Liberty that day.

According to an article published in the Winter, 1986 issue of Naval Law Review the area was never declared to be a war zone.

jmeadors

9th July 2008, 05:41 PM

Then I would suggest that your claim that the US Government never investigated the USS Liberty incident is inaccurate.

Not inaccurate at all.

None of the agencies mentioned has conducted an investigation of the attack on the USS Liberty.

jmeadors

9th July 2008, 05:44 PM

Can someone explain to me how the Israeli attack on the Liberty constitutes a war crime?

The article in the Winter, 1986 issue of Naval Law Review addresses this subject probably better than anyone here can.

jmeadors

9th July 2008, 05:49 PM

I am not a lawyer, but this document shows this line of thought may have been on the minds of the IDF Court of Inquiry on Jun 18, 1967:
http://www.nsa.gov/liberty/51652/3068921.pdf

2.A. IT IS CONCLUDED CLEARLY AND UNIMPEACHABLY FROM THE EVIDENCE AND FROM COMPARISON OF WAR DIARIES THAT THE ATTACK ON USS LIBERTY WAS NOT IN MALICE; THERE WAS NO CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE AND THE ATTACK WAS MADE BY INNOCENT MISTAKE.

Perhaps more telling would be the evidence and testimony that was reviewed in the preparation of that IDF report. Unfortunately, the Israelis have not responded positively to requests to release that information. Kinda makes one wonder if there is anything supporting it or if it is made out of whole cloth.

jmeadors

9th July 2008, 06:08 PM

Had this happened, it might come close. But the fact is, there is no real evidence that it happened. The torpedo boats never came closer than 2000 yards by sworn accounts and documentation.

Not quite true. I saw one of the torpedo boats said up our port side at a distance of about 100 yards. I was never asked to testify.

The evidence for this is laughable. the planes that attacked could not have jamming gear, and the sudden 'fix' of the radio was likely from Ennes' screwing up the radio.

Ennes had nothing to do with the fixing of the radio. That was due in large part to the effort of Terry Halbardier. He fixed an antenna that was previously out of commission. As for the jamming of the radios, all you have to do is talk to the Liberty's radiomen, ET's and CT's. They'll tell you something about it.

This is just horsecrap. The torpedo tried to signal the Liberty and was fired upon! They then commenced a torpedo attack, hitting the Liberty. Once they got indications that he Liberty was a US vessel they then signaled asking if the Liberty required assistance. It was refused. What were they supposed to do? Force asisstance on the Liberty?!

Well, you're partly right. After an intensive and well-coordinated air attack the ship was approached by torpedo boats. The Liberty crewman on mount 51 fired a single bullet from the 50 cal. and the gun jammed. When the torpedo boats were approaching I was trying to contact them first with flashing light and then by semaphore. They did not respond. After they completed their attack they departed the scene and returned some 90 minutes later with their offer of assistance.

It is no surprise the article was written by Ennes. Its also no surprise that the NLR article is widely criticized for using very suspect sources of information. THis is like the Free-Mumia people who declare that Mumia is a 'political prisoner' and not in jail for murdering a cop. IANAL, but I seriously doubt that Jacobsens' claims would stand the test of any courts.

If you're talking about the Naval Law Review article, Ennes didn't write it. It was Jacobsen's doctoral thesis. If you have seen criticism of the NLR article reflecting what you have described could you direct me to it?

SDC

9th July 2008, 06:59 PM

Not inaccurate at all.

None of the agencies mentioned has conducted an investigation of the attack on the USS Liberty.

Isn't the real point that no investigation has been conducted that provides the answers you want?

ETA: And I'll add: any historian who relies on eyewitness accounts of participants is incompetent. Speaking as a historian.

jmeadors

9th July 2008, 07:16 PM

Isn't the real point that no investigation has been conducted that provides the answers you want?

No.

The US government has never conducted an investigation of the attack on the USS Liberty. If you don't believe me, ask a member of your Congressional delegation to pose the question to the Congressional Research Service.

kookbreaker

9th July 2008, 07:44 PM

Not quite true. I saw one of the torpedo boats said up our port side at a distance of about 100 yards. I was never asked to testify.

So your account contradicts your Captain's own testimony, as well as those notes in the log.

Ennes had nothing to do with the fixing of the radio. That was due in large part to the effort of Terry Halbardier. He fixed an antenna that was previously out of commission. As for the jamming of the radios, all you have to do is talk to the Liberty's radiomen, ET's and CT's. They'll tell you something about it.

Maybe they can explain how aircraft without the ability to jam radios managed to jam radios. Jamming would have been quite a feat, even with the proper equipment.

Well, you're partly right. After an intensive and well-coordinated air attack the ship was approached by torpedo boats. The Liberty crewman on mount 51 fired a single bullet from the 50 cal. and the gun jammed. When the torpedo boats were approaching I was trying to contact them first with flashing light and then by semaphore. They did not respond. After they completed their attack they departed the scene and returned some 90 minutes later with their offer of assistance.

You fail to mention the fire cooking off the rear gun. Did this not happen in your version of events?

If you're talking about the Naval Law Review article, Ennes didn't write it. It was Jacobsen's doctoral thesis. If you have seen criticism of the NLR article reflecting what you have described could you direct me to it?

Jacobsen's own sources are what is damming. Does his report not state:

A unique aspect of this study is its almost total reliance on authoritative
unofficial sources [FN2] for facts.

and

FN2. The principal unofficial sources relied upon are: J. Bamford, The Puzzle
Palace: A Report on NSA, America's Most secret Agency(1982);J. Ennes, Assault
on the Liberty: The True Story of the Israeli Attack on an American
Intelligence Ship(1979);S. Green, Taking sides: America's Secret Relations With
a Militant Israel(1984);D. Neff, Warriors for Jerusalem: The Six Days That
Changed the Middle East(1984);S. Steven, The Spymasters of Israel: The
Definitive Inside Look at the World's Best Intelligence Service(1980); Ennes,
The U.S.S. Liberty Affair, The Link, May-June 1984, at 1; The Official Israel
Excuse, The Link, May-June 1984, at 11.

Bamford, Green, and Neff rely heavily if not exclusively on Ennes' version of events.

a_unique_person

9th July 2008, 08:04 PM

Well, here's what we know: Liberty was a spy ship. It was sitting just off the coast of two countries who were at war. The US had denied that it had any ships in the area. Immediately after the attack, Israel admitted it.

So what is the absolute worst reason that Israel could have attacked? What is the most terrible, nefarious reason you can think of?

It couldn't have been a false-flag operation to make the US think that Egypt had attacked. Israel admitted it right away.

Let's say the following: Israel believed that the US did not fully support it in the war and, in fact, that the US was giving intelligence about its troop movements to the Egyptians. Egypt, after all, had nothing like the signals intelligence of the US or even of Israel. Its air force was almost non-existent by the time of the Liberty incident. It was basically blind to Israeli movements. And at the same time, the US did not favor Israeli expansion into the Sinai. And the US offered zero military support of the Israeli war effort.

So, let's agree that forty-one years ago, Israel purposefully attacked the Liberty with the intention of destroying it because they thought it was a threat to their war effort.

SO WHAT?

What should happen TODAY because of that?

If Israel admitted everything that I wrote above, what should happen?

What is the point of a new investigation, of knowing the "truth" or of anything else you want? What should happen as a result of your new investigation?

My guess is that you have no answer. Still, I wait to hear from any of the people who have been arguing in favor of a new investigation.

Haaretz recently had a story about Israel having nukes ready for the war. My guess is it didn't want the US interfering if it wanted to use them.

Why own up to things that happened in the past? The same debate is happening in Australia in regards to it's treatment of the aboriginal people. You own up to it because it was wrong. If you pretend that wrong is right, then as a nation you have got problems. The state of Australia's aboriginal people is testament to that, since that issue will never be resolved till we face up to the past.

a_unique_person

9th July 2008, 08:06 PM

No.

The US government has never conducted an investigation of the attack on the USS Liberty. If you don't believe me, ask a member of your Congressional delegation to pose the question to the Congressional Research Service.

Do you think the Chicago Tribune article that has been linked to is accurate?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/printedition/tuesday/chi-liberty_tuesoct02,1,3803697.story

gtc

10th July 2008, 12:11 AM

Haaretz recently had a story about Israel having nukes ready for the war. My guess is it didn't want the US interfering if it wanted to use them.

Do you have a link? That is a couple of years earlier than they were thought to have had any nukes.

a_unique_person

10th July 2008, 12:22 AM

Do you have a link? That is a couple of years earlier than they were thought to have had any nukes.

Haaretz is a black hole in regards to past stories, unfortunately.

Sword_Of_Truth

10th July 2008, 01:44 AM

Haaretz is a black hole in regards to past stories, unfortunately.

Do I dare guess as to why you think that is?

Sword_Of_Truth

10th July 2008, 02:03 AM

Not inaccurate at all.

None of the agencies mentioned has conducted an investigation of the attack on the USS Liberty.

U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry
June 10-18, 1967
The attack was a case of mistaken identity. Calm conditions and slow ship speed may have made American flag difficult to identify. No indication the attack was intended against U.S. ship.

CIA Report
June 13, 1967
The attack was not made in malice and was a mistake.
Joint Chiefs of Staff Fact Finding Team (Russ Report) June 9-20, 1967 Outlined "findings of fact," bud did not make any findings about the actual attack.

Clifford Report
July 18, 1967
No premeditation, but "inexcusable failures" by Israeli forces constituing "gross negligence." Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 1967 Secretary of Defense McNamara testified he supported conclusion that the attack was not intentional.

Senate Armed Services Committee
Feb. 1, 1968
No conclusion. Secretary McNamara makes comparison of attack on Liberty to that on Pueblo with regard to uncertainty about what was happening at the time of the incident.

House Appropriations Committee
April-May 1968
Navy communications "foulup" and no conclusion regarding Israeli actions. Much of report remains classified.

House Armed Services Committee
May 10, 1971
Critical of Navy communications, no conclusion regarding Israeli actions.

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
1979
Responding to critical book by Liberty crewman James Ennes, Senate investigation found no merit to his claim attack was intentional.

National Security Agency
1981
Liberty was mistaken for an Egyptian ship as a result of miscalculations and egregious errors.

House Armed Services Committee
June 1991
Responding to request from Liberty Veterans Association, Subcommitte on Investigations launched probe that concluded there was no evidence to support allegations made by the Association and no reason for further investigation.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/liberty2.html

I am sorry Mr. Meadors. It appears that your claim was not inaccurate, but instead appears to have been a deliberate fabrication. I cannot imagine what it was like for you both on that day and in the years since. But I am afraid that you cannot find the truth, nor encourage others to seek it if you will not tell it.

You may not like the results of the above listed investigations, but to claim that they did not occur is blatantly dishonest. I reccomend you consider apologizing for this behavior.

SDC

10th July 2008, 03:38 AM

Haaretz recently had a story about Israel having nukes ready for the war. My guess is it didn't want the US interfering if it wanted to use them.

Why own up to things that happened in the past? The same debate is happening in Australia in regards to it's treatment of the aboriginal people. You own up to it because it was wrong. If you pretend that wrong is right, then as a nation you have got problems. The state of Australia's aboriginal people is testament to that, since that issue will never be resolved till we face up to the past.

So you are comparing a single wartime incident with a program of repression sometimes approaching genocide, lasting for generations?

Do you see any problem with that comparison?

ETA: last line breaks my preferred practice. Instead I will say: I see a serious problem with that comparison. You could fairly compare Australia's policies towards its native peoples with the US (or Canada's, Argentina's, etc.). You could compare the Liberty case with, well, any number of wartime single events which gave rise to endless arguments. But the two classes are fundamentally not comparable.

a_unique_person

10th July 2008, 06:09 AM

Do I dare guess as to why you think that is?

Go on, dare.

kookbreaker

10th July 2008, 07:19 AM

Haaretz recently had a story about Israel having nukes ready for the war. My guess is it didn't want the US interfering if it wanted to use them.

If what you claim were actually true, do you seriously think one little barely armed US ship was going to matter?

Doctor Evil

10th July 2008, 08:33 AM

Haaretz recently had a story about Israel having nukes ready for the war. My guess is it didn't want the US interfering if it wanted to use them.

Does not really add up. I am not sure whether the Israelis had nukes then. However:

1. The war was essentially won by the time of the attack on the Liberty. There was no need for drastic measures, such as using nukes.

2. The Israelis refrained from using their nukes during the 1973 war, when they were of real danger of losing.

As a result I don't think the issue of Israeli nukes is relevant here.

Hans

10th July 2008, 09:43 AM

I believe that in six day war the Isrealis didn't have a functional airdroppable nuke - not until the early seventies and the Ramadan war. I think the World would have noticed the Israelis using a nuke without a spy ship picking up the data....

a_unique_person

10th July 2008, 04:01 PM

If what you claim were actually true, do you seriously think one little barely armed US ship was going to matter?

It was not it's arms that made it important.

kookbreaker

10th July 2008, 05:47 PM

It was not it's arms that made it important.

I don't get your point then.

roundhead

11th July 2008, 07:33 AM

It would be nice to dismiss this ridiculous myth that the Liberty had a very distinctive shape. The Liberty was so named because she was a converted Victory Ship - a WW2 era cargo ship and an improved version of the Liberty Ship. In all, over 3,000 Liberty and Victory ships were built, of almost the exact shape, making them the most common single ship design ever.

After World War Two both Liberty and Victory ships were sold to private shipping firms and foreign nations alike.

Just like Victory ships, the Egyptian ship that the Israelis mistook her for was also a cargo ship. Further, if you actually compare the Liberty and the El Quseir they're in fact very much alike. While a close and clear inspection would reveal their difference, at distance, through smoke, under the stress of battle, and while being fired upon the misidentification would be almost a certainty.

As for the flag, anyone who thinks they could guarantee immediate identification of a US flag while passing it at 500MPH, 500ft above, in the cockpit of a fighter, is dreaming.

It's funny that when some Liberty survivors fail to see the markings on the aircraft, this is taken as evidence that the aircraft are not marked, but when some IDF pilots likewise fail to see the markings on the ship it's taken as evidence of the IDF lying to cover something up.

Actually, the Egytpian ship is only roughly half the size of the liberty, be very hard to mistake the two.
Its been stated they overflew the ship and in fact her presence in the area was noted earlier and on the Israeli's situation board.