USS Liberty: Accidental or Deliberate?

Quote:

---

Frem, thanks. I did not know this. Do you have a link, by any chance? I'd like to read more.

---

The testimony in question comes two of the radio operators, who related it to Jimmy Ennes for a book detailing what happened from the viewpoint of the crew itself.

Radiomen Joseph Ward and Radiomen James Halman both stated without question that there was jamming, and this was entirely corroborated by radio personnel from the USS Saratoga in respect to the Liberty's attempts to transmit through the "gaps" as the fighters lined up for missle strikes.

Captain McGonagle's testimony was that yes, american frequencies only, and specifically the operating freqs of USS Liberty in particular, in addition to international distress, were jammed.

Two interesting notes about McGonagle, one is that his MoH was damned near insultingly tossed in his face by the fact that it was NOT handed over by the president in official ceremony, but backhandedly by the secretary of the navy at at washington yards - it reeked of "buying silence" to the crew, and the captain himself was very careful to never express an opinion on the matter.

Also, when the Israeli forces did finally stop firing, and offered "assistance", McGonagle, not trusting them one damned bit, went up on deck and reportedly gave them the finger as his only reply.

Also, regarding Contact X, supposedly a US naval submarine present at the time of the attack - for technical reasons that would take too long to explain, it would very likely not have been a diesel (excluding most of the subs it was suspected to have been) AND it would have had to have been equipped with the PeriViz device in order to have actual footage rather than still photographs, and that limits suspects to very few submarines indeed.

That being said, clips of said footage *were* mentioned and discussed by folks on some of those investigative boards, as well as at least one member of congress, thus lending credence to their existence.

Case in point, a letter to a constituent from Congressman Gary Ackerman dated Nov 14th 1986 - EXCERPT (emphasis mine)
"However, submarine photography taken during the incident
indicates that the Liberty may have been under siege for approximately
two hours. Further, it was later discovered that the Israelis had
warned the U.S. to keep all intelligence ships away from their coast
during the war. In fact, after the arrival of the Liberty, the Israelis
warned Washington to order the ship to leave the area."

So presumably said tapes exist, probably in the NURO or NSA archives, and likely classified for a million years or so.

All of this info is easily obtained via common websearch, and fairly easy to verify.
Do *NOT* take anyones word for it, do your own research, that being said, one link in particular, I will share.

http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0693/9306019.htm

It's pretty clear that jamming of the sort did occur, and is confirmed six ways to sunday via every account but one, and Cristol has been thoroughly discredited as a source, which is why Finn's immediate reply to the contrary strikes me as so odd, as does his inability to deliver a straight answer on anything when pressed.

It seems like every discussion that certain folk involve themselves in devolves into nitpicking that has jack diddly to do with the topic at hand, doesn't it ?

I've said my piece on it, far as that goes.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Now I have put forth three possible motives for a deliberate attack on the USS Liberty by the IDF from the Wikipedia article. I have stated why I do not think these were legitimate reasons and backed up my position with items in the article. You're up.

---

Fair enough!

I don't know. I don't know the motive.

Of course, I want to reiterate that not being able to establish a motive does not mean there was no motive. And not knowing the motive doesn't mean a crime was not committed.

I'm still putting together the pieces of this motive puzzle. I think I have a few intriguing pieces, but I can't see the big picture yet.

Here's what I believe to be a piece of the puzzle.

It is a statement made by Capt. Ward Boston on January 8, 2004.

Quote:

---

. . .In June of 1967, while serving as a Captain in the Judge Advocate General Corps, Department of the Navy, I was assigned as senior legal counsel for the Navy’s Court of Inquiry into the brutal attack on USS Liberty, which had occurred on June 8th.

The late Admiral Isaac C. Kidd, president of the Court, and I were given only one week to gather evidence for the Navy’s official investigation into the attack, despite the fact that we both had estimated that a proper Court of Inquiry into an attack of this magnitude would take at least six months to conduct. . . .

The evidence was clear. Both Admiral Kidd and I believed with certainty that this attack, which killed 34 American sailors and injured 172 others, was a deliberate effort to sink an American ship and murder its entire crew. Each evening, after hearing testimony all day, we often spoke our private thoughts concerning what we had seen and heard. I recall Admiral Kidd repeatedly referring to the Israeli forces responsible for the attack as “murderous bastards.” It was our shared belief, based on the documentary evidence and testimony we received first hand, that the Israeli attack was planned and deliberate, and could not possibly have been an accident. . . .

I know from personal conversations I had with Admiral Kidd that President Lyndon Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara ordered him to conclude that the attack was a case of “mistaken identity” despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Admiral Kidd told me, after returning from Washington, D.C. that he had been ordered to sit down with two civilians from either the White House or the Defense Department, and rewrite portions of the court’s findings.

Admiral Kidd also told me that he had been ordered to “put the lid” on everything having to do with the attack on USS Liberty. We were never to speak of it and we were to caution everyone else involved that they could never speak of it again.

I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of that statement as I know that the Court of Inquiry transcript that has been released to the public is not the same one that I certified and sent off to Washington.

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

Following the conclusion of the Court of Inquiry, Admiral Kidd and I remained in contact. Though we never spoke of the attack in public, we did discuss it between ourselves, on occasion. Every time we discussed the attack, Admiral Kidd was adamant that it was a deliberate, planned attack on an American ship.
http://www.ussliberty.com/bostondeclaration.pdf

---

If Boston is to be believed (and I have no reas

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I've said my piece on it, far as that goes.

---

Ah, don't stop. I'm learning new and interesting details.

I should get me a copy of Ennes' book.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky
(Putting my old sig back.)

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
But the thing is they didn't join the German navy, and when the Germans tried to force the issue they scuttled them theirselves at that point. I also disagree with Finn's assertion that they were an extention of Germany... there was a government in exile formed in Britain.

---

Well from your own article the French didn't trust the British enough to join the British navy to help with the Liberation of France, seeing it as an attempt by a foreign power to take over their ships. Why do you expect the British to put more trust in their fallen ally than their fallen ally would put in the only nation that at the time had any chance or will to liberate them?

As you point out there was a government in exile in Britain, so essentially one of the British ultimatums was that they'd escort them back to the closest thing they had to a home port. Why didn't the French trust their only ally or their own exiled government? Why should the British have put more trust in them than they were willing to show?

You make the point that when the Germans pushed for French ships in Vichy France to join the German navy (ignoring I notice the sentiments of Admirals such as Jean de Laborde to sail on the allies) that the French scuttled their ships. Unfortunately we hadn't yet invented the Crystal ball in 1940 so the British Admiralty had no chance of knowing what the French were going to do in 1942, so it's really inadmissible evidence.

The British didn't sink any French vessels in British controlled ports, a clear indication that the sinking of the vessels was the last possible option.

Here's what the British knew:
France had fallen to Nazi Germany.
Many French vessels were now in ports under direct or indirect German control.
If these ships fell into German hands the British wouldn't stand a chance. And despite how you try to paint this with all the ships in German controlled ports this was a very real possibility, perhaps even a certainty that some would have fallen in too German hands. It also only takes an Admiral Jean de Laborde.
The French fleet had refused some pretty reasonable ultimatums (whether the one about escort to America was received or not).

So you tell me, you're the British Admiral, an Ally is unwilling to join your fleet, a fleet which at the same time as securing your nation is the only fleet currently operating for the liberation of your ally. You have two choices, either sail away and say "oh well chaps, lets just leave it too chance, if we lose the bet we're doomed but far more sporting this way what" or you sink the ships ensuring they don't fall into German hands.

Quote:

---

Would you feel differently if it had been British sailors dying intentionally at the hand of an " allie "... or Americans ?

---

Depends on the situation, and I find it hard to see a time when any British ally would be in the same situation. But maybe you can explain how the feelings of the French changed the only logical course of action open to the British in a time they were fighting for their very existence, and also how damaging one ship of a party with no demonstratable connection to the enemy compares to sinking ships that were just as likely to join the enemy as not.

Quote:

---

Accepting that theory, would you rather had Egypt aware of Israeli movements in the area ?

---

Why do I have to accept that theory? Are you now saying that's what happened? Okay America was spying on Israel, so Israel did purposefully attack the ship, they attacked a ship of a country that had essentially declared war on Israel.

I'd say in those circumstances Israel was probably in its rights to attack the USS Liberty.

Since you want to foster a polarised view here's the opposite:
Those in charge of the fleet at Mers-el-Kebir saw the Germans as the winning side, and decided to join them, wanting to win a war rather than fight on the losing side. They were awaiting the envoy when the British showed up. Accepting this theory why weren’t the British well within their rights to sin

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

"In fact, after the arrival of the Liberty, the Israelis warned Washington to order the ship to leave the area."

You know, it has been suggested that maybe Israel's motive was simple. They didn't want intelligence ships in the area. They said so. We seemingly ignored them, so ally or not, they fired. That'll teach the US to ignore their wishes.

Perhaps they had dirt on Johnson that they could blackmail him with, that gave them the confidence to attack without fear of repercussions. Maybe they threatened him with telling the world about US complicity and endorsement of the Six Day War.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME