USS Liberty

[Travis]

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?

 

[SDC]

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]

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, mentioned earlier. Another is Richard W. Hickman, 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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


Pretty large segment of the intelligence community from that era seems to think there is no doubt it was deliberate, i believe that as well.

 

[fuelair]

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.

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. One of fuelairs rules - if you decide to act as if I am your enemy, you have made me your enemy. Be very, very careful.

 

[SDC]

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]

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, mentioned earlier. Another is Richard W. Hickman, 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]

Skeptical Analysis of Attack on USS Liberty

[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I’m particularly interested in someone employing these techniques in analyzing the research of Jay Cristol as codified in his book, The Liberty Incident[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Warmest regards,[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Joe Meadors[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]USS Liberty Survivor[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]joe@ussliberty.com[/FONT]

 

[Loss Leader]

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]

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]

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 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]

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]

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]

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.