USS Liberty

[jmeadors]

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]

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]

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?

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/servi...,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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

They are.

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

 

[gumboot]

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

 

[fuelair]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[quicknthedead]

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]

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]

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)