USS Liberty

[gumboot]

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/zone...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]

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.

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

 

[SDC]

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]

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."

Edited by chillzero: 

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

 

[Loss Leader]

Well, that's compelling evidence of nothing.

 

[kookbreaker]

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]

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]

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.

Edited by chillzero: 

Trimmed for rule 4 - and cite sources:
http://www.ussliberty.org/moorer3.txt

 

[roundhead]

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);

Edited by chillzero: 

Trimmed for rule 4 - and always cite sources:
http://www.usslibertyinquiry.com/evidence/usreports/moorer.html

 

[Loss Leader]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.""

 

[kookbreaker]

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]

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]

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]

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.