|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct
This article from George Mason University makes some good points about the affidavits and why his testimony isn't necessarily as credible as it seems.
http://hnn.us/articles/39936.html |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Good article MSD, I read the whole thing, and this helps bolster my thoughts that the only conspiracy here is for some anti-zionists to attempt to form a rift between the US and Israel.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sun Tzu
It sounds like a good wrap up, much like the warren commission. I think the movment by eye witness survivors demanding justice to this day , is for only that justice. Its stated by many that the worn out song of anti-zionism isnt going to make this one go awway. Thats is a cop out in any case, especially since there is no "rift" to widen becasue there is no rift. Any means of hardware to go defend the ship were called back for some "reason". There were two sides at play here, not an evil zionistic entity bent on ignoring a US flag flying clear.
He did get some details straightened out instead of 172 injured ssailors, 171 and one NSA. I might have missed it, but he is saying no bombs were dropped. OK Does that mean he is stating there was no napalm? I have to read it again to formulate exactly where he took this.
|
I have to disagree with all three of you. Too many US officials have openly stated that they believe the USN Liberty was deliberately attacked. Ustwo, what is with your pro-zionist sentiment? Are you a pro-zionist Jew, by way of one or both of your parents? I have strong sympathies and admiration for Jewish people and their culture (I was romantically involved in a live-in relationship with a wonderful Jewish woman for four years in the late '90's), but I am anti-zionism, abhorring the influence of the ultra conservative Israeli and ultra conservative US alliance that makes AIPAC's influence so damaging to US foreign and domestic policy. That influence intimidates our elected officials and pressures the US to act against it's own best interests, hardly a pro-American political position to embrace, IMO.
I am convinced that the material in the first two quote boxes casts doubt on Jay Cristol's challenge of Ward Boston, and of his entire argument that Israel did not attack intentionally:
Quote:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...e29libert.html
Attack on the Liberty
Lifting the 'fog of war'
By David C. Walsh
The damaged U.S. intelligence ship Liberty arrived in Malta. An Israeli torpedo blew a 40-foot hole in the Liberty's hull. U.S. Navy Naval Historical Center photo collection
March 28, 2004
...The story of the intelligence ship in a sense resembles the Liberty herself: both refuse to go down. The heartbreaking saga is kept afloat by mutually antagonistic partisans – I dub them the "deliberates" and the "accidentalists."
Periodically, the dispute flares anew, each side throwing punch and counterpunch. Some strikes are errant, or glancing, or below the belt; others, solid hammer blows the recovery from which seems impossible.
Occasionally, as now, the action is in synch. In one "corner" are a retired Navy JAG captain-cum-judge and the government of Israel; in the other, Liberty survivors, former leaders of the highly secret National Security Agency and other spooky types. The judge, A. Jay Cristol, has written a controversial book, "The Liberty Incident." It alleges that the furious attack on the U.S. Navy ship (tasked by the NSA and the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs of Staff) was what Israel since 1967 has claimed: a "friendly-fire" accident, the sort that bedevils every war.
For their part, Liberty supporters assert that the ex-Navy lawyer is merely the latest, albeit most effective, in a long series of apologists for Israel....
...The sad slugfest continues.
<h3>In June 2003, I published an investigative article in the United States Naval Institute's Proceedings magazine; one that drew on some unusually well-informed people. These weren't Israelis (Judge Cristol supplies those)</h3>, but American intelligence leaders. They were addressing the tragedy for the first time; partly, some said, because of the Cristol book. Also included were interviews and conversations with the Liberty's surviving cryptanalysts and other specialists.
In total, they pointed the way toward an unsettling conclusion: The Cristol/Israeli explanation of "accidental attack in the fog of war" may have grown so threadbare as to be virtually unsustainable....
|
<h3>David C. Walsh's June, 2003 article in the United States Naval Institute's Proceedings magazine:</h3>
Quote:
http://web.archive.org/web/200406050...PROwalsh06.htm
Friendless Fire?
By David C. Walsh
Proceedings, June 2003
...Revisiting the Incident
In December 2002, the Naval Historical Center hosted a presentation on the still deeply controversial attack by Federal Judge and retired U.S. Naval Reserve Captain A. Jay Cristol, on a promotional tour for his recent book, The Liberty Incident: The 1967 Attack on the U.S. Navy Spy Ship. Based on Judge Cristol's doctoral thesis, the book relies heavily on newly declassified (or newly interpreted) documents and more than 500 interviews with U.S. and Israeli political and military leaders involved in the incident, including former Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara, Admiral Isaac Kidd, and Yitzhak Rabin, who was the Israeli Defense Force Chief of Staff at the time. Only seven of the interviewees, however, were on board the Liberty during the attack.2.....
...But instead of punishing the attackers, Israel honors them in a museum. Told of the display, retired Air Force Major General John Morrison, NSA deputy director for operations at the time, commented, "I am offended by that." And retired Army Lieutenant General William Odom, NSA director from 1985 to 1988, and also unaware of the display, remarked, "I am astonished that Israel should put glory on the people who killed my SigInt-ers [signals intelligence personnel]."10 The Liberty's blood-stained flag is exhibited at the National Cryptologic Museum in Fort Meade, Maryland.
Disputed Timelines and Communications
Although Liberty crew members insist the attack lasted about an hour and a quarter, Judge Cristol's book asserts that the Israeli jets and MTBs finished their grisly business in only 22 to 25 minutes.11...
http://web.archive.org/web/200405100...Owalsh06-3.htm
..Perhaps the widest chasm separating the "mistakens" from the "deliberates" is the Naval Court of Inquiry. Ordered convened a week after the event by Commander-in-Chief Naval Forces Europe, Admiral John McCain, and headed by Rear Admiral Kidd, the hearing is dubbed "remarkably competent (and) thorough" by Judge Cristol, "a doctored sham" by the veterans.42 The judge stresses that 14 seamen spoke at the hearing. But ship's officers Ennes, Painter, Golden, and others charge that in dozens of cases, sworn testimony damaging to Israel's case was not allowed or, if allowed, not entered into evidence or made part of the transcript. Thus, Ennes and the LVA charge, the court's Findings of Fact often were unsupported by the evidence, contravening Navy rules of procedure.43...
....Meanwhile, survivors contest Judge Cristol's statement that "some" had changed their minds after the inquiry, noting that he fails to identify them or crew members he claims agree the attack was an accident. Others also have changed their minds, including Captain Ward Boston, the senior Navy lawyer under pressure to give a peremptory evaluation of the Navy Board of Inquiry. In 2002, Boston dropped a bombshell on Judge Cristol's thesis. He informed Navy Times that Israel had knowingly assaulted the Liberty and has worked ever since to "try to get out of it." As surprising, he said, was that the court's president, Rear Admiral Kidd, shared this view, but owing to political pressure from Washington announced the opposite conclusion to the media. "Officers," Boston remarked, "obey orders." Boston explained in the interview that he was speaking now in part because "everyone else is shooting his mouth off."47
Judge Cristol could not explain what might have inspired such candor, although he writes that the late Admiral Kidd had told him that the attack was in error. That is the opposite of what Ennes maintains concerning his "many talks" with Admiral Kidd. Ennes also says that Admiral Kidd urged him and his group to keep pressing for an open congressional probe. Meanwhile, Judge Cristol has Boston recanting his Navy Times statements. In reality, Boston stands firmly behind them.48...
...A final aspect of the Judge Cristol treatise, although not part of the point/counterpoint, has engendered the survivors' special disdain. The judge all but ignores them. Of 500-plus interviews conducted over more than a decade, only seven were with crewmen.50 "If he spoke to us," says Ennes, "it would blow his thesis out of the water—as the Israelis tried to do with our ship." He adds, "Not a single one of us agrees with Cristol."51 Judge Cristol replies that survivor/witnesses are not objective. And, unlike Ennes, he "writes history, not memoirs."
None of this may matter, because official support for the crew remains nonexistent. But growing numbers of former senior government and military officials have begun speaking out. Among those in support of the ship's 200-plus survivors, in addition to those mentioned previously and in the accompanying sidebar, are: former Chief of Naval Operations and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Thomas Moorer, then CIA Director Richard Helms, then-NSA Director Marshall Carter, Carter's Deputy Louis Tordella (who wrote on the Israeli Navy's report, "A nice whitewash!"), NSA "Liberty incident" analyst Walter Deeley, and Hayden Peake, professor of intelligence history at the Joint Military Intelligence College and retired CIA officer.52
Why, Judge Cristol was asked at the Navy Yard, did his conclusions run so afoul of such seniors? He answered that although they were respectable men, their contradictions baffled him. In general, he suggests that because theirs are not firsthand knowledge, contrarian officials' statements may, like the survivors', be dismissed.53
Judge Cristol is not without his admirers. He counts (besides numerous Israeli officials, Israeli Defense Force officers, and other partisans) former CIA Director Admiral Stansfied Turner and the carrier America's captain, late Vice Admiral Donald Engen.54 But the supernova in this galaxy is Secretary McNamara. Quoted by Judge Cristol as seeing only "tragic error," McNamara's stock answer when queried by other Liberty researchers is, "I remember nothing about the incident."...
....Former NSA Officials Agree
David C. Walsh
The jamming of unique U.S. frequencies during the Liberty incident seems to establish deliberate intent. And in exclusive interviews with this author, several former high-level National Security Agency (NSA) officials agree.
On 14 February 2003, the "godfather" of the NSA's Auxiliary General Technical Research program, Oliver Kirby, noted that the Liberty was "my baby." Within weeks of the calamity, Kirby, deputy director for operations/production, read U.S. signals intelligence (SigInt)-generated transcripts and "staff reports" at NSA's Fort Meade, Maryland, headquarters. They were of Israeli pilots' conversations, recorded during the attack. <h3>The intercepts made it "absolutely certain" they knew it was a U.S. ship, he said. Kirby's is the first public disclosure by a top-level NSA senior of deliberate intent based on personal analyses of SigInt material.</h3>
In an interview on 24 February 2003, retired Air Force Major General John Morrison, the agency's then-second-in-command (and Kirby's successor), <h3>said he had been informed at the time of Kirby's findings and endorsed them. Former NSA Director retired Army Lieutenant General William Odom said on 3 March 2003 said that, on the strength of such data, the attack's deliberateness "just wasn't a disputed issue" within the agency. On 5 March 2003, retired Navy Admiral Bobby Ray Inman, NSA director from 1977-1981, said he "flatly rejected" the Cristol/Israeli thesis.</h3> "It is just exceedingly difficult to believe that [the Liberty] was not correctly identified." He said this was based on his talks with NSA seniors at the time having direct knowledge. All four were unaware of any agency official at that time or later who dissented from the "deliberate" conclusion.
|
Quote:
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/wlmcgon.htm
CONGRESSIONAL MEDAL OF HONOR SOCIETY
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
CHARTERED BY THE CONGRESS
FROM THE DESK OF:
CAPTAIN WILLIAM L. McGONAGLE, USN (RET.)
MEMBER, CMOH SOCIETY
October 24, 1998
AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT CLINTON
Re: Jonathan POLLARD
1. Please DO NOT release Jonathan POLLARD, a convicted traitor of the United States, to the Government of Israel, as part of the Middle East peace process, or for any other reason.
2. Please DO NOT release Jonathan POLLARD to the Government of Israel where he could continue to cause irreparable security harm to the United States of America.
3. Please DO NOT release Jonathan POLLARD to the Government of Israel until and unless the Government of Israel acknowledges, in writing and publicly, that the Government of Israel's armed forces (air and naval) deliberately attacked USS LIBERTY (AGTR-5) (A Technical Research Ship) on June 8, 1967.
Israeli aircraft conducted surveillance of the ship within moments of our arrival on station off the coast of the Sinai on the morning of June 8, 1967. The ship was soon identified as USS LIBERTY by Israeli Naval Headquarters, by referring to "JANE'S FIGHTING SHIPS" 1966 OR 1967 issue, which showed a photograph of the ship and listed in detail its characteristics. In fact, an identification "tower" was placed on their Battle Plot with an "A" on the tower to identify the ship as an American ship. The plot was not kept up to date, and was removed when the watch changed at noon that day. The ship was overflown on several occasions before the attack commenced. An Israeli Naval Officer went to the American Embassy Naval Attache' to obtain information that the ship was indeed USS LIBERTY, but the US Naval Attache' did not have our operating schedule, so he could neither confirm or deny that the ship was the USS LIBERTY.
When the attack began about 2:00 p.m. (local time) the ship was subjected to relentless and repeated murderous fire from the attacking aircraft (which were unmarked - a violation of international law). The gun crews of the two (2) bow .50 cal. machine guns were killed during the initial strike on the ship. We could not man the starboard bridge level .50 cal. machine gun, because our life boat was burning (1) deck below and the heat did not allow anyone to approach the gun. We could not man the port bridge level .50 cal. machine gun, because two (2) 55 gallon gasoline drums were burning furiously one (1) deck below. Again the heat of the flames prevented anyone from approaching the gun. WE WERE DEFENSELESS against the onslaught of eight (8) or more firing passes by at least four (4) aircraft, and the strafing and launching of five (5) torpedoes by three (3) motor torpedo boats. That a larger number of casualties was not reported is a tribute to the fighting spirit of the officers, crew, civilians, and Marines, when they had nothing to defend themselves with, during our awesome hours of peril....
.... The Government of Israel shortly after the attack acknowledged that their armed forces conducted the assault. The apology for the attack was accepted, but <h3>the reason for the attack as "misidentification" was never accepted by the US Government.......</h3>
....Except for a few high ranking naval officers, no one has felt our pain of not knowing exactly why the ship was attacked. Over thirty-one (31) years after the attack, the crew is entitled to know the details concerning the attack by the Government of Israel and also the details of the role the US Government in the entire affair. Why were our aircraft recalled to their carriers on two (2) occasions before they reached our location to assess the situation, and what official ordered the recall after "Hot Line" communication was established with Moscow to alert Nasser that the planes were being sent to see what the condition of USS LIBERTY was? .....
<h3>..This is the only US Navy ship attacked by a foreign nation, involving a large loss of life and so many personnel injured that has never been accorded a full Congressional hearing...</h3>
.....I was the Commanding Officer, USS LIBERTY (AGTR-5) at the time of the attack, and was presented the Medal of Honor, by the Secretary of the Navy, at the Navy Yard on June 11, 1968, for my performance of duty during the attack and post-attack recovery period.
4. Please DO NOT delay release of Jonathan POLLARD, until after the elections on November 3, 1998, if it is your intention to release him, with or without due consultation with US military and security experts. If you are going to release him in any case, please let the people know of your intentions and executive action before they vote in the upcoming elections.
Very respectfully,
William L. McGonagle
Captain, USN (Ret.)
|
Capt. McGonagle was awarded the Medal of Honor in an unusual ceremony, and without the president there to present the medal:
Quote:
Los Angeles Times
Thursday, March 11, 1999
Obituaries
Capt. William McGonagle; Won Medal of Honor After Israelis Attacked Ship
By JON THURBER, Times Staff Writer
When Navy Capt. William L. McGonagle received his Medal of Honor, it was not bestowed on him by the president, as is customary, or even presented at the White House. McGonagle, who died last week at 73, was given his award in the relative seclusion of a shipyard near Washington by the Navy secretary. For all of McGonagle's heroism, he was still part of an incident that the U.S. and Israeli governments would rather forget.....
|
Quote:
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001508.php
June 29, 2006
Reflections on the USS Liberty and Gilad Shalit: Disproportionate Response
....Americans have a lot to be thankful for that they didn't live under this Israeli government during the Cold War because the hot-headed, lack of restraint would have surely led to a nuclear exchange with the Soviets if Israel had been at the helm.
Israel would do well to go reacquaint itself with the USS Liberty, which Israelis fired on killing American servicemen. I have had a discussion with someone who was the former head of the U.S. National Security Agency who has no doubt at all that Israel's attack on the U.S. ship was purposeful and not an accident, as Israelis and Americans eager to cover up the incident have asserted.
America's response was measured and put in context -- whether one agrees with that or not. Israel got a huge pass....
-- Steve Clemons
Posted by steve at June 29, 2006 12:25 PM
|
Proabably the most recent study of the events of the attack on the USN Liberty to be published by a military officer:
Quote:
http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTR...c=GetTRDoc.pdf
USAWC STRATEGY RESEARCH PROJECT
ASSAULT ON THE USS LIBERTY: DELIBERATE ACTION OR TRAGIC ACCIDENT?
by
Colonel Peyton E. Smith
United States Army
Commander Mark A. Stroh
Project Adviser
This SRP is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Master of Strategic Studies Degree.
The U.S. Army War College is accredited by the Commission on Higher Education of the Middle States
Association of Colleges and Schools, 3624 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, (215) 662-5606. The
Commission on Higher Education is an institutional accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. Secretary
of Education and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation.
The views expressed in this student academic research paper are those of the author and do not reflect
the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S.
Government.
U.S. Army War College
CARLISLE BARRACKS, PENNSYLVANIA 17013
March 30, 2007
page 12
Interpretation of Events
Over the years, since the USS Liberty’s attack, viewpoints of what individuals and
governments believe to have occurred remain in dispute. These differences generally fall into
two camps.
page 13
The first camp believes the unfortunate incident was due to the fog and friction of
war, causing the USS Liberty to be mistakenly identified as an Egyptian vessel. The second
camp believes the attack on the USS Liberty was a well-planned and coordinated operation by
the Israeli Defense Forces.
The Israeli government has consistently stated the USS Liberty was a tragic accident.
The fear of an Egyptian attack from the sea compounded with the explosion at al-‘Arish, set the
events into motion.74 The torpedo boats miscalculated the speed of the ship at 30 knots which
would classify it as a war ship. The torpedo boats’ top speed was 36 knots. When the torpedo
boats called in air support, the Mirages didn’t see any ship identifications and proceeded with an
air strike. More air support arrived and continued the strike with rockets, cannon, and napalm.
One of the aircraft identified the ship markings as GTR-5 and immediately realized the vessel
was not Egyptian as Egyptian ships were normally marked with Arabic lettering not Latin. The
air strike was cancelled.
The torpedo boats were ordered to stop the attack and remain at a safe distance. This
message was documented in the log book of the torpedo boat, but the mission commander
claimed to have never received it. The crew of the torpedo boats determined the enemy vessel
to be the El Quseir.75 Since the USS Liberty was returning machine gun fire, the torpedo boat
continued the assumption that the vessel was hostile and launched a series of torpedoes with
one striking the ship. Israel then sent helicopters to confirm the identity of the ship; made aware
of the tragic mistake,76 they immediately contacted the US Naval Attaché in Tel Aviv.77
Many people who were witnesses to the events that day, or were involved in the
aftermath, disagree with Israel’s position of mistaken identity. They argue that many of the
details are not consistent with what they saw occur, or that the overwhelming data and
circumstantial evidence do not support the concept of mistaken identity, or both. The notion that
the torpedo boats miscalculated the speed does not make sense as this supposedly occurred at
1341. At that time, the torpedo boats were beyond their maximum radar range and could not
possibly have picked up the USS Liberty. Therefore, it would have been impossible to calculate
any speed since the USS Liberty was not even on radar.78
The attack on the USS Liberty was sudden and powerful – the aircraft did not take the
time to identify the ship.79 If it had, the American flag and the markings GTR-5 would have been
clearly visible, as it was to the earlier maritime reconnaissance flight that morning. The weather
was sunny and clear with a good breeze.80 Later in the attack, the original 5x8-foot flag was
destroyed and replaced immediately with a holiday 9x15-foot flag.81 Furthermore Dwight Porter,
page 14
US Ambassador to Lebanon, saw a transcript of an intercepted Israeli message given to him by
the CIA station chief:
<i>Israeli planes had been given the order by the IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) to
attack the Liberty, but a pilot replied that it was an American ship. The order was
repeated, but the pilot still insisted that he could see the American flag. He was
then told harshly that he had his orders: “attack it.”</i>82
After the book, Assault on the Liberty was published; a former Israeli Air Force pilot
contacted James M. Ennes, a survivor of the Liberty and the author of the book. He recounted
his experience to Ennes and later, he interviewed extensively with former Congressman Paul N.
(Pete) McCloskey. He was a pilot in the lead Mirage aircraft. He saw the American flag and
informed his headquarters. He was ordered to continue the attack but refused to do so. When
he returned to base, he was arrested. However, the other pilots executed the attack.83
The Israelis claim the marker for the USS Liberty was removed from the plot board during
the duty shift change as it had not been updated since the 0600 observation. This doesn’t seem
plausible given the fact there were eight reconnaissance flights prior to the 1400 assault. The
Israelis state they were focused on submarines84; however, a reconnaissance flight is just that.
The Israeli Air Force was well regarded and it seems unlikely they would not make note of the
ship on their reconnaissance flights.
The torpedo boat pilots guessed the identity of the ship to be the El-Quseir. This Egyptian
transport vessel is similar in silhouette but has many differences with the USS Liberty. The
Liberty is 200 feet longer, covered with antennas, and has a state-of-the-art parabolic satellite
dish.85 Perhaps there could have been a mistake, but based on the distance of the patrol boats
to the USS Liberty it’s questionable.
Figure 6: USS Liberty and El Quseir Size and Profile Comparison
When the helicopters approached, the crew saw the size and type of helicopter filled with
combat dressed soldiers and assumed the ship would be boarded. One of the crew yelled,
“They’ve come to finish us off.”86 However, the Israeli helicopters only passed by the ship
several times with no hostile maneuvers and no attempt to communicate. Some crew later
speculated the helicopters’ mission was changed from an attack mission to observation and
page 15
return to base after hearing the unencrypted message from Sixth Fleet ordering deployment of
attack aircraft to defend the USS Liberty. According to this logic, the helicopters attack mission
was cancelled after their mission to destroy the USS Liberty was compromised. Now that the
US was aware the vessel was under attack and would learn shortly that it was an Israeli attack,
Israel chose a cover story for the incident and “mistaken identification” was given as the reason.
Israel then contacted the US Naval Attaché in Tel Aviv.
The details of the battle also lend credence to the concept of a deliberate attack. The
original US flag was destroyed but replaced with a much larger flag. Several crew members
described the deliberate destruction of life boats, conveying the message that there would be no
survivors. The lifeboat incident was not included in the publicly released court of inquiry.87 The
timing and execution of the attack was well coordinated with the Mystéres arriving immediately
after the Mirages expended their ammunition. The torpedo boats followed the Mirages and
heavily fired upon the already burning ship.
The conduct of the board of inquiry was disconcerting as well. A thorough investigation of
this matter would have taken at least six months to conduct; however, the Johnson
administration clearly gave Admiral Kidd one week to complete the entire investigation. This
suggested that the investigation didn’t have a high priority, raising uncomfortable questions
about its seriousness. Much was accomplished in one week, but due to the time limitations and
the fact that many of the witnesses were injured and evacuated to US Naval vessels and landbased
medical facilities; the court was only able to interview 14 of the 260 surviving members of
the crew. 88
Another 60 witness declarations from hospitalized crew members could not be included as
evidence.89 After reviewing evidence, Admiral Kidd and Captain Boston felt the necessity to
interview Israeli members involved in the incident. However, Admiral Kidd was adamantly told
by Admiral McCain “we were not to travel to Israel or contact the Israelis concerning this
matter.”90 Although both Admiral Kidd and Captain Boston were convinced the attack was
deliberate, Admiral Kidd was ordered by President Lyndon Johnson and Secretary of Defense
Robert McNamara to conclude that the attack was a case of “mistaken identity.”91 Admiral Kidd
told Captain Boston when he returned from Washington D.C., “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.”92 The report was rapidly processed through official channels and
classified Top Secret.93 Admiral Kidd was told to caution everyone involved in the incident
never to speak of it again.94
page 16
Years later, when the document was declassified and released by the US government,
more questions arose after Captain Boston received a copy. He distinctly remembers testimony
on the intentional destruction of the lifeboats as being recorded into evidence. However, the
document released to the public does not include this information. The copy Captain Boston
certified in June of 1967 had many handwritten corrections and initials. The released version
had none. The original had no deliberately blank pages--the released version did.95
Many senior government officials who served during June 1967 have expressed the view
the USS Liberty incident was deliberate and not an accident. Among them is the Director of the
Central Intelligence Agency at the time, Richard Helms, in his book A Look Over My Shoulder.
Helms recalls:
<i>I had no role in the board of inquiry that followed, or the board’s finding that there
could be no doubt that the Israelis knew exactly what they were doing in
attacking the Liberty. I have yet to understand why it was felt necessary to attack
this ship or who ordered the attack.</i>96
Dean Rusk, Secretary of State, writes in his book As I Saw It:
<i>I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation. Their sustained attack to
disable and sink the Liberty precluded an assault by accident or by some trigger
happy local commander. Through diplomatic channels we refused to accept their
explanations. I didn’t believe them then and I don’t believe them to this day. The
attack was outrageous.</i>97
Clark M. Clifford, Counsel to President Johnson, states in his book Counsel to the President: A
Memoir:
<i>I do not know to this day at what level the attack on the Liberty was authorized
and I think it is unlikely that the full truth will ever come out. Having been for so
long a staunch supporter of Israel, I was particularly troubled by this incident; I
could not bring myself to believe that such an action could be authorized by Levi
Eshkol. Yet somewhere inside the Israeli government, somewhere along the
chain of command, something had gone terribly wrong – and had been covered
up. I never felt the Israelis made adequate restitution or explanation for their
actions....</i>98
Although the official inquiry might have stated it was “mistaken identity,” years after the incident
it was apparent no one involved with the incident believed that assessment.
If the Attack was Deliberate, Why?
Several reasons have been espoused for the attack. Was Israel trying to inhibit the US
ability to collect intelligence on possible war crimes being committed? Reports of a massive
Egyptian POW execution persist, but no hard evidence of such has been found.99 Could Israel
have been so concerned with Soviet alliances with neighboring Arab states and Soviet military
page 17
forces deployed in the region, that they concocted a plan to attack a US naval vessel with the
intent that the blame would fall on Egypt?
If the US believed Egypt attacked a US Navy ship, that action would cement the firm and
direct involvement policy with Israel that they were seeking, because in the late sixties the US
policy was to support the “political independence and territorial integrity of all Middle Eastern
states.”100 But a US/Israeli alliance could also create a regional and possible global
confrontation between the US and the USSR. Would Israel want to be at the epicenter of that
confrontation? Remember Captain Nikolal Shashkov‘s mission to conduct a rocket strike into
Israel if the ‘Americans and Israelis’ attacked into Syria.
Or did Israel not want the US to know the full extent of their military objectives, which
might have included the total invasion of Syria? If Israel perceived the USS Liberty to be
collecting intelligence on their intent to invade and secure Syria, perhaps they felt the necessity
to eliminate that intelligence and therefore, the USS Liberty. However, on 1 June 1967, a senior
Israeli official did inform Richard Helms, the Director of the CIA, that a pre-emptive strike against
Israel’s Arab neighbors was imminent and Israel did not want to lose the advantage of
surprise.101
Israel did little to hide their intentions in either the Golan Heights or their progress in the
Sinai.102 Therefore, if Israel thought the USS Liberty was gathering intelligence on the war, why
did Tel Aviv freely give the Director of CIA information prior to the start of the war or continue to
report their progress? None of the reasons stand up to scrutiny. If Israel never admits the
attack on the USS Liberty was deliberate, we will probably never know the reason why.
Why would the US assist in Israel’s cover-up?
Perhaps author Wilbur Crane Eveland, former covert operator and advisor to the CIA was
correct when he wrote in his book Ropes of Sand: America’s Failure in the Middle East:
<i>Even moves by Congress to stop all aid to Israel until seven million in
compensation for the Liberty was paid, succumbed to White House and
Department of State pressure. Why? Defense Minister Dayan had stated his
government’s position bluntly: unless the United States wishes the Russians and
Arabs to learn of joint CIA – Mossad covert operations in the Middle East and of
Angleton’s discussions before the 1967 fighting started, the questions of the lost
American ship and how the war originated should be dropped.</i>103
In 1980, Senator Adlai Stevenson III coordinated an effort with Senator Barry Goldwater to
investigate the events surrounding the attack. The wheels were in motion for an official inquiry
by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Suddenly, Israel reversed their decision and
offered to pay six million dollars in damages on the ship – something they had refused to
page 18
consider for the past thirteen years as the incident was considered an American blunder. After
the agreement was signed by President Carter, Senator Stevenson could not find support for a
congressional investigation and the issue was dropped. Were these two events related or was
this just a coincidence?104 And in this connection it is well worth asking what role, if any, did the
fear American politicians have of the Israel Lobby in the US play? The power of this lobby to
influence US foreign policy on the Middle East region was well documented by two
distinguished American scholars [John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt essay] at Harvard and
the University of Chicago – in their recent study The Israel Lobby.105
Conclusion
Since this event occurred almost forty years ago, much personal testimony has surfaced
regarding the incident. Based on the testimony of many eyewitnesses and the memoirs of
senior government officials, the attack on the USS Liberty was most likely deliberate.
Unfortunately, this issue may go to the grave unresolved unless the US government and the
government of Israel release all data related to the incident. Perhaps forty years ago at the
height of the cold war and with fears of major Soviet expansion into the Middle East, the
information regarding the USS Liberty, the unknown subsurface contact (submarine), and the
intelligence collecting aircraft (EC121) that were supposedly not there, would have been too
sensitive to disclose.106 However, now that the Cold War is long over and the global conditions
have changed, the US and Israeli governments should release all pertinent information and
conduct an official inquiry. There is no discernable national security rational for continuing to
keep these records secret. Only when they are finally released for careful scrutiny can we
finally close the book on this unfortunate and tragic naval incident.
Endnotes
page 23
73 A Report: War Crimes Committed Against US Military Personnel, 16 and James M.
Ennes, Jr, e-mail message to author, 31 March 2007. (“Liberty's mission was indeed top secret,
Top Secret Codeword, but as always with such things there was an unclassified "cover"
[Unclassified cover name] mission which was something like "Research in Communications".
I'm sure that was the rationale for covering up everything concerned with the attack, but I'm also
sure that was not the "real" reason… I think you have read that some of the people directly
involved with intercept have told me that they were told to avoid copying Israeli signals. "If you
get an Israeli signal, note it and drop it." They say they were MOST interested in Soviet signals
from Soviet long range bombers in Egypt. Yet my boss, Dave Lewis, says we’re there to copy
anything we could get. Dave should know. But the operators and translators were doing the
nitty gritty work, and they say their advice from NSA was to concentrate on Soviets and ignore
Israel (and Arabs).”.
74 Oren, 264.
75 Oren, 269.
76 Oren, 266, 267.
77 Gerhard and Millington, 32.
78 Ennes, e-mail.
79 The Attack on the USS Liberty and Its Cover-Up, 2.
80 Cristol, 38 and USS Liberty – Israeli Pilot Speaks Up, available from www.rense.com/
general39/pilot.htm; internet; accessed on 13 March 2007.
81 The Attack on the USS Liberty and Its Cover-Up, 4. [Dan Raviv an award-winning CBS
correspondent and Yossi Melman, a 1989-90 Nieman Fellow at Harvard discuss in their book
Every Spy a Prince, on page 162: When they saw the U.S. flag, “the Israelis thought it was
probably the Egyptians pretending to be Americans and did not bother to check.”]
82 Ibid, 6.
83 Ennes, 309 and USS Liberty – Israeli Pilot Speaks Up, available from
www.rense.com/general39/pilot.htm; internet; accessed on 13 March 2007.
84 Oren, 264.
85 Cristol, 153-154.
86 Ennes, 96.
87 Boston, 3.
88 Clarence A. Hill, Jr. RADM, Letter to The Honorable Gordon England, Secretary of the
Navy, dated 27 July 2005 forwarded to author by James M. Ennes on 23 March 2007.
89 Boston, 2.
page 24
90 Ibid, 2.
91 Ibid.
92 Boston, 2 and RADM Staring. RADM Staring related to author that Admiral Kidd felt as if
the White House and Senior Department of Defense officials did not want to hear the facts as
they related to the USS Liberty.
93 A Report: War Crimes Committed Against US Military Personnel, 15.
94 Boston, 3.
95 Boston, 3 and RADM Staring.
96 Richard Helms with William Hood, A Look Over My Shoulder: A Life in the Central
Intelligence Agency , (New York, NY: Random House, 2003), 301.
97 Rusk, 388.
98 Clifford Clark with Richard Holbrooke, Counsel to the President: A Memoir (New York,
NY: Random House, 1991), 447.
99 Ennes, 312 and Bamford, 201-203.
In Body of Secrets, Bamford writes: As the Liberty sat within eyeshot of El Arish,
eavesdropping on surrounding communications, Israeli solidiers turned the town
into a slaughterhouse, systematically butchering their prisoners. In the shadow
of El Arish mosque , they (Israel) lined up about sixty unarmed Egyptian
prisoners, hands tied behined their backs, and then opened fire with machine
guns until the pale desert sand turned red. [I saw a line of prisoners, civilians
and military,] said Abdelsalam Moussa, one of those who dug the graves, [and
they opened fire at them all at once. When they were dead, they told us to bury
them.] Nearby, another group of Israelis gunned down thirty more prisoners and
then ordered some Bedouins to cover them with sand. In still another incident at
El Arish, the Israeli journalist Gabi Bron saw about 150 Egyptian POWs sitting on
the ground, crowed together with their hands helds at the backs of their necks.
[The Egyptian prisoners of war were order to dig pits and then army police shot
them to death,] Bron said. [I witnessed the executions with my own eyes on the
morning of June eighth, in the airport area of El Arish.] The Israeli military
historian Aryeh Yitzhaki, who worked in the army’s history department after the
war collected testimony from dozens of soldiers who admitted killing POWs.
According to Yitzhaki, Israeli troops killed, in cold blood, as many as 1,000
Egyptian prisoners in the Sinai, including some 400 in the sand dunes of El Arish.
Aryeh Yitzhaki goes on to say: “The whole army leadership, including [then]
Defense Minister Moshe Dayan and Chief of Staff [and later Prime Minister
Yitzhak] Rabin and the generals knew about these things. No one bothered to
denounce them.”
100 Rusk, 378.
page 25
101 Helms, 299-300.
102 Oren, 270.
103 Wiblbur Crane Eveland, Ropes of Sand: America’s Failure in the Middle East (New
York: NY, W.W. Norton & Co., 1980), 325.
104 Ennes, 313.
105 The Israel Lobby Debate, available from http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html;
accessed 12 April 2007. [The author was directed to this source by Playthell Benjamin, coauthor
of Reconsidering the Souls of Black Folks: Thoughts on the Groundbreaking Classic
Work of W.E.B. Dubois. Playthell is a veteran columnist, Historian, University Professor, critic
and radio show personality with his program ‘Round about Midnight’ on WBAI, 99.5 FM, New
York, New York.]
106 Cristol, 133-139 and Bamford, 194-197, 204-205.
|
Last edited by host; 01-11-2008 at 04:15 AM..
|
01-06-2008, 12:17 AM
