Talk:USS Liberty incident

An event mentioned in this article is a June 8 selected anniversary

---

Archives

/Archive01

Incident?

An incident is: 1. A definite and separate occurrence; an event. 2. A usually minor event or condition that is subordinate to another. 3. Something contingent on or related to something else. 4. An occurrence or event that interrupts normal procedure or precipitates a crisis: an international incident.

The word to use here is 'attack', as in 'The attack on USS Liberty', nothing more, nothing less. Knutars 10:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement of the USS Liberty Veterans Association

Without changing anything the author wrote in his account we feel a 
clarification is in order.

At a little after 2pm in the afternoon of June 8, 1967 the USS ''Liberty'' was 
attacked by at least three unmarked Israeli Mirage aircraft. Those aircraft used 
rockets, cannon and machine gun fire to target the ship's communications and 
defensive capabilities. Each of the ship's 4 gun tubs and each of the ship's 
antenna mounts sustained a direct hit by either rocket or cannon fire.

After the Mirages had finished their attack we were hit by slower Mystere 
aircraft armed with napalm.

The aircraft were followed closely by three torpedo boats who fired five 
torpedoes at the ship. One struck the ship on our starboard side killing 25 men. 
The torpedo boats then slowly circled the ship while firing from close range at 
''Liberty'' crewmen who ventured topside to help their wounded shipmates.

Some have argued that napalm is ineffective when used against a ship. Combine 
napalm with the slow circling of the ''Liberty'' by Israeli torpedo boats as 
they fire upon ''Liberty'' crewmen and the Israeli refusal to offer immediate 
aid upon cessation of hostilities and some have concluded that the intent of the 
attackers was to leave no survivors. Indeed, that is what would have happened 
had their scenario been carried out to its completion.

And, let's not forget their use of helo-borne assault troops.

Let me spend some time addressing the above claim that "Subsequent ten American 
commissions of inquiry and three Israeli ones have all concluded that the attack 
was conducted because of USS ''Liberty'' being confused with an Egyptian vessel, 
and failures of communications between Israel and the US."

The legal counsel to the US Navy Court of Inquiry has said publicly that the 
Court of Inquiry was a sham whose conclusions were dictated by Washington.

The President of the Court of Inquiry and his legal counsel concluded that the 
attack was deliberate but reported falsely that it was a tragic accident because 
they were ordered by Washington to report falsely and "officers follow orders" 
said the Counsel to the Court.

That report can be found in the July 26 issue of Navy Times and in follow-up 
issues.

Washington directed that the Court conclude that the attack was a tragic 
accident, despite the fact that the Court determined that it was deliberate. So 
the Court of Inquiry was a sham.

Of the ten US investigations cited, only the fraudulent US Navy Court of Inquiry 
bothered to interview survivors. The others either did not look into 
deliberateness at all -- examining peripheral issues such as the adequacy of 
communications and of command and control -- or were merely reports to their 
bosses which summarized the results of the fraudulent Court of Inquiry Report. 
So nine of those ten investigations were poisoned fruit of the poisoned tree, 
which was the first investigation.

One has to ask why is there controversy in the first place?  If the attack has 
been the subject of some 10 US investigations why are there any questions 
remaining outstanding at all? Surely all of the questions and alleged points of 
controversy are very basic and would be included in even a rudimentary 
investigation. Do you think, perhaps, if someone were to actually read the 
reports they claim were of the attack would find out that they weren't 
investigations of the attack at all?

An addition to the recommended reading list is ''A History of Israel'' by Ahron
Bregman (ISBN 0333676319). The publisher tells readers that "There is a rare
extract from a radio exchange between air control and Israeli pilots on the
fourth day of the Six Day War, showing that the Israelis did realize that the
ship they were bombing was the American USS ''Liberty'', but still went on to
attack it."

Joe Meadors
Vice President
USS Liberty Veterans Association
joe@ussliberty.com

Egyptian mass murder

Excised text:

As examples, they bring the claim that the ship was attacked to prevent the U.S. from knowing about the forthcoming attack in the Golan Heights, and applying a quote describing the execution of 5 Palestinian guerillas wearing Egyptian uniforms (an act allowed under rules of war) to "prove" the mass murder of 150 Egyptians. However, other killings of Egyptian captives were also reported in mainstream media sources (e.g. TIME, Oct. 2 1995), including an incident in which Retired General Arieh Biro admitted shooting prisoners, and the discovery in the Sinai of mass graves containing about 90 civilians and soldiers.

What does that mean? I followed the bit about the Golan Heights, but then it lost me. What is the author trying to say? -- Tim Starling 07:24, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

It means that the Israelis attacked the US spy ship to hide from their "ally" that they were massacring Egyptian prisoners in the Sinai desert. [1] --Hebranaut 02:57, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Must have had some good pair of binoculars on that ship, then.Gzuckier 17:23, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm somewhat certain Israel's systematic execution of Egyptian POWs took place in Qana. Read The Massacre in Qana and its Context, which quickly being eradicated from the Internet, and Did Israel Wittingly Shell A U.N. Base In Qana?. Adraeus 06:42, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Apart from anything else, the Kfar Qana incident occured in Lebanon, almost 30 years later.--Eyl 17:27, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And in this incident, there were no POWS involved. It was an artillery attack which damaged (intently or not, as your pleasure) a UN compound. Sometimes I feel that anti-semites are so frustrated at the treacherous reluctance of Israeli authorities to manufacture enough atrocities for them, that they turn down the focus knob until whatever facts are there become atrocious enough. Unlessimwrong

Investigations? What Investigations?

I have removed the following text from the article because there is undisputable evidence that the statement is absolutely false it its entirety, and has never been backed up:

"Since the attack on the USS Liberty ten official U.S. investigations and 3 or more official Israeli investigations have concluded that the tragic event was a case of mistaken identity."

I have replaced it with a correct, undisputable fact:

"Although it has been stated that there were thirteen investigations that all exonerated Israel, this is absolutely false in its entirety. Three were Israeli investigations, and the fact that the attack was a mistake was a given; the investigations were to decide whether or not anyone in the Israeli Defense Forces should be tried on crimes (no wrongdoing was found). All five U.S. congressional investigations and four other U.S. investigations were not investigations at all. They were reports, whereas all evidence admittedly came from a single investigation: The U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry. In addition, the majority of those nine U.S. reports have nothing to do with the culpability of the attack; rather, they discuss communications failures, etc. The U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry is the only investigation on the incident to date. It was hastily conducted, in only 10 days, even though the court?s president, Rear Admiral Isaac Kidd, said that it would take 6 months to properly conduct. Furthermore, the court?s legal counsel has stepped forward and stated that Washington ordered him and Kidd to falsely report that the attack was a mistake (his statement says that he and Kidd believed that the attack was deliberate)."

The evidence: http://www.usslibertyinquiry.com/commentary/travesty/biglie.html. If it gets reverted, there will be a POV dispute.

Signed,

The same Liberty Researcher who previously answered all of those questions in italics above.

According to the JPost interview with Yiftah Spector [2] (one of the pilots), he testified before a senator's investigation after the incident. As I assume senators don't participate in Naval Courts of Inquiry, this would suggest there was at least one senatorial investigation, which did not consist solely of a rehash of earlier reports.--Eyl 13:58, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If there were any investigations—real investigations, not political interviews titled "investigations"—the USS LVA would not exist in its present state. Adraeus 23:08, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Let's go through the Congressional "investigations" (by Liberty researcher 03:22, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC))

These never happened:

House Armed Services Committee investigation of 1991/1992 ? the farthest it became of was a series of letters from Israeli-side A. Jay Cristol and a representative

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 1979/1981 ? rules of this committee require that all inquiries follow a report. Even as an intelligence committee it only has to include insensitive information, no report (even a ?skeleton? report with almost no information) has ever been released and as such no report has ever been conducted

These would not have Spector in it:

House Armed Services Committee Review of Communications ? nothing more than a review of communications, I doubt that Spector would be called to this one (plus, it was the House, not the Senate)

House Appropriations Committee meeting of April and May 1968 ? a budget meeting that only explored the lost messages (i.e. why were we spending money on something that didn?t work right? or: can't we spend money to make a better communications system?); also a House meeting, not a Senate meeting

Committee on Foreign Relations meeting of 1967 and Senate Armed Services Committee meeting of 1968

The following from http://www.wrmea.com/archives/December_2003/0312014.html

"...were hearings on unrelated matters which clearly skeptical members used to castigate representatives of the administration under oath before them. Typical questions were, ?Why can?t we get the truth about this?? They were not ?investigations? at all, but budget hearings, and reported no conclusions concerning the attack. They did not exonerate Israel..."

While both were Senate investigations, there was no reason for Spector to be at these.

---

Several books and a BBC documentary tried to prove that USS Liberty was attacked on purpose. They are backed in this position by some representatives of the US intelligence community. Critics claim that many of them include incorrect assumptions and use fuzzy reasoning. For example, they claim that the ship was attacked to prevent the U.S. from knowing about the forthcoming attack in the Golan Heights. When evaluating the merits of this theory, one must balance Israel's need to keep a possible war crime secret, versus the probably more serious consequences of attacking an ally.

Mention of "possible warcrimes" is not backed up by any reference and seems out of place. There is no reference to Israeli war crimes in the Six Day War article. Can anyone cite a reference or should this be removed?

Certainly. See http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/9509/mass_graves/. There is another possible war crime -- Israel's claimed illegal occupation of the Golan Heights, West Bank, etc.. If it wasn't self-defense as claimed, but rather for territorial acquisition, then that'd be a war crime. (Don't include the other possible war crime in the wiki article, as this is very much a shaky argument, although I am formulating a thesis on it, and a paper on it should be completed in the future.Liberty researcher 04:09, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just the fact that something is illegal, doesn't automatically make it a war crime, even if Israel did it (unfortunately for you). Israel's reason for conquering the Golan heights was that they are a geographically elevated area to the Gallilee, (look at a map) and the Syrians have been using the elevation advantage to shell Israeli villages below for several years. If Israel wanted territory only for expansion, it would have been much better advised to capture southern Lebanon, which was then a cakewalk in comparison to the well fortified, elevated Golan heights of 1967. But Israel didn't invade Lebanon until attacks started coming from it in the 1980's.

If you forget the red rag that is the name Israel for a while, and concentrate on objective evaluation of its actions: it consitently occupies territory in self defence after attacks on its civilians have been mounted from it, since 1948 it was always the same story. It is the official strategy of the Israeli army- to transfer the war to the enemy's ground as quickly as possible, since Israel doesn't have quite the land assets and the neighbors of the United States to play with. You can always claim that Israel exploited attacks as a pretext for land expansion, but you can't deny that there were attacks on civilians. And no one forced the Arabs to provide such pretexts for their punishment again and again over 50 years, pretty expensive pretexts it seems to me, Perhaps they weren't mere pretexts.

Lastly, I would be interested in what an outcry you would have made if the United states would have evaporated an Israeli intelligence ship that dared to sail 13 miles "in international waters" (sounds like a holiday cruise on Lake Geneva doesn't it?) off the Cuban coasts in on a particularly internatonal day, say October 27 1962, with or without a flag. This is the same situation guys. The USS Liberty took a profound military risk (or did a great screwup) going in a warzone it didn't belong in for intelligence collection on an ally such as Israel (or an unthreatening non-ally such as Egypt), and you can't always expect to come out of that scratchless. Being a superpower doesn't entail you to jog on an icy lake and then sue the weather.User:Unlessimwrong

Sorry for taking a while in response, Unlessimwrong. I'm sorry, where do you get your logic to say "Just the fact that something is illegal, doesn't automatically make it a war crime"? Murdering POWs is illegal and a war crime. I'm not even going to debate that one.

And now an argument on why not to take over the Golan Heights? Come on, there are much better things to talk about. How about the Sinai until 1973? Gaza, East Jerusalem, and West Bank until, well, now? I'm not even going to start on the rant of Israel conquering a holy city and then moving its capital there.

"It consitently occupies territory in self defence after attacks on its civilians have been mounted from it" -- that may by the most Zionist talk I've heard in a while. This talk is not reserved for this thread; move your Zionist feelings to [Zionism] or [Israeli-Palestinian conflict]. I'm sure they'll be plenty of people there to debate you on your theories.

Lastly, America wouldn't be stupid enough to evaporate an ally's intelligence ship, particularly during the Cuban Missile Crisis (that would have created quite a stir). Furtheremore, those events are incomparable. The Cuban Missile Crisis was the result of aggression against the U.S., while the Six-Day War and every other major Israeli conflict from 1949 on was the result of agression BY Israel, not against it. So motives for each even are entirely skewed. Plus, your logic is all off. You CAN expect to come out without scratches -- a non-threatening non-ally and an ally? No problem, we should easily be able to gather evidence! Using that excuse only shows how inept Israel was when they committed a war crime against the United States, end of discussion.--Liberty researcher 00:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statute miles or nautical miles?

Something never mentioned anywhere above.

Where it says that both sides agree that Liberty was 13 miles from the Sinai coast...Nautical miles, or statute miles? If I remember correctly, that's rather important: 12 nm was pretty much settled on at the time as the limit to territorial waters, wasn't it?

Also, something that seems odd....13 miles...Isn't that well within range of shore fortifications (such as at El Arish) as used at the time? From memory, it certainly rings a bell as being well within range, at least of shore-based missiles. Which would raise a question of what the hell anyone would expect to happen to a bystander (whether or not an intelligence ship can ever be innocent is a question for others) in what would be called a rather well-known war zone. (I highly doubt that Lloyd's was accepting claims for any damage recieved in the area!) I mean...A war was happening just over the horizon. Wouldn't it seem logical for those fighting to think "No neutral would enter a war zone. Ergo, if it's here, there's no way it's neutral"? --134.198.82.71 00:46, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

just with simple calculations, I believe they were 13 nautical miles from the coast, or 15 statute miles. They were in international waters (undisputed) which was 12 nm. But 13 statute miles is only 11.3 nm, so it must have been 13 nm (the number 13 is undisputed). Liberty researcher 18:55, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"No proofs that the recordings exist"?

According to the Jerusalem Post story, (the) recordings exist and the reporter actually listened to them. Are we questioning the press now? Why not just say what the report contains: "transcripts of radio traffic recordings from the attack presented by the IAF to the Jerusalem Post"? 85.250.73.236 18:58, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The only proof that recordings exist is hearsay. AJ Cristol transcribed the recordings in his book The Liberty Incident, but so much of his book is controversial (and so much more proven wrong) that many do not believe him. The recordings are Appendix 2 of his book. Just take a look at Appendix 1 listing the investigations, and then read Terence O'Keefe's article. Actually, his first appendix is self-incriminating, in that the conclusions he lists most of the time have NOTHING to do with culpability of the attack. How he can say that thirteen official investigations have cleared Israel is beyond me. Okay, end of tangent.

In the 1987 Thames film (which, by the way, will be under great controvesy along with Cristol's book come June 10, 2005 -- wait and see), there is a reenactment of the recordings, and the reenactment is in Hebrew. This begs the question: why not just play the recordings? Until the hard evidence is produced, there is no proof that the recordings exist. Hearsay is not proof.--Liberty researcher 00:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Out of sequence events? Strafing by torpedoe boats and McGonagle testimony

"About twenty minutes after the attack of the aircraft, the ship was approached by three torpedo boats bearing Israeli flags and identification signs. Initially, Captain McGonagle, who perceived that the torpedo boats "were approaching the ship in a torpedo launch attitude," (http://www.ussliberty.org/torpedo.htm) ordered a machine gun to engage the boats. After recognizing the Israeli standard and seeing apparent morse code signalling attempts by one of the boats (but being unable to see what was being sent, due to the smoke of the fire started by the earlier aircraft attack), McGonagle gave the order to hold fire. This order was apparently misunderstood in the confusion, and two heavy machine guns opened fire. Subsequently the Israeli boats opened fire and launched at least two torpedoes at Liberty (five according to the 1982 IDF History Department report). One hit Liberty on the starboard side, forward of the superstructure, creating a large hole in what had been a former cargo hold converted to the ships research spaces causing the majority of the casualties for the incident. The torpedo boats approached Liberty and strafed crewmen (including damage control parties and sailors preparing life rafts for launch) on deck. (see below for disputed details)."

I think somebody misunderstood the link given cited. According to the link given, the strafing occurred before the torpedo hit the ship, and after the torpedo hit the torpedo boats stopped "dead in the water" according to McGonagle

They stopped "dead in the water" according to McGonagle. Other survivors (such as ones not ready to pass out from their wounds) said that the torpedo boats gunned the lifeboats and the firefighters. Captain Ward Boston (the JAG officer of the NCOI) said in his affidavit that such testimony was exised in Washington after he certified and submitted the record. --Liberty researcher 00:13, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Where is this theory presented?

"Among the theories presented as to why Israel carried out this action is that Israel may have been trying to get the US involved in the conflict on Israel's side, by convincing the US that Egypt was the aggressor."

where is that theory presented?

The theory is presented throughout the article, and in its extreme in Operation Cyanide. I think that Operation Cyanide is a bit too conspiratorial, but it is possible. The main theory is that Israel tried to quickly sink the Liberty and leave to trace as to who did it, then blame the Egyptians (maybe even produce evidence showing that it was the Egyptians). I could be wrong, but this is detailed in the article. --Liberty researcher 00:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

furthermore I don't know who would present it. Israel had already destroyed everyone elses air force and was clearly winning and mopping up by the time the Liberty was attacked.

I completely agree. But just because Israel destroyed an air force does not mean that a few planes or boats existed. What motive would Egypt have had? Who knows; maybe Israel didn't think very far. One possible motive is that Israel thought that the Liberty was picking up communications of POW genocide war crimes in the Sinai (there is evidence of such) or perhaps ambitions of territorial aquisition and NOT self-defense (I can provide evidence of this as well). So, maybe sinking the Liberty and blaming it on Egypt, but then later apologizing and saying that they did it accidentally, maybe they thought that they were covering their butts in the long run. Heck, current Israeli PM Sharon was a general that may have been taking part in those war crimes -- sinking the Liberty was a small price to pay to save those generals from tribunals. --Liberty researcher 00:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The idea that the Liberty was attacked to hide evidence of war crimes motive makes no sense. There is no evidence of POW war crimes, and Egypt has never reported any such atrocities, despite being the party involved. And I hardly think that any Israeli general was at risk of tribunals because of conduct during the 1967 war, even if there had been executions of POWs. The lack of motive does really seem to be a problem in this case, requiring Israel to deliberately try to sink the ship, then notify the Americans of the attack. Some sort of explaination is needed to claim that this was intentional. --Goodoldpolonius2 00:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Considering Israeli planes and torpedo boats were clearly marked as Israeli, the attack was done in daylight, the surviving eyewitnesses were able to testify that it was not Egypt, etc. etc. Gzuckier 17:25, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey now, wait a second. Who says the planes and torpedo boats were clearly marked as Israeli? The survivors said that the planes were unmarked. And if those torpedo boats were going 35-40 knots, the flag would have been blowing straight back, and thus McGonagle was delusional when he said that he saw one. Heck, a lot of his recollections are off -- for instance, how can a plane be 5 to 6 miles out, altitude 6000 to 7000 feet, and at an angle of 45 degrees? And with regards to the surviving eyewitnesses, perhaps Israel tried to sink the ship? C'mon, they shot a torpedo at it. Of course they were trying to sink the ship. That would leave no survivors, wouldn't it? (It may leave a few, but they gunned the life rafts according to exised testimony -- see Captain Boston's affidavit). --Liberty researcher 00:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Number wounded to 173

The most objective way to estimate the number of wounded is to count the number of Purple Hearts awarded to survivors. Some survivors originally rejected their Purple Heart due to their dissatisfaction with their government. Some of these survivors have asked for their medals back over time. I have thus upgraded the number from 172 to 173 due to the recent award of an additional Purple Heart. --Liberty researcher 01:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see. That's the only thing you wanted to change in the article, and not all those other POV changes you made? Fine, I'll change that number and assume the rest were simple errors on your part. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:06, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Woah there, I've already covered the investigations previously on this Talk page. The claim that there were at least 10 all concluding that it was not deliberate is by far the most POV thing on the page. I'm reverting back to my other changes, but I'll change it a little to please you. --Liberty researcher 06:44, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I’ll go over each change. If you want to revert them, let’s discuss it first, as all changes I made are thoroughly supported by all available evidence.

• The introduction is reverted as it is a summary of the following stuff…
• There were no flyovers on June 7; the only flyovers were on the morning of June 8. This fact is corroborated by Israel.
• The ship was never on the coast of Israel! I removed a little too much here originally accidentally though, so this is a partial revert.
• The standing orders claim has never been substantiated and is artificial at best. They knew that Russian trawlers in the area. Attack one of those and Tel-Aviv would have been turned into a nuclear wasteland.
• Complete revert for Investigations on the attack as there were not 10 investigations.
• Complete revert for American Investigations minus a spelling error.
• the NSA only provided post-attack helicopter transcripts, nothing more.
• The JCS report didn’t focus on communications failures, it only was communications failures. Read it; it draws no other conclusions and focuses on just communications.
• “Critics assert…” is reverted. There is a controversy with the number of investigations. One side has produced solid evidence and the other side has produced zero evidence. I am simply presenting both sides as fair as all available evidence says.
• I was simply adding an additional link (www.usslibertyinquiry.com), which a lot of documents or and other pieces of evidence.
• I re-capitalized Six-Day War and changed 1950’s to 1950s.

--Liberty researcher 07:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To begin with, you've misunderstood the process; if you want to insert changes into a highly charged article, you get agreement in Talk: first, rather than inserting and then saying "O.K., if you want to talk, let's agree in talk". Articles are the result of lengthy processes of negotiation and NPOVing, and earlier consensuses should not just be thrown out the window. Second, I've removed some of the blatantly obvious POV of your edits; for example, your changed a perfectly neutral introduction to one which said "Israel attacked the Liberty on purpose, they claims it was an acciedent, but they're wrong and lying, and all the evidence proves this". Second, you've inserted highly POV phrases into various article sections; e.g. "note how each are skewed to show exonoration of Israel". Finally, your insertion of extensive and selective quotations into the article is not appropriate; this isn't Wikiquote, summaries serve the article better. And we've been through all of this on the Talk: page before. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

marked/unmarked planes

The blanket statement in the article "Testimony of USS Liberty crew members unanimously describes the aircraft as having no identifying markings." is disputed here

Crew member Lloyd Painter claims in the documentary that he saw “unmarked jets, no markings whatsoever” pass over the ship, thus clearly implying that the attack was intentional and premeditated. Painter’s claim contradicts his sworn testimony before the Court of Inquiry, in which he makes no such assertion. Lt. Painter testified, under oath, that as the jets first strafed the ship (which would be before they passed over the ship) he was:

...

Thus, according to Lt. Painter’s sworn testimony he was looking at the Liberty’s gun mounts as the jets attacked, at which point he quite understandably “hit the deck.” When the first strafing run was over, Lt. Painter ran as fast as he could to his station below decks; he was therefore in no position to determine whether the attacking jets were marked or unmarked. At no point in his testimony did he claim that the jets were unmarked or even that he was in a position to tell. [emphasis mine]

...

And, while presenting Lt. Painter’s claim that the attacking jets were “unmarked,” the History Channel kept from viewers the fact that Signalman Russell David saw Israeli insignia on the attacking jets and reported this to the Captain. [3]

and more or less paraphrased here. So I'm going to be bold and remove that statement for the nonce. Gzuckier 18:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll get some information on this and get back to you. Though you can't trust the NCOI -- I wouldn't be surprised if they removed any said references to unmarked planes... note Captain Ward Boston's statement.--Liberty researcher 04:39, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NSA declassification of Liberty documents

As of 2005, NSA has yet to declassify "boxes and boxes" of Liberty documents. Numerous requests under both declassification directives and the Freedom of Information Act remaing pending in various agencies including the NSA, Central Intelligence Agency, and Defense Intelligence Agency.

This was just added to the article. For sources: 1) I have and am aware of numerous requests with those three agencies (NSA, CIA, DIA), 2) I have had numerous telephone conversations with NSA's FOIA office ("boxes and boxes" is verbatim from one of the FOIA officers).

I did not want to say this in the article because it is unsubstantiated, but there is a possibility that more intercepts or useful evidence remain classified, whether they be recordings, translations, or summaries. The officer remembered scanning through the boxes for Cristol's request (the request by this time was a lawsuit), and she pulled out some things that would satisfy the request (i.e., there could have been more). Cristol could have persisted and forced them to look through every sheet of paper to find everything, but since they supposedly satisfied his thesis (even though they were post-attack recordings only)... --Liberty researcher 07:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

USS Liberty Survivors File War Crimes Report

The USS Liberty Veterans Association has filed a formal Report of War Crimes Committed Against U.S. Military Personnel, June 8, 1967 with the Pentagon. The Report deals with the 1967 Israeli attack on USS Liberty, a US Navy ship sailing in international waters. Of a crew of 294, 34 were killed and another 173 were wounded. The ship’s captain was awarded the Medal of Honor for keeping his crew alive during and after the attack. The LVA seeks to have a formal war crimes investigation opened by the Pentagon.

To read the Report as a PDF file, please go to: http://ussliberty.org/report/report.pdf

To read the Report as an HTML file, please go to: http://ussliberty.org/report/report.htm

--Jmeadors 16:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Online Discussion of USS Liberty Attack and Aftermath

In think most will agree that the "talk" secion of Wikipedia does not allow for the easy, ongoing discussion of any issue.

For those who would prefer to discuss the USS Liberty attack in an easier format and for those who would like to follow along in the discussion without participating you're more than welcome to visit the Forums sections of http://www.usslibertyinquiry.com/

--USS Liberty Survivor 17:20, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Information to be merged

Could someone please merge the following information into this article, as per vfd consensus? The other article in question has been redirected to this one to preserve the GFDL. -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

"Thirty eight years have passed since Israel attacked the USS Liberty on June 8, 1967. The Israelis said it was all “an accident.” Thirty-four Americans died on the Liberty and 173 more were wounded. The Liberty’s Vets believe the assault was deliberate and have charged Israel with committing War Crimes."

 "A nice whitewash for a group of ignorant, stupid and inept [expletive deleted]." 
         -- Handwritten note of August 26, 1967, by NSA Deputy Director Louis W. Tordella reacting to the Israeli court decision exonerating Israelis of blame for the Liberty attack.		

"Never before in the history of the United States Navy has a Navy Board of Inquiry ignored the testimony of American military eyewitnesses and taken, on faith, the word of their attackers.

         -- Captain Richard F. Kiepfer, Medical Corps, US Navy (retired), USS Liberty Survivor		

"The evidence was clear. Both Admiral Kidd and I believed with certainty that this attack...was a deliberate effort to sink an American ship and murder its entire crew.... It was our shared belief. . .that the attack. . .could not possibly have been an accident.... I am certain that the Israeli pilots [and] their superiors. . .were well aware that the ship was American."

         -- Captain Ward Boston, JAGC, US Navy (retired), senior legal counsel to the US Navy Court of Inquiry		

That the attack was deliberate "just wasn't a disputed issue" within the National Security Agency

         -- Former NSA Director retired Army Lieutenant General William Odom on 3 March 2003 in an interview for Naval Institute Proceedings		

Former NSA/CIA Director Admiral Bobby Inman "flatly rejected" the Cristol/Israeli claims that the attack was an accident

         -- 5 March 2003 interview for Naval Institute Proceedings		

Of four former NSA/CIA seniors with inside knowledge, none was aware of any agency official who dissented from the position that the attack was deliberate

         -- David Walsh, writing in Naval Institute Proceedings		

"I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation. . . . 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 "

         -- US Secretary of State Dean Rusk		

"...the board of inquiry (concluded) that the Israelis knew exactly what they were doing in attacking the Liberty."

         -- CIA Director Richard Helms		

"I can tell you for an absolute certainty (from intercepted communications) that the Israelis knew they were attacking an American ship."

         -- NSA Deputy Director Oliver Kirby		

"That the Liberty could have been mistaken for the Egyptian supply ship El Quseir is unbelievable"

         -- Special Assistant to the President Clark Clifford, in his report to President Lyndon Johnson		

"The highest officials of the [Johnson] administration, including the President, believed it 'inconceivable' that Israel's 'skilled' defense forces could have committed such a gross error."

       -- Lyndon Johnson's biographer Robert Dallek in Flawed Giant, Oxford University Press, 1998, pp. 430-31)		

"It appears to me that it was not a pure case of mistaken identity."

       -- Captain William L. McGonagle, Commanding Officer, USS Liberty, speaking at Arlington National Cemetery, June 8, 1997		

"To suggest that they [the IDF] couldn't identify the ship is ... ridiculous. ... Anybody who could not identify the Liberty could not tell the difference between the White House and the Washington Monument."

         -- Admiral Thomas Moorer, Chief of Naval Operations and later Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, quoted in The Washington Post, June 15, 1991, p. 14

It looks like Wikiquote material, at best. Highly selective stuff like that is inherently POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah; the NPOV response would have to be including the text of all 13 investigations that the above did not find agreeable. Not worth the effort, considering the article makes the controversy abundantly clear.Gzuckier 14:43, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Sources claiming attack was a mistake

Some of the items listed under the section of the page titled "Sources claiming attack was a mistake" are not "Sources claiming attack was a mistake" at all but interpretations of information that has been obtained.

Would whoever has tasked himself with the responsibility of updating this reference in Wiki please consider modifying this section to more clearly reflect what it, in fact, shows?

You might also consider mentioning the fact that we have filed a formal "Report of War Crimes Committed Against U.S. Military Personnel" with the Department of Defense. The DoD Directive under which this was filed requires the DoD to conduct an investigation of the allegations made in the Report. The text of that Report is available at our website -- http://www.ussliberty.com.

Also, it might be worth mentioning (although further research may be required to confirm) the fact that no other US military unit has had to file such a report simply to convince the US government to investigate the war crimes they were the victims of.

Warmest regards,

Joe Meadors

USS Liberty Survivor

R. Larry Weaver, Liberty survivor

Concerning the book The Liberty Incident, reviewed in the August 2003 issue of Military History, in which A. Jay Cristol alleges the attack was an innocent error, I was a lookout on the bow before and during the attack on USS Liberty by Israeli air and sea forces. My general quarters station was on secondary con. I had to jump down on the fantail for protection. I would come out to check on incoming jets and each time I saw our flag full out--I did this about five to seven times. Then I came out too soon, and the pilot saw me and went straight aft. I was hit by rocket and cannon fire. It blew 2 1/2 feet of my colon from my body, and I suffered 101 shrapnel wounds. I had to use my blood to stop my flesh from burning. I was not expected to live overnight. I have had 27 major surgeries and still carry 60 pieces of metal in my body today. I had both knees and my left shoulder replaced. I have been an in-outpatient since 1967 and have not had a day without pain since that day.

I was only a seaman, but I would be glad to debate A. Jay Cristol any time and any place, but I want the press there!

R. Larry Weaver Oshkosh, Wis.

---

Source: Letters, Military History, 08897328, Dec2003, Vol. 20, Issue 5

---

Adraeus 12:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Phillip K. Tourney's Letter to Colin Powell

Jan. 15, 2004

To Secretary of State Colin Powell:

I take this time to write you once again concerning the unprovoked attack on our ship, the USS LibertyAGTR-5, by the government of Israel and the subsequent cover-up that has continued for the past 37 years come this June 8th.

On Jan. 12, 2004, I attended a conference at the State Department as an official representative of the USS Liberty Veterans Association, being the president of the association and a survivor of the attack on our ship. I listened intently to the speakers on the panel. By the way, in my opinion, the panel was stacked toward the Israeli version of the "mistaken identity" theory. When the time came for questions from the audience I immediately got to the microphone, patiently and politely waiting for my turn to ask several questions of the panelists.

My shipmate, Joseph Lentini, was the first person at the microphone and he was abruptly shot down by the moderator, State Department Historian Dr. Marc Susser. Josie Linen-Toth, sister of Lt. Toth, who was murdered aboard the Liberty, was also shot down by Susser. Mrs. Pat Blue-Roushakes, widow of civilian analyst Mr. Allen Blue, who was murdered by the torpedo explosion, was also in the audience. I was at the microphone, ready to speak. Susser abruptly called the conference over. The audience was outraged at him for not letting us all speak on the Liberty. I was shocked at Susser's attitude toward the Liberty's representative, not giving me even one minute to rebut the panelists' falsehoods and outright lies.

A.J. Cristol made very disparaging remarks about Admiral Thomas Moorer, as you know, a former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman along with yourself. Admiral Moorer is a 93-year-old American hero and a Liberty supporter. A.J. Cristol called Captain Ward Boston as much as a liar. Captain Boston is a Liberty supporter and a very respected JAGC officer. His certified declaration is enclosed. In brief summary, Captain Boston swears he was ordered by Lyndon Johnson and McNamara to over up the Liberty attack. In the court of inquiry Captain Boston's remarks have been removed or altered.

After speaking with many persons in the audience, it became apparent that they were appalled that Susser was totally agreeable with the Israeli side of events and lies concerning the Liberty attack. As a historian working for you and the citizens of this country at the State Department, Susser is an embarrassment. He could care less about the historical facts concerning the Liberty. When Susser didn't let the survivors get on record about what happened to us, he disrespected the dead heroes who served their country, their family members and the survivors, and this is unforgivable action on his part. We know what happened to us aboard the Liberty, and Susser is part of the cover-up by muting combat veterans in our own State Department. Firing or at least a stern reprimand is in order for Susser.

The survivors look forward to returning to the State Department for another conference on an even playing field with a moderator who will allow eyewitnesses to this crime to tell their story. T would like to thank all the panelists for being there, but a fair and balanced review of this piece of history was not to happen on this day.

Look forward to your response and thank you for your continued service to this great country.

Respectfully,

Phillip K. Tourney President USS Liberty Veterans Association

---

Source: Other People's Mail, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs; Apr2004, Vol. 23 Issue 3, p59-61, 3p

---

Adraeus 12:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I find the NSA'S claim that the uss Liberty DID NOT carry out any radio interception while sailing along the Israely coast an insult to the intelligence. that the NSA would feel compelled to make such a self-evidently false claim only proves that that the interception doubtlessly performed by the Liberty was so fellonious that its exposure would damn the NSA. It has been ,not so recently, established that the Liberty was Conducting an intensive radio-intercept effort before it was atacked AGAINST Israel ,with the intercepted Israeli radio trafick rlayed to British intelligence facilities in Cyprus for an analysis which established the IDF's deployment in minute detail. this information was then given to Israel's enemies, all in the midst of war. Johnson orderd that this be done under the influence of the reptelian Aramco lobbists and the more oil-minded State Department creatures as a means of curring favour with the Arabs if so , then the USA through the Liberty was engaged in an act of war war against Israel, and a deliberate attack on the Liberty a legitimite act under international law as well as common decency, hence the NSA's reluctunce to have the matter "over investigated" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.218.121.3 (talk • contribs) .

If signal gathering in international waters is unforgivable, what would you call infiltrating a foreign government the way Israel's Mossad did to the United States? Being a good ally? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.140.103 (talk • contribs)

NPOV

I knew nothing of this incident before finding it on this page. However, as I am reading it, it seems to me that it is not as NPOV as it could be. It seems some information, particularly in the first few paragraphs of the article, is being presented or suggested without any indication that it is not generally-accepted information. Its hard for me to tell which bits of information is coming from common knowledge, and what is coming from minority conspiracy-theorist viewpoints. The comment "Even some historians who are generally sympathetic towards Israel..." is especially dodgy, indicating unintentional bias. I think a disinterested historian with a good knowledge of both the generally-accepted facts--and the conspiracy/political/social views--should rewrite a summary of the incident. AaronWL 20:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC) OK, as I finish the article, I must strengthen my comments. The account of what happened is completely NPOV, adopting almost a patriotic storyteller additude at times. As I am not a historian, I leave it to others to figure out how to fix it--but please, fix it. This is not Wikipedia quality.AaronWL 20:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Aaron, thanks for your comments on the article.

Like you, I came across this article recently and felt that it needed some work. If you look at the editing history in the last couple of weeks, I think the opening has already become less POV than it was before. I haven't yet had time to comb through the rest of the article.

I think you are probably right about the comment about Bregman, "Even some historians who are generally sympathetic towards Israel...". Confession: I was the person who wrote that. My idea in writing it was to show that the historians who disagree with the Israeli position are not just ideologically motivated critics of Israel. But looking at it again, perhaps it does tend to suggest that the article has a hidden bias. In any case, I thought it was better to just take it out and let his comments stand for themselves.

Although this article deals with a controversial topic, I think we should still be able to achieve a NPOV. This can be done by

• dealing with the agreed or generally accepted facts. This would be things like the time and place of the attack and certain other factual things accepted by both sides
• summarising the conflicting claims by each side
• summarising the evidence provided by each side in support of their claims

For this to be achieved sources will have to be very clearly referenced and the style and tone will have to be very neutral. --Alexxx1 23:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

What is a historian?

A historian is loosely defined as "a person who is an authority on history and who studies it and writes about it", [4] which means that Jim Ennes, Joe Meadors, Gary Brummett, and some other Liberty survivors (including most of the members of the USS Liberty Veterans Association) are also historians. To be a historian, a degree and recognition in academia is not necessary. Those who claim the contrary would be wise to realize that history is mostly founded on the works of writers, such as Herodotus and Thucydides, both who lived before college degrees formally existed. The most important historians are those who have firsthand knowledge of that which they student, as they are considered the primary sources upon which other historians will base their opinions of the subject. Adraeus 03:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Two things: First, your definition is like saying a physicist is someone who studies physics by experiencing it firsthand. History also involves a methodology, peer-review, standards of evidence, and a range of other factors that seperate amateur from professional historians. There is a difference between the writings of John Keegan and Tom Clancy, though both write history. Second, my change was not to attack Jim Ennes, but rather to correct a problem with the sentence, it identified him solely as a historian, and not as a survivor of the attack, which is certainly a critical piece of information for the reader. I am not even sure that Ennes identifies himself as a historian, he always seems to be described as a Liberty survivor. In any case, we can describe him as a "Liberty survivor and historian of the incident" or whatever, but just "historian" was clearly inadequate. --Goodoldpolonius2 03:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, see where you drew the line? Between amateur and professional historians. A historian is a historian. Whether the historian is amateur or professional is another matter. History does not require "a methodology, peer review, standards of evidence, and a range of other factors"; although, these items are useful for establishing the credibility of a historical report. That said, generally, Wikipedia is not historically credible since Wikipedia is lacking in terms of methodology, peer review, evidential standards, objectivity, and a firm grasp of the subject reported. James (Jim) Ennes authored Assault on the Liberty and many articles. If you want to be pedantic, he could be described as a scholar too. Adraeus 23:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

An authority on history implies academic recognition, like that which Herodotus and Thucydides got in the manner of their time. People who generate primary sources are rarely considered historians; they're called eyewitnesses, and considered somewhat untrustworthy. To me, calling someone with no degree or academic recognition is misleading, no matter what the definition is; by your use of the term, anyone we cite on a historical subject could be called a historian.

Whether or not Wikipedia is credible is completely irrelevant to the subject. Let's try and make it as credible as possible.--Prosfilaes 00:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed overly detailed material

In early December User:Alexxx1 inserted this material into the intro:

However, a number of parties have raised doubts about Israel's explanation of what happened. There are press articles, for example in the Christian Science Monitor of June 4 and June 22, 1982, whose version of events contradicts the Israeli version. Ahron Bregman, in his book A History of Israel, casts doubt on the Israeli version of events by publishing transcripts of conversations between Israeli fighter pilots and air controllers. He comments that "What then follows is extraordinary and, indeed, highly suspicious, and seems to indicate a possible cover-up by the Israelis..." (p.121). Indeed, Bregman concludes in the most updated version of Israel's Wars that the "Israelis did know, even in the initial stages of their strike on the Liberty, that this was an American vessel." (p. 97)

It was overly detailed for the intro, and unbalanced it as well. There are books which make the exact opposite assertions, and which are not quoted in the intro, and for good reason. The intro is long enough as it is, and outlines the dispute in a fairly neutral way. Also, I restored references to two books on the subject which were somehow "mysteriously" deleted. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

broken links

These links are borked:

USS 'Liberty' hit was unintentional, says CIA

Pilot who bombed 'Liberty' talks to 'Post - interview with pilot (Yiftah Spector) who led attack

Exclusive: Liberty attack tapes revealed - transcript of IAF recordings of radio traffic during the attack.

I didn't want to step on anyone's toes and just drop them, in case somebody has enough interest to track down new links/different external refs . . . Greg [[User_talk:Evilgreg3000|(Talk)]] 01:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Stating the Obvious

Regarding the accusation this paragraph is covering:

James Bamford, a former ABC News producer, in his book Body of Secrets, proposes a different possible motive for a deliberate attack: "to cover up a massacre of 1,000 Egyptian prisoners of war" that was supposedly taking place at the same time in the nearby town of El-Arish. Bamford has no concrete evidence to back this accusation, except a confirmation by a single anonymous Egyptian. He cites a supporting Israeli source that "150 prisoners were executed," but this source, Gabi Bron, an Israeli reporter, claims Bamford misrepresented his report by using only partial sentences from it, which in fact wholly referred to the execution of 5 Palestinian guerillas, and other than that, he saw no mass murders. Further adding evidence against this claim was that Egypt has ruled El-Arish and the whole of the Sinai peninsula for over 20 years since Israel returned it in the early 1980s, yet no mass graves have been found, nor has Egypt reported such an incident occurring. In any event, the possibility of a ship at sea discovering such a crime on land, at or beyond the limit of its visual range, is unlikely (according to U.S. accounts, the ship was 14 nautical miles (26 km) from shore at the time of the attack, and did not get much closer to it previously).

There seems to be an obvious flaw in this "motive" that isn't mentioned. i.e. if your trying to hide a cover up of a massacre of your enemy, even given the most extreme estimates of the number of people massacred, it would be positively stupid to attack your ally, an act with x100 worse consequences and it wouldn't cover up the massacre to boot! It doesn't make any sense. You might say a lot of things about the IDF, but they aren't stupid. --Brentt 21:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

List of the Fatalities

I'm knew to this Wikipedia thing, but does anyone have any objections to me inserting a list of the names of those who lost their lives in the incident, or are there size considerations which would make this a bad idea?

---

I for one wouldn't have a problem with it since most were friends of mine. USS Liberty Survivor

---

I did it. If anyone has a problem with the layout, or thinks it should be on a seperate page, then make the changes necessary. Likewise with regards to spelling inaccuracies etc.

External links

We're going to have to have some sort of common standard for websites here. Either personal websites are allowed or they're not. And conspiracy-mongering sites like ifamericansknew are never allowed, regardless of whether or not you think they have reliable information on them. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It is frankly beyond belief that Wikipedia would not accept a webpage on a subject produced by someone who had received a Ph.D. from NYU on the subject, and not even as the main text of the article but only as an external link. My position is very simple: direct witnesses are good sources; experts - such as people who have done a doctoral dissertation at a reputable university on a subject, or people who have had books published by reputable publishers on a subject - are good sources; someone who one day decided to start a blog on a subject is not a good source. Please tell me very specifically where you disagree with this position, or where you think I have violated it, and we can discuss our disagreements once we clearly understand what they are.

Also, you may not have read my comments to the change I made on the Ward Boston document. I changed the link to be directly to a document signed by Ward Boston, and I even provided a second link by which the authenticity of the document can be checked. I agree with you that "ifamericansknew" is not a good source; however, not a single word that originated with them is in the link.