USS Liberty Challenge/Reward

(Steve Richter) wrote in message . com...
wrote in message . com...

What makes "Congress" more qualified to run an investigation than
the CIA? Can Congress get more data? Does Congress have deeper
understanding of Israel? Does Congress have better exprerts in
navies-at-war issues than the US NAvy?

1st, Congress has the legal authority to place witnesses under oath.

Other branches of government also have the right to place witnesses
under oath. E.g. a Grand jury and a Court of Inquiry.

2nd, as an equal branch of government to the executive, can demand
full access to all information known by the GOUS.

Having information, and using the information, are two different issues.
IMO Rear Admiral Isaac Kidd, and his court, had a better understanding
of navy operations in war zone than Congress does. If you diagree
then please explain why.

Thirdly, and most
important, the US Congress owns Israel from the perspective that it
authorizes the billions of $$ each year that the US gives to Israel to
conduct its brutal occupation of the palestinian territories. The
Congress could, if it wanted, force Israel to release what it knows.

Do you really believe that Israel could keep such a secret, involving
so many people for 37 years?

Anyway, treating a client state like **** is not always the best
course of action. See France before the 6-Days-War for example.
You may end up saving $3 billion per year on Israel, and spending
$50 billion extra to save pro-US regimes in Iraq,
Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

To this day, Israel refuses to release crucial facts of the attack on
the American ship.

And the source of your information is...?
How do you know what deals Israel made with the US?
Do you want Congress also to publish other information that the
US promised to keep secret? (E.g. the condition to US inspections
is Dimona was that the US would keep the information secret.
Should the US ignore its promise just because it will serve
better your political agenda?)

This is one item amoung many where Israel's explanations do not answer
legitimate questions about the attack. What did the Israeli coastal
radar net see when its operators looked at the Liberty?

What "Israel coastal radar net" in 1967?!
Where did you get that idea?
Don't you know that in 1967 the Israeli "navy" was a collection
of WWII quality small ships?
Israel had a couple of old naval radars, near its bigget navy
bases (Haifa and Ashdod), but it did not have a radar that could
look over the horizon.

The public has been told how the Israeli Naval command forgot it knew
of the American spy ship Liberty the morning of 8 June, hours before
it ordered the attack.

What an *IGNORANT* like you can't get is simple navy fighting facts.
If you want to sink a ship using 1967 airplanes then you used
half iron bombs, just like the US did in Midway. If you want to
sink a ship, and cover your ass, then you use submarines, not
torpedo boats that display your flag.

If Israel tried to sink a US ship, knowing that it was a US ship,
then this is a case of gross incompetence. The "cover-up" before
the attack was pretty bad. You claim that the same people who
did everything wrong before the attack have done everything
right in the cover-up. I wonder if you really believe in
your high quality bull****.

So yes, Hillel, a congressional investigation is long overdue and
worthwhile to the American public.

So write to your Congressman and ask of an investigation.
You may find one as stupid as you are, even though it is
not that easy.

wrote in message . com...

What makes "Congress" more qualified to run an investigation than
the CIA? Can Congress get more data? Does Congress have deeper
understanding of Israel? Does Congress have better exprerts in
navies-at-war issues than the US NAvy?

1st, Congress has the legal authority to place witnesses under oath.

Other branches of government also have the right to place witnesses
under oath. E.g. a Grand jury and a Court of Inquiry.

2nd, as an equal branch of government to the executive, can demand
full access to all information known by the GOUS.

Having information, and using the information, are two different issues.
IMO Rear Admiral Isaac Kidd, and his court, had a better understanding
of navy operations in war zone than Congress does. If you diagree
then please explain why.

You call me names and then ask me questions. Hillel, is that a
typical Israeli way of interacting with others?

Naval operations are not the issue. It is the question of whether
Israel intentionally attacked the American ship, whether the GOI
withheld evidence of war crime actions by members of the IDF, and
whether some in the GOUS were complicit in the withholding of that
information.

There is good evidence the US DOS acted to prevent Adm Kidd from going
to Israel to investigate the attack as he wished. You have well
founded confidence in the Admiral. Why would the US DOS, acting
presumably without objection by LBJ and McNamara, act to overrule the
Admiral's judgement and not allow the NCOI to go to Israel?

The coverup of the coverup continues to this day. Last year at the
DOS sponsored seminar the history of the SDW, DOS historian Marc
Susser does not appear to have released any documents regarding DOS
involvement in the NCOI proceedings. Susser then limited to mere
minutes the time for questions from the audience to the Liberty
panelists. He said he had to go to lunch! When Liberty crewman
Lentini was trying to ask Michael Oren about his assertion that the
initial attack jets first circled the Liberty before Yahweh sent them
in for the kill, Susser cut him off!


Thirdly, and most
important, the US Congress owns Israel from the perspective that it
authorizes the billions of $$ each year that the US gives to Israel to
conduct its brutal occupation of the palestinian territories. The
Congress could, if it wanted, force Israel to release what it knows.

Do you really believe that Israel could keep such a secret, involving
so many people for 37 years?

Heck, Hillel. I am of the opinion that Israel has kept secret the
full extent of its planning to take the WB from Jordan as part of the
inevitable conflict between Israel and the arab states. Israel must
have anticipated the marked increase in terror attacks from pratically
zero before the occupation to what has occured after. There must have
been some in the GOI who did not think that more land for Israel was
worth the price of those killed by insurgent attacks.

To this day, Israel refuses to release crucial facts of the attack on
the American ship.

And the source of your information is...?
How do you know what deals Israel made with the US?
Do you want Congress also to publish other information that the
US promised to keep secret? (E.g. the condition to US inspections
is Dimona was that the US would keep the information secret.
Should the US ignore its promise just because it will serve
better your political agenda?)

This is one item amoung many where Israel's explanations do not answer
legitimate questions about the attack. What did the Israeli coastal
radar net see when its operators looked at the Liberty?

What "Israel coastal radar net" in 1967?!
Where did you get that idea?
Don't you know that in 1967 the Israeli "navy" was a collection
of WWII quality small ships?
Israel had a couple of old naval radars, near its bigget navy
bases (Haifa and Ashdod), but it did not have a radar that could
look over the horizon.

How were the IAF controllers able to direct the Kursa attack jets to
the Liberty? Was it Yahweh or radar?

1353
KURSA: Homeland, keep on directing me to the place
Homeland: 045[o], 20 miles. Ah, can you see them at the moment?

1354
KURSA: Affirmative, it looks longer by eyesight.

1354
Kislev: Does he see more torpedo boats north of him?

The public has been told how the Israeli Naval command forgot it knew
of the American spy ship Liberty the morning of 8 June, hours before
it ordered the attack.

What an *IGNORANT* like you can't get is simple navy fighting facts.
If you want to sink a ship using 1967 airplanes then you used
half iron bombs, just like the US did in Midway. If you want to
sink a ship, and cover your ass, then you use submarines, not
torpedo boats that display your flag.

Hillel, you can call me all the names you want, ( according to Israel
Shahak, the Talmud instructs Jews to have all sorts of hostility
toward Gentiles ) but if you are going to respond to my post, you
should not waste time by skipping my central assertions and questions.
First, no one knows for sure what the Israelis intended to do with
the Liberty. Maybe they just wanted to drive the ship away, maybe it
was just a local operation by IDF commanders concerned their killing
of Egyptian prisoners was being witnessed by the American spy ship.
It appears no one knows for sure. That is why Israel has to release
its evidence. ( and why Adm Kidd was justified in wanting to bring the
NCOI to Israel )

I notice you did not respond to my question the involvement of IDF
COS Rabin and IAF CDF Hod. According to Israel friendly SDW historian
Michael Oren, those two were in on the conversations with the Kursa
jets as they approached the Liberty. Yet surely, hours prior, they
must have been told of the 0800 identification of the American spy
ship. Hillel, who cares what your opinion is. Why does Jay Cristol,
author of the book "their blood in the water", ignore and gloss over
the entire subject of how the IAF knew of the presence of the Liberty
at 0800 on 8 June but collectively forgot this knowledge 6 hours later
at 1400 attack time?

-Steve

(Steve Richter) wrote in message . com...

Having information, and using the information, are two different issues.
IMO Rear Admiral Isaac Kidd, and his court, had a better understanding
of navy operations in war zone than Congress does. If you diagree
then please explain why. [Hillel]

You call me names and then ask me questions.

Why should not I ask an idiot some questions?
It amuses me.

Hillel, is that a typical Israeli way of interacting with others?

Only when they are as clueless as you. (Not an easy thing to do.)

Naval operations are not the issue.

Israel's Naval operations are the issue. A rear admiral may have
some understanding of how foreign navies work in time of war because
he learned that in school and had some first hand experience.
Such an admiral may also have some understanding of friendly fire;
e.g. the bombing of Grayling by B-17s or losing 25 men in the attack
on Kiska, Alaska.

It is the question of whether
Israel intentionally attacked the American ship,

No.
The job of the court is to:
1) Establish the facts.
2) Check what "story" fits the facts best. The court can even
decide that two stories make sense and it can't decide which
one is true. (Something like a dead-lock jury.) Such a case
is very rare because the court, unlike a jury, can subpoena
more data.

whether the GOI
withheld evidence of war crime actions by members of the IDF, and
whether some in the GOUS were complicit in the withholding of that
information.

....and if Saturan has five rings or six.

The court had to find the best explanations to the facts and it
accpeted most of the Israeli version because it fits well with the facts.

There is good evidence the US DOS acted to prevent Adm Kidd from going
to Israel to investigate the attack as he wished.

Admiral Kidd could submit his report with no "final conclusion" and
a comment "I can't submit final conclusions because the following
data, that can be accessed, is hidden." If Kidd suspected that
somebody hid data from his court then it was his right, and *duty*,
to write such a comment.

You have well founded confidence in the Admiral. Why would the US DOS,
acting
presumably without objection by LBJ and McNamara, act to overrule the
Admiral's judgement and not allow the NCOI to go to Israel?

That's between the admiral and the DoS. It is quite possible that the
DoS offered him a "good enough" replacement. E.g. it could suggest
that Ernest Castle, the United States Naval Attache at the U.S. Embassy
in Tel Aviv, will collect the data he needed. The admiral could reject
such a suggestion, and insist on running the show himself, but he
did not see the benefit in that.

The coverup of the coverup continues to this day.

And next week we will start with the coverup of the coverup of the coverup.

Last year at the
DOS sponsored seminar the history of the SDW, DOS historian Marc
Susser does not appear to have released any documents regarding DOS
involvement in the NCOI proceedings.

Even if the DoS will release all its documents, you will still
continue to shout "cover up." So why even bother?

Anyway, every four years or so the US has a new Secretary of State.
Just write to each one when he takes office, explain why those
documents are so important, and hope that some secretary, who is
not a part of the conspiracy, will release them.

Do you really believe that Israel could keep such a secret, involving
so many people for 37 years?

Heck, Hillel. I am of the opinion that Israel has kept secret the
full extent of its planning to take the WB from Jordan as part of the
inevitable conflict between Israel and the arab states.

....and therefore suggested Jordan on June 5, 1967 to stay out of the
war and promised "no harm" in such a case.
....and therefore the paratroopers who attacked Jerusalem had to unload
all their equipment from the airplanes that had been supposed to
drop them in Sinai.

Eshkol's working assumption was that Jordan would stay out,
like in 1956. He was wrong.

Israel must
have anticipated the marked increase in terror attacks from pratically
zero before the occupation to what has occured after. There must have
been some in the GOI who did not think that more land for Israel was
worth the price of those killed by insurgent attacks.

What all of that has to do with the ability of Israel to cover up?!

To this day, Israel refuses to release crucial facts of the attack on
the American ship.

And the source of your information is...?
How do you know what deals Israel made with the US?
Do you want Congress also to publish other information that the
US promised to keep secret? (E.g. the condition to US inspections
is Dimona was that the US would keep the information secret.
Should the US ignore its promise just because it will serve
better your political agenda?)

BTW and the source of your information is...?

This is one item amoung many where Israel's explanations do not answer
legitimate questions about the attack. What did the Israeli coastal
radar net see when its operators looked at the Liberty?

What "Israel coastal radar net" in 1967?!
Where did you get that idea?
Don't you know that in 1967 the Israeli "navy" was a collection
of WWII quality small ships?
Israel had a couple of old naval radars, near its bigget navy
bases (Haifa and Ashdod), but it did not have a radar that could
look over the horizon.

How were the IAF controllers able to direct the Kursa attack jets to
the Liberty? Was it Yahweh or radar?

Arial radar or observations.
Welcome to 1967, when some airplanes had radars!

What an *IGNORANT* like you can't get is simple navy fighting facts.
If you want to sink a ship using 1967 airplanes then you used
half iron bombs, just like the US did in Midway. If you want to
sink a ship, and cover your ass, then you use submarines, not
torpedo boats that display your flag.

Hillel, you can call me all the names you want,

I just describe your state.
You have no clue about the proper use of airplanes against ships, and
so you draw the conclusion that it was a well planed attack. Somebody
who knows something about the subject, e.g. an admiral, may reach
the opposite conclusion.

( according to Israel
Shahak, the Talmud instructs Jews to have all sorts of hostility
toward Gentiles )

So Shahak is your source. LOL.

First, no one knows for sure what the Israelis intended to do with
the Liberty.

After 37 years of conspiracy theory you can't even agree about that?!

Maybe they just wanted to drive the ship away,

Firing accross the bow, or bombing nearby, could achieve that.

maybe it
was just a local operation by IDF commanders concerned their killing
of Egyptian prisoners was being witnessed by the American spy ship.

Assuming that the POWs murder was done, Liberty could see through
the cloud of dust that the war caused (BTW have you ever been on
the dunes near El -Arish? I was), and the US embassy could not
listen to their communication back to base asking to bomb
liberty to help with the cover up.

Seriously, how do you think that the forces in Al-Arish communicated home?
There was no phone line and smoke signals have a limited range.

It appears no one knows for sure.

It is much more interesting to see you build your theory first,
and every year release just few documents that blow up your
theory.

That is why Israel has to release its evidence.

The evidence will be released because nothing remains secret forever.
But I hope that you will commit to some theory first, so the data
will make look pretty silly.

( and why Adm Kidd was justified in wanting to bring the
NCOI to Israel )

So why the admiral dropped that?

I notice you did not respond to my question the involvement of IDF
COS Rabin and IAF CDF Hod. According to Israel friendly SDW historian
Michael Oren, those two were in on the conversations with the Kursa
jets as they approached the Liberty.

Why would two generals talk over radio, knowing that some other
country probably records it, if their goal is a cover-up?
Your data contradicts your own theory. (No big surprise here.)

Yet surely, hours prior, they must have been told of the 0800
identification of the American spy ship.

Have you ever managed a war on three fronts?
Do you really believe that the general gets *ALL* the data?

Hillel, who cares what your opinion is. Why does Jay Cristol,
author of the book "their blood in the water", ignore and gloss over
the entire subject of how the IAF knew of the presence of the Liberty
at 0800 on 8 June but collectively forgot this knowledge 6 hours later
at 1400 attack time?

Because in war **** happens and when you switch shifts some data is lost.

BTW the first pilot to attack the Liberty, Yiftah Spector, moved to the
Israeli far left lately. Why don't you try to convince him to
change his story?

Hillel

"When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When you don't
have the facts, argue the law. And when you have neither the facts
nor the law, pound the table." -- L.A. Weekly

wrote in message . com...
(Steve Richter) wrote in message . com...

Having information, and using the information, are two different issues.
IMO Rear Admiral Isaac Kidd, and his court, had a better understanding
of navy operations in war zone than Congress does. If you diagree
then please explain why. [Hillel]

You call me names and then ask me questions.

Why should not I ask an idiot some questions?
It amuses me.

Is that the same attitude of the Jews in pre enlightenment Poland who
as the tool of the nobility oppressed the peasants? I am glad you are
in Israel Hillel. You and the arabs deserve each other. Praise
Allah, praise Yahweh! Death to idolators!!

It is the question of whether
Israel intentionally attacked the American ship,

No.
The job of the court is to:
1) Establish the facts.
2) Check what "story" fits the facts best. The court can even
decide that two stories make sense and it can't decide which
one is true. (Something like a dead-lock jury.) Such a case
is very rare because the court, unlike a jury, can subpoena
more data.

Capt Boston on his and Adm Kidd's impression of the evidence heard by
the NCOI:

"... Each evening, after hearing testimony all
day, we often spoke our private thoughts concerning what we had seen
and heard. I recall Admiral Kidd repeatedly referring to the Israeli
forces responsible for the attack as "murderous *******s." It was our
shared belief, based on the documentary evidence and testimony we
received first hand, that the Israeli attack was planned and
deliberate, and could not possibly have been an accident. ..."

There is good evidence the US DOS acted to prevent Adm Kidd from going
to Israel to investigate the attack as he wished.

Admiral Kidd could submit his report with no "final conclusion" and
a comment "I can't submit final conclusions because the following
data, that can be accessed, is hidden." If Kidd suspected that
somebody hid data from his court then it was his right, and *duty*,
to write such a comment.

and officers of the IDF, are they obligated to report criminal acts
like the intentional crushing of young American protestors in Gaza?

Capt Boston writes that Kidd was ordered by his superiors to suppress
the evidence.

"...Admiral Kidd and I both felt it necessary to travel to Israel to
interview the Israelis who took part in the attack. Admiral Kidd
telephoned Admiral McCain to discuss making arrangements. Admiral Kidd
later told me that Admiral McCain was adamant that we were not to
travel to Israel or contact the Israelis concerning this matter. ..."

"...I know from personal conversations I had with Admiral Kidd that
President Lyndon Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara
ordered him to conclude that the attack was a case of "mistaken
identity" despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. ..."

"...Admiral Kidd told me, after returning from Washington, D.C. that
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. ..."

"...I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of that statement as I know
that the Court of Inquiry transcript that has been released to the
public is not the same one that I certified and sent off to
Washington. ..."

"... Finally, the testimony of Lt. Painter concerning the deliberate
machine gunning of the life rafts by the Israeli torpedo boat crews,
which I distinctly recall being given at the Court of Inquiry and
included in the original transcript, is now missing and has been
excised. ..."

You have well founded confidence in the Admiral. Why would the US DOS,
acting
presumably without objection by LBJ and McNamara, act to overrule the
Admiral's judgement and not allow the NCOI to go to Israel?


That's between the admiral and the DoS. It is quite possible that the
DoS offered him a "good enough" replacement. E.g. it could suggest
that Ernest Castle, the United States Naval Attache at the U.S. Embassy
in Tel Aviv, will collect the data he needed. The admiral could reject
such a suggestion, and insist on running the show himself, but he
did not see the benefit in that.

( Hillel, you dont have to use a lowercase "o" in DOS. After all, its
an abbreviation. LoL! )

and who in Israel did Castle interview? Capt Boston writes
"...Admiral Kidd and I both felt it necessary to travel to Israel to
interview the Israelis who took part in the attack. ..."

The coverup of the coverup continues to this day.

And next week we will start with the coverup of the coverup of the coverup.

hey, your country is the entity that is harmed by its refusal to
release information.

Do you really believe that Israel could keep such a secret, involving
so many people for 37 years?

Heck, Hillel. I am of the opinion that Israel has kept secret the
full extent of its planning to take the WB from Jordan as part of the
inevitable conflict between Israel and the arab states.

...and therefore suggested Jordan on June 5, 1967 to stay out of the
war and promised "no harm" in such a case.
...and therefore the paratroopers who attacked Jerusalem had to unload
all their equipment from the airplanes that had been supposed to
drop them in Sinai.

From what I gather reading the Oren book on the SDW, Jordan never
moved onto Israeli territory. But it does not really matter. Because
of the occupation Israel has a never ending and likely escalating
conflict on its hands. Are you asserting that these very unfavorable
facts on the ground were forced on Israel by Jordan? How stupid are
Israelis to fall for such a trick!

Israel must
have anticipated the marked increase in terror attacks from pratically
zero before the occupation to what has occured after. There must have
been some in the GOI who did not think that more land for Israel was
worth the price of those killed by insurgent attacks.

What all of that has to do with the ability of Israel to cover up?!

It has to do with the motive for the attack on the Liberty. If those
making the decisions in Israel would endanger Israel's security by
expanding its borders to include a large number of arabs, then they
could similarly motivated to attack their benefactor.

This is one item amoung many where Israel's explanations do not answer
legitimate questions about the attack. What did the Israeli coastal
radar net see when its operators looked at the Liberty?

What "Israel coastal radar net" in 1967?!
Where did you get that idea?
Don't you know that in 1967 the Israeli "navy" was a collection
of WWII quality small ships?
Israel had a couple of old naval radars, near its bigget navy
bases (Haifa and Ashdod), but it did not have a radar that could
look over the horizon.

How were the IAF controllers able to direct the Kursa attack jets to
the Liberty? Was it Yahweh or radar?

Arial radar or observations.
Welcome to 1967, when some airplanes had radars!

Good to know! So Israel had a kind of first generation AWACS system in
place during the SDW. The arial radar the IAF controllers used to
track the Liberty, was it airborne all morning or just at attack time?
Those mysterious repeated overflights of the Liberty the morning of 8
June, were they also augmented by arial radar observations not
observed by the Liberty's crew?

Why does Israel continue to suppress so much information re the
attack? Were IDF COS Rabin and IAF CDR Hod told of the identification
of the American spy ship the morning of 8 June? Why are their
conversations with the Kursa attack planes missing from the IAF
controller transcripts? Why will Israel not release the detailed
testimony from its aftermath investigations?

-Steve

(Steve Richter) wrote in message . com...
wrote in message . com...
The job of the court is to:
1) Establish the facts.
2) Check what "story" fits the facts best. The court can even
decide that two stories make sense and it can't decide which
one is true. (Something like a dead-lock jury.) Such a case
is very rare because the court, unlike a jury, can subpoena
more data.

Capt Boston on his and Adm Kidd's impression of the evidence heard by
the NCOI:

"... Each evening, after hearing testimony all
day, we often spoke our private thoughts concerning what we had seen
and heard. I recall Admiral Kidd repeatedly referring to the Israeli
forces responsible for the attack as "murderous *******s."

So?
A good judge may form an opinion after hearing half of the evidence
and yet have the integrity to change his opinion after hearing
all the evidence.

It was our
shared belief, based on the documentary evidence and testimony we
received first hand, that the Israeli attack was planned and
deliberate, and could not possibly have been an accident. ..."

So why did not they write just that in the report?
Why did not Capt Boston refuse to sign the report?
(Yes, a judge is allowed to do that.)
Did Capt Boston lied by signing a false report 37 years ago,
or does he lie now?
How can we check if his claims about Johnson and Kidd are true?
(Dead people usually refuse to answer questions.)

Admiral Kidd could submit his report with no "final conclusion" and
a comment "I can't submit final conclusions because the following
data, that can be accessed, is hidden." If Kidd suspected that
somebody hid data from his court then it was his right, and *duty*,
to write such a comment.

and officers of the IDF, are they obligated to report criminal acts
like the intentional crushing of young American protestors in Gaza?

The IDF officers obligation is to Israel, Kidd & Boston obligation
was to the US. If they signed a false report, knowing
that it was false, then they *FAILED* in their duty.

"...Admiral Kidd and I both felt it necessary to travel to Israel to
interview the Israelis who took part in the attack. Admiral Kidd
telephoned Admiral McCain to discuss making arrangements. Admiral Kidd
later told me that Admiral McCain was adamant that we were not to
travel to Israel or contact the Israelis concerning this matter. ..."

Admiral Kidd could write just that in his report. If he felt, rightly
or wrongly, that information was surpressed then he should have
reported that.

"...I know from personal conversations I had with Admiral Kidd that
President Lyndon Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara
ordered him to conclude that the attack was a case of "mistaken
identity" despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. ..."

What was the interest of Johnson & McNamara to cover up for Israel?
Do you realize that if they did what you say (a big if) then they
were guilty of Obstruction of Justice?

"...Admiral Kidd told me, after returning from Washington, D.C. that
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. ..."

....and he just rolled over and played dead...
And you believe that an admiral would do just that without reporting
to the military justice system about such Obstruction of Justice.

"... Finally, the testimony of Lt. Painter concerning the deliberate
machine gunning of the life rafts by the Israeli torpedo boat crews,
which I distinctly recall being given at the Court of Inquiry and
included in the original transcript, is now missing and has been
excised. ..."

Testimony by whom?
Can the person who gave the original testimony verify that?

OK, I am getting tired of your bull****. Your "evidence" is about
as good as the description of the Dreyfus trial in
Anatole France' "Penguin Island." It is too stupid to be even funny.