USS Liberty Challenge/Reward

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.