USS Liberty Challenge/Reward

wrote:
(Issac Goldberg) wrote:
wrote:
IMO the Navy's court of inquiry has a better record of finding the
facts than Congress.

But in a high profile case, leaders of a Navy Court of
Inquiry are subject to pressure of the President if that
President wants it to reach a certain conclusion.

Ha?
From http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dlj...dlj50p1835.htm
@The Supreme Court recognized potential problems with the independence
@of military judges in Weiss v. United States.139 The Court noted that
@military judges may be reassigned at any time because they have no
@fixed term of office. "Commissioned Officers are assigned or detailed
@to the position of military judge by a Judge Advocate General for a
@period of time he deems necessary or appropriate, and then they may be
@reassigned to perform other duties."140 Military judges also are
@accountable to their respective Judge Advocates General for their
@decisions. "By placing judges under the control of Judge Advocates
@General, who have no interest in the outcome of a particular [*pg 1858]
@court-martial, we believe Congress has achieved an acceptable balance
@between independence and accountability."141 What the Supreme Court
@failed to recognize is that Judge Advocates General may indeed have a
@significant interest in the outcome of cases when a large issue or
@principle is at stake.

In case you missed it, the president can not command military judges,
only the "Judge Advocates General" can do so. All the president
can, legally, do is to ask the court to take his testimony.

Your entire argument fails because you assume that all of
Johnson's actions were 'legal.'

One spectacular example of Lyndon Johnson violating the law
was his theft of the 1948 Senate election in Texas by means
of vote fraud.

Try reading the three volumes of Caro's LBJ biography,
since they will provide illuminating insight into what an
unethical fellow Johnson really was, and how he would
willingly break the law to further his political goals.

In case you missed it, the president can not command military judges,
only the "Judge Advocates General" can do so. All the president
can, legally, do is to ask the court to take his testimony.

(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message . com...
Your entire argument fails because you assume that all of
Johnson's actions were 'legal.'

One spectacular example of Lyndon Johnson violating the law
was his theft of the 1948 Senate election in Texas by means
of vote fraud.

Johnson was a pretty smart SOB. He knew that all his communication
with Kidd would be recorded. Had Johnson given Kidd a clear proof
that Johnson commited illegal acts, Kidd would have the power to
roast Johnson's ass either by the Senate or by the JAG.

Johnson just could not be that stupid.

wrote in message om...
In case you missed it, the president can not command military judges,
only the "Judge Advocates General" can do so. All the president
can, legally, do is to ask the court to take his testimony.

(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message . com...
Your entire argument fails because you assume that all of
Johnson's actions were 'legal.'

One spectacular example of Lyndon Johnson violating the law
was his theft of the 1948 Senate election in Texas by means
of vote fraud.

Johnson was a pretty smart SOB. He knew that all his communication
with Kidd would be recorded. Had Johnson given Kidd a clear proof
that Johnson commited illegal acts, Kidd would have the power to
roast Johnson's ass either by the Senate or by the JAG.

Johnson just could not be that stupid.

Johnson was certainly not stupid.

If he knew his conversations would be recorded, he was
powerful enough to have the recordings erased.

On 6 Jul 2004 09:00:29 -0700, (Issac
Goldberg) wrote:

wrote in message om...
In case you missed it, the president can not command military judges,
only the "Judge Advocates General" can do so. All the president
can, legally, do is to ask the court to take his testimony.

(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message . com...
Your entire argument fails because you assume that all of
Johnson's actions were 'legal.'

One spectacular example of Lyndon Johnson violating the law
was his theft of the 1948 Senate election in Texas by means
of vote fraud.

Johnson was a pretty smart SOB. He knew that all his communication
with Kidd would be recorded. Had Johnson given Kidd a clear proof
that Johnson commited illegal acts, Kidd would have the power to
roast Johnson's ass either by the Senate or by the JAG.

Johnson just could not be that stupid.

Johnson was certainly not stupid.

If he knew his conversations would be recorded, he was
powerful enough to have the recordings erased.

Magnetic personality ?
--
Jim Watt
http://www.gibnet.com

Johnson was a pretty smart SOB. He knew that all his communication
with Kidd would be recorded. Had Johnson given Kidd a clear proof
that Johnson commited illegal acts, Kidd would have the power to
roast Johnson's ass either by the Senate or by the JAG.

Johnson just could not be that stupid.

(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message . com...
Johnson was certainly not stupid.

If he knew his conversations would be recorded, he was
powerful enough to have the recordings erased.

How?
The command to destory the naval records would have to pass several
hands between the president and the corporal that would press the
"erase" botton. Every hand along the way would be a risk factor that
could take an interest in the records just because the president wanted
them erased.

wrote:

How?
The command to destory the naval records would have to pass several
hands between the president and the corporal that would press the
"erase" botton. Every hand along the way would be a risk factor that
could take an interest in the records just because the president wanted
them erased.

Well, here is one way to do it:

July 9, 2004
Pentagon Says Bush Records of Service Were Destroyed
By RALPH BLUMENTHAL, The New York Times

HOUSTON, July 8 - Military records that could help establish President
Bush's whereabouts during his disputed service in the Texas Air
National Guard more than 30 years ago have been inadvertently
destroyed, according to the Pentagon.

It said the payroll records of "numerous service members," including
former First Lt. Bush, had been ruined in 1996 and 1997 by the Defense
Finance and Accounting Service during a project to salvage
deteriorating microfilm. No back-up paper copies could be found, it
added in notices dated June 25.

The destroyed records cover three months of a period in 1972 and 1973
when Mr. Bush's claims of service in Alabama are in question.

The disclosure appeared to catch some experts, both pro-Bush and con,
by surprise. Even the retired lieutenant colonel who studied Mr.
Bush's records for the White House, Albert C. Lloyd of Austin, said it
came as news to him.

The loss was announced by the Defense Department's Office of Freedom
of Information and Security Review in letters to The New York Times
and other news organizations that for nearly half a year have sought
Mr. Bush's complete service file under the open-records law.

There was no mention of the loss, for example, when White House
officials released hundreds of pages of the President's military
records last February in an effort to stem Democratic accusations that
he was "AWOL" for a time during his commitment to fly at home in the
Air National Guard during the Vietnam War.

Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director who has said
that the released records confirmed the president's fulfillment of his
National Guard commitment, did not return two calls for a response.

The disclosure that the payroll records had been destroyed came in a
letter signed by C. Y. Talbott, chief of the Pentagon's Freedom of
Information Office, who forwarded a CD-Rom of hundreds of records that
Mr. Bush has previously released, along with images of punch-card
records. Sixty pages of Mr. Bush's medical file and some other records
were excluded on privacy grounds, Mr. Talbott wrote.

He said in the letter that he could not provide complete payroll
records, explaining, "The Defense Finance and Accounting Service
(DFAS) has advised of the inadvertent destruction of microfilm
containing certain National Guard payroll records."

He went on: "In 1996 and 1997, DFAS engaged with limited success in a
project to salvage deteriorating microfilm. During this process the
microfilm payroll records of numerous service members were damaged,
including from the first quarter of 1969 (Jan. 1 to March 31) and the
third quarter of 1972 (July 1 to Sept. 30). President Bush's payroll
records for these two quarters were among the records destroyed.
Searches for backup paper copies of the missing records were
unsuccessful."

Mr. Talbott's office would not respond to questions, saying that
further information could be provided only through another Freedom of
Information application.

But Bryan Hubbard, a spokesman for Defense finance agency in Denver,
said the destruction occurred as the office was trying to unspool
2,000-foot rolls of fragile microfilm. Mr. Hubbard said he did not
know how many records were lost or why the loss had not been announced
before.

For Mr. Bush, the 1969 period when he was training to be a pilot, is
not in dispute. But in May 1972, he moved to Alabama to work on a
political campaign and, he has said, to perform his Guard service
there for a year. But other Guard officers have said they had no
recollection of ever seeing him there. The most evidence the White
House has been able to find are records showing Mr. Bush was paid for
six days in October and November 1972, without saying where, and the
record of a dental exam at a Montgomery, Ala., air base on Jan. 6,
1973.

On June 22, The Associated Press filed suit in federal court in New
York against the Pentagon and the Air Force to gain access to all the
president's military records.

The lost payroll records stored in Denver might have answered some
questions about whether he fulfilled his legal commitment, critics who
have written about the subject said in interviews.

"Those are records we've all been interested in," said James Moore,
author of a recent book, "Bush's War for Re-election," which takes a
critical view of Mr. Bush's service record. "I think it's curious that
the microfiche could resolve what days Mr. Bush worked and what days
he was paid, and suddenly that is gone."

But Mr. Moore said the president could still authorize the release of
other withheld records that would shed light on his service record.

Among the issues still disputed is why, according to released records,
Mr. Bush was suspended from flying on Aug. 1, 1972. The reason cited
in the records is "failure to accomplish annual medical examination."

Mr. Bartlett, the White House spokesman, said in February that Mr.
Bush felt he did not need to take the physical as he was no longer
flying planes in Alabama. Mr. Lloyd, the retired colonel who studied
the records, gave a similar explanation in an interview.

But Mr. Lloyd said he was surprised to be told of the destruction of
the pay records that might have resolved some questions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/09/po...09records.html

How?
The command to destory the naval records would have to pass several
hands between the president and the corporal that would press the
"erase" botton. Every hand along the way would be a risk factor that
could take an interest in the records just because the president wanted
them erased.

(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message . com...
Well, here is one way to do it:

July 9, 2004
Pentagon Says Bush Records of Service Were Destroyed
By RALPH BLUMENTHAL, The New York Times

It said the payroll records of "numerous service members," including
former First Lt. Bush, had been ruined in 1996 and 1997 by the Defense
Finance and Accounting Service during a project to salvage
deteriorating microfilm. No back-up paper copies could be found, it
added in notices dated June 25.

You can run such a story on 25 years old records, and 25 days old records.
Besides, in 1997 Bush was not the president,
so the interest in him was much lower.

wrote in message . com...
How?
The command to destory the naval records would have to pass several
hands between the president and the corporal that would press the
"erase" botton. Every hand along the way would be a risk factor that
could take an interest in the records just because the president wanted
them erased.

(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message . com...
Well, here is one way to do it:

July 9, 2004
Pentagon Says Bush Records of Service Were Destroyed
By RALPH BLUMENTHAL, The New York Times

It said the payroll records of "numerous service members," including
former First Lt. Bush, had been ruined in 1996 and 1997 by the Defense
Finance and Accounting Service during a project to salvage
deteriorating microfilm. No back-up paper copies could be found, it
added in notices dated June 25.

You can run such a story on 25 years old records, and 25 days old records.

You asked, "How?" And I provided you with one real life example.
LBJ could have used a similar method to have evidence destroyed in
the case of the USS Liberty attack.

Besides, in 1997 Bush was not the president,
so the interest in him was much lower.

Funny, when Bush released some of his records a number of months
ago, nothing was said of the destroyed records. Perhaps they
were not destroyed in 1997, but more recently? When you are
president, everybody is eager to follow your direct orders,
apparently, even if the orders may be illegal. It would take
a real suicidal personality to disobey a direct order from
the President of the United States. They say, "you can't
fight City Hall." In this case, it would be "you can't fight
the White House."

changing the subject again you lying sack?

--
"I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly"
R.J. Goldman

http://www.usidfvets.com

and

http://www.stopfcc.com


"Issac Goldberg" wrote in message
om...
wrote:

How?
The command to destory the naval records would have to pass several
hands between the president and the corporal that would press the
"erase" botton. Every hand along the way would be a risk factor that
could take an interest in the records just because the president wanted
them erased.

Well, here is one way to do it:

July 9, 2004
Pentagon Says Bush Records of Service Were Destroyed
By RALPH BLUMENTHAL, The New York Times

HOUSTON, July 8 - Military records that could help establish President
Bush's whereabouts during his disputed service in the Texas Air
National Guard more than 30 years ago have been inadvertently
destroyed, according to the Pentagon.

It said the payroll records of "numerous service members," including
former First Lt. Bush, had been ruined in 1996 and 1997 by the Defense
Finance and Accounting Service during a project to salvage
deteriorating microfilm. No back-up paper copies could be found, it
added in notices dated June 25.

The destroyed records cover three months of a period in 1972 and 1973
when Mr. Bush's claims of service in Alabama are in question.

The disclosure appeared to catch some experts, both pro-Bush and con,
by surprise. Even the retired lieutenant colonel who studied Mr.
Bush's records for the White House, Albert C. Lloyd of Austin, said it
came as news to him.

The loss was announced by the Defense Department's Office of Freedom
of Information and Security Review in letters to The New York Times
and other news organizations that for nearly half a year have sought
Mr. Bush's complete service file under the open-records law.

There was no mention of the loss, for example, when White House
officials released hundreds of pages of the President's military
records last February in an effort to stem Democratic accusations that
he was "AWOL" for a time during his commitment to fly at home in the
Air National Guard during the Vietnam War.

Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director who has said
that the released records confirmed the president's fulfillment of his
National Guard commitment, did not return two calls for a response.

The disclosure that the payroll records had been destroyed came in a
letter signed by C. Y. Talbott, chief of the Pentagon's Freedom of
Information Office, who forwarded a CD-Rom of hundreds of records that
Mr. Bush has previously released, along with images of punch-card
records. Sixty pages of Mr. Bush's medical file and some other records
were excluded on privacy grounds, Mr. Talbott wrote.

He said in the letter that he could not provide complete payroll
records, explaining, "The Defense Finance and Accounting Service
(DFAS) has advised of the inadvertent destruction of microfilm
containing certain National Guard payroll records."

He went on: "In 1996 and 1997, DFAS engaged with limited success in a
project to salvage deteriorating microfilm. During this process the
microfilm payroll records of numerous service members were damaged,
including from the first quarter of 1969 (Jan. 1 to March 31) and the
third quarter of 1972 (July 1 to Sept. 30). President Bush's payroll
records for these two quarters were among the records destroyed.
Searches for backup paper copies of the missing records were
unsuccessful."

Mr. Talbott's office would not respond to questions, saying that
further information could be provided only through another Freedom of
Information application.

But Bryan Hubbard, a spokesman for Defense finance agency in Denver,
said the destruction occurred as the office was trying to unspool
2,000-foot rolls of fragile microfilm. Mr. Hubbard said he did not
know how many records were lost or why the loss had not been announced
before.

For Mr. Bush, the 1969 period when he was training to be a pilot, is
not in dispute. But in May 1972, he moved to Alabama to work on a
political campaign and, he has said, to perform his Guard service
there for a year. But other Guard officers have said they had no
recollection of ever seeing him there. The most evidence the White
House has been able to find are records showing Mr. Bush was paid for
six days in October and November 1972, without saying where, and the
record of a dental exam at a Montgomery, Ala., air base on Jan. 6,
1973.

On June 22, The Associated Press filed suit in federal court in New
York against the Pentagon and the Air Force to gain access to all the
president's military records.

The lost payroll records stored in Denver might have answered some
questions about whether he fulfilled his legal commitment, critics who
have written about the subject said in interviews.

"Those are records we've all been interested in," said James Moore,
author of a recent book, "Bush's War for Re-election," which takes a
critical view of Mr. Bush's service record. "I think it's curious that
the microfiche could resolve what days Mr. Bush worked and what days
he was paid, and suddenly that is gone."

But Mr. Moore said the president could still authorize the release of
other withheld records that would shed light on his service record.

Among the issues still disputed is why, according to released records,
Mr. Bush was suspended from flying on Aug. 1, 1972. The reason cited
in the records is "failure to accomplish annual medical examination."

Mr. Bartlett, the White House spokesman, said in February that Mr.
Bush felt he did not need to take the physical as he was no longer
flying planes in Alabama. Mr. Lloyd, the retired colonel who studied
the records, gave a similar explanation in an interview.

But Mr. Lloyd said he was surprised to be told of the destruction of
the pay records that might have resolved some questions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/09/po...09records.html