Navy crew remembers 1967 Israeli attack

If Boston is not lying then it is his *duty* to notify Congress and/or
Navy brass and/or JAG that the "records were altered." Obstruction of
Justice is a very serious matter.

(Steve Richter) wrote in message . com...
It is the duty of American Jews to join the US Military in numbers
equivalent to their percentage of the population. That would surely
insure the highest degree of professionalism in the ranks. g

Can somebody please explain what Steve's answer has to
do with my question?

Who empaneled the court of inquiry? My guess is that that entity is
the one that sets the boundaries of the courts inquiry and reviews its
findings. The court for example had no legal standing to hear
testimony pertaining to LBJ's conduct of the Vietnam war. By the same
token, the entity that created the court could tell it that it could
not call any members of the IDF as witnesses.

The IDF members gave testimony to the US naval attache in Israel.
If the court thought that this testimony was not good enough then it
could say just that in its conclusions. It was up to the court, not
you or me, to evaluate this issue. If Boston had any beef then it
was his duty to raise that ASAP in 1967.

Only the court has the right to alter the court records.
All the DoD can do is to stamp a big "Top Secret" on the inflamatory
parts.

How do you know that?

Check sometime UCMJ.
@(h) Each court of inquiry shall keep a record of its proceedings,
@which shall be authenticated by the signatures of the president
@and counsel for the court and forwarded to the convening authority.

If Kidd signed the record, and somebody changed it later, then he
should have removed Kidd's signature because Kidd did not approve
the changes. Doing anything else is Obstruction of Justice.

Anyway, I have never heard that an external entity has the right to
change signed records while keeping the original signature. Can you
give any example where that is legal?

LOL his usual twists and turns to try and change the direction of the
thread!

--
"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


wrote in message
om...
If Boston is not lying then it is his *duty* to notify Congress and/or
Navy brass and/or JAG that the "records were altered." Obstruction of
Justice is a very serious matter.

(Steve Richter) wrote in message
. com...
It is the duty of American Jews to join the US Military in numbers
equivalent to their percentage of the population. That would surely
insure the highest degree of professionalism in the ranks. g

Can somebody please explain what Steve's answer has to
do with my question?

Who empaneled the court of inquiry? My guess is that that entity is
the one that sets the boundaries of the courts inquiry and reviews its
findings. The court for example had no legal standing to hear
testimony pertaining to LBJ's conduct of the Vietnam war. By the same
token, the entity that created the court could tell it that it could
not call any members of the IDF as witnesses.

The IDF members gave testimony to the US naval attache in Israel.
If the court thought that this testimony was not good enough then it
could say just that in its conclusions. It was up to the court, not
you or me, to evaluate this issue. If Boston had any beef then it
was his duty to raise that ASAP in 1967.

Only the court has the right to alter the court records.
All the DoD can do is to stamp a big "Top Secret" on the inflamatory
parts.

How do you know that?

Check sometime UCMJ.
@(h) Each court of inquiry shall keep a record of its proceedings,
@which shall be authenticated by the signatures of the president
@and counsel for the court and forwarded to the convening authority.

If Kidd signed the record, and somebody changed it later, then he
should have removed Kidd's signature because Kidd did not approve
the changes. Doing anything else is Obstruction of Justice.

Anyway, I have never heard that an external entity has the right to
change signed records while keeping the original signature. Can you
give any example where that is legal?

wrote in message . com...
If Boston is not lying then it is his *duty* to notify Congress and/or
Navy brass and/or JAG that the "records were altered." Obstruction of
Justice is a very serious matter.

(Steve Richter) wrote in message . com...
It is the duty of American Jews to join the US Military in numbers
equivalent to their percentage of the population. That would surely
insure the highest degree of professionalism in the ranks. g

Can somebody please explain what Steve's answer has to
do with my question?

Just an observation of mine. You and other defenders of Israel make
very unfair and upsetting allegations against the Navy personnel
involved in this affair who speak contrary to the interests of Israel.
Very similar to how the OJ Simpson lawyers defamed the LAPD
detectives to get their murderer client found not guilty in his trial.

Who empaneled the court of inquiry? My guess is that that entity is
the one that sets the boundaries of the courts inquiry and reviews its
findings. The court for example had no legal standing to hear
testimony pertaining to LBJ's conduct of the Vietnam war. By the same
token, the entity that created the court could tell it that it could
not call any members of the IDF as witnesses.

The IDF members gave testimony to the US naval attache in Israel.
If the court thought that this testimony was not good enough then it
could say just that in its conclusions. It was up to the court, not
you or me, to evaluate this issue. If Boston had any beef then it
was his duty to raise that ASAP in 1967.

You dont appear to be making sense. What IDF testimony was given to
the US naval attache in Israel? Your saying it was given at the time
of the NCOI and made available to the court? Did the attache ask if
IAF CDR Hod and IDF COS Rabin were told that an American spy ship was
operating off the coast of the Sinai on the morning of 8 June?

Only the court has the right to alter the court records.
All the DoD can do is to stamp a big "Top Secret" on the inflamatory
parts.

How do you know that?

Check sometime UCMJ.
@(h) Each court of inquiry shall keep a record of its proceedings,
@which shall be authenticated by the signatures of the president
@and counsel for the court and forwarded to the convening authority.

If Kidd signed the record, and somebody changed it later, then he
should have removed Kidd's signature because Kidd did not approve
the changes. Doing anything else is Obstruction of Justice.

Anyway, I have never heard that an external entity has the right to
change signed records while keeping the original signature. Can you
give any example where that is legal?

Your not reading very well. From Boston's sworn statement:

"...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. ..."

If the court itself rewrites its findings, there is no illegality.
Its not illegal or improper for Boston and Kidd to do this. They were
simply adhering to the guidlines and corrections of those who
empaneled the court. What is does mean is that the court did not
conduct an impartial and full inquiry. Why does Israel not want the
truth to be told in this matter?

-Steve