USS LIBERTY VETERAN ASSOC FILES WAR CRIMES AGAINST ISRAEL

"Merlin Dorfman" wrote in message
...
In rec.aviation.military Mike wrote:
Truthseeker wrote:
Forwarded:


On Monday, June 6, 2005, the attorney for the USS
Liberty Veterans
Association will file a report with the Department of
Defense detailing
the war crimes the Israelis committed during their
June 8, 1967 attack
on the USS Liberty.

Is this the same LVA attorney who the LVA claim in its "press release"
was "an Air Force intelligence officer in Vietnam in 1967" yet has
stated he was in fact, an E-4? That's the same Gotcher?

Is this the same "press release" dated _June 3_ which states:

start
The "Report" _was filed_ (emphasis added) with by James R. Gotcher,
General Legal Counsel, USS - LVA, with the Secretary of Defense at the
Pentagon on June 8, the 38th anniversary of the attack
on the USS Liberty.
end

According to the directive that governs the submission
of the report the
Department of Defense is required to conduct an
investigation. If they
do not, we have recourse.

Which might well be to threaten to have the LVA leadership collectively
hold its breath until the whole world accepts its version of an
incident, now close to 38 years ago, and long ago settled.

That might just do the trick ... g

Has anybody ever presented a credible reason WHY Israel would
deliberately attack an American ship? Or, if the intent was to
sink it and leave no survivors, why they did neither?


Aas anyone supplied a credible reason why a "neutral" US warship was hanging
around right in the middle of a hot warzone?

Roger Conroy wrote:
"Merlin Dorfman" wrote in message


Has anybody ever presented a credible reason WHY Israel would
deliberately attack an American ship? Or, if the intent was to
sink it and leave no survivors, why they did neither?


Aas anyone supplied a credible reason why a "neutral" US warship was hang=
ing
around right in the middle of a hot warzone?

Two suggestions on that sco

First: In the 2004 FRUS Vol. XIX is a doc., #224.

Available he
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/jo.../xix/28059.htm

which states:

start
=EF=BB=BF224. Memorandum From Peter Jessup of the National Security Council
Staff to the President's Special Assistant (Rostow)/1/
Washington, June 8, 1967.

/1/Source: Johnson Library, National Security File, NSC Special
Committee Files, Liberty. Top Secret. Also sent to Bundy and Bromley
Smith.

SUBJECT
Why the USS Liberty Was Where It Was

Attachment 1 shows the JRC forecast for June with the approved mission
of the USS Liberty./2/

/2/Not attached.

This was changed by a routine submission on 2 June. These are normally
noted by Jessup for the White House, McAfee for State, and Chapin for
CIA. Being proposed by DOD, it is assumed this had full Pentagon
approval, in this case Vance.

Routine changes without specific indications as to number of nautical
miles off shore are merely noted and entered in the book.

It is assumed that such a ship will operate under the discretion of
COMSIXTH FLEET and USCINCEUR.

It would seem to have been unnecessary at the time to submit this
particular track change to the principals at the date submitted.

Let me make myself clear. There is no doubt in my mind that JRC is in
the clear, having submitted this change in plans in good faith and on a
timely basis.

Whether the actual nautical distance of the USS Liberty from the UAR
coast on 8 June was unwise in view of the hostilities or whether this
should be gauged as an accident of war is for others to judge.

[Omitted here is a paragraph unrelated to the Liberty.]

PJ
end

And second, which goes into the details (such as they are) which
supports the above statement is available he

http://www.nsa.gov/liberty/index.cfm

Pull down the PDF file of the 1981 NSA report on the incident and read
thru it; especially chapters 2 & 3.

Now, as to why the ship continued on to its assigned operating area
after 5 June -- when the ship was still in the central Med -- as the
southeastern corner of the Med became a "hot war zone" is an
interesting study in what's known as command-control-communications
[failure thereof in this case, w/ tragic results.]

MW