Navy crew remembers 1967 Israeli attack

once again the Fake Jew Goldberg lies though his ass!

--
"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...
ojunk (Mike Weeks) wrote:
(Issac Goldberg) wrote:
(Mike Weeks) wrote:
From: (Issac Goldberg):

Members of the Armed Forces are trained to follow
orders without question. And if the orders originated
directly from the President of the United States,
there would be few in the service, if any, who would
not obey those orders, even if they were clearly illegal.
Can't think of a better example of your low opinion of members of the
armed
forces, especially high ranking senior officers, then the above.
Is that the best you can do? ...
It fits to a tee the prior characteristic of your inability for logical
thought...

Once again, Weeks shows the weakness of his arguments by his
need to insult people who disagree with his views. If Weeks
had a strong case there would be no need for him to continually
use insults and name calling, because his arguments would stand
on their own. Hence, the constant need to resort to underhanded
techniques. How typical.

''I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic;
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this
obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;
and
that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on
which I
am about to enter. So help me God."

Nice oath. How about this one:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully
execute the office of President of the United States,
and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect
and defend the Constitution of the United States."

This is the oath that President Johnson took. The
U.S. Constitution contains Article VI, which contains
the provision that ". all treaties made, or which shall
be made, under the authority of the United States,
shall be the supreme law of the land ."

The United Nations treaty was ratified by the US Senate
in 1945, therefore, became its provisions were now the
supreme law of the land. To prevent countries from
launching pre-emptive attacks on other nations, all
signatory U.N. members agreed to submit any dispute
which threatened the peace to the U.N. Security Council.
Johnson did not submit the Vietnam dispute to the
Security Council before he sent U.S. ground troops there.
Therefore Johnson violated his oath of office. Any
President who is willing to violate his oath of office
would have no hesitation about who recently iniative
qualms about destroying a subordinate who defied him.

The reason Kidd and Boston followed Johnson's illegal
orders to them to violate their oath was:

1) Fighting Johnson would be futile,

2) Fighting Johnson would have resulted in their
removal from the Liberty inquiry and their replacement
with more cooperative people,

3) Fighting Johnson would have resulted in the end of
their Navy careers, and they would face the same fate
as any individual who would try to stand up to a President.
This means either that they would have spent the rest of
their life in jail or in a mental institution.

Not very attractive, is it? By cooperating with
Johnson's illegal orders they were able to retain
their Navy jobs. And maybe some day, after Johnson
was gone, they would be able to go public and tell
the truth of what happened.

************************************************** ****

By the way, Weeks, when are you going to tell us
about all of the 'arrogant jet jocks' that you had to
deal with?

your name is not Issac Goldberg. you are a lying fake.

--
"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...
ojunk (Mike Weeks) wrote:
(Issac Goldberg) wrote:
(Mike Weeks) wrote:
From: (Issac Goldberg):

Members of the Armed Forces are trained to follow
orders without question. And if the orders originated
directly from the President of the United States,
there would be few in the service, if any, who would
not obey those orders, even if they were clearly illegal.
Can't think of a better example of your low opinion of members of the
armed
forces, especially high ranking senior officers, then the above.
Is that the best you can do? ...
It fits to a tee the prior characteristic of your inability for logical
thought...

Once again, Weeks shows the weakness of his arguments by his
need to insult people who disagree with his views. If Weeks
had a strong case there would be no need for him to continually
use insults and name calling, because his arguments would stand
on their own. Hence, the constant need to resort to underhanded
techniques. How typical.

''I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic;
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this
obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;
and
that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on
which I
am about to enter. So help me God."

Nice oath. How about this one:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully
execute the office of President of the United States,
and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect
and defend the Constitution of the United States."

This is the oath that President Johnson took. The
U.S. Constitution contains Article VI, which contains
the provision that ". all treaties made, or which shall
be made, under the authority of the United States,
shall be the supreme law of the land ."

The United Nations treaty was ratified by the US Senate
in 1945, therefore, became its provisions were now the
supreme law of the land. To prevent countries from
launching pre-emptive attacks on other nations, all
signatory U.N. members agreed to submit any dispute
which threatened the peace to the U.N. Security Council.
Johnson did not submit the Vietnam dispute to the
Security Council before he sent U.S. ground troops there.
Therefore Johnson violated his oath of office. Any
President who is willing to violate his oath of office
would have no hesitation about who recently iniative
qualms about destroying a subordinate who defied him.

The reason Kidd and Boston followed Johnson's illegal
orders to them to violate their oath was:

1) Fighting Johnson would be futile,

2) Fighting Johnson would have resulted in their
removal from the Liberty inquiry and their replacement
with more cooperative people,

3) Fighting Johnson would have resulted in the end of
their Navy careers, and they would face the same fate
as any individual who would try to stand up to a President.
This means either that they would have spent the rest of
their life in jail or in a mental institution.

Not very attractive, is it? By cooperating with
Johnson's illegal orders they were able to retain
their Navy jobs. And maybe some day, after Johnson
was gone, they would be able to go public and tell
the truth of what happened.

************************************************** ****

By the way, Weeks, when are you going to tell us
about all of the 'arrogant jet jocks' that you had to
deal with?

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?

People lie. people steal. people cheat. the fact that they might be in the
uniform of the Navy really hurts you doesn't it!

--
"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


"Steve Richter" wrote in message
om...
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