USS LIBERTY VETERAN ASSOC FILES WAR CRIMES AGAINST ISRAEL

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?

"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?

Merlin Dorfman wrote:


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?

The key part being c-r-e-d-i-b-l-e ...

The idea that a nation would make a deliberate attack upon a warship of
the only western power giving it *support* in a regional war against
multiple enemies ..., well, let's just say it doesn't make any sense
whatsoever and for those claiming otherwise, they best come to the
"table" w/ solid and very credible evidence of that supposed "reason."

MW

Merlin Dorfman wrote:


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?

The key part being c-r-e-d-i-b-l-e ...

The idea that a nation would make a deliberate attack upon a warship of
the only western power giving it *support* in a regional war against
multiple enemies ..., well, let's just say it doesn't make any sense
whatsoever and for those claiming otherwise, they best come to the
"table" w/ solid and very credible evidence of that supposed "reason."

MW

On 7 Jun 2005 14:15:59 -0700, "Mike" wrote:

Merlin Dorfman wrote:

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?

The key part being c-r-e-d-i-b-l-e ...

The idea that a nation would make a deliberate attack upon a warship of
the only western power giving it *support* in a regional war against
multiple enemies ..., well, let's just say it doesn't make any sense
whatsoever and for those claiming otherwise, they best come to the
"table" w/ solid and very credible evidence of that supposed "reason."

Isn't this the same nation that employed Johathon Pollard? Does that
give us a clue? Or not?

LIBERTY was intell ship gathering intel. Somebody on the Israeli side
didn't like that. So they did something about it. You don't have to
sink it and kill the crew to stop it.

As an ASW type in S2s and P3s I have spent a LOT of time at 100-200
feet rigging ships. It's not hard to do and there was a specific
proceedure taught in the S2 RAG. It's easier to rig a ship in a helo,
harder in "fast mover."

The idea that the Israeli pilots made a mistake in ID is not credible.
The ship was marked in the standard fashion, including the name on the
stern. The ship was surveyeled by a helo minutes before the attack
began.

Even if you can "write off" an intitial "error" to Israeli Army pilots
as being blind, illiterate, and stupid the Israeli Navy took a hand in
the operation. They are professional naval officers. They have
binoculars. They have proper recognition manuals. What's their
excuse?

I don't claim any deep insights, here, only an operators view of SSSC.

If the attack was accidental then the Israeli government really
"screwed the pooch" and only the cowardice of the Johnson
Administration saved them. If it was intentional, either as an act of
state or of some rogue faction the cowardice of the Johnson
Adminstration saved them.

Bill Kambic

Veteran: VS-27, VS-30, VS-73, VP-93

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

wrote:
On 7 Jun 2005 14:15:59 -0700, "Mike" wrote:

Merlin Dorfman wrote:

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?

The key part being c-r-e-d-i-b-l-e ...

The idea that a nation would make a deliberate attack upon a warship of
the only western power giving it *support* in a regional war against
multiple enemies ..., well, let's just say it doesn't make any sense
whatsoever and for those claiming otherwise, they best come to the
"table" w/ solid and very credible evidence of that supposed "reason."

Isn't this the same nation that employed Johathon Pollard? Does that
give us a clue? Or not?

Or not. As it's apples (a nation fighting a war and the actions of its
military in that war) and oranges (a nation dealing w/ the collection
of intelligence which it believes can be useful). Besides, from what
little I've read on Pollard's actions, I understand he first went to
the Israelis, and that was how many years after the SDW? ...

LIBERTY was intell ship gathering intel. Somebody on the Israeli side
didn't like that.

"Somebody"? The issue, again, is "credible" It needs to be credible.
And as one retired Israeli gov't official has stated:

start
This vessel had entered the fighting area to keep Washington in touch
with the course of the war. In view of the global responsibilities of
the United States, this was a legitimate purpose, but it seemed
inevitable that those who took risks would sometimes incur tragic
sacrifice.
end

FWIW, that's from the former then-Foreign Minister, Abba Eban.

So once again, "somebody"? Who the heck is this "somebody"?

So they did something about it. You don't have to
sink it and kill the crew to stop it.

Oh, so you leave survivors which can later tell tales of what happened
to them? You send out MTBs which are marked and flying the Israeli
flag, and you put IAF helos overhead w/ the Star of David clearly seen?
How is this credible?

I'll ignore here the bogus claim of the jets being "unmarked."


As an ASW type in S2s and P3s I have spent a LOT of time at 100-200
feet rigging ships. It's not hard to do and there was a specific
proceedure taught in the S2 RAG. It's easier to rig a ship in a helo,
harder in "fast mover."

Does this mean "identifying" ships from the air? If so, then it
addresses what was your training, not what IAF jet jocks were trained
for, and had experience with -- or more importantly, not trained for,
and no experience with.

But as one retired USN type who spent time going "slow and low" has
stated:

start
In reconstruction of the attack, the Liberty crew makes much of flying
the American flag, as if it would somehow protect them in harm's way
(see Ennes, p. 152). Little does the crew appreciate the difficulty of
identifying a ship from an aircraft merely on the basis of a flag or
even a hull number (GTR 5 displayed by the Liberty). Based on my
experience of flying many "low and slow" reconnaissance flights over
ships in the Med and Atlantic with VQ2, unless the flights are almost
overhead, target identification is virtually impossible. High-powered
binoculars are not much good in a bouncing low-level aircraft.
end

This from Nowicki in his material he had sent to author Bamford. The
complete material from Nowicki is available here however:

http://libertyincident.com/nowicki.htm


The idea that the Israeli pilots made a mistake in ID is not credible.

The jet jocks, w/o specific maritime recognition training? Or if this
is in reference to helo pilots, then never mind, as the following part
addresses that.

The ship was marked in the standard fashion, including the name on the
stern. The ship was surveyeled by a helo minutes before the attack
began.

Okay, let's stop right here. That last is simply incorrect. It's not
factual. No helo surveyed the Liberty "minutes before the attack
began."

IAF helos were overhead AFTER the torpedo attack -- which took place at
approx. 1435 Bravo. The helos were overhead around 1500-1505 Bravo.
This fact is well established and documented.

I will assume you've confused Zulu w/ Bravo time zones for when the
helos were overhead as recorded by the VQ-2 EC-121. The EC-121
recordings are Zulu. Add two hours to get Bravo and they match
Liberty's logs, for example, as to when the helos were overhead.


Even if you can "write off" an intitial "error" to Israeli Army pilots
as being blind, illiterate, and stupid the Israeli Navy took a hand in
the operation.

That they did.

They are professional naval officers. They have
binoculars. They have proper recognition manuals. What's their
excuse?

That one, the ship was abaze and smoking heavy and as they started to
signal this ship -- the ship not only signaled back the same signal,
but two, she opened fire on them. The term "professional naval
officers" has to be understood in the context of what exactly was their
training and what did they not only encounter, but what was their
perception (rightly or wrongly) on this, the fourth day of a war -- a
ship that was already assumed to be enemy. As to "proper recognition
manuals" -- the Israeli Navy was concerned about the Arab Navies, not
the US Navy. The Israeli Navy did not sail the seven seas for example.
Their sea-going manuals (at least for those operating MTBS) dealt w/
the Arabs.

Cristol covers this aspect in some details. Believe the Israelis or
not, it's what his research uncovered -- as it dealt with how the
Israeli Navy of 1967 operated.

And here's what Liberty herself reported as to her condition when the
MTBs came up on her:

start
O 192026Z JUN 67
FM CINCUSNAVEUR
TO SECNAV
..=2E.
LIBERTY INCIDENT (U)
1=2E FOLLOWING RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS POSED BY SECNAV:
A. WAS SMOKE FROM FIRES ABOARD LIBERTY FOLLOWING
AIR ATTACK HEAVY ENOUGH TO PRECLUDE IDENTIFICATION?

YES, PARTICULARLY BY TORPEDO BOATS APPROACHING
FROM STARBOARD QUARTER. SURFACE WINDS WERE
NEGLIGIBLE SO RELATIVE WIND DUE PRIMARILY TO
LIBERTY'S SOA. SMOKE FROM BURNING MOTOR WHALE-
BOAT (STARBOARD WAIST) AND STACK (ABAFT ISLAND
STRUCTURE) MUST HAVE PROVIDED EFFECTIVE SCREENING
OF HOLIDAY COLORS FLYING FROM PORT HALYARD.
..=2E.
C=2E DID LIBERTY ATTEMPT TO ANSWER SIGNALS FROM
PATROL BOATS PRIOR TO ATTACK? YES. PATROL BOAT
SIGNALS WERE PARTIALLY OBLITERATED BY FLAMES AND
SMOKE FROM BURNING MOTOR WHALEBOAT ABAFT STARBOARD
WIND OF BRIDGE. PATROL BOAT SIGNALS COULD NOT BE
UNDERSTOOD BY LIBERTY WHO ATTEMPTED ESTABLISH
COMMUNICATIONS BY ALDIS LAMP. OTHER SIGNAL LIGHTS
HAD BEEN SHOT AWAY.
..=2E.
end

I don't claim any deep insights, here, only an operators view of SSSC.

Which is fine, for the USN.

If the attack was accidental then the Israeli government really
"screwed the pooch" and only the cowardice of the Johnson
Administration saved them.

From what?

If it was intentional, either as an act of
state or of some rogue faction the cowardice of the Johnson
Adminstration saved them.

Well, as the Johnson adimistration determined:

start
=EF=BB=BFJohnson ordered a thorough investigation of the facts surrounding
the attack. After extensive investigations, the Central Intelligence
Agency and the National Security Agency concluded that there was
=E2=80=9Clittle doubt=E2=80=9D that the attacking Israeli units =E2=80=9Cfa=
iled to
identify the Liberty as a US ship before or during the attack=E2=80=9D and
that they had mistakenly identified the ship as Egyptian. Subsequently,
the Central Intelligence Agency repeated the conclusion that the
Israeli attack was a mistake although it was =E2=80=9Cboth incongruous and
indicative of gross negligence.=E2=80=9D Clark Clifford also examined the
evidence at Walt Rostow=E2=80=99s request and concluded that there was no
evidence that the attack was intentional.
end

This from the DOS FRUS Vol. XIX Summary document.

As we all know, it's not an accepted view by some; thanks mostly to the
USG keeping so much of the material classified for too many years, and
the availability of the LVA to generate stories which some accept at
face value and never double-check against actual documentation.=20

MW

In rec.aviation.military wrote:
On 7 Jun 2005 14:15:59 -0700, "Mike" wrote:

Merlin Dorfman wrote:

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?

The key part being c-r-e-d-i-b-l-e ...

The idea that a nation would make a deliberate attack upon a warship of
the only western power giving it *support* in a regional war against
multiple enemies ..., well, let's just say it doesn't make any sense
whatsoever and for those claiming otherwise, they best come to the
"table" w/ solid and very credible evidence of that supposed "reason."

Isn't this the same nation that employed Johathon Pollard? Does that
give us a clue? Or not?

...which says they would have known everything the US was
learning from the Liberty, so the "damage" it could do was minimal.

LIBERTY was intell ship gathering intel. Somebody on the Israeli side
didn't like that. So they did something about it. You don't have to
sink it and kill the crew to stop it.

If you assume Israel deliberately set out to do a "mission
kill" on the Liberty, i.e., to stop it from collecting intelligence
(which I still find not particularly credible), there was, as you
say, no need to try to sink it and kill the crew. Much less severe
action would have sufficed.

As an ASW type in S2s and P3s I have spent a LOT of time at 100-200
feet rigging ships. It's not hard to do and there was a specific
proceedure taught in the S2 RAG. It's easier to rig a ship in a helo,
harder in "fast mover."

I assume "rigging" a ship has something to do with identifying
it? (Pardon my unfamiliarity with the terminology.)

The idea that the Israeli pilots made a mistake in ID is not credible.
The ship was marked in the standard fashion, including the name on the
stern. The ship was surveyeled by a helo minutes before the attack
began.

It's a whole different ballgame during a hot war. Are you
aware that, during the pursuit of the Bismarck, pilots from the
Ark Royal mistakenly made a torpedo attack on HMS Sheffield--not
even a battleship, but a cruiser--a British cruiser, from THEIR
OWN TASK FORCE which they had seen every day for months. And they
were flying Stringbags which could maybe do 100 mph flat out.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the Sheffield was
less than 1/4 the displacement of the Bismarck.
Should there have been recriminations and investigations
almost 40 years later about whether this attack was deliberate?

Even if you can "write off" an intitial "error" to Israeli Army pilots
as being blind, illiterate, and stupid the Israeli Navy took a hand in
the operation. They are professional naval officers. They have
binoculars. They have proper recognition manuals. What's their
excuse?

Hot war.

I don't claim any deep insights, here, only an operators view of SSSC.

Again, pardon my ignorance--what's SSSC?

If the attack was accidental then the Israeli government really
"screwed the pooch" and only the cowardice of the Johnson
Administration saved them. If it was intentional, either as an act of
state or of some rogue faction the cowardice of the Johnson
Adminstration saved them.

Saved them from what?

On 7 Jun 2005 16:06:46 -0700, "Mike" wrote:

Isn't this the same nation that employed Johathon Pollard? Does that
give us a clue? Or not?

Or not. As it's apples (a nation fighting a war and the actions of its
military in that war) and oranges (a nation dealing w/ the collection
of intelligence which it believes can be useful). Besides, from what
little I've read on Pollard's actions, I understand he first went to
the Israelis, and that was how many years after the SDW? ...

You're correct. But it pokes a rather large hole in the "they would
never do such a thing to their only friend" theory.

LIBERTY was intell ship gathering intel. Somebody on the Israeli side
didn't like that.

"Somebody"? The issue, again, is "credible" It needs to be credible.
And as one retired Israeli gov't official has stated:

Well, we know who did the attacking. We know the "somebody." We just
don't know the motivation. Or its lack.

start
This vessel had entered the fighting area to keep Washington in touch
with the course of the war. In view of the global responsibilities of
the United States, this was a legitimate purpose, but it seemed
inevitable that those who took risks would sometimes incur tragic
sacrifice.
end

FWIW, that's from the former then-Foreign Minister, Abba Eban.

So once again, "somebody"? Who the heck is this "somebody"?

The guys who did the shooting. We don't know the "why" of the orders,
or its lack.

So they did something about it. You don't have to
sink it and kill the crew to stop it.

Oh, so you leave survivors which can later tell tales of what happened
to them? You send out MTBs which are marked and flying the Israeli
flag, and you put IAF helos overhead w/ the Star of David clearly seen?
How is this credible?

I dunno. The evidence is there and it's ambiguous.

I'll ignore here the bogus claim of the jets being "unmarked."

Either you are as blind, and maybe as dumb, as those IA pukes or you
like to blow sunshine up people's kilts. I made NO comment about any
markings on aircraft, or their lack.


As an ASW type in S2s and P3s I have spent a LOT of time at 100-200
feet rigging ships. It's not hard to do and there was a specific
proceedure taught in the S2 RAG. It's easier to rig a ship in a helo,
harder in "fast mover."

Does this mean "identifying" ships from the air?

Well, let's see. This a (at least in part) a group for the discussion
of naval aircraft and their uses. So I would guess it's fair to make
that presumption.

If so, then it
addresses what was your training, not what IAF jet jocks were trained
for, and had experience with -- or more importantly, not trained for,
and no experience with.

How about the helo guys who could (and did) pass close aboard a
properly maked ship at low altitude in daylight?

But as one retired USN type who spent time going "slow and low" has
stated:

start
In reconstruction of the attack, the Liberty crew makes much of flying
the American flag, as if it would somehow protect them in harm's way
(see Ennes, p. 152). Little does the crew appreciate the difficulty of
identifying a ship from an aircraft merely on the basis of a flag or
even a hull number (GTR 5 displayed by the Liberty). Based on my
experience of flying many "low and slow" reconnaissance flights over
ships in the Med and Atlantic with VQ2, unless the flights are almost
overhead, target identification is virtually impossible. High-powered
binoculars are not much good in a bouncing low-level aircraft.
end

The son of bitch who wrote this is an idiot. Or incompetant. Or he's
following orders. A JG out fo the RAG can do it. I did it. I taught
it. I'm not the "ace of the base."

As far as the "jet" thing is concerned, I was stationed at Cecil for a
while and made some friends in the A-7 RAG. They told me that there
was a portion of the syllabus devoted to ID of ships and SSSC. I
don't know how much there was. I don't know much about their
proceedures. Maybe we've go an A-7 type who could "fill in some
blanks."

This from Nowicki in his material he had sent to author Bamford. The
complete material from Nowicki is available here however:

http://libertyincident.com/nowicki.htm


The idea that the Israeli pilots made a mistake in ID is not credible.

The jet jocks, w/o specific maritime recognition training?

You again ignore the helos.

Or if this
is in reference to helo pilots, then never mind, as the following part
addresses that.

Ta-DA!!!!!!!!!!

The ship was marked in the standard fashion, including the name on the
stern. The ship was surveyeled by a helo minutes before the attack
began.

Okay, let's stop right here. That last is simply incorrect. It's not
factual. No helo surveyed the Liberty "minutes before the attack
began."

The crew reported otherwise.

IAF helos were overhead AFTER the torpedo attack -- which took place at
approx. 1435 Bravo. The helos were overhead around 1500-1505 Bravo.
This fact is well established and documented.

I will assume you've confused Zulu w/ Bravo time zones for when the
helos were overhead as recorded by the VQ-2 EC-121. The EC-121
recordings are Zulu. Add two hours to get Bravo and they match
Liberty's logs, for example, as to when the helos were overhead.


Even if you can "write off" an intitial "error" to Israeli Army pilots
as being blind, illiterate, and stupid the Israeli Navy took a hand in
the operation.

That they did.

They are professional naval officers. They have
binoculars. They have proper recognition manuals. What's their
excuse?

That one, the ship was abaze and smoking heavy and as they started to
signal this ship -- the ship not only signaled back the same signal,
but two, she opened fire on them. The term "professional naval
officers" has to be understood in the context of what exactly was their
training and what did they not only encounter, but what was their
perception (rightly or wrongly) on this, the fourth day of a war -- a
ship that was already assumed to be enemy. As to "proper recognition
manuals" -- the Israeli Navy was concerned about the Arab Navies, not
the US Navy. The Israeli Navy did not sail the seven seas for example.
Their sea-going manuals (at least for those operating MTBS) dealt w/
the Arabs.

In other words at best they ****ed up, at worst they were a conscious
part of the attack.

Cristol covers this aspect in some details. Believe the Israelis or
not, it's what his research uncovered -- as it dealt with how the
Israeli Navy of 1967 operated.

And here's what Liberty herself reported as to her condition when the
MTBs came up on her:

start
O 192026Z JUN 67
FM CINCUSNAVEUR
TO SECNAV
...
LIBERTY INCIDENT (U)
1. FOLLOWING RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS POSED BY SECNAV:
A. WAS SMOKE FROM FIRES ABOARD LIBERTY FOLLOWING
AIR ATTACK HEAVY ENOUGH TO PRECLUDE IDENTIFICATION?

YES, PARTICULARLY BY TORPEDO BOATS APPROACHING
FROM STARBOARD QUARTER. SURFACE WINDS WERE
NEGLIGIBLE SO RELATIVE WIND DUE PRIMARILY TO
LIBERTY'S SOA. SMOKE FROM BURNING MOTOR WHALE-
BOAT (STARBOARD WAIST) AND STACK (ABAFT ISLAND
STRUCTURE) MUST HAVE PROVIDED EFFECTIVE SCREENING
OF HOLIDAY COLORS FLYING FROM PORT HALYARD.
...
C. DID LIBERTY ATTEMPT TO ANSWER SIGNALS FROM
PATROL BOATS PRIOR TO ATTACK? YES. PATROL BOAT
SIGNALS WERE PARTIALLY OBLITERATED BY FLAMES AND
SMOKE FROM BURNING MOTOR WHALEBOAT ABAFT STARBOARD
WIND OF BRIDGE. PATROL BOAT SIGNALS COULD NOT BE
UNDERSTOOD BY LIBERTY WHO ATTEMPTED ESTABLISH
COMMUNICATIONS BY ALDIS LAMP. OTHER SIGNAL LIGHTS
HAD BEEN SHOT AWAY.
...
end

I don't claim any deep insights, here, only an operators view of SSSC.

Which is fine, for the USN.

I didn't know that fact was as a national commodity.

Besides you want me to accept that the kind of aviator who could pull
off an Entebbe or an attack deep into Iraq was unable to provide even
a poor quality ID of properly marked ship.

Sorry, boss, but it just don't wash.

If the attack was accidental then the Israeli government really
"screwed the pooch" and only the cowardice of the Johnson
Administration saved them.

From what?

If it was intentional, either as an act of
state or of some rogue faction the cowardice of the Johnson
Adminstration saved them.

Well, as the Johnson adimistration determined:

start
?Johnson ordered a thorough investigation of the facts surrounding
the attack. After extensive investigations, the Central Intelligence
Agency and the National Security Agency concluded that there was
“little doubt” that the attacking Israeli units “failed to
identify the Liberty as a US ship before or during the attack” and
that they had mistakenly identified the ship as Egyptian. Subsequently,
the Central Intelligence Agency repeated the conclusion that the
Israeli attack was a mistake although it was “both incongruous and
indicative of gross negligence.” Clark Clifford also examined the
evidence at Walt Rostow’s request and concluded that there was no
evidence that the attack was intentional.
end

This from the DOS FRUS Vol. XIX Summary document.

As we all know, it's not an accepted view by some; thanks mostly to the
USG keeping so much of the material classified for too many years, and
the availability of the LVA to generate stories which some accept at
face value and never double-check against actual documentation.

Again, best case scenario is for the Israeli Govt. is that their
forces make a truly stupid blunder. The worst case is that they
engaged in a hostile act against a ship on the high seas. In either
event the Israeli Govt. has the duty to come clean, and they never
have. IMO politics has driven each and every investigation (including
those trying to hang an albatross around the Israeli neck). But they
could put the issue to bed, if they chose to do so. They have not.
Let them reap what they have sown.

Bill Kambic

wrote:
On 7 Jun 2005 16:06:46 -0700, "Mike" wrote:

Isn't this the same nation that employed Johathon Pollard? Does that
give us a clue? Or not?

Or not. As it's apples (a nation fighting a war and the actions of its
military in that war) and oranges (a nation dealing w/ the collection
of intelligence which it believes can be useful). Besides, from what
little I've read on Pollard's actions, I understand he first went to
the Israelis, and that was how many years after the SDW? ...

You're correct. But it pokes a rather large hole in the "they would
never do such a thing to their only friend" theory.

Which is a term that indeed wears thin. However, as mentioned by
another, what would have possibility have been the reason(s) for such
an attack, especially on 8 June 1967, if it=E2=80=99s going to be claimed
that it was done w/ the foreknowledge that the ship was US, especially
known to be the
Liberty -- and then fail to carry out the deed. All theses years, and
nothing credible and certainly nothing directly from Israel, challenges
what the Israelis have been saying since the late afternoon of 8 June
1967.

LIBERTY was intell ship gathering intel. Somebody on the Israeli side
didn't like that.

"Somebody"? The issue, again, is "credible" It needs to be credible.
And as one retired Israeli gov't official has stated:

Well, we know who did the attacking. We know the "somebody." We just
don't know the motivation. Or its lack.

Depends on what one uses as sources on that score. Many a claim, but
never a =E2=80=9Csmoking gun=E2=80=9D =E2=80=93 even after all these years.

start
This vessel had entered the fighting area to keep Washington in touch
with the course of the war. In view of the global responsibilities of
the United States, this was a legitimate purpose, but it seemed
inevitable that those who took risks would sometimes incur tragic
sacrifice.
end

FWIW, that's from the former then-Foreign Minister, Abba Eban.

So once again, "somebody"? Who the heck is this "somebody"?

The guys who did the shooting. We don't know the "why" of the orders,
or its lack.

Sure we do; but it=E2=80=99s only the Israelis which can provide them. No
former Liberty crrewmember is in a position to directly supply such
info for example.

So they did something about it. You don't have to
sink it and kill the crew to stop it.

Oh, so you leave survivors which can later tell tales of what happened
to them? You send out MTBs which are marked and flying the Israeli
flag, and you put IAF helos overhead w/ the Star of David clearly seen?
How is this credible?

I dunno. The evidence is there and it's ambiguous.

How can marked helos and MTBs be =E2=80=9Cambiguous=E2=80=9D given the orig=
inal
thought above?

I'll ignore here the bogus claim of the jets being "unmarked."

Either you are as blind, and maybe as dumb, as those IA pukes or you
like to blow sunshine up people's kilts. I made NO comment about any
markings on aircraft, or their lack.

Oh lighten up; the comment was made simply because the LVA position is
that what was originally reported by the Liberty as =E2=80=9Cunidentified
jets=E2=80=9D has been changed to =E2=80=9Cwe were attacked by unmarked jet=
s=E2=80=9D
while ignoring the reported markings of the helos and MTBs Didn=E2=80=99t
want to go down that path, since you hadn=E2=80=99t brought it up. Sorry y=
ou
took it that way.


As an ASW type in S2s and P3s I have spent a LOT of time at 100-200
feet rigging ships. It's not hard to do and there was a specific
proceedure taught in the S2 RAG. It's easier to rig a ship in a helo,
harder in "fast mover."

Does this mean "identifying" ships from the air?

Well, let's see. This a (at least in part) a group for the discussion
of naval aircraft and their uses. So I would guess it's fair to make
that presumption.

Well since not all posters how all the various terms which get used, it
was reasonable to ask.

If so, then it
addresses what was your training, not what IAF jet jocks were trained
for, and had experience with -- or more importantly, not trained for,
and no experience with.

How about the helo guys who could (and did) pass close aboard a
properly maked ship at low altitude in daylight?

What about them? g They showed up afterwards as previously stated.

But as one retired USN type who spent time going "slow and low" has
stated:

start
In reconstruction of the attack, the Liberty crew makes much of flying
the American flag, as if it would somehow protect them in harm's way
(see Ennes, p. 152). Little does the crew appreciate the difficulty of
identifying a ship from an aircraft merely on the basis of a flag or
even a hull number (GTR 5 displayed by the Liberty). Based on my
experience of flying many "low and slow" reconnaissance flights over
ships in the Med and Atlantic with VQ2, unless the flights are almost
overhead, target identification is virtually impossible. High-powered
binoculars are not much good in a bouncing low-level aircraft.
end

The son of bitch who wrote this is an idiot. Or incompetant. Or he's
following orders. A JG out fo the RAG can do it. I did it. I taught
it. I'm not the "ace of the base."

You=E2=80=99re claiming such for someone trained to do it. It apparently
doesn=E2=80=99t take into account the lack of such training.

As far as the "jet" thing is concerned, I was stationed at Cecil for a
while and made some friends in the A-7 RAG. They told me that there
was a portion of the syllabus devoted to ID of ships and SSSC. I
don't know how much there was. I don't know much about their
proceedures. Maybe we've go an A-7 type who could "fill in some
blanks."

Anyone is welcome to =E2=80=9Cfill in the blanks=E2=80=9D where is concerns=
the
amount of time that IAF jet pilots spent devoted to IDing ships and
SSSC. Applying one=E2=80=99s own experience as a naval aviator doesn=E2=80=
=99t
necessarily hold for all other air forces.

This from Nowicki in his material he had sent to author Bamford. The
complete material from Nowicki is available here however:

http://libertyincident.com/nowicki.htm


The idea that the Israeli pilots made a mistake in ID is not credible.

The jet jocks, w/o specific maritime recognition training?

You again ignore the helos.

Or if this
is in reference to helo pilots, then never mind, as the following part
addresses that.

Ta-DA!!!!!!!!!!

The ship was marked in the standard fashion, including the name on the
stern. The ship was surveyeled by a helo minutes before the attack
began.

Okay, let's stop right here. That last is simply incorrect. It's not
factual. No helo surveyed the Liberty "minutes before the attack
began."

The crew reported otherwise.

No, they did not report such. No reports/messages of helos observing
the ship prior to the attack, and certainly no sworn testimony of such.

It=E2=80=99s possible you=E2=80=99re thinking of the crew observing aircraf=
t in the
AM, but certainly nothing has been reported that supports your comment
of =E2=80=9Cthe ship was surveyed by a helo minutes before the attack
began.=E2=80=9D

If you believe it was a helo =E2=80=9Cminutes before the attack=E2=80=9D, c=
an you
recall the specific source?

IAF helos were overhead AFTER the torpedo attack -- which took place at
approx. 1435 Bravo. The helos were overhead around 1500-1505 Bravo.
This fact is well established and documented.

I will assume you've confused Zulu w/ Bravo time zones for when the
helos were overhead as recorded by the VQ-2 EC-121. The EC-121
recordings are Zulu. Add two hours to get Bravo and they match
Liberty's logs, for example, as to when the helos were overhead.


Even if you can "write off" an intitial "error" to Israeli Army pilots
as being blind, illiterate, and stupid the Israeli Navy took a hand in
the operation.

That they did.

They are professional naval officers. They have
binoculars. They have proper recognition manuals. What's their
excuse?

That one, the ship was abaze and smoking heavy and as they started to
signal this ship -- the ship not only signaled back the same signal,
but two, she opened fire on them. The term "professional naval
officers" has to be understood in the context of what exactly was their
training and what did they not only encounter, but what was their
perception (rightly or wrongly) on this, the fourth day of a war -- a
ship that was already assumed to be enemy. As to "proper recognition
manuals" -- the Israeli Navy was concerned about the Arab Navies, not
the US Navy. The Israeli Navy did not sail the seven seas for example.
Their sea-going manuals (at least for those operating MTBS) dealt w/
the Arabs.

In other words at best they ****ed up, at worst they were a conscious
part of the attack.

Well yeah; but if the latter, then once again if it was a =E2=80=9Cconscious
part of the attack=E2=80=9D there=E2=80=99s the failure to complete the tas=
k, and
since it=E2=80=99s crewmember testimony that the ship fired on the
approaching MTBs (understandably so) ...

=E2=80=9CAs far as the torpedo boats are concerned, I am sure that they felt
that they were under fire from USS LIBERTY. At this time, they opened
fire with their gun mounts and in a matter of seconds, one torpedo was
noted crossing astern of the ship at about 25 yards.=E2=80=9D from
McGonagle=E2=80=99s sworn testimony.

Cristol covers this aspect in some details. Believe the Israelis or
not, it's what his research uncovered -- as it dealt with how the
Israeli Navy of 1967 operated.

And here's what Liberty herself reported as to her condition when the
MTBs came up on her:

start
O 192026Z JUN 67
FM CINCUSNAVEUR
TO SECNAV
...
LIBERTY INCIDENT (U)
1. FOLLOWING RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS POSED BY SECNAV:
A. WAS SMOKE FROM FIRES ABOARD LIBERTY FOLLOWING
AIR ATTACK HEAVY ENOUGH TO PRECLUDE IDENTIFICATION?

YES, PARTICULARLY BY TORPEDO BOATS APPROACHING
FROM STARBOARD QUARTER. SURFACE WINDS WERE
NEGLIGIBLE SO RELATIVE WIND DUE PRIMARILY TO
LIBERTY'S SOA. SMOKE FROM BURNING MOTOR WHALE-
BOAT (STARBOARD WAIST) AND STACK (ABAFT ISLAND
STRUCTURE) MUST HAVE PROVIDED EFFECTIVE SCREENING
OF HOLIDAY COLORS FLYING FROM PORT HALYARD.
...
C. DID LIBERTY ATTEMPT TO ANSWER SIGNALS FROM
PATROL BOATS PRIOR TO ATTACK? YES. PATROL BOAT
SIGNALS WERE PARTIALLY OBLITERATED BY FLAMES AND
SMOKE FROM BURNING MOTOR WHALEBOAT ABAFT STARBOARD
WIND OF BRIDGE. PATROL BOAT SIGNALS COULD NOT BE
UNDERSTOOD BY LIBERTY WHO ATTEMPTED ESTABLISH
COMMUNICATIONS BY ALDIS LAMP. OTHER SIGNAL LIGHTS
HAD BEEN SHOT AWAY.
...
end

I don't claim any deep insights, here, only an operators view of SSSC.

Which is fine, for the USN.

I didn't know that fact was as a national commodity.

Well, OK then: =E2=80=9CWhich is fine, for an air force trained in maritime
operations =E2=80=93 such as the USN or Royal Navy.=E2=80=9D

Besides you want me to accept that the kind of aviator who could pull
off an Entebbe

The IAF at Entebbe in 1976 were basically =E2=80=9Cbus drivers=E2=80=9D =E2=
=80=93 driving
C-130s which actually went into the Entebbe airport and the 707 which
operated as an airborne command-relay, over Kenya (IIRC.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Entebbe

One interesting quote: =E2=80=9CAfter days of collecting intelligence and
careful planning ...=E2=80=9D

or an attack deep into Iraq was unable to provide even
a poor quality ID of properly marked ship.

Once again; a surgical-type operation w/ long lead-time for planning.
It wasn=E2=80=99t the fourth day of a major regional conflict w/ fighting on
three fronts.

BTW, Entebbe was 1976, and the Iraqi strike 1981.

Turn back the clock instead to 2 NOV 1956; the IAF mistakenly bombs the
HMS Crane, a frigate of an actual full-blown ally at the time of the
Suez War. She=E2=80=99s attacked w/o warning.

Perhaps the IAF just has a problem when it comes to maritime operations
..=2E.

Sorry, boss, but it just don't wash.

Perhaps w/ your experience you=E2=80=99re giving the IAF far too much credit
when it comes to operations which weren=E2=80=99t its responsibility and for
which it didn=E2=80=99t train. Back in 1967 at least, the IDF Navy had
responsibility for all naval matters, even w/o all the proper tools to
conduct such =E2=80=93 like airplanes flown and operated by their own guys.

If the attack was accidental then the Israeli government really
"screwed the pooch" and only the cowardice of the Johnson
Administration saved them.

From what?

If it was intentional, either as an act of
state or of some rogue faction the cowardice of the Johnson
Adminstration saved them.

Well, as the Johnson adimistration determined:

start
?Johnson ordered a thorough investigation of the facts surrounding
the attack. After extensive investigations, the Central Intelligence
Agency and the National Security Agency concluded that there was
=E2=80=9Clittle doubt=E2=80=9D that the attacking Israeli units =E2=80=
=9Cfailed to
identify the Liberty as a US ship before or during the attack=E2=80=9D a=
nd
that they had mistakenly identified the ship as Egyptian. Subsequently,
the Central Intelligence Agency repeated the conclusion that the
Israeli attack was a mistake although it was =E2=80=9Cboth incongruous a=
nd
indicative of gross negligence.=E2=80=9D Clark Clifford also examined the
evidence at Walt Rostow=E2=80=99s request and concluded that there was no
evidence that the attack was intentional.
end

This from the DOS FRUS Vol. XIX Summary document.

As we all know, it's not an accepted view by some; thanks mostly to the
USG keeping so much of the material classified for too many years, and
the availability of the LVA to generate stories which some accept at
face value and never double-check against actual documentation.

Again, best case scenario is for the Israeli Govt. is that their
forces make a truly stupid blunder. The worst case is that they
engaged in a hostile act against a ship on the high seas.

It was a hostile act =E2=80=93 they targeted a ship they believed to be
enemy, based not on the of best evidence.

In either
event the Israeli Govt. has the duty to come clean, and they never
have.

Come clean? What=E2=80=99s this suppose to mean? The GOI has provide to t=
he
USG what took place from its side, and the issue was long ago closed.
Come clean?

IMO politics has driven each and every investigation (including
those trying to hang an albatross around the Israeli neck). But they
could put the issue to bed, if they chose to do so. They have not.
Let them reap what they have sown.

It doesn=E2=80=99t take much research to show that from the Israeli POV
they=E2=80=99ve moved on; learned the operational lessons from the errors,
and finally closed out the last remaining gov=E2=80=99t-to-gov=E2=80=99t is=
sue back
in Dec. 1980 -- agreement for the ship=E2=80=99s damage.

Just how on earth do you feel the Israelis =E2=80=9Ccould put the issue to
bed=E2=80=9D given the political climate that drives a fair number of folks
on the very basic issue of the US-Israeli relationship and US ME
policies. I=E2=80=99ll wage money that there=E2=80=99s not one damn thing =
the
Israelis could do which would change the minds of those individuals who
believe it was a deliberate attack on a known US ship and accept w/o
question anything the LVA (for example) states on the issue they wish
to keep alive.

MW