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?