USS Liberty

[quicknthedead]

Fact: High officials in US intelligence publicly stated {23 years apart} Israelis deliberately planned to sink USS Liberty--it was no accident:

John P. Stenbit, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence (C3I), 2003:
http://www.pirp.harvard.edu/pubs_pdf/stenbit\stenbit-i03-1.pdf

"The Israelis called us up one day and said, 'If you don’t get that ship, the Liberty, out of this place we’re going to sink it in twenty-four hours.' We couldn’t tell the ship to move when we got the data back because it was already under the water, because it took more than twenty-four hours for the data to wander in through the system and come out at the other end."



Raymond Tate, formerly Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy and Deputy Director of the National Security Agency, "Worldwide C3I and Telecommunications" (1980, pp. 25-47):
http://pirp.harvard.edu/pubs_pdf/tate/tate-i80-6.pdf

"The Israeli Intelligence Service knew that the ship was there, and knew what was being done with it, a fact which has made this event extremely controversial for a long time. The context in our terms here is that the commander of the Sixth Fleet was informed by the Washington Intelligence Apparatus that it had evidence that the Liberty was going to be attacked and to provide protection for it. That message was never really acted upon, and the ship was dead in the water when it was hit. So the end result was no accident."


Both men refer to the same problem of slow communications of the urgent message that had to get through to the Liberty in time to save her.

This indicates they were referring to the same intelligence that prompted this critical communication to get the Liberty to move from her exposed position.

Because both of these men deal in the area of improvements in military communications, the focus in their statements was on slow US military communication systems back on Jun 8, 1967. However, our focus is on whether or not the attack on USS Liberty was deliberately made by the Israelis.

Their statements are clear: Based upon pre-intelligence, the attack was deliberate and no accident.

Comments?

 

[a_unique_person]

Your argument makes a perfect circle. It could be used to teach high school trig.

It was never an argument, it was an observation on his email. The evidence is the article.

 

[gumboot]

Other tell us that top secret material appeared all over the globe (Lebanon, Germany and Vietnam, etc.)

I've got a theory on where this notion came from. You're quite right to say that a CRITIC would not just be transmitted willy nilly to everyone and anyone all over the world. A ridiculous notion.

However NSA claims that within hours of the attack they sent out urgent transmissions to every single intercept station they had, asking for all any any recordings of the incident.

I'm willing to bet that this NSA request for intercepts somehow turned into intercepts being broadcast all over the world.

 

[gumboot]

One correction

Arab speakers cannot read what in the west we call "Arabic numbers". They use what they call "Hindi" numbers. Hebrews also cannot read western numbers (but most Isreali piltots would have been educated in their use due to the instruments using them)

Our numbers came from northern Africa (Spain) while the western arabs used

(٠.١.٢.٣.٤.٥.٦.٧.٨.٩)

The reason that (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) are known as Arabic numerals despite their Indian heritage is that it was the Arabs who adopted the system from India in the ninth century and introduced it to Europe in the tenth. Europeans therefore attributed the numerals to the Arabs, even though the Arabs themselves called them "Hindu numerals".

Oh I've taught Arab students math - trust me, they cannot read western "arabic" numbers!

Just a nitpick... the numerals above you attribute to "western arabs" are used in Egypt, Sudan, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and parts of India. The "arabic numerals" we use in the west with the Latin alphabet are also used across North Africa including many arabic speaking nations, and more specifically, including numerous nations that Israel has historically been at war with.

The markings on the ship are entirely irrelevant. The likelihood of fighter pilots actually being able to read them is slim, and in case anyone was actually interested in knowing, both the Egyptian Air Force and Egyptian Navy using the same "arabic numerals" the west use on their aircraft and ships.

Egyptian F-16
Egyptian Fast Attack Ship
Egyptian Fast Attack Ship

In fact, if you look through photos of Egyptian ships searching for the wreckage of Flash Airlines Flight 604 (crashed into the Red Sea on January 3rd, 2004) you'll see Egyptian ships sporting not just arabic numerals, but latin alphabet letters as well.

So basically the "it had western numbers" argument is nonsense.

 

[tsig]

We've been trying to get a Congressional investigation for decades but not a single Member of Congress thinks an attack on a US Navy ship that includes the deliberate machine gunning of American life rafts in the water and the abandoning of a US Navy ship while that ship is still under fire is worthy of Congressional scrutiny. Compare that to the investigations that followed the death of Pat Tillman.

I wouldn't unilaterally discount everything anyone says. In fact we know that the attack was being monitored in Lebanon and Morocco as well as other stations in Europe.

Fear not. We will continue the fight until the attack on our ship is finally investigated. We owe nothing less to our fallen shipmates and their families.

Oh sob away you are doing it for your own ego. It's bigger than the ship.

 

[tsig]

Sorry, I don't see US sailers being murdered as equivalent to a friend with a camera getting wet. My lack of insight I guess.





By the by, I assume you have read all my posts and are aware that I have consistantly distinguished the following: A)Although I strongly suspect it was on purpose, I B) accept that it may have been accidental, but C) I believe certain factors militate against that (B) being correct. And D) my statement about retaliation stands fully if A) was indeed correct (for then - obviously it would be pointless to do it now - but at the time.......).

When you are in the military you are not murdered but KIA.

 

[Hans]

So basically the "it had western numbers" argument is nonsense.

Yes I was just pointing out a common fallacy that our term western "Arabic numbers", doesn't mean the Arabs use them in their native language, they use Hindi numbers. Most pilots in Arab countries and Isreali would have come from a well-educated middle or upper class background and would have been familar with English/western numbering systems.

 

[jmeadors]

as im sure yo uknow, the government is not a single monolithic entity, it consists of a great number of agencies, administrations and bodies, of which the CIA, NSA, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Naval Court of Inquiry are all a part

however you apparently do not consider them "the government" in this case, so which agency do you think should investigate the incident?

They are part of the US government but none of them has conducted an investigation of the attack on the USS Liberty.

Congress has historically conducted investigations of the attacks on the USS Purblo, USS Stark, USS Cole, etc. Perhaps it would be appropriate for them to conduct an investigation of the attack on the USS Liberty as well.

 

[jmeadors]

Yes.

If you purposefully drive into a war zone, you should expect that some of the war might spill over onto you.

There is no disrespect meant to Mr. Meadors. Neither he nor any of his shipmates (save one) were responsible for the location of the Liberty that day.

According to an article published in the Winter, 1986 issue of Naval Law Review the area was never declared to be a war zone.

 

[jmeadors]

Then I would suggest that your claim that the US Government never investigated the USS Liberty incident is inaccurate.

Not inaccurate at all.

None of the agencies mentioned has conducted an investigation of the attack on the USS Liberty.

 

[jmeadors]

Can someone explain to me how the Israeli attack on the Liberty constitutes a war crime?

The article in the Winter, 1986 issue of Naval Law Review addresses this subject probably better than anyone here can.

 

[jmeadors]

I am not a lawyer, but this document shows this line of thought may have been on the minds of the IDF Court of Inquiry on Jun 18, 1967:
http://www.nsa.gov/liberty/51652/3068921.pdf

2.A. IT IS CONCLUDED CLEARLY AND UNIMPEACHABLY FROM THE EVIDENCE AND FROM COMPARISON OF WAR DIARIES THAT THE ATTACK ON USS LIBERTY WAS NOT IN MALICE; THERE WAS NO CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE AND THE ATTACK WAS MADE BY INNOCENT MISTAKE.

Perhaps more telling would be the evidence and testimony that was reviewed in the preparation of that IDF report. Unfortunately, the Israelis have not responded positively to requests to release that information. Kinda makes one wonder if there is anything supporting it or if it is made out of whole cloth.

 

[jmeadors]

Had this happened, it might come close. But the fact is, there is no real evidence that it happened. The torpedo boats never came closer than 2000 yards by sworn accounts and documentation.

Not quite true. I saw one of the torpedo boats said up our port side at a distance of about 100 yards. I was never asked to testify.

The evidence for this is laughable. the planes that attacked could not have jamming gear, and the sudden 'fix' of the radio was likely from Ennes' screwing up the radio.

Ennes had nothing to do with the fixing of the radio. That was due in large part to the effort of Terry Halbardier. He fixed an antenna that was previously out of commission. As for the jamming of the radios, all you have to do is talk to the Liberty's radiomen, ET's and CT's. They'll tell you something about it.

This is just horsecrap. The torpedo tried to signal the Liberty and was fired upon! They then commenced a torpedo attack, hitting the Liberty. Once they got indications that he Liberty was a US vessel they then signaled asking if the Liberty required assistance. It was refused. What were they supposed to do? Force asisstance on the Liberty?!

Well, you're partly right. After an intensive and well-coordinated air attack the ship was approached by torpedo boats. The Liberty crewman on mount 51 fired a single bullet from the 50 cal. and the gun jammed. When the torpedo boats were approaching I was trying to contact them first with flashing light and then by semaphore. They did not respond. After they completed their attack they departed the scene and returned some 90 minutes later with their offer of assistance.

It is no surprise the article was written by Ennes. Its also no surprise that the NLR article is widely criticized for using very suspect sources of information. THis is like the Free-Mumia people who declare that Mumia is a 'political prisoner' and not in jail for murdering a cop. IANAL, but I seriously doubt that Jacobsens' claims would stand the test of any courts.

If you're talking about the Naval Law Review article, Ennes didn't write it. It was Jacobsen's doctoral thesis. If you have seen criticism of the NLR article reflecting what you have described could you direct me to it?

 

[SDC]

Not inaccurate at all.

None of the agencies mentioned has conducted an investigation of the attack on the USS Liberty.

Isn't the real point that no investigation has been conducted that provides the answers you want?

ETA: And I'll add: any historian who relies on eyewitness accounts of participants is incompetent. Speaking as a historian.

 

[jmeadors]

Isn't the real point that no investigation has been conducted that provides the answers you want?

No.

The US government has never conducted an investigation of the attack on the USS Liberty. If you don't believe me, ask a member of your Congressional delegation to pose the question to the Congressional Research Service.

 

[kookbreaker]

Not quite true. I saw one of the torpedo boats said up our port side at a distance of about 100 yards. I was never asked to testify.

So your account contradicts your Captain's own testimony, as well as those notes in the log.

Ennes had nothing to do with the fixing of the radio. That was due in large part to the effort of Terry Halbardier. He fixed an antenna that was previously out of commission. As for the jamming of the radios, all you have to do is talk to the Liberty's radiomen, ET's and CT's. They'll tell you something about it.

Maybe they can explain how aircraft without the ability to jam radios managed to jam radios. Jamming would have been quite a feat, even with the proper equipment.

Well, you're partly right. After an intensive and well-coordinated air attack the ship was approached by torpedo boats. The Liberty crewman on mount 51 fired a single bullet from the 50 cal. and the gun jammed. When the torpedo boats were approaching I was trying to contact them first with flashing light and then by semaphore. They did not respond. After they completed their attack they departed the scene and returned some 90 minutes later with their offer of assistance.

You fail to mention the fire cooking off the rear gun. Did this not happen in your version of events?

If you're talking about the Naval Law Review article, Ennes didn't write it. It was Jacobsen's doctoral thesis. If you have seen criticism of the NLR article reflecting what you have described could you direct me to it?

Jacobsen's own sources are what is damming. Does his report not state:

A unique aspect of this study is its almost total reliance on authoritative
unofficial sources [FN2] for facts.

and

FN2. The principal unofficial sources relied upon are: J. Bamford, The Puzzle
Palace: A Report on NSA, America's Most secret Agency(1982);J. Ennes, Assault
on the Liberty: The True Story of the Israeli Attack on an American
Intelligence Ship(1979);S. Green, Taking sides: America's Secret Relations With
a Militant Israel(1984);D. Neff, Warriors for Jerusalem: The Six Days That
Changed the Middle East(1984);S. Steven, The Spymasters of Israel: The
Definitive Inside Look at the World's Best Intelligence Service(1980); Ennes,
The U.S.S. Liberty Affair, The Link, May-June 1984, at 1; The Official Israel
Excuse, The Link, May-June 1984, at 11.

Bamford, Green, and Neff rely heavily if not exclusively on Ennes' version of events.

 

[a_unique_person]

Well, here's what we know: Liberty was a spy ship. It was sitting just off the coast of two countries who were at war. The US had denied that it had any ships in the area. Immediately after the attack, Israel admitted it.

So what is the absolute worst reason that Israel could have attacked? What is the most terrible, nefarious reason you can think of?

It couldn't have been a false-flag operation to make the US think that Egypt had attacked. Israel admitted it right away.

Let's say the following: Israel believed that the US did not fully support it in the war and, in fact, that the US was giving intelligence about its troop movements to the Egyptians. Egypt, after all, had nothing like the signals intelligence of the US or even of Israel. Its air force was almost non-existent by the time of the Liberty incident. It was basically blind to Israeli movements. And at the same time, the US did not favor Israeli expansion into the Sinai. And the US offered zero military support of the Israeli war effort.

So, let's agree that forty-one years ago, Israel purposefully attacked the Liberty with the intention of destroying it because they thought it was a threat to their war effort.

SO WHAT?

What should happen TODAY because of that?

If Israel admitted everything that I wrote above, what should happen?

What is the point of a new investigation, of knowing the "truth" or of anything else you want? What should happen as a result of your new investigation?

My guess is that you have no answer. Still, I wait to hear from any of the people who have been arguing in favor of a new investigation.

Haaretz recently had a story about Israel having nukes ready for the war. My guess is it didn't want the US interfering if it wanted to use them.

Why own up to things that happened in the past? The same debate is happening in Australia in regards to it's treatment of the aboriginal people. You own up to it because it was wrong. If you pretend that wrong is right, then as a nation you have got problems. The state of Australia's aboriginal people is testament to that, since that issue will never be resolved till we face up to the past.

 

[a_unique_person]

No.

The US government has never conducted an investigation of the attack on the USS Liberty. If you don't believe me, ask a member of your Congressional delegation to pose the question to the Congressional Research Service.

Do you think the Chicago Tribune article that has been linked to is accurate?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/servi...tuesday/chi-liberty_tuesoct02,1,3803697.story

 

[gtc]

Haaretz recently had a story about Israel having nukes ready for the war. My guess is it didn't want the US interfering if it wanted to use them.

Do you have a link? That is a couple of years earlier than they were thought to have had any nukes.

 

[a_unique_person]

Do you have a link? That is a couple of years earlier than they were thought to have had any nukes.

Haaretz is a black hole in regards to past stories, unfortunately.