The Liberty

[sealadaigh]

I would like to deal with it in an adult manner, that does not mean that I do not want good, healthy, strong and honest debate, it means that I want to deal with it without all of the garbage !!! In order that I cannot be accused of flying under a false flag I should state that in my opinion The Liberty was deliberty attacked by the Israelis.

I'm glad you brought this topic up again. I vividly remember the event, and did not understand at the time why the United States did not take more decisive action. This was not like the Gulf of Tonkin incident, where all the evidence of attack on U S naval units turned out to be false. thirty four Americans dies and 171 were wounded.

While there is a lot of debate, the official reports and document lead me to agree that the attack was premeditated and intentional. My best guess is that at that point in the Six Day War, the Israelis were preparing for a last ditch nuclear attack if their lines broke and felt they had to protect that operation at all costs, even from the United States. I believe they had some fear that with an American carrier in the area, the United States might decide to intercept such an attack if the United States deemed the target too sensitive (like Cairo or Damascus). The Liberty was certainly a potential threat to their communications security. This is the only motive that makes sense to me for taking such a risk, and explains the subsequent behavior of both the American and Israeli governments. The Israeli's claimed it was a case of misidentification (an incredulous claim given the crew's testimony) and offered financial compensation. LBJ accepted the explanation with unseemly haste.

I'm sure this is going to be debated for decades more, but I don't think there is much evidence which will come out to make it any clearer.

All of the official reports concluded that attack was a case of mistaken identity, although some concluded it was caused by culpable negligence.

A US Naval Court of Inquiry concluded that "available evidence combines to indicate ... (that the attack was) a case of mistaken identity."

CIA memorandums stated, "The attack was not made in malice toward the U.S. and was by mistake, but the failure of the IDF Headquarters and the attacking aircraft to identify the Liberty and the subsequent attack by torpedo boats were both incongruous and indicative of gross negligence."

Clark Clifford, LBJ's special representative on this issue, after reviewing all available information stated, "The unprovoked attack on the Liberty constitutes a flagrant act of gross negligence for which the Israeli Government should be held completely responsible, and the Israeli military personnel involved should be punished."

In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, stated, "I simply want to emphasize that the investigative report does not show any evidence of a conscious intent to attack a U.S. vessel."

USS Liberty incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Years later in his memoirs, McNamara stated he still held that opinion.

The captain of the Liberty, William L. McGonagle told the Naval Court he had believed the attack was not an intentional attack, but an error by the Israelis.

The only member of the government that believed that it was an intentional attack on a US ship was Secretary of State Dean Rusk, but he admitted he had never read any of the investigative reports so it is not clear what he based his opinion on.

and...some of the part you left out...

The Liberty Veterans Association (composed of veterans from the ship) states that U.S. congressional investigations and other U.S. investigations were not actually investigations into the attack; but, rather, reports using evidence only from the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry, or investigations unrelated to culpability that involved issues such as communications. In their view, the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry is the only actual investigation on the incident to date. They claim it was hastily conducted, in only 10 days, even though the court’s president, Rear Admiral Isaac Kidd, said that it would take 6 months to conduct properly. The inquiry's terms of reference were limited to whether any shortcomings on the part of the Liberty's crew had contributed to the injuries and deaths that resulted from the attack.[47] According to the Navy Court of Inquiry's record of proceedings, four days were spent hearing testimony: two days for fourteen survivors of the attack and several U.S. Navy expert witnesses, and two partial days for two expert U.S. Navy witnesses. No testimony was heard from Israeli personnel involved.

The National Archives in College Park, Md., includes in its files on casualties from the Liberty copies of the original telegrams the Navy sent out to family members. The telegrams called the attack accidental. The telegrams were sent out June 9, the day before the Navy court of inquiry convened.

USS Liberty incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

sounds like a cursory investigation and a lot of rubber stamping going on...with a presidential elction looming and the president mired in aan increasingly unpopular war.

aren't full congressional investigations the norm in cases like this?

 

[patrickcaturday]

I'm glad you brought this topic up again. I vividly remember the event, and did not understand at the time why the United States did not take more decisive action. This was not like the Gulf of Tonkin incident, where all the evidence of attack on U S naval units turned out to be false. thirty four Americans dies and 171 were wounded.

While there is a lot of debate, the official reports and document lead me to agree that the attack was premeditated and intentional. My best guess is that at that point in the Six Day War, the Israelis were preparing for a last ditch nuclear attack if their lines broke and felt they had to protect that operation at all costs, even from the United States. I believe they had some fear that with an American carrier in the area, the United States might decide to intercept such an attack if the United States deemed the target too sensitive (like Cairo or Damascus). The Liberty was certainly a potential threat to their communications security. This is the only motive that makes sense to me for taking such a risk, and explains the subsequent behavior of both the American and Israeli governments. The Israeli's claimed it was a case of misidentification (an incredulous claim given the crew's testimony) and offered financial compensation. LBJ accepted the explanation with unseemly haste.

I'm sure this is going to be debated for decades more, but I don't think there is much evidence which will come out to make it any clearer.

All of the official reports concluded that attack was a case of mistaken identity, although some concluded it was caused by culpable negligence.

A US Naval Court of Inquiry concluded that "available evidence combines to indicate ... (that the attack was) a case of mistaken identity."

CIA memorandums stated, "The attack was not made in malice toward the U.S. and was by mistake, but the failure of the IDF Headquarters and the attacking aircraft to identify the Liberty and the subsequent attack by torpedo boats were both incongruous and indicative of gross negligence."

Clark Clifford, LBJ's special representative on this issue, after reviewing all available information stated, "The unprovoked attack on the Liberty constitutes a flagrant act of gross negligence for which the Israeli Government should be held completely responsible, and the Israeli military personnel involved should be punished."

In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, stated, "I simply want to emphasize that the investigative report does not show any evidence of a conscious intent to attack a U.S. vessel."

USS Liberty incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Years later in his memoirs, McNamara stated he still held that opinion.

The captain of the Liberty, William L. McGonagle told the Naval Court he had believed the attack was not an intentional attack, but an error by the Israelis.

The only member of the government that believed that it was an intentional attack on a US ship was Secretary of State Dean Rusk, but he admitted he had never read any of the investigative reports so it is not clear what he based his opinion on.

and...some of the part you left out...

The Liberty Veterans Association (composed of veterans from the ship) states that U.S. congressional investigations and other U.S. investigations were not actually investigations into the attack; but, rather, reports using evidence only from the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry, or investigations unrelated to culpability that involved issues such as communications. In their view, the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry is the only actual investigation on the incident to date. They claim it was hastily conducted, in only 10 days, even though the court’s president, Rear Admiral Isaac Kidd, said that it would take 6 months to conduct properly. The inquiry's terms of reference were limited to whether any shortcomings on the part of the Liberty's crew had contributed to the injuries and deaths that resulted from the attack.[47] According to the Navy Court of Inquiry's record of proceedings, four days were spent hearing testimony: two days for fourteen survivors of the attack and several U.S. Navy expert witnesses, and two partial days for two expert U.S. Navy witnesses. No testimony was heard from Israeli personnel involved.

The National Archives in College Park, Md., includes in its files on casualties from the Liberty copies of the original telegrams the Navy sent out to family members. The telegrams called the attack accidental. The telegrams were sent out June 9, the day before the Navy court of inquiry convened.

USS Liberty incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

sounds like a cursory investigation and a lot of rubber stamping going on...with a presidential elction looming and the president mired in aan increasingly unpopular war.

aren't full congressional investigations the norm in cases like this?

That issue bothers me quite a bit. this is what Capt McGonagle said;

"In many years, I have wanted to believe that the attack on the Liberty was pure error. It appears to me that it was not a pure case of mistaken identity. . . . I think it is about time that the State of Israel and the United States government provide the crew members of the Liberty, and the rest of the American people, the facts of what happened and why it came about that the Liberty was attacked 30 years ago today." Later, McGonagle remarked, "USS Liberty is the only US Navy ship attacked by a foreign nation, involving large loss of life...that has never been accorded a full Congressional hearing."
-- Captain William L. McGonagle, Commanding Officer, USS Liberty, speaking at Arlington National Cemetery June 8, 1997.

 

[sealadaigh]

You know Gunny I worked for the Red Cross as a SAF Specialist for 2 years at Camp Pendelton and in all that time I never heard any Marine so disrespect the troops. It really is just a simple matter of Justice for American SVCMN

Why are you not concerned about Afghan troops killing American servicemen as we speak right now? Or is that "different"?

Anytime someone brings up the Liberty on a forum, it is the prelude to more anti-semitism. Several inquiries held the Israelis blameless. It is the stuff of conspiracy theories and the ugly hand of anti-semitism.

why do you assume he does not care about afghan troops killing our soldiers? i went back into your posts a week and see no expression of your concern for our troops in afghanistan being attacked by "friendlies."

you ask "Or is that 'different'?" well, the liberty was attacked on water and our troops were attacked on land, but otherwise, their are a lot of similarities. it is nice to finally agree on something.

actually, my experience has been that when the attack in the USS Liberty is brought up in a public forum it is not a prelude to anti-semitism. what it is is a prelude for zionist posters, usually jewish, to accuse those posters concerned with justice for these american sailors, those killed as well as the survivors, to make alse accusations of anti-semitism in order to divert from the subect and discredit those who think the attack was deliberate. this of course, is not unexpected at all, as those sailors who still demand a full congressional investigation are also subjected to those same accusations, even though they have no prior history of anti-semitism.

here is a plan. if the zionists really want to put this matter to rest, perhaps they should ask for a full investigation. how about that?

 

[The Rabbi]

There have been about 3 full investigations. All of them concluded that it was not deliberate.

I am not the one expressing outrage about an incident 35 years ago. I wonder why people continuously bring it up. It cannot be out of concern for US servicemen. If so, there are many more pressing concerns, like the Afghans killing US personnel I mentioned. It cannot be because the incident was covered up. It is all over the place in books and articles. It cannot be because no one has ever brought it up on USMB. This is like the 4th thread on the topic I recall.
So what is it? Hmm. Claims the Israelis masterminded it and it was deliberate, despite evidence to the contrary. Calls for cutting off aid to Israel. Claims that the Zionist-controlled media is covering. Claims that the Israel lobby has too much power in the U.S.
Yup. All of that fits the bill of anti-semitism all right.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

RGS,

Did we "hate" the Japanese at the time? Were we fond of the Vietnamese during the conflict?

The problem here is not lingering animosity......it is that there NEVER WAS ANY to begin with.

Do you see the difference?

Then if blame is due it belongs to the Democratic President and his advisers. They are the ones that accepted the Israeli claim at what happened. They are the ones that silenced the supposed outrage. They are the ones that supposedly buried it.

It was 35 YEARS ago and a sitting President accepted what they offered. It is ancient History. XXXXXXX-Meister

 

[RetiredGySgt]

35years ago and still complaining. Shall we hate the Japanese because of Pearl harbor? The Vietnamese because of Vietnam, We are not allowed to dislike the Arabs for acts they committed days ago but we should hate the Jews for something that happened 35 years ago?

Or is that different?

i don't equate seeking justice for dead and injured sailors in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NAVY with hating jews and am not so willing to sweep those sailors under the rug as some people seem to be...semper fi.

i do not see anyone prohibiting you from exercising your first amendment rights to hate people based upon their ethnicity.

exactly what is the time limit for seeking justice for dead americans in the USMC, "gunny"?

According to a DEMOCRATIC President they DID get JUSTICE. End of story.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

35years ago and still complaining. Shall we hate the Japanese because of Pearl harbor? The Vietnamese because of Vietnam, We are not allowed to dislike the Arabs for acts they committed days ago but we should hate the Jews for something that happened 35 years ago?

Or is that different?

You know Gunny I worked for the Red Cross as a SAF Specialist for 2 years at Camp Pendelton and in all that time I never heard any Marine so disrespect the troops. It really is just a simple matter of Justice for American SVCMN

According to President Johnson THEY GOT THEIR JUSTICE. Pretty simple concept.

 

[Intense]

Personally, I think the reason to obstruct Investigation here, and the Facts, has to do more with the Joint Chief's of Staff, than Israel.

 

[Intense]

Remember here, we had a Super Secret Spy Ship with a giant Satellite Dish, transmitting massive communications, right off of Israel's coast, during an invasion. They did try to communicate with us before the attack. We basically blew them off.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Personally, I think the reason to obstruct Investigation here, and the Facts, has to do more with the Joint Chief's of Staff, than Israel.

They got caught with their pants down. Same thng when the North Koreans seized our spy ship.

At least 3 Investigations and public knowledge for 35 years. This is brought up to embarrass Israel and in an attempt to distance us from them.

 

[patrickcaturday]

There have been about 3 full investigations. All of them concluded that it was not deliberate.

I am not the one expressing outrage about an incident 35 years ago. I wonder why people continuously bring it up. It cannot be out of concern for US servicemen. If so, there are many more pressing concerns, like the Afghans killing US personnel I mentioned. It cannot be because the incident was covered up. It is all over the place in books and articles. It cannot be because no one has ever brought it up on USMB. This is like the 4th thread on the topic I recall.
So what is it? Hmm. Claims the Israelis masterminded it and it was deliberate, despite evidence to the contrary. Calls for cutting off aid to Israel. Claims that the Zionist-controlled media is covering. Claims that the Israel lobby has too much power in the U.S.
Yup. All of that fits the bill of anti-semitism all right.

It is a Myth that there have been 3 full investigations that has been perpetrated by Jay Crystol and the Israelis and that they have exonerated the Israelis. Here are the facts about the investigations;

Refuting the Unofficial Israeli Arguments
"Thirteen investigations" have concluded that the attack was a mistake.
The Myth of "Thirteen Investigations"
by Terence O'Keefe

When A. Jay Cristol's The Liberty Incident was released in 2002, it was uncritically hailed as the last word in the 36-year controversy surrounding Israel's 1967 attack on the USS Liberty that took 34 American lives and wounded 173. The book was packed with tedious minutiae arguing the case. Indeed, if its author is to be believed, Liberty survivors have engaged in a 36-year slander against the state of Israel - which was guilty, at worst, of a grievous mistake in the heat of war.

"Thirteen investigations have all exonerated Israel," is Cristol's mantra.

Cristol's 13 Investigations
1. The U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry: The senior legal adviser to the Court of Inquiry reflected that, in his entire career, he had never seen court of inquiry appointing letters with such limited authority, or an investigation made in such haste. The court's hearings began before the Liberty even arrived in Malta, and the report was completed just 10 days after the attack. The court commented on this haste in the official record: "The Court of Inquiry experienced no unusual difficulties incident to conducting the subject proceedings except for the necessity of investigating such a major naval disaster of international significance in an extremely abbreviated time frame."

Due in part to the required haste and the limitations imposed on the scope of the court's inquiries ("It was not the responsibility of the court to rule on the culpability of the attackers, and no evidence was heard from the attacking nation"), the court concluded that "available evidence combines to indicate...[that the attack was] a case of mistaken identity." [Emphasis added]

How, one might ask, could one inquire into all of the circumstances without hearing from the attacking nation? In fact, the court did neither. According to Captain Ward Boston, chief legal counsel to the Court of Inquiry, the court found that the attack was deliberate, but reported falsely that it was not because they were directed by the president of the United States and the secretary of defense to report falsely. So the findings are fraudulent. Yet these fraudulent findings were the basis for several other reports that followed.

2. Israeli government investigations: The Ram Ron and Yerushalmi reports of 1967 were not investigations. Both were elements of an Israeli process to determine whether anyone in Israel should be tried for a crime. That the attack itself was an accident was a given. Both hearings officers determined that no one in Israel did anything wrong, and that the USS Liberty was partly responsible, for a number of contrived reasons, such as "failure to fly a flag" and "trying to hide" - which the Navy Court of Inquiry found to be untrue.

3. The Joint Chiefs of Staff Report of June 1967: This was an inquiry into the mishandling of several messages intended for the ship. It was not an investigation into the attack. It did not exonerate Israel, because it did not in any way consider the question of culpability.

4. CIA report of June 13, 1967: This interim report, completed five days after the attack, reported "our best judgment [is] that the attack...was a mistake." No investigation was conducted, and no first-hand evidence was collected. Then-CIA Director Richard Helms later reported in his autobiography that the still-classified final CIA report found that the attack was planned and deliberate - a fact ignored by Mr. Cristol.

5. Clark Clifford report of July 18, 1967: Clark Clifford was directed by Lyndon Johnson to review the Court of Inquiry report and the interim CIA report and "not to make an independent inquiry." His was merely a summary of other reports, not an "investigation" as alleged by Mr. Cristol. The report reached no conclusions and did not exonerate Israel, as Mr. Cristol also claimed. On the contrary, Clifford wrote later that he regarded the attack as deliberate - a fact ignored by Mr. Cristol.

6. and 7. Two Senate Investigations: The Committee on Foreign Relations meeting of 1967 and Senate Armed Services Committee meeting of 1968 were hearings on unrelated matters which clearly skeptical members used to castigate representatives of the administration appearing under oath before them. Typical questions were, "Why can't we get the truth about this?" They were not "investigations" at all, but budget hearings, and reported no conclusions concerning the attack. They did not exonerate Israel, as claimed by Mr. Cristol.

8. House Appropriations Committee meeting of April and May 1968: This was a budget committee meeting which explored the issue of lost messages intended for the ship. It was not an investigation and reported no conclusions concerning the attack, as alleged by Mr. Cristol.

9. House Armed Services Committee Review of Communications, May 1971: Liberty communications were discussed along with other communications failures. The committee reported no conclusions concerning the attack, as alleged by Mr. Cristol.

10. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 1979/1981: Mr. Cristol claims that the committee investigated the attack and exonerated Israel, yet he has been unable to provide minutes, a report or other evidence of such an investigation. Rules of the select committee require that any committee investigation be followed by a report. There is no evidence that any investigation was undertaken. More importantly, there is no published committee report of such an investigation; ergo, there was no such investigation.

11. National Security Agency Report, 1981: Upon the publication in 1980 of Assault on the Liberty by James Ennes, the National Security Agency completed a detailed account of the attack. The report drew no conclusions, although its authors did note that the deputy director dismissed the Israeli excuse (the Yerushalmi report) as "a nice whitewash." The report did not exonerate Israel, as claimed by Mr. Cristol.

12. State of Israel - Israel Defense Force History Department report of June 1982: This Israeli government report was a reaction to a published report by Sen. Adlai Stevenson III that he believed the attack to be deliberate and hoped to provide a forum for survivors to tell their story. It was primarily a summary of the Ram Ron and Yerushalmi reports. The Stevenson forum, which was the impetus for the report, was never held. The report supports the official Israeli position that the attack was a tragic accident. It also blames USS Liberty, in part, for the attack.

13. House Armed Services Committee investigation of 1991/1992: Though cited by Mr. Cristol as an investigation which exonerates Israel, the U.S. government reports no record of such an investigation. Cristol claims that the investigation resulted from a letter to Rep. Nicholas Mavroules from Joe Meadors, then-president of the USS Liberty Veterans Association, seeking Mavroules' support. Instead of responding to Liberty veterans, however, Congressman Mavroules referred the matter to Mr. Cristol for advice. Survivors heard nothing further. Meadors' letter was never answered. The U.S. government reports that there has been no such investigation.

Summary
Mr. Cristol alleges that there were "thirteen investigations, all of which exonorated Israel." This allegation is completely false.

"Thirteen."

Putting aside all other issues, there were not "thirteen" investigations (or whatever you wish to call them). Two of the "thirteen" were complete fabrications - they never happened.

"Investigations."

Of the remaining eleven documents referenced by Cristol, at best, three could be argued to have been investigations. The other eight were nothing more than compilations of existing reports. Of those three, two (the Yerushalmi Report and the Ram Ron Report) were Israeli investigations to determine whether the Israeli Chief Military Prosecutor's indictments of a number of Israeli military personnel for criminal negligence should be upheld. The third (the Joint Chiefs of Staff Report) was an investigation, but it only inquired into the facts of the message routing system and did not undertake any "investigation" of the attack.

"Exonorated Israel."

Not surprisingly, the two Israeli reports (or if you prefer "investigations") not only exonorated Israel, but affirmatively found that no Israeli military personnel did even the slightest thing negligently or improperly.

Those U.S. reports which even offered an opinion uniformly stated that there was not sufficient evidence at the time of the report (in most cases mid-June 1967) to establish that the attack was not a mistake. This is hardlly an exonoration of Israel. Nonetheless, Cristol and the Israelis continue to claim, falsely, that there have been "thirteen investigations, all of which have exonorated Israel."

USS Liberty Inquiry - American Arguments: Thirteen Investigation

 

[sealadaigh]

RGS,

Did we "hate" the Japanese at the time? Were we fond of the Vietnamese during the conflict?

The problem here is not lingering animosity......it is that there NEVER WAS ANY to begin with.

Do you see the difference?

Then if blame is due it belongs to the Democratic President and his advisers. They are the ones that accepted the Israeli claim at what happened. They are the ones that silenced the supposed outrage. They are the ones that supposedly buried it.

It was 35 YEARS ago and a sitting President accepted what they offered. It is ancient History. XXXXXXX-Meister

i agree, LBJ and the admin and house and senate did drop the ball on that one.

there are a lot of brave african-american soldiers and jewish soldiers receiving long overdue acknowledgement, commendations, and in some cases, the congressional medal of honor, for their service in WWII.

thank god for people who put the justice for these troops above what some would call an ancient history that occured almost 70 years ago. god bless these vets.

 

[sealadaigh]

35years ago and still complaining. Shall we hate the Japanese because of Pearl harbor? The Vietnamese because of Vietnam, We are not allowed to dislike the Arabs for acts they committed days ago but we should hate the Jews for something that happened 35 years ago?

Or is that different?

i don't equate seeking justice for dead and injured sailors in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NAVY with hating jews and am not so willing to sweep those sailors under the rug as some people seem to be...semper fi.

i do not see anyone prohibiting you from exercising your first amendment rights to hate people based upon their ethnicity.

exactly what is the time limit for seeking justice for dead americans in the USMC, "gunny"?

According to a DEMOCRATIC President they DID get JUSTICE. End of story.

so, you are willing to let democratic presidents determine what justice is?

funny, i never thought you were so politically inclined.

 

[sealadaigh]

Remember here, we had a Super Secret Spy Ship with a giant Satellite Dish, transmitting massive communications, right off of Israel's coast, during an invasion. They did try to communicate with us before the attack. We basically blew them off.

i wouldn't disagree with that, although i don't think it has any bearing as to whether the attack was deliberate with the knowledge that the USS Liberty was a U.S. Naval vessel.

 

[toomuchtime_]

I'm glad you brought this topic up again. I vividly remember the event, and did not understand at the time why the United States did not take more decisive action. This was not like the Gulf of Tonkin incident, where all the evidence of attack on U S naval units turned out to be false. thirty four Americans dies and 171 were wounded.

While there is a lot of debate, the official reports and document lead me to agree that the attack was premeditated and intentional. My best guess is that at that point in the Six Day War, the Israelis were preparing for a last ditch nuclear attack if their lines broke and felt they had to protect that operation at all costs, even from the United States. I believe they had some fear that with an American carrier in the area, the United States might decide to intercept such an attack if the United States deemed the target too sensitive (like Cairo or Damascus). The Liberty was certainly a potential threat to their communications security. This is the only motive that makes sense to me for taking such a risk, and explains the subsequent behavior of both the American and Israeli governments. The Israeli's claimed it was a case of misidentification (an incredulous claim given the crew's testimony) and offered financial compensation. LBJ accepted the explanation with unseemly haste.

I'm sure this is going to be debated for decades more, but I don't think there is much evidence which will come out to make it any clearer.

All of the official reports concluded that attack was a case of mistaken identity, although some concluded it was caused by culpable negligence.

A US Naval Court of Inquiry concluded that "available evidence combines to indicate ... (that the attack was) a case of mistaken identity."

CIA memorandums stated, "The attack was not made in malice toward the U.S. and was by mistake, but the failure of the IDF Headquarters and the attacking aircraft to identify the Liberty and the subsequent attack by torpedo boats were both incongruous and indicative of gross negligence."

Clark Clifford, LBJ's special representative on this issue, after reviewing all available information stated, "The unprovoked attack on the Liberty constitutes a flagrant act of gross negligence for which the Israeli Government should be held completely responsible, and the Israeli military personnel involved should be punished."

In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, stated, "I simply want to emphasize that the investigative report does not show any evidence of a conscious intent to attack a U.S. vessel."

USS Liberty incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Years later in his memoirs, McNamara stated he still held that opinion.

The captain of the Liberty, William L. McGonagle told the Naval Court he had believed the attack was not an intentional attack, but an error by the Israelis.

The only member of the government that believed that it was an intentional attack on a US ship was Secretary of State Dean Rusk, but he admitted he had never read any of the investigative reports so it is not clear what he based his opinion on.

and...some of the part you left out...

The Liberty Veterans Association (composed of veterans from the ship) states that U.S. congressional investigations and other U.S. investigations were not actually investigations into the attack; but, rather, reports using evidence only from the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry, or investigations unrelated to culpability that involved issues such as communications. In their view, the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry is the only actual investigation on the incident to date. They claim it was hastily conducted, in only 10 days, even though the court’s president, Rear Admiral Isaac Kidd, said that it would take 6 months to conduct properly. The inquiry's terms of reference were limited to whether any shortcomings on the part of the Liberty's crew had contributed to the injuries and deaths that resulted from the attack.[47] According to the Navy Court of Inquiry's record of proceedings, four days were spent hearing testimony: two days for fourteen survivors of the attack and several U.S. Navy expert witnesses, and two partial days for two expert U.S. Navy witnesses. No testimony was heard from Israeli personnel involved.

The National Archives in College Park, Md., includes in its files on casualties from the Liberty copies of the original telegrams the Navy sent out to family members. The telegrams called the attack accidental. The telegrams were sent out June 9, the day before the Navy court of inquiry convened.

USS Liberty incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

sounds like a cursory investigation and a lot of rubber stamping going on...with a presidential elction looming and the president mired in aan increasingly unpopular war.

aren't full congressional investigations the norm in cases like this?

I left nothing out. Every official investigation and every official document concerning the event found the attack was the result of mistaken identity, a friendly fire incident. There is no evidence that suggests the Israelis intentionally attacked a US ship and there is abundant evidence that they thought it was an Egyptian ship, including intercepted communications between pilots and the control tower that were declassified only in 2003 that indicate long after the attack had ended the Israelis still believed they had attacked an Egyptian ship.

USS Liberty incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Intense]

Remember here, we had a Super Secret Spy Ship with a giant Satellite Dish, transmitting massive communications, right off of Israel's coast, during an invasion. They did try to communicate with us before the attack. We basically blew them off.

i wouldn't disagree with that, although i don't think it has any bearing as to whether the attack was deliberate with the knowledge that the USS Liberty was a U.S. Naval vessel.

What is of valid concern is the fear of what the ship was doing. Whether or not it was a Threat to Israeli operations. That was a Top Secret New Technology Israel knew nothing about. Personally, I believe Israel saw it as a real Threat. Nothing else would have led to the attack. Again, ask yourself, "Why wasn't the Liberty Escorted? What of the claim of the Sub that was on Site, that witnessed everything?" Remember, We adamantly denied it was our Ship. Anyone could have been playing Trojan Horse. Is Israel without blame? No. Were we? No. Command hung that ship out to dry.

 

[Intense]

Personally, I think the reason to obstruct Investigation here, and the Facts, has to do more with the Joint Chief's of Staff, than Israel.

They got caught with their pants down. Same thng when the North Koreans seized our spy ship.

At least 3 Investigations and public knowledge for 35 years. This is brought up to embarrass Israel and in an attempt to distance us from them.

I won't argue that. Myself, I support Israel as a Close Ally.

 

[sealadaigh]

Remember here, we had a Super Secret Spy Ship with a giant Satellite Dish, transmitting massive communications, right off of Israel's coast, during an invasion. They did try to communicate with us before the attack. We basically blew them off.

i wouldn't disagree with that, although i don't think it has any bearing as to whether the attack was deliberate with the knowledge that the USS Liberty was a U.S. Naval vessel.

What is of valid concern is the fear of what the ship was doing. Whether or not it was a Threat to Israeli operations. That was a Top Secret New Technology Israel knew nothing about. Personally, I believe Israel saw it as a real Threat. Nothing else would have led to the attack. Again, ask yourself, "Why wasn't the Liberty Escorted? What of the claim of the Sub that was on Site, that witnessed everything?" Remember, We adamantly denied it was our Ship. Anyone could have been playing Trojan Horse. Is Israel without blame? No. Were we? No. Command hung that ship out to dry.

where exactly are we disagreeing? i am not even speculating about anything other than the actual attack and the events leading up to it.

 

[Intense]

i wouldn't disagree with that, although i don't think it has any bearing as to whether the attack was deliberate with the knowledge that the USS Liberty was a U.S. Naval vessel.

What is of valid concern is the fear of what the ship was doing. Whether or not it was a Threat to Israeli operations. That was a Top Secret New Technology Israel knew nothing about. Personally, I believe Israel saw it as a real Threat. Nothing else would have led to the attack. Again, ask yourself, "Why wasn't the Liberty Escorted? What of the claim of the Sub that was on Site, that witnessed everything?" Remember, We adamantly denied it was our Ship. Anyone could have been playing Trojan Horse. Is Israel without blame? No. Were we? No. Command hung that ship out to dry.

where exactly are we disagreeing? i am not even speculating about anything other than the actual attack and the events leading up to it.

We may not be at all. Just adding perspective. It was a compound cluster fuck. It's all in the book.

 

[patrickcaturday]

What is of valid concern is the fear of what the ship was doing. Whether or not it was a Threat to Israeli operations. That was a Top Secret New Technology Israel knew nothing about. Personally, I believe Israel saw it as a real Threat. Nothing else would have led to the attack. Again, ask yourself, "Why wasn't the Liberty Escorted? What of the claim of the Sub that was on Site, that witnessed everything?" Remember, We adamantly denied it was our Ship. Anyone could have been playing Trojan Horse. Is Israel without blame? No. Were we? No. Command hung that ship out to dry.

where exactly are we disagreeing? i am not even speculating about anything other than the actual attack and the events leading up to it.

We may not be at all. Just adding perspective. It was a compound cluster fuck. It's all in the book.

Adding perspective is all well and good and if that is what people want to dicuss OK, but I would be remiss if I did not say that some times adding perspective can be a convenient cover for not reaching any decisions. I really do appreiciate everybodies involvement in this thread but I think it is time to start narrowing our field of thought back to the original question. There has been a lot of evidence that has been presented but no conclusions. I would suggest that people go back and take the time to watch the documentary again and then I would like to hear weather or not people think the attack was deliberate.