The Liberty

[oldfart]

I don't care what people wrote in a book or give their opinion in a documentary,

They have no accountability for what they say. They aren't under oath. They can lie with no consequences.

What I do care about is sworn testimony and actual documents.

This is what I provided vs nothing but hearsy and wild conspiracy theories.
The Court Of Inquiry conducted an extensive investigation. Below is from the document.

The court is directed to inquire into all the pertinent facts
and circumstances leading to connected with the armed
attack damage resulting ??? ??? ??? of and injuries to naval
personnel. After ??????mntoin the Court shall submit its
findings of fact. The duty of the Court to designate

[1]

individuals as parties to the inquiry during the
proceedings, when appropriate, is set forth in section
0102(?) of reference (a). The Court is directed to take the
testimony of witnesses under oath and to submit(?) a
verbatim record of this proceedings. Military witnesses
will be warned of their rights in accordance with article 31
of the Uniform Code of Military Justice prior to the taking
of their testimony.

The problem with this approach is that the officer in charge of writing the report later signed an affidavit challenging the published reports accuracy and claiming a cover up. This resulted in an exchange with another former JAG officer. Wikipedia has a good summary.

In 2002, Captain Ward Boston, JAGC, U.S. Navy, senior counsel for the Court of Inquiry, claimed that the Court of Inquiry's findings were intended to cover up what was a deliberate attack by Israel on a ship it knew to be American. In 2004, in response to the publication of Jay Cristol’s book The Liberty Incident, which Boston claimed was an "insidious attempt to whitewash the facts" he prepared and signed an affidavit[56] in which he claimed that Admiral Kidd had told him that the government ordered Kidd to falsely report that the attack was a mistake, and that he and Kidd both believed the attack was deliberate. On the issue Boston wrote, in part:

"The evidence was clear. Both Admiral Kidd and I believed with certainty that this attack, which killed 34 American sailors and injured 172 others, was a deliberate effort to sink an American ship and murder its entire crew. Each evening, after hearing testimony all day, we often spoke our private thoughts concerning what we had seen and heard. I recall Admiral Kidd repeatedly referring to the Israeli forces responsible for the attack as 'murderous bastards.' It was our shared belief, based on the documentary evidence and testimony we received first hand, that the Israeli attack was planned and deliberate, and could not possibly have been an accident."

Cristol wrote about Boston's professional qualifications and integrity, on page 149 of his book:

Boston brought two special assets in addition to his skill as a Navy lawyer. He had been a naval aviator in World War II and therefore had insight beyond that of one qualified only in the law. Also, Kidd knew him as a man of integrity. On an earlier matter Boston had been willing to bump heads with Kidd when Boston felt it was more important to do the right thing than to curry favor with the senior who would write his fitness report."

Cristol believes that Boston is not telling the truth about Kidd's views and any pressure from the U.S. government.[57] A. Jay Cristol, who also served as an officer of the U.S. Navy's Judge Advocate General, suggests that Boston was responsible in part for the original conclusions of the Court of Inquiry, and that by later declaring that they were false he has admitted to "lying under oath." Cristol also notes that Boston's claims about pressure on Kidd were hearsay, and that Kidd was not alive to confirm or deny them. He also notes that Boston did not maintain prior to his affidavit and comments related to it that Kidd spoke of such instructions to him or to others. Finally, he provides a handwritten 1991 letter from Admiral Kidd[58] that, according to Cristol, "suggest that Ward Boston has either a faulty memory or a vivid imagination".

So I guess historians be damned, you are going to stick with an implausible report impeached by its own authors? Good thing that historians are taught to take "official reports" with more than a pinch of salt.

 

[CMike]

I don't care what people wrote in a book or give their opinion in a documentary,

They have no accountability for what they say. They aren't under oath. They can lie with no consequences.

What I do care about is sworn testimony and actual documents.

This is what I provided vs nothing but hearsy and wild conspiracy theories.
The Court Of Inquiry conducted an extensive investigation. Below is from the document.

The court is directed to inquire into all the pertinent facts
and circumstances leading to connected with the armed
attack damage resulting ??? ??? ??? of and injuries to naval
personnel. After ??????mntoin the Court shall submit its
findings of fact. The duty of the Court to designate

[1]

individuals as parties to the inquiry during the
proceedings, when appropriate, is set forth in section
0102(?) of reference (a). The Court is directed to take the
testimony of witnesses under oath and to submit(?) a
verbatim record of this proceedings. Military witnesses
will be warned of their rights in accordance with article 31
of the Uniform Code of Military Justice prior to the taking
of their testimony.

The problem with this approach is that the officer in charge of writing the report later signed an affidavit challenging the published reports accuracy and claiming a cover up. This resulted in an exchange with another former JAG officer. Wikipedia has a good summary.

In 2002, Captain Ward Boston, JAGC, U.S. Navy, senior counsel for the Court of Inquiry, claimed that the Court of Inquiry's findings were intended to cover up what was a deliberate attack by Israel on a ship it knew to be American. In 2004, in response to the publication of Jay Cristol’s book The Liberty Incident, which Boston claimed was an "insidious attempt to whitewash the facts" he prepared and signed an affidavit[56] in which he claimed that Admiral Kidd had told him that the government ordered Kidd to falsely report that the attack was a mistake, and that he and Kidd both believed the attack was deliberate. On the issue Boston wrote, in part:


Cristol wrote about Boston's professional qualifications and integrity, on page 149 of his book:

Boston brought two special assets in addition to his skill as a Navy lawyer. He had been a naval aviator in World War II and therefore had insight beyond that of one qualified only in the law. Also, Kidd knew him as a man of integrity. On an earlier matter Boston had been willing to bump heads with Kidd when Boston felt it was more important to do the right thing than to curry favor with the senior who would write his fitness report."

Cristol believes that Boston is not telling the truth about Kidd's views and any pressure from the U.S. government.[57] A. Jay Cristol, who also served as an officer of the U.S. Navy's Judge Advocate General, suggests that Boston was responsible in part for the original conclusions of the Court of Inquiry, and that by later declaring that they were false he has admitted to "lying under oath." Cristol also notes that Boston's claims about pressure on Kidd were hearsay, and that Kidd was not alive to confirm or deny them. He also notes that Boston did not maintain prior to his affidavit and comments related to it that Kidd spoke of such instructions to him or to others. Finally, he provides a handwritten 1991 letter from Admiral Kidd[58] that, according to Cristol, "suggest that Ward Boston has either a faulty memory or a vivid imagination".

So I guess historians be damned, you are going to stick with an implausible report impeached by its own authors? Good thing that historians are taught to take "official reports" with more than a pinch of salt.

Boston was a lawyer in the US Naval Court of Inquiry. His personal opinion is irrelevant and his hearsy is even more irrelevant.

Once again, I posted the link to the US Naval Court of Inquiry investigation and conclusions. The sworn testimony of all the relevant people are there too.

Anyone can read it for themselves. All the facts and testimony is public and I posted the link for it.

The Liberty was an accident. It was off the Egyptian coastline at a time of an active war. According to the testimony there were many communcations errors made by the US navy and the ship wasn't were it was supposed to be.

Why don't you do yourself a favor and actually read the transcript. It's right there for everyone to see.

Also I provided the documents from the NSA of the Israeli pilots.

Instead of relying on personal opinions and hearsy of wild conspiracy theories educate yourself by reading the actual documents.

 

[CMike]

I don't care what people wrote in a book or give their opinion in a documentary,

They have no accountability for what they say. They aren't under oath. They can lie with no consequences.

What I do care about is sworn testimony and actual documents.

This is what I provided vs nothing but hearsy and wild conspiracy theories.
The Court Of Inquiry conducted an extensive investigation. Below is from the document.

The court is directed to inquire into all the pertinent facts
and circumstances leading to connected with the armed
attack damage resulting ??? ??? ??? of and injuries to naval
personnel. After ??????mntoin the Court shall submit its
findings of fact. The duty of the Court to designate

[1]

individuals as parties to the inquiry during the
proceedings, when appropriate, is set forth in section
0102(?) of reference (a). The Court is directed to take the
testimony of witnesses under oath and to submit(?) a
verbatim record of this proceedings. Military witnesses
will be warned of their rights in accordance with article 31
of the Uniform Code of Military Justice prior to the taking
of their testimony.

The problem with this approach is that the officer in charge of writing the report later signed an affidavit challenging the published reports accuracy and claiming a cover up. This resulted in an exchange with another former JAG officer. Wikipedia has a good summary.

In 2002, Captain Ward Boston, JAGC, U.S. Navy, senior counsel for the Court of Inquiry, claimed that the Court of Inquiry's findings were intended to cover up what was a deliberate attack by Israel on a ship it knew to be American. In 2004, in response to the publication of Jay Cristol’s book The Liberty Incident, which Boston claimed was an "insidious attempt to whitewash the facts" he prepared and signed an affidavit[56] in which he claimed that Admiral Kidd had told him that the government ordered Kidd to falsely report that the attack was a mistake, and that he and Kidd both believed the attack was deliberate. On the issue Boston wrote, in part:


Cristol wrote about Boston's professional qualifications and integrity, on page 149 of his book:

Boston brought two special assets in addition to his skill as a Navy lawyer. He had been a naval aviator in World War II and therefore had insight beyond that of one qualified only in the law. Also, Kidd knew him as a man of integrity. On an earlier matter Boston had been willing to bump heads with Kidd when Boston felt it was more important to do the right thing than to curry favor with the senior who would write his fitness report."

Cristol believes that Boston is not telling the truth about Kidd's views and any pressure from the U.S. government.[57] A. Jay Cristol, who also served as an officer of the U.S. Navy's Judge Advocate General, suggests that Boston was responsible in part for the original conclusions of the Court of Inquiry, and that by later declaring that they were false he has admitted to "lying under oath." Cristol also notes that Boston's claims about pressure on Kidd were hearsay, and that Kidd was not alive to confirm or deny them. He also notes that Boston did not maintain prior to his affidavit and comments related to it that Kidd spoke of such instructions to him or to others. Finally, he provides a handwritten 1991 letter from Admiral Kidd[58] that, according to Cristol, "suggest that Ward Boston has either a faulty memory or a vivid imagination".

So I guess historians be damned, you are going to stick with an implausible report impeached by its own authors? Good thing that historians are taught to take "official reports" with more than a pinch of salt.

Once more thing, and I challenge all the conspiracy theorists, how about documenting where you believe the report is wrong.

And I don't accept personal opinions, or other hearsay. I am talking about actual real life documentation.

 

[USNJake]

Weren't we talking about the Liberty incedent and lost sailors?
At least that was a friendly fire shootout.

If murder can be counted as friendly fire i suppose , anyone in any doubt can pop on over to the USS Liberty Veterans org page and surviving members of the crew will answer questions.
Egyptian horse transport my backside , it was chained to the docks for years and unseaworthy plus 1/3rd of the size of the Liberty with all its hi tech antanae on the deck , they knew very well who it was.

 

[USNJake]

Thanks for that , ill have a look when i have time. Im not blocking anyone , i switched PM function off after reading the forum for an hour.I enjoy intelligent discourse but like i say...i read for an hour

 

[USNJake]

I think the disturbing thing is the reporters emphasis on getting back to memorial day and those it is "meant" for ... that's disgusting.The crew of the USS Liberty are not a part of memorial day ?


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2d0CKXy8HQ]McCain Confronted on USS Liberty Cover-up & Media Accomplices - YouTube[/ame]