USS Liberty Incident - Wikispooks By using the Wikispooks.com servers, you agree to its use of cookies More information USS Liberty Incident From Wikispooks Jump to navigation Jump to search USS Liberty Incident (False flag attack, mid-level deep event) Date8 June 1967PerpetratorsIsraelWebsitehttp://honorlibertyvets.org/Deaths34Injured (non-fatal)171Survivors171Subpage•USS Liberty Incident/Reliable SourcesDescriptionA 1967 false flag attack by Israel that tried and failed to sink the USS Liberty, a United States Navy signals intercept ship. The investigation was told to "conclude that the attack was a case of 'mistaken identity' despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary." Israel paid compensation but always contested that it was accidental. USS Liberty, stern view. Flag, "GTR5" visible on stern, and see main satellite dish. Note 3 masts. Pilots claim 2nd satellite dish (high-lighted) mistaken for large naval gun capable of shelling the coast.Israeli 'Ram Ron Report': "... ship was identified by the aeroplanes as a military ship with a single mast (gun?) and a single funnel." USS Liberty, bow view. Pilot and (and torpedo boat captains) have duty to "at all cost avoid attacks on any neutral merchant ship or warships". The USS Liberty Incident of 1967 was a result of Operation Cyanide, a failed false flag attack intended to sink the USS Liberty, a lightly armed US Navy signals intercept ship. At the time, the Israeli air force stated that the ship was mistakenly identified, but it had many radio antennas mounted on its open decks and three large masts, including two large parabolic reflector antennas. The ship was subjected to a combined air and sea attack by Israel's Defense Forces during the Six Day War, but failed to sink as planned.[1] Contents 1 Official narrative 2 Sub-Page 3 Reliable Sources from independent commentators overwhelmingly dispute "accident theory" 4 Chronology 4.1 1967 4.1.1 Cover-up 4.1.2 US demand for disciplinary measures stands today 4.2 1979 James Enness's book 4.3 1982 IDF History Report 4.4 1986 Jacobsen on war-crimes 4.5 1987 Thames Television documentary 4.6 2001 retired servicemen start to speak 4.7 2001 History News Network 4.8 2002 flurry of interest and accusations 4.8.1 "The Liberty Incident" by Jay Cristol 4.8.2 Ward Boston Affidavit 4.8.2.1 Cristol responds to Boston 4.8.2.2 Cristol and his "13 investigations exonerate Israel" 4.8.3 "Gun-Camera" pictures challenged 4.9 2004 State Department Panel Discussion 4.10 2005 survivors present legal demand for Inquiry 4.11 2007 Chicago Tribune summary 4.12 2012 Denial continues 5 Possible motives 5.1 To conceal planned attacks on Jordan/Syria? 5.2 As a casus belli 5.2.1 By the US 5.2.2 By Israel 5.3 To cover up massacres of POWs? 6 The "Accident Theory" 6.1 Problems with Accident Theory 6.1.1 Problems with defenders of the "accident" theory" 6.2 Arguments in support 7 Presidential Politics 7.1 Did President Johnson know? 7.2 Truman, Eisenhower, JFK and LBJ on Israel 8 List of fabrications, outright and suspected 9 Large numbers of US officials disbelieved Israel 10 Anti-semitism? 10.1 Survivor groups 10.2 Supporter groups 11 Italy loses airliner, fails to punish 12 Wikipedia 12.1 Wikipedia biased article 12.2 Wikipedia still worth reading 13 Further Reading 14 Related Documents 15 Rating 16 References Official narrative For reasons never stated, President Johnson’s administration did not interfere when notified that the attack was in progress, and both Israel and U.S. governments have officially treated the incident as a case of mistaken identity. Johnson and McNamara told those heading the navy's inquiry to "conclude that the attack was a case of 'mistaken identity' despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary."[2] In June 2016, the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs reported that "49 Years on, there is still no 'explanation' for the USS Liberty attack."[3] Commenting on the WMREA article, Robert N. Edwards, Commander, Chaplain Corps, USN (Retired) said: "I have always held that the reason for the attack was to prevent the Liberty from stopping the [Israeli] assault on the Golan Heights. Next to the West Jerusalem/Temple Mount area, the Golan was the primary target. Numerous Jewish men, women and children had been killed by artillery shellings from those heights."[4] Sub-Page Page Name SizeUSS Liberty Incident/Reliable Sources20,645 Reliable Sources from independent commentators overwhelmingly dispute "accident theory" Main article USS Liberty Incident Reliable Sources "Reliable Sources" are articles/books that have come through a respected publication process showing some degree of editorial control. Eg a book from a respected publisher, a respected newspaper/magazine, or a web-site with multiple respected contributors. The full rule book is at Wikipedia: Reliable Sources. Every one of the independent or "neutral" commentators (as best as can be ascertained) has come to believe that this attack could not have occured accidentally. This attack was not a case of "Friendly Fire". However, it is necessary that the reader has the opportunity to check this for themselves and so the listing at the sub-article covers (or is intended to cover) all significant sources, including those showing conflict of interest, other bias or, in some cases, suspicion of fraud. The mass of detail contained within the table of information has been moved to the sub-article to improve readability of the article here. Chronology 1967 Cover-up At the behest of the Secretary of Defense and the White House almost everyone involved is ordered not to discuss the incident with anyone eg Ken Ecker Immediately following the attack I was threatened with court-martial if I discussed the incident with the press or anyone else.[5][6] and the Liberty crewmen are transferred to stations far apart from one another, no two at the same place. Several sources identify Admiral Kidd as the officer who threatened them "Kidd told the crew, ‘You are never, repeat never, to discuss this with anyone, not even your wives. If you do, you will be court-martialed and will end your lives in prison or worse.’"[7] In 1991, another survivor, John Hrankowski, wrote to the New York Times to say he was a member of the crew and was told, two hours after the attack, never to speak of it and that order remains in effect to this day.[8] The surviving crewmembers were dispersed to other ships and told not to discuss the incident with anyone, including their own families. Many never said anything for at least 20 years, for fear of reprisal. Phil Tourney's book "What I saw that day" pulls no punches when he describes how the crew was treated by Admiral Isaac Kidd, with threats of court-martial and imprisonment "or worse" if they told anyone what they saw.[7] "From a first-hand account the author brings forth the viciousness of the attack on a ship that had a large American flag displayed, the carnage inflicted on her crew and the tremendous damage done, which included over 820 bullet and shrapnel holes and areas burned by napalm and a torpedo hole the size of a house." Israel claims the attack was the result of a string of innocent errors and they mistook the USS Liberty for an Egyptian horse carrier - the El Quisar. This ship, also shown in Jane's Fighting Ships is barely a quarter the size of the Liberty and has a strikingly different outline/appearance. US demand for disciplinary measures stands today The official position of the United States of America concerning these events is in a diplomatic note of the 10th June (ie 48 hours after the attack) by Secretary of State Dean Rusk. Addressed to the Israeli Ambassador it says, amongst other things: ... the Secretary of State wishes to make clear that the United States Government expects the Government of Israel also to take the disciplinary measures which international law requires in the event of wrongful conduct by the military personnel of a State." There has been no statement since then by the United States government reversing or amending this formal position.[9] A blanket absolution was granted by an Israeli judge who said that he had not discovered any deviation from the standard of reasonable conduct. No one in the Israeli government or military ever received any form of reprimand for their involvement in the attack. 1979 James Enness's book In 1979, James Ennes, officer aboard USS Liberty during the attack, bravely defied the gag order placed on him by the US government and published "Assault on the Liberty: The True Story of the Israeli Attack on an American intelligence Ship.". The book reunited the USS Liberty crew and, despite the threats (still being uttered in 2010[10]) and their previous complete isolation from each other, former Liberty crew founded a non-profit Liberty Veterans Association and held a reunion in 1982. Many discovered for the first time that all their colleagues felt the same, the attack could not have been a genuine "Friendly Fire". The servicemen began petitioning Congress for an investigation but only received pro-forma letters from the White House claiming that the attack had already been investigated. 1982 IDF History Report In 1982, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) History Department, Research and Instruction Branch, produced a comprehensive report about the June 1967 IDF attack on USS Liberty, self-styled as the official Israeli version of the facts. The report is entitled "The Attack on the 'Liberty' Incident."[11] This report is notable for a picture (p.18) that claimed to be from the gun-camera of the attacking jet - but in fact shows a different ship. Israel has yet to release real gun-camera pictures, but this cannot be one of them. (Note that the original image in the report was extremely poor quality, a better version appeared in the 1987 Thames film). 1986 Jacobsen on war-crimes The legality of Israel's actions was thoroughly examined by Walter L. Jacobsen and published as "A Juridical Examination of the Israeli Attack on the Liberty," in the Naval Law Review 36, (Winter 1986), 12-13.[12] The summary of his report says: "Following the Israeli attack on the U.S.S. Liberty, there were conflicting accounts of the event. Many questions remain unanswered. In this article, LCDR Jacobsen provides an analysis of the attack in light of existing international precepts as they relate to intelligence gathering, freedom of the seas, aggression, and self-defense. Following this analysis, the author concludes that the attack was not supportable in international law and recommends a thorough, public investigation into the attack by the United States Congress." His report concludes that "[t]he attack was not legally justified....(there were) two further violations of international law...the use of unmarked military aircraft (and) ... the wanton destruction of life rafts."[13] Jacobsen notes that there is a passing reference to the attack on the Liberty in Professor O'Connell's, The Influence of Law on Seapower (1975). It reads:On 8 June 1967 Israeli torpedo boats and aircraft attacked the U.S.S. Liberty, an electronic surveillance ship which was monitoring Israeli transmissions from the high seas during the Six Day's War. ... The fact that something is done does not make it legal and Israel is reported to have paid over $3 million in compensation. The illegality may have lain in the attack on a neutral ship or it may have been compounded by the fact that the attack occurred on the high seas. D. O'Connell, The Influence of Law on Seapower 127 (1975). 1987 Thames Television documentary The British television station, Thames Ltd made a documentary entitled "Attack on the Liberty" that presented the Israeli version whereby this was an accident and a "friendly fire" incident. Thames presented a 2nd "gun-camera picture" provided by Israel, one which was to puzzle analysts for years. In 2002 Ken Halliwell proposed that it was a fake, a US picture of the right ship taken weeks after the attack. See entry below for 2002. 2001 retired servicemen start to speak Previous to the year 2001, it almost appeared as if the matter would be hushed up completely. Admiral Kidd, who presided over the original Court of Inquiry is known to have wanted the whole case reexamined, speaking to Boston and Ennes and other survivors and yet never put anything into writing until his death in 1999. Former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Admiral Thomas Moorer was 89 years old (b.1912, d.2004) when he summed up the Liberty incident in 2001: "It’s ridiculous to say this was an accident. There was good weather, she was flying the U.S. flag and the planes and torpedo boats attacked over a long period of time."[14] In 2003, Moorer's "Independent Investigation" reported and condemned Israel and in the Jan. 16, 2004, edition of the Stars and Stripes 2004, less than a month before he died, he wrote: While State Department officials and historians converge on Washington this week to discuss the 1967 war in the Middle East, I am compelled to speak out about one of U.S. history's most shocking cover-ups.[15] 2001 History News Network A special edition documentary on the USS Liberty incident was broadcast by the History News Network in the summer of 2001, with particular attention to the allegations made in book of James Bamford, "Body of Secrets" which it describes as having "attracted a great deal of attention". History News Network then published a rejoinder from AJ Cristol,[16] The judge concludes that Bamford is guilty of telling "tall tales." 2002 flurry of interest and accusations "The Liberty Incident" by Jay Cristol Determined that discussion of this incident was best written off as a "conspiracy theory", supporters of Israel had never published a book presenting their case. In 2002, after some 15 years[citation needed] of research, including interviews of 500 Israelis and 7 survivors, Jay Cristol published "The Liberty Incident" defending Israel's "accident theory" for the incident. Ward Boston Affidavit Cristol's book so infuriated the original military lawyer and senior counsel for the 1967 Court of Inquiry, Captain Ward Boston, JAGC, US Navy that he broke his silence of 30 years to swear a declaration[17] and condemn Israel for what happened, and the cover-up of which he was a central part. He speaks of "attempts to rewrite history" below, a reference to Jay Cristol's pro-Israeli book: "For more than 30 years, I have remained silent on the topic of USS Liberty. I am a military man and when orders come in from the Secretary of Defense and President of the United States, I follow them. However, recent attempts to rewrite history compel me to share the truth. "In June of 1967, while serving as a Captain in the Judge Advocate General Corps, Department of the Navy, I was assigned as senior legal counsel for the Navy’s Court of Inquiry into the ... attack on USS Liberty, which had occurred on June 8th." ... "The evidence was clear. Both Admiral Kidd and I believed with certainty that this attack ... was a deliberate effort to sink an American ship and murder its entire crew. ... 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. I am certain that the Israeli pilots that undertook the attack, as well as their superiors, who had ordered the attack, were well aware that the ship was American." ... "I am outraged at the efforts of the apologists for Israel in this country to claim that this attack was a case of ‘mistaken identity.’ In particular, the recent publication of Jay Cristol’s book, The Liberty Incident, twists the facts and misrepresents the views of those of us who investigated the attack. It is Cristol’s ... attempt to whitewash the facts that has pushed me to speak out. [Note - some paragraphs joined]. This was something of a blow to Cristol and his exoneration of Israel, since he'd written of 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. Boston describes a phone call he received from Jay Cristol in 1990 requesting an interview. Boston refered him to Admiral Kidd (ret.), still alive at the time. "Shortly after my conversation with Cristol, I received a telephone call from Admiral Kidd, inquiring about Cristol and what he was up to. ... "At no time did I ever hear Admiral Kidd speak of Cristol other than in highly disparaging terms. I find Cristol’s claims of a ‘close friendship’ with Admiral Kidd to be utterly incredible. I also find it impossible to believe the statements he attributes to Admiral Kidd, concerning the attack on USS Liberty."[18][19][20] Confirmation of the views of Admiral Kidd comes from James Ennes, who claims that Admiral Kidd urged him and his group to keep pressing for an open congressional probe.[21] However, he does not appear to have ever put this into writing or ever been recorded saying it. Cristol responds to Boston Cristol hastily sculled back from the position he'd taken of respect and admiration for Boston's integrity, claiming not to believe Boston about Kidd's views and pressure from the U.S. government, and says that Boston had close[d] his record with an act that dishonors himself by admitting to lying under oath.[22] Cristol produced a handwritten 1991 letter from Admiral Kidd[23] that, according to Cristol, "suggest that Ward Boston has either a faulty memory or a vivid imagination". Cristol's position is backed by the ADL, which said that according to his own account, Boston's evidence of a cover-up derives not from his own part in the investigation but solely on alleged conversations with Admiral Kidd[24] In an e-mail to James Ennes of 21 March 2003, Cristol claimed that Boston had gone public before he spoke to the Navy Times, but had later retracted what he said. Ennes sees no evidence for this.[25] Cristol and his "13 investigations exonerate Israel" In his pre-publication publicity in July 2002, Cristol asserted that ten official U.S. investigations and three official Israeli investigations have all concluded that the attack was a tragic mistake or that there is no evidence to establish that it was not a tragic mistake.[26] The WRMEA claim to have comprehensively demolished this account in December 2003 in their article "Thirteen investigations have all exonerated Israel," is Cristol’s mantra.[27] According to the "Washington Report on Middle East Affairs" 2 of the 13 claimed reports are non-existent, 9 were not investigations/or don't exonerate Israel, leaving only 1 Israeli investigation and the original rushed US Court of Inquiry. Typical of the problems, the Clark Clifford report of July 18, 1967 is claimed by AJ Cristol to exonerate Israel although it was not an inquiry (it's a summary of other reports) and Clifford wrote later that he regarded the attack as deliberate, a fact ignored by Cristol. Similarly, the CIA report of June 13, 1967 came out before there'd been any investigation. While it reported "our best judgment [is] that the attack...was a mistake." then-CIA Director Richard Helms concluded and later reported in his autobiography that the attack was planned and deliberate. Again, this is ignored by Mr. Cristol. There is no record of Cristol attempting to defend his assertion over the investigations. In other cases he has robustly atta… truncated (53,208 more characters in archive)