ACP45 Loc: Rhode Island

Kevyn

The attack of the Liberty should have ended all US military aid to Israel until all Israelis involved were brought to justice from the Prime Minister down to the murderous pilots.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Big difference in accidently firing on a spy ship that should have been many miles away than deliberately targeting schools and hospitals. On October 3, a U.S. AC-130 gunship attacked a hospital run by Médecins Sans Frontières in Kunduz, Afghanistan, partially destroying it. Twelve staff members and 10 patients, including three children, were killed, and 37 people were injured. According to MSF, the U.S. had previously been informed of the hospital’s precise location, and the attack continued for 30 minutes after staff members desperately called the U.S. military. Independent monitors say the death toll since the bombing campaign against Isis started in 2014 runs into the thousands, with transparency project Airwars claiming at least 3,800 civilians have been killed.

Who will you hold responsible for these deliberate bombing. These were no accident or misidentification. And here is another difference, Israel immesiately admitted their error and wound up voluntarily paying reparations while the wounded were still being treated. Obama hid the carnage of hospitals and schools.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

The pilots were carrying out their orders...

It's what soldiers do...

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

The American government of course...

Who else could possibly be responsible?

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

The "attack" on the Liberty was horrible. But, it was not deliberate nor preplanned. However, the attacks on civilian hospitals and schools during 2015 and 2016 were premeditated and deliberate attacks on known hospitals and schools. I did not see an outcry from either the creator of this thread nor from respondent. I believe there is a world of difference between the two actions as well as immediate responses.

Kevyn

So did the Gestapo, it is no excuse.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Excuse?

It's an absolute excuse....

Soldiers carry out their orders...

Doing otherwise is called treason...

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

I know little about the attack on the Liberty..

As such it is difficult for me to form an opinion...

My response was concerning Afghanistan...

To which the government that sanctioned the orders deserves full responsibility...

If Israel sanctioned the attack on the Liberty then it is responsible as well...

If it was a mistake then that happens...

I recall when Canadians died of friendly fire in Afghanistan... Don't blame the US...

ACP45 Loc: Rhode Island

Jim Ennes is the author of Assault on the Liberty (1980). At the time of the attack, he served as a lieutenant who was on the bridge during the attack. The facts of the case need not be out of anyone's reach. In fact, Israel's attack on the Liberty was as accidental as Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.

The following is from the book, "Assault on the Liberty"

The U.S. Government had posted the Liberty off the coast of Gaza, in international waters, to monitor developments in the region during the Sixday War. (The Liberty's mission will be discussed in detail below.) At dawn 8 June, Israeli aircraft began reconnoitering the ship, some flying so close that the pilots could clearly be seen, and as low as masthead height, obviously photographing it. This extensive observation lasted seven hours and involved eight separate observations, at about 0600, 0900, 1000, 1030, 1100, and 1130, 1200 and 1215 p.m. U.S. intercept stations twice overheard Israeli pilots reporting that the ship was American. The visibility conditions were perfect; the ship's American flag was flying free and clear in a good breeze.

At 1400 a well coordinated attack by jet aircraft and torpedo boats began. Jets hammered the virtually unarmed ship with cannon and rockets, and napalmed it. Its forward machine-guns were wiped out in the first firing pass, and whatever transmitting antennas survived that pass were disabled by the second. Nine minutes into the attack, crewmen jury rigged a transmitter to an antenna. But the radiomen discovered that four out of five of the ship's radio frequencies, including the international distress frequency, were being jammed. Ironically, the only time Liberty could transmit was while the jets were firing their missiles. A frantic cry for help was sent to the Sixth Fleet, only 400 miles away and off Crete; despite the Israeli jamming, the Liberty's plea for assistance was received. The patchwork transmitting arrangement ceased functioning soon afterward.

Torpedo boats soon arrived and continued the attack, firing five torpedoes, with one hitting and killing 25 men. They then leisurely circled the defenseless ship for 40 minutes, pumping hundreds of 40mm, 20mm, and 50cal. rounds at wounded men on deck, stretcher bearers and fire fighters. Thinking the ship was about to sink, the crew threw life rafts over the side; the attackers machine-gunned those too. With increased radio activity from the U.S. Sixth Fleet indicating an impending U.S. response (many of the Fleet's messages bore "Flash" precedence), the Israelis suddenly contacted the U.S. embassy and informed it of this "accident." It was probably the longest "accidental" attack in the history of naval warfare an hour and 15 minutes.

Two separate flights of jets from the carriers America and Saratoga were recalled by Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, the first flight probably because Washington was not absolutely certain of the attackers' identity and was leery of starting a war with the Russians if they were the guilty party. The second flight was recalled after receipt of the Israeli explanation.

In addition to the above-mentioned circumstances which show that Israel's attack was deliberate the lengthy and careful surveillance, the radio jamming, etc. numerous other details belie Israel's professed innocence. They include: * The Israelis initially claimed they had "mistaken" the Liberty for the Egyptian ship El Quseir. But the El Quseir was only 40 percent the size of Liberty (4000 vs. 10,400 tons). The El Quseir was an old, rusted-out horse transport that bore about as much resemblance to the Liberty as a rusty VW does to a new Cadillac. The Liberty was arrayed with numerous specialized antennas, and an ultramodern (for 1967) 16foot microwave dish, a device possessed by no other ship in the world except her sister ship Belmont. She bore standard U.S. Navy markings, which included a freshly painted 10foothigh hull number, and Liberty on the stern.

* The radio jamming is by itself damning evidence that the assailants knew exactly whom they were attacking. Such jamming requires intimate advance knowledge of the target being jammed, obtained by extended monitoring of its signals. And this was selective jamming; it struck Liberty's frequencies and no others.

Afterward, in one of their ever changing explanations, the Israelis claimed to have learned the ship's identity when they heard its distress signals. But the attack continued for sixty six minutes after the first distress signal, which the Israelis had jammed, was sent. Had this particular Israeli claim been true, they would have recalled the torpedo boats before they even reached the ship.

* The Israelis claimed that the ship's U.S. flag hung limp because there was no wind. Later, when presented with the fact that the flag had been perfectly visible, they claimed that they thought that the ship was an enemy vessel flying false colors. The extended radio monitoring, exposing considerable advance investigation of Liberty's communication facilities, refutes this claim.

* The Israelis claimed that the torpedo boats, after first sighting the ship, had called in the aircraft to attack after the ship refused to identify itself. This is an obvious lie, because the attack was clearly a preplanned and well coordinated onetwo punch employing different branches of the Israeli Defense Forces. The jets were already intent on attacking the ship before the Liberty came into the torpedo boats' radar range. Directly contradicting themselves, the Israelis later claimed that their aircraft had called in the torpedo boats.

* The Israelis eventually admitted that before the attack, their commanders had compared reconnaissance photos of the Liberty with Jane's Fighting Ships. But they claimed that before the attack they twice telephoned the U.S. naval attache in Tel Aviv inquiring whether the Liberty was a U.S. ship and were told that there were no U.S. Navy ships in the area. They claimed that having received a negative reply, they decided that the ship had to be the El Quseir. However, the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv, and later the naval attache, emphatically stated that no such inquiries were made. The Israelis not only knew the ship's nationality and that she was an "ELINT" ship; they also knew she was the Liberty herself.

* Immediately preceding the attack, an Israeli pilot recognized Liberty as a U.S. ship and radioed this information to IDF headquarters. He was instructed to attack anyway. This dialogue was intercepted at the U.S. embassy in Beirut. Former U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Dwight Porter revealed the existence of this intercept in 1991.

* Finally, there is evidence, circumstantial but clear, of a relationship between the attack on the Liberty and a postponement of Israel's planned attack on the Golan Heights. The Golan attack was scheduled for 11:30 a.m. on 8 June; the Liberty was spotted by 6 a.m. or earlier; lastminute orders delayed the Golan attack; the Liberty was put out of commission; and the Golan attack occurred shortly thereafter. The vaunted IDF made very few mistakes in that war.

After the attack Secretary of State Dean Rusk recommended a strong response, and Presidential Counselor Clark Clifford advised President Johnson to treat Israel in the same manner as the U.S. would treat the Soviets or the Arabs if they had committed the atrocity. The U.S. would certainly not have taken this insult in silence had the offender been any country but Israel. But President Johnson stoically accepted Israel's explanation. The Navy conducted a Court of Inquiry, which ignored and even suppressed testimony that the attack had been deliberate; it dealt only with the actions and performance of the Liberty crew. State Department legal advisor Carl Salans performed an assessment of Israel's official explanation; with only the Navy's highly incomplete and erroneous preliminary investigation to go on, he thoroughly discredited the Israeli Government's claims of innocent error. The logical next step was to confront the Israelis with his findings, but that was not done. The U.S. Government's inaction was completely out of keeping with the outrageousness of the attack.

What was Israel's motive for this act? The scheduling of the Israeli assault on the Golan Heights for 8 June was a move to defeat an intense effort in the United Nations to halt the war, a ceasefire having been scheduled for 9 June. Such pressure was also being applied by the U.S. Government. The IDF leaders were under pressure to acquire the Golan before the ceasefire was imposed, preferably without being labeled the aggressor (as in 1956 when Israel had colluded with Britain and France to attack Egypt). But with all the pressure to attack Syria, and after all the hurried preparations to do so, the Golan attack was suddenly called off within hours of its scheduled commencement. Why? Obviously, someone in the IDF leadership feared the Liberty might intercept some of the many signals then filling the air that would expose Israel's preparations for invasion. They might then be forced into a ceasefire before they conquered the coveted territory.

ACP45 Loc: Rhode Island

Question CD and Pennylynn,

You join your country's armed forces for patriotic and idealistic purposes. Defending your country is an honorable goal. You become a fighter pilot and in the course of your duties you come across a ship of an ally of your country. You notify your chain of command that it is a friendly (not an enemy) and are ordered to attack the ship anyway. You are placed in a quandry, you know it is wrong to attack a friendly ally that is non-hostile, but you face severe consequences if you disobey your chain of command. What do you do? Do you follow your conscience, or follow orders (34 killed and 171 wounded). And, if you simply follow orders, isn't that the same argument that many Nazi's used during the Nuremberg trials?

From my previous post-
* Immediately preceding the attack, an Israeli pilot recognized Liberty as a U.S. ship and radioed this information to IDF headquarters. He was instructed to attack anyway. This dialogue was intercepted at the U.S. embassy in Beirut. Former U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Dwight Porter revealed the existence of this intercept in 1991.

* The Israelis eventually admitted that before the attack, their commanders had compared reconnaissance photos of the Liberty with Jane's Fighting Ships. But they claimed that before the attack they twice telephoned the U.S. naval attache in Tel Aviv inquiring whether the Liberty was a U.S. ship and were told that there were no U.S. Navy ships in the area. They claimed that having received a negative reply, they decided that the ship had to be the El Quseir. However, the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv, and later the naval attache, emphatically stated that no such inquiries were made. The Israelis not only knew the ship's nationality and that she was an "ELINT" ship; they also knew she was the Liberty herself.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

thank you. I have read several books on this subject. No disrespect to your chosen author and his book, I think to get a well-rounded perspective, one has to read more than one account.


As for the USS Liberty, here are the facts. All have been verified and there is no embellishments. I put it out for everyone to make up their own minds, was this an intentional act or an accident.

8 June 1967 which was the 4th day of the 6-day war, Israeli high command received several reports that troops in El Arish was under heavy fire for the sea. The day before, Egyptian vessels had taken the same position where they bombarded El Arish. Right or wrong, the assumption was made that the Egyptians had commenced firing again. Now then, the US announced that they would have a naval force within hundreds of miles off the coast to monitor the fight, but this was a few days earlier. The USS Liberty, under dual control of the DIS, CIA and the 6th Fleet came within 14 miles off of the Sinai coast. The Israelis mistakenly thought the USS Liberty was the one shelling El Arish. War planes and torpedo boats attacked the Liberty; killing 34 members of the Liberty's crew and wounding 171. Ships from the Sixth Fleet were directed to launch four attack aircraft with fighter cover to defend the Liberty, but the planes were recalled by the White House.

Liberty was first reported to be cruising at 30 knots (it was later recalculated to be 28 knots). Under Israeli (and U.S.) naval doctrine at the time, a ship proceeding at that speed was presumed to be a warship. The sea was calm and the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry found that the Liberty's flag was very likely drooped and not discernible; moreover, members of the crew, including the Captain, Commander William McGonagle, testified that the flag was knocked down.

According to Israeli Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin's memoirs, there were standing orders to attack any unidentified vessel near the shore.1 The day fighting began, Israel asked the US to remove any American ships from off the coast and to be notified of the precise location of U.S. vessels. The Sixth Fleet was moved because President Johnson feared being drawn into a confrontation with the Soviet Union. He also ordered that no aircraft be sent near Sinai.

A CIA report on the incident issued 13 June 1967, found that an overzealous pilot could mistake the Liberty for an Egyptian ship, the El Quseir. When the Liberty began shooting at the Israelis (which was a normal reaction) the Israelis responded with the torpedo attack, which killed 28 of the sailors. In 1981, NSA noted that accounts by members of the Liberty crew and others did not have access to the relevant signal intelligence reports or the confidential explanation provided by Israel to the United States, which were used in the CIA investigation. The NSA concluded: “While these (Signal intelligence of Israeli communications) reports revealed some confusion on the part of the pilots concerning the nationality of the ship, they tended to rule out any thesis that the Israeli Navy and Air Force deliberately attacked a ship they knew to be American.”

JCS investigated the communications failure and noted that the Chief of Naval Operations expressed concern about the prudence of sending the Liberty so close to the area of hostilities and four messages were subsequently sent instructing the ship to move farther away from the area of hostilities. The JCS report said the messages were never received because of “a combination of (1) human error, (2) high volume of communications traffic, and (3) lack of appreciation of sense of urgency regarding the movement of the Liberty.” The report also included a copy of a flash cable sent immediately after the attack, which reported that Israel had “erroneously” attacked the Liberty, that IDF helicopters were in rescue operations, and that Israel had sent “abject apologies” and requested information on any other U.S. ships near the war zone.

Initially, the Israelis were terrified that they had attacked a Soviet ship and might have provoked the Soviets to join the fighting. Once the Israelis were sure what had happened, they reported the incident to the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv and offered to provide a helicopter for the Americans to fly out to the ship and any help they required to evacuate the injured and salvage the ship. The offer was accepted and a U.S. naval attaché was flown to the Liberty.

The Israelis were “obviously shocked” by the error they made in attacking the ship, according to the U.S. Ambassador in Tel Aviv. In fact, according to a secret report on the 1967 war, the immediate concern was that the Arabs might see the proximity of the Liberty to the conflict as evidence of U.S.-Israel collusion. A second secret report concluded, “While the attack showed a degree of impetuosity and recklessness, it was also clear that the presence of a U.S. naval vessel, unannounced, that close to belligerent shores at a time when we had made much of the fact that no U.S. military forces were moving near the area of hostilities was inviting disaster.”

A U.S. spy plane was sent to the area as soon as the NSA learned of the attack on the Liberty and recorded the conversations of two Israeli Air Force helicopter pilots, which took place between 2:30 and 3:37 p.m. on June 8. The orders radioed to the pilots by their supervisor at the Hatzor base instructing them to search for Egyptian survivors from the “Egyptian warship” that had just been bombed were also recorded by the NSA. “Pay attention. The ship is now identified as Egyptian,” the pilots were informed.

See below for continuation

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

USS Liberty continued:

Nine minutes later, Hatzor told the pilots the ship was believed to be an Egyptian cargo ship. At 3:07, the pilots were first told the ship might not be Egyptian and were instructed to search for survivors and inform the base immediately the nationality of the first person they rescued. It was not until 3:12 that one of the pilots reported that he saw an American flag flying over the ship at which point he was instructed to verify if it was indeed a U.S. vessel.

In January 2004, the State Department held a conference on the Liberty incident and also released new documents, including CIA memos dated 13 and 21 June 1967, that say that Israel did not know it was striking an American vessel. The historian for the National Security Agency, David Hatch, said the available evidence “strongly suggested” Israel did not know it was attacking a U.S. ship. Two former U.S. officials, Ernest Castle, the United States Naval Attaché at the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv in June 1967, who received the first report of the attack from Israel, and John Hadden, then CIA Chief of Station in Tel Aviv, also agreed with the assessment that the attack on the Liberty was a mistake.

The new documents do not shed any light on the mystery of what the ship was doing in the area or why Israel was not informed about its presence.

Israel apologized for the tragedy immediately and offered on 9 June to compensate the victims. Israel ultimately paid nearly $13 million in humanitarian reparations to the United States and to the families of the victims in amounts established by the U.S. State Department. The matter was officially closed between the two governments by an exchange of diplomatic notes on 17 December 1987.

References:

A. Jay Cristol, The Liberty Incident. (Washington, D.C.: Brassey's Inc., 2002); Yitzhak Rabin, The Rabin Memoirs, (CA: University of California Press, 1996), pp. 108-109.
Attack on a SIGINT Collector, the U.S.S. Liberty.
Dan Kurzman, Soldier of Peace: The Life of Yitzhak Rabin, (NY: HarperCollins, 1998), pp. 224-227; Rabin, p. 108-109.
“United States Policy and Diplomacy in the Middle East Crisis, May 15-June 10, 1967,” declassified secret document, Lyndon Johnson Presidential Library, pp. 143-144.
L. Wainstain, “Some Aspects of the U.S. Involvement in the Middle East Crisis, May-June 1967,” Institute for Defense Analysis, (February 1968).
Washington Post, (November 6, 1991).
5Hirsh Goodman, “Messrs. Errors and No Facts,” Jerusalem Report (November 21, 1991); Arieh O' Sullivan, “Exclusive: Liberty attack tapes revelead,” Jerusalem Post, (June 3, 2004)
Nathan Guttman, “Memos show Liberty attack was an error,” Ha'aretz, (July 9, 2003).
“Pilot who bombed 'Liberty' talks to 'Post,“ Jerusalem Post (October 10, 2003).
Hirsh Goodman and Ze'ev Schiff, “The Attack on the Liberty,” Atlantic Monthly, (September 1984).


I can also recommend another book; The Secret War Against the Jews
By John Loftus and Mark Aarons
St. Martin's Press, 1994

ACP45 Loc: Rhode Island

If you were ordered to execute an unarmed enemy insurgent that was in the process of surrendering, would you do it? What if you were ordered to fire upon fleeing civilians, would you do it? What if you were ordered to kill an entire household of people, including women and young children because they may have harbored a terrorist, would you do it? What is worse, committing treason for violating a military order, or committing an illegal and immoral act?

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

In the case of an order, I would follow the order. The act of flying a flag does not guarantee the ship belongs to the nation associated with the flag. The individual issuing the order is privy to more accurate intelligence than the military individual on the ground or in the air.