Cover-Up Alleged in Probe of USS Liberty

Status
Not open for further replies.
Speaking of Iranian Airliners,

Does anyone know anyone who was on the Vincennes, and can verify the reports I have heard, that the bodies of the "passengers" when fished out of the water a couple hours later, were bloated and naked, appearing to have been dead for some time already?????
 
Well...I went to the link. Since you indicated that you consider it a credible source, do you accept its conclusion?

This what it says about the Ram Ron report.

The "Ram Ron Report"
Immediately following the Israeli attack on USS Liberty, Colonel Ram Ron, undertook an initial inquiry of the facts on behalf of the IDF. As a result of this investigation, and the evidence developed, the Chief Military Prosecutor indicted a number of Israeli officers, largely on grounds of criminal negligence. The indictment was then referred to an examining judge for further condiseration.

That judge considered the evidence and found that there was no negligence on the part of any Israeli personnel and held that there was no basis for proceeding to court martial.

We have obtained a copy of the Ram Ron Report and will post it here shortly.
 
cmichael,

look - thats one of the two Israeli inquries. The question is do you accept it as a credible source? If you do, your "no-bombs" theory looks very flawed indeed.

FWIW I consider the stated views of the Israelis in this matter in these reports at a given time after the event relevant when viewed in the light of these later claims. As for its conclusions, I have stated that the available evidence points to either a massive failure at various levels in the Israeli Navy and IAF, or a deliberate act.

The Ram Ron report did find that some officers were thought worthy of further investigation, which I would broadly agree with.
 
What evidence?

This really isn't that hard to understand. Israel was at war. It announced that 100 miles would be considered a war zone. The US told them that they wouldn't have ships within that area.

The pilot was told to identify if it was one of their ships or not. Neutral ships weren't supposed to be there. So, the assumption was that if it wasn't an Israeli ship it was a ship that was at war with Israel. It accidently took it for an Egyptian ship during an active war.

Read the events and how they happened.

You are exceedingly stretching by stating that Israel is at fault here or even planned to intentionally attack a US ship.

The fault lies with whomever was responsible for that ship being so close to Egypt and within that zone.

I am not a bit unclear regarding your response to my question. Do you consider the Ram Ron report credible? If not, why did you use it? And if you do then do you accept the conclusion? You can't have it both ways.
 
And once again here are the conclusions of other investigations. And you refuste all these conclusions how?


Investigation Date Conclusion
U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry June 10-18, 1967 The attack was a case of mistaken identity. Calm conditions and slow ship speed may have made American flag difficult to identify. No indication the attack was intended against U.S. ship.

CIA Report June 13, 1967 The attack was not made in malice and was a mistake.

Joint Chiefs of Staff Fact Finding Team (Russ Report) June 9-20, 1967 Outlined "findings of fact," bud did not make any findings about the actual attack.

Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 1967 Secretary of Defense McNamara testified he supported conclusion that the attack was not intentional.

Senate Armed Services Committee Feb. 1, 1968 No conclusion. Secretary McNamara makes comparison of attack on Liberty to that on Pueblo with regard to uncertainty about what was happening at the time of the incident.

House Appropriations Committee April-May 1968 Navy communications "foulup" and no conclusion regarding Israeli actions. Much of report remains classified.

House Armed Services Committee May 10, 1971 Critical of Navy communications, no conclusion regarding Israeli actions.

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 1979 Responding to critical book by Liberty crewman James Ennes, Senate investigation found no merit to his claim attack was intentional.

National Security Agency 1981 Liberty was mistaken for an Egyptian ship as a result of miscalculations and egregious errors.

House Armed Services Committee June 1991 Responding to request from Liberty Veterans Association, Subcommitte on Investigations launched probe that concluded there was no evidence to support allegations made by the Association and no reason for further investigation.


Israeli Investigations
Investigation Date Conclusion
Ram Ron Commission June 12, 1967 The attack was made "neither maliciously nor in gross negligence, but as the result of a bona fide mistake. Also notes that the Liberty made a mistake as well by carelessly approaching a war area.

Preliminary Inquiry July 1967 There was no malicious intent and no deviation from the standard of reasonable conduct that would justify a court-martial.

IDF History 1982 The attack was a result of an "innocent error."
 
The Ram Ron report did find that some officers were thought worthy of further investigation, which I would broadly agree with.
Click to expand...

And the examining judge cleared them.

"The "Ram Ron Report"
Immediately following the Israeli attack on USS Liberty, Colonel Ram Ron, undertook an initial inquiry of the facts on behalf of the IDF. As a result of this investigation, and the evidence developed, the Chief Military Prosecutor indicted a number of Israeli officers, largely on grounds of criminal negligence. The indictment was then referred to an examining judge for further condiseration.

That judge considered the evidence and found that there was no negligence on the part of any Israeli personnel and held that there was no basis for proceeding to court martial."
 
Then, why are the Liberty survivors still so angry? After all, they were there, and saw it. (and felt it, some of them; for some, it was the last thing they felt)

As I wrote above, nation-states often do ugly, horrible things for "reasons of state". I just wish they'd admit to it sometimes.


Edit: Two revolting examples from my own country's history:

1. F. D. Roosevelt trying to provoke Hitler into fighting us. (USS Reuben James, etc.) - without telling us what he was trying to do.
2.R. M. Nixon bombing Cambodia and not telling anybody about it
 
cmichael,

The Ram Ron, like the other reports, is relevant because its the facts as stated by the Israelis when they looked at them - and the two reports convieniently disprove the "no bombs" theory since they directly refer to bombs being dropped by the Mirage flight. Accordingly Spector is either lying in that article or he lied to two investigations. What I think of the credibility of the reports has nothing to do with that.

Also there was no "100 mile limit" decreed by the Israelis - a claim which has already been made by Keith and disproved. All the Israelis did was inform the US that unidentified shipping near the coast would be attacked, and ask that the US inform the Israelis of any shipping in the area:

Johnson's idea of a convoy aimed at breaking the blockade came to nothing, and Nasser's troops remained mobilized in the Sinai. Syrian and Jordanian forces were also poised to attack. On the morning of June 5, with diplomatic options exhausted, the Israeli government went to war.13 The IDF launched lightning air and ground strikes against Egypt, quickly gaining the initiative, and repulsed attacks from Syria and Jordan. Yet the Israelis remained highly concerned about threats to their coastline, along which most of the country's major industrial and population centers were situated. The Egyptian navy outnumbered Israel's by more than five to one in warships and, in a crisis, could call on the support of some seventy Soviet vessels in the vicinity.14 The failure of the Israeli navy's attacks on Egyptian and Syrian ports early in the war did little to assuage Israel's fears. Consequently, the IDF Chief of Staff, Gen. Yitzhak Rabin, informed the U.S. Naval Attaché in Tel Aviv, Cmdr. Ernest Carl Castle, that Israel would defend its coast with every means at its disposal. Unidentified vessels would be sunk, Rabin advised; the United States should either acknowledge its ships in the area or remove them.15 Nonetheless, the Americans provided Israel with no information on the Liberty. The United States had also rejected Israel's request for a formal naval liaison. On May 31, Avraham Harman, Israel's ambassador to Washington, had warned Under Secretary of State Eugene V. Rostow that "if war breaks out, we would have no telephone number to call, no code for plane recognition, and no way to get in touch with the U.S. Sixth Fleet."
Click to expand...

The "100 mile" issue in fact comes from an order transmitted to the Liberty by the JCS requiring the ship to move that distance from the shore - a signal which was not recieved by the Liberty until it was too late. The Israelis also knew the identity of the ship and its rough location
at the earliest 0500 and at the latest 1055 on the day of the attack.
 
Then, why are the Liberty survivors still so angry? After all, they were there, and saw it. (and felt it, some of them; for some, it was the last thing they felt)

As I wrote above, nation-states often do ugly, horrible things for "reasons of state". I just wish they'd admit to it sometimes.<<

Because they were attacked. At the time they had no way to know what the true reason was that they were attacked. That's why there were investigations.

In Iraq the US accidently attacked Australians. That doesn't meant that they did it intentionally. The US even killed 26 men in two helicopters by mistake.

Mistakes happen during war.
 
Also there was no "100 mile limit" decreed by the Israelis - a claim which has already been made by Keith and disproved. All the Israelis did was inform the US that unidentified shipping near the coast would be attacked, and ask that the US inform the Israelis of any shipping in the area:
Click to expand...

I already posted this before. So look a few posts back to get the source.

"Fact: He completely ignores that the United States had publicly announced to the world at the United Nations Security Council only two days before June 8, 1967 that it had no warships within hundreds of miles of the combat zone. The chain of reactions were started by an Israeli army report of explosions at El Arish. Since Israel controlled the air and the ground, they made the assumption that they were being shelled from the sea and a warship was in eye view. In view of the U.S. public announcement, it seems more logical for the Israelis to have assumed that a haze grey warship sailing within eye view of the ongoing combat was an enemy vessel rather than a U.S. ship.<<

Yanno Keith is right. You should read what you yourself post. This is from what you just posted.



Consequently, the IDF Chief of Staff, Gen. Yitzhak Rabin, informed the U.S. Naval Attaché in Tel Aviv, Cmdr. Ernest Carl Castle, that Israel would defend its coast with every means at its disposal. Unidentified vessels would be sunk, Rabin advised; the United States should either acknowledge its ships in the area or remove them.15 Nonetheless, the Americans provided Israel with no information on the Liberty. The United States had also rejected Israel's request for a formal naval liaison. On May 31, Avraham Harman, Israel's ambassador to Washington, had warned Under Secretary of State Eugene V. Rostow that "if war breaks out, we would have no telephone number to call, no code for plane recognition, and no way to get in touch with the U.S. Sixth Fleet."
Click to expand...

So not only did the Israel not know about the ship but the US rejected a formal naval lisian and Israel's ambassador had warned that if war breaks out they have no way to verify this stuff with the US.

I guess that all the major numerous investigations concluding that it wasn't intentional has not weight to you, huh?
 
cmichael,

* at least some Israeli Navy and IAF officers knew the Liberty was there and reported and recorded as such. What they may or may not have said to the UN is irrelevant because for at least part of the day of the attack the Israeli's knew of the Libertys presence in the combat area - which is yet another fact you and Keith havent acknowledged.

* the Rabin comment is revealing- they didnt speak to him (as the link says) as they were under no obligation to do so, nor would they have necessarily informed another nation of the presence of a signals monitoring ship in international waters. In any case, as above, the Israelis knew of Liberty's presence.

* those incidents are a different kind of "friendly-fire" to this. Those were instant decisions, made in the heat of the moment - this was an attack which required a large number of people to foul up over a relatively long period of time. All of these incidents should be investigated throughly and charges brought if justified.

* are you ever going to admit the no-bombs theory is nonsense or what?
 
I have shown the conclusion of about 10 independent investigations all concluding that the attack was an accident.

Do you have the results of any investigation by a credible source that says that it was intentional??? How about just one?

In the case of Specter he was the first plane to reach there and attack. He said he didn't have bombs. The source that you posted said in the second attack there were bombs. So this is consistent with Specter's story.

I will concede that I am not certain if there were bombs or not at some point. However, if a bomb landed on the ship I don't see how it wasn't sunk?

However, I am challenging you to put up or shut up. I posted the conclusions of investigations of the US Court of Inquiry, the NSC, the House, the Senate, etc all concluding the same thing. How about showing something showing the opposite from a credible source?
 
* those incidents are a different kind of "friendly-fire" to this. Those were instant decisions, made in the heat of the moment - this was an attack which required a large number of people to foul up over a relatively long period of time. All of these incidents should be investigated throughly and charges brought if justified.
Click to expand...

You are still ignoring that it has already been investigation by about 10 different government agencies all concluding it was an accident. Could you please read the stuff that I posted that doesn't coincide with your theory. It will save me the trouble of continously having to repost the same thing.

Oh well here it is again:



Investigation Date Conclusion
U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry June 10-18, 1967 The attack was a case of mistaken identity. Calm conditions and slow ship speed may have made American flag difficult to identify. No indication the attack was intended against U.S. ship.

CIA Report June 13, 1967 The attack was not made in malice and was a mistake.

Joint Chiefs of Staff Fact Finding Team (Russ Report) June 9-20, 1967 Outlined "findings of fact," bud did not make any findings about the actual attack.

Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 1967 Secretary of Defense McNamara testified he supported conclusion that the attack was not intentional.

Senate Armed Services Committee Feb. 1, 1968 No conclusion. Secretary McNamara makes comparison of attack on Liberty to that on Pueblo with regard to uncertainty about what was happening at the time of the incident.

House Appropriations Committee April-May 1968 Navy communications "foulup" and no conclusion regarding Israeli actions. Much of report remains classified.

House Armed Services Committee May 10, 1971 Critical of Navy communications, no conclusion regarding Israeli actions.

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 1979 Responding to critical book by Liberty crewman James Ennes, Senate investigation found no merit to his claim attack was intentional.

National Security Agency 1981 Liberty was mistaken for an Egyptian ship as a result of miscalculations and egregious errors.

House Armed Services Committee June 1991 Responding to request from Liberty Veterans Association, Subcommitte on Investigations launched probe that concluded there was no evidence to support allegations made by the Association and no reason for further investigation.


Israeli Investigations
Investigation Date Conclusion
Ram Ron Commission June 12, 1967 The attack was made "neither maliciously nor in gross negligence, but as the result of a bona fide mistake. Also notes that the Liberty made a mistake as well by carelessly approaching a war area.

Preliminary Inquiry July 1967 There was no malicious intent and no deviation from the standard of reasonable conduct that would justify a court-martial.

IDF History 1982 The attack was a result of an "innocent error."
 
You can't effectively debate becasue the facts don't coincide with your theories.

1) You keep saying how you said it should be investigated, but completely ignore that it has been investigated by about 10 different entities all concluding that it was an accident

2) Your own source said it was an accident.

3) As far as the friendly fire incidents mentioned. Those could have much more eaily have been avoided because they were part of the same force and had communication procedures.

In the case of the Liberty the US government told Israel that there were no American ships within 100 miles yet the Liberty was about 14 miles from Egypt. Also, Israel requested from the US a liasion (according to your source) to better coordinate, but the US refused. So is at fault here?

4) Basically the person(s) who are at fault are whomever was responsible for the Liberty being within the zone.
 
The statement says that the particular pilot didn't drop bombs. Even what you posted said it was in the second attack and not the first.

BTW I did make a mistake I intentionally said I posted 10 separate organziations concluded that it was an accident. That isn't true I posted 13 separate investigations that concluded it was an accident.
 
cmichael,

no, it (the Yerushalmi Report) says:

"On the assumption that they were facing an enemy target an order was given to the aircraft to attack. During the first stage of the attack the aircraft strafed the ship with cannon and machine guns, and during the second stage dropped bombs on it, which caused fires, and smoke was seen to rise from the ship."
Click to expand...

the second phase of the first attack, not the second attack. The Ram Ron report is even more concise and unequivocal:

"Having received the confirmation, the Mirages attacked the target with bombs and strafing runs. "
Click to expand...

Also, the "fact" that 13 separate investigations have revealed it an accident means nothing - if 13 different criminals involved in a trial deemed themselves innocent, noone would accept that either.
 
What is the purpose of the argument? Let's say the current Israeli government comes clean and says that it was a deliberate attack because of some policy or issue back then.

Does that make the constant posters of this stuff happy? The USA messed up Allende in Chile and did other charming stuff around the world. So I guess some Chile dudes have tantrums on their forums.

What do you guys want? The Arabs to win and kill all the Israelis? Or do you just want an apology and some cash for the survivors? What is your point?

The reason antisemitism is raised is because that clearly seems the agenda of this continually raving about the issue. Is Israel not worth supporting because of this?

Say something about what you want and your motives - or you are full of chopped liver (guess what that looks like).
:cuss:
 
sw442642,

I have always believed that if the West portrays itself as the bastion of freedom and justice, then it should act accordingly and be seen to be doing so. Anything else is, and is seen as by the rest of the world, hypocrisy.

The chain of events here to me (and to Keith and cmichael, since even they blame someone) shows that justice for those men - and their loved ones - has not been achieved. It should be in the interests of us all to see that it is achieved.
 
I have always believed that if the West portrays itself as the bastion of freedom and justice, then it should act accordingly and be seen to be doing so. Anything else is, and is seen as by the rest of the world, hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
That's a very important point, and not one I have been able to articulate very well. It fits well for recent threads here on government deceptions over the Iraq war and the unending debate over the McCarthy era.

ag, do you mind if I ad it to my sig line?
 
Also, the "fact" that 13 separate investigations have revealed it an accident means nothing - if 13 different criminals involved in a trial deemed themselves innocent, noone would accept that either.
Click to expand...

Your analogy doesn't work. 10 of the investigations are from US government entities, such as the US Court of Inquiry, the CIA, the NSC, the House, the Senate, etc, etc.

Are you implying they were all involved in the vast Jewish conspiracy to cover it up?

These are 13 separate organizations.

You know it wasn't an accident because you heard it on Al Jazeera television?

It's amazing how you don't let the facts get in the way of your beliefs no matter how preposterous they are.

Once again for those who actually care about the truth:


Investigation Date Conclusion
U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry June 10-18, 1967 The attack was a case of mistaken identity. Calm conditions and slow ship speed may have made American flag difficult to identify. No indication the attack was intended against U.S. ship.

CIA Report June 13, 1967 The attack was not made in malice and was a mistake.

Joint Chiefs of Staff Fact Finding Team (Russ Report) June 9-20, 1967 Outlined "findings of fact," bud did not make any findings about the actual attack.

Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 1967 Secretary of Defense McNamara testified he supported conclusion that the attack was not intentional.

Senate Armed Services Committee Feb. 1, 1968 No conclusion. Secretary McNamara makes comparison of attack on Liberty to that on Pueblo with regard to uncertainty about what was happening at the time of the incident.

House Appropriations Committee April-May 1968 Navy communications "foulup" and no conclusion regarding Israeli actions. Much of report remains classified.

House Armed Services Committee May 10, 1971 Critical of Navy communications, no conclusion regarding Israeli actions.

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 1979 Responding to critical book by Liberty crewman James Ennes, Senate investigation found no merit to his claim attack was intentional.

National Security Agency 1981 Liberty was mistaken for an Egyptian ship as a result of miscalculations and egregious errors.

House Armed Services Committee June 1991 Responding to request from Liberty Veterans Association, Subcommitte on Investigations launched probe that concluded there was no evidence to support allegations made by the Association and no reason for further investigation.


Israeli Investigations
Investigation Date Conclusion
Ram Ron Commission June 12, 1967 The attack was made "neither maliciously nor in gross negligence, but as the result of a bona fide mistake. Also notes that the Liberty made a mistake as well by carelessly approaching a war area.

Preliminary Inquiry July 1967 There was no malicious intent and no deviation from the standard of reasonable conduct that would justify a court-martial.

IDF History 1982 The attack was a result of an "innocent error."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
Recordings Back Israel Claim on Spy Ship
Replies
20
Views
686
rrader
R
C
  • Locked
Pilot who bombed 'Liberty' talks to 'Post
Replies
1
Views
524
rock jock
R
T
  • Locked
USS Liberty discussion continued in another forum
Replies
1
Views
685
Coronach
C
V
  • Locked
Pentagon Analyst Held in Israel Spy Probe
Replies
0
Views
270
Vernal45
V
W
  • Locked
Pentagon, GAO Report Israeli Espionage And Illegal Technology Retransfer
Replies
2
Views
395
Wiley
W
Back
Top