Jim Ennes, who was a watch standing officer on the USS Liberty asked me for a statement as to what I knew of the transcripts of Israeil conversations and the ship. This is what I sent him. I was quoted about this in the Chicago Tribune and Baltimore Sun on Monday. pl
---------------------------------------------
"Dear Jim
I was a student in the Military Intelligence Officer Advanced Course at Ft. Holabird, Maryland (Baltimore) in 1967-1968. The course lasted about ten months. We students were required to take several electives from a group offered and I took a course in Cryptology. This was taught by people from the NSA School at nearby Ft. Meade. This course was taught in the winter or early spring of 1967-1968. There were several sub-courses, one of which had to do with voice intercepts. In the course of this, the instructor introduced a booklet produced at Ft. Meade as material for the course. It contained various course materials. Among them were transcripts of the translated intercepts of radio conversations between the Israeli strike commander and his base before and during the attacks on USS Liberty. The instructor, a retired cryptologic warrant officer or NCO identified the transcript as being of the Liberty incident. It was also so marked in the booklet.
In the transcript, the flight leader spoke to his base to report that he had the ship in view, that it was the same ship that he had been briefed on and that it was clearly marked with the US flag. I think he said that the ship was displaying the US flag on an upper deck, but my memory of that might be inexact. He asked for confirmation of his orders to attack the ship and seemed reluctant (understandably) to attack the ship. He asked more than once and was told to carry out his orders and attack the ship.
There was some further discussion of damage to the ship.
That is all I remember.
Regards
W. Patrick Lang
Colonel (Ret.) US Army"
In my opinion, the USS Liberty is an enormously powerful and luminous symbol for the US and the world. In my opinion, revealing the truth about the USS Liberty will serve our nation. In fact, before it is all over, the sacrifice made by the USS Liberty crew may save our nation.
To illustrate its importance I would like to try something admittedly experimental, as I will try to analogize its latent power to a comment made in regard to another culture and in a different context. But I frequently am reminded of Dr. Helms' comment posted at SST when I think of the USS Liberty incident as a symbol in the US collective psyche.
"THE HISTORICAL MEMORY OF A NATION IS NOT MERELY A REPOSITORY. OUR VISION OF THE PAST CHANNELS OUR VISION OF THE FUTURE BY CONSTRAINING OPTIONS, BUT ALSO IT PLAYS A PROACTIVE ROLE. THIS MEMORY IS ACTUALLY A VERY IMPORTANT FACTOR IN STRUGGLE.... IF ONE CONTROLS PEOPLES' MEMORY, ONE CONTROLS THEIR DYNAMISM.... IT IS VITAL TO HAVE POSSESSION OF THIS MEMORY, TO CONTROL IT, TO ADMINISTER IT, TELL IT WHAT IT MUST CONTAIN.' COLLECTIVE MEMORY IS THE TOOLSHED, TOMORROW'S IDEOLOGICAL ARSENAL, FROM WHICH POLITICAL CONCEPTS AND SYMBOLS ARE SELECTED, REINTERPRETED, AND MANIPULATED BOTH BY ESTABLISHED GOVERNMENTS AND OPPOSITION GROUPS. IT MAY WAIT FOR DECADES, PATIENTLY DORMANT, ONLY TO BE REACTIVATED SUDDENLY AS AN EXPLOSIVE CONTAGIOUS FORCE." DR. CHRISTINE M. HELMS
Posted by: Sidney O. Smith III | October 03, 2007 at 05:55 PM
My first thought with absolutely no research on this topic (translation: it's straight outta my rear end) is that Israel didn't much like us spying on them. And we weren't going to admit that we were spying on them after they whacked us for it. Of course, we monitor allies all the time and vise verca. I just don't remember any other allies being so forceful about it when we get caught.
Thankfully, we have satellites now.
"If God had a radio, we'd monitor it."
Posted by: Cold War Zoomie | October 04, 2007 at 09:37 AM
LBJ swept it under the rug so as "not to embarrass an ally." Or so I have read somewhere. When do we get his tapes? Or his papers? Is there a 50 year window? 1967+50=2017
In ten more years, the US will have been at War with every Arab country in the MidEast. Including the Persicos.
Posted by: Will | October 04, 2007 at 10:06 AM
USS Liberty was a test of "Liberty" by the IDF/IAF, Liberty lost, Israel won.
Posted by: Cloned Poster | October 04, 2007 at 04:36 PM
I've studied the USS Liberty attack for about four years, in an effort to sort fiction from fact. As a result, I believe I've discovered "forensic evidence" that refutes some of Israel's claims, as well as a few findings by the US Navy Court of Inquiry.
I began my study by reading official documents -- from both sides -- concerning the attack. I found myself constantly vacillating between believing Israel's claim of an unfortunate attack due to target identification and communication errors, and the survivors' claim of a planned and well-orchestrated attack.
Not making much headway with the documents, I turned to attack damage photographs, to see whether or not they provided any clues. After collecting and studying as many photographs as I could find, from various sources, I eventually realized that the damage shown did not match the attack profile claimed by Israel.
The ship was well-holed, with hole sizes varying between about 0.5 to 8 inches, from many points of the compass, in her bow area (both sides), starboard side hull, stack and stack platform, and the front, starboard side, rear and deck plating of her superstructure and deck houses. Additionally, there were clear signs of large fires and blast damage on both sides of her superstructure. Excluding the fires, the great degree and variation of shelling damage simply didn't jibe with Israel's claim of two aircraft briefly strafing the front of the ship, with only 30mm automatic cannons, and three Motor Torpedo Boats (MTBs) firing 20mm and 40mm cannons immediately before they launched torpedoes from 1000 to 2000 yards distance. The photos told a story of an intense air and sea attack involving many aircraft, flying from various directions, firing cannons, rockets and dropping Napalm bombs, and a sustained and close-in shelling and machine gunning attack by the MTBs.
In addition to attack damage photographs, I studied the gun camera photographs in the Israel Defense Force's (IDF's) History Report about the attack, and discovered that they are fakes. The ship in the photos is not USS Liberty. In fact, the ship doesn't resemble a Victory Ship -- the type of ship used as the platform for USS Liberty's construction. It makes one wonder: what other falsehoods did the IDF put forth about the attack?
This is only a sample of what I've discovered by studying and analyzing various photographs related to the attack. Readers who are interested my work can visit a website I'm currently in the process of building. It contains various types of reference information (e.g., blueprints of the ship) and a growing collection of short essays that explain my findings, in both words and pictures. The website's address is: ussliberty-inquiry.us
Posted by: Ken Halliwell | October 05, 2007 at 12:29 AM
As a survivor of this attack, I read with great interest the
statement by Ken Halliwell. I followed the site that he
placed much forensic evidence on for many years, and I can tell
you that once you see what this man has uncovered and the work
that he has done, you will be amazed. You will no longer
go back and forth on the issue, "Accident or Deliberate".
I am no lawyer, but I leave the readers of this site with one
statement. Read the evidence that is located on Ken's site
and then you decide for yourself. What you find will keep
you riveted to this site, and your eyes will be opened.
Mine were, and I am a survivor who saw much of this with my
own eyes. Consequently I had to be convinced
even though I was there, was POIC of body recovery and
identification, and helped with ship clean up. What I have
oberved from evidence leaves no doubt at least in my mind.
Posted by: Ron | October 05, 2007 at 11:03 AM
Will:
"Persicos" are not an Arab country.
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | October 05, 2007 at 02:39 PM
Was this not a pre-cursor of the USG response to the attack on USS Stark in 1987?
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | October 05, 2007 at 02:42 PM
Babak
I am at a loss to know what you mean. There was no USG response to the Stark incident other than to demand satisfaction from the Iraqi government. They paid, as the Israelis had paid. I was the #2 man on the JCS investigating panel for the attack on USS Stark. There was an admiral in charge. We went to Bahrein and Baghdad in the course of the investigation. pl
Posted by: W. Patrick Lang | October 05, 2007 at 06:08 PM
Col. Lang:
My understanding was that the attack on USS Stark was deliberate.
Ronald Reagan attacked Iran after the attack on USS Strak.
He was forgiving to Iraqis.
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | October 05, 2007 at 08:58 PM
Babak
I was a member of the Stark investigating board and was one of the authors of the subsequent report. I do not think that the Iraqi attack on stark was deliberate. Why do you think it was?
"Ronald Reagan attacked Iran after the attack on USS Strak" What on earth are you talking about? If you are referring to USS Vincennes' shoot down of an Iranian airliner. That was caused becasue the commanding office of the ship was terrified of having his career destroyed by the navy if Vincennes suffered damage as the Stark had. Stark's CO was unreasonably punished for the navy for something he did not have much control over.
You are a rational man. Do not wander off into fantasy land. pl
Posted by: W. Patrick Lang | October 06, 2007 at 12:30 AM
Colonel,
Journalist Robert Fisk claims to have met the Iraqi pilot who attacked the Stark, even though Saddam supposedly had him shot for his "mistake." This was after the liberation of Iraq, of course, when the pilot had no fear of retribution. His story was that Saddam had warned U.S. ships, among others, to stay out of a Forbidden Zone. When the Stark entered the Zone the Iraqi pilot obeyed orders and attacked it. He didn't care what nationality the ship was and neither did Saddam. Saddam made his point and our ships stayed out of the Forbidden Zone from then on.
Whether or not this is true depends upon Fisk producing the pilot who told him this. But it has been put forward as an explanation.
Posted by: Montag | October 06, 2007 at 01:13 AM
Montag
When the JCS investigating board was in Baghdad, we interviewed a lot of people. Among them was an Iraqi air force major who flew the type of French aircraft that was involved in maritime attacks. They did not identify him as such but I think he was the pilot involved. I think that is true because of some remarks in Arabic I heard between him and the chief of Iraqi military intelligence who was present for the meetings.
Their story was that the Iranians had declared a rectangular area of the Gulf to be a maritime exclusion zone for shipping not connected to them. The Iraqis said that they had taken Iran at its word and designated the same rectangle as a "free hunting zone" for Iraqi air forces attacks.
The pilot told us (and this matched with AWACS records)that the drill was to fly from an air base in southern Iraq (Talil)down the western side of the Gulf, and refuel from another fighter adapted to that task. The rectangular hunting zone had been divided by the Iraqis into "hunting boxes" from north to south. When opposite the designated box a pilot would turn northeast (?) into it and engage the first maritime target encountered in the box. The Iraqis insisted that Stark was a couple of miles inside the box. The US Navy equally insisted that Stark was a couple of miles outside the box.
The US decided to accept an Iraqi apology and compensation. Procedures were established to "de-conflict" operations in the Gulf in the future. Previous to this there had been no US armed forces contact with the Iraqis except for the US Military Attache in Baghdad in the embassy. pl
Posted by: W. Patrick Lang | October 06, 2007 at 08:45 AM
Col. Lang:
About Iraq & Stark - my opinion is based on the Saddam Hussein's effort to internationalize the war when things started going poorly for him. It is in that light that my thinking has been influenced.
Reagan ordered an attack on an Iranian oil platofrm used by Iranian Armed Forces. He stated something to the effect that Iran was responsible for the Iraq's attack on USS Stark because she refused to end the war. I recall that statement since, at the time, it sounded enormously foolish.
USS Vincennes: The skipper of that ship was retired. But what happened to the weapons officer? He was the one most directly responsible - did any punishment befall him?
My point was this however; governments decide if & when to take action in situations such as USS Liberty & USS Stark when a deliberate attack (in Babak's opinion) has occurred.
I am a rational man most of the time - I should hope.
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | October 06, 2007 at 10:18 AM
The USG investigated thoroughly the USS Stark incident. As for the USS Liberty incident, Adm. McCain truncated the NCOI to the point one could not have properly investigated a barroom brawl in Alabama much less an incident that left 34 dead and 174 wounded. So the NCOI into the USS Liberty incident strongly suggests that justice was deep-sixed at the grand jury stage.
Ken Halliwell (who posted earlier) basically took it upon himself to do much of the forensic work that should have taken place during the NCOI in 1967. In my opinion, Ken’s forensic investigation into the USS Liberty incident is the best in the world. One can only hope that an investigative reporter or journalist will examine his work, as his conclusions are new and of significant probative value. His website is still under construction as much of Ken’s (and Ron’s) work over the past few years was posted at another forum that has since shut down. But it is worth checking out Ken’s website from time to time.
Of course Congress never investigated the USS Liberty incident but if a hearing did take place, then Congress should call Ken Halliwell as a forensic witness. Or to word differently, if you are interested in visualizing the attack sequence, then Ken should receive credit as your technical adviser.
Unlike the USS Stark incident, the attack on the USS Liberty was sustained and involved many attacking aircraft as well as motor torpedo boats. The lead pilot is now well known -- Brig. Gen. Yiftah Spector. In an 03 interview with JP, he asserted that the US should have no complaints about the USS Liberty incident.
Posted by: Sidney O. Smith III | October 06, 2007 at 11:01 AM
Babak
I do remember that we shot up a cople of oil platforms at the head of the Gulf. I suggested them as targets. I also vaguely remember that this was in retaliation for some Iranian action, but it had nothing to so with the Stark Incident.
The Vincennes weapons officer was not punished judicially or administratively because:
1-The US armed forces do not punish things judged to be mistakes.
2- Only the Commanding officer would be punished and he was. The US Navy punishes COs for just about anything bad that happens during their time in command. This is true whether they deserve it or not.
PL
Posted by: W. Patrick Lang | October 06, 2007 at 11:29 AM
Col. Lang:
Thank you for your explanation.
Reagan justified the attacks on the targets you recommended by blaming Iran. I recall that well since I was discussing that with a Japanese friend at that time - he also thought it non-sensical.
I suppose that was to be expected; Iran being non-aligned against US and US being neutral on behalf of Iraq.
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | October 06, 2007 at 11:48 AM
I am at a loss as to understand why the subject of the USS
Liberty always slides off topic to something like the STARK,
or to something like "Mistakes Often Happen in Wartime". Boy
I have seen that a lot over the last forty years. With all
due respect to the Colonel, I am wondering why this can't
stay on topic? The topic here is the USS Liberty, is it not?
I have experienced this type of thing over and over again for
many years,and I become quite suspect of those that want to
ease off the real subject. Do any of you care what really
happened? There is forensic evidence that proves the Liberty
survivors case, and yet I find many who just would rather
change the subject. Colonel Lang has already said to one
who posted here that he was a rational man, so do not go over
into fantasyland. My point of this email exactly.
Posted by: Ron | October 06, 2007 at 12:45 PM
Ron:
You wrote: "I become quite suspect of those that want to
ease off the real subject".
Let me assure you that you need not suspect me; I was trying to understand the way governments work in analogous situations.
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | October 06, 2007 at 02:57 PM
Ron and others,
Whether or not my "forensic evidence" proves the survivors' case, I'm not certain.
I believe my findings prove the IDF's claims about the attack's profile are false, that certain findings by the Naval Court of Inquiry are wrong, and that the IDF History Department used fake gun camera photos in their history report about the attack; but beyond that, it becomes circumstantial.
While my findings do not bode well for the IDF, they do NOT prove that the attack was performed with absolute knowledge of the ship's true nationality. It remains possible, albeit remotely, that the ones who ordered the attack didn't believe the ship was truly American, only that it appeared American. If so, this would explain the pilots being told to pursue the attack, regardless of sighting an American flag or their belief that the ship was American.
As you recall, the Soviets were allied with the UAR and Syria during 1967, and they were as capable of building a signal intercept platform on a Victory Ship type hull as were the Americans -- perhaps one that resembled an American Belmont class TR ship. It's a far fetched possibility, I must admit. But who knows what was going through the minds of the ones who ordered the attack?
If the GOI was led to believe, by the USG, that there were truly no American military surface ships in the area, then IDF may have believed the Soviets were playing an elaborate trick to assist the UAR with much needed signal intelligence.
Do I really believe the fantasy I just presented? At this point, I'm not sure what I believe. I presented it only to illustrate that the "obvious conclusion" many not be the correct conclusion, at least for the body of evidence and testimony that's now known.
Posted by: Ken Halliwell | October 06, 2007 at 04:15 PM
Babak
I am sorry that I came across so harshly. Going off topic is
a real hang up with me, because I consider it the "Modus
Operandi" of some who would not want anyone to look at the
facts or the evidence. My apologies. I probably post
more then I should, but let this be a parting shot for awhile.
We would not be having this conversation today if a Congressional Investigation had taken place back then. The
Naval Board of Inquiry was evidently a white wash according to
Captain Ward Boston (ret) who was the legal counsel for that
board. So what have we to rely on?? This year I was interviewed
by an authority that told me point blank that they would look at
the evidence and the facts and come up with a research paper
and a conclusion. They also told me that the finding may go
against the survivors. My comment was simply this: "If you
prove to me that we are wrong, then I will be the first to
offer the olive branch to those we may have hurt in this over
forty year process". The conclusion was given and I have not
had to apologize. Ken Halliwell has offered some pretty
convinicing evidence, but he has really left it up to others
to ascertain the validity. I agree with him, and it is my
own personal observation and no one else's that I would like
to be proven wrong. I have no hatred in my heart for anyone,
but just want to see justice served. Two of my chldren were turned against me because of my convictions, and my own
daughter has not spoken to me since she was fifteen years old. This comes from the fact that I wouldn't put this down. I helped recover these men, and I defy anyone to be able to talk to the families of these men and put their hearts and minds at ease. I still talk to some of them and the matter is unresolved in their minds, of that I can assure you.
Posted by: Ron | October 06, 2007 at 07:51 PM
Colonel,
So in essence Robert Fisk is reporting "old news" as a scoop by dumbing down the facts to remove any ambiguity.
But much the same thing happened with the U.S.S. Liberty. The U.S. negligently inserted a Naval Auxiliary ship into International Waters which were considered a War Zone by both Egypt and Israel--without warning either combatant that the ship would be there. There were several investigations into why the Liberty failed to receive any of FIVE signals ordering it safely out to sea before the attack. The Egyptian Foreign Minister had declared the waters unsafe in a radio broadcast, but the Israelis violated International Law by failing to make such a declaration.
The beef between the U.S. and Israel has always been the early morning Naval Reconnaissance Flight which correctly identified the Liberty by its I.D. letters (GTR5), resulting in it being plotted on their map table as "neutral." The Israelis shrug and insist that the identification in no way obligated them to protect the ship from their forces, while the U.S. maintains that by accepting the ship's presence as a fact on the water without protest the Israelis became responsible for its safety and the negligent officers should be prosecuted. In 1980 both countries agreed to drop the vexing matter, leaving the issue of responsibility unresolved. Israel paid humanitarian compensation (blood money) for this incident of collateral damage (the neutral sailors were noncombatants under International Law) and paid $6 million for a $40 million intelligence ship which had to be scrapped.
What's interesting is circumstantial evidence after the fact that it was a case of collateral damage after all. Israel lost two of its own warships due to negligence--the destroyer Elat on Oct. 22, 1967, and the submarine Dakar on Jan. 28, 1968--with the losses of their entire crews, more or less. The U.S. for its part seems to have regarded the Israeli attack as sui generis, by making no provision for militarily preventing the capture of the U.S.S. Pueblo off the coast of North Korea (a country with which we still were/are technically at war). The USG was still relying upon International Law only for the protection of its intelligence ships. When the Pueblo capture exploded this myth the USG had the options of continuing to use the ships and fighting for them, or mothballing them as too dangerous for the product involved. They chose mothballs.
Part of the problem seems to be a maddening difference of mentality on the part of the U.S. and Israel. The U.S. Navy, a 200-year-old Blue Water Navy doesn't appreciate being lectured by the Israeli Naval Service, a 20-year-old chickenshit White Water Coastal Defense Force that couldn't sink a defenseless old tub. As the Liberty limped out to sea after the Israelis had stopped attacking it, a torpedo boat made the mistake of coming alongside to offer assistance by voice hail. "They told us to go to Hell," one Israeli sailor sheepishly recalled.
Posted by: Montag | October 06, 2007 at 10:48 PM
Montag,
I believe you made several incorrect statements in your most recent comment.
a) There is no evidence that the international waters in which USS Liberty steamed on June 8, 1967 were declared a war zone or "forbidden zone" by any of the belligerents.
b) The USG had no legal duty to inform the belligerents of US Navy ship movements or locations.
c) There were two key message (JCS message 080110Z and COMSIXTHFLT message 080917Z) that effectively canceled USS Liberty's orders to operate in international waters, near the northern shore of Sinai. Several investigations of the failure to deliver these messages, in a timely manner, revealed shortcomings in the military's communications network and human error for misrouting the messages and causing their delayed (after the attack) transmission to USS Liberty.
d) "Collateral damage" is not a cause, it's an effect.
e) It's true that USS Liberty was virtually defenseless, and build upon a refurbished 20 year old platform; but she was far from being an "old tub."
f) The USS Liberty was already "out to sea" (about 20 NM from shore) and rapidly heading northward when the MTBs initially attacked. By the time the MTBs finally communicated an offer of help, the ship was at least 25 NM "out to sea". (Take a look at my website for two essays entitled: 'NSA Transcripts Prove USS Liberty's Northward Heading During Attack' and 'IDF's Assistance Offer Event: When did it truly occur?')
For the USS Liberty attack, details matter -- and many folks seem to be confused about the details.
Posted by: Ken Halliwell | October 07, 2007 at 04:54 AM
Ron:
Thank you for your reply and the explanations.
I am sorry to hear about the behavior of your children.
I have heard of similar reactions from family members when men have stuck to their convictions.
All the best.
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | October 07, 2007 at 10:34 AM
Wow. I didn't realize how extensive this attack was when I commented the first time. I was on a TDY to the west coast and popped it off before heading to work.
If it had simply been a warning by Israel to stop eavesdropping, they would not have attacked so vigorously. A simple shot across the bow would have been sufficient. At this point, my only conclusion would be that the Israelis really did screw up and misidentify our ship. That does not mean, however, that their side of the story is correct. Both sides are probably covering up.
Posted by: Cold War Zoomie | October 07, 2007 at 11:39 AM