What I know about the USS Liberty

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"

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/printedition/tuesday/chi-liberty_tuesoct02,0,1050179.story

 

 

Comments

[Sidney O. Smith III]

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

[Cold War Zoomie]

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."

[Will]

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.

[Cloned Poster]

USS Liberty was a test of "Liberty" by the IDF/IAF, Liberty lost, Israel won.

[Ken Halliwell]

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

[Ron]

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.

[Babak Makkinejad]

Will:

"Persicos" are not an Arab country.

[Babak Makkinejad]

Was this not a pre-cursor of the USG response to the attack on USS Stark in 1987?

[W. Patrick Lang]

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

[Babak Makkinejad]

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.

[W. Patrick Lang]

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

[Montag]

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.

[W. Patrick Lang]

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

[Babak Makkinejad]

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.

[Sidney O. Smith III]

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.

[W. Patrick Lang]

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

[Babak Makkinejad]

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.

[Ron]

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.

[Babak Makkinejad]

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.

[Ken Halliwell]

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.

[Ron]

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.

[Montag]

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.

[Ken Halliwell]

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.

[Babak Makkinejad]

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.

[Cold War Zoomie]

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.

[Ken Halliwell]

Zoomie,

Assuming Colonel Lang and the others did not suffer from a mass hallucination, it appears that at one time there was a SIGINT tape and transcript within NSA that revealed the attacking pilots recognized the target (USS Liberty) as being American.

Of course, as I stated previously, this doesn't mean necessarily that whoever ordered the attack believed the ship was truly American. In this sense, the attack may have been due to mistaken identity. But this is not the story told by the IDF. The IDF claims its pilots could not determine the ship's identity as friend or foe; but, regardless, the pilots were ordered to attack.

Frankly, like you, I find it difficult to understand the need to perform a sustained and vicious attack on the ship -- even if it was somehow believed to be an enemy ship. Perhaps the IDF had some idle time on its hands, and wanted to see how long it would take to completely destroy a cargo type ship and roast its crew with Napalm.

[Ron]

Zoomie

It is not uncommon for folks to not recognize the
extent of the attack. Actually the real problem is
that most have not taken the time to really look into
what was involved that day. Basically I like to quote a
former Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on this issue.
"Mistakes are not made from repeated attacks over a
extended period of time". Admiral Thomas Moorer probably
has had more time then anyone on this site when it comes
to identifying war ships on the high seas.
What is involved here is "In Depth". It is not something
one reads about lets his or her lifelong teaching take
over, and dismiss it as another "Conspiracy Theory".
Even though I was there that day, I look long and hard at
other peoples statements, forensic evidence, and their
personl opinions. I was not topside, so I didn't see it all,
but by the same token when my shipmates say it happened,
I very rarely question it. Only until after the attack
and we questioned the findings were we labeled by others
as anti this, or anti that.

[dano]

It's been over twenty years (1986) since I read James Bamford's book about the NSA "The Puzzle Palace", but I seem to remember a long afterword that details the Israeli attack on USS Liberty, as taken from the NSA transcripts that he FOIA'ed out of the agency.

The book appears to be out of print but is still available through Amazon and others. (Probably can be found through the public library system as well.)
http://www.amazon.com/Puzzle-Palace-Report-Americas-Secret/dp/B000H1NAKO/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bamford

After I read that account there was no doubt in my mind that the IDF knew the ship was American and attacked deliberately and repeatedly. I look forward to reading Halliwell's site.

I urge anybody who is interested to find Bamford's book and read the piece. (And I'll find the book to confirm my recollection. Will post relevant points back to this thread later if the thread is still active.)

[Ron]

"Operation Cyanide" is also a very good book. Written by
Peter Hounan and is available on Amazon.com The price
for a new hardcover book is around $5.00, and discusses
the thoughts around how this attack could well have started
WWIII. Much of the material for this book was provided
by the survivors and the people that support them.

[Babak Makkinejad]

I would like to point out the attack on USS Panay which was sunk by Japanese air attack, near Nanking,Yangtze River, China, on 12 Dec. 1937.

Japanese had been advised of that ship, her route, and her mission. Nevertheless she was deliberately attacked and the survivors straffed.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ships/dafs/PR/pr5-sinking.html

Not an identical situation but similar - I think.

[W. Patrick Lang]

Babak

My uncle John H. Lang was in the ship'scompany of USS Panay. I have always thought there was a similarity in the two events. pl

[Ken Halliwell]

For anybody interested in a comprehensive history (including newsreel film) of the USS Panay attack, I highly recommend the USS Panay website at: http://www.usspanay.org

As Babak mentioned, the PANAY and LIBERTY attacks are similar; although, the type of ship and circumstance were different. For example: the USS Panay was inland on the territorial waters of China when attacked, and the USS Liberty was on the open sea, in international waters when attacked.

In both cases, regardless of testimony and evidence to the contrary, the USG readily accepted the attacker's claim of "mistaken identity" as the root cause for the attack.

[Ron]

I would like to post just one small tidbit of the forensic
analysis that you will find on Ken Halliwell's web site.
Again this information is not hard to understand, and should
make perfect sense to the average person.

The Israeli Defense Force stated that they stopped firing at
the Liberty after the torpedo hit. What has been found is
that the torpedo explosion left an oil slick which surrounded
the hull of the Liberty. This should have been an uninterrupted
line on the hull but instead was marred and broken up by what
we believe was continued firing at the ship, even after the
torpedo had exploded. No one would know this unless they have
researched and given it the time that is needed to understand.
Of course we are looking for any other explanation that could
be presented. So far there have been none.

This is the kind of common sense evidence that is presented
on his web site. It is just one question that needs to be
answered, and I believe still not too late for experts to examine what has been found. Again I say that as a survivor
and one who was there, I find that I have to look deeply into
this, and ask the questions that need to be asked.

[Ken Halliwell]

The tidbit of forensic analysis that Ron cited was posted on a now defunct Internet forum known as the "USS Liberty Court of Inquiry" forum. It is not posted on ussliberty-inquiry.us.

I did not feel the photographic evidence that formed the basis for the analysis was clear enough to strongly support a finding; although, it was suggestive and correlated well with other evidence and testimony.

[Sidney O. Smith III]

CWZ,

In addition to Col. Lang’s statement re: transcripts, Ken Halliwell wrote an essay in which he offers a forensic analysis of the mistaken identity claim. You can read this essay in just a few minutes.

http://usslibertyinquiry.googlepages.com/essay3

Regardless of the mistaken identity issue, the USS Liberty was a neutral ship in international waters. Lieutenant Commander Walter L. Jacobsen, USN examined this issue and wrote a law review article entitled “A Juridical Examination of the Israeli Attack on the USS Liberty”. It was published in the Vol. 36 of the Naval Law Review (1986).To quote from the summary:

“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.”

http://www.usslibertyinquiry.com/law/jacobsen.pdf

Also, the Veterans of Foreign Wars at its national convention in 2006 adopted a resolution calling upon Congress to immediately investigate the attack on the USS Liberty.

http://www.ussliberty.org/pdf/vfwresolution424.pdf

When I started looking into the USS Liberty incident, I began with a rebuttable presumption that the attack was one of mistaken identity. In other words, only clear and convincing evidence would overcome this presumption. If such evidence existed, then, at a minimum, a Congressional investigation was warranted.

[Ron]

Just want to take the time for a parting shot. Thanks to
Colonel Lang for his letter to Jim. That letter is of great
importance to us, and I am sure will be added to the growing
pile of letters from others about what they have seen concerning
the Liberty attack. I think I speak for the survivors when
I say that we have done our level best to try and tell our
country the real truth about the Liberty. To a man I know of
no one who has ever felt that this was an accident. What we
have done with it is probably no more then any American who
loves his country would do. We have told it like it is,
with no embellishments, no politics, just straight shooting
from the hip. Maybe that doesn't suit some people, but thats
the way it is. There has been a price to pay here, and
someday history will prove that cost. What I am not sure of
is this. Will the survivors be here to see it???

[Sidney O. Smith III]

Mitchell Plitnick -- director of the Jewish Voice for Peace -- just wrote a blog at TPM titled “Time for the Truth about the USS Liberty”. Although I don’t agree with all of his analysis, in my opinion, he raises some very valid points, in particular when he seems to stress that repressing the incident only worsens the consequences for everyone.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/mitchell_plitnick/2007/oct/06/time_for_the_truth_about_the_uss_liberty

I don’t know the answers but I believe he is right in that potential danger lurks. Even during this time that Weiss calls “ideological disarray”, there is one thing to remember: George Washington made it clear that Torah spirituality should always remain part of the American experience, from beginning to end. His letters make clear, at least to me, that he thought neither anti-Semitism nor ethnic nationalism should ever become part of the American ethos.

Plitnick’s blog on the Liberty appears to rest upon a more encompassing inquiry: what is the focal point of Torah spirituality in the United States and what is its moral authority in regard to Zionism? I admittedly come from the Leon Uris secular school. However, in light of Leo Strauss and the World of Intelligence, I am beginning to wonder if neoconservatives have an extremely flawed, even self destructive, understanding of the correlation between Zionism and anti-Semitism, as much of this dynamic takes place on the rim of consciousness and perhaps out of the grasp of at least a few. In fact, odds seem to be increasing that the neoconservative agenda actually increases anti-Semitism. For example, if the Wurmser option materializes, then US troops in Iraq will die. Odds increase that people in their rage will look for scapegoats and then associate Wurmser with the entire American Jewish community, when nothing could be further from the truth. In other words, the Wurmser option may increase odds of anti-Semitism entering the American experience -- a total violation of what our founding fathers envisioned. (Also, I am perplexed that the American Jewish neoconservative community has so warmly embraced the rapturist ideology. Has anyone read Hal Lindsey’s book Blood Moon? Good grief…)

I simply raise the issue for consideration but it is possible that the Hasidic Jews of Satmar have a more accurate, fully developed -- and dare I say even prophetic -- understanding of the relationship between political Zionism and anti-Semitism than that of the neoconservatives? I really don’t know but they do appear to define this dynamic completely differently than Leo Strauss and the epigones. And in my own thinking, I even am beginning to wonder if the assumptions that arise from the Satmar perspective in regard to political Zionism lead to a more realistic and accurate strategic intelligence analysis for the United States, even if one remains a Zionist. In other words, does the Satmar view provide an effective antidote to Leo Strauss in regard to US foreign policy in the US?

That said, I still think Martin Van Creveld is the best hope and his work provides some of the better assumptions for US foreign policy analysis in the Middle East. And back in 2005, he took the neoconservatives to task in an interview in Forward. Of course, no one listens to him now, either in the US or Israel.

My guess is that the truth about the USS Liberty will raise many of these issues.

[Ken Halliwell]

As I read Sidney's comment, the phrase "confession is good for the soul" came to mind.

In my opinion, the USG and GOI are long overdue for cleansing and mending their "souls." A good starting point would be to "come clean" about the USS Liberty incident.

[Charles I]

Dan Q, a new edition of Bamford's Puzzle Palace came out in 2005 or 06. It is greatly updated, and delves into the latest illegal surveillance, as well as the Liberty incident

[Cold War Zoomie]

Maybe I've missed it since I haven't taken the time to really dig into this, but I haven't seen any theories about why Israel would attack us in the first place although there may be tons of evidence pointing to just that.

A motive would be helpful.

[Ken Halliwell]

Zommie,

Various motive theories have come forth. I'm not going to attempt to list them all here, but most boil-down to the GOI/IDF being fearful that SIGINT activity by the ship was harming IDF war plans and/or revealing IDF war crimes.

An exception to fear-based motives is one involving an attempt by GOI/IDF to perform a "false-flag" attack that would draw the US military into the war.

In short, many motive theories exists -- some more plausible than others.

[Tom S]

Fascinating. As I recall, Bamford claimed that the Liberty was attacked because it had monitored IDF signals indicating that a massacre of Egyptian PoWs had occurred.

The discussion about the attack on the USS Stark was also fascinating. I could have used it when I was writing my dissertation on maritime commerce warfare in the Iran-Iraq War in the late 1980s.

[L. Thomas]

There is already a fairly clear picture of what happened with the USS Liberty. The IDF discovered that the Liberty was within listening range of some very nasty business being conducted by the IDF against Egyptians during the 6-day War (most likely including the mass murder of several hundred Egyptian POW's by their Israeli captors). An as yet unknown Israeli commander apparently ordered the USS Liberty sunk and all its crew killed (as a "dead men tell no tales" operation). This much is obvious from the repeated attacks on the Liberty and its crew from both air and sea, with fighter planes firing until out of ammunition, the Israeli use of Napalm(!), and even our life boats being repeatedly machine-gunned from above. All of this against an essentially unarmed vessel, clearly marked as American, and ID'd as such by the Israelis from the very start of the shameful incident. It's pretty clear why certain posters keep trying to change the subject or bring up other supposedly "similar" incidents. This "mistaken" attack was singular in its vicious and repeated nature, along with its being made against Israel's only essential ally and financier.

[PAt]

The attack on the USS Liberty was a False Flag that was to blamed on Egypt. The Israelis figured we would enter the war and hand them the mideast

[Sidney O. Smith III]

Ralph Nader and Phil Weiss weigh in re: the attack on the USS Liberty.

http://tinyurl.com/6npuc3

People can say what they want about Dean Rusk, but evidence increasingly suggests that, in this one critical instance, Dean Rusk never sold out.

Dean Rusk died near penniless, by the way, at least from what I have heard. He only agreed to co-write his memoirs as an act of reconcilation with his son before taking that trip across the river.

[Fred]

It is fortunate for the survivors of the Liberty that 5 torpedoes were either defective, ancient technology or poorly directed by the Israeli Navy. Even the Germans had acoustic homing torpedoes in 1945. To think 20 years later that a liberty ship wouldn't be sunk by 6 such torpedoes is hard to believe. The Stark was lucky one Exocet didn’t explode. The British lost the Sheffield and Atlantic Conveyor to Exocets during the Falklands war.