Christian torture sex-snuff flicks

Religions > Atheism > Christian torture sex-snuff flicks

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 1

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Fredric L. Rice"
Date:	17 Feb 2006 10:10:26 PM
Object:	Christian torture sex-snuff flicks

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4718666.stm
US Soldiers in Iraq are bracing themselves for the consequences of their
own bad behaviour.
The US soldiers have been using the Pentagon's Abu Ghraib torture facility
to produce sex-snuff flicks. In the production, US soldiers force Muslim
men to have sex with each other - while US soldiers sexually attack Muslim
women. That's the love-making part of the show.
Elsewhere in the Republican porn, they coat the bodies of Muslim men with
human *****. Bloods-smeared walls give silent testimony to the last days of
so MANY proud, Muslim men who were tortured, raped and killed by US
soldiers - acting on orders from George W. Bush.
Also in the film, the dead bodies of Muslim men whose throats were slit by
US soldiers, their heads bashed in, and their bodies burned (while still
alive).
A spokesman for the Bush Regime refused to comment on the proven torture of
innocent Muslims. Instead, he verbally attacked the people of Iraq for
releasing the material - claiming that it violated the privacy of the
innocent Muslim men and women who were tortured, maimed and raped to death
by US soldiers.
The Spokesman for Herr Busch also pointed out that The Regime has
investigated the proof that US soldiers have been torturing Iraqis 12 TIMES
and 12 TIMES they found themselves Not Guilty.
But, for some danged reason - the Iraqis are more upset about the maiming,
torture, and rape of innocent, unarmed, noncombatant civillians. Tthey are
not as concerned about the so-called "privacy" issues as the highly
secretive Bush Regime seems to be.
The people have spoken - and they're getting louder.
---
Christian Republican Family Values: "If they're too young to vote, ***** 'em!"
"***** Cheney - you ARE the NRA!" --
.

User: "nu-monet v8.0"
Title: Re: Christian torture sex-snuff flicks	18 Feb 2006 07:09:42 AM

Fredric L. Rice wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4718666.stm

Its almost as horrible as a cross between the horrors
of the torture performed in emergency rooms across the
world, and the horrors seen in prisons around the world.
Context, and all.
First of all, the scatological part. Did you know that
prisoners like to play with their feces? It seems to be
a universal constant. They smear it on the walls, they
rub it on themselves and the compadres.
They also masturbate a lot and have homosexual sex and
rape each other. Many are mentally ill, and do all sorts
of horrific ***** because they can't help it. Only a small
percentage of them are separated from the general prison
population and put in a controlled medical environment.
That's in the civilian world, and in peacetime. It's not
what you would call "The Hudsucker Proxy". In fact, "Cool
Hand Luke" is effete and polite compared to the reality.
HBO's "OZ" is more like it. But even that goes more for
the drama than for the gross day-to-day ***** smearing and
throwing reality.
There are lots and lots and lots of people who have worked
as prison guards, "correctional officers", who agree, and
will tell you the same, er, *****.
As far as injuries go, now what are the odds that a bunch
of violent, factionalized criminals are going to hurt EACH
OTHER when put in the same prison? Sunnis and Shiites all
together? A dozen or more major gangs?
But nobody ever mentions how may Abu Ghraib prisoners were
murdered each and every week by other prisoners.
I can see why the Pentagon is so adverse to photographs that
show destruction, injury and death. Dumbasses invariably
blame *them*, no matter *who* did the *****.
--
Be Sure To Visit the 'SubGenius Reverend' Blog:
http://slackoff.blogspot.com/
***********
"We're going to take things away from
you on behalf of the common good."
-- Hillary Clinton
.

User: "Cameron"
Title: Re: Christian torture sex-snuff flicks	27 Feb 2006 01:03:45 AM

"nu-monet v8.0" <nothing@succeeds.com> wrote in message
news:43F71C96.1681@succeeds.com...

I can see why the Pentagon is so adverse to photographs that
show destruction, injury and death. Dumbasses invariably
blame *them*, no matter *who* did the *****.

Umm.
Just me?
But if someone is put under your care, or custody, are you not responsible
for them?
shoving two people together who are likely to kill one another makes you
gulity to some degree for the fall out of your actions?
.

User: "nu-monet v8.0"
Title: Re: Christian torture sex-snuff flicks	27 Feb 2006 08:23:21 AM

Cameron wrote:

"nu-monet v8.0" <nothing@succeeds.com> wrote in message
news:43F71C96.1681@succeeds.com...

I can see why the Pentagon is so adverse to photographs that
show destruction, injury and death. Dumbasses invariably
blame *them*, no matter *who* did the *****.

Umm.

Just me?

But if someone is put under your care, or custody, are
you not responsible for them?

Not really. While it is true to some extent, there are
limits to both care and custody.
However, that is not the issue, it is responsibility for
perceptions. Is anyone responsible for an interpretation
of a photograph that is incorrect?
Photos have no context to someone who wasn't there.
The grotesque both fascinates and repels. If you glanced
at the photographs on the ogrish website, and all that you
knew about context was that they had happened in Texas,
you could well assume that Texas is a hell-hole of anarchy,
chaos and bloodshed.
How could the local, county and State government of Texas
possibly allowed such things to happen? In fact, did they
cause such things to happen just by being there? Were they
out in the streets doing such things to the citizenry?
Wouldn't it be better if there was no government in Texas?
It sounds ludicrous, but it is the same situation that the
military finds itself in, in Iraq.
For this reason, they prefer that the war be shown in text,
which is far less imflammatory.
--
Be Sure To Visit the 'SubGenius Reverend' Blog:
http://slackoff.blogspot.com/
***********
"We've pretty much just been patrolling
and flying helicopters all over the place,
and when we see something bad, we blow it up."
-- Maj. David Holahan, US Marines
.

User: "Michael Alcandor"
Title: Re: Christian torture sex-snuff flicks	27 Feb 2006 10:01:42 AM

nu-monet wrote:
<<<I can see why the Pentagon is so adverse to photographs that
show destruction, injury and death.>>>
nu-monet, you pathetic weak attempt to justify the actions of your
brother freemason satanist scumbags in iraq as well as in US prisons
makes me sick. you are a freemason satanist piece of ***** who is
embarrassed at what your dirtbag satanist brother freemasons do in
iraq, in the US "justice" system, and at Bohemian Grove where george
bush, don rumsfeld, cheney and "counterculture" icons like the grateful
dead hunter thompson cavort with gay porn stars and make kiddie snuff
films, because that's what freemason satanist pieces of ***** like to
do.
as nauseating as your attempted defense, are your atrocious literacy
skills. The word is not "ADVERSE", the word is "AVERSE", as in "the
pentagon freemason satanists are AVERSE to anyone finding out that they
are homosexual scumbag satanist pieces of new world order pig *****".
"ADVERSE" means something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. Please buy a
dictionary, and take some remedial English lessons. You are a fucked up
piece of crap is you are trying to justify what freemason new world
order scum are doing.
.

User: "Michael Alcandor"
Title: Re: Christian torture sex-snuff flicks	27 Feb 2006 10:08:54 AM

The above comments about freemasonic new world order scum apply
particularly to those in the us government who are dual israeli/us
citizens, who advocate torture, liek that dirt bag piece of israeli
pigs hit named michael chertoff, who is going to pack his bags and get
his stank israeli ***** out of north america. that israeeli fucking chimp
and his dirty family of defective inbred trash is going into a FEMA
camp before I do. That israeli bolshevik monkey and his dirty family of
israeli trash is going to be herded at gunpoint into a FEMA camp before
I am.
This is a message to new world order scum: if you think you're having a
hard time in iraq, just wait til you try to push your ***** here,
because you are going to get lead in your face, you dirty freemason
*****. THE LORD gives me dominion over satanist filth like you and your
scum gangster lodge brothers, and i am going to smash the living *****
out of you.
.

User: "teslacoils2006"
Title: Re: Christian torture sex-snuff flicks	27 Feb 2006 10:19:54 AM

A Report:
War Crimes Committed Against U.S. Military Personnel, June 8, 1967
Submitted to the Secretary of the Army in his capacity as Executive
Agent for the Secretary of Defense, June 8, 2005.
This report of war crimes committed against U.S. military personnel is
submitted to the Honorable Secretary of the Army in his capacity as
Executive Agent for the Secretary of Defense, pursuant to Department of
Defense Directive Number 5810.01B (29 March 2004) [1] .
This Report is filed by the USS Liberty Veterans Association, Inc. a
California non-profit corporation, recognized by the Internal Revenue
Service as a Section 501(c)(3) tax exempt veterans organization, acting
on behalf of the surviving crewmembers of USS Liberty.
Background
On June 8, 1967 while patrolling in international waters[2] in the
Eastern Mediterranean Sea, USS Liberty (AGTR-5) was savagely attacked
without warning or justification by air and naval forces of the state
of Israel.[3]
Of a crew of 294 officers and men[4] (including three civilians)[5],
the ship suffered thirty four (34) killed in action and one hundred
seventy three (173) wounded in action.[6] The ship itself, a Forty
Million ($40,000,000) Dollar state of the art signals intelligence
(SIGINT) platform, was so badly damaged that it never sailed on an
operational mission again and was sold in 1970 for $101,666.66 as
scrap[7] .
Israel acknowledged the following facts without qualification:
a=2E USS Liberty was an American ship, hence a neutral vis-=E0-vis
the June 1967 war between Israel and its Arab neighbors.[8]b. USS
Liberty remained in international waters at all times on June 8,
1967[9] .c. The attacking Israeli forces never made a positive
identification of the nationality of USS Liberty before unleashing
deadly force in their attack on the ship.[10]
At approximately 0600 hours (all times local) on the morning of June 8,
1967 an Israeli maritime reconnaissance aircraft observer reported
seeing "a US Navy cargo type ship," just outside the coverage of the
Israeli coastal radar defense net, bearing the hull markings
"GTR-5".[11] This report, made to Israeli naval HQ, was also forwarded
immediately to the Israeli navy intelligence directorate.[12]
Throughout the remainder of the day prior to the attack, Israeli
reconnaissance aircraft regularly flew out to USS Liberty's position
and orbited the ship before returning to their bases in Israel. A total
of no fewer than eight (8) such flights were made.[13]
At approximately 1050 hours, the naval observer from the early morning
reconnaissance flight arrived at Israeli air force HQ and sat down with
the air-naval liaison officer there. The two officers consulted
Janes' Fighting Ships and learned that the ship reported earlier in
the day was USS Liberty, a United States Navy technical research
ship.[14]

From 0900 hours on June 8, 1967, until the time of the attack five

hours later, USS Liberty maintained a speed of approximately five knots
and a generally westerly-northwesterly course.[15]
At 1400 hours, while approximately 17 miles off the Gaza coast, USS
Liberty's crew observed three surface radar contacts closing with
their position at high speed. A few moments later, the bridge radar
crew observed high speed aircraft passing over the surface returns on
the same heading.[16]
Within a few short moments, and without any warning, Israeli fighter
aircraft launched a rocket attack on USS Liberty. The aircraft made
repeated firing passes, attacking USS Liberty with rockets and their
internal cannons. After the first flight of fighter aircraft had
exhausted their ordnance, subsequent flights of Israeli fighter
aircraft continued to prosecute the attack with rockets, cannon fire,
and napalm. [17]
During the air attack, USS Liberty's crew had difficulty contacting
Sixth Fleet to request assistance due to intense communications
jamming[18]
The initial targets on the ship were the command bridge, communications
antennas, and the four .50 caliber machine guns, placed on the ship to
repel boarders.[19]
After the Israeli fighter aircraft completed their attacks, three
Israeli torpedo boats arrived and began a surface attack about 35
minutes after the start of the air attack. The torpedo boats launched a
total of five torpedoes, one of which struck the side of USS Liberty,
opposite the ship's research spaces. [20] Twenty-six Americans in
addition to the eight who had been killed in the earlier air attacks,
were killed as a result of this explosion.
Following their torpedo attack, the torpedo boats moved up and down the
length of the ship (both the port and starboard sides), continuing
their attack, raking the ship with cannon and machine gun fire.[21] In
Malta, crewmen were later assigned the task of counting all of the
holes in the ship that were the size of a man's hand or larger. They
found a total of 861 such holes, in addition to "thousands" of .50
caliber machine gun holes.
Survivors report that the torpedo boat crews swept the decks of USS
Liberty with continuous machine gun fire, targeting communications
equipment and any crewmembers who ventured above decks.[22]
Damage control firefighters, who had already risked their lives merely
by appearing on deck, had to abandon their efforts because their fire
hoses had been shredded by machine gun fire.[23]
Survivors also report that the torpedo boat crews fired on the inflated
life boats launched by the crew after the captain gave the order
"prepare to abandon ship."[24] This order had to be rescinded because
the crew was unable to stand on the main deck without being fired upon
and the life rafts were destroyed as they were launched.[25]
The defenseless crew, initially unable to report their plight or summon
assistance and with only themselves to rely upon, fought heroically to
save themselves and their ship. In recognition of their effort in this
single action, they were ultimately awarded collectively one Medal of
Honor, two Navy Crosses, eleven Silver Stars, twenty Bronze Stars (with
"V" device), nine Navy Commendation Medals, and two hundred and four
Purple Hearts. In addition, the ship was awarded the Presidential Unit
Citation.
By patching together different systems, the ship's radio operators
had ultimately been able to send a brief distress message that was
received and acknowledged by United States Sixth Fleet forces present
in the Mediterranean.[26] Upon receipt of that message the aircraft
carriers USS Saratoga and USS America each launched aircraft to come to
the aid of USS Liberty.[27] The reported attacking aircraft were
declared hostile and the rescue aircraft were authorized to destroy
them upon arrival.[28] The rules of engagement, authorizing destruction
of the attackers, were transmitted to the rescue aircraft "in the
clear" (i.e., they were not encrypted).
Shortly after the Sixth Fleet transmission of the rules of engagement
to its dispatched rescue aircraft, the Israeli torpedo boats suddenly
broke off their attack and transmitted messages asking if USS Liberty
required assistance.[29] At the same time, an Israeli naval officer
notified the US Naval Attach=E9 at the American Embassy in Tel Aviv that
Israeli forces had mistakenly attacked a United States Navy ship and
apologized. The Naval Attach=E9 notified the United States Sixth
Fleet[30] and rescue aircraft were recalled before they arrived at the
scene of the attack.[31]
At about the same time as the cessation of the torpedo boat attack,
Israeli attack helicopters arrived over the ship.[32] Survivors report
that the helicopters were packed with men in combat battle dress. The
Captain of USS Liberty gave the order to "prepare to repel
boarders"[33] but the helicopters departed without attempting to land
their troops.[34]
The official position of the United States of America concerning these
events, as contained in a diplomatic note[35] by Secretary of State
Rusk addressed to the Israeli Ambassador is set forth, in relevant
part, below:
"Washington, June 10, 1967.
The Secretary of State presents his compliments to His Excellency the
Ambassador of Israel and has the honor to refer to the Ambassador's
Note of June 10, 1967 concerning the attack by Israeli aircraft and
torpedo boats on the United States naval vessel U.S.S. Liberty,
.. . .
In these circumstances, the later military attack by Israeli aircraft
on the U.S.S. Liberty is quite literally incomprehensible. As a
minimum, the attack must be condemned as an act of military
recklessness reflecting wanton disregard for human life.
The subsequent attack by Israeli torpedo boats, substantially after the
vessel was or should have been identified by Israeli military forces,
manifests the same reckless disregard for human life. . . . The
U=2ES.S. Liberty was peacefully engaged, posed no threat whatsoever to
the torpedo boats, and obviously carried no armament affording it a
combat capability. It could and should have been scrutinized visually
at close range before torpedoes were fired.
.. . . the Secretary of State wishes to make clear that the United
States Government expects the Government of Israel also to take the
disciplinary measures which international law requires in the event of
wrongful conduct by the military personnel of a State."
There has been no statement in the last thirty-eight years by the
United States government reversing or amending this formal position.
The Israeli Defense Forces Chief Military Prosecutor, immediately
following the attack, filed formal charges recommending court martial
proceedings against a number of Israeli military personnel.[36] Prior
to the start of court martial proceedings, the IDF turned the matter
over to an examining judge to confirm that the prosecution should go
forward. The examining judge disagreed with United States position that
the attack was "an act of military recklessness reflecting wanton
disregard for human life" and announced his finding that:
"Yet I have not discovered any deviation from the standard of
reasonable conduct which would justify the committal [sic] of anyone
for trial." [37]
As a result of this blanket absolution, no one in the Israeli
government or military has received so much as a reprimand for their
involvement in the attack,[38] much less the punishment demanded by the
United States ("the United States Government expects the Government of
Israel also to take the disciplinary measures which international law
requires in the event of wrongful conduct by the military personnel of
a State").
Within 24 hours of the attack, the United States Navy convened a formal
Court of Inquiry into that attack - a standard investigative
procedure reserved for such serious events or circumstances. This
procedure was unusual in only one respect - the President and members
appointed to the Court of Inquiry by the Commander in Chief, U.S. Naval
Forces, Europe (CINCUSNAVEUR), headquartered in London, were directed
orally by the appointing authority to conduct and complete their
investigative proceedings within one week - a most unusual
requirement in light of the nature and magnitude of the events they
were ordered to investigate.
Convening initially in London, the Court proceeded immediately to the
Mediterranean and conducted its inquiry both aboard USS Liberty as she
limped under escort to Malta, and in succeeding days as she lay in
drydock there. Concluding their inquiries there, the President of the
Court, with the Navy Judge Advocate General's Corps officer who had
been appointed as Counsel to the Court, and with a Navy court reporter
who had been assigned from the London headquarters to assist, returned
to London on June 16, 1967 (eight days after the attack), with their
results.
At London, the Navy court reporter supervised the final production of a
written record of the Court's proceedings and findings - a document
over 600 typewritten pages in length. On the afternoon of June 17,
1967, that record of the Court's proceedings was delivered to the
senior Navy Judge Advocate General's Corps officer on the
CINCUSNAVEUR staff for his review and recommendation to the appointing
authority concerning his required endorsement and action upon the
Court's proceedings and record. The CINCUSNAVEUR Staff Judge Advocate
thus charged with that review - in full compliance and accord with
standard Navy requirements and practice - turned immediately to his
detailed examination and consideration of the record. He continued that
process steadily into the early morning hours of June 18, 1967, then
after a four hour rest break resumed his review at 6:00 AM on June
18th.
In the midforenoon of June 18th an emissary from his Commander, the
appointing authority, appeared and inquired of the Staff Judge Advocate
concerning the status of his review and when it might be expected to be
completed. The Staff Judge Advocate advised that he had by then read
only about a third of the record - that there were many clerical and
typographical flaws in the record that should be remedied before it was
formally forwarded to the high governmental authorities who undoubtedly
awaited it - that, more importantly, the reviewer had not yet been
able to find, in the parts of the record he had so far reviewed,
testimony or other evidence to support some of the Court's stated
conclusions - and that he could not yet estimate when he could
complete his review and recommendations but was continuing to devote
himself solely to that task.
The emissary from the appointing authority departed with that
information then returned about 20 minutes later with the message that
CINCUSNAVEUR, the appointing authority had directed him to come and get
the Court's record from the Staff Judge Advocate and bring it back to
the appointing authority. The Staff Judge Advocate accordingly
surrendered the record to the emissary exactly as he had received it;
he was neither then nor later asked for any of his work or opinions so
far; and he had no further contact with the Court of Inquiry or its
results at any time in his active Navy career.[39]
The records of the Navy Department reveal that the written record of
proceedings of the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry into the Israeli attack
upon USS Liberty was formally submitted by the President of the Court
of Inquiry to CINCUSNAVEUR, the appointing authority by a written
letter dated 18 June 1967, the very day that the record had been
withdrawn by the appointing authority from his Staff Judge Advocate.
The written record also reveals that the appointing authority, on that
same day, placed upon that record of the Court's proceedings, a
five-page First Endorsement, transmitting that Record to the Judge
Advocate General of the Navy in Washington as required by the Navy's
investigative procedures.[40]
Mr. Secretary, it is respectfully submitted that, even based solely
upon the facts and circumstances outlined above, the Navy Court of
Inquiry into the Israeli attack on USS Liberty - the sole official
investigation by the United States Government into that attack - was
deficient and prejudiced, even at its outset, by the unreasonable haste
imposed informally by the appointing authority. In addition, the
processing of that Court's hasty result was further compromised by
its peremptory withdrawal from its initial and prescribed legal review
in the field, and its hurried transmission to the seat of the U.S.
Government under cover of a purported official endorsement that could
not conceivably have been based upon even a cursory complete review of
even the hasty work of the Navy Court of Inquiry. Inexplicably, the
Court record was classified Top Secret and withheld from public
scru-tiny for many years.
In addition to all of that, however, the Judge Advocate General's
Corps officer who was appointed to serve as Counsel to the Navy Court
of Inquiry - the officer charged with certifying the authenticity of
the Court's record - has examined a copy of the record of that
Court of Inquiry that has since been released by the Government under
the Freedom of Information Act and has pronounced it a fraud, and not
the record that he had certified and submitted [41]. Furthermore, the
President of the Court of Inquiry, following his departure from London
with the record on 18 June 1967, his personal delivery of the record to
officials in Washington, and his return to his regular duty post in
Italy, informed the officer who had served as Counsel to the Court of
Inquiry that the Court's record of its proceedings had been altered,
in his presence, by civilian Government attorneys following its
submission. [42]
The Central Intelligence Agency issued an "interim" report on the
attack, dated June 13, 1967 (five days after the attack and five days
before the apparent completion of the Navy's abbreviated Court of
Inquiry). The heavily redacted copy of the CIA's report that has been
released to the public does not state a conclusion, but suggests that,
based on the information available as of the date of the report, the
Israeli forces may not have known that they were attacking an American
ship.[43]
Writing in his memoirs, Richard Helms, the Director of Central
Intelligence at the time of the attack, explained that the Central
Intelligence Agency undertook a "final" investigation after more
evidence became available, and he offered the following information
concerning the CIA's final finding:[44]
"Israeli authorities subsequently apologized for the incident, but few
in Washington could believe that the ship had not been identified as an
American naval vessel. Later, an interim intelligence memorandum
concluded the attack was a mistake and not made in malice against the
U=2ES. . . .I had no role in the board of inquiry that followed, or the
board's finding that there could be no doubt that the Israelis knew
exactly what they were doing in attacking the Liberty. I have yet to
understand why it was felt necessary to attack this ship or who ordered
the attack." [Emphasis added]
Director Helms was not the only administration official who remained
convinced that the attack was deliberate. In 1990, in his memoirs,
Secretary of State Rusk observed:[45]
"But I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation. Their
sustained attack to disable and sink Liberty precluded an assault by
accident or some trigger-happy local commander. Through diplomatic
channels we refused to accept their explanations. I didn't believe them
then, and I don't believe them to this day. The attack was outrageous."
Similarly, Clark M. Clifford, Counsel to the President at the time of
the attack, recalled:[46]
"I do not know to this day at what level the attack on the Liberty was
authorized and I think it is unlikely that the full truth will ever
come out. Having been for so long a staunch supporter of Israel, I was
particularly troubled by this incident; I could not bring myself to
believe that such an action could have been authorized by Levi Eshkol.
Yet somewhere inside the Israeli government, somewhere along the chain
of command, something had gone terribly wrong--and then had been
covered up. I never felt the Israelis made adequate restitution or
explanation for their actions...."
The then-General Counsel for the Department of Defense, attorney Paul
C=2E Warnke, opined:[47]
"I found it hard to believe that it was, in fact, an honest mistake on
the part of the Israeli air force units. I still find it impossible to
believe that it was. I suspect that in the heat of battle they figured
that the presence of this American ship was inimical to their
interests, and that somebody without authorization attacked it."
The Executive Branch of the United States Government undertook no
further review of the attack. Similarly, the United States Congress has
never investigated the attack, making it the only attack on a United
States Navy ship involving significant loss of life that has not been
so investigated.[48]
Compounding the harm done to survivors was the task given to them to
bring all human remains and classified materials out of the research
spaces that had been destroyed by the torpedo explosion. The survivors
assigned to this task were further traumatized by having to secure the
remains of their shipmates, men they knew and had lived and worked
with.[49]
In the years that followed the attack, almost all of the evidence
pertaining to the attack remained, inexplicably, highly classified.
Starting in the late 1970s, heavily redacted documents began to be
released as a result of FOIA requests. To this day, many USS Liberty
related documents, including the CIA report referenced by Director
Helms, remain classified.
A number of individuals and groups, some directly in the employ of the
Israeli government, others self-appointed, have attempted to convince
the public that the attack on USS Liberty was but an "innocent
mistake."[50] In furtherance of this goal they have fabricated and
repeated demonstrably false allegations the most notable fabrication
being that there have been "thirteen official investigations (including
five Congressional investigations)" - all of which concluded that the
attack was a "tragic error." These allegations are wholly and
demonstrably false.[51] Worse, in some instances, deliberately
falsified evidence has been proffered in support of this argument.[52]
As a result of the public relations campaign undertaken on behalf of
Israel, the USS Liberty survivors have been vilified for their
assertions that the attack was deliberate and for their ongoing quest
for justice. They are characterized as "neo-Nazis", "anti-Semites", and
"conspiracy theorists" for wanting nothing more than an honest, open
investigation of the attack on their ship and themselves.[53]
In 2003, an independent commission of highly regarded experts was
created to look into the matter. The Commission consisted of Admiral
Thomas H. Moorer, United States Navy (Ret.), Former Chairman, Joint
Chiefs of Staff; General Raymond G. Davis, United States Marine Corps,
(MOH), Former Assistant Commandant of The Marine Corps; Rear Admiral
Merlin Staring, United States Navy (Ret.), Former Judge Advocate
General Of The Navy; and Ambassador James Akins (Ret.), Former United
States Ambassador to Saudi Arabia.
The "Moorer Commission" (Chaired by Adm. Moorer) investigated the
attack and made the following findings:
"We, the undersigned, having undertaken an independent investigation of
Israel's attack on USS Liberty, including eyewitness testimony from
surviving crewmembers, a review of naval and other official records, an
examination of official statements by the Israeli and American
governments, a study of the conclusions of all previous official
inquiries, and a consideration of important new evidence and recent
statements from individuals having direct knowledge of the attack or
the cover up, hereby find the following:
1=2E That on June 8, 1967, after eight hours of aerial surveillance,
Israel launched a two-hour air and naval attack against USS Liberty,
the world's most sophisticated intelligence ship, inflicting 34 dead
and 173 wounded American servicemen (a casualty rate of seventy
percent, in a crew of 294);
2=2E That the Israeli air attack lasted approximately 25 minutes, during
which time unmarked Israeli aircraft dropped napalm canisters on USS
Liberty's bridge, and fired 30mm cannons and rockets into our ship,
causing 821 holes, more than 100 of which were rocket-size; survivors
estimate 30 or more sorties were flown over the ship by a minimum of 12
attacking Israeli planes which were jamming all five American emergency
radio channels;
3=2E That the torpedo boat attack involved not only the firing of
torpedoes, but the machine-gunning of Liberty's firefighters and
stretcher-bearers as they struggled to save their ship and crew; the
Israeli torpedo boats later returned to machine-gun at close range
three of the Liberty's life rafts that had been lowered into the water
by survivors to rescue the most seriously wounded;
4=2E That there is compelling evidence that Israel's attack was a
deliberate attempt to destroy an American ship and kill her entire
crew; evidence of such intent is supported by statements from Secretary
of State Dean Rusk, Undersecretary of State George Ball, former CIA
director Richard Helms, former NSA directors Lieutenant General William
Odom, USA (Ret.), Admiral Bobby Ray Inman, USN (Ret.), and Marshal
Carter; former NSA deputy directors Oliver Kirby and Major General John
Morrison, USAF (Ret.); and former Ambassador Dwight Porter, U.S.
Ambassador to Lebanon in 1967;
5=2E That in attacking USS Liberty, Israel committed acts of murder
against American servicemen and an act of war against the United
States;
6=2E That fearing conflict with Israel, the White House deliberately
prevented the U.S. Navy from coming to the defense of USS Liberty by
recalling Sixth Fleet military rescue support while the ship was under
attack; evidence of the recall of rescue aircraft is supported by
statements of Captain Joe Tully, Commanding Officer of the aircraft
carrier USS Saratoga, and Rear Admiral Lawrence Geis, the Sixth Fleet
carrier division commander, at the time of the attack; never before in
American naval history has a rescue mission been cancelled when an
American ship was under attack;
7=2E That although Liberty was saved from almost certain destruction
through the heroic efforts of the ship's Captain, William L. McGonagle
(MOH), and his brave crew, surviving crewmembers were later threatened
with "court-martial, imprisonment or worse" if they exposed the truth;
and were abandoned by their own government;
8=2E That due to the influence of Israel's powerful supporters in the
United States, the White House deliberately covered up the facts of
this attack from the American people;
9=2E That due to continuing pressure by the pro-Israel lobby in the
United States, this attack remains the only serious naval incident that
has never been thoroughly investigated by Congress; to this day, no
surviving crewmember has been permitted to officially and publicly
testify about the attack;
10. That there has been an official cover-up without precedent in
American naval history; the existence of such a cover-up is now
supported by statements of Rear Admiral Merlin Staring, USN (Ret.),
former Judge Advocate General of the Navy; and Captain Ward Boston,
USN, (Ret.), the chief counsel to the Navy's 1967 Court of Inquiry of
Liberty attack;
11. That the truth about Israel's attack and subsequent White House
cover-up continues to be officially concealed from the American people
to the present day and is a national disgrace;
12. That a danger to our national security exists whenever our elected
officials are willing to subordinate American interests to those of any
foreign nation, and specifically are unwilling to challenge Israel's
interests when they conflict with American interests; this policy,
evidenced by the failure to defend USS Liberty and the subsequent
official cover-up of the Israeli attack, endangers the safety of
Americans and the security of the United States.
WHEREUPON, we, the undersigned, in order to fulfill our duty to the
brave crew of USS Liberty and to all Americans who are asked to serve
in our Armed Forces, hereby call upon the Department of the Navy, the
Congress of the United States and the American people to immediately
take the following actions:
FIRST: That a new Court of Inquiry be convened by the Department of the
Navy, operating with Congressional oversight, to take public testimony
from surviving crewmembers; and to thoroughly investigate the
circumstances of the attack on the USS Liberty, with full cooperation
from the National Security Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency and
the military intelligence services, and to determine Israel's possible
motive in launching said attack on a U.S. naval vessel;
SECOND: That every appropriate committee of the Congress of the United
States investigate the actions of the White House and Defense
Department that prevented the rescue of the USS Liberty, thereafter
threatened her surviving officers and men if they exposed the truth,
and covered up the true circumstances of the attack from the American
people; and
THIRD: That the eighth day of June of every year be proclaimed to be
hereafter known as
USS LIBERTY REMEMBRANCE DAY, in order to commemorate USS Liberty's
heroic crew; and to educate the American people of the danger to our
national security inherent in any passionate attachment of our elected
officials for any foreign nation.
We, the undersigned, hereby affix our hands and seals, this 22nd day of
October, 2003.
Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, USN, Ret.
Former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
General of Marines Raymond G. Davis, USMC, MOH
Former Commandant of the United States Marine Corps
Merlin Staring
Rear Admiral Merlin Staring, USN, Ret.,
Former Judge Advocate General of the Navy,
James Akins
Ambassador James Akins, Ret.,
Former United States Ambassador to Saudi Arabia"
The federal criminal code makes special provision for the prosecution
of war crimes whether inside or outside the United States, committed
against United States armed forces personnel:
"18 United States Code, Sec. 2441. - War crimes
(a) Offense. -
Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war
crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall
be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years,
or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to
the penalty of death.
(b) Circumstances. -
The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person
committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member
of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United
States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality
Act).
(c) Definition. -
As used in this section the term ''war crime'' means any conduct -
(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions
signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to
which the United States is a party;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague
Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed
18 October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a violation of common Article 3 of the
international conventions signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949, or any
protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party and
which deals with non-international armed conflict; or
(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to
the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the
Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3
May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States
is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury
to civilians."
The Geneva Convention (1949) defines the term "grave breach" as
follows:
"Article 51
Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those
involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or
property protected by the Convention: willful killing, torture or
inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, willfully causing
great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and extensive
destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military
necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly."
Even if there were no special provision authorizing the prosecution of
war crimes, the provisions of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1114 compel the
prosecution of those who kill or attempt to kill United States armed
forces personnel in the performance of their duties.
"Sec. 1114. Protection of officers and employees of the United States
Whoever kills or attempts to kill any officer or employee of the United
States or of any agency in any branch of the United States Government
(including any member of the uniformed services) while such officer or
employee is engaged in or on account of the performance of official
duties, or any person assisting such an officer or employee in the
performance of such duties or on account of that assistance, shall be
punished -
(1) in the case of murder, as provided under section 1111;
(2) in the case of manslaughter, as provided under section 1112; or
(3) in the case of attempted murder or manslaughter, as provided in
section 1113."
The prohibition against attacking neutrals on the high seas is
unconditional. It does not allow for mistake. The belligerent force,
when on the high seas, must verify that their proposed target is not a
neutral and is, in fact, a co-belligerent. This provision very sensibly
attempts to prevent the use of deadly force by mistake.[54] The United
States of American has long and vigorously asserted the right of its
warships to transit the high seas, free from molestation by
belligerents of wars to which the United States is not a party.[55]
Of particular relevance to this matter, the Geneva Convention (1949)
provides:
"REPRESSION OF ABUSES AND INFRACTIONS
Article 51
Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those
involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or
property protected by the Convention: willful killing, torture or
inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, willfully causing
great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and extensive
destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military
necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.
Article 52
No High Contracting Party shall be allowed to absolve itself or any
other High Contracting Party of any liability incurred by itself or by
another High Contracting Party in respect of breaches referred to in
the preceding Article."
In the instant matter, Israel freely acknowledged that USS Liberty was
a neutral ship in international waters.[56] Israel also admitted that
the attack was deliberate and made with the intent to sink the ship and
crew.[57] Israel has thus explicitly admitted the essential elements of
a violation of Article 1 of the Hague Convention on Naval Warfare.
Israel has further admitted the essential elements required to
establish a "grave breach" as that term is defined in the Geneva
Convention (1949).
The N=FCrnberg War Crimes Tribunal established certain principles that
were later adopted by all members of the United Nations.[58] Of
particular relevance is Principal VI:
"Principle VI
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under
international law:
.. . .
(b) War crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not
limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labour or for
any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory;
murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the Seas,
killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton
destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified
by military necessity."
It is well settled that homicides resulting from the accused committing
an act inherently dangerous to others and showing a wanton disregard of
human life may be charged as murder:
"Homicides prosecuted under Article 118(3) are those unlawful killings
which result from an accused's committing "an act inherently dangerous
to others and" showing "a wanton disregard of human life." The accused
must also know that death or great bodily harm was a "probable
consequence" of his conduct. Not surprisingly, intentional homicides
under Article 118(2) also generally involve death as a "probable
consequence"; and they are most often committed by acts which are
"inherently dangerous," particularly to the deceased, and show "a
wanton disregard" for the victim (i.e., killing by gunfire or other
dangerous weapon).
We stated previously that, for unpremeditated murder under Article
118(3), Congress enacted the rule that murder by an act inherently
dangerous to others requires 'a wanton disregard of human life" in
general, without the actions of the accused "being aimed at anyone in
particular.'"
U=2ES. v. Berg, 31 M.J. 38, 39, 40 (CMA,1990).
This is not a case of first impression. Precedent exists[59] for the
finding that this type of attack represents a grave breach of the Laws
of War.[60]
Accordingly it is established, prima facie, that Israel was guilty of
the commission of the war crime of attacking a neutral vessel in
neutral waters as a consequence of its attack on USS Liberty.
USS Liberty survivors, through sworn statements, have established that
the Israeli torpedo boats shot at rescuers and firefighters on the deck
of the ship. They have further established that the same torpedo boats
shot at USS Liberty's life rafts, after the rafts had been put over
the side of the ship into the sea for use by shipwrecked survivors.[61]
There also exists prima facie evidence that Israeli forces committed
additional separate war crimes by firing on the wounded and their
rescuers, as well as subsequently firing into the life rafts.
The concerns of an Israeli whitewash first articulated by Secretary of
State Rusk[62] and later echoed by Undersecretary of State Battle[63]
turned out to be prophetic. In direct violation of Article 52 of the
Geneva Convention[64], the Israeli Defense Forces absolved themselves
of any wrongdoing, including criminal negligence, involving their
attack on USS Liberty. When provided with a copy of the Israeli report,
NSA Deputy Director Louis Tordella wrote "A nice whitewash for a group
of ignorant, stupid and inept [epithet redacted]" on the cover of his
copy.[65] In that Israel has abdicated its responsibility under
international law to investigate and bring the wrongdoers to justice,
the task falls to the government of the aggrieved parties to act on
their behalf.
Conclusion
The USS Liberty Veterans Association has established, prima facie, the
commission of war crimes by the state of Israel against US military
personnel and civilians. These Americans volunteered to serve their
country. They followed all orders given to them. In the course of
following those orders, they were suddenly and deliberately attacked by
naval and air forces of the state of Israel and their country did
absolutely nothing to protect them or seek justice on their behalf..
The failure of the United States government to undertake a complete
investigation of the Israeli attack on USS Liberty has resulted in
grievous harm to the surviving victims, as well as to the families of
all crewmembers. Equally serious, this failure has resulted in an
indelible stain upon the honor of the United States of America. It has
sent a signal to America's serving men and women that their welfare
is always subordinate to the interests of a foreign state. The only
conceivable reason for this failure is the political decision to put
the interests of Israel ahead of those of American servicemen,
employees, and veterans.[66]
Finally, the fact that the Israeli government and its surrogates in the
United States have worked so long and hard to prevent an inquiry itself
speaks volumes as to what such an inquiry would find.
The USS Liberty Veterans Association, Inc. respectfully insists that
the Secretary of the Army convene an investigatory body to undertake
the complete investigation that should have been carried out
thirty-eight years ago.
Respectfully submitted on behalf of the USS Liberty Veterans
Association, Inc., on this, the thirty-eighth anniversary of the
Israeli attack on their ship.
June 8, 2005
BY
/s/_________________________
Gary W. Brummett, President and
Member of the Board of Directors
/s/_________________________
Glenn Oliphant
Member of the Board of Directors
/s/_________________________
Maurice Shafer
Member of the Board of Directors
/s/_________________________
Stan White
Member of the Board of Directors
/s/_________________________
Ernie Gallo
Member of the Board of Directors
/s/_________________________
James R. Gotcher
General Legal Counsel
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
[1] CJCSI 5810.01B (29 March 2004) provides in relevant part, attached
as Exhibit 1:
1=2E Purpose. Pursuant to the authorities delegated in references a and
b, this instruction establishes joint policy, assigns responsibilities,
and provides guidance regarding the law of war obligations of the
United States. Reference a provides policy guidance and assigns
responsibility within the Department of Defense for a program to ensure
compliance with the law of war. . . .
4=2E Policy
a=2E The Armed Forces of the United States will comply with the law of
war during all armed conflicts, however such conflicts are
characterized, and, unless otherwise directed by competent authorities,
the US Armed Forces will comply with the principles and spirit of the
law of war during all other operations. Specifically, reference A
provides that it is the policy of the Department of Defense to ensure
that:
(1) The law of war obligations of the US Government are observed and
enforced by the US Armed Forces.
(2) An effective program designed to prevent violations of the law of
war is implemented by the US Armed Forces.
(3) All reportable incidents committed by or against members of (or
persons serving with or accompanying) the US Armed Forces are promptly
reported, thoroughly investigated and, where appropriate, remedied by
corrective action.
.. . .
5=2E Definitions
.. . .
b=2E Reportable Incident. A possible, suspected, or alleged violation of
the law of war.
.. . .
7=2E Reporting Requirements
.. . .
c=2E Investigation. Commanders of combatant commands will establish
procedures for receiving initial reports of reportable incidents, and
will ensure that their subordinate commanders:
(1) Submit a report, by the most expeditious means available, . .
(2) Initiate an investigation by an appropriate military investigative
authority in accordance with subparagraphs 3f(2) and 3f(4) of Enclosure
A=2E
d=2E The responsible combatant commander will submit a message report, as
expeditiously as possible, for all reportable incidents to the Joint
Staff . . ., The Office of the Secretary of Defense. . . , and the
Secretary of the Army . . . , in the Secretary's capacity as
Executive Agent under paragraph 5.6 of reference a.
Enclosure A:
3=2E The commanders of combatant commands are responsible for the overall
execution of the DOD Law of War Program within their respective
commands. Specific responsibilities include ensuring:
.. . .
f=2E All appropriate policies, directives, and operation and concept
plans incorporate the reporting and investigation requirements
established by reference a and this instruction, and by the Secretary
of the Army, who is designated by reference a as the DOD Executive
Agent for the administration of the DOD Law of War Program with respect
to investigating and reporting reportable incidents.
.. . .
(2) Ensure, via appropriate command directives, that all reportable
incidents committed by or against members of (or persons serving with
or accompanying) US Armed Forces are reported promptly to appropriate
authorities, are thoroughly investigated, and the results of such
investigations are promptly forwarded to the applicable Military
Department or other appropriate authorities. Applicable directives will
include specific guidance on the collection and preservation of
evidence of reportable incidents committed by enemy forces against US
personnel since such evidence may serve as the basis for a possible
future trial of accused war criminals. . . . [Emphasis added]
To the extent that there was a "combat commander" above USS Liberty
(United States Sixth Fleet, CINCUSNAVEUR, or Naval Security Group), the
"combat commander" was derelict in his duty by failing to report
this attac as required. Consequently, the actual victims of the crimes
have no recourse but to file their own Report.
[2] See, IDF History Report, attached as Exhibit 2-14, a map generated
by the Israeli Defense Forces and show both the limit of territorial
waters and the track of USS Liberty
[3] Memo from Presidential Counselor Clark Clifford to President
Johnson, dated July 18, 1967, titled The Israeli Attack on the USS
Liberty (the "Clifford Report"), Exhibit 3:
"a. At all times prior to, during, and following the attack, the
Liberty was in international waters where she had every right to be.
As a noncombatant neutral vessel she maintained the impartial attitude
of neutrality at all times prior to the attack."
[4] Attack on a SIGINT Collector, p.2 (photo caption), Exhibit 4-2:
"The U.S.S. Liberty was commissioned in May 1945 as a victory ship and
later converted into a technical research ship (December 1964). She had
an overall length of 455 feet. a maximum speed of 18 knots with an
allowable personnel complement of 9 officers and 151 enlisted men along
with an additional 6 officers and 128 enlisted men from the Naval
Security Group."
[5] Attack on a SIGINT Collector, Exhibit 4-17 :
"Six Arabic linguists [redacted] joined USN-855 for the expected work
on U.A.R. and [redacted] communications. Three of the Arab linguists,
NSA civilians Allen M. Blue, Donald L. Blalock, and Robert L. Wilson,
were among the specialists who came on board [redacted]."
[6] See, Navy Court of Inquiry Transcript, Exhibits 20 through 22
(attached as Exhibits 5, 6, and 7). While the number of those killed in
action (KIA) remains at 34, the number of those wounded in action (WIA)
has risen to 173 as the result of additional crewmembers being awarded
Purple Hearts after the conclusion of the NCOI.
[7] Attack on a SIGINT Collector, Exhibit 4-64
"=2E . . Liberty was decommissioned on 28 June 1968. In 1970 the ship was
turned over to the Maritime Administration and sold for scrap for
$101,666.66."
[8] Ram Ron Report, p. 3, Exhibit 8-3
"After identifying the ship on Janes' (The Fleet's manual -
Exhibit 1) and based on detailed investigation by the pilot - the
identification of the ship was determined to be the US Navy ship
"Liberty" (formerly supply ship) of an 18 knot speed."
[9] IDF History Report, Exhibit 2-14. This document is a map, prepared
by the IDF, that shows the territorial limits of Egypt and Israel, as
well as USS Liberty's track (well outside all claimed territorial
seas) on the day of June 8, 1967. Exhibit 2-14
[10] Attack on a SIGINT Collector, quoting the charges filed by the
Israeli Chief Military Prosecutor, specifically, Charges 4 and 5
Exhibit 4-39:
"4. Charge: That the Naval Department's order not to attack the ship
(the Liberty), "for fear of error and out of uncertainty with regard to
the true identity of the ship," was not delivered to the torpedo boat
division.
5=2E Charge: That it was negligence to give the order to attack a warship
without previously establishing, beyond doubt, its national identity
and without taking into account the presence of the American Ship,
Liberty, in the vicinity of the coast of Israel."
[11] IDF History Report, Exhibit 2-678:
"The [Israeli maritime reconnaissance aircraft] patrol's mission was
to detect ship movements before vessels could enter coastal radar
detection range.
.. . .
Meanwhile, the "Nord" plane which had been patrolling the sea had
landed and [at 1050 hours local time] the observer was debriefed by Lt.
Commander Pinchasi, a navy representative at Air Command. The observer
reported spotting the marking GTR-5 on the ship's side. Lt. Commander
Pinchasi checked the marking in a "Janes" manual and learned that the
reference was to an intelligence ship named "Liberty."
[12] IDF History Report, Exhibit 2-8:
"He [Pinchasi] reported the information to Naval Operations Section/3
and since the reference was to an intelligence ship he likewise
reported to Naval Operations Section/4 (intelligence).
[13] Memorandum from Carl F. Salans, Department of State Legal Advisor
to the Undersecretary of State, dated September 21, 1967 and titled:
The Liberty -- Discrepancies Between Israeli Inquiry and U.S. Navy
Inquiry (the "Salans Report"), Exhibit 9:
"II. Aircraft Surveillance
The Israeli report indicates that a ship was reported in the area by
reconnaissance aircraft at 0600 and that another report was received of
a contact between an Israeli aircraft and a surface vessel about 0900.
The Navy Court finding of facts, plus testimony of various members of
the crew indicate reconnaissance overflights of the Liberty at 0515,
0850, 1030, 1056, 1126, 1145, 1220, and 1245." [all times local]
[14] IDF History Report, Exhibit 2-8:
"Lt. Commander Pinchasi checked the marking in a "Janes" manual and
learned that the reference was to an intelligence ship named "Liberty."
[15] IDF History Report, (map), Exhibit 2-14:
[16] Attack on a SIGINT Collector, Exhibit 4-26:
"The relative bearing of this plane was about 135=B0, its position angle
was about 45=B0-50=B0, its elevation approximately 7,000 feet, and it was
approximately five to six miles from the ship."
.. . .
"At about 1424 hours, look-outs sighted three high-speed boats
approaching the Liberty from he northeast on a relative bearing of
approximately 135" at a distance of about 15 miles."
[17] Attack on a SIGINT Collector, Exhibit 4-26:
"The coordinated strafing, rocket, and incendiary air attacks created
three major fires topside that covered large areas of the Liberty with
flames and heavy smoke."
[18] Attack on a SIGINT Collector, Exhibit 4-26:
"At the same time, he ordered Lieutenant Maurice H. Bennett to report
to the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) via the high-command radio
circuit (hicom) that the Liberty was under attack by unidentified jet
aircraft and required immediate assistance This Flash message, giving
the Liberty's position as 33-25E, 31-23N, was received by the aircraft
carrier U.S.S. Saratoga (CVA-60) and relayed to Commander, U.S. Naval
Forces Europe; Commander, Sixth Fleet; and Commander, Task Force 60
(CTF 60). Liberty's transmission was not made without difficulty.
During the attack and intermittently thereafter, the hicom voice
circuit was subjected to loud jamming regardless of frequency. This
electronic interference was described as a steady carrier without
modulation."
[19] Attack on a SIGINT Collector, Exhibit 4-29:
"Eight men were killed or died of injuries received during the air
attack: two killed or mortally wounded on the bridge, two killed at
machine gun 51, one killed at machine gun 52, one died from wounds
received on the main deck starboard side, and two died of wounds
received on the 01 level portside. Throughout the topside area, 75 men
had been wounded by shrapnel and shock of exploding rockets."
[20] Attack on a SIGINT Collector, Exhibit 4-28:
"At this time, the motor torpedo boats opened fire with their gun
mounts, killing the Liberty's helmsman. In a matter of seconds one
torpedo crossed astern of the ship at about 25 yards. The time was then
1434 hours. A minute later, a second torpedo struck the ship on the
starboard side, just forward of the bridge and a few feet below the
water line."
[21] See statement of Lloyd Painter , Exhibit 10, and statement of
Glenn Oliphant Exhibit 11.
[22] See statement of Lloyd Painter , Exhibit 10, and statement of
Glenn Oliphant Exhibit 11. Statement of survivor Glenn Oliphant,
Exhibit 11.
"Shortly after the torpedo hit, the order was received to abandon ship.
I proceeded to the outside hatch in the radio transmitter room and
undogged the door. . . .
When I got on deck I looked forward and discovered that the rack that
held my life raft and all the life rafts had been consumed by fire. I
then went to the starboard side of the ship and found injured men
coming up from the messdecks to the main deck. I assisted several of
them and within minutes shells and shrapnel were flying everywhere
coming from the torpedo boats. The order was given to return to the
mess decks."
[23] Statement of survivor James M. Ennes, Jr., Exhibit 12.
"Almost every man on that ship recalls -- as I personally recall very
clearly from my position outside the wardroom -- that the torpedo boats
then circled the ship for a long time firing at close range at anything
that moved. Men trying to aid their wounded shipmates on deck were
fired upon. Men fighting fires were fired upon and recall seeing their
fire hoses punctured by machinegun fire. This went on for several
minutes. At one point the boatmen concentrated their fire near the
waterline amidships, presumably hoping to blow up the boilers to hasten
our demise. Finally they pulled a distance back from the ship."
[24] Statement of survivor Glenn Oliphant: Exhibit 11.
"Shortly after the torpedo hit, the order was received to abandon
ship."
[25] See statement of Lloyd Painter , Exhibit 10 and statement of Glenn
Oliphant, Exhibit 11. Statement of survivor James M. Ennes, Jr.,
Exhibit 12.
[26] Exhibit 13:
081235Z
FM NJRS
TO CINCNAEUR
INFO BGOC
FOLLOWING RECEIVED FROM ROCKSTAR AM UNDER ATTACK MY POSIT 31-23N 33-25E
HAVE BEEN HIT REQUEST IMMED ASSISTANCE
[27] Exhibit 14:
081250Z JUN 67
FM COMSIXTHFLT
TO USS SARATOGA
USS AMERICA
INFO CTF SIX ZERO
CTG SIX ZERO PT TWO
BT
C O N F I D E N T I A L
1=2E AMERICA LAUNCH FOUR ARMED A4'S TO PROCEED TO 31-23N 33-25E TO
DEFEND USS LIBERTY WHO IS NOW UNDER ATTACK BY GUN BOATS. PROVIDE
FIGHTER COVER AND TANKERS. RELIEVE ON STATION. SARATOGA LAUNCH
FOUR ARMED A-1'S ASAP SAME MISSION.
GP-4
BT
[28] Exhibit 15:
081339Z. USS Liberty Incident.
1=2E IAW CINCUSNAVEUR inst P03611#SB forces attacking Liberty are
declared hostile.
2=2E You are authorized to use force including destruction as necessary
to control the situation. Do not use more force than required, do not
pursue any unit towards land for reprisal purposes. Purpose of
counterattack is to protect Liberty only.
3=2E Brief all pilots contents this msg.
4=2E In addition brief pilots that Egyptian territorial limit only 12
miles and Liberty right on edge. Do not fly between Liberty and
shoreline except as required to carry out provisions para 2 above.
Brief fighter cover that any attacks on attack aircraft, Liberty or
they themselves is hostile act and para two above applies.
[29] Attack on a SIGINT Collector, Exhibit 4-30
"One of the boats signaled by flashing light, in English, "Do you
require assistance?" Not being able to signal by light, Commander
McGonagle ordered a signalman to hoist the international flag signal
for "not under command," meaning that the ship was maneuvering with
difficulty and that they should keep clear."
[30] Exhibit 16
Tel Aviv, June 8, 1967, 1414Z.
"0825. ALUSNA called to FLO to receive report. Israeli aircraft and
MTB's erroneously attacked U.S. ship at 081200Z position 3125Z 33-33E.
May be navy ship. IDF helicopters in rescue operations. No other info.
Israelis send abject apologies and request info of other US ships near
war zone coasts."
[31] Exhibit 17
081440Z JUN 67
FM COMSIXTHFLT
TO AMERICA/SARATOGA /CTF60/CTG60.2
CONFIDENTIAL
1=2E RECALL ALL STRIKES REPEAT RECALL ALL STRIKES
[32] Statement of survivor Richard Carlson, Exhibit 18
"An officer comes in from outside. We can't go out there. They are
shooting at anyone on deck and have shot up the life rafts. I hear the
whirl of a helicopter. It passes by the porthole. Did I just see armed
troops? Word is passed. "Prepare to repel boarders!'"
[33] Statement of survivor James Kavanagh , Exhibit 19
"13. A few minutes later we were told to stand by to repel
boarders. We received a few guns and waited patiently for the battle."
Statement of survivor Richard Carlson, Exhibit 18
"An officer comes in from outside. We can't go out there. They are
shooting at anyone on deck and have shot up the life rafts. I hear the
whirl of a helicopter. It passes by the porthole. Did I just see armed
troops? Word is passed. "Prepare to repel boarders!"
[34] Attack on a SIGINT Collector, Exhibit 4-30
"At about 1515 hours, two helicopters approached the Liberty and
circled around the ship at a distance of about 100 yards. The Star of
David insignia was clearly visible. One of the helicopters was numbered
04 or D4, the other 08 or DB. The helicopters departed, returned, and
departed again."
[35] Diplomatic Note From Secretary of State Rusk to the Israeli
Ambassador, National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59,
Central Files 1967-69, POL 27 ARAB-ISR., Exhibit 20
"Washington, June 10, 1967.
The Secretary of State presents his compliments to His Excellency the
Ambassador of Israel and has the honor to refer to the Ambassadors Note
of June 10, 1967 concerning the attack by Israeli aircraft and torpedo
boats on the United States naval vessel U.S.S. Liberty, which was
carried out at 1605 and 1625 hours local time. Respectively, on June 8,
1967 while the U.S.S. Liberty was engaged in peaceful activities in
international waters.
At the time of the attack, the U.S.S Liberty was flying the American
flag and its identification was clearly indicated in large white
letters and numerals on its hull. It was broad daylight and the weather
conditions were excellent. Experience demonstrates that both the flag
and the identification number of the vessel were readily visible from
the air. At 1450 hours local time on June 8, 1967, two Israeli aircraft
circled the U.S.S. Liberty three times, with the evident purpose of
identifying the vessel. Accordingly there is every reason to believe
that the U.S.S Liberty was identified, or at least her nationality
determined, by Israeli aircraft approximately one hour before the
attack. In these circumstances, the later military attack by Israeli
aircraft on the U.S.S. Liberty is quite literally incomprehensible. As
a minimum, the attack must be condemned as an act of military
recklessness reflecting wanton disregard for human life.
The subsequent attack by Israeli torpedo boats, substantially after the
vessel was or should have been identified by Israeli military forces,
manifests the same reckless disregard for human life. The silhouette
and conduct of the U.S.S Liberty readily distinguished it from any
vessel that could have been considered as hostile. The U.S.S. Liberty
was peacefully engaged, posed no threat whatsoever to the torpedo
boats, and obviously carried no armament affording it a combat
capability. It could and should have been scrutinized visually at close
range before torpedoes were fired.
While the Ambassador of Israel has informed Secretary of State that
"the Government of Israel is prepared to make amends for the tragic
loss of life and material damage," the Secretary of State wishes to
make clear that the United States Government expects the Government of
Israel also to take the disciplinary measures which international law
requires in the event of wrongful conduct by the military personnel of
a State. He wishes also to make clear that the United States Government
expects the Government of Israel to issue instructions necessary to
ensure that United States personnel and property will not again be
endangered by the wrongful actions of Israeli military personnel.
The United States Government expects that the Government of Israel will
provide compensation in accordance with international law to the extent
that it is possible to compensate for the losses sustained in this
tragic event. The Department of State will, in the near future, present
to the Government of Israel a full monetary statement of its claim."
[36] Attack on a SIGINT Collector, Exhibit 4-3839:
"Given below are the charges brought by the Chief Military Prosecutor
together with the judge's findings.
1=2E Charge: The first charge related to the failure of the Acting Chief
of Naval Operations to report to the Head of the Naval Department that
the American ship, Liberty, was seen in the morning hours of the day of
the incident sailing in the vicinity of the Israeli coast.
Finding: Though the Head of the Naval Department testified that he did
not know of the Liberty's presence in the area on the day of the
incident, the Officer of the Watch at Navy Headquarters testified that
the Head of the Naval Department was on the Navy Command Bridge when
the Commanding Officer of the Navy ordered the marking (on the combat
information center plot table) of the American supply ship changed to
green (indicating a neutral vessel). Since the Acting Chief of Naval
Operations was an eyewitness to the event, he concluded that the Head
of the Naval Department did know about the presence of an American
supply ship in the area. In view of this, the examining judge found no
negligence on the part of the accused.
2=2E Charge: That the Acting Chief of Naval Operations failed to report
to the Head of the Naval Department that the hull markings on the ship
..observed by one of the attacking aircraft were similar to those on the
Liberty.
Finding: Witnesses testified that when the Naval Liaison Officer at the
Air Force Headquarters telephoned the Naval Command Bridge about the
hull markings and their similarity to those of the Liberty. the officer
to whom he spoke repeated the message in a loud voice so that it was
heard by all present on the Command Bridge including the Head of the
Naval Department. The examining judge stated, therefore, that there was
thus no reason to repeat to the Head of the Naval Department a fact
that had been audibly announced to those present. The charge was
dismissed.
3=2E Charge: That the Naval Liaison Officer at the Air Force Headquarters
was negligent by not reporting to the Air Force the information about
the presence of the Liberty in the area.
Finding: The examining judge considered this charge unfounded. The
responsibility for the defense of Israel against enemy naval actions
rests solely with the Navy. Even though Air Force Headquarters ordered
the aircraft to attack, it was really an order issued by the Navy,
passed on through Air Force Headquarters. The Naval Liaison Officer at
the Air Force Headquarters was entitled to assume that the decision to
attack was made after considering this report about the Liberty. There
was no reason to feed the Air Force with information and considerations
that did not concern it.
4=2E Charge: That the Naval Department's order not to attack the ship
(the Liberty), "for fear of error and out of uncertainty with regard to
the true identity of the ship," was not delivered to the torpedo boat
division.
Finding: Though the torpedo boat division commander claimed he never
received the message not to attack, the deputy commander of the boat
testified that he had received the message and passed it on to the
division commander. The examining judge believed that, in the heat of
battle, it was possible that the message escaped the awareness of the
division commander and, in any event, there was insufficient evidence
to commit any accused person to trial.
5=2E Charge: That it was negligence to give the order to attack a warship
without previously establishing, beyond doubt, its national identity
and without taking into account the presence of the American Ship,
Liberty, in the vicinity of the coast of Israel.
Finding: To the examining judge, there was no doubt that the dominant
factors in the initial attack decision were the speed and course of the
target. Those in command were entitled to assume that the reported
speed (28 knots) of the ship was correct, within the usual limits of
reasonable error of 10-15 percent, relying upon the existing means of
determining the speed of the target. It was, therefore, concluded that
this was a military vessel, and since the Liberty was classed as a
cargo ship, there was no reason for surmising, in view of the speed,
that the target could probably be the ship, Liberty. If one adds to
this other factors such as the report of the shelling of the AI .Arish
coast for hours on end, the ship's course toward Port Said, the
aircraft report that the target was a warship and carried no naval or
other identification marks, and the ship's location close to shore in a
battle zone, the cumulative effect negates any presumption whatsoever
of a connection between the American supply ship and the target
discovered by the torpedo boats. Thus, the examining judge concluded
that the assumption it was an enemy ship was reasonable and that the
order given to the aircraft to attack was justified.
6=2E Charge: That it was negligent to order the torpedo boat to attack
the ship upon an unfounded presumption that it was an Egyptian warship,
and this as a consequence of not taking reasonable steps to make proper
identification.
Finding: The examining judge considered it noteworthy that the
identification of the target as the El- Kasir was made both by the
division commander and the commander of a second torpedo boat. Upon
examining photos of the two ships, he was satisfied that a likeness
existed between them, and that an error of identification was possible,
especially when the identification was made while the ship was clouded
in smoke. The Chief Military Prosecutor argued that this identification
was unreasonable because it was inconceivable to think that this
auxiliary ship El- Kasir could shell the AI .Arish coast or that she
could move at a speed of 28 knots. In reply, the examining judge said
that it seemed reasonable to him that the El- Kasir might have been
part of the vessels that shelled the coast and failed to get away from
the area or that the ship had come to assist in the evacuation of
Egyptian soldiers struggling away from areas occupied by Israeli
forces. Further, the judge said that there was no doubt that the
Liberty's refusal to identify herself to the torpedo boats contributed
largely to the error of identification.
In summation, the judge concluded that in all the circumstances of the
case the conduct of the naval officers concerned in the Liberty
incident could not be considered unreasonable to an extent which would
justify committal for trial."
[37] Israel Defense Forces, Preliminary Inquiry File 1/67, Preliminary
Inquiry (July 21, 1967), Exhibit 21:
DECISION
"For all my regret that our forces were involved in an incident with a
vessel of a friendly state, and its sad outcome, I ought to put the
behavior of each of the officers, who had any connection with the
incident, to the test of the conduct of reasonable officers during
wartime operations, when the naval arm of the Israel Defense Forces was
confronted with maritime forces superior in numbers, and when all
involved were conscious of the task before them--to protect the safety
of Israel, to identify every enemy threatening from the sea, to attack
it speedily and to destroy it. The criterion for reasonable conduct
under these conditions may possibly differ from that in times of
relative quiet. Indeed, whoever peruses the ample evidence presented to
me, may conceivably draw some lesson regarding the relations between
the two arms of the Israel Defense Forces, which were involved in the
incident, and the operational procedures in times of war, particularly
between the different branches of the Navy--but all this is certainly
not within the scope of my inquiry. Yet I have not discovered any
deviation from the standard of reasonable conduct which would justify
the commital [sic] of anyone for trial. In view of what has been said
above, I hold, that there is no sufficient amount of prima facie
evidence, justifying committing anyone for trial."
[38] Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in Israel
Exhibit 22
(Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central
Files 1967-69, POL 27 ARAB-ISR. Secret; Exdis. Drafted by Lambrakis on
August 30; cleared by Bahti, Wehmeyer, and Davies; and approved by
Katzenbach.)
Washington, August 31, 1967, 2107Z.
30382. Subj: U.S.S. Liberty.
1=2E Under Secretary called in Charge Evron August 30 to comment on
Israeli examining judge's report./2/ Explained it has already been
given on confidential basis to a few Congressional committees. Also,
quite a few people in the USG had handled it, as it was received
through more than one channel from GOI. At least its existence, and
perhaps some of its substance, can be expected to leak out. It may then
become necessary for US to publish the exchange of notes. We shall
inform GOI in advance if that eventuality arises and will do any
publishing in low-key. We have no desire to exacerbate the issue. If
this procedure causes major problems for GOI now is the time to speak
out. Some leakage has occurred already in this week's Newsweek
magazine.
2=2E Evron said he would refer matter back to his government. He
speculated it might be possible for his government to acquiesce in such
publication of the notes, in which case it could be done jointly. He
wished to express GOI's deep appreciation of restrained manner in which
entire affair was handled by USG.
3=2E On substance of report, Under Secretary said he personally had been
very surprised with the ending. Report was obviously candid since any
such confusion could not possibly have been invented. Examining judge
laid out point after point confirming negligence on part of various
Israeli officials in affair, yet ended up finding no deviation from
normal conduct. Surely, Under Secretary said, one cannot believe such
conduct was consistent with normal Israeli practice and did not involve
culpable negligence on part of officials involved.
4=2E Evron was subdued in manner and said there was little he could add.
He had raised matter with GOI when in Israel in July and had spoken
personally with COS Rabin. Rabin had stressed that investigation being
entrusted to impartial military judge, and COS would have to abide by
judge's findings. Affair had obviously been very damaging for GOI,
Evron continued, and everything will be done to avoid repetition of
such incident if ever similar circumstances arose, which he devoutly
hoped they would not.
5=2E Under Secretary reiterated his surprise at judge's findings though
he assured Evron he did not intend publicly to express these personal
conclusions. If GOI should ever decide to publish the report, he added,
we would appreciate identification of Liberty as US communications
ship, in keeping with manner in which it identified in our own public
utterances.
6=2E Evron agreed this manner of identification should present no problem
but thought GOI would not publish report at all.
Rusk"
[39] He was a few months later ordered back to Navy headquarters in
Washington where he was first assigned as Special Counsel to the
Secretary of the Navy, serving two successive Secretaries in that post
- then to flag rank as the Deputy Judge Advocate General of the Navy
- and ultimately retiring in 1975 after his final active-duty
assignment as the Judge Advocate General of the Navy.
[40] Declaration of Merlin Staring, Rear Admiral, JAGC, USN (Ret),
Exhibit 23
[41] Declaration of Ward Boston, Jr., Captain, JAGC, USN (Ret.),
Exhibit 25
"18. Admiral Kidd also told me that he had been ordered to "put
the lid" on everything having to do with the attack on USS Liberty. We
were never to speak of it and we were to caution everyone else involved
that they could never speak of it again.
19. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of that statement
as I know that the Court of Inquiry transcript that has been released
to the public is not the same one that I certified and sent off to
Washington." [Emphasis added]
[42] Declaration of Ward Boston, Jr., Captain, JAGC, USN (Ret.),
Exhibit 25
"16. I know from personal conversations I had with Admiral Kidd
that President Lyndon Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara
ordered him to conclude that the attack was a case of "mistaken
identity" despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
17. Admiral Kidd told me, after returning from Washington,
D=2EC. that he had been ordered to sit down with two civilians from
either the White House or the Defense Department, and rewrite portions
of the court's findings."
[43] CIA Memorandum dated June 13, 19 67 and attached as Exhibit 26.
[44] Helms, Richard and William Hood, A Look over My Shoulder : A Life
in the Central Intelligence Agency, Random House, New York, 2003, p.
301
[45] Rusk, Dean, Daniel S. Papp (Ed.), As I Saw It, W.W.Norton, New
York,1990 p. 388
[46]Clifford, Clark, Richard Holbrooke Counsel to the President: A
Memoir, Random House, New York, 1991, p. 224
[47] Who Says the Liberty Attack was Deliberate? Quoting Paul C.
Warnke, USS Liberty Memorial Site, May 14, 2005
http://www.ussliberty.org/supporters.htm
[48] Moorer Commission, Formal Findings, Exhibit 27:
"9. That due to continuing pressure by the pro-Israel lobby in the
United States, this attack remains the only serious naval incident that
has never been thoroughly investigated by Congress; to this day, no
surviving crewmember has been permitted to officially and publicly
testify about the attack;"
[49] Attack on a SIGINT Collector, Exhibits 4-5152 and 4-64
[50] IDF History Report, Exhibit 2-1
"The tragic attack on the "Liberty" was an innocent mistake . . ."
[51] AJ Cristol is the principal agent of the Israeli defense in the
case of the attack on USS Liberty. He is the author of The Liberty
Incident, a work written and published for the purpose of persuading
the public that the Israeli attack on USS Liberty was just "an innocent
mistake." The demonstrable falsity of Cristol's claims of official
investigations having been undertaken, much less exonerating Israeli,
is the subject of Terrence O'Keefe's article attached as Exhibit
28.
[52] Please see Exhibit 36, a reply by the Israeli Defense Forces to an
inquiry concerning what appear to be deliberately altered photos
displayed in A. Jay Cristol's The Liberty Incident, and represented
as Israeli gun camera photos taken during the attack. This reply
unequivocally states that other than a photo of Moshe Dayan, none of
the remaining photos in The Liberty Incident were taken or provided by
Israeli sources.
[53] Rather than attempt to refute the facts and arguments put forward
by the Liberty survivors, Israel and its surrogates in the United
States have resorted to baseless ad hominem attacks that are unworthy
of inclusion in reasonable discourse. Typical of the vilification of
the survivors of the attack and their supporters are the following
representative comments:
"Most conspiracies hang together by a belabored psycho-social paranoid
analysis. The conspiracy theory that Israel's attack on the USS Liberty
in 1967 was "intentional" is a slanderous fabrication. [Emphasis added]
.. . .
"It was an accident; the attack was a case of friendly fire not unlike
other such incidents; those who say otherwise do so only because they
wish to hurt Israel and to demean Jews and the Jewish people; they
associate with crackpots and known anti-Semites; those who tell this
story are in league with holocaust deniers and other crackpots; . . .
Liberty flew no flag and refused to identify herself when asked;
Liberty attempted to flee when spotted; . . . ; Israel apologized and
paid millions in damages; the story told by Liberty survivors 'has
been discredited by the facts; Israel paid damages; the matter is
closed.'" [Emphasis added]
.. . .
This slander has a life given to it by anti-Israel conspiracy theorists
who like the JFK assassination will never accept the facts in this
case. Each new revelation from the State Department or NSA is denied by
conspiracists [sic]. In that respect it isn't much different than the
blood libels or ZOG conspiracies. In point of fact it is just another
variation on the "Jews killed Christ" theme. When haven't the Jews been
the world's favorite scapegoat? If they can't get these things, they'll
invent something else. And you can read about it on the interNUT, in
both left and right wing mailing lists and newsgroups.
USS Liberty Slanders, http://pnews.org/art/ussliberty.shtml
''He says ''virulently anti-Semitic organizations'' like the Liberty
Lobby continue to ''fan the fires'' about the Liberty to smear Israel,
when similar friendly-fire disasters have been all but forgotten,
including the 1968 Pueblo, 1975 Mayag=FCez and 1987 Stark incidents.
[Emphasis added]
Interview with A. J. Cristol, reported in the Miami Herald, July 15,
2002
AJC: The victims of the tragedy are typical of victims of friendly
fire. They find it difficult to believe that they were wounded or their
buddies were killed by mistake. In this case the victims have been
imposed upon, used and abused by groups with their own agendas. First,
are those who are on the Arab side of the Arab/Israeli conflict and who
try to use the tragedy to drive a wedge into the otherwise excellent
relationship between the United States and Israel. Next are those
persons who are anti-Semitic or anti-Israel. And finally there are the
conspiracy buffs. For the reasons indicated these three groups have
continued to probe the wounds of the victims for their own purposes and
are not concerned with healing or closure. [Emphasis added]
Interview with A.J. Cristol in the Jerusalem Post, July 10, 2003
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) included the
following comment in their July 29, 2002 review
(http://aipac.org/result.cfm?id=3D1358) of the principal Israeli
apologia, The Liberty Incident.
"There are two groups of people making this argument, Cristol explains.
The first is some of the Liberty survivors. Victims are seldom good
judges in their own cases, he said. They find it hard to believe, which
is always the case with friendly fire.
Members of the other group have less honorable motives. Cristol says
virulently anti-Semitic organizations and pro-Arab groups continue to
fan the fires about the Liberty to smear Israel, when similar
friendly-fire incidents have been all but forgotten." [Emphasis added]
This vilification extends even to Internet newsgroups. Typical of such
commentary is the following attack on USS Liberty survivor James M.
Ennes, Jr., LCDR, USN Ret:
"Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 09:13:44 -0700
From: Victor Galindo <vandagg@earthlink.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1)
Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 (nscd2)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: James Ennes <jim@ussliberty.org> [Officer aboard USS Liberty during
the attack and author of Assault on the Liberty]
Subject: Yes
Yes, you are an anit-Semitic no good *****. I was aboard American
ships off Sicily during WWII and got the hell blasted by bombers -- USA
bombers. This kind of thing occurs in every war. Israel had no motive.
The fault lies with the U.S.A. for planting a ship in an area of war.
Again, you are a anti-Semitic Nazi *****. Drop dead." [Emphasis
added]
[54] United States Navy, Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval
Operations, (NWP 1-14M,) Chapter 5 Principles and Sources of the Law of
Armed Conflict, Exhibit 29:
"5.2 General Principles of the Law of Armed Conflict
The law of armed conflict seeks to prevent unnecessary
suffering and destruction by controlling and mitigating the harmful
effects of hostilities through minimum standards of protection to be
accorded to "combatants" and "noncombatants" and their property. . . .
To that end, the law of armed conflict provides that:
1=2E Only that degree and kind of force, not otherwise prohibited
by the law of armed conflict, required for the partial or complete
submission of the enemy with a minimum expenditure of time, life, and
physical resources may be applied.
2=2E The employment of any kind or degree of force not required for
the purpose of the partial or complete submission of the enemy with a
minimum expenditure of time, life, and physical resources, is
prohibited."
[55] In a radio address to the nation on the evening of September 11,
1941, following an unprovoked attack by a German U-boat on USS Greer
while in international waters, President Roosevelt explained (Exhibit
38)::
"The United States destroyer, when attacked, was proceeding on a
legitimate mission.
If the destroyer was visible to the submarine when the torpedo was
fired, then the attack was a deliberate attempt by the Nazis to sink a
clearly identified American warship. On the other hand, if the
submarine was beneath the surface and, with the aid of its listening
devices, fired in the direction of the sound of the American destroyer
without even taking the trouble to learn its identity-as the official
German communiqu=E9 would indicate-then the attack was even more
outrageous. For it indicates a policy of indiscriminate violence
against any vessel sailing the seas, belligerent or non-belligerent.
This was piracy-legally and morally. It was not the first nor the last
act of piracy which the Nazi government has committed against the
American flag in this war. Attack has followed attack.
.. . .
The Hitler government, in defiance of the laws of the sea and of the
recognized rights of all other nations, has presumed to declare, on
paper, that great areas of the seas-even including a vast expanse lying
in the Western Hemisphere-are to be closed, and that no ships may enter
them for any purpose, except at peril of being sunk. Actually they are
sinking ships at will and without warning in widely separated areas
both within and far outside of these far-flung pretended zones.
.. . .
Generation after generation America has battled for the general policy
of the freedom of the seas. That policy is a very simple one, but a
basic, fundamental one. It means that no nation has the right to make
the broad oceans of the world at great distances from the actual
theater of land war unsafe for the commerce of others.
That has been our policy, proved time and time again, in all our
history."
[56] Ram Ron Report, Exhibit 8-3
"After identifying the ship on Janes' (The Fleet's manual -
Exhibit 1) and based on detailed investigation by the pilot - the
identification of the ship was determined to be the US Navy ship
"Liberty" (formerly supply ship) of an 18 knot speed."
See also, IDF History Report, p. 14 (map) Exhibit 2-14. This document
is a map, prepared by the IDF, that shows the territorial limits of
Egypt and Israel, as well as USS Liberty's track (well outside all
claimed territorial seas) on the day of June 8, 1967.
[57] Ram Ron Report, Exhibit 8-5:
"Lieut. Col. Shmuel testifies that the Air Force was ordered to attack
the ship after it had been identified as a warship by the Naval Force.

From the evidence submitted by the Naval Force, this point lacks

clarity and it seems that the order given was to attack the ship after
its identification as a warship and it is not clear whether the
intention was that the absolute identification as a warship was to be
made by an additional identification by the pilots, or that the
identification as a warship by the Naval Force based on the ship's
speed was to suffice."
[58] Exhibit 37: Principles of International Law Recognized in the
Charter of the N=FCrnberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal
[59] The following argument was made by the Allied prosecutor at the
Nuremburg war crimes trial of German Admiral Raeder, Exhibit 30:
"I shall submit evidence to the Tribunal to establish that, in fact,
the Athenia was sunk by the German U-boat U-30. So unjustifiable was
the torpedoing of the Athenia, however, that the German Navy embarked
upon a course of falsification of their records and on other dishonest
measures, in the hope of hiding this guilty secret. And for their part,
as the Tribunal has seen, the Nazi propagandists indulged in their
favorite falsehood of seeking to shift the responsibility to the
British.
The captain of the U-30, Oberleutnant Lemp, was later killed in action;
but some of the original crew of the U-30 have survived to tell the
tale, and they are now prisoners of war. And so that the truth of this
episode may be placed beyond a peradventure, I submit to the Tribunal
an affidavit by a member of the crew of the U- 30, as to the sinking of
the Athenia and as to one aspect of the attempt to conceal the true
facts.
.. . .
Doenitz' part in the Athenia episode is described in an affidavit which
he has sworn, which is Document D-638, Exhibit GB-220, at Page 102 of
the document book. The affidavit was sworn in English, and I invite the
Tribunal to look at it and observe the addition in Doenitz' handwriting
of four words at the end of the affidavit, the significance of which
will be seen in a moment. me Defendant Doenitz states:
"U-30 returned to harbor about mid- September. I met the captain,
Oberleutnant Lemp, on the lockside at Wilhelmshaven, as the boat was
entering harbor, and he asked permission to speak to me in private. I
noticed immediately that he was looking very unhappy and he told me at
once that he thought he was responsible for the sinking of the Athenia
in the North Channel area. In accordance with my previous instructions
he had been keeping a sharp lookout for possible armed merchant
cruisers in the approaches to the British Isles, and had torpedoed a
ship he afterwards identified as the Athenia from wireless broadcasts,
under the impression that she was an armed merchant cruiser on patrol.
I had never specified in my instructions any particular type of ship as
armed merchant cruiser nor mentioned any names of ships. I dispatched
Lemp at once by air to report to the SKL at Berlin; in the meantime, I
ordered complete secrecy as a provisional measure. Later in the same
day or early on the following day, I received a verbal order from
Kapitan zur See Fricke" - who was head of the operations division of
the naval war staff "that:
"Firstly, the affair was to be kept a total secret.
"Secondly, the OKM considered that a court-martial was not necessary as
they were satisfied that the captain had acted in good faith.
"Thirdly, political explanations would be handled by the OKM.
"I had had no part whatsoever in the political events in which the
Fuehrer claimed that no U-boat had sunk the Athenia. -267-
15 Jan. 46
"After Lemp returned to Wilhelmshaven from Berlin, I interrogated him
thoroughly on the sinking and formed the impression that, although he
had taken reasonable care, he had still not taken sufficient precaution
to establish fully the identity of the ship before attacking. I had
previously given very strict orders that all merchant vessels and
neutrals were to be treated according to naval prize law before the
occurrence of this incident. I accordingly placed him under cabin
arrest, as I felt certain that a court-martial would only acquit him
and would entail unnecessary publicity" and then Doenitz had added the
words "and loss of time." [Emphasis added]
[60] The International War Crimes Tribunal rendered the following
verdict against Admiral Raeder:
War Crimes, Exhibit 31
Raeder is charged with war crimes on the high seas. The Athenia, an
unarmed British passenger liner, was sunk on 3 September 1939, while
outward bound to America. The Germans 2 months later charged that Mr.
Churchill deliberately sank the Athenia to encourage American hostility
to Germany. In fact, it was sunk by the German U-Boat U-30. Raeder
claims that an inexperienced
[p. 562 1 Oct. 46]
U-Boat commander sank it in mistake for an armed merchant cruiser, . .
..
The most serious charge against Raeder is that he carried out
unrestricted submarine warfare, including sinking of unarmed merchant
ships, of neutrals, non-rescue and machine-gunning of survivors,
contrary to the London Protocol of 1936. The Tribunal makes the same
finding on Raeder on this charge as it did as to Doenitz, which has
already been announced, up until 30 January 1943 when Raeder retired.
.. . .
Conclusion
The Tribunal finds that Raeder is guilty on Counts One[Crimes against
Peace], Two and Three [War Crimes]. [Emphasis added]
[61] Please see attached Exhibit 11, Declaration of Lloyd Painter and
Exhibit 10, Declaration of Glenn Oliphant. Also, see attached Exhibit
32, National Security Agency, NSA Archives, Accession No. 45981, U.S.S.
Liberty Correspondence and Messages, 1965-1968. Secret; Savin. SIGINT
Readiness Bravo "Crayon" Report Nr. 2149. Aftermath of Israeli Attack
on USS Liberty, 8 June 1967 which contains indirect confirmation of the
destruction of Liberty's inflated life rafts as shown in the
following intercepted transmission, Exhibit 32:
[Time 1310Z] "From behind it (Liberty) several uninflated boats were
seen."
[62] Diplomatic Note From Secretary of State Rusk to the Israeli
Ambassador National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central
Files 1967-69, POL 27 ARAB-ISR, Exhibit 20:
"While the Ambassador of Israel has informed Secretary of State that
"the Government of Israel is prepared to make amends for the tragic
loss of life and material damage," the Secretary of State wishes to
make clear that the United States Government expects the Government of
Israel also to take the disciplinary measures which international law
requires in the event of wrongful conduct by the military personnel of
a State.[Emphasis added]
[63] Draft Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for Near
Eastern and South Asian Affairs (Battle ) to the Under Secretary of
State (Katzenbach), Exhibit 33:
(Source: Washington National Records Center, OSD Files: FRC 330 72 A
2468, Middle East, 385.3. Confidential. Drafted by Wehmeyer; cleared by
Macomber, Deputy Legal Adviser Murray J. Belman, Assistant Secretary
for Public Affairs Dixon Donnelley, and Eugene Rostow. The draft, which
is a copy sent to the Department of Defense for clearance, is filed
with an August 22 letter from Nitze to Representative George H. Mahon
of Texas, sending him on a confidential basis a copy of the report of
the judge who presided over the preliminary Israeli inquiry into the
attack on the Liberty. Also attached are a note to Nitze stating that
Defense clearance on Battle's memorandum was requested, an August 21
memorandum from Nitze's military assistant, Commander C.A.H. Trost,
USN, to Warnke saying that Nitze had no objection to the proposal but
wanted Warnke to look at it, and an August 21 memorandum from Warnke to
Nitze questioning recommendation (6) but otherwise approving the
proposal. A handwritten comment by Hoopes on Warnke's memorandum
suggested deleting recommendation (7) but otherwise concurred.)
Washington, August 18, 1967.
SUBJECT
The "Liberty"--Handling of Israeli Inquiry
Report and Release of Diplomatic Correspondence
"We cannot, therefore, accept the report as exonerating the Israeli
Government from our expectation that Israel will take the disciplinary
measures which international law requires in the event of wrongful
conduct by the military personnel of a state. Neither had the U.S.
received any assurance that Israel has issued instructions to ensure
that U.S. personnel will not again be endangered by the wrongful
actions of Israeli military personnel." [Emphasis added]
[64] Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded,
Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, August 12, 1949
("Geneva Convention (II)")
Article 52
No High Contracting Party shall be allowed to absolve itself or any
other High Contracting Party of any liability incurred by itself or by
another High Contracting Party in respect of breaches referred to in
the preceding Article.
ISRAEL DEFENSE FORCES, Preliminary Inquiry File 1/67, PRELIMINARY
INQUIRY
Before: Sgan-Aluf I. Yerushalmi, Examining Judge, Exhibit 21
July 21, 1967
DECISION
" . . . Yet I have not discovered any deviation from the standard of
reasonable conduct which would justify the committal [sic] of anyone
for trial. In view of what has been said above, I hold, that there is
no sufficient amount of prima facie evidence, justifying committing
anyone for trial."
[65] Assistant Secretary Hughes sent a copy of the decision to NSA
Director Carter on August 22. In a handwritten note of August 26, NSA
Deputy Director Louis W. Tordella commented, "A nice whitewash for a
group of ignorant, stupid and inept [epithet redacted]." (National
Security Agency, Center for Cryptologic History Historical Collection,
Series VII, Crisis Files, Box 16)
[66] Letter to editor by survivor Harold "Gene" Six, Riverside,
California, Press-Enterprise, March 1, 1996 , Exhibit 34:
"President Clifton and other elected officials have come out and
condemned Castro and Cuba for shooting down two aircraft flown by Cuban
revolutionaries that may or may not have violated Cuban airspace. Yet
on June 8, 1967, When the Israeli defense forces attacked an American
naval vessel --USS Liberty AGTR-5 --that was and always had been in
international waters, nothing was said or done by the US government.
This attack resulted in the deaths of 34 American sailors and the
wounding of 171 others. Yet even today the survivors of the attack
cannot get their elected officials to investigate the attack. An attack
that was deliberate. An attack that violated international law. An
attack that violated provisions of the Geneva Convention, in other
words war crimes. An attack where provisions of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice were violated when American naval aircraft sent to the
aid of the USS Liberty were called back not once but twice by someone
at the White House.
Do American lives mean so little to our elected officials that they
will use the dead bodies of 18-year old American sailors as stepping
stones on their way to office?"
Statement by survivor Ken Ecker , Exhibit 35
"Immediately following the attack I was threatened with court-martial
if I discussed the incident with the press or anyone else. One of the
warnings was also not to discuss the attack even with my immediate
family or friends. In my case these warnings were repeated upon my
transfer from each duty station I left along with the standard security
clearance de-briefing. I was also periodically taken aside and reminded
of the original threat even when not being transferred. Though never
told the reason for these one on one "advisory" sessions, I personally
believe they were the result of some action that raised the possibility
of further publicity that our government wanted to suppress.
I want no personal recognition, but I will not rest until the 34 brave
men that sacrificed their lives are finally given the long overdue
honor they so justly deserve. Hopefully with the help of all concerned
this long denie