USS Liberty: Accident or Cover-up?

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
The Tribune article gives an eyewitness account that a Liberty survivor saw Israeli markings on at least one of their jets.

[/ QUOTE ]

interesting. it would be nice to get a source for the unmarked aircraft thingee.

[PLOlover]

not a primary source, but it seems to me probably true.


http://www.ussliberty.org/washrp96.txt

[ QUOTE ]




The Liberty attack was a war crime

The attack on USS Liberty was itself a war crime. US Navy Commander
Walter Jacobsen, a Navy Legal Officer then doing graduate work at George
Washington University, conducted an extensive legal analysis of the
attack.

His conclusion, reported in the Winter, 1986, Naval Law Review, was that
several aspects of the attack violated provisions of the Geneva
Conventions -- war crimes. Specifically, Commander Jacobsen found that
the attack was not legally justified, that it constituted an act of
aggression under the United Nations Charter, that the use of unmarked
aircraft, the wanton destruction of life rafts in the water, the jamming
of international radio distress frequencies, and the failure of the
torpedo boat commanders to render immediate assistance to a disabled and
helpless enemy were all violations of international law.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Goater]

[ QUOTE ]
true they mix anti-israel and antisemitism in the article, but come one.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I dont think they mix these two distinct ideologies at all. I think you do.


[ QUOTE ]
the israelis attack an american ship, the israelis and US both cover it up, and it is "propaganda" to point that out?

[/ QUOTE ]

This thread is a discussion on this very issue, you speak as if I should accept your view as the truth. I happen to disagree with your view. This is not a closed issue - as this thread has shown.


[ QUOTE ]
someone said the website was antisemitic and I pointed out that the website belongs to michael rivero, who is a jew, an american, a good guy, and someone who just goes where the facts lead him.

what now, call him a self hating jew?

[/ QUOTE ]


Noone said this guy was anti-semitic. You want to show me where someone said this? Seriously, please look up the differences between anti-semitism and anti-israel. The two terms cannot be used interchangeably.

If you think that being jewish disqualifies someone from being anti-semitic or making anti-semitic statements, you really do not understand the issues involved. And in any case, I didnt say he was anti-semitic, I said he was "anti-israel" - you have proven my point by once again confusing the two.

"a good guy, just goes where the facts lead him"

Come on... I thought that we were having a reasonable debate. Do you know this guy personally? I have stated openly that the adl is clearly biased. You cannot even admit that this guy and his site are too?

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
the israelis attack an american ship, the israelis and US both cover it up, and it is "propaganda" to point that out?



This thread is a discussion on this very issue, you speak as if I should accept your view as the truth. I happen to disagree with your view. This is not a closed issue - as this thread has shown.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think there's any question that the US covered up the incident for at least 20 years. is there any dispute on that? that's what I mean. on adl site they say that if you say that there was a US coverup, then you are propagandizing. I think that's totally ridiculous since I don't think anyone disputes the fact that the US covered up the incident for at least 20 years or something. my comments were pointing out that point out.

[ QUOTE ]
"a good guy, just goes where the facts lead him"

Come on... I thought that we were having a reasonable debate. Do you know this guy personally? I have stated openly that the adl is clearly biased. You cannot even admit that this guy and his site are too?

[/ QUOTE ]

well if he does have a bias it is that he is anti group in power, since he started out exposing clinton corruption, then moved on to exposing bush corruption.

I guess that is a good point though. it's the guys at the top who are criminals. a lot of good people are out there. this is proved by the fact that an israeli pilot went to jail rather than pull the trigger. the thing is when there's a murderer running around killing poeple you focus on him, not on most people who are good decent peoplel.

just a final word on antisemitism/israel deal. pat bucannan was labelled antisemitic for criticizing US foreign pollicy towards israel, so it's people/things like adl that are probably mostly responsible for blurring the thing here.

[Goater]

Ok, i dont want to clog up this thread any more. Ill just say that I think that it is wrong to label someone anti-semitic for reasonable criticism of Israeli policies. If the adl did this re pat bucannan (i have no knowledge of this case or if it is correct) then they were wrong.

I have no problem with any group claiming that another group's views are "propagandising". Fairly standard, you just have to decide for yourself. It is vastly different than claiming something is anti-semitic.

The US seems to have only "covered up" this matter if you believe that it was a deliberate attack. Otherwise, it was acknowledged as a mistake at the time. There could also be many reasons that the US would not want to make a big deal of what it believed was a mistake.

I dont believe that those at "the top" are criminals - generally or in this case. Sometimes they are, sometimes they arnt. The Israeli pilot apparently went to jail for disobeying an order - the fact he didnt shoot has nothing to do with whether he was a good guy or not. You are assuming that the other pilots/command knew it was a US ship and were therefore "bad guys".

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
one more
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ussliberty.html
[ QUOTE ]
Israel attacked the USS Liberty using UNMARKED AIRCRAFT. This is the single fact which proves Israel knew exactly who they were attacking. Israel's story is that they thought USS Liberty was an Egyptian ship and therefore a legitimate target of war. Were that true, there would be no reason to attack a supposedly Egyptian ship with unmarked aircraft. The only possible reason to use unmarked aircraft to attack the ship is that Israel knew it was an American ship and intended to sink it, then to blame the attack on Egypt.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

If you believe the planes were unmarked than you can throw out all of the eyewitness testimony that belief it was intentional relies on. At least one of the eyewitnesses (Jewish as I recall) talked about his feeling when he saw the blue star of David on the plane attacking them.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
If you believe the planes were unmarked than you can throw out all of the eyewitness testimony that belief it was intentional relies on. At least one of the eyewitnesses (Jewish as I recall) talked about his feeling when he saw the blue star of David on the plane attacking them.

[/ QUOTE ]

a) intentional attack does not have anything to do with eyewitnesses.

b) could be initial wave was unmarked then reinforcemenets called in when ship wouldn't sink.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
The US seems to have only "covered up" this matter if you believe that it was a deliberate attack. Otherwise, it was acknowledged as a mistake at the time. There could also be many reasons that the US would not want to make a big deal of what it believed was a mistake.


[/ QUOTE ]

seems you know as much about this as you do about the pat buchanan thing.

[PLOlover]

ussliberty.org faq

[ QUOTE ]
FAQ: Investigations
Q:
Haven't there been numerous US investigations into the attack?

A:
No there haven't. No US governmental entity has ever undertaken an investigation into the culpability for the attack. There have been investigations into the seamanship of the crew (US Navy Court of Inquiry), the message handling procedures of the US military (The JCS Russ Report), and other attempts to report publicly reported facts. No agency or other institution has ever conducted a fact finding investigation into the question of why the Israelis launched the attack and their prior knowledge that USS Liberty was a US Navy ship.

Q:
What about Congressional investigations?

A:
There have been no Congressional investigations. One of the more prominent Israeli propagandists, AJ Cristol, created this allegation in the mold of the "Big Lie" technique of the 1930's ("if you tell a big enough lie often enough, people will come to believe it").

The Librarian of Congress, when asked about this allegation of purported Congressional investigations, formally replied:

"After checking numerous resources, including the CIS (Congressional Information Service) Indexes to Congressional Hearings (both published and unpublished), and the Public Documents Masterfile, I could find no evidence that the Congress ever held hearings or launched an investigation into the June 8, 1967 incident with the USS Liberty."


This allegation is a lie, plain and simple. The chief proponent of this lie, A.J. Cristol, has repeatedly been asked to produce evidence of the truth of his allegation. He has refused to do so.

Q:
But I've seen many references to "official US investigations," are you saying that these are false?

A:
That is exactly what we are saying. They are false. There have been no "official US investigations." There have been no unofficial US investigations. There have been no US investigations at all into the conduct of the Israeli forces when the attacked USS Liberty. The Israelis have never been asked to produce evidence, nor have they been interviewed about the attack.

Q:
Why have the Israelis and their partisans made these claims?

A:
When you don't have a legitimate factual defense, and you are without shame and want your position to be accepted at any cost, the only thing left is lying. The best argument in favor of their guilt is the fact that they have taken so much trouble to lie about so many things. Why would innocent people lie?

[/ QUOTE ]

[PLOlover]

which directly contradicts the adl site, http://www.adl.org/Israel/uss.asp

[ QUOTE ]
Several government investigations have concluded that the attack, in which 34 American servicemen were killed and many more injured, was carried out in error. Furthermore, every piece of information declassified to date - most recently in June 2004 - has supported this conclusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

"every piece of information" that has been declassified (by israel probably).

looks like adl webpage is just lie after lie.