CIA: U.S.S ‘Liberty’ Hit Was Unintentional

January 21, 2004 3:58 AM

CIA: U.S.S ‘Liberty’ Hit Was UnintentionalNew documents released by the State Department relating to the period of the 1967 Six Day War include CIA memos that say Israel did not know it was striking an American vessel when it attacked the U.S.S Liberty off the coast of the Gaza Strip on June 8, 1967, killing 34 American sailors and injuring 172. The memos say the attack was carried out “by mistake, representing gross negligence.”
posted by Postroad (33 comments total)

Dubious claim. The more likely and logical explanation was Israel didn't want the Liberty intercepting communications (what it was designed to do.) Why? Because of a little thing called war crimes. Nowadays the Israelis are much bolder in perpetrating war crimes since they are assured that the US will not allow accountability at the UN.
posted by nofundy at 5:00 AM on January 21, 2004

Uh what war crimes exactly was the Liberty in danger of picking up?

Anyway here's a link to two articles that were released in June last year when the NSA opened their archives, releasing recordings of the radio communication that happened that day: Memos show Liberty attack was an error
From that article:
After the Liberty was bombed by both the Israel Air Force and the Israel Navy, two helicopter pilots were summoned from their base to assess the damage and evaluate the possibility of rescuing the surviving crew members. An American spy plane, which had been sent to the area as soon as the NSA learned of the attack, recorded their conversations, which took place between 2:30 and 3:37 P.M. on June 8, the third day of the war.

The spy plane also recorded the orders radioed to the pilots by their supervisor at Hatzor Base, which instructed them to search for Egyptian survivors from the "Egyptian warship" that had just been bombed - thus supporting Israel's claim that it had believed the ship was Egyptian when it ordered it attacked. "Pay attention. The ship is now identified as Egyptian," the pilots were told.

Nine minutes later, Hatzor informed the pilots that it was not an Egyptian warship, but an Egyptian cargo ship. Only at 3:07 were the pilots first informed that the ship might not have been Egyptian at all: Hatzor told them that if they found Arabic-speaking survivors, they should be taken to El-Arish, but if they found English-speaking survivors, they should be taken to Lod. "Clarify by the first man that you bring up, what nationality he is, and report to me immediately," the supervisor instructed, according to the transcript. "It's important to know."

Then, at 3:12, one of the pilots informed Hatzor that he saw an American flag flying over the wounded ship. He was asked to investigate and determine whether it was really an American ship.
posted by PenDevil at 5:13 AM on January 21, 2004

Although I am skeptical of most so-called conspiracy theories, there are some aspects of this case that lead me to think that there is something being covered-up in this case. Most eyewitnesses report an attack lasting between one and two hours, with attack by aircraft lasting 20-30 minutes. The ship was flying a prominent American flag, as can be seen in photos, and was immediately commented on by the helicopter pilots. Those two items alone make me think it unlikely to be a complete mistake.

The other side here, and this in particular is interesting
posted by bashos_frog at 5:47 AM on January 21, 2004

Added to the fact is that there have been 13 investigations into the attack - 10 by the US and 3 by Israel. And 8 of the US's investigations came before 1973, when the US really began to put their weight behind Israel.

Also the reasoning put forward for the attack behind the attack has constantly changed as their theories are disproved as more and more information is declassified. First it was done to draw the US into intervening, but why would Israel risk the Soviet's getting involved? In fact an emergency Israeli cabinet meeting was called when they initially thought the Liberty was a Soviet ship. Then it was to cover up the fact that Israel was about to attack the Golan Heights (which the Liberty would have known about), only problem is that Israel had already told the US they were going to do so days earlier. Now it's to cover up some 'war crimes'? How long are they going to move the goal posts?

Anyway the war crimes which I believe nofundy is referring to is the claim that Israeli troops killed 1000 Egyptian soldiers as documented by James Bamford. Only problem is that Bamford didn't really do his research well:

"So why are we still talking about the Liberty? Because Bamford, in his book, has discovered a new motive for Israel's alleged conspiracy. The day of the attack, he says, Israeli soldiers slaughtered 1,000 Egyptian civilians and prisoners of war near El Arish because they had become "nuisances" to their captors. The Liberty, Bamford goes on to explain, intercepted messages about the murders--and the Israelis feared word of their deeds might leak out. And so, Bamford concludes, they dispatched their armed forces with orders to kill. "[T]he Israelis had massacred civilians and prisoners in the desert," he writes, "and now they were prepared to ensure that no American survived the sinking of the Liberty."

There are a lot of reasons to question Bamford's credibility, starting with his rather curious reading of Middle Eastern history. For example, Bamford says Israel initiated hostilities against Syria and Jordan, when it happened the other way around. There's also the fact that he cites not one shred of evidence to prove that the Liberty ever intercepted a message about the alleged massacre. And then there's the question of whether such a massacre occurred at all. Israel captured more than 10,000 Egyptians in the Six Day War, but there are no known records--Israeli, American, Egyptian, or U.N.--of the Israelis mistreating them, let alone shooting them. Egypt has ruled the Sinai for over 20 years, yet it has never uncovered any mass grave. While there were certainly isolated incidents of Israeli abuses, there's simply no reason to believe the massacre of 1,000 Egyptians ever took place. Indeed, Bamford's evidence on this point, which consists of a few testimonials, falls apart under even light scrutiny.

Consider, first, the statement of Gabi Bron, who today covers the Knesset for Yediot Aharonot, Israel's largest daily. In the book, Bamford says Bron witnessed a massacre of 150 Egyptian prisoners at El Arish, citing a press clipping in which Bron is quoted as follows: "The Egyptian prisoners of war were ordered to dig pits and then army police shot them to death." But the Bron statement refers not to a mass killing of Egyptians but to an isolated incident: the execution of five Palestinian guerrillas who had posed as Egyptian soldiers after killing Israelis. Bamford would have learned this if, instead of relying on a clip, he had actually spoken to Bron, who is easily reachable. "The one hundred and fifty POWs were not shot, and there were no mass murders," Bron told me when I called. "In fact, we helped prisoners, gave them water, and in most cases just sent them in the direction of the [Suez] Canal."

As further corroborating evidence, Bamford cites a statement by Aryeh Yitzhaki, a former historian of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). In the statement--which Bamford also clipped from the press--Yitzhaki talks of compiling a report, which the army later suppressed, on mass killings. "Defense Minister Moshe Dayan and Chief of Staff [Yitzhak] Rabin and the generals knew about these things," Yitzhaki is quoted as saying. "No one bothered to denounce them." But, once again, the source himself contradicts Bamford's interpretation. "In no case did Israel initiate massacres," Yitzhaki wrote me. "On the contrary, it did everything it could to prevent them." Yitzhaki admits that hundreds of Palestinian commandos were killed around El Arish. But that was in combat, he says, after they ambushed the IDF supply columns. Moreover, that battle took place on the night of June 9, more than a day after the attack on the Liberty.

Bamford does cite an anonymous Egyptian who confirms the massacre. But, being anonymous, the source is impossible to verify. In addition, Bamford tries to prove guilt by association--or, at least, proximity--by noting that Israeli troops near El Arish were commanded by Ariel Sharon, the man "indirectly responsible" for the 1982 massacres in Lebanon. But Sharon's divisions were in Nakhle, more than 40 miles from El Arish; the coastal area was under the command of Israel Tal, a man not known for right-wing views."
- Michael Oren, The New Republic, 07/23/2001

And as anyone should know is that in any war mistakes happen and lives are lost. Even the supposedly elite Israeli Air Force is prone to this. Just before the USS Liberty attack the IAF bombed one of their own armored columns. They did the same in 1982 when a F-4 bombed a number of Israeli tanks it believed to be Syrian killing 20 solidiers. The list of course goes on and on of bungling in wartime including the fact that the order for the Liberty to move 100 miles offshore, as the Israelis had asked the US Navy to do, was delayed for 14 hours until it was too late.
posted by PenDevil at 5:56 AM on January 21, 2004

I heard this story covered a few days ago and - on reflection and based on no evidence whatsoever - I'm dubious about these new revelations exculpating Israel simply for the proven willingness of the Bush Administration to bring unprecedented levels of pressure to bear on CIA analysts, to "urge" them to toe the Administration line.

In other words, I'm getting rather close to assuming, as an operating principle, that everything that comes out of the Bush White House (and also highly publicized state and CIA press releases) is a lie.

Then again, gross negligence is always a hardy hypothesis and a good fall guy, for the fact that it often goes hand in hand with intentional wrongdoing.

Example - September 11th, 2001 : "Letting it Happen On Purpose" (LIHOP) ? Perhaps. This theory can also be rephrased as "intentional gross negligence". However, the other likely hypothesis is, simply, "gross negligence".

Having said all that, I'm somewhat more likely - with reservations - to accept this new report on the Liberty Incident for the fact that the incident has been investigated exactly 13 times more than September 11th has been investigated.

But the rather close ties between the Bush Administration and Israel make me unwilling to swallow this hook, line and sinker.
posted by troutfishing at 6:15 AM on January 21, 2004

I heard this story covered a few days ago and - on reflection and based on no evidence whatsoever - I'm dubious about these new revelations exculpating Israel simply for the proven willingness of the Bush Administration to bring unprecedented levels of pressure to bear on CIA analysts, to "urge" them to toe the Administration line.

You like to read yourself don't you. ok trout, you get my 2 cents now and you will not like it.
Your posts have many errors trout that you either shuck, shrug or opps away.
well your info SUCKS and please get a history book and learn some frikkin Practicum.
posted by clavdivs at 7:10 AM on January 21, 2004

the part re the USS Liberty attack is arguably "Six Days Of War"'s weakest -- and I generally admire Oren's work a lot.

Witness reports by survivors, Secretary of State Rusk's comments, et al are in favor of the "it was no accident" theory. as trout pointed out, the spin is constant nowadays, as Postroad (who else?) fpp demonstrates already

((to sum it up for our less history-mad members, the Liberty was attacked for 75 minutes in international waters. 34 American men died, and 172 were (often very badly) wounded)).

hence the massacre looks pretty bad, and "fog of war" is a most useful way out of the blood-dripping mess. but probably too easy when one cosndiers carefully the evidence and the parts that don't fit together.

it's easy to understand the constant spinning regarding this massacre.
one side has been desperately arguing since day one that "it was an accident", no matter what the witnesses and forensic evidence say. because of course that side doesn't really want anybody to question the whole concept of the US/Israeli friendship, a friendship where one side is heavily subsidizing the other.
1.6 trillion bucks in 30 years (by some accounts) is a pretty penny indeed. Israel -- the largest recipient of US foreign aid -- has been getting about 3 billion dollars a year for the last few years. so it's a big political battle. "the Israelis attacked us on purpose" would give a lot of ammo to nay-sayers when it comes to aid. it'a a big big political game.

others would maybe like to see cuts in US military aid to Israel.
the USS Liberty attack is no slam-dunk like the Pollard spy case, but it looks bad enough to offer ammo to the (admittedly very few at least in the US, and promptly accused of -- what else? -- anti-Semitism) people who want to question the whole US/Israel aid thing.

The Liberty massacre, like the Pollard case, is something no sane US politician would want to touch with a ten-feet pole. hence, it's fodder for various lobbyists on both side. or for true believers like our friend Postroad.

anyway, see for yourself
posted by matteo at 7:12 AM on January 21, 2004

So they thought it was Egyptian survivors that they strafed in the water. I'm sure that the families of those sailors will feel better now that it has been shown that that little massacre was just a case of mistaken identity.
We'd expect nothing less from that shining beacon of democracy (as long as you're jewish) in the middle east.
posted by 2sheets at 8:47 AM on January 21, 2004

You know, while ultimately fruitless, it is interesting to speculate on what might have happened if this had gotten the U.S. militarily involved in that war. Might be a good premise for a fictional book.
posted by moonbiter at 8:56 AM on January 21, 2004

clavdivs - a sense of humor, and less bile, please. Are you having a bad day?

What facts did I just cite ? It was an opinion piece.

The mention of specific facts held to be inaccurate is always helpful in these sorts of disputes. I like to get my facts straight, and I take pains to issue retractions in the same thread, when I cite inaccurate information or am just flat out wrong. Help me out!

Sure, I was just soapboxing there, though the close ties between the Bush Administration - a convergence of agendas, some would even argue - bore mention in this discussion, I'd say.

So quickly assuming historical ignorance, on the part of others, is an approach which can (so to speak) turn around and bite you. "your info SUCKS and please get a history book and learn some frikkin Practicum." - You wouldn't be referring to our recent argument over Vietnam as a French colonial possession, would you? I just added an additional comment to that thread. Respond if you like, but personal vilification won't be a convincing retort.

As I said, I like to get my facts straight.

I'm tempted to take my polite thanks to you - for the additional material about the Guatemala 1954 coup - which I posted, at the end of this thread, and jump repeatedly up and down upon it.

But I won't.

In any event, matteo is doing enough heavy historical lifting here on this thread to make up for my ignorance of this specific affair.
posted by troutfishing at 9:17 AM on January 21, 2004

it is interesting to speculate on what might have happened if this had gotten the U.S. militarily involved in that war. Might be a good premise for a fictional book.

It would have problem taken them to long to soldier the forces necessary to have any influence in the war. Although maybe the US could have restarted it, if they were angry enough.
posted by drezdn at 9:34 AM on January 21, 2004

Does anyone know what Soviet ship the Israelis thought the Liberty was? It had a pretty distinctive look: Are there Soviet ships that looked similar? Will someone link to them, please?
posted by small_ruminant at 9:53 AM on January 21, 2004

I'm dubious about these new revelations exculpating Israel simply for the proven willingness of the Bush Administration to bring unprecedented levels of pressure to bear on CIA analysts, to "urge" them to toe the Administration line.

support that claim trout. I bitch because I care, but that can change. I responded to the vietnam nit-pick thread.

Sure, I was just soapbox there, though the close ties between the Bush Administration - a convergence of agendas, some would even argue - bore mention in this discussion, I'd say.

ok, i see your "point"
you do issue a redaction which i find honorable. But please try and get them straight, I will do the same. Yes, my 'yelling at people' is crass, but like i said, if i did not care, i wouldn't say because i think you have much to say. But i know my caring is contingent on nothing. Just wanted to let you know that i like to read your stuff.

Does anyone know what Soviet ship the Israelis thought the Liberty was? It had a pretty distinctive look: Are there Soviet ships that looked similar? Will someone link to them, please?

A U.S. spy plane was sent to the area as soon as the NSA learned of the attack on the Liberty and recorded the conversations of two Israeli Air Force helicopter pilots, which took place between 2:30 and 3:37 p.m. on June 8. The orders radioed to the pilots by their supervisor at the Hatzor base instructing them to search for Egyptian survivors from the "Egyptian warship" that had just been bombed were also recorded by the NSA. "Pay attention. The ship is now identified as Egyptian," the pilots were informed. Nine minutes later, Hatzor told the pilots the ship was believed to be an Egyptian cargo ship. At 3:07, the pilots were first told the ship might not be Egyptian and were instructed to search for survivors and inform the base immediately the nationality of the first person they rescued. It was not until 3:12 that one of the pilots reported that he saw an American flag flying over the ship at which point he was instructed to verify if it was indeed a U.S. vessel.6
posted by clavdivs at 10:08 AM on January 21, 2004

clavdivs - OK, thanks. I appreciate that. I won't be able to address that first point 'till this evening. Generally, I agree with your larger point - that historical accuracy is an important rampart to hold, so that the discourse doesn't turn into mush.
posted by troutfishing at 10:31 AM on January 21, 2004

I'm torn. One hand, I resent my tax dollars going to support murderous thugs in Israel. On the other hand, if you think Israel is bat-shit-crazy now, could imagine how hyper-defensive and paranoid they'd be if we withdrew support?
posted by keswick at 10:38 AM on January 21, 2004

My take is that it was a mistake of some sort (not necessarily the type of mistake that is admitted, but a mistake nonetheless), but there was a cover-up afterwards by both the US and the Israelis.

The reason you keep seeing stuff about it, is that despite (literally) Billions of dollars, decades of work, thousands of favorable reports, articles, and other media, PR gurus from all over the world, free trips, political donations to pols of every stripe, tenor, and geography, lectures, meetings, PACs, etc. etc. etc. , non-Jewish Americans still have a negligble relationship with Israel. There is a great fear that if the Liberty incident becomes better known, it could damage the strong (yet tenuous) support Americans have for Israel.

Because American public opinion is so valuable (in terms of dollars, prestige, and other intangibles) to Israel, it is very important to the Israelis and their supporters that the Liberty incident is buried, or at the very least presented in the best possible way.

In the end I think reasonable people have to chalk it up to a mistake made during war that cannot be undone. It's not part of any conspiracy, but the servicemen who lost their lives (or limbs) deserved better than the treatment they got in the ensuing bury-job.
posted by cell divide at 11:15 AM on January 21, 2004

this link is curious. i believe the info coming from this latest report was derived in part from the NSA info.

CIA: U.S.S ‘Liberty’ Hit Was Unintentional

whats interesting (i think) is that no mention of the CIA is made in the post. WH, Pentagon, State and NSA are but not CIA. Though, CIA is once again at the helm of all info gathering post 9-11. (its become Central again, hows bout them apples) So, is the CIA playing press release officer for the others because of the new consolidation or did the journalist just make some assertions.....or
posted by clavdivs at 11:48 AM on January 21, 2004

Can someone provide an analysis that comes to the same "unintentional" conclusion that does not come from such a completely biased pro-Israel source? I mean, I would like to read that from a neutral party. Personally, I have a little bit of trouble getting past the huge ARMDI banner at the top of the article. Its sort of like having an article about how the Catholic Church was completely innocent of wrongdoing in the Spanish Inquisition with a big Sinn Fein banner at the top or an article about how bad Exxon is in Mother Earth News with a big Greenpeace ad on the next page. I am not completely discounting the story, I just don't think the source can be unbiased.
posted by Pollomacho at 12:21 PM on January 21, 2004

well
how can could it not, i mean the article could go like
"I hate articles that are biased"

{man with the funny jacket says}
"so your biased against bias"
posted by clavdivs at 1:03 PM on January 21, 2004

I KID
posted by clavdivs at 1:04 PM on January 21, 2004

Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.
posted by Triplanetary at 1:41 PM on January 21, 2004

I know you kid, I'd just feel a little more trusting of the article if it was in Time or the Times (NY or otherwise) or the WSJ or even the New Republic, its just that the original link is to "the Jewish Press" with articles that never seem to find any fault with Israel. Not that ARMDI is a particularly extremist group or anything, its just the Red Cross, hebrew style, please correct me if I'm wrong about any of this, but this seems to be an awfully pro-Israel and pro-Zionist site. I'd just like to see it from a more traditional news source not so tied into one side or the other, especially on such a hot button issue. Make sense?
posted by Pollomacho at 2:32 PM on January 21, 2004

Obviously they blew up the ship to cover up Iraqi WMD, which had been transported back in time.
posted by delmoi at 4:27 PM on January 21, 2004

Tempers flare over US spy-ship inquiry

Two recent developments added fuel to the controversy.

Last week Ward Boston, a naval captain who acted as senior legal counsel for the Navy's court of inquiry in 1967, signed an affidavit declaring that the late Admiral Isaac Kidd, president of the court, had told him that President Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara, defence secretary, had ordered a cover-up.

And on Monday, David Hatch, the National Security Agency's own historian, elaborated on the recently declassified NSA material, the first time the eavesdropping agency had released real voice intercepts.

Mr Hatch confessed that the information "doesn't settle much". But his analysis of the conversations between an Israeli air controller and two helicopter pilots "suggested strongly" that the Israelis did not know at first they were attacking a US vessel, although there was mention of a US flag flying.

Statement By Capt. Ward Boston, Jr. On Liberty Investigation It's typed in all Caps for the most part, int's on Rense.com but it does raise a question:

Finally, the testimony of Lt. Painter concerning the deliberate machine gunning of the life rafts by the Israeli torpedo boat crews, Which I distinctly recall being given at the court of inquiry and included in the original transcript, is now missing and has been excise.

From a Financial Times article appended there:

Additionally, Boston said, "Israeli torpedo boats machine-gunned three lifeboats that that had been launched in an attempt by the crew to save the most seriously wounded - a war crime."

Now, there's a part of the puzzle yet to be explained.
posted by y2karl at 6:16 PM on January 21, 2004

So then what reason did Israel have for suddenly calling off the attack on the lifeboats and offering assistance?
posted by PenDevil at 6:45 AM on January 22, 2004

Now, there's a part of the puzzle yet to be explained.


"Any lingering doubts were soon dispelled as the Israeli boats came under sudden fire from the Liberty. Unaware of McGonagle's order not to shoot at the approaching boats, a sailor had opened up with one of the Brownings. Another machine gun also fired, apparently on its own, triggered by exploding ammunition. Oren repeatedly requested permission from naval headquarters to return fire. Rahav finally approved. 30


Of the five torpedoes fired at the Liberty only one found its mark, a direct hit on the starboard side, killing twenty-five, almost all of them from the intelligence section. The Israeli craft closed in, their cannons and machine guns raking the Liberty's hull and, according to the crew's testimony, its life rafts as well. One of those rafts, picked up by T-203, was found to bear U.S. Navy markings - the first indication that Oren had that the ship might be American. His suspicions mounted when while circling the badly listing ship, Oren confronted the designation GTR-5. But still no flag was spotted, and it would take another half an hour, until 3:30 p.m., to establish the vessel's identity".
posted by clavdivs at 8:21 AM on January 22, 2004

If we had any fears for our safety, however, these quickly vanished. Much of this coast area had been captured by Israel only hours before our arrival. Israel was our friend. Israeli aircraft had circled us throughout the night (identified by their radar characteristics), and now, with daylight, they came closer and we could see the Star of David markings. Often they came so close that we could see the pilots in their cockpits and exchanged friendly waves.

I was the officer-of-the-deck on the bridge during this period, and following each visit our leading intercept supervisor, Chief Melvin Smith, would come up to the bridge and ask if I had seen the aircraft's markings to confirm his own electronic observations: "Not to worry," he would say, "Each time they circle we can hear the pilot telling his headquarters that we are an American ship."

That was comforting to everyone on the bridge. Yet, taking no chances, I ordered the quartermaster to haul up a new flag, with bright and clear colors, and instructed signalmen and lookouts to assure that the flag never wrapped around the lines or mast making it difficult to see even for a few seconds. I was pleased to see that we had a steady breeze across the deck, always more than enough to hold the flag out so that it could be seen clearly by the Israeli pilots.

Accusing Israel of a deliberate effort to sink an American ship and kill its crew, Boston said in a legal declaration in Coronado, Calif., that he was certain the Israel pilots knew the Liberty, which clearly displayed American flags and had markings in English instead of Arabic, was a U.S. Navy ship.

Additionally, Boston said, "Israeli torpedo boats machine-gunned three lifeboats that that had been launched in an attempt by the crew to save the most seriously wounded - a war crime."

They evidently didn't call off the potential war crime while the ship was flying an American flag--man, you'd think THEY could have seen it down on the torpedo boats. You would have to be in close visual range to machine gun life boats--as the photo in the link above of the Israeli torpedo boat taken from the Liberty during the attack quite clearly shows. THEY were not swooping down in airplanes for quick passes...

Stern view of ship still displaying normal steaming colors

Stern view of the ship, displaying normal steaming colors. This is the flag that Israel claims its pilots and torpedomen could not see. While the attack was underway, an even larger flag was hoisted. That, too, they claim not to have seen.

Then there is the whole little matter of leaving it, minor insignificant little potential war crime episode that it was, out of the transcript for this time around, causing the former Navy senior legal counsel for the 1987 investigation--Capt. Ward Boston to submit his own affidavit on the matter for this inquiry.

That is not a tiny flag.

Plus, I have always wondered about this story:

Fifteen years after the attack, an Israeli pilot approached Liberty survivors and then held extensive interviews with former Congressman Paul N. (Pete) McCloskey about his role. According to this senior Israeli lead pilot, he recognized the Liberty as American immediately, so informed his headquarters, and was told to ignore the American flag and continue his attack. He refused to do so and returned to base, where he was arrested.

The source on that is partisan, but for a fact, Paul N "Pete" McCloskey is still alive. I should like to see whether he confirms that story.

From Liberty Questions:

Two accounts of the attack.

The Israeli Account

Contradictions

From the last,

(3) Testimony of Dwight Porter. Dwight Porter was US ambassador to Lebanon in June 1967. He states that on June 8 CIA men showed him radio transcripts, translated into English, which recorded talk between an Israeli pilot and his home base. The pilot protests that the ship he is attacking is American; the home base orders him to attack anyway. Porter never saw the transcripts again, but stands by his story.

The jury is still out, I think.
posted by y2karl at 8:30 AM on January 22, 2004

Referring to the Dwight Porter claim: Considering that he is the only person to have claimed this and that all he supposedly saw was a transcript (he didn't even hear this so called transmission) and the tapes released by both the Israeli's and US show no signs of this claim or have any pieces missing from them, then I find it pretty dubious.

So once again : So then what reason did Israel have for suddenly calling off the attack on the lifeboats and offering assistance?
posted by PenDevil at 8:48 AM on January 22, 2004

Any number of reasons, I would assume. Because they were monitoring U.S. transmissions and knew that the attack had been reported could be one.
Here are the rest of the contradictions listed:

(1) Problems with the radar sighting. In the Yerushalmi hearing, the Israelis tried to account for the fact that the MTB radar had showed the ship moving at 30 knots, but a short time afterward they identified the ship as the Egyptian El Quesir, which has a top speed of 15 knots. They speculated that "perhaps" the ship was part of a larger Egyptian naval squadron off El Arish which included a fast ship (seen on the MTB radar screen) and the slower El Quesir. By 1400 the faster ship had fled, leaving El Quesir lagging behind. The problem with this theory is that the Israeli planes arrived on the scene only 19 minutes after the radar sighting, and the alleged fast ship, even if moving at 30 knots, would have been only 10 miles away and visible to both Americans and Israelis. No one saw this phantom ship.

(2) Air attack on the ship. The attack of the Israeli planes at 1400 poses the basic and fundamental question of this dispute. The Israelis insist in all accounts that the ship had no flag. They also claim that the orbited the ship repeatedly looking for a flag, but could find none and could find no other mark of identification.

The testimony of the crew contradicts these Israeli claims absolutely. Crewmen insist that there was a flag, flying in the wind, and that the Israeli planes attacked straight on without orbiting. They also point out that photos of the ship taken before and after the attack show the identifying number plainly. Also, it is preposterous to claim that the ship would be moving in this area near a war and would show no flag. Cristol argues that the flag hung limp for lack of wind, and his work includes a negative photo of the ship taken during the attack from a nose cone camera. This photo shows a plume of smoke going straight up, and so Cristol argues that there was no wind. However, other Israeli accounts, and Cristol himself on another page, state that smoke from fires on the ship covered the ship above the hull and billowed out behind. This would indicate that there was ample wind to make the flag stand out.

(4) How long did the air attack last? The Israelis claim 12 minutes, the crewmen claim 25 minutes.

(5) Dispute over the signals, discussed in Section Four. The Israelis claim that the ship signaled "AA"; the LIBERTY signalmen say that they sent only "USS LIBERTY, US Navy ship". Again there is an absolute contradiction between the testimony of the Israelis and that of the crewmen.

(6) LIBERTY radiomen claim that the ship's radios were jammed, as mentioned in Section Four. Israelis do not discuss this.

(7) Crewmen claim that Israelis sank the ship's liferafts, as mentioned in Section Four. Israelis do not discuss this.

(8) Why did the MTB attack end? Israelis provide varying and vague answers on this; they "looked the ship over more carefully" or claim that finally the ship ran up a flag. Crewmen believe that it ended because the Sixth Fleet radioed to the LIBERTY, in clear and uncoded language, that planes were coming to the rescue.

(9) When did the MTB attack end? Most Israeli accounts say at about 1440 (although others claim later times). The crewmen say it was 1515. The time when the attack ended, and the Israelis realized that the ship was American, presents another problem for the Israelis. Israel did not notify the US that it had attacked the ship until 1610. This means that there was an unexplained delay of either 90 minutes or an hour in this notification. Why the delay?

(10) There is another Israeli eyewitness account, by Micha Limor, an officer on one of the MTBs. His story contradicts all accounts so far. Limor claims, first, that the MTB radar screen showed LIBERTY moving at 10 knots, not 30 as otherwise reported. (The ship was actually moving at 5 knots.) Limor describes a silent "ghost ship" with no one on deck, not responding to signals or even to gunfire. Other accounts tell of the "AA" signal from the ship, but here there is no signal at all. Other stories tell of men on deck firing at the MTBs, but Limor says that there were no men on deck. There was no response from the ship until after it was hit by a torpedo, and then the ship at last raised a flag.

There are many contradictions and unexplained issues in Israeli accounts. In most instances, as in the case of Limor's testimony, the Israelis simply ignore the problems.

And if we are asking rhetorical questions---since when did the crew members of the Liberty all become liars?
posted by y2karl at 10:43 AM on January 22, 2004

y2karl crushes foe with facts and logic.
posted by troutfishing at 8:20 PM on January 22, 2004

Note the quotes here are taken from Michael Oren's Case Closed article found at here(yes you'll probably argue the site has bias but then attack the facts not the messenger).

(1) The Israeli's have already admitted they fscked up the calculation of the speed of the USS Liberty.
"At 1:41 p.m., Ensign Aharon Yifrah, combat information officer aboard the flagship of these torpedo boats, T-204, informed its captain, Cmdr. Moshe Oren,23 that an unidentified ship had been sighted northeast of El-Arish at a range of 22 miles. The ship was sailing toward Egypt at a speed, Yifrah estimated, of 30 knots.

Yifrah's assessment, twice recalculated and confirmed by him, was pivotal. It meant that the ship could not be the Liberty, whose maximum speed was 18 knots. Moreover, the Israelis had standing orders to fire on any unknown vessel in the area sailing at over 20 knots, a speed which, at that time, could only be attained by fighting ships. This information, when added to the ship's direction, indicated that the target was an enemy destroyer fleeing toward port after having shelled El-Arish."

"The Israelis moved to dispel these accusations with two preliminary reports on the incident. These admitted the IDF's culpability in erroneously reporting a naval barrage on El-Arish, miscalculating the Liberty's speed, and confusing the ship with the El-Quseir."

(2)Radio transcripts released pretty much show that the Israeli's had circled the boat at least twice looking for markings and found nothing identifiable.
"Rahav therefore alerted the air force, and two Mirage III fighters were diverted from the Suez Canal, northeast to the sea. When they arrived, the vessel they saw was "gray with two guns in the forecastle, a mast and funnel." Making two passes at 3,000 feet, formation commander Capt. Spector (IDF records do not provide pilots' first names) reckoned that the ship was a "Z" or Hunt-class destroyer without the deck markings (a white cross on a red background) of the Israeli navy. Spector then spoke with air force commander Gen. Motti Hod, who asked him repeatedly whether he could see a flag. The answer was "Negative." Nor were there any distinguishing marks other than some "black letters" painted on the hull.

IAF Intelligence Chief Col. Yeshayahu Bareket also claimed to have contacted American Naval Attaché Castle at this point in an attempt to ascertain whether the suspect ship was the Liberty, but the latter professed no knowledge of the Liberty's schedule - a claim later denied by Castle but, strangely, confirmed by [USS Liberty Capt] McGonagle.24 One fact is clear, however: After two low sweeps by the lead plane, at 1:58 p.m., the Mirages were cleared to attack."

(4) I fail to see the relevance of this has? If the ship could not be identified in 12 minutes then I don't see how it could be identified in 24 minutes. Anyway most historians (including Oren) put the attack at closer to 20 minutes than 12.

(5) Right so there's a contradiction. Why do you assume the Israeli's are the one's lying?
"Meanwhile, the Israeli torpedo boats came within range. The Liberty was shrouded in smoke, but even so, Oren could see that it could not be the destroyer that had supposedly shelled El-Arish. Rather, he believed, it was a slower-moving vessel that had either serviced that destroyer or evacuated enemy soldiers from the beach. At 6,000 meters, Oren's T-204 flagship paused and signaled "AA" - "identify yourself." Due to damaged equipment, McGonagle could only reply in kind, AA, with a hand-held Aldis lamp.28 Oren remembered receiving a similar response from the Egyptian destroyer Ibrahim al-Awwal, captured by the Israeli navy in the 1956 war, and was sure that he now faced an enemy ship. Consulting his naval intelligence manual, he concluded that the vessel in front of him - its deck line, midship bridge and smokestack - resembled the Egyptian freighter El-Quseir. The officers of the other two boats reached the same conclusion independently, and followed Oren into battle formation.29"

(6) It is not clear whether the the difficulty of radio communications was due to jamming or because the main antenna (and other communications equipment) had been damaged or destroyed in the initial attack.

(7) The Israeli's claim they came under fire from the Liberty, a claim supported by the US findings as well. Again if the attack was against the USS Liberty why would they waste time attacking liferafts. The crewemen of the Israeli MTB's have said they raked the side of the USS Liberty with machine gun fire during the attack and I'm sure this appeared as if the Israelis were firing on life rafts according to the crew of the USS Liberty.

(8) "Why did the MTB attack end? Israelis provide varying and vague answers on this; they "looked the ship over more carefully" or claim that finally the ship ran up a flag."
Nonsense. Even the Israeli reports are quite clear on how the identification of the USS Liberty happened.

"One of those rafts, picked up by T-203, was found to bear U.S. Navy markings - the first indication that Oren had that the ship might be American. His suspicions mounted when while circling the badly listing ship, Oren confronted the designation GTR-5. But still no flag was spotted, and it would take another half an hour, until 3:30 p.m., to establish the vessel's identity"

(9) The attack ended round about 15:00 according to the paragraph mentioned above. Looks like both were wrong.

Considering it took 2 hours alone for news of the attack to reach the White House via US channels there is nothing strange about the time it took.
"The center of the crisis then shifted from the Mediterranean to Washington. It was only at 9:50 a.m. eastern time - nearly two hours after the first shots were fired34 - that the White House received word from the JCS that the Liberty, "located 60-100 miles north of Egypt," had been torpedoed by an unknown vessel. Johnson assumed that the Soviets were involved. To forestall further escalation, he hotlined the Kremlin with news of the attack and of the dispatch of jets from the Saratoga."

The Israeli cabinet (who were still having a emergency meeting due to the fact they thought the Liberty was a Soviet ship) had in fact immediately sent an apology to US miliatary naval attache Ernest Castle.

(10) I'm not sure about Micha Limor but what he claims contradicts both the US and the Israeli accounts so I don't know how useful it is.

This of course does not answer any questions as to the motive the Israeli's had for deliberately attacking a ship that they knew was American. Even then, if the attack was deliberate then why was it carried out with aircraft weapons, cannon fire and napalm, that are rather inefficient at sinking ships and why did the Israeli MTB's not ensure that more than one of the five torpedoes launched struck it's target.
posted by PenDevil at 1:08 AM on January 23, 2004

...miscalculating the Liberty's speed, and confusing the ship with the El-Quseir

Miscalculating Liberty's speed as 30 knots is completely incompatible with misidentifying it as the El-Quseir. The El-Quseir's top speed was known to be 15 knots.
I understand eyewitness accounts conflicting on time and other factors that would be fuzzy in memory. But why would things detailed so specifically as the name of a ship, and its top speed, be conflicting in written reports? Something is just not right with this one, which is why the controversy has lasted over three decades.
posted by bashos_frog at 3:34 AM on January 23, 2004

and I'm sure this appeared as if the Israelis were firing on life rafts according to the crew of the USS Liberty.

I am not sure about anything in a matter where there are such violently conflicting accounts. I do not have the poster on Agent Mulder's office wall reading I Want To Believe. I wasn't there. And, as bashos_frog says--there is something wrong with this one.

Why do you assume the Israeli's are the one's lying?

Any number of high ranking US officers and State Department personnel are on record as saying so regarding the matter. There are three side here: The governments of Israel and the US and the crew of the Liberty. The governments of the US and Israel both, in terms of domestic and international politics, have a lot to lose and, therefore, in terms of a potential cover up, the motive and the means.

Paging Pete McCloskey. There's a MojoFilter project there.
posted by y2karl at 7:15 AM on January 23, 2004