PDA

View Full Version : New revelations in attack on American spy ship



Tylerdurden
10-03-2007, 11:58 AM
Veterans, documents suggest U.S., Israel didn't tell full story of deadly '67 incident

By John Crewdson |Tribune senior correspondent October 2, 2007

Bryce Lockwood, Marine staff sergeant, Russian-language expert, recipient of the Silver Star for heroism, ordained Baptist minister, is shouting into the phone.

"I'm angry! I'm seething with anger! Forty years, and I'm seething with anger!"

Lockwood was aboard the USS Liberty, a super-secret spy ship on station in the eastern Mediterranean, when four Israeli fighter jets flew out of the afternoon sun to strafe and bomb the virtually defenseless vessel on June 8, 1967, the fourth day of what would become known as the Six-Day War.

For Lockwood and many other survivors, the anger is mixed with incredulity: that Israel would attack an important ally, then attribute the attack to a case of mistaken identity by Israeli pilots who had confused the U.S. Navy's most distinctive ship with an Egyptian horse-cavalry transport that was half its size and had a dissimilar profile. And they're also incredulous that, for years, their own government would reject their calls for a thorough investigation.

"They tried to lie their way out of it!" Lockwood shouts. "I don't believe that for a minute! You just don't shoot at a ship at sea without identifying it, making sure of your target!"

Four decades later, many of the more than two dozen Liberty survivors located and interviewed by the Tribune cannot talk about the attack without shouting or weeping.

Their anger has been stoked by the declassification of government documents and the recollections of former military personnel, including some quoted in this article for the first time, which strengthen doubts about the U.S. National Security Agency's position that it never intercepted the communications of the attacking Israeli pilots -- communications, according to those who remember seeing them, that showed the Israelis knew they were attacking an American naval vessel.

The documents also suggest that the U.S. government, anxious to spare Israel's reputation and preserve its alliance with the U.S., closed the case with what even some of its participants now say was a hasty and seriously flawed investigation.

In declassifying the most recent and largest batch of materials last June 8, the 40th anniversary of the attack, the NSA, this country's chief U.S. electronic-intelligence-gatherer and code-breaker, acknowledged that the attack had "become the center of considerable controversy and debate." It was not the agency's intention, it said, "to prove or disprove any one set of conclusions, many of which can be drawn from a thorough review of this material," available athttp://www.nsa.gov/liberty .

An Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman, Mark Regev, called the attack on the Liberty "a tragic and terrible accident, a case of mistaken identity, for which Israel has officially apologized." Israel also paid reparations of $6.7 million to the injured survivors and the families of those killed in the attack, and another $6 million for the loss of the Liberty itself.

But for those who lost their sons and husbands, neither the Israelis' apology nor the passing of time has lessened their grief.

One is Pat Blue, who still remembers having her lunch in Washington's Farragut Square park on "a beautiful June afternoon" when she was a 22-year-old secretary for a law firm.

Blue heard somebody's portable radio saying a U.S. Navy ship had been torpedoed in the eastern Mediterranean. A few weeks before, Blue's husband of two years, an Arab-language expert with the NSA, had been hurriedly dispatched overseas.

As she listened to the news report, "it just all came together." Soon afterward, the NSA confirmed that Allen Blue was among the missing.

"I never felt young again," she said.

Aircraft on the horizon

Beginning before dawn on June 8, Israeli aircraft regularly appeared on the horizon and circled the Liberty.

The Israeli Air Force had gained control of the skies on the first day of the war by destroying the Egyptian air force on the ground. America was Israel's ally, and the Israelis knew the Americans were there. The ship's mission was to monitor the communications of Israel's Arab enemies and their Soviet advisers, but not Israeli communications. The Liberty felt safe.

Then the jets started shooting at the officers and enlisted men stretched out on the deck for a lunch-hour sun bath. Theodore Arfsten, a quartermaster, remembered watching a Jewish officer cry when he saw the blue Star of David on the planes' fuselages. At first, crew members below decks had no idea whose planes were shooting at their ship.

Thirty-four died that day, including Blue, the only civilian casualty. An additional 171 were wounded in the air and sea assault by Israel, which was about to celebrate an overwhelming victory over the combined armies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and several other Arab states.

Continued..................
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/world/chi-liberty_tuesoct02,0,6015776.story

Norman Bernstein
10-03-2007, 12:32 PM
Well, Mark, you FINALLY struck on something that I might actually agree on: the USS Liberty incident.

I'm aware of this one... and also believe (based on what I consider to be GOOD evidence, not the incoherent ramblings of some conspiracy nut) that the attack by Israel on that ship was more or less intentional. The most convincing evidence: the overwhelming majority of the ships crew who survived the incident made it very clear (in testimony) that there was no possibility of mistaken identification. It's been a while since I've read and studied the details, but I was convinced, at the time.

Unlike your other conspiracy ravings, this one doesn't require a monsterous cast of characters to sustain. It is entirely possible that those in the US government at the time, determined to maintain what was then (and still is) a merit-blind absolute loyalty to Israel, politically, would want to minimize the investigations and the potential damage to foreign policy.

However, don't get TOO excited: I still think that you're a raving lunatic, on the 9/11 and Tri-Lateral stuff :D:D:D

PatCox
10-03-2007, 12:34 PM
Does this mean the Bilderbergers did it?

pcford
10-03-2007, 12:40 PM
I have read a bit on this....but is there any proof that it could not have been a mistake other than it was "impossible" to make a mistake.

Seems to me a lot of stupid stuff happens in war.

Not arguing here...just want further information.

PatCox
10-03-2007, 12:41 PM
Don't get me wrong, I have always thought the Israelis did it on purpose, for some unkown reason.

Keith Wilson
10-03-2007, 03:13 PM
Has anyone ever suggested a rational reason why the Israelis would have attacked the USS Liberty deliberately? It seems they would have nothing to gain and much to lose. Screwups don't need reasons; deliberate planned actions do.

Norman Bernstein
10-03-2007, 03:23 PM
Has anyone ever suggested a rational reason why the Israelis would have attacked the USS Liberty deliberately? It seems they would have nothing to gain and much to lose. Screwups don't need reasons; deliberate planned actions do.

Yes, there is an explanation, although like most pieces of 'evidence', it has to be taken with a grain of salt. Supposedly, the Israelis were summarily executing prisoners taken in the war, and the USS Liberty, an intelligence ship, was listening in to Israeli tactical commanders talking about it.

Whether this specific allegation is true or not is, I think, unknown, and questionable. However, there is confirmed precedent for Israeli desire to keep it's own secrets including from the U.S. The Jonathan Pollard incident demonstrates that despite overwhelming American support, the Israelis still felt the need to spy on the U.S. The same has been shown to be true between the U.S. and many 'allied' nations, including between the U.S. and Britain in WWII... so the possible motivation to disable a U.S. spy ship, a few miles off the Israeli coast, isn't without at least some evidence of plausibility.

Keith Wilson
10-03-2007, 03:28 PM
OK, fair enough. I hadn't heard that before. It seems to me that the risk in attacking a US ship would be WAY out of proportion to the damage done by the information coming out - if the US would help them cover up a deliberate attack where a bunch of American sailors were killed, we'd help them cover up the other - but people have done stupider things.

Bob Adams
10-03-2007, 03:31 PM
I also have no problem with this Mark troll, thats a first. However, this controversy has been ongoing since the incident. I read basicly the same stuff years ago. What's new?

Cuyahoga Chuck
10-03-2007, 03:35 PM
The "Liberty' was a spyship. The Israelis knew it . They didn't want to be spied upon. We knew that. The big boys in the US Navy were not to be denied. They ordered the Liberty to get in as close as possible.
The problem with the spyship program was that it started out as a civilian operation and as such there was denyabilty and the civilian crews were not pledged to "spie unto death".
Eventually the US Navy got the program, manned everything with military and ordered all the captains to push the limits at every opportunity with predictable results.

Tylerdurden
10-03-2007, 03:38 PM
For years the men who spoke up and brought forward the truth were smeared and ridiculed including anyone who questioned the "official" story. If there is a hell, let it be visited upon everyone who blindly protected the liars here.

All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.
It seems we are surrounded by "good" men who are nothing.

Norman Bernstein
10-03-2007, 03:40 PM
OK, fair enough. I hadn't heard that before. It seems to me that the risk in attacking a US ship would be WAY out of proportion to the damage done by the information coming out - if the US would help them cover up a deliberate attack where a bunch of American sailors were killed, we'd help them cover up the other - but people have done stupider things.

I won't deny that it does stretch plausibility a bit... but, as you said, we've seen stupider things. Watergate, for example?

Norman Bernstein
10-03-2007, 03:43 PM
I also have no problem with this Mark troll, thats a first. However, this controversy has been ongoing since the incident. I read basicly the same stuff years ago. What's new?

From what I can tell, there's nothing new. It's still a 'he said, she said' kind of thing.

By the way, the story about the supposed execution of Egyptian prisoners came from James Bamford, author of 'The Puzzle Palace'.

John of Phoenix
10-03-2007, 04:13 PM
If the Israelis were chatting about executing POWs, or anything else for that matter, on their radios, the Liberty would have been one of several stations to have picked it up. Look at the number of recordings - air, land and sea intercepts that picked up the Liberty attack. The area was crawling with electronics.

Whatever the reason, it has to something else.

Nicholas Scheuer
10-03-2007, 04:22 PM
Then next time Israel gets in our way, let 'em have it with both barrels.

Maybe it's time Israel should "Never Forget" the Alamo.

Moby Nick

paladin
10-03-2007, 04:23 PM
The Liberty was not even the best source of material......the ships listening capabilities was far less than our outpost at Kisulchukchuk which for all intents an purposes was monitoring Soviet transmissions, but in fact was listening to everyone.

Keith Wilson
10-03-2007, 04:39 PM
And again, if we were willing to excuse a deliberate attack on a US ship, why would we care if they killed prisoners? Doesn't make sense. It seems they had much to lose and very little to gain - but of course, people do dumb things all the time.

Norman Bernstein
10-03-2007, 04:44 PM
And again, if we were willing to excuse a deliberate attack on a US ship, why would we care if they killed prisoners? Doesn't make sense. It seems they had much to lose and very little to gain - but of course, people do dumb things all the time.

Possibly because a revelation of prisoner execution would have done phenomenal damage to the Israeli public relations image in the US... and at the time, every Jewish kid in America was 'planting trees' in Israel (i.e., sending money). The need to assume a facade of holding the moral high ground would have been critically important... and compared to that, the need to 'apologize' for a case of 'mistaken identity' during a shooting war would have been small potatoes.

(Yeah, I'd like to visit every one of those goddamn trees I supposedly planted in Israel!)

carioca1232001
10-03-2007, 07:05 PM
Possibly because a revelation of prisoner execution would have done phenomenal damage to the Israeli public relations image in the US... and at the time, every Jewish kid in America was 'planting trees' in Israel (i.e., sending money). The need to assume a facade of holding the moral high ground would have been critically important... and compared to that, the need to 'apologize' for a case of 'mistaken identity' during a shooting war would have been small potatoes.

(Yeah, I'd like to visit every one of those goddamn trees I supposedly planted in Israel!)

That the Israelis of all people would execute POWs strikes me as unbelievable, surreal if you like.

But taking into account the thousands (literally) of Egyptians taken POW in the Sinai and the Israelis charging onwards to the Suez canal with the former in their flanks, they (Israelis) may have resorted to unorthodox methods to safeguard their own security.

Bill Griffin
10-04-2007, 10:18 AM
The POW issue sounds fishy to me. But I spoke with the retired Gunny Lockwood and his lovely wife last June. He's rightly still angry. No one that I knew in the service ever thought the attack was anything but deliberate. While discussing it in the early '70s at Lejeune one of my company mentioned he'd been part of a team that was evacuated from the Golan Heights two days before the war started. I don't know if he was blowing smoke, but there was no reason to that I could see. I think there was, and still is, a lot more politics as usual involved in the whole deal. But, after forty years, there's no reason not to 'fess up IMHO.

PatCox
10-04-2007, 11:25 AM
Besides, the Arabs already believe far worse things about the Israelis anyway, and the US press would never print anything so derogatory about them.