Coverup theory alive at USS Liberty reunion

[snopes]

The Israeli naval and air bombardment of the USS Liberty on June 8, 1967, during Israel's Six Day War against three Arab nations left 34 Americans dead.

Israel has always insisted the attack was a case of mistaken identity and 11 U.S. investigations over the years have reached the same conclusion.

Although Israel apologized and paid restitution to the families of servicemen killed and injured, some of the men on the ship that day have for decades been pushing the theory that the Israelis intended to murder every American on board and that the Pentagon is covering up a war crime.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...-meeting_N.htm

[Troberg]

Although Israel apologized and paid restitution to the families of servicemen killed and injured, some of the men on the ship that day have for decades been pushing the theory that the Israelis intended to murder every American on board

Well, we have to make some distinctions here.

Of course they intended to sink the ship and thus kill the crew (or at least put them out of combat for a while), that's the expected outcome of an attack. There is little doubt about that.

The real question is if the attack was a mistake or if they attacked it knowing that it was an US vessel? I strongly suspect that we'll never know, and all we'll get is speculations.

[Ali Infree]

Last week, there was a lot of news coverage of the 40th anniversary of this war. I kept waiting for this shoe to drop. I agree that what we are likely to be left with is speculation. I was 13 at the time, and I remember being shocked by the attack on the USS Liberty. To give some news sources, like NPR, credit, the attack was discussed.

It was a bad time to serve on intelligence ships, some time later the North Koreans captured the Pueblo.

[Majorsam]

I concur with Troberg that we'll probably never know...but I admit I tend towards the accidental attack theory.

I don't consider myself an expert, but I did read (if I recall the title correctly) Attack on Liberty, written by an officer who was on the bridge when it happened. It was pretty sensational reading and the officer makes some compelling arguments for why they should have been recognized as an American vessal...but at the same time I could see where the Israeli aviation might have been too eager to get in on the action and launched an attack without properly identifying the target.

After the airn attack, if I recall, torpedo boats closed with within range after an initial air attack. Liberty, now understandably very gun shy, engaged them with machine gun fire. The boats responded with torpedo attack and machine gun fire. They later returned to offer assistance when it became clear it was an American ship (the help was refused).

On the one hand it seems remarkable that a ship that had previously been identified as American by the IDF could subsequently be attacked, and that the attackers could mistake a ship that was clearly marked with national colors and painting schemes as a non-combatant, but on the other hand in the heat of battle mistakes are made. Communications break down and, at the core, I'm unconvinced that the Israelis had any motive at all to attack Liberty. Lastly, if they did intentionally, why didn't they finish the job?

The attack on Liberty was the subject of many inquiries that were made publc. Serious mistakes were made & acknowledged by both sides.

Anyway, just my thoughts.

[Ali Infree]

Of course, the Israeli air defence had been the first ones in action in the Six Day war. They pulverized the Egyptian and Jordanian air forces on the ground.

Wellsaid, Majorsam. If we have some questions, imagine what the USS Liberty survivors, at least some of them, must feel.

[Silas Sparkhammer]

Originally Posted by Ali Infree

. . . imagine what the USS Liberty survivors, at least some of them, must feel.

At the risk of being trite, and a little rude, how they feel is getting in the way of how they think. Like most conspiracy fantacists, they begin with their emotional belief, and then engage in goal-oriented data-selection, accepting anything that supports what they want to believe, and rejecting anything that is contrary.

My point isn't to single them out; they are victims of violence, and deserve the respect of all military personnel who have been in harm's way. My point is that extreme emotions have a very well-documented paralyzing effect on the brain's ability to reason clearly.

We see the same thing in JFK assassination conspiracies, or the 9-11 World Trade Tower conspiracies. For sheer brass, it is hard to beat those who believe that the Apollo Moon Landings "never happened." Absolute conviction in the face of any contrary facts is a strange, and strangely common, psychopathy.

Silas

[bjohn13]

Originally Posted by Silas Sparkhammer

Absolute conviction in the face of any contrary facts is a strange, and strangely common, psychopathy.

Silas

Can I use this quote elsewhere if I properly attribute it to you? (would that be against snopes' message board rules?)

[Silas Sparkhammer]

Originally Posted by bjohn13

Can I use this quote elsewhere if I properly attribute it to you? (would that be against snopes' message board rules?)

You may certainly use the quote; thank you most kindly! I don't think it is against the rules; lots of people quote Canuckistan and Nonny Mouse. (I think they have an informal contest going to see which of them can say the greater number of really clever things!)

Silas

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Silas Sparkhammer

At the risk of being trite, and a little rude, how they feel is getting in the way of how they think. Like most conspiracy fantacists, they begin with their emotional belief, and then engage in goal-oriented data-selection, accepting anything that supports what they want to believe, and rejecting anything that is contrary.

My point isn't to single them out; they are victims of violence, and deserve the respect of all military personnel who have been in harm's way. My point is that extreme emotions have a very well-documented paralyzing effect on the brain's ability to reason clearly.

We see the same thing in JFK assassination conspiracies, or the 9-11 World Trade Tower conspiracies. For sheer brass, it is hard to beat those who believe that the Apollo Moon Landings "never happened." Absolute conviction in the face of any contrary facts is a strange, and strangely common, psychopathy.

Silas

Maybe I'm just nitpicking here, but I think your use of "conspiracy fantacists", and your implied comparison with people who believe in JFK and 9/11 conspiracies is simply not fair at all. I don't think that the Liberty was attacked intentionally, it hardly flies in the face of all evidence to think that it was. Dean Rusk thought so. Richard Helms thought so. Maybe anyone who believes in a deliberate attack should be compared to those who believe that Palestinians left their homes in 1948 because Arab armies made broadcasts instructing them to do so--that is, such a person believes something that isn't historical. Maybe that's true. But a conspircy fantacist? No.

[Silas Sparkhammer]

Originally Posted by Steve

Maybe I'm just nitpicking here, but I think your use of "conspiracy fantacists", and your implied comparison with people who believe in JFK and 9/11 conspiracies is simply not fair at all. I don't think that the Liberty was attacked intentionally, it hardly flies in the face of all evidence to think that it was. Dean Rusk thought so. Richard Helms thought so. Maybe anyone who believes in a deliberate attack should be compared to those who believe that Palestinians left their homes in 1948 because Arab armies made broadcasts instructing them to do so--that is, such a person believes something that isn't historical. Maybe that's true. But a conspircy fantacist? No.

The major problem is the eleven different investigations which turned up no evidence for the claim. Not all of the investigations have been by cherry-picked commissions who had their conclusions already picked in advance. (Maybe some of them were, but not all!)

After all the digging that has been done on this, I have to feel that the case is pretty much closed.

Did Dean Rusk or Richard Helms ever change their minds, anywhere in the sequence of investigations? From a sort of scientific point of view, what would it take to cause a believer to change his mind? If no possible evidence could ever serve to rebut their case -- i.e., any Israeli memoirs are "fakes," and any living Israeli officer who speak on the issue is a "paid liar" -- then the proposition is operationally meaningless.

Silas

[Not_Done_Living]

Mistaken identity is a common occurrence during war times.. Even the US isn't immune..

Does anyone remember a few years back when an American fighter pilot open fired on Canadian soldiers doing test fires on an American test firing range, even though he was informed multiple times that they were friendlies, with permission to use the space?

his guy bombed his own allies on his own territory... so why is it inconceivable that a separate army might target them by mistake as well?

[snopes]

On the one hand it seems remarkable that a ship that had previously been identified as American by the IDF could subsequently be attacked, and that the attackers could mistake a ship that was clearly marked with national colors and painting schemes as a non-combatant, but on the other hand in the heat of battle mistakes are made.

And that raises the usual type of question associated with conspiracy theories: If the Liberty was so obviously an American ship and couldn't possibly have been mistaken for anything else, why did the Israelis think they could get away with attacking it?

- snopes

[Silas Sparkhammer]

Originally Posted by snopes

And that raises the usual type of question associated with conspiracy theories: If the Liberty was so obviously an American ship and couldn't possibly have been mistaken for anything else, why did the Israelis think they could get away with attacking it?

Just a bit of devil's advocacy here: if the Israelis were afraid that the ship was about to give away details of a vital attack, which would spoil it and lead to massive Israeli casualties, then it might make short-term tactical sense to attack the ship. In this view (entirely hypothetical!) the Israelis might have been willing to accept open and public blame for the attack, and the "cover up" was a gift from Washington.

If a Free French supply ship had stumbled into the assembly area for D-Day in 1944, would the allies have hesitated to sink it? (Yes, yes, thank you, no need for everyone to nitpick the comparison to death...)

Silas

[snopes]

Originally Posted by Silas Sparkhammer

Just a bit of devil's advocacy here: if the Israelis were afraid that the ship was about to give away details of a vital attack, which would spoil it and lead to massive Israeli casualties, then it might make short-term tactical sense to attack the ship. In this view (entirely hypothetical!) the Israelis might have been willing to accept open and public blame for the attack, and the "cover up" was a gift from Washington.

Possibly, but then one has to believe in a conspiracy theory even more elaborate than the original (i.e., the Israelis lied about misidentifying the ship), one in which the U.S. deliberately covered up an unprovoked attack on one of its own ships.

- snopes

[Majorsam]

The only thing coming close to an explanation for why the Israelis would do that usually involves the facts that Liberty was an intelligence-gathering vessal so the attack could have been to cover up some operation the Israelis were about to launch that Liberty might have been able to detect and send back.

The problem with that is...what operation? The six-day war had started three days prior to the attack and although, obviously, the participants didn't know they were half-way through the war, the only major operation the Israelis were going to do was the occupation of the Golan Heights.

Now while the occupation was no cake-walk, the attack when it happened was not a surprise and was contested. Syrians in the heights had been bombarded since before the Liberty attack and the IDF had massed at least 4 brigades there for an attack, so it is hard to see how sinking poor liberty would have helped the 'surprise' attack. If anything, it would have made sense to sink Liberty to prevent warning Egypt about the devestating surprise air attck at the start of the war, but strangely they did not.

Playing devil's advocate on myself I suppose it is possible that the Israeli's had some other, larger surprise that had to be called off when they failed to sink Liberty. Can't imagine what, thought.

[Deepfrydegg]

Originally Posted by Not_Done_Living

Mistaken identity is a common occurrence during war times.. Even the US isn't immune..

his guy bombed his own allies on his own territory... so why is it inconceivable that a separate army might target them by mistake as well?

Things like this happened all the time, especially as you go farther back in history. WW2 was filled with little instances (I am not going to dig the references up, but I feel confident there are more than a few examples).

I like to use the anecdote from WW2. (summarizing a fictional story, here)

"Grandpa told the story of WW2 when he was flying for Great Britain. Now the British and the French were on the same side, but really didn't like each other. They both had airfields near the beach in England. Well one day the fog was thick (as is common in England near the channel) and the French Plane came in over the British field and started to fire away. Damaged several aircraft, and shot holes in the control tower.
The Brits were hopping mad and when the officers went over for blood from the French, the French claimed, "so sorry, he got turned around in the fog, though he was hitting a German base. Much apologies."
Grumbling, the Brits had to let it go rather than make a political scene with their "allies." Next week, in bad weather, a French plane flew over the British airfield and fired again. This time hitting the fuel dump.
When confronted, the French again claimed, "so sorry, bad navigation, he thought he was hitting the Germans. Very, Very sorry."
The next day, in full daylight, A British plane flew over the French base and bombed the hangar and the Ammo dump.
The British officers went over to the French and said, "So sorry, our chap got turned around with bad coordinates. Thought you were a German."

No more "Friendly Fire" happened between the French and British for a long time after that.

Target Identification systems today are much better than 40 years ago. While the Liberty incident "could" happen today , it is less likely with better technology.

[Jonny T]

Israeli communications said prove IAF knew Liberty was U.S. ship

The Israel Air Force warplanes and Israel Navy warships that attacked the USS Liberty on June 8, 1967, at the height of the Six-Day War, were aware that the vessel was an American spy ship, according to new testimony published Thursday in the Chicago Tribune.

The report stated that the U.S. National Security Agency -- to which the intelligence gathering ship belonged -- was able to intercept IAF communications according to which, at some stage of the attack, the pilots identified the ship as American but were nonetheless instructed to push ahead with the attack.

[JoeBentley]

Doesn't surprise me. The idea that you can mistake a 445 foot American warship for a 234 foot Egyptian cargo vessel at point blank (in maritime terms) range is ludicrous.

[Dr. Winston O'Boogie]

The Chicago Tribune had a feature article on this Tuesday.

Fasinating article. I keep coming back to "Why?" Why would Israel want to bomb the ship of one of its staunchest supporters?

[DemonWolf]

Originally Posted by Dr. Winston O'Boogie

Fasinating article. I keep coming back to "Why?" Why would Israel want to bomb the ship of one of its staunchest supporters?

My opinion, which is purely speculation: Isreal is paranoid and trusts no-one, not even their staunchest supporters.

USS Libery was an "Oceanographic Research Vessel" (this is pronounced "spy ship"). Isreal attacked just prior to the six day war. My conclusion is that Isreal did not want the US to observe Isreal's military tactics.

In the recent invasion of lebannon, Isreal "accidentally took out a UN observation post.

I think that Isreal just does not want to be watched.