| Author | Message | | funglefoot | | Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 5:59 pm Post subject: Evidence justifies reopening USS Liberty case |
| THE SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE
Union-Tribune editorial
UNDOING A COVER-UP
EVIDENCE JUSTIFIES REOPENING USS LIBERTY CASE
April 1, 2004
The bitter debate over Israel's attack on the U.S. Navy intelligence ship Liberty on June 8, 1967, seems no closer to resolution today than it was 36 years ago. Surely it's time, a generation and a half later, for the U.S. government to release everything it knows about an attack that killed 34 American sailors and intelligence analysts, wounded 171 others and has never been satisfactorily explained.
The Liberty's survivors, the families of those killed and wounded, the American people and history deserve better than a permanently unresolved controversy of this magnitude.
Israel insists that the deadly attack, which occured in international waters off the Sinai coast while the Liberty eavesdropped on combatants' communications during the Arab-Israeli Six Day War, was a tragic case of mistaken identity. Surviving members of the Liberty's crew, which suffered 70 percent casualties, are convinced that the prolonged air and sea attack was deliberate. The U.S. government, in what many charged was a transparent cover-up, officially accepted Israel's explanation of mistaken identity.
Yet, the acrimonious controversy lived on, waxing and waning through the years as each side put forth new information and conflicting interpretations.
Over the past year, those who believe that Israel's assault on the Liberty was deliberate have collected important corroborating evidence. As noted in David Walsh's essay in Sunday's Insight section, several former U.S. intelligence officials and analysts, breaking their long silence, say that electronic intercepts of the attacking pilots' radio communications that day prove that the Israelis knew they were attacking an American ship.
Oliver Kirby, a former operations director for the super-secret National Security Agency (for which the Liberty was collecting intelligence), was assigned by NSA in 1967 to review classified information on the attack. In a recent telephone interview with Jim Ennes, a retired naval officer and Liberty survivor, Kirby's first words were, "I can tell you for an absolute certainty that they (the Israelis) knew they were attacking an American ship."
Ward Boston, a retired Navy captain who served as chief legal officer to a Navy court of inquiry on the Liberty attack, says the court's finding of "mistaken identity" was dictated by then-President Lyndon Johnson and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara. Boston cites "overwhelming evidence" to the contrary that the naval court was ordered to ignore.
These recent revelations, among others, argue persuasively for reopening the Liberty case if the truth is ever to be discovered. Clearly, the U.S. government, not to mention Israel's government, continues to conceal vital information about the Liberty attack. Claims to the contrary notwithstanding, Israel's attack on the Liberty has never been properly investigated.
Almost 37 years after the fact, it's time it was. | |  | | Cowboy | | Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 6:01 pm Post subject: |
| | Quote: | | EVIDENCE JUSTIFIES REOPENING USS LIBERTY CASE |
You present nothing that wasnt available all of the times the incident was looked into.
C.I.A. report June 13, 1967 no malice; attack a mistake
U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry June 18, 1967 mistaken identity
Report by Clark Clifford July 18, 1967 no evidence ship was known to be American
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 1979/1981 no merit to claims attack was intentional
National Security Agency 1981 Mistaken identity
House Armed Services Cmtee 1991/1992 No support for claims attack was intentional | | | | harrietbuster | | Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 6:03 pm Post subject: |
| This is another SPAM thread from fungus.
I think there should be a separate board just for Fungus and al jeffie to continuously SPAM about the Liberty...which they could not really care less about. | | | | Jefferson Davis | | Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 5:41 am Post subject: |
| And here comes the lying Jews and their usual cries of victimhoom of Israel and celebration of the 34 US naval servicemen dead whose graves they've pissed on for 40 years and are proud of.
Jews being Jews.
Check Google News Harry Hook Nose, the article is legitimate. | | | | DanielDives | | Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 5:54 am Post subject: |
| Witnesses’ testimony needed - Attack on USS Liberty, 08 June, 1967
IAF Reconnaissance flight/s Pilot or Pilots
Number unknown:
1-
2-
???????
3 IAF pilots –who strafed the USS Liberty with bullets, rockets and napalm during several runs
1 –
2 –
3 –
3 x INF - MTB personnel
Number unknown:
1 –
2 –
???????
2 IAF 'Rescue’ Helicopter pilots
1 –
2 –
Dressed in battle-fatigue and armed men inside ‘rescue’ helicopters
Number unknown:
1 –
2 –
???????
Those who gave the order to attack the USS Liberty – 08 June, 1967 [Chain of Command]:
[number unknown]
1 –
2 –
??????? | | | | funglefoot | | Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 6:20 am Post subject: |
| | the world owes no general duty to save Israel from the effects of her own ignorance and stupidity. | | | | funglefoot | | Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 6:23 am Post subject: |
| Mistake (criminal law)
But, if A was in transit through an airport and picked up a bag which looked like his own, and that bag was to contain a bomb, A might attempt to argue that a mistake prevented him from being in possession of the bomb. In fact, this argument would fail because the defendant had the legal right to open, examine, and verify the contents of the bag. If he or she neglected to do so, then he or she was reckless as to the nature of the contents and therefore in possession of them. Only persons such as postal workers or other carriers who have no right to open the boxes and bags that they carry, can claim that they are not in possession of the contents. The same fate would befall defendants who tried to argue that they took another person's coat from a coat rack when they intended to take their own and so were not in possession of the prohibited drugs found in one of the pockets. In neither of these cases does the mistake prevent the defendants from forming the requisite mens rea to possess the contents. Such defendant intend to possess the contents, no matter what those contents may later prove to be
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Mistake+(criminal+law)
Lets apply this to our situation:
If Israel was engaged in a war and spotted a neutral ship that looked like an enemy and proceeded to bomb that ship she might attempt to argue that a mistake of identity prevented her from committing murder, malicious wounding and destruction of property. In fact this argument would fail because Israel had every right and opportunity to check the identity of the ship. If Israel neglected to do so then she was reckless as to the true identity of the ship and therefore intended to bomb it. The mistake of identity does not prevent Israel from forming the requisite mens rea to commit the crimes of murder, wounding and destruction.
Visibility was 100%. Israel had total dominance of the skies. The Arab air forces were annihilated. The Liberty, while not advertising her presence, was not hiding. How do you hide something as big as a ship? Israel had every opportunity to establish beyond all doubt the true identity of the Liberty. And in fact she did so identify her. Therefore her attack can only be intentional. In fact Israel murdered, maliciously wounded, and destroyed property. After pages and pages of argument the matter is finally settled. The Law has spoken. Did I hear correctly? I believe so, but only time will tell.
Back to top
fungalfoot
Joined: 08 Jul 2002
Posts: 3809
Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 3:38 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mistake of fact in criminal law and in mistake in contract law
Thus, only mistakes relating to the factual basis of what is being attempted can form this defense and, in the majority of situations, it will only offer limited benefit to a defendant of ordinary capacity since the state owes no general duty to save citizens from the effects of their own ignorance or stupidity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excuse
Back to top
fungalfoot
Joined: 08 Jul 2002
Posts: 3809
Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 3:46 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Israel was attempting to destroy the Liberty (and succeeded).
She claims she thought she was attacking the El Queseir.
Israeli High Command is of above ordinary capacity.
Mistake of fact will offer only limited benefit since the world owes no general duty to save Israel from the effects of her own ignorance and stupidity.
Back to top
fungalfoot
Joined: 08 Jul 2002
Posts: 3809
Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 9:56 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, sadly for my learned friend Cowboy, the Israeli defense of mistaken identity is not a valid defense in law. The defense has collapsed, and the accused has been convicted of murder, malicious wounding, and destruction of property. Sentence will be passed in due course. The case has been won. Justice has been served. We can all pack up our books and go home. But this is only WWE. What about the real world? In America the taxpayer continues to pay his taxes to the Treasury, and the Treasury continues to subsidise Israel with billions of dollars, and Israel continues to fund AIPAC, and AIPAC continues to fund and bribe Congress, and Congress continues to deny justice to the survivors and the deceased of the Liberty. The world still goes round. When will the host, America, rid herself of the parasite, Israel? The day is coming, the day is coming. | | | | Ilana_Halevy | | Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 6:29 am Post subject: |
| | pathetic and dumb SPAMERS. | | | | Jefferson Davis | | Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 6:40 am Post subject: |
| | Typical lying Liberty apologists. | | | | Ilana_Halevy | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
