Could the USS Liberty surface as a campaign issue?
The latest news on the Liberty, the Navy spook ship attacked by Israel on June 8, 1967, during the Six-Day War, is that recently released National Security Agency documents are backing up what many -- including the survivors of Liberty -- have been saying for 40 years: that Israel knew full well that it was attacking -- with aerial strafing, napalm and torpedoes -- an American vessel.
You may have read it on Military.com, one of the few news sites to run the piece in total. Other than The Chicago Tribune, which came out with the story, only The Baltimore Sun picked up the piece, according to a Google search.
It will be interesting to see is whether any presidential candidates address the latest revelations, since those from both parties frequently tout longstanding ties and mutual loyalty between the U.S. and Israel.
One candidate with a real interest in this story is Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who five years ago endorsed a book, The Liberty Incident, that concluded it was a mistake. McCain's interest stems from the fact that his father, the late Adm. John S. McCain, was commander of U.S. Naval Forces, Europe, at the time, and ordered the official court of inquiry to investigate the attack.
Based on the court's findings, Adm. McCain concluded it was a case of mistaken identity. But five years ago the legal advisor to the court broke his own silence in an interview with me, calling the final report a sham, a cover-up. It was about that same time that The Liberty Incident, by A. Jay Cristol, a former Navy pilot and retired judge, hit the bookshelves.
Sen. McCain praised the book and its findings in a blurb that appeared on the back cover.
In recent months there have been more revelations about the attack and immediate aftermath, however. In June, I reported that the Navy already was calling the attack accidental in its casualty notification telegrams to next of kin even before the court of inquiry convened for the first time.
Then came the Tribune story last week, reporting that the National Security Agency's deputy director of operations in 1967 now confirms that transcripts of U.S. intercepts of Israeli communications show the Israelis knew exactly who they were attacking.
Oliver Kirby is quoted in the Trib story as recalling the Israeli pilots several times identifying the ship as American but being told to attack anyway. While some of the original transcripts and intel have disappeared, the story reports that some of it is still in U.S. government archives.
So far, calls to McCain's senate and campaign offices have not been returned.
-- Bryant Jordan
I would think that if a report was filed in a court of law, along with a request, then the report could be progressed through simple filings offered by the court of law. Legal Motions to expedite are available to anything filed within the frame of law - but, military law doesn't exactly follow the same rules as the civilian courts - the UCMJ is treated as a separate entity altogether and is unique to the constitution with certain "civic demands."
If that upsets Jonah - or anyone else from another country who is just a little too critical and curious of how we Americans run our military, then I would submit that "it" be all the more reason to further investigate ... in other words Jonah, reading your bull shit on this site has proven one thing to the general public...that you defeat your protectionist need with your attitude alone and you project your want for cover up too much, lending credence for the need for an open investigation altogether.
Why is it so hard to get entities to answer simple questions, withstanding national security points of interests?
Anyone who presupposes that the US government acts without honor, nor integrity ought to know better as well - just when you think you know why something may have been, more information comes to bear fruit on the subject putting it in new light...and most often times that information is Classified for good reason - it may connect or lay claim to a whole separate subject outside of relevance to the primary question.
Demonizing "big brother" is to assume that your brother is not acting in our best interest - especially regarding any foreign country's interest in the US and our society or way of life.
As for now - our open source intelligence is very strong indeed - but its unique relevance without all information is of no consequence other than fodder for pop culture (to feed the beast, so to speak).
In other words Jonah, don't for a minute think that the US doesn't have information already...after all everything has a price - money is only a tool, almost as effective as "technology."
Why certain things are "covert" (or covered up) are of no concern to everyday citizens and the "need to know" perquisite exists for good reason - that is unless an individual has something to hide which is not covered under the constitution which lay all rights and responsibilities out for every private citizen, as well as foreign.
Signed
Intelligence
"the anti-jonah"
ps - jonah, if the israeli's are responsible for 911 - as a type wake up call I suppose - would you blame them? Is Bin Laden a Sharon cronie now? Is he Jewish? Are you one of those who believes that is father was CIA? Explain his taped confession and need for jihad. Who benefited the most of all from the attacks - what country?
Posted by: Airman Read at October 11, 2008 11:50 AM