Fortieth Anniversary Of The Attack On The USS Liberty

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by Bergen, Jun 8, 2007.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Almost forgot about this. The crew of the USS Liberty are still fighting for an enquiry, apologies for the cut and paste and the length of the article but it's worth a read:

    Rockets, Napalm, Torpedoes & Lie
    Israel's Attack on the USS Liberty, Revisited


    By JEFFREY ST. CLAIR

    In early June of 1967, at the onset of the Six Day War, the Pentagon sent the USS Liberty from Spain into international waters off the coast of Gaza to monitor the progress of Israel's attack on the Arab states. The Liberty was a lightly armed surveillance ship.

    Only hours after the Liberty arrived it was spotted by the Israeli military. The IDF sent out reconnaissance planes to identify the ship. They made eight trips over a period of three hours. The Liberty was flying a large US flag and was easily recognizable as an American vessel.

    A few hours later more planes came. These were Israeli Mirage III fighters, armed with rockets and machine guns. As off-duty officers sunbathed on the deck, the fighters opened fire on the defenseless ship with rockets and machine guns.

    A few minutes later a second wave of planes streaked overhead, French-built Mystere jets, which not only pelted the ship with gunfire but also with napalm bomblets, coating the deck with the flaming jelly. By now, the Liberty was on fire and dozens were wounded and killed, excluding several of the ship's top officers.

    The Liberty's radio team tried to issue a distress call, but discovered the frequencies had been jammed by the Israeli planes with what one communications specialist called "a buzzsaw sound". Finally, an open channel was found and the Liberty got out a message to the USS America, the Sixth Fleet's large aircraft carrier, that it was under attack

    Two F-4s left the carrier to come to the Liberty's aid. Apparently, the jets were armed only with nuclear weapons. When word reached the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara became irate and ordered the jets to return. "Tell the Sixth Fleet to get those aircraft back immediately," he barked. McNamara's injunction was reiterated in saltier terms by Admiral David L. McDonald, the chief of Naval Operations: "You get those ******* airplanes back on deck, and you get them back down." The planes turned around. And the attack on the Liberty continued.

    After the Israeli fighter jets had emptied their arsenal of rockets, three Israeli attack boats approached the Liberty. Two torpedoes were launched at the crippled ship, one tore a 40-foot wide hole in the hull, flooding the lower compartments, and killing more than a dozen American sailors.

    As the Liberty listed in the choppy seas, its deck aflame, crew members dropped life rafts into the water and prepared to scuttle the ship. Given the number of wounded, this was going to be a dangerous operation. But it soon proved impossible, as the Israeli attack boats strafed the rafts with machine gun fire. No body was going to get out alive that way.

    After more than two hours of unremitting assault, the Israelis finally halted their attack. One of the torpedo boats approached the Liberty. An officer asked in English over a bullhorn: "Do you need any help?"

    The wounded commander of the Liberty, Lt. William McGonagle, instructed the quartermaster to respond emphatically: "**** you."

    The Israeli boat turned and left.

    A Soviet destroyer responded before the US Navy, even though a US submarine, on a covert mission, was apparently in the area and had monitored the attack. The Soviet ship reached the Liberty six hours before the USS Davis. The captain of the Soviet ship offered his aid, but the Liberty's commanding officer refused.

    Finally, 16 hours after the attack two US destroyers reached the Liberty. By that time, 34 US sailors were dead and 174 injured, many seriously. As the wounded were being evacuated, an officer with the Office of Naval Intelligence instructed the men not to talk to the press about their ordeal.

    The following morning Israel launched a surprise invasion of Syria, breaching the new cease-fire agreement and seizing control of the Golan Heights.

    Within three weeks, the Navy put out a 700-page report, exonerating the Israelis, claiming the attack had been accidental and that the Israelis had pulled back as soon as they realized their mistake. Defense Secretary Robert McNamara suggested the whole affair should be forgotten. "These errors do occur," McNamara concluded.


    ***

    In Assault on the Liberty, a first-hand account by James Ennes Jr., McNamara's version of events is proven to be as big a sham as his concurrent lies about Vietnam. Ennes's book created a media storm when it was first published by Random House in 1980, including (predictably) charges that Ennes was a liar and an anti-Semite. Still, the book sold more than 40,000 copies, but was eventually allowed to go out of print. Now Ennes has published an updated version, which incorporates much new evidence that the Israeli attack was deliberate and that the US government went to extraordinary lengths to disguise the truth.

    It's a story of Israel aggression, Pentagon incompetence, official lies, and a cover-up that persists to this day. The book gains much of its power from the immediacy of Ennes's first-hand account of the attack and the lies that followed.

    Now, 35 years later, Ennes warns that the bloodbath on board the Liberty and its aftermath should serve as a tragic cautionary tale about the continuing ties between the US government and the government of Israel.

    The Attack on the Liberty is the kind of book that makes your blood seethe. Ennes skillfully documents the life of the average sailor on one of the more peculiar vessels in the US Navy, with an attention for detail that reminds one of Dana or O'Brien. After all, the year was 1967 and most of the men on the Liberty were certainly glad to be on a non-combat ship in the middle of the Mediterranean, rather than in the Gulf of Tonkin or Mekong Delta.

    But this isn't Two Years Before the Mast. In fact, Ennes's tour on the Liberty last only a few short weeks. He had scarcely settled into a routine before his new ship was shattered before his eyes.

    Ennes joined the Liberty in May of 1967, as an Electronics Material Officer. Serving on a "spook ship", as the Liberty was known to Navy wives, was supposed to be a sure path to career enhancement. The Liberty's normal routine was to ply the African coast, tuning in its eavesdropping equipment on the electronic traffic in the region.

    The Liberty had barely reached Africa when it received a flash message from the Joint Chiefs of Staff to sail from the Ivory Coast to the Mediterranean, where it was to re-deploy off the coast of the Sinai to monitor the Israeli attack on Egypt and the allied Arab nations.

    As the war intensified, the Liberty sent a request to the fleet headquarters requesting an escort. Requesrt denied, by Admiral William Martin. The Liberty moved alone to a position in international waters about 13 miles from the shore at El Arish, then under furious siege by the IDF.

    On June 6, the Joint Chiefs sent Admiral McCain, father of the senator from Arizona, an urgent message instructing him to move the Liberty out of the war zone to a position at least 100 miles off the Gaza Coast. McCain never forwarded the message to the ship.

    A little after seven in the morning on June 8, Ennes entered the bridge of the Liberty to take the morning watch. Ennes was told that an hour earlier a "flying boxcar" (later identified as a twin-engine Nord 2501 Noratlas) had flown over the ship at a low level.

    Ennes says he noticed that the ship's American flag had become stained with soot and ordered a new flag run up the mast. The morning was clear and calm, with a light breeze.

    At 9 am, Ennes spotted another reconnaissance plane, which circled the Liberty. An hour later two Israeli fighter jets buzzed the ship. Over the next four hours, Israeli planes flew over the Liberty five more times.

    When the first fighter jet struck, a little before two in the afternoon, Ennes was scanning the skies from the starboard side of the bridge, binoculars in his hands. A rocket hit the ship just below where Ennes was standing, the fragments shredded the men closest to him.

    After the explosion, Ennes noticed that he was the only man left standing. But he also had been hit by more than 20 shards of shrapnel and the force of the blast had shattered his left leg. As he crawled into the pilothouse, a second fighter jet streaked above them and unleashed its payload on the hobbled Liberty.

    At that point, Ennes says the crew of the Liberty had no idea who was attacking them or why. For a few moments, they suspected it might be the Soviets, after an officer mistakenly identified the fighters as MIG-15s. They knew that the Egyptian air force already had been decimated by the Israelis. The idea that the Israelis might be attacking them didn't occur to them until one of the crew spotted a Star of David on the wing of one of the French-built Mystere jets.

    Ennes was finally taken below deck to a makeshift dressing station, with other wounded men. It was hardly a safe harbor. As Ennes worried that his fractured leg might slice through his femoral artery leaving him to bleed to death, the Liberty was pummeled by rockets, machine-gun fire and an Italian-made torpedo packed with 1,000-pounds of explosive.

    After the attack ended, Ennes was approached by his friend Pat O'Malley, a junior officer, who had just sent a list of killed and wounded to the Bureau of Naval Personnel. He got an immediate message back. "They said, 'Wounded in what action? Killed in what action?'," O'Malley told Ennes. "They said it wasn't an 'action,' it was an accident. I'd like for them to come out here and see the difference between an action and an accident. Stupid bastards."

    The cover-up had begun.


    ***

    The Pentagon lied to the public about the attack on the Liberty from the very beginning. In a decision personally approved by the loathsome McNamara, the Pentagon denied to the press that the Liberty was an intelligence ship, referring to it instead as a Technical Research ship, as if it were little more than a military version of Jacques Cousteau's Calypso.

    The military press corps on the USS America, where most of the wounded sailors had been taken, were placed under extreme restrictions. All of the stories filed from the carrier were first routed through the Pentagon for security clearance, objectionable material was removed with barely a bleat of protest from the reporters or their publications.

    Predictably, Israel's first response was to blame the victim, a tactic that has served them so well in the Palestinian situation. First, the IDF alleged that it had asked the State Department and the Pentagon to identify any US ships in the area and was told that there were none. Then the Israeli government charged that the Liberty failed to fly its flag and didn't respond to calls for it to identify itself. The Israelis contended that they assumed the Liberty was an Egyptian supply ship called El Quseir which, even though it was a rusting transport ship then docked in Alexandria, the IDF claimed was suspected of shelling Israeli troops from the sea. Under these circumstances, the Israelis said they were justified in opening fire on the Liberty. The Israelis said that they halted the attack almost immediately, when they realized their mistake.

    "The Liberty contributed decisively toward its identification as an enemy ship," the IDF report concluded. This was entirely false, since the Israelis had identified the Liberty at least six hours prior to the attack on the ship.

    Even though the Pentagon knew better, it gave credence to the Israeli account by saying that perhaps the Liberty's flag had lain limp on the flagpole in a windless sea. The Pentagon also suggested that the attack might have lasted less than 20 minutes.

    After the initial battery of misinformation, the Pentagon imposed a news blackout on the Liberty disaster until after the completion of a Court of Inquiry investigation.

    The inquiry was headed by Rear Admiral Isaac C. Kidd. Kidd didn't have a free hand. He'd been instructed by Vice-Admiral McCain to limit the damage to the Pentagon and to protect the reputation of Israel.

    Kidd interviewed the crew on June 14 and 15. The questioning was extremely circumscribed. According to Ennes, the investigators "asked nothing that might be embarrassing to Israel and testimony that tended to embarrass Israel was covered with a 'Top Secret' label, if it was accepted at all."

    Ennes notes that even testimony by the Liberty's communications officers about the jamming of the ship's radios was classified as "Top Secret". The reason? It proved that Israel knew it was attacking an American ship. "Here was strong evidence that the attack was planned in advance and that our ship's identity was known to the attackers (for it its practically impossible to jam the radio of a stranger), but this information was hushed up and no conclusions were drawn from it," Ennes writes.

    Similarly, the Court of Inquiry deep-sixed testimony and affidavits regarding the flag. Ennes, remember, had ordered a crisp new one deployed early on the morning of the attack. The investigators buried intercepts of conversations between IDF pilots identifying the ship as flying an American flag.

    It also refused to accept evidence about the IDF's use of napalm during the attacks and choose not to hear testimony regarding the duration of the attacks and the fact that the US Navy failed to send planes to defend the ship.

    "No one came to help us," said Dr. Richard F. Kiepfer, the Liberty's physician. "We were promised help, but no help came. The Russians arrived before our own ships did. We asked for an escort before we ever came to the war zone and we were turned down."

    None of this made its way into the 700-page Court of Inquiry report, which was completed within a couple of weeks and sent to Admiral McCain in London for review.

    McCain approved the report over the objections of Captain Merlin Staring, the Navy legal officer assigned to the inquiry, who found the report to be flawed, incomplete and contrary to the evidence.

    Staring sent a letter to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy disavowing the report. The JAG seemed to take Staring's objections to heart. He prepared a summary for the Chief of Naval Operations that almost completely ignored the Kidd/McCain report. Instead, it concluded:

    "that the Liberty was easily recognizable as an American naval vessel; that its flag was fully deployed and flying in a moderate breeze; that Israeli planes made at least eight reconnaissance flights at close range; the ship came under a prolonged attack from Israeli fighter jets and torpedo boats."

    This succinct and largely accurate report was stamped Top Secret by Navy brass and stayed locked up for many years. But it was seen by many in the Pentagon and some in the Oval Office. But there was enough grumbling about the way the Liberty incident had been handled that LBJ summoned that old Washington fixer Clark Clifford to do damage control. It didn't take Clifford long to come up with the official line: the Israelis simply had made a tragic mistake.

    It turns out that Admiral Kidd and Captain Ward Boston, the two investigating officers who prepared the original report for Admiral McCain, both believed that the Israeli attack was intentional and sustained. In other words, the IDF knew that they were striking an American spy ship and they wanted to sink it and kill as many sailors as possible. Why then did the Navy investigators produce a sham report that concluded it was an accident?

    Twenty-five years later we've finally found out. In June of 2002, Captain Boston told the Navy Times: "Officers follow orders."

    It gets worse. There's plenty of evidence that US intelligence agencies learned on June 7 that Israel intended to attack the Liberty on the following day and that the strike had been personally ordered by Moshe Dayan.

    As the attacks were going on, conversations between Israeli pilots were overheard by US Air Force officers in an EC121 surveillance plane overhead. The spy plane was spotted by Israeli jets, which were given orders to shoot it down. The American plane narrowly avoided the IDF missiles.

    Initial reports on the incident prepared by the CIA, Office of Naval Intelligence and the National Security Agency all reached similar conclusions.

    A particularly damning report compiled by a CIA informant suggests that Israeli Defense minister Moshe Dayan personally ordered the attack and wanted it to proceed until the Liberty was sunk and all on board killed. A heavily redacted version of the report was released in 1977. It reads in part:

    "[The source] said that Dayan personally ordered the attack on the ship and that one of his generals adamantly opposed the action and said, 'This is pure murder.' One of the admirals who was present also disapproved of the action, and it was he who ordered it stopped and not Dayan."

    This amazing document generated little attention from the press and Dayan was never publicly questioned about his role in the attack.

    The analyses by the intelligence agencies are collected in a 1967 investigation by the Defense Subcommittee on Appropriations. Two and half decades later that report remains classified. Why? A former committee staffer said: "So as not to embarrass Israel."

    More proof has recently come to light from the Israeli side. A few years after Attack on the Liberty was originally published, Ennes got a call from Evan Toni, an Israeli pilot. Toni told Ennes that he had just read his book and wanted to tell him his story. Toni said that he was the pilot in the first Israeli Mirage fighter to reach the Liberty. He immediately recognized the ship to be a US Navy vessel. He radioed Israeli air command with this information and asked for instructions. Toni said he was ordered to "attack". He refused and flew back to the air base at Ashdod. When he arrived he was summarily arrested for disobeying orders.


    ***

    How tightly does the Israeli lobby control the Hill? For the first time in history, an attack on an America ship was not subjected to a public investigation by Congress. In 1980, Adlai Stevenson and Barry Goldwater planned to open a senate hearing into the Liberty affair. Then Jimmy Carter intervened by brokering a deal with Menachem Begin, where Israel agreed to pony up $6 million to pay for damages to the ship. A State Department press release announcing the payment said, "The book is now closed on the USS Liberty."

    It certainly was the last chapter for Adlai Stevenson. He ran for governor of Illinois the following year, where his less than perfect record on Israel, and his unsettling questions about the Liberty affair, became an issue in the campaign. Big money flowed into the coffers of his Republican opponent, Big Jim Thompson, and Stevenson went down to a narrow defeat.

    But the book wasn't closed for the sailors either, of course. After a Newsweek story exposed the gist of what really happened on that day in the Mediterranean, an enraged Admiral McCain placed all the sailors under a gag order. When one sailor told an officer that he was having problems living with the cover-up, he was told: "Forget about it, that's an order."

    The Navy went to bizarre lengths to keep the crew of the Liberty from telling what they knew. When gag orders didn't work, they threatened sanctions. Ennes tells of the confinement and interrogation of two Liberty sailors that sounds like something straight from the CIA's MK-Ultra program.

    "In an incredible abuse of authority, military officers held two young Liberty sailors against their will in a locked and heavily guarded psychiatric ward of the base hospital," Ennes writes. "For days these men were drugged and questioned about their recollections of the attack by a 'therapist' who admitted to being untrained in either psychiatry or psychology. At one point, they avoided electroshock only by bolting from the room and demanding to see the commanding officer."

    Since coming home, the veterans who have tried to tell of their ordeal have been harassed relentlessly. They've been branded as drunks, bigots, liars and frauds. Often, it turns out, these slurs have been leaked by the Pentagon. And, oh yeah, they've also been painted as anti-Semites.

    In a recent column, Charley Reese describes just how mean-spirited and petty this campaign became. "When a small town in Wisconsin decided to name its library in honor of the USS Liberty crewmen, a campaign claiming it was anti-Semitic was launched," writes Reese. "And when the town went ahead, the U.S. government ordered no Navy personnel to attend, and sent no messages. This little library was the first, and at the time the only, memorial to the men who died on the Liberty."


    ***

    So why then did the Israelis attack the Liberty?

    A few days before the Six Days War, Israel's Foreign Minister Abba Eban visited Washington to inform LBJ about the forthcoming invasion. Johnson cautioned Eban that the US could not support such an attack.

    It's possible, then, that the IDF assumed that the Liberty was spying on the Israeli war plans. Possible, but not likely. Despite the official denials, as Andrew and Leslie Cockburn demonstrate in Dangerous Liaison, at the time of the Six Days War the US and Israel had developed a warm covert relationship. So closely were the two sides working that US intelligence aid certainly helped secure Israel's swift victory. In fact, it's possible that the Liberty had been sent to the region to spy for the IDF.

    A somewhat more likely scenario holds that Moshe Dayan wanted to keep the lid on Israel's plan to breach the new cease-fire and invade into Syria to seize the Golan.

    It has also been suggested that Dayan ordered the attack on the Liberty with the intent of pinning the blame on the Egyptians and thus swinging public and political opinion in the United States solidly behind the Israelis. Of course, for this plan to work, the Liberty had to be destroyed and its crew killed.

    There's another factor. The Liberty was positioned just off the coast from the town of El Arish. In fact, Ennes and others had used the town's mosque tower to fix the location of the ship along the otherwise featureless desert shoreline. The IDF had seized El Arish and had used the airport there as a prisoner of war camp. On the very day the Liberty was attacked, the IDF was in the process of executing as many as 1,000 Palestinian and Egyptian POWs, a war crime that they surely wanted to conceal from prying eyes. According to Gabriel Bron, now an Israeli reporter, who witnessed part of the massacre as a soldier: "The Egyptian prisoners of war were ordered to dig pits and then army police shot them to death."

    The bigger question is why the US government would participate so enthusiastically in the cover-up of a war crime against its own sailors. Well, the Pentagon has never been slow to hide its own incompetence. And there's plenty of that in the Liberty affair: bungled communications, refusal to provide an escort, situating the defenseless Liberty too close to a raging battle, the inability to intervene in the attack and the inexcusably long time it took to reach the battered ship and its wounded.

    That's par for the course. But something else was going on that would only come to light later. Through most of the 1960s, the US congress had imposed a ban on the sale of arms to both Israel and Jordan. But at the time of the Liberty attack, the Pentagon (and its allies in the White House and on the Hill) was seeking to have this proscription overturned. The top brass certainly knew that any evidence of a deliberate attack on a US Navy ship by the IDF would scuttle their plans. So they hushed it up.

    In January 1968, the arms embargo on Israel was lifted and the sale of American weapons began to flow. By 1971, Israel was buying $600 million of American-made weapons a year. Two years later the purchases topped $3 billion. Almost overnight, Israel had become the largest buyer of US-made arms and aircraft.

    Perversely, then, the IDF's strike on the Liberty served to weld the US and Israel together, in a kind of political and military embrace. Now, every time the IDF attacks defenseless villages in Gaza and the West Bank with F-16s and Apache helicopters, the Palestinians quite rightly see the bloody assaults as a joint operation, with the Pentagon as a hidden partner.

    Thus, does the legacy of Liberty live on, one raid after another.

    This is essay appears in The Politics of Anti-Semitism edited by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair.


    RM
     
  2. The ' cover-up ' of the Liberty event is a classic example of what goes on between nations and their contempt for even their own armed services lives . Reading this brings to mind the ' Kursk ' disaster and the subsequent response of the American and Russian governments . It seems ( to me ) another cover up with the two authorities scrambling to ' cover their arses ' and avoid a major conflict . The lives needlessly lost in such situations mean SFA to the governments involved and the power of the cover up is frightening .
    Some of this may come out in the distant future but in the present, decent everyday people will be used as pawns in the game of international chess while the chess-masters live the high life , piss in each others pockets and generally enjoy life to the full . The answer, F Ks, but it is certainly grounds for anger and frustration, knowing what is happening but helpless. Such is life as Ned said.

    :threaten:


    The following is a brief review of all available facts relevant to the accident aboard "Kursk":

    "Kursk" is the flagship submarine of Russia's Northern Fleet. It sailed for the first time in 1994 and entered active service in 1995. It is one of the newest Russian submarines and an important element of Russia's national defense.


    The submarine's standard crew is 107 men. "Kursk" sank with 118 men aboard. Apparently, the 11 "extra" crew were various Navy officials present onboard to observe training exercises. The complete list of the sub's standard crew was published by the Russian press.


    The submarine sank in shallow waters approximately 135 km from the shore. Currently, "Kursk" is resting at the depth of only 108 meters, at a 25-deg nose-down pitch and a 60-deg roll to the right. The sub is located in the middle of an extremely strong localized underwater current.


    The rescue buoy was not released. The escape capsule was not used.


    The submarine has a large hole along the right side in the forward sections. Scratch marks extend to the fin, which also has some impact damage. The fin never touched the seabed.


    Large pieces of the sub's hull are scattered across the seabed.


    The submarine left a relatively long trail on the seabed.


    All the external masts and the periscope were extended. These systems are extended only when the sub is surfaced, surfacing, or traveling at the periscope depth of about 10 meters. Before the sub dives all masts are retracted inside the hull. This is done even during an rapid emergency dive.


    At least five of the nine and perhaps all of the sub's compartments are believed to be flooded. Norwegian divers confirmed that the entire submarine is flooded.


    The official Russian government commission concluded that the sub sank because of a powerful explosion onboard. The cause of the explosion is believed to be a collision with an unidentified massive external body with approximate displacement of 7,000-8,000 metric tons traveling at over 6 knots (faster than "Kursk") at the depth of 20-25 meters. The impact was at a 20-30-degree angle between the velocity vectors of "Kursk" and the unidentified external object.


    Russian media reports indicate that the external object, which hit "Kursk" was attempting to steer away to the left and down from the Russian submarine in the last moments before the collision.


    At the time of the accident, Russian heavy nuclear cruiser "Peter the Great" detected a powerful hydro acoustic compression wave, which may indicate an underwater explosion. The signal's location was calculated, which later allowed to locate "Kursk."


    "Peter the Great" also detected green-and-white rescue buoys, which later disappeared. The Russian Navy uses only red-and-white rescue buoys. Green-and-white ones are used by the US, UK, and Norwegian navies.


    After locating "Kursk", the cruiser detected a second large object on the bottom of the sea, which was identified as a foreign submarine. Two NATO "Orion" naval reconnaissance aircraft were detected by "Peter the Great" in the area shortly after the accident.


    According to unnamed Russian Navy officials quoted by the Russian press, a coded NATO radio communication was intercepted after the explosion aboard "Kursk" was detected. The radio message, addressed to the Norwegian Navy, originated from a NATO submarine, and requested an emergency entry to one of the Norwegian naval bases for a five-day stay.


    Russian reconnaissance satellites detected a surfaced Los Angeles class submarine moving toward Norwegian coast at a very low speed. According to unnamed Russian Navy officials, the submarine was later identified as possibly being the SSN 691 Memphis.


    The United States government and military officials confirmed that two of their submarines and a reconnaissance vessel, the "Loyal", were observing Russian naval exercises. Americans denied that any of their submarines were involved in the accident with "Kursk."


    Vladimir Putin had a lengthy conversation with Bill Clinton about "Kursk," after which he gave the "go ahead" for the Russian Navy to seek foreign help. Putin ordered Russian Navy officials to travel to the NATO headquarter in Brussels and to evaluate NATO's ability to assist with the rescue operation. Russia has officially accepted help offers from the UK and Norway.


    On August 17 the head of the CIA, George Tennet, secretly arrived to Moscow from Sofia, Bulgaria. Shortly after Russian journalists became aware of the visit. Bulgarian officials made no secret of the matter and confirmed that the head of the CIA went to Moscow. When confronted by the journalists, Russian officials stated that the unusual visit was related to the situation in Yugoslavia, and not to the accident aboard "Kursk." On the same day Russian reconnaissance satellites confirmed that a US Los Angeles class submarine entered a naval base in Norway.


    On May 11, the Russian Military News Agency (AVN) reported that in July-August of 2000 the Northern Fleet will be conducted a training rescue operation. As a part of the operation, one of the Northern Fleet's nuclear submarines was supposed to lay on the seabed at the depth of about 100 meters. The rescue vessel to perform the training rescue mission was identified as "Rudnitsky."


    "Mikhail Rudnitsky" rescue vessel was among the first ships to arrive at the site of the accident.


    Norway and the United States confirmed that the Los Angeles class submarine SSN 691 Memphis entered a Norwegian naval base for repairs on August 17-18. Americans refused to say when the 'Memphis' requested entry to the base or whether these were planned repairs or an emergency situation.


    Russian Federation has officially requested a technical report from Norway detailing the nature of repairs carried out on Memphis.


    The head of the Russian parliamentary national security committee, Dmitry Rogozin, said that an international group of experts will investigate a possibility of a collision between "Kursk" and a foreign submarine. Russian Foreign Minister, Igor Ivanov, confirmed this information.


    The crash site of "Kursk" is being heavily guarded by several surface vessels and attack submarines of the Northern Fleet. Two research vessels equipped with advances hydro-acoustic systems are mapping the seabed and underwater currents in the area of the accident.


    Some Russian regional administration officials from Murmansk area stated that there were two civilian torpedo experts from a military research organization aboard "Kursk" supervising a test-launch of an experimental torpedo that uses liquid propellant.
     
  3. Within three weeks, the Navy put out a 700-page report, exonerating the Israelis, claiming the attack had been accidental and that the Israelis had pulled back as soon as they realized their mistake. Defense Secretary Robert McNamara suggested the whole affair should be forgotten. "These errors do occur," McNamara concluded.

    Good post Bergs.

    What a spineless barsteward!!! Im sure it would have been forgotten if the attack had gone the other way!!!
     
  4. This side of the pond I dream of a successful re-run of bonfire night (AAC to be spared - he'll be off on his hollys that day) you guys at least have the image to enjoy ... what was the film???

    ... Independence something ...
     
  5. Well the old adage of learning something new everyday applies to this post Berg, and I thought I knew everything, clearly not!
     
  6. Hobbit,

    The 2 arguments bear no relevance. I thought external observers were able to confirm the Kursk loss was a result of a fish cooking off?

    Liberty was callously and cynically attacked. The fact there still has been no closure for the crew is an absolute disgrace.
     
  7. THE TRUTH ABOUT THE KURSK HAS BEEN SUNK
    Alexander Khamchikhin, chief analyst at the Political and Military Analysis Institute, Vremya MN, August 13, 2002, p. 1

    The investigation into the sinking of the Kursk submarine has been thorough, and not only because the prosecutor's office was eager to do its job. Some objective circumstances have also contributed. In past incidents, all submarines (the Soviet K-8, K-219 and K-278 Komsomolets, and the American Thrasher and Scorpion) sank in deep waters. Depths of over 2,000 meters made salvaging and investigation completely impossible. But the Kursk sank at a depth of 100 meters... All the same, the results of the investigation are somewhat odd.

    It turns out that oxidant leaked from the torpedo engine through microscopic cracks, and ignited in the air. But how did the cracks originate? Was it a manufacturing defect, or improper storage? In any case, someone was responsible. Prosecutor General Vladimir Ustinov made an amazing statement at a news conference: he said that those people could not have known that improper storage would result in an explosion and the sinking of the submarine!

    It follows that no one and nothing but the torpedo was to blame. The torpedo has already got its just deserts, with other torpedoes of that type being phased out by the Navy. But why? This kind of torpedo is a powerful weapon - almost an ultimate weapon - provided it is manufactured and used correctly.

    The then-commanders of the Northern Fleet have been dismissed (and apparently they don't mind, since one has become a senator and the other a deputy presidential envoy); they will not be penalized. After all, the exercise that became the Kursk's last was prepared in a hurry. The admirals were eager to report to the president that the Russian Navy had been fully restored.


    http://www.wps.ru/en/pp/kursk/2002/08/13/1.html



    - Anna Zafezova

    http://kursk.strana.ru/english/details/1003151989.html
     
  8. Seaweed

    Seaweed War Hero Book Reviewer

    I think one needs to see the text of the signal to Admiral McCain to understand whether he deliberately disobeyed the Joint Chiefs? On the face of Bergen's account they had foreknowledge of the threat and wanted Liberty out of harm's way. This seems to be the key to the whole story.

    Portraying Liberty as 'unarmed' however is I think misleading. Elint is as much a weapon of war as any other.

    Ironic that we went to war against Saddam in order to protect the state of Israel - and may have to take on Iran for the same reason. Israel cost the lives of an awful lot of British servicemen in the 1930s and 40s.

    I missed the Liberty incident at the time being in Halifax for the Canadian bicentennial as part of STANAVFORLANT. An Indian frigate also attending was put on a bit of a spot by the Six-Day War as it faced having to go home the long way and refuel in S Africa en route, even though she was originally one of our diesel frigates with reasonably log legs. Don't know how it got out of that one.
     
  9. Well it was a strategic asset, rather than a tactical asset in that situation and in that time period. And militarily one would question what the threat might have been assessed as.

    Might be more reaosnable to characterise her as having a very limited ability to defend herself.
     
  10. Remember the Liberty incident quite well, was serving on HMS Duncan we were at the time sailing off the coast of Benghazi along with the Whitby just in case the whole region went up and we had to evacuate British Nationals. It was the only time I've been to action stations for real all the time I was in the mob. After the Israelis had beaten the shit out of the Liberty they headed in our direction, our skipper had us run flags up over any bare paintwork we had. I never new we carried so many union jacks and Ensigns luckily for us the Israelis turned back. A lot of good we would have been. Whitby had a 4.5 turret and we had two 40mm Bofors. When we eventually got back to Malta the Liberty was in dry dock. Went to have a butchers at it and it was a bloody mess. The story going around Malta at the time was the Yanks had got to close and poked their nose in somebody else's buisness.
     
  11. Maybe they mistook a Blackwood Frigate for an Egyptian Horse carrier?
     
  12. Not much difference between a Blackwood and an Egyptian 'orse carrier was there?

    Whilst frigntening this sort of thing goes on quite frequently - Trawler 'Gaul' and several other American vessels throughout the world spring to mind! The difference was there were surviors from this one! Justice for the crew and families - no chance they were written off the day they entered the area!

    the sad thing is that if expediency needs it, it will all happen again (and not just to ships - aircraft and troops get it too - a mate of mine had a "car accident" in Oman in the 60's - Not may car accidents involve mortars and being in your bed at the time do they?)
     
  13. Without intentionally being difficult I disagree with your comment ' no relevance ", presumably forums permit this level of discussion . While the cover up of the Liberty was obvious, and as you say disgraceful in that the crew were allowed no closure , my point was the possibility of a similar ' cover up' with the Kursk . The facts given leave some un-answered questions I believe and given the facts of the Liberty my point regarding the bare-faced disregard for what could be classed as murder makes any attack or ' accident ' suspicious in regard to ' official ' response . With such a deliberate attack as the Liberty one can only wonder what the hell sort of ' leaders ' we have with their inaction .
     
  14. Can't remember where I read it, may have been the Biog of Stewart Menzies, but during WWII there were enigma decrypts which indicated that a wolfpack had been advised of the location of a convoy travelling near the Canaries. The decision was made not to deal with the wolfpack, and not to warn the convoy, in order to protect the knowledge that enigma could be decrypted.

    What would you have done?
     
  15. Do what Churchill did when he offered Coventry up as a sacrifice to protect Enigma. Then fire-bomb Dresden in revenge. It's why the two cities have been twinned for so long.


    The US Liberty incident happened 40 years ago. This is the UN report of the Israeli artillery attack on the UN Fijian camp at Qana. The Israeli excuses echo the Liberty event.

    http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/62d5aa740c14293b85256324005179be?OpenDocument

    RM
     
  16. What price revenge though, another example of real-politik and faced with those decisions I'm not convinced I could look at myself in the mirror afterwards.

    I know it's something that almost all of us have thought about at some point or another, but I'm very glad that I've never had to test myself in that way.
     
  17. The basic lies in the Israeli story…


    Between 11.00 and 12.00, Israeli Navy HQ received reports that El Arish was being shelled from the sea…

    At 12.05, the IDF despatched 3 MTB’s from Ashdod (some 70 miles away), south to El Arish to investigate…

    Thoughout the run to the south, the IDF MTB’s remained in radio contact with both the maritime reconnasance aircraft off El Arish and the IDF jets sent to deal with the ‘attacker’…

    On arriving at the scene. the IDF claim the commander of the MTB’s identified the ship as the Egyptian ‘El Quesir’ and reported her speed as 30 knots heading south…

    Well here we have the first major ‘anomaly’… the IDF are now reporting that the ‘El Quesir’ was doing 30 knots, they would know perfectly well from the copy of Janes they had used to ‘ID’ the ship that the ‘El Quesir’ could barely do 10 knots with a following wind…

    It took 2 hrs 15 minutes for the three MTB’s to get from Ashdod to the postition at which they started the attack at 14.20

    Now, the IDF did overfights of the USS Liberty at 0515, 0850, 1030, 1056, 1126, 1145, 1220, and 1245 and positively ID’d her as the USS Liberty, GTR-5, heading NWN at 5knots.

    So, we have two further overflights of USS Liberty at 12.20 and 12.45 which radiod her position to the IDF HQ and were being monitored by the ships sailing south.

    Any Officer on a boat heading into action will be plotting the reports from his Intel assets as to the ships in the vacinity, if he wasn’t running a plot he would not know were he was going or where his ‘target’ was!

    Now here we have the rub, the IDF claim a ship was shelling El Arish between 11.00 and 12.00… yet, we have IDF recon flights passing over that area at 10.56, 11.26, 11.45 and they do not rport any vessels in the area except the USS Liberty due south of and heading towards El Arish at a leisurely 5 knots

    So here we have it…

    The IDF are overflying the area of interest all morning and reporting no vessel in the area except USS Liberty, even during the alledged shelling of El Arish, further IDF overflights report no other ship in the area except USS Liberty and continue to correctly ID her and report her position, track and speed…

    AFTER the IDF despatch 3 MTB’s to see off the ship ‘attacking’ El Arish, two further overflights of the area only report one ship in the area and correctly ID her yet again as the USS Liberty and give her position and speed… these last two overflights are being monitored by the 3 MTB…

    At the time of the last overflight, the 3 MTB’s would now be around 45 miles from the USS Liberty’s last reported position and heading south at 30 knots directly towards her.

    So, they knew were she was, they knew her speed, they knew they were directly heading towards her… yet! We are expected to believe that less than 30 minutes later as they came with radar range of the USS Liberty, the Captains of all three MTB along with the pilots of the Mirages all had a collective brainfart and ‘forgot’ they had been given a running commentry of the track and position of the USS Liberty and further, we have to accept that as part of this collective ‘brainfart’ they all now ID the ship, (in the position they were being told the USS Liberty was and chugging along at 5 knots), as the ‘El Qesir’ and she’s doing a quite amazing 30 knots to the south!

    Presumably, the ‘El Quesir’ was fitted with some über tactical cloaking device that allowed her to opearate all morning off El Arish and remain invisible from the IDF maritime reconnasance aircraft while at the same time making the USS Liberty ‘dissapear’ off the plot on the 3 MTB’s and cause all the pilots and Officers of the planes and MTB’s to forget they had been receiving a running report all morning of the USS Liberty that put her where she was ultimately attacked.

    And then after the attack on the USS Liberty, we are now expected to believe the IDF took no further action to track down the ‘real’ ship that they claim was ‘shelling’ their troops!
     
  18. The attack on the Liberty was just a small lie contained within the bigger lie of the entire 6 Day War. For a long time I believed the version of plucky Israel surrounded by the Muslim hordes until I figured out that the entire war was a land grab by Israel and never was the preventive strike that Israel claimed it to be.

    I visited the Mitla and Giddi Passes and saw what the IDF had been up to there and everywhere in the Sinai were stories of how the Israelis had butchered POW's. The IDF was in the process of machine-gunning unarmed Egyptian POW's in Sinai at the same time as the attack on the Liberty was going on. It was amazing how the Western Press were spinning the stories and burying the truth from the British public.

    Here is another post-Liberty report. It is from the chief counsel to the US Navy's Court of Inquiry.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Claim by insider: LBJ covered-up truth about Israel's attack in '67 on USS Liberty
    Source: HNN Staff (6-8-07)

    The chief counsel to the Navy's Court of Inquiry into Israel's attack on the U.S. Navy intelligence ship USS Liberty in 1967 repeats in today's edition of the San Diego Union a charge he first made in 2004 that Lyndon Johnson ordered a cover-up of the truth.

    The Liberty was attacked on June 8, 1967 during the Six-Day War. 34 sailors died and 172 were injured. Israel claimed it was an accident. But in an op ed today Ward Boston Jr. says "I know from personal conversations with the late Adm. Isaac C. Kidd – president of the Court of Inquiry – that President Lyndon Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara ordered him to conclude that the attack was a case of 'mistaken identity.' "



    Ward goes on to say:


    For decades, I have remained silent. I am a military man, and when orders come in from the secretary of defense and president of the United States, I follow them. However, attempts to rewrite history and concern for my country compel me to share the truth.
    Adm. Kidd and I were given only one week to gather evidence for the Navy's official investigation, though we both estimated that a proper Court of Inquiry would take at least six months.

    We boarded the crippled ship at sea and interviewed survivors. The evidence was clear. We both believed with certainty that this attack was a deliberate effort to sink an American ship and murder its entire crew.

    I am certain the Israeli pilots and commanders who had ordered the attack knew the ship was American. I saw the bullet-riddled American flag that had been raised by the crew after their first flag had been shot down completely. I heard testimony that made it clear the Israelis intended there be no survivors. Not only did they attack with napalm, gunfire and missiles, Israeli torpedo boats machine-gunned at close range three life rafts that had been launched in an attempt to save the most seriously wounded.

    I am outraged at the efforts of Israel's apologists to claim this attack was a case of “mistaken identity.†Adm. Kidd told me that after receiving the president's cover-up orders, he was instructed to sit down with two civilians from either the White House or the Department of Defense and rewrite portions of the court's findings. He said, “Ward, they're not interested in the facts. It's a political matter, and we cannot talk about it.†We were to “put a lid on it†and caution everyone involved never to speak of it again.

    I know that the Court of Inquiry transcript that has been released to the public is not the same one that I certified and sent to Washington. I know this because it was necessary, due to the exigencies of time, to hand-correct and initial a substantial number of pages. I have examined the released version of the transcript and did not see any pages that bore my hand corrections and initials. Also, the original did not have any deliberately blank pages, as the released version does. In addition, the testimony of Lt. Lloyd 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 including in the original transcript, is now missing.

    RM
     

Share This Page