Gość: sp;lit
IP: *.nas30.tukwila2.wa.us.da.qwest.net
13.01.04, 16:30
Daleko jeszcze od tego co twierdzi kapitan i zaloga , pomijac orzeczenie Kpt
W Boston'a ze na zalecenie Johnsona wyniki sledztwa zatajono i sfalszowano ,
ale rowniez daleko od tego ze to "niewinna pomylka" ,... Jeszcze pare lat i
moze uslyszymy cala prawde .
uklony
============================================================================
"There were cover-ups," Bamford said, citing a signed affidavit by retired
Navy Capt. Ward Boston, who helped lead a military investigation into the
incident, that then-President Lyndon B. Johnson and his Defense Secretary,
Robert S. McNamara, ordered the inquiry to conclude that the incident was an
accident.
Boston said in the affidavit in October that Johnson and McNamara had told
those heading the Navy's inquiry to "conclude that the attack was a case
of 'mistaken identity' despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary."
=============================================================================
Last Update: 13/01/2004 04:29
State Dept.: Attack on U.S.S. Liberty was act of negligence
By The Associated Press
WASHINGTON - Reviewing 36 years of documents, the State Department concluded
Monday that Israel's attack on the U.S. spy ship Liberty during the 1967
Mideast war was an act of gross negligence for which Israel should be held
accountable.
But the United States also was negligent, failing to notify Israel that the
electronic intelligence-gathering ship was cruising international waters off
the Egyptian coast on June 8, 1967 and for failing to withdraw the Liberty
from the war zone, a State Department official said.
Meanwhile, despite fresh documents, a daylong conference failed to produce a
consensus for any of the three predominant views voiced often heatedly:
Israel intentionally attacked what it knew to be a U.S. ship; the attack was
an accident; the attack was the result of faulty judgment.
Thirty-four Americans were killed in the attack and more than 170 were
wounded.
Israel long has maintained that the attack was a case of mistaken identity,
an explanation that the Johnson administration did not formally challenge.
Israel claimed its forces thought the ship was an Egyptian vessel and
apologized to the United States.
Since the United States did not intercept the order to attack the ship with
cannon fire and napalm, the precise facts remain elusive, said the State
Department official Monday, speaking on condition of anonymity.
He called the Israeli attack and the U.S. actions a classic example of
Murphy's law; that if anything could go wrong, it would.
The United States should have kept the ship hundreds of miles away, he said.
But David Hatch, a technical director at the National Security Agency,
said "the good news is that information long sought by researchers is now out
and the bad news is that it does not settle it."
And other views, ranging from holding Israel responsible for intentionally
attacking the U.S. ship to disguise a planned attack on Syria and slaying of
Egyptian prisoners of war to the view that the attack was purely an accident
were aired in a State Department auditorium.
The occasion was release of historical documents about the 1967 war in which
Israel defeated the combined forces of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and other Arab
countries in six days.
Charles Smith, a professor at the University of Arizona, said in his
presentation that Israel should have known the Liberty was an American ship.
"if they didn't know, they didn't try hard enough to find out," he said.
James Bamford, an investigative journalist who has written about the
incident, called for further investigation of what happened "instead of
people getting up here and giving their opinions."
"The Israelis said it was a mistake," Bamford said. "Maybe it was and maybe
it wasn't."
"There were cover-ups," Bamford said, citing a signed affidavit by retired
Navy Capt. Ward Boston, who helped lead a military investigation into the
incident, that then-President Lyndon B. Johnson and his Defense Secretary,
Robert S. McNamara, ordered the inquiry to conclude that the incident was an
accident.
Boston said in the affidavit in October that Johnson and McNamara had told
those heading the Navy's inquiry to "conclude that the attack was a case
of 'mistaken identity' despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary."
But Jay Cristol, a U.S. bankruptcy court judge who also has written about the
incident, said Monday that a Navy inquiry had concluded the attack was a
mistake. "There was no indication they had any knowledge they were attacking
a U.S. ship," he told the conference.
