The story of the Liberty is not well known. On the surface, it doesn’t make sense at all.
Yet it happened, and Lyndon Johnson covered it up.
Read what Phil Giraldi says about it:
“Last Wednesday at noon at Arlington National Cemetery I attended the annual commemorative gathering of the survivors and friends of the U.S.S. Liberty. The moving service included the ringing of a ship’s bell for each one of the thirty-four American sailors, Marines and civilians that were killed in the deliberate Israeli attack that sought to sink the intelligence gathering ship and kill all its crew.“Present were a number of surviving crewmembers as well as veterans like myself and other Americans who are committed to ensuring that the story of the Liberty will not die in hopes that someday the United States government will have the courage to acknowledge what actually happened on that fateful day.” – Philip Giraldi • June 14, 2016
Another Bill and Hillary Show ponying its way around the net
http://www.unz.com/article/remembering-the-u-s-s-liberty/
“The cover-up of the attack began immediately. The Liberty crew was sworn to secrecy over the incident, as were the Naval dockyard workers in Malta and even the men of the U.S.S. Davis, which had assisted the badly damaged Liberty to port.”
V – Every time I see a claim of large scale “sworn to secrecy” for anything, my red flags go up. Here you have a situation where 50 years ago a US naval vessel suffered extreme casualties. In order to order such a sweeping secrecy swearing in campaign consisting of crewmen on two naval vessels and an unspecified number of Malta dockworkers meant that the intended secrecy of this incident depended on the silence of hundreds of personnel. Yet many of these same personnel had just lost or saw injured 200 of their fellow crewmen, some of whom had to of become friends. Additionally, the family and friends of all these people never found out about this incident, until only 10 years ago when BDS was formed?
Exactly how do you swear hundreds of traumatized men to secrecy? Including naval dockworkers, of all people??
Really?
secrets and lies
I’m speaking hypothetically here and not in regard to this particular incident, but one way I could see enforcing a secret with that many people would be to tell them a good lie.
If many of us believe a lie, a secret can be kept.
Secrecy
In the Navy, it’s VERY easy to swear someone to secrecy. They don’t ask, they tell.
And if you violate that secrecy, sanctions will be quick and severe.
Everybody in the Navy knows this.
I think you need to haul in your red flags.
“the family and friends of all these people never found out about this incident”
That’s what “secrecy” means! Really!
This event DID occur. Israel did it! These are facts. And then President Lyndon Johnson officially covered it up.
Bill and Hillary had absolutely nothing to do with any of this.
What has not been firmly established is whether Israel did this deliberately as claimed by Giraldi,or if it was an accident.
Here’s what Wikipedia says about it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
Not so secret
Wiki ~“Both the Israeli and U.S. governments conducted inquiries and issued reports that concluded the attack was a mistake due to Israeli confusion about the ship’s identity,[2] though others, including survivors of the attack, have rejected these conclusions and maintain that the attack was deliberate.”
If some “survivors of the attack” concluded, despite being sworn to secrecy, that the attack was deliberate by Israel then the issue “sworn to secrecy” breaks down.
Since Israel admitted to the attack within two hours after cessation, (and subsequently paid compensation to the people injured, families of the dead, and destroyed, damaged material), what exactly was the reason to force secrecy on so many men with the “threat” of sanctions so soon after the incident if Israel quickly admitted the error of the attack?
Overall, I deny nothing, nor has anything been proven, and probably never will. Giraldi makes a little too many assertions through “unnamed” sources, but he does have, along with his “partner” Vincent Cannistraro, a significant counterterrorism background.
Sworn to secrecy
I don’t think you understand what “sworn to secrecy” means to the military, and the military’s enforcement when one is no longer subject to military discipline.
It means , basically, non-divulgement to outsiders. There are no secrets being broken when possessors of the secrets discuss them among themselves.
Sometimes “secrecy” extends to end-of-life. I have a friend, ex CIA, who is subject to some of these restrictions. Others, he freely discusses today.
In many cases, the secrecy responsibility ceases when the individual leaves the service and is no longer subject to military justice. The Liberty survivors are in this category.
BTW, military secrets are occasionally declared when divulgement might embarrass the government or the service, even though there are no threats to national security.
What I do understand about secrecy
In paragraph one from wikip, “…though others, including survivors of the attack, have rejected these conclusions and maintain that the attack was deliberate” you or I have no way of knowing whether these people who broke the sworn secrecy when they concluded that the attack was deliberate did so one day or ten years later.
What I do understand about secrecy, government or gossipy folks, is that the best way for two people to keep secrets is when one of them is dead.
Irrelevance
“you or I have no way of knowing whether these people who broke the sworn secrecy when they concluded that the attack was deliberate did so one day or ten years later.”
It doesn’t matter when they formed their conclusions. What matters is when they divulged them, and that’s a matter pf public record.
A more objective account
Much of what is being written here is simply not good journalism. Whatever the truth is, an objective presentation of the relevant facts is more powerful than a polemic which selectively recites one set of facts but not others, to skew the story.
The account on Wikipedia is clearly unbiased, and much more informative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
Unnamed sources relevency
I have not read any polemics that rant or an angry onslaught on this page, as yet, but when Tom provided the same link you have here earlier today, I read much of the wikiped Liberty article.
Tom’s article originated around a quote from Philip Giraldi in unz.com, who has a background in counterterrorism, yet in Wikiped it informs us that some allegations and assertions are made via “unnamed sources.” Whatever objectivity, may or may not unfold, 50 years after the incident is a long time to make an “objective presentation of the relevant facts” that withstands unnamed scrutiny.
Not a polemic?
Under the subject, “Secrecy,” Tom writes:
“This event DID occur. Israel did it! These are facts. And then President Lyndon Johnson officially covered it up,” and he backs up his polemic by citing Wikipedia, even though not even once does the Wikipedia article mention anything about sailors or anyone else being sworn to secrecy.
Not a polemic!
Look up the definition.
FYI
The above comment IS a polemic.
Exactly what I said above
Here’s what Wikipedia says about it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
Exactly NOT what you said
Doubling down on a false assertion does not make it true.
Nowhere in the wikipedia article does it support the claim that the sailers were sworn to secrecy. I guess if you keep making transparently false assertion, sooner or later reasonable people like me will get tired of responding and then you can then suck your thumb and smile that you had the last word.
Secrecy
The issue of secrecy wasn’t brought up by me, it was Philip Giraldi.
I don’t know if anybody was sworn to secrecy or not.
I do know, as a Navy Veteran that we were all sworn to secrecy regularly on many, many things.
All the Navy had to do was issue a bulletin classifying an issue as “secret” or above and we could not disclose it.
And, so, you’re telling us that if Wikipedia doesn’t mention something, it didn’t happen.
You do realize that anyone can edit a Wikipedia article?
Excuse me, I have to go suck my thumb.
Postscript
We were sailing out of Newport News on a WWII era Destroyer, when a brand new Cruiser emerged from a drydock. It looked quite different from our other ships.
We were ordered by the Captain not to look at it!
Maybe the captain wanted you
Maybe the captain wanted you to pay attention to your own damn jobs and quit staring off in the distance. LOL
Human nature.
I don’t think I’d have even noticed the ship if the captain hadn’t called our attention to it. He said “don’t look” and everybody looked.
On the left is my exact ship. On the right is a modern ship that resembles what we saw that was classified. Considering that these ships didn’t arrive in the Navy for another 10 years, what we saw (or didn’t see) was a highly classified prototype.
"Like"
“Like” on everyone of George Salt’s comments.
I don't undersand why
you post such misleading information from such sketchy sources. But I have seen you do this many times over the years and source less than creditable sources. Your Assange/Clinton post the other day and the nonsense you wrote a year or so back on North Korea’s leader being murdered are ones that come to mind. As for your anecdotes regarding secrecy, that’s all they are , stories that do not prove a thing.
Secret? Hardly, looks like a lot has happen in open with regards to the Liberty. The wiki source is proof positive.
You want to check something that really was buried by the US gov’t check out the story of the USS Frank Evans.
It took 47 years for them to be recognized as the veterans that they were. Now this is a story that should be exposed rather than the sketchy story you posted.
“I don't undersand why you
“I don’t undersand why you post such misleading information from such sketchy sources.”
That’s exactly why I post them. It’s because they are controversial and at variance with what comes from main-stream sources which are often misleading as well.
I don’t necessarily believe the posts (nor disbelieve them). They are food for thought, encouraging us to pursue things further.
Take Assange – It’s certain that he said what the article says. But is what he says the truth? I think it’s likely, because he has good sources, but who really knows?.
Hilary has a lot of things she doesn’t want revealed. That’s why she used unofficial channels in the first place.
Anybody who wants to swallow the pabulum offered to us by official sources has my blessing. It’s a free country.
I understand your point
but I don’t need sources whose stories are full of speculation and false facts to have it proved. And frankly, most of what you assert is false info, so it doesn’t make me think but wonder why would you put that stuff out there.
As a Navy serviceman, I am a little surprise you lack a curiosity to research about the USS Frank Evans and comment.
This is a story that was buried for years and only in the last few years has gained publicity. The people on that ship who died deserved top be recognized by the Navy, the gov’t and you.
I’m familiar with the Evans.
I’m familiar with the Evans. It was a tragedy and a travesty wrapped up in politics. These men were killed doing their duty for their country, and it doesn’t matter if you’re killed by an enemy bullet or a friendly ship.
I think we were afraid to offend the Australians.
The reason for Giraldi’s story is that last week was the 49th anniversary of the Liberty attack.
According to Wikipedia, The Liberty incident was an attack on a United States Navy technical research ship, USS Liberty, by Israeli Air Force jet fighter aircraft and Israeli Navy motor torpedo boats.
Today, after nearly 50 years and numerous government investigations, there is still controversy over whether the attack was accidental or deliberate.
Wikipedia quotes Dean Rusk, U.S. Secretary of State at the time of the incident:
“I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation. Their sustained attack to disable and sink Liberty precluded an assault by accident or some trigger-happy local commander. Through diplomatic channels we refused to accept their explanations. I didn’t believe them then, and I don’t believe them to this day. The attack was outrageous.”
We’ll probably never know the truth.
Remember, this is the lunatic
Remember, tomaidh is the lunatic who thinks Sandy Hook was a hoax.
Ask him if he thinks the Orlando massacre was a hoax. His fellow conspiracy theorist nutjobs are already harassing survivors for their “acting” roles…
His grasp on reality is dangerously distorted.
Hoaxes
I never said Sandy Hook was a hoax. I did say that I hoped it was and that the children were still alive.
Full disclosure: I don’t believe that Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, killed Kennedy. According to Gallup, a clear majority of Americans (61%) believe others besides Lee Harvey Oswald were involved.
Come on, Tom!
In posting numerous conspiracy theories, which have become your trademark, your technique is to use as your subject line an over-the-top quote from someone else, and then pretend that you are simply posing a question for discussion. But even with this fig-leaf of deniability, you could not help but to reveal where you stand when you defended the allegation the Sandy Hook was a hoax by writing the following:
“Anyone who actually believes everything our government tells us is a very gullible, sick and perverse individual.”
Of course any informed person knows that our government lies, but in this particular context that statement of yours, Tom, was clearly in support of the claim that Sandy Hook was a hoax.
Own up!
Whacked job
If I had to use the, now overused, “Like” (thumbs up) indicator about anyone’s hypercritical comments about mine or other people’s comments, I probably would use it for commenters like Rosa Bonheur and Eschmitt. At least, along with getting whacked, I have a chance to agree with them, learn something, or see a correction (although I didn’t feel this way about their comments this time, I have in the past).
But when a commenter repeatedly is damnably critical, like an old schoolmarm rapping a student’s knuckles, I generally find there is nothing new to learn and it doesn’t add much to the discussion.
Vidda appreciates corrections?
“At least, along with getting whacked, I have a chance to agree with them, learn something, or see a correction ”
All I’ve seen, Vidda, is that you fire back and hit hard, whether it is fair or not. Can you provide a link to an ibrattleboro comment where you have ever accepted a correction or shown genuine appreciation for being corrected?
And when a poster repeatedly
And when a poster repeatedly puts up conspiracy theories with the supposed intent of “discussion” I find there is nothing to new to learn and it is pointless to respond. The Sandy Hook one sent me pretty much away from this site. I’ll leave it to Tomaidh and Vidda to reflect on life’s great mysteries. Although now that I know that “like” is annoying to Vidda I’ll respond in “like” manner if I have the inclination to weigh in.
The Usual Suspects
Sometimes commenters on this site are delightful sick. I love it (not all of it, of course). I laughed out loud, and you couldn’t have known this, but I really needed a good laugh this morning. Well, I definitely didn’t learn anything from this morning’s entries. So, I hate to disappoint our readers, but I have no intentions of doing a tit-for-tat. Nevertheless, if any of our usual suspects are so put off any anyone’s article or comments that they must be sent away from this site, then the loss is surely all of ours.
Vidda Prevaricates
Vidda is at a loss to respond, so instead he blathers.
If you were capably of it, Vidda, an admission that in fact you cannot provide a link to back up your claim, the honesty would be refreshing.
Vidda doesn't give two whit's
Here’s some more, concise, evasive blather for you: I purposefully write for the larger audience on iBrattleboro. I don’t give two whit’s for your over the back fence, repetitious, pseudonymic, prickly, drab challenges to my written words or opinion of my character. (Now, that was refreshing 🙂
So tomaidh, have you stopped
So tomaidh, have you stopped beating your wife?
I’m just asking a question.
"Thinking for yourself is difficult but necessary"
The author owned nature of the iBrattleboro site allows contributors of stories and comments to put ‘pen to paper’ each according to their own abilities.
Like iBrattleboro, both Wikipedia and UNZ are author contributions. Wikipedia often states disclaimers to warn readers of content issues.
In UNZ’s FAQ sections they write: Does The Unz Review stand behind all the controversial claims made in the articles it publishes?
“Absolutely not! In any event, that would be a logical impossibility, since so many of the writers and their arguments directly contradict one another. Each reader must carefully weigh the logic and evidence backing the viewpoint of each author and decide for himself how much—or how little—of the material to accept. Thinking for yourself is difficult but necessary.”