Re: Navy crew remembers 1967 Israeli attack

[Issac Goldberg]

> (Mike Weeks) wrote:
> (Issac Goldberg) wrote:

> >In fact, Israel has previously committed
> >an intentional attack at a United States target:
> >
> >Exhibit #1: Israel has attacked U.S. targets before with
> >terrorist bombs. See the results of any search engine
> >when you enter the key words "Lavon Affair." Weeks
> >has never disputed that Zionist terrorists set off bombs
> >in Egypt in the 1950s at American, British and Egyptian
> >targets. Nor has Weeks ever refuted that Israeli Prime
> >Minister David Ben-Gurion was forced to resign in
> >disgrace as a result of the Lavon Affair.
>
> Apples and oranges.

Nice slogan. It might be better if you could cite some
evidence to back up your slogan. One must conclude that
Weeks has no evidence. But he knows some nice slogans.

Just for the record, Weeks does not dispute that Zionist
terrorists set off bombs in Egypt in the 1950s at American,
British and Egyptian targets. Weeks' 'apples and oranges'
consists of a Zionist attack on an American target and
Zionists attacking an American target. Big difference!

> But it must be assumed in your black-is-white world, that
> the IAF attack on the HMS Crane on 2 Nov. 1956 during the Suez War was all part
> of this supposed "campaign" you imagine.

Again, Weeks combines a non sequitur with changing the
subject. How typical.

Conclusion: Weeks offers no intelligent rebuttal
regarding the similarities between the Lavon
Affair and the Liberty Affair.

[Issac Goldberg]

(Mike Weeks) wrote:
(Issac Goldberg) wrote:
> (Mike Weeks) wrote:
> >>> (Issac Goldberg) wrote:
>>>>Retired Navy Capt. Ward Boston, the former counsel for the Navy's
>>>>Court of Inquiry, released a signed affidavit in October, stating he
>>>>was ordered by President Lyndon Johnson and his defense secretary,
>>>>Robert McNamara, to conclude the attack was unintentional, despite
>>>>evidence to the contrary.
>>>
>>>Just another incorrect statement. So damn typical. 80-year old Boston did
> not
>>>state what is claimed above.
>>
>>Just so typical. Weeks does not offer any evidence to support
>>his claim. But since he is omniscient, he never needs to offer
>>any evidence. Weeks just knows.
>
>Idiot; the statement as posted in inaccurate; there's nothing to show

Weeks feels his arguments are so weak that he needs to resort
to childish name calling. How typical. But the fact remains
that Weeks cites no evidence. We are just supposed to believe
him, because he knows all and sees all.

The only way to prove that I misquoted Boston is for Weeks
to post what he thinks Boston actually said. But apparently
Weeks is unable to do that. Weeks does not need to post any
evidence. He knows all. He sees all. He is omniscient.

[Issac Goldberg]

> (Mike Weeks) wrote:
> (Issac Goldberg) wrote:
> (Mike Weeks) wrote:
> >> (Issac Goldberg) wrote:
> >> (Mike Weeks) wrote:
> >> >>> (Issac Goldberg) wrote:
>
> >> >>>It was generally agreed by insiders
> >> >>>that Johnson was someone you did not want to mess with. See Caro's
> >> >>>three volume biography for specific details.
> >> >>
> >> >>LOL, nothing established, but a conclusion drawn. How typical.
> >> >
> >> >Obviously you either have never read Caro's biographies, or you
> >> >were not able to make obvious character judgments based on Caro's
> >> >work. LBJ was able to reach the pinnacle of political power
> >> >because he was more aggressive than his peers, and he had no
> >> >reservations about employing any means necessary to achieve his
> >> >goals, even if it meant stuffing ballot boxes, a technique he used
> >> >to win both the Presidency of his College student body and the
> >> >1948 Texas Senate seat.
> >> >
> >> >Caro won a 2003 Pulitzer prize in biography for the third
> >> >volume in his biography of LBJ, "Master of the Senate: The
> >> >Years of Lyndon Johnson."
> >> >
> >> >I think I am entitled to draw a conclusion based on a Pulitzer
> >> >prize winning biography of LBJ.
> >>
> >> In case you haven't noticed, Caro's work that you've presented doesn't
> support
> >> anything of what you claim above.
> >
> >You are totally wrong. You present no evidence to support
> >your conclusion. How typical.
>
>Thanks for continuing the tradition of being clueless.

Thanks for showing your case is so weak that you need to
constantly use name calling.

> You've posted nothing
> regarding Caro's work on LBJ that's, what, his pre-presidential as well as
> pre-vice presidential days (i..e., "Master of the Senate" was the title,
> right?) that relates to the Liberty incident, and your words of:
>
> "McGonagle may have been directly ordered by President Johnson or some other
> superior officer to lie."

I never claimed that was in Caro's book. Thanks for muddying the
waters again.

To repeat, I cited Caro's book in support of my claim that:

> >> >>>It was generally agreed by insiders
> >> >>>that Johnson was someone you did not want to mess with. See Caro's
> >> >>>three volume biography for specific details.

Notice I never associated Caro and McGonagle. Only Weeks does.

> Just another "out of thin air" remark thank you very much.

I commend you, Weeks, for your ability to distort. You must
have earned a Ph.D. in propaganda from spook school to
constantly resort to dishonest tactics.

[Issac Goldberg]

(Mike Weeks) wrote:
(Issac Goldberg) wrote:
(Mike Weeks) wrote:
(Issac Goldberg) wrote:
(Mike Weeks) wrote:
(Issac Goldberg) wrote:
>>>>>>Retired Navy Capt. Ward Boston, the former counsel for the Navy's
>>>>>>Court of Inquiry, released a signed affidavit in October, stating he
>>>>>>was ordered by President Lyndon Johnson and his defense secretary,
>>>>>>Robert McNamara, to conclude the attack was unintentional, despite
>>>>>>evidence to the contrary.
>>>>>
>>>>>Just another incorrect statement. So damn typical. 80-year old Boston
> did
> not
>>>>>state what is claimed above.
>>>>
>>>>Just so typical. Weeks does not offer any evidence to support
>>>>his claim. But since he is omniscient, he never needs to offer
>>>>any evidence. Weeks just knows.
>>>
>>>Idiot; the statement as posted in inaccurate; there's nothing to show
>>
>>Weeks feels his arguments are so weak that he needs to resort
>>to childish name calling. How typical.
>
>And this compares to you continuing w/ these silly claims, such as above as
>only one example? You think perhaps it's all rather boring by now?

Note: still no evidence to support his claim.

>>The only way to prove that I misquoted Boston is for Weeks
>>to post what he thinks Boston actually said. But apparently
>>Weeks is unable to do that. Weeks does not need to post any
>>evidence. He knows all. He sees all. He is omniscient.
>
>Once again LOL; find the statement from 2002 (or even 2003) in which Boston
>reportedly states "he was ordered by President Lyndon Johnson and his defense
>secretary, Robert McNamara". That's what was posted for reportedly his Oct.
>2003 statement – so in any case, you can't even use the correct reported
>source in support of something Boston didn't claim.

Still no evidence. Weeks does not need to produce a source
for his claim. He sees all. He knows all. But he wants to
muddy the waters for everybody else.

>All you have to do is actually quote Boston stating what you posted in "a
>signed affidavit in October [2003]"; what's the friggin' problem?

The problem, Weeks, is you. You refuse to produce any evidence.

[Issac Goldberg]

>"Stanley" >wrote:
>>"Issac Goldberg" >wrote:
(Mike Weeks) wrote:
(Issac Goldberg) wrote:
(Mike Weeks) wrote:
(Issac Goldberg) wrote:
>>>>>>Retired Navy Capt. Ward Boston, the former counsel for the Navy's
>>>>>>Court of Inquiry, released a signed affidavit in October, stating he
>>>>>>was ordered by President Lyndon Johnson and his defense secretary,
>>>>>>Robert McNamara, to conclude the attack was unintentional, despite
>>>>>>evidence to the contrary.
>>>>>
>>>>>Just another incorrect statement. So damn typical. 80-year old Boston
> did not
>>>>>state what is claimed above.
>>>>
>>>>Just so typical. Weeks does not offer any evidence to support
>>>>his claim. But since he is omniscient, he never needs to offer
>>>>any evidence. Weeks just knows.
>>>
>>>Idiot; the statement as posted in inaccurate; there's nothing to show
>>
>>Weeks feels his arguments are so weak that he needs to
>>resort to childish name calling. How typical.
>
>Mike Weeks knows what he is talking about. Some crossposting clown calling
>himself "Issac Goldberg" should realize that quoting anti-Jew websites isn't
>research.

Why is it that you feel your case is so weak that you, too,
must resort to childish name calling?

And, like Weeks, you cite no evidence.

As to research, perhaps you can cite a single Congressional
report which must have been produced if Cristol's claim that
there were many Congressional investigations of the Liberty
is true. If there is no Committee report, then there was no real
Congressional investigation, and Cristol was not being honest
in his book on the Liberty. One might even say that Cristol's
work is just a one-sided piece of propaganda in support of the
Zionist position.

>>The only way to prove that I misquoted Boston is for
>>Weeks to post what he thinks Boston actually said.
>
>The only way to prove that you accurately quoted what Ward Boston said is
>for you to personally post Boston's actual words.

I did.

>Somebody else doing it for
>you doesn't count, at least by what passes for reasoning in your mind.

Your claim alone does not refute my quote, and is therefore worthless.

>>But apparently Weeks is unable to do that. Weeks does
>>not need to post any evidence. He knows all. He sees all.
>>He is omniscient.
>
>Unless you immediately post Ward Boston's exact words you are a proven liar.

Your chance to prove that I am wrong was for you to cite a source
which proves I'm wrong. Your failure to so indicates that you are
unable to do so. Put up or shut up.

[Issac Goldberg]

(Mike Weeks) wrote:
> (Issac Goldberg) wrote:
[snip]
> >>>>>Retired Navy Capt. Ward Boston, the former counsel for the Navy's
> >>>>>Court of Inquiry, released a signed affidavit in October, stating he
> >>>>>was ordered by President Lyndon Johnson and his defense secretary,
> >>>>>Robert McNamara, to conclude the attack was unintentional, despite
> >>>>>evidence to the contrary.

[snip]

> All you have to do is actually quote Boston stating what you posted in "a
> signed affidavit in October [2003]"; what's the friggin' problem?

The problem is you, Weeks:

Cover-Up Alleged in Probe of USS Liberty
Ex-Navy Attorney Alleges LBJ Cover-Up in Military Probe of 1967
Israeli Attack on U.S. Spy Ship

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON Oct. 22 [2003] — A former Navy attorney who helped lead the
military investigation of the 1967 Israeli attack on the USS Liberty
that killed 34 American servicemen says former President Lyndon
Johnson and his defense secretary, Robert McNamara, ordered that the
inquiry conclude the incident was an accident.

In a signed affidavit released at a Capitol Hill news conference,
retired Capt. Ward Boston said Johnson and McNamara told those heading
the Navy's inquiry to "conclude that the attack was a case of
'mistaken identity' despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary."

Boston was senior legal counsel to the Navy's original 1967 review of
the attack. He said in the sworn statement that he stayed silent for
years because he's a military man, and "when orders come ... I follow
them."

He said he felt compelled to "share the truth" following the
publication of a recent book, "The Liberty Incident," which concluded
the attack was unintentional.

The USS Liberty was an electronic intelligence-gathering ship that was
cruising international waters off the Egyptian coast on June 8, 1967.
Israeli planes and torpedo boats opened fire on the Liberty at what
became known as the outbreak of the Israeli-Arab Six-Day War.

In addition to the 34 Americans killed, more than 170 were wounded.

Israel has long 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.

After the attack, a Navy court of inquiry concluded there was
insufficient information to make a judgment about why Israel attacked
the ship, stopping short of assigning blame or determining whether it
was an accident.

It was "one of the classic all-American cover-ups," said Ret. Adm.
Thomas Moorer, a former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman who spent a
year investigating the attack as part of an independent panel he
formed with other former military officials. The panel also included a
former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, James Akins.

"Why in the world would our government put Israel's interest ahead of
our own?" Moorer asked from his wheelchair at the news conference. He
was chief of naval operations at the time of the attack.

Moorer, who has long held that the attack was a deliberate act, wants
Congress to investigate.

Israeli Embassy spokesman Mark Regev disputed any notion that Israel
knowingly went after American sailors.

"I can say unequivocally that the Liberty tragedy was a terrible
accident, that the Israeli pilots involved believed they were
attacking an enemy ship," Regev said. "This was in the middle of a
war. This is something that we are not proud of."

Calls to the Navy seeking comment were not immediately returned.

David Lewis of Lemington, Vt., was on the Liberty when it was
attacked. In an interview, he said Israel had to know it was targeting
an American ship. He said a U.S. flag was flying that day and Israel
shot it full of holes. The sailors on the ship, he said, quickly
hoisted another American flag, a much bigger one, to show Israel it
was a U.S. vessel.

"No trained individual could be that inept," said Lewis of the Israeli
forces.

In Capt. Boston's statement, he does not say why Johnson would have
ordered a cover-up. Later in a phone interview from his home in
Coronado, Calif., Boston said Johnson may have worried the inquiry
would hurt him politically with Jewish voters.

Moorer's panel suggested several possible reasons Israel might have
wanted to attack a U.S. ship. Among them: Israel intended to sink the
ship and blame Egypt because it might have brought the United States
into the 1967 war.


http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20031022_2438.html

[Issac Goldberg]

(Mike Weeks) wrote:

[snip]

> http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/boston.html

Thanks for the link, Weeks.

In the future, I will state that Johnson and
McNamara gave the order for the cover-up to Admiral
Kidd, who then informed Boston.

Thanks for the heads up.

That LBJ would give such an order is entirely consistent
with the person described in Robert Caro's Pulitzer prize
winning biography, "Master of the Senate," which is
volume three in his series, "The Years of Lyndon
Johnson."

In that book, Caro describes how Johnson used red-baiting
tactics to destroy the career of Leland Olds, because
Johnson's big oil friends in Texas wanted Olds gone. Caro
describes it this way:

"Another quality that Lyndon Johnson had displayed on
each stage of his march along the path to power was an
utter ruthlessness in destroying obstacles in that path."

Caro, in the two previous volumes, described how Johnson
used ballot box stuffing to win his Senate seat in 1948,
and also how Johnson used a similar illegal means to win
election as President of his College student body.

As to the content of Boston's statement, I'll take the
word of a Navy Captain over you, Weeks, a non-entity
who refuses to reveal his background. Furthermore, Weeks,
your constant name calling and insults show that
you are not looking for the truth, rather, you are
looking to suppress the truth. If you were looking
for the truth, there would be no need for you to
engage in name calling all the time.

A Navy Captain is more credible than a non-entity
any day.

Thanks again for the link, Weeks!

[Issac Goldberg]

(Mike Weeks) wrote:
(Issac Goldberg) wrote:
> (Mike Weeks) wrote:

> >> http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/boston.html
> >
> >Thanks for the link, Weeks.
> >
> >In the future, I will state that Johnson and
> >McNamara gave the order for the cover-up to Admiral
> >Kidd, who then informed Boston.
> >
> >Thanks for the heads up.
>
> You're most welcome. Pleased that your problem has as last been overcome.
> Really a shame it took so long for it to happen and that you were unable, or
> unwilling, to do it on your own.

It's really a shame that you play a game of "I'm so smart
because I know that you made a minor mistake but I'm not
going to tell you what that mistake is." If you had been
forthcoming initially, a lot of bandwidth could have been
saved. But apparently that is your style, obfuscation rather
than clarity.

> >As to the content of Boston's statement, I'll take the
> >word of a Navy Captain over you, Weeks, a non-entity
> >who refuses to reveal his background.
>
> Oh, this is truly heart-warming to read, especially since it comes from whoever
> the heck you are.

Changing the subject again? You prove my point that you
refuse to reveal any information about your background.

> BTW, the "word" you wish to accept w/o question comes with a
> small condition, that of admitting to violating UCMJ article 135, section (e):
>
> "(e) The members, counsel, the reporter, and interpreters of courts of inquiry
> shall take an oath to faithfully perform their duties."
>
> But don't let that "small" detail bother you.

Members of the Armed Forces are trained to follow
orders without question. And if the orders originated
directly from the President of the United States,
there would be few in the service, if any, who would
not obey those orders, even if they were clearly illegal.

[LBJ's previous illegal acts included the theft of the
1948 Senate election in Texas, where he secured his
victory by using ballot box stuffing. 200 people
who allegedly voted for Johnson from precinct 13 in
Jim Wells County amazingly voted in alphabetical order,
and furthermore, they all had the exact same handwriting
when they allegedly signed in at the polling place.
Johnson's final winning margin was 87 votes out of a
million votes cast. See volume 2 of Caro's
LBJ biography, "Means of Ascent."]

Everything Boston says ties in with the charges by the
Liberty crew that the Navy Court of Inquiry was a sham.

The Navy Court of Inquiry carefully avoided looking
into the question of whether the attack was
intentional or an accident, so you are able to say
both that "they found no evidence that the attack
was an accident," and that "they found no evidence
that the attack was intentional."

[snip]

> >A Navy Captain is more credible than a non-entity
> >like you any day.
>
> Agreed.

Thanks for your endorsement of Captain Boston.

> That's why you have no credibility but Captain A. Jay Cristol does ...

Cristol lost whatever credibility he had because he
continues to imply that Congress thoroughly investigated
the Liberty affair and exonerated Israel as a result.
That never happened. If Congress never investigated
whether the attack was intentional or not, then they had
no evidence one way or another on which to base a
conclusion. It would be just as accurate to say, "Congress
found no evidence that the attack was an accident," as
saying "Congress found no evidence that the attack was
intentional." Both statements are technically correct, but
both are misleading, since the major point of controversy,
whether the attack was intentional or not, WAS NEVER
INVESTIGATED BY CONGRESS. Cristol, by continuing to imply
otherwise, is being dishonest.

For example, Cristol cites the Hearings on the Foreign
Aid Assistance Act of 1967 as evidence that the attack
on the Liberty was investigated by Congress. But
Senators present at those hearings openly questioned
the Administration's explanation of events and
complained about not having enough information to
make an informed conclusion regarding the attack on
the Liberty.

The only other Congressional investigation cited by
Cristol on his web page, by the House Armed Services
Committee, did not investigate the details of the
Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, because that committee
was charged to investigate shortcomings in DOD's
communications. To imply, as Cristol does, that the
Armed Services investigation thoroughly looked into
the Israeli attack on the Liberty and concluded that
it was an accident is pure dishonesty.

[Why Cristol would put examples of Congressional
investigations which clearly do not support his
conclusion, when better examples exist, is totally
illogical.]

President Bush used the same kind of deception to
build support for his invasion of Iraq. He repeatedly
implied that Saddam had been responsible for the 9/11
attacks, and at the start of the recent conquest of
Iraq, a majority of the American people believed it.

[Issac Goldberg]

wrote in message >...
> (Steve Richter) wrote in message >...

> > What I don't follow on this subject is what do the "accidental
> > attack"ers charge Capt Boston of lying about? His statement is well
> > written in that it is specific, clear and to the point. Why would
> > Boston, a combat veteran of WWII, lie on this matter and why do those
> > who defend Israel disparage him so?
>
> The question is:
> Had Boston lied when he had signed his name on the Court's findings,
> affirming that the investigation had been done properly,
> or did he lie later when he said that the investigation
> was not done properly?
>
> If the first, then what the word of a man who took an oath to
> do a job properly, and did not do it, really worths?

How it is a lie when the Court's findings were altered
after they were submitted by Kidd to his superiors? How
do you even know what was in the report the Kidd
originally submitted, when evidence by Boston and others
suggests that Johnson's people at the White House
modified some sections and deleted other sections
that they didn't like?

The sad fact is that President Johnson was a proven
liar.

Johnson lied during the 1964 Presidential elections when
he repeatedly said that he "would not send American boys
to do the job of the Vietnamese boys." Later publication
of the Pentagon Papers revealed that the decision to send
ground troops to Southeast Asia had already been made.

The irony here is that Johnson was running as the
'peace' candidate. His was no small lie, since
the lie resulted in the deaths of tens of
thousands of Americans and millions of Vietnamese.
McNamara has estimated that somewhere in the
neighborhood of between two and three million
of the 'enemy' died during America's Southeast Asia
adventure.

This was the war that included the CIA's Phoenix
program, which killed thousands of civilians,
sometimes by summary execution, sometimes after
an interrogation session which included extreme
torture.

This was the war which included 'free-fire zones,'
where US soldiers could shoot anything that moved,
including women, children and the elderly. The
dead were included in the daily count of communist
fighters killed, even if those killed were unarmed
civilians.

It is fairly well known that many Americans ground
troops considered all Vietnamese as sub-human
'gooks.' A popular slogan which appears on many
tee-shirts at the time says, "kill them all, let
God sort it out."

A recent newspaper series in the Toledo Blade
detailed the atrocities committed in the Vietnamese
central highlands by an elite American unit known
as the Tiger Force:

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=SRTIGERFORCE

[[email protected]]

(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message >...
> How it is a lie when the Court's findings were altered
> after they were submitted by Kidd to his superiors?

And Kidd never found that out...
And no copies are kept in different places...
And nobody realizes that his testimony was altered...

If Boston knew that the records were altered then is was
is right, and duty, to tell Kidd and the JAG. Telling his
story only after Kidd was dead, is a little strange.

[Issac Goldberg]

(Mike Weeks) wrote in message
>From: (Issac Goldberg)

> >Members of the Armed Forces are trained to follow
> >orders without question. And if the orders originated
> >directly from the President of the United States,
> >there would be few in the service, if any, who would
> >not obey those orders, even if they were clearly illegal.
>
> Can't think of a better example of your low opinion of members of the armed
> forces, especially high ranking senior officers, then the above.

Is that the best you can do? Perhaps, like Bush, you
don't read newspapers, but apparently there have been
several members of the armed forces who willingly
tortured prisoners in Iraq, allegedly following the
orders of their superiors. Interestingly, U.S.
government lawyers in the Justice department and the
Pentagon were writing memos which tried to justify
the use of torture, including the gem that a
wartime President can break any laws he wants.
We have not been told who directed the lawyers
to write those memos, but it is fairly safe to
assume that they didn't just decide on their own
volition to write a memo to try to justify torture.
That is, it probably came from high ranking
senior officers.

It should also be pointed out that the U.S. invasion
of Iraq, in an unprovoked pre-emptive attack, was a
fundamental violation of the United Nations treaty
which was ratified by a 2/3 vote of the U.S.
Senate in 1945. According to the U.S. Constitution,
ratified treaties become the law of the land, and
cannot be violated at the whim of whoever is
President at the time. Bush the elder did get the
authorization from the U.N. Security Council for
the first Gulf War, Bush the younger was unable
to get Security Council authorization, so he
just ignored the U.N. and clearly violated
international law.

The U.N. was established with the goal of stopping
things like Mussolini's pre-emptive invasion of
Ethiopia and Japan's pre-emptive attack on Manchuria.

And speaking of high ranking senior officers, in
Operation Northwoods, the Joint Chiefs of Staff
drew up plans to create a pretext to invade Cuba.
Some of the not-very-legal suggestions made by the
Joint Chiefs of Staff were:

1. Shooting down an airliner containing Americans
and blaming it on Castro,

2. Sinking a Navy ship in Guantanamo harbor and
blaming it on Castro, ["printing the casualty lists
in the newspapers would be especially effective," the
Northwood proposal said,] and

3. Shooting down John Glenn's space capsule and, you
guessed it, blaming it on Castro.

In all three instances, the Joint Chief of Staff
proposed murdering American citizens in 'false flag'
operation.

Fortunately President Kennedy rejected the plan. Score
one for the rule of law. Johnson would have probably
given the plan his OK. That is the kind of person
Johnson was, at least according to award winning
biographer Robert Caro, who provides keen insight
into what an unethical person Johnson was.

[Steve Richter]

wrote in message >...
> (Issac Goldberg) wrote in message >...
> > How it is a lie when the Court's findings were altered
> > after they were submitted by Kidd to his superiors?
>
> And Kidd never found that out...
> And no copies are kept in different places...
> And nobody realizes that his testimony was altered...
>
> If Boston knew that the records were altered then is was
> is right, and duty, to tell Kidd and the JAG. Telling his
> story only after Kidd was dead, is a little strange.

I see no possiblity that Boston is lying and think you defenders of
Israel show your "I'll do anything for Israel" stripes when you accuse
him of doing so. Kidd could easily have been venting when he said
what Boston said he said. And it's probable that testimony was taken
out of the NCOI report because it was judged inflamatory or of
questionable veracity by whoever in the DOD that conducted the final
review.

It's Cristol and other "Israel right or wrong" types who encourage the
attack speculation by denying that the court wanted to go to Israel
and accuse people like Lt Painter of being a liar for saying his
testimony was removed from the NCOI report.

Still would like to know why Cristol did not ask McNamara why the
court was not allowed to go to Israel and if Rabin and Hod were told
of the spy ship Liberty on the morning of 8 June.

-Steve

[[email protected]]

(Steve Richter) wrote in message >...
> wrote in message >...
> > (Issac Goldberg) wrote in message >...
> > > How it is a lie when the Court's findings were altered
> > > after they were submitted by Kidd to his superiors?

> > And Kidd never found that out...
> > And no copies are kept in different places...
> > And nobody realizes that his testimony was altered...

> > If Boston knew that the records were altered then is was
> > is right, and duty, to tell Kidd and the JAG. Telling his
> > story only after Kidd was dead, is a little strange.

> I see no possiblity that Boston is lying

If Boston is not lying then it is his *duty* to notify Congress and/or
Navy brass and/or JAG that the "records were altered." Obstruction of
Justice is a very serious matter.

> And it's probable that testimony was taken
> out of the NCOI report because it was judged inflamatory or of
> questionable veracity by whoever in the DOD that conducted the final
> review.

Only the court has the right to alter the court records.
All the DoD can do is to stamp a big "Top Secret" on the inflamatory
parts.

[Issac Goldberg]

(Mike Weeks) wrote:
(Issac Goldberg) wrote:
> (Mike Weeks) wrote:
> >>From: (Issac Goldberg):
>
> >> >Members of the Armed Forces are trained to follow
> >> >orders without question. And if the orders originated
> >> >directly from the President of the United States,
> >> >there would be few in the service, if any, who would
> >> >not obey those orders, even if they were clearly illegal.
> >> Can't think of a better example of your low opinion of members of the armed
> >> forces, especially high ranking senior officers, then the above.
> >Is that the best you can do? ...
> It fits to a tee the prior characteristic of your inability for logical
> thought...

Once again, Weeks shows the weakness of his arguments by his
need to insult people who disagree with his views. If Weeks
had a strong case there would be no need for him to continually
use insults and name calling, because his arguments would stand
on their own. Hence, the constant need to resort to underhanded
techniques. How typical.

> ''I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the
> Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
> that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this
> obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and
> that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I
> am about to enter. So help me God."

Nice oath. How about this one:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully
execute the office of President of the United States,
and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect
and defend the Constitution of the United States."

This is the oath that President Johnson took. The
U.S. Constitution contains Article VI, which contains
the provision that "… all treaties made, or which shall
be made, under the authority of the United States,
shall be the supreme law of the land …"

The United Nations treaty was ratified by the US Senate
in 1945, therefore, became its provisions were now the
supreme law of the land. To prevent countries from
launching pre-emptive attacks on other nations, all
signatory U.N. members agreed to submit any dispute
which threatened the peace to the U.N. Security Council.
Johnson did not submit the Vietnam dispute to the
Security Council before he sent U.S. ground troops there.
Therefore Johnson violated his oath of office. Any
President who is willing to violate his oath of office
would have no hesitation about who recently iniative
qualms about destroying a subordinate who defied him.

The reason Kidd and Boston followed Johnson's illegal
orders to them to violate their oath was:

1) Fighting Johnson would be futile,

2) Fighting Johnson would have resulted in their
removal from the Liberty inquiry and their replacement
with more cooperative people,

3) Fighting Johnson would have resulted in the end of
their Navy careers, and they would face the same fate
as any individual who would try to stand up to a President.
This means either that they would have spent the rest of
their life in jail or in a mental institution.

Not very attractive, is it? By cooperating with
Johnson's illegal orders they were able to retain
their Navy jobs. And maybe some day, after Johnson
was gone, they would be able to go public and tell
the truth of what happened.

************************************************** ****

By the way, Weeks, when are you going to tell us
about all of the 'arrogant jet jocks' that you had to
deal with?

[Steve Richter]

wrote in message >...
> > > > How it is a lie when the Court's findings were altered
> > > > after they were submitted by Kidd to his superiors?
>
> > > And Kidd never found that out...
> > > And no copies are kept in different places...
> > > And nobody realizes that his testimony was altered...
>
> > > If Boston knew that the records were altered then is was
> > > is right, and duty, to tell Kidd and the JAG. Telling his
> > > story only after Kidd was dead, is a little strange.
>
> > I see no possiblity that Boston is lying
>
> If Boston is not lying then it is his *duty* to notify Congress and/or
> Navy brass and/or JAG that the "records were altered." Obstruction of
> Justice is a very serious matter.

It is the duty of American Jews to join the US Military in numbers
equivalent to their percentage of the population. That would surely
insure the highest degree of professionalism in the ranks. <g>

Who empaneled the court of inquiry? My guess is that that entity is
the one that sets the boundaries of the courts inquiry and reviews its
findings. The court for example had no legal standing to hear
testimony pertaining to LBJ's conduct of the Vietnam war. By the same
token, the entity that created the court could tell it that it could
not call any members of the IDF as witnesses.

> > And it's probable that testimony was taken
> > out of the NCOI report because it was judged inflamatory or of
> > questionable veracity by whoever in the DOD that conducted the final
> > review.
>
> Only the court has the right to alter the court records.
> All the DoD can do is to stamp a big "Top Secret" on the inflamatory
> parts.

How do you know that? If the DOD is the entity that empaneled the
court, it is probably the entity that rules on the courts scope of
inquiry. Striking testimony from the record is probably legally
allowed. My guess is that only falsifying testimony or other evidence
would be illegal.

The bottom line is that Boston is not a liar. When he says the court
wanted to go to Israel to gather evidence but was not allowed by Adm
McCain and others, that is surely what happened. When he says the
testimony of Lt Painter re: the MGing of the life rafts was excised,
that is without a doubt true also.

So as we see, not only has there never been a congressional
investigation of the attack on the Liberty. There has never been a
complete NCOI investigation either.

-Steve

[[email protected]]

> > If Boston is not lying then it is his *duty* to notify Congress and/or
> > Navy brass and/or JAG that the "records were altered." Obstruction of
> > Justice is a very serious matter.

(Steve Richter) wrote in message >...
> It is the duty of American Jews to join the US Military in numbers
> equivalent to their percentage of the population. That would surely
> insure the highest degree of professionalism in the ranks. <g>

Can somebody please explain what Steve's answer has to
do with my question?

> Who empaneled the court of inquiry? My guess is that that entity is
> the one that sets the boundaries of the courts inquiry and reviews its
> findings. The court for example had no legal standing to hear
> testimony pertaining to LBJ's conduct of the Vietnam war. By the same
> token, the entity that created the court could tell it that it could
> not call any members of the IDF as witnesses.

The IDF members gave testimony to the US naval attache in Israel.
If the court thought that this testimony was not good enough then it
could say just that in its conclusions. It was up to the court, not
you or me, to evaluate this issue. If Boston had any beef then it
was his duty to raise that ASAP in 1967.

> > Only the court has the right to alter the court records.
> > All the DoD can do is to stamp a big "Top Secret" on the inflamatory
> > parts.

> How do you know that?

Check sometime UCMJ.
@(h) Each court of inquiry shall keep a record of its proceedings,
@which shall be authenticated by the signatures of the president
@and counsel for the court and forwarded to the convening authority.

If Kidd signed the record, and somebody changed it later, then he
should have removed Kidd's signature because Kidd did not approve
the changes. Doing anything else is Obstruction of Justice.

Anyway, I have never heard that an external entity has the right to
change signed records while keeping the original signature. Can you
give any example where that is legal?

[Steve Richter]

wrote in message >...
> > > If Boston is not lying then it is his *duty* to notify Congress and/or
> > > Navy brass and/or JAG that the "records were altered." Obstruction of
> > > Justice is a very serious matter.
>
> (Steve Richter) wrote in message >...
> > It is the duty of American Jews to join the US Military in numbers
> > equivalent to their percentage of the population. That would surely
> > insure the highest degree of professionalism in the ranks. <g>
>
> Can somebody please explain what Steve's answer has to
> do with my question?

Just an observation of mine. You and other defenders of Israel make
very unfair and upsetting allegations against the Navy personnel
involved in this affair who speak contrary to the interests of Israel.
Very similar to how the OJ Simpson lawyers defamed the LAPD
detectives to get their murderer client found not guilty in his trial.

> > Who empaneled the court of inquiry? My guess is that that entity is
> > the one that sets the boundaries of the courts inquiry and reviews its
> > findings. The court for example had no legal standing to hear
> > testimony pertaining to LBJ's conduct of the Vietnam war. By the same
> > token, the entity that created the court could tell it that it could
> > not call any members of the IDF as witnesses.
>
> The IDF members gave testimony to the US naval attache in Israel.
> If the court thought that this testimony was not good enough then it
> could say just that in its conclusions. It was up to the court, not
> you or me, to evaluate this issue. If Boston had any beef then it
> was his duty to raise that ASAP in 1967.

You dont appear to be making sense. What IDF testimony was given to
the US naval attache in Israel? Your saying it was given at the time
of the NCOI and made available to the court? Did the attache ask if
IAF CDR Hod and IDF COS Rabin were told that an American spy ship was
operating off the coast of the Sinai on the morning of 8 June?

> > > Only the court has the right to alter the court records.
> > > All the DoD can do is to stamp a big "Top Secret" on the inflamatory
> > > parts.
>
> > How do you know that?
>
> Check sometime UCMJ.
> @(h) Each court of inquiry shall keep a record of its proceedings,
> @which shall be authenticated by the signatures of the president
> @and counsel for the court and forwarded to the convening authority.
>
> If Kidd signed the record, and somebody changed it later, then he
> should have removed Kidd's signature because Kidd did not approve
> the changes. Doing anything else is Obstruction of Justice.
>
> Anyway, I have never heard that an external entity has the right to
> change signed records while keeping the original signature. Can you
> give any example where that is legal?

Your not reading very well. From Boston's sworn statement:

"...Admiral Kidd told me, after returning from Washington, D.C. that
he had been ordered to sit down with two civilians from either the
White House or the Defense Department, and rewrite portions of the
court's findings. ..."

If the court itself rewrites its findings, there is no illegality.
Its not illegal or improper for Boston and Kidd to do this. They were
simply adhering to the guidlines and corrections of those who
empaneled the court. What is does mean is that the court did not
conduct an impartial and full inquiry. Why does Israel not want the
truth to be told in this matter?

-Steve

[[email protected]]

> > > It is the duty of American Jews to join the US Military in numbers
> > > equivalent to their percentage of the population. That would surely
> > > insure the highest degree of professionalism in the ranks. <g>

> > Can somebody please explain what Steve's answer has to
> > do with my question?

(Steve Richter) wrote in message >...
> Just an observation of mine. You and other defenders of Israel make
> very unfair and upsetting allegations against the Navy personnel
> involved in this affair who speak contrary to the interests of Israel.

Boston claimed that there was Obstruction of Justice.
It is his duty to report that to the US government,
not just to the press. Do you disagree with that?

> > The IDF members gave testimony to the US naval attache in Israel.
> > If the court thought that this testimony was not good enough then it
> > could say just that in its conclusions. It was up to the court, not
> > you or me, to evaluate this issue. If Boston had any beef then it
> > was his duty to raise that ASAP in 1967.

> You dont appear to be making sense. What IDF testimony was given to
> the US naval attache in Israel?

Have you read the documents in http://libertyincident.com/USNcourt.htm?
Yes or No? It is not my job to spoon-feed you. Sorry.

> > > > Only the court has the right to alter the court records.
> > > > All the DoD can do is to stamp a big "Top Secret" on the inflamatory
> > > > parts.

> > > How do you know that?

> > Check sometime UCMJ.
@(h) Each court of inquiry shall keep a record of its proceedings,
@which shall be authenticated by the signatures of the president
@and counsel for the court and forwarded to the convening authority.

> > If Kidd signed the record, and somebody changed it later, then he
> > should have removed Kidd's signature because Kidd did not approve
> > the changes. Doing anything else is Obstruction of Justice.

> > Anyway, I have never heard that an external entity has the right to
> > change signed records while keeping the original signature. Can you
> > give any example where that is legal?

> Your not reading very well.

You said:
%And it's probable that testimony was taken
%out of the NCOI report because it was judged inflamatory or of
%questionable veracity by whoever in the DOD that conducted the final
%review.

You claimed that the DoD altered the NCOI report.
Can't you stick to that lie instead of changing your story?

>From Boston's sworn statement:
> "...Admiral Kidd told me, after returning from Washington, D.C. that
> he had been ordered to sit down with two civilians from either the
> White House or the Defense Department, and rewrite portions of the
> court's findings. ..."

And those two civilians, that did not even tell Kidd what were
their credentials, caused the admiral to role over, play dead,
and sign all the changes.

Do you really believe that?

[Issac Goldberg]

(Mike Weeks) wrote:
> (Issac Goldberg) wrote:
>
> >"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully
> >execute the office of President of the United States,
> >and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect
> >and defend the Constitution of the United States."
>
> >This is the oath that President Johnson took.
>
> And that's the best you can do?

Johnson violating his oath of office is a tad more
serious than the charge that Captain Boston violated
his oath.

> Note is made of no evidence to support the
> claim that LBJ issued illegal orders to Kidd, or to McNamara, or to anyone else
> involved w/ the Liberty incident.

Johnson was not stupid enough to leave any evidence
behind, unlike the unfortunate American prison guards in Iraq
who photographed themselves torturing Iraqi prisoners.

The part of my post that you deleted showed that Johnson
was willing to violate his oath of office. While my
example was different than the Liberty attack, it
highlighted the fact that Johnson was immoral, unethical,
and, yes, a criminal.

LBJ is alleged to have endangered the crew of the
Liberty and prevented a rescue flight which may have
saved American lives, which is a criminal act.
Therefore, any other evidence of his criminal activity
is relevant.

You failure to even attempt to refute my example could
be interpreted to mean that you agree that LBJ was a
criminal for sending troops to Vietnam without the
authorization of the U.N. Security Council. Or maybe
you agree with a recent attempt to justify the use
of torture in Iraq by a U.S. government memo which said
that a wartime president can do anything he wants;
laws don't apply.

> It fits to a tee the prior characteristic of your inability for logical
> thought...

You are the one who rejects anything that does not fall
into your predetermined position that the attack on the
Liberty was just an accident. That is your mantra. You do
become irrational sometimes in your 'accident' defense.
And you are certainly fanatical about it. A Google search
using:

"uss liberty"

plus

"uss liberty"

reveals that you have posted thousands of times on Usenet
defending your 'accident' theory of the Liberty attack.

> Thanks again for sharing, and enjoy the swinging from the yardarm ...
>
> MW

Your continuing personal attacks demonstrate yet again how
weak your case is. If you had convincing arguments, there
would be no need to engage in insults, name calling, and
the other dishonest tactics which you constantly use.

Anyone can lie the possibilities are endless to why and how. but seeing the
lie is the hard part and that is why you can't see any possibility of him
doing so."in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king"

--
"I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly"
R.J. Goldman

http://www.usidfvets.com

and

http://www.stopfcc.com


"Steve Richter" > wrote in message
om...
> wrote in message
>...
> > (Issac Goldberg) wrote in message
>...
> > > How it is a lie when the Court's findings were altered
> > > after they were submitted by Kidd to his superiors?
> >
> > And Kidd never found that out...
> > And no copies are kept in different places...
> > And nobody realizes that his testimony was altered...
> >
> > If Boston knew that the records were altered then is was
> > is right, and duty, to tell Kidd and the JAG. Telling his
> > story only after Kidd was dead, is a little strange.
>
> I see no possiblity that Boston is lying and think you defenders of
> Israel show your "I'll do anything for Israel" stripes when you accuse
> him of doing so. Kidd could easily have been venting when he said
> what Boston said he said. And it's probable that testimony was taken
> out of the NCOI report because it was judged inflamatory or of
> questionable veracity by whoever in the DOD that conducted the final
> review.
>
> It's Cristol and other "Israel right or wrong" types who encourage the
> attack speculation by denying that the court wanted to go to Israel
> and accuse people like Lt Painter of being a liar for saying his
> testimony was removed from the NCOI report.
>
> Still would like to know why Cristol did not ask McNamara why the
> court was not allowed to go to Israel and if Rabin and Hod were told
> of the spy ship Liberty on the morning of 8 June.
>
> -Steve

once again the Fake Jew Goldberg lies though his ass!

--
"I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly"
R.J. Goldman

http://www.usidfvets.com

and

http://www.stopfcc.com


"Issac Goldberg" > wrote in message
om...
> (Mike Weeks) wrote:
> (Issac Goldberg) wrote:
> > (Mike Weeks) wrote:
> > >>From: (Issac Goldberg):
> >
> > >> >Members of the Armed Forces are trained to follow
> > >> >orders without question. And if the orders originated
> > >> >directly from the President of the United States,
> > >> >there would be few in the service, if any, who would
> > >> >not obey those orders, even if they were clearly illegal.
> > >> Can't think of a better example of your low opinion of members of the
armed
> > >> forces, especially high ranking senior officers, then the above.
> > >Is that the best you can do? ...
> > It fits to a tee the prior characteristic of your inability for logical
> > thought...
>
> Once again, Weeks shows the weakness of his arguments by his
> need to insult people who disagree with his views. If Weeks
> had a strong case there would be no need for him to continually
> use insults and name calling, because his arguments would stand
> on their own. Hence, the constant need to resort to underhanded
> techniques. How typical.
>
> > ''I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend the
> > Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic;
> > that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this
> > obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;
and
> > that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on
which I
> > am about to enter. So help me God."
>
> Nice oath. How about this one:
>
> "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully
> execute the office of President of the United States,
> and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect
> and defend the Constitution of the United States."
>
> This is the oath that President Johnson took. The
> U.S. Constitution contains Article VI, which contains
> the provision that ". all treaties made, or which shall
> be made, under the authority of the United States,
> shall be the supreme law of the land ."
>
> The United Nations treaty was ratified by the US Senate
> in 1945, therefore, became its provisions were now the
> supreme law of the land. To prevent countries from
> launching pre-emptive attacks on other nations, all
> signatory U.N. members agreed to submit any dispute
> which threatened the peace to the U.N. Security Council.
> Johnson did not submit the Vietnam dispute to the
> Security Council before he sent U.S. ground troops there.
> Therefore Johnson violated his oath of office. Any
> President who is willing to violate his oath of office
> would have no hesitation about who recently iniative
> qualms about destroying a subordinate who defied him.
>
> The reason Kidd and Boston followed Johnson's illegal
> orders to them to violate their oath was:
>
> 1) Fighting Johnson would be futile,
>
> 2) Fighting Johnson would have resulted in their
> removal from the Liberty inquiry and their replacement
> with more cooperative people,
>
> 3) Fighting Johnson would have resulted in the end of
> their Navy careers, and they would face the same fate
> as any individual who would try to stand up to a President.
> This means either that they would have spent the rest of
> their life in jail or in a mental institution.
>
> Not very attractive, is it? By cooperating with
> Johnson's illegal orders they were able to retain
> their Navy jobs. And maybe some day, after Johnson
> was gone, they would be able to go public and tell
> the truth of what happened.
>
> ************************************************** ****
>
> By the way, Weeks, when are you going to tell us
> about all of the 'arrogant jet jocks' that you had to
> deal with?

your name is not Issac Goldberg. you are a lying fake.

--
"I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly"
R.J. Goldman

http://www.usidfvets.com

and

http://www.stopfcc.com


"Issac Goldberg" > wrote in message
om...
> (Mike Weeks) wrote:
> (Issac Goldberg) wrote:
> > (Mike Weeks) wrote:
> > >>From: (Issac Goldberg):
> >
> > >> >Members of the Armed Forces are trained to follow
> > >> >orders without question. And if the orders originated
> > >> >directly from the President of the United States,
> > >> >there would be few in the service, if any, who would
> > >> >not obey those orders, even if they were clearly illegal.
> > >> Can't think of a better example of your low opinion of members of the
armed
> > >> forces, especially high ranking senior officers, then the above.
> > >Is that the best you can do? ...
> > It fits to a tee the prior characteristic of your inability for logical
> > thought...
>
> Once again, Weeks shows the weakness of his arguments by his
> need to insult people who disagree with his views. If Weeks
> had a strong case there would be no need for him to continually
> use insults and name calling, because his arguments would stand
> on their own. Hence, the constant need to resort to underhanded
> techniques. How typical.
>
> > ''I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend the
> > Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic;
> > that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this
> > obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;
and
> > that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on
which I
> > am about to enter. So help me God."
>
> Nice oath. How about this one:
>
> "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully
> execute the office of President of the United States,
> and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect
> and defend the Constitution of the United States."
>
> This is the oath that President Johnson took. The
> U.S. Constitution contains Article VI, which contains
> the provision that ". all treaties made, or which shall
> be made, under the authority of the United States,
> shall be the supreme law of the land ."
>
> The United Nations treaty was ratified by the US Senate
> in 1945, therefore, became its provisions were now the
> supreme law of the land. To prevent countries from
> launching pre-emptive attacks on other nations, all
> signatory U.N. members agreed to submit any dispute
> which threatened the peace to the U.N. Security Council.
> Johnson did not submit the Vietnam dispute to the
> Security Council before he sent U.S. ground troops there.
> Therefore Johnson violated his oath of office. Any
> President who is willing to violate his oath of office
> would have no hesitation about who recently iniative
> qualms about destroying a subordinate who defied him.
>
> The reason Kidd and Boston followed Johnson's illegal
> orders to them to violate their oath was:
>
> 1) Fighting Johnson would be futile,
>
> 2) Fighting Johnson would have resulted in their
> removal from the Liberty inquiry and their replacement
> with more cooperative people,
>
> 3) Fighting Johnson would have resulted in the end of
> their Navy careers, and they would face the same fate
> as any individual who would try to stand up to a President.
> This means either that they would have spent the rest of
> their life in jail or in a mental institution.
>
> Not very attractive, is it? By cooperating with
> Johnson's illegal orders they were able to retain
> their Navy jobs. And maybe some day, after Johnson
> was gone, they would be able to go public and tell
> the truth of what happened.
>
> ************************************************** ****
>
> By the way, Weeks, when are you going to tell us
> about all of the 'arrogant jet jocks' that you had to
> deal with?

LOL his usual twists and turns to try and change the direction of the
thread!

--
"I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly"
R.J. Goldman

http://www.usidfvets.com

and

http://www.stopfcc.com


> wrote in message
om...
> > > If Boston is not lying then it is his *duty* to notify Congress and/or
> > > Navy brass and/or JAG that the "records were altered." Obstruction of
> > > Justice is a very serious matter.
>
> (Steve Richter) wrote in message
>...
> > It is the duty of American Jews to join the US Military in numbers
> > equivalent to their percentage of the population. That would surely
> > insure the highest degree of professionalism in the ranks. <g>
>
> Can somebody please explain what Steve's answer has to
> do with my question?
>
> > Who empaneled the court of inquiry? My guess is that that entity is
> > the one that sets the boundaries of the courts inquiry and reviews its
> > findings. The court for example had no legal standing to hear
> > testimony pertaining to LBJ's conduct of the Vietnam war. By the same
> > token, the entity that created the court could tell it that it could
> > not call any members of the IDF as witnesses.
>
> The IDF members gave testimony to the US naval attache in Israel.
> If the court thought that this testimony was not good enough then it
> could say just that in its conclusions. It was up to the court, not
> you or me, to evaluate this issue. If Boston had any beef then it
> was his duty to raise that ASAP in 1967.
>
> > > Only the court has the right to alter the court records.
> > > All the DoD can do is to stamp a big "Top Secret" on the inflamatory
> > > parts.
>
> > How do you know that?
>
> Check sometime UCMJ.
> @(h) Each court of inquiry shall keep a record of its proceedings,
> @which shall be authenticated by the signatures of the president
> @and counsel for the court and forwarded to the convening authority.
>
> If Kidd signed the record, and somebody changed it later, then he
> should have removed Kidd's signature because Kidd did not approve
> the changes. Doing anything else is Obstruction of Justice.
>
> Anyway, I have never heard that an external entity has the right to
> change signed records while keeping the original signature. Can you
> give any example where that is legal?

People lie. people steal. people cheat. the fact that they might be in the
uniform of the Navy really hurts you doesn't it!

--
"I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly"
R.J. Goldman

http://www.usidfvets.com

and

http://www.stopfcc.com


"Steve Richter" > wrote in message
om...
> wrote in message
>...
> > > > If Boston is not lying then it is his *duty* to notify Congress
and/or
> > > > Navy brass and/or JAG that the "records were altered." Obstruction
of
> > > > Justice is a very serious matter.
> >
> > (Steve Richter) wrote in message
>...
> > > It is the duty of American Jews to join the US Military in numbers
> > > equivalent to their percentage of the population. That would surely
> > > insure the highest degree of professionalism in the ranks. <g>
> >
> > Can somebody please explain what Steve's answer has to
> > do with my question?
>
> Just an observation of mine. You and other defenders of Israel make
> very unfair and upsetting allegations against the Navy personnel
> involved in this affair who speak contrary to the interests of Israel.
> Very similar to how the OJ Simpson lawyers defamed the LAPD
> detectives to get their murderer client found not guilty in his trial.
>
> > > Who empaneled the court of inquiry? My guess is that that entity is
> > > the one that sets the boundaries of the courts inquiry and reviews its
> > > findings. The court for example had no legal standing to hear
> > > testimony pertaining to LBJ's conduct of the Vietnam war. By the same
> > > token, the entity that created the court could tell it that it could
> > > not call any members of the IDF as witnesses.
> >
> > The IDF members gave testimony to the US naval attache in Israel.
> > If the court thought that this testimony was not good enough then it
> > could say just that in its conclusions. It was up to the court, not
> > you or me, to evaluate this issue. If Boston had any beef then it
> > was his duty to raise that ASAP in 1967.
>
> You dont appear to be making sense. What IDF testimony was given to
> the US naval attache in Israel? Your saying it was given at the time
> of the NCOI and made available to the court? Did the attache ask if
> IAF CDR Hod and IDF COS Rabin were told that an American spy ship was
> operating off the coast of the Sinai on the morning of 8 June?
>
> > > > Only the court has the right to alter the court records.
> > > > All the DoD can do is to stamp a big "Top Secret" on the inflamatory
> > > > parts.
> >
> > > How do you know that?
> >
> > Check sometime UCMJ.
> > @(h) Each court of inquiry shall keep a record of its proceedings,
> > @which shall be authenticated by the signatures of the president
> > @and counsel for the court and forwarded to the convening authority.
> >
> > If Kidd signed the record, and somebody changed it later, then he
> > should have removed Kidd's signature because Kidd did not approve
> > the changes. Doing anything else is Obstruction of Justice.
> >
> > Anyway, I have never heard that an external entity has the right to
> > change signed records while keeping the original signature. Can you
> > give any example where that is legal?
>
> Your not reading very well. From Boston's sworn statement:
>
> "...Admiral Kidd told me, after returning from Washington, D.C. that
> he had been ordered to sit down with two civilians from either the
> White House or the Defense Department, and rewrite portions of the
> court's findings. ..."
>
> If the court itself rewrites its findings, there is no illegality.
> Its not illegal or improper for Boston and Kidd to do this. They were
> simply adhering to the guidlines and corrections of those who
> empaneled the court. What is does mean is that the court did not
> conduct an impartial and full inquiry. Why does Israel not want the
> truth to be told in this matter?
>
> -Steve