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 . com...
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?