|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#21
July 1st 04, 04:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
#23
July 1st 04, 11:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#24
July 1st 04, 11:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Steve Richter) wrote in message . com...
Having information, and using the information, are two different issues. IMO Rear Admiral Isaac Kidd, and his court, had a better understanding of navy operations in war zone than Congress does. If you diagree then please explain why. [Hillel] You call me names and then ask me questions. Why should not I ask an idiot some questions? It amuses me. Hillel, is that a typical Israeli way of interacting with others? Only when they are as clueless as you. (Not an easy thing to do.) Naval operations are not the issue. Israel's Naval operations are the issue. A rear admiral may have some understanding of how foreign navies work in time of war because he learned that in school and had some first hand experience. Such an admiral may also have some understanding of friendly fire; e.g. the bombing of Grayling by B-17s or losing 25 men in the attack on Kiska, Alaska. It is the question of whether Israel intentionally attacked the American ship, No. The job of the court is to: 1) Establish the facts. 2) Check what "story" fits the facts best. The court can even decide that two stories make sense and it can't decide which one is true. (Something like a dead-lock jury.) Such a case is very rare because the court, unlike a jury, can subpoena more data. whether the GOI withheld evidence of war crime actions by members of the IDF, and whether some in the GOUS were complicit in the withholding of that information. ....and if Saturan has five rings or six. The court had to find the best explanations to the facts and it accpeted most of the Israeli version because it fits well with the facts. There is good evidence the US DOS acted to prevent Adm Kidd from going to Israel to investigate the attack as he wished. Admiral Kidd could submit his report with no "final conclusion" and a comment "I can't submit final conclusions because the following data, that can be accessed, is hidden." If Kidd suspected that somebody hid data from his court then it was his right, and *duty*, to write such a comment. You have well founded confidence in the Admiral. Why would the US DOS, acting presumably without objection by LBJ and McNamara, act to overrule the Admiral's judgement and not allow the NCOI to go to Israel? That's between the admiral and the DoS. It is quite possible that the DoS offered him a "good enough" replacement. E.g. it could suggest that Ernest Castle, the United States Naval Attache at the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv, will collect the data he needed. The admiral could reject such a suggestion, and insist on running the show himself, but he did not see the benefit in that. The coverup of the coverup continues to this day. And next week we will start with the coverup of the coverup of the coverup. Last year at the DOS sponsored seminar the history of the SDW, DOS historian Marc Susser does not appear to have released any documents regarding DOS involvement in the NCOI proceedings. Even if the DoS will release all its documents, you will still continue to shout "cover up." So why even bother? Anyway, every four years or so the US has a new Secretary of State. Just write to each one when he takes office, explain why those documents are so important, and hope that some secretary, who is not a part of the conspiracy, will release them. Do you really believe that Israel could keep such a secret, involving so many people for 37 years? Heck, Hillel. I am of the opinion that Israel has kept secret the full extent of its planning to take the WB from Jordan as part of the inevitable conflict between Israel and the arab states. ....and therefore suggested Jordan on June 5, 1967 to stay out of the war and promised "no harm" in such a case. ....and therefore the paratroopers who attacked Jerusalem had to unload all their equipment from the airplanes that had been supposed to drop them in Sinai. Eshkol's working assumption was that Jordan would stay out, like in 1956. He was wrong. Israel must have anticipated the marked increase in terror attacks from pratically zero before the occupation to what has occured after. There must have been some in the GOI who did not think that more land for Israel was worth the price of those killed by insurgent attacks. What all of that has to do with the ability of Israel to cover up?! To this day, Israel refuses to release crucial facts of the attack on the American ship. And the source of your information is...? How do you know what deals Israel made with the US? Do you want Congress also to publish other information that the US promised to keep secret? (E.g. the condition to US inspections is Dimona was that the US would keep the information secret. Should the US ignore its promise just because it will serve better your political agenda?) BTW and the source of your information is...? This is one item amoung many where Israel's explanations do not answer legitimate questions about the attack. What did the Israeli coastal radar net see when its operators looked at the Liberty? What "Israel coastal radar net" in 1967?! Where did you get that idea? Don't you know that in 1967 the Israeli "navy" was a collection of WWII quality small ships? Israel had a couple of old naval radars, near its bigget navy bases (Haifa and Ashdod), but it did not have a radar that could look over the horizon. How were the IAF controllers able to direct the Kursa attack jets to the Liberty? Was it Yahweh or radar? Arial radar or observations. Welcome to 1967, when some airplanes had radars! What an *IGNORANT* like you can't get is simple navy fighting facts. If you want to sink a ship using 1967 airplanes then you used half iron bombs, just like the US did in Midway. If you want to sink a ship, and cover your ass, then you use submarines, not torpedo boats that display your flag. Hillel, you can call me all the names you want, I just describe your state. You have no clue about the proper use of airplanes against ships, and so you draw the conclusion that it was a well planed attack. Somebody who knows something about the subject, e.g. an admiral, may reach the opposite conclusion. ( according to Israel Shahak, the Talmud instructs Jews to have all sorts of hostility toward Gentiles ) So Shahak is your source. LOL. First, no one knows for sure what the Israelis intended to do with the Liberty. After 37 years of conspiracy theory you can't even agree about that?! Maybe they just wanted to drive the ship away, Firing accross the bow, or bombing nearby, could achieve that. maybe it was just a local operation by IDF commanders concerned their killing of Egyptian prisoners was being witnessed by the American spy ship. Assuming that the POWs murder was done, Liberty could see through the cloud of dust that the war caused (BTW have you ever been on the dunes near El -Arish? I was), and the US embassy could not listen to their communication back to base asking to bomb liberty to help with the cover up. Seriously, how do you think that the forces in Al-Arish communicated home? There was no phone line and smoke signals have a limited range. It appears no one knows for sure. It is much more interesting to see you build your theory first, and every year release just few documents that blow up your theory. That is why Israel has to release its evidence. The evidence will be released because nothing remains secret forever. But I hope that you will commit to some theory first, so the data will make look pretty silly. ( and why Adm Kidd was justified in wanting to bring the NCOI to Israel ) So why the admiral dropped that? I notice you did not respond to my question the involvement of IDF COS Rabin and IAF CDF Hod. According to Israel friendly SDW historian Michael Oren, those two were in on the conversations with the Kursa jets as they approached the Liberty. Why would two generals talk over radio, knowing that some other country probably records it, if their goal is a cover-up? Your data contradicts your own theory. (No big surprise here.) Yet surely, hours prior, they must have been told of the 0800 identification of the American spy ship. Have you ever managed a war on three fronts? Do you really believe that the general gets *ALL* the data? Hillel, who cares what your opinion is. Why does Jay Cristol, author of the book "their blood in the water", ignore and gloss over the entire subject of how the IAF knew of the presence of the Liberty at 0800 on 8 June but collectively forgot this knowledge 6 hours later at 1400 attack time? Because in war **** happens and when you switch shifts some data is lost. BTW the first pilot to attack the Liberty, Yiftah Spector, moved to the Israeli far left lately. Why don't you try to convince him to change his story? Hillel "When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When you don't have the facts, argue the law. And when you have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table." -- L.A. Weekly
|
|
#25
July 2nd 04, 01:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message . com...
(Mike Weeks) wrote in message ... From: (Theodore Herzl) Date: 6/29/2004 17:26 Pacific Daylight Time It seems rather reasonable to investigate anew the events surrounding the USS Liberty attack in public investigation that settles this once and for all. The challenge for the conspiracy loons Weeks knows all, sees all. Since he is omniscient, anyone who disagrees with him is a 'conspiracy loon.' QED He is also not very bright if he believes that tactic works. Try to get him to explain what motivates him to work so hard to block an investigation that he believes will prove himself and Cristol correct. What does Weeks fear? running around on the net is to actually produce anything which can be considered credible. So, according to Weeks: 1) the crew members of the USS Liberty are not credible, Weeks believes he knows more than those who witnessed first hand the events of that day. 2) Captain Boston is not credible, Of course not, he was only the captain of the ship that was attacked and lived through the whole thing, while Mike Weeks was probably still playing with Tonka trucks at the time. 3) Secretary of State Rusk is not credible, Of course not, being in the Presidents cabinet and privy to top secret information is not as good as being Cristol cabin boy. 4) CIA director Helms is not credible, Of course not, why would anyone think that the CIA directory would be better informed than Mike Weeks. Just look at Week's qualification listed below. 1. His name is Mike Weeks. 2. He has watched every episode of MASH END and the list goes on and on. Weeks is always right, everybody else is always wrong. He is a legend in his own mind. Instead what we continue to see is simply hot stale air. All of the hot stale air is being produced by Weeks. This is demonstrated by his repeated need to resort to name calling. If he had a valid argument, there would be no need to engage in name calling. Name calling is a typical Zionist tactic. A very predictable one at that. Oh, BTW clueless, what's available to be investigated is indeed public, A nice tautology. It's the material which is not public which should be investigated. Why, after 37 years, is so much information about the attack on the Liberty still classified by the US and Israeli governments? and the last really solid piece of material came out of the NSA in July 2003 and State Dept. in Jan. 2004, and once again as in the other examples, it doesn't support the claims of the conspiracy loons. We'll just have to take Weeks word for it, since he doesn't tell use exactly what the 'really solid' material is. This is natural for Weeks, since he sees all, knows all. Weeks is omniscient, and he does not need to provide any evidence. Weeks just knows. Besides, all we hear from the nuts ... Anyone who disagrees with Weeks is a nut. When you have nothing to say, insult your opponent. Zionist indoctination manual page 235. Remaining nonsense snipped. It is Weeks' arguments that are nonsense. He is so extreme in his opposition to an honest investigation that one must ask why? If the attack was truly an accident, an honest independent investigation would confirm what Weeks says. But he opposes a new investigation with every ounce of energy he possesses. Why? It is pretty obvious to me that a cover-up occured and that Israel intentionally attacked the USS Liberty to bring the US into the Israeli side in the 1967 war against Egypt. I believe Israel inteded to sieze the Sinai settlements from Egypt and needed US support to counter Soviet support for Egypt. To that end, like the Lavon Affair, they needed to frame Egypt to get the US on thier side. When after repeaded attacks they could not sink the ship or kill all the US servicemen aboard the Liberty, they were forced to stop the attack and begin the coverup. That cover-up continues today and I believe that Mike Weeks opposition to a public investigation demonstrates only that he would sell out the United States at the drop of a nickel for the Israeli regime.
|
|
#26
July 2nd 04, 03:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#27
July 2nd 04, 11:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
(Issac Goldberg) wrote: wrote: [snip] Do you think that Congress should double check every Navy inquiry, or just the Liberty? If just the Liberty then please explain what the Navy's court did wrong and how Congress may be able to fix. IMO the Navy's court of inquiry has a better record of finding the facts than Congress. But in a high profile case, leaders of a Navy Court of Inquiry are subject to pressure of the President if that President wants it to reach a certain conclusion. If you reject this claim then please give examples of Navy courtof inquiry making mistake, and Congress fixing them. See the LA Times article below to see how the executive branch may try to ‘manipulate' intelligence. . Can Congress get more data? A Congressional investigation can ask the CIA to testify on all of the data that has been collected. A Navy court of inquiry can subpoena the CIA just like Congress can. And since the Navy is better than Congress in keeping secrets, the CIA will probably be more willing to coopertae. There was a Navy employee a number of years back who made copies of 500,000 classified government documents and provided them to a foreign government. Your assertion about the Navy being better at keeping secrets is suspect. Does Congress have deeper understanding of Israel? A non sequitur with regard to the question of whether the attack on the Liberty was intentional or not. You claim that Congress investigation will be "better." I claim that for better investigation you should either have the ability to collect more data, or the ability to understand the data better. Do you reject my claim, yes or no? And if yes then what is your counter-claim? You, like Weeks, seek to muddy the waters. Congress has been successfully investigating the executive branch of government for 200 years. Your suggestion that the executive branch investigate itself violates the 'separation of powers' principle which has worked so effectively since our Constitution was adopted. Does Congress have better exprerts in navies-at-war issues than the US Navy? Congress can request the testimony of the US Navy's finest experts, who are then obligated to give truthful answers, or face jail terms. You assume that in short time Congressmen can become better experts than people who spent years in sea commanding ships. I don't know what is the base of your assumption, but I can tell you that you can force people to tell you what they know, but knoweldge and understanding is very different thing. E.g. a clueless person like you who has access to all the data and still has no clue. One again, your arguments are so weak that you feel the need to resort to name calling. Why has every previous Naval disaster been investigated by Congress? In other words, why should Congresss investigate the Liberty incidence after the CIA concluded that the Israeli explanation is reasonable. Believe it or not, the CIA is not always right. Believe it or not, Congress is not always right. But they are independent and they do not serve at the pleasure of the President. Believe it or not, Joseph McCarthy "investigations" did not catch a single Russian spy. Maybe because he saw Communist spies under every bed? Let's face it, when McCarthy accused President Eisenhower's Secretary of the Army of supporting Communism, it indicated a serious flaw in the Senator's judgment. Not only did McCarthy fail to prove the alleged leftist tendencies of the Army Secretary, but McCarthy's bizarre behavior was condemned by his Senate colleagues, after which nobody took McCarthy seriously. In fact, it was the Army-McCarthy investigation itself which not only ended McCarthy's influence, but it also ended the national witch hunt known as McCarthyism. Believe it or not, the Senate Watergate investigation was partially responsible for the first Presidential resignation in our country's history. If we had adopted your suggestion of letting the executive branch investigate itself, there is a good chance Nixon would not have resigned. Again, do you want to Congress to double-check everything that the CIA say, or just the Liberty? And if just the Liberty then please explain why the CIA can't be trusted in that case. CIA Felt Pressure to Alter Iraq Data, Author Says Agency analysts were repeatedly ordered to redo their studies of Al Qaeda ties to Hussein regime, a terrorism expert charges. by Greg Miller, Los Angeles Times, July 1, 2004 WASHINGTON — In the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, CIA analysts were ordered repeatedly to redo intelligence assessments concluded that Al Qaeda had no operational ties to Iraq, according to a veteran CIA counter-terrorism official who has written a book that is sharply critical of the decision to go to war with Iraq. Agency analysts never altered their conclusions, but saw the pressure to revisit their work as a clear indication that Bush administration officials were seeking a different answer regarding Iraq and Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, the CIA officer said in an interview with The Times. "We on the Bin Laden side [of the agency's analytic ranks] were required repeatedly to check, double-check and triple-check our files about a connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq," said the officer, who spoke on condition that he be identified only by his first name, Mike. Asked whether he attributed the demands to an eagerness among officials at the White House or the Pentagon to find evidence of a link, he said: "You could not help but assume that was the case. They knew the answer [they wanted] before they asked the question." The officer is the author of a forthcoming book titled, "Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror," published by Brassey's Inc. of Dulles, Va. He is listed as "Anonymous" on the book, which describes him as a "senior U.S. intelligence official with nearly two decades of experience in national security issues." The author has held a number of high-ranking agency positions, including serving from 1996 to 1999 as head of a special unit tracking Bin Laden. The book was approved for publication by the CIA after a four-month review — creating an unusual situation in which one of the secretive agency's senior officers was offering public criticism of administration policies and the prosecution of the war on terrorism. CIA spokesman Bill Harlow emphasized that the opinions in the book were those of the author, not the agency. He acknowledged that the book's publication was awkward for an agency that sought to be apolitical, but that the CIA found no classified material in it, and therefore allowed its release. Some have questioned the author's motives, noting that he was removed as head of the Bin Laden unit in 1999 over concerns about his performance. An intelligence official who has worked with the author at the CIA said that he might have been embittered by his removal, but that "people tend to think of him as a straight shooter." Mike said he was removed from the post because agency leaders "thought I was too myopic, too intense, too aggressive." He declined to elaborate. But he insisted that he did not write the book to settle scores. "The important thing to me is that we're missing the boat on this issue," he said. The book has created a stir in intelligence and policymaking circles for its scathing critique of U.S. efforts after the Sept. 11 attacks. In the book, Mike writes that the war in Afghanistan was in many respects a failure because the United States waited nearly a month to launch the invasion — allowing Al Qaeda operatives to flee — and relied heavily on proxy Afghan forces that were not always loyal to the U.S. cause. The book asserts that invading Iraq has inflamed anti-American sentiment to such a degree that it is minting a new generation of terrorists. "We have waged two failed half-wars and, in doing so, left Afghanistan and Iraq seething with anti-U.S. sentiment, fertile grounds for the expansion of Al Qaeda and kindred groups," he writes. In an interview this week, Mike, who has close-cropped hair and a beard, said Monday's transfer of authority to Iraq was likely to do little to curtail insurgent attacks. "Iraq, with or without a transfer of power, will be a mujahedin magnet as long as whatever government is there is dependent on America's sword," he said, adding that he thought his view was widely shared among counter-terrorism officials at the CIA and other intelligence agencies. The stealth manner in which sovereignty was transferred this week in Iraq — in a surprise ceremony two days ahead of schedule involving L. Paul Bremer III, the U.S. civilian administrator in Iraq, and the country's interim prime minister, Iyad Allawi — also sent a weak signal, he said. "From Bin Laden's perspective, we were afraid they were going to attack us and we left like a thief in the night, with Bremer throwing the keys to Allawi," he said. "They can only see this as a victory." Mike's criticism of the war in Iraq echoes that of other prominent counter-terrorism officials, including former White House aide Richard A. Clarke. But he is the first active CIA official to make the criticism publicly, albeit anonymously. Mike, however, faulted Clarke and others who served in the Clinton administration for failing to mount operations to capture or kill Bin Laden when the CIA had intelligence on his whereabouts. He said he thought Bin Laden would have been extremely reluctant to enter a collaborative relationship with Hussein, in part because he saw Iraq's military and spying services as inferior, incapable of protecting the security of Al Qaeda plans and operations. Mike said that because he did not work in the agency's Iraq section, he could not assess the accuracy of claims that analysts were pressured by the White House to tailor their assessments of Iraq's alleged illicit weapons programs to help make the case for war. Despite being forced to redo their work several times, he said, counter-terrorism analysts never altered their conclusion that Iraq was not working with Al Qaeda. "There was pressure to perform. But to its credit, the intelligence community as a whole said there was nothing" to suggest a collaborative relationship, he said. "The director on down insisted we call it straight." Mike still serves in the agency's counter-terrorism center, but acknowledges that he has been marginalized. "I get invited to speak" on counter-terrorism at the Defense Department, the FBI and the National Security Agency, he said, "but not within my own building." He wrote an earlier book, also anonymously, on Bin Laden and Islamic terrorism that was titled, "Through Our Enemies' Eyes." http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,4236086.story
|
|
#28
July 2nd 04, 03:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message . com...
(Steve Richter) wrote in message . com... Having information, and using the information, are two different issues. IMO Rear Admiral Isaac Kidd, and his court, had a better understanding of navy operations in war zone than Congress does. If you diagree then please explain why. [Hillel] You call me names and then ask me questions. Why should not I ask an idiot some questions? It amuses me. Is that the same attitude of the Jews in pre enlightenment Poland who as the tool of the nobility oppressed the peasants? I am glad you are in Israel Hillel. You and the arabs deserve each other. Praise Allah, praise Yahweh! Death to idolators!! It is the question of whether Israel intentionally attacked the American ship, No. The job of the court is to: 1) Establish the facts. 2) Check what "story" fits the facts best. The court can even decide that two stories make sense and it can't decide which one is true. (Something like a dead-lock jury.) Such a case is very rare because the court, unlike a jury, can subpoena more data. Capt Boston on his and Adm Kidd's impression of the evidence heard by the NCOI: "... Each evening, after hearing testimony all day, we often spoke our private thoughts concerning what we had seen and heard. I recall Admiral Kidd repeatedly referring to the Israeli forces responsible for the attack as "murderous *******s." It was our shared belief, based on the documentary evidence and testimony we received first hand, that the Israeli attack was planned and deliberate, and could not possibly have been an accident. ..." There is good evidence the US DOS acted to prevent Adm Kidd from going to Israel to investigate the attack as he wished. Admiral Kidd could submit his report with no "final conclusion" and a comment "I can't submit final conclusions because the following data, that can be accessed, is hidden." If Kidd suspected that somebody hid data from his court then it was his right, and *duty*, to write such a comment. and officers of the IDF, are they obligated to report criminal acts like the intentional crushing of young American protestors in Gaza? Capt Boston writes that Kidd was ordered by his superiors to suppress the evidence. "...Admiral Kidd and I both felt it necessary to travel to Israel to interview the Israelis who took part in the attack. Admiral Kidd telephoned Admiral McCain to discuss making arrangements. Admiral Kidd later told me that Admiral McCain was adamant that we were not to travel to Israel or contact the Israelis concerning this matter. ..." "...I know from personal conversations I had with Admiral Kidd that President Lyndon Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara ordered him to conclude that the attack was a case of "mistaken identity" despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. ..." "...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. ..." "...I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of that statement as 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 off to Washington. ..." "... Finally, the testimony of Lt. 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 included in the original transcript, is now missing and has been excised. ..." You have well founded confidence in the Admiral. Why would the US DOS, acting presumably without objection by LBJ and McNamara, act to overrule the Admiral's judgement and not allow the NCOI to go to Israel? That's between the admiral and the DoS. It is quite possible that the DoS offered him a "good enough" replacement. E.g. it could suggest that Ernest Castle, the United States Naval Attache at the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv, will collect the data he needed. The admiral could reject such a suggestion, and insist on running the show himself, but he did not see the benefit in that. ( Hillel, you dont have to use a lowercase "o" in DOS. After all, its an abbreviation. LoL! ) and who in Israel did Castle interview? Capt Boston writes "...Admiral Kidd and I both felt it necessary to travel to Israel to interview the Israelis who took part in the attack. ..." The coverup of the coverup continues to this day. And next week we will start with the coverup of the coverup of the coverup. hey, your country is the entity that is harmed by its refusal to release information. Do you really believe that Israel could keep such a secret, involving so many people for 37 years? Heck, Hillel. I am of the opinion that Israel has kept secret the full extent of its planning to take the WB from Jordan as part of the inevitable conflict between Israel and the arab states. ...and therefore suggested Jordan on June 5, 1967 to stay out of the war and promised "no harm" in such a case. ...and therefore the paratroopers who attacked Jerusalem had to unload all their equipment from the airplanes that had been supposed to drop them in Sinai. From what I gather reading the Oren book on the SDW, Jordan never moved onto Israeli territory. But it does not really matter. Because of the occupation Israel has a never ending and likely escalating conflict on its hands. Are you asserting that these very unfavorable facts on the ground were forced on Israel by Jordan? How stupid are Israelis to fall for such a trick! Israel must have anticipated the marked increase in terror attacks from pratically zero before the occupation to what has occured after. There must have been some in the GOI who did not think that more land for Israel was worth the price of those killed by insurgent attacks. What all of that has to do with the ability of Israel to cover up?! It has to do with the motive for the attack on the Liberty. If those making the decisions in Israel would endanger Israel's security by expanding its borders to include a large number of arabs, then they could similarly motivated to attack their benefactor. This is one item amoung many where Israel's explanations do not answer legitimate questions about the attack. What did the Israeli coastal radar net see when its operators looked at the Liberty? What "Israel coastal radar net" in 1967?! Where did you get that idea? Don't you know that in 1967 the Israeli "navy" was a collection of WWII quality small ships? Israel had a couple of old naval radars, near its bigget navy bases (Haifa and Ashdod), but it did not have a radar that could look over the horizon. How were the IAF controllers able to direct the Kursa attack jets to the Liberty? Was it Yahweh or radar? Arial radar or observations. Welcome to 1967, when some airplanes had radars! Good to know! So Israel had a kind of first generation AWACS system in place during the SDW. The arial radar the IAF controllers used to track the Liberty, was it airborne all morning or just at attack time? Those mysterious repeated overflights of the Liberty the morning of 8 June, were they also augmented by arial radar observations not observed by the Liberty's crew? Why does Israel continue to suppress so much information re the attack? Were IDF COS Rabin and IAF CDR Hod told of the identification of the American spy ship the morning of 8 June? Why are their conversations with the Kursa attack planes missing from the IAF controller transcripts? Why will Israel not release the detailed testimony from its aftermath investigations? -Steve
|
|
#29
July 2nd 04, 06:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message . com...
wrote: (Issac Goldberg) wrote: wrote: [snip] Do you think that Congress should double check every Navy inquiry, or just the Liberty? If just the Liberty then please explain what the Navy's court did wrong and how Congress may be able to fix. IMO the Navy's court of inquiry has a better record of finding the facts than Congress. But in a high profile case, leaders of a Navy Court of Inquiry are subject to pressure of the President if that President wants it to reach a certain conclusion. If you reject this claim then please give examples of Navy courtof inquiry making mistake, and Congress fixing them. See the LA Times article below to see how the executive branch may try to ?manipulate' intelligence. . Can Congress get more data? A Congressional investigation can ask the CIA to testify on all of the data that has been collected. A Navy court of inquiry can subpoena the CIA just like Congress can. And since the Navy is better than Congress in keeping secrets, the CIA will probably be more willing to coopertae. There was a Navy employee a number of years back who made copies of 500,000 classified government documents and provided them to a foreign government. Your assertion about the Navy being better at keeping secrets is suspect. Does Congress have deeper understanding of Israel? A non sequitur with regard to the question of whether the attack on the Liberty was intentional or not. You claim that Congress investigation will be "better." I claim that for better investigation you should either have the ability to collect more data, or the ability to understand the data better. Do you reject my claim, yes or no? And if yes then what is your counter-claim? You, like Weeks, seek to muddy the waters. Congress has been successfully investigating the executive branch of government for 200 years. Your suggestion that the executive branch investigate itself violates the 'separation of powers' principle which has worked so effectively since our Constitution was adopted. Does Congress have better exprerts in navies-at-war issues than the US Navy? Congress can request the testimony of the US Navy's finest experts, who are then obligated to give truthful answers, or face jail terms. You assume that in short time Congressmen can become better experts than people who spent years in sea commanding ships. I don't know what is the base of your assumption, but I can tell you that you can force people to tell you what they know, but knoweldge and understanding is very different thing. E.g. a clueless person like you who has access to all the data and still has no clue. One again, your arguments are so weak that you feel the need to resort to name calling. Why has every previous Naval disaster been investigated by Congress? In other words, why should Congresss investigate the Liberty incidence after the CIA concluded that the Israeli explanation is reasonable. Believe it or not, the CIA is not always right. Believe it or not, Congress is not always right. But they are independent and they do not serve at the pleasure of the President. Believe it or not, Joseph McCarthy "investigations" did not catch a single Russian spy. Maybe because he saw Communist spies under every bed? Let's face it, when McCarthy accused President Eisenhower's Secretary of the Army of supporting Communism, it indicated a serious flaw in the Senator's judgment. Not only did McCarthy fail to prove the alleged leftist tendencies of the Army Secretary, but McCarthy's bizarre behavior was condemned by his Senate colleagues, after which nobody took McCarthy seriously. In fact, it was the Army-McCarthy investigation itself which not only ended McCarthy's influence, but it also ended the national witch hunt known as McCarthyism. Believe it or not, the Senate Watergate investigation was partially responsible for the first Presidential resignation in our country's history. If we had adopted your suggestion of letting the executive branch investigate itself, there is a good chance Nixon would not have resigned. Since it was only the Washington Post that forced the issue into the Senate, it's still generally thought in many Political Science Circles that the entire US Republican Party should have resigned than Nixon. Being that New York, Chicago, Miami, and their Political "Conventions" had already resigned from Human Civilization in the *1920s*.
|
|
#30
July 2nd 04, 07:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message . com...
wrote: (Issac Goldberg) wrote: Do you think that Congress should double check every Navy inquiry, or just the Liberty? If just the Liberty then please explain what the Navy's court did wrong and how Congress may be able to fix. IMO the Navy's court of inquiry has a better record of finding the facts than Congress. But in a high profile case, leaders of a Navy Court of Inquiry are subject to pressure of the President if that President wants it to reach a certain conclusion. Ha? From http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dlj...dlj50p1835.htm @The Supreme Court recognized potential problems with the independence @of military judges in Weiss v. United States.139 The Court noted that @military judges may be reassigned at any time because they have no @fixed term of office. "Commissioned Officers are assigned or detailed @to the position of military judge by a Judge Advocate General for a @period of time he deems necessary or appropriate, and then they may be @reassigned to perform other duties."140 Military judges also are @accountable to their respective Judge Advocates General for their @decisions. "By placing judges under the control of Judge Advocates @General, who have no interest in the outcome of a particular [*pg 1858] @court-martial, we believe Congress has achieved an acceptable balance @between independence and accountability."141 What the Supreme Court @failed to recognize is that Judge Advocates General may indeed have a @significant interest in the outcome of cases when a large issue or @principle is at stake. In case you missed it, the president can not command military judges, only the "Judge Advocates General" can do so. All the president can, legally, do is to ask the court to take his testimony. Pressuring judges is not effective because the president can't fire them, and illegal pressure will cause a stink much larger than the "The Saturday night massacre." If you reject this claim then please give examples of Navy courtof inquiry making mistake, and Congress fixing them. See the LA Times article below to see how the executive branch may try to ?manipulate' intelligence. . The CIA is under the president's control. He can fire the head of the CIA whenever he wants. But the president can not fire military judges. The Supreme Court believes that, with respect to the military court system, "Congress has achieved an acceptable balance between independence and accountability." Do you reject this claim, and if yes on what grounds? A Navy court of inquiry can subpoena the CIA just like Congress can. And since the Navy is better than Congress in keeping secrets, the CIA will probably be more willing to coopertae. There was a Navy employee a number of years back who made copies of 500,000 classified government documents and provided them to a foreign government. There is a difference between espionage and leaks. People who commit espionage go to jail, Congressmen who leak win reelection. Leaking of classified infromation is a big problem in Congress because Congress is not willing to regulate itself. The same can't be said about the Navy. The Navy makes a real effort to throw everybody who passes classified information to jail. Your assertion about the Navy being better at keeping secrets is suspect. Can you give example of Navy judges who leaked information and got away with it? (And yes, I can give you examples of Congressmen who leaked information and did not go to jail; just ask.) You claim that Congress investigation will be "better." I claim that for better investigation you should either have the ability to collect more data, or the ability to understand the data better. Do you reject my claim, yes or no? And if yes then what is your counter-claim? You, like Weeks, seek to muddy the waters. Congress has been successfully investigating the executive branch of government for 200 years. :-) Your suggestion that the executive branch investigate itself violates the 'separation of powers' principle which has worked so effectively since our Constitution was adopted. The military court system has its own version of "Separation" that works pretty well. Military courts are not kangeroo courts; something that can't be said about Senator Joseph McCarthy's committee. You assume that in short time Congressmen can become better experts than people who spent years in sea commanding ships. I don't know what is the base of your assumption, but I can tell you that you can force people to tell you what they know, but knoweldge and understanding is very different thing. E.g. a clueless person like you who has access to all the data and still has no clue. One again, your arguments are so weak that you feel the need to resort to name calling. Why has every previous Naval disaster been investigated by Congress? Because it was not. E.g. the attack on USS Stark that killed 37 sailors. Believe it or not, Congress is not always right. But they are independent and they do not serve at the pleasure of the President. Congressmen need to get reelected. The officers of the Navy's court of inquiry have no such concern. Believe it or not, Joseph McCarthy "investigations" did not catch a single Russian spy. Maybe because he saw Communist spies under every bed? And you see an anti-Liberty conspiracy under every bed, table and chair. Let's face it, when McCarthy accused President Eisenhower's Secretary of the Army of supporting Communism, it indicated a serious flaw in the Senator's judgment. McCarthy had a fun time taking the rich and famous of Hollywood and grilling them in the Senate, and leaking some "secret" testimonies in return to good press. The Hollywood actors had no means to fight back, and McCarthy felt pretty powerful. Then he decided to pick on the army, and the army fought back pretty well. The Army accused Senator McCarthy and his assistant, Roy Cohn, of pressuring the Army to give favourable treatment to a former aide. Every Senator with half brain would realize a serious threat and back down, but mcCarthy decided to fight, and lost. In fact, it was the Army-McCarthy investigation itself which not only ended McCarthy's influence, but it also ended the national witch hunt known as McCarthyism. And your point is...? Believe it or not, the Senate Watergate investigation was partially responsible for the first Presidential resignation in our country's history. I'd give much more credit to Archibald Cox. After the Saturday night massacre Nixon was *finished* in the public's opinion. If we had adopted your suggestion of letting the executive branch investigate itself, there is a good chance Nixon would not have resigned. What exactly did Archibald Cox do wrong? Again, do you want to Congress to double-check everything that the CIA say, or just the Liberty? And if just the Liberty then please explain why the CIA can't be trusted in that case. CIA Felt Pressure to Alter Iraq Data, Author Says And it got caught in less than 37 years because the army could not find those WMD. It shows that the system works, if there is no data to support a claim. (The failure of the LVA to make a case also shows that the system works when there is no data to support a claim.) Hillel "I don't know a man, woman, or child who was not happy about what happened in the U.S. [on 9/11/2001]" (Abdullah Al-Sabeh, a professor of psychology at Riyadh's Imam Muhammed bin Saud Islamic University, Business Week, 11/26/2001)
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| USS LIBERTY CASE EVIDENCE JUSTIFIES REOPENING | Ewe n0 who | Military Aviation | 0 | April 2nd 04 08:31 PM |
| USS LIBERTY CASE EVIDENCE JUSTIFIES REOPENING | Ewe n0 who | Naval Aviation | 0 | April 2nd 04 08:31 PM |
| THOMAS MOORER, EX-JOINT CHIEFS CHAIR DIES | Ewe n0 who | Naval Aviation | 4 | February 21st 04 09:01 PM |
| THOMAS MOORER, EX-JOINT CHIEFS CHAIR DIES | Ewe n0 who | Military Aviation | 2 | February 12th 04 12:52 AM |
| Letter from USS Liberty Survivor | Grantland | Military Aviation | 1 | July 17th 03 03:44 PM |
Linear Mode
