Here's some of the applicable law, which the Chief Counsel for the Court of Inquiry has now admitted was not applied, because the CoI was ordered by President Johnson and Secretary McNamara to summarily rule the attack an accident.
hmm, let's do that to Pollard, some ally we have, that shots at our ships, at lifeboats too? isn't that a war crime? that's easy to prove, cut all the purse-strings, let Israel make it on its own, make any donation that goes to the State of Israel, taxable if it can not be proven to be for honest charities do a little reading, here's a book: "Assault on the Liberty", the true story of the Israeli Attack on an American Intelligence Ship' by James M. Ennes, Jr. 1979 RandomHouse, NewYork Israel giving the US orders? a so-called ally, threathening its major donor state? I guess thats chutzpah, to the nth degree don't try to justify it on size, that country could not exist without the US nipple, feeding it; money, arms, tech, know-how
Flintlock We are not discussing internal spying; we are discussing a neutral ship in international waters that was attacked including strafing lifeboats.
It's an unfortunate incident, but the Israelis had no idea the US was actually going to withdraw the ship, they took the lack of American response as defiance. And as i said earlier, Israel owed the US NOTHING before '67 You are only repeating what you said earlier, you have yet to prove to me how Israel depends on the US. By the way, this guy would love to hear you talk about cutting the aid: http://www.zionet.co.il/manhigut/en/view_article_manhigut_en.php3?article_id=206 Heard of it. Very, very whiny. Major donor state? Wrong decade buddy. So, by your jingo-patriotic logic, Israel has no right to have a position on anything or take military action to ensure it's own survival? Once again, prove it. And take a look at this site:http://israeli-weapons.com/ Looks to me like it's mutual on the technology factor and just the opposite as far as arms and "know-how" are concerned Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
So, according to this law of armed conflict, any unnecessarily brutal actions taken in warfare are illegal. As i said, Israel's attack was necessary, and there is always the little fact that Israel never signed anything about this, unless you wish to tell me otherwise. The second link says that Liberty was in fact an intelligence ship, does it really go beyond that? Do you think Israel won the war in six days because she was incredibly nice and understanding? Liberty was a spy ship, it was warned to get out of the war zone (YES, the warzone, international waters are about 5 miles off the coast, the range of naval rifles is about 10 miles, and the range of radio traffic extends even further) in 24 hours, it did not comply, case closed. Now, time to worry about cancer, blood infections, and the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people who die in armed conflict every year all over the globe. We've been obsessing over less than 200 people for 37 years. Doesn't seem like we have much respect for the dead anymore these days.
"So, according to this law of armed conflict, any unnecessarily brutal actions taken in warfare are illegal" Not just illegal, such actions on noncombattants, and upon the assets of nuetral countries in international waters have consequences. Such a violation is not dependent in law on the level of brutality, but of course brutality can aggravate the offense. For those who are in awe of the violence and drama of warfare, the idea of peacetime consequences is often scoffed at, but sanctions can have a profound effect on nations. Further, when law is not equally applied, the law is undermined. International law is also important for the security of Israel. "Liberty was a spy ship, it was warned to get out of the war zone (YES, the warzone, international waters are about 5 miles off the coast..." USS Liberty remained outside the 12 nm border of international waters, where Israel had no jurisdiction to issue an order to an American vessel, including a surveillance ship. "it did not comply, case closed. Now, time to worry about..." Israel did not have authority to order the USS Liberty to depart, neither could Israel attack the USS Liberty without it being considered a deliberate hostile act against the United States. The reason this case is not closed for many Americans is not so much to seek atonement for Israeli aggression. The reason this case persists is because the US government conspired to deceive the American public regarding the incident, and the US government conspired to allow Israel immunity that the American public would certainly not have tolerated, had the circumstances of the attack been revealed to them. This is an important issue to Americans because such actions are antithetical to democracy. For those who have issues, for whatever reasons, with other coverups involving Israel, (for example the circumstances and individuals involved in the terrorist bombing of the King David Hotel) the USS Liberty is a case where several corroborated eyewitness accounts exist, and because as we speak, several witnesses are reaching a stage in life when they are willing to speak much more candidly. The recent Findings of the Independent Commission of Inquiry into the Israeli Attack on the USS Liberty are not fanciful thoughts of unqualified conspiracy theorists. Neither are they the product of individuals with vendettae against Israel. The clearly expressed motivation of these American Naval Officers and public servants is to defend the honor of the men who were killed and defamed, for the purpose of concealing a relationship with Israel that in many aspects has extended deeper into Washington than it has been publicly revealed. The problem many Americans have with this has nothing to do with anti-semitism, anti-zionism, religion, or the Levant, and everything to do with the necessary defense of democracy and national honor.
From: http://www.ussliberty.org/supporters.htm From: http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=2916
I have been to this site many times, it says nothing original, just a string of random quotes that say the obvious. One even confirms that Liberty was a spy ship. Would you want someone spying on the US during wartime? Brits have always been anti-Israel, ever since the Sinai Campaign of 1956. Recently a British magazine published a political cartoon portraying Sharon eating a Palestinian baby. The link says nothing I haven't heard.
Do you really think Israel would have sunk the ship if they had no reason? If it did not help them in any way? And don't give me that Egyptian POW nonsense, I've heard nothing but claims and random quotes about that. After all, what would be in it for them to slaughter prisoners like that? It would only taint their name further and incite greater hatred from other nations. 12 nautical miles is still within range of missile fire, and very much within range of radio transmissions. I fail to see how this international waters excuse means they were not in a war zone. I do agree with you as far as being angry over the cover-up. But with all the jingo-patriotism circulating through the US, do you really think Americans would be able to understand the truth had it been openly revealed? Governments have always lied to the public, and they always will. Let's face it, the GP is incredibly stupid, and easy to spook and panic. I don't like the lies any more than you do, but we would most likely not be alive today without them. Even today, if the US was to go to war with Israel, they would win, but not without ENORMOUS casualties, and a lot of nuclear wasteland covering the country. The results would be bad for both countries. Do not bring the Irgun into this, they were a radical faction that was frowned upon and dispisd by other groups like the hagana. The King David Hotel was given a 4 hour warning before the blast to evacuate the building, most residents did not comply. I would like to hear some interviews with the Israeli fighter pilots and the crews of the torpedo ships as well as the Liberty crew. I do not deny that it was a terrible tragedy, but what was Israel supposed to do? Just let it sit there and spy? Not follow through on their warning? Any other thing Israel could have done with the Liberty would have been interprited as a sign of weakness, and Israel cannot afford that.And believe me, if the IAF wanted the whole Liberty crew dead, they would be. By the way, thank you for not turning your arguements into anti-Israel and anti-Jew/Zionist rantings. There are far to many offensive and racist posts on this thread and I'm happy to see that you can debate this topic fairly and civily without spewing lies and propaganda.
there was no reason to attack the Liberty if there was one, it'd be swimming with the fishies it's as simple as that, considering IDF's efficiency during the war I would like to hear some interviews with the Israeli fighter pilots and the crews of the torpedo ships as well as the Liberty crew there actually was an interview about 2 months ago in Ha'aretz with one of the pilots it must be floating around somewhere. he clearly said that he did not know it was a US ship.
What Israel was supposed to do was to let a neutral ship in International waters alone period; anything else would be an act of war. What the USA was supposed to do was launch fighters from the nearest aircraftcarrier to provide covering air patrols for the Liberty and for the search and rescue helios that would come to the aid of the stricken ship. This is the response that the American public expects its government to exercise not to play polictical games with the lives of USA service personal.
Candy, don't spam the topic. The last thing I need today is another whiny American jingo. Start adressing some other factors like the fact that Israel did not trust the US, and that they could not afford the media geting into their hair during wartime. American media is second only to British media as far as nosiness is concerned. If you don't start saying something else, you're going on my ignore list.
Flintlock I am not going to change my standards of right and wrong to accomodate you. Firing on a neutral vessel in international waters is wrong.
Good information there. You're right, Israel did want to capture the Golan. However, that doesn't answer why they wanted it. The Golan has Israel's only snow mountain on it, vital for observation, defense, and communication (which is sort of part of observation there). Israel is among the smallest nations on earth (aside from micronations), whereas the Arab countries put together equal about the same mass of land that the Soviet Union had. Israel would be too small and vulnerable to exist for long without the Golan. Another point they forgot to make is that Israel is a soverein nation, and as such it does not take orders from other nations, including the United States. Israel told the US to get it's ship out of those waters, as that man said. US communications sucked, as he said. The message was not confirmed by washington, and the ship was left to die, as he said. All of these points have been the main part of my arguement, and you have just proven them for me, thank you.
Israel does not have to take orders from other nations but Israel does not have the right to order other nations out of International Waters. That others also have rights is something Israel seems blind to.
2nd time you have said that, that has no baering, in that case Singapore should be the fearest dragon, a Chinese, Malay. Hindu enclave surrounded by Malaysia I guess using that reaoning, the US or Canada could lose a bit here & there, I think I want to start a sovereign Mexican homeland in Aztlan, right about where Utah & Colorado meet, do you think I have any rights there? that is an unknown I guess since the US is not a sovereign nation, we have no rights, is that right? so Internation Waters isn't International enough? are you sure?
Come back to me on that after you do some research on military defensive strategy. Are they at war? Does either country have wishes to drive the other "into the sea"? Is one of the countries as long as the range of artillery guns? Oh, that explains this: http://www.isayeret.com/units/land/special/alpine/article.htm Well, you don't have the right to endanger the existense of other nations, if that's what you mean. I feel your pain. Where did the Battle of The Atlantic take place? The majority of the Pacific war? Blind Man's Bluff? What do you mean am I sure? Have you not read the links? Perhaps you should do some research before you comment.
