Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WLRoss (talk | contribs) at 06:43, 1 December 2007 (→Moorer Commission on Capitol Hill and Captain Ward Boston statement). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

	USS Liberty incident is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 21, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted

Military history: Maritime / North America / United States Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. Associated task forces: /  Maritime warfare task force North American military history task force United States military history task force

Archives

• Archive 1
• Archive 2

Question About NPOV

In a number of places article tells us that there were numerous investigations of the attack on the USS Liberty by both the US and Israeli governments. It appears that this claim has its origin in the opinion to that effect expressed by Jay Cristol in his book "The Liberty Incident." Since it is just a restatement of an opinion, why does not that reference in the article run afoul of the NPOV policy? USS Liberty Survivor 13:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Only Medal of Honor not awarded by the President ...

A minor point:

• "His is the only Medal of Honor not to be awarded by the U.S. President in a formal event "

Here's just one example of a Medal of Honor awarded by the Secretary of the Navy, not the President:

• "The coveted medal was presented to his teen-aged daughter, Miss Frances Bonnyman, by James F. Forrestal, then Secretary of the Navy, during appropriate ceremonies at the Navy Department, Washington, D.C., 22 January 1947."

I think this was pretty common. --A. B. 12:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Still it is worthy to note that the presentation was in what amounted to a back alley at the Navy Yard, and not a public ceremony. Generally, even presentations of the lowly National Defense Service Medal are given with more pomp and circumstance.Lowellt 18:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

this fact alone proves that the incident was an intentional attack by israel and that the president was controlled by israel. could you see the president pinning on a medal to a ships captain who was attacked by israeli war plains and torpedo boats? it would be too embarassing. Keltik31 22:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

UNTRUE: Only peacetime attack on a U.S. naval vessel not investigated by Congress ...

A major point:

The "Ongoing controversy" starts with this sentence:

"This incident stands as the only peacetime attack on a U.S. naval vessel not investigated by Congress."

However, this is a patently untrue claim as there have been five U.S. Congressional investigations. Just above the false claim in the "American investigations" area, some of the U.S. investigations by Congress are noted such as the:

- The Senate Foreign Relations Committee Testimony of 1967

- Senate Select Committee on Intelligence of 1979/1981

- House Armed Services Committee of 1991/1992

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and House Armed Services Committee are all parts of the U.S. Congress.

It also includes this paragraph:

"Critics assert that five U.S. congressional investigations and four other U.S. investigations were not investigations into the attack at all, but rather reports using evidence only from the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry, or investigations unrelated to the culpability of the attack but rather discussing issues such as communications. In their view, the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry is the only investigation on the incident to date. They claim it was hastily conducted, in only 10 days, even though the court’s president, Rear Admiral Isaac Kidd, said that it would take 6 months to properly conduct."

Whether or not, critics don't consider the investigations as such is immaterial to the fact that that all of that testimony included investigative work, whether independent or derived, which does, in fact, make them investigations.

Coverup: If it was an Israeli plot, why lie to prove it?

A few years ago, CBS produced an entirely fabricated documentary for the History Channel called "Coverup" allegedly on the Liberty affair. The film became a laughing stock before it was even broadcast, and both networks still refuse to comment on it. Bamford and Ennes were infolved in the production up to their necks.

The producers of the film used fake footage -- including an overhead shot of a destroyer labeled "USS Liberty" and footage of a burning ship, also not Liberty. They even made up their own motive, apparently after they had discarded another one -- that the Israelis were trying to coverup their attack on the Golan. Only they had already told the Americans about the attack. I have the declassified State Department document -- they did tell the US military attache.

Worse, the CBS producers knew of the document, and ignored it. If history has taught us anything, it's that those who lie about history do so for a reason -- they don't like the facts. (Luckily for all of those involved, the film just preceded the blog era. The bloggers would have destroyed them.)

The Liberty Affaire is simply a case of friendly fire, they happen all the time. The pace of modern warfare makes them inevitable, and always, someone dreams up a vast conspiracy.

By the way, you can't jam transmitters. Period. Only receivers. Scott Adler 21:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence Points to Deliberate Attack

Please read the evidence presented in the article. It's impossible to dismiss the eyewitness accounts and other evidence pointing to a deliberate attack. This incident brings out the usual pro-Israel crowd who dogmatically attack anything which portrays Israe in a less than favorable light. This does a great disservice not just to our American men in uniform but to Israel's credibility. 24.99.72.69 01:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a forum for you or anyone to assert your interpretation which, counter to your statement, many reasonable people who are not "the usual pro-Israel crowd" find it quite possible to dismiss. Gzuckier 16:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

24.88.72.69 01:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur with the statement that Misplaced Pages is not a forum for anyone to assert their interpretation which, counter to a previous statement, many reasonable people who are not "the usual pro-Israel crowd" find it quite possible to dismiss. And eyewitness reports are only valid as the folks who make them. Hearsay can be very unreliable, especially from an emotionally unstable or ideologically-driven source. 16:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Your circular logic is amazing. There is not a magic history robot that flies around. The "official" reports come from hearsay, "and can be very unreliable, especially from an emotionally unstable or ideologically-driven source." 194.81.69.23 20:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Totalitarian Ethnic Activism Destroying Scholarship

Note: I've removed the posting here, and also removed a response asking that it be put in "plain English", because the posting was not constructive, and because it attacked another editor by name. Discussions on talk pages should be limited to conversations about how to improve articles, not commenting on the personalities of other editors, per Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines. Comments about specific things that are wrong with the article - not general assertions about POV without any detail - are always welcome. (As for "Truth", the criteria here is "verifiability" - see WP:V. Controversial statements without a supporting citation typically are deleted because they constitute what we here call original research.) -- John Broughton (☎☎) 16:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Flag

What were the weather conditions at the time of the attack (wind speed and direction)? We have two significantly different estimates of speed and no mention of ship's direction in this article. Would any of this data support the theory that the U.S. flag hung limp? Rklawton 01:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

From the NSA official history report http://www.nsa.gov/liberty/liber00010.pdf p. 25:

"(U) Thursday morning, 8 June 1967, found the Liberty cruising slowly in international waters on station as directed. At approximately 0830 hours (local time), the Liberty notified the Commander, Sixth Fleet that her position for the next 24 hours would be within 30 nautical miles of coordinates 31-45N and 33-30E. The sea was calm and the clear sky permitted visibility of ten miles; a light breeze ruffied the Liberty's ensign." --agr 02:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

That's probably not specific enough because it reflects (at best) the relative windspeed. If we knew the actual windspeed, then we'd know if it was possible for the flag to be flying limp (Israeli claim) and if the shop was traveling at 28-30 knots (Israeli claim). I'm guessing the two claims are mutually exclusive. Rklawton 02:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I would say the US version can be taken as authoritative. It's presumably based on Liberty's reports and logs. The Misplaced Pages article on the ship USS Liberty list her speed as "17.5 knots (30 km/h) maximum sustained, 21 knots emergency." If the Israelis claimed she was traveling at 28-30 knots, it suggests the pilots who made those reports were inexperienced in Naval matters. Here is a bit more from the same report, the next paragraph:

"(U) Liberty's projected course for that day was to proceed to a point 13 nautical miles from the U.A.R. coast at 31-27.2N, 34-00E (Point Alpha), thence to 31-22.3N, 33-42E (Point Bravo), thence to 31-31N, 33-00E (Point Charlie) retracing this track until new orders were received. Normal steaming speed was to be five knots and typical steaming colors (which indicated conditions were normal) were flown."--agr 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Friendly Fire happens in almost every war

It's pretty obvious that this entire incident was a horrible case of friendly fire. The US military has killed their own soldiers in many friendly fire incidents, as well as at least one British soldier in the recent Iraq War. It happens, it's part of war. The IAF used NAPALM against the USS Liberty, not bombs, which proves they were diverted from attacking Egyptian forces on land. They later offered to help rescue the Americans (hostile attackers don't do this)

If this were anything other than friendly fire then why would the US continue to support Israel after the accident? To get back at the Soviets? Not likely. Grow up people, you can't hate Israel for our military's mistakes (not giving sufficient warning that the Liberty was in the region)

I agree with the poster that friendly fire incidents happen in every war. But just to be clear, the responsibility lies with the shooter, not the victim. I don't think anyone, even on the Israeli side, disputes Israel's being primarily at fault for the attack. In particular, Israel, according to its account of the incident, was aware that a U.S. ship was in the area and had it on its HQ plot board for a while, but the marker was removed because the position information was stale. The question here is whether the attack was deliberate, or friendly fire as you argue, I think correctly.--agr 15:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You might claim that it is a conspiracy theory, but it is hard to believe that anyone with good visibility could mistake any 10000ton ship with a 2000ton one(unless you are completely unexperienced in recognizing ships), even more given the fact that those ships weren't even remotely alike after resizing. And yet the think tanks want us to believe that multiple Israelis kept mistaking the ship for over 1,5h at good weather with full confidence(you don't attack ships in international waters if you are unsure of their allegiance - they were supposed to be fully convinced). I don't have any clue what the reason for the attack would be, but regardless how many "official investigations" parrot the Israeli version, it doesn't make it sound less ridiculous.Remember also that even if the Israeli version is false, the US gov would have no reason for exposing it. Mik1984 16:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If everyone was properly trained and followed their training there would be far fewer friendly fire incidents. And there is no reason to think the Israeli pilots had much training in ship recognition. Israel was fighting a land and air war against its neighbors. You shouldn't attack ships in international waters if you are unsure of their allegiance, but that doesn't mean it never happens. A number of U.S. ships have been hit by friendly fire over the years. And the U.S shot down Iran Air Flight 655, killing 290 civilians, without ever making a positive ID of the target. --agr 17:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Iran Air Flight 655 was shot down under an erroneous identification. If you want to call a "positive ID" a visual identification, then that is a 1960s mentality and does not reflect the realities of not modern warfare. I'm not saying that the Israelis did or didn't attack intentionally, but the comparison to the Iran Air Flight 655 is not accurate and shouldn't be used in the article. — BQZip01 — 03:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No two incidents are ever exactly comparable, but whatever you think positive ID means in radar-directed warfare, it would be hard to argue that the U.S. had it when it shot down Iran air 655. Both incidents involved a failure to use all the information available that resulted in an erroneous identification and a tragic loss of life.--agr 13:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"Faked" photo link deletion

User:Bill0756 requested an explanation of my deletion of a link to a web site that purports to prove the cover photo on a certain book was faked. WP:RS says: "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events, politically-charged issues, and biographies of living people." and further "self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are usually not acceptable as sources". The primary purpose of the site in question and, in particular, its use here, appears to be to discredit the author of the book. That puts it under WP:BLP which says "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Misplaced Pages:Attribution, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Misplaced Pages, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked." I hope this make my reasons clear.--agr 11:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

sense

it says the attack 'was' the second most deadliest since world war ii and the most deadly was in the 1980s, after the attack. that doesnt make sense

Order to move Libery 100 nm from coast

Annon user writes "Reinhold chnaged this. W. really bad. I could not see where to send him an email. But I see no support for administrative or communications problems. The message was sent 0811 Zulu June 8. PERIOD."

The fate of the message in question is describes in excruciating detail in the NSA's official report on pages 21 to 23. The short version: 0110Z is the time the message was issued. It was addressed to the Commander, Sixth Fleet for action. It did not get to Sixth Fleet HQ until 0440Z. Sixth Fleet issued a message to Liberty at 0917Z. Liberty was guarding the fleet broadcast from Asmara, Ethopia. The 0917Z message was sent first to Morocco, which sent it to Asmara which sent it to Greece which sent it back to Asmara where it was finally broadcast to Liberty at 1525Z. The attack started at about 1200Z. --agr 23:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

SPREADING RUMOR AND GOSSIP

Is an ENCYCLOPEDIA supposed to be a scandal sheet, and a gossip column??? The USS Liberty incident is worthy of an encyclopedia entry, and the web allows more information, rather than less. I once sold encyclopedias door to door (no, we didn't carry the entire set around) to make money one summer in college. Printed encyclopedias have a premium on space, and have to sharply limit what is said. While Misplaced Pages suffers from a great many problems, most of all a complete lack of substantive review and dispute resolution based upon popularity and left-wing politics rather than substantive knowledge and expertise, AT LEAST WIKIPEDIA ALLOWS A COMPREHENSIVE DISCUSSION, INCLUDING IDENTIFYING THE UNKNOWNS, DISPUTE, VARYING POINTS OF VIEW, AND UNRESOLVED QUESTIONS and explaiining all sides of the issue, because space is not a problem.

Perhaps this and other articles should be more sharply divided into what is known with certainty and what is in dispute, identifying each perspective on the important matters, so that the reader will be fully and thoroughly informed. Really, history of any incident involves disputed points, and it has always done a dis-service to students of history to pretend that there is just "one" story in which everything fits together nicely. Almost NO history of ANY event is without differing perspectives. Misplaced Pages -- despite its defects as to content -- offers the technological ability to cure that problem, and inform readers of all sides and the full complexities of historical events.

The goal, then, should not be to RESOLVE disputes here THAT HISTORIANS AND OFFICIALS CANNOT RESOLVE WITH ALL THEIR EXPERTISE AND RESOURCES. The goal should be to inventory the important facts and present the varying perspectives on each key issue. THAT WAY the reader is able to understand the significance of the various key facts and disputes, and follow up on each one for the reader's benefit, such as further research for a school paper or issues analysis in politics, or simply interested reading. The W. article should point the reader in the direction of more information, not strong-arm the reader into a strait-jacket.

SO, FOR EXAMPLE, WE ARE TOLD THAT THE LIBERTY WAS ONLY STEAMING AT 5 KNOTS, BUT THAT THE FLAG WOULD HAVE BEEN VISIBLE. This exposes the political lies and spin at work here.

a) If the Liberty were steaming at 21 knots or faster than 5 knots, it would have been FAR AWAY at 2 PM from its initial sighting by IAF jets at 6:00 AM and 9:00 AM. THEN... the flag would have been visible. BUT CLEARLY THE SIGHTING AT 9:00 AM BECOMES IRRELEVANT becaause Israeli forces would not have known that a sighting at 9 AM would be the same ship as one sighted 50 to 100 miles away (not from the coast, but moving up and down the coast, parallel to the coast).

b) ON THE OTHER HAND, if the Liberty were crusing at only 5 knots -- more likely the better to sit and listen -- then clearly the flag would be hanging limp, and could not be visible (even if a jet flying past at 300 MPH could have seen it at all under any conditions).

So notice the political spin and intellectual fraud here: Was the speed 5 knots or 21 knots or 30 knots?

I do realize that Israel said the ship was traveling fast... perhaps they FOUND the wrong ship! Perhaps on radar they sighted the correct Egyptian ship, traveling at 30 knots, but when the figthers flew out to attack it, they ran into the Liberty instead traveling at 5 knots. BUT YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

If the Liberty were traveling at 21 to 30 knots, then its position at 2 PM would bear no relationship to the sighting at 9 AM.

--- Jon Moseley, as Anon

FRAUD ALERT -- Evidence Points to Deliberate Attack

This is part of the nonsense here, the difference between clear information and true conspiracy theory, that is "theory" being substituted for "fact."

Of course the attack on "SOME" ship was deliberate. Of course, the Israeli fighters INTENDED to hit "A" ship. The discussion about evidence that the attack was "delilberate" is the worst kind of scurrilous slander and tripe. The question is not whether Israeli forces "deliberately" attacked the ship. Of course! THEY THOUGHT IT WAS AN EGYPTIAN SHIP IN A WAR WITH EGYPT, and they were VERY DETERMINED to attack any Egyptian ship. Their intentions to attack an Egyptian ship were VERY ADAMANT, and "deliberate."

This red herring, designed to confuse and baffle the gullible, is nothing but political spin of the worst sort.

We are not talking about Israeli planes that hit the wrong target, for example they were aiming at a practice target and hit the USS Liberty instead of the practice target.

Of course, their aiming at the Liberty was deliberate.

The quesiton is one of mistaken identity -- not hitting the wrong target, BUT FOR THE WRONG REASON, based on mis-identification.

COMPARE THIS, for example, to when US warplanes bombed Canadian troops in Afghanistan. The US warplanes were aiming at something else, got the coordinates wrong, and hit the Canadian troops INSTEAD OF what they were supposed to be bombing.

AND THEN COMPARE this with US warplanes bombing a "wedding" in Afghanistan when "wedding" celebrants were shooting weapons into the air. IF WE BELIEVE the Muslim propaganda, the US warplanes INTENTIONALLY bombed something that was NOT what they thought it was. Although the US warpanes INTENDED to DELIBERATELY attack the Afghani wedding, and anyone watching would have said "Oh my God, that was deliberate!" THE REASON THEY DID SO is that PEOPLE WERE SHOOTING MACHINE GUNS INTO THE AIR in the general direction of the US warplanes. So, the US pilots MIS-IDENTIFIED a WEDDING (we are asked to believe) as a band of Talilban fighters.

The attack on the Afghani wedding was DELIBERATE -- but mistaken, in terms of the IDENTITY of the target. SO it is with the Liberty.

So arguments that survivors on the USS Liberty thought the attack was "deliberate" are absolute BULL.

The question is not whether Iraeli forces acted toward the Liberty in a manner suggesting an INTENTION to attack "A" ship.

The question is whether BACK IN ISRAELI HEADQUARTERS the order was given to strike the ship BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT IT WAS EGYPTIAN. Naturally, the U.S. sailors on the USS Liberty would have ZERO knowledge of WHY Israeli command back in Israeli HQ gave the order.

So to talk about how "deliberate" the attack looked or seemed is a complete insult to our intelligence.

--- Jon Moseley, as Anon

PREPOSTEROUS -- Order to move Libery 100 nm from coast

THIS IS COMPLETELY PREPOSTEROUS. THE NAVY CHRONOLOGY -- NOT NSA -- SHOWS OTHERWISE. The order to withdraw to 100 nautical miles was broadcast at 01:17 Zulu, and again at 9:17 Zulu. EITHER ORDER WAS SUFFICIENT FOR THE USS LIBERTY TO HAVE LEFT THE BATTLE ZONE BEFORE THE ATTACK. Had the USS Liberty obeyed its orders even at 9:17 Zulu, and assuming that the top speed was only 21 knots, not 30 knots as suggested by some, the USS Liberty woudl have been SIXTY-THREE (63) nautical miles towards the West or 79 MILES from the battle zone, rather than only 13 miles.

THE USS LIBERTY ACTUALLY BROADCAST MESSAGES BACK TO COMMAND ON THE CORRECT RADIO FREQUENCIES -- WHICH WERE RECEIVED -- at 0742 Zulu and at around 0842 Zulu. THE LIBERTY WAS ON THE CORRECT COMMAND FREQUENCIES.

Any suggestion to the contrary is pure bullcap. (NOTE: I am not talking about the W. writers here, who are trying to REFLECT the views of many in the disupte. I am focusing on the SUBSTANTIVE IDEAS in the dispute being absurd. The W. writers are obviously trying to capture the dispute, which is great. But in doing so, we cannot uncritically regurgitate views that are in themselves ridiculous, without placing them in proper context.)

Furthermore, the USS Liberty's reason for being at sea, and on station, was its capacity to monitor VAST ranges of radio frequencies in order to intercept communications of interest.

The suggestion that an NSA SIGNALS LISTENING SHIP could not hear its orders is absolutely LAUGHABLE !

The suggestion that an NSA SIGNALS LISTENING SHIP was not listening to the right frequency is the most shocking LIE ever told in the US Navy. THE REASON THE SHIP WAS AT SEA WAS ITS SPECIALIZED EXPERTISE IN RADIO COMMUNICATIONS !!!!

WHILE IN THE MIDDLE OF A WAR ZONE, IF the Liberty was not monitoring multiple radio frequencies for possible orders directly affecting the safety of the ship, THE RADIO OPERATOR SHOULD HAVE BEEN HUNG FROM THE YARD ARMS. Certainly court-martialed.

The explanation offered is complately ridiculous. (NOTE: Again, I am not commenting here on the W. writer, but on the proponents of a conspiracy. My comments are directed to the SUBSTANCE, NOT THE WRITER.)

And for the W. article to confidently assert as "fact" what is NOT established as fact, when it is completely preposterous, AND FAIL TO INFORM THE READER OF THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE, AND THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE UNRESOLVED QUESTIONS, IS TO WRITE AN ASTONISHINGLY BAD W. ARTICLE. WHAT RESULTS IS NO MORE THAN AN ANTI-ISRAELI HIT PIECE WORTHY OF THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER.

It is overwhelmingly clear that the USS Liberty was derelict in its duty, and the only cover-ups are the USS Liberty radio operators and Captain covering up for their utter dereliction of duty in obeying their orders (and in this regard remember that the evidence of orders actually received was destroyed during the attack and in response to the attack, when papers were intentionally destroyed in anticipation of possible boarding, SO WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT ORDERS THE LIBERTY RECEIVED), and the Navy and Pentagon covering up the horrifying reality that US NAVY SHIPS CANNOT BE COUNTED ON TO RECEIVE AND OBEY THEIR ORDERS. In the middle of a "hot" war in Vietnam, and the Cold War with the Soviet Union, the revelation that the US Navy was pracically IMPOTENT around the world -- UNABLE TO RECEIVE AND CARRY OUT ORDERS FROM WASHINGTON -- was a SHOCKING and paralyzing blow to the credibility of US military forces in the world.

The only cover-up was the failure of command and control.

Furthermore, the fact that the Pentagon had sent the order, AND BELIEVED IT HAD BEEN CARRIED OUT, meant that the USA informed Israel that the US had no ships within 100 miles.

Against this the W article FALSELY makes confident statements about what was or was not received, FAR BEYOND WHAT IS ESTABLISHED.

I am sorry if I am hot and offended here, but this involves the most scurrilous of ridiculous nonsense, and an ENCYCLOPEDIA should be a presentation of FACT, not political spin to serve political agendae.

--- Jon Moseley, as Anon

Thanks for posting your views here where we can discuss them. I realize that you feel strongly about this, but there really is more to the story. First, you seem to be under the impression that a date-time group on a message (e.g. 080110) indicates the time the message was sent. That is not correct. Here is the official DOD definition from http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/data/d/01491.html :

"date-time group (DOD) The date and time, expressed in digits and time zone suffix, at which the message was prepared for transmission. (Expressed as six digits followed by the time zone suffix; first pair of digits denotes the date, second pair the hours, third pair the minutes, followed by a three-letter month abbreviation and two-digit year abbreviation.) Also called DTG."

As the NSA report explains, DTGs are sometimes assigned before the formal message is even composed (a rather exacting procedure).

Second, the Navy, like all military organizations, has a chain of command. The Pentagon does not normally order ships around directly. On June 8, 1967 the USS Liberty, a U.S. Navy ship, was under the command of the U.S. Sixth Fleet and the 080110 message was sent to Sixth Fleet headquarters in Europe asking them to order Liberty to approach no closer than 100 nm.

Third, the 080110 message was classified Top Secret and even if it was sent by radio (it could have gone by undersea cable), it would have been encrypted in a key known only to the Pentagon and Sixth Fleet HQ. Nor is there any reason for Liberty to listen to that frequency. Yes it's listening ship, but I'm sure it had it's hands full listening to the bands assigned to it in the middle of a war.

Fourth, messages like this are carefully logged and accounted for at each stage of transmission. There are numerous individuals involved in the process. The logs and records were reviewed by the JCS, a Navy Court of Inquiry and congressional staff. Faking all the information would not be at all easy. Nor is it clear why the Navy would want to. I suspect the Navy bureaucracy would much rather court-marshal a Captain for failing to obey orders than admit a crucial message took 14 hours to get to its destination, likely causing the loss of 34 lives.

Fifth, there is no suggestion that the Liberty was having difficulties communicating problems before the attack. By all accounts it was monitoring the frequencies it was assigned to monitor and was maintaining contact with the Sixth Fleet. The records show that the order to Liberty to move away from the coast was not sent on those frequencies until 1525Z.

The NSA report on what happened to these messages is quite detailed. I am curious as to why you think the U.S. government would have fabricated this. In terms of the overall story, what difference does it make? The bottom line is that Liberty was not where the Pentagon wanted it to be at noon on June 8, whether it was the fault of the Liberty's captain or the Navy communications bureaucracy. Both versions are embarrassing and neither absolve Israel of responsibility for attacking a US Navy ship, a responsibility Israel itself immediately accepted. --agr 15:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

> I am sorry, but this is simply incorrect.

FIRST of all you are intent upon promoting YOUR OWN BIAS as fact. You wish to have the W. article state as fact THAT WHICH IS IN DISPUTE, and which cannot possibly be resolved or established, since the papers on the USS Liberty were intentionally burned as routine protocol to avoid secrets potentially falling into enemy hands. HOW CONVENIENT! The one place we could look to see what was actually RECEIVED by the USS Liberty, the records were destroyed.

We thus have ONLY the word of the radio shack operator -- who is obviously interested in covering his butt for a MAJOR screw-up.

Which is more likely? One radio operator was sleeping or talking or goofing off, or the Pentagon broadcast orders on the wrong frequencies?

Your completely unsupported leaps are not appropriate in an encyclopedia article.

Second, the NAVY report shows very clearly that THE ORDERS WERE BROADCAST AT 01:10 0ZULU AND AGAIN AT 09:17 ZULU.

NOT ONLY WERE THE ORDERS BROADCAST AT 0110 ZULU, BUT THEY WERE BROADCAST *AGAIN* AT 09:17 ZULU. Either version would have provided the USS Liberty sufficient time to be nearly 100 miles away by 2 PM.

Third, surely you understand that the U.S. government consists of DIFFERENT AGENCIES, and they frequently have differences of opinion, and report things from their perspective. THE NSA was interested in covering up the utter incompetence of its radio-listening experts.

THE NAVY REPORT and the NSA report DISAGREE.

So you are arbitrarily choosing one report over another  AND  MISLEADING THE READER.  

YOU CANNOT TAKE THE NSA REPORT AND IGNORE THE NAVY REPORT AND FAIL TO HONESTLY INFORM THE READER THAT THE TWO ARE IN DISAGREEMENT WITH EACH OTHER.

Fourth, you are apparently tap-dancing with words by focusing NOT on when the orders were broadcast but playing a Bill Clinton game of "It depends on what them eaning of IS is" with regard to when orders were broadcast ON A PARTICULAR FREQUENCY.

Fifth, YOU YOURSELF ANSWER YOUR OWN QUESTION. If it were true -- AND IT IS NOT TRUE -- that the US Navy, IN THE MIDDLE OF A HOT WAR with ships near by, prepares an order at 01:10 Zulu but does not broadcast it until 15:27 Zulu THEN BY GOD THERE WAS DANCING IN THE STREETS IN MOSCOW. CHAMPAGNE CORKS POPPING ALL OVER THE KRELMIN !!!!!! WHAT DID THE USSR HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT, IF THE US NAVY TAKES FOURTEEN (14) HOURS TO SEND OUT ORDERS ????? The US Navy was a PAPER TIGER if a ship IN A BATTLE ZONE does not receive its orders for FOURTEEN (14) HOURS.

Surely, if you were the Soviet Premier, upon learning this, YOU WOULD IMMEDIATEY INVADE WESTERN EUROPE, knowing that it will be 14 hours before the US military can begin to respond.

The USS Liberty was the ONLY ship near any kind of military action within CINCLANT or CINCEUR. THE ONLY SHIP.

It is plainly LAUGHABLE to suggest that it took more than a few minutes for a 1 or 2 sentence order to be broadcast after 0110 Zulu. GO BACK AND LOOK AT HOW LONG (NOT LONG) THE MESSAGE IS. It has... what? ... 20 WORDS?

You cannot present the NSA report without also presenting the Navy report.

AND WHY WOULD THE US GOVERNMENT GILD THE LILY? YOU ALREADY SHOWED US: THE US NAVY WAS EXPOSED AS BEING INCAPABLE OF COMMANDING ITS SHIPS AT SEA in a timely manner. I CANNOT RECALL ANY MORE SHOCKING OR MORE DAMAGING REVELATION DURING THE COLD WAR. This is on the same level as learning that half of the US Navy's ships are actually fakes and can't fight.

You write "Formal reports by the Navy and the NSA disagree as to when this order was rebroadcast from the Sixth Fleet battle group (CINCEUR) to the USS Liberty. The Navy chronology reports that the U.S. Navy rebroadcast the order to the Liberty at 08:11 Zulu (10:11 local), but incorrectly states that the Liberty was attacked at 08:12 Zulu. (Navy Chronology, June 8,1967, pages 5 and Exhibit N, page 58). In fact, the Liberty was not attacked until around 12:00 Zulu (2:00 pm local). Had that order been obeyed, steaming at its maximum speed of 21 knots, the Liberty would have been nearly 90 miles away from the battle by 12:00 Zulu."

The NSA report is not presenting the NSA's version of events. It cites investigations by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a Navy Court of Inquiry and a congressional committee. The chronology you cite as a "Navy Chronology" www.nsa.gov/liberty/51668/3084841.pdf is on NSA's web site. There is no indication I can find in the document that says who prepared the chronology. It may well have been produced by NSA itself. Even if it was produced by the Navy, there is no indication that NSA disagrees with the chronology.

Nowhere in the chronology does it say at what times the messages ordering the Liberty 100 nm off shore were transmitted. It only gives the date-time group of the message, which, as I pointed out above, is the time at which the message was prepared for transmission. Also the chronology does not, as you claim, state "that the Liberty was attacked at 08:12 Zulu." It says quite clearly on page 6 that "the attack on the LIBERTY occurred at 081205Z," that is 1205 Zulu on the 8th. This is standard military notation for date and time and is the same format used in the message date-time groups you keep quoting. e.g. 080110Z. The Navy chronology goes on to state that "it is extremely unlikely that the LIBERTY could have received and taken action on the message in time." If there was any question that the author of the report did not know the time of the attack, the very next paragraph discusses the times of the messages received from Liberty saying she was under attack, all after 1205Z.

There is no conflict between their account and the chronology, not is there evidence cited that there is any conflict between the Navy and NSA about what happened. As there is no sourced basis for the edits you made, I am reverting them.--agr 15:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Counterpunch as a source?

The website counterpunch appeared as a source in the article....I'm not entirely sure it means the qualifications for wikipedia reliable source (It appears to be a crackpot website....it seems to be accusing the US of genocide against mexicans in the 1920s using zyklon B, among others). Does anyone else have a view on the source's usage? Narson 10:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Counterpunch is a radical left/socialist newsletter with a circulation of about 5,000 paid subscribers (according to http://www.altpress.org/direct_c2004.htm). Their website carries stories not available in the print edition. The print newsletter seems to be fact checked and edited to a professional standard, although the website sometimes allows some embarrassing mistakes to make it to print. They (the editors and writers) tend to have a very definite and predictable political slant to their pieces. However, they don't just make things up. Their investigative pieces should be reviewed independently, as with any source of news and commentary. "Crackpot" is certainly not an appropriate label for their work. 199.4.74.16 21:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

== ANTI-JEWISH; HACKS BY ANTI-SEMITES ==

The rabid hacking by Jew-haters is obvious. Please keep these racist, fascist crackpots out of Wiki.

In lieu of the above; there is far too much 'to and fro' POV in almost every paragraph, which makes points and reading very CHAOTIC and a near complete 'put-off.'

Please section-off CRITICISMS or speculative theories by conspiracy crackpots and, for instance, the verdict of the NUMEROUS INDEPENDENT inquiries inferring the incident was 'non-intentional' if for no other reason than to assist the readability of the entry.

KEEP SEPARATE for READABILITY, and cognitive flow of content.

Perhaps have a separate Wiki entry where insane conspiracy idiots can vent their feverish fantasies? -203.214.60.68

• STFU. --Shoshoni 05:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Russian influence in the run up to the war deletion

I removed the following addition on alleged "Russian influence in the run up to the war." The connection to the Liberty incident is tenuous and seems to be based on the poster's WP:OR speculation at the end. Without at least a reliable source cite that ties the alleged Russian influence to the Liberty incident, it does not belong here.--agr 17:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll hold off on restoring it pending some further feedback. I believe my information was of relevance, as it gave additional reasons why the Israelis would want to make absolutely sure there was no one in the area who wasnt' fully accounted for.

As to it just being my wild speculation, I cited both the book as well as followup news articles. I've also just found an even earlier (2003) article by Ms. Ginor in "Middle East Review of International Affairs" (2003), url: http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2003/issue3/ginor.pdf

Wiki-ny-2007 19:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Wiki-ny-2007

Just to be clear, the speculation that concerns me is in the sentences at the end that begins "If this scenario is true..." That is the part that ties the alleged Russian activities to the Liberty incident. It sounds like those comments are yours. If that's not the case, the text should make it clear that the book or article is being cited. If the last sentences are your views alone, that's OR, which we can't include. And without a tie to the subject of the article, the whole section doesn't belong here, in my view.--agr 21:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

In May, 2007, a fascinating (if true...) proposal was suggested

in a new book by Israeli journalists Isabella Ginor and Gideon Remez.

They suggested that the run-up to the "Six Day War" of 1967 was, in fact, choreographed by the Russians.

(The lead up to the outbreak of full scale hostilities took some time, with continuous ratcheting up of the tension. Key events included the closing off, by USSR ally Egypt, of the Straits of Tiran to ships headed for the Port of Eilat, and the expulsion of UN observers from the Egypt/Israel border)

Ginor and Remez maintain, in their book "Foxbats over Dimona

The Soviets' Nuclear Gamble in the Six-Day War" (Yale University Press May, 2007, ISBN: 9780300123173) that the Russians were concerned about the Israeli "secret" nuclear weapons development program centered around their reactor in the southern city of Dimona, and were preparing to stop it, by force as necessary.

The Russian plan, tehy contend, was for a modest escalation to "hot" warfare between Israel and Egypt, with the intention that during the hostilities, Russian forces would destroy the facility.

The overwhelming Israeli success in the first hours of the war prevented the Russians from following up.

The NY Sun, in an article by its Israel-focused columnist Benny Avni (http://www.nysun.com/article/61343), added some info on 27-August-2007. Among other points he noted the recent reporting from Russia that a Russian Mig-35R pilot, Colonel Aleksandr Bezhevets, had received recognition for " unique reconnaissance flights over the territory of Israel in a MiG–25RB aircraft" back in 1967 (prior to the war).

If this scenario is true and if the Israelis had the slightest inkling of it, then it significantly adds to the amount of concern the Israelis had regarding any ships in the area.

Note that this applies somewhat equally to both the camp that believes the Israelis believed the Liberty was Russian (or Egyptian) and, to some extent, if they believed it was from the US as they'd be concerned about a backdoor deal between the superpowers.

new source

The Chicago Tribune just published a 7 page investigative article on this. Just bringing it to your attention, as I don't edit here. 13:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I had my first edit conflict trying to put in this at same time.

I'm sure those with more experience with this article will see and include this pronto, but just in case see Oct 3 article "New revelations in attack on American spy ship Veterans, documents suggest U.S., Israel didn't tell full story of deadly '67 incident" http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-liberty1002,0,3053738.story?coll=bal_tab01_layout RE: DECLASSIFICATIONS "which strengthen doubts about the U.S. National Security Agency's position that it never intercepted the communications of the attacking Israeli pilots -- communications, according to those who remember seeing them, that showed the Israelis knew they were attacking an American naval vessel. The documents also suggest that the U.S. government, anxious to spare Israel's reputation and preserve its alliance with the U.S., closed the case with what even some of its participants now say was a hasty and seriously flawed investigation." I'm sure more detailed articles and the documents themselves will be forthcoming.

Carol Moore 13:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

We have annother new source on now, which is from 'Consortium News' (via altnet). This site espouses the belief that Bush has managed to have a peaceful 'coup' and taken over the country. Excellent quality sources we have. Counterpunch and Consortium News. Whats next, lunatic hobo from down the street? If we are have sites like the Chicago Tribune to back up claims of the attack being deliberate, do we need the lunatics? Narson 11:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

209.188.62.12 Adding Unsourced, POV content to article

Just noticed this. These are 209.188.62.12 only edits. Please see page's history. "Narson" has been properly undoing them, but 209.188.62.12 keeps it up and yells vandalism. 209.188.62.12 should source info properly and stop making POV comments. Hopefully, WIKISCANNER is keeping tabs in case 209.188.62.12 is some govt or advocacy organization misusing Misplaced Pages. Carol Moore 18:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Don't get me wrong, I agree with many of his conclusions, but they are, without some sources, simply conclusions of a user. He also alters things that are clearly sourced away from what the source says, messed up links to other language wikis...that and the whole personal attack issue really is trying my patience. Narson 21:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC) (forgot to sign)

If it keeps up obviously there are steps we can take ;-)

Carol Moore 00:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

I've notified the admin, there is some suspicion this might just be Louie33 again. Narson 01:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

More stuff got added I think. I really don't have the energy or the heart to keep this up. This article may be somewhat of a lost cause. Narson 19:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like our friend is back (similar IP inputting the same info and the same browbeating edit summaries) and continuing his personal attacks (though toned down) and his random drifting from unsourced to original research to deleting stuff without a source (Not that the last one is bad, just amusing considering how much unsourced material and OR the anon wants to put in). Anyone fancy wading through the mud to see if there is any gold? Narson 15:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, back to the personal attacks proper and the demands for my banning. So I'm not touching this with a barge pole and will leave it to everyone else while I file annother incident at the admin noticeboards. Narson 16:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

citation needed

I called for citation for the following claim

“They claim it was hastily conducted, in only 10 days, even though the court’s president, Rear Admiral Isaac Kidd, said that it would take 6 months to conduct properly.”

The cited source http://www.usslibertyinquiry.com/arguments/american/investigations.html in no way baked the claim Kidd’s name is not even on the page. Lenbrazil 04:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Why are undisputed facts not listed in the Introduction?

Why are undisputed facts not listed in the Introduction?

There are facts about the attack on the USS Liberty that should be introduced in the introduction to this story. Reading the introduction as it stands one would never know that such an enormous controversy surrounds this event in recent History.

1. It should be mentioned in the introduction that this event was an unprovoked attack by combined Israel Forces on an American Ship in International waters.

2. It should be mentioned the ship was attacked after Israeli pilots had twice informed superiors that it was American and flying an American Flag.

3. It should be mentioned that it was a sustained attack lasted for over an hour.

4. It should be mentioned that Pres. Johnson recalled U.S. planes that were already in the air on their way to help the USS Liberty.

These are facts and undisputed. The introduction gives the exposed cover-up version of events before it examines anything else and that does not do the truth or the victims any service.

Mr. N.Mollo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.55.178.212 (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You may well be right. But the encyclopedia runs on "Verifiability not Truth". Prove to us that those things are stated in reliable sources, not based on your own Original Research, and it should be possible to fit them in. PR 00:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

<sarcasm>And the JFK article should start with how he was shot by an alien using an ice bullet from the grassy knoll. </sarcasm> Narson 09:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Why are undisputed facts not listed in the Introduction? Part 2

Why are undisputed facts not listed in the Introduction? Part 2

I understand that poof is needed to back up the points I made in my first post. I also understand that this page is for corroborating and introducing facts that can then be included in an authoritative history. I see no place on Misplaced Pages for sarcasm and uninformed opinion.

1. The attack by combined Israeli forces was unprovoked. This is an undisputed fact and the word “unprovoked” should be inserted into the first line of the introduction before the word “attack”.

2. The America flag that was flying on the USS Liberty exists supporting numerous bullets holes.

3. Recordings are in existence of Israeli Pilots informing superiors that the ship was American before the attack.

4. The length of the attack was long and substantiated. A very conservative estimate is over one hour but numerous witnesses’ stress it was over two hours.

5. The recalling of American Planes that took-off from U.S. Aircraft Carriers by someone in the America Administration is confirmed by the officer of the deck (OOD) David Lewis in writing and audiotapes.

Mr. N.Mollo

And on the other side of the coin, Pro-Israelis could argue it should be 'An accidental attack on a US craft resulting in an unprovoked attack on Israeli torpedo boats'. We leave the controversial tooing and froing to the sections on it, where both views are put forward with points and counter points. There are numerous (and rather authoritative) sources stating it was an accident just as there are numerous ones that claim it wasn't. Therefore the title is how it is and we leave the conspiracy theories for further down the page. Narson 14:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Israel claims it thought it was attacking an Egyptian ship. Israel was at full war with Egypt and did not need a provocation to attack one of their ships. Israel has never claimed it had any justification for attacking an American ship.

2. According the the Captain of the Liberty, the ship's American flag was shot down and its halyard destroyed in the first attack. He ordered a second flag raised after the torpedo boats were sighted. (NSA report p.28)

3. This is very much disputed. NSA says on it web site that it has released all audio tapes of the incident that it made.

4. According to the NSA report, there were two attacks, one by aircraft at 1400 (local time) lasting "five or six minutes" (p.28) and one by torpedo boats. The later were sighted at 1424 and the torpedo boat attack started at 1434.(p.29) One torpedo hit the Liberty at 1440. The boats then "milled around astern of the Liberty" and one signaled "Do you require assistance?" The boats left the area at 1505. (p.30) Israeli helicopters appeared at 1515 and came and went several times. NSA has released tapes and transcripts of the helicopter communications. Torpedo boats appeared again at 1536 and "returned toward the ship several times ... over the next hour and a quarter" but took no action. (p.31).

5. The launch and recall of US aircraft is well documented in the NSA report (pp.31-32). At 1440, the Commander, Sixth Fleet ordered the launch of four A-4 jet fighters and four A-1s to defend the Liberty. The order was "implemented" at 1516 (I assume this means planes were launched). It was estimated that the first planes would be on the scene at 1715. Israel notified the US of the attack, via the US Naval Attache at about 1600 and he immediately sent a flash message to the White House. The NSA report (p.32) goes on to describe how Washington was notified of the attack, how the notification made its way to President Johnson. Johnson then sent a message to Soviet union chairman Kosygin over the "hot line" that began "We have just learned that the U.S.S. Liberty, an auxiliary ship, has apparently been torpedoed by Israel forces in error off Port Said." The message goes on to inform him of the aircraft sent to investigate and asks him to inform "the proper parties." Kosygin replied that he passed the message to President Nassar of Egypt. The US aircraft were then ordered withdrawn.

It might be a good idea to add a time line with these details to the article, but I don't see why any of this belongs in the introduction.:--agr 14:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Why are undisputed facts not listed in the Introduction? Part 3

1. How can the attack be described as anything but being unprovoked? The fact that History can be given any perspective is an obvious one and the introduction proves it. The reason I feel the need to correct this version of events is that the introduction reads as uncontroversial when the events so obviously were and still are and for that reason alone the word “Unprovoked” should be put before the word attack in the introduction.

2. You have confirmed my statement about the American Flag.

3. I agree.

4. There were over 800 rounds of different sorts that peppered the ship. Many witness state the attack was long and prolonged.

5. American fighter Planes already in the air were recalled to their carriers by the American Administration.

Mr. N. Mollo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmollo (talk • contribs) 19:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Misplaced Pages tries to avoid conclusionary terms like "unprovoked." It's better to let the facts and sourced statements from both sides speak for themselves.

2. It's not clear which flag you are referring to, the first that was shot away, or the second that was raised during the torpedo boat attack, when there was a lot of smoke.

4. There were 821 separate hits according to the NSA report, p.28. According to our article on the DEFA cannon that was standard on the Mirage III, it had a rate of fire of 1300 rounds per minute and each plane had two of them. That is not atypical for fighter aircraft of the era. The Liberty was a large target. It was initially moving about 5 knots, according to the NSA report. It's not hard to believe the Israeli pilots could have delivered 821 rounds in five minutes. The timeline I quoted above says the attack started at 1400 and the last Israeli boats left the area over two hours later, so that is not inconsistent with the witnesses you quote. But the active attack was not that long.

5. The US launches planes; the Israeli government notifies the US of the attack and says it was an error; the planes are recalled. That seems quite natural. I'm not clear as to why you think this aspect of the story is particularly significant.

--agr 20:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Why are undisputed facts not listed in the Introduction? Part 3

1. The fact that this event is controversial is part of its legacy. It is controversial because the attacks were Unprovoked by a supposed ally. There is need to correct the introduction because it reads as uncontroversial.

2. I was referring to the one that still exists with the holes in it.

4. I agree with your stand on this.

5. I can accept your natural version of events on this point but I see them as unnatural. I concede. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmollo (talk • contribs) 21:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

1. I think your have a point here. There was no mention of the controversy until the fifth paragraph. I added a brief and, I hope, NPOV, mention to the first paragraph. I did not use the word "unprovoked," for the reasons I gave above, and also because that really isn't the heart of the controversy, which is whether the attack delibertly targeted a ship known to be American. --agr 23:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Espionage

I read somewhere that the liberty was sending Israeli tank communication to the Egyptians. Can anyone find a source for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.254.28 (talk) 06:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The Liberty was recording Arab and Russian communications and were under orders not to record Israeli at all. One of the claims for the reason Israel attacked is that they were worried the Liberty was recording Israeli communications which could have been used in a future war crimes trial against them. This is probably where your theory came from. Wayne 05:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Moorer Commission on Capitol Hill and Captain Ward Boston statement

These are important aspects that need to be in the article. Moorer was formerly the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of STaff,the highest ranking military officer in the US, and a WWII hero. The commission he chaired, which reported its findings on Capitol Hill in 2003, is highly significant. The findings need to be in the article.

Also, Captain Ward Boston's affidavit needs to be included, as does Rear Admiral Starings's information. These are among the highest military officers in the United States. Their statements -- given in the Rayburn House Office Building -- are historic.

I remind you of the 3RR rule. You have now done 6 reverts in 6 hours! I give you the benifit of good faith but don't do it again. I suggest you make small edits and allow them to stand on their own merits. Parts of the massive edit you made make good points but badly worded but unfortunately most of what you have done is innapropriate and unnneccesary. Wayne 06:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class maritime warfare articles
• Maritime warfare task force articles
• Start-Class North American military history articles
• North American military history task force articles
• Start-Class United States military history articles
• United States military history task force articles