The Liberty Incident Revealed

by A. Jay Cristol

  The records created that day, including Captain Tully’s own messages released by him and sent on June 8, 1967, tell a different story. The only support for a launch from the Saratoga at 1440 is a log entry that states that at 1440 the Saratoga changed course to 315° and increased speed to twenty-five knots. The log does not reflect two launches. According to the Saratoga deck log, the first aircraft launched to defend the Liberty were launched at 1602 Sinai time, which was 1002 Washington time. The America’s log does not have a message indicating the exact time. However, the America probably launched its four F-4s slightly before the Saratoga.

  Lewis and Tully claim the planes were launched from the Saratoga. Ennes claims they were launched from the America. Lewis and Tully claim that Admiral Geis said the aircraft were recalled by voice command of Secretary of Defense McNamara and confirmed by voice command of President Johnson, both speaking to Admiral Geis. Ennes claims the aircraft were recalled by Secretary McNamara and the Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. David McDonald, giving voice orders from the Pentagon to Commander Sixth Fleet (Admiral Martin) rather than to Admiral Geis.47 However, McNamara was not in the Pentagon that morning during the time frame when Ennes claims McNamara called Admiral Martin.

  Secretary McNamara later confirmed that he never spoke on the telephone or radio to anyone in the Sixth Fleet that day.48 The president had called a meeting in the White House Situation Room and arrived there at 1106 Washington time, 1706 Sinai time. McNamara was already in the Situation Room. Pictures taken by the White House photographer show McNamara at the White House at times when the Ennes story places him at the Pentagon.49

  Secretary McNamara told this author that the only order he gave to recall aircraft was issued in the Situation Room at the White House after the message from Commander Castle in Tel Aviv was received by the White House, advising that the attack on the Liberty had been made by Israel.50 That was about 1125 Washington time, which was about 1725 Sinai time. At that time all aircraft had already been recalled by Vice Admiral Martin, the Sixth Fleet commander, who canceled all strikes at 1040 Washington time.

  Messages sent by Admiral Martin in June 1967 flatly contradict the stories told by Lewis, Ennes, and Tully. Admiral Martin told a press conference that he did not get any instructions from Washington at any time and that he, not Tully and not Geis, ordered the Liberty-defense aircraft launched and recovered. He also stated that he had provided copies of every message he sent during the Liberty incident to his superiors, CINCUSNAVEUR and CINCEUR.51

  The Liberty Veterans Association concedes that in spite of the conflicting tales of two launches of aircraft told by Ennes, Lewis, and Tully, the official position of the U.S. Navy is that there was only one launch. They also, however, imply that this official denial indicates something more insidious than a simple assessment based on established fact.52 But all records, message traffic, and statements made at the time or immediately after the attack indicate that only one launch was made to protect the Liberty.

  Although these stories have really nothing to do with the question of whether the Israelis attacked with knowledge that the target was a U.S. ship, they are told with great passion by conspiracy theorists, some of whom claim they prove a conspiracy to betray the United States and the Liberty between the president, the secretary of defense, and all the top admirals involved.53

  At periodic intervals the commander of the Sixth Fleet was required to compile a command history and file it with the Chief of Naval Operations. Excerpts from the command history of the U.S. Sixth Fleet, declassified on September 30, 1981, confirm the launch and recall times of the aircraft launched to defend the Liberty:

  June 8, 1967—Communications ship Liberty erroneously attacked in international waters by Israeli aircraft and torpedo boats. Israel offers immediate apologies for incident. . . .

  Pertinent message traffic can be found in Annex A. . . .

  Z 081250Z JUN 67 [1450 Sinai time, 0850 Washington time]

  FM COMSIXTHFLT

  TO USS SARATOGA

  USS AMERICA

  INFO CTF SIX ZERO

  CTG SIX ZERO PT TWO

  CONFIDENTIAL

  1. America launch four armed A4’s to proceed to 31-23N 33-25E to defend USS Liberty who is under attack by gun boats. Provide fighter cover and tankers. Relieve on station. Saratoga launch four armed A-1’s ASAP same mission.

  Z 081339Z JUN 67 [1539 Sinai time, 0939 Washington time]

  FM COMSIXTHFLT

  TO USS AMERICA

  USS SARATOGA

  USS LIBERTY INCIDENT

  1. IAW CINCUSNAVEUR Inst PO3120.5b forces attacking Liberty are declared hostile.

  2. You are authorized to use force including destruction as necessary to control the situation. Do not use more force than required. Do not pursue any unit towards land for reprisal purposes. Purpose of counterattack is to protect Liberty only.

  3. Brief all pilots contents of this message. In addition brief pilots that Egyptian territorial limit only 12 miles and Liberty right on edge. Do not fly between Liberty and shoreline except as required to carry out provisions para 2 above. Brief fighter cover that any attacks on attack aircraft, Liberty, or themselves is hostile act and para two above applies. GP-4

  081414Z JUN 67 [1614 Sinai time, 1014 Washington time]

  FM USADO TEL AVIV ISRAEL

  TO WHITE HOUSE/OSD/CNO/DEPT STATE/COMSIXTHFLT/

  CINCUSNAVEUR/JCS/DIA/USUN/CINCEUR-USEUSOM/CTG SIX

  ZERO PT TWO/USAFE/CINCUSAREUR/CTG SIX

  ZERO/CINCSTRIKE

  CONFIDENTIAL 0825 JUN 67

  ALUSNA called to FLO to receive report. Israeli aircraft and MTB’s erroneously attacked U.S. ship at 08/1200Z, position 31-25N 33-33E. Maybe Navy ship. IDF helicopters in rescue operations. No other info. Israelis send abject apologies and request info of other US ships near war zone coasts. GP-3.

  Z 081440Z JUN 67 [1640 Sinai time, 1040 Washington time]

  FM COMSIXTHFLT

  TO USS AMERICA

  USS SARATOGA

  CTF 60

  CTG 60.2

  CONFIDENTIAL

  1. Recall all strikes Repeat recall all strikes GP-3

  Another problem with the Lewis story is its lack of consistency. Lewis went public with this story in 1988, many years after the event. John Borne, in his book published in 1995 (see chapter 9), quoted Lewis as the source of a different version of this story.54 The story was also told differently by Lewis himself in a videotape produced in 1991 by Sligo Productions;55 it was told differently once again by Lewis in the NBC video production of 1992, The Story behind the Story.56

  Lewis was badly burned in the torpedo attack on the Liberty. His perception of events that day and during his period of recuperation has perhaps allowed imagination to fill in some of the gaps in his memory of the event and the immediate aftermath. Ennes tells his story without citation to any source, and the Tully story told twenty years later is in conflict with Tully’s written records created at the time.

  Lt. (now Cdr.) Maurice H. Bennett, USN (Ret.), who was a cryptographic officer attached to the NSA detachment on board the Liberty on the day of the attack and who was awarded the Silver Star, shared this perception:

  I think that a number of us who were coming up from the torpedoed research spaces thought at first the attack was by Egypt. We at that time had no idea who to blame. I remember when the helos flew over the first time many of the people from the research spaces were cheering them on to “get” the Egyptians. It wasn’t until later that we realized it was Israeli attack. Of course those on the bridge had made the identification as Israeli and knew who was attacking.57

  The U.S. Navy recognized the heroism of the crew by awarding many individual citations as well as the highest unit award, the Presidential Unit Citation, issued for “exceptionally meritorious and heroic achievement.” Communications Technician First Class Joseph Lentini was wounded in the torpedo attack. By chance he was outside the NSA compartment when the torpedo hit, killing twenty-
five of his shipmates. He has said, “The best way to remember those men is the way I try to remember them every day. And every time I get a chance to voice their memory—they were serving their country and every one of them was a hero.”58

  Chapter 9

  CONSPIRACY THEORIES

  The conspiracy theories about the attack on the Liberty range from a simple rejection of the conclusion that it was a case of mistaken identity to some rather incredible theories. Some of these theories may have their genesis in the perception, wishes, or agendas of their propagators. Notwithstanding the fourteen official U.S. and Israeli investigations of the case, all of which concluded that the incident was caused by a tragic series of mistakes or that there is no evidence that the Israeli attack was not a tragic case of mistaken identity, the following assertions to the contrary have become a part of the growing Liberty-related literature. Is this a conscious effort to deceive the American public and U.S. decision makers? Probably not in the case of those whose own perceptions have led them to their conclusions—but probably yes in the cases of special interest groups or individuals promoting their own agendas.

  Why have these stories persisted? McGeorge Bundy, President Kennedy’s National Security Advisor and later chairman of a special committee in charge of the Middle East crisis appointed in June 1967 by President Johnson, provided a simple explanation: “The American people love conspiracy.”1 This is evident, for example, in some of bizarre stories still circulating over fifty years later about the 1963 assassination President John F. Kennedy and numerous other conspiracy tales that are told and retold in magazines, books, films, and elsewhere.

  For patriotic Egyptians and other Arabs, it is emotionally more desirable to accept a defeat at the hands of the United States than a defeat by Israel. National pride is assuaged, even if national interests are not served by refusing to accept reality. From the point of view of the leaders of Egypt, who knew or should have known the reality, there was a political motive to maintain public support by focusing blame on an insurmountable outside entity.

  On July 27, 1967, Yevgeny A. Primakov, who has a long history of favoring the Arab side of the Arab-Israeli conflict, was serving as an editor of the Communist Party newspaper Pravda. He published an article about the Liberty incident that states:

  Now it is known that among the Liberty crew members were superlative Arab language experts. While moving along the Sinai towards the Israeli border, they were intercepting operative communications between commanders on the Egyptian side. It was also leaked out that the Liberty maintained two-way communications with Israeli radio stations. It is possible that when it was necessary to cover up any evidence of U.S. espionage activity there was a scenario which was played out in the Israeli motor torpedo boat attack upon the Liberty, which turned out to be a tragedy for the crew of the ship. A similar version agrees that the Israeli head of government decided to mask the fact of its cooperation with the CIA by an attack on the Liberty; in any case, this has already been circulated in the world press.2

  Thereafter Primakov and others wrote a book about the 1967 war entitled The “Dove” Has Been Released, which was printed in the Soviet Union in Russian in 1968.3 This book claims that the United States and Israel used the Liberty to send false or “cooked” messages to the Egyptian forces in the Sinai, directing them to withdraw. In electronic warfare, “cooking” refers to intercepting and altering enemy messages. It can be as simple as rendering the message unintelligible so that it is of no use to the enemy or as sophisticated as altering the content of the message to affect the enemy’s action in response to the message. Many of the theories of those who doubt, or do not accept, the mistaken-identity theory attribute various cooking capabilities to the Israelis. Primakov and his coauthors further allege that “in order to erase the participation of this ship in the Sinai campaign, it was necessary to stage an attack.”4

  Thus, in the Primakov story the United States was on Israel’s side, actively fighting against the Arabs, and the attack on the Liberty was made in collusion with the United States to cover up the U.S. participation on behalf of Israel. Many Arabs interviewed by this author have heard this story and accept it as true. The Arab affection for this Soviet version of the events is further reinforced by Primakov’s insistence that the Israeli victory over the Arabs was due only to assistance from the United States, Britain, and West Germany: “Newspaper reports that the U.S. and British planes participated in the raids on Arab airfields were not confirmed. But that in no way disproves the extensive indirect participation of the U.S., British and West German imperialist hordes in the Israeli venture.”5

  In an article coauthored by Primakov and published in 1968, the authors go on to claim that Israeli officers received “extensive” military training in special camps in the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany and were also trained by their participation in the fighting in Vietnam.6 The Primakov story served the national and political interests of the Soviet Union in its quest to establish influence in the Arab world at the expense of the United States. The Primakov story is not supported by any evidence.

  Another interesting cooking story has been related by Egyptian ambassador Mahmoud Kassem.7 In this case the cooking goes one step farther, according to Ambassador Kassem, as it was not a conversation between two other parties but rather a conversation between one party, King Hussein, and the “cookers,” who instantly created the responses of the purported second party, President Nasser, who was not in fact a party to the conversation at all.

  Ambassador Kassem, who worked in the office of President Nasser during the 1967 war, believes that the attack on the Liberty was an intentional attack by Israel against a U.S. ship, because, as he claims, the Liberty had intercepted a telephone conversation between Jordan’s King Hussein that purported to be from Egypt’s President Nasser but which in reality was from the Israelis and had been cooked to mislead King Hussein into believing he was talking to President Nasser. The ambassador believes that Israel tricked King Hussein into entering the war and that Israel did not want this successful trick to be disclosed and therefore attacked the Liberty to prevent the disclosure.

  His theory is that Israel had recorded conversations of Nasser’s speeches and spliced individual words together. These words were used by the Israelis to create responses to Hussein in Nasser’s voice and thus lead Hussein to believe that he was talking with Nasser, when in fact Nasser was not a part of the conversation at all.8 Israel had developed superior electronic intelligence (ELINT) capabilities, and its abilities in 1967 were far superior to the Arab ELINT capabilities. However, even with today’s highly advanced, fully computerized technologies, it would be absolutely impossible to hear a statement from Hussein, decide on the response, locate and retrieve on stored audiotapes the individual words needed for the cooked response, splice them into a sentence or phrase, and then transmit them in time. Even if one could accept the notion that the Israelis were able to accomplish such a remarkable feat in 1967, how could the Israelis possibly have known that the cooked message had been intercepted by the Liberty?

  There is another major problem with Ambassador Kassem’s theory: on the relevant date, June 6, the Liberty had not arrived in the area. She was still two days away from the coast of the Sinai. Moreover, even if one assumes that the Liberty had somehow intercepted the Israeli cooked telephone conversation, why has this intercept never been leaked or disclosed in any fashion?

  Ambassador Kassem told this author that he had “heard that Moshe Dayan ordered the sinking of the Liberty. He also said that he heard that the U.S. government had forbidden the families of the crewmen lost on the Liberty to conduct memorial services for them.9 No evidence indicates any support for either of these claims.

  In 1977 Anthony Pearson published a book entitled Conspiracy of Silence.10 Pearson’s conspiracy theory is that the Israelis deliberately attacked the Liberty, because Israel had demanded the withdrawal of the ship from the area and the United States had refuse
d to move it out. Pearson first told this story in the May 1976 and June 1976 issues of Penthouse magazine.11 According to Pearson, the Liberty arrived “off” its designated station at midday on June 5, 1967,12 and was operating off the Sinai and passing information to the United States for several days prior to June 8, 1967. Pearson ignores the documented fact that the Liberty arrived on station at Point Alpha at 0849 on the morning of June 8, 1967. Also, Pearson never states specifically to whom or how the information gathered by the Liberty was passed, but he does state that the Liberty was “well out of the striking range of the Egyptian coastline” and was ordered to move closer to the Sinai coast on the morning of June 8 by a “communication.”13 He does not say from whom or how the communication was sent.

  In fact, on the morning of June 8, the National Security Agency and the Joint Chiefs of Staff were trying to transmit orders to the Liberty directing her to stay one hundred miles clear of the combat zone. The failure of these orders to reach the Liberty was the subject of the House Armed Services Committee investigation of military worldwide communications in 1971.14 Pearson makes no mention of that investigation in his book. He explains the situation in this way:

  What no one knew—except those at the highest levels of the Israeli and American governments—was that Israel was violating a predetermined plan formulated by the CIA, top officials of the Johnson administration, the Israeli General Staff and leading Israeli politicians. According to the plan, Israel should have fought a contained war with the Arabs which would not have affected territorial lines between Israel and Syria and Jordan. But the Liberty had discovered Israel’s violation or the scheme, and on the evening of June 7, the Israeli ambassador in Washington was told that the attacks had to stop. Eight hours later orders were given in Tel Aviv to destroy the ship.15