Adventure,
The links to FreeRepublic serve simply a quick link to information that
exists, that most of the cts ignore, that the US recordings of the
incident show the Israelis were shocked when they found out it was a US
ship.

As for your evidence, again it does not show that at the time of the
attack the pilots nor Israeli commanders on duty and incharge of the
operation knew that the boat they were attacking was the US Liberty.

I have read the actually filing and it is purely speculation with no
actual evidence, just inference. As are most of the posts in most of the
forums, just like this mainly anti-Israeli forum on JSH.

If you are going to cite stuff, you should at least provide places to
find the information you are using.

I am still waiting for someone to provide actual documentation that
shows the Israelis intentionally attacked the USS Liberty, knowing it
was the liberty.

The closed mindedness here is apparent.

http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/meaning.html

To take that further, the Philistines and Jews warred, at some point,
the Jews won and the Philistines and Jews became one.

So the origin shows there is no Place called Palestine, there never was,
the modern usage is a political play used by Syria, Egypt, and Jordan.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/943818/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/943117/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/942571/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/998942/posts

So far the orignial commision assigned to investigate the incident, if I
recall a second commission was created in the late eighties and came to
the same conclusion, and as the articles above show, in 2003 the release
of NSA recordings indicate, that Oceans clearly denies exist as they
were not monitoring Israeli transmissions, shows the same. They made a
mistake, far from intentional. Please someone provide evidence of
intent.

As tragic as the story the survivors is, it is not proof of prior
knowledge that the USS Liberty was known to the Israelis and in now way
proves that they attacked with said knowledge. It is simple speculation
on their part as it is on the part of those that propogate their
opinions as fact with nothing to back it up.

derfw & doctor, sorry. Maybe I should have included the word airport,
however I thought since the topic was current news & events, that it was
already clear that it was the JFK airport plot that has been unfolding
in the news of late.
Sorry about the confusion.

Oceans,
You are quite funny, considering nothing you posted has ever been
admitted to.

The American inquires did not conclude the Israelies knew before hand,
please show evidence of this.

The Israelis have never admitted that either.

I would hardly believe anything coming from Tunisia or Egypt since they
would say anything to support anti-Israeli rhetoric.

I doubt every enalyst that studied the incident know that. I would say
some may beleive that, but hardly all, and to know beyond doubt is
unbelievable.
But not our Xootbx.

All the specutaion of the flag, again is speculation, just because a
flag was present does not mean it was visibly a US flag. Kind of funny
how nothing was recorded by the USS Liberty regarding the Israeli
transmissions between pilots and command. Hmmm.


"none of that matters to our Xootbx."
Actually it all matter, I have yet to see definitive proof of this, this
story has been propogated as a way to demonize Jews and nothing more.
Until definitive proof is present, what is known is all that matters,
everything else is speculation.

Interesting iexamination of the links between various factions involved
in the JFK plot.

http://rapidrecon.threatswatch.org/2007/06/jfk-plot-iran-crime-capability/

Oceans, very nice post however it is very one sided. Unfortunately the
Israeli-Palestinian problem has two sides to it.

The major side with is commonly overlooked is that Syria, Egypt, Jordan
and most of the middle east countries do not want the "Palestinians" to
have a country of their own as this would take away their only military
asset capable of attacking Israel at will with no negative reprecussions
for said countries.

I agree the Palestinians have been treated horribly throughout history.
The funny thing is the Jews are the Palestinians, the current
"Palestinians" adopted the name after the creation of Israel.

The so-called Palestinians today are really Jordanian, Syrian, Egyptian.
These lands that they are on when the 1967 war took place was part of
these countries. Considering there was never a Palestinian Country it is
hard for them to have been citizens of said country.

You also convieniently leave out the fact that the Egytian, Syrian and
Jordanian armies had amassed on along the Israeli borders, leaving the
Israelis with a logical conclusion that they are going to be attacked as
they had been in the past by said countries. Even though Israel initiate
the attacks, it was in response to an inevitable invasion force on it's
borders.

Unfortunately, there is yet to be presented any proof that the attack
was conducted with prior knowledge that the ship was a US ship. This
story is great in that it purpetuates speculation as fact, as is with
most anti-Israeli propoganda. The story relies on a single thread, that
the ship was flying a US flag. Unfortunately the flag may not have been
seen for various reasons, such as wind direction vs flight direction of
recon and fighters/bombers.
What was convieniently left out of the story is that the Israeli
military immediately began rescue operations as soon as they realized
they had mistaken the ship for being Egytian.
Also what is now also missing is the story of an Israeli commander that
does not exist. I guess those that have propogated this myth over time,
have realized they cannot use an imaginary person as a key witness to
Israeli command operations controlling the mission.
Of the know facts and lack of evidence of intent, this is nothing more
than a tragic friendly-fire incident.
Let's not forget that Israel was engaged in a war at the time.

Oceans,
The UN cannot create a right to invade the sovereignty of any country,
however every country has the right to defend itself from an invading
force, when said country cannot defend itself, the UN has the power to
assist if asked. Kuwait was invaded by Iraq and asked for help from the
UN. Under this request, the US as signatuary member of the UN charter,
obliged.

In order to reach an Armastice, the terms of the cease-fire must be met
by both parties. Iraq did not meet the terms of the cease fire, as a
matter of fact, it defied the cease-fire terms.

In addition to this, the UN had already establish and maintained a
military presence with Iraq boarders, under the auspice of No-Fly zones,
thus creating a precedence that Iraq was still considered hostile and
that military action was still required to minimize the threat posed to
its neighbors.

As for credentionals, I think the Wikipedia scandal shows how valuable
self proclaimed expertise is worth. Besides that, as I said in my last
post, by claiming expertise you become subject to evaluation of your
"opinions" by the rules of logic. My main point with that is you called
"red herring" logic flaws on a non-expert who was expressing opinion.
Regardless of how uninformed that persons opinion was, it is not bound
by the rules of logic as it was an opinion which can be based simply of
"emotional reasoning".

I again would respect your opinion more, had you left it as such by not
trying add credibility to your statements of said expertise and
knowledge of the area.

The Net is a place where anonimity and false identy pervade and when one
does claim to be certain things, regardless of truth, it really makes
them sound foolish in my opinion.

Let your words speak for credentials.

This forum seems to have gone off topic by staggering into areas that
have nothing to do with the legality of the wars.

Oceans, you called someone out on using red herrings, I must say this
seems kind of odd since that person, as most on here are not experts and
are expressing their opinions on the topic, where as you have proclaimed
to be an expert on the topic. Opinions are not bound by the rules of
logic and therefore flaws in logic are not valid. However what your are
posting is based on your expertise on the topic, and therefore expressed
as fact, are bound by said laws of logic.

Also I find that your cheapen your own words by making statements of how
much you know on the topic and that what ever position, jobs, past
experience, make you an expert on the topic. I think I would respect
your posts more if you left those ego boosting statements out.

That said, back to topic, the legality of the wars we are engaged in.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it limit the President from using the
military to engage the enemy. It does provide for Congress to declare
war, why you may ask, simple, so that if there is an enemy of the State
and the President of the US does not act on behalf of the US, then
Congress has the power to active the military. The Founders specifically
assigned the President as the Commander and Chief of the military,
however they also wanted a "backdoor" to use the military if necessary.
Note, the enemy could be the President, if the President tried to
establish a monarchy or other non-Republic form of government.

Your assertation that Congress rolled over to the President, if flawed
in that nothing in the Constitution prevents them from doing this. If
you have evidence contrary to this, please provide, I would love to read
it.

As for Internation law, in the case of Afghanistan, we had UN approval,
so the legality of the war in Afghanistan is substantiated.

As for Iraq, again I point out that the UN authorization was already
there from the "First Gulf War", and we were under a condition of a
Cease-fire.

The question with Iraq should be, did Saddam violate the term of the
cease fire in a level of severity to allow the UN forces to continue the
original mission. In my opinion I would say that his continued ambiguity
to prove the had meet the terms of the cease-fire and his continued
program of decieving the world into thinking he may still have WMDs, is
enough to show he had violated the terms of the cease-fire.

Please, I ask you or any other users, to show where this is
constitutionaly illegal?

I reiterate that the Constitution is not open to interpretation. The
laws passed are open to interpretation and are subject to not violate
the Constitution.

Philosopher,
The Vietnam War as well as the Korean War were classified as Police
Actions as an official declaration of war by Congress was not issued.


It seems people keep talking about what is Constitutional and what is
not. They try to say the Founders would be [Insert your term hear]. The
fact of the matter is the Founders left the Constitution fairly vague
for a reason, so that future generations could create laws to handle the
situations of the time.

The Federalist Papers are a good insight into what the Founding Fathers
intended, however most schools do not teach about the Federalist Papers.
These are the views and motives behind the Articles of the Constitution.

Unfortunately over the years, many believe the Constitution is open to
interpretation, it is not. The foundation laid down by the Constitution
are concrete. What is open to interpretation is if laws that are passed
are in violation of the Constitution.

Please remember the Constitution does not grant any "Rights". It
preserves a balance to protect basic liberties and to prevent a single
entity from changing the foundation in a single administrative term.

http://www.knoppix.net

Boots off of the CD, no install, does not interfer with your exisiting
OS.

You can access the hd, but do not save anything to it or it will screw
up WindowsXP

The soldiers are bound to the Constitution as is the President of the
United States, however the Constitution gives the President control of
the military. Thus the soldiers are bound to the President's orders by
the Constitution of the Unitied States.

As for impeachement, the President can "raise" all the concerns as teh
liberal state government of Vermont, wants, that does not make it an
impeachable offence. Every President does things that raise concerns to
some group or another, the question is are those actions impeachable or
just questionable?

Both wars are quite legal.
The Iraq war began with the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, and through UN
obligation, the US military engaged the Iraq military. This obligation
is the equivelant of a treat, and had been accepted long prior to the
Iraq war. The "second" Iraq war was not really a second war, as the
first war never ended. It was a cease-fire based on specific
requirements, that the UN laid out for Saddam and the Iraq goverment.
Saddam and the Iraq goverment did not meet those requirement and thus
the cease-fire ended.

As for Afghanastan, the goverment at the time, the Taliban, had provided
shelter for the persons believed to have carried out the attacks on the
World Trade Centers. Congress authorized the President to take military
action, which he did.

The real question should be does the constitution require a
Congressional Declaration of War in order for the President to command
the military into a combat situation?

The Constitution does not specifically deny Congress the right to
authorize President to use the military. Additional the Constitution
does not specifically deny the President from activating the military
without the consent of Congress.

The Korean War and Vietnam war are instances where no Declaration of War
was issued, but the acting Presidents at the time engaged the enemy with
our military.

This sets a legal precedent that would appear to give Congress and the
President to do so again.

Dave is correct in his conclusion.

Scroll down about half way.

http://www.doc.nv.gov/visiting.php