Declaration
of
Ward Boston, Jr. ,Captain, JAG, SUN (Ret.)
Counsel
to the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry’s investigation into the
Israeli attack on the USS Liberty
Download
the Document
I, Ward Boston, Jr. do declare
that the following statement is true and complete:
For more than 30 years, I have
remained silent on the topic of USS Liberty. I am a military man and
when orders come in from the Secretary of Defence and President of the
United States, I follow them.
However, recent attempts to rewrite history compel me to
share the truth.
In June of 1967, while serving as a Captain in the Judge
Advocate General Corps, Department of the Navy, I was assigned as
senior legal counsel for the Navy’s Court of Inquiry into the
brutal attack on USS Liberty, which had occurred on June 8th.
The late Admiral Isaac C. Kidd, president of the Court,
and I were given only one week to gather evidence for the
Navy’s official investigation into the attack, despite the
fact that we both had estimated that a proper Court of Inquiry into an
attack of this magnitude would take at least six months to conduct.
Admiral John S. McCain, Jr., then Commander-in-chief,
Naval Forces Europe (CINCUSNAVEUR), at his headquarters in London, had
charged Admiral Kidd (in a letter dated June 10, 1967) to
“inquire into all the pertinent facts and circumstances
leading to and connected with the armed attack; damage resulting
therefrom; and deaths of and injuries to Naval personnel.”
Despite the short amount of time we were given, we
gathered a vast amount of evidence, including hours of heartbreaking
testimony from the young survivors.
The evidence was clear. Both Admiral Kidd and I believed
with certainty that this attack, which killed 34 American sailors and
injured 172 others, was a deliberate effort to sink an American ship
and murder its entire crew. Each evening, after hearing testimony all
day, we often spoke our private thoughts concerning what we had seen
and heard. I recall Admiral Kidd repeatedly referring to the Israeli
forces responsible for the attack as “murderous
bastards.” It was our shared belief, based on the documentary
evidence and testimony we received first hand, that the Israeli attack
was planned and deliberate, and could not possibly have been an
accident.
I am certain that the Israeli pilots that undertook the
attack, as well as their superiors, who had ordered the attack, were
well aware that the ship was American.
I saw the flag, which had visibly identified the ship as
American, riddled with bullet holes, and heard testimony that made it
clear that the Israelis intended there be no survivors. 10. Not only
did the Israelis attack the ship with napalm, gunfire, and missiles,
Israeli torpedo boats machine-gunned three lifeboats that had been
launched in an attempt by the crew to save the most seriously wounded
— a war crime.
Admiral Kidd and I both felt it necessary to travel to
Israel to interview the Israelis who took part in the attack. Admiral
Kidd telephoned Admiral McCain to discuss making arrangements. Admiral
Kidd later told me that Admiral McCain was adamant that we were not to travel to Israel or
contact the Israelis concerning this matter.
Regrettably, we did not receive into evidence and the
Court did not consider any of the more than sixty witness declarations
from men who had been hospitalized and were unable to testify in person.
I am outraged at the efforts of the apologists for
Israel in this country to claim that this attack was a case of
“mistaken identity.”
In particular, the recent publication of Jay
Cristol’s book, The Liberty Incident, twists the facts and
misrepresents the views of those of us who investigated the attack.
It is Cristol’s insidious attempt to whitewash
the facts that has pushed me to speak out.
I know from personal conversations I had with Admiral
Kidd that President Lyndon Johnson and Secretary of Defence Robert
McNamara ordered him to conclude that the attack was a case of
“mistaken identity” despite overwhelming evidence
to the contrary.
Admiral Kidd told me, after returning from Washington,
D.C. that he had been ordered to sit down with two civilians from
either the White House or the Defence Department, and rewrite portions
of the court’s findings.
Admiral Kidd also told me that he had been ordered to
“put the lid” on everything having to do with the
attack on USS Liberty. We were never to speak of it and we were to
caution everyone else involved that they could never speak of it again.
I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of that statement
as I know that the Court of Inquiry transcript that has been released
to the public is not the same one that I certified and sent off to
Washington.
I know this because it was necessary, due to the
exigencies of time, to hand correct and initial a substantial number of
pages. I have examined the released version of the transcript and I did
not see any pages that bore my hand corrections and initials. Also, the
original did not have any deliberately blank pages, as the released
version does. Finally, the testimony of Lt. Painter concerning the
deliberate machine gunning of the life rafts by the Israeli torpedo
boat crews, which I distinctly recall being given at the Court of
Inquiry and included in the original transcript, is now missing and has
been excised.
Following the conclusion of the Court of Inquiry,
Admiral Kidd and I remained in contact. Though we never spoke of the
attack in public, we did discuss it between ourselves, on occasion.
Every time we discussed the attack, Admiral Kidd was adamant that it
was a deliberate, planned attack on an American ship.
In 1990, I received a telephone call from Jay Cristol,
who wanted to interview me concerning the functioning of the Court of
Inquiry. I told him that I would not speak to him on that subject and
prepared to hang up the telephone. Cristol then began asking me about
my personal background and other, non-Court of Inquiry related matters.
I endeavoured to answer these questions and politely extricate myself
from the conversation. Cristol continued to return to the subject of
the Court of Inquiry, which I refused to discuss with him. Finally, I
suggested that he contact Admiral Kidd and ask him about the Court of
Inquiry.
Shortly after my conversation with Cristol, I received a
telephone call from Admiral Kidd, inquiring about Cristol and what he
was up to. The Admiral spoke of Cristol in disparaging terms and even
opined that “Cristol must be an Israeli agent.” I
don’t know if he meant that literally or it was his way of
expressing his disgust for Cristol’s highly partisan,
pro-Israeli approach to questions involving USS Liberty.
At no time did I ever hear Admiral Kidd speak of Cristol
other than in highly disparaging terms. I find Cristol’s
claims of a “close friendship” with Admiral Kidd to
be utterly incredible. I also find it impossible to believe the
statements he attributes to Admiral Kidd, concerning the attack on USS
Liberty.
Several years later, I received a letter from Cristol
that contained what he purported to be his notes of our prior
conversation. These “notes” were grossly incorrect
and bore no resemblance in reality to that discussion. I find it hard
to believe that these “notes” were the product of a
mistake, rather than an attempt to deceive. I informed Cristol that I
disagreed with his recollection of our conversation and that he was
wrong. Cristol made several attempts to arrange for the two of us to
meet in person and talk but I always found ways to avoid doing this. I
did not wish to meet with Cristol as we had nothing in common and I did
not trust him.
Contrary to the misinformation presented by Cristol and
others, it is important for the American people to know that it is
clear that Israel is responsible for deliberately attacking an American
ship and murdering American sailors, whose bereaved shipmates have
lived with this egregious conclusion for many years.
Dated:
January 9, 2004
at Coronado, California.
Ward Boston, Jr., Captain, JAG, SUN (Ret.)
Senior Counsel to the USS Liberty Court of Inquiry
McCain declined my offer to raise
his voice on behalf of the
Liberty.
He said that he wasn’t going to do anything about it because
the “matter was thoroughly reviewed.” Really! In
his letter to me, dated, April 28, 1997, he relied on the results of
the now totally discredited Naval Court of Inquiry, which was conducted
by Rear Admiral Isaac Kidd, SUN. It began on June 10, 1967, and lasted
less than a week. A scathing and devastating
rebuttal
of that seriously flawed Naval Inquiry can be found in the
“Declaration,” dated Jan. 8, 2004, of Capt. Ward
Boston, Jr., JAG, SUN (Ret). . . .
So, McCain, the “Conscience of the
Senate” wasn’t going to do anything about bringing
justice to the Liberty! He did, however, say something else in his
letter that made me feel suspicious about his do-nothing position. He
said, “The attacking nation” did not submit any
evidence or testimony on their behalf about the assault at the inquiry.
“Attacking nation!” What is that suppose to mean?
Why couldn’t McCain just come right out, he is the
“Conscience of the Senate” after all, and simply
say: The Israelis? Why use a deceptive term, like: “attacking nation?”
Talk about Orwellian Double Speak! I can’t imagine McCain
writing about the attack on U.S. forces at Pearl Harbour, on Dec. 7,
1941, and instead of stating up front that Japan was responsible, refer
to that sneaky, militant aggressor as the “attacking
nation.”
By A. Jay
Cristol
Judge Cristol is the author of the Liberty Incident: The 1967 Israeli
Attack on the U. S. Navy Spy Ship.
On June 8, 2007, the San Diego Union Tribune published an article
titled "Time for the Truth About the Liberty," with a byline, Ward
Boston, Jr.
Ward Boston, Jr.served his country as a naval aviator during World War
II. He completed law school and then, after a stint with the FBI, he
returned to the Navy as a legal specialist in the days prior to
creation of the Judge Advocate Generals Corp. By 1967, he had been
promoted to the rank of Captain and established a fine reputation as a
legal officer. When the Liberty incident occurred, he was selected by
then Rear Admiral Isaac C. Kidd, Jr. as counsel to the U.S. Navy Court
of Inquiry, convened by order of Admiral John McCain (the father of
Senator John McCain) Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Naval Forces, Europe.
When Boston re-entered the Navy, he took an oath to faithfully perform
his duties as a United States Naval Officer and upon the opening of the
Court of Inquiry, on the record at page 106, he took another oath to
faithfully perform his duties as counsel to the Court. Also sworn to
faithfully perform their duties on the Court were Rear Admiral Isaac C.
Kidd, Jr. As President, Captain Bernard J. Leif, a highly respected
veteran of Wake Island, and Captain Bert M. Atkinson, Jr., a Naval
Academy Graduate, as members, Lieutenant Commander Allen Feingersch, as
associate counsel and YNC Joeray Spencer, as court reporter.
The Court convened at forty-six minutes before midnight on June 10,
1967, in London, moved to the USS Liberty to take sworn testimony of
the crew, and then back to London where it closed for deliberations at
16:45 London time on June 16 and filed its report on or about June 18,
1967 with Admiral McCain, who endorsed it. "The foregoing comments by
the convening authority lead to an overall conclusion that the attack
was in fact a mistake." It was sent immediately to Washington to the
Chief of Naval Operation Admiral David McDonald, being carried
personally by Admiral Kidd in a brief case chained to this wrist.
The Boston article goes on to recite some hearsay, "I know from
personal conversations with the late Adm. Isaac C. Kidd - President of
the Court of Inquiry - that President Johnson and Secretary of Defence
Robert McNamara ordered him to conclude that the attack was a case of
mistaken identity." The article fails to explain how or when President
Johnson or Secretary McNamara transmitted the orders.
Prior to the publication of the June 8, 2007 article, Ward Boston
signed an affidavit which was released on October 22, 2003, making
similar allegations and later supplemented the affidavit by declaration
making additional allegations. So, Boston, who signed the Court of
Inquiry findings under an oath in 1967, now says under oath in 2003
that he participated in a lie in 1967. If he is telling the truth now,
he confirms lying in 1967, or if he was truthful in 1967, then
obviously he is lying now. So how does one decide when Ward Boston was
lying? Then or now?
Perhaps an analysis of the June 8, 2007 San Diego Times Unions article,
Boston’s affidavit, and the supplemental declaration will
help determine when, not if, but when, Ward Boston lied.
First, a look at the article raises a question of whether it was
written by Ward Boston or written by someone else for him. The first
paragraph talks of the "bombing" of the ship. Boston was aware and the
record is clear, the ship was not bombed. It was attacked with 30MM
cannons by the aircraft and then by 20MM cannon, 50 calibre machine
guns and torpedoes by the torpedo boats. The second paragraph says 34
American sailors died. In fact, 33 sailors and one NASH civilian died.
It says 172 were wounded. The official records show 171 were wounded.
Next. the article says the cover-up has haunted us for 40 years. If the
Johnson administration had engaged in a "cover-up," why did the next
seven administrations, five Republican and two Democrat, continue the
"cover-up"?
The next paragraph is a repetition of the demand of various conspiracy
theorists requesting a congressional hearing and suggesting the
survivors be allowed to testify. One hundred and fifty four pages of
sworn testimony of the Liberty’s Captain, William McGonagle,
the ship’s officers and key crew members was taken on June 13
and June 14, 1967 and is available for review by any member of the
public. Not one shred of additional evidence has been produced or
disclosed by the conspiracy theory supporters since 1967. What is being
requested is a platform to make allegations and charges before TV
cameras without any prior showing that there is new or credible
evidence to support he allegations. In our system of justice, first
there must be the presentation of some credible evidence of probable
cause to support the charges. To date, neither Boston nor anyone else
has produced such evidence.
The article confirms that "we," Boston and Admiral Kidd, boarded the
Liberty and interviewed the survivors and states that "the evidence was
clear" but does not state what that evidence was. What evidence was
clear? This is the point where Boston makes a leap of faith. He says
"we both believed with certainty that the attack was deliberate."
Boston, the lawyer, if he wrote those words, knows better. He could say
"I believed" but when he attributes that belief to Admiral Kidd, he
violated the hearsay rule and the Dead Man Statute which forbids
quotation of a dead man because the dead man can neither confirm nor
deny the statement. The article says "I heard testimony that made it
clear the Israelis intended there be no survivor." What testimony did
Boston hear? A careful reading of the 154 pages of sworn testimony does
not even suggest it. Who testified about what? Since no Israelis
participated in the Court of Inquiry, who was able to testify about he
intent of the Israelis and where is that testimony?
And an even better question, if the Israelis intended to sink the
Liberty, then why didn't the Israeli Armed Forces, which had destroyed
the entire Egyptian Air Force in minutes, had destroyed thousands of
Egyptian tanks and artillery in a few days, had captured the Sinai, the
Suez Canal, the Old City of Jerusalem, the West Bank and a day later
destroyed the Syrian army and its armour and captured the Golan Heights,
all in six days, why didn’t they sink the ship, if that is
what they intended?
The myth Boston repeats about Israel committing a war crime by machine
gunning three life rafts was initiated by Lloyd Painter about ten years
after the event. The sworn testimony of Lloyd Painter taken June 13,
1967 does not mention machine gunning the three life rafts, nor does
the testimony of the Captain or any of the crew, who were there on the
bridge and on the deck with Lloyd Painter at the time on June 8, 1967.
Boston states "I am outraged at the efforts of Israel’s
apologists to claim this attack was a case of ‘mistaken
identity.’" This outrage, coming in 2003 - 36 to 40 years
after Boston signed the Court of Inquiry findings under oath raises a
number of questions.
QUESTIONS:
Why was Boston not outraged on June 18, 1967 by the report of the Court
of Inquiry signed by, according to his definition apparent apologists
for Israel, Admiral Kidd, Captain Atkinson, Captain Lauff and Captain
Boston?
Why was Boston not outraged on June 18, 1967 when apologist for Israel,
Admiral John C. McCain, in Boston’s presence, endorsed the
Court of Inquiry with the comment: "15. The foregoing comments by the
convening authority lead to an overall conclusion that the attack was
in fact a mistake"?
Why was Boston not outraged in July 1967 when apologist for Israel,
Defence Secretary Robert McNamara before the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee stated, "In the case of the attack on the Liberty, it was the
conclusion of the investigatory body headed by an Admiral of the Navy
[Isaac C. Kidd, Jr.] in whom we have great confidence that the attack
was not intentional. I read the record of investigation and I support
that conclusion, and I think . . . it was not a conscious decision on
the part of either the government of Israel . . . [t]o attack a U.S.
vessel." (Released by U.S. Government printing office: 1967.)
Why was Boston not outraged on September 15, 1967, when distinguished
journalist and, by Boston’s definition "apologist for
Israel," James L. Kilpatrick wrote in an article published in the
National Review, on page 958, ". . . that the Israeli government was
heavily dependent upon the goodwill of the united States; it would have
been utterly irrational for the Israeli Navy knowingly to have launched
an attack on the U.S. ship; and that the only reasonable explanation is
that the incident was mistake arising from the natural tensions and
fallible judgments of a hot war."
Why was Boston not outraged on February 27, 1978 when "apologist for
Israel," the CIA Director Admiral Stansfield Turner, stated in a letter
to Senator Abourezk, "It remains our best judgment that the Israeli
attack on the USS Liberty was not made in malice toward the United
States and was a mistake."
Why was Boston not outraged on September 19, 1978 when the Director of
Central Intelligence, Admiral Stansfield Turner, stated publicly on ABC
television in a discussion about the Liberty incident: ". . .we
released an evaluated over-all document which said very clearly that it
was our considered opinion that the Israeli Government had no such
knowledge at that time."
Why was Boston not outraged on July 11, 1983 when "apologist for
Israel," the National Security Agency released in its partially
declassified 1981 report "Liberty was mistaken for an Egyptian ship as
a result of miscalculations and egregious errors"?
Why was Boston not outraged on September 5, 1991 when "apologist for
Israel," President George H.W. Bush’s (41) White House, wrote
". . . A thorough investigation into the USS Liberty incident was
conducted and the conclusion was that it was a tragic case of mistaken
identity."
Why was Boston not outraged on May 10, 1995 when "apologist for
Israel," President William Clinton’s White House, wrote,
"There is no information available that demonstrates that the attack
was deliberate."
Why was Boston not outraged on August 30, 1995 when Clark
Clifford’s July 18, 1967 report was declassified revealing
the conclusion, "The weight of the evidence is that the Israeli
attacking forces originally believed their target was Egyptian . . .2.
The information thus far available does not reflect that the Israeli
high command made a premeditated attack on a ship known to be
American."
Why was Boston not outraged on October 2, 2002, when President George
W. Bush’s White House, wrote "The results of the
investigations . . . were considered satisfactory . . .there is no
precedent to reinvestigate this case."
Why was Boston not outraged on July 2, 2003 when the "apologist for
Israel" National Security Agency further declassified a portion of page
64 of its 1981 Report, which stated, "While these reports revealed some
confusion concerning the nationality of the ship, they tended to rule
out any thesis that the Israeli Navy and Air Force deliberately
attacked a ship they knew to be American."
Boston says "Let former intelligence officers testify that they
received real-time Hebrew translations of Israeli commanders
instructing their pilots to sink the American ship. This myth is
perhaps the easiest of all to debunk. Although the conspiracy theorists
have claimed for years that there exist NASH audio intercepts between
Israeli pilots and their controllers which prove the attack was
deliberate, no such tapes have ever been produced. What has been
produced on July 2, 2004, as a result of this author’s
Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, are audio tapes and translations of
communications between Israeli pilots and their controllers which
clearly establish that the Israelis believed the target ship was
hostile, most likely Egyptian, until 3:12 PM, approximately 44 minutes
after the attack was concluded. The National Security Agency confirms
that there are no other tapes.
Dr. Marvin Nowicki, the U.S. Navy/NASH person who recorded and initially
translated the intercepts has stated clearly that they show the attack
to be a mistake. See letter of the Dr. Nowicki to Editor of the Wall
Street Journal published May 16, 2001 at page A23.
Richard Hickman, the NASH Hebrew linguist at headquarters, who made the
final translations of the intercepts and briefed NASH Director Marshal
Carter on the tapes, also confirmed that the tapes make it clear the
attack was a mistake.
The reader may hear the tape recordings in Hebrew and read the official
transcripts of English translation on the National Security
Agency’s NASH website, www.nsa.gov.
So who told Ward Boston about the former intelligence officers
receiving "real-time Hebrew translations"? Could it have been Ron
Gotcher who helped Boston with his initial affidavit and declaration
and very likely wrote or assisted in the preparation of the June 8,
2007 article, by-lined Ward Boston, Jr., published in the San Diego
Union Tribune. Ron Gotcher has long made claims of the existence of the
alleged incriminating tapes on his website. Gotcher also claimed to
have worked for the National Security Agency; however, reference the
"Documents" page of
www.libertyincident.com and go to "Gotcher Debunked." There
the viewer will see the actual letter from the National Security
Agency, in response to a FOLIA request, confirming that Gotcher never
worked for NASH.
What or who is behind these continuing false charges that have induced
Boston, a naval officer with a distinguished career, to dishonour
himself by admitting to have violated his oath, either in 1967 or more
recently. Ron Gotcher is only a bit player in a much broader propaganda
effort.
The propaganda emanates from a small but well-funded and very vocal
group of people and organizations principally supported by Saudi
Arabian money. The groups include the American Educational Trust (AET)
operated in Washington, DC by former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia,
Andrew I. Kilgore, and a circle of others whose agenda is to attack the
present excellent symbiotic relationship between the United States and
Israel. It includes: the Americans for Mideast Understanding (AMEU)
which was reportedly founded with money from Arabian American Oil
Company, ARAMCO, and has former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, James
Akins, who was dismissed by the U.S. State Department in 1975 "for
being too compliant to Saudi demands" and former congressman Paul
Findley serving on its National Council; and the Liberty Alliance
operated by Tito De Nagy Howard, who is described as "a man at war with
the Israelis" by Anthony Pearson. Howard met Pearson in Dubai and upon
learning that Pearson was considered by the PLO to be pro-Palestinian,
gave him "an idea to resurrect the Liberty incident as a whole new
story."
It all started with former Illinois congressman Paul Findley (who was
defeated for re-election after he announced his support for the
terrorist organization, the PLO) and former California congressman Paul
"Pete" McCloskey, who speaks regularly at meetings of Holocaust denial
organizations in California and Washington and was defeated for
re-election. Findley and McCloskey were the moving force in founding
the Liberty Veterans Association. Findley served as its advisor and
McCloskey incorporated the association and served as its attorney. They
continue to manipulate and distress Liberty survivors and their
families by prodding this old wound and preventing its healing
– all for their own political agenda. And what is that
agenda? Findley and McCloskey are also the founders of the Council for
the National Interest (CNI), whose publicly announced purpose is to be
the anti-Israel lobby.
Distorted explanations of events obfuscate the picture and destroy the
ability to learn real lessons for the future. Multiple official
investigation reports and endorsements have all concluded the incident
was the result of a tragic mistake or that there is no evidence that
the attack was deliberate. Nevertheless, dozens of conspiracy stories,
in addition to Ward Boston’s sad confession that he
dishonoured his oath taken in 1967 and remained silent about it for 36 years, have become part of the
literature through the actions of persons and organizations with their
own political agenda. The conspiracy stories continue to multiply and
become more extreme. They detract from the possibility to learn from
the tragedy. They also inflict pain and suffering upon the victims and
their families creating an additional tragedy by provoking, goading and
torturing the victims with inaccurate, false and even absurd theories
about that sad day, not with the goal of bringing closure and peace but
for political objectives.
As for the victims, they should be left to believe whatever brings them
peace. As for historians seeking the truth, it is respectfully
suggested that a review of all evidence, now declassified and
available, will confirm the official conclusion that the Liberty
incident was a tragic case of mistaken identity as a result of numerous
mistakes by both the United States and Israel, and will explain the
conflicting recollection of Ward Boston, who boasts he is now in his
eighties. Perhaps the quotation from a recent speech by U.S. Supreme
Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer explains. Breyer said "I am now at the
age where I remember quite clearly and with great detail, many things
that never actually happened."
After forty years, it is time to close the book. Let those who lost
their lives rest in peace and be honoured in treasured memory. Let the
survivors be honoured and respected and let them and their families have
peace and closure.