volume 1 united states cryptologic attack on a sigint ... · classified by nsa/cssm 123-2 review in...

UNITED STATES CRYPTOLOGIC HISTORY

Attack on a Sigint Collector, the U.S.S. Liberty (S-CCO)

SPECIAL SERIES CRISIS

COLLECTION Volume 1

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY CENTRAL SECURITY SERVICE

Classified by NSA/CSSM 123-2 Review in April 2011

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 11-08-2006 pursuant to E.O. 12958, as amended. MDR 51712.




COLLECTION Volume 1







COLLECTION Volume 1




UNITEDSTATESCRYPTOLOGICHISTORY

Attack on a Sigint Collector,the U.S.S. Liberty -fS-€OOr

'fntS f)6et:Jr.IEN'f e6N'fA:INS e6f)EW6Kf) r.1A:'fEKIA:L

Classified by NSA/CSSM 123-2Review in April 2011

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 11-08-2006 pursuant to E.O.12958, as amended. MDR 51712.

Contents of this publication should not be reproduced, or further disseminated outside the U.S. Intelligence Community without the permission of the Director, NSA/CSS. Inquiries about reproduction and dissemination should be directed to the Office of Cryptologic Archives and History, T54.



Contents of this publication should not be reproduced, or further disseminatedoutside the U. S. Intelligence Community without the permission of the Director,NSA/CSS. Inquiries about reproduction and dissemination should be directed tothe Office of Cryptologic Archives and History, T54.

UNITED STATES CRY PTOLOGIC HISTORY

Special Series Crisis Collection

V olu►ne 1

Attack on a Sigint Collector, the U.S.S. Liberty •

William D. Gerhard Henry W. Millington

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY/CENTRAL SECURITY SERVICE 1981



V olu►ne 1






V olu►ne 1




iI

'fOP SECRE'f UMBRA


Special SeriesCrisis Collection

Volume 1

Attack on a Sigint Collector,the V.S.S. LilJerty-(S=€€6T

William D. GerhardHenry W. Millington

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY/CENTRAL SECURITY SERVICE1981

NO'f ItEtEASABLE 'fO fOItEIGN Nlt'fIONltLS

'fOP SECRET UMBRA

-- --- --- -~--------..................,...~

UNCLASSIFIED

Contents Page

Foreword vii

Authors' Note ix

Chapter I POLITICAL-MILITARY BACKGROUND (U) 1

Chapter II CONSIDERATIONS LEADING TO THE SHIP'S DEPLOYMENT (U) The Requirements for Intelligence (U) Technical Collection Factors (U)

U.S. Intercept of VHF/UHF Communications (U)

Airborne Collectors (U) The Decision to Deploy the Liberty (U)

Chapter III DEPLOYMENT TO THE MEDITERRANEAN (U) 15 U.S.S. Liberty's Modus Operandi (U) 15 Abidjan to Rota, 24-31 May 1967 (U) 17 Liberty at Rota, 31 May to 2 June 1967 (U) 17 Air Force Security Service's Technical Processing Center (U) 18 Enroute to Operational Area Three (U) 19 Directions to Withdraw the Liberty (U) 21 Operational Area Three, 8 June (U) 23 Liberty's Processing Mission (U) 23

Chapter IV THE ATTACK (U) 25 Reconnaissance of the Liberty (U) 25 General Quarters Drill (U) 25 Air Attack Begins (U) 26 Torpedo-Boat Attack (U) 28 Post-Attack Reconnaissance (U) 30 Sixth Fleet Reacts (U) 31 Wishington Informed (U) 32 Israel Reports Error (U) 32 Johnson Informs Kosygin (U) 32 Liberty Recovers (U) 32 U.S. Naval Attache Helicopters to the Liberty (U) 34 Israeli Helicopter Conversations (U) 34 Liberty Licks Its Wounds (U) 35

Chapter V THE ISRAELI EXPLANATION (U) 37 Chronology of Israeli Actions (U) 37 Israeli Prosecutor's Charges of Negligence (U) 38 Explanation Reexamined (U) 40

Chapter VI RECOVERY AND INITIAL ASSESSMENT (U) 43 Medical Assistance (U) 43 Commander, Sixth Fleet Arrives (U) 43 Replacement Inquiries (U) 43

UNCLASSIFIED iii

5 5 6 6

10 10 11 12

UNCLASSIFIED

Contents Page

Foreword vii

Authors' Note ix









UNCLASSIFIED iii

5 5 6 6

10 10 11 12

UNCLASSIFIED

Contents Page

Foreword vii

Authors' Note ix









UNCLASSIFIED iii

5 5 6 6

10 10 11 12

UNCLASSIFIED

ContentsPage

Foreword___________________________________________________________________________________ vii

Authors' Note_______________________________________________________________________________ ix

Chapter I POLITICAL-MILITARY BACKGROUND (U) _

Chapter II CONSIDERATIONS LEADING TO THE SHIP'S DEPLOYMENT (U) _The Requirements for Intelligence (U) _Technical Collection Factors (U) _I Its ee8) ...

U.S. Intercept of VHF/UHF Communications {l,JL---------------------------------------- _1 I(e eeSJ -----------------------------------------------Airborne Collectors (U) - _The Decision to Deploy the Liberty (U) _

5566

10101112

~o 1. 4 . (c)

Fo 1. 4 . (d)

Chapter III DEPLOYMENT TO THE MEDITERRANEAN (U) 15U.S.S. Liberty's Modus Operandi (U) 15Abidjan to Rota, 24-31 May 1967 (U) 17

Liberty at Rota, 31 May to 2 June 1967 (U)________________________________________________ 17Air Force Security Service's Technical Processing Center (U)__________________________________ 18Enroute to Operational Area Three (U) 19Directions to Withdraw the Liberty (U) 21Operational Area Three, 8 June (U) 23

Liberty's Processing Mission (U)___________________________________________________________ 23

Chapter IV THE ATTACK (U)______________________________________________________________ 25Reconnaissance of the Liberty (U) 25General Quarters Drill (U) 25Air Attack Begins (U) 26Torpedo-Boat Attack (U) 28

Post-Attack Reconnaissance (U)___________________________________________________________ 30Sixth Fleet Reacts (U) 31Washington Informed (U) 32

Israel Reports Error (U)__________________________________________________________________ 32Johnson Informs Kosygin (U) 32Liberly Recovers (U) 32

U.S. Naval Attache Helicopters to the Liberty (U) 34Israeli Helicopter Conversations (U) 34Liberty Licks Its Wounds (U) 35

Chapter V THE ISRAELI EXPLANATION (U)________________________________________________ 37Chronology of Israeli Actions (U) 37Israeli Prosecutor's Charges of Negligence (U) 38Explanation Reexamined (U)______________________________________________________________ 40

Chapter V I RECOVERY AND INITIAL ASSESSMENT (U) 43

Medical Assistance (U)---------------____________________________________________________ 43Commander, Sixth Fleet Arrives (U) 43Replacement Inquiries (U) 43

UNCLASSIFIED iii

UNCLASSIFIED

Page

Recovery of Sensitive Materials (U) 44 45 Assistance to NSA Personnel

Cleanup Continues (U) 45 Command Investigations Initiated (U) 47 Preparations at Malta (U) 47 Blalock Returns Home (U) 48 Liberty's Arrival at Malta (U) 48 Evacuation of Wilson (U) 51 Clearing Damaged Areas (U) 51 Damage Survey at Malta (U) 52 JCS Fact Finding Team's Interviews (U) 52 Accounting for Classified Material (U) 54 Joint Survey at Norfolk (U) 55

Chapter VII THE INCIDENT UNDER REVIEW (U) 57 The NSA Review and Reaction (U) 57 The JCS Review (U) 58 Congressional Review (U) 59

Chapter VIII A FINAL LOOK (U) 61 Safety Estimates for Collection Missions of Mobile Platforms (U) 61 Availability of Linguists (U) 62 Communications Problems (U) 62 File Reduction for Exposed Collectors (U) 62 Unanswered Questions (U) 63E° 1.4.(c) Denouement (U) 64 E°

1.4.(d)

Bibliography (U) 67

Illustrations (U)

Maps

[C3 6 7

12 30

................ EO 1.4. (c)

CCO) l(TS CCO NF)

EC-121 and C-130 Aircraft Collection Routes ( — C ) Projected Track of Liberty on 8 June (U)

Photographs

U.S.S. Liberty (U) 2 Manual-worse Positional 1(C CCO) 8

9 Sigint analysts I 1(C—CCO) Liberty's Antenna Configuration (U) 16 Liberty Docked in Rota, Spain (U) 18 Dassault Mirage Jet Bomber (U) 26 Scorched Starboard of Liberty (U) 27 Damaged Gun Mount (U) 29 U.S.S. Little Rock (U) 31 U.S.S. America (U) 33 F4 Phantom Fighter (U) 34 U.S.S. Papago, Ocean Tug (U) 35 Israeli Motor Torpedo Boat (U) 38 Egyptian Ship, El—Kasir (U) 40

iv UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Page





1.4.(d)

Bibliography (U) 67

Illustrations (U)

Maps

[C3 6 7

12 30

................ EO 1.4. (c)

CCO) l(TS CCO NF)


Photographs



iv UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Page





1.4.(d)

Bibliography (U) 67

Illustrations (U)

Maps

[C3 6 7

12 30

................ EO 1.4. (c)

CCO) l(TS CCO NF)


Photographs



iv UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Recovery of Sensitive Materials (U) _Assistance to NSA Personnel (e eeO) _Cleanup Continues (U) - _

Command Investigations Initiated (U) --- - - - - - --- _Preparations at Malta (U) _Blalock Returns Home (U) _Liberty's Arrival at Malta (U) - _Evacuation of Wilson (U) _Clearing Damaged Areas (U) _Damage Survey at Malta (U) -- _JCS fact Finding Team's Interviews (U) _Accounting for Classified Material (U) _Joint Survey at Norfolk (U) _

Chapter V II THE INCIDENT UNDER REVIEW (U) _The NSA Review and Reaction (U) _The JCS Review (U) _Congressional Review (U) _

Chapter V III A FINAL LOOK (U) _

Safety Estimates for Collection Missions of Mobile Platforms (U) _Availability of Linguists (U) _

Communications Problems (U) _File Reduction for Exposed Collectors (U) _Unanswered Questions (U) _Denouement (U) ~~~::-

Bibliography (U) -"';;::::...--------------

Illustrations (U)

Maps

I IrsOeo.t ------..-...-....-...-....-...-....-...-....-...-....-...-....-.. ------------------------------~...."..",.,..........,...~~-:-:--~=-:":~=__'="""j<T8G(JQl'iFl _

EC-121 and C-130 Aircraft Collection Routes (e eeO) ~= _:...__ ...__ .........~~-------------

Projected Track of Liberty on 8 June (U) == --------

Photographs

U.S. S. Liberty (U) ..._... ... -- ... __ - ........."""'''';.:::::::............::::......-- _Manual-morse PositionsI l<ELOOO) _Sigint analysts I I(e ceo _Liberty's Antenna Configuration (U) _Liberty Docked in Rota, Spain (U) _Dassault Mirage Jet Bomber (U) _Scorched Starboard of Liberty (U) _Damaged Gun Mount (U) _u. S. S. Little Rock (U) _U. S. S. America (U) _F4 Phantom Fighter (U) _U.S. S. Papago, Ocean Tug (U) _Israeli Motor Torpedo Boat (U) .. _Egyptian Ship, El-Kaeir (U) _

iv UNCLASSIFIED

Page

44454547474848515152525455

57575859

616162626263EO 1. 4 . (c)

64 EO 1. 4. (d)

67

67

1230

EO 1. 4. (c)

289

1618262729313334353840

UNCLASSIFIED

Page

Liberty Arriving in Malta (U) 40 U.S.S. Davis (U) 42 Helicopter Evacuating Liberty's Wounded (U) 44 Vice Admiral Martin Visits Liberty (U) 45 Dish Antenna on Liberty (U) 46 Donald L. Blalock (U) 48 Liberty in Malta (U) 49 Inspection of Torpedo-Damaged Hull (U) 50 Navy Divers Recover Classified Debris (U) 51 Manual-worse Positions Destroyed ( — C ) 53 Sigint Equipment Ruined by Torpedo Blast (C CCO) 54 Commander William L. McGonagle (U) 55

UNCLASSIFIED v

UNCLASSIFIED

Page


UNCLASSIFIED v

UNCLASSIFIED

Page


UNCLASSIFIED v

UNCLASSIFIED

Page

Liberty Arriving in Malta (V)___________________________________________________ __________ 40V.S.S. Davis (V)___________________________________________________ _____________________ 42Helicopter Evacuating Liberty's Wounded (V) 44Vice Admiral Martin Visits Liberty (V) 45Dish Antenna on Liberty (V) 46Donald L. Blalock (V) 48Liberty in Malta (V) 49Inspection of Torpedo-Damaged Hull (V) 50Navy Divers Recover Classified Debris (V) 51Manual-morse Positions Destroyed (e ee6) 53Sigint Equipment Ruined by Torpedo Blast €O 008) 54Commander William L. McGonagle (V) 55

UNCLASSIFIED V

-------------------------- ~-~~~-

Foreword

The Israeli attack on the U.S.S. Liberty some 14 years ago was, indeed, a wrenching experience for U.S. Sigint agencies. The loss, particularly in the case of those Sigint specialists who gave their lives or were wounded, was difficult to accept. The knowledge that the tragedy resulted not only from Israeli miscalculation but also from faulty U.S. communications practices was even more difficult to accept. (C CCO) The passage of time has made it possible for the authors to reexamine the Liberty incident objectively and answer a number of persistent questions. The authors accordingly set forth the technical rationale for the Liberty mission, the particulars of the Israeli miscalculation, the details of the American communications failures, a narrative of the attack and of attempts to minimize the compromise of cryptologic materials, and the lessons to be learned from the event. (C CCO) Finally, this is also an account of the way the U.S. Sigint agencies organized their response to requirements brought on by a crisis situation. As such, it has much to offer the student of U.S. cryptologic operations. (C-CCO) A word about the authors, who worked on this project part time after they had retired. An experienced operations officer and research specialist, Mr. Gerhard headed the NSA-SCA Task Force that produced the Southeast Asia History Series, as well as the Special Research Element that produced studies of Sigint crisis situations. Mr. Millington, who spent most of his career in research and documentation activities, was for years in charge of the NSA Library.

Vincent J. Wilson, Jr. Chief, Cryptologic History and Publications Staff

-REERET vii

Foreword



-REERET vii

Foreword



-REERET vii

SEeRET

Foreword

(8 GGO) The Israeli attack on the U.S.S. Liberty some 14 years ago was, indeed, a

wrenching experience for U.S. Sigint agencies. The loss, particularly in the case of those Sigint

specialists who gave their lives or were wounded, was difficult to accept. The knowledge that the

tragedy resulted not only from Israeli miscalculation but also from faulty U. S. communications

practices was even more difficult to accept.

(8 060) The passage of time has made it possible for the authors to reexamine the Liberty

incident objectively and answer a number of persistent questions. The authors accordingly set

forth the technical rationale for the Liberty mission, the particulars of the Israeli miscalculation,

the details of the American communications failures, a narrative of the attack and of attempts

to minimize the compromise of cryptologic materials, and the lessons to be learned from the

event.

(6 660) Finally, this is also an account of the way the U.S. Sigint agencies organized

their response to requirements brought on by a crisis situation. As such, it has much to offer the

student of U.S. cryptologic operations.

(G 000) A word about the authors, who worked on this project part time after they had

retired. An experienced operations officer and research specialist, Mr. Gerhard headed the NSA

SCA Task Force that produced the Southeast Asia History Series, as well as the Special Research

Element that produced studies of Sigint crisis situations. Mr. Millington, who spent most of his

career in research and documentation activities, was for years in charge of the NSA Library.

Vincent J. Wilson, Jr.

Chief, Cryptologic History and Publications Staff

SEURET vii

UNCLASSIFIED

Authors' Note

Many people contributed to the completion of this history. The authors gratefully acknowledge

the efforts of members of the NSA History and Publications Staff who offered substantive

suggestions and labored over publication format and preparation — Vincent J. Wilson, Jr., Chief;

Henry Schorreck, Historian; Priscilla A. Pitts, Editor; and Joan M. Hall, Secretary. Robert D.

Farley, of the History Staff, spent many hours arranging for and conducting interviews of

personnel intimately associated with the Liberty incident. In turn,

painstakingly transcribed the interview tapes.

To Russell G. Fisher, Cryptologic Records Declassification Staff, we are indebted for his

security classification review.

Both Bob Rush, Electronic Security Command, and James Gilbert, Intelligence and Security

Command History Staff generously provided useful source materials from their collections.

William D. Gerhard

Henry W. Millington

8 December 1980

UNCLASSIFIED ix

UNCLASSIFIED

Authors' Note












William D. Gerhard

Henry W. Millington

8 December 1980

UNCLASSIFIED ix

UNCLASSIFIED

Authors' Note












William D. Gerhard

Henry W. Millington

8 December 1980

UNCLASSIFIED ix

UNCLASSIFIED

Authors' Note



suggestions and labored over publication format and preparation - Vincent J. Wilson, Jr., Chief;



personnel intimately associated with the Liberty incident. In turn, I Ipainstakingly transcribed the interview tapes.





foLo 86-36

!'

iiWilliam D. Gerhard f;Henry W. Millington !~

8 December 1980 !

~fn,I

t

~I

UNCLASSIFIED ix

Chapter I

Political-Military Background (U)

(U) A brief look at the Middle Eastern situation during early 1967 is necessary for an appre-ciation of the mounting political and military tensions that ultimately led to the U.S. decision to position the U.S.S. Liberty in the eastern Mediterranean.

(U) Since the mid-1950s, the major world powers had been keenly aware of and sensitive to the buildup of tensions in the Middle East. Both the Soviet Union and Communist China were quick to take advantage of unsettled conditions there to extend their own influence over governments wherever possible —often competing with one another in this effort.

(U) By the end of the 1950s the Chinese Communists had begun to assert themselves, especially in Iraq and Syria. In May 1966, Syria's new president, Nureddin el-Attassi, scoffed at waging a conventional war against Israel and urged what he called a "people's war of liberation," Chinese-Communist style.' The head of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), Ahmed Shukairy, also admitted to receiving Chinese aid. PLO representatives had been sent to Vietnam and communist China to observe communist guerrilla techniques, and PLO troops were receiving arms from Communist China.'

(U) As for the Soviets, they had particular cause for not wishing to see the Syrian Government humiliated, defeated, and, perhaps, overthrown. The increasingly radical Syrian Governments which had assumed power since the beginning of 1966 had come to rely more and more on Soviet military and economic aid, to permit increasing numbers of Soviet advisers to be stationed in the country, and all in all to offer the most promising field for Soviet penetration and influence in the Middle East. The Soviets genuinely feared massive Israeli retaliation that might topple the Syrian Government; they therefore spurred the Egyptians on to vigorous counteraction, the full reper-cussions of which they could not foresee.'

(U) The United States supported the United Nations' efforts to maintain peace in the area and, while championing the right of the State of Israel to exist, urged restraint and respect for the rights of all nations. (U) Within the Arab world, President Gamal Abdel Nasser of the United Arab Republic (U.A.R.) sought to overcome opposition to his leader-ship by the monarchies of Saudi Arabia and Jordan.' In late January 1967, when U.A.R. aircraft bombed Najran in Saudi Arabia, relations between the two countries were further strained. In Yemen, the U.A.R. supported the insurgents against the Royalists. Jordan, trying to keep from becoming embroiled in Israeli-Arab frictions, ordered in March a halt to Arab infiltration into Israel through Jordanian territory as well as a cessation of Palestine Liberation internal agitation against the Jordanian Government. (U) Between January and April 1967, the Syrian-Israeli frontier was the scene of a series of escalating clashes ranging from potshots at tractors to exchanges of fire between tanks, artillery, and aircraft. Both sides refused, at different times, to permit the United Nations Mixed Armistice Commission to mark the armistice line at disputed points and insisted on farming and patrolling disputed areas.' (6 CCO) On 7 April 1967, a Syrian-Israeli clash escalated from an exchange of fire between tanks to attacks by both Syrian and Israeli aircraft. By the end of the day, Israeli planes had appeared over the outskirts of Damascus and six Syrian planes had been shot down. This event triggered a Sigint Readiness "Alfa" called by NSA for Middle East targets. The Alfa was terminated three days later.' ( - C ) As the tempo of the civil war within Yemen increased, U.A.R. aircraft dropped poison-gas bombs on Yemeni Royalists on 22 April. Later that month when the Yemeni Government imprisoned two Americans from the Agency for International Devel-

ifAt+DhEillit-eefaNT-effiti'il*FrEfi-eibitE* -67BORET 1

Chapter I








Chapter I








SECRET

Chapter I


(V) A brief look at the Middle Easternsituation during early 1967 is necessary for an appreciation of the mounting political and military tensionsthat ultimately led to the U.S. decision to positionthe V.S.S. Liberty in the eastern Mediterranean.

(U) Since the mid-1950s, the major worldpowers had been keenly aware of and sensitive to thebuildup of tensions in the Middle East. Both theSoviet Union and Communist China were quick to takeadvantage of unsettled conditions there to extend theirown influence over governments wherever possible often competing with one another in this effort.

(U) By the end of the 19508 the ChineseCommunists had begun to assert themselves, especiallyin Iraq and Syria. In May 1966, Syria's new president,Nureddin el-Attassi, scoffed at waging a conventionalwar against Israel and urged what he called a "people'swar of liberation," Chinese-Communist style. 1 Thehead of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO),Ahmed Shukairy, also admitted to receiving Chineseaid. PLO representatives had been sent to Vietnamand communist China to observe communist guerrillatechniques, and PLO troops were receiving arms fromCommunist China. 2

(U) As for the Soviets, they had particularcause for not wishing to see the Syrian Governmenthumiliated, defeated, and, perhaps, overthrown. Theincreasingly radical Syrian Governments which hadassumed power since the beginning of 1966 had cometo rely more and more on Soviet military and economicaid, to permit increasing numbers of Soviet advisersto be stationed in the country, and all in all to offerthe most promising field for Soviet penetration andinfluence in the Middle East. The Soviets genuinelyfeared massive Israeli retaliation that might topplethe Syrian Government; they therefore spurred theEgyptians on to vigorous counteraction, the full repercussions of which they could not foresee."

(U) The United States supported theUnited Nations' efforts to maintain peace in the areaand, while championing the right of the State of Israelto exist, urged restraint and respect for the rights ofall nations.(U) Within the Arab world, PresidentGamal Abdel Nasser of the United Arab Republic(U.A.R.) sought to overcome opposition to his leadership by the monarchies of Saudi Arabia and Jordan."In late January 1967, when U.A.R. aircraft bombedNajran in Saudi Arabia, relations between the twocountries were further strained. In Yemen, the U.A.R.supported the insurgents against the Royalists. Jordan,trying to keep from becoming embroiled in IsraeliArab frictions, ordered in March a halt to Arabinfiltration into Israel through Jordanian territory aswell as a cessation of Palestine Liberation internalagitation against the Jordanian Government.(V) Between January and April 1967, theSyrian-Israeli frontier was the scene of a series ofescalating clashes ranging from potshots at tractors toexchanges of fire between tanks, artillery, and aircraft.Both sides refused, at different times, to permit theUnited Nations Mixed Armistice Commission to markthe armistice line at disputed points and insisted onfarming and patrolling disputed areas. S

(8 GGO) On 7 April 1967, a Syrian-Israeli clashescalated from an exchange of fire between tanks toattacks by both Syrian and Israeli aircraft. By theend of the day, Israeli planes had appeared over theoutskirts of Damascus and six Syrian planes had beenshot down. This event triggered a Sigint Readiness"Alfa" called by NSA for Middle East targets. TheAlfa was terminated three days later."(B-CCO) As the tempo of the civil war withinYemen increased, V.A.R. aircraft dropped poison-gasbombs on Yemeni Royalists on 22 April. Later thatmonth when the Yemeni Government imprisoned twoAmericans from the Agency for International Devel-

IIANBtH ¥fA COftfHN~ CIIANNHI:iS ONI:iY SHCRHq:' 1

t4

UHIA

ISS

VID

NI1

U1

MIS

SVI

DN

I1

(U) The U.S.S. Liberty was commissioned in May 1945 as a victory ship and later converted into a technical research ship (December 1964). She had an overall length of 455 feet, a maximum speed of 18 knots with an allowable personnel complement of 9 officers and 151 enlisted men along with an additional 6 officers and 128 enlisted men from the Naval Security Group.

(Photograph courtesy of the Department of the Navy.) (Figure is UNCLASSIFIED)

t4

UHIA

ISS

VID

NI1

U1

MIS

SVI

DN

I1



t4

UHIA

ISS

VID

NI1

U1

MIS

SVI

DN

I1



(U) The U.S.S. Liberty was commissioned in May 1945 as a victory ship and later converted into a technical research ship (December1964). She had an overall length of 455 feet. a maximum speed of 18 knots with an allowable personnel complement of 9 officers and151 enlisted men along with an additional 6 officers and 128 enlisted men from the Naval Security Group.

(Photograph courtesy of the Department of the Navy.)(Figure is UNCLASSIFIED)

-fteRET-

opment (AID)]

(S-CCO) From 11-14 May, U.A.R. aircraft at-tacked towns in Saudi Arabia'

(S-CCO) When on 14 May the U.A.R. placed its air defense units on full alert and deployed its tactical naval units, NSA expanded its Alfa to embrace all Middle East targets.' (U) On 17 May, the U.A.R. requested that the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) withdraw from the Gaza Strip. The U.N. complied, and Nasser immediately began moving troops into the Sinai. This decision by the U.A.R. government —presumably encouraged by the Soviets and Syrians — to move its armed forces up to the Sinai armistice line thus reestablished the direct Egyptian-Israeli military confrontation which had been the major immediate cause of the 1956 war.' (C CCO) Five days later on 23 May 1967, the U.A.R. blockaded the Strait of Tiran, thereby closing the Gulf of Aqaba to Israeli shipping and prohibiting unescorted tankers of any flag from reaching the Israeli port of Elat. This action reproduced another element that had brought on the 1956 war. Because Israel had repeatedly asserted that she would go to war if the U.A.R. blocked the Gulf, NSA raised its Alfa to a Sigint Readiness "Bravo Crayon" for all Middle East communications." (U) The U.A.R. blockade precipitated quiet but full-scale mobilization by Israel. Arab forces were repositioned, and on 30 May Egypt and Jordan signed a five-year military alliance, completing Arab encirclement of Israel. Shortly thereafter, Soviet naval vessels entered the Mediterranean through the Dardenelles. I2 (U) On 1 June, as pressure to open the Strait of Tiran built within Israel, Moshe Dayan was appointed Israeli Minister of Defense. The next day, Friday, 2 June, the United States and the United Kingdom issued a joint statement declaring the Gulf of Aqaba an international waterway to which all states were entitled free passage. (U) The weekend of 3 and 4 June passed uneventfully, but then lightning struck. On Monday, 5 June at approximately 0845 Middle East time, Israel launched simultaneous air strikes against all forward U.A.R. airfields on the Sinai and in the Suez Canal Zone. While the bulk of the 400-plane Israeli air force concentrated on U.A.R. targets, the remaining Israeli jets made coordinated attacks against airfields in Jordan, Syria, and Iraq. Israeli raids against Arab air bases continued throughout 5 June and by nightfall

Israel had complete mastery of the sky having virtually destroyed four Arab air forces."

CCO) Forty-five minutes after the launching of the Israeli air offensive, Israeli troops started their

crushing ground attack against U.A.R. forces in the Sinai. In the Gaza Strip, Israeli ground forces took Rafah and Khan Yunus. Meanwhile tank columns raced thirty miles west into the Sinai to capture Al `Arish. With this rapid spread of hostilities, NSA instituted a Sigint Readiness Alfa to watch Soviets'

imoves. '4

(U) On Tuesday, 6 June, U.A.R. President Nasser, charging that U.S. and British planes had intervened in the war on the side of Israel, closed the Suez Canal to all shipping and severed diplomatic relations with the U.S. In turn, the U.S. broke diplomatic ties with Cairo.

(U) On the battlefield, Israeli tank col-umns advanced toward the Suez Canal on three major fronts: through Al `Arish toward Al Qantarah in the north; through Abu'Uwayjilah along the central route toward Ismailia; and to Al Qusaymah on the southern route. Farther south, other columns advanced to Al Kuntillah in the Sinai.

(U) Operating against the Jordanian forces, Israeli troops captured the cites of Janin, Qalqilyah, and Ram Allah and took the high ground north of Jerusalem on 6 June.

(U) On 7 June, Israeli units swept across the Sinai to advance within eighteen miles of the Suez Canal in the north and reached toward the Mitla Pass in the south. Other Israeli forces captured Ash Shar-mah at the entrance to the Gulf of Aqaba, breaking the blockade at the Strait of Tiran. Also on the 7th, Israel gained control of the Gaza Strip plus the West Bank of the Jordan River. The Jordanian army and accompanying Iraqi units were defeated.

(U) The United Nations called for a cease-fire. Israel accepted provided the other belligerents complied. On 7 June, Jordan agreed to the cease-fire, but the U.A.R. rejected it. The following day (8 June), however, both the U.A.R. and Syria accepted the cease-fire. At approximately 1400 hours this same date the U.S.S. Liberty was attacked.

(U) On 9 June, following an Israeli charge that Syria had violated the cease-fire, Israeli troops and armored forces smashed deep into Syria. By the time both sides agreed, on 10 June, to observe the U.N. cease-fire, the entire southwestern corner of Syria was in Israeli hands, including the Golan Heights which dominated Israeli territory in the Jordan Valley and around the Sea of Galilee.

SEell r— 3

-fteRET-

opment (AID)]






imoves. '4







SEell r— 3

-fteRET-

opment (AID)]






imoves. '4







SEell r— 3

opment (AID),II Ir-------------(~-ee~) From 11-14 May, UA.R. aircraft at-

Itacked towns in Saudi Arabial I(8-888) When on 14 May the D.A.R. placedits air defense units on full alert and deployed itstactical naval units, NSA expanded its Alfa to embraceall Middle East targets. 9

(U) On 17 May, the D.A.R. requestedthat the United Nations Emergency Force (DNEF)withdraw from the Gaza Strip. The UN. complied,and Nasser immediately began moving troops into theSinai. This decision by the D.A.R. government presumably encouraged by the Soviets and Syrians- to move its armed forces up to the Sinai armisticeline thus reestablished the direct Egyptian-Israelimilitary confrontation which had been the majorimmediate cause of the 1956 war. 10

(8 GGO) Five days later on 23 May 1967, theD.A.R. blockaded the Strait of Tiran, thereby closingthe Gulf of Aqaba to Israeli shipping and prohibitingunescorted tankers of any flag from reaching theIsraeli port of Elat. This action reproduced anotherelement that had brought on the 1956 war. BecauseIsrael had repeatedly asserted that she would go towar if the UA.R. blocked the Gulf, NSA raised itsAlfa to a Sigint Readiness "Bravo Crayon" for allMiddle East communications. II

(D) The D.A.R. blockade precipitatedquiet but full-scale mobilization by Israel. Arab forceswere repositioned, and on 30 May Egypt and Jordansigned a five-year military alliance, completing Arabencirclement of Israel. Shortly thereafter, Soviet navalvessels entered the Mediterranean through theDardenelles. 12

(D) On 1 June, as pressure to open theStrait of Tiran built within Israel, Moshe Dayan wasappointed Israeli Minister of Defense. The next day,Friday, 2 June, the United States and the UnitedKingdom issued a joint statement declaring the Gulfof Aqaba an international waterway to which all stateswere entitled free passage.(D) The weekend of 3 and 4 June passeduneventfully, but then lightning struck. On Monday,5 June at approximately 0845 Middle East time, Israellaunched simultaneous air strikes against all forwardD.A.R. airfields on the Sinai and in the Suez CanalZone. While the bulk of the 40o-plane Israeli air forceconcentrated on U.A.R. targets, the remaining Israelijets made coordinated attacks against airfields inJordan, Syria, and Iraq. Israeli raids against Arab airbases continued throughout 5 June and by nightfall

SECRET

Israel had complete mastery of the sky having virtuallydestroyed four Arab air forces. 13

(8m(J09)ummummF'orty-fiveulninutesmaftel' the la.unchiIlgof the Israeli air offensive, Israeli troops started theircrushing ground attack against U.A.R. forces in theSinai. In the Gaza Strip, Israeli ground forces tookRafah and Khan Yunus. Meanwhile tank columnsraced thirty miles west into the Sinai to capture Al'Arish. With this rapid spread of hostilities, NSAinstituted a Si int Readiness Alfa to watch Soviet

'-- ..1moves.

(D) On Tuesday, 6 June, UA.R. PresidentNasser, charging that D.S. and British planes hadintervened in the war on the side of Israel, closed theSuez Canal to all shipping and severed diplomaticrelations with the US. In turn, the US. brokediplomatic ties with Cairo.

(U) On the battlefield, Israeli tank columns advanced toward the Suez Canal on three majorfronts: through Al 'Arish toward Al Qantarah in thenorth; through AbuUwayjilah along the central routetoward Ismailia; and to Al Qusaymah on the southernroute. Farther south, other columns advanced to AlKuntillah in the Sinai.

(D) Operating against the Jordanianforces, Israeli troops captured the cites of Janin,Qalqilyah, and Ram Allah and took the high groundnorth of Jerusalem on 6 June.

(U) On 7 June, Israeli units swept acrossthe Sinai to advance within eighteen miles of the SuezCanal in the north and reached toward the Mitla Passin the south. Other Israeli forces captured Ash Sharmah at the entrance to the Gulf of Aqaba, breakingthe blockade at the Strait of Tiran. Also on the 7th,Israel gained control of the Gaza Strip plus the WestBank of the Jordan River. The Jordanian army andaccompanying Iraqi units were defeated.

(D) The United Nations called for a ceasefire. Israel accepted provided the other belligerentscomplied. On 7 June, Jordan agreed to the cease-fire,but the UA.R. rejected it. The following day (8 June),however, both the D.A.R. and Syria accepted thecease-fire. At approximately 1400 hours this samedate the US.S. Liberty was attacked.

(D) On 9 June, following an Israeli chargethat Syria had violated the cease-fire, Israeli troopsand armored forces smashed deep into Syria. By thetime both sides agreed, on 10 June, to observe theUN. cease-fire, the entire southwestern corner ofSyria was in Israeli hands, including the Golan Heightswhich dominated Israeli territory in the Jordan Valleyand around the Sea of Galilee.

r1.4. (c)

I

)I

/:

j

[:

IIII

I

IIANBfJE \"lA Cer-HN'f' CIIANNEfJS el\TfJ\' SBCRfi'f 3

-SECRET

On this same day, when the Soviet representative to the U.N. threatened direct Soviet intervention if the Security Council did not halt the fighting, NSA extended Bravo "Crayon" to Soviet' targets.' A cease-fire, negoti- ated by the U.N., finally went into effect and all hostilities ceased at 1830 hours Mid-East time on Saturday, 10 June 1967.

Notes Source documents are in the "Crisis Collection" of the NSA History

Collection.

'(U) Theodore Draper. Israel and World Politics. Viking Press, New York, 1968, p. 35.

2(U) Hal Kosut, editor. Israel and the Arabs: The June 1967 War. Facts on File, New York, 1968, p. 32.

EO 1.4.(c)

'(U) Charles W. Yost, "The Arab-Israeli War; How it Began," Foreign Affairs, vol. 46, no. 2 (Jan 1968), p. 310.

4(U) The United Arab Republic was formed in 1958 with the union of Egypt and Syria and then dissolved in September 1961. Even though the union was dissolved, Egypt was still referred to as the U.A.R. until 2 September 1971 when the name was changed to the Arab Republic of Egypt. In this history U.A.R. is used throughout to mean Egypt.

'(U) Ibid, p. 306.

°(C CO) NSA (P2), "Sigint Readiness Bravo Crayon Critique," Serial: P2/00670, 10 July 1968, p. 8.

'(U) Ibid.

5(U) Ibid.

9(U) Ibid.

lo(U) Charles W. Yost, "The Arab-Israeli War; How It Began," Foreign Affairs, vol. 46, no. 2 (Jan 1968), p. 319.

''(C CC ) NSA (P2), "Sigint Readiness Bravo Crayon Critique," Serial: P2/00670, 10 July 1968, p. 8.

"(U) Ibid.

"(U) Ibid, p. 9.

'4(U) Ibid.

Is(U) Ibid.

-SECRET



Collection.



EO 1.4.(c)



'(U) Ibid, p. 306.


'(U) Ibid.

5(U) Ibid.

9(U) Ibid.



"(U) Ibid.

"(U) Ibid, p. 9.

'4(U) Ibid.

Is(U) Ibid.

-SECRET



Collection.



EO 1.4.(c)



'(U) Ibid, p. 306.


'(U) Ibid.

5(U) Ibid.

9(U) Ibid.



"(U) Ibid.

"(U) Ibid, p. 9.

'4(U) Ibid.

Is(U) Ibid.

SBURBT

(8 eeO) On this same day, when the Sovietrepresentative to the U.N. threatened direct Sovietintervention if the Security Council did not halt thefighting, NSA extended Bravo "Crayon" to SovietL.._~ ....Jtargets. A cease-fire, negoti-ated by the U. N., finally went into effect and allhostilities ceased at 1830 hours Mid-East time onSaturday, 10 June 1967.

NotesSource documents are in the "Crisis Collection" of the NSA History

Collection.

'(V) Theodore Draper. Israel and World Politics.Viking Press, New York, 1968, p, 35.

'(V) Hal Kosut, editor. Israel and the Arabs: TheJune 1967 War. Facts on File, New York, 1968, p. 32.

EO 1. 4 . (c)

l(U) Charle,.W;¥Ollt, "The Arab-Israeli War; Howit Began," Foreign.Atiairs, vol. 46, no. 2 (Jan 1968), p. 310.

'lUi The United Arab Republic was formed in 1958with the union of Egypt and Syria and then dissolved in September1961. Even though the union was dissolved, Egypt was still referredto as the V.A.R. until 2 September 1971 when the name waschanged to the Arab Republic of Egypt. In this history V.A.R. isused throughout to mean Egypt.

'(U) Ibid, p. 306.'(e eee) NSA (P2), "Sigint Readiness Bravo Crayon

Critique," Serial: P2/00670, 10 July 1968, p. 8.'(V) Ibid.'(V) Ibid.9(V) Ibid.

IO(V) Charles W. Yost, "The Arab-Israeli War; HowIt Began," Foreign Affairs, vol. 46, no. 2 (Jan 1968), p. 319.

1'(8 SSe) NSA (P2), "Sigint Readiness Bravo CrayonCritique," Serial: P2I00670, 10 July 1968, p. 8.

"(V) Ibid.Il(V) Ibid, p. 9."(V) Ibid.15(U) Ibid.

4 SBURBT II~BLB VIA OOMIN'f OH....NNBLS ONI.¥

Chapter II

EIO 1.4.(c)

80 1.4.(c) E0 1.4.(d)

Considerations Leading to the Ship's Deployment (U)

(S CCO) Looking back upon the Liberty incident today, Americans might well question why the U.S. introduced an intelligence ship into a war theater in which Americans were not direct participants and expose that ship to the risk it did. The decision to deploy, it should be noted, came before the Six Day War erupted. It came after careful NSA consideration of customer requirements for intelligence from this troubled region, of technical factors which would govern the collection of Middle East communications, and of the need to develop technical Sigint data in the event future U.S. involvement in Middle East hostilities should bring a requirement to support U.S. forces. The NSA decision to request the Liberty's deployment on 23 May, the day it raised its Sigint readiness condition to Bravo-Crayon, was, moreover, only one of many actions taken to improve Sigint collection, processing, and reporting in the critical weeks before the Six Day War as the NSA action office, G6, began a round-the-clock Sigint operation at Fort Meade)

The Requirements for Intelligence (U)

The long-standing Middle East tension had produced a growing requirement from U.S. intel-ligence users for information on a number of military

(TS CCO) In late May-early June 1967, while still focusing for the most part on the U.A.R. the intelligence requirements took on a sense of urgency.

E0 1.4.(c)

(SC) Intelligence users define, of course, the categories of information they need from Sigint, and it is up to the Sigint specialists to translate their requirements into meaningful, responsive collection and processing actions. In so doing, these specialists had to take into their calculations some I

Chapter II

EIO 1.4.(c)

80 1.4.(c) E0 1.4.(d)






E0 1.4.(c)


Chapter II

EIO 1.4.(c)

80 1.4.(c) E0 1.4.(d)






E0 1.4.(c)


'fOP BECKE'f

Chapter II


(S GGQ) Looking back upon the Liberty incident today, Americans might well question why theU.S. introduced an intelligence ship into a war theaterin which Americans were not direct participants andexpose that ship to the risk it did. The decision todeploy, it should be noted, came before the Six DayWar erupted. It came after careful NSA considerationof customer requirements for intelligence from thistroubled region, of technical factors which wouldgovern the collection of Middle East communications,and of the need to develop technical Sigint data inthe event future U.S. involvement in Middle Easthostilities should bring a requirement to support U.S.forces. The NSA decision to request the Liberty'sdeployment on 23 May, the day it raised its Sigintreadiness condition to Bravo-Crayon, was, moreover,only one of many actions taken to improve Sigintcollection, processing, and reporting in the criticalweeks before the Six Day War as the NSA actionoffice, G6, began a round-the-clock Sigint operation atFort Meade. I


(8 Ceo) The long-standing Middle East tensionhad produced a growing requirement from U.S. intelligence users for information on a number of military

(8 CeO) I

(CPS GGO) In late May-early June 1967, whilestill focusing for the most part on the U.A.R. theintelligence requirements took on a sense of urgency.

~ hltelligElnceusers define, of course, thecategories of information they need from Sigint, andit is up to the Sigint specialists to translate theirrequirements into meaningful, responsive collectionand processing actions. In so doing, these specialistshad to take into their calculations some I

EO 1.4. (c)

ElO 1.4. (c)EO 1. 4. (d)

1. 4. (c)

IIA-NBt.e ViA C6M1N'f CIIA-NNet.S 6Nt.\" 'FOP SBSRH'F 5

S-CCO

-E-T-S-G643)-

EO 1.4.(c) EO 1.4.(d)

EO 1.4.(c) tO 1.4.(d)

(S CCO) (Figure is SECRET CCO)

EJ 1.4.(c) Adq.i.(d)

Technical Collection Factors (U)

(G-CCO) U.S.' IcoIlec- tion of Middle East communications had developed over the years in response to intelligence requirements arising out of one crisis situation after another. In place at the time of the Six Day War and the deployment of the Liberty were ground sites and airborne collectors for the Middle East communica-tions which were likely to yield at least a part of the information specified in the requirements.

(TS-CCO) At U.S ground sites' intercept positions, according to a post-Liberty NSA review,' were on hand primarily for Middle East communications. Almost one half of this coverage was on communications of the U.A.R.

6 TOP-SEC-RET-

(T3-CCO) For collection of VHF and UHF communications, the U.S. depended

Ion USN and USAF mobile, airborne collectors.

S-CCO

-E-T-S-G643)-

EO 1.4.(c) EO 1.4.(d)

EO 1.4.(c) tO 1.4.(d)






6 TOP-SEC-RET-



S-CCO

-E-T-S-G643)-

EO 1.4.(c) EO 1.4.(d)

EO 1.4.(c) tO 1.4.(d)






6 TOP-SEC-RET-



TOP SECRET.~. 1. 4 . (c)~. 1. 4 . (d)

"E·O 1. 4 . (c)BDl. 4. (d)(Figure is BlfJefilfJ'I' eeBj

~8 (J(JO)I-----"7Fi;;;;:;~e;;;;:::eE;e:;:_------~


(B eeo) u.s~ IcOllection of Middle East commumcahons had developedover the years in response to intelligence requirementsarising out of one crisis situation after another. Inplace at the time of the Six Day War ~d/the

deployment of the Liberty were ground-rsites andairborne collectors for the Middle East communications which were likely to yield.atIeast a part of theinformation specified in tl:le/requirements.

('1'8-006) AtU;Sr Igroundsite~ ~rttercept positions, according to a post-Liberty NsA review/ were on hand primarily forMiddle East communications. Almost one half of thiscoverage was on communications of the U.A.R.

('t'B eOO) For collection of VHF and UHF com-munications, the U.S. depended

on USN and USAF mobile, airborne collectors.

Ll ,(SaeeO)

tqJS 660)

I=---_~_-6 TOP SEORH'F IIkNBfltl ViA COMIN" CIIA-NNtlflS ONt.."

EO 1.4. (c)EO 1.4. (d)

+128-6€0-14F) (Figure is TOP SECRET COO NI')

!,E0 1.4.(c)

EO h.4.(c) EO L.4.(d)

(TSC)


!,E0 1.4.(c)

EO h.4.(c) EO L.4.(d)

(TSC)


!,E0 1.4.(c)

EO h.4.(c) EO L.4.(d)

(TSC)

. Ie)

.4. Ie)EO .4. Id)

!

OP SECRET UPtIBRA-

-

:

-

I

I

I"

~ J I~ -.J

I- I L --.J

,

i

'EO .4

Ii/

(Figure .i. 'P8P 8Be~liJrp• eeB X17

N8F81tN TOP SECRET UMBR2\ 7

-TOP-Stetter

(TO CCO) Intercept assignments as of 8 June 1967 at the U.S. stations illustrate the varied nature of the collection missions.

EO 1.4.(c)

(C CCO) Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM) manual-morse positions I

(Photograph courtesy of INSCOM.) (Figure is t'OistriforlfriM

E9 1.4.(c) E0\1.4.(d)

4.(c)

-TOP-Stetter


EO 1.4.(c)



E9 1.4.(c) E0\1.4.(d)

4.(c)

-TOP-Stetter


EO 1.4.(c)



E9 1.4.(c) E0\1.4.(d)

4.(c)

TOP SHCRHT

ls,~~ --- 1

;i:::·. :~: ..... 4. (d)

I(~8 eeO) Intercept assignments as of 8 June1967 at the U.S. stations illustrate the varied natureof the collection missions.

1. 4. (c)

(C CCO) Intelligence and Security. Command(INSCOM) manual-morse positions I II I

(Photograph courtesy of INSCOM.)(Figure is e"'1":l"2lli~WT'1l'1:l:-ee""

.~ ~~~

I

17 W~ I

,1. 4. (c)

8 TOP SHCRHT IIkNBItB ViA e9M1N'F UIIANNIL8 ONL¥

FRS6

O 1.4.(c)

(C CCO) U.S. Army Sigint analysts' (Photograph courtesy of INSCOM.) (Figure is

EO 1.4.(c)

FRS6

O 1.4.(c)


EO 1.4.(c)

FRS6

O 1.4.(c)


EO 1.4.(c)

TOP SECRET UMBftA

...................

19 .............................

I

I ......... ········································

18

(8 ceo) r

(0 (00) u.s. Army Sigint analY8t~(Photograp::t'h-:::c~ou::;rt=etI:::-y':<of""'i'INuS5"l'CI"l"iO:'r.Mn.)~ ..J(Figure iB eB.\'F1BBN'P·:-Ab eeB)

'fOP SB€RB'f UMBRA 9

1. 4. (c)

EO 1. 4 . (c)

.S. Intercept of VHF/UHF Communications (U)

<C-CCO) Since normal reception of VHF/UHF communications depends on a line-of-sight relationship between receiver and transmitter'

I successful collection of VHF/UHF communications depended on intercept by 0 sites located near the transmitters and by airborne collec-tors which could fly orbits in their vicinity. Close-in intercept facilities located preferably within ground-wave distance of transmitters were also a prerequisite to effective intercept of low-powered HF communications. (SC) Sigint collectors had gradually increased their knowledge of Middle East VHF/UHF communications. HF communications occasionally re-ferred to other communications in the VHF/UHF modes. I

(SC)

(C CCO)

10

(TS CCO NF)

C CCO) (TS-CCO-NF)

'The U.S. also had USN and USAF airborne collectors who were experienced in flying orbits off the coast of the U.A.R. and Israel. ivs.eeei-




(SC)

(C CCO)

10

(TS CCO NF)

C CCO) (TS-CCO-NF)





(SC)

(C CCO)

10

(TS CCO NF)

C CCO) (TS-CCO-NF)


'fOP SECRE'f Ur.IBRA

~ I

I(S 000) I

110

(CPS 000 NF)

if3Q.J-. 4. (c)

U.S~lnterceptofVHFjUHFCommunicatibns (U)

(S 000) Since normal reception ofVHF/UHFcommunications depends onaline-of-sight relationshipbetween receiver and transmitter

..... ... successful collection of VHF/UHF com-munications depended on intercept byl I siteslocated near the transmitters and by airborne collectors which could fly orbits in their. vicinity. Close-inintercept facilities located preferably within groundwave distance of transmitters were also a prerequisiteto effective intercept of low-powered HFcommunications.iSet- Sigint collectors had gradually increased their knowledge of Middle East VHF/UHFcommunications. HF communications occasionally referred to other communications in the VHF/UHFmodes. I

I<c CeO)('f'S-eeO-f'W)

IThe U.S. also had USN and USAF airborne"---"":":""----'

collectors who were experienced in flying orbits off thecoast of the U.A.R. and Israel.

I

10 'fOP SECRET Ur.IBRA NOF6RN

EO 1. 4 . (c)

- ._.- -_._. __._---------------------------------'--

(T3 -COO-NF)

(TSC NF)

I The U.A.R. had used U.S.S.R. military radio equipment from 1960, much of which came with aircraft, tanks, and radars the U. S. S. R. provided the U.A.R.

(TS CCO NF)

(TS-CCO-NP)

ko 1.4.(c)

l'OP-Steltirr UMBRr

-€69- Electrical communications between INSCOM detachments and their parent INSCOM organization, the U.S. Army Communications Support Unit, as well as their communications with NSA, were via U.S. Army Strategic Communications Command facilities, off-line, and encrypted on KL-7A equipment using the Adonis system (KAK-199).

(TS CCO)

Mobile airborne collectors in orbits off the coast of the U.A.R. and Israel had somewhat greater flexibility. S2

Airborne Collectors (U) (TS CCO) The major part of the U.S. VHF/UHF collection came from Navy EC-121 and Air Force C-130 flights out of Athens on intercept missions largely specified by NSA. Prior to 23 May, U.S. Airborne Collection Reconnaissance Program (ACRP) C-130s flew some eight sorties a month in the eastern Medi-terranean, The EC- 121 aircraft were also flying about eight sorties a month in the eastern Mediterranean for both Comint and Elint intercept and another eight sorties a month

(S-CCO) After 23 May, when NSA declared a Sigint Readiness Bravo condition, C-1308 flew daily flights with NSA-specified intercept missions. The requirement for daily flights resulted in a reduction of sorties P.nd the reassignment of one C-130 I EC-121s also began daily, and after the outbreak of war twice-daily, flights into the eastern Mediterranean in direct support of the U.S. i Sixth Fleet. At NSA's suggestion, the U.S. Navy rescheduled its flights so that they would complement the C-130 flights, the C-130s flying during the morning hours commencing at 0300Z and the EC-121 aircraft departing at 0800Z.

NOHOW-

EO 1.4.(c)

-TOP-SteRE'141111BRA 11

(T3 -COO-NF)

(TSC NF)


(TS CCO NF)

(TS-CCO-NP)

ko 1.4.(c)

l'OP-Steltirr UMBRr


(TS CCO)




NOHOW-

EO 1.4.(c)


(T3 -COO-NF)

(TSC NF)


(TS CCO NF)

(TS-CCO-NP)

ko 1.4.(c)

l'OP-Steltirr UMBRr


(TS CCO)




NOHOW-

EO 1.4.(c)


(~S 000 nF)

(~SO ~,F) I

IThe U.A.R. had usedU.S.S.R. military radio equipment from 1960, muchof which came with aircraft, tanks, and radars theU.S.S.R. provided the U.A:R.I

(~S 000 ~W)

ffS OOO-fo(F'

,II

L

!EO 1. 4 . (c)

'fOP SECItE'f UMBItA

1"---- _~ Electrical communications betweenINSCOM detachments and their parent INSCOMorganization, the U.S. Army Communications SupportUnit, as well as their communications with NSA, werevia U.S. Army Strategic Communications Commandfacilities, off-line, and encrypted on KL-7A equipmentusing the Adonis system (KAK-199).(~S 000)

Mobile airborne collectors in orbits off the coast~~~of the U.A.R. and Israel had somewhat greaterflexibility. 12

Airborne Collectors (U)

('I'S 000) The major part of the U.S. VHF/UHFcollection came from Navy EC-121 and Air Force C130 flights out of Athens on intercept missions largelyspecified by NSA. Prior to 23 May, U.S. AirborneCollection Reconnaissance Program (ACRP) C-130sflew some eight sorties a month in the eastern Medi-terraQean,1 I

I 'The EC-121 aircraft were also flying about eight sorties amonth in the eastern Mediterranean for both Comintand Elint intercept and another eight sorties a month

I I(S-OOO' After 23 May, when NSA declared aSigint Readiness Bravo condition, C-130s flew dailyflights with NSA-specified intercept missions. Therequirement for daily flights resulted in a reduction ofsorties...1 pd the reassignment of oneC-130 I EC-121s also began daily,and after the outbreak of war twice-daily, flights intothe eastern Mediterranean in direct support of theU.S. Sixth Fleet. At NSA's suggestion, the U.S. Navyrescheduled its flights so that they would complementtheC-130 flights, the C-130s flying during the morninghours commencing at 0300Z and the EC-121 aircraftdeparting at 08;;..;;.O;..;O;.;;;Z;.;.' ----,

(tpS 000)

'fOP SECRE'f UMBRA 11EO 1. 4 . (c)

33°

31° 32°

USAF C-130s

33° 34°

/ 1(

35°

LEBANON)

32°

USN EC-121s

TEL AVIV (s1

ISRAEL( :5'

1

ARAB 460-•-t REPUBLIC

/J

ISRAEL

\ _

L../7

2 0 R..D A/N

) SUEZ CANAL

UNITED

(C CCO) After NSA declared a Sigint Readiness condition for the eastern Mediterranean, collection ffights of the EC-121 and C-130 aircraft were increased to once daily instead of the usual eight ffights a month.

(Figure is CONFIDENTIAL CCO)

3

The Decision to Deploy the Liberty (U)

(TSC) During May and early June 1967, the U. SiI Sigint organization performed moderately well with its existing ground and air collection in

producing Comint responsive to requirements, partic-ularly thre relating to the U.A.R. and to merchant shipping.

12 -T-0P-EkffeRET-UMBR-A EO 1.4.(c) EO 1.4.(d)

33°

31° 32°

USAF C-130s

33° 34°

/ 1(

35°

LEBANON)

32°

USN EC-121s

TEL AVIV (s1

ISRAEL( :5'

1


/J

ISRAEL

\ _

L../7

2 0 R..D A/N

) SUEZ CANAL

UNITED



3





33°

31° 32°

USAF C-130s

33° 34°

/ 1(

35°

LEBANON)

32°

USN EC-121s

TEL AVIV (s1

ISRAEL( :5'

1


/J

ISRAEL

\ _

L../7

2 0 R..D A/N

) SUEZ CANAL

UNITED



3





tFOP SB€RBtF Ul\IBRA

ILEBANON",,;",",-,) \

,

)ISRAEL y

-:..\..f

350

..

")0'

J 0 R,.D A-/N,./)

,

'f I S RAE L ')

REPUBLIC

330

ARAB

32°

UNITED

31°

33°-t---~;::------+-r=........,~c.=,;,~--f------~'-------+-~----~

32°+----~-___jr_------_+_--____i._--_1--~~..!!..!.~=___+_++_----___1

~e eeo) After NSA declared a Sigint Readiness condition for the eastern Mediterranean, collectionflights of the EC-121 and C-130 aircraft were increased to once daily instead of the usual eight flights amonth.

(Figure is eBN-FfBBN'PMfJ eeB~

£01.4. (c)

producingComint responsive to requirements, partie-I I h UAR d h tular y those re ating' to t e . an to mere an

shipping.I

......................

r14 ..............

r

13


ffset During May and early June 1967, theU.Sc=JSi.gintorgllIlization performed moderatelywell with its existing groundancl air collection in

12 tFOP SBCRBtF Ul\IBRA EO 1. 4 . (c)EO 1. 4 . (d)

IThis kind of a response was, they

knew, unlikely with the then available collectiop organization. (TS CCO) NSA considered the categories of Mid- dle East communications for which the existing collec-tion organization was either inadequate or for which it offered small promise for sustained intercept.'

Sigint collection managers concluded that the then existing collection organization would be able, at best, only to make a moderate response to many of the intelligence requirements in view of technical limitations in the collection of VHF/UHF communications. (C CCO) In the case of the airborne collectors, the Sigint planners felt that the average orbit time of the C-130s and EC-121s — about five hours on station after allowing for time to and from orbit areas — was too short for the sustained collection desired. (U) Expansion of airborne collection was a possibility, but additional aircraft in sufficient num-bers would be difficult to obtain, and there was the consideration of downtime for maintenance which for aircraft was greater than for other platforms." (TS CCO NF) In the case of the' sites, Sigint planners considered their fixed locations and the resulting confinement of their VHF/UHF intercept to line-of-sight distances from those locations. They also correctly anticipated that, in the event of war, certain

O 1.4.(c) -TeP-soettgri-umatt*

Arab countries would break diplomatic relations with the U.S. and that,)

16

(TG CCO) For consistent, close-in intercept, Sig- int specialists decided that the assignment of a collec-tion ship to work offshore from the U.A.R. was in order. It was natural that they would decide upon shipborne collection. A technical research ship (TRS) was, according to one estimate at the time, the equivalent of 13 airborne collectors and, besides that, was more economical to operate than the airborne collectors.' In addition to tasks such as sustained collection as in the case of U.S.N.S. Muller'

off the shore of Cuba

Ithe special ships were

prepared by design for quick reaction to exigencies of one kind or another." (3-CCO) Choice of a ship for the Mediterranean narrowed between the U.S.N.S. Valdez then near Gibraltar, and the Liberty in port at Abidjan, Ivory Coast. NSA chose the Liberty because she had superior speed (18 knots vs. 8 knots for Valdez), because her VHF/UHF multichannel collec-tion capability was better, and because she was, unlike Valdez, at the beginning of a deployment." NSA accordingly requested the Joint Chiefs of Staff/Joint Reconnaissance Center (JCS/JRC) on 23 May 1967 to divert the Liberty to the Mediterranean.

Notes

Source documents are in the "Crisis ColleCtion" of the NSA History Collection.

1 (U) NSA Staff, "Fact Sheet for DIRNSA," undated. 2(C COO) NSA Staff, "Critique-Sigint Readiness Bravo

Crayon," 10 July 1968, pp. 31-47, hereafter cited "Critique-SRB Crayon" and NSA Staff, "Report to the Director, NSA: U.S.S. Liberty (AGTR-5), 23 May-8 June 1967," 12 June 1967, pp. 1-4, hereafter cited "Report to the Director, NSA."

3(U) '(9 CCO)

Clarence Toomer 5(U)

16 Jun 1967. 6(U) NSA (G62), "Briefing on 1967 Middle East

Crisis," undated document; "Report to the Director, NSA," Tab C.

"Report to the Director, NSA," p. 1. Informal information from NSA Staff Officer,

Sigint relations (June 1980). NSA Staff, "Operations Staff Summary," ca.

EO 1.4.(c) E0 1.4.(d)

E0 1.4.(c)

EO 1.4.(c) EO 1.4.(d)

-NOFORN— TOP-SELeRET-IiMBRik 13






16





Notes




3(U) '(9 CCO)






EO 1.4.(c) E0 1.4.(d)

E0 1.4.(c)

EO 1.4.(c) EO 1.4.(d)







16





Notes




3(U) '(9 CCO)






EO 1.4.(c) E0 1.4.(d)

E0 1.4.(c)

EO 1.4.(c) EO 1.4.(d)


EO 1.4. (e) TOP SECRET UMBRA

('fse·?w)

L.. ...JThis kind of a response was, theyknew, unlikely with the then available collectioporganization.('f8 000) NSA considered the categories of Middle East communications for which the existing collection organization was either inadequate or for whichit offered small promise for sustained intercept.

Sigintcollection managers concluded that the then existingcollection organization would be able, at best, only tomake a moderate response to many of the intelligencerequirements in view of technical limitations in thecollection of VHF/UHF communications.(8 000) In the case of the airborne collectors,the Sigint planners felt that the average orbit time ofthe C-130s and EC-121s - about five hours on stationafter allowing for time to and from orbit areas - wastoo short for the sustained collection desired.(U) Expansion of airborne collection wasa possibility, but additional aircraft in sufficient numbers would be difficult to obtain, and there was theconsideration of downtime for maintenance which/foraircraft was greater than for othy Platforms.iS(~S GGO ~lF) In the case of the sites, Sigintplanners considered their fixed locations and theresulting confinement of their VHF/UHF intercept toline-of-sight distances from those locations. They alsocorrectly anticipated that, in the event of war, certain

Arab countries would break diplomatic relations withthe U.S. and that,'

~~B 000) For consistent, close-in intercept, Sigint specialists decided that the assignment of a collection ship to work..offshore from the U.A.R. was inorder. It was/natural that they would decide uponshipbomecollection. A technical research ship (TRS)was, according to one estimate at the time, theequivalent of 13 airborne collectors and, besides that,was more economical to operate than the airbornecollectors.'? In addition to tasks such as sustainedcollection as in the case of U.S.N.S. Muller


L- ----' the special ships wereprepared by design for quick reaction to exigencies ofone kind or another."(8 000) Choice of a ship for the Mediterraneannarrowed between the U.S.N.S. Valdez I Ithen near Gibraltar, and the Liberty in port atAbidjan, Ivory C08:st~ NSA chose the Liberty becauseshe had superior speed (18 knots vs. 8 knots forValdez), because her VHF/UHF multichannel collection capability was better, and because she was, unlikeValdez, at the beginning of a deployment;'? NSAaccordingly requested the Joint ChiefsofStaffiJointReconnaissance Center (JCS/JRC) on 23 May 1967 todivert the Liberty to the Mediterranean.

Notes

Source documents are in the "Crisis Collection" of the NSA HistoryCollection.

leu) NSA Staff, "Fact Sheet for DIRNSA," undated.'(S Ssel NSA Staff, "Critique-Sigint Readiness Bravo

Crayon," 10 July 1968, pp, 31-47, hereafter cited "Critique-SRBCrayon" and NSA Staff, "Report to the Director, NSA: U.S.S.Liberty CAGTR-5), 23 May-8 June 1967," 12 June 1967, pp. 1-4,hereafter cited "Report to the Director, NSA."

'cU) "Report to the Director, NSA," p. 1.'es eee) Informal information from NSA Staff Officer,

Clarence Toomerl rSigintreIations{Jurie1980):'CUI NSA Staff, "Operations Staff Summary," ca.

16 Jun 1967.'CU) NSA (G62), "Briefing on 1967 Middle East


EO 1.4. (e)EO 1.4. (d)

EO 1. 4. (e)

EQ 1.4. (e)EO 1.4. (d)

NOFORN TOP SECRET UMBRA 13

-------------------------~~~

'(U) John R. Rasmuson, A History of Kagnew Station and American Forces in Eritrea, 25 May 1973.

8(U) Kagnew Station, Office of Operations, Annual Historical Report, FY 1967, vol. II ; "Critique-SRB Crayon," pp. 11-12, 20.

9(U) NSA Staff, "Operations Staff Summary," ca. 16 Jun 1967; "Critique-SRB Crayon," pp. 20, 37.

''(U) Electronic Security Command, History of the 6931st Security Group, 1 Jan-30 Jun 1967, pp. 8-9, 16, 60-62, 78, 86, 92; "Critique-SRB Crayon," p. 21.

"(U) Julie Alger, "A Review of the Technical Re-search Ship Program, 1961-1969," 1 May 1970; Interview with Gene Sheck, 11 Aug 1980, p. 5.

14€1- U.S. Army Communications Support Unit, Annual Historical Report, FY 1967, vol. I, 1 Oct 1967; (U) "Critique-SRB Crayon," pp. 12-14; (U) "Report to the Director, NSA," Tabs A and B.

"(U) NSA Staff, "Airborne Collection in the Middle East," undated; NSA Staff, "Operations Staff Summary," ca. 16 Jun 1967; "Report to the Director, NSA," p. 2; "Critique-SRB Crayon," pp. 17-18.

"(U) NSA Staff, "Operations Staff Summary," ca. 16 Jun 1967.

18(U) NSA Staff, "Fact Sheet for DIRNSA," un-dated; "Report to the Director, NSA," Tab A; "Critique-SRB Crayon," pp. 16-17. Interview with Gene Sheck, 11 Aug 1980, p. 2.

ik.r+ U.S. Army Communications Support Unit, Annual Historical Report, FY 1967, vol. I; (U) "Critique-SRB Crayon," pp. 12-14.

"(U) NSA Staff, "Fact Sheet for DIRNSA," undated.

'8(U) Julie Alger, "A Review of the Technical Re-search Ship Program, 1961-1969," 1 May 1970.

"9(U) "Critique-SRB Crayon," p. 18.



























'(UJ John R. Rasmuson, A History of KagnewStation and American Forces in Eritrea, 25 May 1973.

8(U) Kagnew Station, Office of Operations, AnnualHistorical Report, FY 1967, vol, IT ; "CritiQue-SRB Crayon," pp,11-12, 20.

9(UJ NSA Staff, "Operations Staff Summary," ca.16 Jun 1967; "Critique-SRB Crayon," pp. 20, 37.

lO(UJ Electronic Security Command, History of the6931st Security Group, 1 Jan-30 Jun 1967, pp. 8-9, 16, eo-sa, 78,86, 92; "Critique-SRB Crayon," p. 21.

Il(UJ Julie Alger, "A Review of the Technical Re-search Ship Program, 1961-1969," 1 May 1970; Interview with GeneSheck, 11 Aug 1980, p. 5.

l"fet- U.S. Army Communications Support Unit,Annual Historical Report, FY 1967, vol. I, 1 Oct 1967; (UJ"CritiQue-SRB Crayon," pp. 12-14; (UJ "Report to the Director,NSA," Tabs A and B.

14 CONPIBHN'fIAL

13(UJ NSA Staff, "Airborne Collection in the MiddleEast," undated; NSA Staff, "Operations Staff Summary," ca. 16Jun 1967; "Report to the Director, NSA," p, 2; "Critique-SRBCrayon," pp. 17-18.

I4(UJ NSA Staff, "Operations Staff Summary," ca.16 Jun 1967.

I5(UJ NSA Staff, "Fact Sheet for DffiNSA," un-dated; "Report to the Director, NSA," Tab A; "Critique-SRBCrayon," pp. 16-17. Interview with Gene Sheck, 11 Aug 1980, p. 2.l~ U.S. Army Communications Support Unit,

Annual Historical Report. FY 1967, vol. I; (UJ "Critique-SRBCrayon," pp. 12-14.

lJ(UJ NSA Staff, "Fact Sheet for DffiNSA,"undated.

I8(UJ Julie Alger, "A Review of the Technical Re-search Ship Program, 1961-1969," 1 May 1970.

I9(UJ "Critique-SRB Crayon," p. 18.

Chapter III

Deployment to the Mediterranean (U)

(3C) With Sigint unit USN-855 on board, the U.S.S. Liberty had been in operation for two years and four months when NSA sent its message to the JCS asking for deployment of the Liberty to the Mediterranean. During this time it had undertaken five separate missions off the west coast of Africa to

I The ship had executed a number of difficult tasks — locating new communications,

Other U.S. Sigint ships at this time included the U.S.S. Oxford and Jamestown in South-east Asia, the U.S.S. Georgetown and Belmont in South America, the U.S.N.S. Muller off Cuba, and the U.S.N.S. Valdez enroute to the U.S. from the Mediterranean.'

U.S.S. Liberty's Modus Operandi (U)

(U) U.S. reconnaissance operations came under the purview of the J-3, Joint Chiefs of Staff. A Deputy Director for Reconnaissance assisted the J-3 in the exercise of operational control over reconnais-sance activities of the unified and specified commands. The Joint Reconnaissance Center (JRC) worked for the Deputy Director for Reconnaissance and had authority over U.S. reconnaissance operations. NSA had a representative to the Joint Reconnaissance Center, Mr. John Connell. (U) In 1965 the JCS had given general guidance on the conduct of technical research ship (TRS) operations. Operational control of the ships was to be effected by unified and specified commanders

"through the naval component commander to a specific fleet or force commander." In May 1967, the U.S.S. Liberty, an auxiliary general technical research ship (AGTR) was operating under the control of the Com-mander-in-Chief, Atlantic. The TRS commanding of-ficer was Commander William L. McGonagle.

The JCS also specified that technical control of Sigint activities was to be exercised by the Director, National Security Agency via direct com-munication to the ships or through the Director, Naval Security Group. A collection assignment, the JCS stated further in its 1965 message, would take into account technical factors as determined by NSA and safety factors as determined by military operational commanders.

Liberty's Sigint detachment, USN-855, therefore, came under the technical control of the Director, NSA and under the management control of the Director, Naval Security Group. On board the Liberty, the Sigint detachment was known as the "Research Department." Its space below decks was compartmented with access permitted only to staff having the proper clearances. Commanding officer of the Research Department was Lieutenant Commander David E. Lewis. The ship's Captain, Commander McGonagle, had the clearances needed for access to the Research Department, visited the department daily, received briefings, and reviewed the "special traffic" available there.

(C-CCO) Paddy E. Rhodes, during an interview, described the area of the Liberty which housed USN-855: "The research spaces had really three decks. On the lowest deck we had a training room and a fan room. The next deck was the R Branch (collection) spaces, the 0 Branch (communications) spaces, and processing and reporting. The one above it was T Branch (other than morse signals)."

-REeRET-SPOKE- 15

Chapter III











-REeRET-SPOKE- 15

Chapter III











-REeRET-SPOKE- 15

SH€RET SPOKE

Chapter III


i'S€t- With Sigint unit USN-855 on board,the U.S.S. Liberty had been in operation for two yearsand four months when NSA sent its message to theJCS asking for deployment of the Liberty to theMediterranean. During this time it had undertakenI'" ,,".,ate mi"ion, off the ~,t ,oo,t 0; ::~'~J

had executed a number of difficult tasks locatingIDew ,0mmunioatioD,j I

(C-CCO) Other US. Sigint ships at this timeincluded the U.S.S. Oxford and Jamestown in Southeast Asia, the US.S. Georgetown and Belmont inSouth America, the US.N.S. Muller off Cuba, andthe U.S.N.S. Valdez enroute to the US. from theMediterranean. I

u.s.s. Ljhert.r~ Modus Operandi (U)

(U) us. reconnaissance operations cameunder the purview of the J-3, Joint Chiefs of Staff. ADeputy Director for Reconnaissance assisted the J-3in the exercise of operational control over reconnaissance activities of the unified and specified commands.The Joint Reconnaissance Center (JRC) worked forthe Deputy Director for Reconnaissance and hadauthority over U.S. reconnaissance operations. NSAhad a representative to the Joint ReconnaissanceCenter, Mr. John Connell.(U) In 1965 the JCS had given generalguidance on the conduct of technical research ship(TRS) operations. Operational control of the ships wasto be effected by unified and specified commanders

"through the naval component commander to a specificfleet or force commander." In May 1967, the US. S.Liberty, an auxiliary general technical research ship(AGTR) was operating under the control of the Commander-in-Chief, Atlantic. The TRS commanding officer was Commander William L. McGonagle.

(8-CeO) The JCS also specified that technicalcontrol of Sigint activities \Vasto be exercised by theDirector, NationafBecurity Agency via direct communication to the ships or through the Director, NavalSecurity Group. A collection assignment, the JCSstated further in its 1965 message, would take intoaccount technical factors as determined by NSA andsafety factors as determined by military operationalcommanders.

(C-CCO) Liberty's Sigint detachment, USN-855,therefore, came under the technical control of theDirector, NSA and under the management control ofthe Director, Naval Security Group. On board theLiberty, the Sigint detachment was known as the"Research Department." Its space below decks wascompartmented with access permitted only to staffhaving the proper clearances. Commanding officer ofthe Research Department was Lieutenant CommanderDavid E. Lewis. The ship's Captain, CommanderMcGonagle, had the clearances needed for access tothe Research Department, visited the departmentdaily, received briefings, and reviewed the "specialtraffic" available there.

(C-CCO) Paddy E. Rhodes, during an interview,described the area of the Liberty which housed USN855: "The research spaces had really three decks. Onthe lowest deck we had a training room and a fanroom. The next deck was the R Branch (collection)spaces, the 0 Branch (communications) spaces, andprocessing and reporting. The one above it was TBranch (other than morse signals)."

SECRET SPOKE 15

"11:0 1. 4 • (c)

UNCLASSIFIED

(U) A small portion of the antenna configuration of the U.S.S. Liberty included:

(11) Long-wire VLF/LF antenna (12) ECM antenna (27) 10' whip antenna (32) ECM antenna (33) ECM antenna

(34) Discone antenna (35) Monocone antenna (36) ECM antenna (41) VHF-receive antenna (42) 35' whip antenna

(Figure is UNCLASSIFIED)

Typical of communications arrange-ments of the AGTR class, the Liberty had circuits for the ship's command in one location and those for its Sigint detachment in a separate location. Liberty's naval communications station, which served the com-mand, had a "receive" terminal for fleet broadcasts, three circuits for on-line ship/shore radiotelephone and voice communications, and one additional orderwire full-duplex circuit. In a separate location, USN-855 had an on-line, full-duplex radiotelephone circuit, a secure one-channel moon-relay system — technical research ship special communications system (TRSSCOMM) — and a "receive-only" terminal for fleet broadcasts. In case of need several off-line en-cryption devices were also available.

16 -eONFIDENTIA47

(C-CCO) Sigint collection positions included one for direction finding, 17 for radiotelephone, 20 for manual morse, 7 for automatic morse, 7 for electronic countermeasures, and 33 for nonmorse search and development, the latter for frequencies both above and below 30 Mhz.

(U) Perhaps the most visible technical feature of the ship was its antennas, some 45 in all.

(U)

Not so visible was, however, the ship's armament, which was minimal — four .50-caliber machine guns, 2 forward and 2 aft, one Browning automatic rifle, and a number of small arms.'

UNCLASSIFIED






16 -eONFIDENTIA47



(U)


UNCLASSIFIED






16 -eONFIDENTIA47



(U)


-_~_o=---_··-

CONFIDENTIAL


(34) Discone antenna(35) Monocone antenna(36) ECM antenna(41) VHF-receive antenna(42) 35' whip antenna


(11) Long-wire VLF/LF antenna(12) ECM antenna(27) 10' whip antenna(32) ECM antenna(33) ECM antenna

1€t' Typical of communications arrange-ments of the AGTR class, the Liberty had circuits forthe ship's command in one location and those for itsSigint detachment in a separate location. Liberty'snaval communications station, which served the command, had a "receive" terminal for fleet broadcasts,three circuits for on-line ship/shore radiotelephone andvoice communications, and one additional orderwirefull-duplex circuit. In a separate location, USN-855had an on-line, full-duplex radiotelephone circuit, asecure one-channel moon-relay system - technicalresearch ship special communications system(TRSSCOMM) - and a "receive-only" terminal forfleet broadcasts. In case of need several off-line encryption devices were also available.

(0 000) Sigint collection positions included onefor direction finding, 17 for radiotelephone, 20 formanual morse, 7 for automatic morse, 7 for electroniccountermeasures, and 33 for non morse search anddevelopment, the latter for frequencies both aboveand below 30 Mhz.

(U) Perhaps the most visible technicalfeature of the ship was its antennas, some 45 in all.

. (U) Not so visible was, however, the ship'sarmament, which was minimal - four .50-calibermachine guns, 2 forward and 2 aft, one Browningautomatic rifle, and a number of small arms.?

16 CONFIBBNHl..J. HAHln.J~ V:IA CO~HHT CIIAHHBJ;.S OHJ;.Y

(c)

provisions and fuel, acquiring the military documen-tation necessary for its assignment to Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Navy Europe and later to the U.S. Sixth Fleet, and repairing its TRSSCOMM which had a faulty hydraulic system. (3C) Six Arabic linguists joined USN-855 for the expected work on U.A.R. and

communications. Three of the Arab lin-guists, NSA civilians Allen M. Blue, Donald L. Bla-lock, and Robert L. Wilson, were among the specialists who came on board at Rota, the remaining linguists being Naval Security Group specialist& The NSA linguists brought with them selected technical material, Assignment .E° of civilian linguists to work on board a U.S. Navy ship was not unusual. On TRS deployments along the African coastlines, civilian linguists had worked alongside the military linguists, who at times were not available in sufficient number for the missions at hand. (C CCO) NSA action officers established a telecon with USN-855 (Lieutenant Commander D. E. Lewis and his assistant, Lieutenant Maury H. Ben-nett) on 1 June in order to confirm the arrival of the personnel, special equipment, and technical materials needed in the eastern Mediterranean.' In order to assist USN-855's reporting and transcribing functions, NSA had previously arranged with

Abidjan to Rota, 24-31 May 1967 (U)

The TRS was at Abidjan, Ivory Coast, at the end of May on its fifth African cruise when, in response to NSA's message on 23 May, the JCS/JRC, with approval of the Deputy Secretary of Defense, directed movement of the ship to the eastern Medi-terranean via Rota, Spain, and requested the Com-mander-in-Chief, Atlantic to change operational con-trol of the ship to the Commander-in-Chief, Europe upon its arrival at Rota.' At the time, the Liberty was under the operational control of the Commander, Service Squadron 8, a component of the Commander-in-Chief, Atlantic, and on 24 May the Commander, Service Squadron 8 issued sailing orders to the Liberty, with information copies to Commander, Sixth Fleet and others, directing the ship to move at once to Rota.' The Liberty departed Abidjan at 0530Z, 24 May, with estimated time of arrival in Rota, 31 May.'

Liberty at Rota, 31 May to 2 June 1967 (U)

(U) When the Liberty arrived at Rota on 31 May, it came under the operational control of the U.S. Commander-in-Chief, Europe (Gen. L.L. Lem-nitzer) who turned over control to the Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Navy Europe.' While delegating his con-trol, General Lemnitzer still wanted operational infor-mation on the ship's progress and asked on 1 June that situation reports (Sitreps) and planned intended movement (Pim) reports from the Liberty arrive at his headquarters daily and that any incidents be reported as soon as possible in accordance with the existing reconnaissance reporting instructions.' (C-CCO) After taking control, Admiral John S. McCain, Jr., Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Navy Europe, directed the Liberty to send to his headquarters daily Sitreps and position reports and in those reports to include the Pim for the next 24 hours and any comments on status of the ship. He directed the Liberty to depart for the eastern Mediterranean when ready, provided guidelines for its staying within inter-national waters, and asked for adherence to estab-lished communications procedures for the region. NSA also received the situation reports being required by Commander-in-Chief, Europe and Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Navy Europe and used these, along with ship positions given in Liberty's daily informal tech-nical summaries, to plot on a routine basis the course of the Liberty! (U) At Rota, the Liberty prepared for its deployment to the eastern Mediterranean, taking on_

(8-CCO) To facilitate the planning for USN- 855's collection mission, Sigint managers had desig-nated five operational areas numbered west to east in the eastern Mediterranean near the coastline of the U.A.R., Israel, Lebanon, and Syria, each measuring about 50-by-50 miles. hi proposing the five operational areas to the JCS, the Director, NSA had indicated his preference, based on wave propagation analysis of U. A.R. communications, for operational area three (32:00-33:00N to 34:00E) if operational and safety factors did not dictate otherwise.'° With the territorial limits established by Middle East countries in mind, JCS subsequently directed the Commander-in-Chief, Europe to deploy the Liberty to operational area three with closest point of approach (CPA) to Algeria, Libya, and the U.A.R. of 13 nautical miles during transit. On arrival in operational area three, CPA was to be 12.5 nm to the U.A.R. and 6.5 nm to Israel." Acting upon the JCS message for Commander-in-Chief, Eu-rope and after hearing from the Liberty that it had

-SEeRET-SPOKE- 17

(c)








-SEeRET-SPOKE- 17

(c)








-SEeRET-SPOKE- 17


(0 000) The TRS was at Abidjan, Ivory Coast,at the end of May on its fifth African cruise when, inresponse to NSA's message on 23 May, the JCS/JRC,with approval of the Deputy Secretary of Defense,directed movement of the ship to the eastern Mediterranean via Rota, Spain, and requested the Commander-in-Chief, Atlantic to change operational control of the ship to the Commander-in-Chief, Europeupon its arrival at Rota.:' At the time, the Libertywas under the operational control of the Commander,Service Squadron 8, a component of the Commanderin-Chief, Atlantic, and on 24 May the Commander,Service Squadron 8 issued sailing orders to the Liberty,with information copies to Commander, Sixth Fleetand others, directing the ship to move at once toRota. 4 The Liberty departed Abidjan at 0530Z, 24May, with estimated time of arrival in Rota, 31 May.s

Lihertyat Rota,31 May to 2 June 1967 (U)

(V) When the Liberty arrived at Rota on31 May, it came under the operational control of theV.S. Commander-in-Chief, Europe (Gen. L.L. Lemnitzer) who turned over control to the Commander-inChief, U.S. Navy Europe." While delegating his control, General Lemnitzer still wanted operational information on the ship's progress and asked on 1 Junethat situation reports (Sitreps) and planned intendedmovement (Pim) reports from the Liberty arrive athis headquarters daily and that any incidents bereported as soon as possible in accordance with theexisting reconnaissance reporting instructions. 7

to-CCO) After taking control, Admiral John S.McCain, Jr., Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Navy Europe,directed the Liberty to send to his headquarters dailySitreps and position reports and in those reports toinclude the Pim for the next 24 hours and anycomments on status of the ship. He directed theLiberty to depart for the eastern Mediterranean whenready, provided guidelines for its staying within international waters, and asked for adherence to established communications procedures for the region. NSAalso received the situation reports being required byCommander-in-Chief, Europe and Commander-inChief, V.S. Navy Europe and used these, along withship positions given in Liberty's daily informal technical summaries, to plot on a routine basis the courseof the Liberty. 8

(U) At Rota, the Liberty prepared for itsdeployment to the eastern Mediterranean, taking on.,

SHCRHT SPOKH

provisrons and fuel, acquiring the military documentation necessary for its assignment to Commander-inChief, U.S. Navy Europe and later to the U.S. SixthFleet, and repairing its TRSSCOMM which had afaulty hydraulic system.~ Six Arabicl hinguistsjoined USN-855 for the expected work on V.A.& and

I IcolIlmunications. Three of the Arab linguists, NSA civilians.Allen M. Blue, Donald L.Blalock, and Robert L. Wilson;weJ,'e among the specialistswho came on board at Rota, theremllining linguistebeing Naval Security Group specialists. ThtaNSAlinguists brought with them selected technical material, I I Assigriri:lentof civilian linguists to work on board a U.S.Na.Vy shipwas not unusual. On TRS deployments along theAfricanI !coastlines, civilian linguists had worked alongside the military linguists, whoat times were not available in sufficient number forthe missions at hand.~C CCG) NSA action officers established a telecon with USN-855 (Lieutenant Commander D. E.Lewis and his assistant, Lieutenant Maury H. Bennett) on 1 June in order to confirm the arrival of thepersonnel, special equipment, and technical materialsneeded in the eastern Mediterraneen." In order toassist VSN-855's reporting and transcribing functions,NSA had previously arranl(ed withI

(S-CCO) To facilitate the planning for USN855's collection mission, Sigint managers had designated five operational areas numbered west to east inthe eastern Mediterranean near the coastline of theD.A.R., Israel, Lebanon, and Syria, each measuringabout 5Q-by-50 miles. In proposing the five operationalareas to the JCS, the Director, NSA had indicatedhis preference, based on wave propagation analysis ofD.A.R. communications, for operational area three(32:00-33:00N to 34:00E) if operational and safetyfactors did not dictate otherwise. 10 With the territoriallimits established by Middle East countries in mind,JCS subsequently directed the Commander-in-Chief,Europe to deploy the Liberty to operational area threewith closest point of approach (CPA) to Algeria, Libya,and the U.A.R. of 13 nautical miles during transit.On arrival in operational area three, CPA was to be12.5 nm to the U.A.R. and 6.5 nm to Israel. II Actingupon the JCS message for Commander-in-Chief, Europe and after hearing from the Liberty that it had

SHCRHT SPOKB 17

"EO 1.4:1. (c)

I!

the intercept acquired directly from the airborne collectors upon their return to base. At the time,

I was processing the intercept of the-airborne collectors with NSA performing the backuj: processing on Arabic language materials and retaining full responsibility for processing of intercepted communications. Courier time for delivery of tapes tc NSA I !was 72 hours. (3 CCO)

(U) The Liberty docked in Rota, Spain, to be readied for deployment to the eastern Mediterranean. In Rota, the operational control of the Liberty was turned over to the U.S. Commander-in-Chief, Europe, who in turn delegated the control to Admiral John S. McCain, Jr., Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Navy Europe.

(Photograph courtesy of Robert L. Wilson.) (Figure is UNCLASSIFIED)

completed repairs to the TRSSCOMM hydraulic sys-tem, Admiral McCain directed the Liberty to follow the schedule prescribed by JCS.' The Liberty then departed Rota on 2 June at 1230Z through the Strait of Gibraltar on a course paralleling the North African coastline.

Air Force Security Service's Technical Processing Center (U)

(s CCO) While the Liberty was enroute to Rota from Abidjan, NSA was arranging with the Air Force Security Service (AFSS), now the Electronic Security Command, for more expeditious processing of Navy's VQ-2 EC-121 and Air Force's C-130 intercept, which had increased considerably from the now daily flights off the Israeli and U.A.R. coastline. The objective was to establish a technical processing center (TPC) for

18 -Reettef-








18 -Reettef-








18 -Reettef-

SECRH'I'

(U) The Liberty docked in Rota, Spain, to be readied for deployment to the easternMediterranean. In Rota, the operational control of the Liberty was turned over to the U.S.Commander-in-Chief, Europe, who in turn delegated the control to Admiral John S. McCain,Jr., Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Navy Europe.

(Photograph courtesy of Robert L. Wilson.)(Figure is UNCLASSIFIED)

the intercept acquired directly from the airborneon their return to base. At the time,

L- ..1 was processing the intercept of thsairborne collectors with NSA performing the backupprocessing on Arabic language materials and retainins:full responsibility for processing of interceptedDcommunications. Courier time for delivery of/tapes tr

was 72 hours.

completed repairs to the TRSSCOMM hydraulic system, Admiral McCain directed the Liberty to followthe schedule prescribed by JCS. 12 The Liberty thendeparted Rota on 2 June at 1230Z through the Straitof Gibraltar on a course paralleling the North Africancoastline.

Air Force Security Service's TechnicalProcessing Center (D)

(8 GGO) While the Liberty was enroute to Rotafrom Abidjan, NSA was arranging with the Air ForceSecurity Service (AFSS), now the Electronic SecurityCommand, for more expeditious processing of Navy'sVQ-2 EC-121 and Air Force's C-130 intercept, whichhad increased considerably from the now daily flightsoff the Israeli and U.A.R. coastline. The objective wasto establish a technical processing center (TPC) for

18 SHCRH'f IIkNBLB ViA eOr.HN'f elIANNBLS ONL\' 1. 4. (c)

(S-CCO)

(C-CCO) When the TPC became operational on 1 June, the linguists, divided into four operational shifts, processed the tapes as they were brought into the TPC compound from the aircraft, and the ana-lysts/reporters issued their contents with a minimum of delay as Critics, Spots, electrigrams, or in the technical supplements to post-mission flight reports.'

Enroute to Operational Area Three (U)

(C, CCO) On 29 May in a message to USN-855, the Director, NSA had outlined the mission for the Liberty during its voyage to the eastern Mediterra-nean, the changing geographical and hearability con-siderations to govern specific collection activity during the trip. The Director, NSA designated USN-855 positions for search and development of Moroccan HF, VHF, UHF, and radioprinter communications and Algerian HF, VHF, and possible VHF multichannel communications. USN-855 was to forward by electrical transmission technical summaries of Moroccan and Algerian communications to NSA, with information copies going tol and courier delivery of tapes and traffic to NSA's Middle East Office, G6.' 4

Liberty's move into the Mediterranean proceeded according to plan. It reported that it overtook and passed three Soviet ships during its passage through the Strait of Gibraltar.' Following the North African coastline, its collection positions were on the prescribed Algerian and Moroccan com-munications. Orientation and training for the main objective, U.A.R. communications, detracted some-what from performance on the secondary Algerian and Moroccan assignments, but this was to be expected.' (U) At 1330Z, 2 June the Liberty in-formed the Navy Movement Report Office in London

and 33 other addressees including the Commander, Sixth Fleet that as of 0001Z, 7 June, the Liberty would be guarding the fleet broadcast from the Naval Communications Station at Asmara, Ethiopia, which served the eastern Mediterranean. In accordance with customary communications procedures, the Liberty would guard the fleet broadcast of the Naval Com-munications Station, Morocco, until it reached the eastern Mediterranean.

(U) The Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Navy Europe apprised Commander, Sixth Fleet, Vice Ad-miral William I. Martin, on 3 June, that the Liberty's mission was to conduct an "extended independent surveillance operation in the eastern Mediterranean" and that Sixth Fleet might be called upon to provide logistic and other support.'

(U) With the outbreak of the war on 5 June, the Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Navy Europe in a message to the Commander, Sixth Fleet and others took note of the movement of some 20 Soviet warships with supporting vessels and an estimated 8 or 9 Soviet submarines into the eastern Mediterranean and Ae-gean and, along with other guidance, instructed Vice Admiral Martin to keep his ships and aircraft at least 100 nm away from the coasts of Lebanon, Syria, Israel, and the U.A.R. and at least 25 nm away from Cyprus." The Commander, Sixth Fleet directed his units to comply later that day." Neither the Com-mander-in-Chief, U.S. Navy Europe nor the Com-mander, Sixth Fleet directives included specific in-structions to the U.S.S. Liberty.

Liberty was to the south of Italy when the Six Day War broke out. With the war's inception, the Liberty assumed a readiness condition, and USN-855 began to keep abreast of events from NSA and field site Sigint Readiness Crayon and other reports on the Middle East situation and, of course, from its own intercept.' Members of the USN-855 felt some apprehension as they approached what they now knew to be a war zone; they appreciated perhaps more than before the need for general quarters drills, but they took comfort from their noncombatant status and, of course, the visibility of the flag. One USN-855 survivor recalls being told that "...if anything were to happen we were within ten minutes of air strike and help. None of us were very worried...."'

While it was neither NSA's responsi-bility nor intention to adjudge the safety factors of the Liberty's mission, in view of the outbreak of hostilities, NSA's Gene Sheck and Dick Harvey did

1.4.(c)

-REeRET 19

(S-CCO)










1.4.(c)

-REeRET 19

(S-CCO)










1.4.(c)

-REeRET 19

SECRET


·EO 1. 4 . (c)

and 33 other addressees including the Commander,Sixth Fleet that as of 000lZ, 7 June, the Libertywould be guarding the fleet broadcast from the NavalCommunications Station at Asmara, Ethiopia, whichserved the eastern Mediterranean. In accordance withcustomary communications procedures, the Libertywould guard the fleetlJroadcast of the Naval Communications Station, Morocco, until it reached theeastern Mediterranean.

(U) The Commander-in-Chief, U. S. NavyEurope apprised Commander, Sixth Fleet, Vice Admiral William 1. Martin, on 3 June, that the Liberty'smission was to conduct an "extended independentsurveillance operation in the eastern Mediterraneair'and that Sixth Fleet might be called upon to providelogistic and other support. 17

(U) With the outbreak of the war on 5June, the Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Navy Europe ina message to the Commander, Sixth Fleet and otherstook note of the movement of some 20 Soviet warshipswith supporting vessels and an estimated 8 or 9 Sovietsubmarines into the eastern Mediterranean and Aegean and, along with other guidance,instructed ViceAdmiral Martin to keep his ships arid aircraft at least100 nm away from the coasts of Lebanon, Syria,Israel, and the U.A.R. and at least 25 nm away fromCyprus. 1M The Commander, Sixth Fleet directed hisunits to comply later/that day.19 Neither the Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Navy Europe nor the Commander, Sixth .Fleet directives included specific instructions to.the U.S.S. Liberty.

(0 GOO) Liberty was to the south of Italy whenthe Six Day War broke out. With the war's inception,the Liberty assumed a readiness condition, and USN855 began to keep abreast of events from NSA andfield site Sigint Readiness Crayon and other reportson the Middle East situation and, of course, from itsown intercept. ,0 Members of the USN-855 felt someapprehension as they approached what they now knewto be a war zone; they appreciated perhaps more thanbefore the need for general quarters drills, but theytook comfort from their noncombatant status and, ofcourse, the visibility of the flag. One USN-855 survivorrecalls being told that" ... if anything were to happenwe were within ten minutes of air strike and help.None of us were very worried.... "21

(0-000) While it was neither NSA's responsibility nor intention to adjudge the safety factors ofthe Liberty's mission, in view of the outbreak ofhostilities, NSA's Gene Sheck and Dick Harvey did

te eeej When the TPC became operational on1 June, the linguists, divided into four operationalshifts, processed the tapes as they were brought intothe TPC compound from the aircraft, and the analysts/reporters issued their contents with a minimumof delay as Critics, Spots, electrigrams, or. in thetechnical supplements to post-mission flight reports. 13

(8 GGO) On 29 May in a message to USN-855,the Director, NSA had outlined the mission for theLiberty during its voyage to the eastern Mediterranean, the changing geographical and hearability considerations to govern specific collection activity duringthe trip. The Director, NSA designated USN-855positions for search and development of Moroccan HF,VHF, UHF, and radioprinter communications andAlgerian HF, VHF, and possible VHF multichannelcommunications. USN-855 was to forward by electricaltransmission technical summaries of Moroccan andAlgerian communications to NSA, with informationcopies going tol Iand courier delivery of tapes and traffic to NSA'sMiddle East Office, G6. 14

(8-000) Liberty's move into the Mediterraneanproceeded according to plan. It reported that itovertook and passed three Soviet ships during itspassage through the Strait of Gibraltar;'? Followingthe North African coastline, its collection positionswere on the prescribed Algerian and Moroccan communications. Orientation and training for the mainobjective, U.A.R. communications, detracted somewhat from performance on the secondary Algerian andMoroccan assignments, but this was to be expected. 16(U) At 1330Z, 2 June the Liberty informed the Navy Movement Report Office in London

Iis GOO) I

I-

SECRET 19

ask the the NSA liaison officer to the JCS/JRC, Mr. J. Connell, on 5 June if any consideration was being given there to a change in the Liberty's operational area. They reminded Connell that during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis five years earlier the U.S.S. Oxford had been pulled back from the Havana area. The NSA concern was for the technical collection arrangements which would have to be adjusted if the Liberty was to be withdrawn. The NSA liaison officer discussed the matter with JRC's ship-movement officer and then advised Sheck and Harvey that no action was then under consideration." (U) On 6 June, as it was passing between Libya and Crete, the Liberty reported to Sixth Fleet that its TRSSCOMM, which had had malfunctions in its power supply and hydraulic systems on the trip from Rota, was again operating satisfactorily and, in reply to a Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Navy Europe query concerning Pims not being received, provided the date-time group of Pims previously sent. (3C) USN-855's communications on the 6th to NSA were normal — its 24-hour summary for 5 June, its informal technical summary no. 3, a Spot report, its follow-up to al

and other reports all being received without commu-nication difficulties. It was also in satisfactory communication with( lin this period." (U) On this same day, 6 June, the Com-mander-in-Chief, U.S. Navy Europe told the Com-mander, Sixth Fleet that the Liberty was to come under his operational control at 00012, 7 June 1967 in order "to facilitate area command and control and any possible requirement for protection during the Middle East hostilities" and pointed out that the Liberty's schedule might be revised for safety reasons "as dictated by the local situation."' Liberty acknowl-edged the instructions concerning its operational con-trol at 2036Z on the 6th. Liberty's commanding officer, Commander McGonagle, also told the Com mander, Sixth Fleet that the ship was in a "Readiness Condition Three-Modified" and reminded his superior that the ship's "self-defense capability" was limited to four .50-caliber machine guns and small arms. (U) Three hours later the Commander, Sixth Fleet cautioned its new charge by message to "maintain a high state of vigilance against attack or threat of attack" in view of the "unpredictability of U.A.R. actions." He directed the Liberty to report by Flash precedence any threatening actions or "any diversion from schedule necessitated by external threat" and to submit "reports of contact with ships, aircraft, and submarines which are unidentified, qf

intelligence interest, or engage in harassment." Ad-miral Martin also instructed the Liberty to copy the fleet broadcast and to use his fast carrier task force (TF-60) tactical circuits if necessary.25 Liberty did not receive, for one reason or another, this message.' (U) On 7 June at 0800Z the Liberty was off the coast of the U.A.R. and approaching opera-tional areas two and three. Despite the Immediate Precedence assigned to the Liberty's Sitrep/Posit re-port at 0908Z, 7 June, giving its position at 0800Z at 33-06N 28-54E, it took, according to a JCS postmor-tem report, some fifteen and one-half hours for the Liberty's position report to reach the Commander, Sixth Fleet, the action addressee.' Liberty was now guarding the fleet broadcast of the Naval Communi-cations Station, Asmara. On this day a number of actions were under way to minimize the appearance of U.S. involvement in the Middle East hostilities and to change the Liberty's operational area.

In a message to the Commander, Sixth Fleet, the JCS took note of new U.A.R. allegations, possibly derived in JCS's opinion from the U.A.R.'s

Ito the effect that U.S. personnel were in communication with Israel and were possibly providing military assistance. Equally concerned about the earlier U.A.R. allegations that U.S. aircraft had participated in the Israeli air strikes against the U.A.R., the JCS asked for assurance from Vice Ad-miral Martin that his aircraft were not within 200 miles of the U.A.R., Syria, or Israel and that there were no Sixth Fleet communications or other contacts with Israel.29 The Commander, Sixth Fleet replied negatively, observing only that radio voice circuits had been established with the American Embassy in Tel Aviv and that transmissions so far had only been for testing purposes."

Studying the successful Israeli drive into U.A.R. territory, the Director, NSA decided that the Liberty's opportunity for effective collection of

20 40P-REGRE-T-441BRA-

EO 1.4.(c)








EO 1.4.(c)








EO 1.4.(c)

'fOP SECRECf UMBRA

ask the NSA liaison officer to the JCS/JRC, Mr. J.Connell, on 5 June if any consideration was beinggiven there to a change in the Liberty's operationalarea. They reminded Connell that during the 1962Cuban missile crisis five years earlier the V.S.S.Oxford had been pulled back from the Havana area.The NSA concern was for the technical collectionarrangements which would have to be adjusted if theLiberty was to be withdrawn. The NSA liaison officerdiscussed the matter with JRC's ship-movement officerand then advised Sheck and Harvey that no actionwas then under consideration. 22

(V) On 6 June, as it was passing betweenLibya and Crete, the Liberty reported to Sixth Fleetthat its TRSSCOMM, which had had malfunctions inits power supply and hydraulic systems on the tripfrom Rota, was again operating satisfactorily and, inreply to a Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Navy Europequery concerning Pims not being received, providedthe date-time group of Pims previously sent.~ VSN-855's communications on the 6thto NSA were normal - its 24-hour summary for 5June, its informal technical summary no. 3, a SpotIreport, its follow-up to ~ ~ Iand other reports all being received without communication difficulties. It was also in satisfactory com-munication wit~ lin this period. 23

(V) On this same day, 6 June, the Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Navy Europe told the Com-lmander, Sixth Fleet that the Liberty was to comeunder his operational control at OOOl.Z, 7 June 1967in order "to facilitate area command and control andany possible requirement for protection during theMiddle East hostilities" and pointed \.out that theLiberty's schedule might be revised for safety reasons"as dictated by the local situation. ,,24 Liberty acknowledged the instructions concerning its operational con.trol at 2036Z on the 6th. Liberty's commandingofficer, Commander McGonagle, also told\\ the Commander, Sixth Fleet that the ship was in a "ReadinessCondition Three-Modified" and reminded his superiorthat the ship's "self-defense capability" was limitedto four .50-caliber machine guns and small arms.(V) Three hours later the Commander,Sixth Fleet cautioned its new charge by message to"maintain a high state of vigilance against attack orthreat of attack" in view of the "unpredictability ofV.A.R. actions." He directed the Liberty to report byFlash precedence any threatening actions orranydiversion from schedule necessitated by ext~rnaf

threat" and to submit "reports of contact with ship$,aircraft, and submarines which are unidentified, df

intelligence interest, or engage in harassment." Admiral Martin also instructed the Liberty to copy thefleet broadcast and to use his fast carrier task force(TF-60) tactical circuits if necessary." Liberty did notreceive, for one reason or another, this message. 26

(V) On 7 June at 0800Z the Liberty wasoff the coast of the V.A.R. and approaching operational areas two and three. Despite the ImmediatePrecedence assigned to the Liberty's Sitrep/Posit report at 0908Z, 7 June, giving its position at 0800Z at33-06N 28-54E, it took, according to a JCS postmortem report, some fifteen and one-half hours for theLiberty's position report to reach the Commander,Sixth Fleet, the action addressee.r ' Liberty was nowguarding the fleet broadcast of the Naval Communications Station, Asmara. On this day a number ofactions were under way to minimize the appearance ofU.S. involvement in the Middle East hostilities andto change the Libert's 0 erational area.(~SC)

~ In a message to the Commander, SixthFleet, the JCS took note of new V.A.R. allegations,possibly derived in JCS's opinion from the V.A.R.'sI Ito the effect that U. S. personnelwere in communication with Israel and were possiblyproviding military assistance. Equally concerned aboutthe earlier U. A.R. allegations that U. S. aircraft hadparticipated in the Israeli air strikes against theU.A.R., the JCS asked for assurance from Vice Admiral Martin that his aircraft were not within 200miles of the U. A.R., Syria, or Israel and that therewere no Sixth Fleet communications or other contactswith Israel. 19 The Commander, Sixth Fleet repliednegatively, observing only that radio voice circuits hadbeen established with the American Embassy in TelAviv and that transmissions so far had only been fortesting purposes. 30

(8 eeO) Studying the successful Israeli driveinto V.A.R. territory, the Director, NSA decided thatthe Liberty's opportunity for effective collection of

20 'FOP SECRB'F UM:BRAEO 1. 4 . (c)

U.A.R. communications might best take place in operational area two to the west of the originally specified area three. The Director, NSA asked at 2104Z that the JCS/JRC change the Liberty's schedule "to satisfy technical requirements." Since this request reached the JCS/JRC as the latter was having second thoughts about the Liberty, no action would be taken on the NSA request.

Directions to Withdraw the Liberty (U) (C CCO) In view of the sensitivity regarding the U.A.R. charges of U.S. complicity with Israel and following a question from the U.S. Chief of Naval Operations about the wisdom of Liberty's assignment in the war zone,' the JCS/JRC made a new assessment of the danger inherent in the Liberty's operations. JRC considered the distance of the Liberty from the Sixth Fleet, some 300 to 400 miles. After it learned from NSA the degree to which the collection mission would suffer if the ship's CPA was changed,32 JRC decided to accept the mission degradation. At the time of these deliberations — 2300Z, 7 June — the Liberty arrived on station in operational area three. (U) In a message conveying the sense of urgency then developing in the Pentagon staff, JCS expressed concern in a message at 2230Z to Com-mander-in-Chief, Europe over the Middle East situa-tion and stated that the JCS-directed operational area for the Liberty was "for guidance only" and could be "varied as local conditions dictate." JCS also in-structed the Commander-in-Chief, Europe to change CPA to the U.A.R. to 20 nm, to Israel 15 nm." Although a copy of the message was to have gone to the Liberty, it would not reach the ship prior to the attack. The Department of Army Communications Center in error sent it to the Naval Communications Station in the Pacific.34 (U) Further deliberation within the JCS/ JRC following discussions with the Chief of Naval Operations, who was pressing for a 100-mile CPA for the Liberty, now resulted in a JCS decision to move the Liberty well off the hostile shoreline. Contributing to the decision, as JRC's Captain Merriwell Vineyard (USN) told NSA's JRC representative, John Connell, late on the 7th, was the desire of General Wheeler, Chairman, JCS, to support in any way the U.S. position taken at the U.N. in answer to U.A.R. charges of complicity. U.S. Ambassador Arthur J. Goldberg had stated on the 6th to the Security Council that "All Sixth Fleet aircraft are and have been several hundred miles from the area of conflict." (U) At 2350Z, one hour after the JCS had given its instructions restricting the Liberty to the 15-

20 nm CPA, JRC's Major Breedlove, skipping normal Commander-in-Chief, Europe channels, on Vocom called Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Navy Europe's com-mand center to convey the JCS/JRC decision and to direct that the Liberty be moved back to a CPA of 100 nm to the coasts of Israel, U.A.R., and Syria and a CPA of 25 nm to Cyprus. He indicated to Lieutenant E. L. Galavotti, the operations duty officer there, that a confirming JCS message would follow. Breedlove explained the urgency of the matter "because time [was] getting short to where she will be in those limits." Galavotti said he would go to Sixth Fleet right away and had an appropriate message ready by 080001Z for release by his superiors to Sixth Fleet. Some fourteen minutes after calling Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Navy Europe, Breedlove called the Com-mander-in-Chief, Europe JRC watch officer, informing him of the verbal request to NAVEUR and telling him that NAVEUR had promised to take action.' (U) Within the Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Navy Europe command center, an unfortunate delay took place, however, in relaying this JCS/JRC instruc-tion to the Sixth Fleet for action. Mindful that this directive had skipped channels and was only verbal, Galavotti's superior, Captain M. J. Hanley, Jr., Dep-uty Chief of Staff, U.S. Navy Europe, directed that the message to Sixth Fleet not be released until the date-time group of the JCS confirming message was at hand. NAVEUR policy allowed for acceptance of oral instructions from higher headquarters to move ships and aircraft only if given by flag or general officers or if firm evidence of a message directive were provided — for example, the date-time group of a confirming message. Instead of releasing the message, Captain Hanley told the NAVEUR command center duty officer, Commander C. G. Jorgensen, to apprise Com-mander-in-Chief, Europe of the matter and ask that headquarters to obtain the date-time group of the confirming JCS message. Jorgensen then called the U.S. European Command's (EUCOM) command duty officer at 080030Z, who indicated he would check and call back. The JCS confirming message, JCS 080110Z was, of course, not yet released at the time of the call. Its transmission by the Department of Army Communications Center in the Pentagon to Com-mander-in-Chief, Europe was at 080211Z.' (U) Not hearing from the higher head-quarters, Commander Jorgensen repeated his call at 0325Z on 8 June to check again on the status of the action and again asked EUCOM to obtain a date-time group, this time speaking with a duty officer in the JRC section of EUCOM, Lieutenant Colonel C. K. Russell. European Command's delay of three hours in

-eeiffif3ENTIA- 21




-eeiffif3ENTIA- 21




-eeiffif3ENTIA- 21

U.A.R. communications might best take place inoperational area two to the west of the originallyspecified area three. The Director, NSA asked at2104Z that the JCS/JRC change the Liberty's schedule"to satisfy technical requirements." Since this requestreached the JCS/JRC as the latter was having secondthoughts about the Liberty, no action would be takenon the NSA request.

Directions to Withdraw the Liherty (U)

(0 000) In view of the sensitivity regarding theU.A.R. charges of U.S. complicity with Israel andfollowing a question from the US. Chief of NavalOperations about the wisdom of Liberty's assignmentin the war zone;" the JCS/JRC made a new assessmentof the danger inherent in the Liberty's operations.JRC considered the distance of the Liberty from theSixth Fleet, some 300 to 400 miles. After it learnedfrom NSA the degree to which the collection missionwould suffer if the ship's CPA was changed;" JRCdecided to accept the mission degradation. At thetime of these deliberations - 2300Z, 7 June - theLiberty arrived on station in operational area three.(U) In a message conveying the sense ofurgency then developing in the Pentagon staff, JCSexpressed concern in a message at 2230Z to Commander-in-Chief, Europe over the Middle East situation and stated that the JCS-directed operational areafor the Liberty was "for guidance only" and could be"varied as local conditions dictate." JCS also instructed the Commander-in-Chief, Europe to changeCPA to the U.A.R. to 20 nm, to Israel 15 nm. 33

Although a copy of the message was to have gone tothe Liberty, it would not reach the ship prior to theattack. The Department of Army CommunicationsCenter in error sent it to the Naval CommunicationsStation in the Pacific. 34

(U) Further deliberation within the JCS/JRC following discussions with the Chief of NavalOperations, who was pressing for a 100-mile CPA forthe Liberty, now resulted in a JCS decision to movethe Liberty well off the hostile shoreline. Contributingto the decision, as JRC's Captain Merriwell Vineyard(USN) told NSA's JRC representative, John Connell,late on the 7th, was the desire of General Wheeler,Chairman, JCS, to support in any way the US.position taken at the UN. in answer to U.A.R. chargesof complicity. U.S. Ambassador Arthur J. Goldberghad stated on the 6th to the Security Council that"All Sixth Fleet aircraft are and have been severalhundred miles from the area of conflict."(U) At 2350Z, one hour after the JCS hadgiven its instructions restricting the Liberty to the 15-

CONPIDENTIAL

20 nm CPA, JRC's Major Breedlove, skipping normalCommander-in-Chief, Europe channels, on Yocomcalled Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Navy Europe's command center to convey the JCS/JRC decision and todirect that the Liberty be moved back to a CPA of100 nm to the coasts of Israel, U. A.R., and Syria anda CPA of 25 nm to Cyprus. He indicated to LieutenantE. L. Galavotti, the operations duty officer there, thata confirming JCS message would follow. Breedloveexplained the urgency of the matter "because time[was] getting short to where she will be in thoselimits." Galavotti said he would go to Sixth Fleet rightaway and had an appropriate message ready by080001Z for release by his superiors to Sixth Fleet.Some fourteen minutes after calling Commander-inChief, U. S. Navy Europe, Breedlove called the Commander-in-Chief, Europe JRC watch officer, informinghim of the verbal request to NAVEUR and telling himthat NAVEUR had promised to take action. 35

(U) Within the Commander-in-Chief, U.S.Navy Europe command center, an unfortunate delaytook place, however, in relaying this JCS/JRC instruction to the Sixth Fleet for action. Mindful that thisdirective had skipped channels and was only verbal,Galavotti's superior, Captain M. J. Hanley, Jr., Deputy Chief of Staff, U.S. Navy Europe, directed thatthe message to Sixth Fleet not be released until thedate-time group of the JCS confirming message was athand. NAVEUR policy allowed for acceptance of oralinstructions from higher headquarters to move shipsand aircraft only if given by flag or general officers orif firm evidence of a message directive were provided- for example, the date-time group of a confirmingmessage. Instead of releasing the message, CaptainHanley told the NAVEUR command center dutyofficer, Commander C. G. Jorgensen, to apprise Commander-in-Chief, Europe of the matter and ask thatheadquarters to obtain the date-time group of theconfirming JCS message. Jorgensen then called theUS. European Command's (EUCOM) command dutyofficer at 080030Z, who indicated he would check andcall back. The JCS confirming message, JCS 08011 OZwas, of course, not yet released at the time of thecall. Its transmission by the Department of ArmyCommunications Center in the Pentagon to Commander-in-Chief, Europe was at 080211Z. 36

(U) Not hearing from the higher headquarters, Commander Jorgensen repeated his call at0325Z on 8 June to check again on the status of theaction and again asked EUCOM to obtain a date-timegroup, this time speaking with a duty officer in theJRC section of EUCOM, Lieutenant Colonel C. K.Russell. European Command's delay of three hours in

HAN"BLE VIA C01fHN'f CHANNELS ONLY COKPIDENTIAL 21

UNCLASSIFIED

responding to NAVEUR had resulted from its assump-tion, based on Breedlove's call from the JCS/JRC, that NAVEUR was already taking action.37 Shortly thereafter, Russell was able to give Jorgensen the required JCS date-time group, the message having just arrived in the EUCOM JRC duty officer's hands, but this was about the same time as NAVEUR's information copy of JCS 080110Z, the confirming message, arrived in the NAVEUR command center itself — the time, 0325Z, 8 June. A precious four hours had gone by since Major Breedlove's call.

(U) Commander Jorgensen then asked for a telecon with Sixth Fleet's staff duty officer and at 080355Z was experiencing difficulties in establishing contact because of atmospheric conditions. He then had his radio operator contact Sixth Fleet lay single sideband radio and request the telecon as soon as possible. The two-way telecon with Sixth Fleet began at 080410Z.

(U) When the Sixth Fleet staff duty officer told Jorgensen his command did not have JCS 080110Z as yet (the Army Communications Center, Pentagon, having misrouted this message to Hawaii), Jorgensen passed it to him three times before gaining an ac-knowledgement at 080440Z from the Sixth Fleet's duty officer, who was having difficulty in hearing NAVEUR. Jorgensen then sent a confirming message: "From CINCNAVEUR Command Duty Officer to COM-SIXTHFLT Duty Officer. Be advised that JCS 080110Z FORAC. Official msg follows."

(U) Ironically, the Sixth Fleet's duty officer then indicated to Jorgensen that Sixth Fleet did not hold reference (a) on the critical JCS message and asked for a copy. Since NAVEUR also was without a copy of the referenced message, despite both NAVEUR and Sixth Fleet's having been designated for infor-mation copies (JCS 7337/072230Z), Jorgensen would obtain it from Commander-in-Chief, Europe and later, on obtaining a copy, outline to the Sixth Fleet's duty officer its contents which had, by that time, been overtaken by events.

(U) From 080440Z June 67 it became the Commander, Sixth Fleet's responsibility to direct the Liberty to a safer area of operations than the one in which she was then steering. Vice Admiral Martin's message to the Liberty, directing it not to approach the coast of the U.A.R., Syria, or Israel closer than 100 nm, went out some four and one-half hours later, at 080917Z, the delay in this case being attributed to

22 UNCLASSIFIED

preparations on board the U.S.S. America for a press conference relating to the U.A.R. charges of U.S. complicity with Israel in the prosecution of the war and to Sixth Fleet's need to transmit other traffic of equal or higher precedence.' Meanwhile Liberty was, of course, already in its operational area. Its position at 080800Z was within 30 nm of 31-45N 33-30E in area three. (U) When it rains, it pours, and there would be even further delays in the attempts to get the word to the Liberty. (U) JCS's investigating team, the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry, and later a congressional staff gave close attention to the Sixth Fleet message to the Liberty, following the status of the message in the critical hours before it came under attack. Essentially, the findings were these:

Time

Status 0630Z, 8 June Sixth Fleet Staff Duty Officer had

message ready for release by Assistant Chief of Staff (Operations).

0917Z

Message released with Immediate Precedence.

1035Z

Message transmitted to the Naval Communications Station, Morocco, for relay to the Liberty, the delays owing to the transmission of equal or higher precedence messages. Unaware that the Liberty, pursuant to its in-structions, was now guarding the fleet broadcast of the Naval Communica-tions Station, Asmara, the Sixth Fleet routing clerk erred in sending this message to Morocco.

1050Z

Message received at the Naval Com-munications Station, Morocco, and passed over Defense Communications System to DCS station, Asmara. Through error, the Asmara DCS sta-tion sent the message to the Naval Communications Station, Greece, at 1238Z. The latter sent it back to the Asmara DCS station.

1510Z

Asmara DCS station delivered the message to the Naval Communica-tions Station.

1525Z

Naval Communications Station, As-mara, put the message on its fleet broadcast.

The Liberty would not receive the critical message in time.

UNCLASSIFIED






22 UNCLASSIFIED


Time



0917Z


1035Z


1050Z


1510Z


1525Z


The Liberty would not receive the critical message in time.

UNCLASSIFIED






22 UNCLASSIFIED


Time



0917Z


1035Z


1050Z


1510Z


1525Z


The Liberty would not receive the critical message in time. The Liberty would not receive the critical message intime.

preparations on board the D.S.S. America for a pressconference relating to the U.A.R. charges of V.S.complicity with Israel in the prosecution of the warand to Sixth Fleet's need to transmit other traffic ofequal or higher precedence.r" Meanwhile Liberty was,of course, already in its operational area. Its positionat 080800Z was within 30 nm of 31-45N 33-30E inarea three.(V) When it rains, it pours, and therewould be even further delays in the attempts to getthe word to the Liberty.(V) JCS's investigating team, the U.S.Navy Court of Inquiry, and later a congressional staffgave close attention to the Sixth Fleet message to theLiberty, following the status of the message in thecritical hours before it came under attack. Essentially,the findings were these:

UNCLASSIFIED

responding to NAVEUR had resulted from its assumption, based on Breedlove's call from the JCS/JRC,that NAVEUR was already taking action. 37 Shortlythereafter, Russell was able to give Jorgensen therequired JCS date-time group, the message havingjust arrived in the EVCOM JRC duty officer's hands,but this was about the same time as NAVEUR'sinformation copy of JCS 080110Z, the confirmingmessage, arrived in the NAVEUR command centeritself - the time, 0325Z, 8 June. A precious fourhours had gone by since Major Breedlove's call.

(V) Commander Jorgensen then asked fora telecon with Sixth Fleet's staff duty officer and at080355Z was experiencing difficulties in establishingcontact because of atmospheric conditions. He thenhad his radio operator contact Sixth Fleet lAy singlesideband radio and request the telecon as soon aspossible. The two-way telecon with Sixth Fleet beganat 080410Z.

(D) When the Sixth Fleet staff duty officertold Jorgensen his command did not have JCS 080110Zas yet (the Army Communications Center, Pentagon,having misrouted this message to Hawaii), Jorgensenpassed it to him three times before gaining an acknowledgement at 080440Z from the Sixth Fleet's dutyofficer, who was having difficulty in hearing NAVEUR.Jorgensen then sent a confirming message: "FromCINCNAVEDR Command Duty Officer to COMSIXTHFLT Duty Officer. Be advised that JCS 0801lOZFORAC. Official msg follows."

(V) Ironically, the Sixth Fleet's duty officer then indicated to Jorgensen that Sixth Fleet didnot hold reference (a) on the critical JCS message andasked for a copy. Since NAVEUR also was without acopy of the referenced message, despite both NAVEURand Sixth Fleet's having been designated for information copies (JCS 7337/072230Z), Jorgensen wouldobtain it from Commander-in-Chief, Europe and later,on obtaining a copy, outline to the Sixth Fleet's dutyofficer its contents which had, by that time, beenovertaken by events.

(D) From 080440Z June 67 it became theCommander, Sixth Fleet's responsibility to direct theLiberty to a safer area of operations than the one inwhich she was then steering. Vice Admiral Martin'smessage to the Liberty, directing it not to approachthe coast of the D.A.R., Syria, or Israel closer than100 nm, went out some four and one-half hours later,at 080917Z, the delay in this case being attributed to

22 UNCLASSIFIED

Time0630Z, 8 June

0917Z

1035Z

1050Z

1510Z

1525Z

StatusSixth Fleet Staff Duty Officer hadmessage ready for release by AssistantChief of Staff (Operations).Message released with ImmediatePrecedence.Message transmitted to the NavalCommunications Station, Morocco,for relay to the Liberty, the delaysowing to the transmission of equal orhigher precedence messages. Unawarethat the Liberty, pursuant to its instructions, was now guarding the fleetbroadcast of the Naval Communications Station, Asmara, the SixthFleet routing clerk erred in sendingthis message to Morocco.Message received at the Naval Communications Station, Morocco, andpassed over Defense CommunicationsSystem to DCS station, Asmara.Through error, the Asmara DCS station sent the message to the NavalCommunications Station, Greece, at1238Z. The latter sent it back to theAsmara DCS station.Asmara DCS station delivered themessage to the Naval Communications Station.Naval Communications Station, Asmara, put the message on its fleetbroadcast.

(U) The The action messages directing with-drawal of the Liberty to a CPA of 100 nm were three in number: JCS 080110Z, Sixth Fleet 080917Z referred to in the foregoing, and Commander-in-Chief, Europe's 080625Z to NAVEUR confirming informal exchanges giving action on the JCS message to NAVEUR. Infor-mation copies of the JCS and the CINCEUR action messages were to have gone to the U.S.S. Liberty, and it is, of course, entirely possible that timely receipt of these might have triggered a withdrawal action on the part of the Liberty's Commander Mc-Gonagle. But the same unkind fate guarding the action messages was also looking after the information copies. These too ran into communications problems of one kind or another, and the Liberty would not receive them."

Operational Area Three, 8 June (U)

Liberty's Processing Mission (U)

(3-CCO) On station in operational area three, USN-855's processing and reporting constituted a complex undertaking. It was to provide daily technical summaries for use by other collectors and NSA, enabling them to remain up to date on the Liberty's operation. Upon completion of its deployment, USN-855 was to provide traffic and unprocessed tapes to NSA

142

(0-CCO) The war had changed the status of the U.A.R.'s Armed Forces and had diminished signifi-cantly the Liberty's opportunity to collect the specified communications. Much of the U.A.R.'s Air Force no longer existed, its Army was in disarray, and com-munications had declined accordingly.

EQ 1.4.(c) EQ 1.4.(d)

(C CCO) Once on station off Port Said in operational area three, USN-855 employed its collection positions primaril to levelop U.A.R.I communications I

(CC) The Liberty had no specific assignment to intercept Israeli communications while it was in operational area three. Omission of this tasking was, in part, owing to the lack of Hebrew linguists. But on the morning of 8 June its VHF search positions did produce three tapes of Israeli air traffic. The contents were, as determined later, routine operational messages. As a by-product of searching for U.A.R. communications in the Sinai, USN-855 also identified some 22 frequencies as Israeli, but again there was nothing relatable in any way to the forthcoming attack.41

Notes

'(U) Julie Alger, "A Review of the Technical Re- search Ship Program, 1961-1969," 1 May 1970.

'(C-CCO) Source documents used for information on Liberty's mode of operation include: NSA Station Facilities Book -U.S.S. Liberty (USN-855); (U) NSA OPINS No. 2855, Manual of U.S. Sigint Operations, 12 Mar 1965; (U) JCS message cite no. 5838, 052235Z Nov 65; and (U) NSA oral history interview with Terry L. McFarland on 23 Jun 1980.

3(U)

JCS msg cite no. 6499, 291602Z May 1967.

4(U)

COMSERVRON 8 msg, 240020Z May 1967.

5(U)

Liberty msg, 241732Z May 1967.

'(U)

USCINCEUR msg, 300932Z May 1967.

'RD

USCINCEUR msg 010035Z Jun 1967.

'(U) NSA Staff, "Informal Paper on Liberty's Com- munications," 22 Jun 1967; NSA oral history interview with Gene Sheck on 11 Aug 1980.

'(C CCO) Source documents relating to Liberty's preparations at Rota include: DIRNSA msg to NSAEUR Office, Germany, 26 May 1967; DIRNSA msg to USN-855, 252317Z May 1967; and DIRNSA msg, 232133Z May 1967.

l°(U) DIRNSA msg to JCS/JRC, 292013Z May 1967.

"(U) JCS msg cite no. 6724, 011545Z Jun 1967.

12(U) Liberty msg to CINCNAVEUR, 021132Z Jun 1967; CINCNAVEUR msg, 020717Z Jun 1967.

"(U) Source documents used in discussion of the Air Force's TPC include: ESC, History of the 6931st Security Group, 1 Jan-30 Jun 1967; NSA Staff, "Operations Staff Summary," ca. 16 Jun 1967; NSA Staff, "Airborne Collection in the Middle East," undated; NSA Staff (G62), "Briefing on the 1967 Middle East Crisis," undated.

'4(U) DIRNSA msg to USN-855, 292201Z May 1967.

15(U) Liberty msg, 022108Z Jun 1967.

-REeRET-SPOKE- 23

Source documents are in the "Crisis Collection" of the RSA History Collection. E0 1.4. (c)





142


EQ 1.4.(c) EQ 1.4.(d)



Notes



3(U)


4(U)


5(U)


'(U)


'RD










-REeRET-SPOKE- 23






142


EQ 1.4.(c) EQ 1.4.(d)



Notes



3(U)


4(U)


5(U)


'(U)


'RD










-REeRET-SPOKE- 23


DIRNSA msg to VSN-855, 292201Z May 1967.

Liberty msg, 022108Z Jun 1967.

(U) The action messages directing withdrawal of the Liberty to a CPA of 100 nm were threein number: JCS OBOllOZ, Sixth Fleet OB0917Z referredto in the foregoing, and Commander-in-Chief, Europe's080625Z to NAVEUR confirming informal exchangesgiving action on the JCS message to NAVEUR. Information copies of the JCS and the CINCEUR actionmessages were to have gone to the U.S.S. Liberty,and it is, of course, entirely possible that timelyreceipt of these might have triggered a withdrawalaction on the part of the Liberty's Commander MeGonagle. But the same unkind fate guarding the actionmessages was also looking after the information copies.These too ran into communications problems of onekind or another, and the Liberty would not receivethem. 39


(8 eeO) Once on station off Port Said in operational area three, USN-855 employed its collectionnositions orimarilv to develon U.A.R.I

Icommunications I

i'Sf3t- The Liberty had no specific assignment to intercept Israeli communications while it wasin operational area three. Omission of this taskingwas, in part, owing to the lack of Hebrew linguists.But on the morning of 8 June its VHF search positionsdid produce three tapes of Israeli air traffic. Thecontents were, as determined later, routine operationalmessages. As a by-product of searching for U.A.R.communications in the Sinai, USN-855 also identifiedsome 22 frequencies as Israeli, but again there wasnothing relatable in any way to the forthcomingattack."

SECRET SPOKE

Lihertys Processing Mission (U)

(8 eeO) On station in operational area three,USN-855's processing and reporting constituted acomplex undertaking. It was to provide daily technicalsummaries for use by other collectors and NSA,enabling them to remain up to date on the Liberty'soperation. Upon completion of its deployment, USN-

~W.. to ;:~Vide t,allie and unpwe"..d tap" tOI

(e eeO) The war had changed the status of theU. A.R. 's Armed Forces and had diminished significantly the Liberty's opportunity to collect the specifiedcommunications. Much of the U.A.R. 's Air Force nolonger existed, its Army was in disarray, and communications had declined accordingly.

Notes

Sounedowmentsare'nthe"CrisisCollection"oftheNSAHistt;l,.yCullett/ofL

I (V) Julie Alger, "A Review of the Technical Re-search Ship Program, 1961-1969," 1 May 1970.

'(8-886) Source documents used for information onLiberty's mode of operation include: NSA Station Facilities Book V.S.S. Liberty (VSN-855); (V) NSA OPINS No. 2855, Manual ofU.S. Sigint Operations, 12 Mar 1965; (V) JCS message cite no.5838, 052235Z Nov 65; and (U) NSA oral history interview withTerry L. McFarland on 23 Jun 1980.

'(V) JCS msg cite no. 6499, 291602Z May 1967.

4(V) COMSERVRON 8 msg, 240020Z May 1967.

'(V) Liberty msg, 241732Z May 1967.

6(V) USCINCEUR msg, 300932Z May 1967.

'(U) VSCINCEUR msg 010035Z Jun 1967.

'(V) NSA Staff, "Informal Paper on Liberty's Com-munications," 22 Jun 1967; NSA oral history interview with GeneSheck on 11 Aug 1980.

2(8 886) Source documents relating to Liberty's prepa-rations at Rota include: DIRNSA msg to NSAEUR Office, Germany,26 May 1967; DIRNSA msg to VSN-855, 252317Z May 1967; andDIRNSA msg, 232133Z May 1967.

10(V) DIRNSA msg to JCS/JRC, 292013Z May 1967.

"(V) JCS msg cite no. 6724, 011545Z Jun 1967.12(V) Liberty msg to CINCNAVEUR, 021132Z Jun

1967; CINCNAVEUR msg, 020717Z Jun 1967."(V) Source documents used in discussion of the Air

Force's TPC include: ESC, History of the 6931st Security Group,1 Jan-3D Jun 1967; NSA Staff, "Operations Staff Summary," ca.16 Jun 1967; NSA Staff, "Airborne Collection in the Middle East,"undated; NSA Staff (062), "Briefing on the 1967 Middle EastCrisis," undated.

I4(V)

15(V)

SECRET SPOKE 23

EO 1. 4 . (c)EO 1. 4 . (d)

"EO 1.4. (c)

16(U) NSA oral history interview, Terry L. Mc-Farland, 23 Jun 1980.

17(U) CINCUSNAVEUR msg 031016Z Jun 1967. "(U) CINCUSNAVEUR msgs, 051352 and 051850Z

Jun 1967. '9(U) COMSIXTHFLT msg, 052015 Jun 1967. 20(U) NSA oral history interview, Robert L. Wilson,

6 May 1980; DIRNSA msg to USN-855, 252317Z May 1967. ti (u) NSA 'oral history interviews with Robert L.

Wilson on 6 May 1980 and with Paddy E. Rhodes on 13 June 1980. 22(U) NSA Staff, "Report to the Director," 12 Jun

1967; House Appropriations Committee Surveys and Investigations Staff, A Report to the Committee on Appropriations - U.S. House of Representatives on the Effectiveness of the Worldwide Commu-nications Systems and Networks of the Department of Defense, vol. I, p. iv, "U.S.S. Liberty Incident," December 1967.

23(U) NSA Staff, "Informal Paper on Liberty's Communications," 22 Jun 1967.

24(U) CINCNAVEUR msg to Sixth Fleet, Liberty, and others, 061357Z Jun 1967.

25(U) COMSIXTHFLT mag to Liberty and others, 062349Z Jun 1967.

26(U) MG J. R. Russ, USA, "Report of the JCS Fact Finding Team-U.S.S. Liberty Incident, 8 Jun 1967," p. 17. Here-after cited as the Russ Report.

27(U) Russ Report, p. 18.

2s(U) NSA Staff (G62), "Briefing on the 1967 Middle East Crisis," undated.

29(U) JCS msg cite no. 7239, 070259Z Jun 1967. 30(U) COMSIXTHFLT msgs to JCS, 070626Z and

071503Z Jun 1967. 31(U) Russ Report, p. 19. "(U) NSA Staff, "Report to the Director," 12 Jun

1967, chronology section. "(U) JCS msg cite no. 7337 to CINC-

EUR with information copy to Liberty, 072230Z Jun 1967. 34(U) Russ Report, pp. 35, 36. 35(U) Russ Report, p. 23; NAVEUR Contingency

Watch Team, "Memorandum-U.S.S. Liberty Incident," 12 Jun 1967; NSA Staff, "U.S.S. Liberty-Chronology, 23 May-8 Jun."

"(U) Russ Report, p. 23 and Tab 2 to Annex D. "(U) Ibid, p. 24. "(U) Ibid, pp. 26-27. 39(U) Detailed information on the communications

delays is in the Russ Report and also in the House Appropriations Committee report cited in footnote 22.

40(U) DIRNSA msg to USN-855, 022333Z Jun 1967. 41(C CCO) NSA Staff, "Note for the Director, Sigint

Reflection of Liberty Incident," 27 Jun 1967; (U) NSA Staff, "Questions by Gen. Carroll, Director, DIA - Answers Provided by G Group/PO4," 27 Jun 1967.

424C CCO) DIRNSA msg to USN-855, 022333Z Jun 1967; NSA Staff, "Critique-SRB Crayon," 10 Jul 1968.













































CONFIDENTIAL

'"(U) NSA oral history interview, Terry L. Mc-Farland, 23 Jun 1980.

"(U) CINCUSNAVEUR msg 031016Z Jun 1967."(U) CINCUSNAVEUR msgs, 051352 and 051850Z

Jun 1967.'"(U) COMSIXTHFLT msg, 052015 Jun 1967.,o(U) NSA oral history interview, Robert L. Wilson,

6 May 1980; DIRNSA msg to USN-855, 252317Z May 1967."(U) NSA 'oral history interviews with Robert L.

Wilson on 6 May 1980 and with Paddy E. Rhodes on 13 June 1980."(U) NSA Staff, "Report to the Director," 12 Jun

1967; House Appropriations Committee Surveys and InvestigationsStaff, A Report to the Committee on Appropriations - U.S. Houseof Representatives on the Effectiveness of the Worldwide Communications Systems and Networks of the Department of Defense,vol. I, p. iv, "U.S.S. Liberty Incident," December 1967.

2'(U) NSA Staff, "Informal Paper on Liberty'sCommunications," 22 Jun 1967.

24(U) CINCNAVEUR msg to Sixth Fleet, Liberty,and others, 061357Z Jun 1967.

"(U) COMSIXTHFLT msg to Liberty and others,062349Z Jun 1967.

'"(U) MG J. R. Russ, USA, "Report of the JCS FactFinding Team-U.S.S. Liberty Incident, 8 Jun 1967," p. 17. Hereafter cited as the Russ Report.

"(U) Russ Report, p. 18.

"(U) NSA Staff (G62), "Briefing on the 1967 MiddleEast Crisis," undated.

'"(U) JCS msg cite no. 7239, 070259Z Jun 1967.'o(U) COMSIXTHFLT msgs to JCS, 070626Z and

071503Z Jun 1967."(U) Russ Report, p. 19."(U) NSA Staff, "Report to the Director," 12 Jun

1967, chronology section."(U) JCS msg cite no. 7337 to CINC-

EUR with information copy to Liberty, 072230Z Jun 1967."(U) Russ Report, pp. 35, 36."(U) Russ Report, p. 23; NAVEUR Contingency

Watch Team, "Memorandum-U.S.S. Liberty Incident," 12 Jun1967; NSA Staff, "U.S.S. Liberty-Chronology, 23 May-8 Jun."

'"(U) Russ Report, p. 23 and Tab 2 to Annex D.37(U) Ibid, p. 24.'"(U) Ibid, pp. 26-27.39(U) Detailed information on the communications

delays is in the Russ Report and also in the House AppropriationsCommittee report cited in footnote 22.

40(U) DIRNSA msg to USN-855, 022333Z Jun 1967.4I(S SSQ) NSA Staff, "Note for the Director, Sigint

Reflection of Liberty Incident," 27 Jun 1967; (U) NSA Staff,"Questions by Gen. Carroll, Director, DIA - Answers Provided byG Group/PM," 27 Jun 1967.

4l(S SSQ) DIRNSA msg to USN-855, 022333Z Jun 1967;NSA Staff, "Critique-SRB Crayon," 10 Jul 1968.

24 eONFIDBNCfIAL II/..NB"bB ';1/.. GOMIN'I' GlIl.rNNB"bS ON"bY

Chapter IV

The Attack (U)

(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 ruffled the Liberty's ensign.'

(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.' A "condition of readiness three, modified" was set; i.e., a normal steaming watch, except that one man was stationed at each of the forward two .50-caliber machine guns, numbers 51 and 52. Lookouts on the bridge were designated to man machine guns 53 and 54 just aft of the bridge, in the event of a surprise air or surface attack.4

(U) At about 0930 hours, it was possible to visually sight the minaret at Al `Arish on the U.A.R. coast. This was used as a navigational aid and the ship's position was verified as being within its operating limits. There were no other conspicuous or outstanding navigational features in the area.'

Reconnaissance of the Liberty (U)

(U) Shortly before 0900 hours (local time), two delta-wing, single-engine jet aircraft orbited the Liberty three times at 31-27N, 34-00E. The planes' altitude was estimated at 5,000 feet, at a distance of approximately two miles. Liberty notified the Com-mander, Sixth Fleet and others of this reconnaissance, stating that identification was unknown and that no amplifying report would be submitted.6

(U) Later in the morning, at 1056 hours, an aircraft similar to an American flying boxcar crossed astern of the Liberty at a distance of about three to five miles. The plane circled the ship around the starboard side, proceeded forward of the ship and headed back toward the Sinai peninsula. This recon-naissance was repeated at approximately 30-minute intervals. It was impossible to see any identifying markings on the aircraft. The plane never approached the Liberty in a provocative manner and made no attempt to signal the ship. Nor did the Liberty attempt to signal it.' Subsequent investigations of the attack on the Liberty identified the aircraft as a French-built Noratlas NORD 2501, piloted by Israeli Air Force.

-tet Though this plane was unidentified, the thoughts of Robert L. Wilson (one of three NSA civilians aboard the Liberty) must have been shared by his shipmates. Wilson remembered thinking when he saw the plane, that "it must be Israeli because what else is flying out here at this point in the war and also it's coming from the direction of Israel and it's going back to Israel, so it was obvious that it was Israeli. I didn't think much of it. They were just out there checking us out. That's what I would do too. s8

(U) Being sensitive to its exposed and unprotected position, the Liberty reported to the Naval Security Station Command, at approximately 1100 hours, that she had destroyed all superseded May publications (e.g. crypto documents) and intended to destroy all irregularly superseded material daily because of the "current situation and shallow water in operating area."'

General Quarters Drill (U)

(U) After the lunch hour, at 1310 hours, the Liberty's crew was exercised at general quarters for drill purposes for a mandatory noncompetitive exercise to train the crew in chemical-attack proce-dures. This was a routine activity, part of the ship's

-GONFIDEibillift 25

Chapter IV

The Attack (U)











-GONFIDEibillift 25

Chapter IV

The Attack (U)











-GONFIDEibillift 25

CONPfDENTIAL

Chapter IV

The Attack (U)

(U) Thursday morning, 8 June 1967, foundthe Liberty cruising slowly in international waters onstation as directed. At approximately 0830 hours (localtime), the Liberty notified the Commander, SixthFleet that her position for the next 24 hours would bewithin 30 nautical miles of coordinates 31-45N and33-30E. I The sea was calm and the clear sky permittedvisibility of ten miles; a light breeze ruffled theLiberty's ensign. 2

(U) Liberty's projected course for that daywas to proceed to a point 13 nautical miles from theU.A.R. coast at 31-27.2N, 34-00E (Point Alpha),thence to 31-22.3N, 33-42E (Point Bravo), thence to31-31N, 33-00E (Point Charlie) retracing this trackuntil new orders were received. Normal steaming speedwas to be five knots and typical steaming colors (whichindicated conditions were normal) were flown.3 A"condition of readiness three, modified" was set; i.e.,a normal steaming watch, except that one man wasstationed at each of the forward two .50-calibermachine guns, numbers 51 and 52. Lookouts on thebridge were designated to man machine guns 53 and54 just aft of the bridge, in the event of a surprise airor surface attack."

(U) At about 0930 hours, it was possibleto visually sight the minaret at Al 'Arish on theU.A.R. coast. This was used as a navigational aid andthe ship's position was verified as being within itsoperating limits. There were no other conspicuous oroutstanding navigational features in the area."


(U) Shortly before 0900 hours (Iocal time),two delta-wing, single-engine jet aircraft orbited theLiberty three times at 31-27N, 34-00E. The planes'altitude was estimated at 5,000 feet, at a distance ofapproximately two miles. Liberty notified the Commander, Sixth Fleet and others of this reconnaissance,stating that identification was unknown and that noamplifying report would be submitted. 6

(U) Later in the morning, at 1056 hours,an aircraft similar to an American flying boxcarcrossed astern of the Liberty at a distance of aboutthree to five miles. The plane circled the ship aroundthe starboard side, proceeded forward of the ship andheaded back toward the Sinai peninsula. This reconnaissance was repeated at approximately 30-minuteintervals. It was impossible to see any identifyingmarkings on the aircraft. The plane never approachedthe Liberty in a provocative manner and made noattempt to signal the ship. Nor did the Libertyattempt to signal it. 7 Subsequent investigations of theattack on the Liberty identified the aircraft as aFrench-built Noratlas NORD 2501, piloted by IsraeliAir Force.

-tet" Though this plane was unidentified,the thoughts of Robert L. Wilson (one of three NSAcivilians aboard the Liberty) must have been sharedby his shipmates. Wilson remembered thinking whenhe saw the plane, that "it must be Israeli becausewhat else is flying out here at this point in the warand also it's coming from the direction of Israel andit's going back to Israel, so it was obvious that it wasIsraeli. I didn't think much of it. They were just outthere checking us out. That's what I would do tOO.,,8

(V) Being sensitive to its exposed andunprotected position, the Liberty reported to theNaval Security Station Command, at approximately1100 hours, that she had destroyed all supersededMay publications (e.g. crypto documents) and intendedto destroy all irregularly superseded material dailybecause of the "current situation and shallow water inoperating area.""


(V) After the lunch hour, at 1310 hours,the Liberty's crew was exercised at general quartersfor drill purposes for a mandatory noncompetitiveexercise to train the crew in chemical-attack procedures. This was a routine activity, part of the ship's

€ONFIDfiN'fIAL 25

-~ -- -- ---------

(U) The Dassault Mirage jet bomber of the type which attacked the Liberty on 8 June. (Photograph courtesy of Jane's All the World's Aircraft.)


training program established by the Commander, Ser-vice Force, Atlantic Fleet, and was not related to her mission in the eastern Mediterranean. The drill was performed satisfactorily and the ship returned to her "modified condition three" at 1345.10 (U) Following the general quarters drill, the Liberty's Commanding Officer, Commander Wil-liam L. McGonagle, fixed her position by radar as being 25.5 nautical miles from the minaret at Al `Arish, which was to the southeast (bearing 142° true.)

Air Attack Begins (U)

(3-CCO) Amidships below deck, the Liberty's Research Department (the Sigint collection, process-ing, and reporting area) resumed normal operations. Robert L. Wilson was in the analysis/reporting area together with the other civilians, Allen M. Blue and Donald L. Blalock, plus the Marine linguists. Things had been slow and Wilson considered going up on deck to do some sunbathing but changed his mind. Com-munications Technician (CT) Terry L. McFarland, seated at his manual-morse position [That far below deck it was difficult for anyone to hear much of what was happening topside. (U) During the general quarters (GQ) drill, Lieutenant James G. O'Connor (Assistant Tech-nical Operations Officer of the Research Department) had been officer of the deck on the bridge. At the conclusion of the drill, he went up to the 04 level (above the bridge) to see if he could locate the

approaching airplanes that had been picked up on radar by the lookouts. It was 1400 hours. From the starboard wing of the bridge, Commander McGonagle observed a single jet aircraft that appeared similar, if not identical, to those that had been sighted earlier in the day and about which a sighting report had been submitted. The relative bearing of this plane was about 135°, its position angle was about 45°-50°, its elevation approximately 7,000 feet, and it was approx-imately five to six miles from the ship. It appeared to McGonagle that the plane was traveling parallel to, and in the same direction as the Liberty. With his binoculars trained on the aircraft, the Commander was unaware of a second plane swooping in from the port side to launch a rocket directed toward the bridge. When the rocket exploded two levels below the bridge, McGonagle ordered the general alarm to be sounded.

(U) CT3 Paddy E. (Dusty) Rhodes was headed below decks from his GQ station, damage control detail. At the end of the GQ drill, the Commander had ordered the whaleboat engine tested and, when Dusty heard a muffled explosion, he thought, "Those damned deck apes blew that boat up and I've got to go back up and fight the fire." Simultaneously, Dusty heard the general quarters alarm. Scampering back up the ladder, he could smell burning powder and started "dogging down" doors when a rocket tore through a bulkhead to his right ripping steel all about.

26 SECRET

E0 1.4.(c)








26 SECRET

E0 1.4.(c)








26 SECRET

E0 1.4.(c)

SECRE'f

(U) The Dassault Mirage jet bomber of the type which attacked the Liberty on 8 June.(Photograph courtesy of Jane's All the World's Aircraft.)


training program established by the Commander, Service Force, Atlantic Fleet, and was not related to hermission in the eastern Mediterranean. The drill wasperformed satisfactorily and the ship returned to her"modified condition three" at 1345. LO

(U) Following the general quarters drill,the Liberty's Commanding Officer, Commander William L. McGonagle, fixed her position by radar asbeing 25.5 nautical miles from the minaret at Al'Arish, which was to the southeast (bearing 1420 true.)


(8 000) Amidships below deck, the Liberty'sResearch Department (the Sigint collection, processing, and reporting area) resumed normal operations.Robert L. Wilson was in the analysis/reporting areatogether with the other civilians, Allen M. Blue andDonald L. Blalock, plus the Marine linguists. Thingshad been slow and Wilson considered going up on deckto do some sunbathing but changed his mind. Communications Technician (CT) Terry L. McFarland,seated at his manual-morse osition

That far below deck it was diffi-L..- ---I

cult for anyone to hear much of what was happeningtopside.

(U) During the general quarters (GQ)drill, Lieutenant James G. O'Connor (Assistant Technical Operations Officer of the Research Department)had been officer of the deck on the bridge. At theconclusion of the drill, he went up to the 04 level(above the bridge) to see if he could locate the

approaching airplanes that had been picked up onradar by the lookouts. It was 1400 hours. From thestarboard wing of the bridge, Commander McGonagleobserved a single jet aircraft that appeared similar, ifnot identical, to those that had been sighted earlierin the day and about which a sighting report had beensubmitted. The relative bearing of this plane wasabout 1350

, its position angle was about 450-500, its

elevation approximately 7,000 feet, and it was approximately five to six miles from the ship. It appeared toMcGonagle that the plane was traveling parallel to,and in the same direction as the Liberty. With hisbinoculars trained on the aircraft, the Commanderwas unaware of a second plane swooping in from theport side to launch a rocket directed toward thebridge. When the rocket exploded two levels below thebridge, McGonagle ordered the general alarm to besounded.

(U) CT3 Paddy E. (Dusty) Rhodes washeaded below decks from his GQ station, damagecontrol detail. At the end of the GQ drill, theCommander had ordered the whaleboat engine testedand, when Dusty heard a muffled explosion, hethought, "Those damned deck apes blew that boat upand I've got to go back up and fight the fire."Simultaneously, Dusty heard the general quartersalarm. Scampering back up the ladder, he could smellburning powder and started "dogging down" doorswhen a rocket tore through a bulkhead to his rightripping steel all about.

26 SHURHr:P IIANBI:JB ViA COMIN" CIIANNBI:JS ONI:J\"

EO 1. 4 . (c)

(U) Down in the Research Department, Terry McFarland, wearing his headphones, was va-guely aware of flickers of light coming through the bulkhead. He didn't realize that these were armor-piercing tracer bullets slicing through the Liberty's skin. The "flickers" were accompanied by a strange noise that sounded to Terry like chains being pulled across the bottom of the ship. Next, he saw Seaman "Red" Addington race down the ladder from above with blood running down his right leg from a wound in the knee. "Somebody's up there shootin' at us," said Red. Nobody spoke, but Terry could see the fear in the faces about him. Someone ordered the men to perform emergency destruction, and they turned to dumping classified material in the weighted, white canvas bags specially made for this purpose. Robert,

L. Wilson went up to the second deck from the processing and reporting (P&R) spaces to empty safes on that upper level. (C CCO) Hearing the general quarters alarm, CT3 Clyde W. Way ran from the mess deck to his station in the T-Branch spaces one deck above the R Branch. Way plugged in his radio receivers and heard nothing; he called the R2 area only to learn that their reception had also gone dead. (U) Topside, one level above the main deck, the exploding rocket had started a blazing fire in two 55-gallon gasoline drums stowed below the bridge on the port side. McGonagle quickly ordered his Executive Officer, Lieutenant Commander Philip M. Armstrong, to go down and release the gasoline cans. Lieutenant O'Connor joined the Exec. Just as

(U) Starboard side of the Liberty, scorched by fire from exploding rockets that were launched by the Israeli attack aircraft•










(U) Down in the Research Department,Terry McFarland, wearing his headphones, was vaguely aware of flickers of light coming through thebulkhead. He didn't realize that these were armorpiercing tracer bullets slicing through the Liberty'sskin. The "flickers" were accompanied by a strangenoise that sounded to Terry like chains being pulledacross the bottom of the ship. Next, he saw Seaman"Red" Addington race down the ladder from abovewith blood running down his right leg from a wound inthe knee. "Somebody's up there shootin' at us," saidRed. Nobody spoke, but Terry could see the fear inthe faces about him. Someone ordered the men toperform emergency destruction, and they turned todumping classified material in the weighted, whitecanvas bags specially made for this purpose. Robert,

CONFIDENTIAL

L. Wilson went up to the second deck from theprocessing and reporting (P&R) spaces to empty safeson that upper level.(0 eeS) Hearing the general quarters alarm,CT3 Clyde W. Way ran from the mess deck to hisstation in the T-Branch spaces one deck above the RBranch. Way plugged in his radio receivers and heardnothing; he called the R2 area only to learn that theirreception had also gone dead.(U) Topside, one level above the maindeck, the exploding rocket had started a blazing firein two 55-gallon gasoline drums stowed below thebridge on the port side. McGonagle quickly orderedhis Executive Officer, Lieutenant Commander PhilipM. Armstrong, to go down and release the gasolinecans. Lieutenant O'Connor joined the Exec. Just as

(U) Starboard side of the Liberty, scorched by fire from exploding rockets that were launched by theIsraeli attack aircraft.


I12tNBtJE ViA COMlN'f CII2tNNELS ONLY CONfIDENTIAL 1:1

UNCLASSIFIED

both reached the top of the ladder to proceed down, a bomb hit near the whaleboat on the starboard side, immediately aft of the bridge. Armstrong and O'Connor were thrown back onto the bridge and other personnel in the pilot-house were blown from their feet. Mc-Gonagle grabbed the engine order annunciator and rang up all head flank speed — an order for maximum speed. At the same time, he ordered Lieutenant Maurice H. Bennett to report to the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) via the high-command radio circuit (hicom) that the Liberty was under attack by uniden-tified jet aircraft and required immediate assistance. This Flash message, giving the Liberty's position as 33-25E, 31-23N, was received by the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Saratoga (CVA-60) and relayed to Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Europe; Commander, Sixth Fleet; and Commander, Task Force 60 (CTF 60)." Liberty's transmission was not made without difficulty. During the attack and intermittently thereafter, the hicom voice circuit was subjected to loud jamming regardless of frequency. This electronic interference was de-scribed as a steady carrier without modulation."

(U) After being blown back onto the bridge floor, Lieutentant O'Connor realized he had no feeling in his body from the waist down. To get out of the way, he dragged himself into the combat information center (CIC) behind the bridge, where several others had also sought safety. Lying face down, O'Connor soon noticed that there was a lot of blood on the floor and then realized it was his. About this time, Ensign O'Malley stepped into the CIC and helped stop O'Connor's bleeding by stuffing a T-shirt into the holes in his back.

(U) A few moments after the bomb blast on the starboard side, Commander McGonagle was hit by flying shrapnel and knocked off his feet, but, though shaken up, he remained on the bridge, totally in command.

(U) For the next five or six minutes, air-craft made criss-cross attacks on the Liberty at about one-minute intervals, hitting her with rockets and machine-gun fire. A final count entered into the Court of Inquiry's record, showed 821 separate hits on the ship's hull and superstructure. The attacking aircraft were later identified as French-built Dassault Mirage jet fighters whose armament consisted of two 30mm cannon, two 1,000-pound bombs, and four rocket pods (18 rockets each).

(U) During the first or second strafing run, the ship's public-address system, the electrically pow-ered intercom system, and most sound-powered phone circuits were severed or destroyed.

28 UNCLASSIFIED

(U) In the first minutes of the air attack the Liberty suffered a complete loss of external com-munications because of badly damaged radio trans-mitting equipments and antenna systems. In spite of this, emergency restoration of hicom voice capability was completed within minutes. All U.S.S. Liberty communications immediately thereafter were via the hicom voice network.' 3

The coordinated strafing, rocket, and incendiary air attacks created three major fires topside that covered large areas of the Liberty with flames and heavy smoke. Eight men were killed or died of injuries received during the air attack: two killed or mortally wounded on the bridge, two killed at machine gun 51, one killed at machine gun 52, one died from wounds received on the main deck starboard side, and two died of wounds received on the 01 level portside. Throughout the topside area, 75 men had been wounded by shrapnel and shock of exploding rockets.

(U) During this period, the Liberty grad-ually built up speed from five knots; her exact speed was not known but it is doubtful that she exceeded 11 or 12 knots while under attack.

Torpedo-Boat Attack (U)

(U) At about 1424 hours, look-outs sighted three high-speed boats approaching the Liberty from the northeast on a relative bearing of approximately 135° at a distance of about 15 miles. The boats appeared to be in a wedge-type formation, spaced about 150 to 200 yards apart, and closing in a torpedo-launch attitude at an estimated speed of 27 to 30 knots. Commander McGonagle ordered a sailor from the bridge to man the starboard gun and take the boats under fire. Using the hicom circuit, the Liberty's radioman reported the approach of the torpedo boats. This was received and relayed by the U.S.S. Saratoga to Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Navy Europe and to the Commander, Sixth Fleet."

(U) It was then that the Commander no-ticed that the Liberty's American flag had been shot down. He immediately ordered a signalman to hoist the "holiday ensign" — the largest flag aboard (ap-proximately 7 x 13 feet) — from the yardarm, the normal flag halyard having been destroyed. There was smoke from the burning whaleboat and other topside fires in the vicinity of the bridge.

(U) Commander McGonagle passed the word, "Stand by for torpedo attack." He held his course, since turning away from the boats would bring the ship closer to land, and turning toward them would

UNCLASSIFIED






28 UNCLASSIFIED








UNCLASSIFIED






28 UNCLASSIFIED








--------_._--~-------_.............._......._---------------------UNCLASSIFIED

both reached the top of the ladder to proceed down,a bomb hit near the whaleboat on the starboard side,immediately aft of the bridge. Armstrong and O'Connorwere thrown back onto the bridge and other personnelin the pilot-house were blown from their feet. McGonagle grabbed the engine order annunciator andrang up all head flank speed - an order for maximumspeed. At the same time, he ordered LieutenantMaurice H. Bennett to report to the Chief of NavalOperations (CNO) via the high-command radio circuit(hicom) that the Liberty was under attack by unidentified jet aircraft and required immediate assistance.This Flash message, giving the Liberty's position as33-25E, 31-23N, was received by the aircraft carrierV.S.S. Saratoga (CVA-60) and relayed to Commander,V.S. Naval Forces Europe; Commander, Sixth Fleet;and Commander, Task Force 60 (CTF 60).ll Liberty'stransmission was not made without difficulty. Duringthe attack and intermittently thereafter, the hicomvoice circuit was subjected to loud jamming regardlessof frequency. This electronic interference was described as a steady carrier without modulation.'?

(V) After being blown back onto the bridgefloor, Lieutentant O'Connor realized he had no feelingin his body from the waist down. To get out of theway, he dragged himself into the combat informationcenter (CIC) behind the bridge, where several othershad also sought safety. Lying face down, O'Connorsoon noticed that there was a lot of blood on the floorand then realized it was his. About this time, EnsignO'Malley stepped into the CIC and helped stopO'Connor's bleeding by stuffing a T-shirt into the holesin his back.

(V) A few moments after the bomb blaston the starboard side, Commander McGonagle was hitby flying shrapnel and knocked off his feet, but, thoughshaken up, he remained on the bridge, totally incommand.

(V) For the next five or six minutes, aircraft made criss-cross attacks on the Liberty at aboutone-minute intervals, hitting her with rockets andmachine-gun fire. A final count entered into the Courtof Inquiry's record, showed 821 separate hits on theship's hull and superstructure. The attacking aircraftwere later identified as French-built Dassault Miragejet fighters whose armament consisted of two 30mmcannon, two 1,000-pound bombs, and four rocket pods(18 rockets each).

(V) During the first or second strafing run,the ship's public-address system, the electrically powered intercom system, and most sound-powered phonecircuits were severed or destroyed.

28 UNCLASSIFIED

(V) In the first minutes of the air attackthe Liberty suffered a complete loss of external communications because of badly damaged radio transmitting equipments and antenna systems. In spite ofthis, emergency restoration of hicom voice capabilitywas completed within minutes. All U.S.S. Libertycommunications immediately thereafter were via thehicom voice network."

(V) The coordinated strafing, rocket, andincendiary air attacks created three major fires topsidethat covered large areas of the Liberty with flamesand heavy smoke. Eight men were killed or died ofinjuries received during the air attack: two killed ormortally wounded on the bridge, two killed at machinegun 51, one killed at machine gun 52, one died fromwounds received on the main deck starboard side, andtwo died of wounds received on the 01 level portside.Throughout the topside area, 75 men had beenwounded by shrapnel and shock of exploding rockets.

(V) During this period, the Liberty gradually built up speed from five knots; her exact speedwas not known but it is doubtful that she exceeded 11or 12 knots while under attack.


(V) At about 1424 hours, look-outs sightedthree high-speed boats approaching the Liberty fromthe northeast on a relative bearing of approximately1350 at a distance of about 15 miles. The boatsappeared to be in a wedge-type formation, spacedabout 150 to 200 yards apart, and closing in a torpedolaunch attitude at an estimated speed of 27 to 30knots. Commander McGonagle ordered a sailor fromthe bridge to man the starboard gun and take theboats under fire. Using the hicom circuit, the Liberty'sradioman reported the approach of the torpedo boats.This was received and relayed by the V. S. S. Saratogato Commander-in-Chief, V.S. Navy Europe and to theCommander, Sixth Fleet. 14

(V) It was then that the Commander noticed that the Liberty's American flag had been shotdown. He immediately ordered a signalman to hoistthe "holiday ensign" - the largest flag aboard (approximately 7 x 13 feet) - from the yardarm, thenormal flag halyard having been destroyed. There wassmoke from the burning whaleboat and other topsidefires in the vicinity of the bridge.

(V) Commander McGonagle passed theword, "Stand by for torpedo attack." He held hiscourse, since turning away from the boats would bringthe ship closer to land, and turning toward them would

-----------------------------------

swing the ship broadside toward the attackers, giving them a larger target. (U) When Robert L. Wilson heard the torpedo attack warning, he remembered one of the seamen telling him to sit on the floor and brace his feet against the wall. (U) In the processing and reporting area, CT Terry McFarland was told to "tuck pant legs into your socks, button top collar, get rid of loose material, and lie flat on floor and hold your head in your hands to protect your face." (U) When the motor torpedo boats were approximately a mile away, the center boat was seen flashing a signal. light. Because of smoke and flames in the direction from which the boats were approach-ing, Commander McGonagle could not read the signals, but he saw what he believed to be an Israeli flag. As the air attack had knocked out the Liberty's starboard signal light, he attempted to signal with a hand-held Aldis lamp. This may not have been powerful enough to penetrate the smoke pouring from the fires started by the attackers. Believing that the air attack might have been in error, Commander McGonagle quickly shouted to the starboard forward gun to withhold fire. The gunner fired a short burst at the motor torpedo boats before he understood the CO's order. At the same time, though unattended, the after gun on the starboard side opened fire: flames from the burning whaleboat had ignited bullets in the gun and in the

(U) During the attack, severe damage was done to one of the two forward area 50-caliber gun mounts.

(( Photograph courtesy of Robert L. Wilson, NSA.) (Figure is UNCLASSIFIED)

ammunition box, causing the gun to fire in the direction of the attacking boats. (U) At this time, the motor torpedo boats opened fire with their gun mounts, killing the Liberty's helmsman. In a matter of seconds one torpedo crossed astern of the ship at about 25 yards. The time was then 1434 hours. A minute later, a second torpedo struck the ship on the starboard side, just forward of the bridge and a few feet below the water line. Again, using the hicom net, the Liberty broadcast that the ship had been torpedoed and was listing badly. The Saratoga picked up the transmission and relayed it to the Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Navy Europe and to the Commander, Sixth Fleet.' (U) To Lieutenant O'Connor, lying on the floor of the combat information center, the torpedo's deafening explosion seemed to lift the ship right out of the water, and when it settled back he thought it was going to roll over. (U) In the Research Department where the torpedo struck, everything went black; oil and debris were everywhere. Water rushed in and equip-ment fell over Terry McFarland, but he managed to keep clear and make his way in the darkness to the ladder to go topside. When he got out there was about a foot and a half of air space left. (U) CT Clyde W. Way was in T-Branch spaces above the processing and reporting area. With the explosion below, all equipment fell to the floor and smoke poured from the P&R hatch. Way started pulling men out as they came up the ladder. There was no panic. A Marine went down the ladder to help locate men possibly trapped in the water. As the water rose in the Research Department, Lieutenant Maurice Bennett realized that he had to close the hatch to contain the flooding. Attempts to contact the Marine who had gone back failed, and Lieutenant Bennett reluctantly and sorrowfully ordered the hatch closed. McFarland and Way then went topside to help fight fires and attend the wounded. (U) The torpedo explosion had torn a hole in the side of the ship that extended from a few feet above the water line to below the turn of the bilge. It was shaped like a tear-drop, and was 39 feet across at its widest point. Its immediate effect was to flood all compartments on two decks below the water line, from frame 53 to frame 66. These frames supported water-tight bulkheads, and marked the location of the Liberty's Research Department and store rooms. Twenty-five men died in these spaces some from the blast, others drowned. (U) The torpedo hit did not start a major fire, probably because of the immediate flooding of the









swing the ship broadside toward the attackers, givingthem a larger target.(U) When Robert L. Wilson heard thetorpedo attack warning, he remembered one of theseamen telling him to sit on the floor and brace hisfeet against the wall.(U) In the processing and reporting area,CT Terry McFarland was told to "tuck pant legs intoyour socks, button top collar, get rid of loose material,and lie flat on floor and hold your head in your handsto protect your face."(0) When the motor torpedo boats wereapproximately a mile away, the center boat was seenflashing a signal. light. Because of smoke and flamesin the direction from which the boats were approaching, Commander McGonagle could not read the signals,but he saw what he believed to be an Israeli flag. Asthe air attack had knocked out the Liberty's starboardsignal light, he attempted to signal with a hand-heldAldis lamp. This may not have been powerful enoughto penetrate the smoke pouring from the fires startedby the attackers. Believing that the air attack mighthave been in error, Commander McGonagle quicklyshouted to the starboard forward gun to withhold fire.The gunner fired a short burst at the motor torpedoboats before he understood the CO's order. At thesame time, though unattended, the after gun on thestarboard side opened fire: flames from the burningwhaleboat had ignited bullets in the gun and in the

(U) During the attack, severe damage wasdone to one of the two forward area 50-calibergun mounts.

rre eee) Photograph courtesy of Robert L. Wilson, NSA.l(Figure is UNCLASSIFIED)

CONFIDENTIAL

ammunition box, causing the gun to fire in thedirection of the attacking boats.(U) At this time, the motor torpedo boatsopened fire with their gun mounts, killing the Liberty'shelmsman. In a matter of seconds one torpedo crossedastern of the ship at about 25 yards. The time wasthen 1434 hours. A minute later, a second torpedostruck the ship on the starboard side, just forward ofthe bridge and a few feet below the water line. Again,using the hicom net, the Liberty broadcast that theship had been torpedoed and was listing badly. TheSaratoga picked up the transmission and relayed it tothe Commander-in-Chief, V.S. Navy Europe and tothe Commander, Sixth Fleet. 15

(U) To Lieutenant O'Connor, lying on thefloor of the combat information center, the torpedo'sdeafening explosion seemed to lift the ship right outof the water, and when it settled back he thought itwas going to roll over.(V) In the Research Department wherethe torpedo struck, everything went black; oil anddebris were everywhere. Water rushed in and equipment fell over Terry McFarland, but he managed tokeep clear and make his way in the darkness to theladder to go topside. When he got out there was abouta foot and a half of air space left.(U) CT Clyde W. Way was in T-Branchspaces above the processing and reporting area. Withthe explosion below, all equipment fell to the floor andsmoke poured from the P&R hatch. Way startedpulling men out as they came up the ladder. Therewas no panic. A Marine went down the ladder to helplocate men possibly trapped in the water. As the waterrose in the Research Department, Lieutenant MauriceBennett realized that he had to close the hatch tocontain the flooding. Attempts to contact the Marinewho had gone back failed, and Lieutenant Bennettreluctantly and sorrowfully ordered the hatch closed.McFarland and Way then went topside to help fightfires and attend the wounded.(U) The torpedo explosion had torn a holein the side of the ship that extended from a few feetabove the water line to below the turn of the bilge. Itwas shaped like a tear-drop, and was 39 feet across atits widest point. Its immediate effect was to flood allcompartments on two decks below the water line, fromframe 53 to frame 66. These frames supported watertight bulkheads, and marked the location of theLiberty's Research Department and store rooms.Twenty-five men died in these spaces some from theblast, others drowned.(U) The torpedo hit did not start a majorfire, probably because of the immediate flooding of the

HANDLE ViA e6M1N'f etlANNELS 6NLY CONFIDENTIAL 29

UNCLASSIFIED

33°

32°

31° 32° 33° 34° 35°

LEBANON)

/i

TEL AVIV (1

'ISRAEL! s"

(\.\-•S

SUEZ CANAL

UNITED

POINT

POINT OF

ARAB

C POINT B

ATTACK

400....., L'ARISN

REPUBLIC

POINT A

ISRAEL

\

AI (f---../i

.... .c" -\

0 VD Vil

(U) The projected track of the Liberty on the day of attack. (Figure is UNCLASSIFIED)

affected area, but the Liberty immediately listed nine degrees to starboard. Power and steering control were lost temporarily and the ship came dead in the water. The time was 1440 hours. (U) The three torpedo boats also stopped and then milled around astern of the Liberty at a range of approximately 500 to 800 yards. One of the boats signaled by flashing light, in English, "Do you require assistance?" Not being able to signal by light, Commander McGonagle ordered a signalman to hoist the international flag signal for "not under command," meaning that the ship was maneuvering with difficulty and that they should keep clear. One of the torpedo boats was identified by a hull number of 204-17. All boats retired toward shore at 1505 hours. The attack-ing torpedo boats were later identified as French-built motor torpedeo boats of the Israeli Ayah class. These

30 UNCLASSIFIED

were 62-ton craft, capable of 42 knots, with a crew of 15 and armament consisting of one 40mm cannon, four 20mm cannon, and two torpedos.

Post-Attack Reconnaissance (U) (U) At about 1515 hours, two helicopters approached the Liberty and circled around the ship at a distance of about 100 yards. The Star of David insignia was clearly visible. One of the helicopters was numbered 04 or D4, the other 08 or D8. The helicop-ters departed, returned, and departed again. (U) Commander McGonagle designated the mess decks as a casualty collection station, and the wounded were taken there by repair party personnel and other crew members able to assist. (U) Reports received from damage control central indicated that the flooding was under control.

UNCLASSIFIED

33°

32°

31° 32° 33° 34° 35°

LEBANON)

/i

TEL AVIV (1

'ISRAEL! s"

(\.\-•S

SUEZ CANAL

UNITED

POINT

POINT OF

ARAB

C POINT B

ATTACK

400....., L'ARISN

REPUBLIC

POINT A

ISRAEL

\

AI (f---../i

.... .c" -\

0 VD Vil



30 UNCLASSIFIED



UNCLASSIFIED

33°

32°

31° 32° 33° 34° 35°

LEBANON)

/i

TEL AVIV (1

'ISRAEL! s"

(\.\-•S

SUEZ CANAL

UNITED

POINT

POINT OF

ARAB

C POINT B

ATTACK

400....., L'ARISN

REPUBLIC

POINT A

ISRAEL

\

AI (f---../i

.... .c" -\

0 VD Vil



30 UNCLASSIFIED



UNCLASSIFIED

!LEBANON",.;,,----.) \

,

)ISRAEL y

(',,---J"

")"

J 0 R,.O A,./N

...:lISRAEL )

REPUBLIC

33°

ARAB

32°

UNITED

31°

32°"+--------+-------+---------1L--~~!l.!.!~_+_tt_----___1

(U) The projected track of the Uherty on the day of attack.(Figure is UNCLASSIFIED)

I'1!

affected area, but the Liberty immediately listed ninedegrees to starboard. Power and steering control werelost temporarily and the ship came dead in the water.The time was 1440 hours.(D) The three torpedo boats also stoppedand then milled around astern of the Liberty at arange of approximately 500 to 800 yards. One of theboats signaled by flashing light, in English, "Do yourequire assistance?" Not being able to signal by light,Commander McGonagle ordered a signalman to hoistthe international flag signal for "not under command,"meaning that the ship was maneuvering with difficultyand that they should keep clear. One of the torpedoboats was identified by a hull number of 204-17. Allboats retired toward shore at 1505 hours. The attacking torpedo boats were later identified as French-builtmotor torpedeo boats of the Israeli Ayah class. These

were 62-ton craft, capable of 42 knots, with a crew of15 and armament consisting of one 40mm cannon,four 20mm cannon, and two torpedos.

Post-Attack Reconnaissance (U)

(D) At about 1515 hours, two helicoptersapproached the Liberty and circled around the ship ata distance of about 100 yards. The Star of Davidinsignia was clearly visible. One of the helicopters wasnumbered 04 or 04, the other 08 or 08. The helicopters departed, returned, and departed again.(D) Commander McGonagle designated themess decks as a casualty collection station, and thewounded were taken there by repair party personneland other crew members able to assist.(D) Reports received from damage controlcentral indicated that the flooding was under control.

30 UNCLASSIFIED

----~~- ~-

UNCLASSIFIED

Power was restored to the bridge at 1520 hours, but steering control could not be regained from the bridge, making it necessary to give rudder orders by telephone to men in the "after steering" compartment, and for some time they operated the ship's heavy rudder by hand. (U) At 1536 hours, the Israeli torpedo boats again approached the Liberty from the star-board, at a range of five miles. During the next hour and a quarter, the boats returned toward the ship several times before disappearing over the horizon without further signal or action. (U) Communications were restored at about 1600 hours, and Commander McGonagle dic-tated a message to Lieutenant Bennett providing additional information concerning the attack by un-identified aircraft and the fact that the torpedo boats had been identified as Israeli. A preliminary estimate of the number of dead and casualties, as well as the condition of the ship, was also provided. Transmission of this message was delayed because shipboard emer-gency measures demanded immediate attention to preserve the safety and stability of the ship and minimize new casualties. (U) Fifteen minutes later two unidentified jet aircraft approached the Liberty from the starboard side and reconnoitered from a distance before disap-pearing from the scene.

Sixth Fleet Reacts (U)

(U) Aboard his flagship, the guided-missile light cruiser U.S.S. Little Rock (CLG-4), the Com-mander, Sixth Fleet received (from the Saratoga) the Liberty's messages about the air and torpedo boat attacks. At 1450 hours, fifty minutes after the attack began, he ordered the aircraft carrier U.S.S. America (CVA-66) to launch four armed A-4 Skyhawks and the carrier U.S.S. Saratoga (CVA-60) to launch four armed A-1 attack planes to defend the Liberty. The America was also directed to provide fighter cover and tanker aircraft to refuel the fighters, if necessary.' At this time, the Sixth Fleet was located south of Crete, approximately 450 miles west of the Liberty.

(U) At 1516 hours, Commander, Task Force 60, implemented Sixth Fleet's directive and instructed his carrier pilots to "destroy or drive off any attackers who are clearly making attacks on the Liberty. Remain over international waters. Defend yourself if attacked."17

(U) On the heels of this action, at 1520 hours, the Commander, Sixth Fleet, informed U.S. Commander-in-Chief, Europe (CINCEUR) of the at-tack and aircraft being deployed to defend the Liberty. It was estimated that the first aircraft would be on the scene at 1715 hours."

(U) U.S.S. Little Rock, a guided missile light cruiser and the flagship of the Commander, Sixth Fleet.


UNCLASSIFIED 31

UNCLASSIFIED








UNCLASSIFIED 31

UNCLASSIFIED








UNCLASSIFIED 31

Power was restored to the bridge at 1520 hours, butsteering control could not be regained from the bridge,making it necessary to give rudder orders by telephoneto men in the "after steering" compartment, and forsome time they operated the ship's heavy rudder byhand.(D) At 1536 hours, the Israeli torpedoboats again approached the Liberty from the starboard, at a range of five miles. During the next hourand a quarter, the boats returned toward the shipseveral times before disappearing over the horizonwithout further signal or action.(D) Communications were restored atabout 1600 hours, and Commander McGonagle dictated a message to Lieutenant Bennett providingadditional information concerning the attack by unidentified aircraft and the fact that the torpedo boatshad been identified as Israeli. A preliminary estimateof the number of dead and casualties, as well as thecondition of the ship, was also provided. Transmissionof this message was delayed because shipboard emergency measures demanded immediate attention topreserve the safety and stability of the ship andminimize new casualties.(D) Fifteen minutes later two unidentifiedjet aircraft approached the Liberty from the starboardside and reconnoitered from a distance before disappearing from the scene.

UNCLASSIFIED


(D) Aboard his flagship, the guided-missilelight cruiser U.S. S. Little Rock (CLG-4), the Commander, Sixth Fleet received (from the Saratoga) theLiberty's messages about the air and torpedo boatattacks. At 1450 hours, fifty minutes after the attackbegan, he ordered the aircraft carrier U.S. S. America(CVA-66) to launch four armed A-4 Skyhawks and thecarrier U.S.S. Saratoga (CVA-60) to launch fourarmed A-1 attack planes to defend the Liberty. TheAmerica was also directed to provide fighter cover andtanker aircraft to refuel the fighters, if necessary. 16

At this time, the Sixth Fleet was located south ofCrete, approximately 450 miles west of the Liberty.

(D) At 1516 hours, Commander, TaskForce 60, implemented Sixth Fleet's directive andinstructed his carrier pilots to "destroy or drive offany attackers who are clearly making attacks on theLiberty. Remain over international waters. Defendyourself if attacked." 17

(U) On the heels of this action, at 1520hours, the Commander, Sixth Fleet, informed U. S.Commander-in-Chief, Europe (CINCEUR) of the attack and aircraft being deployed to defend the Liberty.It was estimated that the first aircraft would be onthe scene at 1715 hours."

(U) U.S.S. Little Rock, a guided missile light cruiser and the flagship of the Commander. SixthFleet.


UNCLASSIFIED 31

UNCLASSIFIED

(U) Following this, at 1549 hours, the Commander, Sixth Fleet relayed to the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) and the Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Navy Europe, (CINCUSNAVEUR) his message of instruction to the carriers concerning the use of force and observance of Israeli and Egyptian territorial limits.'9 (U) Commander, Task Force 63, reacting to the Liberty's plight, sent a message to Sixth Fleet at 1610 hours recommending that fleet ocean tug U.S.S. Papago (ATF-160) of the Abnaki class be diverted to proceed at maximum speed to assist the Liberty.

Washington Informed (U)

(U) An hour and eleven minutes after the Liberty was attacked, the National Military Command Center (NMCC) in the Pentagon was phoned by CINCEUR and told of the situation as known. At 0915 hours (DST), 8 June, NMCC phoned the NSA Sigint Command Center to notify NSA of the attack.'

(U) At the White House, President Lyn-don B. Johnson was busy telephoning cabinet members and congressional leaders when he was interrupted at 0949 hours (DST) by Walt Rostow, his Special Assist-ant for National Security Affairs, and told that "the Liberty, has been torpedoed in the Mediterranean. The ship is located 60-100 miles north of Egypt. Reconnaissance aircraft are out from the 6th fleet. ...no knowledge of the submarine or surface vessel which committed this act....shall keep you informed."' (U) Rostow phoned again at 1014 hours to advise the President that the Liberty was "listing badly to starboard. The Saratoga has launched 4-A4's and 4-A1'8.-1122

Israel Reports Error (U)

(U) In Tel Aviv, Israel, the U.S. Naval Attache, Commander E. C. Castle, was called to the Foreign Liaison Office, Israel Defence Force at approx-imately 1600 hours (local time) and told that Israeli air and sea forces had attacked the Liberty in error. Immediately the U.S. Defense Attache office sent a Flash message to advise the White House, Department of State, and others of this development."

Johnson Informs Kosygin (U)

(U) The message was received by the White House, NMCC, and other members of the U.S. military and intelligence community at 1045 hours

32 UNCLASSIFIED

(DST). Walt Rostow informed the President and immediately drafted a "hot line" message to the Kremlin. President Johnson approved the following text which was sent to Chairman Kosygin at 1117 hours (DST):

We have just learned that U.S.S. Liberty, an auxiliary ship, has apparently been torpedoed by Israel forces in error off Port Said. We have instructed our carrier, Saratoga now in the Mediterranean to dispatch aircraft to the scene to investigate. We wish you to know that investigation is the sole purpose of this flight of aircraft, and hope that you will take appropriate steps to see that proper parties are informed. We have passed this message to Chernyakov but feel that you should know of this development urgently.'

The message was received in Moscow at 1124 hours (DST)." At 1210 hours Kosygin replied by "hot line" that he had passed the message to President Nasser of Egypt.' Thereafter instructions were issued by JCS and Commander, Sixth Fleet to withdraw the aircraft launched to defend the Liberty. By 1849 hours Sixth Fleet reported all planes recalled and accounted for.27

(U) Deputy Secretary of Defense Vance notified the Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Navy Europe, by phone at 1700 hours that all news releases on the Liberty affair would be made at the Washington level — no releases were to be made aboard ships. This information was relayed to the Commander, Sixth Fleet. 28

Liberty Recovers (U)

(U) Unaware of what was happening at fleet headquarters or in Washington and Tel Aviv, the Liberty was struggling to regain full engine power and to reach deeper water. The gyro compass was out but the pilot-house magnetic compass appeared to be working.

(U) The ship remained at general quarters while the crew effected post-attack emergency meas-ures. Sixth Fleet was notified that the Liberty had carried out the emergency destruction of all crypto publications and key cards. Her only means of com-munication remained the hicom circuits.29

(U) Liberty's medical officer, Lieutenant Richard F. Kiepfer, Medical Corps, USN, performed one major operation and gave emergency treatment to wounded men as best he could. He manned the main battle dressing station, together with one hospital corpsman, while the other corpsman operated a sec-ondary station in the forward part of the ship. Both stations were flooded with seriously injured men and for a time there was little opportunity to do more than give first aid. Bleeding was stopped, men were given

UNCLASSIFIED









32 UNCLASSIFIED









UNCLASSIFIED









32 UNCLASSIFIED









UNCLASSIFIED

(U) Following this, at 1549 hours, theCommander, Sixth Fleet relayed to the Chief of NavalOperations (CNO) and the Commander-in-Chief, U.S.Navy Europe, (CINCUSNAVEUR) his message ofinstruction to the carriers concerning the use of forceand observance of Israeli and Egyptian territoriallimits. 19

(U) Commander, Task Force 63, reactingto the Liberty's plight, sent a message to Sixth Fleetat 1610 hours recommending that fleet ocean tugU.S.S. Papago (ATF-160) of the Abnaki class bediverted to proceed at maximum speed to assist theLiberty.


(U) An hour and eleven minutes after theLiberty was attacked, the National Military CommandCenter (NMCC) in the Pentagon was phoned byCINCEUR and told of the situation as known. At 0915hours (DST), 8 June, NMCC phoned the NSA SigintCommand Center to notify NSA of the attack. 20

(U) At the White House, President Lyndon B. Johnson was busy telephoning cabinet membersand congressional leaders when he was interrupted at0949 hours (DST) by Walt Rostow, his Special Assistant for National Security Affairs, and told that "theLiberty, has been torpedoed in the Mediterranean.The ship is located 60-100 miles north of Egypt.Reconnaissance aircraft are out from the 6th fleet .... no knowledge of the submarine or surface vesselwhich committed this act.... shall keep you informed.Y"

(U) Rostow phoned again at 1014 hours toadvise the President that the Liberty was "listingbadly to starboard. The Saratoga has launched 4-A4'sand 4-A1's.... ,>22


CU) In Tel Aviv, Israel, the U.S. NavalAttache, Commander E. C. Castle, was called to theForeign Liaison Office, Israel Defence Force at approximately 1600 hours (local time) and told that Israeliair and sea forces had attacked the Liberty in error.Immediately the U. S. Defense Attache office sent aFlash message to advise the White House, Departmentof State, and others of this development. 23


CU) The message was received by theWhite House, NMCC, and other members of the U.S.military and intelligence community at 1045 hours

32 UNCLASSIFIED

CDST). Walt Rostow informed the President andimmediately drafted a "hot line" message to theKremlin. President Johnson approved the followingtext which was sent to Chairman Kosygin at 1117hours (DST):

We have just learned that U.S.S. Liberty, an auxiliary ship,has apparently been torpedoed by Israel forces in error off PortSaid. We have instructed our carrier, Saratoga now in theMediterranean to dispatch aircraft to the scene to investigate.We wish you to know that investigation is the sole purpose ofthis flight of aircraft, and hope that you will take appropriatesteps to see that proper parties are informed. We have passedthis message to Chernyakov but feel that you should know ofthis development urgently. 24

The message was received in Moscow at 1124 hoursCDST).25 At 1210 hours Kosygin replied by "hot line"that he had passed the message to President Nasserof Egypt. 26 Thereafter instructions were issued by JCSand Commander, Sixth Fleet to withdraw the aircraftlaunched to defend the Liberty. By 1849 hours SixthFleet reported all planes recalled and accounted for. 27

(U) Deputy Secretary of Defense Vancenotified the Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Navy Europe,by phone at 1700 hours that all news releases on theLiberty affair would be made at the Washington level- no releases were to be made aboard ships. Thisinformation was relayed to the Commander, SixthFleet. 28

Libert}' Recovers (U)

CU) Unaware of what was happening atfleet headquarters or in Washington and Tel Aviv, theLiberty was struggling to regain full engine power andto reach deeper water. The gyro compass was out butthe pilot-house magnetic compass appeared to beworking.

(U) The ship remained at general quarterswhile the crew effected post-attack emergency measures. Sixth Fleet was notified that the Liberty hadcarried out the emergency destruction of all cryptopublications and key cards. Her only means of communication remained the hicom circuits. 29

(U) Liberty's medical officer, LieutenantRichard F. Kiepfer, Medical Corps, USN, performedone major operation and gave emergency treatment towounded men as best he could. He manned the mainbattle dressing station, together with one hospitalcorpsman, while the other corpsman operated a secondary station in the forward part of the ship. Bothstations were flooded with seriously injured men andfor a time there was little opportunity to do more thangive first aid. Bleeding was stopped, men were given

GaI

dIS

SV

ION

II

GaI

dIS

SW

ION

fl

(U) The U.S.S. America was ordered by the Commander, Sixth Fleet to launch four Skyhawks to defend the Liberty.


GaI

dIS

SV

ION

II

GaI

dIS

SW

ION

fl



GaI

dIS

SV

ION

II

GaI

dIS

SW

ION

fl



(V) The V.S.S. America was ordered by the Commander, Sixth Fleet to launch four Skyhawks todefend the Liberty.


morphine for pain and treated for shock, and those with lung wounds were treated to ease breathing. (U) At 1750 hours, Sixth Fleet advised the Liberty that destroyers were on the way at maximum speed and that the Liberty was to proceed on a course of 340° magnetic until 100 miles from present position, then turn 270° magnetic.

U.S. Naval Attaché Helicopters to the Liberty (U)

(U) Back in Tel Aviv, the Israeli Foreign Liaison Office was arranging for a helicopter to fly Commander Castle, U.S. Naval Attache, to the Lib-erty so that he might communicate with its command-ing officer. The helicopter left Dov Hoss (now Sde-Dov) airfield on the northern side of Tel Aviv at 1810 hours and proceeded directly to the Liberty. By 1835 hours, the Israeli Sikorsky helicopter, carrying Com-mander Castle, was over the ship hovering at approx-imately 30 feet from bridge level. Lettering on the tail of the helicopter was SA32K and on the fuselage were the numerals 06 or D6. The helicopter had neither an electric megaphone nor hand-held signal light with which to communicate with the Liberty.3° (U) Wearing civilian clothes, Commander Castle could not convey his identity to the bridge of Liberty but by visual means indicated that he wished to be lowered aboard the ship. At first, Commander McGonagle prepared to receive the attache but, con-sidering the obstructions in the forecastle area, sig-

naled a wave-off to the transfer attempt. Simultane-ously, the helicopter pilot said he could not make the transfer because of the Liberty's speed. A few minutes later an impromptu package weighted with an orange was dropped from the helicopter onto the forecastle. Inside the package was a message written on a calling card of "Commander Ernest Carl Castle, United States Navy, Naval Attache for Air, Embassy of the United States of America, Tel Aviv." On the back of the card was written, "Have you casualties?" Using an Aldis lamp, the Liberty attempted for ten to fifteen minutes, to reply to this message with "affirmative casualties." It was not clear to those on the ship that the reply was understood. Castle, however, had re-ceived the message but was uncertain as to whether the number flashed was four or forty. The bodies of three crew members had not yet been removed from the forecastle and must have been observed by those in the helicopter. With the waning light and approach of dusk the helicopter departed the ship at approxi-mately 1900 hours.31 (U) Shortly thereafter, at 1915 hours, the Liberty transmitted to CNO a post-attack situation report. 32

Israeli Helicopter Conversations (U) (3C) Back at NSA, within an hour of learning that the Liberty had been torpedoed, the Director, NSA sent a message to all I I intercept sites requesting a special search of all communi-cations that might reflect the attack or reaction." No

EO 1.4.(c)

(U) The America also was ordered to dispatch F4 Phantom fighters, like this one, to provide cover for the Skyhawks.


34 -SEC-RE-T—SPOKB






EO 1.4.(c)









EO 1.4.(c)




SH€RH'f SPOKE

morphine for pain and treated for shock, and thosewith lung wounds were treated to ease breathing.

(U) At 1750 hours, Sixth Fleet advised theLiberty that destroyers were on the way at maximumspeed and that the Liberty was to proceed on a courseof 340 0 magnetic until 100 miles from present position,then turn 2700 magnetic.

u.s. Naval Attache Helicopters tothe Lihert)' (U)

(U) Back in Tel Aviv, the Israeli ForeignLiaison Office was arranging for a helicopter to flyCommander Castle, U.S. Naval Attache, to the Liberty so that he might communicate with its commanding officer. The helicopter left Dov Hoss (now SdeDov) airfield on the northern side of Tel Aviv at 1810hours and proceeded directly to the Liberty. By 1835hours, the Israeli Sikorsky helicopter, carrying Commander Castle, was over the ship hovering at approximately 30 feet from bridge level. Lettering on thetail of the helicopter was SA32K and on the fuselagewere the numerals 06 or D6. The helicopter hadneither an electric megaphone nor hand-held signallight with which to communicate with the Liberty.3o

(U) Wearing civilian clothes, CommanderCastle could not convey his identity to the bridge ofLiberty but by visual means indicated that he wishedto be lowered aboard the ship. At first, CommanderMcGonagle prepared to receive the attache but, considering the obstructions in the forecastle area, sig-

naled a wave-off to the transfer attempt. Simultaneously, the helicopter pilot said he could not make thetransfer because of the Liberty's speed. A few minuteslater an impromptu package weighted with an orangewas dropped from the helicopter onto the forecastle.Inside the package was a message written on a callingcard of "Commander Ernest Carl Castle, UnitedStates Navy, Naval Attache for Air, Embassy of theUnited States of America, Tel Aviv." On the back ofthe card was written, "Have you casualties?" Using anAldis lamp, the Liberty attempted for ten to fifteenminutes, to reply to this message with "affirmativecasualties." It was not clear to those on the ship thatthe reply was understood. Castle, however, had received the message but was uncertain as to whetherthe number flashed was four or forty. The bodies ofthree crew members had not yet been removed fromthe forecastle and must have been observed by thosein the helicopter. With the waning light and approachof dusk the helicopter departed the ship at approximately 1900 hours."(U) Shortly thereafter, at 1915 hours, theLiberty transmitted to CNO a post-attack situationreport. 32

Israeli Helicopter Conversations (U)fS€T Back at NSA, within an hour oflearning that the Liberty had been torpedoed, theDirector, NSA sent a message to alII I intercept sites requesting a special search of all communications that might reflect the attack or reaction.V No

EO 1. 4 . (c)

(U) The America also was ordered to dispatch F4 Phantom fighters, like this one, to provide cover forthe Skyhawks.


34 SH€RH'f SPOKH

(U) U.S.S. Papago, ocean tug of the Sixth Fleet, was sent to aid the Liberty and was used to recover classified material adrift from the torpedo hole in the Liberty's hull.


communications of the attacking aircraft or torpedo boats were available. However, one of the airborne platforms operating from Athens, had collected voice conversations between two Israeli helicopter pilots and the control tower at Hazor Airfield (near Tel Aviv). Control told helicopter 815 at 1431 hours that "there is a warship there which we attacked. The men jumped into the water from it. You will try to rescue them." Although there were other references to a search for the men in the water, no personnel from the Liberty had jumped overboard. At 1434 hours, the control tower told helicopter 815 that the ship was Egyptian and that he could return home. At 1510 hours, the controller asked 815 to identify the nationality of any survivors. Subsequently, the helicopter pilot reported seeing an American flag on the ship. In another portion of the conversation, the pilot of helicopter 815 reported that number GTR 5 was written on the ship's side and that behind the ship were several uninflated life boats. At 1521 hours the helicopters were instructed to return home.'

Liberty Licks Its Wounds (U) (U) As darkness settled over the Liberty, Commander McGonagle remained on the bridge, still

suffering from the loss of blood and experiencing a great deal of pain from his wounds. By remaining on the bridge, McGonagle believed his presence there would give reassurance to the crew. The Liberty's doctor, Lieutenant Kiepfer, had seen McGonagle on the bridge but made no effort to get him below to a battle dressing station. In Lieutenant Kiepher's words,

The Commanding Officer at that time was like a rock upon which the rest of the men supported themselves. To know that he was on the bridge grievously wounded, yet having the conn and helm and ... calling every change of course, was the thing that told the men "we're going to live." When I went to the bridge and saw this, I should say that I knew that I could only insult this man by suggesting that he be taken below for treatment of his wounds. I didn't even suggest it.'

(U) The attack had demanded the very best from the Liberty's crew and they had responded exceptionally well. Damage control competence mini-mized Liberty's structural wounds and kept her afloat. The engineering crew under Lieutenant George Golden maintained power to the engines so that the Liberty could move away from dangerous shoals in the attack area and head toward the Sixth Fleet. The medical officer and his two corpsmen needed help and they got it. In Kiepfer's words,

Any time we needed one volunteer, we'd get ten. If anything had to be done ... there were hands everywhere. When we

&BERET—SPOKE- 35









&BERET—SPOKE- 35









&BERET—SPOKE- 35

SECRET SrOKE

"'-1r.~

,.~------ .......

(V) V.S.S. PapaJ{o, ocean tug of the Sixth Fleet, was sent to aid the Libertyand was used to recoverclassified material adrift from the torpedo hole in the Liberty's hull.


communications of the attacking aircraft or torpedoboats were available. However, one of the airborneplatforms operating from Athens, had collected voiceconversations between two Israeli helicopter pilots andthe control tower at Hazor Airfield (near Tel Aviv).Control told helicopter 815 at 1431 hours that" thereis a warship there which we attacked. The men jumpedinto the water from it. You will try to rescue them."Although there were other references to a search forthe men in the water, no personnel from the Libertyhad jumped overboard. At 1434 hours, the controltower told helicopter 815 that the ship was Egyptianand that he could return home. At 1510 hours, thecontroller asked 815 to identify the nationality of anysurvivors. Subsequently, the helicopter pilot reportedseeing an American flag on the ship. In another portionof the conversation, the pilot of helicopter 815 reportedthat number GTR 5 was written on the ship's sideand that behind the ship were several uninflated lifeboats. At 1521 hours the helicopters were instructedto return home. 34

Liherty Licks Its Wounds (U)(U) As darkness settled over the Liberty,Commander McGonagle remained on the bridge, still

suffering from the loss of blood and experiencing agreat deal of pain from his wounds. By remaining onthe bridge, McGonagle believed his presence therewould give reassurance to the crew. The Liberty'sdoctor, Lieutenant Kiepfer, had seen McGonagle onthe bridge but made no effort to get him below to abattle dressing station. In Lieutenant Kiepher's words,

The Commanding Officer at that time was like a rock uponwhich the rest of the men supported themselves. To know thathe was on the bridge grievously wounded, yet having the connand helm and ... calling every change of course, was the thingthat told the men "we're going to live." When I went to thebridge and saw this, I should say that I knew that I could onlyinsult this man by suggesting that he be taken below fortreatment of his wounds. I didn't even suggest it. 15

(U) The attack had demanded the verybest from the Liberty's crew and they had respondedexceptionally well. Damage control competence minimized Liberty's structural wounds and kept her afloat.The engineering crew under Lieutenant George Goldenmaintained power to the engines so that the Libertycould move away from dangerous shoals in the attackarea and head toward the Sixth Fleet. The medicalofficer and his two corpsmen needed help and they gotit. In Kiepfer's words,

Any time we needed one volunteer, we'd get ten. If anythinghad to be done ... there were hands everywhere. When we

SHeRE,£, SPOKE 35

asked for two pints of blood for transfusion, we had people on the adjoining tables who were saying, "If you need some, I have this type." These were people already wounded."

NSA civilian, Robert L. Wilson, remembered, too, that surprisingly there was no panic. When the men were ordered to do something, they did it. Everyone was kept busy. Though some were obviously scared to death, there was simply no panic; nobody ran rampant through the ship. No one slept much that night. Helping the wounded became everyone's job — even those with no medical training. Men learned to dress wounds or do stitches. In some cases to quiet a man, he was given a bottle of rum to drown his pain. With the lengthening hours of darkness, deepening depres-sion and shock caused some men to break down and succumb to the fears they had been able to restrain during the attack and immediately thereafter.' (U) Alone, battered, and scarred but un-vanquished, the Liberty steamed steadily on through-out the night toward a rendezvous with Sixth Fleet destroyers. Three musters were taken to identify the dead, the seriously injured, and those who were missing. Casualty messages were completed as quickly as possible and necessary message notifications sent.

Notes

Source documents are in the "Crisis Collection" of the NSA History Collection.

'(U)

U.S.S. Liberty msg 080634Z Jun 1967. 2(U)

U.S.S. Liberty, "Ship Weather Observation Sheet," 8 Jun 1967.

3(U) CINCUSNAVEUR meg 151003Z Jun 1967. 4(U) U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry 7816-67; Liberty

Incident, 8 Jun 1967; Record of Proceedings. 5(U) Ibid. 6(U) U.S.S. Liberty meg 080742Z Jun 1967. '(U) U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry 7816-67; Liberty

Incident, 8 Jun 1967; Record of Proceedings. 8(U) Robert L. Wilson, oral interview transcript, 6

May 1980. 9(U) U.S.S. Liberty msg 080856Z Jun 1967. 9U) U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry 7816-67; Liberty

Incident, 8 Jun 1967; Record of Proceedings. "(U) U.S.S. Saratoga mag 081235Z Jun 1967.

13(U) U.S. Naval Court of Inquiry 7816-67; Liberty Incident, 8 Jun 1967; Record of Proceedings.

u(U) MG J.R. Russ, USA, JCS. "Report of the Fact Finding Team, U.S.S. Liberty Incident, 8 Jun 1967", p. 39. (Hereafter cited as the Russ Report.)

"(U) U.S.S. Saratoga msg 081237Z Jun 1967.

15(U) U.S.S. Saratoga meg 081254Z Jun 1967.

16(u) COMSIXTHFLT msg 081250Z Jun 1967.

13(U) CTF 60 msg 081316Z Jun 1967.

'8(U) COMSIXTHFLT msg 081320Z Jun 1967.

' 9(U) COMSIXTHFLT msg 081349Z Jun 1967.

20(u) National Military Command Center, "Memo- randum for the Record, 1530 EDT, 8 Jun 1967 and NSA Senior Operations Officer Log, 0730-1530, 8 Jun 1967.

31(U) The White House Daily Diary, 8 Jun 1967, 9:49 a.m. telephone call from Walt Rostow, p. 2, and the White House Memorandum to the President from W.W. Rostow, 9:50 a.m., 8 Jun 1967.

22(u) The White House Daily Diary, 8 Jun 1967, 10:14 a.m. telephone call from Walt Rostow. p. 3, and Memorandum to the President from W.W. Rostow, 10:15 a.m., 8 Jun 1967.

"(U) Other addressees for U.S. Defense Attache Office, Tel Aviv, msg 081414Z Jun 1967, were: OSD, CNO, JCS, Sixth Fleet, and NAVEUR. USDAO, Tel Aviv msg 151615Z Jun 1967.

24(U) Yurij Nikolaevich Chernyakov was Minister- Counselor at the Soviet Embassy in Washington, D.C., from 1965 to 1969. He often substituted for the Ambassador.

"(U) The White House Daily Diary, 8 Jun 1967, p. 3 and "hot line" msg to Chairman Kosygin fom President Johnson, 8 Jun 1967, 11:17 a.m.

26(U) The White House Daily Diary, 8 Jun 1967, p. 6.

"(U) JCS meg 081529Z Jun 1967, and COM- SIXTHFLT meg 081649Z Jun 1967.

28(U) CINCUSNAVEUR msg 081517Z Jun 1967.

"(U) COMSIXTHFLT meg 081514Z Jun 1967.

30(U) USDAO, Tel Aviv meg 151615Z Jun 1967.

31(U) U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry 7816-67; Liberty Incident, 8 Jun 1967; Record of Proceedings.

"(U) U.S.S. Liberty msg 081715Z Jun 1967.

n(U) DIRNSA msg 081356Z Jun 1967.

34(C COO) Sigint roduct reports: 21-1-1R23_,_.-67

082015Z Jun 1967; 2 24-67, 090831Z Jun 1967; 21_1 1:t27-67, 091422Z Jun 1967.

(U) U,S. Navy Court of Inquiry 7816-67; Liberty Incident, 8 Jun 1967; Record of Proceedings.

"(U) Ibid.

37(u) Oral interview transcripts; Robert L. Wilson, 6 May 1980; CTC Clyde W. Way, 6 Jun 1980; and CTC Terry L. McFarland, 23 June 1980.

EO 1.4.(c) P.L. 86-36



Notes


'(U)













13(U) CTF 60 msg 081316Z Jun 1967.


















082015Z Jun 1967; 2 24-67, 090831Z Jun 1967; 21_1 1:t27-67, 091422Z Jun 1967.


"(U) Ibid.


EO 1.4.(c) P.L. 86-36



Notes


'(U)













13(U) CTF 60 msg 081316Z Jun 1967.


















082015Z Jun 1967; 2 24-67, 090831Z Jun 1967; 21_1 1:t27-67, 091422Z Jun 1967.


"(U) Ibid.


EO 1.4.(c) P.L. 86-36

Notes

U.S.S. Liberty msg OB0634Z Jun 1967.U.S.S. Liberty, "Ship Weather Observation

CONfiDENTIAL

asked for two pints of blood for transfusion, we had people onthe adjoining tables who were saying, "If you need some, I havethis type." These were people already wounded. 36

NSA civilian, Robert L. Wilson, remembered, too,that surprisingly there was no panic. When the menwere ordered to do something, they did it. Everyonewas kept busy. Though some were obviously scared todeath, there was simply no panic; nobody ran rampantthrough the ship. No one slept much that night.Helping the wounded became everyone's job - eventhose with no medical training. Men learned to dresswounds or do stitches. In some cases to quiet a man,he was given a bottle of rum to drown his pain. Withthe lengthening hours of darkness, deepening depression and shock caused some men to break down andsuccumb to the fears they had been able to restrainduring the attack and immediately thereafter. 37

(U) Alone, battered, and scarred but unvanquished, the Liberty steamed steadily on throughout the night toward a rendezvous with Sixth Fleetdestroyers. Three musters were taken to identify thedead, the seriously injured, and those who weremissing. Casualty messages were completed as quicklyas possible and necessary message notifications sent.


I(U)

'(U)

Sheet," 8 Jun 1967.'(U) CINCUSNAVEUR msg 151003Z Jun 1967.4(U) U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry 7816~7; Liberty

Incident, 8 Jun 1967; Record of Proceedings.StU) Ibid.

'(U) U.S.S. Liberty msg OB0742Z Jun 1967.'(U) U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry 7816~7; Liberty

Incident, 8 Jun 1967; Record of Proceedings.'(U) Robert L. Wilson, oral interview transcript, 6

May 1980.'(U) U.S.S. Liberty msg OB0B56Z Jun 1967.

IO(U) U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry 7816~7; LibertyIncident, 8 Jun 1967; Record of Proceedings.

"(U) U.S.S. Saratoga msg OB1235Z Jun 1967.

"(U) U.S. Naval Court of Inquiry 7816~7; LibertyIncident, 8 Jun 1967; Record of Proceedings.

13(U) MG J.R. Russ, USA, JCS. "Report of the FactFinding Team, U.S.S. Liberty Incident, 8 Jun 1967", p. 39.(Hereafter cited as the Russ Report.)

l4(U) U.S.S. Saratoga msg OB1237Z Jun 1967.15(U) U.S.S. Saratoga msg OBl254Z Jun 1967.16(U) COMSIXTHFLT msg OBl25OZ Jun 1967."(U) CTF 60 msg OB1316Z Jun 1967."(U) COMSIXTHFLT msg OB132OZ Jun 1967."(U) COMSIXTHFLT msg OB1349Z Jun 1967.'o(U) National Military Command Center, "Memo-

randum for the Record, 1530 EDT, 8 Jun 1967 and NSA SeniorOperations Officer Log, 0730-1530, 8 Jun 1967.

"(U) The White House Daily Diary, 8 Jun 1967,9:49 a.m. telephone call from Walt Rostow, p. 2, and the WhiteHouse Memorandum to the President from W. W. Rostow, 9:50a.m., 8 Jun 1967.

"(U) The White House Daily Diary, 8 Jun 1967,10:14 a.m, telephone call from Walt Rostow. p. 3, and Memorandumto the President from W.W. Rostow, 10:15 a.m., 8 Jun 1967.

23(U) Other addressees for U.S. Defense AttacheOffice, Tel Aviv, msg OS1414Z Jun 1967, were: OSD, CNO, JCS,Sixth Fleet, and NAVEUR. USDAO, Tel Aviv msg 151615Z Jun1967.

'4(U) Yurij Nikolaevich Chernyakov was Minister-Counselor at the Soviet Embassy in Washington, D.C., from 1965to 1969. He often substituted for the Ambassador.

"(U) The White House Daily Diary, 8 Jun 1967, p.3 and "hot line" msg to Chairman Kosygin fom President Johnson,8 Jun 1967,11:17 a.m.

"(U) The White House Daily Diary, 8 Jun 1967, p.6.

"(U) JCS msg 081529Z Jun 1967, and COM-SIXTHFLT msg OB1649Z Jun 1967.

"(U) CINCUSNAVEUR msg OB1517Z Jun 1967.19(U) COMSIXTHFLT msg OS1514Z Jun 1967.'o(U) USDAO, Tel Aviv msg 151615Z Jun 1967."(U) U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry 7816~7; Liberty

Incident, 8 Jun 1967; Record of Proceedings."(U) U.S.S. Liberty msg OS1715Z Jun 1967.B(U) DffiNSA msg OB1356Z Jun 1967.34(S SSe) Srin} pro~uct reports: 2r:r::::JR23.67

OB2015Z Jun 1967; 2 ... 24~7, O9OB31Z!Jun 1967; 20Q27~7, 091422Z Jun 1967.

'(U) U,S. Navy Court of-Inquiry 7816~7; LibertyIncident, 8 Jun 1967; Record ofProceedings.

"(U) Ibid."CU) .. Oral interview. transcripts: Robert L. Wilson,

6 May 1980; CTC ClydeW. Way, 6.Jun 1980; and eTC Terry L.McFarland, 23 June 1980.

36 CONPIDENTIAL

EO 1.4. (c)

IIANBhB ViA eOl\HN'f eIIANNB~S OH~Y

P.L. 86-36

Chapter V

The Israeli Explanation (U)

The classification of paragraphs in this chapter which derive from the statement of the Israeli Defence Forces Court of Inquiry results from a government of Israel request to the Department of State that the information "be treated on a restricted and confi-dential basis."

•Fre4- The Israeli Defence Forces Court of Inquiry into the U.S.S. Liberty incident presented its findings to the Military Advocate General who rec-ommended that a preliminary judicial inquiry be held to determine if there was any individual or individuals against whom any charges should be brought. The examining judge was Lieutenant Colonel Yishaya Yerushalmi. He gave his decision under date of 21 July 1967. From the report of that decision comes the following Israeli account and explanation of the attack on the Liberty'

Chronology of Israeli Actions (U)

- 6")- At 0600 hours (local time) on 8 June 1967, an Israeli aircraft, with a naval observer on board, located a ship 70 miles west of Tel Aviv. On the basis of this information, Israeli Navy Headquar-ters marked the object in red (meaning an unidentified target) on the combat information center plot table.

} At about 0900 hours, another Israeli plane reported sighting a ship 20 miles north of Al 'Arish. The pilot reported that the ship was "coloured gray, very bulky, and the bridge amidships." The ship was then identified by the Israelis as a supply vessel of the American Navy; thereupon, the marking on the combat information center plot table was changed to green (a neutral ship).

tei- Later that morning at 1055 hours, the Naval Liaison Officer at Israeli Air Force Headquarters reported to the Acting Chief of Naval Operations at Navy Headquarters that the ship sighted earlier was "an electromagnetic audio-surveillance ship of the U.S. Navy, named Liberty, whose marking was G.T. R. - 5." Upon receiving this data, the Acting Chief of

Naval Operations ordered the target erased from the combat information center plot table because he had no current information as to its location. Thus from this moment on (approximately 1100 hours) the Lib-erty no longer appeared on the combat information center plot table at Israeli Navy Headquarters.

{6+ Between 1100 and 1200 hours, Navy Headquarters received reports that Al Àrish (occupied by Israeli ground troops) was being shelled from the sea. These reports came from two separate sources, the Air-Ground-Support Officer and the Israeli South-ern Command. At 1205 hours, the Head of the Naval Department ordered three torpedo boats of the division at Ashdod to proceed toward Al Àrish to locate the target. Air Force Headquarters was advised of this navy action and it was agreed that, when the torpedo boats located the target, aircraft would be dispatched. Accordingly, the commander of the torpedo boat division was ordered to establish radio contact with the aircraft as soon as they appeared over the target.

(U) The torpedo boats located an uniden-tified target at 1341 hours 20 miles north of Al Àrish and reported that it was moving toward Port Said at a speed of 30 knots. A few minutes later, the torpedo boat division commander reported that the target, then 17 miles from him, was moving at 28 knots, and since he could not overtake it, he requested the dispatch of aircraft towards it. This was done; the aircraft executed a run over the ship (Liberty) in an attempt to identify it but saw no flag or other identification mark. They did, however, report to headquarters that the ship was painted gray and two guns were situated in the bow. On the assumption that the ship was an enemy target, Air Force Head-quarters gave the aircraft an order to attack.

+64- During the first stage of the attack the aircraft strafed the ship with cannon and machine guns and during the second stage dropped bombs on it which caused fires and smoke aboard the ship. As

-CONFIDENTIA-t 37

Chapter V












-CONFIDENTIA-t 37

Chapter V












-CONFIDENTIA-t 37

CONFIDENTIAL

Chapter V


The classification of paragraphs in this chapter which derivefrom the statement of the Israeli Defence Forces Court of Inquiryresults from a government of Israel request to the Department ofState that the information "be treated on a restricted and confidential basis."

fSt- The Israeli Defence Forces Court ofInquiry into the U.S.S. Liberty incident presented itsfindings to the Military Advocate General who recommended that a preliminary judicial inquiry be heldto determine if there was any individual or individualsagainst whom any charges should be brought. Theexamining judge was Lieutenant Colonel YishayaYerushalmi. He gave his decision under date of 21July 1967. From the report of that decision comes thefollowing Israeli account and explanation of the attackon the Liberty'


~ At 0600 hours (local time) on 8 June1967, an Israeli aircraft, with a naval observer onboard, located a ship 70 miles west of Tel Aviv. Onthe basis of this information, Israeli Navy Headquarters marked the object in red (meaning an unidentifiedtarget) on the combat information center plot table.~ At about 0900 hours, another Israeliplane reported sighting a ship 20 miles north of AI'Arish, The pilot reported that the ship was "colouredgray, very bulky, and the bridge amidships." The shipwas then identified by the Israelis as a supply vesselof the American Navy; thereupon, the marking on thecombat information center plot table was changed togreen (a neutral ship).1€1- Later that morning at 1055 hours, theNaval Liaison Officer at Israeli Air Force Headquartersreported to the Acting Chief of Naval Operations atNavy Headquarters that the ship sighted earlier was"an electromagnetic audio-surveillance ship of theU.S. Navy, named Liberty, whose marking was G.T.R.5." Upon receiving this data, the Acting Chief of

Naval Operations ordered the target erased from thecombat information center plot table because he hadno current information as to its location. Thus fromthis moment on (approximately 1100 hours) the Liberty no longer appeared on the combat informationcenter plot table at Israeli Navy Headquarters.

-f€t Between 1100 and 1200 hours, NavyHeadquarters received reports that Al 'Arish (occupiedby Israeli ground troops) was being shelled from thesea. These reports came from two separate sources,the Air-Ground-Support Officer and the Israeli Southern Command. At 1205 hours, the Head of the NavalDepartment ordered three torpedo boats of the divisionat Ashdod to proceed toward Al 'Arish to locate thetarget. Air Force Headquarters was advised of thisnavy action and it was agreed that, when the torpedoboats located the target, aircraft would be dispatched.Accordingly, the commander of the torpedo boatdivision was ordered to establish radio contact withthe aircraft as soon as they appeared over the target.

(U) The torpedo boats located an unidentified target at 1341 hours 20 miles north of AI 'Arishand reported that it was moving toward Port Said ata speed of 30 knots. A few minutes later, the torpedoboat division commander reported that the target,then 17 miles from him, was moving at 28 knots, andsince he could not overtake it, he requested thedispatch of aircraft towards it. This was done; theaircraft executed a run over the ship (Liberty) in anattempt to identify it but saw no flag or otheridentification mark. They did, however, report toheadquarters that the ship was painted gray and twoguns were situated in the bow. On the assumptionthat the ship was an enemy target, Air Force Headquarters gave the aircraft an order to attack.

~ During the first stage of the attackthe aircraft strafed the ship with cannon and machineguns and during the second stage dropped bombs onit which caused fires and smoke aboard the ship. As

CONFIDENTIAL 37

(U) Israeli motor torpedo boat of the class which attacked the Liberty. (Photograph courtesy of Jane's Fighting Ships.)


the torpedo boats drew near, the aircraft were ordered to leave the target. During the last run, a low-flying aircraft reported to headquarters that it saw the marking "CPR-5" on the ship's hull.

-€64- Upon receipt of this information about the ship's marking, the Naval Operations Branch, at approximately 1420 hours, ordered the torpedo boat division commander not to attack inasmuch as the aircraft may have possibly identified the target incor-rectly. The division commander was ordered to ap-proach the ship in order to establish visual contact and to identify it. He reported that the ship appeared to be a merchant or supply vessel and that when he signalled the ship and requested its identification the ship replied with a signal meaning "identify yourself first." At the same time, the division commander was consulting a book on the identification of Arab Navies and making comparisons with the target before him. He concluded that the target was an Egyptian supply ship named El-Kasir. Simultaneously, the commander of another of the torpedo boats informed the division commander that he, too, thought the ship was the El-Kasir. Therefore, at 1436 hours, the division com-mander authorized the torpedo attack to begin. Only after a torpedo struck the ship and one of the torpedo boats approached it from the other side were the markings "CTR-5" noticed on the hull. Then the order was given to cease the attack.

38 -e0NPIDENTIA-lh

tet Throughout the contact, no Israeli plane or torpedo boat saw an American or any other flag on the ship. It was only an Israeli helicopter, sent after the attack to render assistance — if necessary — that noticed a small American flag flying over the ship. At this time, the vessel was finally identified "as an audio-surveillance ship of the U.S. Navy."

Israeli Prosecutor's Charges of Negligence (U)

Based on the foregoing account, the Israeli Chief Military Prosecutor submitted a number of charges of negligence to the examining judge of the Preliminary Inquiry. The examining judge was then to decide whether or not there was sufficient prima facie evidence to justify bringing the accused to trial for negligence. tet Given below are the charges brought by the Chief Military Prosecutor together with the judge's findings. {e} 1. Charge: The first charge related to the failure of the Acting Chief of Naval Operations to report to the Head of the Naval Department that the American ship, Liberty, was seen in the morning hours of the day of the incident sailing in the vicinity of the Israeli coast.





38 -e0NPIDENTIA-lh








38 -e0NPIDENTIA-lh




CONFIDENTIAL

(U) Israeli motor torpedo boat of the class which attacked the Liberty:.(Photograph courtesy of Jane's Fighting Ships.)


the torpedo boats drew near, the aircraft were orderedto leave the target. During the last run, a low-flyingaircraft reported to headquarters that it saw themarking "CPR-5" on the ship's hull.~ Upon receipt of this information aboutthe ship's marking, the Naval Operations Branch, atapproximately 1420 hours, ordered the torpedo boatdivision commander not to attack inasmuch as theaircraft may have possibly identified the target incorrectly. The division commander was ordered to approach the ship in order to establish visual contactand to identify it. He reported that the ship appearedto be a merchant or supply vessel and that when hesignalled the ship and requested its identification theship replied with a signal meaning "identify yourselffirst." At the same time, the division commander wasconsulting a book on the identification of Arab Naviesand making comparisons with the target before him.He concluded that the target was an Egyptian supplyship named El-Kasir, Simultaneously, the commanderof another of the torpedo boats informed the divisioncommander that he, too, thought the ship was the EIKasir. Therefore, at 1436 hours, the division commander authorized the torpedo attack to begin. Onlyafter a torpedo struck the ship and one of the torpedoboats approached it from the other side were themarkings" CTR-5" noticed on the hull. Then the orderwas given to cease the attack.

38 eONPIDHNTIAL

i€t Throughout the contact, no Israeliplane or torpedo boat saw an American or any otherflag on the ship. It was only an Israeli helicopter, sentafter the attack to render assistance - if necessary- that noticed a small American flag flying over theship. At this time, the vessel was finally identified "asan audio-surveillance ship of the U.S. Navy."

Israeli Prosecutor's Charges ofNegligence (D)

i€t" Based on the foregoing account, theIsraeli Chief Military Prosecutor submitted a numberof charges of negligence to the examining judge of thePreliminary Inquiry. The examining judge was then todecide whether or not there was sufficient prima facieevidence to justify bringing the accused to trial fornegligence.fflT Given below are the charges broughtby the Chief Military Prosecutor together with thejudge's findings.t€t 1. Charge: The first charge related tothe failure of the Acting Chief of Naval Operations toreport to the Head of the Naval Department that theAmerican ship, Liberty, was seen in the morning hoursof the day of the incident sailing in the vicinity of theIsraeli coast.

-C-ONFIDEMIA±

Finding: Though the Head of the Naval Department testified that he did not know of the Liberty's presence in the area on the day of the incident, the Officer of the Watch at Navy Headquar-ters testified that the Head of the Naval Department was on the Navy Command Bridge when the Com-manding Officer of the Navy ordered the marking (on the combat information center plot table) of the American supply ship changed to green (indicating a neutral vessel). Since the Acting Chief of Naval Operations was an eyewitness to the event, he con-cluded that the Head of the Naval Department did know about the presence of an American supply ship in the area. In view of this, the examining judge found no negligence on the part of the accused. -fro+ 2. Charge: That the Acting Chief of Naval Operations failed to report to the Head of the Naval Department that the hull markings on the ship observed by one of the attacking aircraft were similar to those on the Liberty.

Finding: Witnesses testified that when the Naval Liaison Officer at the Air Force Headquarters telephoned the Naval Command Bridge about the hull markings and their similarity to those of the Liberty, the officer to whom he spoke repeated the message in a loud voice so that it was heard by all present on the Command Bridge including the Head of the Naval Department. The examining judge stated, therefore, that there was thus no reason to repeat to the Head of the Naval Department a fact that had been audibly announced to those present. The charge was dismissed. +e+ 3. Charge: That the Naval Liaison Officer at the Air Force Headquarters was negligent by not reporting to the Air Force the information about the presence of the Liberty in the area.

Finding: The examining judge con-sidered this charge unfounded. The responsibility for the defense of Israel against enemy naval actions rests solely with the Navy. Even though Air Force Head-quarters ordered the aircraft to attack, it was really an order issued by the Navy, passed on through Air Force Headquarters. The Naval Liaison Officer at the Air Force Headquarters was entitled to assume that the decision to attack was made after considering this report about the Liberty. There was no reason to feed the Air Force with information and considerations that did not concern it. +G+ 4. Charge: That the Naval Depart-ment's order not to attack the ship (the Liberty), "for fear of error and out of uncertainty with regard to the true identity of the ship," was not delivered to the torpedo boat division.

Finding: Though the torpedo boat division commander claimed he never received the message not to attack, the deputy commander of the boat testified that he had received the message and passed it on to the division commander. The examining judge believed that, in the heat of battle, it was possible that the message escaped the awareness of the division commander and, in any event, there was insufficient evidence to commit any accused person to trial.

5. Charge: That it was negligence to give the order to attack a warship without previously establishing, beyond doubt, its national identity and without taking into account the presence of the Amer-ican ship, Liberty, in the vicinity of the coast of Israel.

Finding: To the examining judge, there was no doubt that the dominant factors in the initial attack decision were the speed and course of the target. Those in command were entitled to assume that the reported speed (28 knots) of the ship was correct, within the usual limits of reasonable error of 10-15 percent, relying upon the existing means of determining the speed of the target. It was, therefore, concluded that this was a military vessel, and since the Liberty was classed as a cargo ship, there was no reason for surmising, in view of the speed, that the target could possibly be the ship, Liberty. If one adds to this other factors such as the report of the shelling of the Al `Arish coast for hours on end, the ship's course toward Port Said, the aircraft report that the target was a warship and carried no naval or other identification marks, and the ship's location close to shore in a battle zone, the cumulative effect negates any presumption whatsoever of a connection between the American supply ship and the target discovered by the torpedo boats. Thus, the examining judge concluded that the assumption it was an enemy ship was reasonable and that the order given to the aircraft to attack was justified. -Ee+ 6. Charge: That it was negligent to order the torpedo boat to attack the ship upon an unfounded presumption that it was an Egyptian war-ship, and this as a consequence of not taking reason-able steps to make proper identification.

Finding: The examining judge con-sidered it noteworthy that the identification of the target as the El- Kasir was made both by the division commander and the commander of a second torpedo boat. Upon examining photos of the two ships, he was satisfied that a likeness existed between them, and that an error of identification was possible, especially when the identification was made while the ship was

-elaiNTIORISITI-Ab 39

-C-ONFIDEMIA±









-C-ONFIDEMIA±









Finding: Though the Head of theNaval Department testified that he did not know ofthe Liberty's presence in the area on the day of theincident, the Officer of the Watch at Navy Headquarters testified that the Head of the Naval Departmentwas on the Navy Command Bridge when the Commanding Officer of the Navy ordered the marking (onthe combat information center plot table) of theAmerican supply ship changed to green (indicating aneutral vessel). Since the Acting Chief of NavalOperations was an eyewitness to the event, he concluded that the Head of the Naval Department didknow about the presence of an American supply shipin the area. In view of this, the examining judge foundno negligence on the part of the accused.~ 2. Charge: That the Acting Chief ofNaval Operations failed to report to the Head of theNaval Department that the hull markings on the ship

.observed by one of the attacking aircraft were similarto those on the Liberty.

Finding: Witnesses testified thatwhen the Naval Liaison Officer at the Air ForceHeadquarters telephoned the Naval Command Bridgeabout the hull markings and their similarity to thoseof the Liberty, the officer to whom he spoke repeatedthe message in a loud voice so that it was heard by allpresent on the Command Bridge including the Headof the Naval Department. The examining judge stated,therefore, that there was thus no reason to repeat tothe Head of the Naval Department a fact that hadbeen audibly announced to those present. The chargewas dismissed.1'67- 3. Charge: That the Naval LiaisonOfficer at the Air Force Headquarters was negligentby not reporting to the Air Force the informationabout the presence of the Liberty in the area.

Finding: The examining judge considered this charge unfounded. The responsibility forthe defense of Israel against enemy naval actions restssolely with the Navy. Even though Air Force Headquarters ordered the aircraft to attack, it was reallyan order issued by the Navy, passed on through AirForce Headquarters. The Naval Liaison Officer at theAir Force Headquarters was entitled to assume thatthe decision to attack was made after considering thisreport about the Liberty. There was no reason to feedthe Air Force with information and considerationsthat did not concern it.~ 4. Charge: That the Naval Department's order not to attack the ship (the Liberty), "forfear of error and out of uncertainty with regard to thetrue identity of the ship," was not delivered to thetorpedo boat division.

eONFIDENTIAL

Finding: Though the torpedo boatdivision commander claimed he never received themessage not to attack, the deputy commander of theboat testified that he had received the message andpassed it on to the division commander. The examiningjudge believed that, in the heat of battle, it waspossible that the message escaped the awareness ofthe division commander and, in any event, there wasinsufficient evidence to commit any accused person totrial.~ 5. Charge: That it was negligence togive the order to attack a warship without previouslyestablishing, beyond doubt, its national identity andwithout taking into account the presence of the American ship, Liberty, in the vicinity of the coast ofIsrael.

Finding: To the examining judge,there was no doubt that the dominant factors in theinitial attack decision were the speed and course ofthe target. Those in command were entitled to assumethat the reported speed (28 knots) of the ship wascorrect, within the usual limits of reasonable error of10-15 percent, relying upon the existing means ofdetermining the speed of the target. It was, therefore,concluded that this was a military vessel, and sincethe Liberty was classed as a cargo ship, there was noreason for surmising, in view of the speed, that thetarget could possibly be the ship, Liberty. If one addsto this other factors such as the report of the shellingof the Al 'Arish coast for hours on end, the ship'scourse toward Port Said, the aircraft report that thetarget was a warship and carried no naval or otheridentification marks, and the ship's location close toshore in a battle zone, the cumulative effect negatesany presumption whatsoever of a connection betweenthe American supply ship and the target discoveredby the torpedo boats. Thus, the examining judgeconcluded that the assumption it was an enemy shipwas reasonable and that the order given to the aircraftto attack was justified.~ 6. Charge: That it was negligent toorder the torpedo boat to attack the ship upon anunfounded presumption that it was an Egyptian warship, and this as a consequence of not taking reasonable steps to make proper identification.

Finding: The examining judge considered it noteworthy that the identification of thetarget as the El- Kasir was made both by the divisioncommander and the commander of a second torpedoboat. Upon examining photos of the two ships, he wassatisfied that a likeness existed between them, andthat an error of identification was possible, especiallywhen the identification was made while the ship was

eONFIDENCfIAL 39

(U) U.S.S. Liberty was mistaken by the Israelis for this Egyptian ship, EI-112sir. (Photograph courtesy of Jane's Fighting Ships.)


clouded in smoke. The Chief Military Prosecutor argued that this identification was unreasonable be-cause it was inconceivable to think that this auxiliary ship El-Kasir could shell the Al `Arish coast or that she could move at a speed of 28 knots. In reply, the examining judge said that it seemed reasonable to him that the El- Kasir might have been part of the vessels that shelled the coast and failed to get away from the area or that the ship had come to assist in the evacuation of Egyptian soldiers struggling away from areas occupied by Israeli forces. Further, the judge said that there was no doubt that the Liberty's refusal to identify herself to the torpedo boats contributed largely to the error of identification.

(U) In summation, the judge concluded that in all the circumstances of the case the conduct of the naval officers concerned in the Liberty incident could not be considered unreasonable to an extent which would justify committal for trial.

Explanation Reexamined (U)

(U) Reexamination of Israel's explanation of why its air and naval forces attacked the Liberty reveals egregious errors in both command judgments and operational procedures. -(64- The incident is doubly tragic when it is realized that three hours before the attack occurred, Israeli Navy Headquarters was made aware of the

(U) U.S.S. Liberty arriving in Malta after the attack. (Figure is UNCLASSIFIED)

40 -e0NRDE-W4A-12-








40 -e0NRDE-W4A-12-








40 -e0NRDE-W4A-12-

CONFIDENTIAL

\

(U) U.S.S. Libert)' was mistaken by the Israelis for this Egyptian ship, EI-Kasir.(Photograph courtesy of Jane's Fighting Ships.}


clouded in smoke. The Chief Military Prosecutorargued that this identification was unreasonable because it was inconceivable to think that this auxiliaryship El- Kasir could shell the Al 'Arish coast or thatshe could move at a speed of 28 knots. In reply, theexamining judge said that it seemed reasonable to himthat the El- Kasir might have been part of the vesselsthat shelled the coast and failed to get away from thearea or that the ship had come to assist in theevacuation of Egyptian soldiers struggling away fromareas occupied by Israeli forces. Further, the judgesaid that there was no doubt that the Liberty's refusalto identify herself to the torpedo boats contributedlargely to the error of identification.

(U) In summation, the judge concludedthat in all the circumstances of the case the conductof the naval officers concerned in the Liberty incidentcould not be considered unreasonable to an extentwhich would justify committal for trial.


(U) Reexamination of Israel's explanationof why its air and naval forces attacked the Libertyreveals egregious errors in both command judgmentsand operational procedures.~ The incident is doubly tragic when itis realized that three hours before the attack occurred,Israeli Navy Headquarters was made aware of the

(U) U.S.S. Libert,y arriving in Malta after the attack.(Figure is UNCLASSIFIED)

40 CONFIDH~q:'IAL

Liberty's presence, including exact name, ship type; and hull number. The first error in responsible military operations came when the Liberty's identity was totally erased at 1100 hours from the combat information center plot table at Naval Headquarters because no exact location for her was known after 0900 hours on 8 June.

tel- The next sin of omission was the Israeli Navy's failure to share with the Air Force full details about the Liberty's presence off the Al `Arish coast. This combat parochialism was almost certainly a factor contributing to the attack on the Liberty —the examining judge's opinion to the contrary. Even the Israeli examining judge alluded to such possibility when he said:

Indeed, whoever peruses the ample evidence presented to me, may conceivably draw some lesson regarding the relations between the two arms of the Israel Defence Forces, which were involved in the incident, and the operational procedures in time of war....

-(-64- In spite of the fact that the Israeli Air Force did not have all the information about the Liberty that was available to the Navy, the pilots of the attacking planes were at fault for failing to make positive identification of the Liberty before attacking the ship. Though the pilots testified to the contrary, every official interview of numerous Liberty crewmen gave consistent evidence that indeed the Liberty was flying an American flag — and, further, the weather conditions were ideal to assure its easy observance and identification. These circumstances — prior identifi-cation of the Liberty and easy visibility of the Amer-ican flag — prompted the Department of State to inform the Israeli Government that

the later military attack by Israeli aircraft on the U.S.S. Liberty is quite literally incomprehensible. As a minimum, the attack must be condemned as an act of military reck-lessness reflecting wanton disregard for human life.'

)- In the chain of mistakes, the next one occurred when the division commander of the attacking torpedo boats failed to hear his deputy tell him that Naval Headquarters had ordered the boats not to attack for fear of having mistaken the ship's identity. The Israeli examining judge exonerated the corn-

mander because he believed it quite possible that the message "escaped the awareness of the division com-mander in the heat of battle." +6+ The final error was the identification of the Liberty as the Egyptian supply ship El-Kasir. The fact that two separate torpedo boat commanders made the same false identification only raises the question of the veracity of both commanders. The El-Kasir was approximately one-quarter of the Liberty's tonnage, about one-half its length, and offered a radically different silhouette. To claim that the Liberty closely resembled the El-Kasir was most illogical. (U) The Department of State expressed its view of the torpedo attack in these words:

The subsequent attack by Israeli torpedo boats, substantially after the vessel was or should have been identified by Israeli military forces, manifests the same reckless disregard for human life. The silhouette and conduct of U.S.S. Liberty readily distinguished it from any vessel that could have been considered hostile....It could and should have been scrutinized visually at close range before torpedos were fired....The United States Government expects the Government of Israel also to take the disciplinary measures which international law requires in the event of wrongful conduct by the military personnel of a State...[and) to issue instructions necessary to ensure that United States personnel and property will not again be endangered by the wrongful actions of Israeli military personnel.'

(U) When NSA's Deputy Director read the decision of the Israeli Defence Forces Preliminary Inquiry, he summed up his personal feelings on the subject by calling it "a nice whitewash.'"

Notes


l (U) Israel Defence Forces, Preliminary Inquiry File 1/67, 21 July 1967. Forwarded to Director, NSA under cover of Department of State (INR) Memo, 22 August 1967.

2(U) Department of State Telegram No. 210139, to the U.S. Embassy, Tel Aviv, 11 June 1967.

3(U) Ibid. 4(U) A penned long-hand comment by Louis W.

Tordella, Deputy Director, NSA, 26 August 1967, attached to the copy of the Israel Defence Forces Preliminary Inquiry (cited in footnote 1).










Notes















Notes






Liberty's presence, including exact name, ship type',and hull number. The first error in responsible militaryoperations came when the Liberty's identity was totallyerased at 1100 hours from the combat informationcenter plot table at Naval Headquarters because noexact location for her was known after 0900 hours on8 June.ter The next sin of omission was theIsraeli Navy's failure to share with the Air Force fulldetails about the Liberty's presence off the Al •Arishcoast. This combat parochialism was almost certainlya factor contributing to the attack on the Liberty the examining judge's opinion to the contrary. Eventhe Israeli examining judge alluded to such possibilitywhen he said:

Indeed, whoever peruses the ample evidence presented to me,may conceivably draw some lesson regarding the relationsbetween the two arms of the Israel Defence Forces, whichwere involved in the incident, and the operational proceduresin time of war....

~ In spite of the fact that the Israeli AtrForce did not have all the information about theLiberty that was available to the Navy, the pilots ofthe attacking planes were at fault for failing to makepositive identification of the Liberty before attackingthe ship. Though the pilots testified to the contrary,every official interview of numerous Liberty crewmengave consistent evidence that indeed the Liberty wasflying an American flag - and, further, the weatherconditions were ideal to assure its easy observance andidentification. These circumstances - prior identification of the Liberty and easy visibility of the American flag - prompted the Department of State toinform the Israeli Government that

the later military attack by Israeli aircraft on the U.S.S.Liberty is quite literally incomprehensible. AB a minimum,the attack must be condemned as an act of military recklessness reflecting wanton disregard for human life. 2

~ In the chain of mistakes, the next oneoccurred when the division commander of the attackingtorpedo boats failed to hear his deputy tell him thatNaval Headquarters had ordered the boats not toattack for fear of having mistaken the ship's identity.The Israeli examining judge exonerated the com-

CONfIDENTIAL

mander because he believed it quite possible that themessage "escaped the awareness of the division commander in the heat of battle."tet The final error was the identificationof the Liberty as the Egyptian supply ship El- Kasir,The fact that two separate torpedo boat commandersmade the same false identification only raises thequestion of the veracity of both commanders. The ElKasir was approximately one-quarter of the Liberty'stonnage, about one-half its length, and offered aradically different silhouette. To claim that the Libertyclosely resembled the El-Kasir was most illogical.(U) The Department of State expressedits view of the torpedo attack in these words:

The subsequent attack by Israeli torpedo boats, substantiallyafter the vessel was or should have been identified by Israelimilitary forces, manifests the same reckless disregard forhuman life. The silhouette and conduct of V.S.S. Libertyreadily distinguished it from any vessel that could have beenconsidered hostile....It could and should have been scrutinizedvisually at close range before torpedos were fired....TheVnited States Government expects the Government of Israelalso to take the disciplinary measures which internationallaw requires in the event of wrongful conduct by the militarypersonnel of a State... [and] to issue instructions necessary toensure that United States personnel and property will notagain be endangered by the wrongful actions of Israelimilitary personnel. J

(U) When NSA's Deputy Director read thedecision of the Israeli Defence Forces PreliminaryInquiry, he summed up his personal feelings on thesubject by calling it "a nice whitewash.:"

NotesSource documents are in the "Crisis Collection" of the NSA History

Collection.

'(V) Israel Defence Forces, Preliminary Inquiry File1/67, 21 July 1967. Forwarded to Director, NSA under cover ofDepartment of State (lNR) Memo, 22 August 1967.

2(U) Department of State Telegram No. 210139, tothe V.S. Embassy, Tel Aviv, 11 June 1967.

'(V) Ibid.'(V) A penned long-hand comment by Louis W.

Tordella, Deputy Director, NSA, 26 August 1967, attached to thecopy of the Israel Defence Forces Preliminary Inquiry (cited infootnote 1).

CONFIDHNCfIAL 41

(U) U .S.S. Davis, one of the two destroyers to reach the Liberty, runs a line to the stricken ship. The Davis assumed all communications functions for the Liberty.

((C - Photograph courtesy of Robert L. Wilson, NSA.)








(V) V.S.S. Dayis, one of the two destroyers to reach the Liherty, runs a line to the stricken ship. The Dayis assumed allcommunications functions for the Liherty.

«e eel'll - Photograph courtesy of Robert L. Wilson, NSA.)(Figure is UNCLASSIFIED)

~---------------

Chapter VI

Recovery and Initial Assessment (U)

(U) Sixteen and one-half hours after the Liberty was attacked, U.S. assistance finally reached her. At 0625 hours (local time) on 8 June, the destroyers U.S.S. Davis (DD-937) and U.S.S. Massey (DD-778) rendezvoused with the ship at 33-OIN, 31-59E, a position 420 miles east-southeast of Soudha Bay, Crete. The carrier, U.S.S. America, was still 138 miles from the Liberty, closing at 30 knots.'

Medical Assistance (U) (U) The Commander of Destroyer Squad-ron Twelve, Captain H.G. Leahy, and other personnel from the Davis and Massey immediately boarded the Liberty to assist in controlling damage and in treating the injured. Only after this transfer did Commander McGonagle relinquish his watch on the bridge. He was exhausted and in danger of having his wounds become infected. Temporary command of the Liberty was assumed by the Operations Officer of Destroyer Squad-ron Twelve. Upon completion of a medical assessment, the Commander, Sixth Fleet was advised that the Liberty was ready to transfer 15 seriously wounded and 9 dead to the America when its helicopters arrived. The possibility of anyone being alive in the flooded spaces was deemed unlikely. Bulkheads were firm and the flooding contained, so that the Liberty was completely mobile to 10 knots. The Davis assumed all communications functions for the Liberty. Further, Sixth Fleet was advised that, upon arrival of the fleet ocean tug, U.S.S. Papago, the destroyer Massey could return to fleet duties.2 (U) While Liberty's on-board needs were being tended to, two boats from the destroyers searched the area around the Liberty for two hours looking for classified papers that might be washing out from the pear-shaped, gaping hole in the flooded Research Department spaces; no classified items were recovered.' (U) At approximately 0915 hours, all ships got under way and headed toward the carrier America at 10 knots. By 1030 hours, two helicopters from the

America reached the Liberty and began evacuating the seriously wounded back to the carrier. One hour later, the America rendezvoused with the Liberty. Thereafter, the group of ships set a course for Soudha Bay, Crete, some 300 miles away.

Commander, Sixth Fleet Arrives (U)

(U) Later that afternoon, Vice Admiral William I. Martin, Commander, Sixth Fleet, boarded the Liberty for one hour to visit its captain and crew and to personally survey the damages sustained. Fol-lowing his visit, Vice Admiral Martin recommended to the Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Navy Europe, Admiral John S. McCain, Jr., that the Liberty proceed direct to Malta for dry docking rather than to Soudha Bay first because of the primary necessity to protect the cryptomaterial and equipment. Admiral McCain gave his approval.' (U) Also visiting the Liberty during the late afternoon of the 9th was Captain Russell Arthur, Sixth Fleet Maintenance Officer, who reported to the U.S. Commander-in-Chief, Europe the following cor-rective actions: "established water-tight boundaries at frames 52 and 78 and at second-deck level and made repairs to gyro, engine-order telegraph, rudder-angle indicator, fathometer, sound-powered phones and bridge-steering control." The Liberty's crew was aug-mented as necessary, and accompanied by the tug Papago, and the destroyer, Davis, she proceeded toward Malta at 10 knots.'

Replacement Inquiries (U)

(C CCO) A possible replacement for the Liberty was already being considered. At approximately 1300 hours, the Director, Naval Security Group Europe sent a message to I Ithe America and

'the Little Rock requesting the status of Arabic linguists (civilian and military) aboard the Liberty for possible transfer to the U.S.S. Bel-

-CONFIDENTIA-fr 43

Chapter VI










-CONFIDENTIA-fr 43

Chapter VI










-CONFIDENTIA-fr 43

CONfIDEN'fIAL

Chapter VI


(V) Sixteen and one-half hours after theLiberty was attacked, V.S. assistance finally reachedher. At 0625 hours (local time) on 8 June, thedestroyers V.S.S. Davis (DD-937) and V.S.S. Massey(DD-778) rendezvoused with the ship at 33-0IN, 3159E, a position 420 miles east-southeast of SoudhaBay, Crete. The carrier, V.S.S. America, was still 138miles from the Liberty, closing at 30 knots.'

Medical Assistance (U)

(V) The Commander of Destroyer Squadron Twelve, Captain H. G. Leahy, and other personnelfrom the Davis and Massey immediately boarded theLiberty to assist in controlling damage and in treatingthe injured. Only after this transfer did CommanderMcGonagle relinquish his watch on the bridge. He wasexhausted and in danger of having his wounds becomeinfected. Temporary command of the Liberty wasassumed by the Operations Officer of Destroyer Squadron Twelve. Upon completion of a medical assessment,the Commander, Sixth Fleet was advised that theLiberty was ready to transfer 15 seriously woundedand 9 dead to the America when its helicoptersarrived. The possibility of anyone being alive in theflooded spaces was deemed unlikely. Bulkheads werefirm and the flooding contained, so that the Libertywas completely mobile to 10 knots. The Davis assumedall communications functions for the Liberty. Further,Sixth Fleet was advised that, upon arrival of the fleetocean tug, V.S.S. Papago, the destroyer Massey couldreturn to fleet duties. 2

(V) While Liberty's on-board needs werebeing tended to, two boats from the destroyerssearched the area around the Liberty for two hourslooking for classified papers that might be washing outfrom the pear-shaped, gaping hole in the floodedResearch Department spaces; no classified items wererecovered. 3

(V) At approximately 0915 hours, all shipsgot under way and headed toward the carrier Americaat 10 knots. By 1030 hours, two helicopters from the

America reached the Liberty and began evacuatingthe seriously wounded back to the carrier. One hourlater, the America rendezvoused with the Liberty.Thereafter, the group of ships set a course for SoudhaBay, Crete, some 300 miles away.


(V) Later that afternoon, Vice AdmiralWilliam 1. Martin, Commander, Sixth Fleet, boardedthe Liberty for one hour to visit its captain and crewand to personally survey the damages sustained. Following his visit, Vice Admiral Martin recommended tothe Commander-in-Chief, V.S. Navy Europe, AdmiralJohn S. McCain, Jr., that the Liberty proceed directto Malta for dry docking rather than to Soudha Bayfirst because of the primary necessity to protect thecryptomaterial and equipment. Admiral McCain gavehis approval. 4

(V) Also visiting the Liberty during thelate afternoon of the 9th was Captain Russell Arthur,Sixth Fleet Maintenance Officer, who reported to theV. S. Commander-in-Chief, Europe the following corrective actions: "established water-tight boundaries atframes 52 and 78 and at second-deck level and maderepairs to gyro, engine-order telegraph, rudder-angleindicator, fathometer, sound-powered phones andbridge-steering control." The Liberty's crew was augmented as necessary, and accompanied by the tugPapago; and the destroyer, Davis, she proceededtoward Malta at 10 knots. 5


(6 660) A possible replacement for the Libertywas already being considered. At approximately 1300hours, the Director, Naval Security Group Europesent a message t0L] u .uuu ItlIeAmeficaaridI the Little Rock requesting thestatus of Arabic linguists (civilian and military) aboardthe Liberty for possible transfer to the V.S.S. Bel-

··EO 1. 4. (c)

IIANBf:;H VIA COMlNJ' CIiANNHf:;S ONf:;Y CONfIDEN'fIAL 43

(U) Helicopter from the U.S.S. America lowers a litter to receive the Liberty's wounded. The helicopter took the wounded back to America, which was several miles away.

- Photograph courtesy of Robert L. Wilson, NSA.) (Figure is UNCLASSIFIED) EO 1.4.(c)

moat, another technical research ship just arrived in Norfolk, Viriginia, for repairs.6 Three hours later, at 1555, replied to this inquiry. The only remaining Arabic linguist aboard the Liberty was Robert L. Wilson (NSA civilian); all others were wounded (and evacuated), killed, or missing. also forwarded Lieutenant Bennett's request that a team from the Naval Security Group Europe meet the Liberty when she docked at Malta to assist in evalu-ation of compromise of cryptomaterials and prepara-tion of reports.'

Recovery of Sensitive Materials (U)

(U) Mounting concern over the possible loss of sensitive documents drifting out of the Liberty's

44 -CONFIDENTEkfr

ruptured Research Department's operations space prompted NAVEUR to direct Sixth Fleet on 9 June to

do whatever is feasible to keep any Soviet ships out of Liberty's wake.... maintain observation of Liberty's wake and if possible find out what sort of documents are being lost in the wake....take whatever steps may be reasonable and appropriate to reduce possibility of compromise, noting that a compromise could have both political and technical aspects.'

(U) Liberty's escorts reacted quickly and most effectively to minimize the uncontrollable loss of sensitive materials. Though a Soviet guided-missile destroyer (DDG 626/4) of the Kildin class remained in the vicinity of the Liberty between 1320 and 1600 hours on the 9th, she was kept under constant sur-veillance and did not stop or recover anything. The Davis, Massey, or Papago trailed in Liberty's wake-constantly to recover papers adrift. The first night,






44 -CONFIDENTEkfr









44 -CONFIDENTEkfr




eONflf)EN'fIAL

(U) Helicopter from the U.S.S. America lowers a litter to receive the Liberty's wounded. Thehelicopter took the wounded hack to America, which was several miles away.

He ee8) Photograph courtesy of Robert L. Wilson, NSA.)(Figure is UNCLASSIFIED) 'EO 1.4. (c)

mont, another technical research ship just.arrivedjnNorfolk, Viriginia, for re?airs,6Threehours later, at1555, I Ireplied to this inquiry. The onlyremaining Arabic linguist aboard the Liberty wasRobert L. Wilson (NSA civilian); all others werewounded (and evacuated), killed, or missing.I Ialso forwarded Lieutenant Bennett's request that ateam from the Naval Security Group Europe meet theLiberty when she docked at Malta to assist in evaluation of compromise of cryptomaterials and preparation of reports. 7


CU) Mounting concern over the possibleloss of sensitive documents drifting out of the Liberty's

ruptured Research Department's operations spaceprompted NAVEURtodirect Sixth Fleet on 9 June to

do whatever is feaeible to keep any Soviet ships out of Liberty'swake....maintain observation of Liberty's wake and if possiblefind-out what sort of documents are being lost in the wake.... takewhatever steps may be reasonable and appropriate to reducepossibility of compromise, noting that a compromise could haveboth political and technical aspects.'

(U) Liberty's escorts reacted quickly andmost effectively to minimize the uncontrollable loss ofsensitive materials. Though a Soviet guided-missiledestroyer (DDG 626/4) of the Kildin class remainedin the vicinity of the Liberty between 1320 and 1600hours on the 9th, she was kept under constant surveillance and did not stop or recover anything. TheDavis, Massey, or Papago trailed in Liberty's wakeconstantly to recover papers adrift. The first night,

44 CONFIDENTIAL I1AN9I:.E ,q,\ COMIN'f ClUNNEI:.8 ONI:.¥

(U) VADM William I. Martin (right), Com-mander of Sixth Fleet, visited the Liberty on the afternoon of 9 June. (.(C CCO) Photograph courtesy of Robert L. Wilson, NSA.)


the Papago picked up one classified item ten miles behind Liberty.9 (C CCO) Enroute to Malta, the Papago continued to take exceptional measures to recover materials. Always in Liberty's wake, she used boat hooks and crab nets to pick up floating material. Lights were rigged on Papago's bridge wing so that visibility at night was even better than during the day. When material could not be recovered, Papago ran over it with her propeller and then backed down over it to shred the paper into small pieces. Although some paper with typing on it did not disintegrate in nine hours when placed in water by Papago's CO, it was believed that ocean-wave action would have caused the fanfold paper (which was in multimessage blank lengths) to ball up and sink or at least not be easily visible. Total materials recovered by the Papago weighed eight pounds; highest classification was secret codeword (U) In Washington, after the general details of the attack on the Liberty had been absorbed,

there was, quite naturally, a clamor for specific information about casualties — their names and extent of injuries. The Liberty forwarded the best information obtainable, but data about those missing was elusive. During the Israeli attack and immediately thereafter, the Liberty conducted no search for per-sonnel because none had been reported overboard and she was trying to clear the area as soon as possible. On 10 June, the U.S. Commander-in-Chief, Europe notified JCS that the Liberty's flooded compartment could not be opened to account for missing personnel until the ship was drydocked. To do otherwise would risk further flooding and peril the ship and the lives of the survivors who were taking the crippled vessel to port.''

Assistance to NSA Personnel -(C CCO)

(C CCO) At NSA, when it was learned (through Navy personnel channels) that its employees Donald L. Blalock and Allen M. Blue were listed among Liberty's casualties, steps were taken to obtain more definite information and to notify next of kin. Late on the night of 8-9 June, the Chief and Deputy Chief, NSA Civilian Personnel (Messrs. William M. Holleran and Albert W. Ulino) drove to the Silver Spring home of Allen Blue's wife, Patsy, to notify her that Allen was missing in action. 2

On 10 June, the Director, NSA sent a message to NSA Europe directing that a represent-ative be sent to meet the Liberty at Malta to provide maximum assistance and guidance in respect to NSA personnel, local liaison, and informational reporting to NSA. The Director, NSA directed NSA Europe to arrange for Robert L. Wilson's transportation home by quickest means and to relay messages for his wife. All appropriate assistance was to be given to Donald L. Blalock in arranging for his return to the U.S. Information copies of the message were sent to Senior U.S. Liaison Officer, London and to the Director, Naval Security Group Europe."

Cleanup Continues (U)

(U) As the Liberty steamed westward on 10 June, Commander McGonagle had the shrapnel removed from his leg and was resting comfortably. With adequate provisions of food, fuel, and water on board ship to reach Malta, there was concern about crew morale and Sixth Fleet was requested to have a helicopter pick up the Liberty's outgoing mail as soon

-e0P+RDENT4A-fr 45 EO 1.4.(c)





















CONFIDHN'IAL

(0 GGO) At NSA. when it was learned (throughNavy personnel channels) that its employees DonaldL. Blalock and Allen M. Blue were listed amongLiberty's casualties. steps were taken to obtain moredefinite information and to notify next of kin. Late onthe night of 8-9 June, the Chief and Deputy Chief,NSA Civilian Personnel (Messrs. William M. Holleranand Albert W. Ulino) drove to the Silver Spring homeof Allen Blue's wife, Patsy, to notify her that Allenwas missing in action.'?(C CCO) On 10 June, the Director, NSA senta message to NSA Europe directing that a representative be sent to meet the Liberty at Malta to providemaximum assistance and guidance in respect to NSApersonnel, local liaison, and informational reporting toNSA. The Director. NSA directed NSA Europe toarrange for Robert L. Wilson's transportation homeby quickest means and to relay messages for his wife.All appropriate assistance was to be given to DonaldL. Blalock in arranging for his return to the U. S.Information copies of the message were sent to SeniorU. S. Liaison Officer, London and to the Director,Naval Security Group Europe. 13

Assistance to NSA Per~onnel (C CeO)

(U) As the Liberty steamed westward on10 June, Commander McGonagle had the shrapnelremoved from his leg and was resting comfortably.With adequate provisions of food, fuel, and water onboard ship to reach Malta, there was concern aboutcrew morale and Sixth Fleet was requested to have ahelicopter pick up the Liberty's outgoing mail as soon


the Papago picked up one classified item ten milesbehind Libert-y,'(0 CCO) Enroute to Malta, the Papago continued to take exceptional measures to recover materials.Always in Liberty's wake, she used boat hooks andcrab nets to pick up floating material. Lights wererigged on Papago's bridge wing so that visibility atnight was even better than during the day. Whenmaterial could not be recovered, Papago ran over itwith her propeller and then backed down over it toshred the paper into small pieces. Although somepaper with typing on it did not disintegrate in ninehours when placed in water by Papago'e CO, it wasbelieved that ocean-wave action would have caused thefanfold paper (which was in multimessage blanklengths) to ball up and sink or at least not be easilyvisible. Total materials recovered by the Papagoweighed eight pounds; highest classification was secretcodeword I to(U) In Washington. after the general de-tails of the attack on the Liberty had been absorbed,

there was. quite naturally, a clamor for specificinformation about casualties - their names andextent of injuries. The Liberty forwarded the bestinformation obtainable, but data about those missingwas elusive. During the Israeli attack and immediatelythereafter. the Liberty conducted no search for personnel because none had been reported overboard andshe was trying to clear the area as soon as possible.On 10 June. the U.S. Commander-in-Chief, Europenotified JCS that the Liberty's flooded compartmentcould not be opened to account for missing personneluntil the ship was drydocked. To do otherwise wouldrisk further flooding and peril the ship and the livesof the survivors who were taking the crippled vessel toport.!'

(D) VADM William I. Martin (right). Commander of Sixth Fleet. visited the Liherty onthe afternoon of 9 June.((g ggQ) Photograph courtesy of Robert L. Wilson. NSA.)


IIANBbB ViA eO'P.HN'f eIIANNBbS ON:b¥ eONFIDBNCfIAL 45EO 1. 4 . (c)

(U) Liberty's forward dish antenna after the strafing attack by Israeli jets. Photograph courtesy of Robert L. Wilson, NSA.)


46 -eeNPIDENTI-A± -}heiBtE-viA-eoNwil-etweitts-ONL-I'







COf\PIDEf\TIAL

(U) Liberty's forward dish antenna after the strafing attack by Israeli jets.HEl ElElS) - Photograph courtesy of Robert L. Wilson, NSA.)


46 CONPIDENTIAL IIANBLH YIA CO:r.IIN'f CIIANNHLS ONL\'

1

as possible and at the same time deliver mail addressed to the ship's company." The Liberty continued clean-up operations aboard ship as well as the grisly task of accounting for personnel that were missing. On 11 June, the Papago recovered one body floating six miles astern of the Liberty; another person previously re-ported missing was now confirmed dead after recovery aboard ship.'

Command Investigations Initiated (U)

(U) While the Liberty limped steadily to-ward Malta under the watchful protection of the Davis and Papago, U.S. military commands in the Pentagon and in Europe were feverishly arranging for the drydocking of the ship plus full-scale investigations of the events and circumstances surrounding the attack itself. The Joint Chiefs of Staff appointed a fact-finding team on 9 June and initiated plans for the team to visit, in turn, the Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Navy Europe; U.S. Commander-in-Chief, Europe; Commander, Sixth Fleet; and the U.S.S. Libert y. I6 (U) On the 10th, after conferring with the Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Navy Europe, the U.S. Commander-in-Chief, Europe recommended to JCS that a Navy Court of Inquiry be established. In his message to JCS, CINCEUR gave his rationale for this action as follows:

Have reviewed available data with respect to Liberty with CINCUSNAVEUR in general frame of chronology before acci-dental attack, during attack and subsequent thereto. We both have many very pertinent and as yet unanswered questions as we appreciate Washington has. At the same time, [it] must be recognized [that] crew members of Liberty from whom answers must be gotten are at point of exhaustion, suffering from wounds and shock, dead or missing. It simply does not make sense, legally or otherwise, to initiate barrage of uncorrelated questioning via long-haul communications at this time. Ob-viously facts must be developed involving actions and judgments of crew, Liberty command and chain of command, and also legal base must be established for possible claims against government of Israel. Therefore, I strongly endorse establish-ment of Court of Inquiry by Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Navy Europe, as proper procedure...although it may be somewhat time-consuming and create impatience among those who desire more rapid answers.

JCS gave immediate concurrence and on 11 June, the Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Navy Europe convened the court in London with directions to proceed promptly to the Mediterranean and board the Liberty at sea as soon as possible.' (U) In Israel, too, high-level investigations were being considered. On 13 June, the Israeli Defence Force Chief of Staff, General Rabin, appointed an official Court of Inquiry to examine the Liberty incident."

Preparations at Malta (U)

(U) To provide for the handling of the Liberty when she arrived at Malta, Admiral McCain, activated Task Force (TF) 100, effective 12 June, under the command of Rear Admiral Henry A. Ren-ken, Commander, Service Force Atlantic Fleet sta-tioned in Norfolk, Virginia. CTF 100 was charged with:

1. Supervising the drydocking, removal, and ship-ment of remains of personnel killed in action;

2. Preventing disclosure of classified information and material to unauthorized personnel; and

3. Readying the Liberty for repair by Com-mander, Service Force Sixth Fleet. These functions were expected to be completed within two days after Liberty's expected arrival in Malta on 13 June. Subordinate task group commanders were instructed to be prepared to report in person to Rear Admiral Renken at the U.S. Embassy in Malta by noon, 12 June."' (U) Of the eight subordinate task groups that comprised Task Force 100, the Director, Naval Security Group Europe was directed to provide person-nel for TG 100.4, (Security); this group was to assume responsibility for all materials requiring special han-dling, including their removal from the Liberty, trans-fer to secure storage, and continuous security at all times. 20 (C CCO) Captain Carl M. Smith, Director, Na- val Security Group Atlantic, was designated Com-mander, TG 100.4; other TG 100.4 personnel were Commander E. H. Platzek; Lieutenant Commander Benjamin M. Bishop; Lieutenant Philip G. Firestone, USNR; Lieutenant R. H. Lee; Lieutenant M. H. Bennett (from the Sigint component aboard the Lib-erty); and CTC Alfred J. Pawlinkowski. Additionally, NSA Europe named Lieutenant Colonel Robert T. Green, USAF and Clarence R. Klumfoot (NSA security officer) to assist TG 100.4 as necessary.' Of this group, Bishop, Firestone, and Pawlinkowski were fur-ther designated to assist Lieutenant Bennett, as he had requested, with the evaluation of security com-promise and preparation of required reports. 22 (S CCO) To assist TG 100.6 (Communications) with its services, the Director, Naval Security Group Europe also arranged

for TF 100 inasmuch as the communications guardship provided by Sixth Fleet to the Task Force lacked the capability. 23 (U) After Rear Admiral Renken left Nor- folk, guidance for his TG 100.3 (Public Affairs) was

-S-ReftET 47

EO 1.4.(c) EO 1.4.(d)












-S-ReftET 47

EO 1.4.(c) EO 1.4.(d)












-S-ReftET 47

EO 1.4.(c) EO 1.4.(d)


After Rear Admiral Renken left Norfor his TG 100.3 (Public Affairs) was

as possible and at the same time deliver mail addressedto the ship's company. 14 The Liberty continued cleanup operations aboard ship as well as the grisly task ofaccounting for personnel that were missing. On 11June, the Papago recovered one body floating six milesastern of the Liberty; another person previously reported missing was now confirmed dead after recoveryaboard ship. 15


(U) While the Liberty limped steadily toward Malta under the watchful protection of the Davisand Papago, U.S. military commands in the Pentagonand in Europe were feverishly arranging for thedrydocking of the ship plus full-scale investigations ofthe events and circumstances surrounding the attackitself. The Joint Chiefs of Staff appointed a factfinding team on 9 June and initiated plans for theteam to visit, in turn, the Commander-in-Chief, U. S.Navy Europe; U. S. Commander-in-Chief, Europe;Commander, Sixth Fleet; and the U.S.S. Liberty,"(U) On the 10th, after conferring with theCommander-in-Chief, U.S. Navy Europe, the U.S.Commander-in-Chief, Europe recommended to JCSthat a Navy Court of Inquiry be established. In hismessage to JCS, CINCEUR gave his rationale for thisaction as follows:

Have reviewed available data with respect to Liberty withCINCUSNAVEUR in general frame of chronology before accidental attack, during attack and subsequent thereto. We bothhave many very pertinent and as yet unanswered questions aswe appreciate Washington has. At the same time, [it] must berecognized [that] crew members of Liberty from whom answersmust be gotten are at point of exhaustion, suffering fromwounds and shock, dead or missing. It simply does not makesense, legally or otherwise, to initiate barrage of uncorrelatedquestioning via long-haul communications at this time. Obviously facts must be developed involving actions and judgmentsof crew, Liberty command and chain of command, and alsolegal base must be established for possible claims againstgovernment of Israel. Therefore, I strongly endorse establishment of Court of Inquiry by Commander-in-Chief, U.S. NavyEurope, as proper procedure... although it may be somewhattime-consuming and create impatience among those who desiremore rapid answers.

JCS gave immediate concurrence and on 11 June, theCommander-in-Chief, U.S. Navy Europe convened thecourt in London with directions to proceed promptlyto the Mediterranean and board the Liberty at sea assoon as possible. 17

(U) In Israel, too, high-level investigationswere being considered. On 13 June, the Israeli DefenceForce Chief of Staff, General Rabin, appointed anofficial Court of Inquiry to examine the Libertyincident. 18

SHCRH't'

(U) To provide for the handling of theLiberty when she arrived at Malta, Admiral McCain,activated Task Force (TF) 100, effective 12 June,under the command of Rear Admiral Henry A. Renken, Commander, Service Force Atlantic Fleet stationed in Norfolk, Virginia. CTF 100 was chargedwith:

1. Supervising the drydocking, removal, and shipment of remains of personnel killed in action;

2. Preventing disclosure of classified informationand material to unauthorized personnel; and

3. Readying the Liberty for repair by Commander, Service Force Sixth Fleet.These functions were expected to be completed withintwo days after Liberty's expected arrival in Malta on13 June. Subordinate task group commanders wereinstructed to be prepared to report in person to RearAdmiral Renken at the U. S. Embassy in Malta bynoon, 12 June. 19

(U) Of the eight subordinate task groupsthat comprised Task Force 100, the Director, NavalSecurity Group Europe was directed to provide personnel for TG 10004, (Security); this group was to assumeresponsibility for all materials requiring special handling, including their removal from the Liberty, transfer to secure storage, and continuous security at alltimes. 20

(G GGO) Captain Carl M. Smith, Director, Naval Security Group Atlantic, was designated Commander, TG 100.4; other TG 100.4 personnel wereCommander E. H. Platzek; Lieutenant CommanderBenjamin M. Bishop; Lieutenant Philip G. Firestone,USNR; Lieutenant R. H. Lee; Lieutenant M. H.Bennett (from the Sigint component aboard the Liberty); and CTC Alfred J. Pawlinkowski. Additionally,NSA Europe named Lieutenant Colonel Robert T.Green, USAF and Clarence R. Klumfoot (NSA securityofficer) to assist TG 100.4 as necessary. II Of thisgroup, Bishop, Firestone, and Pawlinkowski were further designated to assist Lieutenant Bennett, as hehad requested, with the evaluation of security compromise and preparation of required reports. 22

(8 GGO) To assist TG 100.6 (Communications)with its services, the Director Naval Securit GrouEurope also arranged

for TF 100 inasmuch as the communications guardshipprovided by Sixth Fleet to the Task Force lacked thecapability. 23

(U)

folk, guidance

1. 4. (c)EO 1. 4 . (d)

IIANBI::E ViA COflfHN'f CIIANNEI::S ONI::Y

---------------------

SHCRH't' 47

classified matter safeguarded. If newsmen asked about these restrictions, they were to be told that the actions were being taken primarily out of consideration of families of missing personnel, since remains may be in the exposed compartment and visible to photogra-phers; and because communications spaces normally contain classified equipment and are closed to the public, since it must be assumed that some classified equipment is exposed. Additionally, no interviews of the officers or crew of the Liberty were to be granted until authorized by Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Navy Europe, after completion of the Court of Inquiry. If queried by the press about the reason for such policy, the security officer (TG 100.4) was to say that these men are potential witnesses before the Court of Inquiry and it is the desire of the convening authority and the President of the Court that recollections of witnesses remain as fresh as possible and not be influenced in any way by outside discussions. The doctrine of security at the source was to be followed at all times and there was to be no censorship of newsmen's material. 25

(U) Upon arriving at Malta, Rear Admiral Renken met with his task group commanders and American embassy officials on Tuesday, 13 June, to complete plans for docking operations, which would commence on Liberty's arrival — then estimated at about 2300 hours that night.26

NSA civilian, Donald L. Blalock, was a member of the Sigint unit aboard the Liberty. Slightly wounded, he was evacuated to the America with the rest of the Liberty's wounded. — Photograph courtesy of Robert L. Wilson, NSA.)

(Figure is r(INFIDZNT U)

Blalock Returns Home (U)

compiled and radioed for delivery to him as he passed through Rota, Spain, enroute to Malta. TG 100.3's mission was to satisfy the legitimate interests of newsmen without compromise of classified information, unwarranted interference with operations, or invasion of individual rights of privacy. Further, it was directed that all public affairs activities be conducted with the aim of maintaining the credibility of the official announcements regarding the mission of U.S.S. Lib-erty; i.e., she was a communications research ship that was diverted from her research assignment to provide improved communication-relay links with the several U.S. embassies around the entire Mediterra-nean during the current troubles.' (U) Specific ground rules were set forth for press coverage of Liberty's arrival in Malta. Newsmen were not to be permitted in the immediate vicinity of the dockyard while the Liberty entered the dock, unless CTF 100 was satisfied that the torpedo hole was adequately covered; while the drydock was pumped out, regardless of covering; and after the dock was pumped out, until all remains were removed and

(C CCO) That same afternoon, NSA civilian, Donald L. Blalock (earlier evacuated from the Liberty to the U.S.S. America with minor shrapnel wounds) was released from America's medical department and flown to Athens. There he was met by NSA Europe representative, Charles Cowardin, who arranged for Blalock's travel to the United States. Blalock arrived at Washington National Airport the following day.'

Liberty 's Arrival at Malta (U)

(C CCO) Liberty's arrival in Malta was delayed until 0630 hours, 14 June. Precautionary safety meas-ures had required additional shoring of damaged bulkheads and her speed was reduced. Divers from the Papago immediately began an underwater inspection of the ship's hull to determine whether or not changes in the keel blocks would be necessary before drydocking could begin. The keel was found to be straight and undamaged. At 1400 hours the Liberty entered the drydock; by 1530 hours a canvas net had been tied across the damaged side of the ship and screens had

48 -eONTHiE-AfTIA-b










48 -eONTHiE-AfTIA-b










48 -eONTHiE-AfTIA-b

eONPIDHNCfIAL

cO 000) NSA civilian, Donald L. Blalock, wasa member of the Sigint unit aboard theLiberty. Slightly wounded, he was evacuatedto the America with the rest of the Liberty'swounded.(te"'e'etT) - Photograph courtesy of Robert L. Wilson, NSA.)

(Figure is (('jlh' lDZt. rhZ ((('j)

compiled and radioed for delivery to him as he passedthrough Rota, Spain, enroute to Malta. TG 100.3'smission was to satisfy the legitimate interests ofnewsmen without compromise of classified information,unwarranted interference with operations, or invasionof individual rights of privacy. Further, it was directedthat all public affairs activities be conducted with theaim of maintaining the credibility of the officialannouncements regarding the mission of U.S. S. Liberty; i.e., she was a communications research shipthat was diverted from her research assignment toprovide improved communication-relay links with theseveral U. S. embassies around the entire Mediterranean during the current troubles. 24

(U) Specific ground rules were set forthfor press coverage of Liberty's arrival in Malta.Newsmen were not to be permitted in the immediatevicinity of the dockyard while the Liberty entered thedock, unless CTF 100 was satisfied that the torpedohole was adequately covered; while the drydock waspumped out, regardless of covering; and after the dockwas pumped out, until all remains were removed and

classified matter safeguarded. If newsmen asked aboutthese restrictions, they were to be told that the actionswere being taken primarily out of consideration offamilies of missing personnel, since remains may be inthe exposed compartment and visible to photographers; and because communications spaces normallycontain classified equipment and are closed to thepublic, since it must be assumed that some classifiedequipment is exposed. Additionally, no interviews ofthe officers or crew of the Liberty were to be granteduntil authorized by Commander-in-Chief, U.S. NavyEurope, after completion of the Court of Inquiry. Ifqueried by the press about the reason for such policy,the security officer (TG 100.4) was to say that thesemen are potential witnesses before the Court of Inquiryand it is the desire of the convening authority and thePresident of the Court that recollections of witnessesremain as fresh as possible and not be influenced inany way by outside discussions. The doctrine ofsecurity at the source was to be followed at all timesand there was to be no censorship of newsmen'smaterial. 25

(U) Upon arriving at Malta, Rear AdmiralRenken met with his task group commanders andAmerican embassy officials on Tuesday, 13 June, tocomplete plans for docking operations, which wouldcommence on Liberty's arrival - then estimated atabout 2300 hours that night. 26


(e eeO) That same afternoon, NSA civilian,Donald L. Blalock (earlier evacuated from the Libertyto the U. S. S. America with minor shrapnel wounds)was released from America's medical department andflown to Athens. There he was met by NSA Europerepresentative, Charles Cowardin, who arranged forBlalock's travel to the United States. Blalock arrivedat Washington National Airport the following day. 27

Liberty's Arrival at Malta (U)

(0 000) Liberty's arrival in Malta was delayeduntil 0630 hours, 14 June. Precautionary safety measures had required additional shoring of damagedbulkheads and her speed was reduced. Divers from thePapago immediately began an underwater inspectionof the ship's hull to determine whether or not changesin the keel blocks would be necessary before drydockingcould begin. The keel was found to be straight andundamaged. At 1400 hours the Liberty entered thedrydock; by 1530 hours a canvas net had been tiedacross the damaged side of the ship and screens had

48 eONPIDHNCfIAL IIANBfJH VIA GOMIN'f GIIANNHfJ8 ONfJ¥

GaL

lISS

VID

NI1

(U) The Liberty arrived in Malta on 14 June. The torpedo hole is visible just above the water line, and the ship is riddled with holes from the rocket fire.

(Photograph courtesy of the Department of the Navy.) (Figure is UNCLASSIFIED) an

us s

vio N

a

GaL

lISS

VID

NI1


(Photograph courtesy of the Department of the Navy.) (Figure is UNCLASSIFIED) an

us s

vio N

a

Ga

L3IS

SWIDNI

1

SID


(Photograph courtesy of the Department of the Navy.) (Figure is UNCLASSIFIED) aa

tais

svio

Na


(U) The Uberty arrived in Malta on 14 June. The torpedo hole is visible just above the water line. and the ship is riddledwith holes from the rocket fire.

UaL

l ISS

VID

N9

(U) At the drydock in Malta, workmen inspect the torpedo-damaged hull of the Liberty. In comparison to the huge pieces of twisted metal, the workmen appear very small.


aaL

3ISS

VID

NI1

UaL

l ISS

VID

N9



aaL

3ISS

VID

NI1

UaL

l ISS

VID

N9



aaL

3ISS

VID

NI1

(U) At the drydock in Malta, workmen inspect the torpedo-damaged hull ofcomparison to the huge pieces of twisted metal, the workmen appear very small.


the Liberty. In

feNfiDENTf2th

been installed across all drydock drains. During the pump down, navy swimmers and men in a rubber raft picked up oil-covered paper as it floated out of the ship. When the drydock was completely drained, a thorough search of the entire drydock and each drain screen was conducted by indoctrinated Naval Security Group personnel. NSA Europe personnel, sent to Malta, witnessed all drainage operations.28

Evacuation of Wilson (U)

(C CCO) Earlier, as soon as the Liberty entered Malta, NSA Europe personnel boarded the ship to see NSA civilian Robert L. Wilson. When Wilson said he did not wish to stay aboard any longer, he was quickly ushered to the U.S. Consulate in Valletta for a short debriefing. Immediately thereafter, accompanied by

Lieutenant Colonel Green (from the NSA Europe staff), he returned home. Later Wilson learned that his wife had been continually informed by NSA per-sonnel of what was going on from the time the whole incident began; they had even offered to have someone stay with her.29

Clearing Damaged Areas (U)

(U) In Malta the search for and removal of bodies began at 1830 hours on the 14th and continued until approximately midnight, by which time the remains of 20 men, including Allen Blue, had been recovered. Bodies of the remaining five missing men were presumed lost at sea enroute to Malta. Liberty's death toll stood at 34.

(C CCO) Clearance of the damaged area continued. Prior to opening the hatch leading down to the

(U) Navy divers Gilbert Damelio, John P. Highffil, and Daniel McDuffle recover classified debris adrift as the pump-down operations continue on the Liberty in Malta.


-CONFIDENTIA-fr 51

feNfiDENTf2th










-CONFIDENTIA-fr 51

feNfiDENTf2th










-CONFIDENTIA-fr 51

been installed across all drydock drains. During thepump down, navy swimmers and men in a rubber raftpicked up oil-covered paper as it floated out of theship. When the drydock was completely drained, athorough search of the entire drydock and each drainscreen was conducted by indoctrinated Naval SecurityGroup personnel. NSA Europe personnel, sent toMalta, witnessed all drainage operations. 28

Evacuation of Wilson (D)

(C 000) Earlier, as soon as the Liberty enteredMalta, NSA Europe personnel boarded the ship to seeNSA civilian Robert L. Wilson. When Wilson said hedid not wish to stay aboard any longer, he was quicklyushered to the U.S. Consulate in Valletta for a shortdebriefing. Immediately thereafter, accompanied by

CONPIDENTIAL

Lieutenant Colonel Green (from the NSA Europestaff), he returned home. Later Wilson learned thathis wife had been continually informed by NSA personnel of what was going on from the time the wholeincident began; they had even offered to have someonestay with her. 29

Clearing Damaged Areas (D)

(U) In Malta the search for and removalof bodies began at 1830 hours on the 14th andcontinued until approximately midnight, by whichtime the remains of 20 men, including Allen Blue, hadbeen recovered. Bodies of the remaining five missingmen were presumed lost at sea enroute to Malta.Liberty's death toll stood at 34.

(G eOO) Clearance of the damaged area continued. Prior to opening the hatch leading down to the

(U) Navy divers Gilbert Damelio, John P. Highfill, and Daniel McDuffie recover classified debrisadrift as the pump-down operations continue on the Liberty in Malta.


ttANtlLE VIA e6~HN'f eIIANNfitJS ONtJ\' CONFIDENTIAL 51

Research Department space, a guard was posted and all personnel were required to log in when authorized access. Crews of indoctrinated personnel began remov-ing all classified equipment and documents to a secure space one deck above the damaged area. This recovery process proved to be very slow because the classified equipment and material was mixed with the mass of twisted wreckage. Of course, no repair to the ship's side could begin until the damaged area was freed of all classified papers and equipment. By 19 June, all classified matter (including 168 large canvas bags) had been stowed under guard in a secure space aboard the Liberty.3° (U) On the afternoon of Thursday, 15 June, newsmen and photographers were given a rigidly controlled tour of Liberty's topside area plus several compartments on the lower decks, near the point of impact, from which all classified equipment had been removed. Later that afternoon, Task Force 100 was officially dissolved. Some task force personnel remained with the Liberty, however, to help wind up adminis-trative, public affairs, and supply matters. The Sixth Fleet Maintenance Officer also remained to supervise Liberty's repairs.3 '

removed from the spaces at Malta because of extensive damage. In the Research Department and non-morse search and development areas on the second deck, very little outward damage was noticeable. However, the shifting of the racks and breaks in the air conditioning ducts indicated considerable shock dam-age; each and every piece of gear would require complete checks. Additionally, internal wiring and patching facilities between all research spaces would have to be checked. From the initial inspection, it was obvious that considerable replacement of internal wiring would be required. Preliminary, informal esti-mates made by the engineers inspecting the Liberty indicated that the cost to reconfigure the platform would range between four and six million dollars."

JCS Fact Finding Team's Interviews (U)

(U) While the Liberty was being cleansed and surveyed in the Malta shipyard, the Navy and JCS investigative bodies were busily interviewing ap-propriate personnel aboard the Liberty and at various European command headquarters. (C CCO) Headed by Major General Joseph R. Russ, USA, the JCS Fact Finding Team arrived in London on Tuesday morning, 13 June and spent most of the day at Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Navy Europe Headquarters interviewing Admiral John S. McCain, Jr., and members of his staff. Late that afternoon, the team flew to Stuttgart to talk with U.S. European Command personnel involved in the Liberty incident. The following day's interviews also included one with Brigadier General William Keller, Chief, NSA Europe. Points covered in the talk with Keller were:

1. Explanation of the mechanics involved for tasking in satisfaction of both national and theater consumer intelligence requirements;

2. Technical reports issued by the Liberty (the JCS Team was provided a copy of Liberty's reports from 2 through 8 June); and

3. Adequacy of Criticomm service to EUCOM in handling of the Mid-East crisis. No unusual delays were experienced and pertinent Sigint product was received by J-2 EUCOM on a timely basis. Both the JCS team and J-3 EUCOM appeared satis-fied with General Keller's explanations.'

(U) On 15 June, the team spent two hours visiting Vice Admiral William I. Martin, Commander-in-Chief, Sixth Fleet, and staff aboard his flagship, the U.S.S. Little Rock. The team arrived in Malta at 1815 hours on the 15th and departed for London at

Damage Survey at Malta (U)

(C CCO) In Washington, the Naval Ships En- gineering Center was coordinating a visit to the Liberty to survey damage in order to expedite repairs to the ship's electronic system; it was recommended that the inspection team include contractor personnel plus NSA and NSG people.32 Thus, Eugene Sheck, Comint Collection (Mobile) Management, K12, and Lieuten-ant Allan Deprey, USN, Sigint Engineering (Mobile and Space), K32, in company with representatives of the Naval Security Group, Naval Ships Engineering Center, and contractor respresentatives of Ling-Temco-Vought (LTV) and the FTM Systems Company visited the Liberty on 19-21 June. Their findings confirmed the massive damage to the Sigint electronic configuration. (C CCO) With the exception of the TRSSCOM system antenna, all antennas were either destroyed, damaged, or burned to some degree; almost complete replacement of the antenna system would be required. In Research Room no. 1, equipment not completely destroyed by the torpedo explosion had been totally submerged in heavy oil and salt water for six days, rendering it beyond salvage. The processing and re-porting spaces, transcribing positions, maintenance shop and cryptographic room were severely damaged; all equipment was either destroyed by the explosion or

52 -CLONTH3ENTIA-fr











52 -CLONTH3ENTIA-fr











52 -CLONTH3ENTIA-fr

eONFIDENTIAI.

Research Department space, a guard was posted andall personnel were required to log in when authorizedaccess. Crews of indoctrinated personnel began removing all classified equipment and documents to a securespace one deck above the damaged area. This recoveryprocess proved to be very slow because the classifiedequipment and material was mixed with the mass oftwisted wreckage. Of course, no repair to the ship'sside could begin until the damaged area was freed ofall classified papers and equipment. By 19 June, allclassified matter (including 168 large canvas bags) hadbeen stowed under guard in a secure space aboard theLiberty.3D(V) On the afternoon of Thursday, 15June, newsmen and photographers were given a rigidlycontrolled tour of Liberty's topside area plus severalcompartments on the lower decks, near the point ofimpact, from which all classified equipment had beenremoved. Later that afternoon, Task Force 100 wasofficially dissolved. Some task force personnel remainedwith the Liberty, however, to help wind up administrative, public affairs, and supply matters. The SixthFleet Maintenance Officer also remained to superviseLiberty' s repairs."


eC CC6) In Washington, the Naval Ships Engineering Center was coordinating a visit to the Libertyto survey damage in order to expedite repairs to theship's electronic system; it was recommended that theinspection team include contractor personnel plus NSAand NSG people. 32 Thus, Eugene Sheck, ComintCollection (Mobile) Management, K12, and Lieutenant Allan Deprey, VSN, Sigint Engineering (Mobileand Space), K32, in company with representatives ofthe Naval Security Group, Naval Ships EngineeringCenter, and contractor respresentatives of Ling-TemcoVought (LTV) and the FTM Systems Company visitedthe Liberty on 19-21 June. Their findings confirmedthe massive damage to the Sigint electronicconfiguration.eo CC6) With the exception of the TRSSCOMsystem antenna, all antennas were either destroyed,damaged, or burned to some degree; almost completereplacement of the antenna system would be required.In Research Room no. 1, equipment not completelydestroyed by the torpedo explosion had been totallysubmerged in heavy oil and salt water for six days,rendering it beyond salvage. The processing and reporting spaces, transcribing positions, maintenanceshop and cryptographic room were severely damaged;all equipment was either destroyed by the explosion or

removed from the spaces at Malta because of extensivedamage. In the Research Department and non-morsesearch and development areas on the second deck,very little outward damage was noticeable. However,the shifting of the racks and breaks in the airconditioning ducts indicated considerable shock damage; each and every piece of gear would requirecomplete checks. Additionally, internal wiring andpatching facilities between all research spaces wouldhave to be checked. From the initial inspection, it wasobvious that considerable replacement of internalwiring would be required. Preliminary, informal estimates made by the engineers inspecting the Libertyindicated that the cost to reconfigure the platformwould range between four and six million dollars. 33

JCS Fact Finding Team'sInterviews (U)

(V) While the Liberty was being cleansedand surveyed in the Malta shipyard, the Navy andJCS investigative bodies were busily interviewing appropriate personnel aboard the Liberty and at variousEuropean command headquarters.(G GGO) Headed by Major General Joseph R.Russ, VSA, the JCS Fact Finding Team arrived inLondon on Tuesday morning, 13 June and spent mostof the day at Commander-in-Chief, V.S. Navy EuropeHeadquarters interviewing Admiral John S. McCain,Jr., and members of his staff. Late that afternoon,the team flew to Stuttgart to talk with V.S. EuropeanCommand personnel involved in the Liberty incident.The following day's interviews also included one withBrigadier General William Keller, Chief, NSA Europe.Points covered in the talk with Keller were:

1. Explanation of the mechanics involved fortasking in satisfaction of both national and theaterconsumer intelligence requirements;

2. Technical reports issued by the Liberty (theJCS Team was provided a copy of Liberty's reportsfrom 2 through 8 June); and

3. Adequacy of Criticomm service to EVCOM inhandling of the Mid-East crisis. No unusual delayswere experienced and pertinent Sigint product wasreceived by J-2 EVCOM on a timely basis.Both the JCS team and J-3 EVCOM appeared satisfied with General Keller's explanations. 34

(V) On 15 June, the team spent two hoursvisiting Vice Admiral William 1. Martin, Commanderin-Chief, Sixth Fleet, and staff aboard his flagship,the U. S. S. Little Rock. The team arrived in Malta at1815 hours on the 15th and departed for London at

52 CONFIDENTIAL ItAN8LH ViA COfltllNtf eIIANNB~8 ON~Y

1

In the Sigint spaces, several manual-morse positions were destroyed by the torpedo blast, as reported by the inspection team sent to Malta. This team was composed of personnel from NSA, NSG, and contractors from Ling-Temco-Vought and FTM Systems Company.

(Photograph courtesy of the NSA/NSG inspection team.) (Figure is

-C-ONFIEPENThtt 53

)



-C-ONFIEPENThtt 53

)



-C-ONFIEPENThtt 53

)

CONFIDIH\'fIAL

(0 000, In the Sigint spaces, several manual-morse positions were destroyed by the torpedoblast, as reported by the inspection team sent to Malta. This team was composed of personnelfrom NSA, NSG, and contractors from Ling-Temco-Vought and FTM Systems Company.

(Photograph courtesy of the NSNNSG inspection team.)(Figure is eaNfi'Il'EIi 'fi AL=eeaj

IIAN8LE VIA eOMIN'f ellANNHLS ONL\T CONFIDHN'fIAL 53

0'700 hours the next morning. At Malta, Major General Russ and his team visited the Liberty and also spoke with Rear Admiral I. C. Kidd, President of the Naval Court of Inquiry. The JCS team returned to Washing-ton in the early evening of 18 June.

Accounting for Classified Material (U)

(C CCO) Though activities aboard the Liberty immediately upon arrival at Malta had centered on readying the ship for repair, the requirement to account for all on-board classified material had not been overlooked. Not only had many classified docu-ments been lost, but the records and inventories of sensitive materials and registered publications carried aboard ship had also been destroyed. To reconstruct Liberty's list of holdings, the Director, NSA requested appropriate field station and NSA elements to compile

detailed lists of all technical support materials that had been forwarded to the Liberty.35 (U) In Malta, Liberty personnel attempted to make an inventory of registered publications but found it to be fragmentary at best. The registered publications vault and cryptospaces were completely destroyed by the torpedo attack. In spite of the fact that, just before the attack, most registered publica-tions had been put in weighted canvas bags, it was discovered that these bags were torn apart by the blast of the torpedo explosion; no bags remained intact. Further, those publications that were recovered were unusable: they were either soaked in oil and salt water or damaged by the blast. None could be page checked for completeness. All paper and metal residue from the damaged area were placed in canvas bags and secured in locked spaces aboard ship under twenty-four-hour guard.36

r0 1.4.(c)

The NSA/NSG inspection team reported that the equipment in this Sigint space had been totally ruined by the torpedo blast.


54 -CON-FIDENTIAL





r0 1.4.(c)



54 -CON-FIDENTIAL





r0 1.4.(c)



54 -CON-FIDENTIAL

CONFIDENTIAL

0700 hours the next morning. At Malta, Major GeneralRuss and his team visited the Liberty and also spokewith Rear Admiral I. C. Kidd, President of the NavalCourt of Inquiry. The JCS team returned to Washington in the early evening of 18 June.


(C CCO) Though activities aboard the Libertyimmediately upon arrival at Malta had centered onreadying the ship for repair, the requirement toaccount for all on-board classified material had notbeen overlooked. Not only had many classified documents been lost, but the records and inventories ofsensitive materials and registered publications carriedaboard ship had also been destroyed. To reconstructLiberty's list of holdings, the Director, NSA requestedappropriate field station and NSA elements to compile

detailed lists of all technical support materials thathad been forwarded to the Liberty.35(U) In Malta, Liberty personnel attemptedto make an inventory of registered publications butfound it to be fragmentary at best. The registeredpublications vault and cryptospaces were completelydestroyed by the torpedo attack. In spite of the factthat, just before the attack, most registered publications had been put in weighted canvas bags, it wasdiscovered that these bags were torn apart by theblast of the torpedo explosion; no bags remainedintact. Further, those publications that were recoveredwere unusable: they were either soaked in oil and saltwater or damaged by the blast. None could be pagechecked for completeness. All paper and metal residuefrom the damaged area were placed in canvas bagsand secured in locked spaces aboard ship under twentyfour-hour guard. 36

EO 1. 4 . (c)

cC CeO) The NSA/NSG inspection team reported that the equipment in this Sigint space had beentotally ruined by the torpedo blast.

(Photograph courtesy of the NSA/NSG inspection team.)(Figure is eBUFIBBN'fiAf: eeB)

54 CONFIDHN'fIAL I1ANBLH VIA e6MINT eIlANNHLS ONI:JY

(U) The Captain of the Liberty, CDR William L. McGonagle, surveys the damage done below the bridge from the rockets fired by the Israeli aircraft.


(U) After Liberty personnel had completed this action, Captain Carl M. Smith (who had been TG 100.4 commander) informed the Director, Naval Security Group that despite [the] fact that all classified material cannot be accurately accounted for and loss at scene [is] unknown, [am] confident that possibility of compromise is reasonably unlikely while Liberty [was] en route [to] Malta and zero thereafter. It was a time-consuming task under difficult conditions but thoroughness of all has resulted in maintenance of highest degree of security integrity. All can take justifiable pride in dedication, willingness, and high morale of those participating in the salvage operation.'

Joint Survey at Norfolk (U)

(U) Recognizing that the Liberty had had extensive reserve, on-board cryptographic keying ma-terials that might require replacement Navy-wide and DoD-wide, the Chief of Naval Operations proposed that a joint survey team meet the Liberty when she returned to Norfolk and take a sampling of the residue

to determine whether a sorting operation was possible, and to make recommendations for further actions or disposition of material. The survey team membership would be drawn from the Naval Security Group, Naval Intelligence Center, and NSA.' (C - NSA representatives to this team were: Billy Durham, Operations, Comsec Status, (S13); Benjamin G. Cwalina, Security, Research Divi-sion, (M55); and Lieutenant John T. McTighe, USN, Operations Staff, (G04). On 31 July, these three traveled to Norfolk, Virginia, and boarded the Liberty, just returned from Malta. There they were joined by other members of the survey team, principally NSG personnel. Following a brief tour of the ship, the team was taken below decks to the Research Operations spaces, where the canvas bags of residue were piled. Sailors from the Liberty's Sigint complement, dressed in rubber overalls and gloves, selected about six or seven bags at random from the grimy, oily 160-plus total and, one by one, opened each and dumped its

-e0NPf0Biliff*E 55







-e0NPf0Biliff*E 55







-e0NPf0Biliff*E 55

CONFIDENTIAL

(U) The Captain of the Liberty, CDR William L. McGonagle, surveys the damage done below thebridge from the rockets fired by the Israeli aircraft.


(U) After Liberty personnel had completedthis action, Captain Carl M. Smith (who had beenTG 100.4 commander) informed the Director, NavalSecurity Group thatdespite [the] fact that all classified material cannot be accuratelyaccounted for and loss at scene [is] unknown, [am] confident thatpossibility of compromise is reasonably unlikely while Liberty[was] en route [to] Malta and zero thereafter. It was a timeconsuming task under difficult conditions but thoroughness of allhas resulted in maintenance of highest degree of security integrity.All can take justifiable pride in dedication, willingness, and highmorale of those participating in the salvage operation. 37


(U) Recognizing that the Liberty had hadextensive reserve, on-board cryptographic keying materials that might require replacement Navy-wide andDoD-wide, the Chief of Naval Operations proposedthat a joint survey team meet the Liberty when shereturned to Norfolk and take a sampling of the residue

to determine whether a sorting operation was possible,and to make recommendations for further actions ordisposition of material. The survey team membershipwould be drawn from the Naval Security Group, NavalIntelligence Center, and NSA. 38

(e CeO) NSA representatives to this teamwere: Billy Durham, Operations, Comsec Status,(S 13); Benjamin G. Cwalina, Security, Research Division, (M55); and Lieutenant John T. McTighe, USN,Operations Staff, (G04). On 31 July, these threetraveled to Norfolk, Virginia, and hoarded the Liberty,just returned from Malta. There they were joined byother members of the survey team, principally NSGpersonnel. Following a brief tour of the ship, the teamwas taken below decks to the Research Operationsspaces, where the canvas bags of residue were piled.Sailors from the Liberty's Sigint complement, dressedin rubber overalls and gloves, selected about six orseven bags at random from the grimy, oily 160-plustotal and, one by one, opened each and dumped its

KANDt! ViA e6I\HN'f eUANNHtS 6NM' CONFIDENTIAL 55

contents on the floor in front of the survey team. It was not a pretty sight and had malodorous qualities resulting from the combination of oil, brackish sea water, burned metal, paper, and pieces of human flesh. The team immediately agreed that it would be impossible to make a page-by-page check of the bags' contents. From looking at this sampling, the survey team concluded that:

1. Eighty percent of the material was unidenti-fiable;

2. Some of the material was definitely discernible, readable, and classified; and

3. Some of the classified material was identifia-ble, in part, by short titles and cover markings or name-plate designations; e.g., large bound volumes or books.

The team recommended that: 1. No attempt be made to conduct a detailed bag-

by-bag search for the sole purpose of identifying classified material;

2. The Commanding Officer of the Liberty be authorized to destroy the bagged material held on board; and

3. Prior to the process of burning, an effort be made to empty each bag at the incinerator to deter-mine the possible existence of identifiable registered publications and that each such complete publication be accounted for prior to its destruction.39

(U) CNO concurred with the survey team's recommendations and authorized destruction as re-quested. At the Director, NSA's request, all remaining Comsec material (excluding that in canvas bags) aboard the Liberty at the time of attack was segre-gated and forwarded to NSA for inspection." (C CCO) With this command approval, Lib- erty's CO arranged for appropriately cleared personnel to fill a trailer with bagged residue and burn it at the Norfolk incinerator. A list of documents identified in the burning process was forwarded to CNO. At NSA, M55 determined that there was only minimal security damage and no compromise had occurred. (C - Though incinerator flames consumed the last bits and pieces of oil-soaked residue from the assault on the Liberty these ashes did not mark the end of the train of events set in motion on 8 June 1967. The Israeli attack had already taken the lives of 34 Americans - 25 from the Siginit unit, including Allen Blue, and 9 of the Liberty's crew - and touched

those of scores more. The investigations then under way would affect even more people.

Notes


1(U) COMSIXTHFLT msg 090513Z Jun 1967.

'(U) Commander, Task Group (CTG) 60.5 meg 090758Z Jun 1967.

'(U) Commander, Task Group 60.5 meg 092119Z Jun 1967.

4(U) CINCUSNAVEUR meg 100025Z Jun 1967.

`(U) COMSIXTHFLT meg 0923-7Z Jun 1967.

4(U) ECGRUEUR, meg 091058Z Jun 1967.

'(U) ralEillimag 091355Z Jun 1967. EO 1. 4 .

'(U) CINCUSNAVEUR meg 091459Z Jun 1967.

4(U) CTG 60.5 meg 092119Z Jun 1967.

NU) DIRNAVSECGRUEUR meg 191358Z Jun 1967.

"(U) USCINCEUR meg 101105Z Jun 1967.

"(U) DIRNSA meg 091345Z Jun 1967.


14(U) CTG 60.5 meg 101750Z Jun 1967.

AU) U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry 7816-67; Liberty Incident, 8 Jun 1967; Record of Proceedings.

NU) Joint Chiefs of Staff msg cite no. 7642, 102140Z Jun 1967.

"(U) USCINCEUR meg 101045Z Jun 1967, and CINCUSNAVEUR msg 111311Z Jun 1967.

"(U) U.S. Defense Attache Office, Tel Aviv meg 131335Z Jun 1967.

14(U) 2°(U) "(U) 22(u)

24(U) 24(u)

14(U) 26(u)

130934Z Jun 1967.

27(U) DIRNAVSECGRU msg 131706Z Jun 1967 and NSAEUR meg 140829Z Jun 1967.

2s(U) CTF 100 meg 150200Z Jun 1967 and NSAEUR msg 161530Z Jun 1967.

29(u) Robert L. Wilson, oral interview transcript, 6 May 1980.

30(U) DIRNAVSECGRUEUR meg 191326Z Jun 1967.

"(U) CTF 100 msg 150200Z Jun1967.

42(U) NAVSHIPENGCTR msg 141551Z Jun 1967.

"(U) NSA; K12, K32 Trip Report (by Eugene Sheck and Lt. Deprey), 27 Jun 1967.

44(U) NSA; D1 msg for Gen. Carter through NSA Rep NORAD, circa 21 Jun 1967.

45(U) NSA; Status of Operations Actions Relative to Sigint Readiness Bravo/Crayon, Report no. 13, 9-10 Jun 1967.


"(U) DIRNAVSECGRUEUR msg 191326Z Jun 1967.

"(U) CNO meg 142227Z Jun 1967.

"(U) U.S.S. Liberty meg 021630Z Aug 1967 and Benjamin G. Cwalina, oral interview transcript, 9 May 1980.

40(U) DIRNSA meg 081648Z Aug 1967 and CNO meg 102136Z Aug 1967.

CINCUSNAVEUR meg 111031Z Jun 1967. Ibid. DIRNAVSECGRUEUR meg 111931Z Jun 1967. DIRNAVSECGRUEUR meg 091814Z Jun 1967. DIRNAVSECGRUEUR meg 111442Z Jun 1967. CINCUSNAVEUR meg 120950Z Jun 1967. Ibid. Commander, Task Force (CTF) 100 msg

56 -e0NFIDESA4A-fr











Notes










4(U) CTG 60.5 meg 092119Z Jun 1967.





14(U) CTG 60.5 meg 101750Z Jun 1967.





14(U) 2°(U) "(U) 22(u)

24(U) 24(u)

14(U) 26(u)

130934Z Jun 1967.





"(U) CTF 100 msg 150200Z Jun1967.







"(U) CNO meg 142227Z Jun 1967.




56 -e0NFIDESA4A-fr











Notes










4(U) CTG 60.5 meg 092119Z Jun 1967.





14(U) CTG 60.5 meg 101750Z Jun 1967.





14(U) 2°(U) "(U) 22(u)

24(U) 24(u)

14(U) 26(u)

130934Z Jun 1967.





"(U) CTF 100 msg 150200Z Jun1967.







"(U) CNO meg 142227Z Jun 1967.




56 -e0NFIDESA4A-fr

CONPIDENTIAL

contents on the floor in front of the survey team. Itwas not a pretty sight and had malodorous qualitiesresulting from the combination of oil, brackish seawater, burned metal, paper, and pieces of humanflesh. The team immediately agreed that it would beimpossible to make a page-by-page check of the bags'contents. From looking at this sampling, the surveyteam concluded that:

1. Eighty percent of the material was unidentifiable;

2. Some of the material was definitely discernible,readable, and classified; and

3. Some of the classified material was identifiable, in part, by short titles and cover markings orname-plate designations; e.g.; large bound volumes orbooks.

The team recommended that:1. No attempt be made to conduct a detailed bag

by-bag search for the sole purpose of identifyingclassified material;

2. The Commanding Officer of the Liberty beauthorized to destroy the bagged material held onboard; and

3. Prior to the process of burning, an effort bemade to empty each bag at the incinerator to determine the possible existence of identifiable registeredpublications and that each such complete publicationbe accounted for prior to its destruction. 39

(U) CNO concurred with the survey team'srecommendations and authorized destruction as requested. At the Director, NSA's request, all remainingComsec material (excluding that in canvas bags)aboard the Liberty at the time of attack was segregated and forwarded to NSA for inspection;"(0 000' With this command approval, Liberty's CO arranged for appropriately cleared personnelto fill a trailer with bagged residue and burn it at theNorfolk incinerator. A list of documents identified inthe burning process was forwarded to CNO. At NSA,M55 determined that there was only minimal securitydamage and no compromise had occurred.(0 000) Though incinerator flames consumedthe last bits and pieces of oil-soaked residue from theassault on the Liberty these ashes did not mark theend of the train of events set in motion on 8 June1967. The Israeli attack had already taken the livesof 34 Americans - 25 from the Siginit unit, includingAllen Blue, and 9 of the Liberty's crew - and touched

those of scores more. The investigations then underway would affect even more people.

Notes

Source documents are in the "Crisis Collection" of the NSAHistory Collection.

I(V) COMSIXTHFLT msg 090513Z Jun 1967.'(V) Commander, Task Group (CTG) 60.5 msg'

090758Z Jun 1967.'(V) Commander, Task Group 60.5 msg 092119Z

Jun 1967.4(V) CINCVSNAVEUR msg 100025Z Jun 1967.'(U) COMSIXTHFLT msg 0923-7Z Jun 1967.

:i~: IDmNAY1~;gG~~:5~~~~~~~8ZJunuI9li7'EO 1.4. (

8(V) CINCVSNAVEUR msg 091459Z Jun 1967.'(V) CTG 60.5 mag 092119Z Jun 1967.

10(V) DIRNAVSECGRVEUR msg 191358Z Jun 1967.II(V) VSCINCEUR msg 101105Z Jun 1967.12(V) DIRNSA msg 091345Z Jun 1967.13(V) DIRNSA msg 101718Z Jun 1967.14(V) CTG 60.5 msg 101750Z Jun 1967.I'(V) V.S. Navy Court of Inquiry 7816-67; Liberty

Incident, 8 Jun 1967; Record of Proceedings.16(V) Joint Chiefs of Staffmsg cite no. 7642, 102140Z

Jun 1967.17(V) VSCINCEUR msg 101045Z Jun 1967, and

CINCVSNAVEUR msg 111311Z Jun 1967.18(V) V.S. Defense Attache' Office, Tel Aviv meg

131335Z Jun 1967.I'(V) CINCVSNAVEUR msg 111031Z Jun 1967.20(V) Ibid.2I(V) DIRNAVSECGRVEUR msg 111931Z Jun 1967.22(V) DIRNAVSECGRVEUR meg 091814Z Jun 1967."(V) DIRNAVSECGRVEUR meg 111442Z Jun 1967.24(V) CINCVSNAVEUR meg 120950Z Jun 1967."(V) Ibid.26(V) Commander, Task Force (CTF) 100 meg

130934Z Jun 1967.27(V) DIRNAVSECGRV meg 131706Z Jun 1967 and

NSAEVR msg 140829Z Jun 1967."(V) CTF 100 meg 150200Z Jun 1967 and NSAEVR

msg 161530Z Jun 1967."(V) Robert L. Wilson, oral interview transcript, 6

May 1980.lO(V) DIRNAVSECGRVEUR meg 191326Z Jun 1967.ll(V) CTF 100 msg 150200Z Jun1967."(V) NAVSHIPENGCTR msg 141551Z Jun 1967.33(V) NSA; K12, K32 Trip Report (by Eugene Sheck

and Lt. Deprey), 27 Jun 1967."(V) NSA; D1 msg for Gen. Carter through NSA

Rep NORAD, circa 21 Jun 1967."(V) NSAj Status of Operations Actions Relative to

Sigint Readiness Bravo/Crayon, Report no. 13, 9-10 Jun 1967.36(V) V.S.S. Liberty msg 200735Z Jun 1967.37(V) DIRNAVSECGRVEUR meg 191326Z Jun 1967."(V) CNO msg 142227Z Jun 1967."(V) V.S.S. Liberty msg 021630Z Aug 1967 and

Benjamin G. Cwalina, oral interview transcript, 9 May 1980.40(V) DIRNSA msg 081648Z Aug 1967 and CNO meg

102136Z Aug 1967.

56 CONPIDENTIAL IIA:NBI:JH ViA: €Or.HN'f €II:ANNHf<S ONI:JY

Chapter VII

The Incident under Review (U)

(U) Following the attack on the Liberty, both the Executive and the Legislative Branches set about ascertaining the basic facts surrounding the incident. Other than the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry and the cursory Israeli Board of Inquiry immediately after the event, reviews went forward under the auspices of the House Appropriations Committee, the JCS, and NSA. In addition, a Special Committee of the National Security Council elicited information to answer the Administration's questions on the incident.

The NSA Review and Reaction (U) (U) The eighth of June proved to be a busy day for NSA's directorate. Having received a Critic message on the Liberty's dilemma, Brigadier General John Morrison of NSA's Production Organi-zation, notified the directorate of the event at about 0900 hours, Washington time. Some 45 minutes later, the directorate learned that the attack had been by the Israelis. (C CCO) Immediate concern was for the safety of the personnel and the security of the materials on board. During the day urgent requests went out from NSA to the National Military Command Center (NMCC), other offices in the Pentagon, and the Bureau of Naval Personnel to ascertain if the names of any of the three NSA civilians on board appeared on the casualty list. Both General Marshall S. Carter and Dr. Louis W. Tordella became aware that the ship was in shallow water, 35-40 fathoms. And they knew, of course, that the ship held technical materials which would reveal the mission of the ship and that it had electronic equipment which would compromise U.S. success in demultiplexing VHF and UHF multi-channel communications. Accordingly, Dr. Tordella asked JRC's Captain Merriwell W. Vineyard, USN, to have all documents on board the Liberty burned and all equipment saved, if possible. General Carter was

prepared to recommend all necessary action to insure the security of the technical material and equipment, should the ship go under but, in discussions with the JRC, ruled out the deliberate scuttling of the ship since its presence in shallow water made compromise of materials and equipment a distinct possibility.

Other concerns were for the reassign-ment of the Liberty's intercept mission to other collectors,' I in the face of the inevitable attention the press would, give to this incident, and for developing a core of infor-mation for the expected questions the Agency would receive from DoD and other officials.

As the eighth of June wore on, the NSA staff considered ways to reassign Liberty's mis-sion.'

I Should the U.S. actively enter the hostilities as a belligerent, they were willing to consider assignment of certain Sigint tasks'

Finally, they considered redeployment of the U.S.S. Belmont, scheduled for refitting at Norfolk at about that time. Only the last mentioned seemed promising in consideration of the Liberty's VHF/UHF mission, but full approval for assignment of the Belmont would not be forthcoming. They also confirmed that the U.S. airborne collection flights out of Athens would continue without interruption. (C CCO)

The NSA directorate examined Lib- erty'd IIf there should be questions about the civilians on board, what should be said? Dr.

jE0 1.4.(c)

-HAP193L-E-Viik-e0MINT-eff iL-11 R•ET 57

Chapter VII










jE0 1.4.(c)


Chapter VII










jE0 1.4.(c)


SECRE'f

Chapter VII


(U) Following the attack on the Liberty,both the Executive and the Legislative Branches setabout ascertaining the basic facts surrounding theincident. Other than the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiryand the cursory Israeli Board of Inquiry immediatelyafter the event, reviews went forward under theauspices of the House Appropriations Committee, theJCS, and NSA. In addition, a Special Committee ofthe National Security Council elicited information toanswer the Administration's questions on the incident.

The NSA Review and Reaction (U)

(U) The eighth of June proved to be abusy day for NSA's directorate. Having received aCritic message on the Liberty's dilemma, BrigadierGeneral John Morrison of NSA's Production Organization, notified the directorate of the event at about0900 hours, Washington time. Some 45 minutes later,the directorate learned that the attack had been bythe Israelis.(6 660) Immediate concern was for the safetyof the personnel and the security of the materials onboard. During the day urgent requests went out fromNSA to the National Military Command Center(NMCC), other offices in the Pentagon, and theBureau of Naval Personnel to ascertain if the namesof any of the three NSA civilians on board appearedon the casualty list. Both General Marshall S. Carterand Dr. Louis W. Tordella became aware that theship was in shallow water, 35-40 fathoms. And theyknew, of course, that the ship held technical materialswhich would reveal the mission of the ship and thatit had electronic equipment which would compromiseU. S. success in demultiplexing VHF and UHF multichannel communications. Accordingly, Dr. Tordellaasked JRC's Captain Merriwell W. Vineyard, USN, tohave all documents on board the Liberty burned andall equipment saved, if possible. General Carter was

prepared to recommend all necessary action to insurethe security of the technical material and equipment,should the ship go under but, in discussions with theJRC, ruled out the deliberate scuttling of the shipsince its presence in shallow water made compromiseof materials and equipment a distinct possibility.(0 000) Other concerns were for the reassignment of the Liberty's intercept mission to othercollectors,1 lin theface of the inevitable attention the press would. giveto this incident, and for developing a core of information for the expected questions the Agency wouldreceive from DoD and other officials.(8-000) As the eighth of June wore on, theNSA staff considered wa s to reassi Liberty's mission.

'-- ...... Should.the

as a belligerent,ment of .certain

..... ---' Finally, /they consideredredeployment of the U.S.S. Belmont, scheduled forrefitting at Norfolk at about that-time. Only the lastmentioned seemed promising in consideration of theLiberty's VHF/UHF mission, but full approval forassignment of the Belmont would not be forthcoming.They also confirmed that .the U.S. airborne collectionflights out of Athens would continue withoutinterruption.(0 00r-0....;..) Th--,e .NSA directorate examined Lib-erty'~ Ilf there should be questions aboutthe civilians on board, what should be said? Dr.

'EO 1. 4 . (c)

IIANBtJH ViA €OMlN'f €IIANNBI:aS ONI:aY SECRET 57

P.L. 86-36

-StAeRBT

Tordella discussed this matter with Rear Admiral Ralph E. Cook, the Director, Naval Security Group.

This stated that the Liberty's presence off Port Said was "to assure com-munications for the U.S. Government posts in the Middle East and to assist in relaying information concerning the evacuation of U.S. dependents and other citizens from the Arab-Israeli war area." As was its custom, NSA's staff worked closely with the Pen-tagon's Public Information Office and referred all public queries NSA received to that Pentagon Office. (C CCO) There was, finally, on that long day of 8 June, the need to establish quickly a core of information on the incident to prepare for the many questions being asked and decisions to be made. Already the Secretary of Defense, Robert S. Mc-Namara, had called General Carter asking for "precise information" on the ship's complement, the number of civilians, the meaning of "AGTR" which appeared on the ship's hull, and other matters which he felt would be needed for a public release. Discussions also took place with White House staff members Patrick Coyne and Bromley Smith, who elicited details on the incident. (C CCO) To take care of this need for information, General Carter established in his outer office a Temporary Mid-East Information Group consisting of three NSA individuals — Mr. Walter Deeley of the Production Organization and and Lieu- tenant Commander Edward Koczak, USN, of the Director's staff. The main function of this group was to gather information on the event and to anticipate the numerous questions to be directed to NSA over the coming weeks. (C CCO) With timely help from agency components, the group assembled basic data on the ship itself, on U.S. I 'coverage of Middle East communications, on operational and technical respon-sibilities, and on the technical rationale for the mission; it also compiled a chronology of events and a compendium of key documents and messages. Assem-bling the information in a large red notebook entitled "Report to the Director NSA - U.S.S. Liberty (AGTR-5), 23 May-8 June 1967," the group presented the completed report to the Director on 12 June — rather respectable staff work in view of the timeliness and

- 'EO 1.4. (c)

quality of the report. NSA was then in a position to give copies of this comprehensive report to the JCS Fact Finding Team and to the Special Committee of the National Security Council (NSC). (C CCO). Directed as it was to develop a core of information on the event, the NSA group did not seek to identify remedies for faulty procedures or, for that matter, to make any recommendations at all. Major responsibility for that fell to the JCS and others. The group did have to field searching questions being asked the Agency by others. (C CCO) The JCS Fact Finding Team was ask-ing specific questions such as these:

• Does NSA receive and plot situation reports? Does it keep the track?

• Why was an Opscomm circuit not established between NSA and the Liberty?

• Were there any communications problems during transit in the Mediterranean?

• Did NSA fail to receive any technical summaries, product, or other communications from the Liberty, nonreceipt of which would have been indicative of communications difficulties?

• Was there any departure from normal command relationships in the handling of the Liberty's cruise?

(C CCO) And Patrick Coyne of the National Security Council's Special Committee asked broad questions such as these:

• What information was received from the Liberty from the time it arrived on station until the incident?

• Were there any Sigint reflections of the Israeli attack?

• Would we receive all of our Sigint holdings relating to the incident? (U) Although questions remained which would require answers, the work of the NSA group was essentially complete by the middle of June 1967.1

The JCS Review (U) (U) On 9 June, immediately after the Liberty incident the JCS fielded a five-man team from its organization, all with the necessary clearances, to examine communications and control aspects of the event. Senior member of the JCS team was Major General Joseph R. Russ, USA. Other team members were Rear Admiral Francis J. Fitzpatrick, USN; Colonel William A. Garrett, USAF; Captain William D. Owen, USN; and Major Harlan E. Priddle, USAF. (U) In spelling out the terms of reference for the team, Lieutenant General B. E. Spivy, Director of the Joint Staff, asked the team to examine the

58 -SEC-RE-7

EO 1.4.(c) EO 1.4.(d)

P.L. 86-36

-StAeRBT



- 'EO 1.4. (c)












58 -SEC-RE-7

EO 1.4.(c) EO 1.4.(d)

P.L. 86-36

-StAeRBT



- 'EO 1.4. (c)












58 -SEC-RE-7

EO 1.4.(c) EO 1.4.(d)

P.L.86-36

SHCRH'I'

Tordella discussed this matter with Rear AdmiralRalph E. Cook. the Director Naval Securitv Group.

I This stated that theL:-:-:--"""":""---~~-~~Liberty's presence off Port Said was "to assure com-munications for the U.S. Government posts in theMiddle East and to assist in relaying informationconcerning the evacuation of U.S. dependents andother citizens from the Arab-Israeli war area." As wasits custom, NSA's staff worked closely with the Pentagon's Public Information Office and referred allpublic queries NSA received to that Pentagon Office.(0 000) There was, finally, on that long day of8 June, the need to establish quickly a core ofinformation on the incident to prepare for the manyquestions being asked and decisions to be made.Already the Secretary of Defense, Robert S. McNamara, had called General Carter asking for "preciseinformation" on the ship's complement, the numberof civilians, the meaning of "AGTR" which appearedon the ship's hull, and other matters which he feltwould be needed for a public release. Discussions alsotook place with White House staff members PatrickCoyne and Bromley Smith, who elicited details on theincident.(0 000) To take care of this need for information, General Carter established in his outer officea Temporary Mid-East Information Group consistingQLtllree~rSA.in~ivi~uals~Mr. Walter Deeley of theProduction Organization andl land Lieutenant Commander Edward Koczak, USN, of theDirector's staff. The main function of this group wasto gather information on the event and to anticipatethe numerous questions to be directed to NSA overthe coming weeks.(8 000) With timely help from agency components, the group assembled basic data on the shipitself, on U.S. I Icoverage of Middle Eastcommunications; on operational and technical responsibilities, and on the technical rationale for themission; it also compiled /a chronology of events and acompendium of key documents and messages. Assembling the information in a large red notebook entitled"Report to the DirectorNSA - U.S.S. Liberty (AGTR5), 23 May-8 June 1967," the group presented thecompleted report to the Director on 12 June - ratherrespectable staff work in view of the timeliness and

EO 1.4. (c)

quality-of" the report. NSA was then in a position togive copies of this comprehensive report to the JCSFact Finding Team and to the Special Committee ofthe National Security Council (NSC).(0 660) Directed as it was to develop a core ofinformation on the event, the NSA group did not seekto identify remedies for faulty procedures or, for thatmatter, to make any recommendations at all. Majorresponsibility for that fell to the JCS and others. Thegroup did have to field searching questions being askedthe Agency by others.(6 660) The JCS Fact Finding Team was ask-ing specific questions such as these:

• Does NSA receive and plot situation reports? Doesit keep the track?

• Why was an Opscomm circuit not establishedbetween NSA and the Liberty?

• Were there any communications problems duringtransit in the Mediterranean?

• Did NSA fail to receive any technical summaries,product, or other communications from the Liberty,nonreceipt of which would have been indicative ofcommunications difficulties?

• Was there any departure from normal commandrelationships in the handling of the Liberty's cruise?

(0 600) And Patrick Coyne of the NationalSecurity Council's Special Committee asked broadquestions such as these:

• What information was received from the Libertyfrom the time it arrived on station until the incident?

• Were there any Sigint reflections of the Israeliattack?

• Would we receive all of our Sigint holdings relatingto the incident?(U) Although questions remained whichwould require answers, the work of the NSA group wasessentially complete by the middle of June 1967. I

The JeS Review (U)

(U) On 9 June, immediately after theLiberty incident the JCS fielded a five-man team fromits organization, all with the necessary clearances, toexamine communications and control aspects of theevent. Senior member of the JCS team was MajorGeneral Joseph R. Russ, USA. Other team memberswere Rear Admiral Francis J. Fitzpatrick, USN;Colonel William A. Garrett, USAF; Captain WilliamD. Owen, USN; and Major Harlan E. Priddle, USAF.(U) In spelling out the terms of referencefor the team, Lieutenant General B. E. Spivy, Directorof the Joint Staff, asked the team to examine the

58 SHCRH'I'

EO 1.4. (c)

==~~~~_EO 1.4. (d)

IIA:NBI.B ¥fA: eOMIN'I' eIIANNBI.S ONI.¥

means employed in issuing operational directives of the JCS to the U.S.S. Liberty and the specific orders to the Liberty between 1 June and 8 June 1967, and to identify and develop information on conflicting directives, delays in message traffic, and nonreceipt of orders. The team was to report its findings, along with recommendations, to the JCS. (C-CCO) The JCS team visited NSA, other Washington-area principals, and concerned military staffs and commands in Europe and the Mediterra-nean. On 10 June, as the team began its fact-finding mission, General Carter called General Russ and offered the total cooperation of NSA and followed through on this offer by making as much information available to him as required, although General Russ had already decided not to concentrate on sensitive (that is, special intelligence) matters. (U) As the work of the fact-finding team was drawing to a close, General Russ provided on 18 June a preliminary report to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Earle Wheeler, USA. He apprised the Chairman of the four messages from higher headquarters on 7/8 June to subordinate com-mands designed to change the Liberty's CPA, receipt of which by Liberty "would undoubtedly have resulted in the ship's being a greater distance from the scene of action...." Despite the Liberty's having been either an action or an information addressee on each of these messages, General Russ's team found no evidence that the ship received any one of them. Nor did his team find, for that matter, any evidence of conflicting directives governing the Liberty's operation. General Russ also made note of the irregular procedure JCS itself had adopted in bypassing Commander-in-Chief, Europe when it passed verbal instructions to Com-mander-in-Chief, U.S. Navy Europe, and he recounted the reasons for delays at NAVEUR and Sixth Fleet in translating the JCS directive into action. (U) By 20 June the JCS Fact Finding Team had completed its work, had prepared its report, and had made its recommendations to the JCS. Of the 17 recommendations made, 9 concerned the mis-sions, functions, operational responsibilities, and op-erational control/technical tasking and guidance mat-ters; the other 8 related to communications, traffic management, methods, facilities, and availability of trained personnel. In reviewing and commenting on the report's recommendations for the JCS, the J3 and J6/JCS reserved follow-on action for the first category of recommendations to the Joint Staff but assigned responsibilities to various other agencies for study and implementation actions in the second category of recommendations. NSA drew assignments on three

recommendations dealing with emphasis on dedicated command-and-control circuitry rather than on common-user circuitry, with measures to improve fleet control communications via communications satellite technology, and with the amalgamation of NATO and U.S. military communications. (C CCO) Other than the three recommendations on which it participated as an action agency, NSA was concerned about some of the other findings in the report. One recommendation was, for example, that "procedures governing the control of surveillance plat-forms be made more definitive with respect to tech-nical research ships to insure that "artificial barriers between operational elements of staffs and NSA/Naval Security Group" owing to security considerations be eliminated "in order to improve the value and timely utilization of the Sigint products at all major command echelons." Insofar as NSA was concerned, this rec-ommendation was off the mark since Sigint product already went directly to all commands and not through NSA/Naval Security Group staffs. NSA commented formally on this point in a letter to Major General G.B. Pickett, Vice Director for Operations (J-3); in its commentary on the Russ report for the JCS, the J-3 discounted this recommendation. (U) When copies of the JCS Fact Finding Team's report reached NSA at the end of June, General Carter instructed the chief of his telecom-munications organization, Colonel Leslie J. Bolstridge, USAF, to review the report in minute detail with a view to "correcting our procedures wherever we can profit from this debacle of military communications." Since the Russ report primarily dealt with command-and-control communications, the Russ recommenda-tions had only marginal pertinence to NSA's own communications. 2

Congressional Review (U)

(U) Following a hearing focusing on the JCS messages which failed to reach the Liberty, the House Appropriations Committee on 14 August 1967 directed its Surveys and Investigations staff to examine the effectiveness of the DoD worldwide communications system. The staff studied the delays and nondelivery of messages originated on 7 and 8 June directing the withdrawal of the Liberty as a springboard to its broader review of DoD's worldwide communications. The staff produced a two-volume report for the chair-man of the congressional committee. Volume I re-viewed the communications problems in the Liberty incident, volume II the worldwide communications systems and networks of the DoD.

-}heilaL-E-ii+A-eeMENT-eff*NNEL-S-Wa-17- fLONFfDEINIFf*E 59











means employed in issuing operational directives ofthe JCS to the V.S.S. Liberty and the specific ordersto the Liberty between 1 June and 8 June 1967, andto identify and develop information on conflictingdirectives, delays in message traffic, and nonreceipt oforders. The team was to report its findings, along withrecommendations, to the JCS.(0-006) The JCS team visited NSA, otherWashington-area principals, and concerned militarystaffs and commands in Europe and the Mediterranean. On 10 June, as the team began its fact-findingmission, General Carter called General Russ andoffered the total cooperation of NSA and followedthrough on this offer by making as much informationavailable to him as required, although General Russhad already decided not to concentrate on sensitive(that is, special intelligence) matters.(V) As the work of the fact-finding teamwas drawing to a close, General Russ provided on 18June a preliminary report to the Chairman of theJoint Chiefs of Staff, General Earle Wheeler, VSA.He apprised the Chairman of the four messages fromhigher headquarters on 7/8 June to subordinate commands designed to change the Liberty's CPA, receiptof which by Liberty "would undoubtedly have resultedin the ship's being a greater distance from the sceneof action.... " Despite the Liberty's having been eitheran action or an information addressee on each of thesemessages, General Russ's team found no evidence thatthe ship received anyone of them. Nor did his teamfind, for that matter, any evidence of conflictingdirectives governing the Liberty's operation. GeneralRuss also made note of the irregular procedure JCSitself had adopted in bypassing Commander-in-Chief,Europe when it passed verbal instructions to Commander-in-Chief, V.S. Navy Europe, and he recountedthe reasons for delays at NAVEUR and Sixth Fleet intranslating the JCS directive into action.(V) By 20 June the JCS Fact FindingTeam had completed its work, had prepared its report,and had made its recommendations to the JCS. Ofthe 17 recommendations made, 9 concerned the missions, functions, operational responsibilities, and operational control/technical tasking and guidance matters; the other 8 related to communications, trafficmanagement, methods, facilities, and availability oftrained personnel. In reviewing and commenting onthe report's recommendations for the JCS, the J3 andJ6/JCS reserved follow-on action for the first categoryof recommendations to the Joint Staff but assignedresponsibilities to various other agencies for study andimplementation actions in the second category ofrecommendations. NSA drew assignments on three

eONFIDIU"qJIAL

recommendations dealing with emphasis on dedicatedcommand-and-control circuitry rather than oncommon-user circuitry, with measures to improve fleetcontrol communications via communications satellitetechnology, and with the amalgamation of NATO andV.S. military communications.(0 OOQ) Other than the three recommendationson which it participated as an action agency, NSAwas concerned about some of the other findings in thereport. One recommendation was, for example, that"procedures governing the control of surveillance platforms be made more definitive with respect to technical research ships to insure that "artificial barriersbetween operational elements of staffs and NSNNavalSecurity Group" owing to security considerations beeliminated "in order to improve the value and timelyutilization of the Sigint products at all major commandechelons." Insofar as NSA was concerned, this recommendation was off the mark since Sigint productalready went directly to all commands and not throughNSNNaval Security Group staffs. NSA commentedformally on this point in a letter to Major GeneralG.B. Pickett, Vice Director for Operations (J-3); inits commentary on the Russ report for the JCS, theJ-3 discounted this recommendation.(V) When copies of the JCS Fact FindingTeam's report reached NSA at the end of June,General Carter instructed the chief of his telecommunications organization, Colonel Leslie J. Bolstridge,VSAF, to review the report in minute detail with aview to "correcting our procedures wherever we canprofit from this debacle of military communications."Since the Russ report primarily dealt with commandand-control communications, the Russ recommendations had only marginal pertinence to NSA's owncommunications. 2


(V) Following a hearing focusing on theJCS messages which failed to reach the Liberty, theHouse Appropriations Committee on 14 August 1967directed its Surveys and Investigations staff to examinethe effectiveness of the DoD worldwide communicationssystem. The staff studied the delays and nondeliveryof messages originated on 7 and 8 June directing thewithdrawal of the Liberty as a springboard to itsbroader review of DoD's worldwide communications.The staff produced a two-volume report for the chairman of the congressional committee. Volume I reviewed the communications problems in the Libertyincident, volume II the worldwide communicationssystems and networks of the DoD.

IIANBI:JH l.t"lA C6~HN'f CIIANNEI:JS 6NI:JY CONFIDENTIAL 59

UNCLASSIFIED

(U) In its work, the Surveys and Investi-gations staff interviewed JCS, NSA, Naval Commu-nications Command, Department of Army Communi-cations Center, and JCS Message Center personnel in the Washington area and most of the military com-mands and communications centers in the Pacific and European regions which had been involved with Lib-erty's communications in one way or another. (U) Essentially the staff covered the same ground that General Russ's team plowed earlier. They worked their way through all the communications errors made during the attempts to withdraw the Liberty on 7/8 June. The staff was somewhat more critical than the JCS Fact Finding Team of the failure to deliver to the Liberty the information copies of the JCS and CINCEUR messages directing withdrawal (JCS 080110Z June 67 and CINCEUR 080625Z June 67). Specifically, they wanted to know if a typical commander would take action on an information copy of this kind from a higher command before receiving the implementing message of his immediate superior. They tested the matter with unnamed U.S. Navy officials who had commanded both large and small naval vessels and learned, according to the report, that there would have been no question that if the Liberty had received the information copies, "the Captain of the Liberty would have moved within minutes without waiting for an implementing order." (U) In its volume II, the congressional staff took full note of the breakdown of the precedence system in communications and drew upon DoD-provided information for the Middle East crisis. Of some 452 high-precedence, (Flash and Immediate) crisis-related DoD messages, only 22 percent of the Flash and 30 percent of the Immediate messages actually met established precedence criteria. (U) Part of the' delay in transmitting the Immediate-precedence Sixth Fleet withdrawal message to the Liberty, it will be recalled, was owing to the urgency of equal or higher precedence (that is, Flash) messages. During the crisis, originators assigned Im-mediate precedence to messages on subjects such as these: enlisted men reassignments, hospital-patient reports unrelated to the crisis, friendly ship locations and movements, setting up of press conferences,

changes in reporting formats, U.S. military sales policies, and reorganization of Army Reserve units. In contrast, actual instructions called for assignment of Immediate precedence to "situations which gravely affect the security of national/allied forces or populace, and which require immediate delivery to the addres-sees" — for example, amplifying reports of initial enemy contact, reports of unusual major movements of military forces of foreign powers during peacetime or during strained relations, attack orders, and urgent intelligence messages. (U) While the congressional staff directed most of its attention to DoD command communica-tions, it also took note of Criticomm which, they found functioned throughout the crisis relatively free of problems. The staff was aware of steps NSA took to keep Criticomm free of the overburdening traffic common in crisis situations, particularly an 8 June action in which NSA directed the curtailment of electrical forwarding of all routine reports so that crisis-related traffic could flow expeditiously.'

Notes


'(U) ( c ) - LTG Marshall S. Carter, Memorandum for the Record, 8 June 1967; Dr. Louis W. Tordella, Memorandum, "Directorate's Temporary Mid-East Information Group," 8 June 1967; Walter G. Deeley, Memorandum for the D/DIR, "U.S.S. Liberty," 14 June 1967; NSA Staff, "Report to the Director, NSA," 12 June 1967; and DIRNSA letter to MG J. R. Russ, (JCS Fact Finding Team), 12 June 1967.

1(U) The Russ Report; NSA Director, handwritten notes, 8 and 10 June 1967; JCS/J-3, "Note by the Secretaries to the JCS on U.S.S. Liberty Incident," JCS no. 2308/378, 24 June 1967; Joint Command and Control Requirements Group, Memoran-dum for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, "Fact Finding Team," 18 June 1967; Walter G. Deeley, letter to Vice Director for Operations (J-3), 29 June 1967.

3(U) House Appropriations Committee Surveys and Investigations Staff, A Report to the Committee on Appropriations - U.S. House of Representatives on the Effectiveness of the Worldwide Communications Systems and Networks of the DoD, U.S.S. Liberty Incident, vol. I pp. 48-50. vol. II, pp. 75-76.

60 UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED



Notes





60 UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED



Notes





60 UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

(U) In its work, the Surveys and Investigations staff interviewed JCS, NSA, Naval Communications Command, Department of Army Communications Center, and JCS Message Center personnel inthe Washington area and most of the military commands and communications centers in the Pacific andEuropean regions which had been involved with Liberty's communications in one way or another.(U) Essentially the staff covered the sameground that General Russ's team plowed earlier. Theyworked their way through all the communicationserrors made during the attempts to withdraw theLiberty on 7/8 June. The staff was somewhat morecritical than the JCS Fact Finding Team of the failureto deliver to the Liberty the information copies of theJCS and CINCEUR messages directing withdrawal(JCS 080110Z June 67 and CINCEUR 080625Z June67). Specifically, they wanted to know if a typicalcommander would take action on an information copyof this kind from a higher command before receivingthe implementing message of his immediate superior.They tested the matter with unnamed U.S. Navyofficials who had commanded both large and smallnaval vessels and learned, according to the report,that there would have been no question that if theLiberty had received the information copies, "theCaptain of the Liberty would have moved withinminutes without waiting for an implementing order."(U) In its volume II, the congressionalstaff took full note of the breakdown of the precedencesystem in communications and drew upon 000provided information for the Middle East crisis. Ofsome 452 high-precedence, (Flash and Immediate)crisis-related 000 messages, only 22 percent of theFlash and 30 percent of the Immediate messagesactually met established precedence criteria.(U) Part of the' delay in transmitting theImmediate-precedence Sixth Fleet withdrawal messageto the Liberty, it will be recalled, was owing to theurgency of equal or higher precedence (that is, Flash)messages. During the crisis, originators assigned Immediate precedence to messages on subjects such asthese: enlisted men reassignments, hospital-patientreports unrelated to the crisis, friendly ship locationsand movements, setting up of press conferences,

60 UNCLASSIFIED

changes in reporting formats, U. S. military salespolicies, and reorganization of Army Reserve units. Incontrast, actual instructions called for assignment ofImmediate precedence to "situations which gravelyaffect the security of national/allied forces or populace,and which require immediate delivery to the addressees" - for example, amplifying reports of initialenemy contact, reports of unusual major movementsof military forces of foreign powers during peacetimeor during strained relations, attack orders, and urgentintelligence messages.(U) While the congressional staff directedmost of its attention to 000 command communications, it also took note of Criticomm which, they foundfunctioned throughout the crisis relatively free ofproblems. The staff was aware of steps NSA took tokeep Criticomm free of the overburdening trafficcommon in crisis situations, particularly an 8 Juneaction in which NSA directed the curtailment ofelectrical forwarding of all routine reports so thatcrisis-related traffic could flow expeditiously. 3

Notes


leu) (C) - LTG Marshall S. Carter, Memorandum forthe Record, 8 June 1967; Dr. Louis W. Tordella, Memorandum,"Directorate's Temporary Mid-East Information Group," 8 June1967; Walter G. Deeley, Memorandum for the D/Dffi, "U.S.S.Liberty," 14 June 1967; NSA Staff, "Report to the Director, NSA,"12 June 1967; and DffiNSA letter to MG J. R. Russ, (JCS FactFinding Team), 12 June 1967.

'(U) The Russ Report; NSA Director, handwrittennotes, 8 and 10 June 1967; JCS/J-3, "Note by the Secretaries tothe JCS on U.S.S. Liberty Incident," JCS no. 2308/378, 24 June1967; Joint Command and Control Requirements Group, Memorandum for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, "Fact Finding Team," 18 June1967; Walter G. Deeley, letter to Vice Director for Operations (J3), 29 June 1967.

J(U) House Appropriations Committee Surveys andInvestigations Staff, A Report to the Committee on Appropriations- U.S. House of Representatives on the Effectiveness of theWorldwide Communications Systems and Networks of the DoD,U.S.S. Liberty Incident, vol. I pp. 48-50. vol. II, pp. 75-76.

Chapter VIII

A Final Look (U)

(C CCO) Perhaps the Liberty has undergone scrutiny long enough. First the Israeli Court of Inquiry examined the event, exculpation of Israeli nationals apparently not being hindmost in the court's calcula-tions. Then the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry studied the incident. The JCS review actively sought to identify faulty procedures and practices for corrective action. The NSA review was essentially fact-finding in nature. And the House Appropriations Committee review, made as it was without all the information available to the JCS team, nonetheless reconstructed many of the basic findings of that team and sought to use them as a mirror in which to observe problem areas in DoD's worldwide communications. Despite the official scrutiny, it is still necessary to comment briefly on a few subjects of interest and concern to cryptologic organizations.

Safety Estimates for Collection Missions of Mobile Platforms (U)

•EC— One principal area of concern was the manner in which safety factors were adjudged. Prior to the Liberty incident, commanders did not essen-tially regard mobile collectors as integral components of their commands. After all, JCS/JRC assigned the schedules and routes, the platforms existed to satisfy "national intelligence" and — as they may have thought — not their own intelligence requirements, and NSA was on the sidelines as a major interested party. As General Russ learned, commanders accord-ingly felt some uncertainty as to their specific respon-sibilities in supporting these platforms. The General reasoned therefrom, and so stated in his report, that commanders must have adequate knowledge of a ship's mission if they are to control and support it effectively.

(U) JCS/JRC looked to the unified and specified commands to provide for the safety of the mobile collectors. The regional commands were in close touch with political and military conditions in which

the platforms operated and were, JCS/JRC believed, in the best position to evaluate safety factors.'

(C CCO) , In the Liberty incident, the Com-mander, Sixth Fleet, was responsible for the safety of the ship. But Vice Admiral Martin was not in a position to evaluate the expected intelligence gain or assign degrees of importance to the expected intelli-gence gain in terms of changing risk factors. Judgment on the value of the intelligence to be gained could come only from DoD-level intelligence agencies — and, in the case of the Liberty, particularly from NSA.

In the aftermath of the incident, there was indeed some soul searching on this point within NSA. The head of NSA's Temporary Mid-East Infor-mation Group told Dr. Tordella in mid-June that he believed NSA could not really absolve itself totally from the safety considerations. He believed that NSA may have to demonstrate "that the need is not established frivolously" and questioned whether or not the intelligence requirements against which NSA worked at the time were really of such a compelling nature as to justify using the special operational areas in the Middle East which NSA designated.'

(C CCO) One has to pose this question. Had NSA sent a message to the JCS/JRC on 5 June, the day war broke out, and stated simply that the agency which initiated the mission in the first place, NSA, now believed the risk to its cryptologic materials and personnel outweighed its estimate of technical and intelligence benefits to be derived, would there have been more expeditious action by JCS/JRC to cut the mission short? NSA may have drawn a mild rebuke for presuming to evaluate safety factors. But the hypothetical NSA message might have added to the position the CNO was taking at about this time to increase the ship's CPA, and it might have stimulated JCS/JRC action earlier than 080110Z.

(C CCO) On 8 June NSA was, however, of a totally different mind. Since it did not want to lose

-60*REFEN-71-AL 61

Chapter VIII

A Final Look (U)










-60*REFEN-71-AL 61

Chapter VIII

A Final Look (U)










-60*REFEN-71-AL 61

eONFIDHN'FIAL

Chapter VIII

A Final Look (U)

(0 000) Perhaps the Liberty has undergonescrutiny long enough. First the Israeli Court of Inquiryexamined the event, exculpation of Israeli nationalsapparently not being hindmost in the court's calculations. Then the U. S. Navy Court of Inquiry studiedthe incident. The JCS review actively sought toidentify faulty procedures and practices for correctiveaction. The NSA review was essentially fact-finding innature. And the House Appropriations Committeereview, made as it was without all the informationavailable to the JCS team, nonetheless reconstructedmany of the basic findings of that team and sought touse them as a mirror in which to observe problemareas in DoD's worldwide communications. Despite theofficial scrutiny, it is still necessary to comment brieflyon a few subjects of interest and concern to cryptologicorganizations.

Safety Estimates for Collection Missionsof Mobile Platforms (U)

\

t€7 One principal area of concern was themanner in which safety factors were adjudged. Priorto the Liberty incident, commanders did not essentially regard mobile collectors as integral componentsof their commands. After all, JCS/JRC assigned theschedules and routes, the platforms existed to satisfy"national intelligence" and - as they may havethought - not their own intelligence requirements,and NSA was on the sidelines as a major interestedparty. As General Russ learned, commanders accordingly felt some uncertainty as to their specific responsibilities in supporting these platforms. The Generalreasoned therefrom, and so stated in his report, thatcommanders must have adequate knowledge of a ship'smission if they are to control and support it effectively.

(U) JCS/JRC looked to the unified andspecified commands to provide for the safety of themobile collectors. The regional commands were in closetouch with political and military conditions in which

the platforms operated and were, JCS/JRC believed,in the best position to evaluate safety factors. I

(C CCQ) ,. In the Liberty incident, the Commander, Sixth Fleet, was responsible for the safety ofthe ship. But Vice Admiral Martin was not in aposition to evaluate the expected intelligence gain orassign degrees of importance to the expected intelligence gain in terms of changing risk factors. Judgmenton the value of the intelligence to be gained couldcome only from DoD-level intelligence agencies - and,in the case of the Liberty, particularly from NSA.

(0 000) In the aftermath of the incident, therewas indeed some soul searching on this point withinNSA. The head of NSA's Temporary Mid-East Information Group told Dr. Tordella in mid-June that hebelieved NSA could not really absolve itself totallyfrom the safety considerations. He believed that NSAmay have to demonstrate "that the need is notestablished frivolously" and questioned whether or notthe intelligence requirements against which NSAworked at the time were really of such a compellingnature as to justify using the special operational areasin the Middle East which NSA designated. 2

(0 000) One has to pose this question. HadNSA sent a message to the JCS/JRC on 5 June, theday war broke out, and stated simply that the agencywhich initiated the mission in the first place, NSA,now believed the risk to its cryptologic materials andpersonnel outweighed its estimate of technical andintelligence benefits to be derived, would there havebeen more expeditious action by JCS/JRC to cut themission short? NSA may have drawn a mild rebukefor presuming to evaluate safety factors. But thehypothetical NSA message might have added to theposition the CNO was taking at about this time toincrease the ship's CPA, and it might have stimulatedJCS/JRC action earlier than 080110Z.

(0 000) On 8 June NSA was, however, of atotally different mind. Since it did not want to lose

IIANBbH ".tIA COflfHN'f CIIANNHbS ONbl' eONFIDHN'fIAL 61

,/E0 1.4. (c)

the coverage it had planned for the Middle East, it sent a message to the JCS/JRC proposing assignment of the U.S.S. Belmont to the eastern Atlantic/Medi-terranean as soon as possible after that ship's expected arrival at Norfolk on the next day.3 The Director, NSA later withdrew this request in the face of reluctance on the part of the Commander-in-Chief, Atlantic' and reevaluation of the CPA constraints on mission effectiveness.

(C-CCO) In reflecting on the Liberty/Pueblo incidents in an oral history interview, General Mar-shall S. Carter said

as a result of both of those traumatic experiences, we have reviewed our procedures and found there was little change needed in NSA-JCS relationships, but there were some changes needed in the chain of command supervision and monitoring... of just where the ship is, and what it is doing, and was it necessary.

(C-CCO) As it turned out, the Liberty incident — and some six months later the Pueblo seizure —brought about some modification in the JCS/JRC procedures for weighing risk vs. intelligence-gain fac-tors. Instead of relying entirely on military assess-ments, the new procedures took into account intelligence-agency information relating to potential risk.' Just prior to the Pueblo's capture, NSA had apprised the JCS of Sigint from North Korean com-munications portending difficulties for the Pueblo.

(U) NSA should not yield or should yield grudgingly to others, this review would suggest, in safety evaluations of missions involving large holdings of Sigint materials, equipment, and personnel.

Availability of Linguists (U) -cco)- (C CCO) Looking back on the Liberty incident, one perhaps should fault the cryptologic organization for not assuring the presence on board of qualified Hebrew linguists for on-station examination of Israeli voice communications uncovered in the intercept from the nonmorse search and development mission and for not even having a token mission on Israeli voice communications. It turned out that Hebrew language tapes produced by USN-855 from the search and development mission on the morning of 8 June did not contain information on the forthcoming Israeli attack, but NSA did not learn this until it had received these tapes and had processed them several days after the event. For all NSA and USN-855 knew at the time, information on Israeli intentions towards the ship might well have been on those tapes.

(C CCO) Hebrew linguists were, to be sure, in short supply. In sending three Hebrew linguists to fill out the staff of the U.S. Air Force Security Service's

62 -TOP-SteRFF-

technical processing center at NSA had sent to the field all but one of its Hebrew linguists. Prior to the Liberty's arrival at Rota, Spain, the Naval Security Group had inventoried its available linguists in order to select Arab linguists for assignment to USN-855. One of the selectees, it turned out, carried the classification "Special Arabic" — in reality, Hebrew— and assignment of that individual was by accident rather than by design. USN-855 did not use him as a Hebrew linguist.

(U) As in other situations — the lack of Vietnamese linguists during the Vietnam period, for example — this lack of Hebrew linguists showed that the linguist talent pool available to U.S. cryptologic agencies for employment in crisis conditions was not always adequate.6

Communications Problems (U)

(U) Errors made in the handling of communications accounted, in some measure, for the Liberty tragedy. Studied in great detail by the JCS Fact Finding Team and reviewed by the staff of the House Appropriations Committee, the communications problems posed a challenge for the JCS and for DoD agencies in the immediate post-Liberty period.

(U) NSA was not the DoD action office for correcting faulty communications procedures, but it was indeed a very interested party to corrective actions stimulated by the Russ Report. Doing what he could, General Carter called Army Chief of Staff, General Harold K. Johnson, about the considerable number of mishandled messages in the Department of Army's communications center in the Pentagon, particularly those coming to NSA, and on 3 July provided General Johnson's staff with examples of message mishandling during the Liberty incident. Department of Army's response was positive, and soon thereafter its Com-munications Staff added page monitors on its circuits to NSA to check assignment of address groups. Errors diminished from some 40 to 7 a day out of an average daily total of 1,000 transmissions. General Carter also insisted, as noted earlier, that his staff examine the Russ Report recommendations relating to DoD com-munications for any possible application to NSA's Criticomm network.'

File Reduction for Exposed Collectors (U)

(TC CCO NI') The Six Day War and the Liberty incident created conditions in which Sigint personnel had to take fast action to prevent loss of their documentation and e ui • ment.

while dealing successfully with

EO 1.4.(c)

,/E0 1.4. (c)








62 -TOP-SteRFF-









EO 1.4.(c)

,/E0 1.4. (c)








62 -TOP-SteRFF-









EO 1.4.(c)

'fOP SECRE'f

the coverage it had planned for the Middle East, itsent a message to the JCS/JRC proposing assignmentof the U.S.S. Belmont to the eastern Atlantic/Mediterranean as soon as possible after that ship's expectedarrival at Norfolk on the next day." The Director,NSA later withdrew this request in the face ofreluctance on the part of the Commander-in-Chief,Atlantic" and reevaluation of the CPA constraints onmission effectiveness.

(6 660) In reflecting on the Liberty/Puebloincidents in an oral history interview, General Marshall S. Carter said

as a result of both of those traumatic experiences, we havereviewed our procedures and found there was little changeneeded in NSA-JCS relationships, but there were some changesneeded in the chain of command supervision and monitoring...of just where the ship is, and what it is doing, 'and was itnecessary.

(6 660) As it turned out, the Liberty incident- and some six months later the Pueblo seizure brought about some modification in the JCS/JRCprocedures for weighing risk vs. intelligence-gain factors. Instead of relying entirely on military assessments, the new procedures took into accountintelligence-agency information relating to potentialrisk. 5 Just prior to the Pueblo's capture, NSA hadapprised the JCS of Sigint from North Korean communications portending difficulties for the Pueblo.

(U) NSA should not yield or should yieldgrudgingly to others, this review would suggest, insafety evaluations of missions involving large holdingsof Sigint materials, equipment, and personnel.

Availability of Linguists (U)(C-CCOI

(6 660) Looking back on the Liberty incident,one perhaps should fault the cryptologic organizationfor not assuring the presence on board of qualifiedHebrew linguists for on-station examination of Israelivoice communications uncovered in the intercept fromthe non morse search and development mission and fornot even having a token mission on Israeli voicecommunications. It turned out that Hebrew languagetapes produced by USN-855 from the search anddevelopment mission on the morning of 8 June did notcontain information on the forthcoming Israeli attack,but NSA did not learn this until it had received thesetapes and had processed them several days after theevent. For all NSA and USN-855 knew at the time,information on Israeli intentions towards the shipmight well have been on those tapes.

(6 660) Hebrew linguists were, to be sure, inshort supply. In sending three Hebrew linguists to fillout the staff of the U. S. Air Force Security Service's

EO 1. 4 . (c I

technical processing center at I INSA had sentto the field all but one of its Hebrew linguists. Priorto the Liberty's arrival at Rota, Spain, the NavalSecurity Group had inventoried its available linguistsin order to select Arab linguists for assignment toUSN-855. One of the selectees, it turned out, carriedthe classification "Special Arabic" - in reality,Hebrew- and assignment of that individual was byaccident rather than by design. USN-855 did not usehim as a Hebrew linguist.

(U) As in other situations - the lack ofVietnamese linguists during the Vietnam period, forexample - this lack of Hebrew linguists showed thatthe linguist talent pool available to U. S. cryptologicagencies for employment in crisis conditions was notalways adequate. 6

Communications Problems (D)

(U) Errors made in the handling of communications accounted, in some measure, for theLiberty tragedy. Studied in great detail by the JCSFact Finding Team and reviewed by the staff of theHouse Appropriations Committee, the communicationsproblems posed a challenge for the JCS and for DoDagencies in the immediate post-Liberty period.

(U) NSA was not the DoD action office forcorrecting faulty communications procedures, but itwas indeed a very interested party to corrective actionsstimulated by the Russ Report. Doing what he could,General Carter called Army Chief of Staff, GeneralHarold K Johnson, about the considerable number ofmishandled messages in the Department of Army'scommunications center in the Pentagon, particularlythose coming to NSA, and on 3 July provided GeneralJohnson's staff with examples of message mishandlingduring the Liberty incident. Department of Army'sresponse was positive, and soon thereafter its Communications Staff added page monitors on its circuitsto NSA to check assignment of address groups. Errorsdiminished from some 40 to 7 a day out of an averagedaily total of 1,000 transmissions. General Carter alsoinsisted, as noted earlier, that his staff examine theRuss Report recommendations relating to DoD communications for any possible application to NSA'sCriticomm network. 7


('f'S 660 nF) The Six Day War and the Libertyincident created conditions in which Sigint personnelhad to take fast action to prevent loss of theirdocumentation and e ui ment.

L.- ..... while dealing successfully with

62 'fOP SECRE'f IIhNHLB ¥I.... 60l\HN'I' UIIMlNB1.8 ONl.Y NOFORN EO 1. 4 . (c I

(C-CCO) The Liberty and Pueblo incidents should serve to remind cryptologic managers of the need to exercise restraint in the use of Sigint equip

EO 1.4.(c) EO 1.4.(d) ment and documentation in high-risk areas.

the problem, did encounter difficulties because of the time required to destroy records and neutralize equip-ment. In its report on emergency destruction of Sigint documentation and equipment' recommended reduction to the absolute minimum of detachment files as one measure to facilitate the destruction. The report stated:

Technical documents, operational aids, etc., should be limited to those required to carry out the mission; files held and containing information that may or may not be needed at some future date should be eliminated. The library of training manuals ought to be limited to those covering items of equip-ment in use at the detachment; anyone who cannot read a TEXTA card can be taught without the use of a TEXTA Manual; a Traffic Analyst's Handbook is not needed where there are no traffic analysts, nor is a cryptographic textbook where there is no cryptanalysis accomplished.'

The cryptologic holdings of I

I were small in comparison with those held by the Liberty. (TS-CCO) After the Liberty incident, a review of USN-855's cryptologic documentary holdings showed that the Sigint unit held technical reports such as TEXTA, Techins (Technical Instructions), tasking records of all kinds, Informal Technical Notes, and Comint Technical Reports for Middle Eastern, countries, and the U.S.S.R. — documents which would have made possible, granted a serious compromise, a country-by-country index to the Sigint success achieved by the U.S. for the countries concerned. The Sigint unit also held collec-tion management records recapitulating intercept as-signments by case notation at U.S. Sigint sites world-wide. In addition, USN-855 held much of the Musso (Manual of U.S. Sigint Operations) library spelling out Sigint policy and procedures. It held numerous records denoting'

And it held then current Sigint product for 'Middle Eastern countries, and the

U.S.S.R. (3-CCO) USN-855 had received this comprehensive documentation primarily from NSA's collection management, telecommunications, and G Group of-fices, Naval Security Group Headquarters, and U.S.

IUSN-855 was, in a sense, NSA in microcosm.' (C CCO) Asked if the ship had too much Sigint documentation and equipment, one USN-855 survivor commented,

Entirely too much. There is no way emergency destruction could be carried out unless you were given...two day's notice that you're going to get hit. And usually you're not given any notice.1°

(C CCO) Casual examination of document listings reveals, of course, countless records which were

not specific to USN-855's eastern Mediterranean mis-sion, records which could have remained behind at Rota. This same judgment would probably not apply, on the other hand, to on-board Sigint equipment, virtually all of which was essential to the mission.

+C± The Liberty's experience, together with the Pueblo capture, led to some emphasis on file reduction and on measures to facilitate destruction of cryptologic materials and equipment. The incidents pointed up, as no others had done before, the need for scaling the distribution of technical documentation to specific and minimal levels necessary for execution of tasks, and following the incidents some moderation in-the supply of documentation was in evidence.

(U) As a direct result of the Liberty incident and at General Carter's urging, NSA's Com-munications Security Organization revised, for exam-ple, its physical security doctrine (HAG-1D) to limit keying materials in normal circumstances to a four-month's supply and to curtail possession of those materials to that which was clearly essential to mission requirements." The incidents also gave impetus to the use of alternative means for technical support, such as Opscomm equipment for teletype exchanges on specific technical problems. And a small amount of water-soluble paper came into use for technical docu-mentation subject to possible loss at sea. But measures such as these did not solve the problem in its entirety.

(c-cco)- In the 1970s NSA initiated two projects to examine the use of technical-support materials by exposed sites, Projects' 1 The latter did not get beyond the survey stage. Under Project' 'NSA considered the use of microfilm to reduce the size of files and examined techniques for fast microfilm/fische destruction, but failed to win adoption because of disinterest and general disincli-nation to use microform. Size of files and time factors in the destruction process continue as problems to this time :2

Unanswered Questions (U) (U) A persistent question relating to the Liberty incident is whether or not the Israeli forces which attacked the ship knew that it was American. Several authors and not a few of the Liberty's crewmen and USN-855 staff are convinced that they did. Their belief derived from consideration of the long time the Israelis had the ship under surveillance prior to the

,° E0 1.4. (c)

86-36

-pep-seettelL 63

















,° E0 1.4. (c)

86-36

-pep-seettelL 63

















,° E0 1.4. (c)

86-36

-pep-seettelL 63

the problem, did encounter difficulties because of thetime required to destroy records and neutralize equipment. In its report on emergency destruction of Sigintdocumentation and equipmentI Irecommended reduction to the absolute minimum ofdetachment files as one measure to facilitate thedestruction. The report stated:

Technical documents, operational aids, etc., should be limitedto those required to carry out the mission; files held andcontaining information that mayor may not be needed at somefuture date should be eliminated. The library of trainingmanuals ought to be limited to those covering items of equipment in use at the detachment; anyone who cannot read aTEXTA card can be taught without the use of a TEXTAManual; a Traffic Analyst's Handbook is not needed wherethere are no traffic analysts, nor is a cryptographic textbookwhere there is no cryPtanalysis,:.a;:c.::;;co;;.:m:;Jp;;.:l,::is.::h.::;;ed:;,._' ...,

The cryptologic holdin s ofwere small in comparison with those held by the

Liberty.('T'S-CCO) After the Liberty incident, a review ofUSN-855's cryptologic documentary holdings showedthat the Sigint unit held technical reports such-asTEXTA, Techins (Technical Lnstructione), taskingrecords of all kinds, Informal Technical Notes, andComint Technical Rep():rtsf6rl IMiddleEastern, I Icountries, and the U.S.S.R. documents which would have made possible, granteda serious compromise, a country-by-country index tothe Sigint success achieved by the U. S. for thecountries concerned. The Sigint unit also held collection management records recapitulating intercept assignments by case notation at U.S. Sigintsites worldwide. In addition, USN-855 held much/of the Musso(Manual of U.S. Sigint Operations) library spellingout Sigint policy and procedures. It held numerousrecords denoting I // I

I IAndjt heldthen current S.. igint product forL...;..~""':':""';':" JMiddleEastern countries, and the

U.S.S.R.(S OCO) USN-855 had received this comprehensive documentation primarily from NSA's collectionmanagement, telecommunications, and G Group offices, Naval Security Group Headquarters, and U.S.

I IUSN~855was;ifiaSerise,NSAin microcosm. 9

(G GGO) Asked if the ship had too much Sigintdocumentation and equipment, one USN-855 survivorcommented,

Entirely too much. There is no way emergency destructioncould be carried out unless you were given... two day's noticethat you're going to get hit. And usually you're not given anynotice. 10

(G GGO) Casual examination of document listings reveals, of course, countless records which were

TOP SB€RBT

not specific to USN-855's eastern Mediterranean mission, records which could have remained behind atRota. This same judgment would probably not apply,on the other hand, to on-board Sigint equipment,virtually all of which was essential to the mission.

f€t- The Liberty's experience, together withthe Pueblo capture, led to some emphasis on filereduction and on measures to facilitate destruction ofcryptologic materials and equipment. The incidentspointed up, as no others had done before.the need forscaling the distribution of technical documentation tospecific and minimal levels necessary for execution oftasks, and following the incidents some moderationinthe supply of documentation\Vasi:n,evide~ce.

(U) .........Asadirect resu1toft~~Libe~tyincidentand at General Carter's-urging, NSNs Communications SecurityOrganizatiofi revised, for example, its physical security doctrine (l{AG-lD) to limitkeyiIlgmaterials)nnormal circumstances to a fourmonth's su,pply and to curtail possession of thosematerials to that which was clearly essential to missionrequirements. II Theincidents also gave impetus to theuse of alternative means for technical support, suchas Opscomrnequipment for teletype exchanges onspecific technical problems. And a small amount ofwater-soluble paper came into use for technical documentation subject to possible loss at sea. But measuressuch as these did not solve the problem in its entirety.(U) (C-CCOI_ In the 19708 NSA initiated two projects to examine the use of technical-support materialsby exposed sites, Projectsl// IThe latter did not get beyond.the-survey stage. UnderProjectl INSA considered the use of microfilmto reduce the size of files and examined techniques forfast microfilm/fische destruction, but failed to winaddptioIl,because of disinterest and general disinclination to use microform. Size of files and time factorsin the destruction process continue as problems to thistime.12

(0 000) The Liberty and Pueblo incidentsshould serve to remind cryptologicmanagersofth~

need to exercise restraintjntllellseQLSiginLequip"ment and documentation in high-risk areas.

Unanswered Questions (U)

(U) A persistent question relating to theLiberty incident is whether or not the Israeli forceswhich attacked the ship knew that it was American.Several authors and not a few of the Liberty's crewmenand USN-855 staff are convinced that they did. Theirbelief derived from consideration of the long time theIsraelis had the ship under surveillance prior to the

EO 1. 4 . (c I

·P.L. 86-36

EO 1. 4 . (c IEO 1. 4 . (d I

ItA:NDL! "itA: e6M1N'f eHA:NN!LS 6NLY N6f6ltN TOP SECRET 63

-EfEeRET- E(.3, 1.4.(c)

attack, the visibility of the flag, and the intensity of the attack itself.

(C-CCO) Speculation as to Israeli motivation varied. Some believed that Israel expected that the complete destruction of the ship and killing of the personnel would lead the U.S. to blame the U.A.R. for the incident and bring the U.S. into the war on the side of Israel. Ironically, even though the Liberty had no specific mission against Israeli communications, others felt Israeli forces wanted the ship and men out of the way in order to deny the U.S. any Sigint on Israel's preparations to attack Syria — an attack the U.S. might try to prevent.

Authors of the several books now in print about the Liberty, whether members of the Liberty's complement or not, have not had access to

Sigint reports on the Israeli helicopter pilot voice communications, nor have they had access to the confidential Israeli Government's explanation given to the U.S. Department of State. (C-CCO) In part because of the press speculation at the time, President Johnson directed the Director of Central Intelligence, Richard Helms, to prepare a report by 13 June, five days after the attack, assessing the Israeli intentions. The CIA assessment drew heav-ily upon the Sigint reports referred to above. While these reports revealed some confusion on the part of the pilots 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.

Denouement (U) (U) On 11 June 1968, exactly one year and three days after the attack on the Liberty, her commanding officer, Captain William Loren Mc-Gonagle (promoted after the attack), was presented the Congressional Medal of Honor by the Secretary of the Navy for gallantry and courage displayed during Liberty's hours of trial. Following that award, the Presidential Unit Citation was conferred upon the Liberty and crew on 14 June 1968 at Portsmouth, Virginia.

(C CCO) Scores of individual decorations (Bronze Star, Silver Star., etc.) were given to crew members, and 170 Purple Hearts were earned by Liberty's complement, including two NSA civilians, Donald L. Blalock and Allen M. Blue (the latter, posthumously).

(U) Claims against the government of Is-rael for compensation concerning deaths and injuries of U.S. personnel and damage to the Liberty were

64

initiated by the Department of State. In May 1968, Israel paid the U.S. Government $3,323,500 as full payment on behalf of the families of the 34 men killed in the attack." Eleven months later, Israel paid $3,566,457 in compensation to the men who had been wounded." The U.S. claim of $7,644,146 for material damage to the Liberty itself was not settled until 18 December 1980 when Israel agreed to pay $6 million. (U) After returning to Norfolk in July 1967, the Liberty languished there while NSA tried unsuccessfully to obtain DoD budgetary approval to restore her to Sigint operational status; the proposed budget figure was $10,200,000. When this effort failed, the Liberty was decommissioned on 28 June 1968. In 1970 the ship was turned over to the Maritime Administration and sold for scrap for $101,666.66. In 1973 the ship came to an ignominious end as she was cut up in Baltimore's Curtis Bay shipyard. (U) There was one aspect of the Liberty tragedy which should not go unnoted. This was its adverse and lingering affect on the Liberty's survivors. Oral interviews with USN-855 personnel some 13 years after the event, show that time has not healed all the scars.' Apart from bitterness toward the Israeli Gov-ernment, there still remains dismay that the U.S. Government or Sixth Fleet did not come to Liberty's aid in timely fashion. (U) The contributions of technical re-search ships to this nation's Sigint production also should not go unnoted. These were unique in their time, often irreplaceable, often unheralded. That the TRS program came to an end in 1969 was not for lack of competence and dedication of the men who served or for lack of NSA's appreciation for their contribu-tions, but rather for budgetary considerations by the Department of Defense.

Notes


'(U) The Russ Report, pp 9-10; Richard Harvey interview, 16 Jul 1980.

2(U) Walter Deeley, Memorandum for the D/DIR - "U.S.S. Liberty," 14 Jun 1967.

'(U) DIRNSA msg to JCS/JRC, 0815032 Jun 1967. 4(U) CINCLANT msg to JCS, 121414Z Jun 1967. '(U) Interview with Gene Sheck, 11 Aug 1980. 6.(C-CCO) NSA Staff, "Critique-Sigint Readiness Bravo

Crayon," pp. 24, 29. '(U) NSA Staff, Memorandum for the Record,

"Telephone Conversation with Mr. Morton A. Brill, OCCE, 5 Jul 1967; NSA, T1 Memo, "Missent Traffic from RUEPCR," 14 Jul 1967.

-EfEeRET- E(.3, 1.4.(c)








64


Notes







-EfEeRET- E(.3, 1.4.(c)








64


Notes







SECRET EO 1. 4 . (c)

attack, the visibility of the flag, and the intensity ofthe attack itself.

(O-CCO) Speculation as to Israeli motivationvaried. Some believed that Israel expected that thecomplete destruction of the ship and killing of thepersonnel would lead the U.S. to blame the U.A.R.for the incident and bring the U.S. into the war onthe side of Israel. Ironically, even though the Libertyhad no specific mission against Israeli communications,others felt Israeli forces wanted the ship and men outof the way in order to deny the U.S. any Sigint onIsrael's preparations to attack.Syria - an attack theU. S. might try to prevent.

(8 COO) Authors of .the several books now inprint about the Liberty.' whether members. of theLiberty's complement or/ not, have not had access toI Ii Sigint reports on the Israelihelicopter pilot voice communications, nor have theyhad access to the confidential Israeli Government'sexplanation given to the U. S. Department of State.

(O-OeO) In part because of the press speculationat the time, President Johnson directed the Directorof Central Intelligence, Richard Helms, to prepare areport by 13 June, five days after the attack, assessingthe Israeli intentions. The CIA assessment drew heavily upon the Sigint reports referred to above. Whilethese reports revealed some confusion on the part ofthe pilots concerning the nationality of the ship, theytended to rule out any thesis that the Israeli Navyand Air Force deliberately attacked a ship they knewto be American.

Denouement (U)

(U) On 11 June 1968, exactly one yearand three days after the attack on the Liberty, hercommanding officer, Captain William Loren MeGonagle (promoted after the attack), was presentedthe Congressional Medal of Honor by the Secretary ofthe Navy for gallantry and courage displayed duringLiberty's hours of trial. Following that award, thePresidential Unit Citation was conferred upon theLiberty and crew on 14 June 1968 at Portsmouth,Virginia.

(0 GGO) Scores of individual decorations(Bronze Star, Silver Star., etc.) were given to crewmembers, and 170 Purple Hearts were earned byLiberty's complement, including two NSA civilians,Donald L. Blalock and Allen M. Blue (the latter,posthumously).

(U) Claims against the government of Israel for compensation concerning deaths and injuriesof U.S. personnel and damage to the Liberty were

initiated by the Department of State. In May 1968,Israel paid the U.S. Government $3,323,500 as fullpayment on behalf of the families of the 34 men killedin the attack. 13 Eleven months later, Israel paid$3,566,457 in compensation to the men who had beenwounded. 14 The U. S. claim of $7,644,146 for materialdamage to the Liberty itself was not settled until 18December 1980 when Israel agreed to pay $6 million.(U) After returning to Norfolk in July1967, the Liberty languished there while NSA triedunsuccessfully to obtain DoD budgetary approval torestore her to Sigint operational status; the proposedbudget figure was $10,200,000. When this effort failed,the Liberty was decommissioned on 28 June 1968. In1970 the ship was turned over to the MaritimeAdministration and sold for scrap for $101,666.66. In1973 the ship came to an ignominious end as she wascut up in Baltimore's Curtis Bay shipyard.(U) There was one aspect of the Libertytragedy which should not go unnoted. This was itsadverse and lingering affect on the Liberty's survivors.Oral interviews with USN-855 personnel some 13 yearsafter the event, show that time has not healed all thescars." Apart from bitterness toward the Israeli Government, there still remains dismay that the U. S.Government or Sixth Fleet did not come to Liberty'said in timely fashion.(U) The contributions of technical research ships to this nation's Sigint production alsoshould not go unnoted. These were unique in theirtime, often irreplaceable, often unheralded. That theTRS program came to an end in 1969 was not for lackof competence and dedication of the men who servedor for lack of NSA's appreciation for their contributions, but rather for budgetary considerations by theDepartment of Defense.

Notes


'(V) The Russ Report, pp 9-10; Richard Harveyinterview, 16 Jul 1980.

'(V) Walter Deeley, Memorandum for theD!DIR - "V.S.S. Liberty," 14 Jun 1967.

'(V) DIRNSA msg to JCS/JRC, 081503Z Jun 1967.\V) CINCLANT msg to JCS, 121414Z Jun 1967.5(V) Interview with Gene Sheck, 11 Aug 1980.'(e-ee6) NSA Staff, "Critique-Sigint Readiness Bravo

Crayon," pp. 24, 29.'(V) NSA Staff, Memorandum for the Record,

"Telephone Conversation with Mr. Morton A. Brill, aCCE, 5 Jul1967; NSA, Tl Memo, "Missent Traffic from RVEPCR," 14 Jul1967.

64 SECRET IIANBI:lH faA CO!'fHN'f CIIANNHI:lS ONI:lY

-effiffiDENTI*Ifr

U.S. Army Communications Support Unit, An-nual History Report, FY 1967, vol. I, 1 Oct 1967.

9(U) NSA Staff (PO4) Memorandum to DIRNSA, "Classified Material Aboard U.S.S. Liberty (USN-855)," 11 Jun 1967. Enclosures to the memorandum consist of a 160-page listing of documents known to have been given to USN-855 by NSA and NAVSECGRU elements.

NU) Interview with Paddy E. Rhodes, 13 Jun 1980.

"(U) ADC Memorandum to DIRNSA, "Crypto-graphic Holdings of U.S.S. Liberty," 2 Oct 1967; DIRNSA memo-

randum to ADC, "Cryptographic Holdings of U.S.S. Liberty," 17 Aug 1967.

'2(U) Interview with Richmond D. Snow, 21 Aug 1980.

"(U) U.S. Department of State Bulletin, 17 Jun 1968, p. 799.

'4(U) U.S. Department of State Bulletin, 2 Jun 1969, p. 473.

AU) The Liberty's Captain, William L. Mc-Gonagle, now retired, was invited to be interviewed but declined, stating he had refused all other such requests.

-effiffiDENTI*Ifr










-effiffiDENTI*Ifr










'lfer u.s. Army Communications Support Unit, An-

nual History Report, FY 1967, vol. I, 1 Oct 1967.

'(U) NSA Staff (P04) Memorandum to DffiNSA,"Classified "Material Aboard U.S.S. Liberty (USN-855)," 11 Jun1967. Enclosures to the memorandum consist of a 160-page listingof documents known to have been given to USN-855 by NSA andNAVSECGRU elements.

]o(U) Interview with Paddy E. Rhodes, 13 Jun 1980.

"(U) ADC Memorandum to DffiNSA, "Crypto-graphic Holdings of U.S.S. Liberty," 2 Oct 1967; DffiNSA memo-

CONPIDHN'fIAL

randum to ADC, "Cryptographic Holdings of U.S.S. Liberty," 17Aug 1967.

"(U) Interview with Richmond D. Snow, 21 Aug1980.

"(U) U.S. Department of State Bulletin, 17 Jun1968, p. 799.

"(U) U.S. Department of State Bulletin, 2 Jun1969, p. 473.

"(U) The Liberty's Captain, William L. Mc-Gonagle, now retired, was invited to be interviewed but declined,stating he had refused all other such requests.

UONFIDHN'fIAL 65

UNCLASSIFIED

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Citations are unclassified unless otherwise indicated at the beginning of the reference. Example: (C-CCO) Smith, John. Sigint Aspects of the War in the East.

NSA, 1980. (TSC) The first security classification, C-CCO, is for the citation itself; the second, TSC, is the classification of the document. Documents appearing in this bibliography are available in the Office of Cryptologic Archives and History, T54.

Books and Articles on the Six Day War and the U.S.S. Liberty

Draper, Theodore. Israel and World Politics. New York: Viking Press, 1968. Ennes, James M. Assault on the Liberty. New York: Random House, 1979. Kosut, Hal, editor. "Israel and the Arabs: The June 1967 War," Facts on File, New York, 1968. Pearson, Anthony. Conspiracy of Silence. London: Quartet Books, 1978. Yost, Charles W. "The Arab-Israeli War; How It Began," Foreign Affairs, vol. 46, no. 2, January 1968.

Cryptologic Histories

Electronic Security Command. History of the 6910th Security Wing, 1 January - 30 June 1967. (TC-CCO) Electronic Security Command. History of the 6931st Security Group, 1 January - 30 June 1967. Electronic Security Command. History of the 6948th Security Squadron, 1 January - 30 June 1967. (TO CCO) Kagnew Station, Office of Operations. Annual Historical Report, FY 1967, vol. II. (T3-CCO) Rasmuson, John R. A History of Kagnew Station and American Forces in Eritrea, 25 May 1973. (U) U.S. Army Communications Support Unit. Annual Historical Report, FY 1967, vol. I, 1 October 1967.

Investigative Reviews of Liberty Incident

House Appropriations Committee Surveys and Investigations Staff. A Report to the Committee on Appropriations - U.S. House of Representatives on the Effectiveness of the Worldwide Communications Systems and Networks of the Department of Defense, vols. I and II. {TS)

Israel Defence Forces. Preliminary Inquiry File 1/67, 21 July 1967. (U) NSA Staff. "Report to the Director, NSA - U.S.S. Liberty (AGTR-5), 23 May - 8 June 1967," 12 June 1967.

(TSC) Russ, Joseph R. MG, USA. "Report of the JCS Fact Finding Team - U.S.S. Liberty Incident, 8 June 1967." (TC

-Seereitive)- U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry 7816-67; Liberty Incident, 8 June 1967; Record of Proceedings. (TS)

Oral History

Carter, Marshall S., LTG, USA. Interview, January 1969. Connell, John. Interview, 15 September 1980. +Si- Cwalina, Benjamin G. Interview, 9 May 1980. i-ei- Fossett, Birchard C., CDR, USN. Interview, 22 May 1980. (0 CCO)

UNCLASSIFIED 67

UNCLASSIFIED

BIBLIOGRAPHY












Oral History


UNCLASSIFIED 67

UNCLASSIFIED

BIBLIOGRAPHY












Oral History


UNCLASSIFIED 67

UNCLASSIFIED

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Citations are unclassified unless otherwise indicated at the beginning of thereference. Example: (C-CCO) Smith, John. Sigint Aspects of the War in the East.

NSA, 1980. (TSC)The first security classification, C-CCO, is for the citation itself; the second, TSC,is the classification of the document. Documents appearing in this bibliography areavailable in the Office of Cryptologic Archives and History, T54.

Books and Articles on the Six Day War and the U.S.S. Liherty

Draper, Theodore. Israel and World Politics. New York: Viking Press, 1968.Ennes, James M. Assault on the Liberty. New York: Random House, 1979.Kosut, Hal, editor. "Israel and the Arabs: The June 1967 War," Facts on File, New York, 1968.Pearson, Anthony. Conspiracy of Silence. London: Quartet Books, 1978.Yost, Charles W. "The Arab-Israeli War; How It Began," Foreign Affairs, vol. 46, no. 2, January 1968.


Electronic Security Command. History of the 6910th Security Wing, 1 January - 30 June 1967. ('i?S eeO)Electronic Security Command. History of the 6931st Security Group, 1 January - 30 June 1967. (~S-CCO)Electronic Security Command. History of the 6948th Security Squadron, 1 January - 30 June 1967. ('i?S eeO)Kagnew Station, Office of Operations. Annual Historical Report, FY 1967, vol. n. ('T'S eeO)Rasmuson, John R. A History of Kagneui Station and American Forces in Eritrea, 25 May 1973. (U)U.S. Army Communications Support Unit. Annual Historical Report, FY 1967, vol. I, 1 October 1967. t~S·CCO)


House Appropriations Committee Surveys and Investigations Staff. A Report to the Committee on Appropriations- U.S. House of Representatives on the Effectiveness of the Worldwide Communications Systems and Networksof the Department of Defense, vola, I and II.~

Israel Defence Forces. Preliminary Inquiry File 1/67, 21 July 1967. (U)NSA Staff. "Report to the Director, NSA - U.S.S. Liberty (AGTR~5), 23 May - 8 June 1967," 12 June 1967.~

Russ, Joseph R. MG, USA. "Report of the JCS Fact Finding Team - U.S.S. Liberty Incident, 8 June 1967."~Seulliti,e)

U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry 7816-67; Liberty Incident, 8 June 1967; Record of Proceedings.~

Oral History

Carter, Marshall S., LTG, USA. Interview, January 1969. (C-CCO)Connell, John. Interview, 15 September 1980. fSt'Cwalina, Benjamin G. Interview, 9 May 1980.~Fossett, Birchard C., CDR, USN. Interview, 22 May 1980. (S eeO)

UNCLASSIFIED 67

UNCLASSIFIED

Harvey, Richard. Interview, 16 July 1980. Hickman, Richard W. Interview, 30 April 1980. ( - ) McFarland, Terry L., CTC. Interview, 23 June 1980. (8 CCO) O'Connor, James G., CDR, USN. Interview, 22 May 1980. (C-CCO) Rhodes, Paddy E., CTC. Interview, 13 June 1980. (0 CCO) Sheck, Eugene. Interview, 11 August 1980. (T3C) Way, Clyde W., CTC. Interview, 6 June 1980. Wilson, Robert L. Interview, 6 May 1980. (6 CCO)

Messages

(Listed by Date/Time Group.)

CINCLANT. 121414Z Jun 67. +8.)-

CNO. 142227Z Jun 67. +8} 102136Z Aug 67. -(-51-

COMSERVRON 8. 240020Z May 67. -(-6.)-

COMSIXTHFLT. 052015Z Jun 67. {Jai 062349Z Jun 67. +6* 070626Z Jun 67. +8i-071503Z Jun 67. +Si-081250Z Jun 67. E 081320Z Jun 67. (U) 081349Z Jun 67. E 081514Z Jun 67.-tet 081649Z Jun 67. 4PO4-090513Z Jun 67. -(-€* 0923-7Z Jun 67. tei-

CTF 60. 081316Z Jun 67. -(-Si-

CTF 100. 130934Z Jun 67. --1 150200Z Jun 67.

E0 1.4.(c) EO 1.4.(d)

CTG 60.5. 090758Z Jun 67. 4-G4-092119Z Jun 67.-(4)-101750Z Jun 67. +G*

DIRNAVSECGRU. 131706Z Jun 67. (C-CCO)

DIRNAVSECGRUEUR. 091058Z Jun 67. (C CCO) 091814Z Jun 67. (8 CCO) 111442Z Jun 67. (0 CCO) 111931Z Jun 67.*84-

191326Z Jun 67. (E CCO) 191358Z Jun 67. (SC)

68 UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED


Messages


CINCLANT. 121414Z Jun 67. +8.)-

CNO. 142227Z Jun 67. +8} 102136Z Aug 67. -(-51-

COMSERVRON 8. 240020Z May 67. -(-6.)-


CTF 60. 081316Z Jun 67. -(-Si-

CTF 100. 130934Z Jun 67. --1 150200Z Jun 67.

E0 1.4.(c) EO 1.4.(d)




191326Z Jun 67. (E CCO) 191358Z Jun 67. (SC)

68 UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED


Messages


CINCLANT. 121414Z Jun 67. +8.)-

CNO. 142227Z Jun 67. +8} 102136Z Aug 67. -(-51-

COMSERVRON 8. 240020Z May 67. -(-6.)-


CTF 60. 081316Z Jun 67. -(-Si-

CTF 100. 130934Z Jun 67. --1 150200Z Jun 67.

E0 1.4.(c) EO 1.4.(d)




191326Z Jun 67. (E CCO) 191358Z Jun 67. (SC)

68 UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Harvey, Richard. Interview, 16 July 1980. ffSeTHickman, Richard W. Interview, 30 April 1980. (S-CCO)McFarland, Terry L., CTC. Interview, 23 June 1980. (8660)O'Connor, James G., CDR, USN. Interview, 22 May 1980. (8 eeO)Rhodes, Paddy E., CTC. Interview, 13 June 1980. (8 eeO)

Sheck, Eugene. Interview, 11 August 1980. fCPS€tWay, Clyde W., CTC. Interview, 6 June 1980. ('PSC)

Wilson, Robert L. Interview, 6 May 1980. (8 660)

Messages


CINCLANT. 121414Z Jun 67. t6t

CNO. 142227Z Jun 67. tst102136Z Aug 67. tst

COMSERVRON 8. 240020Z May 67. 1'6t

COMSIXTHFLT. 052015Z Jun 67. tst062349Z Jun 67. ter070626Z Jun 67. t6t071503Z Jun 67. tst081250Z Jun 67. tcr081320Z Jun 67. (U)081349Z Jun 67. ieT081514Z Jun 67.~081649Z Jun 67.~090513Z Jun 67.~0923-7Z Jun 67. i€T

CTF 60. 081316Z Jun 67.~

CTF 100. 130934Z Jun 67.~150200Z Jun67.~

CTG 60.5. 090758Z Jun 67.~092119Z Jun 67.~101750Z Jun 67.~

DIRNAVSECGRU. 131706Z Jun 67. (8 eeO)

DIRNAVSECGRUEUR. 091058Z Jun 67. (6660)091814Z Jun 67. (8660)111442Z Jun 67. (8 eeO)111931Z Jun 67.~191326Z Jun 67. (8 6eO)191358Z Jun 67.~

68 UNCLASSIFIED

EO 1. 4 . (c)EO 1. 4 . (d)

UNCLASSIFIED

DIRNSA. 231729Z May 67. 4-84- 232133Z May 67. (3 CCO) 252317Z May 67. (SC) 2-6Z May 67. +set 270006Z May 67. (S-CCO) 292013Z May 67.44+ 292201Z May 67. 022333Z Jun 67. 072104Z Jun 67.E 081356Z Jun 67. (113-CCO) 081503Z Jun 67. 091345Z Jun 67. 101718Z Jun Jun 67. (8 CCO) ca. 21-Z Jun 67. 081648Z Aug 67. -(-4)-

JCS. 052235Z Nov 65. 291602Z May 67.-+e)- 011545Z Jun 67. +18.)- 070259Z Jun 67. -e81- 072230Z Jun 67. +e4-

080110Z Jun 67. (TG) 081529Z Jun 67. -(-4)- 102140Z Jun 67. 3)

NAVSHIPENGCTR. 141551Z Jun 67.484-

NSAEUR. 140829Z Jun 67. tSt 161530Z Jun 67. (C CCO)

State, Department of. Message no. 200139 to American Embassy, Tel Aviv, 11 June 1967. +&)

TF 60.5. 090758Z Jun 67. +et

USCINCEUR. 300932Z May 67. +G)- 010035Z Jun 67. tSt 020717Z Jun 67. 101045Z Jun 67. 101105Z Jun 67.-+S+

USCINCNAVEUR. 311750Z May 67.-(€4-011305Z Jun 67. +4)-020717Z Jun 67.-+R)-031016Z Jun 67. +0)-051352Z Jun 67. (&' -051850Z Jun 67. +Si 061357Z Jun 67. +4)-081517Z Jun 67. tet 091459Z Jun 67. -EIS* 100025Z Jun 67. (Cc-111031Z Jun 67. -KO 111311Z Jun 67. (&3 120950Z Jun 67. {-St 151003Z Jun 67. 4-84-

UNCLASSIFIED 69

UNCLASSIFIED

DIRNSA. 231729Z May 67. 4-84- 232133Z May 67. (3 CCO) 252317Z May 67. (SC) 2-6Z May 67. +set 270006Z May 67. (S-CCO) 292013Z May 67.44+ 292201Z May 67. 022333Z Jun 67. 072104Z Jun 67.E 081356Z Jun 67. (113-CCO) 081503Z Jun 67. 091345Z Jun 67. 101718Z Jun Jun 67. (8 CCO) ca. 21-Z Jun 67. 081648Z Aug 67. -(-4)-

JCS. 052235Z Nov 65. 291602Z May 67.-+e)- 011545Z Jun 67. +18.)- 070259Z Jun 67. -e81- 072230Z Jun 67. +e4-

080110Z Jun 67. (TG) 081529Z Jun 67. -(-4)- 102140Z Jun 67. 3)


NSAEUR. 140829Z Jun 67. tSt 161530Z Jun 67. (C CCO)

State, Department of. Message no. 200139 to American Embassy, Tel Aviv, 11 June 1967. +&)

TF 60.5. 090758Z Jun 67. +et

USCINCEUR. 300932Z May 67. +G)- 010035Z Jun 67. tSt 020717Z Jun 67. 101045Z Jun 67. 101105Z Jun 67.-+S+

USCINCNAVEUR. 311750Z May 67.-(€4-011305Z Jun 67. +4)-020717Z Jun 67.-+R)-031016Z Jun 67. +0)-051352Z Jun 67. (&' -051850Z Jun 67. +Si 061357Z Jun 67. +4)-081517Z Jun 67. tet 091459Z Jun 67. -EIS* 100025Z Jun 67. (Cc-111031Z Jun 67. -KO 111311Z Jun 67. (&3 120950Z Jun 67. {-St 151003Z Jun 67. 4-84-

UNCLASSIFIED 69

UNCLASSIFIED

DIRNSA. 231729Z May 67. {184- 232133Z May 67. (3-CCO) 252317Z May 67. (SC) 2-6Z May 67. fael 270006Z May 67. (C-CCO) 292013Z May 67.4-S+ 292201Z May 67. 022333Z Jun 67. 072104Z Jun 67. -(-91- 081356Z Jun 67. 081503Z Jun 67. 091345Z Jun 67. tei- 101718Z Jun 67. (0 CCO) ca. 21-Z Jun 67. 081648Z Aug 67. -(-C-)-

JCS. 052235Z Nov 65. 291602Z May 67.{G}011545Z Jun 67. +Si- 070259Z Jun 67. +Si- 072230Z Jun 67. +6-)- 080110Z Jun 67. (TS) 081529Z Jun 67. -(-Si- 102140Z Jun 67.-(-S-)-


NSAEUR. 140829Z Jun 67. I'S+ 161530Z Jun 67. (C CCO)

State, Department of. Message no. 200139 to American Embassy, Tel Aviv, 11 June 1967. *€

TF 60.5. 090758Z Jun 67. +et

USCINCEUR. 300932Z May 67. +C..)- 010035Z Jun 67. 'ill' 020717Z Jun 67. -+3i- 101045Z Jun 67. 101105Z Jun 67.-+S+

USCINCNAVEUR. 311750Z May 67.-(£4-011305Z Jun 67. +G+ 020717Z Jun 67.-(-8+ 031016Z Jun 67. te,i-051352Z Jun 67. (6-051850Z Jun 67. -(-Si 061357Z Jun 67. +Gi-081517Z Jun 67. tet 091459Z Jun 67. -+64-100025Z Jun 67. +G+ 111031Z Jun 67.-6 111311Z Jun 67. {$j 120950Z Jun 67. {S} 151003Z Jun 67. -+84-

UNCLASSIFIED 69

UNCLASSIFIED

DIRNSA. 231729Z May 67.~232133Z May 67. (8 000)252317Z May 67.~2--6Z May 67. iS€'7270006Z May 67. (8 000)292013Z May 67.~292201 Z May 67. iSet022333Z Jun 67.~072104Z Jun 67. iSt081356Z Jun 67. ('t'8 000)081503Z Jun 67. (8 000)091345Z Jun 67. i€T101718Z Jun 67. (8 060)ca. 21-Z Jun 67. ffS+081648Z Aug 67.~

JCS. 052235Z Nov 65.~291602Z May 67.~011545Z Jun 67. ts+070259Z Jun 67. ts+072230Z Jun 67.~080110Z Jun 67.~081529Z Jun 67.~102140Z Jun 67.~

NAVSHIPENGCTR. 141551Z Jun 67.~

NSAEUR. 140829Z Jun 67. iSt161530Z Jun 67. (0 660)

State, Department of. Message no. 200139 to American Embassy, Tel Aviv, 11 June 1967. f€t

TF 60.5. 090758Z Jun 67. f€t

USCINCEUR. 300932Z May 67.~010035Z Jun 67. tst020717Z Jun 67. iSt1Q1045Z Jun 67. fST101105Z Jun 67.~

USCINCNAVEUR. 311750Z May 67.~011305Z Jun 67.~020717Z Jun 67.~031016Z Jun 67.~051352Z Jun 67. tat051850Z Jun 67.~061357Z Jun 67.~081517Z Jun 67. tet091459Z Jun 67.~100025Z Jun 67. fet111031Z Jun 67. i'8t111311Z Jun 67. ffl?120950Z Jun 67. tst151003Z Jun 67.~

UNCLASSIFIED 69

UNCLASSIFIED

USDAO, Tel Aviv. 081414Z Jun 67. +6+ 131335Z Jun 67.*Si-

151615Z Jun 67. (3 -NF)

USN-446. 091355Z Jun 67. (8 CCO)

U.S.S. Liberty. 241732Z May 67. +e3-021132Z Jun 67. -E•G+ 021330Z Jun 67. tet 022108Z Jun 67. -(-64-061844Z Jun 67. +Poi-062036Z Jun 67. tet 080634Z Jun 67. 080742Z Jun Jun 67.-(46-)-080856Z Jun 67. +rni-081715Z Jun 67. (U) 200'735Z Jun 67. 021630Z Aug 67.-(Qi-

U.S.S. Saratoga. 081235Z Jun 67. (U) 081237Z Jun 67. (U) 081254Z Jun 67. (U)

Memoranda, Letters, Bulletins, Reports, and Briefing

Alger, Julie. "A Review of the Technical Research Ship Program, 1961-1969," 1 May 1970. (TSC)

Deeley, Walter G. Memorandum for the Deputy Director. "U.S.S. Liberty," 14 June 1967.

Deeley, Walter G. Letter to the Vice Director for Operations (J3), 29 June 1967. -(4)-

JCS/Joint Staff: J3. JCS cite no. 2308/378, "Note by the Secretaries to the JCS on U.S.S. Liberty Incident," 24

June 1967. (TS Cotsitive) Joint Command and Control Requirements Group. Memorandum for the Joint Chiefs of

Staff, "Fact Finding Team," 18 June 1967. +6-} National Military Command Center: NSA Senior Operations Officer Log, 0730-1530, 8 June 1967.

Memorandum for the Record, 1530 EDT, 8 June 1967. 4--T-S}

NSA: Director. Handwritten note to D1, 8 June 1967. (U) Director. Memorandum for the Record, 8 June 1967. (CC) Director. Handwritten note circulated to senior staff, 10 June 1967. (U) Director. Letter to MG J. R. Russ, USA, 12 June 1967. Director. Memorandum to ADC, "Cryptographic Holdings of U.S.S. Liberty," 17 August 1967.44)- Deputy Director. Memorandum for the Record, "U.S.S. Liberty," 8 June 1967. (3C) Deputy Director. Memorandum, "Directorate's Temporary Mid-East Information Group," 8 June 1967.4Q+ Deputy Director. Memorandum for the Record, "Inquiry from House Appropriations Committee Regarding

U.S.S. Liberty," 20 June 1967. (CC) Deputy Director. Penned, long-hand comment, 26 August 1967, attached to copy of Israeli Defence Force

Preliminary Inquiry File 1/67, 21 July 1967. (U) NSA Staff. Informal paper, "Airborne Collection in Middle East," undated - ca. 1967. (TSC) NSA Staff. Memorandum for the Director, NSA, "Classified Material Aboard U.S.S. Liberty (USN-855),"

11 June 1967.

70 UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED


151615Z Jun 67. (3 -NF)

USN-446. 091355Z Jun 67. (8 CCO)














11 June 1967.

70 UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED


151615Z Jun 67. (3 -NF)

USN-446. 091355Z Jun 67. (8 CCO)














11 June 1967.

70 UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

VSDAO, Tel Aviv. 081414Z Jun 67. +et131335Z Jun 67.~151615Z Jun 67. (8 ?tF)

VSN-446. 091355Z Jun 67. (8 GGO)

V.S.S. Liberty. 241732Z May 67.~021132Z Jun 67.~021330Z Jun 67.~022108Z Jun 67.~061844Z Jun 67.~062036Z Jun 67. i€'T080634Z Jun 67. fflT080742Z Jun 67.~080856Z Jun 67. #It081715Z Jun 67. (V)200735Z Jun 67. (S-Cfty~'t'e)

021630Z Aug 67.~

U.S.S. Saratoga. 081235Z Jun 67. (V)081237Z Jun 67. (V)

081254Z Jun 67. (V)


Alger, Julie. "A Review of the Technical Research Ship Program, 1961-1969," 1 May 1970. ('f'~e)

Deeley, Walter G. Memorandum for the Deputy Director. "V.S.S. Liberty," 14 June 1967. (S eee)

Deeley, Walter G. Letter to the Vice Director for Operations (J3), 29 June 1967.~

JCS/Joint Staff: J3. JCS cite no. 2308/378, "Note by the Secretaries to the JCS on V.S.S. Liberty Incident," 24June 1967. (CPS Se:neil:he)

Joint Command and Control Requirements Group. Memorandum for the Joint Chiefs ofStaff, "Fact Finding Team," 18 June 1967. -fBt

National Military Command Center: NSA Senior Operations Officer Log, 0730-1530, 8 June 1967.~Memorandum for the Record, 1530 EDT, 8 June 1967. f'f'St

NSA: Director. Handwritten note to D1, 8 June 1967. (V)

Director. Memorandum for the Record, 8 June 1967.~Director. Handwritten note circulated to senior staff, 10 June 1967. (V)

Director. Letter to MG J. R. Russ, VSA, 12 June 1967. i€tDirector. Memorandum to ADC, "Cryptographic Holdings of V.S.S. Liberty," 17 August 1967.~Deputy Director. Memorandum for the Record, "V.S.S. Liberty," 8 June 1967. ts€t'Deputy Director. Memorandum, "Directorate's Temporary Mid-East Information Group," 8 June 1967.~Deputy Director. Memorandum for the Record, "Inquiry from House Appropriations Committee Regarding

V.S.S. Liberty," 20 June 1967.~Deputy Director. Penned, long-hand comment, 26 August 1967, attached to copy of Israeli Defence Force

Preliminary Inquiry File 1/67, 21 July 1967. (V)

NSA Staff. Informal paper, "Airborne Collection in Middle East," undated - ca. 1967.~NSA Staff. Memorandum for the Director, NSA, "Classified Material Aboard V.S.S. Liberty (VSN-855),"

11 June 1967. ('T'S eeo UP)

70 UNCLASSIFIED

(C CCO) NSA Staff. "Critique - Sigint Readiness Bravo Crayon," 10 July 1968. NSA Staff. ADC Memorandum to the Director, NSA, "Cryptographic Holdings of U.S.S. Liberty," 2

October 1967. +S}

NSA Staff. "Fact Sheet for DIRNSA," undated - ca. 1967. (C CCO) NSA Staff. "Informal Paper on Liberty's Communications," 22 June 1967. -E&5* NSA Staff. T1 Memorandum, "Missent Traffic from RUEPCR," 14 July 1967. (U)

NSA Staff. "Operations Staff Summary," ca. 16 June 1967. ( ) NSA Staff. "Questions by General Carroll, Director, DIA - Answers Provided by G Group/PO4," 27

June 1967. (TCC) (C CCO) NSA Staff. Note for the Director, "Sigint Reflections of Liberty Incident," 27 June 1967. (0- NSA Staff. "Status of Operations Actions Relative to Sigint Readiness Bravo/Crayon," Report no. 13,

9-10 June 1967. (T3-CCO) NSA Staff. Memorandum for the Record, "Telephone Conversation with Mr. Morton A. Brill, OCCE,"

5 July 1967. (U) NSA Staff. "Trip Report of Eugene Sheck and LT Deprey," 27 June 1967.(3-CCO)

NSA Staff. "U.S.S. Liberty - Chronology, 23 May - 8 June." (SC) NSA, G62. "Briefing on the 1967 Middle East Crisis," undated. (TGC)

State, Department of. Memorandum to the Director., NSA, 22 August 1967. (C Sensitive) Bulletin, 17 June 1968. (U) Bulletin, 2 June 1969. (U)

USNAVEUR Contingency Watch Team. Memorandum, "U.S.S. Liberty Incident," 12 June 1967. (FOUO) U.S.S. Liberty. "Ship Weather Observation Sheet," 8 June 1967. (U) White House. Daily Diary, 8 June 1967. (U)

Sigint and Technical Reports

OPINS No. 2855, Manual of U.S. Sigint Operations, 12 March 1965. (3-CCO) - Sigint Reports: 2 R23-67, 082015Z Jun 67. (CC)

2 R24-67, 0908312 Jun 67.

2 R27-67, 091422Z Jun 67. "Station Facilities Book - U.S.S. Liberty (USN-855)," 31 December 1966. (S CCO)

60 1.4.(c)

P.L. 86-36


October 1967. +S}











2 R24-67, 0908312 Jun 67.


60 1.4.(c)

P.L. 86-36


October 1967. +S}











2 R24-67, 0908312 Jun 67.


60 1.4.(c)

P.L. 86-36

CONffflHNftAL

(6 660) NSA Staff. "Critique - Sigint Readiness Bravo Crayon," 10 July 1968. ('f'SC-!,P)NSA Staff. ADC Memorandum to the Director, NSA, "Cryptographic Holdings of U.S.S. Liberty," 2

October 1967. -t6tNSA Staff. "Fact Sheet for DIRNSA," undated - ca. 1967. (8 660)NSA Staff. "Informal Paper on Liberty's Communications," 22 June 1967.-f8€tNSA Staff. T1 Memorandum, "Missent Traffic from RUEPCR," 14 July 1967. (U)NSA Staff. "Operations Staff Summary," ca. 16 June 1967.~NSA Staff. "Questions by General Carroll, Director, DIA - Answers Provided by G Group/P04," 27

June 1967. f'PS€t(6 660) NSA Staff. Note for the Director, "Sigint Reflections of Liberty Incident," 27 June 1967. fS€t-(C CCO) NSA Staff. "Status of Operations Actions Relative to Sigint Readiness Bravo/Crayon," Report no. 13,

9-10 June 1967. ('f'S eOO)NSA Staff. Memorandum for the Record, "Telephone Conversation with Mr. Morton A. Brill, OCCE,"

5 July 1967. (U)NSA Staff. "Trip Report of Eugene Sheck and LT Deprey," 27 June 1967. (S-CCO)NSA Staff. "U.S.S. Liberty - Chronology, 23 May - 8 June."iS'Ct-NSA, G62. "Briefing on the 1967 Middle East Crisis," undated. ffBe)-

State, Department of. Memorandum to the Director'; NSA, 22 August 1967. (0 8eftlliei,e)Bulletin, 17 June 1968. (U)Bulletin, 2 June 1969. (U)

USNAVEUR Contingency Watch Team. Memorandum, "U.S.S. Liberty Incident," 12 June 1967. (VQ\JQ)U.S.S. Liberty. "Ship Weather Observation Sheet," 8 June 1967. (U)White House. Daily Diary, 8 June 1967. (U)


OPINS No. 2855, Manual of U.S. Sigint Operations, 12 March 1965. (8 eCO)(C-eeel) Sigint Reports: 2[I]R23-67' 082015~Ju.n67·±S€t

2 R24-61;090B31Z Jun 67. fS€t-2 R27-67, 091422Z Jun 67. i'S€T

(0 000) "Station Facilities Book - U.S.S. Liberty (USN-855)," 31 December 1966. (8 66Q)

P.L.86-36

II2\NBI:':B YU eOl\HN'f €IUNNHIlS ONIlY

EO1. 4. (c)

CONFIDENTI....1. 71

INDEX

Addington, "Red," 27 AGTR, auxiliary general technical research ship.

See U.S.S. Liberty Air Force Security Service. See also Sigint units

establishment of Technical Processing Center 18-19

Al `Arish, 3, 25, 37, 39 Algeria

119 Armstrong, LCDR Philip M., 27-28 Arthur, CAPT Russell, 43

Bennett, LT Maurice H., 17, 28-29, 31, 44, 47 Bishop, LCDR Benjamin M., 47 Blalock, Donald L., 17, 26, 45, 48, 64 Blue, Allen M., 17, 26, 45, 64 Bolstridge, Col Leslie J., 59 Breedlove, Maj, 21-22

C-130 flights. See Sigint collection, airborne Carter, LTG Marshall S., 57-58, 62 Castle, CDR Ernest C., 32, 34 Central Intelligence Agency

assessment of Israeli intentions, 64 Chernyakov, Yurij Niklolaevich, 32 CINCEUR. See U.S. Commander-in-Chief,

Europe; see also Lemnitzer, GEN L. L. CINCLANT. See Commander-in-Chief, Atlantic CINCUSNAVEUR. See U.S. Naval Forces Europe;

see also McCain, ADM John S., Jr. Collection. See Sigint collection Commander-in-Chief, Atlantic

reluctance to use U.S.S. Belmont, 62 responsibility for Liberty, 15, 17

Commander, Service Squadron 8, 17 COMSERFORSIXTHFLT, Commander, Service

Forces, Sixth Fleet. See Arthur, CAPT Russell COMSIXTHFLT. See U.S. Sixth Fleet; see also

Martin, VADM William I. Connell, John, 15, 20-21 Cook, RADM Ralph E., 58 Cowardin, Charles, 48 Coyne, Patrick, 58 CPA, closest point of approach. See U.S.S. Liberty,

navigational restrictions Cryptanalysis. See Sigint processing and reporting Cwalina, Benjamin G., 55

Cyprus navigational restrictions for, 19, 21

Dayan, Moshe, 3 Deeley, Walter, 58 Defense Communications System, 22 Department of Army Communications Center, Pentagon

communications errors, 21-22 Deprey, LT Allan, 52 Doorman, Project. See National Security Agency,

Projects Doorman and Lifeblood Durham, Billy, 55

EC-121 flights. See Sigint collection, airborne el-Attassi, Nureddin, 11-1 Electronic Security Command. See Air Force

Security Service El- Kasir, 38-41 EUCOM, European Command. See U.S. Commander-

in-Chief, Europe; see also Lemnitzer, GEN L.L.

European Security Region. See Air Force Security Service

Firestone, LT Philip G., 47 Fitzpatrick, RADM Francis J., 58 FTM Systems Company, 52-53

Galavotti, LT E. L., 21 Garrett, Col William A., 58 Gaza Strip, 3

Golan Heights, 3 Goldberg, Arthur J., 21 Golden, LT George, 35 Green, Lt Col Robert T., 47 Gulf of Aqaba, 3, 5, 23

Hanley, CAPT M. J., Jr., 21 Harvey, Dick, 19-20 Helms, Richard, 64 Holleran, William M., 45

-REetter- 73

EO 1.4.(c)

t0 1.4.(c) EO 1.4.(d)

INDEX




























-REetter- 73

EO 1.4.(c)

t0 1.4.(c) EO 1.4.(d)

INDEX




























-REetter- 73

EO 1.4.(c)

t0 1.4.(c) EO 1.4.(d)

SHCRET

INDEX

Addington, "Red," 27AGTR, auxiliary general technical research ship.

See U.S.S. LibertyAir Force Security Service. See also Sigint units

establishment of Technical ProcessingCenterl 118=19

Al 'Arish, 3,25,37,39Algeria1 119

Armstrong, LCDR Philip M., 27-28Arthur, CAPT Russell, 43

Bennett, LT Maurice H., 17, 28-29, 31, 44, 47Bishop, LCDR Benjamin M., 47Blalock, Donald L., 17, 26, 45, 48, 64Blue, Allen M., 17, 26, 45, 64Bolstridge, Col Leslie J., 59Breedlove, Maj, 21-22

C-130 flights. See Sigint collection, airborneCarter, LTG Marshall S., 57-58, 62Castle, CDR Ernest C., 32, 34Central Intelligence Agency

assessment of Israeli intentions, 64Chernyakov, Yurij Niklolaevich, 32CINCEUR. See U.S. Commander-in-Chief,

Europe; see also Lemnitzer, GEN L.L.CINCLANT. See Commander-in-Chief, AtlanticCINCUSNAVEUR. See U.S. Naval Forces Europe;

see also McCain, ADM John S., Jr.Collection. See Sigint collectionCommander-in-Chief, Atlantic

reluctance to use U.S.S. Belmont. 62responsibility for Liberty, 15, 17

Commander, Service Squadron 8, 17COMSERFORSIXTHFLT, Commander, Service

Forces, Sixth Fleet. See Arthur, CAPT RussellCOMSIXTHFLT. See U.S. Sixth Fleet; see also

Martin, VADM William I.Connell, John, 15, 20-21Cook, RADM Ralph E., 58Cowardin, Charles, 48Coyne, Patrick, 58CPA, closest point of approach. See U.S.S. Liberty,

navigational restrictionsCryptanalysis. See Sigint processing and reportingCwalina, Benjamin G., 55

Cyprusnavigational restrictions for, 19, 21

Dayan, Moshe, 3Deeley, Walter, 58Defense ..C()IIIDlU.nicatioIls ..~ystem, 22Department of Army Communications Center.

Pentagoncommunications errors, 21-22

Deprey, LT Allan, 52Doorman, Project. See National Security Agency,

Projects Doorman and LifebloodDurham, Billy, 55

EC-121 flights. See Sigint collection, airborneel-Attassi, Nureddin, 1c=JElectronic Security Command. See Air Force

Security ServiceEl-Kasir, 38-41EUCOM, European Command. See U.S. Commander

in-Chief, Europe; see also Lemnitzer,GEN L.L.

European Security Region. See Air Force SecurityService

Firestone, LT Philip G., 47Fitzpatrick, RADM Francis J., 58FI'M Systems Company, 52-53

Galavotti, LT E. L., 21Garrett, Col William A., 58

Golan Heights, 3Goldberg, Arthur J., 21Golden, LT George, 35Green, Lt Col Robert T., 47Gulf of Aqaba, 3, 5, 23

Hanley, CAPT M. J., Jr., 21Harvey, Dick, 19-20Helms, Richard, 64Holleran, William M., 45

··EO 1. 4 . (c)

EO 1. 4 . (c)EO 1. 4 . (d)

SECRET 73

-sEeRET-

INSCOMM, Intelligence and Security Command. See Army Security Agency

Intelligence requirements Middle East tensions, 5 Six Day War, 5

Iraq

involvement in Six Day War, 3

Israel acknowledgement of error of attack, 32 compensation paid for attack, 64 Department of State reaction to attack, 41

involvement in Six Day War, 3 Israeli Defence Forces Court of Inquiry

proceedings, 37-40, 47 military attack on the Liberty, 26-29, 37-40 navigational restrictions for, 19-22

Johnson, GEN Harold K, 62 Johnson, Lyndon B.

advised of attack, 32 requests CIA assessment, 64

Joint Reconnaissance Center. See U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff

Jordan

involvement in Six Day War, 3 relations with PLO, 1 relations with U.A.R., 1

Jorgensen, CDR C. G., 21-22

Kagnew Station. o 1.4.(c) Keller, BG William, 52

Kidd, RADM I. C., 54 Kiepfer, LT Richard F., 32, 35

Klumfoot, Clarence R., 47 Koczak, LCDR Edward, 58 Kosygin, Aleksei N.

Liberty, 32

Leahy, CAPT H. G., 43 Lebanon

navigational restrictions for, 19

74 Asfeiterf-

Lee, LT R. H., 47 Lemnitzer, GEN L. L., 17. See also U.S. Commander-

in-Chief, Europe Lewis, LCDR David E., 15, 17 Libya


Lifeblood, Project. See National Security Agency, Projects Doorman and Lifeblood

Ling-Temco-Vought (LTV), 52-53 Linguists. See Sigint processing and reporting

Martin, VADM William I., 20, 22, 43, 45, 61 McCain, ADM John S., Jr., 17-18,=43, 47, 52 McFarland, CTC Terry L., 26-27, 29"`''ED1.4.(c) McGonagle, CDR William L.

actions during and immediately after attack, 26-31 Congressional Medal of Honor award, 64 enroute to eastern Mediterranean, 15, 20, 23

McNamara, Robert S., 58 McTighe, LT John T., 55 Morocco

19 Morrison, Brig Gen John, 57

Nasser, Gamal Abdel, 1, 3 National Military Command Center (NMCC), 32 National Security Agency

actions taken as result of attack, 32, 34, 45, 52, 54-58

coordination with JCS Fact Finding Team, 58-59

NSA Europe and Liberty, 17, 47, 52 Projects Doorman and LifebloodrI reaction to Israeli Preliminary Inquiry, 41• reactions to Six Day War, 5

P. L.

relations with Joint Reconnaissance Center, 15, 19-21

role in safety evaluations, 15, 19, 61-62 technical control and support of TRS program, 15,

17, 21 Temporary Mid-East Information Group, 58, 61

National Security Council Special Committee and Liberty, 57-58

Naval Communications Station EO 1.4.(c)

Asmara, 19-20, 22 EO 1.4.(d)

Greece, 22 Morocco, 19, 22

Naval Security Group, Europe communications assistance to Task Group 100.6, 47 staff of Task Group 100.4, 47 technical research ships, 43-44

86-36

-sEeRET-



Iraq








Jordan






Liberty, 32



74 Asfeiterf-














P. L.






Asmara, 19-20, 22 EO 1.4.(d)



86-36

-sEeRET-



Iraq








Jordan






Liberty, 32



74 Asfeiterf-














P. L.






Asmara, 19-20, 22 EO 1.4.(d)



86-36

SECRET

INSCOMM, Intelligence and Security Command.See Army Security Agency

Intelligence requirementsMiddle East tensions, 5Six Day War, 5

Iraq

1 1involvement in Six Day War, 3

1 1

Lee, LT R. H., 47Lemnitzer, GEN L. L., 17. See also U.S. Commander

in-Chief, EuropeLewis, LCDR David E., 15, 17Libya


I ILifeblood, Project. See National Security Agency,

Projects Doorman and LifebloodLing-Temco-Vought (LTV), 52"'::53Linguists. See Sigint processing and reporting

EO 1. 4 . Ie)EO 1. 4 . Id)

Marti:ri,VADMWilliaIlll.~2~,22,43, 45, 61McCain, ADM John S., Jr;,17",18,43,47,52McFa,I'land.CTGTerryL., 26=27,29 ";'EO 1. 4 . Ie)

McGonagle, CDR William L.actions during and immediately after attack, 26-31Congressional Medalof Honor award, 64enroutetoellstern Mediterranean, 15, 20, 23

McNamara, Robert S., 58McTighe, LT John T., 55Morocco

1 119Morrison, Brig Gen John, 57

NSA Europe and Liberty, 17, 47, 52Projects Doorman and Lifebl~reaction to Israeli Preliminary Inquiry, 41reactions to Six Day War,5 P. L . 86 - 3 6

relations with Joint Reconnaissance Center, 15,19:::21

role in safety evaluations, 15, 19, 61-62technical control and support of TRS program, 15,

17, 21Temporary Mid-East Information Group, 58, 61

National Security CouncilSpecial Committee and Liberty, 57-58

NavalComeeunicatinnaStationAsmara, 19-20, 22Greece, 22Morocco, 19, 22

Naval Security Group, Europecommunications assistance to Task Group 100.6, 47staff of Task Group 100.4, 47technical research ships, 43-44

Nasser, Gamal Abdel, 1, 3National Military Command Center (NMCC), 32National Security Agency

actions taken as result of attack, 32, 34, 45, 52,54-58


I I

involvement in Six Day War, 3Israeli Defence Forces Court of Inquiry

proceedings, 37-40, 47military attack on the Liberty, 26-29, 37-40navigational restrictions for, 19-22

1 -----'

Klumfoot, Clarence R., 47Koczak, LCDR Edward, 58

jVg;", Alekse' N.

Liberty, 32

involvement in Six Day War, 3relations with PLO, 1relations with U.A.R., 1

Leahy, CAPT H. G., 43Lebanon


I I

Johnson, GEN Harold K, 62Johnson, Lyndon B.

advised of attack, 32requests CIA assessment, 64

Joint Reconnaissance Center. See U.S. Joint Chiefsof Staff

Jordan

I I

Israelacknowledgement of error of attack, 32compensation paid for attack, 64Department of State reaction to attack, 41

I I

:E4gnew.Station··I'--"""":''::'""" _Keller, BG William, 52Kidd, RADM I. C., 54Kiepfer, LT Richard F., ~2,35

I I

'EO 1. 4. Ie)

74 SECRET IIANBtiH ·,'iA CO!'tflN'f CIIANNELS ONLY

6910th Security Wing,

6931st Security Group. 6948th Security Squadron

USN446,

EO 1.4.(c) E0 1.4.(d)

t42 1.4.(c)

-SECRET-

O'Connor, LT James G., 26-29 O'Malley, ENS., 28 Owen, CAPT William D., 58

Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), Pawlinkowski, CTC Alfred J., 47 Pickett, MG G. B., 59 Platzek, CDR E. H., 47 Precedence assignment in message traffic, 22 Priddle, Maj Harlan E., 58

Renken, RADM Henry A., 47-48 Rhodes, CT3 Paddy E. (Dusty), 15, 26 Rostow, Walt, 32 Russ, MG Joseph R., 52, 54, 58-60 Russell, LTC C. K., 21

Saudi Arabia conflict with U.A.R., 1, 3

Security measures file reduction at exposed sites, 62-63 minimizing compromise of Liberty's records, 43-45,

48, 51-52, 54-56 rules for press coverage and interviews, 48 surveillance of Soviet destroyers, 44

Sheck, Eugene, 19-20, 52 Shukairy, Ahmed, 1 Sigint alerts

Sigint Readiness Alfa, Middle East, 1 Sigint Readiness Bravo Crayon, 3-5, 11, 19

Sigint collection airborne, 11-13, 18

USN-855. See U.S.S. Liberty USN-856

Liberty's collection equipment, 16-17 Six Day War EO 1.4.(c) EO

intelligence requirements generated by, 5 1.4.(d)

technical research ship program, 10, 13, 15, 5'7, 64 resume of, 1-4 U.S. navigational restrictions resulting from, 19

VHF/UHF, 6, 10-13 Smith, Bromley, 58

Sigint communications, 18-19 Smith, CAPT Carl M.,47, 55 Spivy, LTG B. E, 58

Sigint processing and reporting Technical Processing Center, 18-19

Comint on Liberty attack, 34-35

linguists, 17, 19, 23, 62 NSA as backup processor, 18 technical reporting by Liberty, 23

!'EO 1.4.(c)

Syria

involvement in Six Day War, 1, 3 navigational restrictions observed by U.S., 19-20 relations with Peoples Republic of China, 1

SECRET 75



USN446,

EO 1.4.(c) E0 1.4.(d)

t42 1.4.(c)

-SECRET-



















!'EO 1.4.(c)

Syria


SECRET 75



USN446,

EO 1.4.(c) E0 1.4.(d)

t42 1.4.(c)

-SECRET-



















!'EO 1.4.(c)

Syria


SECRET 75

!ED 1.4. Ie)

BEeRHT

EO 1. 4 . Ie)EO 1. 4 . Id)

"",,,,,.,.EO 1. 4 . Ie)

Syria

I..,.........,...--.....,....,..."'"':':":"""-=--=-:--~involvement in Six Day War, 1, 3navigational restrictions observed by U.S., 19-20relations with Peoples Republic of China, 1

USN-8M. See U.S.S. LibertyUSN-856D

Six Day Warintelligence requirements generated by, 5resume of, 1-4U. S. navigational restrictions resulting from, 19

Smith, Bromley, 58Smith, CAPT Carl M.,47, 55

(Pivy'LTGB.li:" 58

691Oth Securitv Winlr.1

6931st Security GrouPik6948th Security Squadron

1

///

1. 4. Ie)EO 1. 4 . I d)

USN-446J

\\\

VHF/UHF, 6, 10-13

I I

O'Connor, LT James G., 26-29O'Malley, ENS., 28Owen, CAPT William D., 58

Renken, RADM Henry A., 47-48Rhodes, CT3 Paddy E. (Dusty), 15, 26Rostow, Walt, 32Russ, MG Joseph R., 52, 54,58--60Russell, LTC C. K., 21

linguists, 17, 19, 23, 62NSA as backup processor, 18technical reporting by Liberty, 23

Liberty's collection equipment, 16-17

Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), 1Pawlinkowski, CTC Alfred J., 47Pickett, MG G. B., 59Platzek, CDR E. H., 47Precedence assignment in message traffic, 22Priddle, Maj Harlan E., 58

Sigint communications, 18-19

Saudi Arabiaconflict with U.A.R., 1,/3I I

Security measuresfile reduction at exposed sites, 62--63minimizing compromise of Liberty's records, 43-45,

48, 51-52, 54-56rules for press coverage and interviews,48surveillance of Soviet destroyers, 44

Sheck, Eugene, 19-20, 52Shukairy, Ahmed, 1Sigint alerts

Sigint Readiness Alfa, Middle East, 1Sigint Readiness Bravo Crayon, 3-5, 11, 19

Sigint collection

1airborne , 11-13, 18

1..."..,....,. _Sigint processing and reporting

I ITechnicalProcessingCentet, 18:;;;19Comint on Liberty attack, 34-35

I I

HA~9I.E \qA €OMlN~ CIIANNBtlS ONtly SHCRHT 75

Technical Processing Center (TPC) 62

Technical research ship special communications s stem CO M , 16-18

18719, .....

-SEeRET-

Syria (continued)

relations with U.S.S.R., 1, 3

Ulino, Albert W., 45

United Arab Republic (U.A.R.) charges of U.S.-U.K. complicity with Israel in

Six Day War, 3, 20

involvement in Six Day War, 3 navigational restrictions observed by U.S., 19-22 relations with Jordan, 1 relations with U.S., 3 relations with U.S.S.R., 1, 3 rivalry with Saudi Arabia, 1, 3

Yemen actions, 1-2 United Nations

actions during Six Day War, 3-4 Middle East peace-keeping attempts, 1

United States AID personnel in Yemen imprisoned, 1-3 relations with U.A.R., 3 support of Israel, 1

U.S. Army Communications Support Unit.I

U.S. Chief, Naval Operations (CNO) Norfolk survey team, 55-56 recommends withdrawal of Liberty, 21

U.S. Commander-in-Chief, Europe actions subsequent to Liberty attack, 31, 45, 47 actions to withdraw Liberty, 21 JCS Fact Finding Team's visit, 52 operational control of Liberty, 17

U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Appropriations Committee

reviews communications problems during Liberty incident, 59-60

reviews DOD message precedence usage, 60 U.S. Department of State

criticizes Israeli attack, 41 U.S. European Command. See U.S. Commander-in-

Chief, Europe U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff

..... actions subsequent to Liberty attack, 32 directions to Liberty, 17 Fact Finding`Team, 47, 52, 54, 58-59, 61 Joint Reconnaissance Center, 15, 17, 20 reaction to Six Day War, 20 safety evaluations, 61-62

1.4. (c)

U.S. Naval Security Group, 58-59, 62 U.S. Navy, Europe

actions subsequent to Liberty attack, 28-29, 32 activation of TF 100, 47 communications difficulty with Liberty, 20 convenes Naval Court of Inquiry, 47 involvement in actions to withdraw Liberty, 21-23 JCS Fact Finding Team's visit, 52 navigational restrictions, 19 operational control of Liberty, 17-18, 20

U.S. Navy Ships Engineering Center, 52 U.S. Navy Task Force 60, 28 U.S. Navy Task Force 63, 32 U.S. Navy Task Force 100, 47-48, 52 U.S. Navy Task Group 100.3, 47-48 U.S. Navy Task Group 100.4, 47-48 U.S. Navy Task Group 100.6, 47 U.S.N.S. Muller. See Sigint units U.S.N.S. Valdez. See Sigint units U.S.S. America, 31, 33,_43-44, 48 U.S.S. Belmont, 15, 43-44, 57, 62 U. S. S. Davis, 42-44, 47 U.S.S. Georgetown, 15 U.S.S. Jamestown, 15. See Sigint units U.S.S. Liberty

armament of, 16 attack on 26-30 attempts to withdraw, 21-23 awards for, 64 communications of, 16-17, 19-20 damaged equipment assessment, 52-54 deployment to eastern Mediterranean, 15, 17-22 Israeli post-attack reconnaissance, 30-31 JCS Fact Finding Team's visit, 54 navigational restrictions, 17, 19, 21-22 operational control of, 15, 17, 20, 22 post-attack document disposition, 32 press coverage, 48, 52 rationale for eastern Mediterranean

deployment, 5, 12-13

4E42 1.4. (c)



18719, .....

-SEeRET-

Syria (continued)




Six Day War, 3, 20














1.4. (c)






4E42 1.4. (c)



18719, .....

-SEeRET-

Syria (continued)




Six Day War, 3, 20














1.4. (c)






4E42 1.4. (c)

SECRET

·EO 1.4. (c)


I I

IL.:----:-------~.."."........-involvement in Six Day War, 3navigational restrictions observed by U.S., 19-22relations with Jordan, 1relations with U.S., 3relations with U.S. S.R., 1, 3rivalry with Saudi Arabia, 1, 3

I

Syria (continued)

I

United StatesAID personnel in Yemen imprisoned, 1-3relations with U.A.R., 3support of Israel, 1

U. S. Army Communications Support Unit.1I i 1..- _

U.S. Chief, Naval Operations (CNO)Norfolk survey team, 55-56recommends withdrawal of Liberty, 21

U.S. Commander-in-Chief, Europeactions subsequent to Liberty attack, 31, 45, 47actions to withdraw Liberty, 21JCS Fact Finding Team's visit, 52operational control of Liberty, 17

U. S. Congress, House of Representatives,Appropriations Committee

reviews communications problems during Libertyincident, 59~0

Yemen actions, 1-2United Nations

actions during Six Day War, 3-4Middle East peace-keeping attempts,

I I

reviews DOD message precedence usage, 60U.S. Department of State

criticizes Israeli attack, 41U.S. European Command. See U.S. Commander-in

Chief, EuropeTechnical Processing Center (TPC)I 118::~~, U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff

62 actions-subsequent to Liberty attack, 32Technical research ship special communicationsrllrectioDlltoLibf!.rty, 17

system (TRSSCOMM!, 1..6- 18... Fact FindingTeaU).~47tl>2,54, 58-59, 61Joint Reconnaissance Center; J5,17, 20reaction to Six Day War, 20 ....

"',.safety evaluations, 61~2 EO 1. 4 . (c)

U.S. Naval SecllritYGroup,58-59,62U·~·NaVYjEurope

actions subsequent to i"iberty attack, 28-29, 32activation of TF 100~ 47communicationsdifficulty with Liberty, 20convenes.Naval Court of Inquiry, 47involvement in actions to withdraw Liberty, 21-23JCS Fact Finding Team's visit, 52navigational restrictions, 19operational control of Liberty, 17-18, 20

U.S. Navy Ships Engineering Center, 52U.S. Navy Task Force 60, 28U.S. Navy Task Force 63, 32U.S. Navy Task Force 100, 47-48, 52U.S. Navy Task Group 100.3, 47-48U.S. Navy Task Group 100.4, 47-48U.S. Navy Task Group 100.6, 47

U.S.N.S M U l..l..er See Sigint unitslU.S.N.S. Valdez. See Sigint unitsU.S. S. America, 31,33.4~ 44,48~---U.S.S. Belmont, 15, 43-44, 57, 62u.S.S.···Davisi···42~44,··47

U.S.S. Georgetown, 15U.S.S. Jamestown, 15. See Sigint units IU.S.S.~ibf!rty '------

armament of, 16attack on 26-30attempts to withdraw, 21-23awards for, 64communications of, 16-17, 19-20damaged equipment assessment, 52-54deployment to eastern Mediterranean, 15, 17-22Israeli post-attack reconnaissance, 30--31JCS Fact Finding Team's visit, 54navigational restrictions, 17, 19, 21-22operational control of, 15, 17, 20, 22post-attack document disposition, 32press coverage, 48, 52rationale for eastern Mediterranean


I{moo, Albert W., 45 I

United Arab Republic (U.A.R.)charges of U.S. -u. K complicity with Israel in

Six Day War, 3, 20

76 SE€RE'f'

U. S. S. Liberty (continued) safety factors, consideration of, 19-20, 61-62 Sigint mission of, 15-17, 19, 23 Sixth Fleet rescue operation, 43-47 USN Attache in Tel Aviv as intermediary, 34

U.S.S. Little Rock, 31, 43, 52 U. S. S. Massey, 43-44 U.S.S. Oxford, 15-20 U.S.S. Papago, 32, 35, 43-45, 47-48 U.S.S. Saratoga, 28-29, 31-32 U.S. Sixth Fleet

actions taken in reaction to attack, 28-29, 31-32, 34

indications of possible hostile intent, 20 JCS Fact Finding Team's visit, 52 navigational restrictions, 19-20, 31 operational control of Liberty, 17, 19-20 Sigint direct support of, 11

U.S.S.R. relations with Middle Eastern countries, 1, 3

E0 1.4.(c)

Six Day War involvement, 4, 19

Vance, Cyrus, 32 Vineyard, CAPT Merriwell W., 21

Way, CT3 Clyde W., 27, 29 Wheeler, LTG Earle G., 21, 59 Wilson, Robert L., 17, 25-27, 29, 36, 44, 51

Yemen

EO 1.4.(c)

U.A.R. intervention, 1 Yerushalmi, Lt Col Yishaya, 37

SECRET 77 T5-Jun 81-S3-3475






E0 1.4.(c)




Yemen

EO 1.4.(c)








E0 1.4.(c)




Yemen

EO 1.4.(c)



U.S. S. Liberty (continued)safety factors, consideration of, 19-20, 61-62Sigint mission of, 15-17, 19, 23Sixth Fleet rescue operation, 43-47USN Attache in Tel Aviv as intermediary, 34

U.S.S. Little Rock, 31, 43, 52U.S.S. Massey, 43-44U.S.S. Oxford, 15-20U.S.S. Papago, 32, 35, 43-45, 47-48U.S.S. Saratoga, 28-29, 31-32U.S. Sixth Fleet

actions taken in reaction to attack, 28-29, 31-32,34

indications of possible hostile intent, 20JCS Fact Finding Team's visit, 52navigational restrictions, 19-20, 31operational control of Liberty, 17, 19-20Sigint direct support of, 11

SHeREi'

U.S.S.R.relations with Middle Eastern countries, 1, 3

I ISix Day War involvement, 4, 19

Vance, Cyrus, 32Vineyard, CAPT Merriwell W., 21

Way, CT3 Clyde W., 27, 29Wheeler, LTG Earle G., 21, 59Wilson, Robert L., 17, 25-27, 29, 36, 44, 51

Yrmen

U.A.R. intervention, 1Yerushalmi, Lt Col Yishaya, 37

EO 1. 4 . (c)

EO 1. 4 . (c)

TS-Jun 81-53-3475 IIANBI:iH YIA eOl\HN'I' eIIANNIH~8 ON~¥ SHeRBT 77