Cyborg | Designer-Babies | Futurism | Futurist | Immortality | Longevity | Nanotechnology | Post-Human | Singularity | Transhuman

Best Places to Live in Piscataway Township, New Jersey

 Islands  Comments Off on Best Places to Live in Piscataway Township, New Jersey
Oct 182015

New York is the largest metro area in the United States. It includes the island of Manhattan, an eight-county area immediately north, western Long Island, and Staten Island. It is the fourth largest in the world behind Tokyo, Mexico City, and Sao Paulo, Brazil. Regardless of how the area is defined, New York is among the richest and most complex places to live in America.

Boroughs, districts, and neighborhoods define the city. The borough of Manhattan, a 10-mile-long, 2-mile-wide island, is the financial, commercial, and entertainment core. Much of Lower Manhattan consists of narrow, haphazard streets, dating back to the citys earliest days as a Dutch colony. With the exception of older areas, such as Greenwich Village, the rest of the city follows an orderly grid pattern of avenues and streets laid out in 1811. (Broadway, another exception, moves at a gentle diagonal across the city.)

Filling out the island are distinct districts. Lower Manhattan contains the Financial District. Midtown is the commercial center, with corporate headquarters, various media businesses, and world-class shopping along Fifth Avenue. Large skyscrapers dominate Lower Manhattan, then retreat as does hard bedrock to build on in those areas, then reemerges in Midtown. The in-between area is dominated by older ethnic enclaves like Chinatown and Koreatown and the more famous artsy areas of Greenwich and Soho.

Hip residential areas lie east and west, mainly popular with young single professionals. North and west is Hells Kitchen, in the 40s (most Manhattan area locations are so approximated by their east-west numbered streets) is an old ethnic area and warehouse district enjoying a residential renaissance, to soon be aided by an elevated bikeway and commercial corridor along an old rail line. Times Square and the Theater District just west of Midtown contain the world-famous theaters and numerous restaurants. Surrounding Central Park, the Upper West and Upper East sides are predominantly residential, although both contain ample dining and shopping. The Upper East Side also contains posh enclaves unaffordable for most, outstanding museums, and the designer boutiques of Madison Avenue. The Upper West Side is dotted with large apartment buildings and is a favorite for working professionals and families. Farther north above Central Park, neighborhoods start to decline, although Harlem is undergoing a rebirth.

The boroughs of Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx are a patchwork of residential and commercial areas and parks. They have large industrial areas with a predominant blue-collar feel containing manufacturing and freight distribution centers for the area. All are close to the city and offer relatively more living space, and all are experiencing verying degrees of economic and residential revival. Ethnic diversity is strong in all boroughs, while Queens is reputedly the most ethnically diverse area in the country.

Brooklyn is large and diverse enough to function as a standalone city, with large and some upscale residential areas with a modern downtown and substantial commercial and retail offerings areas. Brooklyn is known for its large Olmstead designed (of Central Park fame) Prospect Park. Brooklyn shares the western end of Long Island with Queens, with excellent transportation service into the city by rail and subway and numerous beaches, parks and residential neighborhoods south and east towards the large JFK airport. Brooklyn is socioeconomically very diverse, with a mix of upscale, middle class and poorer areas, while Queens is more clearly identifiable as middle class.

The Bronx area, on the mainland to the north of Manhattan, is the grittiest of the three areas, although its strategic location between the city and to better areas north is starting to bring some interest. Staten Island, a mainly-residential borough to the south, is connected to Manhattan by ferries and the Verrazano Narrows bridge.

Finally, the New York metro area includes northern suburbs stretching up into Westchester County between the east bank of the Hudson River and the Connecticut border. Westchester is generally upscale and expensive, with spread-out towns and a country setting. White Plains is the largest city and a modern corporate center with large facilities for IBM and a number of companies relocating north from Manhattan. Smaller but very upscale areas lie east along the Long Island Sound (Rye being an example) and north along the Hudson as the smaller towns of Tarrytown, Ossining and Croton-on-Hudson.

Rockland County is more middle class with some working-class areas. West Nyack is a large family-oriented middle class area. Other suburbs give workers access to New York by freeway or by rail lines across the Hudson or to northern New Jersey.

The New York area offers a rich assortment of amenities, with world-class dining, shopping, and performing arts including theater, symphony, opera, and live music. Museums and architectural attractions, large and small, draw global audiences. Numerous major-league teams play in the area, including the MLB Yankees and Mets, NBA Knicks, NFL Giants and Jets, and NHL Islanders and Rangers. An extensive public transit system with subways and buses serves the urban core and links the boroughs.

A suburban rail and ferry network services surrounding communities in Connecticut, Long Island, and New Jersey. Rail lines on the Northeast Corridor make such cities as Boston and Washington, D.C. easily accessible. Many residents dont own cars and choose to depend on public transit or an occasional car rental. Three major airportsLa Guardia, Kennedy, and nearby Newarkprovide air service domestically and abroad. Surrounding the city are numerous recreation areas: Long Island beaches, the Poconos, the Hudson Valley, and the Jersey Shore, to name only a few.

The downsides are significant. The city is crowded and stressful, and some neighborhoods are run down. Violent crime rates are high, although not as bad as the stereotype. Cost of living is high in all categories and is rising. Median home prices of half a million or more dont buy much, especially in Manhattan. Home prices there can be five to six times higher for comparable properties in surrounding boroughs. Income differentials between wealthy workers and others are high, and overall the Buying Power Index is usually the worst in the country, suggesting that incomes dont keep up with costs. New York is a great place if you like the lifestyle and can make ends meet.

The New York City area exceeds 300 square miles and is located mostly on islands. Elevations range from less than 50 feet over most of Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Queens to several hundred feet in northern Manhattan, the Bronx, and Staten Island. The area is close to storm tracks, and most weather approaches from the west- producing higher summer and lower winter temperatures than would otherwise be expected in a coastal area. Summers are hot and humid with occasional long periods of discomfort. Sea breezes occasionally moderate summer heat and winter cold in Lower Manhattan. Manhattan and the inner boroughs are more likely to receive rain in winter while outlying areas get snow. Precipitation is distributed fairly evenly throughout the year. Summer rainfall is mainly from thunderstorms, usually of brief duration. Late summer and fall rains associated with tropical storms may occur. Coastal noreaster storms can produce significant snow. First freeze is mid-November, last is early April.

Read more here:
Best Places to Live in Piscataway Township, New Jersey

Massachusetts – National Stuttering Association (NSA …

 NSA  Comments Off on Massachusetts – National Stuttering Association (NSA …
Oct 052015

Adult Programs Coordinator: Bob Rochefort 508-697-3455/

Family Chapters:National

Boston South: Adults Meetings are held on the 2ndWednesday of eachmonth at 7:00 PM at the Au Bon Pain Cafe Bakery in the South Shore Plaza 250Granite Street Braintree, MA. For more information, contact chapter leaders Bob Rochefort at 508-697-3455 / or Abigail Lynch 203-518-1424 /

Boston North:Adults Chat and Chew meetings are held quarterly at the Bickfords Grill (6 Cambridge Street, Burlington, MA), during the months of March/June/September/December. For more information or to RSVP*, contact Chapter Leader Sarah Onofri at 617-710-8715/ or visit the Boston North NSA Website. *Meetings will only take place if there are a minimum of two RSVPs.

Boston: Adults Meetings are held the first Thursday of each month from 6:30 to 8:00 PM at Boston Universitys Sargent College building (635 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, MA) in Room 303 (third floor, to the right of the elevator). For more information, please contact Chapter Leader Sarah Onofri at or 617-710-8715.

Worcester:Adults Meetingsare held on the third Tuesday of each month from 7:00-9:00PM at Worcester State University (Science and Technology Center, Room 122D).* For more information or to RSVP** contact leader Ken Melnickat kmelnick@worcester.eduor visit theWorcester NSAwebsite. *The Worcester NSA Group will not meet during the months of June, July, or August. **Meetings will only take place if there are a minimum of two RSVPs.

Back to States

See more here:
Massachusetts – National Stuttering Association (NSA …

 Posted by at 7:45 pm  Tagged with:

The Second Amendment: The Framers Intentions

 Second Amendment  Comments Off on The Second Amendment: The Framers Intentions
Sep 262015

by Daniel J. Schultz

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The reference to a “well regulated” militia, probably conjures up a connotation at odds with the meaning intended by the Framers. In today’s English, the term “well regulated” probably implies heavy and intense government regulation. However, that conclusion is erroneous.

The words “well regulated” had a far different meaning at the time the Second Amendment was drafted. In the context of the Constitution’s provisions for Congressional power over certain aspects of the militia, and in the context of the Framers’ definition of “militia,” government regulation was not the intended meaning. Rather, the term meant only what it says, that the necessary militia be well regulated, but not by the national government.

To determine the meaning of the Constitution, one must start with the words of the Constitution itself. If the meaning is plain, that meaning controls. To ascertain the meaning of the term “well regulated” as it was used in the Second Amendment, it is necessary to begin with the purpose of the Second Amendment itself. The overriding purpose of the Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was as a check on the standing army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to “raise and support.”

As Noah Webster put it in a pamphlet urging ratification of the Constitution, “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe.” George Mason remarked to his Virginia delegates regarding the colonies’ recent experience with Britain, in which the Monarch’s goal had been “to disarm the people; that [that] . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” A widely reprinted article by Tench Coxe, an ally and correspondent of James Madison, described the Second Amendment’s overriding goal as a check upon the national government’s standing army: As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

Thus, the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government. Obviously, for that reason, the Framers did not say “A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State” — because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the “security of a free State.”

It is also helpful to contemplate the overriding purpose and object of the Bill of Rights in general. To secure ratification of the Constitution, the Federalists, urging passage of the Constitution by the States had committed themselves to the addition of the Bill of Rights, to serve as “further guards for private rights.” In that regard, the first ten amendments to the Constitution were designed to be a series of “shall nots,” telling the new national government again, in no uncertain terms, where it could not tread.

It would be incongruous to suppose or suggest the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, which were proscriptions on the powers of the national government, simultaneously acted as a grant of power to the national government. Similarly, as to the term “well regulated,” it would make no sense to suggest this referred to a grant of “regulation” power to the government (national or state), when the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights was to both declare individual rights and tell the national government where the scope of its enumerated powers ended.

In keeping with the intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights both of declaring individual rights and proscribing the powers of the national government, the use and meaning of the term “Militia” in the Second Amendment, which needs to be “well regulated,” helps explain what “well regulated” meant. When the Constitution was ratified, the Framers unanimously believed that the “militia” included all of the people capable of bearing arms.

George Mason, one of the Virginians who refused to sign the Constitution because it lacked a Bill of Rights, said: “Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people.” Likewise, the Federal Farmer, one of the most important Anti-Federalist opponents of the Constitution, referred to a “militia, when properly formed, [as] in fact the people themselves.” The list goes on and on.

By contrast, nowhere is to be found a contemporaneous definition of the militia, by any of the Framers, as anything other than the “whole body of the people.” Indeed, as one commentator said, the notion that the Framers intended the Second Amendment to protect the “collective” right of the states to maintain militias rather than the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms, “remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis.”

Furthermore, returning to the text of the Second Amendment itself, the right to keep and bear arms is expressly retained by “the people,” not the states. Recently the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed this view, finding that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right held by the “people,” — a “term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution,” specifically the Preamble and the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Thus, the term “well regulated” ought to be considered in the context of the noun it modifies, the people themselves, the militia(s).

The above analysis leads us finally to the term “well regulated.” What did these two words mean at the time of ratification? Were they commonly used to refer to a governmental bureaucracy as we know it today, with countless rules and regulations and inspectors, or something quite different? We begin this analysis by examining how the term “regulate” was used elsewhere in the Constitution. In every other instance where the term “regulate” is used, or regulations are referred to, the Constitution specifies who is to do the regulating and what is being “regulated.” However, in the Second Amendment, the Framers chose only to use the term “well regulated” to describe a militia and chose not to define who or what would regulate it.

It is also important to note that the Framers’ chose to use the indefinite article “a” to refer to the militia, rather than the definite article “the.” This choice suggests that the Framers were not referring to any particular well regulated militia but, instead, only to the concept that well regulated militias, made up of citizens bearing arms, were necessary to secure a free State. Thus, the Framers chose not to explicitly define who, or what, would regulate the militias, nor what such regulation would consist of, nor how the regulation was to be accomplished.

This comparison of the Framers’ use of the term “well regulated” in the Second Amendment, and the words “regulate” and “regulation” elsewhere in the Constitution, clarifies the meaning of that term in reference to its object, namely, the Militia. There is no doubt the Framers understood that the term “militia” had multiple meanings. First, the Framers understood all of the people to be part of the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia members, “the people,” had the right to keep and bear arms. They could, individually, or in concert, “well regulate” themselves; that is, they could train to shoot accurately and to learn the basics of military tactics.

This interpretation is in keeping with English usage of the time, which included within the meaning of the verb “regulate” the concept of self- regulation or self-control (as it does still to this day). The concept that the people retained the right to self-regulate their local militia groups (or regulate themselves as individual militia members) is entirely consistent with the Framers’ use of the indefinite article “a” in the phrase “A well regulated Militia.”

This concept of the people’s self-regulation, that is, non-governmental regulation, is also in keeping with the limited grant of power to Congress “for calling forth” the militia for only certain, limited purposes, to “provide for” the militia only certain limited control and equipment, and the limited grant of power to the President regarding the militia, who only serves as Commander in Chief of that portion of the militia called into the actual service of the nation. The “well regula[tion]” of the militia set forth in the Second Amendment was apart from that control over the militia exercised by Congress and the President, which extended only to that part of the militia called into actual service of the Union. Thus, “well regula[tion]” referred to something else. Since the fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

This view is confirmed by Alexander Hamilton’s observation, in The Federalist, No. 29, regarding the people’s militias ability to be a match for a standing army: ” . . . but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights . . . .”

It is an absolute truism that law-abiding, armed citizens pose no threat to other law-abiding citizens. The Framers’ writings show they also believed this. As we have seen, the Framers understood that “well regulated” militias, that is, armed citizens, ready to form militias that would be well trained, self-regulated and disciplined, would pose no threat to their fellow citizens, but would, indeed, help to “insure domestic Tranquility” and “provide for the common defence.”


1. In constitutional or statutory construction, language should always be accorded its plain meaning. See, e.g., Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304, 326 (1816).

2. “On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 32.

3. “The Congress shall have Power . . . To raise and support Armies . . . .” U.S. Const., Article I, Section 8, cl. 12.

4. Senate Subcommittee On The Constitution Of The Comm. On The Judiciary, 97th Cong., 2d Sess., The Right To Keep And Bear Arms (Comm. Print 1982), at 5.

5. 3 J. Elliot, Debates In The Several State Conventions 380 (2d ed. 1836).

6. Originally published under the pseudonym “A Pennsylvanian,” these “Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution” first appeared in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, at 2, col. 1. They were reprinted by the New York Packet, June 23, 1789, at 2, cols. 1-2, and by the Boston Centennial, July 4, 1789, at 1, col. 2. The U.S. Supreme Court, in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 83 L. Ed. 2d 1206, 59 S. Ct. 816 (1939), noted that the debates in the Constitutional Convention, the history and legislation of the colonies and states, and the writings of approved commentators showed that the militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense — a body enrolled for military discipline.

7. 11 Papers Of James Madison 307 (R. Rutland & C. Hobson ed. 1977) (letter of Oct. 20, 1788, from Madison to Edmund Pendleton)(emphasis added).

8. An examination of the other nine amendments of the Bill of Rights shows that they were designed, like the Second Amendment, to declare rights retained by the people (1-9), or the States (10), and to provide a clear list of powers not given to the national government: “Congress shall make no law . . . .” (Amendment I); “No soldier shall . . . .” (Amendment III); “The right of the people . . . shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue . . . .” (Amendment IV); “No person shall . . .; nor shall any person . . .; nor shall private property be taken . . . .” (Amendment V); “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy . . . .” (Amendment VI); “In Suits at common law . . . the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States . . . .” (Amendment VII); “Excessive bail shall not be required . . . .” (Amendment VIII); “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” (Amendment IX); “The Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” (Amendment X).

9. 3 J. Elliot, Debates In The General State Conventions 425 (3d ed. 1937) (statement of George Mason, June 14, 1788), reprinted in Levinson, The Embarassing Second Amendment, 99 Yale L. Rev. 637, 647 (1989). See supra note 6 and accompanying text.

10. Letters From The Federal Farmer To The Republican 123 (W. Bennet ed. 1978) (ascribed to Richard Henry Lee), reprinted in Levinson, supra note 9, at 647. See supra note 6 and accompanying text.

11. S. Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right, p. 83 (The Independent Institute, 1984).

12. U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 265 (1990) (“The Second Amendment protects ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms’….”).

13. “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators.” (Article I, Section 4); “The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes . . . .” (Article I, Section 8, cl. 3); “The Congress shall have power . . . To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures . . . .” (Article I, Section 8, cl. 5); “No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.” (Article I, Section 9); “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.” (Article III, Section 2, cl. 2); “No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.” (Article IV, Section 2, cl. 3); “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular state.” (Article IV, Section 3, cl. 2).

14. See supra, notes 6, 9 and 10 and accompanying text.

15. The Oxford English Dictionary gives the following examples of usage for the term “well regulated”: 1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us . . . well-regulated Appetites, and worthy Inclinations.” 1714: “The practice of all well regulated courts of justice in the world.” 1812: “The equation of time . . . is the adjustment of the difference of time, as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.” 1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Major.” 1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.” 1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well- regulated American embryo city.” One definition of the word “well” in the Oxford English Dictionary is “satisfactorily in respect of conduct or action.” One of The Oxford English Dictionary definitions for the term “regulated” is “b. Of troops: Properly disciplined.” The one example of usage is: “1690: Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 ‘We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.'” The Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1989).

16. “The Congress shall have Power . . . To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions . . . .” U. S. Const., Article I, Section 8, cl. 15.

17. “The Congress shall have Power . . . To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress . . . .” U.S. Const., Article I, Section 8, cl. 16.

18. “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States . . . .” U.S. Const., Article II, Section 2, cl. 1.

19. U.S. Const., Preamble. —– from: The “Well Regulated” Militia of the Second Amendment: An Examination of the Framers’ Intentions, THE LIBERTY POLE V.II, No.2, The Official Publication of The Lawyer’s Second Amendment Society.

Daniel J. Schultz is a practicing attorney in Los Angeles and President of LSAS, a nationwide network of pro-right to keep and bear arms attorneys. Contact the LSAS at (818)734-3066 or 18034 Ventura Boulevard, #329, Encino, CA 91316.

—– Brought to you by – The ‘Lectric Law Library The Net’s Finest Legal Resource For Legal Pros & Laypeople Alike.


See the original post here:
The Second Amendment: The Framers Intentions

 Posted by at 12:42 am  Tagged with:

USS Liberty incident – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Liberty  Comments Off on USS Liberty incident – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Aug 182015

The USS Liberty incident was an attack on a United States Navy technical research ship, USSLiberty, by Israeli Air Force jet fighter aircraft and Israeli Navy motor torpedo boats, on 8 June 1967, during the Six-Day War.[3] The combined air and sea attack killed 34 crew members (naval officers, seamen, two Marines, and one civilian), wounded 171 crew members, and severely damaged the ship.[4] At the time, the ship was in international waters north of the Sinai Peninsula, about 25.5nmi (29.3mi; 47.2km) northwest from the Egyptian city of Arish.[1][5]

Israel apologized for the attack, saying that the USS Liberty had been attacked in error after being mistaken for an Egyptian ship.[6] Both the Israeli and U.S. governments conducted inquiries and issued reports that concluded the attack was a mistake due to Israeli confusion about the ship’s identity,[2] though others, including survivors of the attack, have rejected these conclusions and maintain that the attack was deliberate.[7]

In May 1968, the Israeli government paid US$3,323,500 (US$22.5 million 2015) in compensation to the families of the 34 men killed in the attack. In March 1969, Israel paid a further $3,566,457 to the men who had been wounded. On 18 December 1980, it agreed to pay $6 million as settlement for the final U.S. bill of $17,132,709 for material damage to Liberty herself plus 13 years’ interest.[8]

USSLiberty was originally the 7,725 long tons (7,849t) (light) civilian cargo vessel Simmons Victory, a mass-produced, standard-design Victory Ship, the follow-on series to the famous Liberty Ships, which supplied the United Kingdom and Allied troops with cargo. it was acquired by the United States Navy, converted to an Auxiliary Technical Research Ship (AGTR),[9] and began her first deployment in 1965, to waters off the west coast of Africa. it carried out several more operations during the next two years.

During the Six-Day War between Israel and several Arab nations, the United States of America maintained a neutral country status.[10] Several days before the war began, the USS Liberty was ordered to proceed to the eastern Mediterranean area to perform a signals intelligence collection mission in international waters near the north coast of Sinai, Egypt.[11] After the war erupted, due to concerns about her safety as she approached her patrol area, several messages were sent to Liberty to increase her allowable closest point of approach (CPA) to Egypt’s and Israel’s coasts from 12.5 and 6.5nmi (14.4 and 7.5mi; 23.2 and 12.0km), respectively, to 20 and 15nmi (23 and 17mi; 37 and 28km), and then later to 100nmi (120mi; 190km) for both countries.[12] Unfortunately, due to ineffective message handling and routing, the CPA change messages were not received until after the attack.[12]

According to Israeli sources, at the start of the war on 5 June, General Yitzhak Rabin (then IDF Chief of Staff) informed Commander Ernest Carl Castle, the American Naval Attach in Tel Aviv, that Israel would defend its coast with every means at its disposal, including sinking unidentified ships. Also, he asked the U.S. to keep its ships away from Israel’s shore or at least inform Israel of their exact position.[13][14]

American sources said that no inquiry about ships in the area was made until after the Liberty attack ended. In a message sent from U.S. Secretary of State Dean Rusk to U.S. Ambassador Walworth Barbour, in Tel Aviv, Israel, Rusk asked for “urgent confirmation” of Israel’s statement. Barbour responded: “No request for info on U.S. ships operating off Sinai was made until after Liberty incident.” Further, Barbour stated: “Had Israelis made such an inquiry it would have been forwarded immediately to the chief of naval operations and other high naval commands and repeated to dept [Department of State].”[15]

With the outbreak of war, Captain William L. McGonagle of Liberty immediately asked Vice Admiral William I. Martin at the United States Sixth Fleet headquarters to send a destroyer to accompany Liberty and serve as its armed escort and as an auxiliary communications center. The following day, 6 June, Admiral Martin replied: “Liberty is a clearly marked United States ship in international waters, not a participant in the conflict and not a reasonable subject for attack by any nation. Request denied.”[16] He promised, however, that in the unlikely event of an inadvertent attack, jet fighters from the Sixth Fleet would be overhead in ten minutes.

Meanwhile, on 6 June, at the United Nations, in response to United Arab Republic complaints that the United States was supporting Israel in the conflict, U.S. Ambassador Arthur Goldberg said to the Security Council that aircraft of the Sixth Fleet were several hundred miles from the conflict,[12] indicating that elements of the Sixth Fleet itself were far from the conflict. When the statement was made this was the case, since Liberty, now assigned to the Sixth Fleet, was in the central Mediterranean Sea, passing between Libya and Crete;[17] but she would ultimately steam to about 13nmi (15mi; 24km) north of the Sinai Peninsula.[18]

On the night of 7 June Washington time, early morning on 8 June, 01:10Z or 3:10am local time, the Pentagon issued an order to Sixth Fleet headquarters to tell Liberty to come no closer than 100nmi (120mi; 190km) to Israel, Syria, or the Sinai coast (Oren, p.263).[19]:5, 58 (Exhibit N)

According to the Naval Court of Inquiry[20]:23 ff, 111 ff and National Security Agency official history,[21] the order to withdraw was not sent on the radio frequency that Liberty monitored for her orders until 15:25 Zulu, several hours after the attack, due to a long series of administrative and message routing problems. The Navy said a large volume of unrelated high-precedence traffic, including intelligence intercepts related to the conflict, were being handled at the time; and that this combined with a shortage of qualified Radiomen contributed to delayed sending of the withdrawal message.[20]:111 ff

Official testimony combined with Liberty’s deck log say that throughout the morning of the attack, 8 June, the ship was overflown, at various times and locations, by Israeli Air Force (IAF) aircraft.[18] The primary aircraft type was the Nord Noratlas; there were also two unidentified delta-wing jets at about 9:00am Sinai time (GMT+2).[18]Liberty crewmembers say that one of the Noratlas aircraft flew so close to Liberty that noise from its propellers rattled the ship’s deck plating, and that the pilots and crewmembers waved to each other.[22] It was later reported, based on information from Israel Defense Forces sources, that the over-flights were coincidental, and that the aircraft were hunting for Egyptian submarines that had been spotted near the coast.[23]

At about 5:45am Sinai time, a ship-sighting report was received at Israeli Central Coastal Command (CCC) about Liberty, identified by an aerial naval observer as “apparently a destroyer, sailing 70 miles [110km] west of Gaza.”[24] The vessel’s location was marked on a CCC Control Table, using a red marker, indicating an unidentified vessel.[25] At about 6:00am, the aerial naval observer reported that the ship appeared like a U.S. Navy supply ship; the red marker was replaced with a green marker to indicate a neutral vessel, at about 9:00am.[25] At that same time, an Israeli jet fighter pilot reported that a ship 20 miles (32km) north of Arish had fired at his aircraft after he tried to identify the vessel.[25] Israeli naval command dispatched two destroyers to investigate, but they were returned to their previous positions at 9:40am after doubts emerged during the pilot’s debriefing.[25] After the naval observer’s Noratlas landed and he was debriefed, the ship he saw was further identified as the USS Liberty, based on its “GTR-5” hull markings.[26] USS Liberty’s marker was removed from CCC’s Control Table at 11:00am, due to its positional information being considered stale.[27]

At 11:24am, Israeli Chief of Naval Operations received a report that Arish was being shelled from the sea.[27] An inquiry into the source of the report was ordered to determine its validity.[27] The report came from an Air Support Officer in Arish.[28] Additionally, at 11:27am Israeli Supreme Command Head of Operations received a report stating that a ship had been shelling Arish, but the shells had fallen short.[28] (Investigative journalist James Bamford points out that Liberty had only four .50 caliber machine guns mounted on her decks and, thus, could not have shelled the coast.[29] ) The Head of Operations ordered that the report be verified, and determine whether or not Israeli Navy vessels were off the coast of Arish.[28] At 11:45am, another report arrived at Supreme Command saying two ships were approaching the Arish coast.[28]

The shelling and ships reports were passed from Supreme Command to Fleet Operations Control Center.[28] The Chief of Naval Operations took them seriously, and at 12:05pm torpedo boat Division 914 was ordered to patrol in the direction of Arish.[28]

Division 914, codenamed “Pagoda”, was under the command of Commander Moshe Oren.[28] It consisted of three torpedo boats numbered: T-203, T-204 and T-206.[28] At 12:15pm, Division 914 received orders to patrol a position 20 miles (32km) north of Arish.[28] As Commander Oren headed toward Arish, he was informed by Naval Operations of the reported shelling of Arish and told that IAF aircraft would be dispatched to the area after the target had been detected.[28]

Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin was concerned that the supposed Egyptian shelling was the prelude to an amphibious landing that could outflank Israeli forces. Rabin reiterated the standing order to sink any unidentified ships in the area, but advised caution, as Soviet vessels were reportedly operating nearby.[23]

At 1:41pm, the torpedo boats detected an unknown vessel 20 miles northwest of Arish and 14 miles (23km) off the coast of Bardawil.[1][30] The ship’s speed was estimated on their radars.[30] The Combat Information Center officer on T-204, Ensign Aharon Yifrah, reported to the boat’s captain, Commander Moshe Oren, that the target had been detected at a range of 22 miles (35km), that her speed had been tracked for a few minutes, after which he had determined that the target was moving westward at a speed of 30 knots (56km/h; 35mph). These data were forwarded to the Fleet Operations Control Center.[30]

The speed of the target was significant because it indicated that the target was a combat vessel.[30] Moreover, Israeli forces had standing orders to fire on any unknown vessels sailing in the area at over 20 knots (37km/h; 23mph), a speed which, at the time, could only be attained by warships. The Chief of Naval Operations asked the torpedo boats to double-check their calculations. Yifrah twice recalculated and confirmed his assessment.[23][30] A few minutes later, Commander Oren reported that the target, now 17 miles (27km) from his position, was moving at a speed of 28 knots (52km/h; 32mph) on a different heading.[31] Bamford, however, points out that Liberty’s top speed was far below 28 knots. His sources say that at the time of the attack Liberty was following her signal-intercept mission course along the northern Sinai coast, at about 5 knots (9.3km/h; 5.8mph) speed.[29]

The data on the ship’s speed, together with its direction, indicated that it was an Egyptian destroyer fleeing toward port after shelling Arish. The torpedo boats gave chase, but did not expect to overtake their target before it reached Egypt. Commander Oren requested that the Israeli Air Force dispatch aircraft to intercept.[23][30] At 1:48pm, the Chief of Naval Operations requested dispatch of fighter aircraft to the ship’s location.[32]

The IAF dispatched two Mirage III fighter jets that arrived at Liberty at about 2:00 pm.[33] The formation leader, Captain Iftach Spector, attempted to identify the ship.[33] He communicated via radio to one of the torpedo boats his observation that the ship appeared like a military ship with one smokestack and one mast.[34] Also, he communicated, in effect, that the ship appeared to him like a destroyer or another type of small ship.[34] In a post-attack statement, the pilots said they saw no distinguishable markings or flag on the ship.[34]

At this point, a recorded exchange took place between a command headquarters weapons systems officer, one of the air controllers, and the chief air controller questioning a possible American presence. Immediately after the exchange, at 1:57pm, the chief air controller, Lieutenant-Colonel Shmuel Kislev, cleared the Mirages to attack.[23][35]

After being cleared to attack, the Mirages dived on the ship and attacked with 30-mm cannons and rockets.[36] The attack came a few minutes after the crew completed a chemical attack drill, with Captain McGonagle on the command bridge.[37] The crew was in “stand-down mode”, with their helmets and life jackets removed,[23] except battle readiness “modified condition three” was set which meant that the ship’s four .50 caliber machine guns were manned and ammunition ready for loading and firing.[38][39] Eight crewmen were either killed immediately or died later, and 75 were wounded.[40] Among the wounded was McGonagle, who was hit in the right thigh and arm.[41] During the attack, antennas were severed, gas drums caught fire, and the ship’s flag was knocked down. McGonagle sent an urgent request for help to the Sixth Fleet, “Under attack by unidentified jet aircraft, require immediate assistance.”

The Mirages left after expending their ammunition, and were replaced by two Dassault Mysteres armed with napalm bombs. The Mysteres released their payloads over the ship and strafed it with their cannons. Much of the ship’s superstructure caught fire.[23][33] The Mysteres were readying to attack again when the Israeli Navy, alerted by the absence of return fire, warned Kislev that the target could be Israeli. Kislev told the pilots not to attack if there was any doubt about identification, and the Israeli Navy quickly contacted all of its vessels in the area. The Israeli Navy found that none of its vessels were under fire, and the aircraft were cleared to attack. However, Kislev was still disturbed by a lack of return fire, and requested one last attempt to identify the ship. Captain Yossi Zuk, leader of the Mystere formation, made an attempt at identification while strafing the ship. He reported seeing no flag, but saw the ship’s GTR-5 marking. Kislev immediately ordered the attack stopped. Kislev guessed that the ship was American.[23]

The fact that the ship had Latin alphabet markings led Chief of Staff Rabin to fear that the ship was Soviet. Though Egyptian warships were known to disguise their identities with Western markings, they usually displayed Arabic letters and numbers only. Rabin ordered the torpedo boats to remain at a safe distance from the ship, and sent in two Hornet (Arospatiale Super Frelon) helicopters to search for survivors. These radio communications were recorded by Israel. The order also was recorded in the torpedo boat’s log, although Commander Oren alleged not to have received it. The order to cease fire was given at 2:20pm, twenty-four minutes before the torpedo boats arrived at the Liberty’s position.[42] At 2:35pm, Liberty was hit by a torpedo launched from one of the torpedo boats.[43]

During the interval, crewmen aboard Liberty hoisted a large American flag. During the early part of the air attack and before the torpedo boats were sighted, Liberty sent a distress message that was received by Sixth Fleet aircraft carrier USS Saratoga.[40] Aircraft carrier USS America dispatched eight aircraft. The carrier had been in the middle of strategic exercises. Vice-Admiral William I. Martin recalled the aircraft minutes later.[23]

McGonagle testified at the naval court of inquiry that during “the latter moments of the air attack, it was noted that three high speed boats were approaching the ship from the northeast on a relative bearing of approximately 135 [degrees] at a distance of about 15 [nautical] miles. The ship at the time was still on [westward] course 283 [degrees] true, speed unknown, but believed to be in excess of five knots.”[20]:38 McGonagle testified that he “believed that the time of initial sighting of the torpedo boats … was about 14:20 [2:20 pm]”, and that the “boats appeared to be in a wedge type formation with the center boat the lead point of the wedge. Estimated speed of the boats was about 27 to 30 knots [50 to 56km/h],” and that it “appeared that they were approaching the ship in a torpedo launch attitude.”[20]:38

When the torpedo boats arrived, Commander Oren could see that the ship could not be the destroyer that had supposedly shelled Arish or any ship capable of 30 knots (56km/h) speed. Oren believed it was a slower-moving vessel that had either serviced the destroyer or evacuated enemy soldiers from the beach.[citation needed] He ordered the squadron not to attack pending better identification “although this was difficult due to the billowing clouds of smoke that enveloped the vessel; only her bow, part of her bridge and the tip of her mast could be discerned.”[citation needed] At 6,000 meters (20,000ft), T-204 paused and signalled “AA” “identify yourself.”[citation needed] Due to damaged equipment, McGonagle could only reply with “AA” using a handheld Aldis lamp.[citation needed] Oren recalled receiving a similar response from the Ibrahim el Awal, an Egyptian destroyer captured by Israel during the Suez Crisis, and was convinced that he was facing an enemy ship.[citation needed]

He consulted an Israeli identification guide to Arab fleets and concluded the ship was the Egyptian supply ship El Quseir, based on observing its deckline, midship bridge and smokestack. The captain of boat T203 reached the same conclusion independently. The boats organized into battle formation, but did not attack.[42][44]

As the torpedo boats rapidly approached, Captain McGonagle ordered a sailor to proceed to machine gun Mount 51 and open fire.[20]:38 However, he noticed that the boats appeared to be flying an Israeli flag, and “realized that there was a possibility of the aircraft having been Israeli and the attack had been conducted in error.”[20]:39 Captain McGonagle ordered the man at gun mount 51 to hold fire, but a short burst was fired at the torpedo boats before the man was able to understand the order.[20]:39 McGonagle observed that machine gun Mount 53 began firing at the center torpedo boat at about the same time gun mount 51 fired, and that its fire was “extremely effective and blanketed the area and the center torpedo boat.”[20]:39 Machine gun mount 53 was located on the starboard amidships side, behind the pilot house.[20]:16 McGonagle could not see or “get to mount 53 from the starboard wing of the bridge.”[20]:39 So, he “sent Mr. Lucas around the port side of the bridge, around to the skylights, to see if he could tell [Seaman] Quintero, whom [he] believed to be the gunner on Machine gun 53, to hold fire.”[20]:39

Ensign Lucas “reported back in a few minutes in effect that he saw no one at mount 53.”[20]:39 Lucas, who had left the command bridge during the air attack and returned to assist Captain McGonagle immediately before a torpedo hit the ship,[20]:14 believed that the gunfire sound was likely from ammunition cooking off, due to a nearby fire.[20]:16 Prior to this time, after a torpedo hit the ship, Lucas had granted a request from Quintero to fire at the torpedo boats before heat from a nearby fire chased him from gun mount 53.[20]:26,27 (McGonagle later testified, at the Court of Inquiry, that this was likely the “extremely effective” firing event he had observed.[20]:49)

After coming under fire, Commander Oren repeatedly requested permission from naval headquarters to return fire, and chief naval controller Izzy Rahav finally approved.[citation needed] Shelling by the torpedo boats killed Liberty’s helmsman.[43] The torpedo boats then launched five torpedoes at the Liberty.[45] At 1235Z (2:35 local time)[43] a torpedo hit Liberty on the starboard side forward of the superstructure, creating a 40ft (12m) wide hole in what had been a former cargo hold converted to the ship’s research spaces and killing 25 servicemen, almost all of them from the intelligence section, and wounding dozens.[23][46] It has been said the torpedo hit a major hull frame that absorbed much of the energy; crew members reported that if the torpedo had missed the frame the Liberty would have split in two. Russian linguist and U.S. Marine Corps Staff Sergeant Bryce Lockwood later commented: “I would never deny that it was God that kept the Liberty afloat!”.[7] The other four torpedoes missed the ship.

The torpedo boats then closed in and strafed the ship’s hull with their cannons and machine guns.[citation needed] According to some crewmen, the torpedo boats fired at damage control parties and sailors preparing life rafts for launch. (See disputed details below.) A life raft which floated from the ship was picked up by T-203 and found to bear US Navy markings. T-204 then circled Liberty, and Oren spotted the designation GTR-5, but saw no flag.[citation needed] It took until 3:30pm to establish the ship’s identity. Shortly before the Liberty’s identity was confirmed, the Saratoga launched eight aircraft armed with conventional weapons towards Liberty. After the ship’s identity was confirmed, the General Staff was notified and an apology was sent to naval attach Castle. The aircraft approaching Liberty were recalled to the Saratoga.[23]

According to transcripts of intercepted radio communications, published by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA), at about 2:30pm, near the beginning of the torpedo boat attack, two IAF helicopters were dispatched to Liberty’s location. The helicopters arrived at about 3:10pm, about 35 minutes after a torpedo hit the ship. After arriving, one of the helicopter pilots was asked, by his ground-based controller, to verify that the ship was flying an American flag. The helicopters conducted a brief search for crew members of the ship who may have fallen overboard during the air attack. No one was found. The helicopters left the ship at about 3:20pm.

At about 4pm, two hours after the attack began, Israel informed the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv that its military forces had mistakenly attacked a U.S. Navy ship. When the ship was “confirmed to be American” the torpedo boats returned at about 4:40pm to offer help;[47] it was refused by the Liberty. Later, Israel provided a helicopter to fly U.S. naval attach Commander Castle to the ship.[48] (pp.32,34)

In Washington, President Lyndon B. Johnson had received word from the Joint Chiefs of Staff that Liberty had been torpedoed by an unknown vessel at 9:50am eastern time. Johnson assumed that the Soviets were involved, and hotlined Moscow with news of the attack and the dispatch of jets from Saratoga. He chose not to make any public statements and delegated this task to Phil G. Goulding, who was an Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs at a time.[49]

Soon afterward, the Israelis said that they had mistakenly attacked the ship. The Johnson administration conveyed “strong dismay” to Israeli ambassador Avraham Harman. Meanwhile, apologies were soon sent by Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol, Foreign Minister Abba Eban, and charg d’affaires Efraim Evron. Within 48 hours, Israel offered to compensate the victims and their families.[42]

Though Liberty was severely damaged, with a 39ft wide by 24ft high (12 m x 7.3 m) hole and a twisted keel, her crew kept her afloat, and she was able to leave the area under her own power. Liberty was later met by the destroyers USS Davis and USS Massey, and the cruiser USS Little Rock. Medical personnel were transferred to Liberty, and she was escorted to Malta, where she was given interim repairs. After these were completed in July 1967, Liberty returned to the U.S. She was decommissioned in June 1968 and struck from the Naval Vessel Register. Liberty was transferred to United States Maritime Administration (MARAD) in December 1970 and sold for scrap in 1973.

From the start, the response to Israeli statements of mistaken identity ranged between frank disbelief and unquestioning acceptance within the administration in Washington. A communication to the Israeli Ambassador on 10 June, by Secretary Rusk stated, among other things: “At the time of the attack, the USS Liberty was flying the American flag and its identification was clearly indicated in large white letters and numerals on its hull. … Experience demonstrates that both the flag and the identification number of the vessel were readily visible from the air…. Accordingly, there is every reason to believe that the USS Liberty was identified, or at least her nationality determined, by Israeli aircraft approximately one hour before the attack. … The subsequent attack by the torpedo boats, substantially after the vessel was or should have been identified by Israeli military forces, manifests the same reckless disregard for human life.”[50]

George Lenczowski notes: “It was significant that, in contrast to his secretary of state, President Johnson fully accepted the Israeli version of the tragic incident.” He notes that Johnson himself only included one small paragraph about the Liberty in his autobiography,[51] in which he accepted the Israeli explanation of “error”, but also minimized the whole affair and distorted the actual number of dead and wounded, by lowering them from 34 to 10 and 171 to 100, respectively. Lenczowski further states: It seems Johnson was more interested in avoiding a possible confrontation with the Soviet Union, …than in restraining Israel.[52]

McGonagle received the Medal of Honor, the highest U.S. medal, for his actions.[53][54] The Medal of Honor is generally presented by the President of the United States in the White House,[54][55] but this time it was awarded at the Washington Navy Yard by the Secretary of the Navy in an unpublicized ceremony, breaking with established tradition.[54]

Other Liberty sailors received decorations for their actions during and after the attack, but most of the award citations omitted mention of Israel as the perpetrator. In 2009, however, a Silver Star awarded to crewmember Terry Halbardier, who braved machine-gun and cannon fire to repair a damaged antenna that restored the ship’s communications, in the award citation named Israel as the attacker.[56]

American inquiries, memoranda, records of testimony, and various reports involving or mentioning the Liberty attack include, but are not limited to, the following:

The U.S. Naval Court of Inquiry record contains testimony by fourteen Liberty crew members and five subject matter experts; exhibits of attack damage photographs, various messages and memoranda; and findings of fact. The testimony record reveals “a shallow investigation, plagued by myriad disagreements between the captain and his crew.”[57] As to culpability, “It was not the responsibility of the court to rule on the culpability of the attackers, and no evidence was heard from the attacking nation”, the court concluded that “available evidence combines to indicate … (that the attack was) a case of mistaken identity.” Additionally, the Court found that “heroism displayed by the Commanding Officer, officers and men of the Liberty was exceptional.”

The Joint Chief of Staff’s Report contains findings of fact related only to communication system failures associated with the Liberty attack. It was not concerned with matters of culpability, nor does it contain statements thereof.

The CIA Memoranda consist of two documents: one dated June 13, 1967, and the other dated June 21, 1967. The June 13 memorandum is an “account of circumstances of the attack … compiled from all available sources.” The June 21 memorandum is a point-by-point analysis of Israeli inquiry findings of fact. It concludes: “The attack was not made in malice toward the U.S. and was by mistake, but the failure of the IDF Headquarters and the attacking aircraft to identify the Liberty and the subsequent attack by torpedo boats were both incongruous and indicative of gross negligence.”

The Clark Clifford Report consists of a review of “all available information on the subject” and “deals with the question of Israeli culpability”, according to its transmittal memorandum. The report concludes: “The unprovoked attack on the Liberty constitutes a flagrant act of gross negligence for which the Israeli Government should be held completely responsible, and the Israeli military personnel involved should be punished.”

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee Testimony contains, as an aside matter during hearings concerning a foreign aid authorization bill, questions and statements from several senators and responses from then Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, about the Liberty attack. For the most part, the senators were dismayed about the attack, as expressed by Senator Bourke B. Hickenlooper: “From what I have read I can’t tolerate for one minute that this [attack] was an accident.” Also, there was concern about obtaining more information about the attack, as expressed by Committee chairman J. William Fulbright: “We asked for [the attack investigation report] about two weeks ago and have not received it yet from Secretary Rusk. … By the time we get to it we will be on some other subject.” Secretary McNamara promised fast delivery of the investigation report (“…you will have it in four hours.”), and concluded his remarks by saying: “I simply want to emphasize that the investigative report does not show any evidence of a conscious intent to attack a U.S. vessel.”[58]

The House Armed Services Committee investigation report is titled, “Review of Department of Defense Worldwide Communications”. It was not an investigation focused on the Liberty attack; although, the committee’s report contains a section that describes communications flow involved with the Liberty incident.

The NSA History Report is, as its name connotes, a historical report that cited the U.S. Naval Court of Inquiry record, various military and government messages and memorandum, and personal interviews for its content. The report ends with a section entitled, “Unanswered Questions”, and provides no conclusion regarding culpability.

The Liberty Veterans Association (composed of veterans from the ship) states that U.S. congressional investigations and other U.S. investigations were not actually investigations into the attack, but rather reports using evidence only from the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry, or investigations unrelated to culpability that involved issues such as communications. In their view, the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry is the only actual investigation on the incident to date. They say it was hastily conducted, in only 10 days, even though the court’s president, Rear Admiral Isaac Kidd, said that it would take six months to conduct properly. The inquiry’s terms of reference were limited to whether any shortcomings on the part of the Liberty’s crew had contributed to the injuries and deaths that resulted from the attack.[59] According to the Navy Court of Inquiry’s record of proceedings, four days were spent hearing testimony: two days for fourteen survivors of the attack and several U.S. Navy expert witnesses, and two partial days for two expert U.S. Navy witnesses. No testimony was heard from Israeli personnel involved.

The National Archives in College Park, Maryland includes in its files on casualties from the Liberty copies of the original telegrams the Navy sent out to family members. The telegrams called the attack accidental. The telegrams were sent out June 9, the day before the Navy Court of Inquiry convened.

Two subsequent Israeli inquiry reports and an historical report concluded the attack was conducted because Liberty was confused with an Egyptian vessel and because of failures in communications between Israel and the U.S. The three Israeli reports were:

In the historical report, it was acknowledged that IDF naval headquarters knew at least three hours before the attack that the ship was “an electromagnetic audio-surveillance ship of the U.S. Navy” but concluded that this information had simply “gotten lost, never passed along to the ground controllers who directed the air attack nor to the crews of the three Israeli torpedo boats.”

The Israeli government said that three crucial errors were made: the refreshing of the status board (removing the ship’s classification as American, so that the later shift did not see it identified), the erroneous identification of the ship as an Egyptian vessel, and the lack of notification from the returning aircraft informing Israeli headquarters of markings on the front of the hull (markings that would not be found on an Egyptian ship). As a common root of these problems, Israel blamed the combination of alarm and fatigue experienced by the Israeli forces at that point of the war when pilots were severely overworked.

After conducting his own fact-finding inquiry and reviewing evidence, Judge Yerushalmi’s decision was: “I have not discovered any deviation from the standard of reasonable conduct which would justify committal of anyone for trial.” In other words, he found no negligence by any IDF member associated with the attack.

Some intelligence and military officials dispute Israel’s explanation.[63]

Dean Rusk, U.S. Secretary of State at the time of the incident, wrote:

I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation. Their sustained attack to disable and sink Liberty precluded an assault by accident or some trigger-happy local commander. Through diplomatic channels we refused to accept their explanations. I didn’t believe them then, and I don’t believe them to this day. The attack was outrageous.[64]

Retired naval Lieutenant Commander James Ennes, a junior officer (and off-going Officer of the Deck) on Liberty’s bridge at the time of the attack, authored a book titled Assault on the Liberty describing the incident during the Six Day War in June 1967 and saying, among other things, that the attack was deliberate.[65] Ennes and Joe Meadors, also survivors of the attack, run a website about the incident.[66] Meadors states that the classification of the attack as deliberate is the official policy of the USS Liberty Veterans Association,[67] to which survivors and other former crew members belong. Other survivors run several additional websites. Citing Ennes’s book, Lenczowski notes: Liberty’s personnel received firm orders not to say anything to anybody about the attack, and the naval inquiry was conducted in such a way as to earn it the name of “coverup”.[52]

In 2002, Captain Ward Boston, JAGC, U.S. Navy, senior counsel for the Court of Inquiry, said that the Court of Inquiry’s findings were intended to cover up what was a deliberate attack by Israel on a ship that the Israelis knew to be American. In 2004, in response to the publication of A. Jay Cristol’s book The Liberty Incident, which Boston said was an “insidious attempt to whitewash the facts”, Boston prepared and signed an affidavit in which he said that Admiral Kidd had told him that the government ordered Kidd to falsely report that the attack was a mistake, and that Boston and Kidd both believed the attack was deliberate.[68] On the issue Boston wrote, in part:

The evidence was clear. Both Admiral Kidd and I believed with certainty that this attack, which killed 34 American sailors and injured 172 others, was a deliberate effort to sink an American ship and murder its entire crew. Each evening, after hearing testimony all day, we often spoke our private thoughts concerning what we had seen and heard. I recall Admiral Kidd repeatedly referring to the Israeli forces responsible for the attack as ‘murderous bastards.’ It was our shared belief, based on the documentary evidence and testimony we received first hand, that the Israeli attack was planned and deliberate, and could not possibly have been an accident.

Cristol wrote about Boston’s professional qualifications and integrity, on page 149 of his book:

Boston brought two special assets in addition to his skill as a Navy lawyer. He had been a naval aviator in World War II and therefore had insight beyond that of one qualified only in the law. Also, Kidd knew him as a man of integrity. On an earlier matter Boston had been willing to bump heads with Kidd when Boston felt it was more important to do the right thing than to curry favor with the senior who would write his fitness report.

Cristol believes that Boston is not telling the truth about Kidd’s views and any pressure from the U.S. government.[69] Cristol, who also served as an officer of the U.S. Navy’s Judge Advocate General, suggests that Boston was responsible in part for the original conclusions of the Court of Inquiry and, that by later declaring that they were false, Boston has admitted to “lying under oath.” Cristol also notes that Boston’s statements about pressure on Kidd were hearsay, and that Kidd was not alive to confirm or deny them. He also notes that Boston did not maintain, prior to his affidavit and comments related to it, that Kidd spoke of such instructions to Boston or to others. Finally, Cristol provides a handwritten 1991 letter from Admiral Kidd[70] that, according to Cristol, “suggest that Ward Boston has either a faulty memory or a vivid imagination”.

The Anti-Defamation League supports Cristol’s opinion:

… according to his own account, Boston’s evidence of a cover-up derives not from his own part in the investigation but solely on alleged conversations with Admiral Kidd, who purportedly told him he was forced to find that the attack was unintentional. Kidd died in 1999 and there is no way to verify Boston’s statements. However, Cristol argues that the ‘documentary record’ strongly indicated that Kidd ‘supported the validity of the findings of the Court of Inquiry to his dying day.'[71]

According to James Ennes, however, Admiral Kidd urged Ennes and his group to keep pressing for an open congressional probe.[72]

The following arguments, found in official reports or other sources, were published to support that the attack was due to mistaken identity:

Several books and the BBC documentary USS Liberty: Dead in the Water argued that Liberty was attacked in order to prevent the U.S. from knowing about the forthcoming attack in the Golan Heights, which would violate a cease-fire to which Israel’s government had agreed.[75] However, Syria did not accept the cease fire until 9 June, after the attack on Liberty.[76] Russian author Joseph Daichman, in his book History of the Mossad, states Israel was justified in attacking the Liberty.[77] Israel knew that American radio signals were intercepted by the Soviet Union and that the Soviets would certainly inform Egypt of the fact that, by moving troops to the Golan Heights, Israel had left the Egyptian border undefended.[78]

Lenczowski notes that while the Israeli decision to “attack and destroy” the ship “may appear puzzling”, the explanation seems to be found in Liberty’s nature and its task to monitor communications on both sides in the war zone. He writes, “Israel clearly did not want the U.S. government to know too much about its dispositions for attacking Syria, initially planned for 8 June, but postponed for 24 hours. It should be pointed out that the attack on Liberty occurred on 8 June, whereas on 9 June at 3am, Syria announced its acceptance of the cease-fire. Despite this, at 7am, that is, four hours later, Israel’s minister of defense, Moshe Dayan, “gave the order to go into action against Syria.”[79] He further writes that timely knowledge of this decision and preparatory moves toward it “might have frustrated Israeli designs for the conquest of Syria’s Golan Heights” and, in the sense of Ennes’s accusations, provides “a plausible thesis that Israel deliberately decided to incapacitate the signals-collecting American ship and leave no one alive to tell the story of the attack.”[80]

U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Barbour, had reported on the day of the Liberty attack that he “would not be surprised” by an Israeli attack on Syria, and the IDF Intelligence chief told a White House aide then in Israel that “there still remained the Syria problem and perhaps it would be necessary to give Syria a blow.”[81]

The 1981 book Weapons by Russell Warren Howe says that Liberty was accompanied by the Polaris ballistic missile-armed Lafayette-class submarine USSAndrew Jackson, which filmed the entire episode through its periscope but was unable to provide assistance. According to Howe: “Two hundred feet below the ship, on a parallel course, was its ‘shadow’the Polaris strategic submarine Andrew Jackson, whose job was to take out all the Israeli long-range missile sites in the Negev if Tel Aviv decided to attack Cairo, Damascus or Baghdad. This was in order that Moscow would not have to perform this task itself and thus trigger World War Three.”[82]

James Bamford, a former ABC News producer, in his 2001 book Body of Secrets,[83] says Israel deliberately attacked Liberty to prevent the discovery of what he described as war crimes, including the killing of Egyptian prisoners of war by the IDF that he alleges was taking place around the same time in the nearby town of El-Arish.[84] However according to CAMERA his claim that 400 were executed has been cast into doubt since reporters present in the town claimed that there had in fact been a large battle and this was the main cause of casualties.[85] Bamford also claimed that eyewitness Gabi Bron had claimed he saw 150 people executed by Israeli troops at El-Arish.[83] However Gabi Bron claimed to have only seen 5 people executed by Israeli troops.[86][87]

The press release for the BBC documentary film Dead in the Water states that new recorded and other evidence suggests the attack was a “daring ploy by Israel to fake an Egyptian attack” to give America a reason to enter the war against Egypt. Convinced that the attack was real, President of the United States Lyndon B. Johnson launched allegedly nuclear-armed aircraft targeted against Cairo from a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean. The aircraft were recalled only just in time, when it was clear the Liberty had not sunk and that Israel had carried out the attack. An information source for the aircraft being nuclear-armed, James Ennes, later stated:

Although America could not send conventionally armed jets, reports still come in that four jet bombers were catapulted from the carrier America with nuclear bombs aboard. Even today there is no official confirmation of that launch and much high-level denial. A nuclear launch has been strongly denied by Secretary McNamara, Admiral Martin (now deceased), Admiral Geis (deceased), Admiral Moorer, and Americas skipper, Admiral David Engen (deceased) and others. Yet eyewitness reports persist. Clearly no such launch could have been intended for offensive purposes. Surely nuclear weapons would not have been used in defense of the USS Liberty.

It is clear that I was mistaken about the aircraft involved, as F4s do not carry nuclear weapons. Others tell me that the aircraft that were launched carried Bullpup missiles, which might easily be mistaken for nuclear bombs. And we learned much later that the USS America was involved in a nuclear weapons loading drill at the very time the ship learned of the attack on the Liberty and that this drill is one factor that delayed America’s response to our call for help. It is also possible that those were the weapons seen by our sources.

Also confusing this issue is an oral history report from the American Embassy in Cairo, now in the LBJ Library, which notes that the Embassy received an urgent message from Washington warning that Cairo was about to be bombed by US forces, presumably in mistaken retaliation for the USS Liberty attack. That strange message was never explained or cancelled.[88]

The video also provides hearsay evidence of a covert alliance of U.S. and Israel intelligence agencies.[89]

Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and a critic of the official United States Government version of events, chaired a non-governmental investigation into the attack on the USS Liberty in 2003. The committee, which included former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia James E. Akins, held Israel to be culpable and suggested several theories for Israel’s possible motives, including the desire to blame Egypt and bring the U.S. into the Six Day War.[90]

According to John Loftus and Mark Aarons in their book, The Secret War Against the Jews, USS Liberty was attacked because the Israelis knew that Liberty’s mission was to monitor radio signals from Israeli troops and pass troop movement information to the Egyptians.[91][unreliable source?]

Within an hour of learning that the Liberty had been torpedoed, the director of the U.S. National Security Agency, LTG Marshall S. Carter, sent a message to all intercept sites requesting a special search of all communications that might reflect the attack or reaction. No communications were available. However, one of the airborne platforms, a U.S. Navy EC-121 aircraft that flew near the attacks from 2:30pm to 3:27pm, Sinai time (1230 to 1327 Z), had collected voice conversations between two Israeli helicopter pilots and the control tower at Hatzor Airfield following the attack on the Liberty.[92]

On 2 July 2003, the NSA released copies of the recordings made by the EC-121 and the resultant translations and summaries.[93] These revelations were elicited as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by Florida bankruptcy judge and retired naval aviator Jay Cristol. Two linguists who were aboard the EC-121 when the recordings were made, however, said separately that at least two additional tapes were made that have been excluded from the NSA releases up to and including a 8 June 2007, release.[7]

English transcripts of the released tapes indicate that Israel still spoke of hitting an Egyptian supply ship even after the attack had stopped.[94][95] After the attack, the rescue helicopters are heard relaying several urgent requests that the rescuers ask the first survivor pulled out of the water what his nationality is, and discussing whether the survivors from the attacked ship will speak Arabic.[96]

A summary report of the NSA-translated tapes[97] indicates that at 1234Z Hatzor air control began directing two Israeli Air Force helicopters to an Egyptian warship, to rescue its crew: “This ship has now been identified as Egyptian.” The helicopters arrived near the ship at about 1303Z: “I see a big vessel, near it are three small vessels…” At 1308Z, Hatzor air control indicated concern about the nationality of the ship’s crew: “The first matter to clarify is to find out what their nationality is.” At 1310Z, one of the helicopter pilots asked the nearby torpedo boats’ Division Commander about the meaning of the ship’s hull number: “GTR5 is written on it. Does this mean something?” The response was: “Negative, it doesn’t mean anything.” At 1312Z, one of the helicopter pilots was asked by air control: “Did you clearly identify an American flag?” No answer appears in the transcript, but the air controller then says: “We request that you make another pass and check once more if this is really an American flag.” Again, no response appears in the transcript. At about 1314Z, the helicopters were directed to return home.

The NSA reported that there had been no radio intercepts of the attack made by the Liberty herself, nor had there been any radio intercepts made by the U.S. submarine USSAmberjack.

On 10 October 2003, The Jerusalem Post ran an interview with Yiftah Spector, one of the pilots who participated in the attack,[98] and thought to be the lead pilot of the first wave of aircraft. Spector said the ship was assumed to be Egyptian, stating that: “I circled it twice and it did not fire on me. My assumption was that it was likely to open fire at me and nevertheless I slowed down and I looked and there was positively no flag.” The interview also contains the transcripts of the Israeli communications about the Liberty. The journalist who transcribed the tapes for that article, Arieh O’Sullivan, later confirmed that “the Israeli Air Force tapes he listened to contained blank spaces.”[7]

The Liberty’s survivors contradict Spector. According to subsequently declassified NSA documents: “Every official interview of numerous Liberty crewmen gave consistent evidence that indeed the Liberty was flying an American flagand, further, the weather conditions were ideal to ensure its easy observance and identification.”[99]

On 8 June 2005, the USS Liberty Veterans Association filed a “Report of War Crimes Committed Against the U.S. Military, June 8, 1967” with the Department of Defense (DoD). They say Department of Defense Directive 2311.01E requires the Department of Defense to conduct a thorough investigation of the allegations contained in their report. DoD has responded that a new investigation will not be conducted since a Navy Court of Inquiry already investigated the facts and circumstances surrounding the attack.

As of 2006, the NSA has yet to declassify “boxes and boxes” of Liberty documents. Numerous requests under both declassification directives and the Freedom of Information Act are pending in various agencies including the NSA, Central Intelligence Agency, and Defense Intelligence Agency. “On 8 June 2007, the National Security Agency released hundreds of additional declassified documents on the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, a communications interception vessel, on 8 June 1967.”[100]

On 2 October 2007, The Chicago Tribune published a special report[7] into the attack, containing numerous previously unreported quotes from former military personnel with first-hand knowledge of the incident. Many of these quotes directly contradict the NSA’s position that it never intercepted the communications of the attacking Israeli pilots, saying that not only did transcripts of those communications exist, but also that it showed the Israelis knew they were attacking an American naval vessel.

Two diplomatic cables written by Avraham Harman, Israel’s ambassador in Washington, to Abba Eban Israel’s minister of foreign affairs, have been declassified by Israel and obtained from the Israel State Archive. The first cable, sent five days after the attack, informs Eban that a U.S. informant told him (Harman) that there was “clear proof that from a certain stage the pilot discovered the identity of the ship and continued the attack anyway.”[15] The second cable, sent three days later, added that the White House is “very angry” because “the Americans probably have findings showing that our pilots indeed knew that the ship was American.”[7]

Documents of the Israeli General Staff meetings, declassified in October 2008, show no discussion of a planned attack on an American ship.[101]

On 30 October 2014, Al Jazeera English broadcast a documentary film containing recent first-hand accounts by several survivors of the incident.[102]

Many of the events surrounding the attack are the subject of controversy:

We learned that the ship had been attacked in error by Israeli gunboats and aircraft. Ten men of the Liberty crew were killed and a hundred were wounded. This heartbreaking episode grieved the Israelis deeply, as it did us.

Survivors of the attack

Sources other than survivors

Coordinates: 312324N 332248E / 31.3900N 33.3800E / 31.3900; 33.3800

Go here to see the original:
USS Liberty incident – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Libertarianism – RationalWiki

 Misc  Comments Off on Libertarianism – RationalWiki
Jun 202015

Libertarians secretly worried that ultimately someone will figure out the whole of their political philosophy boils down to ‘get off my property.’ News flash: This is not really a big secret to the rest of us.

Libertarianism is, at its simplest, the antonym of authoritarianism.[2] The term has been around since the beginning of the 20th century or earlier and was primarily used for self-identification with anarcho-syndicalism and labor movements. In the USA, the term was adopted by the Foundation for Economic Education think tank in the 1950’s[3] to describe a political and social philosophy that advocates laissez-faire capitalism as a panacea for virtually everything. Non-libertarians view this as synonymous with oligarchic plutocracy after the fashion of the American Gilded Age, while the reality-based community tends to realize that one cannot just yank economic theories out of the air and magically expect them to work.

This anti-government phenomenon is found primarily in the United States, likely due to Americans’ extensive experience with dysfunctional government, coupled with their unawareness of the existence of other countries. Historically, and almost everywhere other than America still today, the term has been associated with libertarian socialism and anarchism. The adoption of the libertarian label by advocates of free market economics is an ironic example of their tendency to take credit for other people’s ideas.

The US political party most aligned with libertarianism is the Libertarian Party, “America’s Third Largest Party,”[4] whose candidate obtained 1.3 million, or 0.99% of the popular vote in the 2012 Presidential election.[5] This, compared to 0.32% of the popular vote[6] in the 2004 Presidential election, was considered by many libertarians to be “an improvement.”

There is also an “Objectivist Party,” formed as a spin-off from the Libertarian Party by those who thought that the party’s 2008 presidential candidate, Bob Barr, was too left-wing,[7] and a Boston Tea Party (no connection other than ideological to that other tea party) formed as a spin-off by those who thought the Libertarian Party had become too right-wing on foreign policy and civil liberties after the LP deleted much of its platform in 2006.

Basically everyone agrees with libertarians on something, but they tend to get freaked out just as quickly by the ideologys other stances.

The dominant form of libertarianism (as found in the US) is an ideology based largely on Austrian school economics, which relies on axioms, rather than empirical analysis to inform economic and social policy. That said, the branch of libertarianism that has had the most success in influencing public policy is primarily informed by the Chicago school.

Proponents of libertarianism frequently cite the “Non-Aggression Principle” (NAP) as the moral basis of their ideology. The NAP states that everyone is free to do whatever they want with their lives and property, so long as it does not directly interfere with the freedom of others to do the same. Under this rule, you may only use “force” in response to prior inappropriate force against the life and/or property of yourself or others. Compare and contrast with John Stuart Mill’s “The Harm Principle.” The critical difference is that libertarians completely oppose the preemptive use of force. By contrast, Mill and other classical liberals believe that the preemptive use of force to prevent likely future harm can be justified. Under any logical scrutiny it becomes evident that the precise definition of aggression is highly subjective, supposes a strict libertarian view of property,[11] and hence the non-aggression principle can be used in almost any way its user intends, by changing the definition of aggression to suit their particular opinion/agenda. For example throwing someone in prison for massive tax evasion is seen as an act of aggression by the state, whereas selling someone cigarettes knowing they will kill them is not seen as aggression.

Libertarians frequently oppose taxation (as taxes are “theft of property by force”) for anything aside from a small wish list that libertarians like. The main exceptions are civil courts to handle contract disputes (including fraud) and to handle suits of harm (such as dumping of hazardous chemicals on your land; as opposed to dumping hazardous chemicals on public land, which isn’t an issue for libertarians, because every single person who doesn’t own the land and resources to allow for complete self-sufficiency deserves anything bad that happens to them), criminal courts, police, and an army. As one moves down the ideological spectrum towards the extremes, more and more things normally handled by the police and criminal courts are instead handled by civil courts, and eventually even the civil courts are privatized, i.e., anarcho-capitalism. Government, libertarians believe, is the biggest (and possibly the only) threat to freedom.

Specifically, libertarians are against the use of taxes to deal with externalities, commons, or free rider problems. The frequent answers to these problems involve the extensive use of civil suits to deal with (negative) externalities, and the privatization of all commons, which allows for civil suits to handle harms to this shared “private” property. Of course, these answers are woefully inadequate in practice.[12]

The rest is here:
Libertarianism – RationalWiki

 Posted by at 7:40 pm  Tagged with:

Accepting Cryptocurrency Solves Common Transactions Problems for Merchants

 Cryptocurrency  Comments Off on Accepting Cryptocurrency Solves Common Transactions Problems for Merchants
Apr 082015

Boston, MA (PRWEB) April 07, 2015

According to a new white paper published by New Hampshire-based e-commerce company Ziftr, merchants of all sizes can overcome common transaction problems by accepting cryptocurrency. These problems, which are often associated with credit card transactions, include:

Cryptocurrency is an emerging payment technology that benefits both consumers and merchants in many key ways, said Bob Wilkins, CEO of Ziftr. At Ziftr, were focused on bringing cryptocurrency into the mainstream with our cryptocurrency/credit card payment platform, ziftrPAY, and a suite of tools that integrate with ziftrPAY to provide the ideal shopping experience for consumers and increase profit margins for merchants.

Highlights from the Ziftr white paper:

To read the full Ziftr white paper, click here:

Ziftr is currently onboarding ziftrPAY merchants, with the goal of reaching a critical mass in time for Black Friday/Cyber Monday 2015. Merchants that are interested in learning more about ziftrPAY can visit for more information.

About Ziftr

Established in 2008 and based in Milford, New Hampshire, Ziftr is revolutionizing the online shopping experience by bringing cryptocurrency into the mainstream for both consumers and merchants. To accomplish this goal, Ziftr has developed the following tools and applications: ziftrCOIN, a digital coin that functions like a coupon; ziftrPAY, a one-stop cryptocurrency/credit card payment platform and customer loyalty program; ziftrWALLET, a multicoin digital wallet; and ziftrSHOP, a worldwide online marketplace where consumers will be able to conduct transactions using credit cards and cryptocurrency.

Ziftr is a product of myVBO, a full-service design, marketing and development company that helps businesses turn their ambitions into realities.

For more information about Ziftr, visit

View original post here:
Accepting Cryptocurrency Solves Common Transactions Problems for Merchants

Boston-based Liberty Mutual to bring 5,000 jobs to new campus in Dallas suburb of Plano

 Liberty  Comments Off on Boston-based Liberty Mutual to bring 5,000 jobs to new campus in Dallas suburb of Plano
Apr 082015

PLANO, Texas Liberty Mutual Insurance expects to have 5,000 employees working at its new campus in the Dallas suburb of Plano by the end of 2017.

The nation’s third-largest insurer told employees Tuesday about the new campus, the Dallas Morning News ( ) reported.

Liberty Mutual vice president John Cusolito said that while the company’s headquarters will stay in Boston, the new Plano campus will consolidate a variety of operations now located around the country.

“We are reviewing which nearby operations will bring the most sense to bring onto this campus,” he said.

The new campus will be built in the $2 billion Legacy West development, which is under construction. Toyota Motor Co. is building its new North American headquarters there, and FedEx Office is building its new national headquarters there as well. Between the three major companies, almost 12,000 jobs will be located in the area.

Along with the office space, the 240-acre Legacy West project includes hundreds of new apartments and homes, retail space, restaurants and a luxury hotel.

The first of FedEx’s workers will move into its new building later this year. Toyota will start occupying its campus, which is under construction, in 2017.

Liberty Mutual will begin moving workers in January to Plano, where it has rented temporary office space. The company has more than 50,000 employees and operations in 30 countries.

Along with its home office in Boston, Liberty Mutual also has a large concentration of between 4,000 and 5,000 employees at facilities in New Hampshire.


See the original post here:
Boston-based Liberty Mutual to bring 5,000 jobs to new campus in Dallas suburb of Plano

 Posted by at 11:45 am  Tagged with:

DevCore Boston 2015 l Bitcoin Law for Developers l James Gatto & Marco Santori, Pillsbury – Video

 Bitcoin  Comments Off on DevCore Boston 2015 l Bitcoin Law for Developers l James Gatto & Marco Santori, Pillsbury – Video
Apr 022015

DevCore Boston 2015 l Bitcoin Law for Developers l James Gatto Marco Santori, Pillsbury
DevCore is a series of workshops set to host around the world for all developers interested in deepening their technical expertise to support the future development of Bitcoin Core. DevCore…

By: Bitcoin Foundation

The rest is here:
DevCore Boston 2015 l Bitcoin Law for Developers l James Gatto & Marco Santori, Pillsbury – Video

 Posted by at 12:48 pm  Tagged with:

DevCore Boston 2015 l Open Discussion on R&D Goals & Challenges l Bitcoin Foundation – Video

 Bitcoin  Comments Off on DevCore Boston 2015 l Open Discussion on R&D Goals & Challenges l Bitcoin Foundation – Video
Apr 012015

DevCore Boston 2015 l Open Discussion on R D Goals Challenges l Bitcoin Foundation
DevCore is a series of workshops set to host around the world for all developers interested in deepening their technical expertise to support the future development of Bitcoin Core. DevCore…

By: Bitcoin Foundation

The rest is here:
DevCore Boston 2015 l Open Discussion on R&D Goals & Challenges l Bitcoin Foundation – Video

 Posted by at 2:52 pm  Tagged with:

Secrets Section. Boston Shooting Grievous Headwound. Illuminati Freemason Symbolism. – Video

 Illuminati  Comments Off on Secrets Section. Boston Shooting Grievous Headwound. Illuminati Freemason Symbolism. – Video
Mar 292015

Secrets Section. Boston Shooting Grievous Headwound. Illuminati Freemason Symbolism. An Investigative look into the Boston Shooting involving an officer being shot in the face. All symbolizing…

By: TheGroxt1

Read more from the original source:
Secrets Section. Boston Shooting Grievous Headwound. Illuminati Freemason Symbolism. – Video

DevCore Boston 2015 l Bitcoin + Stanards l C4 + Bitcoin Foundation – Video

 Bitcoin  Comments Off on DevCore Boston 2015 l Bitcoin + Stanards l C4 + Bitcoin Foundation – Video
Mar 272015

DevCore Boston 2015 l Bitcoin + Stanards l C4 + Bitcoin Foundation
DevCore is a series of workshops set to host around the world for all developers interested in deepening their technical expertise to support the future development of Bitcoin Core. DevCore…

By: Bitcoin Foundation

Read more:
DevCore Boston 2015 l Bitcoin + Stanards l C4 + Bitcoin Foundation – Video

Ziftr Launches ziftrPAY, a Cryptocurrency Payment Platform and Customer Loyalty Program

 Cryptocurrency  Comments Off on Ziftr Launches ziftrPAY, a Cryptocurrency Payment Platform and Customer Loyalty Program
Mar 252015

Boston, MA (PRWEB) March 24, 2015

New Hampshire-based e-commerce company Ziftr today announced the launch of ziftrPAY, a one-stop cryptocurrency/credit card payment platform and customer loyalty program.

The benefits of ziftrPAY include the following:

As part of ziftrPAYs customer loyalty program, all merchants will receive free ziftrCOIN digital coupons to give to their shoppers to incentivize them to use cryptocurrency, a low-cost, low-risk alternative to credit cards. When spent within Ziftrs network of ziftrPAY merchants, each ziftrCOIN will have a minimum redemption value of $1.

ziftrPAY is more than just a payment platform, its also a customer loyalty program, said Bob Wilkins, CEO of Ziftr. The Ziftr team has been developing e-commerce products for over six years now, so we have a solid understanding of what merchants want and need. We know they need ways to incentivize customers and establish brand loyalty, and the ziftrCOIN digital coupons are there to help them do just that.

Along with the launch of the ziftrPAY website, Ziftr is working to onboard the first group of ziftrPAY merchants, with the goal of reaching a critical mass of ziftrPAY merchants in time for Black Friday/Cyber Monday 2015.

Ziftrs ultimate goal is to bring cryptocurrency into the mainstream by making it easy for consumers to spend and easy for merchants to accept. ziftrPAY is one component of this strategy, along with ziftrCOIN, ziftrWALLET, and ziftrSHOP.

Merchants that are interested in learning more about ziftrPAY can visit for more information.

About Ziftr

Established in 2008 and based in Milford, New Hampshire, Ziftr is revolutionizing the online shopping experience by bringing cryptocurrency into the mainstream for both consumers and merchants. To accomplish this goal, Ziftr has developed the following tools and applications: ziftrCOIN, a digital coin that functions like a coupon; ziftrPAY, a one-stop cryptocurrency/credit card payment platform and customer loyalty program; ziftrWALLET, a multicoin digital wallet; and ziftrSHOP, a worldwide online marketplace where consumers will be able to conduct transactions using credit cards and cryptocurrency.

Go here to read the rest:
Ziftr Launches ziftrPAY, a Cryptocurrency Payment Platform and Customer Loyalty Program

 Posted by at 8:49 am  Tagged with:

Supreme Court skeptical of specialty license plate case

 Misc  Comments Off on Supreme Court skeptical of specialty license plate case
Mar 242015

The case marks the first time the justices will consider the First Amendment implications of the program, similar to other programs across the county, and whether the speech depicted on the plates is government speech or the speech of the driver.

In Texas, individuals can choose to have standard issue plates, or pay a fee and design a plate that is subject to the approval of the state. It can be rejected if state officials find it offensive.

READ: Supreme Court takes on specialty license plates

In court, Texas Solicitor General Scott A. Keller stressed the messages on the licenses plates constitute government speech. He said the state “etches its name onto each license plate” and that the law gives Texas the “sole control and final approval authority over everything that appears on a license plate.”

Mary-Rose Papandrea, a constitutional law professor at Boston College Law School, said that “in general the free speech clause of the First Amendment does not apply when the government is speaking.”

“The only check on what the government can say is the political process, ” she said.

But Keller ran into skeptical questions.

Chief Justice John Roberts, for example, expressed doubt that the license plate program constitutes government speech. He said there is no coherent government message but instead it seems like they are “only doing this to get the money.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed to one plate that says “Mighty fine Burgers”.

“Is it government speech to say ‘Mighty fine Burgers’ to advertise a product?” she asked.

Read more:
Supreme Court skeptical of specialty license plate case

Free Speech Outside the Abortion Clinic

 Free Speech  Comments Off on Free Speech Outside the Abortion Clinic
Mar 222015

The Supreme Court has given pro-life advocates free rein, even if it distresses patients. But getting people to listen is more complicated.

When Kelsey McLain, then a 25-year-old in the midst of the first trimester of her pregnancy, arrived at the abortion clinic closest to her home, her car couldnt get past the entrance of the parking lot. Protestors loomed toward the front of her vehicle. The group of 12 wielded signs covered in photos of aborted fetuses with the word murder printed across them in big block letters. McLains mother was behind the wheel, and with her foot on the brake, she gave the road blockers a choice of moving or getting run over.

The encounter didnt end after the protesters moved off to the side. As McLain got out of the car, louder shouts greeted her, accusing her of turning her back, of not wanting to know the truth. She felt growing anger but resisted the urge to lash out. She dashed inside the clinic, her mother close behind. It wasnt what I needed to deal with that day, McLain recalls.

In the clinics waiting room, McLain noticed that many of the patients seemed rattled. At that point, all they knew was that there were people outside and they were screaming at them. They didnt know their motivations or if they were good or bad people. As a woman with a self-proclaimed interest in reproductive rights, McLain had thought she was prepared for what she was going to face when she arrived at the clinic. But she, too, felt jarred. Protesters are always going to be a scary thing, no matter how much knowledge you have about them, she says.

Today, McLain witnesses pro-life activism on a weekly basis, when she volunteers as a clinic escort. Her role is to offer patients moral and physical support as they make their way past protestors, some of them quietly praying, others approaching the women with an intensity that that borders on harassment. She says protesters are quick to remind escorts and clinic staff that theyre legally entitled to be there. They comment to us that they have great lawyers, and they know their rights, and if we ever violate their right to free speech, theyll sue us, she says.

In June 2014, the Supreme Court unanimously struck down a Massachusetts law forbidding protesters from standing within 35 feet of the entrance to a reproductive health care facility. After that decision came down, the demand for escorts like McLain sharply increased, says Marty Walz, the recently retired CEO of the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts. The protesters definitely have greater access to our patients, right up to the front door, Walz says. And they take advantage of it. When the buffer zone was in place, the Boston clinic used escorts only on Friday and Saturdayits busiest days. Now, every day, a swarm of people descends on the building. Along with the patients, the protesterswho now number anywhere from 20 to 80 each day and the pedestrians, there are 20 to 30 additional escorts at the Boston clinic.

This growing horde of people has made the atmosphere outside the clinic tenser, more chaotic, and in general, a lot less comfortable for the patients, says Sarah Cyr-Mutty, the community relations coordinator at the Boston clinic and a regular clinic escort. No one wants to drive up to their doctors office and see over 100 people standing outside.

The activists are now able to walk right up to patientspraying, pleading, and handing out flyers. They can follow women up to the clinics doors, which means that once the patients are in the waiting room, they can still hear the chants from outside. As such, Cyr-Mutty says that the patients she escorts through the clinics doors now are often in need of more consoling than they were before the Courts decision. Whether theyre just a presence outside, or theyre really trying to interact with them, its always really upsetting to the patient.

But apart from the commotion, its not clear how much has changed since the Supreme Courts ruling in McCullen v. Coakley nine months ago. Theres no evidence that activists are succeeding in changing womens minds. What is succeeding is the one thing the Supreme Court intended: People who believe abortion is murder are able to share that message with those who least want to hear it.

It is no accident that public streets and sidewalks have developed as venues for the exchange of ideas, wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in the Courts opinion. Even today, they remain one of the few places where a speaker can be confident that he is not simply preaching to the choir. With respect to other means of communication, an individual confronted with an uncomfortable message can always turn the page, change the channel, or leave the Web site. Not so on public streets and sidewalks.

Continued here:
Free Speech Outside the Abortion Clinic

 Posted by at 4:40 pm  Tagged with:

DevCore Boston 2015 l What Satoshi Didn’t Know l Gavin Andresen, Bitcoin Foundation – Video

 Bitcoin  Comments Off on DevCore Boston 2015 l What Satoshi Didn’t Know l Gavin Andresen, Bitcoin Foundation – Video
Mar 132015

DevCore Boston 2015 l What Satoshi Didn't Know l Gavin Andresen, Bitcoin Foundation
DevCore is a series of workshops set to host around the world for all developers interested in deepening their technical expertise to support the future dev…

By: Bitcoin Foundation

Read the rest here:
DevCore Boston 2015 l What Satoshi Didn’t Know l Gavin Andresen, Bitcoin Foundation – Video

 Posted by at 2:49 pm  Tagged with:

The Sun wins 10 awards in NENPA contest

 Misc  Comments Off on The Sun wins 10 awards in NENPA contest
Feb 232015

BOSTON — The Sun and its staff were honored with 10 awards, including four first-place awards, by the New England Newspaper and Press Association on Saturday night.

The awards were presented at the annual NENPA banquet at the Boston Seaport Hotel.

Judges from across the country pored over more than 3,000 entries in the New England Better Newspaper Contest, the region’s largest writing, photography and multimedia contest. The Sun is in the highly competitive class of newspapers with a circulation of 30,000 or more.

The award winners are:

* Business/Economic Reporting, first place: Grant Welker, for his continuing coverage of the Market Basket family feud.

* Spot News Story, first place: Given to John Collins, Hiroko Sato, former staffers Lyle Moran and Rick Sobey, and summer intern Andy Mal, for their coverage of a July fire on Branch Street in Lowell that killed seven people.

* Right to know, first place: For a series of stories and editorials on the public’s right to know and First Amendment issues. The Sun’s entry included coverage of the Brame case, a fatal accident involving a Westford police officer, a secret payment given to a retiring Westford fire chief, and both stories and editorials about government limiting access to public meetings and records.

* Humor Columnist, first place: Given to Dan Phelps, for columns on Nashua schools banning tag and on the Dracut political scene.

* Crime and Courts Reporting, second place: Enterprise Editor Christopher Scott, reporters Rob Mills, Grant Welker and Lisa Redmond, and Moran, for wall-to-wall coverage of the death of Alyssa Brame in a Lowell cellblock.

* Editorial Writing, second place: Sun Editor Jim Campanini

See original here:
The Sun wins 10 awards in NENPA contest

Reddit exodus illustrates state of free speech online

 Free Speech  Comments Off on Reddit exodus illustrates state of free speech online
Feb 192015


Some users are finding fault with Reddits failure to protect absolute free speech.

Reddit, the long-time haven of weirdos, perverts and miscreants the internet over, has been, from its beginning, the mainstream bulwark for free speech online.

A beginner’s guide to Reddit

Reddit’s opinionated audience grows

But in a strange twist that perfectly illustrates the current culturewide debate around online speech, a group of disgruntled users have begun an exodus off the site – claiming, against all odds, that Reddit is censoring them as a matter of corporate policy.

This is, for the record, the same Reddit that defended Violentacrez, the Texas man who ran forums on beating women and sexualising underage girls. The Reddit that allowed rampant speculation about the Boston bombing, even when it became dangerous. The Reddit that, just this past fall, supported a booming trade in stolen celebrity nude photos, and still, even now, hosts a variety of racist, misogynistic, homophobic and otherwise “NSFL” content that I dare not link to from here.

If this isn’t enough free speech, what is?

To understand that question (let alone the answer to it), you have to start with a working knowledge of Reddit’s labyrinthine depths. The site is, for the uninitiated, basically a social news service divided into tens of thousands of themed forums, called subreddits. Users submit links, photos and in-jokes to the forums, which are voted up or down by other users. The forums themselves are run by volunteer moderators, or mods, who can basically make and enforce rules as they see fit. In general, corporate Reddit – Advance Media-owned Reddit, US$50-million-funding-round Reddit, only-35-employees Reddit – doesn’t step in unless the company is at risk of being sued.

The core philosophy, co-founder Alexis Ohanian explained in a book on Reddit’s early days, was “giving the people what they want.” Whatever they want. Accordingly, each forum looks a little different. In r/aww – one of my personal favourites – mods ban slurs, harassing comments and anything “sad.” In r/thefappening, where users shared the celebrity nudes that ruled September’s news cycle, slurs and harassing comments were basically the norm. (And that was, on its own, pretty sad.)

Here is the original post:
Reddit exodus illustrates state of free speech online

 Posted by at 11:41 am  Tagged with:

Liberty Mutual eyes Texas hub

 Liberty  Comments Off on Liberty Mutual eyes Texas hub
Feb 102015

Boston-based Liberty Mutual, which is reportedly looking at building a new hub for 4,000 employees in Texas, says it has no plans to relocate its Bay State staffers.

News outlets in Texas began reporting last week that the insurance giant has its sights set on building a large office complex in Plano, the same Dallas metro area where Toyota recently moved its headquarters and State Farm built an office campus. The Dallas Morning News reported Liberty Mutuals Plano development would consolidate operations from multiple locations.

But the insurance giant yesterday denied that its moving its local staffers elsewhere.

Boston is where we began over 100 years ago and today is headquarters for our operations in 30 countries around the world, spokesman John Cusolito said. We are pleased to call Boston our home and will continue to grow our workforce in the city and throughout the commonwealth.

Liberty Mutual expanded its home office campus in the Back Bay two years ago by adding a new 22-story, $300 million office buil-ding. The company has multimillion-dollar tax credit agreements in place with both the state and city to maintain a certain number of jobs here.

In 2010, the state granted Liberty Mutual a $22.5 million investment tax credit in exchange for expanding its Massachusetts workforce from 2,438 to 3,038 employees. And the city gave the company a $24 million tax break in exchange for a commitment to create at least 600 new jobs over 20 years.

Greg Biggs, managing director of prominent Texas commercial real estate firm JLL, told the Herald, The market rumor is that they are looking to put a large commitment here. Its a very entrepreneurial environment and community here. Businesses come here and they feel like theyre wanted by the community and by the municipalities.

Liberty Mutual has more than 5,100 employees in Massachusetts, with 2,500 in its Boston offices. The company employs more than 45,000 people in more than 900 offices worldwide.

As a Fortune 100 company, Liberty routinely reviews our office locations and operations to ensure that we are best positioned to meet the needs of our customers and our employees, Cusolito said.

A spokeswoman for Mayor Martin J. Walsh said he hasnt heard Liberty Mutual is downsizing in Boston and would be shocked if that were the case.

The rest is here:
Liberty Mutual eyes Texas hub

 Posted by at 7:45 am  Tagged with:

Illuminati (Buch) Wikipedia

 Illuminati  Comments Off on Illuminati (Buch) Wikipedia
Feb 072015

Illuminati (Buch) Autor Dan Brown Sprache Deutsch Genre Thriller Serie Robert Langdon (Nr. 1) Originaltitel Angels & Demons Verlag Bastei Lbbe Datum der Verffentlichung Mrz 2003 Medientyp Hardcover, Taschenbuch, E-Book, Hrbuch Seiten 736 Seiten ISBN 3-404-14866-5

Illuminati ist der deutsche Titel eines im Mrz 2003 erschienenen Thrillers von Dan Brown (englischer Originaltitel: Angels & Demons, 2000) mit einer weltweiten Auflage von acht Millionen Exemplaren.

Die Handlung dreht sich um einen angeblichen Versuch des Illuminatenordens, eines laut dem Roman seit Jahrhunderten bis heute bestehenden Geheimbundes, die katholische Kirche zu zerstren. Das tatschliche Motiv ist jedoch die ideologische Annherung der katholischen Kirche an die Wissenschaft durch den verstorbenen Papst. Ferner geht es um Verschwrung, Verrat, das Konklave und die bis jetzt noch erhaltenen Regeln des Vatikans. Die Handlung spielt in der Gegenwart an einem einzigen Tag. Orte der Handlung sind Boston, die Schweiz (Forschungsinstitut CERN), Italien (Rom) und vor allem die Vatikanstadt.

In erster Linie geht es um die Beziehung zwischen Wissenschaft und Religion, die als schon seit Urzeiten verfeindet dargestellt werden. Zwar habe es schon immer Menschen gegeben, die beide vereinen wollten, doch die Kluft sei zu tief gewesen. Brown argumentiert durch seine Hauptfiguren, beide knnten und sollten miteinander in Frieden existieren.

Der ber 700 Seiten umfassende Roman weist einen langgezogenen Spannungsbogen auf. Er beruht vor allem darauf, dass ein Auftragsmrder aktiv ist und der Vatikan durch eine angekndigte Explosion zerstrt werden soll. Die Erzhlperspektive ist die der Dritten Person (Auktoriale Erzhlsituation).

Der Physiker und ehemalige Theologe Leonardo Vetra wird ermordet in seinem Bro im CERN aufgefunden. Sein Kopf ist nach hinten verdreht und ein Auge fehlt. Auf seiner Brust ist ein Ambigramm mit der Aufschrift Illuminati eingebrannt. Maximilian Kohler, der Generaldirektor des CERN, lsst daraufhin Robert Langdon, einen Symbolologen der Universitt Harvard, einfliegen und kurze Zeit spter trifft auch Vetras Adoptivtochter Vittoria ein, die als Physikerin und Meeresbiologin ebenfalls im CERN beschftigt ist. Sie erklrt den Herren, dass ihr Vater, der die Vereinigung von Religion und Wissenschaft anstrebte, Antimaterie schuf und so im Teilchenbeschleuniger den Urknall in kleinerem Ausma nachbildete. Auf Vittorias Wunsch hatten Vater und Tochter gemeinsam ein Viertelgramm der Antimaterie hergestellt, die beim Kontakt mit Materie alles im Umkreis von rund einem Kilometer vernichten wrde. Im unterirdischen Labor stellt Vittoria schockiert fest, dass die Illuminati mit Leonardos Auge den Retina-Scanner berwunden und den Behlter mit der Antimaterie gestohlen haben, dessen Magnetfeld nur fr 24 Stunden mit Energie versorgt wird.

Als das CERN die Nachricht erhlt, dass die Illuminati durch Infiltration im Vatikan eingedrungen und die Antimaterie versteckt haben, fliegen Langdon und Vittoria nach Rom. Nun wird deutlich, welche Ausmae die drohende Explosion htte. Die Illuminati wrden mit dem Hauptsitz der katholischen Kirche nicht nur ihren Erzfeind vernichten, sondern auch alle Kardinle, die sich gerade zum Konklave in der Sixtinischen Kapelle versammeln. Nachdem die beiden Wissenschaftler Oberst Olivetti, den Kommandanten der Schweizergarde, und den Camerlengo Carlo Ventresca ber die Gefahr aufgeklrt haben, meldet sich ein Assassine, der im Auftrag der Illuminati die vier Favoriten der Papstwahl (i preferiti) entfhrt hat. Ab 20 Uhr soll zu jeder vollen Stunde einer der vier Kardinle irgendwo in Rom auf einem Altar der Wissenschaft ermordet werden. Zustzlich nimmt der Assassine Kontakt mit dem BBC-Reporter Gunther Glick auf, um die Medien als rechten Arm des Terrorismus zu benutzen.

In Galileo Galileis Werk Diagramma della Verit, das im vatikanischen Geheimarchiv liegt, finden Langdon und Vittoria die ersten Hinweise auf den Pfad der Erleuchtung, der ber die vier Elemente zum geheimen Versammlungsort der Illuminati fhren soll. Langdon vermutet Santis irdnes Grab zunchst im Pantheon, doch gemeint ist ein Grab, das vom Baumeister Raffael geschaffen wurde. Es befindet sich in der Chigi-Kapelle in der Kirche Santa Maria del Popolo. Wegen des Irrtums kommen Langdon und Vittoria ebenso wie Olivettis Schweizergarde zu spt. Kardinal Ebner aus Frankfurt wurde bereits mit Erde erstickt und trgt das Brandzeichen EARTH. Mittlerweile hat auch Glick zusammen mit seiner Videografin erkannt, dass es Interessanteres zu berichten gibt als das Konklave. Die in der Chigi-Kapelle aufgestellte Skulptur Habakuk und der Engel verweist auf den nchsten Schauplatz der Mordserie.

Auf dem Petersplatz dient die Plakette West Ponente neben dem Obelisken als Verbindung zum Element Luft. Dort legt der Assassine den Kardinal Lamass aus Paris mit zerstochenen Lungen und dem Brandmal AIR ab. Langdon und Vittoria konnten den Mord wieder nicht verhindern und werden von der BBC gefilmt. Nun berichten weltweit alle Medien ber die Unruhen im Vatikan und verbreiten das Gercht, dass der verstorbene Papst mit Heparin vergiftet wurde. Vittoria untersucht zusammen mit dem Camerlengo, der vom Heiligen Vater aufgezogen wurde, den Leichnam, dessen schwarze Zunge den Mord besttigt. Langdon findet gleichzeitig mit einer Liste von Berninis Werken heraus, dass die Verzckung der Heiligen Theresa der nchste Wegweiser ist.

Als Langdon und Vittoria in der Kirche Santa Maria della Vittoria ankommen, hat der Assassine dort bereits ein groes Feuer entzndet, ber dem Kardinal Guidera aus Barcelona an Ketten hngt und bei lebendigem Leib verbrennt. Auf seiner Brust prangt das Mal FIRE. Als Vittoria den ebenfalls ermordeten Oberst Olivetti entdeckt, wird sie vom Assassinen entfhrt. Langdon gert unter einen steinernen Sarkophag, aus dem ihn die Feuerwehr rettet. In der Zwischenzeit hat der Camerlengo das Konklave unterbrochen, um sich mit einer emotionalen Ansprache an die Medien zu wenden, in der er den Erfolg der Wissenschaft als Pyrrhussieg darstellt, bei dem die Menschen die religise Orientierung verloren haben.

See the original post here:
Illuminati (Buch) Wikipedia

Pierre Teilhard De Chardin | Designer Children | Prometheism | Euvolution | Transhumanism