If you are referring to the black immigrant who was shot in the dark of midnight in a doorway by four NY cops of which three were just hired in the previous six months as part of Clinton's add 100,000 police to America's streets, I can't buy the analogy. This is a case of poor management and training and not being equipped to work in the dark. Israeli armed forces suffer from neither and carried out the attack in broad daylight.
One other fact that bothers me is that a US submarine monitoring the area underwater determined the USS Liberty was under attack, reported the event, and was given orders not to interfere. If US seamen can see the 'mistake' from underwater and have enough time to relay the event to higher command and get return orders, I find it incredulous that Israeli pilots and seamen can't even determine that the enemy has no armament even though they have direct sight of the target.
You talk of the brevity of combat tactics. Millions of people drive cars. On highways, most people are taught to keep behind other cars to to give themselves enough distance to allow them one second to react. Most do this successfully. This rule applies even to old people and inexperienced teenagers. Most accidents are caused by drunks, old people who are severely handicapped by physical deterioration and mental alertness, and teenagers who drive recklessly. One second is generous for an able bodied middle aged driver. An experienced gun shooter can draw and fire hitting a target in a fifth of a second. Now you are going to tell me that well trained seamen approaching on a torpedo boat can’t tell that the target is not shelling Israel? What the torpedo boat was too fast for human reaction?
As much as I detest Clark Clifford one of the leaders of those claiming that this was a malevolent act by Israel, the facts do not support the idea this was a simple wartime mistake.
I would also suggest that for diplomatic and strategic reasons that leaders in the US State Department and the Pentagon go along with covering up the truth as a matter of political expediency.
There's a a "plus one second" rule, see "The Two Second Plus Rule" on Deerbrook Insurance's "Defensive Driving" web page. (http://www.deerbrook.com/auto_safety/defensive_driving.asp)
That's an extension to the two second rule, or the three second rule. See also Smart Motorist's very conservative guidance: http://www.smartmotorist.com/tai/tai.htm.
One second at speeds over 15 mph is too close.
My analogy has nothing to do with daylight or not. I was stating what happens after the first shots are fired, and I gave several examples that clearly demostrate the point if you care to re-read them.
One other fact that bothers me is that a US submarine monitoring the area underwater determined the USS Liberty was under attack, reported the event, and was given orders not to interfere.
As I understand the facts, Johnson ordered the Liberty into those waters and then told the Isrealis that we had no ships in the area. As for the sub, there would be little that it could do in that situation short of presenting another target. But it was probably just another case of Johnson indecision in the face of a mistake in judgement. IMHO.
If US seamen can see the 'mistake' from underwater and have enough time to relay the event to higher command and get return orders, I find it incredulous that Israeli pilots and seamen can't even determine that the enemy has no armament even though they have direct sight of the target.
US seamen knew it was a mistake only because they knew who and what the Liberty was. The Isreali forces attacking her had been told that the ship was an Egyptian freighter (normally used for shipping horses and livestock), which had essentially been used as an artillery/mortar platform to shell Isreal, and was escaping the area. Disguising freighters for use as raiders has been quite common in the 20th century, and guns are not hard to conceal/disguise on a ships deck. Not seeing overt signs of armament, firing or not, would have been consistent with their intelligence report.
You talk of the brevity of combat tactics. Millions of people drive cars. On highways, most people are taught to keep behind other cars to to give themselves enough distance to allow them one second to react. Most do this successfully. This rule applies even to old people and inexperienced teenagers. Most accidents are caused by drunks, old people who are severely handicapped by physical deterioration and mental alertness, and teenagers who drive recklessly. One second is generous for an able bodied middle aged driver. An experienced gun shooter can draw and fire hitting a target in a fifth of a second. Now you are going to tell me that well trained seamen approaching on a torpedo boat can’t tell that the target is not shelling Israel? What the torpedo boat was too fast for human reaction?
Nice analysis, but for one thing: At the time the torpedo boats were trying to intercept the ship, the shelling had stopped and the ship was supposed to be retreating from the area, and therefore those sailors would not expect to see it firing at anything. That they did or did not fire has nothing to do with reaction time. It has to do with whether or not they believed the ship was the right target. As I said before, once one starts firing at a perceived threat, all are likely to do so under the assumption that the guy who is firing must know or have seen something they did not.
"Friendly-fire" incidents are rife throughout modern military history. More so than most people think, as most do not get reported unless they involve troops other than our own.
If we are going to demand the benefit of the doubt when our guys accidently drop bombs on our allies, or shoot down civilian airliners when the overfly the Gulf, we should be willing to extend it when the shoe is on the other foot. Condemn me for that if you will, but that is my opinion.