A Hidden Congressional Investigation
Nearly six decades after Israeli forces attacked the U.S. Navy intelligence ship USS Liberty during the Six-Day War, a lawsuit is attempting to force the release of a still-secret congressional report about the incident. The case, brought by journalist Michelle Kinnucan under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), seeks records that could shed light on what the U.S. government knew about the June 8, 1967, attack on the Liberty that killed 34 American sailors and wounded approximately 174 others.
Oral arguments in the case were held on March 9 before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where judges heard arguments over whether the report is a congressional record exempt from FOIA or an agency record subject to public disclosure.
At the center of the case is what is known as the “HAC Report,” a report produced by a House Appropriations Committee subcommittee that examined intelligence and communications issues surrounding the attack. According to court filings, the National Security Agency acknowledges that it possesses a copy of the report but refuses to release it, arguing that it remains a congressional record rather than an executive branch agency record. Because Congress exempted itself from the Freedom of Information Act, the government says the document cannot be released without congressional approval.
Kinnucan argues the report should be considered an agency record because the NSA has held it in its files for decades and used it within the intelligence community. If courts accept that argument, the document will become subject to FOIA and could potentially be released after a declassification review.
The legal dispute, therefore, turns on a narrow but important question: whether the report remains under congressional control or has effectively become part of the executive branch’s records.
For Kinnucan, the case is not simply about legal classifications. It is about uncovering historical facts that may still be hidden. According to her research, the report may contain testimony suggesting Israeli officials threatened to attack the Liberty the day before the strike occurred. I
f true, that testimony would contradict the long-standing explanation that the attack was a tragic case of mistaken identity. Kinnucan says the only way to resolve the issue is to release the report and let the evidence speak for itself. The survivors, she argues, “have a right to know what happened and why.”
A Survivor Who Says No One Ever Asked
For USS Liberty survivor Mickey LeMay, the lawsuit touches on questions that have lingered since the day the ship was attacked.
LeMay was severely wounded during the strike and evacuated by helicopter. He spent months recovering in military hospitals in Europe, drifting in and out of consciousness after multiple surgeries. When he finally regained enough strength to understand what had happened, he assumed investigators would eventually come to ask what he had witnessed. According to LeMay, that moment never came.
“I have never officially been asked what I saw that day,” he said.
After emergency treatment aboard the aircraft carrier America, LeMay was transferred to a hospital in Naples, Italy. There, he briefly reunited with several other wounded Liberty crew members, but he later learned the injured sailors had largely been kept separated from outside visitors while they recovered. LeMay said he was told that the ward where the Liberty survivors were treated was tightly controlled and that no one could enter unless they were specifically approved.
“We were told later that nobody could get into that ward unless they wanted them,” he recalled.
Months later, when LeMay was transferred to a military hospital in Germany, he experienced what he now views as the only direct instruction he ever received about the incident. Shortly after arriving, he was moved to a private room. An officer entered his room and gave him a blunt order.
“He told me my name was Smith,” LeMay said. “And if anybody asks me about the Liberty, I know nothing.”
At the time, LeMay assumed the instruction was temporary. Years later, however, when Liberty survivors began holding reunions and comparing experiences, he started hearing similar stories from other crew members. Some of those accounts involved events that occurred while the ship was returning to port after the attack.
According to LeMay, one shipmate told him that sailors discussing the Liberty during shore leave in Europe were suddenly approached and escorted back to the ship.
“He said four men in black suits came in and escorted them back,” LeMay said.
LeMay acknowledges that those details came from other crew members rather than his own firsthand experience, but hearing the same stories repeated over the years reinforced his belief that the full story of the attack and its aftermath has never been told.
LeMay’s memories of the attack itself are brief but vivid. He remembers seeing one of the aircraft involved in the assault flying very low over the ship. The pilot was so close that LeMay said he could see him clearly.
“I could see the pilot,” he said. “There’s no way in the world they could have made a mistake.” LeMay went on to explain their predictable ship route along the coast of Africa, along with the undeniably American markings and flags on the Liberty at the time of the attack.
Israel has long maintained that the attack occurred because its forces mistakenly identified the Liberty as an Egyptian ship during the chaos of the Six-Day War. Several U.S. investigations at the time accepted that explanation, though critics have argued for decades that the inquiries were incomplete or rushed.
Why The Lawsuit Matters
The Freedom of Information Act lawsuit does not attempt to prove what happened during the attack itself. Instead, it focuses on whether the public has access to records that might clarify unresolved questions. Kinnucan argues that the HAC Report represents one of the few congressional investigations into the incident and may contain testimony or intelligence information that has never been publicly released.
Even if the courts ultimately rule in favor of releasing the document, the process may take years. The government could appeal the ruling, and any released material would still undergo declassification review. That review could result in large portions of the report being redacted before the public ever sees it.
But survivors like LeMay say the effort is still worth pursuing. For many of them, the issue is not simply historical debate but personal closure. The injuries from the attack changed the course of their lives. LeMay still carries dozens of pieces of shrapnel in his body and never returned to the Navy career he once planned.
What he hopes for now is something simpler: acknowledgment.
“It would just be nice to know that we were telling the truth,” he said.
After nearly sixty years, LeMay says the hardest part has not been the physical injuries or the memories of the day the ship was attacked. It has been the uncertainty that followed, the sense that the story of what happened might never be fully told.
“You can’t trust the government,” he said quietly. “All we want is to know we’re not crazy.”
