Talk:Veteran sergeant accounts US torture coverup

Active discussions

I've organized this discussion to make it easier to read.

Article is POVEdit

I've noticed that Carlosar put in: a deletion request for this article (now retracted by him after discussion- thanks!). I've edited out some facts that may seem to have a POV, and hope that this would make the piece far simpler. I'd like to request assistance on this piece. I think it's important, and want to work with the community to help make it better. thanks for your help! nw 18 Dec 2004 (EST)

I don't think any facts should be edited out at all. Facts don't have POV, only opinions. I'll help with the piece, as I've come across a radio show that interviewed the author.--Herda05 23:42, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have put the page at the Deletion Request because it was very bad and abandoned. Since after I have put the page at the Deletion Request there have been a effort in increasing the quality of the page; so the Deletion Request was not so bad at all. Wikinews is very small and there are many articles which are left alone, not edited, not reviewed or poorly reviewed. I think that this kind of trouble will be minor in the future, when there will be more wikinews users. But now, I could not think in another thing than putting the article at the Deletion Request. I think it was a right decision because the quality of the article at that point was really bad. -- Carlosar 16:58, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for your encouragement, Herda05. I have access to the original article, but not sure how I can get it to you. nw 23:56, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you both for your comments - I'm new here and appreciate your critical feedback. If you read the source material, I think you'll find it credible (the FBI is taking it seriously, for instance). There are many verifications of the facts from witnesses, too. I welcome and ask for your editing and additions and improvements. I'm trying to learn. thanks! I agree that my writing was bad - mostly due to a very quick jotting down of ideas - i've fixed it up a bit, but it could use more help. It may seem propaganda or NPOV, on it's face, but I think if you see how I qualified all the statements, and you read the article, you'll see there were many credible witnesses, and the research appears solid. I don't think this is propaganda at all, and I don't think the un-NPOV holds either, but if you have specific arguments, etc, i'm eager to hear them. Please read the article in full if you haven't. It's pretty amazing. I'd encourage others to weigh in, and encurage removal of the dispute issues. Thanks all. nw 18 Dec 2004 (EST)

nw its hard to find anything currently in the aticle that can be disputed--Herda05 23:42, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree, of course, but was willing to hear arguments, as i'm new here. Please weigh in on the deletion page, too, as it is just my opinion there so far - others please join if you agree. thanks! nw 23:59, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article is PropagandaEdit

It seems mere propaganda. Not worth. -- Carlosar 06:06, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Carlosar 16:23, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC) : This article is very bad written, not NPOV and it seems propaganda. However I think it can be published if it gets corrected. The correction demands a good work. Someone good in English could help.

Carlosar, it might be helpful if you could make specific suggestions on what needs to be altered rather than vague generalizations about POV and propaganda.--Herda05 23:42, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Official supression of torture complaints? Seems very worthwhile to me. The whole reason Bush & Rumsfeld got off so lightly on Abu Ghraib was because they alleged that torture ocurred in only "a few", "isolated" incidents. If complaints of torture are being supressed, this speaks of a wider, systemic problem. I'll help with the article once I've slept. -- Jeortiz 11:18, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Should be DeletedEdit

Carlosar 16:23, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC): There are another big trouble with this article too. It is about a accusation but the references are poor and not reliable.

The article is a good candidate to deletion request.
Why is it a good candidate for a deletion request. I think as Jeortiz points out, this seems very worthwhile to me as well.
This article should not be deleted in order to preserve our supposed democracy. If America is going to try and start a democracy in the East, it should demonstrate a good example and let its own people speak. We can think for ourselves, and this is one article of information that should not be supressed by the seemingly brainwashed people and the elite who (classically) desire not to be responsible for their actions. Let me speak on your thought that the source is not reliable. Those in power have told you what is reliable. CNN and many other news outlets considered reliable have consistently published inaccurate and many times biased information. I'll end this by saying something very simple: we can think for ourselves and we need all of the information about an issue to make a better conclusion.--Komplexnous 15:23, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Carlosar 12:05, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC) -- I am not against this kind of article criticizing US actions in Iraq, but, this article is very weak. I think maybe this was not your intention but this article is sensacionalist, POV and propaganda. Your article will not be considered serious if you did not write it according good editor parameters.

Carlosar, can you point out something that you think is sensationalist in the article that we can correct? Are you disputing the sergents account of witnessing torture, a coverup, or both? Do you have any facts you can cite that contradict the sergeant? Right now the article is so bereft of information it seems an almost random collection of statements regarding the incident. I will be putting in more information and would appreciate it if you would give comments.--Herda05 23:42, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The article is from a reliable source: salon.com. It is not at all propaganda - the journalist has solicited feedback from many sources. It may have been initially poorly written, but I'd like to thank Herda05 helping improve it. I'm new here : ). It is very far from a frivolous issue. that argument is particularly concerning to me. Carlosar entered that argument on the deletion request page (Separate from this page). The source article presents facts that make a strong case for a cover-up by a particular Captain, at minimum. Maybe I haven't written that clearly enough into my original piece, but that is reason for revision, not deletion. if you read the source material, I think you'll find it credible (the FBI is taking it seriously, for instance). nw 00:24, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

- It's perfectly obvious, that the propagandist here is Carlosar. American mainstream media already does good job blocking this kind of stories, PLEASE don't mimic it here. One can't really be any more neutral when reporting man's CLAIMS. Of course, you *should* try to reach the other party for comment... --Klaus Eduard 16:58, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is your opinion. There are a lot of people who think just the opposite of you. -- Carlosar 16:47, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Should be ExpandedEdit

I acutally think this article should be expanded. I've read the introduction on salon.com regarding the reference article, "Whitewashing torture?", but can't pay the subscription fee to read the rest. The fact that other news organizations haven't picked this story up is indicative to me of a climate of self-censorship in American media.

But also this can be a indicative that the story is not reliable and maybe is untrue. -- Carlosar 03:40, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I disagree with your reasoning. Editors must make decisions everyday regarding what to cover and what not to cover. The overwhelming problem with major media organizations is that they are corporate. Their primary concern is return on investment for shareholders, not informing the public. Editors will be pressured by the system they work in to go with stories that sell more papers. Sometimes that means the public gets informed about issues, sometimes it means the public gets informed about what marketing research says will sell more advertising. Because a story is not picked up by major media is not in itself an indication either way regarding of it's factual accuracy. It is an indication that some kind of self-censorship has taken place. The reasons for that self-censorship could be factual accuracy or could just as easily be the desire to sell more papers, but that is merely speculation.--Herda05 17:10, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Isn't this what wikinews would be perfectly suited for? The ability to report on stories that aren't being reported by other outlets, and to report storeis that get locked away from public consumption through subscribtion only news outlets?--Herda05 23:42, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Interesting that Carlosar should criticise the article's English, when he obviously can't write it himelf.

About POV and sensationalismEdit

When a American soldier is made captive by an Arabian soldier, if he is luck, he will be beheaded quicklly and the Arabian soldier will get a medall. When an Arabian soldier is made captive by Americans and he is not well treated, the Arabian soldier is quicklly repaired and the American soldiers get a Martial Court.

What you have said here has no bearing on whether David DeBatto's report is accurate--Herda05 17:47, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Iraq soldiers torture was not very different than the torture suffered by some nerds when they get into the University. I think the Iraq soldiers must be well treated, and I am against bad treatment at all, but I say you must be carefull when you say torture. Besides the governement of the USA officially condemns any bad treatment to prisioners. Some Arabian leaders, on contrary, praise when an Arabian soldier clearly tortures an American soldier. The torture suffered by the Iraq soldiers are a isolated case(and unfortunaltely this happens in every war) but the torture suffered by American soldiers are a rule. If you have to be a prisioner, would you like to be a prisioner of whom? Would you like to be a prisioner of the American army or a prisioner of the Saddam army? Think about it and be honest.

You are stating "Iraq soldiers torture was not very different than the torture suffered by some nerds when they get into the University" as if this was fact. Provide us evidence to reveiw the merits of your argument. Your belief or opinion regarding the comparison between the torture of Iraqis and American University "hazing" needs to be supported.
My personal preferences regarding who I should want to be a prisoner of are inconsequential to whether this article is POV, and in and of themselves are POV. Any personal feelings I have on the matter are POV. This has nothing to do whatsoever with whether David DeBatto's reports is accurate--Herda05 17:47, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am not against you publishing the article(mainly if the articel is true), but I say you must be very carefully otherwise you will get a POV article and you will be just making propaganda or hypocrisy. The "American torture" is clearly different of the "Arabian torture". I think you can do a better work than this at least(Something has emproveed since my last reading, but it is not good yet. Demands a little more work. Unfortunately I dont have too much time now. I hope I have helped.) -- Carlosar 03:28, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "American torture" or "Arabian torture", besides your own distiniction which is POV. Torture is defined in U.S. law as an “act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control.” [1]. What David DeBatto is reporting is that "torture" under this definition is going on, and further, that the U.S. military is covering it up. If you disagree with the facts of DeBatto's report, provide references that contradict Sergeant Ford's statements. To date you have only provide statements of your own beleif and opinion, and you have every right to refuse to believe the facts as stated by Sergeant Ford. That does not make the Sergeant's story any less accurate though.--Herda05 17:47, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The case of the sergeant begin forced repeatedly to undertake psychiatric examinations can in itself be tantamount to torture. See the way that dissidnts in Soviet Union were considered as psychiatric cases. If the practice of evacuating soldiers who show moral concerns about the war for psychiatric reasons while their are fit gets widespread, this will be a major issue in terms of Human Rights -- from the US governemnt toward its soldiers.
On the other hand, the question of the torture practised by Islamist Iraqi Resistance factions is irrevenlant (tu quoque logical fallacy). I do not at all mean that you are trying to decieve us by bad faith -- I know that this kind of arguments come easily at your mind whithout your knowing. Bu the fact that the "others" are doing bad things does not in any way authorise the USA to do the same things, even to a lesser extand. The USA are a modern, civilised, democratic state : they are expected to live by higher standards than a bunch of Islamist desesperados. [2]
Carlosar has now stated above: "I am not against you publishing the article". So, Carlosar, can you remove your deletion request? And we'll hear and discuss your concerns and try to address them? Thanks! nw 01:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

An important questionEdit

Is the case true? Can you assure it? The POV media cited in the source usually publishes articles which are not true. Be carefull. -- Carlosar 09:30, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Can you provide examples of fake news published without reserves (autenticity warnings) by both Democracy Now! and Salon.com ? In the affirmative, we will have to take more caution with this news; it the negative, whil this will not in itself acertain the autenticity of the news, it would make comments such as "the source usually publishes articles which are not true" a little bit gratuitious. [3]
This is an important question Carlosar, but you have done nothing but raise it. We can not answer the question for you. The onus is on you to review the sources we've cited and the facts as Sergeant Ford has relayed them to David DeBatto and choose to either believe them or disbelieve them. Any reporter can only report the evidence he has gathered to support his statements in his article. It is up to the reader to decide whether the evidence the reporter has provided is enough to justify his statements. I believe what David DeBatto has reported based on the evidence he has provided. From reading the comments I think others have as well. If you or anybody else has evidence to discredit Sergeant Ford's statements then I think we'd be glad to to read it and even cite it in the article.
As for Democracy Now! being POV media, all media is POV. Anything we as humans do is POV. This disucssion should not be about whether Democracy Now! is POV, but wether the article as it stands is POV by distorting or omitting facts that are relevant to it's conclusion. Please see Rama's comments as well.--Herda05 18:16, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

File:Stopwatch.jpg Time!! From start to finish: Dec 8 > Dec 23. 23-8=15 days. Hot stuff, guys.

Are you sure this article is true?Edit

If you look closely at the photograph of Mr. Ford, you will see that there is an insignia on top of his left breast pocket. It is the insignia of the Navy Seals, or the budweiser badge as it is commonly refered to. Mr. Ford is wearing the uniform while on active duty displaying a badge he did not earn. That being said and denoting the importance of these badges and insignias in the military perhaps it would be best to consider leaving Mr. Ford's account to the dark corners of the internet. Also, Mr. Ford was known as Doctor Ford. He even used to sign with the M.D. Suffix on his name. Never mind that Mr. Ford is not a doctor. So, taking into consideration that this person makes allegations of torture, while pretending to be a Navy Seal and a Doctor, makes you kind of wonder the veracity of his statements. Also, it is nice to note that Mr. DeBatto, describes events in his article that never actually happened. For example. In trying to show what a poor leader Col. Pappas is, he mentions the fact that 3 soldiers died while in transit to his Change Of Command Ceremony. That never took place. In reality, the soldiers died while travelling to LTC Griffin's Change Of Command Ceremony, one of COL. Pappas' subordinate commanders. Mr. DeBatto mentioned the fact that the 223rd was one of the first divisions to enter Iraq after the "Shock and Awe" aerial bombardment. Well. The fact that the 223rd was one of the first "UNITS" to enter the war is almost true. Elements of the 223rd MI Bn entered Iraq early in the war. But those elements were attached and/or assigned to the 519th MI Bn (ABN TE). The HQ Section was safely in Kuwait awaiting movement orders (including DeBatto and Ford). DeBatto calls the 223rd a "division". Anybody who knows military doctrine can tell you that a Division is a military unit composed of many brigades and battalions. For an "intelligence expert" to call a battalion "a division" makes you kind of wonder if he is truly that familiar with simple military structure. Is the trying to make it sound like the 223rd is a huge unit? Or is he just showing his ignorance in simple military doctrine and terminology. Ford mentions the fact that "no medevac order" was written. That is not cover up material. That is just a sign of the fact that the headquarters section of the 223rd did not know how to operate in that environment. The 223rd MI Bn (L) (prior to the OIF I deployment) had never been to war. Many rules and regulations were broken or omitted not due to "conspiracy", but just plain ignorance and lack of knowledge. No person be it civilian or military is authorized into a military aircraft without being entered into the aircraft' Manifest. That is a matter of procedure. Mr. Ford's departure from the theater is a known fact. Everybody in the unit knew about it, and most were glad about it. Carlosar

Carlosar, none of this changes two important facts that make this a story wothy of wikinews, to us and the world. 1) The FBI, Army Criminal Investigations, and Army's Inspector General ALL believe Ford's story has merit and that his allegations deserve investigation. 2)No one has come out disputing Ford's charges.
This is a news story reporting that Sgt. Ford has alleged the U.S. Army is covering up torture. Nothing more than that. It is not a news story saying that the torture is happening, or that Ford's story is true. It is relating Ford's allegations and indicating that they are under investigation. If you disagree with Ford's allegations that is your right. If you feel that the allegations regarding Ford being a braggart and exagerator are true, that is your right. If you feel that David DeBatto is an amateur, that is your right. Opposeing release of Ford's story for others to review and make their own judgements about is wrong. You were able to review the evidence presented in the article, and have yourself helped to uncover more information regarding Ford for inclusion in the article. Why do you still feel that people should be denied the same opportunity you yourself have?--Herda05 15:14, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Rebuttal from Dave DeBatto here:Edit

"I have heard all these comments before of course, but from other sources. Some of them were Pentagon "plants", some were sincere. Let me just address a few points off the top of my head.

1) Ford, to the best of my knowledge, and to me personally in several lengthy interviews, never said he was a SEAL. He made a clear distinction of being "attached" to the SEALs in the early 1980's as a medic. This is a fact I have verified beyond all doubt by both official Navy documents and direct testimony from people that were there. The folks at authentiseal.org, whom I spoke with, make no distinction between those saying they were attached to a SEAL team (which WAS done with medics for a time in the 1980's is seems) and those claiming to have been SEALs. It is just their policy and I personally think it is unfortunate. Authentiseal.org have never asked to see the evidence Ford has about his service, nor contacted him so he can defend the claims against him (as the website says they do with all persons so accused) before posting his name on their site. That is perhaps very dangerous ground, legally. Just my lay opinion.

2) Yes, I really do know the difference between a "division" and a battalion". I was in MI my entire Army career. That was a last minute change by a Salon editor without my approval. It happens.

3) He called himself "Doc" when I met him too at Fort Bragg in February 2003. However, I asked him right away if he was an MD or PhD. and he told me no, he was just a medic, but he has always been referred to as "Doc" since becoming a Navy medic over 30 years ago. It just kind of stuck he said. He also said he was in some kind of medical school or internship, which, upon later research, turned out to be true. It ain't Harvard, but it is a legitimate medical school.

4) Ford IS an inveterate braggart. This is beyond question as far as I am concerned. However, although that trait may make him unpopular with some, it does not make him a liar. Some people seem to have a hard time separating the two.

5) His "castle in Scotland" that he has been accused of inventing, turns out to be a time-share kind of arrangement for a castle which is indeed in Scotland, with the St. Andrews Society, of which he is a member. My wife also is a member. It is legit.

5) This letter writer obviously has an ax to grind with Ford. I don't. Neither do I have an ax to grind with Artiga or any of the members of Ford's team from Samarra. My dealings with them were always pleasant and I found them to be good soldiers, CI agents and considered them friends and comrades. I never even talked with Ford about the incident while in Iraq or until one year afterwards after Abu Ghraib was made public. I was asked to write a story about it and I did.

Bottom line, my inquiry into the facts of this issue revealed two glaring facts to me; Ford's allegation were not investigated prior to him being sent to Landstuhl, despite official statement to the contrary and he was not mentally unstable as was stated by his superiors at the time. This alone should dictate further official inquiry into this matter.

Enough said.

Regards,

Dave DeBatto"

Can we trust in DeBatto story?. It seems he is an amateur reporter giving his opinion about a fact. Are we giving an authorized wikireporter permission to Debatto now? You see, I am just talking about possible issues related to Wikinews quality policy. ---Carlosar 03:08, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
DeBatto's status as an amatuer has nothing to do with the truth of Ford's story. I also beleive that everyone here is an amateur, so by your reasoning, should everything on wikinews be suspect? Wikinews currently has not set a quality policy, as far as I know.--Herda05 15:14, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • He mentions that Ford went by 'Doc' as a nickname -- he was the medic for his team!
Why didnt he said that first? He was at least malitious.--Carlosar 03:08, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • The Salon.com article mentioned that Ford was a medic for his team, actually. The allegation that Frank was referred to as 'Doc' came up _after_ the publication of the article, and DeBatto quite effectively responded to that above imho. nw 17:36, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Carlosar's points avoid addressing how all Army doctors have found Ford sane. nw 02:26, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Why dont we ask to the doctors? Is it possible?
IF you want to continue the research into the story beyond David Debatto's original reporting, feel free to do so. I've written an email to David Debatto, but beyond that demands too much of my time. I didn't sign up to wikinews to become a reporter, rather an editor and poster of news that I think is under reported elsewhere.--Herda05 15:14, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Col. C. Tsai, the doctor who examined Ford in Germany was interviewed independently by Spiegel Television, Germany. This is reported in the original Salon.com article.
  • No other media has published this news. Even the POV Al-Jahzera. Should Wikinews accept this article? Besides, even the sargeant is a true person, he is an anonymous unknown person accusing known people. This is not journalism. -- Carlosar 01:00, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • See Speigel Television, Germany reference above, Salon.com is a highly reputable publication, Plus there are 3 independent government investigations into this now. nw 17:30, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It is exactly what good journalists do. Reporters file stories all the time that relate events from "unknown" persons. If being "known" was a requirement for news, then only government officials and famous people would be sources for news. The Los Angeles Times reports stories based on information from unknown soldiers and generals all the time (i.e. Maryland Arson and Charges and Countercharges), is it your argument that those articles in the Los Angeles Times should not be accepted as news?
As Debatto pointed out in his reply, and nw links to, these accusations are Ad Homminem attacks that have nothing to with the veracity of Ford's allegations.--Herda05 15:14, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Other websites which talk about the case show a copy of the same article. There is only one source copied and distributed around the internet. There are some blogs and websites which contest the news claims. -- Carlosar 03:08, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Feel free to post that information as part of the article. The more information the better.--Herda05 15:14, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • The problem remains: An almost anonymous and unknown person accuses other people. Is it right? Can we accept that? What kind of troubles can we have in the future case we allow this? -- Carlosar 03:12, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
We can report the information we have and let other poepl decied if it is right, that is what news reporting is all about. I welcome the future case where this occurs. Providing the information is what the reporter's job is.--Herda05 15:14, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • There were multiple witnesses inteviewed in the piece, not just one person. nw 17:43, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • new source material added: internal FBI document shows the Sacramento FBI office took torture and cover-up allegations of an individual seriously enough to warrant an investigation. Allegation is likely contained in (but censored out) in the attached "Urgent Report" to "The Director" of the FBI. (the unnamed individual is likely Ford, because this is the office where he reportedly filed one of his complaints). Dave DeBatto, the author, pointed me to this. It took a Freedom of Information Act Lawsuit by the ACLU for this document to be published.

FBI. "actual Sacramento FBI document (Urgent Report to Director) confirms investigation into (censored-out individual's) (apparently Ford's) allegations of torture and cover-up (required a FOIA lawsuit for release)" — aclu.org, 15 December, 2004 nw 23:18, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • I just have pointed out some possible issues about this article. Anyway if you think there is no trouble and you guarantee it is ok and reliable, unless someone else contests the claims, I am obliged to accept the article. I think my work is finished here.-- 12:03, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Carlosar we all appreciate vigilance regarding truth, but the issues you raised speak nothing about whether Ford's story is true, they just attack his character but do not refute his allegations. If you are obliged to accept the article, accept it because there has been no information presented that refutes the claims made by Ford. No one here is guaranteing that what Ford said is true, what we are garunteeing is that when it is determined that Ford's allegations ARE true of false, that will be reported in this article.--Herda05 15:14, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
So, it is Ok. You see, if I think I see something wrong with the article I must say, so other people say what they think too. This is review, sometimes I have to say something other people dont like because this is the reviewer job: he says what he thinks it is right or wrong. Since there are people supporting this article and no one else against it, I think it is ok.--- Carlosar 17:08, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Next step?Edit

I think I have finished my review. The article has been here for a long time. What is the next step now? Should we do a poll for the publication of the article ? Should we put the POV logo out, or just leave as it is? I have started the discussion, now I would like to left the work to yours. -- Carlosar 15:28, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm ready for a poll. We might spend more time addressing concerns, though, too. I also think the POV logo should be taken out. Thanks to _everyone_ for their participation! This has been interesting! nw 17:47, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • I have removed the POV logo. If someone else is against it put the logo back again. I have removed the review logo because according to the new rules it is not used in Wikinews anymore(if I am wrong please, correct me). -- Carlosar 19:27, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I have moved the news to the Latest news section because this article is getting old and it has been here for a long time. This is a kind of trouble, articles get edited and reviewed for a long time. Maybe with a lot of more people in the future, we will not have this kind of trouble. -- Carlosar 19:33, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Additional email from David DeBattoEdit

  • All, I corresponded via email with David DeBatto,(the reporter for the Salon.com article),

and (in addition to allowing me to post his previous email (above)), he added this:

".... One final thought. The change of command ceremony "John" said never happened, in fact did happen as stated in the article and was for "full bird" (O-6) Colonel Parrish (not the Lt. Col. John referenced) to hand over command of the 205th MI Brigade to Col. Pappas on July 1 2003.

Pappas was actually in place and present at Anaconda at least two weeks prior to the ceremony making the transition and settling in. That puts him there at the time of the incident with Ford that I referenced. The three 519th soldiers were killed as I said, although it was prior to actual ceremony by several days or even weeks, I don't remember and it is irrelevant. It was, in my opinion, a needless tragedy, a sentiment felt by many other soldiers present at the time as well. I don't know who was to blame for that nor do I accuse anyone.

A minor point, to be sure, but since minor points seems to be important to "John" and not the substance of the story, I thought I would throw it out as well.

Again, at least three federal investigative agencies have deemed Ford's allegations credible enough to initiate investigations. Please refer John and anyone else interested to either the NYT article this week or the ACLU website for complete access to the documents. All I have tried to do is lay out the facts as I found them and make observations based on those facts. Not everyone will agree. That's fine and as it should be. If John was indeed at Anaconda he knows that I served with honor and bear no malice to anyone that I served with or for. Not everyone, including John apparently, can say that.

I now believe I know who "John" is and I think he should voice his concerns to the appropriate investigative agencies to make sure all sides on this case are heard, even from people who publish numerous rants on several Internet websites calling Ford a "liar" and "crazy" and worse.

Happy Holidays!

Regards, Dave DeBatto" -- published with permission of DeBatto by: nw 16:38, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Finished?Edit

I think the article is finished. I suggest you put it at the Latest News soon. The news is getting old(although I think this is not a problem at all).-- Carlosar 18:54, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have already done that. If you have something against it, please remove the article from the Latest News and put it here back again.-- Carlosar


Reopen the issue?Edit

Unfortunately I have to add the Dispute logo because the issue has been reopened. I dont want to put my rebuttals here in this article, neither I will write something about it because I dont want to continue on a never-ending discussion. I think it is still ok letting the De Batto rebuttals in the Talk page of the other article. But, please, lets finish this issue. Everything you and me could say about the matter has already been said. -- Carlosar 21:52, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

PS:I agree about deleting the Dispute logo of this page if other people agree about deleting the Dispute logo at the other article too.

Really finished this timeEdit

If anybody cares, all investigations into the torture allegations have been finished (FBI, CID, et al.). Conclusion? Nothing was found to substantiate Mr. Ford's allegations. Just a POV to put the last nail in the coffin. Mr. Ford fabricated the story, and Mr. Debatto sold it. The commanders who sent him out for his own mental health are all still in the National Guard of California and are keeping their ranks. No letters of reprimand were included in their records. The "accused" either finished their terms and got Honorable Discharges or are still serving honorably in their respective National Guard units.

Of course, this could all mean that the government did an outstanding job in covering up the whole affair, but given the effectiveness of the National Guard, I seriously doubt it. John (tht73a@yahoo.com)

Return to "Veteran sergeant accounts US torture coverup" page.