Talk:SEALs say US officer's cover-up was reported by fake SEAL

I've read one of the sources, and found that the second one is just re-publishing the first. Would we need two sources here?

Corrected: no more duplicated sources now. Carlosar 08:55, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, I was thinking that this and the other article on the subject of torture coverup allegation made by Mr. Ford could be merged. Or is it too difficult to do, and that's why the articles are separated? Tomos 02:27, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have had the same idea and I wanted to merge both but I think it is a difficult task and I dont want to enter a never finish editing cycle. Anyway they are are two different events, I think they can be separated. It is not so bad at all.--Carlosar 09:05, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No need to merge. Just reference the other article in each article's "See also" section. News organizations can survive with multiple articles on the same topic. -- IlyaHaykinson 09:07, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Added. -- Carlosar 09:10, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This article presents disputed allegations as statements of fact.

• Disputations of these allegations: Talk:Veteran_sergeant_accounts_US_torture_coverup nw 04:52, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

example 1:

"In Germany, a doctor who had examined Ford said he has possible delusions of grandiosity about himself and that this was the reason he had been removed from Iraq."

This allegation is not only untrue, the opposite is true:

According to Col. C. Tsai, a military psychiatrist who examined Ford at the Army Regional Medical Center in Landstuhl, Germany, Tsai had found nothing at all unstable about Ford." Tsai was also interviewed by Speigel Television in Germany on this issue. This was brought up in the previous discussion on this topic.

If you read through the Veteran article and subsequent discussion,(here: Talk:Veteran_sergeant_accounts_US_torture_coverup and here: Veteran_sergeant_accounts_US_torture_coverup, you'll see this that specifically disputes this allegation -- and that in each case where Ford was examined he was found to be perfectly sane.

do we need to reopen the issue? nw 05:20, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I do not want to reopen this issue. In my opinion it does not worth. I suggest forgetting about both articles and move on. -- Carlosar 21:45, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

many of your other allegations in this piece are similarly disputed and were discussed in that other article. nw 05:14, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed that the above quote was added yet again from the story - even though there was no dispute about it being incorrect here. I have removed it again and replaced it with the information given by Col. Tsai - which is sourced in two places. nw 16:33, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dave DeBatto Rebuttal #1

"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.

At least the same can be said about your article about the accusations of Ford to his colleagues, Mr DeBatto.

Also, if Ford is not a real SEAL why the SEAL need to give him satisfaction? The opposite should happen: Ford should say why he pretends to be a SEAL if he is not. -- Carlosar 22:36, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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.

According to Ford he is a "Doctor of Naturopathy" by the Clayton School of Natural Healing in Alabama.-- Carlosar 22:36, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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.

No, but because he is a inveterate braggart you cannot say everything he says is true, neither. -- Carlosar 22:36, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Debatto's point seems to be lost on Carlosar. nw 16:29, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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.

But you dont tell everybody fantasies about you being a nobleman. -- Carlosar 22:36, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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.

But you show only the point of view of one person. Why dont you interviewed the Frank officers?

You have shown the opinion of one soldier as a fact and deliberately you ignored the contrary opinions of a lot of others soldiers. -- Carlosar 23:00, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

other soldiers were interviewed: Sergeant First Class Michael Marciello, claims he witnessed, when Artiga saw an initial psychiatrist's report, Artiga was, "livid". He "stormed" back to the psychiatrist and "browbeat" her to change her report to read that Ford was mentally unstable, and ordered her to have Ford shipped out of the country. Also Col. Tsai was interviewed. The commanding officers of Ford, are implicated by this testimony.

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.

If the officials sent Ford to the doctors was because they thought Ford was crazy. Off course the officers could not say that for sure themselves because they are not doctors, and it is the reason why they sent Frank to the doctors: they wanted a medical diagnosis. If the doctors think there is not wrong with Ford it is not officers fault. Also, for some people being a disturbed man is a disease, for others(maybe some doctors) is not. If you meet a disturbed man at your work, the first thing you think is that he a is mental sick person. But it is possible that his disturbance is a defect of his soul. -- Carlosar 23:00, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Again, there is another witness besides ford to Artiga's conduct: Sergeant First Class Michael Marciello, claims he witnessed, when Artiga saw an initial psychiatrist's report, Artiga was, "livid". He "stormed" back to the psychiatrist and "browbeat" her to change her report to read that Ford was mentally unstable, and ordered her to have Ford shipped out of the country." nw 16:29, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Enough said.

Regards, Dave DeBatto -- published with permission of DeBatto by nw 04:57, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dave DeBatto Rebuttal #2

"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 04:57, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This article does not presents unsourced (and disputed) information as statements of fact

Actually, the sources of this article are much better than the original article of DeBatto. The original article(DeBatto) lionized Frank Ford(a braggart, in DeBatto's own words) and ignored every other contrary opinion.

unsourced are who stated the "unsubstianted claims" of Ford, which largely are substiantiated in other articles. The title of this article is imprecise. It's one group called "Veriseal", and its director or researcher (according to them) that claims ford is a 'fake seal', not the us government.

Ford has passed this on to me: "please check out: ACDUTRA ORDERS/NAVRES NEW ORLEANS,LA. (SDN-N6212782RT74632). nw 16:29, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This article is based mainly in two sources: The VeriSEAL and Los Angeles Times newspaper(mainly). The LA Times reporter who interviewed sergeant Ford has interviwed Ford's officials, his friends and a doctor in Germany. This article contests the other article but you cannot say it is POV because it put in evidence the other opinion too. The reader can find the other article("Veteran sergeant accounts US torture coverup") looking at the "See Also" section, so he can access a lot of favorable arguments for Frank Ford claims. Also, at the first paragraph is a link to the other article and the user has access to the favorable arguments again. There are some of the David DeBatto rebuttals and there is more: at the last paragraph there is a link to the DeBatto's article at Salon.

People who are in doubt, must read both articles and all the sources. -- Carlosar 20:45, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

LA Times Rebuttal

Lt Col Timothy J. Ryan, the commander of Ford's unit sais all allegations of prisioner abuse in Samarra were investigated and no wrongdoing was ever found. Captain Vic Artiga said the soldier was evacuated for "combat stress" behavioral problems. According to Ryan 70 to 100 soldiers including intelligence and civil affairs personnel, military police and special forcesm were usually assigned to the police station in Samarra. The newspaper continues: several soldiers(...)characterized Ford as an inveterate braggart who at various times had instroduced himself as a medical doctor, a former Navy SEAL and a nobleman with a family castle in Europe. A doctor who examined Ford(...) reported that Ford had been sent from Iraq because of "possible delusions of grandiosity about his background".

The newspaper says that the allegations of Ford came after Ford had been recommended for a Silver Star but had seen the recommendation withdrawn after some questions raised about his behaviour.

Also the newspaper says:for the interview Ford wore a polo shirt embroidered with the Oceania school crest. He said many friends in the military and law enforcement called him "Doc". His conversation was peppered with medical terms, and he referred repeatedly to his "long experience in medicine."

FYI: Lt Col Timothy J. Ryan has been implicated by Ford's testimony against him and Captain Artiga. This must be understood when hearing his side of the Ford story. I don't have access to the article without a fee. Again, Ford was a Medic and Doc was his nickname, he never claimed to be a real doctor - he was the medic for his team. nw 22:24, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The problem with the DeBatto's article is that the reader is induced to believe that Frank Ford is really a doctor and an important soldier who used to be a SEAL. The DeBatto's original article maybe is not untrue about all but it is dishonest. -- Carlosar 14:42, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In no place in DeBatto's Salon.com article does it say that Ford was a doctor. In fact, the Salon.com article clearly states Ford was a medic for his team. Further, it clearly states his rank. It never says he was a doctor. That is simply a false statement. nw 22:14, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Old news

Please remember that old news articles are very rarely accessed, and should be left as an historical record of the period. This is not Wikipedia; news articles are rushed to publication and rarely have the opportunity to examine all evidence and present a fully balanced view.

Consider, instead of updating old articles, writing analysis articles of the currently available evidences. These would be new articles which can incorporate sections of the old articles (which would be linked in the sources section.) - Amgine 23:17, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is really a good idea but I dont know how we could do that here. I would like to give up this article and left everything as it is. I think that everything has already been said. -- Carlosar 14:39, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have tried to do something like that with this article. The original article was "Veteran sergeant accounts US torture coverup" and I dont want to work on it anymore. -- Carlosar 16:29, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You are right it is not a good idea updating old articles. -- Carlosar 00:10, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Removing the "Dispute" tag

I will remove the Dispute icon. I think it is ok leaving the DeBatto's rebuttal here so the reader can see the other point of view of the story. Case you still see something wrong put the Dispute icon back again. But I would like to hear a suggestion how can we solve this too. -- Carlosar 16:34, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Typo

{{editprotected}}
"prisioner" => Either the quote is correct and [sic] should be added, or the quote is incorrect and it should be "prisoner". Van der Hoorn (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Done ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 17:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Facts about Frank Gregory Ford

Copies of documents from Ford's footlocker and an article about that can be found here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bxf2TM2uxGxFOFRaeU10YmZvWWc/view?usp=sharing

One image portraying Ford as a Navy SEAL has obviously been Photoshopped. Magnification shows the cut-and-paste seams. That image was provided by Ford's commanding officer after Ford accused him and three other soldiers of mistreating Iraqi detainees. That was Captain Victor Artiga, who then sent the image to Don Shipley. Shipley broadcasts YouTube videos titled, 'Phony Navy SEAL of the week'. Shipley insists it's a photo, but it's not. The Photoshopped image was the only physical evidence that Ford ever posed as a Navy SEAL. It's obviously being promoted by Artiga and others to avoid the unpleasant consequences of a war crimes prosecution.

It should also be pointed out that two 15-6 investigations took place over this. One was filed by Ford. The other was filed by Colonel Thomas Hardaway, a psychiatrist who examined Ford and found nothing wrong with him. That can be found here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bxf2TM2uxGxFZTZiaFItNEh3Z00/view?usp=sharing

Artiga offered to send Shipley a copy of an investigation, but never did. Both investigations can be found here:

hrlibrary.umn.edu/OathBetrayed/CID 8809-8877.pdf

hrlibrary.umn.edu/OathBetrayed/CID 8878-9008.pdf

The interesting thing about both investigations is the absence of any so-called photo of Ford posing as a Navy SEAL.

Ford's complaint clearly identifies Lt. Col. Tim Ryan, Capt. Victor Artiga and Capt. Merle Madera as the parties responsible for abducting him to cover up what Ford saw as war crimes.

The other thing that doesn't make any sense is this: Artiga claims to have taken the faux-toe-graph before Ford's unit deployed to Iraq. If that was true, then why didn't Artiga take action then? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anonymoususa (talk • contribs) 21:01, 30 October 2016