The issue, actually, is that a man was beaten and neglected while a prisoner of the United States, and he died of a combination of the injuries and the neglect.

That is, of course, true. The evidence so far indicates that he was beaten by those SEALs who captured him and turned him in. Legal action was warranted against the ones who beat him, and legal action is taking place.

But I have also seen this incident presented as though interrogators, probably CIA, killed a previously-unharmed person in the prison using deliberate techniques approved at the highest levels, or by the way in which he was restrained, a case that is not supported by the evidence.

Here's an AP summary found online:

WHO DIED: Manadel al-Jamadi, a suspect in a bombing in Iraq, died in 2003 during CIA interrogation in the Abu Ghraib prison shower room. A military pathologist ruled it a homicide.

HOW IT HAPPENED: Army guards found him suspended by his wrists, which were cuffed behind his back. The position, known as "Palestinian hanging," is condemned by human rights groups as torture.

WHAT IT MEANS: The death raises new questions about CIA interrogation practices.

That's it. From there, off it goes into wires around the world.

Now, you tell ME what conclusion a reader would draw from this?

The full AP story Bowser linked does give enough information that a reader could figure out the real course of events. The objection to that story was that you had to dive into it quite a ways before the facts came out, and that facts that were presented were sometimes misleading. I think I've proven that shorter versions making the rounds don't even go that far, and that how a story is presented and what is chosen for inclusion does make a hell of a lot of difference.

I don't know how many people will bother to look into the whole thing before dancing around, waving yet another American military scalp.