About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Smerconish, CNN's McIntyre falsely claimed no prisoners died because of Abu Ghraib abuse

May 31, 2006 7:42 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

SUMMARY: On NBC's Today, Philadelphia-based radio host Michael Smerconish falsely claimed that "no one died at Abu Ghraib" -- a detention facility operated by U.S. forces in Iraq -- and that the abuse of prisoners by U.S. personnel at Abu Ghraib was merely "a lot of ridiculous actions ... carried out by nine knuckleheads." Additionally, in a report that aired repeatedly on CNN, senior Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre falsely reported that "[n]one of the abused prisoners at Abu Ghraib died." In fact, detainee Manadel al-Jamadi reportedly died at Abu Ghraib during an interrogation by CIA personnel on November 4, 2003. The Pentagon has labeled al-Jamadi's death a "homicide," indicating that it resulted from the treatment he received at the prison -- not from natural causes.

16 Comments

On the May 30 broadcast of NBC's Today, Philadelphia-based radio host Michael Smerconish falsely claimed that "no one died at Abu Ghraib" -- a detention facility operated by U.S. forces in Iraq -- and that the abuse of prisoners by U.S. personnel at Abu Ghraib was merely "a lot of ridiculous actions ... carried out by nine knuckleheads." Additionally, in a report that aired repeatedly on CNN, senior Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre falsely reported that "[n]one of the abused prisoners at Abu Ghraib died"; he also repeated the erroneous claim on CNN several days later. In fact, detainee Manadel al-Jamadi reportedly died at Abu Ghraib during an interrogation by CIA personnel on November 4, 2003. The Pentagon has labeled al-Jamadi's death a "homicide," indicating that it resulted from the treatment he received at the prison -- not from natural causes. Although to date, 10 U.S. soldiers have been convicted* on charges relating to the abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib, Pentagon investigations have found that military intelligence personnel helped establish the conditions leading to the abuse. Further, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) described "systematic" abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib by military intelligence personnel.

The death of al-Jamadi at Abu Ghraib received widespread attention in the U.S. media following the publication of photographs depicting U.S. personnel at the facility posing and giving a thumbs-up over al-Jamadi's corpse. For instance, The New York Times reported on October 23, 2005, that "Mr. Jamadi's death was among the most notorious of the incidents at Abu Ghraib that became public in the spring of 2004, in part because his body was photographed wrapped in plastic and packed in ice. He died after being beaten by commandos of the Navy Seals who struck him in the head with rifle butts and then turned him over to C.I.A. interrogators at Abu Ghraib."

Belying Smerconish's claim that only "nine knuckleheads" at Abu Ghraib were responsible for any abuse, the findings of two Pentagon investigations suggest that military intelligence personnel encouraged the mistreatment of detainees. As Media Matters for America has noted, a Pentagon investigation by Maj. Gen. George R. Fay found that 27 members of the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade at the prison "allegedly requested, encouraged, condoned and solicited" military police to abuse detainees "and/or participated in detainee abuse." An internal investigation by Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba similarly found that "Military Intelligence (MI) interrogators and Other US Government Agency's (OGA) [a reference to the CIA] interrogators actively requested that MP guards set physical and mental conditions for favorable interrogation of witnesses."

Also belying Smerconish's claim that the abuses at Abu Ghraib were limited to the nine troops convicted, Media Matters has noted that according to the ICRC, "methods of physical and psychological coercion were used by the military intelligence in a systematic way" at Abu Ghraib against prisoners "deemed to have an 'intelligence value.' " Additionally, decisions by senior Bush administration officials apparently left the impression among military commanders that abusive interrogation practices were permissible.

Further, Pentagon documents and news accounts place the blame for al-Jamadi's death on CIA and Navy personnel, not on the U.S. Army soldiers convicted for offenses at the prison.

On October 24, 2005, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) released an analysis of Pentagon documents acquired through a Freedom of Information Act request, including details from al-Jamadi's autopsy. The ACLU's statement described al-Jamadi's injuries, following his mistreatment by CIA personnel (identified as "OGA" or "Other Governmental Agency"), and SEALs (identified as "NSWT"):

A detainee at Abu Ghraib Prison, captured by Navy Seal Team number seven, died on November 4, 2003, during an interrogation by Navy Seals and "OGA." A previously released autopsy report, that appears to be of Manadel Al Jamadi, shows that the cause of his death was "blunt force injury complicated by compromised respiration." New documents specifically record the circumstances of death as "Q[uestioned] by OGA and NSWT died during interrogation."

A November 11, 2005, New Yorker article by Jane Mayer identified the CIA officer who supervised al-Jamadi's interrogation as Mark Swanner. Mayer reported that during Swanner's interrogation, "[al-Jamadi's] head had been covered with a plastic bag, and he was shackled in a crucifixion-like pose that inhibited his ability to breathe; according to forensic pathologists who have examined the case, he asphyxiated." Swanner has not been charged in relation to the incident.

Navy Lt. Andrew K. Ledford, the commander of the SEAL unit that captured al-Jamadi, faced a court-martial on charges related to al-Jamadi's mistreatment and was acquitted May 27, 2005. The same day, the Associated Press reported that Ledford was found not guilty of "assault, dereliction of duty, conduct unbecoming an officer and making false statements." The AP further reported that "[e]ight SEALs and one sailor who served under Ledford have received administrative punishments for abusing al-Jamadi and other detainees."

Smerconish made his comments during a discussion with host Katie Couric, in which he argued that the reported massacre of Iraqi civilians by U.S. Marines at Haditha was "much worse" than the Abu Ghraib scandal.

Similarly, McIntyre reported that the purported Haditha atrocities "would surpass Abu Ghraib in the number of civilian deaths," although the Haditha events did not seem to be "a case where it's believed that any policy from the Pentagon might have given the wrong impression to Marines in the field."

McIntyre made his false claim in a report that aired seven times on CNN programming: twice on the May 26 edition of The Situation Room (4 p.m. E.T. hour and 7 p.m. E.T. hour), on the May 26 edition of Anderson Cooper 360°, twice during the May 27 edition of CNN Saturday Morning News (7 a.m. E.T. and 9 a.m. E.T.), and twice on the May 27 edition of Live Saturday (12 p.m. E.T. and 5 p.m. E.T.). Additionally, on the May 29 edition of CNN's Live From ..., McIntyre reported to host Kyra Phillips that "none of the mistreated prisoners at Abu Ghraib died."

Smerconish has appeared three times on the Today show in recent months. In addition to his May 30 appearance on the program, opposite Democratic strategist James Carville, Smerconish appeared on the April 11 broadcast of Today, opposite Carville, and on the March 31 broadcast, opposite liberal satirist and talk-radio host Al Franken.

During the same period, Media Matters documented a series of offensive comments by Smerconish, including his claim that America's "limp-wristedness ... is compromising our ability to win the war on terror," and his characterization of a Duke lacrosse team member's emailed threat to kill exotic dancers as "goofy."

From the May 30 broadcast of NBC's Today:

COURIC: And Michael, how do you think this compares to Abu Ghraib, this incident?

SMERCONISH: Well, much worse. I mean, no one died at Abu Ghraib. There were a lot of ridiculous actions there carried out by nine knuckleheads. In this particular case, there's still more that's unknown than that which is known. And I think it's got to be viewed in context, Katie, because what we know is that just three months prior, at that exact same location, 20 Marines lost their lives. That morning, a United States Marine lost his life. I find it hard to believe that a 77-year-old man was shot in cold blood in a wheelchair or that a 4-year-old boy was shot in the chest. If that turns out to be a cold, calculated killing, there will be no defense. But context is going to be important.

From the May 26 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:

MCINTYRE: Pentagon sources say the investigation is now wrapping up and that the evidence is very incriminating. The Marines will not confirm any findings of the investigation so far. But congressional sources say the 24 victims included seven women and three children, some shot in their beds.

Five unarmed men were also allegedly shot when their taxicab was stopped by Marines. One official told CNN the mass killing is far worse than the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, which President Bush just identified as the biggest mistake in Iraq so far.

BUSH [video clip]: We've been paying for that for a long period of time.

MCINTYRE: None of the abused prisoners at Abu Ghraib died, but if the allegations at Haditha are substantiated, the civilian deaths would qualify as a massacre, which could undermine support for the United States, both in Iraq and around the world.

From the May 29 edition of CNN's Live From ...:

PHILLIPS: Now Jamie, some are coming forward and saying this is worse than Abu Ghraib.

MCINTYRE: Well, that's because, I guess, you know, the number of deaths involved -- I mean, if it turns out that 24 Iraqi civilians were essentially murdered by U.S. Marines, that would be an atrocity that would surpass Abu Ghraib in the number of civilian deaths. Nobody -- none of the mistreated prisoners at Abu Ghraib died.

However, there's a difference in these two scandals in that one is, again, assuming the allegations are correct, one would be an atrocity. The criticism in the Abu Ghraib case, though, was that the climate that allowed the prisoner abuse, some of the policies that might have encouraged it, some would argue, condoned it could traced back to the Pentagon, even the White House in terms of procedures and that sort of thing. That's why that controversy resonated so much.

This is not a case where it's believed that any policy from the Pentagon might have given the wrong impression to Marines in the field. Everyone knows that you're not supposed to be shooting innocent civilians. So while it may be more of an atrocity if it turns out to be the case, it may not have the same sort of overall debate or overarching debate that followed the Abu Ghraib scandal.

*Correction: This item originally stated: "Although to date, only nine U.S. soldiers have been convicted on charges relating to the abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib, Pentagon investigations have found that military intelligence personnel helped establish the conditions leading to the abuse." In fact, 10 soldiers had been convicted on charges related to Abu Ghraib detainee abuse as of May 31. An 11th, Army Sgt. Santos A. Cardona, was convicted June 1.
Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by deeznuts (May 31, 2006 10:20 pm ET)
         

      Many of my conservative acquaintances like to falsely claim that "at least nobody died at Abu Ghraib". Not only is it untrue, but they say it as though it somehow makes it okay that we, the "good guys", are torturing detainees on a regular basis.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by dubyadee (May 31, 2006 11:05 pm ET)
         

      These incidences just highlight the risk of war that we run, especially when we enter war so cavalierly. Unfortunate that soldiers lives are wasted or destroyed for little gain. Can anyone point to one single positive outcome for the years spent in Vietnam???? I guarantee that we will be asking the same questions when we finally leave Iraq and it reverts to the ethnic anarchy that it seems to be heading towards.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by iamspartacus (June 01, 2006 12:05 am ET)
         

      /sarcasm

      Yeah, I mean if no one died in Abu Graib, then everything must be just dandy in there. Just dandy.

      What's that? At least one person died? Pfft. One person...who cares?

      It's not like death of one person could justify the murder of 24 civilians, anyways.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by freedom4all (June 01, 2006 1:50 am ET)
         

      ...is all that the wingnuts can do by now.

      This is pitiful at best.

      Who's that Smearconish anyway?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by mescal (June 01, 2006 2:37 am ET)
         

      Where's Finallyinsf? He had a ton of things to say on this subject last Friday, when he said that no torture ever occured at Abu Ghraib. It was, according to that wingnut, just a bunch of photos of terrorists wearing women's panties on their heads.

      Right now, his silence is deafening.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by mescal (June 01, 2006 4:43 am ET)
         

      I just read his posts on the Murtha story.

      How I now miss his silence.

      What a freakin' idiot!

      Report Abuse
      • Author by worrierking (June 01, 2006 8:24 am ET)
           

        Enjoy the silence. He seems to be everywhere the last week or so. He's got to be the most irrational apologist for the right wing cause that I've ever encountered.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by jeter2 (June 01, 2006 7:25 am ET)
         

      Did Couric CORRECT Smerconish?

      Did Kyra Phillips CORRECT McIntyre?

      IF not, why not?

      I'd be very interested to know what their responses were to the statements made by these two gentlemen.

      Did James Carville [who appeared opposite] Smerconish ATTEMPT to set the record straight? If not, why not? How about when he appeared with Al Franken...did Franken speak up?

      I wish MMFA would have INCLUDED what those [I mentioned] had to say.

      Sloppy journalism all around IF everyone let these STATEMENTS stand unchallenged.

      One other small observation. MMFA writes [italics are mine]:

      "The death of al-Jamadi at Abu Ghraib received widespread attention in the U.S. media following the publication of photographs depicting U.S. personnel at the facility posing and giving a thumbs-up over al-Jamadi's corpse. For instance, The New York Times reported on October 23, 2005, that "Mr. Jamadi's death was among the most notorious of the incidents at Abu Ghraib that became public in the spring of 2004, in part because his body was photographed wrapped in plastic and packed in ice."

      **received widespread attention in the U.S. media**

      IF the MSM has a Conservative Bias to the extent that MMFA believes they have, WHY wasn't THIS story downplayed or buried or ignored or at least spun to REFLECT that Bias INSTEAD of RECEIVING WIDESPREAD ATTENTION IN THE U.S. PRESS?

      Now I know SOMEONE here will say ' oh that's just one story', BUT could it be the MSM plays it BOTH ways and of course MMFA only HIGHLIGHTS the ones that suit their own Liberal agenda of pointing out [alleged] Conservative Bias in the media? Maybe the MSM isn't as BIASED towards Conservatives as many here believe. Perhaps IF you checked out EACH & EVERY article it MIGHT come out even (or at least close?) Just wondering...

      Report Abuse
      • Author by rusty shackleford (June 01, 2006 11:33 am ET)
           

        It is telling that, in your opinion, a conservatively-biased media would intentionally cover up American war crimes. I have to say that I agree with you on that count.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by jeter2 (June 01, 2006 12:29 pm ET)
             

          I do believe that MOST Liberals would spin it that way. They would indeed expect a Conservative biased media to down play ANY action that would be considered NEGATIVE against the Military. Now whether or not that's true, is up to each of us to believe or not. Unfortunately, I think there MAY be *some* truth to it...at least as far as the Military action UNDER this CURRENT administration goes.

          And using MMFA's assumption that the MSM exhibits Conservative Bias on a fairly regular basis, I just thought it should be pointed out, that the Media does in fact [occasionally] REPORT straight news WITHOUT bias that SOME might ASSUME they'd automatically Spin or Bury.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Yellow Bird (June 01, 2006 1:14 pm ET)
               

            its just certain stations and certain people that either downplay these incidents or lie about it, which is easy enough after this long a time since Abu came into the news. The soldiers involved brought this onto the US and theirselves by getting involved in these actions and making pictures of it. Most stations just brought the news and speculated whether it was an action of the soldiers or whether it was commanded from higher up.

            This kind of news, once it is out, cannopt be covered up, but can be downplayed,.

            Report Abuse
      • Author by funnymanpants (June 01, 2006 9:08 pm ET)
           

        >>IF the MSM has a Conservative Bias to the extent that MMFA believes they have, WHY wasn't THIS story downplayed or buried or ignored or at least spun to REFLECT that Bias INSTEAD of RECEIVING WIDESPREAD ATTENTION IN THE U.S. PRESS?

        So the US shows one Iraqi dying and that is proof that the press is not slanted towards conservatives?

        >>Now I know SOMEONE here will say ' oh that's just one story'

        Yes, that someone is me. If you want to show bias, you have to show a pattern. That is like saying the LA Police are not racists against blacks because they arrested one white person. Do you even know how ridiculous this is? You do realize that MMFA has done studies showing patterns of bias?

        (As always, I appreciate your judicious use of caps.)

        Report Abuse
    • Author by blueblood (June 01, 2006 1:28 pm ET)
         

      According to the military's own count, 86 prisoners have died while in U.S. custody during this "war on terrorism." Sure, plunging broomsticks up prisoners' butts won't kill them, but what does that say about Republican standards where any kind of abuse is tolerable as long as it doesn't kill the recipient? Well, Alberto Gonzales clearly held a similar view of torture as White House General Councel, never mind that the types of abuses authorized by Bush and Rumsfeld blatantly violate the Geneva Conventions and the domestic War Crimes Act, which carries the death penalty for those convicted under it.

      We really don't know the true number of prisoners killed by the U.S., due to all of the secret CIA run detention centers in Eastern Europe, not to mention the prisoners who died under the extraordinary rendition policy of theis administration.

      Jeter2, now that you are no longer ignorant of the FULL scope of U.S. sanctioned torture, perhaps you will stick your foot in your mouth about the "liberal media" hyping the death at Abu Ghraib, when it has failed to even piece the puzzle I just put together in five minutes.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by blueblood (June 01, 2006 1:29 pm ET)
           

        Damn server triple posted my message. Sorry about that everyone.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by jeter2 (June 01, 2006 2:40 pm ET)
           

        "Jeter2, now that you are no longer ignorant of the FULL scope of U.S. sanctioned torture, perhaps you will stick your foot in your mouth about the "liberal media" hyping the death at Abu Ghraib, when it has failed to even piece the puzzle I just put together in five minutes."...by blueblood

        =====

        Gee thanks for the lecture, would YOU be DISAPPOINTED if I told you I've already heard all of this elsewhere? And unless YOU found out this info FIRST-HAND, I'm gonna guess you READ it in the media--just as I did. So yeah the "puzzle" was pieced together LONG before your little diatribe here.

        FYI I'm on record here as being AGAINST torture, BUT don't let that stand in YOUR way of making ASSUMPTIONS about me. Talk about being ignorant...

        Of course everyone KNOWS that Republicans/Conservatives not only love torture they invented it {sarcasm}

        Since you [conveniently] missed the point I was making in my post...Here it is once more:

        MMFA seemingly believes that the ENTIRE MSM has a Conservative Bias. I don't buy into that. The proof is that stories one MIGHT expect to be buried, down-played, or ignored STILL make it to the public. Granted, the media doesn't always follow through in investigating the story fully, BUT that, IMO, has more to do with laziness than bias (I wrote a post on this on another thread)

        The MSM swings BOTH ways. It would be great if they'd just land in the middle and OFFER facts without the spin....

        Report Abuse
        • Author by funnymanpants (June 01, 2006 9:15 pm ET)
             

          insults and all caps aren't an argument.

          Just because you read of a story doesn't mean it is being covered by the media. You can read about through alternative media or in books. Likewise, if the media burries a story on page 18, but you are a persistent and careful reader and find it anyway, it hardly means that the media is covering an important story like it should.

          I also remember you calling the inmates at Abu Ghraib animals. You then tried to justify your use of this term by claiming that you didn't say this, but your neighbor (or someone you knew) used this phrase. But some of the inmates have been released because they were innocent.

          Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.