3 ms·

There is no direct evidence of his torture, nor of his lack of torture by other forms. Why did North Korea say that his brain damage was caused by botulism and

There is no direct evidence of his torture, nor of his lack of torture by other forms. Why did North Korea say that his brain damage was caused by botulism and a bad reaction to a sleeping pill? Otto's doctors said it was most likely cardiopulmonary arrest. His doctor's said we will never know what happened to him exactly but something nefarious seems likely given North Korea's history, and the lies about the cause of brain death. Not to mention, it's easy to envision forms of torture that might cause a cardiopulmonary event(waterboarding, drowning, suffocation, etc). To me it's really surprising that an omission of correcting the perception that Otto was beaten on the part of the Trump administration is evidence Trump used the situation or that North Korea did not violate any of Otto's human rights.

tptacek 8y ago
You're trying to rebut an argument nobody made. Nobody is saying that the DPRK is trustworthy or that their story about Warmbier is accurate; in fact, the article itself throws that story into question, because according to the timeline it establishes, Warmbier's injury occurred almost immediately after his sentencing. You don't get to make up elaborate torture scenarios and then use them to rebut the article. The point that the article is making is simple: the story spread throughout the media about what happened to Otto Warmbier does not align with discoverable facts. The claim was that he was beaten, so badly that his "teeth were rearranged". That appears not to have been the case. Saddam Hussein was a horrible person, one of the most horrible leaders in the world. The Baathist Iraqi regime was an evil on par with that of North Korea; in some ways perhaps worse. Nevertheless, our adventure in Iraq, based on false intelligence, was perhaps the greatest foreign policy blunder of the last 100 years. Nobody can pretend that discrepancies in stories about the crimes of American enemies don't have particular valence today. This is important reporting. You'll have to do better than just making up stories in message board comments to tear it down.
- b22GcijhI9 8y ago
  I might not have been clear then. The story is implying the Trump administration used the "beatings" story line to his advantage despite not having really made that claim. It appears that the media reported it from intelligence sources. It faults him, and even accuses him of exploiting the situation, for not correcting the story line which is an outrageous standard to hold presidents accountable to. My further but more convoluted point is it isn't unreasonable to speculate that some form of torture that is not beatings caused the injury. ok? I see your point about Iraq and the importance of story lines. Yes, I am hiding my name.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    The story quotes Trump directly as making that claim.
    - b22GcijhI9 8y ago
      https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/20/politics/president-donald-trump-north-korea-terrorism/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/20/politics/president-donald-tru... Yes, of saying they "tortured" him, not that they beat him. Like I said, is that totally unreasonable to say? What else would have caused a severe cardiopulmonary event to an otherwise healthy person? There isn't any solid evidence of a suicide attempt. North Korea's official explanation is almost certainly a lie and I don't know what else one can conclude besides coming to a tortured conclusion that North Korea somehow didn't directly cause this man's death under duress in order to assert that Trump must have known this and it was all an elaborate political game of showmanship he was playing. edit: not trying to be snarky.
      - tptacek 8y ago
        No. The same Trump tweet refers directly to the Fox & Friends interview the Warmbiers gave where they said he was physically abused, and that "it looked as if someone had taken a pair of pliers and rearranged his bottom teeth." There is no uncertainty about what Trump meant by "torture"; he was explicitly confirming the Warmbier's claim, made minutes earlier, that Otto Warmbier was physically tortured.
        b22GcijhI9 8y ago
        That is a claim the Warmbier's made, not Trump. That may sound like a meaningless assertion but don't you think it's a stretch to say that he exploited the situation for political gain because he did not correct their story(from a live interview I might add) esp. on Twitter? Even using the word 'torture' at that time doesn't seem unreasonable or part of a conspiracy. What is the proper motive? To get people to label DPRK a terror sponsoring nation? It seems like a very high expectation to place on a president to correct any false narrative being perpetuated or else be party to promoting them for political gain.

tptacek 8y ago

You're trying to rebut an argument nobody made. Nobody is saying that the DPRK is trustworthy or that their story about Warmbier is accurate; in fact, the article itself throws that story into question, because according to the timeline it establishes, Warmbier's injury occurred almost immediately after his sentencing. You don't get to make up elaborate torture scenarios and then use them to rebut the article. The point that the article is making is simple: the story spread throughout the media about what happened to Otto Warmbier does not align with discoverable facts. The claim was that he was beaten, so badly that his "teeth were rearranged". That appears not to have been the case. Saddam Hussein was a horrible person, one of the most horrible leaders in the world. The Baathist Iraqi regime was an evil on par with that of North Korea; in some ways perhaps worse. Nevertheless, our adventure in Iraq, based on false intelligence, was perhaps the greatest foreign policy blunder of the last 100 years. Nobody can pretend that discrepancies in stories about the crimes of American enemies don't have particular valence today. This is important reporting. You'll have to do better than just making up stories in message board comments to tear it down.

b22GcijhI9 8y ago
I might not have been clear then. The story is implying the Trump administration used the "beatings" story line to his advantage despite not having really made that claim. It appears that the media reported it from intelligence sources. It faults him, and even accuses him of exploiting the situation, for not correcting the story line which is an outrageous standard to hold presidents accountable to. My further but more convoluted point is it isn't unreasonable to speculate that some form of torture that is not beatings caused the injury. ok? I see your point about Iraq and the importance of story lines. Yes, I am hiding my name.
- tptacek 8y ago
  The story quotes Trump directly as making that claim.
  - b22GcijhI9 8y ago
    https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/20/politics/president-donald-trump-north-korea-terrorism/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/20/politics/president-donald-tru... Yes, of saying they "tortured" him, not that they beat him. Like I said, is that totally unreasonable to say? What else would have caused a severe cardiopulmonary event to an otherwise healthy person? There isn't any solid evidence of a suicide attempt. North Korea's official explanation is almost certainly a lie and I don't know what else one can conclude besides coming to a tortured conclusion that North Korea somehow didn't directly cause this man's death under duress in order to assert that Trump must have known this and it was all an elaborate political game of showmanship he was playing. edit: not trying to be snarky.
    - tptacek 8y ago
      No. The same Trump tweet refers directly to the Fox & Friends interview the Warmbiers gave where they said he was physically abused, and that "it looked as if someone had taken a pair of pliers and rearranged his bottom teeth." There is no uncertainty about what Trump meant by "torture"; he was explicitly confirming the Warmbier's claim, made minutes earlier, that Otto Warmbier was physically tortured.
      - b22GcijhI9 8y ago
        That is a claim the Warmbier's made, not Trump. That may sound like a meaningless assertion but don't you think it's a stretch to say that he exploited the situation for political gain because he did not correct their story(from a live interview I might add) esp. on Twitter? Even using the word 'torture' at that time doesn't seem unreasonable or part of a conspiracy. What is the proper motive? To get people to label DPRK a terror sponsoring nation? It seems like a very high expectation to place on a president to correct any false narrative being perpetuated or else be party to promoting them for political gain.