I had always thought that he was beaten, I guess because I'd never really looked into it.
From the article it seems like it's most likely that he either attempted suicide or lost blood flow to his brain in some other way, and then was discovered by his guards unconscious and taken to the hospital in North Korea.
Yeah the article mentioned all the North Korean medical paper work showed Otto went into the Hospital already in a coma the day after he was sentenced. Furthermore, the article suggest he was well taken care of the entire time while in his coma (i.e., no bedsores, healthy coma weight, healthy skin etc.). And it said the original brain scans showed equal distribution of brain damage on both signs (i.e., he died from lack of oxygen rather than blows to the head).
I don't think I'd be strong enough to stay in it after being sentenced to a lifetime of jail in a North Korean prison camp.
The "beatings" and "torture" talk all seems to be false propaganda that wasn't backed up by any evidence with several officials noting no signs of beatings or torture, which is disgusting.
For most of the detail cited in the comment you replied to, we're not relying on North Korea's representations, so your reply is largely nonresponsive.
Yeah he wasn't tortured. He just put himself into a coma in a failed suicide self-strangulation attempt. You know, to escape that whole lifetime of forced labor bit.
I'm pretty sure sentencing a man to 15 years in prison for stealing a poster is torture enough.
I can always spot the pro-Trumpers as they'll always make defensible anything related to his decisions; in this case, "hey Kim's not a bad guy because look Otto wasn't beaten by a murderous regime, he merely attempted suicide. So maybe it's not so bad we're getting friendly with Kim's regime."
Based on the source, I went in to this article assuming it would somehow paint North Korea in a more forgiving light, and attack the Trump administration. I was not wrong.
The whole thing left a bad taste in my mouth. Maybe Otto was physically beaten, maybe he wasn't. Maybe his incarceration conditions were "good" or maybe they weren't. Maybe he did try and commit suicide, maybe he didn't. The author certainly didn't have any more hard, objective facts than anyone before them. He just had an axe to grind.
He did get some digs in against Trump, but I think he also praised his actions compared to the Obama administration and how personally he took the issue:
>> When Trump learned of Otto's condition, he doubled down on the order for Yun to rush to Pyongyang and bring Otto home. The North Koreans were unilaterally informed that an American plane would soon land in Pyongyang and that United States diplomats and doctors would get off. “The president was very invested in bringing Otto home,” said a State Department official who was involved in the case and who was not authorized to speak on the record. “Listening to him deliberate on this, he sounded to me a lot more like a dad.
The author interviewed several experts who claimed he wasn't beaten including people who examined him in person. Sorry this article is critical of your dear leader.
He never explains the misaligned teeth. They seem to agree that the teeth are "healthy" but also that they were previously straight, and are no longer straight. A little odd, don't you think?
Cool man, so you know exactly what happened for that whole time period while he was in NK? He was there for over two years. No way he was beaten at any point, right? No way they tortured him?
The amount of cognitive dissonance it takes to defend North Korea is staggering. To each his own I guess.
There's no evidence of physical torture. No fractures, no visible injuries, symmetrical damage in brain scans suggesting no direct trauma to his head, no apparent damage to his teeth, the much-discussed scar on his foot was superficial, and overt evidence of careful medical care (no bedsores, well nourished, things that are hard to do even in US hospitals).
Whether you want Warmbier to have been physically tortured or not, the evidence of his torture is not present. Which is important, because it contradicts the media story about Warmbier's experience.
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.
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.
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, 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.
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.
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.
As a non-American, I did not feel it was highly critical of the Trump administration
> Now, that's not to fault the Trump administration for applying maximum pressure on North Korea for an American citizen ending up brain-damaged in its custody: Such behavior warrants punishment. Nor is it to imply that the senior government official lied to The New York Times about the intelligence reports, as some analysts suggested to me; that person seems to have correctly described them. But if the maverick boldness that the administration displayed in rescuing Otto represents the best of Trumpism, what followed once it was clear the reports were flawed encapsulates its troubling disregard for facts when a dubious narrative supports its interests.
You could say that the last sentence is critical but, Trump or no Trump, any government is using sometimes dubious arguments for its own interest. Never let go a crisis go to waste.
The author implies that the Otto story was simply a lever for Trump to start a war with NK. And that when moods change, the Otto story is no longer "useful" to Trump and so is forgotten. This is more an indictment of the 24 hours news cycle I think.
He also spends a great deal of time defending the NK hospital procedures and "likely" incarceration facilities.
I mean, personally I'm repulsed by NK. I'm repulsed that Trump treated their leader with dignity. I'm repulsed that this story implies that the north koreans didn't get a fair shake in the press.
There is also the history of previous American hostages that said they were not tortured.
And the statement from the coroner saying no evidence of head trauma.
Of course if all of this were lies it would be even worse for an American president to smile and shake hands with those responsible.
The article also sort of glosses over the way NK made up the charge against Otto and other foreigners - the regime abuses world citizens for personal gain.
The story doesn't imply that DPRK didn't "get a fair shake"; it simply says that the story spread in the press was false. We don't believe falsehoods simply because we think they should be true.
This story is a classic "Never let the facts get in the way of a good story" moment.
We (the United States) used Otto Warmbier as a propaganda tool, the media (as in many things to do with Trump) was complicit in this use. While in general, I don't like propaganda, I don't object however, to propaganda in this case - if some good comes of it. It's not the first time we've (as a country) invented a story from near whole cloth to sell something, and it probably wont be the last.
Nearing the summation, the author uncritically quotes a "senior-level American official." --"The North Koreans have never tortured a white guy physically. Never.” Earlier in the article, "The 82 American sailors captured on the Pueblo were beaten and starved for 11 months before finally being released."
Conclusion: either none of the 82 American sailors were white guys, or "beaten and starved for 11 months" doesn't constitute torture.
That's not how this works at all. GQ and Esquire run serious long-form journalism all the time. For that matter, Vanity Fair is Michael Lewis and William Langewiesche's home after leaving The Atlantic.
Just a few paragraphs earlier the author makes clear that he's talking about since the Pueblo; it's the lead sentence of the graf:
Ever since the sailors of the U.S.S. Pueblo were beaten in 1968, there have been no clear-cut cases of North Korea physically torturing American prisoners.
This also made me think of John McCain and other POWs. I think this part of the article is poorly worded. The author likely meant since 1968 this hasn't occurred.
The author is claiming that the Trump administration "encouraged the narrative" that Otto Warmbier was beaten but it does not really explain why very precisely except to imply that Trump may have used Otto's parents to look better himself. There isn't any evidence he did this, it is just speculation by the author. I can't find any quote from the Trump administration saying this except for "intelligence reports" from before Otto's return that even officials state the reports about beatings were from third or fourth hand sources. Further, North Korea's official explanation of Otto's brain trauma, botulism and a sleeping pill reaction, are dubious medical claims and can therefore be rightly doubted. 6 days after Otto's return, a press conference was held from Otto's doctor about his condition and reports about torture could not be confirmed or denied except to state that North Korea's explanation was unlikely. This would make it very hard to perpetuate a narrative that Warmbier was, without a doubt, beaten. I think it is an extremely tedious point to suggest that Trump was deliberately misleading the public about Otto's treatment in order to make himself look better.
tl;dr: I’m like, way, smarter than the president, who is a big ugly stupid-head and everything he does is wrong.
If you want to be taken seriously as a journalist, don’t tie the story back to your opinion on Trump. It was an interesting story until he reveals the political motivations behind it. Have the courage to present the facts and let people come to their own conclusions.
It seemed factual to me. In fact, the Trump administration are given a lot of credit for the eventual release. It's the spin factor thats being called into question.
Well, it is factual up to a point, which is great, and then he starts speculating, which is okay, and then he turns it into some indictment of Trump for tweeting that he was tortured, and then another indictment for not attacking more on the same issue. This brings all the weak sources into question. But really the problem is that I don’t care about his politics. Not do I care about Trump. I care about the fact that an entire nation full of people is living in some kind of perverse socialist utopian hell, and this tragic case is but one glimpse into it.
You won't forget what? The point of the article is that you don't know what happened to Warmbier, and if your only source of information about him was the media stories that ran prior to this article, what you might think you know about him is almost certainly false.
The author dedicates a full section to a possible attempt at suicide. However, he doesn't even try to correlate that with the physical examinations.
How does one go braindead in a suicide attempt while locked up, without leaving physical evidence of other injuries?
Certainly, none of the other suicide attempts the author listed would qualify.
Later in the article:
"Upon learning that this article did not support claims that Otto was beaten, and included the theory that he may have attempted suicide—a possibility that the family, through their lawyer, dismissed categorically—the Warmbiers withdrew a statement that they had previously provided."
The "theory" that he attempted suicide is definitely on shakier ground than the "theories" his injuries were intentionally inflicted on him by the North Koreans.
I think the implication that he tried to hang or strangle himself is pretty clear; it's consistent with his injury (symmetric brain damage consistent with oxygen starvation, no other external signs of injury).
It is certainly possible that, rather than hanging or strangling himself, he was strangled by someone in the DPRK. The DPRK hasn't done that to any other US prisoner, but it's the DPRK, so who knows?
The problem is that the narrative in the media doesn't have that uncertainty. Rather, it's reported (somewhat widely, though less so after the coroner's report) that there was evidence of physical abuse: scars on his legs, "rearranged" lower teeth, etc.
It is worth adding that the article doesn't say Warmbier tried to kill himself; it just adds that to the stack of plausible causes. It is indeed a very plausible cause.
There's a point where the hairsplitting becomes a little unseemly, maybe, even with the most pigheaded interlocutors? The guy is dead, there's a recording of him abjectly begging for mercy. Nobody does that other than under duress even when it turns out the duress was probably not physical and was misrepresented as such.
I don't know what to say to this. The DPRK is evil almost beyond comprehension. If Warmbier harmed himself, surely he did so under the most intense psychological stress you could imagine him being under. He was imprisoned for tampering with a poster. Surely we can all agree that was a terrible human rights abuse. Nobody is (or should be) trying to immunize the DPRK here. Certainly I don't intend to put any of the responsibility for this tragedy on Otto Warmbier; what he did is something I might have done myself were I there at his age!
My point is, as it was downthread, that there's a special recent history to reports of abuses by enemies of the US. If the prevailing narrative about Warmbier's treatment by the DPRK is false, and is exploited by the administration as casus belli, that's not hairsplitting.
Like I said earlier: whatever the US accused the Iraqi Baathist regime of doing, their actual abuses were similarly awful. But in the question of how the US relates to other countries, the distinction matters.
Candidly, I think the debate about US/DPRK relations is (on HN) less important than the debate about what it means to report on these stories and to challenge a popular narrative. If I've been triggered to respond by anything in this thread, it's the subtext (in many comments here) that the reporting in this GQ piece is slapdash or done in bad faith.
53 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 94.4 ms ] threadI don't think I'd be strong enough to stay in it after being sentenced to a lifetime of jail in a North Korean prison camp.
The "beatings" and "torture" talk all seems to be false propaganda that wasn't backed up by any evidence with several officials noting no signs of beatings or torture, which is disgusting.
Muuuuuch better
I can always spot the pro-Trumpers as they'll always make defensible anything related to his decisions; in this case, "hey Kim's not a bad guy because look Otto wasn't beaten by a murderous regime, he merely attempted suicide. So maybe it's not so bad we're getting friendly with Kim's regime."
The whole thing left a bad taste in my mouth. Maybe Otto was physically beaten, maybe he wasn't. Maybe his incarceration conditions were "good" or maybe they weren't. Maybe he did try and commit suicide, maybe he didn't. The author certainly didn't have any more hard, objective facts than anyone before them. He just had an axe to grind.
When I saw the word "hostage" misused in the title, I had the exact same feeling.
>> When Trump learned of Otto's condition, he doubled down on the order for Yun to rush to Pyongyang and bring Otto home. The North Koreans were unilaterally informed that an American plane would soon land in Pyongyang and that United States diplomats and doctors would get off. “The president was very invested in bringing Otto home,” said a State Department official who was involved in the case and who was not authorized to speak on the record. “Listening to him deliberate on this, he sounded to me a lot more like a dad.
"Natural and in good repair" from the American doctor.
The family also refused an autopsy. Weird right?
The amount of cognitive dissonance it takes to defend North Korea is staggering. To each his own I guess.
I'm putting more weight on objective observers. People with scientific backgrounds.
You are putting weight on grieving parents who refused an autopsy and a notorious liar.
Whether you want Warmbier to have been physically tortured or not, the evidence of his torture is not present. Which is important, because it contradicts the media story about Warmbier's experience.
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.
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.
I see your point about Iraq and the importance of story lines.
Yes, I am hiding my name.
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.
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.
> Now, that's not to fault the Trump administration for applying maximum pressure on North Korea for an American citizen ending up brain-damaged in its custody: Such behavior warrants punishment. Nor is it to imply that the senior government official lied to The New York Times about the intelligence reports, as some analysts suggested to me; that person seems to have correctly described them. But if the maverick boldness that the administration displayed in rescuing Otto represents the best of Trumpism, what followed once it was clear the reports were flawed encapsulates its troubling disregard for facts when a dubious narrative supports its interests.
You could say that the last sentence is critical but, Trump or no Trump, any government is using sometimes dubious arguments for its own interest. Never let go a crisis go to waste.
He also spends a great deal of time defending the NK hospital procedures and "likely" incarceration facilities.
I mean, personally I'm repulsed by NK. I'm repulsed that Trump treated their leader with dignity. I'm repulsed that this story implies that the north koreans didn't get a fair shake in the press.
And the statement from the coroner saying no evidence of head trauma.
Of course if all of this were lies it would be even worse for an American president to smile and shake hands with those responsible.
The article also sort of glosses over the way NK made up the charge against Otto and other foreigners - the regime abuses world citizens for personal gain.
That sounds like something you believe because you think it should be true :-)
“Listening to [Trump] deliberate on this,” said a State Department official, “he sounded to me a lot more like a dad.”
We (the United States) used Otto Warmbier as a propaganda tool, the media (as in many things to do with Trump) was complicit in this use. While in general, I don't like propaganda, I don't object however, to propaganda in this case - if some good comes of it. It's not the first time we've (as a country) invented a story from near whole cloth to sell something, and it probably wont be the last.
Are there other articles that talk about e.g. the coroner's conclusions? I had not heard those before
Conclusion: either none of the 82 American sailors were white guys, or "beaten and starved for 11 months" doesn't constitute torture.
Ever since the sailors of the U.S.S. Pueblo were beaten in 1968, there have been no clear-cut cases of North Korea physically torturing American prisoners.
If you want to be taken seriously as a journalist, don’t tie the story back to your opinion on Trump. It was an interesting story until he reveals the political motivations behind it. Have the courage to present the facts and let people come to their own conclusions.
His name was Otto Warmbier. I will not forget.
How does one go braindead in a suicide attempt while locked up, without leaving physical evidence of other injuries?
Certainly, none of the other suicide attempts the author listed would qualify.
Later in the article: "Upon learning that this article did not support claims that Otto was beaten, and included the theory that he may have attempted suicide—a possibility that the family, through their lawyer, dismissed categorically—the Warmbiers withdrew a statement that they had previously provided."
The "theory" that he attempted suicide is definitely on shakier ground than the "theories" his injuries were intentionally inflicted on him by the North Koreans.
It is certainly possible that, rather than hanging or strangling himself, he was strangled by someone in the DPRK. The DPRK hasn't done that to any other US prisoner, but it's the DPRK, so who knows?
The problem is that the narrative in the media doesn't have that uncertainty. Rather, it's reported (somewhat widely, though less so after the coroner's report) that there was evidence of physical abuse: scars on his legs, "rearranged" lower teeth, etc.
It is worth adding that the article doesn't say Warmbier tried to kill himself; it just adds that to the stack of plausible causes. It is indeed a very plausible cause.
Is he some kind of ninja?
The doctors would only miss the injuries if they were being told to miss the injuries.
The full year of time to heal only helps the North Koreans cover up injuries they want concealed.
My point is, as it was downthread, that there's a special recent history to reports of abuses by enemies of the US. If the prevailing narrative about Warmbier's treatment by the DPRK is false, and is exploited by the administration as casus belli, that's not hairsplitting.
Like I said earlier: whatever the US accused the Iraqi Baathist regime of doing, their actual abuses were similarly awful. But in the question of how the US relates to other countries, the distinction matters.
Candidly, I think the debate about US/DPRK relations is (on HN) less important than the debate about what it means to report on these stories and to challenge a popular narrative. If I've been triggered to respond by anything in this thread, it's the subtext (in many comments here) that the reporting in this GQ piece is slapdash or done in bad faith.
I didn't say that, if it sounded like I did, sorry!
is exploited by the administration as casus belli
That's a different argument with a higher bar - you can't meet it debating the state of Otto Warmbier's teeth.
it's the subtext (in many comments here) that the reporting in this GQ piece is slapdash or done in bad faith.
For what little it's worth, that gets my goat every single time as well.