1

There is an unprecedented amount of information available regarding the "enhanced interrogation techniques" being used to train military personnel on the prisoners of Guantanamo Bay, such as this article in the New York Times titled "China Inspired Interrogations at Guantánamo"

These techniques are listed on a chart called "Coersive Management Techniques" are exactly the same as Albert Biderman's 1957 chart of Communist Coercive Methods for Eliciting Individual Compliance, and even Berkley Law reports in this document

Many interrogation techniques employed at Guantánamo Bay and elsewhere were specifically designed to exploit psychological weaknesses of detainees. Rather than “break” the body, these techniques could “break” the minds of detainees(pdf)

It seems the media is purposely not linking these subjects and suppressing the information, otherwise, I believe the public would be outraged instead of mindlessly condoning torture, or simply not even caring that innocent people are being destroyed.

closed as off-topic by Sklivvz Mar 4 '15 at 9:47

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "Skeptics Stack Exchange is for challenging unreferenced notable claims, pseudoscience and biased results. This question might not challenge a claim, or the claim identified might not be notable." – Sklivvz
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    You seem to be making up a claim. Did you take a look at our welcome post? It contains useful information on how to ask better questions. – Sklivvz Mar 4 '15 at 9:54
  • I did look at the welcome post. It states notable claims can be easily researched "Performing a quick google search using search terms taken from the question is a good idea." Which, if one does, will see MANY of the same claims. I Cited 3 notable sources. If I am required to answer my own question, why would anyone bother posting a question in the first place? How is something that is skeptical off topic for a site called "skeptics?" – MentalMonarch Mar 4 '15 at 13:40
  • The requirements of having a reference and quoting from the published text is established. PDF included. I've made no edits. I don't use google, however: duckduckgo.com/… – MentalMonarch Mar 4 '15 at 13:43
  • valid references: reporting in NYTimes, archives at UCDavis, archives at Berkeley. not valid: op/ed in Roanoke, conspiracism at WantToKnow. The latter two are your only connections to "Manchurian" or "MKULTRA". – Foo Bar Mar 4 '15 at 15:28
  • i've made the edits – MentalMonarch Mar 4 '15 at 16:03

Browse other questions tagged .