International Committee on Offensive Microwave Weapons Vs. The United States of America
Sent by Walter Bowart of the Freedom of Thought Foundation
International Committee on Offensive Microwave Weapons v. The United States of America
Also see Harlan Girard of ICOMW for more documents.
FREE THINKING
LEGAL NEWS BULLETIN – 5/6/1998 – WHB
After several decades of lawsuits against the government claiming unconstitutional use of mind control against its own citizens, no progress has been made in gaining restitution nor even convincing the courts that such a thing as the invasion of an individual’s mind against his or her will and without his or her knowledge can exist. Previous suits, except for a few MKULTRA cases in which drugs were used against an unwitting subject, have been dismissed as “nuisance suits.” There has been no compensation paid under the Federal Torts Claim Act or in any other way for any form of mind control experimentation or operation other than that which included the use of drugs. Perhaps, this suit will stand up. Then the problem for justice begins. The courts will not be able to operate the way they are presentaly operating under an assumption that if there’s one body committing a crime, there is only one mind making the decision. When mind control is legally proven in all its forms, the justice system will collapse from the weight of a new paradigm — the new legal fact that there can be many minds in one body (forms of apparent possession such as DID) and even forms of “electronic possession” such as what the U.S. Airforce is calling “biological process control.”
This promising case against the U.S.A. was filed on April 15, 1998. Below is the complaint as it was filed in Judge Gladys Kessler’s court. Case Number 1:98CV00939. Deck Type: Civil General. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by the International Committee on Offensive Microwave Weapons. The attorney is :Bernard Fensterwald III, of Fensterwald & Alcorn P.C., 1952 Gallows Road, Suite 307, Vienna, Virginia 22182.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
INTERNATIONAL COMMITTED ON OFFENSIVE MICROWAVE WEAPONS,
P.O. BOX 58700 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102 (Plaintiff),
v.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Defendant)
COMPLAINT
(Administrative Procedures Act; 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq.)
(U.S. Constitution)
COMES NOW Plaintiff, INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE ON OFFENSIVE MICROWAVE WEAPONS, by counsel, and as its Complaint against the United States of America does state as follows:
JURISDICTION
1. This action is brought under 28 U.S.C. 1331.
PARTIES
2. Plaintiff International Committee on Offensive Microwave Weapons (ICOMW) is an unincorporated, non-profit, public interest association headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The ICOMW conducts independent research into the research, development, testing and evaluation of offensive microwave weapons and other biological process control weapons and acts as a clearinghouse for information on that issue. The ICOMW also serves as an advocate for individuals throughout the Untied States who have been unwitting human subjects in the research, development, testing and evaluation of such weapons and who believe that they have suffered physical, mental and emotional injury as the result thereof.
3. Defendant is the government of the Untied States of America and various agencies thereunder; both named hereafter and unnamed.
4. Venue of this action is laid in this district under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1391 (e).
BACKGROUND
5. In 1947, the United States Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Germany established the Nuremberg Code as the standard by which to judge German scientists who had experimented with human subjects during World War II. Among other things, the Code prescribed that “Voluntary consent of the human subject in research is absolutely essential. The duty and responsibility for ascertaining thequality of the consent rests upon each individual, who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment.” A copy of the text of the Nuremberg Code of 1947 is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.
6. In 1948, the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which, at Article 5, states that “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” A copy of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is attached hereto as Exhibit “B”.
7. In 1964, the 18th World Medical Assembly of the World Medical Association met in Helsinki, Finland. As a result of that gathering, the Helsinki Declaration was formulated, which further solidified the principals laid out in the Nuremberg Code, including a re-affirmation of informed consent and the development of the concept of independent review boards to oversee research proposals.
8. In 1966, the United Nations adopted the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which, at Article 7, expanded the definition of cruel and inhuman treatment to include unconsented experimentation on humans and which now prohibits the use of human subjects in medical or scientific experimentation without their free consent. This convention entered into force in 1976 and the Untied States ratified it in 1992. A copy of the pertinent part of the international Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is attached hereto as Exhibit “C”. Also, in 1984, the United Nation as adopted the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment which prohibits the application of physical and mental torture. This convention went into effected on June 26, 1987 and the United States ratified it in 1990.
9. In 1974, the Congress enacted the National Research Act, P.L. 93-348, which reinforced the important precept of informed consent in the conduct of medical research. The Act also established the “Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research” (“Commission”). The Commission was tasked with the duty of identifying “the basic ethical principles that underlie the conduct of biomedical and behavioral research involving human subjects, and to develop guidelines, which should be followed to assure that such research is conducted in accordance with those principles.” Again, one of those important principles was that of informed consent.
10. Thereafter, the Commission met monthly and, in February, 1976, issued the “Belmont Report” containing a statement of basic principles and guidelines to resolve disputes over ethical problems arising out of research with human subjects. The Commission urged the then U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare (“DHEW”), now the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) to adopt the Belmont Report in its entirety as official DHEW policy.
11. In November 1978, Congress enacted P.L. 95-622, establishing the President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research (“President’s Commission”). One of the charges of the President’s Commission was to report biennially to the President, the Congress and appropriate federal agencies and departments on the protection of human subjects of biomedical and behavioral research. Further, the President’s Commission was required to review the adequacy and uniformity of all federal regulations on the protection of human research subjects, the implementation thereof and to make recommendations for corrective legislation and administrative action.
12. The President’s Commission issued its first biennial report in 1981 and, after review and comment, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (“OSTP”), responding on behalf of all affected department and agency heads to the recommendations of the President’s Commission, stated that:
The President should, through appropriate action, require that all federal departments and agencies adopt as a common core the regulations governing research with human subjects issued by the Department of Health and Human services (codified by 45 CFR Part 46), as periodically amended or revised, while permitting additions needed by any department or agency that are not inconsistent with these core provisions. [Emphasis added]. See also 56 FR 28004).
13. As a result of this OSTP pronouncement, a proposed Model Federal Policy was issued for comment on June 3, 1986 and was initially adopted by nineteen (19) federal agencies and departments, including the Department of Defense, on June 18, 1991. This model policy is known as the “Common Rule”.
14. Upon information and belief, the Central Intelligence Agency has not adopted the Common Rule, neither has the Nuclear Regulatory Commission nor the U.S. Department of Labor.
15. In January 1994, President Clinton established the=20Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments (“Advisory Committee”) to examine reports that the federal government had “funded and conducted unethical human radiation experiments during the Cold War.”
16. In September 1994, the U.S. Department of State issued “Civil and Political Rights in the United States: A Report of the United States of America under the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”. In the report, it is noted that the United States considers experimentation on unconsenting human subjects to be a violation of the subject’s constitutional rights under the 4th, 5th and 8th amendments to the United States Constitution. See Exhibit “D” attached to this Complaint.
17. In October 1995, the Advisory Committee issued its Final Report and made certain recommendations on ways in which the federal government should modify its policy governing classified research on human subjects.
18. On March 27, 1997, President Clinton issued a presidential memorandum to the heads of nineteen (19) federal agencies and departments designed to strengthen the protection for human subjects of classified research. A copy of this memorandum is attached hereto as Exhibit “E”. Among other things, the Advisory Committee, as the result of its work, had suggested to the President that all classified research projects meet the following requirements:
obtain informed consent from all human subjects;
inform human subjects of the identity of the sponsoring agency;
inform human subjects that the project involves classified research;
obtain approval from an independent panel that reviews the project’s scientific merit, risk-benefit tradeoffs and ensures that human subjects have enough information to make an informed consent; and
Maintain permanent records of the panel’s deliberation and consent procedures.
19. The President’s March 27, 1997 memorandum adopted most of the recommendations of the Advisory Committee. Further, it instructed all agencies that may conduct or support classified research on humans and that are subject tot he Common Rule to jointly propose in the Federal Register revisions to the Common Rule which would:
Prohibit the waiver of informed consent for classified research;
Prohibit the use of expedited review procedures under the Common Rule for classified research;
Seek public comment on whether or not all research exemptions under the Common Rule should be maintained for classified research;
Provide the following additional information to potential human subjects involved in classified research: 1. Unless exempt, the identity of the federal agency conducting the classified research and 2. A statement that the research project is “classified” and an explanation of what the term “classified” means; and
Adopt several modifications to the institutional review board (IRB) procedures contained within the Common Rule
The President’s memorandum further required that the affected agencies:
Promulgate, after consideration of public comments, final rules on the protection of human subjects of classified research within one year of the issuance of the President’s memorandum, i.e. by March 27, 1998: and
Annually disclose to the Director of OSTP by September 30th of each year, the number of classified research projects involving human subjects underway on that date and other pertinent information, including the number of human subjects on each project. In turn, the Director of OSTP is required to disclose this information to the President, to the appropriate congressional committees and to publish the numbers in the Federal Register.
Finally, and most importantly, the President’s memorandum prohibits, effective March 27, 1998, any agency from conducting or supporting any classified human research “without having proposed and promulgated the Common Rule, including the changes set forth in this [the President’s] memorandum and any subsequent amendments”.
COUNT I
(Declaratory and injunctive Relief)
(Administrative Procedures Act)
20. All of the allegations in Paragraphs 1-19 are repeated herein.
21. The Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 706, conveys upon this Court the power and the jurisdiction to “compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.”
22. As stated above, in Paragraph 16, President Clinton, through his memorandum of March 27, 1997, ordered federal agencies conducting or supporting classified research using human subjects to promulgate certain changes to the Common Rule with the goal of protecting those human subjects and providing adequate informed consent. Further, the President also instructed any agency conducting or supporting classified human research to adopt the Common Rule, as altered per the President’s memorandum of March 27, 1997. Finally, the President’s memorandum required that these actions be taken (in final form) no later than March 27, 1998.
23. The President’s memorandum required the following agency heads to act on or before March 27, 1998:
The Secretary of Defense
The Attorney General
The Secretary of Agriculture
The Secretary of Commerce
The Secretary of Labor
The Secretary of Health and Human Services
The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
The Secretary of Transportation
The Secretary of Energy
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs
The Director of Central Intelligence
The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
The Administrator of the Agency for International Development
The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
The Director of the National Science Foundation
The Chair of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy
The Chair of the Consumer Products Safety Commission
24. Upon Information and belief, none of the heads of the aforementioned federal agencies or departments has, either jointly or independently, adopted the changes for the protection of human subjects involved in classified research mandated by President Clinton in his March27, 1997 memorandum.
25. Upon information and belief, several federal agencies, including but not limited to the U.S. Department of Defense and the branches of service thereunder, are conducting classified research upon human subjects without affording those subjects sufficient information to allow them to make an informed consent and, specifically, failing to provide that information mandated by the President’s Memorandum of March 27, 1997. See Exhibit “E”.
26. Upon information and belief, several federal agencies, including but not limited to, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of Labor, have not adopted the Common Rule. Nonetheless, it is understood they currently conduct or sponsor research involving human subjects, both classified and unclassified and have yet to cease such research despite their failure to adopt the Common Rule as required by the President’s Memorandum of March 27, 1997.
WHEREFORE, these premises considered, the plaintiff demands the following relief:
A declaratory judgement that all federal departments and agencies presently subject to the Common Rule are required forthwith to adopt by final rule all of the recommendations on the protection of human subjects in classified research contained within the President’s memorandum of March 27, 1997;’
A declaratory judgement that all federal departments and agencies NOT presently subject to the Common Rule as a condition precedent to conducting or supporting classified research using human subjects now or in the future and that all classified research currently underway should be suspended until the Common Rule is adopted.
An injunction requiring all federal departments and agencies presently subject to the Common Rule to immediately adopt by final rule all of the recommendations on the protection of human subjects in classified research contained within the President’s memorandum of March27, 1997;
An injunction prohibiting all federal departments and agencies NOT presently subject to the Common Rule from conducting and supporting any classified research using human subjects until such time as they have adopted, by final rule, the Common Rule.
A grant to the Plaintiff of its costs and attorney fees.
All other relief as may properly be granted.
COUNT II
(Declaratory and Injunctive Relief)
(U.S. Constitution)
27. All of the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-26are repeated herein.
28. As stated aforesaid, many federal departments and agencies, including, but not limited to, the Central Intelligence Agency and the U.S. Department of Defense, are, upon information and belief, engaged in advanced weapon research, some of which is classified and which may involve the use of human subjects. See Exhibit “F” attached hereto to this Complaint for a discussion of the types of weapon research presently being conducted in the United States and elsewhere.
29. Within this research is included research on the use of advanced lethal and non-lethal offensive weapons, including lasers, microwaves, acoustics, electromagnetics and other types of “wonder weapons”. See Exhibit “F”.
30. Much of this classified research being conducted upon unwitting human subjects involves the infliction of substantial physical pain, mental anguish, stress, anxiety and confusion, among other symptoms.
31. Upon information and belief, much, if not all, of this classified research, is being conducted or supported under conditions where the human subjects are not being provided with sufficient information (if any at all) by which to make an informed consent as to the experiment being conducted upon them.
32. The conduct of classified research upon human subjects without informed consent and without adequate safeguards constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment” and is a violation of the Eight Amendment tot he U.S. Constitution.
33. The conduct of classified research upon human subjects without informed consent and without adequate safeguards constitutes “unlawful searches and seizures” and is a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which requires that individuals in the United States “be secure in their person.”
34 The conduct of classified research upon human subjects without informed consent and without adequate safeguards constitutes the taking of their liberty without due process of law and is a violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
WHEREFORE, these premises considered, the Plaintiff demands the following relief:
A declaratory judgement that the conduct or support by the Untied States of classified research using human subjects without adequate informed consent ins a violation of the 4th, 5th, and 8th amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
A temporary and permanent injunction prohibiting any federal agency of the United States from conducting or supporting classified research on human subjects without the provision to current and future subjects of sufficient information in order to insure informed consent and by the adoption by each federal agency of the Common Rule.
A grant to the Plaintiff of its costs and attorney fees.
All other relief as may properly be granted.
COUNT III
(Violation of Treaties and International Law)
35. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-34 are restated herein.
36. As stated aforesaid, in 1947, the United States Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Germany established the landmark Nuremberg Code as a standard by which to judge German scientist who had experimented with human subjects during World War II. Among other things, the Nuremberg Code prescribed that “Voluntary consent of the human subjected in research is absolutely essential” and “The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon the individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment.” This document contains the nucleus for all modern day international law governing the use of human subjects in bio-medical and behavioral experimentation. See Exhibit “A”.
37. In 1948, the Untied Nations, meeting in New York, New York, adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In pertinent part, at Article 5, the Declaration states that “No One shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” The United States participated in the adoption of this Declaration. See Exhibit “B”.
38. In 1964, the 18th World Medical Assembly of the World Medical Association met in Helsinki, Finland. As the result of this gathering the Helsinki Declaration was formulated which strengthened the Nuremberg Code, provided more explicit definitions and declared that “Biomedical research involving human subjects must conform to generally accepted scientific principles.” This Declaration was further refined in subsequent meetings of the Assembly in 1975 and 1983.
39. In 1966, the United Nations adopted the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which entered into force on March 23, 1976. The United States ratified this convention in 1992. This convention, at Article 7, outlaws torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, plus specifically, “no one shall be subject without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.” See Exhibit “C”.
40. In 1984, the United Nations adopted the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment, which entered into force on June 26, 1987. The United States ratified this convention on October 27, 1990. This convention strengthened the United Nation’s prior ban on torture contained within the 1948 Universal Declaration of Rights.
41. These international declarations and conventions collectively create an international norm establishing that the conduct or support of classified research on human subjects without their informed consent is illegal and constitutes a violation of the unwitting subject’s civil and political rights. To the extent that this conduct or support of classified research on human subjects involves the infliction of physical or mental pain, stress, anxiety or confusion, this classified research is akin to torture as that term is defined by international law.
42. Further, these treaties, by virtue of Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, are deemed to be the supreme law of the Untied States. By virtue of Article III of the U.S. Constitution, this Court has the jurisdiction to interpret and enforce said treaties against the United States.
43. The United States, through several federal agencies, including, but not limited to the Central Intelligence Agency and the U.S. Department of Defense, have and continue to conduct or support classified research on human subjects without their informed consent, which is in violation of international law, much of which the Untied States itself had a hand in formulating and adopting.
44. The Untied States, by virtue of the Constitution, is obliged to observe these international norms and laws in the conduct of its affairs.
WHEREFORE, these premises considered, the Plaintiff hereby demands the following relief:
A declaratory judgement the United States is conducting and supporting classified research on human subjects without their informed consent and that these practices violate international norms of conduct and international law established by the various international declarations and conventions currently in force.
A public disclosure by all federal agencies or departments that have conducted or supported classified research on human subjects without their informed consent of all past and present projects involving such classified research and
A temporary and permanent injunction prohibiting the further conduct or support of classified research on human subjects without their informed consent by any agency or department of the United States.
A grant to the Plaintiff of its costs and attorney fees.
All other relief as may properly be granted.
Respectfully submitted,
INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE ON OFFENSIVE MICROWAVE WEAPONS
By Counsel
Plaintiff’s Exhibits attached:
A: Nuremberg Code
B: 1948-1998 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (U.N. General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948.
C: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, G.A. res 2200A (XXI), 21 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 52, U.N. Doc A/63316 (1966), 999 U.N.T.S. 171, entered into force Mar. 23, 1976.
D: Article 7 – Freedom from Torture or Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
E: White House Memorandum, March 27, 1997. Subject: Strengthened Protections for Human Subjects of Classified Research.
F: Parameters, U.S. Army War College Quarterly, Vol. XXVIII, No. 1, Spring 1998. The Mind Has No Firewall by Timothy L. Thomas.
G: Wonder Weapons, The Pentagon’s quest for nonlethal arms is amazing. But is it smart? By Douglas Pasternak, U.S. NEWS and World Report, July 7, 1997.
This Page Last Updated: 04/02/2016 11:09:16