The International Legal Implications of “Non-Lethal” Weapons (pdf; 1999)

pdf: The International Legal Implications of “Non-Lethal” Weapons; Michigan Journal of International Law, by David P. Fidler Indiana University School of Law, Bloomington (48 p.)

Webmaster’s Comment:

In Table 1, “Non-Exhaustive List of “Non-Lethal” Technologies,” on page 61, author, professor Fidler, identifies the following types of anti-personnel “non-lethal” technologies:

Acoustical (High-Frequency Sound, Low-Frequency Sound, Polysound, Shrill Noise)
Biological (Disease Microbes, Disease-Transmitting Arthropods)
Chemical (Riot Control Agents, Calmatives, Nausea/Vomit Inducers, Olfactory Agents, Superlubricants, Adhesives)
Electrical (Electric Shock)
Electromagnetic (Electromagnetic Pulses, Microwaves)
Environmental (Weather Modification, Herbicides)
Kinetic (Water Cannon, Air Cannon, Blunt Object Mines, Blunt Object Ammunition)
Mechanical (Entanglers)
Optical (Lasers, Flash Grenades, Holographic Projections)
Psychological (Propaganda, Misinformation, Psychological Operations)

Of the above so-called “non-lethal” weapons, microwave, EM pulses, acoustic, propaganda, misinformation, psychological operations, weather modification and holographic projections are, in my estimation, most commonly deployed against “targeted individuals” and “targeted groups” by governments and their private subcontractors.

On page 62, the author states: “The Health Effects Advisory Panel (HEAP) has criticized the U.S. military’s methodology for analyzing the bio-effects of weapons as scientifically inadequate. HEAP has noted that, outside pepper spray, the Department of Defense has no physical effects data on “non-lethal” weapons and that no valid data on incapacitation or blunt trauma injury exists. Yet the U.S. military and others persist in calling these weapons “non-lethal.” He concludes that: “Given the current state of these new technologies, and their likely future development, thinking about these weapons as “non-lethal” is inaccurate, misleading, and can lead to assumptions that are not warranted by the facts.”

In “The CIA As Organized Crime: How Covert Operations Corrupt America and the World,” Douglas Valentine demonstrates that, all these legal obfuscations aside, “war crimes are U.S. policy” both at home and abroad. Currently, there are no effective legal protections for the millions of innocent civilians who are being targeted by their governments with these and other weapons worldwide.

It seems self-evident that individuals, like nations, have the right to defend themselves from these attacks by whatever means are at their disposal. Currently, my self-defense campaign consists mainly of exposing these contemptible and disgraceful practices of the US government and its hirelings. Other targeted individuals may decide to deploy additional, more violent and destructive means in order to defend themselves and their families.

I regard the Global Government’s Gangstalking-Genocide GESTAPO (G5) operations as a modern form of human sacrifice.

As per Michael Ruppert’s well-researched book on Operation 9/11 (“Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire At the End of the Age of Oil,” 2004), the US government has indeed “crossed the Rubicon” and now wages covert warfare against the American citizenry. Such a situation cannot persist for long. Why would citizens continue to support governments that utilize taxpayer dollars to torture and kill them?