civilian endeavours to protect the environment'

FYI

Minutes of 28/01/1999 - Final Edition
Environment, security and foreign affairs
A4-0005/1999
Resolution on the environment, security and foreign policy
The European Parliament,
- having regard to the motion for a resolution tabled by Mrs Rehn on the potential use of military-related resources for environmental strategies (B4-0551/95),
- having regard to the UN study 'Charting potential uses of resources allocated to military activities for civilian endeavours to protect the environment', UN (A46/364, 17 September 1991),
- having regard to its resolution of 29 June 1995 on anti-personnel landmines: a murderous impediment to development(1),
- having regard to its previous resolutions on non-proliferation and the testing of nuclear weapons and the Canberra Commission report of August 1996 on the abolition of nuclear weapons,
- having regard to the International Court's unanimous ruling on the obligation of the nuclear weapon states to negotiate for a ban on nuclear weapons (Advisory Opinion No. 96/22 of 8 July 1996),
- having regard to its opinion of 19 April 1996 on the proposal for a Council Decision establishing a Community action programme in the field of civil protection (COM(95)0155 - C4-0221/95 - 95/0098(CNS))(2),
- having regard to its earlier resolutions on chemical weapons,
- having regard to the outcome of the UN Conferences in Kyoto in 1997 and Rio de Janeiro in 1992,
- having regard to the hearing on HAARP and Non-lethal Weapons held by its Foreign Affairs Subcommitee on Security and Disarmament in Brussels on 5 February 1998,
- having regard to Rule 148 of its Rules of Procedure,
- having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy and the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection (A4-0005/1999),
A. whereas the end of the Cold War has radically changed the security situation in the world and whereas the relaxation of military tension has resulted in comprehensive disarmament in the military field in general and in nuclear weapons in particular, resulting in considerable cut-backs in defence budgets,
B. whereas, despite this complete transformation of the geostrategic situation since the end of the Cold War, the risk of catastrophic damage to the integrity and sustainability of the global environment, notably its bio-diversity, has not significantly diminished, whether from the accidental or unauthorised firing of nuclear weapons or the authorised use of nuclear weapons based on a perceived but unfounded threat of impending attack,
C. whereas this risk could be very considerably reduced within a very short timeframe by the rapid implementation by all nuclear weapons states of the six steps contained in the Canberra Commission"s report concerning, in particular, the removal of all nuclear weapons from the present " hair trigger alert" readiness and the progressive transfer of all weapons into strategic reserve,
D. whereas Article VI of the 1968 Treaty on the Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) commits all of its parties to undertake "to pursue negotiations in good faith on a treaty on general and complete disarmament" and whereas the Principles and Objectives adopted at the 1995 NPT Conference reaffirmed that the Treaty"s ultimate goal was the complete elimination of nuclear weapons,
E. whereas threats to the environment, the flow of refugees, ethnic tension, terrorism and international crime are new and serious threats to security; whereas the ability to deal with various forms of conflict is increasing in importance as the security scene changes,
F. whereas the world's resources are being exploited as if they were inexhaustible, which has led to increasingly frequent natural and environmental disasters; whereas such local and regional ecological problems may have considerable impact on international relations; regretting that this has not been more clearly reflected in national foreign, security and defence policies,
G. whereas conflicts throughout the world are predominantly at an intra-state rather than inter-state level and, where inter-state conflicts do arise, they are increasingly concerned with access to or the availability of basic vital resources, especially water, food and fuel,
H. whereas the access to and availability of such vital natural resources are inherently connected to environmental degradation and pollution, by both cause and effect, whereas it follows logically therefore that conflict prevention must increasingly focus on these issues,
I. whereas all those factors, which affect the poorest and most vulnerable populations of the world most of all, are constantly increasing the incidence of so-called 'environmental refugees', resulting both in direct pressure on EU immigration and justice policies, on development assistance and spending on humanitarian aid and, indirectly, in increased security problems for the EU in the form of regional instability in other parts of the world,
J. whereas, according to detailed international research collated and published by the Climate Institute in Washington, the number of 'environmental refugees' now exceeds the number of 'traditional refugees' (25 m compared with 22 m) and whereas this figure is expected to double by 2010 and could well rise by substantially more on a worst-case basis,
K. whereas, since the end of the Cold War, although the management of global issues has been largely stripped of the previously dominant ideological context and is now much less determined by the question of military balance, this has yet to be reflected in the UN"s system of global governance by emphasising the coherence and effectiveness of both military and non-military components of security policy,
L. whereas, nonetheless, the emphasis of a growing proportion of the UN"s work on global political and security issues is essentially non-military, and notably related to the relationship between trade, aid, the environment and sustainable development,
M. whereas there is an urgent need to mobilise adequate resources to meet the environmental challenge and whereas very limited resources are available for environmental protection, for which reason a reappraisal of the use of existing resources is called for,
N. whereas as military resources have been released the armed forces have had a unique opportunity and ample capacity to support the civilian efforts to cope with the increasing environmental problems,
O. whereas military-related resources are by their nature national assets while the environmental challenge is global; whereas ways must therefore be found for international cooperation in the transfer and use of military resources for environmental protection,
P. whereas the short-term costs of environmental protection have to be seen in the light of the long-term cost of doing nothing in this field, and whereas there is an increasing need for a cost benefit analysis of various environmental strategies,
Q. whereas the common goal of restoring the world's damaged ecosystems cannot be achieved in isolation from the question of the fair exploitation of global resources and whereas there is a need to facilitate international technical cooperation and encourage the transfer of appropriate military-related technology,
R. whereas, despite the existing conventions, military research is ongoing on environmental manipulation as a weapon, as demonstrated for example by the Alaska-based HAARP system,
S. whereas the general disquiet over ecological decline and environmental crises requires the setting of priorities in the national decision-making process; whereas the individual countries must pool their efforts in response to environmental disasters,

1. Calls on the Commission to present to the Council and Parliament a common strategy, as foreseen by the Amsterdam Treaty, which brings together the CFSP aspects of EU policy with its trade, aid, development and international environmental policies between 2000 and 2010 so as to tackle the following individual issues and the relationships between them:
a) agricultural and food production and environmental degradation;
b) water shortages and transfrontier water supply;
c) deforestation and restoring carbon sinks;
d) unemployment, underemployment and absolute poverty;
e) sustainable development and climate change;
f) deforestation, desertification and population growth;
g) the link between all of the above and global warming and the humanitarian and environmental impact of increasingly extreme weather events;
2. Notes that preventive environmental measures are an important instrument of security policy; calls therefore on the Member States to define environmental and health objectives as part of their long-term defence and security assessments, military research and action plans;
3. Recognises the important part played by the armed forces in a democratic society, their national defence role and the fact that peace-keeping and peace-making initiatives can make a substantial contribution to the prevention of environmental damage;
4. Points out that atmospheric and underground nuclear tests have as a result of nuclear radiation fall-out distributed large quantities of radioactive cesium 137, strontium 90 and other cancer inducing isotopes over the whole planet and have caused considerable environmental and health damage in the test areas;
5. Calls on the Commission and the Council, given the fact that several parts of the world are threatened by the uncontrolled, unsafe and unprofessional storage and dumping of nuclear submarines and surface-vessels, as well as their radioactive fuel and leaking nuclear reactors, to take action, considering the high possibility that as a result large regions might soon start to be polluted by the radiation;
6. Demands also that an appropriate solution be found to deal with the chemical and conventional weapons which have been dumped after both World Wars in many places in the seas around Europe as an ' easy" solution to get rid of these stocks and that up to today nobody knows what might be the ecological results in the long run, in particular for the fish and for beach-life;
7. Calls on the Commission and the Council to contribute towards finding a solution to the problem that, as result of ongoing warfare in whole regions of Africa, human and agricultural structures have been ruined and therefore the lands are now subject to environmental disaster in particular by deforestation and erosion leading to desertification;
8. Calls on the military to end all activities which contribute to damaging the environment and health and to undertake all steps necessary to clean up and decontaminate the polluted areas;
Use of military resources for environmental purposes
9. Considers that the resources available to reverse or stem damage to the environment are inadequate to meet the global challenge; recommends therefore that the Member States seek to utilise military-related resources for environmental protection by:
a) considering which military resources can be made available to the United Nations on a temporary, long-term or stand-by basis as an instrument for international cooperation in environmental disasters or crises;
b) drawing up international and European protection programmes using military personnel, equipment and facilities made available under the Partnership for Peace for use in environmental emergencies;
c) incorporating objectives for environmental protection and sustainable development in their security concepts;
d) ensuring that their armed forces comply with specific environmental rules and that damage caused by them to the environment in the past is made good;
e) including environmental considerations in their military research and development programmes;
10. Urges the Commission, since practical experience in the field is limited, to:
a) establish the exchange of information on current national experience in environmental applications for military resources;
b) take action within the UN to facilitate the global dissemination of environmental data including such data obtained by the use of military satellites and other information-gathering platforms;
11. Calls on the Member States to apply civil environmental legislation to all military activities and to assume responsibility for, and pay for, the investigation, clean-up and decontamination of areas damaged by past military activity, so that such areas can be returned to civil use; this is especially important for the extensive chemical and conventional munition dumps along the coastlines of the EU;
12. Calls on all Member States to formulate environmental and health objectives and action plans so as to enhance the measures taken by their armed forces to protect the environment and health;
13. Calls on the governments of the Member States gradually to improve the protection of the environment by the armed forces by means of training and technical development and by giving all regular and conscript personnel basic training in environmental matters;
14. Considers that environmental strategies should be able to include monitoring the world environment, assessing the data thus collected, coordinating scientific work and disseminating information, exploiting relevant data from national observation and monitoring systems to give a continuous and comprehensive picture of the state of the environment;
15. Notes that the drastic fall in military expenditure could result in substantial problems in certain regions and calls on the Member States to step up their efforts to convert military production facilities and technologies to produce civil goods, and for civil applications, using national programmes and Community initiatives such as the KONVER programme;
16. Stresses the importance of stepping up preventive environmental work with a view to combating environmental and natural disasters;
17. Calls on the Council to do more to ensure that the USA, Russia, India and China sign the 1997 Ottawa Treaty, banning anti-personnel mines, without delay;
18. Believes that the EU should do more to help the victims of landmines and to support the development of mine clearance techniques, and that the development of mine clearance methods should be accelerated;
19. Calls on the Member States to develop environmentally-sound technology for the destruction of weapons;
20. Notes that one of the potentially most serious threats that exist on the EU's doorstep lies in the inadequate monitoring of waste from nuclear arms processing and of biological and chemical weapons stores and in the need for decontamination following military activity; stresses that it is important that the Member States actively promote increased international cooperation, for instance within the UN and the Partnership for Peace, with the aim of destroying such weapons in as environment-friendly a way as possible;
21. Takes the view that all further negotiations on the reduction and the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons must be based on the principles of mutual and balanced reduction commitments;
22. Takes the view that, given the particularly difficult circumstances afflicting the countries of the former Soviet Union, the threat to the global as well as local environment posed by the degradation of the condition of nuclear weapons and materials still held in those countries makes it an even more urgent priority to reach agreement on the further gradual elimination of nuclear weapons;
Legal aspects of military activities
23. Calls on the European Union to seek to have the new 'non-lethal' weapons technology and the development of new arms strategies also covered and regulated by international conventions;
24. Considers HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Project) by virtue of its far-reaching impact on the environment to be a global concern and calls for its legal, ecological and ethical implications to be examined by an international independent body before any further research and testing; regrets the repeated refusal of the United States Administration to send anyone in person to give evidence to the public hearing or any subsequent meeting held by its competent committee into the environmental and public risks connected with the HAARP programme currently being funded in Alaska;
25. Requests the Scientific and Technological Options Assessment (STOA) Panel to agree to examine the scientific and technical evidence provided in all existing research findings on HAARP to assess the exact nature and degree of risk that HAARP poses both to the local and global environment and to public health generally;
26. Calls on the Commission to examine if there are environmental and public health implications of the HAARP programme for Arctic Europe and to report back to Parliament with its findings;
27. Calls for an international convention introducing a global ban on all developments and deployments of weapons which might enable any form of manipulation of human beings;
28. Calls on the Commission and the Council to work for the conclusion of international treaties to protect the environment from unnecessary destruction in the event of war;
29. Calls on the Commission and the Council to work towards the establishment of international standards for the environmental impact of peacetime military activities;
30. Calls on the Council to play an active part in the implementation of the proposals of the Canberra Commission and Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty on nuclear disarmament;
31. Calls on the Council, and the British and French governments in particular, to take the lead within the framework of the NPT and the Conference on Disarmament with regard to the further negotiations towards full implementation of the commitments on nuclear weapons reductions and elimination as rapidly as possible to a level where, in the interim, the global stock of remaining weapons poses no threat to the integrity and sustainability of the global environment;
32. Calls on the Council, the Commission and the governments of the Member States to advocate the approach taken in this resolution in all further United Nations meetings held under the auspices of or in relation to the NPT and the Conference on Disarmament;
33. Calls on the Council and the Commission, in accordance with Article J.7 of the Treaty on European Union, to report to it on the Union"s position concerning the specific points contained in this resolution within the context of forthcoming meetings of the United Nations, its agencies and bodies, notably the 1999 Preparatory Committee of the NPT, the Conference on Disarmament and all other relevant international fora;
o
o o
34. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments of the Member States of the European Union and to the United Nations.

(1)OJ C 183, 17.7.1995, p. 47.
(2)OJ C 141, 13.5.1996, p. 258.

INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE RED CROSS SYMPOSIUM:

http://home.comcast.net/~jmontemayor10/_disc3/0000005b.htm
SOME ASPECTS OF ANTI-PERSONNEL ELECTROMAGNETIC WEAPONS
Synopsis prepared for the International Committee of the Red Cross Symposium:
THE MEDICAL PROFESSION AND THE EFFECTS OF WEAPONS - FEBRUARY 1996
By David Guyatt

Background - 1940 through 1995
The background to the development of anti-personnel electromagnetic weapons can be traced by to the early-middle 1940’s and possibly earlier. The earliest extant reference, to my knowledge, was contained in the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey (Pacific Survey, Military Analysis Division, Volume 63) which reviewed Japanese research and development efforts on a “Death Ray”.
Whilst not reaching the stage of practical application, research was considered to be sufficiently promising to warrant the expenditure of Yen 2 million during the years 1940-1945. Summarizing the Japanese efforts allied scientists concluded that a ray apparatus might be developed that could kill unshielded human beings at a distance of 5 to 10 miles. Studies demonstrated that, for example, automobile engines could be stopped by tuned waves as early as 1943.[1] It is, therefore, reasonable to suppose that this technique has been available for a great many years? Research on living organisms ( mice and ground hogs) revealed that waves from 2 meters to 60 centimeters in length caused hemorrhage of lungs, whereas waves shorter than two meters destroyed brain cells.
However, experiments in behaviour modification and mind manipulation have a grisly past. Nazi doctors at the Dachau concentration camp conducted involuntary experiments with hypnosis and narco-hypnosis - using the drug mescaline - on inmates. Additional research was conducted at Aushwitz, using a range of chemicals including various barbiturates and morphine derivatives. Many of these experiments proved fatal. Following the conclusion of the war the U.S. Naval Technical Mission was tasked with obtaining pertinent industrial and scientific material that had been produced by the Third Reich and which may be of benefit to U.S. interests. Following a lengthy report the Navy instigated Project CHATTER in 1947. Many of the Nazi scientists and medical doctors who conducted these and other hideous experiments were later recruited by the U.S. Army and worked out of Heidelberg prior to being secretly relocated to the United States under the Project PAPERCLIP programme. Under the leadership of Dr. Hubertus Strughold, 34 ex Nazi scientists accepted “Paperclip” contracts, authorised by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and were put to work at Randolph Air Force Base, San Antonio, Texas. By 1953 the CIA, US Navy and the US Army Chemical Corps were conducting their own narco-hypnosis programmes on unwilling victims that included prisoners, mental patients, foreigners, ethic minorities and those classified as sexual deviants.[2]
It was not until the middle or late 1970’s that the American public became aware of a series of hitherto secret programmes that had been conducted over the preceding two decades by the military and intelligence community.[3] Primarily focusing on narco-hypnosis these covert programmes were extensive and were assigned project titles: MKULTRA, MKDELTA, MKNAOMI, MKSEARCH (MK being understood to stand for Mind Kontrol), BLUEBIRD, ARTICHOKE and CHATTER. The principal aim of these and associated programmes was the development of a reliable “programmable” assassin. Secondary aims were the development of a method of citizen control.[4] Particularly relevant was Dr. Jose Delgado’s secret work directed towards the creation of a “psycho-civilised” society by use of a “stimoceiver.”[5] Delgado’s work was seminal and his experiments on human and animals demonstrated that electronic stimulation can excite extreme emotions including rage, lust, fatigue etc. In his paper “Intracerebral Radio Stimulation and recording in Completely Free Patients” , Delgado observed that: “Radio Stimulation on different points in the amygdala and hippocampus in the four patients produced a variety of effect, including pleasant sensations, elation, deep thoughtful concentration, odd feelings, super relaxation (an essential precursor for deep hypnosis [6]) coloured visions, and other responses.” With regard to the “coloured visions” citation, it is reasonable to conclude he was referring to hallucinations - an effect that a number of so called “victims” allude to.[7] As far back as 1969, Delgado predicted the day would soon arrive when a computer would be able to establish two-way radio communication with the brain, an event that first occurred in 1974. Lawrence Pinneo, a neurophysiologist and electronic engineer working for Stanford Research Institute (a leading military contractor), “developed a computer system capable of reading a person’s mind. It correlated brain waves on an electroencephalograph with specific commands. Twenty years ago the computer responded with a dot on a TV screen. Nowadays it could be the input to a stimulator (ESB) in advanced stages using radio frequencies” [8]
In the event, narco-hypnosis was found, it is claimed, to be less than reliable, although some writers and observers dispute this.[9] Additional studies conducted by Dr. Ewen Cameron, and funded by the CIA, were directed towards erasing memory and imposing new personalities on unwilling patients. Cameron discovered that electroshock treatment caused amnesia. He set about a programme that he called “de-patterning” which had the effect of erasing the memory of selected patients. Further work revealed that subjects could be transformed into a virtual blank machine (Tabula Rasa) and then be re-programmed with a technique which he termed “psychic driving”. Such was the bitter public outrage, once his work was revealed (as a result of FOIA searches) that Cameron was forced to retire in disgrace.
Of interest too is Dr. John C. Lilly[10] who was asked by the Director of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) to brief the CIA, FBI, NSA and other military intelligence services on his work using electrodes to stimulate, directly, the pleasure and pain centres of the brain. According to Lilly he refused. However, as revealed in his book he continued to do “useful” work for the national security apparatus. However, in terms of timing this is interesting for these events took place in 1953. Another scientists, Eldon Byrd, who worked for Naval Surface Weapons Office was commissioned in 1981 to develop electromagnetic devices for purposes including “riot control”, clandestine operations and hostage removal.[11] From 1965 through to 1970, Defense Advanced Projects Research Agency (DARPA), with up to 70-80% funding provided by the military, set in motion operation PANDORA to study the health and psychological effects of low intensity microwaves with regard to the so called “Moscow signal”. This project appears to have been quite extensive and included (under US Navy funding) studies demonstrating how to: induce heart seizures, create leaks in the blood brain barrier and production of auditory hallucinations. Despite attempts to render the Pandora programme invisible to scrutiny, FOIA filings revealed memoranda of Richard Cesaro, Director, DARPA, which confirmed that the programme’s initial goal was to “discover whether a carefully controlled microwave signal could control the mind.” Cesaro urged that these studies be made “for potential weapons applications.”[12]
Following immense public outcry, Congress forbade further research and demanded that these projects be terminated across the board, but as Victor Marchetti, a former CIA agent later revealed, the programmes merely became more covert with a high element of “deniability” built in to them., and that CIA claims to the contrary are a “cover story”[13] Despite the fact that many of the aforementioned projects revolved around the use of narcotics and hallucogenics, projects ARTICHOKE, PANDORA and CHATTER clearly demonstrate that “psychoelectronics” were a high priority. Indeed the author John Marks; anonymous informant (known humorously as “Deep Trance”) stated that beginning in 1963 mind control research strongly emphasised electronics.
An obscure District of Columbia corporation called Mankind Research Unlimited (MRU) and its wholly owned subsidiary, Systems Consultants Inc. (SCI) operated a number of classified intelligence, government and Pentagon contracts, specialising in, amongst other things: “problem solving in the areas of intelligence electronic warfare, sensor technology and applications.” [14] MRU’s “capability and experience” is divided into four fields. These include “biophysics - Biological Effects of Magnetic Fields”, “Research in Magneto-fluid Dynamics”, “Planetary Electro-Hydro-Dynamics” and “Geo-pathic Efforts on Living Organisms”. The latter focuses on the induction of illness by altering the magnetic nature of the geography. Also under research were “Biocybernetics, Psychodynamic Experiments in Telepathy”, “Errors in Human Perception” , “Biologically Generated Fields” “Metapsychiatry and the Ultraconscious Mind” (believed to refer to experiments in telepathic mind control), “Behavioural Neuropsychiatry” “Analysis and Measurement of Human Subjective States” and “Human Unconscious Behavioural Patterns”. Employing some old OSS, CIA and military intelligence officers, the company also engages the services of prominent physicians and psychologists including E. Stanton Maxey, Stanley R. Dean Berthold Eric Schwarz plus many more. MRU lists in its Company Capabilities “brain and mind control.”[15] Despite vehement claims by MRU’s chairman that it is not a “front organisation for any branch of the United States Government…”[16] one must treat these claims with a great deal of scepticism.
There followed an extensive hiatus in available information during the 1980’s and up to the present day. This initially appears to have closely paralleled Ronald Reagan’s Presidency and not surprisingly flowed onwards during President Bush’s term of office[17]. As a result the once user-friendly Freedom of Information Act became less accessible and more bureaucratic. Search costs soared and material that had been (or scheduled to be) de-classified was reviewed and re-classified. This phenomenon is not an unusual occurrence in the United States, and tends to shadow the outward face of Congress. Public outrage leads to a temporary liberalisation, but as public memory recedes (all too quickly) the old institutionalised covert ways quickly re-engage. We thus move to more recent times.
During 1989 CNN aired a programme on electromagnetic weapons and showed a US government document that outlined a contingency plan to use EM weapons against “terrorists”. Prior to the show a DoD medical engineer sourced a story claiming that in the context of conditioning, microwaves and other modalities had regularly been used against Palestinians. During 1993 Defense News, the prestigious US weekly announced that Russian government was discussing with American counterparts the transfer of technical information and equipment known as “Acoustic Psycho-correction”. The Russians claimed that this device involves “the transmission of specific commands via static or white noise bands into the human subconscious without upsetting other intellectual functions.” Experts said that demonstrations of this equipment have shown “encouraging” results “after exposure of less than one minute,” and has produced “the ability to alter behaviour on willing and unwilling subjects.” The article goes on to explain that combined “software and hardware associated with the (sic) psycho-correction programme could be procured for as little as US$80,000. The Russians went on to observe that “World opinion is not ready for dealing appropriately with the problems coming from the possibility of direct access to the human mind.” Acoustic psycho-correction dates back to the mid 1970’s and can be used to “suppress riots, control dissidents, demoralise or disable opposing forces and enhance the performance of friendly special operations teams.[18]” One US concern in relation to this device, was aired by Janet Morris of the Global Strategy Council, a Washington based think tank established by former CIA deputy director, Ray Cline, who noted that “Ground troops risk exposure to bone-conducting sound that cannot be offset by earplugs or other protective gear.” In recent months I met with and discussed Russian research efforts, with a contact who had visited Russia earlier this year. He, in turn, met with a number of Russian scientists who are knowledgeable in this field. I have few doubts that the Defense News article cited earlier is fundamentally accurate.
Dr. Ross Adey, in his pioneering work determined that that emotional states and behaviour can be remotely influenced merely by placing a subject in an electromagnetic field. By directing a carrier frequency to stimulate the brain and using amplitude modulation to shape the wave to mimic a desired EEG frequency he was able to impose a 4.5 CPS theta rhythm on his subjects. Drs Joseph Sharp and Allen Frey experimented with microwaves seeking to transmit spoken words directly into the audio cortex via a pulsed-microwave analog of the speaker’s sound vibration. Indeed, Frey’s work in this field, dating back to 1960 gave rise to the so called “Frey effect” which is now more commonly referred to as “microwave hearing.”[19] Within the Pentagon this ability is now known as “Artificial Telepathy”.[20] Adey and others have compiled an entire library of frequencies and pulsation rates which can effect the mind and nervous system[21]
During the siege of Waco, Texas, last year, FBI agents discussed with Russian counterparts the use of Acoustic psycho-correction on David Koresh and the Branch Davidians. In the event it is understood that this contingency did not proceed. However, some unusual EM weapons were deployed at Waco. BBC World News, and additional FBI film-footage (in the possession of this writer) show both the Russian equipment being demonstrated, as well as previously unseen noise generator and an unusual low frequency strobe array in use at Waco.
Have weapons of this nature been developed and field tested? Judged by the number of individuals and groups coming forward with complaints of harassment the answer, appears, to be yes. Kim Besley, of the Greenham Common Women’s Peace Camp, has compiled a fairly extensive catalogue of effects that have resulted from low frequency signals emanating from the US Greenham Common base, and, apparently, targeted upon the women protesters. These include: vertigo, retinal bleeding, burnt face (even at night), nausea, sleep disturbances, palpitations, loss of concentration, loss of memory, disorientation, severe headaches, temporary paralysis, faulty speech co-ordination, irritability and a sense of panic in non-panic situations. Identical and similar effects have been reported elsewhere and appear to be fairly common-place amongst so called “victims”. Many of these symptoms have been associated in medical literature with exposure to microwaves and especially through low intensity or non thermal exposures.[22] These have been reviewed by Dr. Robert Becker, twice nominated for the Noebel Prize, and specialist in EM effects. His report confirms that the symptoms mirror those he would expect to see, had Microwave weapons been deployed.
The Scientific American dated April 1994 carried an article entitled “Bang! You’re Alive” which briefly described some of the known arsenal of Less Than Lethal weapons presently available. These include Laser Rifles, low frequency “”infrasound” generators powerful enough to trigger nausea or diarrhoea. Steve Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) noted that Non-Lethal weapons have been linked to “mind control” devices and that three of the most prominent advocates of non lethality share an interest in psychic phenomena[23]
Current Projects include SLEEPING BEAUTY, directed towards the battlefield use of mind-altering electromagnetic weapons. This project is headed by Jack Verona, a highly placed Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) officer. Dr. Michael Persinger of Laurentian University is also employed on the project. Other sources have revealed a project entitled MONARCH which, supposedly, is directed towards the deliberate creation of severe multiple personality disorder.[24]
It is now the opinion of many that these and related programmes have been brought under the banner of Non Lethal Weapons, otherwise known as Less Than Lethal, which are now promulgated in connection with the doctrine of Low Intensity Conflict, a concept for warfare in the 21st century. It is clear that many of these Pentagon and related LTL programmes operate under high classification. Others consider many similar or related “black” programmes are funded from the vast resources presently available under the US counter-drug law enforcement policy which has a FY 1995 budget of $13.2 billion.[25]
Defense Secretary, William J Perry, issued a memorandum on Non lethal Weapons dated 21 July 1994. This was of interest in that it outlined a tasking priority list for use of these technologies. Second on the list was “crowd control”. Coming in at a poor fifth was “Disable or destroy weapons or weapon development/production processes, including suspected weapons of mass destruction.” It is therefore clear that Non Lethality is fundamentally seen as anti-personnel rather than anti-material. In July this year, Spotlight, a rightist and widely circulated US newspaper reported that well placed DoD sources have confirmed a classified Pentagon contract for the development of “high-power electromagnetic generators that interfere with human brain waves.” The article cited the memorandum of understanding dated 1994 between Attorney General, Janet Reno, and Defense Secretary, William Perry for transfer of LTL weapons to the law enforcement sector. A budget of under $50 million has been made available for funding associated “black” programmes. Dr. Emery Horvath, a professor of physics at Harvard University has stated in connection to the generator that interferes with human brain waves that “These electronic ‘skull-zappers’ are designed to invade the mind and short circuit its synapses...in the hands of government technicians, it may be used to disorient entire crowds, or to manipulate individuals into self destructive acts. It’s a terrifying weapon.”[26]
In a 1993 US Air Command and Staff College paper entitled “Non Lethal Technology and Air Power, authors Maj. Jonathan W. Klaaren (USAF) and Maj. Ronald S. Mitchell (USAF) outlined selected NLT weapons. These included “Acoustic” (pulsed/attenuated high-intensity sound, infrasound (very low frequency) and Polysound (high volume, distracting) as well as High-power microwaves (HPM) that possessed the capability of “deters/incapacitates people… These and other classified weapons are being passed to domestic law enforcement agencies as shown by the 1995 ONDCP (Office of National Drug Control Policy) International Technology Symposium “Counter-Drug Law Enforcement: Applied Technology for Improved Operational Effectiveness” that outlined the “Transition of advanced military technologies to the civil law enforcement environment” There are some observers who fear that the burgeoning narcotics industry is an ideal “cover” in which to “transit” Non Lethal Technologies to domestic political tasks. Whether this is merely a misplaced “Orwellian” fear remains to be seen. However, organised crime is so globally “organised” that experts now believe it is impossible to eradicate or even effectively combat.[27]
The foregoing gives some necessary background to the origins and timing surrounding the development of anti-personnel electromagnetic weapons, and in particular demonstrates that the USA have an intense and long established interest in mind control and behaviour modification that spans five decades. As we have seen, fragmentary information has surfaced for brief spells, only to disappear, once more, from public scrutiny. It remains to be said that a great many advances in the realm of electromagnetic field technology and mind control techniques have, apparently, been made during the sixties, seventies and eighties. In particular, veterans of the Vietnam war are still coming forward with bizarre stories, which collectively (if true?) point to a leap in knowledge that largely remains hidden behind the thick curtain of security classification.[28]
Major Edward Dames, formerly with the Pentagon’s Defence Intelligence Agency until 1992, was a long serving member of the highly classified operation GRILL-FLAME, a programme that focused on some of the more bizarre possibilities of intelligence gathering and remote interrogation. Known as “remote viewers” GRILL-FLAME personnel possessed a marked psychic ability that was put to use “penetrating” designated targets and gathering important intelligence on significant figures. The programme operated with two teams; one working out of the top secret NSA facility at Fort George Meade in Maryland, and the other at SRI. Results are said to have been exemplary. Following the Oliver North debacle the Secretary of Defense officially terminated GRILL-FLAME fearing bad publicity were the programme to become known to the public. The leading members of the project - including Dames - immediately relocated to the privately owned and newly formed Psi-Tech, and continue their work to this day, operating under government contract. In the course of his work, Dames was (and remains) close to many the leading figures and proponents Anti-Personnel Electromagnetic Weapons especially those that operate in the neurological field. During NBC’s “The Other Side” programme, Dames stated that “The US Government has an electronic device which could implant thoughts in people.” He refused to comment further. The programme was broadcast during April of last year (1995).
This over-view is merely a “fragmentary” glimpse of programmes that have been, and continue to be blanketed under tight security classification. Where information was available through FOIA filings, a great deal of additional information (in fact the greatest bulk) was purposely destroyed or otherwise lost. However, this writer considers that what is available is sufficient to draw the conclusion that ongoing research, development and deployment of EM weapon systems that impact on the biological functions of the body, or more importantly, interfere with the human mind, are cause for the greatest humanitarian concern.
In an age where the threat of global warfare has diminished as a result of the easing of tension between east and west, it can be anticipated that some form of introspection will occur in the developed western nations. Societies that have been generationally and economically honed for warfare do not, on the whole, assume “for peace” production with such vigour and ability. Why this is so, is not the subject of this paper. Unable to so readily project the “shadow” outwards on to another nation, the enemy without soon distils to become the enemy within?[29] In the United States[30], for example, there is a rapidly developing trend of co-operation between the military and law enforcement agencies in LTL weaponry. Whilst it is clear that this is driven to some extent by budgetary considerations, there remain legitimate concerns regarding the longer term effect on democracy.
The reality of an increasingly (and increasing number of) impoverished lower class as a result of “swords to shears” economics, is certain to result in growing civil unrest, disobedience, strife, inner city turmoil and quite possibly much worse[31]. Rather that seeking to resolve the underlying causes of these tensions, it is feared that governments will increasingly resort to more durable measures to quell domestic dissent. Western industrial nations are especially prone to these developments for a variety of reasons[32].
Less Than Lethal Anti Personnel weapons[33] are seen in some influential quarters as being the ideal remedy for future domestic disturbances of this magnitude[34]. The danger with such possibilities is that western democracy may begin to fail, or suffer such severe set-backs in its traditional democratic forms that it will become increasingly repressive and oligarchic.[35] Armed with innovative technological weapons that do not necessarily kill,[36] but which render disenfranchised segments of society physically inactive, emotionally stupefied and incapable of meaningful thought is a goal of those who favour a “psycho-civilised society” This is a frightening and all too realistic scenario. Whether by design or by default such an outcome is nothing short of a dictatorship.
This is the real fear for the future of some classes of Non Lethal weapon developments and the use to which they have been, or may be put to.
ADDENDUM 23 APRIL 1996
Following the preparation of this paper and prior to its publication by Dr. Nick Begich in “Earthpulse Flashpoints,” a small number of factual errors and miscellaneous comments have been received and are now included below for the sake of accuracy.
1) Footnote 35. Naom Chomsky, in correspondence with this writer, advises that: “…we don’t really ‘argue that democracy has already been replaced.’ Rather, that its functioning depends on an authentic free press, and that it exists only in part. That there is a one-party state – in the sense that there are only factions of ‘the business party’ is not our idea; C. Wright Mills, among others, going way back.”
2) Chomsky also refers to my caveat about the “Spotlight” article (see footnote 26) concerning the comments ascribed to Dr. Horvath and observers that “It’s not the kind of comment that a Harvard physicist would be likely to make.” It’s such an glaring observation that I wonder why I hadn’t thought of it myself. I still haven’t heard back from Dr. Horvath, if indeed such a person exists. This citation, therefore, needs to be taken with even greater care. On the other hand, Dr. Steve Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists has now written to me advising: “Spotlight is, to my mind, a thoroughly non-credible source (as you suggest). Without being able to verify the rest of the article, however, the quotation ascribed to me was accurate.”
3) In a lengthy telephone call, British researcher, Armen Victorian, pointed out a number of relevant and interesting facts: A) Maj. General Stubblebine is no longer with Psi-Tech - he was removed in a “palace coup” engineered, Armen says, by Major Ed. Dames and Col. John Alexander. B) In addition to his (DoD backed) Ad Hoc advisory role on Non Lethality for NATO, Alexander has now moved to head up multi-millionaire, R. Bigelow’s, new Nevada based National Institute for Discovery Science (NIDS). Bigelow is recruiting “top draw” personnel to study fringe science subjects including Remote Viewing, UFO’s etc. Jacques Vallee, the renown French born UFO researcher is also part of the team. Armen will have a more in-depth article on these matters published in a forthcoming issue of Robin Ramsay’s LOBSTER.
4) Project Monarch: Martin Cannon has more recently written stating that he believes this project to be fabricated.
Footnotes
[1] Interestingly, this capability is now confirmed in recent press reports in regard to LTL weapons.
[2] For a fuller account of the Nazi experiments refer to Resonance No 29 November 1995, published by the Bioelectromagnetic Special Interest Group of American Mensa Ltd., and drawn from a series of articles published by the Napa Sentinel, 1991 by Harry Martin and David Caul.
[3] In particular the publication of John Marks “The Search for the Manchurian Candidate” (Penguin Books, London 1979) and Walter Bowart’s “Operation Mind Control” (Fontana Books, London 1979).
[4] Walter Bowart.
[5] See Delgado’s “Physical Control of the Mind: Towards a Psychocivilised Society”, “Intracerebral Radio Stimulation in Completely Free Patients” in Schiwitgebel & Schwitzgebel (eds.). Speaking in 1966, Delgado asserted that his research “supported the distasteful conclusion that motion, emotion and behaviour can be directed by electrical forces and that humans can be controlled like robots by push buttons.” (Think 32 July-August 1966). Delgado was funded by the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI). It is believed he still works as a consultant for the US government.
[6] My italics.
[7] See “Mind Control and the American Government” by Martin Cannon, LOBSTER 23.
[8] See “Neural Manipulation by Radar” by Armen Victorian, LOBSTER 30, and also Time Magazine, July 1, 1974 “Mind Reading Computer.”
[9]Marks notes that the vast bulk of CIA key documents were illegally destroyed, in 1973, at the order of the then DCI, Richard Helms. Other writers have noted the psychological profile of Sirhan Beshara Sirhan noting a virtually impregnable “amnesia” which lasts to this day. In 1968 Dr. George Eastabrooks (considered by some to be the grand-daddy of hypnosis in warfare) told a reporter at the Providence Evening Bulletin that he had conducted extensive hypnosis work on behalf of the CIA, FBI and military intelligence. He went on to say that the key to creating an effective spy or assassin rests in “creating a multiple personality, with the aid of hypnosis”, a technique which Eastabrooks considered as “child’s play. He went on to suggest that “Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby could very well have been performing through hypnosis.” Of interest in this context was a book written by Lincoln Lawrence (a pseudonym), a former FBI agent who revealed the existence of a 350 page CIA document that outlined a technique termed RHIC-EDOM (Radio Hypnosis Intra -Cerebral Control - Electronic Dissolution of Memory. Certainly many of the above cited CIA programmes were dedicated to electronically inducing amnesia. The case studies of Dr. Ewen Cameron in this context remain the most notable and the most chilling. )
[10][10]See his autobiography “The Scientist”.
[11]Anna Keeler in Full Disclosure 1989.
[12]Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report released under FOIA. Also see Anna Keeler. Capt Paul E Tyler, MC, USN paper entitled “The Electromagnetic Spectrum in Low Intensity Conflict” (CADRE 1986) is also relevant in this connection. Tyler’s observation are, understandably, shrouded in “maybes and what ifs” but is non the less instructive when placed in context to PANDORA and other projects.
[13] In an interview with John Marks. CIA veteran Miles Copeland admitted to a journalist prior to his death that “The congressional subcommittees which went into this sort of thing got only the barest glimpse.” Likewise, hypnosis expert Milton Kline, a veteran of covert experimentation in this field confirmed in 1977, that his work for the government continued.
[14] See A. J. Weberman’s “The Story of Mankind Research Unlimited, Inc.” Covert Action Quarterly, issue 9, June 1980.
[15] Ibid. Cited from “leaked” and/or “stolen” documents.
[16] Ibid.
[17]Despite his apparently Democratic credentials President Clinton is not a reformer in this regard. In lock-step with all previous administrations dating back to the 1930’s, President Clinton’s administration is heavily composed of individuals who are members of the CFR or the Trilateral Commission (or both). There is some evidence to suggest that President Clinton had a special and close connection to the Central Intelligence Agency during his days as Governor of Arkansas. Terry Reed, and ex CIA agent has revealed that Clinton was an Agency “asset” during the period he worked for the CIA. This may not be as preposterous as it appears in view of the “Starr Commission’s” decision to investigate this aspect of the President’s past.
[18][18]In connection with “enhancing abilities of friendly forces” see numerous articles and exposé’s on Col. John B. Alexander. Alexander, a former Commander of Green Berets special forces was a member of the US “Phoenix” assassination programme in Vietnam. Until recently he was Director of Non lethal programmes in Los Alamos National Laboratory, but has since resigned following, it is believed, an undue amount of negative press. He remains NATO’s adviser on NLD. Alexander wrote a book an article ( and later co-authored a book entitled The Warrior’s Edge) published in Military Review in which he outlined a number of hitherto “fringe” subjects - including telepathy - that should be brought in to the battery of future weapons. Alexander is dedicated to the development of a super-human soldier with enhanced abilities leading to an “invincible warrior.” In his book he likens such a soldier to be a JEDI KNIGHT, from the film Star Wars (Project Jedi). He has powerful sponsors including Vice President Al Gore. Alexander is cited as being the grand daddy of NLD. He is known to be heavily engaged in mind control and psychotronic projects. See Armen Victorian “Psychic Warfare and Non lethal Weapons.”
[19]In this connection the work of Dr. James Lin of Wayne State University should be noted. Lin has written a book entitled “Microwave Auditory Effects & Applications” in which he states “The capability of communicating directly with humans by pulsed microwaves is obviously not limited to the field of therapeutic medicine.”
[20]Refer to Dr. Robert Becker who has stated “Such a device has obvious applications in covert operations designed to drive a target crazy with “voices” or deliver undetected instructions to a programmed assassin.” In 1974 Dr J F Scapitz filed a plan to explore the interaction of radio signals and hypnosis. He stated that “In this investigation it will be shown that the spoken word of the hypnotists may be conveyed by modulate electromagnetic energy directly into the subconscious parts of the human brain - i.e. without employing any technical devices for receiving or transcoding the messages and without the person exposed to such influence having a chance to control the information input consciously.” Schapitz’ work was funded by the DoD. Despite FOIA filings his work has never been made available. Also it is interesting to note the date of 1974, which almost exactly mirror’s the period when the USSR commenced its own programme that resulted in “Acoustic Psycho-correction technology.”
[21]During October 1994 Dr. Ross Adey visited London to address a conference on the health implications of EM fields. At that time this writer was collaborating with a well known documentary film maker to make a documentary on this subject. I approached the conference organisers, given a free invite and assured that I would be permitted to speak with Dr. Adey privately. Additionally I assured the organiser that any meeting would be strictly confidential and off the record if Dr. Adey would feel more comfortable with that. In the event Dr. Adey declined to meet with me and my complimentary invitation to attend the conference was rescinded. Dr. Adey said the subject was “too technical?” to discuss.
[22]Much similar effects have been reported, for instance, at the Women’s Peace camp at Seneca, in New York state.
[23]Psychic phenomena studies were, in fact, part of classified Pentagon programmes dating back over two decades. Two separate “teams” conducted advanced experiments. One team operated out of SRI and the other from the NSA’s Fort George Meade facility in Maryland. During that time, Major General Albert N. Stubblebine, Director of US Army Intelligence and Security Command oversaw a programme dedicated to “remote viewing” where operatives were tasked with, amongst other things, tracking Soviet “Boomer” submarines. Stubblebine is presently Chairman of the Board of Directors of PSI-TECH a private company specialising in remote viewing and other activities. Col. John Alexander is also on the board. The company also employs Major Edward Dames (ex DIA), Major David Moorhouse (ex 82nd Airborne), and Ron Blackburn (former microwave scientist and specialist, Kirkland Air Force base).. PSI-TECH operate in the private sector and have received a number of classified government contracts. During the Gulf war the company was approached by DoD with a request that the company’s remote viewers be tasked with tracking and locating Iraq’s Scud missiles. Col Alexander and C.B. Scott Jones (who has previously worked for the US government on mind control technology) both share an interest in Unidentified Flying Objects. The highly regarded New York Times journalist Howard Blum revealed in his book “Out There” that there is, indeed, a DoD UFO working group within the DIA. I mention this aspect only to demonstrate that the military and intelligence community are not averse to experimenting in and expending prodigious amounts of tax dollars on some of the “weirder” areas of life. The remote viewing teams were disbanded following the Oliver North fiasco by the Secretary of Defense who was concerned at the potential bad publicity. Thereafter, Psi-Tech was formed and the work continues…
[24]Refer Martin Cannon. Lobster 23 “Mind Control and the American Government.” Martin is an independent and objective researcher who has spent a considerable amount of time and personal money in researching this subject. See earlier reference to Dr. George Eastabrooks, footnote 3.
[25]On October 24-27 1995, the Counter-Drug Technology Assessment Center held a symposium at Nashua, New Hampshire. Subjects discussed included the “transition of advanced military technologies to the civil law enforcement environment. These include advanced tracking, tagging, radio frequency and other “non-intrusive” technologies.
[26]I have certain caveats in citing this material. Firstly, I have written to Dr. Horvath and the two other scientists referred to in the Spotlight article. To date none have replied either to confirm or deny their comments? One of them, Steve Aftergood is highly reputable and is known to me indirectly. The other two are not known to me at all. It is also important to point out that Spotlight is an ultra right wing publication and one must, therefore, take these citations with due caution. On the other hand Spotlight shares a considerable “ethos” with some far right elements of the military and intelligence community who are in a position to know about these developments and for their own reasons may have made this information available.
[27] See Brian Freemantle’s “The Octopus” Orion Books Ltd, 1995.
[28] See Walter Bowart’s “Operation Mind Control” recounting some chilling stories involving Vietnam veterans. In particular the case of “David” and ex US Air Force officer who had his memory “erased” following his term of service.
[29]See the Collected Works of Carl Gustav Jung for a background to the psychology of “projection”.
[31]Aggravated by narcotics related crime - presently estimated to between $500 - $800 billion a year, thus an industry outstripping all other “business sectors” with the possible exception of the weapons industry. These figures extracted from Brian Freemantle’s “The Octopus” Orion Books Ltd, 1995.
[32]The present economic reality (and that for the foreseeable future) is that the once abundant life-style for large segments of western citizens will continue to erode. This will inevitably lead to dissatisfaction that will increasingly manifest itself in civil disturbance. Economically powerless to change direction, governments may possibly resort to authoritarian remedies, fuelling greater unrest and a repetition of the vicious cycle. This model is based on the clear evidence that “nations” no longer possess the economic might to “buck” the markets. The globalisation of finance and the internationalisation of “free markets”, has led to (or perhaps resulted from?) giant “stateless” Trans National Corporations. Collectively, TNC’s far outweigh the economic power of any one sovereign state. Under the combined onslaught of TNC’s acting in concert, (referred to as “market trends”) even G7 (in the form of combined Central Bank intervention) is often rendered powerless. Under this scenario the future does not bode well. TNC’s will continue to accrue to themselves an increasing proportion of the world’s wealth, whereas nation states will grow increasingly reliant upon sovereign indebtedness to finance themselves or gradually assume “Third World” economies . The burden of “servicing” sovereign debt is met by a combination of fiscal measures, primarily increased domestic taxation (direct, indirect and more hidden measures) and decreased expenditure. Both measures impact heavily on the poorer classes and yet generally benefit the TNC’s who remain large tax recipients. Effectively powerless, the political structure in sovereign states will have little alternative but to present to its citizens, a facade of being in control if it is to remain in power. Bereft of economic muscle, old-fashioned real “muscle” (in the form of soft-kill-technologies) are likely to become more meaningful to the rule of law concept. It is, therefore, self evident that LTL weapons will thus be directed at the “rebellious” poorer classes . The Mexican “Chiapas” are an early warning sign of how these socio-economic factors are likely to impact in the future. Mexico today, the United States tomorrow, and thereafter ? See Noam Chomsky’s World Orders Old and New for a more comprehensive analysis of the TNC global phenomenon.
[33]Especially some classes of EM weapons that are viewed as having a capability to remotely modify behaviour or attack higher functions.
[34] See Department of Defense Draft directive dated January 1, 1995 outlining taking objectives for Non Lethal Weapons.
[35] See Noam Chomsky’s and Edward Herman’s “Manufacturing Consent” (Pantheon Books, New York, 1988). The authors exhaustingly detail the widespread role of the media to propagandise “elitist” objectives whilst downplaying or ignoring altogether “hard news” that doesn’t fit the “propaganda model”. As a result domestic “consent” is engineered both by the absence of information that doesn’t fit the “model” and by exclusively featuring stories or hard news that do. The impact of these techniques effectively restricts political and economic debate, sidelining contrary viewpoints. Thus the authors argue that democracy has already been replaced and that, de facto, a one party state has been crafted.
[36]This so called “soft kill” ability is politically desirable.

http://home.comcast.net/~jmontemayor10/scientific/haarpeden.htm
HAARP: A Weapon of Total Destruction
by Dan Eden
http://www.viewzone.com/haarp00.html
Editor's Note: Many articles have been written about HAARP. What this author wishes to make clear is that he believes HAARP is not the actual facility designed to be used as a military system but a "front" or "red herring" facility which allows the authorities to deny important questions about its purpose and operation. The real facility is located in Poker Flats, North of Fairbanks, Alaska. Please read the Congressional Executive Summary which is provided here in full for the truth.
Albert Einstein's theories of relativity and the development of atomic energy are seen as the pinnacles of Twentieth Century technology. But Bernard Eastlund's discoveries, when they are eventually disclosed, will render many of Einstein's innovations obsolete.
You've probably never heard of Bernard Eastlund. If the US military has their way, you probably won't. He's a very private physicist with a small company in Houston. In the mid-80's, Eastlund invented and patented a technology that will nevertheless reshape our lives, for better or for worse, whether we like it or not.
Last month, ViewZone ran a photograph that was sent to us for identification (see Unusual Photographs). We received many wild explanations, from underground alien bases to ancient city streets. But a handful of anonymous e-mails were consistent. These described the long, parallel, perfectly straight lines as part of an antenna complex used to communicate with submerged submarines. These same e-mails spoke of "death rays" that could blast distant locations with lethal electromagnetic radiation.
The photograph was eventually believed to be an ELF (an acronym for Extremely Low Frequency) antenna installation, designed for submarine communication. There is one almost identical to the photograph in Michigan. Since our anonymous informants seemed to be so knowledgeable, we were curious about their claims of a "death ray" installation located somewhe
http://www.peaceinspace.org
Add Your Comments
http://www.chem-trails.org
by Brendan
Wednesday Sep 21st, 2005 9:53 PM
CERTAIN PEOPLE NEED TO BE REMOVED FROM THEIR POSITIONS OF POWER. ALL DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS BESIDES MAYBE A HAND HELD STUN GUN NEED TO BE BANNED. PEOPLE HAVE BEEN BEING TORTURED, POSSIBLY FROM SATELLITES!

CHEMTRAILS ALSO NEED TO BE BANNED!

Brendan
http://www.chem-trails.org
Add a Comment
You're kidding, right?
by Tortured by satellites?
Thursday Sep 22nd, 2005 8:47 AM
If this is serious you shouldn't skip your medication like that.
Add a Comment
Before you dismiss the technology,
by pointer
Thursday Sep 22nd, 2005 9:26 AM
click here:

http://www.mikrowellenterror.de/english/mw-weapon.htm
Add a Comment
Not denying energy weapons...
by Tortured By Satellites
Thursday Sep 22nd, 2005 9:52 AM
I'm not denying that there are energy weapons in development, just check out his website about how cessna's are controlling his brain and contrails from jet's are DNA altering substances. It's the funniest thing that I have ever seen.

http://www.chem-trails.org/
Add a Comment
since u just wiped my other post
by Brendan
Thursday Sep 22nd, 2005 10:38 AM
It's now obvious that the person(s) running this indymedia website are big bro.

thanks, u guys r so pathetic and idiotic.

thanks for promoting my link too.

Brendan
Add a Comment
"there are energy weapons in development"
by read further
Thursday Sep 22nd, 2005 11:04 AM
They're in use. They're even in private hands, since they're so easy to build.

See:

Soleilmavis: Please Sign your support to stop Mind control and Directed Energy weapons torturing and harassment

Soleilmavis: Please Sign your support to stop Mind control and Directed Energy weapons torturing and harassment

Resources for Torture Survivors

Resources for Torture Survivors, Refugees, & Asylum-Seekersskip navigation

home

using this site

change text & contrast

Topics on this site:

APA resignation

assessment

Bev Greene images

boundaries

Carolyn Payton

detainee interrogations

ethics codes

ethics & malpractice

fallacies & pitfalls

informed consent

Katrina & The Tsunami

laws & boards

military & families

medication help

memory & abuse

sexual issues

suicide

therapist as person

torture & refugees

About this site:

Ken Pope

VioletSky Design

copyright

disclaimer

site map

search this site

Ken's Other Sites:

Accessibility & Disability

Animal Help
Special Cats & Dogs

home » torture & resources » torture resources

Resources Finder for Torture Victims, Asylum-Seekers, & Refugees
In helping torture survivors and those who seek asylum or find refuge in new countries, a major problem is quickly locating resources.

There are over 130 links below to resources such as:

major centers (e.g., Program for Torture Victims, Los Angeles; Bellvue/NYU Program for Survivors of Torture; Berlin Center for Treatment of Torture Victims; Canadian Centre for Victims of Torture),
online courses (e.g., Caring for Refugees and Survivors of Torture: An Internet Course),
legal services (e.g., Lawyers Without Borders; Human Rights First),
information about asylum and refuge (e.g., U.S. Asylum Network; Asylum Law Resources; Immigration Resource Directory),
networks of torture survivors (e.g., Survivors of Torture International; Torture Survivors Network),
human rights organizations providing information and services (e.g., African Rights; Amnesty International; Asian Human Rights Commission; Coalition of International NGOs against Torture; Human Rights Hotline; RefugeeNet),
guides to assessment (e.g., Health Professional's Guide to Medical and Psychological Evaluations of Torture; Manual on Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture), and
other diverse resources.
Please follow this link for a related page on this web site containing over 130 citations of articles addressing Psychologists' & Physicians' Involvement in Detainee Interrogations.

Links to Online Resources for for Torture Survivors, Asylum-Seekers, & Refugees:
Advocates for Survivors of Torture & Trauma
Amani Community-based Care of Survivors of Torture and Organised Violence
AMCHA Israeli Center for Holocaust Survivors
American Association for the Advancement of Science Human Rights Action Network
Amnesty for Women
Amnesty International Canada
Amnesty International Online
Amnesty International UK
Amnesty International USA
Asian Human Rights Commission
Association for Prevention of Torture
Association for Services to Torture and Trauma Survivors
Association for Solidarity With Asylum Seekers & Migrants
Association of Refugees & Asylum Seekers of Ireland
Asylum Network
Asylum Support
Bellvue/NYU Program for Survivors of Torture
Berlin Center for Treatment of Torture Victims
Boston Center for Refugee Health & Human Rights
Canadian Centre for Victims of Torture
Canadian Council for Refugees
Caring for Refugees and Survivors of Torture: An Online Course
Center for Justice and Accountability
Center for Multicultural Human Services Survivors of Torture and Trauma Program
Center for Survivors of Torture, Dallas
Center for Survivors of Torture & War Trauma, St. Louis, Missouri
Center for Victims of Torture, Minneapolis
Center for Victims of Torture, Nepal
CINAT: Coalition of International NGOs against Torture
Citizenship & Immigration Canada
Danish Refugee Council
Derechos Human Rights
Detained Torture Survivor Legal Support Network
Detention Watch Network
Edmonton Center for Survivors of Torture and Trauma
Electronic Immigration Network, U.K.
Episcopal Migration Ministry Serving Refugees & Immigrants
ETICA Treatment Centre for Traumatised Refugees, Migrants, and Danes (Copenhagen, Denmark)
European Committee for the Prevention of Torture
European Council on Refugees in Exile
F.I.R.S.T. Project for Immigrants & Refugees Surviving Torture
Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project
Florida Center for Survivors of Torture & Refugees
Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center
Geneva Conventions
Global Lawyers and Physicians for Human Rights
Harvard Program in Refugee Trauma
Health Professional's Guide to Medical and Psychological Evaluations of Torture
Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society
Human Rights First
Human Rights Hotline
Human Rights Internet
Human Rights Organizations Database
Human Rights Watch
Huridocs Human Rights Information and Documentation Systems, International
Immigration Resource Directory
International Center for the Protection of Human Rights
International Committee of the Red Cross
International Detention Coalition
International Federation of Action by Christians Against Torture (FIACAT)
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights
International League for Human Rights
International Refugee Program
International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims
International Rescue Committee
International Service for Human Rights
Irish Refugee Council
Istanbul Protocol: International Guidelines for the
Investigation & Documentation of Torture
Kenya Human Rights Commission Resource Center
Kwazulu-Natal Programme for Survivors of Violence
Lawyers Committee for Human Rights (see Human Rights First)
Lawyers Without Borders
Los Angeles Program for Torture Victims
Lutheran Immigration & Refugee Service
Marjorie Kovier Center for the Treatment of Survivors of Torture of the Heartland (Chicago & the Midwest)
Medact Refugeee Health Network
Medical Evaluations of Asylum Seekers
Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture
Medical Justice: Seeking Basic Rights for Detainees
National Center for PTSD
National Immigration Law Center
National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights
Norwegian Refugee Council
Organization for Aid to Refugees, Prague, Czech Republic
Organization for Defending Victims of Violence, Iran
Pennsylvania Immigration Resource Center
The Phoenix Centre for Torture Survivors, Tasmania
Physicians for Human Rights
PILOTS: Searchable database of published literature on PTSD
Program for Survivors of Torture & Severe Trauma
Queensland Program of Assistance to Survivors of Torture and Trauma
Redress
Refugee Immigration Ministry, Boston
Rehabilitation and Research Centre for Torture Victims
Responding to Victims of Torture: Clinical Issues, Professional Responsibilities, & Useful Resources
Rights International: Center for International Human Rights Law
RIVO: Intervention Network for People Having Been Subjected to Organized Violence
Rocky Mountain Survivors Center
Scholars at Risk Network
Service Dogs For Victims of Assault (Note: Only survivors of specific types of torture will qualify)
Sprog Center Denmark (language courses for traumatized refugees or survivors of torture)
Survivors International
Survivors of Torture International
Torture (chapter published by Academic Press)
Tortura Nunca Mais
Torture Abolition and Survivors Support Coalition
Torture & Its Neurological Sequelae
Torture & Psychological Health
Torture Reporting Handbook
Torture Treatment Center of Oregon
Torture and War Trauma Survivors in Primary Care Practice
Trauma Centre for Survivors of Violence and Torture
Traumatic Stress Institute
Treatment and Rehabilitation Centre for Victims of Torture (TRC), Ramallah, West Bank, Palestine
U.S. Committee for Refugees
U.S. Conclusions and Recommendations of the Committee against Torture
U.S. Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration
U.N. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
U.N. Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights
U.N. Human Rights
U.N. Methods of Combating Torture
U.N. Principles of Medical Ethics relevant to the Role of Health Personnel, particularly Physicians, in the Protection of Prisoners and Detainees against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Unrepresented Nations & Peoples Organization
Vancouver Association for Survivors of Torture (VAST)
Victoria Coalition for Survivors of Torture (VCST)
Victorian Foundation for the Survivors of Torture
Wellington Refugees As Survivors, New Zealand
Women's Commission for Refugee Women & Children
World Legal Information Institute
World Organization Against Torture




[Back to Top]

FYI

Pentagon Pundit Scandal Broke the Law
Submitted by Diane Farsetta and Sheldon Rampton on Mon, 04/28/2008 - 19:04.
Topics: democracy | ethics | media | propaganda | pundits | secrecy | third party technique | U.S. government | war/peace

The Pentagon military analyst program unveiled in last week's exposé by David Barstow in the New York Times was not just unethical but illegal. It violates, for starters, specific restrictions that Congress has been placing in its annual appropriation bills every year since 1951. According to those restrictions, "No part of any appropriation contained in this or any other Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized by the Congress."

As explained in a March 21, 2005 report by the Congressional Research Service, "publicity or propaganda" is defined by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to mean either (1) self-aggrandizement by public officials, (2) purely partisan activity, or (3) "covert propaganda." By covert propaganda, GAO means information which originates from the government but is unattributed and made to appear as though it came from a third party.

These concerns about "covert propaganda" were also the basis for the GAO's strong standard for determining when government-funded video news releases are illegal:

The failure of an agency to identify itself as the source of a prepackaged news story misleads the viewing public by encouraging the viewing audience to believe that the broadcasting news organization developed the information. The prepackaged news stories are purposefully designed to be indistinguishable from news segments broadcast to the public. When the television viewing public does not know that the stories they watched on television news programs about the government were in fact prepared by the government, the stories are, in this sense, no longer purely factual -- the essential fact of attribution is missing.

In a related analysis, the GAO explained that "The publicity or propaganda restriction helps to mark the boundary between an agency making information available to the public and agencies creating news reports unbeknownst to the receiving audience."

In case anyone disagrees with the GAO on this point, here's what the White House's own Office of Legal Council had to say, in a memorandum written in 2005 following the controversy over the Armstrong Williams scandal (when it was discovered that the Bush administration had actually paid him to publicly endorse its No Child Left Behind Law):

Over the years, GAO has interpreted "publicity or propaganda" restrictions to preclude use of appropriated funds for, among other things, so-called "covert propaganda." ... Consistent with that view, OLC determined in 1988 that a statutory prohibition on using appropriated funds for "publicity or propaganda" precluded undisclosed agency funding of advocacy by third-party groups. We stated that "covert attempts to mold opinion through the undisclosed use of third parties" would run afoul of restrictions on using appropriated funds for "propaganda." (emphasis added)

The key passage here is the phrase, "covert attempts to mold opinion through the undisclosed use of third parties." As the Times report documented in detail, the Pentagon's military analyst program did exactly that.

It was covert. As Barstow's piece states, the 75 retired military officers who were recruited by Donald Rumsfeld and given talking points to deliver on Fox, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS and MSNBC were given extraordinary access to White House and Pentagon officials. However, "The access came with a condition. Participants were instructed not to quote their briefers directly or otherwise describe their contacts with the Pentagon."
It was an attempt to mold opinion. According to the Pentagon's own internal documents (which can be downloaded and viewed from the New York Times website), the military analysts were considered "message force multipliers" or "surrogates" who would deliver administration "themes and messages" to millions of Americans "in the form of their own opinions." According to one participating military analyst, it was "psyops on steroids."
It was done "through the undisclosed use of third parties." In their television appearances, the military analysts did not disclose their ties to the White House, let alone that they were its surrogates. The military analysts were used as puppets for the Pentagon. In the words of Robert S. Bevelacqua, a retired Green Beret and for Fox News military analyst, "It was them saying, 'We need to stick our hands up your back and move your mouth for you."
Additional evidence of the illegality of the Pentagon pundits operation can be found in the February 1, 1988 memorandum mentioned above by the White House Office of Legal Council. That memorandum, titled "Legal Constraints on Lobbying Efforts in Support of Contra Aid and Ratification of the INF Treaty," was written for the Reagan administration by the well-known conservative lawyer Charles Cooper (then head of the OLC), explaining the limits of what the White House was allowed to do in its campaign to win support for the Contra War in Nicaragua. Cooper (clearly not some liberal naysayer with an anti-war ax to grind), wrote that the Reagan Administration "can make available to private groups, upon request, printed materials that explain and justify the Administration's position on Contra aid. These materials must be items that were created in the normal course of business and not specifically produced for use by these private groups." Cooper continues:

It would be unwise, however, for the Administration to solicit the media to print articles by or interviews with anyone not serving in the government. And, of course, the Administration cannot assist in the preparation of any articles or statements by private sector supporters, other than through the provision of informational materials as described in the preceding paragraph.

In the case of the current Pentagon pundit scandal, however, the Pentagon clearly was assisting in the preparation both of articles and statements by private sector supporters. It did not simply provide "informational materials" that had been "created in the normal course of business." Rather, it sat down with the retired military analysts, worked closely with them on drafting talking points, and in some cases scripted language for them to write in written commentaries, and deployed them as message amplifiers and surrogates without disclosure.

The target is you
A tantalizing window into Donald Rumsfeld's motives for creating the military analysts program can be find in a transcript that the Times obtained of one of his meetings with them. In it, he complains that he has been warned that his "information operations" are "illegal or immoral":

This is the first war that's ever been run in the 21sth Century in a time of 24-hour news and bloggers and internets and emails and digital cameras and Sony cams and God knows all this stuff. ... We're not very skillful at it in terms of the media part of the new realities we're living in. Every time we try to do something someone says it's illegal or immoral, there's nothing the press would rather do than write about the press, we all know that. They fall in love with it. So every time someone tries to do some information operations for some public diplomacy or something, they say oh my goodness, it's multiple audiences and if you're talking to them, they're hearing you here as well and therefore that's propagandizing or something.

This comment shows that Rumsfeld knows about the law against information operations that propagandize U.S. audiences. Although it is illegal to target propaganda at the America people, the law does not forbid propaganda -- even covert propaganda -- aimed at foreign audiences. Rumsfeld has been warned, however, that in today's world with "bloggers and internets and emails," even information operations overseas reach "multiple audiences" including U.S. citizens who are "hearing you here as well and therefore that's propagandizing." The irony, of course, is that Rumsfeld made these comments in a meeting with military analysts whom he had recruited specifically for information operations targeting U.S. audiences. If Rumsfeld knew that there were legal concerns even about operations targeted at foreign audiences, he certainly knew that it was illegal to target the American public. Yet he went ahead and did it anyway, and in another part of the transcript, he explained why. In fighting the war on terror, Rumsfeld said, the "center of gravity's here in Washington and in the United States."

The term "center of gravity" in this context refers to a concept in military theory. According to the U.S. Department of Defense, it means "those characteristics, capabilities, or locations from which a military force derives its freedom of action, physical strength, or will to fight." What Rumsfeld is saying, therefore, is that the most important battle in his war is not the struggle to control Iraq or defeat foreign terrorists. The most important battle, he's saying, is the fight to control the hearts and minds of the American people. And that's why he's willing to break the law to do it.

What is to be done?
Of course, the mere fact that a practice is illegal does not mean that anyone is going to be punished for breaking the law. For that to happen, someone with the power to act needs to enforce the law, which is why Congress needs to hold hearings and create enforcement mechanisms that will ensure compliance in the future. Currently, no such mechanisms exist. As the Congressional Research Service noted in its 2005 report, "No federal entity is required to monitor agency compliance with the publicity and propaganda statutes. At present, the federal government has what has been termed 'fire alarm oversight' of agency expenditures on communications. Scrutiny typically occurs when a Member of Congress is alerted by the media or some other source that an agency’s spending on communications may be cause for concern. A Member then sends a written request to the Government Accountability Office asking for a legal opinion on the activities in question."

Congress should certainly seek such a legal opinion from the GAO and the White House Office of Legal Council regarding the Pentagon's military analyst program, but this time it shouldn't stop at simply seeking an opinion. When the GAO has rendered such legal opinions previously, the government agencies caught violating the law have announced that they would comply in the future. No one was punished, however, and in practice they knew that they could continue doing what they want. That is what happened after the Reagan administration was caught using third-party surrogates to promote the Contra war in Nicaragua in the 1980s (which is how Charles Cooper ended up writing the memo I quoted above). It's what happened after the Armstrong Williams scandal broke in 2004. And without something more than mere publication of a GAO opinion, it's probably all that will happen as a result of this latest Pentagon pundits scandal.

It doesn't have to be this way. If the U.S. Congress had the will to take action, it could create real mechanisms for enforcing the law and ensuring compliance. This is important for reasons that go beyond the issue of whether anyone supports or opposes the current war in Iraq. So long as government agencies are allowed to continue getting away with covert domestic propaganda, the public is left unable to know whether the opinions of "independent" analysts are truly independent. During the Vietnam War, official Pentagon statements became so mistrusted that the term "credibility gap" was coined to describe the distance between official statements and public perceptions. The government's use of "surrogates" posing as independent experts extends the credibility gap not just to public officials but also to seemingly independent, private citizens and the news media. Until accountability exists to prevent abuses like Pentagon analyst program from continuing with impunity, the public will have to assume that anyone who appears on camera espousing views sympathetic to the White House (or, for that matter, to other government agencies) has been secretly trained, recruited and given financial incentives to do so.



Diane Farsetta and Sheldon Rampton's blog | login or register to post comments | printer friendly version
Comment viewing options