Why was the US code changed to make human experimentation illegal? Chemtrails?

[George B]

I have to admit the single issue that galvanized my suspicion that some type of Chemtrail activity was possible was Congressional testimony and the US Code . . . sure human experimentation occurred . . . what made it stop?? Once behavior is uncovered, admitted to reluctantly, and laws changed in and around 1997 to prevent it in the future . . . should we believe this type of activity is over and done with from now on????

 

[Jay Reynolds]

George Washington was a slave owner. Slavery was abolished. Once that behavior was changed by law in 1863 to prevent it in the future . . . should we believe this type of activity is over and done with from now on, or should we forever suspect that all Presidents keep slaves?

 

[Mick West]

I think the 1997 change in the law was a specific response to something to do with the First Gulf War, possibly experimental vaccines being given to soldiers without their consent. Or possibly as a response to certain type of accusations surrounding Gulf War Illness.

 

[Mick West]

For reference, here's the current law:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-105publ85/html/PLAW-105publ85.htm

SEC. 1078. RESTRICTIONS <<NOTE: 50 USC 1520a.>> ON THE USE OF HUMAN
SUBJECTS FOR TESTING OF CHEMICAL OR BIOLOGICAL AGENTS.

(a) Prohibited Activities.--The Secretary of Defense may not conduct
(directly or by contract)--
(1) any test or experiment involving the use of a chemical
agent or biological agent on a civilian population; or
(2) any other testing of a chemical agent or biological
agent on human subjects.

(b) Exceptions.--Subject to subsections (c), (d), and (e), the
prohibition in subsection (a) does not apply to a test or experiment
carried out for any of the following purposes:
(1) Any peaceful purpose that is related to a medical,
therapeutic, pharmaceutical, agricultural, industrial, or
research activity.
(2) Any purpose that is directly related to protection
against toxic chemicals or biological weapons and agents.
(3) Any law enforcement purpose, including any purpose
related to riot control.

(c) Informed Consent Required.--The Secretary of Defense may conduct
a test or experiment described in subsection (b) only if informed
consent to the testing was obtained from each human subject in advance
of the testing on that subject.
(d) Prior Notice to <<NOTE: Reports.>> Congress.--Not later than 30
days after the date of final approval within the Department of Defense
of plans for any experiment or study to be conducted by the Department
of Defense (whether directly or under contract) involving the use of
human subjects for the testing of a chemical agent or a biological
agent, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed
Services of the Senate and the Committee on National Security of the
House of Representatives a report setting forth a full accounting of
those plans, and the experiment or study may then be conducted only
after the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date such report is
received by those committees.

(e) Biological Agent Defined.--In this section, the term
``biological agent'' means any micro-organism (including bacteria,
viruses, fungi, rickettsiac, or protozoa), pathogen, or infectious
substance, and any naturally occurring, bioengineered, or synthesized
component of any such micro-organism, pathogen, or infectious substance,
whatever its origin or method of production, that is capable of
causing--
(1) death, disease, or other biological malfunction in a
human, an animal, a plant, or another living organism;
(2) deterioration of food, water, equipment, supplies, or
materials of any kind; or
(3) deleterious alteration of the environment.

(f) Report and Certification.--Section 1703(b) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (50 U.S.C. 1523(b)) is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

[[Page 111 STAT. 1916]]

``(9) A description of any program involving the testing of
biological or chemical agents on human subjects that was carried
out by the Department of Defense during the period covered by
the report, together with--
``(A) a detailed justification for the testing;
``(B) a detailed explanation of the purposes of the
testing;
``(C) a description of each chemical or biological
agent tested; and
``(D) the Secretary's certification that informed
consent to the testing was obtained from each human
subject in advance of the testing on that subject.''.

(g) Repeal of Superseded Provision of Law.--Section 808 of the
Department of Defense Appropriation Authorization Act, 1978 (50 U.S.C.
1520), is repealed.

 

[Mick West]

Or it might have been as part of the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1997.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention

I'm sure the reasons are out there somewhere.

 

[George B]

I think the 1997 change in the law was a specific response to something to do with the First Gulf War, possibly experimental vaccines being given to soldiers without their consent. Or possibly as a response to certain type of accusations surrounding Gulf War Illness.

It may have been part of the reasons; however, to establish the motivation of Congress requires an understanding of a legislative timeline, testimony, public comment etc . . . I do know there was much angry testimony regarding the Zinc Cadmium Sulfide injections around 1995 . . .

 

[George B]

For reference, here's the current law:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-105publ85/html/PLAW-105publ85.htm

Old code . . . .

OLD CODE: PUBLIC LAW 95-79 [P.L. 95-79] TITLE 50, CHAPTER 32, SECTION 1520 "CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE PROGRAM" "The use of human subjects will be allowed for the testing of chemical and biological agents by the U.S. Department of Defense, accounting to Congressional committees with respect to the experiments and studies." "The Secretary of Defense [may] conduct tests and experiments involving the use of chemical and biological [warfare] agents on civilian populations [within the United States]." -SOURCE- Public Law 95-79, Title VIII, Sec. 808, July 30, 1977, 91 Stat. 334. In U.S. Statutes-at-Large, Vol. 91, page 334, you will find Public Law 95-79. Public Law 97-375, title II, Sec. 203(a)(1), Dec. 21, 1982, 96 Stat. 1882. In U.S. Statutes-at-Large, Vol. 96, page 1882, you will find Public Law 97-375

Section 1520. Repealed. Pub. L. 105-85, Div. A, Title X, Sec. 1078(G), Nov. 18, 1997, 111 Stat. 1916, And Pub. L. 105-277, Div. I, Title Vi, Sec. 601, Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681-886 . . . Repealed http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/50/32

 

[George B]

Much investigating was ongoing . . .

Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments
The Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments was established in 1994 to investigate questions of the record of the United States government with respect to human radiation experiments. The special committee was created by President Bill Clinton in Executive Order 12891, issued January 15, 1994. Ruth Faden of The Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics chaired the committee. Jonathan D. Moreno was a senior staff member of the committee. He later wrote the 1999 book Undue Risk: Secret State Experiments on Humans.[1]


The thousand-page final report of the Committee was released in October 1995 at a White House ceremony.[2]
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advisory_Committee_on_Human_Radiation_Experiments

 

[David Fraser]

That law does not make it illegal it just ensures that there is informed consent by any subject. I don't see how this could be related to chemtrails in any way.

 

[George B]

Here is the Gulf War connection . . .

During the last few years, the public has become aware of several examples where U.S. Government researchers intentionally exposed Americans to potentially dangerous substances without their knowledge or consent. The Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, which I have been privileged to chair from 1993-94, has conducted a comprehensive analysis of the extent to which veterans participated in such research while they were serving in the U.S. military. This resulted in two hearings, on May 6, 1994, and August 5, 1994.
http://www.gulfwarvets.com/senate.htm

 

[George B]

That law does not make it illegal it just ensures that there is informed consent by any subject. I don't see how this could be related to chemtrails in any way.

So evidence supporting the lack of trust in the Government because of past covert human experimentation is not germane to a discussion about the suspicion the government may conduct said covert experimentation again . . . ??? Hmmmm . . .

 

[George B]

George Washington was a slave owner. Slavery was abolished. Once that behavior was changed by law in 1863 to prevent it in the future . . . should we believe this type of activity is over and done with from now on, or should we forever suspect that all Presidents keep slaves?

Maybe not the US President but slavery is still alive and well throughout the world is it not? Including sex slavery in our own country . . . all quite illegal . . .

 

[MikeC]

It may have been part of the reasons; however, to establish the motivation of Congress requires an understanding of a legislative timeline, testimony, public comment etc . . . I do know there was much angry testimony regarding the Zinc Cadmium Sulfide injections around 1995 . . .

ZCdS was "sprayed" from aircraft IIRC - not injected?

 

[George B]

ZCdS was "sprayed" from aircraft IIRC - not injected?

Whatever . . . it was dispersed as either an aerosol, a powder or a spray . . .

 

[David Fraser]

Here is the Gulf War connection . . .

During the last few years, the public has become aware of several examples where U.S. Government researchers intentionally exposed Americans to potentially dangerous substances without their knowledge or consent. The Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, which I have been privileged to chair from 1993-94, has conducted a comprehensive analysis of the extent to which veterans participated in such research while they were serving in the U.S. military. This resulted in two hearings, on May 6, 1994, and August 5, 1994.
http://www.gulfwarvets.com/senate.htm

I think the Gulf War is irrelevent as the military are exempted from that law.

 

[David Fraser]

So evidence supporting the lack of trust in the Government because of past covert human experimentation is not germane to a discussion about the suspicion the government may conduct said covert experimentation again . . . ??? Hmmmm . . .

So what you are saying is that at a time a government starts spraying they also at a legaslative means to challenge it? That makes no sense.

I am not denying the past btw, and I don't trust my own government in the UK.

 

[MikeC]

The military being exempt doesn't stop the information and hearings being a catalyst to a law change - even if the law change then does not affect the military.

The 1990's saw a lot of US experimentation become public knowledge - not all of it was by or on the military - but the GW circumstances were part and parcel of that increasing knowledge.

 

[David Fraser]

The military being exempt doesn't stop the information and hearings being a catalyst to a law change - even if the law change then does not affect the military.

The 1990's saw a lot of US experimentation become public knowledge - not all of it was by or on the military - but the GW circumstances were part and parcel of that increasing knowledge.

You are correct and I apologise. However I do have intimate knowledge of Gulf War Syndrome, especially as it affected us in the UK. I don't believe the US or UK government issued troops with medication as an experiment. I truly believe they did it in good faith. Please take into context I am in the UK but I get a little angry that GWS is brought into the chemtrail debate. I am part of a group that to this day fights for our rights as the UK don't recognise it.

 

[Mattnik]

More on UK government's position on GWS here: https://www.gov.uk/gulf-veterans-illnesses

 

[George B]

I think the Gulf War is irrelevent as the military are exempted from that law.

My post was in response to Micks post about the law change he felt was motivated somewhat because of the Gulf War testimony, but thanks for pointing out that military members are usually exempt from civilian protections . . .

 

[George B]

So what you are saying is that at a time a government starts spraying they also at a legaslative means to challenge it? That makes no sense.

I am not denying the past btw, and I don't trust my own government in the UK.

No, it is a recognition that in an enterprise as large, complex and segmented as the US Government the right hand may not know what the left hand is doing . . .

 

[George B]

The military being exempt doesn't stop the information and hearings being a catalyst to a law change - even if the law change then does not affect the military.

The 1990's saw a lot of US experimentation become public knowledge - not all of it was by or on the military - but the GW circumstances were part and parcel of that increasing knowledge.

I don't disagree . . .

 

[George B]

You are correct and I apologise. However I do have intimate knowledge of Gulf War Syndrome, especially as it affected us in the UK. I don't believe the US or UK government issued troops with medication as an experiment. I truly believe they did it in good faith. Please take into context I am in the UK but I get a little angry that GWS is brought into the chemtrail debate. I am part of a group that to this day fights for our rights as the UK don't recognise it.

Good intentions for actions does not guarantee good outcomes . . . the world is full of such history . . . it just makes it a bit easier to explain why you took the action in the first place. The potential/suspected causes of GWS was for the most part not covert in nature but extremely difficult to prove, much like the Agent Orange Program, Ranch Hand in Vietnam . . .

 

[George B]

By-the-way, just to clarify . . . I did not choose the Thread Title . . . it is Mick's creation . . . I would not have thrown in Chemtrails . . .

 

[Mick West]

By-the-way, just to clarify . . . I did not choose the Thread Title . . . it is Mick's creation . . . I would not have thrown in Chemtrails . . .

Sorry, but that's by far the most common connection made between this 1997 change in the law, and some nefarious intent.

That law does not make it illegal it just ensures that there is informed consent by any subject. I don't see how this could be related to chemtrails in any way.

The law starts out making it illegal as the default position:

(a) Prohibited Activities.--The Secretary of Defense may not conduct
(directly or by contract)--
(1) any test or experiment involving the use of a chemical
agent or biological agent on a civilian population; or
(2) any other testing of a chemical agent or biological
agent on human subjects.

It then provides some exceptions that require informed consent.

I also don't see how it's related to chemtrails. However it (or the older version of the law) have been brought up as evidence of chemtrails literally thousands of times.

https://www.google.com/search?q="public+law"+chemtrails

 

[Jay Reynolds]

I also don't see how it's related to chemtrails. However it (or the older version of the law) have been brought up as evidence of chemtrails literally thousands of times.

It is brought up because the chemtrais hoax never could stand on its own.

Like the handicapped might need mobility aids, the double-amputeed chemtrails hoax has always had to free-ride on suspicion, distrust, jealousy and fear mongering, or any other issue which could attract someone. Just as Michael J. Murphy hitched onto weather modification, hatred for Bill Gates and Monsanto, everything possible is "connected" to give it a hand-up.

 

[coloroutsidethelines]

Did you see this loophole?
Section 1515 of Chapter 32 allows informed consent to be suspended by executive order during a period of national emergency.
(https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1515)

After November 19, 1969, the operation of this chapter, or any portion thereof, may be suspended by the President during the period of any war declared by Congress and during the period of any national emergency declared by Congress or by the President.

(Pub. L. 91–121, title IV, § 409(e), Nov. 19, 1969, 83 Stat. 210.)

LII has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet site that contains links to or references LII

And apparently we've been in a state of national emergency since about 1979:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/10/22/president-obama-states-of-emergency/16851775/

 

[MikeC]

And.........are you suggesting that one or more of the current SOE's negates the ban??

If so which?

If not....then ...OK...thanks for pointing it out.

 

[coloroutsidethelines]

Sorry, I'm new at posting on this site. It was in response mostly to the post above about:
ON THE USE OF HUMAN
SUBJECTS FOR TESTING OF CHEMICAL OR BIOLOGICAL AGENTS.
Basically, it's good-to-go at any time, as long as "participants" give informed consent. HOWEVER (due to this loophole), informed consent is not mandatory if we are classified as in a State of Emergency. And then I found out that, well, basically, we are perpetually in a SOE!

 

[Mick West]

Sorry, I'm new at posting on this site. It was in response mostly to the post above about:
ON THE USE OF HUMAN
SUBJECTS FOR TESTING OF CHEMICAL OR BIOLOGICAL AGENTS.
Basically, it's good-to-go at any time, as long as "participants" give informed consent. HOWEVER (due to this loophole), informed consent is not mandatory if we are classified as in a State of Emergency. And then I found out that, well, basically, we are perpetually in a SOE!

No, it's just that Title 50, Chapter 32 MAY be suspended during war or SOE, it is not automatically suspended, nor has it been suspended.

 

[JRBids]

I guess that is why I see so many people post "I do not consent!" on Facebook? I wonder if they believe that would work.

 

[AumuA]

I think that usually has to do with consenting to be searched. And it's true, that many police searches happen because people roll over and say ok under the pressure.

 

[JRBids]

I think that usually has to do with consenting to be searched. And it's true, that many police searches happen because people roll over and say ok under the pressure.

I thought police searches happened because someone may have committed a crime.

 

[qed]

I thought police searches happened because someone may have committed a crime.

A Justified Stop

A stop is justified if the suspect is exhibiting any combination of the following behaviors:

• Appears not to fit the time or place.
• Matches the description on a "Wanted" flyer.
• Acts strangely, or is emotional, angry, fearful, or intoxicated.
• Loitering, or looking for something.
• Running away or engaging in furtive movements.
• Present in a crime scene area.
• Present in a high-crime area (not sufficient by itself or with loitering).

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/when-can-the-police-stop-and-frisk-you-on-the-street

You guys live in utopia. In South Africa we are randomly stopped and searched.

FACT: SAPS has the right to pull over a car on the road and to search it. However, if you feel endangered, you are within your rights to ask the police officer to accompany you to the nearest police station to do the search.

http://www.corruptionwatch.org.za/dont-be-intimidated-by-police-know-your-rights/

 

[JRBids]

I agree with you qed. Frankly the bellyaching I hear from my fellow Americans about how awful our country is I find ridiculous.

 

[David Fraser]

I thought police searches happened because someone may have committed a crime.

Do you not have stop and search in the US? I have been stopped a few times when walking to or from work in the early hours. All was down to my size and my appearance.

The police have been known to step of the mark and target blacks etc.

 

[AumuA]

I thought police searches happened because someone may have committed a crime.

Yeah, that they do. However, in the U.S. "someone may have committed a crime" is not probable cause for searching that person. I agree 100% that we do have it good here, and that we should be grateful for the rights we have, and we should understand what those rights are. I guess this is off topic?

 

[JRBids]

Do you not have stop and search in the US? I have been stopped a few times when walking to or from work in the early hours. All was down to my size and my appearance.

The police have been known to step of the mark and target blacks etc.

The are supposed to have reasonable suspicion

What exactly is Reasonable Suspicion?

Reasonable suspicion is defined by a set of factual circumstances that would lead a reasonable police officer to believe criminal activity is occurring. This is different from the probable cause (what a reasonable person would believe) required for an arrest, search, and seizure. If the stop and frisk gives rise to probable cause to believe the detainee has committed a crime, then the police officer should have the power to make a formal arrest and conduct a search of the person.

I was in London in the early 80s. I had walked down embassy row with a friend and I had my camera and took a photo, which you apparently are not supposed to do. There was a policeman at the end of the street and he stopped me and asked me to give him my camera and I asked him why and he said he was going to take the film out. I said no, I had been to Stonehenge the day before and had my photos in there. So he said you can't take a photo here, I saw you on the camera, give me your film... I said no again. So he said something about calling someone, and turned around into his box to make the call and we ran around the corner and left.

 

[Whitebeard]

I was in London in the early 80s. I had walked down embassy row with a friend and I had my camera and took a photo, which you apparently are not supposed to do. There was a policeman at the end of the street and he stopped me and asked me to give him my camera and I asked him why and he said he was going to take the film out. I said no, I had been to Stonehenge the day before and had my photos in there. So he said you can't take a photo here, I saw you on the camera, give me your film... I said no again. So he said something about calling someone, and turned around into his box to make the call and we ran around the corner and left.

There are strange by-laws in London about what buildings you can and can't photograph, most embassies, most government depart offices are off limits, so strangely are the houses of parliament (and Portcullis house next door) and even Buckingham Palace! (although the last two are rarely enforced, musn't offend the tourists, we need their mullah ) Weirdest one is the MI6 building, people have been stopped taking photographs of it, even AFTER it had featured in a couple on Bond film and several other films and popular TV dramas (like Spooks)

 

[Efftup]

There are strange by-laws in London about what buildings you can and can't photograph, most embassies, most government depart offices are off limits, so strangely are the houses of parliament (and Portcullis house next door) and even Buckingham Palace! (although the last two are rarely enforced, musn't offend the tourists, we need their mullah ) Weirdest one is the MI6 building, people have been stopped taking photographs of it, even AFTER it had featured in a couple on Bond film and several other films and popular TV dramas (like Spooks)

Well common sense never does apply to most bureaucracies. Or prisons. If you are in a UK prison, they won't let you wear say a pair of Army boots cos the toecaps are reinforced, but if the prison you are in has you doing almost ANY type of manual work you will be issued with steel toecapped safety boots which you are meant to wear back to your cell.
Or you can find a D Cat (open ) prison like HMP Leyhill where if you are in the music group you are not allowed access to a screwdriver and a spanner or pair of pliers under supervision of the outside music teacher to tighten the nuts on an amp or a strat copy ( for security reasons) but if you are in farms and gardens. you will be wandering around with an AXE on your shoulder and no-one bats an eyelid.