Service Personnel Legally Subject to Harmful Experimentation

On May 23, 2011 was the U.S. Supreme, Court Brown v.
Plata (09-1233) decision that crowded prisons are in violation of the
U.S. Constitution’s Eighth Amendment no cruel and unusual
punishments. In 2011, still not Eighth Amendment addressed are the
“military research” “experiments that were designed to harm”!
This is 1994 documented by the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
and U.S. Senate.[2 & 3] The U.S. Supreme Court’s 1950 Feres Doctrine
[8] was used to ignore the Eight Amendment in the U.S. Supreme
Court’s 1987 Stanley case [6]. Its Department of Defense (DOD) “to
harm” experiment was classified as just a continuing “incident to
service” event! These DOD experiments were conducted on “hundreds
of thousands” [2], under the ongoing secrecy cover of our
‘national interests’, e.g., WWII, Cold War, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf
War, Iraq and Afghanistan. Shouldn’t U.S. Service Personnel and
Veterans get back those Constitutional Amendment 8 Rights that they
die for and convicted rapists and murderers keep? Please hold your
members in the U.S. Congress accountable!

The 2002 U.S. Senate Hearing on the Feres Doctrine [8] is 127 pages
of 19 Testimonials and Submissions for the Record that ignored the
previously documented: 1. Fact that convicted rapists and murderers
receive U.S. Constitutional Amendment 8 experimentation protection [4]
that U.S. Service Personnel DO NOT!! 2. GAO [2] and U.S. Senate [3]
1994 Reports that recorded “hundreds of thousands” of in-service
personnel injured by non-consensual, experiments. The Senate 1994
Report’s noted withheld needed for treatment but experiment
identifying evidence [2] and the 1994 Court of Veterans Appeals (COVA)
related “may not review” [5] were overlooked. 3. The U.S. Supreme
Courts 1987 STANLEY case was a Feres Doctrine based approval of a 1958
injurious non-consensual, military experiment.[6] Disobeyed was the
1953 DOD order [7] and for military personnel lost was the U.S.
Constitution, Amendment 8 protection given to U.S. Prisoners [4]! 4.
Not 2002 recognized was that many experiments were in direct
disobedience of the DOD Secretary’s 1953 NO non-consensual
experiments.[7]

OVERSIGHTS: Starting on page 64 of the 2002 Senate Hearing PDF
version, [1] the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE stated that in
the 1950 U.S. Supreme Court’s Feres Doctrine decision [8], “The
Court relied upon three principal reasons in coming to its decision:
(1) The existence and availability of a separate, uniform,
comprehensive, no-fault compensation scheme for injured military
personnel;….” Answering this issue are the millions of service
records that were destroyed in a 1973 National Personnel Records
Center (NPRC) fire. Followed by Congress’s 1974 Privacy Act that
censored experiment verifying witnesses from any surviving and future
records and the withheld experimentation evidence of the 1994 U.S.
Senate Report.[2] The Report noted, “The Feres Doctrine should not
be applied for military personnel who are harmed by inappropriate
human experimentation when informed consent has not been given.”
Then, “During the last 50 years, hundreds of thousands of military
personnel” were subjected to “experiments that were designed to
harm”, e.g., their reported biological and chemical agents,
radiation exposure, hallucinogenic and investigational drugs,
experimental vaccines and behavior modification projects. Overlooked
is the “Basic Rights of Prisoners.” with its “Nonconsensual
experimentation is illegal”![4] In 2011 still ignored is this and
the Senate Report’s past and present, “III. Findings and
conclusions”, “K. DOD and DVA have repeatedly failed to provide
information and medical followup to those who participate in military
research…” and “N. Participation in military research is rarely
included in military medical records, making it impossible to support
a veteran’s claim for service-connected disabilities from military
research.”, i.e., the withheld needed for treatment but “experiments
that were designed to harm” evidence. In 1994 COVA’s Chief Judge
stated the related evidence restricting, “The court may not review the
schedule of ratings for disabilities or the policies underlying the
schedule.”[5] Based on the Senate’s, “the last 50 years” back to
1944, doesn’t the now 67 years of “underlying” policy mean the
continuing use of deceived U.S. Service Personnel as guinea pigs in
deliberate injury experiments?

In the “three principal reasons” continuation, the Dept. of
Justice reported the Supreme Court’s, “….(2) The effect upon
military order, discipline, and effectiveness if service member were
permitted to sue the government or each other; and, (3) The distinctly
federal relationship between the government and members of its armed
services, and the corresponding unfairness of permitting
service-connected claims to be determined by nonuniform law.” [1],
i.e., the “unfairness” of applying the U.S. Constitution’s Bill
of Rights, Amendment 8 to U.S. Citizens and Prisoners but NOT to U.S.
Service Personnel?

U.S. PRISONERS PROTECTED OVERSIGHT: In 1992 the U.S. Senate signed
the United Nation, International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR). with its “.. Article 7 – Freedom from Torture, or
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.” It gives
convicted U.S. rapists and murderers protection from experiments by
the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights, Amendment 8. Under, “Basic
Rights of Prisoners.” is, “Written policy and practice prohibit
the use of inmates for medical…experiments.” and “Nonconsensual
experimentation is illegal”! Nineteen (19) times cited is the U.S.
Constitution plus its 8th Amendment’s no cruel and unusual
punishment.[4]

U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION? Overlooked by many in Congress is
their Oath of Office to defend the U.S. Constitution, their “Pledge
of Allegiance” “with liberty and justice for all” checks and
balances function, their U.S. Constitution 8th Amendment protection of
convicted rapists and murderers (but NOT U.S. Service Personnel) with
the U.S. Supreme Court’s ignored, carved in stone over its entrance,
“EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW”!

In 2011 shouldn’t U.S. Service Personnel have the same U.S.
Constitutional Rights that all other U.S. Citizens plus rapists and
murderers keep?

REFERENCES:

[1] “THE FERES DOCTRINE: AN EXAMINATION OF THIS MILITARY EXCEPTION
TO THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT OCTOBER 8, 2002.”
www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/pdf/107hrg/88833.pdf

[2] December 8, 1994 REPORT 103-97 “Is Military Research Hazardous to
Veterans’ Health? Lessons Spanning Half a Century.” Hearings Before
the U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, 103rd Congress 2nd
Session.

[3] GAO September 28, 1994 “Human Experimentation Overview on Co1d
War Era Programs” T-NSIAD-94-266 archive.gao.gov/t2pbat2/152601.pdf

[4] U.S. State Dept., “U.S. Report under the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights July 1994, Article 7 – Freedom from
Torture, or Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.”

[5] “STATE OF COURT, CHIEF JUDGE FRANK Q. NEBEKER, STATE OF THE
COURT, FOR PRESENTATION TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF VETERANS APPEALS
THIRD JUDICIAL CONFERENCE, OCTOBER 17-18, 1994

[6] U.S. SUPREME COURT, JUNE 25, 1987, U.S. V. STANLEY , 107 S. CT..
3054 (VOLUME 483 U.S., SECTION 669, PAGES 699 TO 710).
http://supreme.justia.com/ us/483/669/ case.html

[7] Pgs. 343-345: “The Nazi Doctors and the Nuremberg Code; Human
Rights in Human Experimentation” George J. Annas and Michael A.
Grodin (N. Y.: Oxford University Press, 1992).

[8] Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135, 146 (1950).

Similar Posts:

• CIA Performed Experimets on Prisoners
• U.K. Intelligence Wants to Censor Media
• Military Called to Control Mexican Drug Cartels
• Did the U.S. Sneak Weapons to Georgia
• Judge Suggests Lesbians Join Military to Turn straight
• Military Organizing for Domestic Operations
• DoD Considers DNA Sequencing for Military Personnel