You are on page 1of 24

PSYCHOTRONICS & PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE!

Top secret government harassment programs against citizens!!
HOME ABOUT

Category Archives: Human Experimentation
Differences between mental illness and psychiatric injury
NOV 13 Posted by (Geeldon)

RECENT POSTS
SOOL SANAAG CAYN = South China Sea: offshore exploration and territorial tension Exit polls show Enrique Peña Nieto winning Mexico’s presidency | ANA KOURNIKOVA PRESIDENCY Death of the Birds and the Bees Across America Pentagon establishes Defense Clandestine Service, new espionage unit for Africa Space Mirror in Russia ( Father of HAARP in USA)

Differences between mental illness and psychiatric injury The person who is being bullied will eventually say something like “I think I’m being paranoid…“; however they are correctly identifying hypervigilance, a symptom of PTSD, but using the popular but misunderstood word paranoia. The differences between hypervigilance and paranoia make a good starting point for identifying the differences between mental illness and psychiatric injury.
Paranoia paranoia is a form of mental illness; the cause is thought to be internal, eg a minor variation in the balance of brain chemistry Hypervigilance is a response to an external event (violence, accident, disaster, violation, intrusion, bullying, etc) and therefore an injury

Mercury News: Man with defibrillator wants to know what his heart is saying NSA & “Artificial Thought” Control ( IBM Blue Beam) THUGOCRACY: U.S. FED‐POLICE VIGILANTES PERSECUTE CITIZEN TARGETS BRAIN AND SATELLITE SURVEILLANCE, ASSAULT AND TORTURE The New Torture / Murder Surveillance of America Russian spy agency targeting western diplomats using Zersetzung Conditioning: Aversion therapy & Desensitization The scientific foundation of no touch torture Interview with a CIA non‐consensual human behavioral modification project Synthetic Telepathy or Psychotronics Movie (Nowhere Man Episode 4)

paranoia tends to endure and to not get better of its own accord

wears off (gets better), albeit slowly, when the person is out of and away from the situation which was the cause

the paranoiac will not admit to feeling paranoid, as they cannot see their paranoia

the hypervigilant person is acutely aware of their hypervigilance, and will easily articulate their fear, albeit using the incorrect but popularised word “paranoia”

ARCHIVES
July 2012 June 2012 March 2012 January 2012 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 June 2011 May 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010

sometimes responds to drug treatment

drugs are not viewed favourably by hypervigilant people, except in extreme circumstances, and then only briefly; often drugs have no effect, or can make things worse, sometimes interfering with the body’s own healing process

the paranoiac often has delusions of grandeur; the delusional aspects of paranoia feature in other forms of mental illness, such as schizophrenia

the hypervigilant person often has a diminished sense of self‐worth, sometimes dramatically so

the paranoiac is convinced of their self‐ importance

the hypervigilant person is often convinced of their worthlessness and will often deny their value to others

Generated with www.html-to-pdf.net

paranoia is often seen in conjunction with other symptoms of mental illness, but not in conjunction with symptoms of PTSD

hypervigilance is seen in conjunction with other symptoms of PTSD, but not in conjunction with symptoms of mental illness

EMAIL SUBSCRIPTION
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog Page 1 / 24 and receive notifications of new posts by email.

paranoia is often seen in conjunction with other symptoms of mental illness, but not in conjunction with symptoms of PTSD

hypervigilance is seen in conjunction with other symptoms of PTSD, but not in conjunction with symptoms of mental illness

EMAIL SUBSCRIPTION
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. Join 72 other followers

the paranoiac is convinced of their plausibility

the hypervigilant person is aware of how implausible their experience sounds and often doesn’t want to believe it themselves (disbelief and denial)

Sign me up!

the paranoiac feels persecuted by a person or persons unknown (eg “they’re out to get me”)

the hypervigilant person is hypersensitized but is often aware of the inappropriateness of their heightened sensitivity, and can identify the person responsible for their psychiatric injury

CATEGORIES
Brainwashing Gaslighting Group Stalking Human Experimentation Implantable Microchips Psychiatric Reprisal Remote Neural Monitoring Surveillance Synthetic Telepathy Through Wall Surveillance Torture Uncategorized Zersetzung

sense of persecution

heightened sense of vulnerability to victimisation

the sense of persecution felt by the paranoiac is a delusion, for usually no‐one is out to get them

the hypervigilant person’s sense of threat is well‐founded, for the serial bully is out to get rid of them and has often coerced others into assisting, eg through mobbing; the hypervigilant person often cannot (and refuses to) see that the serial bully is doing everything possible to get rid of them

January 2014
the paranoiac is on constant alert because they know someone is out to get them the hypervigilant person is on alert in case there is danger M 6 13 20 27 « Jul T 7 14 21 28 W 1 8 15 22 29 T 2 9 16 23 30 F 3 10 17 24 31 S 4 11 18 25 S 5 12 19 26

the paranoiac is certain of their belief and their behaviour and expects others to share that certainty

the hypervigilant person cannot bring themselves to believe that the bully cannot and will not see the effect their behaviour is having; they cling naively to the mistaken belief that the bully will recognise their wrongdoing and apologise

BLOGROLL
Artificial Telepathy Bad Experiment Center for Victims of Torture COINTELPRO Original Documents Freedom from covert harassment Gang Stalking Journal Jane Departing Joel B H File No Stasi in America People Zapper Singapore MC Victim Spy Chips Swedish Victims

Other differences between mental illness and psychiatric injury include:
Mental illness the cause often cannot be identified Psychiatric injury the cause is easily identifiable and verifiable, but denied by those who are accountable

the person may be incoherent or what they say doesn’t make sense

the person is often articulate but prevented from articulation by being traumatised

the person may appear to be obsessed

the person is obsessive, especially in relation to identifying the cause of their injury and both dealing with the cause and effecting their recovery

CATEGORIES
Brainwashing

the person is oblivious to their behaviour and the effect it has on others

the person is in a state of acute self‐ awareness and aware of their state, but often unable to explain it

Gaslighting Group Stalking Human Experimentation Implantable Microchips Psychiatric Reprisal Remote Neural Monitoring Surveillance Synthetic Telepathy Through Wall Surveillance Torture Uncategorized Zersetzung

the depression is a clinical or endogenous depression

the depression is reactive; the chemistry is different to endogenous depression

there may be a history of depression in the family

there is very often no history of depression in the individual or their family

the person has usually exhibited mental health problems before

often there is no history of mental health problems

META
Generated with www.html-to-pdf.net may respond inappropriately to the needs
and concerns of others responds empathically to the needs and concerns of others, despite their own

Page 2 / 24
Register

the person has usually exhibited mental health problems before

often there is no history of mental health problems

META
may respond inappropriately to the needs and concerns of others responds empathically to the needs and concerns of others, despite their own injury Register Log in Entries RSS displays a certitude about themselves, their circumstances and their actions is often highly sceptical about their condition and circumstances and is in a state of disbelief and bewilderment which they will easily and often articulate (“I can’t believe this is happening to me” and “Why me?” – click here for the answer) Comments RSS WordPress.com

may suffer a persecution complex

may experience an unusually heightened sense of vulnerability to possible victimisation (ie hypervigilance)

suicidal thoughts are the result of despair, dejection and hopelessness

suicidal thoughts are often a logical and carefully thought‐out solution or conclusion

exhibits despair

is driven by the anger of injustice

often doesn’t look forward to each new day

looks forward to each new day as an opportunity to fight for justice

is often ready to give in or admit defeat

refuses to be beaten, refuses to give up

C
Posted in Gaslighting, Group Stalking, Human Experimentation, Psychiatric Reprisal, Synthetic Telepathy, Torture Leave a Comment

CONGRESS ASLEEP AT THE SWITCH AGAIN
SEP 28 Posted by (Geeldon)

Secretly the reality of a totally controlled society has been emplaced. While we were looking at political control, the technological mechanisms for a Big Brother state are being installed, secretly in the hope no one will notice. Congress once again is at fault, it allowed vast billion dollar “black budgets” to escape oversight control. For decades, research and development on population control systems has been funded by a complacent Congress, and the Intelligence Committees in the House and Senate have allowed these systems to go operational. We are going to give you hard information and hard proof. This is not guesswork, it is reality. And Congress is to blame for lack of oversight. Fortunately (for the United States), Sweden has applied these control systems overtly to entire segments of the population (in the U.S. apparently only selected individuals are under control.) Our information comes from a Swedish researcher who has followed the Swedish system of people control i.e., the replacement of individual values, standards and beliefs by state authority. Our Swedish source says, “We have (been led) out of the industrial society to enslavement in the Information Society” and “there are frightening developments concerning the use of data surveillance, known as biomedical telemetry, mind control, optical electronic surveillance and brain‐computer interaction.” Then comes the clincher: “The properties of this technology enable the monitoring of mental functions, thought, deed and associated cerebral neurophysiological changes as well as the manipulation of behavior, Generated withand www.html-to-pdf.net values personality from limitless geographical distance.”

Page 3 / 24

“The properties of this technology enable the monitoring of mental functions, thought, deed and associated cerebral neurophysiological changes as well as the manipulation of behavior, values and personality from limitless geographical distance.” These systems form the basis of the Information Society (so beloved by Newt Gingrich) and eliminate the power of the individual to make personal decisions. Maybe Newt Gingrich is not aware of this, but his emphasis on individuality is a fraud so long as control mechanisms exist to over ride individual values and decision making. (We are not accusing Gingrich, he may not know. We’ve spent a lifetime following these developments and only now can visualize the technology emerging.) These are black budget systems hidden from the public and ignored by the leadership in Congress. Let’s summarize the information we received from our Swedish source, then we can sketch development in the U.S. Cyber is the science of control. It consists of transmission of electromagnetic wavelengths for cerebral radio communication. The subordinate technologies include brain‐computer interfacing, data surveillance, mind control, biomedical telemetry, man‐machine interaction, all designed to transmit the basic ideology of the Information Society. (That’s why Gingrich’s mentor Alvin Toffler says the Constitution is “out of date.”) Telemetry requires transmission of data not normally available i.e., your thoughts and plans. It is a two way communication system enabling remote control of individuals. (Official U.S. terminology‐RNM or “remote neural monitoring.”) This (our source continues) is a global system. (Is that why we have hundreds of satellites up there?) It operates at the speed of light and over any distance. The surveillance system is operated by implanted transmitters in the head or electrodes in the brain but also injectable microchips, substances or micro transmitters implanted in any part of the body. These implantations take place “in unwitting patients” during hospital operations, in patients at psychiatric clinics. In Sweden all elderly persons are implanted when “taken into long term care” (ah ha, Clinton’s universal health care!) and in all persons taken into police custody or in prison. Implants are also in the form of dental material and false teeth, and can be mixed into pharmacological products (i.e., medicine.) Therefore, the Toffler school futurist’s emphasis on nanotechnology–the devices are hardly seen in x‐rays. These implants are, up to now, inserted into persons under state control (i.e., mental patients, prisoners, elderly sick.) This program has been funded, developed and implemented in complete secrecy. Experience has been that when governments hide something, it’s probably not to our benefit. So how do the systems work? The implant receives radio signals via satellites. These have known and specific effect on the brain. Many years of research on effects of radio signals on monkey and human behavior is in the open nonclassified literature. The black budgets have generated more advanced systems given the sophistication of the implants we know about. The returned signals, from the individual brain through the satellite are processed by a central computer and the information presented on a screen to the controller. The technology has advanced to the stage where individual dreams or vision (i.e., mental picture) can be monitored on a three dimensional screen. So that as you read this and have a mental image of Big Brother at a screen this image in your mind can be (or is being) relayed back to a central processing facility.
Posted in Human Experimentation, Implantable Microchips, Psychiatric Reprisal, Remote Neural Monitoring, Synthetic Telepathy, Torture Tags: experimentation, RNM, torture Leave a Comment

The Militarization of Neuroscience
SEP 23 Posted by (Geeldon)

When military scientists begin to combine “cognitive engineering” and neuroscience with

Generated with www.html-to-pdf.net

genetic engineering, we could see a nightmarish new generation of biological weapons and nerve

Page 4 / 24

When military scientists begin to combine “cognitive engineering” and neuroscience with genetic engineering, we could see a nightmarish new generation of biological weapons and nerve agents that radically alter the minds, emotions, memories and beliefs of everyone on earth. That’s the opinion of Mark Wheelis and Malcolm Dando, authors of “Neurobiology: A Case Study of the Imminent Militarization of Biology” published September 30, 1995 in the International Review of the Red Cross. See this site for a PDF of the full article: http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/review‐859‐p553 Abstract: The revolution in biology, including advances in genomics, will lead to rapid progress in the treatment of mental illness by advancing the discovery of highly specific ligands that affect specific neurological pathways. The status of brain science and its potential for military application to enhance soldier performance, to develop new weapons and to facilitate interrogation are discussed. If such applications are pursued, they will also expand the options available to torturers, dictators and terrorists. Several generic approaches to containing the malign applications of biology are shown, and it is concluded that success or failure in doing so will be significantly dependent on the active involvement of the scientific and medical communities. Translation: The medical community has got to stop sitting on its duff and get some international legislation passed prohibiting the development of these bioweapons NOW. I would add: An equally serious effort needs to be made to block military application of EM weapons to the human brain. The pretence that such weapons are “less than lethal” is a serious misunderstanding of the immense threat that they pose to the privacy and civil liberties of every man, woman and child on the face of the globe.
Posted in Gaslighting, Group Stalking, Human Experimentation, Psychiatric Reprisal, Remote Neural Monitoring, Synthetic Telepathy, Torture, Zersetzung Tags: psychiatric reprisal, psychotronics, synthetic telepathy Leave a Comment

Binding U.S. law requires prosecutions for those who authorize torture (E‐Weapons)
SEP 19 Posted by (Geeldon)

CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (signed by the U.S. under Ronald Reagan): Article 2 1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction. 2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. 3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture. . . . Article 4 1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture. Article 7 1. The State Party in territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found, shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution. Generated with www.html-to-pdf.net Article 15

Page 5 / 24

any offence referred to in article 4 is found, shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution. Article 15 Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made. Ronald Reagan, 5/20/1988, transmitting Treaty to the U.S. Senate: The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention. It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today. U.S. Constitution, Article VI: This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. Soon‐to‐be Attorney General Eric Holder, 1/15/2009 (repeatedly): “No one is above the law.”
Posted in Human Experimentation, Torture, Uncategorized Tags: directed energy weapons, E‐weapons, torture Leave a Comment

International and U.S. Law Prohibiting Torture ( E‐ Weapons)
SEP 19 Posted by (Geeldon)

Summary of International and U.S. Law Prohibiting Torture and Other Ill‐treatment of Persons in Custody Last Updated May 24, 2004 International and U.S. law prohibits torture and other ill‐treatment of any person in custody in all circumstances. The prohibition applies to the United States during times of peace, armed conflict, or a state of emergency. Any person, whether a U.S. national or a non‐citizen, is protected. It is irrelevant whether the detainee is determined to be a prisoner‐of‐war, a protected person, or a so‐called “security detainee” or “unlawful combatant.” And the prohibition is in effect within the territory of the United States or any place anywhere U.S. authorities have control over a person. In short, the prohibition against torture and ill‐ treatment is absolute. The following summary sets out the major international legal obligations of the United States and various legal bases by which U.S. officials, military personnel and others could be prosecuted for torture or other mistreatment of persons held at U.S. military and intelligence detention facilities. Included are web links to the cited international conventions and federal statutes. I. International Humanitarian Law and the Geneva Conventions The primary source of international humanitarian law (also called the laws of war) is the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, which the United States ratified in 1955. The Third Geneva Convention concerns prisoners‐of‐war; the Fourth Geneva Convention safeguards so‐called “protected persons,” most simply described as detained civilians. Detainees must at all times be humanely treated (Geneva III, art. 13, Geneva IV, art. 27). Detainees may be questioned, but any form of “physical or mental coercion” is prohibited (Geneva III, art. 17; Geneva IV, art. 31). Women shall be protected from rape and any form of indecent assault (Geneva IV, art. 27). Torture or inhuman treatment of prisoners‐of‐war (Geneva III, arts. 17 & 87) or protected persons (Geneva IV, art. 32) are grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, and are considered war crimes (Geneva III, art. 130; Geneva IV, art. 147). War crimes create an obligation on any state to prosecute the alleged perpetrators or turn them over to another state for prosecution. This obligation applies regardless of the nationality of the perpetrator, Generated with www.html-to-pdf.net the nationality of the victim or the place where the act of torture or inhuman treatment was committed (Geneva III, art.129; Geneva IV, art. 146).

Page 6 / 24

considered war crimes (Geneva III, art. 130; Geneva IV, art. 147). War crimes create an obligation on any state to prosecute the alleged perpetrators or turn them over to another state for prosecution. This obligation applies regardless of the nationality of the perpetrator, the nationality of the victim or the place where the act of torture or inhuman treatment was committed (Geneva III, art.129; Geneva IV, art. 146). Detainees in an armed conflict or military occupation are also protected by common article 3 to the Geneva Conventions. Article 3 prohibits “[v]iolence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; …outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.” Even persons who are not entitled to the protections of the 1949 Geneva Conventions (such as some detainees from third countries) are protected by the “fundamental guarantees” of article 75 of Protocol I of 1977 to the Geneva Conventions. The United States has long considered article 75 to be part of customary international law (a widely supported state practice accepted as law). Article 75 prohibits murder, “torture of all kinds, whether physical or mental,” “corporal punishment,” and “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, … and any form of indecent assault.” II. Human Rights Law Torture and other mistreatment of persons in custody are also prohibited in all circumstances under international human rights law, which applies in both peacetime and wartime. Among the relevant treaties are the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (arts. 7 & 10) and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention against Torture), both of which the United States has ratified. The standard definition of torture can be found in article 1 of the Convention against Torture. In its reservations to the Convention against Torture, the United States claims to be bound by the obligation to prevent “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” only insofar as the term means the cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, U.S. reservations say that mental pain or suffering only refers to prolonged mental harm from: (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the use or threat of mind altering substances; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) that another person will imminently be subjected to the above mistreatment. Prohibitions on torture and other ill‐treatment are also found in other international documents, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the U.N. Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, and the U.N. Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. Additionally, the prohibition on torture is considered a fundamental principle of customary international law that is binding on all states (what is known as a “peremptory norm” of international law because it preempts all other customary laws). All states are bound to respect the prohibition on torture and ill‐treatment whether or not they are parties to treaties which expressly contain the prohibition. They are also obliged to prevent and to punish acts of torture, even if they are not parties to treaties that expressly require them to do so. The widespread or systematic practice of torture constitutes a crime against humanity. (See, e.g., art. 5 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court) III. U.S. Law The United States has incorporated international prohibitions against torture and mistreatment of persons in custody into its domestic law. The United States has reported to the Committee Against Torture that: “Every act of torture within the meaning of the Convention is illegal under existing federal and state law, and any individual who commits such an act is subject to penal sanctions as specified in criminal statutes. Such prosecutions do in fact occur in appropriate circumstances. Torture cannot be justified by exceptional circumstances, nor can it be excused on the basis of an order from a superior officer. “ Military personnel who mistreat prisoners can be prosecuted by a court‐martial under various provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ, arts. 77‐134). The War Crimes Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. § 2441) makes it a criminal offense for U.S. military personnel and U.S. nationals to commit war crimes as specified in the 1949 Geneva Conventions. War crimes under the act include grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. It also includes violations of common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; …outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.

Generated with www.html-to-pdf.net A federal anti‐torture statute (18 U.S.C. § 2340A), enacted in 1994, provides for the prosecution of a U.S. national or anyone present in the United States who, while outside the

Page 7 / 24

“violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; …outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. A federal anti‐torture statute (18 U.S.C. § 2340A), enacted in 1994, provides for the prosecution of a U.S. national or anyone present in the United States who, while outside the U.S., commits or attempts to commit torture. Torture is defined as an “act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control.” A person found guilty under the act can be incarcerated for up to 20 years or receive the death penalty if the torture results in the victim’s death. Military contractors working for the Department of Defense might also be prosecuted under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000 (Public Law 106‐778), known as MEJA. MEJA permits the prosecution in federal court of U.S. civilians who, while employed by or accompanying U.S. forces abroad, commit certain crimes. Generally, the crimes covered are any federal criminal offense punishable by imprisonment for more than one year. The MEJA remains untested because the Defense Department has yet to issue necessary implementing regulations required by the law. ——————————————————————‐ TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113C > § 2340 § 2340. Definitions As used in this chapter— (1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control; (2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from— (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind‐ altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (C) the threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind‐altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and (3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States. § 2340A. Torture (a) Offense.— Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life. (b) Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if— (1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or (2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender. (c) Conspiracy.— A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy. TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113C > § 2340B § 2340B. Exclusive remedies Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as precluding the application of State or local laws on the same subject, nor shall anything in this chapter be construed as creating any substantive or procedural right enforceable by law by any party in any civil proceeding.
Posted in Human Experimentation, Torture, Uncategorized Tags: directed energy weapons, torture Leave a Comment

Generated with www.html-to-pdf.net
SEP 19

U.S. and International Standards Against Torture ( E‐ weapons)
Posted by (Geeldon)

Page 8 / 24

U.S. and International Standards Against Torture ( E‐ weapons)
SEP 19 Posted by (Geeldon)

United States Bill of Rights (1789), Amendment 8 ” …nor (shall) cruel or unusual punishment be inflicted.” Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), Article 5 “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment.” Geneva Conventions (1949) Article 99, Third Convention “no moral or physical coercion may be exerted on a prisoner of war in order to admit himself guilty of the act of which he is accused “ UN Minimum Standards for the Treatment of Prisoners (1957), Rule 31 “Corporal punishment, punishment by placing in a dark cell, and all cruel, inhumane or degrading punishments shall be completely prohibited…” International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination ?… to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction to race, color or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law, notably in the enjoyment of the following rights: ” (b) The right to security of person and protection by the State against violence or bodily harm, whether inflicted by government officials or by any individual group or institution…” America Convention on Human Rights (1969) “…All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.” UN Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1975) “No State may permit or tolerate torture…Exceptional circumstances such as a state of war … or any other public emergency may not be invoked as a justification of torture or other cruel inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment.” UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials (1979), Article 5 “No law enforcement official may inflict, instigate or tolerate any act of torture…nor may any law enforcement official invoke superior order or exceptional circumstances…as a justification of torture…In this code of conduct, the term “law enforcement officials is said to include all officer of the law who exercise police powers, especially the powers of arrest or detention.”
Posted in Human Experimentation, Torture, Uncategorized Tags: directed energy weapons, torture Leave a Comment

International law against torture ( electromagnetic weapons)
SEP 19 Posted by (Geeldon)

CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment The States Parties to this Convention, Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is thewith foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, Generated www.html-to-pdf.net Recognizing that those rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person,

Page 9 / 24

Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, Recognizing that those rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person, Considering the obligation of States under the Charter, in particular Article 55, to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms, Having regard to article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which provide that no one may be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Having regard also to the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the General Assembly on 9 December 1975 (resolution 3452 (XXX)), Desiring to make more effective the struggle against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment throughout the world, Have agreed as follows: Part I Article 1 1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. 2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application. Article 2 1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction. 2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. 3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture. Article 3 1. No State Party shall expel, return (“refouler”) or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. Article 4 1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture. 2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature. Article 5 1. Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in article 4 in the following cases: 1. When the offences are committed in any territory under its jurisdiction or on board a ship or aircraft registered in that State; 2. When the alleged offender is a national of that State; 3. When the victim was a national of that State if that State considers it appropriate. 2. Each State Party shall likewise take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over such offences in cases where the alleged offender is present in any territory under its jurisdiction and it does not extradite him pursuant to article 8 to any of the States Generated with www.html-to-pdf.net mentioned in Paragraph 1 of this article. 3. This Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with

Page 10 / 24

2. Each State Party shall likewise take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over such offences in cases where the alleged offender is present in any territory under its jurisdiction and it does not extradite him pursuant to article 8 to any of the States mentioned in Paragraph 1 of this article. 3. This Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with internal law. Article 6 1. Upon being satisfied, after an examination of information available to it, that the circumstances so warrant, any State Party in whose territory a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is present, shall take him into custody or take other legal measures to ensure his presence. The custody and other legal measures shall be as provided in the law of that State but may be continued only for such time as is necessary to enable any criminal or extradition proceedings to be instituted. 2. Such State shall immediately make a preliminary inquiry into the facts. 3. Any person in custody pursuant to paragraph 1 of this article shall be assisted in communicating immediately with the nearest appropriate representative of the State of which he is a national, or, if he is a stateless person, to the representative of the State where he usually resides. 4. When a State, pursuant to this article, has taken a person into custody, it shall immediately notify the States referred to in article 5, paragraph 1, of the fact that such person is in custody and of the circumstances which warrant his detention. The State which makes the preliminary inquiry contemplated in paragraph 2 of this article shall promptly report its findings to the said State and shall indicate whether it intends to exercise jurisdiction. Article 7 1. The State Party in territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found, shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution. 2. These authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offence of a serious nature under the law of that State. In the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 2, the standards of evidence required for prosecution and conviction shall in no way be less stringent than those which apply in the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 1. 3. Any person regarding whom proceedings are brought in connection with any of the offences referred to in article 4 shall be guaranteed fair treatment at all stages of the proceedings. Article 8 1. The offences referred to in article 4 shall be deemed to be included as extraditable offences in any extradition treaty existing between States Parties. States Parties undertake to include such offences as extraditable offences in every extradition treaty to be concluded between them. 2. If a State Party which makes extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty receives a request for extradition from another State Party with which it has no extradition treaty, it may consider this Convention as the legal basis for extradition in respect of such offenses. Extradition shall be subject to the other conditions provided by the law of the requested State. 3. States Parties which do not make extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty shall recognize such offences as extraditable offences between themselves subject to the conditions provided by the law of the requested state. 4. Such offences shall be treated, for the purpose of extradition between States Parties, as if they had been committed not only in the place in which they occurred but also in the territories of the States required to establish their jurisdiction in accordance with article 5, paragraph 1. Article 9 1. States Parties shall afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with civil proceedings brought in respect of any of the offences referred to in article 4, including the supply of all evidence at their disposal necessary for the proceedings. 2. States Parties shall carry out their obligations under paragraph 1 of this article in conformity with any treaties on mutual judicial assistance that may exist between them. Article 10 1. Each State Party shall ensure that education and information regarding the prohibition against torture are fully included in the training of law enforcement personnel, civil or military, medical personnel, public officials and other persons who may be involved in the custody, interrogation or treatment of any individual subjected to any form of arrest, detention or Generated with www.html-to-pdf.net imprisonment. 2. Each State Party shall include this prohibition in the rules or instructions issued in regard to

Page 11 / 24

against torture are fully included in the training of law enforcement personnel, civil or military, medical personnel, public officials and other persons who may be involved in the custody, interrogation or treatment of any individual subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment. 2. Each State Party shall include this prohibition in the rules or instructions issued in regard to the duties and functions of any such persons. Article 11 Each State Party shall keep under systematic review interrogation rules, instructions, methods and practices as well as arrangements for the custody and treatment of persons subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment in any territory under its jurisdiction, with a view to preventing any cases of torture. Article 12 Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committee in any territory under its jurisdiction. Article 13 Each State Party shall ensure that any individual who alleges he has been subjected to torture in any territory under its jurisdiction has the right to complain to and to have his case promptly and impartially examined its competent authorities. Steps shall be taken to ensure that the complainant and witnesses are protected against all ill‐treatment or intimidation as a consequence of his complaint or any evidence given. Article 14 1. Each State Party shall ensure in its legal system that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress and has an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation including the means for as full rehabilitation as possible. In the event of the death of the victim as a result of an act of torture, his dependents shall be entitled to compensation. 2. Nothing in this article shall affect any right of the victim or other person to compensation which may exist under national law. Article 15 Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made. Article 16 1. Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article 1, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. In particular, the obligations contained in articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall apply with the substitution for references to torture or references to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 2. The provisions of this Convention are without prejudice to the provisions of any other international instrument or national law which prohibit cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or which relate to extradition or expulsion. Article 17 1. There shall be established a Committee against Torture (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) which shall carry out the functions hereinafter provided. The Committee shall consist of 10 experts of high moral standing and recognized competence in the field of human rights, who shall serve in their personal capacity. The experts shall be elected by the States Parties, consideration being given to equitable geographical distribution and to the usefulness of the participation of some persons having legal experience. 2. The members of the Committee shall be elected by secret ballot from a list of persons nominated by States Parties. Each State Party may nominate one person from among its own nationals. States Parties shall bear in mind the usefulness of nominating persons who are also members of the Human Rights Committee established under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and are willing to serve on the Committee against Torture. 3. Elections of the members of the Committee shall be held at biennial meetings of States Parties convened by the Secretary‐General of the United Nations. At those meetings, for which two thirds of the States Parties shall constitute a quorum, the persons elected to the Committee shall be those who obtain the largest number of votes and an absolute majority of the votes of the representatives of States Parties present and voting. 4. The initial election shall be held no later than six months after the date of the entry into force of this Convention. At least four months before the date of each election, the Generated with www.html-to-pdf.net Secretary‐General of the United Nations shall address a letter to the States Parties inviting them to submit their nominations within three months. The Secretary‐General shall prepare a

Page 12 / 24

the votes of the representatives of States Parties present and voting. 4. The initial election shall be held no later than six months after the date of the entry into force of this Convention. At least four months before the date of each election, the Secretary‐General of the United Nations shall address a letter to the States Parties inviting them to submit their nominations within three months. The Secretary‐General shall prepare a list in alphabetical order of all persons thus nominated, indicating the States Parties which have nominated them, and shall submit it to the States Parties. 5. The members of the Committee shall be elected for a term of four years. They shall be eligible for re‐election if renominated. However, the term of five of the members elected at the first election shall expire at the end of two years; immediately after the first election the names of these five members shall be chosen by lot by the chairman of the meeting referred to in paragraph 3. 6. If a member of the Committee dies or resigns or for any other cause can no longer perform his Committee duties, the State Party which nominated him shall appoint another expert from among its nationals to serve for the remainder of his term, subject to the approval of the majority of the States Parties. The approval shall be considered given unless half or more of the States Parties respond negatively within six weeks after having been informed by the Secretary‐General of the United Nations of the proposed appointment. 7. States Parties shall be responsible for the expenses of the members of the Committee while they are in performance of Committee duties. Article 18 1. The Committee shall elect its officers for a term of two years. They may be re‐elected. 2. The Committee shall establish its own rules of procedure, but these rules shall provide, inter alia, that 1. Six members shall constitute a quorum; 2. Decisions of the Committee shall be made by a majority vote of the members present. 3. The Secretary‐General of the United Nations shall provide the necessary staff and facilities for the effective performance of the functions of the Committee under this Convention. 4. The Secretary‐General of the United Nations shall convene the initial meeting of the Committee. After its initial meeting, the Committee shall meet at such times as shall be provided in its rules of procedure. 5. The State Parties shall be responsible for expenses incurred in connection with the holding of meetings of the States Parties and of the Committee, including reimbursement of the United Nations for any expenses, such as the cost of staff and facilities, incurred by the United Nations pursuant to paragraph 3 above. Article 19 1. The States Parties shall submit to the Committee, through the Secretary‐General of the United Nations, reports on the measures they have taken to give effect to their undertakings under this Convention, within one year after the entry into force of this Convention for the State Party concerned. Thereafter the States Parties shall submit supplementary reports every four years on any new measures taken, and such other reports as the Committee may request. 2. The Secretary‐General shall transmit the reports to all States Parties. 3. [Each report shall be considered by the Committee which may make such comments or suggestions on the report as it considers appropriate, and shall forward these to the State Party concerned. That State Party may respond with any observations it chooses to the Committee. 4. The Committee may, at its discretion, decide to include any comments or suggestions made by it in accordance with paragraph 3, together with the observations thereon received from the State Party concerned, in its annual report made in accordance with article 24. If so requested by the State Party concerned, the Committee may also include a copy of the report submitted under paragraph 1.] Article 20 1. If the Committee receives reliable information which appears to it to contain well‐founded indications that torture is being systematically practised in the territory of a State Party, the Committee shall invite that State Party to co‐operate in the examination of the information and to this end to submit observations with regard to the information concerned. 2. Taking into account any observations which may have been submitted by the State Party concerned as well as any other relevant information available to it, the Committee may, if it decides that this is warranted, designate one or more of its members to make a confidential inquiry and to report to the Committee urgently. 3. If an inquiry is made in accordance with paragraph 2, the Committee shall seek the co‐ operation of the State Party concerned. In agreement with that State Party, such an inquiry may include a visit to its territory. 4. After examining the findings of its member or members submitted in accordance with paragraph 2, the Committee shall transmit these findings to the State Party concerned Generated with www.html-to-pdf.net together with any comments or suggestions which seem appropriate in view of the situation. 5. All the proceedings of the Committee referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4 of this article shall be

Page 13 / 24

may include a visit to its territory. 4. After examining the findings of its member or members submitted in accordance with paragraph 2, the Committee shall transmit these findings to the State Party concerned together with any comments or suggestions which seem appropriate in view of the situation. 5. All the proceedings of the Committee referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4 of this article shall be confidential, and at all stages of the proceedings the co‐operation of the State Party shall be sought. After such proceedings have been completed with regard to an inquiry made in accordance with paragraph 2, the Committee may, after consultations with the State Party concerned, decide to include a summary account of the results of the proceedings in its annual report made in accordance with article 24. Article 21 1. A State Party to this Convention may at any time declare under this article 3 that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention. Such communications may be received and considered according to the procedures laid down in this article only if submitted by a State Party which has made a declaration recognizing in regard to itself the competence of the Committee. No communication shall be dealt with by the Committee under this article if it concerns a State Party which has not made such a declaration. Communications received under this article shall be dealt with in accordance with the following procedure: 1. If a State Party considers that another State Party is not giving effect to the provisions of this Convention, it may, by written communication, bring the matter to the attention of that State Party. Within three months after the receipt of the communication the receiving State shall afford the State which sent the communication an explanation or any other statement in writing clarifying the matter which should include, to the extent possible and pertinent, references to domestic procedures and remedies taken, pending, or available in the matter. 2. If the matter is not adjusted to the satisfaction of both States Parties concerned within six months after the receipt by the receiving State of the initial communication, either State shall have the right to refer the matter to the Committee by notice given to the Committee and to the other State. 3. The Committee shall deal with a matter referred to it under this article only after it has ascertained that all domestic remedies have been invoked and exhausted in the matter, in conformity with the generally recognized principles of international law. This shall not be the rule where the application of the remedies is unreasonably prolonged or is unlikely to bring effective relief to the person who is the victim of the violation of this Convention. 4. The Committee shall hold closed meetings when examining communications under this article. 5. Subject to the provisions of subparagraph (c), the Committee shall make available its good offices to the States Parties concerned with a view to a friendly solution of the matter on the basis of respect for the obligations provided for in the present Convention. For this purpose, the Committee may, when appropriate, set up an ad hoc conciliation commission. 6. In any matter referred to it under this article, the Committee may call upon the States Parties concerned, referred to in subparagraph (b), to supply any relevant information. 7. The States Parties concerned, referred to in subparagraph (b), shall have the right to be represented when the matter is being considered by the Committee and to make submissions orally and/or in writing. 8. The Committee shall, within 12 months after the date of receipt of notice under subparagraph (b), submit a report. 1. If a solution within the terms of subparagraph (e) is reached, the Committee shall confine its report to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution reached. 2. If a solution within the terms of subparagraph (e) is not reached, the Committee shall confine its report to a brief statement of the facts; the written submissions and record of the oral submissions made by the States Parties concerned shall be attached to the report. In every matter, the report shall be communicated to the States Parties concerned. 2. The provisions of this article shall come into force when five States Parties to this Convention have made declarations under paragraph 1 of this article. Such declarations shall be deposited by the States Parties with the Secretary‐General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the other States Parties. A declaration may be withdrawn at any time by notification to the Secretary‐General. Such a withdrawal shall not prejudice the consideration of any matter which is the subject of a communication already transmitted under this article; no further communication by any State Party shall be received under this article after the notification of withdrawal of the declaration has been received by the Secretary‐General, unless the State Party concerned has made a new declaration. Article 22 1. A State Party to this Convention may at any time declare under this article that it Generated with www.html-to-pdf.net recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a

Page 14 / 24

1. A State Party to this Convention may at any time declare under this article that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention. No communication shall be received by the Committee if it concerns a State Party to the Convention which has not made such a declaration. 2. The Committee shall consider inadmissible any communication under this article which is anonymous, or which it considers to be an abuse of the right of submission of such communications or to be incompatible with the provisions of this Convention. 3. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 2, the Committee shall bring any communication submitted to it under this article to the attention of the State Party to this Convention which has made a declaration under paragraph 1 and is alleged to be violating any provisions of the Convention. Within six months, the receiving State shall submit to the Committee written explanations or statements clarifying the matter and the remedy, if any, that may have been taken by that State. 4. The Committee shall consider communications received under this article in the light of all information made available to it by or on behalf of the individual and by the State Party concerned. 5. The Committee shall not consider any communication from an individual under this article unless it has ascertained that: 1. The same matter has not been, and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement; 2. The individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies; this shall not be the rule where the application of the remedies is unreasonably prolonged or is unlikely to bring effective relief to the person who is the victim of the violation of this Convention. 6. The Committee shall hold closed meetings when examining communications under this article. 7. The Committee shall forward its views to the State Party concerned and to the individual. 8. The provisions of this article shall come into force when five States Parties to this Convention have made declarations under paragraph 1 of this article. Such declarations shall be deposited by the States Parties with the Secretary‐General of the United Nations, who shall transmit parties thereof to the other States Parties. A declaration may be withdrawn at any time by notification to the Secretary‐General. Such a withdrawal shall not prejudice the consideration of any matter which is the subject of a communication already transmitted under this article; no further communication by or on behalf of an individual shall be received under this article after the notification of withdrawal of the declaration has been received by the Secretary‐General, unless the State Party concerned has made a new declaration. Article 23 The members of the Committee, and of the ad hoc conciliation commissions which may be appointed under article 21, paragraph 1 (e), shall be entitled to the facilities, privileges and immunities of experts on missions for the United Nations as laid down in the relevant sections of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations. Article 24 The Committee shall submit an annual report on its activities under this Convention to the States Parties and to the General Assembly of the United Nations. Part III Article 25 1. This Convention is open for signature by all States. 2. This Convention is subject to ratification. Instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Secretary‐General of the United Nations. Article 26 This Convention is open to accession by all States. Accession shall be effected by the deposit of an instrument of accession with the Secretary‐General of the United Nations. Article 27 1. This Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after the date of the deposit with the Secretary‐General of the United Nations of the twentieth instrument of ratification or accession. 2. For each State ratifying this Convention or acceding to it after the deposit of the twentieth instrument of ratification or accession, the Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after the date of the deposit of its own instrument of ratification or accession. Article 28

Generated with www.html-to-pdf.net 1. Each State may, at the time of signature or ratification of this Convention or accession thereto, declare that it does not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in

Page 15 / 24

Article 28 1. Each State may, at the time of signature or ratification of this Convention or accession thereto, declare that it does not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in article 20. 2. Any State Party having made a reservation in accordance with paragraph 1 of this article may, at any time, withdraw this reservation by notification to the Secretary‐General of the United Nations. Article 29 1. Any State Party to this Convention may propose an amendment and file it with the Secretary‐General of the United Nations. The Secretary‐General shall thereupon communicate the proposed amendment to the States Parties to this Convention with a request that they notify him whether they favour a conference of States Parties for the purpose of considering and voting upon the proposal. In the event that within four months from the date of such communication at least one third of the State Parties favours such a conference, the Secretary‐General shall convene the conference under the auspices of the United Nations. Any amendment adopted by a majority of the States Parties present and voting at the conference shall be submitted by the Secretary‐General to all the States Parties for acceptance. 2. An amendment adopted in accordance with paragraph 1 shall enter into force when two thirds of the States Parties to this Convention have notified the Secretary‐General of the United Nations that they have accepted it in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. 3. When amendments enter into force, they shall be binding on those States Parties which have accepted them, other States Parties still being bound by the provisions of this Convention and any earlier amendments which they have accepted. Article 30 1. Any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention which cannot be settled through negotiation, shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration. If within six months from the date of the request for arbitration the Parties are unable to agree on the organization of the arbitration, any one of those Parties may refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice by request in conformity with the Statute of the Court. 2. Each State may at the time of signature or ratification of this Convention or accession thereto, declare that it does not consider itself bound by the preceding paragraph. The other States Parties shall not be bound by the preceding paragraph with respect to any State Party having made such a reservation. 3. Any State Party having made a reservation in accordance with the preceding paragraph may at any time withdraw this reservation by notification to the Secretary‐General of the United Nations. Article 31 1. A State Party may denounce this Convention by written notification to the Secretary‐ General of the United Nations. Denunciation becomes effective one year after the date of receipt of the notification by the Secretary‐General. 2. Such a denunciation shall not have the effect of releasing the State Party from its obligations under this Convention in regard to any act or omission which occurs prior to the date at which the denunciation becomes effective. Nor shall denunciation prejudice in any way the continued consideration of any matter which is already under consideration by the Committee prior to the date at which the denunciation becomes effective. 3. Following the date at which the denunciation of a State Party becomes effective, the Committee shall not commence consideration of any new matter regarding that State. Article 32 The Secretary‐General of the United Nations shall inform all members of the United Nations and all States which have signed this Convention or acceded to it, or the following particulars: 1. Signatures, ratifications and accessions under articles 25 and 26; 2. The date of entry into force of this Convention under article 27, and the date of the entry into force of any amendments under article 29; 3. Denunciations under article 31. Article 33 1. This Convention, of which the Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of the United Nations. 2. The Secretary‐General of the United Nations shall transmit certified copies of this Generated with www.html-to-pdf.net Convention to all States. On February 4, 1985, the Convention was opened for signature at United Nations Headquarters

Page 16 / 24

1. This Convention, of which the Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of the United Nations. 2. The Secretary‐General of the United Nations shall transmit certified copies of this Convention to all States. On February 4, 1985, the Convention was opened for signature at United Nations Headquarters in New York. At that time, representatives of the following countries signed it: Afghanistan, Argentina, Belgium, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Finland, France, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Senegal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Uruguay. Subsequently, signatures were received from Venezuela on February 15, from Luxembourg and Panama on February 22, from Austria on March 14, and from the United Kingdom on March 15, 1985. (signatures) Created on July 16, 1994 / Last edited on January 25, 1997
Posted in Human Experimentation, Torture, Uncategorized Tags: directed energy weapons, torture Leave a Comment

Constitutional Rights , Human Microchip Implantation & Brain Waves
SEP 16 Posted by (Geeldon)

Constitutional Rights Devices described above can be said to impinge upon various constitutional rights, depending on the embodiment. Here we focus on the relation of human microchip implantation to the Fourth and the Fifth Amendments.[86] The Fourteenth Amendment will be discussed in conjunction with the impingement upon property rights. Fourth Amendment The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. A type of search which has been frequently tested for potential violation of constitutional rights is the use of electronic surveillance. In that instance, a bifurcated framework has been used to analyze which acts of surveillance constitute illegal searches. This approach considers first the implications of the attachment of the surveillance device and second the implications of continual monitoring once a device is in place.[87] These considerations must also take into account the requirements of probable cause and particularity.[88] There must be a definite reason for suspicion necessitating the search, and the search must also be placed within finite limits. In this section, a search will first be defined, then the method of determination of whether or not a search is constitutional will be explained, and finally the applicability to microchip implantation will be explored. The courts often examine whether or not the activity under surveillance normally has associated with it a legitimate expectation of privacy in making their determinations as to whether or not a “search” (requiring constitutional protection) took place. This factor may be illustrated by a hypothetical surveillance of an individual walking on the sidewalk. Privacy often has two aspects: 1) actual expectations and 2) their reasonableness.[89] Applying these to the hypothetical, just because a pedestrian thinks sidewalk activities are private and precluded from surveillance does not mean that they are. Legally, because of no reasonable expectation of privacy on a sidewalk, observing the pedestrian does not amount to a search for Fourth Amendment purposes. The same type of question has been asked in litigation over whether or not surveillance of a moving automobile is a search. If a beeper is placed on an automobile for tracking, is it within Generated www.html-to-pdf.net thewith realm of public activities and therefore a type of surveillance which is not a search? Courts have answered that question in the affirmative, terming driving an activity associated with a

Page 17 / 24

The same type of question has been asked in litigation over whether or not surveillance of a moving automobile is a search. If a beeper is placed on an automobile for tracking, is it within the realm of public activities and therefore a type of surveillance which is not a search? Courts have answered that question in the affirmative, terming driving an activity associated with a “diminished expectation of privacy,” not a search because “[a] car has little capacity for escaping public scrutiny.”[90] The same reasoning has also been applied to beepers placed on airplanes,[91] and the use of infrared devices to examine the heat content emanating from buildings.[92] The generalized concepts relating to the definition of a search have been related to external examples of beepers or wiretapping. However, the Fourth Amendment has also been invoked with reference to internal intrusions upon individuals to obtain evidence which could be used against them. Examples include the withdrawal of blood and bodily searches which require surgical procedures or other means to extract substances from the body. In Winston v. Lee, [93] a robber was shot during an escape of the scene of an attempted robbery. Shortly thereafter, a man with a gunshot wound was discovered in the vicinity. To confirm that the suspect was connected with that particular robbery, the police wanted to compel surgery to remove the bullet. Because of the complicated and life‐threatening surgery required to remove the bullet, the Supreme Court ruled that the surgery would be an unreasonable search. [94] Alternatively, other decisions have classified these highly intrusive searches as warrantless searches rather than unreasonable ones.[95] Thus, it seems that the courts are unwilling to totally relinquish the power to conduct a highly intrusive search, regardless of the conditions involved. Arguments have also been made that taking blood samples is another example of an internal search which may be said to implicate the Fourth Amendment, where those samples indicate intoxication.[96] The same reasoning has been suggested as a reason to prevent the collection of blood samples from convicted criminals to obtain DNA for a genetic data bank.[97] However, these arguments have not been successful against the claim that greater restraints on liberties are required for the convicted. Once it has been established that a search has indeed taken place, it is thereafter unconstitutional only if a valid warrant was not obtained prior to the search. The warrant is evidence that the proposed search has been examined, and considered not to infringe upon the suspect’s rights. The leading case detailing the constitutionality of the search when a warrant is provided is Katz v. United States,[98] which examined the constitutionality of wiretap surveillance by the government. The petitioner had been convicted based on improperly‐obtained evidence because the safeguard of first obtaining a search warrant before bugging the phone booth had been ignored. On appeal the court stated that “[i]n the absence of such safeguards, this Court has never sustained a search upon the sole ground that officers reasonably expected to find evidence of a particular crime and voluntarily confined their activities to the least intrusive means consistent with that end.”[99] The principles evolved for Fourth Amendment claims can be applied to microchip implants. The clearest application will be to the embodiment of the device that can read‐write and track. Still, read only and read‐write devices also implicate Fourth Amendment principles because, once installed, either could be scanned by police to obtain information about the individual. Scanning of the microchip would be considered as a search. The first question to consider is whether or not a search (worthy of Fourth Amendment protection) took place. Thus, scanning or interrogation of the implanted microchip to obtain information from it is the action to be evaluated. The act of implantation itself does not constitute a search.[100] Rather, it is subsequent actions relating to the garnering of information from the microchip which are of consequence to the Fourth Amendment analysis. In the case of any of the embodiments, an individual may have an expectation of privacy as to the information on the microchip. However, it would be more difficult to defend that expectation as a justifiable one, if the microchip carried information of medical records on a read‐write device.[101] Because the information is vital for the good of society, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Proponents of this theory would argue that such information was available and on record already, and that this technology merely increased the speed with which it could be recovered. If these arguments prevail, there would be no search and no Fourth Amendment protection. However, one court has found that personal information should be kept private and not readily accessible.[102] In a Doe case, this philosophy was validated for medical information by judges who declared that “Doe has a right to privacy (or confidentiality) in his HIV status, because his personal medical condition is a matter that he is normally entitled to keep private.”[103] Therefore, under Doe, retrieval of information from a microchip read‐write device is a search when the information retrievable is of a type that is normally protected. Generated with www.html-to-pdf.net Monitoring a read‐write device with tracking capabilities could be defined as a search if the

Page 18 / 24

because his personal medical condition is a matter that he is normally entitled to keep private.”[103] Therefore, under Doe, retrieval of information from a microchip read‐write device is a search when the information retrievable is of a type that is normally protected. Monitoring a read‐write device with tracking capabilities could be defined as a search if the implanted citizen were law‐abiding. Because criminals have lesser privacy rights, tracking in their case wouldn’t be termed a search.[104] Once it has been established that a search has occurred, the Fourth Amendment protections insure that the search is only permissible under certain conditions: that a warrant has been issued and that the search is described with particularity. Even if it is a possibility that blanket warrants could be issued, or that a warrant could be easily obtained, it will be difficult to evade the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment with reference to microchip implantation. That requirement is to prevent an overbroad search which impinges on an individual’s privacy rights.[105] If the embodiment of the device is read only or read‐write, the particularity requirement could be satisfied with a warrant. Conversely, if the device was read‐write with tracking capabilities, the search would not be defined with particularity, as a person could be monitored at any time, in any place.[106] In summation, in any form, interrogation of the microchip implant can be considered a search under the bifurcated analytical framework. The Fourth Amendment protections to make a search constitutional could conceivably be met by the government when the search involves certain information from read only or read‐write devices. However, if the device is used for tracking purposes, it will fail the particularity test and thus violate the Fourth Amendment on the grounds that a valid warrant has not been issued. Fifth Amendment The Fifth Amendment provides, in part, that no citizen “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”[107] Verbal self‐incrimination is commonly understood to be covered by the amendment,[108] but it has also been applied to removal of objects from someone’s body.[109] “[A] person is compelled to be a witness against himself not only when he is compelled to testify, but also when… incriminating evidence is forcibly taken from him by a contrivance of modern science” according to a concurrence by Justice Black.[110] Non‐verbal communications are not as easily categorized. For example, in a case concerning whether or not blood withdrawn from a suspect could be used to prove intoxication, the court commented that “[s]ince the blood test evidence, although an incriminating product of compulsion, was neither petitioner’s testimony nor evidence relating to some communicative act or writing by the petitioner, it was not inadmissible on privilege grounds.”[111] Yet later in the same opinion, Justice Brennan tempered the decision in the following manner: “That we today hold that the Constitution does not forbid the States minor intrusions into an individual’s body under stringently limited conditions in no way indicates that it permits more substantial intrusions, or intrusions under other conditions.”[112] Thus, there appears to be some disagreement as to the extent of the reach of the Fifth Amendment’s protection as applied to bodily intrusions. However, a common theme in such cases is that the courts examine the difficulty involved in terms of the level of intrusiveness required to obtain the “non‐verbal communication,” to determine whether it is constitutional. The Fifth Amendment could be applied to the use of microchip implants in humans because it could be a form of self‐incrimination where the device has tracking capabilities.[113] Note that the implantation itself would not be incriminating, but the scanning or tracking of the implant could be. The question which arises is whether or not the act of carrying the implant is self‐ incrimination. According to decisions which require a communicative act such as speech or writing, the implant would not be an example of self‐incrimination worthy of Fifth Amendment protection. Yet the carrying of the implant might properly be categorized as a communicative act because the chip would provide for constant communication of location. If the government has the ability to determine where someone is at all times, that information could be used as evidence in the commission of certain crimes. It would be analogous to the situation in which a suspect wore a beeper for surveillance 24 hours a day for the rest of his life.[114] In that instance, it might be most properly characterized as self‐incrimination and therefore prohibited by the Fifth Amendment. Conversely, if the implantation were consensual, it could hardly be said to represent self‐incrimination because of acquiescence. Moreover, if tracking or scanning of the microchip is considered merely as a non‐verbal communication, it may not qualify for Fifth Amendment immunity if constitutionally obtained. Since the act of scanning or tracking does not involve any life‐threatening operation, or serious physical disruption, but rather only the monitoring of an electronic device, it would not be intrusive enough a method to qualify for immunity. Property Rights Generated with www.html-to-pdf.net Property rights are protected from governmental deprivation without due process by the Fifth

Page 19 / 24

serious physical disruption, but rather only the monitoring of an electronic device, it would not be intrusive enough a method to qualify for immunity. Property Rights Property rights are protected from governmental deprivation without due process by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.[115] Here, we focus on the latter. To determine what is protected by the due process clauses, it is necessary to understand what is meant by the term “property.” This is constantly refined and expanded by the courts, but basically it refers to a collection of rights held in a particular object.[116] They may be tangible, as in the case of land or possessions, or intangible, as in the case of intellectual property. Property has been defined as “every species of valuable right and interest” which may be protected by the State.[117] Although the concept of one’s own body as one’s property has not been embraced by the courts, there is some precedent for that expansion. The law does not provide an overtly obvious method of insulation from bodily intrusions such as mandatory microchip implantation, but it is argued that novel situations require novel applications and expansions of existing legal concepts. Here, the current rationale for and against the definition of the body as property will be examined, followed by current indications that the theory should be generally adopted. Last, the application of the concept of the body as property to the use of microchip implantation into humans will be explained. 1. Rationale As explained, the concept of the human body as property is not generally accepted. One reason is fear that if the body were property, one could sell oneself or a portion thereof to another for profit. The basic rights in property include the right to transfer it as one wishes. [118] However, those fears could be allayed by specific statutes covering and limiting transfers. Even the transfer of land is subject to, e.g., zoning restrictions.[119] Another reason for hesitation to consider the body as property is that it harkens back to slavery. If the body were recognized as property, it would provide certain advantages. Namely, the Fourteenth Amendment which insures that the individual will not be deprived of property without due process of law could then be invoked against intrusions into an individual’s body. It may be argued however, that the individual is already afforded Fourteenth Amendment protection through the liberty aspect of the amendment.[120] Liberty is generally thought to refer to personal rights in conjunction with torts such as battery, assault and false imprisonment.[121] These may be categorized as external events, ones which are not the doing of the individual himself, but rather the acts of another against the self. Conversely, property rights in one’s own body would cover the acts of the self concerning the self. Therefore the liberty interest does not strictly apply, and the property interest in the self could result in a right distinct from the liberty interest. The importance of this feature will be illustrated below. Current Indications Evidence for some situations in which the body has been considered as property, or at least as quasi‐property, can be found in statutes and court decisions. For example, individuals can have limited rights with respect to the corpse of another, referred to as quasi‐property rights. [122] Surviving spouses often have the ability to determine how to dispose of the dead.[123] Other rights in an individual’s body are defined by the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (UAGA) which determines how and to whom gifts of transplantable organs can be made subsequent to the death of a donor.[124] Since one of the rights attached to property is the ability to alienate it, the introduction of the UAGA serves as evidence that it is permissible to have property rights in one’s body,[125] though they are statutorily limited.[126] In York v. Jones, a couple had an embryo cryogenically frozen for future use.[127] Later, they wished to transfer it from an in‐vitro fertilization institute in Virginia to another in California. The Virginia institute refused, citing the Cryopreservation agreement signed by the couple which specified only one of three fates for cryopreserved embryos. Interinstitutional transfer was not one agreed upon. The Yorks’ argument, adopted by the court, was that the Cryopreservation Agreement was an admission by the Institute that the Yorks had property rights in addition to contract rights in the embryos.[128] Thus, within the confines of a contract, the court was willing to recognize property rights in an embryo. In a later dispute over the ownership of frozen embryos, another court was not as willing to go as far.[129] The Davises had seven in‐vitro fertilized embryos stored at a clinic for later implantation. Afterwards, in divorce proceedings they disagreed over who should get the embryos. Finding it impossible to call the embryos “persons”, and unwilling to call them “property”, the court compromised by putting them in an “interim category that entitles them to special respect because of their potential for human life.”[130] The rights or duties Generated with www.html-to-pdf.net entailed by the interim category were not further elaborated upon other than to indicate that the interest of the parents was one of ownership (where they had equal weight in

Page 20 / 24

embryos. Finding it impossible to call the embryos “persons”, and unwilling to call them “property”, the court compromised by putting them in an “interim category that entitles them to special respect because of their potential for human life.”[130] The rights or duties entailed by the interim category were not further elaborated upon other than to indicate that the interest of the parents was one of ownership (where they had equal weight in determining the fate of the embryos).[131] In both York and Davis, the emphasis was on an embryo outside of the human body. Property rights exerted, where granted, are still external to the human body. In a third example, external rights were also the issue where a man sued to obtain the monetary gain of the use of his cells to create a profitable cell line.[132] In part of his argument, he claimed that he had property rights in the cells removed from him during the course of his treatment. Because he never agreed that his cells could be used by the researchers to develop a new cell line, he claimed that they had converted his property based on the belief that the cells were still his property (because he had not released them) even after they were removed from his body.[133] The argument had been accepted by the lower court, but was not confirmed by the California Supreme Court. Instead, that court sustained the demurrers of the defendants to the cause of action of conversion, citing that the burden that would be placed on researchers to confirm consent before utilization of human body fluids in research would be too great.[134] Here again, the case focused on the ability of one to define products of his body external to himself as his property. Applications of Property Law Concepts Implantation of microchips concerns an internal property interest in the self because placement of the device involves breaking the skin to place a foreign object within the body permanently. It may be likened to the use of an artificial eye or a pace‐maker. However, in those cases, the implant is desired. In the case of the microchip, there is only a convenient accounting system and repository for government information. Thus, new questions such as whether or not property rights can be extended to oneself now arise. If York could be used as a precedent, it would then be possible to extend the right from a frozen embryo removed from the body, to internal bodily organs. If embryos outside an individual’s body are his or her property, why then couldn’t the embryos inside the body also be that individual’s property? From there the conclusion that anything within an individual’s body was the property of that individual, or that the body as a whole is property if its components are, could be reached. York is somewhat different however, because concerns and interests in reproductive freedom enter into disputes over fetuses, embryos and contraception in general.[135] York or Davis or other cases concerning reproductive rights and technologies are therefore not the best models for the microchip, but they are closest in substance.[136] Additionally, the very closest legally applicable statutory precedent is the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act. Unfortunately, as previously stated, because this Act covers intrusions into self only after death, it is not directly applicable either. As stated previously, in the absence of close precedent, and in the face of emerging technology, it is sometimes necessary to forge new legal concepts to cover the previously unanticipated developments of science. The use of microchip implants in humans is such an instance, wherein the application of novel legal theories is required, because of the novelty and the direness of the implications for humans. The concept of property should be extended to oneself as concerns internal matters to prevent technology from swallowing up the individual. One important aspect of property is the owner’s right to exclude others from it. It follows that if an individual can be said to have property rights in himself, he can exclude others from invading his body which he controls as his property. Thereafter, if it is recognized that the individual has that right to prevent intrusions into his own body under property law, he can invoke Fourteenth Amendment protection to dissuade others or the government from requiring the placement of foreign objects in his body or at minimum provide adequate compensation. Those principles can be analogized to the scenario of governmental mandate of microchip implantation. If the government desires to mandate microchip implantation, it must provide just compensation for those implanted. The question would then become how to value this level of intrusion. Compensation required would include money damages for the initial implantation,[137] as well as carrying a foreign substance,[138] difficult calculations indeed. Even if an amount could be calculated, it is unlikely that the government could give its value in cash because the total amount required for compensation of all individuals would be prohibitively high.[139] Thus, if property interests were recognized in self, the compensation required by each individual from the government to implant the chip in each individual would be very great. The Generated with www.html-to-pdf.net renumerative aspects of the program would effectively make it difficult to uniformly mandate the implantation of the microchip.[140] To overcome this obstacle, the government might

Page 21 / 24

Thus, if property interests were recognized in self, the compensation required by each individual from the government to implant the chip in each individual would be very great. The renumerative aspects of the program would effectively make it difficult to uniformly mandate the implantation of the microchip.[140] To overcome this obstacle, the government might insist on some form of nonmonetary compensation. For example, a tax break, an additional legal holiday or some other compensatory program might be invoked which did not involve an actual exchange of money on the part of the government. In summation, property rights in self should be recognized in the case of mandated microchip implantation.[141] This would ensure that individuals receive compensation for their inconvenience, though the government may provide nonmonetary compensation which would be less satisfactory.
Posted in Group Stalking, Human Experimentation, Psychiatric Reprisal, Synthetic Telepathy Tags: law, microchip, Organized stalking, synthetic telepathy Leave a Comment

The Implantable Microchip – How difficult is it to remove?
SEP 16 Posted by (Geeldon)

The Implantable Microchip – How difficult is it to remove? VeriChip CEO Scott Silverman has told the press that removing a VeriChip implant is a simple, almost trivial procedure. In a 2006 interview he said: “Should a person request the removal of an implanted microchip it can be removed by a simple out‐patient procedure. It could be equated to removing a large splinter or a piece of glass.” Those who have actually undergone the chip removal procedure say’s that removing an implanted VeriChip device requires painstaking surgery that has been described by patients as difficult, time‐consuming, and expensive. A big problem is locating the microchip, which typically cannot be felt under the skin. It is also possible that the chip may have migrated to a different location within the arm or other body part where it was implanted. When that happens, a sensor X‐ray and monitors are needed to locate the chip.Once it has been found, the chip cannot simply be slid out of the body like a piece of glass, but rather a plastic surgeon must cut away the scar tissue that forms around the chip.

The implantable microchip can be removed from the body – but it’s not like removing a splinter. This image is from a French documentary showing a VeriChip being surgically removed from the arm of a journalist. Source: News of the world – RFID CNN reporter Robyn Curnow confirms that chip removal is difficult. She was implanted with a VeriChip in a Spanish night club in 2004 and had the device removed later that year. She reports that the surgery was a challenge for the doctors involved —a far cry from “removing a splinter.” Here is her report: Once back home in London, I begin to feel uncomfortable and unsure about my…[microchip implant]. The Baja [Beach Club] Web site assures that getting rid of the microchip is a simple and harmless procedure, something like removing a splinter. But the two doctors I consulted in London’s Harley Street disagreed. Getting the microchip [removed] became serious business. General practitioner Dr. Stuart Sanders referred me to consultant plastic surgeon Lena Andersson as soon as he realized he could not feel the microchip. It was buried so deep inside my upper arm that Andersson sent me off for an X‐ray, and even that did not help the doctors. Although the microchip was visible on the X‐ray, it was impossible to pinpoint the exact location in my arm as it was nowhere near the point of insertion. Finding it involved surgery at the clinic and a severe dose of post‐Baja regret. One night out in Barcelona has permanently seared into my upper left arm. While splayed out on an operating table — once again Generated with www.html-to-pdf.net anaesthetized — Andersson removed the chip using a high‐tech sensor X‐ray and two monitors to guide her to it. How difficult is the procedure? Let’s face it… Unless you are a atheist tech

Page 22 / 24

location in my arm as it was nowhere near the point of insertion. Finding it involved surgery at the clinic and a severe dose of post‐Baja regret. One night out in Barcelona has permanently seared into my upper left arm. While splayed out on an operating table — once again anaesthetized — Andersson removed the chip using a high‐tech sensor X‐ray and two monitors to guide her to it. How difficult is the procedure? Let’s face it… Unless you are a atheist tech junky – who in their right mind would allow the government (or anyone else) to implant a traceable microchip under their skin to monitor their every move especially when there is a chance of it being “The Mark of the Beast” prophesied in Revelation of the end times.. No one wants to be implanted like a dog and numbered like cattle, but how many will reject the same mandated (forced upon you) chip in a card of some sort when the results are the exactly the same. No RFID chip – No travel – No Food – No House – etc… Would you take your RFID tag in a card when it is offered to you? That is what they are hoping for. Implant or a card – your choice – the results are the same.

Read more: http://rfid.skyriver.org/rfid‐mark/removal#ixzz0zh7RFFC5 http://www.skyriver.org/ Generated with www.html-to-pdf.net
Posted in Group Stalking, Human Experimentation, Psychiatric Reprisal, Synthetic Telepathy

Page 23 / 24

http://www.skyriver.org/
Posted in Group Stalking, Human Experimentation, Psychiatric Reprisal, Synthetic Telepathy Tags: gaslighting, implant, microchip Leave a Comment

WISCONSIN BANS FORCED HUMAN RFID CHIPPING
SEP 16 Posted by (Geeldon)

WISCONSIN BANS FORCED HUMAN RFID CHIPPING Groundbreaking Law Spotlights Opposition to VeriChip Civil libertarians cheered yesterday upon news that Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle signed a law making it a crime to require an individual to be implanted with a microchip. Activists and authors Katherine Albrecht and Liz McIntyre joined the celebration, predicting this move will spell trouble for the VeriChip Corporation, maker of the VeriChip human microchip implant. The VeriChip is a glass encapsulated Radio Frequency Identification tag that is injected into the flesh to uniquely number and identify people. The tag can be read silently and invisibly by radio waves from up to a foot or more away, right through clothing. The highly controversial device is also being marketed as a way to access secure areas, link to medical records, and serve as a payment device when associated with a credit card. “We’re not even aware of anyone attempting to forcibly implant microchips into people,” says Albrecht. “That lawmakers felt this legislation was necessary indicates a growing concern that the company’s product could pose a serious threat to the public down the road.” Although the company emphasizes that its chip is strictly voluntary, recent statements suggest this could easily change. VeriChip Chairman of the Board Scott Silverman has been promoting the VeriChip as a partial solution to immigration concerns, proposing it as a way to register guest workers, verify their identities as they cross the border, and “be used for enforcement purposes at the employer level.” He told interviewers on the Fox News Channel that the company has “talked to many people in Washington about using it.” The company has also confirmed it has been in talks with the Pentagon about replacing military dog tags with VeriChip implants. Wisconsin’s anti‐human‐chipping law comes at a particularly bad time for VeriChip Corporation because it has an initial public offering of its stock in the works, McIntyre observes. “The company has been losing millions of dollars and has been counting on public acceptance to stem its losses and prove its future. The people have spoken. They don’t want RFID devices in their flesh, and we expect other states will join Wisconsin in prohibiting forced chipping.” Albrecht and McIntyre have dogged the VeriChip Corporation, revealing medical and security flaws in its human chip and warning about its serious privacy and civil liberties downsides in their book “Spychips: How Major Corporations and Government Plan to Track Your Every Move with RFID.” Wisconsin’s new law was introduced as Assembly Bill 290 by Representative Marlin D. Schneider (D) and was passed unanimously by both houses of the Wisconsin State Legislature this spring. The law makes it illegal to require an individual to have a microchip implant and subjects a violator to a fine of up to $10,000 per day.
Posted in Group Stalking, Human Experimentation Tags: gaslighting, implant, implant microchip gaslighting, microchip Leave a Comment

← Older Posts

Newer Posts →

Blog at WordPress.com. The Mystique Theme.

Follow

Generated with www.html-to-pdf.net

Page 24 / 24