The Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues
US presidential bioethics commission might be heard on the Obama's brain project. 2013
http://www.bioethics.gov/node/839
The President stated that he will ask the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues to examine the ethical, legal, and societal implications raised by this research initiative. We stand ready to assist the President and will engage in discussions with the White House to determine how we can be most helpful in examining the ethical considerations of this important area.
Here is the link:
http://www.occupycorporatism.com/obama-brain-project-gov-study-on-how-to-better-control-our-minds/
It says:
Maintaining our highest ethical standards: Pioneering research often has the potential to raise new ethical challenges. To ensure that this new effort proceeds in ways that continue to adhere to our highest standards of research protections, the president will direct his Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues to explore all ethical, legal and societal implications raised by this research initiative and other recent advances in neuroscience.
This is a great oppurtunity for TIs to be heard, if they overcome discrediting, discarding, denial strategies as the case may be.
Past events
Targeted people in America give testimony Feb 28th, 2011
http://www.tvworldwide.com/events/bioethics/110228/default.cfm?id=13288&type=flv&test=0&live=0
The Commission and eleven invited experts participate in a roundtable discussion at the end of a day of presentations on the ethics of genetics and neuroimaging testing.
http://www.tvworldwide.com/events/bioethics/110228/default.cfm?id=13273&type=flv&test=0&live=0
Testimonies from Mind Control Victims at Bioethics Meeting in NYC 18-19 May,2011
https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/testimonies-from-victims-at-4
https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/testimonies-from-victims-at-3
https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/testimonies-from-victims-at-2
https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/testimonies-from-victims-at-1
https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/testimonies-from-victims-at
From Eleanor White
Many thanks to Peter Rosenholm for this direct link to the video footage of the February 28/11 bioethics.gov panel hearing in which some OS/EH targets managed to speak on the topic of human experimentation. The targets of course were talking about involuntary human experimentation.
It's only an hour.
All targets sounded good - and I'd like to comment that by only having a very short time to make your point, that shortness seems to make your spiel far better than if there was no time limit.
From Marc Burnell
Really enjoyed the meeting, got to see the familiar faces that I hear alot doing activism. We really let them have it. Lonnie Ali-wife of Muhammed Ali was down there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tE4yIgfWbfc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYpWpNmqD2k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTBo1dEBWQo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHlEYVz2zwY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxNAK8we0ac
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXddhosiCLA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fk5lMB72yN0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYpWpNmqD2k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tE4yIgfWbfc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvDTIQ0WhNQ\
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMciw4X7rx4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qF56ER83QYM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6jgpo6gxtk
More reports of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues by Deborah Dupre
From Bob S.
The Bioethics Commission is investigating only one narrow issue: Do present Federal Regulations and international standards adequately guard the health and well-being of participants in scientific studies supported by the Federal Government.
No one who testified at the first Bioethics Commission meeting dealt with the one and only question that the Commission is investigating. Everyone talked about harm suffered from abuse of electronic technology. No one tried to argue that the harm was coming from government. No one tried to argue that the harm was the result of government scientific studies.
DEW technology is available to the public. So the Commission needs to know why the witnesses think that what they experience is coming from government. The commission is not investigating electronic harm that comes from outside government.
Neither is the Commission investigating intentionally harmful attacks that come from within govrnment. It is only investigating the narrow question of whether Federal Regulations and international standards are sufficient safeguards to protect participants in scientific studies supported by the Federal Government. If you say or imply that government is attacking us instead of experimenting on us, you are taking yourselves outside the scope of the Commission's investigation.
How do those of you who will testify at the NY meeting plan to give testimony to convince the Committee that you and hundreds of other TI''s are involuntary participants in government scientific studies? If you know how to do this, you should be sharing your strategy with others who plan to testify. If you don't know how to do it, you should be asking a lawyer how you can present testimony in a way that will be relevant to the Commission's investigation.
I am a lawyer who can answer such questions, but instead of asking me how to present effective testimony, all the witnesses at the last meeting followed their own judgment and gave testimony that the Commission is justified in disregarding as being irrelevant to the Commission's investigation.
The Commission does not have the authority to investigate any issue other than the issue for which the President requested an investigation and report. Not one witness at the first meeting addressed the real issue that the Commission is investigating. All the witnesses wasted the opportunity that they were given at that meeting to provide the kind of evidence that the Commission could not ignore.
I have been giving legal strategy advice to TI's for 8 years. They have always ignored my legal advice and followed instead the advice of Anti-TI Activists who have told them to follow strategies that were useless and harmful. Any strategy that is useless is also harmful beause it prevents TI's from using time and energy in following a strategy that is effective.
Giving useless and irrelevant testimony to the Commission is useless and also harmful because it prevents you from taking advantage of the rare opportunity to speak directly to people who have the power to help us. All of the witnesses wasted the opportunity that they had at the last meeting.
Are the witnesses at the next meeting going to do the same? You have no hope of achieving a solution if you try to be your own lawyers instead of following the advice of a real lawyer who understands the TI situation.
Everyone outside the TI community understands the necessity of obtaining and following the best legal advice they can get. They pay a lot of money for good legal advice, but the results are worth the cost. Incredibly, TI's won't follow good legal advice even when they get it free. So they kept losing for 8 years when they could have been winning. And now they are setting themselves up to lose with the Bioethics Commission.
All the witnesses at the last Commission meeting followed a losing strategy by giving testimony that seemed irrelevant to the Commission's investigation. It looks like witnesses at the next meeting are going to do the same. You are blowing the great opportunity that the Commission is giving you.
Bob S
From Norman Rabin
May 9, 2011:
A blue ribbon U.S. Government panel/commission, the federal Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments [ACHRE], studied their issue and related matters, and concluded that: U.S. Citizens (and others) are not protected from: "Non-Consensual U.S. Classified Human Research/ Experimentation". (October 1995, Final Report, of ACHRE)
Both Senator John Glenn's bill (S.193, 105th U.S. Congress, January 22, 1997, which never became law), and President Clinton's Administrative Order of governmentwide federal policy change (NOT completed before Clinton left office): "Strengthened Protections for Human Subjects of Classified Research", of March 27, 1997 [May 13, 1997, Federal Register], cited ACHRE's recommendation, and attempted to enact such, SPECIFIC protections.
The current Presidential Bioethics Commission does not have to re-invent the wheel. But, they could simply confirm the Truthful, timely, need for that Policy Change to be re-started, and to be completed.
The Original Policy Change Notice was put forward as an 'Interim Federal Rule', which means that it would have taken effect immediately upon publication, and then, after a Public Comment Period, would have become finalized (hopefully intact and effective), an as 'Finalized Federal Rule'.
[[[ As lawyers know, and even as (believe it or not) law enforcement officers know: it is important that laws be
specific.
IT IS NOT ENOUGH THAT THE U.S. Constitution outlaws what we are targeted by.
IT IS NOT ENOUGH THAT Federal Rules generally require informed consent for Human Research/ Experimentation (but, there are loopholes, and exceptions, which President Clinton's order sought to close)
IT IS NOT ENOUGH THAT a law outlaws the use of surveillance devices to acquire 'information where we have a reasonable expectation of privacy'.
Rather, in practice, when Classified matters are involved, normal procedures to stop a crime are not taken.
That's why we need laws and federal regulations which specifically INCLUDE, or which specifically are designed for, (alleged or actual) Classified Human Research/ Experimentation.
There needs to be a LEGAL OBLIGATION incumbent upon the U.S. Government to reasonably investigate
the alleged 'classified' wrongdoing.
Law enforcement officers need specific laws to be able to take to a judge, to use as 'legal leverage' to investigate U.S. Intelligence, or U.S. military, facilities, operations, and persons.
And, how many lawyers currently do litigation involving Secrecy?
Answer: not too many at all. But, if a lawyer / lawfirm had a specific law saying 'Classified human Experimentation without informed consent is [strictly] prohibited', then at least they could try to cite that law, on behalf of a client, to cite that law to law enforcement, and/or to a federal judge, and try to assert that their client's specific rights be upheld.
I wish that 'General laws', or the 'U.S. Constitution', or even the 'golden rule' or 'common law regarding assault and battery' were enough for us to be protected, but they aren't.
That's why you had President Clinton [Yale Law grad, Constitutional law professor, Rhodes Scholar], trying to add a new type of, governmentwide, specific, federal regulation, specifically protecting citizens from Classified Human Research / Experimentation, without Informed Consent - NO EXCEPTIONS ALLOWED. ]]]
Web-references:
- U.S. Senator Glenn’s bill on Human Experimentation (S.193, 105th U.S. Congress), can be found at:
“http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:S.193:”.
[ U.S. Senator Glenn’s Introductory Remarks [of January 22, 1997] in proposing S.193 appear at:
http://www.raven1.net/mcf/s193ntro.htm ].
President Clinton’s March 27, 1997 Memorandum/ Administrative Order, “Strengthened Protections for Human Subjects of Classified Human Research”, [Federal Registger, May 13, 1997, pp. 26367-26372], which attempted to institute a governmentwide Ban on Non-Consensual U.S. Classified Human Research, appears
at: http://fas.org/sgp/clinton/humexp.html .
U.S. Representative Kucinich’s bill to Ban Space Weapons (H.R.2977, 107th U.S. Congress), can be
found at: “http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.2977:”.
[ U.S. Representative DeGette most recent: bill concerning Human Experimentation (H.R. 1715 [of March
2009], 111th U.S. Congress), which includes a proposed Ban on federal funding of classified human research;, can be found at: " http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1715 ":.]
[ The October 1995 final Report of the federal Advisory Committee on Human Radiations Experiments [ACHRE], which is cited in each of: Senator Glenn’s S.193, and, President Clinton’s March 27, 1997 Administrative Order;, including Recommendation 15 (which includes their recommending “the adoption of a federal policy
requiring the informed consent of all human subjects of classified research and that this requirement not be subject to exemption or waiver”), appears at: http://hss.energy.gov/healthsafety/ohre/roadmap/achre/report.html ,
with Recommendation 15 appearing at: http://hss.energy.gov/healthsafety/ohre/roadmap/achre/chap18_3.html .]
From Soleilmavis
I think that The Bioethics Commission is still a chance for victims to get their voices heard by government.
Prepare your case summary with supporting documents, write to them and try to take a chance to attend the meeting.
Bioethics Comission Boards Meeting ....
https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/registration-info-on-bioethics
More information about Bioethics Commission, please go to following 'Comments' of this post
