According to Cheryl Welsh, J.D., author of the research paper “Cold War Nonconsensual Experiments:
The Threat of Neuroweapons and the Danger it will happen again,” there is no enforceable legal recourse for
victims of nonconsensual experimentation in the U.S.23 She explains how Nazi scientists were prosecuted for
crimes against humanity because of the nonconsensual experiments they performed on victims during World
War II. The Nuremberg “Doctors’ Trial” included testimony from eye witnesses who helped to bring about the
Nuremberg Code, a common code which states that “certain basic principles must be observed in order to
satisfy moral, ethical and legal concepts.”24 The first rule of the code is that “The voluntary consent of the
human subject is absolutely essential.”25 Despite this, the U.S. still does not have a criminal statute banning
nonconsensual experimentation. Welsh explains that time after time the U.S. government has sidestepped
any legislation that would make it illegal to conduct nonconsensual experiments for classified research. Welsh
writes:
The disturbing legacy of the Cold War experiments is that the U.S. government has never implemented
the one reform essential for providing fundamental human subject protections - a ban on nonconsensual
experiments, thus significantly increasing the danger that such experiments could happen again. As with
any criminal statute, a ban would go far in preventing the act criminalised within the statute - in this case,
nonconsensual experiments in classified research. Many experts agree that small unethical medical studies
like the Guatemalan experiments could occur again but few believe that today's ethics would allow for
widespread unethical nonconsensual experiments. However, it can be argued that widespread experiments
may be possible if not likely given the right circumstances.26
Since at least 2001 the U.S. has been in a constant state of war. What better circumstances could a
sadistic experimentalist ask for? It’s not hard to imagine people with access to EM technologies using them
for their own sick personal pleasures. But are nonconsensual experiments using neuroweapons actually
taking place on wide scales across the globe by more than just a couple of demented individuals here and
there? My guess is that it’s possible, but because we are in a constant state of war the other possibility is that
it’s not just nonconsensual experimentation, but rather electromagnetic warfare. In a world where mass
murder can be termed collateral damage, it can be assumed that electromagnetic weapons torture victims
can just as easily be minimized and deemed mentally ill by the mainstream media. But perhaps the media are
part of a larger weapon, or weapon system, into which neuroweapons also fall. Nonlethal, psychological,
information, cyber, and directed energy counter-personnel weapons could all be used by foreign adversaries,
rogue groups, or sociopathic power brokers in systematic and destructive ways not easily visible to the
average onlooker. These type of individuals are indeed already using electromagnetic warfare as part of a
larger geopolitical battle between corporate elites, criminal syndicates, military & intelligence operatives, and
even entire nation-states. The U.S. military’s use of the Project Sheriff active denial system in Iraq is a case in
point, as is Russia’s use of cyber warfare against Georgia in 2008. China, Russia, the U.S., and other
countries continue to test and probe each other’s IC4 defenses in pursuit of their publicly announced goal of
controlling the electromagnetic spectrum. The ongoing wars and so-called “managed conflicts” these
countries engage in provide their leaders with further justification for enhancing, refining, testing, and using
EM weapons at home and abroad. It’s likely that EM weapons are being used on Americans without their
knowledge, even on a daily basis, given the surreptitiousness of EM attack capabilities and the popular
support among government officials, nationalists, and other factions and organizations for more regular use of
the conventionally lethal types of weapons in the ongoing conflicts, wars, and uprisings around the globe. If
the Obama administration is willing to bomb Libya, Iraq, or Syria because its an easier method than putting
troops on the ground, than why wouldn’t U.S. adversaries also use similar methods of killing and torturing
Americans from a distance? If Putin can deny sending troops into Ukraine, than why think he wouldn’t also
deny using EM weapons on Americans or western Europeans? No-touch-torture weapons are exactly what
people who use plausible deniability methods for attacking their enemies want. In their line of work it would
be the weapon of choice.
So the real problem is more about defense, not legal recourse or fact finding, whether the attacks are
coming from a domestic or foreign source. As when in war, rules don’t apply. And at war we are, despite U.S.
Secretary of State John Kerry’s announcement that the U.S. is not at war with ISIS/ISIL/The Islamic State. It’s
just a counterterrorism operation, he says, apparently not part of the U.S.’ WAR on terrorism. But using war[16]