What the TSA is NOT Telling You about Full Body Scans…

A Perspective … in the end it’s all about disclosure & transparency

What the TSA is NOT Telling You about Full Body Scans…

Posted By Dr. Mercola | November 26 2010

See All Mercola Videos
The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), a leading privacy group, has asked a federal appeals court to suspend the U.S. government’s program of introducing full-body imaging machines at airports.
According to the group, the imaging machines constitute a suspicionless search of all airport travelers in an extremely invasive way — so invasive that it violates the reasonable standard contained in the Fourth Amendment.

Wired reports:
“The constitutional challenge aside, EPIC also charges that the Department of Homeland Security, in rolling out the devices, violated a host of bureaucratic policies requiring public review, including the Administrative Procedures Act. What’s more, the group claims the machines, among other things, violate the federal Video Voyeurism Prevent Act, which protects against capturing improper images that violate one’s privacy.”

Further, scientists at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) sent a letter to the White House Office of Science and Technology in April warning of potential health risks — including skin cancer — from the scanners, which distribute a dose of radiation to the skin and underlying tissue.
Wired November 12, 2010
CNN November 11, 2010
CNN November 12, 2010
Alternet.org November 14, 2010
RawStory.com November 16, 2010
CNN Opinion November 18, 2010
NetworkWorld.com November 17, 2010
CNN Travel November 21, 2010
The Daily Squib August 4, 2010
Raw Justice November 22, 2010
Care2.com November 20, 2010
MSNBC.com November 22, 2010
AAPS November 24, 2010

Selling out to the “anti-Christ” of progressive$ … showing his true color$ …

A Perspective … in the end it’s all about disclosure & transparency

Selling out to the “anti-Christ” of progressive$ … showing his true color$ …

Steve Jobs and Apple Cut Deal with Murdoch, Showing Contempt for Core Users’ Liberal Orientation

By Adele M. Stan, AlterNet …Posted on November 24, 2010, Printed on November 24, 2010
READ COMPLETE ARTICLE … http://www.alternet.org/story/148955/

It’s enough to launch an Apple boycott by progressives: Steve Jobs, master innovator of those hipster devices of choice, just delivered a kick in the teeth to Apple’s most ardent fans with news of his deal with Rupert Murdoch for an iPad-only newspaper to be known as The Daily, to be made available through Apple’s App Store. Subscriptions will go for 99 cents per week.

The New York Times’ David Carr reports that other, unspecified publishers have sought the kind of deal that Murdoch struck with Jobs — a subscription-based newspaper app — only to be rebuffed.

He hints at a possible quid pro quo in Murdoch’s decision, as CEO of News Corporation (the parent company of the FOX Broadcasting Company), to allow Apple to sell certain Fox shows on iTunes for 99 cents an episode — against the wishes of other Fox executives.

Go to any coffeehouse frequented by progressives, and you’ll enter a world that looks like a grubby version of an Apple Store: MacBooks, iPhones and iPads abound amid the tables splashed with java and banana loaf crumbs.

If Apple were a political party, progressives would be its base. Before Apple was a multi-gajilliion-earning company, progressives embraced its products as an antidote to the cumbersome operating systems and meglomaniacal reach of Microsoft.

Without the stalwart, almost cult-like support of progressives, Apple wouldn’t have survived its catastrophic decision in its early years to offer its operating system only to consumers who purchased its hardware, while Microsoft earned great profits by offering its operating system as a stand-alone product.

The early Apples were quirky, often clunky machines with tiny monitors, but progressives loved the vision that created them. For their loyalty, progressives are about to see Murdoch get the first crack at developing a “news” product specifically for the spectacularly successful Apple iPad tablet.

I have to put “news” in quotes, of course, because Murdoch’s primary aim has little to do with the delivery of news: it’s all about propaganda.

Even legitimate news products, such as the newsroom content of the Wall Street Journal, also owned by Murdoch’s News Corp., simply exists as a legitimizing delivery device for the paper’s editorial-page content, some of it created by two of Murdoch’s own community organizers: columnist John Fund and editorial board member Stephen Moore, both of whom shill, as AlterNet reported, for the programs of David Koch’s Americans for Prosperity Foundation.

But I digress. Kind of.

Let’s assume, for the sake of argument that Carr’s hint is correct, and that in return for giving Murdoch a special deal to sell a subscription-based, iPad-specific newspaper (not a Web site), Jobs got a sweetheart deal for Fox TV content.

What did Murdoch get? Carr crunches a few numbers to show that The Daily is not likely to be a big money-maker for Murdoch. Sure, not as a retail product.

But Murdoch has long been willing to prop up enterprises that don’t earn big bucks (or sometimes, as in the case of the New York Post, lose big bucks) for the sake of advancing his ideological agenda — an agenda that, should it be enacted, would yield Murdoch billions more than the 6 billion he’s already worth.

Take Glenn Beck (yeah — please). If Glenn Beck’s purpose in life was to earn mega-advertising dollars for Murdoch, he’d have been off the air more than a year ago, once Color of Change’s successful advertiser-targeted campaign lost Beck nearly all of the big, corporate sponsors for his eponymous Fox News Channel show.

Yet, Beck remains in place because he organizes grassroots activists in the service of Rupert Murdoch’s anti-Obama, anti-regulatory, anti-labor, anti-government agenda.

Should that agenda succeed, Murdoch stands to reap billions more than the measly millions a rehabilitated Beck might bring in if Proctor & Gamble sold soap in Beck’s time slot.

And so Beck is free to draw his multi-episode, defamatory, lie-infused campaign against George Soros, billionaire and donor to progressive causes, straight from the pages of Mein Kampf (without attribution, of course).

That Soros is a Jewish Holocaust survivor is somehow twisted to prove the point. If Rupert Murdoch had a problem with Beck’s hate-mongering, with Beck’s desecration of the memory of 6 million murdered Jews, Beck would be gone in a minute.

But Murdoch does not. And, apparently, neither does Steve Jobs.

What’s a little Holocaust revisionism when 99-cent episodes of “The Family Guy” are at stake?

In getting the green light to create, without competition, a brand-spanking-new product specific to the iPad, Murdoch will have the opportunity to make inroads into opinion-makers of a demographic group currently beyond his reach: the upwardly mobile hipster, the slick early adopters, cats who are too cool to subscribe to the Wall Street Journal and its iPad app but who just might go for a first-of-its-kind product developed specifically for the device, available nowhere else, especially if it’s dressed up with smart-boy writers, such as New Yorker music critic and designer Sasha Frere-Jones, who is reported to have signed onto the Murdoch project.

This is same Rupert Murdoch who walks hand-in-hand with David Koch, whose AFP Foundation and sibling organization, Americans For Prosperity, convinced a certain contingent of fearful white senior citizens that the new black president was looking to use health-care reform to kill them off.

Together, the organizations headed by Koch — who also heads a corporation that is a major polluter — and Murdoch advance race-infused conspiracy theories in their campaign against the president of the United States that poison the national culture, render facts irrelevant and make bipartisan cooperation impossible.


A Perspective … in the end it’s all about disclosure & transparency


How to avoid both the naked body scanner and TSA gropes!

Barb’s Note: If everyone who flies takes Matt’s lead in this and follows his example, we can effect change. He made it through without being irradiated or sexually assaulted by TSA. Read the account, and listen to the recording to see how he accomplished this. Then think about what would happen if others started doing this, en masse.

My TSA Encounter …By Matt Kernan http://farmwars.info/?p=4672

“You don’t need to see his identification.” … On November 21, 2010, I was allowed to enter the U.S. through an airport security checkpoint without being x-rayed or touched by a TSA officer. This post explains how.

This past Sunday, I was returning from a trip to Europe. I flew from Paris to Cincinnati, landing in Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport.

As I got off my flight, I did all of the things that are normally requested from U.S. citizens returning from abroad. I filled out the customs declarations, confirmed that I hadn’t set foot on any farmland, and answered questions about the chocolates that I had purchased in Switzerland. While I don’t believe that these questions are necessary, I don’t mind answering them if it means some added security. They aren’t particularly intrusive. My passport was stamped, and I moved through customs a happy citizen returning home.

But wait – here was a second line to wait in. … This new line led to a TSA security checkpoint. You see, it is official TSA policy that people (both citizens and non-citizens alike) from international flights are screened as they enter the airport, despite the fact that they have already flown. Even before the new controversial security measures were put in place, I found this practice annoying. But now, as I looked past the 25 people waiting to get into their own country, I saw it: the dreaded Backscatter imaging machine.

Now, I’ve read a fair amount about the controversy surrounding the new TSA policies. I certainly don’t enjoy being treated like a terrorist in my own country, but I’m also not a die-hard constitutional rights advocate. However, for some reason, I was irked. Maybe it was the video of the 3-year old getting molested, maybe it was the sexual assault victim having to cry her way through getting groped, maybe it was the father watching teenage TSA officers joke about his attractive daughter. Whatever it was, this issue didn’t sit right with me. We shouldn’t be required to do this simply to get into our own country.

So, since I had nobody waiting for me at home and no connecting flight to catch, I had some free time. I decided to test my rights.

After putting all my stuff through the x-ray, I was asked to go through the Backscatter. I politely said that I didn’t want to. The technician quipped to his colleague, “We’ve got an opt-out.” They laughed. He turned back and started to explain.

After he finished, I said, “I understand what the pat-down entails, but I wanted to let you know that I do not give you permission to touch my genitals or the surrounding area. If you do, I will consider it assault.”

He called his manager over, who again informed me of the policy. Throughout this event, this happened quite a few times. After raising my concerns regarding the policy to an officer, they often simply quoted back the policy. For the sake of brevity, I will simply say “Policy restatement.”

I said, “I am aware that it is policy, but I disagree with the policy, and I think that it is unconstitutional. As a U.S. citizen, I have the right to move freely within my country as long as I can demonstrate proof of citizenship and have demonstrated no reasonable cause to be detained.”

Policy restatement. “You have two options – the Backscatter or the pat down. It is your choice, but those are the only ways you can go through security.”

I asked if I could speak to his manager.

“I’m the supervisor here.”
“Do you have a manager?”
“Yes, but he’s very far away at the moment. And he’ll say the same thing I am.” Policy restatement.

At this point, I took out my iPhone, activated the voice recorder, and asked The Supervisor, “Per my constitutional rights, I am not allowed to be detained without reasonable cause for arrest. Now, am I free to go?”

He answered, “If you leave, we will call the APD.”

I asked, “Who is the APD?” …“The Airport Police Department.”

I said, “Actually, that’s probably a good idea. Let’s call them and your manager.”

The Supervisor turned and walked away without saying anything. I stood and waited, chatting to The Technician about how they aren’t allowed to wear radiation badges, even though they work with radiation equipment. He said, “I think I’m a couple steps ahead of you regarding looking out for my own health.”

I stood and waited for 20 minutes.

Two cops showed up. Big ones. I admit, I did not want to be handcuffed by these guys.

One cop was older than the other, but they were still clearly partners. Neither of them took the lead on answering my questions, and neither of them told the other what to do. They came over to me and asked me to explain the issue. I first showed them the iPhone. After I explained my position, they restated the policy to me.

I said, “Yes sir. I understand the policy, but I still disagree and I still don’t think that I can be made to do these searches in order to go home. Now am I free to go?”

They didn’t answer. … I repeated the question. “Since you are actual police officers and not simply TSA, I am sure you have had much more training on my rights as a U.S. citizen, so you understand what is at stake here. So, am I free to go? Or am I being detained?”

Young Cop answers, “You aren’t being detained, but you can’t go through there.”

“Isn’t that what detaining is?

Preventing me from leaving?”

“You can leave if you want, but it has to be that direction.” He points back towards customs. Young Cop asks, “Why are you doing this?”
I explain that I’m worried that the Backscatter has unproven health risks. And that for all he knows, I might be a sexual assault victim and don’t feel like being touched. I say that the policy is needlessly invasive and it doesn’t provide any added security.

He asks, “But didn’t you go through this when you left on your flight?”
“Yes,” I say, grinning, “But I didn’t want to miss my flight then.”
The cops leave, and I stand around and wait some more. It should be noted that throughout this time, no fewer than 10 TSA officers and technicians are standing around, watching me. I was literally the only one still waiting to go through security.

The cops, The TSA Supervisor, and another guy were standing behind the checkpoint deliberating about something. I explained this to my iPhone and The Supervisor shouted, “Does that thing have video?”

“No sir. Just audio.” I was telling the truth – I’m still on an iPhone 3G.
After a while, Young Cop comes and asks me for my papers. My passport, my boarding pass, my driver’s license, and even a business card. I give him everything except the business card. He told me that he was just gathering information for the police report, which is standard procedure. I complied – I knew that this was indeed standard.

He left, and a Delta Airlines manager comes over and starts talking to me. He is clearly acting as a mediator. He asks what I would consent to, if given my options. I explain that I want the least intrusive possible solution that is required. I say, “I will not do anything that is not explicitly stated on recording as mandatory.” He leaves.

Let me pause and clarify the actors’ moods here, because they will soon start to change:

The Supervisor: Very standoffish.

Sticking to policy, no exceptions.

The TSA Officials: Mainly amused.

Not very concerned otherwise.
The Cops: Impartial observers and consultants. Possibly a bit frustrated that I’m creating the troubles, but being very professional and respectful regardless.

The Delta Supervisor: Trying to help me see the light. He doesn’t mind the work – he’s here all day anyway, so he’d rather spend it ensuring that his customer is happy.

After another wait, Old Cop returns, and asks me what I want. I tell him, “I want to go home without going through the Backscatter and without having my genitals touched. Those are my only two conditions. I will strip naked here if that is what it takes, but I don’t want to be touched.”

He offers as an alternative, “What if we were to escort you out with us? It would involve a pat-down, but it would be us doing it instead.”

“Would you touch my balls?” … “I don’t want to touch your – genital region, but my hand might brush against it.”

I clarify, “Well, like I said, I’ll do whatever you say is mandatory. If you tell me that you have to touch my balls—“
“—I said no such thing. You’re putting words in my mouth.” …

“OK. I apologize. If you say that a pat-down is mandatory, and that as a condition of that pat-down, I may have my genitals brushed against by your hand, even though you don’t want to, I will do that. But only if you say it is mandatory.”

“I’m not going to say that.” … “OK. So am I free to go?”

“You are free to go in that direction.” He points back towards customs. Then he walks away to commune with the others.

My iPhone is running out of battery, so I take out my laptop, sit in a corner, and plug it in. I have some work to do anyway, so I pull up Excel and start chugging away for about 20 minutes.

This is where the turning point happens. …The cops come back and start talking with me. Again, they are asking why I’m doing it, don’t I have a connection to make, etc. They are acting more curious at this point – no longer trying to find a contradiction in my logic.

I eventually ask what would happen if I got up and left, and just walked through security. They shrugged. “We wouldn’t do anything on our own. We are only acting on behalf of the TSA. They are in charge of this area.”

“So if he told you to arrest me, you would? And if he didn’t, you wouldn’t?”
“That’s right,” Young Cop says.

“OK well then I think it is best if we all talk together as a group now. Can you call them over?”

The Supervisor returns, along with the Delta Manager. The Supervisor is quite visibly frustrated.

I explain, “The police have explained to me that it is your call on whether or not I am being detained. If I walked through that metal detector right now, you would have to ask them to arrest me in order for them to do anything.”

He starts to defer responsibility to the officers. They emphasize that no – they have no issue with me and they are only acting on his behalf. It is his jurisdiction. It is policy. They won’t detain me unless he tells them to.

So I emphasize the iPhone again, and ask,” So, if I were to get up, walk through the metal detector, and not have it go off, would you still have them arrest me?”

The Supervisor answers, “I can’t answer that question. That is no longer an option because you were selected for the Backscatter.”

“Well you can answer the question because it is a yes or no question. If I got up and left, would you have them arrest me?”

“I can’t answer that question.” …
are now frustrated with him because he’s pawning off his decision-making responsibility to them. He’s stopping what is clearly a logical solution to the problem. Meanwhile, the Supervisor is just growing more and more furious with me.

In another deferment of responsibility (which he probably thought was an intimidation factor), “Well then I guess I’m just going to have to call the FSD.” …

Unfazed, I ask, “What’s the FSD?” …

“The Federal Security Director.” And he walks away.

I can see him talking on the phone to the FSD – a man apparently named Paul – and I can only catch parts of the conversation: …“No, he’s been perfectly polite…” … “We tried that…”
“All he said was … Constitutional rights”

He walks over to Old Cop and hands him the phone. I can hear similar sound bites. They hang up, deliberate some more, and then wait some more.
Meanwhile, I’m typing away on my computer. Answering emails, working on my Excel model – things that I would have done at home regardless.

The Supervisor walks over and stands uncomfortably close to me. After typing for a bit more, I look up. His voice shakes, “I don’t know if I ever introduced myself.” He pulls out his badge. “My name is XXX XXX. Here is my badge. Now, I’ve shown you my credentials.”

Ah – he’s gotten the Miranda talk. I hide my smile.

“Here’s what we’re going to do. I’m going to escort you out of the terminal to the public area. You are to stay with me at all times. Do you understand?”

“Will I be touched?” … “I can’t guarantee that, but I am going to escort you out.”

“OK. I will do this. But I will restate that I still do not give you permission to touch my genitals or the surrounding area. If you do, I will still consider it assault.”

“I understand.” … And then came the most ridiculous scene of which I’ve ever been a part. I gather my things – jacket, scarf, hat, briefcase, chocolates. We walk over to the staff entrance and he scans his badge to let me through. We walk down the long hallway that led back to the baggage claim area.

We skip the escalators and moving walkways. As we walk, there are TSA officials stationed at apparent checkpoints along the route. As we pass them, they form part of the circle that is around me. By the end of the walk, I count 13 TSA officials and 2 uniformed police officers forming a circle around me.

We reach the baggage claim area, and everyone stops at the orange line.
The Supervisor grunts, “Have a nice day,” and leaves.

In order to enter the USA, I was never touched, I was never “Backscatted,” and I was never metal detected.

In the end, it took 2.5 hours, but I proved that it is possible. I’m looking forward to my ext flight on Wednesday.

Listen to the audio HERE.

You didn’t really think TSA was protecting YOU …

A Perspective … in the end it’s all about disclosure & transparency

You didn’t really think TSA was protecting YOU …

fool … ! !

Does the TSA change latex gloves after each sexual assault…?

11-23-2010 • WorldNetDaily

Those latex gloves that have been in crotches and armpits of people who may be ill that TSA wear while giving airline passengers those infamous full-body pat-downs aren’t there for the safety and security of passengers – only the TSA agents.

lascivious feel-up”

A Perspective … in the end it’s all about disclosure & transparency

So … you still believe this TSA “porno-x-ray and lascivious feel-up” is honestly designed to prevent any terrorist from getting on your plane …


    Some government officials to skip airport security

By EILEEN SULLIVAN, Associated Press Eileen Sullivan, Associated Press – Tue Nov 23, 9:31 pm ET

Cabinet secretaries, top congressional leaders and an exclusive group of senior U.S. officials are exempt from toughened new airport screening procedures when they fly commercially with government-approved federal security details.

Aviation security officials would not name those who can skip the controversial screening, but other officials said those VIPs range from top officials like Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and FBI Director Robert Mueller to congressional leaders like incoming House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, who avoided security before a recent flight from Washington’s Reagan National Airport.

The heightened new security procedures by the Transportation Security Administration, which involve either a scan by a full-body detector or an intimate personal pat-down, have spurred passenger outrage in the lead-up to the Thanksgiving holiday airport crush.

On Friday, the TSA exempted pilots from the new procedures; flight attendants received the same privilege on Tuesday, TSA spokesman Nicholas Kimball confirmed. Both groups must show photo ID and go through metal detectors.

If that sets off an alarm, they may still get a pat-down in some cases, he said. The rules apply to pilots and flight attendants in uniform when they’re traveling.

While passengers have no choice but to submit to either the detector or what some complain is an intrusive pat-down, some senior government officials can opt out if they fly accompanied by government security guards approved by the TSA.

“Government officials traveling with federal law enforcement security details are screened at airports under a specialized screening protocol, which includes identity verification,” Kimball said. This allows the officials to skip the airport security checkpoints.

The TSA would not explain why it makes these exceptions. But many of the exempted government officials have gone through several levels of security clearances, including FBI background checks. Armed security details eliminate the need for an additional layer of security at airports.
Some members of President Barack Obama’s Cabinet, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, travel almost exclusively on government or military planes.
Top officials like Geithner, Mueller and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid travel with security details and skip airport checkpoints, aides said. The second-ranking Senate Democrat, Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, and the House Democratic whip, Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, also have security, but they typically undergo regular screening with other passengers, aides said.

Spokesmen for both Boehner and current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., would not discuss security arrangements. But under a policy started by the Bush administration after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a military aircraft is made available to the speaker, third in line to the presidency, for all official flight needs.

Spokesmen for Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, incoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia and outgoing House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland said they fly commercial, but would not detail security arrangements.

Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Terrance Gainer said the only members of Congress with protective details are leaders, “based upon a threat analysis” conducted by the U.S. Capitol Police. Gainer added that members “with sworn protection” are able to avoid security because “their secure posture is affirmed by the law enforcement process established by TSA.”

The TSA’s administrator, John Pistole, is treated like any other traveler when he flies, waiting in security lines and walking through X-ray machines, including the full-body imagers, his spokesman said. Senior White House officials David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett and John Brennan, the president’s homeland security adviser, do the same, officials said.

a poll is a poll is a poll

A Perspective … in the end it’s all about disclosure & transparency

Mark Twain … stated it succinctly … figures don’t lie but liars figure

… a poll is a poll is a poll …? ?

Poll: Nearly two-thirds of Americans support full-body scanners at airports

By Jon Cohen and Ashley Halsey III … Washington Post Staff Writers … Tuesday, November 23, 2010; 12:44 AM … Read complete article … http://newstrust.net/stories/4169919/toolbar?ref=nld&utm_campaign=daily_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_source=20101123_listing

Nearly two-thirds of Americans support the new full-body security-screening machines at the country’s airports, as most say they put higher priority on combating terrorism than protecting personal privacy, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

But half of all those polled say enhanced pat-down searches go too far.

The uproar over the new generation of security technology, and the frisking of those who refuse it, continued Monday with Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano saying the new measures are necessary for public safety.

“There is a continued threat against aviation involving those who seek to smuggle powders and gels that can be used as explosives on airplanes,” she said. “The new technology is designed to help us identify those individuals.”

According to the Transportation Security Administration, less than 3 percent of travelers receive the pat-downs.

But Napolitano said the TSA would “listen to concerns. Of course we will make adjustments or changes when called upon, but not changes or adjustments that will affect the basic operational capability that we need to have to make sure that air travel remains safe.”

One possibility that could generate public support is the use of profiling at airports, where the TSA would single out specific passengers for extra screening based on available information. Overall, 70 percent of Americans back the idea, which has been floated as an alternative.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs sought to reassure the traveling public that “the evolution of the security will be done with the input of those who go through the security.” But he said that safe travel remains the higher priority.

Some people upset with the TSA’s techniques have waged an Internet-based campaign urging people to refuse to use the scanners on Wednesday, one of the busiest travel days of the year. Coupled with bad winter weather forecasts across the Midwest, their efforts may delay Thanksgiving week travel.

In response to growing criticism, two unions representing some TSA personnel are running full-page newspaper ads Tuesday and sending e-mails defending workers to frequent fliers. While the harshest critics have suggested that enhanced pat-downs amount to sexual assault, union officials said screeners are merely carrying out orders issued by the TSA.

More than 400 of the controversial scanning machines have been put to use at 70 of 450 U.S. airports since October, though the majority of passengers are not being asked to use them. The scanners, which penetrate clothing to produce outlines of the naked human body, are in use at all three of the Washington region’s major airports.

In development for several years, the machines use backscatter and millimeter wave technology intended to reveal nonmetallic security threats that wouldn’t be caught by traditional step-through metal detectors.

do not believe that you & I will ever get the truth from

A Perspective … in the end it’s all about disclosure & transparency

Label me a “doubting-thomas” as I do not believe that you & I will ever get the truth from the CIA … FBI …US military or their corporate sponsors … about the extent to which American citizens were involuntarily subjected to “experimentation” by our government …

CIA Must Disclose Data on Human Experiments

By ANNIE YOUDERIAN … Read complete article … http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/079079-2010-11-22-cia-must-disclose-data-on-human-experiments.htm?From=News

(CN) – A federal magistrate judge in San Francisco ordered the CIA to produce specific records and testimony about the human experiments the government allegedly conducted on thousands of soldiers from 1950 through 1975.

Three veterans groups and six individual veterans sued the CIA and other government agencies, claiming they used about 7,800 soldiers as human guinea pigs to research biological, chemical and psychological weapons.

The experiments, many of which took place at Edgewood Arsenal and Fort Detrick in Maryland, allegedly exposed test subjects to chemicals, drugs and electronic implants. Though the soldiers volunteered, they never gave informed consent, because the government didn’t fully disclose the risks, the veterans claimed. They were also required to sign an oath of secrecy, according to the complaint.

The veterans filed three sets of document requests to find out who was tested, what substances they were given, and how it affected them. Between October and April, the government produced about 15,000 pages of heavily redacted records, most of which related to the named plaintiffs only.

The CIA argued that much of the information requested was protected under the Privacy Act and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.

U.S. Magistrate Judge James Larson acknowledged that some of the requests were too broad and ordered the veterans to be more specific and to reduce the total number of requests.

For example, Larson said the plaintiffs’ definition of “test program” is “overbroad,” as it not only named experimental programs like “Bluebird,” “Artichoke” and “MKUltra,” but also included “any other program of experimentation involving human testing of any substance, including but not limited to ‘MATERIAL TESTING PROGRAM EA 1729.'”

He ordered the veterans to provide a list of specific test programs and test substances.

But once the plaintiffs narrow their requests, Larson said, they are entitled to most of the information. Each government agency must respond individually to each request, he said, and if an agency denies any request, it must explain — in sufficient detail — why the records are purportedly privileged.

The CIA has already claimed that some documents are protected under the state-secrets privilege, but Larson said the agency needs to be more specific. He asked for a “supplemental declaration explaining with heightened specificity” why the documents are considered state secrets. Because these documents might contain sensitive information, the judge allowed the CIA to file the declaration under seal.

Larson rejected the government’s bid to limit the scope of discovery, saying doing so “removes the remaining hurdle” for the CIA to respond to the veterans’ sets of requests.

“Defendants should respond in earnest to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests, regardless of any ongoing or prior searches, investigations, or litigation,” Larson wrote. He said the government can’t limit disclosure to information about the six individual plaintiffs.

The CIA insisted discovery was unwarranted in its case, because it never funded or conducted drug research on military personnel.

Larson wasn’t convinced.
“[T]his court rejects the conclusion that the CIA necessarily lacks a nexus to Plaintiffs’ claims, and orders the CIA to respond in earnest” to the veterans’ requests, “particularly because defendants have presented evidence that would appear to cast doubt on that conclusion,” he wrote.

The government also tried to avoid deposition, claiming too much time had passed since the alleged experiments, and any witnesses familiar with the projects likely no longer work for the government. The CIA further argued, unsuccessfully, that the court should stay discovery until the Department of Defense completes its investigation of the experiments.

Larson reminded the CIA that it “cannot use the DoD investigation as an excuse to avoid discovery responsibilities.”

He then addressed which topics are fair game for deposition, saying the government must produce witnesses to testify about the following: communication between the VA and test subjects on their health care claims; a 1963 CIA Inspector General report on an experiment called MKUltra, and the basis for each redaction on that report; the scope and conduct of document searches; the doses and effects of substances administered to test subjects; any contract or research proposals concerning the experiments; a confidential Army memo about the use of volunteers in research; all government-led human experiments from 1975 to date, but only those that involve specific drugs; and whether the government secretly administered MKUltra materials to “the patrons of prostitutes” in safe houses in New York and San Francisco, as the veterans claimed.

Judge Larson ruled for the CIA on other issues, however, saying the agency’s not required to testify about test subjects who withdrew their consent or refused to participate; devices allegedly implanted into certain test subjects; the alleged use of patients at VA hospitals as guinea pigs in chemical and biological weapons experiments; or the drug research studies conducted by Dr. Paul Hoch, who was purportedly funded by the government and caused the death of a patient named Harold Blauer.

Though Larson declined to sanction the government, as the veterans sought, he warned that he would impose sanctions for any “future unjustifiable discovery recalcitrance.”

Named plaintiffs are the Vietnam Veterans of America, Swords to Plowshare, the Veterans Rights Organization, Bruce Price, Franklin D. Rochelle, Larry Meirow, Eric P. Muth, David C. Dufrane and Wray C. Forrest.