proof mk-ultra exists
December 18, 2008 Comments Off on proof mk-ultra exists
MC Documents & Links
proof mk-ultra exists
There were several congressional hearings proving that mk-ultra existed. A book was written about it.
A LOOK AT THE LAW AND GOVERNMENT MIND CONTROL THROUGH FIVE CASES
CIA VS SIMS
UNITED STATES VS STANLEY
ORLIKOW, ET AL VS UNITED STATES
KRONISCH VS UNITED STATES ET AL
HEINRICH, ET AL VS SWEET, ET AL
Declassified MK-Ultra Project Documents:
The Search for the Manchurian Candidate
The CIA and Mind Control – John Marks
List of MKULTRA Unclassified Documents (including subprojects)
APPENDIX B Documents Referring To Discovery Of Additional MKULTRA Material?
1995 congressional hearing – MKULTRA Victim Testimony C
The Shock Doctrine – by Naomi Klein – Chapter 1 – The Torture Lab – Ewen Cameron, the CIA and the maniacal quest to erase and remake the human mind.
MKULTRA Victim Testimony A: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iflBkRlpRy0&feature=related
U.S. Supreme Court CIA v. SIMS, 471 U.S. 159 (1985) 471 U.S. 159 CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY ET AL. v. SIMS ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 83-1075. Argued December 4, 1984 Decided April 16, 1985 ….Between 1953 and 1966, the Central Intelligence Agency financed a wide-ranging project, code-named MKULTRA, concerned with “the research and development of chemical, biological, and radiological materials capable of employment in clandestine operations to control human behavior.” The [471 U.S. 159, 162] program consisted of some 149 subprojects which the Agency contracted out to various universities, research foundations, and similar institutions. At least 80 institutions and 185 private researchers participated. Because the Agency funded MKULTRA indirectly, many of the participating individuals were unaware that they were dealing with the Agency. MKULTRA was established to counter perceived Soviet and Chinese advances in brainwashing and interrogation techniques. Over the years the program included various medical and psychological experiments, some of which led to untoward results. These aspects of MKULTRA surfaced publicly during the 1970’s and became the subject of executive and congressional investigations. http://laws.findlaw.com/us/471/159.html
U.S. Supreme Court UNITED STATES v. STANLEY, 483 U.S. 669 (1987) 483 U.S. 669 UNITED STATES ET AL. v. STANLEY CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 86-393. Argued April 21, 1987 Decided June 25, 1987 Respondent, a serviceman, volunteered for what was ostensibly a chemical warfare testing program, but in which he was secretly administered lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) pursuant to an Army plan to test the effects of the drug on human subjects, whereby he suffered severe personality changes that led to his discharge and the dissolution of his marriage. Upon being informed by the Army that he had been given LSD, respondent filed a Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) suit. The District Court granted the Government summary judgment on the ground that the suit was barred by the doctrine of Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 , which precludes governmental FTCA liability for injuries to servicemen resulting from activity “incident to service.” Although agreeing with this holding, the Court of Appeals remanded the case upon concluding that respondent had at least a colorable constitutional claim under the doctrine of Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 , whereby a violation of constitutional rights can give rise to a damages action against the offending federal officials even in the absence of a statute authorizing such relief, unless there are “special factors counselling hesitation” or an “explicit congressional declaration” of another, exclusive remedy. Respondent then amended his complaint to add Bivens claims and attempted to resurrect his FTCA claim. Although dismissing the latter claim, the District Court refused to dismiss the Bivens claims, rejecting, inter alia, the Government’s argument that the same considerations giving rise to the Feres doctrine should constitute “special factors” barring a Bivens action….In February 1958, James B. Stanley, a master sergeant in the Army stationed at Fort Knox, Kentucky, volunteered to participate in a program ostensibly designed to test the effectiveness of protective clothing and equipment as defenses against chemical warfare. He was released from his then-current duties and went to the Army’s Chemical Warfare Laboratories at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland. Four times that month, Stanley was secretly administered doses of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), pursuant to an Army plan to study the effects of the drug on human subjects. According to his Second Amended Complaint (the allegations of which we accept for purposes of this decision), as a result of the LSD exposure, Stanley has suffered from hallucinations and periods of incoherence and memory loss, was impaired in his military performance, and would on occasion “awake from sleep at night and, without reason, violently beat his wife and children, later being unable to recall the entire incident.” App. 5. He was discharged from the Army in 1969. One year later, his marriage dissolved because of the personality changes wrought by the LSD. December 10, 1975, the Army sent Stanley a letter soliciting his cooperation in a study of the long-term effects of LSD on “volunteers who participated” in the 1958 tests. [483 U.S. 669, 672] This was the Government’s first notification to Stanley that he had been given LSD during his time in Maryland. After an administrative claim for compensation was denied by the Army, Stanley filed suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2671 et seq., alleging negligence in the administration, supervision, and subsequent monitoring of the drug testing program. http://laws.findlaw.com/us/483/669.html