INTERNATIONAL ACTIONS AGAINST THIS HI-TECH CRIME
Many human rights campaigners from around the world have spent years working on countless books, videos, websites, rallies and symposiums which highlight these matters. These include efforts by prominent persons like Dr Nick Begich, Dr Rauni Kilde (ex chief medical officer for Finland) and well known author Gloria Naylor. To date, all of it has been ignored by the criminally owned/controlled media. However, most importantly, there has been open condemnation of these methods by major political entities and I ask you to focus on these…
1. The United Nations – UNIDIR – (The UN Institute for Disarmament Research) officially recognized a range of weapons (both lethal and non-lethal), including the ones previously listed, and recommended that they ALL be banned as weapons of potential mass destruction. Naturally, the press releases and media guides that they issued on this matter were totally ignored by the mainstream media. This media treachery is the reason the public is unaware of the dangers.
2. The European Parliament – In January 1999, the European Parliament passed a resolution where it calls ” for an international convention introducing a global ban on all development and deployment of weapons which might enable any form of manipulation of human beings. It is our conviction that this ban can not be implemented without the global pressure of the informed general public on the governments. Our major objective is to get across to the general public the real threat which these weapons represent for human rights and democracy and to apply pressure on the governments and parliaments around the world to enact legislature which would prohibit the use of these devices to both government and private organisations as well as individuals.” (Plenary Sessions/ EuroParliament, 1999)
3. US Federal politician Dennis Kucinich – In October 2001, Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich introduced a bill to the House of Representatives which, it was hoped would be extremely important in the fight to expose and stop psycho-electronic mind control experimentation on involuntary, non-consensual citizens. The Bill was referred to the Committee on Science, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services and International Relations. In the original bill a ban was sought on ‘exotic weapons’ including electronic, psychotronic or information weapons, chemtrails, particle beams, plasmas, electromagnetic radiation, extremely low frequency (ELF) or ultra low frequency (ULF) energy radiation, or mind control technologies. Despite the inclusion of a prohibition of the basing of weapons in space, and the use of weapons to destroy objects or damage objects in space, there is no mention in the revised bill of any of the aforementioned mind-invasive weaponry, nor of the use of satellite or radar or other energy based technology for deploying or developing technology designed for deployment against the minds of human beings. [the original Bill was called The Space Preservation Act, 2001 (HR 2977) it was reintroduced as The Space Preservation Act, 2002 (HR 3616 )]. Kucinich’s efforts mirrored similar attempts made some years earlier by ex astronaut, Sen. John Glenn.
4. US Federal politician Jim Guest - recently wrote to all members of the US legislature asking for help for the countless victims of electronic harassment/torture (agency black operations being secreted from congressional scrutiny thus allowing corrupt officers to frame/torture innocents). To date, nothing concrete has come of this approach.
5. French National Bioethics Committee – In January 1998, an annual public meeting of the French National Bioethics Committee was held in Paris. Its chairman, Jean-Pierre Changeux, a neuroscientist at the Institute Pasteur in Paris, told the meeting that “advances in cerebral imaging make the scope for invasion of privacy immense. Although the equipment needed is still highly specialized, it will become commonplace and capable of being used at a distance. That will open the way for abuses such as invasion of personal liberty, control of behavior and brainwashing. These are far from being science-fiction concerns. and constitute “a serious risk to society.” (“Nature.” Vol 391, 1998)
6. Definition of Torture under CAT
CAT Article 1 specifies that, for purposes of the Convention, “torture” is
Understood to mean
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.
Importantly, this definition specifies that both physical and mental suffering can constitute torture, and that for such suffering to constitute torture, it must be purposefully inflicted. Further, acts of torture covered under the Convention must be committed by someone acting under the color of law..
CAT Article 16 requires signatory States to take preventative measures to prevent “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment” within any territory under their jurisdiction when such acts are committed under the color of law.
Pursuant to § 2340A, any person who commits or attempts to commit an act of torture outside the United States is generally subject to a fine and/or imprisonment for up to 20 years. In cases where death results from the prohibited conduct, the offender may be subject to life imprisonment or the death penalty.43 A person who conspires to commit an act of torture committed or attempted outside the United States is generally subject to the same penalties faced by someone who commits or attempts to commit acts of torture outside the United States, except that he cannot receive the death penalty for such an offense.44 Because § 2340A also criminalizes conspiracies to commit torture outside the United States, it arguably could also apply in situations where a U.S.national conspired to transfer an individual “outside the United States” so that the individual may be tortured…
No one has ever claimed legally that they are doing any such thing and any problem/questions and queries regarding this may please be referred to them …SO it was illegal and criminal al the way, anyway .. Human experimentation word is also not applicable in that kind of illegal and criminal acts , that violates basic constitution rules like Freedom, Liberty, Equality and Justice …
· Soviet Russia banned use of all such things it in 1990 ..Space Preservation Act 2001 and Michigan Law was there to ban it altogether for long , in US. Also, Massachusetts, Michigan, Maine, and Missouri of US have prohibited this weaponry to be used in their territory ..
· Plus this all are a violation of Section, Anti Torture Law, Anti Radiation Device Law, Michigan Law and all ..(i.e. 18 Section 2340A , 18 Section 241, 18 Section 242, 18 Section 2441 and 2442 (War Crime), 18 Section 2332h, HR 1197 and HR 1160 etc... ..)
· Nuremberg Trials were executed where cruel scientists were ordered hang sentence, and Nuremberg Code was specified long back for getting full consent of a human being for any human experimentation Project ..
· UN declared all these weapons as Weapons of Mass Destruction and European Parliament declared proposed a ban on Mind Control in 1999 ...How come it's all getting continued even now ? ..These psychopathic criminals are some crazy dogs it seems ..:)
· As Par Universal Declaration of Human Rights and civil liberties and rights also, fundamental and basic/natural rights are always protected … As par those , "ALL HUMAN BEINGS ARE BORN FREE AND EQUAL"
It may kindly be noted that , Fourth Amendment to US Constitution is “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 , the right to privacy is explicitly stated under Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”
Most states of the United States also grant a right to privacy and recognize four torts based on that right: 1. Intrusion upon seclusion or solitude, or into private affairs; 2. Public disclosure of embarrassing private facts; 3. Publicity which places a person in a false light in the public eye; and 4. Appropriation of name or likeness Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances ...
Civil liberties are personal guarantees and freedoms that the government cannot abridge, either by law or by judicial interpretation. Though the scope of the term differs amongst various countries, some examples of civil liberties include the freedom from torture, freedom from forced disappearance, freedom of conscience, freedom of press, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, the right to security and liberty, freedom of speech, the right to privacy, the right to equal treatment and due process, the right to a fair trial, and the right to life. Other civil liberties include the right to own property, the right to defend oneself, and the right to bodily integrity