It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
In 1987 the United States Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669, that a U.S. serviceman who was given '___' without his consent, as part of military experiments, could not sue the U.S. Army for damages.
Dissenting the verdict in U.S. v. Stanley, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor stated:
No judicially crafted rule should insulate from liability the involuntary and unknowing human experimentation alleged to have occurred in this case. Indeed, as Justice Brennan observes, the United States played an instrumental role in the criminal prosecution of Nazi officials who experimented with human subjects during the Second World War, and the standards that the Nuremberg Military Tribunals developed to judge the behavior of the defendants stated that the 'voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential ... to satisfy moral, ethical, and legal concepts.' If this principle is violated, the very least that society can do is to see that the victims are compensated, as best they can be, by the perpetrators.
As of 2007, not a single U.S. government researcher had been prosecuted for human experimentation, and many of the victims of U.S. government experiments have not received compensation, or in many cases, acknowledgment of what was done to them.
From 1988 to 2008, the number of overseas clinical trials for drugs intended for American consumption increased by 2,000%, to approximately 6,500 trials. These trials are often conducted in areas with large numbers of poor and illiterate people who grant their consent by signing an "X" or making a thumb print on a form. These tests are rarely monitored by the FDA, and have in some cases proved deadly, such as a case where 49 babies died in New Delhi, India during a 30-month trial. The cost of testing in countries without safety regulations is much lower; and, due to lax or nonexistent oversight, pharmaceutical corporations (or research companies they've contracted out to) are able to more easily suppress research that demonstrates harmful effects and only report positive results.
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by FreeSpeaker
Hey I wasn't commenting on government trustworthiness at all - nice derailing!
But the fact is that the law does NOT allow uninformed testing on civilians - indeed it makes it illegal.
So if you think someone has broken the law you can at least start a process by laying a complaint. Have you done so???
What happens after that is another story.
edit on 13-12-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)
US Senate declares the entire USA to be a "Battleground".
A bill passed late last night (93-7 votes) that declares the entire United States of America a battleground. What this means is that the U.S. Military can now operate with impunity, and grant the U.S. Military the unchecked power to arrest, detain, interrogate, and even assassinate United States citizens with impunity.
What this means is the United States is basically declaring war with itself. We need to shed light on this and make sure it does not become a law, otherwise we should just say good bye to the Bill of Rights and everything America used to stand for.