At 02:42 PM 1/28/99 -0500, Ron Kean wrote:
>> But this clearly applies only to tests involving
>> just "a human being," and continually defines the
>> tested as singular. A "civilian population" is not
>> "a human being." Also, the above applies only to
>> funds appropriated to the DoD. But most important,
>> it defines "informed consent" as possibly only
>> informing "a legal representative of the subject,"
>> which takes us right back to 1520, which only
>> required that "civilian officials" be notified,
>> which may be why 1520 never referenced 10(980).
>
>
>I find it possible to interpret tests on multiple humans to include
>testing of a single human. But it would be better if the wording in the
>the law made that clearer.
IAN: Exactly. Considering the magnitude of what's being discussed, an issue that runs the balance between civil society and mass atrocity, the wording of these laws can allow for no ambiguity, and yet, as we can see, it's there. We have to try to read any loophole into the law, since those who the law regulates will also look for any loophole, and if we can find the holes, they'll find them too.
Now I'll admit that 1520(a) looks pretty good on its face, but it only restrains the Secretary of Defense.
The fact that the law is dancing around and spitting hairs over the idea of testing poisons on "civilian populations" is by itself a red flag of great danger! It's clear that someone wants to do it, that others have tried to impose limits, but the limits are not comprehensive and the impression that 1520 was just an imposition on an on-going operation leaves me with the impression that such Ops have been occurring.