From: Ian Goddard (Ian@Goddard.net)
Date: Thu Jan 28 1999 - 02:13:03 MST
At 01:38 AM 1/28/99 -0500, Ron Kean wrote:
>But here is an excerpt from the new text that relpaced what was repealed:
>
>
>
>(c) Informed consent required
>
> The Secretary of Defense may conduct a test or experiment described in
>subsection (b) of this section only if informed consent to the testing
>was
>obtained from each human subject in advance of the testing on that
>subject.
IAN: There's no question that that provision
addresses exactly what 1520 obviously lacked,
and I think your raising it also address the
idea I was replying to that now only the
30-day-notification period is lifted.
If you read 1520(a), subsection (c) is also
well-embedded into it, and there is no way
for the Secretary of Defence to get around
it (that I can find so far). But, as for
the President and the rest of the Govt,
1520(a) imposses no prohibitions.
I'd rather see 1520(a) start for saying that
"No agency or member of the U.S. Government,
or contracting for same or any entity may..."
Instead, only one official is restrained.
I think Hal's point was even deeper than I'd
grasped. I think he was saying that 1520 was
not a de facto "legalization," it wasn't saying
"this is now declared legal." It was more like
stepping in the planning room of an on-going
project, such that the only reason the law
was written was to tell the DoD that they
have to give a 30-day warning FROM NOW ON.
In short, that testing is allowable wasn't
the point of 1520, the 30-day notice was.
Ergo, the mass testing is considered legal.
That seems to me to be a possible reading.
**************************************************************
Visit Ian Williams Goddard --------> http://Ian.Goddard.net
______________________________________________________________
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:02:57 MST