Monthly Archives: September 2010
Secretly the reality of a totally controlled society has been emplaced. While we were looking at political control, the technological mechanisms for a Big Brother state are being installed, secretly in the hope no one will notice.
Congress once again is at fault, it allowed vast billion dollar “black budgets” to escape oversight control. For decades, research and development on population control systems has been funded by a complacent Congress, and the Intelligence Committees in the House and Senate have allowed these systems to go operational. We are going to give you hard information and hard proof. This is not guesswork, it is reality. And Congress is to blame for lack of oversight.
Fortunately (for the United States), Sweden has applied these control systems overtly to entire segments of the population (in the U.S. apparently only selected individuals are under control.)
Our information comes from a Swedish researcher who has followed the Swedish system of people control i.e., the replacement of individual values, standards and beliefs by state authority.
Our Swedish source says, “We have (been led) out of the industrial society to enslavement in the Information Society” and “there are frightening developments concerning the use of data surveillance, known as biomedical telemetry, mind control, optical electronic surveillance and brain-computer interaction.”
Then comes the clincher:
“The properties of this technology enable the monitoring of mental functions, thought, deed and associated cerebral neurophysiological changes as well as the manipulation of behavior, values and personality from limitless geographical distance.”
These systems form the basis of the Information Society (so beloved by Newt Gingrich) and eliminate the power of the individual to make personal decisions. Maybe Newt Gingrich is not aware of this, but his emphasis on individuality is a fraud so long as control mechanisms exist to over ride individual values and decision making. (We are not accusing Gingrich, he may not know. We’ve spent a lifetime following these developments and only now can visualize the technology emerging.) These are black budget systems hidden from the public and ignored by the leadership in Congress.
Let’s summarize the information we received from our Swedish source, then we can sketch development in the U.S.
Cyber is the science of control. It consists of transmission of electromagnetic wavelengths for cerebral radio communication. The subordinate technologies include brain-computer interfacing, data surveillance, mind control, biomedical telemetry, man-machine interaction, all designed to transmit the basic ideology of the Information Society. (That’s why Gingrich’s mentor Alvin Toffler says the Constitution is “out of date.”)
Telemetry requires transmission of data not normally available i.e., your thoughts and plans. It is a two way communication system enabling remote control of individuals. (Official U.S. terminology-RNM or “remote neural monitoring.”)
This (our source continues) is a global system. (Is that why we have hundreds of satellites up there?) It operates at the speed of light and over any distance.
The surveillance system is operated by implanted transmitters in the head or electrodes in the brain but also injectable microchips, substances or micro transmitters implanted in any part of the body.
These implantations take place “in unwitting patients” during hospital operations, in patients at psychiatric clinics. In Sweden all elderly persons are implanted when “taken into long term care” (ah ha, Clinton’s universal health care!) and in all persons taken into police custody or in prison. Implants are also in the form of dental material and false teeth, and can be mixed into pharmacological products (i.e., medicine.)
Therefore, the Toffler school futurist’s emphasis on nanotechnology–the devices are hardly seen in x-rays.
These implants are, up to now, inserted into persons under state control (i.e., mental patients, prisoners, elderly sick.) This program has been funded, developed and implemented in complete secrecy. Experience has been that when governments hide something, it’s probably not to our benefit.
So how do the systems work?
The implant receives radio signals via satellites. These have known and specific effect on the brain. Many years of research on effects of radio signals on monkey and human behavior is in the open nonclassified literature. The black budgets have generated more advanced systems given the sophistication of the implants we know about.
The returned signals, from the individual brain through the satellite are processed by a central computer and the information presented on a screen to the controller. The technology has advanced to the stage where individual dreams or vision (i.e., mental picture) can be monitored on a three dimensional screen. So that as you read this and have a mental image of Big Brother at a screen this image in your mind can be (or is being) relayed back to a central processing facility.
When military scientists begin to combine “cognitive engineering” and neuroscience with genetic engineering, we could see a nightmarish new generation of biological weapons and nerve agents that radically alter the minds, emotions, memories and beliefs of everyone on earth.
That’s the opinion of Mark Wheelis and Malcolm Dando, authors of “Neurobiology: A Case Study of the Imminent Militarization of Biology” published September 30, 1995 in the International Review of the Red Cross. See this site for a PDF of the full article:
Abstract: The revolution in biology, including advances in genomics, will lead to rapid progress in the treatment of mental illness by advancing the discovery of highly specific ligands that affect specific neurological pathways. The status of brain science and its potential for military application to enhance soldier performance, to develop new weapons and to facilitate interrogation are discussed. If such applications are pursued, they will also expand the options available to torturers, dictators and terrorists. Several generic approaches to containing the malign applications of biology are shown, and it is concluded that success or failure in doing so will be significantly dependent on the active involvement of the scientific and medical communities.
Translation: The medical community has got to stop sitting on its duff and get some international legislation passed prohibiting the development of these bioweapons NOW.
I would add: An equally serious effort needs to be made to block military application of EM weapons to the human brain. The pretence that such weapons are “less than lethal” is a serious misunderstanding of the immense threat that they pose to the privacy and civil liberties of every man, woman and child on the face of the globe.
George Orwell introduced the concept of the “Thought Police” in his dystopian novel 1984. See the Wikipedia article on Thought Police here:
According to Kathleen Taylor in her own book, Brainwashing: The Science of Thought Control (Oxford University Press, 2006) “It is the job of the Thought Police to uncover and punish thoughtcrime and thought-criminals, using psychology and omnipresent surveillance from telescreens to find and eliminate members of society who were capable of the mere thought of challenging ruling authority.”
Does such a system exist in the United States today? Signs point to yes.
Granted, the United States remains a republic, and it has just completed a new cycle of elections. Its liberal constitution and principles of democratic representation seem to be standing firmly in place. Its flag waves proudly.
But there is a growing body of evidence that this country, once “conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal,” has devolved into a paranoid police state, much like the authoritarian state described by George Orwell in 1984.
One may find, simply by searching the internet, plenty of evidence that the United States government is actively involved in all the basic activities of the “Thought Police” exactly as listed above:
1. The uncovering and punishment of thought crime and thought criminals
2. The use of psychology to profile and identify “potential” criminals, terrorists and subversives within society; and
3. the use of “omni present surveillance from telescreens” to create what Harlan Girard calls “an Electronic Concentration Camp System” — a grid or matrix from which no person can escape.
In each of these activities, the new mind-invasive technologies known collectively as artificial telepathy play a key role.
Uncovering and Punishing Thought Crime
As documented in many other posts on this blog, mind-invasive technologies have begun to play a key role in the uncovering and punishment of “thoughtcrime.”
The prime example is the Department of Homeland Security’s new Malintent program mentioned in the previous post (q.v.) By scanning the faces of people at airports and reading other vital signs like heart rate, temperature and blood pressure, new sensors and computer algorithms can be used to read the intentions of airplane passengers — and presumably to prevent “potential terrorists” from boarding planes by means of “pre-emptive arrest.”
One must emphasize here that reading a person’s intentions with a camera and a computer is probably not much more reliable than a classic lie detector test, and very little scientific evidence exists to support the claims that these machines are accurate. The important thing to note is that the Department of Homeland Security seriously intends to use these machines as a pretext for pre-emptive arrest — that is, they intend to arrest people for crimes not yet committed.
Arresting a person for a crime not yet committed, on the basis of perceived intent, amounts to arresting people for thought crimes.
Use of Psychological Profiling to Detect and Detain “Potential” Criminals
As Jim Marrs points out in his new book The Rise of The Fourth Reich: The Secret Societies That Threaten to Take Over America (William Morrow, 2008), these “mind reading” computer systems are “reminiscent of prewar Nazi plans to preempt crime and dissent.” (p. 333)
For example, Nazi psychologists used pseudo-scientific examinations and the doctrine of preemption to remove “uneducable” children from grade schools. If a number of symptoms indicated that a child was “bad student material,” their name would be registered on a list. It was stated that “genetic and national health considerations recommend their preventative registration.”
“Of course,” says Marrs, “such registration led to the euthanasia centers.”
Marrs rightly calls “disturbing” the new trend to identify and detain potential troublemakers before they have actually committed a crime.
Terrorist Watch List — or Black List?
In its efforts to intercept “suspected terrorists,” the Department of Homeland Security has added more than one million names to its terrorist watch list. The American Civil Liberties Union suggests this number is way too high.
“Terrorist watch lists,” it says, “must be tightly focused on true terrorists who pose a genuine threat. Bloated lists are bad because they ensnare many innocent travelers as suspected terrorists, and because they waste screeners’ time and divert their energies from looking for true terrorists.”
Among the individuals whose names were found on the list by 60 Minutes and other media organizations: Sen. Edward Kennedy, Nelson Mandela, Bolivian President Evo Morales, Saddam Hussein (in custody at the time), Rep. John Lewis, James Moore (author of Bush’s Brain), and John William Anderson, age 6.
Now one must admit that certain children really are terrible brats, who ought to be watched more closely by their parents, but is it really necessary for the secret police to become involved? And if a United States Senator can be listed as a “suspect,” then who is above suspicion?
A “terrorist” watch list that includes the names of more than one million people seems to be clear evidence that the Department of Homeland Security is either a) very paranoid indeed, or b) very interested in using terrorism as a pretext for spying on U.S. citizens who have committed no crimes.
That is, they have established a system that allows them to “find and eliminate members of society who are capable of the mere thought of challenging existing authority.”
FTAC: The Fixated Threat Assessment Center
Psychological profiling, black listing and preemptive arrests are “Thought Police” tactics used in Europe, too, not just in the U.S. The British have their own system, called FTAC.
In a chapter titled “Psychology and Public Control,” Jim Marrs writes: “The British government, in May 2007, responding to news accounts, acknowledge it had secretly established a new national antiterrorist unit to protect VIPs by first profiling, then arresting persons considered to be potentially dangerous. Amazingly, this power to detain suspects even before they actually committed a crime was based on mental health laws.”
Marrs cites a news story by London Times reporter Joanna Bale. She reports that “until now it has been up to mental health professionals to determine if someone should be forcibly detained, but the new unit uses the police to identify suspects, increasing fears that distinctions are being blurred between criminal investigations and doctors’ clinical decisions.”
Experts believe that this arrangement “is set to reignite controversy over the detention of suspects without trial.”
“There is grave danger of this being used to deal with people where there is insufficient evidence for a criminal prosecution,” said Gareth Crossman, policy director for Britain’s National Council for Civil Liberties.
“This blurs the line between medical decisions and police actions. If you are going to allow doctors to take people’s liberty away, they have to be independent. That credibility is undermined when the doctors are part of the same team as the police. This raises serious concerns. First, that you have a unit that allows police investigation to lead directly to people being sectioned without any kind of criminal proceedings. Secondly, it is being done under the umbrella of antiterrorism at a time when the government is looking for ways to detain terrorists without putting them on trial.”
Scotland Yard has refused to discuss how many suspects have been forcibly hospitalized by the team, because of “patient confidentiality.” Meanwhile, conservative members of the British government have hailed FTAC as the first joint mental health – police unit in the United Kingdom and a “prototype for future joint services” in other areas. They are introducing legislation to broaden the definition of mental disorders to give doctors — and now police — more power to detain people.
Mass Surveillance and the ‘Electronic Concentration Camp’
Jim Marrs worries that joint psychologist-police units like the FTAC in Britain might serve as a prototype for similar units in the U.S. “Is this coming to America soon?” Marrs asks.
Harlan Girard would probably answer: “It’s already here!”
Mr. Girard is the Managing Director of the International Committee Opposing Microwave Weapons (ICOMW), and he firmly believes that the United States government has already established what he calls an “Electronic Concentration Camp System.”
See the homepage of his website here: http://www.icomw.org/
Essentially, the ECCS is a network of microwave towers and broadcast centers that can virtually imprison any citizen of the United States that the Thought Police wish to target. It’s a people zapping system, used to track, torture and psychologically harrass inconvenient people who, for one reason or another, have been placed on the government’s long list of enemies.
To support this claim, Girard has amassed an impressive collection of documents, posted at the website’s archive, here: http://www.icomw.org/archive.asp
The documents in this archive clearly indicate that the U.S. government has no need of the small FTAC units used by the British Government. The number of peace protestors and politically “inconvenient” people who have suddenly begun to hear voices in their heads strongly suggests that the U.S. government has built and fielded something much bigger, much more powerful, and much more scary: a fully developed and fully operational Electronic Concentration Camp System.
If the secret police, operating under the umbrella of counterterrorism, wish to “section” an inconvenient citizen “without any criminal proceedings,” they simply enroll that individual into the ECCS.
Technically, the “Targeted Individuals” remain free, but they are tortured 24/7 with microwave weapons, often to the point of losing their minds. They hear voices and experience a wide variety of horrible sensations. If they voluntarily turn themselves in to a psychiatric hospital, they are immediately diagnosed as schizophrenic and sectioned. Thus they are discredited and stigmatized for life. Those who turn to mainstream media are openly mocked.
In 2007, The Washington Post did a profile on Mr. Girard and other voice hearers, who are commonly called “wavies.” (See the link among the News links lists to the left.)
While the reporter kept a skeptical distance from Mr. Girard, she did at least do some background research on mind-invasive technologies. The Post filed an FOIA request with the U.S. Air Force and did manage to obtain documents showing that the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) has conducted several “voice to skull” experiments during the past decade.
It may be interesting to note that AFRL is also one of the primary research sponsors (along with the Navy) for the High-Frequency Active Auroral Reasearch Project (HAARP) — a 35-acre antenna farm near Fairbanks, Alaska, that is powerful enough to focus microwave beams anywhere on the face of the earth.
According to Dr. Nick Begich, author of the book Angels Don’t Play This HAARP (http://www.earthpulse.com/), the Air Force can broadcast from these antennae at frequencies that match the frequency range of the human brain.
In Chapter 23 “Psychocivilized Society and the CIA,” Dr. Begich explores “the use of electromagnetic waves for mind manipulation,” and concludes that it would be very possible to use HAARP as a non-lethal weapon that could be rationalized as an alternative to military force.
Whether HAARP acts as the hub of the ECCS is another question. HAARP certainly operates as part of the Air Force’s “Star Wars” ballistic missile early warning system, scanning for Soviet Missile launches. That means it is a subordinate wing of NORAD, the North American Air-Defense Command — an underground city buried beneath Cheyenne Mountain near Colorado Springs.
NORAD is a “hardened” and extremely secure underground site, equipped with supercomputers and direct uplinks to a wide variety of top secret space platforms and space-based beam weapons. It makes an excellent candidate for the HQ of the kind of “Electronic Concentration Camp” that Harlan Girard has envisioned.
NORAD certainly does have full access to the kinds of spy satellites and laser beams that worry the “wavies.” It may incorporate many other systems besides HAARP, and it may be no accident that the Sci-Fi series “Stargate” is supposedly set in NORAD’s underground bunker.
Given NORAD’s vast array of high-tech toys and its direct links to the Pentagon and the NSA, the possiblity that it might be HQ for a top secret “Thought Police” unit does not seem to be entirely out of the question.
Total Information Awareness
Civil liberties groups cried “Thought Police” in 2002 when they first discovered the U.S. Defense Department’s Information Awareness Office and its Total Information Awareness doctrine. Run for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) by former Vice Adm. John Poindexter, the TIA “counterterrorism” program caused quite a brouhaha because it advocated pre-emptive policing through use of a massive data mine that would interconnected a wide array of powerful surveillance systems:
DARPA’s own website tells us that “The goal of the Total Information Awareness program is to revolutionize the ability of the United States to detect, classify and identify foreign terrorists — and decipher their plans — and thereby enable the U.S. to take timely action to successfully pre-empt and defeat terrorist acts.”
See also this article on the “Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act” from Project Censored (The Top 25 Censored Stories of 2009):
Under this act, which nearly became law in 2007, local police departments might have been given legal cover for the use of nonlethal, mind-invasive technology against their own populace. They could zap “suspects” in the name of preventing “homegrown terror.”
Indeed, pre-emptive policing can be used to rationalize almost every form of privacy violation. One need simply argue that the rights of the individual can and must be overriden by police in order to protect and defend the physical safety of society as a whole. It’s for the greater good.
What Orwell did was simply to carry the twin doctrines of total information awareness and preemptive policing to their logical extreme. He imagined a world in which no one had any right to privacy whatever. None. All personal privacy is sacrificed on the altar of national security — for the greater good.
In the sacred name of “national security,” the technocrats who run the nightmarish police state of 1984 arrogantly assume the right to invade the inner sanctum of the mind itself. They read the thoughts of every citizen, dabble their fingers in the stuff that souls are made of, and sit in arrogant, authoritarian judgement over all.
Perhaps the vision of such a police state being realized in 1984 may cause people to smirk. That was, after all, more than 25 years ago, and we don’t have such a police state now, do we?
To those who smirk, however, one might call attention to the many patents on mind-invasive technology that may be found listed in the left-hand column of this blog. One must also point out that the U.S. Department of Defense did not necessarily do away with DARPA’s Information Awareness Office or its Total Information Awareness doctrine.
As with most black programs that are discovered by Congress and the media, these programs have been given new names and parked under the camouflage of other departments within the intelligence community. They still exist.
See Schneier on Security “Total Information Awareness Is Back”
“Report: NSA’s Warrantless Spying Resurrects Banned Total Information Awareness Program” http://www.blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/03/nsas-warrantles.html
Now consider this: If the doctrines of pre-emptive policing and total information awareness remain in place, can the massive use of mind-invasive technology be far behind?
Orwell may have been off by a few years. But his understanding of the basic arrogance of intelligence agencies and his vision of a nightmarish police state were frightfully accurate. With the quiet advent of mind-reading technologies, the chilling age of the Thought Police has secretly, stealthily and finally arrived.
How The NSA Harasses Thousands Of Law Abiding Americans Daily By The Usage Of Remote Neural Monitoring (RNM)
John St. Clair Akwei
NSA, Ft. Meade, MD, USA
Table of Contents
NSA Mission & Operations
Independently Operating Personnel Target Citizens
NSA’s Domestic Electronic Surveillance Network
Signals Intelligence Remote Computer Tampering
Detecting EMF Fields in Humans for Surveillance
NSA Signals Intelligence Use of EMF Brain Stimulation
Capabilities of NSA operatives using RNM
NSA Signals Intelligence Electronic Brain Link Technology
Table: An example of EMF Brain Stimulation
NSA Techniques and Resources
Remote RNM Devices
Spotters and Walk-Bys in Metropolitan Areas
Chemicals and Drugs
Evidence for the Lawsuit filed at the US courthouse in Washington, D.C.
(Civil Action 92-0449)
John St.Clair Akwei vs. NSA Ft George G. Meade, MD
My knowledge of the National Security Agency’s structure, national security activities, proprietary technology,and covert operations to monitor individual citizens.
Table of Contents
The NSA’s mission and the NSA’s domestic Intelligence operation.
Communications Intelligence (COMINT)
Blanket coverage of all electronic communication in the U.S. and the world to ensure national security. The NSA at Ft. Meade, Maryland has had the most advanced computers in the world since the early 1960’s. NSA technology is developed and implemented in secret from private corporations, academia, and the general public.
Signals Intelligence (SIGINT)
The Signals Intelligence mission of the NSA has evolved into a program of decoding EMF waves in the environment for wirelessly tapping into computers and tracking persons with the electrical currents in their bodies. Signals Intelligence is based on the fact that everything in the environment with an electric current in it has a magnetic flux around it which gives off EMF waves. The NSA/DoD has developed proprietary advanced digital equipment which can remotely analyze all objects whether man-made or organic that have electrical activity.
Domestic Intelligence (DOMINT)
The NSA has records on all U.S. citizens. The NSA gathers information on U.S. citizens who might be of interest to any of the over 50,000 NSA agents (HUMINT). These agents are authorized by executive order to spy on anyone. The NSA has a permanent National Security Anti-Terrorist surveillance network in place. This surveillance network is completely disguised and hidden from the public.
Tracking individuals in the U.S. is easily and cost-effectively implemented with the NSA’s electronic surveillance network. This network (DOMINT) covers the entire U.S., involves tens of thousands of NSA personnel, and tracks millions of persons simultaneously. Cost effective implementation of operations is assured by NSA computer technology designed to minimize operations costs.
NSA personnel serve in Quasi-public positions in their communities and run cover businesses and legitimate businesses that can inform the intelligence community of persons they would want to track. N.S.A. personnel in the community usually have cover identities such as social workers, lawyers and business owners.
Individual citizens occasionally targeted for surveillance
by independently operating NSA personnel.
NSA personnel can control the lives of hundreds of thousands of individuals in the U.S. by using the NSA’s domestic intelligence network and cover businesses. The operations independently run by them can sometimes go beyond the bounds of law. Long-term control and sabotage of tens of thousands of unwitting citizens by NSA operatives is likely to happen. NSA Domint has the ability to covertly assassinate U.S. citizens or run covert psychological control operations to cause subjects to be diagnosed with ill mental health.
Table of Contents
NSA’s domestic electronic surveillance network
As of the early 1960’s the most advanced computers in the world were at the NSA, Ft. Meade. Research breakthroughs with these computers were kept for the NSA. At the present time the NSA has nanotechnology computers that are 15 years ahead of present computer technology.
The NSA obtains blanket coverage of information in the U.S. by using advanced computers that use artificial intelligence to screen all communications, irregardless of medium, for key words that should be brought to the attention of NSA agents/cryptologists. These computers monitor all communications at the transmitting and receiving ends. This blanket coverage of the U.S. is a result of the NSA’s Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) mission.
The NSA’s electronic surveillance network is based on a cellular arrangement of devices that can monitor the entire EMF spectrum. This equipment was developed, implemented, and kept secret in the same manner as other electronic warfare programs.
With this technology NSA personnel can non-obtrusively tap into any communication device in existence. This includes computers, telephones, radio and video-based devices, printers, car electronics, and even the minute electrical fields in humans (for tracking individuals).
Signals Intelligence Remote Computer Tampering
The NSA keeps track of all PCs and other computers sold in the U.S. This is an integral part of the Domestic Intelligence network.
The NSA’s EMF equipment can tune in RF emissions from personal computer circuit boards (while filtering out emissions from monitors and power supplies). The RF emission from PC circuit boards contains digital information in the PC. Coded RF waves from the NSA’s equipment can resonate PC circuits and change data in the PC’s. Thus the NSA can gain wireless modem-style entry into any computer in the country for surveillance or anti-terrorist electronic warfare.
Radio and Television signals can be substituted at the receiving end with special EMF equipment. Replacing signals in Radios and Televisions is another outgrowth of the NSA’s Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) mission.
Detecting EMF Fields in Humans for Surveillance.
A subject’s bioelectric field can be remotely detected, so subjects can be monitored anywhere they are. With special EMF equipment NSA cryptologists can remotely read evoked potentials (from EEGs). These can be decoded into a person’s brain-states and thoughts. The subject is then perfectly monitored from a distance.
NSA personnel can dial up any individual in the country on the Signals lntelligence EMF scanning network and the NSA’s computers will then pinpoint and track that person 24 hours-a-day. The NSA can pick out and track anyone in the U.S.
Table of Contents
NSA Signals Intelligence Use of EMF Brain Stimulation
NSA Signals Intelligence uses EMF Brain Stimulation for Remote Neural Monitoring (RNM) and Electronic Brain Link (EBL). EMF Brain Stimulation has been in development since the MKUltra program of the early 1950’s, which included neurological research into “radiation” (non-ionizing EMF) and bioelectric research and development. The resulting secret technology is categorized at the National Security Archives as “Radiation Intelligence,” defined as “information from unintentionally emanated electromagnetic waves in the environment, not including radioactivity or nuclear detonation.”
Signals Intelligence implemented and kept this technology secret in the same manner as other electronic warfare programs of the U.S. government. The NSA monitors available information about this technology and withholds scientific research from the public. There are also international intelligence agency agreements to keep this technology secret.
The NSA has proprietary electronic equipment that analyzes electrical activity in humans from a distance. NSA computer-generated brain mapping can continuously monitor all the electrical activity in die brain continuously. The NSA records aid decodes individual brain maps (of hundreds of thousands of persons) for national security purposes. EMF Brain Stimulation is also secretly used by the military for Brain-to-computer link. (In military fighter aircraft, for example.)
For electronic surveillance purposes electrical activity in the speech center of the brain can be translated into the subject’s verbal thoughts. RNM can send encoded signals to the brain’s auditory cortex thus allowing audio communication direct to the brain (bypassing the ears). NSA operatives can use this to covertly debilitate subjects by simulating auditory hallucinations characteristic of paranoid schizophrenia.
Without any contact with the subject, Remote Neural Monitoring can map out electrical activity from the visual cortex of a subject’s brain and show images from the subject’s brain on a video monitor. NSA operatives see what the surveillance subject’s eyes are seeing. Visual memory can also be seen. RNM can send images direct to the visual cortex. bypassing the eyes and optic nerves. NSA operatives can use this to surreptitiously put images in a surveillance subject’s brain while they are in R.E.M. sleep for brain-programming purposes.
Table of Contents
Capabilities of NSA operatives using RNM
There has been a Signals Intelligence network in the U.S. since the 1940’s. The NSA, Ft. Meade has in place a vast two-way wireless RNM system which is used to track subjects and non-invasively monitor audio-visual information in their brain. This is all done with no physical contact with the subject. RNM is the ultimate method of surveillance and domestic intelligence. Speech and 3D sound, and subliminal audio can be sent to the auditory cortex of the subject’s brain (bypassing the ears) and images can be sent into the visual cortex. RNM can alter a subject’s perceptions, moods, and motor control.
Speech cortex/auditory cortex link has become the ultimate communications system for the intelligence community. RNM allows for a complete audio-visual brain-to-brain link or brain-to-computer link.
Table of Contents
National Security Agency Signals Intelligence
Electronic Brain Link Technology
NSA SigInt can remotely detect, identify and monitor a person’s bioelectric fields.
The NSA’s Signals Intelligence has the proprietary ability to remotely and non-invasively monitor information in the human brain by digitally decoding the evoked potentials in the 30-50 hz, .5 milliwatt electro-magnetic emissions from the brain.
Neuronal activity in the brain creates a shifting electrical pattern that has a shifting magnetic flux. This magnetic flux puts out a constant 30-50 hz, .5 milliwatt electromagnetic (EMF) wave. Contained in the electromagnetic emission from the brain are spikes and patterns called “evoked potentials.”
Every thought, reaction, motor command, auditory event, and visual image in the brain has a corresponding “evoked potential” or set of “evoked potentials.” The EMF emission from the brain can be decoded into the current thoughts, images and sounds in the subject’s brain.
NSA SigInt uses EMF-transmitted Brain Stimulation as a communications system to transmit information (as well as nervous system messages) to intelligence agents and also to transmit to the brains of covert operations subjects (on a non-perceptible level).
EMF Brain Stimulation works by sending a complexly coded and pulsed electromagnetic signal to trigger evoked potentials (events) in the brain, thereby forming sound and visual images in the brain’s neural circuits. EMF Brain Stimulation can also change a person’s brain-states and affect motor control.
Two-way Electronic Brain-Link is done by remotely monitoring neural audio-visual information while transmitting sound to the auditory cortex (bypassing the ears) and transmitting faint images to the visual cortex (bypassing the optic nerves and eyes, the images appear as floating 2-D screens in the brain).
Two-Way Electronic Brain Link has become the ultimate communications system for CIA/NSA personnel. Remote Neural Monitoring (RNM, remotely monitoring bioelectric information in the human brain) has become the ultimate surveillance system. It is used by a limited number of agents in the U.S. Intelligence Community.
RNM requires decoding the resonance frequency of each specific brain area. That frequency is then modulated in order to impose information in That specific brain area. The frequency to which the various brain areas respond varies from 3 Hz to 50 Hz. Only NSA Signals Intelligence modulates signals in this frequency band.
An example of EMF Brain Stimulation:
Motor Control Cortex 10 HZ Motor Impulse Co-ordination
Auditory Cortex 15 HZ Sound which bypasses the ears
Visual Cortex 25 HZ Images in the brain, bypassing the eyes
Somatosensory Cortex 09 HZ Phantom Touch Sense
Thought Center 20 HZ Imposed Subconscious Thoughts
This modulated information can be put into the brain at varying intensities from subliminal to perceptible.
Each person’s brain has a unique set of bioelectric resonance/entrainment frequencies. Sending audio information to a person’s brain at the frequency of another person’s auditory cortex would result in that audio information not being perceived.
The Plaintiff learned of RNM by being in two-way RNM contact with the Kinnecome group at the NSA, Ft. Meade. They used RNM 3D sound direct to the brain to harass the Plaintiff from 10/90 to 5/91. As of 5/91 they have had two-way RNM communications with the Plaintiff and have used RNM to attempt to incapacitate the Plaintiff and hinder the Plaintiff from going to authorities about their activities against the Plaintiff in the last twelve years.
The Kinnecome group has about 100 persons working 24-hours-a-day at Ft Meade. They have also brain-tapped persons the Plaintiff is in contact with to keep the Plaintiff isolated. This is the first time ever that a private citizen has been harassed with RNM and has been able to bring a lawsuit against NSA personnel misusing this intelligence operations method.
Table of Contents
NSA Techniques and Resources
Remote monitoring/tracking of individuals in any location. inside any building, continuously, anywhere in the country.
A system for inexpensive implementation of these operations allows for thousands of persons in every community to be spied on constantly by the NSA.
Remote RNM Devices
a) NSA’s RNM equipment remotely reads the evoked potentials (EEGs) of the human brain for tracking individuals and can send messages through the nervous system to affect their performance.
b) [Information missing from original]
c) RNM can electronically identify individuals and track then anywhere in the U.S. This equipment is on a network and is used for domestic intelligence operations, government security, and military base security, and in case of bioelectric warfare.
Spotters and Walk-Bys in Metropolitan Areas
a) Tens of thousands of persons in each area working as spotters and neighborhood/business place spies (sometimes unwittingly) following and checking on subjects who have been identified for covert control by NSA personnel.
b) Agents working out of offices can be in constant communication with Spotters who are keeping track of the NSA’s thousands of subjects in public.
c) NSA Agents in remote offices can instantly identify (using RNM) any individual spotted in public whom is in contact with surveillance subject.
Chemicals and Drugs into Residential Buildings with hidden NSA-lnstalled and maintained plastic plumbing lines.
a) The NSA has kits for running lines into residential tap water and air ducts of subjects for the delivery of drugs (such as sleeping gas or brainwashing aiding drugs). This is an outgrowth of CIA pharmapsychology.
Brief Overview of Proprietary U.S.
Intelligence/Anti-Terrorist Equipment Mentioned.
Fixed network of special EMF equipment that can read EEGs in human brains and identify/track individuals by using digital computers. ESB (Electrical Stimulation to the Brain) via EMF signal from the NSA Signals Intelligence is used to control subjects.
EMF equipment that gathers information from PC circuit boards by deciphering RF emissions thereby gaining wireless modem-style entry into any personal computer in the country.
All equipment hidden, all technology secret, all scientific research unreported (as in electronic warfare research).
Not known to the public at all, yet complete and thorough implementation of this method of domestic intelligence has been in place since the early 1980’s.
Organized Stalking is a crime thats not accepted or addressed by law enforcement. It is a framework of social control. This is used by government to control some targeted individuals without doing anything that’s illegal in the control framework. It includes combination of bogus covert investigation and systemic harassment that involves intelligence agencies, law enforcement, businesses and communities. Organized stalking is a set of techniques used to destroy unwanted persons both mentally and physically without doing anything illegal in the process. The people involved in organized stalking know about law enforcement. The actions in organized stalking are designed considering the loopholes within the law to achieve the goal of destroying the person.
Oftentimes organized stalking is initiated after an informant or Covert Human Intelligence Source flags the targeted individual. Other times profile information of the targeted individual places them on government black lists and community notification lists.
The crimes committed through Organized stalking on an individual are covertly done, hence little in evidence is left behind of the crime, and the target is left with little in the way of recourses to defend himself or herself. The systemic harassment is illegal and the bogus covert investigation provides means to keep the target under surveillance 24/7.
Isolation, through disrupting socio-familial ties in an intense slander campaign, is usually achieved once the actual stalking begins. A pervasive slandering campaign takes place, painting the target as an unstable individual, child molester, a person with hidden dark secrets, or a person prone to psychopathic behavior. All the perceptions of the targeted individual’s life are turned negative. The Organized stalking is done in such a way that all aspects of the targeted individual’s life remain negative permanently and is never given time for cure.
The criminals planning a Organized stalking endeavor study the target long before the stalking begins. Psychological profiling is done, and this is to assist in the overall campaign that includes intense psychological harassments and demoralizations. Tactics used go well beyond fear, demoralization and psychological harassment.
The tactics used have been the protocol in campaigns against common people implemented by the KGB in Soviet Russia, Nazis of Nazi Germany, and the KKK in the early to middle of last century in America.. The accumulation of all the tactics and events in this dangerously hurtful organized crime against an innocent human being can led to trauma and will emotionally bankrupt the targeted individual, and may lead to death, as suicide is often induced through the assaults.
The perpetrators of organized stalking are serious criminals who do great damage, and the acts done are very serious crimes by any measure. Organized stalking is a highly criminal campaign, one directed at a target individual, and one that aims to destroy an innocent persons life through covert harassments, malicious slander and carefully crafted and executed psychological assaults.
Organized stalking deprives the targeted individual of their basic constitutional rights and destroys their freedom, setting a stage for the destruction of a person, socially, mental and physical, through a ceaseless assault that pervades all areas of a persons life. What drives such campaigns may be revenge for whistleblowing, or for highly critical individuals, as outspoken people have become targets. Other reasons why a person may become a target individual for stalking: ex-spouse revenge, criminal hate campaigns, politics, or racism.
Organized stalking may be part of a larger phenomena that may have loose threads that extend into a number of differing entities, such as intelligence agencies, military, and large corporations, though it is certain that organized crime is one of Organized stalking’s primary sources, or origins.
The goals of Organized stalking are many. To cause the target to appear unstable mentally is one, and this is achieved through a carefully detailed assault using advanced psychological harassment techniques, and a variety of other tactics that are the usual protocol for Organized stalking, such as street theater, mobbing, and pervasive petty disrespecting.
Targets experience the following:
1. A total invasion of privacy
2. Pervasive and horrific slander
3. Isolation through alienation that is caused by the slander
4. Destruction of, or alienation from all things that the target holds dear.
A discrediting campaign is initiated long before the target is actually stalked. They, the criminal perpetrators, twist and fabricate reality through such a campaign, displaying lies that paint the target as a child molester, a person with hidden dark secrets, a highly unstable individual who may be a threat to society, a prostitute, or a longtime drug user, etc. The slandering or discrediting campaign sets the stage for the target to become alienated in just about every social-familial- work environment, once the actual stalking begins.
This slandering campaign is instrumental in eliminating all resource and avenue of defense for the target, before the actual stalking begins. This stage is one that sees people close to the target, family, friends, neighbors, and co-workers recruited by the perpetrator criminals, who will pose as law enforcement officials, private investigators, or groups of concerned citizens.
The Organized stalking is aimed at achieving one or all of the follow:
1. Induced suicide
2. Financial devastation
4. Institutionalization in psyche wards.
Once actual stalking begins:
The target will endure a vast array of tactics: gaslighting, street theater, drugging, gassing, scent harassment, mobbing, subtle but frequent destruction of property, killing of pets.
Psychological profiling will be done so as to initiate an intense psychological harassment assault. Staged happenings and planned or directed conversations will take place around the target in public or places of work, and serves not only to undermine the targets psychology, but also may be used to cause the target to thinking that he or she is under investigation for horrific crimes.
Stalkers will have studied the target to such a level that they know and can predict the persons behavior. Again, often the target will think that they are being investigated for crimes that would be absurd for the target to have actually commited. Not knowing what actually is happening, the target is isolated and lives through a never ending living nightmare.
Once the target finds out that they are a target individual for Organized stalking, or multi stalking, they may have some relief, but from what I have read, the stalking simply changes dimensions a bit, and continues.
Identifying the exact people who initiated Organized stalking campaigns is difficult, or near impossible, and this makes it very difficult for people researching this phenomena to discover, in certainty, the roots and genealogy of the crime. Investigation of a Organized stalking crime would require a great deal of resources, and intensity similar to murder investigations.
What are the motivations for the targeted individual organized stalking system?
1. Organized stalking system is used by the government as a virtual jail for the targeted individual. The O.S. system isolates targeted individual from the community and creates barriers for the targeted individual within the community.
2. The targeted individual’s actions are severely limited to survival. He/she loses confidence in the community and cannot do anything dramatic or revolutionary to impact his/her environment or the community.
3. The targeted individual thinks about the problem of O.S., other pressing life issues are ignored or planned the least.
4. The O.S. system destroys the ego and identity of the targeted individual and stops him/her from pursuing successful life or influential life that cannot be controlled.
5. If the targeted individual complains about O.S. system, he/she will be misdiagnosed with mental illness as the O.S. techniques used mimic the symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia. The intelligence agencies have perfected this technique of using the mental health system to destroy targeted individuals after 50 years of research. Thus the intelligence agencies achieve perfect deniability in their crimes.
Zersetzung (Ministerium für Staatssicherheit)
Die Zersetzung als vom Ministerium für Staatssicherheit (MfS) der DDR eingesetzte geheimpolizeiliche Arbeitstechnik diente zur Bekämpfung vermeintlicher und tatsächlicher politischer Gegner. Die im Rahmen einer 1976 erlassenen Richtlinie definierten Zersetzungsmaßnahmen wurden vom MfS vornehmlich in den 1970er und 1980er Jahren in Operativen Vorgängen gegen oppositionelle Gruppen und Einzelpersonen eingesetzt. Zumeist konspirativ angewandt, ersetzten sie den offenen Terror der Ära Ulbricht. Durch gezielte Beeinträchtigung oder Schädigung versuchte das MfS Gegnern die Möglichkeiten für feindliche Handlungen zu nehmen. Als repressive Verfolgungspraxis beinhaltete die Zersetzung dabei umfangreiche Steuerungs- und Manipulationsfunktionen bis in die persönlichsten Beziehungen der Opfer hinein. Das MfS griff hierbei auf das Netz an „Inoffiziellen Mitarbeitern“ (IM), staatliche Einflussnahmemöglichkeiten sowie „Operative Psychologie“ zurück. Durch die Offenlegung zahlreicher Stasi-Unterlagen in Folge der politischen Wende in der DDR ist der Einsatz von Zersetzungsmaßnahmen durch das MfS besonders gut dokumentiert.
* 1 Begriffsherkunft und MfS-Definition
* 2 Politische und gesellschaftliche Rahmenbedingungen
* 3 Praktische Anwendung
* 4 Zielgruppen für Zersetzungsmaßnahmen
* 5 Gesellschaftliche und juristische Aufarbeitung
* 6 Literatur
* 7 Film
* 8 Weblinks
* 9 Siehe auch
* 10 Einzelnachweise
Begriffsherkunft und MfS-Definition
Neben der chemischen Bedeutung des Verbs zersetzen bezeichnet Zersetzung auch die Zerstörung einer Gemeinschaft, Ordnung oder politischen Partei. Die Herkunft des Wortes im MfS-Gebrauch stammt aus der Militärsprache: „Zersetzung“ bezeichnet eine strategische Maßnahme aus der psychologischen Kriegsführung, um die Kampfmoral gegnerischer Soldaten zu schwächen. Während der Weimarer Republik wurde der Begriff für die gegenseitige Unterwanderung politischer Organisationen sowie der Reichswehr mit dem Ziel ihrer inneren Schwächung gebraucht. Das MfS verwendete den Begriff erstmals umfassend in ihrer als „Geheime Verschlusssache“ eingestuften Richtlinie Nr. 1/76 zur Entwicklung und Bearbeitung Operativer Vorgänge (OV). Diese beschrieb auf insgesamt vier Seiten die „Anwendung von Maßnahmen der Zersetzung“.
Eine Definition der Zersetzung einschließlich deren Ziele und Methoden lieferte das MfS im Rahmen der zweiten Auflage ihres 1981 erarbeiteten und 1985 erschienenen Wörterbuchs zur politisch-operativen Arbeit. Die erste Auflage aus dem Jahr 1970 enthielt diesen Begriff noch nicht.
„[Die operative Zersetzung ist eine] operative Methode des MfS zur wirksamen Bekämpfung subversiver Tätigkeit, insbesondere in der Vorgangsbearbeitung. Mit der Z. wird durch verschiedene politisch-operative Aktivitäten Einfluß auf feindlich-negative Personen, insbesondere auf ihre feindlich-negativen Einstellungen und Überzeugungen in der Weise genommen, daß diese erschüttert und allmählich verändert werden bzw. Widersprüche sowie Differenzen zwischen feindlich-negativen Kräften hervorgerufen, ausgenutzt oder verstärkt werden.
Ziel der Z. ist die Zersplitterung, Lähmung, Desorganisierung und Isolierung feindlich-negativer Kräfte, um dadurch feindlich-negative Handlungen einschließlich deren Auswirkungen vorbeugend zu verhindern, wesentlich einzuschränken oder gänzlich zu unterbinden bzw. eine differenzierte politisch-ideologische Rückgewinnung zu ermöglichen.
Z. sind sowohl unmittelbarer Bestandteil der Bearbeitung Operativer Vorgänge als auch vorbeugender Aktivitäten außerhalb der Vorgangsbearbeitung zur Verhinderung feindlicher Zusammenschlüsse. Hauptkräfte der Durchführung der Z. sind die IM. Die Z. setzt operativ bedeutsame Informationen und Beweise über geplante, vorbereitete und durchgeführte feindliche Aktivitäten sowie entsprechende Anknüpfungspunkte für die wirksame Einleitung von Z.-Maßnahmen voraus.
Die Z. hat auf der Grundlage einer gründlichen Analyse des operativen Sachverhaltes sowie der exakten Festlegung der konkreten Zielstellung zu erfolgen. Die Durchführung der Z. ist einheitlich und straff zu leiten, ihre Ergebnisse sind zu dokumentieren.
Die politische Brisanz der Z. stellt hohe Anforderungen hinsichtlich der Wahrung der Konspiration.“
– Ministerium für Staatssicherheit: Wörterbuch zur politisch-operativen Arbeit, Stichwort: „Zersetzung“
Politische und gesellschaftliche Rahmenbedingungen
Während der ersten zehn Jahre der DDR wurde politische Opposition überwiegend als Kriegs- und Boykotthetze mit Methoden des Strafrechtes bekämpft. Mit der Abschottung der DDR in Folge des Mauerbaus wurde ab 1963 auch der justizielle Terror aufgegeben. Vor allem seit Beginn der Ära Honecker 1971 verstärkte das MfS seine Bemühungen, oppositionelles Verhalten ohne Anwendung des Strafrechtes zu sanktionieren. Wichtige Anlässe hierfür waren das Streben der DDR nach internationaler Anerkennung und die deutsch-deutsche Annäherung ab Ende der 1960er Jahre. So hatte sich die DDR sowohl im Grundlagenvertrag mit der BRD als auch mit dem Beitritt zur UN-Charta und der Unterzeichnung der KSZE-Schlussakte zur Achtung der Menschenrechte verpflichtet beziehungsweise diese Absicht bekundet. Da letztere auch im Neuen Deutschland publiziert wurde, stand deren Umsetzung – insbesondere in Bezug auf die beschlossene Verbesserung der Ausreiseregelung – auch innenpolitisch zur Diskussion. Zudem versuchte das SED-Regime, die Zahl politischer Häftlinge zu reduzieren und hierzu die versprochenen Konzessionen durch Repressionspraktiken unterhalb der Schwelle von Verhaftung und Verurteilung zu kompensieren.
Das MfS setzte die Zersetzung vor allem als psychologisches Unterdrückungs- und Verfolgungsinstrument ein. Es nutzte die an der Juristischen Hochschule der Staatssicherheit (JHS) gewonnenen Erkenntnisse der „Operativen Psychologie“ gezielt, um das Selbstvertrauen und Selbstwertgefühl der Opfer zu untergraben. Diese sollten verwirrt oder verängstigt, permanenten Enttäuschungen ausgesetzt und durch Störung der Beziehungen zu anderen Menschen sozial entwurzelt werden. Auf diese Weise sollten Lebenskrisen hervorgerufen werden, die politische Gegner verunsichern und psychisch belasten sollten, sodass dem Opfer die Zeit und Energie für staatsfeindliche Aktivitäten genommen wurde. Das MfS als Drahtzieher der Maßnahmen sollte hierbei nicht erkennbar sein. Der selbst betroffene Schriftsteller Jürgen Fuchs sprach deshalb auch von „psychosozialen Verbrechen“ und einem „Angriff auf die Seele des Menschen“.
Wenngleich sich bereits für die späten 1950er Jahre Methoden der Zersetzung nachweisen lassen, wurde die Zersetzung als Methode erst Mitte der 1970er Jahre „wissenschaftlich“ definiert und vornehmlich in den 1970er und 1980er Jahren angewendet. Die Zahl der betroffenen Personen kann nur schwer ermittelt werden, da die Quellenlage wegen bewusster Verschleierung oft lückenhaft ist, die angewendeten Methoden jedoch vielfältig und die beteiligten Abteilungen zahlreich waren. Insgesamt dürften eine vier- bis fünfstellige Zahl an Personen in Gruppen, sowie eine dreistellige Zahl an Einzelpersonen mit Zersetzungsmaßnahmen belegt worden sein. Andere Quellen gehen von etwa 5000 betroffenen Personen aus. An der Juristischen Hochschule wurde eine zweistellige Zahl an Dissertationen zu Themen der Zersetzung vorgelegt. Zudem existiert ein etwa 50 Seiten umfassendes „Lehrmaterial“ zur Zersetzung mit zahlreichen praktischen Beispielen.
Angewandt wurden die Maßnahmen von nahezu allen Abteilungen des MfS, vor allem jedoch von der Hauptabteilung XX des MfS in Berlin sowie den Abteilungen XX der Bezirksverwaltungen und Kreisdienststellen des MfS. Mit der Überwachung von Religionsgemeinschaften, Kultur- und Medienbetrieben, Blockparteien und gesellschaftlichen Organisationen, des Bildungs- und Gesundheitssystems sowie des Sports deckte die Linie XX praktisch das gesamte öffentliche Leben in der DDR ab. Das MfS nutzte hierbei die Möglichkeiten, die sich aus der geschlossenen Gesellschaftsform der DDR ergaben. Durch politisch-operatives Zusammenwirken besaß das MfS umfangreiche Eingriffsmöglichkeiten wie beispielsweise berufliche oder schulische Strafen, Ausschluss aus Massenorganisationen und Sportvereinen, zeitweise Verhaftungen durch die Volkspolizei sowie die Nichtgewährung von Reisegenehmigungen ins sozialistische Ausland bzw. das Zurückweisen an den visafreien Grenzübergängen zur Tschechoslowakei und Volksrepublik Polen. Zu den „Partnern des operativen Zusammenwirkens“ zählten ferner die Räte der Kreise, Universitäts- und Betriebsleitungen, Wohnungsverwaltungen, Sparkassenfilialen oder unter Umständen behandelnde Ärzte. Wichtige Grundlagen für die Ausarbeitung von Zersetzungsmaßnahmen lieferten die Linie VIII (Observation) sowie die Abteilungen 26 (Telefon- und Raumüberwachung) und M (Postkontrolle) des MfS, notwendige Technik beschaffte die Abteilung 32.
Das MfS wendete die Zersetzung vor, während, nach oder an Stelle einer Inhaftierung der „Zielperson“ an. Die operativen Vorgänge verfolgten hierbei in der Regel nicht das Ziel, Beweise für eine strafbare Handlung des Opfers zu erbringen, um ein Ermittlungsverfahren zu eröffnen. Vielmehr betrachtete das MfS Zersetzungsmaßnahmen als eigenständiges Instrument, welches zum Einsatz kam, wenn strafrechtliche Maßnahmen aus politischen oder „politisch-operativen“ Gründen (beispielsweise um das internationale Ansehen der DDR nicht zu gefährden) nicht erwünscht waren. In einigen Fällen versuchte das MfS jedoch einzelne Personen bewusst zu kriminalisieren, indem es beispielsweise Wolf Biermann Minderjährige zuführte, mit dem Ziel ihn später strafrechtlich belangen zu können. Als Delikte für eine derartige Kriminalisierung wurden unpolitische Vergehen wie Drogenbesitz, Zoll- und Devisenvergehen, Diebstahl, Steuerhinterziehung oder Vergewaltigungen angestrebt.
Als bewährte Formen der Zersetzung nennt die Richtlinie 1/76 unter anderem:
„systematische Diskreditierung des öffentlichen Rufes, des Ansehens und des Prestiges auf der Grundlage miteinander verbundener wahrer, überprüfbarer und diskreditierender, sowie unwahrer, glaubhafter, nicht widerlegbarer und damit ebenfalls diskreditierender Angaben; systematische Organisierung beruflicher und gesellschaftlicher Misserfolge zur Untergrabung des Selbstvertrauens einzelner Personen; […] Erzeugung von Zweifeln an der persönlichen Perspektive; Erzeugen von Misstrauen und gegenseitigen Verdächtigungen innerhalb von Gruppen […]; örtliches und zeitliches Unterbinden beziehungsweise Einschränken der gegenseitigen Beziehungen der Mitglieder einer Gruppe […] zum Beispiel durch […] Zuweisung von örtlich entfernt liegender Arbeitsplätze“
– Richtlinie Nr. 1/76 zur Entwicklung und Bearbeitung Operativer Vorgänge vom Januar 1976
Mit dem durch Bespitzelung erlangten Wissen erstellte das MfS Sozio- und Psychogramme und wendete diese für persönlichkeitsorientierte Formen der Zersetzung an. Dabei wurden gezielt persönliche Eigenschaften und Neigungen sowie charakterliche Schwächen der „bearbeiteten Feindperson“ – beispielsweise berufliches Versagen, Vernachlässigung elterlicher Pflichten, Homosexualität, pornographische Interessen, Ehebruch, Alkoholismus, Abhängigkeit von Medikamenten, Neigung zu kriminellen Handlungen, Sammler- und Spielleidenschaften sowie Kontakte zu rechtsextremen Kreisen – aufgegriffen, oder diese wurden zur Bloßstellung des Opfers als Gerücht in dessen Umfeld gestreut. Aus Sicht des MfS waren die Maßnahmen umso erfolgreicher, je persönlichkeitsbezogener sie angewendet wurden, jeglichen „Schematismus“ galt es zu vermeiden.
Im Namen der Opfer schaltete das MfS Kontakt- oder Kleinanzeigen, löste Warenbestellungen aus oder setzte Notrufe ab, um diese zu terrorisieren. Zur Drohung bzw. Einschüchterung sowie zur Erzeugung von Psychosen verschaffte sich das MfS Zugang zu den Wohnungen der Opfer und hinterließ dort offensichtliche Spuren der Anwesenheit, indem Gegenstände hinterlassen, entfernt oder verändert wurden.
Freundschafts-, Liebes-, Ehe- und Familienbeziehungen manipulierte das MfS durch anonyme Briefe, Telegramme und Telefonanrufe sowie (oftmals gefälschte) kompromittierende Fotos. Auf diese Weise sollten Eltern und Kinder systematisch entfremdet werden. Zur Provokation von Beziehungskonflikten sowie außerehelicher Beziehungen unternahm das MfS mittels sogenannter Romeo-Agenten gezielte Umwerbungsversuche.
Für die Zersetzung von Gruppen wurden gezielt (auch minderjährige) IM innerhalb der Gruppe angeworben und eingesetzt. Oppositionelle Gruppen wurden in ihrer Arbeit behindert, indem durch IM permanent Korrekturen und Gegenvorschläge in deren programmatische Diskussionen eingebracht wurden. Um Misstrauen innerhalb der Gruppe zu erzeugen, erweckte das MfS gelegentlich nur den Eindruck, einzelne Gruppenmitglieder seien als IM tätig. Neben der Verbreitung von Gerüchten oder manipulierten Fotos fingierte das MfS hierbei Indiskretionen über angebliche IM-Treffen oder lud einzelne Gruppenmitglieder zu staatlichen Stellen vor, um den Eindruck einer IM-Tätigkeit zu erwecken. Auch durch die gezielte Gewährung von Privilegien – zum Beispiel bei Urlaubs- und Reisegenehmigungen oder der Zuteilung von Wohnungen oder PKW – sollte der Eindruck einer MfS-Tätigkeit einzelner Gruppenmitglieder erzeugt werden. Zweifel entstanden zudem durch die Inhaftierung nur einiger Mitglieder einer Gruppe.
Ferner gehörten zu den Zersetzungsmethoden offene, verdeckte oder vorgetäuschte Bespitzelung, Brief- oder Telefonkontrolle, das Beschädigen privaten Eigentums, Manipulationen an Fahrzeugen bis hin zur Vergiftung von Lebensmitteln, falscher medizinischer Behandlung und strategisch gezieltem Treiben in den Suizid.
Nicht abschließend geklärt werden konnte, ob das MfS Röntgenstrahlung einsetzte, um bei politischen Gegnern gesundheitliche Langzeitschäden hervorzurufen. So starben mit Rudolf Bahro, Gerulf Pannach und Jürgen Fuchs im Abstand von zwei Jahren drei zum gleichen Zeitpunkt inhaftierte, prominente DDR-Dissidenten an Krebserkrankungen. Eine Studie der BStU schloss jedoch auf Grundlage der vorhandenen Akten eine derart vorsätzliche Anwendung von Röntgenstrahlung aus und dokumentierte stattdessen nur einzelne Fälle fahrlässiger gesundheitsgefährdender Verwendung von radioaktiver Strahlenquellen, beispielsweise zur Markierung von Dokumenten.
Das MfS setzte Zersetzungsmaßnahmen auch in Zusammenarbeit mit Bruder-Geheimdiensten anderer Ostblock-Staaten um. So leitete beispielsweise der polnische Geheimdienst gemeinsam mit dem MfS ab Anfang der 1960er Jahre gezielte Maßnahmen gegen die Zeugen Jehovas ein, welche als „innere Zersetzung“ bezeichnet wurden.
Zielgruppen für Zersetzungsmaßnahmen
Maßnahmen der Zersetzung wurden seitens des MfS gegen Einzelpersonen und Personengruppen angewandt. Es existierte jedoch keine homogene Zielgruppe für Zersetzungsmaßnahmen, da oppositionelles Verhalten in der DDR vielfältig in Erscheinung trat und das MfS daher differenzierte Maßnahmen zu dessen Bekämpfung ergriff. Dennoch nannte das MfS als Hauptzielgruppen:
* Zusammenschlüsse von Ausreiseantragsstellern
* feindliche Gruppen unter kritischen Künstlern
* kirchliche Oppositionsgruppen
* Gruppierungen von Jugendlichen
* sowie deren Unterstützer (Menschenrechts- und Fluchthilfeorganisationen, ausgereiste und ausgebürgerte Oppositionelle).
Zudem setzte die Stasi vereinzelt Methoden der Zersetzung auch gegen missliebige unpolitische Organisationen wie die Wachtturm-Gesellschaft ein.
Zu den prominentesten Opfern von Zersetzungsmaßnahmen zählten Jürgen Fuchs, Gerulf Pannach, Rudolf Bahro, Robert Havemann, Rainer Eppelmann, Reiner Kunze, die Eheleute Gerd und Ulrike Poppe, sowie Wolfgang Templin.
Gesellschaftliche und juristische Aufarbeitung
Sofern ihnen dies bewusst wurde, versuchten DDR-Oppositionelle wie Wolfgang Templin zum Teil erfolgreich die Zersetzungstätigkeiten des MfS über westliche Journalisten öffentlich zu machen. Der Spiegel veröffentlichte 1977 die fünfteilige Serie Du sollst zerbrechen! des exilierten Jürgen Fuchs, in der er die „operative Psychologie“ der Stasi beschrieb. Das MfS versuchte derartigen Veröffentlichungen entgegen zu wirken, indem es Fuchs in Redaktionen als Stasi-Paranoiker diskreditierte, sodass der Spiegel und andere Medien davon ausgingen, Fuchs leide an Verfolgungswahn. Dies konnte erst durch die Einsicht der Stasi-Akten nach der politischen Wende in der DDR widerlegt werden.
Im Wesentlichen gelten Methoden der Zersetzung auf Grund des Rückwirkungsverbots auch nach 1990 als nicht strafwürdig, eine Beteiligung an der Planung oder Durchführung von Zersetzungsmaßnahmen zog daher in der Regel keine juristischen Folgen nach sich. Da ein eigener Straftatbestand der Zersetzung nicht existiert, müssen Zersetzungsmaßnahmen einzeln zur Anzeige gebracht werden. Handlungen, die auch nach DDR-Recht Straftatbestände waren (etwa die Verletzung des Briefgeheimnisses), hätten bereits kurz nach der Tat bei DDR-Behörden angezeigt werden müssen, um einer Verjährung zu entgehen. Erschwerend kam für viele Betroffene hinzu, dass das MfS als Urheber persönlicher Schäden und Misserfolge nicht erkennbar war. Oftmals besitzen zudem Stasi-Unterlagen vor Gericht keine Beweiskraft.
Opfer von Zersetzungsmaßnahmen erhalten – sofern sie nicht mindestens 180 Tage inhaftiert waren – keine Opferpension gemäß §17a des Strafrechtlichen Rehabilitierungsgesetzes (StrRehaG). Bei nachweislicher systematischer, beruflicher und/oder gesundheitlicher Schädigung durch das MfS kann gemäß Unrechtsbereinigungsgesetz (2. SED-UnBerG) eine verwaltungsrechtliche und sowie eine berufliche Rehabilitierung beantragt werden. Diese heben bestimmte Verwaltungsmaßnahmen von DDR-Organen auf und stellen deren Rechtsstaatswidrigkeit fest. Dies ist Voraussetzung für soziale Ausgleichszahlungen nach dem Bundesversorgungsgesetz. Bei einer anerkannten Verfolgungszeit von mindestens drei Jahren und nachgewiesener Bedürftigkeit können zudem Ausgleichszahlungen für Verdienstausfälle und Rentenschäden beantragt werden. Als besondere Hürden erweisen sich in den genannten Fällen jedoch der Nachweis des Eingriffs des MfS in Gesundheit, Vermögen, Ausbildung und Beruf des Betroffenen, sowie die Anerkennung von (zum Teil psychischen) Gesundheitsschäden als direkte Folge von Zersetzungsmaßnahmen.
Implant Issues More than Skin Deep
August 1, 2006 By: Tracy Cozzens GPS World
Applied Digital Solutions created a buzz when it tested a prototype of a GPS implant in the spring of 2003. The disc-shaped personal location device measured more than 6 centimeters in diameter and more than a centimeter deep — about the size of a heart pacemaker.
While Applied Digital Solutions suggested the market for the device would be potential hostage targets and outdoorsmen who want to be found, the GPS implant idea stirred controversy among privacy advocates and skepticism among scientists.
Today, Applied Digital Solutions is concentrating on marketing a much less power-hungry radio frequency identification (RFID) implant.
“VeriChip Corporation conducted R&D on the feasibility of a human-implantable GPS-capable chip but shelved the project after determining that current power source technologies have not yet scaled down to a size compatible with an implantable device,” said company spokesman John Procter. Instead, VeriChip is focused on developing its FDA-approved human-implantable RFID chip, particularly in the health-care market, where it’s used to link patients to their electronic medical records.
That doesn’t mean the idea of a GPS implant has died. “The justice system is interested in an implantable device,” said Steve Aninye, president of Omnilink Systems of Alpharetta, Georgia. “We’re working with research and manufacturing entities to work through the challenges.”
Omnilink Systems manufactures bracelets and anklets tracking devices used by the justice system to track parolees. The company’s current system uses GPS, cell phones, RFID, and situation-specific sensors to monitor people and objects, and inform clients immediately if their status changes. Besides the justice market, the devices are being used in public safety (such as alerting children and parents to the proximity of sex offenders through a cell phone), healthcare, and emergency response.
While Omnilink hasn’t yet developed a GPS implant, the company is researching the main roadblocks to such a device: power, removal, and impaired environment.
An Omnilink tracking bracelet, now used by numerous justice agencies, could be the forerunner of a GPS implant.
An Omnilink tracking bracelet, now used by numerous justice agencies, could be the forerunner of a GPS implant.
Power. Getting enough power to the implant is probably the largest obstacle. In the traditional areas for tracking, such as fleet optimization, size and power aren’t a problem because the devices are installed in cars or on equipment. But an implant would naturally have to be small.
“Some schools of thought believe you can use biometric readings in humans to generate power,” Aninye said, but such a technology isn’t yet commercially viable.
As for people-tracking bracelets, because they’re external they can be easily recharged. In the justice market, batteries last only three or four days because of intense around-the-clock monitoring. In other markets, the batteries can last 14 days or more. “Our devices are designed to go 21 days between charges,” Aninye said. “Omnilink hopes to achieve a 21-to 30-day life cycle.”
Removal. For a GPS implant to be useful to law enforcement, the recipient should be unable to remove it by picking it from under the skin. “Removal is a critical challenge,” Aninye said. “A person can’t be able to visit a tattoo shop and have it removed.”
Removal isn’t an issue with the wrist and ankle bracelets now in use. Omnilink’s ankle and wristbands detect tampering or any removal attempt. Even if the wearer is crafty enough to slip off the device without tampering with its body or strap, the device detects a change in body temperature and sends an alert to the monitoring system.
GPS-Impaired Environments. A final challenge is ensuring that the GPS implant works reliably in GPS-impaired environments, such as underground subway tunnels that lack direct line-of-sight to GPS satellite signals.
For its external tracking devices, Omnilink works with cell-phone network providers such as Qualcomm to penetrate impaired environments with assisted GPS and advanced forward link trilateration (AFLT), which measures signals from nearby cellular towers.
Privacy Concerns. Assuming the issues of sufficient power, preventing removal, and an unimpaired signal are addressed, another major issue looms for GPS implants: privacy.
“The fact you can covertly figure out where people have been and are going is a huge concern,” Aninye said. “As these issues are being sorted out, Omnilink has decided to focus on markets where people voluntarily opt in, or where community laws require tracking of convicted criminals. “Outside the public safety arena, a person would have to choose to be protected for us to monitor you.”
Omnilink does have such customers. They are required to sign a one-page agreement consenting to monitoring. While the technology could ostensibly be used to monitor people covertly, Omnilink has no plans to use it in such a way, Aninye said. Even people who want to be monitored, such as employees at a secure workplace, are no longer monitored once they leave the office.
Omnilink is participating on a new Location Based Services Action Team sponsored by the CTIA Wireless Internet Caucus. The committee is tussling with privacy issues as it explores the legal and social ramifications of tracking people. Its members plan to recommend best practices, guidelines for terminology, and standards of use.
In the meantime, an implantable GPS device exists only in the realm of speculation.
CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (signed by the U.S. under Ronald Reagan):
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture. . . .
1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.
1. The State Party in territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found, shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.
Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.
Ronald Reagan, 5/20/1988, transmitting Treaty to the U.S. Senate:
The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention. It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.
U.S. Constitution, Article VI:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Soon-to-be Attorney General Eric Holder, 1/15/2009 (repeatedly):
“No one is above the law.”
Summary of International and U.S. Law Prohibiting Torture and Other Ill-treatment of Persons in Custody
Last Updated May 24, 2004
International and U.S. law prohibits torture and other ill-treatment of any person in custody in all circumstances. The prohibition applies to the United States during times of peace, armed conflict, or a state of emergency. Any person, whether a U.S. national or a non-citizen, is protected. It is irrelevant whether the detainee is determined to be a prisoner-of-war, a protected person, or a so-called “security detainee” or “unlawful combatant.” And the prohibition is in effect within the territory of the United States or any place anywhere U.S. authorities have control over a person. In short, the prohibition against torture and ill-treatment is absolute.
The following summary sets out the major international legal obligations of the United States and various legal bases by which U.S. officials, military personnel and others could be prosecuted for torture or other mistreatment of persons held at U.S. military and intelligence detention facilities. Included are web links to the cited international conventions and federal statutes.
I. International Humanitarian Law and the Geneva Conventions
The primary source of international humanitarian law (also called the laws of war) is the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, which the United States ratified in 1955. The Third Geneva Convention concerns prisoners-of-war; the Fourth Geneva Convention safeguards so-called “protected persons,” most simply described as detained civilians. Detainees must at all times be humanely treated (Geneva III, art. 13, Geneva IV, art. 27). Detainees may be questioned, but any form of “physical or mental coercion” is prohibited (Geneva III, art. 17; Geneva IV, art. 31). Women shall be protected from rape and any form of indecent assault (Geneva IV, art. 27).
Torture or inhuman treatment of prisoners-of-war (Geneva III, arts. 17 & 87) or protected persons (Geneva IV, art. 32) are grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, and are considered war crimes (Geneva III, art. 130; Geneva IV, art. 147). War crimes create an obligation on any state to prosecute the alleged perpetrators or turn them over to another state for prosecution. This obligation applies regardless of the nationality of the perpetrator, the nationality of the victim or the place where the act of torture or inhuman treatment was committed (Geneva III, art.129; Geneva IV, art. 146).
Detainees in an armed conflict or military occupation are also protected by common article 3 to the Geneva Conventions. Article 3 prohibits “[v]iolence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; …outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.”
Even persons who are not entitled to the protections of the 1949 Geneva Conventions (such as some detainees from third countries) are protected by the “fundamental guarantees” of article 75 of Protocol I of 1977 to the Geneva Conventions. The United States has long considered article 75 to be part of customary international law (a widely supported state practice accepted as law). Article 75 prohibits murder, “torture of all kinds, whether physical or mental,” “corporal punishment,” and “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, … and any form of indecent assault.”
II. Human Rights Law
Torture and other mistreatment of persons in custody are also prohibited in all circumstances under international human rights law, which applies in both peacetime and wartime. Among the relevant treaties are the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (arts. 7 & 10) and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention against Torture), both of which the United States has ratified. The standard definition of torture can be found in article 1 of the Convention against Torture.
In its reservations to the Convention against Torture, the United States claims to be bound by the obligation to prevent “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” only insofar as the term means the cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, U.S. reservations say that mental pain or suffering only refers to prolonged mental harm from: (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the use or threat of mind altering substances; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) that another person will imminently be subjected to the above mistreatment.
Prohibitions on torture and other ill-treatment are also found in other international documents, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the U.N. Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, and the U.N. Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.
Additionally, the prohibition on torture is considered a fundamental principle of customary international law that is binding on all states (what is known as a “peremptory norm” of international law because it preempts all other customary laws). All states are bound to respect the prohibition on torture and ill-treatment whether or not they are parties to treaties which expressly contain the prohibition. They are also obliged to prevent and to punish acts of torture, even if they are not parties to treaties that expressly require them to do so.
The widespread or systematic practice of torture constitutes a crime against humanity. (See, e.g., art. 5 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court)
III. U.S. Law
The United States has incorporated international prohibitions against torture and mistreatment of persons in custody into its domestic law. The United States has reported to the Committee Against Torture that: “Every act of torture within the meaning of the Convention is illegal under existing federal and state law, and any individual who commits such an act is subject to penal sanctions as specified in criminal statutes. Such prosecutions do in fact occur in appropriate circumstances. Torture cannot be justified by exceptional circumstances, nor can it be excused on the basis of an order from a superior officer. “
Military personnel who mistreat prisoners can be prosecuted by a court-martial under various provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ, arts. 77-134).
The War Crimes Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. § 2441) makes it a criminal offense for U.S. military personnel and U.S. nationals to commit war crimes as specified in the 1949 Geneva Conventions. War crimes under the act include grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. It also includes violations of common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; …outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.
A federal anti-torture statute (18 U.S.C. § 2340A), enacted in 1994, provides for the prosecution of a U.S. national or anyone present in the United States who, while outside the U.S., commits or attempts to commit torture. Torture is defined as an “act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control.” A person found guilty under the act can be incarcerated for up to 20 years or receive the death penalty if the torture results in the victim’s death.
Military contractors working for the Department of Defense might also be prosecuted under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-778), known as MEJA. MEJA permits the prosecution in federal court of U.S. civilians who, while employed by or accompanying U.S. forces abroad, commit certain crimes. Generally, the crimes covered are any federal criminal offense punishable by imprisonment for more than one year. The MEJA remains untested because the Defense Department has yet to issue necessary implementing regulations required by the law.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113C > § 2340
§ 2340. Definitions
As used in this chapter—
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.
§ 2340A. Torture
(a) Offense.— Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(b) Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if—
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.
(c) Conspiracy.— A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113C > § 2340B
§ 2340B. Exclusive remedies
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as precluding the application of State or local laws on the same subject, nor shall anything in this chapter be construed as creating any substantive or procedural right enforceable by law by any party in any civil proceeding.
United States Bill of Rights (1789), Amendment 8
” …nor (shall) cruel or unusual punishment be inflicted.”
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), Article 5
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment.”
Geneva Conventions (1949) Article 99, Third Convention
“no moral or physical coercion may be exerted on a prisoner of war in order to admit himself guilty of the act of which he is accused ”
UN Minimum Standards for the Treatment of Prisoners (1957), Rule 31
“Corporal punishment, punishment by placing in a dark cell, and all cruel, inhumane or degrading punishments shall be completely prohibited…”
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
?… to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction to race, color or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law, notably in the enjoyment of the following rights:
” (b) The right to security of person and protection by the State against violence or bodily harm, whether inflicted by government officials or by any individual group or institution…”
America Convention on Human Rights (1969)
“…All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.”
UN Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1975)
“No State may permit or tolerate torture…Exceptional circumstances such as a state of war …or any other public emergency may not be invoked as a justification of torture or other cruel inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment.”
UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials (1979), Article 5
“No law enforcement official may inflict, instigate or tolerate any act of torture…nor may any law enforcement official invoke superior order or exceptional circumstances…as a justification of torture…In this code of conduct, the term “law enforcement officials is said to include all officer of the law who exercise police powers, especially the powers of arrest or detention.”