(1) The European Union Parliament (1999)
The European Parliament A4-0005/1999 Paragraph 27 calls for a worldwide ban on weapons that might enable “any form” of the “manipulation of human beings”.
2) H.R. 1160 (2001)
Introduced March 22, 2001: terminate operation of the Extremely Low Frequency band
(3) H.R. 2977 (2001) Introduced by Rep. Dennis Kucinich: peaceful uses of space; prohibiting (the unlawful use) of electromagnetic weapons
(4) The Human Rights org (2002)
Media Guide to Disarmament: electromagmentic resonance weapons
The United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) formally listed a special category of psychotronic [psycho-“mind” & tronic=”electronic”] mind control and other electromagmentic resonance weapons in their 2002 Media Guide to Disarmament.
(5) Berkeley, California (2002) Ban the weaponization of space and mind control
(6) Michigan: House Bill 4513 (2003) Classify harmful electronic or electromagnetic devices
(7) Michigan: House Bill 4514 (2003) Add to statutes to define crimes
(8) Massachusetts: Chapter 170 of the Acts of (2004) Possession of electronic weapons
(9) Maine: Chapter 264 H.P. 868 – L.D. 1271 (2005) Criminal uses of electronic weapons
(10) Missouri House bill 550 introduced by Jim Guest to against illegal chip implants.
(11) Electronic Surveillance Laws in USA
(12) Michigan House Bill 1026
For the re-opening of investigative hearings into the Counter- Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO) and other intelligence and law enforcement programs and agencies, and an expansion of those hearings to include renewal of previously curtailed abuses, and other activities sanctioned by the USA PATRIOT ACT.
(13) H.R.5662 IH– STALKERS Act of 2010 (Introduced in House – IH)
(14) US Code: Chapter 32: 1520 and 1520a – Restrictions on use of human subjects for testing of chemical or biological agents
(15) Criminal Justice, New Technologies, and the Constitution , May 1988
(16) 2010 California Code: Health and Safety Code: Chapter 1.3. Human Experimentation
(17) European Convention on Human Rights
The European Convention is still the only international human rights agreement providing such a high degree of individual protection. State parties can also take cases against other state parties to the Court, although this power is rarely used. There are comparable protections issued in the Bill of Rights under the United States Constitution as well as the English Bill of Rights. I used the European Convention on Human Rights as it is an International Agreement.
Article 8 provides a right to respect for one’s “private and family life, his home and his correspondence“, subject to certain restrictions that are “in accordance with law” and “necessary in a democratic society”. This article clearly provides a right to be free of unlawful searches, but the Court has given the protection for “private and family life” that this article provides a broad interpretation, taking for instance that prohibition of private consensual homosexual acts violates this article.
- Article 9 provides a right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This includes the freedom to change a religion or belief, and to manifest a religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance, subject to certain restrictions that are “in accordance with law” and “necessary in a democratic society”
- Article 10 provides the right to freedom of expression, subject to certain restrictions that are “in accordance with law” and “necessary in a democratic society”. This right includes the freedom to hold opinions, and to receive and impart information and ideas.
- Article 13 provides for the right for an effective remedy before national authorities for violations of rights under the Convention. The inability to obtain a remedy before a national court for an infringement of a Convention right is thus a free-standing and separately actionable infringement of the Convention.
2. Article 13 – effective remedy
(18) Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code
A victim may recover compensatory damages,
(19) Russian Federation law
The addendum to the article 6 of the Russian Federation law On Weapons, “was approved on July 26, 2001. It states: within the territory of the Russian Federation is prohibited the circulation of weapons and other objects the effects of the operation of which are based on the use of electromagnetic, light, thermal, infra-sonic or ultra-sonic radiations” (30).
(20) International criminal justice standards and Non Lethal Weapons
International criminal justice standards and Non Lethal Weapons NATO policy that express : … “The research and development procurement and employment of Non-Lethal Weapons shall always remain consistent with applicable treaties, conventions and international law, particularly the Law of Armed conflict as well as national law and approved Rules of Engagement.”
International criminal justice standards The following criminal justice standards were adopted under the auspices of the United Nations:
• 1979 Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, and the • 1990 Basic Principles on the Use of Force. (Page 36)
(21) UNIDIR has listed non lethal weapons( mind control ) weapons as weapons of mass destruction.
“NON-LETHAL” WEAPONS It is difficult to oppose the development of new means and methods of warfare, which would lead to fewer deaths, injuries, disabilities or deprivation to civilians. However, the term “non-lethal weapons” is applied to a range of old and new weapons the use of which is, purportedly, associated with low lethality. Such weapons can be classified according to how they damage or incapacitate the human body. The following categories of weapon have been cited as having “non-lethal” capabilities: kinetic energy (rubber bullets, sponge bullets, etc.); entangling technologies (nets, sticky foam); chemical weapons; biological weapons; acoustic beams; electric shock technologies; infrasound; and electromagnetic waves of a variety of