FOIA Request Report: CIA Unable to Confirm Informed Consent in Any Open Human Subject Programs and Research Using Directed-Energy Neuroweapons in the USA

cia-rejectionThe Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) recently responded to the appeal of an initial rejection of a Freedom of Information Act request (by this writer/full information on for information on documented Informed Consent in the case of any and all separate or joint-agency open programs or research in “Directed Energy Bio-Behavioral Research (DEBR)… using Directed-Energy Weapons (DEWs), Non-Lethal Weapons (NLWs), neurological weapons such as Remote Neural Monitoring weapons/technologies, or any kind of Electronic Warfare or Combat Systems Testing/Training… involving the use of (non-ionizing or ionizing) radiation weaponry…whether to determine the “human effects” or “bio-effects” of such radiation, as “scientific research” for purposes of calibration of radiation (possibly termed “non-lethal” radiation) intended for use on human subjects for interrogation techniques, “behavior control”, “behavior modification,” or for any other purpose” with a blanket rejection of the appeal, once more citing national security exemptions.

Intelligence Sources and Methods Information that is Protected from Disclosure

In their rejection letter, the CIA stressed once more its inability to “neither confirm nor deny” the “existence or non-existence” of responsive records, a favorite semantic-stonewalling ploy deployed earlier in their “Glomar response” which said pretty much the same thing.  Here is their verbiage: “(I)n accordance with Section 3.6(a) of Executive Order 13526, the CIA can neither confirm nor deny the existence or nonexistence of records responsive to your request. The “fact of” the existence or nonexistence of requested records is currently and properly classified and relates to intelligence sources and methods information that is protected from disclosure by Section 6 of the CIA Act of 1949, as amended, and Section 102A(i)(1) of the National Security Act of 1947, as amended. Therefore, in accordance with Agency regulations set forth in part 1900 of title 32 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the ARP has fully denied your appeal on the basis of FOIA exemptions.”

This is  Section 3.6(a) of Executive Order 13526:

Sec. 3.6.  Processing Requests and Reviews.  Notwithstanding section 4.1(i) of this order, in response to a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act, the Presidential Records Act, the Privacy Act of 1974, or the mandatory review provisions of this order:

(a)  An agency may refuse to confirm or deny the existence or nonexistence of requested records whenever the fact of their existence or nonexistence is itself classified under this order or its predecessors.

This is Section 6 of the CIA Act of 1949:

Protection of Nature of Agency’s Functions

Sec. 6. [50 U.S.C. Sec. §403g]

In the interests of the security of the foreign intelligence activities of the United States and in order further to implement section 403-1(i) of this title that the Director of National Intelligence shall be responsible for protecting intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure, the Agency shall be exempted from the provisions of sections 1 and 2 of the Act of August 28, 1935 (49 Stat. 956, 957; 5 U.S.C. §654), and the provisions of any other law which require the publication or disclosure of the organization, functions, names, official titles, salaries, or numbers of personnel employed by the Agency: Provided, That in furtherance of this section, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall make no reports to the Congress in connection with the Agency under section 607 of the Act of June 30, 1945, as amended (5 U.S.C. §947(b)).

This is Section 102A(i)(1) of the National Security Act of 1947:


SEC. 102A.. [50 U.S.C. 403-1] There is a Central Intelligence Agency. The function of the Agency shall be to assist the Director of Central Intelligence in carrying out the responsibilities referred to in paragraphs (1) through (5) of section 103(d) of this Act.

The only thing to point out here is that the CIA is claiming that the records being asked for cannot be claimed (by them) to exist, since they pertain to “intelligence sources and methods that are protected from disclosure.” In other words, they cannot confirm or deny that human subject research using remote monitoring technologies and non-ionizing directed-energy radiation weapons is being carried out within the US on US citizens or residents, for whatever purpose, whether calibration/dosimetry or behavior modification or deterrence or pre-crime or any other purpose, by their agency–although it may be–because this kind of information relates to sources and methods of intelligence “protected from disclosure” by Acts and Executive Orders, as cited above.

Please note, they are not, therefore, denying that this kind of human subject research–on human brains, central nervous systems, and bodies–is being carried out in the United States of America.

(That may not be an acknowledgement, but it is pretty significant that it’s not a denial either. Clearly, they cannot/choose not to openly deny it, when it’s actually happening.)

[Please note: Individuals currently reporting experimentation on their persons with remote monitoring technologies and non-ionizing directed-energy radiation weapons confirm that this kind of research, whether CIA or DoD or both in origin, is indeed being carried out. Further, whistleblower CIA scientists and analysts confirm ongoing CIA/DoD experimentation, research, and operation in these areas.]

Implications of Evidence of Covert, Nonconsensual Human Experimentation in the United States of America Ignored in this CIA Rejection of Appeal of the Original FOIA Request

Merely for the record, the CIA, in their rejection of appeal as noted above, chose to ignore the following implications of lack of informed consent–and therefore evidence of covert human experimentation, painstakingly spelled out for them in the appeal of their original determination, which, obviously, still stand, given their rejection:

1) The fact that these Directed-Energy Bio-Behavioral Research projects testing the “human bio-effects” of powerful radio frequency, microwave frequency, infra-red thermal energy, ultrasound, ULF (ultra-low frequency) waves, VLF (very low frequency) waves, ELF (extremely low frequency) waves, sound, ultrasonic, radar, MASER/LASER directed-energy “Non-Lethal Weapons (NLWs)” or “Directed-Energy Weapons (DEWs)” (which are essentially Weapons Testing Projects), are currently being conducted by various sections of Department of Defense and the United States Air Force, and have been ongoing for several years, is in the public domain and has been reported on. Requests for Proposals (RFPs) on these contracts are published on the FedBizOpps and website, and are freely accessible to the public, as, for instance the RFP in the case of the $49 million, 7-year-long contract for Directed Energy Bio-Behavioral Research to examine the human bio-effects of Directed-Energy weapons systems awarded in September 2013 to General Dynamics Technology Corporation (posted online at Contract award is published in Defense newsletters and in mainstream and alternate media (such as;;

In other words, it is well-known to the public at large that Defense, the Air Force, and possibly other segments of the Military are currently testing Directed-Energy weapons–that use powerful bursts of invisible, radio & microwave frequency, millimeter wave, infrared/ultrasound, sonic, laser/maser, and ULF/ELF/VLF radiation — on “human subjects”/American citizens and residents, and that this weapons-testing has been underway for several years. This information is not classified, and is freely available in the public domain.

2) When Directed Energy Weapons Research–or indeed, any weapons research–publishes its interest in determining human bio-effects on human subjects, the question of Human Subject Protections, Civil Rights, and Informed Consent naturally arises, and becomes paramount.

3) The information this FOIA request seeks is documentation of Informed Consent in the cases of these Directed-Energy Weapon Bio-Behavioral Research contracts testing the efficacy of these powerful EMF radiation/sonic weapons (invisible, radio & microwave frequency, millimeter wave, infrared/ultrasound, sonic, laser/maser, and ULF/ELF/VLF radiation) on “human subjects”/American citizens and residents.

4) Informed Consent is a very basic protection afforded all world and American citizens by the Nuremberg Code of Ethics, the Helsinki Code, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Belmont Report, the Common Rule, and other nationally and internationally understood codes of ethics, morality, and law.

The Nuremberg Code: “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that, before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject, there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person, which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment. The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.”

United Nations Declaration of Human Rights: Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Article 4. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

The Belmont Report: “An agreement to participate in research constitutes a valid consent only if voluntarily given.”

The Common Rule: “§46.116 General requirements for informed consent. Except as provided elsewhere in this policy, no investigator may involve a human being as a subject in research covered by this policy unless the investigator has obtained the legally effective informed consent of the subject or the subject’s legally authorized representative. An investigator shall seek such consent only under circumstances that provide the prospective subject or the representative sufficient opportunity to consider whether or not to participate and that minimize the possibility of coercion or undue influence. The information that is given to the subject or the representative shall be in language understandable to the subject or the representative. No informed consent, whether oral or written, may include any exculpatory language through which the subject or the representative is made to waive or appear to waive any of the subject’s legal rights, or releases or appears to release the investigator, the sponsor, the institution or its agents from liability for negligence.”

5) American citizens and residents are further protected by the United States Constitution and the United States Bill of Rights, from any unwarranted intrusion or invasion of personal privacy, in their homes or person, as “free person(s), not slave(s),” which the application of powerful invisible radiation directed at their persons or into their homes by directed-energy weapons would constitute:

United States Constitution: “Amendment 14 – Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

United States Bill of Rights: Article the Sixth: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. “

6)The information this FOIA request seeks does not relate to national security but to personal security as protected by United States law–the rights of every US citizen or resident/free person to be secure in his/her home, and to be free from intrusion or invasion by any kind of invisible directed-energy directed at their persons or into their homes.

7)If clear documentation of Informed Consent exists, for all these Directed-Energy Weapons Research contracts that are in the public domain–but whose affiliation with your agency is not advertised as such–and points to a subset of human subjects/American citizens and residents each of whom have been extensively informed of the nature, likely effects, and consequences of this deadly radiation research, and have willingly and voluntarily, and in full knowledge, submitted their persons and homes to the intrusion and assault of powerful invisible electromagnetic radiation and sonic energy weaponry–then revealing the existence of such documentation would obviously impinge in no way whatsoever on concerns of “national security” but establish the government’s safeguarding of “personal security” for all American citizens and residents, by serving to reassure the American public at large of the discrete limits, boundaries, and voluntary nature of this human-subject research.

8) Conversely, not revealing the existence of such documentation of Informed Consent in the case of all currently ongoing research projects using Directed-Energy Weapons on human subjects/American citizens and residents naturally raises questions and concerns as to where exactly this research is being conducted, on whom exactly, how exactly, by what means exactly, what methodology exactly, whether human subjects are being protected or being abused, whether non-consensual human subject testing has taken place and is ongoing, questions therefore on the legality, ethicality, and morality of this invisible radiation weapons-testing research on human subjects/American citizens and residents.

­Not revealing the existence of documentation of Informed Consent on these Directed-Energy Weapons Testing projects using powerful electromagnetic radiation and sonic energy on human subjects also, inevitably, establishes the unfortunate but very real possibility that such documentation does not exist, and 1), that these weapons-testing programs and projects are being carried out non-consensually, on non-consenting American citizens and residents, in complete violation of national and international laws (including Executive Orders), ethics, and morality, which guarantee the personal security, integrity, and sovereignty of the persons, bodies, and brains of all American citizens and residents/ “free persons, not slaves,” as illustrated above in (4) and (5); 2) that these weapons-testing programs on non-consenting American citizens and residents, in flagrant violation of international and national law, ethics, and morality, are being conducted by imperialistic and unauthorized appropriation of every human subject’s Informed Consent via opportunistic creation of exemptions under purposive classifications of “national security,”i.e. ­”authorized via exemption,” by the Secretary of Defense, and 3), that these weapons-testing programs on non-consenting American citizens and residents are being carried out covertly, or/and clandestinely–which in military terminology indicates “active concealment,” possibly with the express participation, whether in action or classification, of your agency.

9) While you have cited “Section 3.6(a) of Executive Order 13526” to say the CIA can “neither confirm nor deny the existence or nonexistence of records responsive to (my) request,” and “section 6 of the CIA Act of 1949, as amended, and section 102A(i)(1) of the National Security Act of 1947, as amended” to say “(T)he fact of the existence or nonexistence of requested records is currently and properly classified and is intelligence sources and methods information that is protected from disclosure,” I would like to draw your attention to both Section 1.7 of Executive Order 13526 and to the Reducing Over-Classification Act, both of which caution against the use of classification or continued classification of information in order to conceal violation of the law, or to evade public accountability.

Sec. 1.7. (Executive Order 13526) Classification Prohibitions and Limitations.
(a) In no case shall information be classified, continue to be maintained as classified, or fail to be declassified in order to:
(1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error;
(2) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency;
(3) restrain competition; or
(4) prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of the national security.

For a further understanding of this subject, questioning the nature of CIA surveillance, monitoring, and human experimentation, please see this ACLU article by ACLU Staff Attorney, Ashley Gorski: New Documents raise Questions About CIA Spying Here at Home

One response to “FOIA Request Report: CIA Unable to Confirm Informed Consent in Any Open Human Subject Programs and Research Using Directed-Energy Neuroweapons in the USA

  1. Pingback: Non Consensual Experimentation – Human Rights Watch

Leave a Reply