| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"federationwarrior" |
| Date: |
16 Jan 2006 01:01:14 PM |
| Object: |
Neuro Liberties Across three Democracies in a child Kidnap Case |
Neuro Liberty across three democratic constitutions... AMERICA. INDIA
and AUSTRALIA
In 1890 Louis Brandeis, convinced his law partner, to sit down with him
and pen a legal article for publication in the Harvard Law Review. The
article, titled "The Right to Privacy,"1 became one of the most
influential law review articles ever written.
Before this article, the right to "privacy" was by-and-large
limited to providing a remedy when someone physically interfered with
your private property or physical body. A hundred years ago, the right
to privacy was not much more than a right to be free from physical
battery and a right to repel invaders from your land. Brandeis (who
was appointed to the US Supreme Court in 1916) and Warren recognized
that advances in technology, coupled with intensified newspaper
enterprise, increased the vulnerability of individuals to having their
intimate actions, words, images, and personalities communicated without
their consent beyond the protected circle of family and chosen friends.
The effect of such public exposures, as Samuel Warren experienced first
hand, was psychological in nature.
In "The Right to Privacy," Warren and Brandeis argued that when
information about a person's private life is made public against
his or her will, it not only causes the public to view the person
differently, it also affects the individual's personality. A
person's self-image, they wrote, was distorted and damaged when
private information was made public. According to Warren and Brandeis,
"Instantaneous photographs and newspaper enterprises have invaded the
sacred precinct of private and domestic life."
For Warren and Brandeis, the right to privacy included the right of
each individual to protect his or her psychological integrity by
exercising control over private or confidential information about his
or her person and personality.
One aspect of the audiovisual explosion of the late 1800s was that it
provided powerful, unprecedented tools by which people could someday
record and enhance their memories using external technologies. Today
there are a host of new technologies, and more on the way, that will
similarly
have a profound and direct impact on our psychological integrity and
our private mental lives. The world is currently witnessing
acceleration in our ability to monitor, manipulate and augment mental
processes.
Recent films such as "Paycheck" and "Eternal Sunshine of the
Spotless Mind" show that the possibility of being able to selectively
erase memories is already being cogitated in the collective, cultural
mind. While memory erasing of the sort depicted in the films is not
possible now, and may never be to that extent, there are new drugs and
other technologies already available, which foreshadow future
developments. I submit that just as Warren and Brandeis unfolded a new
dimension of the right to privacy, recent developments in the field of
neurotechnology call for a serious updating of how we think about some
of our most cherished rights, most importantly freedom of thought.
New drugs and other technologies are about to introduce entirely new
ways to manage, augment, and even attenuate memory. Propranolol, a drug
commonly prescribed to treat high blood pressure and heart disease, is
already used by some people to dull painful memories. Propranolol works
by blocking the body's adrenaline response. Studies have shown that
if taken within six hours of a traumatic event, propranolol can
significantly reduce recall of that event. In an effort to forestall
post-traumatic stress disorder, some emergency rooms may soon offer a
drug such as propranolol to victims of violent crimes
or serious accidents. Propranolol and similar drugs may also soon be
used to pre-dose emergency responders to plane crashes or other
gruesome accident scenes.
Late last year, a team of neurobiologists published a paper in Science2
suggesting that we are increasingly closer to developing drugs that
could
selectively dim disturbing memories that haunt some people for years.
Whereas propranolol, when used as a memory attenuator, must be taken
in very close temporal proximity to the event that one seeks to forget,
the latest research points to the possibility of selectively dimming
even early
childhood memories.
While memory diminishing drugs are making strides, at present most of
the money in the memory management field is going towards the
development of memory-improvement drugs.
Eric Kandel, a Nobel Prize-winning memory researcher at Columbia
University, believes medicines that significantly improve memory will
be
available within five years. Kandel heads Memory Pharmaceuticals, just
one of a host of companies racing to bring memory-enhancing drugs to
market. Currently, more than 40 drugs designed to improve or protect
memory are in US Food and Drug Administration clinical trials.
Pharmaceutical companies are spending approximately $1.5 billion on
researching and developing
these memory drugs.
Already, college students are using drugs like Provigil (modafanil) and
Ritalin (methylphenidate) to improve attention spans and concentration
while studying for exams. The power to enhance cognition or to increase
memory, focus and concentration will grow as new breeds of memory
management drugs enter the market. The non-medical uses of memory and
cognitionenhancing medicines will challenge many of the methods that
society currently uses to control drugs.
Brain fingerprinting is a twenty-first century polygraph test that
reads a person's brainwaves and purports to accurately determine
whether
or not the person has a particular memory, such as the details of a
crime. A suspect is shown images of specific details peculiar to an
event or relating to an organization and, by reading the P300 brain
wave response, Dr. Farwell, the inventor of the device, claims he can
tell whether there is "information present" or "information
absent," thereby verifying or invalidating claims
made by the suspect. Results from the device have already been admitted
into a court case. Dr. Farwell is working hard to position Brain
fingerprinting as a law enforcement and counterterrorism tool.
MEDICINE AND SCIENCE CONTINUE TO EXPAND our understanding of the ways
in which the brain contributes to individual experiences, and
our social institutions are being called upon to keep pace. Some of our
most fundamental rights have been altered, for better and for worse, by
developments in technology. Information Age technologies like the
Internet and digital media have challenged our conceptions of free
speech, intellectual property and privacy. Much earlier, the
invention of the printing
press redefined freedom of speech. The right to privacy has also
evolved over time in conjunction with technological developments like
the camera, thermal imaging devices, and reproductive technologies.
Even freedom of religion is not immune to adaptive changes brought
about by advances in technology.
While consciousness may remain a mystery for a while, it is undisputed
that the functional neurochemistry of the brain plays a major role in
how a person thinks. "Cognitive liberty" recognizes that a modern
legal protection for freedom of thought cannot ignore the brain, nor
should the brain simply be treated under existing legal doctrine that
defines rights associated
with the body.
Freedom of thought has many dimensions. One such dimension is the right
to direct one's own thinking by using various techniques and
technologies.
This could be as accessible as reading a book or learning a foreign
language, or as remote as using sophisticated fMRI brain imaging
equipment in conjunction with psychopharmacological agents to
experience and measure
alternative conscious states. Cognitive liberty as a fundamental legal
right must encompass the freedom to change your own mind. At the same
time cognitive liberty must guarantee freedom from - the right not to
have
your brain monitored or directly manipulated without your informed
consent. Seventy-five years ago, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis
Brandeis warned that scientific advances might someday "bring means
of exploring unexpressed beliefs, thoughts and emotions. (Olmstead v.
United States (1928) 277 U.S. 438, 474).
Today we are in a historical moment where many are quick to trade
individual freedom for perceived safety. As a result, advances in the
neurosciences present a double-edged sword for freedom of thought. At
the same time that they will give individuals more tools for
self-understanding
and empowerment, they will also give government more power. How would
you feel if John Ashcroft cohorts were not only scanning your e-mail,
but also had the power to read or write your mind? Both are
unacceptable..
Drugs and other technologies with powerful effects on thinking are here
to stay, and more are coming. In 1979, a review of a book in The New
York Times Magazine, was a book by John Marks called The Search For The
Manchurian Candidate, in which he revealed the secret CIA-funded
experimentation program called MK-ULTRA.
By recognizing and respecting brain privacy, autonomy and choice (i.e.,
cognitive liberty) as fundamental rights, developments in the
neurosciences
can be welcomed with the assurance that applications and regulations of
these technologies will be guided by strong protections for individual
freedom.
Throughout our legal history, judges have recognized the critical
importance of what has been called "Freedom of Thought." For
example, Justice Benjamin Cardozo, one of the most respected Supreme
Court Justices, said that "freedom of thought ... is the matrix, the
indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom. With
rare aberrations a pervasive recognition of that truth can be traced in
our history, political and legal."4
But today, for the first time in human history, the dimensions of
freedom of thought need to be concretely determined by our legal
system. What the courts do in the next few years will literally shape
our minds, our thinking processes, and our conscious states.
"We look at the present through a rearview mirror;
we walk backwards into the future."
-Marshall McLuhan
Most practicing lawyers and judges are Legal Formalists, who view law a
lot like basic arithmetic.
A legal formalist identifies the relevant laws, looks to see what other
judges did in earlier cases with similar facts, and then applies the
law and the legal precedent to the facts in the case at hand. This
process determines the legal
ruling. What this means in practice is that the past has a heavy hand
on the present. The law, therefore, is developed and progresses by
looking
in the rearview mirror - by looking backward in time to previous case
decisions and relying heavily on precedent. And these previous cases,
these legal precedents, exercise a huge amount of control on the
present.
What happens, however, when the factual situation in a case is unlike
anything ever dealt with previously by a court? In this case, a judge
looks and looks, but is unable to find anything that really helps him
or her decide the present case. Without Chapter and Verse to quote from
or apply, judges are left adrift in their own biases and social
pressures. If you have ever driven a car that is missing its rear view
mirror, you know
how disorienting that can be. Nowhere is the law more disoriented than
in
the area of brain science, not only because the brain is so extremely
complex, but also because new data and new discoveries in the field of
brain science are accelerating much faster than legal theory and
scholarship.
In the next few decades, judges will be asked to decide many of the
questions posed in the sidebars.
They will need a guiding principle, a legal doctrine, and I submit that
the principle of cognitive liberty is precisely what is necessary for
negotiating the rapid advances in neurotechnolgies.
Cognitive liberty is the interface between existing jurisprudence of
the body (legal precedent) and the far less defined jurisprudence of
"freedom of thought."
Cognitive liberty recognizes that technologies such as those just
surveyed can be applied or regulated in ways that implicate not only
rights of the body, but also freedom of thought.
When an application or regulation impacts combined interests of body
and mind, courts should judge it under a heightened level of scrutiny,
one
that staunchly protects individual freedom. Cognitive liberty is not
about creating a new fundamental right, but rather about looking into
our existing rights to see what is at their heart.
Freedom of thought plays a dual role: it is precisely what is supposed
to be protected by enumerated Constitutional rights (such as freedom of
speech, freedom of religion, the Fourth Amendment right to be free from
unreasonable searches, and the Fifth Amendment guarantee not
to be made a witness against oneself); and at the same time, freedom of
thought is a necessary precondition for these same rights. The
enumerated
rights are merely the tip of the iceberg, while their mass, freedom of
thought, is under the surface.
In the midst of neurotechnologies that make it possible to monitor,
interrupt, direct, speed or slow thinking, freedom of thought has to
protect brain privacy, autonomy and choice. Cognitive liberty is not
"for" or "against"
drugs or technology. Instead it recognizes the importance of individual
choice in matters of the mind. It recognizes that nothing is more
intimate,
private or central to a person's life than his or her own thinking
processes. And it provides a legal doctrine that recognizes that
pro-choice, self-determination and limited government is no longer
solely a question
of what you or the government can or can't do with your body.
Cognitive liberty is civil rights for the mind, a legal protection for
what and how you
think, whether you express your thoughts or not.
In many ways, this aspect of cognitive liberty follows from what Warren
and
Brandeis articulated over 100 years ago: privacy includes a right to
psychological integrity.
At the root of both the right to privacy and the Fourth Amendment is a
protection for closed interior spaces. The content of your postal mail
is private. The police can't open a letter without a federal search
warrant. The inside of your home, purse, and backpack are all private
and legally
protected spaces. There is nothing more interior and intimate than your
thoughts and thought processes. The same principle that protects
the inside of our mail and personal property surely ought to also
protect the inside of our heads.
The judges who will first confront the issues surveyed here, such as
memory-management drugs, brain-fingerprinting, hypersonic sound,
and neuromarketing, will define what we, our children, and our
grandchildren will be able to do with and within our own minds in the
future.
Basically, using hypersonic sound, and neuromarketing multiple kinds
of loop recorders to force people to listen to recorded messages 24
hours a day, for weeks on end, with multiple loud speakers and pillow
speakers, and stuff that had not been done before, with I suppose,
technologies that were used like excessive shock treatments with the
latest in equipment to basically destroy people's thinking patterns.
What I can tell you is that if you use massive shock treatment, and if
you give people massive doses of drugs, such as PCP, or Mescaline, or
Amphetamines, or LSD, or the other things that Cameron used I would
suspect that you destroy the normal physiological pathways of synaptic
transmission. And basically what, clinically-what you see is someone
who is an organic preparation, they can't think. Their mind - if
you want to think of it in terms of a spirit, or soul - is gone. You
just have a physiological preparation which can be fed, which can
urinate and defecate, but an ability to motivate, to think, to act in
any kind of purposeful fashion is wiped out. So basically what Cameron
was trying to do was to turn the mind, turn the brain into a tabula
rasa, something that he could etch his own programming onto.
Ewen Cameron was probably the foremost psychiatrist of his time in the
1950s. He was Chair of Psychiatry at McGill University and Director of
Allen Memorial Institute. He was, at one time, President of the
American Psychiatric Association, the Canadian Psychiatric Association,
the World Psychiatric Association, and others. So he was one of the
preeminent psychiatric physicians during that era. He was someone who
was very concerned about schizophrenia and about providing mental
health services to people.
So, at one level, the origins of his interests were very strongly
positive in terms of aiding his patients. He also was one of the people
who was called as a witness during the Nuremberg trials. He evaluated
Rudolph Hess, and came to the conclusion, among others, that Hess was
sane and competent to stand trial. However, in a series of papers that
he wrote after that, one of his conclusions was that social and
behavioral scientists must take control of these disordered
personalities and the people who have the capability of inflicting
danger on others, such as Nazis. In other words, that social and
behavioral scientists should have a say in basically the reordering of
the world. What he took from the Nuremberg trials, I think, was a kind
of a sense of power and, based on expertise, which I think led to some
of the misuses of power that he used later on.
PERSONAL BIOCHEMISTRY AND NARA'S PROJECTED BIOCHEMISTRY PITFALLS
The argument that removal of a child "unjustifiably" before the
Supreme Court of India, applicable to Australia as a Commonwealth and
Americs is based on the following premise
The fundamental right to control one's own intellect and mental
processes is protected by the First Amendment, and is eviscerated if
courts permit the government to forcibly
Remove the children of its citizens. If government agents, with the
concurrence of
the courts, can constitutionally order the forcible manipulation of
Singh's mind in order that he may be refused access to his child,
then any accused defendant, who poses no danger to self or others, is
also at jeopardy of losing his or her First Amendment right to freedom
of thought.
This is particularly true in light of ongoing pharmacological and
technological
developments, which provide unprecedented tools for forcibly altering
the inner workings of the mind.
I maintain that the state cannot, consistent with the First Amendment
of the Constitution, forcibly manipulate the thought processes of
individuals who do not
pose a clear and present danger to others. The government may, of
course, use words and other expression to advocate and persuade with
the intent to alter thoughts, but the First Amendment must be read to
strictly forbid the government from directly and forcibly manipulating
a person's brain with the intent of changing what, or how, the person
thinks.
The First Amendment, which Professor Tribe terms "the
Constitution's most majestic guarantee,"2 provides:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances. U.S. CONST. AMEND. I.
While "[t]he First Amendment literally forbids the abridgment only of
'speech,'" this Court has "long recognized that its protection
does not end at the spoken or written word." Texas v. Johnson, 491
U=2ES. 397, 404 (1989);
also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 604 (1982)
("[W]e have long eschewed any 'narrow, literal conception' of the
[First] Amendment's terms, ...for Framers were concerned with broad
principles....").
This USSC Court has repeatedly observed that there are derivative and
corollary rights that are essential to effectuate purposes of the First
Amendment, or which are inherent the rights expressly enumerated in the
Amendment. For example, in Lamont v. Postmaster Gen., 381 U.S. 301, 308
1965), Justice Brennan, in his concurring opinion explained:
It is true that the First Amendment contains no specific guarantee of
access to publications. However, the protection of the Bill of Rights
goes beyond the specific guarantees to protect from congressional
abridgement those equally fundamental personal rights necessary to make
the express guarantees fully meaningful. Likewise, in Globe this Court
observed that "[t]he First Amendment is...broad enough to encompass
those rights
while not unambiguously enumerated in the very terms the Amendment, are
nonetheless necessary to the enjoyment of other First Amendment
rights." Globe, 457 U.S. at 604. Thus, in 1982, this Court
recognized a "right to
receive information and ideas," locating the right as "an inherent
corollary of the right of free speech and press" guaranteed by the
First Amendment. Board of Educ. v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 867 (1982)
(plurality opinion).
Freedom of thought, while not expressly guaranteed by the First
Amendment, is one of those fundamental rights necessary to make the
express guarantees meaningful. As Justice Benjamin Cardozo extolled,
"freedom of thought...is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of
nearly every other form of freedom. With rare aberrations a pervasive
recognition of that truth can be traced in our history, political and
legal." Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 326-27 (1937).
As this Court noted as recently as 2002, "[t]he right to think is the
beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government
because speech is the beginning of thought." Ashcroft v. Free Speech
Coalition 533
U=2ES. 234 (2002). "The guarantee of free expression," notes
Professor Tribe, "is inextricably linked to the protection and
preservation of open and unfettered mental activity... ." L. Tribe,
supra, =A7 15-7, at 1322 (2nd ed. 1988).3
Repeatedly, this Court has recognized that freedom of thought is one of
the most elementary and important rights inherent in the First
Amendment.
In West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624
(1943), this Court, in an 8-1 decision, invalidated a school
requirement that compelled a flag salute on the ground that it was an
unconstitutional invasion of "the sphere of intellect and spirit
which it is the purpose of the
First Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from official
control." Id. at 642. The First Amendment, declared this Court, gives
a constitutional preference for "individual freedom of mind" over
"officially disciplined uniformity for which history indicates a
disappointing and disastrous end."
Id. at 637. At the center of our American freedom, is the "freedom to
be intellectually and spiritually diverse." Id. At 641. "We can
have intellectual individualism and the rich cultural diversities that
we owe to exceptional minds," this Court explained, "only at the
price of occasional eccentricity
and abnormal attitudes." Id. at 641-42.
This principle, that freedom of thought is central to the First
Amendment and protected thereby, has guided other important decisions
of this Court. In Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977), the Court
invalidated a New Hampshire statute that required all noncommercial
vehicle license plates
to bear the state motto "Live Free or Die," finding the requirement
inconsistent with "the right of freedom of thought protected by the
First Amendment." Id. at 714.
In Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969), this Court struck down a
Georgia law that banned the private possession of obscene material,
finding the law "wholly inconsistent with the philosophy of the First
Amendment." Id. at 565-66.
"Our whole constitutional heritage," explained this Court,
"rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control
men's minds." Id. at 565.
Justice Harlan, concurring in United States v. Reidel, 402 U.S. 351
(1971), characterized the Constitutional right protected in Stanley as
"the First Amendment right of the individual to be free from
governmental programs of thought control, however such programs might
be justified in terms
of permissible state objectives," and as the "freedom from
governmental manipulation of the content of a man's mind...." Id.
at 359 (Harlan J., concurring). In Abood v. Detroit Board of Education,
431 U.S. 209 (1977), this Court invalidated a statute forcing public
school teachers to contribute money to a union that advanced partisan
political views. This Court characterized the case as one concerning
"freedom of belief" and emphasized "freedom of belief is no
incidental or secondary aspect of the First Amendment's
protections... [A]t the heart of the First Amendment," noted this
Court, "is the notion that an individual should be free to believe as
he will, and that in a free society one's beliefs should be shaped by
his mind and his conscience rather than coerced by the State." Id. at
234- 35.
The Government's Forcible and Direct Manipulation of a Person's
Mental Processes Violates the First Amendment
The government is seeking to directly modify SINGH's thoughts and
thought processes by unjustifiable removal or access to his child is
designed to manipulate the chemistry of his brain and thereby change
the way he thinks.
The unjustifiable removal or access to his child is an effort to
control Singh's behavior, with NOT a merely an incidental effect on
his thinking. It is an effort aimed directly at changing his mind and
mental processes by forcibly manipulating his brain chemistry. As such,
this Court should recognize it as a serious affront to the First
Amendment's
protection of freedom of thought.
It is obligatory that Helsinki signatory states not manipulate the
minds of their citizens; that they not step between a man and his
conscience or his God; and that they not prevent his thoughts from
finding expression through peaceful action.
Hearings on Abuse of Psychiatry in the Soviet Union before the Subcomm.
on Human Rights and Int'l Orgs. of the House Comm. on Foreign
Affairs, 98th Cong., 106 (1983) (remarks by Max Kampelman, Chair of the
U=2ES. Delegation, to the Plenary Session of the Comm. on Security and
Cooperation in Europe), quoted in Harper, 494 U.S. at 238, n3 (Stevens,
J=2E,
dissenting)
In a free society one's beliefs should be shaped by his mind and his
conscience rather than coerced by the State" (Abood, 431 U.S. at
234-235), then there can be no doubt that the government infringes on
the First Amendment when outside the narrow context of Harper it acts
to alter what, or how, a person thinks by forcibly and directly
manipulating a person's brain.
Tenth Circuit in Bee observed:
"In a society whose 'whole constitutional heritage rebels at the
thought of giving government the power to control men's minds,' the
governing institutions, and especially the courts, must not only reject
direct attempts to exercise forbidden domination over mental processes;
they must strictly examine as well oblique intrusions likely to
produce, or designed to produce, the same result." L. Tribe, [supra]
at 899 (1978) (quoting Stanley, [supra] 394 U.S. 557, 565...). Bee, 744
F=2E2d at 1394.
Removal of Children, to cause fright is not new in Australia where a
"LOST GENERATION" exists.
The former Soviet Union had a First Amendment equivalent, but it was
merely an unenforced "paper" right. It was not uncommon for Soviet
psychiatrists to forcibly drug political dissidents after labeling them
"mentally ill." See Sidney Bloch & Peter Reddaway, PSYCHIATRIC
TERROR: HOW SOVIET PSYCHIATRY IS USED TO SUPPRESS DISSENT (1977); See
also James F. Clarity, A Freed Dissident Says
Soviet Doctors Sought to Break His Political Beliefs, N. Y. TIMES, Feb.
4, 1976, at A1, 8. Similar political misuse of psychiatry reportedly
continues today in the People's Republic of China. See Robin Munro,
Judicial Psychiatry in China and its Political Abuses, Vol. 14, no.1
COLUM. J.
ASIAN L. 1-128 (2000); Munro, Political Psychiatry in Post Mao China
and its Origins in the Cultural Revolution, Vol. 30, n. 1 J. AM. ACAD.
PSYCHIATRY & L. 97-106 (2002).
Even in the absence of overt political abuse, this Court has
acknowledged that distinguishing "normal" thoughts from
"abnormal" or "disordered" thoughts is fraught with peril:
"the inquiry itself is elusive, for it presupposes some baseline of
normality that experts may have some difficulty in establishing for a
particular defendant, if they can establish it at all." Riggins, 504
U=2ES. at 141 (Kennedy, J concurring).12 Indeed, this Court has
previously recognized that "[t]he subtleties and nuances of
psychiatric diagnosis render certainties virtually beyond reach in most
situations,"
because "[p]sychiatric diagnosis . . . is to a large extent based on
medical impressions drawn from subjective analysis and filtered through
the experience of the diagnostician." Medinav. California, 504 U.S.
437, 451 (1992), quoting Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 430 (1979).
Vigorous protection of freedom of thought is particularly important
today, given major advances in technology and pharmacology.
Pharmaceutical companies are increasingly interested in the development
and marketing
of new drugs aimed at modulating consciousness by modifying brain
chemistry. The sale of Prozac=AE and similar antidepressant drugs is
currently one of the most profitable segments of the pharmaceutical
drug industry.13 Sales of "antipsychotic" drugs are currently the
eighth largest therapy
class of drugs with worldwide sales of $6 billion in the year 2000, a
22 percent increase in sales over the previous year. Machines such as
brain imagers, brain monitors, and new biological interventions are
rapidly increasing our knowledge of how the brain works, while
simultaneously increasing the ability to monitor and/or alter its
workings in both gross and
subtle ways.15 The development of such drugs and millions of suffering
Americans, Australians and Indians who voluntarily use them. But the
instant case raises the dark prospect of the government forcibly
employing existing and new technologies to overtly or covertly alter
the way that the populace, or individual citizens, think.
The "brain fingerprinting" machine, a brainwave-measuring device
intended for law enforcement use. See United States General Accounting
Office, Investigative Techniques: Federal Agency Views on the Potential
Application of "BrainFingerprinting." REPORT GAO-02-22, (Oct.
2001).
Dr. John D. Norseen, systems scientist for Lockheed Martin, has been
quoted as saying "[w]e are at the point where... we can use a single
electrode or something like an airport security system where there is a
dome above your head to get enough information that we can know the
number you're thinking." Sharon Berry, Decoding Minds, Foiling
Adversaries, SIGNAL MAG., (Oct. 2001).
To infringe on a fundamental right such as the First Amendment right to
freedom of thought, the government must justify its action by no less a
standard than strict scrutiny. See N.A.A.C.P. v. Button, 371 U.S. 415,
438 (1963) ("The decisions of this Court have consistently held that
only
a compelling state interest...can justify limiting First Amendment
freedoms."); To survive strict scrutiny, the governmental interest
advanced "must be paramount, one of vital importance, and the burden
is on the government to show the existence of such an interest."
Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 362 (1976).
I have challenged Australia and India and American to show me how
"unjustifiable removal and access" to my child a minor, direction
by the Human Rights Commission meets this standard.
To permit such an important First Amendment right to turn on how
various
courts characterize the "seriousness" of offenses would invite
confusion and inconsistent application of the law. One need only look
at the Eighth Circuit's perfunctory conclusion that fraud and money
laundering (nonviolent economic crimes),
As this Court observed nearly 100 years ago:
There is...a sphere within which the individual may assert the
supremacy of his own will and rightfully dispute the authority of any
human government, especially of any free government existing under a
written constitution, to
interfere with the exercise of that will. Jacobson v.Massachusetts, 197
U=2ES. 11, 29 (1905).
A person's intellect is surely within that protected sphere. The
right of a person to liberty, autonomy and privacy over his or her own
thought processes is situated at the core of what it means to be a free
person. It is essential to the most elementary concepts of human
freedom, dignity, and self-expression, and demands this Court's
steadfast protection. The right to sovereignty over one's own thought
processes is the quintessence of freedom, and is protected by the First
Amendment.
"The enhancement of normal neurocognitive function by pharmacological
means already a fact of life for many people," states recent report
in [April's] Nature Reviews Neuroscience titled, "Neurocognitive
Enhancement: what can we do and what should we do?"
As Judy Illes, one of authors, explained to ABC news, "the idea is to
get the neuroscientific community to get out ahead of the potential
ethical issues and establish guidelines that will facilitate ongoing
research. Part of their
goal is to avoid public relations blunders that could hamper progress
- doing to them what fear over potential human cloning has done to
geneticists."
The report highlights four primary issues that the neuroscience
community must be thinking about, which are quickly summarized here:
Safety: The use of neurocognitive enhancers that individuals are
currently using "involves intervening in a far more complex system,
and we are therefore at greater risk of unanticipated problems."
Coercion: "What if keeping one's job or remaining in one's school
depends on practicing neurocognitive enhancement?...Of course coercion
need not be explicit. Merely competing against enhanced co-workers or
students exerts an incentive to use..." At the same time, "the
straightforward legislative approach of outlawing or restricting the
use of neurocognitive enhancement is also coercive."
Distributed Justice: "It is likely that the distribution of
neurocognitive enhancers will not be fairly distributed."
Personhood and Intangible Values: We run the risk of medicalizing
regular human behavior. "When we improve our productivity
by taking a pill, we might also be undermining the value and dignity of
hard work, medicalizing human effort and pathologizing a normal
attention span."
Project Monarch was is a mind control research project that emanates
from MK-Ultra, but is based around aspects of Himmler's research in
Nazi Germany. What Himmler actually discovered was that children who
had been exposed to major forms of trauma - sexual trauma before the
age of 5, like pedophilia, or ritual trauma, like in satanic cults,
these children were - a.) they had higher abilities because their
survival mechanisms were enhanced, so they could see better, they were
stronger. And these, in some histories, were considered to be the
'master race' that Hitler was actually looking for because they
were, these people were from the north where they had very inbred
families. And b) that these children were perfect candidates for
compartmentalization due to the mind's defense to the trauma they
were enduring. And so anyway, this emanates to modern day when the US
Government, in a very covert project, came to look for children of
pedophiles to see if they could find the same aspects
Clearly these issues are real. Today only 5- 6% of the general
population has been diagnosed with attention-deficit disorders, while
one recent report suggests that almost 16% of high school and college
students are currently
using some form of "attention-focusing" pharmaceutical. And it is
thoughtful reports like this one that are needed to sort out the
complex
issues that are emerging as new neurotechnologies emerge in the years
to come.
HR 1170 would block schools from conditioning a child's attendance on
the use of Ritalin or any other psychotropic drug. The bill passed the
House of Representatives last year, but as a result of lobbying by
pharmaceutical
companies, the bill is currently stalled in the Senate Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, & Pensions (HELP). Another version of the
Child Medication Safety Act is attached to HR 1350, a bill that would
reauthorize
the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). The CCLE supports passage
of the Child Medication Safety Act as a stand-alone bill (HR 1170), but
has no position with regard to the much larger IDEA bill (HR 1350).
support for the Child Safety Medication Act (HR
1170).
The newspaper _The Australian _ reports that "a group of Queensland
politicians want the federal Government to investigate giving an
anti-junkie vaccination to babies. The vaccination, being considered by
British MPs, would render children immune to becoming smokers or drug
users."
This follows on a similar proposal made last year by some British MPs.
The CCLE worked to educate the British last year, and is now working
to educate the Australians: Coercive pharmacotherapy is bad public
policy and a flagrant violation of many important legal rights
including Freedom of Thought.
Over the next decade an increasing number of new "pharmacotherapy"
medications will become available with the potential to tremendously
impact the use and abuse of illegal drugs and the overall direction of
national and international drug policy. These pharmacotherapy
medications are designed to block or significantly reduce the
"highs" elicited by illegal drugs. Used as part of a drug treatment
program, pharmacotherapy medications may provide a valuable aid for
people seeking a chemical aid in limiting or eliminating problem drug
use. However, the tremendously politicized nature of the "drug
war," raises substantial concerns that in addition to those who
choose to use such medications, some people will be compelled to use
them. In the absence of extraordinary circumstances, governmental
action compelling a person to use a pharmacotherapy drug would violate
a number of constitutional guarantees and other legal rights protecting
people from forced medical treatment. Among the rights potentially
implicated by compulsory use of pharmacotherapy drugs are the right to
informed consent, the right to bodily integrity and privacy, the
protection against cruel and unusual punishment, and the right to
freedom of thought.
FROM DEMAND REDUCTION TO DESIRE REDUCTION
1.2 PHARMACOTHERAPY DRUGS
a) Receptor Blockers
b) Molecule Binders
c) Metabolism Modifiers
1.21 TARGET: OPIATES
1.22 TARGET: COCAINE
1.23 TARGET: MARIJUANA
1.24 TARGETING LEGAL DRUGS
a) Target: Nicotine
b) Target: Alcohol
2.1 FROM DRUG WAR TO DRUG EPIDEMIC
2.2 NEUROCOPS: FROM VOLUNTARY TO COMPULSORY TREATMENT
2.21 PRISONERS, PAROLEES, AND PROBATIONERS
a) "Chemical Castration": A case study in criminal justice
2.22 PUBLIC ASSISTANCE RECIPIENTS
a) Public School Children
b) Welfare and other Public Aid
c) Norplant =AE : A case study in public assistance
CONSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER LEGAL CONCERNSM
3.2 THE RIGHT TO INFORMED CONSENT
3.21 PRISONERS
3.22 PROBATIONERS
3.23 PUBLIC ASSISTANCE RECIPIENTS
a) Reimbursing Voluntary Pharmacotherapy
b) Financial Incentive to Undergo Pharmacotherapy
c) Conditioning Public Benefits on Pharmacotherapy
3.3 CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT
3.4 FREEDOM OF THOUGHT
WHEN AMERICA INDIA AND AUSTRALIA CAN HARMONIZE ON TRADE AND GOODS THEN
THESE FREEDOMS ARE COMMON TO ALL DEMOCRACY,
Petitions Unit
TCB/OHCHR
DEAR TCB/OHCHR
Friday, January 13, 2006
THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE IS QUITE CLEAR, AS INCLUDED IN EXHIBIT 1 & 2
BELOW IN EVIDENCE THAT 10 DEFENDANTS ARE STATE ACTORS.
I NEED YOU TO TELL ME THAT THESE 10 DEFENDANTS LISTED IN THE EXHIBIT
BELOW ARE NOT "STATE ACTOR"
PLEASE IN A COMPELETY NEW EMAIL POST UNDER YOUR LETTERHEAD THAT THE
ACTORS LISTED 10 OF THEM ARE NOT STATE ACTORS.
NOW IN EXHIBIT 2 WHICH IS A SUPREME DECISION PLEASE NOTE THAT THE
DEFENDANTS ARE STATE ACTORS ONLY.
JUGVIR INDER SINGH
PETITONER
EXHIBIT FOR EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TB-petitions OHCHR"
<tb-petitions@ohchr.org
THE NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
NEW DELHI INDIA
IN THE MATTER OF:
CASE NO 17/99/2005-2006
KARUNA BISHNOI
MR ADRONA
MRS GROVER
MR. KOFI ANAN
UNICEF
LODHI ESTATE
NEW DELHI INDIA
DEFENDANT NO 1
SENATOR KAY PATTERSON
FAMILY ASSISTANCE
CANBERRA, AUSTRALIA
DEFENDANT NO 2
HON PETER BEATTIE
PREMIER & MINISTER FOR TRADE QLD. GOVT.
LEVEL 15 EXECUTIVE BUILDING, GEORGE ST.
BRISBANE, QLD. 4000
DEFENDANT NO 3
CONSTABLE EDMONDS
SOUTHPORT POLICE FORCE
96 SCARBROUGH STREET
SOUTHPORT, QUEENSLAND 4218
DEFENDANT NO 4
THE HON JOHN HOWARD MP.
PREMIER OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
PARLIAMENT HOUSE
CANBERRA AUSTRALIA 2600
DEFENDANT NO 5
HON JUDY SPENCE,MP
MEMBER FRO MT GRAVATT
MINISTER FOR POLICE AND CORRECTIVE SERVICES
24TH FLOOR, STATE LAW BUILDING
50 ANN STREET, BRISBANE QLD 4000
DEFENDANT NO 6
MR. BRIAN PULLEN
MR. SHAKER NAMBIA
MR. GREWAL
AUSTRALIAN HIGH COMMISSION
1/50 G SHANTIPATH
CHANAKYAPURI
NEW DELHI 110 021
DEFENDANT NO 7
HON. MIKE REYNOLDS, AM,MP
MEMBER FOR TOWNSVILLE
MINSTER FOR CHILD SAFETY
7TH FLOOR 111 GEORGE STREET,
BRISBANE, QLD. 4001
DEFENDANT NO 8
CENTRELINK
GOVERNMENT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTHPORT
QLD. AUSTRALIA
DEFENDANT NO 9
PHILLIP UDDOCK
ATTORNEY GENERAL
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
ROBERT GURAN OFFICES, NATIONAL CIRCUIT
BARTON ACT. 2600
DEFENDANT NO 10
GOLD CITY COUNCIL
GOLD COAST MC
QUEENSLAND 9729
DEFENDANT NO 11.
EXHIBIT 2:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 447 OF 2005
IN THE MATTER OF :
JUGVIR INDER SINGH
PETITIONOR
VS.
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
THROUGH NATWAR SINGH
AND
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
(RESPONDENTS ON PAGE 26)
RESPONDENTS
SENATOR KAY PATTERSON
FAMILY ASSISTANCE
CANBERRA, AUSTRALIA
HON PETER BEATTIE
PREMIER & MINISTER FOR TRADE QLD. GOVT.
LEVEL 15 EXECUTIVE BUILDING, GEORGE ST.
BRISBANE, QLD. 4000
CONSTABLE EDMONDS
SOUTHPORT POLICE FORCE
96 SCARBROUGH STREET
SOUTHPORT, QUEENSLAND 4218
THE HON JOHN HOWARD MP.
PREMIER OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
PARLIAMENT HOUSE
CANBERRA AUSTRALIA 2600
HON JUDY SPENCE,MP
MEMBER FRO MT GRAVATT
MINISTER FOR POLICE AND CORRECTIVE SERVICES
24TH FLOOR, STATE LAW BUILDING
50 ANN STREET, BRISBANE QLD 4000
MR. BRIAN PULLEN
MR. SHAKER NAMBIA
MR. GREWAL
AUSTRALIAN HIGH COMMISSION
1/50 G SHANTIPATH
CHANAKYAPURI
NEW DELHI 110 021
HON. MIKE REYNOLDS, AM,MP
MEMBER FOR TOWNSVILLE
MINSTER FOR CHILD SAFETY
7TH FLOOR 111 GEORGE STREET,
BRISBANE, QLD. 4001
CENTRELINK
GOVERNMENT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTHPORT
QLD. AUSTRALIA
PHILLIP RUDDOCK
ATTORNEY GENERAL
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
ROBERT GURAN OFFICES, NATIONAL CIRCUIT
BARTON ACT. 2600
GOLD CITY COUNCIL
GOLD COAST MC
QUEENSLAND 9729
PLEASE PROVE TO ME THAT ONE OF THESE RESPONDENTS IS A PRIVATE ACTOR.
The directions from both courts are available,
Yours truly,
JUGVIR INDER SINGH
PETITONER
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
