Supra Forums banner

141 - 160 of 192 Posts

·
Question to suit.
Joined
·
3,562 Posts
Theres no international treaties for human rights?

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk
Nope. Feel free to look around for that law or group of laws. Governments always test on their own citizens.

Best trust the government with psychological agendas too, I guess. You'd never know about any of the modern one's, anyway. Not published.

Pretty sure even if someone were to tell you, you'd dismiss it too.

No laws against those, either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,822 Posts
Nope. Feel free to look around for that law or group of laws. Governments always test on their own citizens.

Best trust the government with psychological agendas too, I guess. You'd never know about any of the modern one's, anyway. Not published.

Pretty sure even if someone were to tell you, you'd dismiss it too.

No laws against those, either.

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CAT.aspx


not like laws ever get enforced, so i'm not sure why you think having a law against something would prevent it.... maybe dissuade it, but not prevent it.
 

·
Question to suit.
Joined
·
3,562 Posts
There was nothing in the entire page that outlaws testing on a country's own citizens.

Not a single line.

Torture, POWs, war environment, of course.

There is a monumental difference, legally.

There is no law against testing on a country's citizens.
 

·
I am the Lord of Darkness
Joined
·
49 Posts
do ya'll even know what you talking bout? Citizens have rights. Governments have rights to policies and procedure giving way having to deal with absurd remarks and rumours negotiating with criminals who steal go unnoticed resolving to scheming minorities which is a majority of problem solvers
 

·
I am the Lord of Darkness
Joined
·
49 Posts
terrorist - a sudden move and your dead or a politically organized agenda having three branches, non-congressional, judicial and executive order each having a major stance in providing safety, security and parliamentary action. ie. You understand why pilgrimmage to a Kabba is Holy or why a synogogue does not allow shoes, excuse me slippers, a Citadel performs orders at will of Executeur having to survive
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,822 Posts
There was nothing in the entire page that outlaws testing on a country's own citizens.

Not a single line.

Torture, POWs, war environment, of course.

There is a monumental difference, legally.

There is no law against testing on a country's citizens.
listed also in there, the OHCHR

Article 7

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.

did you forget about the rest of the geneva convention that doesn't have to do with war? or you just trying to ignore the rest of the signed and agreed upon rules/laws to say . "there is no law man!!!! the gubment gots us!"

let me just say, even though there are these things called "laws" it doesn't mean the government or anyone else will follow them, laws don't protect you.
 

·
Question to suit.
Joined
·
3,562 Posts
listed also in there, the OHCHR




did you forget about the rest of the geneva convention that doesn't have to do with war? or you just trying to ignore the rest of the signed and agreed upon rules/laws to say . "there is no law man!!!! the gubment gots us!"

let me just say, even though there are these things called "laws" it doesn't mean the government or anyone else will follow them, laws don't protect you.
You really want to believe what you want.

Testing nuclear, chemical or biological weapons on your own citizens, has never been illegal.

Your entire argument is not valid. Period.

You simply have zero experience in these legal matters. ZERO.

Here is the article 7 from what you submitted.

Article 7

1. The State Party in the 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.

2. These authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offence of a serious nature under the law of that State. In the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 2, the standards of evidence required for prosecution and conviction shall in no way be less stringent than those which apply in the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 1.

3. Any person regarding whom proceedings are brought in connection with any of the offences referred to in article 4 shall be guaranteed fair treatment at all stages of the proceedings.
There are NO LAWS against testing on your own people. Geneva doesn't apply. Not sure why you have such a difficult time understanding these very simple things.

No, it's not ignoring laws... That's stupid to even bring up.

You don't even understand how categorizing people, works.

Heck, all you have to do is Google these things.

Here's a wiki on what you're trying to present. Notice how no researchers get into trouble? Because there's nothing legally to cite.

As of 2007, not a single U.S. government researcher had been prosecuted for human experimentation. The preponderance of the victims of U.S. government experiments have not received compensation or, in many cases, acknowledgment of what was done to them.[186]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States

I like how it says "illegally" in the beginning, but doesn't tell you from what codes. There aren't any written anywhere, which makes it illegal to test on your own citizens.
 

·
I'm your huckleberry...
Joined
·
1,964 Posts
There are NO LAWS against testing on your own people. Geneva doesn't apply.
True.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porton_Down

When World War II ended, the advanced state of German technology regarding the organophosphorous nerve agents, such as tabun, sarin and soman, had surprised the Allies and they were eager to capitalise on it. Subsequent research took the newly discovered German nerve agents as a starting point, and eventually VX nerve agent was developed at Porton Down in 1952.

In the late 1940s and early 1950s, research and development at Porton Down was aimed at providing Britain with the means to arm itself with a modern nerve agent-based capability and to develop specific means of defence against these agents. In the end these aims came to nothing on the offensive side because of the decision to abandon any sort of British chemical warfare capability. On the defensive side there were years of difficult work to develop the means of prophylaxis, therapy, rapid detection and identification, decontamination, and more effective protection of the body against nerve agents, capable of exerting effects through the skin, the eyes and respiratory tract.

Tests were carried out on servicemen to determine the effects of nerve agents on human subjects, with one recorded death due to a nerve gas experiment. There have been persistent allegations of unethical human experimentation at Porton Down, such as those relating to the death of Leading Aircraftman Ronald Maddison, aged 20, in 1953. Maddison was taking part in sarin nerve agent toxicity tests; sarin was dripped onto his arm and he died shortly afterwards.
 

·
Question to suit.
Joined
·
3,562 Posts
Psychological experiments are also legal, and so is social engineering. So is destroying property and blaming someone else for thousands of lives lost.

All governments do this, too.

"there is no law man!!!! the gubment gots us!"

Correct statement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,822 Posts
You really want to believe what you want.

Testing nuclear, chemical or biological weapons on your own citizens, has never been illegal.

Your entire argument is not valid. Period.

You simply have zero experience in these legal matters. ZERO.

Here is the article 7 from what you submitted.



There are NO LAWS against testing on your own people. Geneva doesn't apply. Not sure why you have such a difficult time understanding these very simple things.

No, it's not ignoring laws... That's stupid to even bring up.

You don't even understand how categorizing people, works.

Heck, all you have to do is Google these things.

Here's a wiki on what you're trying to present. Notice how no researchers get into trouble? Because there's nothing legally to cite.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States

I like how it says "illegally" in the beginning, but doesn't tell you from what codes. There aren't any written anywhere, which makes it illegal to test on your own citizens.
of course i have zero experience in the matters, just like you, i don't know why that's even a question lol.

so you're going to tell me that when a constitution says you have the right to life. that it really means you have the right to life unless the government says they need to test on you? you'd be splitting hairs at that point because anybody could walk up to you, kill you, and claim self defense, and without enough evidence you'll be dead and unable to defend your position. same as if the government does testing and then defends it.


the entire purpose of an armed citizenry is the "law" against mass human atrocities by a government, the government enforces laws through use of force with guns. and the citizens enforce their freedom with the use of guns. don't believe me ask the khmer.

you may be all stuck up in the conspiracies in every single nook and cranny you can find them in. But just saying that nothing happens to foreign nations when they test on citizens is asinine. if the governing body is breaking the laws it enforces on others, the nation will eventually fail.


in short, government keeps citizens in check (ideally how the citizens vote to be kept in check, but that doesn't happen), and the citizens should keep the government in check.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,822 Posts
your wiki...

Unethical human experimentation in the United States describes numerous experiments performed on human test subjects in the United States that have been considered unethical, and were often performed illegally
that last word....




i see the seaspray operation is in there. where they sprayed a substance to simulate an attack in an attempt to gain some kind of idea of how widespread an attack would affect the city. the claims made were that people got infections and one died, except the infections were all at one hospital and all the people who had them had just had surgery. and the pneumonia couldn't be linked because it wasn't a widespread thing either, with that many people in the city, but only a handful getting something that people get all the time. a .000001% chance of correlation is pretty high.

although i'll concede, suing the government doesn't work, you can't bring lawsuits against the government, only enact laws that they either follow, or face an angry population.


there's a ton of cases to look through, i guarantee a lot of people have gotten away with doing illegal testing on people, simply because it's more profitable for them to do it and be caught, than it is to just not do it. same for the government, if they weren't worried about some kind of revolt they wouldn't try to keep it secret if they were doing things that weren't right. like all the radiation testing. the ethics of the US then and now are very different though, not saying it still doesn't happen. but what makes you think that they don't know if they openly committed crimes against innocent people, that they wouldn't be gone in a month.

even with all this information, what are YOU going to do about it? not visit a hospital anymore for fear of being on a list and being tested on instead of treated? going to go and add to the gigantic pile of conspiracy websites bent on mixing fact with fiction so any semblance of credibility is lost when you put government war testing on the same page and mayan aliens? what's your end goal with going all nuts with things that the average person knows happens? that people do fucked up things to other people, whether its illegal, or there is no "law" against it. (life, liberty, etc bill of rights.)
 

·
Question to suit.
Joined
·
3,562 Posts
No researcher broke any law. The government position, was it was humane.

Cite the law that applies, please.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,822 Posts
No researcher broke any law. The government position, was it was humane.

Cite the law that applies, please.
https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/45-cfr-46/index.html

(1) Research that is conducted or supported by a federal department or agency, whether or not it is regulated as defined in §46.102, must comply with all sections of this policy.
if you want U.S. law there's that, i have no doubt other worse governments around the world don't care. and like i said before, the standards we lived by previously, and the standards of today are different. so i don't deny that testing was done and no one was able to do anything about it because there was no law saying the people who regulated everything couldn't get away with everything.

The list below displays the agencies and departments that have signed onto the Common Rule and their CFR numbers. Hyperlinks are to areas of a department or agency Web site that have been suggested to HHS as entry points for those interested in human subject protection activities of the department or agency.

7 CFR Part 1c - Department of Agriculture

10 CFR Part 745 - Department of Energy

14 CFR Part 1230 - National Aeronautics and Space Administration

15 CFR Part 27 - Department of Commerce - National Institute of Standards and Technology

16 CFR Part 1028 - Consumer Product Safety Commission

22 CFR Part 225 - Agency for International Development (USAID)

24 CFR Part 60 - Department of Housing and Urban Development

28 CFR Part 46 - Department of Justice - National Institute of Justice

32 CFR Part 219 - Department of Defense

34 CFR Part 97 - Department of Education

38 CFR Part 16 - Department of Veterans Affairs - Office of Research Oversight - Office of Research and Development

40 CFR Part 26 - Environmental Protection Agency - Research and Development

45 CFR Part 46 - Department of Health and Human Services

45 CFR Part 690 - National Science Foundation

49 CFR Part 11 - Department of Transportation

Although they have not issued the Common Rule in regulations, three other departments and agencies comply with all subparts of 45 CFR part 46. These include:

The Central Intelligence Agency, by executive order, must comply with all subparts of 45 CFR Part 46. (Executive Order 12333, paragraph 2.10)
The Department of Homeland Security, created after issuance of the Common Rule, has chosen to apply all subparts of 45 CFR part 46 to its human research activities. (6 U.S.C. section 112)
The Social Security Administration was separated from HHS in 1994 and, absent action by the Administrator, must apply all regulations that applied to SSA before the separation. (42 U.S.C. section 901)

Several non-HHS federal departments and agencies have additional regulations in place for research involving special populations or for human subjects research in general. The federal department/agency that conducts or supports research retains final authority for determining whether an institution has complied with its regulations for the protection of human subjects. If HHS receives an allegation or indication of noncompliance related to human subject research that is conducted or supported solely by a Common Rule department/agency other than HHS, HHS will refer the matter to that department/agency for review and action as appropriate.

Investigators are encouraged to review the regulations of the funding agency to determine whether additional regulations apply. Also, many agencies have not adopted subparts B, C, or D and grantees of those agencies are not necessarily bound by them. Grantees should consult their funding agency for guidance.
 
141 - 160 of 192 Posts
Top