National Geographic – Cia Secret Experiments (Documentary)
It’s the height of the Cold War and the United States government is desperate to combat the spread of Communism. The CIA launches a highly classified, top secret research program into the covert use of biological and chemical agents. In simulated attacks on enemy populations, entire cities in America are contaminated with bacteria, exposing millions of Americans to germ warfare. But the real focus of the research is on mastering the art of mind control. Psychiatrists at top academic institutions work under secret contract with the agency. Psychiatric patients, prisoners, even unwitting members of the public are exposed to a startling array of experiments designed to facilitate interrogations, induce amnesia and program in new behavior. Every psychological technique is explored, including hypnosis, electroshock therapy and lethal cocktails of drugs. What was the extent of these brainwashing experiments? How did the CIA become involved in such far-reaching and disturbing research?
The CIA, amidst expressions of profuse apology and regret, entered into a settlement with the Olson family in which each member of the family was paid $187,500.
There was one big problem, however, as Albarelli documented in his gripping book: When the CIA confessed to its LSD experiment on Olson, that too was a lie. The confession, along with all the remorse and regret, were nothing more than a highly sophisticated way to cover up the fact that the CIA had actually murdered Olson by pushing him out of that high-rise New York City hotel room.
What motivated the CIA to murder Olson? In a sense, Olson was a whistleblower, much like Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden are today. The difference, however, was that Olson revealed top-secret information regarding government wrongdoing to a friend while Manning and Snowden have released their information about government wrongdoing to the world.
Olson had suffered a crisis of conscience over an LSD experiment that the CIA had conducted in a small village in France, where some people died and others suffered severe psychological damage. Experiencing personal anguish over the experiment, Olson talked to a friend about it. That was his “terrible mistake.” He had revealed top-secret information in violation of his oath and commitment to the national security state. Under the secrecy rules of the national-security state he had threatened “national security” by his action. Even worse because Olson was suffering a crisis of conscience, he was considered an ongoing threat to “national security.” So, the CIA simply eliminated this threat to “national security” by murdering him.
The Olson sons recently sued to recover damages for murder, as compared to the settlement they had reached, which had been based on negligence.
However, a federal district has dismissed the case, citing the statute of limitations and the previously reached settlement.
Never mind that the settlement was reached based on the CIA’s false and fraudulent representations. Apparently that just doesn’t matter.
But it should matter. Why should the government be entitled to intentionally lie about a matter and then, many years later when the fraud is discovered, benefit from a statute of limitations defense and a defense based on a previously entered settlement? A showing of fraud should be enough to vitiate the settlement agreement and nullify the statute of limitations.
But it’s part of the deferential treatment that the federal courts have shown the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA for decades. After all, let’s not forget that this isn’t the first time that the federal courts have declined to interfere with the national-security state’s murder of an American citizen. There was the murder of the young American journalist Charles Horman during the military coup in Chile in 1973, a coup that the U.S. national security state supported and participated in. Like the Olson case, the CIA and the Pentagon denied any role in Horman’s murder. It was a lie. Many years later, a State Department memo established that the CIA had, in fact, played some undefined role in Horman’s murder.
When Horman’s widow filed suit, a federal district court, deferring to the national-security state, dismissed the suit for lack of evidence. Never mind that the court refused to permit Horman’s widow from seeking discovery, including depositions of the CIA. Apparently, that would threaten “national security.” So, they got away with murder there too.
Recently, the father of Anwar al-Awlaki filed suit for the wrongful deaths of his American son and teenage grandson, both of whom were assassinated by the national-security state. Time will tell whether he gets very far with the suit. My hunch: When the Justice Department comes in with a motion to dismiss and a claim that the suit is a threat to “national security,” the presiding federal judge will immediately dismiss it.
Lies, fraud, murder, immunity, and judicial deference to the national-security state. It’s all just a way of life under this Cold War-era monstrosity.