    Later they state:  "We must decide whether innovative military capabilities
    are, in fact, acceptable and desirable.  That can only happen through open
    debate.  The military must be a vital participant, but not the sole one."

    But there has been no open debate.

    On July 21, 1994, the US Department of Defense proposed that non-lethal
    weapons be used not only against declared enemies, but against anyone
    engaged in activities that the DOD opposed.  That could include almost any-
    body and anything.  Note that the mind-control technology is classified
    under non-lethal weapons. [15]

    A 1998 news item states that US Air Force General John Jumper "predicts
    that the military will have the tools to make potential enemies see, hear,
    and believe things that do not exist" and that "The same idea was con-
    tained in a 15-volume study by the USAF Scientific Advisory Board, issued
    in 1996, on how to maintain US air and space superiority on the battle-
    fields of the 21st century".  [16,17]

    It seems that, in miltary parlance, a "prediction" means:  "Don't be
    surprised when you find out we've already got this, but it's classified
    and we can't admit to it just yet."

    Notice that General Jumper predicts that mind control technology will be
    used against potential enemies.  The military and government
    agencies may apply this term to any group or individual they perceive as
    a threat to their own interests.  Potential enemies may be counter-culture
    individuals, those of opposing political viewpoints, economic or financial
    competitors, biological undesirables, etc.  It is part of the military
    agenda to identify potential threats so as to be prepared to meet them.
    Experience has shown that the US Government (the CIA and FBI, for example)
    has moved against these people or groups, slandering, harassing, even
    killing them, without adequate cause or legal sanction.

    A weapon that can be used in secret lends itself to abuse by unethical
    individuals in positions of power.  The military and secret services have
    shown themselves often to be lacking in ethical constraints.  After all,
    the job of the military is war; it is killing people; and so,
    just how this is accomplished may be considered irrelevant.  Lesser evils,
    like mind control, pale by comparison.

    Of course, it can be argued that it is far more humane to brainwash a
    person via mind control technology than it is to torture or kill them.
    Others vehemently deny this.  They'd rather be dead than a mental slave to
    Big Brother!  That is what revolutions are about.  And if I recall
    correctly, that is the idea behind the US Bill of Rights.

                                    -82-