Side Effects > Wayward Things

Pentagon reveals rejected chemical weapons

15 January 2005 From New Scientist Print Edition.

THE Pentagon considered developing a host of non-lethal chemical weapons that would disrupt discipline and morale among enemy troops, newly declassified documents reveal.

Most bizarre among the plans was one for the development of an "aphrodisiac" chemical weapon that would make enemy soldiers sexually irresistible to each other. Provoking widespread homosexual behaviour among troops would cause a "distasteful but completely non-lethal" blow to morale, the proposal says.

Other ideas included chemical weapons that attract swarms of enraged wasps or angry rats to troop positions, making them uninhabitable. Another was to develop a chemical that caused "severe and lasting halitosis", making it easy to identify guerrillas trying to blend in with civilians. There was also the idea of making troops' skin unbearably sensitive to sunlight.

The proposals, from the US Air Force Wright Laboratory in Dayton, Ohio, date from 1994. The lab sought Pentagon funding for research into what it called "harassing, annoying and 'bad guy'-identifying chemicals". The plans have been posted online by the Sunshine Project, an organisation that exposes research into chemical and biological weapons.

Spokesman Edward Hammond says it was not known if the proposed $7.5 million, six-year research plan was ever pursued.

Editor: this is so bizarre that it practically defies comment.  Actually a mixed bag of politically correct ways to lay waste to enemy troops, I suppose better than shooting them dead, but at the same time, SOOOO incorrect as regards the assault on one's breath or sexual behavior as to be mind-boggling.  Just thought you'd like to know what our tax dollars have gone for and thankfully, didn't.:)

From Korea, a first hand report of torture by "the dog butcher."  This Letter To The Editor was enough to make us swear off mail forever!  If you have a weak stomach, do not click here.  If you haven't had your adrenaline rush for today, risk it....

Christianity Harmful To Animals? - This professorial insanity just picked up.  Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer told the Washington Times that being a Believer is harmful to animals.  His highly-educated reasoning?  Christians claim people have souls but "their furry friends do not."  Well, from your editor's point of view, the guy is wrong on many counts.  Worse yet, he's teaching our young people.  Most of us believe that Heaven would not be Paradise without God's animals.  So I guess we do believe they have souls or they couldn't join us there, or vice-versa.  Surely God gave some animals a soul!  Is there a creature more perfect of heart and freer of sin than man's best friend?  Was the dog just a mistake?  Most of us, when we stop to think about it, know in our souls that God created pets in order to provide daily comfort and joy to us and to serve as examples of the selfless love God wants us to give to all.  Others believe that God leaves higher-evolved animals here on earth in other forms, or as spirit guides.  The Princeton professor is reported to "condone the killing of human newborns if they are deformed."  Makes you wonder how, with his lack of brains, he escaped death at birth.

Have offbeat news that affects dog owners?
Send it to: Editor@TheDogPlace.org  

Public Citizen press release  INTERNET - EMAIL LIABILITY?

Jan. 9, 2002  Still news!  Company's Lawsuits To Deter Critical Comments Backfire; Company Dismisses Cases, Pays Critics' Attorney Fees

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Hollis-Eden Pharmaceuticals has paid $107,887 in attorney fees and agreed to dismiss two cases against stockholders who posted critical messages about the company on an Internet message board.

In both cases, the trial court earlier had agreed with the critics, who were both shareholders represented by the Public Citizen Litigation Group, that the suits were improper SLAPPs (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) - lawsuits intended to deter them and others from exercising their First Amendment right to criticize the company.

In the first case, filed in December 2000, Hollis-Eden, a drug development company based in San Diego, sued 10 individuals, claiming they had posted defamatory messages on a Yahoo! message board devoted to discussion about the company. Public Citizen represented two of the posters and asked the court to dismiss the complaint against them on the ground that the suit was an unlawful attempt to chill the exercise of their constitutional right to speak freely about the publicly held company.

California's anti-SLAPP law is based on the recognition that the lawful exercise of First Amendment rights is threatened by the financial and emotional cost of defending against a frivolous lawsuit. The law offers defendants a mechanism for seeking prompt dismissal of meritless lawsuits that challenge speech about a public issue or speech made in connection with an official proceeding.

In March 2000, the trial court agreed with Public Citizen that the postings of the two shareholders concerned a matter of "public interest" within the meaning of the anti-SLAPP statute and that the statements were not defamatory. The court dismissed the case against the two and awarded the defendants attorney fees and costs of approximately $72,000. Hollis-Eden appealed. Both parties had filed briefs and were awaiting a date for oral argument when they agreed to settle the case.

Soon after the trial court dismissed the first case, Hollis-Eden again sued one of the two original defendants, this time for a single message he posted in March 2001. Public Citizen again invoked the anti-SLAPP statute, and the court again dismissed the case. Hollis-Eden's appeal and a motion for attorney fees in the trial court were both pending when the parties agreed to a settlement.

Under the terms of the settlement, the two defendants accepted $107,887 in attorney fees and costs in the two cases, and Hollis-Eden agreed to dismiss both appeals. Both defendants retain their First Amendment rights to speak about the company.

"Hollis-Eden tried for a full year to use the court system to intimidate its critics into silence," said Allison Zieve, a Public Citizen Litigation Group lawyer who represented the two individuals. "Better late than never, the company seems to have realized that frivolous lawsuits were not going to suppress criticism and, in fact, were creating more ill-will for the company among its stockholders."

Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C. For more information, please visit www.citizen.org.