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-