IN DEFENSE OF HUMANITY
The law of bioethics has substantially progressed during the past half century. Both scientific and popular opinion now appreciate the importance of appropriate risk and proportionality for all scientific research, the necessity of full disclosure to patients, and the effectiveness of proper governmental supervision of all treatment modalities. A growing focus appreciates the preciousness of human life and the individual’s right to free choice through informed consent. If any of the incidents concerning these “aliens” can be substantiated, it is appropriate that we compare the alleged crimes with human rights covenants implemented at the international level.
The trial of Nazi physicians for medical research atrocities prompted the drafting of the Nuremberg Code provisions. Americans, Dr. Andrew Ivy and Dr. Leo Alexander, majorly contributed to formation of the Code’s text. The final ten-point provisions were incorporated into the Nuremberg proceedings’ Doctors’ Trial Verdict. The Code asserts the need for bioethical research guidelines to preserve health care goals and ethical parameters, including alleviation of pain and suffering and advancement of the quality of life at the individual and communal levels. The Nuremberg Code (later reflected in the Declaration of Helsinki’s protective measure as to clinical research) continues to serve as the landmark for the ongoing evolution of bioethical law. If the growing accounts are correct, certain alleged ET intruders have egregiously violated all Nuremberg Code articles. Such reported developments as the alleged genetic research program serve as one of several models displaying the amorality of these aliens’ actions.
The Code’s Article I requires the voluntary consent of the patient to any medical procedure. Obviously the kidnapping, coerced detention, and other torts perpetrated on human victims violate Article I’s provisions. (These tenets of informed, voluntary consent are reflected in Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights: “…no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.”) Article II of the Nuremberg Code stipulates that any research must purposefully entail a benefit for the society as a whole. Does the alleged hybrid breeding program represent a beneficial development for the human race or rather a blatant manipulation by these entities, using our human brothers and sisters as a type of chattel for research goals? If the reports are correct, these “alien brothers” have been deceitfully using human victims with their macabre research providing value only to the ET’s themselves. Article III mandated prior research study and preparation to “justify the performance of the experiment,” and such preparatory review cannot be conducted within the clandestine/intrusive environment of reported alien procedures.
Article IV requires the avoidance of all unnecessary physical and mental suffering of the human subject in any study or treatment modality. Numerous accounts are surfacing of human victims left by alien intruders in traumatized physical and emotional states. Nuremberg Code Article V denies permission for any medical or scientific research with risk of death of disability to the human subject. Should accounts of global underground centers violations prove accurate, grave infringements of Article V have occurred. Article VI requires an assessment as to the proportionality as to risk and benefits of any proposed research. If these entities are perpetrating these procedures, any risks attach only to their human victims with any benefit incurred solely by the alien parties. The Code’s Article VII requires proper preparation for all research to avoid any possible harm to subject participants; the contravention here also is blatant. Article VIII requires that the experiment be conducted by qualified personnel – certainly the harmful efforts of the alien abduction/research scenario signal a capability for malevolence and a true capacity for subjecting humans to pain, embarrassment and shock. Article IX requires that the experiment be brought to an end if the human subject so requests – numerous reports have been gathered as to human victims strenuously refusing to engage in alien procedures and yet still victimized by the entities. Finally, Nuremberg Code’s Article X demands that the research be concluded if the scientists, including research physicians, consider the study or treatment to be causing harm to the participant – how many humans are harassed without cessation of these violations.
The UN Human Commission on Human Rights and Terrorism Resolution 2001/37: Condemns the violation of the right to live free from fear and of the right to life, liberty and security.” Surely, if the reports are correct, these aliens fall within the category of violators – assaulting humans on spiritual, physical and psychological levels.
After the horrors of the Shoah, or Holocaust, Eleanor Roosevelt played a pivotal role in the formation of the U.N.’s Declaration of Human Rights while serving as Chairman of the Human Rights Commission and its drafting of that statement. The Declaration’s Preamble asserts that “human rights should be protected by the rule of law.” A growing cascade of international documents support this concept. Yet proper investigation and monitoring of violations must be implemented even if the perpetrators are not biologically human. The Universal Declaration’s Article 3 poignantly notes, in agreement with our Declaration of Independence, that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person.” The European Convention on Human Rights (European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) endorses this principle in its Article 5: “Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.” Why should humanity suffer to have its members’ personal cultural freedom transgressed by a malevolent exterior force? Such violations, including alleged mental manipulation by ET predators of their victims, mock the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights Article 18’s emphasis on such human rights as freedom of thought.
Also, Article 7 of The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights declares that, “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” and its Article 17 provides that “No one shall be subject to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home….” If current international pacts abhor torture, kidnapping and invasion of privacy, should human society even tacitly condone it when practiced by “aliens”? Moreover human participants appear to be functioning as unwilling servants and biological resources for certain extraterrestrials. Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights asserts that “No one shall be held in slavery or servitude.” The Slavery Convention (effective 1927), Article 1, describes slavery as “the status of condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised.” The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 4 prohibits slavery in all its forms. Certainly, we owe no service to alien masters but only fealty to our Sovereign Creator.
The above documents represent a fraction of the international law provisions furnishing a global legal framework for decrying alleged alien atrocities. In evaluating alien-human interaction, the victim’s weaker intellectual or technological position does not erase the amorality of the intruders with their blatant disregard of law whether international or Divine.