Unlike other litigants, the CIA has an almost unlimited capacity to conceal
probative evidence and to assert privileges against disclosure with little
judicial intervention. In the Canadian brainwashing case, getting the truth
about what happened was all the more difficult because two decades of
concealment were continued into the 1980s with unwarranted claims of national
security privilege. Nonetheless, the discovery and trial preparation process
did yield new evidence further demonstrating the CIA's negligence in the
MKULTRA program in general and in the Montreal experiments in particular.
A. CIA Concealment of the Facts
Five means of concealing the truth hindered our investigation of the CIA's
negligence -- documentary evidence about MKULTRA was destroyed, the details of
the MKULTRA Program were restricted to a handful of CIA employees, witnesses
who did know about MKULTRA were prevented from testifying, witnesses who did
testify told as little as possible, and "national security" claims were
groundlessly invoked to prevent disclosure of information embarrassing to the
CIA.
Oliver North was not the Government's first shredder; most of the
documentary evidence about the Montreal experiments had been destroyed in
1973. At that time, CIA Director Richard Helms and Sidney Gottlieb, who were
both planning to leave the Agency, joined in ordering the destruction of all
MKULTRA files.21 This loss was
particularly significant because it denied us a documentary basis for
cross-examining Mr. Helms, whose lack of credibility had been established
when he committed perjury in testimony before Congress in the mid-1970s.
In the early 1970s, Helms categorically denied under oath before the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the CIA was trying to overthrow the
Marxist Allende Government in Chile, when he had, in fact, directed massive
covert efforts to do just that.22
Moreover, Helms went out of his way to lie, for the false testimony came not
at some Senate hearing where he was defending the CIA's reputation, but at a
hearing where he was personally seeking confirmation as Ambassador to Iran.
The honorable course would have been to refuse to discuss the Chilean incident
with the Committee and to take his chance of losing the ambassadorship. It was
not any secrecy oath that Helms had with the CIA that was at stake, it was his
nomination as Ambassador to Iran. Faced with the alternatives, Helms lied.
Although this was clearly perjury, when angry Senators forced a
prosecution, the Washington establishment rallied around Helms, who was
allowed to escape justice by pleading to a single violation of 2 U.S.C. section 192,
a statute that requires witnesses to answer questions before Congress. This
was the sweetheart deal Helms got.
In order to relieve Mr. Helms of pleading to a felony charge of perjury,
the Justice Department created a special misdemeanor to which he was permitted
to plead "no contest." The Department of Justice charged Helms with, Helms
pleaded to, and the Judge sentenced him for, a crime that doesn't exist. The
Department of Justice was so anxious to strike a bargain with the defense that
it manufactured a "crime" for the occasion.
Mr. Helms was charged with the misdemeanor of failing to testify "fully,
completely and accurately" before a Senate Committee. There is no such crime.
There is a felony statute of perjury before Congress and a misdemeanor statute
of contempt of Congress for a "refusal to answer." Helms was charged under
the latter statute. But he did the exact opposite. He did not refuse to
answer; he answered and did so falsely. This is not a crime under the
"refusal to answer" contempt misdemeanor statute.
Yielding to the Government's intense pressure to accept the "no jail"
plea bargain, Judge Barrington Parker assessed only a $2,000. A group of
400 retired CIA intelligence officers promptly donated funds to pay Helms' fine at an
impromtu victory party at the Kenwood Country Club following his sentence.23 As Joseph Rauh wrote in the November 9, 1977
edition of the Washington Post, "The CIA now knows that the law is only peripherally for them."
The problem that Helms presented was typical of those we would face with
the covert operators at the CIA. Here was a man who had lied to Congress and
gotten away with it. Was there any reason to expect him to do less in a
private litigation? The 1973 destruction of MKULTRA documents virtually
guaranteed that Helms would have free rein to concoct any story at all when we
questioned him.
As the Helms perjury incident demonstrates, senior CIA officials can
seemingly lie with impunity, and documentary evidence is therefore all the
more critical in getting the truth. The lost documents would also have been a
great aid in questioning Sidney Gottlieb, who had earlier demanded immunity
from prosecution before testifying about his role in CIA assassination plots
(including one in which he had personally carried anthrax toxins to the Congo
in an abortive effort to eliminate Patrice Lumumba). Without documents to
force their testimony, Helms and Gottlieb would be free to forget and thus to
evade whatever they wished.24
To conceal further its role in brainwashing experi-mentation, in the early
1950s the CIA established a front organization, "the Society for the
Investigation of Human Ecology" (sometimes abbreviated SIHE), at the Cornell
University Medical School in New York City. As CIA officer John Gittinger
confirmed, the Society served "as a 'conduit for brainwashing research'."
Since the program operated under cover, people outside the CIA were prevented
from knowing anything about MKULTRA -- there would be no witnesses outside the
Agency.
The MKULTRA Program also operated outside the normal CIA administrative
channels without "the usual contractual arrangements," and was concealed even
inside the CIA under a practice called "compartmentation." As the more recent
CIA Director, Stansfield Turner, explained at his deposition, in MKULTRA CIA
employees "used compartmentation to so narrow who knows a thing," that there
was "virtually no check or very little check on their activities." Compartmentation
thus ensured that there would be no witnesses aside from Helms, Gottlieb and
their assistants.25
When former CIA employees were subpoenaed and did testify, lawyers for the
Agency prevented full answers to our questions. This practice took the form
of rather blatant intimidation -- for example, at a meeting to prepare his
testimony one day prior to deposition, John Gittinger was told by counsel for
the CIA that he "would be liable for prosecution if [he] began to talk about
some of that." Furthermore, although the CIA counsel present at the
deposition did not represent Gittinger and would have had a conflict of
interest had he done so, he nonetheless directed Gittinger not to answer a
number of questions (a practice authorized neither by statute nor rule of the
court). In subsequent depositions CIA lawyers simply ignored their conflicts
of interest, and claimed to represent both the CIA and its former employees
when they decided that a question should not be answered. In this way, even a
former employee who wanted to tell all could be prevented from doing so.
The testimony that we did obtain from former CIA officials was often less
than candid. A central axiom of clandestine activities, such as the MKULTRA
Program, is that CIA must maintain "plausible deniablity." This means that
layer upon layer of cover stories are available to conceal Agency involvement,
and that Agency operatives are schooled in telling half-truths or out-right
lies to minimize disclosures. There were many examples of this practice in
the revelations of MKULTRA. CIA agent James Monroe erroneously told the New
York Times that the Society for the Investigation of Human Ecology, which he
ran, received "only 25 to 30 percent" of its budget from the CIA with the bulk
coming from other foundations and private donors. The truth is that over 95%
of the Society's funds came from the CIA. When that cover story failed and
the Canadian victims presented their claims, efforts to minimize CIA
responsibility included the completely inaccurate claim to the Canadian
Government and plaintiffs' counsel that Dr. Cameron applied for funds
"unsolicited." 26 Against this
backdrop of institutionalized lying, we were never sure that we had gotten
everything that a witness knew.
Finally, throughout the litigation, the CIA repeated ad nauseam its claim
of secret intelligence "sources and methods" to keep us from uncovering the
full facts. While it is difficult to understand how information concerning a
program that ended some twenty or more years ago could threaten our national
security, it is easy to see how the broad sources and methods privilege
ratified by the Supreme Court in CIA v. Sims,
27 could be exploited to hide evidence of CIA wrongdoing.
The pernicious Sims doctrine isparticularly damaging, because the vast majority of secret material is
classified not to protect our security, but to prevent official embarrassment.
And, even where there was some legitimate security concern in the beginning,
the privilege continues to be asserted many years later when there is no need
for secrecy.
The prevalence of the assertion of national security privileges
to avoid political embarrassment by the intelligence community was documented
in a column by former Solicitor General Erwin Griswold.
28 As Dean Griswold recounts from his
experience when representing the Nixon administration during its unsuccessful
effort to prevent publication of the Pentagon Papers:29
Under this fallacious national security rubric, as expanded and ratified
by the Burger Court's Sims decision, identities of key witnesses were
concealed from us, documents were withheld, and on one occasion we were
personally threatened with prosecution under the Espionage Act if we did not
agree to excise information from the deposition of Richard
Helms.30 Most
importantly, as we detail below, even though the two CIA Station Chiefs in
Canada in August 1977, Stacey B. Hulse and John Kenneth Knaus, had been
publicly identified as such, we were prevented from obtaining their deposition
testimony concerning their briefings by the CIA on the Cameron experiments and
what they told the Canadian Government on the Agency's behalf when the story
broke in Canada.
B. Additional Facts from Discovery and Trial Preparation
Underscore CIA Negligence
Despite the unique problems in conducting discovery against the CIA, we
were able to obtain important new evidence of the Agency's negligence in each
of the three facets of the case. The story of the Olson death, and the CIA's
eventual acceptance of responsibility in 1975 was even more compelling when
recounted by his widow, who we eventually hoped to use as our first witness at
trial. The CIA's negligence in funding Cameron, a reckless loose cannon, was
confirmed by his contemporaries in Montreal. The CIA's negligence in failing
to ensure the safety and consent of Cameron's patients was admitted in
deposition testimony by CIA officers. A group of psychiatrists who evaluated
our clients' experiences under Cameron's care confirmed the bizarre and
injuriousnature of the CIA-funded brainwashing experiments. Finally, during
discovery we had obtained important admissions of culpability on the part of
the CIA and the U.S. Government.
1. New Evidence about the Olson Death.
One of the most courageous people to join in this fight was the widow of
Dr. Frank Olson, Alice W. Olson. Despite the pain and anguish caused to her
by recounting the details of the tragic CIA experiment upon her husband, Mrs.
Olson agreed to appear as a witness for the plaintiffs and was prepared to
offer testimony concerning her husband's death. As Mrs. Olson explained in
her affidavit to the Court:
Mrs. Olson's personal recollections of the tragedy would not only
underscore the magnitude of the negligence and incompetence of CIA officers
Gottlieb and Lashbrook, but would also show the Court that the government had
already accepted responsibility for their misdeeds. There were even public
admissions of responsibility from the highest levels of our government that
Mrs. Olson could describe in Court.
When the Olson story finally became known despite the CIA's efforts at
concealment, then President Gerald Ford met with Mrs. Olson and her children
on July 21, 1975 and, according to a White House Press Release, "expressed the
sympathy of the American people and apologized on behalf of the U.S.
Government for the circumstances of Dr. Frank Olson's death in November 1953."
And in a July 24, 1975 letter to Mrs. Olson, then CIA Director William E.
Colby apologized for the CIA:
On October 12, 1976 President Ford signed legislation providing $750,000
recompense to the survivors of Dr. Olson and, after stating that the LSD
"would appear to have been the proximate cause of his death," went on:
In addition, we now had obtained additional CIA documents demonstrating
that in the wake of the Olson death, CIA Director Dulles ordered that a Review
Board be created to oversee and control TSS research and experiments. But the
Dulles order was not carried out and no other steps were taken to ensure that
there would be no repetition of the reckless and negligent conduct in the
Olson death. Despite the Dulles order, Gottlieb and Lashbrook were left in
charge of MKULTRA without even a reprimand.31
In that capacity they approved the funds for brainwashing experiments performed
by Dr. Cameron without the review and oversight of the special Review Board
ordered by Director Dulles and with the same recklessness they had exhibited
in the Olson death.
2. New Evidence of CIA Negligence in its Relation to Cameron
One of Gottlieb and Lashbrook's assistants was John Gittinger, who learned
of the work of Dr. Cameron in the brainwashing field by reading an article
appearing in the American Journal of Psychiatry in January of 1956. In
preparing our case we consulted Dr. Robert Jay Lifton, an internationally
recognized expert on brainwashing who had conducted one of the seminal studies
of Chinese Communist practices during the Korean War. Dr. Lifton agreed to
review that 1956 Cameron article and to testify in Court concerning the
similarities between Cameron's techniques and the brainwashing procedures of
the Communist Chinese.
In Dr. Lifton's expert opinion, the 1956 Cameron article "described
non-therapeutic and potentially dangerous techniques of repetition and
isolation which were extensions of the totalistic methods of 'thought reform'
or 'brainwashing' used in China and elsewhere." Lifton's view was
subsequently corroborated by Cameron himself. In pre-1956 papers Cameron had
admitted that he conducted experiments with "sleeplessness, disinhibiting
agents and hypnosis" in an attempt to exploit the methods used to achieve "the
extraordinary political conversions which we have seen, particularly in the
iron curtain countries."32
We also asked Doctors Lifton and Salzman to study the Cameron application
and to be prepared to testify about their opinions of it. They were in
complete agreement that the Cameron application showed on its face that CIA
funds would be used to conduct extremely dangerous brainwashing experiments.
As Dr. Lifton concluded in his affidavit to the Court, "it is clear from the
Cameron application, itself, that these procedures were experimental and
deviated from standard and customary psychiatric therapies in use during the
1950s"; the procedures in the Cameron application "closely parallel the
techniques of 'thought reform' or 'brainwashing' used in Chinese prisons and
elsewhere, and represent a mechanized extension of those 'brainwashing'
methods." In short, "the Cameron application was a transparent proposal to
conduct experiments with 'thought reform' or 'brainwashing' procedures
extrapolated from methods documented in the academic literature, and would
have been seen as such by anyone reviewing it during the 1950s."
Dr. Salzman likewise concluded in his affidavit:
These conclusions were important parts of our case because the dangerous
brainwashing experimentation described in Cameron's application clearly
required some investigation of Cameron's competence and some provision for
safeguards to protect the experimental subjects. As subsequent discovery
confirmed, the CIA made no investigation of Cameron or his experimental
procedures before making the grant, despite the obvious dangers to the human
beings who were to be experimented upon with CIA funds. This is a prime
example of the negligent failures to exercise reasonable care in the MKULTRA
program that formed the basis for our second cause of action.
We had found, moreover, dramatic evidence of the ease with which such an
investigation could have been made. From 1947 through 1956, the CIA was in
close touch with Dr. Omond M. Solandt, Chairman of the Canadian Defence
Research Board during that time period. We contacted Dr. Solandt who provided
us with an affidavit confirming that CIA had never bothered to contact him for
his opinion "about Cameron's competence, the depatterning and other
experimental procedures used by Cameron, or whether it was appropriate to fund
the experimental procedures used by Cameron."
Dr. Solandt agreed to appear and to testify concerning the fact that he had
disapproved of Cameron's destructive experiments and made his views known.
Again, his affidavit summarized these views:
Dr. Solandt also noted in his affidavit to the Court that there was another
knowledgeable expert, Dr. Donald O. Hebb, who had been readily available to
the CIA in 1956 and early 1957 when Cameron's application was being solicited
and approved. Dr. Hebb, the highly respected Chairman of the Psychology
Department of McGill University during the 1950s, had worked closely with
Canadian and U.S. intelligence,33
and had an equally discrediting opinion of Cameron's brainwashing experiments.
Unfortunately Hebb had died before we could take his deposition. Because
Dr. Hebb's testimony bore on Cameron's reputation, however, we were able to
offer sworn statements of others about what Hebb had said without violating
the hearsay rule. These statements relating to Hebb's opinions would not be
offered as evidence of the truth of what Hebb had said, but as evidence that
he had said it and would have warned the CIA to stay away from Cameron or at
least make a full investigation of him and his work. In this way we could
avoid the potential bar of the hearsay rule to introduce the following sworn
statement by Solandt concerning Hebb's "very low opinion" of Cameron and his
"prudence" in dealing with subjects:
Further evidence of Hebb's low opinion of Cameron's competence and prudence
was provided to us by Ronald Blumer, a documentary film writer and producer
who interviewed Hebb shortly before his death. In their interview, Dr. Hebb
stressed to Blumer that Cameron was "irresponsible" and "criminally stupid":
Final corroboration of Hebb's view of Cameron came from Jay Peterzell, a
research associate with the Center for National Security Studies, who had made
an exhaustive review of the CIA's MKULTRA program. Peterzell interviewed Hebb
in the summer of 1978 and provided us with an affidavit based on his detailed
notes of that interview:
In addition we developed evidence that even casual inquiries of those in
Montreal who knew of the controversial experiments being performed by Cameron
would have revealed to the CIA the risks of injury and averted the tragic
events subsidized by that agency. Dr. Paul E. Termansen, a Vancouver
psychiatrist who was treating plaintiff Logie, had been at McGill in the early
1960s and provided us with a sworn statement that during his time at McGill
there had been considerable controversy about Cameron's experimental
activities, which were promptly terminated by his successor Robert A.
Cleghorn. Dr. Solandt also confirmed that "[d]uring the 1950s, there was
considerable controversy in the Montreal and Canadian psychiatric and academic
communities about the depatterning and other experimental procedures used by
Cameron at the Allan Memorial Institute." As these affidavits made clear,
there was tremendous controversy surrounding Cameron and the experiments he
performed, which would have alerted the CIA to the dangers of funding human
experimentation at Allan Memorial.
The CIA's lack of care in failing to make any investigation whatever of
Cameron was equalled only by its callous failure to ensure safety and consent
of the subjects -- victims of the subsidized experiments.
3. New Evidence of CIA Negligence in Failing to Ensure Safety and
Consent of Subjects
From documentary discovery we had found no provision at the time of the
approval of the grant or later to ensure that the experimentation was safe or
that only consenting volunteers were used as experimental subjects. We
confirmed that no precautions of any sort had been taken through the
deposition testimony of John Gittinger, the CIA Project Monitor for the
Montreal experiments; Sidney Gottlieb, the Director for the MKULTRA Program
and Gittinger's supervisor; and Robert Lashbrook, Gottlieb's deputy.
All three of these major actors in the funding of Cameron testified on
deposition that the CIA took no steps whatsoever to ensure that experimental
subjects would not be injured or that the CIA-funded experiments would be
conducted in an ethical fashion. Gittinger admitted that he "never really
thought very much about his [Cameron's] actions anytime because I wasn't
interested" and that he "was really not interested in his [Cameron's]
patients." Gittinger continued:
Gottlieb, Lashbrook and Gittinger each also admitted that no effort was
made to ensure that Cameron's patients would be told that they were undergoing
experimental procedures. Gottlieb failed to determine whether Cameron was
going to tell patients and their families that the experiments were new and
untested and that other accepted therapeutic procedures were available for
mental illness; and he had no recollection of instructing Gittinger concerning
the CIA-funded experiments. Gittinger admitted that patients in a psychiatric
hospital often exercise impaired judgment and that it was particularly
important that they be told that they were participating in experiments. Yet
he too felt no obligation to protect the psychiatric patients who would be
used in the Montreal experiments and, indeed, failed even to instruct Colonel
Monroe to obtain reports on the condition of those patients after the
experimental procedures.
In short, Gottlieb's deposition testimony was:
Lashbrook was equally unconcerned:
After CIA funds were forwarded to Cameron, the CIA officers failed to
supervise Cameron's experimentation in any way. Gittinger admitted that he
never saw a report from Cameron; that he never visited Cameron in Montreal;
and that he never asked Monroe to report to him on what Cameron was doing.
Yet, despite his ignorance concerning Cameron's CIA-funded experiments,
Gittinger nonetheless certified as Project Monitor that Cameron's progress was
"satisfactory" on the basis that "we just were given word that they were
having no problems."
Gottlieb admitted that he "did not know anything about" the experiments
Cameron performed with CIA funds, that he didn't know what experimental
subjects were told about the CIA-funded research at McGill, and that he had no
recollection of anyone at the CIA telling him the details about Cameron's
experiments with intensive electroshock, LSD, sensory deprivation,
depatterning, psychic driving, or prolonged drug induced sleep.
The significance of these admissions by the key CIA officers involved in
the Montreal experiments was driven home by the affidavit of David J. Rothman,
Ph.D., a eminent social historian at Columbia University's College of
Physician and Surgeons. Dr. Rothman was prepared to provide testimony at
trial detailing the history of consent from the Hippocratic Oath through the
Nuremberg Code and its aftermath. As detailed in his affidavit to the Court,
Dr. Rothman's conclusions left no doubt that the conduct of Gottlieb,
Lashbrook, Gittinger and, ultimately Cameron, was unethical:
4. New Evidence -- Expert Evaluations of the Damaging Effects of
Cameron's Experimentation upon Plaintiffs
In addition to Leon Salzman and Robert Jay Lifton, four other psychiatrists
agreed to appear as expert witnesses for our clients -- Paul Termansen, David
Joseph, Brian Doyle and Harvey Weinstein. After reviewing the medical
records, and later interviewing the former Cameron patients, each of these
experts provided compelling testimony of the damaging impact of the CIA-funded
experiments.34
Concerning plaintiff Robert Logie, Dr. Termansen provided that following
assessment in his sworn affidavit to the Court:
Concerning plaintiff Lyvia Stadler, Dr. Joseph concluded that "the
'depatterning' with intensive electroshock, 'psychic driving,' prolonged drug
induced sleep, and the administration of nitrous oxide that Mrs. Stadler
underwent were not accepted forms of treatment, then or now, but were clearly
experimental" and that those procedures "would have resulted in significant
disorganization, confusion and psychological impairment ...." Dr. Joseph
also concluded that plaintiff Janine Huard was exposed to non-standard
experimental procedures, and that "the combination of experimental procedures
that Mrs. Huard was exposed to at the Allan Memorial Institute would have
resulted in significant disorganization, confusion and psychological
impairment...." And, as to both plaintiffs Huard and Stadler, Dr. Joseph
concluded it "was clearly irresponsible and unethical, both then and now, to
use procedures ... without obtaining a separate voluntary consent to undergo
experimental procedures."
Dr. Doyle concluded concerning plaintiff Jean-Charles Pagé, that
"[n]othing in Mr. Pagé's medical records indicates that he was a candidate for
any of these procedures" which were "not accepted forms of treatment but were
clearly experimental procedures...." Dr. Doyle continued in his affidavit,
"the harsh physical procedures, high doses of drugs and the experimental
techniques used on Mr. Pagé would inevitably cause injury to his mental and
physical health."
Dr. Doyle also reviewed the case of plaintiff Rita Zimmerman, who was
"depatterned" through a total of 30 electroshocks; underwent 56 days of
prolonged drug-induced sleep, received 14 days of negative "psychic driving,"
and 18 days of positive "psychic driving." He concluded that:
In Dr. Salzman's opinion, the standard treatment alternatives in the 1950s
for the depression that plaintiff Val Orlikow suffered were verbal
psychotherapy and the possible use of low doses of tranquilizing drugs. The
use of LSD and the "psychic driving" that Mrs. Orlikow underwent were not
accepted forms of treatment, and in Dr. Salzman's opinion, the combination of
those experimental procedures "would cause her to suffer significant and
continuing psychological impairment."
Concerning plaintiff Mary Morrow, Dr. Salzman found no basis for Cameron's
diagnosis of schizophrenia, and concluded that even "had that diagnosis been
correct, standard treatment alternatives at that time would have included low
to moderate doses of anti-psychotic medications, verbal psychotherapy, and the
possible use of electroshock in limited therapeutic dosage if other means of
treatment were not successful." Dr. Salzman continued in his sworn affidavit:
Possibly the most distressing story of all was that of plaintiff Louis
Weinstein as told by his son, psychiatrist Harvey M. Weinstein. After his
father's experiences at the Allan Memorial Institute, Harvey entered medical
school and studied psychiatry in part to try to understand what had happened
to his father. More than anyone else, Harvey understood the magnitude of his
father's loss. Using the full barrage of brainwashing procedures, including
intensive electroshock and LSD, Cameron had "depatterned" Louis Weinstein and
then attempted to "reprogram" his behavior with psychic driving messages.
These intrusive physical procedures caused an organic brain syndrome in Louis
Weinstein, from which he would never recover. Drawing on his observations as
a son and, because his father no longer trusted psychiatrists, as a treating
physician, Harvey Weinstein was prepared to provide trial testimony of minor
psychiatric ailments being exacerbated and compounded by the CIA's
experiments. Dr. Weinstein's sworn affidavit to the Court bore witness to the
harrowing experiments and their tragic aftermath, which converted a life of
success, happiness and family warmth into so much human wreckage. Foreseeing
an effort to exclude Dr. Weinstein's testimony on grounds of bias, we asked
Doctors Joseph and Doyle to review his findings, which they were able to
corroborate wholeheartedly.
Toward the end of the CIA funding, Dr. Cameron wrote a letter to the Agency
front, the Society for the Investigation of Human Ecology, acknowledging his
"great indebtedness" to the Society, describing the assistance rendered by the
Society as "invaluable", and expressing a "considerable sense of indebtedness"
for the funding he had received. Four years later Dr. Cameron left the Allan
Memorial Institute and his successor, Dr. Robert A. Cleghorn, immediately
terminated the experimentation Cameron had conducted. At Cleghorn's request
Dr. Termansen and a colleague conducted a scientific study of the results of
Cameron's depatterning experiments. Dr. Termansen was now prepared to testify
about his study at trial, in particular the following conclusions:
5. New Evidence -- CIA Admissions of Culpability
Even before our clients' suit was filed there had been admissions by the
CIA in Congressional testimony that there was a responsibility on the part of
the Agency toward the MKULTRA victims. Thus, at an August 3, 1977 hearing,
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Inouye asked CIA Director Turner, to
"report back to this committee in 3 months on what the Agency has done to
notify these individuals and institutions, and furthermore, to notify us as to
what steps have been taken to identify victims, and if identified, what you
have done to help them, monetarily or otherwise." Admiral Turner responded,
"All right, sir, I will be happy to." At that same August 3, 1977 hearing,
Senator Kennedy asked CIA Director Turner, "It is your intention to notify the
individuals who have been the subject of the research, is that right, Admiral
Turner? Do you intend to notify those individuals?" To which, Admiral Turner
replied, "Yes."
During the course of documentary discovery we uncovered new admissions made
during the late 1970s by the CIA and the Justice Department. A July 17, 1978
Memorandum prepared by the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department
was important because it concluded that the CIA had a legal duty to find and
notify persons used as unwitting experimental subjects in MKULTRA:
An even more important set of admissions was also secured in documentary
discovery -- an October 31, 1978 memorandum by Assistant CIA General Counsel
William Allard, which specifically assessed the Agency's involvement in the
Montreal experiment and concluded:
Similarly, at his December 13, 1983 deposition, Stansfield Turner, who was
the CIA Director at the time of the first revelations of the Agency's Montreal
experiments, recounted his "dismay at discovering" the MKULTRA activity, which
"seems entirely bizarre." Admiral Turner continued that the program was "one
of the kinds of errors that we must be sure to find a way to prevent
recurring," and that the MKULTRA experiments on unwitting individuals were
unethical and left him "aghast" when he learned of those activities. In
addition, Admiral Turner offered the view at his deposition that the MKULTRA
program was the product of excessive "compartmentation." Finally, in a key
admission for purposes of our allegation that there was a negligent failure to
supervise Gottlieb and Lashbrook, Admiral Turner attributed their excesses to
"inadequate supervision." As he stated it in the original manuscript for his
book, Secrecy and Democracy: The CIA in Transition:
These apologies could potentially break the case wide open. As official
statements by diplomatic representatives of the United States, they were
clearly authoritative admissions that could be used in court. Politically,
the apologies also put the CIA in an untenable situation in Canada. How could
the U.S. contrition expressed in the apologies be reconciled with the CIA's
refusal to aid its Canadian victims when they later came forward?
Additionally, the information that David Orlikow had secured was obviously
only part of the story of the apologies. The U.S. representatives in Ottawa
had obviously been briefed on the MKULTRA Program and told what to say. Both
sides doubtless had notes, correspondence and memoranda concerning their
discussions. All of these were potential sources of additional, detailed
admissions that could bring the case to a rapid conclusion.
Faced with further damaging admissions, the CIA response was to suppress
the additional documentation of the apologies by asserting that disclosure
would damage U.S. national security, and to fight disclosure of Canadian
documents through diplomatic channels. The few sanitized U.S. State
Department documents we obtained in discovery and those of the Canadian
Government that David Orlikow helped us secure through the Canadian Access to
Information Act confirmed that from 1977 to 1979 there had been a series of
discussions between Canada and the United States in which the apologies were
made.36 It was also increasingly clear
that the unnamed U.S. representatives in Ottawa who had apologized included
the CIA Chiefs of Station at our Embassy there. This made the apologies even
more valuable coming as they did from the CIA itself.
Jay Peterzell soon provided public identifications of these CIA officers in Canada.
Published press articles had years ago revealed that Stacey B. Hulse was the CIA's
Ottawa Chief of Station in 1977 and that he had been succeeded by John Kenneth
Knause in 1978. Both men had since returned to the Washington area. We
contacted both Hulse and Knause, told them about the suit by the Canadian
victims of MKULTRA, and asked them to schedule a deposition. Neither man
objected to appearing and testifying, although the now retired Hulse, whose
deposition we wanted to take first, stated that he was undergoing an oral
biopsy in the next few days, and asked if he could contact us in a few weeks
to schedule the deposition after he had recovered and had received the results
of his medical tests. We agreed to this request, and about two weeks later
Hulse called to schedule the deposition, volunteering that he was willing to
appear as soon as the next day. It looked like the whole story about the
apologies was within reach.
The CIA's desperate scramble to prevent this deposition was a monumental
confirmation of the renewed arrogance of the Agency. Upon receiving the
notice for the agreed upon deposition, the CIA intervened, forced its
representation upon Hulse and, in violation of normal court rules, instructed
him that he was not to appear. The result was the same when we subpoenaed
Knause. Over the succeeding months we unsuccessfully sought a Court Order
compelling the testimony of these publicly identified CIA Officials. Refusing
even to confirm or deny the published facts that Hulse and Knause had worked
for the Agency, the CIA asserted that there was no question that we could ask
either man that was not shielded by the national security privilege. With the
CIA offering in camera ex parte affidavits that we were not allowed to see,
much less rebut, our effort to obtain this potentially critical testimony
failed.37
Despite the refusal of the Agency to allow depositions of the officials who
delivered the apologies, after questions were raised in Parliament by our
allies, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney agreed that we would be allowed to take
the testimony of the Canadian official who received the apologies. John G.
Hadwen, Director General of the Canadian Bureau of Security and Intelligence
Liaison, testified that on September 26, 1977, he received an apology for the
Agency's actions. But, when the CIA lawyers in attendance objected to our
further questions, the Canadian Justice Department attorney for Hadwen
instructed him not to confirm that Stacey Hulse had made the apologies or
provide any information of any sort. This Canadian government acquiescence in
the CIA's cover-up of the apologies produced a farcical deposition transcript
that was of limited evidentiary value. At one point in response to our
questions, Hadwen was reduced to reading statements made by his Minister in
the Canadian House of Commons. After hours of questioning, Hadwen testified
that "Mr. Anonymous," had "expressed regret that this should have happened
without the knowledge of the Canadian government" and "he expressed regret at
the nature of the program." No matter what we asked, that was all Hadwen was
permitted to say. The Canadian Government allowed pressure from the CIA to
outweigh the interests of its own citizens, even a Member of Parliament.
__________
22 At a February 7, 1973 hearing Helms was a sworn witness and gave the following testimony:
23 This celebration, where Helms was
greeted with a standing ovation, is recounted in Thomas Powers' comprehensive,
although unauthorized, biography of Richard Helms. T. Poweres, The Man
who Kept the Secrets: Richard Helms & the CIA 304-06 (1979).
24 Others outside the CIA completed the destruction of documents. For example, when we deposed attorney Duncan Cameron, he admitted destroying certain files which his father had taken when leaving Allan Memorial, even though lawsuits were pending against Dr. Cameron's estate at that time. Our research likewise detected no trace of Cameron's CIA connection in the records of the Allen Memorial Institute or the Archives of the Cornell University Medical Center (which provided cover for the front organization that served as a conduit for the Agency's funding of the experimentation at the Allan Memorial Institute).
25 Concealment was so total even inside the CIA that Gottlieb's assistant John Gittinger swore at his deposition that he was not informed of the Olson death, and therefore was not in a position to warn Cameron of the dangers inherent in experimenting with LSD.
26 The U.S. Embassy in Ottawa was similarly deceived by the CIA, which stated in a February 1979 cable that there was "no evidence the SIHE [the Society] or Agency officers gave any hint to McGill or Cameron that a request for funds would be met with a favorable response." The truth, of course, was the exact opposite.
27 471 U.S. 181 (1985).
28 E. Griswold, Secrets not
Worth Keeping, Washington Pose, Feb. 15, 1989.
29 New York Times v. United States,
403 U.S. 713 (1971).
30 At his deposition, Helms committed a "slip" and disclosed the location of an unacknowledged CIA facility on the record. Although there were four CIA lawyers in the room at the time, not one of them objected, called the "slip" to our attention or sought to mark the record. Instead, weeks later when the written transcript of Helms' deposition was ready for filing in Court, the CIA insisted that this information be excised from his testimony. When we objected to the obliteration of anything in Helms
testimony on the public record, a letter was delivered to our office late one night "directing" us to return our copies of the Helms "slip" to the CIA and threatening both of us with prosecution under the Espionage Act if we failed
to do so. We of course refused to be intimidated and informed the Agency that we didn't take any orders from it. The CIA promptly seized upon this as a means to attempt to influence the Judge hearing our case and, after a lengthy series of briefs in which we were portrayed as irresponsible for having asked
Helms questions that led to his "slip", succeeded in securing a Court Order protecting this sensitive and vital "secret." We later learned that this same "secret" information had been published in the Washington Post several years earlier.
31 CIA documents showed that Gottlieb received a letter from Dulles saying he had used "poor judgment," which Helms was instructed to hand carry to Gottlieb and to tell him the letter was "not a reprimand and no personnel file notation was being made." Lashbrook did not even receive this slap on the wrist.
32 This admission, which was truly a "smoking gun" that directly tied Cameron's experimentation to Communist "brainwashing" methods, was unearthed by Dr. Harvey Weinstein, the son of
plaintiff Louis Weinstein, while reviewing Cameron's papers at the Archives of the American Psychiatric Association.
33 We corroborated Hebb's close relationship with the CIA by obtaining in discovery a special CIA security clearance issued to him in the early 1960s.
34 We were impressed by the willingness of these prominent psychiatrists to assist largely without payment.
35 In the Canadian Parliamentary system there is a daily "question period" during which Members from all parties can query Cabinet Ministers of the Government. The Ministers must answer. Over the years, this mechanism (especially when employed by New
Democratic Party Leader Ed Broadbent and his colleague from Vancouver, Svend Robinson) proved to be one of the few effective means of pressing the Ottawa government to support the CIA's Canadian victims.
36 We also had evidence, through an affidavit provided to us by the Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs, that additional apologies were subsequently tendered by U.S. representatives.
37 That the CIA's assertion that some secrecy concern required the concealment of Mr. Hulse's identity as a
retired CIA officer was completely ludicrous was confirmed when he died several years later. His lengthy and prominent Washington Post obituary began by repeating the common knowledge that had been published years earlier; Stacey Hulse had been the CIA Chief of Station in Ottawa in the late
1970s.
More ----
Return to contents ----
Return to Jim Turner's page ----
It quickly becomes apparent to any person who has considerable
experience with classified material that there is massive
overclassification and that the principal concern of the
classifiers is not with national security, but rather with
governmental embarrassment of one sort or the another. There my
be some basis for classification while plans are being made, or
negotiations are going on, but apart from details of weapons
systems, there is very rarely any real risk to current national
security from the publication of facts relating to transactions in
the past, even the fairly recent past.
In 1953 my husband was a distinguished biochemist
working as a civilian employee of the United States
Army at Camp Detrick, Maryland. My husband and three
of his colleagues were given LSD, without warning, by
CIA officials Sidney Gottlieb, Chief of CIA's TSS
Chemical Division and his Deputy, Robert Lashbrook, as
part of the CIA experimental brainwashing program
designated as MKULTRA and operating under the
direction of Richard Helms, Chief of Staff of CIA's
Clandestine Services. Gottlieb and Lashbrook fed the
LSD to my husband and the others in their after-dinner
liqueur without telling them that there was LSD in the
cointreau glass, nor that they were the subject of CIA
experiments.
Mrs. Olson next describes the negligent and reckless behavior of Gottlieb and
Lashbrook after the injurious effects of that LSD experiment became apparent:
When Frank came home on the Saturday following the CIA
experiment, he was uncharacteristically moody and
depressed. He was in great distress and in obvious
need of help. But, instead of being taken to a
psychiatrist in Washington or Maryland, Gottlieb and
Lashbrook took him to an allergist in New York City,
Dr. Harold Abramson, who was working with the CIA on
its LSD experiments. Frank had two sessions with
Abramson. After the first session he returned to this
area, but when he got as far as Bethesda, he told me
on the telephone that he was afraid to return home
because he might do something wrong in front of the
children. So he and Lashbrook returned to New York for
a second session with Abramson. That night he jumped
from a window of a tenth story hotel room in New York
in which he was staying with Lashbrook.
Finally, Mrs. Olson explains the direct link between the LSD and her husband's
death:
My husband was a remarkably stable man. He had never had any psychiatric
problems before he was fed the LSD in 1953. As President Ford put it when he
signed legislation in 1975 providing $750,000 recompense to our family, the
CIA's drug experiments were "the proximate cause of his death." There is no
doubt that CIA-administered LSD is what caused Frank's death.
I wish to join with President Ford in expressing my deepest personal sympathy
and hope that you and your family will also accept my sincere apologies on
behalf of the Central Intelligence Agency for the suffering you and your
family have endured as a result of the untimely loss of your husband in 1953.
The uniform reaction of the employees of the Agency to this disclosure has
been dismay and regret that this could have occurred. I can find no
explanation for why you were not fully informed of the circumstances at the
time and apologize equally for that omission...
The approval of this bill underscores the basic principle that an individual
citizen of this Nation should be protected from unreasonable transgressions
into his personal activities. There should be no doubt that my administration
is opposed to the use of drugs, chemicals, or other substances without
the prior knowledge and consent of the individual affected. At the request
of the family of Dr. Olson, I take this opportunity to highlight this
continuing policy.
These contrite apologies from the highest level of our government made it
clear that there had once been a decision that those injured in MKULTRA should
be compensated.
The Cameron application proposed a mind control research project with no
safeguards, no discussion of risks, dangers and potential
destructiveness ... This is clearly outrageous; callous insensitive, inhuman
pursuit of an idea with no concern for possible destructive effects. It would
be beyond any reasonable doubt that a foundation which supported such a
project could not have had therapeutic expectations from the grant
application.
I knew of the experimental depatterning procedures used by D. Ewen Cameron.
In the early 1950s, the wife of one of my associates sought medical treatment
from Cameron at the Allan Memorial Institute. She was depatterned and after
seeing her I knew that this kind of work was something the Defence Research
Board would have no part in. It was my view at the time and continues to be
that Cameron was not possessed of the necessary sense of humanity to be
regarded as a good doctor. My views of Cameron and the depatterning
procedures were known to him, and I let it be known through Dr. Morton that I
would not look favorably upon any application by Cameron to the Defence
Research Board for psychiatric research. Cameron never applied for Defence
Research Board grants to fund psychiatric research and would never have
received such support had he applied.
In addition, Dr. Solandt was prepared to testify that there was a close
relationship between himself and the CIA:
During the 1950s, the United States Central Intelligence Agency had a
resident representative at the United States Embassy in Ottawa who was
publicly introduced as such. The CIA representative was liaison with the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police and was free to attend Defence Research Board
staff and committee meetings where defence research programs were discussed.
Formal information exchanges with the CIA were made by the RCMP, and the CIA
and Canada exchanged all research information of mutual interest during this
time. The security clearances issued by the Canadian Defence Department
during the 1950s were accepted by any United States agency working in Canada,
including the Central Intelligence Agency.
I know by my discussions both directly with Dr. Hebb and indirectly through
Dr. Morton that during the 1950s, Dr. Hebb had a very low opinion of the
depatterning and other experimental procedures used by Cameron and of
Cameron's prudence in dealing with research subjects.
Cameron's experiments were done without the patient's consent. Cameron was
irresponsible -- criminally stupid, in that there was no reason to expect that
he would get any results from the experiments. Anyone with any appreciation of
the complexity of the human mind would not expect that you could erase an
adult mind and then add things back with this stupid psychic driving. He
wanted to make a name for himself - so he threw his cap over the windmill....
Blumer summarized Hebb's statements about Cameron as "completely scathing",
with Dr. Hebb referring to Cameron and his methods several times as
"criminally stupid."
Cameron stuck to the conventional experiments and paper writing for most of
his life but then he wanted that breakthrough. That was Cameron's fatal flaw
- he wasn't so much driven with wanting to know - he was driven with wanting
to be important - to make that breakthrough - it made him a bad scientist. He
was criminally stupid.
Dr. Hebb: "Look, Cameron was no good as a researcher. He was terrible. He
did not have the faintest notion of how to go about doing experiments or doing
research. But he thought he did."
If Hebb felt this strongly in talking to strangers, we argued, it is clear
what he would have said to the CIA if they had not treated this matter too
casually to warrant interviewing him or anyone else. Indeed the CIA formally
admitted in court papers that, despite its close ties with Dr. Hebb, the
Agency never bothered to ask him about Cameron. Moreover, since Solandt and
Hebb were both working with the CIA in the 1950s, there can be no suggestion
of secrecy reasons for not inquiring of them, only reckless and negligent
indifference to the safety of the subjects of experimentation.
Dr. Hebb: "He was eminent on the basis of politics, psychiatric politics
and university politics. But not on the basis of research."
Dr. Hebb: "Well, that was an awful set of ideas that Cameron was working
with. It had no intellectual demand, it called for no intellectual respect.
If you actually look at what he was doing, and what he wrote, his proposals,
it would make you laugh, that is what I meant being awful, if I had a graduate
student who talked like that I'd throw him out."
Q. You didn't have the slightest interest in Cameron?
Sidney Gottlieb likewise admitted that he had not evaluated the
experimental protocols for the research Cameron would conduct with CIA
funding; that he had not determined whether the procedures would injure
experimental subjects; and that he didn't even know whether anyone at the CIA
had done so. Robert Lashbrook was equally uninterested in the safety of the
subjects of the experiments he was helping to fund:
A. That is absolutely true, sir.
A. No sir.
Q. Did you at any time make any suggestions on any projects on
how to safeguard the experimentees?
A. ...it wasn't felt necessary really to go into a lot of
detail as to exactly how they were handling the subjects...
In general patients would be of low interest.
Q. It is correct, is it not, that Cameron had complete
discretion as to what he would tell the patients in the
experiments that were funded by the CIA?
At his deposition Gittinger, too, displayed a total lack of interest in the
subjects of the Montreal experiments:
Witness and counsel confer)
A. That is correct.
Q. Did you ever make a check on whether Doctor Cameron was
doing it unwittingly?
A. I certainly did not, because I had absolutely no interest in
that area, as far as he was concerned.
Q. You weren't interested a Canadian citizen might be
unwittingly given LSD, with USA money?
A. I was not.Q. Did you ever at any time hear a conversation at the CIA
concerning the questions whether the persons who were
experimented on must be told that they were being
experimented on?...
Indeed, Lashbrook admitted he had not heard "one single thing" about Cameron's
operation after he, Lashbrook, "directed the sending of the money to them."
A. Not that I recall.
...during the 1950s there was a recognized obligation on the part of
entities financing, sponsoring or conducting medical experiment-ation to adopt
ethical standards reflecting the principles set out in the Nuremberg Code,
particularly the informed consent requirement; and to make inquiry and to
ascertain the competence and prudence in dealing with research subjects of
those conducting medical experimentation on their behalf ... by the 1950s it
was clearly irresponsible for a physician to conduct experiments upon patients
without obtaining their voluntary consent to be research subjects.
As the deposition testimony of Gottlieb, Lashbrook and Gittinger made
clear, these ethical principles were mocked by the CIA's conduct in the
MKULTRA program, and the Agency's subsidies to the experimentation performed
upon our clients.
Instead of standard treatment, Mr. Logie underwent a series of
experimental, highly controversial, procedures ... Mr. Logie was not a
suitable subject for any one of the experimental procedures he was subjected
to, if, indeed, anyone would be suited for such procedures. Most certainly,
no one would be suitable to the type of experimental procedures used at Allan
Memorial Institute at that time, unless they had volunteered to undergo those
experimental procedures.
As Dr. Termansen explained, after the experiments Mr. Logie's "existence
could best be termed marginal ... he managed to function, work, and exist, but
barely." And the injurious effects continue to this day; "It may be there is
some basic disturbance of his sleep mechanism, or it appears more likely that,
after the very traumatic treatments he experienced while asleep, he has an
unconscious resistance to sleep."
Mrs. Zimmerman was not a candidate for electroshock therapy, much less the
intensive "depatterning" procedures that were so disruptive as to leave her
incontinent as to bladder and bowel ... the intensive electro-shocks that were
used to "depattern" Mrs. Zimmerman were clearly experimental, as was the
entire "depatterning" procedure that was carried to an extreme in her case.
The nearly two months of drug-induced sleep and over one month of "psychic
driving" Mrs. Zimmerman underwent were equally extreme applications of
clearly experimental procedures ... the experimental "depatterning,"
prolonged drug induced sleep and "psychic driving" procedures used on Mrs.
Zimmerman would inevitably cause injury to her mental and physical health.
As to plaintiff Florence Langleben, who was "depatterned" with intensive
electroshocks and LSD, underwent 43 days of prolonged drug-induced sleep, and
received 32 days of negative "psychic driving" and 11 days of positive
"psychic driving," Dr. Doyle reached similar conclusions:
Mrs. Langleben was not a candidate for electroshock therapy, much less the
intensive "depatterning" procedures ... the intensive electroshocks that were
used to "depattern" Mrs. Langleben were clearly experimental, as was the
entire "depatterning" procedure. The six weeks of drug-induced sleep and six
weeks of "psychic driving" Mrs. Langleben underwent were equally extreme
applications of clearly experimental procedures ... the experimental
"depatterning," prolonged drug induced sleep and "psychic driving" procedures
used on Mrs. Langleben would inevitably cause injury to her mental and
physical health.
Finally, as to plaintiffs Pagé, Langleben and Zimmerman, Dr. Doyle
concluded that "[i]t was clearly irresponsible and unethical, both then and
now, to use experimental procedures ... without obtaining a separate voluntary
consent to undergo experimental procedures."
The use of prolonged drug-induced sleep and the "depatterning" with
intensive electroshocks that Dr. Morrow underwent were not accepted forms of
treatment, then or now. The use of such extreme measures reflects an
experimental orientation derived from "brainwashing" through "depatterning" or
"wiping the mind clear" to be followed by "repatterning" or indoctrination
... the combination of experimental procedures that Dr. Morrow was exposed to
at the Allan Memorial Institute would cause her to suffer significant and
continuing psychological impairment, as well as likely causing continuing
memory deficits and cognitive impairments....
Finally, in Salzman's opinion as to both Mrs. Orlikow and Dr. Morrow, "[i]t
was clearly irresponsible and unethical as well as callous and inhumane, both
then and now, to use experimental procedures ... without obtaining a separate
voluntary consent to undergo experimental procedures."
After interviewing and testing patients selected from a sample of 79
persons who had undergone the "depatterning" procedure, we concluded that the
incidence of memory loss attributable to the intensive electroshock was higher
than that encountered with standard therapeutic electroshock, and that the
"depatterning" procedure, therefore, was not an acceptable form of therapy.
We found that frequent electroshock as used in "depatterning" was associated
with poor clinical outcome, and that the shorter the interval between
electroshocks, the greater was the current memory impairment as seen on the
Wechsler Memory Scale. "Depatterning" is no longer used because of its
damaging effects on cognitive functioning and because it would appear to have
little to offer in terms of improvement over conventional therapeutic
electroshock.
The first question we have addressed is whether there is a legal duty to
notify those MKULTRA subjects who can be reasonably determined to have a
continuing risk of adverse effects on their health as a consequence of their
earlier involvement. While there is no legal authority specifically
addressing this question, we believe that, under the best view of general
legal principles and analogous case law, a duty to notify such individuals
exists in this instance. As a general matter of tort law, the courts and
other legal authorities have found a duty to exist where one party puts
another in danger; even if the former party's conduct is without fault, he is
under a duty to give assistance and to prevent further harm.... As applied
here, this principle would appear to require the CIA, having created the harm
or risk thereof, to notify the individuals as an effort directed at rendering
assistance and preventing further harm.
Despite Admiral Turner's earlier promise and the just quoted authoritative
Justice Department legal opinion, the CIA failed to notify any of our clients
of their unwitting participation in the CIA-funded experiments at Allan
Memorial.
...the substantial funds flowing from this Agency to McGill in support of
the project subsequent to 1956 would appear to preclude the determination that
this Agency was minimally involved within the meaning of the Department of
Justice guidance on this point. The use of the drugs identified and
"particularly intensive electroshocks" as part of the methodology suggests
that long-term after-effects may have been involved. Also, because the
patients selected "were almost entirely those suffering from extremely
long-term and intractable psychoneurotic conditions" it is doubtful that any
meaningful form of consent is involved in this case.
But even more productive were oral depositions. Thus, on January 19, 1983
John Gittinger testified concerning the CIA involvement with Cameron as
follows: "Now that was a foolish mistake. We shouldn't have done it ... as I
said, I'm sorry we did it. Because it turned out to be a terrible mistake."
Gittinger concluded that if he had it to do over again, "I would refuse to
support him or be interested in him."
How could this have happened? I believe compartmentation was responsible.
Because of compartmentation there was inadequate supervision of those who,
with good intent, concocted this absurd scheme. The unit conducting the
experiment simply had such autonomy that not many outsiders could look in and
ask what was going on. In all walks of life people get too close to their work
and need someone with a somewhat detached viewpoint to take an occasional look
at where they are going. In this case the system just could not provide that
kind of detached critical review and a few well-intentioned, but terribly
misguided, individuals badly abused the CIA's privilege of keeping secret so
much of what it does.
The most significant admissions, however, were the apologies the CIA
tendered to the Canadian Government. At the time of the initial public
disclosure in August of 1977 that the CIA had financed Cameron's experiments
in Montreal, opposition Member of Parliament Andrew Brewin asked questions
about this American interference in the internal affairs of Canada.
35 As a result of these inquiries, official protests by Canada
were lodged with the United States Embassy in Ottawa and the CIA Chiefs of
Station resident there. While we were working on the court fight in Washington,
we asked David Orlikow, the M.P. husband of plaintiff Val Orlikow, to pursue these protests
and the U.S. response in Ottawa. In reply to David's inquiries, the Canadian
Government stated that as a result of its protests, unnamed U.S.
representatives had "expressed regret" for the CIA funding of Cameron and had
offered assurances that such activities would not occur again.
21 That the MKULTRA records were destroyed to conceal the wrongdoing of Helms and
Gottlieb was confirmed by the fact the others in the Agency -- Gottlieb's deputy and the Chief of the CIA Records Center -- had tried unsuccessfully to prevent the destruction. Our efforts to learn the identities of these individuals and to obtain their testimony were defeated by the CIA's refusal to allow depositions on spurious national security grounds.
Senator Symington: Did you try in the Central Intelligence Agency to overthrow the government of Chile?
Allende was shot to death in the coup d'etat that installed the murderous Pinochet dictatorship.
Mr. Helms: No, sir.
Senator Symington: Did you have money passed to the opponents of Allende?
Mr. Helms: No, sir.
Senator Symington: So the stories you were involved in that war are wrong?
Mr. Helms: Yes, sir. I said to Senator Fulbright many months ago that if the
Agency had really gotten in behind the other candidates and spent a lot of money
and so forth the election might have come out differently.