Penn Undergraduate Law Journal
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs

The Roundtable


Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.


When Militaries Wage War On Their Own Soldiers

3/3/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
By Tanner Bowen

Tanner Bowen is a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania studying business.
​

War often elicits unthinkable acts of atrocity against other human beings.  Throughout human history, and specifically starting with World War II, the horrors of war have become even more monstrous because of the growing number of civilian casualties as a result of warfare.  This reality of war often begs the question: “How can we ensure the safety of our civilian population amidst current developments in chemical and biological war tactics?”
One such response was taken by the United States government through subjecting human participants to various chemicals.
Operating at Edgewood Arsenal near the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland, the U.S. Army Chemical Corps conducted a set of classified tests on human subjects during the height of the Cold War, between from 1948 to 1975.  The goal of these tests was to examine how each experiment participant would react to the different tactics of biological and chemical warfare.  Some subjects were administered mustard gas, PCP, LSD, sarin, and numerous other chemicals. [1]  
The participants would voluntarily sign up to be test subjects in these studies. After numerous years of experimentation, the U.S. Army developed policies governing these participants.  In 1962, AR 70-25 was adopted, which prescribed policies relating to the volunteers.  The requirements of the regulation stipulated that the participant be told the nature of the experiment to which the person was to be subjected, as well as be fully informed about any health effects that might arise due to these experiments.

The Army ceased its experiments in 1975  after a mounting public concern, and in 1988, it amended AR 70-25, stating that the Surgeon General has the right to order medical follow-up after these experiments took place, as well as authorizing all volunteers “necessary medical care for injury or disease that is a proximate result of their participation in research.”

In a recent case accepted by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Court heard the complaints of numerous Army veterans who were Edgewood Arsenal test subjects during the height of human experimentation in the 20th century.  The plaintiffs in this case sued the Department of Defense, the CIA, and the VA, arguing that the Army is required, on an ongoing basis, to notify further notify test subjects about updated health consequences of the chemical testing they were subjected to.  Additionally, the Army is expected to provide medical care for conditions caused by their participation in the research experiments.  

In Vietnam Veterans of America v. Central Intelligence Agency, the Ninth Circuit heard a cross appeal from the district court, which ruled that the Army was required to continuously update former test subjects about potential health complications related to their experiments. However, the Army was not required to provide medical care because most test subjects were veterans who were treated under the authority of the VA.

The Ninth Circuit upheld and reversed the District Court’s judgement.  The Court ruled that the Army was required to continuously update patients in terms of new health effects since prior agency-related policies had explicitly said so.  Additionally, a court can compel a governmental agency to act if the agency action is “...unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.” [2]  Up to this point, the Army had developed a policy in the 1980s that mandated a duty to warn/inform.  

Secondly, on the mandatory medical care issue, the Ninth Circuit found this issue to be particularly important since the Army does not provide medical care to individuals who are not retirees of the military, medical retirees, or reservists/active duty military.  In the 1988 update to AR 70-25, the U.S. Army included in that “volunteers are authorized necessary medical care for injury or disease that is a proximate result of their participation in the research.”  In fact, the contentious point was not that the Army shouldn’t provide medical care to volunteers, but only to volunteers of potential future experiments.  In fact, if the Army had its way, it would not provide medical care to the thousands of surviving participants who were subjected to experiments prior to 1988.  The Ninth Circuit ruled that there is nothing within the text of the statute that would indicate that medical care ends whenever the experiment formally ends.

But what stands a larger and more prominent issue here is the blatant ethical conundrum involving whether an agency that subjected volunteers to painful experiments should be responsible for the medical care and information distributed to those participants in relation to the research conducted.  At the time, the Army seemed to develop policies with the former and future test subjects in mind.  But, upon further examination and litigation, we end up seeing an agency that is trying to shirk its responsibilities that it unequivocally took on at an earlier date.  Indeed, this case just highlights that despite the numerous legal corporate and private-sector ethics courses that one might take, the government and its respective agencies are not immune from these same issues.

​

[1] “Secrets of Edgewood.” The New Yorker. 2012. Accessed February 20, 2016.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/secrets-of-edgewood

[2] 5 U.S. Code § 706
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/706

Photo Credit: Flickr User Steve Montana Photography

The opinions and views expressed through this publication are the opinions of the designated authors and do not reflect the opinions or views of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, our staff, or our clients.



0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.


    Categories

    All
    Aaron Tsui
    Akshita Tiwary
    Alana Bess
    Alana Mattei
    Albert Manfredi
    Alexander Saeedy
    Alexandra Aaron
    Alexandra Kanan
    Alexandra Kerrigan
    Alice Giannini
    Alicia Augustin
    Alicia Kysar
    Ally Kalishman
    Ally Margolis
    Alya Abbassian
    Amanda Damayanti
    Anika Prakash
    Anna Schwartz
    Arshiya Pant
    Ashley Kim
    Astha Pandey
    Audrey Pan
    Benjamin Ng'aru
    Brónach Rafferty
    Bryce Klehm
    Cary Holley
    Catherine Tang
    Christina Gunzenhauser
    Christine Mitchell
    Christopher Brown
    Clarissa Alvarez
    Cole Borlee
    Connor Gallagher
    Dan Spinelli
    Dan Zhang
    David Katz
    Davis Berlind
    Derek Willie
    Dhilan Lavu
    Edgar Palomino
    Edna Simbi
    Ella Jewell
    Ella Sohn
    Emma Davies
    Esther Lee
    Evelyn Bond
    Filzah Belal
    Frank Geng
    Gabrielle Cohen
    Gabriel Maliha
    Georgia Ray
    Graham Reynolds
    Habib Olapade
    Hailie Goldsmith
    Haley Son
    Hannah Steinberg
    Harshit Rai
    Hennessis Umacta
    Henry Lininger
    Hetal Doshi
    Ingrid Holmquist
    Iris Zhang
    Irtaza Ali
    Isabela Baghdady
    Ishita Chakrabarty
    Jack Burgess
    Jessica "Lulu" Lipman
    Joe Anderson
    Jonathan Lahdo
    Jonathan Stahl
    Joseph Squillaro
    Justin Yang
    Kaitlyn Rentala
    Kanishka Bhukya
    Katie Kaufman
    Kelly Liang
    Keshav Sharma
    Ketaki Gujar
    Khlood Awan
    Lauren Pak
    Lavi Ben Dor
    Libby Rozbruch
    Lindsey Li
    Luis Bravo
    Lyan Casamalhuapa
    Lyndsey Reeve
    Madeline Decker
    Maja Cvjetanovic
    Maliha Farrooz
    Marco DiLeonardo
    Margaret Lu
    Matthew Caulfield
    Michael Keshmiri
    Michael Merolla
    Mina Nur Basmaci
    Muskan Mumtaz
    Natalie Peelish
    Natasha Darlington
    Natasha Kang
    Nathan Liu
    Nayeon Kim
    Nicholas Parsons
    Nicholas Williams
    Nicole Greenstein
    Nicole Patel
    Nihal Sahu
    Omar Khoury
    Owen Voutsinas Klose
    Owen Voutsinas-Klose
    Paula Vekker
    Pheby Liu
    Pragat Patel
    Rachel Bina
    Rachel Gu
    Rachel Pomerantz
    Rebecca Heilweil
    Regina Salmons
    Sajan Srivastava
    Samantha Graines
    Sandeep Suresh
    Sanjay Dureseti
    Sarah Simon
    Saranya Das Sharma
    Saranya Sharma
    Sasha Bryski
    Saxon Bryant
    Sean Foley
    Sebastian Bates
    Serena Camici
    Shahana Banerjee
    Shannon Alvino
    Shiven Sharma
    Siddarth Sethi
    Sneha Parthasarathy
    Sneha Sharma
    Sophie Lovering
    Steven Jacobson
    Suaida Firoze
    Suprateek Neogi
    Takane Shoji
    Tanner Bowen
    Taryn MacKinney
    Thomas Cribbins
    Todd Costa
    Tyler Larkworthy
    Tyler Ringhofer
    Vatsal Patel
    Vikram Balasubramanian
    Vishwajeet Deshmukh
    Wajeeha Ahmad
    Yeonhwa Lee

    Archives

    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    September 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    May 2023
    March 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    September 2022
    June 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.