RE: OPERATION STAR GATE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00789R003300230001-0
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 21, 1998
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: December 11, 1992
• Content Type: MEMO

Approved For Release 2000/08/ 003300230001-0
M E M O RAND U M
SG1J TO:
SG1J FROM:
RE: Operation Stargate
DATE: 11 December 1992
1. Background. You informed me that AFMIC was to assume control
of DTI-S and its Operation Stargate. You asked my opinion about
whether Operation Stargate was in compliance with the laws
concerning human experimentation.
2. Sources. I reviewed the DIA paper on parapsychology at Tab A
and the chronology of human experimentation issues of Operation
Stargate's predecessors at Tab B. I interviewed the director of
SG1J DTI-S, and reviewed some of his historical files on
the topic. I also discussed the matter with DIA Assistant General
SG1J Counsel I did not perform a detailed analysis of
DTI-S's onal files or contractor records, not did I
perform an in-depth analysis of human experimentation regulations.
3. References.
a. Executive order 12333, Paragraph 2.10, 8 Dec 81, "United
States Intelligence Activities", Tab C.
b. 45 Code of Federal Regulations Part 46, 8 Mar 83, Dept of
Health & Human Services, National Institutes of Health Office for
Protection From Research Risks, "Protection of Human Subjects", Tab
D.
c. Federal Register, Vol. 56, Number 117, 18 Jun 91, "Federal
Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects", Tab E.
d. Department of Defense Directive 3216.2, 7 Jan 83,
"Protection of Human Subjects in DoD Supported Research", Tab F.
e. Department of Defense Directive 5240.1, Procedure 13,
December, 1982, "Department of Defense Procedures Governing
Activities of Department of Defense Components that Affect U.S.
Persons", Tab G.
4. Findings of Fact. An Operation Stargate contractor is
conducting human parapsychology testing; the contract requires that
the informed consent of human subjects be obtained, and it appears
that the contractor does this. DTI-S personnel are conducting
parapsychological training as well as episodic operations in
support of various agencies including DEA and DOE.
In its early years, the operation was also scrupulous in observing
Approved For Release 2000/08iQ., RD~-W7J9R003300230001-0
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 L AD903300230001-0
related procedural safeguards of an advisory panel review and
annual reauthorization. Since the operation left INSCOM's control
there has been no request for reauthorization. It appears that
DTI-S does not conduct its own advisory panel, but that it may rely
on its contractor to do so.
5. Discussion.
SG1J
a. . There was some doubt about whether or not operation
Stargate's activities constituted human experimentation at all. An
early opinion suggested that they did not, Tab H. However, a later
opinion by General Counsel Spurlock took the opposite position, Tab
I. In an abundance of caution, it was decided to treat operation
Stargate's activities as if they constituted human experimentation.
This led to annual reauthorization such as at Tab J and advisory
panel review such as at Tab K.
b. Assuming that Operation Stargate's activities constitute
human experimentation, Executive Order 12333 requires adherence to
the HHS regulations. These call for well-documented informed
consent of human subjects and review by an advisory panel. These
rules are specifically applied to the Department of Defense by DoD
Directive 3216.2. The Department of Defense requires the further
safeguard of high-level approval before human experimentation can
take place, (Paragraph C.2., Procedure 13, DoD Directive 5240.1.)
It is not clear how often this approval must be obtained, or how
broadly the approval can be applied.
6. Conclusions. Operation Stargate seems to be in substantial
compliance with the most prominent human experimentation
regulation, informed consent. Further confirmation is called for
on this point. Further investigation is also required on the
advisory panel review and DoD approval issues. AFMIC should obtain
the documented concurrence of DIA General Counsel in any legal
positions that AFMIC takes on this subject.
7. Miscellaneous.
a. and I discussed documents contained in the DTI-S
materials which were mislabelled as TOP SECRET; they are included
at Tab L.
b. Additional copies of documents received from DTI-S files
which I reviewed but did not refer to in this memorandum are
collectively included at Tab M.
Approved For Release 2000/08/09.-': 03300230001-0
NA ;L.