Analysis of MKULTRA, 1977 Joint Hearing (Part 6)

by Dr. Jeffrey Russell, PhD

[First Round of Questioning of Admiral Stansfield Turner by Senator Schweiker]

Schweiker: Admiral Turner, I would like to discuss the contribution to the building fund of a private medical
institution. You stated this information was available to the Church committee. I served as a member of
this committee and you are stating that this information was made available at that time?
Turner: Yes, that is my understanding.
Schweiker: This report had to be viewed at Langley and notes taken on its contents. All we have are some
notes taken by the staff.
Turner: My understanding was that Mr. Maxwell was shown the parts of the report that indicated the
contribution was made.
Schweiker: I think there was a serious flaw in the way that the IG report was handled. Details are unclear
because we were not allowed to have a copy of the report. Does it concern you that we used a subterfuge
which resulted in the use of Federal construction grant funds to finance facilities for these sorts of
experiments on our own people? Isn’t there something basically wrong with that?
Turner: I certainly believe there is, but I am not aware of the thinking that went into that decision at that
time.
Schweiker: Well, I think those of us that worked on similar laws would have a rather different opinion on
the legal intent of Congress in passing laws to provide hospital construction project money. These funds
were not intended for this. It reminds me of the shellfish toxin situation from the Church hearings. The
Public Health Service was used to produce a deadly poison with Public Health money.
Turner: The CIA’s contribution was used to build the hospital. The CIA then put more money into a
foundation that conducted the research in the hospital.
Schweiker: The money was used to build the building where the drug experiments were carried on, were
they not?
Turner: It would seem that was the intent, although we have no proof the experiments were carried out.
Schweiker: Why else would the CIA spend the money if they derived no benefit from it?
Turner: I certainly think the CIA expected to benefit from it but there is no evidence supporting that.
Schweiker: There must have been some good benefits at stake. The Atomic Energy Commission was to
bear part of the costs and when they backed out of the deal, the CIA picked up their costs.
Turner: You are absolutely right. I’m only saying that I cannot substantiate that there actually was a benefit
derived.
Schweiker: The agreement states that the CIA would have 1/6 of the space in the wing. I can’t believe that
space was just empty and not used.
Turner: Sir, I am not disputing you at all. I am saying there is no evidence to validate what went on there.
Schweiker: But your agreement states that the CIA will have access to 1/6 of the space for research.
Mr. Brody: Senator, you are right there is a mention of 1/6 but that has to do with planning. There are no
subsequent reports of what happened after construction.
Schweiker: I read in the New York Times that some MKULTRA experiments involved an arrangement with
the Federal Bureau of Narcotics to test LSD surreptitiously on unwitting patrons in bars in New York and
San Francisco. Some of the subjects became violently ill and were hospitalized. Can you describe what
we were doing there and how it was carried out? I assume it was through a safe house operation.
Turner: These were carried out in safe houses by three individuals as stated previously. We really don’t
have many details of the operation.
Schweiker: Well, the subjects were unwitting. You can infer that much, right?
Turner: Right.
Schweiker: If you happened to be at the wrong bar at the wrong time, then you got it.
Mr. Brody: Senator, contacts were made in bars and then the people may have been invited to the safe
houses. There is no indication, the drugging took place in the bars.
Turner: We are trying to be precise with you and not draw inferences. There are 6 cases out of the 149
where we can substantiate there was unwitting testing, some of which involved safe houses.
Schweiker: Of course, after a few drinks, it is questionable whether informed consent has any meaning.
Turner: Well, I don’t have any indication that drinking was involved.
Senator Inouye: Your time is up, Senator.
[End of Senator Schweiker’s first round of questioning]