Editing MKUltra (section)

==Legal issues involving informed consent==
The revelations about the CIA and the Army prompted a number of subjects or their survivors to file lawsuits against the federal government for conducting experiments without informed consent. Although the government aggressively, and sometimes successfully, sought to avoid legal liability, several plaintiffs did receive compensation through court order, out-of-court settlement, or acts of Congress. Frank Olson's family received $750,000 by a special act of Congress, and both President Ford and CIA director [[William Colby]] met with Olson's family to apologize publicly.

Previously, the CIA and the Army had actively and successfully sought to withhold incriminating information, even as they secretly provided compensation to the families. One subject of army drug experimentation, James Stanley, an army sergeant, brought an important, albeit unsuccessful, suit. The government argued that Stanley was barred from suing under the [[Feres doctrine]].

In 1987, the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] affirmed this defense in a 5–4 decision that dismissed Stanley's case: ''[[United States v. Stanley]]''.<ref>''[[United States v. Stanley]]'', {{ussc|483|669|1987}}</ref> The majority argued that "a test for liability that depends on the extent to which particular suits would call into question military discipline and decision making would itself require judicial inquiry into, and hence intrusion upon, military matters." In dissent, Justice [[William J. Brennan, Jr.|William Brennan]] argued that the need to preserve military discipline should not protect the government from liability and punishment for serious violations of [[United States Bill of Rights|constitutional rights]]:

{{blockquote|The medical trials at Nuremberg in 1947 deeply impressed upon the world that experimentation with unknowing human subjects is morally and legally unacceptable. The United States Military Tribunal established the Nuremberg Code as a standard against which to judge German scientists who experimented with human subjects... [I]n defiance of this principle, military intelligence officials{{nbsp}}[...] began surreptitiously testing chemical and biological materials, including LSD.}}

Justice [[Sandra Day O'Connor]], writing a separate dissent, stated:

{{blockquote|No judicially crafted rule should insulate from liability the involuntary and unknowing human experimentation alleged to have occurred in this case. Indeed, as Justice Brennan observes, the United States played an instrumental role in the criminal prosecution of Nazi officials who experimented with human subjects during the Second World War, and the standards that the Nuremberg Military Tribunals developed to judge the behavior of the defendants stated that the 'voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential{{nbsp}}[...] to satisfy moral, ethical, and legal concepts.' If this principle is violated, the very least that society can do is to see that the victims are compensated, as best they can be, by the perpetrators.}}

In another lawsuit, Wayne Ritchie, a former [[United States Marshal]], after hearing about the project's existence in 1990, alleged the CIA laced his food or drink with LSD at a 1957 Christmas party which resulted in his attempting to commit a robbery at a bar and his subsequent arrest.<ref name=":0">{{Citation |title=Ritchie v. US |date=May 18, 2006 |url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4116143957486702433&q=Wayne+Ritchie,+Plaintiff-appellant,+v.+United+States+of+America;+Robert+v.+Lashbrook,+in+His+Individual+and+Official+Capacities;ira+Feldman,+in+His+Individual+and+Official+Capacities,+Defendants-appellees&hl=en&as_sdt=2006 |volume=451 |pages=1019 |access-date=2023-01-20}}</ref> While the government admitted it was, at that time, drugging people without their consent and that Ritchie's behavior was typical of someone on LSD, U.S. District Judge [[Marilyn Hall Patel]] found Ritchie could not prove he was one of MKUltra's victims or that LSD caused his robbery attempt, and dismissed the case in 2005.<ref>{{cite case|url=https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.28985/gov.uscourts.cand.28985.250.0.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.28985/gov.uscourts.cand.28985.250.0.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|case=Ritchie v. United States of America |court=United States District Court, Northern District of California |format=PDF |id=No. C 00-3940 MHP. |section=Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law Re: Motion for Judgment on Partial Findings |access-date=2021-04-20 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Egelko |first1=Bob |title=Bid to sue over LSD rejected |url=https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SAN-FRANCISCO-Bid-to-sue-over-LSD-rejected-2687007.php |website=SFGate |publisher=Hearst Communications |access-date=28 September 2019 |date=13 April 2005}}</ref><ref name=":0" />