In 1977 the United States reached a significant turning point in its history. For the first time, the U.S. Army admitted carrying out hundreds of chemical and biological warfare tests, including at least 25 that targeted civilian populations. Previously classified records show that between 1951 and 1967, on at least 48 occasions, the Army used disease causing microbes in open air tests and, that on at least 31 other occasions, anti-crop substances were knowingly discharged into the environment.

Of course, all of this was done in the name of National Security. However, a more disturbing element was thrown into the mix with a 1985 U.S. Supreme Court decision. That decision essentially absolved the U.S. military from any liability in cases where the military might be caught experimenting on unknowing and unwilling human subjects. In fact, the Court's decision did not differentiate between the case of a single experiment, which was at the heart of the case under review, and broader actions which military commanders might determine to undertake under the terms of liberally interpreted orders.

In its decision, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court determined that actions against the military would tend to disrupt the military chain of command. This element was the key point of concern rather than any legal foundations which might have been espoused. Thus, anything which military commanders ordered, which might even remotely be covered by the broader umbrella of the scope and authority of the military mission, was not redressable in the courts. In fact, the military was essentially absolved from all past wrongdoing while at the same time being given a green light to undertake new activities so long as such actions did not violate their orders. It was a decision which shocked fellow conservative, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor who, in an impassioned dissent, cited the principles of fundamental human rights, and the concepts formulated after the Nuremberg War Crime Tribunals, as ample reason to hold military commanders culpable for their misdeeds.

We should already know, however, that human experimentation in the United States is not news. The infamous Tuskegee Study, where 400 black men with syphilis were left untreated, some for as long as 40 years, was only discontinued after it became public. More recently, we have seen that many more people were victims of radiation experiments which were conducted without required disclosure by our own Atomic Energy Commission. However, one of the most disturbing experiments was undertaken during the 1930's where a single pathologist undertook studies in which he knowingly infected his human subjects with cancer. This physician, Dr. Cornelious Rhoads of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Investigations, undertook his experiments with little concern for his patients. In fact, Dr. Rhoads' attitude about his subjects was chronicled in a letter which later served as the basis for a criminal investigation. With regard to the subjects and location of his experiments in Puerto Rico, Dr. Rhoads wrote:

        "What the island needs is not public health
         work, but a tidal wave or something to totally 
         exterminate the population."

It was the work and influence of Dr. Cornelius Rhoads which serves as the foundation for the film ENEMIES WITHIN. This suspense/mystery simply takes a look at a similar situation, and updates the time and place. Where some might see great conspiracies rising from governmental abuses, ENEMIES WITHIN examines a system which makes it possible for a few people to have a drastic impact on society. ENEMIES WITHIN looks at a man such as Dr. Rhoads, who with a little power and influence, might be able to spread diseases which target narrow groups. It examines the way in which our own loyalties can be used against us.

In the case of Dr. Rhoads, the man revealing the charges against him later claimed that he was being subjected to radiation experiments after his arrest during the Puerto Rican Nationalists insurrection in 1950. Subsequent to his release from prison, the man's health deteriorated, and he died a short time later. It has only been within the last few years that we've learned that the Atomic Energy Commission did indeed experiment on unwitting prisoners, hospital patients, and soldiers. Dr. Rhoads achieved his revenge for the charges made against him. But the question remains, how many other 'like thinking' individuals do we have defending our National Security? How many others may have been placed in positions of trust and power without oversight to prevent their abuse of power? The Supreme Court may have given some a way to fulfill their own visions, just as it appears Dr. Rhoads was able to do.

RETURN TO:

	ENEMIES WITHIN POSTER

	ABOUT ENEMIES WITHIN

	PRODUCTION INFORMATION

	THE FILM MAKERS

	THE CREDITS
		

	BACK TO TOP		PRODUCTION INFORMATION

	The MovieLand Web	INDEPENDENT FILM LINKS

Your COMMENTS & QUESTIONS are encouraged!