Special Hearings — Chemical And Biological Warfare Hearings — 1998-07-08

UNKNOWN: I can agree with that but I'm focusing entirely on methaqualone for example, cannabis as a, I'm just talking about that aspect.  I can understand that CR is the sort of a thing that we know but cannabis and methaqualone, I mean it's not in the common mind as a crowd control measure.  We know it as a substance of terrible abuse out there.

DR KNOBEL: No, I agree with you it's not in the public mind and maybe not even in my mind but I was concerned about this when I spoke, I said this morning that I had spoken to Don Marley and Graham Pearson who are world experts and I agree with what the Chairman says.  I was the one who said to the President: "You cannot trust the finding of these two demarches", because it was really one demarche but two different governments that they were dealing with.  I agree fully with what the Chairman says there and I advised government accordingly.
 At the level that I discussed it with the two scientists, and I had them separately in my room, the two of them together separate from the rest of the team, the intelligence people were not there and the Ambassador and the High Commissioner were not there, and then we had a different kind of discussion and I asked them: "Are you satisfied with the programme that we had an does it make sense"?   And they both indicated that they were totally satisfied and that it was a very sophisticated programme.  I said so yesterday to Professor Folb, because it was a point that also concerns me, that's why I'm discussing it with him. That's why I'm saying, the use of those substances as potential incapacitating agents is recognised and it's accepted, maybe not by the public or you and I, I agree, but certainly internationally.  
 We have the evidence of General Neethling that they in America even look at LSD as a possibly incapacitating agent.

UNKNOWN: Yes, well thank you, there's a lot of food for thought here, thank you.

DR KNOBEL: Thank you Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: We've reached a stage where we should take the lunch adjournment and it is clear that for the right of reasons we are not able to stop here and now because I believe that is a right that is in inherent to Doctor Knobel's legal representatives to put certain things in perspective by way of re-examination.  We should then take the lunch adjournment.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairperson, sorry to interrupt.  There will be no re-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: No re-examination.

MR DU PLESSIS: I don't know if that helps the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I don't know, we then have Mr Kennedy's affidavit which we all have had sight of, I don't know whether in your view it raises issues in relation to which you would like to respond.  You can take a quick consultation on that question.

MR VALLY: We will put it on record, so the affidavit will be part of the record of this hearing.

DR KNOBEL: Mr Chairman, clearly I would have liked to have had that read into the record.

CHAIRPERSON: It will be read into the record.

DR KNOBEL: Yes, but I mean in public.  But under the circumstances I will accept your ruling in this regard and we don't have to read it in public.

MR VALLY: Maybe as a compromise, because General Knobel doesn't seem to be happy, which particular paragraphs are of relevance to him that he wants to be read in public because there hasn't been a ruling by the Chairperson as such but it is part of our record.  Also we will release it to the press.

DR KNOBEL: In that case I think we can leave it Mr Chairman, and I'm happy, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Now can I understand where are we?

MR VALLY: We are through.