The following research may provide us with the national and international means we need in order to systematically eliminate abuse in the teen help industry. However, the results of the research seem too good to be true, and that makes me immediately question its value.
As such, I would greatly appreciate any and all feedback and extensive scrutiny of the research to make sure it is, in fact, valid. Please post such criticisms so that all can see them, and so that I needn’t email masses of people all the corrections. However, please keep the criticism helpful, scholarly, and constructive and please, cite sources whenever you can. Also note that, if something is discovered that completely undermines the research, I welcome it: it is better to know the actual situation than to chase ghosts in the dark.
If you do not want to read all of the data online, a printable version is available. Please send an email with the subject “research copy request” to thunderhawk255@yahoo.com. The file will then be sent to you as an attachment.
I strongly urge everyone to read all of the data; if the research is not read in its entirety, many will lose the impact of the findings. However, if you do not have the time available to read everything, jump to the “Recommendations” and “Evidentiary Requirements” sections to get the basics of the findings.
If you have questions, please feel free to ask.
Sincerely,
Adam Zarnowski
Published February 5th, 2009,
In memoriam of the one-month anniversary of the last detainee leaving Tranquility Bay
The purpose of this research is to provide a realistic outlook on and review of various methods and statutes that we can potentially use to eliminate the problems present in the behavior modification industry, be it in the United States or among the international community. It is being submitted for further review and, more importantly, possible action based upon its findings.
I will be addressing the following issues as they apply to the problems posed by the behavior modification industry:
·The International Criminal Court (ICC)
·Crimes against humanity
·The United Nations Security Council
·The Convention on the Rights of a Child (CRC)
·United States human trafficking laws
·INTERPOL
·The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
·The Geneva Conventions
·War crimes
·Possible support organizations
Please note that the “foundation-stone” parts of the law upon which I have based my conclusions and interpretations have been triple-checked with lawyers and legal experts, each time resulting in agreement with my conclusions and interpretations. Nonetheless, I acknowledge that I am not a lawyer, and errors in judgment, interpretation, and/or conclusions may exist despite my repeated checking with legal counsel.
It would be a major understatement to say that domestically-owned, foreign-soil behavior modification facilities now face some tough legal problems and international pressure. In addition, domestic facilities may apparently also be brought to task surprisingly easily. The methodology varies, but it appears that we have legitimate legal standing and the means at our disposal to end abuse and bring to justice those who have escaped its reach for so long.
Perhaps the most important, yet simple, idea confirmed during the process of this research is that the law depends on where you are, not who you are or where you are from. You are bound to your host country’s laws – this includes international conventions and agreements that the host country has ratified. Even though U.S. nationals may be affected, U.S. laws – and agreements that we as a country have or have not agreed to – do not come into play. The laws of the state in which you are in determine what you can and cannot do.
Key Definitions for the Purpose of this Research:
--- Foreign soil facility:
A behavior modification facility that is operated on foreign soil, but that is domestically owned.
--- Behavior modification facility:
A wilderness program, residential treatment center, therapeutic boarding school, boot camp, etc.
This will potentially grant us crimes against humanity charges (and possibly war crimes), but this may depend on who are member countries. We will need former client testimonies or other evidence to send in to get investigations going. This may also reach into the U.S. and allow us to go after criminals on our own soil, but this can definitely affect those living and operating on foreign soil.
Both the ICC definition of “crimes against humanity” (which is the only definition we need to worry about in order to get charges filed) and the UN’s general definition of the matter apply here; all we need to establish really is that the crime is “widespread,” which can be accomplished rather easily given the situation most of these facilities and their owner companies are in.
“The Rome Statute Explanatory Memorandum states that crimes against humanity "are particularly odious offences in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. However, murder, extermination, torture, rape, political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice. Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of falling into the category of crimes under discussion."”
The Rome Statute established the ICC, but the United States never ratified the Statute. Note that in order for a UN agreement to be binding, a state must ratify it. The United States has signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child, but it has not ratified it; and therefore the CRC has no influence in the United States, as we are all too aware. Signing and ratifying an agreement or statute are two entirely separate processes.
For the sake of not being redundant and taking up 30 additional pages of text, the actual documents detailing what constitutes a crime against humanity can be found here – this validates the condensed Wikipedia citation below.
“For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack[14]:
(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.”
Clearly, the torture [part (f)], rape [part (g)], and illegal imprisonment [part (e)] of the above possible acts that constitute crimes against humanity are applicable to the situation at hand. Enforced disappearance [part (i)] may also be applicable, as may persecution [part (h)] in regard to religion, gender, and any other applicable identifiable group subject to persecution. Murder [part (a)] may also be applicable in certain instances.
To support a charge alleging crimes against humanity, we need to document the abuse over a wide spectrum of facilities (and/or show how it is a widespread action against a civilian population [those under 18] as stated by the ICC Wikipedia quotation above). We can go with “wide-spread” or “systematic” here: both fit the charge.
In regard to the definition of a widespread or systematic attack, the ICC states that crimes against humanity may be occurring, “…if the offense was part of a widespread or systematic practice, which must at least be tolerated by a state, government, or entity holding de facto authority over a territory, be state-sponsored, or else, be part of a governmental policy.49
…Systematic practice is at hand if acts are carried out pursuant to an explicit or implicit plan or policy.50 Such a policy can be deduced from the manner in which an act occurs. Namely, it suffices that a single act, committed within the framework of a systematic or widespread attack, has the potential to demonstrate such a policy.51 If a multiplicity of victims is targeted, we talk about a widespread attack.52 Such a large-scale attack encompasses the cumulative effect of a series of inhuman acts to a singular effect of one act of extraordinary magnitude. As for the mens rea element the perpetrator has to have knowledge of the wider context in which his acts occur. However, he does not need to have a concrete idea of the consequences of his acts.”
The “act” of a crime against humanity as it applies is most certainly tolerated by all governments involved (The United States, Mexico, etc). A multiplicity of victims – survivors – are also certainly involved.
Citing the ICC documents: “Attack directed against a civilian population’ in these context elements isunderstood to mean a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in article 7, paragraph 1, of the Statute against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack. The acts need not constitute a military attack. It is understood that “policy to commit such attack” requires that the Stateororganization actively promote or encourage such an attack against a civilian population.”
Clearly, the state itself does not have to promote or encourage a policy constituting an attack; an organization, such as WWASPS, may be the culprit. However, one of the stronger tenets of this item – yet probably a very strong one – is that the state, the United States of America, may be either an accessory to or the perpetrator of crimes against humanity.
The logic here is that, on a wide scale, U.S. officials have received millions of dollars from the teen help industry, and have kept facilities safe from regulation (as has been readily documented in Utah and Montana).This goes to the issue of a state (nation) promoting or encouraging an attack against a population. So many individuals have received donations from the teen help industry that it is a widespread/systematic problem. Additionally, many abusive facilities are government-run (i.e. Texas Youth Commission, Florida Dept. of Juvenile Justice).
Therefore, following this logic, the United States may be either an accessory to or an active perpetrator of crimes against humanity. However, the United States is likely outside the jurisdiction of the ICC (but diplomatically, this would still pose a nightmare scenario for the United States’ relations with the international community, leaving this as a valuable tool).
--- In regards to getting charges filed, this all depends upon who/what we can gather testimony and evidence against. ---
Mexico ratified the ICC statutes on 28 Oct 2005, binding them to the ICC. The crimes that are occurring on their soil in Oceanside can possibly be brought to task on the matter identified as crimes against humanity – however, this will not get us help from the ICC in regards to pursuing charges in regard to Sunrise Beach in Cancun, as it closed May 10, 1996; it will also not bring into play Casa by the Sea as it was shut down before the ratification date. We may also be able to work this into a charge against any affiliated U.S. companies (and/or individuals tied to them) as it is a domestic organization operating abroad in a state that is bound by ICC regulations. We can probably work out an agreement to wait to grab people until we get the individuals we want charged down at the facility; then the ICC can issue a warrant and the local authorities can do the snatch and grab.
The Dominican Republic also ratified on 12 May 2005, potentially netting us Escula Caribe.
Costa Rica ratified 7 Jun 2001, potentially netting us Pillars of Hope and anyone involved in the Academy at Dundee after this date still in the country.
Samoa ratified 16 Sep 2002, potentially getting us the now closed Paradise Cove (closed 2004) and the now operating Coral Reef Academy (NATSAP).
Jamaica has not signed/ratified. Tranquility Bay shut down 5 Jan 2009, and is probably not touchable by this method, although ICC jurisdiction may extend here, most likely with government cooperation. However, any former staff that are still in the country are potentially vulnerable due to the fact that Jamaica ratified the Conventions on the Rights of a Child on May 14, 1991.
Canada ratified 3 Apr 2002, potentially netting us the operational facilities AARC (Alberta Adolescent Recovery Center), Wendigo Lake Expeditions (NATSAP), and the Pine River Institute (NATSAP).
Note that this may affect facilities and individuals in the United States; the major determining factors here are the jurisdiction of the ICC and United States cooperation.
Crimes Against Humanity charges against these states/facilities may scare others (including the United States) that we could not normally affect by this method into compliance and/or submission. Let them hate us as long as they fear us, as Caligula once said.
ICC definitions and regulations on crimes against humanity and war crimes may befound here.
The UN’s definition of “crimes against humanity”, which is a bit stricter but certainly applies, needs to be accounted for to bring a charge of such crimes before the Security Council, which handles these types of issues for the UN (not for the ICC that operates under the UN). A possible statement of the facts and a plea for help or sanctions before the UN General Assembly is also a remote possibility.
Here, the U.S. is bound directly to international law, unlike in the ICC which the U.S. does not officially recognize.
This summary of the law explains this area directly in reference to the most recent adaptations of the Security Council:
“[The updated laws]…reaffirms the provisions of paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document regarding the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity…”
Youth are a population and therefore a ”civilian population”, and a minority of the population (therefore, a minority) subject to persecution and cruel and inhumane treatment – any definition of “crimes against humanity” includes torture and such persecution, as well as cruel and inhumane treatment. The issue of “minority” status of a population may not be relevant, but it should be addressed in the event that it is relevant. We just need to document the abuse on a wide spectrum of facilities and we may get what we want. (Again, see the previous standard definition of a “wide-spread attack” on a population)
“To some extent, crimes against humanity overlap with genocide and war crimes. But crimes against humanity are distinguishable from genocide in that they do not require an intent to “destroy in whole or in part,” as cited in the 1948 Genocide Convention, but only target a given group and carry out a policy of “widespread or systematic” violations. Crimes against humanity are also distinguishable from war crimes in that they not only apply in the context of war—they apply in times of war and peace.”
“The list of the specific crimes contained within the meaning of crimes against humanity has been expanded since Article 6(c) of the IMT to include, in the ICTY and the ICTR [these are UN statutes], rape and torture.”
“However, what all of these definitions have in common is: (1) they refer to specific acts of violence against persons irrespective of whether the person is a national or non-national and irrespective of whether these acts are committed in time of war or time of peace, and (2) these acts must be the product of persecution against an identifiable group of persons irrespective of the make-up of that group or the purpose of the persecution. Such a policy can also be manifested by the “widespread or systematic” conduct of the perpetrators, which results in the commission of the specific crimes contained in the definition.”
The key issue to understand here is that the law depends on where you are, not who you are or where you are from. The common notion that “the United States never signed the CRC, therefore we cannot apply the CRC to American facilities” is rubbish, plain and simple.
The terms of the Convention provides us with a carte blanche power to call into question all open facilities currently operated abroad (except for any that are located in Somalia, the existence of which I highly doubt), and possibly past actions/facilities depending on when the member country signed, that were in violation of the Convention.
This was “entered into force” upon ratification (please see the list of signatories to find and understand any “signing statements” issued by varying countries, as well as ratification dates) – violating the CRC is violating international law (in short, every country except the U.S. and Somalia is bound to this agreement).This doesn’t help us here in the United States, but it will help us internationally (i.e., in the Dominican Republic). If a facility is operating on foreign soil, then the country in which it is operating is required to ensure the rights expressed in this document – in many cases, this can probably only be accomplished by shutting the facility down. This is a binding agreement of international law. This will allow us to hold all relevant countries’ feet to the fire in regards to facilities operating on their soil.
In addition, past violations in a country that ratified the CRC may be pursued.
United States Human Trafficking Laws –
These may (and in all evidence, these do) apply to “escort services,” companies, and facilities that employ “escorts” to bring teens into their facilities. Human Trafficking is a federal as well as an international crime.
Federal laws on human trafficking are enforced by the United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, Criminal Section. See Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1584.
The State Department defines the term “Human Trafficking” in this PDF. “Human Trafficking” is determined by process, way/means, and the goal. As stated by the State Department:
The process must consist of actions of recruitment, transportation, transferring, harboring, or receiving.
The process must then occur alongside one of the defined way/means: threat, coercion, abduction, fraud, deceit, deception, or abuse of power, or a “climate of fear”.
These two things must then combine with a defined goal: prostitution, pornography, violence/sexual exploitation, forced labor, involuntary servitude, dept bondage (with unfair wages), or slavery/similar practices.
Abusive treatment methods count as “violence,” and such methods are certainly a “goal” with most facilities (the same applies to forced labor). Note that a “climate of fear” is defined as an environment wherein individuals believe they may be harmed by leaving or refusing to work.
However, the way/means portion may be irrelevant: “…for adults, victim consent is irrelevant if one of the Means is employed; for children, consent is irrelevant with or without the means category...”. In short, we just need the process and the goal to match in order for the crime to be considered a matter of human trafficking. Children apparently cannot give consent even if coerced, which makes it all the more easier for us to prove a charge of Human Trafficking.
Facility owners/operators, facility conglomerates, escort companies, and the “escorts” themselves are indisputably targetable through this law. This can also be applied to nab parents who provide any portion of the “process” (i.e. transportation, transferring) as well as facility staff members (i.e. harboring, receiving). Also of note is the possible “means” of fraud if a family is genuinely defrauded or misled into sending their child to a facility.
The U.S. Department of Labor’s definition of “forced labor” makes it clear that this is a “goal” that we can readily use against many facilities, as long as it is meant as a method of therapy, behavior modification, or any other defined “goal” of a facility/program. This is, again, a federal issue – possible state-level corruption problems, which we have all encountered in the past, are therefore of less concern.
However, the 13th Amendment comes into play here and must be accounted for, but is pretty pointless in regard to most, if not all, cases that are under discussion: “Forced labor, with or without imprisonment, as a punishment upon conviction of a crime is a form of involuntary servitude allowed by the Thirteenth Amendment under its "punishment-for-crime" exception.”
As for involuntary servitude, which we may be able to argue as applicable to the discussion at hand, is defined as “a condition of compulsory service or labor performed by one person, against his will, for the benefit of another person due to force, threats, intimidation or other similar means of coercion and compulsion directed against him…
… However, it is necessary to prove that the person [the accused party] knowingly and willfully took action, by way of force, threats, intimidation or other form of coercion, causing the victim to reasonably believe that he had no way to avoid continued service, that he was confronted by the existence of a superior and overpowering authority, constantly threatening to the extent that his will was completely subjugated.”
Forced labor and violence are probably the biggest determining factors here – when one exists, we can then slam the culprits. This shouldn’t be hard to prove in most cases. Even in the surprising case in which a Statute of Limitations might exist, it would then probably be of no concern. International law might also be relevant here.
INTERPOL may have jurisdiction in cases of “Rendition”-type cases where minors are sent to a foreign soil facility. This has yet to be determined, however.
This appears, after intense scrutiny, to provide us with an apparently solid and strong method of eliminating abuse in problematic behavior modification facilities and other “gulag” schools within the U.S. and abroad. It is feasible that we can start applying these laws on the west coast and sweep eastward across the nation until every facility has been reviewed and dealt with appropriately, and vice versa. Even if everything else in these documents is deemed worthless, this truly seems to be a solid weapon at our disposal. The term “nuclear option” best describes these laws, unless some unknown factor jostles the perceived strength of these laws. I have been unable to find such a factor, but it may still exist.
This may be our enforcement agency on many of these matters. Samoa, however, is not a member country. All others, as listed in the “Foreign Based Facilities” document, are members of this organization. 7 out of 8 is not bad; the Samoa facility may be acted against in other ways should INTERPOL not be of assistance. If Samoa signed the UN Protocols on preventing human trafficking (see above information on human trafficking) or the Convention on the Rights of a Child (which they ratified), then their hand is forced regardless of INTERPOL membership, or the lack thereof.
INTERPOL lists human trafficking as one of its top priorities. The crime may be a way in to getting the international community’s attention, even though U.S. Federal law handles the crime as well. Cases of “Rendition” type transits to a foreign soil facility (such as Tranquility Bay) may warrant INTERPOL’s intervention.
INTERPOL also deals with money laundering, and this avenue should be further investigated, and possibly pursued, in regard to further harassment of behavior modification facilities, particularly facility conglomerates (such as NATSAP).
The FBI also works closely with INTERPOL in various countries (not to mention the U.S.), and this alliance could be utilized to our advantage.
It is important to note that this is the most basic, and longest standing, international declaration of human rights, setting the ground for all other subsequent laws. It will probably not be very hard to prove that this declaration has been thrown out the window by the teen help industry, and can serve as an excellent way to bring our concerns into the view of the international community. This additionally grants us carte blanche DIPLOMATIC power necessary to strike at ALL facilities, both those on foreign soil and those that are domestic.
This could be a potent weapon if used skillfully. However, it should be noted that this only grants us diplomatic means to assail foreign-soil facilities; nonetheless, the immense strength of the diplomatic means granted by this cannot be ignored. This declaration, at the very least, is being trampled on by the behavior modification industry.
Officially this is a non-binding agreement, but it is commonly accepted as an agreement that, if broken, is grounds for strong diplomatic actions against a country. Interestingly, Eleanor Roosevelt helped write this. Invoking her name may apply additional pressure to those who we want pressured.
“Article 5: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. … Article 9: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. … Article 2: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.”
From here: "Q: Is the Declaration upheld universally. How is the Declaration enforced?
A: Originally the Universal Declaration was conceived as a statement of objectives to be pursued by Governments, and therefore it is not part of binding international law. Nonetheless, it is still a potent instrument used to apply moral and diplomatic pressure on states that violate the Declaration’s principles. In fact, in 1968, the United Nations International Conference on Human Rights agreed that the Declaration "constitutes an obligation for the members of the international community" to protect and preserve the rights of its citizenry."
"Q: To whom does the Declaration apply?
A: The Declaration is based on the "inherent dignity" of all people and affirms the equal rights of all men and women, in addition to their right to freedom. The Declaration gives human rights precedence over the power of the state. While states are permitted to regulate rights, they are prohibited from violating them."
This one’s a bit of a stretch. I am NOT saying this is a strong argument; in fact, it probably serves as a great embodiment of the idea of “grasping at straws,” especially considering the apparent strength of some of the arguments that I have presented. However, it is an argument that has been raised by individuals as a method of combating abuse in the industry and thus needs to be reviewed, hence my inclusion of it within this document. There are some strong tenets to the argument, butit is, in my opinion, far from the strongest argument we have.
Article IV of the Conventions makes it illegal – a war crime – to target non-combatants during wartime.
Specifically, it states that “Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.”
Additional articles may apply, but we’re focusing on Article IV here.
One can argue that we declared “war” on drugs (in fact, it’s been stated over and over and over again in our nation’s history) and that this “war” qualifies as a conflict, and in reality, an armed one (all it takes is a look at the DEA’s storming of a building or viewing drug runners armed with AK-47’s to validate this point).
Article IV makes it illegal to target non-combatants. However, it is indisputable that youth were targeted, as a specific population, during the early stages of this “war” extending into the present (treatment programs that are abusive yet claim to treat drug problems are the applicable parties here). Youth were indisputably targeted by the abusive STRAIGHT Inc., and throughout the general war on drugs. These youths were also indisputably in the hands of a party to the conflict (the United States government and all subsequent jurisdictions).
Therefore, this occurred on such a large scale and was coordinated against youth that it fits the definition of war crimes as established by the Geneva Conventions as well as the International Criminal Court, allowing us to pursue war crimes charges in the ICC in addition to the crimes against humanity charges. This may also fit the Federal definitions of war crimes.
Additionally, it is a violation of the Geneva Conventions to torture non-combatants and to employ child soldiers. The first point’s impact can be readily seen; the issue of child soldiers can be used to strike at “Jesus Camps,” shutting down a number of additional facilities that we may not be able to strike at otherwise. The issue of child soldiers may still hold even if the rest of the argument is worthless (as those camps will claim they are at war).
The major counterargument to this whole idea, and it is a big one, is that we are not technically at “war” with drugs (we are also technically not at war in Iraq – Iraq as it is now probably qualifies more as an “international police action” than a war). In addition, how anyone can go to war with a substance (drugs) has yet to be determined; this point is similar to the fact that a “war on terror” literally means a war on a state of mind: fear, aka terror.
This would inevitably descend into a shouting match over what constitutes war and what does not, and we would have a semi-solid argument that the conflict between armed DEA agents and armed drug smugglers counts as a war, but this would ultimately probably be labeled a “police action” by any court, although we could plausibly argue that it constituted an “internal conflict” (civil war), which again brings the Geneva Conventions into play. Nonetheless, the argument that this is “figurative language” would inevitably be thrown at us, and would probably score a superb strike against us, even though I personally can’t foresee a politician willingly admit that this “war” is simply a figurative one. Such an action would be career suicide – but we would most likely be dealing with judges who could make such a ruling and not have to worry about their reputations and/or career.
However, if we found legislation – passed by Congress – that calls the situation a “war” on drugs, we would have a declaration of war upon drugs (as only Congress has the power to declare war, and such legislation would, arguably, serve as a declaration of war), making this argument sound and thus giving us the ability to pursue war crimes charges. Most likely, this “declaration of war” would be in the bill title (i.e. H.R. 6353 is called the “Act to End Institutional Child Abuse of 2008” – this is the bill title) or in the beginning or ending text of the bill, explaining the purpose of the bill. A declarative statement about how the United States is at war against drugs would be all the better for our ends, and would require the minimum amount of arguing on our part.
This evidence that we need to make our argument on this end is indisputably out there somewhere, we just need to find it in order to make our case, should we choose to pursue this treachery avenue. We would then have a fairly solid argument that a “war” against, or an “internal conflict” over, drugs led to war crimes during the pursuit of winning the war/conflict. From this, it’s a short hop to invoking terrorism statutes and additional yet similar laws against the industry.
Again, I am NOT saying this is a strong argument; nonetheless it remains an argument that needs to be reviewed. I do not recommend pursuing this issue.
I have provided the below search engines and tools to make review and analysis of the data as uncomplicated as possible. Please use Wikipedia sparingly, and carefully check the sources and merits of any new information provided there.
