I believe that our strongest ability to deal with problematic facilities/camps involves the human trafficking statutes mentioned previously. The definitions are clear, the law is clear, and the methodology which we can implement in pursuing this avenue is clear. Best of all, this can be implemented within the United States and abroad. Any facility that can be tied to trafficking of persons is now fair game, as are the escorts doing the trafficking.
This avenue is simple to understand, and the level of evidence we need to go this route seems simple. The fact that the burden of proof is lessened due to the fact that we are dealing with victims who were legally minors at the time of the offense only makes this method all the better to pursue. We simply need to connect the process with the goal; the means is irrelevant unless we are dealing with parents pressing the “fraud” button on a facility (which, hopefully, will occur). As previously stated, this may be the equivalent of a “nuclear option” – we push the button and many problematic facilities are wiped off the map.
In addition, the moment charges of such an egregious nature as human trafficking are leveled against any corporation or facility, the public relations of the corporation or facility that is charged will go out the window indefinitely. This alone may result in critical damage being inflicted upon an abusive facility and/or escort service even if the charges are dropped for some unforeseen reason.
Secondly, I believe that we can easily meet the criteria that the Convention on the Rights of a Child (CRC) requires in order to apply immense pressure on all relevant foreign sovereignties that allow for American-run, abusive facilities on their soil.
Although this does not help us with problematic facilities here at home, this is international, binding law for the sane countries of the world (leaving us and Somalia locked up in the same padded-cell together). If it is not enforced and allegations are left uninvestigated, this provides grounds for international and UN condemnation and possible intervention.
Regardless of intervention, violating such a law – a law aimed at protecting children – and being called on the carpet for it will not serve as a nation’s greatest fifteen minutes of fame. Most countries will likely want to address the problem internally without the international community being a part of a humiliating solution.
Third, I believe that crimes against humanity charges filed with the ICC or UN Security Council are an excellent method of closing foreign facilities, bringing those who need to face justice to justice, and making the whole atrocious situation very visible in front of the entire world. This is, in all estimation, the optimal situation and optimal solution for the problem as a whole.
This may be easier to do than one would initially think. We need to, at the least, show that the problem is widespread, is state tolerated/sponsored,involves acts defined in statute as crimes against humanity, and show it is part of an “attack”. Please review the section on the ICC for further details as to what we need.
I believe we should pursue all three options concurrently; additional options may be pursued as well, but the additional evidentiary requirements and manpower needed must be taken into consideration. Each of these three recommended options stands a significant chance of providing us with positive results; pursuing all three will require more work, but it increases our chances of success.
Any and all testimonies that we gather documenting abuse need not be rewritten three times to ensure that they meet the evidentiary requirements of all three options (see following section – in some cases, they will not meet the requirements of all three, and that is acceptable). Accounts can be reviewed by those authorized to review them (in order to maintain the privacy of those providing the account) and copies made and filed under each option that they apply to.
However, before we proceed with any of these actions, we should make sure we have the manpower, the ability to gather the needed sums of individual testimony, and the logistics needed to actually account for and perform all the needed tasks simultaneously. All of these logistical issues must be addressed before we proceed with any action.
Remember, these are simply recommended courses of action; they are not the only options available to us.
---Human Trafficking: The evidence we need here is rather straight-forward. As minors apparently cannot take part in any of the listed “goals” of their own free will, we need to simply connect an act of transportation, transferring, harboring, or receiving with a goal of prostitution, pornography, violence/sexual exploitation, forced labor, involuntary servitude, dept bondage (with unfair wages), or slavery/similar practices. The way/means is irrelevant.
Note that the “goal” of a facility will probably be stated as therapy, behavior modification, attitude adjustment, etc. However, if any of the above listed “goals” is utilized in the pursuit of this therapy, etc. it is thereby used as a part of the “goal” of the facility/camp/escort, making it a matter of human trafficking.
This appears to be a very easy method of dealing with problematic facilities. If a facility receives a teenager (legally considered a “child”) and then subjects that teenager to an act of forced labor (as defined by the Dept. of Labor), then it is a case of human trafficking. If an escort arrests and transports a child to a facility and that teenager is either subjected to violence during or after the transport to the facility, it is a case of human trafficking.
Essentially, all facilities implicitly fulfill the requirement of the “process” – after all, they’re all harboring the minors at the camp or receiving the minors from parents or escorts at some point. It’s then a matter of connecting any of the defined goals of “human trafficking” as a goal of that facility’s method of “therapy”. This is an unconventional usage of human trafficking laws, but nonetheless it seems to apply to many situations. If we fulfill what the State Dept. and Labor Dept. require in regard to human trafficking, we should be able to address all issues that arise (note that the Labor Dept. only comes into play if forced labor is present). If “escorts” are involved, then the case is arguably watertight as there was an additional “middleman” involved in the transportation – it cannot be argued as just a case of parents “dropping their kid off at a summer camp”.
All we should need here are written eyewitness accounts and/or affidavits that combine these two acts together (again, the “process” act is implicitly granted) to get investigations going. Accounts, to fall under the statutes, must involve prostitution, pornography, violence/sexual exploitation, forced labor, involuntary servitude, dept bondage (with unfair wages), or slavery/similar practices.
Accounts should be collected from as many individuals as possible. Accounts and documentation of “escorts” to facilities are perhaps the most valuable of all of these as they illustrate true, nearly indisputable trafficking of persons. Any and all documentations of violence, sexual exploitation, forced labor, and involuntary servitude (watching the definitions VERY closely to see if they apply) are going to most likely be our rock-solid cases.
Any cases that fulfill the requirements above and involve transportation to a foreign soil facility should be strong cases; these cases will most likely fall under the jurisdiction of INTERPOL as well as federal jurisdiction.
---CRC: This should be the simplest criteria of all three methods at discussion to meet. Remember that this will not help us in the United States: this is only applicable to violations committed abroad in countries and that have occurred since the CRC was brought into force in that country upon ratification. Essentially, most of the facilities that have ever operated abroad since 1989 are targetable, but those that are still in operation must be deemed the primary targets.
Again, we need eyewitness accounts and/or affidavits that focus on detailing violations of the Convention without exaggeration. One account can possibly allow us to file a complaint; however, masses of testimony against a facility or former facility will most likely be what is required for action.
Accounts should, if it is true to the best of the knowledge of the individual providing account, mention as many violations of the Convention inflicted upon other students that the individual saw. This increases the number of victims of the violations, making our arguments stronger. However, one person claiming everybody else in a facility was being abused while no others from the facility have alleged abuse or are not providing their own account is not going to provide us with much ammunition. In addition, we cannot risk the issue of exaggeration or intentional misstatement of the facts in order to increase the victim count, make the statement “fit” as a CRC (or other) violation, etc.
We are going to need a lot of accounts of mistreatment, and this will probably require inter-organization cooperation in order for us to collect the volume of testimony that we need.
This may, even allow us to “encourage” countries to punish anyone involved with a former facility’s operation who is still in their jurisdiction or to close existing facilities. Additionally, international humiliation is a viable tactic to use against countries in this instance.
Contacting embassies and explaining what we have on the facility operating in their country and what we’re going to do with it (file a grievance with the UN, forcing a negative spotlight on their country) may be an effective method of gently encouraging a country to cooperate with us – potentially to the point of shutting down a facility. Again, regardless of outside intervention, violating such an international law – a law aimed at protecting children, specifically – and being called on the carpet for it doesn’t serve as a nation’s greatest fifteen minutes of fame; hence the strength of diplomatic, encouraging words of action. As the saying goes, “try diplomacy first – you can always invade them later”.
Alternatively, sending copies of the accounts and corroborating evidence (photos, insider statements, court transcripts, etc) to international human rights groups and the UN may get us positive results. A large box packed full of evidence and testimony shipped to an organization would likely make the right impression.
---Crimes Against Humanity (ICC): Simply put, in order for the atrocity that is the problem of the teen help industry to stand a chance at getting the label of a crime against humanity, we will need LOTS of testimony and corroborating evidence. This means we most likely WILL need inter-organization cooperation to get the evidence and testimony that we need.
Again, we need to show that the problem is widespread, is state tolerated/sponsored, involves acts defined in statute as crimes against humanity, and show it is part of an “attack”.
The mass of testimonies that we need to prove that this is a “widespread” or “systematic” policy is the most difficult of all the requirements to attain should we pursue this avenue. One or two accounts of human trafficking are far from what we need to attain the idea of a widespread/systematic policy. I would reason that we would need hundreds of written accounts at minimum detailing mistreatment in regard to acts that are listed by the ICC as possible acts of crimes against humanity,paying careful attention to how the court defines these acts.
Testimony gathered on this issue should include what the individual endured during their time in a facility, preferably as it applies to acts defined in the statute (but again, we cannot risk the issue of exaggeration or intentional misstatement). This should be as detailed as humanly possible, as should statements regarding the conditions in the facility. This will solve the “acts” portion of the crimes against humanity charge(s).
As is the case with the CRC violations, accounts should, if it is true to the best of the knowledge of the individual proving account, mention as many violations of the crimes against humanity statute inflicted upon other students witnessed by the individual. This increases the number of victims of the violations, making the fact that it is a “widespread” or “systematic” attack all the clearer. This would then address the issue of a “widespread” portion of the crimes against humanity charge(s).
This then just leaves the issue of illustrating that this forms an “attack” upon a population and state tolerance/sponsorship of the action. Again, recall the statement that “[An] 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 mass of testimony demanded to illustrate how “widespread” the problem is also addresses the issue of “an attack against a population,” AKA “a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of [prohibited] acts”. This is a rather useful coincidence, and strengthens our argument in the way that the crisscrossing of threads strengthens the structure of a spider’s web.
Additionally, remember: “[It may be a crime against humanity]…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.51If 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.”
We can readily prove that this is state-tolerated by showing the lack of regulation and the duration of time that the problem has gone unaddressed by the government – videos of Nancy Reagan and George H.W. Bush promoting the “treatment” methods of Straight Inc. lend extra credibility to such a claim (although this may arguably amount to state-sponsorship of the attack – again, the argument that the United States government is guilty of a crime against humanity arises). The fact that these facilities have continued to operate unimpeded by the government, and in some cases are run by the government (Florida Dept. of Juvenile Justice, Texas Youth Commission, etc), since the 1970’s is suitable evidence of state tolerance/sponsorship. The same evidence of state tolerance will be required of relevant foreign governments as well.
The “policy” will need to be shown to be an inherently brutal one in order for it to be held as the type of policy that qualifies as a crime against humanity. A very strong argument on this point is that the cloak of “tough love” is inherently a white-washing of an abuse-equals-reform policy. Individuals will inevitably argue that they are providing “treatment” to teens, not abusing them. We need to be able to deflect that inevitable blow, and a good way to do so is to get documentation of said individuals stating the ideals of “abuse-equals-reform”: break them down, build them back up, etc etc.
Again, we can argue that “tough love” is simply a disguise for what is essentially mass torture for profit. This is a strong case, backed up with testimony and evidence. Statements such as WWASPS’ admission in WWASPS v. PURE that abuse “probably” happens are what we need (as is Robert Lichfield’s defense of a staff member receiving sexual favors from a 16 year-old in return for decent food in the same case). This would then illustrate that there is an implicit policy throughout the “tough love” industryconstituting a crime against humanity.
Euphemisms have been used throughout history to protect inhuman policies, and we can easily argue that the same is occurring here through the use of words such as “tough love,” and the more Orwellian term “teen help”. For example, genocide is often referred to as “ethnic cleansing” to obscure the actual situation and ongoing actions. Hitler protected his persecution of many minorities and the outright slaughter of six-million Jews by calling it the “Final Solution,” when in fact it was pure persecution and genocide. Slavery in the United States, even, wasn’t referred to as “slavery” in the south – it was called the “Peculiar Institution” to keep individuals from dealing with or even thinking about the moral quandary presented by the idea of owning another person.
The same idea holds for the guise of “Tough Love”; it is simply a euphemism for institutionalized exploitation and torture, for profit, of children and teens. Through this argument, it is clear that an attempt to cover-up an underlying policy is present, just as “ethnic cleansing” is used to cover-up genocide.
That then should cover all aspects of a crimes against humanity charge. The only question is then who we can hold responsible for the massive action. This, however, may ultimately be decided by the UN or the ICC. At this point, it seems there are no other questions of law to be addressed.
Upon completion of all the data-gathering, the documentation and the issue of a potential crime against humanity may be brought before the International Criminal Court, the United Nations Security Council, and, possibly, the United Nations General Assembly.
I wrote to this organization back in the summer of 2007 and they expressed strong interest in the issue of abuse in behavior modification facilities, but they felt they were unable to help due to the U.S. not having ratified the Convention on the Rights of a Child and the lack of an office in the U.S. However, as explained previously, this non-ratification is not critical as all foreign-soil facilities are now fair game in regard to the CRC. Therefore, DCI may feel more inclined to act now than they did in 2007. Contact should be initiated with this organization ASAP.
AI is the most widely-recognized human rights organization. If we get their support and backing, we’ll cut through the teen help industry like a hot knife through butter.
General human rights organization that would boost our credibility immensely and could provide us with support if we are to pursue any of the information contained in these documents.
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.
