Author Topic: Use of torture - a mindset of governmental officials  (Read 6707 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MedicalWhistleblower

  • Posts: 67
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Use of torture - a mindset of governmental officials
« on: August 25, 2011, 04:08:06 PM »
The acceptance of torture as a means to an end is also a mindset held by the former Bush administration.  Please be aware of the excellent work being done by Attorney Kevin Zeese in this area.

Several lawyers on his list of "Torture Lawyers" have connections to the research that I do about residential treatment abuse.   Most notably: Alberto Gonzales, Michael Chertoff and John Ashcroft.

Alberto Gonzales-Texas Bar ... t_1_VR.pdf

John Ashcroft-District of Columbia ... pdfAcrobat (.pdf)

Michael Chertoff-District of Columbia Microsoft ... plaint.pdf

Torture is illegal under both United States and international law. The Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, and it states that treaties signed by the U.S. are the “supreme Law of the Land” under Article Six. The Geneva Convention and The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment both prohibit torture and have been signed by the United States. These laws provide no exception for torture under any circumstances. Moreover, the United States Criminal Code prohibits both torture and war crimes, the latter which includes torture. The Army Field Manual prohibits the use of degrading treatment of detainees.

Despite this well-established law, under the Bush administration, torture was authorized by George Bush and kept secret using classified designations. The White House requested legal memoranda to support its use of torture and it received those authored by a host of attorneys, including John Yoo, Jay Bybee, and Stephen Bradbury. Attorneys who advised, counseled, consulted and supported those memoranda included Alberto Gonzales, John Ashcroft, Michael Chertoff, Alice Fisher, William Haynes II, Douglas Feith, Michael Mukasey, Timothy Flanigan, and David Addington.

Several of these memoranda have recently been released, and clearly demonstrate that these attorneys conspired to violate laws against torture and that their actions resulted in torture and death. Accordingly, these attorneys must be held accountable. We have asked the respective state bars to revoke the licenses of the foregoing attorneys for moral turpitude. They failed to show “respect for and obedience to the law, and respect for the rights of others,” and intentionally or recklessly failed to act competently, all in violation of legal Rules of Professional Conduct. Several attorneys failed to adequately supervise the work of subordinate attorneys and forwarded shoddy legal memoranda regarding the definition of torture to the White House and Department of Defense. These lawyers further acted incompetently by advising superiors to approve interrogation techniques that were in violation of U.S. and international law. They failed to support or uphold the U.S. Constitution, and the laws of the United States, and to maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers, all in violation state bar rules.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Ursus

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8989
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Use of torture - a mindset of governmental officials
« Reply #1 on: August 25, 2011, 04:22:17 PM »
Quote from: "MedicalWhistleblower"
The Geneva Convention and The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment both prohibit torture and have been signed by the United States.
That signature was contingent on these standards being applied only to other countries.

[ tongue-in-chEEK! warning!! ]
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
-------------- • -------------- • --------------

Offline MedicalWhistleblower

  • Posts: 67
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Use of torture - a mindset of governmental officials
« Reply #2 on: August 25, 2011, 04:45:59 PM »
I spoke with Frank La Rue of the UN office on Human Rights Defenders regarding the lack of action on the 2003 UN complaint brought by ISAC under article 22 - or CAT - Convention Against Torture.   The reason for the lack of enforcement of CAT by the UN on US soil was because the US asserted that the US Constitution and laws provide greater protection to the US people than would United Nations enforcement of the Declaration of Human Rights or UN enforcement of the treaties that the US has signed and ratified.  But I believe in my latest report just this past month to the UN, I provided sufficient evidence that the US does not protect constitutional protections for civil rights or human rights for children trapped in these residential treatment centers.  Thus I hope to bring to the attention of the UN and US authorities that we no longer as a nation can claim that we have greater protections guaranteed under the US Constitution and laws - especially as they are now applied.  We do not guarantee human rights protections when governmental contractors are employed or when governmental functions - such as the delivery of TANF food to the needy occurs under governmental grants through subcontractors.   These residential treatment centers have used TANF funds to keep their operations financially solvent while at the same time asserting religious exemption from governmental supervision and oversight.  TANF is currently funded through federal taxes and distributed through Title I (section 104) Charitable Choice provisions in the welfare act.  The Welfare Act of 1996 - Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act was signed into law (PL 104-193) and contained these Charitable Choice provisions.

Thus I believe that the systematic abuse of persons in private NGO run residential treatment centers points clearly to the lack of human rights protections offered by the US Constitution and US law.  The US Supreme Court has refused to enforce human rights protections for persons in these facilities instead relying on religious exemption.  Thus the US Supreme Court has not fully abided by the terms of the CAT treaty to protect the human rights of persons in US jurisdiction.  I believe that this will allow us to assert Article 22 for our survivors/victims.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Ursus

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8989
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Use of torture - a mindset of governmental officials
« Reply #3 on: August 25, 2011, 05:31:43 PM »
Quote from: "MedicalWhistleblower"
...the US asserted that the US Constitution and laws provide greater protection to the US people than would United Nations enforcement of the Declaration of Human Rights or UN enforcement of the treaties that the US has signed and ratified.
Guess not, huh?

Quote from: "MedicalWhistleblower"
TANF is currently funded through federal taxes and distributed through Title I (section 104) Charitable Choice provisions in the welfare act. The Welfare Act of 1996 - Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act was signed into law (PL 104-193) and contained these Charitable Choice provisions.
See also, for discussion of some real-life ramifications of that Act:

It was due to this Act, in part or in whole, that Abraxas - a juvenile rehab using therapeutic community modalities - was folded into the larger world of privatized corrections systems. The methods used at Abraxas were/are based in large part on the founder's experience in Gateway, one of the original addiction treatment rehab TCs, and which was, itself, based on Synanon.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
-------------- • -------------- • --------------

Offline MedicalWhistleblower

  • Posts: 67
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Use of torture - a mindset of governmental officials
« Reply #4 on: August 25, 2011, 06:25:50 PM »
Establishment of alternative accreditation to evade inspections

In Florida and Texas, Teen Challenge centers were accredited by the Texas Association of Christian Child Care Agencies (TACCCA)   and the Florida Association of Christian Child Care Agencies (FACCCA).     In Florida, the heads of the Department of Children and Families and Department of Human Services were both former Straight, Inc. leaders.

West Florida Teen Challenge Boys’ Ranch in Bonifay, FL is a rigid program. The contract parents must sign states that the FACCCA intends to "insure the physical and spiritual health, safety, and wellbeing" of children and that the boys’ ranch must meet FACCCA’s "minimum standards." In the contract parents must agree to hold the ranch and its employees harmless from "any and all liability" for injury to the child, “even injury resulting in death.”  Parents must agree “that God desires that they resolve their dispute with one another within the church and that they be reconciled in their relationships in accordance with the principles stated in I Corinthians 6:1-8, Matthew 5:23-24, and Matthew 18:15-20.”  If they cannot resolve their disagreement privately within the church, parents must accept resolution through “biblically-based mediation” by rules of the Association of Christian Conciliation Services.   There is no refund of tuition or deposits if the boy leaves the ranch before 15 months, even if the ranch has expelled him. Many residential treatment centers were run with no insurance liability policies and these legal waivers were used to prevent liability lawsuits. Parents were told that, because they signed the waiver, they had no legal rights even if their child was injured.

Further protections through official State Liaison positions

To further insulate Teen Challenge from government regulation and oversight, Governor George W. Bush’s advisory board made recommendations that legislated creation of official state liaison positions in several key government entities. Texas was also the first state to create a formal Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives (OFBCI).  These acts were part of larger cultural and structural shifts that redefined the boundaries between church and state in Texas.  An adviser was appointed by Governor Bush to change key agencies to alter their regulatory procedures and protocols to make them more receptive to Faith-based programs.  Appointees chosen were receptive to the new policies and assumed positions of power and authority on state governing boards.

In Texas, Governor Bush was closely allied with leaders of the evangelical community, such as Joe Loconte, Marvin Olasky, Stanley Carlson-Thies, and Carl Esbeck.  The Bush administration created far-reaching changes in state government policy. The state-level implementation of “Charitable Choice” did not create new funding for Faith-based organizations, but consisted of a symbolic alteration in the relationship between church and state that was manifest in laws, policies and procedural practices.

Bush’s policy team in Texas worked with Carlson-Thies and Esbeck, the chief architects of Charitable Choice as it passed through the U.S.A. Congress.  Both men went to Texas to help state agency heads understand the new law and to garner support for it there.  These changes in policy were then presented to the executive directors of the state agencies (TWC-Texas Workforce Commission, DHHS-Department of Health and Human Services, TEA—the Texas Education Agency) and to certain key board members of those agencies.  These pushed principles that Congress enacted in August 1996 as part of federal welfare reform. Texas added a “nondiscrimination” section in 1997 but did not label it as a Charitable Choice provision.  The early political goal was to change the government culture from within, but without use of confrontation of state legislators to embrace legislative changes.  Only ten states enacted 41 laws between 1996 and 2000 related to Faith-based initiatives.  Since then, there has been an increased legislation specifically focused on the initiatives.

In July, 1999, presidential-candidate Bush delivered his first major policy address in Indianapolis. There he unveiled his new pro-faith agenda and painted himself as a “new kind of Republican” politically and fiscally conservative, but supportive of Faith-based nonprofit organizations to deliver help to those in need.

After the 2000 election of President Bush, 230 additional laws on Faith-based initiatives were enacted, and now 31 states have enacted some legislation. Several states of note are New Jersey, Oklahoma and Florida.  In each of these states, G.W. Bush had close ties.  NJ Governor Christie Todd-Whitman was a close friend, as was OK Governor Francis Anthony "Frank" Keating.  Bush’s brother, Jeb Bush, was FL governor.  Jeb Bush sought increased legislation including Faith-based prison wings supported by a new government office. An OFBCI was established in Florida in 2004.

Establishment of funding to Faith-based programs

In January, 2001, President Bush created the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives by Executive Order. Later Executive Orders created centers for the Office within the Departments of Justice, Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS), Housing and Urban Development, Education, and Agriculture, as well as at the Agency for International Development. Shortly thereafter, the Compassion Capital Fund (CCF) was established in 2001 through HHS and distributed almost $200 million dollars to various faith- and community-based organizations. Through a series of executive orders and the creation of separate Faith-based centers in 11 agencies and departments within the federal government, President Bush expanded Faith-based initiatives significantly from a political standpoint.  Some executive orders permitted religious organizations to discriminate in their hiring practices by making it possible for them to hire only those who share specific religious beliefs, despite the receipt of federal money.

President Bush actually promised $8 billion, during the campaign trail, but the Compassion Capital Fund fell dramatically short of that goal, leaving many that supported the Charitable Choice with added social responsibilities and no federal funding stream to cover expectations.  These Faith-based initiatives first obtained their support mainly from the evangelical churches, but later support came from various black churches and the Catholic Church.

Many in religious circles saw “Charitable Choice” as a means to allow the churches greater religious freedom while performing social services. Critics maintain that vast funding amounts were funneled to political allies and Christian organizations that had supported candidate Bush, such as Operation Blessing, a charity run by television evangelist Pat Robertson.  Political bias in the granting of federal funds appeared in the support given the InnerChange prison program. Governor G.W. Bush supported Chuck Colson’s prison ministry, which became a contract service provider to the Texas prison system.  Colson had years before been sent to prison for his involvement in the Watergate scandal.    Colson was also believed to be a member of the “Family” (also known as the Fellowship) and was a signer of the Manhattan Declaration.  

For many who politically supported the Faith-based initiatives these were just empty promises which did not increase funding for beleaguered and legitimate Faith-based social service programs. This was especially true for the smaller religious organizations, as they were still in competition with the larger, established, church-based providers, as well as community-based NGOs.  There was a smaller pot of federal funds actually available due to welfare budget cuts. Charitable Choice federal funding did not fix problems of poverty.  Instead, it seemed to benefit the chosen “politically correct” few. The shift of money in Faith-based programs moved from government-run welfare programs for the poor, serving minority, immigrant, migrant or disabled persons, to focus on upper- middle-class Christians with substance-abuse problems in unregulated private treatment centers.

The White House OFBCI sent letters to all state governors in 2002, 2004, and 2006, encouraging them to create their own OFBCIs.  There were no guidelines on how to establish the offices, or how to fund them, such that an unorganized program implementation resulted.   There are three primary means by which states have implemented the Faith-based initiatives:

1) Creation of liaison positions and/or offices,
2) Passage of legislation and administrative policies
3) Sponsorship of conferences

Three states have added Charitable Choice provisions to legislation. These are: Arizona (1999), California (1999), and Mississippi (2004). Since 1996, legislative appropriations processes in 16 states have offered some type of funding to Faith-based organizations (FBOs) or OFBCIs, leading to 42 separate appropriation bills which have allocated approximately $70 million. In 2007, a total of 10 appropriation laws were passed in 10 states, increasing overall funding for the initiatives. Florida passed appropriations bills directed to Faith-based and community groups for teenage pregnancy prevention programs, granting them $1,500,000 of non-recurring maternal block-grant trust funds.  New Jersey has allocated approximately $3 million a year since 1998.  Public money has been allocated to Faith-based groups, but the lack of standardized oversight once the funds are distributed is a concern, as is whether or not there is political bias in selection of recipients.

The vast majority of OFBCIs and related positions have been created administratively, and some states have given these positions greater permanence by enacting them with legislation. Kentucky (2005), Iowa (2004), Missouri (2007), Virginia (2002), Louisiana (2004), North Dakota (2005), Ohio (2005), Alaska (2007), and Maryland (2008) have created Faith-based legislative positions or OFBCIs by statute.

References and citations:?

  Texas Association of Christian Child Care Agencies Inc is located at 2000 16th St Garland, TX.
  Florida Association of Christian Child Care Agencies Inc is located at Lake City, FL.

  Escobedo, Duwayne, “Secrets in the Schoolhouse,” InWeekly.Net.  It took 12 years for Rebecca Ramirez, 28 years old waves a sign that claims Michael Palmer, the founder of the all-girls boarding school, Victory Christian Academy, raped her when she was a 16-year-old student in 1992. The Victory Christian for $1,200 a month, offered parents a "faith-based" program that promises to help their rebellious and troubled daughters. Girls attending the school are sent by their parents for everything ranging from behavioral problems, drug abuse and depression. The courts in California shut him down when he refused to be licensed by the state. California authorities investigated a variety of complaints, including allegations of abuse. State authorities looked into the 1988 death of a 15-year-old girl, while she helped build a new part of the school. Her death was ruled an accident.   And in September, Mexican authorities closed Genesis-by-the-Sea, a similar school Palmer owns near Rosarito Beach, Mexico, after immigration and child abuse complaints. Some former students and parents say neglect and abuse happen, not only at Palmer's Victory Christian Academy, but other schools in Santa Rosa County and across the state that all belong to the same organization—Florida Association of Christian Child Caring Agencies.  FACCCA is a volunteer, non-profit group established by Florida law in 1984 that allows the private, faith-based schools to operate with little state oversight. Instead, they're monitored by FACCCA. FACCCA oversees about 31 schools, including New Beginnings, Rebekah Academy in Pace, run by Pastor Wiley Cameron and his wife, Faye. For years, the Camerons ran the Roloff Group homes in Corpus Christi, Texas. The homes provided strict, Bible-based education and training for troubled girls and boys, as well as some adults.

   Association of Christian Conciliation Services.  P.O. Box 81130, Billings, Montana 59108,
The Christian Concilliation Handbook on  alternative ADR

   Johnson, Byron R. and Larson, David B., “The InnerChange Freedom Initiative A Preliminary Evaluation of a Faith-Based Prison Program” Center for Research on Religion and Urban Civil Society, CRRUCS 2003 report. Publication year: 2003 | Cataloged on: Oct. 31, 2006.   The InnerChange Freedom Initiative (IFI), as it would later be named, was officially launched under the recommendation of then-governor George W. Bush. This was a public-private partnership between Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) and Prison Fellowship (PF). It was referred to as the “Prison Fellowship’s ‘InnerChange’: Faith-Based Pre-Release Program.” Several months after the official start-up of the InnerChange Pre-Release Program, Prison Fellowship officially changed the name to the InnerChange Freedom Initiative (IFI).  The IFI program is different than other prison ministries in that it represents the first full-scale attempt to offer religious programs in a prison environment virtually “around-the-clock.” Prison Fellowship identifies itself as a not-for-profit, volunteer-reliant ministry whose mission is to “exhort, equip, and assist the Church in its ministry to prisoners, ex-prisoners, victims, and their families, and to promote biblical standards of justice in the criminal justice system.” Technically, IFI was launched at the Jester II Unit, which was renamed the Carol Vance Unit in 1999. Prison Fellowship’s costs to operate IFI in fiscal year 2000-2001 alone were $1.45 million. All inmates in the TDCJ system are transported to Huntsville and go through this prison when officially released on parole. ... change.pdf.

  Dickinson, William B.; Mercer Cross, Barry Polsky (1973). Watergate: chronology of a crisis. 1. Washington D. C.: Congressional Quarterly Inc.. pp. 8 133 140 180 188. ISBN 0871870592. OCLC 20974031. This book is volume 1 of a two volume set. Both volumes share the same ISBN and Library of Congress call number, E859 .C62 1973.

  “Watergate Key Players,” Washington Post, ... ayers.html

   “Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience,” Drafted on October 20, 2009, Released on November 20, 2009 ... on_signers.

   “TIME: 25 Most Influential Evangelicals Photo Essay: Charles Colson,” Time Magazine, February 7, 2005, ... say/5.html
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Ursus

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8989
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Use of torture - a mindset of governmental officials
« Reply #5 on: August 25, 2011, 07:48:10 PM »
Quote from: "MedicalWhistleblower"
FACCCA is a volunteer, non-profit group established by Florida law in 1984 that allows the private, faith-based schools to operate with little state oversight. Instead, they're monitored by FACCCA. FACCCA oversees about 31 schools, including New Beginnings, Rebekah Academy in Pace, run by Pastor Wiley Cameron and his wife, Faye.
Here's a list of FACCCA's current members (24) and associated members (8), allegedly updated as of January, 2010. New Beginnings Academy/Rebekah is no longer located in Florida, hence not on this list:


    Alpha - 0mega Miracle Home

    Lisa Franklin, President/ Founder
    1835 US1 South, # 119-235 St. Augustine, Fl 32084
    Office: (904) 823-8588, Fax (904) 823-8986

    Bundle of Hope Ministries

    Glenda Carr, Exec. Dir
    13119 Professional Drive, Suite #200 Jacksonville, Fl 32225
    Office: (904) 241-7030, Fax (904) 246-3366

    Calvary Academy Ministries
    BOYS & GIRLS (12-15)

    Bob Wasser, Exe. Dir
    5400 Bethlehem Road, Mulberry, Fl 33860
    Office: (863) 428-2071, Fax (863) 428-2584

    Camp Tracey Children's Home
    BOYS & GIRLS (13-17)

    Wilford McCormick, Founder/Pastor
    1051 Arlington Road N. Jacksonville, Fl 32211
    Office: (904) 724-8223, Fax (904) 724-1301

    Central Florida Children's Home

    John Jensen, Exec. Dir
    Mail: PO Box 574955 Orlando, Fl 32857-4955
    Location: 12569 Narcoossee Road Orlando, Fl 32857
    Office: (407) 277-7441

    Covenant Children's Home
    CHILDREN (5-15)

    M. K. Hoffman, Exec. Dir.
    1084 W. Withlacoochee Trail, Citrus Springs, FL 34434
    Office: (352) 489-2565 Fax: (352) 489-2331

    Edgewood Children's Ranch
    BOYS & GIRLS (6-17)(Orlando Area Only)

    Joan Consolver, Exec Dir.
    1451 Edgewood Ranch Road Orlando, Fl 32835
    Office: (407) 295-2464, Fax (407) 298-9125

    Gator Wilderness School
    BOYS (8-16)

    Greg Kagany Exec. Dir. [email protected]

    Hope Children's Home
    BOYS & GIRLS (2-18)

    Mike Higgins, Exec. Dir.
    11415 Hope International Drive Tampa, Fl. 33625
    Office (813) 961-1214, Fax (813) 968-7686

    Hosanna House
    GIRLS (12-16)

    Carol Lynne Gibson Pres./Exec Dir.
    Roger Gibson Administrator
    PO Box 440819 Jacksonville, Fl 32222-0014
    Office (904) 317-0333, Fax (904) 317-0564

    House of Hope
    GIRLS(13-17)- BOYS(14-17)

    Sara Trollinger, Founder
    PO Box 560484 Orlando, Fl. 32856
    2036 36th St. Orlando, Fl. 32839
    Office (407) 843-8686, Fax (407) 422-3816

    House of Grace Maternity Home
    Denise Dandis Miller, LAS Exec. Dir
    Pregnancy Resource Center of Panama City, Inc.
    745 Grace Ave.  Panama City, FL 32401
    Office:(850)763-1100 Fax: (850) 763-1018

    Lakeland - Teen Challenge

    Greg DelValle, Exec. Dir.
    6754 S Carter Road Lakeland, Florida 33813
    Office: (863) 647-1944, Fax: (863) 647-3972
    Greg & Essie DelValle Cell: (954) 461-4923, Home: (561) 222-6659
    E-mail: [email protected]

    Life House Children's Home
    BOYS & GIRLS (4-12)

    Kim Hopson Exec. Dir.
    1150 SW 20th Ave Cape Coral, FL 33991
    Office (239) 542-4800, Fax (239) 283-8701
    E-mail: http://[email protected]

    Lighthouse Children's Home
    GIRLS (13-16)

    Ken Rhoads Exec. Dir.
    7771 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Fl 32309
    Office: (850) 877-3778, Fax (850) 656-8249

    Lighthouse of North West Florida
    GIRLS (11-18)

    Pastor Russell Cookston Exec. Dir.
    13050 Highway 89 Jay, Fl 32565
    Office:(850) 675-4097, Fax:(850)675-0741

    Maritime Academy & Boys Home
    BOYS 15-17

    Robbie W. Smith, Ex. Dir.
    4772 Safe Harbor Way Jacksonville, Fl. 32226
    Office (904) 757-7918, Fax (904) 757-2504
    E-Mail: [email protected]

    Nana's Children's Home (DBA)-Nana's House
    BOYS & GIRLS(0-11)

    Kimberly Frodge, Exec. Dir
    PO Box 500885 Malabar, Fl. 32950
    Office (321) 266-3829, Fax (321) 724-4668

    Potter's House Girls Home

    Sandra J. Lopes, Exec. Dir.
    140 Dunty Road Lake Placid, Fl 33852
    Office:(863) 699-1685, Fax: (863) 699-2601

    Rodeheaver Boys Ranch
    BOYS (7-14)

    Ken Johnson Exec. Dir, D. Psy.
    Ranch Life Dir: Steve Watkins Email: [email protected]

    Samaritan Center
    BOYS (5-15)

    Dennis Desmarais Exec. Dir.
    1490 Cove Rd    Stewart, FL 34997
    Office:(772) 288-4123

    Steppin Stone Farm
    GIRLS (13-17)

    Cynthia S Churchill, Exec. Dir.
    8421 Pritcher Road Lithia, Fl 33547
    Office:(813) 650-8700, Fax (813) 737-1734

    Sunlight Home of Collier County

    Linda Lee Hale Exec. Dir.
    PO Box 9194 Naples, Fl 34101
    Office:(239) 352-0251, Fax: (239) 352-9962


    Divine Mercy House (at St.Josephs Church)

    Sister Anne Marie Lennon Exec. Dir.
    11730 Old St. Augustine Rd. Jacksonville, Fl 32258
    Office:(904) 502-7372
    E-mail: [email protected]

    Family Life Ministries of NW Florida

    Bob Strock Jr., Exec. Dir.,
    1007 Gospel Rd. 2nd Floor  Fort Walton Beach, Fl 32547
    Mail: PO Box 250 Fort Walton Beach, FL 32549
    Office: (850) 243-5800, Fax (850) 864-5233

    Hannah's Home of South Florida

    Barbara A. Green, Exec. Dir.
    PO Box 4512 Teqesta, Fl 33468
    Office: (561) 277-9823, Fax: (561) 277-9826

    House of Hope Tampa Bay

    Lewis Mustard Exec. Dir.
    PO Box 341888 Tampa, Fl 33694
    Office: (813) 920-3800, Fax: (813) 414-0050
    E-mail: [email protected]

    Open Arms Children's Home
    BOYS & GIRLS(5-13)

    Michael Douglas Exec. Dir.
    Mail: PO Box 733 Cantonment, FL 32533
    Location: 2650 Pleasant Valley Drive Cantonment, FL 32533
    Office: (850)995-3314 Fax: (850) 452-4589
    Secretary: Russ McNair (850)380-9558 E-mail; [email protected]
    Waterfront Rescue Mission

    Exec. Dir, Bob Rogers, VP/COO
    PO Box 870 Pensacola, Fl 32591-0870
    Office:(850) 478-4027, Fax: (850) 478-4082

    UP-DATED on 1/20/2010[/list]
    « Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
    -------------- • -------------- • --------------


    • Guest
    Re: Use of torture - a mindset of governmental officials
    « Reply #6 on: August 25, 2011, 08:57:36 PM »
    « Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

    Offline MedicalWhistleblower

    • Posts: 67
    • Karma: +0/-0
      • View Profile
    Re: Use of torture - a mindset of governmental officials
    « Reply #7 on: August 26, 2011, 03:50:22 AM »
    Thank you for the Update -  it is difficult to keep up with all the legal changes of name and place these abusive centers do deliberately to evade investigation and judicial action.
    « Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

    Offline MedicalWhistleblower

    • Posts: 67
    • Karma: +0/-0
      • View Profile
    Re: Use of torture - a mindset of governmental officials
    « Reply #8 on: August 26, 2011, 04:21:17 AM »
    What is Charitable Choice?

    Religious organizations have long been involved in provision of services to the communities they live in and work in.  Religious organizations working as government subcontractors are not new.   Catholic Charities , Lutheran Social Services, the Salvation Army , and the Jewish Welfare Federation  have long been indispensable sources of social aid.  For almost 40 years there have been collaborative service agreements between the government and sectarian organizations.  Catholic Charities, United Jewish Communities and others who have provided welfare services, maintained proper procedures in accounting to ensure the separation of church and state/federal funding.  These religious organizations put in place safeguards to protect the integrity of the religious organization, as well as the interests of state/federal taxpayers.  These religious organizations did not contract directly with the government; rather, religious institutions created separate entities (usually 501(c)(3) organizations) to handle public funds, and they did not incorporate religion into the publicly-funded program.  For large religious organizations, such as Catholic Charities U.S.A., the government money has been a large or even major portion of their budget.  

    The new Faith-based initiatives paved the way for a political system which delegates social welfare responsibilities to newly-affiliated organizations   (some from the religious right) with which it forges privatized partnerships.  The strategy redistributes federal funding for social services from government functions where accountability had been fairly established and allocates funds to newer programs expected to bridge gaps in service/funds by being more cost-effective.  This places a greater burden on the former, established Faith-based community to become competitive bidders for their programs, increasingly subject to changes and cuts in government funding.

    There is criticism that the proponents of new public-religious partnerships may be motivated by something other than a desire better to meet the social service needs of the country.   This debate has been partially driven by political and ideological concerns beyond the desire to help the poor. These concerns persist, notwithstanding the fact that improving social service provision is the public justification offered by former President Bush’s for charitable choice partnerships with pervasively sectarian organizations.

    Charitable Choice was introduced during the mid-1990s after congressional committees devised alternate ways to address the burdensome welfare system. The Charitable Choice laws applied to four Federal programs: Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) and the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) programs (both overseen by the Administration for Children and Families at the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)); programs for substance abuse and mental health (overseen by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) at HHS); and the Welfare-to-Work program (overseen by the Department of Labor).  

    It is viewed with concern by some who fear that it will end public provision of social services and a welfare support system that many Americans in need depend on.  Charitable Choice strategy success requires that non-government social service providers will find the social services demand possible to meet. The increased burden of government regulation and competing demands for a charitable organization’s resources might cause mission displacement and have a negative impact on congregations.  A new dependence on government funds could result in decreased donations given to the charitable organization based on the presumed receipt of public funds.  Public perception is not necessarily in sync with legislative intent.  The premise behind Charitable Choice is that it relies on the market model with an emphasis on customers rather than citizens.  The goals of a democratic government are more than to simply respond to its citizens as customers.  There can be a potential for religious bias or discrimination by particular Faith-based contractors against needy citizen-clients who do not share common beliefs. There could also be bias in the grant of government contracts because effective oversight is difficult given the many different players at various levels of government.  

    Many civil rights watchdog organizations warned that Charitable Choice blurred the boundaries between church and state.     Faith-based initiatives were policies based on concepts of fiscal conservatism, decreased size of the federal government, facilitated collaboration and cooperation in forged partnership with the religious community.  Thus, through this new legislative policy, Charitable Choice authorized a change for the way in which the church and state interact.  Conservatives find these Faith-based initiatives appealing because they want to decrease the size of government. They see the initiatives as an inexpensive alternative to government-sponsored social services.  Cuts in government funding result in a greater burden placed on the Faith-based community to take up the slack.    

    The Charitable Choice concepts of indirect funding and neutrality principle   appear to promote a “black hole” for federal funds due to little transparency or oversight and little accountability to the taxpayer.  When private contractors are religious institutions they can claim constitutional protection against interference with free exercise of their religion.  The law currently exempts houses of worship from the full financial disclosure that is required from other non-profits when they are given tax-exempt status.  Thus when a church or religious institution receives public money to run welfare-to-work programs, it may legally assert a right to religious liberty and thus resist disclosing its financial records.  This may limit transparency regarding the dispersal of tax money to contracted service program providers and the government’s ability to assure honesty in provision of government contracted services.  A religious provider of job counseling, for example, could demand enough latitude to include prayer or Bible study in its programs, even if the government is directly contracting for the services.  Thus the government might be viewed as endorsing those religious practices, establishing them, or even coercing individuals in dire straits to engage in a particular religious practice.

    The Charitable Choice program has been accused of giving preferential advantage to certain faith groups and endorsed them to receive federal grants. Constitutional concerns were raised in 2002 when President Bush issued Executive Order 13279, which facilitated churches and other Faith-based organizations to receive federal money by circumventing anti-discrimination laws.  This opened the door to bias in employment practices and service provision by Faith-based and Community Initiative programs paid for with Charitable Choice funding.  The Coalition Against Religious Discrimination (CARD) warned that possible proselytism when federal funds are used could violate the First Amendment related to church-state relations. Many scholars believe that direct funding would compromise the religious rights of recipients, encourage intense competition among America's religions, create a divisive political and legal battle over whether government funds should ever pay for programs that discriminate in whom they hire, and harm religious entities by restricting their autonomy. Because of the lack of good options of social welfare programs in all areas, publicly funded vouchers may pressure people into religious activities that they would otherwise not choose.    

    Privatization of welfare – due process & constitutional concerns

    In concert with diminished regulation over programs, the social safety net is vulnerable to exploitation.   Providing the safety net is a core public function which should remain responsive to democratic principles and accountable to elected officials. Although the government can contract out services, it cannot contract out the function of governing.

    This privatization of welfare services leads to lack of adequate oversight in many jurisdictions when the organization that obtains the government grant subcontracts services to others, including private businesses. Thus, for-profit companies can be the entities that actually provide the in-field services. There is no provision for financial or service-quality oversight.  In theory, the contractors should police themselves and their subcontractors, but there is little profit incentive to do proper oversight.  

    President George W. Bush’s Faith-based initiative intended to reduce the size of government, but not necessarily the amount spent.  His applied method shifted the responsibility for delivery of numerous social services from government agencies to newly-recognized, Faith-based organizations.  Privatization of welfare by delegation to contractors and subcontractors for service provision raises due process and accountability issues. Welfare programs involve provision of adequate food, adequate clothing, adequate shelter, and minimal preventive public health care.  Although the government has been viewed as the most obvious provider of these programs, faith-based programs have also frequently provided services to those in need.    But the government, which is elected and accountable to the citizenry, still accepts responsibility and accountability to see that social justice prevails and a decent chance at a reasonably healthy and active life can be provided for all citizens.

    In 1997, the Texas Supreme Court   developed a test to evaluate the efficacy of delegation to private parties.  These guidelines are used to frame decisions about the scope of authority, accountability to the public and to federal authorities.  They identify the requisite expertise that qualifies a private entity to be a contractor.  

    There is concern that private entities which contract to provide welfare services are not governed by constitutional constraints.  In other words, if a private contract provider of social services commits a wrongful action, the wronged person cannot invoke constitutional protections.  

    The legal doctrine that defines “State Action” determines that a person who is a government actor and commits a wrongful act is subject to constitutional constraints.  State government and federal employees are clearly government actors, but private entities usually are not.  With government privatization contracts, authorization is transferred to private entities, but not “state actor” obligations.  Liability for actions is effectively diminished.  Privatization of contracts for welfare services permits autonomy without supervision or legal accountability.  Although there may be statutes in state or federal law that give the wronged person the opportunity to receive notice and obtain a hearing, these laws are generally not enforceable.  The courts have held that, unless there is a specific provision for enforcement, there will be no enforcement of these procedural rights.   The wronged person can sue under the third-party beneficiary principle - to compel compliance with the terms of the contract between the government and the private entity, but this is rarely successful.  

    Contracts are often drawn up with the simple insertion of a provision in the contract that bars third-part lawsuits. Social service recipients are largely at the mercy of the political process to grant legal protection entitlements and due process rights.  They are also at the mercy of contracted parties to define and/or grant them contractual rights.  

    Despite these constitutional and due process concerns, an increased number of government services are contracted out to private providers, which leaves clients with little or no recourse if their constitutional rights are violated.  Privatization may, in reality, simply replace a government bureaucracy with a private monopoly.    Most persons who oppose privatization are concerned about the negative outcomes it makes very possible.  

    There is a human dimension to quality social services that is difficult to protect in an unregulated contractual arrangement. To relegate sensitive decisions to private organizations and companies that use market-based models is potentially a risk that is under-appreciated for its implications. Critical decisions that affect our society’s most vulnerable citizens can become based on short-term private incentives rather than long-term public interests.     Government authority may be unable to scrutinize the work of private entities adequately because of budgetary restrictions or unfamiliarity with contract management.  The lack of oversight could mean that the public is not assured that tax dollars awarded to government contractors will yield a privatized service that performs adequately.  

    The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996   repealed Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), the federal cash assistance program, and replaced it with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), a cash assistance program primarily operated by the individual states.  Prior to PRWORA, determination of which applicants qualified for federal benefits was performed by a public agency staff in civil service. (Title I, Section 104)  Under the new 1996 law,  however, TANF eligibility in Florida and Texas was contracted out to private organizations which were not directly accountable to public authority.

    Privatization can be undermined by corruption if lucrative contracts are awarded to political allies, relatives or friends of public officials.  Many of these contractors are not qualified for the work or may cut corners to expand profits, especially when oversight is limited.  Contractors have been found to commit fraudulent and illegal practices, including:

    • bid-rigging (arranges bids to be submitted by selected firms to limit real competition);
    • low-ball bids (sets bids artificially low to win contracts, then subsequently raises fees excessively through tactics such as change orders);
    • over-billing (charge too much, or charge for work not done).

    These practices are difficult to prove, to monitor for and to investigate.  

    Texas and Florida privatized functions to qualify clients for public benefits.  They closed public offices and set up call centers that use 2-1-1 information lines.  Staff employed by private contractors took initial client applications by telephone and if eligible, sent them to a public agency for final certification.  Private contractors employed by corporations determined whether an application was submitted to a public agency. Access to benefits under this system can be manipulated to maximize profit or can be awarded in a biased way.  The privatization of welfare eligibility determination, including food stamp and Medicaid coverage, represents a fundamental shift in delivery of social support to low-income populations. Large, for-profit corporations may have strong financial incentives to either turn away recipients or provide them with inadequate services.  Freedom of information and open records acts do not apply to private contractors.  This makes it difficult to determine how public funds were spent.

    The use of subcontractors or outsourcing has often been used to abdicate social and moral responsibility.  There are significant legal, political and economic advantages to the perpetrator of human rights abuses, of using subcontractors, because it ultimately helps obscure the relationship between the perpetrator and the actual act.  It is a politically valuable device, because even if abuses are exposed, it will frequently look as if someone else (the contractor) was responsible.  This ultimately makes it difficult to hold a violator legally accountable and to be able to apply appropriate sanctions.  Thus the very effective human rights tactic of public shaming, in these circumstances, often becomes ineffective.  Outsourcing to contractors permits the perpetrators to ignore the societal norms and to conceal the perpetrators breach of those norms.  In addition, it legally protects perpetrators from both legal prosecution and embarrassment.  Subcontracting to corporations providing services such as prisons, healthcare and the military are particularly problematic, as in these settings there is reduced transparency to the public and less scrutiny by law enforcement.  Transnational corporations have enormous political and financial influence and power.  Health maintenance organizations and prisons use cost cutting methods which include using insufficiently trained, underpaid and over worked employees.  Rapid employee training and high turnover can lead to inadequate services in residential treatment centers, prisons, and other facilities.  When operated as a for profit business, cost reductions can lead to inadequate care, lack of adequate programming and abuse.  Outsourcing allows the perpetrator to not just abdicate responsibility but also assists the aggressor in maintaining a respectable public persona in the public eye. This often amounts to abuse of state-sanctioned power and authority.  Often outsourcing is presented to the public as necessary to cut costs. The use of subcontractors makes it more difficult to determine who is responsible for abuses and these cases are very complex.
    References and citations:

      In fact, in the United States, seven of the largest religiously affiliated entities serve more than sixty million people with social services. Religiously affiliated entities tend to provide a wide range of social services comparable to those provided by government social service agencies. Many are professionally accredited through the Council on Accreditation of Services for Families and Children, Inc. Thus, they are held to the same standards as secular organizations.  See John McCarthy & Jim Castelli, “Nonprofit sector research fund, religion- sponsored social service providers: the not-so-independent sector” (Aspen Inst., Working Paper No. WP98-02, 1998); see also Michael W. McConnell, “ Religious Freedom at a Crossroads,” 59 U. CHI. L. REV. 115, 183 (1992); Ronald Thiemann et al., “Responsibilities and Risks for Faith-Based Organizations, in Who will provide? The changing role of religion in American social welfare” 51-70 (Mary Jo Bane et al. eds., 2000).

      Catholic Charities USA, “Who We Are,” index.htm.

      The U.S. Salvation Army received thirteen percent of its fiscal year 200I funds from the government. Salvation Army USA Nat'l Headquarters, Annual Report (200I), available at

      In 200I, United Jewish Communities received a federal grant of $59,868,000. CBBB Wise Giving Alliance, Charity Report United Jewish Communities (2002), available at http://www.give. org/reports/care2_dyn.asp.  “United Jewish Communities, About Us,” at http://www.

      "Catholic Charities USA is the nation's largest, private network of social service organizations with I,400 local agencies and institutions providing essential services to more than 9.5 million people annually, regardless of their religious, racial, ethnic, or economic background." Letter from Catholic Charities USA to Senate and House Budget Committees (Feb. 26, 2000), at http://www.catholiccharities

     Charitable Choice Funds,,  http:/ ... wer-audio/.

      Sager, Rebecca, “Faith, Politics, and Power,” The Politics of Faith-Based Initiatives,  Oxford University Press, 2010,,

      Stevenson, Dru, “Privatized Welfare and the Nondelegation Doctrine,” 35 Clearinghouse Rev. 546 (2001-2002) Jan-Feb 2002. ... 4&id=&page.

      Gedicks, Frederick Mark, “A two-track theory of the establishment clause,”
    Establishment Clause doctrine has long been informed by two mutually antagonistic values: the separation of church and state, and government neutrality with respect to religion. There are conflicting values of both separation and neutrality which co-exist. The Speech Clause doctrine provides an absolute minimum of constitutional protection for expression against even content-neutral regulation, so also Establishment Clause doctrine provides for an absolute minimum of church-state separation against even religiously neutral government action. The Establishment Clause has long been thought to protect two values, the separation of religion and government from each other, and government neutrality with respect to religion. Separation requires that religion and government each refrain from involving itself in the affairs of the other. (Everson v. Board of Education).  Neutrality has not totally eclipsed separation, which is the more fundamental Establishment Clause value.  Neutrality requires that government regulate its interactions with religious individuals and institutions so that it neither encourages nor discourages religious beliefs or practices. (Epperson v. Arkansas). ... 03_FMS.htm.
      Minow, Martha, “Public and Private Partnerships: Accounting for the New Religion,” 116 Harvard Law Review. 1229, 1232-33 (2003).

      The Coalition Against Religious Discrimination (CARD) opposes charitable choice as an unconstitutional and dangerous proposal that will harm religion, authorize government-funded discrimination, undermine the accountability of taxpayer dollars, foster litigation against state and local governments, and violate the personal religious rights of Americans seeking help. See Coalition Against Religious Discrimination, What Is "Charitable Choice"?, at http://www.stop is_charitable_choice.html. CARD includes many religious and nonreligious nonprofit organizations such as American Baptist Churches, USA; American Civil Liberties Union; American Jewish Committee; American Jewish Congress; Americans United for Separation of Church and State; Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs; Catholics for a Free Choice; Central Conference of American Rabbis; Friends Committee on National Legislation; Jewish Council for Public Affairs; Jewish Women International; NARAL Pro-Choice America; National Association for the Advancement of Colored People; National Association of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Counselors; National Association of Social Workers; National Council of Jewish Women; National Education Association; National Gay and Lesbian Task Force; National Organization for Women; National Parent-Teacher Association; National Partnership for Women and Families; National Women's Law Center; People For the American Way; Planned Parenthood Federation of America; Rabbinical Assembly; Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO; The Interfaith Alliance; Union of American Hebrew Congregations; Unitarian Universalist Association; United Church of Christ (Justice and Witness Ministries); and United Methodist Church (General Board of Church and Society). Coalition Against Religious Discrimination, About C.A.R.D., at http://www.stopreligiousdiscrimination. org/about_CARD.html.  More than 850 religious leaders signed a petition organized by CARD urging President Bush and Congress to reject charitable choice propos- als, explaining that the "flow of government dollars and the accountability for how those funds are used will inevitably undermine the independence and integrity of houses of worship." Coali- tion Against Religious Discrimination, An Open Letter to President Bush and Congress from America's Clergy (June 14, 2001), http://www.stopreligiousdiscrimination. ... rom_clergy. pdf; see also Press Release, Americans United, Religious Leaders Urge Bush, Congress To Reject "Faith-Based" Funding Proposals That Allow Discrimination, Entangle Religion and State” (Apr. 24, 2001),

      Saperstein, David, “Public Accountability and Faith-Based Organizations: A Problem Best Avoided,” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 116, No. 5, (Mar., 2003), pp. 1353-1396, The Harvard Law Review Association,

      Collins, Milton, “The Privatization of Social Service Programs,” ... ollins.pdf.

      Tex. Boll Weevil Eradication Found., Inc. v. Lewellyn, 952 S.W.2d 454, 472 (Tex. 1997).  These  factors affect whether a government function can be delegated:    (1) are the private delegate's actions subject to meaningful review by a state agency or other branch of state government;( 2) are the persons affected by the private delegate's actions adequately represented in the decision process; (3) is the private delegate's power limited to making rules, or does the delegate also apply the law to particular individuals;(4) does the private delegate have a pecuniary or other personal interest that may conflict with his or her public function; (5)is the private delegate empowered to define criminal acts or impose criminal sanctions; (6)is the delegation narrow in duration, extent, and subject matter; (7)does the private delegate possess special qualifications or training for the task delegated to it; and (8) has the Legislature provided sufficient standards to guide the private delegate in its work. Although not all the factors relate to public assistance (notably three and five), the rest can, and are considered very instrumental to determine whether certain authority can have been delegated. ... 048105.pdf.

      Freeman, Jody, 116 Harv. L. Rev. 1285, 1304-05 (2003).

      Estrin Gilman, Michele, “Legal Accountability in an Era of Privatized Welfare,”  81 Cal. L. Rev. 569, 611-12 (2001).

      Freeman, Jody,  “Extending Public Law Norms Through Privatization,” 116 Harv. L. Rev. 1285, 1300 (2003).

      Jody Freeman, “The Contracting State,” 28 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 155, 170 (2000).  Persons concerned about the potential negative results associated with privatization are called  “consequentialists.”

      Diller, Matthew, Form and Substance in the Privatization of Poverty Programs, 49 UCLA L. Rev. 1739, 1740 (2002).

      Shue, Henry, Basic Rights: Subsistence, Influence, and U.S. Foreign Policy,p. 23, Princeton University Press (1996).

      Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Pub.L.No. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105.

      42 U.S.C § 604(a)

      Stevenson, Dru,  “Privatization of Welfare Services: Delegation by Commercial Contract:, 45 Ariz. L. Rev. 83, 88 (2003).

      “Safety Net for Sale: Dangers of Privatizing Social Services,”  American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO,  1625 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036-5687, Web,
     Privatization Section,
    « Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »