20070704

Standards of American justice under George W. Bush

A New York Times Op-Ed this morning by U.S. Air Force Col. Morris D. Davis -- the chief prosecutor in the Defense Department's Office of Military Commissions -- is entitled "The Guantanamo I Know." Col. Davis' defense of America's treatment of Guantanamo detainees, featuring the case of Australian detainee David Hicks, illustrates the standards of American justice under the Bush administration:


STEP 1: Imprison someone in Guantanamo indefinitely, in this case Australian David Hicks, with no possibility to contest his guilt, little contact with the outside world, and no hope of ever leaving:

Australian-born David Hicks was captured by US forces in Afghanistan in November 2001, while fighting for the then Taleban government.

He was transferred to the US camp at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba in January 2002 where he spent more than five years before finally being tried and convicted of supporting terrorism - the first detainee to go through a US military tribunal there.

Although he was formally charged in 2004 with conspiracy, attempted murder and aiding the enemy-- to which he pleaded not guilty -- the charges were subsequently dropped after a US Supreme Court ruled that the system of military tribunals was unlawful.

It was not until February 2007 that Hicks, by now 31, was charged again -- this time with providing material support for terrorism.



STEP 2: Subject him to extreme "coercive interrogation" -- i.e., torture -- while keeping him for years in intensely inhumane and mentally unbearable conditions:
Lawyers for Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks say they have uncovered evidence supporting claims that the South Australian may have been the subject of organised torture by American troops.

In an interview with ABC TV's Four Corners program, Hicks's father Terry has detailed allegations of physical and sexual abuse of his son by American soldiers.

"He said he had a bag over his head and he said, 'Oh look, I know their accents - they're definitely American' - some pretty horrific things that were done to him," he said.

David Hicks also told his father he was given injections by the Americans and then anally penetrated with various objects.

Another detainee says David Hicks told him of being flown by helicopter off a warship to an undisclosed location where he was spat on and beaten before being brought back to the ship.

Former detainee Martin Munbanga says he spoke to Hicks about the allegations.

"He was basically taken ... by helicopter, to a place. They [were] blindfolded and there they [were] beaten and spat upon and he [Hicks] was abused and assaulted," he said.

Terry Hicks believes his son was flown to a location where United Nations conventions regarding the treatment of prisoners would not apply.

Lawyers for Hicks say they have found some evidence that the helicopter flight did take place.

They claim it is highly unlikely a detainee would have been moved without official authorisation.

And:
David Hicks is spending 22 hours a day in "nightmarish" isolation in conditions described by Guantanamo Bay inmates as "a dungeon above the ground", court documents suggest.

Fresh evidence about the treatment of prisoners in the US military base has been revealed amid deepening concerns about the Australian terrorist suspect's mental state, and just days before Hicks receives a visit from his Australian lawyer. . . .

The US military had imposed on the men "a regimen of isolation and cruelty unheard of in penal or military law and unknown to civilised people", said [lawyer Sabin] Willett, who visited Guantanamo Bay on January 15 to 18.

And:
DAVID Hicks' father, Terry, has called for an independent inquiry into claims his son was sexually tortured, after a witness report in the US described a similar assault by the US millitary at the same site in Afghanistan where Hicks was held.

The US report, released under freedom-of-information laws, was made by a senior military officer and describes an incident in February 2002 in which a prisoner was allegedly anally assaulted by military police at the US joint interrogation facility at Kandahar.

David Hicks told his family when they visited him at Guantanamo Bay in 2004 that he had been anally assaulted during interrogation by the US in Afghanistan while he was hooded and restrained.

And:
[Hicks] previously alleged, via his family and lawyers, that he had been beaten and kicked, routinely deprived of sleep and even offered the services of a prostitute to spy on others.

In a letter to his family dated August 2004, David Hicks said he was on the brink of madness, and suffered extreme mood swings and confusion brought on by long periods of solitary confinement.

And:
DAVID Hicks has renewed allegations of torture at Guantanamo Bay, claiming he was stamped on, repeatedly hit with a rifle butt and injected with drugs.

A new document written by Hicks in support of his bid for British citizenship expands on previous claims and details new allegations of abuse.

The terror suspect says his body was shaved and he was spat on. . . . He claims he was forced to sit at a window and face six US soldiers with weapons pointed at him. One interrogator "took out his pistol and aimed it at me, with his hand shaking violently with rage".

"I realised that if I did not co-operate with US interrogators, I might be shot," he claimed.



STEP 3: After more than five years of lawless imprisonment, and only in response to the demands of one of our few remaining allied governments in the world, agree to release him from his black hole, but only on the condition that he (a) remains silent about his captivity and (b) signs a document "stipulating" that he was not mistreated during his captivity:
A panel of military officers had recommended a term of seven years, but a section of a plea agreement that had been kept secret from the panel capped the sentence at nine months for David Hicks, who has been held at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay for more than five years.

Under the agreement, the confessed Taliban-allied gunman will be allowed to serve his sentence in an Australian prison, but must remain silent about any alleged abuse while in custody.. . . .

Under his plea deal, Hicks stipulated that he has "never been illegally treated by a person or persons while in the custody of the U.S. government," Kohlmann said. In the statement read by [Hicks lawyer Michael] Mori, Hicks thanked U.S. service members for their professionalism during his imprisonment.

Hicks' release is conditioned on his signing the "stipulation" even though it is plainly coerced and insincere:

In the days before his arraignment Monday, Hicks' lawyers said their client was severely depressed and eager to leave Guantanamo. He spent the last few months alone in a small, solid-walled cell. His father, Terry Hicks, suggested he pleaded guilty only to escape the isolated prison. . . .

"I believe one of provisos was that he had to sign a form to say he wasn't badly treated," Terry Hicks told Australian Broadcasting Corp. radio in Australia. "We know for a fact that he was, and I'm going to push that issue."

Shayana Kadidal, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents hundred of Guantanamo detainees, said the provisions appeared aimed at preventing abuse allegations from emerging and politically damaging the Bush administration.



STEP 4: With the signed coerced Hicks stipulation in hand, send the Bush administration's military prosecutor in charge of military commissions to the Op-Ed page of The New York Times to tout "the humanity of its detention centers" at Guantanamo and deny allegations of mistreatment of detainees based upon Hicks' "admission." From Col. Davis today:
Critics liken Guantanamo Bay to Soviet gulags, but reality does not match their hyperbole. The supporters of David Hicks, the detainee popularly known as the "Australian Taliban," asserted that Mr. Hicks was mistreated and wasting away. But at his March trial, where he pleaded guilty to providing material support to a terrorist organization, he and his defense team stipulated he was treated properly. Mr. Hicks even thanked service members, and as one Australian newspaper columnist noted, he appeared in court “looking fat, healthy and tanned, and cracking jokes.”

So, to recap: we imprison someone for life with no charges, muffle their claims that they were tortured in captivity, agree to let them go after five years provided they sign a statement "stipulating" they were treated properly and vow to remain silent about the mistreatment to which they were subjected, and then send military official parading in public, waving the signed "stipulation" around in the air as proof of the sterling, professional and humane conditions at Guantanamo.

And just by this way, this, of course, was completely despicable, a total breach of all civilized norms, irrefutable proof of the monsters we are confronting in our Epic Global war of Civilizations against Fanatical Islamic Fascists:

Fifteen British sailors and Marines detained by Iran for over a week have confessed to illegally entering the country's waters, Iranian state-run media reported on Monday. . . . A spokesman for British Prime Minister Tony Blair called previous confessions "stage-managed" and said Britain had not changed its demand for the sailors' unconditional release.

Two other British sailors appeared in similar videos last week, prompting outrage in London.

The British Foreign Office called it unacceptable for such pictures to be aired and speaking last week, Prime Minister Tony Blair accused Iran of parading and manipulating the detainees. . . .

The brief video clips that aired on Sunday showed two men, one at a time, standing in front of a map. The first man, who is not seen identifying himself, points to where they were "when we were seized." He says it was "apparently at this point, here, from their maps, which is inside Iranian territorial waters."

IRIB and other news agencies identified him as Capt. Chris Air.

He adds, "So far we're being treated very well by all the people here. They have looked after us and made sure that we're getting enough food, and we've been treated very well by them, so we thank them for that." . .

On Friday, British sailor Nathan Thomas Summers appeared in a video on Al Alam, saying he was "grateful no harm has come to us," and apologizing for "entering your waters without permission."

It's comforting that the U.S. maintains such strong moral credibility in the world to protest behavior of that type. Freedom is on the march.

-- Glenn Greenwald

FBI to restrict student freedoms

US university students will not be able to work late at the campus, travel abroad, show interest in their colleagues' work, have friends outside the United States, engage in independent research, or make extra money without the prior consent of the authorities, according to a set of guidelines given to administrators by the FBI.

Federal agents are visiting some of the New England's top universities, including MIT, Boston College, and the University of Massachusetts, to warn university heads about the dangers of foreign spies and terrorists stealing sensitive academic research.

FBI is offering to brief faculty, students and staff on what it calls "espionage indicators" aimed at identifying foreign agents.

Unexplained affluence, failing to report overseas travel, showing unusual interest in information outside the job scope, keeping unusual work hours, unreported contacts with foreign nationals, unreported contact with foreign government, military, or intelligence officials, attempting to gain new accesses without the need to know, and unexplained absences are all considered potential espionage indicators.

Faculty, staff and students are encouraged to monitor their colleagues for signs of suspicious behaviour and report any concerns to the FBI or the military.

"What we're most concerned about are those things that are not classified being developed by MIT [Massachusetts Institute of Technology], Worcester Polytech [Worcester Polytechnic Institute] and other universities," Warren Bamford, special agent in charge of the FBI's Boston office, told the Boston Herald. "It's to make sure these institutions receive training...[on] what spies look for. There are hundreds of projects going on that could be useful to a foreign power."

"My understanding is that what the FBI is proposing is not illegal, but it does raise questions about the chilling effect in regard to academia,"Chris Ott, Communications Manager of the ACLU of Massachusetts told WSWS. "What will it mean about feeling free to pursue information? People on the campuses will be afraid to ask questions or take on the investigation of certain areas, say, for example, nuclear energy. "

University administrators have expressed their appreciation of FBI efforts.

"It was a very nice offer," Robert A. Weygand, vice president for administration and a former Rhode Island congressman told the Boston Herald. "We are taking it under consideration."

Last year the FBI initiated the College and University Security Effort (CAUSE), in order to establish an "alliance" between the Federal agency and academic institutions.

According to the FBI, through CAUSE, Special Agents in charge meet with the heads of local colleges to discuss national security issues and to share information and ideas.

The Right Way...

Robert I. Sherman, a reporter for the American Atheist news journal, fully accredited by the state of Illinois and by invitation a participating member of the press corps covering the national candidates, had the following exchange with then-Vice-President Bush.

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?

Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Supreme Court OKs Price Fixing

In an absurd 5-4 ruling the US Supreme Court reversed a 96 year old ban on price fixing.

The lawsuit arose when Leegin Creative Leather stopped shipping its Brighton tooled-leather accessories to Dallas-area shop Kay's Kloset because the store was selling the goods more cheaply than Leegin wanted. After Leegin cut the store off, PSKS, parent of Kay's Kloset, filed an antitrust lawsuit.

Burlington Coat Factory, which filed a brief supporting PSKS, worries about the impact on the off-price chain. Burlington attorney Stacy John Haigney called the decision "an open invitation to manufacturers and full-price retailers to fix retail prices at a higher level. It will be detrimental to our business, but I really can't tell how much."

The Consumer Electronics Association says it supports the court decision because, it says, "sales training, industry marketing and after-sales service" are what many TV and audio gear buyers look for in electronics stores.

Bill Gates, of golf equipment maker Ping, says, "Not every consumer is a bargain shopper. Some consumers are looking for quality, innovation, personalization and customer service when they shop."

Richard Doherty of technology market researcher The Envisioneering Group agrees, saying the price ruling could lead retailers to use more free products and better service as sales incentives. "It's sure to be to consumers' benefit this summer and through Christmas."
Findlaw discusses the case in High Court Eases Ban on Minimum Prices.
Manufacturers will have greater leeway to set minimum prices at the retail level without violating antitrust laws under a Thursday Supreme Court ruling that could hurt consumers and small merchants.

By allowing minimum price agreements, the court's 5-4 decision could lead to higher prices, dissenting justices said, as it becomes more difficult for smaller stores and Internet retailers to offer lower-priced goods.

The court said agreements on minimum prices are legal if they promote competition, meaning accusations of antitrust violations will be evaluated case by case.

[Mish comment: This is the crux of the stupidity. The court has now decided that it can decide if price fixing promotes competition or not, on a case by case basis. I hope they get flooded with cases. Let me state that price fixing never promotes competition by definition.]

In a 1991 decision, the Supreme Court had declared that minimum pricing agreements always violate federal antitrust law. But Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion that the principle that past decisions should be left alone "does not compel our continued adherence" in this instance.

Minimum price agreements can benefit consumers, Kennedy wrote, by enabling retailers to invest in greater customer service without fear of being undercut by discount rivals. The agreements also could make it easier for new products to compete, he added, because a retailer could recoup the costs of marketing a new good by charging a higher price.

[Mish comment: What absurd logic by Kennedy. For starters it is highly doubtful that price fixing can ever benefit consumers. Furthermore, even if by some miracle price fixing did benefit some consumers in some cases, what gives a panel of judges the wisdom to decide in what cases consumers really benefited or not? Only consumers acting in conjunction with free market forces can decide that. Price fixing is the antithesis of free market forces. Finally, what possible interpretation gives a strict constitutionalist the authority to make such decisions in the first place?]

Dissenting from that view, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote: "The only safe predictions to make about today's decision are that it will likely raise the price of goods at retail."

[Mish comment: Actually the only safe prediction is that this decision will backfire in undetermined ways, perhaps a multitude of them. We could see a flood of litigation, we could see fewer consumer goods on the shelves, we could see lower profits because of lower sales, etc. We could see reduced innovation. Other than that, the initial impact is likely to be higher prices and reduced competition.]

The Consumer Federation of America said in court filings that the ban on minimum price agreements allowed "innovative retailers to continually enter the market, offering new and lower priced alternatives to consumers."

[Mish comment: What nonsense. We do not need innovative price fixing rules to allow what the free market does already.]

But Roy Englert, an antitrust attorney at Robbins Russell, said the court's decision does have boundaries that will protect entrepreneurs. The ruling only allows minimum price agreements between manufacturers of a single brand of a product and retailers, Englert said, while other brands of the same product can still compete on price.

Moreover, if only one brand is available, retailers and consumers can still sue manufacturers for anticompetitive conduct, Englert said. The courts will now evaluate such suits on the merits, rather than automatically finding them illegal.

[Mish comment: Lovely. Consumers will have to sue to get a free market, and when they do sue they will be at the mercy of the court, a court that is likely to make as inane rulings as this one.]
I scoff at what Richard Doherty of technology market researcher The Envisioneering Group says: "It's sure to be to consumers' benefit this summer and through Christmas." Instead I ponder how anyone can seriously propose that the short term effect of this would be to lower prices.

With every passing day, government strips away rights of citizens. We have now gone down the path that says wiretaps, spying, and torture are condoned, as are holding people without charging them with crimes. Even kidnapping is condoned, so is search and seizure. Preemptive warfare is OK (but only for the US of course). The latest absurdity is government sponsored price fixing.

What right does the government have to tell anyone what they can or can not charge for goods and services? That is the heart of the issue but you might not know it from reading the ruling or even the dissenting opinions.

If You See a Father Holding His Child’s Hand, Call the Cops!

by Glenn Sacks

If dad goes for a walk with his daughter and holds her hand, apparently Virginia Department of Health officials wants you to pick up the phone and destroy his life by reporting him as a possible sexual abuser. I would’ve thought this article about this campaign was from the Onion or some satirical publication, but it’s for real.

One of the most beautiful pictures I’ve ever seen is a picture of my father walking on the beach near sunset holding my daughter’s little hand. The picture above of a man holding a child’s hand–a touching little scene–is actually supposed to make us think he’s sexually abusing the child. Unbelievable.

From Campaign advocates recognizing, reporting suspected abuse (Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, 6/21/07):

“For years, campaigns to stop child sexual crimes have focused on encouraging children to speak up about abuse.

“State health officials are trying a new tactic. The latest push, at least in Hampton Roads, is to educate adults on how to spot - and stop - sexual offenders.

“The ‘Stop It Now’ campaign - just launched locally - will urge people to call a help line if they see an adult whom they suspect of having a sexual relationship with a child.

“Billboards and posters show an adult hand holding a child’s hand, with the words: ‘It doesn’t feel right when I see them together.’

“A national help line number is listed, and through it callers can get advice about what to do.

“Rebecca Odor, who directs the sexual and domestic violence prevention division for the state Department of Health, said officials hope to reach people who might feel uncomfortable reporting a relative or acquaintance to law enforcers.

“‘We want to teach them to trust their instinct and, if it doesn’t feel right, take action,’ Odor said.”

Holocaust Survivor Leaving US

One of our neighbors is moving. I've been in this neighborhood for about six years now, but didn't really know them very well at all - just waves and nods, mostly.

So I heard the moving van pull up this morning. When I got home this evening I happened to spy my neighbor (he's like 85 years old - I don't know exactly, but he's old, talks and moves very slowly) standing on the sidewalk next to the van. I walked over and shook his hand, and we started talking. I asked him where he was moving, and he said, "Back to Germany."

I had been stationed in Germany for two years while in the military, so I lit up, and commented about how beautiful the country was, and inquired if he was going back because he missed it.

"No," he answered me. "I'm going back because I've seen this before." He then commenced to explain that when he was a kid, he watched with his family in fear as Hitler's government committed atrocity after atrocity, and no one was willing to say anything. He said the news refused to question the government, and the ones who did were not in the newspaper business much longer. He said good neighbors, people he had known all his life, turned against his family and other Jews, grabbing on to the hate and superiority "as if they were starved for it" (his words).

He said he was too old to see it happen right in front of his eyes again, and too old to do anything about it, so he was taking his family back to Europe on Thursday where they would be safe from George W. Bush and his neocons. He seemed resolute, but troubled, nonetheless, as if being too young on one end and too old on the other to fight what he saw happening was wearing on him.

I gotta tell you - it was chilling. I let him talk, and the whole time, my gut was churning, like I had mutated butterflies in my stomach. When he was finished, he shook my hand, gripping it really hard, until his knuckles turned white and he was shaking. He looked me in the eyes, hard, and said, "I will pray for your family and your country." He let go of my hand and hobbled away.

I have related this event to you in the hopes it will serve as a cautionary anecdote about the state of our Union, and to illustrate the path we Americans are being led down by a group of fanatics bent on global economic and military dominion. When a man who survived the fruits of fascism decides its time to leave THIS country because he's seeing the same patterns that led to the Holocaust and other Nazi horrors beginning to form here, it is time for us to recognize the underlying evil inherent in the actions of those who claim they work for all Americans, and for all mankind. And it is incumbent upon all Americans, Red and Blue, Republican and Democrat, to stop them.

20070703

NYC man held for reciting 1st Amendment

By TOM HAYS, Associated Press

NEW YORK - Reverend Billy says he wants the New York Police Department to get right with the Constitution.

The performance artist — a cross between a street-corner preacher and an Elvis impersonator (but blond) — was arrested on harassment charges last week while reciting the First Amendment through a megaphone in Manhattan's Union Square. On Monday, he donned his trademark white suit and returned to the scene of his alleged sin to demand that police repent.

"It feels so good to be back on the very spot where I was denied my First Amendment rights by reciting the First Amendment," he told reporters over the din of an NYPD helicopter hovering overhead.

Reverend Billy, whose real name is Bill Talen, was joined by women in red choir robes who sang a hymn version of the amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech. Other activists distributed an amateur videotape of his arrest.

Eyes closed and hands raised, the pretend pastor whooped, "Bill of Rights-elujah!"

Talen, 57, has spent years using his mock persona as a fire-and-brimstone evangelist to rail against consumer culture — what he portrays as the Disneyfication of Manhattan. He was arrested this year on misdemeanor trespassing charges for protesting at a Starbucks; that case is pending.

His latest run-in with the law began after he turned up to support people gathering in Union Square last Friday for the monthly Critical Mass bike ride asserting cyclists' rights.

The NYPD has aggressively policed the rides, arguing that they can interfere with traffic and threaten public safety. Advocates for Critical Mass have accused police of infringing on the riders' constitutional rights to free speech and free assembly.

The video shows Talen preaching the "44 beautiful words of the First Amendment" to a visibly annoyed congregation of police commanders huddled a few feet away. At one point, an officer approaches and warns him that his sermon is breaking the law.

"What's the law?" Talen asks.

"Harassment," the officer answers.

When Talen persists, another officer comes up behind him and slaps on handcuffs. When being put in a police van, the satirist shouts, "We have a right to peaceful assembly!"

Talen was held overnight before being released without bail. A criminal complaint alleges he harassed police officers by approaching them and "repeatedly shouting at such officers through a non-electric bullhorn."

Civil rights attorney Norman Siegel, appearing with Talen on Monday, called on prosecutors to drop the charges.

"The arrest was a false arrest," Siegel said. "What Reverend Billy did last Friday night does not constitute illegal conduct."

Prosecutors declined to comment. The New York Police Department, contacted Monday evening, said it had no comment.

Charlie Rose - Guest Host Bill Moyers with philosopher Daniel Dennett

20070702

Russia shuts down Allofmp3.com

The music download website whose activities threatened to scupper Russia's entry into the World Trade Organisation (WTO) has been shut down.

The site, Allofmp3.com, was quietly closed as the Kremlin sought to end criticism from the United States that Russia was failing to clamp down on music and video piracy.

However, an alternative site run by the same Moscow company has already emerged. MediaServices says that mp3Sparks.com is legal under Russian law, using many of the same arguments advanced in support of allofmp3.com.

Customers found last week that allofmp3.com would not load on their computers, while others who went through its Russian web address were greeted by a message saying that it was closed "for maintenance". A former employee confirmed to The Times today that it had been shut down under pressure from the Russian authorities.

Susan Schwab, the US Trade Representative, singled out allofmp3.com during talks last year on Russian membership of the WTO and said that closure was a non-negotiable condition of entry.

She and German Gref, Russia's Minister of Trade and Economic Development, signed an agreement in October in which Moscow pledged to shut down the site, which contains one of the world's largest online collections of pirated music.

Russia also promised to target other Russian sites that distributed copyright material illegally. Allofmp3.com insisted that it was a legitimate business because it paid royalties to a Russian organisation that collected fees for distribution to copyright holders.

It argued that it was helping to prevent piracy by offering an alternative to free file-sharing sites. Western music companies refused to accept the fee, arguing that the Russian Multimedia and Internet Society had no right to represent their interests.

The site had been under investigation for two years by the Russian Interior Ministry. A bigger blow was struck in January, when Visa and MasterCard told MediaServices that they would no longer process payments for allofmp3.com.

The site had attracted 5.5 million subscribers buying songs for between 10 and 20 US cents each, compared with 99 cents at Apple’s American iTunes store and 79p in the UK.

Most customers were in Russia, but it was estimated to be the second most popular download site in Britain after iTunes. It was set up in 2000 by six computer programmers, who initially developed the site for their personal use then built it into a business earning a reputed $30 million a year.

The Mp3Sparks.com site looks virtually identical and claims to offer thousands of albums by popular artists for around 15 US cents per song. Bon Jovi's latest disc, for example, was on offer for $2.11.

MediaServices said that the site was registered with the Russian Licensing Societies, which it claimed had the right under Russian law to "grant licences and to collect royalties for the use of music without necessarily obtaining permission from the copyright owners".

The company's website said that it paid 15 per cent of proceeds to the licencing societies for distribution to copyright holders. It added that it was considering an additional payment of 5 per cent to performing artists, whether or not they owned the copyright, "despite no legal requirement to do so".

Nobody from MediaServices responded to attempts by The Times to establish how long the new site had been in existence and how it differed legally from allofmp3.com.

Russia and the US signed a bilateral agreement on Russian membership of the WTO last November after 12 years of negotiations. Russia is the only major economy that is not a member of the WTO, which has 149 members and aims to boost the global economy by lowering trade barriers.

Russia hopes to complete bilateral negotiations with other member states in time to enter the trade body at the end of this year.

The last resort

When you have a teenager on the rampage, who are you going to turn to? In America, parents send their troubled offspring to Jamaica's Tranquility Bay - a 'behaviour-modification centre' which charges $40,000 a year to 'cure' them. Decca Aitkenhead, the first journalist to gain access to the centre in five years, wonders if there isn't too high a price to pay

Were you to glance up from the deserted beach below, you might mistake Tranquility Bay for a rather exclusive hotel. The statuesque white property stands all alone on a sandy curve of southern Jamaica, feathered by palm trees, gazing out across the Caribbean Sea. You would have to look closer to see the guards at the wall. Inside, 250 foreign children are locked up. Almost all are American, but though kept prisoner, they were not sent here by a court of law. Their parents paid to have them kidnapped and flown here against their will, to be incarcerated for up to three years, sometimes even longer. They will not be released until they are judged to be respectful, polite and obedient enough to rejoin their families.

Parents sign a legal contract with Tranquility Bay granting 49 per cent custody rights. It permits the Jamaican staff, whose qualifications are not required to exceed a high-school education, to use whatever physical force they feel necessary to control their child. The contract also waives Tranquility's liability for harm that should befall a child in its care. The cost of sending a child here ranges from $25,000 to $40,000 a year.

Opened in 1997, Tranquility Bay is not a boot camp or a boarding school but a 'behaviour modification centre' for 11- to 18-year-olds. An American Time magazine journalist visited in 1998, and since then no media have been allowed inside. With all access denied, there has been little coverage beyond sketchy reports based on hearsay - even the local community knows almost nothing of what goes on. My discovery of Tranquility Bay came only by accident in 2000, while living nearby, and all my approaches since then were, like every other media request, firmly rejected.

The owner is an American called Jay Kay. He doesn't trust the media, because 'they go for sensationalist stuff. Nothing has really presented things in a way that is factual.' On the other hand, he believes anyone who saw inside Tranquility would support and admire it, and blames criticism on ignorance. So Kay has been in a dilemma. His business is expanding, and he is turning his attention to the UK, for he believes there is a large untapped market of British parents who would ship their children straight off to Jamaica if only they knew about Tranquility. The British government, too, he hopes, might send him children in its care. 'If social services was interested, at $2,400 a month I bet they can't offer our services for that.'

This spring he decided to grant me and a photographer unprecedented, exclusive access. If he didn't like the result, 'Hell will freeze over before anyone gets in here again.'

The first impression once inside Tranquility Bay's perimeter walls is of disconcerting quiet. Students are moved around the property in silence by guards in single file, 3ft apart - a complicated operation, because girls and boys must be kept segregated at all times, forbidden to look at one another.

Tranquility has a language of its own. The vocabulary is recognisable, but its use has been delicately customised, so that boys are 'males', girls 'females', and they are all divided into single-sex 'families' of about 20. The families have names such as Dignity, Triumph and Wisdom, and are led by a staff member known as the 'family mother' or 'father', addressed by the children as Mum or Dad. The 200 staff are all Jamaican.

Along with multiple guards known as 'chaperones', the family mothers and fathers control and scrutinise their children 24 hours a day. The only moment a student is alone is in a toilet cubicle; but a chaperone is standing right outside the door, and knows what he or she went in to do, because when students raise their hand for permission to go, they must hold up one finger for 'a number one', and two for 'a number two'.

Corporal punishment is not practised, but staff administer 'restraint'. Officially it is deployed as the name suggests, to subdue a student who is out of control. However, former students say it is issued more often as a punishment. One explains: 'It's a completely degrading, painful experience. You could get it for raising your voice or pointing your finger. You know you're going to get it when three Jamaicans walk in and say, "Take off your watch." They pin you down in a five-point formation and that's when they start twisting and pulling your limbs, grinding your ankles.'

Before sending their teen to Tranquility, parents are advised that it might be prudent to keep their plan a secret, and employ an approved escort service to break the news. The first most teenagers hear of Tranquility is therefore when they are woken from their beds at home at 4am by guards, who place them in a van, handcuffed if necessary, drive them to an airport and fly them to Jamaica. The child will not be allowed to speak to his or her parents for up to six months, or see them for up to a year.

Let us say you are a new female assigned to Challenger family. You sleep with your family in one bare room, on beds which are pieces of wood on hinges hung on the walls. The day begins with a chaperone shouting at you to get up. You put on your uniform and flip-flops (harder to run away in) in silence and fold your bed against the wall. The room is now completely bare. After performing chores, the family is ordered to line up, for your family mother to do a head count.

You are walked to a classroom to watch an 'EG' - a 30-minute video intended to promote 'emotional growth' - on a theme such as why you shouldn't smoke. Then the family is lined up, counted and walked to the canteen to eat a plate of boiled cabbage and fish in silence while listening to an 'inspirational tape' broadcast loudly through the room, urging you to, for example, eat healthily.

'If 70-80 per cent of the food you eat is not water rich, what you are doing is clogging your body. Eat 80 per cent water-rich food. Try it for the next 10 days. Watch what happens to your body. It will blow your mind.' Students have no choice in what they eat - there is a seven-day plan of basic Jamaican meals which never changes, and eating less than 50 per cent of any dish is forbidden.

Morning routines vary between families. Some shower (three minutes, cold water), others wash clothes (outside, in buckets, cold water), or exercise (walk round the yard). At 9.30am, each family is moved into a classroom for two hours. You continue the US high-school curriculum where you left off at home, but there is no teaching.

Watched by chaperones, you read prescribed course books, take notes, then sit a test after each chapter. Two or three Jamaican teachers sit at the back of the room in case you get stuck, and they may be able to help. But to mark the tests, they have to use an answer key sent down from the States.

After lunch and another inspirational tape come three further hours of school, a second EG, plus an educational video about a historical figure of note. There is a sports period, a family meeting, a final meal with tape, followed by a period called Reflections, when you must write down what you have memorised from the tapes and EGs. You may also write home to your parents, and though staff can read your mail, you may write what you like. But Tranquility's handbook for parents warns them not to believe anything that sounds like a 'manipulation', the programme's word for a complaint.

There is no free time, and you are never alone. At 10pm everyone is in bed for Shut Down; the lights go off, and Tranquility is silent, save for waves crashing on to the beach below. Chaperones watch you through the night. And the next day is exactly the same. As is the next, and the next.

'Yep, identical,' says Kay. 'Exactly identical. Now you see,' he adds, with a grim nod of satisfaction, 'why kids are not happy here.'

Tranquility Bay is one of 11 facilities affiliated to an organisation in Utah called the World Wide Association of Speciality Programs. The facilities are located in the States and Caribbean region, and although independently owned, all run the same programme, devised by Wwasp.

Jay Kay is 33 years old, and the son of Wwasp's chief director. He opened the facility at the age of 27, after four years as administrator of a Wwasp-run juvenile psychiatric hospital in Utah. Previously he had been a night guard there, and before that a petrol-pump attendant, having dropped out of college. He has no qualifications in child development, but considers this unimportant.

'Experience in this job is better than any degree. Am I an educational expert? No. But I know how to hire people to get the job done.' There is more than a touch of the Jerry Springer guest about his looks - heavy, shaven-headed, colourless, and a similarly deadening certainty of mind. 'I've got the best job in the world,' he claims, but he carries himself like a man who has learnt to expect the worst, and is seldom disappointed.

Tranquility is basically a private detention camp. But it differs in one important respect. When courts jail a juvenile, he has a fixed sentence and may think what he likes while serving it, whereas no child arrives at Tranquility with a release date. Students are judged ready to leave only when they have demonstrated a sincere belief that they deserved to be sent here, and that the programme has, in fact, saved their life. They must renounce their old self, espouse the programme's belief system, display gratitude for their salvation, and police fellow students who resist.

A finely engineered reward-and-punishment system has been designed to effect this change. In order to graduate, students must advance from level 1 to 6, which they do by earning points. Every aspect of their conduct is graded daily and as their score accumulates, they climb through the levels and acquire privileges.

On level 1, students are forbidden to speak, stand up, sit down or move without permission. When they have earnt enough points to reach level 2, they may speak without permission; on level 3, they are granted a (staff-monitored) phone call home. Levels 4, 5 and 6 enjoy significantly higher status. In addition to enjoying privileges, such as (strictly limited and approved) clothing, jewellery, music and snacks, they are employed for three days a week as a member of staff, and must discipline other students by issuing 'consequences'.

Every time a member of staff or upper-level student feels a student has broken a rule, they 'consequence' them by deducting points. Rule-breaking is classified into categories of offence. A 'Cat 1' offence, ie rolling your eyes, is consequenced by a modest loss of points. A 'Cat 3' offence, eg swearing, costs a significant number, and may drop the student's score beneath their current level's threshold, thus demoting them and removing privileges.

'You know,' offers Kay, 'if people want to talk about the length of the programme, it's up to the child. If a parent wonders why their kid is here so long, well gee, we are doing our part, maybe you need to ask your little Joey why he is not moving forward. Everyone knows how to earn the points.'

The strategy of coercing children to rewire themselves is the concept Kay is most proud of, for he believes it places troubled teenagers' redemption in their own hands. The choice is theirs.

'For years, we just believed if you make the kids do what you want them to do, then they will make the change. But what we figured out was, why not get them to come to the conclusion that they need to make the change themselves? That's what makes this programme special. It's up to them.'

Students who fail to grasp this formula are forcefully encouraged to get the message. One girl currently has to wear a sign around her neck at all times, which reads: 'I've been in this programme for three years, and I am still pulling crap.'

When most children first arrive they find it difficult to believe that they have no alternative but to submit. In shock, frightened and angry, many simply refuse to obey. This is when they discover the alternative. Guards take them (if necessary by force) to a small bare room and make them (again by force if necessary) lie flat on their face, arms by their sides, on the tiled floor. Watched by a guard, they must remain lying face down, forbidden to speak or move a muscle except for 10 minutes every hour, when they may sit up and stretch before resuming the position. Modest meals are brought to them, and at night they sleep on the floor of the corridor outside under electric light and the gaze of a guard. At dawn they resume the position.

This is known officially as being 'in OP' - Observation Placement - and more casually as 'lying on your face'. Any level student can be sent to OP, and it automatically demotes them to level 1 and zero points. Every 24 hours, students in OP are reviewed by staff, and only sincere and unconditional contrition will earn their release. If they are unrepentant? 'Well, they get another 24 hours.'

One boy told me he'd spent six months in OP.

I didn't think this could be true, but it transpired this was not even exceptional. 'Oh no,' says Kay. 'The record is actually held by a female.' On and off, she spent 18 months lying on her face.

'The purpose of observation,' Kay offers, 'is to give the kids a chance to think. Hopefully, it's giving the kids a chance to reflect on the choices they've made.' And indeed it is often in OP that a student decides to stop fighting. In this respect, OP works. In fact, the success rate of OP can be understood as a perfect distillation of Tranquility Bay's ideology. If your son is willfully disrespectful, the most loving gift a parent can give him is incarceration in an environment so intolerable that he will do anything to get out - where 'anything' means surrendering his mind to authority.

'I say to the parents,' says Kay, leaning back in his office seat. 'The bottom line is, what's the end result you want? Getting there may be ugly, but at least with us you're going to get there.'

Jim Mozingo got the result he wanted. Twenty months after sending his son Josh away, he arrived from North Carolina to collect him. Mozingo has four sons, an insurance company, and is a good example of a typical Tranquility parent. Divorced from Josh's mother, busy, wealthy, he found Tranquility by typing 'defiant teen' into the internet.

'I tell you, I was at my wits' end with my son. We'd tried military school, but he got kicked out. He never got into trouble with the police. He was one step from that. What it was is, he was going through this identity crisis. Peer pressure. Pot got involved.'

Drugs feature high among reasons for choosing Tranquility, although addicts who need detox are not accepted. Running away from home, sleeping around, or being expelled from school are also typical. Some kids have been in trouble with the police. Others had been in court, where their parents persuaded the judge to let them send their child to Tranquility, rather than issue his own punishment. Other students were sent here for wearing inappropriate clothes, using bad language, or hanging around with the wrong sort of friends.

'He was real disrespectful to his mom,' Mozingo sighs. 'Not to me. Never to Daddy. He lived with his mom until a year-and-a-half before he came here, and I knew the day would come when she would call me and say, "I can't handle it."'

But Mozingo had baby twin sons with his new wife, and Josh was a disruptive addition to the household. 'I knew I had to do something. I didn't want to lose him. I would do anything for him, that's why I sent him here. We tried therapy at home, but you know.' He laughs conspiratorially. 'God love 'em, we've got to have therapists, I guess. But I come from a class where if you've got a problem, well hell, you just work it out. Josh just needed to get his head on straight. And he has.

'Sure, he complained like hell at first,' he recalls fondly. 'Typical case of manipulation, just like they said in the handbook. He said the staff were mean and violent, they beat you, the food is terrible.' He chuckles, pleased by the neat symmetry of the handbook and letters. While he is talking, Josh hovers nearby, with bright eyes that dance longingly on his father's face. It took Josh a whole year to reach level 2, some of it spent in OP, but his father feels only awestruck gratitude for the treatment his son has received.

'Every time I come here I'm just so struck by the love of these people. You can't fake this kind of love. And this place is just full of love. I challenge anyone to come down and take a look.'

These are classic Tranquility-parent feelings. For example, Mozingo believes his son had a serious drug problem before coming to Jamaica and Josh agrees. What was he taking? 'I was doing marijuana. I was doing cigarettes. Alcohol.' He looks disgusted with himself. 'Mostly, though, I stole prescription pills from my grandmother.'

Also striking is the assumption parents make of entitlement to their child's affection, as though this is a legal right. 'She's a neat kid, she really is,' a former student's mother says. 'She just didn't like us.' But now, 'I don't believe she's lying to me any more, and that's a neat feeling.'

Messy divorce and remarriage are the norm among these parents. Their expectations of loyalty from their children, though, suggest a gilt-edged ideal of American family life so brittle any rebellion or defiance is literally terrifying. This culture then creates its own logic - for once adolescence is criminalised, Tranquility becomes the obvious solution.

A clearer picture of this family culture emerges from conversation with a group of levels 5 and 6.

'Oh, my relationship with my family was pretty bad. I just went to my room and avoided my parents. There was always arguments and stuff,' offers Pete. 'I was very angry with my parents, their divorce had a big influence on me. I'm not angry with them now, though. Not at all. I mean, I look at this as a punishment, obviously, but I deserved it. How I acted towards my parents.'

Susie is 16, from New York, and here 'because of having sex. Not going to school. It was my attitude. It wasn't, like, drugs. The problem was, me and my mom, we just didn't have a relationship. We could say how was your day, that was about it.' The possibility that this was a normal phase is adamantly rejected by Susie.

'No, that wasn't normal. I would be doing the same thing all my life. I would never have got out of it.' Her friend Michelle believes, 'I'd be living on the streets now. And I think one of the biggest things I've learnt here is that everything happens for a reason. I came here for a reason. You see, I just wasn't meant to be living the life I was living. I wasn't meant to be homeless.'

So who is meant to be homeless? 'What?' She looks thrown, before putting the question aside. 'If my mom hadn't sent me here I would have died.'

That without Tranquility they would be dead is an article of faith among all the students.

I ask one how they would have died. 'What?'

It soon becomes apparent that despite all having been programmed with the script of their near death, no one has paused to wonder how it would have happened. But if they hadn't been dead, they would have been poor, a destiny they have been taught to consider more or less the same thing. 'Tranquility showed me that I'd have been a minimum wager,' Nick says. 'This place saved my life.'

'I'd probably be living with a drug dealer or something awful like that,' speculates a girl. 'And going nowhere. Not being successful.'

A number of these students are 18 years old and therefore legally free to walk out, but until they graduate the programme their parents are refusing to have them home. Lindsay Cohen is nearly 19. A straight-A high-school graduate, she was heading for Harvard until an unsuitable choice of boyfriend had her sent here at the age of 17. The day she turned 18, Tranquility would be obliged to hand over $50 and the return half of her air ticket if she wanted to leave.

She picks the words of her explanation carefully. 'OK. I'm used to a high-profile lifestyle. I really don't own anything too inexpensive. What I'm accustomed to isn't anything of the sort you can buy for $50. And my parents promised to support me through law school if I stayed. So really, walking isn't worth it. Sometimes,' she murmurs, 'I still think I didn't need to come here...' but stops herself and offers, vaguely, 'But I guess in life things happen.'

The students all describe their pre-programme selves using the same subjective descriptions, such as 'ignorant' or 'disrespectful', as if these were neutral adjectives, like 'brown'. Their delivery, too, is disturbingly similar, for the words come out like empty envelopes, emotionally vacant.

'When I was sent here I was very upset,' Kate tells me. Her voice is careful but dull. 'My parents didn't tell me I was coming here. They tricked me.' She smiles a faraway, inscrutable smile. 'I had to have the police escort me on to the plane.'

How do you feel about it now? 'I think it's great. The fact that I changed my life is great.' And what's your relationship like with them now? 'It's great.' What spark Kate and others have is lit only by Kay and the chaperones, towards whom a faintly flirtatious electricity seems to flicker. These children do not just obey rules. They seem to have been psychologically rewired.

'You have to understand,' a former student, who turned 18 and walked out, tries to explain. 'The staff are constantly trying to work out what you are thinking about and constantly telling you what to think about, and then constantly checking to see if you are thinking about it. And if you're not, and they know you're not, you might as well be dead.'

Every day, each family has a meeting, taken by its 'family representative', the staff member who reports to their parents in a weekly phone call.

Challenger family's meeting is the first I attend, and has the appearance of group therapy. The girls sit in a circle on the floor, with an hour to stand up and 'share', or offer 'feedback'.

The first to her feet is frightened that her old problem of anorexia is returning. 'I feel really disgusting the whole time. I hate it so much because I feel so imperfect. I just feel so insecure, I didn't think this was going to come back, I don't know what to do.' She casts about, anguish bubbling out incoherently. 'Like, if I was to date a guy, and I was always hating myself, well that would push him away. Being alone really scares me a lot, but I know that's how I'm going to end up.' Now she is crying hard, gulping air, talking randomly. 'Like, if I get a Cat 2, I feel like I'm letting everyone down.'

After 10 minutes she sits down. But there is something odd about the atmosphere - hot grief has met ice-cool air. Hands go up for feedback.

'No one else is thinking about you, why do you think anyone notices you?'

'Don't you get it? The purpose of being here, and getting consequences, is to teach you how to pick yourself up. If you don't mess up, you go home.'

I am completely taken aback. As they rattle out their spiteful attacks some sound bored, like waitresses running through a menu, but others are imaginatively vicious. After the next has shared, a girl stands up and points at her victim's acne.

'Why is it that you feel so comfortable wallowing in your own crap? That's why you have that stuff on your face. It's because you're hurting yourself on the inside.' The family rep looks on with approval.

The rep for Renaissance takes a more pro-active role in her meeting. Her senior boys need no help on the feedback front - 'You've got a really bad attitude. I've talked to you about that before. You're lazy. That's all you are, man' - and so on, but she pulls a coup de grâce towards the end.

A boy stands and clearly thinks just once he is going to come off best. There had been a dispute over his 'exit plan', the arrangement for his imminent return home. He had said he was not going to live with his mother and staff thought he was. His mother had now written to confirm that he was absolutely correct.

'So I just wanted to make sure,' he says, with biting diplomacy, 'that there were no other "misunderstandings" that need to be cleared up.'

His family rep stares hard at him hard, smarting. Defeat seems inescapable. The silence lengthens, and her eyes narrow.

'You know what? I'm going to review your exit plan. It will have to go on hold.'

'Miss! Miss, no!' He is aghast, panic-stricken. 'You can't mean that? Why are you punishing me?'

She studies him. 'I am not punishing you. You just gave me the idea. You have punished yourself.'

Why would students want to stand up and share, or give this kind of feedback? Scott Burkett, a student who left two years ago, explains: 'You can only move forward in the programme if you share intimate details of your life. If you don't share, you're not "working the programme", and they'll take away your points. In a meeting, your rep will suddenly pick on you and say, "Right, I want to hear something private, right now. Come on. Or do you want to go to OP?" And I'm going through this inventory in my head real fast, thinking what will hurt least to say? Because you tell her secrets and then she uses them against you later. Like, say a guy mentions problems with his girlfriend, a month later she'll have him up, and she's saying, "You don't think she's waiting, do you?" She's laughing at you behind your back. "How many of your friends do you think she's sleeping with right now?" So I start telling her something, and she just says, "I'm not listening to that, that's not deep," and she calls for the guard to take me to OP. And I've got until he gets in the room to give her something better, or he's taking me.'

Points and privileges are awarded to students who tell on each other. If you don't tell on someone for breaking a rule and get found out, you lose points. 'There is zero trust,' Scott explains. 'You can't trust anyone. It's not us against them. It's everyone against you.' Scott remembers a new boy being caught with incriminating used tissues; masturbation is strictly forbidden. 'And they got him up in front of everyone right after dinner, and the upper-level kids just ripped into him, this little 13-year-old kid. It was kind of the entertainment for the night. That's what I mean about breaking kids.'

Students also take part in seminars - phenomenally confrontational three-day sessions which are calculated to induce what approaches mass hysteria. Participants must swear a vow of silence, shrouding what takes place in secrecy. Many credit these emotionally intense encounters with transforming their lives, whereas others describe them as brutal manipulation.

Parents cannot visit their child at Tranquility until they, too, have attended a seminar in the States. They attend further seminars together with their child and many consider this to be the programme's most valuable attribute. 'Awesome,' marvels Jim Mozingo, 'mind-blowing.' But this dual approach ensures that the only people outside Tranquility with whom students are allowed contact become insiders, too, co-opted into Tranquility's special language and belief system. And parents have a financial incentive to believe and proselytise. For every new customer they can recruit, a month's fees for their own child are waived.

What Wwasp has created is a perfectly watertight world in which all criticism is, by definition, discredited. From former students, it merely proves they are still dealing in 'manipulations'. If parents are unhappy, the 'poor results' they got only indicate that they failed to support the programme. Staff are bound by a confidentiality clause, and any who leave and speak out are cast as 'disgruntled former employees' with personal axes to grind.

Only one potential gap exists. A licensed psychologist must perform an evaluation of every arrival. He also offers students optional one-on-one and group therapy, and is paid directly by parents. He is not employed by Tranquility because, as he stresses, 'I need to be independent. I represent the kid and the family. That's very important.'

Dr Marcel Chappuis was a juvenile court psychologist in Utah for 30 years, and has a PhD in clinical psychology. His manner, however, is more man-in-pub than medical, suggestive of both impatience and amusement at the teenagers' problems. He looks like Tom Selleck, and on his desk is one book, 'a national bestseller' called Feel The Fear And Do It Anyway.

'One of the groups I do here, it's called Rape And Molest. They struggle with a lot of guilt in that group. You know, a lot of these girls dress and act provocative. They get involved in substance abuse. They place themselves at risk and then they get taken advantage of. Now, we always say no means no. We're real clear about that. But then we say, you know, you've got to look at how you market yourself. Girls can be hard work to help,' he chuckles. 'They are so much more dramatic than boys!'

He also sees 30 adopted children - a remarkable ratio out of 250 students. Without irony, he tells me that adopted kids 'have more issues with trust. You know, attachment and abandonment. These are the programme's most difficult students. But they have to get ownership of the fact they were part of the problem, the reason why they were sent away.'

Dr Chappuis thoroughly enjoys working at Tranquility, and it shows. 'It's a lot of fun! I love it. Just the satisfaction of seeing these kids change.' Here for two weeks a month, he visits other Wwasp facilities during the other fortnight. Wwasp must therefore account for most of his earnings. If parents want therapy for their child, they have no choice but to employ him, ensuring that the lone chance of an outside voice has successfully been eliminated. How Dr Chappuis can be described as independent is thus something of a mystery.

His good cheer only falters on the subject of criticism, at which point his great height and moustache become distinctly aggressive.

'People who say this place is too harsh, they've never had their own troubled kids. If you criticise it you don't know what the hell you are talking about. And if you think you have had experience, then I challenge the success of your experience.

I see 100 kids across this facility. I've got experience, and I will go nose to nose to you if you want to talk about it. I will go head to head with anyone. You get all kinds of people whining and complaining. They don't know what they are talking about.'

And the truth is that I do not have my own troubled kid. He is right. I have no idea what it is like to be the parent of a teenager taking drugs, running away, sleeping around, breaking the law. I cannot imagine what it feels like to fear for my child's life.

Tranquility parents say they know. They believe the programme is necessary and are usually very happy with the results, and who else is in a position to judge?

The US legal system has more or less agreed that they are right. In a crucial 1998 test case, a Californian court ruled that a parent had the legal right to send a child to Tranquility. Parental choice was sacrosanct.

What happens inside Tranquility would be illegal on British soil, but the facility falls under Jamaican jurisdiction and parents here are as free as Americans to send their children where they like. A spokesman for the Children's Legal Centre in the UK confirmed, 'I can't see anything in the law that would stop a British parent from sending their child there. It is appalling, but it is down to the Jamaican government.'

And what incentive have the island's authorities to intervene? National attitudes to child care are not famously progressive, Jamaican children aren't involved and Tranquility is a major employer generating tax revenue. It's easy to see why Wwasp locates facilities abroad in developing countries.

Four overseas Wwasp facilities have been closed down by local authorities in the past seven years. The latest occurred just last month, in Costa Rica, following claims of physical abuse and squalor by an ex-manager. But providing Tranquility meets Jamaican sanitation standards, it remains untroubled by government attention.

Emotional abuse is a more nebulous matter. Internet message boards are busy with former students chronicling the symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. One writes, 'At least once out of every three nights I wake up sweating and almost in tears from nightmares of being returned to Tranquility Bay. To this day, I am afraid that somehow I would have to return.' But most students are already emotionally damaged when they arrive, with a quarter on medication for bi-polar, oppositional defiance, or attention-deficit disorders.

'Show me one kid that they can prove has ever been psychologically damaged in my programme,' demands Kay. 'To have a clinician say yes, it was as a result of this? I would find that highly suspicious.' And his confidence is probably justified.

There is very little that any opponent of Tranquility can do to prevent it continuing to do business. I don't doubt the sincerity of Kay's belief that far from damaging children's lives he is saving them. 'If I have kids, and they start giving me a problem, well they are going straight in the programme. If I had to, I'd pull the trigger without hesitation.' And Tranquility parents undoubtedly believe they are doing the best for their children.

Once a year, Tranquility Bay has a Fun Day. There are sports and special food; girls can braid their hair; staff are smiling. And there is music. Ceaseless, bass-heavy, deafening music. It sends the teenagers out of their minds. They can't stop dancing. Everywhere, students are dancing, demented with fever, as if a switch has been thrown and a surge of energy unleashed through the grounds.

I meet a student's aunt visiting from Texas. 'Oh, you would not believe the change in her! It's amazing, the way they change a kid's life. She's so polite now, I wouldn't know her. They all look so happy!'

A song by Usher is playing, and the words burn through the hard Caribbean heat. 'You remind me of a girl that I once knew. See her face whenever I look at you.' The Texan's niece pauses her dancing. As she stoops to take a drink of water, I catch her face, and think she looks like the saddest girl in the world.

Justices End 96-Year-Old Ban on Price Floors

By STEPHEN LABATON

WASHINGTON, June 28 — Striking down an antitrust rule nearly a century old, the Supreme Court ruled today that it is no longer automatically unlawful for manufacturers and distributors to agree on setting minimum retail prices.

The decision will give producers significantly more leeway, though not unlimited power, to dictate retail prices and to restrict the flexibility of discounters.

Five justices said the new rule could, in some instances, lead to more competition and better service. But four dissenting justices agreed with the submission of 37 states and consumer groups that the abandonment of the old rule would lead to significantly higher prices and less competition for consumer and other goods.

The court struck down the 96-year-old rule that resale price maintenance agreements were an automatic, or per se, violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. In its place, the court instructed judges considering such agreements for possible antitrust violations to apply a case-by-case approach, known as a “rule of reason,” to assess their impact on competition.

The decision was the latest in a string of opinions this term to overturn Supreme Court precedents. It marked the latest in a line of Supreme Court victories for big businesses and antitrust defendants. And it was the latest of the court’s antitrust decisions in recent years to reject rules that had prohibited various marketing agreements between companies.

The Bush administration, along with economists of the Chicago school, had argued that the blanket prohibition against resale price maintenance agreements was archaic and counterproductive because, they said, some resale price agreements actually promote competition.

For example, they said, such agreements can make it easier for a new producer by assuring retailers that they will be able to recoup their investments in helping to market the product. And they said some distributors could be unfairly harmed by others — like Internet-based retailers — that could offer discounts because they would not be incurring the expenses of providing product demonstrations and other specialized consumer services.

A majority of the court agreed that the flat ban on price agreements discouraged these and other marketing practices that could be helpful to competition.

“In sum, it is a flawed antitrust doctrine that serves the interests of lawyers — by creating legal distinctions that operate as traps for the unaware — more than the interests of consumers — by requiring manufacturers to choose second-best options to achieve sound business objectives,” the court said in an opinion by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and signed by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

But in his dissent, portions of which he read from the bench, Justice Stephen G. Breyer said there was no compelling reason to overturn a century’s worth of Supreme Court decisions that had affirmed the prohibition on resale maintenance agreements.

“The only safe predictions to make about today’s decision are that it will likely raise the price of goods at retail and that it will create considerable legal turbulence as lower courts seek to develop workable principles,” he wrote. “I do not believe that the majority has shown new or changed conditions sufficient to warrant overruling a decision of such long standing.”

During the period from 1937 to 1975 when Congress allowed the states to adopt laws that permitted retail price fixing, economists estimated that such agreements covered about 10 percent of consumer good purchases. In today’s dollars, Justice Breyer estimated that the agreements translate to a higher annual average bill for a family of four of roughly $750 to $1,000.

The dissent was signed by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The case involved an appeal of a judgment of $1.2 million against Leegin Creative Leather Products Inc. after it cut off Kay’s Kloset, a suburban Dallas shop, for refusing to honor Leegin’s no-discount policy. The judgment was automatically tripled under antitrust law.

Leegin’s marketing strategy for finding a niche in the highly competitive world of small leather goods was to sell its “Brighton” line of fashion accessories through small boutiques that could offer personalized service. Retailers were required to accept a no-discounting policy.

After the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, upheld the judgment and said it was bound by Supreme Court precedent, Leegin took the case to the Supreme Court. Unless it is settled, the case, Leegin Creative Leather Products v. PSK Inc., will now be sent down to a lower court to apply the new standard.

The Supreme Court adopted the flat ban on resale price agreements between manufacturers and retailers in 1911, when it founded that the Dr. Miles Medical Company had violated the Sherman act. The company had sought to sell medicine only to distributors who agreed to resell them at set prices. The court said such agreements benefit only the distributors, not consumers, and set a rule making such agreements unlawful.

Justice Kennedy said today that the court was not bound by the 1911 precedent because of the “widespread agreement” among economists that resale price maintenance agreements can promote competition.

“Vertical agreements establishing minimum resale prices can have either pro-competitive or anticompetitive effects, depending upon the circumstances in which they are formed,” he wrote.

But Justice Breyer said in his dissent that the court had failed to justify the overturning of the rule, or that there was significant evidence to show that price agreements would often benefit consumers. He said courts would have a difficult time sorting out the price agreements that help consumers from those that harm them.

“The upshot is, as many economists suggest, sometimes resale price maintenance can prove harmful, sometimes it can bring benefits,” he wrote. “But before concluding that courts should consequently apply a rule of reason, I would ask such questions as, how often are harms or benefits likely to occur? How easy is it to separate the beneficial sheep from the antitrust goats?”

“My own answer,” he concluded, “is not very easily.”

City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography

By RAY RIVERA

Some tourists, amateur photographers, even would-be filmmakers hoping to make it big on YouTube could soon be forced to obtain a city permit and $1 million in liability insurance before taking pictures or filming on city property, including sidewalks.

New rules being considered by the Mayor’s Office of Film, Theater and Broadcasting would require any group of two or more people who want to use a camera in a single public location for more than a half hour to get a city permit and insurance.

The same requirements would apply to any group of five or more people who plan to use a tripod in a public location for more than 10 minutes, including the time it takes to set up the equipment.

Julianne Cho, assistant commissioner of the film office, said the rules were not intended to apply to families on vacation or amateur filmmakers or photographers.

Nevertheless, the New York Civil Liberties Union says the proposed rules, as strictly interpreted, could have that effect. The group also warns that the rules set the stage for selective and perhaps discriminatory enforcement by police.

“These rules will apply to a huge range of casual photography and filming, including tourists taking snapshots and people making short videos for YouTube,” said Christopher Dunn, the group’s associate legal director.

Mr. Dunn suggested that the city deliberately kept the language vague, and that as a result police would have broad discretion in enforcing the rules. In a letter sent to the film office this week, Mr. Dunn said the proposed rules would potentially apply to tourists in places like Times Square, Rockefeller Center or ground zero, “where people routinely congregate for more than half an hour and photograph or film.”

The rule could also apply to people waiting in line to enter the Empire State Building or other tourist attractions.

The rules define a “single site” as any area within 100 feet of where filming begins. Under the rules, the two or more people would not actually have to be filming, but could simply be holding an ordinary camera and talking to each other.

The rules are intended to set standards for professional filmmakers and photographers, said Ms. Cho, assistant commissioner of the film office, but the language of the draft makes no such distinction.

“While the permitting scheme does not distinguish between commercial and other types of filming, we anticipate that these rules will have minimal, if any, impact on tourists and recreational photographers, including those that use tripods,” Ms. Cho said in an e-mail response to questions.

Mr. Dunn said that the civil liberties union asked repeatedly for such a distinction in negotiations on the rules but that city officials refused, ostensibly to avoid creating loopholes that could be exploited by professional filmmakers and photographers.

City officials would not confirm that yesterday. But Mark W. Muschenheim, a lawyer with the city’s law department, which helped draft the rules, said, “There are few instances, if any, where the casual tourist would be affected.”

The film office held a public hearing on the proposed rules yesterday, but no one attended. The only written comments the department received were from the civil liberties group, Ms. Cho said.

Ms. Cho said the office expected to publish a final version of the rules at the end of July. They would go into effect a month later.

The permits would be free and applications could be obtained online, Ms. Cho said. The draft rules say the office could take up to 30 days to issue a permit, but Ms. Cho said she expected that most would be issued within 24 hours.

Mr. Dunn says that in addition to the rules being overreaching, they would also create enforcement problems.

“Your everyday person out there with a camcorder is never going to know about the rules,” Mr. Dunn said. “It completely opens the door to discriminatory enforcement of the permit requirements, and that is of enormous concern to us because the people who are going to get pointed out are the people who have dark skin or who are shooting in certain locations.”

The rules were promulgated as a result of just such a case, Mr. Dunn said.

In May 2005, Rakesh Sharma, an Indian documentary filmmaker, was using a hand-held video camera in Midtown Manhattan when he was detained for several hours and questioned by police.

During his detention, Mr. Sharma was told he was required to have a permit to film on city property. According to a lawsuit, Mr. Sharma sought information about how permits were granted and who was required to have one but found there were no written guidelines. Nonetheless, the film office told him he was required to have a permit, but when he applied, the office refused to grant him one and would not give him a written explanation of its refusal.

As part of a settlement reached in April, the film office agreed to establish written rules for issuing permits. Mr. Sharma could not be reached for comment yesterday.

Mr. Dunn said most of the new rules were reasonable. Notably, someone using a hand-held video camera, as Mr. Sharma was doing, would no longer have to get a permit.

White House Caught Doctoring "Mission Accomplished" Video

20070701

State to allow patients to grow own pot

Starting Sunday medical marijuana will be legal in New Mexico. But now the Department of Health has dropped a bombshell: It will allow people who qualify for medicinal pot to grow it in their own homes.

It�s a decision that has made a lot of state law enforcement officials upset.

The legislature passed the medical marijuana bill into law earlier this year after a decade of lawmakers rejecting the idea. The law allows people suffering from AIDS, cancer, glaucoma and epilepsy to use marijuana for pain relief.

Now, just days before the law takes affect, the New Mexico Department of Health announces it will allow patients to grow their own marijuana because the state still hasn�t figured out how it is supposed to grow and distribute pot.

�This is about providing access now, and we are going to work on the next step,� said Health Department spokeswoman Deborah Busemeyer.

The move has stunned law enforcement agencies statewide who say it flies in the face of what was agreed upon in the legislative session.

�It caught me off guard,� said Captain Gary Johnson of the New Mexico State Police. �I mean, I thought this was going to be very strict in the way this was going to be handled.�

�I really can not believe the state has decided to do this,� said Santa Fe County Sheriff Greg Solano. �Personally, I do support medical marijuana with strict regulation, but the biggest problem with this new change is that it pretty much takes a lot of the regulations away.�

The state has asked the Attorney General�s Office for guidelines on how to proceed since federal law still classifies marijuana as an illegal drug.

�It may stop local law enforcement from knocking on somebody�s door who�s growing marijuana,� said Captain Johnson. �But certainly, I don�t believe it will stop the DEA or federal agents from doing the same.�

If the feds do come knocking, neither the Health Department, police or sheriff�s office say they can do anything to stop them from making arrests for marijuana possession.

Under the new rule, patients will only be allowed to have four mature marijuana plants and three seedlings. Until the Health Department comes up with its distribution plan, patients will have to buy pot on their own wherever they can find it.

Kiss Caught on Camera Raises Issues of Big Brother Surveillance

Leonid Shalimov

Surveillance cameras in schools are meant to keep children safe and in-line, but a kiss, a camera and a controversy have Gig Harbor High School in Washington in an uproar.

A security camera captured two girls kissing, but it’s what happened next that sparked a surveillance debate. With Warren County schools having surveillance cameras not only in the high schools but in the middle school and elementary schools as well, you’ll want to read on because reporter Keith Eldridge’s brings you the story that asks the question: When does Big Brother surveillance cross the line?

The dean of students said he saw two girls kissing. He checked the surveillance tape then shared what he saw with the parents of one of the girls. They then pulled her out of school, which then pulled the peninsula school district into a big controversy.

“They weren’t harming other students, so I don’t think the administrators had a right to show it to her parents or anybody else,” student, Laura Varadi said.

“I think that they didn’t use the cameras like how they should. They should only be used for safety I think,” student, Jade Egelhoff said.

“We obviously made a mistake,” Superintendent Terry Bouck said. “We’re here to make sure our kids, our staff and parents are safe, but we’re not going to be monitoring public displays of affection, etc.”

But some parents ask “Why not?”

“I think that that’s fine if they’re doing something they shouldn’t be doing. The surveillance is fine,” said Heidi Holmes, a Gig Harbor parent.

“We’re watching them at home, so we should be watching them at school too,” said Tim, Heidi’s husband.

The Holmes said surveillance cameras are a way of life. Helping prevent crime, identifying suspects and just giving folks a sense of security knowing the cameras are always watching.

You’ve got to figure that no matter where you are you’re probably going to be on camera, whether from that angle or this angle, you’re probably going to be on. But one store owner said it shouldn’t be for spying.

“I’m not for it, because we don’t use it that way,” store owner, Sean Whang said.

This is a debate that is not likely to end with the superintendent saying they made a mistake. It really goes to all facets of life not just schools but the workplace and all public areas.

Little cop lesson: Students participate in mock raid

By Lindsay Schoon, lschoon@qconline.com

More photos from this shoot
Photo: Nick Loomis
Rock Island police officer Dytanya Robinson shows Russell Wasson of Rock Island how to break a door down during a simulated raid on Francis Willard Elementary in Rock Island on Thursday morning. Robinson, an Emergency Response Team officer, taught the children in the Junior Police Academy about the importance of emergency response in crisis situations.
More photos from this shoot
Photo: Nick Loomis
Rock Island Police officer and Emergency Response Team member Dy Robinson yells to take the prisoner, Treshawn Henry, 8, caught in a simulated raid on Francis Willard Elementary School to the squad car during the morning session of Junior Police Academy at the school on Thursday.

ROCK ISLAND -- The kids sat in Frances Willard Elementary School's library Thursday morning, waiting for their teacher.

She arrived about 9:10 a.m., dressed in all black, including a black face mask.

"Sorry I'm late," Rock Island Police Officer Dytanya Robinson told the Junior Police Academy class. "I've already been working two raids ... I've been sweating in this hot suit since 6 a.m."

The students were wide-eyed and curious. They wanted to know more about her job with the tactical unit -- and her uniform.

It's the first year for the academy, designed to teach pre-teens about the different aspects of police work. They academy just wrapped up the last of four, three-day sessions.

Rock Island police Chief John Wright was inspired by Springfield's Junior Police Academy program, and wanted to try one here, Officer Robinson said.

Ten to 13 students committed to each session. There was no cost to students, since DARE funding was used to pay for it.

Classes were held at Frances Willard, Thomas Jefferson and Audubon elementary schools and the Martin Luther King Jr. Center.

School Resource Officer Jim Pauley and Officer Robinson led the sessions. Through guest speakers -- other officers -- students were exposed to crime scene investigation, detecting speeders, bike patrolling and emergency response.

Learning took place both inside and outside the classroom. After spending part of the two-hour sessions in the classroom, students headed out to participate in demonstrations.

"I thought we were just going to be talking about the stuff they do every day," said 11-year-old Ashley Ayala, adding that the hands-on aspect of the program made it more exciting.

Thursday, students learned about SWAT teams and then participated in a mock building entry. Earlier in the week, they tested radar guns along the street.

Officers said they were careful to not just explain what police do, but why they do it. Some children believe police are just out to hassle people, Officer Robinson said, and she hopes the program changed their perceptions.

Ashlee Moore, 11, said the program helped her understand "why they give people tickets and stuff."

The officers also hoped the program would spark interest in some participants in becoming police officers.

It did for 10-year-old Carmentae Henry. "I'd just like to be a police officer ... because it helps people and it’s the best thing to do."

Woman Registers Her Dog to Vote

SEATTLE (AP) -- A woman who registered her dog to vote in Washington state has pleaded not guilty to misleading a public servant.

Jane Balogh says she registered her dog, Duncan, to demonstrate flaws in the King County election system.

She put her phone bill in the dog's name, then used that as identification to register him as a voter. She then submitted ballots in the dog's name with a paw print as a signature. She wrote "VOID" on the ballots and didn't cast any votes.

Balogh says she expected to be thanked for pointing out the problem, not prosecuted.

If convicted, she could be fined $1,000 or jailed up to 90 days.

The elections office says the system is designed to catch fraud in voting, not the registration process.

WTF

FBI Whistleblower Describes Government Muscle Tactics

By Luke O'Brien

Sibeledmonds_oncouch A whistleblower who lost her job and was gagged by the Bush administration after revealing careerism, corruption and widespread incompetence at the FBI detailed her difficult search for justice to an audience on Monday at the American Library Association's annual conference. Sibel Edmonds, hired by the FBI as a translator shortly after 9/11, was fired in 2002 after reporting a range of problems at the bureau, including:

--slothful, unqualified employees
--family members of diplomats suspected of spying who translated the wiretaps of their relatives
--ignored or overlooked intelligence warning of Al-Qaeda's plans to hijack planes and attack major cities
--evidence of a Turkish bribery ring that, according to some accounts, was connected to then-Speaker of the House Denny Hastert (R-Illinois)

After Edmonds' aired the dirty laundry, her higher-ups cut her loose. Then John Ashcroft, the U.S. attorney general at the time, invoked the "state secrets privilege," a little-used Draconian national security measure that stopped Edmonds from discussing what she knew. Even information about her birthday and the schools she had attended became classified, a so-called matter of national security too dangerous to disclose. Of course, the information was already public. A google search turns it up instantly. For a time, information about Edmonds' case was even up on the FBI website.

"It is funny and so very sad at the same time," Edmonds told the librarians yesterday. "The next time I'm pulled over by a cop for speeding or at a red light, and they say ma'am can you give me your driver's license, I'm going to say: 'I'm sorry, officer. I can't give it to you. It's classified.'"

But the unusual situation Edmonds finds herself in -- one that she describes as "Kafkaesque" -- is also quite unnerving. Even though Congress and the Justice Department's own inspector general determined that several of Edmond's complaints about abuse and incompetence had merit, she lost a lawsuit against the FBI. When she appealed, this strange scene took place:

"My attorney stood up and argued the case about the state secret's privilege. Then the court asked [us] to step out of the court...while the government argued its side. Can they do this? This is the United States of America. The guards escorted us out and they locked the doors. We don't know what [the FBI attorneys] told the judges. My attorneys could never know what they argued. As far as we know, they could have made the most outrageous lies. There was no one there to challenge them. We assume that they did because a few weeks later the court upheld the lower court's ruling."

Edmonds tried to get the U.S Supreme Court to hear the case. The court declined. In May 2004, the Justice Department issued a retroactive gag order on Congress, classifying the briefings Edmonds had given Congress, all FBI briefings, and forcing members of Congress with information about the case on their web sites to remove it (which spurred a separate lawsuit).

Judge: Lap Dances Protected By Constitution

A Marion County judge said lap dances in Salem are protected by the free speech provisions of the Oregon Constitution.Judge Albin Norblad's ruling struck down a city ban Friday on "prohibited touching" -- sexually exciting physical contact for pay.

The case involves 24-year-old Laurel Guillen, a dancer at a Salem club called Cheetah's, who gave a lap dance to an undercover officer in 2005.

Salem residents hoping to limit Salem strip club activity called the ruling a setback. They said they hope to get a measure on the ballot to amend the state constitution to strengthen local government regulation of strip clubs.

Cheetah's does not serve alcohol and is open to people 18 and older.

Salem City Attorney Randall Tosh declined comment but said the city would review the ordinance and consider an appeal.