------------------------------------------------------------------- F.A.C.T.Net, Inc. (Fight Against Coercive Tactics Network, Incorporated) a non-profit computer bulletin board and electronic library 601 16th St. #C-217 Golden, Colorado 80401 USA BBS 303 530-1942 FAX 303 530-2950 Office 303 473-0111 This document is part of an electronic lending library and preservational electronic archive. F.A.C.T.Net does not sell documents, it only lends them according to the terms of your library cardholder agreement with F.A.C.T.Net, Inc. ===================================================================== Arent Fox 1050 Connecticut Averole, NW Washington, DC 20036-5339 k_ David J. Bardin Tel: 202/857-6089 Fax: 202/857-6395 April 11, 1994 Lawrence Wollersheim F.A.C.T. Net, Inc. 601 16th Street Suite C-320 Golden, CO 80301 Dear Lawrence: Enclosed is a new pamphlet we prepared/to put on your data base. Let me know if you have any questions. Faithfully, David J. Bardin Enclosure CO: Herbert L. Rosedale, Esq., President, AFF Cynthia S. Kisser, Executive Director, CAN Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kalm ú Washington, DC New York, NY ú Vienna, VA ú Bethesda, MD ú Budapest, Hungary CULT ABUSE POLICY & RESEARCH Policy Representation of Cult Victims' Unmet Needs at the Federal Level First Anniversary of Waco Tragedy, April 19, 1994 PSYCHOLOGICAL COERCION & HUMAN RIGHTS: Mind Control ("Brainwashing") Exists by David J. Bardin, Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn Washington Counsel for American Family Foundation (AFF) and Cult Awareness Network (CAN) Mind control exists. Yet misguided academics still try to pretend otherwise. In doing so, they condone human rights abuses. A report by Professor Nancy T. Ammerman submitted last fall to the Departments of Justice and the Treasury said that cult followers "need" and "seek" what a Koresh offers and that "cult brainwashing" is a "thoroughly discredited" concept. She also put forth the erroneous view that our cherished religious liberties conflict with serious concerns about destructive cult abuses. Her statements stimulated thoughtful comments to the Government Departments and an exchange with Dr. Ammerman. This pamphlet makes that information more readily available. Table of Contents Palte A. Judicial Insights .................................................................. 1 B. Psychological coercion, undue influence and mind control .................................. 2 C. Attach against Cult Awareness Network and "anti-cult community" ú .......................... 6 D. Conclusion ...................................................................... 8 Appendix A: Excerpts from Brennan-Marshall 0pinion in United States v. Kozminski (1988) ..................... 9 Appendix B: Bibliography on Thought Reform and Cults ............................................... 10 Appendix C: Excerpts from "How Many Jonestowns Will It Take?" by Herbert L. Rosedale, Esq. President, and Michael D. Langone, Ph.D. Executive Director, AFF 20 April 1993 ................................ 11 Appendix D: Excerpts from October 29, 1993, letter of Margaret T. Singer, Ph.D. to Deputy Attorney General and Assistant Secretary of the Treasury ....................................................... 12 Appendix E: Excerpts f~om letter dated October 12, 1993, of Herbert L. Rosedale, Esq. President, AFF, to Deputy Attorney General and Assistant Secretary of the Treasury .......................................... 14 Appendix F: Excerpts from letter dated October 29, 1993, of Michael D. Langone, Ph.D. Executive Director, AFF, and Editor, Cuitlc Studies Journal, to Deputy Attorney General and Assistant Secretary of the Treasury ...... 16 c 1994 by David J. Bardin. Permission to copy with attribution is hereby granted. PSYCHOLOGICAL COERCION & HUMAN RIGHTS: Mind Control ("Brainwashing") Exists by.' David J. Bardin, Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn Washington Counsd for American Family Foundation (AFF) atut Cult Awareness Network (CAN) Mind control exists. Yet misguided academics like Professor Nancy T. Ammerman,t are still trying to pretend otherwise. In a report to the Departments of Justice and the Treasury last fall,2 Dr. Ammerman said that cult followers "need" and "seek" what a Koresh offers and that "cult brainwashing''3 is a "thoroughly discredited" concept.4 In respectful memory of Koresh's victims, here are highlights of what Dr. Ammerman should have known: A. Judicial Insights Supreme Court Justices Brennan and Marshall described mind control (psychological coercion) in 1988 when they explained "as a factual matter" why "the use or threat of physical or legal coercion" are not the only methods by which a condition of involuntary servitude could be created. They wrote: [T]he Court does not dispute that other methods can coerce involuntary labor -- indeed it is precisely the broad range of nonphysical private activities capable of coercing labor that the Court cites as the bases for its vagueness concerns. ú.. Nor do I know of any empirical grounds for assuming that involuntary servi- tude can be coerced only by physical or legal means.2 To the contrary, it would seem that certain psychological, economic, and social means of coercion can be just as effective as physical or legal means, particularly where the victims are especially vulnerable, ... Surely threats to burn down a person's home or business or to rape or kill a person's spouse or children can have greater coercive impact than the mere threat of a beating, yet the coercive impact of such threats turns not on any direct physical effect that would be felt by the laborer but on the psychological, emotional, social, or economic injury the laborer would suffer as a result of harm to his or her home, business, or loved ones. And drug addiction or the weakness resulting from a lack of food, sleep, or medical care can elimi- nate the will to resist as readily as the fear of a physical blow. Hypnosis, black- Associate Professor of the Sociology of Religion, Emory University, and Visiting Scholar, Center for the Study of American Religion, Princeton University; B.A. Southwest Baptist University 1972; M.A. University of Lou- isville 1977: M.Phil. Yale University 1979; Ph.D. Yale University 1983. 2 U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of the Treasury, Recommendations of Experts for Improve- ments in Federal Law Enforcement After Waco (Washington, D.C. undated; released October 8, 1993). Professor Ammerman's report was dated September 3, 1993. 3 Dr. Ammerman did not define the term 'brainwashing." The serious literature refers to the extreme levels in a continuum of psychological control when it uses the terms brainwashing, coercive persuasion, mind control, mental coercion, psychological coercion, thought reform or undue influence to talk about exploitative manipula- tion. Cult apologists sometimes instead address a strawman, creation of a robot; serious scholars do not. 4 Dr. Ammerman also gratuitously and ignorantly opined about CAN and what she called the "anti-cult commu- nity" in her report, but later retreated and qualified her statements. [See Part C., below.] Page 2 mail, fraud, deceit, and isolation are also illustrative methods -- but it is un- necessary here to canvas the entire spectrum of nonphysical machinations by which humans coerce each other. It suffices to observe that one can imagine many situations in which nonphysical means of private coercion can subjugate the will of a servant. Indeed, this case and others readily reveal that the typical techniques now used to hold persons in slavelike conditions are not limited to physical or legal means. : In other contexts, we have recognized that nonphysical coercion can induce involuntary action. For example, we have interpreted the federal crime of kidnaping to include the imposition of "an unlawful physical or m~ntal restraint" to confine the victim againsl his will ..... Similarly, in determining when confessions are involuntary, we have noted "coercion can be mental as well phy- sical ........ ". . . . "When a suspect speaks because he is overborne, it is immaterial whether he has been subjected to a physical or a mental ordeal." .... (Emphasis added).5 That was a criminal case. Mind control arises in civil cases under established "undue influence" concepts? And mind control arises in destruc- tive cult situations. B. Psychological coercion, undue influence and mind control Yet Professor Ammerman advised our Government to disregard the factor of undue influence by cult leaders over cult followers as a "thoroughly discredited" concept. According to her report, "real psychological needs" may lead persons "to seek such groups" as David Koresh's. [Report at 7 6.] She flatly asserts that the "vast ma- jority" who commit themselves to groups such as Koresh's "do so voluntarily" and that "cult brainwashing" does not exist, having been "thoroughly discredited.''7 She s United States v. Kozminski. 487 U.S. 931. 953, 955-56 (1988)(concurring opinion of Brennan, J., in which Mar- shall. J.. joined.) Appendix A provides a fuller excerpt. The entire opinion deserves attention. 6 For example. judges and juries must often figure out whether a deceased person was "unduly influenced" by some one else when he signed his will. The concept also commonly arises in connection with fraud. See Rose- dale. "Legal Analysis of Intent as a Continuum Emphasizing Social Context of Volition," Culfic Studies Journa~ 6: 1. 1989. pages 25-31. III. What, in hindsight, should the BATF and the FBI have taken into consideration in dealing with the Branch Davidians? .... 6. They should also understand that the vast majority of those who make such commitments do so voluntarily. The notion of "cult brainwashing" has been thoroughly discredited in the academic commu- nity, and "experts" who propagate such notions in the courts have been discredited by the American Psy- chological Association and the American Sociological Association. [Report at 7. 6.] Dr. Ammerman plainly failed to research or check her two assertions about supposedly discre- dited "notions" and "experts." Both are inaccurate, even silly. assertions on her part. Indeed. the APA included symposia at its annual conventions with the supposedly discredited experts as panelists: Drs. Steve Dubrow- Eichek Michael Langone, Margaret Singer and Anita Solomon on "psychotherapeutic techniques for victims of destructive cults" (San Francisco, 1991) and Drs. Robert Cialdini, Michael Langone, Richard Ofshe, Margaret CULT ABUSE POLICY & RESEARCH Page 3 also observed that "the judgment of' Koresh followers "may indeed be altered by their participation," but, according to her report, "neither of those facts constitutes coercion." [Report at 7 6.] Repeating the rubric that cult brainwashing is "thoroughly discredited''8 reveals igno- rance, at best. Professor Ammerman was even in conflict with one of the other aca- demic experts, whose advice the Government had sought, Robert Cancro, M.D., Pro- fessor of Psychiatry and Chairman of the Department at New York University Medi- cal Center, who specifically referred to "brainwashing" in his report: "The absence of corrective feedback from a diverse environmental experience strengthens the belief system through a process that can be described as a form of brainwashing. It does not matter that this brainwashing may even be voluntary, because the operational effect will be the same." ú Professor Ammerman ignored literature supporting the existence of mind con- trol.9 In responsive letters to the Justice and Treasury Departments, Margaret T. Singer, Ph.D., Emeritus Adjunct Professor of Psychology in the University of California (Berkeley) Psychology Department, and Herbert L. Rosedale, Esquire, President of AFF, cited close to 50 scholarly books, articles and official reports dealing with mind control, thought reform, coercive persuasion and brainwashing in the context of destructive cults. [Appendix B lists such publications. Pertinent excerpts from the Singer and Rosedale letters are in Appendices D and E.] ú Authors of three of the four publications on which Dr. Ammerman relied joined in a 1987 amicus curiae brief, which claimed (unsuccessfidly) (a) that "[a]fter searching scrutiny, the scientific community has repudiated" the conclusions about "coercive persuasion"; (b) that the specific methods (of reliance on interviews with victims who been subject to mind control) "have also been rejected by all serious Singer and Philip Zimba~do and Herbert Rosedale, Esq. on "coercive psychological influence: clinical, ethical, cultural, business and legal issues" (New Orleans 1989, chaired by Dr. Frank Farley). s The rubric, which seems to parrot and may have originated with cult publicists, is not likely original with Dr. Ammerman, who says up front '~,,arious political and lobbying groups have sent me information." [Report at 1.] 9 She cited four publications, none her own product. Dr. Ammerman does not seem to have a background in cult issues. Her published books include BAPTIST BATI'LES: SOCIAL CHANGE AND RELIGIOUS CONFLICT IN THE SOUTHERN BAFHST CONVENTION (New Brunswick: Rutgets Univ. Press 1990) and BIBLE BELIEVERS: FUNDA- MENTALISTS IN THE MODERN WORLD (New Brunswick: Rutgers Univ. Press 1987). She also edited SOUTHERN BAFHSTS OBSERVED: MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVES ON A CHANGING DENOMINATION (Knoxville: U. of Tenn. Press 1993). Her unpublished theses were 'The Fundamentalist Worldview: Ideology and Social Structure in an Inde- pendent Fundamentalist Church" (Yale Ph.D. 1983) and "Localism, Southern Culture, and the Role of Clergymen in the Civil Rights Movement in a Southern Community" (Louisville M.A. 1977). We do not know why the then Deputy Attorney General selected Professor Ammerman as one of the ten "experts" appointed after the Waco tragedy. (Treasury advises that they were not responsible.) Perhaps, the Justice Department thought (not neces- sarily correctly) that David Koresh was a Christian fundamentalist. PSYCHOLOGICAL COERCION & HUMAN RIGHTS (April 1984) [ Page 4 scholars in the field"; and (c) that the "validity" of:-- the claim that, absent physical force or threats, "systematic manipulation of social influences" can coercively deprive individuals of free will lacks any em- pirical foundation and has never been confirmed by other research.tø These statements were untrue, recklessly or deliberately. The literature does not limit brainwashing to prisoner-of-war or other conditions of confinement or physi- cal mistreatment -- a claim that cult publicists repeatedly assert even though cur- sory reading of the research studies demonstrates its falsety. Two of the seminal researchers have issued explicit declarations debunking that false contention. Professor Robert Jay Lifton, M.D., of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, declared: "Some of the people I interviewed had been put through ... no physical abuse"; and "thought reform is a complex psychological procedure involving interpersonal and social manipulations.''n Professor Edgar H. Schein, of the M.I.T. Sloan School of Management, declared: I never attempt to suggest in my book that the system of influence used to change targets had to be applied in conjunction with prison confinement or in conjunction with physical brutality. One of the essential points I attempt to make ... is that the effectiveness of coercive persuasion in changing attitudes and beliefs rests on the fact that the target person is physically, socially, or psychologically constrained from leav- ing the situation in which he or she is actively being persuaded to some new point of view .... (One-page declaration dated July 25, 1989; emphasis added). Amici's hogus claim of a unanimous rejection of the brainwashing thesis did not impress the California Supreme Court. Its 1988 opinion instead held that the brainwashing concept was ~o Amicus curiae brief dated February 10, 1987 supporting defendants in Molko v. Ho~ Spirit Ass'n (Supreme Court of Calif. SF 25038), originally filed in the names of American Psychological Association (APA), Eileen Barker, David Bromley, James Richardson and others. The APA withdrew its name from that brief on March 27. 1987. Undated one-page declaration to whom it may concem: emphasis added: Some of the people I intendewed had been put through the thought reform programs in prison settings where physical abuse was an element of the process. Others I intea~iewed were subjected to thought reform programs at universities and other settings throughout the society. in which no physical abuse was employed. My work makes clear that thought reform in China has been carried out in both prison settings and non-confined settings. My work also makes clear that thought reform in China has been carried out both with and without utilizing physical abuse as an element of the process. I fo.md in my risearch that thought nform is a complex psychological procedure Involving interpenonal and sofia/manipulations. ... When successful and especially when supported by a particular social environment thought reform can render an individual highly manipulable and susceptible to the demands of those controlling the environment. CULT ABUSE POHCY & RESEARCH Page 5 "controversial. Some highly respected authorities conclude brainwashing exists and is remarkably effective. [Citing Lifton & Schein.] Some commentators additionally conclude that certain religious groups use brainwashing techniques to recruit and control members ..... Courts have recognized the existence of brainwashing in religious settings ..... [Others] believe brainwashing either does not exist at all ... or is effective only when combined with physical abuse or physical restraint.'' ~2 Some of Professor Ammerman's criticisms of FBI tactics that hemmed in David Koresh and bound his followers closer to him are not exceptionable. However, these are criticisms she shares with secular behavioral scientists, AFF, CAN, much of what she calls the "anti-cull' movement (as if it were a monolith) and others, rather than unique insights of a sociologist of religion. In a joint statement to Congress on March 30, 1993, before the Waco tragedy, AFF and CAN stressed "the leader's psychological control over the group members" and the "dependency that cult leaders induce in their followers.''t3 AFF issued a statement immediately after the tragedy (on April 20, 1993, excerpted in Appendix C) that was critical of FBI "tactics of pressure, harassment and psychological warfare." As we later learned, the FBI behavioral scientists and consultants (in contrast to the tactical team), shared AFF's view, which is widely held in the cult-concern community. As Professor Ammerman herself admitted, "this understanding of Koresh's ideas was basically accurate and .. their assessment of his likely behaviors was on target." [Report at 4.] Professor Singer's letter (excerpted in Appendix D) points out that powerful lead- ers who foist dependency on their followers are a key element: Charismatic, unscrupulous cult leaders such as David Koresh institute thought reform programs in order to ensure compliance among their followers. The belief systems of such groups are of secondary importance ..... Members follow the leader not so much because of a rational and informed acceptance of the belief system, but because of the orchestrated program of psychological manipulation designed to gain their compliance ..... I recognize that some ~2 Mollco v. Hob~ Spirit Ass'n., 762 P.2d 46, 54-55 (Cal. 1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1084 (1989). The court used the terms "coercive persuasion," "mind control," and 'brainwashing" interchangeably "to refer to the intense indoc- trination procedures discussed herein." 762 P.2d at 54. n. 10. ~3 'The unfortunate situation concerning the 'Branch Davidians in Waco. Texas underscores ... [that] ... the lead- er's psychological control over the group members can be so powerful that the group essentially becomes a pro- jection of the leader's psyche. The future of David Koresh's followers depends upon how rational Mr. Koresh is with regard to the question of remaining alive. If he decides he does not want to live, the probability is that his followers will die with him. The dependency that cult leaders induce in their followers has grave consequenc- es -- after leaving the cult as well as while in it." U.S. House of Representatives. Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Health, Hearings on Health Care Reform, Serial 103-14, Vol. III at 753. PSYCHOLOGICAL COERCION & HUMAN RIGHTS (April 1984) Page 6 "new religious movements" do not employ thought reform programs. For these groups, the belief system may be a central determinant of members' decisions to join. Such movements, however, are not likely to pose law enforcement problems. Dr. Ammerman seems not to recognize that some new movements may be psychologically and socially destructive. Dr. Ammerman's view that followers "seek" the Koreshes of the world ignores the evidence of active recruitment. To some academics it seems that if few targets accept a Koresh's invitation it proves that those few have a "need" for what the Koreshes offer. More likely, those few were, in Mr. Justice Brennan's words, "especially vulnerable" at the time of recruitment. And they were kept vulnerable thereafter through use of "nonphysical machinations by which humans coerce each other." How much of the fault lies with the victims? How much with abuse of hypnotic and other persuasive techniques by recruiters? How much is debatable, but it is ignorant and unsupportable to claim that there is no psychological coercion in virtually any of these cases. Professor Ammerman's report takes a non-judgmental ("values neutral") stance. The David Koreshes may demand "strange" commitments, may hold "unreason- able" or "illogical" beliefs, but nowhere does her report see Mr. Koresh as a bad man or even a fallible doer of evil. To her, "charisma" is not "just an individual trait, but a property of the constantly evolving relationship between a leader and followers." [Report at 7 '118.] Under that analysis, a leader can never abuse pow- er. The leader and his followers are merely evoMng together! Yet Koresh tore families apart. Do spouses really have a "need" to be torn apart?14 Koresh instilled in children the conviction that natural parents do not count. Only David Koresh counted as their "family." Koresh prevented children from developing independent selves. He enslaved them to his whims. What "needs" of the infants and little children was Koresh addressing? Dr. Ammerman's kind of analysis ignores all that. C. Attacks against Cult Awareness Network and "anti-cult" movement In contrast to her non-judgmental view of destructive cults, Professor Ammerman's 1993 report attacked, without foundation, the Cult Awareness Network (CAN) and what she called the "anti-cult community" (as if those concerned about destructive ~a In America, even the law may recognize a paramount concern of maintainenance of marriage and family rela- tionships while cherishing our religious liberties. See O'Neil v. Schuckardt, 112 Ida. 472, 733 P.2d 693, 67 ALR4th 1065 (1986)(under guise of exercising religious beliefs one does not acquire a license to wrongfully inter- fere with familial relationships); accord, Bush v. Carried, 419 P.2d 132 (Wash. 1966); Bear v. Reformed Mennonite Church, Pa. 341 A.2d 105 (Pa. 1976)(paramount state concern in maintenance of marriage and family relationship may authorize regulation even in light of the First Amendment); cf. Paul v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of N.Y. Inc., 819 F.2d 875 (9th Cir. 1987); annotation, Invasion of privacy by a Clergyman, Church, or Religious Group. 67 ALR4th 1086. CULT ABUSE POLICY & RESEARCH Page 7 cults are part of a monolith). [Report at 1.] CAN promptly challenged her factual basis. An exchange of letters ensued? Dr. Ammerman partly changed her position. She admitted having misrepresented the position of the National Council of Churches (NCC): "In this instance, my state- ments evidently misrepresent the official position of the NCC on CAN." Her report had claimed that "[t]he activities of CAN are seen by the National Council of Churches (among others) as a danger to religious liberty." Although she retracted that claim, Dr. Ammerman defensively insisted: My statements were based on personal conversations with individuals in the ecu- menical and religious liberty community, as well as on general statements (not naming CAN specifically) issued after the Waco affair. I stand by the assertion that there is general dismay in that community at the proposition that some religi- ous groups deserve to be labelled 'cults' and thus not protected by the First Amendment. Professor Ammerman has not explained how a "cult" label would deprive any religi- ous group of First Amendment protections.~6 Similarly without research or basis Dr. Ammerman wrongly identified CAN as "seem- ingly" a "major" news source for an extensive series of stories run in the Waco newspaper beginning February 27? In fact, CAN was a minor source. It provided some material that was included in a single sidebar of an 11-part series? Dr. Ammerman's report is also wrong about CAN's role in the Waco events. Both her report and a subsequent letter to CAN imply that CAN was a source of informa- tion to one or more of the Government agencies involved at Waco. But that is not true. CAN provided no information to the FBI or the ATF either before the ATF raid or during the stand-off that followed. Trying to explain misleading remarks on Letters dated October 8. 1993 (from CAN), February 6, 1994 (to CAN), and March 11, 1994 (from CAN). ~6 Apparently, Dr. Ammerman casts herself as advocate for the cause of a vaguely-defined "community." How- ever, she keeps her sources to herself and has not explained upon whose research she relied upon for her state- ments. who misled her into admitted misstatement or for whom she speaks. CAN wrote to Dr. Ammerman on March 11, 1994: "CAN certainly agrees with your feeling that all religious groups, no matter how unpopular or controversial they may seem to their critics or the public at large, deserve equal protection by the First Amend- ment for their beliefs and rights to free speech. However, unlawful actions do not necessarily enjoy such consti- tutional protection." Report at 1, under the heading: "I. What information sources were available in the Waco affair?" ~s The Waco-Tribune Herald conducted 175 separate interviews for their series, 'The Sinful Messiah." Five of the interviews were with David Koresh. Many of the interviews were with law enforcement officials. Editor Bob Lott characterizes CAN's contribution as "minor." Letter to CAN dated February 28, 1994. PSYCHOLOGICAL COERCION & HUMAN RIGHTS (April 1984) I Page 8 page one of her report, Dr. Ammerman wrote to CAN that she was merely alerting the Justice Department that "you are a group with a cause" just like "the March of Dimes or Mothers Against Drunk Driving.''~9 She should have checked her facts and gotten them straight, instead of releasing a misleading report.2ø D. Conclusion Professor Ammerman confuses "high commitment" groups that are open and ethical in their practices with those that are totalitarian, deceptive, manipulative and des- tructive. [See Appendix F.] "Taking the long view" of human history and looking at the rest of the world, she urges us to regard tomlist groups as normal and as "widely sought" by millions of people. [Report at 6 5.] As AFF President Rosedale responded, "[w]e do not believe we should take such a view towards racial discrimi- nation, poverty, or other abuses of power simply because the harm is not great if we take a long enough view and because the number of abusers is great." [See Appen- dix E.] Mind control exists. Some people unduly influence others to a very significant degree. Most Americans know that. Undue influence arises in connection with fraudulent investment schemes, totalitarian cults and all too many other abuses. "[C]ertain psychological ... means of coercion can be just as effective as physical means" and "reappear with such depressing regularity." [See Supreme Court opinion quoted in Appendix A.] Yet as April 19 approaches, cult publicists and apologists will probably trot out all of the stock misstatements, which Professor Ammerman parrotted, including her admitted misstatements. This memorandum provides infor- mation to set the record straight, hoping to catch up with Big Lies. ~9 Her misleading remarks appeared under the heading and subheading, "I. What information sources were available in the Waco affair".' and "A. The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Fwearms" (which is in the Treasury Department). Dr. Ammerman wrote: "All organizations that exist to promote change have an interest in publicizing the problems they wish to change ..... If no one ever heard stories about groups like the Davidians, you would be out of business. That does not necessarily impugn your motives. I could say the same thing about the March of Dimes or Mothers Against Drunk Driving. The point I was trying to make to the Justice De- partment was simply that you are a group with a cause. and they should take that motivation into account in eval- uating the information they receive from you (as they should from any other group with a cause)." [Ammerman letter to CAN of February 6, 1994.] CAN responded that Dr. Ammerman "implied that you are under the im- pression that CAN provided information to the Justice Department at some time during the Waco standoff. This is not true, and strikes to the heart of CAN's assertion to you that our organization should not have been men- tioned at all in your section of the report entitled 'what information sources were available in the Waco affair.' ... [W]e are unable to understand why CAN has been singled out among the many organization involved in cult awareness activities." [Letter dated March 11, 1994, to Dr. Ammerman.] 2o Dr. Ammerman was briefed orally by both Departments and received "a list of the experts consulted by the FBI during the affair." [Report at 1.] Neither Department's extensive published report on the Waco events in- cludes or refers to receiving any information from CAN. See Report to the Deputy Attorney General on the Events at Waco. Texas (released October 8, 1993, in redacted form), Report of the Depunment of the Treasury on the BATF Investigation of Vernon Wayne Howell also known as Da~d Koresh (September 1993). CULT ABUSE POLICY & RESEARCH Page 9 Appendix A: Excerpts from Brennan-Marshail Opinion in United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931,953, 955-56 (1988) If as a factual matter the use or threat of physical or legal coercion were the only methods by which a condition of involuntary servitude could be created, then the constitutional and statutory text might pro- vide some support for the Court's conclusion. But the Court does not dispute that other methods can coerce involuntary labor -- indeed it is precisely the broad range of nonphysical private activities capable of coer- cing labor that the Court cites as the bases for its vagueness concems ..... I address those concerns below, but the point here is only that those concerns, however serious, are not textual concerns, for the text [of the statute implementing Amendment XIII to the Constitution] suggests no grounds for distinguishing among different means of coercing involuntary servi- tude. Nor do I know of any empirical grounds for as- suming that involuntary servitude can be coerced only by physical or legal means.2 To the contrary, it would seem that certain psychological, economic, and social means of coercion can be just as effective as physical or legal means, particularly where the victims are espe- cially vulnerable, such as the mentally disable victims in this case. Surely threats to bum down a person's home or business or to rape or kill a person's spouse or children can have greater coercive impact than the mere threat of a beating, yet the coercive impact of such threats turns not on any direct physical effect that would be felt by the laborer but on the psy- chological. emotional, social. or economic injury the laborer would suffer as a result of harm to his or her home, business, or loved ones. And drug addiction or the weakness resulting from a lack of food, sleep, or medical care can eliminate the will to resist as readily as the fear of a physical blow. Hypnosis, blackmail, fraud, deceit, and isolation are also illustrative methods -- but it is unnecessary here to canvas the entire spectrum of nonphysical machinations by which humans coerce each other. It suffices to observe that one can imagine many situations in which nonphysical means of private coercion can subjugate the will of a servant. Indeed, this case and others readily reveal that the typical techniques now used to hold persons in slave- like conditions are not limited to physical or legal means. The techniques in this case, for example. in- cluded disorienting the victims with frequent verbal abuse and complete authoritarian domination; induc- ing poor health by denying medical care and subject- ing the victims to substandard food, clothing, and liv- ing conditions; working the victims from 3 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. with no days off, leaving them tired and without free time to seek alternative work: denying the victims any payment for their labor:. and active efforts to iso- late the victims from contact with outsiders who might help them.3 Without considering these techniques (and their particular effect on a mentally disabled per- son), one would hardly have a complete picture of whether the coercion inflicted on the victims was suffi- cient to make their servitude involuntary. Other invo- luntary servitude cases have also chronicled a variety of nonphysical and nonlegal means of coercion includ- ing trickery;, isolation from friends, family, transpor- tation or other sources of food. shelter, clothing, or jobs; denying pay or creating debt that is greater than the worker's income by charging exorbitant rates for food, shelter, or clothing; disorienting the victims by placing them in an unfamiliar environment, barraging them with orders, and controlling every detail of their lives; and weakening the victims with drugs, alcohol, or by lack of food, sleep, or property medical care. See. e.g., United States v. Warren, 772 F.2d 827 (CAll 1985); United States v. Muss~, 726 F. 2d 1448 (CA9 1984); United States v. Ingalls, 73 F. Supp. 76 (SD Cat. 1947). One presumes these methods of coercion would not reappear with such depressing regularity if they were ineffective. : In other contexts, we have recognized that nonphysi- cal coercion can induce involuntary action. For exam- ple, we have interpreted the federal crime of kidnap- ping to include the imposition of "an unlawful physical or mental restraint" to confine the victim against his will. Chatwin v. United States, 326 U.S. 455, 460 (1946)(emphasis added). Similarly, in determining when confessions are involuntary. we have noted "co- ereion can be mental as well physical .... [T]he effi- ciency of the rack and the thumbscrew can be match- ed, given the proper subject, by more sophisticated modes of 'persuasion."' Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U.S. 199. 206 (1990). '%Vhen a suspect speaks be- cause he is overborne, it is immaterial whether he has been subjected to a physical or a mental ordeal." Watts v. Indiana, 338 U.S. 49, 53 (1949)(plurality opin- ion of Frankfurter, J.). 3 Although not detailed by the Court, the Govern- ment introduced evidence that the Kozminskis (1) rip- ped a phone off the wall in the barn when one of the victims was caught using it, and did not simply "dis- courage" contact with relatives but falsely told rela- tives who asked to speak to the victims that the vic- tims did not want to see them and falsely told the vic- tims that their relatives were not interested in them; (2) .... 4 Because the Court today adopts an expansive but rather obscure understanding of what "physical" coer- cion encompasses ..... it is difficult to tell which, if any, of the means of coercion described in the last two paragraphs the Court would deem "physical." PSYCHOLOGICAL COERCION & HUMAN RIGHTS (April 1984) [ Page 10 Appendix B: Bibliography on Thought Reform and Cults Asch. S.E. (1952). Effects of group presure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. New York Holl, Rinehart and Winston. Andersen, S.. & Zimhardo. P. (1984). On resisting social influence. Cultic Studies Journal 1(2~. 196-219. Browm J. A, C. (1963). Techniques of persuasion: From propaganda to brainwashing. New York Penguin. Chem T. E.H. (19~), Thought reform of the Chinese intellectuals. New York Oxford University Press for Hong Kong Unive~ity Press- Cialdinl- R.B. fl984~. Influence: How and why people agree to things. New York: William Morrow and Company. Inc, Chrk, J. G. (1979. July 20). Calls. Journal of the American Medical Association, 242. 179-181. Delgado. R. f1977). Religious totalism: Gentle and ungentle persuasion under the first amendment. Southern California Law Review, 51. 1-98. Delgedo. R. (1982). CUlts and conversion: The case for informed consent. Georgia Law Review. l& 533-574. Enmth. R. (1992). Churches that abuse. Grand Rapids. MI: Zondetvan. Farber. I.E., liarlow. H. F.. & West L.J. (1956). Brainwashing conditioning and DDD (deb'fiity. dependency. and dread). Sociomet~, 21), 271-285. Fmkelstein, P.. Wene$rat. B.. & Yalom. I, (1982). Large group awareness training. Annual Review of psychology, 33, 515-539. Frank J. (1974). Persuasion and healing. New York Schocken Books. Goldberg. L. & Goldberg. W. (1982. March). Group work with former cultists. Social Work. 165-170. Group for the Advancement of PsychiatW. (1956). Factors used to increase the susceptibility ofindividuais to forceful indoctrination: Observations and experiment. Washingon, DC: American Psychiatric Press, Group for the Advancement of Psychiat~. (1957'). Methods of forceful indoctrination: Obseivations and interviews. Washingtom DC: American Psychiatric Press. Group for the Advancement of Psychiatsy. (1992). Leaders and followers: A psychiatric perspective on religious cults. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press. Hnakem J.. & Adam _. (1983). Pathoiogy as 'personal grmvth': A participant-observation study of Lifespring Training. Psychiat~, 46, 270-280. Halperin, D. (1982). Group processes in cult affiliation and recruitment. Group. 6, 13-24. Hinide, L E.. & Wolff, H. B, (1956). Communist interrogation and indoctrination of 'enemies of the state.' Archives of Neumlogy and PsychiaHy. 76. 115-174. Hoebream J. (Ed.) (1990). CUlts. (special issue) Psychiatric Annals: The Journal of Continuing Psychiatric Education. 20. Hunter. E. (1953). Brainwashing in Red China: The calculated destruction of men's minds. New York Vanguard. Lan~one. M. (Ed.). (1993). Recove~ from cults: Help for victims of psychological and spiritual abuse. New York Norton. Lifton. R.J. (1961). Thought reform and the psycholo$~t of totaim New York Norton. Lifton. R.J. (19~7'). The future of immortality and other essays for a nuclear age. New York Basic Books. Lacksted. O.. & Martell D. (April. May, June 1982). CUlts: A conflict between rehgious liberty and involunta~ servitude? FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. MacDonald, J. (19~8). 'Reject the wicked man' - Coercive pemaasion and deviance production: A study of conflict management. Caltic Studies Journal. 5. 59-121. Martin. P.. Lan~one. M.. Dole, A., & Wiltroul, J. (1992). Pnat..cull symptoms as measured by the MCMI before and after residential treatment. Caltic Studies Journal. 9(2). 219-250. Merioo. J. (1951). The crime of mentickle. American Journal of PsychiaHy. 107. 594-598. Milgram. S. (1974), Obedience to authority: An e~perimental view. New York Harper & Row. Mindszenty. J. (1974). Memoirs. New York MacMilhn. Mitchell. D., Mitchell C.. & Ofshe. R. (1980). The light on Syrianon. New York: Seaview Books, Ofshe. R. (1992). Coenite persuasion and attitude change. In E. F. Borgatm & M. L Borgatta (Eds.), Encyc, bpedia of sociology. New York MacMilhn. Ofshe. R. (1989). Coerced confessions: The logic of seemingly irrational action. Cultic Studies Journal. 6(1), Ofshe. R.. & Singer. M. (1986). Attacks on peripheral versus central elmcuts of self and the impact of thought reforming techniques. Caltic Studies Journal. 3, 3-24. Ro~e. O. (1959). Why men confess. New York Thomas Nelson. Sargant, W. (1951). The mechanism of conversion. British Medical Journal. 2. 311-316. Scheim E.. Schneier. I.. & Barker. C. (1961). Coercive persuasion: A sociopsychological analysis of the 'brainwashing' of American civilian prisoners bY the Chinese communists. New York Norton. Singer. M. (1986). Group psychodynamic~ In the Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Treatment, 15th edition. Psychiat~ Section. Ral~tay. NJ: Merck. Sharp and Doinne. Singer. M., & Addis, M. (1992). CaRs, coercion, and contumely. In A. Kales, C. M. Pierce. and M. Greenblurt (Eds,), The mosaic of contemporasy psychiat~ in penpective. New York Springer-Verhg. Singer. M.. & Lungone, M. (1990). Psychotherapy cults. Caltic Studies Journal. 7(21, 101-125. Singer. M.. & Ofshe, R. (1990). Thought reform programs and the production ofpsychaitric casualties. Psychiatric Annals: The Journal of Continuing Psychiatric Education. 20. 188-193. Sirkin. M.. & Wynne. L (1990). CUlt invokemeat as relational disorder. Psychiatric Annals: The Journal of Continuing Psychiatric Education. 20. 204-218. Temerlin. M.. & Temerlin J. (1982). Psychotherapy cults: An iatro~enic perversion. Psychothempy: Theo~. Reumrch and Practice, 19. 131-141. West.. L. J.. & Singer. M.T. (1980). CUlts. quacks and nonprofessional psychothempies. In H.I. Kaphm A. M. Freedman, & B.J. Sadock (Eds.), Comprehensive textbook of psychiat~. III. Baltimore: Willjams & Willtens. Zimbardo. P. G.. Ebbesem E.B.. & Maslach C. (1977). Influencing attitudes and changing behavior. An introduction to method theo~. and applications of social control and personal power. Reading. Mtc Addison-Wesley. Offmial Reports Reprinted in the Caltic Studies Journal New organizations operating under the protection afforded to religious bodies: Resolution of the European Parliament. (1985). Caltic Studies Journal. 2~2). 275-277. Sects or new religious movements: A pastoral challenge. (Vatican Report on CUlts). (1986'). Caltic Studies Journal. 3(1). 93-116. State of Israel ~?ort of the interministerial committee s~t up to exnmine cults ('new groups') in Israel. (1989). Cultk Studies Journal. 6(1), 3248. The Council of Europe's report on sects and new religious movements. (1992). Cultic Studies Journal. 9(1), 89-119. CULT ABUSE POLICY & RESEARCH ] Page 11 Appendix C: Excerpts from "How Many Jonestowns Will It Take?" (20 April 1993) Herbert L. Rosedale, Esq., President, AFF Michael D. Langone, Ph.D., Executive Director, AFF The tragedy at the Branch Davidian compound in Wa- co. Texas has focused attention on the Justice Depart- ment's effectiveness in dealing with David Koresh and his followers. Lacking all the information pertaining to the ATF's and FBI's decision-making, we hesitate to join the 'blame chorus." Perhaps the authorities made serious mistakes. Perhaps not. Their job was exceed- ingly difficult. The personal responsibility they must have felt and continue to feel ought to elicit sympathy in all of us. We doubt that any level-headed person would have been eager to step into their shoes. Cults are not merely weird groups that crazy people find attractive. Cults are massive, enduring cons. Although individuals may join cults during periods of stress and demoralization, most cult joiners are more or less within the normal range psychologically. They do not join groups because they have made a rational and informed decision that the cult will benefit them. They join because they are seduced through a gradual, step-by-step process of deceit and manipulation design- ed to advance the leader's objectives, regardless of the harm caused to members. The centratify of sustained, exploitative manipulation distinguishes cults from be- nign new movements and mainstream religions. All cult leaders are charismatic, persuasive personali- ties. Those that are at the top of their trade gain vir- tually absolute control over their followers. Some cult leaders are con men who are very much aware that their main goal is to make money. Others are psycho- pathic personalities whose primary motivation may be the pleasure of wielding power over others or the satis- faction of endowing their idiosyncratic delusions with the pseudoreality of their followers' manipulated adul a- lion. Such leaders may often come to believe in their own convoluted "theologies," the underlying purpose of which is to enhance their power and sustain their delu- sional systems. If David Koresh had been a "mere con man" who was in it for the money, the FBI probably would have been able to work out a deal because Ko- resh would have been rational enough to save his own skin. It is now obvious that Koresh became intoxicated by his own charisma and enslaved by his private voices of doom. There were many signs pointing to this conclu- sion before the Waco fire. However, because David Koresh was a mercurial ego-maniac, it is quite possible that no matter what the FBI did, he would have led his group into tragedy of one sort or another. He appa- rently preferred death to surrender. His followers "fol- lowed'' his lead. If the FBI can be faulted, it is for what they did and didn't do. not for the results, which may have been un- avoidable. The ultimate responsibility for this confla- gration lies with David Koresh. The FBI. however, apparently did not appreciate the uniqueness of the cult mindset, and opted to consult experts on terrorists and hostage taking, rather than eminent cult experts. such as Dr. Margaret Singer of the University of California at Berkeley and Dr. Louis J. West of UCLA. If they had, they might have recon- sidered their tactics of pressure, harassment, and psy- chological warfare. In a terrorist hostage-taking situa- tion, authorities confront a small group of fanatics who are usually surprisingly rational, given their assump- tions. and a group of hostages who definitely don't want to be there. In Waco, the authorities confronted an astoundingly persuasive, but fundamentally irration- al, man whose "hostages," for the most part, wanted to be with him -- even to the death. These differences make for markedly different group dynamics. Cultisis often depend upon psychological dissociation, a kind of splitting of the mind, to adapt to the pres- sures and contradictions of the cult environment. Ko- resh clearly had delusional tendencies. Consequently, standard psychological warfare tactics, such as depriv- ing members of sleep by playing Buddhist chants in the middle of the night, probably made Koresh and his fol- lowers even more irrational and less open to construc- tive outside influences. The primary enemy of the cult mindset is truth -- infor- mation from outside the dosed, psychological walls of the group. Research on defection from cults suggests that those who become aware of the leader's hypocrisy and those who are able to share private doubts with others are much more likely to leave. This is why cult leaders so often control even the most mundane as- pects of their followers' lives and why cult experts ad- vise parents always to try to keep the lines of commu- nication open. The leader's hold on members is pow- erful, yet paradoxically fragile. Before pushing Koresh into a comer, the FBI should have permitted the families of the Branch Davidian members to talk at length to their loved ones in order to try to connect them psychologically to the outside world and find holes with which to pry open the psy- chological cap that made the people in the compound followers rather than hostages. However, given Ko- resh's psyehopathology, this probably wouldn't have worked either. But it should have been tried. PSYCHOLOGICAL COERCION & HUMAN RIGHTS (April 1984) I Page 12 Appendix D: Excerpts from October 29, 1993, letter of Margaret T. Singer, Ph.D. to Deputy Attorney General and Assistant Secretary of the Treasury ... [C]ertain erroneous statements in the report sub- mitted by Dr. Nancy T. Ammerman ... may seriously mislead the government and the public and, if uncor- rected, cause government authorities to misjudge and mishandle future situations involving groups similar to the Branch Davidians. ... I will focus on the two [factual errors and erroneous implications] that I deem to be the most destructively misleading. 1. Although the religious belief systems of groups such as the Branch Davidians are relevant to a full under- standing of the group's psychological dynamics, Dr. Ammerman greatly exaggerates the role of belief sys- tems and ignores the central role of thought reform processes. Charismatic, unscrupulous cult leaders such as David Koresh institute thought reform programs in order to ensure compliance among their followers. The belief systems of such groups are of secondary im- portance. They vary tremendously in nature. Some are political, others psychotherapeutic, some 'biblical," and others "eastern mystical." The belief systems' com- mon characteristic is that they serve as "tools" to ad- vance the leader's hidden agendas (which may some- times be mere financial fraud, and other times, as with Koresh, the propping up of the leader's fragile and pa- thological ego). Members follow the leader not so much because of a rational and informed acceptance of the belief system, but because of the orchestrated program of psychological manipulation designed to gain their compliance. Attached is an article from Psy- chiatric Annals [not reproduced] in which Dr. Richard Ofshe and I describe thought reform programs and the psychiatric casualties that sometimes result from such programs. I recognize that some "new religious movements" do not employ thought reform programs. For these groups, the belief system may be a central determinant of members' decisions to join. Such movements, how- ever, are not likely to pose law enforcement problems. Dr. Ammerman seems not to recognize that some new movements may be psychologically and socially des- tructive. Indeed, she even seems to imply that the Jonestown tragedy resulted from family members' com- plaints to authorities -- an absolutely ridiculous posi- tion. In her report. Dr. Ammerman states: 'The notion of 'cult brainwashing' has been thoroughly discredited in the academic community, and 'experts' who propagate such notions in the courts have been discredited by the American Psychological Association [APA] and the American Sociological Association [ASA]." The two clauses that comprise this statement are both erroneous. First, contrary to Dr. Ammerman's claim, there is. in fact, widespread agreement, if not unan- imous agreement among behavioral scientists who have studied intense social influence and indoctrination that thought reform programs are a reality. Skepticism seems to emanate primarily from some sociologists of religion and religious studies scholars who are not be- havioral scientists and have not worked clinically with victims of thought reform programs. I can point to a number of compelling publications in- dicating widespread acknowledgement of the reality of thought reform within the behavioral and social science communities. Richard Ofshe, a social psychologist in the Sociology Department of the University of Califor- nia, Berkeley, recently published an important article, "Coercive Persuasion and Attitude Change," in the En- cyclopedia of Sociology. I have contributed articles on this subject to two authoritative texts, the Merck Ma- nual of Diagnosis and Therapy (15th edition) (the most widely read medical book in the world) and the Com- prehensive Textbook of Psychiatry, III. Furthermore, a large number of articles on the subject have been published in psychological and psychiatric journals. At- tachment B is a brief bibliography on thought reform and cults. I also refer you to Dr. Cancro's report. Contrary to Dr. Ammerman's conclusion, Dr. Cancro treats "brain- washing" (i.e., thought reform) as an accepted (rather than "thoroughly discredited") scientific concept. He states: 'The absence of corrective feedback from a di- verse environmental experience strengthens the belief system through a process that can be described as a form of brainwashing. It does not matter that this brainwashing may even be voluntary, because the oper- ational effect will be the same." It is also noteworthy that the DSM-III-R (the Diagnos- tic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association) includes the following statement with re- gard to diagnosis 300.15, Dissociative Disorder Not Otherwise Specified: "dissociated states that may occur in people who have been subjected to periods of pro- longed and intense coercive persuasion (e.g., brain- washing, thought reform, or indoctrination while the captive of terrorists or cultists)." The second part of Dr. Ammerman's statement, which claims that APA and ASA have discredited experts who testify on "cult brainwashing," is also not correct. Although attempts were made to persuade APA and ASA to take the stand Dr. Ammerman presents as fact.-these attempts failed. (Both APA and ASA CULT ABUSE POLICY & RESEARCH withdrew their names from amicus curiae briefs taking that stand. The egregious conduce of certain individu- als in the attempted manipulation of the APA and ASA is the basis of a civil suit soon to be filed.) In- deed, APA's Division 36 (Psychologists Interested in Religious Issues) rejected a proposed resolution that would have condemned expert testimony on thought reform and passed instead a resolution that acknow- ledged the reality of thought reform (while noting a lack of consensus regarding the degree to which par- ticular groups practice thought reform). Moreover. even before this year's Dauben decision by the Supreme Court regarding admissibility of expert testimony, expert testimony on thought reform had been considered in a number of court cases. 2. Dr. Ammerman appears to be lobbying for a group of academicians who, like herself, ignore the crucial role of thought reform in groups such as the Branch Davidians and, therefore, are not the consultants on whom the department should rely. Their limited rele- vance becomes evident in Dr. Ammerman's analysis. For example. she states on page two, referring to the outside experts the FBI consulted, that "this list of outside consultants is sorely wanting. The psychiatrists who were most intimately involved are undoubtedly ex- perienced in helping the FBI understand 'the criminal mind.' This, however, was a very different situation, and we have no evidence that any of these men had background or experience in dealing with a high-com- mitment religious group." Then on page four, after viewing some of the advice the FBI received from its behavioral science consultants, she says: '~t is my be- lief that this understanding of Koresh's ideas was basic- ally accurate and that their assessment of his likely be- haviors was on target." It seems, then, that either the consultants had more expertise and experience than Dr. Ammerman realizes or they were pretty lucky. Knowing Dr. Park Deitz [a FBI behavioral consultant], I believe the former statement is more accurate. Soon after acknowledging the soundness of the advice offered by Dr. Deitz and his colleagues, Dr. Ammer- man provides a list of points that she believes the FBI should have taken into consideration. Other than the egregiously erroneous attack on 'Brainwashing" and the silly suggestion that the Jonestown disaster resulted from "the actions of govemment agencies pushed for- ward by 'concemed families,"' these points are super- ficial or self-evident. For example, does she really believe that the agents and their consultants did not realize that "new or dissident religious groups are often 'millennialist' or 'apocalyptic"'? Thus, Dr. Ammerman's analysis seems inconsistent. On the one hand, she acknowledges that the Waco sit- uation called for special behavioral science expertise. On the other hand, she is trying to make a case for recommending individuals who are mostly sociologists and religious scholars lacking the requisite behavioral science expertise. Moreover. some of these "experts" have provided expert testimony favoring cultic groups with psychological dynamics similar to those of the Branch Davidians. These "experts" are neither behavi- oral scientists aware of thought reform programs, nor have they had extensive first-hand experience debrief- ing and working with persons who have been subjected to thought reform programs. The point of view generally advanced by these aca- demicians is, in my view, superficial and off the mark with respect to groups such as the Branch Davidians (although their point of view may have more relevance for benign new religious movements). They overlook the centrality of thought reform in determining the behavior of group members in destructive "new religious movements." That is why Dr. Ammerman writes as though all law enforcement personnel need to do is leam about the diversity of religious groups. She overlooks the crucial fact that law enforcement will not get involved unless criminal activity is believed to have occurred. Because such groups are likely to be destructive. law enforcement personnel must understand the psychological dynamics that make such groups destructive and set them apart from benign groups to which Dr. Ammerman's analysis is more relevant. Those of us who have studied thought reform and cults begin our studies of cult membership at the point when the potential recruit first makes contact with the group -- when the seductive process of thought reform begins. (Parenthetically, let me point out that a common mis- conception about thought reform is that it requires the use of force. This most definitely is not the case. as Dr. Robert Lifton's seminal studies of thought reform among Chinese civili-ans demonstrated. See Attach- ments C and D for statements [partially reproduced in text; see n. 11] that Drs. Robert Lifton and Edgar Sehein. another pioneer in the study of thought reform, wrote to rebut claims that thought reform requires physical force.) The sociologists of religion whom Dr. Ammerman recommends tend to accept at face value the statements members make after they have already committed to the group and been exposed to the in- tense social and psychological manipulations of a thought reform program. These academicians tend to overlook the deception and psychological manipulation that characeerize the recruitment and indoctrination processes of many cultic groups. I believe that if the Department of Justice followed Dr. Ammerman's advice, they would handle future situations involving groups that praceice thought reform less effectively rather than more effeceively. PSYCHOLOGICAL COERCION & HUMAN RIGHTS (April 1984) Page 14 Appendix E: Excerpts from letter dated October 12, 1993, of Herbert L. Rosedale, E~., President, AFF, to Deputy Attorney General and Assistant Secretary of the Treasury As a practicing attorney, I have been involved on a pro bono basis in this area of law for upwards of a dozen years. I have become involved in the representation of victims without any personal or family connection to any group whatever because of my concern about the threat that destructive cults pose to our political and judicial systems. While many destructive cults are organizations which deify their leaders and proclaim themselves to be "reli- gious.'' often to take advantage of tax and perceived other legal benefits, some are totalistic political and abusive self help groups. In her report submitted to you, Dr. Ammerman reach- ed a basic conclusion which, if followed uncritically, would cause the government to adopt a position of '~e- nign neglect" with respect to violent and abusive con- duct. She writes "... new religious groups are usually more threatening to cherished notions about how we all ought to order our lives than to our physical well- being." It is very hard to reconcile that statement with the deaths at Waco, Jonestown, Matamoros, etc. Her conclusion is also premised upon inadequate considera- tion of the substantial body of academic and clinical evidence that (i) people who join destructive cults do not do so voluntarily and (ii) people who leave destruc- tive cults have sustained physical and mental injuries attributable to their stay with the group. Appendix B is a list of the authorities and sources, none of which are referred to in the report of Dr. Ammerman, that support these propositions. Notably, Recovery from Cults, a series of 20 papers edited by Michael Langone, the Executive Director of The American Family Foundation, has just been published by W.W. Norton & Co. It is a current selection of the Behavioral Science Book Club and is derived from professional papers presented at a conference sponsored by our organization and five cosponsoring Philadelphia organizations, including Northwestern In- stitute. a psychiatric center in Pennsylvania. Ms. Ammerman's contention that the "notion of cult brainwashing has been thoroughly discredited in the academic community, and experts who propagate such notions in the courts have been discredited" is, simply, factually wrong. Even a cursory examination in the material included in Appendix B and reference to the professional stature of the authors of that material, rebuts the conclusion of Dr. Ammerman. With respect to her statements as to the state of the law, they ignore the recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United Stats which discarded the evidentiary approach used by a number of courts in denying admission of certain testimony as to mind control. Moreover, she has ignored the numerous cases in which such testimony has been admitted and relied upon by courts and juries. Analysis of these issues was made in 1992 by a Com- mittee of the Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry in a text entitled "Leaders & Followers." In addressing the question of whether the accusation of brainwashing is satisfied, this committee concluded that there is an argument that "forced isolation from family and friends predisposes 'captive' recruits to identification with the cult's leadership and goals" and that it is simplistic to use the term '~,,oluntary" in determining the means used of gaining adherence by such groups since "rational judgment has little to do with any religious affiliation; indoctrination of those with the need to belong has lot to do with it." The above quote is made not because it is the strongest or most complete statement of the positions with respect to mind control. but because it is the conclusion of a group having no financial or other commitment to sustaining or denying the exist- ence of coercive persuasion. Examination of the identi- ty of authors of much of the material included in Dr. Ammerman's report will disclose financial support, connection and reliance upon the very groups that they are commenting about. Particularly insofar as this report seeks to deal with guidance in future law enforcement, it would seem bla- tantly inappropriate to ignore the seminal works of Robert Lifton on thought reform and totalism where Professor Lifton has taught law enforcement officials for years in the John Jay College of Criminal justice in New York City. It is clear in the conclusion of the "GAP" study that all sources of professional information, including those cri- tical of a cult, must be consulted and considered prior to determining a course of conduct. This seems to me to be more appropriate guidance for future law en- forcement actions than the reliance of incomplete views advocated by Ms. Ammerman. It is essential that in adopting a multi-disciplinary ap- proach to the gathering of information relative to fu- ture law enforcement actions, you consider and evalu- ate he opinions of those who have had personal know- ledge of particular groups and not rely, as do Dr. Am- mennan and many of the authorities she cites, on the opinions of people who are still within and under the control of a group. One must also consider the critics of the group and those whose experience have led them to leave it. CULT ABUSE POLICY & RESEARCH We at the American Family Foundation believe that the suggestion that the government should turn a blind eye on the harm destructive cults cause to its victims because of "the long view" and because such group's strange behavior is '~videly sought by millions of people" is inappropriate. We do not believe that we should take such a view towards racial discrimination, poverty, or other abuses of power simply because the harm is not great if we take a long enough view and because the number of abusers is great. There are embodied in our Constitution certain inali- enable rights including those of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is not an appropriate lesson from the tragedies of Waco and Jonestown that the dead are victims of a religious group pushed over the edge by actions of a government agency or that their deaths are attributable to their concerned families. It is our hope that in your evaluation of how to im- prove federal law enforcement after Waco you will opt for more knowledge, rather than less, for a wider scope of consultation, rather than a narrower one, and multiz disciplinary considerations, rather than sole reliance upon academicians dealing with comparative religious theology. PSYCHOLOGICAL COERCION & HUMAN RIGHTS (April 1984) Page 16 Appendix F: Excerpts from letter dated October 29, 1993, of Michael D. Langone, Ph.D., Executive Director, AFF, and Editor, Cuitie Studies Journal, to Deputy Attorney General and Assistant Secretary of the Treasury The recently released report on the Branch-Davidian stand-off includes three reports on the subject of "dealing with persons whose motivations and thought processes are unconventional." The three reports were written by Drs. Nancy Ammerman, Robert Cancro, and Lawrence Sullivan. Dr. Ammerman's report con- tains a number of inaccuracies regarding thought re- form (also known as "coercive persuasion" and collo- quially as 'Brainwashing" or "mind control"), which Dr. Margaret Singer has addressed in her letter to you. Herbert Rosedale has also criticized Dr. Ammerman's report for implicitly advocating a '~enign neglect" toward criminal groups with a religious nature, but has written favorably of Drs. Cancro's and Sullivan's re- ports. Mr. Rosedale supports their call for a multi- disciplinary perspective, but recommends that experts on thought reform be included in multidisciplinary de- liberations. I write to explain further why the concept of thought reform is relevant to your deliberations and how thought reform relates to other behavioral science perspectives and to religious studies. Before proceeding, I want to make clear that I define a cult as an abusive, exploitatively manipulative group that uses thought reform to control members' behavior, feelings. and thoughts. Cults often are religious, but may also be psychotherapeutic, or political. I distin- guish cults from new groups that are not abusive and manipulative, whether these be new religious move- ments, innovative psychotherapies, or new political movements. Individuals '~,vhose motivations and thought processes are unconventional" may or may not belong to cults, such as the Branch Davidians. My comments are most applicable to cult situations. The general issue that we all are trying to illuminate is interpersonal influence, that is, how the behavior of in- dividuals and groups is influenced by interactions with- in the subject population and between members of the subject population and law enforcement authorities. A diagram on page 19 attempts to clarify this issue. Ho- rizontally, the diagram is divided into religious contexts and nonreligious contexts. Vertically it is divided into respectful forms of influence and abusive forms of influence. Abusive forms of influence are further sub- divided into situations involving thought reform and situations where thought reform is not present. Obviously, this diagram is a simplification. In real life the boundaries between respect and abuse. or between religious and nonreligious, are fuz2y, not sharp. More- over. no group would fit completely in one category. Even the most abusive groups will demonstrate forms of respectful influence in certain situations. However, there are differences in the frequencies and conse- quences of abusive influence. I have elsewhere propos- ed the concept, "climates of influence," to distinguish between different types of groups. In an essay on psychological abuse (Langone, 1992), I propose the acronym, MAID, to explain the difference between respectful and abusive forms of interpersonal influence. MAID stands for Mind, Autonomy, Integri- ty (psychological wholeness), and Dignity (self-esteem, with social dimension). When influencers honor the minds, autonomy, integrity, and dignity of influencees, the context is respectful. When infiuencers dishonor these fundamental requirements of human happiness, they wrongly use influencees, and the context is abu- sive. Respectful interpersonal influence is open, ho- nest, and caring. Abusive interpersonal influence is manipulative, dishonest, and exploitalive. Whether or not they have had formal psychological training, law enforcement personnel develop with ex- perience a keen understanding of psychological abuse, of how people wrongly use other people. Any training designed to advance their understanding of unconven- tional groups and persons should respectfully acknow- ledge and build upon what they already know. For ex- ample, much sound advice came from indMduals with- in or associated with the FBI, even if their understand- ing was not as great as it might have been. However, as others have noted, the tacticians rejected this advice. Law enforcement personnel could sharpen their under- standing by integrating what they already know with re- levant concepts and information from religious studies and behavioral science, including thought reform, or "cultic studies." This integrated understanding would enable them to assess more accurately situations such as the Branch Davidian stand-off because they would understand how religious issues fit into the picture, how the leader's behavior reflects his psychological dy- namics, and how thought reform processes influence members' behavior. I will now elaborate upon the relationships described in the diagram on page 19. Religious scholars are experts on how religious beliefs influence behavior. Psychologists and other behavioral scientists study the processes by which individuals may come to adopt these beliefs and the psychological moti- vations that often affect behavior. Behavioral scientists who have studied thought reform have a special exper- tise pertaining to situations in which the following con- ditions are present (or present to a high degree) [from CULT ABUSE POLICY & RESEARCH Page 17 M. Singer & R. Ofshe, 1990, Thought reform and the production of psychiatric casualties. Psychiatric Annals, 20, 188-193]: ú obtaining substantial control over an individual's time, and thought content. typically by gaining control over major elements of the person's social and physical environment ú systematically mating a sense of powerlessness in the person ú manipulating a system of rewards, punishment, and experiences in such a way as to promote new learning of an ideology or belief system advocated by manage- ment ú manipulating a system of rewards, punishments, and experiences in such a way as to inhibit observable be- havior that reflects the values and routines of life organization the individual displayed prior to contact with the group ú maintaining a dosed system of logic and an authori- tarian structure in the organization ú maintaining a noninformed state existing in the sub- ject. In a thought reform situation, such as the Branch-Da- vidian stand-off, traditional religious studies formula- tions about the relationship between belief and beha- vior will tend to break down because (a) the belief sys- tem becomes an instrument which the leader uses to enhance his control of followers, (b) followers are dri- ven more by an induced dependency on the leader than by a rational, informed evaluation of the belief system, and (c) the leader. whose primary concem is control over his/her followers rather than maintaining the integrity of his/her beliefs, will adjust those beliefs to combat circumstances that threaten his/her control. Consequently, the internal logic -- including the sym- bolic logic -- of the belief system, though certainly worth considering, cannot be exclusively relied upon to understand or predict the behavior of the leader or fol- lowers. Although traditional behavioral science perspectives can be helpful in understanding the leader's behavior (e.g., the contention that pulling back would paradoxi- cally decrease Koresh's power and influence with his followers). they tend to overestimate the degree to which followers' behavior reflects need fulfillment (mo- tivation) and underestimate the extent to which it re- flects the leader's exploitation of needs (manipulation). They also tend not to appreciate the important role that dissociative defenses often play in the followers' adaptation to the extreme pressures and hidden, often contradictory, agendas of the cult environment. Dism- ciation is a mental mechanism that enables cultisis to "split" or "compartmentalize" their minds in order to adapt to powerful environments with contradictory agendas. For example, a Branch Davidian mother might have adapted to the contradictory messages of 'qove and care for your child" and "obey Koresh" (when what Koresh was advocating placed the child in dan- ger) by mentally disconnecting from the former mes- sage. A behavioral scientist unfamiliar with thought reform situations might attribute some kind of uncon- scious motivation (e.g., suppressed hostility toward a child that interferes with the mother's life), whereas a thought reform specialist would not make that assump- tion and would tend to explain the mother's behavior as a consequence of Koresh's manipulations of the wo- man's mind. How could the thought reform perspective have been applied to the Waco situation? Before answering this question, I must emphasize that the reflections presented in the following paragraphs are not based on full knowledge of the facts, nor would they necessarily be endorsed by all thought reform ex- perks. Nor do I intend to imply that "if only the FBI had listened to us, everything would have turned out fine." My personal suspicion is that, once the ATF raid was made, Koresh's psychopathology made cata- strophe almost a foreordained conclusion. However, this does not mean that mistakes weren't made, nor does it mean that it would have been impossible to get more people out before the catastrophe. We will never know the answers. To the credit of the Depart- ments of Justice and Treasury, a sincere attempt is be- ing made to learn from the experiences associated with Waco. Based on my understanding of thought reform and the situation at Waco, I would have strongly agreed with the behavioral scientists who recommended a pulling back and objected to the use of psychological warfare tactics (the Tibetan chanting was especially counterin- dicated because it would tend to magni~ the suggesti- bility of Koresh's followers, not decrease it). I would have strongly recommended that an expert on the Branch Davidjan theology be consulted. Even though the belief system probably functioned, in large measure, as a tool, it was a tool that the authorities could have used, not just Koresh. I would have strongly recommended that an expert cli- nician knowledgeable about thought reform and cults, such as Dr. Margaret Singer, interview as quickly as possible all available former members and family mem- bers. These are the people who have the raw data on the group's techniques of psychological manipulation, even though they may not be able to articulate clearly what they know (which is why clinical expertise is ne- cessary in order to pull out and organize the valuable information in their heads). I suspect (though I do not have sufficient information to state confidently) that the information so gathered PSYCHOLOGICAL COERCION & HUMAN RIGHTS (April 1984) ] Page 18 would have been useful -- in conjunction with the theo- logical analysis (which would have helped negotiators to speak Koresh's 'language") -- in negotiating for the release of children and others. Family members, "coached" by an expert clinician, might have been able to begin to connect their loved ones to the outside world and find holes with which to pry open the psy- chological cap that made them followers, rather than hostages. Negotiators might also have been able to identify strategies that would have given them more le- verage over Koresh. As noted earlier, I do not know if these if followed, would have significantly altered the outcome, for ulti- mately Koresh's personal needs (the only needs that truly matter in a cultic group) would have determined the outcome. If, as seems to be the case, his need for power so outweighed his instinct for survival that he would opt for death when he believed himself to be trapped between utter humiliation and death, then death was inevitable. The "next Koresh," however, may not be so thoroughly trapped, nor so "tipped" toward death, and a positive outcome may be possible if, as Dr. Sullivan says, '~,nowledge is the premise." Forms of Influence Respectful ] Abusive Contexts ] Not Thought Reform [[ Thought Reform Religious Mainly functioning here are Abusive religious Abusive religious situations Contexts benign new religious movements situations in which the in which the manipulations and other religious groups, for motivations of the of a leader are prominent which religious studies abused are prominent. (e.g., cults). perspectives are most useful. Traditional behavioral Thought reform expertise Little. if any. need for serious law science view usually needed. enforcement involvement. sufficient. NOB- Functioning here would be Abusive groups that are Abusive groups that are religious benign nonreligious groups, such political political psychotherapeutic. Contexts as communes that do not have a psychotherapeutic. or or commercial. religious character. commercial. Thought reform expertise Little. if any, need for serious law Traditional behavioral needed. enforcement involvement. science views usually helpful here. I Obviously. this diagram simplifies boundaries that. in real life. would be fuzzy, not sharp. Also, no group would fit completely in one category. The categories are useful only in separating groups with different influence "climates." CULT ABUSE POLICY & RESEARCH Page 19 CULT ABUSE POLICY & RESEARCH Board of Advisers ú Peter N. Georgiades, Esq., Counselor at Law. Pittsburgh, PA r Bruce D. Per~, M.D., Ph.D., Thomas S. Trammell Research Professor of Child Psychiatry, Dept. of Psychiatry, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX ú Herbert Rosedale, Esq., President AFF, New York, NY ú Patricia Ryan. M.P.A., Legislative Advocate, Sacramento. CA ú Margaret Thaler Singer, Ph.D.. Emeritus Adjunct Professor, Psychology Dept. Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA ú Louis Jolyon West, M.D., Professor of Psychiatry. UCLA School of Medicine. Los Angeles, CA. Send communications to David J. Bardin rFax: 9..02-857-6395 rInternet: DJB%Arent_Fox@mcimail.com rPhone: 202-857-6089 For more information. contact: American Family Foundation or P.O. Box 2265 Bonita Springs. FL 33959-2265 The AFF is a tax-exempt research and education organization founded in 1979 to assist cult victims and their fa- milies through the study of cultic groups and their manipulative tech- niques of persuasion and control. AFF consists of a small professional staff and approximately 100 volunteer pro- fessionals, including psychiatrists, psy- chologists, social workers, educators, sociologists, physicians, attorneys, cler- gy. journalists, business executives. law enforcement officials, college and uni- versity administrators, and others who who contribute to AFF's efforts in re- search, education, the law, and victim assistance. AFF publishes the CULT~C STUDms JOURNAL and provides infor- mational programs at educational and religious sites. Cult Awareness Network 2421 West Pratt Boulevard -- Suite 1173 Chicago, IL 60645 CAN is the largest national non-pro- fit organization which provides edu- cation and support services to the public on the cult issue. It was re- organized as a 501(c)(3) in 1978, the year the Jonestown tragedy oc- curred, and has 18 affiliates nation- wide. It receives and responds to more than 18,000 inquiries annually concerning destructive cults and the problems they pose to society. CAN has established a support net- work, FOCUS, for former cult mem- bers. CAN's many supporters in- clude mental health professionals, educators, clergy, law enforcement officials, ex-cult members and their families. PSYCHOLOGICAL COERCION & HUM.4N RIGHTS (April 1984) Second Appellate District, Division Seven, No. B023193 S0117gO IN THE SUPEEME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFOENIA IN BANK StlPREME GOUR~ LARRY NOLLERSHEIM, Respondent CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, Appellant The request for an order directing publication of the opinion in the above entitled cause is DENIED. ,z: -iVED APR 2 2 199z~ ================================================================= If this is a copyrighted work, you are acknowledging by receipt of this document from FACTNet that on the basis of reasonable investigation, you have not been to obtain a copy elsewhere at a fair price, and that you are and will abide by the following copyright warning. WARNING CONCERNING COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS: The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photo copies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Under certain conditions specified by law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be "used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research." If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of "fair use," that user may be liable for copyright infringement. FACTNet reserves the right to refuse to accept an order for copying or other duplication, or delivery of copied or duplicated material if, in its judgment, fulfillment of the order would involve violation of copyright law. ------------------------------------------------------------------- CARD CATALOG ENTRY DOS FILENAME OF TEXT FILE: E:\PCB\GEN\FILES\MEDIA01\LW.TXT DOS FILENAME OF IMAGE FILES: ADMINISTRATIVE CODE: SECURITY CODE: DISTRIBUTION CODE: NAME FOR BBS: SORT TO: CONTRIBUTOR: LOC. OF ORIG: NOTES: For additional verification see image files contained in the file with same name and .ZIP extension. UPDATED ON: UPDATED BY: =================================================================