In live-blogging the Petraeus/Crocker Hearings yesterday, I noted my astonishment at General Petraeus' assertion that some detainees in Iraq ask to stay in detention, after they have been cleared for release, so they can complete their religious training. I wondered aloud what religious training the U.S. is providing for detainees, as I had never heard of this program.
Answers after the jump....
This is from the official website for Operation IRAQI FREEDOM:
In-processing evaluations also indicate many detainees have only a basic understanding of their faith and were influenced by charismatic extremists. Volunteer religious discussions are offered to provide more in-depth study of the Quran and its application to daily life. The religious discussions are led by moderate Iraqi Islamic Imams and scholars who prepare the detainees to resist false teachings of radical extremist leaders.
It is, apparently, part of a larger anti-recidivism training effort:
The evaluation process consistently reveals that many detainees have had little or no education, are under-employed and have only a basic understanding of their Islamic faith. The programs are designed to address deficiencies in these areas and work to disengage detainees from violence.
The educational programs offered to detainees were developed in coordination with the Iraqi Ministry of Education and consist of six core subjects: Arabic, English, Math, Science, Civics and Geography. The school is taught in concert with hired teaching professionals and volunteer detainees. The number of participants in the program has increased steadily.
Vocational programs are offered to provide detainees with job training and skill development to increase their chances of being successful in the Iraqi workplace. Detainees are offered training in carpentry, welding and ceramics. The hope is that individuals leaving detention, with marketable skills for sufficient employment, will be deterred from participating in anti-Coalition activities for financial reasons.
Setting aside for the moment any First Amendment issues with the U.S. government sponsoring a content-approved religious education program, on its face this seems like a worthwhile program.
Indeed, my first thought was to wonder whether this is the same conservative worldview that portrays rehabilitation for U.S. prisoners as a waste of resources. If a comprehensive anti-recidivism program is deemed worthy in Iraq, why not also for U.S. prisoners, especially as the U.S. has the highest imprisonment rate in the world. Is this yet another case of U.S. taxpayers funding improvements in Iraq that we won't (or can't) fund here at home?
Obviously, the OIF website will put the brightest gloss on its stories. But for purposes of discussion, let us assume the descriptions above are true and accurate. If so, we must address that First Amendment question: can a U.S.-led Iraqi occupation force lawfully sponsor content-approved religious training for Iraqi detainees, in Iraq?
It is legal for the military, and prisons, to provide chaplains. This has been upheld by the courts, holding that the Free Exercise Clause requires the government to provide religious services and support for servicemembers and prisoners. However, those decisions assume that the content will be determined by the chaplains themselves, not prescribed or approved by government officials.
This program, it seems, has U.S. government-prescribed and -approved religious content. The MNF hire only "moderate" imams, whose purpose seems to be teaching detainees a form of Islam that is consistent with U.S. policies and interests. Now, obviously it would be the height of folly to hire radical Islamist imams to come in and teach detainees to hate and kill Americans. But the constitutional question remains.
As a constitutional lawyer, I think it's very likely that were such a program extant in a U.S. prison, a program where "moderate" religious leaders were brought in to teach a government-prescribed and -approved religious curriculum, the courts would strike it down as violating the Establishment Clause. But does that apply to U.S. government programs for Iraqis, in Iraq?
Is it enough that this program is voluntary, and thus detainees who reject this interpretation of Islam can choose not to participate?
Was the Establishment Clause intended to preclude only the establishment of a state religion in the United States, or was it also intended to preclude the establishment of an official religion by U.S. military forces operating detainment facilities overseas?
Such issues have not, to my knowledge, been decided by our courts. I find myself ambivalent about the possible answers. I can see both sides of this issue, and I find my heart leaning one way (the program is good) while my legal-trained mind leans the other (it may be unconstitutional).
Regardless, it's certainly an aspect of the Iraq occupation that I'd not considered prior to General Petraeus' and Ambassador Crocker's testimony yesterday.
And that was perhaps the only "news" in the seven hours of hearings.