Commander's Responsibility for the Delivery of Religious Support to the Detainees in the JAO: Accommodation of Religious Needs Balanced with the Necessary Security Concerns
Abstract : In recent operations, Regional Combatant Commanders (RCCs) have been tasked with new challenges in providing for the treatment, care, and accountability of detainees. Included in this tasking is the responsibility to insure detainees have the latitude to exercise their religious faith. This is an unfamiliar territory for many, and certainly not an art in practiced recent memory. These new challenges in relationship to religious support include understanding the boundaries set in the law of armed conflict, coming to terms with the definitions of detainees categories, religious support, and roles of providers, as well as understanding and tackling emerging concepts relating to enemy combatant detainees and the Global War on Terror. Headlines since 2002 have reminded us of the unintended consequences of what happens when we get it wrong. Remember the news stories of LT Saif-ul-Islam in Guantanamo Bay? We saw what happened when a chaplain trained at a tactical level, assigned to an operational staff, was given a role of great strategic significance.
Beyond Arm Bands and Arms Banned: Chaplains, Armed Conflict, and the Law
The primary objective of this article is to provide a comprehensive, up-to-date examination of the special legal status, treatment, benefits and responsibilities of chaplains who serve their God and their nation in the midst of armed conflict. Part I this article focuses upon the legal status of chaplains in armed conflict: first, the basic law of armed conflict; then, the historical role of chaplains in the U.S. military and how that role has dramatically changed through our nation’s history. Thereafter, the analysis shifts to the actual status of all nations’ military chaplains under international law, primarily under the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Next, the article highlights two of the methods of distinction established in the Conventions for setting chaplains apart on the battlefield. Finally, the policy restrictions adopted by the U.S. armed services for the purpose of protecting the status of U.S. chaplains are examined.Part II of this article focuses upon the legal treatment of chaplains in armed conflict. First, the discussion explores the standard of treatment of chaplains in the battlespace. The remainder of this section examines the standard of treatment of chaplains upon capture, primarily in prisoner of war camps, to include an explanation of the duration of any such retention. Additionally, it highlights how chaplains are entitled to prisoner-of-war benefits, but are also subject to internal discipline systems of the detention camp. The focus then shifts to the performance of chaplains’ spiritual duties in camp, including the special facilities guaranteed in the Conventions to help perform those duties. Finally, examination shifts to the U.S. Code of Conduct and its application to U.S. chaplains retained by the enemy.Part III of this article focuses upon the domestic role of U.S. chaplains in armed conflict. Prior to considering the multiple roles, each chaplain must fully understand the status and treatment standards adopted by the U.S. armed forces to implement the obligations under the Geneva Conventions. Thereafter, scrutiny shifts to the three key roles developed for U.S. chaplains in U.S. detention facilities: advisers to camp commanders; ministers to enemy detainees; and conduits between the two interests. Finally, the article explores a potential conflict of interest arising in the performance of the roles involving the penitent-clergy communication privilege. Throughout the examination of these domestic roles, international law obligations, domestic policy guidance, and the practical application of both by U.S. chaplains recently assigned to Camp X-ray in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are highlighted.
The Internet and the Changing Beijing-Taipei Relations: Toward Unification or Fragmentation?
Information and its technologies facilitate the exercise of what has been called “soft power,” a concept that differentiates information from the conventional dimensions of “hard power,” which is mainly associated with military force and economic influence. Soft power, according to Nye, a former Assistant Secretary of Defense of the United States, means that “A country may obtain the outcomes it wants in world politics because other countries want to follow it, admiring its values, emulating its example, aspiring to its level of prosperity and openness. In this sense it is just as important to set the agenda in world politics and attract others as it is to force them to change through the threat or use of military or economic weapons.”1