Myrtus

Changing times

One friend of mine converted to Islam. Another acquaintance did the same. For both of them, the reason was to be able to marry Muslim women.

The free thinking university that both of them used to go to, in a not so distant past, fought catholic dogma's, only to see some of its students now hold on to Muslim beliefs. At least on paper that is.

Today, it seems sometimes as if Islam is so much more present in our lives than it used to be. Although unfortunately, we hear more often of the thwarted plans of enchanted radical Islamists than of the harmonious coming together of cultures in a Muslim wedding.

Is it the end of the cold war that made room for the rise of Islam on the world stage? Is the fastest growing religion really becoming more apparent?

Or, is it just by chance that two people I know have converted? A consequence only of the shrinking world that we live in. Am I mistaken as with the Halal meat in our local supermarket and has it always been there, even if I never noticed it before?

For once I am with Bush

I am with Bush on the port issue. Some Republicans and Democrats have asked how it is possible that the White House has allowed container terminals in New York, Baltimore and Miami to fall in the hands of a company coming from a country out of which some Al-Qaeda terrorists originated.

Those Republicans and Democrats, however, fail to understand the nature of today’s terrorism. Al-Qaeda terrorists originate from everywhere, including from the West.

So far as I can see, there is no Jane’s article on this issue yet. But, I am curious to read how they rate the real increased security risk caused by the P&O takeover. Yet, I doubt true risk is the real issue here.

Obligation to disobey an illegal order

In an op-ed in the New York Times (The slippery slope that leads to torture, 1 March 2006) former US soldier Anthony Lagouranis testifies that he used dogs during interrogations in Mosul (Iraq), thereby taking a cue from his commander, who in turn acted on an order of his chief, a major-general who previously had had command over detention in Abu Ghraib.

Lagouranis was never accused for the use of dogs during interrogations, but two other interrogators did get court-martialed on that ground. Without trying to shift of his guilt, he recounts the circumstances, which led to the use of dogs.  Although his training clearly provided threatening prisoners of war to get them to talk was illegal, he says that it wasn't clear whether the Iraqi detainees classified as prisoners of war and therefore whether the order was illegal. The interrogation techniques were, moreover, used all over in detention centers and widespread.

In further public soul-searching, he explains that, in the military, orders are orders unless there is clear uncluttered law from above the commanders' rank and station.

I don't want to talk here about whether it is likely he acted on his own behalf or not. Yet, to me, the letter contains many leads to bolster our armed forces against sliding down that slope.

Lagouranis himself suggests that soldiers on the ground need a commander in chief who does not seek strained legalisms that "permit" the use of torture. But, I wonder whether that would be enough to safeguard morality. After all, how can we be sure that a commander in chief wont do so?

Isn't it an inherent weakness of the military system that men are not allowed to think for themselves anymore? To prevent sliding down the slippery slope to torture, the laws concerning the classification as prisoners of war and the rules regarding torture could be made clearer, so that they are not cluttered anymore and can be understood by each and every soldier. Then an obligation to resist an illegal order could be instituted.