Spoilers Screen Rant: Star Trek: Discovery just commited war crimes

[Spider]

This is the most honest answer to this that I've seen.

Agreed, the writers probably just didn't know what they were doing in this instance. That's really a shame, but it's water under the bridge at this point.

To be honest, at the time I was viewing it, the thought of it being a war crime didn't enter my mind. I did, however, at the time wonder how the Klingon ships sensors didn't pick it up.

In retrospect, yeah, it's a war crime, and the writers probably should have found another way to do it. But those first two episodes seemed rather cobbled together anyway.

 

[Kor]

In case anyone was still wondering if the Geneva Conventions apply in space and whether Starfleet is supposed to abide by them...

Spoiler: Minor spoiler about "Context is for Kings"

Burnham cited the Geneva Protocols of 1928 and 2155 when she assumed Lorca is working on some fearsome biological weapon.

Kor

 

[Charles Phipps]

A Starfleet Captain will never violate a previously established rule, even a SACRED ONE, for the benefit of his crew.

Can you imagine if they'd break the MOST important one? It'd be CHAOS!

A Starfleet Captain would give his life and the lives of his crew to protect the rules followed by Starfleet and the Federation. Especially the most important one.

Right?

I imagine Georgio knew exactly what she was doing and was prepared to pay the price before any tribunal or group which judged her actions.

Because that's what Starship Captains do.

 

[Commishsleer]

I think if they're picking up corpses mid-battle, the rules don't apply.

Once the battle was over then time for niceties.

Say the Klingons had beamed over Georgiou's body to the Shenzhou with a bomb in it I wouldn't have been happy but still wouldn't think the Klingons had committed a war crime.

 

[Charles Phipps]

I think if they're picking up corpses mid-battle, the rules don't apply.

Once the battle was over then time for niceties.

Say the Klingons had beamed over Georgiou's body to the Shenzhou with a bomb in it I wouldn't have been happy but still wouldn't think the Klingons had committed a war crime.

I feel like Walt Williams from SPEC OPS: THE LINE wrote this episode. He also is writing STAR WARS: BATTLEFRONT II. Basically, there's a moment in that game where you have the option to use white phosphorous on a army of soldiers you're engaged in and be able to wipe them out without getting your three man squad killed. You're trying to rescue a bunch of civilians they've kidnapped. It works and the enemy group is wiped out--but it also kills the civilians and you see the horrible way the enemy died.

Choices in combat aren't going to always be clean or clear cut. That's what "A Taste of Armageddon" showed us as Kirk showed his contempt for the Planet of Hats and their treaties designed to minimize the destruction from their war.

I think Georgiou did what she felt she had to do in the situation and I'd love a novel to tackle it in retrospect--but this is an action which show's she's not that different from Burnham or Sisko.

 

[Blooded]

Battle was still ongoing. Anything is game, in that scenario.

 

[BigDaveX]

A Starfleet Captain would give his life and the lives of his crew to protect the rules followed by Starfleet and the Federation.

I know that was sarcasm, but... over on Voyager, Janeway actually DID claim on at least one occasion that Starfleet officers should be willing to lay down their lives in order to uphold the principles of the Federation. It actually makes me wish that there had been some discussion in-episode over the ethics of the plan that Georgiou and Burnham went with (or even their original one, which had its own problems), as it'd been interesting to compare it with Janeway's position.

 

[Rhodan]

Dead Klingon warriors are just empty vessels... For Federation weapons that is!

 

[Charles Phipps]

I know that was sarcasm, but... over on Voyager, Janeway actually DID claim on at least one occasion that Starfleet officers should be willing to lay down their lives in order to uphold the principles of the Federation. It actually makes me wish that there had been some discussion in-episode over the ethics of the plan that Georgiou and Burnham went with (or even their original one, which had its own problems), as it'd been interesting to compare it with Janeway's position.

Eh, I think the discussion was all over the place but the discussion was over all the OTHER moral issues there.

This one was small potatoes compared to starting a war.

I know that was sarcasm, but... over on Voyager, Janeway actually DID claim on at least one occasion that Starfleet officers should be willing to lay down their lives in order to uphold the principles of the Federation. It actually makes me wish that there had been some discussion in-episode over the ethics of the plan that Georgiou and Burnham went with (or even their original one, which had its own problems), as it'd been interesting to compare it with Janeway's position.

It was part of the problem. The Prime Directive only exists to be rebelled against as Gene Roddenberry needed a way to make Kirk look edgy and have a reason to angst about following orders from an otherwise Utopian society.

For me, it's not a case of whether she SHOULD have done it or not but the question of, "Would this be in character for Captain Georgiou in the circumstances from what we know of her and her situation?"

 

[USS Triumphant]

Hmm, the bit about the Klimgons using corpses as armor might mitigate this.

It occurs to me that the Klingons might formally be an exception to rules about corpses as of the 2155 Geneva Accords, if the official position of the Empire is that dead bodies are not that Klingon but are simply waste now that the Klingon has passed, as has been shown on other occasions. There's no desecration if there was never any sacredness. T'Kuvma seemed to be ritualizing them, but his weird cult behavior isn't the position of the Klingon government.

They did commit a warcrime, but the writers might not have known it was one.
I think this is something we just need to ignore and handwave away.

Or, maybe they DID know, and the conversation we're having is the exact one they meant to provoke.

 

[cooleddie74]

War crimes my arse. They did the right thing in order to defeat hostile combatants who had declared war and opened fire on Starfleet without provocation and inflicted heavy casualties and damage on the Federation fleet. If the corpse of a Klingon combatant who'd participated in the unprovoked attack on my ship - now an empty shell floating in space after the battle has ended - has to be sacrificed with a photon torpedo warhead to achieve victory and give the Federation the upper hand over a known hostile species with territorial designs on my own space then that's what happens. It may be tasteless to some but in hindsight it was what they had to do and I very much doubt that in retrospect most Starfleet flag officers would bat an eye over the decision.

I wouldn't shed a tear after using the tactic they did.

 

[Mudd]

Yeah, this is what's wrong with the world.

This show is no more thoughtful than one more iteration of NCIS. Guy's a terrorist, something in his hand BLAMBLAMBLAM!

The crowd goes wild.

Young folks are clearly not temperamentally equipped to straighten out the mess their elders are leaving this place in, any more than we were. C'est la guerre.

 

[BillJ]

I do find it troubling that some folks are trying to excuse what is clearly a war crime.

 

[Commishsleer]

I do find it troubling that some folks are trying to excuse what is clearly a war crime.

It wasn't a war crime.
Starfleet didn't agree to a mini- cease fire to get bodies out of the way so the Klingon forces would have unhindered access to fire upon the Shenzhou.
They didn't plant the bomb to desecrate the bodies or to kill people who just wanted to bury the dead. They planted the bomb to survive

 

[BillJ]

They didn't plant the bomb to desecrate the bodies or to kill people who just wanted to bury the dead. They planted the bomb to survive

Does the Geneva Convention separate the two instances of bombing bodies?

 

[BillJ]

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule80

Article 2 of the 1980 Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons provides:
2. “Booby-trap” means any device or material which is designed, constructed or adapted to kill or injure, and which functions unexpectedly when a person disturbs or approaches an apparently harmless object or performs an apparently safe act”.

***

Article 6 of the 1980 Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons provides:
1. Without prejudice to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict relating to treachery and perfidy, it is prohibited in all circumstances to use: (a) any booby-trap in the form of an apparently harmless portable object which is specifically designed and constructed to contain explosive material and to detonate when it is disturbed or approached, or (b) booby-traps which are in any way attached to or associated with:

(ii) sick, wounded or dead persons;

 

[Commishsleer]

Article 4 of the 1980 Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons provides:
1. This Article applies to:
…
(b) booby-traps;
…
2. It is prohibited to use weapons to which this Article applies in any city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians in which combat between ground forces is not taking place or does not appear to be imminent, unless either:
(a) they are placed on or in the close vicinity of a military objective belonging to or under the control of an adverse party; or
(b) measures are taken to protect civilians from their effects, for example, the posting of warning signs, the posting of sentries, the issue of warnings or the provision of fences.

 

[BigDaveX]

I do find it troubling that some folks are trying to excuse what is clearly a war crime.

It's hard to berate the Shenzou crew for not taking the morally correct option when there wasn't a clearly morally correct option on the table. I mean, sure, you could argue that the moral thing to do would have been to sit tight, let T'Kuvma collect the corpses and hope that he just goes home afterwards. But my response to that would be that Georgiou would have been neglectful in her duties to her crew (and those aboard the other wrecked Starfleet vessels nearby) by taking no action, as their opponent had already proven himself both murderous and untrustworthy.

 

[Kor]

Technically, the Geneva Protocols cited by Burnham in "Context is..." are attached to the Hague Conventions, not the Geneva Conventions. Maybe the Hague Conventions are still in effect, but the Geneva Conventions are not.

Anyway, planting the warhead was as much of a war crime as Kirk's act of perfidy in TSFS. Where was all the fan uproar over Kirk's actions?

And in real life, countries have argued that if the other side breaks these rules first, then they don't have to follow them either. And the Klingons were definitely the first to act treacherously.

Kor

 

[zar]

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule80

Interesting that you, like the author of the screenrant article, quote excerpts while ignoring the... ahem... context. Clearly, the spirit of the law is to protect innocents. The reason all these things are prohibited is because of the danger of people other than the military targets being victims. You'll notice that the same list includes "children's toys or other portable objects or products specially designed for the feeding, health, hygiene, clothing or education of children" ... so if someone attached a bomb to a remote-control Lightning McQueen, you could make the same argument. But since this is clearly in a battle context and there was no chance of civilians becoming involved, it doesn't work, and I imagine a real-life judge would come to the same conclusion as well.

If you look at the military manuals in the same document, you'll notice they make this distinction more explicit.
For example:
- Belgium’s Law of War Manual (1983), under the heading “Mines and traps (booby traps)”, states that they “must only be used against military objectives”.
- Israel’s Manual on the Laws of War (1998) states: “Within the framework of the [1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons], it was decided to prohibit the exposure of the civilian population to booby traps and booby-trapped objects.”
- South Africa’s LOAC Manual (1996) does not prohibit booby-traps as such. It does, however, state that the main concern is whether indiscriminate use endangers the civilian population. When employing booby-traps, it says, the military must therefore consider what or who is the likely target.
- The Russian Federation’s Military Manual (1990) prohibits the use of weapons that are by nature indiscriminate. ... The following shall be prohibited to use in the course of combat operations: ... booby-traps which are placed outside a military objective and in any way attached to, or associated with ... sick, wounded persons or dead bodies;