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

[Noname Given]

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.

^^^
Yeah, I don't see it as a war crime. They didn't cut open or otherwise desecrate the physical corpse of the Warrior. They beamed a Warhead onto his worn armor.

 

[Mudd]

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.

Except for the one explicitly stated in the show: a Starfleet person flying a shuttle into the big cathedral-looking goofus ship.

 

[Commishsleer]

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

I argue that in TSFS the Enterprise might not be considered an innocent object so not subject to Article 6 despite what the Klingon Ambassador claimed. And there were probably half a dozen other reasons why Kirk's actions weren't a war-crime.

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;

Yes in my big in-depth study of this topic I believe the original intent of the convention was bought about in WW2 when some Japanese soldiers planted bombs on their own soldier's corpses and wounded to kill American soldiers. that the Japanese surrendered to.
Later use of the convention has been intended to protect civilian populations in its wording, obviously soldiers won't be mucking around with toys.

The intention of the convention is not to protect invading forces during battle situations.

 

[zar]

Except for the one explicitly stated in the show: a Starfleet person flying a shuttle into the big cathedral-looking goofus ship.

Yes - why deceive the Klingons by hiding a warhead among what appears to be harmless bodies, when you could deceive the Klingons by hiding a warhead *AND* a living pilot among what appears to be harmless debris?
Remember folks, it's only moral if you kill yourself doing it.

 

[BigDaveX]

Except for the one explicitly stated in the show: a Starfleet person flying a shuttle into the big cathedral-looking goofus ship.

So, booby-trapping a corpse is a war crime, but carrying out a suicide bombing on a target which has disengaged from active hostilities is just fine?

Bear in mind that the latter is essentially what the Jem'Hadar did to the USS Odyssey in their first appearance.

 

[Kor]

I argue that in TSFS the Enterprise might not be considered an innocent object so not subject to Article 6 despite what the Klingon Ambassador claimed. And there were probably half a dozen other reasons why Kirk's actions weren't a war-crime.
...

Not Article 6 of the 1980 Protocol II.

Kirk's surrendering purely to lure the Klingons to their death constitutes an act of perfidy, which would be prohibited under Article 37 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977:

1. It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy. The following acts are examples of perfidy:
(a) the feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or of a surrender;
...

And I can't believe we're going into all this detail on real-life wartime law on a Star Trek forum.

Kor

 

[Longinus]

I am one to constantly demand high moral standards from our Starfleet main characters, but I really can't get worked up about this.

As stated, the point of the convention is to protect civilians, so even if the letter of it may have been broken the spirit was not. Though had Georgiou survived, there probably should have been a hearing, but I really can't see this warranting anything more than a slap on the wrist.

And of course the whole sanctity of the bodies thing is completely moot as the Klingons had duct taped bodies all over their ship; there was literally no way to attack them without damaging those bodies.

That being said, I hope the writers would have handled this differently, used some other sort of ruse. Even though by analysing the situation most people would probably conclude that Georgiou's actions were justified, 'Starfleet Captain breaks the Geneva Conventions' might not be the headline you want people to be reading when you want to market your new show.

 

[T'Bonz]

Eh. People that get hung up on "rules" tend to lose wars. One goes into a war to win. Putting forth all sorts of rules ups the odds of losing. Your enemy isn't going to be playing by the Marquis of Queensbury rules.

Of course, the best option is never getting into a war to begin with.

 

[Longinus]

Eh. People that get hung up on "rules" tend to lose wars. One goes into a war to win. Putting forth all sorts of rules ups the odds of losing. Your enemy isn't going to be playing by the Marquis of Queensbury rules.

I think it is good thing to not descend into barbarism, but when reading these rules it might be good to try to understand in what context they were intended to apply.

 

[Kor]

Dumb question: do war crimes laws apply in an ambush situation when a state of war has not been declared?

Kor

 

[Longinus]

Dumb question: do war crimes laws apply in an ambush situation when a state of war has not been declared?

I'm pretty sure they do. No one declares war these days. The last time USA formally declared a war was in WWII.

 

[BillJ]

Interesting that you, like the author of the screenrant article, quote excerpts while ignoring the... ahem... context.

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...

Unless there is some new meaning to the word "all", then it is prohibited in "all" circumstances.

 

[fireproof78]

Starfleet Captain breaks the Geneva Conventions' might not be the headline you want to people to be reading when you want to market your new show.

I wonder if people would question the application of an Earth specific doctrine in a space war.

 

[BillJ]

I wonder if people would question the application of an Earth specific doctrine in a space war.

The writers opened themselves up to it when they had Burnham bring up the Geneva Convention in "Context is for Kings".

 

[fireproof78]

The writers opened themselves up to it when they had Burnham bring up the Geneva Convention in "Context is for Kings".

Right.

Still dumb.

 

[zar]

Unless there is some new meaning to the word "all", then it is prohibited in "all" circumstances.

Right... and once again, the same line applies to children's toys and food. They could have delivered the warhead in these, and it would be "clearly a war crime" according to your logic. However unless there was a clear danger of a civilian coming across and detonating the warhead before it reached its target, no one rational would actually convict such a thing as a war crime. This so-called booby trap was set and sprung within the space of seconds. It was practically the same as if they just actually fired the torpedo.

 

[Kor]

Right.

Still dumb.

Burnham cited the Geneva Protocol of 2155. That's the ENT era. By that time, Earth was united, so it would really only apply in dealings with other planets.

Kor

 

[Charles Phipps]

I'd argue the developers wouldn't care as long as it got them publicity.

 

[fireproof78]

Burnham cited the Geneva Protocol of 2155. That's the ENT era. By that time, Earth was united, so it would really only apply in dealings with other planets.

Kor

Again, another fair point, but the question becomes whether it applies in this instance?

But, maybe I should stop armchair lawyering

 

[Commishsleer]

Not Article 6 of the 1980 Protocol II.

Kirk's surrendering purely to lure the Klingons to their death constitutes an act of perfidy, which would be prohibited under Article 37 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977:


And I can't believe we're going into all this detail on real-life wartime law on a Star Trek forum.

Kor

Would that mean that Kirk also committed war-crimes when he pretended to surrender in "Day of the Dove" and TWOK?

Also in "Balance of Terror" the Romulans committed war-crimes when they loaded the bodies next to a nuclear bomb. Although at the time I thought that was a case of Fool me Twice, Shame on Me (or was that the first time they did it - can't remember).

Also I think the Geneva Convention would have been altered to account for transporters, space etc in the 24th century