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

[Kor]

Well, as long as we are condemning fictional characters as being guilty of war crimes without the benefit of hearings and tribunals and whatnot, then Kirk did break the rules with those false surrenders in TWOK and Day of the Dove.

But in all these cases, it would be up to some kind of interstellar court to decide to charge our heroes after the fact, and then determine whether he was guilty or not. I'm sure that in the heat of battle when you're just trying to survive, all these technicalities are the last thing on anybody's mind... unless it's the TNG era when they would go have some drawn-out talky discussion in the ready room for half the episode.

In TVH, Kirk was being charged with several violations of Starfleet regulations, but none of them included war crimes.

Maybe in Georgiou's case, Starfleet will argue that what the Klingons did was terrorism, so the normal rules for warfare don't apply.

Kor

 

[Ithekro]

Well they didn't rig the Klingon body before it was in the tractor beam. They basically used the Klingon's own tractor beam to deliver the torpedo instead of flying it their themselves. The Klingon's body wasn't so much a booby trap, but a convinient way to get the torpedo to the target. They didn't rig it to be a trap, they just set the timer and hoped the beam would get the torpedo close enough to the enemy ship to do damage.

 

[Longinus]

Maybe in Georgiou's case, Starfleet will argue that what the Klingons did was terrorism, so the normal rules for warfare don't apply.

I really hope not! That was utter bullshit when USA did that in the real world.

 

[cultcross]

"Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges"

I was not aware that the Klingon Empire had signed the Geneva Convention!

Commit 'war crimes' or lose your entire crew? Sorry, but fuck the Geneva Convention.

It's not a crime if there is no such law. There is no indication these rules are still in affect.

No.

As others have stated, this was an active battlefield. The Klingons demonstrated repeatedly they were not trust worthy on any level, and, what seems to be forgotten is the starbase and nearby colonies that were now open to attack.

Opportunities multiply as they are seized. - Sun Tzu

Starfleet will argue that what the Klingons did was terrorism, so the normal rules for warfare don't apply.

This thread is full of some fascinating justifications for war crimes. I think in fact we may have the full house: whataboutism, it's war so there are no rules, "they had no choice", there's no specific rule so ethics don't count, they're not combatants they're <blank>, victory at all costs is the right course of action, and even the obligatory Sun Tzu quote. We're only missing 'just following orders'.

Now I'm not saying the individual posters believe these, I'm just interested in the arguments themselves, which are the ones put forward for almost any war crime committed since we came up with the concept. Most were tabled at Nuremberg in one form or another. None are accepted as justification, and it is particularly sad to use them when the character we're discussing started the episode as the moral crusader for Starfleet's principles. This is why I say I don't see Picard in Georgiou. She had her I, Borg moment and made the opposite choice.

 

[BillJ]

Now I'm not saying the individual posters believe these, I'm just interested in the arguments themselves, which are the ones put forward for almost any war crime committed since we came up with the concept.

I believe in Georgiou's place, I likely would've followed the same course of action to save my crew (if no other options were available). I also believe that I am committing what is defined as a war crime, and should be treated as a criminal if I survived the encounter.

 

[Retu]

This thread is full of some fascinating justifications for war crimes. I think in fact we may have the full house: whataboutism, it's war so there are no rules, "they had no choice", there's no specific rule so ethics don't count, they're not combatants they're <blank>, victory at all costs is the right course of action, and even the obligatory Sun Tzu quote. We're only missing 'just following orders'.

Now I'm not saying the individual posters believe these, I'm just interested in the arguments themselves, which are the ones put forward for almost any war crime committed since we came up with the concept. Most were tabled at Nuremberg in one form or another. None are accepted as justification, and it is particularly sad to use them when the character we're discussing started the episode as the moral crusader for Starfleet's principles. This is why I say I don't see Picard in Georgiou. She had her I, Borg moment and made the opposite choice.

Sadly in the end, justifications or ethics don't matter. What really matters is whether you win or lose the war. Victors seldom get dragged to war crime trials.

 

[BigDaveX]

This is why I say I don't see Picard in Georgiou.

Wasn't it Picard who made the argument on at least two occasions ("Justice" and "The Drumhead") that any law which is treated as absolute and inerrable is as injust as whatever crimes it's attempting to prevent?

You can argue that by the strict definition of the law Georgiou committed a war crime (I'd argue she didn't, but let's set that aside for now). But realistically speaking, there's no way that Georgiou, had she survived, would have been convicted of anything, as Starfleet would have had a PR disaster on their hands. In convicting her of any crime, they would have had to essentially endorse one of the other options available to her as the correct one. And regardless of which one they chose - one of them carrying the risk of possible death for the entire crew, the other meaning certain death for one person - the message would have been the same: the lives of Starfleet personnel are worth less than the principles of the Federation.

 

[Philip Guyott]

Now I'm not saying the individual posters believe these,

To be clear I do believe these.

So let me get this straight. Apparently people have no problem with Starfleet officers actually killing people, or participating in suicide bombings, or blowing up a funeral ship in the process to collecting its dead? These were not innocent civilians they were fighting here. The ship was full of enemy combatants (who by human standards would be considered war criminals) who had just wiped out a federation fleet. I truly believe that I would have done the same thing in her place. I am a person of peace (just like the Federation) and I never go looking for a fight, but if I am forced into one I fight to win.

 

[ichab]

If I'm a Starfleet Captain then i feel it would be my duty to protect my crew and any potential targets within striking range of a superior military force. If that meant that I had to use a dead soldiers body to plant a bomb and disable a ship so my crew could escape then i'd totally do it. Would I like doing it, of course not, but my first reponsibility would be to protect the lives of my crew and federation citizens. If the Klingons had been open to discussing terms as Captain Georgiou requested, then there would have been no need for her to take the actions that she did.

This. A Captain has to protect his or her crew. Those actions were totally justified.

 

[cultcross]

- the message would have been the same: the lives of Starfleet personnel are worth less than the principles of the Federation

That is explicitly Starfleet's stance, see the Prime Directive for an example. You may not interfere, even if complying with the Directive costs your ship and crew. While we have certainly seen many Starfleet officers fall short of them, the Federation's principles are absolute; as Burnham says herself (a tad ironically) she would 'most certainly' die by those principles.

 

[Kor]

Sadly in the end, justifications or ethics don't matter. What really matters is whether you win or lose the war. Victors seldom get dragged to war crime trials.

World War II is a case in point.

And if Georgiou had survived, she wouldn't have legally been considered guilty of anything until a court officially rendered a "guilty" verdict. It's unjust to condemn her without due process.

Kor

 

[BillJ]

And if Georgiou had survived, she wouldn't have legally been considered guilty of anything until a court officially rendered a "guilty" verdict. It's unjust to condemn her without due process.

This is a cop out. We watch Georgiou commit a war crime.

 

[BigDaveX]

That is explicitly Starfleet's stance, see the Prime Directive for an example. You may not interfere, even if complying with the Directive costs your ship and crew. While we have certainly seen many Starfleet officers fall short of them, the Federation's principles are absolute; as Burnham says herself (a tad ironically) she would 'most certainly' die by those principles.

Picard flat-out admits that he's violated the Prime Directive several times in "The Drumhead." And the episode doesn't treat him as being in the wrong for admitting that, it treats Admiral Satie for being in the wrong for expecting him to always adhere to the strict word of the law, no matter what.

This is a cop out. We watch Georgiou commit a war crime.

That's a circular logic argument. In a debate about whether or not Georgiou's actions constitute a war crime, you can't offer up an argument that proceeds from the supposition that anything remotely similar to booby-trapping a corpse should always be considered as a war crime irrespective of circumstances.

 

[Tuskin38]

Well they didn't rig the Klingon body before it was in the tractor beam. They basically used the Klingon's own tractor beam to deliver the torpedo instead of flying it their themselves. The Klingon's body wasn't so much a booby trap, but a convinient way to get the torpedo to the target. They didn't rig it to be a trap, they just set the timer and hoped the beam would get the torpedo close enough to the enemy ship to do damage.

Oh I like this.

 

[cultcross]

Picard flat-out admits that he's violated the Prime Directive several times in "The Drumhead." And the episode doesn't treat him as being in the wrong for admitting that, it treats Admiral Satie for being in the wrong for expecting him to always adhere to the strict word of the law, no matter what.

There is a difference between being absolute as to the letter of the law, which is what Picard is taking about, and being absolute on your ethics and principles. Sometimes rules and orders are less important than ethical principles, something Star Trek has repeatedly shown (at least three Trek movies have this as a major plot point) which is why "the Klingons didn't sign the Geneva convention!" is a terrible justification.

 

[The Librarian]

This is a cop out. We watch Georgiou commit a war crime.

We watch her doing something that might be a war crime or might not be depending on the exact interpretation of the law. Attacking an enemy warship in the middle of a combat zone doing search and rescue operations has never been a war crime.

 

[zar]

This thread is full of some fascinating justifications for war crimes. I think in fact we may have the full house: whataboutism, it's war so there are no rules, "they had no choice", there's no specific rule so ethics don't count, they're not combatants they're <blank>, victory at all costs is the right course of action, and even the obligatory Sun Tzu quote. We're only missing 'just following orders'.

This starts with a premise that the characters broke a law, which is shaky in itself, and based upon that, makes the circular argument that it's wrong because it's illegal.

The other side is not so much "justification" as it is ridicule of the whole illogical objection in the first place.

In fact I haven't seen a single ethically based argument in this whole thread, aside from the laughable notion that the gang should have snuck it in with a suicide mission instead of doing the very same thing without unnecessary loss of life.

This is why I say I don't see Picard in Georgiou. She had her I, Borg moment and made the opposite choice.

Well, there it is. This thread has seen its fair share of false equivalence, but calling this an I, Borg moment takes the cake.

 

[cultcross]

Well, there it is. This thread has seen its fair share of false equivalence, but calling this an I, Borg moment takes the cake.

Not remotely. Both captains are faced with the opportunity to deal a crippling blow to an adversary by doing something contrary to their principles. Picard decides not to, Georgiou is only too enthusiastic.

 

[The Librarian]

Not remotely. Both captains are faced with the opportunity to deal a crippling blow to an adversary by doing something contrary to their principles. Picard decides not to, Georgiou is only too enthusiastic.

"I, Borg" required the use of an innocent third party to deliver the attack, and there was no immediate danger to the ship or the Federation. Georgiou was attacking an enemy warship involved in combat operations during the aftermath of the opening attack of a war.

 

[zar]

Not remotely. Both captains are faced with the opportunity to deal a crippling blow to an adversary by doing something contrary to their principles. Picard decides not to, Georgiou is only too enthusiastic.

Right, this isn't remotely false equivalence, it's textbook false equivalence.