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

[BigDaveX]

If anything, Georgiou's situation was more akin to the one that Picard faced in Star Trek: First Contact, with an imminent threat and both options available to him having their own issues. On the one hand, he had a duty to get his crew home and avoid corrupting the timeline, which could only be achieved by continuing to fight the Borg and trying to retake the ship. On the other, he had a duty to keep his crew alive and prevent the Borg from conquering Earth, which would have been best achieved by evacuating and destroying the Enterprise. You can make arguments as to which was preferable, but it's hard to say which one was morally right, per se.

 

[captainkirk]

Booby-trapping the body wasn't exactly ethical, but their goal was to take T'Kuvma alive and prevent a war. Obviously that didn't work out, but if it had, wouldn't that be worth it?

 

[BillJ]

Booby-trapping the body wasn't exactly ethical, but their goal was to take T'Kuvma alive and prevent a war. Obviously that didn't work out, but if it had, wouldn't that be worth it?

Would it? Burnham was guessing. They apparently knew next to nothing about the Klingons. It is just as likely that having a Klingon national prisoner, one that all 24 houses swore loyalty to, would have enraged them and a war would've been on anyways.

 

[zar]

Georgiou didn't have a Picard moment. She had a Janeway moment.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[captainkirk]

Would it? Burnham was guessing. They apparently knew next to nothing about the Klingons. It is just as likely that having a Klingon national prisoner, one that all 24 houses swore loyalty to, would have enraged them and a war would've been on anyways.

True, but then Burnham had terrible judgement regarding the Klingons from the start. She kills their anointed warrior, targets their ceremonial warship, and despite these moments thinks that they need to launch an unprovoked attack on said ship in order to demonstrate that Starfleet aren't a bunch of pansies.

 

[OpenMaw]

True, but then Burnham had terrible judgement regarding the Klingons from the start. She kills their anointed warrior, targets their ceremonial warship, and despite these moments thinks that they need to launch an unprovoked attack on said ship in order to demonstrate that Starfleet aren't a bunch of pansies.

Yeah, I don't even agree with the premise of the show that to garner peace with the Klingons you punch them in the face.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Sisko punches Worf and what does Worf say?

Nice punch, but this would be taken for a balls out fight.

So transfer that to space... You shoot at them, they shoot at you. There's no peace to be had there. The Klingon's don't roll over and sit at your feet like a puppy. They bite. They tear the flesh from your bones. This is how they have always been.

I was honestly shocked that we didn't see the shooting start the moment Shenzou locked weapons on the Klingon relic. Yes, let's make the Klingons think we're going to shoot at their ancient historical artifact. That won't cause an incident! And please nobody explain to me the reason why. I got what the story was trying to tell us, but I don't agree with it's interpretation one iota.

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

Quite so.

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

That is debatable. At best. On an active field of battle, and let's not forget that if the Klingons thought even for a second that the Shenzou stilled posed ANY threat, they would have fired everything they had. They were actively looking for the ships in the debris so that they could finish them off before they chose to start picking up their dead.

I mean we can debate the moral grey of the way things happened, but, why is it everyone glosses aside the outpost and colonies that are mentioned in dialogue as being under immediate danger if the Federation fleet fails to hold the Klingons back? Cutting off the head of the snake is the only option left at that point.

 

[BillJ]

I mean we can debate the moral grey of the way things happened, but, why is it everyone glosses aside the outpost and colonies that are mentioned in dialogue as being under immediate danger if the Federation fleet fails to hold the Klingons back? Cutting off the head of the snake is the only option left at that point.

I'm not sure anyone is overlooking the outposts and colonies. It is probably more difficult to write your characters continuing to respect their ideals though hardship. I'm not saying I wouldn't have done the same exact thing Georgiou did, I'm on record saying that I would. But, the more interesting road is seeing the characters retain what makes them Starfleet officers and still being able to win.

 

[Noname Given]

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.

Theinteresting thing is - we the audience got to see how Starfleet viewed Picard's actions in TNG - "I Borg":

From TNG - Descent:
[Full transcript: http://www.chakoteya.net/NextGen/252.htm ]

NECHAYEV: Captain, I've read the report that you submitted to Admiral Brooks last year regarding the Borg you called Hugh, and I've been trying to figure out why you let him go.

PICARD: I thought that I had made that clear.

NECHAYEV: As I understand, it you found a single Borg at a crash site, brought it aboard the Enterprise, studied it, analysed it, and eventually found a way to send it back to the Borg with a programme that would have destroyed the entire collective once and for all. But instead, you nursed the Borg back to health, treated it like a guest, gave it a name, and then sent it home. Why?

PICARD: When Hugh was separated from the Borg collective he began to grow and to evolve into something other than an automaton. He became a person. When that happened, I felt I had no choice but to respect his rights as an individual.

NECHAYEV: Of course you had a choice. You could've taken the opportunity to rid the Federation of a mortal enemy, one that has killed tens of thousands of innocent people, and which may kill even more.

PICARD: No one is more aware of the danger than I am. But I am also bound by my oath and my conscience to uphold certain principles. And I will not sacrifice them in order to

NECHAYEV: Your priority is to safeguard the lives of Federation citizens, not to wrestle with your conscience. Now I want to make it clear that if you have a similar opportunity in the future, an opportunity to destroy the Borg, you are under orders to take advantage of it. Is that understood?

PICARD: Yes, sir.

^^^
So yeah, it seems even in the 24th century, Starfleet will STILL suspend its 'principles' if it means the Federation will be allowed to survive and expand and doing so removes an enemy they consider a threat to the Galaxy itself.

Also, there's Picard's later actions in the film
Star Trek: First Contact
[Full transcript: http://www.chakoteya.net/movies/movie8.html ]
where he kills the assimilated Ensign Lynch:

LYNCH: Captain! ...Help. ...Please, help.
(Picard shoots the assimilated officer. Having followed the crewmember through the hatch Picard is attacked from behind by Lily who grabs his phaser)

and later:

LILY: I think you got 'em. ...I don't get it. I thought you said this was all just a bunch of holograms. If it was just a hologram...

PICARD: I disengaged the safety protocols. Without them even a holographic bullet can kill.

LILY: What are you doing?

PICARD: I'm looking for the neural processor. Every Borg has one. It's like a memory chip. It will contain a record of all the instructions this Borg has been receiving from the collective.

LILY: Oh my! Jean-Luc, it's one of your uniforms.

PICARD: Yes, this was Ensign Lynch.

LILY: Tough luck, huh.

PICARD: I've got to get to the bridge.

and then Lily finally call Picard out for his actions:

PICARD: Six years ago, they assimilated me into their collective. I had their cybernetic devices implanted throughout my body. I was linked to the hive mind, every trace of individuality erased. I was one of them. So you can imagine, my dear, I have a somewhat unique perspective on the Borg and I know how to fight them. Now if you will excuse me I have work to do.

LILY: I am such an idiot. ...It's so simple. The Borg hurt you, and now you're going to hurt them back.

PICARD: In my century we don't succumb to revenge. We have a more evolved sensibility.

LILY: Bullshit! I saw the look on your face when you shot those Borg on the holodeck. You were almost enjoying it!

PICARD: How dare you!

LILY: Oh, come on, Captain. You're not the first man to get a thrill from murdering someone. I see it all the time.

PICARD: Get out!

LILY: Or what? You'll kill me, like you killed Ensign Lynch

PICARD: There was no way to save him.

LILY: You didn't even try. Where was your evolved sensibility then?

^^^
So yeah, it looks like Picard eventually had and succumbed to his own "Captain Georgiou Moment..." and was found a bit wanting as well.

 

[Commishsleer]

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.

So Picard did the "right" thing in I,Borg morally and yet I can think on screen at least one genocide in the Delta Quadrant and by implication at the speed that they assimilated that planet that the Borg were destroying civilisation after civilisation in the delta quadrant.But perhaps thats OK to Picard (and Janeway) because they weren't Federation citizens.
Maybe no-one could have forced Picard to set the virus but Janeway actually violated the Prime Directive to save Icheb and stop a virus destroying the Borg in the Delta quadrant.

I know Icheb and Hugh were cute but there were a lot of cute children absorbed and destroyed by the Borgs relentless march in the Delta quadrant.

Picard may sleep well at night knowing his stuck to his moral code but I'd like to see him explain that to the 3 survivors of the Borg genocide that the Borg queen let escape to lure in 7of9.

Comparing Georgiou's actions to that of Picards its making me side with a potential war criminal. What the heck!

 

[David cgc]

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:

Obviously, if Kirk falsely surrendering to the Klingons was a war crime, then it would merit the slightest mention that T'Kuvma did the exact same thing when he called a truce and then destroyed the Europa after they stood down, all about thirty seconds before the bomb was beamed over to his ship. Therefore, since people are judging Georgiou's actions in a vacuum, falsely calling an end to hostilities as a prelude to attack cannot be a war crime, and Kirk's reputation is safe.

 

[Kor]

Obviously, if Kirk falsely surrendering to the Klingons was a war crime, then it would merit the slightest mention that T'Kuvma did the exact same thing when he called a truce and then destroyed the Europa after they stood down, all about thirty seconds before the bomb was beamed over to his ship. Therefore, since people are judging Georgiou's actions in a vacuum, falsely calling an end to hostilities as a prelude to attack cannot be a war crime, and Kirk's reputation is safe.

This is an issue that I feel hasn't been directly addressed enough...

If one side starts fighting dirty like T'Kuvma did with the cloaked attack under a flag of truce, is the defending side obligated to keep fighting clean?

Kor

 

[Longinus]

This is an issue that I feel hasn't been directly addressed enough...

If one side starts fighting dirty like T'Kuvma did with the cloaked attack under a flag of truce, is the defending side obligated to keep fighting clean?

Kor

Yes, they are.

 

[cultcross]

Yes. They very much are, if they want what they say they are and what they say they stand for to be anything more than words.

 

[cooleddie74]

This is an issue that I feel hasn't been directly addressed enough...

If one side starts fighting dirty like T'Kuvma did with the cloaked attack under a flag of truce, is the defending side obligated to keep fighting clean?

Kor

Well, for the most part American and Allied forces did during the Battle of the Bulge when the Germans violated both the spirit and the letter of international law by disguising SS troops in American uniforms and sneaking them into the Allied lines to wreak havoc and play psychological games with our soldiers. We didn't do the same in retaliation.

We committed our own share of atrocities, especially on the unit or individual soldier level, but we didn't tit-for-tat the Germans when they violated the laws of war on the battlefield.

 

[Unimatrix Q]

Georgiou didn't have a Picard moment. She had a Janeway moment.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

She also had a gagh moment

 

[Kor]

I just think it's a sign of white male privilege that in all these many years, nobody has ever accused Kirk of war crimes in TWOK and TSFS for underhanded tactics that clearly violated the Geneva and Hague Conventions, yet there is such a huge uproar and backlash the instant that an Asian female captain does something similar as a matter of sheer survival.

Kor

 

[Psion]

I just think it's a sign of white male privilege that in all these many years, nobody has ever accused Kirk of war crimes in TWOK and TSFS for underhanded tactics that clearly violated the Geneva and Hague Conventions, yet there is such a huge uproar and backlash the instant that an Asian female captain does something similar as a matter of sheer survival.

Kor

You're a trouble-maker, aren't you?

 

[Kor]

You're a trouble-maker, aren't you?

I was trying not to say anything along these lines, but I finally got fed up with all this hubbub. As an Asian-American, I have always been acutely conscious of representation (or lack thereof) of Asians and Asian-Americans in the media, as well as viewer perceptions of such representations. It is telling that Kirk's actions are dismissed by viewers, but Georgiou's are not.

Kor

 

[Vger23]

I was trying not to say anything along these lines, but I finally got fed up with all this hubbub. As an Asian-American, I have always been acutely conscious of representation (or lack thereof) of Asians and Asian-Americans in the media, as well as viewer perceptions of such representations. It is telling that Kirk's actions are dismissed by viewers, but Georgiou's are not.

Kor

If it means anything to you, I'm a huge Phillipa Georgiou fan. I've avoided the arguments about the "War Crimes" because, personally, I find it stupid and eye-rolling.

I think a lot of it simply has to do with "I don't like DSC" as opposed to her ethnicity (at least, I hope so). People are grasping at things to tear the series down.

It's just like when people say "the show is too dark, too much death, not upbeat, all about pew pew and conflict" and you respond with "Yeah, what about TWOK, TUC, BOBW, DS9, etc etc etc" and people just give you some slog-off. It's because the complaints have nothing to do with the element they are bitching about. Fans are constantly applying different standards to that which they DON'T like vs. that which they do. It's so common it's almost cliché.

It has everything to do with the fact that they oppose the show in general...and therefore will attack anything that doesn't hold up under the microscope.

It's amusing that most are TNG fans, who fail to recognize that if people had judged "Their Series" after 4 episodes...they never would have gotten a 5th...let alone 7 years and 2 clone series afterward.

I feel you man, I do.

 

[Psion]

I was trying not to say anything along these lines, but I finally got fed up with all this hubbub. As an Asian-American, I have always been acutely conscious of representation (or lack thereof) of Asians and Asian-Americans in the media, as well as viewer perceptions of such representations. It is telling that Kirk's actions are dismissed by viewers, but Georgiou's are not.

Kor

Well, as a non-Asian (American or otherwise), is it okay for me to say that I have no problem with Captain Georgiou's actions? It looked like a good strategy in an uncertain situation to me. But I don't think the complaints have anything to do with Georgiou's ethnicity, rather they seem part of the casting-about in an effort to undermine the new show.

EDIT TO ADD:
What Vger23 Said.