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

[Prax]

It's absolutely an arbitrary criticism because the complaints that started this thread were made over a week before the release of the episode where the Geneva Protocol of 1928 was mentioned. Or more accurately, the "Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare". You will notice that this protocol, and presumably the one of 2151, doesn't mention anything about booby traps (or false surrenders).

So the Federation has only signed one part of the Geneva Convention? And Starfleet officers are only sworn to abide by a specific protocol of them only?

It may not be that big of a deal in the grand scheme of the story, but that doesn't make it arbitrary. It's a peculiar bit of dialogue, that possibly for the first time, we learn that Starfleet has signed the Geneva Convention. And we learn of it through Burnham calling out Lorca on his perceived war crime, even though she was willing to violate one of those rules of warfare as well.

She strapped a bomb to a Klingon dead soldier, while the alive Klingons were collecting those bodies for burial. They did it to blow up the Klingon ship. This might fit right in with the tone and characters of the show, but Burnham then goes to quote the laws of warfare to a perceived war criminal, and insist that she would never violate those laws.

 

[fireproof78]

Indeed, the Klingon Ambassador was pretty miffed that Kirk was just being charged with his crimes against Starfleet (theft, sabotage, destruction of property, and insubordination) and not being held accountable for anything he did to Kruge, his crew, or his ship.

I'm sure he didn't really mean it though.

 

[The Librarian]

So the Federation has only signed one part of the Geneva Convention? And Starfleet officers are only sworn to abide by a specific protocol of them only?

We have no idea what conventions regarding the laws of war the Federation follows, except those specifically mentioned in-character. There are numerous different conventions and protocols on Earth alone, not just one single "Geneva Convention". While many of these conventions are named after Geneva because of where they were negotiated, they are not actually part of the same document or set of agreements. For that matter, not everyone signs every protocol of every convention.

It may not be that big of a deal in the grand scheme of the story, but that doesn't make it arbitrary. It's a peculiar bit of dialogue, that possibly for the first time, we learn that Starfleet has signed the Geneva Convention. And we learn of it through Burnham calling out Lorca on his perceived war crime, even though she was willing to violate one of those rules of warfare as well.

She strapped a bomb to a Klingon dead soldier, while the alive Klingons were collecting those bodies for burial. They did it to blow up the Klingon ship. This might fit right in with the tone and characters of the show, but Burnham then goes to quote the laws of warfare to a perceived war criminal, and insist that she would never violate those laws.

It's arbitrary in the fact that this article and thread were written a week before anyone could actually say whether Starfleet follows any modern laws of war, it's arbitrary how one law specific to biological weapons is being expanded to mean all agreements, and it's arbitrary in how this is being directed only at Burnham and Georgiou while everyone has been fine for decades with James T. Kirk Renegade And Terrorist.

 

[Prax]

You're taking it personally. Even if the thread was started prior, all the more ironic considering her statement in the following episode.

Some people noticed a rather unethical tactic committed by the two protagonists, and made a thread.

People have been debating the ethical/unethical decisions of Kirk since Kirk. Kirk hasn't gotten a pass

So let's put it this way. Do you personally think that Burnham and her captain used unethical tactics in blowing up the Klingon ship?

 

[BillJ]

The benefit of the doubt that Kirk gets has nothing to do with male privilege. It is that we are simply more emotionally connected to the character than we were to Georgiou. I would be a heck of a lot more forgiving of season five Janeway pulling the stunt, than pilot Janeway.

While I do consider what Georgiou did a war crime, I'm also on record as saying I'd probably do the same thing in her position.

So we shouldn't be painting with too broad a brush.

 

[Fateor]

Yeah I've been feeling for the last few weeks that Discovery is being held to a totally different standard than other Trek series. It's fine for people not to like the show, but i'm seeing a ton of intellectual dishonesty. It's bordering on irrational at this point.

The writers of Discovery want it to be a serious drama.

Which means it gets judged by the same harsh standards as all the other serious drama's.

 

[Prax]

The writers of Discovery want it to be a serious drama.

Which means it gets judged by the same harsh standards as all the other serious drama's.

It's not, though. All of the Trek series have been held to incredibly "harsh standards." The other shows simply aren't the new kids on the block anymore.

 

[BillJ]

All of the Trek series have been held to incredibly "harsh standards."

Pretty much all the spinoffs have been given three or four seasons to find their footing. That isn't really treating them harsh. We even see people here saying "it has only been four episodes". Most shows I wouldn't give four episodes to ignite my interest. I would've already dropped The Orville if it wasn't good*.

*Yes, I know good is in the eye of the beholder. But if this crew wasn't wearing arrowheads, I would've already dropped the series. I think there are a lot of people who feel the same way.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

The writers of Discovery want it to be a serious drama.

Which means it gets judged by the same harsh standards as all the other serious drama's.

My issue isn't with people criticising Discovery against other drama's such as westworld or breaking bad. If people want to make comparisons against those shows, cool, but that isn't really what is happening. My issue is with people criticising Discovery as a bad Star Trek series, declaring it 'not star trek' for what they see as faults when they willingly ignore those same faults existing in previous Trek Series to make their argument. It's like people think Discovery is the first Star Trek series to start out with a lead that was initially unlikeable, or a crew that was unlikeable or were a character made a decision that was morally ambiguous. I've been involved in discussions comparing Burnham's actions in 'the Butcher's Knife...' to say Janeway's allowing a starfleet crewman to be placed in a situation tantamount to torture in equinox pt 2 and watched all kinds of mental black flips from the other poster excusing criminal behaviour from a starfleet captain, because Voyager is their favourite series. It's blatant intellectual dishonesty based on plain dislike of something different as opposed to rational critical arguments that i have an issue with.

 

[mswood]

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.

And least we forget, afterwards he is directly ordered to enact such a scheme if he ever gets the chance again. Ranking Starfleet apparently had to issues at all, with the Plan to annihilate the Borg.

I think we have seen in every single Trek series a Starfleet (often the series lead) character commit what we would view by current Geneva conventions as a war crime (this of course assuming that in the future they are following all the conventions and that the latter, didn't alter any of the original subsections of the accord (as we already know their have been many changes to the original even to this date).

 

[zar]

Some people noticed a rather unethical tactic committed by the two protagonists, and made a thread.

People have been debating the ethical/unethical decisions of Kirk since Kirk. Kirk hasn't gotten a pass

So let's put it this way. Do you personally think that Burnham and her captain used unethical tactics in blowing up the Klingon ship?

No, an entertainment outlet fabricated controversy for clicks and some people parroted it.

A thread about Kirk's ethics might actually be interesting, but here, there's nothing but nitpicking over a treaty (which may or may not even apply to our characters). First of all, if we're going to nitpick about rules, we should at least look at the full context of those rules rather than paraphrase them like Mr. Andrew Dyce from screenrant does. As it's been mentioned, the "booby trap" rule explicitly excludes military targets. Similarly, the entire Article IV is literally "relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War" and the full quoted section goes like this:

The wounded and sick, as well as the infirm, and expectant mothers, shall be the object of particular protection and respect.
As far as military considerations allow, each Party to the conflict shall facilitate the steps taken to search for the killed and wounded, to assist the shipwrecked and other persons exposed to grave danger, and to protect them against pillage and ill-treatment.

The way this was cut for the article was flat-out misleading to serve the author's goal of controversy.

A better question is, how many people actually objected to the scene themselves without being prodded? Honestly, who would have even described beaming the torpedo into the tractor beamed body as a "booby trap" in the first place?

Personally, I think mining a graveyard or battlefield search parties would be an unethical tactic. I also think that is not remotely what was depicted in "Binary Stars", and I believe anyone who says it is is being disingenuous.

 

[fireproof78]

It's not, though. All of the Trek series have been held to incredibly "harsh standards." The other shows simply aren't the new kids on the block anymore.

DSC unfortunately might not get that luxury.

 

[Ometiklan]

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.

- Kills Torchbearer: accidental, after being attacked, nothing involving judgement on her part.
- Targets ceremonial warship: didn't know it was ceremonial, wasn't a warship, got exactly the response expected - good judgement.
- Unprovoked attack: could be argued that "unremitting hostillities", terror attacks on Federation outposts, and invasion of Federation space and apparent intentional destruction of the relay satellite for the purpose of a lure make this not unprovoked, plus I think it could have worked, provided T'Kuvma was killed and thus unable to rally the Klingons to war - good judgement but poor execution via attempted mutiny.

No episode of ENT Season 2 was or remains as bad as "Threshold." None of them.
Alright, I can't back that up.

+

Dear Doctor remains the nadir of the series because it's such a repulsive moral and also brought about by executive meddling.

I concur totally. I just can't get past the lampshading of the non-existant prime directive, the total nonsense depiction of "evolution" in the episode, and making Archer (our supposed hero lead character) to be total wimp and contributor to global, near total mass death. It's worse in some ways (largely the character assassination via complicity in global death) than Threshold which just had a terrible story structure, total broke the Trek universe (through a viable infinite warp travel that just requires a quick DNA restoration), and nonsensical science.

...Similarly, the entire Article IV is literally "relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War" and the full quoted section goes like this:...

This is the argument that decides it for me. The rules of war (for the consideration of war crimes) have a context and a period/place where they apply. A booby trap on a body is not a war crime under this known protocol in this situation. Yeah, there are superficial elements (dead body, "booby trapping") but not the appropriate context - non-military target with the potential for civilian impacts.

Other thoughts:
As a hypothetical, if the rules against the use of chemical and biological warfare were similarly described as for the protection of civilians or other non-combatants (and I don't know if they are or not, but I think that is part of the reason - other reasons probably include the potential to grievously and permanently maim, but not kill, enemy soldiers. But then again other non-prohibited weapons of war from guns, bombs, and others have the same potential) and our hero was alone on board a ship with his opponent (think TNG's "Starship Mine") would our hero be liable for war crimes if they used a 100% lethal chemical or biological agent to instantly kill the enemy on the otherwise empty and isolated ship?
Side note: I recall the Varon-T disruptor was apparently banned due to its painful nature and "long" kill time, so the suffering of the opponent is apparently a consideration for the Federation.

 

[captainkirk]

- Kills Torchbearer: accidental, after being attacked, nothing involving judgement on her part.
- Targets ceremonial warship: didn't know it was ceremonial, wasn't a warship, got exactly the response expected - good judgement.
- Unprovoked attack: could be argued that "unremitting hostillities", terror attacks on Federation outposts, and invasion of Federation space and apparent intentional destruction of the relay satellite for the purpose of a lure make this not unprovoked, plus I think it could have worked, provided T'Kuvma was killed and thus unable to rally the Klingons to war - good judgement but poor execution via attempted mutiny.

But it's still exactly what T'Kuvma wanted to provoke a war. Starfleet comes marching in with no regard for anyone else, while announcing that they come in peace. Opening fire without provocation would not have helped matters.

 

[Commishsleer]

When Archer captured that alien civilian ship in ENT and left it stranded for a couple of months (while he went on and saved the Earth) I don't think that was a warcrime but ethically I think it was way worse than Georgiou's booby-trap actions.
Also I hate the ENT, TNG and DS9 mentality that its OK to create a clone and murder it. When they created Trip's clone and then murdered it for its organs was that a war crime?

 

[BillJ]

When they created Trip's clone and then murdered it for its organs was that a war crime?

A crime? Probably. A war crime? Probably not.

 

[cooleddie74]

A moral crime. A crime against basic human rights. But as Archer and Phlox gave the order and conducted the operation that took Sim's life and it was committed by members of a Starfleet crew against one of their own and a fellow human and not against members of the enemy's species it wouldn't be classified a war crime per se.

 

[Ometiklan]

But it's still exactly what T'Kuvma wanted to provoke a war. Starfleet comes marching in with no regard for anyone else, while announcing that they come in peace. Opening fire without provocation would not have helped matters.

Except if Burnham had attacked first and killed T'Kuvma, all that would have resulted would have been a dead Klingon "leader" in a ship that had invaded Federation space under cloak and had attacked a communications relay. They hadn't yet ignited the beacon and T'Kuvma hadn't had a chance to even apprise the other Klingon Houses of his thoughts, let alone convince them to go to war oven them. If T'Kuvma dead first -> no war with the Federation.

 

[Uhura's Song]

http://screenrant.com/star-trek-discovery-war-crimes-klingons/

What a joke. As if the Kingons didn't just violate a truce & kill the Admiral seconds before. Active battle situation. Crew & ship threatened. Nothing wrong with it.

The person who doesn't understand is the OP, not the writers.

And of course, as is the case with most of the OPs ilk, the completely ignore all of the previous Trek's war crimes to bash this show. (Poisoning Odo to destroy the founders; Sisko pulling the Romulans in by being accessory to murder; numerous TNG plots with renegade elements; Pegasus, etc).

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

As if the Kingons didn't just violate a truce & kill the Admiral seconds before

So our heroes are as evil as our villains. Nice.