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

[Tenacity]

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

How is it "evil."

There was no truce, it was active battlefield, all present were combatants.

The ship attacked was a armed starship in Federation space that had engaged in combat against Starfleet and was a legitimate target.

Where exactly is this war crime?

 

[The Librarian]

How is it "evil."

There was no truce, it was active battlefield, all present were combatants.

The ship attacked was a armed starship in Federation space that had engaged in combat against Starfleet and was a legitimate target.

Where exactly is this war crime?

Exactly. They're in an active combat situation in a combat zone, immediately after an unprovoked sneak attack. A rule designed to safeguard civilians recovering bodies and wounded does not apply to a ship conducting rescue & recovery in the middle of a battle. Just because T'Kuvma decided the battle was over doesn't mean Georgiou had to oblige him.

It's about as much as war crime as torpedoing the Belgrano. Lots of people like to claim it's wrong, but attacking an enemy warship's about as straightforward a legitimate act of war as you get.

 

[Noname Given]

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

There are no 'good guys' in a battle. There's the people who make it out alive; and the dead. It's better to be the former and not the latter

 

[Prax]

In the protocol on booby traps, much does indeed pertain to civilians. The reasons should be obvious. If an area is mined, civilians will continue to suffer the consequences from those mines generations after the war, and not just mines, but any kind of booby traps. And there are articles dealing specifically with where such methods of warfare should be conducted, i.e. far away from any concentrated civilian populations.

When it comes to the article on this specific type of conduct(like placing a bomb on an enemy combatants dead or wounded) it is not referring to civilians. This should also be obvious.

The reason this was added to the Geneva Convention(which are the rules which govern warfare for all who nations who have signed them, and all the armed forces of those nations who have sworn to uphold them), is to protect combatants from treachery. And by treachery, the article doesn't mean "sly, innovative tactics," it means "underhanded, unethical tactics" that prevent both sides from carrying out aid to their wounded, and honor to their dead.

It isn't civilians who retrieve the wounded and collect the dead, it is the combatants. A major reason this article was added, was because during the Vietnam war, all sorts of treachery were employed, including by U.S. armed forces. A wounded soldier might be booby trapped, so that when the medics try to rescue him, they are killed or maimed. Or enemy dead booby trapped, so when his comrades come to retrieve his body, they are killed or maimed.

Here is the article:
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:
(i) internationally recognized protective emblems, signs or signals;
(ii) sick, wounded or dead persons;
(iii) burial or cremation sites or graves;
(iv) medical facilities, medical equipment, medical supplies or medical transportation;
(v) children's toys or other portable objects or products specially designed for the feeding, health, hygiene, clothing or education of children;
(vi) food or drink;
(vii) kitchen utensils or appliances except in military establishments, military locations or military supply depots;
(viii) objects clearly of a religious nature;
(ix) historic monuments, works of art or places or worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples;
(x) animals or their carcasses.
2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to use any booby-trap which is designed to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.

 

[fireproof78]

So. Bad writing on previous Treks absolves DSC from bad writing. Got it.

When I see people applying the same condemnation of whole series for the actions of their characters as they are with DSC, then I'll concede the point.

Until then, its just Trek being Trek, good, bad and otherwise.

 

[Yminale]

Uhm the problem is the Geneva convention is for HUMAN warfare (plus we don't know if they were revised). There is no proof that they apply to Starfleet which is non-MILITARY (though Burnham did quote the convention in Ep3)

Also it's illegal to fire on a non-hostile ship in it's own territory which is the bigger problem.

Finally soldier's don't give $#!^ about the Geneva convention in the middle of battle. I suggest the rules lawyers watch the excellent PBS special on the Vietnam war to see what war is like.

 

[Charles Phipps]

Uhm the problem is the Geneva convention is for HUMAN warfare (plus we don't know if they were revised). There is no proof that they apply to Starfleet which is non-MILITARY (though Burnham did quote the convention in Ep3)

Also it's illegal to fire on a non-hostile ship in it's own territory which is the bigger problem.

Finally soldier's don't give $#!^ about the Geneva convention in the middle of battle. I suggest the rules lawyers watch the excellent PBS special on the Vietnam war to see what war is like.

While this is mostly true, I should point out the bigger issue is it's incongruous for Starfleet to turn up their nose at Michael Burnham's suggestion as well as any HINT the Klingons may be *GASP* Bad GuysTM only to promptly desecrate their dead with a grenade.

 

[zar]

In the protocol on booby traps, much does indeed pertain to civilians. The reasons should be obvious. If an area is mined, civilians will continue to suffer the consequences from those mines generations after the war, and not just mines, but any kind of booby traps. And there are articles dealing specifically with where such methods of warfare should be conducted, i.e. far away from any concentrated civilian populations.

When it comes to the article on this specific type of conduct(like placing a bomb on an enemy combatants dead or wounded) it is not referring to civilians. This should also be obvious.

The reason this was added to the Geneva Convention(which are the rules which govern warfare for all who nations who have signed them, and all the armed forces of those nations who have sworn to uphold them), is to protect combatants from treachery. And by treachery, the article doesn't mean "sly, innovative tactics," it means "underhanded, unethical tactics" that prevent both sides from carrying out aid to their wounded, and honor to their dead.

It isn't civilians who retrieve the wounded and collect the dead, it is the combatants. A major reason this article was added, was because during the Vietnam war, all sorts of treachery were employed, including by U.S. armed forces. A wounded soldier might be booby trapped, so that when the medics try to rescue him, they are killed or maimed. Or enemy dead booby trapped, so when his comrades come to retrieve his body, they are killed or maimed.

Here is the article:
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:
(i) internationally recognized protective emblems, signs or signals;
(ii) sick, wounded or dead persons;
(iii) burial or cremation sites or graves;
(iv) medical facilities, medical equipment, medical supplies or medical transportation;
(v) children's toys or other portable objects or products specially designed for the feeding, health, hygiene, clothing or education of children;
(vi) food or drink;
(vii) kitchen utensils or appliances except in military establishments, military locations or military supply depots;
(viii) objects clearly of a religious nature;
(ix) historic monuments, works of art or places or worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples;
(x) animals or their carcasses.
2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to use any booby-trap which is designed to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.

I wonder if kicking this dead horse is a war crime. Page 4 called and it wants its dead-end argument back.

Again, let's look at the context. The full name of the "Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons" is "Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects." The point of the above is that a mine in those places may be indiscriminate and reach the wrong target. Shenzhou's torpedo was not indiscriminate. It could only have hit the enemy ship near the tractor beam emitter. Nor was it "excessively injurious". In fact the attack was designed to not kill someone so they could be taken prisoner.

So, even if we imagine that this exact treaty was signed by the Federation and stretch the definition of "booby trap" to pretend it applies to a warhead launched at a warship with a 10-second timer, it is not automatically a war crime simply because there is a corpse involved, any more than it would be because a medical transport, a diaper, a hamburger, or a religious symbol is involved - which are also prohibited under the same article. Context matters.

"It isn't civilians who retrieve the wounded and collect the dead, it is the combatants." ...And a tractor beam is neither. No one was hurt. Yes, this was designed to protect both civilians and combatants, but from what, exactly? From the horse's mouth:

The Convention seeks to protect civilians from the effects of weapons used in an armed conflict and to protect combatants from suffering in excess of that necessary to achieve a legitimate military objective.

Question 1: Were civilians in danger of the effects of the weapon?
Answer: No.

Question 2: Was getting a torpedo through the sarcophagus ship's shields a legitimate military objective?
Answer: Yes.

Question 3: Did Klingon combatants suffer in excess of what was necessary?
Answer: No.

 

[Charles Phipps]

My interpretation is different. I think it is a war crime but of a understandable nature.

Which goes to show at the end of the day, Georgiou and Michael were not so different.

 

[zar]

If you dislike what you're watching, there's nothing I can argue. But I think them doing what they did, and it not being the right choice-- not the "Starfleet way" is sort of the point of that episode.

It will continue to haunt Burnham until she chooses the right path and stands up to Lorca for the things he's doing wrong as well.

Burnham is haunted by the mutiny and killing the martyr. But I don't see why this would haunt her, especially since it was entirely planned and carried out by Saru and Georgiou, not her.

 

[zar]

My interpretation is different. I think it is a war crime but of a understandable nature.

Which goes to show at the end of the day, Georgiou and Michael were not so different.

I guess that works as long as your logic is consistent. I mean, the entire fleet already committed the crime (understandably) by fighting back in the first place, because the entire sarcophagus ship itself was:

(iii) burial or cremation sites or graves;
(ix) historic monuments, works of art or places or worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples

 

[Ithekro]

Simply put, there is no crime committed here as defined by the Geneva Convention.

As for earlier, Burnham's idea to shoot the Klingons first would actually work under Klingon cultural standard. The Klingons would respect that. And if the other houses came by later on, they'd see who's ship it was and brush it off because they really didn't respect T'Kuvma anyway prior to this moment.

 

[Prax]

I wonder if kicking this dead horse is a war crime. Page 4 called and it wants its dead-end argument back.

Again, let's look at the context. The full name of the "Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons" is "Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects." The point of the above is that a mine in those places may be indiscriminate and reach the wrong target. Shenzhou's torpedo was not indiscriminate. It could only have hit the enemy ship near the tractor beam emitter. Nor was it "excessively injurious". In fact the attack was designed to not kill someone so they could be taken prisoner.

So, even if we imagine that this exact treaty was signed by the Federation and stretch the definition of "booby trap" to pretend it applies to a warhead launched at a warship with a 10-second timer, it is not automatically a war crime simply because there is a corpse involved, any more than it would be because a medical transport, a diaper, a hamburger, or a religious symbol is involved - which are also prohibited under the same article. Context matters.

"It isn't civilians who retrieve the wounded and collect the dead, it is the combatants." ...And a tractor beam is neither. No one was hurt. Yes, this was designed to protect both civilians and combatants, but from what, exactly? From the horse's mouth:

The Convention seeks to protect civilians from the effects of weapons used in an armed conflict and to protect combatants from suffering in excess of that necessary to achieve a legitimate military objective.

Question 1: Were civilians in danger of the effects of the weapon?
Answer: No.

Question 2: Was getting a torpedo through the sarcophagus ship's shields a legitimate military objective?
Answer: Yes.

Question 3: Did Klingon combatants suffer in excess of what was necessary?
Answer: No.

Can you show where I ignored the context? It's perfectly reasonable for some people to be taken aback by the scene. I tried to give a balanced explanation of the article, and why it would be seen as a war crime.

The battle appears to be over, and the Klingons are collecting their dead. Are those people wrong for considering the act to be treacherous or perfidous?

But what is even going on this scene?

The klingins light the beacon, and 24 ships immediately come(or maybe more than 24?), armed and ready. A battle ensues, then stops. Both sides got messed up and suffered heavy casualties. Then the Admiral speaks to T'Kuvma. They agree to a ceasefire, then a moment later, something is happening to the flagship. It's being "run over"? By a giant cloaked ship that's just now appearing? Did it recloak just to decloak dramatically? Is it a different ship?
Now the battle is really over... I think...maybe...

What happens next? All the other Klingon ships just leave. They warp the heck out of there.

Then T'Kuvma hails Starfleet and makes his threats, and tells us he will be the new emperor of Klingonland! Then... What is happening here?! Inside the Shinzou the battle is still is still going on...or is about to again? Georgiou says "T'Kuvma lured SF to massacre. It's time I repaid him."
She finds a way to destroy the giant ship- use a worker bee and personally drive a torpedo into it, for a "kill shot to the hull." She tells Saru to find a spot to hit it for maximum damage. Burnham pops in "You can't do that because martyr, and suchnsuch." Georgiou replies with "I trusted you, but I never knew you." Burnham says "Good intentions, though, so let me go in your place(to deliver the torpedoes)" ???

On the Klingon ship, the battle is over. They made their point, I guess? They are collecting their dead.

Back on the Shinzou, an opportunity is found. Instead of sacrificing Georgiou, they can just stick a ...torpedo? to a slain Klingon officer being collected by the behemoth. Has the plan to try and destroy the ship changed? I don't know. They don't say.

Boom!

They find an area on the behemoth with minimal life support to beam on to, to collect their prisoner, and the dynamic duo go it alone...

I have some questions. If Georgiou hadn't died, what would have become of Burnham? Why is Burnham responsible for starting the war? Georgiou said that the "lured SF to a massacre." Is it because she(Burnham) killed T'Kuvma? Would there not still have been a war after what the Klingons did? Why is Burnham responsible for Georgiou's death? Is it because Georgiou followed her plan? If Burnham had captured T'Kuvma, would she have been charged with anything?

Confounded me I am brain my hurts.

Either these scenes were edited together out of order, or they had to cut out big chunks of story to fit runtime, or...this all made sense...to someone.

 

[ichab]

There are no 'good guys' in a battle. There's the people who make it out alive; and the dead. It's better to be the former and not the latter

Thank you. I get so tired of people thinking that war is like some glorified chess match that has rules.It never has been and it never will be. All wars are crimes. Period.

 

[zar]

Can you show where I ignored the context? It's perfectly reasonable for some people to be taken aback by the scene. I tried to give a balanced explanation of the article, and why it would be seen as a war crime.

The battle appears to be over, and the Klingons are collecting their dead. Are those people wrong for considering the act to be treacherous or perfidous?

Well I've just demonstrated how your citation was out of context. You were simply retreading the same argument as the original post, and presented the same conclusion, without even implying alternative interpretations. How is that "balanced"? Maybe I was too harsh on you, but you can imagine how irritating it is to see the same tired argument on repeat.

I don't blame anyone for being misled by the post. The problem is willfully holding to that preconceived notion weeks later after analyzing the facts. To date, no one has presented a real argument as to why it was unethical other than parroting "it's a crime" - which, one, isn't strictly true, and two, isn't an ethical argument. I'll repeat my earlier question which has yet to be answered:

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?

I have some questions. If Georgiou hadn't died, what would have become of Burnham? Why is Burnham responsible for starting the war? Georgiou said that the "lured SF to a massacre." Is it because she(Burnham) killed T'Kuvma? Would there not still have been a war after what the Klingons did? Why is Burnham responsible for Georgiou's death? Is it because Georgiou followed her plan? If Burnham had captured T'Kuvma, would she have been charged with anything?

The way I see it, a big factor of how she's looked at is how she looks at herself. She did nothing to defend herself and literally stated "I am the enemy" on trial, which wouldn't do her any favors with the general public. She isn't exactly responsible for Georgiou's death, but Saru blames her for doing a poor job "protecting" the captain, and I think she feels the same way. She's definitely responsible for killing T'Kuvma. There may or may not have been a war otherwise, but regardless of what happened she was guilty of everything she was charged with.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

There are no 'good guys' in a battle. There's the people who make it out alive; and the dead. It's better to be the former and not the latter

Nice. You’ve just absolved every war criminal ever convicted for war atrocities and crimes against humanity.

 

[Noname Given]

Nice. You’ve just absolved every war criminal ever convicted for war atrocities and crimes against humanity.

No - gassing or torturing/killing POWs and civilians isn't done on a battlefield or in the heat of battle in combat <--- and were that done ANYWHERE, yes, that's a major war crime. Wars SHOULDN'T happen in the first place <--- That would be the best situation, but we don't live in a perfect world

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

There are no 'good guys' in a battle. There's the people who make it out alive; and the dead. It's better to be the former and not the latter

No - gassing or torturing/killing POWs and civilians isn't done on a battlefield or in the heat of battle in combat

What? Since when?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malmedy_massacre

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chenogne_massacre

And the list goes on and on and on...

 

[Noname Given]

What? Since when?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malmedy_massacre

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chenogne_massacre

And the list goes on and on and on...

And yes, as I stated those types of things ARE war crimes; (I guess you just like to read certain parts of a respponse and ingore the rest of said post. Please show me where I said something like that wouldn't be a war crime (if you bothered to actually READ my ENTIRE reply and not just pick a sentence out of context,)

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

And yes, as I stated those types of things ARE war crimes; (I guess you just like to read certain parts of a respponse and ingore the rest of said post. Please show me where I said something like that wouldn't be a war crime (if you bothered to actually READ my ENTIRE reply and not just pick a sentence out of context,)

So help me understand your position. Do war crimes happen on the battlefield or not? Are officers and soldiers who take no prisoners “bad guys in the battle” or not? Please clarify.