International law versus wraith

[morrismike]

I wanted to know other people's thoughts of this. We know that two characters mentioned that the Atlantis expedition violated the Geneva Convention concerning using a prisoner for medical testing.

There are several other laws that have been violated in other international laws, but only if one considers wraith to have the same rights as humans in war. But do they? They are not human in a physiological sense, they aren't human in a mental sense, they do not identify themselves as human or wanting to be human.

In a legal matter, do we consider any philosophy that they are human or an equal in mind? Would the laws concerning humans apply to them, or would the laws consider the wraith animals?

Who has juristriction?

[morrismike]

I don't think it's possible to make a general set of guidelines on how to treat aliens. You really need to take them on a case by case basis just because they can be so different, both from humans and from each other.

The Wraith however aren't even true aliens. They're a human offshoot species, and cases like Ellia, who was raised as a human girl, show that they have a virtually identical psyche to our own.

I don't see any reason to treat them any differently than we'd treat people who had some sort of affliction that compelled them to kill/harm others. We generally try to help those people, we don't reduce them to animals and/or torture them and then claim we've got clean hands because they "don't count" as real people.

Now I'm not out to hug every Wraith in the Pegasus galaxy. Most of them are certainly *******s. It's just the "no no it's ok we can totally torture them, clean hands and guilt free" attitude that bugs me. People that act like the team characters can do these various things and then say it's unfair when I judge their character based on them because whatever they do to Wraith "doesn't count" like it would with a "real person".

The biggest problem is that that's the view that the show tended to take in general. If they had just depicted the torture and murder etc for what it actually was in self aware fashion, even with mitigating circumstances arguing for it's use, and had the characters react and be affected by it accordingly I'd probably have praised it for exploring these things instead of whitewashing us with "heroes from Earth" nonsense.

As it was, they would go from murdering a captive with medical experiments to joking about the wee little turtles.

Following the principles of the Geneva convention we need so reciprocity. We should treat the wraith in the manner they treat their enemies. We need to make dog food out of them.

[morrismike]

Legally speaking, either could be argued to be a correct interpretation. Law, even International Humanitarian Law (to use the correct name) bases itself off precedent, convention, and agreement. There is, quite obviously, no direct precedent for the Wraith situation. As a result, the argument could effectively be made that by nature, International HUMANITARIAN Law applies solely to intra-species matters and should not be considered to be automatically the legal basis for some kind of Intergalactic Transpecies Law. Indeed, arguments could be made that IHL would not apply because it is an agreement between sovereign nation states, and NOT a defacto right that all humans have. Terror suspect prisoners are not, in reality, subject to the Geneva Conventions concerning the conduct of Prisoners of War because they do not represent the state as legitimate combatants, and are therefore not embroiled in legitimate combat and as such, are not afforded the appropriate protection as layed down by the 3rd Geneva Convention of 1929. Such an argument COULD be used as a precedent for why the Wraith should not be given the protection of IHL. At the same time, Wraith are quite obviously a form of combatant, so the 4th Geneva Convention of 1949 (governing the treatment of civilians) would most certainly not apply - unless the Atlantis team found a body of Wraith not directy linked to the Wraith 'war machine'. You could also down play the idea of a 'war' against the Wraith, further escaping the requirement to obey the Geneva Conventions, or indeed the Hague Conventions (restricting the use of certain weapons in warfare) because strictly speaking, the Wraith are not waging war, they are farming. Now, this could, strictly speaking, only be applied to Wraith actions against the worlds which they have historically culled, and not the Atlantis expedition, nevertheless, it's a good enough legal technicality that could, unfortunatly, permit the Atlantis team free reign from our laws of war.

That's the argument against.

In contrast, it could also be argued that the Wraith SHOULD be subject to the laws of war, and Atlantis personnel should obey IHL when engaging with the Wraith. There is less of a legal scope for this, because quite honestly, it would be very easy to say that the Geneva and Hague conventions were drawn up without consideration for such situations, and quite obviously it doesn't allow for its complexities. Nevertheless, it does not take a military or political mastermind to understand that IHL was drawn up for two reasons. Practicality and Morality. Adherance to the conventions affords a certain degree of stability within international affairs, and could, in theory have the same effect in intergalactic affairs. The conventions essentially provide protection to your own personnel by guaranteeing the protection of enemy personnel. This angle has become far more important now that the Atlantis team have essentially become personalised to the Wraith, they ARE individuals whos names are known. The Wraith recognise that these aren't just the usual food sources. In dealing with Atlantis personnel Wraith HAVE to act differently, because they do end up engaging in some element of diplomacy with Atlantis. Usually in the form of threats and hostage taking yes, but it is a very different situation to their usual farming methods. In such a situation, setting a precedent of humane treatment of Wraith prisoners of war and 'civilians' can help to improve diplomatic dialogues between the Wraith and Atlantis, in much the same way that Sheppard's humane treatment of Todd at their first meeting has positively benefitted Atlantis.

Beyond this, the moral reason is extremely important. All too often, simple minded fools argue for sacrificing morals in warfare for victory. History has taught us that such an approach does not work. Bombardment of enemy civilians, for example, a clear sign that the 'gloves are off' does NOT, in point of fact, move the enemy to surrender in horror, it encourages the enemy to seek new and more aggressive means of retaliating, escalating to a point where their gloves are also off, so to speak. There is no military advantage to immorality during war, it allows for physical harm to come to the enemy, but not to the extent that it brings victory any nearer. It also makes it less likely that the enemy will yield, having become convinced that the other nation will be merciless to them. In warfare, we must fight with the values and morals that we are fighting FOR. We must fight with the peace that we hope to achieve in mind at all times. One cannot hope for stable peace unless the war is conducted in such a way that will enable such peace to occur. Militant war mongers will argue to throw such principles away, 'Victory at all Costs!' and such rot. It neither works, nor is it desirable. In the Atlantis situation, it is vital that humanity adheres to its own rules. Particularly if they want to end with a stable situation. All out genocide against the Wraith is never moral, nor practical. It would not be as simple as the show makes out and would require far too many resources. If a smarter strategy is to be followed, then IHL must certainly be adhered to.


In short, I say yes. But there's a lot of legal holes that would allow for a 'no' answer.

What happens when the wraith learn we are unwilling to do what is necessary? These rules only work when each side follows them.

[morrismike]

It's increasingly widely accepted that the Japanese did not in fact surrender because of the Atomic bombs, but it provided an opportunity. There were three potential adversaries for Japan to surrender to, the Americans, the Russians, and the Chinese. Japan was already at the point were surrender was likely, Russia and China were effectively on their door step. The Russians had demonstrated a horrific lack of ethical treatment of civilians in their advance to Germany, raping and murdering with little regard, and in previous years, the Japanese had committed numerous attrocities to Chinese citizens, once again, raping and murdering of innocents etc... For the Japanese, surrendering to the Americans following the A-Bombs offered salvation from what would, in some minds, be a worse fate that would be brought on if the Chinese or Russians were able to march into Japanese cities. There's increasingly little evidence to coroborate the idea that the Atomic blasts themselves were causes of the decision to surrender.



And the way to address that is to act with honour towards the Wraith.

That's some interesting revision of history. Would you like to drop some other bombs on us?

The Japanese were preparing to deploy biological weapons and were getting set for invasion of their beaches. Without the bombs that surrender doesn't happen until 100s of thousands of Americans (and millions of Japanese) die during invasion of Japan.

[Skie]

Spoiler:

Looks like it will be revealed that the Wraith are a human offshoot,and not really ALIENS after all.

Spoiler:

That is no revelation as they are about half human thanks to the amount of human DNA in their genetic make-up.

Following the principles of the Geneva convention we need so reciprocity. We should treat the wraith in the manner they treat their enemies. We need to make dog food out of them.

There is no talk about reciprocity in the Geneva convention. You are supposed to uphold it even though your enemy does not.
If we do that, we are no better than the Wraiths and can stop complaining right now. As Teyla pointed out so nicely in LfP "TEYLA: So in fighting the Wraith, we are to give up that which makes us different from them?"
To add, they kill humans for food and no other reason. They have no alternative food source. If you were born as a Wraith you would gladly starve yourself to death or would you eat?

[Skie]

I would not think that the Wraith would have a position to acknowledge the Geneva convention. It seems that the Wraith seem to be intelligent but not entirely, even with Todd and Micheal as the main wraith forming bonds with humans, these characters themselves still prove to be almost of a barbaric mind set due to the debilitating need to "feed" on humans.

Since when are the Wraith not intelligent? Sure the drones are average. But all of the male Wraith we encountered intelligence wise so far can easily compete with our top league of scientists.

Why does feeding on humans make them barbaric? All humans that eat meat are therefore barbaric too? The interactions between Todd/Micheal (before he got betrayed by Atlantis) and humans were far from barbaric. For example, in ALLIES Ronon pointing his gun at Michael came across as barbaric and emotion driven. Michael tried to get the humans see his point of view.
A bit more objectivity on this topic wouldn't hurt.

[WraithRichard]

Who has juristriction?

Technically it's up to all parties (all nations) in the instance of taking native fauna. When it comes to things 'found' in space, that depends. Does a certain country or part of countries have jurisdiction over it? If not, you have to put it back unless ALL parties (every single country, including those not yet able to fund or support space programs) decide it is in everyone's best interest and will improve quality of life.

That also means that it would take all countries around the world to know of the wraith in order to decide if they have human rights (and where they fall under that category) or animals.

Following the principles of the Geneva convention we need so reciprocity. We should treat the wraith in the manner they treat their enemies. We need to make dog food out of them.

Not in the slightest. That is NOT what the Geneva convention is founded upon. If that were so, America would have free Reign to take Chinese soldiers for medical experimentation. The Geneva convention is based on principles outside of combat.

Rules don't work just because one side follows them and another does, that's also false. That's not even how basic legal systems work.

Lastly, what makes Todd and Micheal (and others) barbaric? How are they not intelligent? The problem with them was that they were very intelligent and that they understood humans quite well. Even Ronan says he thinks Todd is bluffing when he threatens to feed on the Daedalus crew as an act of retribution.

[Ripley2012]

Since when are the Wraith not intelligent? Sure the drones are average. But all of the male Wraith we encountered intelligence wise so far can easily compete with our top league of scientists.

Why does feeding on humans make them barbaric? All humans that eat meat are therefore barbaric too? The interactions between Todd/Micheal (before he got betrayed by Atlantis) and humans were far from barbaric. For example, in ALLIES Ronon pointing his gun at Michael came across as barbaric and emotion driven. Michael tried to get the humans see his point of view.
A bit more objectivity on this topic wouldn't hurt.

Yes, I agree that objectivity is key. Also, this was the first post and more so a test drive see how gateworld works but thank you for the immediate criticism. You are correct in comparing humans as barbaric beings as most eat meat, but also animals are not self aware but humans are. I used the word barbaric as not unintelligent but as way to convey the lack of credible emotional empathy (Savagely cruel; exceedingly brutal). Morrismike is correct in asking the question "What happens when the wraith learn we are unwilling to do what is necessary?" This is a good question. The goal in war is to defeat the enemy, and when this is compromised by large numbers and super natural abilities that allow themselves to be almost immortal, it is necessary to find efficient ways to defeat them without compromising moral integrity. Food sources should not have to sympathies with the mouth that eats them. The Geneva Convention does not require both sides to participate as Wraith Richard says, the Geneva convention was signed for our planet of governments therefor allowing simple legal loopholes in this instance I am sure. Even in Micheal's case, it was not an experiment to exterminate the wraith, it was a way to bring them completely to human form. If the situation was looked at differently, perhaps as eradicating harmful DNA sequence, much like extracting Goauld, than perhaps the Geneva Convention would have nothing to do with it. And perhaps it was not the wraith with the debilitating attributes but the humans of Atlantis, because although very intelligent also very dedicated to making decisions based on sociological emotion. Why so devious and devoid of moral empathy? Should these things be taken into account when making these decisions? Also if the wraith were able to continue to evolve does anyone think that they themselves would find a way to produce more objective groups such as the tok ra or even vegetarians/vegans in our society?

[Skie]

I used the word barbaric as not unintelligent but as way to convey the lack of credible emotional empathy (Savagely cruel; exceedingly brutal).

We don't know if the Wraith lack empathy. Just because it is never shown doesn't mean they don't have it. You also wouldn't want that the entire human race would be judged by the examples of few. BTW, in CG Todd showed a lot of understanding and empathy towards Sheppard. And also Michael.

See my earlier post:

Most people who keep for example sheep or rabbits as their own meat source try to not get attached to them, no petting of them, because if you do, the harder or impossible it gets to kill them. The same with the Wraiths, if they would allow themselves to care about humans they would find themselves in a dilemma. Nope, they just treat us as a food source, some with respect some with cruelty, as we do with our meat source.

The goal in war is to defeat the enemy, and when this is compromised by large numbers and super natural abilities that allow themselves to be almost immortal, it is necessary to find efficient ways to defeat them without compromising moral integrity.

I hope not be all costs. That is a very dangerous road to take. Without compromising moral integrity?! I think the Atlanteans did compromise them more than once when dealing with the Wraiths.

Even in Micheal's case, it was not an experiment to exterminate the wraith, it was a way to bring them completely to human form. If the situation was looked at differently, perhaps as eradicating harmful DNA sequence, much like extracting Goauld, than perhaps the Geneva Convention would have nothing to do with it.

The problem with this retrovirus, it IS genocide. What Michael said in MISBEGOTTEN is true in every sense:

MICHAEL: What I am is not a disease you can cure.

TEYLA: Your life as a human could be long and full.

MICHAEL: And if I remember nothing of what or who I am -- if this consciousness is erased -- what is the difference between that and death? And if I do remember and revert back to my true nature, what will happen then?

And perhaps it was not the wraith with the debilitating attributes but the humans of Atlantis, because although very intelligent also very dedicated to making decisions based on sociological emotion. Why so devious and devoid of moral empathy?

Yes, I was asking that myself a LOT of times in Atlantis, especially in S4 and S5.

[Flyboy]

That's some interesting revision of history. Would you like to drop some other bombs on us?

The Japanese were preparing to deploy biological weapons and were getting set for invasion of their beaches. Without the bombs that surrender doesn't happen until 100s of thousands of Americans (and millions of Japanese) die during invasion of Japan.

How dare you accuse me of such a thing.

Go do some actual damn reading on the subject. I can reccomend one book of the top of my head - 'Among the Dead Cities' by A. C. Grayling. What I've said is most certainly correct thank you, or would you accuse some of the worlds leading academics, some of which who lecture within the Royal Air Force College to be inventing history. I've presented the argument, I have cited a reference. Come back to me when YOU have a reference, oh, and two degrees in the field.

[WraithRichard]

I hope not be all costs. That is a very dangerous road to take.

Isn't that the dystopian future so many philosophers and authors have been trying to show us? How would trying to be worse than the wraith make us better after they're gone?

If species determines who is right, then it's not intentions of the individual that determines right in the present, but eugenics of the collection that determines right in the past. That right there is freaking scary, and not just because it says we need to cull the weak from the herd and have our own hivemind, but that we are so frightened of change that we eliminate discovery, which brought us so far in morals and technology from our lives as completely as possible and strive to shut it out more and more. Justice is not stagnation, but a continual process of assessing not only individual players, but also the individual environments that brought them to the way they are and to each other.

[morrismike]

Spoiler:

That is no revelation as they are about half human thanks to the amount of human DNA in their genetic make-up.

There is no talk about reciprocity in the Geneva convention. You are supposed to uphold it even though your enemy does not.
If we do that, we are no better than the Wraiths and can stop complaining right now. As Teyla pointed out so nicely in LfP "TEYLA: So in fighting the Wraith, we are to give up that which makes us different from them?"
To add, they kill humans for food and no other reason. They have no alternative food source. If you were born as a Wraith you would gladly starve yourself to death or would you eat?

They choose not to eat animals or each other for that matter.

The rules for engagement are different in the PG (i.e. you eat your enemy). Any sort of Geneva Convention would have to be negotiated between us and the wraith. I'm thinking they won't give up dining on humans so there won't be a deal unless we start grinding them up for dog food.

[morrismike]

How dare you accuse me of such a thing.

Go do some actual damn reading on the subject. I can reccomend one book of the top of my head - 'Among the Dead Cities' by A. C. Grayling. What I've said is most certainly correct thank you, or would you accuse some of the worlds leading academics, some of which who lecture within the Royal Air Force College to be inventing history. I've presented the argument, I have cited a reference. Come back to me when YOU have a reference, oh, and two degrees in the field.

You know that the Americans captured and put to work the Japanese head of biological warfare to take over our own bioweapons program? Do you actually believe the Japanese would have given up without the bombs or American/Australian boots on the ground? I suppose the German war machine wasn't slowed down by the leveling of their industrial cities. I'm sure there are plenty of UK and frog academics that say a lot of things and I'm a little disappointed in you for repeating them.

I suppose the next thing you're going to tell me is the Mers-el-Kébir was unnecessary and Hitler had no designs on those French ships?



The Potsdam Declaration

Against the background of final military preparations for the invasion of Japan, international negotiations were under way which were ultimately to make the projected operations "Olympic" and "Coronet" unnecessary. On 17 July 1945, the President of the United States, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, and the Premier of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics met in a series of conferences at Potsdam, Germany, and discussed, among other things, the acceleration of the campaign against Japan. One result of this tripartite conference was that the Soviet Union finally agreed to enter the Pacific war. Another equally outstanding product of the Potsdam conferences was the Potsdam Declaration. President Truman and Prime Minister Atlee, with the concurrence of the President of the National Government of China, issued a final ultimatum

[435]

to the Japanese Government that gave Japan the choice of surrender or destruction. Set forth in powerful words of warning, the Potsdam Declaration read in part:

... The prodigious land, sea and air forces of the United States, the British Empire and of China, many times reinforced by their armies and air fleets from the west, are poised to strike the final blows upon Japan. This military power is sustained and inspired by the determination of all the Allied Nations to prosecute the war against Japan until she ceases to resist.

The result of the futile and senseless German resistance to the might of the aroused free peoples of the world stands forth in awful clarity as an example to the people of Japan. The might that now converges on Japan is immeasurably greater than that which, when applied to the resisting Nazis, necessarily laid waste the lands, the industry and the method of life of the whole German people. The full application of our military powers, backed by our resolve, will mean the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter destruction of the Japanese homeland.

The time has come for Japan to decide whether she will continue to be controlled by those self-willed militaristic advisers whose unintelligent calculations have brought the Empire of Japan to the threshold of annihilation, or whether she will follow the path of reason ... .

After listing seven terms under which the Allies would accept the Japanese capitulation, the declaration continued:

We call upon the Government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.8

The decision rested with Japan. Would it be "prompt and utter destruction," or surrender according to the plans outlined at Cairo9 and Potsdam, which accorded Japan an opportunity to refit herself for membership in a world of peaceful nations?

nearly 20 days after the warning, Truman was forced to drop the bombs to prevent the loss of millions of lives

[Flyboy]

You know that the Americans captured and put to work the Japanese head of biological warfare to take over our own bioweapons program? Do you actually believe the Japanese would have given up without the bombs or American/Australian boots on the ground? I suppose the German war machine wasn't slowed down by the leveling of their industrial cities. I'm sure there are plenty of UK and frog academics that say a lot of things and I'm a little disappointed in you for repeating them.

I suppose the next thing you're going to tell me is the Mers-el-Kébir was unnecessary and Hitler had no designs on those French ships?



The Potsdam Declaration

Against the background of final military preparations for the invasion of Japan, international negotiations were under way which were ultimately to make the projected operations "Olympic" and "Coronet" unnecessary. On 17 July 1945, the President of the United States, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, and the Premier of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics met in a series of conferences at Potsdam, Germany, and discussed, among other things, the acceleration of the campaign against Japan. One result of this tripartite conference was that the Soviet Union finally agreed to enter the Pacific war. Another equally outstanding product of the Potsdam conferences was the Potsdam Declaration. President Truman and Prime Minister Atlee, with the concurrence of the President of the National Government of China, issued a final ultimatum

[435]

to the Japanese Government that gave Japan the choice of surrender or destruction. Set forth in powerful words of warning, the Potsdam Declaration read in part:

... The prodigious land, sea and air forces of the United States, the British Empire and of China, many times reinforced by their armies and air fleets from the west, are poised to strike the final blows upon Japan. This military power is sustained and inspired by the determination of all the Allied Nations to prosecute the war against Japan until she ceases to resist.

The result of the futile and senseless German resistance to the might of the aroused free peoples of the world stands forth in awful clarity as an example to the people of Japan. The might that now converges on Japan is immeasurably greater than that which, when applied to the resisting Nazis, necessarily laid waste the lands, the industry and the method of life of the whole German people. The full application of our military powers, backed by our resolve, will mean the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter destruction of the Japanese homeland.

The time has come for Japan to decide whether she will continue to be controlled by those self-willed militaristic advisers whose unintelligent calculations have brought the Empire of Japan to the threshold of annihilation, or whether she will follow the path of reason ... .

After listing seven terms under which the Allies would accept the Japanese capitulation, the declaration continued:

We call upon the Government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.8

The decision rested with Japan. Would it be "prompt and utter destruction," or surrender according to the plans outlined at Cairo9 and Potsdam, which accorded Japan an opportunity to refit herself for membership in a world of peaceful nations?

nearly 20 days after the warning, Truman was forced to drop the bombs to prevent the loss of millions of lives

Yes. Quite clearly I aced all of my Air Force academics exams and essays, as well as achieving two seperate university degrees in the field of military strategy and international politics by merely 'repeating' the words of a couple of fringe British and French academics...

Where as you, quite clearly, are not simply buying into the 'party line'.


If you notice, I specifically stated that 'there is increasing evidence to suggest'... The academic community, as well as military establishments are moving towards the opinion that the atomic bombs were not in fact decisive in their own right, that arguments to the contrary are flawed and incomplete, and that a much more critical level of analysis is required. Whether you personally believe it, is not my concern. But I can catagorically state that such a transition of opinion IS happening, and the fact that you label it as merely a UK-French thing is quite amusing and betrays underlying prejudices that you hold that would suggest only a US citizen can have a reasonable opinion.

[morrismike]

Yes. Quite clearly I aced all of my Air Force academics exams and essays, as well as achieving two seperate university degrees in the field of military strategy and international politics by merely 'repeating' the words of a couple of fringe British and French academics...

Where as you, quite clearly, are not simply buying into the 'party line'.


If you notice, I specifically stated that 'there is increasing evidence to suggest'... The academic community, as well as military establishments are moving towards the opinion that the atomic bombs were not in fact decisive in their own right, that arguments to the contrary are flawed and incomplete, and that a much more critical level of analysis is required. Whether you personally believe it, is not my concern. But I can catagorically state that such a transition of opinion IS happening, and the fact that you label it as merely a UK-French thing is quite amusing and betrays underlying prejudices that you hold that would suggest only a US citizen can have a reasonable opinion.

Was the declaration made or not?
Did Japan ignore the declaration or not?
Is it not a fact that ground engagements were getting bloody as the forces closed in on Japan?
Is it not a fact that any boots on the ground on Japanese beaches would be bloodier than anything seen up to that point in the war?

I prefer to deal within the realm of logic instead of political correctness. "there is increasing evidence to support" are just codewords used by revisionists.