Code Geass (Generic discussion thread)

[Revolutionist]

Cornelia did not commit a single war crime in Area 11. The only instance I might think is where the terrorists surrender and she has Guilford execute them, BUT those guys weren't part of any official army, they were wearing civilian clothes, had stolen Sutherlands and had engaged her troops passing as Britannian forces. She had every right to execute them. The Geneva convention does not exist for Terrorists. Ever hear of Guantanamo?

The Japanese should've considered themselves lucky they didn't get the Carthage treatment.

Now THAT would've been evil.

[Rising Dragon]

Considering the altered timeline of the Code Geass world, I'm not sure the Geneva convention ever existed in the first place for them.

[morbosfist]

Lelouch makes mention of something resembling the Geneva Convention, at least in practice, in Turn 4.

Originally Posted by Revolutionist

The Geneva convention does not exist for Terrorists. Ever hear of Guantanamo?

Yeah, because that hasn't been a source of contention ever since the "War on Terror" started up. /sarcasm Also, the Geneva Convention does cover resistance fighters, so long as their actions do not fall under defined terrorism activities. Generally speaking, such attacks would be defined as deliberate attacks on civilian targets or necessary infrastructure such as food or water. The JLF, or at least the one offshoot in Stage 8, would be guilty of this. The rest? Not really.

Back on topic, killing civilians? Purposefully? War crime.

Killing surrendering combatants is a war crime, because plain-clothes or not, is it not okay to tell your soldiers not to accept surrender. Similarly, during the attack on the JLF boat, surrender is outright ignored, though in all fairness the JLF's use of surrender as a delaying tactic also counts.

Also another one Cornelia herself is not guilty of, but the military under her direction is, is execution for escape attempts. Tohdoh was to be shot for the possibility of escape (and later Kallen). Again, war crime.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by morbosfist

Yeah, because that hasn't been a source of contention ever since the "War on Terror" started up. /sarcasm Also, the Geneva Convention does cover resistance fighters, so long as their actions do not fall under defined terrorism activities. Generally speaking, such attacks would be defined as deliberate attacks on civilian targets or necessary infrastructure such as food or water. The JLF, or at least the one offshoot in Stage 8, would be guilty of this. The rest? Not really.

actually, the guys in the saitama gettho don't count according to what the Geneva convention covers

combatants (standard or militia) must
1)wear uniforms or other marks that identify them as combatants
2)must carry weapons openly
3)must belong to a chain of command and have people they answer to
4)must obey the law of conduct of war

in other words, the JLF (aside from ep 8) count, but most of the resistence groups don't

on the other hand, since cornellia is in complete violation of the laws of war in her actions against unarmed civilians (deliberate targeting of non-combatants is a war crime, and doing it on mass might count as crimes against humanity)
just because she's on the side of "the law", doesn't make her right (especially since the laws she follows are MADE by her government)
saddam was on the side of the law when he gassed the curds (because he MADE the laws)
just because YOUR laws say its ok, doesn't mean much if your laws stand in contrast to international ones

which means, that SHE and HER ARMY don't actually get covered under the Geneva convention either for the same reason that the "terrorists" don't
they fail to obey the most crucial requirement (obeying international laws of war)
for all intent an purpose, the britannian army, is one giant, well funded and armed, terrorist group

[morbosfist]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

actually, the guys in the saitama gettho don't count according to what the Geneva convention covers

combatants (standard or militia) must
1)wear uniforms or other marks that identify them as combatants
2)must carry weapons openly
3)must belong to a chain of command and have people they answer to
4)must obey the law of conduct of war

in other words, the JLF (aside from ep 8) count, but most of the resistence groups don't

Resistance groups do not have to be in uniform to be covered under the Geneva Convention. They only need to abide by the laws and customs of war. Hence, why the JLF fails and Kallen's group doesn't. Even if the JLF has a better command structure, they're guilty of war crimes themselves.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by morbosfist

Resistance groups do not have to be in uniform to be covered under the Geneva Convention. They only need to abide by the laws and customs of war. Hence, why the JLF fails and Kallen's group doesn't. Even if the JLF has a better command structure, they're guilty of war crimes themselves.

not "uniforms" but they do need to wear a distinction mark that tells EVERYONE "this guy is a combatant, and is a fair target"
the whole point is to make them DISTINCT from civilians, who are NOT a fair target
i suppose its possible to interpret that "headband" as such a thing.
but aside from that, they don't belong to an organized command structure, and don't carry weapons openly (except when in combat)
as for the "obeying laws and customs of war" thats also not quite clear (we don't know enough about either their target or method of acting
failure to do those things, however, makes one an unlawful combatant

on the other hand, we DO know how the britannian military acts like on several different cases
so, like i said, its a very big very well supplied terrorist group

[morbosfist]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

not "uniforms" but they do need to wear a distinction mark that tells EVERYONE "this guy is a combatant, and is a fair target"

Not even that is necessary. The only necessary factor is that they be armed and thus a clear target. Both groups fulfill this stipulation.

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

but aside from that, they don't belong to an organized command structure, and don't carry weapons openly (except when in combat)

Neither do most off-duty soldiers. It's the same thing.

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

as for the "obeying laws and customs of war" thats also not quite clear (we don't know enough about either their target or method of acting
failure to do those things, however, makes one an unlawful combatant

We know the JLF does take hostages once, while the Black Knights worst act on screen was the theft of poison gas, the use of which would have been a war crime. They don't fail on any other count.

[azul120]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

on the other hand, since cornellia is in complete violation of the laws of war in her actions against unarmed civilians (deliberate targeting of non-combatants is a war crime, and doing it on mass might count as crimes against humanity)
just because she's on the side of "the law", doesn't make her right (especially since the laws she follows are MADE by her government)
saddam was on the side of the law when he gassed the curds (because he MADE the laws)
just because YOUR laws say its ok, doesn't mean much if your laws stand in contrast to international ones

Exactly. Only two words are necessary to describe these types of actions: Lawful Evil.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by morbosfist

Not even that is necessary. The only necessary factor is that they be armed and thus a clear target. Both groups fulfill this stipulation.

actually, it IS necessary to make it clear that they are NOT civilians
through either uniform or other recognizable markings (weapons can be lost or discarded, the point is that its clear you're a combatant even when unarmed)
the whole point is to avoid them being mistaken for civilians (or more to the point, to avoid having civilians mistaken for them) because while civilians are forbidden from fighting, they also can't be targeted
thus, if someone isn't marked as a combatant, then what keeps him from just pretending to be a civilian until he feels like it

Neither do most off-duty soldiers. It's the same thing.

off duty officers aren't part of the chain of command

We know the JLF does take hostages once, while the Black Knights worst act on screen was the theft of poison gas, the use of which would have been a war crime. They don't fail on any other count.

we know that a "Rogue Faction" of the JLF once took hostages against the direction of the main leadership

[morbosfist]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

actually, it IS necessary to make it clear that they are NOT civilians
through either uniform or other recognizable markings
the whole point is to avoid them being mistaken for civilians (or more to the point, to avoid having civilians mistaken for them)

Allowances are made when such things are simply not feasible. For example, Article 4, section A:

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

There are more, but that's just an example. A gun is enough.

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

off duty officers aren't part of the chain of command

But can be recalled to active duty all the same. Same for resistance movements. Carrying a gun everywhere is just stupid, and they only do it when they're actually fighting.

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

we know that a "Rogue Faction" of the JLF once took hostages against the direction of the main leadership

still part of their group, and they could be held liable for it.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by morbosfist

Allowances are made when such things are simply not feasible. For example, Article 4, section A:

There are more, but that's just an example. A gun is enough.

key word in that section being "non-occupied"
this is NOT the case here, where there is very clearly an organized group
but like i said, the headband might be enough

But can be recalled to active duty all the same. Same for resistance movements. Carrying a gun everywhere is just stupid, and they only do it when they're actually fighting.

everything we're talking about is during combat
its irrelevent what they do on their time off

still part of their group, and they could be held liable for it.

on what grounds ?
the law doesn't deal with GROUPS
it deals with individuals
you cant hold someone liable for something unless they actually had part in it

[Revolutionist]

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Area 11 is an occupied territory, therefore this does not apply to the resistance.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by Revolutionist

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Area 11 is an occupied territory, therefore this does not apply to the resistance.

the headband
it might actually pass as an identifying mark as required by the laws of war (as i've already mentioned)

[morbosfist]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

key word in that section being "non-occupied"
this is NOT the case here, where there is very clearly an organized group
but like i said, the headband might be enough

The big red Knightmare would also help.

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

everything we're talking about is during combat
its irrelevent what they do on their time off

Which is my point. They're armed during combat, so that requirement is met.

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

on what grounds ?
the law doesn't deal with GROUPS
it deals with individuals
you cant hold someone liable for something unless they actually had part in it

Which has to be proven. They could be held liable if they could not demonstrate that the man was acting without/against orders.

[bladeofdarkness]

Which has to be proven. They could be held liable if they could not demonstrate that the man was acting without/against orders.

its the OTHER way around
unless its proven that they had a direct involvement in their actions, they aren't involved
just because someone belongs to a group doesn't mean they act on behalf of the group

Originally Posted by Arbitres

Still going, I see? Warmongers, I swear.

The Geneva-whatever convention doesn't apply to Code Geass Universe since the history became quite deviated at one point, resulting in KMF's and the assorted problems. Minus the sakuradite existing.

What resistance does apply to is simple: Doing what they think is right, regardless of consequence (Though they may not consider 'consequences' thoroughly enough)

its not "do what they think is right"
if they TARGET civilains then they are criminals
if they don't target them they aren't

Customs of War being done by Terrorist, but not the Military? I guess what they say is true: You can preach, but that's because you don't do it yourself.

exactly my point

Military should follow protocol more thoroughly then simply eradicating possible terrorists. 50% of the time Terrorists, 50% non-combatants/Civilians.

Even if the resistance cells used traditional warfare and customs of war, would that help them win against Britannia? No.

targeting civilians is a crime
doesn't matter who does it
if they do it, they are criminals

and targeting civilians either way wont help them win

Britannia is a rapid, feral hound named fenrir whose true goal is to bring ragnarok (An empire is reflected by the choices of it's nobility/and or Monarchy.)

I really don't care about Britannia, those that aren't guilty of racism are fine by me. But those that are racist seriously need to start thinking more open-mindedly. But.. thats my perspective, thus is the cue of someone disagreeing with me.

the irony is that even the NICE ones are part of the problem (the people living in the settlement are basically settlers, which is illegal)

On the whole, Japanese civilians have the choice of being resistance fighters, or being mistreated pets. Either is their choice of living. But also please note that this is actually fictional, so real-world applications don't usually apply here, just that fiction's logic. You can make it out however you want, but that doesn't change the actual truth of the matter.

the original argument was against the claim that "cornellia isn't doing anything wrong, and the resistence groups are terrorists"
it somewhat took a turn for the complex afterwards

[morbosfist]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

its the OTHER way around
unless its proven that they had a direct involvement in their actions, they aren't involved
just because someone belongs to a group doesn't mean they act on behalf of the group

There's still an investigation, though. It's not automatically assumed. One would hope they at least made a statement to that effect, at any rate.

[Revolutionist]

Some interesting stuff:

Spies and terrorists may be subject to civilian law or military tribunal for their acts and in practice have been subjected to torture and/or execution. The laws of war neither approve nor condemn such acts, which fall outside their scope. However, nations that have signed the UN Convention Against Torture have committed themselves not to use torture on anyone for any reason. Citizens and soldiers of nations which have not signed the Fourth Geneva Convention are also not protected by it (Article 4: "Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it".), whether they are spies or terrorists. Also, citizens and soldiers of nations which have not signed and do not abide by the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions are not protected by them.

History has shown that the laws of war are traditionally more strictly applied to those defeated, as the victorious faction are placed in the role of policing themselves.[citation needed] While it can be argued that the victors may be less strict on their own forces, it can also be argued that the signing of the treaties involved in the laws of war implies a good-faith promise to adhere to them equally.[citation needed] As with many facets of war, the aftermath and subsequent legal proceedings depend heavily on circumstance, and are different for each conflict.

Anyways, I don't think the headband would count as a distinction since pretty much anyone can have a headband. Ougi's cell sure as hell didn't qualify until after they became the black knights. Once they put on that uniform they became protected, just like the JLF.

[bladeofdarkness]

the "those defeated" doesn't mean "actions taken by resistence groups AFTER they were defeated"
its a case of "victor's justice"
it means, simply put, that history is written by the winners
hence, why nazi and japanese war criminals get an international public court
and no one cares about punishing the people who burnt Drezden to the ground or turned hiroshima and nagasaki into a parking lot

as for the headband
its not all that far from what most militia use in the absence of uniforms
the question is how they conduct themselves in battle
the marking simply has to be there to distinguish them from civilians

[darkdarkdark]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

as for the headband
its not all that far from what most militia use in the absence of uniforms
the question is how they conduct themselves in battle
the marking simply has to be there to distinguish them from civilians

Didn't the black knights wear those dark jump-suit looking things + masks? Only the original members from Ougi's group wore headbands I think, Kallen, Ougi, and the other loudmouthed guy who calls Zero "bud."

[Betteroffer]

Originally Posted by darkdarkdark

Didn't the black knights wear those dark jump-suit looking things + masks? Only the original members from Ougi's group wore headbands I think, Kallen, Ougi, and the other loudmouthed guy who calls Zero "bud."

Yes they did. The discussion is actually about the original group that just had Kallen, Ohgi, and the others, before the Black Knights were created, and whether or not the headbands they wore would qualify as a signifigant enough marker for distinguishing them from civilians to give them protection under the laws of war.

Also, the loudmouth is called Shinichiro Tamaki.