Remaining holes in SLN intel

tlb wrote:

cthia wrote:I really do believe the rudiments of diplomatic immunity will be found within the Deneb Accords. Thing is, whether or not the League will respect the Deneb Accords is a wildcard.

Someone else brought up the subject of the delegation's diplomatic ship. It has either been dispensed back to Manticore or it has been seized. Being a diplomatic ship, it would have been unlawful to seize. Yet, in the face of so many Solarian ships that were either destroyed, or captured and sent to the breakers, what's one diplomatic ship?

I do not think that there is anything about diplomatic immunity within the Deneb Accords, which is basically their version of the Geneva Convention on the conduct of war and treatment of POWs. That is the only reading we get of it in the places that the Accords have been discussed. So if no diplomatic immunity, then there is nothing unlawful about seizing a diplomatic ship.

Here is some of the discussion I have hound about the Deneb Accords:

Chapter 23 Mission of Honor
...
Michelle saw O'Cleary's eyes flash at the term "prisoners of war," but she didn't especially care. In point of fact, she was conceding them a status she wasn't required to under interstellar law, and O'Cleary knew it. There'd been no formal declaration of war when Crandall attacked the sovereign territory of another star nation. Technically, her actions amounted to piracy on the grand scale, and Michelle was under no legal obligation to accord her officers and crews the courtesies normally due regular POWs. The fact that she'd allowed them to surrender under the provisions of the Deneb Accords meant she'd chosen to extend that status to them, but whether or not she was legally required to continue to extend it was what the lawyers like to call "a gray area."

Chapter 18 In Enemy Hands
...
The best bet is the Deneb Accords, Tourville told himself. God knows StateSec's violated them often enough, but they're still the official basis for the treatment of captured personnel, and they explicitly charge their signatories' militaries with seeing to it that military POWs are properly treated. And the Solarian League's accepted responsibility for monitoring the treatment of both sides' prisoners in this war.
...
Chapter 20
...
"My concern with the observance of the Deneb Accords stems from my own reading of the attitude of the Solarian League's inspectors and, if you'll pardon my saying so, of the relevant political direction I have, in fact received." All of which, he reflected, was true enough, although not in the way Ransom had in mind.
"What 'relevant political direction'?" Ransom demanded suspiciously.
"Public Information's official statements have always emphasized that the PRH will treat its prisoners 'properly,' a definition which most star nations apply to actions in keeping with the provisions of the Deneb Accords. It was never specifically stated that we would act within those limitations, but that certainly appeared to be implied, and I do know that several Solarian League representatives with whom I've spoken attached that interpretation to our statements. And while I realize disinformation has a critical role to play in wartime, I've received no directives to suggest our intention in this case was to mislead. Under the circumstances, the only conclusion I felt I could draw was that I was, indeed, to consider the Accords binding upon my actions and those of my subordinates. I certainly wasn't prepared to risk conflicts with the Committee's apparent intentions by instructing my officers to adopt any other position."
"I see." Ransom leaned back in her chair, crossed her legs, and cocked her head once more. "I hadn't thought of it in those terms, Citizen Admiral," she said after a moment, in much less chilling tones. "You raise a point which the Committee clearly hasn't considered in sufficient detail. A coherent, top-down announcement will be required if we expect our commanders to know just what policy is, won't it?" She pursed her lips, then nodded slowly. "Yes, I can see that. In fact, I wonder why I hadn't seen it already? We've certainly recognized the need to clearly enunciate other policy changes. I see Secretary Saint-Just and I obviously have to sit down and thrash this one out, as well, in order to promulgate the proper directives."
"I'm sure the Committee will make the right decision, Ma'am." At least, I hope to hell Pierre and Saint-Just will overrule you, anyway! "May I make an interim suggestion to govern our actions in the meantime, however?"
"Certainly," Ransom said almost graciously.
"Thank you." Theisman carefully refrained from wiping his brow and tried to sound reasonable and confident but nonconfrontational, with no sign of the agonizing care with which he chose his words. "On a purely pragmatic level, I think it would pay us to apply the Accords to the general population of POWs without requiring—or allowing—local military commanders to make decisions to the contrary without specific directions from above." He raised a deprecating hand as she opened her mouth. "I'm not suggesting that political decisions won't have to be made in some individual cases, but I see three major advantages in relying on the Accords in most cases.
"One is that the military requires some general policy upon which to base its actions. I realize our commissioners will be available to advise us, but without such a general policy, we'll find ourselves in a position in which every system, fleet, task force, and squadron commander and his commissioner will have to set their own individual policies. I'm afraid the only possible outcome of that could be chaos. If, on the other hand, we continue to use the Accords as a primary guide, local commanders can make their decisions on that basis to ensure consistent dispositions of captured personnel. Where deviations from that policy are properly indicated, appropriate political direction can always be transmitted to the commanders in question at a later time."
He paused until Ransom nodded grudgingly. "And the other advantages?" she asked.
"The second one," Theisman said, "is the propaganda opportunities adherence to the Accords would provide—and, conversely, the dangers which might arise from an official, wholesale abandonment of them. The Accords are important to the decision-making segments of both the Alliance and the Solarian League. Without admitting that those decision-makers are the legitimate representatives of the People—" but without admitting that they aren't, either! "—we can't deny the objective reality that they are making the decisions at this moment. Among those decisions are the ones under which we're receiving clandestine support from certain elements within the League. If we denounce the Accords, those supporting the war against us will certainly attempt to portray us in the worst possible light for domestic consumption, which could have the twin effects of stiffening the Manties' wills and providing them with additional leverage with which to attempt to cut off the aid we're receiving from the League.
"If, on the other hand, we continue to abide by the Accords' stipulations, we can present ourselves as the natural allies of the people of the Star Kingdom. Remember that only about twenty percent of captured enemy personnel are officers, Citizen Secretary, and not even all of them come from the aristocracy or plutocracy. Put another way, at least eighty percent of the prisoners who profit from our observance of the Accords will come from the other classes of Manticoran society. By emphasizing that we treat our prisoners as the Accords provide, we'll reassure our natural allies among the enemy's population that we'll treat them well if they surrender . . . or come over to our side."

PS. If the Solarian League is supposed to be monitoring treatment of POWs in the war between Haven and Manticore, then what happened to all the reports from observers that should have been in place?

cthia wrote:The impetus behind my reasoning...

The Deneb Accords were the interstellar agreement concerning the law of war in the Post Diaspora era. Historians sometimes noted the similarity in spirit of the Geneva Conventions of Pre-Diaspora Earth.

And the Geneva Conventions draw out the rudiments of diplomatic immunity.

In the 19th century, the Congress of Vienna reasserted the rights of diplomats; and they have been largely respected since then, as the European model has spread throughout the world. Currently, diplomatic relations, including diplomatic immunity, are governed internationally by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which has been ratified by almost every country in the world.

In modern times, diplomatic immunity continues to provide a means, albeit imperfect, to safeguard diplomatic personnel from any animosity that might arise between nations. As one article put it: "So why do we agree to a system in which we're dependent on a foreign country's whim before we can prosecute a criminal inside our own borders? The practical answer is: because we depend on other countries to honor our own diplomats' immunity just as scrupulously as we honor theirs."

In the United States, the Diplomatic Relations Act of 1978 (22 U.S.C. § 254a et seq.) follows the principles introduced by the Vienna Conventions. The United States tends to be generous when granting diplomatic immunity to visiting diplomats, because a large number of U.S. diplomats work in host countries less protective of individual rights. If the United States were to punish a visiting diplomat without sufficient grounds, U.S. representatives in other countries could receive harsher treatment. If a person with immunity is alleged to have committed a crime or faces a civil lawsuit, the State Department asks the home country to waive immunity of the alleged offender so that the complaint can be moved to the courts. If immunity is not waived, prosecution cannot be undertaken. However, the State Department still has the right to expel the diplomat. In many such cases, the diplomat's visas are canceled, and he and his family may be barred from returning to the United States. Crimes committed by members of a diplomat's family can also result in dismissal.

The Geneva Conventions comprise four treaties, and three additional protocols, that establish the standards of international law for humanitarian treatment in war. The singular term Geneva Convention usually denotes the agreements of 1949, negotiated in the aftermath of the Second World War (1939–45), which updated the terms of the two 1929 treaties, and added two new conventions. The Geneva Conventions extensively defined the basic rights of wartime prisoners (civilians and military personnel); established protections for the wounded and sick; and established protections for the civilians in and around a war-zone. The treaties of 1949 were ratified, in whole or with reservations, by 196 countries. Moreover, the Geneva Convention also defines the rights and protections afforded to non-combatants, yet, because the Geneva Conventions are about people in war, the articles do not address warfare proper—the use of weapons of war—which is the subject of the Hague Conventions (First Hague Conference, 1899; Second Hague Conference 1907), and the bio-chemical warfare Geneva Protocol (Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gasses, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, 1925).

tlb wrote:

cthia wrote:The impetus behind my reasoning...

The Deneb Accords were the interstellar agreement concerning the law of war in the Post Diaspora era. Historians sometimes noted the similarity in spirit of the Geneva Conventions of Pre-Diaspora Earth.

And the Geneva Conventions draw out the rudiments of diplomatic immunity.

Of the two articles that you cite: the first, on the Geneva Convention, does not mention diplomatic immunity and the second concerns the conflict between diplomatic immunity and the Geneva Conventions.

This is what Wikipedia says about diplomatic immunity and the Geneva Conventions:

In the 19th century, the Congress of Vienna reasserted the rights of diplomats; and they have been largely respected since then, as the European model has spread throughout the world. Currently, diplomatic relations, including diplomatic immunity, are governed internationally by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which has been ratified by almost every country in the world.

In modern times, diplomatic immunity continues to provide a means, albeit imperfect, to safeguard diplomatic personnel from any animosity that might arise between nations. As one article put it: "So why do we agree to a system in which we're dependent on a foreign country's whim before we can prosecute a criminal inside our own borders? The practical answer is: because we depend on other countries to honor our own diplomats' immunity just as scrupulously as we honor theirs."

In the United States, the Diplomatic Relations Act of 1978 (22 U.S.C. § 254a et seq.) follows the principles introduced by the Vienna Conventions. The United States tends to be generous when granting diplomatic immunity to visiting diplomats, because a large number of U.S. diplomats work in host countries less protective of individual rights. If the United States were to punish a visiting diplomat without sufficient grounds, U.S. representatives in other countries could receive harsher treatment. If a person with immunity is alleged to have committed a crime or faces a civil lawsuit, the State Department asks the home country to waive immunity of the alleged offender so that the complaint can be moved to the courts. If immunity is not waived, prosecution cannot be undertaken. However, the State Department still has the right to expel the diplomat. In many such cases, the diplomat's visas are canceled, and he and his family may be barred from returning to the United States. Crimes committed by members of a diplomat's family can also result in dismissal.

The Geneva Conventions comprise four treaties, and three additional protocols, that establish the standards of international law for humanitarian treatment in war. The singular term Geneva Convention usually denotes the agreements of 1949, negotiated in the aftermath of the Second World War (1939–45), which updated the terms of the two 1929 treaties, and added two new conventions. The Geneva Conventions extensively defined the basic rights of wartime prisoners (civilians and military personnel); established protections for the wounded and sick; and established protections for the civilians in and around a war-zone. The treaties of 1949 were ratified, in whole or with reservations, by 196 countries. Moreover, the Geneva Convention also defines the rights and protections afforded to non-combatants, yet, because the Geneva Conventions are about people in war, the articles do not address warfare proper—the use of weapons of war—which is the subject of the Hague Conventions (First Hague Conference, 1899; Second Hague Conference 1907), and the bio-chemical warfare Geneva Protocol (Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gasses, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, 1925).

ldwechsler wrote:Again, the Deneb Accords were BASED on the Geneva Accords, which are outdated already. No mentions of what happens when one side basically eschews uniforms, etc.

So we still don't know. They PROBABLY have it since different planets do negotiate. But with one Goliath running most things it might not really exist.

Remember that bombarding civilians on a planet is naughty but the OFS does it regularly as part of "police actions."

kzt wrote:No, it’s perfectly covered. If you don’t wear uniforms or wear the opponents uniforms you are subject to be summarily executed if captured.

As diplomats by definition enter the country under safe-conduct, violating them is normally viewed as a great breach of honor, although there have been numerous cases in which diplomats have been killed. Genghis Khan and the Mongols were well known for strongly insisting on the rights of diplomats, and they would often take terrifying vengeance against any state that violated these rights. The Mongols would often raze entire cities in retaliation for the execution of their ambassadors, and invaded and destroyed the Khwarezmid Empire after their ambassadors had been mistreated.

tlb wrote:

ldwechsler wrote:Again, the Deneb Accords were BASED on the Geneva Accords, which are outdated already. No mentions of what happens when one side basically eschews uniforms, etc.

So we still don't know. They PROBABLY have it since different planets do negotiate. But with one Goliath running most things it might not really exist.

Remember that bombarding civilians on a planet is naughty but the OFS does it regularly as part of "police actions."

kzt wrote:No, it’s perfectly covered. If you don’t wear uniforms or wear the opponents uniforms you are subject to be summarily executed if captured.

If you mean that the author based the Deneb Accords on the Geneva Conventions, then I expect that you are right. But that says nothing about diplomatic immunity. Here is another quote from Wikipedia about diplomatic immunity:

As diplomats by definition enter the country under safe-conduct, violating them is normally viewed as a great breach of honor, although there have been numerous cases in which diplomats have been killed. Genghis Khan and the Mongols were well known for strongly insisting on the rights of diplomats, and they would often take terrifying vengeance against any state that violated these rights. The Mongols would often raze entire cities in retaliation for the execution of their ambassadors, and invaded and destroyed the Khwarezmid Empire after their ambassadors had been mistreated.

I expect the attitude of the Solarian League is like that of the Mongols: if they send Jenkins out as an ambassador and some foolish people on a backward planet cut his ear off, then the Battle Fleet will teach the miscreants some manners. So there is no need for an accord to formalize diplomatic immunity, you can trust the League.

ldwechsler wrote:Then officially we should simply shoot all the guys (and gals)
that try to kill us in the Middle East. Few wear uniforms.

kzt wrote:It's probably a coincidence that we both defeated the Germans in WW2 and have not faced a military threat from them since.

cthia wrote:

Eagleeye wrote:
Oh, but we know! It's in A Rising Thunder. The League didn't care about diplomatic immunity, because noone was crazy enough to go on the mat with it (until Manticore dared to question the superiority of the Almighty and Invincible Solarian League and its Navy, that was). There was simply no need for it. That's the reason the Mandarins discussed the incarceration of the Manticoran (and even the Beowulfan) ambassadors to the League.

Outside the League - that's a different kettle of fish. There it is at least custom (and I think, even codified interstellar law - but I can't give textev for that) that ambassadors and other diplomatic personal have immunity and are allowed to go home unhindered in case of crisis or open war.

That is also why they didn't see a need to have an Embaasy on other planets. Our 800# weigh-in, is our Embassy!

pappilon wrote:And the question remains. What, exactly is their value to the mandarins/SL as their world is coming apart at the edges? Yes, there should be diplomatic immunity. More to the point, Carmichale should have been recalled as soon as Filareta's attack was supposed to commence.

That he wasn't or didn't take it upon himself to leave speaks more of Manticore's desire for a diplomatic settlement than any common sense on the part of the Mandarins.