main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

Lit The Rebel Alliance is suprisingly clean

Discussion in 'Literature' started by BaronNoir, Oct 9, 2012.

  1. Charlemagne19

    Charlemagne19 Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Jul 30, 2000
    On the contrary, I think the Rebel Alliance being clean makes perfect sense. The Rebel Alliance is made of Senators who are well aware of the effect of media and political legitimacy. ALL the Rebellion has going for it is the promise of a legitimate government after it. Terrorism, bluntly, WON'T WORK against the Empire. Authoritarian regimes only benefit from it and there's no chance of the Empire negotiating to stop attacks.

    So, really, appearing as the good guys is their only winning strategy.
     
  2. GrandAdmiralJello

    GrandAdmiralJello Comms Admin ❉ Moderator Communitatis Litterarumque star 10 Staff Member Administrator

    Registered:
    Nov 28, 2000
  3. johnthejedi24

    johnthejedi24 Jedi Master star 3

    Registered:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Damn C19, long time, no see. I do wonder how the Empire and Rebellion would react to non-belligerents or recue services helping out the survivors of space-battles after they are over? I think there's a line in either "Pirates and Privateers" or "The Far-Orbit project" that states that there is an official "neutral" rescue service that helps pick up spaced pilots and crew and provides medical services for both sides. Any one interfering or attacking this group and its ships would end up being gunned down by BOTH SIDES!

    Would killing surrendering enemies in the middle of a fight be considered war-crimes? Actually I think in the real world there's a clause in the Geneva Convention that basically says that "accidents happen" in the heat of battle but afterwards any killing is a crime. Basically if you are in the middle of a fire fight and some of the enemy have surrendered/raised there hands from the group you are fighting but others are still shooting they can all still be considered as combatants?
     
  4. Charlemagne19

    Charlemagne19 Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Jul 30, 2000
    As a general rule, the Empire has always killed Rebels after extended torture from what has been implied in the EU. This isn't even them being their usual totalitarian selves. The Rebellion is an insurgency and all of it's people are technically traitors against the Empire. Certainly, no one is being held prisoner except maybe those who would be sent to work camps.

    I think in the Rebel Alliance sourcebook, it's been mentioned that Imperials were marooned on prison planets the Rebellion had until the end of the war.
     
  5. Gorefiend

    Gorefiend Chosen One star 5

    Registered:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Yep, stuck on isolated parts of low tech safe worlds with resources to take up farming and regular visits from Rebel doctors.


    A good old Space Rescue Corps, unsung heros of the space ways. These guys and girls are sort of the like the red cross of Star Wars, stuck in unarmed ships will fly out during battles and catastrophes enter damaged ships and try to rescue anyone they can, often risking their own lives in the process.


    Just like the Sector Rangers, planetary security forces or the Survey Corps they are left from the days of the Old Republic, though formally Imperial many of them follow old codes and traditions not even the Empire really wants to mess with and if they do backlash will come. Like the master stroke of them shutting down the Survey Corps and a lot of those experienced, dedicated people who know how to fly and repair ships, survive on harsh worlds and chart unknown worlds, joining the Rebels. ;)
     
  6. Charlemagne19

    Charlemagne19 Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Jul 30, 2000
    There's a practical reason for that, anyway, since after 3 months most Imperials would be considered deserters or KIA and would know there's no place in the Empire for them. If it was found out they'd surrendered, well who KNOWS what might be done to their families.

    The Rebellion, by contrast, is open for business.

    Or maybe that's me making the Rebellion more Machiavellian than I'd give it credit for.
     
  7. Gorefiend

    Gorefiend Chosen One star 5

    Registered:
    Oct 23, 2004
    I don’t think many from the prison camps would join with the Rebels, those that had Rebel sympathies would likely ask to join before being send their and the rest where properly Imperial loyalist that likely did not sway before the Death of the Emperor.
     
  8. QuentinGeorge

    QuentinGeorge Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Dec 12, 2003
    The Rebel Alliance: Clean and Articulate.
     
  9. Charlemagne19

    Charlemagne19 Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Jul 30, 2000
    Seriously, though, I do think terrorism would have been worthless against the Empire. It's a dictatorship so it's not like terrorism is going to undermine them as a whole since any terrorist activities done by the Empire justifies them expanding their military and is usually attributed to the rebels anyway.
     
  10. Jedi Ghurubai

    Jedi Ghurubai Jedi Youngling

    Registered:
    Oct 22, 2012
    Yes, usually terrorism leads to emergeny laws, which in turn leads to more power in the hands of the central authority. Whatever that might be.
     
  11. GrandAdmiralJello

    GrandAdmiralJello Comms Admin ❉ Moderator Communitatis Litterarumque star 10 Staff Member Administrator

    Registered:
    Nov 28, 2000
    There is more than one Geneva Convention -- and I don't mean just that there are multiple international conventions signed at Geneva on a multitude of subjects (there are) -- but that there are no less than four 1949 conventions along with two additional protocols.

    Citations ensue:

    Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), art. 41, 8 June 1977, 1125 U.N.T.S. 3 provides:

    1. A person who is recognized or who, in the circumstances, should be recognized to be hors de combat shall not be made the object of attack.
    2. A person is hors de combat if:
    (a) he is in the power of an adverse Party;
    (b) he clearly expresses an intention to surrender; or
    (c) he has been rendered unconscious or is otherwise incapacitated by wounds or sickness, and therefore is incapable of defending himself;
    provided that in any of these cases he abstains from any hostile act and does not attempt to escape.
    3. When persons entitled to protection as prisoners of war have fallen into the power of an adverse Party under unusual conditions of combat which prevent their evacuation as provided for in Part III, Section I, of the Third Convention, they shall be released and all feasible precautions shall be taken to ensure their safety.


    Art. 40 also provides that ordering that no quarter shall be given is prohibited.

    Now, you'll observe from the citation that the United States has not ratified AP1. It has, however, observed that several aspects of the treaty embody customary international law -- but art. 41 is not among them, though art. 40 is. See Michael Matheson, Session One: The United States Position on the Relation of Customary International Law to the 1977 Protocols Additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, 2 Am. U. J. Int'l L.& Pol' Y 419, 425. (1987). Interestingly, the United States has ratified the original four conventions, all of which contain so-called common article 3, which applies to conflicts not of an international nature. Observe:

    Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, art. 3, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3114; 75 U.N.T.S. 31:

    Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
    (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
    To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
    (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
    (b) taking of hostages;
    (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
    (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
    (2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.


    Art 5 of the fourth convention (I can provide a citation if you like) does allow for states to exercise discretion when otherwise protected persons engage in hostilities that could be prejudicial to the security of a state, but given that the object and purpose of that particular treaty is to protect civilians and their objects, I think it is inapposite.

    Consequently - I think any reference to "accidents" regarding individuals who's participation in hostilities is still unclear is a matter for either the 1907 Hague Conventions or (more likely) subject to the customary rules on necessity and proportionality. There are probably some I.M.T. or I.C.T.Y. case materials on the subject, but I've done enough work for free today :p
     
  12. Havac

    Havac Former Moderator star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Sep 29, 2005
    I mean, that's a storybook, man.
     
  13. Charlemagne19

    Charlemagne19 Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Jul 30, 2000
    I do wonder how much of the Rebel Alliance's cleanness was enforceable, though. It was primary cell based. You can't control that the way you could a military.
     
  14. Gorefiend

    Gorefiend Chosen One star 5

    Registered:
    Oct 23, 2004
    The Alliance Sourcebook mentions that Sector Forces that start to mess up in that regard get their support cut and apparently the Alliance just wait’s for the Imperials to kill them before forming a new Sector Force, whilst Privateers would be hunted down and imprisoned.
     
  15. DarthCane

    DarthCane Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    May 30, 2002
    It would be in the interests of the Alliance to disown and if possible destroy rogue cells. After all, Imperial Army Special Missions units would pose as Rebel units, attack the local populace to incite anti-Rebel sentiment, and then the Empire would move in a garrison of regulars at the request of the planetary government. Such assignments were termed Political Gain Operations, a.k.a. "straw man" missions. Having your own people playing right into the hands of that kind of strategy is something you need to nip in the bud.
     
  16. Charlemagne19

    Charlemagne19 Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Jul 30, 2000
    I recall a character from "Wanted by Cracken" who the Rebellion threw under a bus after he started blowing up star cruisers.
     
  17. DarthCane

    DarthCane Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    May 30, 2002
    http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Greldo_Farnor
     
  18. Charlemagne19

    Charlemagne19 Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Jul 30, 2000
  19. DarthCane

    DarthCane Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    May 30, 2002
    He seems to have been more of an equal-opportunity terrorist.
     
  20. Charlemagne19

    Charlemagne19 Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Jul 30, 2000
    Eh, some men just want to watch the world burn.