BSG Blogging: Cylons and Justice in War
By Re-reading Michael Walzer has got me to thinking about Cylons and justice in war. Simply put, what methods of combatting the Cylons are impermissible under a common understanding of justice in war? I should add that, while this formulation applies specifically to organized conflict against the Cylon, a serious discussion of the applicability of the rules of warfare is necessary to any preparation for the inevitable robot revolution. Minimal Spoilers Ahead.
Is it war?
Is conflict with the Cylon properly termed a war? Fighting a disease, or a horde of locusts, or even an army of non-sentient machines does not necessarily rise to the level of war, which is conventionally defined as armed conflict between two organized groups with political purpose. If the Cylons have no political purpose and no capacity for reason, then the conflict is not a war, and no rules of war can apply. The Cylon, however, exhibit every characteristic of sentient beings capable of moral reasoning, and none of a virus or natural disaster. Individually and as a group the Cylons can feel pain, anger, rage, disappointment, humiliation, and embarassment. The Cylon also have a concept of right and wrong.
Given this, a common conception of justice seems possible. Indeed, while Cylon morality is different from human, it is not completely alien, and seems to share some roots. Cylon religion is related to human religion, and the Cylon patterned themselves on human beings. Consequently, war between human and Cylon is a social phenonomenon, potentially governed by convention. All of the reasons that two groups of human combatants might have for regulating and evaluating morality in warfare exist between the Cylon and the Colonies. Thinking of the Cylons as moral beings also enables condemnation of their actions. Cancer, for example, does not commit atrocities. Cylons do, but pointing out their atrocities creates a responsibility on the part of the Colonials to avoid such atrocity themselves.
Does the combatant/non-combatant distinction apply?
Many of the rules of war are dependent upon the combatant/non-combatant distinction. It is impermissible to directly target civilians as part of a military operation. The doctrine of double effect and the priniciple of proportionality help govern the circumstances under which civilians can be harmed in pursuance of a separate military objective. If, however, there is no distinction between civilians and combatants, none of these rules apply. Although we know that Cylon society is pluralistic (although not quite in the same way that human society is pluralistic), there is no indication that any militarily meaningful division of labor exists among the Cylons. Although some Cylon models (raiders, centurions, hybrids) appear designed specifically for combat operations, all of the models appear capable of engaging in combat in addition to whatever other duties they may have. As far as we know, there are no Cylon civilians. Thus, any Cylon is a legitimate target for military action, with the possible exception of prisoners and the wounded.
What of the treatment of prisoners and wounded?
When a soldier surrenders, he or she becomes a non-combatant, gaining some rights and surrendering others. As a non-combatant, the prisoner can be confined but not attacked. The same applies to wounded unable to defend themselves. As individual Cylons have surrendered, the rules regulating their treatment would seem to be the same as the conventions relating to any other prisoner of war. However, while prisoners of war gain some rights, they do not receive immunity from criminal prosecution. As the Cylon system of governance seems to rely on consensus instead of hierarchy, and since the Cylon conception of the individual remains dramatically different than that of the human, it’s relevant to consider whether ALL Cylon are responsible for war crimes. From the evidence available to us, the decision to destroy the Colonies was not made by a small cabal of leaders, or even by pluralistic voting as we would understand it. Rather, the Cylon arrived at consensus as to end and means, then carried out the attack. As such, it seems to me plausible to argue that every Cylon prisoner should be treated as a war criminal, and thus made subject to prosecution and punishment.
What of conventions regarding tactics and weapons? Are the Colonies in a situation of Supreme Emergency, and thus unfettered by any just war restrictions?
Most conventions banning the use of certain weapons and tactics (mines, chemical weapons, and torture, to provide a few examples) do not depend on reciprocity. Use of chemical weapons is understood to be simply wrong, and doesn’t become less wrong if the other side uses them first. However, the restriction on weapon types depends upon convention, and some sort of explicit narrative for how the weapon is immoral. We don’t have enough context to understand which weapons are allowable and which are not, although it seems that there are some restrictions on the use of biological weapons. Nuclear weapons, on the other hand, appear to be useable on order of the battlefield commander, which suggests a more liberal set of restrictions.
The situation of the Colonies certainly approaches Supreme Emergency. The Cylons have annihilated the bulk of humanity and have expressed a desire to annihilate the rest. The Cylon represent a genuinely existential threat that goes beyond the defense of a province or “way of life.” This would seem to free the Colonial Fleet from the need to adhere to some of the jus in bello restrictions. Even if justified, however, declaration of supreme emergency does not amount to writing a blank check. Effective means of resistance are allowed if they are the only way to resist immediate, existential danger. If alternative, just means of resistance are available, or if the unjust means are unlikely to have an effect, then the rules still apply. The murder of prisoners, for example, is unlikely to have any noticeable effect on the Cylon war machine, and therefore could not be justified. Torture for reprisal would also be impermissible. However, torture of prisoners for information might be justifiable. Colonial knowledge about Cylon society, culture, warmaking capacity, and order of battle is so slight that virtually any interrogation could reveal useful information. The same rules would apply to human collaborators. The caveat is that some expectation of success would be necessary; if torture cannot provide useful intelligence (and opinions differ on this question), then it would be impermissible.
How has the show treated these concepts?
The rules of war have structured some Colonial action. Colonial activity has probably been most questionable in the area of prisoners. The Colonial government commonly disposes of Cylon prisoners through summary execution. This is emotionally satisfying but tactically questionable, as most of the Cylons thus disposed simply resurrect. The Colonial government also engaged in the summary execution of human collaborators for a time, although that process was later halted. One collaborator has been tortured prior to trial, although both means and intent might well be justified under the supreme emergency exception. On Pegasus, a prisoner was tortured well beyond any possible justification. Galactica has used nuclear weapons on one occasion and threatened use on another, both at the behest of the military commander. I suspect that, since nuclear weapons appear to be commonly used in capital ship combat, that their tactical use is not subject to civilian approval. The Colonial government also attempted to use a biological weapon to destroy the Cylon, a tactic which, again, could probably be justified under supreme emergency. Notably, most divergence from the laws of war has come at the behest of civilian rather than military authority.
The Cylon have had observed virtually no constraints on their warmaking capacity. The initial attack involved a direct nuclear assault on Colonial civilians. The Cylon occupation authority on New Caprica ordered the imprisonment and summary execution of undesirables without any obvious procedure. The Cylons have also pursued rape on an industrial scale as a matter of policy.
Conclusions
The Cylon decision to moderate their political goals (from complete annihilation of humanity to its mere domination) suggests hope that they might, at some point, moderate their warmaking behavior. However, as long as the Cylons continue to seek Earth and to pursue genocidal goals, supreme emergency would seem to hold on the Colonial side. It’s important to remember, however, that this ought not be considered a blank check for the Colonials to do whatever they wish. Under no circumstance, for example, can the treatment of Pegasus Six be justified.