Did the MBS corner the market on trade?

cthia wrote:You must not be aware of current news which I alluded to upstream. Anne Sacoolas - who is simply the wife of an American diplomat operating in England - killed a 19-yr-old teenager while she was driving on the wrong side of the road. And this isn't her first serious driving offense. She used her immunity to flee the country. President Trump refused to waive her immunity. And she's simply... the wife of said diplomat.

If she had been acting in behalf of her country, in time of war, as Honor would be. Her immunity would not be waived.

Are you sure she's "simply the wife of a diplomat?" I've seen reports that she's employed by the CIA in a more senior role than her husband.

munroburton wrote:

cthia wrote:You must not be aware of current news which I alluded to upstream. Anne Sacoolas - who is simply the wife of an American diplomat operating in England - killed a 19-yr-old teenager while she was driving on the wrong side of the road. And this isn't her first serious driving offense. She used her immunity to flee the country. President Trump refused to waive her immunity. And she's simply... the wife of said diplomat.

If she had been acting in behalf of her country, in time of war, as Honor would be. Her immunity would not be waived.

Are you sure she's "simply the wife of a diplomat?" I've seen reports that she's employed by the CIA in a more senior role than her husband.

I'm not sure. There seems to be conflicting reports. Some seem to think it is a whitewash this administration conjured up to protect her. But, it's a moot point. Diplomatic immunity is not to be abused. Say she is a CIA operative who also enjoys full immunity as her husband. Same situation as Honor if she was doing it for her country in a classified capacity. Most government's waive it when appropriate. However, there would be no question of whether Honor's situation would be frivolous or abusive. She'd be doing it for the Honor of the Queen in time of war. But alas, she'd be practical about it, you see. Just as she begins chasing down the diplomatic courier, she'd quote Mark Antony ...

"Cry 'Havoc!,' and let slip the dogs of war."

cthia wrote:Oh! I forgot your argument that unless she was wearing her Steadholder's hat / uniform, she wouldn't have immunity anyway. Remember when she was on Cerberus and changed uniforms so she would be in compliance? "Mac, I'm going to need a change of clothes." LOL

Her change of uniform had nothing to do with immunity and all to do with rank. Her Manticoran rank would have made her subordinate to Rear Admiral Harold Styles, but in her Grayson Navy persona she outranked him.

tlb wrote:

cthia wrote:Oh! I forgot your argument that unless she was wearing her Steadholder's hat / uniform, she wouldn't have immunity anyway. Remember when she was on Cerberus and changed uniforms so she would be in compliance? "Mac, I'm going to need a change of clothes." LOL

Her change of uniform had nothing to do with immunity and all to do with rank. Her Manticoran rank would have made her subordinate to Rear Admiral Harold Styles, but in her Grayson Navy persona she outranked him.

: sigh: You're often too quick with that sidearm.

Her Grayson hat is a one size fits all problem solver. On Cerberus it solved the problem of rank. In the MBS it solves the problem of diplomatic immunity.

tlb wrote:Her change of uniform had nothing to do with immunity and all to do with rank. Her Manticoran rank would have made her subordinate to Rear Admiral Harold Styles, but in her Grayson Navy persona she outranked him.

And was immediately recognisable to Adm. Parnell without saying a word!

cthia wrote:Her change of uniform had nothing to do with immunity and all to do with rank. Her Manticoran rank would have made her subordinate to Rear Admiral Harold Styles, but in her Grayson Navy persona she outranked him.

: sigh: You're often too quick with that sidearm.

Her Grayson hat is a one size fits all problem solver. On Cerberus it solved the problem of rank. In the MBS it solves the problem of diplomatic immunity.[/quote]

It's not about how she's dressing, but where and to whom she's giving orders. As only a Steadholder, she has no right to give orders to RMN and GSN personnel, so she shouldn't be in the bridge of a starship and order them to run down and catch a D.B. If she did that, it would be clearly her persona as an admiral.

On the other hand, if said D.B. is docked at one of the stations she's also aboard and she orders her Steadholder's Guard to force entry and search, one could argue the case for immunity.

tlb wrote:Her change of uniform had nothing to do with immunity and all to do with rank. Her Manticoran rank would have made her subordinate to Rear Admiral Harold Styles, but in her Grayson Navy persona she outranked him.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:And was immediately recognisable to Adm. Parnell without saying a word!

Not as I recall. His expression spoke volumes, and he was bristling within. He was just so shocked and tongue tied that he was at a loss for words to come up with a rebuttal. Which is exactly my point. There only needs to be enough veracity in a maneuver like that to lend credence to the moment. Lawyers and governments can sort it all out later. An officer simply needs to bring home the bacon at all costs. Perhaps within reason. Perhaps not. At least give your superiors something to work with on your behalf.

tlb wrote:Her change of uniform had nothing to do with immunity and all to do with rank. Her Manticoran rank would have made her subordinate to Rear Admiral Harold Styles, but in her Grayson Navy persona she outranked him.

cthia wrote:: sigh: You're often too quick with that sidearm.

Her Grayson hat is a one size fits all problem solver. On Cerberus it solved the problem of rank. In the MBS it solves the problem of diplomatic immunity.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:It's not about how she's dressing, but where and to whom she's giving orders. As only a Steadholder, she has no right to give orders to RMN and GSN personnel, so she shouldn't be in the bridge of a starship and order them to run down and catch a D.B. If she did that, it would be clearly her persona as an admiral.

I'm always shocked when people vehemently argue "rights" and the "letter of the law" during a time of war. An officer (and a nation, SL) must use all weapons at her disposal. Even the gray areas of law.

Besides, Honor wears three hats.
1) The RMN
2) The GSN
3) The Steadholder. (Although it's amusing that she didn't actually like wearing the hat that accompanied the gowns that Steadholders wore.)

Even more amusing, as a GSN admiral, she can commandeer her own ship while on the bridge.

Then she can change into her Grayson gown right there on the bridge in front of her shocked crew and give orders. (More than likely she'll just switch hats. In their rush to the bridge, officers don't always have the time to get properly dressed). She can surely split hairs to protect herself and her crew. Remember, every one of her crews are always on her RSVP list and would follow her into the jaws of Hell. Even if that hell is a court martial. Following illegal orders does not absolve the crew from a crime, no. But weighing a crime of, say, murder, against a crime of illegally seizing a DB, further weighed against the prospect of losing a war, or saving Manty lives? No brainier.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:On the other hand, if said D.B. is docked at one of the stations she's also aboard and she orders her Steadholder's Guard to force entry and search, one could argue the case for immunity.

Yep.

It's war, not the People's Court. You have to take advantage of every weapon, avenue, or loophole at your disposal.

It falls in line with someone upstream who pointed out that the US subsequently lost a lawsuit for using the patent of Mauser's rifles after the war. But it's seizure served it's purpose to help win the war.

Settle up later. But bring the bacon, and your soldiers home.

cthia wrote:

ThinksMarkedly wrote:And was immediately recognisable to Adm. Parnell without saying a word!

Not as I recall. His expression spoke volumes, and he was bristling within. He was just so shocked and tongue tied that he was at a loss for words to come up with a rebuttal. Which is exactly my point. There only needs to be enough veracity in a maneuver like that to lend credence to the moment. Lawyers and governments can sort it all out later. An officer simply needs to bring home the bacon at all costs. Perhaps within reason. Perhaps not. At least give your superiors something to work with on your behalf.

I meant how Parnell was brought to her office in Cerberus and he looked at her, thought "Admiral. Grayson uniform. A Woman? Ah, Honor Harrington." And he wouldn't have known she'd been made a full Admiral before this encounter. In fact, he wouldn't have known she'd was in the GSN in the first place. By the time Pierre launched the coup and captured him, she was still a Captain (S.G.) in the RMN and in command of HMS Nike. He was smart enough to realise the Graysons would not give the rank of admiral to anyone but her (and he had probably read her file after First and Second Yeltsin, Yu defected and Theisman came back with the story to tell).

I'm always shocked when people vehemently argue "rights" and the "letter of the law" during a time of war. An officer (and a nation, SL) must use all weapons at her disposal. Even the gray areas of law.

The "Rules of War" apply because there are forces operating that need to be considered. They are your own populace and public opinion, the enemy's reaction, and everyone else. In a proper democratic state with freedom of speech and press, the atrocities your military commits become known to the public, which may call for an end to the war and prosecution of those who committed the acts.

Those who are currently neutral in the war can decide to intervene if the military steps out of bounds. This is important if there are enough forces not engaged who could make a difference in the balance of power. Especially if one of them is massively big, like the SL considered itself to be before the war with Manticore. If two neobarbs started committing atrocities, it would come in and teach them manners. Quod vide Eridani Edict.

And finally, there's the reaction of the enemy. If you escalate, they'll escalate. If your military offers no quarter, then theirs won't to your personnel and you want yours to come home if they are captured (goes back to the first point: public opinion). A combination of the second and third points is that your actions define the actions of everyone else: if you start violating diplomatic immunity despite agreed norms, then everyone (not just your enemy) may start doing it to your diplomats.

A combination of all three is how history will judge you. Of course, it's cold comfort to the loser, as we all know history is written by the victor. But if you beat the loser to a pulp, they're likely to try and get even in a generation or two...

Besides, Honor wears three hats.
1) The RMN
2) The GSN
3) The Steadholder. (Although it's amusing that she didn't actually like wearing the hat that accompanied the gowns that Steadholders wore.)

But she really liked that white beret the RMN gave her.

It's war, not the People's Court. You have to take advantage of every weapon, avenue, or loophole at your disposal.

Actually, it is the People's Court. The Court of Public Galaxy-wide Opinion is in session.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:The "Rules of War" apply because there are forces operating that need to be considered. They are your own populace and public opinion, the enemy's reaction, and everyone else. In a proper democratic state with freedom of speech and press, the atrocities your military commits become known to the public, which may call for an end to the war and prosecution of those who committed the acts.

Those who are currently neutral in the war can decide to intervene if the military steps out of bounds. This is important if there are enough forces not engaged who could make a difference in the balance of power. Especially if one of them is massively big, like the SL considered itself to be before the war with Manticore. If two neobarbs started committing atrocities, it would come in and teach them manners. Quod vide Eridani Edict.

And finally, there's the reaction of the enemy. If you escalate, they'll escalate. If your military offers no quarter, then theirs won't to your personnel and you want yours to come home if they are captured (goes back to the first point: public opinion). A combination of the second and third points is that your actions define the actions of everyone else: if you start violating diplomatic immunity despite agreed norms, then everyone (not just your enemy) may start doing it to your diplomats.

A combination of all three is how history will judge you. Of course, it's cold comfort to the loser, as we all know history is written by the victor. But if you beat the loser to a pulp, they're likely to try and get even in a generation or two...

Yep. Imperial Germany's refusal to have their u-boats follow the international law (aka "cruiser rules") for stopping and searching enemy and neutral merchant ships was a significant factor in shifting the US into hostility to them. Oops.


And during WWII part of what kept chemical weapons from being used against forces of the major combatants is knowledge that each had their own stockpiles and would retaliate. (Also, WWI had shown that they weren't as effective as advertised; which may have helped everyone decide they weren't worth the risk). Before the war Italy used them in Ethiopia, Japan used chemical and biological weapons at times in China, and of course Germany used chemical weapons against prisoners in concentration camps. but in those cases they weren't so worried about international reaction, and their victims had no ability to retaliate in kind.

(As proof the US had chemical weapons on hand in the European theater I point you to the air raid on Bari Italy, Dec 2 1943 where German bombers hit the Liberty Ship John Harvey, which was carrying a secret stockpile of 2000 M47A1 mustard gas bombs. The attack caused an accidental release of that mustard gas)


So while nobody is going to interrupt your war to arrest and try your personnel for violations of international treaties and law, you need to recognize that in large part those treaties and laws codify norms and you want to carefully consider all likely consequences of being seen blatantly violating those norms.

cthia wrote:

ThinksMarkedly wrote:And was immediately recognisable to Adm. Parnell without saying a word!

Not as I recall. His expression spoke volumes, and he was bristling within. He was just so shocked and tongue tied that he was at a loss for words to come up with a rebuttal. Which is exactly my point. There only needs to be enough veracity in a maneuver like that to lend credence to the moment. Lawyers and governments can sort it all out later. An officer simply needs to bring home the bacon at all costs. Perhaps within reason. Perhaps not. At least give your superiors something to work with on your behalf.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:I meant how Parnell was brought to her office in Cerberus and he looked at her, thought "Admiral. Grayson uniform. A Woman? Ah, Honor Harrington." And he wouldn't have known she'd been made a full Admiral before this encounter. In fact, he wouldn't have known she'd was in the GSN in the first place. By the time Pierre launched the coup and captured him, she was still a Captain (S.G.) in the RMN and in command of HMS Nike. He was smart enough to realise the Graysons would not give the rank of admiral to anyone but her (and he had probably read her file after First and Second Yeltsin, Yu defected and Theisman came back with the story to tell).

I thought you were talking about Rear Admiral Styles. I totally forgot the name of the wholeass in question. No wonder I almost choked on your statement that he just took it lying down. But! Now that we've cleared that up. That's my point! Honor had to at least give her superiors something to work with to be able to uphold her decisions. Superior, in this case, being Parnell.

Why have I got to be the one to set the record straight here? You are all doing it again, adopting the same logical falacies in the face of war as you did in the "Beowulf the Karma Suitsya" thread. I'm gobsmacked. Again.

cthia wrote:I'm always shocked when people vehemently argue "rights" and the "letter of the law" during a time of war. An officer (and a nation, SL) must use all weapons at her disposal. Even the gray areas of law.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:The "Rules of War" apply because there are forces operating that need to be considered. They are your own populace and public opinion, the enemy's reaction, and everyone else. In a proper democratic state with freedom of speech and press, the atrocities your military commits become known to the public, which may call for an end to the war and prosecution of those who committed the acts.

Those who are currently neutral in the war can decide to intervene if the military steps out of bounds. This is important if there are enough forces not engaged who could make a difference in the balance of power. Especially if one of them is massively big, like the SL considered itself to be before the war with Manticore. If two neobarbs started committing atrocities, it would come in and teach them manners. Quod vide Eridani Edict.

And finally, there's the reaction of the enemy. If you escalate, they'll escalate. If your military offers no quarter, then theirs won't to your personnel and you want yours to come home if they are captured (goes back to the first point: public opinion). A combination of the second and third points is that your actions define the actions of everyone else: if you start violating diplomatic immunity despite agreed norms, then everyone (not just your enemy) may start doing it to your diplomats.

A combination of all three is how history will judge you. Of course, it's cold comfort to the loser, as we all know history is written by the victor. But if you beat the loser to a pulp, they're likely to try and get even in a generation or two...

I agree with you for the most part if applied to any other situation but here. You cannot go on turning the other cheek so your opponent can slap the hell out of that side too. I tried to tell Honor that during some intimate moments of pillow talk about her Doctrine. Sometimes you have to abandon the rules of war when dealing with a bunch of savages who've totally thrown the rules of war in the shredder anyway! You're talking about the act of seizing a DB (which may or may not have enjoyed diplomatic immunity) as if it would be an atrocious act of murder. In the face of an enemy who has committed atrocious acts of murder against you.

You're worrying about whether THIS enemy will capitulate and start violating your diplomatic immunity as well, if you violate theirs?

WHAAAAA? IINM, that's a moot point. This whole war was instigated because of a diplomatic incident. That bridge had already been crossed by the SLN when it fired on hapless ships with their wedges down! And you're telling me at this point in the war, in light of everything else the SLN heaped upon this already huge pile, that the RMN should worry about galactic opinion about it seizing a frickin diplomatic boat??? Really?

Well, if you still feel that way, mind you. Do read the rules of diplomatic immunity. Which reads somewhat like so ...

"A foreign diplomat may be detained IF his actions is endangering himself or those around him."

That frickin' DB was about to endanger the entire lives of the cavalry is was tasked to summon. LET ALONE lives of the host nation.

If that isn't enough, consider that the RMN was GOING to seize it anyway. Beowulf's crazy decision is the only reason it didn't! So apparently, the RMN agrees with me.

AND, AND, we don't know for certain the DB even had diplomatic immunity. Although I can't imagine the League being dumb AND incompetent enough to use one that didn't.

I'm left gasping for air here people!

cthia wrote:Besides, Honor wears three hats.
1) The RMN
2) The GSN
3) The Steadholder. (Although it's amusing that she didn't actually like wearing the hat that accompanied the gowns that Steadholders wore.)

ThinksMarkedlg wrote:But she really liked that white beret the RMN gave her.

So did her entire bridge who would have been smiling at her virtuoso change of hats. The same crew who would have backed her and followed her orders to the end.

In fact, now that I think of it. Many of you were willing to justify Beowulf's act of treason against its own founding in the name of saving lives, but you want to condemn a tame decision by comparison of seizing a diplomatic courier to save lives?

Somebody give me some of that contraband you're smoking! I know you got some. Cough it up! Go on.

cthia wrote:It's war, not the People's Court. You have to take advantage of every weapon, avenue, or loophole at your disposal.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Actually, it is the People's Court. The Court of Public Galaxy-wide Opinion is in session.

And the whole damn court room is filled with witnesses for the defendant. Even those nations formerly belonging to the claimant, who are simply to be considered as hostile witnesses.

cthia wrote:I agree with you for the most part if applied to any other situation but here. You cannot go on turning the other cheek so your opponent can slap the hell out of that side too. I tried to tell Honor that during some intimate moments of pillow talk about her Doctrine. Sometimes you have to abandon the rules of war when dealing with a bunch of savages who've totally thrown the rules of war in the shredder anyway! You're talking about the act of seizing a DB (which may or may not have enjoyed diplomatic immunity) as if it would be an atrocious act of murder. In the face of an enemy who has committed atrocious acts of murder against you.

You're worrying about whether THIS enemy will capitulate and start violating your diplomatic immunity as well, if you violate theirs?

WHAAAAA? IINM, that's a moot point. This whole war was instigated because of a diplomatic incident. That bridge had already been crossed by the SLN when it fired on hapless ships with their wedges down! And you're telling me at this point in the war, in light of everything else the SLN heaped upon this already huge pile, that the RMN should worry about galactic opinion about it seizing a frickin diplomatic boat??? Really?

Well, if you still feel that way, mind you. Do read the rules of diplomatic immunity. Which reads somewhat like so ...

"A foreign diplomatic may be detained IF his actions is endangering himself or those around him."

That frickin' DB was about to endanger the entire lives of the cavalry is was tasked to summon. LET ALONE lives of the host nation.

If that isn't enough, consider that the RMN was GOING to seize it anyway. Beowulf's crazy decision is the only reason it didn't! So apparently, the RMN agrees with me.

AND, AND, we don't know for certain the DB even had diplomatic immunity. Although I can't imagine the League being dumb AND incompetent enough to use one that didn't.

I'm left gasping for air here people!

Where do you find discussion that Manticore was kept from seizing the dispatch boat by Beowulf? As far as I know it could have been a news courier, not a diplomatic vessel. Anyway it seems to me that permitting the passage was a mutual decision, but I am not aware if that was discussed in the books one way or another. Also if they did not want to allow the transit, they could simply have refused permission because of the crisis; there was no need to seize the DB.

Byng's destruction of the destroyers was NOT a "diplomatic incident"; it was an outright act of war, if the Solarian League did not repudiate it.

Following the Deneb Accords, and so on, follows directly from the Harrington plan; which ended up tossed to the side when she took the fleet to Sol. The plan was to convince governments to split from the League and to do that the Grand Alliance needed to be better than the League.

PS. You might want to save the "Beowulf the Karma Suitsya" thread until your prediction comes true. So far Beowulf has been hurt by the Malign, not by the Solarian League.