Mongol Trial Verdict

The Mongols were charged with the following crimes:
Genocide
Terrorism
Kidnapping

Most straightforward first: The Mongols are guilty of kidnapping. The testimony of Guillaume Boucher and Mr. and Mrs. Li were un-refuted by the defense. Both Mr. Boucher and Mrs. Li were taken from their places of residence against their wills and held against their will. Attempts to paint this as being prisoners of war fell flat, as neither was a combatant, which is a critical part of being taken prisoner in a time of war. Additionally, Berte did testify that kidnapping was a part of internal Mongol tradition during her lifetime.

The second charge is less clear, however, in the end, the court finds the Mongols not guilty of Terrorism. Though Friar John gave compelling testimony to the effect that he did not observe terroristic behavior, nor did he fear for his life while remaining among the Mongols, he did deliver a letter from Guyuk Khan to Pope Innocent IV that was clearly an attempt to instill fear in the Pope (to which he testified) and alter his behavior, which he did.  The Mongols made extensive use of psychological warfare tactics because it was part of an on-going conflict, regardless of provocation, their allowing people to live in order to minimize future conflict can't be viewed as purely terrorism, but rather can be seen as a tactic or a strategy. Witnesses for the prosecution were unable to convince the court that the Mongols were other than better strategists, who practiced a superior style of warfare with better armaments and technology. Yes they were crude, yes they were inventive, yes they verged on barbaric at times, but they weren't proven to be terrorists as the definition articulates.

The third charge is clear, and that is that the Mongols are not guilty of genocide. The prosecution was unable to successfully prove that Mongol attacks were motivated by common traits or characteristics beyond the fact that they were human beings who were not Mongols. Mongol leaders testified to leaving people alive, as did some of the witnesses for the prosecution which makes it difficult to prove that the Mongols sought to exterminate all people who shared a common trait. Lastly, the argument of residence as a common trait was unsuccessfully introduced to the court. Merely because the class shares a location does not fall under the definition of a trait, which is implicit of characteristics such as ethnicity.  For instance, to successfully point to the fact that because all of the class resides in Burlington, and thus an attempt to exterminate all of the class is genocide would necessitate proving a connection much deeper than the arguments advanced by the prosecution.  Finally, the Mongol habit of offering surrender before attack also makes genocide a difficult case to prove. If the Mongols were intent upon killing all residents of Baghdad because of their Baghdad-ian-ism, they probably wouldn't have made that offer at the outset, as that implies that Hulagu was willing to live and let live.