The UFP vs. The Romulan Star Empire

[Praeothmin]

I think in this case, we'll have to agree to disagree... :)

[KirkSkyWalker]

On what basis? Picard usurped the proper chain of command on that issue, exposing the Federation to big trouble.

[The Dude]

Yeah he did. But he was never reprimanded and IIRC we never saw any fall out of that episode at all. Clearly in universe it isn't as big a deal as folks think it is.

[Mike DiCenso]

But neither an officer nor a gentleman, obviously. That type usually is former.

That is not only an insult against The Dude, but Watchdog and any other active military or ex-military NCO around.
-Mike

[Mike DiCenso]

On what basis? Picard usurped the proper chain of command on that issue, exposing the Federation to big trouble.

As have Kirk, Sisko, and Janeway. Unilaterial decision making is a hallmark of Trek captains for better or worse. Kirk rarely suffered the consequences of his actions, Sisko plunged the Federation into war, and Janeway did some fairly questionable things while stuck in the Delta quadrant in order to get her ship back home.
-Mike

[Mike DiCenso]

Pshaw, who needs torture when you've got the Vulcan mind-probe?
I'm simply saying that it was Picard's type of wimpy politically-correct policies of soft-touch appeasement during the Clinton-years when the show originally aired, that led to the 9/11 attacks.

This is relevant, since this type of thinking was being piously preached by Berman and the writers of the series through this plot-premise; so this type of perfect-world pacifism is clearly pre-9/11 thinking.

This is irrational at best. How did Picard routinely make "wimpy politically-correct policies of soft-touch appeasement" during his time as captain? You love throwing catch-phrases around like this, but seldom back it up when asked to explain yourself. If anything, Picard was a bit of a hawk at times, as witnessed by his behavior in "The Enemy" and "The Defector" by demanding that Tomalak keep his warbird out of the NZ, even if it ment one of his crewmen on the E-D was to die, or his willingness to "charge aggressively" into the NZ himself in search of a probable Romulan invasion staging base. He pushed to get the tacyon beam net fleet into action to stop the Romulans from aiding the Duras in the Klingon civil war in "Redemption". These don't sound like the behavior you are describing of him.

Also of note, I'm not sure how you are connecting TNG to the Clinton administration which took office in January 20, 1992, and TNG ended about two years later in May of 1994. How could the Clinton years have dominated a show that for that for roughly 5 years was produced during the Reagan and Bush administrations?

All anyone here has asked of you is to explain yourself, but all you do is give this little third-grade snipes at the person who asks the question or who disagrees with you, and presents a different interpretation of the situation.
-Mike

[KirkSkyWalker]

Pshaw, who needs torture when you've got the Vulcan mind-probe?
I'm simply saying that it was Picard's type of wimpy politically-correct policies of soft-touch appeasement during the Clinton-years when the show originally aired, that led to the 9/11 attacks.

This is relevant, since this type of thinking was being piously preached by Berman and the writers of the series through this plot-premise; so this type of perfect-world pacifism is clearly pre-9/11 thinking.

This is irrational at best. How did Picard routinely make "wimpy politically-correct policies of soft-touch appeasement" during his time as captain?

Very badly.
It wasn't just Picard, it was the whole X-Generation: e.g. one-sided treaties which led to dissension in their ranks, wimpy interpretations of the Prime Directive which allowed them to let civilizations perish rather than "interfere" ("Pen Pals"), rank insubordination and mutiny etc. Picard was simply the ultimate personification of this elitist pacifism.

If you want more evidence, see "Encounter at Far Point" vs. "Q Who?"

At first, Q puts Picard on trial for being too dangerous; but after knowing Picard for just one seaon, Q realized that he was dead wrong: no, Picard not only wasn't dangerous, but he was such an arrogantly complacent and naive wimp, that even Q himself thought that Picard needed a lesson in toughness... to no avail, of course.

[KirkSkyWalker]

On what basis? Picard usurped the proper chain of command on that issue, exposing the Federation to big trouble.

As have Kirk, Sisko, and Janeway. Unilaterial decision making is a hallmark of Trek captains for better or worse.

No, captains do not have carte blanche in usurping chains-of-command; their discretion applies only to the inherent powers of their commision. If an Admiral's order violated a treaty, then a captain has the authority to verify it, if he has reason to believe it's seditious-- not to usurp the political diplomacy of the matter without authorization. However a captain cannot usurp authority simply on the basis of a treaty.

Again, TPTB were simply ignoring canon in their final season.

[Who is like God arbour]

As this has become a political debate, I have to say that I prefer officers who are willing to disobey unlawful orders to officers who are obeying all orders.

If we look into history, the worst crimes against humanity were justified with the excuse that only orders were followed.

KirkSkywalker, you noted, that » those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. «

For example, the German Federal Armed Forces have learned from the experiences of WWII. In the German Federal Armed Forces, infeasible orders as well as orders that violate human dignity or without official aims need not be executed. Orders including criminal activities that are punished with imprisonment not less than one year or heavy violation of International humanitarian law must not be executed, otherwise subordinates are guilty of their deeds, if the criminal character was obvious to them.

Starfleet has also learned from history and is teaching its officers that unlawful orders need not be executed. As was shown in the TNG episode » The Pegasus « not only Picard has opposed Admiral Pressman.

• • • • • • • • RIKER:
              I was seven months out of the Academy, my head still ringing with words like duty and honour. When they turned on him, I thought they were a bunch of self-serving, disloyal officers, so I grabbed a phaser and defended my captain. Two or three others joined us, but it was clear by then that the mutineers had most of the crew behind them. We felt a need to get off the ship. There was a running firefight all the way to the escape pod.
              
              • • • [list][...]
            • PRESSMAN:
            Now that doesn't sound like the same man who grabbed a phaser and defended his captain twelve years ago.
            
            • RIKER:
            I've had twelve years to think about it, and if I had it to do over again I would have grabbed the phaser and pointed it at you instead of them.
            
            • PRESSMAN:
            So on reflection you'd rather be a traitor than a hero.
            
            • RIKER:
            I wasn't a hero and neither were you. What you did was wrong and I was wrong to support you, but I was just too young and too stupid to realise it. You were the captain. I was the ensign. I was just following orders.
            
            • PRESSMAN:
            And if you hadn't you'd be dead right now along with all the rest of them. Dead because you listened to a bunch of mutinous cowards who were too blinded by fear to see what I was trying to do.
            
            • RIKER:
            They were brave enough to risk their lives to stop you from violating a treaty the Federation signed in good faith.
            
            • • • • [...]
            • RIKER:
            Captain, I have a suggestion. There's a piece of equipment in Admiral Pressman's quarters under guard which might get us out of here. It's a prototype for a Federation cloaking device.
            
            • PRESSMAN:
            You just ended your career, Will.
            
            • PICARD:
            That's what it's all about. A cloaking device. In the Treaty of Algeron the Federation specifically agreed not to develop cloaking technology.
            
            • PRESSMAN:
            And that treaty is the biggest mistake we ever made. It's kept us from exploiting a vital area of defence.
            
            • PICARD:
            That treaty has kept us in peace for sixty years, and as a Starfleet officer, you're supposed to uphold it.
            
            • PRESSMAN:
            Now that's enough. I'm taking command of this vessel. Mister Worf, escort the Captain to his quarters.
            
            • (Worf folds his arms)
            • RIKER:
            I don't think anyone's going to come to your defence this time.
            
            • • • • [...]
            • WORF:
            We have cleared the asteroid, Captain. The warbird is off the port bow.
            
            • RIKER:
            They're still waiting for us to make up our minds.
            
            • PICARD:
            Disengage the cloaking device, Commander.
            
            • PRESSMAN:
            You cannot do that! If the Romulans see us decloak, they'll know
            
            • PICARD:
            They'll know the truth, Admiral. Which is what everyone will know very shortly. Carry out my orders.
            
            • (Enterprise appears beside the Romulan Warbird)
            • PICARD:
            Mister Worf, send a message to the warbird. Inform them that their government will be contacted shortly about this incident.
            
            • WORF:
            Aye, sir.
            
            • PICARD:
            Admiral, I am hereby charging you with violation of the Treaty of Algeron. As Captain of the Enterprise, I'm placing you under arrest. Mister Worf?
            
            • WORF:
            Admiral, if you will come with me.
            
            • RIKER:
            Captain, I'll have to be placed under arrest as well.
            
            (Picard nods)
            
            Admiral.
            
            • PRESSMAN:
            I have a lot of friends at Starfleet Command, Captain.
            
            • (Pressman, Riker and Worf leave)
            • PICARD:
            You're going to need them.
            
            • • • • [...]
            • PICARD:
            I've spoken to Fleet Admiral Shanthi. There will be a full inquiry once we reach Starbase two four seven, and that will probably lead to a general court martial of Admiral Pressman and several others at Starfleet Intelligence. Your involvement in this affair is going to be thoroughly investigated, Will. There'll be some hard questions for you to answer.
            
            • RIKER:
            I understand.
            
            • PICARD:
            You made a mistake twelve years ago, but your service since then has earned you a great deal of respect, but this incident may cost you some of that respect.
            
            • RIKER:
            I can't help but feel I should have come forward a long time ago.
            
            PICARD: When the moment came to make a decision, you made the right one. You chose to tell the truth and face the consequences. So long as you can still do that, then you deserve to wear that uniform. And I will still be proud to have you as my First Officer.

[/list]

As it seems, Picard has acted in best faith and upholding the traditions of Starfleet. He was not the only officer who opposed Admiral Pressman. And even Riker, who has only followed orders, will have to face consequences.

And here a nice quote from the TNG episode » Redemption «:

• • • • • • • • DATA:
              Captain, I wish to submit myself for disciplinary action. I have disobeyed a direct order from a superior officer. Although the result of my actions proved positive, the ends cannot justify the means.
              
              • PICARD:
              No, they can't. However, the claim 'I was only following orders' has been used to justify too many tragedies in our history. Starfleet doesn't want officers who will blindly follow orders without analysing the situation. Your actions were appropriate for the circumstances, and I have noted that in your record.
              
              • PICARD:
              Mister Data. Nicely done.
              
              • DATA:
              Sir.

Starfleet has learned from history.

What have you learned from history?

[Mr. Oragahn]

Boy we need to do something about those

• • • • • • • • • • :)

[The Dude]

No, captains do not have carte blanche in usurping chains-of-command; their discretion applies only to the inherent powers of their commision. If an Admiral's order violated a treaty, then a captain has the authority to verify it, if he has reason to believe it's seditious-- not to usurp the political diplomacy of the matter without authorization. However a captain cannot usurp authority simply on the basis of a treaty.

Again, TPTB were simply ignoring canon in their final season.

And where was all this stated in canon? I recall Kirk having a fair amount of latitude in how he accomplished his orders, "general order 24" anyone?

And it makes perfect sense, because Starfleet wasn't modelled on the modern day military but rather the Age of Sail Royal Navy.

[Cocytus]

Pshaw, who needs torture when you've got the Vulcan mind-probe?
I'm simply saying that it was Picard's type of wimpy politically-correct policies of soft-touch appeasement during the Clinton-years when the show originally aired, that led to the 9/11 attacks.

This is relevant, since this type of thinking was being piously preached by Berman and the writers of the series through this plot-premise; so this type of perfect-world pacifism is clearly pre-9/11 thinking.

This is irrational at best. How did Picard routinely make "wimpy politically-correct policies of soft-touch appeasement" during his time as captain?

Very badly.
It wasn't just Picard, it was the whole X-Generation: e.g. one-sided treaties which led to dissension in their ranks, wimpy interpretations of the Prime Directive which allowed them to let civilizations perish rather than "interfere" ("Pen Pals"), rank insubordination and mutiny etc. Picard was simply the ultimate personification of this elitist pacifism.

If you want more evidence, see "Encounter at Far Point" vs. "Q Who?"

At first, Q puts Picard on trial for being too dangerous; but after knowing Picard for just one seaon, Q realized that he was dead wrong: no, Picard not only wasn't dangerous, but he was such an arrogantly complacent and naive wimp, that even Q himself thought that Picard needed a lesson in toughness... to no avail, of course.

Wimpy? The interpretations of the Prime Directive in both "Pen Pals" and "Homeward" are about as stringent as you can get. They are willing to uphold it to the point of letting the populations of Boraal and Sarjenka's planet perish. They were swayed in Sarjenka's case because she issued a direct plea for help, and luckily enough, she had a relatively advanced level of technology. The Boraalans were archaic, and Picard wasn't willing to move them. As far as the Federation was concerned, it was their time. As uncomfortable as that may seem, the fact that the lone Boraalan who actually became aware of what was going on during the move committed suicide anyway should send up a red flag. The entire transplantation operation was forced on Picard by Nikolai and was only barely successful. Had the holodeck simulation actually collapsed with the Boraalans still in it, it's highly likely they would have followed in Vorin's footsteps and killed themselves. So much for benevolent intervention.

Picard is upholding the Prime Directive in refusing to save the Boraalans. The distress call was issued by Starfleet's research team which, save for Nikolai's actions, would have been the only ones to be evacuated. Data's previous violation in Pen Pals was negated when Sarjenka issued a direct plea for help. In fact, the most salient example of Picard violating the Prime Driective to help an alien race comes in "Who Watches the Watchers," when Picard chooses to explain the Federation to the Mintakans, both because the damage had already been done by then and because their highly logical proto-vulcan minds could handle the revelation. And even for the mentally advanced Mintakans, knowledge of the Federation initially sparks a return to their "overseer" beliefs.

And Q initially put Picard on trial for being dangerous yes, given their (our) dangerous past, with such things as Inquisitions, religious warfare, and "putting an end to the Commies," as Q put it. I have no idea how that is supposed to support your position. And the whole point of "Q-Who" wasn't a lesson in toughness at all. It was a lesson in humility. Picard boasted in Ten-Forward that they were ready for what awaits them, and Q decided to show them just how terrible the galaxy can be, only rescuing them from the Borg when Picard admitted he was frightened and that he needed Q.

[sonofccn]

I have to agree with Kirkskywalker on this issue. Homeward bound turned my stomach when I say it. Any interpeitation of the prime directive which forces me to watch a civilization die out from natural causes beyond thier control when I could have saved them is not one made from courage or bravery. Nikolai displayed courage, putting his neck on the line for what he believed and sticking to his guns, but not Picard.

[Cocytus]

"Homeward" is not the Federation's finest hour, I grant. The Federation generally pursues a "greater good" philosophy, but it's hard to see how anything is lost by saving the Boraalans. At the same time, the Prime Directive does exist for a very good reason. Cultural contamination can be as destructive of a society as their planet losing its atmosphere.

The mission was especially risky in "Homeward" given the vast technological gulf between the races. It's generally easier for more advanced races to accept the idea of extraterrestrial life. Vorin's suicide is perfectly demonstrative of why the Prime Directive exists. In this case, however, the violation of the Prime Directive would have to be considered justified. It helps that they succeeded, of course. Had Picard returned to starbase with a pile of alien corpses on his ship he would have been court-martialed, and no defense of "I did my best" would have saved him. His trial would have been nothing but "see, this is why we have a Prime Directive."

The lesson is that if you're going to violate the Prime Directive, make damn sure you succeed in whatever it is you're violating it to do.

[Mike DiCenso]

Very badly.
It wasn't just Picard, it was the whole X-Generation: e.g. one-sided treaties which led to dissension in their ranks, wimpy interpretations of the Prime Directive which allowed them to let civilizations perish rather than "interfere" ("Pen Pals"), rank insubordination and mutiny etc. Picard was simply the ultimate personification of this elitist pacifism.

See, here is the problem, you don't acknowlege these similar problems that go all the way back to Kirk in TOS. For example, in "A Private Little War", Kirk rails against his officers because as far as they could see at the time there was no valid reason to interfere with the slaughter of his friend Tyree's people by the villagers as they cite reasons such a development, namely firearms, could happen. Yes, Kirk was bound to stand by and watch that happen, were he unable to find any evidence of interference by the Klingons. So this is not a TNG only phenomena. Kirk even upholds this fact about the Prime Directive in "The Omega Glory", where he is perfectly comfortable in letting himself as well as the Kohms be slaughtered or enslaved by the wild Yang peoples.

If you want more evidence, see "Encounter at Far Point" vs. "Q Who?"

At first, Q puts Picard on trial for being too dangerous; but after knowing Picard for just one seaon, Q realized that he was dead wrong: no, Picard not only wasn't dangerous, but he was such an arrogantly complacent and naive wimp, that even Q himself thought that Picard needed a lesson in toughness... to no avail, of course.

Q didn't realize any such thing since he'd already been bested by Picard at Farpoint, and put him into disgrace after the events of "Hide and Q" where as a result of the wager the two made about Riker succumbing to the powers given him by Q, Q was banished from the Q Continuum. Meaning that while Q did teach them a valuable lesson it seems that he also did it perhaps in a pique of revenge and because he was miffed they didn't trust him enough by that point in time to listen to take up his offer at becoming one their crew. How does Q do this? He tosses them right at one of the worst possible things , the Borg, whom as Guinian and Picard discuss later was far too early for them to have encountered. Picard's and the E-D's crew being mistrustful of Q is perfectly understandable given their prior encounters. So in turn Q threw a temper tantrum because they didn't want him around, and he did nothing before that to properly earn their trust. Picard's mistake was in that he should have been a bit more open-minded on the premise that Q might actually be telling the truth, and how dangerous Q could be if provoked.
-Mike