Picard's Worst Decision

[Aaron]

Pen Pals, when the entire situation spiralled out of control, demonstrated poor leadership, but there was no single poor decision on Picard's part.

Sure there was. He didn't immediately imprison Data and the rest of the whistleheads in the brig and charge them with disobeying a lawful command.

[Captain Seafort]

But both are criminals, aren't they?

Black/white fallacy. Burglary is a far less serious offence than mugging, rape and murder.

States absolutely do not have a duty to invade other states who have not provoked such action. Certainly they do not have a duty to do so simply in order to acquire resources for themselves.

It's simply political realism - international (or interstellar) politics is by and large a zero-sum game - for one side to gain, another has to lose. It's the Federation's duty to ensure that it's on the side that gains.

And is the line there because they resorted to it because of impatience?

Don't twist my words - they crossed the line because they decided to launch the collector before the planet was evacuated. I was pointing out the reason why they decided to do that.

Suppose that the Ba'ku had found a counter to the transporter systems and armed themselves, and demonstrated a determination to fight to the end. The minimum force option them would be the genocide that Ru'afo attempted. On board with that now?

They already had a counter, in the form of the funny rocks in the hills. The Ba'ku becoming insurgents hardly fits with their demonstrated temperament, and even if they had, they would themselves then have ceased to be civilians. They should then be given fair warning of what was about to happen, and offered transport to another world. If they fail to take the offer that's their look-out.

[Captain Seafort]

Sure there was. He didn't immediately imprison Data and the rest of the whistleheads in the brig and charge them with disobeying a lawful command.

Good point.

[Graham Kennedy]

Black/white fallacy. Burglary is a far less serious offence than mugging, rape and murder.

Nobody has suggested that it is not. But I say again, burglary is still a criminal act, is it not?

It's simply political realism - international (or interstellar) politics is by and large a zero-sum game - for one side to gain, another has to lose. It's the Federation's duty to ensure that it's on the side that gains.

And so you do in fact think that a state has a right - indeed a duty - to grab everything that is within it's power to grab.

For example, the Iraqi army in Kuwait did an awful lot of looting back in 91. What would be your view? Fair enough so long as it benefits the folks back home? Or - at risk of Godwining the thread - Hitler's famous "breathing room" policy, perhaps. All to the good if it had benefitted Germany?

And is the line there because they resorted to it because of impatience?

Don't twist my words - they crossed the line because they decided to launch the collector before the planet was evacuated. I was pointing out the reason why they decided to do that.

I'm not twisting anything, I simply asked a question. And since the answer seems to be an emphatic "yes" I don't see how it would be a twist anyway.

They already had a counter, in the form of the funny rocks in the hills. The Ba'ku becoming insurgents hardly fits with their demonstrated temperament, and even if they had, they would themselves then have ceased to be civilians. They should then be given fair warning of what was about to happen, and offered transport to another world. If they fail to take the offer that's their look-out.

I'm increasingly puzzled as to why you don't like the Cardassian invasion of Bajor.

[mwhittington]

I'm inclined to agree with Graham on this. I know I would be all kinds of pissed off if I were the B'aku. They moved into a territory no one else claimed hundreds of years ago, and claimed it for themselves, hoping to live in peace and obscurity. Then the Son'a and Feds come and try to take it away from them, and claim it for themselves. If a nation tried to do that to an island no one claimed, there were natives living on said island, I can assure you, there would be repurcussions for that nation if word of their deed got out, even if that nation was going to share the benefits of that island with other nations. How would you like it, Seafort, if you had a huge gold deposit underneath your house that you knew was there, and your government relocates you to another house in your sleep to get to your gold? I don't think you would like it very much, even though your government is now richer by billions of dollars, or euros. I know I wouldn't.

[RK_Striker_JK_5]

ALso on Graham's side, here. The Federation was in the wrong, trying to evict the B'Aku.

[Captain Seafort]

I'm inclined to agree with Graham on this. I know I would be all kinds of pissed off if I were the B'aku. They moved into a territory no one else claimed hundreds of years ago, and claimed it for themselves, hoping to live in peace and obscurity. Then the Son'a and Feds come and try to take it away from them, and claim it for themselves. If a nation tried to do that to an island no one claimed, there were natives living on said island, I can assure you, there would be repurcussions for that nation if word of their deed got out, even if that nation was going to share the benefits of that island with other nations.

I very much doubt it. The US did exactly that on various Pacific islands - rounded up the locals, shipped them off, and used the islands for nuclear tests. There was no big fuss, and that was for weapons testing, not for triggering a revolution in medical science.

How would you like it, Seafort, if you had a huge gold deposit underneath your house that you knew was there, and your government relocates you to another house in your sleep to get to your gold?

I'd be a bit miffed if they did it while I was asleep, but I doubt they would - they'd just slap a compulsory purchase order on the house and be done with it. As for the principle of "we want that land - move", I wouldn't have a problem with it - the needs of the state trump those of the individual, when the benefits gained outweigh any harm done.

[Captain Seafort]

It's simply political realism - international (or interstellar) politics is by and large a zero-sum game - for one side to gain, another has to lose. It's the Federation's duty to ensure that it's on the side that gains.

And so you do in fact think that a state has a right - indeed a duty - to grab everything that is within it's power to grab.

They have a duty to act in the best interests of their citizens. If they have an oportunity to benefit billions at the small cost of moving 600 people then absolutely they should do it.

For example, the Iraqi army in Kuwait did an awful lot of looting back in 91. What would be your view? Fair enough so long as it benefits the folks back home?

The only thing the Iraqi armystole was the country itself - the looting was due to individual Iraqi soldiers. A small distinction but an important one. Overall, the Iraqi invasion should be condemned not because of the invasion on principle, but because of it's appalling treatment of the Kuwaiti population. Given the provocation the Iraqis were subjected to prior to the invasion, I can't blame them for invading.

Or - at risk of Godwining the thread - Hitler's famous "breathing room" policy, perhaps. All to the good if it had benefitted Germany?

Again, you're ignoring the proviso I put in regarding the behaviour of the sate doing the taking - the Wermacht's behaviour in the occupied territories was even worse than the Iraqis in Kuwait. On the basic principle of "did the German government have the right to expand it's borders, if it were in Germany's national interest and the local population was treated decently" my answer would be yes. Of course, the Czechs, Poles, Soviets, etc, were well within their rights to act in their national interest by resisting said invasion.

I'm increasingly puzzled as to why you don't like the Cardassian invasion of Bajor.

Because of the Cardassian treatment of the Bajoran population. If it were a simple case of "we need those resources" then that's realpolitik for you. Barging in and proceeding to rape, torture, enslave and murder the Bajorans had nothing to do with the aim of securing Bajor's natural resources.

[Harley Filben]

Sure there was. He didn't immediately imprison Data and the rest of the whistleheads in the brig and charge them with disobeying a lawful command.

Of course he didn't. Because Data would then spill the beans about how Picard broke the Prime Directive to save the son of his sweetheart ship doctor. You can see them dancing around each other pretending to be polite but both knowing they have each other by the balls. They call nBSG gritty but it has nothing on TNG.

Or - at risk of Godwining the thread - Hitler's famous "breathing room" policy, perhaps. All to the good if it had benefitted Germany?

I don't see how the comparison with Germany is in any way valid. If Eastern Europe and Soviet Union were populated with 600 people then we would be approaching the situation from Insurrection. And I don't think that anyone would be crying over Germany not recognizing the right of those 600 people to carve up 23 million km2 just for themselves.
The thing about Insurrection is that writers kept portraying Ruafo as increasingly homicidal in order to justify Picard's position. But the core proposition of relocating 600 people that claim an entire planet they didn't evolve on so that billions could benefit is perfectly justifiable.


Speaking of Picard's decisions the one that struck me as particularly stupid was the one from "Where silence has lease". When Nagilum states that he will kill third to half of the ship's crew Picard decides to thwart his plan by...destroying the Enterprise. I literally laughed out loud when I heard him say that. After Pulaski states "Isn't that a bit like killing the patient to stop the disease" Riker responds that "It's better then doing nothing."
LOOOOOOOOOOOL!
How exactly is it better Riker? Half of crew dead vs Entire crew dead+ship destroyed.
I don't know if you could call it one of the worst decisions since in the end all ends well, if only due to Nagilum demonstrating more respect for human life than Picard, but it certainly was stupid.

[Graham Kennedy]

And so you do in fact think that a state has a right - indeed a duty - to grab everything that is within it's power to grab.

They have a duty to act in the best interests of their citizens. If they have an oportunity to benefit billions at the small cost of moving 600 people then absolutely they should do it.

All I can say is that I am seriously glad no modern civilised state acts this way.

The only thing the Iraqi armystole was the country itself - the looting was due to individual Iraqi soldiers. A small distinction but an important one.

Also an untrue one.

Or - at risk of Godwining the thread - Hitler's famous "breathing room" policy, perhaps. All to the good if it had benefitted Germany?

Again, you're ignoring the proviso I put in regarding the behaviour of the sate doing the taking - the Wermacht's behaviour in the occupied territories was even worse than the Iraqis in Kuwait. On the basic principle of "did the German government have the right to expand it's borders, if it were in Germany's national interest and the local population was treated decently" my answer would be yes.

Clearer and clearer.

Because of the Cardassian treatment of the Bajoran population. If it were a simple case of "we need those resources" then that's realpolitik for you. Barging in and proceeding to rape, torture, enslave and murder the Bajorans had nothing to do with the aim of securing Bajor's natural resources.

Sure it did. As you say, the Bajorans have the right to fight back in their interests. So of course by your standards the Cardassians have the right to try and stop them. Their chosen method was the brutalisation of the Bajoran people. Such methods can be highly effective.

If a woman knows that she will be gang raped for resisting her oppressors, for instance, she's far more likely to fall in line.

In fact it even falls within your minimum force doctrine since it's a lesser application of force than simply killing her. The Cardassians could have simply genocided the Bajoran population, but instead they chose the lesser force option of torturing and raping them into submission.

I'd think you would be all for that.

[Captain Seafort]

Again, you're conflating my opinions regarding jus ad bellum ("just war" theory) with those towards jus in bello ("justice in war", or the laws of war). While the two are to a degree linked, adopting a realist attitude to the former does not imply refutation of the latter. I find your repeated conflation of the two to be somewhat irritating.

[Graham Kennedy]

Again, you're conflating my opinions regarding jus ad bellum ("just war" theory) with those towards jus in bello ("justice in war", or the laws of war). While the two are to a degree linked, adopting a realist attitude to the former does not imply refutation of the latter. I find your repeated conflation of the two to be somewhat irritating.

Imagine my concern.

[Captain Seafort]

If you want to disagree with me, fine, it's the strawmanning I have a problem with.

[Graham Kennedy]

If you can't face following through on the implications of the principles you have stated, that's your lookout.

Yes, I disagree with you. In fact I'd go so far as to say that I find the views you've expressed here rather repulsive.

So yes, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

[Captain Seafort]

So why the strawmanning? I've repeatedly stressed the importance of jus in bello in my arguments, so if you want to disagree, disagree with the actual argument of states having the right and duty to act in the interests of their citizens rather than going off on this tangent of equating the minimum-force relocation of the Ba'ku to the mass murder that accompanied the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the Nazi invasions of most of Europe, and the Cardassian occupation of Bajor.