You didn't watch much DS9? They blew up a civilian freighter in their pilot episode that may or may not have been carrying weapons. In Ro's episode, they stole supplies from a Federation ship, and were going to attack a convoy of freighters which were apparently civilian. Though they also did attack Gul Evek's ship head on that episode. Eddington did a whole bunch of terrorist crap. Stole industrial replicators, then manufactured biogenic weapons to poison two entire Cardassian worlds. His whole cyber attacks could be considered cyberterrorism, not to mention he gunned down one of those freighters evacuating the worlds he poisoned to cover his escape. The Maquis were well intentioned and definitely sympathetic, but there's no getting around they were terrorists. Distasteful as it may be, it's really the modus operandi for any small group taking up arms against a larger one, especially as technology gets better and better.
I've watched lots of DS9, actually. But it has been a while. And there's probably room to dispute whether some of the Maquis targets were really civilian. If the freighters were carrying weapons sent by the Central Command, are they a legitimate military target, even if civilians are running the ships? I'd not put it past the Cardassians to disguise their own soldiers as civilians to ship weapons to their own colonists. It's something they'd do. What is terrorism? Is it something that only happens to civilians? If so, blowing up freighters would be, I suppose. But what if the civilians are contracting with the government? Is it a legitimate target then?
A terrorist is just a freedom fighter by another name. Whether he counts as a hero or a villain depends entirely on your point of view.
BS. There's certainly overlap between 'Terrorist' and 'Freedom fighter'. The Maquis and the Bajoran resistance fall into that overlap. Pretty hard to describe Terra Firma, The Circle or abortion clinic bombers as 'Freedom fighters'. Terrorists who fight not for freedom, but to force people to follow their own will.
Was that dude on the Enterprise D's bridge, played by Josh Clark, in TNG's Justice, meant to be Joe Carey from Voyager? It could be the same guy.
How much redemption would Tom Paris need? How much of a bad guy was he? He was captured on his first Maquis mission. Was that before or after the mission was completed? And what was the mission? Blow up a hoverbus full of Cardassian kids? Or destroy a Cardassian weapons depot? Was Tom Paris ever really a bad guy, or was he just a wannabe?
What didn't really make sense was that Paris was brought onboard for his experience with the Maquis, but said experience was just one mission or so. Most likely it was just an excuse cooked up to get an Admiral's son out of jail, not for "redemption" or "Maquis experience" or whatever.
Promotions happen you know. That's like saying Worf can't command the Defiant because he only was a Lieutenant junior grade conn officer in season one of TNG or that Picard couldn't be a captain because he's the type of person who starts bar fights in college. Wannabe or not, any court would convict someone who willingly joined a terrorist group, expecially if that someone previously caused deaths due to recklessness. Good eye. It could be the same guy.
You hit it pretty good. Terrorism in the end is just a method. A morally questionable one at best, but generally the only way a small group can effectively fight a bigger one in the technological age. Not all terrorists are freedom fighters or are even remotely interested in freedom. The Maquis and Bajorans were certainly freedom fighters, along with Damar's resistance.
Well they were treating him like the scum of the Earth in the Voyager pilot, but Starfleet is a very cliquish place.
Except that it was established that Dukat was already Prefect back when Macet was just a starship commander. Yes, he was convicted and serving time for the crime of being associated with the Maquis. There's no question he was a criminal. How bad was he, though? Was Paris on a mission to terrorize civilians, or attack legitimate military targets? Did he even accomplish his mission, or was he prevented from doing so by his capture?
Yeah. The thing is about guerrilla warfare is that the gray area is pretty difficult. It's easy to label purely civilian targets as terrorism but it's hard for people who have military targets blown up to NOT call it terrorism. In RL, we still label the military housing and Pentagon attacks as terrorism and rightly so. Because we're angry and not inclined to be forgiving to those who murdered friends and loved ones. But even if we were so forgiving, the line is nebulous. Let's say Gul Dukat is having a Klingon coffee at Quarks and a Bajoran resistance group blows it up, killing 30 people but taking out Gul Dukat and his guards. Is that terrorism? What about blowing up Cardassian settlements on Bajor? If occupation and settlement is the goal, what about making that difficult. What about a weapons factory? The United States entered WW1 for blowing up the Lusitania despite the fact that it was ferrying weapons. Everyone in the USA was outraged, however, by the attack because of the heavy civilian deaths. War, itself, is fundamentally terrorist because its predicated on forcing one side to be afraid of the other to the point of submission. Still, that doesn't mean there's not some real scumbags out there and that "everything goes" either. Morality is slippery that way. I think the writing works better for Locarno, actually. Having been expelled from Starfleet academy, he's ruined his chances of being a Captain and basically feels the Marquis is the place that he can find his own form of redemption/fame and glory. Imagine the irony that it turns out he's rotten at being a freedom fighter, too.
Something I remember was an interview once with Robert Duncan McNeill where he describes the differences between Tom Paris and Nick Locarno. He says something like Paris is really a good guy who pretended to be bad while Locarno was a bad guy who pretended to be good. Since the character in Justice was never named, it could very well be him.
Characters created for the series did become property of Paramount, yes. Therefore, they could use them again without getting the writer's permission. However, the standard Writer's Guild contract for writers who are not regular staff writers specifies that royalties are to be paid to the writer any time one of their characters is used in a subsequent episode. While Ronald D. Moore was a staff writer at the time of "The First Duty," Naren Shankar was not. So, yes, Paramount could have used the characters without getting the original writer's permission, but they would have had to pay him. That being said, I believe more has been made out of that aspect than was really the case. I think it was more a case of Locarno not being the exact character they wanted on Voyager, with the royalty issue being a contributing factor.
IIRC, Paris was rather incompetent as a Maquis and got himself captured easily. He was only in it for the bravado, after all. Any real danger and he folded up like a deck chair.
Absolutely! However, it would be impossible to make him a bridge officer, due to his demonstrated contempt of authority, expulsion from the academy, and (presumed) involvement in the Maquis (if that was supposed to be his connection to Chakotay). And in spite of a few special episodes, Star Trek generally cares little from those outside the bridge crew/command staff.
I wouldn't call Locarno an irredeemable character at all. Heck, just compare him to Picard in the First Duty. They are eerily similar, and Picard admits he was brash in his youth and made some sort of similar mistake that nearly got him kicked out. Locarno saw potential in Wesley and went out of his way to take him under his wing and accept him into Nova squardron when there were older, more experienced classmen wanting men. Whereas, Picard saw potential in Wesley and went out of his way to take him under his wing and made him an acting Ensign on the Enterprise, when there were older, more experienced officers wanting the job. When confronted with the accident and the coverup, Picard gives Wesley a stirring speech about duty and honor to convince him to do the right thing. Lacarno gives Wesley a stirring speech about loyalty to your friends and the team to convince him to stand with them. Picard was a young womanizing hotshot in his own words with no sense and without a shred of discipline, durin his youth. Locarno was a young hotshot who wanted to graduate a legend and "win" above all else. Locarno fell on his sword once the truth came out to save the rest of the team. Picard took Sito(and maybe the other girl, it's a big ship) under his wing to make sure she was given a fair chance and what she did wasn't held against her. So, there you have it. If you think Locarno is an irredeemable character, then I guess young brash Ensign Picard was too. Heck, after his screw up at the Academy that nearly got him expelled it still took him taking a Nausican knife through the chest to teach him some restraint and sense.
It's possibly worth noting that, in real life, there is seldom only ONE overriding reason behind a particular decision. There can be legal reasons, artistic reasons, personality issues, etc. As with most choices, you add up the pros and cons and go with what seems to offer the most pluses and the fewest minuses.