Did Sisko ever break the Prime Directive?

Discussion in 'Deep Space Nine' started by Vulcan Logician, Jun 7, 2013.

  1. Vulcan Logician

    Vulcan Logician Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    May 31, 2013
    Location:
    In the realm of pure logic
    If so, what episode(s)? And I'm talking Prime Directive here, not Starfleet protocols or principles.
     
  2. R. Star

    R. Star Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2012
    Location:
    Shangri-La
    Responded to your same question on the Janeway thread :)

     
  3. -Brett-

    -Brett- Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2001
    I think the Prime Directive means something different every time it's mentioned. So probably.
     
  4. R. Star

    R. Star Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2012
    Location:
    Shangri-La
    Voyager even came out in one episode saying it had 47 subsections... basically I've always taken it as don't interfere with non-warp capable races... and don't interfere with anyone's internal affairs.
     
  5. C.E. Evans

    C.E. Evans Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2001
    Location:
    Ferguson, Missouri, USA
    I think sneezing counts as a Prime Directive violation in some cases. So pretty much everyone in Trek who goes to another planet has probably violated it in some way.

    I think in the basic sense of the Prime Directive (interference in the development of a pre-warp society), though, Sisko hasn't. But in the broader sense of the Prime Directive (involvement with other civilizations period), Starfleet violates the Prime Directive every time it contacts and interacts with other non-Federation races (such as the Bajorans).
     
  6. JirinPanthosa

    JirinPanthosa Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    The whole Prophet thing wasn't a violation because at the beginning he discouraged it, and he didn't do anything to encourage it until later on when Bajor was effectively an ally of the Federation.

    The Tosk thing is not a violation because it was the other culture who chose to come onto their station, not the other way around. Also you could argue it was a form of asylum.

    The whole ITPM thing was an ethical violation, arguably a justified one, but not a violation of the prime directive. The Dominion War was not an internal Romulan matter. The Romulans were already involved in the war. They involved themselves in The Die Is Cast and even showed up to defend the station once before when they thought the Dominion was invading. That situation was strictly an 'ends justify the means' question.
     
  7. R. Star

    R. Star Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2012
    Location:
    Shangri-La
    Of course sneezing is a violation of the Prime Directive. You're contaminating their ecosystem with your alien germs! :p

    To the Emissary role... yes you said it yourself he discouraged it... at first. Later he didn't and fully embraced it. That's text book interference.

    The Tosk incident wasn't a violation because he let him on the station. It was interference when Sisko underhandedly help O'brien break Tosk out so the Hunters wouldn't get him.

    ITPM was textbook internal interference. It doesn't matter that they had prior conflicts with the Dominion, they weren't a part of the war at that point, and Sisko and Garak underhandedly manipulated the Romulan political system to force the Romulan Star Empire to enter the war. Garak took it a step further but that was what Sisko was setting out to do from the teaser of that episode. If that's not internal interference, what is?
     
  8. Vulcan Logician

    Vulcan Logician Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    May 31, 2013
    Location:
    In the realm of pure logic
    Yeah, I think the broad definition of total non-interference with non-warp cultures and non-interference in internal affairs of separate cultures succinctly encapsulates the definition offered us by the cannon.
    In reply to R. Star:
    1) Don't remember Captive Pursuit off-hand, but thanks for giving me an excuse to re-watch a DS9 episode
    2) Sticky issue there. Was Gabriel Bell ever Gabriel Bell? Probably so, because Sisko would have seen himself as Mr. Bell having studied him in the Academy. So maybe there.
    3) Someone pointed out that Pale Moonlight, while certainly a deviation from Federation ethics, is not a violation of the Prime Directive.
    4) Yeah I guess, accepting the role as Emissary while still remaining affiliated with Starfleet might count. But he is the Sisko. So we have to allow him this.
     
  9. R. Star

    R. Star Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2012
    Location:
    Shangri-La
    Hey, every Starfleet captain has broken the PD at some point. Personally it makes me mad when they quote the PD as a justification to let some ecological disaster kill an entire people. Just because I'm listing violations doesn't mean I think they're not justifiable.

    1) As far as season 1 eps go, Captive Pursuit is pretty good. Interesting dilemma and culture.
    2) Bell... well technically he is interfering with Earth's past, even if he's trying to restore it. I did love the follow up in Little Green Men when Nog comments on Bell looking like Sisko and Quark going "all hew-mons look alike."
    3) ITPM is a violation undoubtedly. Justifiable? Sure. He did get approval after all. As for Worf killing Gowron... this is from Tacking Into the Wind:

    Next scene he's in Worf kills the Klingon Head of Government. :p

    4) Starfleet never did like Sisko doing this, but put up with it probably because it'd make the Bajorans mad.
     
  10. Vulcan Logician

    Vulcan Logician Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    May 31, 2013
    Location:
    In the realm of pure logic
    Worf killing Gowron (while awesome in every way) could not possibly represent a violation of the Directive. He killed Gowron as a Klingon, not a Starfleet officer. I think it is safe to say, though, that Sisko has violated the Prime Directive at least once.
     
  11. R. Star

    R. Star Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2012
    Location:
    Shangri-La
    Sisko told Worf to... do whatever it takes. Come on... what do you expect him to do? Previously both Picard -and- Sisko had reprimanded Worf for putting his Klingon culture over his behavior as a Starfleet officer... so you can't have it both ways. If Sisko can reprimand Worf for trying to kill his brother at his own request... he can't go back on that and say oh.. well do your Klingon thing now and kill Gowron. Not without being hypocritical anyways... but hey, war brings out the worst in people.
     
  12. M.A.C.O.

    M.A.C.O. Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2011
    I always hated how Sisko reacted and reprimanded Worf for his attempt to kill Kurn in that ritual suicide. Sisko: Mr. Religious Tolerance for the religiously intolerant Bajorans, has a problem with other people expressing their faith. Hypocrite. Riker was willing to kill Worf when Worf thought he would be paralyzed for life. Riker was conflicted about it but they were friends so he would honor his friend's last right.

    The Gowron thing just kind of happened and Sisko probably didn't intend for Worf to kill him. Hell had Worf embraced the role as ruler of the empire. Sisko would've really been thrown for a loop.
     
  13. R. Star

    R. Star Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2012
    Location:
    Shangri-La
    Sisko probably didn't expect it.. but he really should have. It's not like Worf didn't have this kind of thing on his track record previously. He killed Duras(which Picard reprimanded him for) when he was a candidate for leadership of the Empire. What else did he expect Worf, the Klingon's Klingon, to do with an open ended order like "do whatever it takes?" :p

    Though yeah, it would be funny to have Worf in full Chancellor's regalia walk into Sisko's office and tender his resignation. ;)
     
  14. T'Girl

    T'Girl Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Location:
    T'Girl
    The case could be made there that Sisko was "interfering" with his own culture and history, and therefor would not be considered a prime directive violation.

    If he were to have done the same thing on a non-Human planet, there it would be a violation.

    The same with Spock in Yesteryear, no violation.

    :)
     
  15. M.A.C.O.

    M.A.C.O. Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2011
    Yesteryear is a predestination paradox. Although the mechanics are shakey because NO ONE not even Kirk should've remembered him. But alas where not meant to scrutinize that episode as much as we do others.
     
  16. T'Girl

    T'Girl Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Location:
    T'Girl
    Kirk was caught in the "temperal vortex" with Spock when the other researchers accidently changed Vulcan's history, that's why Kirk remembered Spock, and no one else did.

    :)
     
  17. JirinPanthosa

    JirinPanthosa Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Interfering in a Romulan Civil War.

    The Romulans were part of the war because Sisko was absolutely correct the Dominion had plans to conquer Romulus and just didn't have any proof.

    What Sisko did was an ethical violation but no more an interference of the PD than what Picard did in Redemption.

    In Past Tense, accidentally getting Bell killed was a PD violation, but afterward taking on his historical role was not.
     
  18. Admiral_Sisko

    Admiral_Sisko Lieutenant Commander

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2006
    I don't think Sisko was a hypocrite. Bear in mind that although he was a religious figure, he was also captain of a Federation-controlled space station. Allowing Worf to carry out a suicide ritual is akin to opening Pandora's box. If Sisko allows one officer to indulge in such a violent display of his faith, where does he draw the line when someone else chooses to take a similar action? Consider what happened later that same year aboard DS9. A Bajoran vedek killed an innocent man because his family name was supposedly "unclean." Are you advocating Sisko allowing such behavior to continue unchecked?

    What I never understood about "Sons of Mogh" was why Worf didn't request a leave of absence and take Kurn away from the station before performing the ritual. If he had carried out the suicide on a neutral planet- with no ties to either the Federation or the Klingon Empire, it's likely the entire mess would have been avoided. I suppose it's possible Worf couldn't be spared, as Kira was away from the station at the episode's outset, and Commander Eddington was said to have been on shore leave in a recent episode ("Crossfire"), so his taking personal time would have been impossible.
     
  19. M.A.C.O.

    M.A.C.O. Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2011
    Eh DS9 was a Bajoran space station. As such it's prejudice for Siskoto allow Bajorans who call everyone who doesn't believe in their gods infidels, but prohibit Worf from carrying out a ritual with a family member. Also keep in mind Klingons are apart of the Federation. The Bajorans are not. Part of being in the Federation is accepting all cultures, races and customs as they are. Sisko seemed unfairly critical of Worf because the act was view as murder rather than ritual. In the same breath saying he allows cultural diversity to an extent. He seemed to forget Bajoran's racist views of Cardassians. To my knowledge he has never once tried to curtail or persuade Bajorans from thinking or acting that way against them. Hypocrite. If Sisko had walked the Picard line and made his criticism of Worf's actions purely and infringement of StarFleet protocol then I would overlook this. But Sisko didn't and got personally involved in a matter. No different than a Captain in a navy allowing orthodox Jews free reign to do whatever but marginalizing atheists because they don't adhere to the sabbath.
     
  20. Admiral_Sisko

    Admiral_Sisko Lieutenant Commander

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2006
    You're wrong. First of all, the Klingons are an independent nation state. They are not part of the United Federation of Planets. Worf was a Federation citizen and Starfleet officer because he was raised on Earth by human parents, but his people are not members of the Federation government. Get your facts straight.

    Second, there is no comparison between the Bajorans thinking negatively of non-believers and Worf's decision to assist in his brother's suicide. Worf took an action that was in violation of Starfleet regulations, regulations that he swore to obey. As a Starfleet officer, Sisko has the same obligation to follow regulations that Worf has, which is why he threatened to relieve Worf of duty after the incident.

    Sisko was not alone in his assessment of Worf's behavior. I would remind you that Picard told Worf that he was unable to follow Starfleet protocol that he should resign his commission following Worf's decision to kill Duras in honorable combat. Why? Because Worf's behavior violated Stafleet regulations, regulations that Worf swore to uphold, but violated.

    As far as the Bajorans are concerned, it's not Sisko's place to tell a group of people how to think as long as they don't take negative action based on those thoughts. Racism is deplorable, but it's not a crime to believe another person to be inferior. It is a crime to harm another person because one believes he or she is inferior. That's why Sisko didn't attempt to correct the Bajorans attitudes: he may not have agreed with them, but thoughts don't break the law: actions do. See the difference?

    Sisko isn't a hypocrite because he's able to discern the difference between the two situations: he's simply being responsible.
     

Share This Page