A police state in Star Trek? What did I miss?Star Trek '09 implied a police state
A police state in Star Trek? What did I miss?Star Trek '09 implied a police state
I find that very unlikely.Why is everyone trying to write convoluted stories? the writers are no better than 10 year olds so I'm willing to bet the first thing that comes into my head is closer to the truth than anything that requires a day or two's planning.
The Prime Directive says it's perfectly okay for the Emperor to have done that.The Emperor held a Federation citizen (albeit a Starfleet prisoner on a work-release program, but a citizen nonetheless) against her will and threatened her with execution while denying access to diplomatic counsel (albeit they don't have foreign relations). That might not be a crime enough to violate sovereign immunity, but the Emperor believes she has been deposed, so legal action could be actionable at this point.
Now, yes, she has likely committed war crimes. But the Terran Empire is not a signatory to the 2155 Geneva Convention, neither are any of the entities she committed crimes against (barring Burnham as a Federation citizen). The murders of her lords that Burnham witnessed is probably acceptable, as she held jurisdiction over the Imperial Justice system and summary judgment is probably allowed. At the very least, it is an issue for the Empire to decide.
Burnham may have committed an act of kidnapping (another crime on the rap sheet), but more likely it was an act of rescue as she would've died on the Charon. After determining whether they have any recourse to hold her or try her (they probably don't), the Discovery or Starfleet ought to research returning her to the proper authorities in the other universe. They may have to delay this due to wartime concerns.
But if they can't return the Emperor, then they may have to pull a Picard in The Survivors ("We are not qualified to be your judges. You are free to go.").
The Prime Directive says it's perfectly okay for the Emperor to have done that.
Remember the TNG episode when Wesley was almost executed.
Star Trek '09 implied a police state
Exactly, Mudd should have been arrested for piracy, hijacking, multiple murders but since the timeline was fixed send him home to his wife instead..
Sounds like the federation needs a place were humans and aliens can come together to work out their differences peacefully. It would be a port of call a home away from home for diplomants, hustlers, and wanderers and the last best hope for peace.
She had the opportunity and the motive, which wasn't the case with others. I think it's pretty clear she would have done the same had the fight gone differently and Lorca were the one to survive - she refused to kill him and would have tried to take him alive to answer for his crimes.
Obviously it was partly selfish - she wanted to save the image of the mentor she previously failed - but I don't think Starfleet would criticise the act itself.
Although I wouldn't say anything so crude, part of that has actually been quite true. The first thing that pops into my head usually turns out to be what happens. Or even if it popped into someone else's head. The simplest predictions are usually the most accurate.Georgiou will be used abused and disposed of (though she will probably necessitate execution by trying to double cross Burnham who's an idiot).
Why is everyone trying to write convoluted stories? the writers are no better than 10 year olds so I'm willing to bet the first thing that comes into my head is closer to the truth than anything that requires a day or two's planning.
Huh? We've spread out across the galaxy, overcrowding should be a thing of the past.Earth is probably too full to grant her a house.
Double huh? When did it imply that?given that Star Trek '09 implied a police state capable of maintaining a watchful presence
Huh? We've spread out across the galaxy, overcrowding should be a thing of the past.
Double huh? When did it imply that?
Why do people keep saying this sort of thing about Jason Isaacs, as if Star Trek isn't good enough for him or something? I mean, he's certainly a talented and charismatic actor, and (glancing at his IMDB page), he's a reasonably busy one... but it's not as if he's busy with A-list roles. He does voice work, he does TV series, he does supporting roles in assorted second-tier movies... he's not doing high-profile tentpoles or prestigious Oscar fodder. Why would he not want a lead role in an ongoing big-budget TV series, if it were offered?
As someone who worked in the acting industry a few decades ago, I will try to offer a perspective on this. Films have always held more prestige than TV shows. It's just the way it is. It pays way better for one thing. Then there's the shorter time commitment and/or less long term relocation requirements. Then there are the shorter hours per day in general. Then there are the opportunities to play a wider variety of characters to satisfy that artistic urge, rather than be locked down into one role for years on end. Yes, a steady pay check is a fantastic boon for an actor, but if you're as well-known and in demand as Isaacs is, then a one season contract makes a lot of sense. Sure he's not Brad Pitt tier, but there are many reasons why actors choose earning more money and fame while working far less actual hours, over a grueling TV schedule.
Isaacs himself has said that he would only sign on for a one year contract. That was his choice and he had enough star power to make that demand. Hopefully he enjoyed being on the show and will be open to coming back as a recurring character in the future.
I have a theory in my head that someone is going to say "the Burnham who betrayed Georgiou on the Shenzou was from the Mirror Universe!" Then Burnham would be a commander again.
I can't imagine Burnham going along with that - but then again the whole 'all is forgiven' tack won't hold much credibility either. (They did it with Kirk at the end of ST:4.)
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.