How would the Federation have treated Jem'Hadar prisoners of war?

[evilchumlee]

They no more "killed Picard off and made him an android" than they did "kill Spock off and make him a clone." It's the same Spock in a new body at the end of TSFS; it's the same Picard in a new body at the end of PIC S1.

This right here. How many times has something similar happened in Trek?

Spock died, and was replaced by Genesis Clone Spock.
Harry Kim died, and was replaced by Slightly-Alternate-Universe Harry Kim.
Jadzia Dax died, and then became Ezri Dax.
Picard died once before, but then Q pulled some shenanigan's to make him not die.
Neelix died, and then Borg nanoprobes brought him back to life.
Culber died, and then... whatever the hell happened to Culber happened and we have like, Mushroom Culber?
Shax died, and then he just like, left the afterlife and came back.
Data died. And then he didn't. And then he did. And then he didn't again.

It's really nothing new.

 

[Jayson1]

I think some of the darkness in modern Trek would go down better if at least the turned on some lights. Why can't PIcard feel angst in a brightly lit room.!

 

[fireproof78]

I think some of the darkness in modern Trek would go down better if at least the turned on some lights. Why can't PIcard feel angst in a brightly lit room.!

Costs have gone up.

 

[Oddish]

I don't even like Picard that much but it definitely goes out on a positive note.

All three seasons did this, and each in it's own way. For me, one watching was enough (for now), but I do appreciate this.

This right here. How many times has something similar happened in Trek?

Picard might call death "the ultimate boundary" in "Masks", but it's actually pretty porous in Trek.

Ironically, one of the few apparently* "dead forever" characters in Trek was Weyoun, who's nominally the easiest to bring back.

*I said "apparently". Weyoun 9 could still be a thing.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

Probably with a lot more mercy than Jem'Hadar (or anybody in the Dominion) treated Federation POWs.

 

[evilchumlee]

Probably with a lot more mercy than Jem'Hadar (or anybody in the Dominion) treated Federation POWs.

Getting back to the original question, this is a much more complicated scenario. Would the Federation treat Jem Hadar prisoners "better"?

They certainly would according to human standards. To a Jem Hadar? Being held prisoner is literally the worst possible torture you could ever inflict upon them. They could consider it infinitely more merciful to execute them immediately.

They would also never just comply with being prisoners. They will, 100% of the time, fight against their captors. They would quite literally rather die.

 

[fireproof78]

So, kind of like humans.

MAGISTRATE: We had not believed this possible. The customs and history of your race show a unique hatred of captivity. Even when it's pleasant and benevolent, you prefer death. This makes you too violent and dangerous a species for our needs.
VINA: He means that they can't use you. You're free to go back to the ship.
PIKE: And that's it? No apologies? You captured one of us, threatened all of us.

~From the Cage.

 

[kkt]

*I said "apparently". Weyoun 9 could still be a thing.

The orderly return of the remaining Founders, Jem Hadar, and Vorta to the Gamma Quadrant after the war might go better with a Weyoun in charge of the operation.

edit: not the Alpha Quadrant!

 

[Oddish]

And Jeffrey Combs has already been on "Lower Decks". If Robert Duncan Macneil can be Paris and Lacarno, Combs can be Agimus and Weyoun.

 

[at Quark's]

Ironically, one of the few apparently* "dead forever" characters in Trek was Weyoun, who's nominally the easiest to bring back.

*I said "apparently". Weyoun 9 could still be a thing.

He was kind of the Kenny of DS9, wasn't he. I guess it's no coincidence that Weyoun was so interested in life extending treatments in In the Cards

 

[Sci]

100% of the time,

Sigh. How many times did DS9 have to show us Jem'Hadar and Vorta who did not do the thing they were supposed to do before we accept that dissent exists within the Dominion in spite of the Founders' efforts?

 

[Lynx]

He was kind of the Kenny of DS9, wasn't he. I guess it's no coincidence that Weyoun was so interested in life extending treatments in In the Cards

Yes, Weyoun is still available!
One of my favorite villains.

Bring back Gowron too! That's easy, I have already done it for my own writing.

The "Gowron" who Worf killed was a Cardassian agent who had altered his appearance. As being transformed to Gowron, he could sabotage the Klingon-Federation alliance.

The real Gowron managed to escape from a prison on Cardassia Prime at the end of the war when the Dominion let the Jem' Hadar destroy cardassia Prime.

He is now re-installed as the Chancellor of the Klingon Empire!

 

[Oddish]

He was kind of the Kenny of DS9, wasn't he?

Or similar to Gary Oak in my days of the Pokémon fandom (back in the 20th century). Every story had him die or get otherwise abused.

Technically, though, Weyoun only died five times, one of them offscreen. Indeed, my head canon is that Weyoun 5 faked his transporter accident, made his way to the Delta Quadrant, changed his name, got some cosmetic surgery, grew an epic 'stache, and started a new life as a blood sport fight coordinator.

 

[evilchumlee]

Sigh. How many times did DS9 have to show us Jem'Hadar and Vorta who did not do the thing they were supposed to do before we accept that dissent exists within the Dominion in spite of the Founders' efforts?

Dissent exists, absolutely.

However, Jem' Hadar and Vorta are very different while sharing the commonality of religious reverence of the Founders.

Vorta will betray their soldiers, but it is always in the interests of saving themselves, which in turn they view as serving the Founders, as Vorta see themselves as more valuable than Jem' Hadar. Vorta have a stronger sense of self preservation that can potentially override their programming and accept a non-ideal situation in order to remain alive.

Jem' Hadar will betray their Vorta, who they tend to not particularly like in the first place. I can't think of a single time where a Jem' Hadar was shown to betray the Founders, or accept becoming a prisoner.

Both Vorta and Jem' Hadar can be willing to do not do exactly as they are supposed to do... but only to an extent.

So, kind of like humans.

Meh, that's a very specific scenario. The Talosians weren't just incarcerating people for punishment/rehab. They were putting them on display/using them for their own means.

Being a human myself and living among humans, I can tell you that a vast majority of incarcerated humans would prefer being incarcerated over death... there is a reason why it generally takes a long time (in the US) for an execution to take place, as the prisoner will almost always fight the exeuction through appeals for as long as possible.

A Jem Hadar, on the other hand, would ASK for death.

 

[Oddish]

A Jem Hadar, on the other hand, would ASK for death.

Indeed. And, they would have to be put in solitary confinement. We see in "To the Death" that a Jem'Hadar can kill another without requiring a weapon. If you locked up a group of them, you would soon have only one left.

 

[evilchumlee]

Indeed. And, they would have to be put in solitary confinement. We see in "To the Death" that a Jem'Hadar can kill another without requiring a weapon. If you locked up a group of them, you would soon have only one left.

More than likely, yes.

Which begs back to my original question, is that ethical? Solitary confinement is questionable to humans... it's tantamount to literal torture to a Jem Hadar.

 

[Tuskin38]

I never learned how to do that. My two biggest posting issues is I never learned how to multi-quote and also for some reason I can never do links right except from Youtube. Memes either.

You click on this for all the posts you want to respond to (it persists through pages, so you don't need to do it per page)

You can also highlight (at least on desktop browsers) specific text in posts you want to quote

Then in the reply box click on the Insert Quotes button

It will show you all the posts you have quoted and you can choose to insert them, or delete quotes you no longer need.

 

[Oddish]

Which begs back to my original question, is that ethical? Solitary confinement is questionable to humans... it's tantamount to literal torture to a Jem Hadar.

It brings up the greater question of ethics of dying. For instance, Dr. Crusher held to the notion that a patient who wanted to die due to his culture could not be permitted to. Phlox held to the notion that the patient had that choice. And while I don't think the EMH had to face that dilemma, it can be assumed that he would have been fine with splitting Tuvix if Tuvix had consented. I know that a Starfleet warden would not be allowed to execute prisoners, but would they be obligated/allowed to keep them alive against their will?

 

[evilchumlee]

It brings up the greater question of ethics of dying. For instance, Dr. Crusher held to the notion that a patient who wanted to die due to his culture could not be permitted to. Phlox held to the notion that the patient had that choice. And while I don't think the EMH had to face that dilemma, it can be assumed that he would have been fine with splitting Tuvix if Tuvix had consented. I know that a Starfleet warden would not be allowed to execute prisoners, but would they be obligated/allowed to keep them alive against their will?

Such is the question. The Federation is wishy washy on cultural relativism. Sometimes, they are supposed to honor the demands of other cultures, something they are not. They are willing to let entire civilizations die due to the Prime Directive, but aren't necessarily willing to allow someone to ritualistically commit suicide.

An earlier comment suggested the Federation would treat Dominion prisoners of war better than the Dominion would treat theirs. From our perspective... yes, that's probably true. From their perspective, it's unthinkable torture.

I'll extend out the question here to Klingons, where it becomes even more complicated. Is it ethical to capture a Klingon as a prisoner? The Klingon would rather die, and the ramifications of his capture reverberate beyond the individual. By not executing the soldier, you are not only depriving the Klingon of his religious rights and, to him, condemning his soul to literal Hell, you are also condemning generations of his family to dishonor... completely innocent people who will suffer due to our "humane" treatment of prisoners.

Is it right to impose our values on these people, or would the true humane situation be to abide by their culture?

I have to say though that in the case of the Jem Hadar, there were likely very few prisoners taken just by the sheer fact that they will not surrender. They will continue to fight. They may be overpowered to the point where any fight is futile, but that won't stop them. They won't just go willingly, they will have to be incapacitated and taken forcibly.

 

[Farscape One]

Such is the question. The Federation is wishy washy on cultural relativism. Sometimes, they are supposed to honor the demands of other cultures, something they are not. They are willing to let entire civilizations die due to the Prime Directive, but aren't necessarily willing to allow someone to ritualistically commit suicide.

An earlier comment suggested the Federation would treat Dominion prisoners of war better than the Dominion would treat theirs. From our perspective... yes, that's probably true. From their perspective, it's unthinkable torture.

I'll extend out the question here to Klingons, where it becomes even more complicated. Is it ethical to capture a Klingon as a prisoner? The Klingon would rather die, and the ramifications of his capture reverberate beyond the individual. By not executing the soldier, you are not only depriving the Klingon of his religious rights and, to him, condemning his soul to literal Hell, you are also condemning generations of his family to dishonor... completely innocent people who will suffer due to our "humane" treatment of prisoners.

Is it right to impose our values on these people, or would the true humane situation be to abide by their culture?

I have to say though that in the case of the Jem Hadar, there were likely very few prisoners taken just by the sheer fact that they will not surrender. They will continue to fight. They may be overpowered to the point where any fight is futile, but that won't stop them. They won't just go willingly, they will have to be incapacitated and taken forcibly.

To be fair, the Klingon example is riddled with contradictions. In TNG's "Birthright, Part I", Worf said capture would mean dishonor for several generations. But a few years later, in DS9's "IN PURGATORY'S SHADOW", Garak asked 'aren't you Klingons supposed to kill yourselves when captured', and Worf responded with, "Not when there are still enemies to fight." And Martok chimed in with, "Or hope of escape."

So there are definite allowances and exceptions with Klingons, otherwise Martok would have been massively dishonored when he returned from 2 years of Dominion imprisonment, and certainly couldn't have stayed a General. (And the audience would have been robbed of an outstanding character.)

As for the Jem'Hadar, there probably were shockingly few P.O.W.s... in fact, we only know of the gassed ones from the Defiant in "ONE LITTLE SHIP". (Though Sisko did say a 'camp', which implies others were captured. How many was never stated.) A vast majority were probably like Remata'klan in "ROCKS AND SHOALS"... "It was never my life to give up."


Side note: speaking of "ONE LITTLE SHIP", my favorite aspect of it was something that should have been seen again... the differing philosophies and tactics between the Gamma and Alpha Jem'Hadar. To extend the question of the thread, it was Alpha Jem'Hadar that were captured in "ONE LITTLE SHIP". Would the two types react much differently than the other to capture?