Is the Prime Directive a bad idea, even in concept?

[MacLeod]

Well it does appear as if there was a change in the intervening years between TOS and TNG, though we don't know why. Perhaps an attempt to save a culture went badly.

from memory in "The Paradise Syndrome" it seemed perfectly ok for the Enterprise crew to intervine to prevent a natural disaster in this case an asteriod collision. Yet in TNG's "Pen Pals" it wasn't ok.

 

[BillJ]

Well it does appear as if there was a change in the intervening years between TOS and TNG, though we don't know why. Perhaps an attempt to save a culture went badly.

from memory in "The Paradise Syndrome" it seemed perfectly ok for the Enterprise crew to intervine to prevent a natural disaster in this case an asteriod collision. Yet in TNG's "Pen Pals" it wasn't ok.

According to The Drumhead, Picard had violated the Prime Directive nine times in four years. If it was that big of deal in general Picard would've been relieved of command.

 

[MacLeod]

True, he might have technically violted the Prime Directive nine times. But how serve where those violations? Given the nature of the episode and the fact that it appeared to be a witchhunt some of those might have been minor.

I know it's not a direct analogy but if the speed limit for a road is 30mph and you do 31mph you have broken the speed limit, another road with the same speed limit of 30mph you do 60mph. One would be considered a minor voilation the other a major violation.

 

[horatio83]

Precisely, Picard's violations are minor ones. He is no Ron Tracey.
The Prime Directive is rule number one but this doesn't imply that there aren't libraries full with legal stuff just on it To use your example, nobody would claim that driving a bit too quickly should be punished but nobody would claim that the speed limit has to be increased and then extremely strictly and literally applied either. And speed measuring is fairly simple compared to the PD.

 

[BillJ]

Precisely, Picard's violations are minor ones. He is no Ron Tracey.
The Prime Directive is rule number one but this doesn't imply that there aren't libraries full with legal stuff just on it To use your example, nobody would claim that driving a bit too quickly should be punished but nobody would claim that the speed limit has to be increased and then extremely strictly and literally applied either. And speed measuring is fairly simple compared to the PD.

But you go too fast, too often and the state will eventually take your license away. Even if it was just a couple miles over everytime you were caught.

 

[horatio83]

Such minor violations are not recorded over here but then again Germany is a pretty car-crazy country.
To get back to your point, I guess that the admiralty reads the reports and decides on a discretionary basis whether a particular captain needs to be reminded of taking more care. Star Trek has after all often implied that unlike in the real world captains have a large degree of freedom with respect to flag officers.

I think severe violations deserve punishment but despite being a firm advocate of the Prime Directive I think its main purpose is to remind Starfleet captains of not going too far. Hard to imagine that the XO (again, the Admirals are far away) would relieve the captain for a mere bending of the PD.
But that's just my opinion, the old rule vs. bad conscience / exterior vs. interior punishment question is a tricky one.

 

[CoveTom]

Also, to be fair, the only evidence we have that Picard violated the prime directive nine times is Admiral Satie's statement and the fact that Picard didn't jump up and dispute it. But we know that by that point she was on a witch hunt and was out to take down Picard at any cost. So she could have very easily been manipulating the facts and counting things as violations which would not otherwise be counted.

That's not to say Picard had never violated the prime directive. In fact, we apparently witness it at least twice, once in "Justice" and again in "Pen Pals". But he may not have actually come close to nine violations.

 

[BillJ]

Also, to be fair, the only evidence we have that Picard violated the prime directive nine times is Admiral Satie's statement and the fact that Picard didn't jump up and dispute it. But we know that by that point she was on a witch hunt and was out to take down Picard at any cost. So she could have very easily been manipulating the facts and counting things as violations which would not otherwise be counted.

That's not to say Picard had never violated the prime directive. In fact, we apparently witness it at least twice, once in "Justice" and again in "Pen Pals". But he may not have actually come close to nine violations.

PICARD: My reports to Starfleet document the circumstances in each of those instances.

Seems to me Picard is saying he broke it nine times.

 

[MacLeod]

And given the fact that he was still commanding a starship, Command agreed with his actions.

 

[CoveTom]

If true -- and I think that interpretation makes sense -- then it's even more difficult to reconcile with Picard's actions in "Homeward". He broke the Prime Directive to save Saejenka and her planet, and Command apparently thought that was a reasonable situation in which to bend the rules. But then in "Homeward," he rigidly insists that the only permissible action is to let the entire population of the planet die. How can that be reconciled with the fact that Starfleet Command has approved of his intervening in similarly dire circumstances in the past?

 

[BillJ]

If true -- and I think that interpretation makes sense -- then it's even more difficult to reconcile with Picard's actions in "Homeward". He broke the Prime Directive to save Saejenka and her planet, and Command apparently thought that was a reasonable situation in which to bend the rules. But then in "Homeward," he rigidly insists that the only permissible action is to let the entire population of the planet die. How can that be reconciled with the fact that Starfleet Command has approved of his intervening in similarly dire circumstances in the past?

I'm going to go with "they quit trying" in season seven. They needed a roadblock and chose Picard, even though it really didn't mesh with what we had seen from the character before.

Things like that are why I now avoid most of the last two seasons like the plague.

 

[CoveTom]

I'm going to go with "they quit trying" in season seven. They needed a roadblock and chose Picard, even though it really didn't mesh with what we had seen from the character before.

Things like that are why I now avoid most of the last two seasons like the plague.

That does make sense. I think a better approach would have been if we'd had Admiral Somebody who was monitoring the situation rigidly insisting that Picard could not interfere due to the Prime Directive. Picard would be arguing that this situation warranted an exception, as Command had approved in the past, while the Admiral was trying to be rigid and hold firm. Then you could have Nikolai take matters into his own hands, and the story unfolds as before.

That, to me, would still create the same conflict and allow for the same story, while still allowing Picard to take the moral high road and be consistent with his character's previous actions.

 

[Galileo7]

Yes, only if the 'bad guys' know about it as in "Bread & Circuses".

 

[BillJ]

Yes, only if the 'bad guys' know about it as in "Bread & Circuses".

One of my favorite bad guys from all of Trek. I love when he insulted Merrick...

Because you're a man, I owe you that. You must die shortly, and because you are a man. Would you leave us, Merik? The thoughts of one man to another cannot possibly interest you.

 

[Galileo7]

Yes, only if the 'bad guys' know about it as in "Bread & Circuses".

One of my favorite bad guys from all of Trek. I love when he insulted Merrick...

Because you're a man, I owe you that. You must die shortly, and because you are a man. Would you leave us, Merik? The thoughts of one man to another cannot possibly interest you.

Agree, that was an awesome scene!

 

[Timo]

PICARD: My reports to Starfleet document the circumstances in each of those instances.
Seems to me Picard is saying he broke it nine times.

To the contrary, Picard seems to be saying that Satie has no leg to stand on; his reports have acquitted him of all guilt.

Satie never says Picard was judged to have broken the prime directive. She asks Picard whether he would be surprised to learn he had broken it, and then goes on to say that she was. To me, it sounds like she had "uncovered" previously "ignored" "evidence" that "revealed" Picard's "guilt" and would in the future lead to him being sentenced for these "crimes", which would surprise Picard and the rest of the world exactly because nobody besides Satie believed in these "violations" at this moment.

If the violations existed for real and were known to Starfleet, they would surprise nobody else involved but Satie personally, and only because she was a newcomer to the scene.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[BillJ]

If the violations existed for real and were known to Starfleet, they would surprise nobody else involved but Satie personally, and only because she was a newcomer to the scene.

No one was surprised when she revealed that nugget of information.

We know of two, full blown violations in Justice and Pen Pals. Code of Honor would represent a possible violation as would Devil's Due and First Contact.

Let's remember that in Trials and Tribble-ations the Department of Temporal Investigations had leveled seventeen separate violations against Kirk when we had only seen a total of five on screen. So all nine of Picard's violations may not have occurred in episodes.

 

[CoveTom]

^ To be fair, Dulmer and Lucsly said that Kirk had seventeen violations of temporal regulations, which is a very different thing from violating the prime directive.

 

[Timo]

No one was surprised when she revealed that nugget of information.

We have no reason to believe she revealed a nugget of information. She made vile insinuations, best left uncommented.

She herself immediately established that no verdict had been passed so far, by stating that she and her cabal were in the process of "looking into those reports" and expecting results unfavorable to Picard, at some future timepoint. Obviously, no such results ever came to be.

We know of two, full blown violations in Justice and Pen Pals.

No, we don't. Nobody in the Trek universe has ever said that those were violations.

Picard worried that these might be violations. But his worries may well have been baseless. We are not entitled to decide one way or another.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[BillJ]

Picard worried that these might be violations. But his worries may well have been baseless. We are not entitled to decide one way or another.

Picard used superior technology to help a convict escape a death sentence in Justice. He allowed contact with a primitive world and saved it from destruction in Pen Pals. He helped in the overthrow of a legitimate planetary ruler in Code of Honor.

If those don't pass the mustard as violations. Then there's no need to have a Prime Directive to begin with.