Beltran: Being Vocal About Chakotay

[Violet.Phoenix]

Agreed on the C/7 front; that relationship makes about as much sense as a shark growing wings and flying to Europa.

In terms of chemistry, I always thought that Janeway and Chakotay had some very real chemistry, they simply could not act on any of those feeling being in a command structure. From my perspective I've always viewed it as a very deep emotional friendship/relationship.

The only episode I saw evidence of the deep emotional friendship/relationship, was that season 7 episode... oh I forgot it's name... Fractured or something like that? Where the ship was trapped in some sort of time anomaly where different parts of the ship where in different times. Chakotay had to take season 1 Janeway through the ship and explained all this in past tense.

As I said, I never really saw Janeway ever regard Chakotay as an equal, just as a yes-man. Certainly she never really listened to his advice all that often. If she had a moral crisis she either went to Tuvok or just pulled an "I'm the Captain, I'm making the call" moment.

Yeah, the episode "Shattered" in season 7 is another instance of that IMO. I've never really seen as much inequality between them as you do, but I do agree that far too often Janeway used the ole "Captain's Prerogative" to get her way, and that way was not always the right one.

And yeah, Chakotay's "Angry Warrior" speech wasn't him surrendering his manhood. (I'd joke this had long since already happened. ) It was just another Native American cliche veiling that he wanted them to stop focusing on what they lost and build a life on planet nowhere together.

Meh...I don't think he ever really gave up his manhood, but was certainly dimished by poor writing.

The Doctor and Seven both stood up to Janeway to be certain. But by season 5, Voyager was TOS like in it's "Big Three" being Janeway, Seven and the Doctor, so they could get away with this. Not like either of them were insecure about their positions on the ship anyways or wanted to advance anywhere. What's she going to do? Demote them?

Paris seemed to get away with a lot in regards to Janeway. For some reason she regarded him affectionately. All kinds of speculation on why this is, be it she's his "pet project" to reform, that he rocked her world in Threshold, or plain old nepotism since she's buddies with his daddy(this gets my vote). Thirty Days was something she really couldn't overlook if she wanted to maintain discipline on her ship, since he did basically openly defy her and her orders. Even so, he got his rank back real quick.

Kim? He was quite literally Janeway's whipping boy. I swear, she just like messing with him at times. Sure he stood up to her in the Disease, but he was under the influence of the alien STD in that one. Otherwise he never would have had the spine to do that. And I can't think of -any- other situation where Kim defied her. Kim did once angrily voice objection to Captain Tuvok in Resolutions, but I'd dismiss that as a need to get back to his one true mistress.

Poor Kim... when Voyager left Earth Nog was a janitor at Quark's, and that janitor made lieutenant before him.

Seven and the Doc weren't ranked, so really she couldn't do that much aside from confinement (which she did with both Seven and the Doc on seperate occasions). Although they did not get away with things, namely Seven's disobedience in "Prey" and the Doctor's compliance with the aliens in "Renaissance Man".

Paris definitely did get away with a few things and seemed to be the Voyager funny-man. "Pet project" seems reasonable, although nepotism is more logical. I'm certainly more partial to those than the idea that he "rocked her world in "Threshold."" (). It's certainly ironic that he got his rank back so quickly and Harry gets squat, plus there's that whole "I didn't see a little box on my chair" line from "Unimatrix Zero" that just rubs salt in the wound.

And on the subject of poor Harry, yes he was Janeway's "whipping boy" as you put it. She was messing with him at times (what was all that in "Twisted" about him being "one of the bright parts of the mission"?). I swear, I cannot tell you how many times I have heard Janeway say something that makes you think that Kim is up for promotion, and then nothing becomes of it.

Being an Ensign for seven years was ridiculous; he should have been promoted halfway through the series.

 

[Alpha Flyer]

Paris definitely did get away with a few things and seemed to be the Voyager funny-man. "Pet project" seems reasonable, although nepotism is more logical. I'm certainly more partial to those than the idea that he "rocked her world in "Threshold."" (). It's certainly ironic that he got his rank back so quickly and Harry gets squat, plus there's that whole "I didn't see a little box on my chair" line from "Unimatrix Zero" that just rubs salt in the wound.

And on the subject of poor Harry, yes he was Janeway's "whipping boy" as you put it. She was messing with him at times (what was all that in "Twisted" about him being "one of the bright parts of the mission"?). I swear, I cannot tell you how many times I have heard Janeway say something that makes you think that Kim is up for promotion, and then nothing becomes of it.

Being an Ensign for seven years was ridiculous; he should have been promoted halfway through the series.

Well, as for Tom getting his rank back, it did take almost a year and a half (early Season 5 to end of Season 6), so it wasn't all THAT fast. Why? Hmmm. How about ... err ... competence and actual demonstrated leadership qualities being among the considerations? There are numerous instances where Tom demonstrated both, both before his demotion and after (not to mention before he got given any pips at all).

Recall that reinstatement is not necessarily a new promotion; Janeway cites Toms "conduct" as having been "exmplary" over the last year. In other words, he gets back what he lost, not something new. Of course he did, somewhere in there, salvage a mission Chakotay botched (One Small Step) ...

As for Harry -- yes, seven years as an Ensign is a long time, and yes he did enough heroics to get promoted several times over. So, probably, did Vorik Wildman and a slew of others. But within a military structure there are only so many rank slots available for people to be promoted into, otherwise you'd end up with, as the non-PC saying goes, "all Chiefs and no Indians". (I have friends in the JAG corps who should have gotten their lieutenant colonelcy eons ago but have to wait until someone makes room, and that's in the armed forces as a whole, nevermind within a group of 150.) So promoting Harry while Tom was "down" would have essentially meant that Tom could never get his rank back. And any comparison between the two (demonstrated leadership vs looking over his shoulder constantly) would have quickly led to the conclusion that if she had to pick somebody for that lieutenancy, it should be Tom, so Janeway quite appropriately waited until she could give it back to him.

 

[BirdInJetstream]

Maybe it is a completely stupid question:
What is the standard composition of a starship crew regarding ranks? 1 captain, 1 commander, 1 lieutennant commander, x lieutennants (for Voyager is it only Carey, Tom and B'elanna?), x ensigns, the rest are crewmen?
Are there any other lieutennants on Voyager? I guess not.

And another question comes up, because I just notice that it is difficult to see the rank:
Why does Janeway wear those oldfashioned pips when everyone else has these unreadable metalstrips attached to the collar?

In TNG there were promotions, although I do not recall that many of the main characters left or died (except Tasha Yar).

 

[Violet.Phoenix]

Paris definitely did get away with a few things and seemed to be the Voyager funny-man. "Pet project" seems reasonable, although nepotism is more logical. I'm certainly more partial to those than the idea that he "rocked her world in "Threshold."" (). It's certainly ironic that he got his rank back so quickly and Harry gets squat, plus there's that whole "I didn't see a little box on my chair" line from "Unimatrix Zero" that just rubs salt in the wound.

And on the subject of poor Harry, yes he was Janeway's "whipping boy" as you put it. She was messing with him at times (what was all that in "Twisted" about him being "one of the bright parts of the mission"?). I swear, I cannot tell you how many times I have heard Janeway say something that makes you think that Kim is up for promotion, and then nothing becomes of it.

Being an Ensign for seven years was ridiculous; he should have been promoted halfway through the series.

Well, as for Tom getting his rank back, it did take almost a year and a half (early Season 5 to end of Season 6), so it wasn't all THAT fast. Why? Hmmm. How about ... err ... competence and actual demonstrated leadership qualities being among the considerations? There are numerous instances where Tom demonstrated both, both before his demotion and after (not to mention before he got given any pips at all).

Recall that reinstatement is not necessarily a new promotion; Janeway cites Toms "conduct" as having been "exmplary" over the last year. In other words, he gets back what he lost, not something new. Of course he did, somewhere in there, salvage a mission Chakotay botched (One Small Step) ...

Just as a clarification, I was stating that it was ironic in terms of circumstance, not that Tom did not deserve his rank back. Certainly, AF, you are right that Tom did demonstrate excellent conduct as an officer, and I was by no means trying to diminish that.

As for Harry -- yes, seven years as an Ensign is a long time, and yes he did enough heroics to get promoted several times over. So, probably, did Vorik Wildman and a slew of others. But within a military structure there are only so many rank slots available for people to be promoted into, otherwise you'd end up with, as the non-PC saying goes, "all Chiefs and no Indians". (I have friends in the JAG corps who should have gotten their lieutenant colonelcy eons ago but have to wait until someone makes room, and that's in the armed forces as a whole, nevermind within a group of 150.) So promoting Harry while Tom was "down" would have essentially meant that Tom could never get his rank back. And any comparison between the two (demonstrated leadership vs looking over his shoulder constantly) would have quickly led to the conclusion that if she had to pick somebody for that lieutenancy, it should be Tom, so Janeway quite appropriately waited until she could give it back to him.

Admittedly having no military background and very little knowledge on the same subject, I had not thought of this. Though you do bring up a very good point in this that perhaps within the ranks there was not room for Harry to be promoted. Still, I feel as if his accomplishments deserved recognition.

On another note, this makes me wonder if there was ever a sort of competative side to getting a promotion? Since there may have only been a few available spots, then people may have competed against each other to try and earn that extra pip. This is just speculation, but any thoughts anyone?

 

[R. Star]

Maybe it is a completely stupid question:
What is the standard composition of a starship crew regarding ranks? 1 captain, 1 commander, 1 lieutenant commander, x lieutenants (for Voyager is it only Carey, Tom and B'elanna?), x ensigns, the rest are crewmen?
Are there any other lieutenants on Voyager? I guess not.

And another question comes up, because I just notice that it is difficult to see the rank:
Why does Janeway wear those oldfashioned pips when everyone else has these unreadable metalstrips attached to the collar?

In TNG there were promotions, although I do not recall that many of the main characters left or died (except Tasha Yar).

Chakotay was a Lieutenant Commander. Tuvok seemed to alternate between Lieutenant and Lieutenant Commander in the early seasons by what they called him and what was on his collar, but he was "promoted" to Lieutenant Commander later on so guess that settled that.

Lieutenants, there was Carey, Torres, Paris... that guy Chapman who dated Seven that one episode, and some redshirt lieutenant who was in two episodes, Twisted and a season 1 episode where he talks down to the EMH in the B plot. The Cloud? Possibly others, but no one important.

As for the metal strips people wear, you'll notice that only the Maquis do that. Your main two examples being Chakotay and Torres. Those represent provisional rank since they technically aren't in Starfleet. Not sure why Paris got the regular pips outside of good old fashioned nepotism as previously mentioned.

 

[Alpha Flyer]

Can't be bothered to clip quotes ...

I doubt that there is a standard complement. In terms of bridge officers, Chakotay was a full commander; Tuvok supposedly started out as a full Lieutenant, although his pips for the first few eps are those of a LtCmdr (two full one black) due to a costuming mistake. This got quickly and quietly rectified, just as Tom loses his erroneous full Lt pips (two full) for those of a Lt junior grade (one full, one black) when the costume people smartened up. Tuvok gets formally promoted to Lt Cmdr in "Revulsion", and I like the theory that Janeway held off on his promotion because of his breach of the Prime Drective in Season 1.

There are actually numerous Lieutenants (Carey, Ayala) and Ensigns, some in Engineering or Security, others in the science departments (them we see the least of). Bridge officers have seniority over people of identical rank from other functions/branches of the service (Tom pulls rank on B'Elanna on that basis in one episode, "Displaced"); there's really only room for one Lt (jg) on the bridge and Tom was it until he screwed up....

Those funky bars Chakotay and B'Elanna and the other Maquis wear? It's because they're not entitled to Starfleet insignia.

And now I will look in the mirror and ask myself: when did I become such a geek ...?????

One last thing: in my post-Endgame stories, both Harry and Tom get promoted quite quickly ... ;-) (I mean -- NOG????)

 

[BirdInJetstream]

Thanks a lot AF.
That was certainly helpful. I think you are right about the Maquis only wearing "funky bars".
I envy you for such an eye for details. I had hoped a rewatch would allow me to go a bit more into depth, but obviously it has been so long since I watched the show for the first time (more or less 10 years ago), that all I can expect is a slight feeling of déja vu, a faint memory telling me I have seen it before. This is basically calling for a second rewatch right after I finish the current rewatch, no?
Might take a while, I am only in season 3 so far.

 

[exodus]

I don't think that the "Angry Warrior" speech was Chakotay "giving up his balls" so that Janeway can take the reins of Voyager while he sits around; I truly believe that it is an admission of feelings. Think about it: they were stranded on a planet and Chakotay had basically accepted the fact that they were going to remain there. It doesn't make sense that he would give up control to her when there really aren't insanely difficult decisions to be made. He was focused on building a life for them on that planet, not Voyager.

I didn't take it that way.
I saw it as being a Maquis leader had taken it's toll on him, he was emotionally exhausted and that he was willing to give Janeway control because he couldn't handle the stress of the job/tasks set before them. I just find it ironic how he makes that speech about giving up making the hard choices and take a backseat to Janeway for the rest of the journey.

Granted, Chakotay was in Janeway's shadow most of the time. However, I believe that you are forgetting the Doctor and the many times that he stood up to the Captain (and though he may not have always succeeded, he did get through to her). The Doctor stood up to many people on the ship, and often through his vibrant determination, got them to listen.

Isn't the Doctor the only member on the ship that can relieve the captain of duty if they deem them unfit to command? Was she just humoring him, cause even by "Latent Image" she still didn't consider him worthy of equal privileges.

 

[Guy Gardener]

The CMO has that power.

Although, was the CMO: the Doctor, Kes or Tom Paris?

Although if the Doctor thinks he has the right to boot captains out of their chairs then he probably does...

In ENT Hatchery they had a devil of a time trying to prove that Archer was going batshit because he didn't want to kill alien children, but they persisted.

But in those days they needed a consensus in committee and archer had to abide willing, I'm sure that's one of the reasons that the CMO was given sole discretionary powers.

From persistence of vision

JANEWAY: It's been a while. I have a holonovel programme. It helps me unwind. I haven't had time to run it for a few weeks.
EMH: Well, I want you to, now.
JANEWAY: Doctor, I'm really very busy.
EMH: I've checked Starfleet regulations. The Chief Medical Officer outranks the Captain in health matters. Now I realise this may be the first time a hologram has given an order to a captain, but I'm ordering you to report to the holodeck, now.
JANEWAY: Aye, sir.
EMH: And the two of you can get busy undoing this ridiculous blunder of yours!

 

[Alpha Flyer]

The Doctor relieves Janeway of command (notionally) in Year of Hell -- of course that never happened, depending how you look at it ... ;-)

And of course, she ignores him, telling him essentially she'll take the court martial when they get back to the AQ. I'd love to be her lawyer then -- my first line of defence would, of course, be to attack the standing of a mere EMH to act as CMO ... (At which point Janeway would probably plead guilty to avoid a decision on that point, and get off with a plea-bargained reprimand ...)

Lord, what I wouldn't give for a Star Trek: JAG series -- I have a dozen plots ready to go!! (And one of them might even feature Robert Beltran, getting the Maquis off terrorism charges.)

 

[Guy Gardener]

And Cardassia is not going to try and get them extradited?

Unless by the time Voyager got home Cardassia had signed up, and then they'd be sending special prosecutors off to Earth to stake that Indian to some to desert plains lacquered in honey.

Lacquered in honey

 

[Alpha Flyer]

Well, since you asked ... ;-)

My personal theory is that charges of terrorism (in the Federation context) would require validity of the Cardassian treaty. Clearly, it was valid at the time the Maquis were active. But then the Cardassians joined the Dominion, and presumably the treaty went "poof". Is there an argument that it was never valid to begin with, given Cardassian perfidy? Well, if you put me on retainer, I would happily argue that there was no intention of compliance on the part of the Cardassians, therefore no meeting of minds of the parties to the treaty, and therefore no valid treaty (Contracts 101, thank you, Professor F). And just like that, many Maquis actions (arguably) become lawful acts of self-defence ... against such nasty things as war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. Give me a jury, I'll make them weep!!!

I played with that idea in my very first story, called "Choices" (and used the fan fic writers poetic licence to introduce a few extra facts -- and a good lawyer -- to make it all stick). ;-)

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

There was a particularly harrowing passage in Papillon about ants.

 

[Guy Gardener]

If the US legalized pot tomorrow, would they feel compelled to release the 41 thousand (I googled it) prisoners in US jail from marijuana charges? Close down some prisons and downsize the DEA?

What you're talking about is called grandfathing.

Sometimes changes to the laws are retroactive, sometime they're not.

The Maquis were not a defensive force.

They attacked Cardassian resources, murdered and stole.

The only way to win a war through terrorism is to be relentless.

Keep finding new targets, attack and move on.

Ask the French.

Do you think they blew up one NAZI building and then waited for their leader to be shot in his bed ten years later?

 

[Alpha Flyer]

If the US legalized pot tomorrow, would they feel compelled to release the 41 thousand (I googled it) prisoners in US jail from marijuana charges? Close down some prisons and downsize the DEA?

What you're talking about is called grandfathing.

Sometimes changes to the laws are retroactive, sometime they're not.

The Maquis were not a defensive force.

They attacked Cardassian resources, murdered and stole.

The only way to win a war through terrorism is to be relentless.

Keep finding new targets, attack and move on.

Ask the French.

Do you think they blew up one NAZI building and then waited for their leader to be shot in his bed ten years later?

Oooh, wish we could take this discussion off line, over a glass of wine. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending terrorism. Hey, I've spent most of my professional life dealing with it and while it has kept me gainfully employed I am not a fan. Quite the contrary.

Not sure what your comment about the French resistance (the original Maquis) is supposed to mean, other than a commentary on the means and methods of conducting an armed conflict. Guerilla warfare has a time-honoured tradition since Napoleon's Spanish campaign ... It is not necessarily terorrism, or unlawful.

But let me address some of the other issues you raised.

Grandfathering? Criminal law is not retroactive (in other words you can't be charged for something that wasn't a crime when you did it. What is retroactive, though, is remedial measures. In other words when something CEASES to be criminal conduct, those charged/convicted are entitled to benefit from that change in the law. Whether that translates to release of convicts would be a matter for the individual jurisdiction but I cannot see anyone in Canada staying in jail for something that isn't a crime. Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms would be hauled out quicker than you could say "release this guy".

Maquis not a defensive force, eh. Hmmm. That's a question of fact and law for which we have neither, based on canon. Voyager was done prior to 9/11, and complex issues have arisen out of the asymmetrical nature of modern conflict. Too complex to get into here; let's just say that opinions are hugely divided.

In the case of the Maquis, since the Federation abdicated its role as protector of the civilian population, who would have had the right to do so? The civilians themselves = the Maquis. What this then means in terms of their status is that they are no longer civilians themselves, and can be lawfully targeted by military forces. It also means that they should conduct themselves in accordance with the laws of armed conflict -- which, interestingly, prohibit acts of terrorism. But attacks on Cardassian targets wouldn't necessarily be that. Attacks on other installations or people not involved in the conflict (say, DS9) would then constitute war crimes. (Hence my very considered statement that "*many* Maquis actions (arguably) become lawful acts of self-defence". Other actions would remain criminal ...

As I said, pay me a retainer and I'll happily defend the Maquis. I may not win. depending on the charges, but I sure would have fun arguing their case.

Cheers,

AF

 

[Alpha Flyer]

PS: How did we get here from discussing Beltran ...?

 

[Guy Gardener]

This is supposedly his passion. How he ticks. Why he gets up in the morning.

Isn't it?

RE: My comments about the French Resistance, of course you remember that the NAZI's owned France and dictated French Law. They say what is legal, concentration camps, and they say what is terrorism, downtrodden peasant rebellions struggling for their freedom against fascism. If the NAZIs had won the war, they would have written, and rewritten the history of the world to claim that they were righteous, that god is on their side, and that a few criminal dirty Frenchmen, possibly intellectually retarded, and certainly perverts, were mildly and inadequately disagreeable to the manifest destiny of the thousand year Reich. Of course, they were writing French history during the war, so it wouldn't have to be rewritten till after France was liberated.

Hmmm?

Was the DMZ lawless or under Cardassian law without Cardassian might to back up that law?

Wouldn't the local "police" in the DMZ be a civilian authority, even an democratically elected civilian authority, and not a military authority who could wander around the DMZ guns blazing?

And even then, would they be bound to interstellar law Christopher Plumber was yakking on about in the Undiscovered Country, or again "Cardassian Law"?

 

[Alpha Flyer]

This is supposedly his passion. How he ticks. Why he gets up in the morning.

Isn't it?

RE: My comments about the French Resistance, of course you remember that the NAZI's owned France and dictated French Law. They say what is legal, concentration camps, and they say what is terrorism, downtrodden peasant rebellions struggling for their freedom against fascism. If the NAZIs had won the war, they would have written, and rewritten the history of the world to claim that they were righteous, that god is on their side, and that a few criminal dirty Frenchmen, possibly intellectually retarded, and certainly perverts, were mildly and inadequately disagreeable to the manifest destiny of the thousand year Reich.

Hmmm?

Was the DMZ lawless or under Cardassian law without Cardassian might to back up that law?

Wouldn't "police" be a civilian authority and not a military authority?

And even then, would they be bound to interstellar law Christopher Plumber was yakking on about in the Undiscovered Country, or again "Cardassian Law"?

Love this. And yes, if this is Beltran's passion, you got me at mine. A couple of mine, actually -- the law of armed conflict (also known as international humanitarian law) and the interplay between international (or inter-planetary ...) law and domestic law.

Disclaimer: Obviously I'm coming at this from the standpoint of the 21st century practitioner, and anything goes in the 24th. But I do assume that certain principles survive even the Eugenics War -- especially as a lot of what the Federation purports to stand for sounds like some of our better existing universal principles of human rights and relations between states/entities.

But that said, here are a couple of those basic principles as they exist today (and hopefully survive, with better implementation, in the future).

The law of belligerent occupation. The Occupying Power (a term of art under the Fourth Geneva Convention) does not assume sovereignty over the occupied territory; they can administer it, but cannot make fundamental changes to its institutions or legal systems. The occupying power also has certain obligations (no forcible deportations, access to food and medical care for the population, no forced labour, no internment ...). No need to carry out an analysis as to how the Cardassians (or the Nazis) comported themselves in planets/territories they occupied.

What that means in practice for the civilian population -- they're screwed if the occupying power ignores all of the above. (Getting screwed has, of course, been the lot of civilians throughout millennia of warfare no matter what various codes of conduct or treaties say). But the civilian population in such cases has the right to resist (within the confines of the laws of war -- recalling terrorism is a war crime -- and losing their protected status as civilians in the process, although they probably wouldn't care about loss of civilian status, since they'll get shot no matter what they do). In essence, what the resistance/original Maquis did in France was lawful under international law, even if the Germans claimed it was not. The Germans would have tried and convicted them -- no one else did after the war, because they would not have acknowledged the validity of the German claim. The hypothetical of "what would have happened if the Germans had won" doesn't really matter here, because the Cardassians took themselves out of that game when they joined the Dominion, and lost the war. So let's stick to that scenario.

For other states/planets/powers -- i.e. those applying principles of international/interplanetary law -- unlawful conduct by an Occupying Power means that nothing they do in respect of the occupied territory is legitimate. (Look up some of the more sober, non-politicized articles on Israeli settlements on the West Bank ...) In many instances, that means someone will bring out the diplomatic wet noodle. In others, it could lead to military intervention. But after the dust has settled, it means no prosecutions for those who resisted, unless they committed crimes. Resistance itself, and acts of legitimate warfare, would not be considered criminal by other states.

So -- bringing all that back to the Maquis, once Cardassian perfidy was established, I doubt that many of them (if still alive) would be prosecuted, unless they were guilty of war crimes. If the Cardassians had won -- hell, yeah, minus the trial. Summary execution and all that. In the Federation? Not so much.

Do have a look at my story "Choices" -- I'd be interested to hear what you think of how I resolved the Maquis question there (with benefit of a few additional "facts" -- it IS fan fiction -- but with the above legally grounded logic very much in place).

And one more thing -- on detained people benefitting from changes in the law: check out Article 9(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on right to liberty and security of the person, which states that no one can be detained without proper grounds in law and proper procedure. Once the grounds are gone (i.e. there is no more crime) you can no longer be lawfully detained.

Cheers,

AF

 

[M.A.C.O.]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyF-ik2Cteg

Watch this. Beltran voices many similar complaints about his time on Trek, as well as ripping it a new one.

Honestly VOY is what used up all the credit Trek had. The stories focused on 7 of 9, Janeway and the Doctor because they were the most popular. The lame adventures, the ham way they defanged the Borg as a credible threat as well as copying as much as they could from TNG is what i think accelerated Trek's declining popularity.

 

[Guy Gardener]

SISKO: How long before they reach Cardassia Prime?
KIRA: Fifty two hours.
WORF: If the Klingon Empire has reverted to the old practices, they will occupy the Cardassian homeworld, execute all government officials, and install an imperial overseer to put down any further resistance.
SISKO: I think it's about time we had a talk with the Cardassians.

Space.

Not a nice place.

Michael Eddington was still in a cell after Cardassia joined the Dominion and after the Maquis had been obliterated by a culling fleet. I suppose they could have gotten him on vandalism charges for what he did to all those Starships or that planet rather than conspiracy, sedition and treason, since operating a 5th column inside Starfleet, a top secret institution, using Starfleet's resources to make ethically upside down star chamber decisions without oversight...

From without or within the Maquis and Section 31 seemed to have similar parasitic relationships with starfleet and the federation that they are simultaneously hunted and loved.