Did Ben Sisko ever break in the Prime Directive?

[Photon]

Literally or in the PD's spirit?

 

[number6]

Well... Allowing an entire race to worship him as the Emisary to their Prophets was a major violation from the get-go.
There are countless other violations.

 

[Yassim]

In "Tosk", he paid it some lip service while undermining it.

 

[Turd Ferguson]

Well, he did participate in the Bell Riots.

I love the follow up in "Little Green Men"

"Is it just me or does this Gabriel Bell look like Captain Sisko?"

 

[Dancing Doctor]

In 2374, Captain Benjamin Sisko arguably committed a major Prime Directive violation when he worked with Elim Garak to force the Romulan Empire to enter into Dominion War under false pretenses. The Romulans up to this point had remained neutral in the conflict. Sisko felt that Federation and Klingon Empire would lose the war with the Dominion if they did not gain another ally in the war. Both Sisko and Garak, with the knowledge and approval of Starfleet Command, created false evidence that ultimately convinced the Romulans that the Dominion were planning to renage on the Peace Treaty between the two governments and mount a full scale invasion. Participation in the war resulted in massive military and civilian casualties, and likely resulted in major economic, political, military and social shifts for the Romulan Society. But for Sisko's intervention, the Romulans may not have suffered such consequences.

It should be noted that since Sisko erased the log entry in which he admitted his actions, there is no official record of this incident occuring. That, coupled with the fact that Sisko carried out this mission with Starfleet's blessings resulted in Sisko facing no consequences whatsoever for his deception. Apparently, Starfleet Command is willing to overlook the Prime Directive when the Federation is in a state of interstellar war. (In The Pale Moonlight)

Assisting the Ennis and the Nol-Ennis in escaping their moon prison would probably be considered a violation (Battle Lines)

 

[Sci]

Number6 said:
Well... Allowing an entire race to worship him as the Emisary to their Prophets was a major violation from the get-go.
There are countless other violations.

How so? He never deceived them. He never lied to them about his nature. They were already aware of the existence of aliens, so it wasn't as though they believed that any non-Bajoran was a god or prophet (lowercase-P).

The Bajorans, at least in terms of knowledge, every bit the Federation's equals. And it just so happened to be their very sincere religious belief that Benjamin Sisko was the Emissary of the Prophets.

There's no Prime Directive violation there, anymore than there would be if the Klingons decided to believe that Worf is the re-incarnation of Kahless and to worship him.

 

[Photon]

Did they really worship Sisko? I don't think so. I see it as sorta like Moses bring the Word to the children of Israel or John the Baptist being the Forerunner for the Messiah. Sort of a mouthpiece of the gods w/privledges

 

[Wookie]

I would tend to agree that his role as Emissary violated the spirit of the PD

 

[Navaros]

The Sisko broke the PD all the time. The Sisko has rendered the PD an out-moded way of thinking.

Most grievously when he refused to allow the cure to the genocide diesase to be provided to the Founders. Can't get much more anti-PD than to be happy to let a Federation-created genocide continue, as the Sisko was. :thumbsup:

 

[PKTrekGirl]

^ Actually if the PD was broken in that case, Section 31 did the breaking. Not Sisko. He didn't set that chain of events in motion. Section 31 did.

He just chose to not participate in a violation in progress.

Although, I'm not even sure that *is* a violation.

If the Founders Disease is a violation of the PD, then every single battle with every single non-Federation ship in all of Star Trek is a violation of the PD.

The PD is designed to keep the Federation from giving others technology ahead of their time or unduly influencing their culture.

It is NOT designed to prevent them from defending themselves in time of war.

 

[Dancing Doctor]

At the most what Sisko or Section 31 did in regards to the genocide was violate Federation law, unless it would be allowed if under General Order 24.

 

[Hofner]

Correct me if I'm wrong but Sisko didn't make the decision not to give the cure to the changelings, it was Starfleet or the Federation. Sisko was just 'following orders', interpret that however you like.

Robert

 

[Dancing Doctor]

^It was most likely Section 31 going through Starfleet.

 

[Navaros]

I would argue that trying to wipe out an entire race via genocide has absolutely nothing to do with "defending one's self in a time of war". And also that wiping out an entire race via total genocide is unduly interferring with a culture to the most extreme & heinous degree possible.

 

[Dancing Doctor]

^But Starfleet allows for the destruction of a planet or civilization through General Order 24.

So it's reprehensible and abhorrent, but under certain circumstances justifiable.

 

[Sci]

Admiral Valeris said:
^But Starfleet allows for the destruction of a planet or civilization through General Order 24.

So it's reprehensible and abhorrent, but under certain circumstances justifiable.

There's some question about whether or not General Order 24 is still in effect in the 24th Century, though. We've certainly never heard reference to it, and on the only occasion I can recall where the topic of the bombardment of a planetary surface by Starfleet came up -- "For the Uniform" -- it was viewed as a very probably illegal action.

For the record, the novel Star Trek: A Time to Kill by David Mack establishes that the Federation Charter was amended to ban the destruction of a planetary surface by the Federation under any circumstances. This is, of course, non-canonical, however.

 

[Dancing Doctor]

I wonder, then, if Sisko could have gotten around the "desctruction of a planet's surface" since he used something that merely poisoned the atmosphere, and for humans only at that.