Oh fuck Jellico. Seriously, just fuck that prick.
Did Picard get Court Martialed after Generations?
- Thread starter Paradise City
- Start date
Oh fuck Jellico. Seriously, just fuck that prick.
If the investigation worked out what happened, then banning VISORs from sensitive areas would be a fairly obvious consequence.
But then Generations is the last time we see a VISOR, so maybe Geordi's new First Contact 'eyes' are the result of new rules.
I'd have to watch the movie again and it did have a few good moments in it... but Data's real breakdown happening until after Geordi's abduction. Prior to that, the issues were only beginning and might not have been enough on their own for Jellico to go all bonkers.
That and Geordi could have opted to have Data return to the ship the moment Data tried to overdo the Piscopo act and thus avoid being kidnapped.
Either way, how much direct responsibility is Picard to the matter? Chain o' command prevailing, this one's in Geordi's court. Though, yeah, who'd have thought the Enterprise wouldn't just do rotating shields by default ever since the Borg enocounter?
Speaking of Piscopo, there's a video on youtube that has the infamous sped up joke scene slowed down to where we get to hear the joke. (Uh, wow... it makes the "Lady from Venus" joke in season 1 seem tame and family-friendly by comparison...)
While I agree that realistically it would only go as far as an inquiry, Measure of a Man does claim that a court-martial is standard procedure when a ship is lost. Which makes the allegedly non-military Starfleet a hell of a lot more strict than actual militaries, but there we are.
A lot of people seem to misunderstand what a court-martial is. Star Trek portrays it like it's about captains, but a court-martial is merely a military court empowered to determine guilt or innocence under military law. Basically, any time a serviceperson is accused of contravening military law, you get a court-martial. If the person is found guilty, then they are sentenced or expelled or whatever.
Last edited:
I think the real difference between the battles of ST:G and what happened with the Stargazer is that the Enterprise was actually destroyed. At least, half of her with the other half unsalvageable.
The Stargazer was still on fire when the crew evacuated, but wasn't shown to be destroyed. So it was presumed destroyed... in other words, "Lost".
I think that is why Picard got the court martial for that incident. A Starfleet that is 'lost' could theoretically be found by an adversary and that enemy would gain valuable intelligence on Starfleet.
And basically, that's what happened. Bok found it and who knows what knowledge he could have gained from the ship before writing that false Captain's Log.
The Stargazer was still on fire when the crew evacuated, but wasn't shown to be destroyed. So it was presumed destroyed... in other words, "Lost".
I think that is why Picard got the court martial for that incident. A Starfleet that is 'lost' could theoretically be found by an adversary and that enemy would gain valuable intelligence on Starfleet.
And basically, that's what happened. Bok found it and who knows what knowledge he could have gained from the ship before writing that false Captain's Log.
Last edited:
The one problem with that is Starfleet devising a "standard" procedure for such situations. It's "standard" for Starfleet captains to misplace their ships?!? 
I doubt we can easily go the "Starfleet conflates court of inquiry with court martial" route, as Picard actually got a trial with a prosecutor and all. No other skipper got that extensive a treatment for losing a ship; if Starfleet considers this conflated thing a mere formality, then why is Sisko's "not guilty" glossed over while Picard's "not guilty" involves lots of process?
Timo Saloniemi
I doubt we can easily go the "Starfleet conflates court of inquiry with court martial" route, as Picard actually got a trial with a prosecutor and all. No other skipper got that extensive a treatment for losing a ship; if Starfleet considers this conflated thing a mere formality, then why is Sisko's "not guilty" glossed over while Picard's "not guilty" involves lots of process?
Timo Saloniemi
The circumstances of Sisko and Picard losing their ships are very different, aside from being part of a battle.
Sisko was in the middle of a war, a VERY costly and bloody war for Starfleet. Picard's battle was basically a first contact situation, as they never encountered the Ferengi before... and still didn't know it was Ferengi until that season 1 episode, which was years later.
Starfleet takes first contact situations VERY seriously, as they should, because first impressions with a brand new species or empire can dictate whether they will be a friend, enemy, a future Federation member, or neutral. The repercussions of THAT are very far reaching, so I honestly think Picard getting at least an inquiry was justified. Court Martial may be too far, though, but given that she seemed like the ambitious type, she was likely trying to make her mark. This likely worked to some degree, too, since she eventually would become JAG officer for an entire sector.
Sisko was in the middle of a war, a VERY costly and bloody war for Starfleet. Picard's battle was basically a first contact situation, as they never encountered the Ferengi before... and still didn't know it was Ferengi until that season 1 episode, which was years later.
Starfleet takes first contact situations VERY seriously, as they should, because first impressions with a brand new species or empire can dictate whether they will be a friend, enemy, a future Federation member, or neutral. The repercussions of THAT are very far reaching, so I honestly think Picard getting at least an inquiry was justified. Court Martial may be too far, though, but given that she seemed like the ambitious type, she was likely trying to make her mark. This likely worked to some degree, too, since she eventually would become JAG officer for an entire sector.
The one problem with that is Starfleet devising a "standard" procedure for such situations. It's "standard" for Starfleet captains to misplace their ships?!?
Starfleet has a standard procedure for obliterating a planet via orbital bombardment. It doesn't seem outside the realm of possibility for them to have rules regarding the abandonment of ships in a salvageable state in hostile or uncontrolled territory. The rule probably would've been intended for things like shuttle and runabouts, but it doesn't seem like such an outlandish situation no one could've predicted it, or it never come up in the hundreds of years of Starfleet history, or the combined thousands of years of their various precursor institutions.
In the British navy almost every loss of a ship in peace or war was followed by court martial of the survivors. For example, in 1893 over three hundred surviving officers and crew of HMS Victoria were court martialed and acquitted for her loss. That practice was greatly reduced in World War I and after, possibly because public court martials would leak too much information the enemy would find interesting.
In the US navy only one captain - out of hundreds - was court martialed for losing his ship in combat during World War II, Charles McVay of the Indianapolis, and he was the first since the War of 1812. He was controversially convicted and sentenced to loss of seniority. In 1916 Captain Beach was court martial and convicted for the loss of the cruiser Memphis to giant waves in Santo Domingo harbor and punished by being moved 20 places back on the seniority list.
The statement in "The Measure of a Man" seems to indicate that the old British almost totally automatic court martial is more likely to be Starfleet's rule
The Wormhole said:
Actual militaries have varied a lot in the frequency of courts martial for the loss of ships.
USS Glenn said:
In Kirk's era he had a separate inquiry and court martial in "Court Martial". And it seems unlikely that justice would be served by combining inquiries and courts martial in the era of Picard.
Farscape One said:
In real history many captains have been court martialed for the loss of their ships in circumstances where a potential enemy would be unable to gain possession of the lost ship. For example, Captain Bourke of HMS Victoria sunk in the Mediterranean, Captain Beach of USS Memphis beached and smashed up in Santo Domingo harbor, and Captain McVay of USS Indianapolis sunk far beneath the Pacific. The potential for any enemy to gain possession of Stargazer would seem to have little effect on the decision to court martial Picard if such precedents are followed by Starfleet.
Last edited:
Deserted? Deserted what? There is no evidence of desertion. Not every officer or every ship sees combat during war.
As for the Dominion, they are mentioned 3 times in the movie.
Is clear there have been ongoing hostilities with the Dominion. There is no evidence the Enterprise and our heroes haven't been involved. They just happen to be on a diplomatic mission at the moment of the movie.
In "STATISTICAL PROBABILITIES", Starfleet was contacted by Weyoun, and they were almost going to go to with the agreement until the Jack Pack figured out their true motives.
And, of course, the Federation would likely tirelessly attempt diplomacy.
And, of course, the Federation would likely tirelessly attempt diplomacy.
We didn't on DS9 but I guess with that line in Insurrection we are supposed to think they were talking. I don't know about you guys but that doesn't sound like The Dominion to me and I've felt that way since the first time I heard that line back in 1998.
Yeah I forgot about that one but the stardates don't match up that DS9 episode was in fall of 97 and Insurrection was fall of 98 so about a year later. So I guess they could have been talking for a year?
Last edited:
Considering the timing of the film's events, my guess is that the negotiations in question were just a smokescreen for the Dominion to keep the Federation off-guard while they brought the Breen on-board as allies.
Either that or the "negotations" were actually just the Female Changeling and Weyoun showing up once a week to demand the immediate and unconditional surrender of the Federation, storming out as soon as that request was rejected, and then the Federation negotiator spending the next couple of hours creating a fake record of negotiations so that they could still collect their salary at the end of the month.
Either that or the "negotations" were actually just the Female Changeling and Weyoun showing up once a week to demand the immediate and unconditional surrender of the Federation, storming out as soon as that request was rejected, and then the Federation negotiator spending the next couple of hours creating a fake record of negotiations so that they could still collect their salary at the end of the month.
Kirk was already "dead"...and what indication do we have that he "covered it up" (other than literally....you know....covering him up)?
Yeah, there's no indication that Picard didn't report Kirk's (second) death.
Picard would do his duty and give a full report on the Nexus and anything arising from it, Kirk included.
Picard would do his duty and give a full report on the Nexus and anything arising from it, Kirk included.
Similar threads
