If Ransom had been Klingon?

[Guy Gardener]

Considering what all the other bastard aliens were allowed to get away with in one light or another, it's possible that Ransoms only true crime was being held to some higher human ideal by Janeway.

Ransom's crime was exactly the same as the Vidian organ harvesting of the Hirogen sport hunting, but despite some initial threats about genocide, Janeway tolerated and accepted these bastard aliens for what they were: bastards. then just "sighed" and got on with her day because the problem was just too big.

Janeway would still have thought Klingon Ransom was naughty, but she'd hardly have Ahabbed him, but then if Ransom was a Klingon then most certainly he wouldn't have lied about what he was doing ever, and really it's not like Klingons don't hunt and eat all sorts of species that can talk, fly spaceships and fight back all the time. It's just who they are.

 

[The Grim Ghost]

It wasn't his race though. It was the fact that he was Starfleet.

If he was a Klingon Fleeter she would have acted the same.

But you're right, the Klingons do tend to get away with murder (literally!)

 

[Klaitu]

I'm still miffed that the Equinox didn't get to stick around. I really liked the design of that ship, though Ransom was a punk. It just goes to show you that science officers should never be made captain of a starship. It never ends up good.

Additionally, what's the deal with Ransom making "first contact" with the Yridians and still being subordinate to Janeway by seniority? The Yridians were known for a long time before Voyager.

I also think it's interesting to contrast Ransom's actions with Janeway's actions. Sure, Ransom was using the bodies of dead aliens for his warp drive.. but Janeway also has a history of ignoring the rules to get her way. I find it odd that she should be so offended by his actions.

 

[Kegg]

I don't think Ransom would have got away with it. This is Voyager, and while it hurts more that the guy is Starfleet, Janeway just won't sit idly by and ally with anyone if they're of dubious character - her reaction to the Trabe in "Alliances" definitely cements this.

But yeah, keeping the Equinox around might have been interesting, even cleared of its command staff. Turning VOY into a show with two starships rather than one could have resulted in some interesting plotlines (who commands the Equinox? Chakotay? That's one way to cut away his screentime while still making him seem important) but we all know it'd just have been blown up sooner or later anyway.

Additionally, what's the deal with Ransom making "first contact" with the Yridians and still being subordinate to Janeway by seniority? The Yridians were known for a long time before Voyager.

Been ages since I've seen Equinox, but I remember him being subordinate to Janeway basically because she had the bigger and more powerful ship. Which she does.

 

[kimc]

I also think it's interesting to contrast Ransom's actions with Janeway's actions. Sure, Ransom was using the bodies of dead aliens for his warp drive.. but Janeway also has a history of ignoring the rules to get her way. I find it odd that she should be so offended by his actions.

Every starship captain has bent the rules if needed. None, including Janeway have committed genocide and in doing so betrayed one of the basic tenets of Starfleet. Not only that but he left her and her crew behind to face death at the hands of the aliens Ransom had been killing. She had every right to be offended.

 

[Klaitu]

I don't think Ransom would have got away with it. This is Voyager, and while it hurts more that the guy is Starfleet, Janeway just won't sit idly by and ally with anyone if they're of dubious character - her reaction to the Trabe in "Alliances" definitely cements this.

But yeah, keeping the Equinox around might have been interesting, even cleared of its command staff. Turning VOY into a show with two starships rather than one could have resulted in some interesting plotlines (who commands the Equinox? Chakotay? That's one way to cut away his screentime while still making him seem important) but we all know it'd just have been blown up sooner or later anyway.

Additionally, what's the deal with Ransom making "first contact" with the Yridians and still being subordinate to Janeway by seniority? The Yridians were known for a long time before Voyager.

Been ages since I've seen Equinox, but I remember him being subordinate to Janeway basically because she had the bigger and more powerful ship. Which she does.

Yeah, now that you mention it, I do recall some hokem line about "the ship with tactical superiority" or somesuch. I guess that explains why Janeway is running the show.

Every starship captain has bent the rules if needed. None, including Janeway have committed genocide and in doing so betrayed one of the basic tenets of Starfleet. Not only that but he left her and her crew behind to face death at the hands of the aliens Ransom had been killing. She had every right to be offended.

There are flaws in your argument.

1. Genocide is the complete and deliberate destruction of a population. Ransom was not attempting to destroy the entire alien race, he was using their bodies to power his ship. Obviously, this doesn't fit with Starfleet, whatever crime it is, it isn't genocide.

That is, unless you think that Ransom's priority was to kill all the aliens, and the engine thing was a side effect.. in which case you were apparently watching a different show than I was.

2. Bending the rules is one thing.. outright breaking them is another. Janeway violates (does not bend) the Prime Directive in the pilot.. the very first episode! Janeway is also seen trespassing in other people's space without their permission and not following the laws of various civilizations she encounters.

Ransom's history is less detailed, but the very least we can assume from this is that both Captains broke fundamental Federation laws and Starfleet regulations during their journey. It's hypocritical for Janeway to act all high and mighty when she herself is guilty of her own crimes.

 

[Lazarus]

1. Genocide is the complete and deliberate destruction of a population. Ransom was not attempting to destroy the entire alien race...

Interestingly genocide isn't the 'complete and deliberate desturction', it is mass extermination of a particular race, in whole or in part.

 

[kimc]

1. Genocide is the complete and deliberate destruction of a population.

The precise definition of genocide is under some disagreement but there is one definition recognized under international law that can be found in several sources including the website for Prevent Genocide International:


The international legal definition of the crime of genocide is found in Articles II and III of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.

Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide:

1) the mental element, meaning the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such", and

2) the physical element which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include both elements to be called "genocide."

While the "deliberation" in your definition is correct as you can see from the international law definition "complete" is not a requirement.

2. Bending the rules is one thing.. outright breaking them is another. Janeway violates (does not bend) the Prime Directive in the pilot.. the very first episode!

How so?

Janeway is also seen trespassing in other people's space without their permission and not following the laws of various civilizations she encounters.

Examples?

 

[Pemmer Harge]

I'm pretty sure that Janeway's pursuit of Ransom was because he was a Starfleet officer, and also because she saw in him what she might have become had circumstances been different. I think that Janeway was perfectly right to go after Ransom, although obviously she did get rather carried away in her obsession with him. The idea of the Equinox as Voyager's amoral equivalent and the moral ambiguity of Janeway's actions were part of what, to me, made Equinox one of the very best Voyager episodes.

As for genocide, I wouldn't use that word to describe the actions of the Equinox crew, but it was certainly mass murder and for all Janeway's questionable actions over the years I don't think she ever did something so blatantly unethical.

 

[Klaitu]

1. Genocide is the complete and deliberate destruction of a population. Ransom was not attempting to destroy the entire alien race...

Interestingly genocide isn't the 'complete and deliberate desturction', it is mass extermination of a particular race, in whole or in part.

Was Ransom attempting to destroy an entire race of aliens? Was he even attempting to destroy aliens for the sake of destroying aliens?

Ransom accidentally killed the first alien while studying it, and killed subsequent aliens when he was attacked by them, and used their bodies in his engines. There was a specific number (60 some odd) of aliens that he needed to kill in order to power his way back to Federation space, and he was committed to killing no more than he had to.

I would not describe this as genocide.

intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such

I don't want to get into a flaky debate about the wishy-washy way that people define genocide. By this definition, the murder of one person is genocide.

My point was that Ransom was not attempting to wipe out a race of aliens, nor was he trying to "destroy in part". Ransom could care less about the aliens, except as a means of getthing his ship home. It's unlikely that he would go on a quest to eliminate them after he returned home.

I'm pretty sure that Janeway's pursuit of Ransom was because he was a Starfleet officer, and also because she saw in him what she might have become had circumstances been different. I think that Janeway was perfectly right to go after Ransom, although obviously she did get rather carried away in her obsession with him. The idea of the Equinox as Voyager's amoral equivalent and the moral ambiguity of Janeway's actions were part of what, to me, made Equinox one of the very best Voyager episodes.

I agree. Equinox came very close to being an excellent trek episode.

As for genocide, I wouldn't use that word to describe the actions of the Equinox crew, but it was certainly mass murder and for all Janeway's questionable actions over the years I don't think she ever did something so blatantly unethical.

I also agree, however I think that the quantity of smaller unethical decisions that Janeway has made makes she and Ransom much closer than the episode portrays.

How so?

Speaking only of events in the pilot.

Janeway destroys the caretaker's array to prevent it from falling into the Kazon's hands.

This is a violation of the prime directive, because it interferes with the natural development of 2 outside cultures, namely the Kazon and the Ocampa.

You may recall Picard refusing to get involved with a Klingon civil war because it would interfere with the natural development of Klingon society, even it it meant Duras was going to win the battle.

By destroying the Caretaker's array, she not only unneccessarily destroys her only chance to get home, she also prevents the Kazon from gaining access to that technology, which would have affected the internal politics of the Kazon, and probably also have destroyed the Ocampa.

Additionally, she ends up siding with the Caretaker (where she shouldn't be siding with anyone) after being in the Delta Quadrant for what? 2 days or something? Taking an action that affects multiple races that you have barely met and don't know very well is incompetant at best.

After all, that's why the prime directive is there in the first place, to keep Starfleet people from playing God.

Examples?

I'm not going to create a comprehensive list, but here are a few that I can remember:

- VOY: Counterpoint

Janeway takes Telepathic people through the Devore space, despite telepaths being illegal there. This is inconsistant with all the other Trek series who are portrayed as respecting laws and traditions of other cultures, even when starfleet disagrees with them.

- VOY: Scorpion

Janeway interferes in the natural development of the Borg.. in borg space by assisting them against Species 8472. The Borg started the war with 8472, and are going to lose the war with 8472. Without Voyager's interference, things would have turned out much differently.

- VOY: The Killing Game

Janeway gives holographic technology to the Hirogen in a deliberate attempt to change their society to conform better with Starfleet ideals.. while it could be argued that the Hirogen are technically advanced enough to handle the holographic technology, in this instance she specifically gives it to them so that their society will hunt holograms instead of real people.

Those are just a few examples.

 

[Lazarus]

I don't want to get into a flaky debate about the wishy-washy way that people define genocide. By this definition, the murder of one person is genocide.

No sweetheart, the murder of one person is murder

 

[Klaitu]

I don't want to get into a flaky debate about the wishy-washy way that people define genocide. By this definition, the murder of one person is genocide.

No sweetheart, the murder of one person is murder

I agree, but when you define genocide as "the destruction of a part of society" a person is a part of society. Therefore if you murder someone, you just committed genocide.. at least according to that definition.

I prefer to go with the more basic argument of Ransom is not like Hitler.

 

[Lazarus]

Therefore if you murder someone, you just committed genocide.. at least according to that definition.

No, you're having difficulty here - if you murder someone you've committed murder. If you murder someone you're not committing genocide. I've explained this twice and you're still not understanding.

Try to see that if you 'murder someone' you are not committing genocide since you are not killing a large percentage of that person's race to further your own ends.

 

[Klaitu]

Therefore if you murder someone, you just committed genocide.. at least according to that definition.

No, you're having difficulty here - if you murder someone you've committed murder. If you murder someone you're not committing genocide. I've explained this twice and you're still not understanding.

Try to see that if you 'murder someone' you are not committing genocide since you are not killing a large percentage of that person's race to further your own ends.

You're assuming that the same action can't make you guilty of multiple crimes, which is not true.

Additionally, I agree with your assessment of how ridiculous it sounds that 1 murder is genocide, but the definition provided doesn't tell us how big a "part of society" one must murder in order to go from "mass murder" to "genocide" status. The way it is written, if you kill any part of a society, you committed genocide.

Which, as you pointed out is completely ridiculous.

 

[Lazarus]

You're assuming that the same action can't make you guilty of multiple crimes, which is not true.

Where have I assumed this?

Additionally, I agree with your assessment of how ridiculous it sounds that 1 murder is genocide, but the definition provided doesn't tell us how big a "part of society" one must murder in order to go from "mass murder" to "genocide" status.

Ok for starters, you seem to be under the impression that 'murder' refers to the act of killing someone, so I'll start by remedying this. Murder is the unlawful killing of a person with intent. 'Murder' refers to the crime committed.

A person can unlawfully kill another person and be charged with 'manslaughter' for example, not 'murder', although the physical act of killing could be the same. The circumstances dictate whether the killing of said person was 'murder' or not.

A soldier in a war for example can kill an enemy solider without it being murder.

The way it is written, if you kill any part of a society, you committed genocide.

Again, if you kill "any part of society" that does not mean that you are comitting genocide. I really can't break this down any more for you than I already have.

Which, as you pointed out is completely ridiculous.

Yes, I've pointed out that your continued mention of 'killing one person is genocide' is ridiculous. I think we're on the third time in fact

 

[Anwar]

Ransom was willing to exterminate the entire species if need be just to meet his goals. That's intention to genocide, which is close enough.

As for Janeway's PD violation, the Caretaker was going to blow up the Array anyways until VOY's presence stopped it from happening. By blowing it up she was fixing what they stopped in the first place.

If the Kazon got the Array, they'd have just used it to take over the region. They weren't some benevolent people forced to do bad things, they were just a bunch of brigands out to conquer and control.

And the Array wasn't a viable option to return home anyways. It would've taken weeks to figure out how to use it to get home, weeks they didn't have. And being brought to the Delta Quadrant by the Array damaged the ship and killed a bunch of people. Going back would've done the same.

 

[Klaitu]

Ransom was willing to exterminate the entire species if need be just to meet his goals. That's intention to genocide, which is close enough.

Ransom only intended to kill 63 of the lifeforms, because that's the exact amount he needed to return home. It's never stated that he desired to go beyond that number, and continue killing them, whatever their numbers are. I don't think it's a big assumption to assume there are many more than 63 of these aliens.

Then again, if 63 constitutes the vast majority of the population of aliens in existance, then I would agree.

As for Janeway's PD violation, the Caretaker was going to blow up the Array anyways until VOY's presence stopped it from happening. By blowing it up she was fixing what they stopped in the first place.

I was under the impression that Voyager's prescence was immaterial, and the Caretaker died from whatever was ailing him (he was looking for something in people's bodies to heal himself). In which case he would have died and been unable to destroy the array wether Voyager was there or not.

I don't remember if there was any line saying that Voyager somehow prevented the array from self-destructing, though if Voyager being there somehow stopped the destruction, I would agree.

If the Kazon got the Array, they'd have just used it to take over the region. They weren't some benevolent people forced to do bad things, they were just a bunch of brigands out to conquer and control.

Negative consequences are not a reason to violate the prime directive. This is established many times, particularly in TNG during the Klingon Civil war, and in ENT: Dear Doctor.

And the Array wasn't a viable option to return home anyways. It would've taken weeks to figure out how to use it to get home,

I remember Tuvok having some dialogue about "I can operate the array to send us home" and Janeway stops him. Nonetheless, the amount of time required to figure out the Array is never specified as "weeks" or any other amount of time.

weeks they didn't have.

They didn't have weeks, so they decided to stay forever?

And being brought to the Delta Quadrant by the Array damaged the ship and killed a bunch of people. Going back would've done the same.

This is a consistant and valid factor, but it's not explored at all in the episode, unfortunately. All they really needed to do is have Kim say "The ship won't withstand another trip back" and it would have completely removed this sticking point as an issue.

 

[Klaitu]

You're assuming that the same action can't make you guilty of multiple crimes, which is not true.

Where have I assumed this?

Additionally, I agree with your assessment of how ridiculous it sounds that 1 murder is genocide, but the definition provided doesn't tell us how big a "part of society" one must murder in order to go from "mass murder" to "genocide" status.

Ok for starters, you seem to be under the impression that 'murder' refers to the act of killing someone, so I'll start by remedying this. Murder is the unlawful killing of a person with intent. 'Murder' refers to the crime committed.

A person can unlawfully kill another person and be charged with 'manslaughter' for example, not 'murder', although the physical act of killing could be the same. The circumstances dictate whether the killing of said person was 'murder' or not.

A soldier in a war for example can kill an enemy solider without it being murder.

The way it is written, if you kill any part of a society, you committed genocide.

Again, if you kill "any part of society" that does not mean that you are comitting genocide. I really can't break this down any more for you than I already have.

Which, as you pointed out is completely ridiculous.

Yes, I've pointed out that your continued mention of 'killing one person is genocide' is ridiculous. I think we're on the third time in fact

I really don't know why you keep trying to argue with me when I keep agreeing with you. Hope you had fun.

 

[Kai Winn]

i understood them pissed aliens were well capable and willing to destroy voyager as well, and janeway saved her crew and a couple from the equinox by turning against the traitors. i liked the casually evil doc in this episode. janeways speech to the survivors at the end is certainly amongst the great moments of st.

 

[Lazarus]

I really don't know why you keep trying to argue with me when I keep agreeing with you. Hope you had fun.

No one is 'arguing' with you, why do people insist on calling a civilised discussion or debate an argument? That baffles me

Besides, there is no 'argument' as you call it anyway - I'm merely correcting the misinterpretation you've appeared to make that killing one person can be called genocide because one person is part of society. I'm simply pointing out that no reasonably intelligent person would generally misinterpret the given definition of genocide in such a way.

I can't understand how some people feel that they need to be spoon-fed information in this manner - if the definition doesn't include actual figures in the vein of '1 is murder, 100 is mass murder' and so on, then a term like genocide can somehow be misinterpreted as meaning 'to kill one person'.

My sincere apologies if you feel I've been 'arguing' with you.