That's emblematic of the hypocrisy and shallowness of much of the positive view of humanity/Federation. People outside our heroes are constantly doing horrible things, which hardly reflects a positive view of humanity and the Federation. It's often just a product of the lazy writing which was particularly common in the Berman era, where people outside our heroes were used to make our heroes look more heroic and to create conflict, but it's nonetheless part of the narrative. Even when our heroes do it they face no consequences (see Archer engaging in piracy and torture, Janeway nearly killing an Equinox crewmember, Sisko's use of chemical weapons to displace civilians, etc). Let's not forget that the Federation won the Dominion war through biological warfare, attempted genocide and a false-flag assassination. Oh, and there was also a false-flag attack on Earth which was used to repress the population. All, mind you, with virtually no consequences. Such a positive future! What wonderful humans! As to your other points... Consistency in canon? Stacks of examples of inconsistency and outright revision. First Contact, as but one example, is fundamentally inconsistent with two of Trek's most beloved episodes, Best of Both Worlds and Space Seed. Well-written characters? If anything, I've found that a consistent weakness in previous Trek series - plenty of Trek characters have been shallow, unlikeable and lacking development. So no, I neither accept that those points are intrinsic in defining Trek, nor that the current shows are notably worse in reflecting them than their predecessors.