Picard's comments about Earth's Past - "Encounter at Farpoint"

[Sci]

From a general legal standpoint, Worf's slaying of Duras is a pretty open-and-shut case. It's a Klingon citizen killing another Klingon citizen in accordance with Klingon law aboard a Klingon vessel. The fact that that Klingon citizen happens to also hold Federation citizenship is irrelevant, as there's apparently no law against Federation citizens killing anyone when they're outside Federation territory, only laws against anyone (Federation citizen or foreign citizen) killing anyone (Federation citizen or foreign citizen) in Federation territory. The Federation Department of Justice, it would seem, has no more right to prosecute Worf for killing Duras than it had a right to prosecute Duras for killing K'mpec.

Starfleet, however, would have had a right to punish Worf for violating any Starfleet codes of conduct he might have agreed up. It is possible that the Starfleet Code of Military Justice (aka, military law) might have provisions against officers killing people in extra-territorial situations (i.e., while on foreign territory). However, it is also possible that Starfleet military law does not prohibit homicide while on foreign soil if it occurs in compliance with their host government's laws.

Further, we also know from episodes like "Amok Time" that there are circumstances within Federation law and Starfleet military law where Federation citizens/Starfleet officers can engage in homicide if it's part of a consensual duel. It is plausible that the Federation has a general law about consensual duels ending in homicide being legal in Federation territory, given that no one placed Spock under arrest when they thought he'd killed Kirk in "Amok Time," and that we generally don't hear about Federation grand juries being convened any time someone gets killed in the kal-if-fee ritual on Vulcan.

Assuming that Starfleet military law does not prohibit consensual homicide, or that it does not forbid homicide if it occurs outside Federation territory but in accordance with the host government's laws, then the question becomes whether or not Worf's participation in a Klingon duel might in some way constitute conduct unbecoming of an officer, even if it is not strictly illegal. Worf might get reprimanded, even if he's not court-martialed.

As for Worf's killing of Gowron? The same basic issues apply... with one complication:

Starbase Deep Space 9 may have been administered as a Federation starbase, but it was Bajoran territory. So in addition to the Starfleet Code of Military Justice, there's a question about the application of Bajoran law. Does Bajoran law allow for consensual duels ending in homicide? Maybe sections of DS9 set aside for Klingon government officials were given temporary extra-territorial status like an embassy. Or maybe by Bajoran law, Worf committed murder, and he could be indicted by a Bajoran grand jury and have to stand trial in a Bajoran court.

* * *

As for the original post....

Seems to me that Picard in "Encounter at Farpoint," and in much of early TNG, is justifiably proud of the social progress Earth and the Federation have made by the 24th century. The problem, however, comes from what seems like an attitude that this progress is a result of some sort of fundamental change in Human (and presumably, Vulcan, Andorian, Tellarite, etc.?) nature, rather than as the result of an evolution of the social structures in which they live. This leads to a lot of smugness, to a lot of prejudice against cultures they deem as too similar to their ancestors' cultures, and to a lot of hubris, a blindness about their own moral fallibility.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Let's say a Klingon named K'Splatt came on board the Enteprise and pissed Worf off. K'Splatt didn't think Worf was a Klingon and so, as soon as he beams on board, says some grave insult that a true Klingon could only answer with a fight to the death. Worf then says, "What I do now, I do as a Klingon, not a STarfleet officer," and kills K'Splatt on the transporter pad in front of Picard, Riker and O'Brien.

Would Picard be okay with this? SHOULD Picard be okay with this?

Probably not, since it's on the Enterprise - in Federation territory.

Worf killed Duras on a KLINGON vessel, so Picard really has no say in that matter.

 

[Shawnster]

Was Worf a Klingon citizen? Why are we saying that? Granted, he was born to Klingon citizens and lived on a Klingon world, but his parents were killed and he was adopted by human parents and raised on a Federation world. Did he have dual citizenship? Was his citizenship ever established?

Or are we saying he was a Klingon citizen simply because he was Klingon? Does simply being of the Klingon species automatically make an individual a Klingon citizen now and forever?

Of course, the Klingon High Counsel did "disccommodate" Worf and applied a Klingon shunning of him. If Worf (or anyone else) was NOT a Klingon citizen, or didn't care what the Klingon government thought of him, he'd have been like "so what, who cares?"

 

[Grendelsbayne]

When a Federation citizen is murdered on a Federation starship, then it is quite clear that the Federation has jurisdiction.

The problem with that is that Duras retreated to the safety of his ship - his KLINGON ship - after he killed K'Ehleyr. The Vorn was sovereign Klingon territory, so the Federation couldn't touch him there.

Which makes what Worf did even worse. The Federation should have sought to extradite Duras to answer for his crimes in a Federation court.

The Federation clearly would have. But Worf is not the Federation. He has the same rights as any Klingon warrior - he doesn't forfeit those just because he's in Starfleet - and the Federation can't force him not to use those rights when he's in Klingon territory. I do agree there could be some kind of 'conduct unbecoming' charge, but the fact remains that he wasn't charged and there's no actual evidence that his actions must be considered conduct unbecoming under Starfleet regulations.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Was Worf a Klingon citizen? Why are we saying that? Granted, he was born to Klingon citizens and lived on a Klingon world, but his parents were killed and he was adopted by human parents and raised on a Federation world. Did he have dual citizenship? Was his citizenship ever established?

Or are we saying he was a Klingon citizen simply because he was Klingon? Does simply being of the Klingon species automatically make an individual a Klingon citizen now and forever?

Of course, the Klingon High Counsel did "disccommodate" Worf and applied a Klingon shunning of him. If Worf (or anyone else) was NOT a Klingon citizen, or didn't care what the Klingon government thought of him, he'd have been like "so what, who cares?"

I would imagine that Klingon citizenship rules are rather less formal than what we're familiar with. They're obsessed with ritual, but legalisms ( like 'citizenship' ) are generally contemptible to a warrior race. Most likely the rule is 'a klingon is a klingon, unless specifically banished'. As long as worf wasn't banned from ever setting foot on Klingon territory and did follow the proper rituals in his actions, then he would be in the clear as far as Klingon law is concerned.

 

[T'Girl]

Was Worf a Klingon citizen?"

Unless he choose to renouce that citizenship, yes. And given the way Worf obviously felt about being a Klingon, it would be hard to see him doing it.

Hell, K'Ehleyr might have been a Klingon citizen as well, through the chain of her Klingon ancestors. Although it would be easier to seeing her renoucing Klingon citizenship.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

There is no evidence that Worf ever lost his Klingon citizenship. Not even when he was discommended.

You'll notice that when he beamed over to the Vorn and declared the right of vengeance, saying that K'Ehleyr was his mate, Duras immediately complied. (ANY Klingon may declare the right, even one who's lost his house.)

If the Federation had attempted to interfere in either of these situations, it would have been a violation of the Prime Directive.

I was always under the impression that the Prime Directive only applied to races that hadn't developed FTL travel yet.

Picard refused to intervene in the Klingon civil war, citing Prime Directive concerns. So it would seem that a captain has wide latitude in determining what is and isn't a violation, beyond the obvious cases.

As for Gowron's death aboard DS9: The Bajorans probably didn't care one way or the other. They'd consider it an internal Klingon matter and would probably just write it off. If a Bajoran had been hurt or killed in the melee, then maybe they'd have something to say about it. But I'm sure they have their own Prime Directive of sorts. They wouldn't interfere in Klingon politics any more than Picard did.

 

[Nightdiamond]

If the Federation attempted to extradite Duras into custody, half, maybe all of the Klingon empire would threaten war.

In order to keep the peace, they just might readily accept any loophole that would that keeps them from pressing the issue.

They might charge him in absentia, but not much after that with 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of a few' philosophy.


Here's another interesting one--When Worf tried to assist his brother in commiting ritualistic suicide he was stopped by Dax, this happened:

ODO:You better hope he lives, Commander. If not... you'll be charged with murder.

Sisko gave Worf a harsh verbal reprimand.

 

[DWF]

There is no evidence that Worf ever lost his Klingon citizenship. Not even when he was discommended.

You'll notice that when he beamed over to the Vorn and declared the right of vengeance, saying that K'Ehleyr was his mate, Duras immediately complied. (ANY Klingon may declare the right, even one who's lost his house.)

If the Federation had attempted to interfere in either of these situations, it would have been a violation of the Prime Directive.

I was always under the impression that the Prime Directive only applied to races that hadn't developed FTL travel yet.

Picard refused to intervene in the Klingon civil war, citing Prime Directive concerns. So it would seem that a captain has wide latitude in determining what is and isn't a violation, beyond the obvious cases.

No, Picard doesn't cite the PRime Directive in that ep. And really since it's actually written down anywhere no one knows for sure what it says.

 

[BillJ]

No, Picard doesn't cite the PRime Directive in that ep. And really since it's actually written down anywhere no one knows for sure what it says.

Picard brings up non-interference and an internal matter of the Empire:

GOWRON: By right and tradition, I am the sole leader. All who oppose me are traitors.
PICARD: I understand your position, but I', sure you're aware that the Federation cannot interfere in what is, by definition, an internal Klingon affair.

PICARD: Mister Worf, I don't have to lecture you on the principle of non interference. As Starfleet officers, we have all sworn an oath to uphold that principle whatever our personal feelings. I'm sorry. I must refuse your request.

While not mentioned by name, Admiral Shanthi brings up the Klingon civil war as an "internal matter of the Empire".

SHANTHI: (a lady Admiral of African descent) None of which is our concern, Jean-Luc. The Klingon civil war is, by definition, an internal matter of the Empire.

So I guess it depends on interpretation about whether or not they're talking about the Prime Directive. It sure sounds like it to me, though.

 

[T'Girl]

The Federation didn't interfere owing to the Klingon Empire being a sovereign power dealing with an internal problem, and not because of the prime directive. During the double episode neither Picard nor any other Starfleet officer spoke the words "prime directive."

Not all "interference" has to do with the prime directive.

 

[BillJ]

The Federation didn't interfere owing to the Klingon Empire being a sovereign power dealing with an internal problem, and not because of the prime directive. During the double episode neither Picard nor any other Starfleet officer spoke the words "prime directive."

Not all "interference" has to do with the prime directive.

It is logical to assume that since they bring up "non-interference" and the Prime Directive is the "non-interference" directive. That they are the same thing.

 

[T'Girl]

Not all "interference" has to do with the prime directive.

... they are the same thing.

I disagree.

The Empire isn't a pre-warp or per-industrial group, they're a large interstellar body that (the Federation thought) was experiencing a civil war.

The terms of the mutual defense treaty wasn't being satisfied for the Federation to intervene. If the prime directive was in play, the Federation wouldn't even have a treaty with the Empire in the first place.

 

[Sci]

I think the thing to remember about the Prime Directive is that it's not an ideology itself. Rather, the Prime Directive is an alternate term for Federation Starfleet General Order #1. A general order is exactly that -- a standing order issued in advance, which all crews must obey in lieu of specific orders from Command.

Starfleet General Order #1 is based around preserving the particular policy of non-interference with foreign cultures, and specifically is designed to prevent interference in the internal affairs of cultures that have not yet made contact with the larger galaxy and are therefore at an exceptional power disadvantage towards even a single starship.

But as a general order, the Prime Directive is not the non-interference policy itself, nor is it the be-all end-all of orders Starfleet Command or the Federation government might issue to a crew. As a general order, for instance, the Prime Directive might be overruled by a different order issued by the Federation President, or by a different standing order. (The Omega Directive seems to be an example of a classified standing order that overrules the Prime Directive.)

We do, however, know from DS9's "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges" that the policy of non-interference in the internal affairs of foreign cultures is explicitly outlined in the Federation Charter. This would seem to imply that non-interference is a policy that has its roots in the Federation's constitutional order rather than its military's list of general orders, the same way freedom of speech or the right to bear arms are policies set forth in the United States Constitution rather than the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

People do seem to sometimes use the term "Prime Directive" as a shorthand for the general principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of foreign cultures, but this seems to be an inaccurate shorthand.

 

[Nightdiamond]

I think the thing to remember about the Prime Directive is that it's not an ideology itself. Rather, the Prime Directive is an alternate term for Federation Starfleet General Order #1.

But in Pen Pals, they were applying metaphysical concepts to the Prime Directive, like fate and cosmic plan.

They were being less legalistic about it and more philosophical and almost religious.

 

[Joel_Kirk]

The talk about the Prime Directive is interesting since Picard basically interfered with the Edo people's rituals of swift 'justice' in said episode of the same name (i.e. 'Justice'). Many people - like myself - who were annoyed with Wesley wanted to know why the Edo weren't given the right to discipline the kid as they saw fit - death for tripping over flowers.

lol...bad, I know.

Of course, he - Picard - knew the boy's mother personally, and the Edo didn't really know about their 'God' until he was shown to them (again, Picard breaking some rules by beaming one of the people up to the Enterprise, showing her the 1701-D as well as the 'God in Space') even though it was obvious that the Edo knew about space travel due to one knowing Tasha Yar previously.

 

[T'Girl]

^^^
Jean-Luc Picard: "Do as I say, not as I do."

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

The talk about the Prime Directive is interesting since Picard basically interfered with the Edo people's rituals of swift 'justice' in said episode of the same name (i.e. 'Justice'). Many people - like myself - who were annoyed with Wesley wanted to know why the Edo weren't given the right to discipline the kid as they saw fit - death for tripping over flowers.

IIRC, a Starfleet captain may break the Prime Directive to save the lives of his crew and passengers. Despite what the jackass Roman consul said in "Bread and Circuses," a captain isn't expected to give up the lives of his crew to uphold the PD.

 

[BillJ]

Despite what the jackass Roman consul said in "Bread and Circuses," a captain isn't expected to give up the lives of his crew to uphold the PD.

Umm...

Kirk: Captain's log, supplemental. The Enterprise has left the Exeter and moved into close planet orbit. Although it appears the infection may strand us here the rest of our lives, I face an even more difficult problem. A growing belief that Captain Tracey has been interfering with the evolution of life on this planet. It seems impossible. A star captain's most solemn oath is that he will give his life, even his entire crew, rather than violate the Prime Directive.

 

[T'Girl]

Sure, he's expected to die, but when it came down to it, isn't it more likely he basically tell the Federation Council to kiss his ass?

"A star captain's most solemn oath is that he will give his life, even his entire crew, rather than violate the Prime Directive."

The PD is more important than the lives of your service personnel? Important yes, but who's idea was it that the PD rises to that level of importance?

Instead of "everybody dies," how about everybody is required to leave the area? Sound a little better? I think so. You would have seriously twist events so that Starfleet personnel couldn't, in some way, just back off.