Prime Directive? Us only?

[RobertScorpio]

Does anyone else have a prime directive in Star Trek? I don't think the Romulans do, or the Klingons (or do they now because of the alliance). I bet the Borg don't, nor the Dominion I bet.

I think the Federation's Prime Directive is not the norm in Trek's universe. And if there is competition between the galactic powers for resources, I think it is tactically fool hearty at best.

Yes, it does give STAR TREK a lofty, preachy air to it. Fits well with the PBS crowd. But is it logical? And since lowly captains can disregard it, then is it really that important?

Just some thoughts

 

[trash80]

Don't forget only the Federation is a force for good, every other space power is a dangerous band of fascist thugs.

Well its one of those things which probably wouldn't work in reality, the Federation's "logic" is that playing fair with stuff like the PD means that potential federation members are more likely to respond to them later on down the line. In reality the Romulans would come along and offer the aliens 100,000 disruptors and it would be a case of "Federation who?"

 

[KayArr]

If being lofty and preachy means having values worth standing up for rather than thinking about survival only, then I guess that the federation is lofty and preachy. The U.S. used to be lofty and preachy, but now torture is the norm, so there you go. Star Trek is a product of the '60s and new BSG is the product of a strange, new world.

As for lowly captains disregarding it--we're talking about a television show with writers trying to write something new each week, not real life. Though I think that would happen in real life, too! No policy should be so rigid that there wouldn't be a rare exception. Also any policy like that will lead to hair splitting--how about all the debate on the Bill of Rights in the last 200 years?

Some folks think that striving to make the world a better place is what makes life worth living. They torture us, so we must torture them, is not a philosophy that I agree with. Neither is "the U.S. Constitution applies only to U.S. citizens." Gee, here I was thinking that the U.S. Constitution was about fundamental HUMAN rights, not rights for the citizens of one nation only.

 

[A beaker full of death]

trash80 said:
Don't forget only the Federation is a force for good

Oh Jesus Christ. Didn't anyone watch TOS? You know, the Trek that wasn't a kiddie show?

 

[estrea]

<raises hand over head to Beakers query> Yeah, me. Over and over and over. To respond to Robert Scorpio: That's why the Organians stepped in and forced a 'truce' between the Federation and the Klingon Star Empire. Even though there were skirmishes afterward. The Organians supposedly listened to arguments from each side as to why one or the other should lay claim to each new world they 'discovered' and decided who should have possession of it. This little piece of 'canonicity' (sic?) went out the window by the time TMP and TNG came along. And the Organians were never heard about again.

 

[Sci]

KayArr said:
If being lofty and preachy means having values worth standing up for rather than thinking about survival only, then I guess that the federation is lofty and preachy. The U.S. used to be lofty and preachy, but now torture is the norm, so there you go. Star Trek is a product of the '60s and new BSG is the product of a strange, new world.

Of course, the thing to remember about the new BSG is that it isn't endorsing the kinds of human rights violations it depicts. Rather, its goal is to simply have an honest depiction of what many societies degrade into during times of extreme political duress.

 

[trash80]

A beaker full of death said:

trash80 said:
Don't forget only the Federation is a force for good

Oh Jesus Christ. Didn't anyone watch TOS? You know, the Trek that wasn't a kiddie show?

Sorry my sarcasm was not detected by your tricorder

 

[KayArr]

Agreed.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

TOS doesn't get enough credit for being honest in the way BSG is honest. Kirk et all were often depicted as struggling to do the right thing. It was only with TNG that you got this simplistic, preachy version of Star Trek where being holier-than-thou was easy. (And I certainly hope that that version of Star Trek is gone for good.)

And the Prime Directive is aimed at pre-warp civilizations only, in case people are forgetting that. So any civilization that is capable of doing the Federation harm would NOT be governed by that rule. The Prime Directive really isn't comparable to BSG not torturing Cylons because Cylons wouldn't be under the PD in the first place. If they can come after ya with ships and guns, it's a whole different ball game.

 

[Sci]

Temis the Vorta said:
And the Prime Directive is aimed at pre-warp civilizations only, in case people are forgetting that. So any civilization that is capable of doing the Federation harm would NOT be governed by that rule. The Prime Directive really isn't comparable to BSG not torturing Cylons because Cylons wouldn't be under the PD in the first place. If they can come after ya with ships and guns, it's a whole different ball game.

Well, sort of. The PD is not civil law, is the thing to remember; it's a Starfleet General Order that's designed to regulate the behavior of commanding officers in the field in the absence of instructions from Command or the Federation government. It DOES contain a provision barring interference in other sovereign states.

There is no civil equivalent to the PD, from what we know, because "Angel One" established that it doesn't apply to Federation civilians. However, we do know from "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges" that interference in the internal affairs of foreign states is forbidden under the Federation Charter. The actual details of the application of this are unknown.

It would certainly appear to me that the Federation retains the option of engaging in actions that would otherwise violate the PD if Command or the Federation President orders them.

 

[Timo]

There is no civil equivalent to the PD, from what we know, because "Angel One" established that it doesn't apply to Federation civilians.

To be sure, it only gave a fairly "narrow" precedent, of a non-starship crew stranded by accident being free of PD limitations. Perhaps if their emergency had not been so dire, they might have been expected to hold on to higher standards?

In general, though, the PD is shown to tie the hands of starship captains. And this would be an excellent reason to have it. Starship captains are as close to God as they come this side of the Pearly Gates; anything that limits their powers is welcome, from the civilian government's point of view. To forbid starship captains from dictating the path of development of foreign cultures is far more important for the Federation than it is for said foreign cultures...

It also makes perfect sense, then, to have the PD be overtly draconian, even to the point of silliness. It's okay to prevent Picard or Tracey from "saving" a planet when they have the means to do that - because the law doesn't prohibit civilians from coming in later and doing the saving on a less hectic timetable, with more deliberation, full parliamentary oversight and so forth.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[armyofdaleks]

KayArr said:
If being lofty and preachy means having values worth standing up for rather than thinking about survival only, then I guess that the federation is lofty and preachy. The U.S. used to be lofty and preachy, but now torture is the norm, so there you go. Star Trek is a product of the '60s and new BSG is the product of a strange, new world.

As for lowly captains disregarding it--we're talking about a television show with writers trying to write something new each week, not real life. Though I think that would happen in real life, too! No policy should be so rigid that there wouldn't be a rare exception. Also any policy like that will lead to hair splitting--how about all the debate on the Bill of Rights in the last 200 years?

Some folks think that striving to make the world a better place is what makes life worth living. They torture us, so we must torture them, is not a philosophy that I agree with. Neither is "the U.S. Constitution applies only to U.S. citizens." Gee, here I was thinking that the U.S. Constitution was about fundamental HUMAN rights, not rights for the citizens of one nation only.

Well put! :thumbsup:

 

[Mister_Atoz]

Well here's a question, are we ever certain that the Prime Directive is a Federation thing and not just a Starfleet thing?

 

[Sci]

Mister_Atoz said:
Well here's a question, are we ever certain that the Prime Directive is a Federation thing and not just a Starfleet thing?

We know for a fact that it's a Starfleet thing, because it's Starfleet General Order Number One, and because it doesn't apply to civilians (as per "Angel One").

 

[Timo]

To be sure, Starfleet's GO1 seems to be simply "Always obey the Prime Directive", leaving the actual definition of the Prime Directive as an exercise to somebody else.

Correspondingly, General Order One of the US Armed Forces might be "Always uphold the Constitution of the United States", which certainly wouldn't mean that the Constitution is a "military thing".

And as said, the circumstances in "Angel One" might have been very special. After all, it took Data to point out that the Odin crew were exempt, a fact clearly unknown both to Deanna Troi and (far more surprisingly) to Tasha Yar.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Guartho]

KayArr said:
Neither is "the U.S. Constitution applies only to U.S. citizens." Gee, here I was thinking that the U.S. Constitution was about fundamental HUMAN rights, not rights for the citizens of one nation only.

[/QUOTE]

If you're talking legal technicality, it's true, it only applies to US citizens. What it's about and who it applies to are very different things.

 

[A beaker full of death]

Timo said:
To be sure, Starfleet's GO1 seems to be simply "Always obey the Prime Directive", leaving the actual definition of the Prime Directive as an exercise to somebody else.

Correspondingly, General Order One of the US Armed Forces might be "Always uphold the Constitution of the United States", which certainly wouldn't mean that the Constitution is a "military thing".

The Constitution does not restrict the citizens. It restricts the government.
The Prime Directive is a starfleet regulation. McCoy even quoted parts of it once.

 

[ancient]

In TOS the prime directive was basically something put in place to prevent imperialist foreign relations. Basically it stated: Do not mess with/alter someone else's society because everyone has a right to govern themselves without outside interference.

Somehow, this mutated during TNG into: Do not have ANY foreign relations. people dying? Planet blowing up? Oh well, not us. Essentially the implication was that there are only two kinds of foreign relations:

Imperialist Bastards or Nothing.

which is stupid and selfish in the extreme, but anyway...

 

[BrotherBenny]

Think about how many times the PD was bent or broken by KIrk in TOS. Plus you have another century of captains or admirals probably breaking it that we don't know about, so successive C-in-Cs of Starfleet (and maybe even a Federation President throwing his/her/its weight around) pushed for a more literal interpretation - excluding duckblinds of course

 

[Timo]

Somehow, this mutated during TNG into: Do not have ANY foreign relations.

More exactly: "Do not have any foreign relations, you military men - leave it to us civilians". Which is a highly sensible policy to have.

We never heard of a rule blocking the civilian government from pursuing foreign relations. Indeed, while Kirk tried to stay covert and all whenever stumbling onto a civilization on his own, he also frequently acted on orders from high up (supposedly from the civilian government) to forcibly contact some other civilization such as the Eminians, Melkots or Capellans.

Picard wasn't seen conducting such forcible contact missions, but this doesn't mean other Starfleet skippers of the TNG era wouldn't be doing that. Picard did pursue relationships with Bajor on Starfleet's behest, and handed over that mission to Sisko for the duration of a spinoff show.

Timo Saloniemi