Rules of Engagement: Huh?

[Captrek]

SISKO: An outbreak of Rudellian plague has struck the Cardassian colony on Pentath Three. The Cardassians are preparing several convoys of medical supplies and relief workers, but the Pentath system borders Klingon territory and the Cardassians are worried about raids.
WORF: Well, Pentath is a strategically important system. The Klingons will try to stop them.
SISKO: Now the problem is the Cardassians don't have enough warships available to protect the relief convoy. They've asked for Starfleet protection, and because of the humanitarian nature of the request, we've agreed. There will be seven convoys headed for Pentath Three in the next week, each of them protected by a Federation starship. The Defiant has been assigned to escort convoy six, and I've chosen you to be in command.

O'BRIEN: (to camera) There were two Klingon ships. A bird of prey and an old battle cruiser. One would engage us while the other went after the convoy, then they'd switch, the first ship going after the Cardassians while the second ship came after us.
(BOOM)
KIRA: We've lost the number three starboard shield.
WORF: Come about. The cruiser is taking us too far away from the convoy. Try to keep our portside to the Klingons.
O'BRIEN: Aye, sir. This went on for, I don't know, maybe five minutes. They'd come at us, try to draw us away from the Cardassians, we'd head back. Then the bird of prey came toward us off the port bow.
(BOOM)
KIRA: I have phaser lock.
WORF: Fire!
(They hit the ship and it cloaks.)
KIRA: We damaged them, but not much.
O'BRIEN: We'd seen them do this cloak and run manoeuvre a few times, and Commander Worf thought he saw a pattern.
WORF: We have them now. Come to course one eight five mark two seven eight. Stand by quantum torpedoes, full spread.
KIRA: Aye, sir.
O'BRIEN: I ran a quick sensor sweep and then I reported. I'm picking up a tachyon surge directly ahead.
WORF: Fire!

CH'POK: Let's say... You're in command... Do you fire?
O'BRIEN: No.

SISKO: That was your first mistake. What was your second?
WORF: When the ship decloaked, I should have checked the target before I fired.
SISKO: You're damned right you should've checked.

Let me get this straight. You’re in a battle, outnumbered two-to-one, fighting for the survival of your ship, a civilian medical convoy, and the colony on Pentath III. The enemy is using a (cowardly and dishonorable) tactic of decloaking, attacking, and cloaking again before your counterattack. You detect a pattern in the enemy’s movements and anticipate the location where he will appear next. You head for that location and take aim. As you anticipated, a ship begins to decloak...

...and you’re supposed to hold your fire just in case a civilian transport wandered into the battlespace and decided to decloak right in front of you in the exact spot where your analysis predicts the enemy BoP will appear?


And how could the Klingon Empire, with a straight face, even ask for the extradition of Worf for the crime of accidentally shooting a civilian ship in a battle in which the Klingon military was deliberately targeting civilians?!!! How is this incident supposed to make the Federation look bad and not the Klingons?

 

[rahullak]

^
Well, the whole point of that hearing was to ascertain whether Worf should be tried under Federation law or under Klingon law. Worf is a Starfleet officer, as well as a Klingon. The Klingon prosecutor was trying to get the judge to declare that Worf had used Klingon tactics and hence should be tried according to Klingon law and should hence be extradited. Sisko's case was actually weak, since even according to Starfleet's regulation regarding engagement, Worf was not supposed to fire on a decloaking ship even if he was reasonably sure which ship was decloaking. The fact that he fired on a ship full of Klingon civilians (by ignoring Starfleet's own regulations), definitely makes Starfleet look bad.

Of course, once they found out that the whole thing was orchestrated by the Klingons to extract political concessions, the whole case fell through.

Just to be clear, the Klingons don't have a problem targeting enemy civilians (probably even allowed for in their law). But the Federation forbids any of its officers from targeting civilians and there are regulations to guard against accidents. So by making it appear that Worf had flouted Federation law (thus making Stafleet look bad), the Klingons were hoping to get him extradited and gain further political concessions.

 

[Thor Damar]

Although it was in an active combat theater where the aggressors had cloaking technology and used it to make sneak attacks on unarmed ships carrying medical aid.
I doubt either Worf, Starfleet or the Cardassians would ever be so stupid as to refrain from firing on a possibly hostile warship.

Besides what was a Klingon civilian ship doing in a warzone anyway?

 

[rahullak]

^

9 times out of 10, the decloaking ship would have been a Klingon battlecruiser and Worf would have been justified in pulverizing it, even if it were against regulations. But the point of the Starfleet regulations was to help protect civilian lives. Presumably, the regulation still holds even in an active combat theatre (otherwise there would be no point in the episode since the Klingons wouldn't have had any say in the matter and there would be no hearing in the first place). We even hear dialogue that this battle took place near a civilian shipping lane.

The Klingons knew this. And they knew Worf. And so they orchestrated the event and made it appear that Worf had ignored Starfleet regulations (not Klingon regulations mind you; the Klingons have no qualms in targeting civilians) and killed hundreds of civilians in his battle-hungriness. If Sisko hadn't found out the Klingons' duplicity, Worf would've been extradited and the Klingons would have won in their deception.

 

[Captrek]

Well, the whole point of that hearing was to ascertain whether Worf should be tried under Federation law or under Klingon law. Worf is a Starfleet officer, as well as a Klingon. The Klingon prosecutor was trying to get the judge to declare that Worf had used Klingon tactics and hence should be tried according to Klingon law and should hence be extradited.

Just to be clear, the Klingons don't have a problem targeting enemy civilians (probably even allowed for in their law). But the Federation forbids any of its officers from targeting civilians and there are regulations to guard against accidents. So by making it appear that Worf had flouted Federation law (thus making Stafleet look bad), the Klingons were hoping to get him extradited and gain further political concessions.

I’m not an expert on 24th century law, but that’s not how extradition works in today’s world.

Generally speaking, extradition requires three conditions:

1) There is an extradition treaty between the party petitioning for extradition and the party being petitioned.

2) The requested extraditee is accused of violating the laws of the petitioner, and there is a sufficient level of evidence to support the accusation.

3) The crime of which the requested extraditee is accused is recognized in a similar form by the petitionee as a crime. (Viet Nam draft dodgers who fled to Canada could not be extradited because Canada had no draft and did not recognize draft dodging as a crime.)

The idea of extraditing Worf to the Klingon Empire to face trial under the Klingon judicial system for what is a crime according to the UFP but not according to the KE is absurd, at least by today’s standards. It would violate condition (2).

9 times out of 10, the decloaking ship would have been a Klingon battlecruiser

More like 9999 times out of 10000.

If somebody takes a gun and starts shooting at police officers who don’t have an opportunity to take cover, those police officers are going to return fire. Now it’s possible that the police have unknowingly stumbled onto a movie shoot, the gun is loaded with blanks, and the shooter has mistaken the police for other actors. That possibility has a greater probability than that tachyon surge being a civilian transport not involved in the battle, but is still far fetched. The police, although their duty is protect the public, are not going risk their own safety by holding fire just in case of that very remote possibility. By the same token, it doesn’t make sense for Worf to risk the Defiant, the civilian medical convoy, and the colony on Pentath III on account of an even more remote possibility that the tachyon surge does not represent a threat.

 

[rahullak]

^
EDIT:

You're right about the conditions of extradition and that only illustrates my point that the episode wouldn't even have taken place if the UFP didn't consider killing of civilians in a battlefield bordering a civilian shipping lane a crime (whether by accident, negligence or intent).

The idea of extraditing Worf to the Klingon Empire to face trial under the Klingon judicial system for what is a crime according to the UFP but not according to the KE is absurd, at least by today’s standards. It would violate condition (2).

Obviously, they wouldn't be asking for extradition for breaking UFP law but not breaking Klingon law. That's silly.
They weren't just extraditing Worf for breaking UFP law: that was a tactic to get the extradition to go through, just as it was a tactic to try to get Worf worked up and prove that his Klingon instincts overrode his Starfleet training. Their ostensible reason was: For the murder of Klingon civilians which is a crime against the KE. Their real reason was the political gain they would get from having a Starfleet officer murdering 100s of Klingon civilians.

You're right it is probably a higher ratio than 9 out of 10. But I guess the UFP requires a higher standard of its officers compared to present day law enforcers, what with having a lot of defensive measures and such. And just to play devil's advocate: Would it really have killed Worf and destroyed the Defiant to wait a few extra seconds to determine which ship was decloaking? Were the Defiant's shields so completely drained that a single Klingon disrupter blast would've destroyed it? Was it really a life-or-death split second decision? O'Brien's testimony made it clear, even though it was after-the-fact, that he wouldn't have done what Worf did. Why? Because it wasn't a life-threatening situation. Their shields would've held. If that weren't the case, O'Brien would have said, "Yes, I would have done exactly what Mr. Worf did in order to defend ourselves", despite knowing after-the-fact that civilians were on the destroyed ship.

 

[rahullak]

The rest of Sisko's conversation with Worf:

SISKO: That was your first mistake. What was your second?
WORF: When the ship decloaked, I should have checked the target before I fired.
SISKO: You're damned right you should've checked. You knew there were civilian ships in the area. You fired at something you hadn't identified. You made a military decision to protect your ship and crew. But you're a Starfleet officer Worf. We don't put civilians at risk, or even potentially at risk to save ourselves. Sometimes that means we lose the battle and sometimes our lives. But if you can't make that choice then you can't wear that uniform.

There's enough evidence there to suggest that Starfleet holds its officers to a very high standard. Worf clearly failed in that regard, but there was no real harm done except to Worf's sense of honor and duty.

 

[Captrek]

Obviously, they wouldn't be asking for extradition for breaking UFP law but not breaking Klingon law. That's silly.

But you just said, “the Klingons don't have a problem targeting enemy civilians (probably even allowed for in their law).” The Klingons’ conduct in this case supports that assumption.

Their real reason was the political gain they would get from having a Starfleet officer murdering 100s of Klingon civilians.

That makes no sense. How do they make political gains with the accusation “Worf got overzealous and mistakenly killed our civilians in a battle we started by deliberately attacking the civilians he was protecting”?

The absurdity of this is compounded by Ch’Pok’s argument that the reason Worf made that mistake is precisely because he’s a Klingon. How is this supposed to make the Klingons look better than the Feds?

I guess the UFP requires a higher standard of its officers

Perhaps, but as we have both agreed, the KE wasn’t petitioning to extradite Worf for failing Starfleet’s higher standards. In your words, “That’s silly.” They can only petition to extradite him if he has violated Klingon law, and as you point out, targeting enemy civilians appears to be permitted under Klingon law.

Would it really have killed Worf and destroyed the Defiant to wait a few extra seconds to determine which ship was decloaking? Were the Defiant's shields so completely drained that a single Klingon disrupter blast would've destroyed it?

In battle, every second counts. Keep in mind that the Defiant was outnumbered two-to-one. If Worf had hesitated to attack what (according to the information available at the time) was almost certainly the Klingon BoP, those “few extra seconds” might have been all the time the Klingon battle cruiser needed to attack the Defiant or to destroy part or all of the medical convoy that the Defiant was protecting.

Sisko’s rationale for criticizing Worf was, “We don’t put civilians at risk, or even potentially at risk to save ourselves.” Worf’s assignment was to protect the Cardassian civilians in the medical convoy. If Starfleet policy is “We don’t put civilians at risk,” then why should Worf put those Cardassian civilians at risk by protecting what has about a 1-in-10,000 chance of being anything other than one of the Klingon warships that was attacking those civilians?

O'Brien's testimony made it clear, even though it was after-the-fact, that he wouldn't have done what Worf did. Why?

Why? Because the writers threw any semblance of logic out the window, that’s why.

 

[rahullak]

Obviously, they wouldn't be asking for extradition for breaking UFP law but not breaking Klingon law. That's silly.

But you just said, “the Klingons don't have a problem targeting enemy civilians (probably even allowed for in their law).” The Klingons’ conduct in this case supports that assumption.

They don't have a problem targeting civilians that's right. They don't have laws that prohibit them for firing on civilians. That's why they were going after those Cardassian convoys. That doesn't mean that any other ships that attacked Klingon civilians would be off the hook.

Their real reason was the political gain they would get from having a Starfleet officer murdering 100s of Klingon civilians.

That makes no sense. How do they make political gains with the accusation “Worf got overzealous and mistakenly killed our civilians in a battle we started by deliberately attacking the civilians he was protecting”?

"A Starfleet officer was criminally negligent and killed 441 Klingon civilians on a civilian ship that strayed into a battlefield."

Odo makes clear that the civilian ship could have easily strayed into the battlefield by mistake. Again, you're forgetting that the UFP has made it a point to be the moral force in the quadrant. They were protecting Cardassian convoys because they saw it as wrong for the Klingons to be attacking them. In so doing, if they were to murder Klingon civilians even if through negligence, how is that not morally depraved, and hence not going to reduce their moral authority?

Watch the episode again. By getting the UFP to admit that a Starfleet officer killed civilians, the UFP loses the moral and diplomatic ground to protect the Cardassian convoys. That would make it easier for the Klingons to conquer more Cardassian border worlds. That was the whole point of the entire episode.

Perhaps, but as we have both agreed, the KE wasn’t petitioning to extradite Worf for failing Starfleet’s higher standards. In your words, “That’s silly.” They can only petition to extradite him if he has violated Klingon law, and as you point out, targeting enemy civilians appears to be permitted under Klingon law.

No, what I said was it would be silly to assume that the only reason the Klingon's would extradite a Starfleet officer is because he flouted Federation law. Obviously, the reason was as I stated before and which you so easily neglected: Murdering Klingon civilians which is a crime against the Klingon Empire.

The fact that he flouted Starfleet regulations was the reason the hearing takes place at all. And remember, all the Klingon prosecutor wanted to do was secure Worf's extradition in a Federation court by showing that a crime was committed against the Klingon empire by the murder of civilians through negligence and that Worf lets his Klingon bloodlust override his Starfleet training. What the Klingons would or wouldn't do to Worf in a Klingon court wasn't the issue.

Would it really have killed Worf and destroyed the Defiant to wait a few extra seconds to determine which ship was decloaking? Were the Defiant's shields so completely drained that a single Klingon disrupter blast would've destroyed it?

In battle, every second counts. Keep in mind that the Defiant was outnumbered two-to-one. If Worf had hesitated to attack what (according to the information available at the time) was almost certainly the Klingon BoP, those “few extra seconds” might have been all the time the Klingon battle cruiser needed to attack the Defiant or to destroy part or all of the medical convoy that the Defiant was protecting.

How do you know? You're just pulling assumptions out of thin air. It wasn't "almost certain" that those few extra seconds might have been all the time to needed destroy the convoy. Two Klingon warships isn't evidence.

Sisko’s rationale for criticizing Worf was, “We don’t put civilians at risk, or even potentially at risk to save ourselves.” Worf’s assignment was to protect the Cardassian civilians in the medical convoy. If Starfleet policy is “We don’t put civilians at risk,” then why should Worf put those Cardassian civilians at risk by protecting what has about a 1-in-10,000 chance of being anything other than one of the Klingon warships that was attacking those civilians?

Again, the 1-in-10,000 is something you've assumed. They've made clear in the episode that the battle took place near civilian shipping lanes. And again, you're assuming that perhaps a second of waiting to see which ship it was that he was targeting would be enough to destroy medical convoys and the Defiant. Can you assume so? Sure. But then it would be your own fan-fic story. As far as the official, canonical story is concerned, they aren't assuming so.

Also, if you want a real-world analogy about protecting civilians, try human-shields. Terrorists sometimes use human shields and target soldiers and even other civilians. So is it alright to kill the human-shields to get to the terrorists just to prevent them from killing other civilians? Even if there was a chance that some of the human-shields could be terrorists in disguise themselves which you have no way of knowing for sure? Obviously, a big resounding NO. Would you want to wait to find out which human-shields were actually terrorists before taking action against them? Absolutely YES.

O'Brien's testimony made it clear, even though it was after-the-fact, that he wouldn't have done what Worf did. Why?

Why? Because the writers threw any semblance of logic out the window, that’s why.

No, because the writers were working on a different set of assumptions in making the episode than you are making after watching it. Bear in mind, that its a Universe and a story they've created. It's their rules. And they are being logical with the assumptions they're making. And their assumptions were simply: It wouldn't have hurt the convoys or the Defiant to wait a second, find out which ship was decloaking, and then fire if necessary. And they're also making clear that Starfleet expects its officers to hold themselves to a very high standard, as Sisko said. Protecting civilians is fine. Protecting civilians by killing other civilians (even if through negligence) is not.

 

[Captrek]

They don't have a problem targeting civilians that's right. They don't have laws that prohibit them for firing on civilians. That's why they were going after those Cardassian convoys. That doesn't mean that any other ships that attacked Klingon civilians would be off the hook.

For extradition to occur, the essential nature of the act must be recognized as a crime by both sides.

The wording of Klingon law may state “It’s OK to kill Cardassian civilians, but a crime to kill Klingon civilians,” but if so, the essence of the law is that it’s OK to kill civilians on the other side, which is precisely what Worf was accused of doing.

Again using the Viet Nam draft dodger analogy, they couldn’t be extradited from Canada because Canada had no draft and no crime of draft dodging. They could have been extradited from a country that has laws against draft dodging, even though such laws obviously criminalize dodging their drafts, not dodging the American draft. (Note: the situation with Canada has since been changed by a treaty that allows American draft dodgers to be extradited from Canada. In this case, the treaty makes an explicit exception to the general rule that extradition is granted only for crimes recognized as crimes by the extraditing state. Of course, we haven’t had a draft since Nam, so the exception may be moot.)

Again, you're forgetting that the UFP has made it a point to be the moral force in the quadrant. They were protecting Cardassian convoys because they saw it as wrong for the Klingons to be attacking them. In so doing, if they were to murder Klingon civilians even if through negligence, how is that not morally depraved, and hence not going to reduce their moral authority?

If the Federation, on an errand of mercy, kills civilians by a rash mistake while the Klingons are killing civilians on purpose, how does the Federation not have the moral high ground?

(BTW, who are these unnamed moral judges that are going to see the Federation as the villains in this incident and thereby give an advantage to the Klingons? Romulans? Bajorans? Changelings? Federation citizens?)

By getting the UFP to admit that a Starfleet officer killed civilians, the UFP loses the moral and diplomatic ground to protect the Cardassian convoys.

I realize that that’s the point the writers were trying to make, but I maintain that it doesn’t make sense.

What the Klingons would or wouldn't do to Worf in a Klingon court wasn't the issue.

In an extradition hearing, that is very much an issue.

It wasn't "almost certain" that those few extra seconds might have been all the time to needed destroy the convoy.

No, not almost certain. But the probability that hesitating would result in the death of Cardassian civilians under Worf’s protection is far greater than the probability that firing would result in the death of civilians.

Also, if you want a real-world analogy about protecting civilians, try human-shields. Terrorists sometimes use human shields and target soldiers and even other civilians. So is it alright to kill the human-shields to get to the terrorists just to prevent them from killing other civilians? Even if there was a chance that some of the human-shields could be terrorists in disguise themselves which you have no way of knowing for sure?

More than merely “a chance.” If it’s very highly probable that the shield is one of the terrorists, then yes, it is “alright to kill the human-shields to get to the terrorists just to prevent them from killing other civilians.” (To keep the analogy fair, assume that the terrorist attack is underway and civilians are in imminent mortal danger. We’re not talking about going through a human shield to get to the terrorists for fear that the terrorists will commit future attacks against civilians if they are allowed to get away.)

I don’t know where you get the idea that US rules of engagement during an ongoing firefight state that the target must be identified with absolute 100% certainty before firing. During a battle, you constantly have to make quick decisions that involve weighing the risks of action against the risks of inaction. This is what Worf did.

WORF: Yes, sir. If I had hesitated, I would have been negligent. I would have been risking my ship, my crew and the entire convoy.

Bear in mind, that its a Universe and a story they've created. It's their rules.

That’s true. It’s their universe, and they can set the rules, even if the rules state that logic does not apply in their universe. I do not deny their right to create a stupid story, but I also have the right to point out that it’s stupid.

And their assumptions were simply: It wouldn't have hurt [i.e., risked — cap] the convoys or the Defiant to wait

As far as I can recall, neither Ch’Pok, nor Sisko, nor anybody else in the episode ever makes that assertion. However, as quoted above, the most honorable man in the Trek universe asserts the contrary under oath. Sisko tacitly agrees when he states, “Sometimes that means we lose the battle and sometimes our lives.” I’m not the one making assumptions unsupported by canon.

 

[rahullak]

Well, I won't argue further since you've already decided its a stupid story and didn't really want to hear anything else. It was my mistake in assuming you wanted a different view.

Just one thing: Worf may have said

WORF: Yes, sir. If I had hesitated, I would have been negligent. I would have been risking my ship, my crew and the entire convoy.

under oath. But he was shown to have been under the Klingon bloodlust during a fight which he proves by striking Ch'Pok while also under oath. He also confesses to Sisko that Ch'Pok was completely right about him and his nature. This and O'Brien's testimony tells me that the writers were working on the assumptions I've mentioned earlier.

Like I said, I won't argue further, since you've made up your mind and I don't want to waste anymore of my time. Cheers!

 

[Captrek]

Well, I won't argue further since you've already decided its a stupid story and didn't really want to hear anything else. It was my mistake in assuming you wanted a different view.

Oh, bunk. Just because your arguments are unconvincing doesn’t mean I’m doing the fingers-in-the-ears “la la la I can’t hear you” thing. After all, I’m no more unconvinced by your arguments than you are by mine.

Just one thing: Worf may have said

WORF: Yes, sir. If I had hesitated, I would have been negligent. I would have been risking my ship, my crew and the entire convoy.

under oath. But he was shown to have been under the Klingon bloodlust during a fight which he proves by striking Ch'Pok while also under oath.

Sisko agreed with Worf’s conclusion.

This and O'Brien's testimony tells me that the writers were working on the assumptions I've mentioned earlier.

That is not supported by what appears in the episode. Nobody in the episode asserts that hesitation would not have entailed risk to the Defiant or the convoy. Two credible sources assert the contrary.

The writers were not working under the assumption that the Defiant and the convoy were in no danger. The assumption they were working under, explicitly stated by Sisko, is that Starfleet has an “absolute 100% certainty or hold fire, even at the risk of losing the battle” policy, which is absolutely ridiculous.

Mistakes can and do happen during battle. Sometimes soldiers get killed by friendly fire. Sometimes bystanders get killed. That’s the cost of the chaos and uncertainty that often prevail on the battlefield. It’s unfortunate, but the cost would be even greater if our soldiers allowed themselves to be paralyzed by even slight uncertainty.

I understand where you’re coming from. Either the Defiant and the convoy were in no danger, or the story is idiotic. You find the latter possibility repellent, so you conclude the former, even though it has no direct support in the episode and does have direct refutation.

 

[Timo]

Whenever this issue arises, I'd like to emphasize how the entire concept of the episode seems half-baked, not just the minor technical details of Worf's trial. Clearly, the writers had an idea in mind, but failed to write a story that would have carried that idea in a logical manner.

However, it's not all that difficult to wring a logical story out of the episode, even if it is not the one the writers intended.

The basic premise of the "Klingon plot" that Sisko thought he had uncovered was that a trial against Worf would embarrass the UFP into stopping the medical convoys. But that makes no sense, as Worf's convoy was already number six out of seven, and no doubt convoy number seven had already sailed by the time the trial got going.

What does make sense is that the Klingons would try to prove to the outside world (say, Romulans, or local neutrals who might be tempted to ally with the Feds) that the Feds are sanctimonious bastards who will not allow their criminals to be extradited. Now that would specifically call for the Klingons to set up a weak case, one that they could never hope to win - because when the UFP won and refused extradition, that's when the Empire would collect the political victory. And the Empire probably did collect, as Sisko's threat about exposing the Klingon duplicity was an empty one. He would only expose it if Worf were taken, which he obviously was not... The Empire didn't really want Worf, as he was far more convenient when on the loose and handy as a scapegoat for whatever the Empire wanted to accuse Starfleet (or certain Klingon factions sympathetic to the son of Mogh) of.

So the line of prosecution by Ch'Pok is logical and well executed. The attitude of the UFP JAG officer is also understandable - she would have seen the political sensitiveness of the case and would have realized that the best approach was to give Ch'Pok enough rope to hang himself. Strictness and fairness and denying Ch'Pok his court floor excesses would have won the UFP nothing.

Sisko would miss the political subtleties. For him, what mattered was exposing every last detail of how Worf might have been in the wrong, and then carefully proving that he wasn't - in short, a fair trial. That ill served the UFP and well served the Empire, but Sisko wouldn't see this. And the JAG official wouldn't want to let Sisko in on the bigger issues, as this would jeopardize her position and credibility...

So a trial in which Ch'Pok would from the very start declare that he didn't care about facts; a trial in which Sisko was diligent about facts and regulations (to the point of dismissing the tactical realism of the battle) and wanted to expose everything so that no doubt would remain of Worf's innocence; a trial where nothing was ultimately at stake for Worf and everything had been decided in advance - why, that would be the only sort of trial that actually made sense!

Timo Saloniemi