So I’ve been re-watching all of DS9 lately, something I haven’t done in awhile, usually when I’ll throw on an episode when I’m bored it’s Season 6 or 7. But damn man, can we just stop for a moment and appreciate this episode, mainly, I loved Ron Canadas performance as the Klingon Advocate, it was actually quite the stellar performance and I love the idea that behind strong facade of Klingon Culture there are more reserved, sophisticated individuals that have alternate careers from the Military. And it’s also again just another awesome example of world building in the Star Trek Universe, the courtroom intrigue and “International” plots. Anyway, just a random shout out because I had forgotten just how good this one was.
Absolutely! Ch'Pok did a great job of showing that he was just as much a Klingon warrior as any Klingon with a batleth or disruptor.
Also, basically he secures another victory for the bad guys here, smearing Starfleet reputation with the trial as intended. That he gets sent home seemingly with his tail between his legs when Sisko threatens to reveal that the "massacre" was but a sham is what seals his victory: the public never learns of the sham, and only sees Starfleet refuse to let Worf face proper Klingon justice. His grace in "defeat" is another thing masterfully handled by Canada, even if he and the writers had different ideas about what this "defeat" meant. This character is basically Campbell's Koloth, down to the story arc and certain makeup details, but the nuances are all delightfully different. Oh, what fun it would have been to have the character return... Timo Saloniemi
I love how when people testify at Worf's trial, it's shown as if it was happening for real, but with the characters speaking directly to the camera.
Agreed on all points. There was a shoutout to his character later on. In "SONS AND DAUGHTERS", one of the new officers is the son of Ch'Pok.
It's good but I can't buy into the main premise of this episode because I don't agree Worf did anything wrong in shooting the shit out of that decloaking vessel in the middle of the warzone. Cloaking devices should be classed as a stealth weapon, would be outlawed in the Federation, and if you're stupid enough to use one in the middle of a battle, no matter if you're a civilian transport, then you get what's coming.
I'm someone who thinks the opposite. Clearly based on what Sisko said to Worf, part of Starfleet procedure is to verify targets before opening fire, Worf didn't do that. His decision was impulsive and governed by his ego because he had something to prove. That is a really shitty way for a commanding officer to behave. Like Sisko said, Worf had no idea what was decloaking, It could have been a Klingon civilian transport using a known space lane with a cloaking device that malfunctioned. Or it could have been a captured bajoran transport fitted with a cloaking device and filled to the brim with Bajoran civilians as part of some plan to damage the relationship between the Federation and Bajor. At the end of the day, Worf made a bad call based on his personal feelings and he was rightly brought to task for it.
I don't think the charges are the premise. Rather, the charges being made is the premise, and it is of no concern or help to our heroes that the charges are nonsensical. They have to clear Worf of them in public anyway, and saying "these charges are stupid" is not a valid approach when people supposedly died. Say, you creatively crash an airliner in the Hudson and save 155 folks; you still get sued for crashing them. And then cleared. Only, the Klingons made good work of engineering the charges so that clearing them would not be trivial, and wouldn't make Starfleet look good no matter what. And Starfleet would really have to squirm when faced with the fact that the captains very seldom actually verify targets before firing, regardless of supposed rules (at least we basically never see them verify anything). "Everybody does that!" only makes matters worse, as the point is to keep Worf from getting treated like "everybody", i.e. Klingon. As for cloaked passenger ships, that's the truly effective way to use cloaks as a weapon of war. In combat, invisibility isn't of much use: you have to reveal yourself eventually anyway. But if you can handle your logistics under invisibility, and deploy an entire army so that the enemy notices nothing, you can then launch that army in full visibility and still surprise the enemy into a major defeat. Doing all logistics under cloak would only make sense, then. ...The stupid part thus comes in "Sons and Daughters", where we see a Klingon wartime convoy, when we really, really should not. Timo Saloniemi
Then again, Worf is a great worrier. He admits to a lot of shortcomings in a lot of adventures, most of those imaginary or irrelevant. It's a death wish of sorts, perhaps the result of misunderstanding the Klingon rules of conduct or the degree to which these are to be regarded as valid. It's too bad that the trial can't be about merely proving Worf's innocence of wrongdoing, as it instead requires proving that Worf is a saint and Starfleet is divine. Timo Saloniemi
I agree with AgonyboothB about this. Gun safety includes knowing what you're shooting at. If all you see is a rustling in the bushes, hold your fire. That applies even more strongly when you are representing a country with the awesome weapons they have given you. Don't fire until you can identify the ship as a foe. You all are familiar with the incident that inspired this episode? In 1988, a United States Navy cruiser was in the Persian Gulf in Iranian waters, exchanging fire with Iranian gunboats. The gunboats were not making much impression on the armor of the cruiser, but there was a lot of tension and confusion. The cruiser's computers and crew misidentified an Iran Air airliner as an fighter plane attacking the ship and shot it down killing 290 passengers and crew. The airliner's transponder was operating on civilian frequency but the cruiser was only looking for military transponders, and the crew did not wonder why an attacking fighter would be gaining altitude like airliners on their usual flight path instead of descending to hit the cruiser more quickly. The cruiser radioed warnings, but with the position and course of the airliner misidentified and not on the air traffic control frequency; it is unclear whether the airliner crew heard them at all or whether they realized their flight was the one the warnings were directed to. (See Iran Air flight 655 if you want more information about this.) Many in the U.S. have forgotten that this incident ever happened, but the Iranians have not; it was another chapter in the sad decline of relations between our countries.
I can agree that the Federation would have procedures that require Worf to wait to identify the ship before shooting at it. That's what happens in the episode. I just don't agree with it because cloaks should be classed as weapons technology and illegal to everyone under Federation law including and probably especially civilian ships because of the danger they pose to themselves and anyone around it due to potential accidents and that no matter if the Klingons used cloaks on their own civilian ships Starfleet should have told them "well too bad, maybe if they weren't using stealth weapons in a combat zone they wouldn't have got shot at." Then the Starfleet investigators come in and then there's a hearing. But the potential danger of waiting a few seconds could have caused significant injury or loss of life on the Defiant so no matter if people think Worf should have waited the responsibility lies in the Klingon government or operators of the transport for allowing it to be cloaked in the first place. So Worf might get lectured to but no charges are laid. Obviously the episode disagrees with me though. I too liked the way the camera would interact with the character as they remember stuff. I've seen that used in other things but more fourth wall breaking I think.
The Federation has no right to dictate to the Klingons what they can and can't do with cloaking devices. You're also 100% missing the point that Worf acted irresponsibly by letting his need to prove himself and strike back at the Klingons influence his decision. It was pure negligence on Worf's part. Like Sisko said, Starfleet officers don't put civilian lives at risk, sometimes that means Starfleet officers lose their lives. But that is part of the oath they take and the risks they accept when they join Starfleet. To suggest that Starfleet be so dismissive about the deaths of civilians is pretty reprehensible.
Sure, and that's what the episode said. But I don't think Worf acted irresponsibly because cloaks are too dangerous and if the Klingons are known to use them in war then they bear the repercussions if their civilian ships get shot at. It's like a kid waving around a toy gun in some American park and some cop shoots him. Yes it's a shame and a tragedy and you can blame the cop but if the parent bought that gun then they have a responsibility too. Klingons could arm civilian ships so that the seconds of hesitation Starfleet waits leads to death and injuries and I don't think it's reasonable that Starfleet officers lives should be on the line just because Klingons are idiots. Just the mere act of using a cloak should be like pulling a gun on someone and people should act accordingly. They can talk up their cultural difference all they want and how they choose to live but if you choose to have a stealth weapon on your civilian ship then you bear responsibility for your actions. The Birds of Prey in Trek 3 and Trek 5 looked able to shoot almost immediately after decloaking, same with Romulan wabirds in TNG and DS9. This episode disagrees with me completely and that's fine.
A cloak is not a weapon. It can be used in aid of attack, but that doesn't make it a weapon unto itself. It's like if a kid was hiding under a blanket during a street fight. And then suddenly they threw the blanket off, revealing themselves. ...And then got shot to death.
This EP is high on my list of DS9 favs. But, just to be clear, I truly enjoy every EP that LeVar Burton directed.
Why not? Any country can dictate on any group of people that wearing the wrong type of clothes in wars is grounds for summary execution without trial, even though there is no particular legal basis for the country having the right to tell other countries or people thereof what to do and how to live. The right comes out of the gunbarrel. Suspicious people get shot by "good guy" militaries literally every day, because asking questions first is not practical. What follows depends on whether camera crews were present. But the concept of dressing wrong being a capital crime is widely accepted, and there's little reason to think that the Trek powers would view cloaks as a thing somehow different from flying a false flag. Little reason, that is, but certain interpretations of this very episode... That's just words. If Sisko or Picard did the same and didn't say the words, there'd be no irresponsibility involved. "Need to prove oneself" is neither provable nor actionable. And striking back at the Klingons would be both a tactical decision necessary for protecting the convoy, and Worf's sworn duty in the factually ongoing conflict where no amends or treaties had been made after the "Way of the Warrior" onset of hostilities. Civilians get shot "just in case" regularly enough in our reality. Pretty often, it's the right call to make, these civilians being deadly hostiles either all or in part. The rules forbidding such have always been a dead letter. That Starfleet would be expected to hold higher standards is admirable, and a very Trek thing. It's just that we never see any sign of this happening anywhere in Trek... Kirk, Picard and Janeway all shoot to kill to cut short an evident aggression. Sometimes they have the luxury of making the kill shot only minimally lethal, and we don't actually learn of casualties aboard the offending vessel that got its guns or engines fried. Sometimes not. But on screen, waiting for positive ID when an enemy uncloaks is basically a ST3:TSfS only thing, and even then Kirk's tardiness in reacting to what he already (rightly) presumes to be a combat adversary is more due to practical issues than a desire to make sure. Timo Saloniemi
Or, to use a more apropos analogy - it's like when the "mother and kid" silhouette pops up at the police training range.