So, they aren't held to any contract on Icarus, but they can imagine being home and under martial law? That doesn't make any sense, the fact of the matter is, Young was put in charge, that means he does have the authority.
SG-U – Divided (1x12) - (Discuss – Grade | SPOILERS)
- Thread starter Tom
- Start date
The fact of the matter is that all this is being extrapolated from the few lines we've gotten so far concerning this. There's been nothing so definitive presented on screen as to the overall command situation of the Destiny from Earth's perspective. The fans can of course speculate, but that's all we can do. We're not there, in-universe, sitting in on meetings between the IOA and DOD.
If things were as cut and dry as people like Starbrow seem to think they are, then why is it that none of the characters seem to know this? Why doesn't Wray mention to Young that the IOA and, say, General O'Neill all are in agreement that she should be in command? Huh? Why?
Their only pretext is based on the abstract notion of "he forgot that the military is controlled by civilians". Never did Wray once mention Earth. She never said that she is officially in control. She said that she should be. It's an ideological rationalization, not an official mandate.
Why, Starbrow, would such a critical fact go unacknowledged by the mutineers? Why are you the one that has to point this out after the fact? Don't you think if it was that incontrovertible, we'd have all seen it? Don't you think if Wray was the legitimate authority of Destiny that at least some of the military would fall in line so as to not risk court martial?
All we're doing here is grasping at straws. We should take our cues only from what Cooper and Wright and team have chosen to present on screen. And that amounts only to a bunch of fed up folks taking matters into their own hands out of frustration that things aren't going the way they want them to. Even from a moral standpoint, it's razor thin. We've never, for instance, seen any of the civilians stage a major protest or demand a summit with Young. Never. They go from whispers in the corner to outright mutiny, full stop.
And Starbrow, while you may sympathize with them, the writers clearly don't want us to. They make them as completely incompetent, amoral and belligerent as they can. But "they're the wrong people" and so that excuses all of their adolescent behavior.
The ONLY lines in the entire series so far concerning command are when O'Neill tells Young that he is in charge. Everything beyond that is end-trails and tea leaves.
If things were as cut and dry as people like Starbrow seem to think they are, then why is it that none of the characters seem to know this? Why doesn't Wray mention to Young that the IOA and, say, General O'Neill all are in agreement that she should be in command? Huh? Why?
Their only pretext is based on the abstract notion of "he forgot that the military is controlled by civilians". Never did Wray once mention Earth. She never said that she is officially in control. She said that she should be. It's an ideological rationalization, not an official mandate.
Why, Starbrow, would such a critical fact go unacknowledged by the mutineers? Why are you the one that has to point this out after the fact? Don't you think if it was that incontrovertible, we'd have all seen it? Don't you think if Wray was the legitimate authority of Destiny that at least some of the military would fall in line so as to not risk court martial?
All we're doing here is grasping at straws. We should take our cues only from what Cooper and Wright and team have chosen to present on screen. And that amounts only to a bunch of fed up folks taking matters into their own hands out of frustration that things aren't going the way they want them to. Even from a moral standpoint, it's razor thin. We've never, for instance, seen any of the civilians stage a major protest or demand a summit with Young. Never. They go from whispers in the corner to outright mutiny, full stop.
And Starbrow, while you may sympathize with them, the writers clearly don't want us to. They make them as completely incompetent, amoral and belligerent as they can. But "they're the wrong people" and so that excuses all of their adolescent behavior.
The ONLY lines in the entire series so far concerning command are when O'Neill tells Young that he is in charge. Everything beyond that is end-trails and tea leaves.
I hope that's not their goal, because so far all it's done is make me side with Rush and Wray more. At least Wray's not murderous (and will even handicap their own plan to save their opponent), while Young was perfectly willing to kill Rush in retaliation for framing him.
Re: SG-U
An Air Marshall? Of course Rush and the other civilians have no way of piloting Destiny either for that matter.
An Air Marshall? Of course Rush and the other civilians have no way of piloting Destiny either for that matter.
I've not seen Space either (it airs in a couple of days over here), but I just assumed there was some excitement and interesting things happening in that episode. Or is it just mixed up in the "angry extremely uninteresting and unlikeable people arguing and yelling at each other in a dark dull ship"
Re: SG-U
Not true. Young and his personnel are in charge because they were placed in that position by the SGC and IOA. Rush is like a civilian reactor specialist who is on board because he'd contracted with the Navy.
Once he's in that position, it doesn't matter if the captain can't steer the ship, since that too is a frequent occurance at sea (steering gear and engine damage is very common during naval combat). In no case does an inabiity of the captain and crew to directly steer a vessel entitle anyone else on board to use force to relieve them of command. To do so is classified as mutiny, hijacking, or piracy in every maritime court on planet Earth.
Nor does a civilian's expertise and a crew's lack thereof entitle the civilian to assume command by force. That, too, is hijacking.
Put more simply, any aeronautical engineer, Delta Airlines, or Boeing employee who tried to seize control of an airliner in flight because they didn't like the peanuts and in-flight movie, well, they would spend the rest of their days in jail.
It doesn't matter that they know more about aeronautics than the pilot. It doesn't matter if they know more about the airliner's electrical systems. It doesn't matter if they're higher-up the airline's corporate heirarchy than the pilot. They are not the pilot-in-command and using force to take over is hijacking. The pilot-in-command is both allowed and commanded to use almost any measure to retain control and command of his aircraft and passengers.
Not true. Young and his personnel are in charge because they were placed in that position by the SGC and IOA. Rush is like a civilian reactor specialist who is on board because he'd contracted with the Navy.
Once he's in that position, it doesn't matter if the captain can't steer the ship, since that too is a frequent occurance at sea (steering gear and engine damage is very common during naval combat). In no case does an inabiity of the captain and crew to directly steer a vessel entitle anyone else on board to use force to relieve them of command. To do so is classified as mutiny, hijacking, or piracy in every maritime court on planet Earth.
Nor does a civilian's expertise and a crew's lack thereof entitle the civilian to assume command by force. That, too, is hijacking.
Put more simply, any aeronautical engineer, Delta Airlines, or Boeing employee who tried to seize control of an airliner in flight because they didn't like the peanuts and in-flight movie, well, they would spend the rest of their days in jail.
It doesn't matter that they know more about aeronautics than the pilot. It doesn't matter if they know more about the airliner's electrical systems. It doesn't matter if they're higher-up the airline's corporate heirarchy than the pilot. They are not the pilot-in-command and using force to take over is hijacking. The pilot-in-command is both allowed and commanded to use almost any measure to retain control and command of his aircraft and passengers.
Re: SG-U
But legally that doesn't matter. Even in a lifeboat, the captain is still in charge. Command decisions aren't just about steering the ship (and removing that ability from a sci-fi show certainly helps move the plot along because the writers don't have to burn 15 minutes an episode with the discussion of plotting a course, then issuing the orders, etc).
Command decisions are also about personnel, resource allocation, and course of action. You could think of their ship as a fort. When you walk on an army base the commander can no more steer the fort around than you can, but that doesn't mean you have an equal claim to be in command of it.
If the civilians were given permission to hop off on some planet, then yes, they could be free of the ship's military command structure and set up their own happy little society. But until then, they're along for the ride.
It may grate on their nerves, but that's life.
Further, why on Earth should any of the civilians be under any obligations to Wray? Do you feel bound to obey the orders of some employee of some random international organization? Do you jump whenever someone from WHO or UNESCOM barks an order at you? No, you don't.
Imagine Wray as a corporate executive with Delta Airlines. You may have had a contract with them at one time, but just because she's on the same flight that you are doesn't mean she is in charge of you, since you can just say, "I quit," and give her the finger. However, under several international conventions, until the aircraft is safely down, you are under the control of the pilot-in-command, which is necessary for the safety of everyone on board.
But legally that doesn't matter. Even in a lifeboat, the captain is still in charge. Command decisions aren't just about steering the ship (and removing that ability from a sci-fi show certainly helps move the plot along because the writers don't have to burn 15 minutes an episode with the discussion of plotting a course, then issuing the orders, etc).
Command decisions are also about personnel, resource allocation, and course of action. You could think of their ship as a fort. When you walk on an army base the commander can no more steer the fort around than you can, but that doesn't mean you have an equal claim to be in command of it.
If the civilians were given permission to hop off on some planet, then yes, they could be free of the ship's military command structure and set up their own happy little society. But until then, they're along for the ride.
It may grate on their nerves, but that's life.
Further, why on Earth should any of the civilians be under any obligations to Wray? Do you feel bound to obey the orders of some employee of some random international organization? Do you jump whenever someone from WHO or UNESCOM barks an order at you? No, you don't.
Imagine Wray as a corporate executive with Delta Airlines. You may have had a contract with them at one time, but just because she's on the same flight that you are doesn't mean she is in charge of you, since you can just say, "I quit," and give her the finger. However, under several international conventions, until the aircraft is safely down, you are under the control of the pilot-in-command, which is necessary for the safety of everyone on board.
Boy, that episode was a stinker. Gave it a one.
As others have pointed out, the mutiny didn't really make any sense on any level. After ending last week with bad music and a montage, they open up this week with bad music and a Chloe nightmare?
I think anyone who was excited at the 'change in tone' that Universe was bringing must by now be back to reality. Whether it's light-hearted galaxy tromping like Atlantis or Dark and Gritty Space Mutiny Universe, the Stargate brain trust has devolved into Voyager-era Bragadom. I think if you gave these guys a reality show, it would be shitty even compared to typical reality fare. Give 'em a soap opera, and it would be the worst soap opera on TV. Give them a movie budget and Michael Bay would roll his eyes at the stupidity of the result.
Destiny didn't need a mutiny, but I can't say the same for the current Gatetard regime. Yeah... I really didn't like this episode.
As others have pointed out, the mutiny didn't really make any sense on any level. After ending last week with bad music and a montage, they open up this week with bad music and a Chloe nightmare?
I think anyone who was excited at the 'change in tone' that Universe was bringing must by now be back to reality. Whether it's light-hearted galaxy tromping like Atlantis or Dark and Gritty Space Mutiny Universe, the Stargate brain trust has devolved into Voyager-era Bragadom. I think if you gave these guys a reality show, it would be shitty even compared to typical reality fare. Give 'em a soap opera, and it would be the worst soap opera on TV. Give them a movie budget and Michael Bay would roll his eyes at the stupidity of the result.
Destiny didn't need a mutiny, but I can't say the same for the current Gatetard regime. Yeah... I really didn't like this episode.
Re: SG-U
Nope. The military took control of the vessel, which is a common historical occurance well covered under maritime law, such as capturing enemy vessels, abandoned vessels, etc. When a military vessel or a military unit (such as an infantry unit overrunning a naval base) takes a vessel, they retain control of it until such time as they relinquish such control. This happens constantly during wartime. In no case do random civilians get to use force to seize it, and in fact the military is completely within their rights to use lethal force to prevent such an occurance.
For example, if you're a journalist attached to a SEAL unit that boards an takes an Iranian oil platform and you try to seize control and force the SEALs to surrender, they'll shoot you. If you survive you'll be put on trial in a maritime court for hijacking, if not treason. Just because you're a civilian doesn't mean you're in charge. If it did, every lieutenant under stress would resign his commission and overthrow his colonel.
Nope. The military took control of the vessel, which is a common historical occurance well covered under maritime law, such as capturing enemy vessels, abandoned vessels, etc. When a military vessel or a military unit (such as an infantry unit overrunning a naval base) takes a vessel, they retain control of it until such time as they relinquish such control. This happens constantly during wartime. In no case do random civilians get to use force to seize it, and in fact the military is completely within their rights to use lethal force to prevent such an occurance.
For example, if you're a journalist attached to a SEAL unit that boards an takes an Iranian oil platform and you try to seize control and force the SEALs to surrender, they'll shoot you. If you survive you'll be put on trial in a maritime court for hijacking, if not treason. Just because you're a civilian doesn't mean you're in charge. If it did, every lieutenant under stress would resign his commission and overthrow his colonel.
Probably yell and argue with the others, but you're spectacularly missing the point.
This is a tv series. I wouldn't have made it a dull, uninteresting one in the first place, with unlikeable characters who do nothing but shout and argue with each other, and boring storylines.
First of all, I see that you feel strongly about your position, but rein in the fucking insults, will ya? And learn how to fucking spell and punctuate before calling other people simple minded.It's becoming obvious that, as others use verity to explain their point, you prefer to make purely capricious and fatuous arguments ("I see what I want to see") because you can't back up your point with logic. All well and good, but understand that every time you do that you undermine whatever point you were trying to make and your arguments read like a nebulous mess of gushing rants.
You also conveniently and not surprisingly glossed over the other key points in the post you quoted. So I ask again, if the authority of the civilians is so completely self-evident and incontrovertible, what was the point of the mutiny in the first place? Huh? What?
If the civilians had such serious grievances, why did they not protest more loudly instead of skulking around in dark corners, whispering and planning their ludicrous little insurrection? Why Starbrow? Did you "see" something that everyone else (and the writers apparently) did not see?
And your chide about me bringing up O'Neill? You may not be able to comprehend this, so I'll try to keep it "simple minded" enough for you. Some of us like to critique a television series on what is, you know, actually televised. I pointed out that the only reference to command in the series thus far was the general's reference, which I'm certain most rational people will agree is entirely relevant to the discussion. But that obviously doesn't fit in with your intransigent, myopic viewpoint so you lash out militantly.
For the record, I'm not agreeing with you or gturner on the issue of who's ultimately in command (because I personally don't give a fuck) and you may have noticed that had you not been so dense. My main criticism is of the insipid and lame nature of the whole mutiny plot device.
You know, I see a lot of people saying how stupid it is for the civilians to take over the Destiny by quoting the rule book or legality. That's completely missing the point of the mutiny.
The civilians mutinied because Young is crazy. Leaving Rush behind on the planet to die (which I admit not everyone knew, but strongly suspected) pretty much convinced them Young needed to go. It wasn't because the rule book says civilians should lead. It's because their current commanding officer is batshit insane. If Young had been, say General Hammond, I'm pretty sure the civilians would be quite happy being led by the military.
Jeez, I can't believe I'm defending SG:U. My how the tables have turned.
The civilians mutinied because Young is crazy. Leaving Rush behind on the planet to die (which I admit not everyone knew, but strongly suspected) pretty much convinced them Young needed to go. It wasn't because the rule book says civilians should lead. It's because their current commanding officer is batshit insane. If Young had been, say General Hammond, I'm pretty sure the civilians would be quite happy being led by the military.
Jeez, I can't believe I'm defending SG:U. My how the tables have turned.
I don't know, the two mutinies Voyager showed us made a lot more sense than this one. One was a holographic what-if scenario, and the other was the Maquis crew being brainwashed by a Bajoran who had somehow captured Tuvok.
I'm not saying either one was a good episode, but they were less stupid than this SGU episode.
The problem is is that the show isn't really protraying anything like that. All the civilians are just acting like whiny crybabies being led by opportunistic fools (Wray and Rush). Meanwhile the military are just a bunch of tough guys/girls following Young with blind loyalty. While there would be understandable tension between the two groups, I doubt they would all be at each other's throats.
Besides, in the first ten episodes everyone hated Dr. Rush, military and civilian alike. Why are the civilians siding with him now that Young tried to get rid of him?
If young in Crazy, then they can tell people at the SGC via the stones, there is a higher authority, and they have the ability to communicate with them and inform them of all the happenings. Young would have no idea what is being said when they are on the other side. The mutiny doesn't make sense because they have the ability to report everything to the government on Earth and let a higher authority deal with it, they have the power to assign a different leader if they see fit. They can send people to the Destiny to do interviews and see what everyone's story is. THAT is why the mutiny doesn't make sense. What were they planning to tell Earth once the civilians took over?
Because they realize that he's the lesser of two evils and, even more importantly, essential for their survival. Rush is the only one with the necessary skills and knowledge to keep them alive. Young freaked out and tried to kill the one person most likely to keep them alive and maybe get them back to Earth.
But hey, keep in mind that I began my review of the episode by calling it stupid, so I'm not saying that the episode was well-written. I just believe that the show did set up enough believable points for a mutiny.
Because the leaders of the mutiny are either power hungry or obsessed with Destiny. Going through the proper authorities wouldn't be in their best interests. O'Neill would never give command of Destiny over to Wray or Rush, so there's no point in trying to get him relieved of command. Having Scott take command of Destiny wouldn't be any better for them. Well, maybe a little for Rush.
Similar threads
