Siskos prejudice?

[Poltargyst]

Having reviewed the dialog, I don't think Sisko is being prejudiced when he brings up that Nog is a Ferengi. He is pointing out that the Ferengi live under a certain philosophy that is incompatible with the ideals of Starfleet and is asking why someone would want to join an organization with different ideals than those of his native culture. "Where's the profit in it?" This allows Nog to then explain himself.

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

We know from The Drumhead that Starfleet servicemen enjoy rights similar to what American citizens enjoy and, in an investigation, could refuse to answer.

It's very unlikely that Nog would be able to invoke the "Seventh Guarantee" as it is specifically requires that the evidence that they are being asked for be self-incriminating and he's not being accused of any kind of external offence, but potentially committing the offence of "refusing to co-operate with an investigation".

 

[kkt]

You say headstrong, I say borderline insubordinate.



I'd say there would still be a line, but they'd get more leeway than Nog did.



Sisko is Chief of Starfleet Security for Earth, he might not be Nog's "line manager" but to say he's not under Sisko's jurisdiction would be like saying a US Naval Cadet isn't under NCIS jurisdiction.

Sisko is pretty generous about not bothering with insubordination charges except in extreme cases. He didn't even yell at Ezri for hissing "SSHHSHSHSHHHSHSHS sorry captain you're breaking up!" let alone file charges.

 

[kkt]

So, what you're saying is that Sisko doesn't have investigative jurisdiction over Starfleet Academy? Particularly for "off campus" activities?

That he attempts to persuade Nog to cooperate first is beside the point IMO, but YMMV.

Sisko must have had some authority but he was attempting to work in a friendly way so the cadets would cooperate willingly, not trying to avoid answering. Sisko wasn't subpoening anyone. He was interested in who was behind the conspiracy, not in pressing charges against random cadets.

 

[kkt]

A good 'boss' always starts with something that sounds like a request IMO.




Well, IMO a cadet/trainee should probably consider anything to be an order when it's a) reasonable (and Nog merely suggests that it would be "against tradition") and b) from a senior officer with at least nominal authority, but YMMV.



My headcanon on that is that the previous head was at the Antwerp Conference and was one of the casualties.



The other example of Head of Starfleet Security on Earth that we've seen was a Commodore, so it's not unlikely that Sisko actually outranked the Deputy/Interim Chief anyway.

All sorts of possibilities for the actual head of Starfleet Security, ranging from killed at Antwerp to the position happens to be vacant to the person who's in the position is known to be incompetent but performed well in the past so nobody wants to forcibly remove them.

 

[Farscape One]

Sisko is pretty generous about not bothering with insubordination charges except in extreme cases. He didn't even yell at Ezri for hissing "SSHHSHSHSHHHSHSHS sorry captain you're breaking up!" let alone file charges.

Very true. Like at the end of "BLOOD OATH": Dax left despite not being given permission to take leave. He could have put a reprimand on her record or something, but he clearly didn't because she became a Lt. Cmdr. less than a year and a half later.

 

[kkt]

We know from The Drumhead that Starfleet servicemen enjoy rights similar to what American citizens enjoy and, in an investigation, could refuse to answer.

They have the right not to incriminate themselves, but they don't have the right to protect someone else.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

It's very unlikely that Nog would be able to invoke the "Seventh Guarantee" as it is specifically requires that the evidence that they are being asked for be self-incriminating and he's not being accused of any kind of external offence, but potentially committing the offence of "refusing to co-operate with an investigation".

They have the right not to incriminate themselves, but they don't have the right to protect someone else.

NAL, in the United States, an individual can invoke the rights to silence and to refuse to answer for fear of self-incrimination if they think what they say would be used as evidence to judge guilt or innocence. The Supreme Court affirmed that an innocent person may have reason to use these rights. Why should Nog? Because revealing his knowledge of Red Squad members might suggest he was a co-conspirator.

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

Why should Nog? Because revealing his knowledge of Red Squad members might suggest he was a co-conspirator.

I'd say that's a bit of stretch, the Academy Commandant makes it clear that Red Squad existed prior to and separately from Leyton's conspiracy, so knowing of the existence or identities of the members doesn't necessarily or even plausibly implicate you in any of their "extra-curricular" criminality (particularly as even the Squad members themselves didn't know they were doing anything illegal at the time, they believed it to be a sanctioned covert operation.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

I'd say that's a bit of stretch, the Academy Commandant makes it clear that Red Squad existed prior to and separately from Leyton's conspiracy, so knowing of the existence or identities of the members doesn't necessarily or even plausibly implicate you in any of their "extra-curricular" criminality (particularly as even the Squad members themselves didn't know they were doing anything illegal at the time, they believed it to be a sanctioned covert operation.

Red Squad was the target of Sisko's investigation, not a subset thereof. Regardless, the issue is whether the fact of knowing Red Squad members could be used to judge Nog's guilt or innocence, not the legitimacy of Red Squad as an organization.

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

Regardless, the issue is whether the fact of knowing Red Squad members could be used to judge Nog's guilt or innocence, not the legitimacy of Red Squad as an organization.

These aren't seperate points. So if anything you (and perhaps Nog) have it exactly backwards.

If Red Squad was inherently illegitimate, then Nog knowing who they are (and not previously exposing them) could expose him to liability via conspiracy.

However, as Red Squad is inherently legitimate and engaged into criminality without even their own fore knowledge then there is no conspiracy for Nog to be charged with in relation to Red Squad if he reveals their identities, but ironically he could be guilty of "conspiracy after the fact" if he doesn't.

 

[tomalak301]

Red Squad might have been one of my least favorite things about DS9. What is it with Starfleet Academy and trying to push this elite group who just come across as either corrupt or incompetent. You would think after Nova Squadran they would have reformed that, but then we had Red Squad help with a Coup put on by one of it's admirals and then rather than just be disbanded, they were at it again trying to take out a powerful Dominion ship. It feels like a "fool be once" kind of situation. Yeah they were kids, but they should have been more of the responsible ones over anyone else and they weren't.

 

[Farscape One]

Red Squad might have been one of my least favorite things about DS9. What is it with Starfleet Academy and trying to push this elite group who just come across as either corrupt or incompetent. You would think after Nova Squadran they would have reformed that, but then we had Red Squad help with a Coup put on by one of it's admirals and then rather than just be disbanded, they were at it again trying to take out a powerful Dominion ship. It feels like a "fool be once" kind of situation. Yeah they were kids, but they should have been more of the responsible ones over anyone else and they weren't.

Yeah, "VALIANT" really annoyed me. One of the very few Ronald D. Moore episodes in the franchise I don't like.

 

[tomalak301]

Yeah, "VALIANT" really annoyed me. One of the very few Ronald D. Moore episodes in the franchise I don't like.

I've hated it originally but the more I think about it, the more I hate it, especially Nog's involvement. It's one of those idle worship type episodes, yet Nog was somewhat involved with them in the Homefront/Paradise Lost two parter but deeply involved with them in Valient, and that was after all the war experience he has had up to that point. This was late in the series to the point where I could say he came across as incompetent or uncharacteristically naive.

 

[Farscape One]

I've hated it originally but the more I think about it, the more I hate it, especially Nog's involvement. It's one of those idle worship type episodes, yet Nog was somewhat involved with them in the Homefront/Paradise Lost two parter but deeply involved with them in Valient, and that was after all the war experience he has had up to that point. This was late in the series to the point where I could say he came across as incompetent or uncharacteristically naive.

Indeed. The only person who really comes off well from beginning to end is Jake.

 

[fireproof78]

Red Squad might have been one of my least favorite things about DS9. What is it with Starfleet Academy and trying to push this elite group who just come across as either corrupt or incompetent. You would think after Nova Squadran they would have reformed that, but then we had Red Squad help with a Coup put on by one of it's admirals and then rather than just be disbanded, they were at it again trying to take out a powerful Dominion ship. It feels like a "fool be once" kind of situation. Yeah they were kids, but they should have been more of the responsible ones over anyone else and they weren't.

Unfortunately, it is a very common trope in Star Trek that even Deep Space Nine wasn't free of and that is the idea of leadership being either evil, incompetent or overreaching.

I would hope after Admiral Cartwright and the parasite invasion in "Conspiracy" that leadership would receive reforms to prevent such corruption, but it gets repeated all the way to Admiral Ross.

 

[Farscape One]

Unfortunately, it is a very common trope in Star Trek that even Deep Space Nine wasn't free of and that is the idea of leadership being either evil, incompetent or overreaching.

I would hope after Admiral Cartwright and the parasite invasion in "Conspiracy" that leadership would receive reforms to prevent such corruption, but it gets repeated all the way to Admiral Ross.

I would hardly call Admiral Ross corrupt. He got his hands dirty in "INTER ARMA ENIM SILENT LEGES", but at least it was to help keep the alliance against the Dominion going and win the war, not a personal power grab. He aided in something a bit unsavory to help make sure the good guys won.

 

[fireproof78]

I would hardly call Admiral Ross corrupt. He got his hands dirty in "INTER ARMA ENIM SILENT LEGES", but at least it was to help keep the alliance against the Dominion going and win the war, not a personal power grab. He aided in something a bit unsavory to help make sure the good guys won.

Perhaps overreach is a better term. Regardless, it was yet another admiral compromising principles for victory. While understandable, I can hardly commend it for the outcome.

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

This was late in the series to the point where I could say he came across as incompetent or uncharacteristically naive.

I'd say the latter, he shows as much competence and knowledge of engineering and ship operations as normal, but didn't realise that the "commanding officer" wasn't compotent to lead the mission.

 

[Riley]

I watched DS9 in first-run and several times through since. I don't see anything "prejudiced" in this exchange. When Sisko says "you're a Ferengi," he's acknowledging the fact that Ferengi pursue profit above all else. He's had no reason to believe Nog is any different up to this point. He's also pushing Nog to reveal his motives for wanting to join, not to spare Starfleet but to spare Nog if things don't work out and/or if Nog is joining for the wrong reasons.

Contrast this with the scene in which Sisko makes Quark kiss the staff of the Nagus, which is far different story.