Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 1x06 - "Lethe"

[The Memetic Susurrus]

The charge of mutiny as applied to Michael Burnham is a bit like saying killing the last manager of a K-Mart is genocide. It's a severely inappropriate charge and the fact people are taking it seriously makes it seem they've bought into Starfleet's narrative that is gross and self-serving. Michael Burnham is guilty of assaulting a superior officer and attempting to take over the ship but was in a compromised psychological state. She had just survived almost being murdered, was severely injured at the time, and had past traumatic stress. She was disabled and arrested before any lasting harm was done and immediately tried to make up for her actions by risking her life.

Starfleet rewarded her for this by putting her in prison for life and blaming their failure to avoid war with the Klingons (which was impossible anyway) on her.

It's revolting conduct unbecoming an offier...by Starfleet.

Disagree. Under the presumption that Starfleet has a code similar to that of the UCMJ, the relevant article is 94 which reads, in part:

(1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;

The quibble comes with "...in concert with others." But, even that aside, I could just as easily say that a person's desire to see a POV character's redemptive arc is also "gross and self-serving," in the sense that it acts as a palliative to their ideological leanings. It makes them feel better to see such an arc take place, justifies their previously held beliefs, etc., etc.

But I don't think that's "gross and self-serving." I simply think that's their worldview. To each their own.

But, leave aside the term "mutineer." If you don't like that one, fine. What would you call it? Choose a word. I'm criticizing her behaviour, irrespective of what it was called. Assaulting a superior officer, impersonating her intent, attempting to commandeer the ship...that's the reprehensible behaviour. Call it what you will, that's what I am finding utterly unsympathetic.

Did Starfleet want a scapegoat, as you appear to be implying? No, not literally. A scapegoat would imply that Starfleet did something wrong that needed to be ameliorated in some way, shape, or form. They didn't. Burnham did. That's not scapegoating and it's not buying into their narrative. There's nothing incorrect in the sentence brought down on her.

As for "compromised psychological state." Sure, that's a possibility. Philippa should've taken her off of the duty roster, had she felt that. Heck, she came close to doing so. But she didn't. Still, even so, Burnham knew what she was doing. Therefore, she was culpable and she was convicted for her actions. I see no miscarriage of justice here at all. She's lucky she didn't get death. After-the-fact actions--like her attempt to seize the sarcophagus ship--do not wipe away the initial crimes she committed. Was it overkill, Starfleet's sentence? Considering they'd never had someone who'd done what she'd done--if one takes the term "mutiny" at face-value in the sentencing--then, probably not. What else could they have done unless they wanted to see more and more junior-ranking officers pitting their limited experience against the experiences of seasoned commanders?

It just doesn't work for me, is all. It does for you. Okay. YMMV.

 

[Charles Phipps]

Disagree. Under the presumption that Starfleet has a code similar to that of the UCMJ, the relevant article is 94 which reads, in part:

(1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;

The quibble comes with "...in concert with others." But, even that aside, I could just as easily say that a person's desire to see a POV character's redemptive arc is also "gross and self-serving," in the sense that it acts as a palliative to their ideological leanings. It makes them feel better to see such an arc take place, justifies their previously held beliefs, etc., etc.

But I don't think that's "gross and self-serving." I simply think that's their worldview. To each their own.

But, leave aside the term "mutineer." If you don't like that one, fine. What would you call it? Choose a word. I'm criticizing her behaviour, irrespective of what it was called. Assaulting a superior officer, impersonating her intent, attempting to commandeer the ship...that's the reprehensible behaviour. Call it what you will, that's what I am finding utterly unsympathetic.

Just to be clear, I'm referring to Starfleet as the gross and self-serving ones as they've thrown Michael under a bus to make her a scapegoat for the war. Which is behavior that is utterly repugnant from military or civilian personnel. You'd think they wouldn't be so cowardly as to hide their own failings.

I'm also not sure how RL beliefs have anything to do with a wholly fictitious situation here.

Did Starfleet want a scapegoat, as you appear to be implying? No, not literally. A scapegoat would imply that Starfleet did something wrong that needed to be ameliorated in some way, shape, or form. They didn't. Burnham did. That's not scapegoating and it's not buying into their narrative. There's nothing incorrect in the sentence brought down on her.

They blamed Michael Burnham for starting the war which is clearly not what happened to anyone who studied events. Her assault on a superior officer and attempting to commandeer the ship are crimes and punishable ones but unrelated to the fact she's been turned into a Benedict Arnold by Starfleet to save face.

As for "compromised psychological state." Sure, that's a possibility. Philippa should've taken her off of the duty roster, had she felt that. Heck, she came close to doing so. But she didn't.

Phillipa took Michael on a mission with her into enemy territory. That's a rather clear sign she was going to handle it with kid gloves.

Still, even so, Burnham knew what she was doing. Therefore, she was culpable and she was convicted for her actions. I see no miscarriage of justice here at all. She's lucky she didn't get death.

I remind you the death penalty does not exist in the 23rd century as we see with Garth of Izar.

After-the-fact actions--like her attempt to seize the sarcophagus ship--do not wipe away the initial crimes she committed.

No, but they do mitigate it.

Was it overkill, Starfleet's sentence? Considering they'd never had someone who'd done what she'd done--if one takes the term "mutiny" at face-value in the sentencing--then, probably not. What else could they have done unless they wanted to see more and more junior-ranking officers pitting their limited experience against the experiences of seasoned commanders?

Behaved like responsible adults and not politicians. The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth and they dishonored their uniforms by placing the blame for the war on a junior officer who predicted, correctly as well, the Klingons intended to attack.

 

[DarthPipes]

TBF I think he is talking specifically about sci-fi programs still being made. With this in mind, I'd say the following are all superior to DIS:

1. Black Mirror (probably the best show on TV right now regardless of genre)
2. Stranger Things
3. The Expanse
4. Legion
5. The Gifted (I'd consider this a 7/10 show along with DIS)

The Man in the High Castle got a lot better during its second season. I liked the first season but was disappointed with it. I never got into Legion either, as much as I wanted too. I really like the rest of the shows on your list though and think they're great choices.

 

[GeekUSACarl]

I wonder if he's not getting used to the needles so much as each time the ship jumps they have to use up a new clone.

So somewhere in the bowels of Discovery is a cargo hold stuff to the brim with five hundred twenty-five thousand six hundred Stamets.

Kinda like the prestige?

 

[TheArsenal]

Jason Isaacs is certainly playing one of the most fascinating characters on the show now but I think it's wrong to think his story can continue indefinitely since we've already crossed the line of "should be removed from command and put in a mental hospital" several times.

Oh, absolutely. He can't go on indefinitely, although how long he remains is an open question based on where they want to go with this story. But it is far more interesting to have his fall be that of a tragic character making his own impossible but compromised decisions based on the demands and horrors of this war, than a bad guy in disguise or some brainwashing device. That, IMO, is a cop out.

 

[Albinator]

My contribution is that all the technology on this show and the kelvinverse movies would be highly prized on a Prometheus class starship in 2375 never mind on a ship from the 2250s. I can’t buy into it. There will be a new explanation on how it works next week then another explanation the week after that...

Move along.

 

[JD]

The show is on a roll now after a bit of a rocky start.
It was nice to get to see and learn a bit more about Sarek and Burnham's relationship. The whole mind meld thing was a nice way give us some flashbacks and keep the present day story moving forward.
The stuff with Lorca and Cornwell was good too. I was actually happy that she called Lorca out on the stuff he's done since the show started. It will be interesting to see what happens when/if they rescue her. It looks like some people think he's going to go full on villain, but I really can't see that happening. Yeah, he is a damaged character who is making bad choices, but I think he is still a good guy. From the end it does look like he's actually taken what Cornwell said to heart, and will be trying to be better. It feels like this is the beginning of an arc with him trying to deal with his issues.
The scene we got with Stamets was definitely interesting. Is Mirror Stamets a nicer guy than Prime Stamets?

 

[Kor]

Disagree. Under the presumption that Starfleet has a code similar to that of the UCMJ, the relevant article is 94 which reads, in part:

(1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;

The quibble comes with "...in concert with others." ...

Mutiny has traditionally been defined as a conspiracy involving more than one person. TOS "The Menagerie" showed that Starfleet must have redefined mutiny as something that one officer can commit by acting alone.

I remind you the death penalty does not exist in the 23rd century as we see with Garth of Izar.

Except for General Order 7.

Kor

 

[Charles Phipps]

Except for General Order 7.

They made fun of that in the books.

"Don't whine. The death penalty doesn't exist in Starfleet unless you visited Talos III."

 

[SpocksOddSocks]

I love how many people have differing views on Lorca's motivations based on his actions in this episode. I took it straight as if he was treating her capture as an fortuitous event. Some think he pushed her into going, expecting a trap, but others thinking he's actually starting to listen to reason...

 

[Ometiklan]

So, I almost tried to watch io9's review video of "Lethe" but I couldn't even get past the description leading into the video: "Speaking of trauma, Lorca also gets his past dissected and goes full sociopath to save his captaincy." That is pure Katherine Trendacosta speak there. I bet in the video she 100% believes that Lorca knowingly and willingly sent Cornwell to the negotiations in order to get her killed. There is no room in Katherine's head for the possibilities that Lorca might not be a psycho and that he might have supported (not ordered cause he is just a captain) her going on the mission to make peace because it was the right thing. And she will in no way consider that at the time there was no belief that it was a mission any more dangerous than any other. If anyone manages to watch it, let me know if I am wrong.

...The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth and they dishonored their uniforms by placing the blame for the war on a junior officer who predicted, correctly as well, the Klingons intended to attack.

There is no proof that Starfleet did anything to place the blame on the war on Burnham. At worst I think they aren't going out of their way to correct a public misconception. Lorca and Cornwell seem to know or suspect that Michael wasn't responsible, but nowhere is it shown or said that that is what Starfleet has been doing.

 

[BillJ]

Some think he pushed her into going, expecting a trap, but others thinking he's actually starting to listen to reason...

I think the creepy stare and the phaser hidden in the back of his pants at the end, leads me to believe he pushed Cornwell into going. Hoping something would go wrong. Captured or shot down, she was a casualty of war to him.

A war he plans on winning in spite of Starfleet.

 

[Charles Phipps]

Purely my opinion but...

I think Lorca sent her to the conference not because he was trying to ambush her but as a delaying tactic since he could probably get a couple of more weeks or even months commanding the Discovery out of her being involved in heavy negotiations The fact it ended up being an ambush was something I think he viewed as a kind of horrible luck and decided to not rescue her from because it protected his command.

Which is still evil as hell and horrible but not premeditated.

 

[Manuuk7]

I think the creepy stare and the phaser hidden in the back of his pants at the end, leads me to believe he pushed Cornwell into going. Hoping something would go wrong. Captured or shot down, she was a casualty of war to him.

A war he plans on winning in spite of Starfleet.

I think he completely sent her as a replacement to get rid of her. I thought he actually looked like he was drooling when he heard Sarek couldn't go and the wheels started turning in his head that she was the most senior person on board, therefore the most qualified, she would be self-important enough to want to go, and he would be rid of a threat.
Still, I'm on the fence about deciding not to go after her: was he nailing the coffin or listening to reason or perversely doing both: listening to her and following her advice with the result in nailing her coffin. I'm sure the irony wasn't lost on him.

 

[Kor]

I'm going to give Lorca the benefit of the doubt and assume that he wasn't purposely sending Cornwell to her doom.

But I do think he was at least partially using the situation to postpone losing his command, as Cornwell would be too busy with negotiations and wouldn't be able to go back to Starfleet Command right away and have Lorca removed from the center chair.

On another note, the Klingons were as hideous as ever.

Kor

 

[BillJ]

But I do think he was at least partially using the situation to postpone losing his command, as Cornwell would be too busy with negotiations and wouldn't be able to go back to Starfleet Command right away and have Lorca removed from the center chair.

If Cromwell really thought he was unfit for command, why didn't she immediately remove him and order Saru to take Discovery to a Starbase for reassignment? How much more trouble can Lorca create while still in command with Cromwell gone for weeks or months?

 

[Mr Awe]

Hence, no postings, per se. Training cruises, sure, but you don't put cadets on warships in the middle of a war. There should be more than enough manpower to suffice without robbing the cradle.

I don't know--that's not an assumption I'd make. If they have had a lot of losses and the war isn't going well, they well be short on trained crew and need to put cadets in the field. They haven't said so we just don't know.

 

[Gonzo]

I don't know--that's not an assumption I'd make. If they have had a lot of losses and the war isn't going well, they well be short on trained crew and need to put cadets in the field. They haven't said so we just don't know.

In times of war its all hands on deck, Lorca was willing to spring Burnham from jail to utilise her expertise, Tilly could be the same.

 

[Mr Awe]

But she was right. If they had destroyed T'Kuvma's ship in Federation territory, then there likely wouldn't have been a war to begin with.

They didn't even know about his ship until after that point. Remember how it rammed into the Europa while cloaked?

 

[GeekUSACarl]

If anyone is interested. Our weekly podcast for this episode is up. We do have a small cast member interview in it as well. It is our first, but not our last, we are working on lining up another interview with another cast member sporting a bigger role.


https://soundcloud.com/geek-usa/episode-53-star-trek-discovery-episode-6-interview-with-simon-northwood


https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/geek-u-s-a-a-nerd-tastic-podcast/id1179864086?mt=2