Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 1x15 - "Will You Take My Hand?"

[The Memetic Susurrus]

Valid points, but it doesn't answer my question: how is Starfleet supposed to guard against the possibility that MU Georgiou will attempt to pose as her own counterpart? That's a very real danger here.

It would get pretty awkward for Starfleet as well, given that Cornwell presented her as her PU counterpart and, we can presume, had the concurrence of Starfleet Command and probably the Federation Council, too.

The simple answer is Starfleet Intelligence--or whomever does the counterintelligence portfolio in the Federation--is probably going to have to tail and keep an eye on her...

...or, even more likely, Section 31 :::ducks:::

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I doubt Section 31 would even need to get involved.

All Starfleet would have to do would be to discreetly inform L'Rell of the situation. L'Rell is quick enough on the uptake that she could quietly send an assassin or two to "retire" the Emperor without any fuss. That was probably the plan all along, in fact.

And it would be in L'Rell's best interests to comply, after all, because she effectively owes everything to Starfleet anyway. Not only would she not be the de facto leader of the Klingon Empire without Starfleet's assistance, she wouldn't even be ALIVE were it not for them.

 

[You Can't Know]

84 people thought this finale was a 10? I can understand someone enjoying it, but a 10? Is that really the majority opinion? I'm so out of touch.

I wish so badly it was a 10 in my eyes. How amazing and satisfying that would be.

 

[The Memetic Susurrus]

from your link:

Any person subject to this chapter who– (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

I see nothing in that link that says a single person can be a mutineer. it is always in concert with any other person

Try this:

http://jsc.defense.gov/Portals/99/Documents/MCM2016.pdf?ver=2016-12-08-181411-957

The page you're looking for is IV-26:

"(a) Mutiny by creating violence or disturbance. Mutiny by creating violence or disturbance may be committed by one person acting alone or by more than one acting together."

The Manual for Courts-Martial is the guidance utilised to interpret the UCMJ. Quite clearly, if a single person uses violence in the course of intending to overthrow or usurp the lawful authority of a superior officer, he or she can be charged with mutiny. Now, granted, off-times what happens is that the prosecution piles up charge after charge after charge and tries to get the defendant to plead to a lesser charge in return for getting rid of the big one (no kidding; that's how it was explained to me when I was a juror in a courts-martial; there were many charges but, realistically, only a handful the prosecution expected to stick). I'm not sure how many single acts of mutiny have been successfully prosecuted but it is, theoretically, possible. Once more, though, that is US law. We're not sure what Starfleet's code is, though it appears as if it takes its inspiration from US and/or UK common law (though in the UK, you do need more than one person to commit a mutiny).

There were a host of things they could have nailed her to the wall on but it appears as if they went right for the jugular. To me, that implies they really, truly thought that what she did was so heinous, so reprehensible, that only a firm, irrevocable sentence would restore the deterrent value of obeying the chain of command and following lawful orders.

But, having said that, we're really left in the dark as to how they presented the case and adjudicated it. There were certainly mitigating circumstances, but...we don't know what was said. I blame it on the writers. They wanted drama. They got it.

 

[plynch]

Bro...you practically plagiarized one of the posts I'm proudest of in my entire TrekBBS history.

Can we please have a whole thread of these? "I'd rather..."

 

[Firebird]

84 people thought this finale was a 10? I can understand someone enjoying it, but a 10? Is that really the majority opinion? I'm so out of touch.

I wish so badly it was a 10 in my eyes. How amazing and satisfying that would be.

So, you're telling me art is subjective? What a novel concept!

 

[Hythlodeus]

Try this:

http://jsc.defense.gov/Portals/99/Documents/MCM2016.pdf?ver=2016-12-08-181411-957

The page you're looking for is IV-26:

"(a) Mutiny by creating violence or disturbance. Mutiny by creating violence or disturbance may be committed by one person acting alone or by more than one acting together."

The Manual for Courts-Martial is the guidance utilised to interpret the UCMJ. Quite clearly, if a single person uses violence in the course of intending to overthrow or usurp the lawful authority of a superior officer, he or she can be charged with mutiny. Now, granted, off-times what happens is that the prosecution piles up charge after charge after charge and tries to get the defendant to plead to a lesser charge in return for getting rid of the big one (no kidding; that's how it was explained to me when I was a juror in a courts-martial; there were many charges but, realistically, only a handful the prosecution expected to stick). I'm not sure how many single acts of mutiny have been successfully prosecuted but it is, theoretically, possible. Once more, though, that is US law. We're not sure what Starfleet's code is, though it appears as if it takes its inspiration from US and/or UK common law (though in the UK, you do need more than one person to commit a mutiny).

There were a host of things they could have nailed her to the wall on but it appears as if they went right for the jugular. To me, that implies they really, truly thought that what she did was so heinous, so reprehensible, that only a firm, irrevocable sentence would restore the deterrent value of obeying the chain of command and following lawful orders.

But, having said that, we're really left in the dark as to how they presented the case and adjudicated it. There were certainly mitigating circumstances, but...we don't know what was said. I blame it on the writers. They wanted drama. They got it.

again, from the link you posted:
§ 894. Art. 94. Mutiny or sedition
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who—
(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;
(2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful
civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt,
violence, or other disturbance against that authority is guilty of
sedition;
(3) fails to do his utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or
sedition being committed in his presence, or fails to take all
reasonable means to inform his superior commissioned officer or
commanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he knows or
has reason to believe is taking place, is guilty of a failure to
suppress or report a mutiny or sedition.
(b) A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny,
sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall
be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial
may direct
I can't find anyithing about a single person

nevermind, found it, page 328. funny, though, this must be the only military in the world that defines mutiny that way. also, less funny: death penalty? really? oh well

 

[137th Gebirg]

Right. The Federation probably doesn't have any equivalent of Guantanamo Bay.

OTOH, the Discovery did bring back records of Terran Empire conduct. They could probably make charges of violating sentient rights exist... but not when they're denying that the MU even exists.

I think the Tantalus Penal Colony was a Federation super max that came close to a Gitmo layout. It failed spectacularly, because the Federation seems to not know how to deal with sociopaths. Honestly, it kind of reminds me of the feckless future idiots in "Demolition Man" who had no clue how to handle a gang of hardened murderers and other felons.

 

[The Memetic Susurrus]

again, from the link you posted:
§ 894. Art. 94. Mutiny or sedition
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who—
(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;
(2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful
civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt,
violence, or other disturbance against that authority is guilty of
sedition;
(3) fails to do his utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or
sedition being committed in his presence, or fails to take all
reasonable means to inform his superior commissioned officer or
commanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he knows or
has reason to believe is taking place, is guilty of a failure to
suppress or report a mutiny or sedition.
(b) A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny,
sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall
be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial
may direct
I can't find anyithing about a single person

nevermind, found it, page 328. funny, though, this must be the only military in the world that defines mutiny that way. also, less funny: death penalty? really? oh well

Yeah, not sure why the definition of mutiny differed from the UK because, with the exception of that one difference, the wording in the statutes is almost identical.

 

[Hythlodeus]

Yeah, not sure why the definition of mutiny differed from the UK because, with the exception of that one difference, the wording in the statutes is almost identical.

there probably was an incident in the past, where they couldn't accuse a single person of mutiny. so decided to tweak the law a bit in case that ever comes up again. that, at least, seems the most logical explanation for it

 

[AlanC9]

I think the Tantalus Penal Colony was a Federation super max that came close to a Gitmo layout. It failed spectacularly, because the Federation seems to not know how to deal with sociopaths. Honestly, it kind of reminds me of the feckless future idiots in "Demolition Man" who had no clue how to handle a gang of hardened murderers and other felons.

But Tantalus probably doesn't replicate the key feature of Gitmo; no due process.

 

[gblews]

Lakenheath 72 said: ↑
I have been looking for people mentioning a major revelation made in this episode about Burnham. For such a central figure, this event is not being discussed. She witnessed the brutal slaying of her family by her Klingon raiders. She was psychologically damaged by this event, having PTSD. This pivotal event is brought up in the episode and is offered as one of the reasons she has conflicted feelings for Tyler/Voq. Yet, no one mentions it. Is this because how it was handled by the writers?

No doubt as a child Burnham likely suffered from PTSD following her trauma, but it is unlikely that she never received treatment, so I doubt that she suffered from PTSD as an adult, if that's what you were implying.

But it appears you may have missed the real revelation about Burnham's past, which was that but for the fact that she wanted to stay and watch a star go super nova, she and her parents would have been gone when the Klingons attacked. That's something I don't think we knew before. So on top of witnessing her parent's deaths, Burnham may have blamed herself for their deaths.

I don't see how you can blame writer for things that are stated or shown on screen, that we as viewers might miss.

 

[eschaton]

No doubt as a child Burnham likely suffered from PTSD following her trauma, but it is unlikely that she never received treatment, so I doubt that she suffered from PTSD as an adult, if that's what you were implying.

I think the opening two episodes strongly imply that being raised on Vulcan, with no humans around but Amanda Grayson, meant that she didn't get the treatment she needed. Vulcans would have just told her to suppress her emotions and move on after all, which, while it might be healthy for a Vulcan, often isn't for a human.

 

[gblews]

The #1 thing they need to spend time on is characterization in Season 2.

I mean, honestly, Harry Kim was a better fleshed out character than Saru, Stamets, or Tilly.

What are you talking about?

In the first 15 episodes of DSC we find out that Saru is a Kelpian, had threat ganglia which flexed when he sensed danger, also that he could sense when death was near, that he was a bit paranoid and sightly humorless, and longed to be free of feeling like prey.

In the first 15 episodes we find out that Stamets is gay, he is a science nerd, he is in love with one of the ship's doctors and they live together, he hates war and hated using the spore drive to fight the war.

In the first 15 episodes of DSC we find out that Tilly has a breathing problem that causes her to snore, that she wants to eventually be a captain, she likes to party, is shy, her mother hates her hair and that bothers her, that she is a pretty competent crew member when required to be, and is not a bad actor.

I could go through the other characters as well. I doubt the first 15 episodes of Voy revealed much more about Harry Kim or any other Voy characters in that time. I don't see how anyone could have missed all of this.

This reminds me of when you complained that the crew didn't have interpersonal off duty conversations after the first 2 or 3 episodes, something we almost immediately began to see in the next few episodes. Using conclusions and things we know from previous Trek shows that have competed their runs and basing criticisms of DSC's first 15 episodes on those things, makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Destructor]

I doubt the first 15 episodes of Voy revealed much more about Harry Kim or any other Voy characters in that time. I don't see how anyone could have missed all of this.

15? I think Saru got more development in 15 than Kim got in seven seasons.

 

[fireproof78]

Creating SFX is the job of the people who create the SFX. The writers say "the ship explodes". The SFX guys are the ones who make that happen on screen.

It's a joke...

It's also the case, as I've said before, that Tilly was shoehorned into so many weird plot elements in Act 2 (pretending to be Captain Killy, then the "spore expert" then brought along on the final mission because Georgiou liked Captain Killy) because Discovery chose to have so few members of its main cast, meaning roles which may have been parceled out to three or four different cast members in the older shows were shoehorned on her. I suppose it's not the worst thing in the world, but it does give the show a kind of fake "stage play" feel to it.

She's a cadet. I would expect her to be gaining multiple experiences, and not be relegated to one department.

 

[Hythlodeus]

She's a cadet. I would expect her to be gaining multiple experiences, and not be relegated to one department.

yep, she's basically an intern. we might never see her getting coffee for the bridge crew, but her job is whatever is needed at the moment

 

[fireproof78]

yep, she's basically an intern. we might never see her getting coffee for the bridge crew, but her job is whatever is needed at the moment

Well, if she was a cadet on Janeway's ship...

 

[Hythlodeus]

Well, if she was a cadet on Janeway's ship...

that was Harry Kim's job

 

[fireproof78]

that was Harry Kim's job

Poor, dumb, Harry...