Sure, but it definitely means Starfleet isn’t one-sidedly good, since we’ve been shown in no uncertain terms that Section 31 commits war crimes.
What storylines do you NOT want to see in Trek?
- Thread starter AmandaSmith
- Start date
So does Starfleet.
Under Oh, sure. I would want to know if “Black Flag directives” still exist before or after her period of being in charge.
Captain Georgiou committed a war crime by booby trapping the Klingon dead in the Discovery pilot.
Eh — after the Klingons (a) started it and (b) said “Sure, let’s negotiate” and then let loose with a cleaver ship. I weep great crocodile tears for that particular case.
It doesn't matter what the emotional reaction is, Starfleet is no stranger to war crimes.
Someday, someone will tell the story of the Admiral who did his Job, and other fairy tales, like the Printer that Worked.
I always thought Section 31 is working for Starfleet...
It seems more that Section 31 often works with Starfleet and that it has a history of recruiting many of its operatives from there. On its behalf, Starfleet doesn't really deny the existence of Section 31 but tends to quietly bury or outright ignore inquiries into it. "Okay, we'll look into it. Don't call us, we'll call you..."
For me, a little bit of Section 31 goes a very long way and it's about as overplayed as the Borg. I hope after the upcoming movie, it's given a nice long rest. I don't want to see it pop up in either SNW or Starfleet Academy because it would mean they've run out of any new ideas for those shows.
When it suits mutual interest.
Otherwise, plausible deniability is helpful for black ops.
Unless it's on the holodeck. At least there's a reason - y'know, a video-game-ish holoprogram where you get to face off against legendary baddies or match wits with/fight alongside famous heroes as a challenge or geek-out opportunity.
And those who aren't corruptible (depending on who defines "corrupt"), like Kirk, wish they were something other/lesser than an admiral.
It's interesting how being an admiral seems to be a less than desired position.
It's almost like the characters know that they won't get any good storylines unless they rebel or get demoted.
I laugh because I really feel like its true.
"Want to get promoted?"
"Nah. I don't get to anything cool unless I'm a rebellious jerk."
Because, what really do normal, workaday admirals do that someone would want to watch a show about? Read a novel/story about? Sure. A film or episode? Better be a good story.
Well, I agree it needs to be a good story, but I just get tired of the corrupt leadership trope.
If you have to take a page from somewhere I would say Blue Bloods or JAG would be places of showing higher up ranking leadership who do good.
It's also why I believe Riker held off a promotion for so long in TNG. His gut feeling probably told him that somehow, he would have substantially fewer exciting adventures once he chose to leave the ent-D to captain his own ship.
But for whom or what are they working if not for Starfleet???
Well, I hope the new movie will tell us.
They work for themselves.
There's no indication there's anything close to an interstellar version of the Geneva Conventions, that all major powers are party to, which exists in the 23rd or 24th centuries. So, technically, there's no "war crime" that Georgiou is violating.
All the way back to TOS, Starfleet has general orders that allows them to glass a planet (i.e., General Order 24). Sisko nerve gases the entire civilian population of a colony in DS9 to catch Eddington. That has to violate some current war crime statute, and Starfleet and the Federation didn't give one good goddamn about it.
Similar threads
