Why "Clues" bothers me just a little bit...

[Christopher]

How do we know it hurt no one? People who go to such lengths to hide the truth generally don't have benevolent motives for it. How do we know the Paxans were only motivated by isolationism? We only have their word for that, and they're a people willing to kill to keep their secrets, so we can't exactly assume they were being forthright about their motives. What if they had some more insidious reason for hiding?

Then they should have *mentioned* those reasons. As it stands, there's no reason to assume the Paxans are anything other than flat-out xenophobic and paranoid; Picard is certainly not obligated to sacrifice himself, his crew and his ship to satisfy that.

You're totally missing my point. And you're getting the burden of proof absolutely backward. The Paxans made it clear that they were willing to kill a thousand people to keep their secrets. You don't assume that people like that are harmless in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Their very willingness to commit mass murder is solid evidence that they aren't harmless. As an officer sworn to protect the Federation from potential threats, Picard had a military duty to ensure the Federation was aware of the existence of this powerful, murderous race whose motives were unknown -- just in case they were lying about their motives. It's called erring on the side of caution.

And you're still totally, profoundly missing the deeper point. Star Trek is not just about people trying not to die. It's about people who stand for something. ST stories should have some deeper meaning to them, some moral or philosophical point. The only point of this story was "Gee, here's a mystery, let's solve it," and it came across conveying the probably uninintentional but very shallow and nihilistic message that "The truth doesn't matter and it's okay to destroy evidence if it suits your immediate self-interest." That's a horrible message. It goes against every principle of science, every principle of justice and integrity -- every principle that has defined Star Trek from its inception. The story made Picard betray everything he believed in for the sake of simply continuing to breathe, and it didn't even have him acknowledge that sacrifice. You keep dwelling on the mechanics of the situation as if that were all there was to it. But the fact that there was nothing more to it in the minds of the writers is exactly the problem with the episode.

 

[Timo]

Hey, here we have a culture that has stated outright that it will fight for its right to be harmless to the rest of the universe - that it will commit mass murder in order to remain harmless. What deeper commitment can you hope for?

"Just in case" cannot ever be part of Picard's agenda, or else he should bombard all planets he approaches as a precautionary measure. Here he had two ways to protect his own culture and its ideals: to die, or to lose his memory. He had sworn to do the former, so the latter should be a breeze in comparison. Picard did not have a mandate for self-defense when it compromised UFP security, and indeed no armed force ever should be given a mandate for self-defense, except when compatible with overall tactical and strategic aims (which usually isn't the case - a self-defending army could never win a war).

Killing for truth is at least as horrid as hiding the truth. In most cases, it is immensely more horrid, as hiding the truth in the general case does not result in bloodshed in short, medium or long term, if ever.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Doug Otte]

Christopher, IMO this episode carried on one of the prime philosophies of TNG: that the Federation/Starfleet must respect the rights, mores, and existence of other cultures, unless said culture was a direct threat to the Federation/Starfleet. Picard didn't aquiesce merely to survive; he did it to allow the Paxans to survive in the way they wished.

And I also disagree that the Paxans' threat to kill in order to preserve their wishes was a direct threat to the Federation/Starfleet. Their threat merely magnified the sincerity of their wishes. Starfleet is not in the habit of using violence against mere threats.

Doug

 

[Vic Sixx]

I don't agree. I remember Kirk once saying in an episode, "the purpose of this ship doesn't say stay safe, stay alive, it's to seek out new life and new civilizations. "

It likewise doesn't say avoid bloodshed or hide the truth. Clues is a major cop out. I think it flies in the face of everything Star Trek is supposed to be about.

 

[Christopher]

And I also disagree that the Paxans' threat to kill in order to preserve their wishes was a direct threat to the Federation/Starfleet. Their threat merely magnified the sincerity of their wishes. Starfleet is not in the habit of using violence against mere threats.

First of all, I never said it definitely was a threat; I said it was unwise to assume it wasn't. I'm not talking about assuming the worst, just about being alert and aware.

Second, where did I ever say anything about using violence? I'm talking about knowledge, not force. I'm saying that Picard had a responsibility to make sure Starfleet was aware of the Paxans so that they could monitor the situation just in case. I am quite certain that I never remotely advocated using violence to address the situation. What I did propose was using words and ideas to convince the Paxans to come to a peaceful resolution. I can't imagine how you could read that as a call to arms.

I'm speaking against violence -- because destroying the truth is an act of violence. Burning books, denying the Holocaust, destroying proof that elected officials have betrayed the public trust -- all these things are acts of violence against the right of all people to know the truth and be safe from dangerous deceptions. Picard may have protected the Paxans' right to isolation, but he did so by an act of violence against his own society's most cherished principles. And the episode didn't even acknowledge that there was anything bad about that. If it had taken an "In the Pale Moonlight" approach, showing Picard decide with a very heavy heart that he had no choice but to betray his core values and painting it as a tragic necessity, that could've been a hell of an episode -- sad, but compelling. Instead, the ethical problems with destroying the truth weren't even touched on; the whole thing was treated purely as a logistical exercise. And that rendered it hollow.

 

[Timo]

I'm speaking against violence -- because destroying the truth is an act of violence.

Not categorically so. Definitely not categorically so.

In the situation outlined in the episode, a misguided attemt at fighting for the truth would have meant fighting the Paxans, in a bloody battle that Picard would probably have lost. The truth would not have been worth it. It seldom is.

If Picard's society's principles call for fighting one's way through to truth, then it is one revolting society: indeed it's time for a revolution, for forcing that society into thinking a bit about what it is doing in the name of something it has elevated to dangerous sanctity.

Science may be about truth, yes. But only a stereotypical mad scientist goes "Fools! I'll destroy them all!" when his path to truth is blocked. There are far more important things in this world than truth (which is subjective anyway), such as compassion, integrity, and at the very top (even though also at the very bottom), "sustainable survival", survival with dignity. Truth comes somewhere near the lower one-third, just a tad below politeness.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[GodThingFormerly]

Science may be about truth, yes.

It's about facts, actually. "Truth" is just a creative assemblage and interpretation of them.

TGT

 

[Timo]

...But the only available form of expression, as long as it's us humans doing the fact-finding. And it's not really science yet if one merely gathers measurements or interviews; it only becomes science once scientific method is applied on those measurements or interviews.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Nebusj]

And the episode didn't even acknowledge that there was anything bad about that. If it had taken an "In the Pale Moonlight" approach, showing Picard decide with a very heavy heart that he had no choice but to betray his core values and painting it as a tragic necessity, that could've been a hell of an episode -- sad, but compelling. Instead, the ethical problems with destroying the truth weren't even touched on; the whole thing was treated purely as a logistical exercise. And that rendered it hollow.

I agree. In the rush to finish the episode on time --- and, I suppose, to not have the critical decision of Picard initially choosing the mindwipe be entirely in flashback, which plays as more passive --- they skipped out on the moral question. If they'd spent at least some time on that it would have made for a stronger episode. (It also would have defused the ``Surrender-Happy Picard'' jokes instead reinforced this episode.)

It's not the only time they miss the real moral quandary on the way to getting the solution (``The Pegasus'' is the high-water mark there, I think), alas, but it's one that stands out since once you've seen the mystery played out there's a lot less of interest to the rerun.

 

[JoeD80]

Besides, as I've already explained twice, my problem was about the comment the episode seemed to be making about our world. In the context of the United States of America at the tail end of the Iran-Contra scandal, when images of Ollie North and his secretary having document-shredding parties to cover up the crimes of the Reagan administration, an episode saying "destroying evidence and hiding the truth is justified" came off as a political statement that I had a huge problem with. At the very least, it was very poorly timed.

Just 'cause you don't like it and what it might be saying, doesn't make it less valid. btw, the hearings were in 1987, and this episode aired in 1991.

 

[Darth_Pazuzu]

I'm the original poster of this thread - just in case no one noticed! - and allow me to briefly play devil's advocate:

Yes, I understand that Picard may have been forced to consent to the wiping of the crew's memories in order to save their lives, and I understand that Data was under orders to keep the secret and not reveal to anyone what happened. Furthermore, I also acknowledge that Picard could hardly do otherwise - or give Data a different order - with the Paxan standing right there in Counselor Troi's body! While Christopher's comment regarding a Starfleet officer's first duty being to the truth is right on the money (BTW, Christopher, I'm a fan!), it should also be understood that the captain is responsible for the lives of those under his command and should do everything in his power to protect them.

But...while I understand that the story's resolution makes for a perfectly acceptable short-term way of dealing with the dilemma, that should by no means have been the end of it! True, as an android, Data does possess a certain literal-mindedness, but he should have said something about the Paxans at some later point, orders or no orders. He should have understood the very, unique sui generis nature of this particular set of circumstances, and that the Paxans were capable of being a potential threat to someone else. Christopher is also very much correct on this point.

 

[kissthestar]

Doesn't it seem likely that, somewhere along the way, in going over the computer records, chronometer, or in somebody's psych eval, or something, the clues would resurface?

 

[Christopher]

btw, the hearings were in 1987, and this episode aired in 1991.

I expected someone to bring up that objection. I guess you weren't around at the time or old enough to notice. The scandal dragged on for years. The hearings in 1987 were only the beginning. Oliver North and John Poindexter were indicted in 1988 and convicted in 1989. North's conviction was vacated in 1990 and Poindexter's reversed on appeal in 1991. And Bush Sr. pardoned six other convicted participants in the scandal in 1992, which was controversial because there were questions about whether his own hands were really clean in the affair.

So the ongoing scandal was still very much in the public mind when "Clues" came along.

But...while I understand that the story's resolution makes for a perfectly acceptable short-term way of dealing with the dilemma, that should by no means have been the end of it! True, as an android, Data does possess a certain literal-mindedness, but he should have said something about the Paxans at some later point, orders or no orders. He should have understood the very, unique sui generis nature of this particular set of circumstances, and that the Paxans were capable of being a potential threat to someone else. Christopher is also very much correct on this point.

Quite right. Data should've been able to disobey the order because of his higher duty to protect the Federation. Or, better yet, Picard should've figured out a clever way to phrase the order so that Data could get around it and tell the truth once the ship was safely out of Paxan space. Like I said, the writers were so caught up in the mechanics of the immediate mystery that they just didn't think the practical or ethical ramifications through.

Doesn't it seem likely that, somewhere along the way, in going over the computer records, chronometer, or in somebody's psych eval, or something, the clues would resurface?

Indeed. That's the other reason I object to the idea of destroying the truth as a viable option: because no coverup is ever perfect. In this case, as I've already mentioned, there's the obvious giveaway that the ship's clocks wouldn't match anyone else's clocks.

 

[Timo]

Quite right. Data should've been able to disobey the order because of his higher duty to protect the Federation. Or, better yet, Picard should've figured out a clever way to phrase the order so that Data could get around it and tell the truth once the ship was safely out of Paxan space.

But TNG is full of examples of Data disobeying orders because he follows higher morals - and of our heroes fully accepting this, sometimes even preemptively. Why, Data is considered worthy of judging gods in "Devil's Due"! We cannot really argue that Data was being wrongfully suppressed here.

Odds are, Data thought that keeping the Paxan secret was the right thing to do. From which it follows that odds are that the average Starfleet hero would agree. And supposedly Starfleet also represents the viewpoint of the average Federation citizen, even if sometimes this "representation" may take on some elements of representative democracy, that is, suppression of popular opinion for greater good.

It very much seems that our heroes in that episode believed they were doing the right thing. Their definition of right may differ from yours, but that is their prerogative. In the context of the fictional universe, they are right about right, and those disagreeing with them are wrong.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Vic Sixx]

"And supposedly Starfleet also represents the viewpoint of the average Federation citizen, even if sometimes this "representation" may take on some elements of representative democracy, that is, suppression of popular opinion for greater good.

It very much seems that our heroes in that episode believed they were doing the right thing. Their definition of right may differ from yours, but that is their prerogative. In the context of the fictional universe, they are right about right, and those disagreeing with them are wrong."

That sounds close to the same argument George Bush uses.

 

[JoeD80]

btw, the hearings were in 1987, and this episode aired in 1991.

I expected someone to bring up that objection. I guess you weren't around at the time or old enough to notice.

I was certainly around at the time and I was only pointing out a date.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Doesn't it seem likely that, somewhere along the way, in going over the computer records, chronometer, or in somebody's psych eval, or something, the clues would resurface?

That is what happened - the first time around. That's because the crew were not completely thorough in covering their tracks. The next time, they made sure they got it right, so nothing like that would happen again.

I suppose Data could have arranged to inform the crew about what really happened, once the ship was safely out of range of the Paxans. But that's neither here nor there, really.

Look, I'm not arguing that it's always a good thing to hide the truth to protect selfish interests. I'm saying that it is *sometimes* the necessary thing to do. Again, I must ask: Why should the crew be obligated to die? Because that's the alternative. Live, and hide their memories; or insist on revealing the truth, and let the Paxans kill them. It's one or the other. Given this, I cannot fault Picard for choosing the former.

For example, I believe it is allowed for a ship captain to bend, or ignore, the Prime Directive if it means protecting the lives of his crew ("Justice"). Why is this any different? The fight for survival is near to absolute. When you're talking about something like testifying in court, it's all well and good to claim that the first duty is to the truth. But in reality, when lives are at stake, *that* is the first duty - survival. I am allowed to kill someone who is trying to kill me - self defense is an absolute right. This is just self defense writ large.

 

[Timo]

That sounds close to the same argument George Bush uses.

George Bush argues that others might be right and he might be wrong?

And I'm not sure that the argument for self-survival really carries. Picard is a soldier, and the usual job for soldiers is to sacrifice their personal safety and often also their survival in pursuit of national goals. It's not that rare an occasion that the politically convenient way for the soldier to proceed is to let oneself be killed (as opposed to, say, firing back at an enemy hiding amongst civilians). Picard would know he's a relatively small peg in the machinery that protects the Federation, and might see the need for self-sacrifice when it emerges.

He's not the sort to sacrifice himself if other alternatives exist, though. None of our heroes is. When they threaten with self-destruct, it's just bluff - unless it's Janeway in one of those reset button episodes. And Janeway is in a somewhat different jam anyway.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Picard would know he's a relatively small peg in the machinery that protects the Federation, and might see the need for self-sacrifice when it emerges.

Are you suggesting that the Paxans would have gone after the entire Federation? I suppose they might have done. In which case it's even more imperative that he did what he did. Because even if they'd gotten away with their memories intact, the Paxans' response might have made all that useless.

 

[Doug Otte]

Second, where did I ever say anything about using violence? I'm talking about knowledge, not force. I'm saying that Picard had a responsibility to make sure Starfleet was aware of the Paxans so that they could monitor the situation just in case. I am quite certain that I never remotely advocated using violence to address the situation. What I did propose was using words and ideas to convince the Paxans to come to a peaceful resolution. I can't imagine how you could read that as a call to arms...

You're right about that, and I don't know how I came up with that idea, either. Thanks for correcting me. And, Timo's response to your other points follow my thinking as well (and are also much better worded than mine would have been!).

Doug