Why Let Khan Live?

[Captain Clark Terrell]

I thought Into Darkness had already covered that one...

This topic is about the primary universe.

--Sran

 

[DonIago]

I'd think that with regards to human rights and the revocation thereof it wouldn't matter which of the two universes we were talking about.

 

[Captain Clark Terrell]

I'd think that with regards to human rights and the revocation thereof it wouldn't matter which of the two universes we were talking about.

That's a good point, but the original question referred to events in the original continuity, not the nuTrek chain of events.

--Sran

 

[Lance]

Indeed, we're talking about two entirely different Khans really.

 

[DonIago]

Which isn't relevant to my point, that being that in any universe Khan deserves due process and a fair trial, not a summary execution. Indeed, the latter is exactly the kind of behavior that Khan would engage in himself.

 

[Lance]

On some level I think Kirk was playing to Khan's vanity. He knew he couldn't just let Khan go free, nor did he think he could sentence him to death. The easy solution was exile, but wrapped up in a package that allowed Khan a dignified exile. The prospect of building the world he always wanted to rule was something that appealed to him.

Letting Khan live was also the humanitarian response. It was the 'Star Trek' response.

 

[Timo]

...Plus, it allowed Kirk to neglect filing a report that would cast him and his crew in bad light indeed!

Timo Saloniemi

 

[DonIago]

I dunno, maybe Starfleet regulations allow for exiling a band of power-hungry Augments...

 

[Timo]

Well, if Khan was Kirk's hero, it doesn't sound all that unlikely that he was Komack's, Fitzpatrick's, Westervliet's and Nogura's as well...

There might even be a standing rule about the civil treatment of Augments. But Kirk never hinted as such, and ENT makes it sound as if such a rule would rather say "yes, they were cool guys - so let's keep them in ice forever".

Timo Saloniemi