3 ms·

IIRC the plot correctly, the notion wasn't the admiral would "personally execute" Osyraa, it's that she would be tried for her crimes. I think even under Emeral

IIRC the plot correctly, the notion wasn't the admiral would "personally execute" Osyraa, it's that she would be tried for her crimes. I think even under Emerald Chain law, not Federation law (though I can't quite recall to that level of detail). She refused, for obvious reasons. It's a tad fraught to speculate what Roddenberry would have thought of the new Star Trek, but he fought in World War II so I'd imagine he'd understand the position that one does not accept the peace terms of, well, rulers who place themselves in a position where they are the only authority. > you shouldn't take any life lessons from how it ended Agreed. For example, I don't worry over-much about whether Admiral Vance's adherence to the principles of Starfleet over a tenuous peace that would last until the dictator across the table decided it had ended wouldn't make for good realpolitik. In reality, countries make strange bedfellows when dealing with powerful opponents all the time. Of course, history suggests those decisions have consequences, but c'est la réalité. > There won't be any deus ex machina in real life to save elites from the consequences of similar decisions. I sure hope not.

pessimizer 4y ago
> it's that she would be tried for her crimes. It's that she was going to be given a show trial for crimes she was obviously guilty of and that would obviously deserve the worst penalty that the system could deliver. So it was to be pointless humiliation before pointless execution. > he fought in World War II so I'd imagine he'd understand the position that one does not accept the peace terms of, well, rulers who place themselves in a position where they are the only authority. Is this about that one time when Hitler offered the world unconditional peace and the world turned it down in exchange for the hope of maybe one day bringing him to trial? > a tenuous peace that would last until the dictator across the table decided it had ended I was hoping this is what the story was about, but the mechanical lie detector machine gimmick that couldn't be fooled said that this was not the case. Any secret treachery is something that you're adding that the writers made explicitly impossible to add. > history suggests those decisions have consequences Exactly what historical parallel are you pointing to that involved a magic truth machine?
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  > for crimes she was obviously guilty of If she was obviously guilty, then wouldn't rule of law indicate she should be held accountable? If she isn't held accountable, what is the nature of the government formed by the Emerald Chain / Federation alliance? ETA: lies aren't necessary. Osyraa could 100% believe what she was saying in the moment. But that's the thing about those who are above the law... The next day, she could decide something else was more expedient, change her mind, and break the peace. There would be nothing to hold her to account if she did, and she had clearly been indicated to be an opportunist and a power-broker.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    When there is no such thing as a galactic government, there's no such thing as galactic law. > If she isn't held accountable, what is the nature of the government formed by the Emerald Chain / Federation alliance? They literally had a truth machine. If they cared, they could just ask. > The next day, she could decide something else was more expedient, change her mind, and break the peace. So could the Federation. So could anyone, so that really precludes anyone dealing with anyone else because even though they could be honestly dealing today, maybe at some later date everything could change. All of these excuses require facts that are not in evidence, or that were explicitly contradicted by the plot. I wouldn't trade one innocent life for the chance to execute a dictator who has completely stood down. The Federation was willing to exchange uncountable ones.
    - shadowgovt 4y ago
      > So could the Federation That would be counter to the Federation's principles. And that's the point. The ways-of-life on the table in the negotiation are "You do what you have to do" vs. "You do what you should." Taking a step back from the immediate conversation: We've gone several posts deep in point-counterpoint on the decision made in this episode, and I think you are making excellent points. I'm pleased this decision can be looked at from multiple valid points-of-view supported with conviction. That's what the best Star Trek writing is made of.

pessimizer 4y ago

> it's that she would be tried for her crimes. It's that she was going to be given a show trial for crimes she was obviously guilty of and that would obviously deserve the worst penalty that the system could deliver. So it was to be pointless humiliation before pointless execution. > he fought in World War II so I'd imagine he'd understand the position that one does not accept the peace terms of, well, rulers who place themselves in a position where they are the only authority. Is this about that one time when Hitler offered the world unconditional peace and the world turned it down in exchange for the hope of maybe one day bringing him to trial? > a tenuous peace that would last until the dictator across the table decided it had ended I was hoping this is what the story was about, but the mechanical lie detector machine gimmick that couldn't be fooled said that this was not the case. Any secret treachery is something that you're adding that the writers made explicitly impossible to add. > history suggests those decisions have consequences Exactly what historical parallel are you pointing to that involved a magic truth machine?

shadowgovt 4y ago
> for crimes she was obviously guilty of If she was obviously guilty, then wouldn't rule of law indicate she should be held accountable? If she isn't held accountable, what is the nature of the government formed by the Emerald Chain / Federation alliance? ETA: lies aren't necessary. Osyraa could 100% believe what she was saying in the moment. But that's the thing about those who are above the law... The next day, she could decide something else was more expedient, change her mind, and break the peace. There would be nothing to hold her to account if she did, and she had clearly been indicated to be an opportunist and a power-broker.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  When there is no such thing as a galactic government, there's no such thing as galactic law. > If she isn't held accountable, what is the nature of the government formed by the Emerald Chain / Federation alliance? They literally had a truth machine. If they cared, they could just ask. > The next day, she could decide something else was more expedient, change her mind, and break the peace. So could the Federation. So could anyone, so that really precludes anyone dealing with anyone else because even though they could be honestly dealing today, maybe at some later date everything could change. All of these excuses require facts that are not in evidence, or that were explicitly contradicted by the plot. I wouldn't trade one innocent life for the chance to execute a dictator who has completely stood down. The Federation was willing to exchange uncountable ones.
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    > So could the Federation That would be counter to the Federation's principles. And that's the point. The ways-of-life on the table in the negotiation are "You do what you have to do" vs. "You do what you should." Taking a step back from the immediate conversation: We've gone several posts deep in point-counterpoint on the decision made in this episode, and I think you are making excellent points. I'm pleased this decision can be looked at from multiple valid points-of-view supported with conviction. That's what the best Star Trek writing is made of.