[horatio]

Originally Posted by Pauln6

You can cry foul unless summary execution is now the norm in the Federation. We give war criminals trials in our time and we're supposed to be barbarians by comparison.

During the Yugoslavia war trials, yes, during the Nuremberg trials, no. I am all for human rights but there is something decadent about letting a Milosevic or Karadzic live. So I don't think that executing political criminals, people who have caused suffering on a massive scale is wrong.

Originally Posted by Captain Tom Coughlin

The problem with that comparison is this, Nero was given the opportunity to surrender and he chose not to. He never surrendered, which means that the conflict never ended. It's not summary execution for that reason. Had he surrendered and they still blew him out of the sky, that would be different.

Yep, the war was quasi still on. Even if he had surrendered, how should it be possible to beam over hundreds of people from a ship which is about to get swallowed by a black hole? How should the Enterprise crew logistically manage to safely deal with hundreds of prisoners without any preparation time?

[Pauln6]

Again the problem is not how YOU feel about executions - although I think your examples would be executions AFTER a trial. The problem is how the Federation views them. In fairness, TOS had death penalty offences for its own officers, so if we want to be pedantic (as Trekkies are wont to be) there is precedent in the Federation for executions.

There is also a distinction between a ship refusing assistance during a conflict and a helpless ship being blasted (which would be a war crime by today's standards). While I don't disagree (laws of physics about the communications signal aside) that there was probably little they could have done, I would have been far happier if that had been demonstrated in dialogue in place of what we got. As I've said before, a more fitting end would have been if Nero had tried to blast Enterprise and his own weapons were sucked back by the singularity to destroy his ship - a much better morality tale about the futility of revenge than the 'revenge is sweet as long as you're the winner' tale we got!

[horatio]

I absolutely agree that the problem of this scene is Spock expressing his desire for revenge, Kirk happily obliging to Nero's masochistic demand and the texture of the movie applauding to these questionable attitudes of the heroes.
But I don't see any problem with a hypothetical scene in which Kirk and Spock shortly talk about the risk that the Narada survives the singularity and emerges somewhere else in time in space and then decide to destroy it because of that. No more EmoSpock, no more CowboyKirk but the two professionals we are used to.

[Captain Tom Coughlin]

Originally Posted by Pauln6

Again the problem is not how YOU feel about executions - although I think your examples would be executions AFTER a trial. The problem is how the Federation views them. In fairness, TOS had death penalty offences for its own officers, so if we want to be pedantic (as Trekkies are wont to be) there is precedent in the Federation for executions.

There is also a distinction between a ship refusing assistance during a conflict and a helpless ship being blasted (which would be a war crime by today's standards). While I don't disagree (laws of physics about the communications signal aside) that there was probably little they could have done, I would have been far happier if that had been demonstrated in dialogue in place of what we got. As I've said before, a more fitting end would have been if Nero had tried to blast Enterprise and his own weapons were sucked back by the singularity to destroy his ship - a much better morality tale about the futility of revenge than the 'revenge is sweet as long as you're the winner' tale we got!

It would not be a war crime, that's my whole point. Nero, by saying what he said, is refusing surrender. That means that hostilities have not ended. You have to surrender.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by Pauln6

Again the problem is not how YOU feel about executions - although I think your examples would be executions AFTER a trial. The problem is how the Federation views them. In fairness, TOS had death penalty offences for its own officers, so if we want to be pedantic (as Trekkies are wont to be) there is precedent in the Federation for executions.

Possibly they are not a problem in TNG days either.

R'uafo may not have been an 'enemy' of the Federation, but he was executed by the crew of the Enterprise when they made no attempt to save him from the ship, instead saving only Picard when easily both could have been beamed out.

Since there was no dialogue in the film what kind of conversation might we imagine on the Enterprise as it approached in those moments? You're not telling me that ship's sensors would have been unable to detect two life forms right next to each other...........so who made the decision just to pick up Picard and leave R'uafo?

I guess it must have been Riker.......but why? The conspiracy was detected and R'uafo could have been tried for what he attempted to do and the big explosion would still have happened.

But nope........he just screams and incinerates as the ship fly's by. And that's in a Micheal Piller script. The hardcore Roddenberryian. Unless I'm remembering that whole sequence wrongly. Which is possible since INS really isn't one of my favourites anyway.

There is also a distinction between a ship refusing assistance during a conflict and a helpless ship being blasted (which would be a war crime by today's standards). While I don't disagree (laws of physics about the communications signal aside) that there was probably little they could have done, I would have been far happier if that had been demonstrated in dialogue in place of what we got. As I've said before, a more fitting end would have been if Nero had tried to blast Enterprise and his own weapons were sucked back by the singularity to destroy his ship - a much better morality tale about the futility of revenge than the 'revenge is sweet as long as you're the winner' tale we got!

It's a 'helpless' ship only because it's now stuck - technically it is initially trapped by the weapon it itself had used to destroy Vulcan so there is kind of an element of 'reap what you sow' to the seeds of the ship's destruction anyway in the black hole.

I agree that there should have been a bit of dialogue in the film to explain that Kirk was firing on the ship in order to ensure it could never pose any risk to anyone else after Nero's refusal.

[Zardoz]

Originally Posted by kevin

Possibly they are not a problem in TNG days either.

R'uafo may not have been an 'enemy' of the Federation, but he was executed by the crew of the Enterprise when they made no attempt to save him from the ship, instead saving only Picard when easily both could have been beamed out.

Since there was no dialogue in the film what kind of conversation might we imagine on the Enterprise as it approached in those moments? You're not telling me that ship's sensors would have been unable to detect two life forms right next to each other...........so who made the decision just to pick up Picard and leave R'uafo?

I guess it must have been Riker.......but why? The conspiracy was detected and R'uafo could have been tried for what he attempted to do and the big explosion would still have happened.

But nope........he just screams and incinerates as the ship fly's by. And that's in a Micheal Piller script. The hardcore Roddenberryian. Unless I'm remembering that whole sequence wrongly. Which is possible since INS really isn't one of my favourites anyway.

It's a 'helpless' ship only because it's now stuck - technically it is initially trapped by the weapon it itself had used to destroy Vulcan so there is kind of an element of 'reap what you sow' to the seeds of the ship's destruction anyway in the black hole.

I agree that there should have been a bit of dialogue in the film to explain that Kirk was firing on the ship in order to ensure it could never pose any risk to anyone else after Nero's refusal.

With INS, I would just chalk it up the overall bad writing. But, I agree a line like "We only have enough power to transport one." or "Cannot get a lock on the S'ona." would have helped the confusion.

In Trek '09, Nero chose suicide over accepting help.

[Pauln6]

Yeah sounds like more bad writing. I feel that nobody should be beamed up without a locator tag (i.e. communicator) unless its between transporter pads to deal with the questions that you raise. That would also take care of the burning question as to why more villains just don't beam their enemies into space from light years away (since the main bar to long distance transporting seems to be the danger of killing the transportee rather than an inability to get a lock or a signal). In what series did they let that genie out of the bag? Day of the Dove? Idiots.

[Zardoz]

Originally Posted by Pauln6

Yeah sounds like more bad writing. I feel that nobody should be beamed up without a locator tag (i.e. communicator) unless its between transporter pads to deal with the questions that you raise. That would also take care of the burning question as to why more villains just don't beam their enemies into space from light years away (since the main bar to long distance transporting seems to be the danger of killing the transportee rather than an inability to get a lock or a signal). In what series did they let that genie out of the bag? Day of the Dove? Idiots.

Right up there with "Why don't enemies just target the bridge of Federation ships? Not like everyone doesn't know weher the are located.

[Quark]

Originally Posted by Zardoz

Right up there with "Why don't enemies just target the bridge of Federation ships? Not like everyone doesn't know weher the are located.

Let's not forget that the Duras sisters were going to do just that...only it was too late. And what Shinzon did...but I won't go there haha!