From: kyle@uunet.uu.net (Kyle Jones)
Subject: Re: Lacarno = Kirk (Spoilers "1st Duty)
Organization: UUNET Technologies, Inc
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 23:47:49 GMT

runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan) writes:
 > kyle@uunet.uu.net (Kyle Jones) writes:
 > 
 > >>>...  The benefits of keeping silent should have been weighed
 > >>>against the the benefits of coming forward with the truth.
 > >>Are you sure that they weren't?
 > >Pretty sure.  Wesley spilled his guts expecting to be expelled...
 > >He'd have cleared his own guilty conscience at the expense of three 
 > >others.  
 > 
 > Ah, but would he have cleared his guilty conscience by leaving three
 > possible hazards in Starfleet (remembering that their not upholding
 > "the first duty" makes them less than ideal command material)?

I agree, if he believed they were still hazards.  Starfleet's
opionion doesn't matter when you're trying to determine whether
Starfleet's opinion matters, if you get my meaning.  Now if you
want to argue that Wes didn't have enough experience to determine
whether Starfleet's rules were appropriate then I might agree
with you.  But Picard wouldn't necessarily, since he made Wes an
officer, and officers have discretion to follow orders as the
situation warrants.

 > > If anyone suffered from delusions of godhood, it was Wesley, for
 > > deciding the fate of others.
 > 
 > This appears to be a no win situation.  If he didn't `decide' the fate
 > of the three, he would be `deciding' the fate of those who would serve
 > under them later, as they wouldn't be good command material (definition
 > of `good' based on Starfleet training, of course :-).

Wes had the option of giving his teammates a second chance.
Resigning was the most non-judgmental way to go.  It gives every
one an option of doing the same, and leaves it up to Starfleet to
prove their guilt.  The teammates should not have to incriminate
themselves.

 > > Starfleet apparently teaches that it is good to tell the truth to
 > > folks who're on your side.  It's OK to deceive and lie to the
 > > enemy to protect  yourself and your comrades.
 > 
 > Yes, that does appear to be Starfleet tactics.  The problem that command
 > officers must solve is "who's the enemy".  It's that judgement that I
 > would think Starfleet (or any hierarchical organization) would worry
 > about.

Agreed.  This is exactly why you should ignore them when forming
an opinion on their rules and regulations.  "Of course it's
illegal to overthrow the government."

 > >>If you threw people out every time they made bad decisions,
 > >>yes, there would be a problem.  Hence, they only throw them
 > >>when the decision is bad and isn't corrected ...
 > >... I think Starfleet is a bunch of hypocrites, making examples
 > >of those who break the rules and fail, and lauding those who
 > >break the rules and succeed.  
 > 
 > Hypocrites or pragmatist, eh?  It is a matter of perspective.  If one
 > breaks the rules and does the `right' thing, then perhaps the rules
 > need to be examined (the trouble with humans is that strict rules just
 > don't apply to them).  If one breaks the rules and does the `wrong'
 > thing, then one should see why the rules exist and should correct
 > one's behavior.  If the behavior isn't corrected, then an `example'
 > is made.

What about punishing the successes and doing a bit of
self-examination at the failures, too?  I don't think cadets
would try this Culvort manuever if they knew they'd get thrown
out of the Academy regardless of outcome.  I don't think Locarno
would have been so unwilling to admit what his team had done, if
he thought the review board would do anything other than throw
the book at him.

 > > I think Locarno showed good sense not to kowtow to them as
 > > the ultimate arbiter of justice.
 > 
 > One point of interest is that Locarno was simply expelled.  No mention
 > of a civil suite or criminal negligence trail or any other `jailable'
 > offense.  Nor was there mention of mental rehabilitation time.  Starfleet
 > did not judge Locarno to be an unfit human, dangerous, criminal, or
 > evil.  Starfleet merely determined that Locarno was not Starfleet material.
 > In other words, I don't believe Starfleet set themselves up as the
 > ultimate arbiter of justice.

This is an interesting point, and one that I had overlooked.
Still, losing a career in space exploration is a pretty tough
pill to take, particularly when the folks holding the reins are a
stodgy bunch like Starfleet.  Too bad space privatization never
got off the ground. :-(