Picard's Worst Decision

[Bryan Moore]

What would we consider Picard's worst decision? I'm not sure if I have one. He's surely no Janeway and most of his violations of the Prime Directive were not indefensible. Opinions?

[Blackstar the Chakat]

Letting Wesley on the bridge? Or on the show at all?

[mwhittington]

Boy, that is a toughie! He has, to me at least, always been thoughtful in his actions and decisions, even asking suggestions from his officers.

[Sionnach Glic]

Didn't he stand by and let an entire planetary civilisation die because the Prime Directive wouldn't let him help? I'd rate that as his worst decision.

[RK_Striker_JK_5]

Didn't he stand by and let an entire planetary civilisation die because the Prime Directive wouldn't let him help? I'd rate that as his worst decision.

The one with Worf and his brother, right?

Yeah, I wanted to punch Picard there with brass knucks.

[Graham Kennedy]

The single stupidest thing I ever saw him do was beam down to join the search for Data on the rebel Borg planet in Descent, leaving Crusher on the bridge.

If that search was so manpower critical, as claimed, then send Crusher and keep Picard behind where he belongs!

The one time I recall seeing him really lose control of a situation was in Pen Pals. Several of his senior staff basically rebel, and Picard just goes along with the flow as his orders are disobeyed left and right. But that was more their fault than his.

[Captain Seafort]

Pen Pals, when the entire situation spiralled out of control, demonstrated poor leadership, but there was no single poor decision on Picard's part.

Homeward was the worst example of hypocrisy on his part, in describing the Boraalans' supposed deaths as "the lives we cannot save". Bollocks - they were lives that could be saved (as Nikolai demonstrated) and Picard refused to.

Decent was a complete bog-up, not just in leaving the ship when an enemy vessel was in the vicinity, but in conducting the search at all. Data was one individual - finding and rescuing him was a far smaller concern than the importance of alerting Starfleet to the Borg conduit, and bringing sufficient military strength to bear against the planet. Also, why did the senior staff, even if it was essential that they take part in the search, not split up to control a sector of the search each rather than concentrate into two teams?

Insurrection. How on Earth did he find it justifiable to defend the rights of a few hundred squatters against the benefits harvesting the planet's rings could bring to billions or trillions of Federation citizens? Citizens he had sworn an oath to protect, and he had a duty to act in the interests of.

My own vote, however, goes to "I, Borg". Picard had the opportunity to inflict serious damage on the Federation's most dangerous enemy. He failed to take that opportunity, for which Nechayev rightly have him a rifting in Descent.

[Graham Kennedy]

Pen Pals, when the entire situation spiralled out of control, demonstrated poor leadership, but there was no single poor decision on Picard's part.

Homeward was the worst example of hypocrisy on his part, in describing the Boraalans' supposed deaths as "the lives we cannot save". Bollocks - they were lives that could be saved (as Nikolai demonstrated) and Picard refused to.

I don't think he meant cannot as in "lack the capability", he meant cannot as in "are forbidden to by law and ethics".

Insurrection. How on Earth did he find it justifiable to defend the rights of a few hundred squatters against the benefits harvesting the planet's rings could bring to billions or trillions of Federation citizens? Citizens he had sworn an oath to protect, and he had a duty to act in the interests of.

This one I really don't agree with. Yes Picard has sworn an oath to act in the interests of the Federation, but it's a matter of what those interests are considered to be. Picard argued that health and longevity gains at the expense of the Federation's ethical position is a net loss to the Federation, and I am inclined to agree with him.

I mean, are you really arguing that Starfleet have license to raid any planet it discovers, steal their resources and ship them back home to better Federation lives? Would you have said that Cardassia had a duty to invade Bajor and strip the planet simply because it bettered Cardassian lives, for instance?

My own vote, however, goes to "I, Borg". Picard had the opportunity to inflict serious damage on the Federation's most dangerous enemy. He failed to take that opportunity, for which Nechayev rightly have him a rifting in Descent.

I'm on a knife edge with this one. If Hugh had been a mindless automaton, sure, yeah, I'd do it in a heartbeat. But he wasn't. He was a victim of the Borg, and a recovering one.

[Captain Seafort]

I don't think he meant cannot as in "lack the capability", he meant cannot as in "are forbidden to by law and ethics".

He was either lying to his crew and to himself (since he clearly believed what he was saying) or it was an exceptionally poor choice of words. Given that he'd just condemned an entire species to death despite being in a position to rescue or protect them with little effort, and without them even being aware of intervention, I'm not inclined to be charitable.

This one I really don't agree with. Yes Picard has sworn an oath to act in the interests of the Federation, but it's a matter of what those interests are considered to be. Picard argued that health and longevity gains at the expense of the Federation's ethical position is a net loss to the Federation, and I am inclined to agree with him.

I mean, are you really arguing that Starfleet have license to raid any planet it discovers, steal their resources and ship them back home to better Federation lives? Would you have said that Cardassia had a duty to invade Bajor and strip the planet simply because it bettered Cardassian lives, for instance?

How exactly are the two situations comparable? The Cardassians blasted their way in, enslaved and murdered the Bajorans, and strip-mined the planet. All for resources that could have been traded, or obtained elsewhere.

The Fed-Son'a alliance tippy-toed in, spent a lot of time studying the Ba'ku culture, and planned to ship them off-planet to as similar environment as could be found. No enslavement, and no mass-murder. This was in order to obtain a resource that was unique to the area of the Briar Patch surounding the planet, and nowhere else in Federation space. Indeed, their initial hope was to drain the radiation without harming the planet, and months of research was put into developing a suitable proceedure, although it ultimately proved futile.

[kostmayer]

There was another thread on Picards Mistakes - though it did go off topic a bit

viewtopic.php?t=397&highlight=

[Graham Kennedy]

He was either lying to his crew and to himself (since he clearly believed what he was saying) or it was an exceptionally poor choice of words.

Well it's a matter of opinion I guess, but the statement seemed pretty obviously meant that way to me. I mean good lord, how many times do people say "We can't do that!" when what they actually mean is "We shouldn't do that!" It's a bog standard everyday way of phrasing things.

How exactly are the two situations comparable? The Cardassians blasted their way in, enslaved and murdered the Bajorans, and strip-mined the planet. All for resources that could have been traded, or obtained elsewhere.

The Fed-Son'a alliance tippy-toed in, spent a lot of time studying the Ba'ku culture, and planned to ship them off-planet to as similar environment as could be found. No enslavement, and no mass-murder. This was in order to obtain a resource that was unique to the area of the Briar Patch surounding the planet, and nowhere else in Federation space.

This is bizzare. You're actually arguing that so long as you can abduct people non violently, and the resources you steal are unique to that place, then it suddenly becomes okay?

Not to mention that the new planet the Ba'ku were being given differed in one important respect; precisely that it didn't have the healing properties of their own planet, which would condemn every single one of them to an early death.

If a bunch of aliens turned up tomorrow and announced that your country had some vital natural resource that could be found nowhere else, so they were going to transplant the entire population to another place - incidentally cutting your life expectancy tenfold or so - so they could move in and strip mine it, you'd be okay with that?

[Captain Seafort]

Firstly I'm arguing that the Federation's plan for relocating the Ba'ku and obtaining the radiation bore no resemblance whatsoever to the brutality of the Cardassian occupation of Bajor.

Secondly, when great lengths have been gone to to find a solution that does not involve relocation, minimum force is used to relocate the group in question, and the numbers benefited far outweigh the numbers moved (in this case by more than half-a-dozen orders of magnitude), yes shifting a bunch of selfish, hypocritical Luddites is justified.

[Graham Kennedy]

Firstly I'm arguing that the Federation's plan for relocating the Ba'ku and obtaining the radiation bore no resemblance whatsoever to the brutality of the Cardassian occupation of Bajor.

It was different in terms of the damage it caused, certainly. It was not different ethically. Theft is theft, and it doesn't stop being a crime if you steal something in such a way that the person doesn't notice.

You're saying a cat burglar is different to a mugger. Yes he is. But both are thieves.

Secondly, when great lengths have been gone to to find a solution that does not involve relocation, minimum force is used to relocate the group in question, and the numbers benefited far outweigh the numbers moved (in this case by more than half-a-dozen orders of magnitude), yes shifting a bunch of selfish, hypocritical Luddites is justified.

Then you do indeed support the Federation engaging in a "steal what you can" approach to the rest of the galaxy. I sure hope nobody ever takes that attitude to you and your property.

Did you still support the action when the relocation involved drones shooting people with transporter tags? After all nobody was being killed, and given the new situation that was the minimum force required to get the job done.

[Captain Seafort]

It was different in terms of the damage it caused, certainly. It was not different ethically. Theft is theft, and it doesn't stop being a crime if you steal something in such a way that the person doesn't notice.

You're saying a cat burglar is different to a mugger. Yes he is. But both are thieves.

I'm saying that a simple thief is different to, and far better than, a mugger, rapist and murderer all rolled into one - which is what the Cardie occupation was.

Then you do indeed support the Federation engaging in a "steal what you can" approach to the rest of the galaxy. I sure hope nobody ever takes that attitude to you and your property.

This isn't just one individual grabbing another's possesions - it's an affair of states, and states operate under a different code than individuals. The state has a duty to act in the interests of its citizens, and this duty supercedes any obligation it might have towards its neighbours, aside from the normal rules of war.

Did you still support the action when the relocation involved drones shooting people with transporter tags? After all nobody was being killed, and given the new situation that was the minimum force required to get the job done.

Yes. The Son'a crossed the line when they demonstrated a willingness to wipe out the planet's population when Ru'afo got impatient - recall that it was the Son'a themselves who proposed the forced removal of the Ba'ku by transporter, rather than simply bombarding the area as a Klingon, Romulan or Cardassian commander would probably have done.

[Graham Kennedy]

I'm saying that a simple thief is different to, and far better than, a mugger, rapist and murderer all rolled into one - which is what the Cardie occupation was.

But both are criminals, aren't they?

This isn't just one individual grabbing another's possesions - it's an affair of states, and states operate under a different code than individuals. The state has a duty to act in the interests of its citizens, and this duty supercedes any obligation it might have towards its neighbours, aside from the normal rules of war.

States absolutely do not have a duty to invade other states who have not provoked such action. Certainly they do not have a duty to do so simply in order to acquire resources for themselves.

Yes. The Son'a crossed the line when they demonstrated a willingness to wipe out the planet's population when Ru'afo got impatient - recall that it was the Son'a themselves who proposed the forced removal of the Ba'ku by transporter, rather than simply bombarding the area as a Klingon, Romulan or Cardassian commander would probably have done.

And is the line there because they resorted to it because of impatience? Suppose that the Ba'ku had found a counter to the transporter systems and armed themselves, and demonstrated a determination to fight to the end. The minimum force option them would be the genocide that Ru'afo attempted. On board with that now?