The words "I am about to be in direct violation of our orders/the Prime
Directive/whatever", are probably as reoccuring on Star Trek as "Mulder, it's me.." is
on The X-Files. Except there probably aren't any ST sites named that. (I'm serious. It's
a good site, too.)

The Prime (or Crime) Directive is one of the worst ideas ever espoused in Trek. I'll never understand why it is Starfleet's General Order Number One.

The Directive is inconsistently applied and/or misapplied and is honored in the breach by those who claim to venerate it. Beyond that, however, the Directive is elitist. If two planets face a catestrophe, the Federation/Starfleet can render assistance to the relatively advanced or post warp society (See Deja Q), but is legally prohibited from rendering assistance to a less advanced or prewarp society (See Pen Pals and Homeward), unless someone (Data or Worf's stepbrother) has interfered first, in which case the Prime Directive can then be disregarded. Nice loophole.

The Prime Directive is inherently vague. What exactly is interference in another planet's affairs anyway? In dealings with another planet, a Starship Captain may not realistically be able to determine whether this or that action on his part is a violation of the Directive. If the Prime Directive were a United States statute, its constitutionally probably would be challenged in the courts, and the courts would likely strike down the Directive because of its vagueness.

Supposedly, a starship Captain must uphold the Prime Directive, even at the risk of losing his ship and or crew. Yeah, right. I'd like to see a Captain use the Prime Directive as a defense when he is up on charges after his ship is destroyed and his crew killed. If anything, preserving the safety of ship and crew should be a defense to an allegation that the Prime Directive has been violated.

Captain Kirk's action in destroying Vaal is often cited as an example of a violation of the Prime Directive. Perhaps it was a putative violation, but Kirk's action was justified because Vaal was a threat to his ship. Vaal's destruction was necessary in order to save the Enterprise. Without the threat to the Enterprise caused by Vaal, I doubt Kirk would have desired or been motivated to destroy Vaal. (Captain Tracy's action in "The Omega Glory," was different. His alleged violation of the Directive was not necessary to save his crew because his crew was already dead.)

I could go on, but I have vented enough regarding the Prime Directive for now.

Hmmm. Yes, but if the Prime Directive will have been followed in Insurrection, it's
unlikely that the disaster would have occurred. (It's weird trying to talk in
furture/past terms. I feel like Douglas Adams.)

Well, isn't the Prime Directive 'The Viatnam Law?'
Isn't it Gene Rodenbarry's simplified way of saying 'Get us ouute' there?'

Has their *ever* been an episode where the Prime Directive made any decision easier?

There was an episode of DS9 where Worf took over the weather control satellite for Risa and caused all kinds of trouble....but of course he gets into no trouble over it.

Hmmm...I wonder does the fact that Voyager
is thousands of light years from Starfleet
HQ help to alleviate the fact that Janeway
has been breaking(or at least bending)the
Prime Directive quite a bit lately?
I mean if she DOES interefere by trying to
help another culture(as for example she did
in The Caretaker to save the Ocampa from the
Kazon)who is going to go and snitch to Starfleet?
The last time I looked Eddie Haskel was not a
member of Voyager's crew.
BTW:Speaking of Janeway,do you suppose they
might court martial her for treason for her
little truce with the Borg in the Scorpion
two parter?
If you remember in I,Borg it was stated that
the Federation was involved in an undeclared
war with the Borg so therefore wouldn't her
actions look a little tad bit treasonous to
Starfleet?

Also, wouldn't allowing the Maquis (Mortal enemies od Starfleet/Federation)free run of the ship be considered treasonous?

BTW:What the heck is Starfleet going to do
with Seven of Nine?I mean would you allow a
person who HELD potentially vital information
regarding your deadliest enemy loose when you
know that anything might happen to her?
I have a feeling that they might want to send
her and all the Borg technology that Voyager
might acquire to the Daystrom Institute under
the watchful eye of Commander Shelby.

Janeway said in "Counterpoint" that she was friends with most of the admirals in SF, so she wasn't expecting trouble over her BLATANT, REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF EVERY RULE IN STARFLEET...

I suspect she's being a bit optimistic. Can you tell? ;-)

In fact, has any regular but Tom Paris ever been disciplined for violating the PD?

To get back to the topic of Universal Code of Military Justice, Sisko should be charged with committing a war crime.

In an episode of DS9, Sisko fires upon a planet killing many humans (maquis) because of a personal vendeta he has with Eddington (Sorry, I can't remember the name of the episode). While Eddington committed similar crimes that episode (firing a biological weapon on Cardassian worlds), this doesn't give Sisko the right to do the same thing.

I think Sisko feels (and the writers also feel) that if you must capture a fugitive the best way to do so is to start killing people until the fugitive gives up. It is hard to believe that StarFleet would santion an attack on this planet for a personal vendetta. Yet that is what starfleet does. Sisko becomes a viscious killer in that episode worse that the maquis (at least the maquis lost their land) but nothing happens to him.

In fact why is Starfleet involved in this conflict. This conflict is between the Maquis and Cardassians and is clearly a non federation matter. Just because the maquis are former federation members, this doesn't give starfleet the right to side with the Cardassians.

Here's how Robert Hewitt Wolfe defended "For the Uniform", and I agree wholeheartedly:

Robert Hewitt Wolfe:
Q - The fact that he was willing to kill humans for Cardassians is bad enough but the fact that he used deadly force above and beyond what was nessecary (sic) made it worse.
Nope. He didn't use deadly force. Deadly force would've been a phaser barrage. Instead, he unleashed an agent that would make the world uninhabitable to humans. A slow acting one, I'm sure, that gave the Maquis plenty of time to evacuate. He used exactly enough force to accomplish his mission.
Robert Hewitt Wolfe:
The Maquis were a terrorist organization who continually destabilized the peace of a very volatile region of space. Eddington was carrying out a series of very dangerous attacks on civilian populations and Starfleet vessels. Sisko was in a tight spot and took the steps he felt were necessary to end a dangerous situation. You may feel what he did was
unjustified. That's cool. We wanted people to wonder what they would've done in Sisko's shoes.

"For the Uniform" was, IMHO, a truly great episode. Avery Brooks of all people did a bang-up acting job and Jadzia was the ideal foil. The guest star was a part which was neither reprehensible or admirable and the actor did fine work with it. Moral issues were raised but neither preached about nor made heavy-handed, and there was a literary reference to boot. Would that Trek could be like this more often!

OK. Wolfe's arguement has three main problems -

1. The Maquis was never identified as a government but as a terroristic organisation/freedom fighters. The population of the planets was not represented by the Maquis, and have no responsibility for Maquis actions. Punnishing them for Maquis actions is truely unjust.

2. even if the Maquis were considered representives of the Colonies, they were still civil population. Harming civil population is against any rule of war. If you allow for that, you allow for Temothy Lirt ( sp?) blowing off buildings in Oclahoma as a revenge against the Coresh matter.

3. Even if you violate the laws of war, there is no guarantee that the outcome is the wanted outcome. Infact, there is no reasonable reason to believe that it would lead to the desirable outcome. In fact, in the board of this episode I've noted the logical action Eddington should have done - command the people in the next planet to sabotage their ships, so that they would not be able to escape. Then, if Sisko still choses to pursew, record the deaths of all these people and turn yourself over for a political trial

Temothy Lirt? The Oklahoma bomber was Timothy McVeigh and his co-conspirator was Terry Nichols. As for revenge against the Koresh matter, I never heard of that. It seems possible though, that's everyone else's excuse. (By the way, i actually got to watch the assault on the Waco compound live on TV cause I was sick that day. it was, unfortunately, the day before my birthday, but I got over it fast.)

Sorry, I got confused