Why does Picard order Riker to take them away from Nervana III instead of the helmsman?

Riker's the XO. Picard gives the orders, Riker executes them. Besides, Riker had asked before the two Romulans decloacked for permission to withdraw from the NZ.

If the Holodeck is simply recreating a play, then why did the soldiers react to Picard? If Data as an actor did or said something not in the play I could see the Holodeck improvising, but Picard is a member of the audience and the Holodeck should ignore what he says or does. (There have been a few occasions where I have been in a play and would have liked to jump off the stage and take away an audience member's noisy bag of popcorn or threaten a loud patron into keeping quiet, but that would have been wrong.)

When the Romulan Warbird is in Federation space, the actors who face the camera are all very tense, but the man at the back of the Bridge seems to be very lackadaisical. Hasn't he been paying attention?

The Romulan Scoutship is protected by the Enterprise's shields, so why does it look like the Romulan Warbird flies closer to the Enterprise than the Scoutship? In several episodes when the Enterprise throws up it's shields we see an oval shape around the ship, so when the Enterprise extends it's shields to cover the Scoutship, don't you think that the shields would be in the shape of a stretched oval?

Good thing an Away Team wasn't immediately sent over to the Scoutship, they probably would have been blown up.

Picard refers to General Custer as a countryman of Riker's, but 24th century Earth is a United World and, I would think that, individual countries like the United States of America would exist only in the history books. Of course, Picard could have meant the term loosely, but it seemed like sloppy speaking.

Why doesn't Starfleet have ships patrolling the Federation side of the Neutral Zone? The Federation was at war with these people and they have crossed the border innumerable times. On Earth when two warring nations establish a boundary, both sides have troops stationed on either side to try and prevent illegal crossings. What does the Federation have? The Enterprise and a couple of rinky dink little outposts. In reality those outposts would be armed to the teeth and there would be fleets of ships patrolling the border and using the best sensors gold-pressed latinum could buy. In the Star Trek universe Federation Outposts apparently have no weapons and their sensors must not be that good because in the episode The Neutral Zone they couldn't even pick up the Borg ships which attacked them. (If you were on a border outpost and you picked up a strange ship approaching wouldn't you inform Starfleet?)

KAM: Picard refers to General Custer as a countryman of Riker's, but 24th century Earth is a United World and, I would think that, individual countries like the United States of America would exist only in the history books. Of course, Picard could have meant the term loosely, but it seemed like sloppy speaking.

Luigi Novi: But on such a united Earth, you'd still need individual governors for each province or area, wouldn't you? And you'd need divisions for each governor, right? True, I admit it might not be logical to give one governor an area the size of the former Russia, and another size of San Marino, but it would stand to reason that humans might choose to maintain the old political map lines, not to maintain individual sovereignty, but simply because they're used to them? The old political systems might have fallen in the post WWIII era, but the languages, histories and cultures unique to each area might be something that people would want to preserve, wouldn't it? To do this, governors might be given equal-sized areas, but the larger areas (the former countries) might be preserved by overseers, perhaps with cultural and historic preservation in mind.

True, I admit it might not be logical to give one governor an area the size of the former Russia, and another size of San Marino

Here in the US we have one guy who is the governer of Rhod Island and 1 guy who is the governer of California which is MUCH larger in area and population.

Good point. Of course, those are individual states, and states have individual rights and laws, much as nations have individual sovereignty. My point was that on a United Earth, there wouldn't be individually sovereign nations any more.

Well maybe the United Earth operates in a fashion similar to the US Govt. Only a bit more logically. That is the way i read into it.

and states have individual rights and laws, much as nations have individual sovereignty.

I thought that they civil war put the question of states' individual sovereignty to rest.

Each state has limited sovereignty, I believe.

And yes, I know it sounds like an oxymoron, but its what they taught me in History class.

Limited soverignty except when the feds cut the state's funding.

Sorry I had a moment of cynicalness. Anyhow, talking about the UFP/Earth. Maybe the way it works is this (And this is how I run it in my RPG so I'm kinda partial to it.) Each state of each country operates about the way it does now. Each country works about the same as it does now, except that instead of sending a representative to the UN they send an elected representative to the United Earth Government which make sup the earth gov council. There is a globally elected president (with every vote counting and no hanging chads;-) Each planet also sends 2 representatives to the UFP council in San Francisco (or by telepresence if needed) that are elected by the planetary council. So the way I see it the federation is sorta a cross of the US democracy with a UN based republic. sorta.

The states have no rights. During the Civil War the large federal states destroyed the last best chance for state's rights.

The federal government has no rights, except what the people give it. The state has no rights, except what the people give it. And the United States will never surrender its sovereignity to the United Nations because the ideals of the two are opposed. The United Nations says that it is the body that grants the people their rights. (The corolary to that is that if it grants the people their rights, it can also take them away.) The United States says that the Creator gives the people their rights, and the people create govenment to protect those rights. (The corolary to that is that the people can change their government when it is no longer doing its job within the boundries that have been set for it.)

Admiral Jarok states in this episode that he has defected to Earth to enable his child to be able to live without fear of war. Does Jarok seriously expect that the Tal Shiar will allow his family to live after he commits (in Romulan eyes) a serious act of treason? Remember that treason on Romulus is punished by death of family members>

But isn't that a nit in hindsight? Have the Tal Shiar been mentioned by this time on TNG?

I thought they were first mentioned in the Fifth Season, but hey, I could be wrong.

They were, but it doesn't really matter what they're called. The exact name of the organization may have only been revealed then, but it's obvious from episodes as early as this one that a society like Romulus has such organizations.

Personally, though, I think they might've used his family as leverage to get him back (Much as was purportedly done to some German scientists living out of Germany, as depicted in the upcoming movie The Rocket Post), but that after his death, they probably released them, or maybe gave them the choice of renouncing Jarok as a traitor on TV or going to prison/being executed. For all we know, maybe his family are all loyalists, regard his as a traitor, and did this willingly.

When Jarok wants a drink of water but does not know the celsius temperature system he mutters something to the replicator ending with ... whatever your system is. I've never been able to figure out what he says prior to this as he mumbles the line. Does anyone know what he says to the replicator.

As I recall he asks for "water, any temperature on the colder side of whatever your system is."

NIT: Troi is gone from this episode (IMHO it's a nit)

NIT: Troi is gone from this episode (IMHO it's a nit)

Troi's not gone. Isn't she interagating Jarok with Riker in one scene?

You're right Kail, Troi is in on the interogation.
I just checked my tape.

OOPS! My mistake. Her appearance is so obscure, I mussed it.

The only reason I knew this is because I had watched the ep earlier that very day on DVD. I LOVE DVD, BTW. Awesome picture and sound. Now I have to figure out what to do with all my crappy tapes.

The Romulan shuttle is WAY cool!

John, you WISH you mussed it (or, to be more precise, HER).

No way, I wish I'd been paying more attention! I'll have to watch that Episode again on DVD and catch her next time!

John, I was joking about your misspelling on July 07, 2002 - 06:33 am

I know. But still it's no excuse for me to miss Troi like that...seeing how I'm so "ga-ga" about Marina Sirtis.

Kail - Now I have to figure out what to do with all my crappy tapes.
You could donate them to poor, underpriviliged nitpickers who can't afford cable.

In the play at the beginning, we hear the ubiquitous nighttime sound of crickets. Do we have any French folk here who can tell us whether northern France has crickets? I'm suspicious...

(They did the same thing in Qpid, and I know Nottingham doesn't have crickets.)

Isn't it odd that Picard is so enthusiastic about Henry V? Picard's supposed to be French, and Henry V is blatant propaganda about an English invasion and occupation of France which, in the words of one historian, did much to anticipate the Nazi attrocities of the 2nd World War occupation. As a scholar, Picard would know that.

At the end of the episode, Data says it would be impossible to deliver the letter that Jarok wrote. Why not give it to the ROMULAN AMBASSADOR? I'm sure he/she could arrange it.

John, it's never been established that there is one. Diplomats are exchanged when there are formal relations between two powers. If there is no formal relationship between the Federation and Romulus—which isn't unlikely, given the sporadic tensions between the two seen during the series' run—then there probably aren't ambassadors.

There were ambassadors in Kirk's time. Of course, since we hadn't heard from the Romulans in over 70 years (see The Neutral Zone), we may assume that they were recalled. Of course, they may also have been PNG'ed after the events of STVI.

ScottN: There were ambassadors in Kirk's time.
Luigi Novi: Romulan ambassadors? To the Federation? I don't remember this? Which episode was this? The Enterprise Incident?

ScottN: Of course, since we hadn't heard from the Romulans in over 70 years, we may assume that they were recalled.
Luigi Novi: 53. And yes, they were certainly recalled. You can't have ambassadors on a planet if you haven't heard from them in 53 years.

Luigi, Star Trek VI:The Undiscovered Country. The Romulan Ambassador was named as one of the conspirators.

Oh yeah. Nanclus.

Perhaps all Romulan ambassidors were recalled after the Tomed incident, where according to the episode "Neutral Zone" Federation Romulan relations were frozen for 53 years, and that new ambassadorial representaion has not yet been implemented

Oops someone already said what Ive just written. How Embarrasing

I agree with the theory that the Romulan government would probably kill Jarok's relatives as punishment for treason. It makes sense from the perspective of a despotic government like the Romulan Empire to wipe out the family. They would assume the whole family is in on one member's treason, and they don't want the traitor's kids showing up decades later looking for revenge or the traitor's spouse constantly trying to clear his name. This probably also encourages families to turn in relatives if they know they are committing treason.

Maybe Jarok's suicide was meant to spare his family the shame; it's possible that if a Romulan commits suicide while accused of a crime, his family gets the benefit of the doubt and would get to keep his property. The Romans had a custom like this, and the Romulans' culture has some resemblances to the Romans. He might have planned to kill himself anyway, once the base on Nelvana III was exposed, because base or no base, he just betrayed the Empire. Many of his actions (pretending to be a sub-lieutenant, blowing up the scout ship, stonewalling about Romulan military info) seem designed to minimize his betrayal.

Also, doesn't Jarok seem rather naive for a Romulan admiral? He went for the bait they gave him far too readily considering his situation. His plans seemed to hinge on the idea that his superiors have any sense of respect for his past record or the fact that his family had nothing to do with his actions. You might expect Starfleet officers, even ones like Picard, to fall for such a trap, but Romulans seem a lot more likely to be paranoid and suspicious of weird coincidences, and tricks like this one seem like child's play for the Tal Shiar. Of course, without him being so easily gulled, there would be no show that week.

James Sloyan makes his first Trek appearance; he later reappears as Dr. Mora Pol on DS9 and the title character of the Voyager episode "Jetrel." As I've said elsewhere, he reminds me of David Warner in his vocal inflections.

NANJAO: The chip that Jarok has in his boot looks like a NECCO wafer. Anyone remember those things?

Going waaayy back to Gelzyme's post Feb. 6th, 2002

...And the United States will never surrender its sovereignity to the United Nations because the ideals of the two are opposed. The United Nations says that it is the body that grants the people their rights. (The corolary to that is that if it grants the people their rights, it can also take them away.) The United States says that the Creator gives the people their rights, and the people create govenment to protect those rights. (The corolary to that is that the people can change their government when it is no longer doing its job within the boundries that have been set for it.) ..

I think you misunderstood the UN charta of Human Rights. Human Rights aren't given by the UN; they are inherent to all human people. No state can rightfully take away Human Rights (this is important for dictatorships which deny a part of their people Human Rights.) The UN may guarantee to keep the Human Rights valid because it has the necessary aparatus and power to make sure the states obey them, but it doesn't grant them.

As for the US, does the constitution (not the declaration of Independence) really say that the rights are given by a creator? What about atheistic people - do they get no rights?

I agree with what Lolar suggested, it seems to make most sense. Today, in the US and the EU, individual states/countries retain their culture etc. while the overhead body adds the general rules.

Sophie, if you're seeing this after only four years ;), what makes you so sure that Nottingham doesn't have crickets? We certainly have crickets or cricket-like entities a couple of hundred miles away in Wales - I've taken a fair few walks to that sound.

"As for the US, does the constitution (not the declaration of Independence) really say that the rights are given by a creator? What about atheistic people - do they get no rights?" -constanze

Well of course they are! Just because they don't BELIEVE in their creator doesn't mean that he didn't still give them rights! :-) I believe the exact quote is "We hold the following truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equall, and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

But no, I do not believe that the Constitution specifies a creator in its text. The Bill of Rights certainly doesn't have it.

Full text of the US Constitution at http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Nope, no mention of "creator" there, it's only in the Declaration of Independence.

Oh, whoops. My bad. I need to watch 1776 again, obvoiusly... getting a little muddled in the head. :-)

I think that the distinction between the U.S. gov and the UN is that people have the power to elect the leaders of the U.S. gov, but they don't have any say in the appointment of UN leaders. While yes, people can alter who is in the UN by who they elect in the U.S. gov, it's still rather detached in terms of direct intervention by the people.

Additionally, while the UN holds that all people are entitled to human rights, what defines those rights is not the people, but organization, one which an average citizen can't really affect.

---

In any case, the structure of the current UN isn't what we will find after we get done nuking the planet in World War III.

"NANJAO: The chip that Jarok has in his boot looks like a NECCO wafer. Anyone remember those things?" - John Lang

Yep, and I love 'em. I've been eating 'em for years!

Once again Tomalak shows up to be a thorn in Picard's side. I thought his threat of dissecting the Enterprise to have it displayed in the Romulan capital as a war trophy was pretty frightening. I wonder, what if that had actually happened, what would the Romulans have done with the surviving crew? Slave laborers? Subjects for invasive experiments? What?

Well, it seemed that after Nemesis, the Federation and the Romulan Star Empire would finally be opening up peace negotiations, but I still wonder what happened to the Remans after the events of the movie. I said so on it's board!

I wonder, what if that had actually happened, what would the Romulans have done with the surviving crew? Slave laborers? Subjects for invasive experiments? What?

Probably all of the above- whatever it would be it would be slow and unpleasant- maybe they would be forced to watch every episode of Voyager....

Good episode though- some wonderful acting and a great storyline. One of the few times when I didn't see the "twist" at the end coming....

maybe they would be forced to watch every episode of Voyager....maybe they would be forced to watch every episode of Voyager....
Or worse... Enterprise. *shudder*

There's less episodes of Enterprise....

But there are more bad episodes of Enterprise then Voyager and most are of lower quality. I can rewatch any number of Voys & even enjoy some. The only Enterprise story I might possibly, if I was desperate, want to watch a second time is the Mirror universe one.

TPTB treating Archer & company as lunk-headed space tourists makes the Robinsons of Lost In Space look like geniuses.

Tomalak concludes his conversation with Picard by stating he looks foward to their next meeting. However, Tomalak has just failed to carry out what was obviously a very important plan. He is returning to the Empire humiliated, with no Enterprise in tow and no traitor Jarok in custody. I think the Romulan governement will not look upon that failure with kindness. It might be some time before Tomalak has the opportunity to exchange pleasantries with Picard again.

John asked, eons ago:

---

quote:

NANJAO: The chip that Jarok has in his boot looks like a NECCO wafer. Anyone remember those things?

---

In a effort to alleviate Jarok's feelings of exile, Data takes him to the holodeck and shows him a recreation of a Romulus landscape. The view is of a valley in night time, a lit city on the valley's floor, with two large moons and bright stars in the night sky. However, the way the moons are lit clearly indicate that the planet's sun is above the horizon. This should be a day time view, not a night time one.

Jarok asks Data if the food replicators could produce a Romulan ale. Data replies that the computer would need a record of the molecular structure of that drink to produce it. But Romulan ale, although illegal, was reasonably easy to obtain in Kirk's time, its molecular structure should be known during Picard's time.

While scanning an apparently deserted Nelvana III, Riker suggests that the Romulan base could be cloaked. Data replies that a cloaking device operating on the surface would produce visible distortions. Well, it produced no such distortion in STIV:The Voyage Home, when the cloaked bird of prey remained completely invisible even to those standing right next to it.