Okay, several people have attacked Rush and Wray's actions for being a mutiny. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't there circumstances where mutiny can be justified? If, as some have speculated, Young were really coming unhinged and the other officers refused to remove him from command wouldn't the "mutiny" be justified?
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Can a Mutiny be Justified or Justifiable?
Collapse
X
-
Can a Mutiny be Justified or Justifiable?
All plot and no character makes for a dull story... All plot and no character makes for a dull story... All plot and no character makes for a dull story... All plot and no character makes for a dull story...
"Scott isn't out. Actually, he'll probably soon get back in, then out, then in, then out, then in, with rhythm and stamina." reddevil 4/22/2010Tags: None
-
Yup mutiny can be justified. In this case i don't think it was though. I haven't seen enough evidence of this "military dictatorship" they were talking about. Sure Frankling got shot (it was frankling not volker right?) but other than that everything seemed reasonable and i thought he had it coming.
-
Originally posted by xxxevilgrinxxx View PostI don't see a mutiny as being justified, especially as, IMO, it's more about someone wanting to grab power for reasons we can't be sure of rather than any perceived wrong
Comment
-
It could be argued that this was an insurrection, not a mutiny.
Mutiny - revolt or rebellion against constituted authority, esp. by sailors against their officers.
Insurrection - an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government.
It is a fine point distinction, but an important one. In a mutiny, a ship's captain would be well within his rights to use immediate lethal force on any soldier/sailor/marine who was under his command who mutinied. In an insurrection the government is less likely to use lethal force at all (although that does happen). Some sort of physical violence would likely occur (water cannons, rubber bullets, truncheons, dogs etc.) to disperse the mob.
The only justification that was missing in this scenario (imo) was from the civilian leadership to its' body of support as to a clear outline of what they were hoping to achieve and how they were going to enforce these objectives should they have been successful. If I were involved in such a thing I'd want to have things spelled out a lot better than some nebulous statements like "power sharing".
regards,
G.Go for Marty...
Comment
-
I'm not sure you can say this was completely unjustified. Young has made a couple of rather nasty snap decisions, beating Col. Telford (personally satisfying but completely unprofessional), marooning Dr. Rush, and dialiing the gate to Earth with no good information about the ship's power supply. Then again the attack on Telford was premeditated and thought out, it wasn't a snap judgment. It was also pinned on a member of the science team the one now in a coma.
I think Rush and Wray were right when they said "Young is dangerous". That's why I back the power sharing plans many have put forth.All plot and no character makes for a dull story... All plot and no character makes for a dull story... All plot and no character makes for a dull story... All plot and no character makes for a dull story...
"Scott isn't out. Actually, he'll probably soon get back in, then out, then in, then out, then in, with rhythm and stamina." reddevil 4/22/2010
Comment
-
The Shrike,
Originally posted by The Shrike View PostTelford might have been right about Young all along.All plot and no character makes for a dull story... All plot and no character makes for a dull story... All plot and no character makes for a dull story... All plot and no character makes for a dull story...
"Scott isn't out. Actually, he'll probably soon get back in, then out, then in, then out, then in, with rhythm and stamina." reddevil 4/22/2010
Comment
-
Art. 94. (§ 894.) 2004 Mutiny or Sedition.
(a) Any person subject to this code (chapter) who—
(1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;
(2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or other disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition;
(3) fails to do his utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition being committed in his presence, or fails to take all reasonable means to inform his superior commissioned officer or commanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he knows or has reason to believe is taking place, is guilty of a failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition.
(b) A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.
On purely a semantics level, mutiny cannot be justified because mutiny is by definition unlawful.
Insurrection is the real question here, I know. And yes, insurrection and rebellion are justifiable in many circumstances. Americans justify ours, for sure.
Although, I think, it's only a rebellion if you lose; if you win, it's a revolution.
Comment
-
Originally posted by hedwig View Post... it's only a rebellion if you lose; if you win, it's a revolution.
well put!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ser Scot A Ellison View PostIt was also pinned on a member of the science team the one now in a coma.
Maybe, and sooo irritating!
Originally posted by starhearted View PostBut then again Rush framed Young for murder. So is he any better? A mutiny that replaces one "bad leader" with another does not seem jusified to me.
Although, I think, it's only a rebellion if you lose; if you win, it's a revolution.
Comment
Comment