PDA

View Full Version : Can a Mutiny be Justified or Justifiable?



Ser Scot A Ellison
April 13th, 2010, 11:30 AM
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?

Fridgefiend
April 13th, 2010, 11:39 AM
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.

jelgate
April 13th, 2010, 11:42 AM
Yes. But only as a very last resort when all other channels are exhausted

xxxevilgrinxxx
April 13th, 2010, 11:48 AM
I 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

hedwig
April 13th, 2010, 11:52 AM
I 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

And in this case (IMO) Rush and Wray used the rest of the civilians for their own personal gain, since both of them want power and leadership and had no hesitation in concealing information from the rest of the survivors in order to get power/leadership.

The Shrike
April 13th, 2010, 11:56 AM
Mutiny happens all the time, do you really think 100% of freindly fire incidents are accidental.....and that doesn't include deaths that result from the cunning use of unfreindly weapons. In Vietnam, they called it fragging.

Gollumpus
April 13th, 2010, 12:12 PM
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.

Ser Scot A Ellison
April 13th, 2010, 12:33 PM
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.

The Shrike
April 13th, 2010, 12:36 PM
Telford might have been right about Young all along.

Ser Scot A Ellison
April 13th, 2010, 12:41 PM
The Shrike,


Telford might have been right about Young all along.

It's irritating when Jerks are correct.

starhearted
April 13th, 2010, 02:50 PM
But 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.

Daro
April 13th, 2010, 03:23 PM
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.

This is military law. Military law is not applicable to civilians in the USA. And there is a caveat. Simply defying a military commander is not necessarily mutiny or sedition. Disobeying an unlawful order is the duty of soldiers. They'll still get court martialed to determine whether they were justified in doing so, but there you have it.

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. ;)

xxxevilgrinxxx
April 13th, 2010, 03:24 PM
... it's only a rebellion if you lose; if you win, it's a revolution. ;)

*grin*
well put!

Daro
April 13th, 2010, 05:45 PM
Hey, you gave my witty quote to hedwig! XD
To be fair, I stole it from my mother.

natyanayaki
April 13th, 2010, 06:16 PM
It was also pinned on a member of the science team the one now in a coma.

I'm going to be a nitpicker, so I apologize in advance. Young was actually impersonating Volker, not Franklin (the guy in the coma). And IMO it was horrendous for Young to take Volker's turn for his personal vendetta fueled by jealousy, Volker had admitted in that very episode (and TJ shared with Young her notations) that he was "about to lose it," you'd think Young would want to give Volker the opportunity to see he loved ones, to help brighten his spirits. But instead he took Volker's turn, or switched with him...that was just cold.


The Shrike,



Telford might have been right about Young all along.

It's irritating when Jerks are correct.


Maybe, and sooo irritating!


But 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.

But I think what matters iisn't who is more bad, but who is more stable. If Young is removed, it seems that Wray and Rush would have some sort of shared authority, and nothing indicated that Wray and Rush wouldn't have been OK with sharing power with Young. They didn't want him to have absolute control.


Although, I think, it's only a rebellion if you lose; if you win, it's a revolution.

True and not true. Using American history, I think the difference between the Revolution, and the Civil war, aside from the fact that the Confederates (the rebels) didn't win, is also that the 13 colonies were just that, colonies, and were considered, and were treated separate and different from "England" at the time, while the rebelling states were legally speaking equally members of the Union. But, I do agree with your statement and post mostly :-D.

Daro
April 13th, 2010, 06:26 PM
True and not true. Using American history, I think the difference between the Revolution, and the Civil war, aside from the fact that the Confederates (the rebels) didn't win, is also that the 13 colonies were just that, colonies, and were considered, and were treated separate and different from "England" at the time, while the rebelling states were legally speaking equally members of the Union. But, I do agree with your statement and post mostly :-D.

I was just, ya know, going for some humor there. I have so few opportunities while I'm explaining my long-winded positions, ya know? ;D
And thanks. Nice to see ya again. :)

EllieVee
April 13th, 2010, 06:44 PM
This is military law. Military law is not applicable to civilians in the USA. And there is a caveat. Simply defying a military commander is not necessarily mutiny or sedition. Disobeying an unlawful order is the duty of soldiers. They'll still get court martialed to determine whether they were justified in doing so, but there you have it.

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. ;)

Yes, indeed. LOL!

natyanayaki
April 13th, 2010, 06:59 PM
I was just, ya know, going for some humor there. I have so few opportunities while I'm explaining my long-winded positions, ya know? ;D
And thanks. Nice to see ya again. :)

I know, I think i was just still in a nitpicky mood? I'm add...teehee. Nice to see you too! :)

Ser Scot A Ellison
April 13th, 2010, 07:03 PM
natyanayaki,

I'm brand new here you really don't want to get me started on the constitutionality of secession (this is not to say I think it was a wise or moral choice) let me say only that the question is not nearly so clear cut as it is presented in High School history classes.

natyanayaki
April 13th, 2010, 07:14 PM
natyanayaki,

I'm brand new here you really don't want to get me started on the constitutionality of secession (this is not to say I think it was a wise or moral choice) let me say only that the question is not nearly so clear cut as it is presented in High School history classes.

Woah, calm down. I know that, that was just my irritating reply to Daro's joke. I never commented on the "constitutionality" of secession.

Ser Scot A Ellison
April 13th, 2010, 07:23 PM
Natyanayaki,

Oh, I'm not upset. Most, in my experience, tend to have an overly simplistic view of that historic issue in my opinion. It's on of my big areas of interest.

:)

natyanayaki
April 13th, 2010, 07:27 PM
Natyanayaki,

Oh, I'm not upset. Most, in my experience, tend to have an overly simplistic view of that historic issue in my opinion. It's on of my big areas of interest.

:)

Oh I understand, I had to understand the intricacies even for AP U.S. history, I'm def. not a scholar on the Civil War, but I know how simply and quite frankly inaccurately most view the situation, especially since I'm in contact with several non-US individuals. :) No worries.

carmencatalina
April 13th, 2010, 09:00 PM
Whenever I think of mutiny, I think of the H.M.S. Bounty and Mr. Christian!

EllieVee
April 13th, 2010, 09:01 PM
Whenever I think of mutiny, I think of the H.M.S. Bounty and Mr. Christian!

Bligh got a bad rap.

FallenAngelII
April 13th, 2010, 11:29 PM
Insurrection - an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government.
The military =/= Civil authority/Established government

This was not an insurrection. It was a reverse-military coup, or, mostly, a coup against Young himself.

Ser Scot A Ellison
April 14th, 2010, 04:05 AM
FallenAngel,


The military =/= Civil authority/Established government

This was not an insurrection. It was a reverse-military coup, or, mostly, a coup against Young himself.

I'm not even sure you can call it an "insurrection" it was more like very intense negotiations that were shut down by fast military action.

Lahela
April 14th, 2010, 09:38 AM
FallenAngel,



I'm not even sure you can call it an "insurrection" it was more like very intense negotiations that were shut down by fast military action.

I'd call it an attempt at non-violent revolution. And to answer your original question, yes, mutiny/insurrection/revolution can (and have been countless times in history) justifiable.