TJ ordering the gun put down

[FallenAngelII]

No there's only one gun. The gun they got from airman Dunning.

Then I will go back to arguing what I originally argued: There was only one gun. How in the flying fig can that constitute an "armed coup"?

[Jper]

Then I will go back to arguing what I originally argued: There was only one gun. How in the flying fig can that constitute an "armed coup"?

Don't ask me. I don't understand all this crap about this incident. IMHO TJ did what she had to do, fitting with her character. I don't understand all this encouragement to use violence, and shoot the hell out of the civilians. And all that by one single armed airman. And I certainly don't understand the "kung fu" moves he should have performed...

[FallenAngelII]

Don't ask me. I don't understand all this crap about this incident. IMHO TJ did what she had to do, fitting with her character. I don't understand all this encouragement to use violence, and shoot the hell out of the civilians. And all that by one single armed airman. And I certainly don't understand the "kung fu" moves he should have performed...

The way I see it, the forums are frequented by a whole bunch of people who are either in the military or who are fans of the military. In their eyes, the military can do no wrong and the civilians should be happy the military is there to protect them. As such, the civilians are whiny little ingrates for staging the coup since the military's done nothing but benign stuff for them. Therefore, it is perfectly OK to "karate chop" a few innocent civilians.

[hiro]

Someone said that in the scene where Eli was exchanged for food and water, there were two guns visible. I just assumed they weren't lying since I'm too lazy to re-check.

Sorry , my fault ! I rewatch the scene and as Jeper said there's only one gun ... the other gun i saw it's actually a kino remote ( i think )

[beafly]

Ok, this thread addresses my biggest beef with the episode.

This was the stupidest scene.

There is no way in hell that airman would have simply set his gun on the floor. There is no way in hell TJ would have ordered him to do so.

If she wanted to de-escalate the situation, she'd have ordered him to lower the weapon. No more.

You guys can argue about time to close, inevitable defeat, etc. but you're talking about un-trained people looking at the muzzle of a gun. While they could assume that a physical assault on the airman would be ultimately successful, SOMEONE is likely to be seriously hurt or even die in the process. The question is... do you want it to be you? Are you willing to die for the success of the mutiny?

TJ and that airman are holding some HUGE cards and are in the unique position to significantly improve Col Young's negotiating position. In my opinion they made a HUGE tactical error.

[Lord Hurin]

The way I see it, the forums are frequently by a whole bunch of people who are either in the military or who are fans of the military. In their eyes, the military can do no wrong and the civilians should be happy the military is there to protect them. As such, the civilians are whiny little ingrates for staging the coup since the military's done nothing but benign stuff for them. Therefore, it is perfectly OK to "karate chop" a few innocent civilians.

Including me, I suppose?

For the record, I completely agree with TJ's decision. Things could only have gotten worse. I do, however, agree with the retaking of the ship. It put the civilians and military on equal footing in my mind. Neither of them could utterly, completely shut the other out. Without equal footing once negotiations come, one side is going to feel downtrodden.

[beafly]

The way I see it, the forums are frequently by a whole bunch of people who are either in the military or who are fans of the military. In their eyes, the military can do no wrong and the civilians should be happy the military is there to protect them. As such, the civilians are whiny little ingrates for staging the coup since the military's done nothing but benign stuff for them. Therefore, it is perfectly OK to "karate chop" a few innocent civilians.

Respectfully. Those are not "innocent civilians." They are either gov't employees or contractors. They signed on for a highly classified MILITARY project. They most certainly agreed to the mission, though not likely the exact situation, and the US Air Force was leading the project from the start.

While they may not fall directly under the military's chain of command, they damn sure take orders from the military at their specific level of work and responsibility. The whole civilian in charge of the military thing happens at ONE place in the United States: The President. Not Joe scientist.

[FallenAngelII]

Respectfully. Those are not "innocent civilians." They are either gov't employees or contractors.

This makes them less of civilians how?

They signed on for a highly classified MILITARY project.

No it wasn't. Icarus Base was a project run by the IOA (a civilian organization) with the USAF as their guard.

They most certainly agreed to the mission, though not likely the exact situation, and the US Air Force was leading the project from the start.

They agreed to work on a base where Young was the military commander. They did not agree to have him be their dictator should they have to evacuate.

While they may not fall directly under the military's chain of command, they damn sure take orders from the military at their specific level of work and responsibility.

No they don't.

Daniel was a civilian as well. As such, Jack could not order him like he would order another USAF member around. If Daniel refused to follow Jack's orders, Jack could not have him prosecuted or dismissed for insubordination. There was no way to court marshal Daniel either.

It's the same thing here. While the military ran Icarus Base and the leader of the base as military, the civilians ultimately received their orders from the IOA, a very civilian organization.

The whole civilian in charge of the military thing happens at ONE place in the United States: The President. Not Joe scientist.

Yes, and? The fact of the matter is still that every military in the free world ultimately takes its orders from one or several civilians.

And Icarus Base was not a military operation.

[Lord Hurin]

No it wasn't. Icarus Base was a project run by the IOA (a civilian organization) with the USAF as their guard.

Ah, I missed that. That takes away a lot of my presumptions about who should've taken command when they got to Destiny.

Daniel was a civilian as well. As such, Jack could not order him like he would order another USAF member around. If Daniel refused to follow Jack's orders, Jack could not have him prosecuted or dismissed for insubordination. There was no way to court marshal Daniel either.

This I'm unsure of. Remember McKay's first appearance in SG1? At the end, he was transferred to Russia against his will and Carter said something along the lines of "as long as the US Air Force is paying your bills, you'll do what they tell you to." Furthermore, I suspect Jack may have tolerated a lot of Daniel's "insubordination" because of his great respect for the good doctor.

[beafly]

Who from the IOA was at Icarus, in charge of the operation?

[FallenAngelII]

This I'm unsure of. Remember McKay's first appearance in SG1? At the end, he was transferred to Russia against his will and Carter said something along the lines of "as long as the US Air Force is paying your bills, you'll do what they tell you to." Furthermore, I suspect Jack may have tolerated a lot of Daniel's "insubordination" because of his great respect for the good doctor.

It was expressively stated early on in SG-1's run that Daniel did not have to follow Jack's orders. Heck, it might even have been in the movie was well.

And Sam specifically said "As long as the USAF is paying for your bills...", in other words, if Rodney wanted to keep getting good money from the USAF, he'd have to transfer to where they wanted him to transfer. He could just quit.

The same goes with Daniel. Daniel could be fired, but he couldn't be prosecuted for simply refusing to follow a military order.

[Lord Hurin]

It was expressively stated early on in SG-1's run that Daniel did not have to follow Jack's orders. Heck, it might even have been in the movie was well.

And Sam specifically said "As long as the USAF is paying for your bills...", in other words, if Rodney wanted to keep getting good money from the USAF, he'd have to transfer to where they wanted him to transfer. He could just quit.

The same goes with Daniel. Daniel could be fired, but he couldn't be prosecuted for simply refusing to follow a military order.

Good points, all. I don't know whether the civilians on Destiny are paid by the IOA or the USAF. In the case of Rodney that I presented, I'm not sure if the IOA existed at that point.

As for Daniel, the fact that he was never fired I think is probably due to Jack and Hammond. They liked the guy, and Danny boy usually proved himself right anyway.

[hedwig]

Who from the IOA was at Icarus, in charge of the operation?

Wasn't that Camille Wray? I'm a bit fuzzy on the earlier episodes, but if I'm remembering correctly, she was the only IOA person on Icarus.

[FallenAngelII]

Wasn't that Camille Wray? I'm a bit fuzzy on the earlier episodes, but if I'm remembering correctly, she was the only IOA person on Icarus.

I would assume it's Camille.

[beafly]

Further along those lines, IOA funding of the mission does not necessarily mean they have the responsibility of execution or had anyone on site with any authority over the project.

The military staff still would not answer directly to Camille, . They may be directed to work in cooperation with her but their chain of command would be entirely Air Force up to the project office level. Which my guess is the SGC, Gen O'neil.

The IOA probably has the option to pull funding if the project (useless gesture in the case of Destiny) was not being executed to their satisfaction but not to tell a Colonel or Lieutenant in the Air Force what to do or how to execute their mission.

Camille could likely file a report on the military staff to her superiors. Which under normal circumstances might result in a reprimand, discipline, transfer, etc.

IF (big if, because it's doubtful) the IOA held the contracts the scientists were using and not the Air Force. She could have authority over administrating that contract, and some recourse contractually to put pressure on them.

That would be the extent of her authority.

To use your own example:

Daniel had absolutely ZERO authority over Jack simply by virtue of the fact that he was a citizen.