Article 14, Section 31 of the Starfleet Charter allowed for extraordinary measures to be taken in times of extreme threat. In TNG episode I, Borg, by not infecting Hugh with the virus before returning him to the Collective, was Picard in violation of the Starfleet Charter?
In TNG episode Descent Admiral Nechayev said to Picard
You could have taken the opportunity to rid the Federation of a mortal enemy.
Hardly, Steenbergh. Certainly not without turning this into a discussion.
Like not going through a red light, what Picard didn’t do against Article 14: Section 31 could never be proved but by 24/7 spy-cam.
As with all accusations - here, of Picard’s “violation” - it is the prosecution’s job to justify the charges… here, mainly GalacticCriminal’s job as original inquisitor, with some responsibility shared by Sekhemty as some kind of editor.
The Question as Posted seems to suggest the case rests on one sentence. If not, what? There’s the rub… Is there any other relevant item of evidence, or not?
If you insisted, anyone with the time and patience could go through both episodes word by word and show A14:S31 wasn’t violated. I went through both and saw it wasn’t violated but why should anyone accept that as proof, without the specifics?
Here, the Question seems to suggest Picard might be charged that he “did violate Article 14, Section 31 of the Starfleet Charter…” supported by the evidence “… he failed to take an opportunity to rid the Federation of a mortal enemy.”
I suggest in a real court martial - or in any court - failing to take that opportunity would be the charge, not the evidence; otherwise every infantryman who ever failed to shoot an enemy he hadn’t seen might be guilty.
That aside, neither "You could have taken the opportunity to rid the Federation of a mortal enemy" nor anything else in either Descent or I, Borg, comes close to A14:S31 as vaguely cited around the WWW.
The most comprehensive citation looks like Trello.com/c/pn3pFLc9/68-article-14-section-31 - similar to most and while I stand to be corrected, nothing else I saw seemed to contradict it.
The length of Trello… alone forces this to be the detailed Answer I do not believe the Question deserves, rather than the passing Comment it warranted, and should have got had GalacticCriminal or Sekhemty done the groundwork.
A14:S31 Paragraph I: During times of dire emergency and extreme danger to the Federation, ranking officials may take command of Starfleet property at will and preserve the Federation and it's citizens at all costs.
Paragraph II: Paragraph I is only in effect if all of Starfleet High Command has been compromised and the fleet is at a State of Emergency.
Paragraph III: In the event that a similar scenario to Paragraph II takes place, the most senior Captain in Starfleet Command will be put in command of the fleet.
Paragraph IV: This section of Article 14 may be countermanded at any time by the Commander in Chief or the acting Commander in Chief, as well as the Director of Fleet Operations.
Though most are less clear, no sources I found contradicted any of that. Some say the wording is never cited, but that would mean either no-one could be charged, or everyone would automatically be guilty. Who sees a middle way is welcome to argue it…
Who knows a better source please, Post it!
Following Trello’s wording, and many others, the prosecution would loosely need to show, at least:
Contact with Hugh, et al, constituted an emergency more dire or danger more extreme than "ordinary" Borg encounters;
Starfleet Command was compromised and the fleet was at a State of Emergency;
Starfleet assets were available;
Picard failed to use those assets in a manner that might obviously be expected of any competent officer;
None of this even recognises, let alone addresses the issue of ethical warfare, which does matter to Starfleet even while the complete annihilation of all life on a planet is officially conscionable.
As written, the article is permissive, not prescriptive- it allows someone to take 'extraordinary measures', but does not require them to.
Using Hugh to transmit the virus might have been legal, but not doing so isn't illegal. Others - like the admiral - held different views on the morality of his decision, but Picard choosing not to make use of the provisions of the article doesn't mean he acted in contravention of it.
Article 14, Section 31 of the Starfleet Charter is famous for being the legal basis for the foundation of the accordingly named Section 31, the secret intelligence organization known for its borderline tactics and ethics if compared to the general founding principles of the Federation.
The first consideration is that a rule that allows something to be done does not automatically require someone to do it, so choosing not to act could not be a violation.
Another, and probably more important consideration, is that since this rule serves as the legal basis for the existence of Section 31, it is very likely that it does not really apply to choices made by single individuals (being them Admirals, Captains, or common citizens), but collectively affects only that intelligence agency (and indirectly their members). Even in the real world, common citizens aren't allowed to do things that "secret agents" can do.
If suspending the fundamental laws could be autonomously decided by single individuals based on their own personal evaluation of what are "extreme measures" and "extreme threat", you end in a situation where laws are, de facto, useless.
As stated in the existing answers, Article 14/31 is "permissive, not prescriptive" (nice wording by @Michael)
Furthermore, Picard thought that Hugh's individuality was a weapon on its own. Not as destructive as the virus, but (or therefore) more humane.
PICARD: But perhaps in that short time before they purge his memory, the sense of individuality which he has gained here might be transmitted throughout the entire Borg Collective. Every one of the Borg being given the opportunity to experience the feeling of singularity. Perhaps that's the most pernicious programme of all. The knowledge of self being spread throughout the Collective, in that brief moment, might alter them forever. We leave his memory intact.
(Source: Chakoteya.net)
