207 réponses à ce sujet

[Skyblade012]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Treason trials are rare and already exceptional as it is, and as Tali says usually only come with a very strong indication of wrong doing.

Or whenever the admirals feel like fighting among themselves.

[Naltair]

I look at it from a cultural perspective and I see that Quarian culture is just different from human culture or at least Western civilization based human culture. They hold the bonds of family and the community as a strong element, akin to Confucian philosophy. There are certain relationships that trump lesser relationships and the bond of family especially the father/parent seems to be one of them. In that sense where people say she is being unreasonable maybe we are the ones who are being unreasonable for not respecting her culture and society and imposing our will on it.



Now with the trial, it is purely politically motivated since it deals with the Geth and poor Tali is caught in the crossfire because of her father. That to me is enough to side with her and make the best of a bad situation. I don’t really see the point of revealing the truth it would just cause more division and politicking, there would not be a happy resolution. Also in my eyes respecting her as a member of my team and her wishes goes a long way to reaching mutual understanding. The quarian people are insular and hold the community as the greatest asset, and more likely then not when issues like this come up you side with the closest bonds first then society at large. It’s probably a culture that would probably insist that as a dutiful daughter she cover for her father, it may seem strange to Western thought but again I see this as closer to Confucian ideology than a Western one.



Anyway to the OP if you think you made the right choice then you did; there is no correct decision. Most decisions of this nature have no real right or wrong answer, there are better and worst choices but in time any choice can be polished into the right answer with enough historical revisionism and hindsight.

[JaegerBane]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

It was a politically motivated farce, but it was a legal farce.

Most civil trials put the burden of proof on the accuser, but military tribunals work from the other direction: when accused, the defendant has to prove their innocence. The Quarian structure, still nominally under military law, reflects that: Tali send geth parts, geth overran the ship, and so it's up to her to prove that she followed protocols properly.

That's a good point. However, from what I'm aware of a military tribunal, there has to be some pointer towards the accused for the tribunal to take place. Often this is fairly straightforward as it's normally clear who is ultimately responsible for a given asset or operation (i.e. a commanding officer, a pilot etc). If there isn't one, then a further enquiry is established to figure out who to charge (as in the case of a friendly fire incident or a unexplained death on base, etc). They don't simply pick someone, demand they prove they weren't involved and hurl them into a cell if they can't.

In this case, however, they seem to pointing the finger at Tali purely because they don't have anyone else to blame - everyone else who could be blamed is apparently dead - which under most legal systems, civilian and military, is essentially meaningless and insufficient grounds for a case.

Granted, the quarians may have have bizarro rule that someone must take the blame even if that someone is only peripherally related, but I can't see the quarians going for such a ridiculous concept and there isn't anything in the codex that mentions such.

Paragon Shepard wasn't making an argument that the trial was illegal. He, and Renegade Shep, were attacking the underlying motivations for the trial, which were clearly not related to whether Tali was wrong or not. Perhaps Tali could have been tried on those grounds, but she wasn't. Compare it to if you have the authority to force someone to do something, but rather than use it because it needs to be done you use it because you want to punish someone you dislike. Same authority, unacceptable usage.

That was my point - a trial where the guilt or innocence of the accused is irrelevant to the reason and outcome cannot realistically be considered a trial by definition. It's why a lot of the show-trials (and subsequent results) held in tinpot dictatorships in the third world are considered legally inadmissable by the world community - because they're essentially not trials, they're stunts - which is precisely what that farce was in Tali's loyalty mission.

Modifié par JaegerBane, 29 septembre 2010 - 02:08 .

[Spectre_907]

JaegerBane wrote...
In this case, however, they seem to pointing the finger at Tali purely because they don't have anyone else to blame - everyone else who could be blamed is apparently dead - which under most legal systems, civilian and military, is essentially meaningless and insufficient grounds for a case.

Granted, the quarians may have have bizarro rule that someone must take the blame even if that someone is only peripherally related, but I can't see the quarians going for such a ridiculous concept and there isn't anything in the codex that mentions such.
mission.

The Admiralty does not know whether Tali was peripherally related. As far as they know: there was a geth uprising, Tali was the only surviving member involved, and she did not warn the board of the impending danger. Given the fragile infrastructure of the Migrant Fleet, any potential risk to something as big as a geth uprising on a ship should be met with such accusations.

Indeed, unless I misunderstood, that is Shepard's entire point when he makes the Paragon argument - that ultimately, this trial is trying to convict not just any member of the fleet, but a member in good standing, based on nothing more than assumptions, for no other reason than to serve an agenda. It didn't even match the actual definition of a trial, and therefore was both meaningless and symptomatic of a greater problem.

If the Admirals unanimously sanctioned Rael'Zorah's research, the paragon/renegade (after talking with the admirals) speech makes sense. Otherwise, I see it as an isolated incident by a rogue admiral. The political motivations of each admiral become a consequence, not a cause of the accusation, and thus useless in proving Tali's innocence.

[Dean_the_Young]

JaegerBane wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

It was a politically motivated farce, but it was a legal farce.

Most civil trials put the burden of proof on the accuser, but military tribunals work from the other direction: when accused, the defendant has to prove their innocence. The Quarian structure, still nominally under military law, reflects that: Tali send geth parts, geth overran the ship, and so it's up to her to prove that she followed protocols properly.

That's a good point. However, from what I'm aware of a military tribunal, there has to be some pointer towards the accused for the tribunal to take place. Often this is fairly straightforward as it's normally clear who is ultimately responsible for a given asset or operation (i.e. a commanding officer, a pilot etc). If there isn't one, then a further enquiry is established to figure out who to charge (as in the case of a friendly fire incident or a unexplained death on base, etc). They don't simply pick someone, demand they prove they weren't involved and hurl them into a cell if they can't.

In this case, however, they seem to pointing the finger at Tali purely because they don't have anyone else to blame - everyone else who could be blamed is apparently dead - which under most legal systems, civilian and military, is essentially meaningless and insufficient grounds for a case.

Granted, the quarians may have have bizarro rule that someone must take the blame even if that someone is only peripherally related, but I can't see the quarians going for such a ridiculous concept and there isn't anything in the codex that mentions such.

It strongly depends on culture and context. Take the US Army: in the Civil War, they could shoot you (or hang you) if you fell asleet on watch. Now it's a dishonorable discharge, if that.  It doesn't even matter if your action (or lack of action) actually caused/allowed harm: what could have happened is often grounds.

Circumstantially, the evidence does point towards Tali. Tali sends Geth parts. Geth not properly killed/handled are known to reactivate. Geth on Alarai, a dedicated research ship, suddenly gets overrun by Geth? The Alarai isn't some scooner with geth salvage: it's a dedicated research ship, years, likely decades, possibly centuries of anti-geth research, with well-established safety protocols to prevent just such an occurance, and at the time housing on of the Fleet's five Admirals, the most respected law-enforcers on the Flotilla.

No one, not on the Admiralty board and not Tali or anyone else, thought that the cause of the disaster would be Tali's Father's fault. Not after decades of prudance and reliability on his part and the Alarai's. And given Quarian culture, when a whole ship is lost and a member of the Admiralty board is killed and the most likely explanation isas obvious as it is in this case...

That was my point - a trial where the guilt or innocence of the accused is irrelevant to the reason and outcome cannot realistically be considered a trial by definition. It's why a lot of the show-trials (and subsequent results) held in tinpot dictatorships in the third world are considered legally inadmissable by the world community - because they're essentially not trials, they're stunts - which is precisely what that farce was in Tali's loyalty mission.

We're just going to disagree on the definition of a trial, then. If you said a fair trial, I would agree with you. But as a military trial, it has more basis than you'd like... and in the end, the only group who's opinion matters in this case is the Quarian Flotilla's, not the global (galactic) community. Tali would be an exile whether the Council or the Alliance acknowledged it or not.

[Skyblade012]

Admiral Zal'Koris' line: "Her loyalty was never in question. Only her judgement."

If that is true, why is she on trial for treason? Treason is about a betrayal of loyalty. For that matter, the previous quarian tried with treason, for turning over defense schematics to a group contracted to upgrade defenses, was also not treason.

Modifié par Skyblade012, 30 septembre 2010 - 02:59 .