Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

S02.E10: Friendly Fire

HalcyonDays

By HalcyonDays
in The Last Ship [V]

Recommended Posts

Bishop

Bishop

(edited)

That's an ethical argument but legally the President is still guilty of murder.

He wouldn't face the same charges in a court of law. The circumstances and motives are very different.

A lot of problems with that episode are not based on the underlying moral dilemma but how it was written and acted. Chandler was way more understanding of the President than of Dr Scott - and that was even before he talked to her. He never showed the slightes sign of inner turmoil or conflict or even a smidgen of understanding - he was a stickler to the letter of the law without any traces of humanity.

I wouldn't go that far, but I agree with you on the lack of emotion between BOTH of them, considering I've seen these two growing closer. I agree with you about Chandler being more sympathetic to the President but that's because the President WAS more sympathetic. The writers gave us complete remorse, shame, guilt and self-loathing from the President. We got none of that with Rachel. She seemed surprised that she was actually treated like she did something wrong.

I was unsettled by the episode because Chandler and Rachel are on the outs, and it's not a little thing. I agree that the writers did not give C&R the same courtesy they gave to the President. I would have liked to have seen more emotion between them considering what they've been through. I'm not sure what the writers are going for with this new sub plot, but BOTH Rachel and Chandler seemed off.

Edited by Bishop
  • Love 1
Hanahope

Hanahope

I also think that Chandler can treat the President different because no one else knows about his kids,  OTOH, almost everyone on the ship knows/believes Rachel killed Neils and the officers are covering it up.  If no one knew or suspected Neils' murder, then perhaps Chandler could have kept quiet about it, but because  the crew that does suspect he's involved, he has to deal with it.  No one suspects the President killed his kids and Chandler knew about it, so easy to keep quiet 'for the greater good.'

MissLucas

MissLucas

He wouldn't face the same charges in a court of law. The circumstances and motives are very different.

He would face homicide charges, and the issue would be if it was excusable homicide nor not. Since one of his daughters fought back I'm not sure how a jury would react. But that's beside the point. Chandler decided to hide this from the crew (and the rest of the population) and thereby compromised himself.

  • Love 1
xaxat

xaxat

Morally, I'd put the President's actions far closer to assisted suicide (something that is increasingly legal in the US) than murder. All of the parties were well informed about their options and the family made a choice.

 

Setting that aside, I think Chandler had valid procedural reasons for treating the two differently. Dr. Scott's actions happened under his command. Although she is a civilian, on his ship, he is the one that is responsible for her actions. Nothing that the President did happened on Chandler's watch. 

 

I do agree that the acting came across as heavy handed and unsympathetic, but I think Chandler was right.

  • Love 1
Human

Human

Yeah, no one is going to bring charges against the president for his daughters.  For one, at this point it's hearsay.  They both died in a stadium where thousands of others died of a terrible, painful virulent illness.  A prosecutor is going to look at the known facts of this supposed case and see that he can't hope to obtain a conviction and so will decline to press charges.  

 

The actual major crime that is being covered up is the part where the President is guilty of ignoring protocol, the result being that he killed thousands of people in that stadium by bringing his son in.  There's evidence for this.  Chandler found the paper trail with very little effort.  This is the thing he's covering up and the thing that makes him look hypocritical.

 

However, despite the hypocrisy, there is still a reason they are being treated differently.  Dr. Scott didn't even try to hide what she did, even when the investigation began.  Here's the dude who was Virus Mary and he suddenly dies of the virus and then the people involved are walking around with no one making any sort of announcement.  Scott had every chance to speak up and say that the process of making the sort of cure they were working on led to Neils' accidental death but she didn't.  

iMonrey

iMonrey

The thing I didn't get, even after a re-watch, was the whole deal with the civilian flotilla. President Michener said it was something he set up, right? Did he do that before he joined the Ramsey cult and came to believe immunes were God's chosen people? Because it seemed like the whole Ramsey cult plucked him out of obscurity to further their cause and he didn't actually do much in the way of president-ing until then.

 

Also, after the sub had fired missiles at the Nathan James, what was the point of the ship firing back into the water next to them? They were deliberately avoiding trying to aim for the sub since it was hidden under the remnants of the flotilla, and they didn't want to hit any possible survivors, so what or who were they firing at? The missiles? I don't get it.

AmyAmySue

AmyAmySue

I also thought that the civilian flotilla thing came out of the blue.  Almost like the writers thought "oops, we have to make this new President good at something, otherwise, he's a little irredeemable"  since he killed his family and entire stadium of people by allowing his infected son to come down. Chandler has a throw away line to Foster where he says that the President saved 10,000 lives a little reverently, which is maybe the justification for his super rigid attitude later? 

Raja

Raja

(edited)

The thing I didn't get, even after a re-watch, was the whole deal with the civilian flotilla. President Michener said it was something he set up, right? Did he do that before he joined the Ramsey cult and came to believe immunes were God's chosen people? Because it seemed like the whole Ramsey cult plucked him out of obscurity to further their cause and he didn't actually do much in the way of president-ing until then.

 

Also, after the sub had fired missiles at the Nathan James, what was the point of the ship firing back into the water next to them? They were deliberately avoiding trying to aim for the sub since it was hidden under the remnants of the flotilla, and they didn't want to hit any possible survivors, so what or who were they firing at? The missiles? I don't get it.

I think President Michener said it was set up while he was the HUD Secretary to make sure another Katrina could not happen under his watch.

 

Now we need a sailor, unfortunately I was a soldier. The way I read it the gunfire at the sea was aimed at throwing off the torpedoes internal sonars but one regained lock and somehow only cause minor damage to Nathan James. Even if it was designed to sink other submarines I would have expected one hit one kill with that particular weapon.

Edited by Raja
rove4

rove4

I think Tom, the man, doesn't really mind that Niels is dead or how he died. That's what he meant when he told Rachel that none of this was about what HE wanted. Tom, the captain, is another story. The captain has to maintain order, he has to take the long view. Personally I don't have a problem with what Rachel did thouh she did herself no favors by admitting that she didn't have to kill Niels in order to get what she needed. But it does raise some interesting questions.

Rachel killed Niels not out of necessity but out of revenge. She made a unilateral decision that he should die.

Grnderson mama made the decision that only the elite and those with useful skills should live and everyone else should die. Less competition for resources.

Sean and the Immunes believe nature has selected them for survival and everyone else should be eliminated. Again, less competition for resources.

In all three cases people are throwing laws to the wind, making up their own rules, and deciding who lives and who dies. In the absence of laws or anyone to enforce them, does simple morality reign? But since morality can differ from person to person, who decides what morality will carry the day? Where do the lines get drawn and when do they get moved? Because once you start moving them, it only gets easier to move them again. The thing about rules is that they give us something to bump up against; they tell us where we are, for good or bad.

Now I probably would've done the same as Rachel, but does that mean I should? I can see both sides.

  • Love 1
Lonesome Rhodes

Lonesome Rhodes

Since so much of this thread seems to hinge on what a "murder" is, I went to Black's Law dictionary, which is the standard for U.S. criminal procedure.

 

Please note that one must be acting without any "excuse in law."  As I have noted, International Law, by treaty and accepted in the USA, says that in time of war, a spy caught or a war criminal is subject to summary execution at any time - without trial or adjudication.  There is no question that Niels fits the criterion.  Hence, not murder.  Hence, the "excuse" under Black's.

 

Parenthetically, morally, there is well-founded authority that "murder" is a taking of innocent life.  Niels was many things.  Innocent was not among these.

 

 

 

The crime committed where a person of sound mind and discretion (that is, of sufficient age to form and execute a criminal design and not legally “insane”) kills any human creature in being (excluding quick but unborn children) and in the peace of the state or nation (including all persons except the military forces of the public enemy in time of war or battle) without any warrant, justification, or excuse in law. with malice aforethought, express or implied, that is, with a deliberate purpose or a design or determination distinctly formed in the mind before the commission of the act, provided that death results from the injury Inflicted within one year and a day after its infliction.

Law Dictionary: What is MURDER? definition of MURDER (Black's Law Dictionary)

What is not excusable is the horrible one-note acting by Eric Dane these past two eps.  

  • Love 2
Bishop

Bishop

(edited)

I think many are viewing the episode through an emotional prism, and that's fine.  I tend to watch my shows in its full context and not that I'm just upset that Rachel and Chandler are at odds (although that bothers me).  Rachel did save the world and deserves tremendous credit for that, but she didn't do it alone.  She couldn't have done it at all without the help of the Nathan James.  She may be the scientist behind the cure, but she needed the protection and assistance and ingenuity of the NJ to help her as well.  There are several key points to the events of the episode, imo.

 

1.  The Nathan James, as far as we know, is the only place where the norms of society still exist.  We've been witness to a Russian Admiral using a nuclear ship (which he used to bomb and destroy France, btw) to try and get the cure and murdered one of his own to make a point.  We have a former U.S. leader in Granderson who went ballistic with power and started choosing her own master race, and now Sean and his minions from around the world are trying to do that to the U.S. (as they did it in Europe).  The Nathan James has a morality about it because they DO follow the rules of law and adhere to old societal norms as best they can.  Do you remember what happened the last time Chandler tried to keep things from the crew?  Some almost left the ship.  By being open and honest with them and not putting himself above them, he has earned their respect.  They WILL die for him, and those crew members reenlisted.  

 

2.  The comparison of Rachel and the President is NOT the same.  President Michener did not "murder" his children.  He would have given his life to save them, but chose a more merciful death for them rather than the one they faced.  Imagine a child trapped in a burning car, and a father desperately trying to get her out.  He can't.  The flames are getting higher, and he knows he can't save her.  Does he leave her to burn alive in the car or does he smother her so that she suffers a quicker death?  If a jury heard that story, and saw the tears and anguish, do you think they'd convict him of first degree murder?  Even second degree?  Heck, I think they'd find him innocent and have him seek psychiatric care.  Chandler was also TOLD this story and as others have said, had no power or authority to affect its outcome.  Rachel, otoh, openly admitted to Chandler that she wanted to murder Neils and did murder him on HIS ship where HE hold command.  She also told Chandler, and I have NO idea why, that she didn't have to kill him to get what she needed.  Why did she tell him that?  Now she's letting him know that "I flat-out killed him and don't care.  I expect you to look the other way."  Rachel, unlike the president, shows no remorse, guilt or shame for what she did.  Did Neils deserve to die?  Abso-freakin-lutely.  But by killing him on the U.S.S. Nathan James, she made Chandler HAVE to take action.  She could have lied and said she didn't know what she was doing, blah, blah, blah, but she didn't.

 

3.  The crew of the Nathan James is effective because they trust their superiors.  They have respect and admiration for their captain.  If Chandler starts to play fast and loose with the rules on HIS ship with the authority HE has to administer to all people aboard, then he will quickly lose the respect he has from his crew.  If they start choosing to leave his ship, then what?  If they decide that Chandler is no different from all the other powerful people they've encountered and just make up the rules for everyone else to follow and then start leaving the NJ in droves, what happens to the effectiveness of the Nathan James as the world's last hope?  The crew already suspected Rachel of the murder and rumors were flying everywhere that the officers knew and were deliberately covering for Rachel.  In other words:  She was special and could murder someone in cold blood and she deserves a pass for it because she developed the vaccine.  Once Chandler makes THAT exception on a ship HE commands, then he sets a precedent.  Then it's harder to keep order, imo.

 

4.  Chandler also suffered losses.  Granderson was responsible for murdering thousands of people and using their bodies (including his wife's) to power the city.  He only found his family by a miracle (in tv terms) before they were exterminated.  Yet when he had the opportunity to murder her, he didn't.  He could have shot her to death on the rooftop, but he didn't.  He could have murdered the Russian commander too.  His ship had just murdered two of Chandler's men, and Chandler could have blown up the boat the Russians were riding in.  Chandler chose to NOT murder them and issued a warning to the Russian Commander.  My point is that Chandler had reasons to want to murder people too, but he chose not to do so.  He killed when he had to do it, and so he set the tone for his crew.  Rachel chose to just kill someone because she felt she had the right to do it, and it seemed to me that she expected (much like the tv audience) that Chandler should look the other way.  Her rationale was that "He killed your wife" and billions of others.  That's easy to say when you are not responsible for the crew of a navy ship.  Rachel and Chandler have very different jobs.  Rachel's only job, although a big one, is the vaccine.  Chandler's job is to restore order to the PLANET.  The vaccine won't help anyone if they can't live in the world anymore.  They are literally living off of a ship because there is no safe harbor right now.  Chandler is trying to fix that, and Neils was going to be the face of the plague - to give someone for the people to blame.  Rachel wasn't thinking long-term, only short-term and only about HER desires for revenge in that moment.  I don't fault her, but I think it's ridiculous to read some of the stuff I'm reading that Rachel should get a pass and Chandler is being a jerk.  If you watch the entire two seasons, there is a reason Chandler is did what he did.

 

5.  Lastly, there was a problem with the writing for this episode in that there should have been more emotion in that scene with Chandler and Rachel, imo.  I don't know why the writers want to create this rift between Chandler and Rachel, but they must have a plan.  I've noticed that Rachel has had very little interaction with anyone compared to last year.  So I'm hoping the writers don't isolate her too much.  The writers should have allowed Chandler and Rachel some emotional moments between them because they've been through a lot together, and the writers did not really show that side of their relationship in that moment.  Maybe it will change next episode.  I actually think Rachel is in love or has deep feelings for Chandler, and I think Chandler has feelings for her (although still in love with and mourning his wife).  We've seen Chandler and Rachel getting closer.  So, we should have seen SOME emotion between them - anger, disappointment, sorrow,  - something from them in that scene where she confesses.  Missed opportunity, writers.

 

I have to wait and see where this goes, but Chandler was not wrong for his actions.  Rachel put him in a very difficult position, and I got the impression that she wanted him to just look the other way.  Even when she came in and told him that she may have found a way of spreading the cure, she seemed upset that he wasn't happy (and even referenced embracing her like the last time she found the cure).  What did she think he was going to do?  She just confessed to murder!  I would actually like the writers to explore more of Rachel's past.  She's a great character, and I hope that the writers can fix the relationship with her and Chandler because I think their relationship is integral to the show too.  I think the only thing that will get them both off the hook at this point is a Presidential pardon.  

 

What is not excusable is the horrible one-note acting by Eric Dane these past two eps.

 

 

Not for me.  I think he's been great, especially the episode with Michener and him.  The acting from everyone has been excellent.  

Edited by Bishop
  • Love 4
wmdekooning

wmdekooning

Only thing left to add is that Burke apparently has iron willpower, to resist Ravit basically offering to have sex in the showers.  The hell, Burke?  Have you seen Inbar Lavi?  It would totally be worth it: especially considering how lax the punishment for Green and Foster was, once they were discovered.

 

 

I'm under the belief that Burke's time on the show is limited as soon as they get to New Orleans, where presumably it would be cool to have sex as they are "not on the ship".

fluffykerfuffle

fluffykerfuffle

hi : )

 

this series lost me, in the first episode of the first season, at the scene in the frozen wastelands where the 2 scientists were in subzero weather (as were the two guys on snowmobiles) and yet their head gear left way much to be desired...

lol the head gear was artfully arranged as to show the lovely jawlines and all...  if it was as cold as i know it was then they would have lost some stuff!! on their faces!! and the dashes of snow on their cheeks? lol give me a break!

 

then, trying to give the series a fair trial, i got lost again when they go traipsing around docks and warehouses and ships in safety gear GATHERING FOODSTUFFS in an environment of airborne plague... lolol like the microorganisms were not on the packaging?

 

and the dog... oh yes the dog... with all that fur and breathing and all and all lololol

maybe the animal was immune to the virus but it was airborne in its fur and mouth, eyes, ears lolol

 

soooooooo   then i just ambled thru some more episodes hit or miss and its funny... on fast forward...  its mainly ships and water and bloody skins and alotta lotta guns and fighting....

 

and i find myself caught up on this friendly fire episode and you know what?

dr scott did the right thing and the whole thing is stupid...

 

3 more episodes to this season and then theyre gonna run another season of all this?

or maybe 4 or 5 more?

 

ah well.... i guess if you have nothing else to do...

crowswork

crowswork

What people are going to see is that death and destruction seems to follow the Nathan James.  Doesn't matter if the NJ is the one doing the saving and aiding, perception is going to be a biggie.  The submarine has also beat them to the propaganda campaign.  They've been warning that the NJ is spreading the virus on unsuspecting victims by claiming they have the cure, and this is hard to disprove when there are major outbreaks where the NJ has been.  Then there is this video showing the NJ firing first on civilian ships and that huge civilian fleet now lying at the bottom of the delta.  I mean, the fake evidence the british have racked up against the NJ is enough that it's almost hard to be skeptical.  Dr. Scott saying she killing Neils because she wanted to avenge all the death is looking incredibly unbelievable when viewed alongside this other stuff.  So, killing Neils for vengeance looks like nothing but just another power play from the NJ.

 

Maybe they are going to do a "the immunes Are God's special snowflakes" episode. Because they seem to have magical powers and protection on the HMS Benny Hill (love that name)

 

lawless

lawless

If there was ever a time for the Captain to look the other way, this was it. Yes, people do need to abide by rules and codes, and certainly Chandler can't let his crew think that Rachel has carte Blanche to kill whoever she chooses. But this guy? This one particular sociopathic, still contagious, intentional killer of billions? Who caused the death of more than half the world's population, who not only joined the death cult of the immunes in their conquest of America but who set to work for them by working hard to figure out how to best target innocent children by enticing them with death-laden teddy bears? Who told the foot soldiers delivering said teddy bears to tell the innocent, vulnerable kids in desperate need of the comfort and security such a gift should by all rights represent to make sure they squeezed the teddy bears, in order to release more death-laden virus to better kill their siblings and parents? Fuck this guy. He should have been summarily executed.

Military men like Chandler and the crew revere the fighting men of the "Greatest Generation" who won WW2. Anyone who has studied the honest history of that war, and I expect Chandler to have, knows that many of those soliders and their leaders did things in real life that were far more morally questionable than what Rachel did, and this is known, understood and forgiven without much fanfare, out of an understanding that "war is hell" and decent men involved in it are sometimes are driven to do otherwise unacceptable things. Rachel wasn't in combat of course, but Niels was responsible for homicide on a scale unimaginable. She saw the teddy bear and knew what it meant, and she (and everyone) has been under stresses of a magnitude not unlike that of combat. She cracked under the horror of it all. And didn't she recently tell Chandler to kill the men who killed her doctor friend in the lab in Florida, and wasn't his reaction pretty much like "totally, done and done"? Because he was up for revenge then, so it was fine.

Was killing Niels the way she did right? No. But the situation doesn't equate to anything mankind has experienced. I feel very confident that if she ever is tried for murder and the whole story is told, a jury would be likely to engage in what is known as juror nullification and set her free.

What should Chandler have done? Concocted a credible sounding explanation that Niels's unique body chemistry, the same unique qualities that saved him from the virus, made him react badly to the treatments he was receiving, causing his death. Hell, say Rachel gave him a modified dose of the cure in an innocent effort to keep him from being contagious and accidentally killed him because of his weirdo uniqueness. The crew would probably accept that, and order would be restored. From a storytelling perspective, Rachel and Chandler could still be at odds, but privately. I think that would be more believable dramatically and interesting to me. I really struggle with accepting his treatment of her when compared to the Secretary of HUD who, let's recall, was never actually elected president but fell ass backward into it, and who knowingly joined a death cult of foreigners who were using him to take over America at the expense of the lives of all survivors who weren't immune. In fact, his prior willing complicitly apparently resulted in featuring him in a recruitment video that motivated one of the immune prisoners to join the immunes in the first place. And he still seems shifty, and I think he secretly communicates with Valkrie by computer!

Anyway, that asshole gets understanding, privacy, discretion and man-tears from Chandler despite conspiring with murderous foreign invaders, but Rachel gets a formal investigation and hung out to dry for killing the biggest mass killer in the history of mankind-- just this one time!

If this were a Joss Whedon show I'd think the show was making an intentional comment about the patriarchy/good old boys network or something, but it's not. So I guess I have to go with Chandler needs someone to remove the hypocritical stick from his ass, pronto. Team Rachel and Tex! And though he's loyal to Chandler, in his heart of hearts, I think Slattery's on Team Rachel and Tex too.

  • Love 4
Bishop

Bishop

(edited)

If there was ever a time for the Captain to look the other way, this was it. Yes, people do need to abide by rules and codes, and certainly Chandler can't let his crew think that Rachel has carte Blanche to kill whoever she chooses.

He can't make an exception because it then becomes a slippery slope. If Chandler can show restraint by not murdering the woman who used his wife's body to power her coffee pot, then Rachel should have shown some restraint. If nothing else, she shouldn't have confessed to Chandler that she not only killed Niels but that she didn't have to kill him. She just wanted to kill him and feels that the captain should look the other way. That's arrogance. The crew IS watching to see what their Captain does and are expecting him to give her a pass. Rachel should not have put him in the position she did in the first place.

She cracked under the horror of it all. And didn't she recently tell Chandler to kill the men who killed her doctor friend in the lab in Florida, and wasn't his reaction pretty much like "totally, done and done"? Because he was up for revenge then, so it was fine.

I don't think she cracked. She had no remorse for what she did and made a conscious choice to kill Niels. Also, Chandler didn't "agree" with her about killing anyone. He said nothing. That's not agreeing with her. He could have killed the Russian leader and didn't. He could have killed Granderson and didn't.

What should Chandler have done? Concocted a credible sounding explanation that Niels's unique body chemistry, the same unique qualities that saved him from the virus, made him react badly to the treatments he was receiving, causing his death.

Chandler lied to his crew once before, and it was almost a disaster. He swore to them he would never to do it again. The crew would not accept a lie. They are already suspicious and expect the captain is covering for her. SHE is the one that shouldn't have boxed him in and limited his options.

Anyway, that asshole gets understanding, privacy, discretion and man-tears from Chandler despite conspiring with murderous foreign invaders,

The President was not aware of the killings by Sean and was clearly shocked about the teddy bears. He also got understanding because he showed remorse and didn't deliberately murder anyone. His child was dying anyway, and he chose to give her a fast death than the horrible death he witnessed his son experience. He was so horrified by his actions that he tried to kill himself twice.

think Slattery's on Team Rachel and Tex too.

Neither of them command a Navy ship. Also, Slattery didn't seem to me to agree with Rachel. Maybe if she hadn't tied the captain's hands, it could have been handled differently. It's HER fault, imo. If you're going to kill someone, don't confess to the captain! Edited by Bishop
  • Love 1
Human

Human

I think if they really wanted Chandler to seem unreasonable about this, they would have made it so that there was a genuine accident in the research lab that resulted in Neils' death.  Making an exception to something like an accidental death in a lab seeking a way to make the cure infectious isn't quite the same as ignoring an explicit murder.  

Bishop

Bishop

(edited)

I would have loved to see Dr. Scott listen to Chandler and when he was done say "WTF ever. It's the end of the world and I'm too tired from creating vaccines and delivery systems to care about your rules and traditions. Let me know when you have something more to offer than a ride on your boat."

Except that "ride on your boat" is the only thing that kept her alive this entire time and led her to actually produce the vaccine.  Remember that Rachel would have died on the Arctic tundra with her primordial sample if she had not been with the US Navy.  The Russians were shooting and firing weapons at them, and she easily could have been killed.  As much as she deserves credit for discovering the vaccine, and she deserves tons of credit for that, none of it would have bene possible without the Nathan James.  They are the ones that protected her, went out to get monkeys to test, and then submitted their own bodies to undergo the trial phase of her vaccine (and one died).  So I view the vaccine as a joint effort by Rachel Scott and the Nathan James under the command of Chandler - who turned away from home and an opportunity to be with his family in order to make sure that the mission was a success.   And it was.

 

This is why I root for both Rachel and Captain Chandler.

Edited by Bishop
  • Love 2
ginar369

ginar369

(edited)

I think the difference between the President and Dr. Scott is fairly simple. The President killed his daughters. Yes, no question. Did he do it maliciously? No. He did it to end their suffering. No different then when Dr. Scott gave that shot of morphine to the guy dying on the Italian Cruise Ship. But he didn't happen to have morphine available to him.    Dr. Scott killed Niels in cold blood for no other reason than she felt he needed to die.

 

But the difference is IMO for Cmdr. Chandler is this. The President was in Florida when he killed his children. There are no witnesses. No evidence and the President (who wasn't even the President then) wasn't under Chandler's jurisdiction when it happened. Niels died on the NJ with two witnesses, O'Connor and Miller. Did Niels deserve to die? Hell yes. Could he have been used to fight the propaganda war? Maybe. But IMO the Cmdr. was actually talking about using Niels to explain what had happened. Why the virus had jumped from a Phase 2 to a Phase 6 pandemic. To make him accountable and thereby flushing the immune theories down the toilet. 

 

Plus, the ship's crew and divided on how they feel about it. That doesn't work. They need good order and dicipline to survive and do the important work they need to do. And Chandler telling her she would face trial on land was smart too. The crew is divided. Most would not be able to serve on a jury as impartial jurists. They are all biased about her. Chandler was trying to uphold the ideals of the Navy, the Military and US by not passing judgement on her. He is hardly impartial either. A civilian jury is the only way to ensure that she does receive a fair trial.

 

I know less than nothing about the military, I never served and I don't know anyone who has. So the things that bother most here about the show don't even register with me. I enjoy the story, the characters and the action. Can't wait for Season 3.

Edited by ginar369
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...