Admiral Jarok was a traitor, especially in the eyes of his countrymen. The very principles that define the Romulans are honor and loyalty and in no way can his actions be seen as loyal. Although some could argue his actions were those of a defector, his actions as Romulan official in this particular situation make him a traitor.
A traitor is defined as a "person who betrays his or her country, cause, friends, etc. " (Webster)
The true meaning of traitor is not found in this definition, but rather in the definition of the word betray. There are several meanings, but the most important ones are "2. to break faith with, fail to meet the hopes of" and " 6. to disclose ( secret information, confidential plans etc.)" The Romulans are seen as "moral people with very clear ideas of right and wrong" (Cornelius.)
For them, right means honoring and serving the Romulan people. Federation space is seen as an ominous enemy and giving helpful strategic information to them, would be considered treason. Obviously Tomalak, the Romulan leader, feels this way when he demands, with contempt in his voice, for Picard and crew to release "traitor Jarok" For Tomalak, who represents all Romulans, Jarok broke faith to his people. "You see, Picard, after we dissect your Enterprise for every precious bit of information, I intend to display its broken hull in the center of the Romulan capitol as a symbol of our victory. It will inspire our armies for generations to come. And serve as a warning to any other traitor who would create ripples of disloyalty." (Tong)
Jarok's actions perfectly correspond with sixth dictionary entry of betray. Even though it is assumed that the documents were a trap to catch the faltering loyalty of Jarok, a faithful Romulan would have kept them secret, even if it jeopardized their own family. Jarok did not know the documents were false or else he would not have risked all that he did in going over to Federation Space. To the Romulans, support for all the people came first. Jarok's actions might have seemed noble to those aboard Federation Space, but to the Romulans the most noble actions were those that were loyal to the Romulan cause.
Tomalak would not have cared that Jarok did not want to go into any wars for the sake of his daughter. Tomalak wanted all members of his family to be safe, as well, but Tomalek stayed true to the Romulans, which he saw as the most important thing.
Brutus, Honorable Man Brutus, an honorable conspirator? Honorable is defined as genuine, truthful and displaying integrity, while a conspirator is defined as one that engages in an agreement to commit an illegal or wrongful act. Anyone can clearly see that these two words do not belong together. There are also other reasons why Brutus should not be considered honorable. In the play, three distinct acts can be recalled.
The United States was subject to betrayal and deception at the hands of Robert Hanssen. Betrayal is commonly defined as one would say “throwing someone under the bus”. Deception would better be defined as the act of falsely misleading someone either by appearance or statement. Betrayal and deception are two concepts that in most scenarios go hand in hand. In the notorious case of Robert Hanssen it turned out to be just like that. He deceived the United States and betrayed the trust the country placed in him for his own personal agenda.
himself and had been a traitor from the beginning. He even had them convinced that
Benedict Arnold, a name known throughout America as a name that means traitor. Everyone knows he betrayed his country, but not many know exactly why. No one betrays someone or something without a reason and this is the same with Benedict Arnold. In this paper I’m going to discuss his life and events leading up to his betrayal and his untimely death. This is the story of Benedict Arnold, the revolutionary traitor.
...and people and their betrayal has caused major indents in the course of history. Benedict Arnold was a man that was not satisfied with his home country so he decided to betray it and join the British forces. This was not the right thing to do and it supports the fact that the end doesn’t justify the means. His actions support this statement because even though he got money and got away from his “misery” in the American army, he wasn’t liked even by the British and he had died without being known. In the end he didn’t make much of a so called “profit” from his actions. The main theme to learn is that betraying someone is not the correct thing to do.
If someone broke the law trying to help the American keep their constitutional rights, would you consider them a hero or a criminal? Well that’s exactly what’s going on today with Edward Snowden. In 2013 Edward Snowden leaked classified information to the American people, information that shined a light on the dark things that the U.S government was doing behind closed doors. He revealed that the U.S government has been going against the constitution and taking away our freedoms. The U.S government has been taking away our freedoms however, Snowden is being called the criminal. Thesis Statement here.
According to dictionary.com betrayal means "an act of deliberate disloyalty,”. Betrayal is something that is very prevalent throughout the novel The Kite Runner by Khaled Hosseini which is a story about the betrayal that a young boy named Amir does to his friend Hassan. Amir shows that he is a betrayer to Hassan when he belittles, plots, refuses to acknowledge their friendship, and walks away from Hassan. With each betrayal listed they progressively get worse and worse as Amir continues to show how little he really cares for Hassan.
In our recent viewing of the "The Defector", an episode in the saga of Star Trek: The Next Generation, we encountered a traitor. A traitor is one who has knowledge or power of information and betrays the cause, another, or trust; to commit an act of treason. Romulan Admiral Jarok is a traitor in the episode. Admiral Jarok is a traitor because he divulged top secret Romulan military information to the enemy; The Federation. Disclosure of restricted military information qualifies Admiral Jarok as a traitor. Admiral Jarok sought asylum from the Federation in exchange for confidential Romulan military information and he did not uphold his duties as an admiral. Treason and betrayal should be sufficient evidence to assume that a traitor is among us. Just as Admiral Jarok is a traitor among the Romulans. To begin with, Admiral Jarok is a traitor in that he sought asylum from the Federation in exchange for confidential military information. Captain Picard and his crew beam up a Romulan seeking asylum in to the Enterprise. This Romulan declares himself as, "Sub-lieutenant Setal, who claims to be a logistics clerk who has discovered a plot for a new Romaulan offensive" (Tong 1995). Clearly stated are the facts that Jarok has information to give the Federation on the enemy; the Romulans. Setal (A.K.A. Jarok) continues to state that the Romulans have constructed a base in the Neutral Zone on the Planet Nelvana III. He also states that, "there are twenty-one Warbirds in orbit around her, just waiting to make a first strike" (Tong 1995). He also suggest that the Federation strike first and that the Romulans have the same intentions and are just seeking the perfect moment. Admiral Jarok attempts to validate his convictions by speaking of the, "reports, fee receipts, and work orders for the construction of the military base" (Smith 1/30/96), he had seen. Jarok insist that the Federation make a move for future lives are at stake. One of the future lives that is reliant on the Federation making an attack is that of Jarok's own daughter. In an attempt to move Captain Picard's emotions, Jarok tells Picard of his true motives to stop war; his daughter. Fleeing with military secrets Admiral Jarok claimed he had intentions of preventing war so that his young daughter might have a future. Captain Picard, weary of Jarok (Setal), demands proof of his convictions for he too believes that Jarok is a traitor.
...m, of if he was a greedy traitor who stabbed the backs of his friends and abandoned the people who believed in him.
...ven in these circumstances, such as during the Mexican-American War, these soldiers are considered good citizens who fought for their country. This is similar to how lawmakers and politicians also do not value their moral sense first, because if they base their statecraft on morality, they could be considered traitors for not thinking of the greatest advantage and benefits of their own country first at all times.
Loyalty can be perceived in many different ways. Loyalty may be shown by an individual as repayment, sympathy, or it may just be a part of one’s character and personality. Ultimately, loyalty is an act of faithfulness, reliability, and commitment. The opposite, disloyalty, is an act of dishonesty. In the novel: “Water for Elephants” by Sara Gruen, the main character, Jacob Jankowski, portrays elements of, both, loyalty and disloyalty. Jacob is deceiving and disloyal in many aspects of this novel; however, once he learns lessons of loyalty from other characters, he embraces loyalty in return – it becomes evident that Jacob’s actions were acts of repayment towards his peers.
Another example of the betrayal of a friend occurs not too long after. While Vladek and his family are hiding in the attic bunker in the ghetto, they are forced to go out in search of food at night. One night while they are scavenging they find a stranger who wanders into their house. The stranger tells them that he has a wife and a baby that he needs to find food for and he only wandered into the house to rest for a moment. The refugees take pity on him and allow him to stay with them for a short while, despite their gut feeling...
...they backed Caesar (such as Brutus). Ultimately Julius Caesar was stabbed 23 times, his opponents wanted him dead, and in fact stabbed many of their co-conspirators in the fight . They were not honorable at all in killing him.
War is a hard thing to describe. It has benefits that can only be reaped through its respective means. Means that, while necessary, are harsh and unforgiving. William James, the author of “The Moral Equivalent of War”, speaks only of the benefits to be had and not of the horrors and sacrifices found in the turbulent times of war. James bears the title of a pacifist, but he heralds war as a necessity for society to exist. In the end of his article, James presents a “war against nature” that would, in his opinion, stand in war’s stead in bringing the proper characteristics to our people. However, my stance is that of opposition to James and his views. I believe that war, while beneficial in various ways, is unnecessary and should be avoided at all costs.
long as I am King, no traitor is going to be honored with the loyal