Thread: The Son'a
View Single Post
Old October 12 2013, 09:29 PM   #119
grendelsbayne's Avatar
Location: Netherlands
Re: The Son'a

Unspeakable wrote: View Post
grendelsbayne wrote: View Post
Legally, the Federation cannot have jurisdiction over an inhabited planet that is not a member world of the Federation.
Straight out question, why not?

If the population were to be indigenous to the world this would certainly make a difference. But if the population were immigrants from elsewhere, that wouldn't automatically prevent the Federation from "claiming" a planet as being within their space.
Obviously, there isn't anything that automatically prevents anyone from claiming anything. The point, however, is the Federation's rules are supposed to be a little more fair-minded than 'want, take, have'. The Baku didn't just get there first - they lived there for over 300 years, from before the Federation even existed. For the Federation to even entertain the idea that their claim isn't valid just because they didn't originally evolve there is absurd. Especially since the Federation itself consists for a large part of planets whose populations evolved elsewhere.

Both the Federation and the Klingons "claimed" Sherman's Planet ('Tribbles), it wasn't simplistically a matter of who got there first. The Federation and the Cardassian Union fought for years over a piece of territory that they both "claimed," final agreeing to divide it up. In one case, the territory being colonized was already in dispute prior to the Human colonists traveling to the colony planet.
There's quite a difference between warring parties refusing to recognize each other's claims and building competing settlements in the same region and the Federation refusing to recognize the Baku's claim because, well, just because.

In the case of the ring planet, the established fact that the planet had a small number of refugee/residents already there doesn't preclude the Federation from viewing the planet as being within their space, and a part of Federation territory. The Baku mere presence on the surface did confer upon them ownership and sovereignty of the planet.
And exactly what does, then? By this standard, any colony can be uprooted for any reason.

It made no difference if they (simplistically) "got there first."
Then it would make no difference if Federation colonies were torn apart by enemy powers who wanted their territory. Yet, it clearly does make a difference. The only reason the Federation's actions here didn't result in a war is because the Baku were too small a community and disliked using technology.

The Federation Council's decision to order the removal of the Baku would indicate that the Council didn't view the Baku as possessing sovereignty over the planet.
1) We really have no clear idea how the Council works. This mission could've been approved solely on the recommendation of some sub-committee fully stacked with Dougherty's political buddies.

2) Determining whether the Baku have sovereignty or not should not be the responsibility of a body which has a vested interest in a 'negative' outcome, legally or morally.

3) We only even have Dougherty's word that the mission is even really approved by the Council at all. He certainly seems extremely nervous about the idea of the Enterprise contacting the Council itself to denounce the mission.
grendelsbayne is offline   Reply With Quote