So its ok to move Indians but not the Baku?

Shinzon · November 3 2009, 05:24 PM

Just watched "Journeys End" and Picard did'nt seem to mind moving the Indians too much (I know he had moral objections but still). Yet he defends 600 people from been moved from a planet that lets face it is far to valuable to be left to just 600 individuals, and in doing so risks war from another power when they are already stretched way beyond the norm.

Seriously WTF?

Chaos Descending · November 3 2009, 05:41 PM

I find that it's much better to just ignore Insurrection and Nemesis entirely.

Shinzon · November 3 2009, 05:42 PM

Well as you can see I dont find the idea of ignoring Nemesis that good :-)

Insurrection on the other hand....

Timo · November 3 2009, 05:43 PM

We might say that Picard was somehow traumatized by the first experience, which influenced his behavior in the second one. Picard did get exposed to the hoodoo of the Traveler and his apprentice Wesley, which might have left a lasting imprint of some sort.

Although, to be sure, Picard wasn't simply opposed to moving the Ba'ku. He was angry about the Federation conspiracy to move the Ba'ku (or perhaps about not having been let in on that conspiracy?), and blocking the moving of the people was simply payback, a way to punish the conspirators.

Timo Saloniemi

DevilEyes · November 3 2009, 06:37 PM

Timo wrote:

We might say that Picard was somehow traumatized by the first experience, which influenced his behavior in the second one. Picard did get exposed to the hoodoo of the Traveler and his apprentice Wesley, which might have left a lasting imprint of some sort.

Although, to be sure, Picard wasn't simply opposed to moving the Ba'ku. He was angry about the Federation conspiracy to move the Ba'ku (or perhaps about not having been let in on that conspiracy?), and blocking the moving of the people was simply payback, a way to punish the conspirators.

Timo Saloniemi

Upset less by a conspiracy itself, than by the fact that he was not let in on it by his superiors? Is Picard really that self-centered? That sounds more like another character from another Trek show that Picard has little in common with and certainly wouldn't want to be compared to...

Aike · November 3 2009, 06:52 PM

Picard was obviously in love with the Baku woman and that influenced his judgment

Ward Fowler · November 3 2009, 06:56 PM

Xerxes1979 · November 3 2009, 08:26 PM

The Dorvan V situation was little different than the events of Ensigns of Command. What transpired with the Baku is a blantant violation of the Prime Directive.

By definition it really was an injustice far above that of other Federation law.

RyuRoots · November 3 2009, 08:34 PM

Picard feels this way in Insurrection because the script requires him to. It's like that old guy on youtube said "TV Show Picard might've even called them selfish pricks for hogging all the radiation to themselves."

Nerys Ghemor · November 3 2009, 08:34 PM

DevilEyes wrote:

Upset less by a conspiracy itself, than by the fact that he was not let in on it by his superiors? Is Picard really that self-centered? That sounds more like another character from another Trek show that Picard has little in common with and certainly wouldn't want to be compared to...

Wow. That is the most perfect use of that particular smilie that I have ever witnessed.

Dark Journey · November 3 2009, 08:55 PM

The Indians were Federation citizens whose colonies were surrendered to the Cardassians in a negotiated treaty. The Baku were a sovereign people on their own planet.

Dark Journey · November 3 2009, 08:56 PM

Ward Fowler wrote:

Nope. He's actually a fellow wop.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Eyes_Cody

Timo · November 3 2009, 09:08 PM

The Baku were a sovereign people on their own planet.

But the very point of law, no matter how nonsensical-sounding, was that the UFP owned the planet. The sovereignty of the Ba'ku would thus be severely curtailed in practice...

I gather we should look at this dialogue-established oddity thusly: the general area was owned by the UFP, and the existence of the planet was not known initially. So the Son'a needed UFP permission to operate there, in UFP territory, but wheels were already in motion to redefine the planet as Ba'ku territory.

Still, Picard never seemed to question the legality of the UFP Council's decision to remove the Ba'ku. All he questioned was the underhanded way it was done, under several layers of pretense - and the failure of Dougherty to stop the process when its very foundations were revealed as being based on misunderstandings and lies.

There was never talk about the deportation being a PD violation or anything. But Picard had exposed half of the Son'a story as a lie by the time he went against Dougherty, and he exposed the other half while resisting Dougherty. The UFP Council apparently didn't know any of the truth, and Dougherty only knew the first half of the lies. So in the end, our heroes and most of our villains were fighting windmills where the millers were shadows of straw men...

Timo Saloniemi

Ward Fowler · November 3 2009, 09:29 PM

Dark Journey wrote:

Ward Fowler wrote:

Nope. He's actually a fellow wop.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Eyes_Cody

Wow. Did not know that. You learn something new every day.

T J · November 3 2009, 09:55 PM

Just goes to show ya, nothing is what it seems and believe nothing!

Corran Horn · November 3 2009, 09:58 PM

Timo wrote:

The Baku were a sovereign people on their own planet.

But the very point of law, no matter how nonsensical-sounding, was that the UFP owned the planet. The sovereignty of the Ba'ku would thus be severely curtailed in practice...

I gather we should look at this dialogue-established oddity thusly: the general area was owned by the UFP, and the existence of the planet was not known initially. So the Son'a needed UFP permission to operate there, in UFP territory, but wheels were already in motion to redefine the planet as Ba'ku territory.

Still, Picard never seemed to question the legality of the UFP Council's decision to remove the Ba'ku. All he questioned was the underhanded way it was done, under several layers of pretense - and the failure of Dougherty to stop the process when its very foundations were revealed as being based on misunderstandings and lies.

There was never talk about the deportation being a PD violation or anything. But Picard had exposed half of the Son'a story as a lie by the time he went against Dougherty, and he exposed the other half while resisting Dougherty. The UFP Council apparently didn't know any of the truth, and Dougherty only knew the first half of the lies. So in the end, our heroes and most of our villains were fighting windmills where the millers were shadows of straw men...

Timo Saloniemi

Maybe I have to watch Insurrection again. Was the Baku planet in Federation territory? Even if it was completely surrounded by Federation space that doesn't mean they 'own' the planet and could dump off whoever was originally on that planet. I imagine Picard felt the same way.

I mean, the Baku weren't members of the Federation...Starfleet thought they were pre-warp, for Pete's sake. (as you say, above, maybe the Council didn't have the whole picture)

The 'Indians' were Federation members on what was a Federation planet, and legally had to leave because of the treaty.

Timo · November 3 2009, 10:13 PM

We don't know whether Starfleet/Dougherty's posse/the Council thought the Ba'ku were pre-warp natives or not. I mean, the fact that they weren't might have been established the first thing when Dougherty's team set shop on the planet, even if the Son'a originally pretended not to know this. The Council might have made its decision based on this fact, which the Ba'ku themselves readily divulge and which Dougherty never contradicts or comments on. Picard just stumbled in on the operation without a grasp of the facts, which is why there is confusion even when the Son'a aren't telling their lies.

We also have to consider the possibility that the Federation indeed owned the Ba'ku asses without as much as telling them. I mean, the only way to really protect indigenous peoples from outside influences might be to declare them UFP property, and then generally refrain from (mis)treating them.

Timo Saloniemi

Anwar · November 4 2009, 12:46 AM

The Baku inhabited that world before the Federation existed, it wasn't a Fed planet. Dougherty only said that to BS justify it to himself and Picard.

CoveTom · November 4 2009, 04:08 AM

I think we also have to differentiate between something that violates the Prime Directive and something which violates any other sort of interstellar law. The PD gets thrown around alot in situations where it really doesn't apply.

The Bak'u were a warp capable, highly advanced civilization. They were already aware of the Federation, the Son'a, the existence of other planets, positronic brains, and whatever else they mentioned. Thus, by the way it was interpreted in the TNG era, the Prime Directive did not apply. Dougherty says as much.

However, the fact that the PD does not apply does not necessarily make it legal. Certainly, even if it was legal to move them, I don't believe Federation law would permit doing so using the subterfuge of a cloaked holoship to move them without their knowledge. Not to mention that the cloaked holoship itself is a violation of the treaty with the Romulans. (Where did they get that cloaking device anyway?)

Now, the moral arguments are a lot more complex. But from a legal perspective, I'd say the Federation was within the law to move them, but not in the way it was being done.

Timo · November 4 2009, 11:33 AM

The Baku inhabited that world before the Federation existed, it wasn't a Fed planet. Dougherty only said that to BS justify it to himself and Picard.

Why would he tell a lie he would be caught of? And Picard didn't seem to think it was a lie.

I think we also have to differentiate between something that violates the Prime Directive and something which violates any other sort of interstellar law. The PD gets thrown around alot in situations where it really doesn't apply.

...Both in-universe, and out of universe. I mean, despite being trown around in this discussion, the PD wasn't thrown around in this movie!

Picard initially thought it might apply to the Ba'ku. He was misinformed, though. Not necessarily lied to, but misinformed anyway. Nobody else ever claimed the PD would apply, nor acted as if it would.

We never learned if anybody really was breaking any laws to start with, in the "acting in good faith" sense. The Council may have been fully within its legal rights to deport the Ba'ku, based on what it knew; Dougherty may have been within his rights to execute the decision, based on what he knew; Data may have been within his rights to violently oppose the decision, since he knew a different set of facts from the Council's.

Dougherty clearly knew he was encouraging crime when he gave the Son'a permission to go after Riker, and covered for this particular Son'a action - but technically, there probably was no crime there, either. And Dougherty wasn't even withholding key evidence from the Council, because the real key - that the Son'a and the Ba'ku were the same people - was not known to Dougherty.

So in the end, only Picard would have acted completely in defiance of the law. Which he acknowledges, by effectively resigning his commission. His planetside posse would be accomplices to the crime, as would Riker and LaForge (although they might wriggle out of it by pleading ignorance of Picard's intentions).

Certainly, even if it was legal to move them, I don't believe Federation law would permit doing so using the subterfuge of a cloaked holoship to move them without their knowledge.

This was never stated to have been illegal in "Homeward". Certain other aspects of Rodzhenko's actions were the ones condemned by our heroes, Starfleet and the UFP.

Law today makes it possible to treat people against their will in various different ways. These include keeping people in the dark about facts pertaining to them. Why would UFP law be any different? Its intent seems to be the usual: to hold a society together. And holding societies together necessarily means (is defined by!) curtailing the rights and freedoms of their members.

Not to mention that the cloaked holoship itself is a violation of the treaty with the Romulans. (Where did they get that cloaking device anyway?)

Cloaks are a dime in a dozen in DS9 at least. And Starfleet certainly knows how to build those, even if it isn't allowed to.

However, we could argue that the treaty with the Romulans was already null and void, as the Dominion War had outdated the old wording and we have no knowledge of a new wording.

But from a legal perspective, I'd say the Federation was within the law to move them, but not in the way it was being done.

I could see UFP law allowing all sorts of underhanded tricks in the moving of a primitive people who would be harmed by exposure to the truth. However, we don't know if the Council thought that the Ba'ku were primitive. If they did, then PD protection should have applied, complicating things; if they didn't, how could they have thought that the move would go unnoticed, as the advanced Ba'ku would immediately realize they were no longer in Kansas when they looked at their new sky?

Naturally, the deportation scheme was engineered by the Son'a only to facilitate wholesale slaughtering of the Ba'ku, sooner or later. But neither the Council nor Dougherty would have gone along with that motivation, so they had to be believing in some different scheme. How illegal it would have been depends on the details.

Timo Saloniemi