Star Trek: INS- Son'a/Dominion Question

[Peach Wookiee]

Despite finally apologizing, guys, I have to give you both infractions. Comment to private messaging (PM). Let it drop.
Thank you.

[sonak]

I'd just like to clarify something, because I've seen this brought up here and in other threads on this.

There's a repeated accusation that supporting relocation of the Baku is representative of neo-con or (to avoid overly American-centric) extremely right-wing philosophy.

In what way is this so? "Property rights must be defended 100% at all costs, no matter the context!" strikes me as pretty right-wing thinking, so I'd group the anti-removal crowd in the conservative camp, yet I've heard more than just one or two posters make the "neo-con" accusation, one writing that I had the ideology of Donald Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney.

Can someone who feels this way explain their point of view? Because if you really think that property rights trump giving billions the cure for cancer, then I'd think you were basically a right-wing libertarian, who opposed taxes, welfare, and basically any kind of regulation that interfered with property rights.

Because make no mistake about it, the Baku position here is "f--- off Jack, I've got mine!"
They stumbled upon this magical treasure, and they want to hoard it for themselves, while telling others, even those defending them from removal, to go jump in a lake. They're like a group of Old Money rich folk who inherited their fortune, have never worked a day in their lives, and have contempt for the poor schlubs who weren't lucky enough to be born rich. Don't even THINK about asking them to give up some of their money, because it's THEIRS!"


(I hope I connected this enough to INS to not make it a purely political post. I'm just looking for why the anti-removal crowd thinks that the pro-removal crowd's position is right-wing.)

[CorporalClegg]

sonak wrote:

---

Because make no mistake about it, the Baku position here is "f--- off Jack, I've got mine!"
They stumbled upon this magical treasure, and they want to hoard it for themselves, while telling others, even those defending them from removal, to go jump in a lake. They're like a group of Old Money rich folk who inherited their fortune, have never worked a day in their lives, and have contempt for the poor schlubs who weren't lucky enough to be born rich. Don't even THINK about asking them to give up some of their money, because it's THEIRS!"

Please explain when they said/did all this.


Oh wait. They didn't.

[sonak]

CorporalClegg wrote:

---

Please explain when they said/did all this.


Oh wait. They didn't.

I was putting an attitude into words, I didn't indicate anywhere that it was an exact quote. Wait I know- you're going to tell me that they were never asked, right?

[CorporalClegg]

Yup.

[Sindatur]

It's been too long since I've seen the movie, so, I could be talking nonsense

Wouldn't removing them have also removed the benefits of youth, longevity from them? If so, you're not only asking them to share and to give up their home, you're asking them to give up their life.

Is there any proof that being away from the planet won't suddenly age them in death when the effects wear off?

[sonak]

Sindatur wrote:

---

It's been too long since I've seen the movie, so, I could be talking nonsense

Wouldn't removing them have also removed the benefits of youth, longevity from them? If so, you're not only asking them to share and to give up their home, you're asking them to give up their life.

Is there any proof that being away from the planet won't suddenly age them in death when the effects wear off?

they'd be in the exact same position as the Son'a were. They wouldn't suddenly die, they'd just start aging again.

[Sindatur]

sonak wrote:

---

they'd be in the exact same position as the Son'a were. They wouldn't suddenly die, they'd just start aging again.

So, then you are asking them not only to give up their home, but, to also give up their life. It's really easy to make the decision for them, but, I'm willing to bet few would voluntarily give up their life like that.

"Let's see, I love my life, and I could live another 1000 years here, but, if I give up my home, I'll likely be dead in 50"

[Locutus of Bored]

sonak wrote:

---

There's a repeated accusation that supporting relocation of the Baku is representative of neo-con or (to avoid overly American-centric) extremely right-wing philosophy.

In what way is this so?

The neo-conservative think tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC) wanted to promote what they considered to be core American values abroad, and so they used their influence in the GW Bush Administration to push for regime change in Iraq at all costs, and the Administration obliged by manufacturing evidence of the widespread presence of WMDs in Iraq in order to create a pretense for a preemptive invasion.

They had an agenda they wanted to fulfill, and they falsely arranged information to justify that agenda, without regard for what effect it would have on the civilian populace, the already ongoing war, and the soldiers sent in to fight. Much like the Son'a and Starfleet had an agenda to take the metaphasic radiation from the Bak'u planet, so the Son'a left out the details about their relationship to the Bak'u, they went in without any consideration of how relocating the people would disrupt their society, they diverted assets from an ongoing war (The Dominion War), and they forced their personnel into a moral quandary where they were essentially the invaders and bad guys.

"Property rights must be defended 100% at all costs, no matter the context!" strikes me as pretty right-wing thinking, so I'd group the anti-removal crowd in the conservative camp.

It's not a property rights issue. Eminent domain allows that the state has the right to annex private property within its own territory after paying the property owner compensation if the property is needed for a project in the public interest.

The state does not have the right to seize the territory of another sovereign state just because they have something you want. Just because the Federation had grown around the Bak'u territory without either side's knowledge at first doesn't mean the Federation owns the Bak'u planet and can do with it what they will.

To think one state has the right to invade and forcibly relocate the populace of another established sovereign state (while condemning them to disease, possibly fatal injury, and a faster rate of death than their society had become accustomed to over the past three centuries) is pretty much the embodiment of the worst aspects of manifest destiny used against native populations and (since the thread's already been Godwin'ed) Nazi or Imperial Japanese expansionist ideology in WWII.

It's bizarre that you can't see that connection and the inherent wrongness of that philosophy, especially when it was explicitly referenced in the film by Picard.

Because make no mistake about it, the Baku position here is "f--- off Jack, I've got mine!" They stumbled upon this magical treasure, and they want to hoard it for themselves, while telling others, even those defending them from removal, to go jump in a lake. They're like a group of Old Money rich folk who inherited their fortune, have never worked a day in their lives, and have contempt for the poor schlubs who weren't lucky enough to be born rich. Don't even THINK about asking them to give up some of their money, because it's THEIRS!"

I've got certain issues with the Bak'u's rigid ideology in regard to both the Son'a when they were exiled and towards Picard's crew, but nothing you say above is supported by the film at all.

At no time was the possibility of establishing low tech rehabilitation facilities for Federation and other government's citizens on the planet raised in the film, so you don't know if they might have been okay with that, especially given how little of the planet their society occupied. Just because they weren't okay with destroying their planet's ecosystem, being forcibly relocated, and being relegated to earlier deaths doesn't mean they weren't open to other, less invasive options. They were perfectly welcoming to Picard and crew even after they beamed down with phasers and after a firefight broke out in their secretly spied upon village earlier. Their only stipulation was that the Starfleet personnel disarm themselves. They would have had every right to be hostile in that situation but weren't, so they might have been open to the possibility of allowing elderly or sick Federation citizens to rehab on their world as long as they preserved the planetary environment, disarmed themselves, and lived a simple lifestyle without overrunning the planet with technology and people.

Given the rise of various return to nature/manual labor and New Essentialist groups in the Federation, I suspect many would gladly move there and live the Bak'u lifestyle elsewhere on the planet, while the rules would also serve as a natural population control since not everyone would want to give up their futuristic creature comforts even for the promise of a long, healthy life. People with illnesses or severe injuries could stay there temporarily until they healed or permanently if it's a chronic condition that would return once they left.

[sonak]

Locutus of Bored wrote:

---

The neo-conservative think tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC) wanted to promote what they considered to be core American values abroad, and so they used their influence in the GW Bush Administration to push for regime change in Iraq at all costs, and the Administration obliged by manufacturing evidence of the widespread presence of WMDs in Iraq in order to create a pretense for a preemptive invasion.

They had an agenda they wanted to fulfill, and they falsely arranged information to justify that agenda, without regard for what effect it would have on the civilian populace, the already ongoing war, and the soldiers sent in to fight. Much like the Son'a and Starfleet had an agenda to take the metaphasic radiation from the Bak'u planet, so the Son'a left out the details about their relationship to the Bak'u, they went in without any consideration of how relocating the people would disrupt their society, they diverted assets from an ongoing war (The Dominion War), and they forced their personnel into a moral quandary where they were essentially the invaders and bad guys.

It's not a property rights issue. Eminent domain allows that the state has the right to annex private property within its own territory after paying the property owner compensation if the property is needed for a project in the public interest.

The state does not have the right to seize the territory of another sovereign state just because they have something you want. Just because the Federation had grown around the Bak'u territory without either side's knowledge at first doesn't mean the Federation owns the Bak'u planet and can do with it what they will.

To think one state has the right to invade and forcibly relocate the populace of another established sovereign state (while condemning them to disease, possibly fatal injury, and a faster rate of death than their society had become accustomed to over the past three centuries) is pretty much the embodiment of the worst aspects of manifest destiny used against native populations and (since the thread's already been Godwin'ed) Nazi or Imperial Japanese expansionist ideology in WWII.

It's bizarre that you can't see that connection and the inherent wrongness of that philosophy, especially when it was explicitly referenced in the film by Picard.

I've got certain issues with the Bak'u's rigid ideology in regard to both the Son'a when they were exiled and towards Picard's crew, but nothing you say above is supported by the film at all.

At no time was the possibility of establishing low tech rehabilitation facilities for Federation and other government's citizens on the planet raised in the film, so you don't know if they might have been okay with that, especially given how little of the planet their society occupied. Just because they weren't okay with destroying their planet's ecosystem, being forcibly relocated, and being relegated to earlier deaths doesn't mean they weren't open to other, less invasive options. They were perfectly welcoming to Picard and crew even after they beamed down with phasers and after a firefight broke out in their secretly spied upon village earlier. Their only stipulation was that the Starfleet personnel disarm themselves. They would have had every right to be hostile in that situation but weren't, so they might have been open to the possibility of allowing elderly or sick Federation citizens to rehab on their world as long as they preserved the planetary environment, disarmed themselves, and lived a simple lifestyle without overrunning the planet with technology and people.

Given the rise of various return to nature/manual labor and New Essentialist groups in the Federation, I suspect many would gladly move there and live the Bak'u lifestyle elsewhere on the planet, while the rules would also serve as a natural population control since not everyone would want to give up their futuristic creature comforts even for the promise of a long, healthy life. People with illnesses or severe injuries could stay there temporarily until they healed or permanently if it's a chronic condition that would return once they left.

If, like others here, your position is that the planet is not in Federation space, then you've got a bigger issue than just eminent domain not applying-that means that the Federation has no obligation to protect them, which means, that as a "civilization" of 600 pacifists, they'd be doomed pretty shortly. Also, it means that Picard technically fought a civil war on behalf of the Baku in violation of the PD, though because of Dougherty already involving the UFP, it may be somewhat negated.


As for the Iraq war comparison, I don't see it. Again, you can't compare the magic particles to oil or something. The closest analogy I and others keep using is a cure for cancer. Again, if you think that an issue of sovereignty should stop the international community from removing a small village if it meant getting a cure for cancer, then you're putting property or land rights above the greater common welfare. This is especially silly when you consider how often boundaries and borders have been redrawn in history.


I could see the comparison if the goal was conquering the Baku to change their government and take them over. But that's clearly not the issue here.

[T'Girl]

Locutus of Bored wrote:

---

At no time was the possibility of establishing low tech rehabilitation facilities for Federation and other government's citizens on the planet raised in the film.

The scene was filmed, but not used. Toward the end of the movie Quark (of all people) shows up and anounces that he is indeed going to open a spa somewhere on the planet, so people can come for the health benefits of the rings. Picard tell him that he (the guy who make all important decisions in the Federation) will not allow any spas on the planet.

Non-canon of course, never made he final cut.

low tech

Why would any facilities have to be "low tech?" Having modern 24th century mega-cities on the planet shouldn't interfere with the incoming radiation.

disarmed themselves

Again why?

The state does not have the right to seize the territory of another sovereign state ...

However, the ring planet is in fact Federation property. Also there is no indication in the movie that the Baku ever formed themselves into a state. Given that they are living on someone else's planet, how could they? It was the Romulan's, then the Klingon's, then the Federation's.

Never was it the Baku's.

[Locutus of Bored]

sonak wrote:

---

If, like others here, your position is that the planet is not in Federation space, then you've got a bigger issue than just eminent domain not applying-that means that the Federation has no obligation to protect them, which means, that as a "civilization" of 600 pacifists, they'd be doomed pretty shortly. Also, it means that Picard technically fought a civil war on behalf of the Baku in violation of the PD, though because of Dougherty already involving the UFP, it may be somewhat negated.

It's negated by the fact that the Son'a didn't disclose that they and the Bak'u were the same species until Picard and Co. were already insurrectin' and it was a moot point. Had they mentioned that before, it would have been an internal matter and the Federation should not be involved under the terms of the PD, but since it looked like a hostile technologically advanced species invading a helpless non-technological species from Picard's perspective (though one familiar with warp and other advanced tech, thus satisfying the other PD concern as well), he was well within his rights to act on their behalf since they invited him to stay and help them reach the caves.

As for the Iraq war comparison, I don't see it. Again, you can't compare the magic particles to oil or something.

Christ almighty. You clearly didn't even read what I wrote before leaping in with a reply and guessing at what my point was. Not once did I compare the metaphasic particles to oil. In fact, I didn't even mention oil, because that was not the primary motive behind the invasion of Iraq from PNAC's perspective; spreading "American values" and "pacifying" the Middle East one nation at a time was.

I laid out point for point where the comparison between Iraq and the Bak'u situation was, and lest you forget, YOU were the one asking why people were comparing your stance to neo-con principles, which is why I responded by comparing it to the most recent neo-con motivated conflict.

The closest analogy I and others keep using is a cure for cancer. Again, if you think that an issue of sovereignty should stop the international community from removing a small village if it meant getting a cure for cancer, then you're putting property or land rights above the greater common welfare. This is especially silly when you consider how often boundaries and borders have been redrawn in history.

Of course boundaries and borders have been redrawn throughout history, but we (and the Federation even more so) are supposed to evolve beyond the need to expand through conflict and subjugation of minorities and vastly outnumbered and outgunned villagers. You can expand through peaceful means as well, such as the European Union, and that's the model one should aspire to, not forcibly relocating people from their homeworld like a thief in the night and condemning them to an earlier death.

Or, you can work with the villagers to find a compromise that benefits both parties, such as the one I propose about allowing settlers on other parts of the planet for rehabilitation as long as they follow the Bak'u rules.

You're advocating that the strong should conquer the weak and take their things, leaving them nothing. It's an inherently amoral concept, no matter how much you try and rationalize it and state that it's done with the best of intentions.

I could see the comparison if the goal was conquering the Baku to change their government and take them over. But that's clearly not the issue here.

You don't think drastically shortening the lifespans of a nigh immortal society where people apprentice for decades under an expert before taking over the job themselves will "change their government" and society?

[T'Girl]

Locutus of Bored wrote:

---

it would have been an internal matter and the Federation should not be involved under the terms of the PD

First, it difficult to see how you consider the estrangement of the Baku and the Sona to be a matter that falls under the Prime Directive.

Second, the Federation wasn't involved as a player in that matter. Remember the Federation's involvement was solely as the the possessors of the planet and the region surrounding it, who wanted to extract a natural resource. The Sona possess the technology to do so. This is where the Federation's involvement comes to a crashing end.

The Sona/Baku thing was a separate issue, that was none of the Federation's business. This is why I think that after the Council's review, they would have reaffirmed their original decision to harvest the particles.

invading a helpless non-technological species from Picard's perspective

With the exception of Picard and his immediate crew, everyone in the movie knew the Baku were not a "non-technological species." And it wasn't an invasion by any meaning of the term. It was a Federation planet.

he was well within his rights to act on their behalf since they invited him to stay

Locutus of Bored, where in the movie did they ever invite Picard to stay? He simply arrived with boxes of weapons and stated giving instructions/orders.

and help them reach the caves.

This would be the part where Picard employs the Baku children as human shields. Picard could have transferred the children to the Enterprise prior to it's departure, also the "Captain's gig" could have remove at least some of the children. Picard brought a considerable amount of weapons to the surface, he was expecting trouble.

[Robert Maxwell]

T'Girl wrote:

---

First, it difficult to see how you consider the estrangement of the Baku and the Sona to be a matter that falls under the Prime Directive.

The PD has been used more than once to block the Federation from interfering in the internal affairs of another society--namely, blood feuds like that between the Son'a and Ba'ku.

Second, the Federation wasn't involved as a player in that matter. Remember the Federation's involvement was solely as the the possessors of the planet and the region surrounding it, who wanted to extract a natural resource. The Sona possess the technology to do so. This is where the Federation's involvement comes to a crashing end.

The Federation was involved well beyond that. They were going to move 600 non-citizens to another planet without their knowledge. That sort of deception is beneath the Federation.

The Sona/Baku thing was a separate issue, that was none of the Federation's business. This is why I think that after the Council's review, they would have reaffirmed their original decision to harvest the particles.

And, what, kill the Ba'ku? So much for a benevolent union of worlds.

With the exception of Picard and his immediate crew, everyone in the movie knew the Baku were not a "non-technological species." And it wasn't an invasion by any meaning of the term. It was a Federation planet.

All that was stated in the movie is that it was a "planet in Federation space." That does not make it "a Federation planet." Those are separate distinctions. The Ba'ku settled it first. By any reasonable legal definition, it's the Ba'ku's planet (and arguably the Son'a's, too.)

This would be the part where Picard employs the Baku children as human shields. Picard could have transferred the children to the Enterprise prior to it's departure, also the "Captain's gig" could have remove at least some of the children. Picard brought a considerable amount of weapons to the surface, he was expecting trouble.

Come on, saying Picard used children as human shields is just nasty hyperbole.

Why no one was evacuated is a fair point, but then the Ba'ku were probably not amenable to having any of their people taken from the surface. Let's face it, they were distrustful of the Federation and had an ongoing conflict with the Son'a. They probably figured that anyone who was taken from the planet would never be able to return--a perfectly legitimate concern from the Ba'ku's standpoint. "Oh yeah, sure, we'll protect your kids on the Enterprise. You can trust us." I can see the Ba'ku not believing such an offer as genuine, after the Federation deceived them.

[sonak]

Robert Maxwell wrote:

---

The PD has been used more than once to block the Federation from interfering in the internal affairs of another society--namely, blood feuds like that between the Son'a and Ba'ku.



The Federation was involved well beyond that. They were going to move 600 non-citizens to another planet without their knowledge. That sort of deception is beneath the Federation.



And, what, kill the Ba'ku? So much for a benevolent union of worlds.



All that was stated in the movie is that it was a "planet in Federation space." That does not make it "a Federation planet." Those are separate distinctions. The Ba'ku settled it first. By any reasonable legal definition, it's the Ba'ku's planet (and arguably the Son'a's, too.)

Come on, saying Picard used children as human shields is just nasty hyperbole.

Why no one was evacuated is a fair point, but then the Ba'ku were probably not amenable to having any of their people taken from the surface. Let's face it, they were distrustful of the Federation and had an ongoing conflict with the Son'a. They probably figured that anyone who was taken from the planet would never be able to return--a perfectly legitimate concern from the Ba'ku's standpoint. "Oh yeah, sure, we'll protect your kids on the Enterprise. You can trust us." I can see the Ba'ku not believing such an offer as genuine, after the Federation deceived them.

your post sort of leads to an odd moral for the story: you admit that the Baku and Son'a dispute was an internal one, and that only Dougherty's bringing the Federation in made Picard's interference not a violation of the PD. Fair enough.

So again, the big blunder here was the Son'a being reasonable and diplomatic in trying to work with the UFP and in bothering with this elaborate plan. RU'AFO WAS RIGHT! The mission WAS one "Federation disaster after another."

Ru'afo should have told the truth to Dougherty from the beginning, sought permission to enter Federation space, removed the Baku with no ceremony or deception, and then shared the resources with the Federation, while promising Dougherty that the Federation would have plausible deniability and wouldn't be involved in doing anything to the Baku.


Again, an odd moral for the story: the Son'a were too willing to be cooperative, when really they should have taken care of the Baku themselves, giving Picard no reason to intervene.