RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,551
Posts: 5,401,467
Members: 24,860
Currently online: 484
Newest member: Jacob4546

TrekToday headlines

Mystery Mini Vinyl Figure Display Box
By: T'Bonz on Sep 29

The Red Shirt Diaries Episode Five
By: T'Bonz on Sep 29

Shatner In Trek 3? Well Maybe
By: T'Bonz on Sep 28

Retro Review: Shadows and Symbols
By: Michelle on Sep 27

Meyer: Revitalizing Star Trek
By: T'Bonz on Sep 26

Trek Costumes To Be Auctioned
By: T'Bonz on Sep 25

Hulu Snaps up Abrams-Produced Drama
By: T'Bonz on Sep 25

Abrams To Receive Award
By: T'Bonz on Sep 24

Trek 3 Casting Rumor Reactions
By: T'Bonz on Sep 24

Trek Comics Sneak Peek
By: T'Bonz on Sep 23


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies I-X

Star Trek Movies I-X Discuss the first ten big screen outings in this forum!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old October 7 2013, 11:35 AM   #76
AllStarEntprise
Fleet Captain
 
AllStarEntprise's Avatar
 
Re: The Son'a

A deleted scene in INS which involved Riker and Troi in the library; Riker says something to the extent that the Son'a came to the Federation for assistance because the planet is in Fed space. So legally the Federation would have jurisdiction over the planet. This could explain the collaborate agreement between the Admiral Doughtery and Ru'afo. The Son'a filed all the legal paperwork and went through the proper channels seeking Federation help. The Federation would've gained technology and the methods to replicate the metaphasic particles of the planet for collaborating with the Son'a.

On the surface it seems legit. The Son'a however neglected to mention that the 600 occupants of the planet were their relatives.
AllStarEntprise is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 7 2013, 11:38 AM   #77
grendelsbayne
Commander
 
grendelsbayne's Avatar
 
Location: Netherlands
Re: The Son'a

Edit_XYZ wrote: View Post
The Umbrella Corporation wrote: View Post
Surely just being in Federation territory doesn't make every planet in it under the control of the Federation. The Federation is not a military dictatorship, is it?

And surely after 300 years the Baku and Sona have some rights to their planet which should be recognised no matter how inconvenient?

I see to remember some episodes in TOS where the Federation wanted some dilithium or herbal medicines or strategic value from some planets but accepted it when they said No. Have things changed by the 24th century?
The movie specifically said it was a federation planet. Apparently, it was transferred from the romulans to the klingons to the federation (and the romulans had it from before the baku's arrival).
The baku are trespassers who came to the planet and then did everything they could to remain hidden. Due to being hidden, this will never give them adverse possession, regardless of how long they stay there.

For a comparison - you have a huge palace, but don't use it much. A trespasser comes there and intentionally stays hidden while using it.
Do you think this person can rightly claim any property right to your palace?
Do you actually think the society who doesn't recognise this trespasser any rights to your palace in these conditions must be a military dictatorship or oppressive? lol. I beg to differ.
The baku didn't do anything to remain hidden. They just lived there, for 300 years (longer than the federation has existed). If the Romulans or the Klingons claimed this planet, they clearly never, ever used it, making the palace in your analogy completely abandoned for several lifetimes, which means, yes, it pretty much is fair game for any squatter who shows up. Their claim is perfectly legitimate. More legitimate, than, for isntance, the Romulan claim to Remus.

In point of fact, pre-existing but unexercised land 'claims' are almost always nullified by simple possession. Australia was originally New Holland, but the Dutch never exercised their claim, so the British took it. The same for New Zealand. Prior to the British, French and Dutch explorations, international law and treaty stipulated that ALL undiscovered lands in the world belonged to Spain and Portugal.

And if you don't believe any of this applies, explain why the Federation colony on Cestus III still exists in the 24th century, despite it having been previously claimed, but never settled, by the Gorn.
grendelsbayne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7 2013, 11:48 AM   #78
grendelsbayne
Commander
 
grendelsbayne's Avatar
 
Location: Netherlands
Re: The Son'a

AllStarEntprise wrote: View Post
A deleted scene in INS which involved Riker and Troi in the library; Riker says something to the extent that the Son'a came to the Federation for assistance because the planet is in Fed space. So legally the Federation would have jurisdiction over the planet. This could explain the collaborate agreement between the Admiral Doughtery and Ru'afo. The Son'a filed all the legal paperwork and went through the proper channels seeking Federation help. The Federation would've gained technology and the methods to replicate the metaphasic particles of the planet for collaborating with the Son'a.

On the surface it seems legit. The Son'a however neglected to mention that the 600 occupants of the planet were their relatives.
Legally, the Federation cannot have jurisdiction over an inhabited planet that is not a member world of the Federation. Except in cases of war/conquered territory, or maybe some sort of special treaty situation, of course.

The very existence of the Prime Directive is an indication of how seriously the Federation is supposed to take the idea of every people's right to their own sovereignty, regardless of how technologically developed they are. To suggest that they would then be perfectly ok with a legal construction giving them 'jurisdiction' over planets that are not already inhabited, because their inhabitants are advanced enough have interstellar relations makes no sense.

Another problem here is the fact that the Federation doesn't even know up front that the Baku aren't native, which means Dougherty is conspiring to basically the most massive violation of the prime directive ever shown. In other words, blatantly illegal.
grendelsbayne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7 2013, 11:51 AM   #79
Edit_XYZ
Fleet Captain
 
Edit_XYZ's Avatar
 
Location: At star's end.
Re: The Son'a

grendelsbayne wrote: View Post
Edit_XYZ wrote: View Post
The Umbrella Corporation wrote: View Post
Surely just being in Federation territory doesn't make every planet in it under the control of the Federation. The Federation is not a military dictatorship, is it?

And surely after 300 years the Baku and Sona have some rights to their planet which should be recognised no matter how inconvenient?

I see to remember some episodes in TOS where the Federation wanted some dilithium or herbal medicines or strategic value from some planets but accepted it when they said No. Have things changed by the 24th century?
The movie specifically said it was a federation planet. Apparently, it was transferred from the romulans to the klingons to the federation (and the romulans had it from before the baku's arrival).
The baku are trespassers who came to the planet and then did everything they could to remain hidden. Due to being hidden, this will never give them adverse possession, regardless of how long they stay there.

For a comparison - you have a huge palace, but don't use it much. A trespasser comes there and intentionally stays hidden while using it.
Do you think this person can rightly claim any property right to your palace?
Do you actually think the society who doesn't recognise this trespasser any rights to your palace in these conditions must be a military dictatorship or oppressive? lol. I beg to differ.
The baku didn't do anything to remain hidden. They just lived there, for 300 years (longer than the federation has existed).
The baku did all they could to remain hidden - even said so in the movie.

If the Romulans or the Klingons claimed this planet, they clearly never, ever used it, making the palace in your analogy completely abandoned for several lifetimes, which means, yes, it pretty much is fair game for any squatter who shows up. Their claim is perfectly legitimate. More legitimate, than, for isntance, the Romulan claim to Remus.

In point of fact, pre-existing but unexercised land 'claims' are almost always nullified by simple possession.
Hardly.
Legally, possession nullifies unexcercised property only through the institution of 'adverse possession' (look it up, grendelsbayne). One of several conditions is that the possession is public, as opposed to hidden. And that this public, useful possession is exercised for a specific period, etc.

The baku acquired nothing by adverse possession. The planet is still federation property (and romulan and klingon before it - and before the baku settled it) regardless f how long the baku stayed hidden in their hole.

Australia was originally New Holland, but the Dutch never exercised their claim, so the British took it. The same for New Zealand. Prior to the British, French and Dutch explorations, international law and treaty stipulated that ALL undiscovered lands in the world belonged to Spain and Portugal.

And if you don't believe any of this applies, explain why the Federation colony on Cestus III still exists in the 24th century, despite it having been previously claimed, but never settled, by the Gorn.
Because the federation had the muscle to enforce their claim as superior to the gorn.
BTW, that's how the British took Australia and New Zeeland, etc. The Dutch simply had the common sense to recognise the british claim and renounce their own, as opposed to refusing to let go of their claim and starting a war with THE superpower of the day.

As for the baku: 600 people do not get to make their own laws and claim they have priority to the laws of the state they live in. Or do you think a neighborhood association does have such competency? lol.

Without any power to strongarm their claim, all the baku have is the alpha/beta recognised treaties/laws to appeal to. And these treaties/laws are clear - the planet is federation property - as EXPRESSLY said in the movie.

PS:
[...]Another problem here is the fact that the Federation doesn't even know up front that the Baku aren't native
Have you even watched the movie, grendelsbayne?
Or do you blatantly contradict it knowingly, because the movie does not support your claims in this thread?

BTW, the federation knew the baku were not native - as Dougherty even expressly said. Meaning - the prime directive is not applicable - again, as expressly said in the movie.
__________________
"Let truth and falsehood grapple ... Truth is strong" - John Milton

Last edited by Edit_XYZ; October 7 2013 at 12:04 PM.
Edit_XYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7 2013, 12:05 PM   #80
grendelsbayne
Commander
 
grendelsbayne's Avatar
 
Location: Netherlands
Re: The Son'a

Edit_XYZ wrote: View Post

The baku did all they could to remain hidden - even said so in the movie.
Like I said, it has been a while. Could you provide some kind of quote regarding that. Because if they were trying to hide, they weren't doing that great a job of it, as I recall. How could they even attempt to hide themselves without using any advanced technology?

Hardly.
Possession nullifies unexcercised property only through the institution of 'adverse possession' (look it up). One of several conditions is that the possession is public, as opposed to hidden. And that this public, useful possession is exercised for a specific period, etc.

The baku acquired nothing by adverse possession. The federation is still federation property (and romulan and klingon before it) regardless f how ling the baku stayed hidden in their hole.
Demanding someone go out of their way to tell you they're living on your planet when they don't necessarily even have any way to know you claim the planet at all, since you're not doing a damn thing with it, isn't reasonable. As far as I'm concerned, the fact that you're living there and can clearly be seen living there (the Enterprise never had any problem picking up their settlement from orbit, did it?) is clearly open. And we've already covered the fact that the baku were exercising useful possession of the planet for longer than the federation has existed.

And if you don't believe any of this applies, explain why the Federation colony on Cestus III still exists in the 24th century, despite it having been previously claimed, but never settled, by the Gorn.
Because the federation had the muscle to enforce their claim as superior to the gorn.
BTW, that's how the British took Australia and New Zeeland. The Dutch simply had the common sense to recognise the british claim and renounce their own, as opposed to coming with a treaty and starting a war.[/quote]

The Federation isn't an empire that delights in enforcing its claim by brute force.

As for the baku - 600 people do not get to make their own laws and claim they have priority to the laws of the state they live in, then or now. Or do you think a neighborhood association has such competency? lol.
Without any power to strongarm their claim, all the baku have is the alpha/beta recognised treaties/laws to appeal to. And these treaties/laws are clear - the planet is federation property - as EXPRESSLY said in the movie.
The Federation laws you would apply to the Baku didn't exist when they arrived. I'm fairly certain Ex Post Facto is as taboo in the 24th century as it is today. The Romulan or Klingon laws were never applied. And the Federation's claim to the planet clearly assumed the planet was uninhabited, which it was not.

ETA:
Have you even watched the movie, grendelsbayne?
Or do you blatantly contradict it knowingly, because the movie does not support your claims in this thread?

BTW, the federation knew the baku were not native - as Dougherty even expressly said. Meaning - the prime directive is not applicable - again, as expressly said in the movie.
Then I misremembered that. I've been entirely open about the fact that I haven't seen the film in quite a while. If I had a copy, I would rewatch it before continuing the discussion, but I don't.

So how did the Federation believe that the Baku were supposedly so primitive, knowing that they had actually immigrated to the planet relatively recently?
grendelsbayne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7 2013, 01:42 PM   #81
Edit_XYZ
Fleet Captain
 
Edit_XYZ's Avatar
 
Location: At star's end.
Re: The Son'a

grendelsbayne wrote: View Post
As for the baku - 600 people do not get to make their own laws and claim they have priority to the laws of the state they live in, then or now. Or do you think a neighborhood association has such competency? lol.
Without any power to strongarm their claim, all the baku have is the alpha/beta recognised treaties/laws to appeal to. And these treaties/laws are clear - the planet is federation property - as EXPRESSLY said in the movie.
The Federation laws you would apply to the Baku didn't exist when they arrived. I'm fairly certain Ex Post Facto is as taboo in the 24th century as it is today. The Romulan or Klingon laws were never applied. And the Federation's claim to the planet clearly assumed the planet was uninhabited, which it was not.
Romulan and klingon laws never applied? Really? And where did you get that - aside from your wishful thinking leading to hand-waving?

The baku trespassed on a romulan planet - meaning romulan law was applicable.
Then the planet became klingon - klingon law applied.
Then the planet became a federation planet - meaning federation law applied.

Now - about these laws:
Adverse possession is a law mostly applicable in modern liberal democracies.
Throughout human history, the majority of societies were oligarchic. Do you actually think the nobles allowed the peasants to acquire their land simply by occupying it? Good luck with that.

Do you actually think klingon and romulan laws allow trespassers to acquire romulan and klingon territory by trespassing on it? lol
Of course, the romulans and Klingons never found the baku, in order to conquer them, turning them into imperial subjects. So much for the baku not hiding (them hiding was even established in the movie - see below).

Hardly.
Possession nullifies unexcercised property only through the institution of 'adverse possession' (look it up). One of several conditions is that the possession is public, as opposed to hidden. And that this public, useful possession is exercised for a specific period, etc.

The baku acquired nothing by adverse possession. The federation is still federation property (and romulan and klingon before it) regardless f how ling the baku stayed hidden in their hole.
Demanding someone go out of their way to tell you they're living on your planet when they don't necessarily even have any way to know you claim the planet at all, since you're not doing a damn thing with it, isn't reasonable. As far as I'm concerned, the fact that you're living there and can clearly be seen living there (the Enterprise never had any problem picking up their settlement from orbit, did it?) is clearly open. And we've already covered the fact that the baku were exercising useful possession of the planet for longer than the federation has existed.
Now you're walking the path of the legalisms, I see.

First - that planet was NOT ownerless when the baku came to it. It was a romulan planet, then a klingon planet.

Second - the baku actively tried to hide in the briar patch. NOT public possession by any standard.
Even if the baku would not have actively tried to hide, they would NOT have exercised public possession if they didn't exercise even minimal diligence in making their claim known - as in, a beacon announcing their presence, or seeing if there are alien (romulan/klingon/federation) patrols in the area and contacting them; or contacting any ship they see in the area, exploring a little in order to ascertain the status of the planet, etc.

NO public possession (no useful possession - this includes several more conditions) = NO adverse possession.

Because the federation had the muscle to enforce their claim as superior to the gorn.
BTW, that's how the British took Australia and New Zeeland. The Dutch simply had the common sense to recognise the british claim and renounce their own, as opposed to coming with a treaty and starting a war.
The Federation isn't an empire that delights in enforcing its claim by brute force.
And now, you've turned to stereotyping and simplistic straw-men.

For example - Cestus III; the federation not enforcing a claim to that world would result in its strategic position seriously compromised, in possible millions/billions of federation citizens dead or conquered in the future. In these conditions, enforcing a claim to Cestus III IS the right thing to do.

The powers in the trekverse - klingons, romulans, dominion, tholians, borg, etc, etc - make soviet russia or 'the hermit kingdom' look very tame. Some of them make nazi germany, the mongol hordes or 'insert the nastiest historical empire you can think of' look very tame.
You think that, in that universe, not using real-politik at least some of the times (such as, when the future of billions is in the balance) will somehow turn your nation into a beacon of security and prosperity, as opposed to causing suffering and death for your people? lol.

Of course, with the baku affair, the federaiton has BOTH the legal right and the muscle to enforce that right. And the moral high ground.

PS:
Edit_XYZ wrote: View Post

The baku did all they could to remain hidden - even said so in the movie.
Like I said, it has been a while. Could you provide some kind of quote regarding that. Because if they were trying to hide, they weren't doing that great a job of it, as I recall. How could they even attempt to hide themselves without using any advanced technology?
[...]
Have you even watched the movie, grendelsbayne?
Or do you blatantly contradict it knowingly, because the movie does not support your claims in this thread?

BTW, the federation knew the baku were not native - as Dougherty even expressly said. Meaning - the prime directive is not applicable - again, as expressly said in the movie.
Then I misremembered that. I've been entirely open about the fact that I haven't seen the film in quite a while. If I had a copy, I would rewatch it before continuing the discussion, but I don't.

So how did the Federation believe that the Baku were supposedly so primitive, knowing that they had actually immigrated to the planet relatively recently?
The baku were hiding in the briar patch from the universe, essentially (see their backstory from the movie, etc). In 'enterprise', the augments briefly contemplated hiding in the briar patch, as well - as the name indicated, it's a pretty good hiding place.

Dougherty expressly told Picard the baku are not native and the prime directive doesn't apply. How did the federation think the baku got to the planet? Not specified in the movie; there are several possibilities: the federation knew the baku are not really primitive, aliens brought the baku there and then disappeared (this happens often in the trekverse), etc.

Next time, watch the movie before coming with your unsupported claims.
__________________
"Let truth and falsehood grapple ... Truth is strong" - John Milton

Last edited by Edit_XYZ; October 7 2013 at 01:58 PM.
Edit_XYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7 2013, 03:34 PM   #82
CommishSleer
Fleet Captain
 
CommishSleer's Avatar
 
Location: At the After Party Still...
View CommishSleer's Twitter Profile
Re: The Son'a

I thought that Federation territory was just an area that Klingons or Cardassians or Romulans or whoever are not allowed.

I didn't realise that every planet in Federation territory was under Federation rule unless they're pre-Warp. What makes the Federation different from the Klingon Empire then? Or the Vogons?
CommishSleer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7 2013, 03:44 PM   #83
Edit_XYZ
Fleet Captain
 
Edit_XYZ's Avatar
 
Location: At star's end.
Re: The Son'a

The federation is different from the klingons, romulans, etc because they don't go around conquering species, having an orwellian state complete with political police, etc etc.

That does NOT mean that 600 baku trespassing on an uninhabited federation planet can claim it as their own.
Much like cardassians, klingons or romulans trespassing on federation worlds can't claim them as their own. The federation might cede planets to them in certain conditions, rather than fight a war, though (which is about real-politik, not the laws in place).

In general:
Planets within federation space with indigenous conscious species are not federation planets.
Uninhabited planets - AKA with no indigenous conscious species - within federation space ARE federation planets. Much like uninhabited planets within romulan or klingon space are romulan/klingon planets. Trespassers don't change this fact - even when they've been around for a while, hiding.
__________________
"Let truth and falsehood grapple ... Truth is strong" - John Milton
Edit_XYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7 2013, 04:26 PM   #84
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: The Son'a

Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post
sonak wrote: View Post
Starfury wrote: View Post
But... no one actually asked them to help. No one. Dougherty and the Sona just decided to relocate them... secretly. Once it came out the Baku were pissed. Who could blame them?

I mean... they did welcome some of the sona at the end of the movie, did they not? All it took was an hones mediator (Picard).

the Baku knew exactly why they were being moved.(the conversation between Picard and Anij at night in the village makes that clear) Their answer was obviously "no," the writer just didn't want them to have to say it explicitly.
So your problem is that they didn't sit down and negotiate with people who had pretty much made up their mind to kidnap them and pretty much steal their planet?

Thats called not being a moron.

no, that's not my problem. I think the Baku should have been openly told they were being removed. I don't care whether they wanted to negotiate or not, it's a planet in Federation space and the particles would benefit billions.

I was merely responding to the frequently brought-up "but they were never asked" argument which is misleading and silly.
__________________
"why oh why didn't I take the blue pill?"
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7 2013, 04:44 PM   #85
CommishSleer
Fleet Captain
 
CommishSleer's Avatar
 
Location: At the After Party Still...
View CommishSleer's Twitter Profile
Re: The Son'a

Edit_XYZ wrote: View Post
The federation is different from the klingons, romulans, etc because they don't go around conquering species, having an orwellian state complete with political police, etc etc.

That does NOT mean that 600 baku trespassing on an uninhabited federation planet can claim it as their own.
Much like cardassians, klingons or romulans trespassing on federation worlds can't claim them as their own. The federation might cede planets to them in certain conditions, rather than fight a war, though (which is about real-politik, not the laws in place).

In general:
Planets within federation space with indigenous conscious species are not federation planets.
Uninhabited planets - AKA with no indigenous conscious species - within federation space ARE federation planets. Much like uninhabited planets within romulan or klingon space are romulan/klingon planets. Trespassers don't change this fact - even when they've been around for a while, hiding.
So if say the Earth wasn't in the Federation and had established a Mars Colony or an Alpha Centauri colony then the Federation could say blow Mars up or order 'us' off it if they felt like it because the humans on it weren't native and Mars as well as Earth is in Federation territory
CommishSleer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7 2013, 05:14 PM   #86
Edit_XYZ
Fleet Captain
 
Edit_XYZ's Avatar
 
Location: At star's end.
Re: The Son'a

Mars is in a solar system occupied by an indigenous conscious species - meaning, it belongs to this species.

If Alpha Centaui belonged to aliens and we settled it then YES, they have the legal right to evict us if they 'feel like it'.
And if the eviction of 600 human colonists from Alpha Centauri would help BILLIONS, then YES, they most definitely have the moral right to evict us from there.

As for 'blow Mars' - that's just your attempt at a straw-man.
__________________
"Let truth and falsehood grapple ... Truth is strong" - John Milton
Edit_XYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7 2013, 05:56 PM   #87
CommishSleer
Fleet Captain
 
CommishSleer's Avatar
 
Location: At the After Party Still...
View CommishSleer's Twitter Profile
Re: The Son'a

Edit_XYZ wrote: View Post
Mars is in a solar system occupied by an indigenous conscious species - meaning, it belongs to this species.

If Alpha Centaui belonged to aliens and we settled it then YES, they have the legal right to evict us if they 'feel like it'.
And if the eviction of 600 human colonists from Alpha Centauri would help BILLIONS, then YES, they most definitely have the moral right to evict us from there.

As for 'blow Mars' - that's just your attempt at a straw-man.
So you 'own' your own solar system but aren't allowed to establish any other colonies in the Alpha Quadrant unless you join the Federation, Romulan, Klingon or maybe Cardassian Empires.

What if Earth.Gorn/Organian/Halkan don't agree to this division of the galaxy?
CommishSleer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7 2013, 06:31 PM   #88
Edit_XYZ
Fleet Captain
 
Edit_XYZ's Avatar
 
Location: At star's end.
Re: The Son'a

The answer to this question is obvious. So much so, I'm surprised you even asked.

What usually happens when a state/group/etc doesn't recognise the sovereignty of another state over a territory?
And has the power to enforce this position? War. Open any history book for examples.
What about when it doesn't have the power to enforce its position? Police action.
__________________
"Let truth and falsehood grapple ... Truth is strong" - John Milton
Edit_XYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8 2013, 11:52 AM   #89
grendelsbayne
Commander
 
grendelsbayne's Avatar
 
Location: Netherlands
Re: The Son'a

Edit_XYZ wrote: View Post
Romulan and klingon laws never applied? Really? And where did you get that - aside from your wishful thinking leading to hand-waving?
Please read more carefully. I said the Klingon and Romulan laws *were* never applied. The klingons and romulans never went to 'their' planet and kicked out the intruders. Probably never even bothered to check if there was anyone there.

The baku trespassed on a romulan planet - meaning romulan law was applicable.
Then the planet became klingon - klingon law applied.
Then the planet became a federation planet - meaning federation law applied.
Klingon and Romulan law were never applied, and the Federation can hardly apply someone else's laws that it doesn't actually agree with 300 years after the fact. And the Baku claim to the planet is still stronger than the Federation's.

Now - about these laws:
Adverse possession is a law mostly applicable in modern liberal democracies.
Throughout human history, the majority of societies were oligarchic. Do you actually think the nobles allowed the peasants to acquire their land simply by occupying it? Good luck with that.

Do you actually think klingon and romulan laws allow trespassers to acquire romulan and klingon territory by trespassing on it? lol
Of course, the romulans and Klingons never found the baku, in order to conquer them, turning them into imperial subjects. So much for the baku not hiding (them hiding was even established in the movie - see below).
Why are you comparing the Federation to medieval nobles and Klingon and Romulan laws? That's the whole point of this discussion: the Federation is supposed to be better than those institutions. Ie, to not 'legalize' kidnapping and conquest as legitimate means of territorial transfer.

Now you're walking the path of the legalisms, I see.

First - that planet was NOT ownerless when the baku came to it. It was a romulan planet, then a klingon planet.
It was a Romulan planet only because the Romulans said, 'Hey, we claim that area of space'. There isn't a single instance of Romulan tech anywhere near it, so what did they ever do with it?

It's every bit as legal a claim as the plots of 'moon land' that people have been selling for the past few decades.

Second - the baku actively tried to hide in the briar patch. NOT public possession by any standard.
Even if the baku would not have actively tried to hide, they would NOT have exercised public possession if they didn't exercise even minimal diligence in making their claim known - as in, a beacon announcing their presence, or seeing if there are alien (romulan/klingon/federation) patrols in the area and contacting them; or contacting any ship they see in the area, exploring a little in order to ascertain the status of the planet, etc.
The planet exists in the Briar Patch. 'Hiding' by choosing to live in an area that just isn't heavily trafficked is barely hiding at all. If any of the three empires had actually sent any patrols anywhere near the planet they supposedly owned, they would have easily seen the Baku settlement, right out in the open without any kind of cloaking device. Clearly there were no patrols to contact - which again raises the question how the baku were even supposed to know the planet had been 'claimed' at all. Or are colonists everywhere now automatically required to set up beacons telling the world they're colonizing this place? In complete disregard for their philosophical beliefs re advanced technology, no less?

A policy like this would never fly in the Federation. If anything it should be the claimant empires who aren't actually using the space they claim that are required to post notices that this area of space already belongs to someone.

Which makes me wonder, even in today's world, how many people are ever actually convincted for trespassing on completely undeveloped land when the owner hasn't posted some sort of notice that that land is private property? I doubt very many. So the Baku probably weren't even trespassing even when they did first arrive on the planet.

NO public possession (no useful possession - this includes several more conditions) = NO adverse possession.
Clearly public possession. And exactly what conditions of useful possession would they not meet? They came to a completely empty planet and built an entire thriving settlement.

For example - Cestus III; the federation not enforcing a claim to that world would result in its strategic position seriously compromised, in possible millions/billions of federation citizens dead or conquered in the future. In these conditions, enforcing a claim to Cestus III IS the right thing to do.
According to who? Cestus III was just another colony. There's nothing strategic about it. Unless you're saying letting the Gorn win would just encourage them to attack later. But that clearly isn't a typical Federation concern (see the Cardassian demilitarized zone and the maquis).

The powers in the trekverse - klingons, romulans, dominion, tholians, borg, etc, etc - make soviet russia or 'the hermit kingdom' look very tame. Some of them make nazi germany, the mongol hordes or 'insert the nastiest historical empire you can think of' look very tame.
You think that, in that universe, not using real-politik at least some of the times (such as, when the future of billions is in the balance) will somehow turn your nation into a beacon of security and prosperity, as opposed to causing suffering and death for your people? lol.
You can theorize all you want about real politik in the Federation, but the canon facts of the Federation itself don't agree with you. Why would the Federation take a hard line on such a relatively unimportant race like the Gorn, when they constantly bend over backwards to act righteously towards real agressors like the Klingons and the Cardassians?

Of course, with the baku affair, the federaiton has BOTH the legal right and the muscle to enforce that right. And the moral high ground.
I don't believe they have any legal right, and they sure as hell don't have any moral high ground. Even if they did have a legal right, the law itself has limits. There are such things as eviction notices and appeals courts. Kidnapping an entire population in secret is blatantly detestable.


The baku were hiding in the briar patch from the universe, essentially (see their backstory from the movie, etc). In 'enterprise', the augments briefly contemplated hiding in the briar patch, as well - as the name indicated, it's a pretty good hiding place.
So they were 'hiding' by just living out in the open in an area that simply happened to be a bit off the beaten path. Or, in other words, not actually hiding at all.

Edit_XYZ wrote: View Post
The federation is different from the klingons, romulans, etc because they don't go around conquering species, having an orwellian state complete with political police, etc etc.

That does NOT mean that 600 baku trespassing on an uninhabited federation planet can claim it as their own.
Much like cardassians, klingons or romulans trespassing on federation worlds can't claim them as their own. The federation might cede planets to them in certain conditions, rather than fight a war, though (which is about real-politik, not the laws in place).
The Baku didn't commit a single act of trespassing in the entire life of the Federation. They *were already there* before the Federation even existed.

In general:
Planets within federation space with indigenous conscious species are not federation planets.
Uninhabited planets - AKA with no indigenous conscious species - within federation space ARE federation planets.
Do you actually have any canon to support this, or is it simply your own assumption based on your ideas of real politik?

Regardless, I do have to point out that 'uninhabited' means 'uninhabited' - not 'no indigenous peoples'. You yourself pointed out that several alien races have been known to 'seed' people around the universe - and yet, none of those planets, which are clearly without 'indigenous' peoples, are ever treated as Federation property.

Much like uninhabited planets within romulan or klingon space are romulan/klingon planets. Trespassers don't change this fact - even when they've been around for a while, hiding.
Again, 'trespassing' is a false charge against the Baku, since their claim to the planet predates that of the Federation by centuries, and the Federation's claim is based solely on having bought out someone else's claim which itself was never enforced, whereas the Baku actually live there and use the planet.

Edit_XYZ wrote: View Post
Mars is in a solar system occupied by an indigenous conscious species - meaning, it belongs to this species.

If Alpha Centaui belonged to aliens and we settled it then YES, they have the legal right to evict us if they 'feel like it'.
And if the eviction of 600 human colonists from Alpha Centauri would help BILLIONS, then YES, they most definitely have the moral right to evict us from there.
No, they absolutely do not have any legal right when their claim is based solely on random self-aggrandizement that has never been exercised. And they do not have any moral right to use force against a non-agressor, no matter how many people they believe it will help.

Edit_XYZ wrote: View Post
The answer to this question is obvious. So much so, I'm surprised you even asked.

What usually happens when a state/group/etc doesn't recognise the sovereignty of another state over a territory?
And has the power to enforce this position? War. Open any history book for examples.
What about when it doesn't have the power to enforce its position? Police action.
And again, you're trying to turn the Federation into exactly what it is canonically stated *not* to be, just to make your argument make sense.
grendelsbayne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8 2013, 12:27 PM   #90
Edit_XYZ
Fleet Captain
 
Edit_XYZ's Avatar
 
Location: At star's end.
Re: The Son'a

grendelsbayne

The law of a state governs the events happening throughout the jurisdiction of the state - even if it's not invoked the second the event took place. AKA even if you do not throw out the trespassers the second they trespassed, they remain with no property rights. That's law 101.
AKA romulan law applies, klingon law applies, etc.

The romulan/klingon/federation claim is supported by their power and recognised by the other powers in the quadrant. AKA as per the alpha/beta quadrants legal systems, their claim is valid.
Comparing that to the 'moon land' claims of nobodys is yet another straw-men.

The baku were HIDING in the Briar Patch. The situation says so, the movie said so, etc, etc. No adverse possession here. Deal with it.

Trespassers are evicted, not convicted. Trespassing is generally a civil law matter (apart from a few forms which are crimes).
Trespassers are evicted from undeveloped land all the time.

The baku, as per property law, have no legal right whatsoever to the planet.
And helping BILLIONS by evacuating 600 egoist elitists? The federation has the moral right to evict them, no matter how long you'll play 'see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil'.


The canon facts state the federation kept the Cestus III colony - aka did not recognise the gorn right to it. They also expressly state the planet the baku trespassed on is a federation planet.
That is the federation depicted in these cases - real-politik and all.

You obviously want to turn the federation into a suicidal political entity that follows, with religious fanaticism, a set of rules you call 'moral' but are nothing of the sort (not evicting 600 trespassers to help BILLIONS? Really? To think you actually call that 'moral').
Well, in all fairness, your depiction of the federation is encountered in a few episodes/etc - just not relative to the aspects under discussion here.


PS:
You have the right to your opinions, but not to your own facts.
The opinions you repeat and repeat (the baku are not trespassers, etc) are based on nothing but hand-waving and rhetoric; as such, they have no worth.
__________________
"Let truth and falsehood grapple ... Truth is strong" - John Milton

Last edited by Edit_XYZ; October 8 2013 at 01:35 PM.
Edit_XYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:56 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.