Before Picard violated the Admiral orders he removed his rank insignia, this would indicate that Picard knew that what he was about to do was against his duty to Starfleet and the Federation. Picard was following his own conscience and his dick, his willingness to use the Baku people (including children) as "Human" shields show how distorted his thinking had become. Except the Federation Council wasn't in the wrong, they were providing their own people with an important medical advance, gathered from around one of their own planets.
The film also didn't give enough weight to the idea that the heroes might themselves be in the wrong. I think it's possible Dougherty misled his superiors, but it's made clear that there are things he himself didn't know about the situation, and IIRC it's never expressly stated that he didn't give the Council all of the information he had about the situation.
yeah, that's a good point. There's often an assumption in these threads that Dougherty was lying to the Council or at least hiding stuff from them, so maybe that's why some think he's "rogue," but there's no onscreen evidence that he was deceiving them. Everything in the film indicates that he's working with them in a typical chain of command fashion. And still, at the end we see no indication that Picard faces any consequences for disobeying direct orders and his actions directly leading to numerous deaths.
^I think some people don't want to believe the Federation would have gotten desperate enough that they would have signed off on the Baku relocation. Even though they've done the same thing to their own colonists in the past. It's easier to believe Dougherty was yet another lying scheming Evil!Admiral. I suppose a flaw of the movie is that it purportedly gives us a "happy ending", but in reality there's no indication as to how the Council will rule with regards to the Baku or what consequences there might be for Our Heroes. The ending is essentially no such thing.
If the Federation actually signed off on all aspects of Dougherty's plan, then that should have been part of what the film was about. In that case, Picard and crew fighting for the Ba'ku against the Federation itself would have been worthy of being called an insurrection. But no, since all the Enterprise had to do was pull the fire alarm by contacting the Federation, we were told that Dougherty had kept the full extent of his plan from the Federation Council. They would not and did not openly support it. In the film we got, Dougherty was acting without full authority, and the word insurrection, as a description of Picard's actions, was therefore a misnomer. Among the film's failings was not exploring how deep the rabbit hole went, with respect to who else in the Federation and on the Council knew what Dougherty was really up to.
Again, where are you getting this from? Where is your onscreen evidence that Dougherty was hiding stuff from them? Now sure, AFTER Picard began thwarting the relocation, Dougherty did stuff without their approval, but what of the initial plan did he hide from them? Cite evidence from the movie, not non-canon sources.
First of all, if Dougherty had assurances that the Federation Council would openly support his actions, then calling the Federation would not have made any difference. Ergo, the Federation Council couldn't have promised him open support. This dialog backs that deduction: Moreover, the last declaration there is the key to the whole argument. "your Federation allies will want their say"That means that other Federation members haven't had their say. Dougherty's plan depended upon a fait accompli. At best, he had only some support on the Council. Beyond the fact that this dialog establishes it as such, assuming that the Federation is still a functioning democracy at this time, it is the only conclusion that makes sense. If the Federation Council is democratic, then it is absurd to suppose that they would give Dougherty any support, knowing full well all the details of his plan, if they were unwilling to give him open support. Supposing that the Federation Council gave Dougherty full support knowing everything not only contradicts dialog whose purpose is expository, it would imply that the Federation was no longer a democracy, and failing to follow up on that dramatic revelation would have been inexcusable. Not making it clearer regarding exactly how much support Dougherty actually had was pretty weak storytelling, as it was.
er, that's an odd interpretation of that scene. The plain meaning is that Ru'afo is telling Dougherty that the image of the brave captain fighting a lonely battle on behalf of the Baku will be good PR and get the Federation Council to CHANGE ITS MIND once the media gets a hold of it. There is nothing in what you quoted to indicate that Dougherty was either acting on his own or misleading the council.
I thought the Federation allies were say the Klingons while Federation members were for example Vulcan and Andoria. Actually I can't see the Federation's justification if the Baku were either a primitive race or an advanced one. I didn't think the Federation just displaced people unless they were in disputed territory.
...or they're desperate. Which, arguably, they are at this point, being in the middle of the bloodiest war they've ever faced and all. It could be that the decision regarding the Baku planet was indeed decided by the council, but something other than a full and/or public session. Articles of the Federation, while not canon, not only provides several examples of non-full and non-open sessions but also makes note of the fact that the UFP President at the time of the war had really pushed the limits of his executive authority as well.
Good catch, I thought of that while I was posting before. This is what I came up with then. I probably should have mentioned all this in the first place: What say would non-Federation members have in Federation politics? Ru'afo makes it sound like the people he's speaking of would all have a vote in the outcome. Additionally, from a grammatical perspective, the possessive your suggests that the people in question belong to the Federation, especially since the grammatical construction parallels the usage as it was twice previously, in quite clear references to things within the Federation (your Federation politicians, your Federation opinion polls). Moreover, if the possessive in the third instance isn't meant to suggest Federation members, then the possessive in the third instance is entirely redundant. If Ru'afo's thinking of the Klingons, then they're just Federation allies period, not Dougherty's Federation allies or your Federation allies. Better still, they're allied powers, without any qualification that they are of the Federation. It's not completely satisfactory, but I think the best way to read the line is in reference to nonhuman members of the Federation. But, since the line is, I suppose, open to other interpretations, we're probably not going to agree on much, unless we happen simply to agree that it is a piece of dialog with no completely satisfactory interpretation. That said, if Ru'afo really was talking about the Klingons, then he must not think much of them, to only speak of them as something associated with the Federation. A Klingon really would be insulted!
well in this case the Baku were in Federation territory. And if they weren't, then it wouldn't help them, because then the Son'a would be free to remove them without Federation interference.
Whether allies refers to non-human members of the Federation or non-Federation allies such as the Klingons is debatable. I'm not familiar with DS9/TNG politics to know if there is a divide in the Federation between non-human and human members. I could see maybe Vulcan putting up some objection to Dougherty's plan. I would think that if allies meant the Klingons that the Federation would have to satisfy the Klingons that its displacing settlers is OK with them or otherwise the Klingons would question whether to ally themselves with the Federation. Frankly I think the Klingons couldn't have cared less. We come back to the question whether the Federation has the right to displace settlers in their own territory (a territory created after the Baku and Sona settled there). They may have the right but is that what the Federation is? Do they move people because of convenience? I thought that was a Cardassian thing.
If anything I'd think Vulcan would tend to -support- Dougherty's plan. 600 non-indigenous settlers versus even thousands of people isn't even a contest when it comes to the "Needs of the many..." argument. Regarding the Klingons I'd think a larger issue would be whether the Federation would share the radiation with the Klingons. As brought up previously, the Federation we're seeing at the time of INS is probably the most desperate Federation we've ever seen, quite possibly prone to doing things they wouldn't do if it was "business as usual". Additionally, while the Federation may not have "owned" the Briar Patch when the Baku moved in, it -was- owned and later given to the Federation, IIRC. In that sense, the Baku were claiming a planet that was already claimed.
While I agree the Dominion War going badly is certainly a meaningful justification for the Federation perhaps selling out on some of their core ideals for the benefit of the Greater Good, I also don't think the movie does nearly enough to actually underline this sense of "desperation". Apart from one or two lines at the beginning of the movie (in regards to the diplomatic function aboard the Enterprise)... ... IMO not enough is actually shown on screen to indicate just how desperate the Federation is. It's easy to fill in the gaps if you've been watching DS9 consistently, but in terms of this movie alone I've always felt Dougherty's motivations to be regretably under-sketched. While Insurrection needn't have been a 'Dominion War' movie, a little bit more of the consequences of the War could have been shown on screen. Instead, what we got just makes the Enterprise crew look like they're all emotionally distant from the effects of the war, which is really weird for the alleged "flagship".
With attitudes like that there would be little or nothing wrong with disassembling Data or infecting Hugh given the benefits that could result. Picard not doing the latter yet forcing relocation in "Journey's End" both felt, in different directions, pretty but not wholly out of character. However, Picard and certainly some others in his crew should have been more openly conflicted about their actions. BTW, LOL at Ru'afo describing the Borg as being "in the Quadrant."
Why? Just because you don't happen to agree with them? That's the thing I like about Insurrection. The situation is not just black and white. But Picard makes his decision. And some fans don't like that because their hero disagrees with them.
^No but because the situation was ambiguous and the crew had had different experiences they shouldn't all have sided with Picard with so little hesitation.
All these weak systems that the Federation is lining up as protectorates, in the wake of the Dominion War and the Borg attack in the last film, I could see them referred to as "your Federation allies".
It occurs to me that if the film had opened with the E in the middle of a (hopefully massive) Dominion battle and the crew and ship obviously exhausted afterward leading into the communication from Dougherty that gets the ball rolling, not only would the film be more exciting but the audience would be given hard evidence of the stresses the Federation was facing. Show the E rescuring people from damaged ships afterward (possibly even a guest star who could oppose Picard's actions later on) and make it clear that this has been going on for weeks/months. The only downsides I can immediately come up with are that it might be a bit reminiscent of the battle at the beginning of FC, and in similar vein might essentially place the most exciting scene of the film at the beginning. In fact, put said sequence immediately after the existing opening of the film showing the peaceful Baku village, as an explicit contrast. Or, if you wanted to be especially daring, cross-cut the two sequences, though I don't know if that would work in execution.