My "Just Saw Insurrection For the First Time" Review.

[DavidLeeRoth]

I thought that the film was good, but not great. It had an interesting plot and it's great to see all of the characters of TNG together again. It's a shame that they didn't mention the death of Jadzia Dax and show Worf confiding to his old friends about his loss. It would have been a nice nod to DS9. Overall, I thought it was a pretty solid movie and was better than:

Star Trek: TMP: zzzzzzzzz

Star Trek V: Good premise, great cast interaction, but the plot was a mess

Nemesis: Interesting premise, but the movie seemed so dull and lifeless as did the acting

ST 2009: All glam and glitter with little substance

[MacLeod]

BillJ wrote:

---

Most of us here who are for moving the Ba'ku aren't necessarily against saving other cultures in danger if feasible.

Try again?

The issue is that Starfleets actions are in clear violation of the Prime Directive. Sometimes holding onto your ideals will place you in a worse position. But they are not called ideals for nothing. Either you truly believe in them or you don't. If you don't why bother having it in the first place.

Assumed pre-warp culture = stay clear
Internal affair of another culture = stay clear

If you want to apply eminant domain. The Government would compensate you. You could in theory oppose the claim of eminant domain through the courts. Most governments won't come in the middle of the night, bundle you into a transport and dump you in a new place.

Your argument seems to be that an inhabiated world if it falls within Federation space is it's do with as it pleases. So lets take a the Malcorains from TNG's "First Contact". The Federtion could go in transport it's inhabitants to another planet so they cold strip mine that planet. At what number does it becmoe wrong to move people who have evloved/settled there, 1000, 10 000, 100 000 a million?

[BillJ]

MacLeod wrote:

---

Your argument seems to be that an inhabiated world if it falls within Federation space is it's do with as it pleases. So lets take a the Malcorains from TNG's "First Contact". The Federtion could go in transport it's inhabitants to another planet so they cold strip mine that planet. At what number does it becmoe wrong to move people who have evloved/settled there, 1000, 10 000, 100 000 a million?

One, settling someplace and evolving there are two distinctly different things. Had the Ba'ku evolved there and were somehow inextricably connected to the planet then you have a different ball game. Not being inextricably connected to the planet, they simply return to their normal lifespan.

Two, it's not about right or wrong it's about the greater good and it's about logistics. It's about costs vs. benefit. The Federation would reap a massive benefit for a small cost.

Would I have handled the relocation differently? Sure, I've said that on numerous occasions. Would I have relocated the Ba'ku? In a heartbeat. Because the only negative impact is that the Ba'ku returning to their normal lifespan.

If they personally wanted a say in their own affairs, they should've poked their collective heads up out of Amishville and took part in the galactic community.

[MacLeod]

Some people want to live in isolation. It's their choice.

They settled the world as colony before the Federation existed. Even in our own history people have settled in new places for a vareity of reasons.

So the reason why the settled the world is not important, the fact that they did is important.

[BillJ]

MacLeod wrote:

---

Some people want to live in isolation. It's their choice.

They settled the world as colony before the Federation existed. Even in our own history people have settled in new places for a vareity of reasons.

So the reason why the settled the world is not important, the fact that they did is important.

It doesn't change the fact that they are subject to shifting political winds of the galaxy around them. Tomorrow the Federation could sign a new treaty with the "name an empire" and ownership of the Briar Patch would shift. And the new owner would be under no obligation to placate six hundred colonists (which is what they are since many of the first generation Ba'ku are still around) sitting on a fountain of youth.

It's along the lines of the old mantra "those who don't vote don't get to bitch about whose in charge". The Ba'ku didn't care about the galaxy around them and ended up not being in control of their own destiny.

[sonak]

MacLeod wrote:

---

Some people want to live in isolation. It's their choice.

They settled the world as colony before the Federation existed. Even in our own history people have settled in new places for a vareity of reasons.

So the reason why the settled the world is not important, the fact that they did is important.

in what sense does the PD apply? They are not pre-warp, pre-contact, or even native to that planet. Dougherty openly says that it's not a PD issue.

Moreover, even if it WAS a PD issue, then nothing would prevent the Son'a from coming in and removing the Baku, and Picard would be in violation for interfering in a "blood feud."


You can't have it both ways.

[T'Girl]

MacLeod wrote:

---

The issue is that Starfleets actions are in clear violation of the Prime Directive.

Except Starfleet actions were not a clear violation.

Assumed pre-warp culture = stay clear

Only Picard assumed the Baku were pre-warp. The Council knew they weren't. The Admiral knew they weren't. The Sona (obviously) l knew they weren't.

Internal affair of another culture = stay clear

Okay, remove the Baku to another planet, harvest the rings, and let the Baku and Sona have their little family tiff.

Most governments won't come in the middle of the night, bundle you into a transport and dump you in a new place.

I've seen (on the news) the police remove homeless from condemned builds that were to be destroyed. This was done for the safety of the homeless. Similarly, people in the path of a of a wild driven forest fire (we get a fair number of them) be force by public safety decrees to evacuate their homes, again for their safety.

At what number does it becmoe wrong to move people who have evloved/settled there, 1000, 10 000, 100 000 a million?

If they are originally from the world, this is very different that if they simply migrated there.

When does it become wrong to not remove a group of migrants who would be harmed if they remained where they were?

When does it become wrong to not provide a important health resource to hundreds of billions of your people, in orbit of one of your planets, just because a group of 600 are living in a single valley on you planet?

[Robert Maxwell]

BillJ wrote:

---

One, settling someplace and evolving there are two distinctly different things. Had the Ba'ku evolved there and were somehow inextricably connected to the planet then you have a different ball game. Not being inextricably connected to the planet, they simply return to their normal lifespan.

Two, it's not about right or wrong it's about the greater good and it's about logistics. It's about costs vs. benefit. The Federation would reap a massive benefit for a small cost.

Would I have handled the relocation differently? Sure, I've said that on numerous occasions. Would I have relocated the Ba'ku? In a heartbeat. Because the only negative impact is that the Ba'ku returning to their normal lifespan.

If they personally wanted a say in their own affairs, they should've poked their collective heads up out of Amishville and took part in the galactic community.

Your argument is essentially that "might makes right." The planet is in Federation space, the Ba'ku can't do anything to stop from being relocated, so the Federation can just do whatever they want with those people, even though the Ba'ku settled that planet before the Federation existed, and have no reason to respect the Federation's jurisdiction or authority. Whether they evolved on that planet is totally irrelevant. Just because a people migrated from one place to another doesn't mean they have no claim to the land they've settled, especially if they settled it well before anyone else did.

Essentially, the Federation is supposed to hold the sovereignty of individuals and cultures in the highest esteem, but is willing to throw that out the window on a raft of technicalities to get something it wants.

As others have said, the TNG-era Prime Directive does apply in the sense of not interfering in non-Federation cultures without their consent.

Had the So'na shown up and started ransacking the place or even massacring the Ba'ku, the Federation would have had a justification for a humanitarian intervention, but getting involved with the whole "Fountain of Youth" business is not something they should have ever entertained as long as the planet was populated, or at least until the Ba'ku opened negotiations on the matter themselves.

Displacing people who've done nothing wrong, who aren't even under the jurisdiction of your government, and saying it's for the "greater good" is quite unseemly.

[BillJ]

Robert Maxwell wrote:

---

Your argument is essentially that "might makes right."

To a degree it always has. You have to be able to defend your way of life to some degree or else eventually you'll be overrun.

Essentially, the Federation is supposed to hold the sovereignty of individuals and cultures in the highest esteem, but is willing to throw that out the window on a raft of technicalities to get something it wants.

You still have to make common sense decisions about what's good for everyone in the long run. I can very easily see the Federation be put in a position where they have to defend the fountain of youth planet from other powers once the information gets out or another power simply coming in under the cover of a cloaking device and extracting the radiation.

As others have said, the TNG-era Prime Directive does apply in the sense of not interfering in non-Federation cultures without their consent.

Had the So'na shown up and started ransacking the place or even massacring the Ba'ku, the Federation would have had a justification for a humanitarian intervention, but getting involved with the whole "Fountain of Youth" business is not something they should have ever entertained as long as the planet was populated, or at least until the Ba'ku opened negotiations on the matter themselves.

This is simple bullshit. You can't claim non-interference and then decide to put yourself in the middle of a blood feud because it may be resolved in a way you find distasteful.

Displacing people who've done nothing wrong, who aren't even under the jurisdiction of your government, and saying it's for the "greater good" is quite unseemly.

The "greater good" covers more than just the Federation extracting the radiation, it also includes not losing Starfleet lives defending six hundred pacifists from inevitable poachers and it ensures the Ba'ku civilization goes on by moving that civilization to another world because they are incapable of defending themselves from inevitable poachers.

[Robert Maxwell]

BillJ wrote:

---

To a degree it always has. You have to be able to defend your way of life to some degree or else eventually you'll be overrun.

What existential threat was the Federation facing that necessitated relocating the Ba'ku?

You still have to make common sense decisions about what's good for everyone in the long run. I can very easily see the Federation be put in a position where they have to defend the fountain of youth planet from other powers once the information gets out or another power simply coming in under the cover of a cloaking device and extracting the radiation.

Except you're saying the Federation could make the Ba'ku's wishes subordinate to everyone else's, when the Federation's claim to doing anything with that planet remains quite dubious.

This is simple bullshit. You can't claim non-interference and then decide to put yourself in the middle of a blood feud because it may be resolved in a way you find distasteful.

Non-interference is the rule unless and until someone asks for help. If the Ba'ku sent out a general distress call while being attacked or forcibly moved by the So'na, the Federation would have more than adequate justification to intervene.

The "greater good" covers more than just the Federation extracting the radiation, it also includes not losing Starfleet lives defending six hundred pacifists from inevitable poachers and it ensures the Ba'ku civilization goes on by moving that civilization to another world because they are incapable of defending themselves from inevitable poachers.

That's why the Federation shouldn't have been involved whatsoever unless and until the Ba'ku asked for help repelling the So'na, at which point it's a humanitarian issue. Even then, the Feds have no claim to the metaphasic radiation. They would have to negotiate with the Ba'ku for it, since the Ba'ku were there first.

[BillJ]

Robert Maxwell wrote:

---

Non-interference is the rule unless and until someone asks for help. If the Ba'ku sent out a general distress call while being attacked or forcibly moved by the So'na, the Federation would have more than adequate justification to intervene.

The Federation Council would seem to disagree after refusing to get involved in the Klingon Civil War until outside influence was found.

Since they're the same race and are fighting over resources, I can't see the Prime Directive being interpreted as anything other than "the Ba'ku are on their own".

I'll have to hit the other points later as its a pain to edit on the ipad.

[Robert Maxwell]

BillJ wrote:

---

The Federation Council would seem to disagree after refusing to get involved in the Klingon Civil War until outside influence was found.

Since they're the same race and are fighting over resources, I can't see the Prime Directive being interpreted as anything other than "the Ba'ku are on their own".

Them being the same race was not generally known outside the So'na and the Ba'ku. I doubt the Ba'ku would mention that little detail when calling for help. By the time the Federation figured it out, the Ba'ku would probably be safe.

It could also be argued that, while the same species, the So'na became a politically distinct entity, which makes their return akin to a hostile invasion rather than a civil war/blood feud.

The Federation didn't get involved in the Klingon Civil War because it was primarily an issue of political succession--clearly not something the Feds had any business meddling with. If the So'na showed up to outright slaughter the Ba'ku, that's a totally different kettle of fish, and the Feds would be right to help when asked. If the PD says the Feds can't intervene in such a situation, it's incredibly inhumane.

[BillJ]

Robert Maxwell wrote:

---

If the So'na showed up to outright slaughter the Ba'ku, that's a totally different kettle of fish, and the Feds would be right to help when asked. If the PD says the Feds can't intervene in such a situation, it's incredibly inhumane.

Why? If Starfleet has admitted to allowing worlds/civilizations to fall under the auspices of the Prime Directive why provide an exception for the Ba'ku?

Plus, a distress signal from the Ba'ku would seem unlikely. They didn't seem to have any usable technology and they would have to get outside of the Briar Patch for the signal to even reach anyone.

[Robert Maxwell]

BillJ wrote:

---

Why? If Starfleet has admitted to allowing worlds/civilizations to fall under the auspices of the Prime Directive why provide an exception for the Ba'ku?

Plus, a distress signal from the Ba'ku would seem unlikely. They didn't seem to have any usable technology and they would have to get outside of the Briar Patch for the signal to even reach anyone.

It's been well-established that when people ask for help, the PD doesn't apply.

If the Ba'ku never got a distress call out to anyone, of course, it's a moot point.

[BillJ]

The legitimate Klingon government asked for help and the Federation said no.

From The Last Outpost...

DATA: They should add that Starfleet has permitted several civilisations to fall. We have at times allowed the strong and violent to overcome the weak.