Did Picard make the right decision with the Son'a/Baku

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies I-X' started by Godless Raven, Apr 11, 2013.

  1. Edit_XYZ

    Edit_XYZ Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2011
    Location:
    At star's end.
    Klingon ownership of the briar patch before the baku arrived gives Klingons/the federation prior claim to the briar patch.

    The baku are nothing more than tresspassers.
    You actually think tresspassers have any claim to the land they tresspass on?
    If yes, the federation doesn't share your opinion. If it would, the romulans would have long ago conquered the federation by settling a few hundred romulans on every non-inhabited federation planet and claiming it as their own.

    Except the briar patch is NOT the baku's world - homeworld or otherwise. Tresspassing on a land does NOT make it yours.

    And NOT harvesting the immortality particles does a HUGE disservice to the member worlds of the federation and the billions of beings inhabiting them.


    Legally, the baku have no legitimate claim on the immortality planet.
    Morally, letting billions suffer for the vanity of 600 is obscene.
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2013
  2. MacLeod

    MacLeod Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    Location:
    Great Britain
    Yes but if the Ba'ku settled on that world before the Klingons claimed that space they aren't tresspassers. If you are going down the line that the planet was never theirs to begin with. It would be more like squatting, and after several hundred years if the Federation regonised it adverse possesion might come in to play.

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

    Or in simple terms because no one had objected to the Ba'ku presence for centuries, the KE and UFP let their claim to the planet lapse. And soverignity of the planet passed to the Ba'ku.
     
  3. Edit_XYZ

    Edit_XYZ Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2011
    Location:
    At star's end.
    First - such legal quibbles as arguments are used only because your side has run out of other, more fundamental objections, MacLeod:
    Concerning the moral side, your position is falimentary;
    Even with regards to the legal side (as per current law, that is), as long as you don't come with highly improbable speculation such as your last post, you have no argument (simply put, the federation has AT LEAST* the legal right to invoke eminent domain; it didn't only in order for the baku NOT to appear as the elitist jerks who could care less about anyone else they are).

    Second:
    The baku did not settle unclaimed space.
    Why?
    Because when this space was claimed by the klingons, they would have searched their new property and evicted these few hundreds of luddites with extreme prejudice, especially considering what a clement/valuable M class world these luddites were on.

    The baku's possession of that planet - during klingon reign, at least - was not visible, but hidden - if it was visible, the klingons would never have allowed it.
    And hidden possession will not lead to adverse possession no matter how much time passes.
    As for the federation - even if it knew about the baku and let them stay on the planet: possession by the allowance of the owner will never lead to adverse possession, no matter how much time passes.

    *Eminent domain is invoked to get land from its rightful owner, for reasons of public utility/interest, after compensation - and it doesn't matter whether this owner got his land before or after the forming of the country that incorporates his land.
    When it comes to tresspassers - as the baku are - one just evicts them.
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2013
  4. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
    Nothing like a good old fashion Insurrection circle-jerk! :lol:
     
  5. T'Girl

    T'Girl Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Location:
    T'Girl
    Prior to the Klingons, the Romulans possessed the area.

    From the wiki article you presented.

    In Cone v. West Virginia Pulp & Paper, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that Cone ... because his actions did not change the land from a wild and natural state.

    So, by this the Baku might have been able to establish a legal claim to the one valley they were occupying, and area where they built the reservoir, but not the entire planet, and certainly not the rings.

    And what really works against the Baku in term of "adverse possession" is this.

    The disseisor's use of the property must be so visible and apparent that it gives notice to the legal owner that someone may assert claim, and must be of such character that would give notice to a reasonable person.

    The Baku, by their own admission, were hiding. That's part of the reason they choose a planet in the brier patch. According to the series Enterprise, when the Baku first landed, the area of space which included the ring planet was the possession of the Romulan Empire. Did the Baku make themselves "visible and apparent" to the Romulans? No they didn't.

    As pointed out by Edit XYZ, neither did the Baku make themselves "visible and apparent" to the Klingons subsequent to the Klingons acquiring the area.

    And later they didn't make themselves obvious to the Federation when they acquired the area.

    In the episode Spectrum of the Gun, when a Federation starship "encroached" on the space of the Melkot, they were met by a device that inform them of the Melkot's claim to the space. The Baku arrived at the ring planet by (presumably) a starship, and they were able to diagnose the exact problem with Data's positronic brain.

    For them to have placed a reasonable number of buoys of some sort outside the brier patch to announce their presence and their claim to the ring planet would have been within their means.

    :)
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2013
  6. sonak

    sonak Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Location:
    in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination

    nope, you can't have it both ways, as the movie tries to do. Picard's involvement could only be even REMOTELY justified insofar as the Federation was already involved. Once they all left at the end of the movie, there was NO reason to continue to defend them, especially as the Baku were contributing nothing to the Federation at large.


    pick an option: either it's in Federation territory and they can legally and ethically remove the Baku or it's not and the Federation could have had the Son'a come in and settle their dispute with the Baku by force.


    (this is usually the part in the discussion where the anti-removal crowd starts moving the goalposts and insisting that the Federation has a moral OBLIGATION to defend the Baku.):lol:
     
  7. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
    Even Picard admits that Dougherty got the Federation involved in a blood feud. At the point they found out that the S'ona/Ba'ku were the same race fighting for control of resources, the Federation (Picard/Dougherty) should've recused itself from the whole mess. It would, by definition, be an internal matter (per Redemption)

    The above works under the assumption that the planet does not belong to the Federation.
     
  8. DWF

    DWF Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    May 19, 2001
    Location:
    Columbus, Ohio
    Trying to relocate the Baku was immoral and the Feveration wasn't aware of the full story which is why Picard sent Riker to inform them. But in the end Picard knew what was right and what was wrong from his point of view and he stood up for people who couldn't stand up for themselves, morally he did the right thing.
     
  9. T'Girl

    T'Girl Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Location:
    T'Girl
    Is it your position then that the Federation (through Starfleet) should be consistent and always stand "up for people who couldn't stand up for themselves?" No matter where in the galaxy they find these people?

    :)
     
  10. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
    Not people who couldn't stand up for themselves, people who refused to stand up for themselves...

     
  11. DonIago

    DonIago Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2001
    Location:
    Burlington, VT, USA
    Apparently it's okay if other people are wielding weapons on their behalf though... Seems a bit hypocritical to me.
     
  12. R. Star

    R. Star Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2012
    Location:
    Shangri-La
    Just more self-entitlement. Just look how Anij flops herself down on the boat, expecting Data and Picard to row her over to that holoship. :p
     
  13. The Overlord

    The Overlord Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2010
    Please, the only difference between a coup and a revolution is who is the winner and who is the loser.

    The American colonists revolted against their British colonial system, no one seems to treat that as some sort of illegal act.

    Again, maybe the Son'a had good reason to revolt, maybe they felt that a society that created hours of meaninglessness back breaking labor that could be done away with some technology or that a policy of isolation was counter productive.
    The Son'a are just doing to the Ba'ku, what the Ba'ku did to them.

    Heck, how did the Ba'ku even beat the Son'a if they are pacifists? The whole relationship between the Ba'ku and the Son'a makes no sense.
     
  14. MacLeod

    MacLeod Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    Location:
    Great Britain
    Well we don't know the exact date the Ba'ku settled the world or the date that the Klingons claimed that area of space. If the Ba'ku settled on that world prior to the Klingons claiming that region of space. Then they aren't guilty of tresspassing.

    And how was their colonisation hidden? Was the planet cloaked, was the settlement concealled somehow? From memory no artifical means where used to hide the colony. The fact that the planet was in the middle of a nebula is irrelevant. If you had explored the nebula you would likely have discovered it.

    And you now the thing about eminant domain is that you have the right to appeal against it. Sure your government can want to takeyour land from you but.

    1.>They have to compensate you for it fairly
    2.>You can appeal against any sort of compulsary purchase

    So what compensation were the Ba'ku getting?
    When where they informed about they forced relocation, so they could appeal against it through the Federation courts.

    If someone comes into your home without your permission they are tressapsing. If however you own a peice of land in another area of the country and someone lives on that for decades without you objecting the offense is squatting.

    But we don't know exactly how the Federation defines crime as opposed to how they are defined today in various countries.
     
  15. sonak

    sonak Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Location:
    in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination

    most "pacifism" ends up being pretty hypocritical. If you're a pacifist in a society where you're protected from violence by the military or by the police, then you're allowing violence to be used on your behalf in defense anyway.
     
  16. OneBuckFilms

    OneBuckFilms Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2008
    Then again, maybe they didn't have good reason. Baybe does not establish anything. Define Good Reason by their society and rules.

    Truth is, we don't know enough about that conflict.

    What we DO know is that the Baku were being forced out of their homes, that they had lived in peacefully, bothering nobody, for hundreds of years.

    It was a society, in and of itself. A colony from elsewhere on inception? Irrelevant morally, if interesting.

    Until the Son'a and Federation situations, it was very productive to live there without depending on their technological knowledge.

    Being where they are, and hard to reach, unnoticed, made more sense given their origins.
     
  17. The Overlord

    The Overlord Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2010
    There are tons of reasons of to oppose a Luddite philosophy: less needless labor, better standard of living with technology, etc. If I was living in a Ba'ku village and I had to live in some medieval village while other people got travel around the universe in star ships, I might be upset too. I would begin to think Ba'ku society was reactionary and flawed. Why should everyone accept that such a philosophy is good for everyone and not try to oppose it if they think its flawed?

    The fact that we know nothing about the rift between the Son'a and the Ba'ku hurts the story. The Ba'ku having the right eject the Son'a from their planet and the Son'a not having that same right looks hypocritical.

    How this story supposed to be an effective moral dilemma when the Ba'ku are supposedly perfect and the Son'a are one dimensional cartoonish villains?

    If the Ba'ku were peaceful, how did they force the Son'a off their planet in the first place? It seems like there a lot of holes in this story.
     
  18. sonak

    sonak Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Location:
    in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination

    precisely. In adding the Son'a-Baku connection as a "twist" to the story, it made the whole thing make a lot LESS sense. Think about all the plot holes it clears up:


    1. we don't have to wonder how a bunch of pacifists kicked a group of fighters off the planet

    2. the Son'a would have an actual REASON not to tell Dougherty about the true nature of the Baku, because they genuinely wouldn't know. In the movie, not being straight with Dougherty ultimately SABOTAGES the entire project

    3. The Son'a don't automatically get an equal claim on the planet since they're from that world too, making the legality a lot murkier for the Baku

    4. We don't have to wonder WHY the Son'a never previously returned, once they had a decent fleet, and conquered the Baku themselves

    5. Finally, the Baku remain a little more sympathetic since they didn't exile their family members to die slowly



    all in all, the "twist" severely weakens an already weak story
     
  19. Hartzilla2007

    Hartzilla2007 Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    Location:
    Star Trekkin Across the universe.
    They were at war with a planet in another star system.

    Which they were doing becuase the two planets were dragging people into their idiotic war.

    They had a dialog open Kirk go the Horta to agree to let them have the ores that were useless to them that they left in their tunnels becuase they either wouldn't or couldn't eat them.

    And when the Halkans told them to get lost they left. That was kind of the point the episode was making about the difference between the Federation and the Terran Empire.

    A resource that the Capellans had no use for and they were already aware of people from outer space.

    Except they still had to negotiate with the natives to get it they didn't just take it for themselves.

    Except from the data Soong found in the Klingon database the Klingons were aware of two inhabitable planets in the Briar Patch and they didn't move to take them, probably becuase it would be more trouble than it is worth as they would have to move ships into a difficult to navigate area where you have to travel a considerable distance just to communicate with the rest of the galaxy (so basically its Bumf@#k Idaho in space), and they only thing they would seemingly get from all the effort it would take to move in is some particles which go against their philosophy of dying gloriously in battle.

    So no I really don't think the Klingons would bother with a backwater planet of little importance (to them probably) thats hard as hell to get to.
     
  20. The Overlord

    The Overlord Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2010
    Frankly the story would have been a bit better if the Son'a had been generic evil invaders who simply wanted to be immortal and had no legitimate claim to that planet. Sure it would ruin the supposed the moral dilemma that the movie was trying to present, but frankly they ruined that already by presenting the Son'a as cartoon bad guys. You may as well ditch the whole moral dilemma and make the Son'a just some evil that needs defeating.

    It seemed like the movie was trying to present the son'a as Hitler or some mafia boss and the Ba'ku as Gandhi and Hitler vs. Gandhi is not an interesting moral debate. A moral dilemma needs to be gray, not black and white like this film.