Son'a Solidarity post ST: Insurrection

[Dayton Ward]

If the Ba'ku had violated territorial lines, those who "owned" the property in question could have just come right out and told them to get gone, right? If what the Feds had done was all legal and on the up and up, they wouldn't have needed to go sneaking around and then get all indignant when they got caught, right? Why didn't they just show up, serve the papers, and tell everyone to get lost? Why all the subterfuge, especially when it's "only" 600 people, fucking troublemakers and rabble-rousers that they are?

This has a familiar ring to it. Am I talking on a Trek board, or watching C-SPAN?

 

[BillJ]

Even as a secret mission, not much made sense about how they went about it.

 

[Christopher]

The Federation Council approved the mission. So either 'eminent domain' was already on the books or they passed a special resolution in regards to the Ba'ku. Which as the elected governing body is their right.
...
Just because the Federation was founded after the Ba'ku landed on the planet doesn't mean that the Briar Patch didn't fall under the jurisdiction of a current Federation member well before the Ba'ku showed up.

You're forgetting three little words: The Prime Directive. True, the Ba'ku were a starfaring culture, but the Prime Directive does apply to those cultures too. As established in "Redemption" and elsewhere, it states that the Federation is not allowed to interfere in the politics or wars of other cultures. Sending Starfleet to support the Son'a's agenda to forcibly relocate the Ba'ku is definitely a violation of the Prime Directive in more ways than one. If the Council did pass such a resolution, it was an illegal one. (This was during the Zife administration, right? That would figure.)

 

[BillJ]

Except for the fact that no one knew that the S'ona and Ba'ku were connected until two-thirds of the way through the movie. So the Prime Directive would not apply as "interfering in the internal affairs" during deliberations of whether to relocate the Ba'ku or not.

Though no one wondered why there were only 600 people on the planet to begin with is another huge logic hole this movie has.

 

[Christopher]

Except for the fact that no one knew that the S'ona and Ba'ku were connected until two-thirds of the way through the movie. So the Prime Directive would not apply as "interfering in the internal affairs" during deliberations of whether to relocate the Ba'ku or not.

I didn't say anything about internal affairs. As far as they could tell, it was a conflict between two rival powers, neither of which was a Federation member. Thus, the Prime Directive forbade taking either side. Now, the Federation can defend allies against invasion, but the Son'a were the aggressors here.

Not to mention that forcing an alien population to abandon its home definitely constitutes meddling in their politics and culture. It is a Prime Directive violation all by itself, regardless of the Son'a's involvement.

And arguing that the Federation had the right on territorial grounds is bizarre. Territorial claims over regions of space are a convenient fiction at best. In practice, a spacegoing power's territory would constitute its member systems and the regularly patrolled travel routes between them. Different spacegoing powers could easily interpenetrate. And given how vast space is, the Federation may not even have fully explored the area within its sphere of influence. So it has no ethical right to claim to "own" the planets of sovereign alien civilizations that just happen to be within the volume of space that is fictitiously treated as "Federation territory." I can see a conquering, imperialist state believing in manifest destiny defining territory in such barbaric terms, claiming that a coincidence of cartography gives them the right to force their will upon an unconsenting culture, but such self-serving imperialism is anathema to Federation law and ethics.

 

[BillJ]

Except for the fact that no one knew that the S'ona and Ba'ku were connected until two-thirds of the way through the movie. So the Prime Directive would not apply as "interfering in the internal affairs" during deliberations of whether to relocate the Ba'ku or not.

I didn't say anything about internal affairs. As far as they could tell, it was a conflict between two rival powers, neither of which was a Federation member. Thus, the Prime Directive forbade taking either side. Now, the Federation can defend allies against invasion, but the Son'a were the aggressors here.

Not to mention that forcing an alien population to abandon its home definitely constitutes meddling in their politics and culture. It is a Prime Directive violation all by itself, regardless of the Son'a's involvement.

And arguing that the Federation had the right on territorial grounds is bizarre. Territorial claims over regions of space are a convenient fiction at best. In practice, a spacegoing power's territory would constitute its member systems and the regularly patrolled travel routes between them. Different spacegoing powers could easily interpenetrate. And given how vast space is, the Federation may not even have fully explored the area within its sphere of influence. So it has no ethical right to claim to "own" the planets of sovereign alien civilizations that just happen to be within the volume of space that is fictitiously treated as "Federation territory." I can see a conquering, imperialist state believing in manifest destiny defining territory in such barbaric terms, claiming that a coincidence of cartography gives them the right to force their will upon an unconsenting culture, but such self-serving imperialism is anathema to Federation law and ethics.

Once again... no one knew about the S'ona and Ba'ku being related in any way. There is absolutely no mention of any type of conflict between the two (until two-thirds through).

And the Federation has been known to bend the rules when it suits their interests (Errand of Mercy and Friday's Child and I'm sure there are plenty more).

Oh yeah... making the race that had just achieved warp drive last year a Federation protectorate (Insurrection).

 

[JD]

I can see a conquering, imperialist state believing in manifest destiny defining territory in such barbaric terms, claiming that a coincidence of cartography gives them the right to force their will upon an unconsenting culture, but such self-serving imperialism is anathema to Federation law and ethics.

Isn't that more or less what the Cardassians did to the Maquis?

 

[BillJ]

And arguing that the Federation had the right on territorial grounds is bizarre. Territorial claims over regions of space are a convenient fiction at best. In practice, a spacegoing power's territory would constitute its member systems and the regularly patrolled travel routes between them. Different spacegoing powers could easily interpenetrate. And given how vast space is, the Federation may not even have fully explored the area within its sphere of influence. So it has no ethical right to claim to "own" the planets of sovereign alien civilizations that just happen to be within the volume of space that is fictitiously treated as "Federation territory." I can see a conquering, imperialist state believing in manifest destiny defining territory in such barbaric terms, claiming that a coincidence of cartography gives them the right to force their will upon an unconsenting culture, but such self-serving imperialism is anathema to Federation law and ethics.

Unfortunately, as we have seen throughout our own history, we're going to use materials that belong to others if we need them and have the power to take them.

And I don't see this changing when we move out into space.

 

[elaithin]

Hopefully it will. The Federation, at least, is supposed to be better than that.

 

[Christopher]

Once again... no one knew about the S'ona and Ba'ku being related in any way. There is absolutely no mention of any type of conflict between the two (until two-thirds through).

Uhh... the people who authorized Doherty's mission knew that the intent was to relocate the Ba'ku against their will, and that the Son'a were participating in that relocation. They didn't need to know of their relationship to know they were violating the Prime Directive.

And the Federation has been known to bend the rules when it suits their interests (Errand of Mercy and Friday's Child and I'm sure there are plenty more).

Circular argument. It's unnecessary to point that out, because we're already discussing a case where the Federation Council did bend the rules to suit their interests. We're not debating whether it happened. We're debating whether it was legal or ethical. Your position seems to be that the Federation had the right to force the Ba'ku to move, and that is profoundly incorrect on many levels.

 

[BillJ]

Once again... no one knew about the S'ona and Ba'ku being related in any way. There is absolutely no mention of any type of conflict between the two (until two-thirds through).

Uhh... the people who authorized Doherty's mission knew that the intent was to relocate the Ba'ku against their will, and that the Son'a were participating in that relocation. They didn't need to know of their relationship to know they were violating the Prime Directive.

And the Federation has been known to bend the rules when it suits their interests (Errand of Mercy and Friday's Child and I'm sure there are plenty more).

Circular argument. It's unnecessary to point that out, because we're already discussing a case where the Federation Council did bend the rules to suit their interests. We're not debating whether it happened. We're debating whether it was legal or ethical. Your position seems to be that the Federation had the right to force the Ba'ku to move, and that is profoundly incorrect on many levels.

1. I'm tired of everyone using the Prime Directive as the catch-all for every ethical debate in Trek. This was not a Prime Directive issue. Picard didn't even argue the Prime Directive once Daugherty explained why it wasn't a violation.

DOUGHERTY: The Prime Directive doesn't apply. These people are not indigenous to this planet. They were never meant to be immortal. We'll simply be restoring them to their natural evolution.
PICARD: Who the hell are we to determine the next course of evolution for these people?

Thanks once again to: http://www.chakoteya.net/movies/movie9.html

2. Either the Federation move them in a manner that is humane or somewhere down the road the S'ona acquire the firepower to remove them by force. I don't believe that Starfleet is going to commit forces to the hind end of space to protect 600 people.

From earlier:

3. Picard had no issue using an arbitrary territorial line when trying to protect the Ba'ku...

DOUGHERTY: Jean-Luc, there are six hundred people down there. We'll be able to use the regenerative properties of this radiation to help billions. ...The Son'a have developed a procedure to collect the metaphasic particles from the planets rings.
PICARD: A planet in Federation space.
DOUGHERTY: That's right. We have the planet. They have the technology. ...A technology we can't duplicate. You know what that makes us? ...Partners.
PICARD: Our partners are nothing more than petty thugs.

 

[Christopher]

1. I'm tired of everyone using the Prime Directive as the catch-all for every ethical debate in Trek. This was not a Prime Directive issue. Picard didn't even argue the Prime Directive once Daugherty explained why it wasn't a violation.

Dougherty was wrong. As I explained, the Prime Directive doesn't only apply to pre-warp civilizations. As "Redemption" made clear, it also prohibits the Federation from forcing its will on other sovereign cultures. Whether or not you cast it as a PD issue, that's still an immoral act and it defies everything the Federation stands for.

 

[BillJ]

1. I'm tired of everyone using the Prime Directive as the catch-all for every ethical debate in Trek. This was not a Prime Directive issue. Picard didn't even argue the Prime Directive once Daugherty explained why it wasn't a violation.

Dougherty was wrong. As I explained, the Prime Directive doesn't only apply to pre-warp civilizations. As "Redemption" made clear, it also prohibits the Federation from forcing its will on other sovereign cultures. Whether or not you cast it as a PD issue, that's still an immoral act and it defies everything the Federation stands for.

So using that logic and your above statement about territory in space: The Federation and Starfleet had no stakes in this at all. Sooo... the S'ona should have been able to go in and evict/exterminate the Ba'ku on their own?

 

[BillJ]

1. I'm tired of everyone using the Prime Directive as the catch-all for every ethical debate in Trek. This was not a Prime Directive issue. Picard didn't even argue the Prime Directive once Daugherty explained why it wasn't a violation.

Dougherty was wrong. As I explained, the Prime Directive doesn't only apply to pre-warp civilizations. As "Redemption" made clear, it also prohibits the Federation from forcing its will on other sovereign cultures. Whether or not you cast it as a PD issue, that's still an immoral act and it defies everything the Federation stands for.

So using that logic and your above statement about territory in space: The Federation and Starfleet had no stakes in this at all. Sooo... the S'ona should have been able to go in and evict/exterminate the Ba'ku on their own?

As a matter of fact: Shouldn't have Starfleet and the Federation recused itself completely from the situation immediately once they became aware that it was a Prime Directive issue? Isn't Picard guilty of violating the Prime Directive by interfering once he knows that this is a "blood feud"?

 

[Sci]

Yeah, Mangels and Martin found it necessary to retcon it as a Section 31 operation.

Mangels and Martin had nothing to do with it. Their first DS9 Relaunch story wasn't until Mission: Gamma - Cathedral, five books later. Jeffrey Lang and David Weddle -- himself a former staff writer for DS9 the TV series -- wrote that novel, and responsibility for that decision falls to them and to then-series editor Marco Palmieri.

I guess the Federation Council can never engage in behavior that is morally questionable. Piller & Berman could have easily added Section 31 if they wanted to do so. I don't agree that Dougherty is lying in the scene. If it was a rogue Starfleet operation, then Picard's defiance wouldn't be much of an insurrection.

Picard's defiance in INS was never all that much of an insurrection, because he was the one who was actually enforcing Federation law against a criminal (Dougherty).

What Federation law was he enforcing exactly? There is absolutely no evidence in the film that Dougherty was in violation of Federation law in any way in the relocation of the Ba'ku.

Forcibly relocating the entire population of a foreign state whose society pre-dates the Federation from their own planet? That's a textbook violation of the Prime Directive. Taking sides in their internal conflict (Son'a vs. Ba'ku)? Textbook violation of the Federation Charter's prohibition against interfering in the internal affairs of foreign societies (established in DS9's "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges").

Umn, Federation culture is pretty heavy on the concept of self-determination. Forcibly relocating the Ba'ku flies in the face of that, especially if the planet is, apparently, in Federation space and a Federation protectorate. So yeah - that'd be illegal. Picard says as much to Dougherty.

The Federation Council approved the mission.

1. Section 31: Abyss seems to strongly imply that the Federation Council did not and that Dougherty was lying.

2. Even if the Council did approve that operation, that only means that the Councillors who voted for that resolution are party to the crime. The Council doing something does not make it legal.

So either 'eminent domain' was already on the books

Eminent domain wouldn't apply. The Ba'ku are a foreign state on foreign territory that they had claimed before the founding of the Federation. The Ba'ku world may have been surrounded by Federation-claimed space, but it cannot have been Federation territory any more than Romulus or Qo'noS could be.

or they passed a special resolution in regards to the Ba'ku. Which as the elected governing body is their right.

Elected bodies are not above the law, and any such "special resolution" would themselves be unconstitutional (as they would inherently violate the prohibition against the Federation government interfering in the internal affairs of a foreign state -- and an affair doesn't get much more internal than you're going to live).

It's worth noting that the Ba'ku settled on the planet prior to the formation of the Federation, so the notion that the Briar Patch is "in Federation territory" seems dubious. They just claimed it, without verifying the existence of sentient inhabitants? Whoops.

Just because the Federation was founded after the Ba'ku landed on the planet doesn't mean that the Briar Patch didn't fall under the jurisdiction of a current Federation member well before the Ba'ku showed up.

There is no evidence that this is the case, especially since the Briar Patch seen in ENT was established to be a lawless region claimed by no one in which Arik Soong hoped to hide.

Dougherty was wrong. As I explained, the Prime Directive doesn't only apply to pre-warp civilizations. As "Redemption" made clear, it also prohibits the Federation from forcing its will on other sovereign cultures. Whether or not you cast it as a PD issue, that's still an immoral act and it defies everything the Federation stands for.

So using that logic and your above statement about territory in space: The Federation and Starfleet had no stakes in this at all. Sooo... the S'ona should have been able to go in and evict/exterminate the Ba'ku on their own?

As a matter of fact: Shouldn't have Starfleet and the Federation recused itself completely from the situation immediately once they became aware that it was a Prime Directive issue? Isn't Picard guilty of violating the Prime Directive by interfering once he knows that this is a "blood feud"?

The Ba'ku had obviously asked for help; as such, Picard had every right to use force to prevent Federation forces from aiding the Son'a and to aid the Ba'ku, a helpless people desperate to keep their homeworld, repel an attempted invasion of their territory until such time as the larger Federation government and populous could be alerted to Dougherty's criminal actions and a constitutional response formulated that is consistent with the Articles.

Of course, all this is moot because, as noted before, Section 31: Abyss established that this was a Section 31 operation and thereby strongly implied that Dougherty was lying when he was claiming to be acting on the Council's orders.

 

[BillJ]

Mangels and Martin had nothing to do with it. Their first DS9 Relaunch story wasn't until Mission: Gamma - Cathedral, five books later. Jeffrey Lang and David Weddle -- himself a former staff writer for DS9 the TV series -- wrote that novel, and responsibility for that decision falls to them and to then-series editor Marco Palmieri.



Picard's defiance in INS was never all that much of an insurrection, because he was the one who was actually enforcing Federation law against a criminal (Dougherty).

What Federation law was he enforcing exactly? There is absolutely no evidence in the film that Dougherty was in violation of Federation law in any way in the relocation of the Ba'ku.

Forcibly relocating the entire population of a foreign state whose society pre-dates the Federation from their own planet? That's a textbook violation of the Prime Directive. Taking sides in their internal conflict (Son'a vs. Ba'ku)? Textbook violation of the Federation Charter's prohibition against interfering in the internal affairs of foreign societies (established in DS9's "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges").



1. Section 31: Abyss seems to strongly imply that the Federation Council did not and that Dougherty was lying.

2. Even if the Council did approve that operation, that only means that the Councillors who voted for that resolution are party to the crime. The Council doing something does not make it legal.



Eminent domain wouldn't apply. The Ba'ku are a foreign state on foreign territory that they had claimed before the founding of the Federation. The Ba'ku world may have been surrounded by Federation-claimed space, but it cannot have been Federation territory any more than Romulus or Qo'noS could be.



Elected bodies are not above the law, and any such "special resolution" would themselves be unconstitutional (as they would inherently violate the prohibition against the Federation government interfering in the internal affairs of a foreign state -- and an affair doesn't get much more internal than you're going to live).



There is no evidence that this is the case, especially since the Briar Patch seen in ENT was established to be a lawless region claimed by no one in which Arik Soong hoped to hide.

So using that logic and your above statement about territory in space: The Federation and Starfleet had no stakes in this at all. Sooo... the S'ona should have been able to go in and evict/exterminate the Ba'ku on their own?

As a matter of fact: Shouldn't have Starfleet and the Federation recused itself completely from the situation immediately once they became aware that it was a Prime Directive issue? Isn't Picard guilty of violating the Prime Directive by interfering once he knows that this is a "blood feud"?

The Ba'ku had obviously asked for help; as such, Picard had every right to use force to prevent Federation forces from aiding the Son'a and to aid the Ba'ku, a helpless people desperate to keep their homeworld, repel an attempted invasion of their territory until such time as the larger Federation government and populous could be alerted to Dougherty's criminal actions and a constitutional response formulated that is consistent with the Articles.

Of course, all this is moot because, as noted before, Section 31: Abyss established that this was a Section 31 operation and thereby strongly implied that Dougherty was lying when he was claiming to be acting on the Council's orders.

You know I never thought I'd hear myself say this: The books are not canon. I like the book you reference but it carries no more weight than fan-fiction in this particular argument.

Plus, unless the S'ona were being aided by outside forces in the conflict... it would be considered an 'internal affair' (per Redemption). Starfleet was essentially there to make sure it was being done humanely.

 

[Sci]

You know I never thought I'd hear myself say this: The books are not canon.

And that would be a problem if we were in a Gen Trek forum.

I like the book you reference but it carries no more weight than fan-fiction in this particular argument.

Dude, this is the Trek Lit forum. Of course something from a novel has more weight than fan fiction here.

Plus, unless the S'ona were being aided by outside forces in the conflict... it would be considered an 'internal affair'. Starfleet was essentially there to make sure it was being done humanely.

No, Starfleet was there because Dougherty wanted to help the Son'a and profit from their crimes against the Ba'ku. Furthermore, it's been well-established that Starfleet does have a history of helping civilians when asked for help against foreign aggression without that being considered the same thing as interfering in an internal affair.

And as I think of it further, it occurs to me that the fact that the Son'a and Ba'ku were the same species does not mean that they were the same legal entity. The Son'a established their own sovereign state -- the Son'a Solidarity. (It's right there in the thread's title!) They were now a separate, foreign polity from the Ba'ku -- they were no more the same foreign state than the Romulan Star Empire and Imperial Romulan State are just because they're both composed of biological Romulans. Thus, the Son'a were legally foreign aggressors against Ba'ku. civilians.

Either way, Dougherty was committing a crime, and Picard was well within his rights to prevent him from forcibly re-locating the Ba'ku. Picard was enforcing Federation law, not rebelling against it.

 

[BillJ]

You know I never thought I'd hear myself say this: The books are not canon.

And that would be a problem if we were in a Gen Trek forum.

I like the book you reference but it carries no more weight than fan-fiction in this particular argument.

Dude, this is the Trek Lit forum. Of course something from a novel has more weight than fan fiction here.

Plus, unless the S'ona were being aided by outside forces in the conflict... it would be considered an 'internal affair'. Starfleet was essentially there to make sure it was being done humanely.

No, Starfleet was there because Dougherty wanted to help the Son'a and profit from their crimes against the Ba'ku. Furthermore, it's been well-established that Starfleet does have a history of helping civilians when asked for help against foreign aggression without that being considered the same thing as interfering in an internal affair.

And as I think of it further, it occurs to me that the fact that the Son'a and Ba'ku were the same species does not mean that they were the same legal entity. The Son'a established their own sovereign state -- the Son'a Solidarity. (It's right there in the thread's title!) They were now a separate, foreign polity from the Ba'ku -- they were no more the same foreign state than the Romulan Star Empire and Imperial Romulan State are just because they're both composed of biological Romulans. Thus, the Son'a were legally foreign aggressors against Ba'ku. civilians.

Either way, Dougherty was committing a crime, and Picard was well within his rights to prevent him from forcibly re-locating the Ba'ku. Picard was enforcing Federation law, not rebelling against it.

You can keep saying over and over that he (Dougherty) was committing a crime... but you still haven't proven it. You can go on and on about how the Federation wouldn't/shouldn't do things like relocate a planetary population. But we see Starfleet and the Federation violate their own rules time and again. Or is it that these rules aren't as air tight as everyone seems to think they are?

I say move the Ba'ku. Because once the information about this radiation gets out, everyone and their brother will be gunning for them. Protecting the Ba'ku (600 people) will become a full time job for the Federation/Starfleet.

 

[Sci]

You can keep saying over and over that he (Dougherty) was committing a crime... but you still haven't proven it.

I and others have on numerous times.

It is a FACT that the Prime Directive is a general order preventing Starfleet from interfering in the internal affairs of foreign states.

It is a FACT that there is a provision of the Federation Charter making it unconstitutional for the Federation government to interfere in foreign states' internal affairs.

It is a FACT that Admiral Dougherty used Starfleet resources and order Starfleet officers to forcibly relocate the Ba'ku, a foreign state, from the planet they had inhabited since before the Federation itself was founded (foreign soil).

If it is a fact that it is a violation of the law to interfere in foreign states' internal affairs, and if it is a fact that Dougherty attempted to forcibly relocate an entire foreign state, then it is an irrefutable syllogism that Dougherty committed a crime.

But we see Starfleet and the Federation violate their own rules time and again.

This only proves that there are other criminals in Starfleet and the Federation government besides Dougherty.

I say move the Ba'ku.

Then you are an imperialist who advocates violating the sovereignty of a foreign culture who live on foreign soil and are advocating a violation of basic human rights.

Because once the information about this radiation gets out, everyone and their brother will be gunning for them. Protecting the Ba'ku (600 people) will become a full time job for the Federation/Starfleet.

Not really. INS made it clear that only the Son'a had that technology, and the Ba'ku world was already located deep within Federation space. And it's already surrounded by a nebula that makes it incredibly difficult to reach the Ba'ku world. If anything protecting the Ba'ku if they ask for help should be relatively easy -- surely it would be far easier than, say, protecting Bajor, a world located right next to an interquadrant wormhole and at least two hostile foreign states.

 

[BillJ]

You can keep saying over and over that he (Dougherty) was committing a crime... but you still haven't proven it.

I and others have on numerous times.

It is a FACT that the Prime Directive is a general order preventing Starfleet from interfering in the internal affairs of foreign states.

It is a FACT that there is a provision of the Federation Charter making it unconstitutional for the Federation government to interfere in foreign states' internal affairs.

It is a FACT that Admiral Dougherty used Starfleet resources and order Starfleet officers to forcibly relocate the Ba'ku, a foreign state, from the planet they had inhabited since before the Federation itself was founded (foreign soil).

If it is a fact that it is a violation of the law to interfere in foreign states' internal affairs, and if it is a fact that Dougherty attempted to forcibly relocate an entire foreign state, then it is an irrefutable syllogism that Dougherty committed a crime.

But we see Starfleet and the Federation violate their own rules time and again.

This only proves that there are other criminals in Starfleet and the Federation government besides Dougherty.

I say move the Ba'ku.

Then you are an imperialist who advocates violating the sovereignty of a foreign culture who live on foreign soil and are advocating a violation of basic human rights.

Because once the information about this radiation gets out, everyone and their brother will be gunning for them. Protecting the Ba'ku (600 people) will become a full time job for the Federation/Starfleet.

Not really. INS made it clear that only the Son'a had that technology, and the Ba'ku world was already located deep within Federation space. And it's already surrounded by a nebula that makes it incredibly difficult to reach the Ba'ku world. If anything protecting the Ba'ku if they ask for help should be relatively easy -- surely it would be far easier than, say, protecting Bajor, a world located right next to an interquadrant wormhole and at least two hostile foreign states.

The only FACT about the Prime Directive is how inconsistently it has been used in Star Trek. You have absolutely no idea what sub-clauses are involved that act as "outs". Hell we have no idea how the Prime Directive is worded... everyone is working on assumptions (including me). All we have is bits and pieces here and there.

If Imperialist = realist, then guilty as charged.

If the S'ona can create the technology and penetrate the Briar Patch then it's only a matter of time before other races are able to do it.

With Bajor, at least there's something worth protecting.