I don't "get" the Maquis at all. Please explain them for me.

[Nightdiamond]

Neozeks: we're left trying to connect disjointed pieces of information from different episodes written by different writers at different times (all without a master plan).

Anwar: Neozeks has it, no two writers could really agree on what the DMZ was. Some would write of it having two sides, one on the Fed side and another on the Cardassian side. Others wrote as if the DMZ was just one big area of space that was neither Fed nor Cardie but contained the peoples of both. Like the Neutral Zone.

I agree- I see this with some other things in Trek episodes.

Federations citizens abandoned by the Federation at one point, or outlaws who gave up their Fed citizenship at another.

And then that strange "in between" state where they are outlaws yet Federation citizens.


By the way, how did the Defiant get away with being the Demilitarized zone, let alone launching those weapons in the first place?

 

[ProtoAvatar]

The maquis were often referred to as being federation citizens.
And they were never referred to as NOT being federation citizens (if there are examples to the contrary, now would be the time to post them).

Yes - the federation treated its DMZ colonists as disposable assets with no rights, but it claimed they have obligations only federation citizens are bound to.

As for the DMZ - you can draw a line in the middle and claim half is cardassian and half federation. If none of the two powers can station troops in the DMZ, the territory is not really cardassian nor federation. It can be safely referred to as being a no-mans-land, neutral territory, etc - which is why it was referred to in this manner.

 

[Cepstrum]

The maquis were often referred to as being federation citizens.
And they were never referred to as NOT being federation citizens (if there are examples to the contrary, now would be the time to post them).

Yes - the federation treated its DMZ colonists as disposable assets with no rights, but it claimed they have obligations only federation citizens are bound to.

As for the DMZ - you can draw a line in the middle and claim half is cardassian and half federation. If none of the two powers can station troops in the DMZ, the territory is not really cardassian nor federation. It can be safely referred to as being a no-mans-land, neutral territory, etc - which is why it was referred to in this manner.

I thought the people living on Dorvan had to give up their citizenship (maybe I'm remembering wrong).

So do you agree that it was wrong for Starfleet to side with the CU and harass the Maquis whereas neither Starfleet nor the CU seemed to take much significant action against Cardassian offenders, such as The True Way? I'm still puzzled over whether the Maquis formed to essentially do Starfleet's job and preserve their own safety in the DMZ OR whether the Maquis were a paramilitary aggressors who tried to drive out all Cardassians illegally.

 

[Cepstrum]

Like I said, they didn't even have to bother. They could easily have either used Romulans, or just made the other crew random space pirates.

Anwar: what about the idea of having at least half of Voyager's "crew" made up of civilians who happened to be along for a tour? That way they would have problems integrating untrained people trying to help yet avoid the bitter conflicts that apparently UPN didn't want.

 

[neozeks]

I thought the people living on Dorvan had to give up their citizenship (maybe I'm remembering wrong).

They did. But we don't know if that was the case with the other colonies as well.

I'm still puzzled over whether the Maquis formed to essentially do Starfleet's job and preserve their own safety in the DMZ OR whether the Maquis were a paramilitary aggressors who tried to drive out all Cardassians illegally.

Originally, yes, I think they just organized for the purpose of self-defence. But over time they escalated their fight and started crossing into questionable territory (blowing up freighters, abductions, biological weapons).

 

[Anwar]

At first they just were defending themselves from Cardassians illegally armed by Central Command. Starfleet didn't protect them because they didn't know what the hell was happening because their liaison to the DMZ worlds had joined the Maquis (in fact, he may have helped form them to begin with). Once the fighting left the DMZ and entered Bajoran space, Starfleet found out what was going on and interceded. They found out about the illegal weapons shipments and put an end to them.

But then the Maquis continued their fighting, and escalated it to the point far past self-defense. At this point they were attacking Feds and Cardies outside the DMZ and had to be treated as criminals.

 

[Anwar]

Like I said, they didn't even have to bother. They could easily have either used Romulans, or just made the other crew random space pirates.

Anwar: what about the idea of having at least half of Voyager's "crew" made up of civilians who happened to be along for a tour? That way they would have problems integrating untrained people trying to help yet avoid the bitter conflicts that apparently UPN didn't want.

Seeing how useless and unsympathetic the civilians on the Destiny are in "Stargate Universe", I'd stick with Romulans. At least those are trained soldiers who knew what they'd be doing.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

The maquis were often referred to as being federation citizens.
And they were never referred to as NOT being federation citizens (if there are examples to the contrary, now would be the time to post them).

Yes - the federation treated its DMZ colonists as disposable assets with no rights, but it claimed they have obligations only federation citizens are bound to.

As for the DMZ - you can draw a line in the middle and claim half is cardassian and half federation. If none of the two powers can station troops in the DMZ, the territory is not really cardassian nor federation. It can be safely referred to as being a no-mans-land, neutral territory, etc - which is why it was referred to in this manner.

I thought the people living on Dorvan had to give up their citizenship (maybe I'm remembering wrong).

There is compelling evidence that Dorvan V lies beyond the DMZ, in cardassian territory proper:
The cardassians were bringing military assets on that planet (which would have been a clear violation of the treaty, were it in the dmz) and Picard&co, far from claiming treaty violation, never even pretended it was not within the cardassians' rights to do so.
The cardassians seemed to have the legal right to forcibly evacuate the federation settlers - which they would not have had, were the planet in the DMZ.

So do you agree that it was wrong for Starfleet to side with the CU and harass the Maquis whereas neither Starfleet nor the CU seemed to take much significant action against Cardassian offenders, such as The True Way? I'm still puzzled over whether the Maquis formed to essentially do Starfleet's job and preserve their own safety in the DMZ OR whether the Maquis were a paramilitary aggressors who tried to drive out all Cardassians illegally.

The morality of the maquis' actions is debatable - there are good arguments supporting both sides - terrorists or freedom fighters.
Usually, in such situations, history - the winner - decides what version will make it into the history books.

PS - However, as I already mentioned, the federation's behaviour towards the DMZ settlers is inexcusable:
"The federation betrayed the colonists' fundamental right of property when it ceded their colonies/lands to the cardassians, in an attempt to appease the cardassians.

The federation further betrayed the colonists - still federation citizens - when it hunted them down like animals - killing them without trial, poisoning their colonies with biological weapons - with no repercursions for the perpetrators of these crimes (starfleet officers).

But the greatest betrayal the federation perpetrated against the colonists was when it didn't lift a finger to save them while they were massascred - ALL of them: WOMEN, CHILDREN, ELDERLY (non-combatants) - by the cardassians/dominion.

Apparently, the colonists are federation citizens only when it's convenient for the federation (being bound by federation treaties and the maquis branded as terrorists), NOT when the federation has obligations to fulfill toward the colonists - such as protecting them against genocide.

And why this second-class citizens treatment?
Because the colonists dared say no to big brother - from that moment on, the colonists were just expendable cannon fodder for the federation, without rights, only with obligations, to be disposed of at its convenience. "

 

[DonIago]

I really don't know where people came up with the idea that having property is a right versus a privilege...I may have missed that part of the US Constitution...

If I do have a right to land, I'd really like to sell mine or rent it out for a bit to help with my credit card bills, thanks.

I mean ideally, sure. But if the Maquis colonies were founded by the Federation, there's a compelling argument that the land/property was being "rented" even if the Feds never collected.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Really, DonIago? The right to property is 'rented' and can be retreated anytime the government wishes in a free country?
There are other opinions.

What about the rights to life, fair trial, self-determination? Are these rented, too, and amenable to being retreated at any time, in your opinion?

 

[Nightdiamond]

Don...I understand what you are saying, but if some people read that, you are going to be called a communist or socialist up to the hilt, lol...

Ok, this is what I get so far from studying the issue from the episodes;


From what I see, the colonies were originally Federation and sitting right on the border.

And hotly disputed by the Cardassians because of the border conflict.

When the Federation turned some of them over to Cardassia, the colonists that chose stay had to give up their Fed citizenship, which is why Starfleet wouldn't render any aid to them anymore.

That's when the scripting gets choppy- They're still called Fed citizens even after this happened.


Here's one thing that sucked- What about the Cardassians that stayed on the Federation side?

The Fed protected them-they may have come out smelling like roses and even kept their Cardassian citizenship besides.

 

[T'Girl]

NECHEYEV: You'll notice a demilitarized zone has also been created along the border.

Necheyev would seem to be saying that the border and the demilitarized zone are two separate thing, the dmz is adjacent to the border, not the border itself.

PICARD: This border places several Federation colonies in Cardassian territory and some Cardassian colonies in ours.

The separation between the Federation territory and the Cardassian territory was "This border," not the dmz.

NECHEYEV: Those colonies finding themselves on the wrong side of the border will have to be moved.

It made no difference it the colonies were in the dmz or beyond it, only if they were on the Cardassian side of the border.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

Your great grandfather built a house with his bare hands. Your grandfather grew up and raised a family in that house. Your father grew up in that house, and then so did you. Every precious childhood memory of more than three generations of your family takes place in that house. Every time something needed fixing in that house, it was a grand effort by the entire family, bringing you all closer together as you work productively to make that house the very best house it could possibly be.

One day, the government comes in and says that, to end the war in Iraq (insert analogous faraway conflict if you're not American), they've given your house and property to the Iraqi terrorists, but it's totally okay because you're going to get a house that's just as good a couple cities away.

It's unfair, but hey, greater good, right? All you have to do is give up the home your great grandfather built himself, the place where every childhood memory of note happened, et cetera et cetera.

I don't know you well enough to say how you would respond, but *I'd* be pissed as everloving hell.

All true, but in the end, it's just things, stuff, objects. Sometimes, you have to make sacrifices for the greater good. They could have bitten the proverbial bullet and made great lives somewhere else.... a small price to pay for peace.

Losing your "stuff", i.e. physical possessions such as your house, is hard, but it's not the end of the world. It's not like they were being forced to give up a perfectly good home and live in barracks instead, refugee camps. If that had been the case, I'd have much more sympathy for the Maquis. As it is, they're acting like spoiled children.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Your great grandfather built a house with his bare hands. Your grandfather grew up and raised a family in that house. Your father grew up in that house, and then so did you. Every precious childhood memory of more than three generations of your family takes place in that house. Every time something needed fixing in that house, it was a grand effort by the entire family, bringing you all closer together as you work productively to make that house the very best house it could possibly be.

One day, the government comes in and says that, to end the war in Iraq (insert analogous faraway conflict if you're not American), they've given your house and property to the Iraqi terrorists, but it's totally okay because you're going to get a house that's just as good a couple cities away.

It's unfair, but hey, greater good, right? All you have to do is give up the home your great grandfather built himself, the place where every childhood memory of note happened, et cetera et cetera.

I don't know you well enough to say how you would respond, but *I'd* be pissed as everloving hell.

All true, but in the end, it's just things, stuff, objects. Sometimes, you have to make sacrifices for the greater good.

This is the excuse every dictator used throughout history to justify his abuses "the greater good".

This one and the "it's your fault that I killed you; you made me kill you because [insert rhetoric here]" one.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

When the Federation turned some of them over to Cardassia, the colonists that chose stay had to give up their Fed citizenship, which is why Starfleet wouldn't render any aid to them anymore.

There is no mention whatsoever that federation settlerrs from the DMZ had to give up their citizenship.

ONLY the citizens on Dorvan V had to give up their citizenship, and there were large differences betweeen their situation and the DMZ settlers' situation on a number of issues I previously mentioned:
"There is compelling evidence that Dorvan V lies beyond the DMZ, in cardassian territory proper:
The cardassians were bringing military assets on that planet (which would have been a clear violation of the treaty, were it in the dmz) and Picard&co, far from claiming treaty violation, never even pretended it was not within the cardassians' rights to do so.
The cardassians seemed to have the legal right to forcibly evacuate the federation settlers - which they would not have had, were the planet in the DMZ."

Here's one thing that sucked- What about the Cardassians that stayed on the Federation side?

The Fed protected them-they may have come out smelling like roses and even kept their Cardassian citizenship besides.

Considering how starfleet treated its DMZ settlers (poisoning their colonies, summary executions) it's clear that the federation sided with the cardassian colonists.

PS - As for the federation colonists - In 'Blaze of glory', it was made pretty clear that the cardassians/dominion went through the entire DMZ with their extermination - they cared little about 'cardassian and federation' sides.

The federation abandoned all the DMZ settlers equally.

 

[DonIago]

Really, DonIago? The right to property is 'rented' and can be retreated anytime the government wishes in a free country?
There are other opinions.

What about the rights to life, fair trial, self-determination? Are these rented, too, and amenable to being retreated at any time, in your opinion?

I'm not talking about opinions and theory and ethics, I'm talking about legalities and fact.

The fact is, unless there's a legal document establishing an individual's right to property, in a legal sense they don't have such a right.

Right to life is established implicitly by the fact that taking another's life almost always is considered a crime. Right to trial is established within legal documents. Legal documents, as we're well-aware, can be changed.

In any case, it's dangerous to assume that the legalities we operate under currently will necessarily apply by the 24th century.

 

[neozeks]

The cardassians were bringing military assets on that planet (which would have been a clear violation of the treaty, were it in the dmz) and Picard&co, far from claiming treaty violation, never even pretended it was not within the cardassians' rights to do so.
The cardassians seemed to have the legal right to forcibly evacuate the federation settlers - which they would not have had, were the planet in the DMZ.

I don't think that's proof. Every treaty needs time to enter into force. I'm sure the DMZ establishing one allowed for a transitory stage for monitoring and enforcing the evacuations before the full withdrawal of all military forces (Gul Evek was there just to 'survey' the planet, presumably before the civilians arrive, there was no mention of establishing permanent military presence).

PS - As for the federation colonists - In 'Blaze of glory', it was made pretty clear that the cardassians/dominion went through the entire DMZ with their extermination - they cared little about 'cardassian and federation' sides.

We've already had this discussion... We don't know those things, those are just your interpretations. Other interpretations are possible. In 'By Inferno's Light' Dukat specifically says there won't be a single 'Maquis colonies within our borders', not within the DMZ. Also, all 'Blaze Of Glory' establishes is that the Maquis (as an organized group) were wiped out. Yeah, it's very very likely the Dominion wasn't particularly discriminate with civilian colonists, but we don't know even that for sure.

As for property, yeah, it's a right. But it's not absolute.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

Your great grandfather built a house with his bare hands. Your grandfather grew up and raised a family in that house. Your father grew up in that house, and then so did you. Every precious childhood memory of more than three generations of your family takes place in that house. Every time something needed fixing in that house, it was a grand effort by the entire family, bringing you all closer together as you work productively to make that house the very best house it could possibly be.

One day, the government comes in and says that, to end the war in Iraq (insert analogous faraway conflict if you're not American), they've given your house and property to the Iraqi terrorists, but it's totally okay because you're going to get a house that's just as good a couple cities away.

It's unfair, but hey, greater good, right? All you have to do is give up the home your great grandfather built himself, the place where every childhood memory of note happened, et cetera et cetera.

I don't know you well enough to say how you would respond, but *I'd* be pissed as everloving hell.

All true, but in the end, it's just things, stuff, objects. Sometimes, you have to make sacrifices for the greater good.

This is the excuse every dictator used throughout history to justify his abuses "the greater good".

This one and the "it's your fault that I killed you; you made me kill you because [insert rhetoric here]" one.

Not at all. The comparison is highly inappropriate and doesn't reflect one bit what I was trying to say. Sorry I didn't manage to make my point.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Really, DonIago? The right to property is 'rented' and can be retreated anytime the government wishes in a free country?
There are other opinions.

What about the rights to life, fair trial, self-determination? Are these rented, too, and amenable to being retreated at any time, in your opinion?

I'm not talking about opinions and theory and ethics, I'm talking about legalities and fact.

The fact is, unless there's a legal document establishing an individual's right to property, in a legal sense they don't have such a right.

Right to life is established implicitly by the fact that taking another's life almost always is considered a crime. Right to trial is established within legal documents. Legal documents, as we're well-aware, can be changed.

In any case, it's dangerous to assume that the legalities we operate under currently will necessarily apply by the 24th century.

DonIago, if the right to property, to life, to self-determination is not legiferated within the federation, then the federation is a dictatorship as opressive as any our history saw. It's as simple as that.

The federation (Sisko&co) certainly behaved as if federation citizens (DMZ settlers) don't have the right to self-determination, to life, to innocent until proven guilty, to fair trial, etc.

The cardassians were bringing military assets on that planet (which would have been a clear violation of the treaty, were it in the dmz) and Picard&co, far from claiming treaty violation, never even pretended it was not within the cardassians' rights to do so.
The cardassians seemed to have the legal right to forcibly evacuate the federation settlers - which they would not have had, were the planet in the DMZ.

I don't think that's proof. Every treaty needs time to enter into force. I'm sure the DMZ establishing one allowed for a transitory stage for monitoring and enforcing the evacuations before the full withdrawal of all military forces (Gul Evek was there just to 'survey' the planet, presumably before the civilians arrive, there was no mention of establishing permanent military presence).

You may not like it, but it most definitely IS substantial proof.
The whole DMZ was about not stationing military assets in it - the cardassians break this essential provision without bothering to even inform the federation (clearly established in the episode) and the federation doesn't scream 'treaty violation'? NOT A CHANCE;
Nowhere in the DMZ had the cardassians the right to relocate the federation settlers (as every episode that deals with DMZ proves - starting with DS9's 'The maquis', etc, etc);
Eddington specifically says in 'Blaze of glory' that the maquis (and the DMZ settlers) still have federation citizenship.

PS - As for the federation colonists - In 'Blaze of glory', it was made pretty clear that the cardassians/dominion went through the entire DMZ with their extermination - they cared little about 'cardassian and federation' sides.

We've already had this discussion... We don't know those things, those are just your interpretations. Other interpretations are possible. In 'By Inferno's Light' Dukat specifically says there won't be a single 'Maquis colonies within our borders', not within the DMZ. Also, all 'Blaze Of Glory' establishes is that the Maquis (as an organized group) were wiped out. Yeah, it's very very likely the Dominion wasn't particularly discriminate with civilian colonists, but we don't know even that for sure.

As for property, yeah, it's a right. But it's not absolute.

Yes, Dukat says 'within our borders', but the episode - through Sisko, Martok, Eddington - makes it repeatedly clear that ALL colonies sympathetic to the maquis (which means non-combatants - women, children, etc, all federation citizens) were exterminated, regardless of where they were - federation or cardassian side of the DMZ.

And what about the right to life, or fair trial - is that also 'not absolute'? If so, in which conditions?

 

[ProtoAvatar]

All true, but in the end, it's just things, stuff, objects. Sometimes, you have to make sacrifices for the greater good.

This is the excuse every dictator used throughout history to justify his abuses "the greater good".

This one and the "it's your fault that I killed you; you made me kill you because [insert rhetoric here]" one.

Not at all. The comparison is highly inappropriate and doesn't reflect one bit what I was trying to say. Sorry I didn't manage to make my point.

Under which respect is the comparison 'highly inappropriate'?

No dictator has any problem with what his subjects do, as long as they follow his will without question;
As soon as any subject dares contradicts him/his policies, this subject suddenly sees himself with no rights - all in the name of the 'greater good', of course.

I'm sure the federation would have had no problem letting the DMZ settlers have the appearance of rights if they slavishly obeyed big brother's command.
As soon as the settlers disobeyed big brother, though - that was it for their rights - in the name of the 'greater good', of course.

CommanderRaytas, truly having a right (to life, property, etc), and NOT the illusion/appearance of a right means you still have your right if you disobey some governants.