The entire plan to evacuate the Ba'ku bordered on retarded. It really hurt the entertainment value of the movie.
One thing missing from 'A Time To...'
- Thread starter Destructor
- Start date
The entire plan to evacuate the Ba'ku bordered on retarded. It really hurt the entertainment value of the movie.
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
Not telling the ba'ku they were being expropriated was done to prevent unrest. Not an inspired move, to be sure.
Of course, the ba'ku found out they were being expropriated.
None of which changing in the least the federation's right to eminent domain.
Thye ba'ku were already letting metaphasic radiation mess with their genes on a daily basis.
The hypospray would only do what the planet's rings were doing - and this is fully accepted by the ba'ku.
Their 'belief' is fully compatible with this level of genetic manipulation, of 'technology'.
About the 24th century Prime Directive - it's a nonsensical mess:
It's based on baseless pseudo-sociological ideas - ex: contact will always/almost always have negative consequences for the contacted culture (such as the culture will commit mass-suicide);
At times, it's suicidal (non-interference into the klingon civil war); other times, it's criminal (Homeward); etc.
Just give them syringes. Or create an oral version of the compound.
Eminent domain applies to citizens of the government doing the seizing. The Ba'ku were not Federation citizens, and therefore are not subject to Federation laws, including eminent domain.
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
Really, sfroth?
sfroth, as long as it's american territory (for the USA - expropriation is, of course, codified so everywhere), it doesn't matter if the proprietor is an american or a foreign citizen.
The american government has the legal (and moral) right to expropriate this american or foreign citizen of his territory, if public interest requires this territory and after a just (read - equal in value) compensation.
Did you actually think that states favor foreign citizens over their own? That if it's a foreign citizen owning the teritory needed for a highway (for example), the state can't expropriate him and the whole billion dollars, economy developing, etc project is abandoned?
PS - Generally speaking, as long as someone lives on the territory of a state, the public law of that state applies to him.
Last edited:
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
It's federation territory aka the planet is part of the federation, subject to federation laws.
Of course that does NOT mean the state owns it, much like a state does not own land belonging to a private person.
But that does mean that the federation can expropriate said planet much like a state can expropriate land needed for public objectives.
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
What part of my logic are you referring to, JB2005? Do specify.
Vatican is a separate state, it's not territory making up Italy.
The ba'ku planet is territory making up the federation. A completely different legal status.
I don't remember, when was it ever said in the movie whether the Ba'ku planet was located in Federation space?
Vatican is territory within the borders of Italy.
Ba'ku is territory within the borders of the Federation.
Though there wasn't a shot heard around the world, it seems to me that there was a declaration of independence by the Baku when they settled the colony...
Also Federation territorialism seems to me that their expansion is dependent on the voluntary submission of a sovereign nation to the federation. Short of that, they can't claim jurisdiction over another sovereign nation.
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
Admiral Dougherty said it in the movie.
Watch the movie if you have any doubts.
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
So, if a random collection of land owners declare independence of the state they inhabit, they are automatically a new state?
The ba'ku so-called state is recognised by absolutely no one, it has as much legitimacy as your collection of secessionist movements in the USA.
The ba'ku planet is, legally, a federation planet, subject to federation laws - a state claimed by the federation and recognised by the major (read - relevant) powers in the region.
Vatican's independence as a state is recognised by Italy and all other states. As I already said - a completely different situation.
So, if a random collectionn of land owners declare independence of the state they inhabit, they are automatically a new state?
Why not? You can't apply 21st Century Logic to this. Yes it would be absurd to assume that I could declare my house and the field next door it's own country...but we're dealing with planets here. There would seem to be precedents for this (Cestus III springs to mind), within Federation Law.
they had declared independence from their own nation (whoever they had escaped to build their new colony).
There are planets within the borders of the Federation which are pre-warp. Surely you wouldn't apply the laws of the federation to them?
I just realised, there's one very good reason why none of this makes a difference, and why the Federation can't do it:
http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Eminiar_Amendment
It's in the constitution.
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
JB2005
"we're dealing with planets here"
Yes - planets wars are fought over, situated in clearly delimitated space belonging to the federation, klingons, romulans, etc.
Legally - and practically (read - due to warp drive which makes interstellar travel cheap) planets are assimilated to 'land'.
"they had declared independence from their own nation"
And? - they haven't settled territory belonging to their own nation.
They settled territory belonging to the federation. Meaning:
"So, if a random collection of land owners declare independence of the state they inhabit, they are automatically a new state?"
"The ba'ku so-called state is recognised by absolutely no one, it has as much legitimacy as your random collection of secesionist movements in the USA." And:
"There are planets within the borders of the Federation which are pre-warp. Surely you wouldn't apply the laws of the federation to them?"
Of course I would apply federation laws to them. Federation laws are, in fact, applied to them - namely the Prime Directive.
"Why not? You can't apply 21st Century Logic to this."
Now you practically admit that your position makes no sense/is unsupportable, but you don't seem to care.
"You can't apply present logic" is the universal excuse when one runs out of arguments.
This and "klingons are violent and have atrocious table manneers, romulans are sneaky and cardassians brutal because they're genetically programmed to be so".
"we're dealing with planets here"
Yes - planets wars are fought over, situated in clearly delimitated space belonging to the federation, klingons, romulans, etc.
Legally - and practically (read - due to warp drive which makes interstellar travel cheap) planets are assimilated to 'land'.
"they had declared independence from their own nation"
And? - they haven't settled territory belonging to their own nation.
They settled territory belonging to the federation. Meaning:
"So, if a random collection of land owners declare independence of the state they inhabit, they are automatically a new state?
""The ba'ku so-called state is recognised by absolutely no one, it has as much legitimacy as your random collection of secesionist movements in the USA." And:
"There are planets within the borders of the Federation which are pre-warp. Surely you wouldn't apply the laws of the federation to them?"
Of course I would apply federation laws to them. Federation laws are, in fact, applied to them - namely the Prime Directive.
"Why not? You can't apply 21st Century Logic to this."
Now you practically admit that your position makes no sense/is unsupportable, but you don't seem to care.
"You can't apply present logic" is the universal excuse when one runs out of arguments.
This and "klingons are violent and have atrocious table manneers, romulans are sneaky and cardassians brutal because they're genetically programmed to be so".
But space is equated to ocean. So you're not talking about land in the same way as the continental united states, you're talking about a series of islands...
"they had declared independence from their own nation"
And? - they haven't settled territory belonging to their own nation.
They settled territory belonging to the federation. Meaning:
"So, if a random collection of land owners declare independence of the state they inhabit, they are automatically a new state?
"The ba'ku so-called state is recognised by absolutely no one, it has as much legitimacy as your random collection of secesionist movements in the USA." And:
except the baku didn't move in last week, they've been there since before the federation came into being:
http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Ba'ku
so they have the prior claim.
Fine, i'll concede that
I say that because if you apply 21st Century Logic to this, no one has a claim to the planet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty
that's our law about planets
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
About the eminiar amendament:
First - it's NOT canon - and we're discussing 'Insurrection' aka canon;
Second - it does nothing to prevent expropriation;
Third - it only applies to inhabited planets.
How do I know it doesn't apply to uninhabited planets (as the ba'ku planet would be after the inhabitants leave)? Because Picard didn't even think of mentioning this amendament during 'Insurrection' and he would most definitely have mentioned it were it relevant in the least.
First - it's NOT canon - and we're discussing 'Insurrection' aka canon;
Second - it does nothing to prevent expropriation;
Third - it only applies to inhabited planets.
How do I know it doesn't apply to uninhabited planets (as the ba'ku planet would be after the inhabitants leave)? Because Picard didn't even think of mentioning this amendament during 'Insurrection' and he would most definitely have mentioned it were it relevant in the least.
No, it isn't. To be a Federation planet, it would have to have applied for membership, been vetted in detail by the Federation Council, and been approved by a majority of the member worlds. The Bak'u colonists had not done so. Their world had been independently settled, meaning it is a sovereign territory — one to which the Federation has no legal claim.
There are numerous worlds that fall within the "territory" nominally controlled by the Federation that nonetheless retain their autonomy: Nausicaa, Orion, Capella, Organia, and Ventax, to name a few. By your reasoning, each would be subject to seizure by the Federation under eminent domain, but that's clearly not the case. In the Original Series, we saw many independent colonies reject Starfleet interference or inclusion in the Federation.
In many episodes of Star Trek, the Federation has been shown to be respectful of sovereignty of populated worlds, whether their populations are indigenous or colonists. What Admiral Dougherty tried to do in Insurrection was akin to a U.S. military commander trying to seize the Caribbean island of Grenada simply because it was found to be a source of rejuvenating fruits. You can argue all you want about "the greater good," but the action taken remains illegal.
In order to exercise eminent domain, the real estate to be claimed must demonstrably be under the direct authority of the state. Mere proximity is insufficient legal basis. Its exercise also typically requires the service of legal process to the property owner and the right to contest the action in a legal forum. There is no evidence that any of these steps were even attempted or considered in Insurrection — again, making the entire undertaking illegal.
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
JB2005
"But space is equated to ocean. So you're not talking about land in the same way as the continental united states, you're talking about a series of islands..."
Islands which compose a state - no legal difference from an insular state and a continental state whatsoever.
"I say that because if you apply 21st Century Logic to this, no one has a claim to the planet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty
that's our law about planets"
We do not have warp drive and other essential tech.
For star trek polititcal entities, planets are what for us is land (or islands, if you prefer).
"except the baku didn't move in last week, they've been there since before the federation came into being:
http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Ba'ku
so they have the prior claim."
First - the article you quoted establishes no 'prior claim' on the part of the ba'ku.
Second - the ba'ku planet IS federation territory, as per the federation law, a fact established in 'Insurrection'. That's CANON, JB2005.
The ba'ku either have no 'prior claim' or, if they have, this changes nothing to the planet's status as federation territory, subject to federation law.
"But space is equated to ocean. So you're not talking about land in the same way as the continental united states, you're talking about a series of islands..."
Islands which compose a state - no legal difference from an insular state and a continental state whatsoever.
"I say that because if you apply 21st Century Logic to this, no one has a claim to the planet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty
that's our law about planets"
We do not have warp drive and other essential tech.
For star trek polititcal entities, planets are what for us is land (or islands, if you prefer).
"except the baku didn't move in last week, they've been there since before the federation came into being:
http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Ba'ku
so they have the prior claim."
First - the article you quoted establishes no 'prior claim' on the part of the ba'ku.
Second - the ba'ku planet IS federation territory, as per the federation law, a fact established in 'Insurrection'. That's CANON, JB2005.
The ba'ku either have no 'prior claim' or, if they have, this changes nothing to the planet's status as federation territory, subject to federation law.
