You have provided no evidence whatsoever. You have merely repeated the assertion that Dougherty was speaking legally rather than informally, and have repeated the assertion that a planet being in Federation space equals a planet being Federation territory.
I have repeated the affirmation that Dougherty speaks formally and legally and backed it up with CANON evidence,
No, you have attempted to construct a deductive argument, i.e., one which argues that a conclusion must be true based upon certain premises. Providing evidence would require inductive reasoning, based upon objectively-provided facts that are not in dispute. As your premises are in dispute, you have not provided evidence -- you have merely repeated your deductive argument over and over again.
Further, you have yet to explain why Federation law -- which, let us remember, is constrained by the Federation Charter from interfering in the internal affairs of foreign cultures (as established in DS9's "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges"), which means that the Federation has a strong anti-imperialist law built right into its Charter -- would even allow the Federation to claim as its territory a planet already[] inhabited by a foreign culture.
Already answered:
'You think that if some romulans were to start a colony on a planet in federation territory, that planet automatically gains independence because the romulans are not federation members and they're the "only people on it"?
Hardly. That romulan colony gains independence - and the settled planet ceases to be federation territory - only if the federation recognises said independence.'
Not being imperialist does NOT mean anyone can take your territory at will.
Of course. But the fundamental difference between those scenarios is that the Ba'ku settled on their world
before the Federation existed, and before the Federation claimed it. They were pre-existing inhabitants.
That's what 'the law is binding' means, Sci - you either obey the law or you are FORCED to obey it - it's not your choice, no matter what kind of person you are.
Tell that to John Yoo and David Addington and Dick Cheney and George W. Bush.
Is this your ideea of the federation? That law doesn't apply to some admiral backed up by the federation council?
Of course not. But my view of
any state is that law enforcement is never perfect, and that there will always be opportunities for people high within the state's power structure to violate the law without consequence. As a result, I am arguing, Picard knew full well that Dougherty was sufficiently powerful enough to escape punishment for violating the law if all he did was make legal arguments about obeying Federation law that Dougherty had already rejected.
Picard, therefore, decided that his two options were: 1. To attempt to appeal to Dougherty's sense of morality as a Starfleet officer and Federation citizen, or, 2. To disobey Dougherty's illegal orders and enforce Federation law himself. He chose option 1 at first; it failed, and therefore he resorted to option 2.
Even today, senators/presidents/other high profile persons do resign/go to jail/etc due to their criminal actions. When trying to convince/scare/bring down such a person,
the law is your strongest argument, your best option (that's because
the law is binding for everyone, Sci).
Morals? Rhetoric?
Not so much.
Congratulations, you've proven that you would have approached the issue differently than Picard, and would have been summarily ignored by a criminal admiral who was using legal mumbo-jumbo to evade the law.
And yet, when Enterprise was trying to leave the Briar Patch, it did not do so in order to apply to the judiciary system - but to start a public opinion poll that could go either way, etc.
It would be more accurate to say that the
Enterprise's goal was to bring Dougherty's criminal activity to public attention. It was the Son'a who prattled on about opinion polls, not the
Enterprise crew.
Your question proceeds from a false premise: That the United States is no longer the Native Americans'.
Native Americans are by definition American citizens. It is as much their country as it is anyone else's. You can't "give back" something that's already theirs.
Rhetorical non-sense.
You are the person who just sat there whittering on about how the law applies to everyone and can never be ignored. Well, the law says that Native Americans are U.S. citizens, too, and have legal equality with any European American. That means the U.S. is as much theirs as anyone else's.
If the indians were given a choice between keeping their american citizenship (and their present status/material condition - see reservations) and renouncing this citizenship (while gaining back all the territory that was stolen from their ancestors), they'll choose option nr. 2 in a second.
Oh? Show me an opinion poll and I'll buy that.
I completely agree with you that there's a lot of discrimination against Native Americans, personal and institutional, that needs to be abolished. But that's an entirely separate issue from whether or not most Native Americans would favor continuing U.S. citizenship and U.S. sovereignty or would favor cultural genocide against their fellow Americans.
Further, as I've said before, generations of innocent people descended from those conquerers have since been born in the U.S. They did not inherit the guilt of their ancestors, and they have as valid a historical claim to this country as the Native Americans. This is why I advocate sharing the United States today while refraining from engaging in future acts of imperialism.
Sci, if you own a good stolen from somebody else, you are obliged by law to give it back, even if it was stolen by your grandfather and you just inherited it.
This proceeds from the premise that a culture's country (that is, territory) is comparable to a piece of stolen property. I for one reject that premise wholeheartedly; I argue that a culture gains the right to live in a given country after several generations have lived in that country.
From this premise, I conclude that today, both European Americans and Native Americans have a right to live in the United States and that both have an obligation to share and treat each other as equals.
tell me: Would I get to stay, or not?
That's a simple matter of applying succesoral law, Sci.
Yeah, but just look at me -- I'm right stupid, I am!
So humor me. Tell me, in your vision of a perfect way to avoid hypocrisy wherein I must advocate the dissolution of the United States and forced relocation of all European, Asian, and African Americans to their ancestors' homelands -- in this idea you have of how to avoid being a hypocrite, would I stay or would I have to go?
(Also, what's with the constant repetition of my name? I mean, seriously, dude, everyone knows who you're talking to. I'm not pissed about it, I'm just genuinely curious.)
So, if you're going to lecture me about how I have to advocate abolishing the United States and giving all of its territory back to a certain sub-set of its own citizens -- which, by the way, would be a huge act of imperialism and cultural genocide against non-Native Americans
Sci, as I already told you, I do not advocate you giving your country back to native americans.
I did not say you did. I said that you claimed that I must advocate giving Central North America to Native Americans and abolishing the United States in order to avoid being a hypocrite about imperialism. Which is exactly what you said. Whether or not you actually advocate such a course of action is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not you say I must advocate such a course of action in order to avoid hypocrisy.
What's my position regarding the situation in 'Insurrection'?
'You - and other posters supporting the same side - keep trying to make it sound as if there are only two choices - either the ba'ku's will suffer, or BILLIONS will suffer.
I choose neither option.
Why?
Because there's a third choice - the ba'ku continue living as they have and BILLIONS profit from the rejuvenation treatement.
Everybody wins.'
That's based on the premise that the attempt to harness the effects of those rings is successful. There is no such guarantee.
And it's also based on the premise that it's okay to violate the right of a foreign culture to self-determination -- to violate a foreign culture's sovereignty -- if you believe there will be benefits to such a policy. Your argument is not unlike those of the imperialists of the past.
"If we don't go to Africa and just let them live in squalor and misery, then that will be horrible. But if we go in, take over their land, and teach them how to be civilized, we'll get the benefits of their resources and they'll get the benefits of our civilization! Everybody wins!"
Maybe we should ask the natives what they want, instead.
Tell me, please. Can I stay in Central North America without being a hypocrite and/or an imperialist by your standards, given my Cherokee heritage? Or must I leave the only country I've ever known to retain, by your standards, a consistent anti-imperialist stance?
How can you not be hypocrite while condemning imperialism?
That's not what I asked.
Tell me: By your standards, can I, 1/8th a Cherokee and 7/8ths a European, stay in Central North America without being a hypocrite about imperialism?
How about by realising that the insults regarding imperialism you throw at your interlocutor are more fittingly addressed to you and showing some appropriate restraint and shame due to this.
Because that's completely full of shit.
You're the one saying it's okay to invade another culture's territory of many centuries, violate their sovereignty, and forcibly re-locate them. That makes you an imperialist. Period. I'm the one saying that's not okay. That makes me anti-imperialist. Period.
