Learning to love "Insurrection"

[Hartzilla2007]

I anxiously await the Picard defenders to weigh in on Progress.

I see that as a internal position of Bajor, and not as analogous to the B'aku situation. The UFP didn't have that much diplomatic say in the matter if I recall.

I also agree the episode was underrated, prob because it was a very dialogue dense episode.

RAMA

It's exactly the same, just replace Bajor with the UFP. The UFP were the ones that wanted the evict them for "The greater good."

No really one is the Bajoran government evicting a Bajoran citizen from a place that is under their jurisdiction.

The other is the Federation removing non federation citizens from a soverign non federation world.

One is an internal matter the other is imperialistic conquest.

 

[T'Girl]

not as analogous to the B'aku situation

Well the analogy is the Bajorians as the Federation, the Bajorian moon as the Federation planet, the three old farmers as the six hundred Baku.

And the moon's energy (heating hundreds of thousands of peoples homes), being the particle rings (medical benefits to hundreds of billions of people).

There's even a analogy of the Federation as the Sona, providing the technology to make it all happen. The old farmers were unwilling to leave the farms they had established, even though that departure would better the lives of thousand. Both the farmers and the Baku were incredible selfish.

Kira set fire to the old man's cottage and beamed him against his will up to the runabout. Maybe at the end of the movie, Picard should have set fire to the Baku village and beamed all the Baku against their will to the Enterprise.

It wasn't that Kira had no sympathy for the old man, or saw no soundness his position, but in the end she did what was right. She felt no joy in doing what was right, but she did it. She (unlike Picard) saw the benefits that would be provided to her people.

She also understood that after the (forced) relocation, that life for the old man would continue, just differently

No really one is the Bajoran government evicting a Bajoran citizen from a place that is under their jurisdiction.

The other is the Federation removing non federation citizens from a soverign non federation world.

No, the other is the Federation, removing non-Federation people, from a Federation world, under Federation jurisdiction.

And were all the Baku "non-Federation citizens?" It's unclear exactly when the region ceased being Klingon and became Federation, however, the young boy would appear to be what, ten years old? Having been born on a Federation planet (Federation planet according to Picard), that would make him a "Federation citizen" would it not? While the Baku Elders might be non-citizens, how many on the surface could make the same claim? Being born on a Federation world and all.

There's also this, Alaska ceased to be Russia territory and became a American territory in 1867, and later a American state in 1959. All the native americans in Alaska became American citizens, simply because they were present in the area at the time.

Are you sure that all the Baku aren't Federation citizens?

 

[Hartzilla2007]

No really one is the Bajoran government evicting a Bajoran citizen from a place that is under their jurisdiction.

The other is the Federation removing non federation citizens from a soverign non federation world.

No, the other is the Federation, removing non-Federation people, from a Federation world, under Federation jurisdiction.

And were all the Baku "non-Federation citizens?"

There are two way a planet becomes a federation planet

1) An uninhabited planet is colonized by federation citizens

2) A planet petitions to join and if they meet all the qualifications they get in

neither of those goes with the idea that all the feds have to do to get a planet is move the border.

 

[T'Girl]

the region ceased being Klingon and became Federation

a Federation planet ... according to Picard

There are two way a planet becomes a federation planet

1) An uninhabited planet is colonized by federation citizens

2) A planet petitions to join and if they meet all the qualifications they get in

neither of those goes with the idea that all the feds have to do to get a planet is move the border.

.

In the case of "one." Should not the planet be a Federation planet prior to the Federation colony being established?

In the case of "two." That sound more like how a independent planet becomes a Federation member.

The brier patch and it's contents are within the Federation's recognized territory, the ring planet was unclaimed by anyone else. The Baku by dialog never did so, the Sona (who also were Baku) never did so. But the Federation did so. The Sona by declaring sovereignty over the ring planet might have solved many of their own problems, they already have recognizes claims to at least two other planets (theirs by conquest). They never claim the ring planet, even though some of them had lived there for a time.

The Sona appear to recognize the Federation's sovereignty in the matter.

The Federation possesses both de jure and de facto sovereignty over the planet, and in addition can exercise that sovereignty. This is where the Baku come up short and is possibly the reason they never state a claim to the planet nor to the rings.

 

[BillJ]

No really one is the Bajoran government evicting a Bajoran citizen from a place that is under their jurisdiction.

The other is the Federation removing non federation citizens from a soverign non federation world.

No, the other is the Federation, removing non-Federation people, from a Federation world, under Federation jurisdiction.

And were all the Baku "non-Federation citizens?"

There are two way a planet becomes a federation planet

1) An uninhabited planet is colonized by federation citizens

2) A planet petitions to join and if they meet all the qualifications they get in

neither of those goes with the idea that all the feds have to do to get a planet is move the border.

Source?

 

[Captrek]

As usual, those who are attempting to defend the film are defending a film that exists only in their minds, not the film that was actually made.

To defend Picard’s actions with this kind of legal hairsplitting is to deny the entire point of the movie, which is dramatically expressed in the scene where Picard removes his pips. A Starfleet captain does not remove his pips to defy an illegal order. It is his duty to obey lawful orders.

This is reiterated when Picard orders Riker to change the minds of the Federation Council, not with legal arguments, but by putting a “face” on the Ba’ku. The Council’s error is one of morality, not of law.

The film doesn’t beat around the bush about Picard’s dilemma. It is very clear. The law, and Picard’s duty as a Starfleet officer to uphold that law, conflict with his conscience, and he chooses conscience over law and duty.

A film about Picard doing his duty as a Starfleet captain and upholding the law might have been a good movie. Pretending that INS is that movie is a repudiation of the clear meaning of the film.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

No, the other is the Federation, removing non-Federation people, from a Federation world, under Federation jurisdiction.

And were all the Baku "non-Federation citizens?"

There are two way a planet becomes a federation planet

1) An uninhabited planet is colonized by federation citizens

2) A planet petitions to join and if they meet all the qualifications they get in

neither of those goes with the idea that all the feds have to do
to get a planet is move the border.

Source?

Those were the only two ways shown in the shows.

 

[T'Girl]

1) An uninhabited planet is colonized by federation citizens
2) A planet petitions to join and if they meet all the qualifications they get in

Source?

Those were the only two ways shown in the shows.

Just two?

There are worlds that the federation claims to establish facilities on. Like the penal world of Tantalus colony, and the Elba Two insane asylum. And the worlds that the federation wants so that Starfleet can build starbases on them.

And there are the worlds that the federation claims because they hold resources the federation wants. Delta Vega a resource world, Rigel 12 a resource world, Janus Six a resource world.

And there are worlds the federation claims so it can plant colonies on them. Or worlds that various members claim for similar reasons. Also from the show it's pretty obvious that the federation claims open space too.

The federation might have claimed and held the brier patch simply to prevent the Klingons from reclaiming it. It and the world it contained were the federation's (according to Picard).

 

[sonak]

As usual, those who are attempting to defend the film are defending a film that exists only in their minds, not the film that was actually made.

To defend Picard’s actions with this kind of legal hairsplitting is to deny the entire point of the movie, which is dramatically expressed in the scene where Picard removes his pips. A Starfleet captain does not remove his pips to defy an illegal order. It is his duty to obey lawful orders.

This is reiterated when Picard orders Riker to change the minds of the Federation Council, not with legal arguments, but by putting a “face” on the Ba’ku. The Council’s error is one of morality, not of law.

The film doesn’t beat around the bush about Picard’s dilemma. It is very clear. The law, and Picard’s duty as a Starfleet officer to uphold that law, conflict with his conscience, and he chooses conscience over law and duty.

A film about Picard doing his duty as a Starfleet captain and upholding the law might have been a good movie. Pretending that INS is that movie is a repudiation of the clear meaning of the film.

those are some really good points. I didn't think of that before, that those arguing that what Dougherty and the outpost crew is doing is "illegal" are actually contradicting the point of the movie and Picard's "stand."

All these posts and I hadn't considered that angle before.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Source?

Those were the only two ways shown in the shows.

Just two?

There are worlds that the federation claims to establish facilities on. Like the penal world of Tantalus colony, and the Elba Two insane asylum. And the worlds that the federation wants so that Starfleet can build starbases on them.

And there are the worlds that the federation claims because they hold resources the federation wants. Delta Vega a resource world, Rigel 12 a resource world, Janus Six a resource world.

And there are worlds the federation claims so it can plant colonies on them. Or worlds that various members claim for similar reasons. Also from the show it's pretty obvious that the federation claims open space too.

All of which have no mentioned native population.

The federation might have claimed and held the brier patch simply to prevent the Klingons from reclaiming it. It and the world it contained were the federation's (according to Picard).

Yeah they tried that with Cestus III, How'd that turn out for them.

 

[RAMA]

not as analogous to the B'aku situation

Well the analogy is the Bajorians as the Federation, the Bajorian moon as the Federation planet, the three old farmers as the six hundred Baku.

And the moon's energy (heating hundreds of thousands of peoples homes), being the particle rings (medical benefits to hundreds of billions of people).

There's even a analogy of the Federation as the Sona, providing the technology to make it all happen. The old farmers were unwilling to leave the farms they had established, even though that departure would better the lives of thousand. Both the farmers and the Baku were incredible selfish.

Kira set fire to the old man's cottage and beamed him against his will up to the runabout. Maybe at the end of the movie, Picard should have set fire to the Baku village and beamed all the Baku against their will to the Enterprise.

It wasn't that Kira had no sympathy for the old man, or saw no soundness his position, but in the end she did what was right. She felt no joy in doing what was right, but she did it. She (unlike Picard) saw the benefits that would be provided to her people.

She also understood that after the (forced) relocation, that life for the old man would continue, just differently

No really one is the Bajoran government evicting a Bajoran citizen from a place that is under their jurisdiction.

The other is the Federation removing non federation citizens from a soverign non federation world.

No, the other is the Federation, removing non-Federation people, from a Federation world, under Federation jurisdiction.

And were all the Baku "non-Federation citizens?" It's unclear exactly when the region ceased being Klingon and became Federation, however, the young boy would appear to be what, ten years old? Having been born on a Federation planet (Federation planet according to Picard), that would make him a "Federation citizen" would it not? While the Baku Elders might be non-citizens, how many on the surface could make the same claim? Being born on a Federation world and all.

There's also this, Alaska ceased to be Russia territory and became a American territory in 1867, and later a American state in 1959. All the native americans in Alaska became American citizens, simply because they were present in the area at the time.

Are you sure that all the Baku aren't Federation citizens?

No they were not under Federation jurisdiction...not every planet within "UFP space" belongs to the Federation...do not forget that...

 

[RAMA]

As usual, those who are attempting to defend the film are defending a film that exists only in their minds, not the film that was actually made.

To defend Picard’s actions with this kind of legal hairsplitting is to deny the entire point of the movie, which is dramatically expressed in the scene where Picard removes his pips. A Starfleet captain does not remove his pips to defy an illegal order. It is his duty to obey lawful orders.

This is reiterated when Picard orders Riker to change the minds of the Federation Council, not with legal arguments, but by putting a “face” on the Ba’ku. The Council’s error is one of morality, not of law.

The film doesn’t beat around the bush about Picard’s dilemma. It is very clear. The law, and Picard’s duty as a Starfleet officer to uphold that law, conflict with his conscience, and he chooses conscience over law and duty.

A film about Picard doing his duty as a Starfleet captain and upholding the law might have been a good movie. Pretending that INS is that movie is a repudiation of the clear meaning of the film.

those are some really good points. I didn't think of that before, that those arguing that what Dougherty and the outpost crew is doing is "illegal" are actually contradicting the point of the movie and Picard's "stand."

All these posts and I hadn't considered that angle before.

Actually they are breaking the "law"....forced removal of inhabitants of a planet not under their purview is unlawful. Also while the B'aku are aware of spaceflight and warp drive, they still are covered under the spirit of the Prime Directive which is also applied to cultural interference, even with races roughly equal with the Federation. In this case the UFP/Starfleet had a corrupt segment of itself...a rather large one it seems. As was demonstrated in DS9's Homefront, this was more common during the Dominion conflict, probably to do with the stress of the war on every aspect of the UFP, and causing them to make poor decisions.

I am also willing to bet that destruction of an entire planetary biosphere may be grounds for dismissal if not worse. How much would you want to bet the Starfleet/UFP officials involved in the endeavor would be out of a job?

OMG I have to be the one to support Godwin's Law! I believe officers have a duty to not obey unlawful or immoral laws. Recently, soldiers in the US military have been refusing to follow religious dogma in support of military policies, as reported in the Misc thread. This is proper and just.

RAMA

 

[Hartzilla2007]

I am also willing to bet that destruction of an entire planetary biosphere may be grounds for dismissal if not worse. How much would you want to bet the Starfleet/UFP officials involved in the endeavor are now out of a job?

Well they do get to destroy planets under general order 24 but I think they only get to use it if said planet is about to either kill them or unleash armagedon on the galaxy.

 

[RAMA]

I am also willing to bet that destruction of an entire planetary biosphere may be grounds for dismissal if not worse. How much would you want to bet the Starfleet/UFP officials involved in the endeavor are now out of a job?

Well they do get to destroy planets under general order 24 but I think they only get to use it if said planet is about to either kill them or unleash armagedon on the galaxy.

Um sorry? When did the B'aku fire on or attack the Enterprise or UFP ships/property? Refresh my memory please.

Also, general Order 24 was probably a ridiculous plot point (to support the allegory) that made no sense, considering wiping out a planet/genocide has to be a fairly serious offense, even in war.

Add to this...the episode, "A Taste of Armageddon", was imperialist, the UFP had every intention of not listening to the sovereign gov't on the planet to acquire a "treaty port".

RAMA

 

[Hartzilla2007]

I am also willing to bet that destruction of an entire planetary biosphere may be grounds for dismissal if not worse. How much would you want to bet the Starfleet/UFP officials involved in the endeavor are now out of a job?

Well they do get to destroy planets under general order 24 but I think they only get to use it if said planet is about to either kill them or unleash armagedon on the galaxy.

Um sorry? When did the B'aku fire on or attack the Enterprise or UFP ships/property? Refresh my memory please.

I just mentioned the firing on thing so that some of the Doughter defenders don't go "aha so it is justified" when I mention that rule.

Also, general Order 24 was probably a ridiculous plot point (to support the allegory) that made no sense, considering wiping out a planet/genocide has to be a fairly serious offense, even in war.

Well 1) Kirk was probably bluffing and 2) I can think of some instances when being allowed to destroy a planet as a last resort might be needed.

Add to this...the episode, "A Taste of Armageddon", was imperialist, the UFP had every intention of not listening to the sovereign gov't on the planet to acquire a "treaty port".

Well considering the locals don't mind draging everyone else in their idiotic war and get pissed we they don't want to play their game I kind of have to side with Kirk.

 

[BillJ]

Those were the only two ways shown in the shows.

Just two?

There are worlds that the federation claims to establish facilities on. Like the penal world of Tantalus colony, and the Elba Two insane asylum. And the worlds that the federation wants so that Starfleet can build starbases on them.

And there are the worlds that the federation claims because they hold resources the federation wants. Delta Vega a resource world, Rigel 12 a resource world, Janus Six a resource world.

And there are worlds the federation claims so it can plant colonies on them. Or worlds that various members claim for similar reasons. Also from the show it's pretty obvious that the federation claims open space too.

All of which have no mentioned native population.

The federation might have claimed and held the brier patch simply to prevent the Klingons from reclaiming it. It and the world it contained were the federation's (according to Picard).

Yeah they tried that with Cestus III, How'd that turn out for them.

Since they still have a colony on Cestus III during the 24th century per Deep Space Nine, I'd say pretty well.

 

[T'Girl]

... Tantalus colony (et cetera) ...

All of which have no mentioned native population.

The ring planel also had no native population. The Baku and the Baku-Sona did have a native homeworld, but the ring planet wasn't it.

From my list, Janus Six would be an example of a resouce world with an actual native population, the indigenous Horta.

The other is the Federation removing non federation citizens from a soverign non federation world.

No, the other is the Federation, removing non-Federation people, from a Federation world, under Federation jurisdiction.

No they were not under Federation jurisdiction

How so?

Consider the settlement/city of La Nouvelle-Orléans. Establish in 1718 by the French Mississippi Company, ceded to the Spanish Empire in 1763, reverted to French in 1801, sold to the United States in 1803. Through the years many different peoples came to live there, including Haitian refugees. Refugees might be a good descriptive term for the arriving Baku.

As the territory and the city it held (analogy for the patch and the ring planet) changed hands periodically, the authority and jurisdiction changed too, for the many peoples living there it often made little difference.

But they, just like the Baku, were under the new jurisdiction each time. Even if no control was exercised upon them.

The Baku were on a Romulan planet, then a Klingon planet, then a Federation planet.

They were never on a Baku planet.

... the spirit of the Prime Directive which ...

Is there an example of the PD applying to non-indigenous settlers/refugees who land on a planet held by the Romulans, which eventually becomes a Federation planet? A Federation planet according to Picard.

I am also willing to bet that destruction of an entire planetary biosphere may be grounds for dismissal

Why, Sisko wasn't dismissed. Inhabitable planets are hardly rare in the Star Trek universe. And the destruction wasn't going to be permanent , just protracted.

How much would you want to bet the Starfleet/UFP officials involved in the endeavor would be out of a job?

If after the review mention at the end of the movie, they don't go ahead and finish the job of harvesting the particles, and the public finds out what happened. Yes, I can imagine the majority of the Federation council (which authorized the harvest) will be out of office.

Withholding a major medical advance like the particles from hundreds of billions of the general public, there easily could be recall elections and impeachments, and penal colony incarcerations.

... general order 24 but I think they only get to use it if said planet is about to either kill them ...

Well the inhabitants were selfishly committing acts (not leaving) that potentially was going to result in pain and earlier death for billions of federation citizens.

 

[sonak]

As usual, those who are attempting to defend the film are defending a film that exists only in their minds, not the film that was actually made.

To defend Picard’s actions with this kind of legal hairsplitting is to deny the entire point of the movie, which is dramatically expressed in the scene where Picard removes his pips. A Starfleet captain does not remove his pips to defy an illegal order. It is his duty to obey lawful orders.

This is reiterated when Picard orders Riker to change the minds of the Federation Council, not with legal arguments, but by putting a “face” on the Ba’ku. The Council’s error is one of morality, not of law.

The film doesn’t beat around the bush about Picard’s dilemma. It is very clear. The law, and Picard’s duty as a Starfleet officer to uphold that law, conflict with his conscience, and he chooses conscience over law and duty.

A film about Picard doing his duty as a Starfleet captain and upholding the law might have been a good movie. Pretending that INS is that movie is a repudiation of the clear meaning of the film.

those are some really good points. I didn't think of that before, that those arguing that what Dougherty and the outpost crew is doing is "illegal" are actually contradicting the point of the movie and Picard's "stand."

All these posts and I hadn't considered that angle before.

Actually they are breaking the "law"....forced removal of inhabitants of a planet not under their purview is unlawful. Also while the B'aku are aware of spaceflight and warp drive, they still are covered under the spirit of the Prime Directive which is also applied to cultural interference, even with races roughly equal with the Federation. In this case the UFP/Starfleet had a corrupt segment of itself...a rather large one it seems. As was demonstrated in DS9's Homefront, this was more common during the Dominion conflict, probably to do with the stress of the war on every aspect of the UFP, and causing them to make poor decisions.

I am also willing to bet that destruction of an entire planetary biosphere may be grounds for dismissal if not worse. How much would you want to bet the Starfleet/UFP officials involved in the endeavor would be out of a job?

OMG I have to be the one to support Godwin's Law! I believe officers have a duty to not obey unlawful or immoral laws. Recently, soldiers in the US military have been refusing to follow religious dogma in support of military policies, as reported in the Misc thread. This is proper and just.

RAMA

um, you realize that you're assuming points that are in dispute favor your side to make your argument. You reiterate that the removal violates sovereignty and the PD, both points which are disputed in the movie itself.

Dougherty makes it explicit that the Baku removal does NOT fall under the PD and since he is working with the UFP council on this it can be assumed that they have legal experts who are more likely to know when it applies than random Starfleet captain Jean-Luc Picard.

You make these points and then say that the crew was obligated to not follow lawful orders. But as Captrek pointed out, that doesn't seem to be the intent of the movie. Picard is protesting orders which he DOES seem to think are legal, but he's questioning the morality of them.

But he doesn't try legal channels with the UFP(I know the time factor but he could have done this later and had the removal potentially reversed) or try to persuade Dougherty or Ru'afo to change their minds.

He turns straight to violence.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

But he doesn't try legal channels with the UFP(I know the time factor but he could have done this later and had the removal potentially reversed) or try to persuade Dougherty or Ru'afo to change their minds.

And just what do you think he was having Riker do when the Enterprise wasn't being attacked without provocation.

 

[Jeyl]

And just what do you think he was having Riker do when the Enterprise wasn't being attacked without provocation.

Without provocation? When your most advanced ship in the fleet starts using the "radio isn't working!" excuse, you're essentially telling the Sona ships to fu** off. There's your provocation. If Riker can't even stall these guys with some negotiation skills till they make it out of the patch, how the heck is he going to convince the entire federation that even though we're at war with a foe that might actually beat us. we'll be better off knowing that these a-holes can go on with their merry lives. Pretty stupid if you ask me, which is why we never got to see that scene at all. It wouldn't have worked.