Did Picard make the right decision with the Son'a/Baku

[Edit_XYZ]

They weren't Federation members. They colonised the world before the Federation was founded. So the Ba'ku had first claim to the then unihabiated planet. It doesn't matter that the planet would later fall within Federation space, there are no doubt many inhabiated worlds within the region of space claimed by the Federation that aren't members, can the Federation just swoop onto an inhabiated planet and take what they want?

Maybe, maybe not.

We know that two hundred years prior the Briar Patch belonged to the Klingons. If it belonged to them before the Ba'ku set down on the planet (which nothing in canon says one way or the other) and then that planet was given to the Federation for whatever reason, there would be continuous ownership of it by someone other than the Ba'ku.

BillJ, I think Klingon ownership / transfer of ownership of the briar patch in general, does not change the relevent fact of the Baku's claim or their long history of ownership.

Obviously the Klingons did not kick them out, and may not have even knew they existed, otherwise, their world would look very, very different.

Klingon ownership of the briar patch before the baku arrived gives Klingons/the federation prior claim to the briar patch.

The baku are nothing more than tresspassers.
You actually think tresspassers have any claim to the land they tresspass on?
If yes, the federation doesn't share your opinion. If it would, the romulans would have long ago conquered the federation by settling a few hundred romulans on every non-inhabited federation planet and claiming it as their own.

The Federation's highest laws, and this dates back to Kirk in TOS at least, states that "your world is yours".

The Federation is an alliance for the mutual benefit of member worlds, much more like the United Nations than the Roman Empire.

Except the briar patch is NOT the baku's world - homeworld or otherwise. Tresspassing on a land does NOT make it yours.

And NOT harvesting the immortality particles does a HUGE disservice to the member worlds of the federation and the billions of beings inhabiting them.


Legally, the baku have no legitimate claim on the immortality planet.
Morally, letting billions suffer for the vanity of 600 is obscene.

 

[MacLeod]

Yes but if the Ba'ku settled on that world before the Klingons claimed that space they aren't tresspassers. If you are going down the line that the planet was never theirs to begin with. It would be more like squatting, and after several hundred years if the Federation regonised it adverse possesion might come in to play.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession

Or in simple terms because no one had objected to the Ba'ku presence for centuries, the KE and UFP let their claim to the planet lapse. And soverignity of the planet passed to the Ba'ku.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

First - such legal quibbles as arguments are used only because your side has run out of other, more fundamental objections, MacLeod:
Concerning the moral side, your position is falimentary;
Even with regards to the legal side (as per current law, that is), as long as you don't come with highly improbable speculation such as your last post, you have no argument (simply put, the federation has AT LEAST* the legal right to invoke eminent domain; it didn't only in order for the baku NOT to appear as the elitist jerks who could care less about anyone else they are).

Second:
The baku did not settle unclaimed space.
Why?
Because when this space was claimed by the klingons, they would have searched their new property and evicted these few hundreds of luddites with extreme prejudice, especially considering what a clement/valuable M class world these luddites were on.

The baku's possession of that planet - during klingon reign, at least - was not visible, but hidden - if it was visible, the klingons would never have allowed it.
And hidden possession will not lead to adverse possession no matter how much time passes.
As for the federation - even if it knew about the baku and let them stay on the planet: possession by the allowance of the owner will never lead to adverse possession, no matter how much time passes.

*Eminent domain is invoked to get land from its rightful owner, for reasons of public utility/interest, after compensation - and it doesn't matter whether this owner got his land before or after the forming of the country that incorporates his land.
When it comes to tresspassers - as the baku are - one just evicts them.

 

[BillJ]

Nothing like a good old fashion Insurrection circle-jerk!

 

[T'Girl]

Yes but if the Ba'ku settled on that world before the Klingons claimed that space they aren't tresspassers.

Prior to the Klingons, the Romulans possessed the area.

It would be more like squatting, and after several hundred years if the Federation regonised it adverse possession might come in to play.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession

From the wiki article you presented.

In Cone v. West Virginia Pulp & Paper, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that Cone ... because his actions did not change the land from a wild and natural state.

So, by this the Baku might have been able to establish a legal claim to the one valley they were occupying, and area where they built the reservoir, but not the entire planet, and certainly not the rings.

And what really works against the Baku in term of "adverse possession" is this.

The disseisor's use of the property must be so visible and apparent that it gives notice to the legal owner that someone may assert claim, and must be of such character that would give notice to a reasonable person.

The Baku, by their own admission, were hiding. That's part of the reason they choose a planet in the brier patch. According to the series Enterprise, when the Baku first landed, the area of space which included the ring planet was the possession of the Romulan Empire. Did the Baku make themselves "visible and apparent" to the Romulans? No they didn't.

As pointed out by Edit XYZ, neither did the Baku make themselves "visible and apparent" to the Klingons subsequent to the Klingons acquiring the area.

And later they didn't make themselves obvious to the Federation when they acquired the area.

In the episode Spectrum of the Gun, when a Federation starship "encroached" on the space of the Melkot, they were met by a device that inform them of the Melkot's claim to the space. The Baku arrived at the ring planet by (presumably) a starship, and they were able to diagnose the exact problem with Data's positronic brain.

For them to have placed a reasonable number of buoys of some sort outside the brier patch to announce their presence and their claim to the ring planet would have been within their means.

 

[sonak]

BillJ, I think Klingon ownership / transfer of ownership of the briar patch in general, does not change the relevent fact of the Baku's claim or their long history of ownership.

Obviously the Klingons did not kick them out, and may not have even knew they existed, otherwise, their world would look very, very different.

The Federation's highest laws, and this dates back to Kirk in TOS at least, states that "your world is yours".

The Federation is an alliance for the mutual benefit of member worlds, much more like the United Nations than the Roman Empire.

even if the planet was definitively shown to be the Baku's, it doesn't really help their situation. It wouldn't prevent the Federation from negotiating with them for removal, and it certainly wouldn't obligate the Federation to DEFEND them from pretty much EVERY major power that's going to try to take it from them after the events of STIX.

What's to stop the Federation Council from saying "yeah it's yours, good luck defending it, tiny village of pacifist Luddites!"

One could theoretically invoke the Prime Directive in terms of whether or not to mount a defense, but the fact is that the Federation were partially and directly responsible, and the Baku were advanced enough that the Prime Directive was not applicable.

Morally and Ethically, Picard turned on a Federation that had turned it's back on its own core principals.

The Federation provides help and assistance when necessary, part of the mission profile of a Federation Starship.

nope, you can't have it both ways, as the movie tries to do. Picard's involvement could only be even REMOTELY justified insofar as the Federation was already involved. Once they all left at the end of the movie, there was NO reason to continue to defend them, especially as the Baku were contributing nothing to the Federation at large.


pick an option: either it's in Federation territory and they can legally and ethically remove the Baku or it's not and the Federation could have had the Son'a come in and settle their dispute with the Baku by force.


(this is usually the part in the discussion where the anti-removal crowd starts moving the goalposts and insisting that the Federation has a moral OBLIGATION to defend the Baku.)

 

[BillJ]

The Federation provides help and assistance when necessary, part of the mission profile of a Federation Starship.

Even Picard admits that Dougherty got the Federation involved in a blood feud. At the point they found out that the S'ona/Ba'ku were the same race fighting for control of resources, the Federation (Picard/Dougherty) should've recused itself from the whole mess. It would, by definition, be an internal matter (per Redemption)

The above works under the assumption that the planet does not belong to the Federation.

 

[DWF]

Trying to relocate the Baku was immoral and the Feveration wasn't aware of the full story which is why Picard sent Riker to inform them. But in the end Picard knew what was right and what was wrong from his point of view and he stood up for people who couldn't stand up for themselves, morally he did the right thing.

 

[T'Girl]

But in the end Picard knew what was right and what was wrong from his point of view and he stood up for people who couldn't stand up for themselves, morally he did the right thing.

Is it your position then that the Federation (through Starfleet) should be consistent and always stand "up for people who couldn't stand up for themselves?" No matter where in the galaxy they find these people?

 

[BillJ]

...he stood up for people who couldn't stand up for themselves...

Not people who couldn't stand up for themselves, people who refused to stand up for themselves...

SOJEF: The moment we pick up a weapon, we become one of them. ...We lose everything we are.

 

[DonIago]

Apparently it's okay if other people are wielding weapons on their behalf though... Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

 

[R. Star]

Just more self-entitlement. Just look how Anij flops herself down on the boat, expecting Data and Picard to row her over to that holoship.

 

[The Overlord]

The Son'a gave up their right to live there by trying to take over.

Why? Maybe the Son'a had a legitimate point, that doing hours of needless back breaking labor to serve some Luddite philosophy is just pointless and counter productive.

The Ba'ku used force to expell the Son'a from that world and now the Son'a are using force to do remove the Ba'ku. Turn about is fair play.

The thing is with this argument, is your confusing an exile with a theft.

The Son'a knew the rules of the society in which they lived. If you note the dialog, you'll see that it was an attempted coup, somewhat different to a legitimate opposition or difference of viewpoint.

When there is an argument, at some point, one side wins.

In the end, the parents set the rules of the house.

Please, the only difference between a coup and a revolution is who is the winner and who is the loser.

The American colonists revolted against their British colonial system, no one seems to treat that as some sort of illegal act.

Again, maybe the Son'a had good reason to revolt, maybe they felt that a society that created hours of meaninglessness back breaking labor that could be done away with some technology or that a policy of isolation was counter productive.
The Son'a are just doing to the Ba'ku, what the Ba'ku did to them.

Heck, how did the Ba'ku even beat the Son'a if they are pacifists? The whole relationship between the Ba'ku and the Son'a makes no sense.

 

[MacLeod]

First - such legal quibbles as arguments are used only because your side has run out of other, more fundamental objections, MacLeod:
Concerning the moral side, your position is falimentary;
Even with regards to the legal side (as per current law, that is), as long as you don't come with highly improbable speculation such as your last post, you have no argument (simply put, the federation has AT LEAST* the legal right to invoke eminent domain; it didn't only in order for the baku NOT to appear as the elitist jerks who could care less about anyone else they are).

Second:
The baku did not settle unclaimed space.
Why?
Because when this space was claimed by the klingons, they would have searched their new property and evicted these few hundreds of luddites with extreme prejudice, especially considering what a clement/valuable M class world these luddites were on.

The baku's possession of that planet - during klingon reign, at least - was not visible, but hidden - if it was visible, the klingons would never have allowed it.
And hidden possession will not lead to adverse possession no matter how much time passes.
As for the federation - even if it knew about the baku and let them stay on the planet: possession by the allowance of the owner will never lead to adverse possession, no matter how much time passes.

*Eminent domain is invoked to get land from its rightful owner, for reasons of public utility/interest, after compensation - and it doesn't matter whether this owner got his land before or after the forming of the country that incorporates his land.
When it comes to tresspassers - as the baku are - one just evicts them.

Well we don't know the exact date the Ba'ku settled the world or the date that the Klingons claimed that area of space. If the Ba'ku settled on that world prior to the Klingons claiming that region of space. Then they aren't guilty of tresspassing.

And how was their colonisation hidden? Was the planet cloaked, was the settlement concealled somehow? From memory no artifical means where used to hide the colony. The fact that the planet was in the middle of a nebula is irrelevant. If you had explored the nebula you would likely have discovered it.

And you now the thing about eminant domain is that you have the right to appeal against it. Sure your government can want to takeyour land from you but.

1.>They have to compensate you for it fairly
2.>You can appeal against any sort of compulsary purchase

So what compensation were the Ba'ku getting?
When where they informed about they forced relocation, so they could appeal against it through the Federation courts.

If someone comes into your home without your permission they are tressapsing. If however you own a peice of land in another area of the country and someone lives on that for decades without you objecting the offense is squatting.

But we don't know exactly how the Federation defines crime as opposed to how they are defined today in various countries.

 

[sonak]

Apparently it's okay if other people are wielding weapons on their behalf though... Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

most "pacifism" ends up being pretty hypocritical. If you're a pacifist in a society where you're protected from violence by the military or by the police, then you're allowing violence to be used on your behalf in defense anyway.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

Then again, maybe they didn't have good reason. Baybe does not establish anything. Define Good Reason by their society and rules.

Truth is, we don't know enough about that conflict.

What we DO know is that the Baku were being forced out of their homes, that they had lived in peacefully, bothering nobody, for hundreds of years.

It was a society, in and of itself. A colony from elsewhere on inception? Irrelevant morally, if interesting.

Until the Son'a and Federation situations, it was very productive to live there without depending on their technological knowledge.

Being where they are, and hard to reach, unnoticed, made more sense given their origins.

 

[The Overlord]

Then again, maybe they didn't have good reason. Baybe does not establish anything. Define Good Reason by their society and rules.

Truth is, we don't know enough about that conflict.

There are tons of reasons of to oppose a Luddite philosophy: less needless labor, better standard of living with technology, etc. If I was living in a Ba'ku village and I had to live in some medieval village while other people got travel around the universe in star ships, I might be upset too. I would begin to think Ba'ku society was reactionary and flawed. Why should everyone accept that such a philosophy is good for everyone and not try to oppose it if they think its flawed?

The fact that we know nothing about the rift between the Son'a and the Ba'ku hurts the story. The Ba'ku having the right eject the Son'a from their planet and the Son'a not having that same right looks hypocritical.

How this story supposed to be an effective moral dilemma when the Ba'ku are supposedly perfect and the Son'a are one dimensional cartoonish villains?

What we DO know is that the Baku were being forced out of their homes, that they had lived in peacefully, bothering nobody, for hundreds of years.

It was a society, in and of itself. A colony from elsewhere on inception? Irrelevant morally, if interesting.

Until the Son'a and Federation situations, it was very productive to live there without depending on their technological knowledge.

Being where they are, and hard to reach, unnoticed, made more sense given their origins.

If the Ba'ku were peaceful, how did they force the Son'a off their planet in the first place? It seems like there a lot of holes in this story.

 

[sonak]

Then again, maybe they didn't have good reason. Baybe does not establish anything. Define Good Reason by their society and rules.

Truth is, we don't know enough about that conflict.

There are tons of reasons of to oppose a Luddite philosophy: less needless labor, better standard of living with technology, etc. If I was living in a Ba'ku village and I had to live in some medieval village while other people got travel around the universe in star ships, I might be upset too. I would begin to think Ba'ku society was reactionary and flawed. Why should everyone accept that such a philosophy is good for everyone and not try to oppose it if they think its flawed?

The fact that we know nothing about the rift between the Son'a and the Ba'ku hurts the story. The Ba'ku having the right eject the Son'a from their planet and the Son'a not having that same right looks hypocritical.

How this story supposed to be an effective moral dilemma when the Ba'ku are supposedly perfect and the Son'a are one dimensional cartoonish villains?

What we DO know is that the Baku were being forced out of their homes, that they had lived in peacefully, bothering nobody, for hundreds of years.

It was a society, in and of itself. A colony from elsewhere on inception? Irrelevant morally, if interesting.

Until the Son'a and Federation situations, it was very productive to live there without depending on their technological knowledge.

Being where they are, and hard to reach, unnoticed, made more sense given their origins.

If the Ba'ku were peaceful, how did they force the Son'a off their planet in the first place? It seems like there a lot of holes in this story.

precisely. In adding the Son'a-Baku connection as a "twist" to the story, it made the whole thing make a lot LESS sense. Think about all the plot holes it clears up:


1. we don't have to wonder how a bunch of pacifists kicked a group of fighters off the planet

2. the Son'a would have an actual REASON not to tell Dougherty about the true nature of the Baku, because they genuinely wouldn't know. In the movie, not being straight with Dougherty ultimately SABOTAGES the entire project

3. The Son'a don't automatically get an equal claim on the planet since they're from that world too, making the legality a lot murkier for the Baku

4. We don't have to wonder WHY the Son'a never previously returned, once they had a decent fleet, and conquered the Baku themselves

5. Finally, the Baku remain a little more sympathetic since they didn't exile their family members to die slowly



all in all, the "twist" severely weakens an already weak story

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Eminiar (stipulated to be non-warp)

They were at war with a planet in another star system.

was contact to establish a "treaty port." Treaty ports are areas that are open to foreign trade, are legally extra-territorial, and are removing from the control of the local government.

Which they were doing becuase the two planets were dragging people into their idiotic war.

Janus Six, a mining facility was established to mine natural resources, no consideration was give to whether there was intelligent life there. When intelligent life was found, it was put to work digging for ore. No dialog as to the planet belonging to the indigenous Horta species, or the Humans leaving.

They had a dialog open Kirk go the Horta to agree to let them have the ores that were useless to them that they left in their tunnels becuase they either wouldn't or couldn't eat them.

The Halkans were contacted by the Federation to so that the Federation could mine a natural resource (dilithium), the Halkans were not indicated to be a post-warp species.

And when the Halkans told them to get lost they left. That was kind of the point the episode was making about the difference between the Federation and the Terran Empire.

Capella, the native people of that world were contacted by the Federation so that the Federation could mine a natural resource (topaline), the Capellan were obviously pre-warp.

A resource that the Capellans had no use for and they were already aware of people from outer space.

The argument could be made that the prime directive by law doesn't apply when needed natural resources are involved.

Except they still had to negotiate with the natives to get it they didn't just take it for themselves.

Second:
The baku did not settle unclaimed space.
Why?
Because when this space was claimed by the klingons, they would have searched their new property and evicted these few hundreds of luddites with extreme prejudice, especially considering what a clement/valuable M class world these luddites were on.

Except from the data Soong found in the Klingon database the Klingons were aware of two inhabitable planets in the Briar Patch and they didn't move to take them, probably becuase it would be more trouble than it is worth as they would have to move ships into a difficult to navigate area where you have to travel a considerable distance just to communicate with the rest of the galaxy (so basically its Bumf@#k Idaho in space), and they only thing they would seemingly get from all the effort it would take to move in is some particles which go against their philosophy of dying gloriously in battle.

So no I really don't think the Klingons would bother with a backwater planet of little importance (to them probably) thats hard as hell to get to.

 

[The Overlord]

Then again, maybe they didn't have good reason. Baybe does not establish anything. Define Good Reason by their society and rules.

Truth is, we don't know enough about that conflict.

There are tons of reasons of to oppose a Luddite philosophy: less needless labor, better standard of living with technology, etc. If I was living in a Ba'ku village and I had to live in some medieval village while other people got travel around the universe in star ships, I might be upset too. I would begin to think Ba'ku society was reactionary and flawed. Why should everyone accept that such a philosophy is good for everyone and not try to oppose it if they think its flawed?

The fact that we know nothing about the rift between the Son'a and the Ba'ku hurts the story. The Ba'ku having the right eject the Son'a from their planet and the Son'a not having that same right looks hypocritical.

How this story supposed to be an effective moral dilemma when the Ba'ku are supposedly perfect and the Son'a are one dimensional cartoonish villains?

What we DO know is that the Baku were being forced out of their homes, that they had lived in peacefully, bothering nobody, for hundreds of years.

It was a society, in and of itself. A colony from elsewhere on inception? Irrelevant morally, if interesting.

Until the Son'a and Federation situations, it was very productive to live there without depending on their technological knowledge.

Being where they are, and hard to reach, unnoticed, made more sense given their origins.

If the Ba'ku were peaceful, how did they force the Son'a off their planet in the first place? It seems like there a lot of holes in this story.

precisely. In adding the Son'a-Baku connection as a "twist" to the story, it made the whole thing make a lot LESS sense. Think about all the plot holes it clears up:


1. we don't have to wonder how a bunch of pacifists kicked a group of fighters off the planet

2. the Son'a would have an actual REASON not to tell Dougherty about the true nature of the Baku, because they genuinely wouldn't know. In the movie, not being straight with Dougherty ultimately SABOTAGES the entire project

3. The Son'a don't automatically get an equal claim on the planet since they're from that world too, making the legality a lot murkier for the Baku

4. We don't have to wonder WHY the Son'a never previously returned, once they had a decent fleet, and conquered the Baku themselves

5. Finally, the Baku remain a little more sympathetic since they didn't exile their family members to die slowly



all in all, the "twist" severely weakens an already weak story

Frankly the story would have been a bit better if the Son'a had been generic evil invaders who simply wanted to be immortal and had no legitimate claim to that planet. Sure it would ruin the supposed the moral dilemma that the movie was trying to present, but frankly they ruined that already by presenting the Son'a as cartoon bad guys. You may as well ditch the whole moral dilemma and make the Son'a just some evil that needs defeating.

It seemed like the movie was trying to present the son'a as Hitler or some mafia boss and the Ba'ku as Gandhi and Hitler vs. Gandhi is not an interesting moral debate. A moral dilemma needs to be gray, not black and white like this film.