Does anyone think Picard made the wrong decision in Insurrection?

[Sisko4Life]

I see STI on TV on the movie channel occasionally. In fact, its the only Star Trek Movie I've seen on Direct TV since The Wrath of Khan like 2 years ago. Anyway... everytime I watch the movie I keep thinking... why is Picard so adamant about protecting the Ba'ku?

The Federation just got through (or by Stardate is preparing for the final invasion of Cardassia) the bloodiest war of the century. Many combat veterans are wounded and there is a heavy manpower shortage. Ba'ku has the ability to reverse those effects at the expense of relocating 600 civilians.

Picard's argument to Admiral Dougherty was "how many people does it take to make it right?" But when you think of this way... 600 people on an ENTIRE PLANET. Imagine if Earth had some sort of mineable resource and only 600 humans were living in say... New York City.. and that was the only civilized place on the entire planet. Would it be wrong to set up a mining operation in China? Not only would they never know... are you really affecting them that much?

When you look at the bigger picture... relocating the Ba'ku would have saved billions of Federation lives and allowed medical advances and recovery from the Dominion War. And we are talking about relocating... not enslavement, conquest, torture, or anything of that nature like other races may have done. I think Picard made a silly decision. Morally correct-maybe, but not in the best interests of the Federation.

 

[Augustus]

I think they were both wrong. No need to relocate everyone and also no need to do what the bad guys were doing and scoop up all the youthful energy that extends life.

They could just do some research and figure out how to duplicate it...

 

[TheMadCloner]

It's one of many things that bug me in this movie.

Picard didn't make the wrong decision - he made an out of character decision imo.

Had they really stayed true to the "TNG spirit", the movie would have had the crew explore the moral ambiguity of the situation, try to come to a creative solution or compromise, and only then, if the Baku refused, would Picard have launched done what he did. Having him act so hastily is a result of plot contrivance only.

 

[Trekker4747]

You missed the point, of all of Trek.

The Federation had no rights to planet other than it being within their borders. The Bak'u had much more right to the planet. They may not of been indigenous to the planet but they had certainly "established residency" there.

The Bak'u were in their home, living happily and minding their own business. The Federation/Admiral wanted to relocate them so that they may artificialy extend the lives of people.

Seems to me the Bak'u were more in the right to resist and Picard was right to fight for them. No one had the right to remove the Bak'u from that planet.

And, the alternative of establishing a research station was dismissed because the Son'a would last long enough for the planet's effects to take enough hold and they didn't want to live in The Patch.

No, Picard fought for the right, and good, reasons. The Fedeation was acting out of bounds of its charter, its principles, its ideals and even its own laws.

 

[Timo]

What transpired in the movie was affected by the fact that the Son'a lied to the Federation about the nature of the situation - no relocation was truly required. Remove that lie, though, and I'd still argue Picard was in the wrong.

"Rights" are things that exist because those in a position of power allow them to exist. They are meaningless otherwise. In this case, those in the position of power were the Federation and its allies. It was up to their judgement to decide the right and wrong of the situation - and IMHO, the right thing here would be to throw the selfish Ba'ku bastards in a reservate and let others in to make use of the planet.

What the hell do these folks think they are doing, hogging an entire planet for themselves? It should always be the right of the government to forcibly possess land when it is needed for common good - and no matter who was squatting on that planet, it was still Federation turf de facto and (by UFP viewpoint at least) de jure.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[The Borg Queen]

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Insurrection/

We learned something very interesting about the Federation government structure in STI: the Federation considers all star systems within its borders to be its property, even if the Federation has never explored these systems and has established no contact whatsoever with their native societies. "We have the planet, they have the technology". Admiral Dougherty was not acting on his own- he had the approval of the Federation Council. This indicates that the decision to remove the Ba'ku from their world and render it uninhabitable to harvest the life-extending "metaphasic particles" was actually sanctioned at the highest levels of the Federation government.

The implications of this fact are far-ranging: the Federation, due to the limitations of warp drive, has not explored the vast majority of star systems in its own territory, particularly the regions of its territory which are far from its heavily populated areas (near their borders with the Romulan Star Empire and the Klingon Empire). However, they have arbitrarily drawn borders around a large region of space and they have staked sovereign claim to all of the systems in this territory!

This is very similar to the European colonists' behaviour when they invaded North America in the 17th and 18th centuries. They staked sovereign claim to most of the continent in the name of their monarch, simply by virtue of declaring that it belonged to them. They had not explored this land, nor had they negotiated any sort of ownership transfer with the natives. When they found natives occupying the land that they had unreasonably staked claim to, they simply removed them by force (sometimes sanctifying their behaviour by talking them into signing treaties they didn't understand, so they would have paper justification). Similarly, the Federation has apparently staked claim to a large region of space even though it has not explored or colonized most of it, and inconvenient occupants of that territory can be forcibly moved out of their homes if the Federation decides to seize control of their systems.

A star system does not automatically become a Federation "member" simply by virtue of existing in Federation territory- there is an admissions process. However, even though star systems are not necessarily members (ie- no representation), they are still considered Federation property! In other words, it is possible to be subject to Federation government edict without having any representation in that government. This is not democracy- it is democracy only for the chosen few: those who fit a narrowly defined profile of "acceptable" cultural values.

On 20th century Earth, an analogous situation would be if your country forced every citizen to pass a test of political correctness before being permitted to vote. You would still be subject to government edict- if they wanted to, they could still seize your land, force you to obey their laws, etc. But you would have no representation in the government. In real life, such an arbitrary (and elitist) restriction of voting privileges and representation would essentially destroy the entire concept of democracy.

The Federation has revealed dangerously self-contradictory policies which can potentially lead to the centrifugal disintegration of their society given enough time and the right external stimuli. Enough non-member star systems in its territory would render the entire Federation government structure highly unstable, particularly if those non-member systems choose to follow activist policies.

How many other societies will they find in their territory which foolishly expect to have independence of action and sovereign territorial rights? What if some of these societies are as advanced as the Federation? What if they are more advanced? In the scale of Federation technology and warp drive, Federation space is vast. Much of it remains unexplored. How can the Federation expect to maintain order and law within their own territory if they permit non-member star systems total autonomy? If they do not permit non-member star systems total autonomy, how can they call themselves a true democracy? Perhaps more importantly, what right do they have to stake claim to territory which they do not occupy, and in some cases have barely explored?

These inherent flaws in the Federation's government structure will inevitably lead to conflicts, such as the conflict seen in STI. But more conflicts are inevitable- the signs are all in place: the Maquis betrayal, the treacherous deception of the Romulan government to bring them into the Dominion War, the use of biological warfare against the Founders, and evidence of a decidedly undemocratic "democracy" add up to a growing body of evidence that the Federation's government cares less and less about moral imperative, while giving more and more emphasis to military and strategic expediency. It is inevitable that advanced non-member systems, and/or other governments in the quadrant, will take notice of this fact and react accordingly.

And much more...

 

[Timo]

However, even though star systems are not necessarily members (ie- no representation), they are still considered Federation property!

Actually, the Ba'ku planet is the sole example of this. There is no evidence that any other planet surrounded by UFP space would be considered UFP property as such - let's say Pollux, which is so close it must be surrounded, but is unexplored as of "Who Mourns".

So the odds are, the Ba'ku planet is an exception because it doesn't have a population. If it had a population, the population would get a say.

And squatters don't count. It's obvious to the observer that 600 people in a single village must be non-native to the world. To truly have control over the planet, they'd have to fight for it with the Federation, by one of multiple means. "Mr Brack" did it by paying the Federation off. These folks could have attempted to purchase the planet, too, or whatever it is that all those Federation colonizing parties do in order to get their agricultural paradises. But like Arthur Dent, they failed to visit the local office to take care of the paperwork.

The Feds gave them the benefit of doubt, by setting up the observation post. Too bad that everybody was lying to everybody else, or the true status of the Ba'ku (and the Son'a) would have been established much earlier and none of this confusion and conflict would have been necessary.

However, once the conflict was cleared, the Ba'ku have no business hogging the planet to themselves. Picard's first suggestion, setting up a spa or a thousand on the planet, is now valid, as the insta-healing of the Son'a no longer is a political necessity. And the Ba'ku should have very little say in it.

Picard asked the right question, too. "How many does it take to make it wrong?" He just didn't stop to listen to the answer. One person chanting "Hell, no, I won't go" is clearly too little to make it wrong. But so is 600. With 10,000, we might tentatively start talking.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Trekker4747]

What the hell do these folks think they are doing, hogging an entire planet for themselves? It should always be the right of the government to forcibly possess land when it is needed for common good - and no matter who was squatting on that planet, it was still Federation turf de facto and (by UFP viewpoint at least) de jure.

Timo Saloniemi

WOW. You really DID miss the point of Trek, didn't you?

Who are they to "hog an entire planet for themselves." They're the ones who found the damn planet in the first place! They're the ones who've been living there for centuries(?). They had no aversions to allowing the Son'a to settle there but they DID have aversions to being forcibly relocated!

Let's put it this way. Say we here on Earth are under the rule of some governing galactic body we've no knowledge of. -Like the Ba'ku we've simply been left alone by this governing body because they don't want to expose us to the knowledge of alien life. This governing body has now decided they need to destroy Earth to, oh, I'll go with to build a Hyperspace Express Lane. So they've now decided to simply come up to our planet, take us all off of it and dump us on another planet, mostly without our knowledge as this other planet looks exactly like ours and has been meticulously configured exactly like ours or they've just simply decided to blow us up.

After all, they're the ruling body of this area, by the standards of their own government they "own" this planet and they've just simply "allowed" us to get by scott-free.

Would such a body not be judged by its actions?

Do we not judge other countries by how they treat their populace?

Would we not be judged if we as a nation simply decided we're tired of dicking around with Puerto Rico's people and simply decided to remove them all from it, declare Puerto Rico a state and turned it into a giant mall and resort?

The Federation had no moral right to the planet or to move its people. The planet may have been within The Federation's borders but by their own standards they did not own it. The Federation has had countless examples of them going out of their way in scientific experiments to do so on planets with no life (of any kind) on it. If they really felt they had a "right" to all of the planets in their borders they wouldn't care a wit if some planet had a bit of bacteria on it they could disturb by testing a new scientific device that could conceivably save or improve billions of lives.

The Federation was DEAD wrong to want to remove the Ba'ku from the planet just so they could conduct some experiment to artificially extend the lives of people. They had no place to do so. To think otherwise shows extreme selfishness and arrogance and misplaced sense of morality.

Government has NO right to do whatever it wishes to its people. Government is there to SERVE not to rule.

 

[SciFi75]

What the hell do these folks think they are doing, hogging an entire planet for themselves? It should always be the right of the government to forcibly possess land when it is needed for common good - and no matter who was squatting on that planet, it was still Federation turf de facto and (by UFP viewpoint at least) de jure.

I recall that this same line of thinking was applied to the Cherokee's who inhabited the Georgian lands during the early 19th century. The end result was the Trail of Tears.

But, hey, what are the needs of the few in regards to the many?

 

[Timo]

All that is rendered irrelevant by the fact that there were just 600 Ba'ku. Such a small, selfish minority simply cannot be allowed to dictate policy for a body of any appreciable size. The Ba'ku might try and vote to get their wish, but they'd be laughed out of the voting booth if they really thought they had a factual say.

But that mootness is further rendered mood by the (Trek) fact that everything about ST:INS was a lie. There was no need to relocate the Ba'ku in the first place. Once the end credits rolled, everybody probably agreed to founding those thousand spas on the planet. Or if somebody didn't, he or she was quickly taught a few facts of life, and told to shut up for the greater good of his or her very own people (let alone that of the galaxy at large).

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Trekker4747]

All that is rendered irrelevant by the fact that there were just 600 Ba'ku. Such a small, selfish minority simply cannot be allowed to dictate policy for a body of any appreciable size. The Ba'ku might try and vote to get their wish, but they'd be laughed out of the voting booth if they really thought they had a factual say.

To quote Picard, "How many people does it take before it becomes wrong?"

You keep calling them selfish. I don't know where you get this from, there was no indication as I recall that the Ba'ku wanted to planet all to themselves. And your thinking of such a minority not being able to dictate policy for a larger body I think shows a lot about your political alignment.

A LOT.

It was THEIR planet.

THEIR home.

The Federation had no place to inact imminent domain over them and it was an afront to everything the Federation stood for.

 

[Sisko4Life]

In my eyes it wasn't THEIR planet. That was not their homeworld... they simply found it. Now if the Federation wants to heal its wounds by relocating 600 people without harming them I don't see what is so wrong with that. The planet IS in their space. I really don't see how the Bak'ku have any claim to the planet as they never originated there which is my argument. The Native Americans were native to their lands in "Trail of Tears" and in your scenario... Humans are native to Earth. I think that changes it drastically. Ba'ku HAD warp drive, they got in a ship one day and saw this planet with its special radiation there and said "hey lets be immortal and live there its in the middle of no where." Well the planet is IN Federation space so that gives the Federation power over it. Lets take other races for example... thats like setting discovering a Cardassian colony on Pluto and telling them to get the hell out... what is wrong with that? It's our planet!

 

[Trekker4747]

No one had made claims to the Ba'ku planet, it was as much theirs as anyone elses' since they found it first.

 

[torius22]

In my eyes it wasn't THEIR planet. That was not their homeworld... they simply found it. Now if the Federation wants to heal its wounds by relocating 600 people without harming them I don't see what is so wrong with that. The planet IS in their space. I really don't see how the Bak'ku have any claim to the planet as they never originated there which is my argument. The Native Americans were native to their lands in "Trail of Tears" and in your scenario... Humans are native to Earth. I think that changes it drastically. Ba'ku HAD warp drive, they got in a ship one day and saw this planet with its special radiation there and said "hey lets be immortal and live there its in the middle of no where." Well the planet is IN Federation space so that gives the Federation power over it. Lets take other races for example... thats like setting discovering a Cardassian colony on Pluto and telling them to get the hell out... what is wrong with that? It's our planet!

let me see if i get this straight . it was'nt their home? ok how would you feel personally if our gov abducted you from your house and took your home and property away simply becuase you were "squatting " there . are you living in the house you were born in ?did you build it with your own two hands? if not , then by your logic , you dont own it . so your ruling body would have the right to take it from you . they would say you just found a house and just holding it for them till they decided it was useful to them . you would be a minority that had no say in the matter .
would you feel that was the correct decision for the gov to make then ?
feels a bit different when the shoe's on the other foot .

 

[Cyke101]

WOW. You really DID miss the point of Trek, didn't you?

You keep saying that, but I really don't think that's the point of Trek

The point of Insurrection? Sure. But not all of Trek, there's a difference. For one thing, one of the reasons TOS was made was so that social issues could be examined and discussed. Shouting down at someone sarcastically about such an issue (no matter what side you're on) is probably not the kind of topical discourse that GR had in mind.

 

[HRHTheKING]

To quote Picard, "How many people does it take before it becomes wrong?"

Admiral: "I don't care, because Nog just had his leg blown off"

 

[Trekker4747]

WOW. You really DID miss the point of Trek, didn't you?

You keep saying that, but I really don't think that's the point of Trek

I mean the overall point, the idea behind on humanity's nature and what humanity should be and strive to be. Gene's "political ideals" if you will.

One of those being an individual's freedoms are one of the most important things in the universe and government bureaucracy takes a back seat.

Thinking it is OK for a government to march into a planet they've deemed "theirs", remove the inhabitants of it (without their knowledge) and do with the planet what they please is the opposite of everything Trek's principles stood for.

 

[Cyke101]

WOW. You really DID miss the point of Trek, didn't you?

You keep saying that, but I really don't think that's the point of Trek

I mean the overall point, the idea behind on humanity's nature and what humanity should be and strive to be. Gene's "political ideals" if you will.

One of those being an individual's freedoms are one of the most important things in the universe and government bureaucracy takes a back seat.

Thinking it is OK for a government to march into a planet they've deemed "theirs", remove the inhabitants of it (without their knowledge) and do with the planet what they please is the opposite of everything Trek's principles stood for.

Now, I'm not one to argue for or against Picard, or the whole issue of the Baku, simply because I really don't like Insurrection to begin with. However, to judge someone as not getting the entire point of Trek solely on one movie or episode is a bit stretching it, no? Trek is full of contradictions, no matter how well-intentioned the writers are. You have the Baku on one side, and you have the colonists who were up against the Sheliak years before, stories that, I think, go against each other even though they both plead for us to root for Our Heroes as they deal with the controversy of relocation in very different ways. GR preached a lot of things. He also preached IDIC.

 

[Trekker4747]

The Sheliak situation was far different.

The same on the surface but the politics of it were different. They were removing the people for their own safety, as the Sheliak were going to destroy the colonists otherwise and the Federation was trying to enjoy a "peace" with them so taking a confrontational stance wouldn't work. The Sheliak also "owned" the planet and intended to do with it what they please.

In Insurrection the Federation owned the planet and wanted to remove the people so that they could artificially extend the lives of its citizens and intended to remove them not for their own safety but to do whatever to the planet.

Very, very, different situations. In one the Federation was trying to maintain a peace with a hostile race, in the other the Federation was raping their own ideals and principles.

 

[Sisko4Life]

Quote:
To quote Picard, "How many people does it take before it becomes wrong?"
Admiral: "I don't care, because Nog just had his leg blown off"

entire argument in a nutshell. Well put. Star Trek is full of moral ambiguities and whether the Federation's stance on this matter was immoral wasn't as important as the benefits. In this case, the ends justified the means. I see nothing wrong with relocating people who aren't our allies to begin with compromise the principles of the Federation. They were a warp capable civilization residing in Federation space and were non-affiliated. As Doughterty said "Jean Luc, now pack your bags and get the hell out!"