Maquis vs the Federation and Sisko.

[Daedalus12]

The pale moonlight thread got a bit off track so here is a new thread discussing the maquis situation.

JM1776 said:

As opposed to relentlessly pursuing them in the name of a shameful appeasement? I agree, totally.

Oh, and ... that's exactly what they eventually did, isn't it? The minute the Maquis acquired an enemy that could give the Federation serious pause, suddenly the UFP's professed authority and jurisdiction over them didn't mean much at all. Then what happened to them was 'a tragedy ... simply a tragedy.' The Federation bullied and harassed them so long as it was feasible, and then washed their hands when the situation grew truly perilous.

Agree with that totally. No appeasement is really needed. The Cardassians are a second rate power (look how the Klingons completely fuck them over in only a short time) whose only bargaining chip on the table was that they can be intractable pests at times. Federation should've grown some balls and call their bluff. This way the endgame would've been no war, no maquis trouble.

... they (the Maquis) were little more than a bunch of dense and cantankerous wankers whose collective ego were so high that they think they would be better off without the protection of the Federation.

They were already without the protection of the Federation. What a shame they didn't just kowtow to political pressure and abandon the land they'd settled and worked all those decades, eh?

I am talking about the initiation of the whole Maquis affair when the settlers failed to see that the long term outlook on their situation isn't the most stable. The smart ones would've anticipated the trouble brewing on the horizon with the natural of the cardassian empire being an agressive military dictatorship.

No one could have foreseen the Dominion/Cardassian Alliance, considering that the two had been implacable foes until only days before the massacre---which means that density and cantankerousness you condemned would have been successful had things played out as predicted. The proposed independent Maquis state would have been sandwiched between a Federation unwilling to invade it for a myriad of reasons and a Cardassian Union too weakened by the Klingon invasion and leery of UFP opposition to do much. The Maquis actually played it pretty smart; they were simply screwed by unforeseeable circumstance.

So what? Using your own argument the Klingon invasion of cardassia was also unexpected. The tide of fortune wax and wane. Tis the way of life. If the maquis situation is modeled as a nonlinear system then the controls engineers would deem it only Lyapunov stable i.e. it's teetering on edge of chaos in an isolated island of stability. As I said before the long term outlook was clearly more grim than good. If we aerospace engineers design airplanes especially civilian ones with the same risque attitude that the Maquis displayed in making their decisions to stay in the DMZ then we should all be shot.

Interesting position. Does that "good riddance" apply to the thousands of children killed, too?

A bit early to pull out the sympathy card don't you think?

Their parents made a dubious decision and their children paid for it. It's as simple as that really. I don't feel any sympathy at all especially for the maquis leaders.

Perhaps you're right, though: Maybe "uncompromising assholes" should be wiped out at every turn.

I imagine instituting that policy, though, would leave various locations, including certain fora, rather barren.

Non-sequitor. I only said good riddance to show my lack of sympathy. I didn't say that they should all be wiped out however if they were wiped out by some other party because of their own shoddy decisions then so be it. I won't shed a single tear.

 

[JM1776]

Daedalus12 said: I am talking about the initiation of the whole Maquis affair when the settlers failed to see that the long-term outlook on their situation isn't the most stable. The smart ones would've anticipated the trouble brewing on the horizon with the natur[e] of the Cardassian Empire being an agressive military dictatorship.

We're agreed. The smartest potential colonists would never have settled there in the first place, and the prudent government would have disallowed any attempt to do so, considering the Cardassian attitude. It's an argument I've made here before, actually---only to be assailed by rabid pseudo-libertarians to whom, it seems, any government is "The Great Satan."

Using your own argument the Klingon invasion of Cardassia was also unexpected. The tide of fortune wax and wane. [']Tis the way of life.

Your point is valid, if somewhat superficial.

Again, it's a matter of degree and probability. Is it more likely that the aggressive expansionist empire on your border, the one with whom you have a history of strife, will invade ... or that you'll suddenly, spontaneously ally with the foe that's promised the extermination of your people and is separated from you by 60,000 light years---to which your only logistical tie is a wormhole controlled by capricious aliens who favor those you've oppressed?

I trust you see my point.

If the Maquis situation is modeled as a nonlinear system then the controls engineers would deem it only Lyapunov stable, i.e. it's teetering on edge of chaos in an isolated island of stability. As I said before the long-term outlook was clearly more grim than good. If we aerospace engineers design airplanes especially civilian ones with the same risque attitude that the Maquis displayed in making their decisions to stay in the DMZ then we should all be shot.

The Cardassians had done little or nothing to stop the Maquis even before the Klingon invasion, which speaks both to their concerns with agitating the Federation and the effectiveness of Maquis tactics in keeping them off balance. Clearly the latter had proven effective to the point where such experts as Major Kira had asserted that they'd "turned the tide." Dismissing a group that was, in many ways, on the verge of achieving their objective until completely unforeseeable circumstances changed the playing field is hardly a solid foundation on which to rest your premise.

A bit early to pull out the sympathy card don't you think?

One plays the cards to which your opposition has made himself vulnerable---as you did with your callous statement.

Their parents made a dubious decision and their children paid for it. It's as simple as that really. I don't feel any sympathy at all especially for the Maquis leaders.

I'll take that as confirmation.

Non-sequitor.

It's not at all a non-sequitur, actually, despite your label. Evidently you must have some Vulcan blood, for it seems you're immune to sarcasm.

I only said good riddance to show my lack of sympathy. I didn't say that they should all be wiped out however if they were wiped out by some other party because of their own shoddy decisions then so be it. I won't shed a single tear.

I'm not boo-hooing over the demise of a fictional group for whom I had little sympathy, either ... but that wasn't the point.

And I've already demonstrated that their decision-making, tactically speaking, was far cleverer and more effectual than the final result would indicate.

I couldn't vote, because you did not offer the option I'd espouse: I sympathize to a certain degree with the Maquis, and feel the Federation handled the situation quite badly. In addition, I also feel the decision to settle there originally so monumentally stupid that it somewhat reduces my sympathy for their later woes.

 

[Daedalus12]

JM1776 said:

Your point is valid, if somewhat superficial.

Again, it's a matter of degree and probability. Is it more likely that the aggressive expansionist empire on your border, the one with whom you have a history of strife, will invade ... or that you'll suddenly, spontaneously ally with the foe that's promised the extermination of your people and is separated from you by 60,000 light years---to which your only logistical tie is a wormhole controlled by capricious aliens who favor those you've oppressed?

If the probabilities of both events are low enough it does not matter which one is lower by however many factors. Neither can be relied upon in any calculation of long-term strategy. The fact is the Cardassians haven't fought a war with the Klingons in many years. The klingons being allied with the Federation since the Khitmor accords have not been the same agressive expansionist empire for so long (Worf mentioned this little tidbit in WOTW) it's not stretch to conclude that the probability of Klingon invasion of cardassia is very low. In fact as established in WOTW the Federation was taken aback about such turn of events.

The Cardassians had done little or nothing to stop the Maquis even before the Klingon invasion, which speaks both to their concerns with agitating the Federation and the effectiveness of Maquis tactics in keeping them off balance. Clearly the latter had proven effective to the point where such experts as Major Kira had asserted that they'd "turned the tide." Dismissing a group that was, in many ways, on the verge of achieving their objective until completely unforeseeable circumstances changed the playing field is hardly a solid foundation on which to rest your premise.

Here is where we differ in opinion. You seems to think that the Maquis situation in the DMZ is an asymtotically stable system in which any perturbations wouldn't lead to some uncontrollable dynamics but from my viewpoint there is no way the volatile DMZ could be considered as stabilizing system as time goes to infinity (in an engineering sense). Yes before the Klingons enter the war the situation in the DMZ between the Maquis and the Cardassians was effectively a stalemate. But it wasn't a convex-shaped stalemate and as I said before it teetered on the edge between the chaotic surroundings and the island of stability. The Maquis were in fact committing acts of terror against both the Federation and the Cardassians. While neither powers really send any large amount of forces however the probability that one of them will eventually take serious actions to eliminate the Maquis problem is pretty good.

One plays the cards to which your opposition has made himself vulnerable---as you did with your callous statement.

Yes but such tactic is completely unnecessary for arguing on the internet.

It's not at all a non-sequitur, actually, despite your label. Evidently you must have some Vulcan blood, for it seems you're immune to sarcasm.

I got the sarcasm but I don't see how it had anything to do with my statement of good riddance.

And I've already demonstrated that their decision-making, tactically speaking, was far cleverer and more effectual than the final result would indicate.

Tatically the Maquis were clever but their long-term strategy of provoking two large powers is pretty thick-skulled.

 

[JM1776]

Daedalus12 said: If the probabilities of both events are low enough it does not matter which one is lower by however many factors. Neither can be relied upon in any calculation of long-term strategy. The fact is the Cardassians haven't fought a war with the Klingons in many years. The klingons being allied with the Federation since the Khitmor accords have not been the same agressive expansionist empire for so long (Worf mentioned this little tidbit in WOTW) it's not stretch to conclude that the probability of Klingon invasion of cardassia is very low. In fact as established in WOTW the Federation was taken aback about such turn of events.

And yet the Klingon invasion, having occurred, was then reasonably factored into the subsequent Maquis strategy---a strategy that had already proven successful even before said unlikely happenstance. Thus, to say that the Maquis plan of action (now further bolstered by Klingon support) should suddenly be considered foolish because a debateably unlikely event (if we consider the period of Klingon quiesence a relative aberration, as it clearly is in light of Trek history) is then followed by an entirely unlikely event (the Dominion/Cardassian alliance) simply does not follow.

Here is where we differ in opinion. You seems to think that the Maquis situation in the DMZ is an asymtotically stable system in which any perturbations wouldn't lead to some uncontrollable dynamics but from my viewpoint there is no way the volatile DMZ could be considered as stabilizing system as time goes to infinity (in an engineering sense). Yes before the Klingons enter the war the situation in the DMZ between the Maquis and the Cardassians was effectively a stalemate. But it wasn't a convex-shaped stalemate and as I said before it teetered on the edge between the chaotic surroundings and the island of stability. The Maquis were in fact committing acts of terror against both the Federation and the Cardassians. While neither powers really send any large amount of forces however the probability that one of them will eventually take serious actions to eliminate the Maquis problem is pretty good.

You're analyzing after the fact and attempting to apply a specious equational model for what occurred, as if the eventual result was inevitable. While the idea of a Maquis state existing perpetually in that form is indeed unlikely, a number of options other than their complete destruction at Dominion hands present themselves as distinct possibilities.

Yes but such [a] tactic is completely unnecessary for arguing on the internet.

If you don't want someone to make an observation about your comment, don't make said comment in the first place.

Tactically the Maquis were clever but their long-term strategy of provoking two large powers is pretty thick-skulled.

Unless of course, it works---which, like it or not, admit it or not, it had been. Can't argue ... or, rather, can't argue credibly ... against results. The Maquis were hit by a bolt from the blue; until then, they'd survived and prospered. That trumps any other argument.

Note that it was neither of the three predictable powers that caused their demise, but the unlooked-for arrival on the scene of a fourth. Again, it's not "thick-skulled" to fall victim to an entirely unpredictable circumstance.

We're not going to see eye-to-eye on this. I suggest we agree to disagree.

 

[Ro_Laren]

I didn't really read anything above, but did vote in the poll. I definitely sympathize with the Maquis. Would I help them?? That all depends. I doubt I would drop everything and join them unless I had some sort of personal connection (such as if I lived in the DMZ or a family member had been killed by Cardassians).

If I was a Starfleet officer stationed around the DMZ there would be a chance that I might "lose things" or turn a blind eye to some things. Now if I was stationed on DS9 then I would be more careful. I wouldn't be as bold as to "lose things", but if I thought some Maquis were on the station then I wouldn't do anything about it (unless ordered to)....

 

[Daedalus12]

JM1776 said:

And yet the Klingon invasion, having occurred, was then reasonably factored into the subsequent Maquis strategy---a strategy that had already proven successful even before said unlikely happenstance. Thus, to say that the Maquis plan of action (now further bolstered by Klingon support) should suddenly be considered foolish because a debateably unlikely event (if we consider the period of Klingon quiesence a relative aberration, as it clearly is in light of Trek history) is then followed by an entirely unlikely event (the Dominion/Cardassian alliance) simply does not follow.

Cnsider the hypothetical scenario in which none of these two events happens since they are both unlikely and in the DS9 universe they were both engineered by the Founders.

Maquis's plan would still be foolish because it won't achieve peace in the short term and in the long term it can only lead to either their destruction (in the hands of Cardassians) or deportation (in the hands of the Federation). According the basic tenets of game theory such course of action is by all accounts foolish.

You're analyzing after the fact and attempting to apply a specious equational model for what occurred, as if the eventual result was inevitable. While the idea of a Maquis state existing perpetually in that form is indeed unlikely, a number of options other than their complete destruction at Dominion hands present themselves as distinct possibilities.

My point is actually based on the events before the Klingon invasion and Dominion alliance with Cardassia. The Maquis was stucked in a pertual fighting state. Any temporary stalemate they won was short-lived and they were facing two superior military powers with larger manpower and resources. In essence they were at the mercy of their neighbors. In the short run there might be some victories for the Maquis because of their tactical ingenuity and the clever usage of the badlands but eventually they'll run into a supply problem and that would be end of the Maquis.

If you don't want someone to make an observation about your comment, don't make said comment in the first place.

Of course by all means you can make all that comment about me as I don't really care. I was just replying to your reply which said that you were just taking advantage the vulnerable position that I set for myself even though this is just an internet debate between only two of us. There is simply no audience behind for you to take advantage of the sympathy card.

Unless of course, it works---which, like it or not, admit it or not, it had been. Can't argue ... or, rather, can't argue credibly ... against results. The Maquis were hit by a bolt from the blue; until then, they'd survived and prospered. That trumps any other argument.

Sure they were still alive but they were also in a state of constant fighting which to me shows that the plan is hardly working. Believe or not carrying the intermittent guerilla warfares for 10 years is not the best way of live. They could've had 10 years of peace if they just moved out of the planets in the DMZ initially.

Note that it was neither of the three predictable powers that caused their demise, but the unlooked-for arrival on the scene of a fourth. Again, it's not "thick-skulled" to fall victim to an entirely unpredictable circumstance.

What part of long-term do you not understand. Eventually the Maquis semi-state is going to die even without Dominion interference. There was no way that they can take the war to Cardassia and that is going to eventually bite them in the ass. The Federation throughout TNG/DS9 seemed only interested in assisting the Cardassians to stop the Maquis. Essentially the Maquis are surrounded.

We're not going to see eye-to-eye on this. I suggest we agree to disagree.

You do have a bit of wild frontier spirit in you. Kind like the Maquis actually. Rather going down fighting for you land than taking the easy way out.

 

[JM1776]

Daedalus12 said: Maquis's plan would still be foolish because it won't achieve peace in the short term and in the long term it can only lead to either their destruction (in the hands of Cardassians) or deportation (in the hands of the Federation). According the basic tenets of game theory such a course of action is by all accounts foolish.

Your reliance on game theory supposes that your basic analysis is reliable. Since it is not ....

The Maquis may well achieve peace in the short term precisely because they are a mere pinprick in the sight of the Federation, which has far vaster concerns with the Klingon-Cardassian War progressing badly ... and as I have already said, I am not imagining the survival of a Maquis state in the form it possessed during latter-TNG and DS9.

The fact that your vision is limited to only the scenarios you've devised in no way constrains others from imagining viable alternatives.

My point is actually based on the events before the Klingon invasion and Dominion alliance with Cardassia. The Maquis was stucked in a pertual fighting state. Any temporary stalemate they won was short-lived and they were facing two superior military powers with larger manpower and resources. In essence they were at the mercy of their neighbors. In the short run there might be some victories for the Maquis because of their tactical ingenuity and the clever usage of the Badlands but eventually they'll run into a supply problem and that would be end of the Maquis.

From a logistics, personnel, and materiel standpoint, that's unquestionably true as relates to direct military conflict, and has never been in dispute. Even the most brilliant commander's skill is eventually insufficient, or alternately his luck simply runs out.

And if I were talking about the survival of the Maquis as an entirely independent political state, able to treat with the Federation, Cardassian Union and Klingon Empire on a level footing, that might well be the case. But the Federation is not their implacable foe, and there are many, even in the highest echelons of Starfleet and the Federation government, who are very beneficently disposed towards the Maquis even after some of their more outrageous acts. That skews the equation sufficiently that your conclusions are unwarranted.

There is simply no audience behind for you to take advantage of the sympathy card.

And yet you saw fit to mention an audience, as if you yourself were playing to it.

Sure they were still alive but they were also in a state of constant fighting which to me shows that the plan is hardly working. Believe or not carrying the intermittent guerilla warfares for 10 years is not the best way of live. They could've had 10 years of peace if they just moved out of the planets in the DMZ initially.

Gee, you think?

You're operating under the assumption that the Maquis had no plan other than to keep fighting and hope that things never just collapsed on them. I credit them with more intelligence than that.

And this idea that everyone in the Demilitarized Zone was in a "constant state of fighting" is more than a little ridiculous. Eddington himself had time to grow his own tomatoes. Many of these people were clearly living their lives, admittedly with an ad hoc militia defending them. Imagining that they were all living in abject poverty on a dream is totally unsubstantiated.

What part of long-term do you not understand.

None of it. We're in complete agreement that things could not stay as they did indefinitely. That's never been in dispute.

Eventually the Maquis semi-state is going to die even without Dominion interference. There was no way that they can take the war to Cardassia and that is going to eventually bite them in the ass.

And it's my assertion that if they played their hand correctly, that would never have been necessary.

The Federation throughout TNG/DS9 seemed only interested in assisting the Cardassians to stop the Maquis.

The Federation is interested in the restoration of peace, granted, but not necessarily status quo ante bellum.

Essentially the Maquis are surrounded.

Yep ... with an enfeebled foe on one side, a group inclined to help them on another (as evidenced by the Klingon gift of cloaking devices), and a third by its very nature hopeful of peace and an equitable solution that benefits all concerned. Yeah, that's my definition of hopeless.

If at any time the Maquis had agreed to a temporary cease fire and some sort of talks (and they might well have done that from a position of strength whilst Cardassia foundered, and the Detapa Council found itself less and less inclined to worry about a few insignifcant systems on its borders while its heartlands were imperiled), the outcome might well have been very different.

You do have a bit of wild frontier spirit in you. Kind like the Maquis actually. Rather going down fighting for you[r] land than taking the easy way out.

I'll take that as a compliment and ignore the amusing implication that you're winning this argument.

Actually, though, for me home is where my loved ones are ... and my loved ones would have been on the first transport outta there, or more likely living on some planet deep in the Federation's heart, where questions like this are totally theoretical.

Implying victory does not make you the victor, Daedalus12. Your belief in a mathematical analysis of the situation with insufficient facts at your disposal makes for an entertaining, but hardly conclusive, set of assertions.

 

[stj]

A colony does not have the same rights as a member state. Whether the colonists continue to fight a war is not up to them alone, but up to the majority of the whole Federation. The Maquis refuse to accept majority rule and claim sovereignty they do not have. So far as the Federation letting the Maquis pursue a private war, Mullah Omar can testify that letting a private group launch an attack from you nation can be construed as an act of war. As treaty signatory, the Federation has a legal and moral obligation to enforce the treaty. I can't see any other position as tenable.

Despite the name, the Maquis have no parallels in the real world. Real world settlers are usually conquerors of native peoples, which apparently does not apply here. The real world Abraham Lincoln Brigade, superficially resembling the Maquis, were leftists intervening in a civil war, while their governments invented a spurious neutrality. The real Maquis were resisting occupation of a collaborationist regime as well as occupiers not of a colony but the homeland.

All the Maquis defenders seem to be confusing the fictional Maquis with one of the real life situations alluded to but not genuinely applicable. Or confusing the desirability of war with Cardassia with the morality of the Maquis.

 

[JM1776]

stj said: A colony does not have the same rights as a member state. Whether the colonists continue to fight a war is not up to them alone, but up to the majority of the whole Federation.

Remember that the Federation had de facto relinquished sovereignty over them via treaty, according to the events of "Journey's End" and much of Deep Space Nine. This is not only a question of legalism, but the ethical right of a distant government to enforce these policies for the sake of political expediency. I'm not here to say that the Maquis were entirely or even largely in the right (nor has that ever been my position), and still hold that that original choice to settle where they did was idiotic, as was the Federation's decision to allow it.

The Maquis refuse to accept majority rule and claim sovereignty they do not have.

One of the features of a truly evolved society is that the majority does not simply impose its decrees on the minority for convenience's sake.

Sovereignty, after all, is not only a matter of rights claimed, but authority enforced---practically speaking, of course.

So far as the Federation letting the Maquis pursue a private war, Mullah Omar can testify that letting a private group launch an attack from your nation can be construed as an act of war. As treaty signatory, the Federation has a legal and moral obligation to enforce the treaty. I can't see any other position as tenable.

Legalistically, your point is a valid one, but ... ethically, rule is based not exclusively on the authority of the government, but the consent of the governed---as any rebel part of a successful revolution will tell you.

Despite the name, the Maquis have no parallels in the real world. Real world settlers are usually conquerors of native peoples, which apparently does not apply here. The real world Abraham Lincoln Brigade, superficially resembling the Maquis, were leftists intervening in a civil war, while their governments invented a spurious neutrality. The real Maquis were resisting occupation of a collaborationist regime as well as occupiers not of a colony but the homeland.

All true, but not necessarily sufficiently applicable to this case to be worth citing. The Federation is not a real-world government, and since we cannot refer to the treaty for determination of its specifics, much of what we see on screen may be left to our own interpretation. The idea that a government, having previously permitted a settlement in a certain area, may then (according to the DMZ residents) arbitrarily rescind the right to live there, abandon claim of sovereignty over said territory and yet still enforce its policies there is highly questionable.

All the Maquis defenders seem to be confusing the fictional Maquis with one of the real life situations alluded to but not genuinely applicable. Or confusing the desirability of war with Cardassia with the morality of the Maquis.

And those condemning the Maquis seem unable to distinguish between Maquis partisans and those who simply say that their rebellion had proven far more effective and problematic to the Federation and Cardassians than is conceded simply because they were eventually destroyed by a new and highly unexpected player on the scene---one whose introduction upset the balance of power upon which the Maquis were heavily relying.

Let me make my position clear: I think the Maquis had legitimate grievances with the Cardassians and Federation---grievances that some reasonable people would have thought necessitated taking up arms. I also think that in a 24th century with plenty of planets to settle that simple acknowledgment of a mistake in picking a home would be far better than staying there and having to kill to defend it, when safer and smarter options are available. While I understand the attachment one has to land and home, you don't initially settle down next to a dragon and then justly complain when your lawn is regularly scorched. By the same token, this "they are wrong, wrong, WRONG" mentality is in my opinion myopic and inflexible.

I think Daedalus12 might be correct when he says that the Maquis would have ended up deported or dead. I also think that they could have salvaged the situation if events had played out differently.

This is also a question of just revolution---which we'll not settle here.

 

[Sean Aaron]

I see general condemnation of the settlers to locate there in the first place, but remember that space is vast and whilst an apparently expansionist power nearby like Cardassia may have eventually come there way it wasn't necessarily so. Clearly these settlers were people who didn't feel dependent upon the Federation for aid and wanted to go it alone and that's why they were so far away; it's also apparent that the DMZ worlds were reasonably far from Cardassia. Maybe they were naive, but I wouldn't condemn them for their choice to settle there or for the Federation allowing it. Besides it's not apparent that suitable M-Class planets are that plentiful within Federation space any more. We don't know how many of the 180-odd worlds within the Federation were originally human/vulcan/other colonies, but I imagine that habitable worlds without indiginous populations cannot be that common and if a new planet is found that meets requirements even if it's near the Romulan Neutral Zone, there will be people keen to stake out a new life there.

Now with regards to treaty settlement, well the Federation really blew it there. Ceding the planets without removing the settlers was a big mistake. Picard has some kind of crisis of faith due to his ancestor's actions against the ancestor's of some settlers, fine, bring in someone else to do the job. By respecting the colonists rights as Federation citizens and then attempting to work with them by having Starfleet advisors sent to them (Cal, Sisko's friend, who I wish we had seen more of) the Federation legitimised their continued identity as citizens justifying Cardassia blaming the Federation for their actions and forcing them to deal with the Maquis.

Clearly good drama, but realistically what fool in Starfleet couldn't have anticipated the radicalisation of the colonists and that this would cause problems for years with the Cardassians. If they had separated Feds from Cardassians you could have had regular patrol groups out looking for Cardassians, but no, now you have to watch both Cardassians and nominal Federation citizens who you're also supposed to be protecting. Genius.

 

[anti-matter]

Never cared for the Marquis…their unsanctioned revolt upset the balance of power and started a chain of events that led to war with the Dominion. How naive of them to think their resistance would cause the Cardassians to just lay down and play nice…dumb asses.

Their extermination was too good for the consequences they caused. I would have loved to see them suffer under the thumb of the great Gul Dukat for a season or 2 and LOL when they finally concluded that in the end they were only the useful dupes of the Dominion.

BWAAAAAHAHAHAHA! F-ing know-it-all donkeys.

 

[Sean Aaron]

anti-matter said:
Never cared for the Marquis…their unsanctioned revolt upset the balance of power and started a chain of events that led to war with the Dominion. How naive of them to think their resistance would cause the Cardassians to just lay down and play nice…dumb asses.

I think war with the Dominion was inevitable with or without the Maquis, so I wouldn't lay that at their feet; nor do I think their thinking was flawed: our own history is replete with examples of successful guerilla rebellions driving off a numerically or technologically superior foe.

 

[stj]

JM1776 said:

One of the features of a truly evolved society is that the majority does not simply impose its decrees on the minority for convenience's sake.

Sovereignty, after all, is not only a matter of rights claimed, but authority enforced---practically speaking, of course.

There seem to be three objections here. Majority imposing its will or violating colonists' rights; practical sovereignty or might makes right; convenience is insufficient justification.

The majority imposing its decrees on the minority is called majority rule. The minority imposing its decrees on the majority is less "evolved." Incidentally, not knowing the Federation's version of law of eminent domain, we cannot even argue that citizens' rights were violated!

The implication that the Federation lacked moral authority because of their practical failure to suppress the Maquis is moot. By that standard, the death of the Maquis refutes them, and their defenders.

The Maquis waged private war because it was inconvenient to accept compensation. The notion that peace was a mere convenience to the Federation is dubious enough. The equation of the convenience of the entire Federation and the Cardassian Union to the convenience of the colonists is astonishing.

It only makes sense is it is tacitly assumed that war with Cardassia was inevitable and desirable. And not just in the future but at that time! It also assumes that the minority has the right to decide questions of war and peace at their convenience!

Legalistically, your point is a valid one, but ... ethically, rule is based not exclusively on the authority of the government, but the consent of the governed---as any rebel part of a successful revolution will tell you.

Majority rule is the consent of the governed. Minority ruls is not. Consensus is only required if every individual is sovereign, which is anarchy, not government.
Just revolution establishes the rule of the majority. This is irrelevant to the Maquis.

PS If consensus is relevant, how could the Maquis or their defenders expect Starfleet to wage war on their behalf when not everyone in Starfleet agreed?

 

[JM1776]

CaptainSpock said: ... nor do I think their thinking was flawed: our own history is replete with examples of successful guerilla rebellions driving off a numerically or technologically superior foe.

Thank you. :thumbsup:

 

[JM1776]

CaptainSpock said:
I see general condemnation of the settlers to locate there in the first place, but remember that space is vast and whilst an apparently expansionist power nearby like Cardassia may have eventually come there way it wasn't necessarily so. Clearly these settlers were people who didn't feel dependent upon the Federation for aid and wanted to go it alone and that's why they were so far away; it's also apparent that the DMZ worlds were reasonably far from Cardassia. Maybe they were naive, but I wouldn't condemn them for their choice to settle there or for the Federation allowing it. Besides it's not apparent that suitable M-Class planets are that plentiful within Federation space anymore. We don't know how many of the 180-odd worlds within the Federation were originally human/vulcan/other colonies, but I imagine that habitable worlds without indigenous populations cannot be that common and if a new planet is found that meets requirements even if it's near the Romulan Neutral Zone, there will be people keen to stake out a new life there.

I think the above operates under reasonable assumptions, but one can also posit that habitable worlds are not necessarily at an extreme premium considering other canonical statements we've heard. By the same token, though, one might infer from the presence of terraforming groups that you're correct, and that there's a scramble to colonize any planet even remotely hospitable. I was operating under the former assumption ... but if indeed yours is correct, the equation changes. Either supposition is justifiable from what we've seen and heard.

Now with regards to treaty settlement, well the Federation really blew it there. Ceding the planets without removing the settlers was a big mistake. Picard has some kind of crisis of faith due to his ancestor's actions against the ancestors of some settlers, fine, bring in someone else to do the job. By respecting the colonists rights as Federation citizens and then attempting to work with them by having Starfleet advisors sent to them (Cal, Sisko's friend, who I wish we had seen more of) the Federation legitimised their continued identity as citizens justifying Cardassia blaming the Federation for their actions and forcing them to deal with the Maquis.

Clearly the Federation had tremendous difficulty deciding upon and then executing policy in this matter. If you're going to declare certain of the areas Cardassian domain (as "Journey's End" more than implied), then from that instant onward any incident occurring between them and former Federation citizens is by definition an internal matter of the Cardassian Union. You do not retain rights as UFP citizens once the Cardassian flag flies over your colony, nor does your former government retain the right to intervene either on your behalf or in an attempt to rein you in.

Clearly good drama, but realistically what fool in Starfleet couldn't have anticipated the radicalisation of the colonists and that this would cause problems for years with the Cardassians. If they had separated Feds from Cardassians you could have had regular patrol groups out looking for Cardassians, but no, now you have to watch both Cardassians and nominal Federation citizens who you're also supposed to be protecting. Genius.

And all that on top of having supposedly already pulled a Pontius Pilate. What a mess.

 

[JM1776]

stj said: The majority imposing its decrees on the minority is called majority rule. The minority imposing its decrees on the majority is less "evolved."

That does not follow logically as relates to this matter. The minority, in this case, was not imposing its will, but rather preventing the majority from doing the same---a distinct difference. The protection of your own rights does not constitute the impositon of your will.

And, on an unrelated matter, the idea that a minority imposing its will on the majority as inherently less evolved is a specious one. If, indeed, the minority is in the right, well ... such imposition becomes justifiable. A man with a gun protecting an accused murderer from a lynch mob is an example of a minority imposing its will on a majority, and rightly so.

Incidentally, not knowing the Federation's version of law of eminent domain, we cannot even argue that citizens' rights were violated!

In other words, they were or they weren't. Clearly, according to the Maquis, they were.

In addition, you're wrongly assuming that the enforcement of an unjust law (if indeed the UFP law on eminent domain strips colonists of reasonable sovereignty and property rights) is justifiable.

The implication that the Federation lacked moral authority because of their practical failure to suppress the Maquis is moot. By that standard, the death of the Maquis refutes them, and their defenders.

The Federation surrendered moral authority in this matter due to the inconsistency and ineptitude of its policies, both proposed and enforced, along with the fact that they by treaty relinquished a large measure of sovereignty in this matter.

The Maquis waged private war because it was inconvenient to accept compensation. The notion that peace was a mere convenience to the Federation is dubious enough. The equation of the convenience of the entire Federation and the Cardassian Union to the convenience of the colonists is astonishing.

The idea that a government may arbitrarily decide what constitutes adequate compensation for the loss of home, dignity and honor is laughable---especially in the wake of gross malfeasance such as was demonstrated by the Federation. Once again, the majority's right to impose its will on the minority must not be absolute, or the imposition of any injustice becomes a simple numbers game.

It only makes sense is it is tacitly assumed that war with Cardassia was inevitable and desirable. And not just in the future but at that time! It also assumes that the minority has the right to decide questions of war and peace at their convenience!

As opposed to the majority deciding that a certain minority should be written off as an inconvenience ... and more, told that it now lacks the right to defend itself? Ridiculous.

This idea that the Maquis desired war between the Federation and Cardassia is by no means substantiated by the evidence presented on screen.

Majority rule is the consent of the governed. Minority ruls is not. Consensus is only required if every individual is sovereign, which is anarchy, not government.

No one here has espoused minority rule in this instance. This is entirely about the majority's attempt to impose its will on the minority, and whether it was justified in this matter. When a reasonable question of right and wrong arises, as it did in this case, neither numbers nor law are always sufficient to resolve the question.

As Picard has said, "There can be no justice where laws are absolute."

Just revolution establishes the rule of the majority. This is irrelevant to the Maquis.

Your claim of irrelevance is specious, since one could infer from it that only a successful revolution is just---which is, of course, preposterous. More correctly, just revolution distinguishes violence that oppresses (such as that involved in the enforcement of an unjust treaty) from violence that liberates.

If consensus is relevant, how could the Maquis or their defenders expect Starfleet to wage war on their behalf when not everyone in Starfleet agreed?

You were the one who employed the word "consensus" in this context.

The Maquis seemed quite content to defend themselves ... and quite adept at doing so.

 

[Sean Aaron]

JM1776 said:from that instant onward any incident occurring between them and former Federation citizens is by definition an internal matter of the Cardassian Union. You do not retain rights as UFP citizens once the Cardassian flag flies over your colony, nor does your former government retain the right to intervene either on your behalf or in an attempt to rein you in.

I suspect that this is not how it would be viewed by the Federation, and is why the colonists weren't forcibly removed. Ultimately the Federation Charter of Rights or Universal Guarantees -- whatever they call their sapient rights charter -- made it impossible for them to legally remove the colonists against their will; I'm sure there was sufficient division within the body politic of the Federation to make allowing the Cardassians to commit genocide or forcibly remove the colonists impossible.

I'm now working within the framework of the show rather than just going on what should/could have been done in a modern context. It does nicely fit in with the central theme of DS9: paradise doesn't come easy (or words to that effect). The Federation can have great respect for personal liberties, but clearly in this case it just got them into trouble. Interesting that none of this is relevant when it comes to ridding the Baku homeworld of the troublesome Baku in Insurrection (not that I care for that or any other TNG film).

 

[stj]

I hate nesting quotes but my stuff was pretty short. For once it'll be easier to follow the discussion.

JM1776 said:

stj said: The majority imposing its decrees on the minority is called majority rule. The minority imposing its decrees on the majority is less "evolved."

That does not follow logically as relates to this matter. The minority, in this case, was not imposing its will, but rather preventing the majority from doing the same---a distinct difference. The protection of your own rights does not constitute the impositon of your will.

This is a specious argument. The Maquis minority wishes to prevent the Federation majority from making a peace treaty. (Leaving rebellious colonists in place violates the provision for border adjustment, whatever borders might actually mean in this context.) That means the minority wishes to impose its will on the majority.The colonists do not have some bizarre individual right to determine foreign policy for the whole state.

And, on an unrelated matter, the idea that a minority imposing its will on the majority as inherently less evolved is a specious one. If, indeed, the minority is in the right, well ... such imposition becomes justifiable. A man with a gun protecting an accused murderer from a lynch mob is an example of a minority imposing its will on a majority, and rightly so.

The man with the gun acts as a citizen enforcing the majority decision that murderers be tried in court instead of murdered out of hand themselves. The lynch mob is the minority, albeit (like the Maquis) a local majority. The seeming refutation in the counterexample merely plays word games, confusing majority and minority.

Incidentally, not knowing the Federation's version of law of eminent domain, we cannot even argue that citizens' rights were violated!

In other words, they were or they weren't. Clearly, according to the Maquis, they were.

In addition, you're wrongly assuming that the enforcement of an unjust law (if indeed the UFP law on eminent domain strips colonists of reasonable sovereignty and property rights) is justifiable.

No, I'm saying that we don't know enough to claim UFP law on eminent domain is unjust. The colonists' "reasonable sovereignty" cannot extend to imposing their favored foreign policy upon the majority of the Federation.

To make my own extreme example, this is like saying that France's government could not make peace with Germany in 1871 unless the citizens of Alsace and Lorraine agreed to be incorporated into the Reich! This is so foolish it should be obvious that you've fallen into the trap of assuming the conclusion.

The implication that the Federation lacked moral authority because of their practical failure to suppress the Maquis is moot. By that standard, the death of the Maquis refutes them, and their defenders.

The Federation surrendered moral authority in this matter due to the inconsistency and ineptitude of its policies, both proposed and enforced, along with the fact that they by treaty relinquished a large measure of sovereignty in this matter.

Leaving rebellious colonists in place was like leaving minefields and booby traps. The moral authority to suppress the Maquis lay in the duty to honor the treaty. Any perceived inconsistency or ineptitude in exceution has no bearing. The Cardassians received any sovereignty relinquished by treaty, which does not support the Maquis cause.

The Maquis waged private war because it was inconvenient to accept compensation. The notion that peace was a mere convenience to the Federation is dubious enough. The equation of the convenience of the entire Federation and the Cardassian Union to the convenience of the colonists is astonishing.

The idea that a government may arbitrarily decide what constitutes adequate compensation for the loss of home, dignity and honor is laughable---especially in the wake of gross malfeasance such as was demonstrated by the Federation. Once again, the majority's right to impose its will on the minority must not be absolute, or the imposition of any injustice becomes a simple numbers game.

Compensation usually follows procedures established by statute and tested in courts. The claim that it is arbitrary has no merit.

And who is to decide the question of dignity and honor? Evaluation of these intangibles is far more arbitrary than physical evaluation of property.

The argument is crazy. You might as well say that a judge cannot arbitrarily determine the sentence of a convicted criminal, because that violates the rights of the victim!

Further, the pointless aside about gross malfeasance again assumes the conclusion.

The great justification of majority rule is human equality. Laws that violate equality may are inconsistent with the very nature of a democratic state. In principle the even more fundamental necessities of survival still take precedence. (This is more in the claiming than the reality.)

It only makes sense is it is tacitly assumed that war with Cardassia was inevitable and desirable. And not just in the future but at that time! It also assumes that the minority has the right to decide questions of war and peace at their convenience!

As opposed to the majority deciding that a certain minority should be written off as an inconvenience ... and more, told that it now lacks the right to defend itself? Ridiculous.

Wrong. Yet again you are assuming the conclusion. It would be ridiculous to claim bank robbers have the right to defend themselves against the police.

This idea that the Maquis desired war between the Federation and Cardassia is by no means substantiated by the evidence presented on screen.

They were Federation citizens fighting against Cardassia. Of course they wanted war. Some of the fighting was on screen!

Majority rule is the consent of the governed. Minority ruls is not. Consensus is only required if every individual is sovereign, which is anarchy, not government.

No one here has espoused minority rule in this instance. This is entirely about the majority's attempt to impose its will on the minority, and whether it was justified in this matter. When a reasonable question of right and wrong arises, as it did in this case, neither numbers nor law are always sufficient to resolve the question.

As Picard has said, "There can be no justice where laws are absolute."

There is no reasonable question about whether private citizens have a legal or moral right to wage war. They don't. Historicl examples like southern filibusters are examples or moral depravity. This still confuses the desirability and inevitability of war with the Nazis---er, Cardassians---with the Maquis.

One thing that has been conspicuously overlooked is the moral enormity of resort to war. The burden of proof is always on the warmongers.

Just revolution establishes the rule of the majority. This is irrelevant to the Maquis.

Your claim of irrelevance is specious, since one could infer from it that only a successful revolution is just---which is, of course, preposterous. More correctly, just revolution distinguishes violence that oppresses (such as that involved in the enforcement of an unjust treaty) from violence that liberates.

The aside about unjust treaty once again assumes the conclusion. An unsuccessful just revolution may attempt to establish majority rule. By definition, establishment of majority rule liberates the majority from minority rule. The Maquis stand for minority rule. Their cause is unjust.

If consensus is relevant, how could the Maquis or their defenders expect Starfleet to wage war on their behalf when not everyone in Starfleet agreed?

You were the one who employed the word "consensus" in this context.

The Maquis seemed quite content to defend themselves ... and quite adept at doing so.

Since you assumed the thing itself was a requirement, why not use the word? This is just quibbling. Justice for the Maquis no more required their consent (or consensus!) to the cession than the inhabitants of the Falklands were required to agree to revocation to Argentina.

Did you notice that your position on the fictional situation of the Maquis puts you into pretty unsavory company in the vast majority of real world analagies?

 

[Timo]

Remember that the Federation had de facto relinquished sovereignty over them via treaty, according to the events of "Journey's End" and much of Deep Space Nine.

Quite apart from the other lines of argument in this thread, the legality of the Maquis position vis-á-vis the UFP is a matter where we should carefully mind the canonical facts.

In TNG "Journey's End", we see a colony that is going to be ceded to Cardassia, originally without but eventually with its Federation-originated population. The situation on Dorvan V is clear-cut, then: the planet and its people all become Cardassian. There is no mention of a Demilitarized Zone there; Dorvan V is simply in Cardassian space as the episode concludes.

The colonies in DS9 "The Maquis" are a different matter: they exist in the Demilitarized Zone which appears to be part sovereign UFP territory, part sovereign Cardassian territory, possibly also part neutral or third party, but all off limits from both Starfleet and Cardassian military forces. UFP law is no doubt obeyed on those UFP colonies that do not have special arrangements (although I would imagine several colonies do, the point of colonization in the first place being the gaining of some measure of independence). Cardassian law is obeyed on the Cardassian colonies.

When the Maquis rebellion starts for good, things begin to turn murkier. Eddington in "For the Cause" claims that the Maquis have broken away from the Federation and no longer need obey its laws, but later in "Blaze of Glory" states that the Maquis were only planning on declaring independence from the UFP when the Dominion came and squashed them. In the eyes of Eddington, then, the Maquis between "For the Cause" and their demise are UFP citizens engaged in criminal activity. This appears to be Starfleet's point of view as well.

In "For the Uniform", Eddington shows how the Maquis activists on specific colonies in the DMZ are affecting the fates of entire colonies - basically we see the whole colonies "becoming Maquis" de facto even though there is no obvious de jure basis for claiming that a DMZ denizen is automatically a Maquis. Sisko in turn uses the blanket terminology of "Maquis colonies" when specifying his targets, suggesting that he finds all the colonists there Maquis de facto. And if he doesn't think they are Maquis de jure as well, then he himself is knowlingly engaging in criminal activity when bombarding them.

These various takes on the Maquis all have to be taken in consideration, but they need not be thought of as contradictory. Do we all agree on the following?

* Dorvan V is a unique case that has nothing to do with the Maquis as far as we know - they are simply good Cardassian citizens from "Journey's End" onwards, until no doubt succumbing to purges when the Dominion takes over (if not sooner).

* Initially the other colonists, who (mostly?) reside in the DMZ, as well as their sympathizers all across the galaxy, are defined "Maquis" when engaged in Maquis activity which is criminal under UFP and Cardassian laws alike, but remain UFP citizens. This is clever of them, because the UFP feels obligated to grant protection to its citizens, including criminals.

* Later on, by "For the Uniform" at least, the definition of Maquis crimes is apparently extended so that any "Maquis hangaround" is also considered criminal and subject to government acts including orbital bombardment. But this still doesn't mean the Maquis would cease to be UFP citizens in the eyes of the UFP, or according to themselves. Crime doesn't negate citizenship, not even high treason.

* Finally, the Maquis all perish, apparently along with any DMZ inhabitants of UFP origin and unclear or no Maquis connections. The organization disbands with the death of its members and the mooting of its cause.

If there are exceptions to the above, they are not mentioned on screen. Of course, the Maquis must be a diverse and only loosely bound organization where different members think differently. But Eddington ultimately seems to consider himself some sort of a head honcho in a fairly open and unified movement, a movement that no longer relies on strict compartmentalization into cells. And while he may be deluded about how his "subjects" feel and think, he does seem to speak for them in terms of legal position and such.

Oh, and I voted "I'd support Fed disarmament action to preserve the peace". Too bad it's formulated with the word "any" there, as I wouldn't support mass rapings or baby barbeque, but I gather this wasn't the intent of the formulation.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[stj]

^^^Sorry, I take Dorvan V as the precedent setting case.

Anyhow, the demilitarization of the demilitarized zone means Maquis activity violates the treaty, imposing the obligation to suppress it upon the Federation.