One thing missing from 'A Time To...'

[BillJ]

And the Son'a are all about to die within a few decades.

And all of whom can be sworn to secrecy if the Federation agrees to respect the Ba'ku's desire for privacy for their culture.

Are you saying the big Son'a weren't making little Son'a in all those years traveling the spacelanes?

All it takes is for a few to spill the beans. Nothing travels faster than information. Not even starships.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

It would be more accurate to say that, in my opinion, "Person who think it's okay to invade a foreign people's land, use military technology to force your will upon them, and forcibly relocate them" is equivalent to "imperialist."

Sci, if would have read my post addressed to you (and many previous ones), you would have known I advocate expropriating the ba'ku:

From the Free Dictionary:

ex·pro·pri·ate (k-sprpr-t)
tr.v. ex·pro·pri·at·ed, ex·pro·pri·at·ing, ex·pro·pri·ates
1. To deprive of possession: expropriated the property owners who lived in the path of the new highway.
2. To transfer (another's property) to oneself.

You're describing more than just expropriation. You're describing going in to a foreign political entity's territory without its permission, abducting its citizens, and forcibly re-locating them in order to "expropriate" their land.

Wrong. I'm describing expropriating ba'ku by the federation, from federation territory.

Your little "the fountain of youth planet is not federation territory' argument is a convoluted joke, Sci.

And why, by the way, can't a fellow condemn his culture's practices without -- I don't know, either living in the woods as a hermit or moving to another country? Am I not allowed to say that I don't in general agree with eminent domain without giving up electricity and highways? Am I not allowed to say I don't agree with imperialism without renouncing my citizenship? Are we only allowed to love and support our country if we think it's never done anything wrong now?

Of course you can. It 'just' makes you a hypocrite, Sci.

The actual terms for what I was endeavoring to express there would be "amusement" and "condescension."

Don't think these insults cover up your poor reading comprehension, Sci.

"Of course, you throwing insults if you don't like what the other person says is most definitely your own fault - not related to your heritage in any way.
One of the reasons I keep my exchanges with you to a minimum."

 

[LightningStorm]

Alright, let's start dialing it back some. Keep it about the posts and not the poster.
Thanks

 

[Therin of Andor]

Picard NOT calling up immediately Dougherty on his 'ambiguities' means they are not ambiguous at all.

Hilarious.

Please don't ever represent me in court. Or be on my jury.

Are you saying the big Son'a weren't making little Son'a in all those years traveling the spacelanes?

I assumed that once they left the source of the Fountain of Youth, they all reverted to too-old-to-procreate. Hence they captured two alien races, the Ellora and the Tarlac, to be their youthful minions.

 

[BillJ]

Picard NOT calling up immediately Dougherty on his 'ambiguities' means they are not ambiguous at all.

Hilarious.

Please don't ever represent me in court. Or be on my jury.

Are you saying the big Son'a weren't making little Son'a in all those years traveling the spacelanes?

I assumed that once they left the source of the Fountain of Youth, they all reverted to too-old-to-procreate. Hence they captured two alien races, the Ellora and the Tarlac, to be their youthful minions.

I still wonder how the few S'ona who left were able to conquer and control two entire species?

 

[kkozoriz1]

The S'ona had warp drive and the others didn't? Just beam up as many slaves as you like and take them to another planet. Or threaten to use your advanced weapons on their cities.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I still wonder how the few S'ona who left were able to conquer and control two entire species?

I'm sure many people wondered how the people of North America ended up with all those strong African slaves without warp drive.

 

[BillJ]

The S'ona had warp drive and the others didn't? Just beam up as many slaves as you like and take them to another planet. Or threaten to use your advanced weapons on their cities.

"Conquest is easy, control is not." - James T. Kirk

I find it difficult to believe that a few S'ona could control two races whose numbers are probably in tens to hundreds of millions.

 

[kkozoriz1]

When you've got starships in orbit with energy weapons that can destroy a city block it's probably fairly easy. Take a few captives and keep the rest on their home planets as hostages. Order them to produce what you need and use transporters to take what they produce.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Picard NOT calling up immediately Dougherty on his 'ambiguities' means they are not ambiguous at all.

Hilarious.

Please don't ever represent me in court. Or be on my jury.

Let's go through this again:

Dougherty (aka canon) said "we (the Federation) have the planet" aka the planet is definitely not independent. Picard did NOT contradict this point (by using legal or moral arguments); he went ahead with, '~nevertheless, we should let the ba'ku alone, because - insert moral argument'.

Picard invoked the Prime Directive. Dougherty (aka canon) said it doesn't apply + he explained why this is the case. Picard did NOT contradict him (by using legal and moral arguments).

Picard NOT contradicting these ESSENTIAL points Dougherty made means Picard did not have the arguments (legal or moral) to contradict Dougherty. Alternatively, Picard was mentally challenged.



And let's not forget how Picard only invoked some moral arguments, not using any binding laws.

Have you ever been in a court of law? Had you any tangent with the law? It's law and jurisprudence that matter; if moral/sentimental arguments are used, it's only in order to convince a judge or whomever to interpret a law in a specific way.

Picard not invoking any law to his advantage means either that there was no law to be invoked or that Picard was a "diplomat" of crass incompetence.



PS - I, too, find your post hillarious. That's due to your lack of arguments and your blind bias, obvious in it.

 

[Cybersnark]

I think the Son'a's little empire would make an interesting place to explore.

Why do we assume the Tarlac and Ellora were conquered by force? They could easily have been economically dominated by the Son'a (or even the original pre-Ba'ku homeworld, which I don't believe has ever been identified). Maybe it wasn't so much conquest as a fair deal; the Son'a offered the Tarlac and Ellora something of equal value for their service (medical technology, access to FTL travel, dilithium, weapons, assistance in some other conflict, etc).

Hell, if I had the Dominion War raging around me and someone said "work for me and I'll keep the Jem'Hadar away," I'd sign up.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Hell, if I had the Dominion War raging around me and someone said "work for me and I'll keep the Jem'Hadar away," I'd sign up.

It does sound as a good ideea - but only at first.

What if the first order of your new masters (slave owners) is for your people to be cannon fodder in the war or for your people to give their entire economical production to your overlords and starve?

 

[Sci]

Let's go through this again:

Dougherty (aka canon) said "we (the Federation) have the planet" aka the planet is definitely not independent.

The problem with this argument is that you're presuming that Dougherty is speaking legally and formally when there is every possibility that he is speaking quite informally, in terms of the Federation's de facto control of access to the planet rather than actual ownership of the planet.

Because, really, how, under Federation law, could they possibly own a planet that was already inhabited and owned by a foreign culture before the Federation existed?

Picard did NOT contradict this point (by using legal or moral arguments); he went ahead with, '~nevertheless, we should let the ba'ku alone, because - insert moral argument'.

Picard invoked the Prime Directive. Dougherty (aka canon) said it doesn't apply + he explained why this is the case. Picard did NOT contradict him (by using legal and moral arguments).

The fact that someone else did not pursue every possible legal argument against a statement that was itself not a legal argument does not constitute evidence of lack of such legal arguments.

Picard NOT contradicting these ESSENTIAL points Dougherty made means Picard did not have the arguments (legal or moral) to contradict Dougherty. Alternatively, Picard was mentally challenged.

Or, alternately, Picard felt that Dougherty would continue to issue illegal orders and further legal arguments would be a waste of time.

Either way, the fact that Picard did not pursue every possible legal argument does not constitute evidence that such legal arguments are invalid.

Have you ever been in a court of law? Had you any tangent with the law? It's law and jurisprudence that matter; if moral/sentimental arguments are used, it's only in order to convince a judge or whomever to interpret a law in a specific way.

And neither Picard nor Dougherty were in a court of law. I'm sorry if you're under the impression that everyone speaks like lawyers at all times, but it's simply not the case. Especially not officers in the field. And especially not in action movies.

 

[JD]

Let's go through this again:

Dougherty (aka canon) said "we (the Federation) have the planet" aka the planet is definitely not independent.

The problem with this argument is that you're presuming that Dougherty is speaking legally and formally when there is every possibility that he is speaking quite informally, in terms of the Federation's de facto control of access to the planet rather than actual ownership of the planet.

Because, really, how, under Federation law, could they possibly own a planet that was already inhabited and owned by a foreign culture before the Federation existed?

I'm pretty much positive that this was the case. All he was saying was that they had access to the planet, not that it was a Federation planet. If were a Federation planet then there never would have been a movie, because the Ba'ku would have been trespassing, and there would have been no conflict.

 

[T'Girl]

As far as only the Federation knowing their location: hogwash. The Son'a know where they're at, they create ketracel white for the Dominion, so the Dominion may have an inkling. Plus you have a thousand Starfleet crew that knows where the Ba'ku are at.

First, Will Riker said; "The Son'a are known to have produced vast quantities of the narcotic ketracel-white." Which might suggest that the Son'a weren't producing the white for the Dominion Jem"Hadar, but instead for other humanoid's drug use. Partly the no sleep, high energy of the Jem'Hadar could be due to the white and not the Jem'Hadar's engineered biology. These properties would make it desirable.

Second, Picard knew of the existence of the Ba'Ku prior to the first communication from the Admiral. He knew them by name, so while the medical properties of the planet's ring were a mystery, the very existence of that particular Federation planet wasn't.
--------

PICARD: A planet in Federation space.
DOUGHERTY: That's right. We have the planet.

The Admiral wasn't the first to say it was a Federation planet, Picard was. If Picard meant (and he pretty careful with his language) that the planet was surrounded by the Federation, that would have been what he would have said.

There are a few examples of completely surrounded countries on Earth, The Republic of San Marino, The Holy See, and The Kingdom of Lesotho. If the Ba'Ku star system (and the Brier Patch in general) was an example of a enclave, then Picard the skilled diplomat would have trotted that fact out, it would have undermined much of the Admiral's position.

According to Picard, the planet (on which the Ba'Ku have a single valley) is part of the Federation.

 

[Turtletrekker]

According to Picard, the planet (on which the Ba'Ku have a single valley) is part of the Federation.

Nonsense. At most, the planet would be a Federation Protectorate, not a member. And Federation membership is not forced on anybody, whether they are within Federation borders or not.

 

[elaithin]

And even if they had been, I'd imagine they'd abdicate Federation membership to get out of forced relocation. Not to mention that member governments, in Star Trek, still seem to hold sovereign powers over their own worlds.

Membership in the Federation is voluntary, that's what some people here seem to be forgetting. The Federation's federal government simply would not have the authority to order these people to give up their planet. And it is theirs, by virtue of them being the only people on it. I don't see how anyone could reasonably argue that.

 

[JD]

--------

PICARD: A planet in Federation space.
DOUGHERTY: That's right. We have the planet.

The Admiral wasn't the first to say it was a Federation planet, Picard was. If Picard meant (and he pretty careful with his language) that the planet was surrounded by the Federation, that would have been what he would have said.

Ummmmmm, no.... he didn't. He said it is in Federation space, that's a huge difference. If the planet was actually controlled by the Federation he would have said it was a Federation planet, or a Federation member and he did not say either one of those things. That is a VERY BIG DIFFERENCE.

 

[Sci]

--------

PICARD: A planet in Federation space.
DOUGHERTY: That's right. We have the planet.

The Admiral wasn't the first to say it was a Federation planet, Picard was. If Picard meant (and he pretty careful with his language) that the planet was surrounded by the Federation, that would have been what he would have said.

Ummmmmm, no.... he didn't. He said it is in Federation space, that's a huge difference. If the planet was actually controlled by the Federation he would have said it was a Federation planet, or a Federation member and he did not say either one of those things. That is a VERY BIG DIFFERENCE.

Exactly.

Common sense dictates that Federation law is not going to regard an pre-inhabited planet with whom the Federation has not established formal contact, but which happens to be located within its space, as being its own territory. The Federation isn't comprise of imperialists.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Let's go through this again:

Dougherty (aka canon) said "we (the Federation) have the planet" aka the planet is definitely not independent.

The problem with this argument is that you're presuming that Dougherty is speaking legally and formally when there is every possibility that he is speaking quite informally, in terms of the Federation's de facto control of access to the planet rather than actual ownership of the planet.

And the problems with your argument are:
-that Dougherty directly said the federation has the planet aka it is not independent (your convoluted interpretation doesn't change this in the least);

-that Picard confirmed Dougherty is speaking "legally and formally" when saying the planet is not independent by NOT contradicting him on this essential point (with ANY arguments, whether legal and moral).
Any half decent diplomat/reasonably intelligent person would contradict Dougherty regarding this point on which their entire discussion hinged - if this diplomat/person (aka Picard) has any arguments to contradict with, that is (your convoluted interpretation would have Picard be an incompetent moron).

Because, really, how, under Federation law, could they possibly own a planet that was already inhabited and owned by a foreign culture before the Federation existed?

First - it's not proven (not even close) that the ba'ku settled the planet before the federation existed.
Second - your own country owns a lot of land that "was already inhabited and owned by a foreign culture" before the USA existed.

All planets in federation space are owned by the federation, EXCEPT:
Those recognised as independent by the federation (not this planet);
Those where the Prime Directive applies (not here, regarding the ba'ku).

Picard did NOT contradict this point (by using legal or moral arguments); he went ahead with, '~nevertheless, we should let the ba'ku alone, because - insert moral argument'.

Picard invoked the Prime Directive. Dougherty (aka canon) said it doesn't apply + he explained why this is the case. Picard did NOT contradict him (by using legal and moral arguments).

The fact that someone else did not pursue every possible legal argument against a statement that was itself not a legal argument does not constitute evidence of lack of such legal arguments.

This goes far beyond "someone else did not pursue every possible legal argument".
Picard did NOT pursue any argument (legal or otherwise) to counteract Dougherty's essential points that the planet is NOT independent and that the Prime Directive doesn't apply (apropos this, Picard was the one who mentioned the Prime Directive, only to be shown how it doesn't apply and be left with no counterarguments regarding the issue).

Picard NOT contradicting these ESSENTIAL points Dougherty made means Picard did not have the arguments (legal or moral) to contradict Dougherty. Alternatively, Picard was mentally challenged.

Or, alternately, Picard felt that Dougherty would continue to issue illegal orders and further legal arguments would be a waste of time.

O, but Picard did NOT feel further "arguments would be a waste of time".
Indeed, he went on and on with morality and rhetoric - and never once invoked a far more powerful legal argument - because he had none or because he was mentally retarded (take your pick).

Either way, the fact that Picard did not pursue every possible legal argument does not constitute evidence that such legal arguments are invalid.

Already answered.
And just because you keep repeating this doesn't make your interpretation less of a convoluted mess.

Have you ever been in a court of law? Had you any tangent with the law? It's law and jurisprudence that matter; if moral/sentimental arguments are used, it's only in order to convince a judge or whomever to interpret a law in a specific way.

And neither Picard nor Dougherty were in a court of law. I'm sorry if you're under the impression that everyone speaks like lawyers at all times, but it's simply not the case. Especially not officers in the field. And especially not in action movies.

If you're under the impression that the law is only binding in a court of law, you're wrong. The law is binding everywhere.
And if you're under the impression that diplomats don't invoke laws (if they have any laws to invoke, that is) when discussing the legal status of something, you're wrong.