Politics in Star Trek
- Thread starter commanderkai
- Start date
- Status
I only mentioned the UN as one of the few real world examples of independent nations working together. The fact that the UN can or can not raise an armed force is getting off topic.
As for the commander in chief, Council giving orders thing, also has a real world example. And thats on paper the US Commander in Chief isn't free to do whatever he wants with the military, and just like the Joint Chiefs of Staff (the highest ranking generals and admirals in the US Armed Forces) is meant to help raise the military, not actually command them. The US military can't be used to invade a country without Congressional approval, however new laws have been created and interpreted to give the President the power to use the military with out approval (so for some weird reason, the President could have the military invade a country if it can get it done within 90 days, but it would be political suicide and might be grounds for impeachment for other reasons I'm sure a pissed off Congress could think of).
So when it comes to the Federation, the President can make certain orders. For example, he could approve emergency measures (like martial law) but he couldn't order the mining of the Bajoran Wormhole (an act of war). And in Star Trek Insurrection, the forced relocation of the Ba'Ku was authorized by the Federation Council. Not something that just the President ordered.
And as a sidenote and its an issue I love to give my opinion on. The Federation Starfleet I have always felt to be a unified service. We have seen Starfleet marines all the time. Thats Starfleet Security. Being an organization not meant to wage war, but more meant to defend the Federation, the Security of the Federation would make sense. Every role that a marine would fulfill on a naval vessel is performed by a member of Starfleet Security. To expand on this, any role that would be filled by an agent of the CIA in espionage is filled by someone from Starfleet Intelligence. Starfleet is a large agency, and it fills multiple roles.
As for the Federation Naval Patrol service whatever its called. While I'm sure they assist in the defense of planets with oceans, they are probably the Federations coast guard.
As for the commander in chief, Council giving orders thing, also has a real world example. And thats on paper the US Commander in Chief isn't free to do whatever he wants with the military, and just like the Joint Chiefs of Staff (the highest ranking generals and admirals in the US Armed Forces) is meant to help raise the military, not actually command them. The US military can't be used to invade a country without Congressional approval, however new laws have been created and interpreted to give the President the power to use the military with out approval (so for some weird reason, the President could have the military invade a country if it can get it done within 90 days, but it would be political suicide and might be grounds for impeachment for other reasons I'm sure a pissed off Congress could think of).
So when it comes to the Federation, the President can make certain orders. For example, he could approve emergency measures (like martial law) but he couldn't order the mining of the Bajoran Wormhole (an act of war). And in Star Trek Insurrection, the forced relocation of the Ba'Ku was authorized by the Federation Council. Not something that just the President ordered.
And as a sidenote and its an issue I love to give my opinion on. The Federation Starfleet I have always felt to be a unified service. We have seen Starfleet marines all the time. Thats Starfleet Security. Being an organization not meant to wage war, but more meant to defend the Federation, the Security of the Federation would make sense. Every role that a marine would fulfill on a naval vessel is performed by a member of Starfleet Security. To expand on this, any role that would be filled by an agent of the CIA in espionage is filled by someone from Starfleet Intelligence. Starfleet is a large agency, and it fills multiple roles.
As for the Federation Naval Patrol service whatever its called. While I'm sure they assist in the defense of planets with oceans, they are probably the Federations coast guard.
The Federation does have ground troops, we've seen and heard of them. Indeed, they must exist - you can't just take any random Starfleet naval crewpeople and put them on the front lines. There must always be specialization. Ground troops must always be ground troops. You wouldn't take a security guard at Wal-Mart and send him to Afghanistan, would you? Same story here.
What these troops are actually called, on the other hand, is open for debate. They may be "Starfleet Marines" (my favorite term), they may be another service (MACOS might still exist, for example, or a 'Federation Marine Corps'). But whatever service they are, they must have a commanding General, and so yes, the point does stand.
True. My point was just that if they were an integral part of Starfleet (as would the name Starfleet Marines also imply - as opposed to say, Federation Marines), their C-in-C would be reporting to the C-in-C of Starfleet and not directly to the President. But that's just quibbling.
Sure he did. He ordered Starfleet not to invade Klingon space to retrieve Kirk and McCoy after the Klingons arrested them. And this after Starfleet presented their plan to do so for his authorization; he was very clearly issuing orders to Starfleet.
A couple of odds and ends:
Instead, it is probably the Baden-Powell variety of "patrol", a boy scouts type organization where kids can have fun with seagoing vessels while supposedly also learning the basic skills needed in the battlefield (but in practice all the skills involved are completely outdated and it's all done for fun, much as in boy scouts).
It can be argued whether we ever saw a ground trooper at all, considering that all of those we saw fighting on the ground had either clear-cut naval ranks, or then ambiguous ones like Lieutenant or Captain. Perhaps such troops existed off-camera, but we always stumbled upon temporarily land-based starship crews or "naval infantry" amounting to the same?
Timo Saloniemi
This is rather unlikely to be a military organization, as Tom Paris pondered joining it after high school for the specific purpose of seeing some ancient sailing ships!
Instead, it is probably the Baden-Powell variety of "patrol", a boy scouts type organization where kids can have fun with seagoing vessels while supposedly also learning the basic skills needed in the battlefield (but in practice all the skills involved are completely outdated and it's all done for fun, much as in boy scouts).
Considering that we never saw a ground trooper with an Army-style rank, they probably just have a commanding Admiral.
It can be argued whether we ever saw a ground trooper at all, considering that all of those we saw fighting on the ground had either clear-cut naval ranks, or then ambiguous ones like Lieutenant or Captain. Perhaps such troops existed off-camera, but we always stumbled upon temporarily land-based starship crews or "naval infantry" amounting to the same?
Timo Saloniemi
That's just it though, he didn't tell Starfleet yes and he didn't tell Starfleet no. The President gave no order, one way or the other. Following the briefing, Starfleet was in limbo, for a operation of that size they needed someone to give the go ahead, the President didn't give them that, and apparently neither did the Council.
The only decision the President made was self-serving one, to abandon two of Starfleet's officers to the Klingons, so he could be seen to "not be above the law. Tough call, trading two Human lifes for a cute motto.
On that day, the President gave no orders of any kind to Starfleet.
The only way the President could have given the go-ahead would be if he were issuing them orders.
You have a strange definition of "self-serving" if you define following interstellar law as selfishness. But whatever. That decision was itself an order to Starfleet not to invade Klingon space to retrieve Kirk and McCoy. The President issued orders.
Which makes sense, since he is their commander-in-chief.
Which he didn't do, in any way.
At no time did the President, to quote you, "...ordered Starfleet not to invade Klingon space." He issued no orders, no instructions, no suggestions to Starfleet.
I define it as self-serving because the President didn't want to put himself, his office and the Federation itself on the line for two people from the Federation who were abducted by the Klingons while in Federation space, taken into Klingon space, and were in serious trouble.
He let himself be bullied and maneuvered by the Klingon ambassador.
The decision not to stick his neck out was a order? How?
The only thing he actual said to the Starfleet representatives was "I'll bear that in mind," followed by "I believe that's all for now."
He was never referred to as such. Remember, this was some eight decades prior to the DS9 episode where a future President self-referred to himself as the C-in-C. Judging solely upon what we saw in the President's office scene from TUC, we don't even know if the President could have given Starfleet a direct legal order that day.Which makes sense, since he is their commander-in-chief.
I still maintain that the powers of commander in chief (if not the title) rests with the Federation Council.
Kirk & McCoy beamed aboard Kronos One uninvited and of their own free will. They were then arrested according to Federation law. There was no abduction.
KIRK: I'm going aboard. Spock, you have the conn.
SPOCK: I am responsible for involving you in this. I will go.
KIRK: No, I'll go. You'll be responsible for getting me out of this. We'll not be the instigators of a full-scale war on the eve of universal peace.
McCOY: I'm going too. They may need a doctor.
SPOCK: Perhaps you're right.
KIRK: Uhura, tell them we're coming. And tell them we're unarmed.
UHURA (OC): Aye sir.
And then later, after the death of Gorkon.
CHANG: Under article number one hundred and eighty-four of your Interstellar Law, ...I'm placing you under arrest. You are charged with assassinating the Chancellor of the High Council.
The phrase "I believe that's all for now" is the obvious "no" there, at least in polite Britonspeak. But I guess that since the President preceded that with a lot of nodding (of the "yes, thank you, go away already" sort), somebody interested in arguing deniability could present a transcript of that meeting as proof that the President actually said "yes". 
Of course, Cartwright and West could always ask the "CinC" admiral for clarification - and that fellah did hear the President explicitly say he wanted Kirk and McCoy to stand trial. That excludes an immediate extraction operation, and is in line with the President's "wait and see" talk from earlier on. Quite possibly a clandestine extraction operation might take place after the heroes had been sentenced...
Timo Saloniemi
Of course, Cartwright and West could always ask the "CinC" admiral for clarification - and that fellah did hear the President explicitly say he wanted Kirk and McCoy to stand trial. That excludes an immediate extraction operation, and is in line with the President's "wait and see" talk from earlier on. Quite possibly a clandestine extraction operation might take place after the heroes had been sentenced...
Timo Saloniemi
Kirk and McCoy beamed aboard the Klingon ship to render assistance and to try to clarify the situation, not to be transported into the Empire. Kirk and McCoy might have come aboard the Klingon ship of their own free will, but soon afterward the Klingons simply grabbed them. That is the abduction.
When did the Klingons seek to extradite the two men?
And exactly how does General Chang, a foreign military officer, legally arrest any Federation citizens in the first place? Did the Federation enact a internal domestic law saying that anyone can enter the Federation and arrest a Federation person and remove them from the Federation with no due process? Or was there a interstellar (foreign) treaty to the same effect.
Today, could a American citizen, employed in a foreign embassy in Washington DC, and suspected of a crime on embassy grounds (let's say murder), be arrested and removed from the United States entirely at the will of the embassies staff? Of course not.
The title of this thread is Politics in Star Trek, What could possibly motivate the Federation Council politically to do such a thing? To create (or agree to) a interstellar law that blindly surrenders it's people, with no say in the matter, to any foreign power that accuses a Federation citizen of a crime.
They're protected from self-incrimination, but not abduction?
Umm, why not? Doesn't make much sense. You go abroad and commit a crime against local laws, you pay for it. You don't get to call your own personal police to arrest you.
If the UFP didn't agree to this, then any Klingon could waltz in, slay half the Federation Council, and say "That's the Klingon way, nothing illegal about it where I come from, and the only one who can arrest me is the Inquisitor-Torturer General of the Imperial Palace so hands off" before proceeding to gun down the rest. Of course the UFP will steadfastly support an agreement of "my turf, my laws, my jurisdiction". Even when it goes both ways.
Timo Saloniemi
Kirk and McCoy beamed aboard the Klingon ship to render assistance and to try to clarify the situation, not to be transported into the Empire. Kirk and McCoy might have come aboard the Klingon ship of their own free will, but soon afterward the Klingons simply grabbed them. That is the abduction.
When did the Klingons seek to extradite the two men?
And exactly how does General Chang, a foreign military officer, legally arrest any Federation citizens in the first place? Did the Federation enact a internal domestic law saying that anyone can enter the Federation and arrest a Federation person and remove them from the Federation with no due process? Or was there a interstellar (foreign) treaty to the same effect.
Today, could a American citizen, employed in a foreign embassy in Washington DC, and suspected of a crime on embassy grounds (let's say murder), be arrested and removed from the United States entirely at the will of the embassies staff? Of course not.
The title of this thread is Politics in Star Trek, What could possibly motivate the Federation Council politically to do such a thing? To create (or agree to) a interstellar law that blindly surrenders it's people, with no say in the matter, to any foreign power that accuses a Federation citizen of a crime.
They're protected from self-incrimination, but not abduction?
I would imagine that Kronos One, being the ship with the chancellor aboard, would be treated like an embassy. That is, it's considered part of the government that owns it. There was no need to extradite Kirk and McCoy as they were already on Klingon soil so to speak. Chang did not need to cite the relavent Federation laws but he did so to strengthen his hand. "See, even under you laws we had the right to arrest them. You can't claim that it was only a violation of Klingon law. "
Note exactly which law he cites:
"Under article 184 of Interstellar Law, I place you both under arrest. You are charged with assassinating the Chancellor of the High Council."
Not Federation Law, not Klingon Law but simply Interstellar law. So yes, it does appear that there is a treaty that specifies such things. It probably is the same treaty that the Ambassador in TVH was hoping to use to extradite Kirk back to the Empire. In that case, Kirk was on Vulcan, a Federation world and not on Klingon soil thus the need to petition for extradition.
"Ambassadors can reside within or outside of the chancery; for example, American diplomatic missions maintain separate housing for their ambassadors apart from their embassies. Ambassadors residing outside of the chancery retain special protection from the host country's security forces and the ambassadorial residences enjoy the same rights as missions. Like embassies, such residences are considered inviolable and, in most cases, extraterritorial. The residences of high commissioner, who are similar to ambassadors, have the same rights."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_mission
"Extraterritoriality is the state of being exempt from the jurisdiction of local law, usually as the result of diplomatic negotiations. Extraterritoriality can also be applied to physical places, such as military bases of foreign countries, or offices of the United Nations. The three most common cases recognized today internationally relate to the persons and belongings of foreign heads of state, the persons and belongings of ambassadors and certain other diplomatic agents, and ships in foreign waters.
Extraterritoriality is often extended to friendly or allied militaries, particularly for the purposes of allowing that military to simply pass through one's territory."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritoriality
I did consider this, and I would imagine that all Klingon warships are Klingon territory. All US Naval ships are sovereign American territory, even if they are in another nations territorial waters, so I figure the same situation with the Klingon warship.
As far as the Chancellor ship being an embassy, when the US President leaves Air Force One, it immediately ceases to be Air Force One, and becomes just a Air Force VIP transport. Once the Chancillor was murdered, the Klingon warship would cease being Kronos One, and become a regular Klingon warship.
So here you have a regular Klingon warship (sovereign Klingon territory), they are holding two Federation citizens, and they are in the middle of Federation space. Why did the Enterprise permit them to leave? Yes, they claim the arrest is legal, a murder has taken place, and the two officers aboard their ship are responsible for it.
Why was the Klingon ship permitted to leave Federation space. The briefing in the Federation President office seem to indicate that Kirk and McCoy are already in Klingon space by that time. And it sound like the Federation and Starfleet are still figuring things out. The President mention a (iirc) ongoing investigation.
Again, why was the Klingon ship permitted to leave Federation space?
The Federation signed a law, or a treaty, that says anyone can enter the Federation and remove it's citizens without checking with the Federation itself. And this is legal?
.
Last edited:
^Alright T'Girl, 2 points:
1. What if both the President and the Vice-President are on board of Air Force One? Does it become Air Force Two in the worst case or does it stay Air Force One? After all the Vice-President is the next in line to "rule".
After all there were some big guns on board of Kronos One: Azetbur, Chang...
2. Why do you think they were in Federation space? Isn't more likekly that Enterprise and Kronos One met in the Neutral zone, or possibly at the Federation's side. Then they had dinner and the incident happened. Is there any evidence that they traveled during or after the dinner? After all when the incident happened they were not at warp, but in normal space.
So I think it is quite likely that Kronos One just turned around and was in Klingon space before anyone could even protest.
PS. Do we know more about the Interstellar law? Like where it came from? Is there a past or present example in RL that would correspond to it?
1. What if both the President and the Vice-President are on board of Air Force One? Does it become Air Force Two in the worst case or does it stay Air Force One? After all the Vice-President is the next in line to "rule".
After all there were some big guns on board of Kronos One: Azetbur, Chang...
2. Why do you think they were in Federation space? Isn't more likekly that Enterprise and Kronos One met in the Neutral zone, or possibly at the Federation's side. Then they had dinner and the incident happened. Is there any evidence that they traveled during or after the dinner? After all when the incident happened they were not at warp, but in normal space.
So I think it is quite likely that Kronos One just turned around and was in Klingon space before anyone could even protest.
PS. Do we know more about the Interstellar law? Like where it came from? Is there a past or present example in RL that would correspond to it?
The Federation appears to have signed a treaty (or perhaps had one imposed on them and the Klingons by the Organians) that covers what happens when a member of one interstellar entity kills another in a way that can't be called self defence (i.e. murder).
Should Kirk & McCoy be permitted to murder the Chancellor and simply return to their ship because the legal status of the foreign ship they were on changed because of the very death they are accused of causing? If you shoot someone across the border and then cross that border yourself, you're putting yourself under the laws of the nation you're in. Kirk didn't believe that his ship fired but he wasn't sure.
UHURA
He says we've fired on them in a
blatant act of war.
KIRK
We HAVEN'T fired -
SPOCK
According to the data bank, we HAVE
- twice...
There's no indication of another ship in the area, their own data banks say that they fired. Kirk was on the mission because of his not antipathy towards the Klingons. You've got motive and opportunity right there. I'd say that the Klingons had the right to arrest Kirk & McCoy based on the evidence available at the time.
Should Kirk & McCoy be permitted to murder the Chancellor and simply return to their ship because the legal status of the foreign ship they were on changed because of the very death they are accused of causing? If you shoot someone across the border and then cross that border yourself, you're putting yourself under the laws of the nation you're in. Kirk didn't believe that his ship fired but he wasn't sure.
UHURA
He says we've fired on them in a
blatant act of war.
KIRK
We HAVEN'T fired -
SPOCK
According to the data bank, we HAVE
- twice...
There's no indication of another ship in the area, their own data banks say that they fired. Kirk was on the mission because of his not antipathy towards the Klingons. You've got motive and opportunity right there. I'd say that the Klingons had the right to arrest Kirk & McCoy based on the evidence available at the time.
There's no way that would ever happen. Not in a million years.
There is no reasonable standard by which arresting the captain of the vessel which all databank records and sensor readings indicated fired at Qo'noS One and from which all available evidence indicated two assassins had beamed aboard, could possibly be considered not justified by probable cause. Kirk and McCoy's arrest was perfectly legal by any reasonable standard, and not an act of abduction.
- Status
Similar threads
