Politics in Star Trek

[T'Girl]

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".

As said, they are never on the same aircraft. However, if they were, and the President in some way dies, at the moment of his death the Vice President becomes President, so Air Force One's call sign would remain the same.
x

After all there were some big guns on board of Kronos One: Azetbur, Chang...

Azetbur was just Chancellor Gorkon's daughter, which was how Gorkon introduced her, no official title. And General Chang was Gorkons chief of staff. TNG seem to suggest that the Klingon High Council (at that time) has no chain of succession

Why do you think they were in Federation space?

Spock said: " We have volunteered to rendezvous with the Klingon vessel that is bringing Chancellor Gorkon to Earth, and to escort him safely through Federation space.." There was no indication that Kirk would hold the two ships at the border for a period of time, prior to begining the escort.

Isn't more likekly that Enterprise and Kronos One met in the Neutral zone, or possibly at the Federation's side.

My impression was that they met at the Federation border.

Then they had dinner and the incident happened.

The dinner was Spock's idea, why would they delay the meeting between the President and the Chancellor by not traveling during the dinner?

After all when the incident happened they were not at warp, but in normal space.

The previous movie to this one showed the Enterprise at warp without tailing colored streamers. The Excelsior trailed colored streamers when she was at maximum speed and straining her engines. The TOS movies in general did not show TNG era streaking stars. Does it make sense that the two ship were traveling from the border to Earth at impulse speed?

So I think it is quite likely that Kronos One just turned around and was in Klingon space before anyone could even protest.

The Enterprise rendezvoused with Kronos One at 16:12 hours ship's time, Kirk invites the Klingon to beam aboard at 19:30 hours, over three hours later. Kirk began the Klingon's visit with a tour of the Enterprise, followed by a suitably lavish dinner, then the Klingons left, then Kirk went to his quarter, then Kirk went to the bridge and witnessed the torpedo attack of the bird of prey upon the larger warship.

Likely they were five or six hours into Federation space at warp cursing speed at the time of the "incident." The Federation and the Klingon were still enemies at the time, the Federation patrols the border, there are (per TUC dialog) space stations and starbases along the border, The Klingon ship would have had to battle it way back through Federation space, then get into the neutral zone.

Do we know more about the Interstellar law?

Knowing exactly what "article 184 of interstellar law" says, would be very interesting.

their own data banks say that they fired

And Scotty's inventory of the ship's torpedoes said they retained all their torpedoes. Which is physical proof that they didn't fire.

There's no indication of another ship in the area

Yes there was, the Enterprise didn't fire, yet the Klingon ship was hit. Ergo a third unseen ship.

I'd say that the Klingons had the right to arrest Kirk & McCoy

Wait, what possible reason was there to arrest McCoy?

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.

The nation that they were in, was the Federation. The Klingon ship might have been a bubble of sovereign Klingon territory, but the territory was separate from the bulk of the Empire by light-years of Federation territory. All the Federation had was a claim that a murder had taken place. A Klingon accusal that two of it's citizen were someway responsible. At the least the Klingon ship should have been held in it's position-location until the Federation ascertain the facts.

Ascertaining the facts was what we saw happening aboard the Enterprise, that located the blood on the transporter pad, the boots, and the identity of Valeris and her two (dead) co-patriots. That subsequently reveled the leaders conspiracy.

Not simply letting the Klingon take Kirk and McCoy across the border.

Kirk and McCoy's arrest was perfectly legal by any reasonable standard, and not an act of abduction.

The abduction was the Klingons taking the two men out of the Federation, without the permission of the Federation. Which apparently they didn't have.

 

[RPJOB]

The data banks said they fired, Scott's inventory said they didn't. Contradictory evidence that doesn't prove it one way or the other. There is still evidence that they fired (the data banks). That's why you have a trial, to determine which is correct.

If someone reports being robbed by a particular person and someone else says, no, they couldn't have done it, are the police unable to arrest the suspect?

The existence of a provision in interstellar law that allows for arrest would also allow for trial.

As to why McCoy was arrested, let's look at this scene:

BONES
(continuing)
The wounds aren't closing...

KERLA
You're killing him!

 

[T'Girl]

That's why you have a trial, to determine which is correct.

Which should have happen inside the Federation, prior to Kirk and McCoy being removed to the Klingon Empire.

If someone reports being robbed by a particular person and someone else says, no, they couldn't have done it, are the police unable to arrest the suspect?

Let do some "if's" shall we.

If you claim that I shot someone and I can hold up my gun and display six full chamber (six gun), that would be more conclusive than a computer record that I fired twice.

If the French President (or whatever they have) is murdered in the French Embassy in Washington DC, and the French clain that a visiting American murdered him, would a on the scene French policeman be able to both, arrest the American, and remove the American to France without the permission of the American government?

Would that French policeman also be able to arrest the fire department medic team who attempted to save the French President's life, but failed? And then take the medix to France for trial without an extradision order?

As to why McCoy was arrested, let's look at this scene ...

The novelization (iirc) said that the assassins use "burning phasers" (or something like that) that prevented normal medical procedure from working. Novels are none canon as always.

If the Federation had had access to the Chancellor's body, tests could have confirmed the type of weapon used, which at least would have cleared McCoy.

The data banks said they fired, Scott's inventory said they didn't. Contradictory evidence that doesn't prove it one way or the other.

A proper investigation would have looked into things like the serial numbers on the weapons themselves, at some point the Enterprise was loaded with torpedoes. There would be records at every step of the way. An investigation of the Enterprise's sensor records might also have shown the difference between a (hypothedical) Starfleet torpedo striking the Chancellor's ship, and the actual effect of the bird of prey's torpedo explosion.

None of that happen, because the federation just let Kirk and McCoy be abducted.

 

[Sci]

If the French President (or whatever they have) is murdered in the French Embassy in Washington DC, and the French clain that a visiting American murdered him, would a on the scene French policeman be able to both, arrest the American, and remove the American to France without the permission of the American government?

Probably not, but not for the reason you're thinking. The real reason: Contrary to popular belief, embassies do not enjoy full extraterritorial status. Rather, they remain the sovereign territory of the host state, while being exempted by treaty from most local laws under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. So while a member of, say, the French National Police or the French National Gendarmerie would probably be able to arrest the U.S. citizen suspect, they would probably not be permitted to remove him from U.S. territory.

Meanwhile, it is unclear whether or not the Enterprise and Qo'noS One actually rendezvoused while in Federation space. So far as I can discern from this transcript, there is no indication whatsoever whether they rendezvoused while in Federation space, or whether they rendezvoused outside Federation space with the intent to enter UFP space after the dinner they held.

In any event, given that embassies are not truly extraterritorial, I would suggest that they represent a bad analogy. Really, the best analogy would be fairly literal -- would it be legal for the French National Police to arrest and return to France a U.S. citizen suspected of assassinated the President of the French Republic aboard, say, the F.S. Charles de Gaulle while in international waters? Would it be legal if the Charles de Gaulle had been in U.S. waters at the time?

 

[T'Girl]

The rendezvous took place in one of three places. Inside the Federation, inside the Empire, or inside the neutral zone. Given that the Federation (usually) stays out of the NZ's, while everyone else seemingly runs around in them to their hearts contents, I think the Chancellor's ship exited the neutral zone into the Federation, where the Enterprise was waiting for it.

The two ships joined up, and (imho) immediately proceed towards Earth.

The primary purpose for the voyage of Kronos One was to convey the Chancellor to Earth, why would the two ship simply sit in space during the course of the meal? The meal ultimately had no real importance, it was a courtesy only. I don't think the invitation was expected by the Klingon, it was Spock's own idea that he "pushed" on Kirk.

After the arrest, the Enterprise and any other starfleet ships they could summon should have held the damaged Klingon ship where it was, wherever it was, until the full facts could be ascertained.

Ultimately, the full facts were in the Federation's favor. And in the best interests of the Empire as well.






.

 

[Sci]

The rendezvous took place in one of three places. Inside the Federation, inside the Empire, or inside the neutral zone.

Those are the three most probable, but it is also possible that the rendezvous took place outside of both Klingon and Federation space and outside of the UFP-KE Neutral Zone.

Given that the Federation (usually) stays out of the NZ's, while everyone else seemingly runs around in them to their hearts contents, I think the Chancellor's ship exited the neutral zone into the Federation, where the Enterprise was waiting for it.

There is no evidence to suggest this.

The two ships joined up, and (imho) immediately proceed towards Earth.

This is directly contradicted by the visual evidence, which indicates quite clearly that neither the U.S.S. Enterprise nor Qo'noS One were at warp. Both were at full stop during their rendezvous.

The primary purpose for the voyage of Kronos One was to convey the Chancellor to Earth, why would the two ship simply sit in space during the course of the meal?

I don't know, but that's very clearly what they were doing when you watch the film. Neither the Enterprise nor Qo'noS One were underway.

After the arrest, the Enterprise and any other starfleet ships they could summon should have held the damaged Klingon ship where it was, wherever it was, until the full facts could be ascertained.

This would have been seen as an act of war.

 

[Timo]

Regarding getting underway, one should think both the heroes and the Klingons would refuse to consider the possibility until the back-and-forth movement of representatives from both sides ended. After all, transporting at warp is supposed to be risky!

So, much would depend on how soon after the departure of the Klingon dinner guests the return visit by Starfleet assassins took place. Although we could argue that they did risk warp transport, and the lack of streaking stars is simply consistency with overall TOS movie visuals.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[T'Girl]

... should have held the damaged Klingon ship where it was ...

This would have been seen as an act of war.

One Klingon ship fired upon another Klingon ship (carrying the Chancellor), and the idea was to falsely pin this act on the Federation. Wouldn't this have been the act of war?

After a investigation determined the facts, and the Federation found out that a second Klingon ship crossed their border without permission, wouldn't that have been an act of war?

A close examination the the "capture" Klingon ship's hull could have found evidence of the type of torpedo used, the often referred to "weapons signature." Other evidence could be found as well. Investigations often follow a trail of discoveries, the movie showed that the facts were there to be found.

Once all the facts had be found and released, would the Klingons believe them? Who cares. The people of the Federation would have the truth, neutral parties in the 'interstellar community' would have the evidence. The Starfleet officers who actually participated in the incident could be arrested, charged and tried by the Federation.

After all, transporting at warp is supposed to be risky!

I thought that was a 22nd century thing only?

 

[RPJOB]

They didn't know about the second Klingon ship at the time. The Enterprise computer said that they had fired. A count of the torpedos said they hadn't but it would be easy enough to have stored a couple of extras somewhere and slipped them into the inventory.

Then there's the actual assassins who beamed aboard wearing Starfleet environmental suits and executed the Chancellor using Starfleet phasers. The attack may have been in doubt but the assassination wasn't. All the evidence pointed to Starfleet and with good reason.

 

[Sci]

... should have held the damaged Klingon ship where it was ...

This would have been seen as an act of war.

One Klingon ship fired upon another Klingon ship (carrying the Chancellor), and the idea was to falsely pin this act on the Federation. Wouldn't this have been the act of war?

Certainly. But no one knew this at the time. So far as the legitimate Klingon government knew, the U.S.S. Enterprise had fired upon Qo'noS One and two Federation Starfleet officers had assassinated the Chancellor. Thus, had the Enterprise attempted to detain Qo'noS One, they would have been committing an act of war.

Once all the facts had be found and released, would the Klingons believe them? Who cares.

People who want to avoid a UFP-Klingon war, presumably.

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

This is directly contradicted by the visual evidence, which indicates quite clearly that neither the U.S.S. Enterprise nor Qo'noS One were at warp. Both were at full stop during their rendezvous.
.

Both vessels were underway and maintaining course and speed

 

[MacLeod]

In any event, given that embassies are not truly extraterritorial, I would suggest that they represent a bad analogy. Really, the best analogy would be fairly literal -- would it be legal for the French National Police to arrest and return to France a U.S. citizen suspected of assassinated the President of the French Republic aboard, say, the F.S. Charles de Gaulle while in international waters? Would it be legal if the Charles de Gaulle had been in U.S. waters at the time?

Yes in both cases as the crime was commited in a place in that case a ship which was registered under the French Flag so French law applies. Now in the later example it is entirely possible that the accused could appeal it arguing that they were under US Law as being inside US territorial waters. But at least initaly the arrest would be valid. But I suspect there is some sort of international treaty that covers the scenario when a crime is commited on a ship in the territoral waters of a country to which it is not registered.

 

[Drone]

In this instance, feel free to label me a mindless dic(k)tum follower, but since my fairly recent return to these fair shores, it seems that the rule about reviving ancient threads has disappeared into the ether, at least given moderators' application of its consequence compared with my recollection during the period of my previous active participation in 2014. I'll admit I haven't done any search to verify an official change in the policy, which perhaps overstates its role in the past anyway, but I was just wondering what seems to account for this seeming difference in enforcement practice.

Moderator comment please?

 

[1001001]

In this instance, feel free to label me a mindless dic(k)tum follower, but since my fairly recent return to these fair shores, it seems that the rule about reviving ancient threads has disappeared into the ether, at least given moderators' application of its consequence compared with my recollection during the period of my previous active participation in 2014. I'll admit I haven't done any search to verify an official change in the policy, which perhaps overstates its role in the past anyway, but I was just wondering what seems to account for this seeming difference in enforcement practice.

Moderator comment please?

What accounts for it is....I didn't see it until just now.

In the future, please feel free to hit the notify button if you think there's a problem.

And yes, this thread was long dead (over three years). Please don't resurrect topics that died a natural death. Thanks!



"Hailing Frequencies Closed"