The Design and Mission of the U.S.S. Titan Seems Inappropriate

[Mysterion]

In WWII, my grandfather was with a military unit whose job was to go through Italy in the wake of the liberation forces and help the liberated towns set up viable new governments.

Interesting. Don't know if they called them this back in WW2, but it sounds a lot like the Civil Affairs unit I served with in Desert Storm (401st Civil Affairs Company). Didn't realize they had had those units in any real organized form that far back. Thought they'd come more out of the Viet Nam era as part of the SF unit's "hearts and minds" type operations. Those boys and girls have definitely been getting a work out these last five years or so, though.

 

[LightningStorm]

I'm sorely tempted to close this thread. However, I'll leave it for now. But I want to drop a few words in to remind everyone to remain civil, which it seems you are doing mostly, but it is clear some are quite frustrated with the argument at hand.

Take a step back, breathe, and ask yourself "Is it worth it to continue?"

...not to mention the argument at hand is pretty far from the original thread topic.

 

[Deano2099]

Do you expect me to believe that because Star Trek is set in the future, words don't mean the same things? Bullshit.

Actually not sure it's that clear cut. Indeed, that's how I personally reconciled Picard's statement with the wealth of evidence on the other side: the meaning of words does change.

It's possible that by the time of TNG, the word 'military' has taken on a new meaning, specifically referring to a more militant organisation.

Yes, Starfleet is a military organisation by modern-day legal definitions, but it's far less militant than any modern-day military. Hence it's not exactly a great word to use.

Okay, I know it seems like I'm reaching, but there's another factor to consider: the governmental structure of other races. The Cardassian Central Command is not under the control of the state (it's more like the other way around). As such, by the technical, current, legal definiton of military we're clinging to, they're not one. Except: it quacks likes a duck.

Likewise I'm not convinced the Klingons really hold courts-martial, but again we'd still call thier militant forces a military.

As such I don't find it that much of a stretch that the nature of the word has changed, and that Starfleet specifically avoids calling itself a military in order to differentiate itself from the far more militant armed forces of other races.

It's a military by our current legal definition, but that definition could, and likely will change.

Sure, it's all irrelevent as it comes down to semantics but I sort of see that as Geoff's "in-universe explanation" that allows the two to be reconciled.

And as for Dayton's original question, well he's sort of right: "Starfleet would be interested in replacing losses suffered in the fighting." But Starfleet never really built any warships specifically for the Dominion War. Many of those losses were of exploration-focused ships or similar that were re-purposed to be combat vessels. As such, when you replace the losses you suffered in the war, you'll obviously be replacing a lot of exploration-oriented vessels.

 

[David Mack]

Geoff, I have already stated my argument in the form of an irrefutable syllogism:

1. By definition, only a military organization may legally convene and enforce the verdicts of courts-martial, and hold its members exempt from civilian law.
2. Starfleet legally convenes and enforces the verdicts of courts-martial and holds its members exempt from civilian law.
3. Therefore, Starfleet is a military organization.

You have only one task, Geoff: Refute this syllogism, using nothing but logic and facts. If you can do that, your argument might hold water. If not, your argument is bankrupt.

Unless and until you can present a logically valid refutation of the syllogism that I have presented above, I am finished discussing this with you.

 

[KRAD]

Geoff, you know I love you like the cousin I could never get rid of, but you're really doing a shit job of defending your thesis.

Your argument ultimately boils down to "Picard said it in 'Peak Performance,' and therefore it must be true." The counterargument that "Sisko said something else in 'Homefront'" doesn't seem to be compelling for reasons passing understanding.

The comment that Picard said it and therefore it must be true is laughably ridiculous on the fact of it. Kirk said he belonged to the United Earth Space Probe Agency. Wesley said that the Klingons joined the Federation. Q said that the Federation conquered the Klingons. Scotty said that Jim Kirk probably got the Enterprise out of mothballs in "Relics" when Generations established that he saw Kirk "die." Klingon blood was fuschia in Star Trek VI and red every-fucking-where else. And so on. There are dozens of examples of characters saying things on one of the 28 seasons' worth of live-action shows, 2 seasons' worth of animated shows, and ten movies that contradicted other things established elsewhere (or, y'know, common sense).

That line in "Peak Performance" is the fecal matter of a male cow.

 

[Geoff Thorne]

Geoff, you know I love you like the cousin I could never get rid of, but you're really doing a shit job of defending your thesis.

Your argument ultimately boils down to "Picard said it in 'Peak Performance,' and therefore it must be true." The counterargument that "Sisko said something else in 'Homefront'" doesn't seem to be compelling for reasons passing understanding.

The comment that Picard said it and therefore it must be true is laughably ridiculous on the fact of it. Kirk said he belonged to the United Earth Space Probe Agency. Wesley said that the Klingons joined the Federation. Q said that the Federation conquered the Klingons. Scotty said that Jim Kirk probably got the Enterprise out of mothballs in "Relics" when Generations established that he saw Kirk "die." Klingon blood was fuschia in Star Trek VI and red every-fucking-where else. And so on. There are dozens of examples of characters saying things on one of the 28 seasons' worth of live-action shows, 2 seasons' worth of animated shows, and ten movies that contradicted other things established elsewhere (or, y'know, common sense).

That line in "Peak Performance" is the fecal matter of a male cow.

LOL.

It's not that. The Sisko/Leyton dialog can be interpreted in both ways. Is there some other scene that is definitive? If not, both interpretations are equally legit.

Every declaritive statement made by an unimpaired, honest character in the series must be considered true as far as their personal knowledge extends. We can't second guess Picard (or impose meaning on the Leyton/Sisko exchange) simply because they seem [to some to be] internally inconsistent. They are not inconsistent in-show and therefore it's on us to come up with the reconcilliation.

That reconciliation can't be "Well, Picard was full of shit" or "He was just wrong and I'm right and here's why." For purposes of this discussion, Picard must be considered to be a real person who knows what he's talking about.

If Kirk said something that seems silly when compared to the rest of the canon, then there's a story there somewhere. Since both things are true, there must be a bridge.

Stan Lee used to award people who came up with such bridges "No Prizes" for providing a real solution to a writer's gaff such that it stopped being a gaff. I think most of us are old enough to remember that. It's the sort of the same thing here except that the Picard statement(s) ISN'T a gaff. It's not like Data's graduation or Troi forgetting a beardy kiss.* It's part of the TNG thesis statement for at least the first two seasons (because that's all I've bothered to check so far or specifics). You can't dismiss it because you don't like it. You have to find a way to reconcile the extremes.

"Picard was full of shit," doesn't cut it.

I'm not saying Starfleet's actions can't be interpreted as those of a military organization. Clearly they can (though not by me).

[Your] problem is those nagging declarative statements made by honest men and women within the fictional construct. For your definitions to be the only ones applicable, those characters must be defective mentally or lying.

We know they aren't either of those so the only option left is to throw out colloquial, out-of-show definitions of "military organization" in favor of finding a way to make Picard's and Riker's statements true.

I did this automatically. The first time I've ever had to deconstruct it this way is here. I'm still amazed it's even a subject of debate. It just seems obvious to me.

Put another way:

If I can provide, for every scene you think supports your position, an equally canonical scene that supports mine will you concede that both interpretations are legit?

Because we both know it won't be hard to do.


*although both slips could be easily explained in-show

 

[Geoff Thorne]

Geoff, I have already stated my argument in the form of an irrefutable syllogism:

1. By definition, only a military organization may legally convene and enforce the verdicts of courts-martial, and hold its members exempt from civilian law.
2. Starfleet legally convenes and enforces the verdicts of courts-martial and holds its members exempt from civilian law.
3. Therefore, Starfleet is a military organization.

You have only one task, Geoff: Refute this syllogism, using nothing but logic and facts. If you can do that, your argument might hold water. If not, your argument is bankrupt.

Unless and until you can present a logically valid refutation of the syllogism that I have presented above, I am finished discussing this with you.

The show refutes the syllogism. I don't have to.

Someone said this was like people arguing about the Bible but it's not. The Bible has been so open to interpretation that there are factions of Believers within the factions.

We don't have that luxury. There is Canon and there is Non-Canon. That's it.

Everything in the canon is true. That's why it's the canon.

There are so many fundamental inconsistencies through pretty much every aspect of the show that, to address them all directly, we would have to toss the concept of canon out the window. Or we can do what I've done: include everything and figure out explanations for why everything is true.

Yes. Data uses contractions sometimes even though we "know" he doesn't. Timelines can be broken and fixed AND the many worlds paradigm is in effect. Number One and Nurse Chapel and Lwaxanna Troi can all be the same woman and no one bats an eye or even notices. When was it Dr. Pulaski stopped dating that Medusan ambassador? Was her maiden name Mulhall? Bugs live in the transporter's matter stream and people can see them while beaming. Etc.

ALL of these things are simultaneously contradictory and acceptable but we're meant to dig in our feet on the military thing because of a modern day definition that opposes statements made by the citizens of a future society about their own civilization?

No. We have to take them at their word.

Everything in the canon is in.

You don't get to pick and choose.

 

[David Mack]

Geoff, I have already stated my argument in the form of an irrefutable syllogism:

1. By definition, only a military organization may legally convene and enforce the verdicts of courts-martial, and hold its members exempt from civilian law.
2. Starfleet legally convenes and enforces the verdicts of courts-martial and holds its members exempt from civilian law.
3. Therefore, Starfleet is a military organization.

You have only one task, Geoff: Refute this syllogism, using nothing but logic and facts. If you can do that, your argument might hold water. If not, your argument is bankrupt.

Unless and until you can present a logically valid refutation of the syllogism that I have presented above, I am finished discussing this with you.

The show refutes the syllogism. I don't have to.

In other words, you cannot. And it doesn't.

Please stop trying to change the topic or move the goalposts. Prove your point or admit that you can't. Stop wasting verbiage on non-answers.

 

[Geoff Thorne]

Geoff, I have already stated my argument in the form of an irrefutable syllogism:

1. By definition, only a military organization may legally convene and enforce the verdicts of courts-martial, and hold its members exempt from civilian law.
2. Starfleet legally convenes and enforces the verdicts of courts-martial and holds its members exempt from civilian law.
3. Therefore, Starfleet is a military organization.

You have only one task, Geoff: Refute this syllogism, using nothing but logic and facts. If you can do that, your argument might hold water. If not, your argument is bankrupt.

Unless and until you can present a logically valid refutation of the syllogism that I have presented above, I am finished discussing this with you.

The show refutes the syllogism. I don't have to.

In other words, you cannot. And it doesn't.

Please stop trying to change the topic or move the goalposts. Prove your point or admit that you can't. Stop wasting verbiage on non-answers.

No. Not in other words. The Canon material refutes your construct.

You are applying a definition of military that fits current and past Earthbound organizations. Star Trek is about the future. Current usages do not apply and, in fact, we are told, specifically, unequivocally, that they do not.

It's not moving goal posts to point out the relentless ongoing fundamental contradictions that exist in Star Trek and which all of us simply gloss over or whose blanks we fill in as a matter of course. Either the Canon exists, inconsistencies and all, or it doesn't. There's no gray area.

You've banged up against what you believe is a statement that contradicts behavior in the Star Trek universe and your solution to the contradiction is to apply modern, real-world definitions to obviate the part you don't like.

Fair enough.

I don't believe any of us have that luxury. To me your syllogism is irrelevant because it can't be applied to an organization that is not operating under any current legal definitions. Starfleet is the work of what is, by our standards, an alien civilization.

By their own standards they are not a military. Their standards, fictional as they are, trump yours or mine in this context. And, now that I have a script source, I will be happy to post additional excerpts that support this view.

Even if all I had was the one statement from Picard, that would be enough because it is unequivocal and clearly worded and supported by the words and actions of another officer.

But there are more such statements and exchanges throughout the many seasons. How many will convince you? Give me a number and I'm sure I can hit it. Ten? Twenty?

And, by "convince," I simply mean that you will accept that there is another equally legit interpretation of the material that differs from the one that prevails here.

If the number is zero, because you won't be convinced under any circumstances, say that and we can all shake hands and move on to the next fun thing.

(But it's a pain in the ass to go do this so I don't want to if you really can't be moved.)

 

[Sci]

The show refutes the syllogism. I don't have to.

In other words, you cannot. And it doesn't.

Please stop trying to change the topic or move the goalposts. Prove your point or admit that you can't. Stop wasting verbiage on non-answers.

No. Not in other words. The Canon material refutes your construct.

You are applying a definition of military that fits current and past Earthbound organizations. Star Trek is about the future. Current usages do not apply and, in fact, we are told, specifically, unequivocally, that they do not.

It's not moving goal posts to point out the relentless ongoing fundamental contradictions that exist in Star Trek and which all of us simply gloss over or whose blanks we fill in as a matter of course. Either the Canon exists, inconsistencies and all, or it doesn't. There's no gray area.

You've banged up against what you believe is a statement that contradicts behavior in the Star Trek universe and your solution to the contradiction is to apply modern, real-world definitions to obviate the part you don't like.

Fair enough.

I don't believe any of us have that luxury. To me your syllogism is irrelevant because it can't be applied to an organization that is not operating under any current legal definitions. Starfleet is the work of what is, by our standards, an alien civilization.

By their own standards they are not a military. Their standards, fictional as they are, trump yours or mine in this context. And, now that I have a script source, I will be happy to post additional excerpts that support this view.

Even if all I had was the one statement from Picard, that would be enough because it is unequivocal and clearly worded and supported by the words and actions of another officer.

But there are more such statements and exchanges throughout the many seasons. How many will convince you? Give me a number and I'm sure I can hit it. Ten? Twenty?

And, by "convince," I simply mean that you will accept that there is another equally legit interpretation of the material that differs from the one that prevails here.

If the number is zero, because you won't be convinced under any circumstances, say that and we can all shake hands and move on to the next fun thing.

(But it's a pain in the ass to go do this so I don't want to if you really can't be moved.)

In other words, you'll cite episodes you can't recall, creatively interpret lines that patently mean one thing to mean something else, cling to a single line of dialogue that was contradicted on numerous other occasions, re-interpret the word "court-martial" to mean something other than it means whilst condemning someone else for re-interpreting Picard's line about Starfleet not being a military, and refuse to acknowledge that a court-martial is convened by a martial organization even though it's in the name, all because you have an emotional problem with the idea of a military and therefore cannot bring yourself to acknowledge that Starfleet is a military.

Your logic is exactly like that of a Creationist, Geoff. You start with an inviolate conclusion -- "God created the world in six days as described in Genesis"/"Starfleet is not a military because Picard said so" -- and everything else has to fit that. When new, contradictory evidence is uncovered, you poo-poo it. When old contradictory evidence is pointed out, you ignore it. When unimpeachable logic is presented, you just pretend that it's been refuted when it hasn't. It's incredibly, incredibly circular -- and, yes, I am getting as frustrated arguing with your circular logic as I am with Creationists. But, of course, as with a Creationist, nothing I can say will possibly convince you, because your emotions are clouding your logic.

I'll just close with two things: 1. There is a reason, sir, that literally everyone else in this thread disagrees with you. 2. There is nothing wrong with having heroes who are in a military. That doesn't compromise their morality, it doesn't make them bad people, it doesn't mean that they support belligerence or jingoism or war-mongering or militarism; it doesn't mean that they don't support diplomacy or research or exploration above combat. It just means that they're members of the institution permanently legally tasked with defending their society, that's all.

 

[Idoliside]

So, the Titan ey...

 

[Mysterion]

That line in "Peak Performance" is the fecal matter of a male cow.

Isn't that the same episode where Picard mentions in his "captain's log" narration that he has "consented" to taking part in the wargames exercise?



"Consented"? How the hell is Starfleet being run (if at all) if ship captain's get to pick and choose what they are doing? This seem more like the sort of thing the Admiralty (of Starfleet Command, or whomever) just calls you up and tells you to go do it.

 

[Sci]

That line in "Peak Performance" is the fecal matter of a male cow.

Isn't that the same episode where Picard mentions in his "captain's log" narration that he has "consented" to taking part in the wargames exercise?



"Consented"? How the hell is Starfleet being run (if at all) if ship captain's get to pick and choose what they are doing? This seem more like the sort of thing the Admiralty (of Starfleet Command, or whomever) just calls you up and tells you to go do it.

And in every other episode of every other series and in every other movie, that IS the sort of thing that you just do because you've been ordered by someone higher up in the chain of command. All the more reason to disregard what "Peak Performance" depicts about Starfleet's structure.

 

[BrotherBenny]

Firstly, both Kirk and Sisko seemed to consider themselves soldiers as they were continually fighting the Klingons and Dominion respectively. Picard has always been a scientist at heart and diplomat when necessary, and believed he is an explorer. All three captains' view of Starfleet is coloured by their experiences and beliefs. The Zakdorn are a very strategic-oriented people, and in Peak Performance, Picard shows his distaste for what are clearly the military aspects of Starfleet, the aspects he prefers to ignore. Riker is also an explorer and likely believes what Picard does. Talk and explore first, shoot second.

Secondly, as has been explained before, Starfleet was founded to explore. It's Prime Directive is about exploration of new life forms, not blowing shit up. So as soon as war is over, it's time to get back to basics. Starfleet lost its way fighting the dominion, cardassians, klingons, etc. Going back to exploration is a way of putting that behind them.

 

[DGCatAniSiri]

So, the Titan ey...

Yeah... The Titan. Good ship. Can't say that I think its design and mission are inappropriate - looks like it developed from the same mold as other Starfleet ships, I see a bit of a few classes in there. As for the mission, it seems to go along nicely with that opening monologue we heard for ten seasons. The one about boldly going where no man (or, if you want the PC-but-technically-incorrect version, no 'one') has gone before.

 

[Geoff Thorne]

That line in "Peak Performance" is the fecal matter of a male cow.

Isn't that the same episode where Picard mentions in his "captain's log" narration that he has "consented" to taking part in the wargames exercise?



"Consented"? How the hell is Starfleet being run (if at all) if ship captain's get to pick and choose what they are doing? This seem more like the sort of thing the Admiralty (of Starfleet Command, or whomever) just calls you up and tells you to go do it.

That is precisely the point. Starfleet does NOT function anything like what we consider a military organization. Captains consent to follow orders, breach regulations without repercussion. Kirk MAROONED criminals who had attacked his vessel and apparently never mentioned it to anyone nor did anyone in his crew. Worf MURDERED a member of a foreign government, an ALLY no less, and all he got was a slap on the wrist AT HIS CAPTAIN's DISCRESSION. They put children on their "battleships" for God's sake. Not as passengers being ferried between points. As permanent residents. Etc. etc. et bloody cetera.

What the hell kind of military is that wobbly? None, that's what kind. If the military is about anything it's about rules and command structure. Starship captains, apparently, have nearly complete autonomy. Militaries only exist to prepare for and fight wars. Even if no war actually comes.

After repeated brutal conflicts Starfleet is not only not prepared for war, they are ALWAYS forced to completely retool in order to fight them. What does that tell you? Either they are the worst military force ever assembled or they are the best explorers ever who can also, after the first gut punch, hold their own in a fight.

When he and his people thought there was something fishy going on with Starfleet command, without ANY EVIDENCE of anything, mind you, Picard turned his ship around, went home to Earth and confronted the admiralty, demanding to know what they were up to. A CAPTAIN? Are you kidding me? Can you see some soldier in Iraq leaving his assignment, with his platoon behind him and challenging his supreme commander's operations' strategy because he thinks "something's not right?"

It doesn't even pass the giggle test. It's insubordinate at the very least.

Now, I can see a bunch of explorers playing fast and loose with the rules, sure. Because, for explorers, rules are meant to be bent and broken. The command structure is just there to facilitate the work and when it doesn't, it and the rules are abandoned. Like I said, I can't believe this is even a discussion. You have no case beyond your own sifting of those facts you like from those you don't. I'm including ALL the facts. Taken in toto the Star Trek series cannot be said to be depicting the actions of a military organization even by your own definitions. Its rules are too consistently flexible and its actions are too inconsistent.

And, though you seem to want to ignore this as a typo, they say, more than once, that they are not a military organization.

Now you can chalk it all up to poor writing or an inadequate knowledge of military protocol but that doesn't matter. Once it's written and shot, it's true. More to the point, once it's intentionally written and shot to convey precisely the point I'm making it's true.

Or we toss out the Canon as something inviolate. Those are the options.

Which is why, the INSTANT the war, any of the many wars the Federation has had to fight, is over, Starfleet defaults to its actual purpose and builds ships like Titan. It's what the organization is for. It's in the freaking title.

Star Wars is the other thing.

 

[Sci]

Militaries only exist to prepare for and fight wars.

How many more times are we going to have to tell you that this IS NOT TRUE?

How many more times do we have to say it and point it out for you TO PROCESS THE FACT THAT THAT STATEMENT IS FACTUALLY INACCURATE!?!?!?

The United States Coast Guard is a military organization. Guess what? It doesn't exist to prepare for or fight wars! Militaries can undertake ANY NUMBER of different types of missions. That they are there for the defense of the state may be their defining trait, the common denominator amongst all militaries that marks them as such, BUT IT IS NOT THEIR ONLY TRAIT.

THIS is the problem, Geoff. Now, I KNOW you are not an idiot. I know you are not thick. I know you are smarter than this.

Why do you refuse to process the fact that militaries are not solely dedicated to warfare and combat?

If you LET GO of that irrational presupposition, then you'll see that your entire argument is fallacious.

 

[Marie1]

The Canadian military rarely does war, it does a lot of "aid" work, not even just policing, but building barriers during floods, evacs, etc etc.

 

[David Mack]

No. Not in other words. The Canon material refutes your construct.

WTF are you talking about? The canon itself is the basis for item #2 of my syllogism. It's part of the very foundation of my construct.

But there are more such statements and exchanges throughout the many seasons. How many will convince you? Give me a number and I'm sure I can hit it. Ten? Twenty?

It's irrelevant, Geoff. Because for every line of dialogue you quote to show things one way, there's another line that contradicts it. Forget all that and look at the preponderance of evidence, the actions of the organization as a whole: national defense as an armed force, and the convention and enforcement of courts-martial.

Militaries only exist to prepare for and fight wars. Even if no war actually comes.

You are unequivocally wrong in this statement, and have been proved wrong multiple times in this discussion. Stop repeating a point that has already been debunked. You're not fooling anyone.

And, though you seem to want to ignore this as a typo, they say, more than once, that they are not a military organization.

More than once? Then cite more than one episode as an example.

Now you can chalk it all up to poor writing or an inadequate knowledge of military protocol but that doesn't matter. Once it's written and shot, it's true. More to the point, once it's intentionally written and shot to convey precisely the point I'm making it's true.

Or we toss out the Canon as something inviolate. Those are the options.

No, you're being an absolutist about something that has always been mutable. The canon has more than once contradicted itself. And as a tie-in writer, you ought to know that the general rule in Star Trek is, later citations trump earlier citations. And the preponderance of later citations support our interpretation, not yours. Your quote of Picard in "Peak Performance" was an early outlier that has been repeatedly rebuffed by later canon evidence.

Furthermore, you have admitted your bias several times in this discussion. To whit:

I'm not saying Starfleet's actions can't be interpreted as those of a military organization. Clearly they can (though not by me).

And it does matter to me. I've not been watching the adventures of military men and women all these years. I've been watching explorers.

You're hardly taking an objective look at the canon; these statements make it clear that you bring an ideological bias to your interpretation of the evidence.

And then, of course, you resort to one of the most laughable reaches of illogic I've ever seen in order to dismiss the evidence from "Homefront" --

There is not one sentence in the exchange that claims Starfleet is or has been a military, only that Leyton means to USE Starfleet to impose military rule. Anyone with access to enough people and firepower can do that. Indeed, Leyton is about to turn Starfleet into a military organization which, prior to his intervention, it was clearly not.

What I see is a delusional officer, driven so by fear (the point of the story) who is willing to pervert the fundamental aspects of his society in order to "save" that society. He has access to a stack of powerful vessels populated with people who are 1) equally shit scared of what's coming and 2) used to a command structure. IOW: followers.

At no time does either of them say that Starfleet's original purpose or design was to be military in itself. In fact even Leyton's speeches and certainly the actor's portrayal imply that he also knows what he's doing is a perversion. It's necessary in his mind but still a perversion.

This is a totally legit interpretation of those exchanges without any need for bending. Starfleet is, at most, to be described as a paramilitary organization and then only under certain specific conditions.

Oh, really? Then try once again to explain to me why Starfleet holds courts-martial and enforces its verdicts while holding its personnel exempt from civilian jursidiction --- something only a military organization can do, Geoff. Paramilitary organizations do not have that power or priviliege.

Hmm, I just realized ... you still haven't refuted my syllogism. Because you can't.

 

[TheAlmanac]

2. Starfleet legally convenes and enforces the verdicts of courts-martial and holds its members exempt from civilian law.

They definitely hold courts-martial, of course, but does Starfleet really "hold its members exempt from civilian law?"

The dilemma in "Justice" seems to stem from the fact that they don't, as does the ability to put Jadzia Dax on trial in "Dax." These are the first two civilian-law examples which come to mind, but I imagine there are others...

I'm not sure how the quasi-court-martial before the Federation Council in Star Trek IV would fit into this.

I also don't recall what, if any, legal issues come up in the Titan novels. (See, I'm trying to sort of keep things close to the original topic... )