Why the Resistance to Starfleet as a Military?

[Crazy Eddie]

I don't think the existence of a criminal conspiracy within the Federation Starfleet is evidence of anything.

IS it criminal? We've never heard of anyone in Section 31 ever being CHARGED with a crime. Again,we don't know Starfleet's STATUTORY status. It could be a military in the sense that it is legally empowered to engage in war, or it could be PARAmilitary in the sense that it is legally immune to prosecution for participating in warfare so long as it does so in accordance with Starfleet regulations and Federation law.

Section 31 would have immunity because their actions (arguably) are in defense of the Federation. Public scrutiny would probably lead to the charter being amended, but Section 31--and the Federation, for that matter--would never let it come to that.

That's not what ENT's "Divergence" established.

Not by itself, no. Sloan makes reference to it again in DS9 "Inquisition." Either way, you're just mincing words, as "bending the rules" is really just a euphemism in this case for Section 31's rather extreme actions in the episode.

It's a criminal conspiracy that uses a nonsense legal interpretation of Article 14, Section 31 of the United Earth Starfleet Charter to justify its existence and its actions. Canonically, Article 14 contains no mention of authorizing any organization to permanently exist and operate outside of the law with carte blanche to do whatever it wants.

And canonically, we do not actually know that Section 31 is an organization as such. Nor do we know if actually qualifies as a criminal conspiracy, since no member of Section 31 is known to have been prosecuted by any court.

Section 31 (the organization) is just using a B.S. interpretation of that line to justify their existence.

And yet both Starfleet and the Federation happily play along whenever Section 31 gets involved; they do not pretend to prosecute Sloan, they pretend he doesn't exist.

And again, Section 31 isn't exactly an "organization," seeing as they have no actual leader, no headquarters, no infrastructure or even documentation to define themselves. They are as you put it earlier: a conspiracy of Starfleet officers within the intelligence branch and various others recruited (often reluctantly) into their service.

And given Sloan's line in "Inquisition" about Section 31 being part of the "original" Starfleet Charter, it's questionable that Article 14, Section 31 is even in legal effect anymore.

And yet Bashir doesn't question the LEGALITY of Section 31, nor does he allude to a "new" Starfleet charter that would have abrogated the old one. Instead he questions their MORAL BASIS, saying "That's too much power for anyone."
Later, when Sisko calls Starfleet to complain about Section 31, what was their answer? "Starfleet Command doesn't acknowledge the existence of Section 31 but they don't deny it either. They simply said they'd look into it and get back to me."


You don't believe Section 31 is a legitimate counterintelligence service, despite the fact that they do everything a counterintelligence service does?

 

[Sci]

I don't think the existence of a criminal conspiracy within the Federation Starfleet is evidence of anything.

IS it criminal? We've never heard of anyone in Section 31 ever being CHARGED with a crime.

We've seen them committing crimes and getting away with it. "Inquisition:" Abduction, assault. "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges:" Interfering in the internal affairs of a foreign state (established as a violation of the Federation Charter in that same episode); assault; trespassing; conspiracy to commit murder. "Extreme Measures:" Conspiracy to commit genocide. "Divergence"/"Affliction:" Conspiracy to abduct a Denobulan citizen.

Section 31 would have immunity because their actions (arguably) are in defense of the Federation.

That immunity, you just specified, would be contingent upon compliance with Federation law. We've seen them violate Federation law as a matter of course.

That's not what ENT's "Divergence" established.

Not by itself, no. Sloan makes reference to it again in DS9 "Inquisition."

There is no reference to extraordinary measures in extreme crises in "Inquisition."

Either way, you're just mincing words, as "bending the rules" is really just a euphemism in this case for Section 31's rather extreme actions in the episode.

No, I'm not mincing words. Saying that commissioned Starfleet officers may bend rules in an extraordinary crisis is a far, far cry from saying that a permanent organization may disregard all laws whenever it wants.

And canonically, we do not actually know that Section 31 is an organization as such.

Yes, we do. It's identified as such in "Inquisition," and "Extreme Measures" establishes that it is an organization that uses an isolated cell structure akin to the Bajoran Resistance in order to function.

Section 31 (the organization) is just using a B.S. interpretation of that line to justify their existence.

And yet both Starfleet and the Federation happily play along whenever Section 31 gets involved; they do not pretend to prosecute Sloan, they pretend he doesn't exist.

Congratulations, you've discovered that there is corruption within the Federation government.

You don't believe Section 31 is a legitimate counterintelligence service, despite the fact that they do everything a counterintelligence service does?

Of course not. A legitimate counterintelligence service would actually answer to the Federation government.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I don't think the existence of a criminal conspiracy within the Federation Starfleet is evidence of anything.

IS it criminal? We've never heard of anyone in Section 31 ever being CHARGED with a crime.

We've seen them committing crimes and getting away with it.

Were those things actually illegal, or does Federation law make allowances for Section 31 to do these things in order to neutralize an extraordinary threat?

That, after all, is the whole point of the military's "lawful combatant" status. A marine rifleman is a lawful combatant, so when he shoots and kills you at a checkpoint he is performing a military duty. A civilian guerilla is an unlawful combatant, so when he shoots and kills you he's a murderer. Mercenaries--Blackwater et al--are chartered for very specific military duties and can be charged with murder if they wind up killing people while taking actions unrelated to those duties.

In any case, the lack of the DESIRE to prosecute Section 31 speaks volumes to their legality. Even Starfleet brass looks the other way, not so much because Section 31 is illegal, but because they don't want to have to admit that Federation law permits this sort of thing.

That immunity, you just specified, would be contingent upon compliance with Federation law. We've seen them violate Federation law as a matter of course.

Unless, of course, Federation law exempts them from those particular statutes.

There is no reference to extraordinary measures in extreme crises in "Inquisition."

You seem to be using the words "threat," "measures" and "crisis" inerchangeably, so I'm not really sure what to tell you. Except to repeat that Article 14 Section 31 authorizes extreme measures to deal with an extraordinary threat (I suppose the issue here is that you don't think a provision nullifying Starfleet regulations in part or in full qualifies as "extreme").

No, I'm not mincing words. Saying that commissioned Starfleet officers may bend rules in an extraordinary crisis is a far, far cry from saying that a permanent organization may disregard all laws whenever it wants.

And again: Section 31 does not appear to be an actual organization, and there is no evidence that they actually violated any laws. Especially if, much like Starfleet, they are exempted from them by Federation legal statutes, but we don't really know the details so as usual we can only guess based on Starfleet's behavior.

Are there any references--ANY AT ALL--to Section 31 violating Federation law? The word that is usually used is principals, which is obvious, but morality and legality are not the same thing.

Yes, we do. It's identified as such in "Inquisition," and "Extreme Measures" establishes that it is an organization that uses an isolated cell structure akin to the Bajoran Resistance in order to function.

Except that "Extreme Measures" establishes only that it has no headquarters and no real records; it really is just a loose affiliation of like-minded intelligence operatives in a self-perpetuating system, much like a secret society.

The comparison to the Bajoran resistance movement is probably apt, but isn't all that well established by Extreme Measures.

And yet both Starfleet and the Federation happily play along whenever Section 31 gets involved; they do not pretend to prosecute Sloan, they pretend he doesn't exist.

Congratulations, you've discovered that there is corruption within the Federation government.

It's only corruption if it's illegal. Bashir makes a big point that Section 31 is IMMORAL, but it's quite another question whether or not they actually violated any laws.

You don't believe Section 31 is a legitimate counterintelligence service, despite the fact that they do everything a counterintelligence service does?

Of course not. A legitimate counterintelligence service would actually answer to the Federation government.

Not necessarily. It really depends on the nature of their autonomy: they don't have to answer TO it to be granted legal exemptions BY it.

Although it is arguably part of Sloan's intelligence game, Koval's exposition in "Inter Arma" is a bit telling:

Sloan did not take the death of his mentor well. He came to believe he was murdered by the Tal'Shiar. In his eyes, the assassination of a Starfleet admiral was stepping over the line. Isn't that the phrase? After Fujisaki's death, he was confronted with a dilemma. How could he seek vengeance without violating the Federation laws? His answer was to invent Section Thirty one, a rogue organisation that answered to no one. If they killed the head of the Tal'Shiar, Starfleet Intelligence would be held blameless.

Much like Garak's various yarns, this one seems to be a seemless blend of fact and fiction. Koval is implying that Sloan himself invented Section 31 as a way to CIRCUMVENT Federation law by enveloping his quest for revenge in a counterintelligence operation; this implies that Starfleet intelligence ALREADY has certain exemptions that Section 31 is meant to make use of. The fact that S31 has existed for over 200 years is not something Koval would want to reveal at a time like this (it would raise more questions than he is prepared to answer), but the fact that it can make use of existing intelligence exemptions to skirt Federation law in the first place--much as the Tal'Shiar evidently does--is very telling.

 

[neozeks]

How about this, from Extreme Measures:

BASHIR
Recognize these? Romulan mind probes. Not the most pleasant devices, but very efficient.

SLOAN
They're also illegal in the Federation.

BASHIR
I hope you appreciate the irony of that statement.

Why would be statement be ironic if S31 wasn't illegal as well?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Because Bashir never would have had legal cover to use them if Sloan hadn't recruited him in the first place.

 

[Arpy]

The point is that these civilian ships are not armed.

Starfleet ships don't need guns to ferry colonists or spend years studying gaseous planetary anomalies yet they do. Maybe you should argue how unrealistic or outmoded Star Trek's vision of the future is for suggesting such a future. Babylon 5 for example showed a broader range of ships, some specifically for war, exploration, commerce, diplomacy, etc.

I like to think that much like the economics of the future being different, so are the politics. I think it's more realistic to allow for the unknown - like using x's in algebra for numbers you don't (currently) know. Everyone's trying so hard to categorize and label things just so. It's hubris to think we can know the future, and a stagnant future if we do!

You are welcome to ignore me if I so bother you.

I like you too much to do that.

 

[Vincent Law]

I heard you the first time, and the second. It does not change the fact that exploration and humanitarianism are not the primary roles of a military organization, national defense is.

They are simply roles that the military has.

Not overlooking anything at all. Starfleet plays a role in MANY things, but I have no reason to attempt to shoehorn the entire fleet into any of those additional roles, because Starfleet officers have REPEATEDLY pointed out that Starfleet's enduring priority is the exploration of space.

They've also repeated stated that they are soldiers and that Starfleet is a military. But then the real heart of the matter is this rather confusing insistence that anything is "shoehorned" anywhere. Are you suggesting that in the modern military or historically that exploratory roles or humanitarian aid efforts and the like have simply been shoehorned into the military?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

They've also repeated stated that they are soldiers and that Starfleet is a military. But then the real heart of the matter is this rather confusing insistence that anything is "shoehorned" anywhere. Are you suggesting that in the modern military or historically that exploratory roles or humanitarian aid efforts and the like have simply been shoehorned into the military?

No, in fact it's the other way around: that you cannot realistically argue that the U.S. Navy is actually a disaster relief agency just because disaster relief is one of its roles. Indeed, you couldn't even do that even if there was some extraordinary disaster and the Navy did nothing BUT humanitarian missions for several years in a row. It's a role the Navy has, but it isn't what the Navy is fundamentally for.

The combat role isn't so special that any organization that carries it out MUST be a military, any more than filling the humanitarian role automatically makes that organization a charity. That's the main reason why ACTIONS do not define an organization, especially a military organization.

 

[neozeks]

Because Bashir never would have had legal cover to use them if Sloan hadn't recruited him in the first place.

I'm not sure I'm following you. Bashir didn't have cover to use them, his talk with Sisko at the beginning sort of establishes that. Bashir never really became a part of S31 and he certainly didn't act in any capacity as a S31 agent in Extreme Measures. I think the writer's intent with that line is pretty clear.

The combat role isn't so special that any organization that carries it out MUST be a military, any more than filling the humanitarian role automatically makes that organization a charity.

True. But an organization filling that role is a rather strong indication that it is a military. In the absence of access to Federation legal documents and with somewhat contradictory verbal evidence (though I think even that goes in the "it's a military" camp's favour), indications are all we have to go on.

 

[Sci]

IS it criminal? We've never heard of anyone in Section 31 ever being CHARGED with a crime.

We've seen them committing crimes and getting away with it.

Were those things actually illegal,

Of course kidnapping, assault, etc., are illegal in the Federation.

or does Federation law make allowances for Section 31 to do these things in order to neutralize an extraordinary threat?

There is no evidence the Federation makes special legal allowances for the actions of Section 31. Especially when one of their actions violates basic provisions of the Federation's constitution.

In any case, the lack of the DESIRE to prosecute Section 31 speaks volumes to their legality.

No, it doesn't, any more than a lack of a desire to prosecute a mob boss speaks volumes about the Mafia's legality. It speaks volumes to the level of corruption within the Federation government.

Except to repeat that Article 14 Section 31 authorizes extreme measures to deal with an extraordinary threat

No, it "makes allowances for bending the rules in times of extraordinary threat." That's not the same thing as authorizing "extreme measures."

(I suppose the issue here is that you don't think a provision nullifying Starfleet regulations in part or in full qualifies as "extreme").

Yep. It is, at best, the sort of thing that would have to be determined by the judiciary.

And again: Section 31 does not appear to be an actual organization,

Yes, it does.

and there is no evidence that they actually violated any laws.

I'm sorry, but that argument is just ridiculous. If we see someone on Law & Order kidnap someone and then get away with it because the prosecutor is unwilling to go after him for whatever reason, that does not mean that it's legal for him to kidnap someone in the world of Law & Order, it means that the DA chose not to prosecute. You can't jump from, "The Federation government turned the other way" to "Section 31 is actually legal." That's a HUGE leap with no supporting evidence.

Are there any references--ANY AT ALL--to Section 31 violating Federation law?

"Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges" established that the Federation is constitutionally prohibited from interfering with the internal affairs of foreign states, yet that's what that episode was about. It doesn't get any higher in the statute books than that.

Further, as I repeated before, Article 14 only makes allowances for bending rules in times of extraordinary threat. It does not say that Section 31 is authorized to exist as an organization, nor does it say that its members (OR anyone else) is authorized to engage in the crimes we've seen them commit (abducting and arguably torturing Julian Bashir in "Inquisition," interfering in the internal affairs of a foreign government in "Inter Arma...," conspiracy to murder Senator Cretek with Koval in that same episode, conspiracy to commit genocide in the Final Chapter arc, conspiracy to abduct a foreign citizen from Earth in "Divergence"). Saying that you're authorized to "bend the rules" is a far, far cry from saying that you're authorized to do whatever you like, or to do the numerous crimes Section 31 does that aren't even related to resolving any crises.

Except that "Extreme Measures" establishes only that it has no headquarters and no real records; it really is just a loose affiliation of like-minded intelligence operatives in a self-perpetuating system, much like a secret society.

A secret society is still an organization. It may not be a strongly controlled organization, but it remains an organization, because an organization is just an affiliation of like-minded persons.

Of course not. A legitimate counterintelligence service would actually answer to the Federation government.

Not necessarily. It really depends on the nature of their autonomy: they don't have to answer TO it to be granted legal exemptions BY it.

Bullshit. No government would let a counterintelligence agency run wild outside of its control. They would inherently see such an agency as a threat to themselves if it didn't answer to them.

Koval is implying that Sloan himself invented Section 31 as a way to CIRCUMVENT Federation law by enveloping his quest for revenge in a counterintelligence operation; this implies that Starfleet intelligence ALREADY has certain exemptions that Section 31 is meant to make use of. The fact that S31 has existed for over 200 years is not something Koval would want to reveal at a time like this (it would raise more questions than he is prepared to answer), but the fact that it can make use of existing intelligence exemptions to skirt Federation law in the first place--much as the Tal'Shiar evidently does--is very telling.

Not really. All that means is that, in Koval's fictitious scenario, Sloan was looking for a way to get revenge without the Federation government being implicated -- thus, a way for him to get revenge without Starfleet Inteligence breaking any laws, not without Sloan breaking any laws.

* * *

Now, let's review the logic train here, since Section 31's legality is a far cry from the issue of Starfleet being a military.

As I understand it, the logic train is as follows:

THESIS: STARFLEET IS NOT A MILITARY

SUPPORTING ARGUMENT: IT WAS ESTABLISHED AS NOT A MILITARY IN ENTERPRISE

COUNTER-ARGUMENT: THE UESF IN ENT IS NOT THE SAME ORGANIZATION AS THE FEDERATION STARFLEET

COUNTER-ARGUMENT: IT IS THE SAME ORGANIZATION. IT WAS CHARTERED AND THEREFORE NEED NOT HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED SEPARATELY UNDER THE FEDERATION.

COUNTER-ARGUMENT: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THEY ARE THE SAME ORGANIZATION.

COUNTER-ARGUMENT: SECTION 31 EXISTED WITHIN BOTH OF THEM, IMPLYING A SINGLE, CONTINUOUS STARFLEET.

COUNTER-ARGUMENT: SECTION 31 IS A CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION AND ITS ACTIONS INDICATE NOTHING ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE UESF AND FEDERATION STARFLEET ARE THE SAME ORGANIZATION AND BY EXTENSION WHETHER OR NOT THE FEDERATION STARFLEET IS A MILITARY.

COUNTER-ARGUMENT: FEDERATION LAW MAY ALLOW FOR SECTION 31'S ACTIONS. IF IT DOES, THIS IMPLIES THAT THE UESF IS THE FSF AND THAT THUS THE FSF IS NOT A MILITARY.

COUNTER-ARGUMENT: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT SECTION 31'S ACTIONS ARE LEGAL, AND THUS IT IS IRRELEVANT TO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THE UESF AND FSF ARE THE SAME ORGANIZATION AND THUS WHETHER OR NOT THE FSF IS A MILITARY.

​

Does that about sum the argument up?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

There is no evidence the Federation makes special legal allowances for the actions of Section 31.

The Federation DOES make special allowances for Starfleet, in granting them some form of lawful combatant status for example. It obviously makes other allowances for Starfleet Intelligence, allowing them to conduct surveillance without warrants or physically penetrate treaty zones in order to gather information. Those same allowances would apply to Section 31.

Something else to remember is that the Starfleet charter doesn't authorize Section 31 to violate Federation law, it authorizes them to violate STARFLEET REGULATIONS.

No, it doesn't, any more than a lack of a desire to prosecute a mob boss speaks volumes about the Mafia's legality.

Except the Mafia is not a secretive group within the CIA that was formed based on a loophole in National Security Act.

Or a better example: while under Israeli occupation, the government was required to afford due process to citizens of the Gaza Strip. Despite this fact, the Shin Bet targeted and assassinated not less than 250 terrorist operatives during the First Intafada without so much as a phone call to the judiciary. Arguably this would count as state-sanctioned murder, but when pressed, the Israeli government invariably cites its own legal precedents to justify those actions.

I'm sorry, but that argument is just ridiculous. If we see someone on Law & Order kidnap someone and then get away with it because the prosecutor is unwilling to go after him for whatever reason, that does not mean that it's legal for him to kidnap someone in the world of Law & Order, it means that the DA chose not to prosecute.

If you're now going to hold to the position that the legality of a group's actions cannot be assumed, then we look at James T. Kirk: a man who disabled Landru, who ransacked the Eminian suicide booths and their battle computers, who destroyed Val with a phaser strike, who blew up the Klingon ammo dumps on Organia, who used the threat of annihilation to impose global hegemony under the leadership of Bella Oxymx.

Nobody ever expressed a desire to prosecute Kirk for those actions. Which means that they are either legal in the Federation, or the Federation gives Starfleet authorization to do these kinds of things. But nobody ever asks the question whether or not Kirk is just an un-prosecuted criminal, because his actions appear to have a positive moral outcome. Section 31 takes many of the same actions, which have a positive PRACTICAL outcome and a highly dubious moral one.

But morality and law are not the same thing. If Starfleet can get away with repeatedly unraveling the social/political structure of an entire planet, how is it that Section 31 can't?

"Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges" established that the Federation is constitutionally prohibited from interfering with the internal affairs of foreign states, yet that's what that episode was about. It doesn't get any higher in the statute books than that.

Actually this seems to be an error on Bashir's part since Federation citizens ARE allowed to interfere in the internal affairs of other states (see Angel One, Redemption, Unification, etc). STARFLEET isn't, as per the prime directive. This one is pretty clearly an error much like Pike's "The Federation is a peacekeeping armada" in STXI.

Bullshit. No government would let a counterintelligence agency run wild outside of its control.

I believe you mean SHOULD. Quite a few of them would, and have. The real issue is this is usually a BAD thing because those organizations are then uncountable and you can never be sure they're really using their power for the good of the state. Section 31 doesn't appear to have this problem, and continues to exist for this reason.

Now, let's review the logic train here, since Section 31's legality is a far cry from the issue of Starfleet being a military.

I don't think so. I think Federation law authorizes Starfleet to take any actions it sees as appropriate in defense of the Federation and is ultimately accountable to the President and/or Federation Council in an oversight capacity. Section 31 is part of Starfleet and therefore has the same authority; the difference is, Section 31 can choose to ignore Starfleet regulations when it needs to.

"The ends justifies the means" is an occasional trope in dealing with Starfleet's legality. Whether or not Kirk was working for Section 31 at the time, he was certainly acting as a Starfleet officer when he took the Enterprise into the neutral zone with the intention of stealing a Romulan cloaking device. If you want to interpret that as the Federation simply choosing to look the other way, well, there goes the other shoe; if Starfleet isn't a criminal organization than neither is Section 31.

As to your logic train, it's partly accurate. The 24th century Starfleet is either the same organization as Earth Starfleet or a larger organization that incorporated it wholesale; we don't know which, but they are clearly NOT wholly separate organizations and are not meant to be interpreted as such. The reference to Section 31 in "Divergence" is a nod to Starfleet's continuing lineage from the 22nd century.

The legal situation on Earth as well as the Federation is such that Starfleet is permitted and expected to engage in defense operations whether it is a military or not. Section 31 evidently has the same permission, and the legal situation is such that the Federation has no trouble at all excusing their actions if the ends justify the means. So either the Federation government is hopelessly corrupt (which I do not believe for an instant) or Starfleet has alot more legal autonomy than any organization that currently exists.

 

[el Chalupacabra]

I dunno. Maybe it is a difference without a distinction, but Starfleet is more a "para-military" organization, rather than an actual military branch. I think Roddenberry wanted it to be an exploration organization in the same vein as Lewis and Clark's epedition, the Corps of Discovery, or other explorers like John Cabot, Francis Drake, Henry Hudson, etc. These were military-like in the way they were organized.

While it is true there are cases where Starfleet is the de Facto defense force of the UFP, I think the reason Roddenberry was making the distinction that Starfleet is not a military branch is that the primary focus is supposed to be peaceful exploration. If Starfleet was an out and out military organization, exploration would be a secondary mission, and military operations would be primary.

 

[Saito S]

I've been continuing to follow this thread, and have thought about jumping back in here and there, but really, when it comes to the issue of Starfleet being a military or not, I'd just be repeating myself. When it comes to the issue of why there is resistance, I've seen nothing other than the supposition that those who resist it don't like the idea of Starfleet being a military because they don't like the idea of the military in some way, and would rather see a 23rd/24th century without such a thing in the UFP (note: I am not accusing anyone in this thread of personally holding that viewpoint. All I mean is that I HAVE seen that sentiment before, and have yet to see - in this thread or elsewhere - a wildly divergent set of reasoning for why there is resistance). So I haven't felt like I really have much to contribute.

When it comes to the Section 31 stuff... it's kind of an interesting discussion, though (this should come as no surprise) I find myself agreeing with Sci on pretty much every point of contention. But I don't see how it's all that relevant, frankly. I've seen the word "shoehorned" used a number of times in reference to cramming roles or descriptions in where they shouldn't be... the presence of Section 31 in ENT feels more shoehorned than anything that's been discussed in this thread. And I dismiss it for the same reasons I dismiss the MACOs and everything else about the UESF: Enterprise is a show that makes almost a half a lick of sense on its best days, and it's all a huge retcon anyway. It takes place before everything else in-universe, but everything in the show was created after the other four series had long finished airing. Plus, I've made it pretty clear that I don't see any conclusive evidence for the UESF and the FSF being the same organization. Thus, when it comes to deciphering the role of the Federation Starfleet, I don't think it makes any sense to involve the Earth Starfleet.

However, since others clearly don't feel that way (and I don't just mean newtype; others who agree with "my side" have engaged in the ENT aspects of the debate as well), I won't try to force everyone down that road, I'll just come back if/when the discussion swings back in a direction I feel I can contribute to.

 

[Vincent Law]

No, in fact it's the other way around: that you cannot realistically argue that the U.S. Navy is actually a disaster relief agency just because disaster relief is one of its roles. Indeed, you couldn't even do that even if there was some extraordinary disaster and the Navy did nothing BUT humanitarian missions for several years in a row. It's a role the Navy has, but it isn't what the Navy is fundamentally for.

I could easily use the same argument in regard to Starfleet being a military in that simply because it takes on an exploratory role doesn't define it as a solely exploratory organization. However, the fact it is seen acting as the defense force of the Federation shows that it is a military. Furthermore, it has never been seen to shirk its defense role in favor of any other role, exploratory or otherwise, so that would makes its defense role its primary role, as you like to put it. As another said, scientific missions can be dropped during time of war, but defense of the border can't be dropped during time of peace.

The combat role isn't so special that any organization that carries it out MUST be a military,

Except that historically this is the case, at least legally. The only exceptions have been civilian resistance groups, like the Maquis, which was directly translated into Star Trek, or mercenary groups, and I doubt you'd suggest that Starfleet was an organized mercenary group akin to Blackwater.

I dunno. Maybe it is a difference without a distinction, but Starfleet is more a "para-military" organization, rather than an actual military branch. I think Roddenberry wanted it to be an exploration organization in the same vein as Lewis and Clark's epedition, the Corps of Discovery,

Lewis and Clark were both US Army officers.

or other explorers like John Cabot, Henry Hudson, etc.

Who were commissioned by the English government to explore, but were never charged with the defense of England at any time. This is the defining role of the military. That's not to say that a show about civilian explorers would be bad or boring, but because of that non-military role the show would have been different than what it was.

Francis Drake

Sir Francis Drake was a Vice Admiral, among many things over his lifetime. He actually helped to defend England against the invading Spanish Armada. However, when he was doing his exploration work, he was actually acting as a privateer.

While it is true there are cases where Starfleet is the de Facto defense force of the UFP, I think the reason Roddenberry was making the distinction that Starfleet is not a military branch is that the primary focus is supposed to be peaceful exploration. If Starfleet was an out and out military organization, exploration would be a secondary mission, and military operations would be primary.

The flaw in this logic is that during peacetime, a military would be able to conduct this secondary role and there is by no means any reason that Starfleet couldn't be both the military and be a mission of peaceful exploration. In fact, everything seen of Starfleet suggests exactly that.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The combat role isn't so special that any organization that carries it out MUST be a military,

Except that historically this is the case, at least legally.

In the history of Star Trek--which, whether you like it or not, includes Enterprise--this is no longer the case. Star Trek's fictional history has to be taken into account, as do all meaningful differences with REAL history.

I doubt you'd suggest that Starfleet was an organized mercenary group akin to Blackwater.

There was an attempt to compare Starfleet to NASA with the original references to the "UESPA." Enterprise made several direct and indirect comparisons in the first and second seasons. When you consider that most civilian space agencies already function in a paramilitary capacity (and the Russian and Chinese programs both include military equipment, including weapons, among their crew's regular payloads) then the traditions of REAL history are preserved. Starfleet probably has more in common with Roskosmos and NASA than it ever did--or will--with any existing military organization. Hell, they even use the same logo.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I'm not sure that there's a "lack of desire" to bring down Section 31, nor would it indicate widespread corruption in the Federation even if it did. If S31 is as elusive as it seems, Federation courts may have a hell of a hard time even if they *want* to prosecute. How can you prosecute an organization that not too many people even know exists?

And if the Federation really is as corrupt as some people here seem to think it is, I think Section 31 wouldn't even exist. The Federation would just go ahead and overtly do the kind of things that we see S31 do. The existence of Section 31 seems to indicate that they feel the need to *counter* the relative idealism of the Federation with their own brand of lawless nastiness.

 

[Vincent Law]

In the history of Star Trek--which, whether you like it or not, includes Enterprise--this is no longer the case. Star Trek's fictional history has to be taken into account, as do all meaningful differences with REAL history.

Except that where there is plenty upon which to base the assertions I have made, there are none with which to base yours on, including these assertions about laws which have never been discussed on screen to give any such indication.

There was an attempt to compare Starfleet to NASA with the original references to the "UESPA." Enterprise made several direct and indirect comparisons in the first and second seasons. When you consider that most civilian space agencies already function in a paramilitary capacity (and the Russian and Chinese programs both include military equipment, including weapons, among their crew's regular payloads) then the traditions of REAL history are preserved. Starfleet probably has more in common with Roskosmos and NASA than it ever did--or will--with any existing military organization.

Actually, no, it doesn't It has the most in common with British and American navies. The only thing that makes NASA "paramilitary" is its use of military pilots. Other space organizations providing small arms for the protection of their pilots (or suicide) should they land in hostile territory does not equate with arming their spacecraft and using them in military conflicts.

Hell, they even use the same logo.

Guess who else does. And they've been doing it pretty much since the command was created in 1989. As for the Russian logo, as I recall, they adopted it fairly recently, and it actually was specifically based on the Starfleet logo. Are you now going to argue on this basis alone that Starfleet is not a military?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

In the history of Star Trek--which, whether you like it or not, includes Enterprise--this is no longer the case. Star Trek's fictional history has to be taken into account, as do all meaningful differences with REAL history.

Except that where there is plenty upon which to base the assertions I have made, there are none with which to base yours on

Except for the fact that Earth Starfleet is explicitly identified as being a non-military entity immediately before and after conducting what would otherwise be a military operation. This would be an historical precedent that military organizations no longer have the monopoly on armed conflict or defense of a state, even if Earth Starfleet had nothing at all to do with the Fed fleet. That the former is implicitly identified as the progenitor and basis of the latter only cements this precedent and establishes an unbroken line between Archer and Picard's identical claims that Starfleet is not a military organization.

Actually, no, it doesn't It has the most in common with British and American navies.

Incorrect, since:
1) The navy does not operate space craft; Starfleet operates only spacecraft.
2) The navy has NEVER been referred to by any of their members--past or present--as non-military organizations; Starfleet has.
3) The navy has separate training facilities for enlisted crew and officers; Starfleet appears to train them both at Starfleet Academy.
4) The navy is legally prohibited from engaging in domestic law enforcement operations on U.S. property; Starfleet is not.

The only thing that makes NASA "paramilitary" is its use of military pilots.

Incorrect:
1) NASA can and has performed military operations on behalf of the department of defense, deploying both weaponized and non-weaponized payloads. It is also required by law to support the DoD in time of war.
2) NASA pilots are trained and authorized to engage in self-defense actions in the event of contact with hostile individuals. While technically this is expected to involve self defense in hostile territory after a crash, the language of the Space Act implicitly includes self-defense during the course of a space mission from a belligerent power (that is, by the crew of one space craft coming into hostile contact with a foreign space craft).

Other space organizations providing small arms for the protection of their pilots (or suicide) should they land in hostile territory does not equate with arming their spacecraft and using them in military conflicts.

It most certainly DOES. The only reason for the lack of participation in military conflicts is the fact that so far no military conflict has ever occurred in space. And your contention to the contrary, the Soyuz self-defense weapons were NOT designed for suicide, but were multi-purpose weapons designed for self defense, hunting, and assault (suicide implements were provided in the form of a cyanide pill).

Furthermore, the Almaz space station--which was directly based on the Salyut series--was originally mounted with a 40mm antiaircraft cannon, and Roskosmos preserved most of the optional weapon systems that were designed for the Mir until the station was finally deorbitted (never needed, and therefore never flown). Several versions of the Soyuz have been designed to include--and occasionally flown with--anti-satellite weaponry capable of destroying satellites or other manned spacecraft. Those weapon systems still exist, even if a specific reason for using them no longer does.

So legally and functionally, they are equivalent. The only difference is that of firepower. OTOH, a 7.62mm rifle bullet on a 12 foot space capsule would have about the same effect as a phaser blast against a 1000 foot starship, so even there they are roughly equivalent.

Hell, they even use the same logo.

Guess who else does.

Space Command--which does not operate manned space craft, never has, and has no plans to do so in the future--conducts exactly ZERO exploratory missions and is not intended to do so under any circumstances. The similarity to Starfleet is nonexistent.

OTOH, SpaceCommand is dissimilar to Starfleet in the additional sense that it was formed specifically in reaction to NASA's declining ability to adequately perform military missions; it is extremely likely to be shut down and reincorporated into NASA (much as the Army and Air Force missile programs were, along with most of the Redstone Arsenal and part of the Naval Research Laboratory) if and when NASA's budgetary and operational limitations are resolved. To be clear on this: the only reason the military does ANYTHING in space is because our current defense budget is 400 times larger than NASA's. Interestingly, this is not the case in Europe, which sources 100% of its military space missions to the ESA.

 

[T'Girl]

Starfleet was an organized mercenary group

Starfleet as Jerry Pournelle's Falkenberg's Legion, or Gordon R. Dickson's Dorsai? Both depicting a professionally run mercenary force on the interstellar stage.

An interesting idea, and would explain how the organization "gets away" with some of it's actions and obvious transgressions. Would also get around Starfleet not being a state run military, because they wouldn't be one. They'd be a large non-government private contractor, with their own set of internal rules. The Federation could tell them what to do, only so far as being their contractual employer.

The Dorsai had an military academy if I'm not mistaken, and in Glen Cook's Shadowline, the mercenary force of Gneaus Storm had their own fleet of Starships.

and I doubt you'd suggest that Starfleet was an organized mercenary group akin to Blackwater.

Of course legally Blackwater wasn't a mercenary organization as long as America was "a continuing party to the conflict." Arguably Starfleet also would not be mercenaries, say during the Romulan war or the Dominion war, if Starfleet personnel were also Federation citizens or citizens of a planet that was a part (or a party) of the conflict, even if they were "only" private contractors. A legal nicety.

A part of their contract with the Federation might include immunity from persecution for most legal offenses.

1) The navy does not operate space craft; Starfleet operates only spacecraft.

The US Navy (independent of NASA) has operated rockets and missile that have exceeded 100 kilometers of altitude. That's "space." And yes some of them carried scientific payloads. The X-15 research plane reached altitudes of over 107 kilometers, the program included Navy pilots, the X-15 was a military join services "spacecraft."

Three of the original seven American astronauts (Carpenter, Shepard and Schirra) were active duty US Navy. The first space shuttle pilot (Crippen) was active duty US Navy. NASA spacecraft being operated by the US Navy.

And there are examples and dialog in TAS and VOY of Starfleet operating boats on water.

Plus there's the dune buggy.

4) The navy is legally prohibited from engaging in domestic law enforcement operations on U.S. property; Starfleet is not.

Not exactly. The Army and Air Force are so prohibited by federal law (Posse Comitatus Act), the Navy and Marine Corp are prohibited only by a internal DoD directive, a directive which the DoD can activate and deactivate as it sees fit. Obviously the Coast Guard engages in domestic law enforcement on a daily basis.

 

[Vincent Law]

Except for the fact that Earth Starfleet is explicitly identified as being a non-military entity immediately before and after conducting what would otherwise be a military operation.

Except that this can be ignored as an attempt by the writers to stick with a theme they didn't really seem to understand and that there is no canon link between Earth Starfleet and the similarly named Federation organization. Your entire argument is built upon a weak premise that has nothing aside from your own supposition to back it up with, while you ignore everything both organizations have actually been seen to do in all of the series and movies. Instead you based everything on a few lines of dialog.

Incorrect, since:

And you managed to miss the entire point. Instead of looking at organizations and admitting to all the similarities, you have instead focused on trite arguments amounting to "the navy doesn't do this now (to which you are technically partially incorrect anyway), so Starfleet can't be a military." I shouldn't have to point out that this is an extremely weak argument.

Incorrect:
1) NASA can and has performed military operations on behalf of the department of defense, deploying both weaponized and non-weaponized payloads. It is also required by law to support the DoD in time of war.

Hauling things into orbit for the military doesn't in any way compare to Stafleet. Starfleet ships, even relatively small ones, are armed and can and have been seen to engage in military conflict. The Space Shuttle is not armed and has not ever engaged in conflict.

2) NASA pilots are trained and authorized to engage in self-defense actions in the event of contact with hostile individuals.

And most of them are already military pilots and actually hold rank within the USAF or the USN.

It most certainly DOES.

No, small arms crew members carry for self defense on the off chance they land in hostile territory do not equate with armed capital ships which regularly engage in military conflict and border patrols. This comparison can't be more apples and oranges.

The only reason for the lack of participation in military conflicts is the fact that so far no military conflict has ever occurred in space.

That's because of treaties which forbid the militarization of space, which was a very real fear during the cold war. It's also a big reason for NASA'a start and growth.

Furthermore, the Almaz space station--which was directly based on the Salyut series--was originally mounted with a 40mm antiaircraft cannon, and Roskosmos preserved most of the optional weapon systems that were designed for the Mir until the station was finally deorbitted (never needed, and therefore never flown).

You're talking about manned spy satellites which were operated by the Soviet military.

So legally and functionally, they are equivalent.

No, they aren't. You keep ignoring obvious things that Starfleet has been seen to be doing which are equivalent to functions performed by modern militaries and which have historically been tasks performed by militaries in order to make a comparison that isn't a comparison. It's like you want Starfleet to be NASA really, really bad, and you're just pulling things out of the air to try to make this comparison while ignoring everything else.

Space Command--which does not operate manned space craft, never has, and has no plans to do so in the future

That we know of. Even if they were, they probably wouldn't be real anxious to come out and say so, what with that whole thing about the militarization of space being a big no-no and all.

--conducts exactly ZERO exploratory missions and is not intended to do so under any circumstances. The similarity to Starfleet is nonexistent.

Except of course for their insignia, which I only brought up because of your own example in your own argument. If one is fair then both are.

OTOH, Space Command is dissimilar to Starfleet in the additional sense that it was formed specifically in reaction to NASA's declining ability to adequately perform military missions; it is extremely likely to be shut down and reincorporated into NASA (much as the Army and Air Force missile programs were, along with most of the Redstone Arsenal and part of the Naval Research Laboratory) if and when NASA's budgetary and operational limitations are resolved. To be clear on this: the only reason the military does ANYTHING in space is because our current defense budget is 400 times larger than NASA's. Interestingly, this is not the case in Europe, which sources 100% of its military space missions to the ESA.

Also, the Air Force would really rather just have complete control over everything it owns rather than having to go through NASA, even if NASA basically had to bend over and do whatever the Air Force and the Navy wanted them to do for pretty much all of its existence.

If the stigma against the militarization of space ever went away, Earth was united and thought of as a nation-state, and the system was thought of as territory that had to be protected, it's fairly obvious that a military organization would be formed to perform the function of defending this territory, not a civilian organization like NASA. And since they'd already be out there, again, I have no doubt that they would also perform exploratory and scientific functions in addition to their defense role, just as has historically been the case.