I am sympathetic to most to all of the 'Relief and Revolt' notes that
have been going around on Starfleet law. I have been discussing one
other issue with Keras, which I think should be shared.
There is a basic conflict between the Guarantees and the Prime
Directive.
The Prime Directive would seem to say that if a local government is
violating the rights of individuals, the Federation is forbidden from
interfering.
The Guarantees are the equivalent of the Bill of Rights. The Seventh
Guarantee, protects Federation citizens from self-incrimination.
There are at least six others. We will have to decide what the others
are some day. I'd suggest we take them from the US Constitutional
amendments, and keep them bland enough that most to all alien
civilizations will not object to them. Regardless, when a Federation
member local government attempts to violate a Federation citizen's
Guaranteed rights, I believe the Federation Charter forces the
Federation to intervene.
If Starfleet is bound by the Prime Directive not to intervene in
local affairs, the Federation's response must take the form of police
action or financial penalties, rather than military force.
How do we explain this conflict between ideals? I propose that early
on in the Federation, there was a conflict between some who wished to
impose 'universal rights' on everyone, whether they wanted it or not,
and those who did not want the Federation imposing by force a
standardized culture everywhere. The 'universal rights' people must
have had the upper hand during the Charter writing convention, as the
Guarantees got into the basic Charter.
However, Starfleet rebelled against the idea of imposing cultural
change by force. Thus, Starfleet General Order Number One was a
challenge to the Council saying that the military would defend the
Federation against external threats, but was not in the business of
coercing local governments.
While in a way this is a challenge to the idea of civilian control
over the military, I think the Council backed down to Starfleet, and
made the appropriate rules or laws to verify Starfleet's Prime
Directive, and to apply the non-interference principle to civilians
travelling in space, and to non-member planets.
Meanwhile, if we treat the Guarantees seriously, any non-interference
directive which binds the council cannot conflict with the
Guarantees. This means if we forbid interference with local member
societies, we have to add a clause saying 'unless such a society is
violating the Guaranteed rights of it's citizens.' If we do not add
such a clause, the courts would have to reject the law.
However, I'd say the Charter does not Guarantee the rights of non
Federation citizens, certainly not if they are citizens of and
residing on a non-member planet. Thus, any non-interference law that
applies to non-members does not have to have an exclusion reference
to the Guarantees.
Comments?
Bob / Joy
Hi Bob,
The ideas you proposed in the referenced mail are excellent and I'm
quite interested to see everyone's opinions on them. On only the
above one do I have to express reservations.
I think I have to chalk it up to personal style here, because the
idea you proposed above is quite logical. However, we're in common
agreement that Starfleet is the exploratory, defending, etc. 'arm' of
the Federation Council. It's the Council that together make the
decisions on how the Federation is to be run. Starfleet's authority
is *given* them by the Council.
If, while I'm President, Starfleet were to openly challenge me and
this Council on anything in the manner you described, frankly, I'd
kick some butt. I know you folks aren't used to my being *really*
stubborn on anything, but as far as I'm concerned, this Supreme
Council of the United Federation of Planets is the 'boss'. The
Ambassadors from all the Member/Associate/Affiliate planets come
together from diverse backgrounds and 'try' to set aside personal
interests and agree on what's best for the entire Federation. The
Ambassadors vote with integrity, believing they've made the most fair
and equitable decisions. If any lower arm of the UFP disagrees, they
could come formally and request a hearing on their concerns. But I
won't have the Council bullied, and I'd never have let the Council
cave in to Starfleet's 'challenge'. The challengers would now be
guiding cargo carriers somewhere. :) I can only assume that previous
Chairs felt as strongly as I do about this.
::chuckles:: Well, nobody thought Christiana was all sweetness and
light anyway. : D
And Bob, although I disagree on this one issue, I very much respect
the logic in your opinions and value the insights and options you
offer the Council for consideration... they're an incredible help in
getting our basic structure designed well. :)
See ya later! :)
Christiana
I think I have to chalk it up to personal style here, because the
idea you proposed above is quite logical. However, we're in common
agreement that Starfleet is the exploratory, defending, etc. 'arm' of
the Federation Council. It's the Council that together make the
decisions on how the Federation is to be run. Starfleet's authority
is *given* them by the Council. If, while I'm President, Starfleet
were to openly challenge me and this Council on anything in the
manner you described, frankly, I'd kick some butt.
And you would be quite correct to storm out with intent to kick some
butt. As I see it, the Federation's equivalent of Thomas Jefferson
tried to kick Starfleet's equivalent of George Washington in
the butt, but didn't have the votes in council to succeed. And yes,
the idea of civilian control over the military is basic, fundamental
and important to any democracy.
However, while the Prime Directive is not and can not be a Guarantee,
it is very very important to the Federation as well. That there was a
big argument about it in the founding days seems to me right and
proper, given the amount of reverence Starfleet gives the Directive.
(That much reverence means somebody won a big argument. It could not
have happened quietly.)
However, it is, as you say, a matter of personal style. I think we
are going to have a bunch of heated discussions in Council chamber.
I'd like to think there have been a bunch of heated discussions in
the past. While Roddenberry's vision of the future is wonderful in
many respects, I do not believe a bunch of alien cultures would come
together united in ideals from day one. There would have been very
heated arguments. Given the inherent conflict between Starfleet's
often mentioned and highly revered Prime Directive and the Federation
Constitution's Guarantees mentioned twice in passing in two episodes
only, well, I'd like to think there is a story involved back there. I
tried to tell that story. (I'm like that. I will try to tell
stories.)
But, your call. From the perspective of the 24th century, what
happened in the founding days is just a myth, and my story of the
Prime Directive's origin is just one writer's opinion. I've told my
story now, and shall not mention it again. And regardless of how many
people like or dislike the story, I don't think it can be an
'anchor'. We shouldn't make a big deal of it.
Bob