www.ditl.org

Looking at the maps page, the old saying "space is big" certainly comes to mind. As various powers expand their territorial holdings, they must come across planets that are already inhabited and perhaps possessed of space-faring capability. How do they typically address this issue?

My understanding is that the Federation, at least, has a protocol to address this, with eventual membership in the Federation one outcome. All well and good. What happens, though, if a planetary or multi-planetary government does not want to join the Federation, yet the Federation feels that it needs to control the area of space in which this planet or multi-planetary government is located (say, for strategic reasons)? Is there a canon description of how this issue would be addressed, especially if the subject government has space-faring capability and is already engaged in trade and diplomacy with it neighbors when the Federation comes upon it?

NB: I know the case of the Maquis may come to mind, but that is a different situation, as these were Federation citizens to start.

Of course, there are many other governments that would presumably face the same issue as they expand their territorial holdings. Granted, few if any would be as liberal as the Federation in their treatment of planets in annexed parts of space, but they still have to address this issue. Using simple "blunt force" may be the easy explanation, but, based on real-world politics, that doesn't really work. There are all kinds of considerations (political, diplomatic and economic) that make this approach impractical in the long term. (Here, the Maquis do come to mind.)

One real-world approach has been the establishment of Special Administrative Regions, like Hong Kong and Macau. Is there evidence for such SARs in the Trek universe? If so, I'd be most interested to learn of them.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Platonian wrote:Looking at the maps page, the old saying "space is big" certainly comes to mind. As various powers expand their territorial holdings, they must come across planets that are already inhabited and perhaps possessed of space-faring capability. How do they typically address this issue?

My understanding is that the Federation, at least, has a protocol to address this, with eventual membership in the Federation one outcome. All well and good. What happens, though, if a planetary or multi-planetary government does not want to join the Federation, yet the Federation feels that it needs to control the area of space in which this planet or multi-planetary government is located (say, for strategic reasons)? Is there a canon description of how this issue would be addressed, especially if the subject government has space-faring capability and is already engaged in trade and diplomacy with it neighbors when the Federation comes upon it?

None I know of in canon, but I'd imagine that if the Federation feels the need to control such and area then it would pretty much be a case of "too bad, so sad, the Federation doesn't always get what it wants."

One real-world approach has been the establishment of Special Administrative Regions, like Hong Kong and Macau. Is there evidence for such SARs in the Trek universe? If so, I'd be most interested to learn of them.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Didn't they refer to that bunch in Insurrection as becoming a "Federation Protectorate" or some such?

[One quick trip to the internets later...]

TROI: Remember, they have a significantly less advanced technology than ours. They only achieved warp drive last year.
CRUSHER: And the Federation Council decided to make them a protectorate so quickly?
PICARD: In view of our losses to the Borg and the Dominion, the Council feels we need all the allies we can get these days.

So this would indicate that there are levels of membership to the Federation below full member status.

And then of course there could easily be treaties, defence pacts, that kind of thing.


This is actually one of the most critical issues in Insurrection, and one which the movie leaves almost completely unaddressed. It's clear that the Ba'ku are not Federation members - they don't even know what the Federation IS. And yet :

PICARD: A planet in Federation space.
DOUGHERTY: That's right. We have the planet. They have the technology. ...A technology we can't duplicate. You know what that makes us? ...Partners.

This is what I never quite got. How is the planet in "Federation space" if it's not a Federation planet? I had always imagined that the Federation's claim to an area of space must originate on the planet being one of their members, or a colony thereof. So a sensible approach might be "we have a planet in this system so we own all the space out to a radius of half the distance to the nearest star," for example.

That's why all the claims that the Federation has a right to use the rings for maximum benefit rings hollow to me. If it WAS a Federation planet then sure, the government has the right to put the needs of billions of their citizens above the needs of a few hundred. Administration of a nation's resources is part of what government is for. But it seems to me that the planet isn't theirs, and the rings aren't theirs to take. And yet they say it is.

The alternative seems to be that the Federation really did just say "this here big block of space is ours and every solar system in it belongs to us. And if the inhabitants of those systems don't like it, that's just their tough luck."

This seems like a very... Klingon... approach.

First, many thanks, Graham, for your excellent and articulate response.

Graham Kennedy wrote:Didn't they refer to that bunch in Insurrection as becoming a "Federation Protectorate" or some such?...

CRUSHER: And the Federation Council decided to make them a protectorate so quickly?

...So this would indicate that there are levels of membership to the Federation below full member status.

And then of course there could easily be treaties, defence pacts, that kind of thing.

Yes, of course. (Why didn't I think of this? ) Insurrection is the locus classicus for this subject within Trek. A protectorate, or one of the other arrangements you note, could certainly function like a SAR.

For what it's worth, I did find a couple of references to protectorates within the Federation:

"Federation members" (Memory Alpha)

"Protectorate" (Memory Alpha)

The Evora homeworld was a protectorate of the United Federation of Planets. (Star Trek: Insurrection)

According to a deleted scene (from the end of "Insurrection"), Ba'ku was also slated to become a protectorate.

Raatooras, an Arin'Sen colony, was a protectorate of the Klingon Empire before the planet was abandoned. (ENT: "Judgment")

Haven, seemingly not a Federation member world, had a treaty with the Federation which required the Federation to protect it, and thus may also have had protectorate status.

You have made some excellent observations about Ba'ku that are at the heart of my question:

This is actually one of the most critical issues in Insurrection, and one which the movie leaves almost completely unaddressed. It's clear that the Ba'ku are not Federation members - they don't even know what the Federation IS.

This is what I never quite got. How is the planet in "Federation space" if it's not a Federation planet? I had always imagined that the Federation's claim to an area of space must originate on the planet being one of their members, or a colony thereof. So a sensible approach might be "we have a planet in this system so we own all the space out to a radius of half the distance to the nearest star," for example.

That's why all the claims that the Federation has a right to use the rings for maximum benefit rings hollow to me. If it WAS a Federation planet then sure, the government has the right to put the needs of billions of their citizens above the needs of a few hundred. Administration of a nation's resources is part of what government is for. But it seems to me that the planet isn't theirs, and the rings aren't theirs to take. And yet they say it is.

The alternative seems to be that the Federation really did just say "this here big block of space is ours and every solar system in it belongs to us. And if the inhabitants of those systems don't like it, that's just their tough luck."

This seems like a very... Klingon... approach.

Maybe this is an instance of the Federation averring that control of Ba'ku and the space around it is of such critical importance to the Federation that they are claiming it as Federation territory using something akin to eminent domain (I believe it's "compulsory purchase" in the UK). Perfectly legal, but sometimes with a very questionable moral basis (especially if it's your land or whatever that's being taken away).

The Raatooras case, noted above, is most intriguing: a Klingon protectorate. Is there any more information available on this?

Platonian wrote:First, many thanks, Graham, for your excellent and articulate response.

Yes, of course. (Why didn't I think of this? ) Insurrection is the locus classicus for this subject within Trek. A protectorate, or one of the other arrangements you note, could certainly function like a SAR.

For what it's worth, I did find a couple of references to protectorates within the Federation:

"Federation members" (Memory Alpha)

So according to wiki a protectorate is "an autonomous territory that is protected diplomatically or militarily against third parties by a stronger state or entity. In exchange for this, the protectorate usually accepts specified obligations, which may vary greatly, depending on the real nature of their relationship. However, it retains formal sovereignty, and remains a state under international law. A territory subject to this type of arrangement is also known as a protected state."

So the powerful Federation offering to protect a weak planet from the likes of the Romulans and Cardassians, in return for some action by the protectorate. Maybe a starbase facility (think Guantanamo), access to some resource, or something.

This seems like the kind of deal Kirk was offering the Organians. The Federation would gain access to a planet in a key strategic position, and in return help the locals with technological advances. (So much for the Prime Directive, I guess.)

Maybe this is an instance of the Federation averring that control of Ba'ku and the space around it is of such critical importance to the Federation that they are claiming it as Federation territory using something akin to eminent domain (I believe it's "compulsory purchase" in the UK). Perfectly legal, but sometimes with a very questionable moral basis (especially if it's your land or whatever that's being taken away).

But that's the problem, though. Eminent domain applies to things that already fall under the jurisdiction of the government. Example : right now my government is building a high speed rail link from the north of England down to the south to connect with the channel tunnel rail system. It passes not too far from where I live. I won't be affected... but I accept that my government has the right to force me to give up my house (with compensation) for the sake of the overall benefit to the country.

But that simply doesn't apply to places outside my country. Imagine if the UK government said "Well we're going to confiscate a bunch of land in Texas, under the principle that we need it more than America does." That's not eminent domain, because the UK government's rights stop at the edge of UK territory. That's a declaration of war.

This is why it's so critical whether the Ba'ku planet is a Federation planet or not. They say it is... which would make the plot make sense because eminent domain could apply. But I don't understand HOW it is, and the film never says word one about it.

The Ba'ku as a Federation protectorate... okay, but how does a world become a protectorate when they don't even know the people on the other side of the deal exist? And even if it was, protectorates retain local autonomy. It seems very unlikely that the Federation would gain power of eminent domain over a protectorate.

The Raatooras case, noted above, is most intriguing: a Klingon protectorate. Is there any more information available on this?

From the episode, the Klingons simply called it a "protectorate", but it was essentially a conquered slave planet.

ALIEN: Several years ago, our colony was annexed by a species we had never seen before. They said they'd provide for us in exchange for our allegiance, that we'd become a part of their Empire. But they stripped us of our resources, left us with nothing. We waited for them to return. They said they'd bring food, fuel. They never came back.

Re the Baku: I always interpreted it as that the planet was in a sector of space claimed/controlled by the Federation even if they weren't Federation members. I see no reason the Federation would lay claim on areas of space even if it is not offering membership to resident planets -- especially if such planets are not [apparently] ready for Membership. I don't see the two as mutually exclusive.

Sonic Glitch wrote:Re the Baku: I always interpreted it as that the planet was in a sector of space claimed/controlled by the Federation even if they weren't Federation members.

See, I find that a stunning proposition. You are saying that you think the Federation can just pick out a block of space and decide that it belongs to them, even though it's occupied by people that have absolutely nothing to do with the Federation... and then on that basis, the Federation can decide that it has the legal right to confiscate property from those people by force. People who have no right to vote for the government, no right to petition it, no right of due process... who have none of that because they don't even know the government exists.

This seems reasonable to you, really?

I see no reason the Federation would lay claim on areas of space even if it is not offering membership to resident planets -- especially if such planets are not [apparently] ready for Membership. I don't see the two as mutually exclusive.

You see no reason why they would, or why they wouldn't?

You know, there's a name for the process of deciding that you have legal jurisdiction over people that weren't part of your government until you decided that they were. It's called "conquest".

And there's a name for the type of government that exercises authority over people who have no voice in the process of government, no appeal, no redress of grievance. It's called "tyranny".

Is this what the Federation is, in your view?

Graham Kennedy wrote:

Sonic Glitch wrote:Re the Baku: I always interpreted it as that the planet was in a sector of space claimed/controlled by the Federation even if they weren't Federation members.

See, I find that a stunning proposition. You are saying that you think the Federation can just pick out a block of space and decide that it belongs to them, even though it's occupied by people that have absolutely nothing to do with the Federation... and then on that basis, the Federation can decide that it has the legal right to confiscate property from those people by force. People who have no right to vote for the government, no right to petition it, no right of due process... who have none of that because they don't even know the government exists.

This seems reasonable to you, really?

Please note, at no point did I say that the decisions made/actions taken by Admiral Dougherty are reasonable. I was attempting to demonstrate that there is no contradiction to the planet being "in Federation space," but not a member. I do not agree at all with the "We're only moving 600 people,"/"They were never meant to be immortal," logic. Perhaps the Briar Patch region is between a number of full Federation members, so when the Galactic map makers make their map and the Federation/Starfleet makes their political/strategic considerations the sector is considered Federation space -- and no one protests it since they'd have to go through lightyears of Federation controlled space to get there, and the resident inhabitants of the area are not-yet-equipped for interstallar flight/communication. Frankly, a lot of Federation space must be pretty empty (space is big), but in terms of map-making and political considerations there must be an area/arrangement of sectors definable as Federation Space. My proposition is that the Baku planet is in one of those Sectors, but not that the Federation has a right to determine the course of its population.

For example (albeit a pretty light one): I live a tribal life in the Amazon basin. I'm in Brazilian territory but I still live my life based on the tribal tenets passed down through generations. I'm still in Brazilian territory but my life/system is my own. Now, in the real world, there really is nothing keeping Brazil from sweeping in and demanding I make changes to follow Brazilian law, but Starfleet/the Federation has the Prime Directive which forbids interference with primitive peoples. I address that point below.

I see no reason the Federation would lay claim on areas of space even if it is not offering membership to resident planets -- especially if such planets are not [apparently] ready for Membership. I don't see the two as mutually exclusive.

You see no reason why they would, or why they wouldn't?

You know, there's a name for the process of deciding that you have legal jurisdiction over people that weren't part of your government until you decided that they were. It's called "conquest".

And there's a name for the type of government that exercises authority over people who have no voice in the process of government, no appeal, no redress of grievance. It's called "tyranny".

Is this what the Federation is, in your view?

I should have phrase that better, I apologize for that. It should say, more accurately, the Federation would claim areas of space with pre-spaceflight planets (and let's be honest, we do certainly see a number of those in the Original Series) and those areas would be part of Federation space. If they happened upon an 'unclaimed" area of space with a membership-ready planet or at least, a civilization to which the Prime Directive did not apply then they would initiate First Contact protocal and do the whole "approach as equals/negotiation" thing. In those cases, the Federation would likely protect their interests through inviting the planet to join or at least entering alliances.

Have you ever read Prime Directive by the Reeves-Stevens'? The idea I'm trying to emulate is based on the development they write about. For example, if the Baku were a native population on their course through evolution and not the Space Amish, I would see the Federation controlling the sector and monitoring the Baku as they develop. Once the Baku develop warp capability the Federation starts the First Contact process and offers them membership/protectorate status. If they refuse I don't doubt the Federation comes to some sort of mutual agreement about control of the space/protection of the Federation's self-interest. Since the Federation in general is supportive of the right to self-determination, I see the arrangement of non-interference in development but control of the sector until such point as the Prime Directive no longer applies, and then the Federation makes their offer of membership and if refused at least make some attempts at negotiating an agreement or alliance.

In Prime Directive it is established that the Federation keeps a close eye on primitive populations in its sphere of influence, but also holds several sectors "in trust" in a way for theses species to make their colonization efforts as their space programs develop -- essentially making sure nobody else sweeps in and occupies these things before the developing species gets a chance to join the galactic community. For example, if the Federation would observing Earth they would make sure no other governments or private corporations or what have you would sweep in and claim Mars or Jupiter or any of the uninhabited planets or nearby habitable systems (Alpha Centauri for example). I do find it interesting however that in Prime Directive it is the development of Subspace Radio that makes a civilization ready for contact, not warp drive -- I guess it was written before the Warp Drive = Prime Directive No Longer Applies decision was made.

Does this make sense?

Very interesting discussion! Thank you for treating this topic with the gravity it deserves.

You can see why I consider Special Administrative Regions et al. and the legal, political, diplomatic, economic and moral issues they raise to be of such importance.

Let me think about the excellent points made and respond presently.

Sonic Glitch wrote:Please note, at no point did I say that the decisions made/actions taken by Admiral Dougherty are reasonable.

Yes, I don't mean reasonable in the sense of do you think he's being reasonable, but rather in the sense of do you think this is really what the writers intended to depict.

If what is said is taken literally, the film depicts the Federation as an aggressive state which conquers those less powerful and subjects them to tyrannical rule. My question is, is this really what the writers were shooting for?

I suppose it does cast a new light on the Federation/Klingon alliance. I had always taken it more or less as a given that this happened because the Klingons gave up on their campaign of conquest and learned to live at least semi-peacefully with their neighbours, thus the Federation felt they could be allies. It seems that the reality may have been more along the lines of the Federation becoming more like the Klingons!

I was attempting to demonstrate that there is no contradiction to the planet being "in Federation space," but not a member.

And again, this is something I find stunning. We are to believe now that the apparent conundrum of the Ba'ku planet is that the Federation simply conquered it. I agree it's not a contradiction as such... it's just kind of weird, given how the Federation is generally depicted.

I should have phrase that better, I apologize for that. It should say, more accurately, the Federation would claim areas of space with pre-spaceflight planets (and let's be honest, we do certainly see a number of those in the Original Series) and those areas would be part of Federation space.

Well, it certainly does seem to be that way based on Insurrection. So much for the Federation as "good guys", I guess.

Have you ever read Prime Directive by the Reeves-Stevens'? The idea I'm trying to emulate is based on the development they write about. For example, if the Baku were a native population on their course through evolution and not the Space Amish, I would see the Federation controlling the sector and monitoring the Baku as they develop. Once the Baku develop warp capability the Federation starts the First Contact process and offers them membership/protectorate status. If they refuse I don't doubt the Federation comes to some sort of mutual agreement about control of the space/protection of the Federation's self-interest. Since the Federation in general is supportive of the right to self-determination, I see the arrangement of non-interference in development but control of the sector until such point as the Prime Directive no longer applies, and then the Federation makes their offer of membership and if refused at least make some attempts at negotiating an agreement or alliance.

In Prime Directive it is established that the Federation keeps a close eye on primitive populations in its sphere of influence, but also holds several sectors "in trust" in a way for theses species to make their colonization efforts as their space programs develop -- essentially making sure nobody else sweeps in and occupies these things before the developing species gets a chance to join the galactic community. For example, if the Federation would observing Earth they would make sure no other governments or private corporations or what have you would sweep in and claim Mars or Jupiter or any of the uninhabited planets or nearby habitable systems (Alpha Centauri for example). I do find it interesting however that in Prime Directive it is the development of Subspace Radio that makes a civilization ready for contact, not warp drive -- I guess it was written before the Warp Drive = Prime Directive No Longer Applies decision was made.

Does this make sense?

Oh yes, and it sounds nice and reasonable, for the most part. But what I'd say is that such a planet would be the equivalent of a present day enclave. Take the most famous example of an enclave, Vatican City. It's completely surrounded by Italy, so it would make sense to refer to it as being "in Italy", and I'm sure Italy has all sorts of agreements and treaties as to how the two relate to one another. And if some invading power wanted to attack the Vatican City, I'm sure Italy would have something to say about it, if only because you'd have to go through Italy to get there.

I can see the Federation being in a similar relationship to a primitive world, where they literally have them "surrounded". And yes, the Federation might monitor their development as they might do to any primitive culture, we've seen that before. And might offer them Federation membership once they hit warp, and if that didn't pan out then then would need to negotiate some sort of right of passage for them to travel through Federation space. All well and good and reasonable.

But this is not what I object to about Insurrection. In Insurrection, Dougherty explicitly states that since it is "in Federation space" it is their planet to do with as they please, no matter what the locals may have to say about it. And what they please is mass abduction by force. It's the equivalent of Italy deciding it really likes that massive pile of artwork the Vatican City has, so one day they just send the army in and grab it all. And the justification is simply "Well why not? Vatican city is in our territory, so it's up to us what happens with it."

Point being, in the normal run of things "it's enclosed by our territory" is NOT the same thing as "it's a Federation planet that belongs to us". But apparently the Federation doesn't see it that way.

Platonian wrote:Very interesting discussion! Thank you for treating this topic with the gravity it deserves.

You can see why I consider Special Administrative Regions et al. and the legal, political, diplomatic, economic and moral issues they raise to be of such importance.

Let me think about the excellent points made and respond presently.

I'm actually thinking of taking my thoughts on this thread and writing an article for DITL about this aspect of the film. It's long troubled me but I've never really fully explored why before, so thank you from prompting such a productive discussion.

Man this is too much of a polite discussion.

... But educational.

Graham Kennedy wrote:

Platonian wrote:Very interesting discussion! Thank you for treating this topic with the gravity it deserves.

You can see why I consider Special Administrative Regions et al. and the legal, political, diplomatic, economic and moral issues they raise to be of such importance.

Let me think about the excellent points made and respond presently.

I'm actually thinking of taking my thoughts on this thread and writing an article for DITL about this aspect of the film. It's long troubled me but I've never really fully explored why before, so thank you from prompting such a productive discussion.

On behalf of the Platonian Diplomatic Service, you are most welcome!

McAvoy wrote:Man this is too much of a polite discussion.

... But educational.

McAvoy wrote:Man this is too much of a polite discussion.

... But educational.

c**t trousers

Graham Kennedy wrote:

Sonic Glitch wrote:Please note, at no point did I say that the decisions made/actions taken by Admiral Dougherty are reasonable.

Yes, I don't mean reasonable in the sense of do you think he's being reasonable, but rather in the sense of do you think this is really what the writers intended to depict.

If what is said is taken literally, the film depicts the Federation as an aggressive state which conquers those less powerful and subjects them to tyrannical rule. My question is, is this really what the writers were shooting for?

I suppose it does cast a new light on the Federation/Klingon alliance. I had always taken it more or less as a given that this happened because the Klingons gave up on their campaign of conquest and learned to live at least semi-peacefully with their neighbours, thus the Federation felt they could be allies. It seems that the reality may have been more along the lines of the Federation becoming more like the Klingons!

I was attempting to demonstrate that there is no contradiction to the planet being "in Federation space," but not a member.

And again, this is something I find stunning. We are to believe now that the apparent conundrum of the Ba'ku planet is that the Federation simply conquered it. I agree it's not a contradiction as such... it's just kind of weird, given how the Federation is generally depicted.

I should have phrase that better, I apologize for that. It should say, more accurately, the Federation would claim areas of space with pre-spaceflight planets (and let's be honest, we do certainly see a number of those in the Original Series) and those areas would be part of Federation space.

Well, it certainly does seem to be that way based on Insurrection. So much for the Federation as "good guys", I guess.

Have you ever read Prime Directive by the Reeves-Stevens'? The idea I'm trying to emulate is based on the development they write about. For example, if the Baku were a native population on their course through evolution and not the Space Amish, I would see the Federation controlling the sector and monitoring the Baku as they develop. Once the Baku develop warp capability the Federation starts the First Contact process and offers them membership/protectorate status. If they refuse I don't doubt the Federation comes to some sort of mutual agreement about control of the space/protection of the Federation's self-interest. Since the Federation in general is supportive of the right to self-determination, I see the arrangement of non-interference in development but control of the sector until such point as the Prime Directive no longer applies, and then the Federation makes their offer of membership and if refused at least make some attempts at negotiating an agreement or alliance.

In Prime Directive it is established that the Federation keeps a close eye on primitive populations in its sphere of influence, but also holds several sectors "in trust" in a way for theses species to make their colonization efforts as their space programs develop -- essentially making sure nobody else sweeps in and occupies these things before the developing species gets a chance to join the galactic community. For example, if the Federation would observing Earth they would make sure no other governments or private corporations or what have you would sweep in and claim Mars or Jupiter or any of the uninhabited planets or nearby habitable systems (Alpha Centauri for example). I do find it interesting however that in Prime Directive it is the development of Subspace Radio that makes a civilization ready for contact, not warp drive -- I guess it was written before the Warp Drive = Prime Directive No Longer Applies decision was made.

Does this make sense?

Oh yes, and it sounds nice and reasonable, for the most part. But what I'd say is that such a planet would be the equivalent of a present day enclave. Take the most famous example of an enclave, Vatican City. It's completely surrounded by Italy, so it would make sense to refer to it as being "in Italy", and I'm sure Italy has all sorts of agreements and treaties as to how the two relate to one another. And if some invading power wanted to attack the Vatican City, I'm sure Italy would have something to say about it, if only because you'd have to go through Italy to get there.

I can see the Federation being in a similar relationship to a primitive world, where they literally have them "surrounded". And yes, the Federation might monitor their development as they might do to any primitive culture, we've seen that before. And might offer them Federation membership once they hit warp, and if that didn't pan out then then would need to negotiate some sort of right of passage for them to travel through Federation space. All well and good and reasonable.

But this is not what I object to about Insurrection. In Insurrection, Dougherty explicitly states that since it is "in Federation space" it is their planet to do with as they please, no matter what the locals may have to say about it. And what they please is mass abduction by force. It's the equivalent of Italy deciding it really likes that massive pile of artwork the Vatican City has, so one day they just send the army in and grab it all. And the justification is simply "Well why not? Vatican city is in our territory, so it's up to us what happens with it."

Point being, in the normal run of things "it's enclosed by our territory" is NOT the same thing as "it's a Federation planet that belongs to us". But apparently the Federation doesn't see it that way.

Graham .. I think we're on the same side just getting lost in the details. You're Vatican enclave example (the first one) is what I was trying to describe. I too take issue with Dougherty's interpretation and decision and sincerely doubt it was entirely above board as he claimed (lends some credence to the Dougherty is Section 31 theory). That's just my explanation for th, "the planset is in Federation space" line. At no point did I say "the planet is in Federation space and therefore they can do with they want." I don't believe the Federation as it's been explained would operate that way -- certainly the Federation we see in TNG wouldn't. And I doubt that's what the writers of Insurrection intended to portray but we can tally that up to another strike agains the film..