Freedom of Speech by Norman Rockwell and referencing TNG s7e12 “The Pegasus”

  • Miles O'Brien@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    3 days ago

    Wording is important. It isn’t a cloaking device. It may also cause the user to become invisible, but it is not a cloaking device.

    Much in the way that a handgonne isn’t a pistol. And how a flintlock pistol isn’t legally considered a firearm in the United States (as the founding fathers intended)

    That said? The romulans would use any excuse they feel like to launch an attack. They won’t care that it isn’t a cloak. They’ll say it doesn’t matter and the intention of the treaty was clear. Ultimately they don’t care about wording over intent, they’ll interpret the treaty in whichever way is most favorable for themselves and hope they’re still standing when the dust settles.

    That said, I think any attack they launch would merely be a test of starfleet’s response. “if we attack are they going to let us keep what we take in exchange for ‘peace’, will they fight for its return, or would they press a counter-attack?” kind of thing.

    Maybe I’m over thinking it.

    • rainwall@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      It cloaked the ship. The method is likely irrevalent, as the federation was banned by treaty from having cloaked ships. If a deep slathering of mustard had rendered the enterpise cloaked, that would also have been a violation of the treaty.

      I guarentee that if you murdered someone with a flintlock pistol by shooting them, arguing that “technically its not a gun” would not help your defense in any reaonable way. That’s because the law isnt just about “technicality,” but also “intent,” as you say. The test ships intent was to phase and to cloak, and that makes it illegal for the federation, no matter the novelty. Its not romulan manipulation of law, its just the law read clearly.

      • Miles O'Brien@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        I guarentee that if you murdered someone with a flintlock pistol by shooting them, arguing that “technically its not a gun” would not help your defense in any reaonable way.

        No, but if you get arrested for having one, you absolutely can argue it’s not a gun.

        Plenty of legal cases have been decided on technicalities.

        • rainwall@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          You can argue it, but it wont mean much after you shoot someone with it.

          Thats what the federation did here. They used a “technically not a cloak” to “cloak” their ships. Technical discussions about whether a “Cloak is a cloak or not” are moot when you cloak with it.