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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.