Laws On Destiny: Spoilers For SGU Series
Tim Bruening
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Which nation's laws prevail on board the Destiny?
F�achad�ir
Since most of the personnel seem to be American, I'd guess US law.
--
'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
� F�achad�ir
Bert Hyman
<F�ach@d.�ir> wrote:
Except that the people on board have no real idea of what US law is.
So far, it seems that "the law" is whatever the people with the guns
want or will agree to.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
sctvguy1
> In news:u1n1i59h1o5of451c...@4ax.com Féachadóir
Since it is being run by US Military personnel, I would assume that the
UCMJ is what is being used.
F�achad�ir
Or more accurately, the writers don't.
>So far, it seems that "the law" is whatever the people with the guns
>want or will agree to.
USMCJ [as amended by Young] in that case.
F�achad�ir
wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:30:05 +0000, Bert Hyman wrote:
>
>> In news:u1n1i59h1o5of451c...@4ax.com F�achad�ir
De facto perhaps, since Young is in charge. But de jure he reports
back to Earth, and presumably the US military are still under civilian
control in the Stargate 'verse. AIUI the IOA answers to a UN type
Security Council, in which case the legal status of its actions are
probably a logistical nightmare. Most likely, the law is whatever
suits the plot at any given time.
Bert Hyman
<sctv...@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
Again, most folks in the military don't know much about the UCMJ until
they run afoul of it.
The single (relatively) high ranking officer on board might have a bit
more of a feel for it, but would have relied on his command's legal
folks to handle most issues in a normal setting.
Chet Weaver
"Tim Bruening" <tsbr...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message
news:4B20A933...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us...
>
>
> Which nation's laws prevail on board the Destiny?
Maritime law.
-- Chet Weaver
Tim Bruening
Bert Hyman wrote:
Chloe should become the legal consultant.
Tim Bruening
"F�achad�ir" wrote:
What amendments has Young made?
David Milligan
"Tim Bruening" <tsbr...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message
news:4B20A933...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us...
The law of the jungle?
D. Stussy
news:HL9Um.359901$Jp1.3...@en-nntp-02.dc1.easynews.com...
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:30:05 +0000, Bert Hyman wrote:
I would agree with that to the extent of the military personnel and those
civillians on the AF payroll; at least those who were given notice of such.
However, there are some civilians to which the UCMJ may not apply, namely
Chloe and Eli. Chloe was never on the AF payroll, and Eli was effectively
"kidnapped" and not really given a chance to be informed of what the UCMJ
is or says (and is now on the AF payroll as a courtesy, although any
contract he did sign would have been under duress). As Camille is
technically IOA, not AF, it might not apply to her either. For these
three, general U.S. law would still apply as each are citizens.
Furthermore, as the ship is predominately under control by U.S. personnel,
it could be considered U.S. flagged and maritime law would then apply.
D. Stussy
How does she qualify for that? She has a political science degree, not a
law degree.
F�achad�ir
F�achad�ir
That makes sense up to maritime law. I doubt the courts have ever
decided a spaceship discovered by a secret rogramme is covered analogy
to by maritime law.
D. Stussy
news:3ed4i5lup6cdastvn...@4ax.com...
Why? Maritime law covers all vessels not in or above a country (e.g.
International waters), and can apply to aircraft as well as ships.
The real question is what law applies to the ISS. That's our best current
precedent.
Tim Bruening
"D. Stussy" wrote:
She was a senator's executive assistant, so I assumed that she would have
some knowledge of legal issues.
Tim Bruening
"F�achad�ir" wrote:
Which laws apply to the intergalactic space ships that Earth has built?
F�achad�ir
<spam+ne...@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:
I'm sure it could do in theory, but until a court (or legislature)
says so, it ain't necessarily so.
>The real question is what law applies to the ISS. That's our best current
>precedent.
Your guess is as good as mine. It's apparently answerable to the UN
Security council (or at least, to its members, even if not the UN
body) but its personnel seem to be mostly American.
Tim Bruening
"F�achad�ir" wrote:
The Russians are helping in the construction of the ISS, so I expect that its
laws would be part Russian.
F�achad�ir
<tsbr...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
My error. I imisread ISS as an IOA type fictional body, so scratch my
last reply. I've no idea what the legal status of the ISS is.
Jette Goldie
So far it's never been "tested" on the ISS.
--
Jette Goldie
jette....@gmail.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wolfette/
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)
F�achad�ir
<jgold...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>F�achad�ir wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 23:50:15 -0800, Tim Bruening
>> <tsbr...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "F�achad�ir" wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:14:00 -0800, "D. Stussy"
>>>> <spam+ne...@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:
>
>
>>>>> The real question is what law applies to the ISS. That's our best current
>>>>> precedent.
>>>> Your guess is as good as mine. It's apparently answerable to the UN
>>>> Security council (or at least, to its members, even if not the UN
>>>> body) but its personnel seem to be mostly American.
>>> The Russians are helping in the construction of the ISS, so I expect that its
>>> laws would be part Russian.
>>
>> My error. I imisread ISS as an IOA type fictional body, so scratch my
>> last reply. I've no idea what the legal status of the ISS is.
>
>So far it's never been "tested" on the ISS.
It will be. Coming soon to a network near you- Law & Order:Space
Anim8rFSK
Law & Orbit
--
Happy 30th Anniversary
STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE
http://www.onedigitallife.com/images/star-trek-the-motion-picture.jpg
"The Human Adventure Is Just Beginning"
Dillon Pyron
>On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:30:05 +0000, Bert Hyman wrote:
>
>> In news:u1n1i59h1o5of451c...@4ax.com F�achad�ir
Since the military is the only ones with firearms, I'm guessing it's
"might makes right". Whether they like or not, the IOA can get
screwed. Unless they have a way of sending some blue helmeted unarmed
peace keepers through the gate.
--
- dillon I am not invalid
I love my country, It's my government I fear.
Hey, turnabout's fair play.
Tim Bruening
Dillon Pyron wrote:
Does any part of the Bill of Rights apply on the Destiny?
DevilsPGD
<tsbr...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> was claimed to have wrote:
>Does any part of the Bill of Rights apply on the Destiny?
Why would it?
Pete B
DevilsPGD
Lets say it does. Why would it apply to a mixed nation mission which
isn't taking place in the US?
Pete B
> In message <MPG.2597d7776...@news.usenetserver.com> Pete B
> <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>
> >In article <qcrqi5t6ao64dup69...@4ax.com>,
> >Death...@crazyhat.net says...
> >> In message <4B2D49BC...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> Tim Bruening
> >> <tsbr...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> was claimed to have wrote:
> >>
> >> >Does any part of the Bill of Rights apply on the Destiny?
> >>
> >> Why would it?
> >>
> >
> >Does it apply in the US?
>
> Lets say it does.
I like the ambiguity.
> Why would it apply to a mixed nation mission which
> isn't taking place in the US?
All it would take is a majority of americans. ;)
Dillon Pyron
Let's assume (yeah, ass you me) that Destiny is covered by the UCMJ,
then not entirely. A suspect is not compelled to give a statement,
but Miranda does not apply (although the warning is usually given).
Anyone on a military installation is governed by the UCMJ and can be
tried, but in most circumstances civilians (including dependents) are
tried by civilian courts for mattes that might come under civilian
law. But that's up to the base commander. Erh, The Base Commander.
In the early 1980s I worked on a project with a guy who had "carried
The Football" for CINCPAC. Prior to that he had taught at the USAFA
in several courses, including military ethics and law. His very first
day of class, he would start off with a question.
"Does the Bill of Rights apply in the military? You."
The cadet would stand and start to speak. Immidiately the command
came "sit down and shut up. Okay, one down, nine to go"
Bert Hyman
<invalid...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> In the early 1980s I worked on a project with a guy who had "carried
> The Football" for CINCPAC. Prior to that he had taught at the USAFA
> in several courses, including military ethics and law. His very first
> day of class, he would start off with a question.
>
> "Does the Bill of Rights apply in the military? You."
>
> The cadet would stand and start to speak. Immidiately the command
> came "sit down and shut up. Okay, one down, nine to go"
That could (and probably does) still happen even in a setting where the
"Bill of Rights" applies without question.
Laws don't prevent crime, and the "Bill of Rights" doesn't prevent
someone from violating your rights.
They merely provide the framework for punishing people who break laws
and violate rights, and only after the fact.