Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!
1) This does not indicate the goings-on in the prime universe.
2) Kirk and Spock never discuss Section 31 in the film, as they had more important things to worry about. But even if they did, the way Marcus referred to Section 31, it seemed as though there was nothing shady about them (that they were just a division of SI like any other). So it's possible Kirk and Spock just shrugged it off.
Interesting note: this actually answers the question of what Section 31 does when the Federation is not facing an "extraordinary threat". They are behaving as Marcus describes. And the Starfleet commanding Admiral does in fact oversee their activity.
I wouldn't term S31 a fascist organisation, that's a misapplication of the word. It does not seek to subsume societal identity beneath its own ideology. It's more akin to the way government agencies operate today, yet whose importance resides in protecting ordinary citizens from outside and inside threats, whatever they are, or more coldly, preserving the status quo. Nothing Trek has ever presented, except for Into Darkness, has suggested S31 wants power. Instead the vision from Ds9 and Enterprise was that S31 saw itself as a necessary evil to ensure paradise can exist. That it was a utopian evil - it does the dirty things to ensure that the utopia of the Federation survives. That itself is very interesting. With regards to the morphogenic virus - is there not vindication that it was true that the Founders were going to cause the biggest and most costly war the Federation had ever encountered?
As for the book. It didn't remove Zife because it didn't like him - it removed him, with the cooperation of the Starfleet CiC & brass, because he was going to lead to war with the Klingons. Again, it was a utopian evil act. Even in Disavowed, the desire to have the wormhole tech is a utopian desire to have a one-up over belligerent and violent powers - the same arguments made in Zero Sum Game and the Fall/Raise duology about the Pact and slipstream - they can't have it because they would use it badly.
Interestingly in Disavowed, Memory Omega comes off as highly akin to S31. It's important to see the two as parallel, monstrous, genocidal organisations - yet both existing to protect in their own minds the utopian visions and realities of others.
I don't know ... I'm ambivalent about S31. I can understand why they exist, why they are supported by good officers like Ross. Just as I'm ambivalent about Memory Omega. And just as I'm ambivalent about real-world equivalents.
^A reasonable argument. However, there is also Star Trek Into Darkness, which established a strong implication that Section 31 was in fact accountable to Starfleet's commanding Admiral (Marcus, in the film's case). Thus, the idea of "full autonomy" is simply there for plausible deniability--hence, terms like "disavowed".
Star Trek Into Darkness takes place in an alternate timeline where an advanced ship from 150 or so years in the future showed up and later destroyed Vulcan. With such a massive threat, I would imagine Section 31 would be much different than in the novelverse.
And I don't think Section 31 was accountable to Alexander Marcus because he was the commander-in-chief of Starfleet, but because he was the head of Section 31, much in the same way HYDRA answered to Alexander Pierce (ironically similar name there) because he was the head of HYDRA, and had also made his way up to the World Security Council.
Would you be ambivalent if it came out that our government's intelligence services had tried to use biological warfare to kill every person in Afghanistan?
^A reasonable argument. However, there is also Star Trek Into Darkness, which established a strong implication that Section 31 was in fact accountable to Starfleet's commanding Admiral (Marcus, in the film's case). Thus, the idea of "full autonomy" is simply there for plausible deniability--hence, terms like "disavowed".
Star Trek Into Darkness takes place in an alternate timeline where an advanced ship from 150 or so years in the future showed up and later destroyed Vulcan. With such a massive threat, I would imagine Section 31 would be much different than in the novelverse.
As much as I disagree with his position, this doesn't work because he's arguing based on what's known about the part of the Starfleet charter that established Section 31, something that predated the timeline split. Whatever holds true in the Prime universe about the Federation Starfleet's charter also holds true in the Abramsverse, the same as anything else said in the Abramsverse movies about events prior to 2233.
Edit: Ah, wait, maybe not, since it looks like you're arguing that the structure of Section 31 could have been changed in the Abramsverse as a response to the fate of Vulcan. I misread your post originally, I think.
Except for the fact that the Federation Starfleet Charter (as opposed to the Archer-era charter) had officially established Section 31, as Section 31: Cloak notes.
There are two basic problems with this argument. The first is that it may simply be invalid because of the rules of media tie-in fiction; the second is that even if it's not, it fails on its own terms.
To start with, there's a very strong argument to be made that the ENT episode "Divergence" nullified the description of that line of the Starfleet Charter in Cloak. "Divergence" established that Section 31 takes its name from Section 31 of Article 14 of the United Earth Starfleet Charter; Rise of the Federation later established that this article was copied word for word into the Federation Starfleet Charter (FSF). This section of the UESF Charter contains "a few lines that make allowances for bending the rules during times of extraordinary threat." That is a far, far cry from permanently establishing an organization for whom the law does not apply and without any supervision or democratic accountability.
But let's assume that Cloak's description of the FSF Charter hasn't been nullified by the Rules of Canon. Let's assume that there's a portion of the FSF Charter that establishes a branch of Starfleet Intelligence with non-specific discretionary powers over non-specific matters.
That doesn't legitimize Section 31.
Sorry, but nothing in that description establishes that Section 31 has the right to act without being accountable to the Chief of Starfleet Intelligence, to Starfleet Command, or to the Federation President. Nothing in that description establishes that Section 31 is above the law. Nothing in that description establishes that Section 31 has any right to act without accountability or to do whatever it wants. Nothing in that description establishes that it has the right to spy on the Federation government, to assassinate Federation politicians, to abduct and torture Federation citizens, to arrange for foreign attacks on Federation soil, to interfere with the internal politics of allied states, or to commit genocide.
If it were to come out tomorrow that some portion of the Naval Act of 1794 established a division of the U.S. Navy with "non-specific discretionary power over non-specific matters," and that this agency had used that section of the Act to justify not answering to the Pentagon, not answering to the Secretary of Defense or the U.S. President, abducting and torturing U.S. citizens, spying on the U.S. government, assassinating U.S. politicians, arranging for foreign attacks on U.S. soil, interfering with the internal politics of allied states, attempting to commit genocide, and deciding that it is above U.S. law?
Absolutely nothing about the Naval Act's hypothetical provision would justify that organization's actions, even if it established that organization's original existence. If such an organization were to be exposed, it would obviously need to be immediately dissolved.
So, yes, I stand by my analogy. Section 31 is to Starfleet as Hydra is to SHIELD -- an illegitimate fascist parasite organization, operating within a legitimate defense organization and perverting it from the inside.
A true believer in Hydra would just say that Operation Paperclip must have meant SHIELD authorized Hydra to be within their midst, just like true believers in Section 31 think a line in a charter establishing an agency (but authorizing nothing abut the way that agency operates) must therefore legitimize that organization and everything it does.
Further, as Agents of SHIELD clarifies (though it's certainly hinted at in the Captain America film), HYDRA has basically been biding its time as a bit of a sleeper organization. Section 31 has been nothing of the kind--they've been active since the beginning.
1. We don't know how active Section 31 has been. Christopher has made a very strong argument on this BBS that in order for an organization like that to stay secret for so long and remain unexposed, it would have had to have spent most of its history relatively inactive -- a sleeper organization, if you like.
2. Captain America: The Winter Soldier established that Hydra was active all throughout the period between 1945 and 2012, operating from within SHIELD to arrange for political chaos, the rise of various dictators, and assassinating SHIELD agents and allies who get too close and discover their existence.
If anything, 31 is more along the lines of SHIELD itself (albeit a "dark" counterpart), before the "stepping out of the shadows" that the Agents of SHIELD pilot indicated is fairly recent.
The problem with this comparison is that SHIELD always answered to -- depending on who's writing it -- either the U.S. government or the member governments of the United Nations. There was a clear line of democratic accountability.
Section 31, by contrast, does not answer to the Federation government. It has, in fact, not only spied on the Federation President illegally ("Extreme Measures"), but has assassinated Federation Presidents it doesn't like. It answers to no one but itself, and regards itself as above the law.
That's what makes Section 31 an illegitimate fascist organization. And that's why Section 31 is to Starfleet as Hydra is to SHIELD.
^A reasonable argument. However, there is also Star Trek Into Darkness, which established a strong implication that Section 31 was in fact accountable to Starfleet's commanding Admiral (Marcus, in the film's case). Thus, the idea of "full autonomy" is simply there for plausible deniability--hence, terms like "disavowed".
Star Trek Into Darkness takes place in an alternate timeline where an advanced ship from 150 or so years in the future showed up and later destroyed Vulcan. With such a massive threat, I would imagine Section 31 would be much different than in the novelverse.
As much as I disagree with his position, this doesn't work because he's arguing based on what's known about the part of the Starfleet charter that established Section 31, something that predated the timeline split. Whatever holds true in the Prime universe about the Federation Starfleet's charter also holds true in the Abramsverse, the same as anything else said in the Abramsverse movies about events prior to 2233.
Edit: Ah, wait, maybe not, since it looks like you're arguing that the structure of Section 31 could have been changed in the Abramsverse as a response to the fate of Vulcan. I misread your post originally, I think.
Yeah, that's what I was getting at. Just think about all the changes to the American government after 9/11 - I would imagine there would have been a lot of changes in Starfleet and the Federation government after the destruction of Vulcan.
^Well, there isn't any indication, either way...nor would there be a necessary connection: all we know is that Nero's actions led to an increased aggression in reaching out into space, in defense build-up, etc. I wouldn't think that would include "reining in" Section 31. If anything, just the opposite.
Besides...I would doubt the "prime" universe hadn't had the Federation face a crisis akin to the destruction of Vulcan. It may not have been that...but I'm sure there would've been something at least once in the "prime" universe.
I wouldn't term S31 a fascist organisation, that's a misapplication of the word. It does not seek to subsume societal identity beneath its own ideology. It's more akin to the way government agencies operate today, yet whose importance resides in protecting ordinary citizens from outside and inside threats, whatever they are, or more coldly, preserving the status quo. Nothing Trek has ever presented, except for Into Darkness, has suggested S31 wants power. Instead the vision from Ds9 and Enterprise was that S31 saw itself as a necessary evil to ensure paradise can exist. That it was a utopian evil - it does the dirty things to ensure that the utopia of the Federation survives. That itself is very interesting. With regards to the morphogenic virus - is there not vindication that it was true that the Founders were going to cause the biggest and most costly war the Federation had ever encountered?
As for the book. It didn't remove Zife because it didn't like him - it removed him, with the cooperation of the Starfleet CiC & brass, because he was going to lead to war with the Klingons. Again, it was a utopian evil act. Even in Disavowed, the desire to have the wormhole tech is a utopian desire to have a one-up over belligerent and violent powers - the same arguments made in Zero Sum Game and the Fall/Raise duology about the Pact and slipstream - they can't have it because they would use it badly.
Interestingly in Disavowed, Memory Omega comes off as highly akin to S31. It's important to see the two as parallel, monstrous, genocidal organisations - yet both existing to protect in their own minds the utopian visions and realities of others.
I don't know ... I'm ambivalent about S31. I can understand why they exist, why they are supported by good officers like Ross. Just as I'm ambivalent about Memory Omega. And just as I'm ambivalent about real-world equivalents.
Indeed; Section 31 is many things. "Fascist" isn't one of them. That's a term thrown around pretty liberally, many instances of which are, in the end, invalid. This is one of them.
Would you be ambivalent if it came out that our government's intelligence services had tried to use biological warfare to kill every person in Afghanistan?
Really? I don't seem to recall anything about Section 31 wanting to wipe out every citizen of the Dominion--merely the Founders. Comparing the morphogenic virus to annihilating everyone in Afghanistan is absurd.
^ No, I think wiping out an entire species is actually worse. Don't you?
Even if not, what if I changed it to "kill 1 out of every 10 people in Afghanistan" or whatever proportion you deem appropriate. You honestly don't find that horrific? You feel like the characters that made that decision should be sympathetic?
Would you be ambivalent if it came out that our government's intelligence services had tried to use biological warfare to kill every person in Afghanistan?
I'm ambivalent because sometimes S31 does good or justifiabke things that seem right, and others times it most definitely does not. Just as MO does both good and horrible things, some of which are genocidal.
Ambivalence is not assuming a position - it is neither condeming or condoning an entirety. It's a hesitancy to totally condemn something - because I see it as very similar to the group framed as the heroes (or antiheroes), that is MO.
^ The difference there is, Memory Omega works closely and openly with the Commonwealth and is, by all accounts, actually accountable to them. Section 31 sure doesn't work like that.
^ The difference there is, Memory Omega works closely and openly with the Commonwealth and is, by all accounts, actually accountable to them. Section 31 sure doesn't work like that.
We know that MO are the good guys. However, are they accountable? The Female Founder identifies Director Saavik as the real seat of power. And despite the rules and laws of the Commonwealth, Saavik offered Madam Founder to glass Dominion worlds in order to settle their differences.
^ Which itself was a quotation or recalling of MO's threats in Rise. And even in Rise and pre-Commonwealth, MO is not a nice organisation. It's noble, in the same way S31 could be described as noble - doing the horrendous and monstrous things to effect a utopian possibility.
But even upthread Mack talks about the differences - and potential conflicts - between MO and the Commonwealth.
1) Going on the assumption that such is inherently worse than any other kind of killing on a mass scale (which means that Kirk and company were the most vile kinds of murderers in "The Man Trap", regardless of context)...that actually does not apply. The virus would not have wiped out the entire species--the remaining members of the Hundred would have survived.
But putting that aside:
2) Consider the theoretical of the Borg. A hive mind, where each done is therefore equally implicated in the atrocities the Collective commits. Assuming the non-existence of the sudden "good-guy" alternative to free all the Borg a la Destiny...if there were a way to annihilate the Collective, would that be acceptable, if it meant saving the rest of the galaxy? Or would it be better to say "stinks to be the rest of the galaxy, because I Will Not Engage In Genocide".
Even if not, what if I changed it to "kill 1 out of every 10 people in Afghanistan" or whatever proportion you deem appropriate. You honestly don't find that horrific? You feel like the characters that made that decision should be sympathetic?
Memory Omega can remain largely benevolent and admirably restrained in its application of power because it has tremendous and unshakable security. It can afford to be generally well-meaning because it knows - and everyone else knows - that it can just wipe anyone it wants from the map with little trouble, and with minimal practical cost to its way of life. People often say that power corrupts, but, equally, great power can lead to relative benevolence if one is secure in that power and so feels comfortably unthreatened. It's hardly an admirable system by Federation standards and it's never been presented as such; it's simply a workable one, a logical outgrowth of this reality's history, and a so-far rather successful stab at achieving an equivalency to the prosperity and peace of the prime timeline's UFP. Evaluating Memory Omega in the abstract or in the context of the Federation is going to lead to a rather different view of them than the view obtained through setting them in their actual context. Centuries of war, oppression and disastrous power struggles, and now someone has achieved a solution, by essentially reaching the apex of that power struggle while holding to a philosophy of control and benevolent conduct (a Surakist philosophy, at heart, since this is all the work of Spock and his disciples, notably Saavik. Let us mediate and reason from a distance rather than engage with passion. Let us exercise control and careful judgement, for we know we are powerful and dangerous).
"I can kill you all whenever I want, and there's nothing you can do about it. However, I do not want to do so. Instead I just want you to leave my favoured society alone so its way of life and way of viewing the universe is allowed to blossom".
If Memory Omega is truly dedicated to the principles of the Commonwealth it nurtured, its ultimate goal should be to slowly die. A true rule of peace, rather than one implicitly enforced on threats of annihilation.
As Spock made clear, he is nothing but a villain. He was simply smart and arrogant enough to decide that "this isn't working, I'm not going to do it anymore and no-one else is either, so there".
Section 31, from all we've seen of them, is unlikely to willingly fade away at any point - partly because they don't and can't feel secure (their Federation has neither the technological supremacy nor the particular ethical constitution to pull an Omega), and partly because they're self-serving, protecting the organization above any other concern. Self justifying amorality. At least Spock transcended amorality for immorality, in the pursuit of something better than he, by his own admission, ever was.
This post is going to be long. I have a lot to reply to, and in order to adequately explain the opinions I have about the relative legitimacies of organizations such as Section 31, I have to delve into the question of political philosophy and the fundamental nature of a morally legitimate social order. I apologize for the necessary length.
^A reasonable argument. However, there is also Star Trek Into Darkness, which established a strong implication that Section 31 was in fact accountable to Starfleet's commanding Admiral (Marcus, in the film's case).
As Masiral noted earlier, there is no evidence whatsoever that Section 31 answers to the commanding officer of Starfleet. (The novels have used a number of different terms for the commanding admiral of the Federation Starfleet -- I'm going to use the term Chief Admiral for brevity.)
Rather, the implication in Star Trek Into Darkness was that Marcus was both the Chief Admiral of Starfleet and the leader of Section 31 -- what David Mack has termed "Control." Section 31 answered to him because he was the "Control" of the Alternate 2150s. Just like, as Masiral noted, Hydra answered to Alexander Pierce because he was the leader of Hydra, not because he was the United States Secretary of Defense and U.S. representative on the World Security Council.
Thus, the idea of "full autonomy" is simply there for plausible deniability--hence, terms like "disavowed".
The problem with your assertion here is, why would Section 31 tell Julian they operate without accountability to the Federation government when they were trying to recruit him, if that is not the case? Upon realizing that Julian objected to the idea of unaccountability, they rationally would have said, "Okay, Doctor, we were lying when we said that because of plausible deniability, but you'd be a huge asset to us so we're gonna tell you the truth: We answer to the Chief of Starfleet Intelligence, the Chief Admiral of Starfleet, the Federation Secretary of Defense, and the Federation President, just like any other branch of Starfleet like, say, Starfleet Dental."
Further, Disavowed has rendered the idea that Section 31 actually answers to Starfleet Command and the Federation government utterly implausible. Chapter 6 establishes that Sarina's and Julian's attempts to infiltrate Section 31 from the inside are an operation being run by Starfleet Intelligence, and Chapter 35 establishes that Section 31's division leaders have been remaining in seclusion from one-another in order to avoid the risk of detection by S.I.
Section 31 would rationally have no need to hide itself from Starfleet Intelligence if it were a legitimate part of Starfleet that answered to Command or to the government, nor would S.I. have any reason to infiltrate it. If Section 31 answered to the government, then S.I. trying to infiltrate Section 31 would make as much sense as the CIA trying to infiltrate Naval Intelligence. Section 31 is clearly not a part of the legitimate constitutional set-up. They don't answer to anybody; it's not just plausible deniability.
Second, the passage from Cloak ALSO makes clear that the passage Kirk discovered in (let's assume) Article 14, Section 31 specifically makes the organization in question "an autonomous investigative agency"--an autonomous branch of SI.
I'm going to again point out that it's not clear that that particular sentence from Cloak was not nullified by "Divergence." But let's presume for the sake of debate that it is not: Your argument still fails on its own terms.
"Autonomous" does not mean that you get to operate without accountability to Command or to the legitimate democratic government, nor does it mean you are above the law. In real-world terms, an autonomous division of Starfleet would be one that still answers to the Chief Admiral and Command but which is not subordinate to other branches. Starfleet Dental, for instance, is not autonomous because it is subordinate to Starfleet Medical. Starfleet Medical is autonomous from, say, Starfleet Security, but it still answers to Command.
(But again, this does not necessarily indicate that the Bureau does not answer to the commanding Admiral of Starfleet.)
No, it does not. Absolutely nothing about establishing an autonomous investigative agency or about bending the rules in times of extraordinary threat allows for an organization to operate outside of the law and without accountability.
And an "autonomous investigative agency" with "non-specific discretionary powers over non-specific matters" (which may or may not be the same text referred to in the ENT tie-in novels), with authority to bend the rules "during times of extraordinary threat"...
Hold your horses here. We've gotta be really careful about what we are asserting the Charter says.
The Cloak passage establishes the existence of an autonomous investigative agency possessing unspecified discretionary powers without a specific portfolio.
The "Divergence" passage establishes that rules can be bent in times of extraordinary crises. It does not specify by whom.
Absolutely nothing has said that the "autonomous investigatory agency" from the Cloak passage was the specific organization given the authority to "bend the rules" by the "Divergence" passage. There is no evidence, canonical or apocryphal, making the "investigatory agency" the subject of the "rule-bending" clause.
such would lead to "doing whatever is necessary to deal with the extraordinary threat of the Dominion".
"Whatever is necessary" does not include genocide, nor does it include operating above the law or without accountability to the legitimate democratic government.
Connecting this with the implication of Into Darkness, it means that, yes, the authorization of Section 31 is indeed "on paper",
No, it's really not. Even the broadest possible interpretation of what we know about what the FSF Charter says does not authorize Section 31 to operate as it does; the most generous interpretation is that it authorized Section 31 to come into existence, but that Section 31 has since "gone off the reservation."
Secondly -- you know, a lot of things can be authorized "on paper." That doesn't make them morally legitimate, or constitutional. The Espionage Act was "on paper" authorized throwing dissidents into jail during World War I for speaking out publicly against the war--but any rational person would recognize that this is a clear violation of the right to freedom of speech. The Jim Crow laws during the American apartheid period were "on paper" authorizing the systematic oppression of African Americans--yet they were a clear violation of African Americans' natural rights. The U.S. Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel may have findings "on paper" saying it's okay for the United States President to order the assassination of U.S. citizens accused of terrorism without a trial or conviction -- yet that's an obvious violation of the Fifth Amendment.
Moral and political legitimacy are about far more than what is "on paper." They are a function of both what you are and how you operate, and they are not permanent -- they are inherently temporary.
Not that that matters per se. Because Section 31's authorization to act as it does is not "on paper."
^A reasonable argument. However, there is also Star Trek Into Darkness, which established a strong implication that Section 31 was in fact accountable to Starfleet's commanding Admiral (Marcus, in the film's case). Thus, the idea of "full autonomy" is simply there for plausible deniability--hence, terms like "disavowed".
Autonomy that couldn't possibly last if it ever existed once the Enterprise crew told the Federation about Admiral Marcus and his cronies' immoral and corrupt schemes.
Indeed, the very fact that Marcus had to keep his scheme secret from the rest of Starfleet and from the Federation government proves that he was not acting in a manner consistent with the Federation constitutional order.
Kirk and Spock never discuss Section 31 in the film, as they had more important things to worry about. But even if they did, the way Marcus referred to Section 31, it seemed as though there was nothing shady about them (that they were just a division of SI like any other). So it's possible Kirk and Spock just shrugged it off.
Kirk and Spock do not seem to have been aware of the illegal nature of how Section 31 routinely operates; all they knew about it at first was that it was a classified division of Starfleet that was attacked by Harrison. Only later in the film did they realize that Marcus and Section 31 were behind an illegal plot to provoke war with the Klingon Empire.
Interesting note: this actually answers the question of what Section 31 does when the Federation is not facing an "extraordinary threat". They are behaving as Marcus describes. And the Starfleet commanding Admiral does in fact oversee their activity.
Again, no. If anything, Section 31's actions in the Alternate Timeline prove that they are a threat to Federation security and to the legitimate Federation government, since Marcus's plot was to provoke a war with the Klingons in violation of Federation law.
And if STID proves that the Chief Admiral of Starfleet oversees Section 31, then why was the Chief Admiral not wearing his Starfleet uniform aboard the Vengeance? Why wear the uniform of private security forces? Unless of course he was not acting within his legitimate authority as Chief Admiral.
Once again, Marcus's role as "Control" does not prove that the Chief Admiral of Starfleet oversees Section 31, anymore than Pierce's role as Supreme Hydra proves that the U.S. Secretary of Defense oversees Hydra. They each represent an illegitimate fascist organization infiltrating the legitimate government at high levels, that's all.
(Side-note: Both Admiral Marcus's and Secretary Pierce's first names were Alexander. Clearly we shouldn't trust any high-level politician named Alexander not to lead secret fascist conspiracies. )
I wouldn't term S31 a fascist organisation, that's a misapplication of the word. It does not seek to subsume societal identity beneath its own ideology.
This is a fair argument to make -- that Section 31's goal is not to subsume societal identity beneath its ideology, and that it is therefore not fascist. It is a fair argument to make in part because it is predicated on the unique nature of fascism, and does not attempt to argue that Section 31 is not in some way an illegitimate authoritarian organization.
I think that Section 31 can still be described as a fascist organization, however--even if it is not itself a fascist party seeking control of the state per se, its ideology strikes me as being fascistic.
A concise definition of fascism from Wikipedia:
Fascist movements shared certain common features, including the veneration of the state, a devotion to a strong leader, and an emphasis on ultranationalism and militarism. Fascism views political violence, war, and imperialism as a means to achieve national rejuvenation,[6][9][10][11] and it asserts that stronger nations have the right to expand their territory by displacing weaker nations.[12]...
Fascism borrowed theories and terminology from socialism but replaced socialism's focus on class conflict with a focus on conflict between nations and races.[13] Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky to secure national self-sufficiency and independence through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.[14]
To me, that describes Section 31's ideology very well. Section 31 is definitely an example of Federation nationalism--one need only look at the rantings of Section 31 agent Roberta Luke in Section 31: Shadow to get a sense of their nationalist cant. And veneration of the Federation is inherently a veneration of the state, since the UFP is a union of worlds defined by its governmental status.
We now know from Section 31: Disavowed that Section 31 in 2386 is under the command of a single leader, with the megalomaniacal code-name of "Control." And we know from Star Trek Into Darkness that its 2259 alternate universe counterpart was under the command of Alexander Marcus, whom it was willing to help provoke a war with the Klingons so that he could lead them and the UFP to victory. We know that one of its leaders, Lance Cartwright, conspired to assassinate the Federation President and prevent peace with the Klingons in order to keep the UFP strong and prevent the Klingons from becoming the "alien trash of the galaxy" draining UFP resources. In 2376, Section 31 was attempting to breed its own private army of worshipful Jem'Hadar -- and that the year beforehand, it had begun preparing for conflict with the Romulans once the Dominion War had ended. To say nothing of its willingness to commit the kind of genocide against the Founders that would make the Nazis sigh in envy.
And of course, the novels Section 31: Cloak and Disavowed both feature the organization as trying to obtain by force advanced technologies the Federation lacks rather than attempting to obtain them by trade--suggesting to me the kind of "national self-sufficiency" described in the second paragraph of the Wikipedia definition of fascism. And Cloak has them attempting to develop the Omega Molecule, which is the ultimate in autarky.
So all of this to me ultimately sounds like fascistic behavior. Section 31 venerates the state and adheres to a form of ultranationalism; it embraces (in multiple timelines) militarism and war as a means for the national rejuvenation of the Federation; it covets Federation (or, rather, Section 31) control over advanced technologies in the name of national power and autarky. And goodness knows it's willing to commit all kinds of political violence in the name of obtaining its agenda.
So, yeah, I think Section 31 can reasonably be defined as a fascist organization. I'll concede that we haven't yet seen it attempting to subsume all societal identification to its ideology, so maybe one could call it a "neo-fascist" cabal instead of a fascist cabal per se. But I think there's a point where that's quibbling and missing the primary traits that define fascist ideology, which Section 31 possesses.
Section 31 may not be a fascist party, but it is a fascist organization.
Nothing Trek has ever presented, except for Into Darkness, has suggested S31 wants power.
Not sure I agree with that interpretation at all. I mean, they were trying to commit genocide against the Founders even before the war began (they infected Odo during "Homefront"). They were behind the attempt to assassinate President Ra-ghoratreii to keep him from concluding peace with Gorkon. They assassinated Zife for almost provoking a war that would have crippled the Federation. They were behind the attempt to develop the Omega Molecule as a source of ultimate power. They wanted to breed their own private army of worshipful, obedient Jem'Hadar! I don't think you breed your own private army just because of external threats.
With regards to the morphogenic virus - is there not vindication that it was true that the Founders were going to cause the biggest and most costly war the Federation had ever encountered?
Any idiot knew the Dominion was out for war with the Federation. There's no vindication to be had there, because nobody thought otherwise.
But that doesn't justify genocide.
As for the book. It didn't remove Zife because it didn't like him - it removed him, with the cooperation of the Starfleet CiC & brass, because he was going to lead to war with the Klingons.
Okay, we need to be very, very specific about Section 31's role in A Time to Kill.
Section 31 did not participate in the plot to force Zife from power. Rather, Section 31 became aware of the plot to force Zife from power -- a plot that was conceived by Admirals William Ross, Alynna Nechayev, Owen Paris, Edward Jellico, and Mamoru Nakamura, along with Federation Ambassador to Tezwa Lagan Serra and Captain Jean-Luc Picard. Upon becoming aware of the plot to force Zife from power, Section 31 intervened, and made some sort of arrangement with Ross to have Min Zife, Koll Azernal, and Nelino Quafina assassinated almost immediately after tendering their resignations.
So let's make this clear: Section 31 did not remove Zife from power. Starfleet removed Zife from office, in what was blatantly illegal and arguably morally unjustified act. So even if you think Zife had to be removed from power and damn the law, because otherwise he'd lead the UFP into a war that would cripple it, Section 31 did not do anything to protect the Federation. Starfleet did.
Section 31's only role was to arrange for Zife, Azernal, and Quafina to die. It was an act that was utterly unnecessary even by the standards of "we have to get him out of power even if it's a violation of the constitution." It was purely an act of malice and cruelty. Nothing "utopian evil" about it.
Again, it was a utopian evil act. Even in Disavowed, the desire to have the wormhole tech is a utopian desire to have a one-up over belligerent and violent powers
These are the same people who blew up an entire sector of space trying to develop the Omega Molecule, tried to assassinate the Federation President when they didn't like his foreign policy of making peace, and who wanted to breed their own private army of Jem'Hadar. I for one do not trust that they wish only to have a one-up over belligerent foreign powers.
the same arguments made in Zero Sum Game and the Fall/Raise duology about the Pact and slipstream - they can't have it because they would use it badly.
True. Of course, the difference there is that Starfleet Intelligence's actions are accountable to the democratically elected Federation President and the Federation Council.
Interestingly in Disavowed, Memory Omega comes off as highly akin to S31. It's important to see the two as parallel, monstrous, genocidal organisations - yet both existing to protect in their own minds the utopian visions and realities of others.
I will agree that there are parallels between Memory Omega's actions in Disavowed and Section 31's. As I noted in my initial post in this thread, Director Saavik is certainly willing to appoint herself judge, jury, and prison warden for people who are never given a trial.
But to explain why I think there's a fundamental difference between Section 31 and Memory Omega, I have to delve a little bit into political philosophy. So bear with me a moment.
My argument about a legitimate social order, about political legitimacy, essentially stems from the ideas developed by Enlightenment-era philosophers. Essentially, mine is a liberal political construct -- liberal in the classical sense of the term, meaning "a political philosophy arguing that individuals have sacrosanct rights upon which the state may not infringe."
In this construct, people have certain natural rights, such as the right to live, the right to free speech, the right to freedom of association, etc. The people as a whole have a natural right to govern themselves as a society. However, because it is impossible for the people as a whole to administer themselves as whole, they create governments, and then delegate to their governments the authority run society by creating, interpreting, and enforcing laws. Governments only retain this delegated authority so long as they act within certain select bounds that respect the rights of the people and of individuals, and only retain political legitimacy if they obtain temporary, renewable democratic mandates from the people as a whole. Governments that violate these principles forfeit their legitimate authorities, which, incapable of annihilation, return to the people. The people then have the right to use both peaceful and violent means to alter or to abolish these tyrannous governments.
(This idea is summed up nicely by Thomas Jefferson in the U.S. Declaration of Independence:
"We hold hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
And while it is of course fair to say that the nations that had nominally embraced the Enlightenment's ideals of a liberal political order were blinding themselves to the fact that their order was also built upon the brutality and tyranny of colonialism [what Marx later called the "primitive accumulation of capital"] and genocide, this doesn't nullify the essential idea of a legitimate liberal political order in and of itself.)
Within this legitimate political order, therefore, there is no room for an organization to place itself outside of the bounds of democratic accountability. To do so is inherently a violation of the provisions by which the people delegate authority to the government. It places the organization above the law and outside of the authority of the people; it denies the people the ability to hold the organization accountable through the government, and it usurps the executive authority that had been delegated from the people to the government.
The United Federation of Planets and, before the Federation's founding, United Earth, are clear examples of a legitimate liberal political order. As such, while Section 31 may have had a right to exist when it was originally founded as an organization with the authority to investigate issues without a specific brief, it nullified its right to operate when it began to operate without democratic accountability and placed itself above the law.
The circumstances that led to the creation of Memory Omega, on the other hand, are very different.
Clearly, the Terran Empire was not a legitimate political order of any sort. It was a political order founded upon tyranny and brutality -- it was, frankly, a terrorist state, built upon racism, sexism, and imperialism. It was a regime that exercised power without the consent of the governed.
As such, by liberal Enlightenment political theory, the government of the Terran Empire did forfeit the legislative, executive, and judicial authorities, which returned by right to the people of the polity. As such, even if the government of the Terran Empire continued to exercise power, it did so with no legitimacy, and the return of legitimate political authority back to the people therefore legitimized almost any act of resistance against the Imperial state. Up to and including the creation of Memory Omega.
The Terran Republic had the potential to become a legitimate political order. Its only leader, Consul Spock, held power without a democratic mandate, but apparently a popular election had nominally being scheduled before the Republic's conquest. Unfortunately, however, the simple fact of the matter is that the Republic was never meant to evolve into a legitimate political order. It was meant to give its citizenry a taste of what a legitimate liberal political order would feel like before their brutal conquest and exploitation--therefore inspiring them to rise up and overthrow their conquerers, and then to understand how to exercise their natural political authorities and to design a government to whom they could delegate those authorities with trust that that government would act in a classically liberal manner.
Then, of course, came the reign of the Klingon-Cardassian Alliance, which was, again, a union of terrorist states built upon tyranny and oppression. In this scenario, once again, the natural right to self-government returned to the conquered peoples of the Alliance, and legitimized almost any act of rebellion against the Alliance's rule.
Only with the establishment of the Galactic Commonwealth has a legitimate liberal political order come to the Mirror Universe, and thus only now can the legitimacy of governmental function and of the exercise of executive power within a constitutional framework come into play.
In essence, I am arguing that Memory Omega has its origins in a political order in which there cannot reasonably be said to have existed legitimate law. Memory Omega represents an attempt to exercise executive authority by members of the populace who were resisting illegitimate political orders (the Empire and then the Alliance), in order to establish a legitimate political order.
This does not justify everything that Memory Omega or its allies did (the genocide of the Trill Symbionts, its culpability in the conquest of the Terran Republic, its mass murder in Cardassian space via Vulcan influence). But it does justify Memory Omega's right to exist and the majority of its actions -- so long as Memory Omega is willing to subordinate itself to the legitimate liberal political order it has created.
So far, it has been. The Founder may view Memory Omega as the "real power" behind the Galactic Commonwealth, but so far, Memory Omega has been willing to take orders from the Commonwealth government.
Now, if Memory Omega chooses one day to defy the legitimate political order it has created? If it chooses to place itself as an institution above the law? Then it will forfeit its right to exist, and it will be on par with Section 31.
But so far, that hasn't happened yet. And while there are some parallels and choices that both have made that are comparable, Section 31 and Memory Omega are fundamentally different beasts. One comes from a legitimate political order but seeks to defy it and subvert it using "national security" as its excuse. The other comes from an illegitimate political order and successfully sought to create a legitimate order to which it could then subordinate itself.
Would you be ambivalent if it came out that our government's intelligence services had tried to use biological warfare to kill every person in Afghanistan?
Indeed, while we have disagreements about many things, we are in agreement about the legitimacy of the classically liberal political order espoused by the philosophers of the Enlightenment.
Besides...I would doubt the "prime" universe hadn't had the Federation face a crisis akin to the destruction of Vulcan. It may not have been that...but I'm sure there would've been something at least once in the "prime" universe.
Well, I mean, the Federation has had to deal with the potential for life on planetary surfaces to be extinguished since before its creation. United Earth faced the threat of the Xindi super-weapon in 2153-54, and the potential threat posed by Xindi technology helped V'Las's military junta on Vulcan justify an attempted war of aggression against Andor later in 2154. The Romulans turned vessels at warp into mass drivers and flew them right into Coridan and Draylax during the Earth-Romulus War. Starship-mounted phasers and photon torpedos appear to have been powerful enough to turn planets into glass fairly early into the 23rd Century. And of course, the Federation's Member worlds all had the technology to wipe out life on their own planets upon developing nuclear weapons technology during their pre-warp eras.
Nonetheless, there is no evidence that the Prime Timeline Federation faced a threat on the level represented by the Narada during the period between 2161 (the Founding) and 2265 (the Doomsday Weapon incident): A technologically superior foe capable of shrugging off almost every weapon, of single-handedly destroying huge fleets of starships, of penetrating anywhere in Federation space, of crippling Federation communications and sensor technology, and of destroying an entire Class-M planet in a matter of hours -- all simultaneously, with a single starship.
Every other foe was either vulnerable to contemporary weapons technology or did not exist in sufficient numbers to act. The Federation did seem to have faced some sort of threat to its political order -- Garth of Izar is described as having saved the Federation at Axanar -- but we don't know the details, and those could have been more conventional military conflicts.
I don't seem to recall anything about Section 31 wanting to wipe out every citizen of the Dominion--merely the Founders. Comparing the morphogenic virus to annihilating everyone in Afghanistan is absurd.
It may not be completely accurate as a parallel, but it is not absurd. Substitute "killing everybody in Afghanistan" with "killing every Pashtun in Afghanistan."
It is no less evil either way. Just like killing every Changeling is no less evil.
For the record, here's a list of every Section 31 operation I can think of:
- Allowing Dr. Phlox to be abducted from Earth to help develop a cure for the Augment virus in Klingon space ("Divergence/Affliction" [ENT], 2154)
- Assisting NX-01 crew in neutralizing Terra Prime ("Terra Prime" [ENT], 2155)
- Assigning Trip Tucker to infiltrate Romulan Star Empire during the Earth-Romulus War (ENT: The Romulan War/i] duology, 2155-2161)
- Assigning Trip Tucker to investigate Orion manipulation of Federation government during "Mute Crisis" (A Choice of Futures, 2163)
- Assigning Trip Tucker to investigate Suarian political situation (Tower of Babel, 2164)
- Reviving Khan Noonien Sighn and attacking the starship Enterprise in intricate plot to provoke war with the Klingon Empire (Star Trek Into Darkness, 2259, Alternate Timeline)
- Investigating attorney Samuel Cogley for being too much of a civil libertarian (The Case of the Colonist's Corpse, 2260s)
- Falsifying orders from Starfleet Intelligence for USS Enterprise to enter Romulan space and steal a cloaking device ("The Enterprise Incident," Section 31: Cloak, 2268)
- Attempting to create Omega Molecule, leading to destruction of subspace throughout an entire sector and the murder of the crew of the USS Sphinx (Section 31: Cloak, 2269)
- Conspiring with Klingon General Chang to assassinate Chancellor Gorkon and attempt to assassinate Federation President Ra-ghoratreii in attempt to derail Khitomer peace talks (Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, Section 31: Cloak, 2293)
- Arranging for the Tzenkethi Coalition to destroy the USS Leonov after discovering it had been given orders to attack a Tzenkethi civilian target based on erroneous intelligence (CoE: The Future Begins, 2350s)
- Placing an agent aboard the USS Voyager to gain intelligence on the Maquis ("Caretaker," Section 31: Shadow, 2371)
- Infecting Odo with a morphogenic virus in order to attempt to commit genocide against the Founders of the Dominion ("Homefront," "Extreme Measures," 2372)
- Arranging for the people of Chiaros IV to vote to join the Romulan Star Empire in return for a list of Tal Shiar agents in the UFP; unbeknownst to Section 31, this would have given the Romulans control over a subspace singularity, which would have been a source of nearly limitless energy (Section 31: Rogue, 2372)
- Abducting and torturing Dr. Julian Bashir as a prelude to recruiting him to join Section 31 ("Inquisition," 2374)
- Arranging for the Dominion to massacre the people of the Federation colony New Beijing in order to manipulate the genetically engineered Dr. Ethan Locken into joining their organization (Section 31: Abyss, 2374)
- Manipulating the Romulan government into imprisoning Senator Kreetak and elevating supposed Section 31 mole and Tal Shiar Chairman Koval to the Continuing Committee ("Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges," 2375)
- Attempting the forced relocation of the Ba'ku people from their world in order to allow the Son'a to attempt to develop a regeneration technology (Star Trek: Insurrection, Section 31: Abyss, 2375)
- Attempting to prevent Bashir from curing the Great Link of their virus ("Extreme Measures," 2375)
- Attempting to breed a private army of Jem'Hadar loyal to their organization, then neutralizing said Jem'Hadar and Locken when Locken went rogue (Section 31: Abyss, 2376)
- Preparing to exterminate all life on Tezwa to try to prevent the Klingon Empire from obtaining evidence that the Federation provided the nadion pulse cannons used by the Tezwan government against a Klingon fleet (A Time to Kill, 2379)
- Assassinating former Federation President Min Zife, his chief of staff, and his Secretary of Military Intelligence, in retaliation for the Tezwa Occupation (A Time to Heal, 2379)
- Threatening William Ross with the assassination of Federation President Nanietta Bacco should he reveal the role of Section 31 in Zife's death to her (Articles of the Federation, 2380)
- Allowing Sarina Douglas to join their organization, knowing she is a double agent loyal to Starfleet Intelligence and attempting to infiltrate them (Typhon Pact: Zero Sum Game; Section 31: Disavowed, some time between 2375 and 2382)
- Continuing to allow Douglas to believe she is operating on their orders to eventually recruit Bashir (Typhon Pact: Zero Sum Game; Section 31: Disavowed, 2382)
- Assisting Julian Bashir in his attempts to cure the Andorians of their reproductive crisis by smuggling to him a copy of the Taurus Meta-Genome (The Fall: A Ceremony of Losses, 2385)
- Attempting to obtain Memory Omega's dimensional spying technology while preventing the Breen from obtaining their jaunt drives, while selling out Bashir to the Mirror Dominion (Section 31: Disavowed
There's a pattern to their operations: Most of the operations they undertook which Starfleet would not have been willing to undertake? Had huge negative blowbacks and were ultimately more detrimental to Federation security than beneficial. The rest? Could have been undertaken by Starfleet.
^ The difference there is, Memory Omega works closely and openly with the Commonwealth and is, by all accounts, actually accountable to them. Section 31 sure doesn't work like that.
We know that MO are the good guys. However, are they accountable? The Female Founder identifies Director Saavik as the real seat of power. And despite the rules and laws of the Commonwealth, Saavik offered Madam Founder to glass Dominion worlds in order to settle their differences.
This is a fair question. So far, Memory Omega has seemed willing to subordinate itself to the Commonwealth government. But David Mack in this thread alluded to the possibility that this might change in a future story.
^ Which itself was a quotation or recalling of MO's threats in Rise. And even in Rise and pre-Commonwealth, MO is not a nice organisation. It's noble, in the same way S31 could be described as noble - doing the horrendous and monstrous things to effect a utopian possibility.
But even upthread Mack talks about the differences - and potential conflicts - between MO and the Commonwealth.
I've outlined why I don't think Section 31 can be described as noble in any way.
But I think something to bear in mind about Memory Omega is this:
Yes, they threatened to use a Genesis Device against any polity that threatened the Commonwealth. But consider this: In the wake of the attack on the Bajor system, Memory Omega and the Terran Rebellion seriously considered destroying Cardassia... and realized that to do so would be wrong, would violate everything they were fighting for. They would not do it, not even in the heat of war when they had damn near faced annihilation.
So no, I don't think Memory Omega would ever actually use the Genesis Device against an inhabited world. Sure, they want their enemies to think they would. And they're willing to publicly threaten to do so, because they've got to make the other powers fear them in order to survive. But I don't think they'd really do it. I think if they were going to, they would have already done so against Cardassia.
1) Going on the assumption that such is inherently worse than any other kind of killing on a mass scale (which means that Kirk and company were the most vile kinds of murderers in "The Man Trap", regardless of context)
The Salt Vampire's species in "The Man Trap" was already extinct. Sorry, but if you're the only individual left of your species, your species is gone already, and killing you is not genocide.
...that actually does not apply. The virus would not have wiped out the entire species--the remaining members of the Hundred would have survived.
1) There is no evidence that there are any surviving members of the Hundred left outside of the Great Link.
2) You're still talking about something that would kill God knows how may Founder civilians. And, yes, we know both from the canonical Hundred infants and from The Dominion: Olympus Ascending that the Great Link contains Founders whose minds are immature and undeveloped, and who therefore do not participate in the Link's decision-making processes and cannot reasonably be held culpable for the Link's decisions. Those Founders can only reasonably be described as civilians.
2) Consider the theoretical of the Borg. A hive mind, where each done is therefore equally implicated in the atrocities the Collective commits.
Strike One: Every Borg episode since "The Best of Both Worlds, Part I" has made it clear that those drones are themselves victims of the Collective, not its partners. Destiny: Lost Souls further clarified that those drones are victims of terrible psychological torture and mind control. They are not implicated in the Collective's atrocities -- only the emergent artificial intelligence called the Collective, the central node known as the Borg Queen and the hidden drive behind the other two, the degraded Caeliar intelligence known as Sedin, could reasonably be called culpable for the crimes of the Borg.
Assuming the non-existence of the sudden "good-guy" alternative to free all the Borg a la Destiny...if there were a way to annihilate the Collective, would that be acceptable, if it meant saving the rest of the galaxy?
False paradigm. You cannot defeat the Collective militarily -- never could, never will. The only way to defeat the Collective is to play by a different set of rules, to upend the Collective's control over its own slaves. "The only winning move is not to play."
Even if not, what if I changed it to "kill 1 out of every 10 people in Afghanistan" or whatever proportion you deem appropriate. You honestly don't find that horrific? You feel like the characters that made that decision should be sympathetic?
That is not what he asked. You are attempting to change the topic and terms of the debate in order to make yourself sound more reasonable. Stop avoiding the question:
Would it be appropriate to kill 1 out of every 10 Afghans? Would it be appropriate to kill every Pashtun in Afghanistan? Do you honestly feel this would not be horrific? Would you find characters doing such things sympathetic?
If Memory Omega is truly dedicated to the principles of the Commonwealth it nurtured, its ultimate goal should be to slowly die. A true rule of peace, rather than one implicitly enforced on threats of annihilation.
Well, I don't know here. I mean, I think it's pretty clear that so long as there are nations who are foreign to you, you have to maintain a means of national defense, because there is always a threat of invasion. Large-scale political actors cannot be trusted if they do not feel a kinship to your large-scale political actor.
If Memory Omega's goal is to see itself dissolved, then the Commonwealth's goal would need to be to consensually unite every polity in the galaxy under its banner. Only then would national defense be defunct.
As Spock made clear, he is nothing but a villain. He was simply smart and arrogant enough to decide that "this isn't working, I'm not going to do it anymore and no-one else is either, so there".
This is important to remember, yeah. Spock himself was still a product of an illegitimate political order, even if he was trying to create a legitimate one.
)
