Section 31

[Vandervecken]

I like to think that S31 was just the lunatic fantasy of Luther Sloane. We never saw any other S31 operative, after all, and got no verification that the organization would actually have done or achieved something besides Sloane's personal doings.

Timo Saloniemi

So Sloane all by himself created the morphogenic virus? I never had the impression that he himself had that kind of scientific prowess.

 

[Ghel]

If anything it points out the hypocrisy of a handful of upper brass, and supports DS9's thesis that human progress and idealism has difficulty standing up to real danger.

It doesn't negate the entire accomplishment of the Federation establishing a peaceful society.

@Ghel

I think it's incorrect to suggest that secretive fascist organizations are the only way to protect the security of a state. In TNG it showed that the Federation was willing to defend itself and protect its interests through military action.

I wouldn't say that you need a "fascist" organization to protect the security of the state, but military action cannot defend itself from spies and intelligence operatives who are willing to steal intelligence and perhaps even sabotage enemies from the inside. Section 31 frequently goes overboard (especially when depicted as having no oversight) but I would assert that a large nation or galactic organization would require a strong intelligence community especially if the governments around them are willing to use them. Long range probes are a poor alternative to human intelligence on the ground --as Picard discovered when assigned to an infiltration mission in "Chain of Command." In addition, although it's fun television, Starship captains really wouldn't and shouldn't have the training to be leading special forces style infiltration missions into enemy territories. For this reason, a Section 31 type organization should exist within the Federation, just with a lot more oversight. Oversight wouldn't make for very dramatic stories, though, would it

 

[JirinPanthosa]

A strong intelligence community, yes, but not one that operates outside the law and secretly manipulates politics without moral consideration is my point.

 

[Greg Cox]

I don't approve of Section 31 as an organization and have no problem with them being in the stories. They're not the first or only instance of something rotten or corrupt in Starfleet and the Federation that the heroes have to work against. I think it's a dramatically limiting mistake to assume that for Star Trek to sincerely espouse an ideal, Starfleet and the Federation have to operate by it; that the vision or ethos of the show must be synonymous with the operations of those fictional organizations. Many of the strongest social commentary in the original series of Star Trek was made by stories in which Starfleet (and sometimes even Kirk) was portrayed as doing wrong.

Nicely put. And, of course, there's always going to be a gap between the Federation's highest ideals and the contradictions and inconsistencies of reality. That's why they're called ideals; they're a goal to aspire to, not something that comes easily or naturally--even in the 24th Century. .

And you test those ideals by challenging them.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

A strong intelligence community, yes, but not one that operates outside the law and secretly manipulates politics without moral consideration is my point.

Exactly. The Federation already has Starfleet Intelligence, which is a legitimate organization that operates within the law and is answerable to the government.

If Starfleet Intelligence can't do it, it doesn't deserve to get done. That's the bottom line.

 

[Greg Cox]

Exactly. The Federation already has Starfleet Intelligence, which is a legitimate organization that operates within the law and is answerable to the government.

If Starfleet Intelligence can't do it, it doesn't deserve to get done. That's the bottom line.

Well, the point is not really whether it should exist, but whether it's believable that it does exist--and whether you can get some good STAR TREK stories out of the concept.

The existence of Section 31 in the STAR TREK mythos does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of its methods, any more than the existence of the Vulcans means that Star Trek is endorsing logic over emotion.

Do I buy the existence of a shadowy black-ops organization in Earth's future? Absolutely. STAR TREK is about progress, not perfection.

 

[2takesfrakes]

But, Gene's Vision..............................

 

[Ghel]

I often wondered about Gene's Vision in the same way I question George Lucas' vision. Both creators seemed to adjust their visions quite a bit from the start-point. As their respective shows became more popular, it seems that both creators added a lot of thir vision in retrospect rather than in the original material. Gene's vision in the original series was a vision of humanity working to better itself, but the whole "humanity evolved" concept seems to have occurred at some point in the 1970s after the original series but prior to The Motion Picture (and even then, there was a lot of crew in-fighting). Ultimately, Gene's "vision" as illustrated through Picard seems a bit revisionist for my tastes--after all Kirk goes as far as providing increasingly advanced weapons to primitives in TOS in order to maintain a balance of power on that planet. That just wouldn't happen in season one or two of TNG as Picard would rather take an arrow rather than give in to humanity's "baser" tendencies no matter what the cost.
That said, I would agree that Section 31 as a rogue agency with no oversight is a terrible idea (although I still assert that there should be some form of intelligence agency and we really never see or hear much from or about Starfleet Intelligence). However, I love it from a storytelling perspective and based upon the idea that some high ranking officers in Starfleet would secretly support and protect the existence of such an agency.

 

[Nyotarules]

But, Gene's Vision..............................

Was to make money

I often wondered about Gene's Vision in the same way I question George Lucas' vision. Both creators seemed to adjust their visions quite a bit from the start-point. As their respective shows became more popular, it seems that both creators added a lot of thir vision in retrospect rather than in the original material. Gene's vision in the original series was a vision of humanity working to better itself, but the whole "humanity evolved" concept seems to have occurred at some point in the 1970s after the original series but prior to The Motion Picture (and even then, there was a lot of crew in-fighting). Ultimately, Gene's "vision" as illustrated through Picard seems a bit revisionist for my tastes--after all Kirk goes as far as providing increasingly advanced weapons to primitives in TOS in order to maintain a balance of power on that planet. That just wouldn't happen in season one or two of TNG as Picard would rather take an arrow rather than give in to humanity's "baser" tendencies no matter what the cost.
That said, I would agree that Section 31 as a rogue agency with no oversight is a terrible idea (although I still assert that there should be some form of intelligence agency and we really never see or hear much from or about Starfleet Intelligence). However, I love it from a storytelling perspective and based upon the idea that some high ranking officers in Starfleet would secretly support and protect the existence of such an agency.

'Section 31' good idea, every state has its 'Oliver North' no matter how publicly righteous it considers itself. We need someone who does the 'you cannot handle the truth' speech.

 

[Paradise City]

I have no problem with Section 31 being included in it. It opens up a new debate as to how workable the Federations ideals are. The Federation is surrounded by unscrupulous cutthroat states and to compete with this they have an organisation that isn't hamstrung by bureaucracy and red-tape. Of course, the spin-off to such an "autonomous" organisation is that they are capable of any depravity and may in some point in the future turn on Federation citizens themselves.

 

[The Old Mixer]

But, Gene's Vision..............................

Was to make money

I'm pretty sure that an island full of naked women fit in there somewhere....

 

[Kevman7987]

But, Gene's Vision..............................

Is espoused by Oliver Cromwell in First Contact. All he saw at first was dollar signs and an island full of naked women, but that eventually turned into his futurist view of a better tomorrow during the 70's when he noticed how Star Trek was affecting people.

 

[Greg Cox]

Is espoused by Oliver Cromwell in First Contact. All he saw at first was dollar signs and an island full of naked women, but that eventually turned into his futurist view of a better tomorrow during the 70's when he noticed how Star Trek was affecting people.

I think you mean the actor James Cromwell. Oliver Cromwell ruled England in the 1650s.

(Sorry. Couldn't resist.)

 

[UnknownSample]

Of course Gene R wasn't about just $$. There's a great quote from him, which I'm not searching for right now, about how hard and thankless and complex a job Trek was, how you don't set out to make that kind of program just for money. And how many producers/writers/directors ARE just about money? A lot, especially now, but they make commercial crap. If you're any good, the work matters to you, creatively. Anyway, Trek was a hard sell in a culture that refused to take science fiction seriously. Besides, watch the show. He cared, they all did.
-----------------------
I think the Federation is far too vast for its left hand to know what its right hand is doing. Do they need a Section 31? I don't know. Do they have one? I think so. For total emergencies... and once a group is setup, they'll find ways to keep busy even when they're not needed.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

an organisation that isn't hamstrung by bureaucracy and red-tape.

Here's a few other things that Section 31 isn't "hamstrung" by:

- Morals
- Ethics
- Any sense of loyalty (to anyone but themselves)

If allowed to grow unchecked, I can absolutely see Section 31 becoming like the Tal Shiar or Obsidian Order in their methods. Indeed, they may already be that.

You can have a "black ops" organization that isn't like Section 31. Have you ever read the Tom Clancy novels about "The Campus"? That's more like a mid-to-light-gray ops, really, but the basic thrust of the gist is the same. And, most importantly, the Campus still answers to the President and still has some form of government oversight.

 

[Nyotarules]

In Star Trek novels There is The Cabal founded by Kirk to outwit Section 31

 

[KelisThePoet]

I think you mean the actor James Cromwell. Oliver Cromwell ruled England in the 1650s.

(Sorry. Couldn't resist.)

Actually, there might be a surprising amount of parallels to be found between Gene Roddenberry and Oliver Cromwell. They were certainly both utopians.

 

[Paradise City]

Here's a few other things that Section 31 isn't "hamstrung" by:

- Morals
- Ethics
- Any sense of loyalty (to anyone but themselves)

If allowed to grow unchecked, I can absolutely see Section 31 becoming like the Tal Shiar or Obsidian Order in their methods. Indeed, they may already be that.

You can have a "black ops" organization that isn't like Section 31. Have you ever read the Tom Clancy novels about "The Campus"? That's more like a mid-to-light-gray ops, really, but the basic thrust of the gist is the same. And, most importantly, the Campus still answers to the President and still has some form of government oversight.

Well, I think that having systems of accountability are not only important but necessary. If they are absent and the entity under discussion is unaccountable then by definition it must be a criminal organisation. Sovereign states can't abide rogue actors running around the place killing people with no accountability. Such an entity would become a state within a state. It would be a Frankenstein monster totally outta control and that is what Section 31 is. And all this is so even if you conclude that Section 31 is a necessary evil.

The problems come though in proving such an organisation exists. It's a covert organisation that eludes and confuses at leisure and has endured for centuries. Even its operatives are unlikely to be privy to the strength and scope of the organisation so without a paper trail ("......we don't file reports.") the ability to pin down this organisation becomes nigh on impossible.

As for more conventional intelligence services with mechanisms of accountability present, they are certainly formally appropriate entities. But I would be reluctant to be entirely comfortable with them either. Effective intelligence agencies are masters of forgery and sleight-of-hand. It would not be a difficult matter for intelligence maestros to confuse their executive overseers if they were minded to do so. Particularly so, given how autonomous, say, Starfleet captains are and need to be, given how far away they are from the central government. Intelligence operatives would also be out on their own, needing quick flexibility to met challenges from the intelligence services of their adversaries. So there's plenty of scope for even officially sanctioned intelligence agencies to go off the reservation so to speak.

 

[Tenacity]

We need someone who does the 'you cannot handle the truth' speech.

A group that does the right things, for the right reasons ... but in a illegal way.

Here's a few other things that Section 31 isn't "hamstrung" by ... Any sense of loyalty (to anyone but themselves)

Wrong, S31 was loyal to the Federation as a whole and it's continuing existence. They just had no loyalty to the council.

Where even once did we see S31 being "loyal only to themselves?"

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ The second part of that sentence negates the first.