^ Eddington was always whining about how the Maquis wanted to leave the Federation and form their own independent state.
Last edited:
Did Sisko commit a war crime?
- Thread starter jonds91
- Start date
It's possible, that's why I said very likely and not certainly. But it's tough to imagine Starfleet would allow a captain on his own authority to use biological weapons against Federation citizens and Federation territory. Even if those citizens are in a state of revolt it's hard to imagine a field commander would have that kind of authority.
They aren't Maquis planets because the Federation is still fighting for control of them and hasn't recognized the independence of those planets. If Scotland decided to launch an armed revolt to declare independence and the UK refused to recognize the legitimacy of their revolt, those Scots are still UK citizens, they're insurrectionists, but still citizens unless and until Scotland is recognized as independent.
The Federation would probably have been willing to LET the Maquis become an independent state, except for one clear fact:
Since the Maquis were so intent on stirring up trouble with the Cardassians, this would inevitably lead to war.
That's why the Federation was so personally invested in what happened in the DMZ. Normally the actions of a motley bunch of self-styled revolutionaries would be small potatoes indeed. But the Maquis had the potential of reigniting a brand new war with the Cardassians. Now tell me, why should the Federation tolerate that?
Since the Maquis were so intent on stirring up trouble with the Cardassians, this would inevitably lead to war.
That's why the Federation was so personally invested in what happened in the DMZ. Normally the actions of a motley bunch of self-styled revolutionaries would be small potatoes indeed. But the Maquis had the potential of reigniting a brand new war with the Cardassians. Now tell me, why should the Federation tolerate that?
Not saying they should tolerate it. Only questioning if Sisko would have been given the authority to use biological weapons against Federation peoples. It seems unlikely, but I admit not impossible.
In the episode in question, Sisko begins referring to the Federation colonies in the DMZ as "Maquis Planets."
Have the Maquis taken over these colonies? We didn't learn about Eddington grand ideas of independence until the last episode that Eddington appears in-the one where he dies.
That may be true, but Maquis independence had to be the logical endgame for them. You had to have seen that coming from all the way back in Pre-emptive Strike.
Yes, the colonies given over to the Maquis are Maquis planets, but it does not follow that all in the DMZ are Maquis.
What would YOU expect the Maquis to do with those colonists in the DMZ who refused to join in their war? (Don't even try to tell me there weren't any.) Do you seriously think they'd just let it slide?
In Pre-Emptive Strike, and The Maquis two parter(which takes place right before the TNG episode, the Maquis were trying to defend themselves against Cardassian guerilla attacks. They were doing this because the Federation Couldn't enter the DMZ with armed starships and protect them. They can't just sit there and be killed.
Cardassians were underhandedly trying to take over those colonies and violating the treaty. The Federation was too scared of another "hot" war starting and just abided the treaty, leaving their colonists screwed.
What colonies were "given over" to the Maquis? Were all Federation colonies in the DMZ redesignated "Maquis Planets" by anyone other than Sisko? Was every man, woman, and child a Guerilla fighter?
Of course not. It was probably a small group of them. Did the Federation just cease visiting the DMZ? Or discontinue having a Starfleet Liaison there?
The guerillas would no doubt think so. Anyone who refused to fight would probably be considered a "counter-revolutionary".
Again, what would YOU expect the Maquis to do in a situation like that?
They can always just, you know, LEAVE.
In a Federation with a near-infinite amount of living space, the question of "defending your home" becomes largely irrelevant. Especially when there are larger, more important issues of realpolitik (such as the tenuous peace with Cardassia) to consider.
Last edited:
Yes that's what happened, I know the facts. But if you take the Maquis motivations to their logical conclusion, it must mean independence. If they are determined to remain on the contested planets and the Federation refuses to defend those planets for them then they are going to need their own nation state and military.
And if that episode where Eddington dies didn't exist? Or if he never made that remark?
I wouldn't have come to the conclusion that they were trying to declare independence. The Federation didn't just ditch them. They were naively trying to get the Maquis to stop in the vain attempt to get Cardassia to stop.
I still think it silly to call them "Maquis Planets" and treat these planets as if every inhabitant is a Maquis. Were the Maquis governing these planets? Was it a Military take over?
Some of these colonists took up arms and were launching attacks on Cardassian colonies. I'm sure mostly civilians suffered on both sides.
Since Cardassia just went in and took over the DMZ, I guess the treaty no longer existed, nor the Maquis. Starfleet must have just let all the Maquis go that were detained. And these planets were probably recolonized again.
Except for that one planet.
I wouldn't have come to the conclusion that they were trying to declare independence. The Federation didn't just ditch them. They were naively trying to get the Maquis to stop in the vain attempt to get Cardassia to stop.
I still think it silly to call them "Maquis Planets" and treat these planets as if every inhabitant is a Maquis. Were the Maquis governing these planets? Was it a Military take over?
Some of these colonists took up arms and were launching attacks on Cardassian colonies. I'm sure mostly civilians suffered on both sides.
Since Cardassia just went in and took over the DMZ, I guess the treaty no longer existed, nor the Maquis. Starfleet must have just let all the Maquis go that were detained. And these planets were probably recolonized again.
Except for that one planet.
Occam's razor suggests to me that "Maquis planets" was simply how Sisko referred to planets known to have a significant Maquis presence, and not any kind of official designation.
I don't know if Sisko's actions constitute a war crime, but I do find them HIGHLY questionable and it seems ridiculous that Starfleet would be okay with what he did.
I don't know if Sisko's actions constitute a war crime, but I do find them HIGHLY questionable and it seems ridiculous that Starfleet would be okay with what he did.
Mr. Laser Beam, I think you're trying to oversimplify a complex situation:
1) Eddington may have dreamed of becoming head of his own revolutionary state -- that doesn't mean most his people did. If those worlds were just filled with depraved separatist terrorists, the Federation could have let them break off and be crushed, without concern of attack on Federation worlds proper.
2) The Maquis didn't send Cardassia into the Dominion -- their becoming a "third rate power" after nearly being conquered by the Klingons, and the betrayal of BoP-flying patriot hero Gul Dukat, did. Even so, would you have joined the Dominion? The Cardassians were arrogant, and it nearly resulted in genocide by their strong new "allies."
3) The Maquis were reacting to Cardassian colony aggressions backed by the Cardassian Union. If it were me, I'd have gotten the hell out of there, seeing the Cardassians weren't keeping to their side of the treaty, but if some of my countrymen felt they could hold the line while the Federation was trying to make things work, then more power to them.
4) What we did see of the Maquis showed that they were not "black-bandanaed" villains looking to stick up a finger or two at law and order and execute "enemies of the people." These were recently Federation citizens, and I can see them trying to maintain their dignity at least (certainly at the start of what could have been a very long conflict anyway), regardless what authorities and onlookers far-removed might think.
5) Still, I don't send in Genghis Khan or Bashar al-Assad in with the chemical weapons to figure things out.
1) Eddington may have dreamed of becoming head of his own revolutionary state -- that doesn't mean most his people did. If those worlds were just filled with depraved separatist terrorists, the Federation could have let them break off and be crushed, without concern of attack on Federation worlds proper.
2) The Maquis didn't send Cardassia into the Dominion -- their becoming a "third rate power" after nearly being conquered by the Klingons, and the betrayal of BoP-flying patriot hero Gul Dukat, did. Even so, would you have joined the Dominion? The Cardassians were arrogant, and it nearly resulted in genocide by their strong new "allies."
3) The Maquis were reacting to Cardassian colony aggressions backed by the Cardassian Union. If it were me, I'd have gotten the hell out of there, seeing the Cardassians weren't keeping to their side of the treaty, but if some of my countrymen felt they could hold the line while the Federation was trying to make things work, then more power to them.
4) What we did see of the Maquis showed that they were not "black-bandanaed" villains looking to stick up a finger or two at law and order and execute "enemies of the people." These were recently Federation citizens, and I can see them trying to maintain their dignity at least (certainly at the start of what could have been a very long conflict anyway), regardless what authorities and onlookers far-removed might think.
5) Still, I don't send in Genghis Khan or Bashar al-Assad in with the chemical weapons to figure things out.
Last edited:
Obviously those who participated in or aided Maquis activity.
@Arpy, I appreciate the response, but I gotta go back to this:
What would you expect the Maquis to do with the colonists in the DMZ who refused to join them? Because if the situation was as "diverse" as you suggest, there must have been those living in that region who simply didn't want to fight. What do you think their fate would be?
What would you expect the Maquis to do with the colonists in the DMZ who refused to join them? Because if the situation was as "diverse" as you suggest, there must have been those living in that region who simply didn't want to fight. What do you think their fate would be?
Any cardassian colonists or federation loyalists in the colonies would have either been asked to leave or forcibly expelled as such things regrettably occur in such emotionally and politically charged situations.
It wasn't a pleasant situation. For the Maquis it would have ended in either their destruction or their indepedence-what happened was the former.
Eddington did everything for his people and the implication is he led them to victory against the tottering cardassians. The federation intervened in favor of the cardassians which was to the Maquis's deaths.
Very much a tragedy.
It wasn't a pleasant situation. For the Maquis it would have ended in either their destruction or their indepedence-what happened was the former.
Eddington did everything for his people and the implication is he led them to victory against the tottering cardassians. The federation intervened in favor of the cardassians which was to the Maquis's deaths.
Very much a tragedy.
Eddington claimed to do everything for his people while doing much of it for his own ego.
He didn't lead his people to victory, he led them to their deaths.
If the Federation hadn't intervened a war would have ensued which would likely have led to the Maquis's deaths in any case.
Any claim that most of the Maquis might have disagreed with Eddington's actions is substantially undermined by the fact that we never see the Maquis expressing any such disagreement.
He didn't lead his people to victory, he led them to their deaths.
If the Federation hadn't intervened a war would have ensued which would likely have led to the Maquis's deaths in any case.
Any claim that most of the Maquis might have disagreed with Eddington's actions is substantially undermined by the fact that we never see the Maquis expressing any such disagreement.
