Section 31 poll

[Abi Smith]

As a concept does Section 31 make sense; the clean cut Federation needing people to do the dirty work in the Big Black to maintain 'paradise' or does their very existence destroy the idea that humanity can move beyond such tactics?

 

[Kilana2]

Having read novels like Section 31 - Control and the A time to..... series (The next Generation) there really can't be no other answer that Section 31 undermines Federation values. Their crimes in the name of good and the needs of the many were inexcusable.

 

[Kibbin]

Are they not a warning that there will always be people who claim they are necessary rather than them being so?

 

[Greg Cox]

One can argue whether they should exist or not, but I have no trouble believing that they would--even in the "enlightened" future of the 24th century.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I believe there would be people who believe dirty tactics are necessary to protect against enemies who aren’t going to play by the rules.

But we see many signs that Section 31 are not just interested in protecting the Federation, they’re interested in galactic hegemony. Which very clearly undermines Federation values.

 

[Kilana2]

And they are not above turning against Federation citizens themselves. Resulting in their disappearance. Or untimely death without finding a reasonable cause.

 

[Push The Button]

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

-George Orwell

 

[Vger23]

Section 31 is one of the least-interesting concepts Star Trek has ever devised. Is that answer somewhere on the poll?

 

[Lord Garth]

I'm not authorized to discuss my personal opinion of Section 31. Nor will I confirm or deny what anyone thinks of where I might or might not stand in regards to the question of this issue.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

They already have rough men (and women). It's called Starfleet.

And as for doing violence? Yes, sometimes that's necessary. But when Starfleet commits violence, it does so according to strict rules and regulations. It follows the laws of war. There's a clearly defined chain of command, an Admiralty to answer to, and the Federation government to report to.

Section 31, on the other hand, literally does whatever it wants. Nothing is more dangerous to a democracy. Hell, they had a spy within the President's Cabinet!

I believe there would be people who believe dirty tactics are necessary to protect against enemies who aren’t going to play by the rules.

I would call these people "wrong."

Put it this way: If Section 31 had gotten ahold of the Genesis torpedo from TWOK, I shudder to think of what they would do with it. They'd probably nuke Kronos, Romulus, Tholia, and whatever other worlds they felt like.

 

[Terok Nor]

It does undermine Federation values but also ensures those values as protected at all costs. Where Section 31 falls down is that they are completely autonomous and literally do whatever they want to whomever they like. That makes them more trouble than they're worth. It isn't as if the other powers are quaking in their boots about Section 31 lurking in the shadows like the Tal Shiar or the defunct Obsidian Order. Their reputation doesn't instill fear since no one knows about them.

I would question if there's still a need for them by the 24th century.

 

[2takesfrakes]

I hate this whole Section 31 business and consider it the worst contribution that Rick Berman's ever made to the franchise. So what if it's not realistic that Human kind could have a future where we learn to let love replace all our hate? Section 31 belongs in some other Sci-Fi show ... in STAR TREK, it doesn't fit. It doesn't fit ...

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

It does undermine Federation values but also ensures those values as protected at all costs.

That is a contradiction in terms.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

It's the difference between fighting for national values and fighting for national 'interests'. When you're fighting for national values, you're willing to take on a little bit of risk to stay who you are. When you're fighting for national 'interests', you're saying that anything that happens outside your borders is of zero consequence.

You can possibly argue in extreme cases like the Dominion War, a little bit of play outside the rules is justified to prevent the destruction of your entire civilization. But you can't reasonably argue that in peace time, manipulating politics to install puppet leaders that will serve your best interests, even at the expense of innocent people's lives and other countries' right to sovereignty, is even remotely justified.

Yes, it is a moral imperative of any powerful country to stand up for its own values even if it means taking on a little risk.

 

[The Old Mixer]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[XCV330]

I would question if there's still a need for them by the 24th century.

True. The Sisko can just do his own devious non-Federationy secret agent stuff on his own

 

[Greg Cox]

That is a contradiction in terms.

To quote Spock out of context: "It is not logical, but it is often true."

 

[Paradise City]

As a concept does Section 31 make sense; the clean cut Federation needing people to do the dirty work in the Big Black to maintain 'paradise' or does their very existence destroy the idea that humanity can move beyond such tactics?

Yes, I think it's an inevitable & necessary development to survive in a galaxy of unscrupulous powers.

Federation values are useful and constructive myth but I do think they are a misreading of man's nature.

 

[Greg Cox]

To quote Sisko: "It's easy to be a saint in Paradise."

The Final Frontier is no paradise.

 

[Tenacity]

Section 31, on the other hand, literally does whatever it wants.

And what it wants is to protect and perpetuate the Federation.