Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 2x05 - "Saints of Imperfection"

[Midquest]

This resurrection was an ill conceived stretch that strains the credulity of the series.

I don't know - it seems pretty well conceived to me. They laid the groundwork way back in "Vaulting Ambition," where they pretty much told us how this would happen, and they've promised that the story will advance their relationship. If it had happened out of the blue, though, I think that would indeed have been an issue.

 

[Gonzo]

There are loads of things going on in the real world that are very secret but still have rigorous oversight and strict rules and guidance. Just because something is secret doesn't mean it's unethical or evil. The idea that the world is run through double-secret-black ops teams running around carrying out extrajudicial acts unspeakable in polite society is mostly just a fiction trope.


That's fine; obviously I can only speak in opinions, I just do not like the idea that the organisation that will one day carry out the casual genocide of the Founders is presented as just another branch of the Starfleet that will sacrifice its own people rather than risk contaminating the evolution of another world. The two just don't gel for me - the Federation isn't and really was never a utopia, but it is presented as "we can be better than we are". Section 31 suggests we will actually end up worse.

Like I said its more about the greater good, S31 actions gave the Federation serious leverage on the Dominion and it ended a war which the allies could have ended up losing even with the Cardassian's switching sides.

There is nothing wrong with wanting the world to be squeaky clean, open and above board but its just not a realistic outlook, mistakes will be made and bad things will happen which creates opportunities for good things and vice versa, it will never be as black and white and clear cut as you want it to be.

I especially liked the quote from McCoy that @Greg Cox posted above "evil tends to triumph over good unless good is very, very careful", I couldn't agree more, in fact living in a world where such organisations exist is a comfort as it shows that the powers that be aren't walking around with their heads up their ass.

With that being said I have no problem whatsoever with Pike not liking it as we saw in the episode, as long as he acknowledges the necessity of it, which he did when the Admiral confronted him about it, I felt it was handled well and also shows that there is some oversight, its just not what we would call official.

I do look forward to finding out who this control is and learning more about Leland and his ship in the new series.

 

[cultcross]

I don’t mind clandestine, but I dislike clandestine and morally compromised. At least in Trek.

Exactly - secret doesn't have to mean immoral.

If Discovery go the route I'm kind of expecting, what we'll actually have is a kind of Starfleet Intelligence organisation just called Section 31. That I can live with as a retcon and chalk it up to Rule of Cool. But I will be disappointed if this version get up to the shit Sloane was up to.

 

[Jadeb]

It's easy to say all the 'good guys' in Starfleet are always ethically and morally unambiguous - to some extent too easy. From my viewpoint the idea of "we can be better than we are" is a never ending process of becoming for an individual, a group, a nation, a society a world and so forth. That doesn't have to mean you won't ever face a moral and ethical quandary where the answer is always clear and always "by the rules." That's the sort of thing I'd like to see explored more instead of the 'good guys never do bad things' sort of approach.

I like that too. TOS did it quite well. But that was with the (realistic) assumption that even people with good intentions face gray choices.

Reducing things to white hats and (secret) black hats strikes me as less sophisticated, not more.

 

[marlboro]

Remember McCoy commenting that evil tends to triumph over good unless good is very, very careful?

He then immediately tripped and accidentally injected himself with a massive dose of cordrazine.

 

[Doc Mugatu]

That isn't the case in Star Trek though - we play by our rules even when the the enemy don't or wouldn't do the same. We are who we say we are, even when it's inconvenient or detrimental to us. TOS established this very early in The Corbomite Manouvre. The sanctioning of s31 throws that completely under a bus.

If I understand you correctly, that is not exactly true. "A Private Little War," for example, had Kirk and the Federation doing a Vietnam. The TOS era and the TNG era were very different in that respect. Kirk would look at a bad situation and knew sometimes compromises had to be made. The Original Series was far more pragmatic. It was from TNG onward this idealistic rigidity took hold (often to nonsensical extremes), and why the creation of Section 31 became a necessity (thank you, Deep Space 9!).

 

[drt]

Let’s not forget the clandestine mission in “The Enterprise Incident” either.

 

[Greg Cox]

I especially liked the quote from McCoy that @Greg Cox posted above "evil tends to triumph over good unless good is very, very careful", I couldn't agree more, in fact living in a world where such organisations exist is a comfort as it shows that the powers that be aren't walking around with their heads up their ass..

It's perhaps worth noting that McCoy's rather cynical line was written by . .. Gene Roddenberry.

And "The Enterprise Incident" also showed our heroes resorting to some dirty espionage tricks in order to get their hands on that cloaking device. Certainly Spock seemed to have qualms over the way he had to deceive the Romulan Commander for the sake of the spy mission . . ...

EDIT: I see drt beat me to the punch.

 

[zenophite]

I like that too. TOS did it quite well. But that was with the (realistic) assumption that even people with good intentions face gray choices.

Reducing things to white hats and (secret) black hats strikes me as less sophisticated, not more.

I think the only problem with that is that Trek from TNG onward has largely set up the simplistic white hat and black hat scenario as it exists now. As opposed to the TOS approach you mention.

I believe it was cultcross who mentioned the story point about Section 31 being willing to commit genocide against the founders to save the Alpha quadrant...The writers used section 31 as the culprits because they were unwilling to put any of the beloved characters in that situation - imagine how much more powerful it would be if the storyline had Bashir struggle about actually doing this himself. Of course most people would be turned off and hate that because to most he would become an 'evil' character... but i would contend that it would open up a discussion about whether someone who is inherently good can do something so terrible because they believe it serves a greater good.

The reason I like section 31 is that it at least provides an entry way into such questions - largely because they will not use the main cast of 'heroes' to explore it.

 

[cultcross]

If I understand you correctly, that is not exactly true. "A Private Little War," for example, had Kirk and the Federation doing a Vietnam

I'm not saying they never faced moral dilemmas, I'm saying they didn't do immoral things to further their own ends. In A Private Little War, the Klingons had already armed one side. Kirk's decision was to reset the balance of power by arming the other side. A ripped from the headlines story at the time but still a good moral dilemma episode. That's quite different from just ignoring your own stated ethics whenever it is convenient to you. An episode like I, Borg is one where Picard is faced with the choice that would compromise what he stands for for "the greater good". He realises by episode end that he was on the precipice of losing who he was to strike at his enemy, and makes the right decision even knowing it could cost everything - it nearly did.
Section 31 operate on the basis that the advancement of Federation interests is superior to the maintenance of its ethical core. That this is "necessary" is contrary to Star Trek's core themes, in my opinion.

 

[thribs]

Let’s not forget the clandestine mission in “The Enterprise Incident” either.

Didn’t Section 31 steal that cloaking device right afterwards?

 

[DaveyNY]

Like I said its more about the greater good, S31 actions gave the Federation serious leverage on the Dominion and it ended a war which the allies could have ended up losing even with the Cardassian's switching sides.

There is nothing wrong with wanting the world to be squeaky clean, open and above board but its just not a realistic outlook, mistakes will be made and bad things will happen which creates opportunities for good things and vice versa, it will never be as black and white and clear cut as you want it to be.

I especially liked the quote from McCoy that @Greg Cox posted above "evil tends to triumph over good unless good is very, very careful", I couldn't agree more, in fact living in a world where such organisations exist is a comfort as it shows that the powers that be aren't walking around with their heads up their ass.

With that being said I have no problem whatsoever with Pike not liking it as we saw in the episode, as long as he acknowledges the necessity of it, which he did when the Admiral confronted him about it, I felt it was handled well and also shows that there is some oversight, its just not what we would call official.

I do look forward to finding out who this control is and learning more about Leland and his ship in the new series.

What if Cornwell is Control?

 

[marlboro]

Exactly - secret doesn't have to mean immoral.

If Discovery go the route I'm kind of expecting, what we'll actually have is a kind of Starfleet Intelligence organisation just called Section 31. That I can live with as a retcon and chalk it up to Rule of Cool. But I will be disappointed if this version get up to the shit Sloane was up to.

Why would they call themselves Section 31 if they aren't up to no good?

"Look, I know know these kids have changed their name from The Girl Scouts to The Hitler Youth, but I've got a hankering for some snickerdoodles that you wouldn't believe - let's see if they'll sell us a box. "

 

[Arpy]

We don’t know anything about S31 in the 23rd century. This doesn’t contradict prime yet.

Yes it does. The organization as presented on DS9 was that it was a forgotten price of legislation from the founding of Starfleet that no one thought was enforced. Here it’s just another branch of Starfleet Intelligence under the standard chain of command.

If Starfleet Intelligences is offing people and toppling governments, the galaxy would know. And it would entirely undercut its “we’re the good guys” schtick. Which, to us, it should.

 

[cultcross]

Why would they call themselves Section 31 if they aren't up to no good?

"Look, I know know these kids have changed their name from The Girl Scouts to The Hitler Youth, but I've got a hankering for some snickerdoodles that you wouldn't believe - let's see if they'll sell us a box. "

Because the writers think it's cool.

 

[Mr Awe]

That isn't the case in Star Trek though - we play by our rules even when the the enemy don't or wouldn't do the same. We are who we say we are, even when it's inconvenient or detrimental to us. TOS established this very early in The Corbomite Manouvre. The sanctioning of s31 throws that completely under a bus.

I don't think so. It just shows there are different factions in Starfleet, each with its own power base. The captains that ST series just happened to be the ones that play by the rules. And, that's still true even with this new information about S31. It's just that now we know there was a separate group that didn't play by the rules. Doesn't change what we know about the group we're more familiar with though.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Surely we can imagine that two centuries of clandestine spying/snooping and general skullduggery would eventually lead even the most principled organization down the proverbial dark path?

In any case, this was a solid 7 of an episode, with a well written contrast between the joyous reunion of Stamets/Culber and the grievous loss of May/Tilly.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

I don’t mind clandestine, but I dislike clandestine and morally compromised. At least in Trek.

That depends on how morally compromised section 31 will be.

They may end up doing difficult things for the greater good. We can watch a movie or TV show about protagonist characters in the CIA or MI6 working undercover doing things that may seem morally ambiguous at best, but that doesn't mean that I feel the US or the UK are particularly "morally inferior" to the Federation.

To me the optimism of the Star Trek and Federation does not come from the idea that they live in a Kumbaya-singing Shangri-la society. To me the optimism comes from the idea that we humans have made it far enough to be a founding member of something like the Federation.

That optimism does not require Star Fleet or the Federation to be a perfectly moral utopian organization.

 

[Noname Given]

Yes it does. The organization as presented on DS9 was that it was a forgotten price of legislation from the founding of Starfleet that no one thought was enforced. Here it’s just another branch of Starfleet Intelligence under the standard chain of command.

If Starfleet Intelligences is offing people and toppling governments, the galaxy would know. And it would entirely undercut its “we’re the good guys” schtick. Which, to us, it should.

^^^
- If that were the case, how could Section 31 (by itself, without any Federation government help) block Bashir's request for information?

- And Admiral Ross (one of the Dominion Wars top rank Admirals) worked DIRECTLY with Slone to engineer an assassination within the Romulan Empire that both knew would help 'keep the peace'

My point: Section 31 IS and has always been sanctioned by elements within the Federation government from 2151 to 2378+. (Don't kid yourself )

 

[JoeZhang]

We should get back to the sort of wholesome stuff that the great bird wanted for Trek - Spock assassinating JFK from the grassy knoll with a tear in his eye.