It's amusing to notice that in the timeline where Sisko was AWOL, there was no war with the dominion... So maybe the Quadrant was better off without Sisko...
Watched The Visitor for the first time in 10 years
- Thread starter Photon
- Start date
Well, if that's the case then kudos to the Klingons.
The episode said the Maquis evacuated. Sure, it seems unlikely that they could really get them all out in 10 minutes... but given that's what the episode said, I have to conclude that the settlers were all packed into a small space on one part of the planet, next to an evacuation ship. They were prepared for the possibility that they might have to evacuate, and possibly Sisko even knew that. I don't see that we can jump to the conclusion that he's a murderer. Murder requires a death, and the episode says there was none.
It's only attempted murder if killing the Maquis was Sisko's objective. If killing them was just a possible unfortunate side effect which didn't actually happen, the most you could get him for would probably be negligence of some sort.
Reckless disregard is equivalent to murder two in some countries. For example, if you shoot through a door when you don't know if there's someone behind if it results to someone being killed, it's murder two, if not then it's attempted murder. You can't let people endanger the lives of others like that, can you?
How would you like it if you had a neighbor who shot randomly his gun in the general direction of your property for example? In a civilized society, there ought to be consequences to endangering the lives of children. I guess the federation is not what I would consider a civilized society. It's more like a society ruled by self-congratulating assholes.
On the other hand, if you share a house with someone who damages or destroys the local police headquarters, you can't be too surprised when the police come knocking, and if you had any idea that the person intended to attack the headquarters, you're likely to face charges yourself.
As I mentioned before, the status of the Maquis is murky at best and only grows more murky when Sisko declares (on his own authority?) them a threat to Federation security.
I've very much wondered just what the Maquis thought was going to happen as a result of their actions.
As I mentioned before, the status of the Maquis is murky at best and only grows more murky when Sisko declares (on his own authority?) them a threat to Federation security.
I've very much wondered just what the Maquis thought was going to happen as a result of their actions.
Is it fair to make the entire maquis answerable for the actions of one or several of its members?
Edington does something and in retaliation, Sisko goes after a planet of the Maquis. For all, we know that planet was against what Edington was doing. What Sisko did is not far from a kind of racism. Like if you say someone from your community did something I don't like so I hold the whole community responsible. Sisko was VERY lucky that his scheme didn't blow up in his face!!!
The Maquis are terrorists by definition.
They include families with children.
My understanding has been that the Maquis were people who knowingly broke the treaty regarding the DMZ, so while it sucks to be the child of Maquis parents, those parents made a conscious decision.
However, I also speculate that the Maquis range from radicals like Eddington to more moderate types...perhaps Cal Hudson, for instance. If we assume the Maquis had no central authority, then it begs the question of how the moderates might have reacted when Eddington became an active provacateur.
Unfortunately, the dangers of aligning yourself with a radical even if you yourself are more moderate are made apparent here. Starfleet might have ultimately settled for more of a 'live and let live' policy if Eddington hadn't forced the issue. In effect, he ruined things for everyone else by making the Maquis a threat Starfleet (or just Sisko?) felt they could no longer ignore, and were apparently legally justified in now actively pursuing.
I do think it's a slight shortcoming of DS9 that once Eddington defects the Maquis are never really given any depth. I would have loved to see an argument between Hudson and Eddington over the Maquis methods.
However, I also speculate that the Maquis range from radicals like Eddington to more moderate types...perhaps Cal Hudson, for instance. If we assume the Maquis had no central authority, then it begs the question of how the moderates might have reacted when Eddington became an active provacateur.
Unfortunately, the dangers of aligning yourself with a radical even if you yourself are more moderate are made apparent here. Starfleet might have ultimately settled for more of a 'live and let live' policy if Eddington hadn't forced the issue. In effect, he ruined things for everyone else by making the Maquis a threat Starfleet (or just Sisko?) felt they could no longer ignore, and were apparently legally justified in now actively pursuing.
I do think it's a slight shortcoming of DS9 that once Eddington defects the Maquis are never really given any depth. I would have loved to see an argument between Hudson and Eddington over the Maquis methods.
As Churchill said, "You do your worst, and we will do our best!" Escallating conflict, especially by commiting atrocities, like the Maquis did,not only means surrendering the right to be regarded as victims, it gives the enemy the right to respond in kind. Norms of war quickly get displaced when one side escallates.
Similar threads
