Section 31 = British MI6?

[JewelsNeeJulian]

It begins to sound like S31 was deliberately set up on a cellular structure to prevent interference in operations by external and internal agencies from causing too many problems for s31 over the long haul.

each agent is picked by a previous S31 agent for skill, intelligence, and the sheer ruthlessness needed to prevent problems which more ethical agents in the Federation might have a issue with stopping (if only for thier own peice of mind).

But then, S31 has probably been dealing with things that the Federation doesn't know about....or want to know about.

TNG gave a rather rosy picture of the Federation, with a few small jarrings to indicate perhaps that the Federation wasn't has nice as it could have been.

DS9 was darker and S31 must have hada busy time. the fact that certain higher ups in Starfleet and the Federation knew about S31 ops tells me that the more pragmatic had come to the fore and the Idealists had probably died int he first wave of the Dominion War.

 

[Sci]

Thanks for the MI info, Sci!

BTW...as I've stated in another thread, we don't really know Section 31's reasons for spying on Jaresh-Inyo. Who knows? Maybe Jaresh was doing a Watergate-like thing that was going to harm the UFP if he wasn't stopped....

1. There is no evidence of that.

2. If he was, then it should have been handled by Federation Security (implied to be the UFP version of the FBI in Star Trek III), working under a warrant issued by a judge (even if under a classified court).

3. Let's get real. An organization that openly brags about the fact that it answers to no one is spying on the President. It's obviously not an organization that is accountable to the people or to the democratic government, and it's obviously an organization that would regard that democratic government as being a threat to its power, because that is how all such criminal conspiracies regard democratic governments.

Looks like an incentive to make the "accountability" one to the SI Director, not the President....

Don't be absurd. The Chief of Starfleet Intelligence isn't elected; if the UFP is going to have an intelligence agency independent of Starfleet Intelligence, it needs to be answerable directly to the President, just like Starfleet Intelligence is answerable directly to the President.

 

[Rush Limborg]

If he was, then it should have been handled by Federation Security (implied to be the UFP version of the FBI in Star Trek III), working under a warrant issued by a judge (even if under a classified court).

And...what would be required to obtain a warrant?

Now...just to play devil's advocate, I sincerely doubt that Federation Security has anything close to the resources possesed by Section 31. Besides, if (in this theory) Jaresh-Inyo was doing a conspiracy, you'd think he'd make every possible attempt to cover up his actions. Thus, Fed Security would be far less likely to be able to take'm down because, as you said:

There is no evidence of that.

On a side note, I should point out that there is no evidence against it, either. And who knows--perhaps while investigating the Admiral Leyton "martial law" coup, SI dug deep into the incident and stumbled upon some suspicious facts concerning Jaresh-Inyo.

There wasn't anything to warrent a Fed Security investigation, so Section 31 decided to investigate the matter further, just in case there was something crooked going on. If there wasn't, no harm done--their agent would be an excellent cabinet member.

If, on the other hand, there was...then The Bureau would finally get the evidence needed for FS to get the warrant. Thus, they confront the president with the info, forcing him to reveal the co-conspirators in return for amnesty--and of course, he had to decline to run for a second term.

Let's get real. An organization that openly brags about the fact that it answers to no one is spying on the President. It's obviously not an organization that is accountable to the people or to the democratic government,

Here is something we agree on. My problem with Section 31 is the fact that it's unnacountable. This is what let it to often behave as a "criminal conspiracy"--

an organization that would regard that democratic government as being a threat to its power, because that is how all such criminal conspiracies regard democratic governments.

Don't be absurd. The Chief of Starfleet Intelligence isn't elected; if the UFP is going to have an intelligence agency independent of Starfleet Intelligence, it needs to be answerable directly to the President, just like Starfleet Intelligence is answerable directly to the President.

However...as I have implied, if Section 31 was directly accountable to the President...such a corrupt President would be able to bully The Bureau into dropping any such investigation. Thus, I think it would be best if there were a "middle man"--the Director of SI--who is accountable to the Starfleet C-in-C/Chief of Staff. Thus Section 31 could investigate the Palais de Concorde without fear of political pressure--as the President is less likely to know.

I agree that No One Is Above The Law--and that includes those highest up on the ladder. Section 31, then, could reasonably serve as a nice "Check & Balance" to Presidential Power (or anyone's power, for that matter)--provided that there would be a rational check on it. This check must NOT curb its ability to defend the Federation against threats--but it must make sure that that is what it does--no more, no less.

On a side note...shoudn't the SI Director be appointed by the President, as the CIA Director is appointed by our President? That would be good enough in matters of accountability, as far as I'm concerned. And yes...the President should be made aware of the existence of Section 31.

 

[Sci]

If he was, then it should have been handled by Federation Security (implied to be the UFP version of the FBI in Star Trek III), working under a warrant issued by a judge (even if under a classified court).

And...what would be required to obtain a warrant?

Presumably, whatever evidence exists that causes some prosecutor or Federation Security agent to believe that the President might be engaging in a criminal act. You made a comparison to Watergate -- there's a reason that the CIA wasn't involved in bringing the President down.

Now...just to play devil's advocate, I sincerely doubt that Federation Security has anything close to the resources possesed by Section 31.

I don't think that we know that with any certainty. And even if we do accept as a given that Section 31 has resources that Federation Security does not routinely possess, I don't know that it's pertinent.

Let's presume, for instance, that Federation Security does not normally possess the capacity to wiretap the President's personal communications (as well they shouldn't). If Federation Security comes into possession of a piece of leaked information about potential treason or criminality on the part of the President -- which they almost certainly would; the idea that someone as important as the President could commit a crime without there inevitably being several witnesses -- it could go to a judge in a classified court, get a warrant, and then use this warrant to order the administrators of the President's communications system to turn over their stored info and to allow Federation Security to monitor and record the President's communiques as they gather evidence in the course of the investigation.

In other words -- yes, Federation Security might lack certain resources in certain situations, but things like warrants would inevitably grant certain resources in certain situations.

Besides, if (in this theory) Jaresh-Inyo was doing a conspiracy, you'd think he'd make every possible attempt to cover up his actions.

I'm sure he would. I'm also sure he'd fail.

Conspiracies are notoriously difficult to maintain in governments, especially democratic ones, and especially in large ones. Look at the U.S. government. After 9/11, the Bush Administration engaged in a number of criminal conspiracies -- conspiracy to torture prisoners in violation of the U.S. Constitution and Universal Declaration of Human Rights, conspiracy to invade Iraq on false pretenses, etc. They did so with middle-management officials in the government who had every reason to believe that these things were okay, and every motivation to continue these policies because of their purported objective (to stop future terrorist attacks). And they all had every motivation to remain secret about it.

And yet, stuff has inevitably leaked. Stuff always leaks. Just this week, it's leaking that not only did the CIA lie to Member of Congress about its operations, but that there may have been a dedicated assassination ring operated out of the Vice President's office. Governments are remarkably bad at keeping secrets.

(Frankly, the concept of Section 31 itself is somewhat implausible. A conspiracy of such a magnitude could not possibly survive for centuries without being detected. We can perhaps justify it to an extent by assuming that high-ranking members of the Federation government routinely discover it, only to either fall under its sway or to be threatened into silence.)

The idea, therefore, that you would need a secret, unaccountable conspiracy to penetrate a secret, unaccountable conspiracy is itself somewhat absurd.

Plus....

You're basically proposing that Section 31 would spy on the President when they have no evidence he's doing anything illegal.

Think about that.

Spying on someone for no reason. Just because we think they maybe might be doing something illegal.

Doesn't that strike you as being, itself, illegal? And an abuse of power?

On a side note, I should point out that there is no evidence against it, either.

That's not sufficient reason to begin investigating someone in a liberal democracy. It's good enough reason if you're running your government like Adolf Hitler, but in a free society, there has to be an allegation of criminal conduct and there has to be evidence.

And, yes, DS9's "The Ascent" established the existence of Federation Grand Juries, so obviously the Federation government won't even indict someone if there's insufficient evidence against them.

And who knows--perhaps while investigating the Admiral Leyton "martial law" coup, SI dug deep into the incident and stumbled upon some suspicious facts concerning Jaresh-Inyo.

I doubt it. Leyton probably had Section 31 on his side.

Here is something we agree on. My problem with Section 31 is the fact that it's unnacountable. This is what let it to often behave as a "criminal conspiracy"--

That's what makes it inherently a criminal conspiracy. It claims all of the violent powers of the state without seeking the authorization granted to the state via the social contract.

I agree that No One Is Above The Law--and that includes those highest up on the ladder. Section 31, then, could reasonably serve as a nice "Check & Balance" to Presidential Power (or anyone's power, for that matter)

That's a bit of a scary idea, don't you think? An unelected agency possessing violent powers should be a check upon the powers of the elected executive officer? And upon anybody else?

There are societies that have functioned similarly to what you're suggesting. In these societies, the military has often been independent of the civilian government, serving as its own check upon the power of the civilian president and congress. Argentina pre-1983 (and, for that matter, from 1983 to around 1999). Chile pre-1973. Rome prior to the rise of Augustus.

The result, inevitably, is that the military -- and you are proposing making Section 31 into a de facto military -- ends up taking power away from the elected governments when it disagrees with those governments. Democracy simply cannot function if the military can serve as a check upon the civil power. Democratic governments cannot survive and cannot function if they are in fear of being overthrown by their nominal subordinates.

The military power must always be subservient to the civil power if democracy is to function. If you want a check on presidential power, look to the elected legislature, like the U.S.'s Founding Fathers -- who wisely did not make the Army or Navy "checks" upon the President's power.

On a side note...shoudn't the SI Director be appointed by the President, as the CIA Director is appointed by our President?

Well, canonical Star Trek seems to imply that Starfleet Intelligence is the Federation's only intelligence agency. If that's the case, even though S.I. on the flow charts is probably more akin to United States Office of Naval Intelligence than the CIA, I would certainly agree that the Chief of Starfleet Intelligence probably ought to be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Federation Council (as, I would hope, would be Commander, Starfleet/the C-in-C).

That would be good enough in matters of accountability, as far as I'm concerned. And yes...the President should be made aware of the existence of Section 31.

I have a better idea:

Abolish Section 31, expose its agents, bring its members to justice, seize control of its infrastructure, and continue using Starfleet Intelligence as the Federation's intelligence agency. Criminal organizations like Section 31 should not receive sanction.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

we don't really know Section 31's reasons for spying on Jaresh-Inyo.

They probably thought he was too soft in his dealings with the Dominion. Given what little we saw of him, he seemed to be fairly benign.

 

[Sci]

we don't really know Section 31's reasons for spying on Jaresh-Inyo.

They probably thought he was too soft in his dealings with the Dominion. Given what little we saw of him, he seemed to be fairly benign.

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if Section 31 routinely makes it a point to plant an agent somewhere near the President.

If we expand our discussion to include the novels...

Spoiler: A Time to Heal/Articles of the Federation

In the novel "A Time to Heal" by David Mack, Section 31 takes it upon itself to secretly assassinate the Federation President after he has been forced to resign from office, in retaliation against him for having initiated a war and occupation of an independent world on false pretenses that led to thousands of Federation deaths.

The President in that novel is never depicted as being anywhere in the right. But about the only characters in that novel who are seen as even more villainous are Section 31, who empty the Federation Capitol building and then execute the suddenly-former President and his chief of staff.

One year later in the novel "Articles of the Federation," the new President, Nanietta Bacco, has discovered that her predecessor was murdered, but believes it was done by Starfleet. Admiral Ross allows her to think that it was him, specifically, who did it, musing to himself that if President Bacco were to discover the existence of Section 31 and their responsibility for Zife's death, she, too, would be assassinated by Thirty-One.

 

[Rush Limborg]

I doubt it. Leyton probably had Section 31 on his side.

Oh? To use your own argument, there's no evidence of that.

If Federation Security comes into possession of a piece of leaked information about potential treason or criminality on the part of the President -- which they almost certainly would

Almost certainly...?

Stuff always leaks. Just this week, it's leaking that not only did the CIA lie to Member of Congress about its operations, but that there may have been a dedicated assassination ring operated out of the Vice President's office. Governments are remarkably bad at keeping secrets.

And conspiracy theorists (such as the tabloid people, and the New York Times) are remarkably terrible at exposing secrets...because they accept practically every government-related rumor as fact.

"MAY have been a dedicated assassination ring"?

Besides, I think we can "explain" the existence of 31 as such: future corrupt politicians learn from the mistakes of their predecessors.

You're basically proposing that Section 31 would spy on the President when they have no evidence he's doing anything illegal.

And...how many times has Odo spied on Quark, and others, armed with nothing but his own suspicions? How many times has he noted how Starfleet rules and regs effectively tie his hands in so many instances?

From "The Maquis", on all the kidnappings and acts of sabotage happening on the station lately:

ODO: It's their own fault. I've been warning them since the beginning.

O'BRIEN: What are you talking about--"their fault"? You're in charge of security!

ODO: If you would LET me be in charge of security, I will GIVE you a safe station. (scoff) You people tell me to do my job, then give me a Federation rulebook listing all the things I can't do. Untie my hands before you start to blame me, Mister O'Brien.

DAX: I'm sure no one meant to blame you, Odo...

ODO: GIVE me the right to set a curfew--let me do more searches of arriving passangers--give me fifty more deputies--

KIRA: And this station will be just the way it was during the Occupation....

ODO: Say what you like...it was safer then.

(BTW, it wouldn't be like the Occupation. No slavery, no ore refining...but that's beside the point.)

Thus, it's no real suprise that, when Odo first learns of Section 31, his reaction is one of amusement. One can also imply that he admires the idea of Section 31 (until, of course, he realized who poisoned him, but still....), as here is a security agency whose hands are not tied by..."Starfleet rules of conduct--HMPH!"

 

[Rush Limborg]

Admiral Ross allows her to think that it was him, specifically, who did it, musing to himself that if President Bacco were to discover the existence of Section 31 and their responsibility for Zife's death, she, too, would be assassinated by Thirty-One.

Ross is not an agent of 31--he just works with them from time to time. He could be just being cynical and bitter--considering his previous experiences with them....

 

[Timo]

Indeed, there is no known S31 agent other than Luther Sloan.

Which brings me to my usual conspiracy theory regarding S31: that it doesn't exist.

After all, we have never seen any operatives or leaders or underlings of that organization apart from Sloan, except once on a holodeck. And we certainly can't trust anything we see on a holodeck...

It could all be in former SF Intelligence agent Luther Sloan's sick mind - a perverse fantasy that makes Sloan feel more important than he ever was in SFI.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Sci]

I doubt it. Leyton probably had Section 31 on his side.

Oh? To use your own argument, there's no evidence of that.

Fair enough -- no direct evidence, anyway.

On the other hand, you're talking about a guy who was trying to install himself as military dictator of the United Federation of Planets, who was installing his officers throughout Starfleet, and who shut down the planetary power grid for the Federation capital planet. I'd find it hard to believe that they would have allowed his coup plot to ever reach the point it did if they did not support it, or at the very least, not object to it.

If Federation Security comes into possession of a piece of leaked information about potential treason or criminality on the part of the President -- which they almost certainly would

Almost certainly...?

Yes, almost certainly. There are almost never absolute guarantees, but that's really not relevant to the discussion (except insofar as we should note that the government should not be spying on anyone without their consent if there is no evidence that they're committing a crime).

And part of the reason, by the way, that it's almost certain that Federation Security (or some other UFP law enforcement agency) would come into evidence that the Federation President was committing a crime is that the President would by law and with his consent be spied upon at all times by whatever agency provides the President's security.

Stuff always leaks. Just this week, it's leaking that not only did the CIA lie to Member of Congress about its operations, but that there may have been a dedicated assassination ring operated out of the Vice President's office. Governments are remarkably bad at keeping secrets.

And conspiracy theorists (such as the tabloid people, and the New York Times) are remarkably terrible at exposing secrets...

You tell that to Woodward and Bernstein and the fellow who leaked the Pentagon Papers.

"MAY have been a dedicated assassination ring"?

That certainly seems to be a possibility. All the more reason that there ought to be a full investigation into the Bush Administration.

But even if the rumors of a U.S. death squad operating on orders from the former Vice President are false, that still illustrates my point: Governments and political leaders are really bad at stopping the flow of unfavorable information to the public, especially when high crimes are involved.

Besides, I think we can "explain" the existence of 31 as such: future corrupt politicians learn from the mistakes of their predecessors.

It's not even "mistakes." Stuff just leaks. One person hears about something because they have to in order for the action to take place, another hears about it from them, another years about it from them, and it just trickles out. It's not a matter of "learning from your mistakes," it's just that leaks are a fact of life.

You're basically proposing that Section 31 would spy on the President when they have no evidence he's doing anything illegal.

And...how many times has Odo spied on Quark, and others, armed with nothing but his own suspicions?

And by Federation (and U.S.) standards, Odo was committing a crime himself by doing so.

Are you seriously arguing that a government should have the right to spy on someone with no evidence of wrongdoing, just purely on their own feelings of suspicion? Are you seriously saying that we ought to abolish privacy rights?

(BTW, it wouldn't be like the Occupation. No slavery, no ore refining...but that's beside the point.)

In what possible sense are you not a slave of the government if you have no privacy rights?

Thus, it's no real suprise that, when Odo first learns of Section 31, his reaction is one of amusement. One can also imply that he admires the idea of Section 31 (until, of course, he realized who poisoned him, but still....), as here is a security agency whose hands are not tied by..."Starfleet rules of conduct--HMPH!"

So what? Odo is a character with a POV, but that doesn't make him right. His attitude towards privacy is a reflection of the Founders' instinctive tendency to value order above freedom -- his inner totalitarian. It's the least admirable, single most immoral, part of his character.

And why are you citing Odo as a justification for anything? I'm asking you a fundamental question about how you think governments in general should be organized and empowered, not about how one particular fictional character feels about them.

Admiral Ross allows her to think that it was him, specifically, who did it, musing to himself that if President Bacco were to discover the existence of Section 31 and their responsibility for Zife's death, she, too, would be assassinated by Thirty-One.

Ross is not an agent of 31--he just works with them from time to time.

I don't think there's a clear distinction between the two. It's not like Section 31 hands out membership cards.

He could be just being cynical and bitter--considering his previous experiences with them....

The books make it clear that Ross is an agent of Section 31. He's worked with them plenty of times, and he knows what they're like. He has an educated opinion of them, and he knows that they would try to assassinate the Federation President if she discovered their role in the assassination of Min Zife. There's no spinning this any other way.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Okay, Sci. Sorry about the gigantic post, but I have a lot to say. Bear with me.

That certainly seems to be a possibility. All the more reason that there ought to be a full investigation into the Bush Administration.

But didn't you say that if there is no evidence, "investigations" would be a violation of privacy rights?

And...I hardly think the Huffington Post should be considered the most credible, unbiased, and fair-minded news agency in America....

At least, it's certainly no CNN or USA Today....

You tell that to Woodward and Bernstein and the fellow who leaked the Pentagon Papers.

What makes you so sure that those papers weren't faked? After all, considering how relatively unpopular the Bush Administration has become over the years, something like that would bound to give one a lot of publicity....

I'd find it hard to believe that they would have allowed his coup plot to ever reach the point it did if they did not support it, or at the very least, not object to it.

At first, Sisko didn't object to it, as I recall. His mistake--and it did seem to be justified--until we all learned that Starfleet was playing into the Founders's hands.

So what? Odo is a character with a POV, but that doesn't make him right. His attitude towards privacy is a reflection of the Founders' instinctive tendency to value order above freedom -- his inner totalitarian.

I doubt it. He was very scornful of the Founders' totalitarian beliefs, remember. And...like it or not, Sci, he does have a valid point. The only way to ensure that no illegal acts of sabotage, contraband, kidnapping, murder, etc., is to ensure that there is as much security as possible. This does not mean that individual right should be infringed, but let's be honest--the Constitution doesn't have the super-vague "Right To Privacy" invented by the Warren Court, but rather, a right to private property which the government cannot confiscate and/or search without probable cause (i.e. "We have reason to believe..."). This is the purpose of a warrant--to indicate that you have established probable cause.

DS9 is adminitstered by the UFP--and therefore is government property. Therefore, Odo can and, frankly, should be allowed to step up security on the station (though not in the ships docked there without "probable cause"), in order to protect it.

I'm asking you a fundamental question about how you think governments in general should be organized and empowered, not about how one particular fictional character feels about them.

I'm glad you asked.

Time to get deep! Anyone not completely interested in Sci's and my discussion may by all means skim down to the end. Otherwise, read on!



I believe that the one duty of government is to protect a nation's citizens from threats to their life, their property, and their liberty. To these ends, there are three proper functions of the government:

1) External Security: i.e., The Military, Foreign Intelligence Forces, and the Space Program (which assists the first two, to a certain extent.).

2) Internal Security: i.e., The National Guard (for states, the police), Domestic Intelligence Forces, and the Law Courts, to govern men under objective rules of law (more on this later).

3) Public Goods: i.e., the provision of goods and services which is absolutely essential to all citizens, but which are impossible to be provided by the private sector (i.e. at a profit). This falls into two sub-categories: a) Infrastructure (Bridges, Interstate Roads, etc.), and b) Public Safety (Fire Departments, "Rules of the Road" and Fire Safety guidelines, etc.)

Now, a word on objective rule of law. Here, I refer to the Philosopher Ayn Rand:

There are, in essence, three schools of thought on the nature of the good: the Intrinsic, the Subjective, and the Objective.

The Intrinsic theory holds that the good is inherent in certain things or actions as such, regardless of their context and consequences, regardless of any benefit or injury they may cause to the actors and subjects involved. It is a theory that divorces the concept of "good" from beneficiaries, and the concept of "value" from value and purpose--claiming that the good is good in, by, and of itself. (emphasis mine)

This is the theory which the Star Trek characters often struggle with. Consider the Prime Directive: Is it always wrong to interfere with the development of a society--even if that society will perish as a result?

This is also the "by-the-book" mentality often espoused by the Admiralty and Bureaucrats of Star Trek. "Rules are rules...no matter what"--even if these rules are more harm than good in the given situation.

The Subjective theory holds that the good bears no relation to the facts of reality, that it is the product of a man's consciousness, created by its feelings, desires, "intuitions" or whims, [also] that it is merely an "arbitrary postulate" or an "emotional commitment".

This is the belief that there is no universal standard of right and wrong, which is rarely (if ever) espoused in Star Trek. It is also, of course, inherently absurd. As such, I will not comment further on this theory.

The Objective theory holds that the good is neither an attribute of "things in themselves" nor of man's emotional states, but an evaluation of the facts of reality by man's consciousness according to a rational standard of value. (Rational, in this context, means: derived from the facts of reality and validated by a process of reason.) The objective theory holds that the good is an aspect of reality in relation to man--and that it must be discovered, not invented, by man.

Fundamental to an objective theory of values is the question: Of value to whom and for what? An objective theory does not promote context-dropping or "concept stealing"; it does not permit the separation of "value" from "purpose", of the good from beneficiaries, [or] of man's actions from reason.

Now, the objective theory does not mean that "the end justifies the means". It simply means that both the end and the means should be taken into account in order to determine the morality of an action.

Someone using the intrinsic theory, for example, might say, "Killing is wrong."

Someone using the objective theory (taking into account the value of human life, etc.) would say, "Killing in self-defense, or defense of other innocent people, is justified; but killing in order to steal, express rage/hatred/sadism, etc. is wrong." (this is actually too simplified, but you get the idea)

Someone using the intrinsic theory might say, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

Someone using the objective theory would say, "The needs of the many must be calculated against the needs of the few. Neither the 'many' nor the 'few' may 'step on' the other, as individual rights must be maintained. But in non-exploitive matters when you must choose between one or the other, then the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

Someone using the intrinsic theory might say, "Such-and-such an action conducted by Section 31 (or, while we're at it, Odo) is completely criminal and immoral--no matter what."

Someone using the objective theory would say, "In order to determine the morality of the actions of any individual or group, you must jointly consider the actions engaged in and the consequences of that act, AND contrast that with the alternative courses of action and the consequences of those courses."

A legal system, then, based on the objective theory, with the moral premise of "the individual rights of men" would, IMHO, be the ideal system for a society, because--

A value which one is forced to accept at the price of surrendering one's mind, is not a value to anyone; the forcibly mindless can neither judge nor choose nor value. An attempt to achieve the good by force is like an attempt to provide a man with a picture gallery at the price of cutting out his own eyes. [!]

Values cannot exist (cannot be valued) outside the full context of a man's life, needs, goals, and knowledge.

Therefore, in summary, the laws of government should include the various general contexts of an action when determining the legality of said action.




To finalize the argument, consider this final quote, from an exchange between Bashir and Sloan:

SLOAN: We're on the same team. We believe in the same principles that every Federation citizen holds dear.

BASHIR: And yet you violate those principles as a matter of course....

SLOAN: (nodding) In order to protect them.

BASHIR: Well, I'm sorry, but the ends don't always justify the means.

(note he said always....)

SLOAN: Really? ...How many live do you suppose you've saved in your medical career?

BASHIR: What has that got to do with anything?

SLOAN: Hundred--thousands? ...Do you suppose those people gave a dang about the fact that you lied in order to get into Starfleet Medical?

BASHIR: (blank stare)

SLOAN: I doubt it.... We deal with threats to the Federation that jeopardize its very survival. If you knew how many lives we've saved...I think you'd agree that the ends do justify the means. I'm not afraid of bending the rules every once in a while if the situation warrants it...and I don't think you are either.

BASHIR: (quietly) You've got the wrong man, Sloan....

SLOAN: (triumphantly) I don't think so. In time, you'll come to agree with me....


In a way, they're both right--and both wrong. Bashir is more the "idealist", who seems more in line with the intrinsic theory--but as we know, he compromised (and in effect, invalidated) this theory in order to be a doctor and save lives. Still, he knows not to go too far--hence, "The ends don't always justify the means." Nonetheless, he has not objectively defined the limits as of yet. Note the methods he was willing to use in "Extreme Measures" in order to interrogate Sloan (Enhanced interrogations! LOL!) and save Odo.

This is the philosophical flaw which Bashir will have to resolve sooner or later....

Meanwhile, Sloan seems more in line with the objective theory--BUT, his problem is that he seems to think that, intrinsically, the ends justify the means, regardless of what means are used!

This is the philosophical sin of Section 31--and why it is willing to "rationalize" so many unnecessary (and wholly unethical) acts, such as the poisoning of Odo and the Founders--and all the acts they apparently had a hand in committing in ST VI: TUC.

This...is where The Bureau fails.

 

[Sci]

That certainly seems to be a possibility. All the more reason that there ought to be a full investigation into the Bush Administration.

But didn't you say that if there is no evidence, "investigations" would be a violation of privacy rights?

There has been plenty of evidence that the Bush Administration (and the Blair government) committed crimes. The so-called waterboarding memos alone constitute prima facie evidence of conspiracy to commit torture, and the Downing Street Memo and numerous pieces of personal testimony all constitute evidence of conspiracy to commit aggressive war.

And now we find out that numerous Democratic Members of Congress are saying that the CIA lied to them about something (but no one can say what because it's classified) and it leaks that Director Panetta wasn't told about some major program but had it immediately shut down once he heard about it?

I'm sorry, but there's plenty of evidence that something fishy was going on at Langley and on Pennsylvania Avenue during the Bush years. An investigation is completely warranted -- and really ought to be pursued by the United States Attorney for D.C.

And...I hardly think the Huffington Post should be considered the most credible, unbiased, and fair-minded news agency in America....

You are welcome to point out any factual errors you find.

You tell that to Woodward and Bernstein and the fellow who leaked the Pentagon Papers.

What makes you so sure that those papers weren't faked? After all, considering how relatively unpopular the Bush Administration has become over the years, something like that would bound to give one a lot of publicity....

....

Rush.

Rush.

I'm honestly not trying to be rude. This is not meant as an insult. But the amount of ignorance you just displayed by assuming that The Pentagon Papers was a document leaked during the Bush Administration is astonishing.

The Pentagon Papers has nothing to do with the Bush Administration. It's the popular name for a document entitled United States–Vietnam Relations, 1945–1967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense. As its subtitle notes, it's a document created by the Department of Defense as a review of U.S.-Vietnam relations. It was, in essence, a history and analysis of the Vietnam War that then-Defense Secretary Robert McNamara commissioned.

It was an important document because it revealed that the U.S. had purposefully expanded its carpet bombing campaigns in Laos and Cambodia without this being reported in the U.S. It also, as political theorist Hannah Arendt noted in her essay "Lying in Politics" (included in the Arendt anthology Crises of the Republic), basically concluded that the Vietnam War was un-winnable, and that the U.S. government had known that the war was impossible to win for many years before the study was even commissioned. It included details about the lies and propaganda put out by the U.S. government to try to keep up public support for the war. When the New York Times published it after one of its contributors leaked it to them, it was a pretty big deal.

And, yes, by the way, The Pentagon Papers was authentic.

Do yourself a favor, by the way -- even if you don't read The Pentagon Papers, read Crises of the Republic.

I'd find it hard to believe that they would have allowed his coup plot to ever reach the point it did if they did not support it, or at the very least, not object to it.

At first, Sisko didn't object to it, as I recall.

1. I was talking about Section 31, not Sisko. Please do not try to change the topic. Once again, it seems unlikely that Leyton could have gotten as far along in his coup attempt as he did if he did not have Section 31's acquiescence, if not its outright support (whether he knew of their role or not).

2. You recall completely incorrectly. Sisko did favor increased security on Earth, and when the power grid went out and everyone thought it was the Dominion's doing, Sisko did favor the imposition of martial law -- under the continued authority of the Federation President and Council.

He opposed Leyton's plan to install himself as military dictator the instant he found out about it.

Here is the script for "Paradise Lost," the episode in which Sisko discovers Leyton's planned coup.

This is the relevant scene:

10A INT. SISKO'S CREOLE KITCHEN - NIGHT

Sisko and Odo enter. The restaurant is deserted. It's
after hours and they need a place to talk. Sisko is
looking concerned and focused.

ODO
Are you sure this cadet is telling
the truth?

SISKO
He admitted to committing acts of
treason against the Federation.
If he was going to lie, I think he
would've come up with a better
story.

ODO
I take it you gave him a blood
screening.

SISKO
I checked him myself. He's human.

ODO
Well then let's say he's telling
the truth... that he was ordered
by his superiors to sabotage the
power relays. That still doesn't
rule out Dominion involvement.
For all we know, his superiors
have been replaced by changelings.

SISKO
I thought about that. But if it
were changelings, what have they
accomplished? There's been no
invasion, power's been restored...

ODO
And Starfleet has fortified Earth.
I see your point, Captain.

DEEP SPACE NINE: "Paradise Lost" - REV. 11/14/95 - ACT ONE 15A.

10A CONTINUED:

Sisko moves into the kitchen and takes out a glass
bottle full of milk.

ODO
So let's say you're right.
Starfleet officers sabotaged the
power grid. What are you going to
do about it?

SISKO
That's the bottom line, isn't it?
What am I going to do about it?
(a beat)
These people aren't evil, Odo.
They're people I've worked with...
they're my friends... people I
respect. How can I turn against
them?

ODO
It seems to me, if they have
committed treason against the
Federation, the Federation you
swore to protect, then you won't
be turning against them... they'll
have turned against you.

And as Sisko ponders this...

11 INT. PRESIDENT'S OFFICE - NIGHT

The PRESIDENT is JARESH-INYO standing at the window,
looking out at the Paris skyline as Sisko and Odo are
escorted in by a Presidential aide.

JARESH-INYO
(turning to Sisko)
Captain Sisko, Mister Odo, come
in.

Sisko looks uncomfortable. Right now, he'd rather be
anyplace but here.

SISKO
Thank you for seeing us, Mister
President. I hope we didn't wake
you.

JARESH-INYO
No. My people require very little
sleep.

DEEP SPACE NINE: "Paradise Lost" - REV. 11/14/95 - ACT ONE 15B.

11 CONTINUED:

JARESH-INYO (Cont'd)
Although I was working on a speech
I'm going to deliver to the
Federation Assembly, so if you
could make this brief...

Sisko is obviously aware of the seriousness of both his
situation and the accusations he's about to make. But
he truly believes that he has no choice, that what he's
doing is necessary for the survival of the Federation.

SISKO
Sir, what I'm about to say may
seem hard to believe. Frankly, I
have a difficult time accepting it
myself. Nevertheless --

JARESH-INYO
(signalling for him to stop)
I think we can do without the
preamble, Captain. Just tell me
what's on your mind.

DEEP SPACE NINE: "Paradise Lost" - REV. 11/14/95 - ACT ONE 16.

11 CONTINUED: (2)

Sisko and Odo exchange a look. Sisko has to take a
moment to gather his thoughts. This is tremendously
difficult for him but he pushes on.

SISKO
Sir, I believe that certain
Starfleet officers, led by Admiral
Leyton, are conspiring to
overthrow the legitimate
government of the Federation.
and replace it with military rule.

And as the President reacts, as much to Odo and Sisko's
grim demeanor as to Sisko's words, we...

FADE OUT.

END OF ACT ONE

As you see, Sisko never supports the coup attempt. He is reluctant to believe that Leyton is actually doing it at first, and then reluctant to act because of his personal feelings of loyalty towards Leyton, but he never supports the coup attempt.

So what? Odo is a character with a POV, but that doesn't make him right. His attitude towards privacy is a reflection of the Founders' instinctive tendency to value order above freedom -- his inner totalitarian.

I doubt it. He was very scornful of the Founders' totalitarian beliefs, remember.

Sure. But that doesn't mean that he himself does not have a predisposition towards totalitarian tendencies. He is a guy who values order above freedom.

And...like it or not, Sci, he does have a valid point. The only way to ensure that no illegal acts of sabotage, contraband, kidnapping, murder, etc., is to ensure that there is as much security as possible.

Sure. No one's arguing that crime would not probably be reduced if people had less freedom. The argument is that personal freedom is more important than life, and that therefore freedom should not be infringed upon in the name of safety.

This does not mean that individual right should be infringed, but let's be honest--the Constitution doesn't have the super-vague "Right To Privacy" invented by the Warren Court,

Yes, it does.

First, off, let's remember the Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

So the fact that the right to privacy is not explicitly enumerated cannot be taken to mean that it does not exist or does not live in the Constitution.

Let's check out the Third Amendment:

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

So... you have the right not to have your home invaded by a government looking to quarter troops.

Then there's the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In other words -- they can't just search you or seize you 'cause they feel like it. Either they need a warrant, or they need a damn good reason they can cite and support in retrospect as probable cause.

Then there's the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 of which says:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So the protection that the law affords a person against unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant or probable cause cannot be denied to any person or class of persons.

To argue that the right to privacy does not live within these passages is, frankly, irrational. It is also a direct violation of the Ninth Amendment, which explicitly holds that a lack of explicit enumeration of a right does not mean that said right does not exist.

DS9 is adminitstered by the UFP--and therefore is government property.

Actually, as Memory Alpha notes, Deep Space 9 remained Bajoran property, even as it was being administered by the Federation Starfleet. That's why Bajoran laws against cloaking devices applied when Quark was trying to smuggle one aboard, for instance.

Therefore, Odo can and, frankly, should be allowed to step up security on the station (though not in the ships docked there without "probable cause"), in order to protect it.

Actually, considering that the station is Bajoran territory, contains civilian areas that support a permanent population, and is not administered as a Bajoran Militia base, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to claim that the civilian areas of the station must therefore lose any of the civil rights protections afforded civilians. Especially since that would significantly decrease DS9's attractiveness as a waystation on the way to the Gamma Quadrant for civilian shipping interests.

And given all the fights Odo has had over using excessive force, it's obvious that both the Bajoran government and Starfleet came down on the "civil rights" side of this debate.

I'm asking you a fundamental question about how you think governments in general should be organized and empowered, not about how one particular fictional character feels about them.

<SNIP>

Now, the objective theory does not mean that "the end justifies the means". It simply means that both the end and the means should be taken into account in order to determine the morality of an action.

<SNIP>

Someone using the intrinsic theory might say, "Such-and-such an action conducted by Section 31 (or, while we're at it, Odo) is completely criminal and immoral--no matter what."

Someone using the objective theory would say, "In order to determine the morality of the actions of any individual or group, you must jointly consider the actions engaged in and the consequences of that act, AND contrast that with the alternative courses of action and the consequences of those courses."

A legal system, then, based on the objective theory, with the moral premise of "the individual rights of men" would, IMHO, be the ideal system for a society, because--
<SNIP>

And that's all well and good, except that there's no universal agreement on "objective" standards. For person A, thwarting a terrorist attack using an Orwellian surveillance system constitutes an "objective" good that nullifies laws against unreasonable searches. For Person B, the power of the government to surveil its citizens without warrant or probable cause constitutes an "objective" threat to human liberty because of persistent patterns throughout history of such powers being abused.

(This is where Ayn Rand always fails. She has a habit of confusing her subjective analyses and conclusions with objective reality.)

In any event, you did not answer my question:

Are you earnestly proposing that a government should have the authority to spy on people even when there is no evidence of potential criminality? Are you earnestly proposing that the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against warrantless searches (which is the same thing as warrantless surveillance) should be disregarded or even repealed?

 

[Rush Limborg]

I'm honestly not trying to be rude. This is not meant as an insult. But the amount of ignorance you just displayed by assuming that The Pentagon Papers was a document leaked during the Bush Administration is astonishing.

My apologies. I was led to believe that it concerned the Bush Adminitration by your constant referrals to said administration.

In the future, you might not want to assume that your opponent knows about every little subject you bring up. I am not a walking, talking encyclopedia any more than you are. My knowledge spans certain subjects, as does yours. It isn't necessarily my fault (or yours...) that these subjects do not overlap all the time.

I respectfully request that you, in the future, refrain from making judgements on my intellegence, or lack therof, because of these instances where our respective knowledge does not overlap.

I certainly make no such assumptions about you....

I was talking about Section 31, not Sisko. Please do not try to change the topic.

I did no such thing.

I was bringing up how a Starfleet Officer whom we all respect sanctioned Martial Law. And frankly, Martial Law, I think you will agree, is one step away from a MILITARY DICTATORSHIP. The President and Council did have official control, yes, but if you feel we must hold Section 31 responsible for (supposedly) sanctioning a coup, than surely we must hold Sisko accountable for taking part in circumstances that would inevitably put the overseers of this state of Martial Law (i.e. Admiral Leyton) in a perfect position to seize power.

So the fact that the right to privacy is not explicitly enumerated cannot be taken to mean that it does not exist or does not live in the Constitution.

Sure. But that doesn't mean that he himself does not have a predisposition towards totalitarian tendencies. He is a guy who values order above freedom.

Then how do you explain that he defends the concept of freedom before the Founder Queen?

Do not assume that just because the Founders believed in totalitarianism, that is is Odo's nature to lean towards a certain belief. One might as well have said, during the Cold War, that a Russian's nature is to lean towards totalitarianism, because the Soviet government was totalitarian.

Our beliefs are shaped by our experiences, our emotions, our choices, our minds. To say that "nature" due to race determines how a person leans, to put it bluntly, borders on racism.

As for Odo, regardless of what the Founder Queen claimed, he does not value "order above freedom". He values justice. Else, why would he fight the ideals the Queen and the others hold so thoroughly?

So... you have the right not to have your home invaded by a government looking to quarter troops.

Who the heck is talking about quartering?

We are people of reason, Sci. Straw-Man arguments do not become us.

Now, on the subject of the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So...if Odo needs to investigate someone, he needs to express his suspicions, give the evidence for his suspicion, give his oath for the record, and tell Sisko exactly who, what, where, and when.

When have we ever seen Odo not give to Sisko "probable cause"?

And that's all well and good, except that there's no universal agreement on "objective" standards.

Even in the most remote part of the universe, Sci, 2+2=4. A is A--truth is absolute--whether one chooses to accept it or not.

For person A, thwarting a terrorist attack using an Orwellian surveillance system constitutes an "objective" good that nullifies laws against unreasonable searches. For Person B, the power of the government to surveil its citizens without warrant or probable cause constitutes an "objective" threat to human liberty because of persistent patterns throughout history of such powers being abused.

Again, society must have laws that define context as well as action, when defining the legality of said action. If the U.S. (and the U.F.P.) did so, controversies like the one we are currently having would not occur--i.e., we wouldn't be having conversations like this, because there would be no question as to how the law stands.

In any event, you did not answer my question:

Are you earnestly proposing that a government should have the authority to spy on people even when there is no evidence of potential criminality? Are you earnestly proposing that the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against warrantless searches (which is the same thing as warrantless surveillance) should be disregarded or even repealed?

Not at all. As I have constantly implied, the provisions and limitations in the Constitution should be specified by the laws (and court rulings) under the Constitution. These laws should include the different situations under which actions are commited. If a new situation arises, a new joint law and ruling must therfore be passed, to define the legality of said action in that situation.

Until and unless the United States adopts this philosophy of objective rule of law, than the U.S. Government must do what it can to exercise its constitutional duty to defend the life and rights of American citizens against all agressors, domestic and foreign. This is not infringing liberty, it is protecting it.

YES, all this must be done within the specific limits defined by the law. But where the law is vauge, the limits are vague. "Unreasonable" searches and seizures. "Due process" of law. "Proper extent" of law.

Consider these clauses from Section 8 of Article 1:

The Congress shall have power...

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

And most important of all:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

This is how I believe "governments in general should be organized and empowered"--its duties and limits should be as objectively defined as possible, but when the matters in question are not specifically defined by our Constitution and laws, than the government has the power and duty to carry out the deliberately-vague "necessary and proper" clause, for the sake of protecting the citizens of this country.

(This is where Ayn Rand always fails. She has a habit of confusing her subjective analyses and conclusions with objective reality.)

Rand accepted reality as being independent of man's conciousness. Thus, she was willing to accept the notion of her being wrong on an issue--provided one logically refute her stance, and provide a more logically sound alternative.

Yes, even I will freely admit that I disagree with her on some issues--and I also admit that she, at times, stubbornly refuse to change certain positions. Nonetheless, her definitions of objective theory, and her defense of capitalism, are such triumphs that her failures pale by comparison. Her mistakes occured, quite simply, when she inadvertantly disobeyed her laws of objective theory.

As for the theory itself, you are welcome to point out any factual errors you find.

 

[Rush Limborg]

(After a moment's thought) ...Seriously, Sci...I have the strange feeling that the reason so few other folks have posted on this thread lately is that they don't give a rat's rear end about our discussion.

Frankly, I doubt that anything I say will change your beliefs...or that anything you say will change mine. So long as the both of us hold on to certain respective premises--premesis which basically were stated in our respective takes on Ayn Rand and objective theory--neither of us will be convinced of the other's arguments.

Thus, for the sake of allowing the other guys (and me--and you, if you'd like) to return to the original topic of this thread, let us conclude our discussion for now. If you would like to further debate matters like this, by all means start another thread--maybe a DS9 thread on the morality (or lack therof) of Section 31, or (even better) a Misc. thread on the limitations and duties of government. I would be happy to contribute, if you'd like--but topics are topics.

I enjoy our discussions, and I don't want them to end with a mod closing off the thread....

So there.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ I mean no disrespect, but...you might want to rephrase that, as ending an argument by saying "So there" is rarely a good move.

 

[Sci]

I'm honestly not trying to be rude. This is not meant as an insult. But the amount of ignorance you just displayed by assuming that The Pentagon Papers was a document leaked during the Bush Administration is astonishing.

My apologies. I was led to believe that it concerned the Bush Adminitration by your constant referrals to said administration.

In the future, you might not want to assume that your opponent knows about every little subject you bring up. I am not a walking, talking encyclopedia any more than you are. My knowledge spans certain subjects, as does yours. It isn't necessarily my fault (or yours...) that these subjects do not overlap all the time.

I respectfully request that you, in the future, refrain from making judgements on my intellegence, or lack therof, because of these instances where our respective knowledge does not overlap.

I said nothing about your intelligence. I commented upon your lacking sufficient education, not sufficient intelligence.

And I'm sorry if you feel insulted by it, but The Pentagon Papers really is something that's a very basic piece of information. It's not something that only someone who has done research should be expected to know -- it's the sort of thing that's just a basic piece of information to know about recent American history. You ought to have known it, especially if you want to be able to debate intelligently about politics.

I was talking about Section 31, not Sisko. Please do not try to change the topic.

I did no such thing.

I was bringing up how a Starfleet Officer whom we all respect sanctioned Martial Law.

But that has nothing to do with whether or not we can reasonably infer that Section 31 either acquiesced to or supported Leyton's coup attempt. You were, therefore, changing the subject.

And frankly, Martial Law, I think you will agree, is one step away from a MILITARY DICTATORSHIP.

Not necessarily. A military dictatorship can exist without a state of martial law, and martial law can exist without a state of military dictatorship. One does not inherently lead to another. In the wake of Hurricen Katrina, for instance, a de facto state of martial law existed once the National Guard came in and re-established order, yet I do not think a reasonable person would argue that we were anywhere near a military dictatorship under those circumstances.

Similarly, the situation that Sisko believed was happening would not have led to a military dictatorship at all. Sisko supported martial law only so long as he believed Earth to be under imminent threat of a Dominion invasion. At no point did he favor the overthrow of the Federation government; Sisko wanted Starfleet in control of the streets of Earth, yes, but he wanted them temporarily in control of the streets of Earth while still answering to the democratically-elected President and Council.

The President and Council did have official control, yes, but if you feel we must hold Section 31 responsible for (supposedly) sanctioning a coup, than surely we must hold Sisko accountable for taking part in circumstances that would inevitably put the overseers of this state of Martial Law (i.e. Admiral Leyton) in a perfect position to seize power.

I will be happy to hold Sisko responsible for supporting the imposition of martial law when he believed -- with evidence, given the planetary power outage -- that Earth was in danger of imminent invasion.

But there's still a difference. I am arguing that Section 31 knew about and either supported or acquiesced to Leyton's coup because, as powerful political actors, they would not have allowed Leyton's coup plot to get as far as it did if they did not acquiesce to or support it. Sisko, on the other hand, immediately took steps to thwart the coup plot once he became aware of its existence.

In short, yes, I will hold Sisko responsible for letting himself be duped -- just as he held himself responsible at the end of "Paradise Lost," noting that the instinct to restrict civil rights was one that Leyton preyed upon, and that therefore it is an instinct that should be resisted. But I find it hard to believe Section 31 was not behind or at least okay with the coup.

Sure. But that doesn't mean that he himself does not have a predisposition towards totalitarian tendencies. He is a guy who values order above freedom.

Then how do you explain that he defends the concept of freedom before the Founder Queen?

1. She's not the Queen of the Founders. She's just the Female Shapeshifter.

2. Because obviously Odo, like most real people, is a person with conflicting motivations. There's nothing particularly implausible about the idea of someone espousing a belief in freedom yet acting to undermine freedom when given power. If you don't believe me, just look at Woodrow Wilson, who raved on and on about the importance of democracy, yet launched numerous invasions and occupations of Latin American countries on behalf of U.S. corporate interests. Odo is a much more benign form of that, certainly, but real people are nonetheless sometimes hypocritical, as is Odo.

And to be fair to Odo, lest I come across as being too harsh, he mellowed out quite a bit about civil liberties aboard DS9 in later years.

So... you have the right not to have your home invaded by a government looking to quarter troops.

Who the heck is talking about quartering?

We are people of reason, Sci. Straw-Man arguments do not become us.

I am not making a straw-man argument. I am building a linked argument in which each individual premise must be taken in conjunction with each other individual premise in order to reach the specified conclusion.

In the linked argument I made in my previous quote, the linked premises are that the various individual protections of certain rights found in the Third, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments cumulatively add up to a Constitutional right to privacy, and that your assertion that there is no Constitutional right to privacy is therefore untrue.

Obviously, quartering troops would, amongst other things, be a pretty big invasion of an individual's privacy -- hence why I argue that the banning of quartering troops in private homes is one of the things that leads to a right to privacy in conjunction with the other amendments.

Now, on the subject of the Fourth Amendment:

So...if Odo needs to investigate someone, he needs to express his suspicions, give the evidence for his suspicion, give his oath for the record, and tell Sisko exactly who, what, where, and when.

When have we ever seen Odo not give to Sisko "probable cause"?

Most of the time, he does cite probable cause. But you are the person who claimed earlier that Odo has placed Quark and other criminals under surveillance based purely upon unsupported suspicions, and who noted that Odo claimed in "The Maquis" that he wished he could initiate unreasonable searches and seizures.

And that's all well and good, except that there's no universal agreement on "objective" standards.

Even in the most remote part of the universe, Sci, 2+2=4. A is A--truth is absolute--whether one chooses to accept it or not.

Facts may be facts, but this does not mean that all facts inevitably lead to the same conclusions. The very fact that you (and Rand) cannot distinguish between a subjective opinion and an objective fact demonstrates the difficulty you are experiencing in putting together sound arguments.

For person A, thwarting a terrorist attack using an Orwellian surveillance system constitutes an "objective" good that nullifies laws against unreasonable searches. For Person B, the power of the government to surveil its citizens without warrant or probable cause constitutes an "objective" threat to human liberty because of persistent patterns throughout history of such powers being abused.

Again, society must have laws that define context as well as action, when defining the legality of said action. If the U.S. (and the U.F.P.) did so, controversies like the one we are currently having would not occur--i.e., we wouldn't be having conversations like this, because there would be no question as to how the law stands.

Your argument does not take into account the fact that political actors are often irrational. You claim that controversies such as the above would not occur if there was no question about how the law stands -- but of course there would. There would be controversies because there are always going to be people who, when given the power to spy upon the populace without being accountable to a higher legal authority, will abuse it. It is inevitable that this power will be abused. Don't believe me? Check out the book You Have No Rights by Matthew Rosthchild.

And the fact that there are irrational political actors within the government who will inevitably abuse the authority to spy upon the populace means that there are inevitably going to be people who take principled opposition to such abuses too far, believing that the government should have virtually no power to surveil anyone, even under the supervision of an independent judiciary. And they're going to run into conflict with people who will cite the ability of surveillance, under court supervision to save lives as reason to keep it up -- and both will run into conflict with people who want to cut the court out of it and give the executive unlimited ability to surveil in the name of national security.

And they're all basing their arguments on objective facts. The extreme civil libertarians are basing their arguments on the objective fact that governments throughout American and world history have a consistent pattern of abusing surveillance and detention authority when not under judicial supervision. The people who favor some surveillance under judicial supervision cite the objective fact that such programs have saved lives in the past. And the extreme surveillance supports cite the objective fact that horrible crimes have happened that have killed massive numbers of people that no one could have anticipated prior to their occurrences.

Argumentation does not lead to objective truth. It merely leads to claims that can be supported by objective facts and logically sound trains of thought.

In any event, you did not answer my question:

Are you earnestly proposing that a government should have the authority to spy on people even when there is no evidence of potential criminality? Are you earnestly proposing that the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against warrantless searches (which is the same thing as warrantless surveillance) should be disregarded or even repealed?

Not at all. As I have constantly implied,

I for one would appreciate you saying what you think directly instead of implying it, thank you.

Until and unless the United States adopts this philosophy of objective rule of law, than the U.S. Government must do what it can to exercise its constitutional duty to defend the life and rights of American citizens against all agressors, domestic and foreign. This is not infringing liberty, it is protecting it.

That's like saying, "We have to destroy this village to save it." It's nonsense. If the government is spying on me all the time, that's not liberty. It is an infringement upon liberty, not a protection thereof.

The government has a duty to protect American lives, certainly. It does not have a duty to do so at the expense of American liberty.

YES, all this must be done within the specific limits defined by the law. But where the law is vauge, the limits are vague. "Unreasonable" searches and seizures. "Due process" of law. "Proper extent" of law.

Dude, we have 233 years' worth of case law and precedents to define the limits. They're not vague.

This is how I believe "governments in general should be organized and empowered"--its duties and limits should be as objectively defined as possible,

Who determines what is "objective?" What does "objectivity" mean in this context?

but when the matters in question are not specifically defined by our Constitution and laws, than the government has the power and duty to carry out the deliberately-vague "necessary and proper" clause, for the sake of protecting the citizens of this country.

In other words, if it is not absolutely clear from court rulings that the government does not have the right to hack into your computer to check your email and scan all your files because your neighbor reported you to the FBI for wearing an "Obama Is A Terrorist" T-Shirt, then the government has a right to do so just in case you're planning on launching an anti-Obama terrorist attack due to the "necessary and proper" clause. Gotcha.

(This is where Ayn Rand always fails. She has a habit of confusing her subjective analyses and conclusions with objective reality.)

Rand accepted reality as being independent of man's conciousness.

Reality is certainly independent of our consciousness, but this does not mean that our perceptions of, or beliefs about, reality are. Take color.

Color does not exist.

No, seriously, it doesn't.

Color is simply the brain's way of interpreting the different wavelengths of light reflected by an object. "Red," "green" -- they have no objective reality. They are simply our perception of wavelengths. Even an experience that is universally shared is not "objectively" real -- and there are certainly a lot of things that are not objective, either, about our understanding of life in general.

Law and politics have to be based on value systems if they are to function, but all value systems have an inherent element of subjectivity. Until we accept that, we will always be trapped by an inability to understand why anyone disagrees with us -- and will therefore be incapable of resolving conflicts except by force.

(After a moment's thought) ...Seriously, Sci...I have the strange feeling that the reason so few other folks have posted on this thread lately is that they don't give a rat's rear end about our discussion.

And I for one am not the least be concerned about that.

Frankly, I doubt that anything I say will change your beliefs...or that anything you say will change mine.

I don't expect to change your beliefs. My goal is merely to persuade other users that you are incorrect and I am right. Whether I convince you is quite besides the point for me.

So long as the both of us hold on to certain respective premises--premesis which basically were stated in our respective takes on Ayn Rand and objective theory--neither of us will be convinced of the other's arguments.

A prime example of how even people who base their arguments on objective reality can reach divergent, mutually incompatible conclusions.

That's the flaw in "Objectivism," of course. It's based, fundamentally, on the premise that you can reason your way to pure, capital-T Truth, and anyone who doesn't reach The Truth is Wrong. Which, in practice, meant that anyone who disagreed with Rand was wrong. And that's just not the case.

I enjoy our discussions, and I don't want them to end with a mod closing off the thread....

It's unlikely to happen. The questions we've been addressing are directly related to the issue of Section 31; they are logical outgrowths of the questions about society that the very idea of Section 31 raises.

And, sure enough, we're seeing these same questions raised in the real world, with recent revelations that former Vice President Cheney controlled a classified Central Intelligence Agency program and kept it secret from Congress -- and that this program continued to operate, unaccountable to anyone, for six months, until current C.I.A. Director Leon Panetta was finally informed about it on 23 June and shut it down. Think about that -- for six months, an important counter-terrorism agency within the C.I.A. operated, unaccountable to anyone, being kept secret even from the C.I.A. Director -- and thus presumably the President of the United States.

Pretty Section 31-esque, if you ask me.

So there.

Well, gosh, I'm terribly impressed by your attempt to end on a polite note.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Facts may be facts, but this does not mean that all facts inevitably lead to the same conclusions. The very fact that you (and Rand) cannot distinguish between a subjective opinion and an objective fact--

As I recall, you seemed to treat the notion that Section 31 had a part in Leyton's coup as a de facto "objective fact". Was your statement not in fact a subjective opinion?

A prime example of how even people who base their arguments on objective reality can reach divergent, mutually incompatible conclusions.

Not neccesarily. One of us is wrong. In time, objective reality will reveal which one of us it is.

I mean no disrespect, but...you might want to rephrase that, as ending an argument by saying "So there" is rarely a good move.

Noted. It was too harsh. I apologize.

Well, gosh, I'm terribly impressed by your attempt to end on a polite note.

*sigh* Honestly, Sci? I could point out three instances in your last post where your...demeanor has been...less than ideal.

You want to rebuke my speaking out of turn. Please do--after you check your own wording....

And...on a similar note:

And I for one am not the least be concerned about that.

My goal is merely to persuade other users that you are incorrect and I am right. Whether I convince you is quite besides the point for me.

Sci...as a fellow contributer...with apparently more experience in these matters....

I myself had been guilty of this mindset a lot, in my early months on the BBS. I too had rationalized my conquering certain threads with discussions such as these to be "logical outgrowths" of the original topics. Maybe they were--but that does not excuse the fact that these particular threads are not intended to involve politics. It's supposed to be about Star Trek. As such, I was often given warnings by the mods to back off...and I did.

Political subjects are the vein of the Misc. Thread and the Neutral Zone. So as tempted as you may be to use politics as analogies for Section 31, please don't.

Also, the subject was not Section 31's morality/immorality. It was whether it was like MI6 or not. I think you made your point on that quite well. Now...if you want to make a new thread on the immorallity of Section 31, great. There, you can by all means speak on the subject as you see fit. Still, you do need to be considerate of the other posters, like it or not.

For your own sake, Sci...don't keep opening these cans of worms, like I did, lest they finally let loose and bite back...as they almost did to me.

 

[Cyke101]

I'm waiting for Sci and Rush to kiss, make up, and have a few drinks for shits and giggles, just like Bill Maher and Dennis Miller often do when they're on each other's shows.

 

[Sci]

Facts may be facts, but this does not mean that all facts inevitably lead to the same conclusions. The very fact that you (and Rand) cannot distinguish between a subjective opinion and an objective fact--

As I recall, you seemed to treat the notion that Section 31 had a part in Leyton's coup as a de facto "objective fact". Was your statement not in fact a subjective opinion?

It was a conclusion based upon facts. I'll happily concede that I could be wrong. But I do not think it likely.

A prime example of how even people who base their arguments on objective reality can reach divergent, mutually incompatible conclusions.

Not neccesarily. One of us is wrong. In time, objective reality will reveal which one of us it is.

How do you know? What if both of us are wrong? What if neither of us are wrong? "There are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy" and all that.

*sigh* Honestly, Sci? I could point out three instances in your last post where your...demeanor has been...less than ideal.

I haven't been making pretenses of being polite; I do no wrap my bluntness in a shiny package of manners. You, however, often do seem to enjoy attempting to be affable. Which is all well and good -- but please do not try to be affable and lecture people about being polite before turning around and being rude. It is an inconsistency in behavior.

And I for one am not the least be concerned about that.

There is nothing rude about not being concerned that other posters do not wish to contribute to a thread. It's a big BBS; there's room for threads with narrow niches.

My goal is merely to persuade other users that you are incorrect and I am right. Whether I convince you is quite besides the point for me.

Sci...as a fellow contributer...with apparently more experience in these matters....

According to your public profile, you joined the TrekBBS on 12 June 2008 and have a grand total of 895 posts. I joined on 2 March 2002, and have accumulated 14,258 posts over the course of seven years.

I assure you, I'm more experienced than you are.

I myself had been guilty of this mindset a lot, in my early months on the BBS. I too had rationalized my conquering certain threads with discussions such as these to be "logical outgrowths" of the original topics. Maybe they were--but that does not excuse the fact that these particular threads are not intended to involve politics. It's supposed to be about Star Trek. As such, I was often given warnings by the mods to back off...and I did.

I have been posting on the TrekBBS for seven years, and in that time, I have received exactly one warning -- and, further, this thread has been going on for quite a while without a mod saying anything. I'm not worried.

Political subjects are the vein of the Misc. Thread and the Neutral Zone. So as tempted as you may be to use politics as analogies for Section 31, please don't.

It is impossible not to if we are to discuss Section 31 intelligently. It's an inherently political topic that raises fundamental questions about the nature and authority of government.

Also, the subject was not Section 31's morality/immorality. It was whether it was like MI6 or not. I think you made your point on that quite well. Now...if you want to make a new thread on the immorallity of Section 31, great. There, you can by all means speak on the subject as you see fit.

Topics constantly evolve naturally over the course of a thread, and the morality/immorality of Section 31 is a natural outgrowth of attempts to compare Section 31 to real-life intelligence agencies like MI6.

For your own sake, Sci...don't keep opening these cans of worms, like I did, lest they finally let loose and bite back...as they almost did to me.

As I said, I've been here seven years. The mods know who I am and what I'm like, and this thread is par for the course. I am unconcerned.

Further, I find it interesting that you have been more than happy to argue right along with me and only now are trying to cite rules about staying on-topic to stifle my arguments.

Of course, you did something quite similar in another thread, where you, without being prompted to, declared that Section 31 is the inevitable result of the judicial activist idea of a "living, breathing document" and then tried to tell me when I explained my disagreement that I shouldn't get off-topic.

You have a pattern of going off-topic yourself to make a political assertion and then attempting to tell others not to go off-topic if they say something you disagree with.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Which is all well and good -- but please do not try to be affable and lecture people about being polite before turning around and being rude. It is an inconsistency in behavior.

Excuse me...who lectured whom? I was merely responding to...your comment on my rudeness. As you may have noticed, I have apologized for the comment.

And as for your experience...I willingly concede that point.

Further, I find it interesting that you have been more than happy to argue right along with me and only now are trying to cite rules about staying on-topic to stifle my arguments.

As you may also have noticed, I still respond to your arguments. If the only reason for my citing rules was to evade you, surely I would have ceased adressing you by now.

Of course, you did something quite similar in another thread, where you, without being prompted to, declared that Section 31 is the inevitable result of the judicial activist idea of a "living, breathing document" and then tried to tell me when I explained my disagreement that I shouldn't get off-topic.

I was making a semi-sarcastic wisecrack which I, quite frankly, did not expect anyone to take seriously.

You have a pattern of going off-topic yourself to make a political assertion and then attempting to tell others not to go off-topic if they say something you disagree with.

I did carry on this conversation in particular for a long time, did I not? I only make "we're going off-topic" updates either:

1) when the comment is so off topic and so inviting of political hostility that it could start a chain reaction effectively destroying the thread; or

2) when the discussion is running for so long just between myself and someone who (like me, I freely admit ) simply DESPISES the idea that anyone reading the debate might conclude that said opponent has NO reply for my points--thus resulting in an increasingly prolonged debate that will slowly but surely disolve into a personal clash where the both of us trade well-timed insults with the sole intention of bruising each other's egos. (phew!)

I'm waiting for Sci and Rush to kiss, make up, and have a few drinks for shits and giggles, just like Bill Maher and Dennis Miller often do when they're on each other's shows.

Not bloody likely....

However...I've got the drinks ready, just in case.

In the spirit of the thread topic, it's a medium-dry vodka martini, a lemon peel in each glass.

Shaken...not stirred.