Spoilers TP: Rough Beasts of Empire by DRGIII Review Thread

[Rush Limborg]

Re: Typhon Pact: Rough Beasts Of Empire review thread

I'm not entirely certain. Perhaps she's serving as a martyr while allowing her followers to regroup, or something. Basically, I'm allowing for the possibility that she wanted to be captured.

It's also possible that she had had something planned involving her being in prison, and then someone helping her escape and then, say, assasinate Tal'Aura--but her death (instigated by the Tzenkethi) prevented that.

I don't know. I'm just theorizing....

Donatra's death seems to have had nothing to do with the Tzenkethi: Alizome reported as much to the Autarch, saying that as they expected Donatra met her end without any need for Tzenkethi involvement.

As I said...it was just a theory I was throwing out.

Assuming they do--it would damage 31 severely, as unlike the Shiar and the Order, a great part of their strength lies in their secrecy.

Apparently, that's what Milke and Andy were getting at in The Good That Men Do.

However, again, if the remnents of 31 play their cards right, and return underground, making sure that no one gains knowledge of their continued existence...public fervor will wane, and the cycle starts over again.

How?

Time breeds indifference, dulling of passions, and so on.

Why would they do that? Seriously. Do you have any evidence suggesting that there's going to be a restoration of the Soviet Union? This is approaching the territory of the Free Republic conspiracists who told a friend of mine that the collapse of the Soviet Union was just a fake, that the Cold War was still to be won (or lost).

Oh, I'm not that nuts. I'm just saying Putin misses the days when Russia was a force to be reckoned with--that he wishes to make The Motherland "glorious" again, a major power once again.

... in Russia? Or of Section 31?

Both.

Of how it's the same, sorry.

Oh, okay. Remember, Sloan pointed out that Bashir had 1), covered up that he was an Augment; 2), lied, and therefore betrayed what Picard deemed "The First Duty" of a Starfleet Officer; and 3), quite probably would not have confessed to his actions had they not been exposed anyway.

Sloan's point was that Bashir was right to have done so, because of all the lives he had saved with his enhanced genius--lives which would not had been saved had he followed Values and Principles, and stayed out of Starfleet.

"Values and Principles"? Why the capitalization?

Basically, I'm satirizing the mantras invoked when such questions are brought up.

The obvious distinction is that while it's far from obvious that discriminating against the genetically engineered--particularly against people who were genetically engineered by their parents, without their consent or contorl--is just, laws against murder remain just.

Actions are not considered just or unjust intrinically, so much as it is a matter of considering the scenario concerned. Killing in self-defense is not murder. Killing the last of a race (a la "The Man Trap") to protect lives is not genocide.

And is Sloan really an objective speaker?

Yes and no. Sloan notes that the actions he and 31 conducted were responsable for saving countless lives--numbers which, as far as he was concerned, did "justify the means".
Granted, he did have a vested interest in making that claim, but he was also very confident that in time, Bashir would come to agree with him.

Apparently, if "Zero Sum Game" is any indication, that could well happen sooner than we think....

The problem with that logic is that there are no guarantees. You're always taking chances, no matter what choices you make. The relevant issue is not "certainty," the relevant issue is which policy choice is least likely to cause a war.

Unless, of course, as Sisko said, a war is one's best chance for survival.

Yeah, but the way you talk, it comes across like you perceive every damn thing as an existential threat and the "last resort" as being, at best, a third or fourth resort.

Well I can assure you, Sci, that is not my intent.

Murdering someone for corruption is just as corrupt as whatever the crime you're murdering for was.

Is it?

Yes.

Well, let's see. On Bartlett--

No, he was engaging in national self-defense.

By murdering to remove corruption from world affairs.

On the Vakerie conspiracy--

No, they were attempting to engage in an act of revolution in order to, again, engage in national self-defense.

By murdering, to remove the immense corruption Hitler instigated through the securing of his own power.

The key difference, of course, being that in Nazi Germany, there was no functioning court system, no real justice system; there was only the will of the Führer. The Federation, by contrast, had a functioning justice system. Even if one accepts the idea that Zife could not be openly tried for his crimes, the fact remains that the Federation system is built on the idea that if you can't convict someone, you let them go, and that Zife did not pose a threat to the Federation upon his resignation. Hitler's rule, by contrast, was tyrannical and posed an existential threat to Germany, both in terms of state violence against its citizenry and in terms of the war being waged against Germany as a result of Hitler's provocations.

You can't compare a state where there is no social contract to one where there is. You simply can't compare the two situations.

By that argument, Sci, neither can you compare the existence of prisions to the existence of the Mafia or Section 31. And yet you yourself claimed that all of those were equally accaptable as examples involving a society's dark side.

In a simmilar manner, Hitler and Zife are both examples of corruption. One is simply a more "extreme" example than another.

Again, you are clinging to the illusion of internal consistency within a person's character. That illusion is false. People are blatantly contradictory; that's just a fact of life. People's motivations are not consistent.

Well, I suppose it depends on the motivations, doesn't it?

In this case, I will remain cynical in regards to Madoff's motives until proven wrong.

No wars commenced as a result of the Church Committee Reports. No wars commenced as a result of the exposures of Abu Graib and Guantanamo Bay.

Of course not. The War was already going on.

And if anything, if the abuses had been ended and the perpetrators and enablers and others allegedly responsible for the abuses in those cases -- which, mind you, included John Yoo, David Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney, and U.S. President George W. Bush -- had been impeached, removed from office, indicted for their crimes, given a fair trial, found guilty, and sentenced to terms in federal prison, we would probably have seen a significant reduction in recruiting by al Qaeda, since it would have taken away from them one of their key pieces of propaganda to recruit people.

As I recall, one of their major pieces of propoganda was a blatantly false story involving the "flushing" of Qu'rans down toilets in Guantanamo.

If the other side doesn't have anything, it can just take false information and play it up, or otherwise just make something up.

The former didn't happen -- the low-level abusers were punished, the mid-level abusers got slaps on the wrist, and the high-level abusers got away scott-free.

Of course you shouldn't do the latter. If you don't publicize both the events and your reforms, then people will think, "Abuses happened and they're covering it up." You need openness and transparency, both to prove that things have changed and to send a message to other would-be abusers that they would be in danger if they acted up. It's the same reason you walk the perp in front of the press on the way to the trial: It scares potential criminals.

Except the "high-level abusers got away scott-free" despite the exposure of the incidents.

You and I are operating on different definitions of "a system of internal accountability." I don't consider an uncodified system without a regulated form of adversarial argumentation before a neutral arbiter and key protections for the rights of the accused to be a system of internal accountability. If your "system of internal accountability" amounts to, "We'll kill you if you piss us off," that's not a system, that's just more criminal thuggery.

It's not a matter of killing or not killing. There would clearly be more efficient penalties than simply, "kill, kill, kill" for insubordination.

The system may be uncodified (but frankly, I'd wager 31 has its own code, just not one "revealed" to non-members), but as far as I am concerned, an uncodified system of internal accountability is a system of internal accountability nonetheless.

That is irrelevant, because the point is that both are consequences of the morally flawed state of human beings.

Except prisons are not examples of the "dark side". They are examples of the "light side" combating the "dark side".

And a dictator -- Machiavelli's Prince -- has inherently taken all freedom away. Machiavelli just advises him to give some of it back for a bit, conditional upon obedience to the Prince.

In the same way, a particularly sadistic man might totally block a victim's airway at first, but then ease his grasp just enough that the victim can gain a little bit of air if the victim agrees to do what the sadist tells him. Yet the sadist's hands still remain around the victim's neck, and we should not think the sadist therefore a generous man for not completely choking his victim, nor imagine he is acting out of respect for the victim's right to breathe.

Again, Rousseau would disagree with you. Machiavelli's other great work, The Discourses, shows a great love of freedom. He proposes a checks-and-balances system to preserve freedom.

The Price, at first glance, APPEARS to be simply advice for rulers on how to retain power. But as Rousseau pointed out, a careful reading strongly implies that Machiavelli's two works are not as conflicted as would meet the eye.

Again--the American Founders held that the right to one's own private property, and the right to keep and bear arms, are central to liberty. Again, they held that an armed populace is the great detriment to tyranny.

Therefore, if Machiavelli demands an armed populace--who are free to own private property as they see fit--that hardly sounds like advice allowing for a tyrant, let alone a sadistic one.

And yet all three actually subordinate themselves to the state in some manner: "Dirty" Harry by virtue of his status as a police officer; Batman by virtue of his alliance with Commissioner Gordon; and James T. Kirk by virtue of his status as a Starfleet officer. None of them truly place themselves above the law the way Section 31 does. And Batman, in particular, subordinates himself to an absolute moral standard that Section 31 disregards -- he never, ever kills anyone, for any reason whatsoever, and will always rescue someone in danger of death, even if they are murderers themselves.

Batman finds an interesting loophole, though. As he said to Ras-al-Ghul in the final battle of Batman Begins, "I'm not going to kill you...but I don't have to save you."

Furthermore, at the end of The Dark Knight, he tells Gordon that he has to go futher underground, and that Gordon has to chase him as a criminal, because the things Batman will have to do for a time can not be connected to Gordon.

(Batman, in particular, it might be noted, only works as an extralegal vigilante because systemic corruption in the City of Gotham is so pervasive on every level that the social contract in Gotham City simply does not work, and thus the government has no democratic legitimacy. He is, in other words, a citizen exercising his inherent right to protect the rights of himself and of others, which under normal circumstances is delegated to the democratically-elected government.

Were Bruce Wayne born and raised in Metropolis, he would almost certainly have responded to the murder of his parents by becoming a police officer rather than a vigilante.)

Of course. However, going to Dirty Harry for a moment, his beef isn't so much with corruption of the police as it is with their hands being tied by bureaucratic red tape and rules-and-regulations.

Asking why Donatra went to Romulus is a bit like asking why a chess player who know he might escape a checkmate if he makes one particular move and the other player makes a mistake, but that if he does not make that move, he will be checkmated in five turns. The player continues to play because there is no other choice; you either attempt, against the odds, to survive now, or you guarantee your loss later.

Using that analogy, Donatra's actions seem more like moving your king right into you're opponent's territory--surrounded by rooks, bishops, and queens--and expecting said opponent not to notice. I wonder how on earth she felt she had any chance.

... did you even read the damn novel? Donatra's reasons for going to Romulus were explained, in detail. It had nothing to do with any daring plan to escape prison.

Consult my previous answer to that question.

I agree that Putin's goal is to re-assert Russia's status as a major world power on the national stage, and to re-assert Russian control of the territories that both the Tzarist and Soviet regimes regarded as their "sphere of influence," and I agree that Russian diplomacy should be viewed through that lens.

But Putin is nothing if not a Russian nationalist. He was attached to the Soviet Union because it was a tool of Russian domination of the other Soviet republics, not because he had any real ideological attachment to Communism or to the idea of Russian equality with other Soviet nationalities. He's perfectly content to be the new Tzar of Russia (whether he calls himself "President" or "Prime Minister" at any given moment) under a Capitalist rather than Communist system.

Agreed. As you say--

Putin's goal is to unofficially restore the Russian Empire. That's why the Kremlin now appoints mayors and regional governors. That's why Moscow has created a new position to control the Caucasus-region territories of the Russian Federation -- essentially re-creating the old viceroy position the Tzars had. Putin's goal is Russian imperium.

Again, I actually see forthcoming a real-life kind of "Typhon Pact", among Russia, the other Former-Sovet-Union countries, and Iran, among other possible powers. This should prove especially interesting if Iran fixes up its nuclear program...and then tries to make good on its threat to wipe Israel off the map....

 

[Sci]

Re: Typhon Pact: Rough Beasts Of Empire review thread

Basically, I'm satirizing the mantras invoked when such questions are brought up.

Indeed, Rush Limborg has shown consistent disrespect for the principle of the rule of law in almost every Section 31-related debate in which he has been involved.

Actions are not considered just or unjust intrinically,

Odd hearing such a claim from a professed Christian. One most typically hears contrary claims from the faithful.

Yes and no. Sloan notes that the actions he and 31 conducted were responsable for saving countless lives

Or so he claims. Interestingly, we never actually see Section 31 engaging in any operations have have the effect of actually saving lives throughout any of their canonical or non-canonical appearances set during the post-ENT era.

Granted, he did have a vested interest in making that claim, but he was also very confident that in time, Bashir would come to agree with him.

Con men are very confident that in time, you'll come to agree with them. That doesn't mean they're telling the truth.

Yeah, but the way you talk, it comes across like you perceive every damn thing as an existential threat and the "last resort" as being, at best, a third or fourth resort.

Well I can assure you, Sci, that is not my intent.

You say that here, and yet at the very end of your post, you start whittering on about Russia and Iran forming a "Typhon Pact"-like alliance and Iran attempting to destroy the State of Israel.

I'm sorry, but your behavior indicates a consistent tendency to exaggerate potential threats and to jump to war as a primary, rather than secondary or tertiary, tool of statecraft.

No, he was engaging in national self-defense. By murdering to remove corruption from world affairs.

By murdering to remove corruption from world affairs.

He wasn't "murdering to remove corruption." The U.S. government in The West Wing regarded the Qumari government has being corrupt years before the events of "We Killed Yamamoto." Bartlet ordered Sharieff's assassination because he represented a threat to the United States which he did not believe the U.S. would be able to counter through other means.

On the Vakerie conspiracy--

<SNIP>

The key difference, of course, being that in Nazi Germany, there was no functioning court system, no real justice system; there was only the will of the Führer. The Federation, by contrast, had a functioning justice system. Even if one accepts the idea that Zife could not be openly tried for his crimes, the fact remains that the Federation system is built on the idea that if you can't convict someone, you let them go, and that Zife did not pose a threat to the Federation upon his resignation. Hitler's rule, by contrast, was tyrannical and posed an existential threat to Germany, both in terms of state violence against its citizenry and in terms of the war being waged against Germany as a result of Hitler's provocations.

You can't compare a state where there is no social contract to one where there is. You simply can't compare the two situations.

By that argument, Sci, neither can you compare the existence of prisions to the existence of the Mafia or Section 31.

Of course you can. Both Section 31 and the Mafia exist in a society that has a functional judicial system and which is a liberal democracy. You can perfectly compare the existence of Section 31 to the existence of the Mafia. You can't compare the assassination of a Federation President to the assassination of a Nazi Dictator.

And yet you yourself claimed that all of those were equally accaptable as examples involving a society's dark side.

Now you're just confusing my argument.

I did not cite "all of these" as "examples involving a society's dark side."

I said that both the existence of prisons and, separately, the existence of a society's dark side (impulses towards imperialism, as an example) are consequences of humanity's flawed moral character.

That is it. That is all. I did not compare prisons to anything. Nor did I say that prisons are not an attempt to cope with humanity's flawed moral character. All I said was that societies have dark sides for the same reason they have prisons: Because people aren't perfect. That's it. That's all. Full stop.

Kindly stop trying to extend that statement further.

In a simmilar manner, Hitler and Zife are both examples of corruption. One is simply a more "extreme" example than another.

Once again, you cannot reasonably compare the two situations or the assassination scenarios, because the political cultures are fundamentally different. One is a dictator in a totalitarian system that lacks a social contract; one is a president who has engaged in criminal behavior in a liberal democracy with a functional justice system and social contract. Comparing the assassinations of the two is like comparing an act of murder committed in the middle of a police station to an act of self-defense committed in the Wild West.

Well, I suppose it depends on the motivations, doesn't it?

In this case, I will remain cynical in regards to Madoff's motives until proven wrong.

Fair enough, but you would do well to disabuse yourself of the fallacious notion that people's motivations are in general rationally consistent. People are complex and self-contradictory creatures.

Except the "high-level abusers got away scott-free" despite the exposure of the incidents.

Which is why I said that exposure of the initial crime is not enough.

Batman finds an interesting loophole, though. As he said to Ras-al-Ghul in the final battle of Batman Begins, "I'm not going to kill you...but I don't have to save you."

And that was a horrible perversion of the real Batman, who can only be found in the comics upon which Batman Begins is based. And in those comics, Batman would never let Ra's al Ghul die by refusing to save him.

Using that analogy, Donatra's actions seem more like moving your king right into you're opponent's territory--surrounded by rooks, bishops, and queens--and expecting said opponent not to notice. I wonder how on earth she felt she had any chance.

She didn't, really. But sometimes in chess, you simply have no other options. You take the move that gives you the highest probability of survival, but sometimes even that probability is ridiculously low. Sometimes, in chess, you have no other choice but to move into checkmate.

I agree that Putin's goal is to re-assert Russia's status as a major world power on the national stage, and to re-assert Russian control of the territories that both the Tzarist and Soviet regimes regarded as their "sphere of influence," and I agree that Russian diplomacy should be viewed through that lens.

But Putin is nothing if not a Russian nationalist. He was attached to the Soviet Union because it was a tool of Russian domination of the other Soviet republics, not because he had any real ideological attachment to Communism or to the idea of Russian equality with other Soviet nationalities. He's perfectly content to be the new Tzar of Russia (whether he calls himself "President" or "Prime Minister" at any given moment) under a Capitalist rather than Communist system.

Agreed. As you say--

Putin's goal is to unofficially restore the Russian Empire. That's why the Kremlin now appoints mayors and regional governors. That's why Moscow has created a new position to control the Caucasus-region territories of the Russian Federation -- essentially re-creating the old viceroy position the Tzars had. Putin's goal is Russian imperium.

Again, I actually see forthcoming a real-life kind of "Typhon Pact", among Russia, the other Former-Sovet-Union countries, and Iran, among other possible powers. This should prove especially interesting if Iran fixes up its nuclear program...and then tries to make good on its threat to wipe Israel off the map....

In the words of Ronald Reagan:

"There you go again."

 

[Rush Limborg]

Re: Typhon Pact: Rough Beasts Of Empire review thread

Basically, I'm satirizing the mantras invoked when such questions are brought up.

Indeed, Rush Limborg has shown consistent disrespect for the principle of the rule of law in almost every Section 31-related debate in which he has been involved.

In the words of Ronald Reagan:

"There you go again."

To be honest--as far as the rule of law is concerned--I'd consider Section 31 to be the exception, not the rule.

Still, you may recall I once suggested that the ideal solution would be to, instead of having 31 entirely autonomous, have the Bureau report either directly to the President, or to the director of SI--the difference being that the normal restrictions would not apply.

It would be far superior to merely not having such an organization at all.

Actions are not considered just or unjust intrinically,

Odd hearing such a claim from a professed Christian. One most typically hears contrary claims from the faithful.

Well, consider the instance of Rahab lying to cover for the Hebrew spies in the Biblical book of Josua--or the Hebrew midwives covering for the babies near the beginning of the book of Exodus.

In a world corrupted by sin, one often has to choose the lesser of two evils.

Or so he claims. Interestingly, we never actually see Section 31 engaging in any operations have have the effect of actually saving lives throughout any of their canonical or non-canonical appearances set during the post-ENT era.

I would imagine either because 1) the majority of writers of those eps tend to be of the same opinon as yourself, or 2) as I have previously said, succesful actions of clandestine organizations tend to be unnoticed, which is as it should be.

In order to see a good amount of examples of "successful missions", and saving of lives thereof, we'd probably have to have an honest-to-goodness Section 31 series, a la "Mission: Impossible" meets "24".

Con men are very confident that in time, you'll come to agree with them. That doesn't mean they're telling the truth.

(shrugs)

You say that here, and yet at the very end of your post, you start whittering on about Russia and Iran forming a "Typhon Pact"-like alliance and Iran attempting to destroy the State of Israel.

Did Iran's president say that his intentions were such, or not?

Did Putin form a diplomatic relationship with Iran, or didn't he?

He wasn't "murdering to remove corruption." The U.S. government in The West Wing regarded the Qumari government has being corrupt years before the events of "We Killed Yamamoto." Bartlet ordered Sharieff's assassination because he represented a threat to the United States which he did not believe the U.S. would be able to counter through other means.

Fair enough.

Of course you can. Both Section 31 and the Mafia exist in a society that has a functional judicial system and which is a liberal democracy. You can perfectly compare the existence of Section 31 to the existence of the Mafia. You can't compare the assassination of a Federation President to the assassination of a Nazi Dictator.

Corruption is corruption--those are simply different degrees of it.

Now you're just confusing my argument.

I did not cite "all of these" as "examples involving a society's dark side."

I said that both the existence of prisons and, separately, the existence of a society's dark side (impulses towards imperialism, as an example) are consequences of humanity's flawed moral character.

That is it. That is all. I did not compare prisons to anything. Nor did I say that prisons are not an attempt to cope with humanity's flawed moral character. All I said was that societies have dark sides for the same reason they have prisons: Because people aren't perfect. That's it. That's all. Full stop.

All right...I'll take your word for it. Thank you for clearing up my confusion.

Kindly stop trying to extend that statement further.

Gladly--provided you too take care to refrain from assumptions like so:

I'm sorry, but your behavior indicates a consistent tendency to exaggerate potential threats and to jump to war as a primary, rather than secondary or tertiary, tool of statecraft.

I did no such thing. I am simply bringing up scenarios in which war arguable would be the best option. Nothing more, nothing less.

Once again, you cannot reasonably compare the two situations or the assassination scenarios, because the political cultures are fundamentally different. One is a dictator in a totalitarian system that lacks a social contract;

A system that he created.

one is a president who has engaged in criminal behavior in a liberal democracy with a functional justice system and social contract. Comparing the assassinations of the two is like comparing an act of murder committed in the middle of a police station to an act of self-defense committed in the Wild West.

By attempting to assasinate Hitler, the Valkerie conspirators had indended to cure the corruption he had instigated--true or false?

Which is why I said that exposure of the initial crime is not enough.

What is worse: exposure without justice, or no exposure? Please answer in regards to foreign relations, not matters of morality. Which would be worse for that?

And that was a horrible perversion of the real Batman, who can only be found in the comics upon which Batman Begins is based. And in those comics, Batman would never let Ra's al Ghul die by refusing to save him.

Regardless, Sci, it did occur. Batman understood Ra's al Ghul had to perish--he was too dangerous to be left alive.

I would imagine that, for whatever reason, 31 made the same assumption about Zife and Azernoll.

She didn't, really. But sometimes in chess, you simply have no other options. You take the move that gives you the highest probability of survival, but sometimes even that probability is ridiculously low. Sometimes, in chess, you have no other choice but to move into checkmate.

Not necessarily. You mentioned the alternative of "putting off" a defeat--which you proposed would make it more inevitable.

I propose that the buying of time in that regard in fact opens the door for more opportunites. The longer the games wears on, the greater the likelyhood that the opponent will get worn out, and make a mistake.

 

[rfmcdpei]

Re: Typhon Pact: Rough Beasts Of Empire review thread

Time breeds indifference, dulling of passions, and so on.

... and a lack of interest in making sure that the Federation didn't have powerful death squads running about the galaxy?

Oh, I'm not that nuts. I'm just saying Putin misses the days when Russia was a force to be reckoned with--that he wishes to make The Motherland "glorious" again, a major power once again.

That's a rather different thing from the KGB restoration of the Soviet Union you were talking about above. Or seemed to be talking about. And why the Federation is supposed to behave like post-Communist Russia in accepting totalitarian secret police forces, all evidence to the contrary, is still beyond me.

Yes and no. Sloan notes that the actions he and 31 conducted were responsable for saving countless lives--numbers which, as far as he was concerned, did "justify the means".
Granted, he did have a vested interest in making that claim, but he was also very confident that in time, Bashir would come to agree with him.

For what reason?

We've good reason to be skeptical of the veracity of Section 31 in its identification, evaluation, and treatment of threats against the Federation. Trying to commit genocide against the Founders transgresses basic Federation values. Preparing to destroy Tezwa and the Tezwans with it--killing a civilian population of billions of non-Federation citizens--in order to cover up a Federation president's misdeeds is unspeakable.

Federation citizens aren't going to be upset?

 

[Rush Limborg]

Re: Typhon Pact: Rough Beasts Of Empire review thread

Time breeds indifference, dulling of passions, and so on.

... and a lack of interest in making sure that the Federation didn't have powerful death squads running about the galaxy?

Yes. Given enough time, people would shrug off the stories of Section 31 as "old news", long past, irrelevent to "our present time".

Oh, I'm not that nuts. I'm just saying Putin misses the days when Russia was a force to be reckoned with--that he wishes to make The Motherland "glorious" again, a major power once again.

That's a rather different thing from the KGB restoration of the Soviet Union you were talking about above. Or seemed to be talking about. And why the Federation is supposed to behave like post-Communist Russia in accepting totalitarian secret police forces, all evidence to the contrary, is still beyond me.

Well, just as most of Russia, I'd imagine, isn't of the same mindset as Putin, so most of the Federation would not be of the same mindset of Section 31.

Yes and no. Sloan notes that the actions he and 31 conducted were responsable for saving countless lives--numbers which, as far as he was concerned, did "justify the means".
Granted, he did have a vested interest in making that claim, but he was also very confident that in time, Bashir would come to agree with him.

For what reason?

I'd say Sloan saw in him the potential to take the path we see him taking in the novels right now--albeit through different means, of course.

We've good reason to be skeptical of the veracity of Section 31 in its identification, evaluation, and treatment of threats against the Federation. Trying to commit genocide against the Founders transgresses basic Federation values. Preparing to destroy Tezwa and the Tezwans with it--killing a civilian population of billions of non-Federation citizens--in order to cover up a Federation president's misdeeds is unspeakable.

Federation citizens aren't going to be upset?

As I've said, the majority of Federations citizens probably would be upset--again, that's why 31 is so secret.

But I'd imagine it would spark a debate much like we're having here--just much more widespread.

 

[rfmcdpei]

Re: Typhon Pact: Rough Beasts Of Empire review thread

Time breeds indifference, dulling of passions, and so on.

... and a lack of interest in making sure that the Federation didn't have powerful death squads running about the galaxy?

Yes. Given enough time, people would shrug off the stories of Section 31 as "old news", long past, irrelevent to "our present time".

How much time?

Well, just as most of Russia, I'd imagine, isn't of the same mindset as Putin, so most of the Federation would not be of the same mindset of Section 31.

You're arguing that people in the Federation care as little for democracy and civil rights as people in 2011 Russia?

As I've said, the majority of Federations citizens probably would be upset--again, that's why 31 is so secret.

But I'd imagine it would spark a debate much like we're having here--just much more widespread.

You seem to think little of the Federation's citizenry. Why would there ever be a debate over the acceptability of Section 31 when the organization is clearly shown to inveterately violate norms of Federation behaviour?

 

[Rush Limborg]

Re: Typhon Pact: Rough Beasts Of Empire review thread

... and a lack of interest in making sure that the Federation didn't have powerful death squads running about the galaxy?

Yes. Given enough time, people would shrug off the stories of Section 31 as "old news", long past, irrelevent to "our present time".

How much time?

It depends on circumstances--particularly unrelated events, major or minor, affecting the quadrant, diverting the attention of the people. It's amazing what ten or twenty years can do.

Well, just as most of Russia, I'd imagine, isn't of the same mindset as Putin, so most of the Federation would not be of the same mindset of Section 31.

You're arguing that people in the Federation care as little for democracy and civil rights as people in 2011 Russia?

Not at all--quite the opposite. I would imagine the people of Russia care very much for freedom, civil rights, etc. It's the government which cares less for freedom than, say, the Federation.

As I've said, the majority of Federations citizens probably would be upset--again, that's why 31 is so secret.

But I'd imagine it would spark a debate much like we're having here--just much more widespread.

You seem to think little of the Federation's citizenry. Why would there ever be a debate over the acceptability of Section 31 when the organization is clearly shown to inveterately violate norms of Federation behaviour?

Because the question would inevitably arise as to whether the "norms" had, indeed, kept the Federation safe...or whether it was Section 31 which did the protecting.

What is "normal" is not necessarily "right". That is why "progress" is such a popular concept.

 

[Sci]

Re: Typhon Pact: Rough Beasts Of Empire review thread

I would imagine the people of Russia care very much for freedom, civil rights, etc.

Unfortunately, this idea is questionable. At the height of Russian democratization during the late 80s and 1990s, there really was no large-scale Russian democracy movement, no real Russian civil society. People didn't form major advocacy groups, civil rights protection groups, interest groups, etc. It was, unfortunately, a much more top-down phenomenon than bottom-up. And, indeed, Vladimir Putin is very much admired and has high approval ratings today, even though he's transformed Russian democracy into a joke, because he is credited with reviving the Russian economy.

Unfortunately, I would argue that Russian political culture is, at present, still fundamentally autocratic, and will remain so for some time. The Russian people as a whole have simply yet to internalize the ideas of the Enlightenment, of liberal democracy, and until they do, the Russian government will reflect the autocratic impulses of the majority.

Because the question would inevitably arise as to whether the "norms" had, indeed, kept the Federation safe...or whether it was Section 31 which did the protecting.

I'm curious how Section 31 could be proven to have protected anyone when it's so opposed to transparency.

 

[rfmcdpei]

Re: Typhon Pact: Rough Beasts Of Empire review thread

Yes. Given enough time, people would shrug off the stories of Section 31 as "old news", long past, irrelevent to "our present time".

How much time?

It depends on circumstances--particularly unrelated events, major or minor, affecting the quadrant, diverting the attention of the people. It's amazing what ten or twenty years can do.

This is the point when I ask you for real-world examples of how normal countries react to rogue state agencies responsible for terror within and without their borders.

Not at all--quite the opposite. I would imagine the people of Russia care very much for freedom, civil rights, etc. It's the government which cares less for freedom than, say, the Federation.

As Sci notes, the Russian electorate doesn't really care. A lot of this has to do with the coincidence of democracy's appearance--or non-totalitarianism's, anyway--at the same time that Russia fell apart. The likely undeservedly negative association of political pluralism with economic privation and social chaos did a lot to discredit democracy's adherents, who as Sci notes weren't numerous to begin with.

As I've said, the majority of Federations citizens probably would be upset--again, that's why 31 is so secret.

But I'd imagine it would spark a debate much like we're having here--just much more widespread.

You seem to think little of the Federation's citizenry. Why would there ever be a debate over the acceptability of Section 31 when the organization is clearly shown to inveterately violate norms of Federation behaviour?

Because the question would inevitably arise as to whether the "norms" had, indeed, kept the Federation safe...or whether it was Section 31 which did the protecting.[/QUOTE]

What evidence is there for this?

Let's take the single example of the genocide attempted against the Founders. The deployment of the viral weapons was very high-risk: if the Dominion determined the cause of the sickness besetting the Great Link and the virus' origins in the Federation, what would keep the Founders from escalating the conflict further? Metagenic weapons are easy enough to make and deploy, likewise planetcracker and sunkiller weapons, and the Dominion didn't show any compunction against genocide against non-existential threats. What mercy against the foreigners who murdered their gods?

And even without the Dominion finding out, it's not obvious that the disease's progression did anything to weaken the Founders, who recruited the Breen as allies and were ready to bleed the Alpha Quadrant white notwithstanding the species' impending demise. Section 31's disease may have worsened the war.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Re: Typhon Pact: Rough Beasts Of Empire review thread

How much time?

It depends on circumstances--particularly unrelated events, major or minor, affecting the quadrant, diverting the attention of the people. It's amazing what ten or twenty years can do.

This is the point when I ask you for real-world examples of how normal countries react to rogue state agencies responsible for terror within and without their borders.

And I would answer that that's something of a loaded question--31's actions could hardly be considered "terror". Remember, their actions are supposed to be in secret, in the netherworld of espionage.

As Sci notes, the Russian electorate doesn't really care. A lot of this has to do with the coincidence of democracy's appearance--or non-totalitarianism's, anyway--at the same time that Russia fell apart. The likely undeservedly negative association of political pluralism with economic privation and social chaos did a lot to discredit democracy's adherents, who as Sci notes weren't numerous to begin with.

Tragic, if true. But I would contend that, regardless, Putin could only go so far before he overreaches in such matters.

But as Sci has also pointed out (and I know--my using him as a reference might as well be a sign of a certain place freezing over, but still--), Putin isn't for bringing back communism (I seem to recall he brought a flat tax to Russia, as opposed the the heavy progressive income tax Karl Marx was fond of), so much as the influence of Russia in world affairs. Again, this helps to explain his increasing relations with Iran.

As I've said, the majority of Federations citizens probably would be upset--again, that's why 31 is so secret.

But I'd imagine it would spark a debate much like we're having here--just much more widespread.

You seem to think little of the Federation's citizenry. Why would there ever be a debate over the acceptability of Section 31 when the organization is clearly shown to inveterately violate norms of Federation behaviour?

Because the question would inevitably arise as to whether the "norms" had, indeed, kept the Federation safe...or whether it was Section 31 which did the protecting.

What evidence is there for this?

Let's take the single example of the genocide attempted against the Founders. The deployment of the viral weapons was very high-risk: if the Dominion determined the cause of the sickness besetting the Great Link and the virus' origins in the Federation, what would keep the Founders from escalating the conflict further? Metagenic weapons are easy enough to make and deploy, likewise planetcracker and sunkiller weapons, and the Dominion didn't show any compunction against genocide against non-existential threats. What mercy against the foreigners who murdered their gods?

And even without the Dominion finding out, it's not obvious that the disease's progression did anything to weaken the Founders, who recruited the Breen as allies and were ready to bleed the Alpha Quadrant white notwithstanding the species' impending demise. Section 31's disease may have worsened the war.

There are those of us on the BBS--myself included--who contest that, and defend the decision. (See for a recent example the "Alternative History" thread in the DS9 forum.)

In the same way, I would contend that there would be people like us in the Federation, and they would engage the rest in a similar debate, just as Trek frequently brings current debates on issues into a 24th-century context.

 

[rfmcdpei]

Re: Typhon Pact: Rough Beasts Of Empire review thread

It depends on circumstances--particularly unrelated events, major or minor, affecting the quadrant, diverting the attention of the people. It's amazing what ten or twenty years can do.

This is the point when I ask you for real-world examples of how normal countries react to rogue state agencies responsible for terror within and without their borders.

And I would answer that that's something of a loaded question--31's actions could hardly be considered "terror". Remember, their actions are supposed to be in secret, in the netherworld of espionage.

OK. "This is the point when I ask you for real-world examples of how normal countries react to rogue state agencies responsible for murder within and without their borders."

When it came out in the mid-1990s that Spain's SOcialist government under Gonzalez created the illegal Grupos Antiterroristas de Liberación death squads to fight against ETA, for instance, that revelation cost the Socialists the election.

Because the question would inevitably arise as to whether the "norms" had, indeed, kept the Federation safe...or whether it was Section 31 which did the protecting.

What evidence is there for this?

Let's take the single example of the genocide attempted against the Founders. The deployment of the viral weapons was very high-risk: if the Dominion determined the cause of the sickness besetting the Great Link and the virus' origins in the Federation, what would keep the Founders from escalating the conflict further? Metagenic weapons are easy enough to make and deploy, likewise planetcracker and sunkiller weapons, and the Dominion didn't show any compunction against genocide against non-existential threats. What mercy against the foreigners who murdered their gods?

And even without the Dominion finding out, it's not obvious that the disease's progression did anything to weaken the Founders, who recruited the Breen as allies and were ready to bleed the Alpha Quadrant white notwithstanding the species' impending demise. Section 31's disease may have worsened the war.

There are those of us on the BBS--myself included--who contest that, and defend the decision. (See for a recent example the "Alternative History" thread in the DS9 forum.)[/QUOTE]

Genocide is a defensible military tactic?

Keep in mind that the Dominion was willing to use a sunkiller weapon to blow up the Bajoran sun as a preemptive tactic, not a reprisal for anything that had been done. If the Dominion found out that the Federation was responsible, shifting to the use of metaweapons as a revenge tactic wouldn't be a stretch at all.

Isn't triggering an apocalyptic war something that should be done--if at all--with the full knowledge of the legitimate authorities? Section 31 is the equivalent, of a Cold War-era anti-Communist terrorist group running through the Soviet sphere of influence setting off tactical nukes.

This is not an argument in favour of the organization's survival.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Re: Typhon Pact: Rough Beasts Of Empire review thread

This is the point when I ask you for real-world examples of how normal countries react to rogue state agencies responsible for terror within and without their borders.

And I would answer that that's something of a loaded question--31's actions could hardly be considered "terror". Remember, their actions are supposed to be in secret, in the netherworld of espionage.

OK. "This is the point when I ask you for real-world examples of how normal countries react to rogue state agencies responsible for murder within and without their borders."

When it came out in the mid-1990s that Spain's SOcialist government under Gonzalez created the illegal Grupos Antiterroristas de Liberación death squads to fight against ETA, for instance, that revelation cost the Socialists the election.

Well, I doubt 31 was created by a political party.

But anyhow--the Federation is not a real-world power. It has some parallels with, say, the US, but it has politics of its own.

I doubt there are real-world organizations that could legitimately be called "21st-century Section 31s".

BTW...some people have compared (I would say unfairly) to the CIA or MI6. I'd say it's more akin to the fictional IMF of Mission: Impossible ("If any of your team are caught or killed, the CIA will disavow any knowledge of your activities", etc.) or Area 51.

Genocide is a defensible military tactic?

As I said, extreme scenarios call for extreme measures.

Frankly, the idea of keeping war free of "war atrocities" is fallacious. War itself is an atrocity. Making it clean and neat takes away the incentive to end it as quickly as possible.

The best thing the Federation and its allies could do would be to win the war as quickly as possible. That preserves life in the long run.

As "The Man Trap" indicates, it's not immoral genocide if it's in self-defense.

Keep in mind that the Dominion was willing to use a sunkiller weapon to blow up the Bajoran sun as a preemptive tactic, not a reprisal for anything that had been done. If the Dominion found out that the Federation was responsible, shifting to the use of metaweapons as a revenge tactic wouldn't be a stretch at all.

So the Dominion was, in theory, perfectly fine with genocide.

Isn't triggering an apocalyptic war something that should be done--if at all--with the full knowledge of the legitimate authorities?

I think the Dominion War could reasonably be considered apocalyptic.

Section 31 is the equivalent, of a Cold War-era anti-Communist terrorist group running through the Soviet sphere of influence setting off tactical nukes.

And that's...bad?

This is not an argument in favour of the organization's survival.

On the contrary--I'd say it defends them quite well.

 

[David cgc]

Re: Typhon Pact: Rough Beasts Of Empire review thread

Section 31 is the equivalent, of a Cold War-era anti-Communist terrorist group running through the Soviet sphere of influence setting off tactical nukes.

And that's...bad?

Are you serious?

Let's put aside the obvious moral issue of nuclear terrorism and mass murder, which bad (yes, even when it happens to people leaving in a country governed by a party that is nominally hostile to our own). Didn't you read The Sum of All Fears? If some asshole is setting off nuclear bombs in Russia, who do you think the Russians are going to assume is responsible?

Probably not Sudan.

How do you think they'd respond?

Probably not with kindness.

The best-case scenario would probably be that the responsible parties didn't actually have anything to do with the United States. That way, after we were all killed in the ensuing nuclear war, we wouldn't have to deal with being in Hell on top of our other problems.

I get it, you're just tired of the discussion are trying to look so intensely doctrinaire that anyone who's contradicting you will just give up in frustration so you can have the last word, right?

 

[Thestral]

Re: Typhon Pact: Rough Beasts Of Empire review thread

Oy, this conversation has gotten thick and deep. Just a couple points of order about Batman since I don't know where to dive in:

In his early days he did kill (and carry a gun), but those comics are now not part of the "current" Bruce Wayne's history. However, he does carry a gun and shoot to kill the villain Darkseid in the recent comic "Final Crisis." His bullet isn't what ultimately kills the dark god, but that was his intention.

Also, saying the Gotham City PD is hopelessly corrupt isn't entirely correct. There's a significant amount of corruption, but whenever James Gordon is commissioner (as he is now in the comics) it's being rooted out.

 

[rfmcdpei]

Re: Typhon Pact: Rough Beasts Of Empire review thread

When it came out in the mid-1990s that Spain's SOcialist government under Gonzalez created the illegal Grupos Antiterroristas de Liberación death squads to fight against ETA, for instance, that revelation cost the Socialists the election.

Well, I doubt 31 was created by a political party.

Yes. Section 31 doesn't have any political patrons invested in covering for it.

But anyhow--the Federation is not a real-world power. It has some parallels with, say, the US, but it has politics of its own.

The Federation has parallels with real-world polities, and this is why it's important to provide specific reasons why real-world examples aren't relevant. "It's different" doesn't count.

The best thing the Federation and its allies could do would be to win the war as quickly as possible. That preserves life in the long run.

"As quickly as possible" being read to include "as quickly as possible with as few risks as possible", sure.

So the Dominion was, in theory, perfectly fine with genocide.

The Dominion was fine with committing genocide against other peoples, although that wasn't the Dominion's main strategy. The Dominion was fundamentally a protection agency: you can't protect a dead space.

I think the Dominion War could reasonably be considered apocalyptic.

The vast majority of the populations of the Federation, Klingon Empire, and Cardassian Union--to name the major combatants which fought the Dominion on their territories--survived. Even on planets like Betazed, treated rather unkindly by their occupiers, the very large majority of the population survived.

The Dominion War was a classical war, fought over the control of populations and resources and territories. The Dominion War was not a war of annihilation.

Section 31 is the equivalent, of a Cold War-era anti-Communist terrorist group running through the Soviet sphere of influence setting off tactical nukes.

And that's...bad?

Well, yes.

If you're nudge-nudge, wink-wink authorizing the indiscriminate use of proscribed weapons of mass destruction against the interests of your opponents, then you've not only established precedents for the regular use of proscribed weapons of mass destruction, but you've established precedents for their use in kind against your interests. There's also the risk of a creeping escalation towards targets of greater and greater importance and suffering an apocalypse that way, or simply have someone on one side or another make a misjudgement and do something that the other side will see as unforgiveable and start a catastrophe that way.

The female Founder ordered the slaughter of the entire population of Cardassia Prime when she was dying, learned that Cardassian forces turned on the Dominion and that the Breen had abandoned the cause, and concluded that the only way to hold off the Alpha Quadrant would be to bleed it white. That was genocide as a planned preemptive tactic. There's also the attempted nova of Bajor's sun.

Let's say that a little bird told her that her, and her entire species, were going to die because of a Federation bioweapon. Why wouldn't she order attacks in kind against the Federation Alliance? Even without species-specific agents, she could still deploy metagenic weapons against inhabited worlds. Maybe she would order a tit-for-tat approach; maybe she'd go for overkill; even in the less unfavourable scenario casualties would still rise exponentially.

Section 31 nearly made the Dominion War into one where the obliteration of planetary populations would have been an intentional strategy, against the wishes of the Federation government and everyone involved. How could this play to its benefit?

 

[Turtletrekker]

Re: Typhon Pact: Rough Beasts Of Empire review thread

Section 31 is the equivalent, of a Cold War-era anti-Communist terrorist group running through the Soviet sphere of influence setting off tactical nukes.

And that's...bad?

You cannot be serious.

 

[Sci]

Re: Typhon Pact: Rough Beasts Of Empire review thread

BTW...some people have compared (I would say unfairly) to the CIA or MI6. I'd say it's more akin to the fictional IMF of Mission: Impossible ("If any of your team are caught or killed, the CIA will disavow any knowledge of your activities", etc.) or Area 51.

I'd say that if Area 51 were real, it would constitute a pretty horrific violation of U.S. law and democracy.

Frankly, the idea of keeping war free of "war atrocities" is fallacious. War itself is an atrocity. Making it clean and neat takes away the incentive to end it as quickly as possible.

Yeah, bullshit. Refusing to commit war crimes doesn't take away the incentive to end it, it's an attempt to protect the innocent during a war.

And, yes, there are many innocent Founders, as established both in the series (Changeling infants) and in The Dominion: Olympus Descending.

As "The Man Trap" indicates, it's not immoral genocide if it's in self-defense.

Oh, bullshit. It wasn't genocide to kill the Salt Vampire because the Salt Vampire species was already functionally extinct. Yeah, there was one member of that species still alive, but it was never going to be able to reproduce anyway, because there was no one else left to reproduce with. So it wasn't genocide in any realistic sense, because realistically, the species didn't exist anymore. You can't commit genocide when you're too late!

And, no, genocide against a real, viable species (or socially defined grouping) is not justified by self-defense.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Re: Typhon Pact: Rough Beasts Of Empire review thread

Section 31 is the equivalent, of a Cold War-era anti-Communist terrorist group running through the Soviet sphere of influence setting off tactical nukes.

And that's...bad?

Are you serious?

Let's put aside the obvious moral issue of nuclear terrorism and mass murder, which bad (yes, even when it happens to people leaving in a country governed by a party that is nominally hostile to our own). Didn't you read The Sum of All Fears? If some asshole is setting off nuclear bombs in Russia, who do you think the Russians are going to assume is responsible?

Probably not Sudan.

How do you think they'd respond?

Probably not with kindness.

The best-case scenario would probably be that the responsible parties didn't actually have anything to do with the United States. That way, after we were all killed in the ensuing nuclear war, we wouldn't have to deal with being in Hell on top of our other problems.

I get it, you're just tired of the discussion are trying to look so intensely doctrinaire that anyone who's contradicting you will just give up in frustration so you can have the last word, right?

Interestingly enough, this should bring up the question as to whether the US would jump to such conclusions, were the scenario reversed--or even be allowed to, in the international community.

If it's an "anti-Communist" group running around setting off nuclear weapons--weapons which the Soviet Union already had--that means it does not necessarily follow that they had any help from the US. All the Soviets would know is that it's a terrorist group taking advantage of embarrasing loopholes in security.

While I am getting a little bored with this long, drawn-out discussion, do not assume that I'm forcing things. That just makes things even more boring....

When it came out in the mid-1990s that Spain's SOcialist government under Gonzalez created the illegal Grupos Antiterroristas de Liberación death squads to fight against ETA, for instance, that revelation cost the Socialists the election.

Well, I doubt 31 was created by a political party.

Yes. Section 31 doesn't have any political patrons invested in covering for it.

So therefore, no political patrons will take the fall, correct?

The Federation has parallels with real-world polities, and this is why it's important to provide specific reasons why real-world examples aren't relevant. "It's different" doesn't count.

Except, again, Section 31 doesn't really have a real-life paralell. It may be a combinations of many different real and fictional groups...but there's no honest-to-goodness comparison with anything in real life that I can think of. I could be wrong, though, but 31 strikes me as simply the DS9 writers thinking outside the box, as it were.

"As quickly as possible" being read to include "as quickly as possible with as few risks as possible", sure.

Naturally.

The Dominion was fine with committing genocide against other peoples, although that wasn't the Dominion's main strategy. The Dominion was fundamentally a protection agency: you can't protect a dead space.

Of course--but the point still remains: the UFP's enemies didn't care about "rules of war", or "values and principles". All they cared about were results. That, frankly, gave them an upper hand.

The vast majority of the populations of the Federation, Klingon Empire, and Cardassian Union--to name the major combatants which fought the Dominion on their territories--survived. Even on planets like Betazed, treated rather unkindly by their occupiers, the very large majority of the population survived.

The Dominion War was a classical war, fought over the control of populations and resources and territories. The Dominion War was not a war of annihilation.

Again, their desire for results was the key. The Dominion wasn't bound by "values and principles". All they cared about was conquest of the solids, and suppression of possible threats.

Section 31 is the equivalent, of a Cold War-era anti-Communist terrorist group running through the Soviet sphere of influence setting off tactical nukes.

And that's...bad?

Well, yes.

If you're nudge-nudge, wink-wink authorizing the indiscriminate use of proscribed weapons of mass destruction against the interests of your opponents, then you've not only established precedents for the regular use of proscribed weapons of mass destruction, but you've established precedents for their use in kind against your interests. There's also the risk of a creeping escalation towards targets of greater and greater importance and suffering an apocalypse that way, or simply have someone on one side or another make a misjudgement and do something that the other side will see as unforgiveable and start a catastrophe that way.

Except the morphogenic virus couldn't be used against solids. It was targeted--and as the series strongly implied, once it kicked in (circa "Treachery, Faith, and the Great River") it worked relatively quickly, to the point that Odo and the Female Founder were in really bad shape by "Extreme Measures" and WYLB, respectively.

The female Founder ordered the slaughter of the entire population of Cardassia Prime when she was dying, learned that Cardassian forces turned on the Dominion and that the Breen had abandoned the cause, and concluded that the only way to hold off the Alpha Quadrant would be to bleed it white. That was genocide as a planned preemptive tactic. There's also the attempted nova of Bajor's sun.

Of course--as I've just said.

Let's say that a little bird told her that her, and her entire species, were going to die because of a Federation bioweapon. Why wouldn't she order attacks in kind against the Federation Alliance?

Ah...because it was a little bird? Frankly, if her paranoia would allow her to accept that without question, that basically means she was already thinking it.

Even without species-specific agents, she could still deploy metagenic weapons against inhabited worlds. Maybe she would order a tit-for-tat approach; maybe she'd go for overkill; even in the less unfavourable scenario casualties would still rise exponentially.

Section 31 nearly made the Dominion War into one where the obliteration of planetary populations would have been an intentional strategy, against the wishes of the Federation government and everyone involved. How could this play to its benefit?

Again, if she were suspicious enough to accept the "hunch" that the UFP and allies were behind the virus (and to be honest, I'd wager her paranoia against solids did lead her to that conclusion), one wonders, then, why she didn't act as you describe.

Even if she didn't, she knew she was dying. She had nothing left to lose. If she was capable of having her revenge on The Solids as you describe, why didn't she?

BTW...some people have compared (I would say unfairly) to the CIA or MI6. I'd say it's more akin to the fictional IMF of Mission: Impossible ("If any of your team are caught or killed, the CIA will disavow any knowledge of your activities", etc.) or Area 51.

I'd say that if Area 51 were real, it would constitute a pretty horrific violation of U.S. law and democracy.

And what of IMF?

Frankly, the idea of keeping war free of "war atrocities" is fallacious. War itself is an atrocity. Making it clean and neat takes away the incentive to end it as quickly as possible.

Yeah, bullshit. Refusing to commit war crimes doesn't take away the incentive to end it, it's an attempt to protect the innocent during a war.

And, yes, there are many innocent Founders, as established both in the series (Changeling infants) and in The Dominion: Olympus Descending.

Sci, that mindset--and the enemy knowing you posses that mindset--has the immense risk of leading to human shields used by the enemy.

In war, innocents invariably get caught in the crossfire--and there's a price paid. Believe me, I find it every bit as distasteful and disgusting as you do--but that's the way things are in war. As I said, war itself is an atrocity. Sometimes, innocents are put in mortal danger from it. Sometimes, they perish en masse.

Kirk understood this in "A Taste Of Armageddon". Remember the reasoning behind Eminiar and Vendikar's system of "war"--so that it would be clean, neat, and pointed. As Kirk pointed out, the disgusting things in war which the worlds sought to avoid are precisely what make it a thing to be avoided.

Sisko also understood this when taking down Eddington. When he poisoned the atmosphere of the Maquis world, it was a distasteful, disgusting thing--which, to be frank, demanded an aftermath of soul-searching by Sisko which the audience was denied--

But as far as he was concerned, it was what he had to do.

As "The Man Trap" indicates, it's not immoral genocide if it's in self-defense.

Oh, bullshit. It wasn't genocide to kill the Salt Vampire because the Salt Vampire species was already functionally extinct. Yeah, there was one member of that species still alive, but it was never going to be able to reproduce anyway, because there was no one else left to reproduce with. So it wasn't genocide in any realistic sense, because realistically, the species didn't exist anymore. You can't commit genocide when you're too late!

Spock would seem to disagree with you. See his remarks in "Devil In The Dark", when he pointed out to Kirk that, as far as they knew at the time, the "creature" (the Horta) was the last of its kind.

And, no, genocide against a real, viable species (or socially defined grouping) is not justified by self-defense.

I assume you are accepting even the theoretical scenario in which it is either-or--us or them?

 

[rfmcdpei]

Re: Typhon Pact: Rough Beasts Of Empire review thread

If it's an "anti-Communist" group running around setting off nuclear weapons--weapons which the Soviet Union already had--that means it does not necessarily follow that they had any help from the US. All the Soviets would know is that it's a terrorist group taking advantage of embarrasing loopholes in security.

The Soviets would be able to determine a fair number of things. Leaving circumstantial evidence aside, it's fairly trivial to determine, by the precise mixtures of isotopes left behind, which facility manufactured a weapon--The Sum of All Fears made use of that, if you're a Clancy fan.

There's also capability. Only a few states are capable of making nuclear weapons. (The terrorists in that Clancy novel "cheated" by salvaging a lost Israeli warhead.) Taking this over to the Star Trek context, only a few polities had the knowledge of Founder genetic coding necessary to make a lethal bioweapon.

Finally, condoning this sort of terrorist warfare, or even appearing to condone this sort of terorrist warfare, leaves you with no ground to oppose your enemies' escalation in kind.

Except, again, Section 31 doesn't really have a real-life paralell. It may be a combinations of many different real and fictional groups...but there's no honest-to-goodness comparison with anything in real life that I can think of.

No relevant parallels at all?

Again, their desire for results was the key. The Dominion wasn't bound by "values and principles". All they cared about was conquest of the solids, and suppression of possible threats.

The conquest, yes, not their annihilation.

Except the morphogenic virus couldn't be used against solids.

As you're doubtless aware, it's trivially easy in the Star Trek universe to come up with tailored, almost universally lethal, bioweapons aimed at any number of species.

Again, if she were suspicious enough to accept the "hunch" that the UFP and allies were behind the virus (and to be honest, I'd wager her paranoia against solids did lead her to that conclusion), one wonders, then, why she didn't act as you describe.

Her warmaking machine was fragile. Leaving aside the need to keep the Cardassians from spinning completely out of control--as they did, anyway--there was the need to keep the Breen as allies. Presumably a Breen alliance would have been difficult if the Breen were convicned that the Dominion was about to start killing off civilizations.

Even if she didn't, she knew she was dying. She had nothing left to lose. If she was capable of having her revenge on The Solids as you describe, why didn't she?

When the Breen fled, the Cardassians defected to the Federation Alliance, and the prospects of a cure from Dominion laboratories for her disease disappeared, she odered the summary execution of every Cardassian on their homeworld and ordered every Dominion soldier to fight to the death, with the express aim of bleeding Federation Alliance forces white and vulnerable for a second Dominion offensive from the Gamma Quadrant.

When the Founder was convinced that defeat was imminent, she transformed the war from a conflict involving the conquest and continued control of populations and territories to their annihilation. Section 31's preemptive escalation to a war of annihilation against the Founder species could have triggered this shift earlier, at a time when the Founder commanded more military forces capable of attacks in kind.

Section 31 screwed up royally. It's a minor miracle that the Borg came to the Alpha Quadrant to find the Federation and its populations remaining.

In war, innocents invariably get caught in the crossfire--and there's a price paid. Believe me, I find it every bit as distasteful and disgusting as you do--but that's the way things are in war. As I said, war itself is an atrocity. Sometimes, innocents are put in mortal danger from it. Sometimes, they perish en masse.

Trying to minimize atrocities is one thing. Committing atrocities is another.

 

[JD]

Re: Typhon Pact: Rough Beasts Of Empire review thread

BTW...some people have compared (I would say unfairly) to the CIA or MI6. I'd say it's more akin to the fictional IMF of Mission: Impossible ("If any of your team are caught or killed, the CIA will disavow any knowledge of your activities", etc.) or Area 51.

I'd say that if Area 51 were real, it would constitute a pretty horrific violation of U.S. law and democracy.

Actually, Area 51 is a real top secret testing facility in Southern Nevada. I've watched a show all about the real place on History Channel.