Bashir vs Admiral Ross
- Thread starter Tebok
- Start date
We have to assume S31 had good reasons or the whole plot doesn't make any sense to begin with?
That sentence could almost represent my position, except I'm presenting both as legitimate options. Either we assume (against all evidence actually presented in the show) that S31 had good reasons, or else the plot doesn't make sense. I choose the latter. Otherwise, the writers can show S31 do any ludicrous and nonsensical thing they want, and we have to assume it's not ludicrous or nonsensical. Why? What has this particular organization and its characters done to earn such complete, uncritical trust from the viewers?
But, as I've said before, there is a way to make sense of the whole plot without chalking it up to a S31 victory. They got in over their heads. They made allies with a duplicitous, powerful Romulan who threatened to betray them or at least abridge the alliance unless they helped him in his personal intra-Romulan bid for power. They feel like the alliance with Koval is just too valuable to lose, because surely Koval will do something for them in the future (they reason), though he's under no obligation to do so and hasn't shown any sign of being a trustworthy character. But what other kinds of allies does S31 have? So they put a brave face on the fact that in reality Romulans are better at covert games than humans, so Koval just played them like a fiddle.
Nope. Their existence is justified legally by the Starfleet charter and in reality by the existence of their opposite numbers in many nearby and hostile empires. Not only does it have every right to exist, were I a Federation citizen who was aware of them, I'd be very glad they exist.
Last edited:
By the Earth Starfleet charter. And since that organization no longer exists (the Federation Starfleet is an entirely different Starfleet)...well, you do the math. And even so, all the original "article 14, section 31" ever said was that allowances can be made for bending the rules in times of extraordinary threat. It said NOTHING about kidnapping, murder and genocide, all of which Section 31 regularly engages in whenever it suits their whims.
The simple fact is, Section 31 is a terrorist organization. They are accountable to no one, they answer to no one...they, in the most literal sense, do whatever they want. Do you have any idea how dangerous that is? They had a spy inside the President's cabinet, for crying out loud!
I mean, say what you like about organizations like the FBI and the CIA, but at least they have government oversight. They answer to the United States government, in particular the President. Section 31 answers TO NO ONE.
^They also had an operative on Q'nos, if I remember correctly. In any case, I'm with Bashir on this one. Organizations who operate by playing cloak-and-dagger games fly in the face of everything the UFP represents.
They're so secret they don't even know about themselves.
Right, the Starfleet charter doesn't say, specifically, what may or may not be done to fulfill that section's demands. Do you think the writers envisioned patient diplomacy for those situations? What is there is good enough for me.
You don't like their means. I think their means are just fine--for example, they were ENTIRELY right to infect the Great Link, and that action yielded results. There are no rules among polities.
If we were talking about the Federation version of Doctors Without Borders, and somehow they had had a section in the old Starfleet charter that outlined their mission and was the reason they came to be, would you say that they no longer have legal standing once that charter was superseded?
The Cardassians have the Obsidian Order. The Romulans have the Tal Shiar. Even the Vulcans have a supersecret spy organization that doesn't always work for purposes the Federation would approve of. So the Federation happens to be the best at this game, with the most smoke-and-mirrors, now-you-see-them-now-you-don't no-such-agency of all. And it is needed in such a neighborhood and such a galaxy.
Last edited:
Big fan of genocide, are we? Because that's what that was.
There most certainly ARE rules. Rules of engagement, ever hear of that?
I agree about the great link. These murderous bastards had started a war in the Alpha Quadrant that had made already countless victims, yet these cowards didn't take any risk themselves. They should have let them die. The final battle was a mistake. They should have maintained the status quo a little while longer till the founders were all dead, then all that would have been left were armies without generals so to speak. Without the founders the Jem'hadar would have no reason to live and the Vorta were too cowardly to be any threat by themselves.
How unfortunate to see so much support for mass murder.
Yes, leaving the Federation at the mercy of the Dominion WOULD have been mass murder. Tsk.
I LIKE the way you think!
Oh, yes? And these rules, where are they? They're binding on all the polities of the AQ, for example, the Cardassians? They'd never torture anyone I am sure.
Look Mr. Laser Beam, if the choice is us vs them (and I identify with the Federation as "us), I choose us. So you think it's better to acquiesce to your own destruction for the sake of principles, is that about it?
Thank you! I didn't like the way it all ended. After all this carnage, to think that only ONE founder would be judged and I bet the worst she'd get would be a prison sentence! What a travesty!
@Vandervecken: Non sequitur. Nobody expects the Federation to agree to its own destruction - if you think that, by adhering to basic rules of decency and civilization, this must lead to weakness and destruction, you must have remarkably little faith in the Federation's ability to protect itself legally.
To put it another way: Do you believe police departments and governments should be allowed to use torture? Ignore basic human rights and due process? Because that's essentially what we are discussing here.
To put it another way: Do you believe police departments and governments should be allowed to use torture? Ignore basic human rights and due process? Because that's essentially what we are discussing here.
There are a few things in the Federation that needed to be changed. Picard watching a planet dying without any second thought and the complete approval of his higher-ups is a good example of that. And why should Kila Marr's career be ruined because she dared to destroy the crystalline entity? This is just beyond stupid.
^ Your ability to move the goalposts is most impressive.
I agree that an overly rigid interpretation of the Prime Directive is something that needs to be changed, but THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. We are talking about basic rules of decency, warfare, and rational conduct that all parties must agree to.
During the conflicts with the Klingons or Cardassians, for example, would you have the Federation actually attempt to destroy Qo'noS or Cardassia? Would you have them use biological or chemical weapons on civilians? There's a phrase for what you are advocating: it's called WAR CRIMES.
Is there NOTHING that you wouldn't allow a government or a military to do, in the name of winning a war?
I agree that an overly rigid interpretation of the Prime Directive is something that needs to be changed, but THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. We are talking about basic rules of decency, warfare, and rational conduct that all parties must agree to.
During the conflicts with the Klingons or Cardassians, for example, would you have the Federation actually attempt to destroy Qo'noS or Cardassia? Would you have them use biological or chemical weapons on civilians? There's a phrase for what you are advocating: it's called WAR CRIMES.
Is there NOTHING that you wouldn't allow a government or a military to do, in the name of winning a war?
Last edited:
Why would you make such absurd assumptions about me? Just because I find outrageous that a billion (assuming that's how many changelings these is on their homeworld) of founders suffer NOTHING for the billions they caused to die. You assume that I want to kill innocent civilians? Can't you see for yourself the iniquity of what you're saying about me?
They did?
So you want to make them suffer, is that it? I think I understand now. You're not interested in civilzed rules of conduct, you just want to make the enemy suffer. I got it.
And yes, I do assume you want to kill innocent civilians. Because that's what you have effectively advocated. You believe that governments, militaries, police forces, etc. should have absolutely no restrictions or rules on what they may do during an open conflict.
So you're ok with one billion of mass murderers getting away scot free? Is that what you're telling me?
There is nothing civilized about letting the murderers of billions of innocents go free. I find that extremely uncivilized, barbarous even.
As for the rest of your folderol, it so filled with lies about me, that it's stench would probably be a more efficient poison than a good insecticide.
No, I'm telling you that the Federation should conduct its war against the Dominion according to generally accepted rules of civilized warfare, which it did in fact do.
The Dominion did not "get away scot free", because Starfleet unleashed its full military capacity against them - but it did so honorably. Which is more than I can say for the likes of you.
Similar threads
