I'm not a fan of the thinking that every Starfleet character who does anything remotely shady or unethical is likely a Section 31 agent or potential recruit. It contributes to the notion of Starfleet being this flawless organization whose only assholes must be outliers who are part of some super-secret Agency of Misfit Boys (and girls) full of sociopaths who do what they decide is right regardless of cost (or actually being right) and without oversight. It also robs the Starfleet/Federation characters of any dramatic heft if there's always some excuse behind their occasionally terrible or unethical actions. Well, Norah Satie from The Drumhead wasn't just a dangerous person whose paranoia and desire for continued relevance allowed her to see enemies around every corner, she's secretly a Section 31 agent who knows such threats really do exists and is nobly trying to expose them, and though she got the wrong targets this time, next time she may be on point. And hey, Admiral Cartwright and Colonel "Scooby Doo Ending" West being Section 31 totally doesn't undermine the power and shock value of having actual Starfleet officers (including a recurring flag officer who was previously, if briefly, shown to be a likeable, decent guy) do something so ruthless and treasonous to not only an enemy seeking peace, but also to their own people who they murdered and framed and risked sending to all-out war. Also, Burnham would be a pretty terrible secret agent since that requires one to be persuasive and quick thinking, and she failed in both of those aspects during the pilot. Not that I think she doesn't exhibit those qualities normally, but that charade where she nerve pinched Cpt. Georgiou and then tried to pull off the least convincing surreptitious ship hijacking in history doesn't exactly bode well for her espionage skills, or for her ability to bend others to her will. I mean, if we were talking Dr. Evil level henchmen, maybe that plan would qualify, but Section 31 are at least supposed to be somewhat competent and subtle at what they do. I apologize if this comes off as harshly shooting down your idea OP, and really it's more of just an objection to the general concept that's overly represented in fandom of shady behavior from a Starfleet character = Section 31 (I've been guilty of it myself in the past), and you're absolutely right that the showrunners did raise and leave open the possibility of S31 playing a possible role or that fans could interpret that they might have been behind something happening on the show. I'd just prefer that not to be the case, especially because the show is already rooted in enough bad Trek cliches as it is.
Burhnam's court martial looked more like a Section 31 tribunal than a Starfleet one both in the visuals (dark room that hid the faces of the judges) and in the harshness of her sentence.
Yeah, what the hell was up with that? When they say "Justice is Blind" it's not supposed to be because Justice forgot to pay its electric bill and makes its rulings in the dark. It just came off as needlessly sinister and uncharacteristic of Starfleet, unless it's the Starfleet that existed on the shadowy Enterprise-D set in ST: Generations. I half expected her to be sentenced to life in the Phantom Zone with Zod like Superman II, but even the Kryptonian judges showed their faces in silhouette like they were performing Bohemian Rhapsody.
There wasn't an option for: "PLEASE no more Section 31!" So I just checked, "No." I think the whole Section 31 is pretty tired and dull. At the very least lest keep Section 31 a 24th century thing. At the very most let's make it a fictitious agency created by the delusional Luther Sloan. Ugh. Section 31 is SOOO 1999.
Keep in mind the death penalty is on the table in this era. Look at the list of charges. Life is not uncalled for, although many charges could have been challaged if she tried
^ Wasn't the death penalty for going to Talos stated as being the only remaining capital crime under Federation law, or am I misremembering? It was always a stupid idea to me to be opposed to the death penalty near universally except in this one case, regardless of the danger. That would certainly be a new approach for the franchise if they did a whole Trek series (or at least this arc) told from the perspective of an unreliable narrator. Not very satisfying for the viewer, IMO, but definitely new. Sort of like a Trek version of Legion where you're not always sure what's real or not.
For me it could potentially explain why Lorca would want Burnham on his ship. Perhaps the actions on the Discovery give rise to Section 31 in the first place. Those like Burnham and probably Lorca who are willing to take actions the rest of Starfleet would not.
Only if they are a completely new agency that took the name of their Earth Starfleet predecessor (it was also "lucky" that the Earth and Federation Charters both had a similar Section 31; you'd think the Fed Charter would have different pacing and structure from a single planet charter) from Enterprise instead of being a direct continuation of it. Which is entirely possible and probably even more likely than it remaining operational during peacetime without being compromised.
She didn't to my knowledge, she knocked out her friend and Captain who quite frankly was a part of the problem and doing exactly what TKuvma wanted, same goes for the useless Admiral as well. Calling it a mutiny is a bit rich as well to be honest, I have seen mutinies portrayed in film and TV and that wasn't one of them. If she had succeeded in starting a fight before the other Klingons had arrived it could have ruined TKuvmas plans, the war would have happened regardless but he would not have had any support.
For me a war would be the ideal reason needed to activate Section 31 fully, after all in a war its all hands on deck and quite frankly the whole "Starfleet doesn't fire first" has always been a bit ridiculous to me. Adding Section 31 to this series would give a positive spin to the events of the first two episodes and explain a lot.
Oh, I disagree. I'd rather just have Burnham have had a nervous breakdown than attribute her actions to Section 31.