That is an extremely absolutist perspective on Bashir's actions.
Shades of grey, my friend. He did what he thought he had to at the time. As horrible as it was, it wasn't necessarily wrong.
DS9 Novels?
- Thread starter SuperXPS
- Start date
That is an extremely absolutist perspective on Bashir's actions.
Shades of grey, my friend. He did what he thought he had to at the time. As horrible as it was, it wasn't necessarily wrong.
Shooting the solders? Agreed. The civilan technician? A case can be made to both sides of the argument. However, how would America react if Al Quada machine gunned a group of civilian technicans at a factory that produced F-16's? We don't even know the civilian Breen were working on weapons, just the slipstream. Slipstream certanly has military applications but that would be like claiming the wright brother were weapon manufactures. Also, the Federation didn't discover slipstream on their own either.
The real sticking point is the shooting in the ehad of the unconcious guard. "Just to be sure" thinks Bashir. There is no gray area in this one. It is a war crime. As sure as torture. To hold up Bashir as some sort of hero in this situation is totally the wrong way we should be looking at these characters.
A continued exploration of these character would be an interesting story but wouldn't look upon either of them as heroes. I have no doubt that Bashir will eventually discover the link between Sarina & Section 31 and may even turn against her but he'll never return to the moral person that I knew through 7 years on DS9.
Let us not forget that Bashir & Sarina were in Breen space illegally and were involved in espionage, sabotage and acts of violence and murder against the Breen. They were not some innocents abroad. They were acting in retaliation for the Breen attack on Utopia Planitia but Bashi & Sarinas death and damage tally was much higher.
The real sticking point is the shooting in the ehad of the unconcious guard. "Just to be sure" thinks Bashir. There is no gray area in this one. It is a war crime. As sure as torture. To hold up Bashir as some sort of hero in this situation is totally the wrong way we should be looking at these characters.
A continued exploration of these character would be an interesting story but wouldn't look upon either of them as heroes. I have no doubt that Bashir will eventually discover the link between Sarina & Section 31 and may even turn against her but he'll never return to the moral person that I knew through 7 years on DS9.
Let us not forget that Bashir & Sarina were in Breen space illegally and were involved in espionage, sabotage and acts of violence and murder against the Breen. They were not some innocents abroad. They were acting in retaliation for the Breen attack on Utopia Planitia but Bashi & Sarinas death and damage tally was much higher.
Sure Sarina wasn't there, but a person doesn't have to be with you at all times to be manipulating you. She didn't manipulate him by standing there telling him what to do, she manipulated him by putting the ideas in his head that lead him to being in the situation where he was convinced that killing the people he did was the best way to deal with it. Another thing to keep in mind is that when the story started he not in the best state of mind, so he was already fairly succeptable to Sarina and 31 before they went after him.
^Indeed. As previous posters have noted, depression can cause people to do things that objective observers would call...absurd.
And Julian certainly was in depression, as the book began (something which, I strongly suspect, had its roots in the final scene of Trill:Unjoined....).
Sarina's "romance" provides, as far as he's concerned, such a desperately immense relief for him. Therefore...he's of the mindset where he is extremely susceptible to the things she intends to plant in his head.
Which, to be frank, should increase the vehemence of his reaction, when he finds out the truth--and, if he's still the brilliant doctor we know and love, he will find out the truth--soon.
Still...it shouldn't be particularly surprising that Julian would have such a dark side. Recall the sequence in "Extreme Measures", in which he was all too willing to use..."enhanced interrogation methods" on Sloan.
He was enjoying it, I might add.
And Julian certainly was in depression, as the book began (something which, I strongly suspect, had its roots in the final scene of Trill:Unjoined....).
Sarina's "romance" provides, as far as he's concerned, such a desperately immense relief for him. Therefore...he's of the mindset where he is extremely susceptible to the things she intends to plant in his head.
Which, to be frank, should increase the vehemence of his reaction, when he finds out the truth--and, if he's still the brilliant doctor we know and love, he will find out the truth--soon.
Still...it shouldn't be particularly surprising that Julian would have such a dark side. Recall the sequence in "Extreme Measures", in which he was all too willing to use..."enhanced interrogation methods" on Sloan.
He was enjoying it, I might add.
So now depression or being in love justify murder in cold blood?
They are merely weak excuses. If a murderer actually tried to use them as defenses in his trial, as if they justify his crime, he would be laughed at - and, obviously, convicted.
Yes, these are Bashir's reasons. So what? Every murderer has his reasons - they change nothing.
What matters is that Bashir was in full control of his intellectual and volitional capabilities when he commited murder.
I stand by my affirmations - if he was not a main character, loved by fans, what he did would be an obvious crossing the moral event horizon moment. And this would be recognised as obvious, instead of attempted to be excused by what can only be weak justifications.
They are merely weak excuses. If a murderer actually tried to use them as defenses in his trial, as if they justify his crime, he would be laughed at - and, obviously, convicted.
Yes, these are Bashir's reasons. So what? Every murderer has his reasons - they change nothing.
What matters is that Bashir was in full control of his intellectual and volitional capabilities when he commited murder.
I stand by my affirmations - if he was not a main character, loved by fans, what he did would be an obvious crossing the moral event horizon moment. And this would be recognised as obvious, instead of attempted to be excused by what can only be weak justifications.
Last edited:
By that logic, though, any member of the espionage community who has killed someone while performing their duties is a murderer.
Does that logic apply to soldiers as well?
Because that's what Bashir was being here - a solider and spy in service of the greater good of his nation. It doesn't make it a good thing, what he did - but it doesn't mean he's evil, either.
He *did* cross a moral event horizon. That's the whole appeal of Section 31 stories - that no matter how moral we may think ourselves, sometimes, what we have to do doesn't line up with what we want to do.
Again, I say he did what he felt was the right thing at the time to protect the greatest number of Federation citizens - and at that point in time, that mean whatever he had to do to keep the Breen from activating their stolen slipstream drive and altering the balance of power in the Typhon Pact's favor.
Did he cross the line? Yes. Does he know that yet? I don't know. Would I like to see the old Julian that never would have done that come back? Absolutely. And I'll be fascinated to realize the path he's on.
Does that logic apply to soldiers as well?
Because that's what Bashir was being here - a solider and spy in service of the greater good of his nation. It doesn't make it a good thing, what he did - but it doesn't mean he's evil, either.
He *did* cross a moral event horizon. That's the whole appeal of Section 31 stories - that no matter how moral we may think ourselves, sometimes, what we have to do doesn't line up with what we want to do.
Again, I say he did what he felt was the right thing at the time to protect the greatest number of Federation citizens - and at that point in time, that mean whatever he had to do to keep the Breen from activating their stolen slipstream drive and altering the balance of power in the Typhon Pact's favor.
Did he cross the line? Yes. Does he know that yet? I don't know. Would I like to see the old Julian that never would have done that come back? Absolutely. And I'll be fascinated to realize the path he's on.
Shooting an unarmed/unconscious person at point blank in the face, just to be sure he's dead is a WAR CRIME - as in MURDER - if it's commited during war.
If any member of the espionage community were to do it, it would STILL BE MURDER.
NO self-defense, no mitigating circumstances (love or depression are NOT mitigating circumstances in any legal system), etc.
Hell, killing that engineer did not even increase the chances of success of Bashir's mission. 'Zero sum game' actually went out of its way to establish that a stuned breen will stay that way for some time.
So yes, this logic applies to soldiers, spies, etc as well. No one is above basic morality.
If 'performing their duties' implies killing in cold blood, we're talking about a paid killer, NOT a soldier or a spy.
Makes more sense to me than him being on a random ship drowning in his own misery.
I wanted that whole "stay with her and you'll know sorrow" crap dealt with and swept away so they could get back together and he could go back to DS9 and actually have some interesting stories again.
I'm sick to death of the prophets, they've been massively overdone both in the series and the novels and its really annoying me how they are dominating everything DS9 lately, esp since its being done in a really depressing way now.
So it's the face that makes it worse?
What about the unconscious or sleeping people killed when his goal was to destroy the whole station? Are their deaths war crimes? Or was it okay, since they didn't get shot in the face? They're still dead.
What Bashir did wasn't done with cruelty - it was done with cold efficiency, to reduce the chance that unconscious guard could return and stop him from completing his mission later.
(I'm playing devil's advocate, here. I obviously think it was wrong, but I'd like to see why other people think so.)
What about the unconscious or sleeping people killed when his goal was to destroy the whole station? Are their deaths war crimes? Or was it okay, since they didn't get shot in the face? They're still dead.
What Bashir did wasn't done with cruelty - it was done with cold efficiency, to reduce the chance that unconscious guard could return and stop him from completing his mission later.
(I'm playing devil's advocate, here. I obviously think it was wrong, but I'd like to see why other people think so.)
I do think it's worth mentioning that Bashir, at the time he killed those Breen technicians, thought that Sarina was most likely tortured and killed, and the book makes a point of making mention of his 'unabashed romanticism'.
Not a single person in this thread has tried to claim that Bashir should be considered a hero in this situation. Certainly Bashir himself hasn't. He's fully aware it wasn't a nice thing to do. So you're arguing against something that has never been stated in the first place.
Remember Picard's line from "Descent" ? "It may turn out that the moral thing to do was not the right thing to do."
Again, nobody has ever claimed it "justified" it. Only that it explained it.
.
Exactly. What we're saying is that it's wrong to define this as a black-and-white situation, as though "pure hero" and "irredeemable villain" were the only two possibilities. The whole novel is about the shades of gray between those extremes.
I want to make sure I understand this. Are you saying that being a doctor is inherently more moral than being a soldier? Because if you are, having been a soldier I must take exception to this viewpoint.
I have not read the book in question, but from the way the scene has been described here, I could see that judgement applying to Bashir in this specific situation. But you seem to be making a very general and broad statement here.
Last edited:
Well, the medical oath 'First, do no harm' hardly applies to soldiers does it ?
That's not saying there may not be a moral imperative to soldiers actions, but then we are looking at a situation where the ends do excuse the means.
Conversely, a medic seldom risks his life for the benefit of others. Soldiers often do.
It's a grey area, but yes, personally I'd say being a doctor is inherently more moral than being a soldier.
If I may be so bold as to inject my professional opinion, on Bashir's action, and it's "morality", or lack thereof:
"Just to be sure" begs for the question, "Just to be sure of what?"
In his case--I'd wager he doesn't know whether the guard had been aware of him or Sarina before his losing consciousness.
Does that make it "right"? To be perfectly blunt, I really think that's asking the wrong question.
As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as "war atrocities". War itself is the atrocity. It's an ugly, hideous thing--but when you have to fight it, you have to do what is necessary to win, and to win it as quickly as possible, so as to end said atrocity as quickly as possible.
To call what he did a "war crime", and akin to "torture", is missing the point. Had the guard been allowed to live, and had he been aware of Bashir and Sarina, he would have given that information to his superiors--and the result would have been a diplomatic incident--which it was the entire point of the mission to avoid.
An ugly, hideous action? Perhaps. It's called war. And in war, ugly things have to be done, to avoid a greater "atrocity" in the future.
"But, Rush! But Rush! That makes us no better than the other side--"
What of it? That's not the point. The point is to win. Once the conflict is over, then you can worry about showing everyone that you're "better".
I'm sure Kira could tell horror stories of what the Resistance had had to do, "Just in case." But as she lectured Damar and Co., the point is victory--achieving what you're fighting to achieve. Everything else is secondary.
NOW--
That being said, I personally would have preferred more of an acknowledgment from Julian, on what he would (as far as he was concerned) have to do, and how ugly and incomprehensible the deed would be. A moment of deep regret, before he pulls the trigger on the guard.
How would I have written it? Probably with his staring at the unconscious guard, reflecting on the fact that he can't be sure of what the poor soul knows, or doesn't. He finds himself raising his weapon--
He freezes in shock, at first finding himself unable to do it. He reflects on his Oath as a doctor....
But then, he remembers something Garak told him, in "Our Man Bashir":
"Just to be sure" begs for the question, "Just to be sure of what?"
In his case--I'd wager he doesn't know whether the guard had been aware of him or Sarina before his losing consciousness.
Does that make it "right"? To be perfectly blunt, I really think that's asking the wrong question.
As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as "war atrocities". War itself is the atrocity. It's an ugly, hideous thing--but when you have to fight it, you have to do what is necessary to win, and to win it as quickly as possible, so as to end said atrocity as quickly as possible.
To call what he did a "war crime", and akin to "torture", is missing the point. Had the guard been allowed to live, and had he been aware of Bashir and Sarina, he would have given that information to his superiors--and the result would have been a diplomatic incident--which it was the entire point of the mission to avoid.
An ugly, hideous action? Perhaps. It's called war. And in war, ugly things have to be done, to avoid a greater "atrocity" in the future.
"But, Rush! But Rush! That makes us no better than the other side--"
What of it? That's not the point. The point is to win. Once the conflict is over, then you can worry about showing everyone that you're "better".
I'm sure Kira could tell horror stories of what the Resistance had had to do, "Just in case." But as she lectured Damar and Co., the point is victory--achieving what you're fighting to achieve. Everything else is secondary.
NOW--
That being said, I personally would have preferred more of an acknowledgment from Julian, on what he would (as far as he was concerned) have to do, and how ugly and incomprehensible the deed would be. A moment of deep regret, before he pulls the trigger on the guard.
How would I have written it? Probably with his staring at the unconscious guard, reflecting on the fact that he can't be sure of what the poor soul knows, or doesn't. He finds himself raising his weapon--
He freezes in shock, at first finding himself unable to do it. He reflects on his Oath as a doctor....
But then, he remembers something Garak told him, in "Our Man Bashir":
And, forcing down the intense pangs of his conscience and his remorse--he shoots.
Last edited:
Perhaps not, but the generally accepted laws of warfare do restrict action only be taken to be against lawful combatants. (Let's not get into a debate as the whether or not this has/is happened/ing in any given situation, please)
I think it is fair to say, generally, that a solider's role is to protect/defend the greater good of the larger community/nation they serve. This seems like a very moral/justifiable course of action to me.
In defense of the medical community here, I think you do not have to look too hard or long to find many examples where medics have put themselves directly (and with little or no hesitation) put themselves in danger/at risk for the benefit of their patient(s). See 9/11 and the actions of EMS personnel employed by the city of New York that day. In fact, take a look sometime at citarions for the Medal of Honor. Notice how many of them have been awarded to medics in combat. Notice how many of those were issue posthumously. (Also - there are any number of MoH that were awarded to non-medical personnel who risked themselves saving their comrades, again many of these posthumously) I don't have the exact statistic at hand presently, but during the Viet Nam war the life expectancy of a field medic in combat was a very short period of time indeed.
To put it bluntly: bullshit. Service to the greater good, whether it is curing a disease or defending those who need to be defended is always inherently a good thing, if not an outright moral thing. If you do not like to method of that service, fine, but the intent is there nontheless.
I apologize if I have de-railed this thread.
Last edited:
Fair 'nuff. And respects to the sacrifice your freind made. Not trying to make it personal, really, just disagree very strongly with the premise being advocated.
Similar threads
