- Section 31's position within Starfleet and the UFP reminds me of Hydra's within SHIELD and the United States in Captain America: The Winter Soldier. I think this is going to become my go-to comparison the next time someone tries to argue they're a legit part of the Federation government.
An excellent analogy.
Except for the fact that the Federation Starfleet Charter (as opposed to the Archer-era charter) had officially established Section 31, as
Section 31: Cloak notes.
There are two basic problems with this argument. The first is that it may simply be invalid because of the rules of media tie-in fiction; the second is that even if it's not, it fails on its own terms.
To start with, there's a very strong argument to be made that the ENT episode "Divergence" nullified the description of that line of the Starfleet Charter in
Cloak. "Divergence" established that Section 31 takes its name from Section 31 of Article 14 of the United Earth Starfleet Charter;
Rise of the Federation later established that this article was copied word for word into the Federation Starfleet Charter (FSF). This section of the UESF Charter contains "a few lines that make allowances for bending the rules during times of extraordinary threat." That is a far, far cry from permanently establishing an organization for whom the law does not apply and without any supervision or democratic accountability.
But let's assume that
Cloak's description of the FSF Charter hasn't been nullified by the Rules of Canon. Let's assume that there's a portion of the FSF Charter that establishes a branch of Starfleet Intelligence with non-specific discretionary powers over non-specific matters.
That doesn't legitimize Section 31.
Sorry, but nothing in that description establishes that Section 31 has the right to act without being accountable to the Chief of Starfleet Intelligence, to Starfleet Command, or to the Federation President. Nothing in that description establishes that Section 31 is above the law. Nothing in that description establishes that Section 31 has any right to act without accountability or to do whatever it wants. Nothing in that description establishes that it has the right to spy on the Federation government, to assassinate Federation politicians, to abduct and torture Federation citizens, to arrange for foreign attacks on Federation soil, to interfere with the internal politics of allied states, or to commit genocide.
If it were to come out tomorrow that some portion of the Naval Act of 1794 established a division of the U.S. Navy with "non-specific discretionary power over non-specific matters," and that this agency had used that section of the Act to justify not answering to the Pentagon, not answering to the Secretary of Defense or the U.S. President, abducting and torturing U.S. citizens, spying on the U.S. government, assassinating U.S. politicians, arranging for foreign attacks on U.S. soil, interfering with the internal politics of allied states, attempting to commit genocide, and deciding that it is above U.S. law?
Absolutely nothing about the Naval Act's hypothetical provision would justify that organization's actions, even if it established that organization's original existence. If such an organization were to be exposed, it would obviously need to be immediately dissolved.
So, yes, I stand by my analogy. Section 31 is to Starfleet as Hydra is to SHIELD -- an illegitimate fascist parasite organization, operating within a legitimate defense organization and perverting it from the inside.
HYDRA, to the best of our knowledge, has had no such in-writing clause, as far as SHIELD is concerned.
A true believer in Hydra would just say that Operation Paperclip must have meant SHIELD authorized Hydra to be within their midst, just like true believers in Section 31 think a line in a charter establishing an agency (but authorizing
nothing abut the way that agency operates) must therefore legitimize that organization and everything it does.
Further, as Agents of SHIELD clarifies (though it's certainly hinted at in the Captain America film), HYDRA has basically been biding its time as a bit of a sleeper organization. Section 31 has been nothing of the kind--they've been active since the beginning.
1. We don't know how active Section 31 has been.
Christopher has made a very strong argument on this BBS that in order for an organization like that to stay secret for so long and remain unexposed, it would have had to have spent most of its history relatively inactive -- a sleeper organization, if you like.
2.
Captain America: The Winter Soldier established that Hydra was active all throughout the period between 1945 and 2012, operating from within SHIELD to arrange for political chaos, the rise of various dictators, and assassinating SHIELD agents and allies who get too close and discover their existence.
If anything, 31 is more along the lines of SHIELD itself (albeit a "dark" counterpart), before the "stepping out of the shadows" that the Agents of SHIELD pilot indicated is fairly recent.
The problem with this comparison is that SHIELD always answered to -- depending on who's writing it -- either the U.S. government or the member governments of the United Nations. There was a clear line of democratic accountability.
Section 31, by contrast, does not answer to the Federation government. It has, in fact, not only spied on the Federation President illegally ("Extreme Measures"), but has assassinated Federation Presidents it doesn't like. It answers to no one but itself, and regards itself as above the law.
That's what makes Section 31 an illegitimate fascist organization. And that's why Section 31 is to Starfleet as Hydra is to SHIELD.
And I honestly can't say I care overly much whether it's called the Terrance Resistance Forces or the Terran Rebellion. I'm happy to accept that both were legit names for the movement, though -- history is full of non-state organizations whose names changed or had multiple valid names.
