Section 31--Let's try and settle this!

[Rush Limborg]

All right, folks. It's no secret that few things in the Star Trek Universe are more polarizing and controversial...than Section 31.

To be perfectly honest...I think the controversy stems from a far deeper issue--and I think most of you will agree. Notably:

How far should one be willing and able to go...in order to achieve a "greater good"? Is one justified in doing whatever is neccesary to save lives--even if that means sacrificing other lives, torturing, lying, or otherwise breaking the law?

Where must the line be drawn? How far is too far? In a conflict between security and principles...which should win out in the end?

This question was also brought out to full dramatic light in "In The Pale Moonlight". As Sisko delcared:

"I lied...I cheated...I bribed men to cover the crimes of other men. I am an accessory to murder. But the most damning thing of all... I think I can live with it.

"And if I had to do it all over again, I would.

"Garak was right about one thing - a guilty conscience is a small price to pay for the safety of the Alpha Quadrant. So I will learn...to live with it."

However...Section 31 takes it a step further. While at first, it seems to be doing little more than what Sisko--and while we're at it, Kirk in "The Enterprise Incident"--did...we discover that it has gone even further...in its creation of the changeling virus, which was meant to wipe out the Founders--for the purpose of striking at the heart of the Dominion.

There is, then, another issue at hand: Section 31 is accountable only to itself--and thus, it is, in theory, limitless in what it is allowed to do. Is this the absolute power that corrupts absolutely--or are the "exceptional people" Sloan asserts populate the orginization...truly willing and able to "sublimate their ambitions" to the best interests of the Federation?

Now...for the ultimate question. Is Section 31 justified in what it does--and existing at all?

I'll post a poll to this effect momentarily. By all means vote, and give your reasons--as comprehensive as possible, if you please.

I'll probably stay away from taking a side in the debate--however, I'd think you all know my stands, and I'll vote to that effect. Nonetheless, I'll be sure to ask questions of both sides--so that we all can dig as deeply as possible to the implications of this question.

Please keep this civil--no cries of "fascist", or "bleeding heart", or "chickenhawk", or anything--this should not be held as personal.

Okay--fire away!

 

[Shatinator]

This is ofcourse a timely thread, and as you have so skillfully described the factors in play here.

Ofcourse we are are talking about much more that DS9; I have always been amazed how much DS9, became a predictor of human action and reaction before these issues were clearly in the public arena.

But to the issue at hand, an organization that exceeds ones authority and to dicate the direction of a culture even if that culture should not want that change, under the justification that it is for it's own good. It may be justified, by the longeivity of that culture, however while it may increase the length of it's existance it very well could change that culture to something it should never want to become.

The Shatinator

 

[Eric Cheung]

I voted "No--not at all" per Benjamin Franklin's quote

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

That said, this is exactly why it was a welcome addition to the Star Trek universe, as an allegorical concept.

 

[Rush Limborg]

This is ofcourse a timely thread, and as you have so skillfully described the factors in play here.

Thanks.

 

[Rush Limborg]

I voted "No--not at all" per Benjamin Franklin's quote

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

(nods solemnly)..."and will lose both", as one version says.

Still, to be fair, I'm not entirely sure we've really seen an example of Section 31's infringing on the liberties of UFP citizens, per se--unless, of course, you count Bashir's experience in "Inquisition"?

 

[Cyke101]

Can I call someone a bleeding heart chicken hawk?

 

[rramarr]

This sounds like the argument the Bush administration gives to invade other countries. We say its the greater good so therefore it is. Who decided that all cultures should share the same definition of greater good or value of life? Many factors adjust the line on the scale and that scale is never weighted the same at all times.

 

[PorthosShadow]

S31 is one of things that is simply a nessessary evil. In litterature almost every utopia has a dark underbelly that keeps it going. Hell, go all the way back to Fritz Lang's "Metropolis" and you'll see what I mean. The point being there is always a price to pay for paradise.

I like the invention of S31 because it means The Federation hasn't survived for several hundred years by pure chance or luck. Someone has been keeping an eye out for them and while an organization like S31 seemingly has no one to answer to it does seem as though they good Federation citizens.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Can I call someone a bleeding heart chicken hawk?

No.

 

[Rush Limborg]

S31 is one of things that is simply a nessessary evil. In litterature almost every utopia has a dark underbelly that keeps it going. Hell, go all the way back to Fritz Lang's "Metropolis" and you'll see what I mean. The point being there is always a price to pay for paradise.

I like the invention of S31 because it means The Federation hasn't survived for several hundred years by pure chance or luck. Someone has been keeping an eye out for them and while an organization like S31 seemingly has no one to answer to it does seem as though they good Federation citizens.

So, the implication, then, is that a dark underbelly is neccesary for the Federation--and that its principles are insufficent to defend it on its own?

 

[PorthosShadow]

S31 is one of things that is simply a nessessary evil. In litterature almost every utopia has a dark underbelly that keeps it going. Hell, go all the way back to Fritz Lang's "Metropolis" and you'll see what I mean. The point being there is always a price to pay for paradise.

I like the invention of S31 because it means The Federation hasn't survived for several hundred years by pure chance or luck. Someone has been keeping an eye out for them and while an organization like S31 seemingly has no one to answer to it does seem as though they good Federation citizens.

So, the implication, then, is that a dark underbelly is neccesary for the Federation--and that its principles are insufficent to defend it on its own?

Ok, I think given how few episodes of S31 exist both in DS9 and ENT it's hard for us as the audience to judge just how much influence S31 has on The Federation. It's entirely possible they only step in when nessessary and most of the time they history take it's course.

I prefer to believe that rather than it's agent's acting as moral conscious and even it weren't true then is really that high of a price to pay for even freedome that is an illusion. Anyway, I suppose it comes down to what your willing to pay for security. That definately is not an easy question to answer and one will be debating until Deep Thought is invented

 

[Withers]

Until the development of the Changeling Virus I assumed everything that section 31 did was done by Starfleet Intelligence; I assumed that was the wing of Starfleet that dealt in covert and clandestine operations. Such organizations, for the protection of the greater good, are necessary... but they have to be accountable and operate under the same system of laws everybody else does or its just illegal and counterproductive to the very idea of civilization.

Because Section 31 doesn't answer to anybody and because they act in direct contradiction to the founding principles of the Federation I don't think it can be thought of as a warranted organization regardless of however much "good" it accomplishes. In a society where people claim to be civilized (even evolved) one would always have to ask "At what cost?"

Until they attempted genocide (an act which was wholly unnecessary) I wouldn't have found the organization to be so reprehensible. I would have thought of their actions as, perhaps morally dubious, but ultimately necessary. Even then though that they specifically said they operated outside the Federation gave me an uneasy feeling at best, perhaps, knowing worse was on the way.

This reminds me of three things; in the STU I don't see (the way it should be seen from the perspective of the Federation) as any different from the Marquis. Here is an organization whose members should be hunted down, arrested, detained, tried etc. It's far worse than the Marquis because of its self given mandate. It should be treated like the threat that it is and frankly Starfleet Intelligence should be able to handle that (or there's a wing of the Federation that needs a new Director.)

The two other things this reminds me of are real world examples and I'm against both of them; Blackwater and the Minute Men (the ones on the border- not the ones in the Revolution.)

-Withers-​

 

[Delta1]

The Changeling virus was an elegant solution to a galactic problem. The Dominion oppressed hundreds of worlds and murdered countless individuals in the Gamma Quadrant. It planned to conquer the Alpha and Beta quadrants. It casually considered the destruction of Earth, attempted to destroy Bajor, and gave the order to exterminate the population of Cardassia. The Dominion, or more precisely the Founders, threatened scores of billions of lives. How to deal with that threat?

Kill the Founders.

We consider biological weapons abhorrent because they are indiscriminate. But what if they weren't? What if you could have targeted the Fuhrerbunker, or the caves of Tora Bora, with a pathogen? Wouldn't that have been quicker--more precise--less cruel than smashing your way through the enemy's troops in a war of attrition? I think so. The collateral damage from the virus was minimal, affecting only the handful of Changelings that had been separated from the Great Link. The overwhelming majority of fatalities resided in the Great Link, the unitary governing body of the Dominion, also known as "high value targets" in the business of warfighting.

I have to give Thirty-One hearty praise for developing the strategy brought the Dominion to the negotiating table. Billions of lives could have been unnecessarily lost if not for Thirty-One's cleverness and moral courage.

 

[PorthosShadow]

The Changeling virus was an elegant solution to a galactic problem. The Dominion oppressed hundreds of worlds and murdered countless individuals in the Gamma Quadrant. It planned to conquer the Alpha and Beta quadrants. It casually considered the destruction of Earth, attempted to destroy Bajor, and gave the order to exterminate the population of Cardassia. The Dominion, or more precisely the Founders, threatened scores of billions of lives. How to deal with that threat?

Kill the Founders.

We consider biological weapons abhorrent because they are indiscriminate. But what if they weren't? What if you could have targeted the Fuhrerbunker, or the caves of Tora Bora, with a pathogen? Wouldn't that have been quicker--more precise--less cruel than smashing your way through the enemy's troops in a war of attrition? I think so. The collateral damage from the virus was minimal, affecting only the handful of Changelings that had been separated from the Great Link. The overwhelming majority of fatalities resided in the Great Link, the unitary governing body of the Dominion, also known as "high value targets" in the business of warfighting.

I have to give Thirty-One hearty praise for developing the strategy brought the Dominion to the negotiating table. Billions of lives could have been unnecessarily lost if not for Thirty-One's cleverness and moral courage.

I really kind of feel uncomfortable when even beginning to approach the idea of genocide is a good idea. However, sometimes it really is the only viable option in a round about sort of way it did work. Basically, if you have an enemy that is determined to wipe you out and will not stop no matter what then you are justified in doing what ever it takes to protect your self.

Yes, wiping out an entire species is a very sickning thought but if that species will not stop in their attacks then it has to be done. There was a BSG episode where The President of the colonies was going to use infect Cylons to spread a deadly virus that could potentially wipe out every Cylon in the universe and ensure humanities continued survial.

Adama really had a big problem with this and to be honest, I'm not sure I would have felt all that bad about. The Cylons weren't going to stop hunting down the last of mankind so if Genocide was the only answer, it was the only answer. It was the same dilema Picard faced in "I Borg" or Janeway in "Unimatrix Part II" when the Borg Queen began to wipe out every Borg vessel that might be infected. Of course Captain Insaneway tells her to stop and personally I would have said "Fine, destroy your entire fleet, not my problem"

 

[Delta1]

Genocide is almost unthinkable here on Earth, but in a galactic war, with entire worlds at stake, the calculus becomes much easier. In this case, I think the word "genocide" is a red herring.

The Changeling species is practically identical to the Founders of the Dominion. They're the executive, legislature, and military high command of the Dominion. If there were any Founders who were not hell-bent on conquering the galaxy, we didn't see them. The Founders, as a group, and AFAWK to the individual, were contributing to the Dominion war effort by the exercise of command. They were legitimate targets. The fact that Founders comprise their entire species is irrelevant. You don't grant protected status to legitimate targets because you're worried about their biological continuity.

It's not like we're talking about a culture of individuals with distinct opinions, limitless potential, and individual dignity anyway. The Link is a big puddle of goo with effectively one mind. Only their willingness to bud off temporary individuals and the absence of assimilation separates them from the Borg. As the Great Link, the Founders/Changelings were effectively an individual. A paranoid individual hell-bent on conquering the galaxy no matter how many billions it had to kill. S31 realized this while everyone else was worrying about blood tests and tula berry exports.

 

[PorthosShadow]

Genocide is almost unthinkable here on Earth, but in a galactic war, with entire worlds at stake, the calculus becomes much easier. In this case, I think the word "genocide" is a red herring.

The Changeling species is practically identical to the Founders of the Dominion. They're the executive, legislature, and military high command of the Dominion. If there were any Founders who were not hell-bent on conquering the galaxy, we didn't see them. The Founders, as a group, and AFAWK to the individual, were contributing to the Dominion war effort by the exercise of command. They were legitimate targets. The fact that Founders comprise their entire species is irrelevant. You don't grant protected status to legitimate targets because you're worried about their biological continuity.

It's not like we're talking about a culture of individuals with distinct opinions, limitless potential, and individual dignity anyway. The Link is a big puddle of goo with effectively one mind. Only their willingness to bud off temporary individuals and the absence of assimilation separates them from the Borg. As the Great Link, the Founders/Changelings were effectively an individual. A paranoid individual hell-bent on conquering the galaxy no matter how many billions it had to kill. S31 realized this while everyone else was worrying about blood tests and tula berry exports.

Thats an excellent point because even The Female shapeshifter described their race as one entitiy so technically it's not genocide, it's just the murder of a single enemy combatant. I suppose if you makes you feel better, look at it as killing one individual instead of many. Also, The Dominion started the war, not anyone else.

The Fouders were determined to impose their way of life on everyone else no matter what.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

There can be no excuse for Section 31's existence. Not at all. The Federation does not need them to protect itself. If it did, it would not deserve to exist.

The simple fact is, Section 31 can do whatever it wants. They answer TO NO ONE. Not even the President of the Federation. That alone is unthinkable. How, then, can they possibly be trusted? They say they act for the good of the Federation, but what they really mean is the good of their own SELVES. Hell, they had an operative inside Jaresh-Inyo's own cabinet! And I believe that they were also responsible for what we saw in ST VI, at least in the novels. How can you trust a group that says they protect the Federation if they conspired to assassinate the President?!?

I don't care how much of a threat the Dominion was. There were legal, orderly ways to fight against it. That's why the Federation has the Diplomatic Corps and Starfleet. You want to conduct intelligence gathering operations? Then that's why they have freaking Starfleet Intelligence! Everything that the Federation is *really* entitled to do - everything they should be allowed to do - is encompassed by those organizations. Those are the allowed ways to combat a threat. And more importantly, THEY HAVE OVERSIGHT. They must all be accountable to the Federation government at large. Section 31 has no oversight, no accountability. There's no more dangerous a threat than that.

The values and principles of the Federation - of any government, really - are absolute. They must not be violated under any circumstances. You don't answer other governments' evil with more evil; you don't fight chaos with chaos. Evil must be countered with GOOD. Chaos must be met with ORDER.

The principles of the Federation are a bedrock that cannot, that MUST not, be violated, no matter what the threat. The Federation has a responsibility not only to its own citizens, but to ALL life forms. It has an example to set. Section 31 goes against everything the Federation was founded to protect. You cannot save the state by destroying it.

Admiral Ross quoted Cicero - "in time of war, the law falls silent." This is a contradiction in terms. Even in the worst, bloodiest wars, the law is NEVER silent. The law should be absolute. It must be adhered to AT ALL TIMES.

 

[Penta]

I'm having "Ender's Game" flashbacks here.

The argument over the plan of genocide of the Founders sounds almost exactly like

Spoiler: Ender's Game spoiler

the argument over hitting the Bugger homeworld with the Little Doctor.

Let's set aside that plan, though, and consider things from a wider angle.

Is S31 a good thing?

Yes, I'm tempted to say so. Why?

Because it puts options in the toolkit of the UFP.

They aren't the most tasteful of options, but they are valid strategic options. Assassination, disappearances, thievery, surgical strikes. All of these are classic, occasionally vital tools of statecraft. None are done by any other entity that's even nominally within the UFP orbit.

More to the point, before S31, the Federation really only had two options in crisises -diplomacy or overt military action.

So you can either talk to them or use a big hammer. We saw no evidence - none - of a special operations capability that was more than ad hoc. We saw no evidence of any sort of scalpel in that toolkit, to be quite honest. Starfleet might occasionally assemble a crude facsimile of such a capability ("Chain of Command", TNG), but it seemed not to possess the capability for such options on the permanent basis needed to be truly effective.

That's not a good thing. When you play at that level, geopolitics or astropolitics, your job when you are not a policymaker is to provide the policymaker with information or options.

Starfleet did moderately well, from what we saw, at providing the policymaker with information.

It was abominable at providing the policymaker with options.

In short: If Section 31 did not exist, someone would have to invent it. The functions it conducts must be conducted, or at least must be available to be conducted, in any case.
---

To those who would reply "But the Federation is supposed to be better than that!"

Mmm. Astropolitics, geopolitics, whatever you may call it...

Is not for the squeamish. Politics at the level of states is amoral. There is neither good nor evil. There is only the national interest.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

They aren't the most tasteful of options, but they are valid strategic options. Assassination, disappearances, thievery, surgical strikes. All of these are classic, occasionally vital tools of statecraft.

Tools of terrorism, evil and oppression, maybe, but not a legitimate government.

More to the point, before S31, the Federation really only had two options in crisises -diplomacy or overt military action.

Military action is different - at least it's out in the open. You can hit the enemy if you want, as long as you follow the rules of war.

To those who would reply "But the Federation is supposed to be better than that!"

Mmm. Astropolitics, geopolitics, whatever you may call it...

Is not for the squeamish. Politics at the level of states is amoral. There is neither good nor evil. There is only the national interest.

I disagree. I believe in absolutes, in inherent good and evil. The Federation - any government, really, be it real or fictional - MUST CHOOSE. There can be no gray area. You are one or the other. Can't be both. Otherwise, the Federation is no different from the Dominion. They really are better than that.

 

[SpyOne]

I'd need to pick more than one answer here.
In fact, I'd guess Sloane of Section 31 would pick more than one, too.

For instance, I'd wager Sloane believed there were some things Section 31 should not do, or should only do in certain circumstances, so we'd agree that there are "lines", but we might disagree drastically about where those lines are.

One might believe that one must do "whatever is neccesary to save lives, and achieve a greater good", but disagree that what Section 31 has done achieved a greater good. Or perhaps just that it was necessary.
Or one might believe that the "line" marks the point at which the evil done outweighs the good, therefore making "a greater good" impossible. Does he pick #1 or #3?

I believe that what is permissible does depend a bit on what is at stake. An obvious example: that it is alright to kill in self defense or defense of others does not give one permission to kill people just because you feel like it: whether killing is permitted depends on whether lives are at stake.
I believe that some acts are probably always put of bounds, but perhaps I have simply not conceived a situation so dire as to justify them.

I saw a TV show once, which one isn't important, but a character who was a pacifist was trying to teach a character who was more prone to resort to violence. The pacifist confronted the Bad Guy, who had hurt many people, and in trying to prevent him from hurting anyone else he wound up killing the bad guy. The student said (about the killing), "I thought you said there is always another way".
The pacifist responded, with sadness, "I could not see it."
He still believed that killing was wrong. He just believed that allowing the Bad Guy to keep hurting people just because he couldn't find a way to stop him that didn't kill him was also wrong. And rather than taking comfort from the knowledge that he did what he had to do, he felt guilt at not being able to find the better way.

I read a story of some men who followed a pacifist religion. The founder of their faith had been killed, and some of the men decided that their new leader needed to be protected against the violence of outsiders. Their faith taught it was a major sin to use violence, but they felt damning themselves to hell was worth it to protect their leader. (By "protect", I mean "kill those who would kill him" in this instance.)
The leader of these men met with the leader of the faith, and the faith-leader asked the other man why he could not trust God to protect him. The other man replied, "Maybe God's way of protecting you is giving you men like me."

To a less extreme degree, the members of our nation's military give up many of their freedoms in order to protect ours. And Quakers (non-violence) joined the military in WWII because they recognized that Hitler would not respect their desire to live non-violent lives.
I guess what I am saying is that sometimes an individual must set aside his principles to do what is best for society. And sometimes someone who believes that is what they are doing has become the villain of the piece.

One last example from other fiction: On NYPD Blue, one of the other detectives asked Andy Sipowicz about how to know when to hit a suspect. When Andy explained how he'd make that judgment, the detective responded, "But you're committing a crime."
Andy replied, "Absolutely. You have to know that going in. And that, if it comes to a complaint, the Lieutenant who sent you in there is going to say that he just told you to 're-interview' him. And a jury of 12 people who'd want you to beat that guy if it spared their daughter from having to testify are going to vote to convict you." If you can't accept those consequences, you can't start down that road.
So maybe Sloane really did need to do what he did, but that doesn't protect him from the punishment for the laws he violated.