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

[Withers]

Nonetheless...the Allies would have won, regardless.

With a many more deaths thanks 100% to the actions of Section 31. Just how many more deaths depends entirely on how long the war dragged out. Even one, in my opinion,would be too many since ending the war with the death of all the founders is in no way better than the way the war actually ended.

you claimed Section 31 tried to replace Odo twice?

Starfleet tried to replace Odo twice

Does that clear that up? Your argument was that they would engineer a virus that would keep Odo from dying because "they" valued him as an ally. It wasn't clear who you were talking about so I went with evidence that neither Section 31 nor Starfleet valued Odo very much. Section 31 infected him with a pathogen. If it was non-lethal (of which there wasn't any evidence) it was dependent on him infecting the founders through a link and then never linking again. Starfleet tried to replace Odo twice, once with a Marquis traitor, so I think it's pretty clear how much they value him as an ally.

No matter which path you go with the idea that he was never supposed to die from the Changeling virus is bunk. That being the case Section 31 nearly caused the war to go on longer than it would have, negating their reason for genocide, and calling into question whether or not an organization that can make such a mistake and then just walk free should be allowed to exist in the first place.

-Withers-​

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Nonetheless...the Allies would have won, regardless.

Yeah, and Section 31 didn't have a damned thing to do with that.

 

[Pemmer Harge]

I don't think an organisation with the sort of unaccountable power Section 31 has is compatible with democracy. And as for the genocide thing, no, I'm not having that!

 

[Rush Limborg]

No matter which path you go with the idea that he was never supposed to die from the Changeling virus is bunk.

And yet...Bashir made that claim himself--and he was certainly no fan of Section 31.

That being the case Section 31 nearly caused the war to go on longer than it would have, negating their reason for genocide, and calling into question whether or not an organization that can make such a mistake and then just walk free should be allowed to exist in the first place.

Well, to be fair, had it not been for the virus, Odo would not have had the opportunity he did, to turn the F.C. against her warlike ways.

For proof of this, note the last time the two linked. Odo hardly convinced her of her error.

It was only the desperation she felt--and the simple act of compassion Odo made--which had been taught to him by the solids--that caused her to change.

He would not have been able to commit that act...had it not been for the virus.

I am curious, Withers. How do you feel the war would have ended up, had it not been for said virus?

 

[Withers]

Well, to be fair, had it not been for the virus, Odo would not have had the opportunity he did, to turn the F.C. against her warlike ways.

Odo was on Cardassia Prime, not because of her, but to help the resistance. There's no reason he couldn't have linked with her after storming the compound as he did. That it happened at the same time the fleet was approaching the planet was simply coincidental.

For proof of this, note the last time the two linked. Odo hardly convinced her of her error.

It was pretty clear from his discussion with Kira that he wasn't trying to convince her of anything. Whatever it is that happens in a link it was made clear that Odo was very much seduced by her and her ideas on the Universe not the other way around. He wasn't trying to convince her of anything. He was learning from her.

It was only the desperation she felt--and the simple act of compassion Odo made--which had been taught to him by the solids--that caused her to change.

I'll give that the virus weakened her defenses emotionally. But the invasion of the Federation Alliance was seemingly going to do that anyway. She was in a desperate situation, virus or not, and that Odo wanted to link with her had as much to do with helping her understand solids as it did with curing her. Without the virus he could still have communicated that idea in the link. At some point he figured out how to do that and that's what he did that finally convinced her to end the war. She wasn't even going to link with him if there were terms involved.

I am curious, Withers. How do you feel the war would have ended up, had it not been for said virus?

I think it would have ended exactly the way it did. I can't really think of anything that would have changed. Remove the virus and all the pieces and events that transpired still happen and the war still ends. All creating the virus did was prove to those who knew about it just how depraved certain human beings were.

-Withers-​

 

[Hartzilla2007]

I am curious, Withers. How do you feel the war would have ended up, had it not been for said virus?

Well while I'm not Withers I can tell you how it probably would have ended.

Seeing as the Federation and it's allies had managed to turn the tide with the entry of the Romulans into the war and take Chin'toka system and had stoped the Dominion's advance they probably would have eventually worn the Dominion down to the point the Cardassians would get sick of it and revolt meaning the Feds would likely still win, especially since the Breen entering the war is the only reason the Dominion was close to going back on the offensive.

 

[Sci]

I have a fundamental problem with the premise of the poll.

The poll's premise relies upon the assumption that the right of Section 31 to exist is not in question, but that the morality of its actions is in question.

I would argue that Section 31 has no right to exist. No organization that reserves to itself the right to use force in the name of national defense but is not accountable to a democratically-elected government has any right to exist, period, even if its only actual activities are five-dollar bingo night.

If we're talking about Starfleet -- that is, the legitimate military force accountable to the democratically elected government of the Federation -- then I'd vote somewhere between "Perhaps..." and "Yes, to a point."

 

[Withers]

I would argue that Section 31 has no right to exist. No organization that reserves to itself the right to use force in the name of national defense but is not accountable to a democratically-elected government has any right to exist, period, even if its only actual activities are five-dollar bingo night.

This is what I'm saying. Set aside the fact that with their power they committed genocide (if you can- which I can't) and it still wouldn't matter. The fact that they have self declared autonomy is contrary to the fundamentals of a democratic civilization. Whether what they do is right or wrong, that they exist at all is wrong, and their operatives (and more importantly perhaps- their actions) should be treated as such.

Starfleet should never have allowed itself to be put in a position where they had to abet genocide. If they wanted to prove their moral superiority and right to call themselves "evolved human beings" they would have handed the cure to the Founders on the spot (potentially ending the war even sooner.) Odo's remarks to Sisko on the matter pinpoint my feelings exactly. This served two purposes; it made me love Deep Space Nine even more for making the behavior seem realistic (that's what would happen in non-idealistic world) and it made me ashamed of that aspect of humanity that likely cannot ever be fully extinguished.

-Withers-​

 

[Rush Limborg]

Now...first off, thanks to Sci, for bringing us back to the main subject of the thread. (somewhat )

Next...to make something clear: my defense of the virus is not particularly how I feel about the act. However...this is a situation where my belief is basically along the lines of, "I may or may not disagree with the creation and use of the virus, in that situation, on a moral basis--but I am defending the possibility of its usefulness on a practical basis."

Now to business...Sci brought up another point, which I hope we can discuss further:

The lack of accountability on the part of Section 31.

This, I admit, is basically my own problem with Section 31. It is no secret that lack of accountability could, and almost always does, lead to tyranny.

There is also a question of practicallity, on the part of Section 31. As anyone who has read the novels knows, there were times when Section 31 behaved stupidly--i.e., the incident in the Kirk novel, Cloak, where Section 31 overlooked the severe risk involved in creating the Omega Molecule.

Quite frankly, a lack of limits on what one can do can, and usually does, lead to a lack of discrimination in regards to practicality.

It should therefore be no suprise that I firmly agree that there must be accountability on the part of Section 31--assuming, of course, one would allow for the existence of such an orginization, for such purposes as plausible deniability, black ops, etc.--which would create diplomatic problems if conducted by more "out-in-the-open" departments, such as Starfleet Intelligence and the Federation Security Service. (I personally would.)

Now, the central question is...what limits should be imposed? How far should such an agency be allowed to go?

 

[Withers]

Now, the central question is...what limits should be imposed?

Genocide. If that isn't off the table what's the use of imposing limits? There can't be equivocation on that one. That's a big one. And if that's alright then other things, smaller in scope of course, have to be alright too. Even if you add in the clause "under extreme conditions" or something to that effect that means there is always a way to interpret the law to fit the situation thus leaving it an option for use whenever it is considered the best (when in reality its just the easiest) solution.

I didn't disagree with 31's behavior strongly until that act. Otherwise my only objection was their lack of accountability. If we're placing limits on what they can do now (which... isn't how this started off by the way) then Genocide should be at the top of the list.

-Withers-​

 

[Rush Limborg]

But I'm saying...what rules in general should be imposed?

Just "no genocide"?

Even then, we have to define genocide. After all, Kirk hunted down the salt creature, with the express purpose of killing it--regardless of the fact that it was the last of its kind.

Was that genocide? If not, why not--and what definition of genocide would allow for this, and yet expressly forbid the virus?

 

[Withers]

Well, it has to operate within the bounds of the law. So the Federation Charter and whatever other codes of law the Federation operates under have to apply. It can't legally operate outside the law nor should it be suggested that doing so is 'alright' with anybody. Beyond that I would look to the model of Starfleet Intelligence as a guideline. Whatever operating procedures they are held to should be adapted to fit with the mandate of Section 31 which should also be clearly defined. If SFI in information gathering is Section 31 basically CTU? That kind of thing has to be charted out at the onset not after the fact.

And once you're (the Federation Council) done doing all that you put in a provision that says "No Genocide."

-Withers-​

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Now...every moral code stems from certain moral premises--premises that are meant to bring about the most good possible, by the standard of that code.

But--if that code results in the deaths of those lives a government is entrusted to protect--deaths which could have been prevented by "compromise"...should that moral code not be changed?

No. A true moral code cannot, will not, MUST not be changed. Ever. No matter what the circumstances. Because if one's principles can simply be discarded when they become inconvenient, then they never truly existed in the first place.

And yes, I believe a state can be good or evil. Its actions will determine which is which.

 

[Withers]

Even then, we have to define genocide. After all, Kirk hunted down the salt creature, with the express purpose of killing it--regardless of the fact that it was the last of its kind.

Was that genocide? If not, why not--and what definition of genocide would allow for this, and yet expressly forbid the virus?

I'm not going to bat for Kirk on those grounds either. I don't know that killing the last of a species qualifies as "genocide" but it should nonetheless be frowned upon. Kirk didn't kill them all. He just so happened to be killing the last one. Morally dubious but I'm not ready to call that genocide.

I do know that the virus was what I would classify as genocide and such behavior, for a legitimate wing of an organization that touts democratic ideals, peace and freedom while priding itself on being "explorers" intent on discovering the universe and not conquering it, would be completely unacceptable. So, to define genocide, start with what Section 31 did to the Founders and label that as the never do this rule and expand on it from there. It isn't perfect but its a place to start.

-Withers-​

 

[Rush Limborg]

Now...every moral code stems from certain moral premises--premises that are meant to bring about the most good possible, by the standard of that code.

But--if that code results in the deaths of those lives a government is entrusted to protect--deaths which could have been prevented by "compromise"...should that moral code not be changed?

No. A true moral code cannot, will not, MUST not be changed. Ever. No matter what the circumstances. Because if one's principles can simply be discarded when they become inconvenient, then they never truly existed in the first place.

And yes, I believe a state can be good or evil. Its actions will determine which is which.

What I mean, sir, is--should that moral code be considered wrong, and discarded in favor of a new one?

 

[DevilEyes]

But I'm saying...what rules in general should be imposed?

Just "no genocide"?

Even then, we have to define genocide. After all, Kirk hunted down the salt creature, with the express purpose of killing it--regardless of the fact that it was the last of its kind.

Was that genocide? If not, why not--and what definition of genocide would allow for this, and yet expressly forbid the virus?

Oh please. Not this again? I thought we all knew that genocide was - a deliberate destruction/attempt at destruction of an entire racial/ethnic/national/religious etc. group. In theory, one might be guilty of genocide even though they killed just one individual - but only if the reason they killed them was because they wanted to exterminate their ethnic etc. group. If Kirk had killed the salt creature because he thought all salt creatures should be exterminated, you might have a case. But we all know that's not what happened. He was hunting it down because it was a dangerous murderer who was killing his crew one by one. The fact it was the last of its species did not give it any special protection and right to do whatever it wanted and killed how many people it wanted, without anyone having the right to touch it.

That's like saying that, if a dangerous serial killer happened to be the last of the Mohicans, and a cop killed this serial killer while he was in the process of attacking another victim, the cop should be accused of genocide.

 

[Rush Limborg]

^I am asking for a legal definition. We cannot put into law a judgement based on intentions, per se, lest we become thought police.

 

[DevilEyes]

^I am asking for a legal definition. We cannot put into law a judgement based on intentions, per se, lest we become thought police.

Um.... yes, we can, and we do, all the time. Intent is exactly what the definition of genocide is based on (as opposed to a charge of mass murder/war crimes, which is considered a lesser crime in the international law; genocide is considered the greatest crime there is). As is the charge of murder as opposed to manslaughter, or the very existence of the crime of attempted murder.

I have never so far heard anyone accuse the police of being thought police for arresting people for trying to commit murder, rape, arson etc. There's this difference between the freedom of thought and the freedom to actually do whatever you want, no matter if it hurts others...

 

[Jerikka Dawn]

It just doesn't pan out in either direction. Section 31 didn't care about Odo and their act of genocide was, if nothing else, just as likely to prolong the war and make it bloodier as it was to end it more quickly. This unconscionable act, that could have easily cost the lives of thousands of more allied officers, can never be punished or tried in a court... because Section 31 has no masters and that is wrong.

As a point of clarification, there actually is no reason at all why Section 31 could never be tried and punished. Section 31 may answer to no one, but that doesn't mean they're not supposed to. As Federation Citizens, they are bound by the laws of the Federation and they are not above the law just because they say they are. I think it's more accurate to say that Starfleet and the Federation were unwilling to deal with the issue effectively and in many cases turned a blind eye to their activities. However, there is no reason to assume that the political situation in either Starfleet or the Federation couldn't change in such a manner that the Section 31 problem would be dealt with.

Well, to be fair, had it not been for the virus, Odo would not have had the opportunity he did, to turn the F.C. against her warlike ways.

For proof of this, note the last time the two linked. Odo hardly convinced her of her error.

It was only the desperation she felt--and the simple act of compassion Odo made--which had been taught to him by the solids--that caused her to change.

He would not have been able to commit that act...had it not been for the virus.

I'll give that the virus weakened her defenses emotionally. But the invasion of the Federation Alliance was seemingly going to do that anyway. She was in a desperate situation, virus or not, and that Odo wanted to link with her had as much to do with helping her understand solids as it did with curing her. Without the virus he could still have communicated that idea in the link. At some point he figured out how to do that and that's what he did that finally convinced her to end the war. She wasn't even going to link with him if there were terms involved.

I'm not convinced at all, nor am I really sure that anything shown on screen indicates, that Odo either turned the female changeling against her warlike ways, convinced her that the war was wrong, taught her what compassion is, or in any other way changed her opinion on solids or the war. I don't even think the cure was a major contributing factor to her surrender (though it may have helped).

The proof is in what Odo did next -- he returned to his people. The female changeling flat out told Weyoun that Odo returning to the Link was more important to her than the entire Alpha Quadrant. This is how Odo got her to surrender.

EDIT: My point here is that Odo knew this and made the bargain with her to return to the Link in exchange for her surrender -- that Odo could cure the Founders was a bonus. In my opinion, whether the Link was infected or not, Odo would still have been able to get her to surrender just by promising to return to the Link.

^I am asking for a legal definition. We cannot put into law a judgement based on intentions, per se, lest we become thought police.

Legal definitions of criminal actions must usually, and typically do, depend a great deal on intent. As stated by another poster, it is the difference between premeditated murder and manslaughter. In fact, premeditated murder is almost entirely about intent. You don't get the death penalty because your brakes failed, resulting in you rear-ending and killing a motorcyclist.

Speaking specifically on genocide, The 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines genocide as follows, and whether or not it is considered genocide hinges almost entirely on intent:

"Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." (emphasis mine)

Laws which have intent considered as a factor are not laws against "thoughts."

They're not "thought police" unless they arrest you solely for thinking about committing genocide.

 

[Rush Limborg]

^Okay. I'll give you that.

But even today, "intent" is determined by specific patterns of action.

"Murder" is distinguised from "Killing in Self-Defense" by proof that the person in question had motive to murder, and that he/she had planned to commit murder for reasons other than self defense, as per previous action.

The female changeling flat out told Weyoun that Odo returning to the Link was more important to her than the entire Alpha Quadrant. This is how Odo got her to surrender.

EDIT: My point here is that Odo knew this and made the bargain with her to return to the Link in exchange for her surrender -- that Odo could cure the Founders was a bonus. In my opinion, whether the Link was infected or not, Odo would still have been able to get her to surrender just by promising to return to the Link.

Hmm...great point.

However...this still begs the question: If Odo only needed to bargain and agree that he would return to the link in exchange for the Dominion surrendering...why didn't he do this sooner?

(I have some suspicions to the answer...but I could be wrong.)