The lack of a follow-up to "In the Pale Moonlight"

Isn't Garak wrong? It cost Sisko a lot more than just a Senator's life and a crook's life. It cost him millions if not billions of Romulan lives too...

 

When people talk about how Sisko poisoned a Maquis planet just to get back at Eddington, I always wonder about something. If Sisko hadn't done what he did what would've happened? Would the Cardassians just sit back and do nothing while the Maquis uses biological weapons against them?

Robert

 

Hell to the no.

The Cardassians would have been screaming at the Federation for "covertly aiding the Maquis" and not stopping them, but would have been hunting down the Maquis and attacking them with a vengeance.

 

That latter statement is in all likelihood not true. At the point in time we're discussing, the Maquis had essentially free rein in the disputed territories, as the Cardassian military had been savaged by the Klingons and was in no shape or position to enact reprisals.

 

[Actually, I believe it's "For the Uniform" in which he poisons said planet; Eddington dies in "Blaze of Glory," if I'm not mistaken.]

I assure you, that's not the case. I don't in the least agree, however, that said context provides sufficient justification, when one considers the seriousness and scope of his crimes, to consider him a essentially decent person. One does not need to scrutinize the entirety of a character arc (even though I have, indeed, seen the Compleat Deep Space Nine) to formulate an evaluation of the man—based largely on his actions in extremis. A thousand good deeds do not obviate a single heinous or unjustified act ... and Sisko's under extreme pressure show not a man of fundamental integrity, but instead one who succumbs to the demands of his ego ("He's just a man! And he beat me!"), engages in actions motivated by fear and lack of vision ("I was going to bring the Romulans into the war"), indulges in situational ethics ("Something has to be done ... Do whatever it takes, Worf") and inappropriately imposes his personal values and beliefs on others who don't share them ("No, I have to let it play out." "That's your son out there!" "Don't you think I know that?")

Or it was an inconsistency at odds with the rest.

The Sisko/Jake interplay was positively saccharine compared to the more realistic portrayals in the series. I stand firmly by my belief that such was in large measure about Avery Brooks' determination to show an idealized father/son relationship for the purposes of black role-modeling ... but that’s an entirely different subject.

Kira also mentioned that the Maquis had "turned the tide"—a canonical admission that, for all your claims of "vainglory and nonsensical attacks," shows that their methodology was, in fact, accomplishing their goals.

The condemnation of a group's methods when one employs the selfsame tactic in an attempt to stop them—whether successful or not—is without question hypocritical ... and despite your comments below, hardly supports your thesis of Sisko's decency.

If you're referring to Sisko as “philosophically right,” that's a point that I do not concede, and which you have by no means proven here.

Your comparison is largely invalid.

As I recall, Kirk's actions jeopardized a soon-to-be decommissioned starship and a group of officers who volunteered to attempt a rescue of their comrade, as opposed to Sisko's, which deprived hundreds if not thousands of innocent colonists—colonists who'd done nothing to deserve their inclusion in his vendetta against Eddington—of their chosen homes.

[Another thought, for those who say, "Well, Sisko gave them fair warning and a chance to evacuate before carrying out his threat": Sisko's actions also killed any human out of communications at the time of their implementation. I certainly hope no one went camping, spelunking, or on a simple nature walk with the idea of some downtime out of contact with colony operations. In other words, for all we know, Sisko did murder a number of colonists, and we just never heard about the fallout because the Maquis aren't likely to tattle to the Federation, now are they?]

The manner of their defeat—or, if you prefer, comeuppance at Dominion hands—has nothing to do with the righteousness of their cause, which despite your attempt to cloud the issue, is not the point of dispute here.

What's the old saying? "Terrorists are what the big army calls the little army." The Maquis were by no means entirely righteous ... but the Federation's ethical, if perhaps not lawful, authority over them ended the instant that treaty took effect. It was made clear in various episodes that Cardassian brutality and injustice had motivated the Maquis rebellion—that they'd hoped to drive the former Federation settlers out of the area, thus leaving it homogeneously Cardassian. Starfleet's attempts to aid Cardassia were a matter of political expediency, and any attempt to claim moral high ground for the UFP is wrong-headed at best and disingenuous at worst.

The Maquis had their problems, and the Federation theirs. The fact that the Federation found the Maquis an inconvenience in no way robs them of the right to protect their homes.

In other words, without either the permission of his superiors or the moral justification to impose his personal brand of justice, he employed methods condemned as horrific when used by the very peoples he was attempting to thwart—quintessential hypocrisy.

And while a desire for retribution may not have been Sisko’s only goal, there’s little question from the episode’s context that it was a significant if not the primary motivator. The "you violated your uniform" speech indeed does have "extra resonance"—in that Eddington's accusation is time on target, despite the attempt to place it in a "larger context," as if that somehow validates the action.

Should we take that as a de facto concession that current and ex-military (of which I am one) and those who have served in law enforcement (I qualify on that score, too) have a better frame of reference from which to judge Sisko's actions? If so, I thank you for your endorsement.

Stooping to the level of your dishonorable foe does not win you laurels from men of honor.

The idea that a good person subject to even enormous pressure remains essentially good after succumbing—becoming a party to murder, deceit, bribery, threats and other reprehensible acts—is a specious one. When one takes into account that, in addition, the purportedly "good" man then concealed what he had done, and received no punishment other than a few minutes of self-imposed histrionics calculatedly staged by the writers to directly appeal through the fourth wall, well ... the conclusion is obvious to anyone not buying the line of literary and quasi-philosophical horseshit they’re shoveling.

In short ... the unrepentant are not "good."

Verdict rejected as lacking in substantive evidence. Sisko's actions during "In the Pale Moonlight" were those of a man who allowed fear to serve as his motivator ... arrogance that only he could see a way out of the Federation's difficulties ... and worst of all, the morally untenable idea that the ends justify the means.

And yet Garak's comments carry the day, because they are in no way false, and serve as condemnation in the larger tapestry, even while purporting to frame his and Sisko’s actions as justified in the context of perceived need.

This is why I’ve always said that “In the Pale Moonlight” was excellent drama, but terrible Star Trek.

Oh, and … ironically enough, Sisko is also shown as “increasingly cold and murderous” here, now isn’t he?

Now that point has some validity. Sisko’s demeanor wasn’t always receptive when it came to questioning his judgment.

And yet, clearly, any attempt to do so would have been morally unjustifiable. When those in authority abuse it in that fashion, it proves only that they’ve been tainted and corrupted by their actions and inactions as well, as opposed to having sufficient moral currency to “set” Jake “straight.”

That in no way changes the fact that Jake, as a journalist, is a truth seeker … and if he can expose his own cowardice for his father and the Federation to see (as he does in “Nor the Battle to the Strong”), remain on the station knowing that his speculation about being the Emissary’s son protecting him might well be wrong (“Call to Arms”), confront Weyoun about the fact that his work isn’t being forwarded to the Federation (“A Time to Stand”), and essentially tell Watters, his entire crew and his best friend that they’re collection of arrogant little snots (“Valiant”), he also possesses the strength of character to work up the courage and confront his father concerning his evil acts. As Jayson has already said, and rightly, a lack of follow-up on this point represents a golden opportunity squandered.

I agree with that, as well.

 

So, if he cared so much and was an honest and decent man, why delete the only proof of his actions? Why not take responsibility-not with himself-but with Command over his actions.

Of course the series is going to validate Sisko's awareness of the greater stakes! The Dominion is "teh enemey". The Dominion is the antithesis of what the Federation says it is. The Dominion is evil and kills lots of people. That wasn't going to change.

But Sisko's "I CAN live with it, it was the right thing to do, ends justify the means" little monologue at the end shows that he is the one who is cold, and murderous. He just lied to a potential ally, had a Senator from their government and the crew aboard that Senator's ship killed, he deliberately drew them into a war that would go on to kill millions on both sides...those wouldn't seem to be the actions of a good, honest, decent man. And, yes, I know I keep harping on this point, he deletes his entire log entry describing his actions. That alone is what gives me a negative portrayal of Sisko in this case. If his actions were right and jutified, why remove the evidence?

 

One thing nobody mentions about "For the Uniform" is the discussion between Sisko and Jadzia about Eddington's motivations. How he saw himself as the tragic hero from "A Tale of Two Cities". This led to Sisko choosing to become "the villain" of the story so Eddington would feel the need to sacrifice himself by surrendering. his was a calm and rational decision made between confrontations. He then performed massive histrionics for Eddingtons benifit (virtually all of the quotes from this episode in this thread are from Sisko's performance's for Eddington).
The Maquis who were forced to leave their colony were resettled on the empty worlds the Cardassians were forced to leave by the Maquis. This is reciprocal justice which maintains the balance of power in the DMZ.
I make no judgement as to the "right or wrong" of the situation. I actually always sympathized with the Maquis, and found the Federation's distaste for them to be extremely hypocritical. However the ep made plain that Sisko was not a raving revenge mad wacko, but merely pretending to be for Eddington's benifit. I am sure Sisko was getting much satisfaction from bringing Eddinton in, but his choice of tactics was dictated by Eddington's psychology not his own need for revenge.
Would he have gone as far as he did if he did not feel so betrayed be Eddington, maybe, maybe not.
As to deleating the evidence of his method of bringing the Romulan's into the war, that was simple common sense. Imagine, 50 years later, Sisko's personal log becomes known to the Romulans who react in an entirely predictable, and somewhat justified, fashion. Million of lives could be lost in a war that could be avoided by a simple command to the computer to deleate the log entry.
The aformentioned book "Hollow Men" handled the follow up very well and I recommend it to anyone who has enjoyed the discussion on this thread.

 

Your above points, in some small measure, explain his actions. They do not, by any means, justify them. In addition, the fact that he unleashed his anger for Eddington's benefit does not mean he wasn't experiencing that rage and frustration. He clearly was—which paradoxically goes to the accusation of "cold and calculating" previously made, assuming he harnessed it. In addition, "He's just a man ... and he beat me!" is far more telling, and also relates directly to Sisko's decisions. Dax, drawing upon 300 years of wisdom, rightly advised him to let it go; his arrogance and need to even the score with the man who'd outthought and outfought him at every turn left Sisko clearly incapable of doing so—a significant character flaw not at all legitimized by the capture of Eddington, considering the manner and consequences of it.

The "reciprocal justice" you mention neglects that any ol' planet does not a home make (unless, of course, you hold that innocent people should be forced to switch residences in the middle of the night with people they justly despise), and conveniently avoids mention of those humans that might well have died, having for some reason missed the evacuation order.

You can't have it both ways, people. Either he coolly and calculatedly deprived people of their homes, which makes him something of a callous, egocentric ass ... or he did so in a towering rage, which means his self-control is rather lacking. Both are entirely unacceptable behaviors in a Starfleet officer. He should have been court-martialed.

As to the lives saved by the deletion of this log entry ... that's pure speculation, in that nations don't declare war over matters decades or even generations old. It also tap dances around the millions of Romulan lives lost directly as a result of Sisko's decision to trick them into the war—the need to subvert their freedom of choice so as to accomplish his aims.

I've read Hollow Men. It was an enjoyable novel and competently executed, but hardly definitive, by any means. Other stories might well be told ... and with all due respect to HM's author, who knows his job, perhaps even better told.

 

So that excuses his actions then?

Not very bloody likely.

Did Kirk delete his log entry, the one where he said he hated and could never forgive the Klingons? No, even though later on he probably wished he had. Log entries are sent to Starfleet and archived, presumably in a top secret installation to be called upon again. No log entry can "just become known", really, especially depending on how it is classified. And Sisko lied to the Romulans to get them into a war, costing them many lives and much materièl, such as fleets of warbirds and Romulan military personnel. While each side suffered, Sisko essentially has the blood of millions on his hands. Deleting his log entry, knowing what it contains, is admitting that what he did was either a crime or morally reprehensible. But now there is no way to prove it, unless the station's computers keep that information on backup.

It did, but it didn't. There were lots of things that should have been gone into more, and the entire Deep Space 9-centric plot should have been dumped. Una McCormick is a great author, but Hollow Men was decidedly lacking in this case.

 

They should have done a follow-up. But it might have turned out to be a disappointment. But DS9 almost always came through.

 

Actually I didn't state whether Sisko's actions in ItPM were justified simply because I believe the case can be argued either way. Yes he violated the principles of the Federation. However the argument that he cost Romulan lives is debateable. The Dominion would have never left the Romulans alone after defeting the Feds and Klingons, and the Romulans would have never joined the Dominion and would not have been able to stand up to them on their own. Even if they were planning on joining the alliance against the Dominion later this would in all probability cost more Romulan lives than joining sooner.
Again I do not say that Sisko was right to do what he did, but it is easy to talk about sticking to your principles when your entire civilization is not facing imminent enslavement to ruthless invaders who will never allow even the semblance of freedom to return and are willing to commit mass atrocities on the very people you are sworn to protect. Until you are in that situation it is hard to say what you will do.
As for "For the Uniform", I freely admit that Sisko wanted his revenge. However, despite my overall sympathy for the Maquis, I do not feel sympathy for the Maquis colonists that were forced to relocate. They were the population that was supporting and hiding the Maquis fighters, and thus were enabling the ones who poisoned the Cardassian colonies. I believe that a civilian population that supports a guerrilla force bears at least partial responsability for their actions. This means that the Maquis colonists that were forced to relocate were merely being forced to accept the consequences for their support of the ones who poisioned the Cardassian colonies. If there were those who died because they were out of contact, that is unfortunate, but I imagine that there were Cardassians on the worlds that the Maquis poisoned with no notice whatesoever that also died.
This is all unfortunate, but their are no perfect solutions to such situations. I am a big believer in responsibility for your actions, and the Maquis colonists were simply reaping the consequences of theirs.
As for the consequences that Sisko didn't face, again it is an imperfect universe. Sisko was acting under orders, so Starfleet won't do anything. And no one else, besides Garak, knows anything. He will only suffer the consequences of his conscience.
As to the Romulans declaring war over something that happened fifty or more years ago, come on, humans have done worse for things that happened longer ago, and there is an old Romulan saying "A Romulan never forgets".
As for the secure storage facility for the log entries, read the novel Federation. In that story the super secure storage facility is broken into and Kirk's personal log entries about Zefram Chochrane are stolen, leading to bad guys kidnapping him and his wife. It's a pretty good story too. So my opinion on deleating the log entry remains "If you don't want it to ever be known, don't record it."
Oh, TM1776, I really like your Star Trek: Liberty stories

 

That's the key. "In all probability" is a de facto concession that your entire argument is based on pure speculation---what you (and he) think would have occurred, based on the false dilemma [either I act or the Federation falls] created by the writers.

There is no disputing that Sisko may well have done the smart thing. Such in no way makes it either the wise thing or the right thing ... nor does it mean he may still justly retain the label "essentially good person," the assertion of which is what sparked this entire segment of the debate, and the point to which I'm primarily speaking.

This is the traditional fallback position of pragmatists who assert that the ends justify the means, once the people trying to 'end' you get 'mean' enough ... but it does not follow logically or philosophically.

Your above statements are based on the specious idea that the man of action (in this case, Sisko) is given license to do as he thinks best even when said actions are in violation of both the established understood principles of his society and his personal morality---the "stop vandalism now, or I'll break all your windows" school of thought.

In other words, you're saying that those who flout what they themselves think is the right for expediency's sake are given a pass simply because the situation was one that tested, and shattered, their belief in adhering to it?

Um ... no.

As I have said before, it is when we most desperately wish to abandon our principles, even temporarily, that we should most fervently cling to them, else they are a mere affectation at best---an ephemeral veneer of civility.

Especially to the purported man of faith, life is not necessarily more important than the way in which you live it.

According to that train of logic, then, my following statement is also just and valid: I do not feel sympathy for the citizens of the Federation. They were the population whose lawmakers ratified the original UFP charter ... and thus were enabling Section 31, whose representatives were hiding in their midst and thus supported by them.

A little ridiculous when it's turned around, isn't it?

"Partial"? Perhaps. That said ...

... you cannot sufficiently blame those who coincidentally live in a disputed territory for the actions of self-styled and labeled freedom fighters. The idea that a non-combatant civilian populace consisting primarily of no-doubt apolitical settlers is sufficiently responsible for the acts of armed radicals in deep space and other star systems to justify the loss of their homes is so preposterous it doesn't even need to be further addressed.

Still, I'm long-winded, so ...

Those settlements existed long before the Maquis were a twinkle in anyone's eye ... and there is no doubt that numerous colonists farmed their fields, milked their cows, baked their bread and otherwise lived their lives either oblivious to the Maquis or in opposition to their actions. But when your political opppostion consists of heavily-armed former Starfleet officers and criminals who flocked to the Maquis banner because it enabled them to kill under the auspices of a supposedly righteous cause, and the government bound to protect you from para-military groups and their agendas has already abandoned you in pursuit of a shameful peace with a justly-hated enemy, well ... there's not much you can do.

It's more than "unfortunate." It's negligent homicide.

And those Cardassian deaths, if they occurred, are equally appalling and criminal ... but they're not a result of Sisko's actions, which is what we're discussing.

You mean the ones who moved into an area, established homes, were abandoned by their government for the purpose of Neville Chamberlain-style appeasement, refused to leave on principle, and happened to be living in the same place they had for decades when Sisko came along and bombed it into uninhabitability?

This simply makes Starfleet culpable as well. A government has no more right to ignore its own decrees any more than an individual purporting to serve it does.

Others have claimed "I was only following orders" as a justification for atrocities and other reprehensible behavior. Sisko, to his credit, is at least man enough to say that he did it without hiding behind Starfleet's skirts---even if he did so in private, and then cravenly erased the confession.

As I've already said, thirty seconds of histrionics does not constitute genuine suffering.

Are you saying the writers couldn't have come up with a credible scenario in which someone learns what he's done?

Doesn't really fly, does it?

As you make clear, Romulans aren't humans, now are they?

Chapter and verse, please.

I don't believe that's ever been stated anywhere in the canon, so I'm dismissing it out of hand, and justly so. Your personal take on the Romulans is not valid in this context---especially when it relies on fabricated quotes.

I could as easily reply, "A warbird surveys the land before he strikes." It's a lot cleverer ... and just as canonical---that is to say, not at all.

And if you acknowledged the Reeves-Stevens' have written a story in which a super-secure storage facility is successfully raided, I imagine someone can write a compelling piece in which Sisko's actions are revealed and it really, as he said, blows "up in my face."

That's [J]M1776, and I'm glad you enjoy them.

 

There are serious philosophical issues being addressed here and as with many Trek stories these are largely allegories, so let's find some equivalents in our own world.

With regards to the Maquis, you don't think these people should have been uprooted as what was essentially an ad hoc attempt to resolve a territorial dispute as well as bring in the Maquis leader. And yet we have seen settlers who are also non-political living in the Sinai peninsula uprooted in the cause for peace -- is this also wrong? And mind that the Sinai coastal resorts that are now Egyptian were built by the Israelis, so they weren't originally spoils of war. I'm sure there are other examples where this is the case; sometimes the greater good calls for hard decisions. Generally I think such decisions should deserve praise, for the goal of peace is well worth it despite the unfortunate effects upon some of the participants.

With regard to the second, if the secret diaries of FDR were discovered to state that US involvement in WWII was in part delayed until sufficient damage was done to Britain's economy and military to prevent it challenging US power in a post-war era, would FDR also deserve to be called cold-blooded and merciless (I already feel that's the case because of inaction in the face of evidence of Nazi atrocities against the Jews and other "undesireables", but aside from that)?

How about an example closer to home. If a parent aids a child who is a murderer evade arrest and prosecution by the authorities, does this automatically mean that person is also immoral, calculating and cold-blooded in their actions?

As a parent (and avid fan of Law and Order in its many guises where this scenario crops up frequently), I've often wondered what I would do if confronted with that. Could I make myself a party to my daughter's crime by helping her conceal it? If I lived in a death-penalty country like the States and where the quality of justice received often depends on what you can afford to pay, I don't know. I have no pat answer like "I'm a man of principal so I'd turn her in," as I have no other children and I've dedicated my life to bringing her up; her well being is why I'm able to do a job I've lost interest in.

I don't believe in absolutes like that and so I cannot fault Sisko. He's a man confronted with these issues time and time again. His flaws are what make him a compelling character and I think also an excellent Starfleet captain. Just because he's not perfect doesn't mean he shouldn't have that uniform on.

Lastly, let's not forget his torment over events in In The Pale Moonlight. He reacts violently to every new pit that Garak digs for him and in the course of events realises he shouldn't have gone down that road in the first place.

Do the ends justify the means? If the choice was between US involvement in the European war in 1942 or never, I don't think you'd find anyone on this island that would choose the latter. Likewise I don't think anyone in Starfleet would want to hear Sisko's confession; it's unpleasant, but the alternative is moreso unpleasant. Ultimately it's not worth thinking about; besides someone else made the decision for them, so let's move on...

It is ultimately just a tv show, but I do like it for raising these kinds of issues; it's why I love DS9 above the rest of the Trek shows.

And about the Jake/Benjamin dynamic. I would like to personally thank Avery Brooks for bringing that to the screen; just for having a father-son relationship which is positive (without being saccharine, I think), rather than a source for conflict which it is 99% of the time (just look back to TNG series 2 for that, or even Bashir on DS9).

 

This is where I pretty much stand. Show me a man who stands by his principles 100% of the time; who never falters; who never fails; who never questions or doubts; and who is always 100% certain, 100% of the time, what the 'moral' course of action should be, and I'll show you....erm....

...no one.

Well, except maybe Picard...which is why I can't stand him and think he is probably the worst-written captain in Trek.

The simple fact is that even a man of integrity can, and does, make mistakes. Can, and does, let emotion get the better of him on occasion. Can, and does, do the wrong thing, even with the best of intentions.

And frankly, I have no problem whatever with the way Sisko was portrayed...because simply put, he was portrayed first and foremost as HUMAN.

If, in order to be deemed a fundamentally moral man of integrity, your minimum standard is a man who sticks by his principles 100% of the time, never lets his feelings get the better of him, and never makes mistakes, then you are pretty much in a situation where you must confine yourself to Jesus.

And last I checked, Jesus wasn't a Star Fleet officer.

 

^ Yeah, that's why I never really cared much for Picard. He's just too perfect (and boring).

 

And I think that in recent years in particular, TNG hasn't aged well as a result. With shows like BSG out there, whose heroes have even MORE flaws (I mean, they don't COME any more flawed than Saul Tigh, and he ended up the hero of the Resistance on New Caprica), even Sisko looks squeaky clean by comparison these days!

For me, the definition of a hero is NOT someone who remains aloof and 'above it all', while maintaining their 'principles' in the easy and pure universe they have constructed for themselves. A hero to me, is someone who is willing to roll up their sleeves and do what needs to be done - even at the cost of their own self-respect, in order to archive the greater good.

The events of ITPM do not reveal Sisko to be a man of ivory-tower idealism who is unwilling to sacrifice himself (or his self-respect) for others...nor, on the other hand, do they reveal him to be a man without conscience.

Instead, they reveal him to be the sort of man who by all means HAS principles...but is unwilling to stand by, solidly on his 'principles' as the entire Alpha Quadrant falls to the Dominion.

Because he knows that 'principles' don't amount to a hill of beans without the freedom to practice them.

This, in fact, is the very definition of a moral war.

I mean, under normal circumstances, is it okay to kill another human being? Of course not! So how could a war possibly EVER be deemed moral?

Answer: When it is absolutely necessary (and I DO mean ABSOLUTELY necessary - not 'expedient' or 'kinda' necessary) in order to preserve the freedom that ALLOWS us to continue practicing that moral value...or indeed, ANY of our moral values.

And so...what Garak said is really true - one of the prices of freedom - including the freedom for millions of people to continue practicing their 'principles' - was 'the self-respect of one Star Fleet officer'.

Sacrifice, in desperate situations such as these, does not always mean giving one's life. Sometimes it means giving one's SOUL.

And this, IMO, is what ITPM was all about.

 

^ Wow, I couldn't have said it better myself.

 

For a number of reasons, that is correct.

Were they uprooted in the middle of the night, with no recourse, no time to prepare, no reasonable recompense, as were the Demilitarized Zone colonists? I daresay you're capable of answering this question for yourself, then.

Am I now to address the question concerning the inherent injustice of Britain's original grant of Palestine to the Jews---a state that they could not themselves bring into being, one that was bound to cause unending bitterness and strife? I think you're straying a little too far afield here in an attempt to buttress an untenable position.

Which, of course, assumes that the individuals making said choices have the legal and moral right to decide for others what the greater good is, simply because they possess the force to enact those decisions. One man decided for hundreds if not thousands, in the face of his own crew's absolute dismay---men and women also indoctrinated into the Starfleet weltanschaang. [Even Kira, the quintessential pragmatist, thought he'd gone off the deep end.] That in itself is sufficient and canonical condemnation of the action.

When "peace" must me achieved at the point of a gun, by means of depriving the innocent of that for which they have worked, it is a dishonorable peace, and one that is not worth the uncomfortable silence it engenders. What happens when the next generation of disenfranchised decide that they have the right to take up arms as result of their loss?

I'm curious: If the sacrifice of Czechoslovakia had actually achieved peace, would it have been worth it? [Note that if you can posit speculative scenarios, as you do below, so can I.]

If, indeed, that were the case, I'd unquestionably condemn Roosevelt for his inaction. I'd always assumed, ironically enough, that such is precisely what the Romulans were doing. That in no way, however, justifies tricking them into the war. They have the fundamental right to make an informed decision ... or is it your position that neutrality is only to be respected when it is convenient for the side whose cause you espouse? The subversion of free will and freedom of choice is, even in such cases, reprehensible.

Having performed a single immoral act does not in any sense mean one is wholly given over to evil, but it does erode your stance on the moral high ground, certainly. Shielding even your own child, if they are indeed a murderer (and the circumstances are not such that they greatly ameliorate his or her guilt) from the authorities is unquestionably wrong, in that your inherent sympathies and emotionalism have overturned the rule of law. That's why we have courts; they allow for objectivity. A parent cannot be so when dealing with their children.

Condemning someone for their actions is not the equivalent of holding yourself up as one who would, if put to the same test, unquestionably pass it. This specious idea that someone's misdeeds should be chalked up to some "people are people" standard of permissive behavior doesn't fly. It doesn't even get off the ground.

Well, having brought your daughter up, and presumably having instilled her with your values, as any parent customarily does, would you not be in some measure responsible for her crime, in that your grounding in right and wrong did not have sufficient hold over her to prevent to prevent the commission of murder---assuming, again, that it was indeed murder, and not some extraordinary set of circumstances that ended with someone dead at your daughter's hands?

I do believe in absolutes, and find the relativism which allows for atrocities and injustices in the name of the greater good abhorrent and disgraceful. I have never said that Sisko was an uninteresting character, nor do I believe it. But I stand unhesitatingly by my assertions---assertions for which I have provided substantive evidence---that various of his behaviors prevent him from claiming the title "essentially good and decent person," in that when put to the test and in extremis, he often fails spectacularly.

And yet is completely unrepentant in that he says he would do exactly the same thing again, which means he has learned nothing from his experiences except to assert the necessity of his abominable acts even while he laments them with a few minutes wailing, weeping and gnashing his teeth [reference intended]---unadulterated hypocrisy at its most naked and obvious.

I wasn't aware that the United States had been tricked into the war. As I recall, it was a military assault by a hostile power and the subsequent German declaration of war on the U.S. that drew it into the conflict. She moved forward with the pertinent facts in place; the Romulans did not.

Or, as Odo might reply, "A tidy little arrangement, wouldn't you say?"

Actually, one of the pertinent plot loci in my proposed fanfic, "Moonlight Sonata," is precisely the point you make (and on which we're agreed): No one would (or does) want to hear it. That serves as the main source of conflict in the story.

I enjoy DS9 as well. I wouldn't post here if I didn't.

Your opinion is noted, and respectfully rejected for the reasons I've raised above. While I enjoyed the Jake/Benjamin relationship, it might have been better still, if only Brooks could have accepted something less than a mostly idealized interaction.

 

There's a difference between someone who occasionally falters, and someone who does so in such a fashion as to undermine all for which he's supposedly fighting.

There's a difference between not knowing the proper road to take (which is understandable), and simply lacking the faith to do so.

Well, there you go. And I hold that he's the best-written---at least when not pontificating about the evolved sensibility of humanity, which I think we all find incredibly irritating.

Agreed on all points.

And I do, because he crossed the line with eyes wide open too many times, knowing he was wrong, and falling into the insipid "I'll sacrifice my own soul doing the wrong thing" mentality that Bashir condemned in Sloan whilst Sisko was doing the same things ... and, in many ways, on an even greater scale.

Why this attempt to make it an all or nothing proposition? I've never said "Sisko is an irredeemable monster, and should have ended up with the Pah Wraiths alongside Dukat." I just don't hold that he's "fundamentally decent." I'd say, instead, that a struggle is going on inside him, and that the jury is still out.

And that's, if not "fundamentally decent," quintessentially human.

And last I checked, ideals weren't solely for the classroom or the philosophy text. Either you try to uphold them---not necessarily succeed, granted, but at the very least try---most times, or you pretty much admit that they're for show. Once people start saying "this is no time for ideals" they've opened a can of worms that will eventually become wyrms.

And people wonder why I weep for the future.

And a hero to me is one who's willing to go the distance, to sacrifice him or herself, if necessary ... but to know not only that there are things he cannot do, but that he should not do. One soul is worth an infinite number of bodies, after all.

No ... but they do reveal a man motivated by his fear and arrogance ... one willing to ignore the better angels of his nature in order to do what his limited vision and lack of faith tells him is the right thing.

Which, again, means that his principles, that which he knows to be right, do not stand a substantive test. Instead, he compromises, he connives, he conceals the truth ... and all because he decides there's no other way out. That is in its way unutterable arrogance.

Freedom of the body and that of the soul are two different things. Equating them, or setting the former over that of the latter, is one of Sisko's mistakes.

Not by any means. [See below.]

There's a difference between killing and murder ... between a just war and an unjust one ... but that's an entirely different discussion.

And who among us is to decide when it is "absolutely necessary"? I'm sure the Maquis believed their attacks on Cardassians were "absolutely necesssary." One of the reasons certain morality must necessarily be absolute is that it avoids situations where one must do the wrong thing in order to do the right thing.

To put it succinctly: Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.

One, by the way, can practice moral values in complete and utter physical servitude, by simply refusing to perform immoral acts (and that's not to say I'd prefer servitude to freedom; no one in their right mind would---though some in their right soul might, I suppose). Liberty is a privilege all sentient beings should possess, ideally. To achieve it by depriving others of their liberties---their freedom to make an informed choice, for example ... or even, in some cases, to exist---is to utterly miss the point of possessing freedom, and make yourself in some ways unworthy of it ... to imprison your soul at the cost of keeping your body free.

Actually, that would be everyone in Sisko's chain of command, as well.

Much of what Garak said is true ... especially the part about Sisko's seeking out Garak to do such things as Sisko could and would not do---letting loose a demon, as it were, and then caging him again once his task was complete. As to the collateral damage? Well, a damned shame, that---pun intended.

And it really is just "practicing your principles" if every time they're put to a serious test, you set them aside. One lives one's principles, or they're so much pious bullshit---as they often are with Sisko.

And no one who believes in a Power greater than our own, that believes there are more important things than one's life, that knows human intelligence and wisdom pale before that which renders our common sense and expedient actions so much dross, believes that even a quadrillion lives are worth a single soul.

I agree totally ... and that's why it in my opinion taught the wrong lesson.

Sisko sold his soul to save the Alpha Quadrant, and while some hold that heroic, others see it very, very differently.

 

Could we talk about the DMZ colonists? Ihave always considered the CARDASSIAN war asa "forgotten war" fought a long way from anywhere. Adirty series of skirmishes andsneak attacks fought by small squadronsof veterans on both sides.Without a tacit agreement between Central Command and Starfleet to limit escalation (replacements not reinforcements). Then, betrayal -a callous treaty signed far from the frontlines.So, why did so many veterans quit for the colonies?? Did they see themselves as the colonists only true defenders or was revenge a motive?