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

Well, and this is where we differ. Which pretty much makes all the rest of it pointless to discuss.

I do not agree that it is the right and moral thing to do to stick by one's 'principles' and in doing so, sacrifice millions of lives, thus denying said millions the opportunity to achieve their *own* salvation.

I don't think anyone should be that arrogant, to assume that their personal principles are more important than the lives of millions.

Somebody has to do the dirty work. It is not pretty. It is not nice...but it is oftentimes necessary in order to preserve a universe where people actually HAVE THE RIGHT to follow their own moral convictions.

In the ideal environment, it would be unnecessary...but as Picard himself said, "Starfleet officers do not have the luxury of serving in an ideal environment."

 

So it's okay for Sisko to totally throw his principles to the side and bring in the Romulans as an ally, where millions of them will die...so that millions of others might have more of a chance to survive?

Sisko still has, because of his lying and immoral actions, the blood of millions on his hands-the Maquis planet he poisoned to get back at Eddington, and all the Romulans who died because he wanted them to aid the Federation and the Klingons in fighting the Dominion.

The excuse that "Well someone has to do the dirty work" was probably part of the justification for the creation of Section 31 as well.

I doubt, then and now, that the path Sisko chose to get the Romulans into the Dominion War is the only option available.

 

Hey, just wanted to throw in my 2 cents on the moral debate that seems to have sprung up over this..

ITPM stuck out to me while watching DS9 as one of the darkest and most realistic Trek episode in any series (correct me if I'm wrong) Despite what you personally may think about what Sisko did he did what he felt he had to do and it was obvious that it wasn't easy for him to do it. I think one of the major points of the series was to have flawed and real people who were forced to make the "wrong decision" to get the right result.. I mean who thoguht going into that epi. that it would end with that level of what picard would undoubtably refer to as moral corruption.

I don't know about you guys but, sometimes I like to watch nobility and principals on television but, other times I like to be suprised by a lack of them while still maintaining the charaters nobility and pricipals via remorse for the action that could not be prevented..

 

Well, the most probable outcome of NOT doing what he did in ITPM was that the Federation would lose the war and the Dominion would have control over practically all of the AQ. All of it except for Romulus.

At that point, with no other battles to fight or lines to defend, a single, massive attack on Romulus would bring them to their knees. And that would be that.

And I can assure you that probably MORE Romulans would die under that scenario, because it would be an attack on their homeworld - on unarmed civilians. It would not be a series of big space battles with only military targets at risk or anything.

But of course, in that case, you would be arguing with me about how Sisko was to blame because he was a crappy commander and did not do all that could be done to save the AQ. That he sat by, all fat and happy in his 'principles' as the entire AQ fell and became ENSLAVED to the Dominion.

I mean, how far do you want to go with this all or nothing mentality?

I mean, one fundamental human principle is that killing is wrong. So, using your logic, Sisko and the Federation should not have put up a fight at all. They should have just allowed themselves to be overrun...because it is WRONG to kill.

Or is 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' not one of your principles?

Oh....and the minute you say..."Well, yeah...but it is okay to kill in scenario X or Y, I have proven my point, by the way.

Because in the black and white world you live it, it is either right or wrong to kill. No if's, and's or but's.

Or is it only YOUR if's and's or but's that are acceptable reasons?

 

And I do not agree that one's values, principles and beliefs, those qualities that give life a great measure of its meaning, should be cast aside for convenience's or even [wrongly] perceived necessity's sake. The question at hand is not about Federation lives, ultimately, but Sisko's 'soul.'

You seem to be equating preservation of life with salvation of soul, when they are obviously two very different things.

And I don't think anyone should be so superficial as to presume that life itself is more important than the manner in which one lives it, or the beliefs that give it significance.

You keep pushing this mantra, as if repetition legitimizes it. If one does not acknowledge that the ends justify the means, your above statement is not only fallacious, but morally insidious---a tragically misguided belief that evil is good.

And as Picard also said, more tellingly and more befitting the spirit of Star Trek [italics all mine], "The first duty of a Starfleet officer is to the truth---be it scientific truth, historical truth or personal truth. It is the guiding principle on which Starfleet was founded!"

Hoist on your own Picard, it would seem.

Note that he did not say that the first duty was to the preservation of life ... because Picard understands, as clearly Sisko does not, that there are far more important things than the mere preservation of life, if indeed you believe that something lies beyond this life ... and in many cases, even if you don't.

I think we have reached the point of diminishing returns. We understand each other's positions. I'm not sure much more need be said.

 

Because the other unaligned species would just sit by and be attacked, of course. And the Federation would be totally wiped out, if Sisko hadn't lied and cheated and killed because he wanted to save the Federation using methods that they, superficially at least, condemned.

Because the Romulans would have just sat by and done absolutely nothing while the rest of the Alpha Quadrant fell , right? The Romulans would have twiddled their thumbs and played tiddlywinks the whole time. That is, assuming that the Romulans, being as politically and tactically savvy as they are, didn't just decide to fight, seeing how the Dominion treats its "allies".

Uh, no. I wouldn't, actually. Because I do believe that there are other ways of accomplishing missions than what Sisko did. Don't project onto me, please.

Um, no. What Sisko did was wrong. But the fighting the Federation had done was for survival. They didn't deceive anyone during the fighting. Sisko deceived the Romulan Empire and killed a Senator, supposedly to ensure that the Alpha Quadrant survived. Or, that's how it was justified. You're misrepresenting my position.

It would apparently not seem to be one of Sisko's fundamental principles, now would it?

What point was that? I lost it after the whole pontificating and sermonizing and lecturing you had done.

It is never okay to kill anyone, if you want to live by "Thou Shalt Not Kill". However, it can be understandable and, presumably justified as, necessary.

Honestly, I live in a somewhat grey world. But, I think Sisko in this case was fully in the wrong.

Is it okay to destroy evidence of a crime? Is it okay to cover-up what someone had done? A person who had "done the right thing" wouldn't need to do that, now would they? So, does that make his actions more justifiable, or less?

While you get on me for daring to question Sisko's actions since he obviously did the right thing considering the situation, why don't get discuss his deletion of the evidence of what he did? I mean, since his actions were in the right, why didn't he leave his log untouched?

I'd be willing to accept others, but when people begin sermonizing and bringing extreme hypotheticals into the mix...

 

But not the only outcome.

We have no idea how things would have evolved if Sisko had done the right thing, because he didn't. Simple as that. Any number of possibilities present themselves:

• The Romulans might well have come in on their own, since they're by no means stupid, and even on Romulus, two plus two equals four.
• The Federation might have cast out wider feelers and gained other allies, such as the Gorn, Tamarians, etc.
• They might have given the Founders the cure and thus ended the war---which would have been far more in the spirit of Star Trek, by the way, than what we saw.

So let's stop pushing this "there was no other way" idea, because it just ain't true. Sisko acted on his fear and despair, not because he was the only guy man enough to step up and do something.

The commandment, actually, is accurately rendered "Thou shalt not murder"---which casts your hypocrisy accusation to the four winds.

Nice try, but ... nope. It's just always, always wrong to murder ... and Sisko was a party to precisely that.

Do I believe he thought it was necessary? Absolutely. Do I thus think he's a monster? No, I don't. One can hold a mistaken belief and be completely sincere while so doing.

Do I hold that he was tragically mistaken and misguided? No question about it.

 

right or wrong it made for some great T.V.

"computer.. erase that entire log entry" -Sisko

This stands out as a great epi in my mind.. and I happen to feel that Sisko is that sort of character.. You couldn't have done this with anyone else and have it be believable.. with Sisko it worked.

 

I totally agree with everything in the above post.

 

So he wasn't even ordered to do it. He took it upon himself.

 

I always wanted some kind of followup for this episode to ITP but making me wonder about whether the romulans knew about Sisko did.

 

All decisions are based on pure speculation about what the result will be. No one knows the future, and thus when a decision is made a person is making a calculation about what they think will be the result. The dilemma is not false, the writers set up a bad situation for the main character of the story. You may not agree with the decision he made, but you can't dismiss it because the decision was based on speculation about future events.
As to sticking to ones principles. If the person fighting the war to defend me and my family places his own moral principles above the safety of the nation he is supposed to be defending, including me, my family, my friends, etc... I am going to be upset with him if I find out before I die.
The stories of the Maquis arc indicated that the colonist who remained in the DMZ were those who were supporters of the Maquis. In fact, at the beginning of For the Uniform, Sisko accuses Eddington of selling the colonists a bill of goods about how the Maquis was going to throw out the Cardassians. So I think it's reasonably safe to say that the remaining colonists were culpable.
The Federations utter betrayel of the colonists is a discussion for another thread on the supposed ethics of the Federation.
Yeah, my quote is non canon. I blame that on late night posting. However I think there is ample evidence from the 40 years of Trek to indicate the Romulans have long memories and a vengeful nature. And while it is true that Romulans are not human, it is safe to say they are at least as violent as humans. Thus the comparison of behaviour is valid for this purpose.
The difficulty in writing a story where someone finds out about the events of ItPM is the fact that there is no record to find and the only knowledge of it is in Garak and Sisko's minds. Niether of whome would be inclined to make such a record.
I also blame the TM1776 on late night posting, sorry.

 

Well, thank you for that. Evidently you attend Our Lady of the Patently Obvious.

There are reasonable speculations, though, such as "if I drop a cookie, it will hit the floor" and others, like, "I'm so perceptive, so able to perceive numerous permutations, that I know it's impossible for the Federation to win this war without me taking matters into my own hands." A slight difference in degree, I'm sure you concede.

I can dismiss it on one hand because of his pretension in assuming that he needed to exceed his authority, both literal and moral, and act unilaterally in the fashion he did.

And I can assert with some justification that the dilemma is false objectively speaking, while acknowledging that it existed subjectively in Sisko's mind, along with those who had drawn that conclusion. In addition, the options presented above both by myself and Admiral Valeris in the thread show the dilemma to be false, despite the writers' inadequate efforts to make it an either/or proposition.

So it's your position that the commission of atrocities to preserve lives, simply because they are those of your own nation, is justifiable? Rather exceedingly jingoistic, wouldn't you say?

No one's saying a man can't justly kill to defend his people ... but that's not the issue here. And if saving his own fellows means sacrificing others by tricking them into a conflict they're not prepared, for their own reasons, to enter, well ... that's simply a matter of arbitrarily choosing one blameless group over another, isn't it?

I do not agree in the least. Assuming facts not in evidence, Counselor.

We know only Sisko's slant on what the Maquis did ... and I imagine that those colonists who weren't very political (a group that might well have been a silent, huge majority, for all we know---a not unreasonable assumption, considering our general inclination to avoid trouble if possible) kept their noses to the grindstone, and hoped that they'd never have to deal with any of this unpleasantness---as opposed to the political loudmouths, whose voices were all out of proportion to their numbers.

[I assume you've noticed by now that this "they asked for it simply by being there" argument isn't going to get you anywhere. ]

Oh, and ... if not for the unlooked for, unexpected, and entirely unpredictable intervention of the Dominion, what Eddington sold the colonists would have come to pass, now wouldn't it? The Cardassians had been unable to deal with the Maquis even before the Klingon invasion. Afterward, an independent Maquis state was very nearly a reality. So let's not try to invalidate their methodology simply because events took a turn no one expected.

Agreed.

I'll grant you that the Romulans might use it as a casus belli if it served their interest ... but not out of unthinking fury at their betrayal. They're too calculating for that.

I have a number of ideas along those lines. If you're interested in hearing them, PM me.

No problem. We all figured out who you meant. :thumbsup:

I enjoy your perspective, by the way. You're well spoken.

 

That story gave me actual chills... I like to think that the Romulans would have been bittersweetly pleased to find out that they had been out-foxed in something they do so well themselves. "Stone cold Truths" is the one story in that book that stayed with me. "What if ... " Scary stuff, man.

 

That's an intriguing take---a nice out-of-the-box perspective. :thumbsup:

To what book are you referring, Who_Trek?

 

JM1776 you have a serious hard-on for the poor innocent little maquis don't you. I don't really care for Sisko's decision either but only because he made it personal. The Federation should've just left the Maquis to the wolves. Honestly they (the Maquis) were little more than a bunch of dense and cantankerous wankers whose collective ego were so high that they think they would be better off without the protection of the Federation. Thank god the Jem' Hadar finally decimated them. Good riddance for those uncompromising assholes.

 

The Dominion War book of short stories.

 

Tales of the Dominion War, edited by Keith R.A. DeCandido.

An excellent compendium of Dominion War-era stories, in my opinion.

 

^ Agreed. I've even got a signed copy myself.

 

Nice!

(And lucky! )