JM1776 said:
aelius said:[/i] ... in all probability ...
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.
... 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.
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.
Until you are in that situation it is hard to say what you will do.
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.
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.
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?
I believe that a civilian population that supports a guerrilla force bears at least partial responsibility 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 poisoned the Cardassian colonies.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
And no one else, besides Garak, knows anything. He will only suffer the consequences of his conscience.
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 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...
As you make clear, Romulans aren't humans, now are they?
...there is an old Romulan saying "A Romulan never forgets."
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.
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."
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."
Oh, TM1776, I really like your Star Trek:
Liberty stories
That's [J]M1776, and I'm glad you enjoy them.
Nice!
)
