Would you join Section 31 (if you were offered a position)?

[Sci]

It would depend on the situation. If I'm an engineer in Starfleet at the time of the signing of the Treaty of Algeron and Section 31 wanted me on their team to research and develop cloaking technology, you betcha!

Even then, you've got to ask yourself:

For whom is this cloaking technology being developed?

Would the cloak you invent for them be used by the regular Federation Starfleet? If so, why didn't Starfleet Intelligence contact you, instead of Section 31?

Or would Section 31 restrict the use of cloaking technology to themselves and their agents?

Who really benefits from Section 31's work?

 

[ProtoAvatar]

S31 is not accountable to the government - it's, essentially, a criminal organization.

The end justifies the means?
S31 uses this excuse to use criminal 'means' even when they are clearly not necessary to accomplish the 'end'.
S31 gets a kick out of making its 'hard decisons'; when they wake up in the morning, S31 agents hope that today will be the day when they get to make one of their 'hard decisions'.
Proof? Each time we saw it, without exceptionn, S31 used dubious 'means'.

Finally, S31 is incompetent. All its presented plans were badly concieved, likely to fail with disatrous consequences for the federation, to be easily discovered at later dates or both.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Finally, S31 is incompetent. All its presented plans were badly concieved, likely to fail with disatrous consequences for the federation, to be easily discovered at later dates or both.

Which is why I'd be such a useful member of the Bureau.

(BTW, how do we know that they're always incompetent? They work behind the scenes all the time. For all we know, it is a very competent...we only see their few mistakes, and somehow extrapolate that that's the norm.)

 

[Sci]

Finally, S31 is incompetent. All its presented plans were badly concieved, likely to fail with disatrous consequences for the federation, to be easily discovered at later dates or both.

Which is why I'd be such a useful member of the Bureau.

(BTW, how do we know that they're always incompetent? They work behind the scenes all the time. For all we know, it is a very competent...we only see their few mistakes, and somehow extrapolate that that's the norm.)

Show me evidence they're competent, or that they've undertaken numerous successful under-the-radar missions, and I'll buy it.

Until then, that's just Section 31's spin, and is utterly unreliable.

And, again, what does "down and dirty" mean?

 

[StarryEyed]

S31 is not accountable to the government - it's, essentially, a criminal organization.

The end justifies the means?
S31 uses this excuse to use criminal 'means' even when they are clearly not necessary to accomplish the 'end'.
S31 gets a kick out of making its 'hard decisons'; when they wake up in the morning, S31 agents hope that today will be the day when they get to make one of their 'hard decisions'.
Proof? Each time we saw it, without exceptionn, S31 used dubious 'means'.

Finally, S31 is incompetent. All its presented plans were badly concieved, likely to fail with disatrous consequences for the federation, to be easily discovered at later dates or both.

Your claims are logically exclusive. Section 31 makes "hard decisions" gratuitously, even taking glee in it AND they are incompetent? Sorry, but an organization like that wouldn't last a week in the Federation - never mind 200 years.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I would never join Section 31, because there's only one way you'll ever leave Section 31, IMO--and it doesn't involve breathing...

To be fair, I don't think it's clear that you even get a choice not to join Section 31. Certainly they started handing Bashir assignments for them without ever gaining his actual consent.

Same goes for Malcolm Reed.

If I lived in the Trekverse I would probably not be well suited for Starfleet, but if I knew what I know now, I'd join up just so I could dedicate my entire career to the utter destruction of Section 31. I'd willingly RISK my career to do that.

 

[SheliakBob]

I'm afraid I kind of lean toward the notion that for the majority to live in a Utopian society, a handful have to be ready to do the ugly things necessary to keep that Utopia going.

Ironically, the cost of a Paradise is the souls of its most ardent protectors. You know. They go places, see things, and do things so you won't have to. Ugly stuff happens in the night so you can sleep peacefully in bed, under the blissful illusion that everything is all right.

I would have been totally in favor of Section 31's eradication of the Founders, and I would've supported eliminating Bashir as a traitor. The Founders were responsible for the deaths of BILLIONS and the merciless repression of a whole Quadrant. They could never be fully trusted to not revert to their traditional behavior, especially after having their darkest fears proven to them--a Solid species has the means to destroy them and was willing to use it.

Since Star Trek is a fantasy, I would like to believe that inside that reality--the noble intentions of Starfleet's best will win the day. The Founders, having been spared will reconsider and permanently change their ways. The Jem'Hadar will become farmers and enjoy competitive blood sports with the Klingons. The Borg will all be liberated from the Collective and become functioning members of a loving society, etc, etc etc.

But if I lived in that universe, I would see it through pessimistic and cynical eyes. And to those eyes, Section 31 is a necessary evil.

 

[iguana_tonante]

And, again, what does "down and dirty" mean?

I'm betting on "supine and masturbating"..

 

[Rush Limborg]

Finally, S31 is incompetent. All its presented plans were badly concieved, likely to fail with disatrous consequences for the federation, to be easily discovered at later dates or both.

Which is why I'd be such a useful member of the Bureau.

(BTW, how do we know that they're always incompetent? They work behind the scenes all the time. For all we know, it is a very competent...we only see their few mistakes, and somehow extrapolate that that's the norm.)

Show me evidence they're competent, or that they've undertaken numerous successful under-the-radar missions, and I'll buy it.

Until then, that's just Section 31's spin, and is utterly unreliable.

Tragically, that's the nature of covert ops. If you hear about it, it's a faliure by its very nature. If it's a success, you only hear about it long after the fact--if at all.

And, again, what does "down and dirty" mean?

It means, in times of war and/or extreme crisis, those in charge of security often have to bend standard principle, and do whatever is absolutely necessary for the security and liberty of a free society.

Kirk understood this, as did Picard (to a point), and Sisko, and all the rest. Sisko in particular--see "In The Pale Moonlight".

Where the line is drawn depends directly on the alternatives. Costs must be weighed and compared to gains, potential and guaranteed. But many times, unfortunately, matters of conscience can not enter the equation.

 

[Rush Limborg]

I'm afraid I kind of lean toward the notion that for the majority to live in a Utopian society, a handful have to be ready to do the ugly things necessary to keep that Utopia going.

Ironically, the cost of a Paradise is the souls of its most ardent protectors. You know. They go places, see things, and do things so you won't have to. Ugly stuff happens in the night so you can sleep peacefully in bed, under the blissful illusion that everything is all right.

I would have been totally in favor of Section 31's eradication of the Founders, and I would've supported eliminating Bashir as a traitor. The Founders were responsible for the deaths of BILLIONS and the merciless repression of a whole Quadrant. They could never be fully trusted to not revert to their traditional behavior, especially after having their darkest fears proven to them--a Solid species has the means to destroy them and was willing to use it.

Since Star Trek is a fantasy, I would like to believe that inside that reality--the noble intentions of Starfleet's best will win the day. The Founders, having been spared will reconsider and permanently change their ways. The Jem'Hadar will become farmers and enjoy competitive blood sports with the Klingons. The Borg will all be liberated from the Collective and become functioning members of a loving society, etc, etc etc.

But if I lived in that universe, I would see it through pessimistic and cynical eyes. And to those eyes, Section 31 is a necessary evil.

Hmm...this may be a great time to resurrect the Section 31 "settlement" poll/thread I made some time back....

Okay! Here it is:
http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=116627

 

[Sci]

Which is why I'd be such a useful member of the Bureau.

(BTW, how do we know that they're always incompetent? They work behind the scenes all the time. For all we know, it is a very competent...we only see their few mistakes, and somehow extrapolate that that's the norm.)

Show me evidence they're competent, or that they've undertaken numerous successful under-the-radar missions, and I'll buy it.

Until then, that's just Section 31's spin, and is utterly unreliable.

Tragically, that's the nature of covert ops. If you hear about it, it's a faliure by its very nature. If it's a success, you only hear about it long after the fact--if at all.

And, again, what does "down and dirty" mean?

It means, in times of war and/or extreme crisis, those in charge of security often have to bend standard principle, and do whatever is absolutely necessary for the security and liberty of a free society.

Kirk understood this, as did Picard (to a point), and Sisko, and all the rest. Sisko in particular--see "In The Pale Moonlight".

Where the line is drawn depends directly on the alternatives. Costs must be weighed and compared to gains, potential and guaranteed. But many times, unfortunately, matters of conscience can not enter the equation.

And who gets to make that decision?

 

[Rush Limborg]

^Who should?

 

[stj]

Short version: Hell, no!

Long version: Section 31 is not an intelligence agency, but a covert operations force. It has been asserted that criminal acts are somehow necessary but this has never been demonstrated, by anyone. Surprising as it may seem, given the proclivity of governments to ignore unwelcome intelligence, or falsify intelligence to "justify" a predetermined policy, it is not even certain that an ordinary intelligence agency is vital. It should be a truism that a democracy that doesn't answers the questions of war and peace is no democracy at all. So in addition to being unnecessary, Section 31 is antidemocratic, even in a formal sense. But all that refers to reality.

Enim Inter Arma Silent Leges certainly presents Section 31 as well nigh omnipotent. DS9 also suggests Section 31 was both successful and right in launching genocidal war against the Dominion. Also, Section 31 is constitutional (authorized by the eponymous section, after all,) sanctified by centuries and invulnerable. Most of all, the question of Section 31 is posed as a choice between pure but suicidal virtue versus survival with dirty hands. This is a loaded question. Such rhetorical deceit is helped by using bad science to puff up the imaginary threats.

War as an instrument of policy has only benefited empires. All other nations find that only wars of liberation against conquerors or civil wars against oppressors have brought long term benefits. In either case, there are no short term benefits to war worth the costs, in human life, or even money and property, unless one arbitrarily decides some lives are worth more than others. However, those few exception have and will provide quite enough horrors to satisfy the bloodthirstiest amongst us. Except, peculiarly, the usual defender of the necessity of cruelty and mercilessness resolutely rejects wars of liberation and civil wars!

 

[Sci]

^Who should?

No. You answer my question.

You give us this big, self-righteous rant about how sometimes the law should be ignored in the name of protection. You're the one saying we should sacrifice morality on the alter of national security. And since we're speaking in generalities, I'm going to assume that this applies to real life, too.

So, you need to say who gets to make that decision, and on what basis such decisions should be made.

Who gets to decide when we need to throw out the law?

Secret cabals? Rush Limbaugh? The Office of Legal Counsel? The President?

You?

Who gets to decide?

 

[ProtoAvatar]

S31 is not accountable to the government - it's, essentially, a criminal organization.

The end justifies the means?
S31 uses this excuse to use criminal 'means' even when they are clearly not necessary to accomplish the 'end'.
S31 gets a kick out of making its 'hard decisons'; when they wake up in the morning, S31 agents hope that today will be the day when they get to make one of their 'hard decisions'.
Proof? Each time we saw it, without exceptionn, S31 used dubious 'means'.

Finally, S31 is incompetent. All its presented plans were badly concieved, likely to fail with disatrous consequences for the federation, to be easily discovered at later dates or both.

Your claims are logically exclusive. Section 31 makes "hard decisions" gratuitously, even taking glee in it AND they are incompetent? Sorry, but an organization like that wouldn't last a week in the Federation - never mind 200 years.

Alas, S31's incompetence and penchant for criminal actions are canonically established. And such an organization lasted 200 years in the trekverse.

Perhaps because S31 had the good sense to NOT do much during times of peace and reared its paranoid/'the end (no matter how trivial) justifies the means (any means we feel like using)' head relatively rarely?

 

[ares93]

i would most definitely join them. but as a double agent to Starfleet. when someone doesnt have to answer to anyone its dangerous. very dangerous...

 

[Rush Limborg]

^Who should?

No. You answer my question.

You give us this big, self-righteous rant about how sometimes the law should be ignored in the name of protection. You're the one saying we should sacrifice morality on the alter of national security. And since we're speaking in generalities, I'm going to assume that this applies to real life, too.

So, you need to say who gets to make that decision, and on what basis such decisions should be made.

Who gets to decide when we need to throw out the law?

Secret cabals? Rush Limbaugh? The Office of Legal Counsel? The President?

You?

Who gets to decide?

Temper, temper, Sci....

Now...if you inform me as to who you think should, the converstion that ensues should make the answer more satisfying--for you, as well as everyone else, than if I just came out and said it right away.

But at any rate, here's a few questions to help you with this:

James T. Kirk has oftentimes violated the Prime Directive, as well as direct orders, rules of engagement, etc. He also once ordered the destruction of an inhabited planet (yes, I know he later cancelled this order, but the fact that he's ordered it is important.) Who was he accountable to, in those matters? Who made those decisions?

Benjamin Sisko also ordered the destruction of an inhabited planet, when he hunted down Eddington. Now, you can say that "Oh, he was letting his ego get the best of him, and was out for revenge"--but the crew followed his orders on this one. Bashir and Dax did not certify him unfit for duty. Who was he accountable to, in that case? Who made that decision?

Finally, Sisko later conspired to falsify evidence that the Dominion was about to attack Romulus. He lied, he cheated, he bribed men to cover the crimes of other men. He was an accessory to murder. Now, in this case, the conspiracy was authorized by his superiors--and yet, the responsibility was his, and he would take the fall. And the very fact that it was a conspiracy--a secret--means that he, and the co-conspators at Command, were not to be held accountable. Was what they were doing wrong?

 

[The Badger]

I'm afraid I kind of lean toward the notion that for the majority to live in a Utopian society, a handful have to be ready to do the ugly things necessary to keep that Utopia going.

Ironically, the cost of a Paradise is the souls of its most ardent protectors. You know. They go places, see things, and do things so you won't have to. Ugly stuff happens in the night so you can sleep peacefully in bed, under the blissful illusion that everything is all right.

Suddenly, I'm reminded of the Operative from the movie Serenity.

 

[stj]

The Operative from Serenity is supposedly driven by the Alliance's ideological desire to create a utopian society. As usual in right wing drivel, "utopia" not only conflates a better society with barely formed images of heaven, but ominously suggests that such violations of human nature demand an attack on the freedom of the spirit. The Alliance's utopian crusaders are driven by their maniacal ideology to attack peaceful, innocent, free societies, the Independents in other words. Blood is the price of victory. Somehow the Operative seems to think that, although he is an agent of the state, he bears the responsibility for the blood. Even in fictional terms, the Operative is a moronic character.

In the real world, the ideological justification for war always masks material interests. Further, the ideological justification always includes the demonization of the foe as mortal enemies of the people and their way of life. The repeated fantasy is about how "our" safety is constantly threatened by unspecified but powerful foes. Even poor, unarmed peoples far away in tiny lands somehow possess great power of subversion and sabotage, a threat all the greater for its apparent nonexistence. Common sense as well as history suggests that covert operations against such foes would start a war where one didn't exist.

This crazy "idea" appears to be partly a projection of imperialist hostility to the very existence of anyone independent of the empire. The empire has to be all powerful to be safe. Partly, these foreign enemies are stand-ins for domestic enemies. The need for a covert war against foreign enemies is obviously absurd. The need for a supposedly independent and illegal assault against domestic enemies, in a class society where only a minority have their needs met, is not. This is the same mentality that hires off-duty policement and soldiers for death squads.

 

[Rush Limborg]

^Some would call much of your post "right wing drivel" as well, stj. The fact that I agree with those parts makes that point.

Paranoia can keep you alive...but it can also backfire, and put you in greater danger than before, of you're not careful.

Cynicism towards others is an often useful tool...but if you're not careful, it can destroy you. It should be your servant, not your master.

(Hmm...I think I just had a Sun Tzu moment....)