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

[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?

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:

No. Stop the sophistry, stop the evasion, stop the condescension. Answer the question.

Who gets to decide when we throw out the rule of law?

 

[T'Girl]

Who gets to decide when we throw out the rule of law?

First, you seem to be assuming that Section 31 is a Federation government agency and not a private organization of civilians masquerading as a government organization as part of their "front." However,

With the (British) SIS, the Intelligence Services Act of 1994, allows for individual agents to carry out certain acts deemed illegal in the UK. Agents are individually granted immunity for their actions by the British government. I believe specifically through the offices of the Home Secretary, Theresa May.

The (American) CIA is under congressional oversight, however officially the CIA "engages in covert activities at the request of the President of the United States." One of the CIA's four major directorates is the National Clandestine Service, which includes the Special Activities Division which is responsible for covert operations, black operations and other "special activities."

So, providing that Section 31 is in fact a government agency, the people who would decide when and where they can step outside the law would be the Federation council and the Federation President.

I'm not suggesting that Section 31 should be allowed to be totally out of control or that the rule of law has no meaning, but if the law of the land result in the destruction of the "land," there might be the flaw is in the law.

 

[Cheapjack]

Yes, but say you had to do some drastic things, that would only show good results in the long term, shouldn't it be revealed, in the long term, to Joe Public?

Or, should it be an elite thing?

Or, should it be left until those people, who carried it out, are dead, in the long term?

Or should there be some way, at least, of admitting some of those decisions may have been wrong, but taken for the right reasons, not out of selfishness, and unavoidable?

Or, should Joe Public just be told to mind his own business?

Or will people be a lot more longsighted anyway, in the 24thC?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

So, providing that Section 31 is in fact a government agency, the people who would decide when and where they can step outside the law would be the Federation council and the Federation President.

Except it's already been established that this isn't the case. NO ONE in the Federation government - not even the President - has any control or oversight over Section 31 (and probably do not even know it exists). Remember when I mentioned that in the later days of DS9, Section 31 even had an operative inside the President's cabinet!

 

[T'Girl]

Remember when

I brought up the possibility that Section 31 is a completely private organization, if they're not under the control of the federation government then they're not a part of it.

If on the other hand they're actual under the full control of say the president's office, then the "establishing" of their not being so could be a form of subterfuge.

 

[Sector 7]

I would say, "Yes," in order to bring about the downfall of Section 31. They are thugs and terrorists hiding behind the mask of Honor and The Greater Good.

 

[scotpens]

It depends. Does Section 31 have any tall, blonde, sexy babes?

Oops. Wrong show.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

The best thing yet, is this:

Spoiler: The Good That Men Do

We know that somehow, Section 31 *was* taken down, its members exposed and tried for their crimes. The only thing we don't know is how, or exactly when (although it will happen within Jake and Nog's lifetimes). I hope we eventually do get to find out.

 

[Luther Sloan]

I would consider it if... they gave me a ton of Federation credits, a female valet, cool spy gadgets, and a nice decked out sporty looking space craft of my own.

 

[Nerys Myk]

You'd have to be suave and look good in a tuxedo.

 

[Admiral Shran]

Who gets to decide when we throw out the rule of law?

I'd say it would have to be the person who's throwing out the rule of law himself.

Imagine this....

Said spy uncovers a plot to nuke a city. The only way to prevent this from happening is by killing the terrorist who is carrying the nuke into the heart of the city. If the spy does not act immediately, millions of innocent people will die.

What should the spy do?

Should he stop and say "No, killing is wrong"? Or, should he say, "Unless I have authorization from my government, I cannot do this in good conscience"? Or, should he shoot the terrorist?

If he says "Killing is wrong," he's just condemned millions of people to death.

If he says "Without authorization, I can't do it," he's again condemned millions of people to death.

If he shoots the terrorist, he's just saved millions of people but violated the rule of law by killing someone.

I have to believe that the correct choice is to violate the rule of law in order to ensure that all those people continue to live.

Therefore, I'll vote "Yes. It would be an honor to serve."

 

[Luther Sloan]

You'd have to be suave and look good in a tuxedo.

Nerys:

I just got fitted for a tux about a month ago actually. So yeah, I would have to say yes to that one, my friend.

 

[Rush Limborg]

No. Stop the sophistry, stop the evasion, stop the condescension. Answer the question.

Who gets to decide when we throw out the rule of law?

Admiral Shran just made my point--quite nicely, I might add.

I didn't think you'd accept my answer straight out--so I resolved to give you my line of reasoning first.

Considering how you seem to despise that method, I'll simply say--again, Shran has articulated my POV quite nicely:

I'd say it would have to be the person who's throwing out the rule of law himself.

 

[Rush Limborg]

I would consider it if... they gave me a ton of Federation credits, a female valet, cool spy gadgets, and a nice decked out sporty looking space craft of my own.

Absolutely!

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

If he shoots the terrorist, he's just saved millions of people but violated the rule of law by killing someone.

I have to believe that the correct choice is to violate the rule of law in order to ensure that all those people continue to live.

Therefore, I'll vote "Yes. It would be an honor to serve."

It wouldn't be violating the rule of law. Police are allowed to shoot a dangerous criminal, fatally if necessary.

Section 31, on the other hand, does not violate the rule of law because they have to, or because they have no choice. They do it because they CAN. They do it because they WANT to. They do it because they feel ENTITLED to. That is unspeakably dangerous.

 

[Rush Limborg]

^And...what make one so sure they don't feel they have to do those things?

 

[Lowdarzz]

My in-universe answer would be no. The exploratory division is where I would want to be.

In reality I was very dissapointed when the writers of Deep Space Nine introduced Section 31. One of my favorite aspects of Star Trek in general is the genuinley optimistic views of the future the various series presented. Section 31 just felt like an attempt to lower Star Trek to a depiction of a regular doom and gloom hollywood future.

Your mileage may vary.

 

[T'Girl]

It wouldn't be violating the rule of law. Police are allowed to shoot a dangerous criminal, fatally if necessary.

Under certain circumstances even a common citizen can kill someone else and have it be completely legal, at least here in Washington State.

 

[Rush Limborg]

^And of course, "Uh, I think the police acted stupidly...."

Bloody rules of engagement.

To be frank, I think the entire reason Section 31 exists like it does is because of the Rules and Principles which tie the hands of Starfleet in general, and S.I. in particular.

 

[Kira Nerys]

Nope .