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

[stj]

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.

Scenarios like this are more fantastic than warp drive.
Science and technology have discovered and done the most amazing things that seemed to be impossible, that there is a smidgen of doubt about lots and lots of scifi improbabilities. That's all a willing suspension of disbelief needs.

But crap like the scenario above? Experience tells us this is empty rhetoric, fantastic hyperbole meant to rig discussion by posing a false either/or.

Humbug.

 

[Admiral Shran]

^ Okay then, imagine this, IMO far more likely, scenario....

Someone is going to violently murder three innocent people in a home-invasion robbery. You find out about this just before it's going to happen. The only way to prevent it is to kill the criminal. What should you do?

1.) Call the police and let them handle it?
2.) Say "I cannot kill in good conscience"?
3.) Kill the criminal to prevent the suffering and deaths of innocents?

If you call the police, then you've obeyed the rule of law. However, they won't even arrive until after the killing is done, so you've just condemed your innocent neighbors to death.

If you say you cannot in good conscience kill, you've once again obeyed the rule of law and satisfied your own conscience. However, once again, you've condemned the innocent to die through your inaction.

If you kill the criminal, you've saved lives, IMO a noble deed, yet violated the rule of law in order to do so.

There are more important things in life than the rule of law. Section 31 is willing to do the dirty things that need to be done in order to protect those things.

Now, does 31 go to far? Absolutely! Genocide isn't the answer! That's why I think as Rush Limborg does - I'd join in order to serve and also be a voice of reason within the ranks.

 

[stj]

How could you possibly know they were going to kill three people? How could you possibly know you would succeed in killing them, instead of vice versa?

As to the option of killing, why just killing? Presumably you have a gun. Fire a shot to warn the neighbors. It is very unlikely these people would care to attack a wary victim when there is a friend threatening their rear. If they should, killing a perpetrator threatening lethal violence during the commission of a crime is moral, and legal, too. It isn't what's being advocated by these elaborate scenarios. Those are intended to justify preemptive or even preventive violence.
That's why they have these absurd either kill or some one gets killed punchlines. It's a way of asking a loaded question.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Someone is going to violently murder three innocent people in a home-invasion robbery. You find out about this just before it's going to happen. The only way to prevent it is to kill the criminal.

Which is a non-starter, really. Why not warn the people living in that home? Tell them to get out before the robber gets there? If you see him pull up to the house, then just create a diversion - yell, scream, turn on loud music, etc. ( I mean, you're just going on the robber's word he's going to do this, right? That's rather shaky, logically speaking.) Or you could just shoot the robber in the leg or something.

In any case, there's a difference. If a police officer, for example, sees a crime being committed and (in the course of attempting arrest) kills the person doing it, then that is allowed. As I said, cops are permitted the use of lethal force. Private citizens are allowed to use lethal force in self defense, as well.

But the difference between this, and a vigilante organization that can affect governmental policy on a grand scale but which is accountable to no one, and thus can do whatever it wants, is unimaginably vast.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Admiral Shran

As the previous posters already demonstrated, situations like the one you described have insignificant chances of happening in reality - despite what 24 would have one beleive.
Even hypothetically, you couldn't come up with a realistic scenario - despite your best effort. This should tell you a lot.

In no realistic (as in, that can actually happen) scenario will S31's or some other vigilante's criminal actions be justified or necessary.

 

[Pemmer Harge]

Hell no, they're a menace to freedom. And of course they were involved in the assassination of Gorkon.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Admiral Shran

As the previous posters already demonstrated, situations like the one you described have insignificant chances of happening in reality - despite what 24 would have one beleive.

Oh, no? How many lives would have been saved at Columbine had at least one of the "good" students (heck, the teachers) been armed--and had taken out those murderers before more lives were lost?

Or take the city of Philadelphia. It has one of the strictest "gun control" laws in the country. And yet...gun crime is rampant--and the citizens cannot stop the criminals because of the rule of law--a law which seemingly only applies to the good guys.

Diddos for Chicago. The only ones following the gun laws there are the good guys. And of course, that leaves a lot less deterrent for gun crime.


You see...you can throw around the "The 24 Ticking-Time-Bomb Scenario Has No Basis In Fact" all you like...but it is that statement which has no basis in fact, your constant repetition of this assertion notwithstanding.

Even hypothetically, you couldn't come up with a realistic scenario - despite your best effort. This should tell you a lot.

In no realistic (as in, that can actually happen) scenario will S31's or some other vigilante's criminal actions be justified or necessary.

You amaze me, sir. Situations do ideed happen in which Rules and Principles get people killed--and to suggest otherwise is to blank-out reality whenever it suits you.

And you would say that it is I and Shran who are being unrealistic?

 

[Rush Limborg]

Someone is going to violently murder three innocent people in a home-invasion robbery. You find out about this just before it's going to happen. The only way to prevent it is to kill the criminal.

Which is a non-starter, really. Why not warn the people living in that home? Tell them to get out before the robber gets there? If you see him pull up to the house, then just create a diversion - yell, scream, turn on loud music, etc.

Because...you've only heard of it as it is about to happen?

( I mean, you're just going on the robber's word he's going to do this, right? That's rather shaky, logically speaking.)

And if he carries through on his threat--it was your responsibility, for assuming he's bluffing. Better safe than sorry, as they say.

Or you could just shoot the robber in the leg or something.

Which proves Shran's point.

In any case, there's a difference. If a police officer, for example, sees a crime being committed and (in the course of attempting arrest) kills the person doing it, then that is allowed. As I said, cops are permitted the use of lethal force. Private citizens are allowed to use lethal force in self defense, as well.

Tragically, even that right is being forced into limitations....

But the difference between this, and a vigilante organization that can affect governmental policy on a grand scale but which is accountable to no one, and thus can do whatever it wants, is unimaginably vast.

Accountability, and lack therof, is a different subject. On that note, I agree that accountability is necessary, to avoind corruption.

But accountability to whom? That is the question.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Rush Limborg

You actually think S31 acts in self-defense - like one would have acted at Columbine, etc?
Rush Limborg, you DO need to watch DS9 again.
There is a LONG way between S31's methods and self-defense.

S31 would KILL OR TORTURE all students about whom there is even a rumor of instability - that, in order to prevent a shooting.
Would kill or torture everyone who has a criminal record in Philadelphia or Chicago - in order to prevent future crimes.

And S31's criminal actions would be completely ineffectual in achieving its stated objectives.
A mild comparison would be the communist which hunt in the 1950s in SUA.

And "The 24 Ticking-Time-Bomb Scenario Has No Basis In Fact".
I'm more likely to win the lottery a hundred times over than some self named vigilante is to stop a terrorist attack with torture and the like - contrary to what you see on 24.


PS - I live in Europe, where it is quite difficult to obtain a gun; and you can't take one easily from a neighboring state, either.
Result - the number of crimes commited by such guns is very low, Rush Limborg. Far lower than in America.
You talked about Columbine. If it was difficult to obtain a gun, the students who shot wouldn't have had guns - they were no Hannibal Lectors, just disturbed individuals. Philadelphia, etc - if you let everyone have a gun, the number of crimes commited with guns will double overnight.

 

[Rush Limborg]

And yet:

1. You refer to having to kill a robber in self defence as a 24 scenario. I was referring to that in kind.

2. To say torture does not work--over and over--without explaining why--and then to suggest that it is I and Shran who are being irrational--is, to be frank, hypocrisy.

3. Philadelphia--and, coincidently, Chicago--have very strict gun control laws. (Note the recent Supreme Court ruling--concerning a Chicago gun control law....) The fact that the gun crime rates in those cities are so high...speaks volumes about our point--that many times, rather that deter the bad guys, the rules just tie the hands of the good guys.

See...criminals don't care about rules. All they care about is getting what they want done, done. If there's a will, there's a way. See: Philadelphia...and Chicago.

Q: So...why is there less gun crime in Europe?

A: Because there are less people in Europe.


(BTW...little known fact: McCarthy's "Which Hunt" did, in fact, take down more than a few Communists. Only in the later days of his campaign did he start to go too far....)

(And about your claim that 31 would KILL OR TORTURE everyone at Columbine, or Philadelphia...?

Yeah...who's creating an unrealistic situation, again?)

 

[Sci]

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.

I'm sorry, but that's a really lame moral dilemma. It's a long-established principle within the rule of law that it is perfectly legal to kill someone when acting in self-defense or to prevent the imminent murder of another person, and obviously killing a guy who's about to detonate a nuke is simply another form of self-defense and defense of others.

In other words -- that doesn't violate the rule of law at all.

ETA:

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.

Which is another way of saying that the rule of law doesn't apply at all. Another way of saying that you get to be above the law (as, after all, the fundamental scenario of this thread is the individual poster joining Section 31). Another way of saying that we just have to trust an unaccountable set of people not to become war criminals.

No offense, Rush, but if you -- or anyone else -- joins an unaccountable cabal and claims the right to decide when to throw out the rule of law at whim, I don't trust you not to abuse that power, nor anyone else not to abuse that power.

And if I'm a Federation Prosecutor? I'd bring you in and throw the book at you, along with all your comrades.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Rush Limborg

In self-defense you kill a person who threatens your life or the life of another human being. And it's justified/legal.

You are most definitely not referring to that. You are referring to torturing and killing someone who has a small chance of knowing about someone who will kill a person. This is NOT justified; is is gratuitous.

As I said:
"The 24 Ticking-Time-Bomb Scenario Has No Basis In Fact".
I'm more likely to win the lottery a hundred times over than some self named vigilante is to stop a terrorist attack with torture and the like - contrary to what you see on 24.



About torture:
Why am I claiming that torture doesn not work? Because it never worked, never does!
In the middle ages, torture was abandoned for this very simple reason - some persons began to tell everything their torturers wanted to hear (not the truth, but what they were asked to say) and some other told nothing until the end. No one spoke the truth under torture.
Rush Limborg, provide an unambiguous example where your beloved torture actually works.


Aboout Europe:
"Because there are less people in Europe."
Really?
Rush Limborg, there are 300 million+ people in USA and 800 million+ people in Europe.

Despite that, the number of crimes commited with fire arms is far lower in Europe.
Why? Because you can obtain a gun much easier in USA, in many states, and then travel with it.
You want to reduce the number of crimes commited with fire arms in USA? Make it very hard to obtain guns all over USA and you'll achieve this result.

 

[Sci]

^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.

Oh, yes, those awful rule of engagement. How dare they put them in place to ensure that agents of the state does not abuse their authority and do stupid, illegal things like arrest a man for being rude to a police officer who is trespassing in his own home!

Also, Rush, Admiral Shran? Your scenarios aren't the least bit akin to Section 31's issues. You wanna know why? Because in all of those cases, after the spy kills the terrorist or after the citizen kills the home intruder, the person who kills those criminals then becomes accountable to the civil authority for his/her actions. This means that, in addition to the fact that it's not illegal or a violation of the rule of law to kill in self-defense or the defense of others, it is also not a violation of the rule of law because the law afterwards gets to decide what happens to the person who killed those criminals.

Remember, the rule of law is not just about the idea of there being rules. The phrase "rule of law," in its most basic sense, refers to the idea that the law applies equally, to all people. A good way to contrast it is the phrase, "The rule of law, not the rule of men." In other words, it is the law that is supreme, not political leaders.

Are there sometimes bad laws? Of course. That's when those laws should be changed, not the entire rule of law thrown out.

And there is no circumstance under which a secret conspiracy that does whatever it wants, whenever it wants, to whomever it wants, and is unaccountable to the voters or to the civil authority, can in any way respect the rule of law. Even if all that conspiracy does is get together and play Bingo every Friday night. The very fact that Section 31 sets itself above the government makes it a danger to liberal democracy.

Give me Starfleet Intelligence over Section 31 any day of the week.

 

[stj]

If guns were the key to self defense, particularly to save a life, and self defense prevents crime or puts the criminals in jail, then the US would have the lowest crime rates, particularly homicides, in the world, since it has one of the most widely armed populations in the world. Except it doesn't. Everyone who argues self defense justification for gun rights is lying, either on their own hook or by mindlessly repeating their master's voice.

There are by the way places and times where even more guns are or were available than the US. Places like Somalia and Lebanon and Bosnia and Kosovo and Liberia. Note how possession of weapons kept the peace in those places!

As to the supposed failure of gun control laws in individual cities, the US is in a peculiar position. Since our lives are dominated by interstate commerce, including commerce in guns, national legislation on interstate commerce must address such issues if there is to be effective democratic control. For historical reasons, the interstate commerce clause in the US constitution is overly narrowly interpreted, on false (ideologically motivated) grounds. Cities and states cannot effectively legistlate national issues.

The large majority of judges in this country are conservatives, which is to say, brain dead ideologues. Do not expect improvement in the judicial system. This will prevent improvement via legislation. As near as I can make out, an uncomfortably large number of gun owners seem to want automatic weapons for the race war/revolution when the city scum come overflowing out into God's country.

Torture fails as an interrogation tool. The only way it works at all is as routine policy, where testimony extracted by torture can be independently compared. What torture really excels at is terrorizing a population, including sowing a demoralizing fear of betrayal by prisoners lost to the torturers.

Anyone who wants to argue the ticking time bomb question need only give one example. The ticking time bomb is just as mythical a beast as the locked room mystery, and has roughly the same ancestry: A fevered imagination writing melodrama.

 

[Rush Limborg]

^stj, the reason for high gun crime is not because guns are on the market. Even if there were no guns, there would be many other, illegal, methods of gaining--and buiding--weapons. Note: in STV:TFF, St. John Talbot remarks about the Nimbus colony, "We forbade them weapons--they simply began to fashion their own."

Gun control does not work--because the only people who'll follow it are those who'd not engage in gun crime in the first place. Criminals will manage to get guns on the black market.

Now, by its very nature, a terrorist attack is a "ticking time bomb scenario"--because by its very nature, if there is an attack being planned, there is a limited amount of time to stop it! Rather, what is truly "mythical" is the assumtion that somehow, our intelligence forces have all the time in the world to stop the attack.

ProtoAvatar, an "unambiguous example" would be the LA Library incident. The waterboarding of KSM led to information that stopped that attack from happening.

And are you absolutely certain that those who lied under torture, knew the truth in the first place? Logically, the ability to lie requiers imagination, and creativity. Under the stress and pain of torture, do these faculties increase or decrease?

Of course, waterboarding is far different than what most would call "torture". The effect is more psycological, not physical. Thus, the stress on the mind is more pronounced.


Now, last but not least...Sci, in answer to your assertion: does the decision to violate the law (as Shran and I said, should be the person's decision) make one above the law?

As Jack Bauer himself said, "No, sir. I am more than willing to be judged by the people you claim to represent. I will let them decide what price I should pay.

"But please do not sit there with that smug look on your face and expect me to regret the decisions that I have made.

"Because, sir, the truth is...I don't."


So, then, the decision is to be made by the one in the field. After action--after the state in question is safe--the "vigilante" can, and should, be debriefed and judged by their superiors, and the people they have protected if possible, and it will be decided then if he'd gone too far, or not.

Case in point: James T. Kirk.

 

[Sci]

Gun control does not work

It would probably be more accurate to say that gun control works in some cultures and not in others. I doubt it would work in American culture, but it seems to work well in, for instance, Japanese or European cultures.

Of course, waterboarding is far different than what most would call "torture". The effect is more psycological, not physical.

Bullshit. Waterboarding is both very dangerous, and has been classified as an act of torture for centuries. The Spanish Inquisition did it. Hell, the United States prosecuted Japanese leaders for it as a war crime.

Now, last but not least...Sci, in answer to your assertion: does the decision to violate the law (as Shran and I said, should be the person's decision) make one above the law?

According to Section 31, it should. That's the difference between James T. Kirk and Luther Sloan -- Kirk answered for his choices. Sloan did not, and Section 31 does not.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Gun control does not work

It would probably be more accurate to say that gun control works in some cultures and not in others. I doubt it would work in American culture, but it seems to work well in, for instance, Japanese or European cultures.

I would suspect that that would be due to differences in policies against crime. The US has been quite "understanding" of criminals' plight for some time--Rodney King, OJ Simpson, etc. Also, with our having an Innocent Until Proven Guilty policy, and England in particular having a Guilty Until Proven Innocent policy...I could see your point, in that case.

Of course, waterboarding is far different than what most would call "torture". The effect is more psycological, not physical.

Bullshit. Waterboarding is both very dangerous, and has been classified as an act of torture for centuries. The Spanish Inquisition did it. Hell, the United States prosecuted Japanese leaders for it as a war crime.

Which is why our interrogators had made it a point to limit the sessions to 30 seconds apiece--and to have a doctor ready.

Also, as I have pointed out before, with the LA Library incident and all, it would seem to be a lot more effective than most forms of torture.

Now, last but not least...Sci, in answer to your assertion: does the decision to violate the law (as Shran and I said, should be the person's decision) make one above the law?

According to Section 31, it should. That's the difference between James T. Kirk and Luther Sloan -- Kirk answered for his choices. Sloan did not, and Section 31 does not.

Perhaps. And this is where we may agree. There should indeed be some sort of accountability, for the purposes I'd stated in my last post. Nonetheless, there should also be plausable deniabilty, such as what has been stated in Mission: Impossible: "As always, if any of your team is caught or killed, Starfleet Intelligence will disavow any knowledge of your actions."


On that note...I really think we should consider the possiblilty that 31 is not as autonomous as they let on. It could well be that that is all a front, so that SI--and the government--will disavow any knowledge of their actions.

 

[Sci]

Gun control does not work

It would probably be more accurate to say that gun control works in some cultures and not in others. I doubt it would work in American culture, but it seems to work well in, for instance, Japanese or European cultures.

I would suspect that that would be due to differences in policies against crime. The US has been quite "understanding" of criminals' plight for some time--Rodney King, OJ Simpson, etc.

Which is absolute bullshit, as the United States imprisons a larger percentage of its population than any other developed liberal democracy in the world. The U.S. is far less lenient than those countries that have stricter gun control laws and less violent crime.

Now, last but not least...Sci, in answer to your assertion: does the decision to violate the law (as Shran and I said, should be the person's decision) make one above the law?

According to Section 31, it should. That's the difference between James T. Kirk and Luther Sloan -- Kirk answered for his choices. Sloan did not, and Section 31 does not.

Perhaps. And this is where we may agree. There should indeed be some sort of accountability,

Then there is no reason for Section 31 to exist. Anything that needs to be done, can be done in a democratically accountable way by Starfleet Intelligence or the regular Starfleet.

On that note...I really think we should consider the possiblilty that 31 is not as autonomous as they let on.

Then we are now literally making stuff up about them in order to somehow justify them. There is absolutely no evidence that they are in any way under the government's control. They are a criminal conspiracy and nothing more.

 

[Rush Limborg]

It would probably be more accurate to say that gun control works in some cultures and not in others. I doubt it would work in American culture, but it seems to work well in, for instance, Japanese or European cultures.

I would suspect that that would be due to differences in policies against crime. The US has been quite "understanding" of criminals' plight for some time--Rodney King, OJ Simpson, etc.

Which is absolute bullshit, as the United States imprisons a larger percentage of its population than any other developed liberal democracy in the world.

Of course we do. There are more people, and more crimes which are therefore commited.

Also, again, we say, "Innocent Until Proven Guilty". England says "Guilty Until Proven Innocent". Thus, there is a greater fear of punishment in countries such as England--a fear which is not as extensive in the US.

But again, you apparently agreed with my point that gun control does not work in the US.

Perhaps. And this is where we may agree. There should indeed be some sort of accountability,

Then there is no reason for Section 31 to exist. Anything that needs to be done, can be done in a democratically accountable way by Starfleet Intelligence or the regular Starfleet.

Sir, if you read the rest of my point, concerning the need for plausible deniability, you see my point that if Section 31 is to be abolished, something will have to fill in the void it leaves behind--for the sake of plausible deniability.

To be frank, upon revelations of the "Article 14, Section 31" of the UE Starfleet Charter, and the UFP Starfleet Charter (in the Kirk 31 novel), we can conclude that that was what Section 31 was orignally supposed to be. For one reason or another, complete and full autonomy was instituted, and it bacame truly rogue.

 

[Sci]

I would suspect that that would be due to differences in policies against crime. The US has been quite "understanding" of criminals' plight for some time--Rodney King, OJ Simpson, etc.

Which is absolute bullshit, as the United States imprisons a larger percentage of its population than any other developed liberal democracy in the world.

Of course we do. There are more people, and more crimes which are therefore commited.

Your comment here seems to betray a lack of understanding of the concept of percentages. I'm not talking about absolute numbers, I'm talking about percentages. There is no reason that a significantly larger percentage of Americans would be prone to criminal behavior just because there are more Americans.

Perhaps. And this is where we may agree. There should indeed be some sort of accountability,

Then there is no reason for Section 31 to exist. Anything that needs to be done, can be done in a democratically accountable way by Starfleet Intelligence or the regular Starfleet.

Sir, if you read the rest of my point, concerning the need for plausible deniability, you see my point that if Section 31 is to be abolished, something will have to fill in the void it leaves behind--for the sake of plausible deniability.

Oh, bullshit. Starfleet Intelligence can just engage in classified missions itself and keep them classified. You don't need an unaccountable organization in order to have some plausible deniability; the C.I.A. is accountable to the democratically-elected President of the United States, and it's able to engage in plausible deniability plenty.

To be frank, upon revelations of the "Article 14, Section 31" of the UE Starfleet Charter, and the UFP Starfleet Charter (in the Kirk 31 novel), we can conclude that that was what Section 31 was orignally supposed to be.

The only thing that Article 14, Section 31 of the United Earth Starfleet Charter establishes is that U.E.S.F. officers exercising independent judgment should be given some leniency if regulations are bent. That's very different from establishing a formal organization for plausible deniability.

For one reason or another, complete and full autonomy was instituted, and it bacame truly rogue.

Here's your "one reason or another:" Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and any organization not kept accountable to anyone else will inevitably become totally corrupt. People within Starfleet decided to use the "don't throw the book at them every time an officer tries to fix a crisis and breaks one or two rules in the process" rule and decided to use it to justify creating a criminal conspiracy to put themselves above the law. It's legal bullshit, and it's nothing more than a bunch of conspirators trying to use patriotism and vaguely-worded military laws to justify criminal behavior.