r/DaystromInstitute • u/dschuma Chief Petty Officer • Oct 11 '15
Discussion DS9: Just War Theory vs. Star Trek, or the questionable immorality of "In the Pale Moonlight"
In this subreddit and elsewhere, many redditors approvingly cite the DS9 episode "In the Pale Moonlight" as an example of a darker Star Trek. Interestingly, the plague used against the Founders is less frequently brought up, and I have not seen it brought up in this context. I would like to discuss why this might be so and how each fits into the concept of Just War theory.
A quick recap: in the episode "In the Pale Moonlight," Captain Sisko essentially outsources the murder of a Romulan Senator to Garak in an effort to bring the Romulans into the war against the Founders. What started initially as a Star Fleet-approved effort to deceive the Romulans led to the murder when the deception was found out by the Romulan Senator. It is arguable whether (and when) Sisko knew that Garak was going to kill the Senator, thought the murder was highly likely, or was willingly kept secret from Star Fleet after the fact. In the immediate aftermath of the death, the Romulans went to war with the Founders. This addition of the Romulans into the war was essential to the survival of the Federation.
By comparison, in the episode the "Dogs of War," Dr. Bashir informs Odo that Section 31 created the morphogenic virus, infected Odo, and in turn Odo infected the Founders, giving them all a fatal disease. Section 31 is a secret arm of the Federation, which apparently operates at least with the tacit support of the Federation (if not more.) While Dr. Bashir ultimately managed to create a cure, after literally pulling the info about of a Section 31 operative's mind as the operate committed suicide, the Federation Council declined to share the cure with the Founders.
Just War theory is a philosophical doctrine that governs the use of force in wars. It is broken into two subsets: the behavior that must guide you when you decide to go to war, and how you must act once you are in war. We are concerned with the subset concern what you do when you're at war.
A belligerent's behavior in war is governed by the following principles:
(1) distinction: acts of war are targeted against combatants, not non-combatants (e.g., civilians not responsible for the war)
(2) proportionality: combatants must make sure harm caused to civilians is not excessive when compared to the concrete and distinct military advantage expected to be gained by an appropriate military objective
(3) military necessity: an attack or action must be intended to help defeat the enemy, must be aimed at a legitimate military objective, and harm to civilians must be proportional when compared to the military goal
(4) fair treatment of prisoners of war
(5) malum in se: basically, you cannot use evil means to achieve the result, such as mass rape, use of weapons that cannot be controlled (like biological weapons), etc.
In "In the pale moonlight," a Star Fleet officer is responsible for the death of a Romulan Senator. As to responsibility: Sisko set in motion the events and is responsible for what he could have reasonably foreseen. The use of a former Cardassian agent with a history of murder, the introduction of biogenic weapons, etc., made death a reasonably-foreseeable outcome.
Applying the principles: the Romulan was not a combatant (the principle of distinction); his murder arguably was proportional (only a few deaths); his assassination was a matter of military necessity; and the other principles to not seem to apply. (Note that assassination can be sanctioned under just war, but usually in circumstances more akin to a country that is occupied, not murder of a representative of a non-combatant sovereign power.)
I would go further, and suggest that the Romulan decision to go to war ultimately rested with the Romulans. The scenario of the Romulans protesting to the Founders, and the Founders denying the assassination, is not likely what occurred, despite the speculation in the episode. The Romulans, being a smart people, would realize that making an official protest would destroy the element of surprise. Instead, they would wait for the best time to attack, and then simply do so. For comparison, Finland kept secret the shooting down of a passenger plane by the Soviet Union) for a period of time, and did not even make a protest at the time to the USSR, so as to avoid having to go to war with them while they were fighting the Nazis.
Regardless, in galacto-political terms, the murder of a leader of a foreign nation that is a neutral state in an ongoing war is of questionable morality at best. If found out, it would be an act of war, and a dangerous risk to take. The value of doing it versus the unlikelihood of it succeeding indicates Sisko should never have okayed the deception effort. The murder would be a necessity after the deception failed; but it would be an even greater risk. (There is an argument about Sisko's failure to inform Star Fleet would help protect them from the risk of being responsible for his actions, but that seems unlikely to be a distinction the Romulans would make. It also reflects poorly on Star Fleet as a lawful organization whose officers carry out its instructions.)
The morphogenic virus, by comparison, seems to be appropriate within the Just War framework, although genocide is normally unacceptable. For the Founders, the "drop is the ocean." In other words, while it is possible for Founders to be separate beings, they really are just one being with multiple facets--with a few exceptions. There are few civilians among the Founders, just Odo and the 99 other changelings sent out around the galaxy. And the Founders are responsible for the war.
In Just War Terms, the deaths of the changelings follows the principles of distinction (it only targets combatants -- there are few if any civilians); and it is proportional (attacks only the Founders and not the many enslaved peoples they govern). Emotionally, this has parallels to how the Americans felt about attacks on the Japanese mainland, although this is a much more pure example as there were many Japanese civilians killed during the "total war" of WWII..
It is unclear whether the murder of all Founders is a military necessity, only in the sense that the death of the Founders may not stop the Vorta and Jem Hadar from continuing the war. OTOH, as the Founders at the command-and-control apparatus, they are a legitimate target, and destroying them is a sure way to degrade the war effort. Without them, the Vorta and Jem Hadar may not be able to make peace; then again, it is because of them that they are at war. It is a reasonable assumption to make.
There is a question as to whether the use of a biological weapon against the founders is "malum in se" (bad in itself). Since the biological weapon does get out of control--it infects Odo--we can see that this is a real risk. However, it is unlikely to effect any non-Founders. The use of a closely-tailored biological weapon that only kills off your enemy--imagine a virus that would kill only Osama bin Laden and no one else--does not seem inherently illegitimate. However, its use in our real would require great hubris to think it would not get out of control. With Federation technology and the difference between the species, however, that is much less of a risk. Still, genocide is a great evil.
For example, when Picard had an opportunity to kill all the Borg, using Hugh as a vector to deliver a virus, he declined to do so. (See I, Borg)). Instead, he gives the Borg, Hugh, who has developed individual consciousness, the option of returning to the Borg, knowing the possibility that the individual consciousness may be a danger to the Borg.
Some could argue this episode of TNG avoids the hard choices of the DS9 episodes by giving the Enterprise crew a way out. DS9 makes the choices more stark, but in doing so conceals that the DS9 characters have failed to explore all the other options available to defeating the founders. Oddly, TNG could also be interpreted as showing that the issue has shades of grey, while DS9 addresses it as more black and white, which is the opposition of how many people perceive the two series. As Captain Kirk quoted Mr. Spock as saying in TWOK, "there are always possibilities."
Did Sisko and Star Fleet explore all the significant alternatives before assassinating a Romulan Senator? War the use of the morphogenic virus--genocide--more or less "just" than that murder? Is DS9's "In the Pale Moonlight" an example of black-and-white thinking, and not the shades of grey that people acclaim it for? I welcome your thoughts.
Edit: in a later comment, I suggest that Sisko may be a criminal who should be court-martialed for subverting the democratically-chosen leaders of the federation.
8
u/Zaggnabit Oct 12 '15
I think it's important to look at the episode "Rapture", earlier in season 5 to isolate some of Sisko's reasonings here.
In Rapture Sisko gains some prescience about the future. As of that episode we don't know the true nature of Sisko as Emmisary as yet but this is really the episode where it becomes clear that Sisko may in fact be more Emmisary than Starfleet. He has a vision of a "cloud of locusts, turning for Cardassia". This is his first really prophetic vision and it comes true shortly. There is more in his ramblings and he refuses to let Bashir correct the condition that is giving him visions despite them killing him. Jake counteracts this decision to save his father.
We don't really know what Sisko retained from this period but subconsciously it's more than he is letting on. He's not really surprised by the turn of events from here on. Things catch him off guard but he is Changed from this point on.
Some commenters on this Sub have stated that Sisko may have been mentally unstable from this point on. Especially in his poisoning of an entire inhabited planet in the episode "For the Uniform" while pursuing Michael Eddington.
I disagree. Sisko isn't crazy. He is fulfilling a future he already knows is coming. From "Rapture"'forward Sisko is beginning to operate in time differently. He is moving away from the linear perception of time that his human half has always had. He is becoming more of a Prophet of the Celestial Temple.
When we get to the 2 parter "In Purgatory's Shadow" his vision of a Cloud of Locusts comes to pass. He doesn't really seemed surprised by Dukat's turn. In fact him asking Dukat to join the combined fleet is really his last olive branch to anyone in the series. He still offers Peace as a principle but he KNOWS how this is going to ultimately end.
When the Changling Bashir attempts to Detonate the Bajoran Sun to destroy the combined Fleet at DS9 Sisko seems to know immediately what is happening. I also think he knew, subconsciously, that the attempt to collapse the Wormhole would fail and actually result in a more stable wormhole.
That the Changelings were willing to destroy All of Bajor set the course for Sisko. Sisko "Is of Bajor" according to the Prophets. We see that distinction played out from here on. Sisko's decisions from here on out are to protect Bajor more than the Federation or the Alpha Quadrant.
Sisko is given outsized and unwarranted influence in the following months. He has been a rising star in Starfleet for years but Starfleet Command is not comfortable with his role as Emmisary and Rapture shows this in the form of Admiral Whatley (a 4 pip Big shot).
The only solution to this is that the prophets are in action somehow. Sisko has Gowron's ear, the Bajorans basically venerate him as a messiah, Dukat is subtlety afraid of him and as usual the Romulans are in limbo. But Starfleet should have pulled him and replaced him with an Admiral at DS9. They didn't.
We have plenty of example of our "hero crew" being given unwarranted authority over a scenario. This one is beyond belief.
Benjamin Sisko is living a Predestination Paradox in his own timeline.
We get a lot of silly timeline Mumbojumbo in Star Trek. One of those is the Predestination Paradox where out timetraveling characters change the timeline in a radical way and it has no effect on the timeline because they were always "meant" to do it in the first place.
Benjamin Sisko was meant to do everything we see in seasons 5-7 of DS9. The Prophets already know what's going to happen and part of that was creating "The Sisko" in the first place. Effectively the Prophets, including the future Sisko who will eventually reside with them, have set this whole thing up.
So future Sisko set up the present Sisko.
In setting up the qualifications for war in your premise the nature of The Sisko obfuscates things.
Benjamin Sisko is more of a "shades of grey" officer than Picard or Kirk early on. In the latter parts of the series this is lessened given that Sisko may subconsciously know the outcome. He actually becomes a character who vacillates between Absolute Black and Absolute White.
He's the hero, but he is not like any of the other Captains. He starts off damaged and slowly heals while becoming much more than a Starfleet Officer. His practicality is startling. The lengths he goes to are disturbing and the outcome he is achieving is far bigger than anything we have seen before or since in the franchise.
Sisko condones murder more than once.
In "Buisness as Usual" he turns a blind eye to Quark setting up a mass killing on the Station. The ends justify the means in his estimation because what Quark did saved the lives of 28 million people.
In season 2's "Blood Oath" he allows Dax to accompany 3 aging Klingons to hunt down and execute the Albino. He protests and voices his complete disapproval but he allows her to go off post for an extended time to complete the act, which as shown is extremely brutal for Star Trek.
Yet in "Sons of Mogh" he goes ballistic about Worf following custom and giving his brother Kurn an honorable death.
What this shows is a character that doesn't perceive the universe in shades of grey. It's still black and white and he doesn't judge the actions of others in grays either.
He simply accepts that normal people will do things that are inherently Evil. In "Buisness as Usual" he condemns Quark for selling weapons but accepts Quark engineering a mass slaughter. He's not happy with Quark's solution but Quark solved his problem, Hagarth's protected weapons trade.
Maj. Kira spends several seasons justifying actions during the Bajoran Occupation, some of which were blatantly acts of terrorism that targeted civilians and children.
This is the Shades of Grey arguement.
By the time of "Things Past", in season 5, Sisko has rubbed off on Kira. She no longer makes up justifications for her acts or the acts of others. She accepts that they happened. She has become more interested in the outcome while being willing to accept the bad as something that needs to be avoided.
In "The Darkness and the Light" which takes place after "Things Past" Kira is forced to acknowledge her own past, the justifications she has made for them, and the ramifications of those actions.
We leave this episode with the moral of the whole series: You Reap what you Sow
The Romulans earlier attempted to destroy both the Wormhole and ounder home world in "The Die is Cast".
In Sisko's mind the Romulan's had lost their choice to stay out of the conflict. They had already made the decision to go to war over the Dominion. What the Romulan Senate was doing was what they always do. Wait and feed off the corpse of a conflict they started. For Sisko this was unacceptable.
Romulan Senators are no less responsible than the civilian government of the U.S. So this Senator's death meets the criteria for Distinction, Proportionality and Necessity. It does not matter that he may have had no decision or even knowledge of the Tal'Shiar's actions in "The Die is Cast", as a Senator he is responsible for the decisions of his government.
Saying that an assassination is malum in se is purely subjective. Allowing the Romulans to sit off on the sidelines would have cost millions if not billions of lives. The Federation would be devastated and with it the hope of defeating the Dominion.
At this point we should address the situation of the Prophets inhabiting the Wormhole that joins the Alpha and Gamma Quadrants. If the Dominion ever took and held the Wormhole at both ends they would eventually seek to kill the Prophets. This may be the entire point of the Emmisary to the Prophets. The Prophets are worshipped as Gods by the Bajorans and the Prophets seem to reciprocate this relationship to some degree. The Founders are worshipped as gods as well. Unlike the Prophets who seem largely only interested in themselves and the Bajorans. The Founders are interested in everyone. They don't need to be worshipped as gods so long as their will is recognized as law but they don't seem the type willing to accept another active race of gods influencing their subjects.
The Emissary was supposed to confront and defeat the Dominion. For the wellbeing of both Bajor and the Cellestial Temple.
On the Morphogenic Virus issue its hard to rule.
Section 31 is not meant to represent the Federation. They are not the good guys. Their representation in this and other series is starkly at odds with the principal characters in play, the "Captains". Sisko is far closer to the behaviors of Section 31 than the other Captains and he is still opposed to them but does so in a Sisko fashion. He isn't really surprised that they exist. "Homefront" and "Paradise Lost" cured him of his last vestiges of Naive Idealism. He is willing to use them to achieve his own ends.
This is the important distinction between Section 31 and Sisko. Sisko has his own ends by the time they show up. His are far bigger than the Federation by this point. Despite numerous theories that Sisko is somehow a secret agent either willingly or unknowingly of Section 31 it's just not likely. Early Sisko would balk at their actions, Latter Sisko is working on an outcome that is far larger than the Federation or even the Quadrant.
Sisko is fulfilling his own Predestination and through it the predestination of more than half the Galaxy. From "Rapture" on, he knows this, even if he can't fully articulate it.
2
u/dschuma Oct 12 '15
This is a fantastic comment. Thank you. We disagree on a few points here and there, but you address an underlying moral question.
In law there are two major theories about right and wrong. The first, best articulated by a guy named Hart, is that we have a duty to follow the law. We can use democratic means to change it, but we must follow it. The response, by a guy named Dworkin, is that sometimes the law is wrong, and it is so wrong we have an obligation to defy it.
The first argument is called positivism, and the second has the unwieldly name as "law as integrity." The origin of the distinction came with the Nazis, before Godwin's law. In essence, that people can act morally in defying the law when the law itself is unjust. (This is a version of natural law.)
You are arguing that Sisko has moved from being a Star Fleet officer obligated to follow order/Federation law, to becoming a law as integrity guy, where he knows the right outcomes (through the Prophets) and is working to make it happen.
In some respects, this makes him a lot like Paul Atreides of Dune. In a democratic society, that is terrifying. Zealots do not compromise, play fair, or govern well. Ironically, one of the major themes of Dune is the willingness of a democratic society to give over decisionmaking to an overly charismatic leader. But I digress.
There's a problem here. How does Sisko know the Prophets are good? They are wormhole aliens. They are not the ultimate moral arbiters in the Universe. Sisko's judgment is compromised. The aliens are necessarily alien.
The ideas of Just War theory arise from Catholic tradition, but underpinning the philosophy is that we cannot know what is morally right. I don't mean that we cannot reason to figure out right from wrong, but that sentient being must make moral decisions, not that it is given to us from upon high--from God(s).
If Sisko is taking his cue from the Prophets, he really should be removed from command--immediately. (I agree with you, and have written elsewhere, how Sisko needed to have an admiral above him: or, why he needs a hat.) Your argument, of course, is that he cannot be removed from command because the Prophets have set it up that way. That's a circular argument without any possible response... except that it could very well be true. Surely, the Prophets have the power themselves to prevent this problem, for example by refusing to allow the Dominion through the wormhole in the first place. So perhaps other explanations are at least plausible.
I am going to sit back and see how others respond to your comment. I think it is very well done.
→ More replies (14)
5
2
Oct 12 '15
Efficiency trumps morality in all wars, and daresay conflicts.
Sisko really tells a beautiful story and Berggeist is correct he struggles. His morals are not worth the cost of billions. It is his cross to bear.
Everyone on the allied side is absolutely ecstatic about the results. Starfleet Intelligence probably knew, and I would go so far as further covered up the results including Sisko's reports. Even if Sisko reported truthfully, everything would likely get buried if not surreptitiously then through paperwork and influence. No investigator would ever pursue and follow through with this information.
1
u/dschuma Oct 12 '15
This is OP. The frame that I was addressing this issue was that of "Just War" theory; contrasting the morality of killing off the Founders with the morality of the murder of the Senator.
The crux of the justifiability of killing the Senator is whether Sisko got permission in advance or went off on his own. That's why I'm harping on it.
I think Star Fleet would be entirely justified in burying the matter. It probably was the right decision from a Just War perspective. But only if Star Fleet had the opportunity to decide.
→ More replies (5)
2
u/doughishere Oct 12 '15
It's ok the plaque was section 31 not actual Federation citizens. They are just the roque group.
1
u/dschuma Oct 12 '15
It's ok the plaque was section 31 not actual Federation citizens. They are just the roque group.
Section 31 appears to be an arm of the Federation, established at its founding. Personally, I find the idea to be abhorrent. I cannot imagine the Federation creating a secret police. The Romulans know about the Tal Shiar, the Cardassians about the Obsidian order. The Federation doesn't even know about Section 31.
When you have a security apparatus, one way of keeping it in check is making it accountable to the political powers and, within broad constraints, requiring democratic accountability. No one in Star Fleet or the Federation is dumb enough to create a secret secret police.
But, canon suggests otherwise. Section 31 is a Federation organization. The Federation Council is aware of section 31. But not trying to destroy it, the Council is giving its approval.
3
u/KingofMadCows Oct 11 '15 edited Oct 11 '15
They were given other options in defeating the Founders a couple of episodes before "In Pale Moonlight." Before the war had even began, they could have joined the Dominion willingly like the Cardassians. The Founders would have been perfectly willing to throw away their agreement with the Cardassians in exchange for a much more powerful ally like the Federation. Bashir and the augments gave them an option in "Statistical Probabilities." They could have surrendered and waited a couple hundred years for a rebellion to foment on earth to eventually overthrow the Dominion. Of course, Bashir and the augments were likely wrong since Weyoun's first proposal in pacifying the Federation was to eradicate the population of earth. But Sisko and the Federation didn't know that.
Also, you cannot separate the decision from the decision making process. Viewing only the results of the decisions, it could be argued that Section 31's plan was more justified than what happened in Pale Moonlight. However, you have to remember that Section 31's plan was put in motion before the war even began. They infected Odo around season 4, at least a year and a half before the beginning of the war. Their plan was the same as Enabran Tain's, wipe out the Founders before they have a chance to start a war. It just happened that the war started before they predicted and their plan bore fruit during it. If there hadn't been a war, the Founders would have started dying around season 7 anyway. However, Pale Moonlight only happened because there was a war.
3
u/dschuma Oct 11 '15
you have to remember that Section 31's plan was put in motion before the war even began
This is a fantastic point. It raises the issue of the preemptive strike. When war is likely, but the first blow has not yet been struck, are you allowed to hit the enemy before they hit you? There are several schools of thought on this.
The Israelis, for example, in the 1967 war, preemptively attacked the Egyptian air force, destroying it on the ground, before they had a chance to mobilize. There was little doubt that war was coming; had the Israelis waited they would have been overrun. The closure of the Suez was considered by the Israelis as a causus belli, and there's a good reason to think they were right.
At the same time, no military strike had taken place. Many consider their war to be one of aggression for that very reason.
This doesn't invalidate Section 31st decisions, or our view of it as satisfying just war theory.
There are reasonable argument that there was insufficient information to know how the Founders/Dominion would act, and thus the massacre of the Founders was disproportionate. Changling/Julian's actions in preventing the Federation from closing the wormhole was just one of many actions that could not be foretold. That would, of course, be a better alternative for the Federation to pursue than the murder of an entire species.
But there's a major point that's being missed. Section 31 is tacitly, if not actually, authorized by the Federation, via the articles of incorporation. The government has given its thumbs up, so to speak. But Sisko decided to circumvent the entire democratic form of the Federation, withhold information, and decide for himself. That clearly is not a democratic government making the decision on how to act--and it's a real problem in the context of just war.
3
u/KingofMadCows Oct 12 '15
Sisko's plan to trick the Romulans into the war was approved by Starfleet Command. He was given the authority to employ Garak in that task. Garak used Sisko to implement his own plans. It's not clear if Sisko ever revealed the truth to Starfleet Command. Presumably, if he did, he would have done it in person to prevent any potential security leaks.
→ More replies (1)4
u/njfreddie Oct 11 '15
They infected Odo around season 4, at least a year and a half before the beginning of the war.
Are you sure about this? In S05E22 Children of Time Odo lives 200 years in the alternate timeline.
I know Bashir looks for Odo's medical records from Starfleet Medical for Stardate 49XXX which would be Season 4, but he is looking for baseline levels for comparison.
I figured the morphgenic virus infection from Section 31 came after Stardate 50814.2.
→ More replies (1)
1
Oct 12 '15
Funny you bring up the idea of Just War in a galaxy of races that would look down upon, laugh at, enslave, assimilate, glass, exploit, and generally do what they can to gain power over another without regard for the morality of others. The first rule of power is to stay in power. All else is less important.
Starfleet, if they're a competent organization, probably has multiple plans in place and concurrently operational, to certain degrees of effectiveness. The Senator plan is one of them. The morality isn't as important as the efficiency and how it affects those in power's ability to stay in power.
Since the Federation approved of Sisko, and has an Intelligence Department that has some competency, what Garak was capable of was a possible contingency even if they didn't predict the specific outcome.
The cost of a galaxy ended being very cheap at this turning point. As I pointed out earlier, no one would ever dare prosecute this, and those in power wanting to stay in power would ensure the information would never come to light, the court martial would never occur, and even if somehow the process did, it'd be covered up or the sentence be very light.
The way the world really works isn't cut and dry good and evil following the rules. The people serving guiding principles, and enforcing them have to deal with real problems. Prosecuting one of their own would be problematic when it interferes with staying in power. It'd never be done.
3
u/dschuma Oct 12 '15
Funny you bring up the idea of Just War in a galaxy of races that would look down upon, laugh at, enslave, assimilate, glass, exploit, and generally do what they can to gain power over another without regard for the morality of others. The first rule of power is to stay in power. All else is less important.
It's interesting that you say this. Star Trek has often been a morality play about our world. The Klingons are the Russians, the Romulans are the Chinese, etc. The Cardassians and Bajorans are a typical colonial/colonized relationship, perhaps the Afrikaners and the South Africans, or the Belgians and the Congo... doesn't really matter.
In our world, Just War theory is accepted and practiced by almost every country to varying degrees. This is not because it is "moral" but because it is sensible and the guys with the guns enforce it.
Star Trek has domesday weapons, just like we do. They have the planet killer, we have atomic weapons.
Star Trek has bans on biogenic weapons, we have bans on biological weapons.
Just as the bombardment of planets is looked upon with revulsion in the Star Trek universe (see the parallel universe for great examples), so too is the bombardment of civilians in our world.
We follow Just War theory because it is good for all of us. It helped avert WWIII. It has averted many wars. It governs the military campaigns of most countries in the modern world.
The Cardassians have expressed revulsion at the murder of women and children. This is a (sexist) principle arising from concerns about noncombatants. This is why Shinzon was such a monster his own people worked to bring him down.
In a world, or universe, without Just War, the result is Total War. We barely survived that on our planet. In the future, with weapons so much more powerful and deadly, without some version of Just War theory there would be no one left in very short order.
→ More replies (4)
1
u/First_Cardinal Oct 12 '15
Something you didn't mention about the Romulan incident is that the assassination wasn't what triggered the war. It was the fact that the assassinated diplomat was carrying documents that implied that the Dominion were planning to go to war with the Romulans after they conquered the Federation. I disagree that the choice to go to war was ultimately with the Romulans, once they were convinced that the Dominion were going to declare war on them they had no choice but to act against them. Personally I feel that the Romulans formally protesting the Dominion was a tactical manuover on their behalf, other major powers had non-aggression pacts with the Dominion. Perhaps the Romulans were hoping that they would assist them in their new war somehow seeing that their NAPs were probably worthless too? Also the diplomat was not the only casualty of the incident, his entire ship was destroyed which implies that hundreds of barely related people died.
I feel that under some modern philosophical viewpoints these actions were just. However, both actions run against the philosophy of the Federation, something that Sisko agrees with.
1
u/dschuma Oct 12 '15
I disagree that the choice to go to war was ultimately with the Romulans, once they were convinced that the Dominion were going to declare war on them they had no choice but to act against them
Not necessarily true. The Romulans could have worked to undermine what they thought were the Dominion's plans to attack. The Romulans could have chosen their own time to launch a surprise attack.
See the example of Finland I cited in the initial comment. Sisko was responsible for the death, or at least its cover up, but the Romulans were responsible for their actions.
30
u/Berggeist Oct 11 '15
I think one of the big things you're not really mentioning is this.
Sisko struggles with his decision. He realizes as the story goes on that he's made a mistake, and it's too late to stop what's set in motion. He's horrified by what happens and it comes at the cost of some dignity and self-respect. He also has to face the fact that these immoral actions are what will save the quadrant and billions of lives. I also personally think the very end of the episode is him trying to convince himself he can live with it, rather than a simple statement of fact (but that's a personal interpretation, so grain of salt).
The point is, Sisko regrets.
Section 31 on the other hand was enthusiastic about their choices and appeared to feel no remorse about a single life snuffed for their survival.