your PALE MOONLIGHT

[RobertScorpio]

My friend Mike stopped watching DS9 after this great episode. He thought that Sisko had sunk to a level that no other STAR TREK captain ever had.

Me? I see it as one of DS9's strengths. If it had been TNG or Voyager, Sisko would have found some other way (inject the word "politically correct" ) to do what hed did without being an accessory to all those crimes.

That one episode, IMO, gave Sisko a three-dimensional aspect to him that no other STAR TREK captain, not even Kirk, could ever touch. Sure, some didn't like it, but others, like me, did.

The Dominon war was not going well, and Sisko was willing to cross the line to bring the Romulans into the war. And Garak summed it up perfectly at the end, when he told sisko that all it really cost was the life of a criminal, the Romulan senator, and Sisko's own self respect.

And, as a viewer of a TV show, after that episode was over, I realized that I had seen what would go down as either one of the greatest plot turns in the TREK mythos, or one of its greatest offenses. Either you like this episode a lot, or you hate it just as much. Either way, I'd rather have seen an episode polarizing like A PALE MOONLIGHT than just another 'cookie cutter', vanilla coated ending, which STAR TREK, sadly, specialized in more often than not.

What would you have done?

Rob

 

[DonIago]

I don't think I'm capable of making the kinds of moral sacrifices Sisko made in that episode. "It was for the greater good" sounds more like a rationalization than anything else.

I'd also feel guilt over what I did to the Romulans and serious concern over what might happen if and when the Rommies ever found out that the wool had been pulled over their eyes.

In some individuals I suspect these kinds of decisions lead to people taking their own lives, because they can't live with the knowledge of what they've done.

 

[Baconnaise]

I wouldn't have a problem living with it after knowing what happens in TNG etc with the romulans. Humans in the future shouldn't have trouble dealing with it imo.

This episode is one of the greats and it takes trek to a whole new level where we are given a look at a more realistic trek (at least in terms of our society now and given our past). We have gradually changed as a society the more we age but we still harbor and hide many things that just won't go away. Quark on the episode where Nog loses his leg (forget the name now) says humans are just as savage as klingons when put in not so ideal circumstances (war and so on).

It's interesting though when you think about things as Klingons are similar to Japanese culture and the Japanese committed the most atrocities and ethnic cleansing up until ww2. Yes they had this sense of honor but what good was it?

Anyways it was a great episode showing how we are now and in the past and how we might still be partly the same even in the future. History much like the lines in the episode are paved with good intentions.

 

[RobertScorpio]

I wouldn't have a problem living with it after knowing what happens in TNG etc with the romulans. Humans in the future shouldn't have trouble dealing with it imo.

This episode is one of the greats and it takes trek to a whole new level where we are given a look at a more realistic trek (at least in terms of our society now and given our past). We have gradually changed as a society the more we age but we still harbor and hide many things that just won't go away. Quark on the episode where Nog loses his leg (forget the name now) says humans are just as savage as klingons when put in not so ideal circumstances (war and so on).

It's interesting though when you think about things as Klingons are similar to Japanese culture and the Japanese committed the most atrocities and ethnic cleansing up until ww2. Yes they had this sense of honor but what good was it?

Anyways it was a great episode showing how we are now and in the past and how we might still be partly the same even in the future. History much like the lines in the episode are paved with good intentions.

Agreed. And it was never more evident than in this episode. In fact, after this episode, Voyager (which was airing at the same time) just seemed like a cartoon to me. Nothing ever really mattered, in the long run, on that show.

Rob

 

[FordSVT]

In my opinion he thought it was the only way to save the Federation. If he thought there was another way, her would have seized that opportunity instead.

Would you doom your own race and the entire Federation to slavery or even extinction (and the Dominion did intend to wipe out Earth to eliminate potential resistance, at least initially) to serve your own personal morality? Even if you knew it was wrong, even if you were religious and believed you might be punished in the afterlife, even if you knew it could all blow up in your face, if you'd be willing to sacrifice your life, why not your morals?

Forget nonsense about "becoming just as bad as your enemy" too, the murder of one man and the conspiracy surrounding it is minor compared to the lives of hundreds of billions and the harsh domination the Dominion imposes on it's subjects. In this case I'd argue the ends does justify the means.

 

[Ward Fowler]

Me? I see it as one of DS9's strengths. If it had been TNG or Voyager, Sisko would have found some other way (inject the word "politically correct" ) to do what hed did without being an accessory to all those crimes.

That one episode, IMO, gave Sisko a three-dimensional aspect to him that no other STAR TREK captain, not even Kirk, could ever touch. Sure, some didn't like it, but others, like me, did.

You're exactly right. On any other Trek show the writers would have written the character out of the moral dilemma, and while perhaps being entertained, the viewer would still have felt cheated in the end. It's to the credit of everyone involved that finally a Trek character was put in a situation where they had to sacrifice some integrity for the greater good.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

What is special about the episode is that the writers decided to do away with the sanitized, politcally correct and ultimately unrealistic trekverse, where for every situation, there is a perfectly moral decision - see Picard and Janeway for numerous examples (even when their decisions were immoral, it was because the writers made an error; the decisions were depicted and clearly intended to be 100% moral).

There is no 'moral war'. There are no 'moral decisions' in a war. There is only 'necessary war' - for the purpose of self-defense, for example; only 'necessary decisions' that assure that your people live and the enemy dies.


"In a pale moonlight" had the courage to force Sisko to choose between two evils - let hundreds of billions of his people die and be conquered or let a criminal, a romulan senator&guards die.

In making his choice, Sisko definitely upheld his oath as a Starfleet officer - he did whatever he had to in order to protect his people. He choose the lesser evil, he made the 'necessary choice'.

Vreenak, through his politics, was a definite threat to the continued existence of the Federation. But he was no villain - he was a romulan patriot, doing, much like Sisko, what he thought was best for the Romulan Empire; he had no grudge with the Federation.
Vreenak may have been a threat, but he was not an aggressor, not a jem'hadar trying to kill you.


Sisko and Vreenak were really two sides of the same coin - each did whatever they thought was best for their people. But their positions, their situations, were opposed, incompatible, making them enemies. The phrase "In another universe, I could have been your friend" fits perfectly.


The most than can be said is that Sisko let a few people die so that hundreds of billions of his people are saved, and Vreenak was willing to let hundreds of billions of federation citizens die so that his romulan empire could remain safe (an erroneous and marginally delusional belief, strenghtening Sisko's position by comparison to his own).

 

[TiberiusMaximus]

What is special about the episode is that the writers decided to do away with the sanitized, politcally correct and ultimately unrealistic trekverse, where for every situation, there is a perfectly moral decision - see Picard and Janeway for numerous examples (wheneven when their decisions were immoral, it was because the writers made an error; the decisions were depicted and clearly intended to be 100% moral).

That's what I was just going to say. I enjoyed the episode for that reason, not that I agree with what Sisko did.

But hang on a minute...Sisko didn't know Garak was going to kill Vreenak, did he? He was shocked when Garak told him, from what I remember.

 

[DonIago]

In making his choice, Sisko definitely upheld his oath as a Starfleet officer - he did whatever he had to in order to protect his people. He choose the lesser evil, he made the 'necessary choice'.

With all due respect, that sounds more like an oath that the members of Section 31 take, "Protect the Federation at any and all costs," than it does a Starfleet oath.

I seem to recall a renowned Starfleet captain saying that their first duty was to the truth.

 

[Withers]

I have a real problem with Section 31... and I have a problem with what Sisko did in this episode too. Would I have ultimately done something different? Well... probably. That, however, is a separate argument from what follows though;

In spite of having some objection to the behavior of 31 and of Sisko in this episode it was amazing television/science-fiction and it did away with the antiseptic nature of Trek morality. It made Sisko very human. It was compelling in a way that I'd never seen in a Trek episode before and for that I thought it was brilliant. I don't need the Captains to be Eagle Scouts to like them. It's the reason I like Batman more than I like Superman (though I like them both a lot.)

-Withers-​

 

[DonIago]

^Well-said.

 

[Ward Fowler]

I seem to recall a renowned Starfleet captain saying that their first duty was to the truth.

Who, as much as I love the character, could be a pompous hypocrite. Compare the Picard of Insurrection with the Picard of Journey's End.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

In making his choice, Sisko definitely upheld his oath as a Starfleet officer - he did whatever he had to in order to protect his people. He choose the lesser evil, he made the 'necessary choice'.

With all due respect, that sounds more like an oath that the members of Section 31 take, "Protect the Federation at any and all costs," than it does a Starfleet oath.

I seem to recall a renowned Starfleet captain saying that their first duty was to the truth.

Sisko's choices were to let Vreenak go, condemning HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of his people to death or slavery, or to contact Garak, making sure Vreenak won't 'go', saving his people - the Federation.
That's it - there was no third option.
What truth, what morality can be found in these choices?

As I said, in WAR there are no 'moral decisions' - only necessary ones.
Making sure Vreenak won't just 'go' was a necessary decision in order to save the Federation.

What's the difference between Sisko and Section 31?
Sisko made his decision because he had run out of options; there was nothing else, no other escape from the situation the Federation was in.
Section 31 makes these 'hard choices' because its agents get a kick out of it. When Sloan and his ilk wake up, they hope that this day they will get to make one of these 'hard choices'. Section 31's 'hard choices' are gratuitous, unnecessary more often than not.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

I have a real problem with Section 31... and I have a problem with what Sisko did in this episode too. Would I have ultimately done something different? Well... probably. That, however, is a separate argument from what follows though;

-Withers-​

WHAT would you have done, Withers?

 

[DonIago]

In making his choice, Sisko definitely upheld his oath as a Starfleet officer - he did whatever he had to in order to protect his people. He choose the lesser evil, he made the 'necessary choice'.

With all due respect, that sounds more like an oath that the members of Section 31 take, "Protect the Federation at any and all costs," than it does a Starfleet oath.

I seem to recall a renowned Starfleet captain saying that their first duty was to the truth.

Sisko's choices were to let Vreenak go, condemning HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of his people to death or slavery, or to contact Garak, making sure Vreenak won't 'go', saving his people - the Federation.
That's it - there was no third option.
What truth, what morality can be found in these choices?

As I said, in WAR there are no 'moral decisions' - only necessary ones.
Making sure Vreenak won't just 'go' was a necessary decision in order to save the Federation.

What's the difference between Sisko and Section 31?
Sisko made his decision because he had run out of options; there was nothing else, no other escape from the situation the Federation was in.
Section 31 makes these 'hard choices' because its agents get a kick out of it. When Sloan and his ilk wake up, they hope that this day they will get to make one of these 'hard choices'. Section 31's 'hard choices' are gratuitous, unnecessary more often than not.

I'm trying to remember the part of the episode where anyone spent time and energy actually discussing other options...

You're not explaining Sisko's actions, you're rationalizing them.
You also evaded my point that what you claim is part of Sisko's Starfleet oath is likely no such thing.

Let's all acknowledge that any degree of approval that we give to Sisko's actions is at least slightly biased by the fact that he's one of the good guys. If we assume that the Dominion pulled an ITPM of their own to get the Breen to join their side, do we admire the actions of Weyoun et al.?

It's interesting that you seem to assume Section 31 operatives actually get some sort of kick out of their actions as opposed to feeling, much as Sisko does in ITPM, that they are acting for the greater good and have no other choice. Isn't that a bit convenient?

 

[Withers]

WHAT would you have done, Withers?

Were it me, Firstly, I wouldn't have kidded myself that contracting Garak was going to lead to anything but what it did. So, until I was ready to take it to that level, he wouldn't have been involved.

Secondly, the argument Sisko left out in his hypothetical conversation with the Romulans (for which Dax was the stand-in) was that the Romulans had reason to fear the Dominion. Not did the Tal'Shiar preemptively attack the Founders but the Romulans themselves showed up to fight the Dominion in Inferno's Light in a knee-jerk reaction. The non-aggression pact was only in place so the Founders could wipe out the Klingons and Federation then they would go for the Romulans who had not only presented themselves as a threat but would in that scenario then be isolated.

Any reasonable power would realize it would be suicide to try to stand alone.

Third, I would have asked Spock how the reunification effort was going and if there was any diplomatic avenue that could be explored there in order to bring the Romulans on board.

Forth, if none of that worked, my final step before ultimately doing something similar to what Sisko did would be to send Odo on a mission to Cardassia. He knew the planet as well as Garak did and probably had more up-to-date contacts. That's not to mention he could blend in a lot easier by impersonating either the Female Changeling or some other high ranking official who would have access to any potential plans The Founders had against the Romulans.

If no plans were discovered and all else had failed... I would consider doing what Sisko did and I might ultimately come to that conclusion myself. I understand he was under a time constraint with the Senators visit but if you're going to take it upon yourself to break the law "for the greater good" you must be certain you have exhausted all other avenues otherwise... your actions, regardless of their intent or outcome, are just... criminal.

-Withers-​

 

[ProtoAvatar]

With all due respect, that sounds more like an oath that the members of Section 31 take, "Protect the Federation at any and all costs," than it does a Starfleet oath.

I seem to recall a renowned Starfleet captain saying that their first duty was to the truth.

Sisko's choices were to let Vreenak go, condemning HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of his people to death or slavery, or to contact Garak, making sure Vreenak won't 'go', saving his people - the Federation.
That's it - there was no third option.
What truth, what morality can be found in these choices?

As I said, in WAR there are no 'moral decisions' - only necessary ones.
Making sure Vreenak won't just 'go' was a necessary decision in order to save the Federation.

What's the difference between Sisko and Section 31?
Sisko made his decision because he had run out of options; there was nothing else, no other escape from the situation the Federation was in.
Section 31 makes these 'hard choices' because its agents get a kick out of it. When Sloan and his ilk wake up, they hope that this day they will get to make one of these 'hard choices'. Section 31's 'hard choices' are gratuitous, unnecessary more often than not.

I'm trying to remember the part of the episode where anyone spent time and energy actually discussing other options...

You're not explaining Sisko's actions, you're rationalizing them.
You also evaded my point that what you claim is part of Sisko's Starfleet oath is likely no such thing.

Firstly - Very well, Don Iago. Let's hear your 'third option'. Produce it - and it MUST be an option with chances of success better than winning the lottery.
If you can't produce it, you are the one evading my question:
"What truth, what morality can be found in these choices?"
You are the one who refuses to go through this Kobayashi Maru test (one where you CAN'T rig the computer) because you know there's no escape, no chance of really winning.

Secondly - I did not evade your point about Sisko vs Section 31. Indeed, I SHOWED the difference between them:
"What's the difference between Sisko and Section 31?
Sisko made his decision because he had run out of options; there was nothing else, no other escape from the situation the Federation was in.
Section 31 makes these 'hard choices' because its agents get a kick out of it. When Sloan and his ilk wake up, they hope that this day they will get to make one of these 'hard choices'. Section 31's 'hard choices' are gratuitous, unnecessary more often than not."

It's interesting that you seem to assume Section 31 operatives actually get some sort of kick out of their actions as opposed to feeling, much as Sisko does in ITPM, that they are acting for the greater good and have no other choice. Isn't that a bit convenient?

I don't assume that S31 gets a kick out of its 'hard choices', that they are mostly gratuitous.
I know it - from on-screen facts.

For example - they tried a genocidal strategy against the founders BEFORE the war started!
That's more than gratuitous - it's idiotic!
What do you think the dominion would have done when it found out who killed the founders (and there are ways to trace a disease to pacient 0, etc, etc)?

 

[DonIago]

It's unrealistic to ask me to determine what choices Sisko might have had when I don't have access to the knowledge or resources that Sisko did. Among other things, I can't assemble my senior staff or go to my superiors.

I disagree with your analysis of Section 31's motives, as I indicated above. While I suspect I would find many of their actions abhorrent, I don't believe they take them 'for kicks' either. I suspect the intention behind their creation was always to show the harm of thinking, "the ends justify the means."

 

[Count Zero]

It's been a while since I last watched the episode but I found it rather harmless. Sisko didn't order Vreenak to be killed, Garak acted of his own volition. Sisko just told himself (and us) at the end that he could live with it. But when he first learned about what had happened he was outraged. So, his choice boiled down to whether or not to tell the Romulans that their Senator was murdered and to have Garak face charges. That's a no-brainer. Revealing the truth in this case would have been insane and suicide since the Romulans were needed to win the war.

Archer did much more questionable things in the Expanse and afterwards, and he didn't get off as easy as Sisko.

 

[DonIago]

In a best-case scenario Sisko should probably still be in trouble for his stunt with the bio-mimetic gel and attempting to fool the Romulans into going to war against the Dominion by providing them with a fraudulent recording. I can't imagine that, generally, Starfleet condones its officers engaging in such behavior.

Any idea what would happen to an armed forces officer who passed on controlled substances without proper authorization and tried to involve a neutral party in a war using fabricated evidence?

For the record, I do like Sisko and I do sympathize with him. As the episode itself illustrated, this is a vivid example of the desperate acts that war can drive people to.