Who was in the wrong?

Who was in the wrong?

Thread Approved

Nice try, Doctor.

Sloan, obviously. The Federation did not need people like him

Do you want to speak Romulan? Because this is how you end up speaking Romulan.

Neither. The plan worked perfectly.

>we will never get a good Star Trek series about section 31

Honestly it was the only good thing about post-season 2 DS9..

True, we will never get a "good Star Trek series" about a fascistic intelligence bureau committing immoral acts because those things aren't compatible.

Not wanting a secret intelligence agency to operate unchecked differentiates the Federation from the Romulans, Cardies, etc.

>fascistic intelligence bureau committing immoral acts

And this is why, retards with black and white moral logic who wouldn't get it.

>ends justify the means.
eat shit sloan.

now let me continue treating patients in violation of federation eugenics laws.

TNG already covered this. Lying to get into Starfleet is not a crime.

the muslims was wrong

who was right

The idea of having an autonomous body of government is in itself going to be problematic because if anyone at the head of it either becomes corrupted themselves or has a lapse in judgment and elevates another corrupted individual into a position of power, the entire thing is irrevocably contaminated; it can't be fixed by an external party because it doesn't answer to one.
Now, having a black ops area like Section 31 under the direct command of the Federation is fine. But autonomous? Nah, that's fucking insane. It's also a really shitty thing to do in the writer's room because it implies that the entire notion of the Federation and what it represents for the future of our species (the big draw of Star Trek itself) is a surface-level sham, and that the answer to our peace in the future of Earth is going to be more shadiness and hiding everything from the people.
Makes it feel pointless to be inspired by the future that Trek presents.

Section 31 did nothing wrong

They were not autonomous. They were created when starfleet was founded and would have acted on their own for most of that time, but they still would have covert channels to pass information both ways and some people in the highest leadership of starfleet would have been aware of their presence. Think about it. the one time an admiral is involved during the Romulan (fake) assassination scheme when pressed by Bashir the admiral admitted he had cooperated with S31 and helped their plan.

It would have been like that, top echelons of starfleet aware of S31 white publicly denying it. Cooperation existing between both groups.

They literally say they're autonomous.
Autonomy doesn't mean they don't cooperate with anyone else, it just means that they don't answer to anyone and that's a problem.
Cooperation and autonomy are not mutually exclusive.
Yes, I remember that episode. Starfleet is aware of Section 31, I never said they weren't.
However, that admiral (or anyone else in Starfleet) cannot order the disbandment of S31. The leader of S31 doesn't answer to anyone. Not a single person can give him orders, and he isn't voted into power. That's very, very bad.

speaking of what's right or wrong
rewatching TNG, and picard addresses "bringing people back" after they've died.
All the time.
Do they just legitimately define death as... some level easily revivable? If so, why use death?
But more on the morality, why is it his moral imperative to revive people most of the time, but if he finds them already dead, he acts like it's a fucking inconvenience to revive them, and sometimes even asks justification for why they didn't leave them there, dead.

>Lying to get into Starfleet is not a crime.
damn near nothing in the federation is a crime.
Theft? Well you've got to care about possessions for that. Somehow the federation is gone past such things.
Violence? Well they have therapy for that.
Lying?
at best it can get you fired.

EDGY

Pressman since his orders were issued prior to Riker serving under Picard.

>it's a Prime Directive episode

>it implies that the entire notion of the Federation and what it represents for the future of our species (the big draw of Star Trek itself) is a surface-level sham
It is though. Such a society could never survive, they'd be destroyed or enslaved by the Klingons on day 1.

Sure, and I agree. But that's what Star Trek is supposed to be: an idealistic and unrealistic vision of a wonderful future ahead of us.
S31 shits all over that.

So, when someone's about to use a holodeck, they'll often know exactly what happens in the program, even if they've not played it before. Is this lazy writing or was the dislike of spoilers one of the aspects of humanity that was discarded?