Garak did not sell the bio-memetic gel to anyone. Bashir's throwaway line about "it could be used to make organic explosives" tells you exactly where the bio-memetic gel went. Garak killed Vreenak with it.
@@jasonkeith2832 Oh it definitely was. He knew that Sisko's original plan was doomed from the start, so manipulated him into doing what _he_ wanted, a plan that he was far more confident in working. He had the data rod from the start, he just needed a legitimate transaction in order to make explosives.
@@EmperorNortonIIBashir would still have to account for the absence of the gel. Just as doctors and vets have to account for all the meds and drugs with which they have been entrusted irl. Imagine a Federation auditor asking Bashir "what happened to all that biomemetic gel? You're 85 litres light. You haven't been selling it, have you?" The scene between Bashir and Sisko is pitch perfect. Sisko knows the Doctor is still answerable to Starfleet Medical, even if the orders came from a base Commander. Starfleet Medical would know, in turn, that in wartime those commanders will sometimes issue strange, unorthodox orders. By insisting that Sisko issues written orders, and making the note in his official log, Bashir is covering himself, and saving his career. Starfleet Medical will be absolved of any blame for the loss and misuse of the gel. Bashir knows, however, that Sisko has a very good reason for his order, even if the Doctor isn't privy to the reason, so he has no hesitation with complying whilst recording his objections. Sisko knows Bashir has no choice but to record the transaction to avoid accusations of misusing the gel, and simply says "understood". Very different to the similar situation in Star Trek Into Darkness, where Kirk orders Scotty to sign off unknown weaponry. Scotty correctly refuses due to safety concerns, but Kirk insists. Scotty resigns and Kirk says "OK, f*** off, then". This isn't wartime. Kirk's order was unreasonable, and his acceptance of Scotty's resignation incomprehensible. Bashir didn't have to resign, but made sure that Sisko was accountable for any adverse consequences. Sisko understood this. He's at the top of the chain of command and is strong enough and certain enough to be able to account to his own superiors if required. Many of us will have been in similar positions, certainly I have expressed serious misgivings concerning health/ safety procedures at work, and have asked customers to fax (old days) authorisation before shipping unfinished goods, or batches of dubious quality (metal components, not food😊).
I always felt it was highly unlikely that Garak ever used up his favours and his contacts on Sisko's mission. Pretty sure he immediately dismissed it as a ridiculous plan and came up with the "let's make it up" alternative.
Me too. It's ironic that Garak, when instruction Sisko, says he should embellish the story to Vreenak, by saying things like "at least ten good men lost their lives bringing it over the line, that sort of thing", considering he basically did the same thing by saying "all my contacts are dead trying to do the job you wanted". Garak is highly calculating, it's unlikely he used up every last favour he had left on something he knew was foolhardy, particularly on something that might not even exist.
Garak also made up the story about a seller needing biometic gel in exchange for the data rod. There was no seller except for Garak and there was no need for the gel except to blow up Vreenak’s ship with it. Optolythic data rods aren’t rare and Garak, a former spy, had one all along. That was just part of his con all along.
That makes sense, actually. Why should he risk his life and the lives of his former colleagues just for the Federation (even though he could also see how the Dominion was a threat to the Cardassians as well)?
I could definitely see that. He was too flippant about the loss of assets. There should have been a demand for compensation, but he was all “How about this instead?”
@@technounionrepresentative4274 I got VR the other day and my immediate first thought was. I will finally feel like I can sit on a bridge and play star trek like I was a kid using my keyboard as an LCars and my dad's car as a shuttle.
Garak has a great line about humans having rules during war. Rules that keep one from winning. It’s something I always think on when a real war breaks out. Which side will throw out rules to win.
Usually the losing side, at least on the larger scale. As things get more desperate the loosing side crosses more lines in an attempt to gain the advantage, only for their opponents to respond in kind leading to no overall change in the strategic situation. See the use of chemical weapons by the Germans in WW1; the Blitz in WW2, which lead directly to events like the Dresden firebombing; Japanese treatment of prisoners in WW2, which just meant that now neither side in the pacific was willing to surrender even the smallest battles; or the use of unrestricted submarine warfare in WW2, the Allies ultimately sank more Axis shipping in the US campaign against Japan than the Germans did in their campaign against Britain. The outcome is typically that the war gets worse, but the actual balance of forces remains exactly the same. There are exceptions to this, particularly in unconventional warfare, but in a conventional war the side throwing out the laws of war usually looses regardless.
There’s two types of rules. The rules of war, and the rules of your specific army. Widespread breaking in the rules of war generally just means the other side will break them to (like in this episode), while widespread breaking of the rules of the army speaks to an ill disciplined force, which is always a disadvantage. Having an army that doesn’t randomly attack civilians is actually an advantage, since it means your army is more disciplined.
The Americans interned whole families of Japanese Americans, including the Takei family. Churchill interned German citizens resident in Britain and the members of the British Union of Fascists. Not actions either country would countenance in peacetime.
But when one side breaks the rules the other often does too. Which often means the balance of power doesn't change but the war just becomes more brutal.
One fan theory about "in the pale moonlight" that I find interesting is that the assassination was Garok's plan from the start. The theory goes that he knew the "steal real evidence" plan wouldn't work so he lied to Sisko, and to sell the lie he told Sisko that good men died, just like he would later suggest to Sisko was the best way to sell the lie to the romulan Senator. He then knew no forgery would beat romulan inspection so he found a patsy already marked for death to take the fall. He then says he needs biomemetic gel to get a special data rod, but the theory continues that he already had the data rod and only wanted the gel to build the bomb, one of the reasons Bashir said the stuff was dangerous was it's explosive properties. This bit of the theory is also enhanced by the fact that earlier in the series, during "improbable cause", Garok told Bashir that if he did not return, Garok had a data rod hidden in his room that Bashir would need to eat. This is treated as a joke, but it is also Garok we are talking about so who knows. And that's the real point of the theory, it is a testament to how good DS9's writing was, that a character as devious as Garok could exist that we the audience could generate such a complex conspiracy within a conspiracy and it not seem impossible. Oh, and then make the mastermind of this plot a well-liked character, at least out of universe. Just amazing.
That's actually a really solid theory. I had thought to myself that Garak wouldn't risk his few remaining contacts on Cardassia when forgery was an option, but I never fleshed it out to this degree. Makes sense to me.
Is this really a fan theory though? Garak tells Sisko outright that although he had hoped the Rod would pass inspection, he was operating under the assumption that it probably wouldn't and based his entire plan around that fact.
@@Shoddragon Exactly, if anything, only the biomemetic gel bit could be taken as a theory, the rest is not implied, but downright confessed form Garak's mouth. Of course the Assassination was his main planned course of action from the beggining. Sisko's idea was maybe plan B, in the very best and unlikely case scenario, and the opportunity to get things in motion, let's nor forget Garak wasn't pleased in the slightest about Cardassia being part of the Dominion, he was always (in his own terms) a patriot, and no doubt he had done some previous and serious thinking about the matter WAY before this episode.
The way Vreenak ties it in to Sisko trying to talk him into bringing Romulus into the war was awesome: "It really is a good replica - for a moment, I almost forgot it wasn't the real thing...but only for a moment."
"That's why you came to me, isn't it, Captain? Because you knew I could do those things that you weren't capable of doing? Well, it worked. And you'll get what you want: a war between the Romulans and the Dominion. And if your conscience is bothering you, you should soothe it with the knowledge that you may have just saved the entire Alpha Quadrant. And all it cost was the life of one Romulan senator, one criminal, and the self-respect of one Starfleet officer. I don't know about you, but I'd call that a bargain."
You forgot to mention Garak. He's a "former" member of the Obsidian Order, now currently a Tailor (a very GOOD Tailor), and a "supporter" of the Federation ideals and peace, who has also "left" his life as an agent of the Obsidian Order behind him. Oh who am I kidding. Garak is a diabolical GENIUS, who can manipulate people and events not only behind the scenes but also in plain view, and ALWAYS manages to avoid legal/criminal repercussions. And he is also a VERY GOOD Tailor haha. Just my opinion anyway.
Thing is. Is Sisko really? At least with his beef with Eddington, yes. Yet with in the episode of "In the Pale Moonlight". Sisko was literally order "You must get the Romulans on our side at ANY COST." Which means framing the Dominion as to assassinating a Romulan Ambassador and create fake evidence in the process. The FEDERATION authorized this chain of events. Which means the Federation committed the War Crime. If caught.
One thing you failed to note about For The Uniform, Sisko didn’t only get Eddington, he also got the Maquis’ entire arsenal of biogenic weapons. Also, Eddington was repeatedly noted to be one of the most effective commanders the Maquis ever had and most of their other leaders had been killed by that point, so getting Eddington was actually a major priority for the Federation, seeing as they were deploying whole starships to track him down.
I dunno, I could totally see Bashir back in medical school toking up on some space weed and talking about how deep the lyrics of Manhattan Project are if you think about it. He has a little bit of that insufferable hipster energy in the early seasons.
@@lordofsparks not sure about That, the later reveal of him being genetically engineered puts into question how much of that arrogance was genuine and how much of it was a ruse to drive people away from him so that he wouldn't risk being found out.
In the episode "For the Uniform," what Sisko did doesnt compare to what Janeway did in episode 1 of Voyager. You destroy the Caretakers' array, stay to protect a species from another, leaves the species to fend on their own while stranding your crew in uncharted territories. That Maquis colony was small compared to the species left by Janeway.
Sisko has always been the most fascinating character in Trekdom. He's one of the few characters (not just in Star Trek, but in movies and television in general) who can seamlessly go from talking tactics with the brass to fighting in the trenches to engaging in diplomacy with foreign government and spies and negotiating treaties, being active in all levels of warfare, almost like a more sympathetic version of General Patton. And this is on top of working with religious leaders, literally communicating with gods, and raising a teenage son.
Okay, this is weird. after I posted this comment, I realized the ad on the side of the page is a WW2 quiz with a picture of General Patton in the thumbnail, and I don't know if it showed up after I typed this, or if it was there the whole time, and I just subconsciously made the connection in my peripheral vision.
I think Sisko also had a few illegal uses of the cloaking device on the Defiant. That could potentially fall under the definition of war crime as well.
Breaching a treaty isn't necessarily a war crime or an atrocity. Especially when no one dies as a result of it. At best it would be considered something that would be complained about at the diplomatic level. And I am not sure the Romulans were caring that much in those specific instances of the illegal cloak use.
Bashir: "Isn't using the cloaking device in the Alpha Quadrant against our agreement with the Romulans?" Sisko: "It is, but there are a lot of Klingons between us and Ducat." Bashir: "I won't tell the Romulans if you don't."
I always thought that the biomametic gel Garak asked for was what he used to make the explosive to kill the Senator because in another episode Julian said that the fact it could be made into a hard to detect explosive was one of the reasons it was highly restricted subsistence.
For me it took him shaving his head and going full Hawk look. Prior to that he came across as a little odd and quirky during those moments, but after the look change he became far and away the most intimidating presence in the trek verse. I laughed hard in S7 when Ezri accidentally told him even Worf was intimidated by him.
Prime universe Sisko is a character I could have seen a whole series on. I swear it seemed to me Brooks got out a lot of frustration in that role, or at least it was a great chance to cut loose. He went all in - even the body language and movement were different. Sisko had a great presence and his prime counterpart had enough to be like right back at ya chief!
@@FuzzyOrngeDave After the dressing down he got in Rules of Engagement, it should be no surprise. Sisko's speech in that episode is right up there with Picard's "duty to the truth" speech, IMHO.
Regarding Sisko's moral event horizon, a difference between Sisko's actions in these two episodes is that there's no subterfuge or sneaky spy stuff when he's poisoning the atmosphere of the Maquis colony: he's very direct with Eddington, provides a warning to the colony, and obviously weighed the consequences of his actions as an acceptable risk. It was a very controlled, lawful-evil response (he's even using his Doctor Noah voice when he orders Worf to "prepare two quantum torpedoes"). In contrast, Sisko wasn't able to make the decision on Vreenak's assassination on his own terms. It wasn't even part of his plan, and it's a secret so dangerous to the Federation that he would need to keep it for the rest of his life or risk Romulus entering the *wrong side* of the war. I think his reaction checks out.
Garak points out this reading is false, though. He *did* make an informed choice, but he tried to shield his conscience by pretending not to know what was going to happen. Garak protected him by allowing him to delude himself, but the results of his actions were inevitable. Garak knew this from the beginning, but Sisko had to admit it to himself in the end.
@@rifter0x0000 Sisko has to learn what Bashir did in "Our Man Bashir" - that sometimes the "hero" is just the guy who gets to be lucky rather than morally upright. (Of course, if he'd known Kirk's history, he might have already figured it out.)
@@rifter0x0000 Excellent point! Garak put himself in a position to be the REAL villain in this story so that Sisko doesn't have to be. All Sisko did in that case was "sweep the dirt under the rug" for THE GREATER GOOD. That's what I liked about DS9: they were willing to present heroes with "feet of clay."
We also have to keep in mind that every Romulan killed in this war after the assassination is a dead person that could have been avoided if Romulus didn't go to war. So even the idea that that only two people die and that's it isn't exactly true. Garak and Sisko are directly responsible for the assumed mass death of Romulans.
"In the Pale Moonlight" is my favorite episode of my favorite Star Trek series. The moral quandary, the drama, the compromises of character were all so compelling. I mean the minute I saw Tolar I knew they were going to have to kill him. Their was no way you could trust that guy to keep a secret. I like the way the script kept upping the ante for Sisko's character.
Sisko can't be a war criminal because the Federation Alliance won the war, and winners get privileges. As Gowron said; "History is written by the victors".
He'd only be a war criminal if he was caught by Alpha/Beta Quadrant alliance high commands or intelligence branches, then he would be charged and tried under the articles of whatever the federation's version of the Geneva Convention/Rules of war.
@@devonburdeyney8555 The federation's version of the Geneva Convention is the Geneva Convention, including the protocols of 1929, 1949, 1977 of our time plus the protocol of 2055 in Star Treck time.
I always found it interesting (and don't think it's mentioned enough), that 'In the Pale Moonlight' aired only one week after the episode 'Inquisition' in which we were first introduced to Section 31, the shadowy organization that believes any and all means are necessary and just in order to protect the Federation and Starfleet. While that episode frames section 31 as unquestionably immoral and bad while leaving it's actual methods mostly vague. This is immediately followed by the stalwart Sisko following a path of just the sort of methods Section 31 would be proud of in order to see the Romulans join the Dominion War. That point counter-point was always an interesting touch to me.
This is well said, in fact we see in a later episode Section 31 go out of their way to fix for a long term alliance with the Romulan’s under Koval. It makes me think they were likely well aware of what occurred with Sisko and Garak and may have been complicit in helping cover it up as well.
I feel like "poisoning a planet to force a guy to turn himself in" is a gross understatement of what's actually going on when Sisko fires those torpedoes. Eddington is personal for him, sure. But it's hard to ignore that since Eddington joined them, the Maquis have dramatically escalated their attacks, and those attacks grow more sophisticated. And they are actively, at the time, committing atrocities against Cardassians that will be blamed on the Federation, and are going to kick off another war and get a *lot* of people killed. Eddington is less the target than the biogenic weapons he's carrying. We also have to take in to account Sisko's year and a half of lived experience with Eddington, most notably in "The Die is Cast" (I think? The Obsidian Order/Tal Shiar raid two parter). Eddington is a rules lawyer, the kind of guy who will sabotage your cloaking device but faithfully execute your commands after because he checked the "followed Admiral's orders" box. He knows where the Federation's lines are and what he can get away with, and that's the whole point of the Javert/Val Jean parallel, IMO. Eddington *thinks* he's Val Jean because he's morally correct and always one step ahead of Javert, who can't catch him because he's not as bright and lacks moral authority. But the moment Sisko just does what Eddington has been doing, Eddington freaks out. Eddington isn't correct when he compares Ben to Javert, but he does tip his hand enough for Sisko to gain the final insight he needs to bring the situation to an end: Eddington sees himself as the hero, so Sisko needs to make him see himself as the villain. He doesn't succeed in that, but Eddington at least recognizes the villainy in his actions when performed by others. What he did was still wrong, but it was the only thing that was going to stop Eddington's Maquis from actually starting another Federation/Cardassian war. Side note: why are Eddington's hot takes given so much credence in the fandom? He's a delusional windbag with a superiority complex. We all know a guy like this in person and we ignore him.
It is a fair point. I would be remiss to state: "Ends justify the means." As Sisko thought long on this. He wanted to bring in Eddington the Federation way. Yet Eddington being that "rule lawyer" knew ways to wiggle out of Sisko's grasp. So we see Sisko say "Fuck this!" And went on using the Maquis tactics and flipped everything on its head. Giving Eddington the same dose of the medicine he was dishing out on the Cardassain. As we both know. If the Cardassains found Eddington's people on that planet and had them cornered. The Cardassains would have destroyed that planet without batting an eye. Orbital bombardment and wasting the whole planet and killing everything. All without any remorse.
Exactly. What I love about DS9 is that it tackled the intricacies of geopolitical thinking better than any Trek before it. This wasn’t just about some feud between two men like Eddington tried to make it out. This was one stage in a much, much wider series of political maneuvers, optics, and power plays. My impression is that Eddington never fully grasped this because he wanted things simple and moral, but that made him a loose canon on the stage of Alpha quadrant politics. And THAT was why Starfleet made him a priority target. Edit: as for why so much of the fandom gives such credence to Eddington, who knows. It’s truly bizarre. My working theory is that because Eddington frames things in such black and white terms, that members of the fandom who also subconsciously want to see Trek in black and white terms have latched onto him in rejection of the more morally grey aspects of DS9
@@QardoJust as the US destroyed two entire cities with atomic bombs, because they believed it was the only way to prevent even worse bloodshed. A debate that will never be resolved
The thing about For The Uniform, and this doesn't make it not an atrocity, is that dropping any toxic substance in the upper atmosphere of a planet is going to take time before it contaminates enough of the biosphere to be lethal. Weeks, most likely, giving plenty of time for an evacuation.
as a member of the military I have a unique perspective of "is Sisko a war criminal?" because as part of my job I have to understand what makes someone a war criminal. and yes Sisko absolutely would have been dragged in front of whatever the federation has as an equivalent to the ICC for attacking a civilian population however so would Worf for caring out the unlawful order in fact so would everyone on the bridge at the time for not attempting to stop Sisko.
I would argue the reasons "In the Pale Moonlight" is more severe than "For the Uniform" are that: Firstly, "For the Uniform" is a single act. A big one, but still only one. "In the Pale Moonlight" is a series of deliberate criminal acts. Secondly, no one got hurt in "For the Uniform". And while you make the argument someone *could* have, I would counter with the argument that "uninhabitable" =/= "immediately lethal". The planet was rendered somewhere humans could no longer live long term, but that doesn't mean it was immediately poisonous to the people on the planet. However, Sisko, while not doing the deeds himself, was directly involved in the murder of several people *and* dragging an entire civilization into a war they wouldn't have otherwise participated in. Even if the argument could be made that the Dominion *would* eventually turn on the Romulans, that's a whole lot of Romulan blood on Sisko's hands.
@@icecold9511 Those people had been on those worlds for an absolute maximum of 25 years. The Maquis would rather die in the unending war they want the Federation to fight with Cardassia than to move away from a home a maximum of 1 generation of them grew up on. It's not even like finding a new home, safe transport to that home, or affording necessities would be an issue. There are a handful of people on those worlds with good, solid historical reasons for not trusting relocation by a federated authority. The vast majority of Maquis, however, are just selfish.
Regarding the poisoning the Maquis planet: The commission of war crimes (at least under international law on Earth) does not require the existence of a formal or declared state of war. (Officially, recall, the Vietnam War was a “police action.”)
Paraphrase o fthe episode: Sisko: Garak can you contact your old connections from when you were in the Obsidian Order? Garak: I was never in the Obsidian Order. Sisko: Can you contact them though? Garak: Sure.
Here's a fun idea, someone should do a skit where Sisko is Judge Dredd and Eddington is Rico in this one scene where Dredd yells at Rico that he betrayed the law Eddington: Why did you judge me? Sisko: You killed innocent people Eddington: A means to an end Sisko: You started a massacre Eddington: I caused a revolution Siso: YOU BETRAYED THE LAW Eddington: RAAAAAWWWWWW
The Siege of AR-558 is one of my favorite episodes too because it shows the horrors of war. I like the Trek episodes that show the dark side of the Federation, that it isnt a perfect paradise. DS9 really showed that and has some of the best dialog about it.
It's also an indictment of Starfleet as a whole. As in both instances Starfleet was totally fine with what he did. I've always thought too that Sisko was totally in on the Section 31 thing. If you notice, basically every time 31 approaches Bashir to do their dirty work, Sisko is like "You should totally do their dirty work."
i always thought it was weird how in one of the last few ds9 episodes where that one 31 guy dies no one from starfleet investigates his death or anything, so sisko being in on it all would make some sense i suppose. cover up their tracks
@@1funeral2many9 Yes. Have always thought that the many times I've seen the episode. Also, hard to believe that (at least during the term of DS9) Section 31 didn't take revenge on Miles and Julian.
I've seen the Pale of Moonlight episodes about 100 times. Your narration of it was freaking awesome 😂😂😂 When Sisko ask Garik for help I can only imagine Garik running back to his quarters wristing one off because he got a chance to play with his spy skills which he hasn't used in years.
Don't forget that we actually SAW the reality where Picard was never rescued from the Borg in the season 7 episode, "Parallels." One of the many alternate universes Worf visits is the exact one where Picard was never rescued and Riker became captain.
I haven't seen Discovery, so it doesn't factor into what I'm about to say, but Sisko is easily, and I mean EASILY, the most interesting captain character in any of the Trek series. They let him grow, change, and mature. It's great watching this show and seeing him become scarred by the war as events unfold, such as in "In the Pale Moonlight." He was a kickass father, husband, leader, and friend. I loved how they showed him striving to live up to Federation ideals while also having to struggle with realities that were only hinted at (at most) in other Trek series. I love that this conflict got the better of him in this episode, forced him to cross a moral event horizon, and to accept that crossing as yet another casualty of war, worth it for the end result. He was just a brilliantly plotted, brilliantly written, and brilliantly acted character.
I've never seen the ds9 series but i agree they've definitely allowed sisko grow & change. Hes not always on the "moral high ground" type of person. While being stuck in the middle of a war where ones perception change constantly
Also the dude is most similar to a military officer. Guy has a family life that is strained by his job but he pulls through. Sisko is my favorite captain
Sisko of course is played by Avery Brooks and those who know about his acting background know that before he played Hawk. A former gangster turned private detective very StreetWise on Spenser for Hire and also on the short-lived show A Man called Hawk. Captain Benjamin Sisko is going full Gangsta on the Maquis because of his Vendetta with Lieutenant Commander Michael Eddington. He considered the Betrayal a personal affront, and that justified anything.
I really enjoyed this episode. You made a good point about something that I have always believed 1) It's impossible to avoid being in situations that Captain Sisko found himself in and 2) people need to get this insanity of trying to have war in a civilized way with rules out of their heads and focus on not having a war to begin with.
My take is that Sisko never forgave himself for what the war has turned him into. In a pale moonlight, he said he can live with it, but how many times do we lie to ourselves to keep us going, at least for our loved ones. However, any chance at ending his own existence, he was gonna take it, especially one that is heroic and can benefit others. That's why Sisko didn't even have a second thought pushing Dukat and himself into the fire pit.
"Uh no, wrong Brock Peters character. That's Admiral Cartwright. He'd be fine with it." - best line. Also a sly acknowledgment that Starfleet has been flirting with shadiness for a long time.
In "A stitch in time" a collection of diary entries of Garak (Written by Andrew Robinson himself) he states that (and this is basically his own headcannon as I don't think they bring it up in the show) that Garak told Bashir what he and Sisko had done. I would have liked to have seen what that would have done with Bashir and his relationship with Sisko down the line, though I think in the 'cannon' of DS9 only Sisko and Garak were privy to what happened.
I deeply appreciate your sympathetic explanation of the sacrifice of, essentially, one’s own personality in war. It’s a particularly difficult subject, for vets and active duty alike. Exceptionally well written/spoken. Thank you, Steve.
He's not the best star trek captain because he committed a war crime, but rather he is the best star trek captain as we got to see him deal with the moral conundrum of the war crime pretty much forced on him by outside events.
Great recap and discussion of those decisions Sisko had to deal with. I love how DS9 got more into the grey areas of moral and ethical decisions in real life compared with its Trek predecessors.
Sisko as the anti-Picard elevates DS9 so much, everything else in the series is just icing on the cake. I mean, I don't want to put Avery Brooks performance or the show writers' work in a box.. but Steve's video showcases just how much of a divergence Sisko is from Picard.
He is just a suspected, or alleget war criminal if he isnt convicted. Inside the series, is there any proof t convict him unless garak spills the beans, but who would believe garak.
I think the answer is an obvious yes, which underlines a lesser focused on fact; that war can be so traumatic and evil it can alter a fundamentally good persons moral code and ethics. Sisko understood what he was doing was wrong. Especially demonstrated with "In the Pale Moonlight" with his log entry. He didn't justify it, it said he could live with it. After all, all war is a crime....
".... isn't to conduct wars in a more civilized fashion, because how could such a thing be possible?" The people of Eminiar VII could have a thing or two to say about that. 😉
Which caused Kirk to do a similar thing to what Sisko did here: order Scotty to prepare to destroy an entire planet to stop a war, which what was implied with your quote.
Considering the fact that he is probably listed as MIA or KIA right at the end of the Dominion War, he probably ended up in historical records as a war hero with one or two footnotes about accounts similar to these.
@@jasonkeith2832he promised he was coming back to his family though - which was an insistence of Avery Brooks who did not want the first black to me a Star Trek lead to end his arc by abandoning his family. So i’d like to think he did come back and retire with Cassidy on Bajor. I imagine the non-Bajoran Federation view him as kind of a religious weirdo who “went native” on assignment, but as Bajor is in the Federation by that point, that talk is relatively limited.
Benjamin LaFayette Sisko - father, chef, engineer, captain, demigod, war criminal. Makes the resume pop. 👍🏼 Seriously - in an earlier (?) video, you made the proposition that Starfleet wasn’t the shining beacon it puts itself up to be. So Sisko’s actions, though morally and ethically reprehensible, might just slide by ‘Fleet’s lights.
Hey there, Steve! I know this episode is 2 years old but it just popped into my feed. IMHO, I think that Sisko's anger toward the actions of Garak in, "In the Pale Moonlight," might have been a direct reaction to what he KNEW to be wrong in "For the Uniform." The old story of the hypocrite screaming the loudest at people who are behaving similarly. (or a case of "Do as I SAY, not as I DO!") Just a thought.
Wait, how have I not seen this video before now?! The best heckin' captain in Starfleet! Sisko is one of my favourite characters and I liked that part of his arc is unique because, unlike Nog or Rom, he doesn't change for the better. Or not completely, anyway. So: in Emissary, he starts of pretty shady (he blackmails Quark by imprisoning his nephew, a minor) and as the series goes on, he gets progressively shadier. Series 2, he sees a woman he likes and has no qualms about using station security to track her down. Then he lets the leader of the Maquis (Cal Hudson) escape because they used to be friends. His anti-heroing carries on building up until he's eventually poisoning planets. Then, he finally realises he's gone too far: he condemns an entire nation to a destructive, costly war that will doubtlessly cost millions of lives who otherwise may have survived. After his confession to the log, and while he says he *can* live with it, he never does anything like that again for the rest of the series. I love DS9 ♥️
In fairness most of those people would have died eventually because after the dominion took care of the federation and Klingons they would naturally go for the romulans. Siskos thinking was together we can win but if they don’t join. Then the dominion will defeat them in detail after us and take the alpha quadrant. It was inevitable.
I used to hate DS9 but I binged watched it on Netflix and really analyzed it and began to love the episodic format. It was at its peak when they got Worf and the Defiant.
I'm glad you brought up "For the uniform". I was appalled by it and how Sisko seemingly had no difficult sleeping later especially when you can find similarities between that and what Nazis did to the whole towns where a few insurgents act. In Pale Moonlight he had real difficulty dealing with his complicit actions to a handful of deaths (not just the Romulan senator and the criminal - the senator had at least two guards and who knows what other crew on that vessel, and I always held suspicion that the unknown trader for the data rod had been "removed" by Garek at first opportunity - no loose ends) by enlisting someone he knew would do whatever it took. I really don't like watching "For the uniform" because I feel it sent the wrong message about consequences to hard decisions. What I'm getting at is that if you look back at your past actions immune to ethical and moral criticisms, your future actions will always be suspect.
I thought it was gonna go there and it went there, and i'm happy to hear you explain it as you so eloquently do. I have fond memories of ds9 and tng (and even voyager) and your dives into their characters and themes enrich those memories immesurably. On the topic of war, and good men - my mother passed on words to me, a half Japanese boy, from her father, who fought the Japanese in what was then Burma, that he'd joked about holding a sign up saying "don't shoot! i'm one of you!", referencing his somewhat Asian appearance for an Englishman. She also told me the other thing he had said - "One does not judge a man by what he does in war". A sentence that always stuck out in my mind, and one i feel is very pertinent to this episode. So thanks again for exploring this topic and everything else. All the best. ............isn't it "icosahedral"?
I think "For The Uniform" is a bit of a meta-episode. Sometimes we need to remember that Star Trek isn't reality even if the Berman-era is reasonably consistent (and that's why we love it). As audience we are asked to like the Maquis, even if "it's complicated". Ro Laren, Chakotey and others are downright protagonists. And at least in this episode we have to go with Eddington, as he points out that Sisko is betraying HIS uniform commiting these atrocities. In Les Misérables there is no doubt that Police Inspector Javert is a crazy bad guy. If you impersonate him you will actually be the bad guy, no pardon. The difference is that Javert commits suicide when realizing just how bad he is after Jean Valjean spared his life. Sisko, on the other hand, says "it's refreshing to be the bad guy sometimes" to a laughing Jadzia Dax: end of episode. And in the next one, he's all good again!! I don't think this is about a "grey zone" as many of the other Maquis episodes. It's too far out for that. Sisko really is the bad guy here. Maybe just for a laugh. Or maybe they want to keep us on our toes. Or even conveying the message that: don't let even your greatest hero lure you into believing that ecocide is cool. Am I overinterpreting? :-)
You said it all... Deep Space Nine is exactly about that "How far can you hold your principles in face of certain doom?" Also as philosopher I´ve been seeing lately say "I don´t trust 'good people'. Everyone that doesn´t have a flaw, an addiction is not worth of trust. I ratter have sinners by my side". Meaning that one who is aware of its flaws and that he is not "clean" is far more forgiving and generous... Perhaps that´s why Q liked to tease Picard but had no insterest for Sisko. Picard is too much saint, so it was funny for Q to take him to the edge and test his limits.
I always think of the 1998 film The Siege in discussions like this, because it has that immortally prevalent line "It's easy to tell the difference between right and wrong, what's hard is choosing the wrong that is more right" And I imagine that nowhere is this more true than in a war when your entire civilisations very existence is at stake. Is Sisko a war criminal? Absolutely. Are his actions understandable? Logical? Yes, very much so, it's not hard to argue that he chooses the wrongs that are more right. And that's the joy of later DS9; things are often a murky, uncomfortable form of grey where everyone is wrong for all the right reasons.
I mean, I haven't watched the video yet, but... yeah. He really is. Like, I don't see how that's even a discussion. Though as always I definitely look forward to hearing your take.
I know right, I watched the video, but when I first saw the title I was like 'umm, obviously, is this even a question? Like who was sitting there doubting if Sisko was a war criminal?'
To quote a post by another fine writer, @Ansible1000: "Eddington had also engaged in exactly this kind of tactic against Cardassian settlers at the start of the episode. The Cardassians do not view the Maquis and the Federation as separate entities. The Cardassians are a race of ethno-nationalists who have a hard time conceiving of anyone else acting differently (to be fair, the Klingons and Romulans are as well). To the Cardassians, a Maquis attack against their colonies is the same as a federation attack, just with a veneer of realpolitik covering up the connections. Sisko bringing in Eddington prevents Cardassian retaliation, which will be disproportionate and cruel and result in thousands of deaths and likely hostages in the hundreds if not thousands. We know how Cardassians handle prisoners. What Sisko is doing is cleaning up Starfleet’s mess before the Cardassians make a bigger one. The Maquis never had a chance against the Cardassians or the Federation. They relied on being too distant for the federation and too small for the Cardassians to bother with. By resorting to biological weapons, they made themselves a major threat to Cardassia and an existential threat to the Federation. Sisko de-escalated and disarmed the conflict without direct loss of life, and I think it’s worth commending him for that. What’s more, the Maquis mission statement is just dumb. Resist the Cardassians, sure. Admit that the Federation is flawed, of course! But to spit in the eye of both, declare yourself an independent autonomous region between two super-powers and then support yourself with piracy and theft against both super-powers is just suicide. To do so while one of those super-powers is saying ‘come back, we have food, blankets, shelter and space for you, all you need to do is ask!’ and ignore that for some nebulous concept of ‘freedom’ is just idiotic. For all its flaws, the federation is a free democracy. Anyone who wants to go find a remote planet and set up a frontier settlement is spoiled for choice, you just have to accept that you will sometimes have to wave at a passing Excelsior class ship making sure you’re okay, and you can’t oppress natives or destroy ecosystems. That seems preferable to becoming a frontier bandit because Starfleet is just so dang mean and stuck-up!" Sisko is not a war criminal.
Oh! No, no, I got a better one. "Row-row-row your boat -- come on, sing! Why aren't you singing?" "I was attempting to comprehend the meaning of the words."
It is explicit at the end of the episode, right after we see the Maquis and Cardassians switching planets, that Sisko *didn't* get Starfleet approval for that.
"In The Pale Moonlight" has got to be the darkest episode in the whole Star Trek franchise. Still as hard-hitting as it was way back when. And you were right about Rush. No question.
Especially as Bashir tends to go into war battle simulators with O'Brien. He's unquestionably a nerd in that respect. Then again, isn't all of Starfleet a bunch of nerds, with their obsession with science?
@@chadfalardeau5396 I bet if you started asking about phaser specs. He'd be a tech nerd pretty quickly but your right. His interests are definitely hyper focused on war.
In "For the uniform" has commited crime against humanity, in "The Pale Moonlight" and probably in "Tacking into the Wind" (addressing to Worf about Gowron: "Something has to be done." "You do whatever it takes Mr. Worf" "Gowron is risking the safety of the entire Alpha Quadrant and he has to stop") has commited war crime(s). But hell I still adore him!
i would enjoy a story, maybe a comic series, showing what happened to that biomimetic gel. maybe it found it's way to the maquis? maybe garak just kept it, he had a spare data rod in his sock drawer!
Vreenak is right: Sisko did start the war with the Dominion. He comes through the wormhole, bumps into the Dominion, they say: we don't want you here. He says: we're only friendly explorers who want to trade and get to know each other better, They says: get lost, and crash into a Federation starship just to make a point. But Sisko keeps coming, sending Bajorans settlers etc, and then the Domonion says: this is enough, we're going to conquer you, and Sisko yells: foul!
If Sisko is considered a war criminal, the next question would be...Who benefitted from it?? Perhaps he is one...but, people have a tendency to forget about how all of that peace and freedom fell into their laps. And then, due to all of that peace and freedom have the 'luxury' to question how they got it.
Garak did not sell the bio-memetic gel to anyone. Bashir's throwaway line about "it could be used to make organic explosives" tells you exactly where the bio-memetic gel went. Garak killed Vreenak with it.
...and since Dr. Bashir is a super-genius, he figured that out....and dropped the complaint.
And with what of Garak's legacy and experience is known in the show, it could be that Garak's plan was that from the start.
That's actually fucking genius! I never thought of that before.
@@jasonkeith2832 Oh it definitely was. He knew that Sisko's original plan was doomed from the start, so manipulated him into doing what _he_ wanted, a plan that he was far more confident in working. He had the data rod from the start, he just needed a legitimate transaction in order to make explosives.
@@EmperorNortonIIBashir would still have to account for the absence of the gel. Just as doctors and vets have to account for all the meds and drugs with which they have been entrusted irl.
Imagine a Federation auditor asking Bashir "what happened to all that biomemetic gel? You're 85 litres light. You haven't been selling it, have you?"
The scene between Bashir and Sisko is pitch perfect. Sisko knows the Doctor is still answerable to Starfleet Medical, even if the orders came from a base Commander. Starfleet Medical would know, in turn, that in wartime those commanders will sometimes issue strange, unorthodox orders. By insisting that Sisko issues written orders, and making the note in his official log, Bashir is covering himself, and saving his career. Starfleet Medical will be absolved of any blame for the loss and misuse of the gel.
Bashir knows, however, that Sisko has a very good reason for his order, even if the Doctor isn't privy to the reason, so he has no hesitation with complying whilst recording his objections.
Sisko knows Bashir has no choice but to record the transaction to avoid accusations of misusing the gel, and simply says "understood".
Very different to the similar situation in Star Trek Into Darkness, where Kirk orders Scotty to sign off unknown weaponry. Scotty correctly refuses due to safety concerns, but Kirk insists. Scotty resigns and Kirk says "OK, f*** off, then". This isn't wartime. Kirk's order was unreasonable, and his acceptance of Scotty's resignation incomprehensible.
Bashir didn't have to resign, but made sure that Sisko was accountable for any adverse consequences.
Sisko understood this. He's at the top of the chain of command and is strong enough and certain enough to be able to account to his own superiors if required.
Many of us will have been in similar positions, certainly I have expressed serious misgivings concerning health/ safety procedures at work, and have asked customers to fax (old days) authorisation before shipping unfinished goods, or batches of dubious quality (metal components, not food😊).
I always felt it was highly unlikely that Garak ever used up his favours and his contacts on Sisko's mission. Pretty sure he immediately dismissed it as a ridiculous plan and came up with the "let's make it up" alternative.
I believe that also. One of the reasons you have free thinking black ops. They do what they need to, to meet their objectives. Right or wrong.
Me too. It's ironic that Garak, when instruction Sisko, says he should embellish the story to Vreenak, by saying things like "at least ten good men lost their lives bringing it over the line, that sort of thing", considering he basically did the same thing by saying "all my contacts are dead trying to do the job you wanted".
Garak is highly calculating, it's unlikely he used up every last favour he had left on something he knew was foolhardy, particularly on something that might not even exist.
Garak also made up the story about a seller needing biometic gel in exchange for the data rod. There was no seller except for Garak and there was no need for the gel except to blow up Vreenak’s ship with it. Optolythic data rods aren’t rare and Garak, a former spy, had one all along. That was just part of his con all along.
That makes sense, actually. Why should he risk his life and the lives of his former colleagues just for the Federation (even though he could also see how the Dominion was a threat to the Cardassians as well)?
I could definitely see that. He was too flippant about the loss of assets. There should have been a demand for compensation, but he was all “How about this instead?”
The delightful irony of mocking D&D players in a critique and analysis of Star Trek really tickled me.
@The Jerma985which? D&D players, or star trek fans? both Larp
He's allowed to mock his own tribe. LOL I mean, he clearly is a D&Der. 😁
@@technounionrepresentative4274 I got VR the other day and my immediate first thought was. I will finally feel like I can sit on a bridge and play star trek like I was a kid using my keyboard as an LCars and my dad's car as a shuttle.
Garak has a great line about humans having rules during war. Rules that keep one from winning. It’s something I always think on when a real war breaks out. Which side will throw out rules to win.
Usually the losing side, at least on the larger scale. As things get more desperate the loosing side crosses more lines in an attempt to gain the advantage, only for their opponents to respond in kind leading to no overall change in the strategic situation. See the use of chemical weapons by the Germans in WW1; the Blitz in WW2, which lead directly to events like the Dresden firebombing; Japanese treatment of prisoners in WW2, which just meant that now neither side in the pacific was willing to surrender even the smallest battles; or the use of unrestricted submarine warfare in WW2, the Allies ultimately sank more Axis shipping in the US campaign against Japan than the Germans did in their campaign against Britain. The outcome is typically that the war gets worse, but the actual balance of forces remains exactly the same.
There are exceptions to this, particularly in unconventional warfare, but in a conventional war the side throwing out the laws of war usually looses regardless.
Gotta go the Canadian during world war 1&2 route, don't break rules be the reason they have to make new ones.
There’s two types of rules. The rules of war, and the rules of your specific army. Widespread breaking in the rules of war generally just means the other side will break them to (like in this episode), while widespread breaking of the rules of the army speaks to an ill disciplined force, which is always a disadvantage. Having an army that doesn’t randomly attack civilians is actually an advantage, since it means your army is more disciplined.
The Americans interned whole families of Japanese Americans, including the Takei family.
Churchill interned German citizens resident in Britain and the members of the British Union of Fascists.
Not actions either country would countenance in peacetime.
But when one side breaks the rules the other often does too. Which often means the balance of power doesn't change but the war just becomes more brutal.
Any excuse to hear "It's a fake" play out in my head is a good day
I use that quote whenever I can.
I gotta admit, "it's not authentic" tripped my brain up expecting to hear the line.
ITS REAL!!
I gotta admit I was a little triggered he said "authentic" instead of "it's a FAKE!"
I cant think of his name but he's a great actor, i've seen him in alot of different roles and he's always good.
One fan theory about "in the pale moonlight" that I find interesting is that the assassination was Garok's plan from the start. The theory goes that he knew the "steal real evidence" plan wouldn't work so he lied to Sisko, and to sell the lie he told Sisko that good men died, just like he would later suggest to Sisko was the best way to sell the lie to the romulan Senator.
He then knew no forgery would beat romulan inspection so he found a patsy already marked for death to take the fall.
He then says he needs biomemetic gel to get a special data rod, but the theory continues that he already had the data rod and only wanted the gel to build the bomb, one of the reasons Bashir said the stuff was dangerous was it's explosive properties. This bit of the theory is also enhanced by the fact that earlier in the series, during "improbable cause", Garok told Bashir that if he did not return, Garok had a data rod hidden in his room that Bashir would need to eat. This is treated as a joke, but it is also Garok we are talking about so who knows.
And that's the real point of the theory, it is a testament to how good DS9's writing was, that a character as devious as Garok could exist that we the audience could generate such a complex conspiracy within a conspiracy and it not seem impossible. Oh, and then make the mastermind of this plot a well-liked character, at least out of universe. Just amazing.
That's actually a really solid theory. I had thought to myself that Garak wouldn't risk his few remaining contacts on Cardassia when forgery was an option, but I never fleshed it out to this degree. Makes sense to me.
That's barely a theory, more like 99% certain.
Is this really a fan theory though? Garak tells Sisko outright that although he had hoped the Rod would pass inspection, he was operating under the assumption that it probably wouldn't and based his entire plan around that fact.
@@Shoddragon Exactly, if anything, only the biomemetic gel bit could be taken as a theory, the rest is not implied, but downright confessed form Garak's mouth. Of course the Assassination was his main planned course of action from the beggining. Sisko's idea was maybe plan B, in the very best and unlikely case scenario, and the opportunity to get things in motion, let's nor forget Garak wasn't pleased in the slightest about Cardassia being part of the Dominion, he was always (in his own terms) a patriot, and no doubt he had done some previous and serious thinking about the matter WAY before this episode.
...Doesn't he basically confirm that?
Huh. I don't know how many times I've watched In the Pale Moonlight, but I never noticed the foreshadowing with the replicated Romulan Ale.
I know right?! When Steve started going in on the "How fake is this shit, right?" I could only think, how have I missed this before?!
The way Vreenak ties it in to Sisko trying to talk him into bringing Romulus into the war was awesome:
"It really is a good replica - for a moment, I almost forgot it wasn't the real thing...but only for a moment."
i took me 3 times to see the foreshadowing such a good episode
Just to find out on Discovery the Replicated Romulan Ale is piss
If you believe *that*, sir... I have some "prime" real estate on Remus for you.
😏
"That's why you came to me, isn't it, Captain? Because you knew I could do those things that you weren't capable of doing? Well, it worked. And you'll get what you want: a war between the Romulans and the Dominion. And if your conscience is bothering you, you should soothe it with the knowledge that you may have just saved the entire Alpha Quadrant. And all it cost was the life of one Romulan senator, one criminal, and the self-respect of one Starfleet officer. I don't know about you, but I'd call that a bargain."
"What about the two guards Vreenak had with him?"
"Who cares about them, they were extras, don't spoil my monologue!"
DP9 was peak Star Trek. There will never be a Star Trek show like it again.
any video discussing "In the Pale Moonlight" automatically gets a like.
well it's an amazing episode.
I concur. That is all.
Best ST episode
just re-watched last night for, like, the 9th time
Truth!
What I learned today:
- Sisko is a war criminal
- He betrayed his uniform
- Bashir is a big nerd
No he isnt
No he didnt
Fail Harder
You forgot to mention Garak. He's a "former" member of the Obsidian Order, now currently a Tailor (a very GOOD Tailor), and a "supporter" of the Federation ideals and peace, who has also "left" his life as an agent of the Obsidian Order behind him.
Oh who am I kidding. Garak is a diabolical GENIUS, who can manipulate people and events not only behind the scenes but also in plain view, and ALWAYS manages to avoid legal/criminal repercussions.
And he is also a VERY GOOD Tailor haha.
Just my opinion anyway.
Short Answer: Yes
Long Answer: YEEEEEEEEESSSSSSS
^This guy gets it. Good call back from an earlier Trek, Actually episode.
100% the correct response.
Long answer said using exactly the same voice used for "It's a faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaake!"
If not, the war criminal laws of the federation are criminal.
Thing is. Is Sisko really? At least with his beef with Eddington, yes. Yet with in the episode of "In the Pale Moonlight". Sisko was literally order "You must get the Romulans on our side at ANY COST." Which means framing the Dominion as to assassinating a Romulan Ambassador and create fake evidence in the process. The FEDERATION authorized this chain of events. Which means the Federation committed the War Crime. If caught.
One thing you failed to note about For The Uniform, Sisko didn’t only get Eddington, he also got the Maquis’ entire arsenal of biogenic weapons. Also, Eddington was repeatedly noted to be one of the most effective commanders the Maquis ever had and most of their other leaders had been killed by that point, so getting Eddington was actually a major priority for the Federation, seeing as they were deploying whole starships to track him down.
Bashir would not be a Rush nerd. Tom Paris, on the other hand, totally is. He probably has a 2112 holo-fanfic hidden on the ship's computer.
Oh definitely Bashir would probably be much more of a King Crimson guy, maybe the Moody Blues
I dunno, I could totally see Bashir back in medical school toking up on some space weed and talking about how deep the lyrics of Manhattan Project are if you think about it. He has a little bit of that insufferable hipster energy in the early seasons.
Speaking of holo-fanfics and the like... how much of the ship's computer do you think is filled with that kind of stuff?
@@lordofsparks not sure about That, the later reveal of him being genetically engineered puts into question how much of that arrogance was genuine and how much of it was a ruse to drive people away from him so that he wouldn't risk being found out.
I feel like Bashir is probably more of a Pink Floyd guy actually.
Calling Bashir a "nerd" repeatedly is delightful
As a Rush fan and a D&D nerd... that bit was gold. Literally laughing out loud over here. Keep it up, Steve.
In the episode "For the Uniform," what Sisko did doesnt compare to what Janeway did in episode 1 of Voyager. You destroy the Caretakers' array, stay to protect a species from another, leaves the species to fend on their own while stranding your crew in uncharted territories. That Maquis colony was small compared to the species left by Janeway.
Sisko has always been the most fascinating character in Trekdom. He's one of the few characters (not just in Star Trek, but in movies and television in general) who can seamlessly go from talking tactics with the brass to fighting in the trenches to engaging in diplomacy with foreign government and spies and negotiating treaties, being active in all levels of warfare, almost like a more sympathetic version of General Patton. And this is on top of working with religious leaders, literally communicating with gods, and raising a teenage son.
Okay, this is weird. after I posted this comment, I realized the ad on the side of the page is a WW2 quiz with a picture of General Patton in the thumbnail, and I don't know if it showed up after I typed this, or if it was there the whole time, and I just subconsciously made the connection in my peripheral vision.
I think Sisko also had a few illegal uses of the cloaking device on the Defiant. That could potentially fall under the definition of war crime as well.
Breaching a treaty isn't necessarily a war crime or an atrocity. Especially when no one dies as a result of it. At best it would be considered something that would be complained about at the diplomatic level. And I am not sure the Romulans were caring that much in those specific instances of the illegal cloak use.
Yes. He even admits he is an accessory to murder!
@@MrMann0123 that probably would depend on the terms of the agreement between the two governments.
Bashir: "Isn't using the cloaking device in the Alpha Quadrant against our agreement with the Romulans?"
Sisko: "It is, but there are a lot of Klingons between us and Ducat."
Bashir: "I won't tell the Romulans if you don't."
I always thought that the biomametic gel Garak asked for was what he used to make the explosive to kill the Senator because in another episode Julian said that the fact it could be made into a hard to detect explosive was one of the reasons it was highly restricted subsistence.
Brilliant.
Oh Good catch. I bet the guy never wanted the gel in the first place.
@@stevecollins2549 garak was the guy.
Excellent point
god he’s so good at lying
So Sisko ‘danced with the Devil In the Pale Moonlight.’
"For the Uniform" is my favorite DS9 episode. There's just something about Avery Brooks going fully unhinged that makes me giddy.
For me it took him shaving his head and going full Hawk look. Prior to that he came across as a little odd and quirky during those moments, but after the look change he became far and away the most intimidating presence in the trek verse. I laughed hard in S7 when Ezri accidentally told him even Worf was intimidated by him.
"you betrayed your uniform" is one of star treks best line reads ever
@@FuzzyOrngeDave Best part of DS9 is full Hawk! I agree 💯 with your assessment of the change.
Prime universe Sisko is a character I could have seen a whole series on. I swear it seemed to me Brooks got out a lot of frustration in that role, or at least it was a great chance to cut loose. He went all in - even the body language and movement were different. Sisko had a great presence and his prime counterpart had enough to be like right back at ya chief!
@@FuzzyOrngeDave After the dressing down he got in Rules of Engagement, it should be no surprise. Sisko's speech in that episode is right up there with Picard's "duty to the truth" speech, IMHO.
"Pale moon light" was the best episode of Star Trek EVER!
What about parallels TNG?
Threshhold
Day of the Dove was good...though not as popular.
Regarding Sisko's moral event horizon, a difference between Sisko's actions in these two episodes is that there's no subterfuge or sneaky spy stuff when he's poisoning the atmosphere of the Maquis colony: he's very direct with Eddington, provides a warning to the colony, and obviously weighed the consequences of his actions as an acceptable risk. It was a very controlled, lawful-evil response (he's even using his Doctor Noah voice when he orders Worf to "prepare two quantum torpedoes").
In contrast, Sisko wasn't able to make the decision on Vreenak's assassination on his own terms. It wasn't even part of his plan, and it's a secret so dangerous to the Federation that he would need to keep it for the rest of his life or risk Romulus entering the *wrong side* of the war. I think his reaction checks out.
This is what I was going to comment. Though probably not as well thought out and presented.
Garak points out this reading is false, though. He *did* make an informed choice, but he tried to shield his conscience by pretending not to know what was going to happen. Garak protected him by allowing him to delude himself, but the results of his actions were inevitable. Garak knew this from the beginning, but Sisko had to admit it to himself in the end.
@@rifter0x0000 Sisko has to learn what Bashir did in "Our Man Bashir" - that sometimes the "hero" is just the guy who gets to be lucky rather than morally upright. (Of course, if he'd known Kirk's history, he might have already figured it out.)
@@rifter0x0000 Excellent point! Garak put himself in a position to be the REAL villain in this story so that Sisko doesn't have to be. All Sisko did in that case was "sweep the dirt under the rug" for THE GREATER GOOD. That's what I liked about DS9: they were willing to present heroes with "feet of clay."
We also have to keep in mind that every Romulan killed in this war after the assassination is a dead person that could have been avoided if Romulus didn't go to war. So even the idea that that only two people die and that's it isn't exactly true. Garak and Sisko are directly responsible for the assumed mass death of Romulans.
"In the Pale Moonlight" is my favorite episode of my favorite Star Trek series. The moral quandary, the drama, the compromises of character were all so compelling. I mean the minute I saw Tolar I knew they were going to have to kill him. Their was no way you could trust that guy to keep a secret. I like the way the script kept upping the ante for Sisko's character.
I always love your 'paraphrasing', so much, especially when it's much longer than the original.
Sisko can't be a war criminal because the Federation Alliance won the war, and winners get privileges.
As Gowron said; "History is written by the victors".
Who is this Victor and how has he won every single war in the history.
Robert of the Bruce said that in Braveheart aswell.
Woe to the vanquished
He'd only be a war criminal if he was caught by Alpha/Beta Quadrant alliance high commands or intelligence branches, then he would be charged and tried under the articles of whatever the federation's version of the Geneva Convention/Rules of war.
@@devonburdeyney8555 The federation's version of the Geneva Convention is the Geneva Convention, including the protocols of 1929, 1949, 1977 of our time plus the protocol of 2055 in Star Treck time.
I always found it interesting (and don't think it's mentioned enough), that 'In the Pale Moonlight' aired only one week after the episode 'Inquisition' in which we were first introduced to Section 31, the shadowy organization that believes any and all means are necessary and just in order to protect the Federation and Starfleet. While that episode frames section 31 as unquestionably immoral and bad while leaving it's actual methods mostly vague. This is immediately followed by the stalwart Sisko following a path of just the sort of methods Section 31 would be proud of in order to see the Romulans join the Dominion War. That point counter-point was always an interesting touch to me.
This is well said, in fact we see in a later episode Section 31 go out of their way to fix for a long term alliance with the Romulan’s under Koval. It makes me think they were likely well aware of what occurred with Sisko and Garak and may have been complicit in helping cover it up as well.
If it’s one thing I learned from Trek it’s that the ends always justifies the means
I feel like "poisoning a planet to force a guy to turn himself in" is a gross understatement of what's actually going on when Sisko fires those torpedoes.
Eddington is personal for him, sure. But it's hard to ignore that since Eddington joined them, the Maquis have dramatically escalated their attacks, and those attacks grow more sophisticated. And they are actively, at the time, committing atrocities against Cardassians that will be blamed on the Federation, and are going to kick off another war and get a *lot* of people killed. Eddington is less the target than the biogenic weapons he's carrying.
We also have to take in to account Sisko's year and a half of lived experience with Eddington, most notably in "The Die is Cast" (I think? The Obsidian Order/Tal Shiar raid two parter). Eddington is a rules lawyer, the kind of guy who will sabotage your cloaking device but faithfully execute your commands after because he checked the "followed Admiral's orders" box. He knows where the Federation's lines are and what he can get away with, and that's the whole point of the Javert/Val Jean parallel, IMO. Eddington *thinks* he's Val Jean because he's morally correct and always one step ahead of Javert, who can't catch him because he's not as bright and lacks moral authority. But the moment Sisko just does what Eddington has been doing, Eddington freaks out. Eddington isn't correct when he compares Ben to Javert, but he does tip his hand enough for Sisko to gain the final insight he needs to bring the situation to an end: Eddington sees himself as the hero, so Sisko needs to make him see himself as the villain. He doesn't succeed in that, but Eddington at least recognizes the villainy in his actions when performed by others.
What he did was still wrong, but it was the only thing that was going to stop Eddington's Maquis from actually starting another Federation/Cardassian war.
Side note: why are Eddington's hot takes given so much credence in the fandom? He's a delusional windbag with a superiority complex. We all know a guy like this in person and we ignore him.
It is a fair point. I would be remiss to state: "Ends justify the means." As Sisko thought long on this. He wanted to bring in Eddington the Federation way. Yet Eddington being that "rule lawyer" knew ways to wiggle out of Sisko's grasp. So we see Sisko say "Fuck this!" And went on using the Maquis tactics and flipped everything on its head. Giving Eddington the same dose of the medicine he was dishing out on the Cardassain.
As we both know. If the Cardassains found Eddington's people on that planet and had them cornered. The Cardassains would have destroyed that planet without batting an eye. Orbital bombardment and wasting the whole planet and killing everything. All without any remorse.
Exactly. What I love about DS9 is that it tackled the intricacies of geopolitical thinking better than any Trek before it. This wasn’t just about some feud between two men like Eddington tried to make it out. This was one stage in a much, much wider series of political maneuvers, optics, and power plays. My impression is that Eddington never fully grasped this because he wanted things simple and moral, but that made him a loose canon on the stage of Alpha quadrant politics. And THAT was why Starfleet made him a priority target.
Edit: as for why so much of the fandom gives such credence to Eddington, who knows. It’s truly bizarre. My working theory is that because Eddington frames things in such black and white terms, that members of the fandom who also subconsciously want to see Trek in black and white terms have latched onto him in rejection of the more morally grey aspects of DS9
"A delusional windbag with a superiority complex". Reading this in 2024, during the Presidential campaign.....
@@QardoJust as the US destroyed two entire cities with atomic bombs, because they believed it was the only way to prevent even worse bloodshed. A debate that will never be resolved
The thing about For The Uniform, and this doesn't make it not an atrocity, is that dropping any toxic substance in the upper atmosphere of a planet is going to take time before it contaminates enough of the biosphere to be lethal. Weeks, most likely, giving plenty of time for an evacuation.
Captain Benjamin "It's only a war crime if you lose" Sisko
It's only a war crime if you're at war with them at the time.
@@DamnDaimen still constitutes a war crime.
"It's only a war crime if I feel bad about it"
as a member of the military I have a unique perspective of "is Sisko a war criminal?" because as part of my job I have to understand what makes someone a war criminal. and yes Sisko absolutely would have been dragged in front of whatever the federation has as an equivalent to the ICC for attacking a civilian population however so would Worf for caring out the unlawful order in fact so would everyone on the bridge at the time for not attempting to stop Sisko.
I would argue the reasons "In the Pale Moonlight" is more severe than "For the Uniform" are that: Firstly, "For the Uniform" is a single act. A big one, but still only one. "In the Pale Moonlight" is a series of deliberate criminal acts. Secondly, no one got hurt in "For the Uniform". And while you make the argument someone *could* have, I would counter with the argument that "uninhabitable" =/= "immediately lethal". The planet was rendered somewhere humans could no longer live long term, but that doesn't mean it was immediately poisonous to the people on the planet. However, Sisko, while not doing the deeds himself, was directly involved in the murder of several people *and* dragging an entire civilization into a war they wouldn't have otherwise participated in. Even if the argument could be made that the Dominion *would* eventually turn on the Romulans, that's a whole lot of Romulan blood on Sisko's hands.
@@icecold9511 Those people had been on those worlds for an absolute maximum of 25 years. The Maquis would rather die in the unending war they want the Federation to fight with Cardassia than to move away from a home a maximum of 1 generation of them grew up on. It's not even like finding a new home, safe transport to that home, or affording necessities would be an issue. There are a handful of people on those worlds with good, solid historical reasons for not trusting relocation by a federated authority. The vast majority of Maquis, however, are just selfish.
Regarding the poisoning the Maquis planet: The commission of war crimes (at least under international law on Earth) does not require the existence of a formal or declared state of war. (Officially, recall, the Vietnam War was a “police action.”)
Paraphrase o fthe episode: Sisko: Garak can you contact your old connections from when you were in the Obsidian Order? Garak: I was never in the Obsidian Order. Sisko: Can you contact them though? Garak: Sure.
Here's a fun idea, someone should do a skit where Sisko is Judge Dredd and Eddington is Rico in this one scene where Dredd yells at Rico that he betrayed the law
Eddington: Why did you judge me?
Sisko: You killed innocent people
Eddington: A means to an end
Sisko: You started a massacre
Eddington: I caused a revolution
Siso: YOU BETRAYED THE LAW
Eddington: RAAAAAWWWWWW
The Siege of AR-558 is one of my favorite episodes too because it shows the horrors of war. I like the Trek episodes that show the dark side of the Federation, that it isnt a perfect paradise. DS9 really showed that and has some of the best dialog about it.
That's one of my favourite episodes. Patrick Kilpatrick performance as a battle hardened officer was great.
@@keithmartin1328 By far one of the best Trek performances.
That "right right right" killed me
So was the line "It's Not Authentic!!!" this whole time? Holy shit the Mandela Effect is a powerful phenomenon.
@@WobblesandBean So you could say, Steve's version of the line was... a faaaaaabrication!
I'm pretty sure the line actually is, 'It's a Jaaaaaaaake" ~ Evidence: ruclips.net/video/Ln3F3zxW7E4/видео.html
It's a banana! ruclips.net/video/oB-NnVpvQ78/видео.html
It's also an indictment of Starfleet as a whole. As in both instances Starfleet was totally fine with what he did. I've always thought too that Sisko was totally in on the Section 31 thing. If you notice, basically every time 31 approaches Bashir to do their dirty work, Sisko is like "You should totally do their dirty work."
Consider the following episode, "The Siege of AR-558". Sisko is perfectly fine with using the subspace mines instead of destroying them.
i always thought it was weird how in one of the last few ds9 episodes where that one 31 guy dies no one from starfleet investigates his death or anything, so sisko being in on it all would make some sense i suppose. cover up their tracks
Sisko is a section 31 agent, that's how Sloan is able to get in and out of DS9 no problem.
@@oneproudbrowncoat For me, that was a tactical tool. Means to an end.
@@1funeral2many9 Yes. Have always thought that the many times I've seen the episode. Also, hard to believe that (at least during the term of DS9) Section 31 didn't take revenge on Miles and Julian.
15:35 And Garak says: "By Grabthar's hammer. What a savings!"
I've seen the Pale of Moonlight episodes about 100 times. Your narration of it was freaking awesome 😂😂😂 When Sisko ask Garik for help I can only imagine Garik running back to his quarters wristing one off because he got a chance to play with his spy skills which he hasn't used in years.
Apart from being the best Captain he also was the best Commander. ;)
I'd put up an argument for Spock
I agree.
Man, this is a great analysis on this topic and episode...nicely done!
Don't forget that we actually SAW the reality where Picard was never rescued from the Borg in the season 7 episode, "Parallels." One of the many alternate universes Worf visits is the exact one where Picard was never rescued and Riker became captain.
I made a drinking game based on that episode. Every time Worf looks confused or perplexed, take a shot.
"In the Pale Moonlight" is the best episode in any series of the franchise that doesn't feature the words "To be Continued".
I haven't seen Discovery, so it doesn't factor into what I'm about to say, but Sisko is easily, and I mean EASILY, the most interesting captain character in any of the Trek series. They let him grow, change, and mature. It's great watching this show and seeing him become scarred by the war as events unfold, such as in "In the Pale Moonlight." He was a kickass father, husband, leader, and friend. I loved how they showed him striving to live up to Federation ideals while also having to struggle with realities that were only hinted at (at most) in other Trek series. I love that this conflict got the better of him in this episode, forced him to cross a moral event horizon, and to accept that crossing as yet another casualty of war, worth it for the end result. He was just a brilliantly plotted, brilliantly written, and brilliantly acted character.
I've never seen the ds9 series but i agree they've definitely allowed sisko grow & change.
Hes not always on the "moral high ground" type of person. While being stuck in the middle of a war where ones perception change constantly
@@jasonleslie203 how do you know this if you never saw ds9?
Don’t watch Discovery or Picard.
Also the dude is most similar to a military officer. Guy has a family life that is strained by his job but he pulls through. Sisko is my favorite captain
Sisko of course is played by Avery Brooks and those who know about his acting background know that before he played Hawk. A former gangster turned private detective very StreetWise on Spenser for Hire and also on the short-lived show A Man called Hawk. Captain Benjamin Sisko is going full Gangsta on the Maquis because of his Vendetta with Lieutenant Commander Michael Eddington. He considered the Betrayal a personal affront, and that justified anything.
I really enjoyed this episode. You made a good point about something that I have always believed 1) It's impossible to avoid being in situations that Captain Sisko found himself in and 2) people need to get this insanity of trying to have war in a civilized way with rules out of their heads and focus on not having a war to begin with.
My take is that Sisko never forgave himself for what the war has turned him into. In a pale moonlight, he said he can live with it, but how many times do we lie to ourselves to keep us going, at least for our loved ones. However, any chance at ending his own existence, he was gonna take it, especially one that is heroic and can benefit others. That's why Sisko didn't even have a second thought pushing Dukat and himself into the fire pit.
"Uh no, wrong Brock Peters character. That's Admiral Cartwright. He'd be fine with it." - best line. Also a sly acknowledgment that Starfleet has been flirting with shadiness for a long time.
Since the beginning according to section 31. At least if I'm remembering right. And if they were telling the truth.
In "A stitch in time" a collection of diary entries of Garak (Written by Andrew Robinson himself) he states that (and this is basically his own headcannon as I don't think they bring it up in the show) that Garak told Bashir what he and Sisko had done. I would have liked to have seen what that would have done with Bashir and his relationship with Sisko down the line, though I think in the 'cannon' of DS9 only Sisko and Garak were privy to what happened.
I deeply appreciate your sympathetic explanation of the sacrifice of, essentially, one’s own personality in war. It’s a particularly difficult subject, for vets and active duty alike. Exceptionally well written/spoken. Thank you, Steve.
Remember, When Sisko said he would attack at Maquis colony, he didn't say Federation Colony, Maquis Colony would suggest it was all Maquis personnel.
War criminal or no, you are right when you say he is the best Star Trek captain of all time.
He's not the best star trek captain because he committed a war crime, but rather he is the best star trek captain as we got to see him deal with the moral conundrum of the war crime pretty much forced on him by outside events.
Besides, the Federation needed to show to the maquis people just 20:21 how serious the matter had gotten. "This far no further."
Great recap and discussion of those decisions Sisko had to deal with. I love how DS9 got more into the grey areas of moral and ethical decisions in real life compared with its Trek predecessors.
Sisko as the anti-Picard elevates DS9 so much, everything else in the series is just icing on the cake. I mean, I don't want to put Avery Brooks performance or the show writers' work in a box.. but Steve's video showcases just how much of a divergence Sisko is from Picard.
As soon as Sisko punched Q in the fucking face, I knew he was gonna be different from Picard. I love it.
He's only a war criminal if convicted. For now, he's just a war suspect. At least a war person-of-interest. Definitely not a war innocent. War.
I can see your point, in war tho anyone can become a war criminal
He is just a suspected, or alleget war criminal if he isnt convicted. Inside the series, is there any proof t convict him unless garak spills the beans, but who would believe garak.
In war only the non combatants that aren't collaborators are innocent
I think the answer is an obvious yes, which underlines a lesser focused on fact; that war can be so traumatic and evil it can alter a fundamentally good persons moral code and ethics.
Sisko understood what he was doing was wrong. Especially demonstrated with "In the Pale Moonlight" with his log entry. He didn't justify it, it said he could live with it.
After all, all war is a crime....
No way I'll ever be able to watch Bashir again without mentally hearing Steve say "nerd" in the background.
If he's a war criminal, he sure is my *favourite* war criminal.
".... isn't to conduct wars in a more civilized fashion, because how could such a thing be possible?" The people of Eminiar VII could have a thing or two to say about that. 😉
Call of Duty: Eminiar... the disintegration stations are in 4K UHD
Which caused Kirk to do a similar thing to what Sisko did here: order Scotty to prepare to destroy an entire planet to stop a war, which what was implied with your quote.
Saw the title of this video, remembered "For the Uniform" and called out "Yes, 100%!" before clicking, lol.
I would love to see and hear how Benjamin Sisko is regarded in the time period of _"Picard"_ by the characters in story.
Considering the fact that he is probably listed as MIA or KIA right at the end of the Dominion War, he probably ended up in historical records as a war hero with one or two footnotes about accounts similar to these.
@@jasonkeith2832he promised he was coming back to his family though - which was an insistence of Avery Brooks who did not want the first black to me a Star Trek lead to end his arc by abandoning his family. So i’d like to think he did come back and retire with Cassidy on Bajor. I imagine the non-Bajoran Federation view him as kind of a religious weirdo who “went native” on assignment, but as Bajor is in the Federation by that point, that talk is relatively limited.
This is your BEST video and that’s saying a lot! You’re produced so many good videos. Thought provoking
Thanks !
Is what Sisko did morally wrong? Yes. Was it freaking awesome? HELL YES!!
Benjamin LaFayette Sisko - father, chef, engineer, captain, demigod, war criminal.
Makes the resume pop. 👍🏼
Seriously - in an earlier (?) video, you made the proposition that Starfleet wasn’t the shining beacon it puts itself up to be. So Sisko’s actions, though morally and ethically reprehensible, might just slide by ‘Fleet’s lights.
War isn’t Hell. War is war, and Hell is Hell. And of the two, war is a lot worse.
There are no innocent bystanders in hell...
Did you watch M*A*S*H cause Hawkeye quoted this.
Yes, Hawkeye.
@@DarthSideous63 I am quoting Hawkeye, My family are big M*A*S*H fans
Hey there, Steve! I know this episode is 2 years old but it just popped into my feed. IMHO, I think that Sisko's anger toward the actions of Garak in, "In the Pale Moonlight," might have been a direct reaction to what he KNEW to be wrong in "For the Uniform." The old story of the hypocrite screaming the loudest at people who are behaving similarly. (or a case of "Do as I SAY, not as I DO!") Just a thought.
Wait, how have I not seen this video before now?! The best heckin' captain in Starfleet!
Sisko is one of my favourite characters and I liked that part of his arc is unique because, unlike Nog or Rom, he doesn't change for the better. Or not completely, anyway.
So: in Emissary, he starts of pretty shady (he blackmails Quark by imprisoning his nephew, a minor) and as the series goes on, he gets progressively shadier.
Series 2, he sees a woman he likes and has no qualms about using station security to track her down. Then he lets the leader of the Maquis (Cal Hudson) escape because they used to be friends.
His anti-heroing carries on building up until he's eventually poisoning planets.
Then, he finally realises he's gone too far: he condemns an entire nation to a destructive, costly war that will doubtlessly cost millions of lives who otherwise may have survived.
After his confession to the log, and while he says he *can* live with it, he never does anything like that again for the rest of the series.
I love DS9 ♥️
In fairness most of those people would have died eventually because after the dominion took care of the federation and Klingons they would naturally go for the romulans. Siskos thinking was together we can win but if they don’t join. Then the dominion will defeat them in detail after us and take the alpha quadrant. It was inevitable.
I used to hate DS9 but I binged watched it on Netflix and really analyzed it and began to love the episodic format. It was at its peak when they got Worf and the Defiant.
I'm glad you brought up "For the uniform". I was appalled by it and how Sisko seemingly had no difficult sleeping later especially when you can find similarities between that and what Nazis did to the whole towns where a few insurgents act. In Pale Moonlight he had real difficulty dealing with his complicit actions to a handful of deaths (not just the Romulan senator and the criminal - the senator had at least two guards and who knows what other crew on that vessel, and I always held suspicion that the unknown trader for the data rod had been "removed" by Garek at first opportunity - no loose ends) by enlisting someone he knew would do whatever it took. I really don't like watching "For the uniform" because I feel it sent the wrong message about consequences to hard decisions.
What I'm getting at is that if you look back at your past actions immune to ethical and moral criticisms, your future actions will always be suspect.
I thought it was gonna go there and it went there, and i'm happy to hear you explain it as you so eloquently do. I have fond memories of ds9 and tng (and even voyager) and your dives into their characters and themes enrich those memories immesurably.
On the topic of war, and good men - my mother passed on words to me, a half Japanese boy, from her father, who fought the Japanese in what was then Burma, that he'd joked about holding a sign up saying "don't shoot! i'm one of you!", referencing his somewhat Asian appearance for an Englishman. She also told me the other thing he had said - "One does not judge a man by what he does in war". A sentence that always stuck out in my mind, and one i feel is very pertinent to this episode.
So thanks again for exploring this topic and everything else. All the best.
............isn't it "icosahedral"?
I think "For The Uniform" is a bit of a meta-episode. Sometimes we need to remember that Star Trek isn't reality even if the Berman-era is reasonably consistent (and that's why we love it). As audience we are asked to like the Maquis, even if "it's complicated". Ro Laren, Chakotey and others are downright protagonists. And at least in this episode we have to go with Eddington, as he points out that Sisko is betraying HIS uniform commiting these atrocities. In Les Misérables there is no doubt that Police Inspector Javert is a crazy bad guy. If you impersonate him you will actually be the bad guy, no pardon. The difference is that Javert commits suicide when realizing just how bad he is after Jean Valjean spared his life. Sisko, on the other hand, says "it's refreshing to be the bad guy sometimes" to a laughing Jadzia Dax: end of episode. And in the next one, he's all good again!!
I don't think this is about a "grey zone" as many of the other Maquis episodes. It's too far out for that. Sisko really is the bad guy here. Maybe just for a laugh. Or maybe they want to keep us on our toes. Or even conveying the message that: don't let even your greatest hero lure you into believing that ecocide is cool. Am I overinterpreting? :-)
The nuances of Sisko is one of the reasons why he is my favorite Capitan. Complex, not one for hiding .. subduing his emotions. Very human.
"In The Pale Moonlight" one the greatest Star Trek episodes. It shows how the best of men could check their mortality and values at the door.
by far one of the best episodes of Television evere written, ever produced, ever edited, ever broadcast.
You said it all... Deep Space Nine is exactly about that "How far can you hold your principles in face of certain doom?"
Also as philosopher I´ve been seeing lately say "I don´t trust 'good people'. Everyone that doesn´t have a flaw, an addiction is not worth of trust. I ratter have sinners by my side". Meaning that one who is aware of its flaws and that he is not "clean" is far more forgiving and generous... Perhaps that´s why Q liked to tease Picard but had no insterest for Sisko. Picard is too much saint, so it was funny for Q to take him to the edge and test his limits.
I always think of the 1998 film The Siege in discussions like this, because it has that immortally prevalent line "It's easy to tell the difference between right and wrong, what's hard is choosing the wrong that is more right"
And I imagine that nowhere is this more true than in a war when your entire civilisations very existence is at stake. Is Sisko a war criminal? Absolutely. Are his actions understandable? Logical? Yes, very much so, it's not hard to argue that he chooses the wrongs that are more right. And that's the joy of later DS9; things are often a murky, uncomfortable form of grey where everyone is wrong for all the right reasons.
I am surprised that Sisko did not receive a reprimand if nothing else for poisoning planets and endangering lives.
Great synopsis. In the Pale Moonnight was one of my fav Trek episodes of the entire series.
Great work.
I mean, I haven't watched the video yet, but... yeah. He really is. Like, I don't see how that's even a discussion. Though as always I definitely look forward to hearing your take.
I know right, I watched the video, but when I first saw the title I was like 'umm, obviously, is this even a question? Like who was sitting there doubting if Sisko was a war criminal?'
To quote a post by another fine writer, @Ansible1000:
"Eddington had also engaged in exactly this kind of tactic against Cardassian settlers at the start of the episode. The Cardassians do not view the Maquis and the Federation as separate entities. The Cardassians are a race of ethno-nationalists who have a hard time conceiving of anyone else acting differently (to be fair, the Klingons and Romulans are as well). To the Cardassians, a Maquis attack against their colonies is the same as a federation attack, just with a veneer of realpolitik covering up the connections. Sisko bringing in Eddington prevents Cardassian retaliation, which will be disproportionate and cruel and result in thousands of deaths and likely hostages in the hundreds if not thousands. We know how Cardassians handle prisoners.
What Sisko is doing is cleaning up Starfleet’s mess before the Cardassians make a bigger one. The Maquis never had a chance against the Cardassians or the Federation. They relied on being too distant for the federation and too small for the Cardassians to bother with. By resorting to biological weapons, they made themselves a major threat to Cardassia and an existential threat to the Federation. Sisko de-escalated and disarmed the conflict without direct loss of life, and I think it’s worth commending him for that.
What’s more, the Maquis mission statement is just dumb. Resist the Cardassians, sure. Admit that the Federation is flawed, of course! But to spit in the eye of both, declare yourself an independent autonomous region between two super-powers and then support yourself with piracy and theft against both super-powers is just suicide. To do so while one of those super-powers is saying ‘come back, we have food, blankets, shelter and space for you, all you need to do is ask!’ and ignore that for some nebulous concept of ‘freedom’ is just idiotic.
For all its flaws, the federation is a free democracy. Anyone who wants to go find a remote planet and set up a frontier settlement is spoiled for choice, you just have to accept that you will sometimes have to wave at a passing Excelsior class ship making sure you’re okay, and you can’t oppress natives or destroy ecosystems. That seems preferable to becoming a frontier bandit because Starfleet is just so dang mean and stuck-up!"
Sisko is not a war criminal.
My favorite part of In the Pale Moonlight was when Garak hijacked that school bus full of kids
"Who knows 'The Laughing Vulcan and his dog'? Come on, sing! SING!"
Oh! No, no, I got a better one. "Row-row-row your boat -- come on, sing! Why aren't you singing?"
"I was attempting to comprehend the meaning of the words."
They should have named "In the Pale Moonlight" "The Maltese Data Rod."
Everyone forgets he got approval to do whatever he needed to do to get Eddington. The displayed Marquee can move to Cardassian old planet.
It is explicit at the end of the episode, right after we see the Maquis and Cardassians switching planets, that Sisko *didn't* get Starfleet approval for that.
So the guy that gave him that permission is also a war criminal.
For The Uniform, aka "Star Trek DS9: The Wrath of Sisko"
Steve Shives: Is Captain Sisko Actually a War Criminal?
Marritza: War crimes? How could there be war crimes when there hasn't been a war?
Did I catch a very sly "Amadeus" reference, in there? "What happened? A miracle!" Well done, sir, well done. That reference was for me.
That was absolutely an Amadeus reference.
"In The Pale Moonlight" has got to be the darkest episode in the whole Star Trek franchise. Still as hard-hitting as it was way back when.
And you were right about Rush. No question.
Benny Russell: "IT'S LEGITIMATE!"
> "Look what war does."
You know, I hadn't thought about that and its a great point. The War did change him, and the others.
Aren't they basically playing D&D every time they use the holodeck? Pretty sure they are.
We've seen characters going into the Holodeck in full costume. They are full on LARPing
Especially as Bashir tends to go into war battle simulators with O'Brien. He's unquestionably a nerd in that respect. Then again, isn't all of Starfleet a bunch of nerds, with their obsession with science?
Even Worf, although he is a history nerd not so much a tech one
@@chadfalardeau5396 I bet if you started asking about phaser specs. He'd be a tech nerd pretty quickly but your right. His interests are definitely hyper focused on war.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
Everyone’s got lines they won’t cross until things get messy.
Someone's been watching The Mandalorian?
In "For the uniform" has commited crime against humanity, in "The Pale Moonlight" and probably in "Tacking into the Wind" (addressing to Worf about Gowron: "Something has to be done." "You do whatever it takes Mr. Worf" "Gowron is risking the safety of the entire Alpha Quadrant and he has to stop") has commited war crime(s). But hell I still adore him!
i would enjoy a story, maybe a comic series, showing what happened to that biomimetic gel. maybe it found it's way to the maquis? maybe garak just kept it, he had a spare data rod in his sock drawer!
Somehow Garak having a spare rod lying around wouldn't surprise me.
Apparently an episode talks about how biomimetic gel is used to make difficult to trace explosives.
13:04 I nearly spit out my soda and could not stop laughing during the entire Romulan Ale Vreenak commentary bit.
Vreenak is right: Sisko did start the war with the Dominion. He comes through the wormhole, bumps into the Dominion, they say: we don't want you here. He says: we're only friendly explorers who want to trade and get to know each other better, They says: get lost, and crash into a Federation starship just to make a point. But Sisko keeps coming, sending Bajorans settlers etc, and then the Domonion says: this is enough, we're going to conquer you, and Sisko yells: foul!
If Sisko is considered a war criminal, the next question would be...Who benefitted from it??
Perhaps he is one...but, people have a tendency to forget about how all of that peace and freedom fell into their laps.
And then, due to all of that peace and freedom have the 'luxury' to question how they got it.