John Potts May 22, 2017 Share May 22, 2017 (edited) Quote After a botched operation to stop the Maquis, Sisko is determined to capture Michael Eddington How far is too far? A good question (and would the answer be the same when the episode was aired in 1997 as it might be if it aired in 2002?) and one that has slightly disturbing answers for Starfleet's ethics (Eddington posed little direct threat to Starfleet, but apparently they're OK with Sisko poisoning a planet's atmosphere to capture him? And no, it's not OK because they can move to the planet Eddington poisoned, because the Maquis were offered exactly that deal - resettlement for peace - and violently rejected it) because everyone's all "Great! You got your man!" (the closest anyone gets to objecting is Worf of all people, who you'd think "Would be Klingon enough to not object to a little genocide in the name of self defence," to quote Garak). I get that as any struggle becomes prolonged, principles will be eroded and people more prepared to take extreme action, but even the most Gung ho government will put some token effort into pretending they observe their principles - at least have Sisko face an (empty) "official censure" for his actions here rather than have everyone slap him on the back. It's not enough to have Sisko (and Dax) describe him as a villain, have Ben face the consequences of being the villain. ETA: Thanks for moving this to the right Season! Edited May 23, 2017 by John Potts Link to comment
rmontro April 17, 2018 Share April 17, 2018 I had similar problems with this episode. For one thing, Eddington has the opportunity to kill Sisko at least twice and deliberately chooses not to. Meanwhile Sisko is unmoving about bringing him in for a court marshal. Eddington comes off as more sympathetic than Sisko, if you ask me. Then there's that bit about poisoning the atmosphere. Funny how Sisko was acting as the villain from Les Miserables, because he doesn't come off as that heroic in this one. Link to comment
Recommended Posts