DS9s "In The Pale Moonlight"- Was It As Daring As Trek Fans Believe?

Deep Space Nine's sixth season episode "In The Pale Moonlight" has often been hailed as a bold departure for Star Trek. I remember one reviewer said that it marked where "Gene Roddenberry's idealistic Star Trek was buried forever.

But was it really that big of a deal?

Think about it. Does Sisko really make that many compromises with his ideals in the first place? After all, Sisko is trying to help the Federation win a war that HE STARTED in the first place (the Romulan ambassador says that outright). And Sisko doesn't even plan or condone the murder of the ambassador before hand. At worst, Sisko is conspirator to commit murder after the fact by deciding to reveal nothing of Garak's plotting.

I think the fact that Sisko doesn't do any of this until the Federation appears to be losing the war greatly undermines the gravity of his actions.

When you're desperate enough, morals go by the wayside.

It reminds me of the debate on the U.S. torturing terrorist suspects and a number of ANTI TORTURE people saying that if it was something like a "nuclear weapon in an American city" then obviously they would be willing to use torture to locate it.

It would've meant alot more if Sisko did all this either

1) Early in the war before things even become desperate just to enhance the chances of Federation victory.

or

2) After the tide of war has turned and the Federation is well on its way to victory but Sisko decides to do it to make it end quicker to save lives.

But by making Federation defeat seem likely at the time Sisko takes his actions, it is really hard to see all the moral reluctance that he shows.

Thoughts?

Yep.

Next question.

No. Sisko was completely aware it may come to that. He knew there was a risk of killing the ambassador, and the only person with the balls to do it was Garak. He was weak and let another man commit his crimes. It is most certainly a big deal.

Given that Starfleet at times puts things like the Prime Directive ahead of the safety of its people, yes this was a big deal.

His principles were put aside. You might think his reasons for doing so were just, but that is still a massive step for someone in his position.

Please move this thread to the Red Room.

Does this include Christian morals?

D'oh. Garak even SAYS it in the episode. Sisko came to him because he could do things the captain can't do (or some such, it's been some time). So Sisko was at least subconsciously aware of what would happen if plan A didn't work.

Oh wait.

You're trolling. Carry on, then.

if you're thinking, "what would Robert MacNamara do?" - no, it's not a huge step.

But given the well established strutting on screen done by Starfleet captains to the tune of "we're above that sort of thing" (particularly Picard) including Sisko, then it's definitely a big departure from THAT.

Exactly this.

I have to give Enterprise credit where it's due--when Archer had his Pale Moonlight moment in season three, he actually goes down to the alien ship and looks the other captain in his eye and apologizes for his piracy act.

I think the "daring" aspect of this episode isn't so much Sisko thinking up the plan to trick the Romulans so much as the way he went about it (bringing in Garak, for example).

I can't remember if "In The Pale Moonlight" was before or after Sisko poisoned the planet with the human colonists on it in order to give it to Cardassians that had their planet poisoned by Eddington.

To me, poisoning a planet of human colonists and forcing them to leave their homes is a more significant "moral departure" than scheming to bring the Romulans in the war.

I mean come on, why would tricking a long time enemy into helping you be that big of a deal.

Pale Moonlight was later, in Season 6. The other one was from Season 5 when he was hunting down Eddington.

I would say that the reason why Sisko poisoning the planet isn't a moral departure is because Eddington was a member of the Maquis. Which employed terrorist tactics to accomplish their goals against the Cardassians. The Maquis used biogenic weapons against the Cardassians. Biogenic weapons are illegal in accordance to treaties signed. So Sisko was not departing from any morals, he was preventing further actions by the Maquis. At this point the Maquis were committing acts that could have caused the Cardassians to declare war on the Federation. And Sisko knew that the humans on the planet would be able to leave without anyone actually dying. If I remember correctly, he deployed the weapons on part of the planet while the Maquis poisoned the entire planet.

Of course it's a moral departure. It doesn't matter if the Maquis did bad things too.

It was badly written though. The writers didn't seem to suggest anything wrong with it.

The more I started to think about it, the more I wondered why it was such a problem that the settlers on those colonies wanted to stay there, despite the turn-over of said planets to Cardassia. If it was so important to them to revoke their Federation citizenship to keep their homes, why shouldn't they have been allowed to and fought on their own? They seemed better off to be outside Federation space anyway with the war going on.

Why are independence wars even fought? Why didn't Britain just let us go peacefully? Same thing I suppose - egos and politics.

On the other hand, why didn't we just bide our time and wait for the Empire to overextend itself, as empires invariably do? Canada and Australia didn't need wars to achieve independence.

Egos and politics!

Maybe Britain knew better than to pull the "taxation without representation" Ponzi scheme a second and third time.

Also worth nothing is the two countries still have the Queen of England as their head of state.

There's no "maybe" about it. Damn right Britain learned it's lesson after the US disaster.

You can rule harshly over natives, but not rich white settlers.

Technically, no.

The Queen of England is a title that holds no legal power here.

Queen Elizabeth II holds the title of Queen of Australia. She is obviously the same person, but could easily not be and only serves in that role because Australia requests it.

In theory.

What Sisko did in the episode to the HUMAN colonists would be called "ethnic cleansing" today.

Even when none of them actually died?

Watched this episode again last night, I forgot how the episode was set up as a flashback. I like how Sisko's scenes where he is in the present are directed towards the viewer. He's not only justifying what he did to us, but to himself. And even though as he said, he will live with what he did. Not because he can, but because he has to live with it.

It was forced relocation. Only a year later, Star Trek a big stink about that concept in Insurrection.

Yeah, that's true. I think the difference was supposed to be that the Maquis colonies "deserved" it, since they'd just let Eddington do the same thing to the Cardassian colonies...


But it is kind of jarring. Maybe it shows how insulated from the Enterprise was, being in the middle of the Federation, that they'd be so outraged about something the DS9 crew sees as a reasonable solution.

Even within the TNG universe, that concept wasn't new. There was that one episode where they sacrifice that one planet the Indian tribe lived on to Cardassia and Wesley Crusher warns them that they'll be re-located. Picard gives Baby Crusher a Stern Lecture(tm) about following Starfleet order even when he personally disagrees with them.

Then in INS, he pretty much says "Yeah, fuck that gay shit" because of that MILF he planned on seeing during shore leave.

I think it mostly shows how PC and preachy the writing in TNG was compared with a show that didn't follow "Gene's Vision" to the letter.

The premise for INS was the stupididestest ever anyway. I mean, the sheer egomania. There you are, a few people on a whole planet that can give eternal life and rejuvenation to billions and they just wouldn't share. I am of course not talking about sucking up the rings or whatever it was that would have destroyed the whole planet, just carpet the thing with hotels and spas and let them have their happy three square kilometers. There, problem solved and Risa goes bankrupt

And it wasn't even their planet!

You've got to remember what inspired Insurrection.

Michael Piller applying his Rogaine (hair restorer) one morning.

Seriously According to Piller himself.