star trek the pale moonlight

In the Pale Moonlight (episode)

• View history
• 1.2 Act One
• 1.3 Act Two
• 1.4 Act Three
• 1.5 Act Four
• 1.6 Act Five
• 2 Memorable quotes
• 3.1 Origins
• 3.2 Story and script
• 3.3 Continuity
• 3.4 Behind the scenes
• 3.5 Reception
• 3.6 Remastered version
• 3.7 Apocrypha
• 3.8 Video and DVD releases
• 4.1 Main cast
• 4.2 Guest stars
• 4.3 Co-star
• 4.4 Uncredited co-stars
• 4.5 Stunt double
• 4.6.1 Unreferenced material
• 4.7 External links

Summary [ ]

On this Friday, Lieutenant Commander Jadzia Dax discovers that a longtime friend, Leslie Wong , was lost along with all hands on board the USS Cairo . Presumably, the Cairo was ambushed by a Dominion patrol that passed through Romulan space – a common occurrence, because the Romulans have a non-aggression pact with the Dominion. Dr. Bashir argues that bringing the Romulans into the war would be advantageous to the Federation war effort. Dax, however, replies that the Romulans are currently in a perfect position and have no reason to side with anyone.

As Sisko 's log continues…

Act One [ ]

Initially, Sisko's objective seems unattainable, as staying neutral is clearly in the Romulans' best interests. When Dax role-plays the Romulan devil's advocate in a mock debate, Sisko determines how to get them into the war on their side. She convinces him that what he needs is "solid proof" to convince the Romulans that the Dominion is planning on conquering them after they are done with the Federation Alliance .

Sisko makes the deal with Garak

Sisko contacts Elim Garak because of his skills at retrieving highly classified and guarded information (namely, secret Dominion war plans that Sisko can employ in convincing the Romulan government). With apparent reluctance, Garak agrees – after noting that it would involve the expenditure of all his resources on Cardassia Prime and may well turn out to be altogether a very messy and bloody business. Sisko, reminding him that the war already is a messy and bloody business, is prepared to do anything to accomplish his objective.

As his log continue…

Act Two [ ]

That night, Sisko is awoken by Major Kira and learns that the Dominion has conquered Betazed in a matter of hours, thanks to the planet's antiquated defenses and the Tenth Fleet being caught out of position. Now the Dominion are in a prime strategic position to strike several key worlds (including Alpha Centauri , Andor , Tellar Prime , and Vulcan ). This development makes Sisko even more determined, and after three days' time, he inquires of Garak concerning his progress. Garak has spoken with several Cardassian operatives willing to assist in the mission, but each and every one has suddenly been killed within a day of communicating with him. Garak bids the Captain not to give up and (with an almost unnerving enthusiasm) proposes that, since it's now clear they'll never be able to get a hold of the evidence they need, they should go about personally manufacturing it.

Garak proposes that Sisko invite Senator Vreenak to Deep Space 9 , since the senator will be passing by in a few days. Vreenak negotiated the Romulan nonaggression pact with the Dominion and is an outspoken supporter of it; he is also known for his low opinion of the Federation. If Sisko can persuade him to join the war, Garak is certain, the whole Romulan Senate will follow. The two formulate a plan to show him a fabricated recording of a secret, high-level Dominion meeting, in which Dominion officials discuss their plan to conquer the Romulans. To ensure that Vreenak believes it, they will use a genuine Cardassian optolythic data rod , as well as a good cover story about how Starfleet obtained it. Sisko points out that he'll need approval from Starfleet to proceed with the plan, but Garak assures him that with the takeover of Betazed they should be more than willing to approve the plan, which ultimately they do.

The first thing that Sisko needs to do is to get Grathon Tolar , an expert in holographic forgery, released from a Klingon prison where he is awaiting his execution. Sisko is able to influence Chancellor Gowron to pardon him, whereupon he explains to Tolar that the conditions of his parole are that he must create a special holographic program for him. Tolar, at first, assumes that he is to create a "special" program for Sisko's own use and suggests Orion slave girls but Tolar soon realizes the hazardous nature of the assignment when he learns Garak is involved, but ultimately agrees, as the alternative is to be executed by the Klingons.

As Sisko's log continues…

While working in his office, Sisko receives a communication from Odo over the comm stating that Tolar has just tried to kill Quark .

Act Three [ ]

According to Odo, apparently Tolar got drunk at Quark's and solicited a "dance" with M'Pella , one of the Dabo girls which she refused; in the ensuing bar fight, he stabbed Quark . Odo cannot release Tolar unless Quark decides not to press charges. Sisko, who wants no record of Tolar being on the station, speaks to Quark who (pleasantly surprised that Sisko is willing to offer him a bribe ) agrees not to press charges in exchange for compensation for his lost profits and damaged clothes and also that some merchandise of rather dubious legality be released from the security lot where it is currently impounded due to a "missing" import license . Sisko, between a rock and a hard place, approves all these requests. Quark is happy not only to have received so many profitable concessions from the Captain, but also because this blatant act of bribery has reaffirmed his faith in the 98th Rule of Acquisition : " Every man has his price. "

Sisko's log continues…

The next step in the plan is to obtain a genuine Cardassian data rod. After locking Tolar in his quarters with a credible threat that attempting escape may kill him, Garak, by some "minor miracle," finds a seller; unfortunately, the price is quite high: two hundred liters of bio-mimetic gel , a dangerous and heavily controlled substance. Sisko at first rejects the price outright, but Garak tells him that his seller won't accept anything else and finding another rod will be quite impossible. Sisko then seemingly decides to drop the whole plan, but after a few seconds changes his mind and tells Garak that two hundred liters is far too high a price. There is not enough gel in the Bajor sector to fulfill that request. Garak assures him he should be able to haggle it down to something more reasonable.

Later, Sisko asks Doctor Bashir in his office to prepare eighty-five liters of the gel; however the doctor refuses and points out that they have no idea where it's going and that in the wrong hands it could be used for exceedingly dangerous and immoral purposes. Sisko gives Bashir short shrift and makes it a direct order. Bashir insists on seeing this order in writing; Sisko immediately hands him the order on a PADD. Angry and disgusted that his demand was anticipated, but with no other recourse, Bashir agrees to prepare the gel but informs Captain Sisko that he intends to note the incident in his log and will be filing a grievance with Starfleet Medical . The unfazed Sisko simply orders that the gel be ready by the end of the day and dismisses him.

" Well, it has been a pleasure doing business with you, gentlemen. "

Sisko, Garak, and Tolar obtain the rod and begin preparing a convincing recording in which Weyoun and Damar plan the invasion of Romulus , making sure to have the two squabble with each other and appear as "real" as possible. The program is recorded onto the rod, and the forgery is complete. To ensure that Tolar isn't cheating them (though he has already encoded his forgery on the single-use data rod), Sisko detains Tolar for a while longer and threatens to hand him back over to Gowron to be tortured to death if the forgery fails to pass inspection. Tolar, who sycophantically insists he's sure the forgery will be successful, is further unnerved when Garak says he will stop by his quarters later ("to say hello").

Sisko shows Vreenak the program

Sisko at this point is getting nervous, as Senator Vreenak comes to the station in a cloaked Romulan shuttle (with no one other than Sisko and Garak aware that he's there). Before Sisko greets Vreenak, Garak tells him he plans to inspect the Senator's ship covertly (for anything "useful"), and leaves. Upon arrival in the shuttle bay, Vreenak smugly exchanges greetings with Sisko, taking great pleasure in egotistically dressing him down for how poorly the Federation Alliance is faring in its war with the Dominion so far.

Act Four [ ]

In the wardroom , Vreenak and Sisko discuss the fate of their respective worlds over a replicated bottle of kali-fal , at which point Sisko tells Vreenak that he has learned the Dominion is planning a surprise invasion of the Romulan Empire. Vreenak, naturally, demands proof, and Sisko presents his forgery. Vreenak asks to inspect the data rod and, in typical Romulan fashion, takes his time doing so, during which Sisko is understandably anxious.

As his log continues…

Sisko attempts, in vain, to calm himself until he's summoned by Vreenak. When he enters the wardroom, Vreenak silently dismisses his guards before angrily telling Sisko that he knows the recording is a fake.

" It's a FAAAAAKE! "

Act Five [ ]

Sisko, Dax, and Bashir are reviewing a new casualty list when Worf comes in and reports that Vreenak's shuttle has exploded, killing the senator. When he adds that the Tal Shiar believe the Dominion is responsible, Dax, recalling their previous conversation, gives Sisko a knowing smile. Worf also points out that this event unfolding as it has is a real game-changer: the death of Vreenak, who was on a diplomatic mission in Dominion space, could bring the Romulans into the war. Realizing what has really happened, an increasingly livid Sisko excuses himself. After walking through the promenade seething with fury, he marches into Garak's shop and greets the tailor with a backhand to the face. He accuses him of killing Vreenak, which Garak immediately admits. Sisko accuses him of never believing the rod would pass inspection, claiming he only wanted to lure Vreenak to the station to plant a bomb on his shuttle.

Garak counters that while he did indeed hope that the rod would pass Vreenak's inspection, he realized that it was possible, even probable, that it would not. This is why he planted a bomb on the Romulan shuttle, and made its destruction look like Dominion sabotage. As for Tolar, the forger, Garak casually dismisses him as another "casualty of war", confirming that he has eliminated him as well.

Sisko is furious and punches Garak again, but Garak tells Sisko that all of this was necessary; when the Tal Shiar investigate, the explosion would make it appear as if the Dominion destroyed the shuttle. Moreover, in the wreckage they will find a badly damaged data rod containing evidence that the Dominion was planning to betray the Romulans, the damage to the rod masking any imperfections in the forgery. He pointedly asks Sisko what conclusion he would draw, given the apparent facts. Sisko reluctantly connects the dots; not knowing about Vreenak's stop at Deep Space Nine, they will assume the rod came into his possession during his diplomatic mission on Soukara, and the Dominion assassinated him before he could expose them. And, Garak says, the more the Dominion protests their innocence, the more the Romulans will believe they're guilty, because it's exactly what the Romulans would have done in their place.

Garak reminds the captain that this is why he came to him for help in the first place: because he knew that Garak was willing to do things that he couldn't, no matter how distasteful and illegal. The most important thing is that Sisko is going to achieve exactly what he intended, since in light of the damning "evidence" against the Dominion, the Romulans will surely enter the war against the Dominion now. Garak tells Sisko he has very likely just saved the entire Alpha Quadrant, having only had to sacrifice the lives of one criminal, an unsympathetic senator, and perhaps his self-respect in the process. Garak tells Sisko that as far as he's concerned, it's "a bargain".

Sisko's log concludes…

Memorable quotes [ ]

" That was the moment I made the decision. It was like I had stepped through a door and locked it behind me. I was going to bring the Romulans into the war. "

" You would have made a decent Romulan. " " I prefer the spots to the pointed ears. "

" My father used to say that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. I laid the first stone right there. I'd committed myself. I'd pay any price; go to any lengths because my cause was righteous. My… intentions were good. In the beginning, that seemed like enough. "

" If you want to guarantee that we obtain evidence of a Dominion plot to attack the Romulans, I suggest that we manufacture that evidence ourselves. "

" You do understand the terms of your parole? " " Oh, yes, I have to promise to stay away from the Klingon Empire. Ha ha! That'll be tough! Ha ha ha! "

" What would it take to… uh, convince you otherwise? " " Are you offering me a bribe…? I knew it! Captain, I've always liked you. I suspected that somewhere deep down in your heart of hearts there was a tiny bit of Ferengi just waiting to get out… " " What's your price? "

" Anything else? " " No. I think we can call it a bribe. "

" They will ask how we got it. " " We obtained it through various covert means. Oh, and at great cost to the Federation, like at least 10 good men gave up their lives to bring it across the line. That sort of thing. "

" People are dying out there, every day! Entire worlds are struggling for their freedom! And here I am still worrying about the finer points of morality! "

" Who's watching Tolar? " " I've locked him in his quarters. I've also left him with the distinct impression that if he attempts to force the door open, it may explode. " " I hope that's just an impression. " " It's best not to dwell on such minutiae. "

" I am making a new agreement. If that program passes inspection, you walk free. But if there is even the slightest flaw, then I will send you back to that Klingon prison and tell Gowron to take his time while he executes you! "

" Gul Dukat is a great man. " " Gul Dukat is a preening egotist and a fool. "

" So you're the commander of Deep Space 9. And the Emissary to the Prophets. Decorated combat officer, widower, father, mentor… and oh yes, the man who started the war with the Dominion. Somehow I thought you'd be taller. " " Sorry to disappoint you. " " To be honest, my opinion of Starfleet officers is so low, you'd have to work very hard indeed to disappoint me. "

" It's a FAAAAAKE ! "

" A Romulan shuttlecraft carrying a high-ranking senator has just been destroyed. " "Which senator?! " " Senator Vreenak. He was returning to Romulus from a diplomatic mission to Soukara when his shuttle exploded. The Tal Shiar is investigating but… preliminary reports point to sabotage – they believe the Dominion is responsible. " (Almost smiling at the ramifications) " The Dominion assassinated a Romulan senator… " " …On a diplomatic mission… " " That changes everything – it could even bring the Romulans into the war… " (Knowing very well who the real saboteur was) " Excuse me… "

" You killed him! " " That's right! " " You knew that rod wouldn't pass inspection! You just wanted to get Senator Vreenak on the station so you could plant a bomb on his shuttle! " " It wasn't quite that simple! I had hopes that the rod would pass inspection, but I suspected that Tolar wasn't quite up to the task. "

" Think of them both as tragic victims of war. "

" 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 wanted: 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. "

" This is a huge victory for the good guys! "

" So… I lied. I cheated. I bribed men to cover the crimes of other men. I am an accessory to murder. But the most damning thing of all… I think I can live with it. And if I had to do it all over again, I would. Garak was right about one thing, a guilty conscience is a small price to pay for the safety of the Alpha Quadrant. So I will learn to live with it. Because I can live with it. I can live with it… Computer, erase that entire personal log. "

Background information [ ]

Origins [ ].

• The working title of this episode was "Patriot". ( Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion , p. 556)
• The earliest origins of this episode are to be found in a discussion amongst the writers about various pivotal moments in recent US history. One such moment was the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident , when a North Vietnamese gunboat allegedly attacked a US naval vessel, leading to an increased military presence in Vietnam itself, and effectively beginning the Vietnam War . Another defining moment under discussion was the 1974 Watergate scandal , which began with five men being arrested for breaking into the Watergate complex and ended with the resignation of President Richard Nixon , who was facing an impeachment in the House of Representatives and a conviction in the Senate due to the discovery of, amongst other things, illegal political espionage, improper tax audits, unauthorized wiretapping, and secret funding hidden in Mexico . Thinking about the sheer scale of these incidents and the massive repercussions felt for years afterward by people from all walks of life, the producers asked former staff-writer and producer Peter Allan Fields to compose a story based around a political controversy involving a secret that, if discovered, could have huge consequences throughout the quadrant. ( Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion , pp. 556-557)
• Fields's original premise revolved around Jake " watergating " First Minister Shakaar . He discovers an undisclosed secret about Shakaar from his days in the Bajoran Resistance which, if it got out, would bring down the Shakaar government and throw Bajor into chaos. When Jake tells his father about the secret, Sisko tries to stop him from publishing it. However, when the staff-writers went to work on Fields's story, they couldn't make it work, and so they altered the basic premise to Jake discovering something about his own father. Ronald D. Moore compared this premise to the film " All the President's Men ". ( AOL chat , 1998 ) This was the idea around which Michael Taylor composed his first draft of the script – the inherent conflict between Jake and Sisko. The story would begin when Jake tries to get an interview with Garak for the Federation News Service , but Garak is uninterested in being interviewed. Jake presses him, but Garak won't budge, and so Jake goes to his father to try to get him to put some pressure on Garak. However, Sisko tells him to stay away from Garak altogether. Intrigued, Jake begins to investigate, and he discovers that his father and Garak are involved in shady dealings and are trying to bring the Romulans into the Dominion War by lying to them about the Dominion's so-called plan to invade Romulan space. ( Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion , pp. 556-557)
• Michael Taylor is credited for the teleplay of the episode, although much of his contribution did not make the final draft. Taylor did came up with the idea of the fake Dominion rod, basing the idea on the historical Zimmerman Note of 1917 , in which Germany offered to help Mexico retake the southwest United States to keep America out of World War I. Instead, the American public became enraged by the implications of the telegram, facilitating America's entry into the war against Germany. For a time the note was thought to be faked in order to convince America to join the war against Germany. ( The 7th Rule Podcast #148 )
• By the final draft of the script, which was actually written by Ronald D. Moore although he is uncredited, Jake had been removed entirely. The reason for this was because the relationship between Jake and Sisko, as established in many episodes over the course of the five and a half years of the show, was simply too strong, their bond as father and son had become so pronounced that it was virtually impossible to conceive of anything destroying it, as Moore explains, " It was really no contest between Sisko and Jake, because as much as we want to, it's hard to get those two characters into conflict with each other. So it didn't really ring true. Jake was so young and Sisko was so experienced, you didn't really believe the central conflict of the show ." ( Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion , pp. 556-557)
• According to Moore, the title of the episode was a reference to the phrase " Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight? " from the film Batman . ( AOL chat , 1998 )
• Originally, the writers were going to have the Dominion invade Vulcan , not Betazed . The episode was structured so that at the moment Sisko begins to waver as to whether or not to carry his scheme through, a planet falls to the Dominion, serving to galvanize his resolve, but the writers didn't want to invent a new planet or name somewhere inconsequential, they wanted a planet that would carry weight for viewers, and they ultimately narrowed it down to Vulcan and Betazed. They initially decided on Vulcan, but they changed their minds when they came to the realization that " Vulcan just carried too much weight ." ( Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion , p. 557)

Story and script [ ]

• The closing of this episode was based on a line of dialogue in the 1962 John Ford movie The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance , which is spoken by Tom Doniphon ( John Wayne ); " Cold-blooded murder, but I can live with it. Hallie's happy. She wanted you alive ." ( Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion , p. 558)
• The script contained several scenes which were either unfilmed or cut from the episode as aired. In one, a continuation of the scene in which Sisko threatens Tolar in the holosuite, Garak suggests that after all the intrigue and deception of the past week, Sisko enjoyed that "moment of pure brute force". In response, Sisko says, "Mr. Garak, why is it that no one has killed you yet?" and Garak responds, "My innate charm?" The two laugh, and in the following scene Sisko discusses his response in his log. In another scene, Dax comes to Sisko and suggests that they forge evidence to bring the Romulans into the war, unaware that Sisko is engaged in a project to do exactly that. ( Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion - A Series Guide and Script Library )
• Moore wrote scenes to take place aboard Vreenak's ship but decided they were not needed: " There were some small scenes that were cut for time and budget that had more to do with the Romulan shuttle and its explosion. I think I’d written some scenes that were actually on the shuttle, and you saw more of how the plot played out. I think I realized in a conversation with Ira that actually, you didn’t need it at all. And he was right ".
• Sisko's line about having stepped through a door and locked it behind him, and Garak's line that attempting to force the door open may cause it to explode, serve as interesting allegories for their respective roles in the story itself. While it was Sisko who made the decision to initiate the plan to bring the Romulans into the war, it was Garak who applied the pressure that stopped Sisko from pulling out and ensured that the plan went through to its successful conclusion.

Continuity [ ]

• The Romulan nonaggression pact with the Dominion, signed in the fifth season finale " Call to Arms ", is referred to numerous times in this episode.
• Vreenak is on his way back from Soukara when he diverts to Deep Space 9 . Soukara is the planet visited by Jadzia Dax and Worf to rendezvous with the Cardassian double-agent Lasaran in " Change of Heart ".
• This episode echoes season 5's " For the Uniform ", where Sisko similarly disregards his own ethical belief system and Starfleet policy in order to catch Michael Eddington . Both episodes were written by Peter Allan Fields . This episode builds on the fifth season episodes " The Ship " and " Nor the Battle to the Strong " insofar as it deals with the notions that during wartime, real people lose their lives every day, and that war has very real consequences. These episodes attempted to convey a sense of the horrors of war and subvert the notion that war is all about exploding starships and nameless soldiers dying anonymously; that behind a list of names are real people with families and lives. This theme would be revisited once more in the seventh season episode " The Siege of AR-558 ", where Sisko would once again be troubled by his own reaction, as he is in this episode, to the casualty reports sent by Starfleet.
• Cited Rules of Acquisition : #98 (" Every man has his price ").
• It is revealed in this episode that Betazed is relatively close to Vulcan, Andoria , Tellar Prime , and Alpha Centauri . Alpha Centauri is the closest star system to Earth, approximately 4.3 light years distant. It is established in the Star Trek: Enterprise episode " Home " that Vulcan is approximately 16 light years from Earth. The relative proximity of all these worlds is further established throughout Star Trek: Enterprise .
• Also in Enterprise , it is established that the aforementioned worlds (Vulcan, Andoria and Tellar) were, together with Earth, the core of the Coalition of Planets of the evolving Federation.
• This is the second episode in a row in which Weyoun ( Jeffrey Combs ) appears only as a holographic simulation.
• The Romulan shuttle is the first new Romulan ship seen since the Romulan scout ship in TNG : " The Defector ".
• Exactly what fatal flaw Vreenak discovered in the forgery is never mentioned, but its subsequent success in fooling all the other Romulans suggests some physical flaw in the rod itself, rather than any error in the narrative of the forged record, was what clued him to its being a counterfeit. Garak does note to Sisko, however, that any discrepancies in both the rod and the program will be written off by the Romulans as being caused by damage from the explosion, thus whatever flaw Vreenak discovered is ultimately immaterial.

Behind the scenes [ ]

A moment from the filming of this episode

• This episode is presented in flashback format, with Sisko narrating a log entry in his quarters in the 'present' time, and the bulk of the episode comprising scenes from that narration. Other episodes structured like this are the second season episodes " Necessary Evil " and " Whispers ".
• Like the episode " Rules of Engagement ", this episode comes close to breaking the fourth wall , with Sisko seemingly talking directly to-camera, and hence the audience. However, there is no direct acknowledgment of the audience in the episode itself, instead the viewer merely takes the perspective of the computer to which Sisko dictates his log.
• The idea for Sisko to slowly undress as the episode progresses was director Victor Lobl 's, who saw it as serving a double function; on the one hand, Sisko loosening and removing his clothing was simply to convey the passage of time as he paced around the room, on the other it was a thematic metaphor for how, as Sisko narrates his log , he is literally baring his soul. ( Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion , pp. 557-558)
• Filming began on 27 January 1998 ( AOL chat , 1998 ).
• David Bell composed the score of the episode. Author Jeff Bond praised the music. ( The Music of Star Trek, p 213)
• Grathon Tolar 's outfit is a reuse of Richard Kiley 's suit as Gideon Seyetik from DS9 : " Second Sight ". It was also previously reused as an outfit of Kellan 's in VOY : " Dreadnought ".
• Colm Meaney ( Miles O'Brien ) and Cirroc Lofton ( Jake Sisko ) do not appear in this episode.

Reception [ ]

• "In the Pale Moonlight" has proven one of the most popular among fans. When the series ended in 1999, a poll run in Sci-Fi Entertainment had this episode as the highest rated show of the entire seven-year run, followed by " The Visitor " and " Far Beyond the Stars ". Furthermore, this episode has an average rating of 4.8/5 on the official Star Trek website (as of October 14th, 2008), making it one of the highest rated episodes on the entire site.
• According to the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion , p. 555, this episode is generally considered by both fans and staff as the darkest Star Trek episode ever made, and the one most antithetical to Gene Roddenberry 's initial views of Starfleet , the Federation and 24th century Humanity .
• Ronald D. Moore commented, " Actually I think that is the one I am the most proud of, of the ones I worked on, even though I didn't take a credit on that one. I felt like that was the best, most interesting script that challenged the show in a real way, and challenged the characters as far as we'd ever challenged them. " ( Cinefantastique , Volume 29 Number 6/7)
• Andrew Robinson nominates this as one of his favorite episodes, after " The Wire ", " Improbable Cause " and " The Die is Cast ". According to Robinson, this episode is about Garak teaching Sisko that " You can't go to bed with the Devil without having sex ." ( Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion , p. 555)
• In a separate interview, Robinson made a similar point, stating that this episode demonstrated how Deep Space Nine explored more difficult issues than the other Star Trek series. He commented, " [B]asically it exposes the American innocence, that we want to do these things in the world, but we're not really willing to take the consequences of our actions, and sometimes we have to do very dirty things, and we have to hurt people, and we pretend that that doesn't exist, that Americans would never do that. We dealt with issues like that and I don't think… you know… the other shows really went as far as we did. " [1]
• Of this episode, writer Michael Taylor says, " It showed how Deep Space Nine could really stretch the Star Trek formula. It pushes the boundaries in a realistic way, because the decisions Sisko makes are the kinds of decisions that have to be made in war. They're for the greater good ." ( Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion , p. 556)
• One TV Guide reviewer wrote, " An outstanding episode of the syndicated Star Trek: Deep Space Nine , 'In the Pale Moonlight', was structured as a long, labyrinthine entry in the captain’s log, as a vexed Sisko (Avery Brooks) dictated his perceptions of and participation in recent momentous events in the Alpha Quadrant. The program’s anguished, confessional mood, its Machiavellian plot, in which Sisko desperately attempts to manipulate the Romulans into breaking their non-aggression pact with the Dominion, and Avery’s powerful, passionate performance (arguably his best in six years on the science-fiction series) combined to make this episode absolutely stellar. " ( Television Guide , Volume 46, 1998)
• Time wrote of the episode, ["In the Pale Moonlight"] was the best of the war episodes: The Federation is losing; friends are dying; the planet Betazed (home world of Enterprise's Counselor Deanna Troi ) has fallen. Captain Sisko hatches a complicated plan to fabricate evidence showing that the Dominion wants to conquer the Romulans. His aim is to bring the Romulans into the war on the Federation's side. As Sisko gives up his principles slowly, one by one, in order to make his plan work, you expect Trek's simple moral verities to prevail. It is dumbfounding, and chilling, when they don't. " [2]
• In Star Trek 101 (p. 125), Terry J. Erdmann and Paula M. Block list "In the Pale Moonlight" as being one of the "Ten Essential Episodes" from Star Trek: Deep Space Nine .
• Cinefantastique ranked "In the Pale Moonlight" as the eighth best episode of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine . ( Cinefantastique , Vol. 32, No. 4/5, p. 100)
• Una McCormack commented, " I was completely addicted [to Deep Space Nine ] when I watched 'In the Pale Moonlight' with my jaw hanging open at its brilliance. " ( Voyages of Imagination [ page number? • edit ] )
• According to the 1999 book, Science Fiction of the 20th Century by author Frank M. Robinson (p. 240), " …"In the Pale Moonlight"--was mentioned by TV Guide as one of the best dramatic shows of the season. In it, Captain Sisko is forced to betray his ideals to save the lives of millions on a planetary system at the cost of one petty criminal and one ambassador of dubious loyalty. On the surface, no contest but Brooks played the role with depth and feeling unusual in a science-fiction series. "

Remastered version [ ]

• Remastered scenes from the episode are featured in the documentary What We Left Behind .

Apocrypha [ ]

• The novel Hollow Men is a follow-up to the events of this episode.
• In a Star Trek: New Frontier short story by Peter David , it is suggested that the Romulans uncovered Sisko's deception at an unknown point in the future, leading to open warfare between the United Federation of Planets and the Romulan Star Empire . ( Tales of the Dominion War : "Stone Cold Truths")
• The battle to retake Betazed took place in the non-canon Star Trek: The Next Generation novel The Battle of Betazed .

Video and DVD releases [ ]

• UK VHS release (two-episode tapes, CIC Video ): Volume 6.10, 5 October 1998
• As part of the DS9 Season 6 DVD collection
• As part of the Star Trek: Fan Collective - Captain's Log collection

Links and references [ ]

Main cast [ ].

• Avery Brooks as Captain Benjamin Sisko
• Rene Auberjonois as Constable Odo
• Michael Dorn as Lieutenant Commander Worf
• Terry Farrell as Lieutenant Commander Jadzia Dax
• Armin Shimerman as Quark
• Alexander Siddig as Doctor Julian Bashir
• Nana Visitor as Major Kira Nerys

Guest stars [ ]

• Andrew J. Robinson as Garak
• Jeffrey Combs as Weyoun
• Casey Biggs as Damar
• Howard Shangraw as Grathon Tolar
• Stephen McHattie as Vreenak

Co-star [ ]

• Judi Durand as Station Computer Voice

Uncredited co-stars [ ]

• Cathy DeBuono as M'Pella
• Brian Demonbreun as Human sciences officer
• Kathleen Demor as Human operations officer
• Cardassian legate hologram
• Reptilian alien
• Vreenak's guard 1
• Vreenak's guard 2

Stunt double [ ]

• Chester E. Tripp III as stunt double for Andrew J. Robinson

References [ ]

2360 ; 2371 ; 23rd Jem'Hadar Division ; 47 ; ability ; accessory ; advisor ; Alpha Centauri ; Alpha Quadrant ; Andor ; assassination ; Bajoran sector ; Betazed ; biography ; bio-mimetic gel ; bloody nose ; brazenly ; breeding ; bribery ; Cairo , USS ; Cardassian border ; Cardassia Prime ; Cardassians ; cargo container ; cargo manifest ; classified information ; cold warrior ; colony ( Betazoid colonies ); combat officer ; constable ; criminal activity report ; day ; Dominion ; Dominion War ; Dukat ; ears ; Emissary of the Prophets ; " eye on the ball "; Federation ; Federation territory ; Ferengi ; field of expertise ; flattery ; forensic examination ; forgery ; Fourth Order ; freedom ; Friday ; Gowron ; Glintara sector ; good men ; heart ; Hell ; homeland ; import license ; informant ; invasion force ; Jem'Hadar ; Kalandra sector ; kali-fal ; Klingon ; Klingon Empire ; landing bay ; latinum ; legion ; lie ; liter ; M'Pella ; mentor ; Milky Way Galaxy ; month ; morality ; murder ; Neral ; Obsidian Order ; office ; " Old Man "; operative ; opinion ; optolythic data rod ; Orion slave girl ; paperwork ; planetary defense system ; Praetor Colius Award ; Promenade ; Quark's ; record-keeping ; repartee ; rib ; Romulans ; Romulan ale ; Romulan Neutral Zone ; Romulan Senate ; Romulan Senate Council ; Romulan Star Empire ; Romulus ; secretary ; self-respect ; sinus ; Sisko, Joseph ; skipper ; sophomore ; soufflé ; Soukara ; Starfleet Academy ; station time ; suicide mission ; Tal Shiar ; Tatalia, Maria ; Tatalia and Jadzia's mutual friend ; Tellar ; Tenth Fleet ; Tora Ziyal ; vice-chairman ; Vreenak's shuttle ; Vulcan ; War Plans Council ; Whelan Bitters ; widower ; Wong, Leslie ; wounded in action

Casualty report : Aguayo, Monico C. ; Akagi , USS ; Alfaro, Edith K. ; Barnett, Richard B. ; Bittle, Rick K. ; Brand, Harry C. ; Brand, Shirley H. ; Braswell, Elizabeth S. ; Clark, Margaret C. ; Clement , USS ; Cochrane , USS ; Covington, Barbara P. ; Danhauser, Curt F. ; Derr, Laura E. ; Duder, Dorothy R. ; English, Russ A. ; Erdmann, Terry P. ; Exeter , USS ; Flood, Ann T. ; Fredrickson, John A. ; Ginsburg, Alice K. ; Ginsburt, Alice K. ; Green, Mitchell B. ; Hansen, Kurt S. ; Hansen, Teri T. ; Holst, Sandy A. ; Jacobson, Phillip ; Juday, Penny M. ; Kenney, Grace K. ; Kimya, Matata L. ; Kobayashi, Alan ; Kurts, Beverly C. ; Laprade, Jay T. ; Lawrence, Paul F. ; Leprich, Kathy S. ; LeVesconte, Faith ; LeVesconte, Lester P. ; Limli, Rose E. ; Long, Mindy C. ; Mahoney, Tom P. ; McAllum, Marian A. ; McCammon, Kathy ; Monson, Jon S. ; Nemzek, David P. ; Nemzek, Donna W. ; Nobel , USS ; Oberman, Dorit J. ; Oberscheven, Lori B. ; Ohlson, Larry A. ; Ohlson, Nancy B. ; Repulse , USS ; RN ; Sarajevo , USS ; Starbase 129 ; Starbase 153 ; Tecumseh , USS ; Tripoli , USS ; Victory , USS ; Wong, Leslie ; Wyoming , USS ; Zapata , USS

Unreferenced material [ ]

authorization code ; plebe ; site-to-site transport

External links [ ]

• " In the Pale Moonlight " at Memory Beta , the wiki for licensed Star Trek works
• " In the Pale Moonlight " at Wikipedia
• " In the Pale Moonlight " at MissionLogPodcast.com , a Roddenberry Star Trek podcast
• "In the Pale Moonlight" script  at Star Trek Minutiae
• " In the Pale Moonlight " at the Internet Movie Database
• 1 Daniels (Crewman)
• 3 Calypso (episode)

• Buy the Book…
• Reviews Hub

the m0vie blog

Following Us

• Adding Our RSS Feed to Your Gmail
• Following our Feed in Internet Explorer
• Millennium (Reviews)
• Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (Reviews)
• Star Trek: Enterprise (Reviews)
• Star Trek: The Next Generation (Reviews)
• Star Trek: The Original Series (Reviews)
• Star Trek: Voyager (Reviews)
• The X-Files (Reviews)
• X-Files Fandom Poll Form

Check out the Archives

Awards & Nominations

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine – In the Pale Moonlight (Review)

I can live with it. I can live with it. – Captain Benjamin Lafayette Sisko, Stardate 51721.3

In the Pale Moonlight is a masterpiece.

There is simple no way around it. It works beautifully as a morality play, as a thriller, as a character study. It has a powerful script, a set of brilliant performances, a memorable set-up and pay-off. In the Pale Moonlight is a fantastic piece of television production, something that immediately distinguishes itself from the episodes around it. Like The City on the Edge of Forever or The Inner Light , there is just something fundamentally different about In the Pale Moonlight from the establishing shots.

In many ways, In the Pale Moonlight is the flip side of the coin to Far Beyond the Stars . Both are spectacular episodes of television, and stand as some of the best entries in the franchise canon. However, there are clear differences. While Far Beyond the Stars would not work with any other lead character or actor, it is an episode that is arguably quintessentially Star Trek ; it is a powerful allegory about racism and the power of an optimistic future. In contrast, In the Pale Moonlight is specifically Star Trek: Deep Space Nine .

In the Pale Moonlight is an episode of Deep Space Nine that simply could not exist in any other Star Trek show. This could never have been an episode of  Star Trek: The Next Generation or  Star Trek: Voyager . The episodes that edge closest to this – like  The Pegasus or  The Omega Directive – lack the same commitment to the premise. Star Trek: Enterprise arguably came closest with the script for Damage , but even that lacked the powerhouse focus of In the Pale Moonlight .

As the title implies, In the Pale Moonlight is a story about what it takes to dance with devil. It is told against the epic backdrop of the Dominion War, against the scale and spectacle of the sixth season of Deep Space Nine , but the real drama of In the Pale Moonlight unfolds in one man’s confession. This is the story in which the Romulans join the war effort, but it is not a story about the Romulans joining the war effort. It is a story about how Captain Benjamin Sisko sets a price for his own self-respect and his own self-regard.

In the Pale Moonlight is that most personal of dramas, the story of a man who bargains away his soul for a far cheaper price than he expects.

There was another episode where Avery Brooks and I, where Captain Sisko comes to Garak for help with the Romulans and basically it exposes the American innocence, that we want to do these things in the world, but we’re not really willing to take the consequences of our actions, and sometimes we have to do very dirty things, and we have to hurt people, and we pretend that that doesn’t exist, that Americans would never do that. We dealt with issues like that and I don’t think… you know… the other shows really went as far as we did. – Andrew Robinson

Deep Space Nine has spent an extended period of its existence straining against the expectations imposed upon it by the larger Star Trek franchise. The writers could often seem cheekily dismissive of the other Star Trek shows, slyly and wryly making jokes at their expense, like a younger child desperately trying to assert their own identity in the shadow of a more successful and popular elder sibling. This was particularly obvious in the troubled relationship between Deep Space Nine and The Next Generation .

It is hard to overstate how successful The Next Generation had been. The series largely resurrected Star Trek as a television franchise, kicking off an eighteen-year period in which there Star Trek was never absent from prime-time television. The Next Generation launched three direct spin-offs and spawned four feature films. More than that, it had a cultural cache that existed beyond the boundaries of the ghetto to which genre television was frequently consigned. It was a bona fides phenomenon, even earning an Emmy nomination for Outstanding Drama Series.

Deep Space Nine largely responded against that. Many of the production team working on Deep Space Nine had cut their teeth as writers on The Next Generation , but were eager to establish their own identity distinct from their elder sibling. Although Lwaxanna Troi and Gowron would become recurring characters, and Worf would become a regular character, Deep Space Nine featured fewer crossovers with The Next Generation than Voyager or Enterprise . Geordi LaForge did not gatecrash the hundredth episode, while Riker, Troi and Data did not drop by for the finale.

There were also the subtle and not-so-subtle jabs. The Jem’Hadar celebrated the broadcast of All Good Things… by blowing up an iconic Galaxy-class starship. When Jonathan Frakes showed up in Defiant to help promote the looming release of Star Trek: Generations , the production team wrote the actor into the story as William Riker’s evil twin. When Benjamin Sisko was finally promoted to captain in The Adversary , it was former Enterprise crewmember O’Brien who toasted him as the “best captain in Starfleet.” Take that , Picard.

It is tempting to overstate that rivalry and frustration. It is very clear that the writers working on Deep Space Nine harboured a great deal of affection for the franchise. Ira Steven Behr has confessed that he almost let the franchise’s fiftieth anniversary pass unmarked, but relented at the last minute. Trials and Tribble-ations is one of the most affectionate tributes to Star Trek in the history of pop culture, with only Where No Fan Has Gone Before coming close. Similarly, the writers embraced the mirror universe and made Kor a recurring character.

There was always some tension there, even if it was exaggerated in the fan press and in interviews. Ronald D. Moore did joke about lying to Rick Berman to get him to agree to the Dominion War . Ira Steven Behr did describe The Next Generation as “the Connecticut of Star Trek.” There are any number of arguments that broke about individual episodes, from the execution of an anonymous crewmember in One Little Ship to the crippling of a recurring character in The Siege of AR-558 . There was a sense Deep Space Nine was not traditional Star Trek .

As Robert Hewitt-Wolfe explained in The Fifty-Year Mission , the writers on Deep Space Nine tended to understand that they stood apart from the other series:

We were always kind of the ugly stepchild of the franchise, and we never really had our moment in the sun. Except for when we premiered. That one episode. We were never the primary focus of the promotional budgets and the attention of the powers that be – which helped us tremendously in some ways, because we were able to get away with a lot. Middle children always get away with a lot.

There is a sense that the sixth season of Deep Space Nine is very much pushing that tolerance to the limit. Just how much can Deep Space Nine get away with in the context of the franchise and in the context of nineties television.

The sixth season is constantly pushing against the boundaries of what might be considered Star Trek . Sometimes, it brushes against those limitations in seemingly minor ways, like the awkward “let’s get the rest of the cast into this smaller character-driven episode” introductory scenes of Honour Among Thieves . Sometimes, it brushes up those restrictions in a more severe fashion, like the inability to effectively convey the horrors experienced by “comfort women” in Wrongs Darker Than Death or Night or the inability to kill off the character of Dax in Change of Heart .

The sixth season of Deep Space Nine works best when it manages to push past the audience’s expectations of a Star Trek show. The opening six episodes are an amazing accomplishment, effectively breaking up the cast and isolating half the characters from the title location for an extended (and heavily serialised) arc. Far Beyond the Stars is able to deal with racism and prejudice in an astoundingly frank manner, right down to actually using the “n-word” in a Star Trek script. In the Pale Moonlight also stretches beyond what many people would expect from a Star Trek show.

The closing scene offers a fairly effective summary of the transgressions made over the prior forty-five minutes. “I lied,” Sisko bluntly states into the camera, laying out his sins for the audience watching at home. “I cheated. I bribed men to cover the crimes of other men. I am an accessory to murder.” More than that, he is unapologetic. These are very serious charges to lay at the feet of any regular character on a nineties television series, but they are particularly striking when leveled at the lead character on a Star Trek series.

It is impossible to imagine Kirk or Picard allowing themselves to be made complicit in such crimes. It is impossible to imagine Janeway acknowledging her complicity in such crimes, or to conceive of Voyager holding her to account for any of these actions. These would be damning accusations for any character to level at the lead character in a Star Trek series, but they are particularly striking when framed as a confessional. Sisko is not contesting these charges. They are not subjective accusations, manipulated through framing or editing. These are all fair accusations.

That is groundbreaking in terms of Star Trek . That is genuinely earth-shattering in the context of televised nineties science-fiction. It marks a very clear departure for the Star Trek franchise, and arguably one that nods towards the future of the medium. Deep Space Nine existed during the mid- to late-nineties, at the cusp of television’s golden age. Twenty-first century audiences have come to accept moral ambiguity in their protagonists, to empathise with figures who commit far greater crimes than those featured in In the Pale Moonlight .

Tony Soprano murdered an informant hiding in the witness protection program in College , the fifth episode of the first season of The Sopranos . Walter White has murdered a man with his bare hands by …and the Bag’s in the River , the third episode of the first season of Breaking Bad . Vic Mackey murders a fellow police officer at the end of The Pilot , the first episode of The Shield . It often seems like modern prestige dramas are obligated to have at least one cold-blooded murder committed by the male lead within the first half of the first season.

Indeed, writer Michael Taylor has acknowledged that Ronald D. Moore’s heavy rewrite of In the Pale Moonlight should be seen as foreshadowing his later work on Battlestar Galactica :

You should know that Ron rewrote my freelancer’s draft of In the Pale Moonlight, making it much darker and more profound, so it’s no coincidence that it prefigures some of the concerns and predilections that later found full expression in Galactica.

Of course, the tough decisions made by Bill Adama and Laura Roslin on Battlestar Galactica make Sisko’s moral calculus in In the Pale Moonlight look like primary school math. However, there is a clear sense of change in the air.

Still, there is no denying that In the Pale Moonlight works. Even today, the episode holds up remarkably well. The sixth season of Deep Space Nine often feels like it has reached the limit of what is possible within both nineties television and the larger Star Trek franchise, but this episode has aged remarkably well. It is just a superbly constructed piece for television, from Moore’s rewrite of Taylor’s script to Victor Lobl’s claustrophobic direction to the central performances from Avery Brooks, Andrew Robinson and Stephen McHattie.

It is no surprise that the episode placed so highly in rankings and lists around the fiftieth anniversary of the franchise Time Magazine cited  In the Pale Moonlight as one of the franchise’s best moments, the only entry from Deep Space Nine to appear on the list . The Hollywood Reporter identified it as the single best episode of Deep Space Nine . MTV went even further, listing it as the third best episode in the franchise overall . That is a fairly sizable pop cultural footprint from a late episode of a series considered by its own writers to be the franchise’s “bastard stepchild.”

To be fair, Deep Space Nine had to wait a while to earn its cultural cache , retroactively appraised in large part due to binge services and the success of Battlestar Galatica . However, even audiences watching at the time understood that In the Pale Moonlight was a big deal. The episode was cited in TV Guide ‘s high-profile “cheers and jeers” section:

An outstanding episode of the syndicated Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, In the Pale Moonlight, was structured as a long, labyrinthine entry in the captain’s log, as a vexed Sisko (Avery Brooks) dictated his perceptions of and participation in recent momentous events in the Alpha Quadrant. The program’s anguished, confessional mood, its Machiavellian plot, in which Sisko desperately attempts to manipulate the Romulans into breaking their non-aggression pact with the Dominion, and Avery’s powerful, passionate performance (arguably his best in six years on the science-fiction series) combined to make this episode absolutely stellar.

In the Pale Moonlight is an episode of television that was simple earth-shattering at the time, and which has only grown in prestige and profile since it was first broadcast. It is debatable whether the Star Trek franchise ever managed to push past the moral marker set by In the Pale Moonlight .

Only the third season of Enterprise could claim to come close to the ambiguity and the compromise that distinguishes In the Pale Moonlight from the rest of the franchise. Indeed, Enterprise would consciously invite the comparison. Stephen McHattie is a recognisable genre actor, but his only other Star Trek credit is as the alien foreman in The Xindi , the first episode of that third season. Phyllis Strong would force Archer to face a similar moral dilemma in Damage , an episode that features a guest appearance from recurring Deep Space Nine actor Casey Biggs.

However, the third season of Enterprise never quite managed to match the impact of In the Pale Moonlight , despite the moral ambiguity and the overlapping cast members. In the Pale Moonlight is (understandably) remembered as a truly transgressive episode of Star Trek , pushing the boundaries of what was possible within the framework of the Star Trek franchise, but it is also a superbly and meticulously crafted teleplay. On a purely technical level, there is an argument to be made that In the Pale Moonlight is the best teleplay that Ronald D. Moore has ever written.

In the end, I found this episode to be one of the most rewarding shows I’ve had the pleasure of working on in that it never flinched or tried to find an easy way out. It forced our lead character into actions that he never thought he would take and into moral territory he never thought he’d travel. It’s shows like this that make me love DS9. – Ronald D. Moore

The writing staff on Deep Space Nine always enjoyed a great deal of freedom to tell the stories that they wanted to tell in the way that they wanted to tell them. There were compromises to be made, as many sixth season episodes attest, but the writers on Deep Space Nine could generally get away with a lot more than the writers on Voyager or Enterprise . Part of that was down to the fact that Deep Space Nine was syndicated, while Voyager and Enterprise were both tethered to UPN. Deep Space Nine had to deal with the studio, but never directly with a network.

However, there was also a recurring sense that the writers on Deep Space Nine were more adventurous than their counterparts on Voyager or Enterprise , and that they operated under a more enthusiastic executive producer. On Voyager , it frequently seemed like there was and active resistance to new ideas or concepts. Michael Piller stumbled while trying to introduce serialisation into the second season. Piller would be succeeded by Jeri Taylor, a very conservative showrunner. When Taylor left, the inexperienced Brannon Braga took over, under Rick Berman’s lead.

In contrast, Ira Steven Behr encouraged his writers to take chances and to craft bold stories. Behr reflected to The Fifty-Year Mission :

I was there during the third season of The Next Generation, and I remember what it was like before TNG was put on the mountaintop. I remember when people were still b!tching and moaning about what a lousy, stinking, rotten show TNG was compared to Kirk and Spock and Charlie X and the good old days. Well, then TNG became the godhead and Deep Space Nine was the one struggling to make a name for itself. I always felt if people would just allow it to happen, they would have said, “Hey, this is different Star Trek.” We did something just like TNG did: we developed a new wrinkly in the franchise, which what we set out to do. How often do you accomplish what you set out to do?

Deep Space Nine was a series very comfortable in its own skin, with writers who largely knew what they wanted to do, if not necessarily how they wanted to do it.

There was a lot of trust in the way that the writing staff approached Deep Space Nine , a lot of faith in both the ideas supporting the show and in the writers working with those ideas. The production team never really mapped out a clear arc for Deep Space Nine from beginning to end, never setting out with an end destination in mind. While this approach would cause problems when the writers found themselves tidying away the dangling plot threads, it also opened the production team up to all sorts of interesting possibilities.

Many of the most compelling developments in Deep Space Nine came about as a result of this improvisation or due to outside intervention. Worf was introduced to the show (and the Klingons became a focal point) in The Way of the Warrior following a rare direct intervention from the studio. In Purgatory’s Shadow and By Inferno’s Light began as a jailbreak story focusing on the character of Michael Eddington, and evolved into a status-quo -shattering two-parter. Through the sixth and seventh seasons, the writers even debated closing the series with a reveal that it was all the dream of Benny Russell.

In the Pale Moonlight is another great example of this improvisational spirit. The episode was not the result of some larger plot arc that had been mapped out earlier in the year. As Moore confessed, the involvement of the Romulans was introduced rather late in the development process :

Things change. Our thinking changes, sometimes daily. We had  no plans for Romulan involvement in the war until In the Pale Moonlight was being developed. As we worked on the story, it became clear that bringing the Romulans into the war was a good fit for the episode and for the series so we went in that direction.

In hindsight, that seems almost ridiculous. The entry of the Romulans into the Dominion War is a pretty huge plot point. “This may even be the turning point of the entire war,” Sisko explains in the closing act, and that seems fair. The Romulans are a big deal in the Star Trek canon, and play an important role in some of the stories ahead.

Then again, it is arguable that the Romulans have reached a point where they are little more than iconic Star Trek aliens, carrying a narrative weight in large part due to their long association with the franchise dating back to Balance of Terror . Certainly, the Romulans have never been developed to the same extent as the Klingons or the Cardassians or the Ferengi. Stories like Message in a Bottle and Star Trek treat the Romulans as aliens that are part of the franchise iconography without being burdened by anything more substantial or meaningful.

To be fair, the Romulans have arguably worked best as a twisted reflection of mankind. After all, they are designed to mirror the Vulcans, the alien species most strongly associated with the Federation. More than that, the positioning of the Earth-Romulan War within the Star Trek canon sets up the Romulans as a compelling foil to the Federation. Dating back to The Next Generation , the Romulans have been portrayed as deep space cold warriors. They are a twisted mirror of the Federation; isolationist, subversive, calculating, cynical.

Deep Space Nine has never known quite what to do with the Romulans. The series memorably introduced a prominent Romulan supporting character in The Search, Part I and The Search, Part II , only for her to disappear from the rest of the season. Deep Space Nine developed the Cardassians as their own deep space cold warriors, usurping the narrative role traditionally played by the Romulans. The gradual moral shading of the Federation meant that the Romulans were rendered redundant as a moral foil.

Indeed, that redundancy is a large part of the Romulan arc across the final two seasons of Deep Space Nine . There is a recurring sense that the Romulan Star Empire is no longer as dangerous as it had once been, that the Federation is more than a match for them in terms of plotting and scheming. Indeed, the plan to lure the Romulans into the Dominion War through fabricated evidence and political assassination is the kind of plot that the Tal’Shiar might have employed against the Federation during The Next Generation . It broadly recalls the scheming in Mind’s Eye .

So the Romulans repeatedly find themselves outflanked and outclassed by the Federation in the final years of Deep Space Nine . In In the Pale Moonlight , the Romulans are outmaneouvred by Sisko and Garak, tricked into joining a war that will cost millions of lives by Federation manipulation. In Inter Enim Arma Silent Leges , the entire Romulan political system is gamed by Luther Sloan who is playing for stakes far beyond the Dominion War. When Shinzon murders the Romulan Senate in Star Trek: Nemesis , it simply literalises that sense of humiliation and defeat.

To be fair, since the return to the station in Sacrifice of Angels , the Dominion War has largely unfolded in the background of Deep Space Nine . It could reasonably be argued that the fourth season of Voyager is more driven by combat and space battles than the sixth season of Deep Space Nine . Episodes like Year of Hell, Part I , Year of Hell, Part II , The Killing Game, Part I and The Killing Game, Part II arguably have a stronger blockbuster sensibility than any Deep Space Nine episode between between Sacrifice of Angels and Tears of the Prophets .

Deep Space Nine is more interested in the stories that can be told against the backdrop of the war than in telling the singular story of the war. Whereas the fifth season of Deep Space Nine seemed to be consciously building towards the Dominion War, and while the first six episodes of the sixth season built to the reclaiming of the station, the bulk of the sixth season treats the Dominion War as a backdrop. The Dominion War is arguably a status quo more than a singular narrative arc, providing a framework for telling new and interesting stories.

The sixth season of Deep Space Nine seems invested more in various facets of the war than in the epic sweep of the conflict itself; the hard mathematical compromises of Statistical Probabilities , the lonely depression of Far Beyond the Stars , the simmering underworld of Honour Among Thieves , the moral pragmatism of Inquisition , the tragic inexperience (and prideful fervour) of Valiant . As such, the production could tell a story like In the Pale Moonlight , suddenly deciding to throw the Romulans into the mix without disrupting their on-going plotting.

The Romulan intervention in the war as no impact on the plotting of His Way or The Reckoning . Indeed, the writing only really embraces the Romulan presence in Tears of the Prophets , where it is suggested that Sisko might have been correct in his assessment of the long-term impact of the Romulans joining the war effort. The sixth season finale suggests that the Romulans have thrown enough weight behind the Federation and the Klingons that they can begin making strategic inroads into Cardassian territory.

The early seventh season goes even further. With the Romulan Star Empire committed to defeating the Dominion, the seventh season seems much more optimistic about the eventual victory of “the good guys.” In Image in the Sand , it seems like the Romulans are preparing to annex Bajor and the Bajoran wormhole after the dust settles, using the conflict as a pretense to set up a military base on the Bajoran moon of Derna. In Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges , it is revealed that the Federation has actively begun to look beyond the present conflict to postwar alliances.

Although the arc was not planned in advance, there is something very satisfying about how the Romulan intervention in the Dominion War seems to turn the tide of the conflict across the sixth and seventh seasons. In order to up the dramatic stakes for the final run of episodes, The Changing Face of Evil has to align the Breen with the Dominion, giving the bad guys a magical one-shot-kills super-weapon. This feels like an organic development on multiple levels.

The Romulan intervention is a satisfying dramatic pay-off in terms of the larger  Star Trek canon. It has been argued (perhaps most effectively by Garfield Reeves-Stevens) that Star Trek is ultimately the optimistic story of how enemies become allies. As such, this feels very much like the logical conclusion to the Dominion War, creating an unstoppable alliance of the three most iconic  Star Trek powers. The Federation, the Klingons and the Romulans can traced across the length and breadth of the franchise, even if In the Pale Moonlight adds a bitter irony to the alliance.

Similarly, there is something to be said for the idea of the Romulans as late arrivals to the party, changing the course of the conflict. In many ways, this mirrors the American experience in the two largest conflicts of the twentieth century. In both the First and Second World War, American intervention was both delayed and decisive. In fact, a lot of American influence is built upon its role in the Second World War. As a reflection of American self-image, the Second World War is a formative event in the Star Trek canon.

There is something subversive in the portrayal of the Romulans as the United States in the grand historical narrative of the Dominion War, the heroes forsaking neutrality in response to atrocity by riding to the rescue of the besieged Allied powers. Over the course of the Star Trek franchise, the Romulans have been many things. The Romulans have been  space! Russians and generic  Star Trek aliens without the iconic weight of the Klingons. However, the Romulans have also been intermittently treated as a dark and twisted reflection of American ambition.

They were introduced in Balance of Terror as the first of the franchise’s space! Romans, before the Terran Empire in Mirror, Mirror or the inhabitants of 892-IV in Bread and Circuses . In the context of the sixties, this preoccupation could be seen as a meditation upon the clichéd anxiety that the United States might abuse its geopolitical influence to become “a modern-day Rome.” With their minimal make-up and familiar trappings, the Romulans have always hewed closer to American self-image than the more overtly alien Klingons.

Indeed, the fourth season of Enterprise would return to this idea of the Romulan Star Empire as a twisted mirror of the United States. In Babel One ,  United and The Aenar , released as the War on Terror raged, the Romulans engaged in drone warfare as a ploy to destabilise a turbulent region of space. The parallels seem quite apparent, particularly given that In a Mirror, Darkly, Part I and  In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II would return to the fascistic space! Rome of the Terran Empire right before presenting the Earth with a choice of future in Demons and Terra Prime .

The manipulation if the Romulans into the Dominion War recalls a number of conspiracy theories about the events that drew the United States into the First and Second World Wars. There is, for example, an unfounded conspiracy theory that Winston Churchill engineered the sinking of the Lusitania as part of a plot to bring the United States into the First World War . Similarly, there is a long-standing myth that Franklin Roosevelt knew about Japanese plans to bomb Pearl Harbour and let it happen in order to force the United States to enter the Second World War .

To be fair, the most obvious parallel to Sisko’s plan may be the Zimmerman Telegram, the infamous communication in which Germany attempted to goad Mexico into launching an invasion of the United States so as to keep them disengaged from the European Front in the First World War . As the Federation hoped to do with the holo-recording in In the Pale Moonlight , the United Kingdom planned to use the telegram to provoke enough outrage to bring that outside party into the conflict. However, the Germans eventually confirmed the authenticity of the telegram .

There is something very cheeky and subversive in the positioning of the Romulans within the overall arc of the Dominion War. In the Pale Moonlight seems to suggest that the Romulans occupy the narrative space traditionally reserved for the United States in accounts of the First and Second World War, the heroes riding to the rescue of besieged allies who find themselves outflanked facing a fascist enemy. In some ways, this reflects the brutal cynicism of In the Pale Moonlight , a story that builds a optimistic Star Trek alliance upon a foundation of lies and murder.

Indeed, this is part of the beauty of In the Pale Moonlight . Sisko gets exactly what he wanted. Sisko manages to successfully draw the Romulans into the war. That Romulan intervention seems to make a very real difference to how the war unfolds. Sisko’s scheme is never exposed and uncovered, never laid bare before the Romulans. Sisko is never held to account for his actions. There is no cruel twist, no mocking irony. Sisko makes a deal with the devil to get what he wants, and there is no sting in the tale.

This is part of what makes In the Pale Moonlight so compelling and so unsettling. It is an episode that seems to suggest that there is no cosmic ordering principle that will bend the universe towards justice. There is no cosmic power that ensures everything is fair. The righteous are not always rewarded, and the criminals are not always punished. This might seem an overly cynical perspective within the utopian framework of the Star Trek universe, but it is accurate. The world does not always protect the innocent and the universe does not always condemn the guilty.

That is the true power of In the Pale Moonlight , the biting irony. There is no follow-up. In absolute terms, there is no reassurance that Sisko has done the right thing or the wrong thing. Audience members looking to Deep Space Nine will find no validation here, no later episode that explicitly condemns Sisko’s actions by laying them out in the open. After all, that is not what In the Pale Moonlight is about. In the Pale Moonlight is not about the idea of a moral universe that runs on principles like fairness or justice.

By this point in the run, Deep Space Nine is a highly serialised television show. The writers understand that they can set up ideas in early episodes, and follow them up later. Indeed, there are quite a number of sequel and follow-up episodes between the sixth and seventh seasons; Statistical Probabilities leads to Chrysalis , Honour Among Thieves leads to Prodigal Daughter , Inquisition leads to Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges . The writers working on Deep Space Nine understand that they could write a sequel to In the Pale Moonlight , if they really wanted to.

However, there is no direct follow-up to In the Pale Moonlight . There is no story that builds upon the events of this episode. Tie-in novels like Hollow Men have explored that thematic ground, but the television series is quite happy to let In the Pale Moonlight stand on its own two feet. There is no sequel where the Romulans discover Sisko’s deception; no tale where the moral order reasserts itself. That would be a very fundamental misreading of what In the Pale Moonlight is actually about.

In the Pale Moonlight is not a story about whether Sisko’s actions are objectively right or wrong. The episode is consciously mute on that point, although Deep Space Nine has touched on that idea repeatedly. Stories like Statistical Probabilities condemn the idea of reducing war to a mere numbers game, while episodes like Change of Heart suggest that the death of an innocent person can never be rationalised by reference to “the greater good” or “the needs of the many.” It is quite clear that Deep Space Nine does not see Sisko’s actions as especially moral.

However, In the Pale Moonlight is not about objective morality. The story is not about these grand notions of right and wrong, these impossible and abstract dilemmas concerning billions of lives. The focus of In the Pale Moonlight is considerably tighter. This is an episode about what it takes for one seemingly moral man to betray everything that he holds dear, about the price that Captain Benjamin Sisko charges for his soul and the cost of living with such a decision.

The fact is that In the Pale Moonlight, Sisko ostensibly “confessed” to a computer, looked straight into a camera and talked about it. When we talk about this darker thing, or people have referred to Deep Space Nine as this darker thing, in my mind it resembles us. The writers were making a left turn for me [in this episode]. How do you make this palatable? How do you make this situation comfortable, especially for a man who doesn’t want to be here in this situation? – Avery Brooks, The Fifty-Year Mission

Visually, the most striking aspect of In the Pale Moonlight is the decision to frame the episode as a confessional. The bulk of the story is told through Sisko’s log entries, which is not unusual. The captain’s log is an iconic piece of Star Trek storytelling, a handy expositional tool to bring the audience up to speed. It is part and parcel of the franchise, to the point that audiences all but expect that voice-over narration. The title “captain’s log” has been applied to everything from curated “best of” video collections to “behind the scenes” books.

However, In the Pale Moonlight is interesting in how it chooses to use that familiar storytelling device. In the Pale Moonlight is effectively a single forty-five minute log entry. That would be unique of itself, but it is particularly striking for the way that the episode is framed. In the Pale Moonlight opens with Sisko staring directly at the camera, is if addressing the audience at home. In the Pale Moonlight plays as a monologue from Sisko to the viewer, as if the character is arguing his own defense to an impartial observer.

The Star Trek franchise has never been particularly experimental in terms of storytelling, particularly when compared to shows like The X-Files or Buffy: The Vampire Slayer . Although the holodeck allows the franchise to play with genre and style, the Star Trek franchise would never try anything as ambitious (or weird) as a musical episode or a found-footage episode. Voyager would half-ass a dialogue-lite episode with Macrocosm and compromise on a kinda black-and-white episode in Bride of Chaotica! , but that was about as far as it went.

As such, In the Pale Moonlight represents a significant formal departure for the Star Trek franchise, effectively sitting the lead character down opposite the audience. Sisko even stares into the camera at various points in the episode, which makes little sense in the context of the log entry and the positioning of the camera. Log entries are primarily audio, and there is no portable computer or wall terminal that could be occupying the same space as the camera recording his monologue. It is a very effective and disorienting framing device.

Interestingly, In the Pale Moonlight shifted from an objective narrative to a more subjective narrative during the development cycle. According to Ronald D. Moore, the episode originally focused on an objective news report rather than a subjective log entry :

This episode started out as a Jake story, if you can believe it.  The story that Peter wrote and that Michael turned into a script was told from Jake’s point of view. The premise was that he’s a reporter doing a profile on  Garak and then begins to realize that something BIG is going on that  involves his father.  The idea was to do a sort of “All the President’s Men” type of episode where the trail leads Jake to his own father’s involvement  in a conspiracy to bring the Romulans into the war via a deception  facilitated by Garak.  The story at its core, however, didn’t work (through no fault of Michael Taylor, by the way — he wrote the script we sent him  out to do and did the best he could with it). When it became time for me to do the rewrite, it was clear that we’d have to rebreak the story, so we gathered again and put the show back on the board (always an excruciating process). The first thing to go was the Jake angle  as we all agreed that the meat of the story was Sisko’s dance with the devil as he attempted to turn the tide of the war.  We tried two or three approaches over the course of three days, and kept getting frustrated  because nothing seemed to work. Finally, I was at home doing something completely unrelated when the log entry/flashback device occurred to me. I called Rene (much to his surprise) and he liked it. The next day, I presented the concept to the rest of the staff and we decided to go for it.

It is a very clever storytelling shift, one that very much changes the emphasis of the story. The original story was about how Jake saw his father, and perhaps even the objective morality of what Sisko had done. The finished episode is much more subjective and all the more powerful for that.

After all, the episode repeatedly makes it clear that Sisko is not breaking any laws or doing anything illegal. Starfleet has endorsed his plan, and signs off on his actions every step of the way. “You realise I can’t authorise a thing like this on my own,” Sisko remarks of Garak’s plan to fabricate the necessary evidence. “I’ll have to clear it with Starfleet Command.” Garak understands, observing, “I suspect that with the fall of Betazed, they’ll be ready to do whatever it takes to bring the Romulans into the war.”

There is never any doubt that Starfleet endorses Sisko’s plan. After all, the organisation has never been especially hung up on morality. While Sisko might disavow Starfleet’s involvement to Tolar, he seems almost glad of it. “I was off the hook,” he admits in one log entry. “Starfleet Command had given the plan their blessing and I thought that would make things easier.” So it is clear from the outset that In the Pale Moonlight is not about Sisko disobeying orders or betraying the uniform or anything like that. Sisko is still a good Starfleet officer, whatever that entails.

In the Pale Moonlight is not particularly concerned about what this episode says about Starfleet Command. After all,  Deep Space Nine has long been skeptical of the institution; from episodes like  The Maquis, Part I and  The Maquis, Part II through to  Homefront and  Paradise Lost . The episode is much more concerned about what all of this says about Sisko. How does Sisko rationalise his behaviour here? How does Sisko justify his complicity in all of this? Can Sisko accept what he has done?

In the Pale Moonlight is fundamentally about Sisko laying out an accounting of his actions, trying to make sense of what he did. “Maybe if I just lay it all out in my log, it’ll finally make sense,” he explains in the teaser. “I can see where it all went wrong. Where I went wrong.” Sisko is trying to apply some sense of order to his own subjective account of events. He is not interested in an objective and impartial chronology of what happened, he is trying to determine where he lost his footing and where he went wrong.

In the Pale Moonlight is a superbly constructed and structured episode of television. Most notably, Moore weaves the idea of deception into the narrative from the outset. In the Pale Moonlight is a story about characters who are consistently lying, both to themselves and to one another. Many of the characters pretend to be other people. Dax role-plays as a Romulan to debate the point with Sisko, offering many of the points that Vreenak would make at the climax. Garak parrots Sisko’s own words back to him. Even Weyoun and Damar appear as holograms.

Garak repeatedly lies to Sisko, very pointedly and explicitly manipulating Sisko through this little drama. “It may be a very messy, very bloody business,” Garak warns Sisko early in the episode. “Are you prepared for that?” It seems quite clear that Garak has already knows how he will bring the Romulans into the war, and is simply manoeuvring Sisko into place. No matter what the failure or the misadventure, Garak always seems to have a contingency in place. Garak seems aware of which of his plans will seem palatable to Sisko, but also of what he can do when those fail.

When Garak fails to procure evidence of a Dominion plot against Romulus, he already has the next steps worked out. No sooner has Garak suggested faking the evidence than he explains how he plans to fake the evidence. “You will have handed him a genuine optolythic data rod, but it will contain one of the most perfect forgeries ever fashioned,” Garak assures Sisko. “I’m still working on obtaining the data rod, but I have located the man who will create the holo-recording.” Garak is either a phenomenal ad-hoc plotter, or he had all of this planned out.

In the Pale Moonlight suggests that Garak always knew how this story would end, but that he simply moved slowly enough that he could manipulate Sisko into making the necessary compromises to make his plan possible. “That’s what you planned to do all along, isn’t it?” Sisko demands. “You knew the data rod wouldn’t hold up to scrutiny. You just wanted to get him on the station so you could plant a bomb on his shuttle?” The implication is that Garak has been lying to Sisko, that he always planned to murder Vreenak and fed Sisko a series of lies to get to that point.

Garak is ambiguous on the point. “It wasn’t quite that simple,” he assures Sisko. “I did have hopes that the rod would somehow pass inspection, but I suspected that Tolar may not have been up to the task.” Of course, this makes very little sense in terms of basic plot mechanics. Garak would have planting the bomb while Vreenak was reviewing the rod. It seems highly unlikely that Garak could have disarmed the bomb in the unlikely event that Vreenak accepted the rod as genuine. It is more likely that Garak is lying to Sisko, to make Sisko feel better.

Obviously, Sisko also spends a significant stretch of the episode lying to Vreenak. Vreenak repeatedly draws attention to the artifice of the set-up. He opens the negotiations by complaining about the unconvincing facsimile of “kali-fal” that he has been served. “A fair approximation,” he admits. “Somewhat lacking in aroma.” In other words, it does not smell right. “It really is a good replica,” Vreenak concedes later in the scene. “The aroma’s starting to grow on me. For a moment there I almost forgot that it wasn’t the real thing, but only for a moment.”

Naturally, the biggest lie of which Sisko has to convince Vreenak is to invest in the faked recording of the Dominion plot to invade Romulan space. This is easily the most iconic moment in the episode, and perhaps the most iconic moment in Deep Space Nine . Over a decade after the episode aired, Stephen McHattie’s memorable delivery of “it’s a faaaaaake” became an internet meme . However, it reinforces this theme of deception and betrayal that runs through the episode.

Although the stakes are obviously very high in that memorable scene, the holo-recording is not the biggest lie in In the Pale Moonlight . The biggest like in In the Pale Moonlight comes at the very end of the episode, as Sisko assures both the audience and himself that he can live with it. He can live with it. The repetition, coupled with Brooks’ delivery and Sisko’s awkward posture, suggest that Sisko is not being entirely honest. Sisko is lying to himself and to the viewers, trying to convince himself that he can accept the price of what he has done.

Sisko lies repeatedly to the audience over the course of In the Pale Moonlight . The entire log entry is an attempt to reconstruct a narrative around these events, to bend and distort the truth into a form that is more palatable to Sisko. “I was the one who had to make it happen,” he confesses of his meeting face-to-face with Vreenak. “I was the one who had to look Senator Vreenak in his eye and convince him that a lie was the truth.” It is a clever line. Given the framing of the episode, Sisko has to do the same thing to the audience. He has to look into the camera, and lie.

Sisko lies from the outset. Indeed, the teaser closes on a fairly dramatic (and easily disprovable) lie. Recalling a conversation between Dax and Bashir about the necessity of bringing the Romulans into the Dominion War, Sisko tells the audience, “That was the moment I made the decision. It was like I had stepped through a door and locked it behind me. I was going to bring the Romulans into the war.” Sisko repeatedly insists that he is committed to the cause, that he is devoted to this mission. However, the episode then repeatedly undercuts that assertion.

The flashback sequences repeatedly suggest moments of doubt and hesitation from Sisko. There are several points in the episode when it seems like Sisko is ready to give up on his plan, to retreat back to his office and to the mundane demands of everyday live. Every time the flashbacks show Sisko setting a line in the sand, his narration insists that there is no line. Every time that Sisko engages in a very precise and defined plan, his recording assures the audience that he has committed to his cause.

After Sisko suggests that Garak contact his sources on Cardassia to find genuine evidence of a Dominion plot against Romulus, Sisko warns the audience, “I laid the first stone right there. I’d committed myself. I’d pay any price, go to any lengths, because my cause was righteous. My intentions were good.” However, when that (legitimate and reasonable) plan fails, Sisko seems ready to give up on the whole enterprise. “I’m sorry,” Sisko mumbles to Garak, turning to leave. It is clear that even the deaths of a few anonymous informants are enough to make him waiver.

Sisko only commits to faking the evidence when goaded by Garak. “I hope you’re not giving up that easily,” Garak states. “After all, the stakes are much higher than a few dead operatives. The fate of the entire quadrant hangs in the balance. Or at least that’s the case you made to me.” Garak is clearly driving the conversation, even as Sisko retroactively asserts his complicity. “In my heart, I knew what he was saying made sense,” Sisko insists in his log entry.

This pattern repeats itself over the course of the episode. Sisko repeatedly insists in the log entry that he always knew that he would do whatever it takes to bring the Romulans into the war. However, this is contrasted with scenes in which Sisko is quite clearly hesitating and in which he is quite clearly manipulated by outside events. Sisko insists that he locked the door behind him in the teaser, but the flashbacks suggest that he was spurred on by outside forces; by needling from Garak, by desperation at the fall of Betazed, by the timing of a casualty report.

Why does any of this matter? Why is Sisko so caught up in lying to himself? Why would Sisko want to believe that he is comfortable being an accomplice to murder? These are interesting and illuminating questions, but they really get ot the heart of Sisko as a character. Sisko very clearly wants to believe that he has a strong moral framework. Sisko wants to believe that his moral boundaries are rigid and defined. By insisting that he was ready to do whatever it took from the outset, Sisko has the comfort of setting his own boundaries. Sisko at least has the illusion of control.

This is the truly horrifying aspect of In the Pale Moonlight , the idea that a slippery slope can push somebody so far past their own moral boundaries that they are lost. Over the course of In the Pale Moonlight , Sisko escalates from trying to expose a genuine Dominion plot against Romulus to being complicit in the murder of a Romulan Senator. Sisko slips down that slope so fast that his only defense is to claim that he wanted to end up at the bottom. It is a wonderful character beat, and a fantastic piece of writing. Sisko lies to Vreenak, but he lies more to himself.

Indeed, this is very much in keeping with how Deep Space Nine approaches Sisko as a character. Repeatedly over the course of Deep Space Nine , Sisko finds his own certainties undermined and eroded. In episodes like The Maquis, Part I , The Maquis, Part II , Homefront and Paradise Lost , Sisko is repeatedly confronted with the reality that Starfleet is not as perfect as he thought it to be. In episodes like Accession and Rapture , Sisko finds himself drawn away from rationality and towards Bajoran spirituality.

In In the Pale Moonlight , it seems like Sisko cannot even trust himself. As with episodes like The Jem’Hadar and The Siege of AR-558 , Quark is presented as the insightful arbitor of truth in the face of Federation virtue. “Thank you, Captain,” Quark remarks upon accepting a bribe in return for his silence. “Thank you for restoring my faith in the ninety-eighth Rule of Acquisition. Every man has his price.” Sisko is a man who never thought that he would have a price, but In the Pale Moonlight confronts him with that brutal reality.

This character arc is reflected in the way that Sisko gradually peels off his uniform over the course of the episode. As director Victor Lobl acknowledged to The Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion , this was a conscious choice to underscore the idea that Sisko was being stripped of his illusions:

“I felt that if we just let him get more and more relaxed in his clothing that would help us,” the director says. “And since we shot it in continuity, we just kept letting him strip down a little bit.” Thematically, of course, that also indicated that the character was baring his soul. “That was the intent,” Lobl confirms. “But with that uniform, there’s just so much that we could strip him of.”

In the Pale Moonlight is rich and evocative, in terms of scripting and direction. There is even a nice sly parallel between Sisko’s assertion that he locked the (metaphorical) door behind him and Garak’s (maybe half-serious) assertion that he rigged the door on Tolar’s quarters to explode.

In the Pale Moonlight is a superb piece of drama and a superb piece of television. It is one of the best episodes of Star Trek ever produced, and ranks as a crowing accomplishment for Deep Space Nine .

You might be interested in our reviews of the sixth season of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine :

• A Time to Stand
• Rocks and Shoals
• Sons and Daughters
• Behind the Lines
• Favour the Bold
• Sacrifice of Angels
• You Are Cordially Invited…
• Resurrection
• Statistical Probabilities
• The Magnificent Ferengi
• Who Mourns for Morn?
• Far Beyond the Stars
• One Little Ship
• Honour Among Thieves
• Change of Heart
• Wrongs Darker Than Death or Night
• Inquisition
• In the Pale Moonlight
• The Reckoning
• Profit and Lace
• Time’s Orphan
• The Sound of Her Voice
• Tears of the Prophets

Share this:

Filed under: Deep Space Nine | Tagged: Avery Brooks , battlestar galactica , Benjamin Sisko , in the pale moonlight , romulans , ronald d. moore , star trek , star trek: deep space nine |

40 Responses

One of my all time favourite episodes from any Star Trek series. I love Garak’s speech to Sisko, about how sometimes it is necessary to do a bad thing in order to prevent something worse from happening. Andrew Robinson is amazing in this episode. It really makes you think about what choice you would make yourself if you had been in this situation. Powerful stuff.

Robinson is a force of nature here. One of the franchise’s best recurring actors. One of the franchise’s best actors, to be honest.

Absolutely. I wish they had made him a main cast member, instead of regular guest star. Fascinating character and Robinson gives what I consider to be his best screen performance playing him.

Great episode, great analysis. You mentioned the book “Hollow Men.” I’m curious how it deals with the aftermath of this incident. Does it add anything to the episode?

I don’t know if it adds anything to the episode, but it does some interesting stuff with what it takes away from the episode. More to the point, it avoids a lot of the obvious pit-falls that you’d expect from “follow up to In the Pale Moonlight.”

But I would recommend McCormack’s Star Trek work in general. Particularly Hollow Men and The Never-Ending Sacrifice. She does a lot of what I really like from tie-in writers, where she understands that you can craft a different type of story in the shadow of the source material, rather than simply trying to go bigger or bolder, which I think a lot of the more recent Star Trek tie-in novels do.

(That is to say, McCormack understands it better that her work be “good” than “essential”, if that makes sense.)

Andrew Robinson is the core of this episode for me; he’s simply brilliant. Watch the whole holosuite forgery scene with him, Sisko and Tolar very closely. He manages to make it clear, through simple body language, that Garak intends to murder Tolar at the earliest possible opportunity. And, after Tolar starts waving the rod around like a toy, he looks like he has to restrain himself from killing Tolar right then, right there.

Yep. Garak is such a fantastic character here and everywhere else. Most particularly, Robinson clearly understands that Garak knows exactly what he is doing from the moment that Sisko drafts him into the plan. It is just a case of nudging Sisko in the right direction, while pretending to be a passenger along for the ride. He knows which buttons to press and exactly how to press them.

One of the things I love about this episode is the ambiguity in the details. For example, I always believed that Garak lied about all of his contacts being killed, as a way to get Sisko to feel sympathetic to him and to make him feel as if Garak’s plan was the only possible way to solve the problem. There is a perfectly acceptable alternative explanation, however, that Garak was simply telling the truth.

This episode does truly stand as a symbol of all that DS9 has accomplished. When I watched this episode for the first time, I thought it was very good, but I did not truly get why it was considered revolutionary. Recently, however, I have been rewatching TNG episodes, and I have gained a new appreciation for it. I don’t think I fully appreciated how DS9’s characters are flawed individuals and TNG characters are role models until I was able to see both series so close together. It is especially intriguing to compare this episode to The First Duty, which is also ironically another Ronald D. Moore script, as I think both episodes really do serve as a shining example of what each series tried to accomplish.

The funny thing is, Garak basically lays out that entire tactic right after he tells Sisko his contacts are dead:

“You will tell the Senator that this information was obtained through various covert means at great cost to the Federation — “at least ten good men lost their lives bringing it across the lines” — that sort of thing.”

Garak is brilliantly inscrutable across the length and breadth of the episode, isn’t he? After all, he even signposts the importance of using stakes to “sell” Vreenak on the story, which is arguably exactly what he does with Sisko in those early scenes.

>Many of the production team working on Deep Space Nine had cut their teeth as writers on Deep Space Nine, but were eager to establish their own identity distinct from their elder sibling.

I’m going to assume that second reference to DS9 was meant to be TNG?

What a fine episode; a real conversation-starter. I’m no fan of the 2000+ shows Darren listed in his review but I truly appreciate the moral anguish Sisko wrestles with here. I guess I have to find characters sympathetic before I can manage their dilemmas and justifications.

On my most recent view of this episode I suddenly realized how perfectly Garak’s actions line up with ‘In Purgatory’s Shadow,’ wherein he made a promise to his dying father that he would “make the Dominion pay” for what they did to him. Although Garak suggested in that very episode he didn’t understand honour, perhaps his formidable determination to sway the course of the war in this episode is Garak demonstrating honour?

Good spot, actually. Corrected.

With regards to modern television, I’m very fond of Breaking Bad and The Sopranos, although I’m more interested in the characters than sympathetic to them.

I also like you’re tying of the episode back to In Purgatory’s Shadow. It’s certainly a delightfully twisted “for my father…” on the part of Garak, but it totally fits.

Fascinating overview of a complex, troubling, brilliant episode.

I know you like ‘The Sopranos’ but I do think you touch on some of the reasons why I am so unimpressed with that show and so utterly bored of the soul daubed in pitch protagonists television has invested us with for nearly two decades. There is far more tragedy, compromise and anger in a fundamentally good man compromising himself than in a fundamentally bad man doing the same. Sisko is just devastating here, probably my favourite performance by Avery Brooks in the series. I’m not sure I’d say the same about Garak – I think he is even better elsewhere – but Andrew Robinson is wonderful.

And yes ‘it’s a faaake’ deserves it’s meme status. 🙂

I know what you mean. I’ve missed out on some famous television (The Sopranos, Breaking Bad, House Of Cards, Game Of Thrones) precisely because I have so little interest in tuning in to watch awful people doing awful things all day long. I like it just fine in films – I love the Godfather movies, for instance. But if I’m going to be tuning in week after week for years, I need to have more emotional investment in the characters than “for the love of God, will somebody just shoot this prick?”

YMMV, of course. Though I doubt we’re the only ones.

For what it’s worth, I generally agree with you when it comes to the other grimdark shows, Game of Thrones is more than nuanced than the rest. Sure, there are a lot of awful people doing awful things to people, but some of them change, and other more enlightened characters later earn victories against them. I totally get that the show isn’t for everyone, but it’s worth a try.

For me, the form of Game of Thrones is probably more important than the story or the character. I genuinely believe its storytelling is brilliant and transcendent, in that it is a prestige drama built around the model of byte-sized delivery that resonates with the way that we consume media in the internet age. It’s all collections of little bits rather than big chunks, sorted by theme rather than by plot, anchored in big (very straightforward) “moments” that lend themselves to the rapid-fire pacing and abbreviated means of modern internet discourse.

Each episode is almost a short story collection, arranged by theme. If that makes sense.

That’s a fair enough point about The Sopranos, although I know we hold very different opinions of the show. 🙂

Also: “It’s REEEEAAAAALLLLL!”

Interesting you say that about Game of Thrones. I always thought its delivery and form undermined the show. To me, too many episodes feel like loosely tied together bits of a larger story rather than shorter stories interesting in their own right. I sometimes felt (especially in Season 5) that episodes included a scene just because the writers felt compelled to check in on each major character in each episode. I much prefer the Netflix model of just releasing all the episodes at once and letting people watch the whole story. Of course, the show’s current form is very good at feeding internet speculation and generating buzz, which is probably the real point anyways.

I don’t know if it’s the point, but I certainly think it’s a feature. I think it’s something that very much sets the show apart from a lot of the other big shows and which I suspect is key to its popularity. I think that there’s a lot to be said about “Game of Thrones” as the modern “water cooler” show, and how it reflects the beats and rhythms of everyday life.

My all time favorite episode of Star Trek. Watching it, or even just reading some of the quotes from the episode, gives me the kind of chills down my arms and back when I encounter something sublime.

Avery Brooks’ delivery is just so spot-on here. I’ve shared this episode with several friends who had only seen 2-3 episodes of DS9 previously, and everyone I’ve watched it with has been impressed by it.

Brooks is amazing, and this is a great showcase for him.

As is Far Beyond the Stars, to be fair.

Ironic that a few episodes ago, Sisko declared that Dukat was pure evil. Now we watch Sisko become Dukat, a man whose personal image is at odds with reality. People think themselves the hero of their own story, and Sisko has deluded himself into believing he was the grand architect of this manipulation, that on his shoulders rests the fate of the Alpha Quadrant. Yet we see in Sisko’s account that he was a hapless bit-player in Garak’s manipulations. I’m not even convinced Garak’s operatives even died on Cardassia, I think that was just another manipulation to keep Sisko from wasting time looking for legitimate evidence. And we see how quickly Sisko gets his hands very dirty, and in his inability to cope, he creates the lie to satisfy his self-respect. Is Sisko pure-evil? No, and that’s what makes this a fantastic episode.

Great review all around Darren! You caught several things I failed to notice about this episode despite my repeated viewings. I will have to re-watch this episode soon.

I’ve been meaning to comment on the Waltz review and how I thought it was a terrible mistake, but I’ve been having trouble putting it into words, just what a misstep the writers took. They tried to shoehorn Dukat into something he was not, pure evil. Dukat was not Gul Darhe’el as represented in Duet, I can imagine Dukat meeting such a man and being disgusted and chilled. Such brutal savagery was a threat to Dukat’s deluded sense of the greatness of Cardassia. If Dukat really was committed to the idea of exterminating the Bajorans, he wouldn’t be dicking around with Kira in Wrongs Darker Then Who Cares… The only thing he should have cared about was dumping her in an anonymous mass grave after Waltz, but it was clear the writers didn’t know what they were doing with the character.

Thanks for the kind words!

That said, I’m not so sure that Waltz itself is a terrible idea for Dukat, so much as everything that came afterwards. I’d almost be happy if that were the last that the audience saw of Dukat. But, yeah, almost everything afterwards is a spectacular misfire and the waste of a great character.

“Stories like Statistical Probabilities condemn the idea of reducing war to a mere numbers game, while episodes like Change of Heart suggest that the death of an innocent person can never be rationalized by reference to “the greater good” or “the needs of the many.” It is quite clear that Deep Space Nine does not see Sisko’s actions as especially moral.”

You can just as easily cite examples of the opposite position in the series. In “A Call to Arms”, at the suggestion taking the Defiant to go back for Jake, Sisko says “I can’t risk the entire crew for one man, even if he is my son.” (A far wiser choice than Janeway and Chakotay stupidly walking into Seska’s obvious trap in “Basics”).

In “The Ship”, Dax is quite candid in defending the capture of an enemy ship that five officer paid for with their lives. Heck, basically every dangerous assignment that crew members are sent on (be it by Sisko or someone higher up) in service of Starfleet or the Federation can be considered an exercise in “greater good” thinking

That’s a fair point, but I think the difference in those episodes is that it’s never really presented as an either/or choice.

In The Ship, for example, the crew don’t make a conscious decision to take the Jem’Hadar ship no matter the cost. They stumble into a situation that ends up costing a lot of lives. And there is no way that they could surrender to the Dominion after the siege begins. As Sisko points out at the end of the episode, the issue is that the two sides cannot trust one another; for all Sisko knows, his crew would have been executed on surrendering. I’d argue that Dax’s observation at the end is an attempt to sooth Sisko’s sense of responsibility for what happened, to assure him he did the right thing.

Similarly, while Sisko justifies not going back for Jake, it isn’t as though he makes the decision to actively leave him. Plus, as Jake points out, he is the son of the Emissary and the Dominion are trying to make nice with the Bajorans.

However, when those choices are framed in an “either/or” fashion, the film tends to decisively come down on choosing not to make the pragmatic numerical decision about the greater good. When Bashir and Sisko have to choose between sacrificing millions to save billions or gambling it all, they gamble it all. When Worf has to choose between saving Jadzia or letting her die, he chooses to save her over the lives that would have been saved by rescuing the informant instead.

How about Sisko abandoning Dax and O’Brien on a Dominion planet in “The Search, Part I”, being prepared to destroy the Defiant with all hands to prevent the Dominion from provoking a war with the Tzenkethi in “The Adversary”, or attempting to seal the wormhole, with Worf, Garak, and potentially numerous other Alpha Quadrant ships stranded on the other side in “In Purgatory’s Shadow” (and technically being willing to do the same to Kira and Odo in “The Search, Part II” as well)?

Crucially though, none of those ultimately pay-off (with the crew generally finding a way around it or the plot contorting to avoid it) and most of them involve officers who have signed up to service understanding the sacrifices they may be asked to make. That’s very different from the pragmatic mass sacrifice rejected in Statistical Probabilities or the “ends justify the means” philosophy that weighs on Sisko in In the Pale Moonlight .

I’ve been looking forward to your review of this episode for quite some time. Really great, insightful analysis.

Thanks Ben!

After watching “Waltz” on Netflix, I dove into “In the Pale Moonlight.” The two episodes work wonderfully as companion pieces. They really draw a very sharp distinction between Sisko and Dukat.

In “Waltz” we see that Dukat is utterly immoral, as well as completely unwilling / unable to take responsibility for any of his actions. It is always someone else’s fault. In Dukat’s mind, he is *never* to blame for the crimes, the murders, he has perpetrated. As Dukat sees it, if only everyone would have been reasonable and simple done things his way, if only others had shown him the respect & deference that was his due, then none of these unfortunate incidents would have had to occur. Ducat is completely incapable of introspection and self-examination.

In contrast, “In the Pale Moonlight” shows us Sisko constantly struggling with his conscience, plagued by doubt & guilt. He repeatedly questions both his motives and his actions. Sisko cannot simply hand-wave away his actions with “the ends justify the means.” He regards the crimes he committed, the murders to which he was an accessory, as a terrible price to have paid to save the Federation from the Dominion, and you can tell that they will weight heavily on him.

I love how this episode is directed by Victor Lobl. By having Sisko practically break the fourth wall while giving his “confession” he is in effect making us, the audience, his co-conspirators. As a viewer I really was drawn into this episode.

One last thing… “It’s a faaaaaake!” I really have to wonder if it was Lobl, actor Stephen McHattie, writer Michael Taylor or someone else who came up with that, um, interesting line delivery. Of course by the time McHattie delivers it, the episode’s tension has been ratcheted up so much that instead of being over-the-top it works as a devastating moment. No wonder everyone remembers it.

That’s a very valid point about the contrast between Sisko and Dukat.

Deep Space Nine began as a deconstruction of the Star Trek universe. From Emissary, we knew this wouldn’t be another TOS or a concurrent TNG. And from season to season, DS9 has only gotten increasingly ballsy as it picks apart the utopian human universe Gene Roddenberry pioneered.

But with In the Pale Moonlight, DS9 has now left behind deconstruction of a Star Trek universe, and moved onto brutal evisceration. The whole episode is like the answer to Bashir’s question at the end of Inquisition – how much will we sacrifice to ensure our survival?

With a story from Peter Allan Fields and a script by Ronald D Moore, two of Star Trek’s finest writers, superb direction from Victor Lobl as well as a plotline headed by two of DS9’s strongest performers, In the Pale Moonlight emerges as a tremendous example of what DS9 excels at. It’s the crown jewel of this incredible season.

The teaser sets an atypical scene with Sisko in his quarters, trying to record a log entry and he can’t even finish the Stardate because he has no idea what day it is. Sisko’s got a lot to get off his chest, and he feels the best way to do it is in a personal log. The war with the Dominion is looking increasingly bleak for the Federation. Even with the help of the Klingons, Bashir’s predictions about a Dominion victory from Statistical Probabilities are starting to look more and more like a reality. So Sisko makes a decision – he must bring the Romulans into this conflict.

What follows is Sisko’s desperate quest to do just that, no matter what it takes and whatever the cost. But it winds up costing Sisko more than he could ever imagine. The episode beautifully structures each scene. First, the lovely bit in Sisko’s office where Dax acts like devil’s advocate as he makes his argument (Terry Farrell does an eerily good job of capturing the mannerisms of the Romulan Senate), before realising he must have something concrete to get the Romulans to wage war on the Dominion.

The point Garak comes into it is the point In the Pale Moonlight takes off like a rocket. It makes up for the fact how strangely absent Garak has been throughout this wonderful season. Since the Federation retook the station in Sacrifice of Angels, there’s been neither sight nor sound of him. In the Pale Moonlight is a welcome reminder of how much Andrew Robinson brings to an episode. It’s his best showcase since The Wire.

Both Sisko and Garak come to the mutual conclusion that the Romulans need proof the Dominion will try to conquer Romulus once they’re through with the Federation and the Klingons. But when Garak’s sources on Cardassia are killed just for even speaking with someone off world, they decide to create the evidence themselves.

Wesley Crusher once made an incredibly naive remark back in TNG’s dreadful first season; “I’m Starfleet. We don’t lie”. In the Pale Moonlight delights in dispelling that conceited notion. Sisko and Garak arrange a meeting on DS9 with Vreenak, a prominent Romulan senator returning from a diplomatic briefing with the Dominion. If he can be convinced the Dominion are a threat to Romulan interests, the rest of the Senate will fall into line.

Sisko and Garak hire a forger (after pardoning him from a Klingon prison first) to create the illusion of a meeting between Weyoun and Damar planning the invasion of Romulus. To make it seem even more authentic, Garak has it recorded onto a hard-to-find optolythic data rod, but not before Sisko has to order Bashir in writing to trade dangerous, unsellable biomimetic gel for the rod (Bashir probably loses some respect for Sisko in this episode). Sisko even has to resort to bribery to keep Quark from pressing charges against the forger Tolar, after he attacks Quark in the bar.

Victor Lobl’s direction is relentless the way it piles the pressure on Sisko, and Avery Brooks plays it superbly, not just in the scenes in his quarters, but in the story he’s telling us. We see Sisko take each step as it pushes him further and further into increasingly more questionable acts. The instrument of Lobl’s direction is Garak. Having him in the episode is a masterstroke, because every time Sisko is about to back out of this endeavour, Garak gives him the incentive he needs to push on with it, even though it chips a little more out of Sisko’s soul.

Things come to a head when Vreenak boards the station, reviews the recording and dismisses it as the fake that it is (a line delivery as much of a classic as anything else in the episode). But that’s not the end of it.

The final act is a series of beautifully engineered precision twists. Suspecting the rod wouldn’t stand up to scrutiny, Garak planted a bomb on Vreenak’s shuttle, taking him and his aides with him. Knowing the rod would survive the explosion, the Tal Shiar will examine it, believing the Dominion blew up the shuttle to stop Vreenak from exposing they’re plot to invade Romulus, and any flaws in the recording will be blamed on the explosion (and as an added precaution, Garak kills Tolar to eliminate the one other witness). This is enough to convince the Romulans to join the war against the Dominion.

In the Pale Moonlight is a peerless episode of Deep Space Nine. Everything about it works, with a plot so engrossing you can’t avert your eyes at the shocking story unfolding. This is as close to perfect as it’s possible for Star Trek to get.

It is a fantastic piece of television.

I’ve seen people say that the episode has lost some of its bite in the years following due to other shows having their main characters do far worse things. But that ambiguity enhances the episode. If we could outright condemn Sisko then it wouldn’t be nearly as powerful in my opinion.

Another thing I like about this episode is how no one in the main cast confronts him about it-as opposed to the Enterprise episode “Damage”, in which the big moment is a big blowout scene between Archer and T’Pol. “In the Pale Moonlight” is more unsubtle and low-key, but it’s infinitely more effective for the fact that no one finds out.

The perfect cap on this stunner of an episode is that Sisko then deletes the whole log entry. It’s the closest he can get to pretending this whole sorry state of affairs never happened. I love when the episode fades to black on Sisko’s closing remark. A particularly stylistic touch from Victor Lobl in an episode full of them.

That’s fair. I also like that there are no consequences for Sisko’s actions. The price of his actions is… that he has to live with his actions. That’s a fair bold narrative statement, and one which I think holds up quite well.

Words seriously can’t do justice to this episode. This is easily my favorite episode of the series, and probably in my top 3 episodes of television I’ve ever seen. It’s *that* damn good, and from minute one too. Unlike other Trek masterpieces like “The Inner Light”, which have fairly standard openings, “In the Pale Moonlight” is gripping from the opening shot. That puts it a cut above the other episodes that you mentioned for me. It’s staggeringly brilliant on just about every level.

This is fair. It is a brilliant piece of television.

The thing I think you nailed in this review is that the thing that truly gets under the skin in this episode is the slope that Sisko slides down. He starts off intending to win the war and save the quadrant. He does so, but in the process crossing numerous ethical boundaries that are apparently expected of 24th century humans. He crosses them so casually he barely even notices it. The “Star Trek” franchise often borrows from classic motifs, and “The road to hell is paved with good intentions” is certainly not an original idea. But rarely has it been executed with such aplomb, with such dazzling skill. That alone is enough to vault this episode into the very upper echelon of “Star Trek” episodes.

Yep, and while this certainly isn’t a new idea thematically, it is relatively novel in the context of what was at the time a thirty-year-old franchise. So the combination of the two concepts felt fresh and exciting, and interesting.

Leave a comment Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Recent Posts

• 376. Wall-E – Ani-May 2024 (#59)
• Doctor Who: The Devil’s Chord (Review)
• Doctor Who: Space Babies (Review)
• 375. Monsters, Inc. – Ani-May 2024 (#200)
• 373. Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (#225)

Recently tweeted…

• "I Simply Am Not There": The Existential Horror of Eighties Excess in "American Psycho"...
• Doctor Who: The Devil's Chord (Review)
• Star Trek: The Original Series (Reviews)
• Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (Reviews)

Available at…

Blogs Well Worth Your Time

• 1001 Must See Films
• Andrew at the Movies
• Anomalous Material
• Cut the Crap Movie Reviews
• Encore Entertainment
• Fandango Groovers
• FlixChatter
• Four of Them
• It Rains… You get Wet…
• Jameson Cult Film Blog
• Jar Watches Films
• Let's Go To The Movies
• M. Carter at the Movies
• Marshall and the Movies
• Movie News First
• Musings from a Man Lost in La Mancha
• Never Mind Pop Film
• Paragraph Film Reviews
• Roger Ebert's Journal
• Ross v. Ross
• Scannain.com
• Screenwriter (Donald Clarke, Irish Times)
• Strange Culture
• The Film Cynics
• The Pompous Film Snob
• The Projection Booth
• Things That Don't Suck
• Too Busy Thinking About My Comics
• Undy a Hundy

Film Nerd Resources

• CinemaBlend (News)
• Internet Movie Database
• Rope of Silicon
• The Guardian Film Blog
• James Berardinelli
• Roger Ebert

Email Subscription

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Email Address:

Sign me up!

Blog at WordPress.com. WP Designer.

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

• The Inventory

The Best Moment in Deep Space Nine 's Greatest Episode Is a Punch Left Unthrown

And all it took was the life of one romulan senator, one criminal, and the self-respect of one starfleet officer..

Twenty-six years ago today, Deep Space Nine delivered the knife under its cloaked examination of Star Trek ’s morals in wartime with all the delicate precision of a sewing needle: the incredible “In the Pale Moonlight,” not just one of DS9 or Star Trek ’s finest hours , but one of the all time greatest episodes of TV ever made. But the finest moment in an already immaculate piece of television is all about the ways to enact violence without lifting a single finger.

Related Content

“In the Pale Moonlight,” framed around a maudlin Captain Sisko recounting recent events in his personal log after a long, long day, is about the increasing moral compromises he is willing to make as one of Starfleet’s vanguards in the increasingly dire war against the Dominion. Seeing an opportunity to bring one of the Federation’s coldest enemies, the secretive Romulans, into a war they’ve stayed neutral in, Sisko finds himself drawn into the charismatic orbit of the simple tailor and occasionally master of all sorts of spycraft, Garak the Cardassian clothier , as the two plot to artificially construct evidence of a Dominion plot to invade the Romulan Star Empire, and pass it along to a Romulan senator.

The episode layers on its tension through each circle of hell Sisko is willing to put his soul through. Even the first step of simply working with Garak on such a plan is already heinous enough for the high and mighty values of Starfleet’s officer class, but bit by bit, Sisko begins to see the proverbial river of blood he must wade into to come out of the other side with even a chance of Romulus entering the Dominion War. Using criminals to fake evidence, crafting the perfect deception, planting it in Senator Vreenak’s hands, all this would be tantamount to the gravest of moral costs our hero could pay... and then it all blows up in his face when Vreenak calls Sisko out on his bluff, realizing the data rod he’s been handed showcasing the Dominion’s supposed plans is counterfeit.

It’d be here that any other Star Trek show would plant its flag as the lowest moment one of its heroes could sink to: they played dirty, and now must face the consequences of taking the low road. But Deep Space Nine is not any other Star Trek show , and so it prepares to thrust its knife. The next day, as senior staff monitor casualty lists and Sisko braces for his fall, a Starfleet Intelligence report comes through confirming the death of a Romulan Senator in a shuttlecraft explosion the Star Empire is laying at the hands of Dominion subterfuge. It’s Vreenak: he’s dead, the secret of Sisko’s moral cost with him, and Sisko knows exactly who’s to blame for the explosion.

As Sisko storms down to Garak’s shop, we get it: the finest moment in all of Deep Space Nine . Time and time again in the show, in ways small and large, we’ve seen up to this point that Benjamin Sisko is not a man who pulls punches, metaphorically or otherwise. From laying out Q the moment he tries to cast the then-Commander as another Picard, to his dogged determination to root out the anti-Cardassian guerrillas of the Maquis, Sisko has always acted as he does here: to come in swinging. He decks Garak, sending him clean across the room. He yells his accusations at Garak—he killed Vreenak, he killed the criminal they used to forge that data rod; all along, he’s knowingly brought the Romulans into the deadliest war the Alpha Quadrant has seen in generations on a falsehood. Even without the punch, this isn’t Sisko passionate or dogged or determined. He is furious , something we have seen simmering in him before, but now fully unleashed.

But Garak never fights back. He takes Sisko’s punch, and all the rage, goes to block the second swing, but he doesn’t match Sisko’s braggadocio. He waits. And then in cold, calculating form, he turns Sisko on himself—laying out all the evidence that the Romulans will now have, from a dead senator to an imperfect, damaged rod containing even the faintest traces of evidence of a Dominion plot, and guides Sisko along the way to a conclusion that was there from the beginning of the episode. Sisko would see what Garak predicts the Romulans will see, and would enter the war against the Dominion , just as they will. Garak doesn’t even have to say it, he just lets Sisko work through it out loud himself, not even having to push him... because for all his posture, for all the fists swinging, they think exactly the same. And if anything, Sisko is even dirtier than that, because he already knew that in going to Garak he would get someone who willing to dirty their own hands on his behalf, and leave him with the victory he wanted—at any cost, no matter what he’d claim otherwise.

And so, with Sisko at the lowest depths of hell at last, he and Garak are locked as kindred spirits in this game of spycraft and moral theater. It’s a remarkable moment, one that has rightly stuck with Star Trek for the two and a half decades since it first broadcast, because of the way it skewers the franchise’s legacy of purported enlightenment in such an elegantly compelling way . For years before this, Starfleet and its officers have been depicted as above this kind of underhanded manipulation—that our heroes talk their ways out of fights, that they maintain the moral high ground, and that even when they falter, when they play a little dirty, it’s with a roguish charm, and in the manner of a hero, the small, innocent prices paid, for a greater good that is always worth it. It’s never meant to stain their soul, because in the end, it always works out in the hero’s favor—and their righteous view of the universe.

Sisko’s greater good is hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of beings slaughtered to prevent the complete destruction of the Alpha Quadrant powers as we know them, predicated on a lie. In the end, he got it, not in the noblest of manners as the heroes before him might have, but through cloak and dagger deception and knives in the dark. Because, back against the wall, he was always willing to throw that punch—and because Garak knew it too, he himself never had to.

Want more io9 news? Check out when to expect the latest Marvel , Star Wars , and Star Trek releases, what’s next for the DC Universe on film and TV , and everything you need to know about the future of Doctor Who .

• More to Explore
• Series & Movies

Star Trek History: In the Pale Moonlight

On this day in 1998, this classic Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode premiered.

<!--/*--><![CDATA[/* ><!--*/ <!--td {border: 1px solid #ccc;}br {mso-data-placement:same-cell;}--> /*--><!]]>*/On this day in 1998, the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode "In the Pale Moonlight" premiered.

Log in or sign up for Rotten Tomatoes

Trouble logging in?

By continuing, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from the Fandango Media Brands .

By creating an account, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and to receive email from the Fandango Media Brands .

By creating an account, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes.

Email not verified

Let's keep in touch.

Sign up for the Rotten Tomatoes newsletter to get weekly updates on:

• Upcoming Movies and TV shows
• Trivia & Rotten Tomatoes Podcast
• Media News + More

By clicking "Sign Me Up," you are agreeing to receive occasional emails and communications from Fandango Media (Fandango, Vudu, and Rotten Tomatoes) and consenting to Fandango's Privacy Policy and Terms and Policies . Please allow 10 business days for your account to reflect your preferences.

OK, got it!

Movies / TV

No results found.

• What's the Tomatometer®?
• Login/signup

Movies in theaters

• Opening this week
• Top box office
• Coming soon to theaters
• Certified fresh movies

Movies at home

• Fandango at Home
• Netflix streaming
• Prime Video
• Most popular streaming movies
• What to Watch New

Certified fresh picks

• Hit Man Link to Hit Man
• Am I OK? Link to Am I OK?
• Jim Henson Idea Man Link to Jim Henson Idea Man

New TV Tonight

• Star Wars: The Acolyte: Season 1
• Ren Faire: Season 1
• Sweet Tooth: Season 3
• Clipped: Season 1
• Queenie: Season 1
• Mayor of Kingstown: Season 3
• Becoming Karl Lagerfeld: Season 1
• Criminal Minds: Season 17
• Power Book II: Ghost: Season 4
• Erased: WW2's Heroes of Color: Season 1

Most Popular TV on RT

• Eric: Season 1
• House of the Dragon: Season 2
• Evil: Season 4
• Dark Matter: Season 1
• Tires: Season 1
• Star Wars: Ahsoka: Season 1
• Best TV Shows
• Most Popular TV
• TV & Streaming News

Certified fresh pick

• Star Wars: The Acolyte: Season 1 Link to Star Wars: The Acolyte: Season 1
• All-Time Lists
• Binge Guide
• Comics on TV
• Five Favorite Films
• Video Interviews
• Weekend Box Office
• Weekly Ketchup
• What to Watch

Netflix’s 100 Best Movies Right Now (June 2024)

The Bad Boys Movies Ranked by Tomatometer

What to Watch: In Theaters and On Streaming

Movie Re-Release Calendar 2024: Your Guide to Movies Back In Theaters

Vote For the Best Movie of 1999 – Round 4

• Trending on RT
• The Acolyte First Reviews
• Vote: 1999 Movie Showdown
• The Watchers

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine – Season 6, Episode 19

In the pale moonlight, where to watch, star trek: deep space nine — season 6, episode 19.

Watch Star Trek: Deep Space Nine — Season 6, Episode 19 with a subscription on Paramount+, or buy it on Fandango at Home, Prime Video.

More Like This

Cast & crew.

Avery Brooks

Capt. Benjamin Sisko

Rene Auberjonois

Michael Dorn

Lt. Cmdr. Worf

Terry Farrell

Lt. Cmdr. Jadzia Dax

Cirroc Lofton

Colm Meaney

Chief Miles O'Brien

Episode Info

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine: "In The Pale Moonlight"

(season 6, episode 19; originally aired 4/15/1998)

(Available on Netflix , Hulu , and Amazon .)

When I was 18 years old, my family took a vacation. I stayed home, because it was summer and because I had a job; I was trying to put away some money before I went to college in the fall. I’d just passed my driver’s test, and my dad left me the truck, a big blue monster of a Ford that didn’t turn so great and wheezed when you changed the gears.

Related Content

One afternoon I was running low on cereal and toilet paper, so I took a trip to the grocery store. The parking lot was three-quarters full, but I found a space not too far from the entrance. It was narrow, but I was sure I could make it, and I’d never had any problems parking before. But I didn’t make it. As I turned, there was a crunch and a popping sound, and I looked down just in time to see fragments of orange plastic flying out where the truck’s bumper had knocked out another car’s tail light. A stranger’s tail light.

I froze. In the 10 seconds before I made my next move, I had options, but all I knew was that I was a bad person, and that everything was ruined. So when my 10 seconds were up, I drove away. For the next two days, I was convinced that the cops were going to find me, that someone had seen me, that someone had written down my license plate number. But nothing happened. There wasn’t even enough damage to the truck for my parents to notice when they finally came home.

I love stories, and I love them because they have reasons, and consequences, cause and effect. They have meaning. But this story made no sense. I wasn’t one of the good guys anymore, but it didn’t matter. No one cared. I got over it.

There’s nothing in my life comparable to Sisko’s actions in “In The Pale Moonlight.” The episode goes to great lengths to establish the ongoing cost of the Dominion War, the captain’s personal sense of responsibility, and the frustrated rage that drives him. He does what he does because he tells himself there are no other choices he can make, and life keeps finding reasons that seem to confirm this. There’s no real accident here, and certainly nothing as silly as the anecdote I just described; Sisko’s course might have saved the entire Federation. My cowardice just screwed somebody out of a tail light. But for me, what matters most about “In The Pale Moonlight” is what happens at the very end: nothing. Oh, some ambiguity, a little uncomfortableness. It’s possible the death of the Romulan ambassador might someday land on the captain’s doorstep, and there could very well be consequences. But for right now, he gets away with it. He drives off, and if he has a hard time sleeping, he’ll get over it.

Star Trek is built on the vision of an ideal future; a tomorrow in which so many of the wants and hatreds that drive us today have been put aside. No money, no starvation, and if politics still seem as sniping and childish as ever, well, maybe there are folks who prefer it that way. The fundamental assumption is that problems can be solved. That with enough technology, enough goodwill and time, eventually humanity will work through its differences and grow the fuck up. Sure, there will still be the occasional criminal or malcontent, and sure, contact with other species can bring with it a whole host of new problems. But the fundamental optimism remains. With patience, the stalwart and true heroes of the world can save the day by sticking to their principles. It’s a nice idea.

In the years since Gene Roddenberry’s “ Wagon Train to the stars” first debuted, that idea has been poked and prodded by the Star Trek franchise, but it’s never been entirely discarded. Jean-Luc Picard had some dark moments on the Enterprise , but there was never any question about his moral fortitude; the worst thing that happened to him—being captured and assimilated by the Borg—was something that was done to him, not a personal failing or momentary lapse. The integrity of Picard, and of all his crew, was one of the hallmarks that defined Star Trek: The Next Generation . At the show’s best, these were good people doing noble work. They struggled from time to time, and they weren’t perfect, but they didn’t compromise themselves.

The same can’t really be said for Deep Space Nine . It’s a show built on compromise, and most of its cast have experienced this first hand. The events of “Moonlight,” the slow sickening build of bad choice stacked atop bad choice, are simply the natural evolution of a principle that has been with us from the beginning. Life is not neat. It is messy and strained and frequently uncomfortable, and staying clean isn’t always an option. The shock here isn’t that Sisko is capable of following a course of action that ends in murder. The shock is the realization that this isn’t that shocking. It doesn’t destroy our idea of Sisko, it doesn’t break any established rules, and it doesn’t shake the foundations of the series. All it does is twist things. Slightly. The good guys are still going to win, and the evil Dominion will be cast aside (or maybe there will be negotiations, I don’t know), and all it cost was, well. Not that much, right? A few lives, and a blotch on a good man’s soul. That’s a comparatively small price to pay.

Putting aside thematic concerns for a moment, “Moonlight’”s framing device, which has Sisko wrestling with his actions as he narrates what happened to his personal log, helps to establish this as being as much about character as it is about plot. Not that there’s ever any danger of us losing sight of that plot. If I have a criticism of the episode, it’s that it works a little too hard to make sure we understand exactly why Sisko does what he does, with Dax making comments like, “Boy, we definitely need the some help now!” at just the right moment. These reminders are distracting and unnecessary, although it’s not hard to figure out why they were included. DS9 has always been an accessible series; for all its moral ambiguity and technobabble, it rarely makes us struggle too hard to understand where its characters are coming from. Its genius is in using that accessibility to force its audience to confront uncomfortable truths. Another show might have gone to lengths to make sure neither side in the Dominion War was, strictly speaking, right; here, while it’s possible to sympathize with the Jem’Hadar, and even the Founders, there’s no real question. But that doesn’t make what happens to Vreenak (the always terrifying Stephen McHattie) any easier to take.

“In The Pale Moonlight” shifts the status quo for the series’ biggest ongoing storyline, but Sisko’s musings, self-recrimination, and self-doubt are the heart of the story. The episode turns the entire Dominion War into an opportunity to consider what lengths a man might be willing to go to try and do the right thing—and how the “right thing” can cease to lose its meaning past a certain point. In that respect, the hour plays like a miniature film noir, full of big gambles and shady creeps; you can even, if you squint, see some of the antihero signifiers that would become so important to modern television drama. Sisko takes shortcuts, offers bribes, works with criminals, and keeps the truth from his friends, and he does it all with, as he himself notes, the best of intentions. He does it for a cause greater than himself, but the sins still stain.

The escalation is elegant, all small steps from here to here to here, and then suddenly you look back to where you came from and you can’t see home anymore. This isn’t the most fun I’ve had watching a DS9 episode, but it is fun, and like those antihero shows, there’s a lot of excitement to be had in bending and breaking the rules. With Garak around, nothing ever gets too heavy or grim, except when you think about it; even Vreenak’s death doesn’t leave much of a mark. He was an interesting character, and he probably didn’t deserve to die, but it’s not like we’re going to miss him. Mostly this is just clever and well-paced and exciting, and each new setback adds to the suspense. Sisko’s plan, which seemed so simple (if basically impossible) keeps running into roadblocks, and each roadblock requires Sisko to lower himself just that much more. There’s plenty of entertainment value to be had in watching the captain negotiate a pay-off with Quark. Besides, Quark isn’t so bad, is he? And Garak, hey, Garak’s had his issues, but he’s such a charming, fascinating figure, he surely has everyone’s best interest at heart.

Here’s the thing: from a certain perspective, Garak does have everyone’s best interest at heart. At least, he has right people’s best interests. While the script (teleplay by Michael Taylor, from a story by Peter Allan Fields) may hit some notes too hard, it never overplays Sisko’s deepening sense of crisis, to the point where it’s entirely possible to watch the whole episode and think not much of importance has happened at all. It’s not as though Sisko murdered Vreenak himself; it’s not as though he records his log with blood dripping from his fingers.

Questions of right and wrong are often presented as simple binary decisions in fiction. Even in complicated scenarios, the choices characters make within those scenarios, from our outsider’s perspective, are basically straightforward. Sometimes doing the right thing is incredibly, almost impossibly, difficult, but we still know what that right thing is, and woe betide anyone who fails to follow it.

But here, nothing’s easy. You can say, it’s wrong that Sisko asked for Garak’s help, because surely he must have known Garak would take whatever steps necessary to ensure the plan would succeed. You can say, after Vreenak’s death, it was Sisko’s responsibility to turn Garak over to the authorities, and confess to his part in the crime. Yet the guilt of the former is outweighed by those endless casualty reports, by wave after wave of meaningless deaths, by the very real possibility that the Federation might lose the war; and the responsibility of the latter is cast aside by the simple fact that it’s too late, and any attempt to find justice would just make everything that much worse. So all that’s left is an empty feeling in the pit of one’s stomach and the slime left behind by all those moderate capitulations. And the corpses, of course.

Look: that taillight story? That’s a stupid story. I’ve done worse things in my life, and I’m still walking around, but even those worse things aren’t comparable to the subject at hand. But that minor accident, that lousy mistake that probably ruined (or at least inconvenienced) someone’s day, was the first time I can remember doing the wrong thing, and it not mattering. There was no punishment, no effect, no anything. If it were possible to work out some equation that expressed Sisko’s behavior in “Moonlight,” a way to balance out the millions of potential lives lost, and the very strong possibility that he’d helped to win the war (a war that Vreenak accuses him of starting, no less), against the immorality of the lies and murder it took to get him there… I don’t know. Maybe it would come down to little more than a busted taillight, and the knowledge that this is what we are capable of. This is how we are weak. Sisko can console himself with the thought that life demands impossible decisions, and it could just be that sometimes you have to do something awful to save the day. But he’ll always know that there are virtuous, heroic, and noble people in the universe, people who always take the high road, people who don’t run away or let their desperation drive them; and whatever else happens, if Sisko is among them, it will always be with an asterisk. You can live with that, though.

Next: We’re off until January 9, when we return to our two-episodes-a-week format with “His Way” and “The Reckoning.” Happy holidays!

An archive of Star Trek News

Retro Review: In the Pale Moonlight

• Star Trek: Deep Space Nine

Sisko decides to work with Garak to bring the Romulans into the Dominion War on the side of the Federation.

Plot Summary: As Sisko tries to log the events of the past two weeks, he can’t even remember the date. Things started to go disastrously wrong when he posted yet another casualty list, telling Dax that the only way the Federation could possibly defeat the Dominion was to bring the Romulans into the war on their side. Dax guessed that only proof of Dominion duplicity would persuade the Romulans to fight them, so Sisko asked Garak whether the former Cardassian operative could obtain documents about Dominion plans for Romulan containment. Garak literally met dead ends – his contacts were killed – but the shock when the Dominion subsequently invaded Betazed made both Sisko and Garak conclude that the Romulans had to be enlisted at all costs. Garak asked Sisko whether he would help to create fake evidence that the Dominion intended to betray the Romulans. Sisko logs that his conscience warned him against going too far, but his concerns about the fate of Vulcan, Alpha Centauri, and the rest of the Alpha Quadrant took precedence. He helped Garak get a violent holographic artist out of a Klingon prison and agreed to trade biomimetic gel for a Cardassian optic data rod, though he knew the gel could be used to create biogenic weapons. Garak’s ploy involved persuading the Romulan senator who negotiated the pact between the Romulans and Dominion of a planned invasion, so Sisko secretly lured Senator Vreenak to the station and showed him a forged Cardassian holorecording of Weyoun telling Damar of plans to surprise the Romulans with an attack. The Romulan quickly realized that the recording was fake, but when he left the station, his shuttle exploded. Sisko realized that Garak had only wanted Vreenak to visit the station so he could plant a bomb, making it look like the Dominion had sabotaged his shuttle and leaving just enough of the data rod to persuade the Romulans that Vreenak had discovered a Dominion invasion plan. Now the Romulans have declared war on the Dominion, and Sisko has come to the disquieting conclusion that Garak was right: the blood on his hands is a small price to pay for the safety of the Alpha Quadrant. He decides he can live with the guilt, and erases the log entry.

Analysis: “In the Pale Moonlight” is one of the best-produced episodes of Deep Space Nine – indeed, of Star Trek – but it’s deeply divisive, and for some fans it’s the moment when this series ceased to belong to the franchise, particularly coming just after the equally disturbing “Inquisition.” In recent weeks, we were told that the peace and security enjoyed by Federation citizens has always been safeguarded by a top-secret organization that answers to no one, but were still hadn’t been told much about Section 31, and misguided admirals trying to seize power in the name of peace were a problem in earlier incarnations of Star Trek. Sisko, however, is one of the show’s heroes, a Starfleet captain devoted to the ideals of the Federation and by extension to the ideals of the franchise. His acceptance of his role in a cold-blooded political assassination is chilling…I’ve met Star Trek fans who find it unforgivable. Kirk and Picard never did anything like it, with or without the sanction of Starfleet Command (which Sisko has when he puts the plot into play, and when Vreenak’s death creates an alliance between Starfleet and the Romulans, Starfleet asks no further questions about what Sisko did). I’m not sure that Spock wouldn’t see the logic of Garak’s scheme, for if the needs of the many indeed outweigh the needs of the few, the deaths of a few Romulans and a criminal wanted by the Klingons are mathematically a small price to pay to save millions of lives on Andor, Tellar, and all the other planets in range of the Dominion’s weapons. Yet Star Trek has always insisted on seeing even enemy combatants as individuals rather than numbers, and on attempting negotiations while avoiding violence at nearly any cost. Vreenak, his crew, and the forger Tolar are killed without any due process, without having committed war crimes. As Sisko says, these deaths are murders to which he is an accessory, but he’s willing to accept that judgment if it will save the Federation. The question becomes whether the Federation is worth saving, for when the rights of citizens can be violated within the law by Section 31 while the rights of non-citizens are trampled by Starfleet, how is it better than the star empires and syndicates around it?

I’m certainly not one to argue that I’d rather live in the Klingon Empire or on Ferenginar, where as a woman I’d have fewer rights by definition than men do, nor that I’d prefer the twisted Romulan version of Vulcan logic, nor “peace” established by the Founders within the Dominion. What would Roddenberry do? In the face of an invasion by a stronger enemy who will accept negotiation only under terms of surrender, we don’t have an answer. It’s not a problem we ever saw Kirk or Picard face for more than a couple of weeks at a time. We know that Kirk was comfortable bending or breaking the rules, even the Prime Directive, when he felt that it was necessary for the greater good; as he said himself, he never really faced death until he lost Spock, he just found ways to cheat it and congratulate himself for his ingenuity. Picard did face a massive threat to the Federation and was even made complicit in it when the Borg took him over, but he, too, figured out a cheat, a way to shut down the enemy’s invasion force that makes them self-destruct due to a flaw in their own machinery. Sadly, no one has found a way to cheat against the Dominion, which means that when the Dominion brings war to the Alpha Quadrant, allied with a vicious, self-serving Cardassian government that’s even more intractable than the Klingons were in the old days of hostilities, the only choices are to fight them or to do what Bashir and his band of geniuses proposed: to surrender and accept living under Dominion rule. Is it possible to fight fair against people whose leaders can shapeshift and take over key positions, who genetically engineer strategists and soldiers to be more easily replaced and physically stronger than any in the Federation…who are, in other words, already cheating according to the standards adopted by Starfleet? Probably not. So the real question isn’t whether this war story violates Star Trek’s ideals and principles, but whether such a war story can be told in that paradigm without betraying either realism or Roddenberry’s dream of a universe where intelligence and empathy trump selfish motives like greed and the desire for self-protection.

I love that DS9’s writers had the courage to go here, because it was always a source of frustration to me that we never really saw how we got from a world that produced Khan and the post-apocalyptic nightmare that Q showed Picard to the wonderful future of the 23rd century. We’re forced to think about the progression, not only in episodes like “Past Tense” and “Necessary Evil” which confront how the Earth and the characters became the forces for good that we now see, but in stories that remind us of all the things that can go wrong even when it looks like people have worked out the enormous problems of hunger, disease, distribution of resources, and all the rest. “In the Pale Moonlight” is primarily about how little Sisko wants to have to make the choices that lead to the result everyone desperately wants, the Romulans joining the Federation in fighting the Dominion. He spends the entire episode agonizing over how he’s justified them to himself. Yet his self-recrimination seems overstated next to his grief at the mounting casualties in a war that has not seemed nearly significant enough in the weeks leading up to these events; I have trouble believing that he’s really angry at Garak or himself over the deaths so much as over his being forced to admit that Garak is a much smarter wartime strategist for precisely the reasons Sisko has resisted liking and trusting Garak. He says when Garak asks if he’s prepared for a bloody business that the war has already involved him in one. A Starfleet captain who’ll risk trading material that could create bio-weapons (over the objections of an overly sanctimonious Dr. Bashir) can’t be that devastated over the deaths of a bunch of Tal’Shiar operatives working for the destruction of the Federation and a criminal the Klingons were planning to execute anyway. Sisko has personally shot at more enemy combatants than died to bring the Romulans to war against the Dominion. And Garak’s math is flawless, sacrificing a tiny number of people to save millions. Until Sisko punches him, he’s even willing to carry the responsibility for the deaths without requesting or getting any glory for his machinations.

Avery Brooks gives one of his best performances in this episode, though I can’t think of a Captain Sisko-focused episode in which he isn’t terrific. He has to hold the audience’s attention for long minutes at a time with nothing but his voice and facial expressions, and he is riveting. The unconventional script and directing, which allow Sisko to soliloquize and address the camera directly, work very well for this story in which the tension is largely internal. Considering that the material is fairly depressing and the sets quite dark, there’s a surprising amount of levity (the Rule of Acquisition about every man having his price, “the souffle will either rise or it won’t and there’s not a damn thing you can do about it”), and the tension is palpable despite the prior knowledge that whatever has happened, it hasn’t broken Sisko. Because of the Romulan ship in the hangar, I’m not positive “In the Pale Moonlight” counts entirely a bottle show, but it’s almost entirely on DS9 sets, meaning that most of the visual interest comes entirely from the acting and the dialogue. No matter how one feels about the changes to Star Trek brought about by the Dominion War, the production values are exceptional, the performances unforgettable. Count me with the fans who think this is one of the series’ finest moments.

About The Author

Michelle Erica Green

Writer, mother, reader, traveler, teacher, partner, photographer, activist, friend, fangirl, student, critic, citizen, environmentalist, feminist, vegetarian, enthusiast. TrekToday staffer for many years, former news reporter, current retro reviewer.

See author's posts

More Stories

• Cast & Crew

Darren Recovering From COVID-19

Alone Together: A DS9 Companion

Virtual Trek Con Deep Space Nine Panels

11 thoughts on “ retro review: in the pale moonlight ”.

Signs and wonders. The first time that I can agree with you on practically every level.

Super review! And I do think it’s a bottle show.

Vic ruined it, he’s a slimeball.

In some ways this is better than a true bottle-show. This is a show one could do set-less. You could have Brooks on a bare stage dictating his log entry, then stepping from one spotlight to another to have the conversations that represent what he’s logging about. You could ALMOST do this as a one-man show, actually, because a man like Brooks is versatile enough to believably carry almost all the parts–but then you’d miss out on the equal brilliance of Andrew Robinson as Garak.

Star Trek has always, IMO, been about one of two things: 1] The Future is Awesome or 2] Sometimes you have to fight to KEEP the future awesome. This is 100% the latter. Would Roddenberry have approved? Impossible to know, but my opinion is that late-60s Roddenberry would have approved, but that possibly late-80s Roddenberry might not have. But I’m not positive even of that. Roddenberry’s cardinal rule for TNG-era Trek was that HUMANS should not be in conflict with each other, that not just Earth but all humanity was somehow Utopian. This is one of the reasons DS9’s cast is so weighted toward the alien — so that interpersonal conflict could be brought back to the core cast.

Personally, I could see Shatner/Kirk in this exact same position and role. If the Organians had not intervened and the Klingon war had broken out hot, as it looked like it would in “Errand of Mercy”? I totally could see Kirk pulling something like this to secure an ally…

The comfortable old Man-Hating Happy Zone briefly beckoned her in the second paragraph, but otherwise yes.

The line that best signified one of the major themes of Deep Space 9 was, “It’s easy to be a saint in paradise.” That statement was best illustrated in this episode, “Inquisition” and “The Maquis”.

That take on late-model Roddenberryism was a big part of what made DS9 such a remarkable show. By the ’80s, Gene had gone off the deep end creatively. His New Frontier humanism of the ’60s had evolved into a preposterous notion of Perfectible Humanity that made for a pretty bizarre first season of TNG, in which characters enjoyed the fruits of a perfect, peaceful, want-free society that they had done nothing to build, and from the perch of which they frequently looked down their noses at their forefathers who had (1st-season Picard was the worst in this regard). The show dropped this attitude as Gene stepped away from it, instead settling into a comfortable vanilla-ness it never did fully shake off.

DS9 understood what Picard never did — that it is, indeed, easy to be a saint in paradise. It honored Roddenberry’s dream of a human race that could make peace with itself — that was, as he once put it, “really something” — by being honest about how hard-won a prize peace is. Picard is an explorer, but Ben Sisko is a builder.

The idea that being critical of patriarchal values is tantamount to manhating is risible.

You’re obviously not a regular reader of these.

I will never forget the first time I saw this episode. I was spellbound. When it was over, all I could say was…”wow!”; Brooks and Robinson were both riveting.

I’m surprised she didn’t mention the episode’s “sernnot jies”. Am still waiting for an explanation of what that is…

Comments are closed.

You may have missed

Several S&S Trek Books On Sale For $1 This Month

• Star Trek: Lower Decks

Another Classic Trek Actor On Lower Decks This Week

Classic Trek Games Now On GOG

• Star Trek: Prodigy

Star Trek: Prodigy Opening Credits Released

• Show Spoilers
• Night Vision
• Sticky Header
• Highlight Links

Follow TV Tropes

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Recap/StarTrekDeepSpaceNineS06E19InThePaleMoonlight

Recap / Star Trek Deep Space Nine S 06 E 19 In The Pale Moonlight

Edit locked.

Sisko: Every Friday morning, for the past three months, I've posted the official list of Starfleet personnel killed, wounded or missing in the war. It's become something of a grim ritual around here. Not a week goes by that someone doesn't find the name of a loved one, a friend or an acquaintance on that damned list. I've grown to hate Fridays .

Sisko is dictating his personal log to justify the actions he's taken over the past two weeks. We flash back to two Fridays prior, when Dax and Bashir lament the friends they've spotted on the latest casualty reports. The Cardassians are cutting through Romulan space without permission to attack Federation planets, and the Starfleet officers wonder what it will take for the Romulans to break their non-aggression treaty and join against the Dominion. Narrating his personal log, Sisko says that at that moment he became determined to bring the Romulans into the war.

Sisko and Dax reason out that before the Romulans will take a side, they'll demand concrete proof that they will be next in the Dominion's crosshairs. Sisko enlists Garak to use his connections to find proof on Cardassia. While Garak works, the Dominion invade Betazed, making the situation worse than ever. Worse still, Garak reports back that all of the operatives he's contacted have been swiftly assassinated by the Dominion authorities. The former spy says that their only option is to manufacture evidence themselves. In spite of his misgivings and the catastrophe that would result if their ruse fails, Sisko agrees to this desperate plan.

Garak proposes sending an invitation to the Romulan Senator Vreenak ( Stephen McHattie ), the most hardline supporter of the treaty, and present him proof of a planned Dominion surprise attack. If he's convinced, then the Senate will follow. To create the fake records, they'll rescue a certain counterfeiter Grathon Tolar from a Klingon prison. And to sell the counterfeit's authenticity, they'll purchase a Cardassian optolythic data rod to put it on. His misgivings growing, Sisko nonetheless agrees to Garak's proposal, pending Starfleet approval.

Sisko takes custody of the odious Grathon Tolar and brings him to the station. When Tolar stabs Quark in the bar, Sisko offers Quark a bribe to avoid filing a criminal complaint, causing the surprised Ferengi to confirm that Every Man Has His Price . To purchase the optolythic data rod, Sisko must force Bashir against his strenuous objections to hand over 85 liters of bio-memetic gel, a highly controlled and dangerous substance. But all of this work pays off when Tolar produces a fake briefing between Weyoun and Damar in which they plan a surprise attack on Romulus. Sisko is satisfied with the results and orders it embedded into the rod.

Senator Vreenak makes a clandestine arrival on Deep Space Nine on his way back from Soukara. Already declaring the war against the Dominion to be a lost cause , he insists on seeing evidence of a Dominion betrayal just as Sisko and Dax predicted. While Garak pokes around Vreenak's ship, Sisko shows him the fake recording, and the dubious senator insists on inspecting the rod further before making any decision. Sisko knows that the fate of the Alpha Quadrant rests on whether Vreenak buys the deception. When the senator summons Sisko again, he holds up the rod and snarls, "It's a faaaaaake !"

The senator promises to tell everyone on Romulus about Sisko's ruse. So the captain must accept that not only were his conscience-testing efforts All for Nothing , but they will all but destroy any hopes for diplomacy with the Romulans. Next Friday, as Sisko grimly delivers the weekly casualty reports, Worf comes in to report one specific casualty: Senator Vreenak, whose shuttle exploded after "leaving Soukara." It doesn't take very long for Sisko to realize that Garak hid a bomb on the senator's ship while it was docked. In a fury, he storms over to Garak's shop and punches him out.

Garak manages to calm Sisko down long enough to explain himself. The bombing of Vreenak's ship with the data rod on board will look like a Dominion assassination to erase the evidence of its planned surprise attack. The damage to the rod will mask the imperfections that originally revealed it to be a forgery. Garak also hints that he killed Tolar to further cover their tracks. The spy argues that their plan has worked, and they've saved the Alpha Quadrant at the expense of one Romulan Senator , a criminal, and Sisko's own conscience. And that, Garak declares, is a bargain.

Returning to the present, Sisko closes his personal log by asserting that he did what he had to do . He stiffly cheers himself for winning the war and finishes up by asserting that he can live with what he's done . After a moment, however, he adopts a more pensive pose and asserts with less conviction that he can live with it, as if trying to convince himself. Then, of course, he orders that his entire self-incriminating personal log be promptly erased.

Tropes in this episode:

• An Aesop : According to Andrew Robinson, the moral of the episode is "You can't go to bed with the Devil without having sex" . If you've resolved yourself to crossing the line, you're going to have to jump over it, not try and nervously stick a toe across, and then a foot, and so on with the hope that you can pull it back when it gets too hot.
• Alcohol-Induced Idiocy : Tolar, while drunk, harassed a Dabo girl, and when Quark intervened, Tolar stabbed him. All this was notably after Tolar was informed that he was working for the station's commander and that his (much feared) old acquaintance Garak was on the station.
• All for Nothing : After Vreenak discovers that the recording of Damar and Weyoun meeting to discuss an invasion of Romulus is a faaaaaaake , Sisko laments that all the wheeling and dealing and moral compromises amounted to nothing. Subverted , however, when Garak pulls one more rabbit out of his hat that Sisko never saw coming and which salvages the entire plan.
• Anti-Hero : Throughout the episode, Sisko narrates how his actions conflict with his morality. He even provides a List of Transgressions at the end.
• As You Know : Garak starts to give a biography of Vreenak for the sake of the audience, but Sisko already knows about him, so Garak skips the rest.
• Grathon Tolar, a criminal on death row who proves how scummy he is by assaulting a dabo girl and stabbing Quark for defending her. We cry no tears when it's implied that Garak killed him to keep him quiet.
• Senator Vreenak, the Smug Snake pro-Dominion senator. He knows he's on the winning team, and constantly rubs it in Sisko's face. Chances are no one mourned his demise.
• "Ass" in Ambassador : Vreenak is a real piece of work who insults Sisko and all of Starfleet to his face in their very first conversation together . Garak even warns Sisko to expect an acerbic attitude from Vreenak before the meeting in question. "So you're the commander of Deep Space 9. And the Emissary of the Prophets. Decorated combat officer, widower, father, mentor... and oh yes, the man who started the war with the Dominion. Somehow, I thought you'd be taller."
• Awaken the Sleeping Giant : With the Romulans freshly joining the war on the Federation-Klingon side, the Dominion advance into the Alpha Quadrant is rapidly blunted, helping turn the tide of the war.
• Bad Guys Do the Dirty Work : Garak calls Sisko out for knowingly coming to him for precisely this reason, yet still acting outraged when he behaved as expected. Garak: That's why you came to me. Isn't it, captain? Because you knew I could do those things you weren't capable of doing.
• Sisko's opening monologue makes it sound like he's going to tell the story of a terrible mistake he made. By the time Vreenak discovers the data rod is a forgery, it appears that the mistake he's confessing is his plan backfiring to cause the Romulans to join the war on the side of the Dominion. Then the truth of Garak's plan comes out, and it turns out Sisko succeeded in winning Romulan support. His confession is about all the immoral things he did to achieve it.
• When Worf comes in with a message from Starfleet, we're expecting that Vreenak has exposed Sisko's deception. Instead, it's about Vreenak's shuttle exploding.
• Bar Brawl : Tolar's scuffle with Quark occurs off-screen, but is recounted in detail by Odo.
• Batman Gambit : Garak's ploy to pull the Romulans into the war is dependent on the Romulan government's own understanding of foreign affairs: while the Federation might believe the Dominion when they say they had nothing to do with killing a Romulan Senator to prevent a leak due to their own policies, the Romulans will assume that the Dominion would obviously kill someone to prevent a leak and then deny it, because that's exactly what the Romulans would have done in their position.
• Believing Their Own Lies : Shades of this in Sisko's log; he's obviously trying to convince himself that what he did was definitively the right thing to do, and not a huge mess of moral ambiguities. And he looks like he's failing.
• Big "WHAT?!" : Sisko's reaction to the payment of bio-mimetic gel required for the data rod.
• Bittersweet Ending : The Romulan Empire joins the Dominion War on the side of the Federation and the Klingon Empire, but Sisko is a perpetrator and accessory to several crimes, including murder and conspiracy, and realizes that whether or not he agrees with it, he has to live with it.
• Blatant Lies : While protesting Sisko's modification of their deal , Tolar has the gall to say that he's done nothing wrong, despite having harassed a dabo girl and attempted to kill Quark for intervening.
• Brief Accent Imitation : Not quite "accent", but when Dax pretends to be the Romulan proconsul, her voice takes on a very Romulan tone.
• The U.S.S. Cairo was the ship commanded by Captain Jellico before his temporary transfer to the Enterprise -D in Next Generation's episode Chain Of Command . By this season of DS9 , Jellico was no longer commanding the Cairo at the point when the ship was destroyed.
• One reason why Bashir is so reluctant to prepare the biomimetic gel is that Sisko is not the first person to demand some of it from him , and it turned out not to be just a friendly request the last time either.
• Speaking of Bashir, in the last episode , while talking about Section 31 , he semi-rhetorically asks Sisko if The Federation is willing to compromise its principles to survive, and all Sisko can say is, "I wish I had an answer for you." Well, now he has his answer.
• Garak makes sure to have Tolar's recording reference Dukat's breakdown and the death of Ziyal by making Damar and Weyoun argue over it.
• Sisko, towards the end of his log, mentions there's currently a party to celebrate the entrance of the Romulans into the war. Sisko's tone during the episode makes it clear he's not feeling like celebrating, but he'll go to the party. This echoes his advice to Worf at the end of " Rules of Engagement ", that an officer's job is to smile to his troops even when he doesn't want to, because it keeps their morale up.
• The Chessmaster : This episode firmly cements Garak's position as one of the finest players in the franchise's history. Thanks to his maneuvering, the Federation and the Klingons gain a powerful ally in the Romulan Empire.
• Proconsul Neral is mentioned , with Vreenak being one of his special advisors.
• Jellico's ship returns, but this time under a new captain. It doesn't survive the Dominion War.
• Crazy-Prepared : Garak planned for Vreenak not believing the lies about the Dominion and planted a bomb on his shuttle, which both eliminates the disagreeable Senator and covers up the imperfections on the recording as mere damage from the explosion. And all that assumes that the bombing wasn't his true plan all along; after all, corpses don't need convincing.
• Curb-Stomp Battle : Not surprisingly, the flighty bohemian planet that is Betazed, with its antiquated defense systems and the nearest fleet caught off-guard, stood no chance against the Dominion. The entire planet was conquered in less than 10 hours.
• Darker and Edgier : With the possible exception of DS9 's own "The Siege Of AR-558" , this might be the darkest the franchise ever got, at least prior to the launch of Star Trek: Discovery .
• The Dominion War is going very badly for the Federation, with heavy casualties on multiple fronts and no end in sight. It gets worse when news comes in that the Dominion has conquered Betazed (Deanna Troi's homeworld and the residence of her mother Lwaxana); with that planet occupied, the Jem'Hadar are now in position to attack the core worlds of the Federation, including Vulcan, Andoria, Tellar Prime, and Alpha Centauri note  Alpha Centauri is the nearest star system to Sol, located just four light years away .
• Within the episode, Sisko is confronted by a furious Vreenak, who's discovered the data rod has been faked and intends to reveal the duplicity to the Romulan Senate.
• Deal with the Devil : This trope is applied metaphorically, both by the episode title, and by Garak making it clear from the beginning that seeking his help will be a "messy" business.
• Deconstruction : Of the concept of Space Opera warfare, and to a certain extent, the entire Star Trek franchise. In order to win a desperately needed victory against a murderous alien empire , our brave captain will: enlist the help of criminals? Order his crew to break protocol without telling them why? Bribe people to keep quiet? Instead of using space magic to save the day and retain his principles at the same time, the brave Starfleet hero will forge evidence , which then breaks and is discovered to be fake, and, then, when his sinister spymaster silences the witnesses in a False Flag Operation , he'll do nothing? Yikes.
• Delivery Not Desired : Sisko pours out his guilt to his log, then erases it so there won't be any evidence of his actions.
• Devil's Advocate : Jadzia fulfills this role for Sisko in an early scene, discussing the Romulans' analysis of their situation and why they'd continue their non-aggression pact with the Dominion, despite the inevitable double-cross.
• Starfleet didn't anticipate the attack on Betazed would come through the Kalandra sector, as it was deemed too far from the Dominion's supply lines. The Tenth fleet being out of position on a training exercise also counts.
• Sisko is clearly taken aback when Vreenak is assassinated and almost instantly knows what happened.
• Dispense with the Pleasantries : When Garak launches into his same old song and dance about being a simple tailor, Sisko brusquely cuts him off and gets down to business. Garak: I must say I'm flattered, Captain. I had no idea you held such a lofty opinion of me. Your faith in my ability to retrieve classified information from my former homeland is most gratifying— Sisko: Mister Garak, let's dispense with the usual repartée and concentrate on the issue at hand. Can you do it or not?
• Disproportionate Retribution : A drunken Tolar tried to get a dabo girl to dance with him; when Quark intervened on her behalf, Tolar stabbed him.
• The Dreaded : Tolar is sleazy and smarmy until Sisko mentions Garak. He immediately shuts up and becomes a lot more humble.
• Endangered Soufflé : Sisko mentions this trope while quoting his father during one of his monologues: "Worry and doubt are the greatest enemies of a great chef. The soufflé will either rise or it won't — there's not a damn thing you can do about it, so you might as well just sit back and wait and see what happens."
• Establishing Character Moment : Vreenak's very first scene has him recite Sisko's defining deeds and qualities before smugly (though not entirely inaccurately) describing him as having started the war with the Dominion, establishing Vreenak as acerbic and arrogant, but also knowledgeable and perceptive.
• The 98th Rule of Acquisition, verbatim. Quark is pleased to see it even applies to usually high-and-mighty Starfleet officers, and takes the rare opportunity to rub it in Sisko's face.
• It also applies doubly to the coda of the episode, with Sisko concluding that yes, his own self-respect is absolutely a fair price for the Alpha Quadrant.
• Everyone Has Standards : Sisko attempts to really let it rip on Garak about his assassination of Vreenak, as if he firmly believes he has these. Garak goes out of his way to point out that this entire plan and operation, everything Sisko did to try to get it to work, and even enlisting Garak himself , was a complete and utter compromise of those supposed standards — and it got the job done, even if Garak had to take matters into his own hands. Hence the entire point of Sisko's self-loathing log entry.
• Expecting Someone Taller : Sisko is such a storied figure that Vreenak remarks he expected him to be taller.
• False Flag Operation : Sisko puts aside his principles to get the Romulans to join the war against the Dominion. First a holographic recording is faked to make it appear that the Dominion were intending to attack the Romulans, and when this falls through, the Romulan ambassador is assassinated to make it appear that the Dominion didn't want the truth to be discovered. It turns out that Garak had, without Sisko's knowledge, set up a Kansas City Shuffle : a "perfect" version of the fake recording was unlikely to pass inspection, but a damaged one found in the wreckage of a dead Romulan's shuttle that exploded while returning from Dominion space would be highly believable.
• Vreenak having a replicated Romulan drink, notes that it's very good, but he can still tell that it's only an approximation. It foreshadows his reaction to the recording.
• After the data rod is ready, Garak calmly tells Tolar that he'll be paying him a visit later. Next we hear of Tolar, he's dead.
• Garak says that he wants to sneak aboard Vreenak's shuttle to gather intelligence. He does much more than that .
• When Bashir is protesting Sisko's order to hand over the bio-memetic gel, he mentions that it can be made to manufacture explosives. Garak ultimately uses explosives of some sort to blow up Vreenak's shuttle.
• Garak tells Sisko to claim that the recording cost the lives of "ten good men" to sell it. Later, Garak actually kills at least six men (assuming one of Vreenak's bodyguards is also a shuttle pilot) to create a convincing narrative.
• Formula-Breaking Episode : Sisko's narration, which frames the entire episode, takes the form of a Captain's Log entry, with the audience taking the perspective of the computer.
• Framing the Guilty Party : Double Subverted . It's not at all unlikely that the Dominion would someday invade Romulus, either because they sided with the Federation or after they'd served their purpose as allies , so Garak forges evidence that shows Dominion leaders planning that very thing. Unfortunately, Vreenak discovers that it's a fake and threatens to expose it, potentially driving the Romulans closer to the Dominion rather than farther away. So Garak blows up his shuttle, making it look like the Dominion killed him for finding out the truth , ensuring that Garak's plan ultimately succeeds either way.
• Gallows Humor : Bashir calls Jadzia's reporting of a "friend of a friend" on the casualty list with none on his end as getting the day off to "a pretty good start".
• Godzilla Threshold : Between the increasing casualties and the fall of Betazed, Starfleet is perfectly willing to give Sisko the authority to do whatever he has to to get the Romulans to enter the war.
• Sisko, especially when the Federation is backed into a corner and his forger Tolar hasn't behaved himself very well on parole. At one point, he threatens to send Tolar back to the Klingons and "tell Gowron to take his time" while executing him.
• The point of the whole episode. Sisko does many despicable things and would do them again if he had to. The concluding monologue comes very close to an outright Heel Realization .
• The Greatest Story Never Told : Since Sisko deletes the log, only he and Garak know what really happened.
• Gray-and-Grey Morality : Probably the messiest moral dilemma in all of DS9 , and quite possibly all of Star Trek. Sisko willingly enlists the assistance of unsavory individuals, suppresses evidence of a False Flag Operation attack on a politically neutral state, and chooses to do nothing about the elimination of witnesses , all so that said politically neutral state will join his side, condemning them to terrible casualties in order to minimize his own (which are already terrible and getting worse daily ). On the other side is a relentless and insatiable alien empire with superior weapons, technology, and numbers, led by a genocidal former dictator and unwilling to respond to diplomacy, that's conquering peaceful planets by the day and putting billions at stake. Sisko's monologue at the end lays it out brilliantly. Sisko: So — I lied; I cheated; I bribed men to cover the crimes of other men. I am an accessory to murder. But the most damning thing of all? I think I can live with it . And if I had to do it all over again, I would. ... Computer, erase that entire personal log .
• Hating on Monday : As the weekly casualty lists are delivered on Fridays, Sisko has grown to hate that day of the week.
• Exploited. Garak arranges Vreenak's death to look like this trope, knowing that the Romulans would find it highly believable, especially after the Dominion denies it.
• Grathon Tolar's death is a straight example of the trope, along with a case of You Have Outlived Your Usefulness .
• Hope Spot : Midway through the episode, it looks like Sisko's plan has gone off without a hitch: They've created a perfect counterfeit on an unassailable medium and delivered it to the right person to do something about it. But everything falls apart when Vreenak delivers his Wham Line : "It's a faaaaaake !"
• How We Got Here : Sisko starts out saying things have gone wrong, we find out how very wrong indeed during the course of the show.
• Hypocrite : Garak calls out Sisko for acting moral, because if he were truly moral, he wouldn't have enlisted the most amoral man on the station to do the dirty work.
• I Can Live With That : Sisko asserts that he can live with what he's done, but after saying it a few times, it looks and sounds like he's trying to convince himself.
• A point Sisko makes in his log, and which momentarily causes him to lose his composure and start ranting . Sisko: That was my first moment of real doubt, when I started to wonder if the whole thing was a mistake. So I went back to my office; and there was a new casualty list waiting for me. People are dying out there, every day! Entire worlds are struggling for their freedom! And here I am still worrying about the finer points of morality! No! I ... I had to keep my eye on the ball! Winning the war, stopping the bloodshed, those were the priorities! So I pushed on. And every time another doubt appeared before me, I just found another way to shove it aside.
• Garak also says this is why Vreenak and Grathon Tolar died. He hoped the data rod would pass muster, but he quickly found Tolar's skills lacking. Killing Vreenak in a shuttle explosion makes the Dominion look even more guilty (and explains away the rod's imperfections), while Tolar's death ties up a problematic loose end.
• Idiot Ball : Held firmly by Vreenak as part of the Romulan hat for secrecy and backstabbing and the sensitive position of being caught in a Federation intelligence trap that could have lead to a war. He arrives in a cloaked shuttle, and the Romulans don't realise he's visited the station or perhaps didn't want to admit to the Dominion. It also doesn't appear that he sent any messages about it before he gets blown up, which could have been Garak sabotaging the systems as part of his plot to blow up the shuttle. There's also the option that his fellow high ranking Romulans did get a message and ignored it because they agreed with Sisko that they were next and wanted to join the war, and another that Vreenak concluded that his position on joining the war was still correct but also didn't want to make the Romulan-Federation relationship worse.
• I Have My Ways : Garak, as usual. Sisko: How do you know [Vreenak] will be visiting Soukara? Garak: There are some things I'd rather not discuss.
• It Only Works Once : Cardassian optolithic data rods function this way: once data is transcribed onto them, it cannot be overwritten or altered in any way.
• Senator Vreenak offers cold hard facts of the current situation: the Dominion has fully functional shipyards, an ever-increasing Jem'Hadar population, and a commitment to win the war at any cost. On the other side, the Federation is still rebuilding its shipyards, has a manpower shortage due to attrition, and has already sent out peace feelers.
• After Vreenak discovers the forgery, Sisko describes in his log how furious the senator was, before adding "I can't say I blamed him; I'd have reacted the same way."
• Sisko calls out Garak for blowing up Vreenak's shuttle. Garak rightly points that Sisko earlier said he's prepared to do whatever it takes to bring the Romulans into the war, he knew that Garak was going to do whatever he felt was necessary, that's why he went to him in the first place. Likewise Garak points out the deaths in the assassination of Vreenak and Sisko feeling guilty are a small price to pay in exchange for defeating the Dominion. Sisko even admits at the end that Garak was right and his own guilt is a small price to pay.
• Kansas City Shuffle : Garak expected from the start the Romulan senator would realize the recording was a fake, and planted a bomb on Vreenak's ship as soon as he arrived. And in fact, after the senator departs with the fake recording to expose the perceived con on himself, Garak promptly blows up the ship. The real con was having Vreenak's superiors discover the recording in the wreckage of the ship of a member of their government coming back from a meeting with the Dominon, as now all the imperfections in the forgery will be assumed to be a result of the explosion instead. Between the apparently genuine rod and recording and a dead Senator hastening back from Dominion space, the Romulans promptly join the war against the Dominion, as Garak and Sisko wanted. Garak : The Romulans will enter the war! Sisko : There's no guarantee of that! Garak : Oh, but I think that there is! You see, when the Tal Shiar finishes examining the wreckage of Vreenak's shuttle, they'll find the burnt remnants of a Cardassian optolythic data rod, which somehow miraculously survived the explosion. After painstaking forensic examination, they'll discover that the rod contains a recording of a high-level Dominion meeting at which the invasion of Romulus was being planned. Sisko : And then they'll discover that it is a fraud! Garak : No, I don't think they will, because any imperfections in the forgery will appear to be a result of the explosion . So, with a seemingly legitimate rod in one hand, and a dead Senator in the other, I ask you, Captain, what conclusion would you draw? Sisko : That Vreenak obtained the rod on Soukara, and that the Dominion killed him to prevent him from returning to Romulus with it. Garak : Precisely! And the more the Dominion protests their innocence, the more the Romulans will believe they're guilty, because it's exactly what the Romulans would have done in their place!
• Killed to Uphold the Masquerade : In addition to blowing up Senator Vreenak and his bodyguards, Garak arranged for Tolar to die as well, leaving himself and Sisko the only people who know the real story.
• Sisko verges on operatic during his personal log monologues.
• Vreenak as well. One need only see his " It's a faaaake! " line.
• Garak is practically foaming at the mouth when he expertly tears apart Sisko's moral outrage for the crimes that he enlisted Garak to accomplish.
• Leaning on the Fourth Wall : Sisko's monologue is spoken to the station computer, but most of the time he's staring directly at the camera. Not only that, but at the end, the second he has his log deleted, the credits come up. Since the entire episode was that log, once it's deleted, there's no more episode.
• Lethally Expensive : Garak suggests that Sisko add this detail so as to make his story more convincing to Vreenak. On a rewatch , savvy viewers may notice that Garak had done the very same thing to Sisko when asked to find real war plans and evidently failing.
• List of Transgressions : Sisko does this for himself. It's a short list as the trope goes, but some of them are real doozies for a Starfleet Officer. Sisko: I lied; I cheated; I bribed men to cover the crimes of other men. I am an accessory to murder.
• Morton's Fork : Garak sets up a rare heroic (well, mostly heroic ) example for Senator Vreenak, unbeknownst to him. Either Vreenak accepts the recording as genuine and gives it to his superiors, ensuring that Garak's plan works and Romulus enters the war with the Dominion, or Garak kills him to convince Vreenak's superiors that the Dominion killed him to cover up the secret , ensuring that Garak's plan works and Romulus enters the war with the Dominion .
• Moving the Goalposts : Even though Tolar does as he's told, Sisko refuses to let him go unless the program passes the test. Tolar: Well, it has been a pleasure doing business with you, gentlemen. Call me again if you ever need— Sisko: You're not going anywhere. Tolar: What?! What do you mean? Sisko: I mean you're not leaving until your work is accepted by our client. Tolar: That isn't fair! You can't keep me here against my will! I haven't done anything wrong! We had an agreement! Sisko: (pushes Tolar up against a bulkhead) I'm making a new agreement. If that program passes inspection, you walk free, but if there's even the slightest flaw, then I will send you back to that Klingon prison and tell Gowron to take his time while he executes you . Tolar: (terrified) All right! It will pass! You'll see. It ... will ... pass.
• My God, What Have I Done? : Sisko's entire log is basically this. It's subverted in the sense that the end result of this episode ends up in the Federation's favor, but Sisko is clearly battling with this aspect throughout his monologue.
• The Needs of the Many : Garak points out that the loss of a senator and a criminal have saved the Alpha Quadrant. Sisko is forced to accept it.
• Neutral No Longer : Thanks to Sisko and Garak's plot (with more credit to the latter), the Romulans join the war on the side of the Federation-Klingon Alliance.
• Tolar has quite the history that isn't elaborated in this episode. Not only did he do something that warranted his execution from the Klingons that's never revealed, but his reaction to Garak being on Deep Space Nine suggests that something else went down between the two.
• Whoever is buying the biomimetic gel is not revealed.
• Not Me This Time : While we don't actually see it on-screen, Garak's analysis in the penultimate scene states this will happen and that the Dominion will insist they had nothing to do with Vreenak's murder. The irony, of course, is that they are innocent for once in the series (not that the Romulans believe them).
• Not So Above It All : Quark is more pleased by the fact that it's the incorruptible Sisko offering him a bribe than the actual latinum.
• The look on Sisko's face when Vreenak holds up the data rod and says, "It's a faaaake! "
• Tolar has two. The first, when Sisko tells him Garak is waiting for him, and the second is the last time we see him: Garak: I'll be along shortly to ... say hello.
• Pet the Dog : In what Odo describes as "an uncharacteristic display of chivalry", Quark intervenes when a drunken Tolar harasses one of his dabo girls. It gets Quark stabbed for his trouble, but when Sisko offers to bribe him, Quark makes sure to include the damage to the dabo girl's clothes as part of his price.
• Plausible Deniability : It's easy to miss, but nobody aside from Sisko and Garak even know that Senator Vreenak visited DS9 at all. Worf and his security officers simply seal off the area in the Habitat Ring and stay out, while Vreenak's shuttle arrives, docks and later leaves while cloaked. To anyone else, it probably looked like a security exercise, hence why Worf simply comments later on that "a high-ranking senator" was killed when his shuttle exploded, rather than naming Vreenak personally and reacting accordingly. Sisko then knows immediately that only one other person on the station even knew what went on, and promptly pays a visit to Garak to make him Talk to the Fist .
• Psycho Supporter : Garak is brought on board the scheme to play this role. When Sisko complains about the assassination, Garak calls him on it.
• Just one episode after Sisko virtually declares war on Section 31 for following the philosophy that the ends justify the means, he himself must indulge in any underhanded tactic he can to save the Alpha Quadrant.
• This also factors into Dax's roleplay of how the Romulans are thinking—they know that the Dominion's long-term goals include conquering their Empire as well, but between the damage done to long-term rivals in the Alpha Quadrant (the Federation and the Klingons), the significant military might of the Dominion, and the lack of concrete evidence that the Dominion will betray them in the short-term, they stand to gain nothing by joining the war against the Dominion and a lot to gain by waiting to see how the war will play out.
• Reasonable Authority Figure : Senator Vreenak is a Smug Snake , but he's at least willing to listen to Sisko's points and it's implied that had the data rod passed muster, he would've supported Romulus entering the war to help the Federation. Might not sound like much, but this is a Romulan government official we're talking about. Most wouldn't even have bothered to stop to listen a Starfleet officer — though he does point out Sisko is the one who started the war in the first place, and he takes a lot of time to gloat about it.
• Remember the New Guy? : Vreenak is a key Romulan politico and the architect of the nonaggression pact with the Dominion, yet he's never been mentioned before this episode. Justified, as the Romulans have stayed out of the war since the beginning and the Federation and Klingons have understandably been focused on the Dominion and the Cardassians rather than the pointy-eared backstabbers.
• Sci-Fi Writers Have No Sense of Scale : The casualty list is a little short for a quadrant-wide war, unless perhaps it's only a single page of a much larger report.
• Screw the Rules, I'm Doing What's Right! : But that doesn't mean it feels very right.
• Shocking Defeat Legacy : Betazed falls to the Dominion, solidifying Sisko's resolve to see his plan to fruition.
• Shout-Out : The episode's title comes from the Joker's Catchphrase in 1989's Batman : "Have you ever danced with the Devil in the pale moonlight?" As Garak's actor Andrew Robinson noted, the lesson Sisko learns from Garak in this episode, figuratively speaking, is "You can't go to bed with the Devil without having sex."
• Shut Up, Kirk! : A morally grey version. Garak verbally unloads on Sisko when the man attacks him in his own shop, and leaves Sisko looking absolutely defeated. Garak: 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 wanted: 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.
• Garak implies that, to keep Tolar holed up in his quarters, he pointedly gave the criminal the impression that, if he tried to force his door open and escape, it would blow up in his face. Sisko asks Garak if "that's just an impression", to which Garak replies that "it's best not to dwell on such minutiae ".
• Garak later actually does this to Vreenak's shuttle offscreen as an insurance plan if the rod were to fail inspection. Which it does. Also implied that Garak has planned it that way from the start.
• Spanner in the Works : In-universe example when Garak blows up Vreenak's shuttle. Garak sets up the "miraculous" survival of the data rod to be this for the Dominion "plot" to silence Vreenak.
• Surprisingly Sudden Death : One minute, Vreenak has called Sisko in for the final determination of the data rod and thusly proclaims it to be a fake in hushed anger. After Sisko goes over how bad of an outcome this was in his data log entry, Vreenak has already departed back for Romulan space, and the scene cuts to a week later as the crew discuss a report of one Romulan pod having inexplicably detonated in that exact space as Garak enacted his backup plan. This likely catches the audience off-guard as much as it does Sisko, who immediately knows what caused it and marches off to Garak to give him a piece of his mind in untethered rage.
• Talk to the Fist : Sisko gives Garak a very bloody lip upon realizing what his plan actually was, and then punches him again when he calls Vreenak and Tolar "tragic victims of war".
• Team Switzerland : The Romulan Star Empire and their non-aggression pact with the Dominion (at first). They even allow Dominion ships to transit their territory to perform deep strikes into Alliance core worlds like Betazed.
• Teeth-Clenched Teamwork : Garak has Weyoun and Damar bicker more in the holographic recording to make the fake strategy meeting that much more realistic.
• That's an Order! : Sisko gives Bashir's objections to preparing the biomimetic gel short shrift, and just to show Sisko understands what a terrible risk he's taking, he already has the order ready on a PADD when Bashir asks to see it in writing. Sisko: Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, Doctor. This is not a request, it's an order. You will package eighty-five litres of biomimetic gel for interstellar transport and deliver them to Cargo Bay 3. Is that understood? Bashir: Yes. I'd like this order in writing, please, sir. Sisko: (hands him a PADD) I thought you might.
• That's What I Would Do : Garak ruthlessly exploits this trope, pointing out to Sisko that the Romulans will surely believe the Dominion blew up Vreenak's shuttle to stop him from bringing them its secret plans to invade the Romulan Star Empire because they would have done the exact same thing to anyone on his way to expose Romulan duplicity toward an ally.
• This Means War! : The Romulans declare war on the Dominion. They very nearly ended up at war with the Federation instead.
• Time for Plan B : According to Garak, he hoped the forgery would be able to fool the Romulans, but since it didn't, he resorted to killing the Senator to make a set of circumstances that would make the forgery much more convincing.
• You can see Sisko just barely keeping it in when he realizes what really has happened when Worf reports on Vreenak's death.
• Garak himself hits this during his speech about his actions and what it meant for Sisko in the outcome, because he just got assaulted outright and has a trace of Blood from the Mouth . Amidst his grandstanding about how effective his plan would be, he delivers a scathing remark about Sisko's own self-respect being one of the costs as if to dig as deep as he could into the officer's conscience about his culpability in the matters as payback.
• Earlier, Bashir is seething at being ordered to package and hand over eighty-five litres of a highly dangerous, tightly controlled substance to a person he is prohibited from knowing anything about. He ends up Bothering by the Book by asking for the order from Sisko in writing.
• The Unfettered : Explicitly called out by Garak when he points out that Sisko has no moral grounds to stand on, because he knew exactly who Garak was and what he would do to succeed. Garak: That's why you came to me, isn't it, Captain? Because you knew that I could do those things that you weren't capable of doing.
• Unspoken Plan Guarantee : Both aspects are played straight. The plan that Sisko and Garak discuss step-by-step backfires miserably, while the plan that Garak keeps secret from Sisko (and, by extension, the audience) works perfectly. The latter part is Justified , as Garak knew that Sisko would've never gone along with it if he knew in advance.
• The genuine Cardassian optolithic data rod Sisko and Garak require for their scheme is usually only manufactured by the Cardassian government on an as-needed basis. Garak tells Sisko it took him "a small miracle" to find one anywhere else. note  Unless one subscribes to the interpretation that Garak, as a Cardassian, had one in his possession the entire time.
• The highly-controlled bio-mimetic gel they end up having to trade for the rod can be used for illegal genetic experiments and building biogenic weapons of mass destruction. It is therefore not legally available for purchase or trade at any price. note  One of the uses Bashir lists is "organic explosives". If Garak was the supplier of the rod, guess what he needed the gel for.
• Villain Has a Point : An inversion. From Vreenak's perspective, it's Sisko who's the villain (as a Starfleet officer and thus an enemy of the Star Empire). Yet, Vreenak has to concede that Sisko does raise some excellent points about the post-war fallout should the Dominion triumph (though he then undermines it by pointing out it's still ultimately just speculation and thus not enough to warrant abrogating the nonaggression pact).
• War Is Hell : The meat grinder has really kicked in, with Starfleet and the Klingons suffering high casualty rates. This is best exemplified by the weekly casualty report. That leads to Sisko having to make some tough choices and choosing some distasteful but necessary options for what he hopes is the greater good.
• Well-Intentioned Extremist : Sisko turns into this with his efforts to bring the Romulans into the war against the Dominion. Garak proves to have far fewer lines he won't cross.
• We Need to Get Proof : Dax convinces Sisko that getting the support of the Romulans requires proof that the Dominion will turn on them. It goes south when Garak's contacts are killed trying to get that proof, and goes even further sideways when Garak suggests manufacturing the proof.
• Wham Episode : Sisko takes a big step into moral ambiguity, while the Romulans permanently change the dynamic of the war by allying with the Federation and the Klingons against the Dominion.
• Wham Line : Several in the course of the episode. Vreenak: It's a faaaaaaake! Worf: Captain. We've just received word from Starfleet Intelligence that a Romulan shuttlecraft carrying a high-ranking senator has just been destroyed . Sisko: Computer, erase that entire personal log .
• What Measure Is a Mook? : Garak states that their plan only cost the lives of one Romulan senator (Vreenak) and one criminal (Tolar). The four Romulan bodyguards who accompanied the senator to the station go unmentioned .
• Bashir is clearly taken aback by Sisko's insistence on surrendering the bio-mimetic gel; sounding disbelieving, he insists on receiving Sisko's orders in writing and makes it clear he'll be filing a formal protest with Starfleet (whose leadership already approved the plot anyways).
• There's some back and forth on this one. Sisko greets Garak with a backhand to the face after he realizes the Cardassian blew up Senator Vreenak's shuttle. Garak immediately calls him out for letting his temper get the better of him. Then Sisko accuses him of never being committed to his first plan at all, only intending to murder Vreenak all along, which Garak hotly denies. When he accuses Garak of murdering Tolar as well, however, and Garak rationalizes Tolar's death as another "tragic victim" of the war, Sisko sees fit to wallop him again.
• Garak points out Sisko's hypocrisy or self-delusion, saying (almost word-for-word) that deep down, Sisko knew that Garak was going to do something ruthlessly amoral to get the Romulans into the war, and that's the entire reason he hired him in the first place.
• In many ways, the entire episode is Sisko saying this to himself, questioning how a decorated Starfleet officer, committed to his oaths to Starfleet and the Federation, and a defender of the truth is responsible for the murder of at least six people in the name of getting the Romulans to join the war.
• What You Are in the Dark : Sisko's delivery makes it clear that his real reason for recording the log entry is to convince himself that his actions were justified. He then commands the computer to erase the log entry.
• Won the War, Lost the Peace : One of the ways Sisko tries to appeal to Vreenak is by pointing out that if the Dominion wins and ends up controlling the Cardassian Union, the Federation, and the Klingon Empire, then the Romulans will find themselves facing the same opponent on each side. The term for that? "Surrounded." It doesn't sway Vreenak, but he notably has no response to it and moves the conversation onto the not-quite-perfect Romulan Ale replication.
• Xanatos Gambit : Garak does everything he can to make the data rod look authentic, but if it doesn't pass muster, he's also installed explosives in the senator's ship. Whether the counterfeit is uncovered by Vreenak or not, Garak's plan will succeed.
• You Do Not Want To Know : Garak invokes this when Sisko asks him how he's keeping Tolar under closer watch following Quark's stabbing. Garak: I've locked him in his quarters. I've also left him with the distinct impression that, if he attempts to force the door open, it may explode . Sisko: I hope that's just an impression. Garak: It's best not to dwell on such minutiae.
• The point of Garak killing Grathon Tolar after the forgery is finished, along with the fact that He Knows Too Much and is too unreliable to keep the truth secret.
• Sisko highlights this to Senator Vreenak by simply saying the Dominion is trying to placate the Romulans while they battle the Klingons and the Federation, and that they intend to dispose of the Romulans once the war is over.
• Your Approval Fills Me with Shame : Sisko is clearly disgusted when Quark approves of some of his actions (specifically, that Sisko is bribing him to not press charges against the man Sisko needs to forge the data rod). By Quark's demeanor, it's likely he did this on purpose to needle Sisko.

Video Example(s):

That's why you came to me.

In "In the Pale Moonlight," Sisko backhands Garak after learning that he was responsible for the death of the Romulan senator Vreenak, and lands another blow after figuring out that he killed the forger Tolar as well. But, as Garak points out, Sisko came to him in the first place precisely because, having tried everything else, he needed somebody that was willing to do whatever it took if he was actually going to draw the Romulans into the Dominion War.

Example of: Bad Guys Do the Dirty Work

• Star Trek Deep Space Nine S 06 E 18 Inquisition
• Recap/Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
• Star Trek Deep Space Nine S 06 E 20 His Way

Important Links

• Action Adventure
• Commercials
• Crime & Punishment
• Professional Wrestling
• Speculative Fiction
• Sports Story
• Animation (Western)
• Music And Sound Effects
• Print Media
• Sequential Art
• Tabletop Games
• Applied Phlebotinum
• Characterization
• Characters As Device
• Narrative Devices
• British Telly
• The Contributors
• Creator Speak
• Derivative Works
• Laws And Formulas
• Show Business
• Split Personality
• Truth And Lies
• Truth In Television
• Fate And Prophecy
• Edit Reasons
• Isolated Pages
• Images List
• Recent Videos
• Crowner Activity
• Un-typed Pages
• Recent Page Type Changes
• Trope Entry
• Character Sheet
• Playing With
• Creating New Redirects
• Cross Wicking
• Tips for Editing
• Text Formatting Rules
• Handling Spoilers
• Administrivia
• Trope Repair Shop
• Image Pickin'

Advertisement:

How well does it match the trope?

Example of:

Media sources:

11,241--> Report

The Definitive Voice of Entertainment News

Subscribe for full access to The Hollywood Reporter

site categories

 how ‘star trek: deep space nine’ crafted one of its more controversial episodes.

Ronald D. Moore and Michael Taylor look back on the pressures of "In the Pale Moonlight,' which turned 25 this month.

By Phil Pirrello

Phil Pirrello

• Share on Facebook
• Share to Flipboard
• Send an Email
• Show additional share options
• Share on LinkedIn
• Share on Pinterest
• Share on Reddit
• Share on Tumblr
• Share on Whats App
• Print the Article
• Post a Comment

One of Star Trek : Deep Space Nine’ s defining episodes owes a key part of its success to one late night drink.

The controversial and acclaimed hour “In the Pale Moonlight,” which turned 25 this month, finds Captain Benjamin Sisko (Avery Brooks) struggling to justify the moral and ethical compromises he made to trick the Romulans into joining Starfleet in their war against the Changeling-led Dominion.

Related Stories

Simon kinberg in talks to produce 'star trek' movie franchise for paramount, william shatner willing to return to 'star trek' as de-aged captain kirk.

According to DS9 writer Ronald D. Moore , a night of drinking inspired his uncredited rewrite of Michael Taylor’s original teleplay, which weaves Sisko’s confessionals around a riveting conspiracy sparked by our hero. In doing so, one of Star Trek’ s most compelling hours was born.

For “Pale Moonlight’s” 25th anniversary, Moore and Taylor joined The Hollywood Reporter for an interview about the making of this classic episode, the differences in Taylor’s initial story, and the episode’s controversial ending.

“We were all sort of flummoxed on what to do with the story,” Taylor tells THR . The scribe, who would later go on to work on Moore’s Battlestar Galactica reboot, was then a freelance writer assigned to this episode. A fan of history and spy literature in general, Taylor did some research and unlocked a core piece of the story.

“The Zimmerman Telegram was something sent that helped get [the United States] into World War I,” Taylor explains. “It was a coded telegram sent by the Germans to Mexico offering an alliance, in case the U.S. entered the war.” But Taylor had a twist on the idea: “What if this message was faked to get us into the war? What if Sisko did something similar and was behind a concocted forgery?”

Taylor’s initial story — like his previous DS9 script, the classic episode “The Visitor” — centered on Sisko’s son, Jake (Cirroc Lofton), who was a burgeoning reporter for the Federation News Service.

“It was going to be about how Jake would find out his dad is up to something with Garak, and father and son would be at odds,” Moore recalls. “And [the writers] felt that it was false to have those two in conflict. We were so deep into the Dominion War at that point, and putting Jake in the center of it, as I recall, just felt like the wrong impulse.”

Before that, the original premise — which was inspired by the Gulf of Tonkin incident that brought the U.S. into the Vietnam War — also centered on Jake. This version saw Jake “Watergating” a highly regarded Bajoran figure, First Minister Shakaar. If Jake exposed the secret about Shakaar’s past, it would upend all of Bajor — so Ben Sisko would step in to stop his son from sharing it. But the DS9 writers room, led by showrunner Ira Steven Behr, was unable to crack that version as well.

Eventually, the team focused on Sisko luring one of the Federation’s greatest enemies into the fray.

“I think [‘Pale Moonlight’] did kind of slip between the cracks in terms of there being a lot of focus on Voyager ,” Moore remembers.

The writers opted to rebreak the story, putting the focus on Sisko. Scripting duties landed on Moore.

“We were struggling with it because it wasn’t quite clear what the show was, or what was working,” Moore says.

In this new draft, Moore knew he wanted Sisko working with Garak on a plot to bring the Romulans to the front line. Moore would then thread a series of escalating compromises that Sisko would make in his efforts to save the galaxy by way of continued warfare.

The beats where Sisko narrates his recollection of the events directly at the camera were Moore’s addition, as was a scene where Sisko and his science officer and trusted friend, Dax (Terry Farrell), role-played a hypothetical debate between the Federation and Romulans. Here, Sisko takes the side of Starfleet, Dax the Romulans, as the two discuss the barriers to the “what if” scenario Sisko was contemplating, one that he was willing to put into action — based on a lie — if it meant lessening the amount of Federation causality reports.

From there, Sisko sets his plan into motion and it’s a series of clandestine deals with individuals like the station’s most nefarious resident, Quark (Armin Shimerman), that require the captain to peel away layers of his moral armor. By the end of the episode, Sisko has shed most of his uniform in the process of baring his soul. That choice, Moore recalls, came out of that night of drinking.

“It came in the same kind of epiphany of ‘let’s do it all in flashback.’ Because once I had that frame, it kind of then defines everything within the [episode’s] structure. So the whole business about him taking off the clothes, I don’t remember where that came up, but it was a great metaphor for the whole thing,” says Moore. “And as I set through the script in that framework, I knew that each scene was a step to hell for Benjamin Sisko in the past, because he was already in hell at the beginning.”

Sisko’s personal hell only gets deeper when the Romulan politician Sisko seeks out, the icy Vreenak (Stephen McHattie), arrives at DS9 in a cloaked shuttle. The special miniature effects employed to depict Vreenak’s arrival were a memorable part of the episode for Moore.

“That shot wasn’t a cost-saving thing or anything like that, it was intended to be just a cool effect to see a ship decloak in the landing bay.”

“There were some small scenes that were cut for time and budget that had more to do with the Romulan shuttle and its explosion. I think I’d written some scenes that were actually on the shuttle, and you saw more of how the plot played out. I think I realized in a conversation with Ira that actually, you didn’t need it at all. And he was right.”

Following Vreenak’s death, Sisko confronts Garak in his tailor shop with a couple of punches — which Moore saw being filmed when he went down to set. By episode’s end, Sisko gets his wish — the Romulans align with Starfleet in battle — and the beleaguered captain admits to camera that he “can live with it.” Moore recalls that he was prepared to have a major battle with Berman over that very un-Roddenberry ending.

“That was the thing I was the most worried about having big fights with Rick about. I knew this was a dark journey into the soul for our leading man. If there was any kind of argument about it, it was fairly low key and it just blew over. And I don’t even think there was much of an argument. I think [Rick] didn’t like it. I don’t think it’s his favorite episode, by any stretch. But, to me, that was what it was all about.”

Sisko actor Brooks was also apparently onboard with the places this atypical episode took his iconic character.

“I think he embraced the complexity of it,” Moore says. “I think he appreciated really stretching and pushing the character.”

“I remember watching it for the first time, in a hotel room, on some trip — and it just really had that dark, noirish sense,” Taylor says. “It epitomized one aspect of Deep Space Nine for me — as both a fan and as a casual freelance contributor — which was an ability and willingness to do stories in a way that were more realistic. … now we’re seeing the outgrowth of that in a way on Star Trek: Picard [season three]. I really enjoy watching it, and I don’t know if you ever would have seen that kind of storytelling without Deep Space Nine , or without this episode helping take that first step.”

THR Newsletters

Sign up for THR news straight to your inbox every day

More from The Hollywood Reporter

Netflix data dump: the biggest bombs (and hits), banff boss brings it on, riley keough, sandra oh and more reveal which actors left them starstruck, for eric kripke, ‘the boys’ was always about trumpism, pat sajak’s final spin: ‘wheel of fortune’ host signs off after four decades, amazon expands ‘top class’ franchise with tennis offshoot (exclusive).

Search this site

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine

“In the Pale Moonlight”

Air date: 4/13/1998 Teleplay by Michael Taylor Story by Peter Allan Fields Directed by Victor Lobl

Review by Jamahl Epsicokhan

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions." — old proverb

Review Text

Nutshell: Disquieting, but a spellbinding tour de force. It's a gripping, scary, and inevitably chilling tale ... I'm calling it a DS9 masterpiece.

Given what it does to its central character, "In the Pale Moonlight" is one of the darkest chapters in the history of the Trek canon. I'd say this has a good chance to become a controversial episode. I would suspect there are going to be some out there who will see this episode and wonder if the DS9 writers are slowly dismantling everything about the Federation that Roddenberry's Star Trek idealism took for granted. The episode documents an ugly series of events, to be sure, and at the end of the episode I was left stunned, disquieted, and compelled.

But "In the Pale Moonlight" is a perfect demonstration of what the Dominion War is all about—or at least what it probably should be about if it intends to maintain tension and dramatic realism. Anyone who thinks that the perfect Roddenberry vision can thrive in a Federation that's plunged into a war of this magnitude is probably hopelessly idealistic and hopelessly naive. Personally, I think it's absurd to claim Star Trek or the Federation cannot have a dark side, especially when considering that Trek usually, for all practical purposes, still keeps its moral compass in check when delving into dark issues in an episode like this. (Besides, to loosely quote Andre Braugher's character, Frank Pembleton, from Homicide: Life on the Street , "Virtue doesn't mean anything unless it's tested alongside vice.")

A big point of the episode is to show what ugly things war can lead desperate people to do, so it strikes me as only natural (and necessary) that a chapter like "In the Pale Moonlight" would take place during a time like this. The episode is a story superbly told—the best of the season—and I think there's a lot to be said for a tale that documents the agonizing effects of the war on one man, particularly one man who can make decisions that potentially impact thousands or millions of people—namely, Captain Benjamin Sisko.

The episode is told in flashback by Sisko as he makes a personal log entry. "I can see where it all went wrong," he begins. The foreshadowing is the first of many things this episode gets very right. It lets us immediately know where it's going—essentially straight into hell. From the outset, it seems obvious that Sisko's plan, whatever it is, is destined to go very wrong. As a result, we know we're in for what's going to be a rough ride with a not-so-happy ending.

The story marks an extremely significant return to the war storyline where Federation casualties are still running very high. One day, Sisko reaches the decision that something must be done if the Federation stands a chance of survival—and soon. He wants the Romulans to join the game. As we know from " Call to Arms ," the Romulans have signed a non-aggression pact with the Dominion, and they have no desire or motivation to enter a bloody war at this point.

But Sisko disagrees. His argument: When the Dominion forces are finished with the Federation, they'll go after the Romulans, no matter what the Dominion may have promised. But Sisko knows Romulans, and knows they're going to want proof that such a betrayal will take place.

Well, of course, there is no physical proof, and when Sisko seeks Garak's help to gather intelligence information from his few remaining Cardassian contacts, the result fails (that is to say, everyone Garak talks to turns up dead within a day). Garak recommends to Sisko the only sure-fire method for convincing the Romulans a threat exists: They must manufacture the "evidence" themselves.

From here is the opening of a Pandora's box unlike anything Sisko has probably encountered. As he states in his log, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions," and in making the agreement with Garak, Sisko lays the first stone.

The plot of this episode is not as primary as the wringer it puts Sisko through, but make no mistake: This is by far the most important plot development episode since " Sacrifice of Angels "—perhaps even more so (especially given that "Sacrifice" had some notable omissions). Peter Allan Fields, the man behind many good second-season stories (as well as last season's " For the Uniform ") returns to garner story credit in a pivotal episode; Michael Taylor's teleplay demonstrates his knack for getting inside the characters' heads with a flashback-like device (a la " The Visitor ," " Things Past "). Although, considering the story also had an uncredited rewrite by Ron Moore, it's difficult to dole out credit accurately. I'll just heap the praise onto everybody for pushing as far as they did in both the plot and the dark underlying themes. The plot pretty much works like a well-oiled machine and is constantly interesting and relevant. Meanwhile, given how much is often made of the Trek franchise and ideology, it seems to me the unpleasant themes took some guts to see through.

Sisko's involvement in Garak's plan takes turn after frightening turn. Sisko enlists a criminal named Tolar (Howard Shangraw) to fake a holographic recording of a briefing between Weyoun and Damar regarding a supposed planned attack on the Romulans. Sisko orchestrates a trade with one of Garak's sources: An authentic and rare data rod upon which to record the holo-briefing in exchange for a highly dangerous biological substance that is normally regulated directly by the Federation. Sisko bribes Quark to keep things quiet when Tolar assaults him. Sisko makes bold-faced lies to Romulan senator Vreenak (Stephen McHattie) to convince him to join the war effort. All of this, meanwhile, is conducted in secret; no one knows what's really going on except Sisko and Garak. Even Starfleet Command, who gave Sisko permission to see the daring plan through, probably doesn't know everything concerning how the plan is being conducted.

Sisko's plot quickly becomes a high-stakes game where the goal is to convince Vreenak that an out-and-out lie is actually the truth. When trying to confirm Sisko's story, will Vreenak discover that the data rod is a fraud, or will Tolar's fabrication hold up under scrutiny? The episode builds an incredible sense of suspense in its later stages, helped along by the narration of Sisko's own feelings of doubt and dread. I haven't been so viscerally wound up in the outcome of a story since "Sacrifice" earlier in the season. Sure, we knew something was going to go wrong given the narration, but seeing how it would play out had me riveted to the screen.

Watching Sisko go further and further into this plot was literally scary. Sisko is not the type of character that I normally equate with obsessions, but this time he gets in so deep that it nearly becomes one; he's willing to go to great lengths ("I'm making a new agreement!") to protect this plan.

And when Vreenak uttered those three simple words—"It's a fake!"—I seriously feared the fate of the Federation. The twist, of course, is that Sisko's plan ultimately works because Garak intervenes (outside Sisko's knowledge) by planting a bomb on Vreenak's ship, making it look like Dominion sabotage killed him. It's a startling turn of events. The last scene between Sisko and Garak is powerfully acted, and pulls the plot together to turn the Romulans against the Dominion more plausibly than I would've thought possible. (Although, I'm certainly curious what Starfleet had to say to Sisko about the bombing, or if they even knew or suspected Sisko's connection.)

Victor Lobl deserves kudos for assembling this package in a manner such that it all holds together and in the meantime grabs us by the throat and refuses to let go until it's all over (and David Bell's brooding score is effectively appropriate). The performances are wonderful. Andrew Robinson and Avery Brooks were both great; the former demonstrating his usual acerbic wit and cleverness even in the grim setting, the latter documenting a man under the great pressures of infinitely high stakes and moral crossroads.

The supporting characters were also effective. Howard Shangraw's Tolar wasn't a groundbreaker, but the character's early lack of discretion and focus (public drunkenness, attempted murder of Quark in his bar) was enough to convince me that the data rod had a good chance of failing inspection. (Even without the foreshadowing narration I would've been pretty doubtful of success.) Stephen McHattie's Vreenak, on the other hand, was a perfect Romulan—arrogant, suspicious, sarcastic, and skeptical; Sisko had his work cut out for him, and their discussion was wryly written.

And, ultimately, whether you like what "In the Pale Moonlight" does to Captain Sisko or not, you've got to admit—this is powerful character development. It left me both troubled and intrigued. It may not exemplify what I'd want to see in my ideal Starfleet hero, but that's what makes the story work so well. It's a tragedy in the most characteristically fundamental of ways: It questions the core of a man's morality by pushing him to the limits until he makes decisions that he never would've wanted to have to consider in the first place.

The fact that Starfleet sanctioned such a risky and morally questionable plan is itself a sign of very desperate times. Some have argued that Section 31 in last week's " Inquisition " was evidence of a Federation that may not be as Roddenbery-esque as it "should." I've never been one to pronounce black-and-white verdicts concerning the Roddenberry ideology, but I'd certainly say that the attitude of this show pushes far beyond what we saw of Section 31 last week. By giving Sisko "their blessing," Starfleet has essentially condoned one officer to lie, cheat, bribe, and cover up the truth. I see that as much more challenging than the idea of Section 31. It's a very interesting issue to ponder, though certainly disturbing.

Morality aside, however, I do somewhat question the strategic prudence of Starfleet approving of such a risky plan. If failure could indeed completely alienate the Romulans, it's a wonder they would be so willing to go through with it. It could very well be that Starfleet felt it had no other choice (especially given that partway through the episode news arrives that the Dominion has invaded and conquered Betazed ), but it still seems like an awfully big risk to take with so much on the line. Forget such little plot anomalies; they're slight at best, and the big picture couldn't be much more involving.

But what this episode all comes down to is Sisko. Simply put, this Sisko is not the same man he was before the war began. Or maybe at his core he still is, and the whole point is that the darkness around him brought out the worst within him. To demonstrate such a point, Avery Brooks' monologs to the camera, particularly the final one, were downright riveting. When all's said and done, he shifts sideways on his couch and crosses his legs in a way that sent a chill running down my spine. (The gesture is simple enough, but it's executed so ingeniously that the image is forever burned into my mind.) He says he can live with himself. And then he repeats himself—twice. And he sounds like he means it. Yet he also sounds like he doesn't believe it. This is a troubled man, having made choices that have ripped him up inside. He's tortured but hardened, and all he can do is try to make the right call while rationalizing that the ends justify the means—which in many ways, perhaps, they do.

This last scene is a masterstroke, showing how important the effects of the story's plot is upon the character. The episode's story itself is not just a means to a plot-development end, but a fully realized character piece.

Eight years ago, when TNG 's classic " Yesterday's Enterprise " aired, there was a brutal war between the Federation and the Klingons that existed in an alternate timeline. The Picard of that timeline was a strangely different man. He was a dark and somber "what if" version of the real Picard. "In the Pale Moonlight" features a dark and somber Sisko, and what's so frightening is that this isn't a "what if" situation; it's really happening for Sisko and the Federation.

Looking back at "Sacrifice of Angels," when the Prophets told Sisko that his pagh would follow another path, I cannot help but think that the events of "Moonlight" may indicate a possible direction that Benjamin Sisko may be headed in. I by no means hope that's the place he ultimately ends up, but the chilling consequences of "Moonlight" on his character are too great to be ignored, and far too compelling to be dismissed. This episode truly pushes the envelope of the Roddenberry idealism, but I think it's great that the DS9 writers have taken this step; "In the Pale Moonlight" is one of the all-time best DS9 installments. I'm very interested to see where Benjamin Sisko goes from here.

Next week: It's a 180 into lightheartedness when Odo and Kira have a holosuite date.

Previous episode: Inquisition Next episode: His Way

Like this site? Support it by buying Jammer a coffee .

◄ Season Index

Comment Section

364 comments on this post, admirable chrichton.

I have noticed that many consider this to be the most subversive episode of Trek ever to be shown (well perhaps that Enterprise episode where they steal that warp core from the aliens might be a contender for the role.). Yes it probably is, and in this we have a problem. Trek has (at the time ITPM aired at least) become a sub genre of a genre, and this episode shows this. By Trek standards it is a dark and dangerous episode, but perhaps not when compared with other types of shows in our cynical nineties and noughties. Don't get me wrong I love Trek, and think this episode is one of the strongest, and I think the values Trek promotes are laudable. But the core reaction to this episode does highlight the gap between Trek optimism and the cynical dramas around at the moment.

Jakob M. Mokoru

While the episode IS certainly groundshaking in its way, i still cannot confirm your statement: "Sisko is not the type of character that I normally equate with obsessions, but this time he gets in so deep that it nearly becomes one; he's willing to go to great lengths [...] to protect this plan." Well, Sisko isn't man capable of obsession? Well Michael Eddington would say otherwise! Given the fact, that Sisko has shown himself being capable of poisoning whole atmospheres, I cannot say that I was too stunned of this weeks deed of his!

ITPM is an example of what makes DS9 so great in that DS9 can be summed up in this "Paradise has a price and these are the people who pay that price"

Tomás Foley

Im glad I found your website and its reviews... Im a huge fan of DS9 & the first review I read was this one... it has to be a really tough review to do & reading your words I think you have done a spellbounding job of representing the Trek based controversy that inevitably sorrounds such a plot, the outstanding storyline and its 'required' place at such a time in DS9's overall development, the guts it takes to write such a piece. I think to me, the fact that Sisko was at his best in terms of his acting, the passion, the body language, the anguish and confusion and claims of self-assurance in his mission to do what had to be done in his eyes, justifies this piece of drama in itself. Its to me the best Star Trek DS9 episode, just gripping, clever & controvesiol... I hate seeing reviews that challenge this episode and its failing of Roddenberrys dream, because all things evolve & like you quoted so well "Virtue doesn't mean anything unless it's tested alongside vice." Thanks for a brilliant review... any chance of another star though??? Go on be brave!!!

I was damn lucky to catch this one, considering all the problems holding a job and a place to live. I caught the rerun late on a friday or saturday night, and i have to agree with most everything said here. Star Trek was once criticized for being "too cerebral", during its TOS years. This was another way of saying it required too much intelligent thought and the critic that said this was actually, whether intentional or not, calling the average viewers stupid, or at least not smart enough to follow such complex dialogue and story-lines. Along that perspective, ITPM is one of the most cerebral, thought-provoking, serious episodes ever covered by the Trek series. It's also an inside look at one of the darkest aspects of war; the way in which it feeds the "means justified by the ends" attitude and turns too many good-hearted souls into guilty politicians with skeletons in their closets. The snake eats its own tail, war is forced upon us, whether we want it or not. Life sucks that way, really bad!

alicelouise

Just curious, was Gene Roddenberry around at the creation of DS9? DS9 is a great show; but, in some ways it isn't Star Trek. That DS9 was on a different path than TOS and TNG became apparent in its 1st season. I think that Roddenberry was okay with the idea of something like the Borg challenging the Star Trek verse's existence. What measures are taken to challenge the Dominion (the creation of section 31, biowarfare against the Changelings, and, gaining an ally by the worst type of subterfuge) may not have been acceptable to the Great Bird of the Galaxy. In fact there is an apocryphal story that he put the kibosh on teh use of a cloaking device in ST productions because "the Federation doesn't sneak around." I personally thought DS9 was some of the best Trek and made welcome, realistic developments. Just my .02

Roddenberry was dead well before DS9 got the green light, so he had no input on it. It's an interesting question whether he would've accepted DS9's challenge of the Trekkian status quo. Quite possibly not. The fact of the matter is that Roddenberry's "humans are perfect" idealism in TNG became so extreme as to inhibit storytelling probably more than it should've.

On the the other hand, in TOS there was plenty of material where Capt. Kirk had to make very hard choices. Start with the pilot: "Where No Man has Gone Before"-he had to sacrifice his best friend to save the Enterprise crew. "Dagger of the Mind"-a rehabilitiation facility where experimentation is done on "criminal" minds. At the very best it shows a very lax Federation. At worst it shows a government like the Alliance on "Firefly". The Cloud Minders-A Federation member world that enslaved most of it's population to mining of a needed resource. A Private Little War-The Federation and arming one faction against the Klingon sponsored faction. A good follow up would be to see how this world is doing now that the Federation and the Klingons are best buds. This might belong on one of the TOS blogs. It does show that Gene Roddenberry was willing to green light episodes that showed virtue having to grapple against vice in TOS. TNG got rid of that DS9 might have brought it back. I don't think any of the other commanders had to do the grappling of Sisko ITPM; to bring this post back to it's original episode.

Jammer, I don't know exactly how Gene Roddenberry would have received DS9 but I do think he would have approved of it because at its heart DS9 was like TOS in that it had a western feel to it. I think was in fact Michael Piller who called it The Rifleman in space.

I couldn't say how GR would've hypothetically reacted to DS9. As has been alluded to in other posts here, GR was not so rigid in the "humanity is perfect" back in the TOS days. I think he came to that premise during TNG's run; I think I read somewhere that his argument was that since it was farther in the future, the Federation was even more perfect than during TOS, and was above things like interpersonal human conflict. Which of course makes it tougher to do drama. DS9 was a step back from that. Would GR have had a problem with that? Don't know.

Well, I don't think that Roddenberry opposed conflicts per se, not even in the Next Generation. I'd like to quote from the book "40 Jahre Star Trek" by Thomas Höhl/Mike Hillenbrand: Picard is afraid of being ridiculed in the presence of children, yet he commands a ship with children on board and even lets a kid serve on the bridge - Wesley Crusher! I would call this potential for conflict! Furthermore: Wesleys father - Jack Crusher - died serving under Picard. AND: Not only Jacks son is on the ship, no, his widow is the ship's CMO! If that's no potential for conflict, what is? Why should Roddenberry have created such characters, if he indeed disliked conflict so much? And had TNG really no conlfict situations? "The measure of a man": Data has to fight for his rights as an individual. "Pen Pals": The senior staff has a serious debate about the Prime directive. "The Offspring": Picard and Data stand between order and personal belief. "The Pegasus": Riker has the dilemma between following immoral orders of a dubious admiral and his loyalty to Picard. "Heart of Glory", "Sins of the Father", "Reunion", "Redemption": Worf has to fight with the disparity between his Klingon side and his Starfleet duties. (This is also a notable arc of the "series without arcs"). I hope you see what I mean: Roddenberry was not an opponent to inter- or intrapersonal conflict. But he did not want a bunch of officers that would have conflict among each other out of the blue, because of the weeks plot. He didn't want officers, that turned against the ideals of the Federation without reason either. I suppose that Roddenberry could have approved Siskos deed in this episode because of the lifes that where at stake here. But a Roddenberry Starfleet charakter would not poison atmospheres to capture one man! I am surprised, that "In the pale moonlight" gets more attention by "Roddenberry-wouldn't-like-this -critics" than "For the uniform".

Excellent review. This episode this example one of how the world is indeed grey. There is no true evil or good, only degrees of grey. Best episode of the series, IMHO. Anyway to confirm that Moore did a rewrite? This episode is up his alley.

Moore confirmed that the episode was a virtual page-one rewrite by him in an AOL posting. (On the top of my head he also did substantial rewrites to DS9's "Visionary", as well as TNG's "Sarek" and "Rascals" Also, in the episode's entry in the DS9 Compendium, Michael Taylor very frankly points out that virtually all the credit to the episode should go to Moore. Ironically, "The Visitor", the other episode that Michael Taylor is famous for, recieved as much a significant rewrite by Rene Echevarria.

Whenever people question what Gene Roddenberry would think of this episode and that direction the series takes, for some reason the only thing I can think of is Gene in the Star Trek movie days (specifically Trek 6) where he wanted the crew to travel in time to have arguments with Einstein, kill off Sulu, and ultimately have Spock personally kill JFK, firing the grassy knoll shot, to "preserve the timeline." I know he created the series and all, but I can't help to think that he was really just a detriment to the show when TNG was starting up, which only got better as he had less influence on it. But I guess nothing is sacred to me. PS: This episode is one of my favorite Star Trek episodes, and this review is what made me go back to rewatch DS9. The BSG reviews on this site are also what made me start watching BSG.

First off, I loved this episode. Having said that, I'm also sick & tired of people b!tching that TNG 'had no conflict' or 'had no arcs'. Excuse me??? There's Worf's constant clashes with both his own people & his Enterprise crewman(don't forget he went to DS9 later on). There were also the Borg arcs, which is quite impressive in that they only appeared once a season from Season 2("Q Who") on; hence they were never overused the way they were on Voyager. Picard and Crusher also had notable, (somewhat) heated exchanges. Hell, even Pulaski(though I didn't much care for her) had moments of conflict. I think people are just P.O'ed that TNG was beginning to eclipse TOS in popularity within some circles so they decide to make up ways to shoot it down.

Okay, I've watched this episode a few times and I gotta say it is rediculously overrated. Yes it is a great episode but the number of people who suggest it's the best episode made or something of the sort are crazy. I probably wouldn't even include it in my top 5 to be honest. Great? Yes. The best? Far from.

In my opinion, it is the best episode of DS9. It shows what DS9 is all about, shades of grey with no easy or contrived solutions. The reason it might beat out an entry like "Duet" for example as best epsode, is that this episode has lasting ramifications, the entry of the Romulans into the war. (Although it would have been nice to see some character development of Sisko from this). Too many other great episodes from Trek involved Time-Travel situations where the status-quo was restored at the end of the episode. Great acting and writing alround.

This episode is pure genius, another jaw dropping performance from Avery Brooks, and is why I love DS9. Logical answers to moral crises instead of shmultzy "We need to stick to starfleet protocol" status-quo-loving crap. Maybe JJ will cast his eyes at DS9 for Star Trek XII

I have to agree Ishan regarding Avery Brooks, man what fantastic actor. I think he not only delivered in this episode but during the entire series. There was a passion and enthusiasm that he had that we didn't see much in Star Trek. But back to this episode, your right when you say its not logical solution to an insane situation.

The high point of season 6 in terms of quality, I think - like so many of you I love this episode. Its composition, content, delivery and the quality of the performances are amongst the best in Trek. I'm with Ishan and Jayson on the Avery Brooks front - although, in what is probably my favourite scene I think they missed a trick (the last scene, incidentally). Brooks seems to be playing to the A camera as if it were a one-man play, and only occasionally do they cut to the second camera in a profile shot. If they'd mixed the profile shot more, it would've given more of an impression that he was talking to himself/the computer only, rather than to a roving camera. On the GR reaction front - I don't know. Perhaps if he'd been around, DS9 would never have happened, or would've been very different. Perhaps like us and so many others he would see the war themes (and more importantly the imperfect characters) as some of the most compelling drama ever put forward in the franchise. Wasn't he a war veteran himself? His idealism is clear throughout TNG, but as in TOS, perhaps he retained that kernel of realism that when the chips were down, humans would do what it takes to survive - and juxtaposing that against Sisko's federation morality as in this episode is what makes it so compelling.

Easily one of my favourite episodes, and the one of the best episodes of DS9, but it's let down by 1 thing: Why didn't Vreenak contact the Tal Shiar and tell them about the fake programme just after he left the station? Dis I miss something, or is this a bit of an oversight? It's not really a big problem but it does leave a couple of unanswered questions regarding the end of the ep. Still, it's an excellent, gripping, intelligent and multi-levelled outing and one that's worth watching over and over.

Although I enjoyed this, I don't agree that it's the best of DS9, nor even in the top 5. Avery Brooks solo performance in front of the log recorder is far too hammy for that. It's something that he's been getting progressively worse at as the years go by, overacting, overemoting, chewing the scenery... but this episode has the worst of the lot. I also thought the final scene where Sisko gives Garak a couple of solid blows to the face was over-the-top. Kirk was happy to throw his fists around when necessary but it was never the first thing he thought of. It was unnecessary in the context and the fact that Garak didn't seem to suffer much discomfort from it just makes it worse. Finally, I think you may as well remove the 'bot checker' field from this comment form - it's always the same question. Is it broken or did it never actually work?

In reference to a few of the comments above, it is not true that DS9 came into being totally after Gene Roddenberry's death. The idea of a show set on a space station had come up in his meetings with Brandon Tartikoff, and both Piller and Berman had notes from meetings with Roddenberry in which they discussed his feelings about such a series and what it might be like. Piller said a number of times at conventions that Roddenberry had given his blessing to the basic idea of the series before he passed away.

Great episode, but 1 question: Sisko says that Vreenak was killed a few days (2 or 3, I forget) after he left DS9. When they last saw each other, Vreenak told Sisko that he was going to expose his scheme to everyone. So, what was he doing during the 2 or 3 days before his death? I would think that would be plenty of time to expose & prove someone's crimes to the universe.

"Great episode, but 1 question: Sisko says that Vreenak was killed a few days (2 or 3, I forget) after he left DS9. When they last saw each other, Vreenak told Sisko that he was going to expose his scheme to everyone. So, what was he doing during the 2 or 3 days before his death? I would think that would be plenty of time to expose & prove someone's crimes to the universe." Not stated directly, but seems implied that Vreenak wanted to make his presentation more dramatically, on the floor of the Senate. Transmit it immediately and he loses that opportunity. On why he didn't tell the Tal Shiar, it's been shown both in TNG and DS9 S7 that the Tal Shiar were often disliked by other power-centers on Romulus, I'm sure Vreenak didn't want to hand over his proof of Federation duplicity to another player.

Alexander, Good theory about political infighting. Unfortunately, we are told that Vreenak is in fact Tal Shiar himself; the very Vice Chairman. Mart

"All it cost was the life of one romulan senator and one criminal" I guess the 4 romulan body guards don't count...

Unlike anything before on Star Trek this episode gives a feel that the Federation is fighting for naked survival. Not even any of the Borg crises managed to carry that feel so well. At that point lofty principle or preserving life become pieces of embellishment and we fall back into a raw "us or them" mentality. In a way "In the Pale Moonlight" is a logical consequence of "Statistical Probabilities" in which Bashir and his patients determined that in order to save many billions of lives, the Federation ought to surrender to the Dominion. It was the rational thing to do, yet it was rejected by all, likely including most viewers as well. Under no circumstances could it be accepted that the other side wins. By rejecting the sanctity of life means were already put before ends.

When did Gene Roddenberry's view of what Star Trek should be become a BIBLE of what to do and what not to do? First of all, Gene's opinions about anything and everything changed throughout his life. Gene created Star Trek, and therefore Star Trek fans owe him A LOT, but now that he has passed away I see no point in wondering whether he would approved of this or that episode. If YOU don't like the show, then don't watch it. I for one think this is a fantastic episode that was ruined for me because I pretty much knew the whole plot and even some of the dialogue before seeing it for the first time. That being said, I would rank it the second best of the season so far (after "Rocks and Shoals").

Fantastic episode, possibly the best episode in any of the trek series. Although not too fond of sisko at the beginning he made the role his own as the series went on,Garak was class as always. Great review btw

While the idea behind the whole episode (namely that growing casualties in the Federation would push Sisko (or someone else) to do something drastic) is a good one, I am rather displeased with the final scene of "In the Pale Moonlight". "A guilty conscience is a small price to pay for the safety of the Alpha Quadrant, so I will learn to live with it... because I can live with it. I *can* live with it." says Sisko. Some readers have commented that after the events of Season 5's "For the Uniform", Sisko's actions and final scene statement should come as no surprise. Perhaps that is true. However, it is not only Star Trek's idealism (as envisioned by Roddenberry) that we are going against here, but MORALITY in general. A Jean-Luc Picard, despite perhaps forced to choose the same path and sacrifice a few for the greater good of the many, would have commented on the moral ambiguity of this choice, stating something along the lines "only time will tell if our choice was the right one... but at what price?". Sisko on the other hand, seems to accept the moral burden on his conscience far too easily, in a a way that is unbecoming of a StarFleet officer and even more so of a Trek lead character. So while the script, story, and directing (great idea to use the flashback system) are all top notch, it is primarily in the morality department that I have a big problem with this episode. Something that not even the appearance of Canada's Stephen McHattie can erase...

Laura Sharman

interesting stuff

Marco, I think you misinterpreted the meaning of the final scene. Sisko is trying to convince himself that he can live with his immoral actions because they were for the "greater good", but there's something in the tone of his voice that tells us he hasn't succeeded - that his actions will haunt him the rest of his life. That, for me, is what makes this a quintessential Star Trek episode. Hollywood action films of today are filled with "heroes" who often end up killing more people than the villains. The fact that Sisko is distraught about killing two "innocent" people to (potentially) save millions - a decision most military leaders today wouldn't even blink at - is true to the Trek ideology of an enlightened future for humanity. So yes, this is one of the darkest episodes of Star Trek ever made, but it is still a Star Trek episode. And a great one at that.

This, along with Duet I think was the best episode of DS9 and one of the best in the whole of Star Trek. The whole story was carried so brilliantly, and the acting complemented it superbly. Brooks and Robinson were incredible. I've gotta say, I was expecting Odo to put up a bit more of a fight about letting Tolar go, like Bashir did about the Biomemetic Gel, but that was the only flaw. On that part about the Federation risking this going bad, they were desperate enough, they would have done it. In Star Trek, Gene was trying to show that humanity has changed and developed to a utopia state, but that was challenged in Homefront and Paradise Lost, and completely flipped on its head here. Sometimes you have to bend the rules to save them. There is a price for paradise. And that price is paid under the table. (on a side note, I get the feeling that Garak used half the Gel to pay for a Dominion bomb to plant on the shuttle)

Great episode. Like many other episodes from DS9 it demonstrates that during times of desperation even the federation shows its dark side. Finally the Federation was facing a worthy opponent "the Dominion" the Federation could only stand their ground against them by sacraficing their morals and everything they believe in. By comitting acts such as this and lets not forget section 31.

Carl Walker

Maaz, Odo explains to Sisko that he is "certainly aware of the need for special security measures during wartime," and in fact he's always wishing that he could implement "special security." Odo had no problem recommending that "human" rights (there must be a broader term for this in the Trek universe, although we never heard it) be trampled on for the greater good in "Homefront." Letting an attempted murderer go must have been a bit harder for him to swallow, but I still find it plausible that he sees all justice as ultimately secondary to the greater order (just as the FC claims).

ENOUGH! "Shades of Grey"...if I have to hear that damned phrase one more time... Life is not black and white. Thank you for the heads up! I'll be sure to check to make sure there's no one crossing the street even when I have a green light. This truism is not an explanation of something being "good" or "bad" in the dramatic sense, it's just a point of view. An intelligent person acknowledges the literary value in things with which he disagrees, whether it's Orwell or the Bible. He also acknowledges the failings of something with which he agrees (whether it's Buddha or Dawkins). I am sick of people praising this show because it shows people violating their principals, as though that is a literary virtue. Good or bad, true or false doesn't really matter if the episode is executed well and exudes a mythic core. This one is a mixed bag. There's some good mood-painting and the story structure is a good one as well as fresh. Brooks gives one of his worst performances to date which is very sorry given the centrality of his character here. Garak is brilliant and compelling, making up for some of Sisko's nauseating portrayals. The moral issue itself...well, at this point I don't believe in Sisko's morality at all, so the choices he makes are of very little insight into his character. Basically, he serves a Bajor-centric code at best, occasionally pausing to punch someone. Taking Sisko as an everyman in any time, the idea is interesting. It makes one think, momentarily about the ideas at present. No one bothers to mention that if everyone were to behave as does Sisko (a similar problem with the preceding Section 31 story), the federation would not exist, so why violate it's principals to save it? The federation may be an organisation, not a being, I understand that...but this episode and this show in general seem to be saying that people can and always will sell their souls to survive. I'm not sure what the point of saying that is other than to depress. Taking Sisko as a starfleet captain, he is simply a villan now, no two ways about it. He cares about saving his own people only. Such an attitude in the Federation is clearly immoral.

Your points are very interesting. Nuance is something that should be part and parcel of any quality drama. Its mere presence does not guarantee anything spectacular, although obviously, it helps the cause. And certainly, there is nothing intrinsically rewarding about plots that force characters to make grim decisions. But I doubt that fans of this episode enjoy it only because they get a sadistic thrill out of seeing Sisko’s ideals getting mangled. TNG usually questioned morality and ethics by proxy. It used Data for the human condition, Klingons for politics and corruption, the Borg to consider collective identity, and Q for almost everything else. Here instead, we have a Starfleet Captain putting himself on trial, with no one to shift blame to or hold responsible but himself. There’s a definite power in this. The onus falls completely to Sisko, even if at the end of the day you find his moral limbo rather superficially consequential, as I do. “Self-respect” aside, has Sisko actually paid much of a price for his actions? I also agree that Brooks toys with over-acting as usual, but he absolutely nailed the one line that he HAD to get right, and that is the “I can live with it” finale. He doesn’t really know if he can, and we don’t either, even if he is far removed from being the greenhorn idealist he was in earlier seasons. As pitch perfect as Andrew Robinson’s Garak is (as always), this is the moment that makes the show work. I won’t go so far as to say ITPM is overrated, because it is stylishly told, generally well conceived, and I’d love to suffer amnesia just long enough to watch the last ten minutes again unspoiled. For me though, “Rocks and Shoals” does most of what ITPM does, but better.

I have to disagree with RT about Avery Brook's last line being perfectly done. The emphasis on 'can' that suggests he is trying and failing to convince himself of that, is so badly done it's difficult to imagine how it was chosen from the probably 100 takes they did of that final scene. However, the problem is that in reality, a person trying to convince themselves that they can live with what they've done will always be speaking to himself mentally, in his head. So as humans we don't have much experience with hearing that kind of sentiment out loud. The closest thing I can think of is a boxer, standing in his changing room before a bout he is likely to lose, clenching his fists and shouting 'I *can* win this' to himself. Or some similar situation. And compared to that, Avery Brooks' version sounds small and obvious and badly acted. Then again, maybe it's just me, but I find Brooks' acting pretty much uniformly awful whenever he does anger or frustration or any negative emotion. I think in real life he's a pussycat and he just can't do 'bad' very convincingly. I did enjoy the episode the first time I watched it because the shuttle explosion was a genuine shock, I wasn't expecting it and in fact was really clueless as to what was going to happen after the hologram fake was detected. And the retrospective narrative style was interesting, I'm not sure if DS9 has done one of those before. But, by far the worst part of this episode for me was the main idea that Sisko was being torn apart by his evil actions in getting the Romulans into the war. If 'for the uniform' had never happened, it could be believable. But it had, so it wasn't. There's 2 parts to his anguish. First, the people who were killed by Garak. An earlier commenter mentioned that the death of the romulan soliders on the shuttle didn't seem to bother him, and that's a key point. By this stage Sisko has murdered dozens of people in one-on-one combat... hell, he's murdered at least 50 Jem'Hadar face to face already. Second, he's destroyed at least a hundred enemy ships by this point in the series, sending thousands of soliders to their death, the vast majority of whom were just innocent grunts fighting for their commanders like Sisko's own underlings. So the idea that he cares about the death of a couple of random people is ridiculous. The second part of his pain is the idea that he cheated to get another entire race tangled up in his war, and there will be thousands and thousands of deaths in the future because of this. I think this is the obvious *real* source of his pain, but again, I just don't beleive that someone in his position, having done the things we've seen him do, would even blink at this in reality. His self-hate for this is just not believable. First, the fact is that the Romulans *would* have been invaded by the Dominion after the current war was won. That's been the Dominion's plan all along - they will enslave Cardassia and Bajor as well, eventually. And then *every* other race in the quadrant. So even though the Romulans don't see it, he's actually done them a huge favour. But more importantly, a rear-echelon mother-frakker one the losing side of a war this big and evil simply wouldn't think twice about doing this sort of thing to get a chance at victory. Sure, the Federation as imagined by Roddenberry originally would never have done this, but they would also have crushed the Dominion in two weeks due to their incredibly advanced technology as well. Roddenberry's Federation was *never* as pure as it should have been and by the time DS9 rolls around, the Fed is just as good at dirty tricks as every other species out there. I enjoyed this story, mostly because I experienced genuine suspense in not guessing the outcome when I first watched it. But the core premise of Sisko's internal struggle is nonsense, and Brooks' acting was the over-the-top scenery-chewing over-acting we always get when he is in evil mode.

I had missed a handful of DS9 episodes and finally got around to seeing them, ITPM was one of them. An incredible episode that poses some HARD questions. As Vreenak points out succintly, the Dominion "..is resolved." Very chilling. If something doesn't seriously change in the Federation's favor, it is doomed. Sisko knows this, Starfleet knows this. So the gloves come off and the Romulans are deceived into declaring war on the Dominion...princples and morals bent and broken so that their destruction can be avoided. Powerful themes, powerful performances.

There is only one thing that lifts this episode from good to great, and that is Andrew Robinson's performance as Garak. Garak is a nuanced, deeply realized character with a mysterious past that leads us to wonder not only what he's done, but also what he is CAPABLE of doing. Each scene with Sisko adds to Garak's virtuosity and ruthlessness. But watching his final confrontation with Sisko, it's blatantly obvious that he utterly steals the climax of this episode right out from under our dear over-emoting Captain. I've watched the end of this episode multiple times, and never cease to wonder at the depth of Robinson's acting -- it seems his every move, his every expression, his every gesture in that final confrontation is perfectly calibrated. Jaw-dropping.

This is a cheeseball episode that wants viewers to think it deep. Sisko doesn't really face much of a moral choice here.

As others have said, Sisko's actions in this episode were far less shocking after seeing him (in an earlier Maqui episode) order the poisoning of an entirely innocent colony's atmosphere just because it suited him as a bargaining chip...

...that was much more astonishing for me and I felt it was skipped over much too lightly at the end of the episode. "Hey, they swapped planets, it's all fine." Yeah, right.

I really disliked this style of Sisko talking to the camera instead of just his log. Why is it so bold to try to get the Romulans back it already happened once before? If it happened big whoop, it probably won't help. Yeah, treaty whatever. And Garack did something on his own, whats the big deal? Would have been much more interesting with a dozen of those accidentally created Superborg from Voyager but i guess this show isn't allowed to kick-ass unless the Founders do it.

wildcolonialboy

I'm surprised no one has mentioned (as far as I can see) what really stuck out to me; Garak says (paraphrasing), "If you want to ensure the Romulans see evidence of Dominion duplicity, we're going to have to manufacture that evidence". This comment is so much more troubling in light of the Iraq War that occurred several years after Deep Space Nine finished. This episode, with Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges, really evokes a certain prescience in light of what has occurred since 9/11.

I couldn't disagree more; I think Brooks gave one of his best performances in this episode. Lobl's direction should get a lot of credit as well, but whenever he launches into his "People are dying out there" speech I am close to tears. Here is a man who has put the fate of the entire quadrant on his shoulders. Yes, his moralizing is inconsistent with "For the Uniform", but I hold that against "For the Uniform" itself, not "In the Pale Moonlight".

I agree that this is an incredible episode of DS9. It shows what Quark maintained earlier: that humans, when they are cornered, do desperate things. In terms of morals, of course, lying and deceit are not good. But if that is what is necessary to save all you believe in...? Of course, six humanoids died in the process as well. One was a criminal already condemned to death. I love the chilling way that Garak promises to come to him and say "hello," - when of course it will be good-bye. Killing Vreenak was worse - he had been invited to DS9, and it is rwrong to kill an invited guest - but Vreenak was the pro-Dominion Romulan whose pact with them had already allowed the deaths of so many in the Federation. We know nothing of the bodyguards, but bodyguards have chosen a dangerous occupation. So Sisko might reason if he was trying to justify this! I only wish there had been more follow-up with Sisko on this. And I do appreciate the comparisons to the situation leading up to Iraq, although Bush/Cheney and the media were more guilty in lying to their own people. And the US was not in danger, whereas the Federation was struggling for its survival.

Well, I'm certainly not going to engage in pointless debate about whether or not this episode (and the one previous) is a "bridge too far" outside of the Roddenberrian ideal. I respect that many fans feel that it is and acknowledge that they make very good points in expressing it and will leave it at that. In regards to the stylistic choice of having Sisko address the camera during his log, I think it was extremely well directed AND acted. I don't understand this automatic distaste some viewers seem to have for melodrama. Not all melodrama is bad melodrama. People emote, it's a fact. Especially when they're forced to cope with impossible situations. So, is Avery Brooks chewing scenery here? Yes! What's wrong with that? He does it well and it's fun to watch. He's also a Shakespearean-trained actor. Who did melodrama better than Shakespeare, I ask you. One of the reasons this is such a great episode is because it keeps you guessing all the way up until the end. At the beginning of the episode Sisko says he can "see where it all went wrong" and then we find out he's going to try to convince the Romulans to enter the war. So, right away we're duped into thinking the series of events we're about to witness will end in the failure of that goal. Because think about what we knew about the Romulans at that point. They could be counted on to be paranoid, arrogant, duplicitous, treacherous, and hard-headed. Add to that the fact that they had tried to unilaterally deal with the Dominion threat TWICE already. Once when Sisko (and future O'Brien) foiled their plan to collapse the wormhole, which in retrospect, turned out to be a pretty good idea; and once when the Tal Shiar was fooled by a changeling infiltrator and nearly wiped out after a failed invasion of the Dominion. So, it would be no surprise that the Romulans might take a "thanks, but no thanks" approach when the Federation comes, hat in hand, asking for their help. Garak's solution makes that much more sense taking all of that into account. So, aside from Sisko's shocking revelation at the end (and it was VERY shocking), the surprise for me was that any attempt to convince the Romulans to join the war had worked at all. A few points about Romulan politics and whatnot - this involves a bit of logical ret-conning, but bear with me... Vreenak was a Romulan Senator, Pro-Dominion, and the Vice Chairman of the Tal Shiar. We find out later that Koval was Chairman of the Tal Shiar, and while on record as being opposed to the Federation-Romulan alliance, was actually an ally of Starfleet Intelligence and Section 31. Why do I bring all of that up? Because it stands to reason that Vreenak and Koval would be at odds with one another politically. Therefore, it makes sense to me that Vreenak, after realizing that the Cardassian optolithic data rod that Sisko handed him was a FAAAKE, would want to sit on that information before getting back to Romulus. The Tal Shiar was probably still a mess, he knew there were already pro-Federation elements within his own government, and he had just left a secret meeting inside Federation-controlled space. He couldn't risk sending a transmission for all of those reasons. He also had a flair for the dramatic, so he probably wanted to wait until he was on the floor of the Romulan Senate before exposing Starfleet's "vile deception." Garak, of course, knew all of this. Hell, he knew the Romulans better than anyone. Planting a bomb on Vreenak's shuttle - one perfectly designed to not completely destroy the data rod - was a masterstroke of underhanded genius. The only thing I want to know is, how did Garak manage to dispose of Grathon Tolar without Odo taking notice? Or maybe he didn't and Odo looked the other way...?

Epic episode, 4 stars from me. We needed more of this kind of dark war episodes.

I wish that the destruction of the Federation as a positive vision of the future were the only problem I had with this episode, because then I would at least be able to respect it as an alternative vision, however inappropriate for Star Trek. But Avery Brooks's overacting stinks so hard in the long soliloquys (which the writers used to paper over and conveniently skip all of the toughest conversations), that it's really impossible to take this episode seriously enough to take offence. False dilemma. Bunch of self-justifying mumbo jumbo instead of showing a clear and complete record of what transpired. Not admirable even as a criticism of utopianism, and quite tediously overwrought in any case.

I love, love, love this episode, but I've always felt it would work better without the framing device. The plot is engrossing on its own, and every time I watch it I get lost in the narrative, but the jarring cuts to Sisko in his quarters jerk me out of the trance and remind me that "oh right, I'm watching a tv show."

Jock Strapp

I'm starting to believe that they could show a scene of Capt. Sisko sleeping in bed and people will say Avery is over-acting? LOL! Easily worthy of 4 Stars.

I thought that Worf's snarl of contempt at Garak as he walked off with Sisko seemed a bit out of place after the events of Purgatory/Inferno last season...he really owes his life to Garak in a way.

This episode is a mixed-bag, well written, well directed but with obvious flaws. Many things have been said and I won't dwell on them, but I'd like to answer some. First, the acting of Avery Brooks. Some love it, some don't; I... don't :p. It's not just about overacting, but this episode relies a lot on good acting with the monologue. When I watch, I see Brooks acting, not Sisko; it feels like he's reciting, not immersing himself into the role. Someone mentioned theatre and maybe that's his flaw, like Shatner's. What's overacting for TV would be great acting in theatre (they have to reach the far end of the audience), but TV needs something different. Well, just compare A.J. Robinson to Brooks ! Robinson gives us the whole deal: body language, facial expression, subtle line deliveries; He is Garak. Second, the morality and obsessions of Sisko have been questionable from the very beginning. He disliked Picard (who was a Borg's victim) and held him responsible for his wife's death. He went after the Maquis not because of Starfleet honor, but for revenge against one man. He deliberately poisoned a planet's atmosphere for his own personal gain. He bribed and blackmailed many times (mostly Quark). He disobeyed orders to go and save one man (instead of keeping the station safe). And never once his position as a starfleet officer is threatened, he's even promoted ! And at the end of this episode, he goes punching Garak to ease his own conscience. Conclusion: Quark is more moral by Ferengi standards than Sisko is by human standards. So, I'd have liked to have the writers take a bigger risk and have him do this without Starfleet knowledge and acquiescence. It'd have made sense and I wouldn't have lost my respect for Starfleet.

WHEW!! I um, in my attempt to try really, really, REALLY hard not to find out what happens in this episode... spent the entire 45 minutes waiting for SISKO to blow up Betazed--and I apparently missed the 2 seconds at the beginning where they tell us the Dominion just conquered it. Compared to that... the ending was a massive! relief. Oh, so you were involved in getting 1 Romulan Senator killed. That's IT!? You didn't even kill him! geez... I THOUGHT YOU WERE GONNA BLOW UP BETAZED!!! (sorry for the yelling, but talk about a relief/freak out over nothing)

I think people forget that the fact Sisko is agonising over what has happened is the whole point. A bona fide cynical show would have these events happen as a matter of course. That's my reaction to the concept of Section 31 from the previous episode too. People react like they were the end of Star Trek...the crew were horrified they existed, they are quite clearly "villains", or at least an antagonistic presence. Bashir and Reed both "join" them in one fashion or another, but not wholeheartedly, usually subversively, with their own agenda at work. In both cases I think it's clear while DS9 examines dark things, it's final stance is not positive about them. Also I think it's interesting that someone pointed out a Roddenbery Federation would have lost to the Dominion long ago. That's what I find interesting about the idealism of the Trek universe...it's only idealistic about humans, what happens what an outside force pushes on them? I think people would say a sufficiently evolved humanity would find a way to make diplomacy work...but the Borg were an exception to that rule, completely unable to be reasoned with. Assuming the Dominion fall into that category as well, what does the Federation do? That's why I think DS9 is a worthy Trek show. It's easy to be enlightened when you're not being attacked, when you're not being tested. The Federation probably did start to crack along the way, but I think it's worthwhile to show that enlightenment is hard to maintain, but important. Sisko did make a mistake here in many ways, but while he tried to tell himself he can live with it, he knows he made a mistake, and it bothers him, and *that* is the good thing. On anther note, I do wish some form of Trek was still going, because I think one day the Romulans would have found out what happened in this episode. That would have started a great arc.

The only thing I didn't like was Sisko talking to the camera. This kind of took me out of the episode every time it was done. However, with that said the last scene was still great.

Chuck AzEee!

Arguably, Deep Space 9's opus, and while many might see Sisko's anguish on involving The Romulan Empire in the Dominion war as a bit melodramatic, but in truth, what he wound up doing cause a chain of events that would despite the heavy casualty aspect, end a war that would have cost billions and billions and all it took was the murder of one very important Romulan senator. Garak knew that and acted upon it.

To be honest, my biggest problem with Sisko in this episode is that his reactions in different parts of the episode are out of keeping with the scale of his actions. Being accessory to the murder of a Romulan senator and his aides is terrible -- but the loss of life of that action is simply nowhere near the loss of Romulan lives resulting from the forgery of evidence that the Dominion is planning on going after the Romulans. Oh, yes, the Romulans would have been attacked by the Dominion anyway, most people agree, but the Romulans had exactly the same information the Federation had and came to the conclusion that they would be safe, and the Romulans strike me as better judges of what is in their own best interests than Sisko, who doesn't give a damn about Romulans. The manufacture of evidence makes Sisko and Garak responsible for all the Romulan deaths in the war, and the fact that Sisko signs onto *this* makes his reaction to the senator's death seem frustrating; the manufacture of evidence is the greater crime. For what it's worth, I also think that while we can suspect strongly that it's in the Romulans' best interests to enter into the war against the Dominion, I don't think the series provides enough information for us to conclude that with certainty. For one thing (ironic, considering that it exists only because of ANOTHER betrayal of Federation values) Section 31's genocide plan would probably lead to the Founders' death before the Dominion turned on the Romulans. Garak is not so deluded as Sisko as to believe that one can "merely" create a lie/manipulate an entire sovereign state into sacrificing thousands of lives in a bloody war, without getting one's hands even dirtier and becoming a murderer/assassin. This is still a strong episode, but Sisko is too blase about the manufacture of evidence early in the episode for me to be as sympathetic to his guilt later on as I would otherwise be.

Here's a story I'd like to see: the Romulans finding out about the deception and assassination of Vreenak. How would they react? Considering that the Romulans were the villains in the last two (both poor) Trek movies, it might have been interesting if somehow word got out to the Romulans that they were tricked into joining the war effort to save the Federation and this led to an increased desire for retaliation on the Federation for their deception (and, I suppose, a much greater hostility to Spock's attempts at reunification).

I think In the Pale Moonlight might be EVEN better than most people believe because: It seems that when Garak agreed to help Sisko, he knew Sisko's plan was unrealistic & wasn't going to work. Garak alludes to this in his final conversation with Sisko: "that's why you came to me, because you knew I could do things you couldn't". I really wish this was mentioned in the review because: It makes the episode that much better and really highlights how important someone like Garak can be (which easily turns into a moral argument). It totally seems like Garak intentionally lied to Sisko when he said, "all my contacts were killed".. But he never completely lied; he never actually said he was going to pursue Sisko's plan and I'm sure he really did have contacts that were killed after he tried to reach them... But did he try to reach them after his conversation with Sisko? Or did he spend the time coming up with his own plan? Like, how did Garak know about Vreenak meeting Weyoun? He had to have talked to one of his friends in the Cardassian govt more than once. But, Garak told Sisko his contacts were killed within 1 day of speaking to him. And, if they were killed, why not tell Sisko immediately? And give an update and say he might have another plan? Garak waited until Sisko was anxious enough to come to him & ask for an update (he knew it would be the best time to propose his plan). He basically manipulated Sisko becuz, as Garak said, Sisko went to him to be manipulated. Sisko wanted to believe his plan was realistic, but deep down he knew he needed someone willing to do what Garak was willing to do (or at least, that's what Garak said in the final conversation).

It might've been mentioned, but there's actually no scene in which the criminal who makes the forgery dies. It is only stated again that he did die. It makes me wonder if the character was killed in a deleted scene or perhaps was written out of the eventual program.

Take it easy

@William B: Interesting take on deaths of Romulans. @Arachnea: Bingo on Brooks acting. @Marco P: I agree about morality. Everybody is immediately bringing Gene's idealism and rules it out. But here it is basic morality.

Best episode ever. Perhaps the best hour of television ever.

The message of this episode can be summed up thus: America kills muslims to protect paradise and its freedoms. This, of course, is a lie. To make the lie sell, you have to invent extreme, ticking clock scenarious, which DS9 then does, to sell you to fascist message.

I cannot believe we're even having this discussion. Sisko did not kill anyone, never conceived of killing anyone, never had the desire to kill anyone. Listen very carefully: THAT. WAS. GARAK. Sisko's involvement and moral agony went no further than having to lie to someone. We are not given the opportunity to see him grapple with the possibility of having to kill. The script tries to justify Sisko's guilt with his line, "I am an accessory to murder". Bull. The episode strains so hard here that it herniates. Garak acted outside of Sisko's knowledge, on a level far, far above Sisko's willingness to participate. Lying is not morally justifiable, but it is so far removed from assassination and murder that Sisko's sense of guilt is dramatically unjustified. In fact, when Vreenak does die, Sisko is so morally outraged he goes down and starts tossing Garak around his shop in a fury. The story shoots itself in the foot by suggesting that Sisko never would have agreed to assassinate anyone, then having Sisko own someone else's assassination as if he did it. I'm not buying it for one second. "In The Pale Moonlight" is a masterpiece of atmosphere, tension, and urgency, but its "character arc" pivots around a false dilemma.

Brandon, Sisko knew about murders being committed and covered up for them, therefore he is an accessory after the fact.

Ye, Patrick is right. And it's sealed at the end when Sisko says if he had to do it again (including the hindsight of the two murders), he would.

V_Is_For_Voyager

I agree with Elliot's comment from 2011 that this episode is a mixed bag. Avery Brooks' acting is at its all-time worst here, and he nearly sinks the episode for me. It's not just overacting, it's _bad_ acting... silted and painfully forced. Ironically, Andrew Robinson is at his very best here, so the two performances cancel each other out. I also agree with Elliot that merely showing a character violating his principles has no literary merit in itself, and as many others have pointed out, Sisko already crossed that line when he basically gassed an entire planet with biological weapons to get Eddington. I felt this episode seriously violated the old "show, don't tell" principle of storytelling with Sisko's totally unnecessary narration. Avery Brooks is at his best in his quiet moments with his family, and I think this episode would've been much better if the audience was following events as they unfolded, with Jake or Cassidy there to act as a check on his conscience. Far better to _see_ a character actually dealing with his emotions than have him shouting directly into the camera about what he was supposed to be feeling after the fact. Also, I felt the writers cheated a little bit (as they often do, in cases like this) by making the Romulan Senator and the alien forger so personally despicable and unlikeable. If you really want to make it tough, make the Romulan honorable and decent, or make the forger into an entertaining and amiable fellow. This is supposed to be such a tough moral decision, something so unthinkable, yet all we really have is Garak being his badass self and bumping off a few real jerks offscreen. Yes, it defies Roddenberry's vision, but aside from challenging the hallowed ideology of Trekdom, it doesn't actually take that many dramatic risks. Because the audience really doesn't like either of these obnoxious and highly disposable characters, and because Garak is cool enough to be considered the Cardassian James Bond, there is ever point where the audience actually feels even the slightest bit of genuine moral dilemma. In the end I like this episode just because it's a great showcase for Garak and I appreciate what the writers were trying to do. If they had replaced Sisko's fourth-wall histrionics with some quiet character moments, and had push the moral queasiness a bit more, I think it would've been as great as many believe it to be.

@Brandon you're absolutely wrong. Do you not remember the first conversation Garak and Sisko had? Sisko told Garak his plan, Garak told him it was an unrealistic suicide mission, Sisko suggested Garak use his contacts, (and the important part) Garak told Sisko it might be a very bloody business, and Sisko's reply: "I'm prepared to do whatever it takes". For you to suggest Garak acted outside of Sisko's knowledge is just insane. Garak went out of his way to warn him that a slew of people may need to be murdered. He explicitly asked him if he was okay with that, and Sisko's justification was: "our people are getting slaughtered, so if ppl need to die to stop the slaughter, then fine". What is so hard to understand about that? The story does not suggest Sisko would have never agreed to assassinate anyone; that's just your misguided interpretation of Sisko's anger at Garak. Maybe you're forgetting that Sisko isn't a cold-blooded murderer. And maybe you're forgetting Sisko's anger evaporated when Garak convinced him there was no chance of the Romulans discovering the truth.

Interesting episode format. Develops Sisko and the story at the same time. Garak is always great. 9/10

Refreshing episode format, splendid Garak as always, however disastrous acting from Brooks. Very good episode writing and execution, but with a plot that is atrocious to Star Trek heritage. At this point there is no way back: DS9 has become a quite good political show, but at the expense of not fitting anymore within Trek world. It is true that the series crossed the line not just recently, but the past few episodes have put it far far off the equilibrium point between the so famous shades of grey and being respectful with how the Federation and Starfleet are written in any other Trek media. Let's just pretend this is another parallel universe to the usual one, so it can be swallowed.

@Ric: This would be the Federation and Starfleet where having Romulan ancestry would be considered a shameful secret to be hidden ("The Drumhead"), it is possible to seize sentient beings for research purposes ("The Measure of a Man", "The Offspring"), elements in Starfleet engage in illegal weapons research ("The Pegasus"), the "perfection" of the 24th century manifests as smug superiority ("The Neutral Zone"), the Federation involves itself in internal political conflicts ("The High Ground" and hardly limited to it), admirals often seem duplicitous if not outright rogue ("Too Short a Season", "Ensign Ro", among others), and treaties are signed resulting in the displacement of millions ("Journey's End"). I agree that the Federation and Earth in particular were often presented as something close to a utopia, especially in Picard's rhetoric or Troi's responses to Sam Clemens in "Time's Arrow". But there's plenty of evidence that it often fell short of that ideal, and that was just with the examples listed above on TNG. DS9 did indeed push the envelope further, but in this episode and some later ones it often functioned as a comment on the nature of moral compromise in war. The revelation of Section 31 hardly passed without comment from characters like Bashir, who in "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges" called the Federation a "24th century Rome". While it's true that early TNG exemplified, I suppose, the "vision" of Roddenberry that we'd have "solved" all human social problems in about 350 years, this was never the case on TOS or any of the first six movies. In Star Trek VI, elements of Starfleet conspires with Klingons to assassinate the Klingon chancellor! Star Trek is at its best when exploring moral dilemmas through often loosely allegorical stories about the present day. Originally DS9 used the non-Starfleet characters to explore "less Starfleet" issues like terrorism and prejudice and the personal and political legacies of violent conflict. And the "frontier" setting (to quote Bashir) allowed us to see a less-perfect world where not every problem has been consigned to history. As Sisko said in "The Maquis, Part II": "On Earth, there is no poverty, no crime, no war. You look out the window of Starfleet Headquarters and you see paradise. Well, it's easy to be a saint in paradise, but the Maquis do not live in paradise. Out there in the Demilitarized Zone, all the problems haven't been solved yet. Out there, there are no saints — just people. Angry, scared, determined people who are going to do whatever it takes to survive, whether it meets with Federation approval or not!" Anyway, to my mind, examining the tension between maintaining a better world and fighting against the externalities of war, insecurity, and inequality is a lot more interesting and relevant than positing a stagnant and fairly arbitrary vision of a "perfect" future.

@Josh I'm so glad we have people like you who can intelligently counter all those who claim DS9 doesn't fit into the Trek world. As far as non-Starfleet characters exploring less Starfleet issues, Honor Among Thieves comes to mind. It's one of my favorite DS9 episodes because, as far as I recall, there's never been anything on TV that more accurately conveys (to the point where viewers truly understand) what it's like to realistically live as a gangster / criminal. DS9 has done an outstanding job with exploring the truth about war and so many other issues. I think people are out of line to assume the truth about war would be something different in the future. Just because Roddenberry had a certain vision of society doesn't mean you can apply that to a war. And I think it would be outrageous if people actually suggested that simply deciding to explore the issue of war is disrespectful to the Star Trek heritage.

@Josh Thanks for this insightful reply. It happens that, in general, I agree with it. I agree with your point of view and I do acknowledge that both Starfleet and the Federation have been shown as having their flaws since much before DS9. This is true, although of course less true for TOS than the later. And to think that any misconduct is absent from either the Federation or the Starfleet just because of their utopian-like organization, would be both a naïve reading and a mislead memory of the Trek legacy so far. Of course there are wrong choices, misbehavior, misconduct, political crimes, conspiracy, choices made under the table, and so on. Human being are still human beings: the institutions were almost perfected, but individuals can certainly make mistakes. But usually, all of those mistakes, if relevant enough, are seem as deviants to be investigated, prosecuted, maybe punished. Notice that most of the examples of those deviations or misconducts happening in the TOS or in the TNG are examples of characters that deviate from the Federation and Starfleet norms and are either punished or at least investigated, put on hold, released from duty, etc. In the later DS9 episodes (I am thinking of seasons 5 to 7, mainly the second half of 5 and the entire 6), the very main characters are misbehaving or departing from the dogma and the norms regularly without facing almost any questioning or consequence whatsoever. It means: I do not care about characters making mistakes. I do care about late DS9 transforming deviations in quite a normal thing, accepted easily by the institutions of Federation or Starfleet. It is institutionalizing what in previous Trek was sporadic deviation, usually punished or at least painfully investigated. I've been giving examples in other comments so I will not flood them again here, but just recall some happenings such as Bashir's lie about this genetic enhancement, Kira showing her face to Dukat in a travel to the past and trying to alter/altering the future, Sisko bombarding a planet to chase the Maquis leader, his falsification of war events in the current episode, or when he simply decided to listen to the prophets and obstructed the agreement with Bajor, and so on. It does not have anything to do with the so praised and realy welcome shades of grey brought by DS9. Of course I do recall the citation you've mentioned, where Sisko states how DS9 is facing a challenges that defy the easy world of the Federation and forces them to deal with unusual dilemmas. I do love this aspect of DS9. But it is not the same thing as going over the top and making DS9 crew untouchable for whatever crazy/outsider/illegal actions they make. Starfleet and Federation have to be the same across shows, no matter how many shades of grey we praise or how much we welcome moral dilemma. Consistency across shows is the number one necessity rule for belonging in the same fictional universe. @Blake That said, I think it is clear at this point that I am not one of those who think DS9 as a whole did not fit in the Star Trek universe.

Sisko's faking an attack on the ROmulans is akin to America's provoking Japan into the Pearl Harbour attacks, the fake baby incubator lies used to start Gulf War 1 and the fake WMB lies used to start Gulf War 2. All fascist Empires do this. DS9 ignores history and presents Sisko's actions as a "burden" and a "hard choice" which "must be undertaken" for the "greater good". To convince you that his action is "kinda necessary" the decks have to be stacked against the Federation, namely by creation a massive super villain in the form of the Dominion. But the Dominion never exists in real life. Those cringing in the fear of big bad super villains are always liars who manufacture threats. Those doing what Sisko does are always the bad guys. The whole concept of the Dominion ruins DS9, because it creates the image of an Other who seeks to eradicate. But there is no Other, just propaganda, be it the propaganda that sells a false image of Hitler, or Saddam Hussein or whatever. There is no Dominion and there is never any justification to lie to sell wars. This is not a complex DS9 episode. It's an apologia for fascism.

There have never been "Others" who seek to eradicate? What "false" image of Hitler are you talking about?

You think Hitler was a boogeyman who, like the Dominion, wanted to take over everywhere? Europe was ruled monarchs and Tsars, most of whom were related. The British, Russian and German monarchs were kin, for example. AFter WW1, when revolutionary forces across Europe stood up against the aristocracy, like Napoleon once did, the kings and queens got worried. Most of those instigating the uprisings were communist radicals and Marxists (ie the Federation). They wanted to end late-feudalism and instigate change. Into this chaos came Hitler, who was backed by the monarchs, West and the capitalist class. Everyone in power loved him because he set about crushing Marxists (which he labelled a Jewish conspiracy, and which he hated for "toppling" Germany's Wilhelm 2, again related to British monachs), and everyone was fine with his anti Semitism. You can find hundreds of quotes with the Pope of the time and the leaders of the US and UK praising Hitler and Mussolini and championing him as an "friend against the evils and ungodliness of marxism". The Banks of England and France outright petitioned the government to support Hitler as a "force against radicals". Furthermore, everyone was happy because he promised to attack the winners of the Russian civil war, the communists who toppled feudalism and ousted the Russian kings. The Kings/Tsars, to make matters worse, were supported by most Western nations, which lets you know quite clearly on whose side the West was on: the side of power, not the common man. Heck, the White Rebels were virtually funded entirely by the US to assist the Tsars during the Russian Civil War. In other words, Hitler was a puppet of the monarchist/capitalist nations who was used as a tool to take out the threats to monarchs and capitalists. Why? Because communism (the Federation) destroys capitalist profit and eradicates the class based heirarchies which feudalism and capitalism rely on. It is progressive, and power hates losing power. It's the same story with all other dictators, be they Saddam Hussein or the 40 or so CIA backed dictators put in place across Latin AMerica. There is no Dominion out there who exists to threaten power and who exists to provide stupid "grey areas" where "you might have to break a few rules" in order to "get rid of evil". History doesnt work that way. DS9's Dominion arc just promotes the typical evil empire vs good guys narrative that fuels most contemporary earth conflicts and propogates a gross distortion of history. It's the reason people had no problem taking out Saddam Hussein, for example, whilst the fact that he was a CIA asset goes unacknowledged. Not to mention the contemporary war on "terrorists" and "Al Queda", the latter whom "we" created. Heck, on 911, the CIA and Al Queda were working together in the Macedonia civil war. It's all about social class; power creates evil to destroy progressive movements. Check out the last 3 Western funded coups in Haiti and Honduras and Ecuador over the past 9 years, (or heck, lol, even current wars on bit-torrent websites). Not once were these even reported in the news. The Federation is not some utopian fantasy, it exists on our planet, and is always being crushed. There is nothing in Earth history resembling the Dominion's attack on the Federation. It resembles "myths" and "lies" about certain conflicts in history, but not the truth. If the Dominion arc were analogous of Earth history, the Dominion would be a Federation creation. If we, however, believe in Roddenberry's views on the Federation - the notion that it is utopian and always righteous - and we accept the rediculous, straw-man portrayal of the Dominion (which would never logically exist), then the Dominion arc would have unfolded much differently. We have no Earth examples of altrusitic wars waged to genuinely free people from exploitative systems, so this is hard to write. My guess is that an enlightened society like the Federation would realise that going to war with the Dominion in order to liberate its member states might not be beneficial in terms of aggregate deaths. It might be better to run and play things defensively and diplomatically and just wait for their messed up feudal system to evolve. An enlightened body like the Federation wouldnt play things like Sisko played things, but the writers were stuck in a very bad (and propagandistic) WW2 allegory.

Please excuse my typos and poor sentence construction. I did not proof-read and typed on a small device.

A few facts to clarify your bizarre conspiracy-laden rant: - There were no more Tsars in 1933, the NSDAP having come to power in Germany some 17 years after the October Revolution and 16 after Nicholas II was executed. - The only monarchs of any significance left after WWI were in the UK and Italy. Edward VIII aside, accusations of Nazi-sympathy are unfounded in the UK, which by that time had had constitutional monarchy for over 200 years. - Hitler was preceded by the dictatorial emergency powers of several other chancellors under Paul von Hindenburg in the presidency of the Weimar Republic. Mainstream conservatives like Papen were too weak to govern on their own in the Reichstag and felt they could control Hitler. Of course, they were incorrect, and we know the rest of that story. Arguably monarchists like Papen and Hindenburg expected that Hitler would serve adequately as their "puppet", but otherwise your historical interpretation is, shall we say, rather far off the mark and reads like something you'd hear in a lecture in Moscow c. 1951. - Whatever Nazi sympathizing went on prior to 1939 does not invalidate the fact that from about 1938 onward Hitler was uniquely the aggressor in numerous invasions and conflicts, up to and including invasions of monarchies and republics alike, from France to Denmark to Norway to the Soviet Union. - That you would somehow omit mention of "The Final Solution" in your argument suggests you are wearing extreme ideological blinders. Now, as for DS9, your argument simply does not withstand a review of actual textual evidence. Initially the Dominion attacks Starfleet vessels to establish an aggressive territorial claim in the Gamma Quadrant. Starfleet's response is to bolster defences at DS9 (e.g. the Defiant). In the meantime the Tal Shiar and Obsidian Order perceive the Dominion as a grave threat and collaborate to destroy the Founders. Unfortunately for them, the Founders infiltrate their ranks and lead them into a trap. At the same time, they start sending changeling operatives to infiltrate Starfleet and the Federation. This could certainly be viewed as a defensive strategy against the uncertain threat posed by Federation "solids". They also seek to turn major Alpha Quadrant powers against each other through such infiltration (e.g. Martok in "Apocalypse Rising"). The Klingons have in the meantime responded provocatively to Cardassian weakness following the fall of the Order, and have attempted to annex Cardassian systems. To paraphrase Eddington and Sisko in "Blaze of Glory", the Klingons (and the Maquis) had the Cardassians on the run - and they ran right into the hands of the Dominion. Finally, facing the regular movement of Dominion troops and arms into Cardassia, Sisko and Starfleet decide to mine the wormhole. Their refusal to remove the mines is what starts the war (or at least becomes the trigger). All the preceding events led up to it, and while the Founders' somewhat paranoid ideology about "solids" played into much of it, they mostly adopted a strategy of covert operations aimed at the neutralization or mitigation of what they regarded as security threats rather than open warfare. Anyway, we've seen the Federation involved in wars (or heard of it) in every series and most of the movies too. The Dominion War was of course the first to be fully dramatized. I'm not sure where it was ever portrayed as "altruistic". But either way, the level of anti-DS9 rhetoric based on fairly partial and questionable historical viewpoints is disturbing.

Well, I am home now and can hopefully type with more coherence. In my last post I was broadly and quickly sketching historical movements which span from the 1850s to the 1970s, and the forces which led to a reactionary like Hitler getting into power. I think it is unfair and insulting to call this a "conspiracy rant". I also think you are misreading my writing. "There were no more Tsars in 1933" I did not say or imply this. Perhaps you think I am implying that "Tsars put Hitler in power"? Regardless, even in 1933, the overthrown Russian aristocracy was behind many counter-revolutionary groups operating in Russia. So yes, there were "Tsars" in 1933. In Germany, the Spartacus League (a Marxist group) would die off after WW1. In its wake came subsequent left-leading factions, which repeatedly rose up against the German government, only to be crushed. From 1919 onwards, the German Army was tasked with putting these groups down. This went on for decades, until Hitler took up the mantle and put an end to them all. I am not implying that "Russian Tsars wanted Hitler in power", but rather, the ruling class (in all superpowers) saw Hitler as a tool to crush worker movements. The aim was to stop the equivalent of a Russian Civil War in Germany. Because Russia was such a backward, feudal nation, these same flames couldn't ignite in the same way in Germany. The ruling class and land owners had a more robust state on their side. "the NSDAP having come to power in Germany some 17 years after the October Revolution and 16 after Nicholas II was executed." Irrelevant. And of cours Wilhelm 2 wasn't executed and the German aristocracy would maintain a grip even when Hitler was in power. Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski, Wilhelm Keitel (war minister), Konstantin von Neurath (foreign minister), Otto Ohlendorf (head of SD), Kurt von Schroeder (financier of NSDAP), Ernst von Weizsacker (Foreign Office) etc...most of the major figures in the NAZI party are related to the aristocracy. But let's not forget that the opposite was also true. What makes the rise of Naziism horrible is that it was largely supported by the working class. I'd wager that throughout history, a dispossesed working class is always just as much responsible for conservatism and fascism as anyone else. "The only monarchs of any significance left after WWI were in the UK and Italy." No. The old monarchs simply transitioned into the new, capitalist ruling class. Churchill, of course, and many British politicians of the day, are descendents of royalty and openly praised Hitler. Their allegiances only turned when Hitler and Stalin formed a temporary alliance, which spooked Britain. "Whatever Nazi sympathizing went on prior to 1939" At least you agree with me now. Up until 1939, the US, UK, France and the Vatican endorsed Hitler. Specifically, they endorsed his killing of Marxist revolutionaries (often under the guise that these groups were Jewish and so "contaminants") and the protection of big land owners. I use the term "Marxist" loosely. While some of these groups were Marxist in the best sense, seeking the outright abolishment of class society, most were simple worker movements which fought for minor benefits. Most were put down. I notice you have no interest in contesting my application of this historical narrative to US actions in the Middle East and Latin America. This is largely because WW2 propaganda and mythology lingers; WW2 is presented not as a class conflict, but an existential battle between good and evil. "does not invalidate the fact that from about 1938 onward Hitler was uniquely the aggressor" Not really. Leave Hitler alone, and Poland gives him back Danzig, he takes back Rhineland and Czechoslovakia and he either takes West Prussia by force (it was Germany's prior to WW1), threats, or bullies it into becoming an independent ally. He then goes north and takes on Russia - his target and self described life goal - with Ukraine taken as a backstop to prevent what Hitler called "Napoleon's mistake". His aim is Russia and Russia alone. All the other countries he takes were, in his eyes, and in the eyes of many in Germany (and even Americans), "simply part of Germany before WW1". In my view, he has no interest in England or France and certainly not the US. But we cannot know this for certain. His goal is Russia. You can argue that Hitler's Imperialist ambitions to take back what Germany lost after WW1 are "immoral" - and you'd be right - but of course all the other land holdings of all the other Empires were taken by naked Imperialism and are equally immoral. And of course France and England were absolutely fine with giving Hitler every country (as the post WW2 demarcations only further prove), so long as he keeps going north east and takes out communism in Russia. "in numerous invasions and conflicts, up to and including invasions of monarchies and republics" Except he wouldnt have invaded these countries if the West didn't declare war. Once war was declared, all the Empires were invading countries to create bulwarks, jostle for resources or get at each other. England was dropping troops on foreign soil without permission too, and often armies had to pass through foreign countries simply to get at each other. Blegium and the Netherlands, for example, were specifically invaded by Germany because of the Allied declaration of war, to prevent British troops landing and to get access to France. "That you would somehow omit mention of "The Final Solution" in your argument suggests you are wearing extreme ideological blinders." Ah, so I'm a neo nazi holocaust denier? Why must I mention the Final Solution? Does something in my previous post hint at "Nazi sympathies"? Isn't it interesting that you'd label anyone who challenges your WW2 Good War mythology, a "holocaust denier"? Why do you think that is? For the record, I hate Hitler and treat the Holocaust as seriously as every other mass murder, which is to say, not very seriously at all. As a student of history, I have been desensitized to mass murder, from the mass murders in Indonesia, to the recent genocides in Sri Lanka, to my governments continual genocides in Africa (currently being portrayed as a war between Christians and Muslims, the pressence of French puppet dictators conveniently ignored), and to the almost hundred million killed by CIA coups over the past century. I am tired of the sheer ease at which millions dead go ignored, and I believe what facilitates this cycle of murder is the way man both resorts to silly myths, and an analysis of history which ignores social class. The truth is, WW2 is far more interesting and far more complex than the silly "goodies" vs "baddies" narrative that people force it into. There were absolutely no good guys, everyone was complicit, and to pick sides in a battle between Empires, when all Empires are inherently immoral, is a waste of time.

"Now, as for DS9, your argument simply does not withstand a review of actual textual evidence." Your summary did nothing to sway me. The Dominion is an evil Empire which wants to "instigate order", "take over everything" and which "contaminates our civilization" with "terrorist cells" populated by figures who can "hide amongst us". It's all very familar. Thankfully, DS9 never slides into outright fascism. It is skeptical of the Federation's black ops units and it is skeptical of Sisko faking data (like the West faked sattelite photos and gave to Saddam, and faked the nurse Nayirah testimonies, and faked WMDs, and faked bombings in Saigon, and faked the Gulf of Tonkin etc), but these things are nevertheless still presented as "necessary evils", a part of the White Man's Burden. We accept these "necessary burdens" for one reason only: the Dominion is SUPER POWERFUL and painted as an existential threat. You cannot know Earth history and read this as nothing but the usual strawman preamble to fascism or fascist policies. If the Federation were real, and an Empire like the Dominion somehow managed to form, the Federation would not have played things out like DS9 shows things play out. "But either way, the level of anti-DS9 rhetoric based on fairly partial and questionable historical viewpoints is disturbing." Many comments on this episode are similar. Scroll up and you will see users rightfully likening the episode to the US' "relationship" with "muslims" or chastising it for its phony "moral grey areas". People recognise crypto-fascism when they see it.

Andy's Friend

@Trent: Hello Trent. You mention that you are a “student of history”. As a professional and published Historian, I would like to examine some of the statements you so graciously have contributed to the discussion yesterday: ------------------------ “…most of the major figures in the NAZI party are related to the aristocracy.” This is an interesting claim. Let’s take it more or less from the top, shall we? And please note the last fellow on the list. ― Hess [Deputy Führer]: commoner ― Göring [Minister of Aviation]: commoner ― Goebbels [Propaganda Minister]: commoner ― Himmler [head of the SS]: commoner ― Speer [Minister of Armament etc.]: commoner ― Ribbentrop [Foreign Minister]: commoner [von by adoption in adulthood] ― Bormann [head of the Party Chancery]: commoner ― Lammers [head of the Reich Chancery]: commoner ― Bouhler [head of the Führer Chancery]: commoner ― Meissner [head of the Presidential Chancery]: commoner ― Frick [Minister of the Interior]: commoner ― Gürtner [Minister of Justice]: commoner ― Funk [Minister of Economy]: commoner ― Schwartz [Reich Treasurer of the Party]: commoner ― Daleuge [Chief of Police]: commoner ― Amann [Reich Press Leader]: commoner ― Rosenberg [Minister of Occupied Russia]: commoner ― Frank [Governor-General in Poland]: commoner ― Seyss-Inquart [Reich Commissar in the Netherlands]: commoner (in spite of the fancy name) ― Lutze [ill-fated head of the SA]: commoner ― Müller [Reich Bishop, i.e., head of the (Nazi) German Church]: commoner ― von Schirach [head of the Hitlerjugend]: noble! I think I’ve missed a few, but you have the 11 most important of the 18 Reichsleiters here, plus a few ministers etc. ― virtually all the top brass, i.e., your “major figures”. If you had said that virtually all the field marshals and generals of the Wehrmacht were of noble birth, I would have agreed with you. As it is… well, what can I say? ------------------------ ‘I’d wager that throughout history, a dispossessed working class is always just as much responsible for conservatism and fascism as anyone else.’ Another interesting claim. 'Throughout history' is perhaps overdoing it, as the working class is a fairly new concept. But if you consider the inter-war period in Europe, which social groups were the mainstay of right-wing conservative, authoritarian, or fascist regimes? In virtually all cases, they were [typical allegiance]: 1) senior army officers [conservative/authoritarian]; 2) junior army officers [radical right/fascist]; 3) upper urban middle class [conservative/authoritarian]; 4) lower urban middle class [radical right/fascist]; 5) large landowners [conservative/authoritarian]; 6) small farmers [radical right/fascist]; 7) industrialists [conservative/authoritarian]; 8) petty entrepreneurs [radical right/fascist]; 9) religious groups [conservative/authoritarian]; shopkeepers [radical right/fascist]; and finally, 10) students [anything goes]. This is what we see everywhere in Europe, from the Baltic states to the Balkans. Workers were left-wing. I’d advise you against wagering: you’d lose your money. ------------------------ “What makes the rise of Nazism horrible is that it was largely supported by the working class” A very interesting claim. Until 1928, the NSDAP had followed an urban strategy designed to attract blue-collar workers. But at the 1928 elections, the NSDAP only won a miserable 2.8 percent of the vote. It was only after that that Hitler made a fundamental change in strategy, aiming now at all sectors of society. From 1928 onward, the NSDAP ― National Socialist German Workers Party ― was a workers’ party in name only. It was the middle class and particularly the farmers that were Hitler’s main supporters. The German workers, as everywhere else in Europe, were essentially left-wing. Don’t go near that dabo table, Trent! ------------------------ [Josh]: ‘The only monarchs of any significance left after WWI were in the UK and Italy.’ [Trent]: ‘No. The old monarchs simply transitioned into the new, capitalist ruling class.’ Yet another interesting claim, yet also mostly untrue. While powerful noble houses did exist in Germany and Austria, who only became republics following the Great War, the role of the nobility in France was already mostly only that of government officials – the service of the State in the proud tradition of the Grands Écoles. In Spain the influence of the nobility experienced an all-time low during the Second Republic [1931-1936/1939]. In the Soviet Union, of course, it vanished entirely. When considering the role of the aristocracy in Europe in the inter-war era, you have to remember that the only countries in Europe where the institution of entail hadn’t been abolished by the mid 1920’s were Germany and Sweden; in Germany Hitler began projects to abolish it, but only after the war were they carried out. In all Latin Europe, it had been abolished sometime in the mid-19th century. The truth is, that for the vast majority of European aristocracy, 1) the upkeep of estates was becoming exceedingly expensive; 2) inheritance laws following the abolishment of the entail were fragmentizing the formerly vast noble estates in every country but Germany and Sweden; and 3) the nobility in most cases hadn’t succeeded in performing the transition to what you call “the new, capitalist ruling class”, i.e., the industrial and business sectors. I know you’ll be able to find houses like the Liechtensteins and Schwarzenbergs in Austria, and a number of dukes etc. in the UK and Germany, and a few more who are the exception to this rule, but in the vast majority of cases, the European nobility was dire straits after the abolishment of the entail [Netherlands 1918, Denmark 1919, UK 1925…], and were mostly concerned with their immediate survival as landowners on the short-term. In fact, one of the main reasons why Sweden didn’t abolish the entail system before the 1960s was because one of the largest Danish noble estates was famously ripped apart in 1926 because when the old count died, all his eleven children had to get an equal share. Finally, Mussolini’s Italy is a good example: though a monarchy, entail had been abolished in the various Italian states before the Risorgimento as early as ca. 1815; consuetudinary law allowed for women *not* to inherit real estate, but nevertheless, a hundred years later, all but the largest noble estates had been partitioned to oblivion – and the aristocracy had thus seen most of its economic and even political power be eroded. Look at the way Mussolini chaged ministers like we change underwear. And how many of them were noble? So again, I must disagree with you. Don’t go near that poker table, Trent: Riker will cut you to pieces every time. ------------------------ I could go on like this with any of your claims, but the message would become too lengthy, and I don’t want to burden Jammer’s servers. Suffice it to say, if I may quote Data in “The Measure of a Man”: "You're a little vague on the specifics”, Trent. Be careful next time you try to give a lecture on an internet forum: you never know when there is someone out there who actually knows what you’re talking about.

"I think I’ve missed a few, but you have the 11 most important of the 18 Reichsleiters here, plus a few ministers etc" Yes, that line was hyperbolic. I am not implying that the party was a "new aristocracy". But I remember a French author (Daniel Guerin) detailing how the opposite was also true; he mapped the movements of the German aristocracy leading up to the mid 1930s, and how they retained alot of power in business and policy. "This is what we see everywhere in Europe, from the Baltic states to the Balkans. Workers were left-wing." Roughly 40 percent of the party was comprised of the working class, then you had a larger majority in or from esteemed jobs like mining, law, medicine etc, and then of course with a large base of support on the outside, what I called the "dispossesed working class". You're arguing that support from the public didn't come from the German working class, however, which I can buy. It's the old "fascism is petite bourgeoisie" saying, fascism appealing to "he who has lost something"; the worker never had anything in the first place. "Until 1928, the NSDAP had followed an urban strategy designed to attract blue-collar workers." This is the common countermyth to the myth that the Nazi party was all Big business. The story goes that small businesses burnt by the Depression and lacking the protection that the big fat corporations had, flocked to the Nazi party in the early 30s. Before this, the party is somewhat genuinely socialist. Then later its embraced by the big corps. Usually its US history books positing one narrative, Europeans the other. "Yet another interesting claim, yet also mostly untrue." Only semantically. You've got relatives to King's as Prime Minister of the UK and aristocracy in charge of it's Treasury...and this is in a modern democratic nation. Power protects power and power under capitalism is simply wielded differently. I agree with your nuanced view - your point is that the aristocracy essentially withered away, my point was that old power transitioned into the new capitalist and ruling class - but I think it is reductive in a different way. Power doesn't just disappear. Wasn't the crown in Britain giving Wilhelm royalty for lumber harvested in Ssarland and Rhineland, which the British government then taxed? And this is while he's in exile and hates the British. "the nobility in most cases hadn’t succeeded in performing the transition to what you call “the new, capitalist ruling class”" Yes, most were supplanted by a new, moneyed class. "but in the vast majority of cases, the European nobility" But not as many as people presume. Names change, companies rebrand, and assets keep snowballing, especially for those who controlled grain, banking, insurance and are in oil and metals. Wilhelm 2's living relatives, for example, have titles in the UK, Spain and Russia. The Queen's a majority shareholder in some of the world's biggest bank and gas companies and so forth. Late capitalism is never a clean break from prior modes of social organisation. The point though, is that Hitler's squashing of worker movments and Marxist movements were widely praised and supported, covertly and publically. Hitler only became a threat when his Imperialism infringed upon British Imperialism. "You're a little vague on the specifics. Be careful next time you try to give a lecture on an internet forum" I wasn't lecturing and was deliberately typing very broad movements (on a touch-screen phone no less, and on a comment box which allows no edits). "you never know when there is someone out there who actually knows what you’re talking about." I prefer CLR James' quip: "historians never know what they're talking about. I know. I'm a historian."

My last quip sounds rude in print. It was intended as a joke but reads offensive. That was not my intention. Au revoir.

@Trent: No problem :-) Much better to just both concede "Touché!" and get back to Star Trek ;-) PS: And I think you're right about the CGI on Voyager. I wonder why that is.

I think what makes this all very disturbing, is that THE PLAN WORKED... Which in the end justifies the means, and helps Sisko justify his actions - and even think that they were right. What is dangerous and disturbing, is that every dictator and evil person is convinced they are doing the "right thing" or the wrong thing but "for the right reasons". The loss of that absolute, objective moral compass is what is scary and at stake in this episode. That makes the last scene very chilling and disturbing.

@Jons, What is Evil, but the "greater good" to another? We create laws, rules, and social systems to structure our selves from taking positions beyond a certain threshold, which we call evil. However, under different circumstances, evil is not easily defined. Take the current debate right now about surveillance technology. Europeans are pissed off about it; Americans hate it. However, behind all this evil spying, how many lives have been saved by this use of covert surveillance? While detractors push for transparency, the world is not ready for the entire truth. To connect this point to this episode, Sisko in this episode is committing a bunch of crimes, trying to bring a neutral power into his nation's war, and covering up murders, but he wanted to be transparent at first like most viewers of Star Trek would want back in the 90's (Transparency, Technological growth, and a "happy" future). At the end of the episode, he chose to delete the record and bury the truth forever, because no one was ready to know. To classic Trek Baby Boomers, this is wrong and antagonistic to everything 90's stood for. To me and others of my generation, DS9 is not talking to Baby Boomer generation, but my Millennial generation, who will witness our share of tragedy and know fear, no other generation alive has felt. This is social commentary 10 years before its time.

@Trekker: "DS9 is not talking to Baby Boomer generation, but my Millennial generation..." ...which is exactly why so many of us have so many problems with it. DS9 isn't about the future. And certainly not the future we saw in TNG. In that sense, DS9 betrays what Star Trek stood for. It transformed a unique franchise into a mundane sci-fi series. It could be argued that DS9 set the precedent to JJ Abrams' films. They would never have been done that way if DS9 had gone say, "more TNG than TNG", and had expanded on everything Picard's Federation stood for.

"It could be argued that DS9 set the precedent to JJ Abrams' films. They would never have been done that way if DS9 had gone say, "more TNG than TNG", and had expanded on everything Picard's Federation stood for." I prefer TNG to DS9 overall, but I disagree with this. J.J. Abrams' films have nothing to do with most Trek, to be honest; their (popular, financial) success has everything to do with their rejection of the franchise as a whole, rather than hewing closer to any particular previous instance of it.

People around here - especially some commenting on this episode - like to throw around assertions about what Star Trek "stood" or "stands" for. But what is that exactly? Can you show that Trek has a particular definition that is either adhered to or violated in various episodes and movies? Provide textual evidence for your assertions, because that's all they are. As for the comparison with JJ Abram's "reimagining", that's taking it much too far. These new films are vapid and derivative - and have product placement that is dated *now* (Bud? Nokia? Really???). Just deplorable. If the DS9 episode "Valiant" is often derided for being "implausible", at least it ends appropriately - all but one of the cadets dies. In the Abrams' version, not only does the cadet captain save the day, but he is rewarded with an instant full command. What?

@Andy- JJ Abrams is a Warsie, hiding behind a breen outfit :P Seriously, his films have nothing to add to Star Trek, which at its core had intellectual elements that aspired for more than action. @Josh- I don't disagree with you, but one thing that Star Trek has strived for and is a confirmed statement from showrunners was social commentary. However, what I saw was a commentary on how we were moving to the world we live in today. Government surveillance, secret clandestine intelligence operations, and military engagements were limited in 90's in terms of scope and visibility. I think DS9 is depressing, but realistic to who we are as people. We won't ever become enlightened to a point that we can end violence, strife, and war. Roddenberry never advocated total peace, so why are older fans clinging onto that concept so hard.

Latex Zebra

I really can't take anyone seriously that dislikes this, and by association DS9, because of the way a Federation citizen is portrayed. In every series each Captain has done questionable things. In movies characters have behaved in questionable ways. Throughout the series the Federation or Starfleet have been inconsistent in their behaviours. The Prime Directive being handily used as a wishy washy way of non involvement. The galactic equivalent of crossing the road to avoid walking past someone who is being mugged because they don't look socially evolved enough to deserve your help. It is nonsense. Dislike this episode because you don't like the storyline or you don't like the fact that the Federation is at war. I mean surely such an enlightened species would never have gone to war with the Klingon’s, the Romulan’s, the Cardassian’s etc. But no evolved people still fight and kill for what they believe. Star Trek cannot live up to the ideals it sets itself, even when Roddenberry was still alive. Is it entertaining though… Hell yes. And this episode is entertaining. 4/4

I appreciate the writers' efforts here. I'd give the ep three stars for how hard it tries to say something big. Pluses: Garak, as always. Minuses: Brooks's hamminess, the framing device (It was far too similar to that TNG ep where Crusher invites some alien scientists for a symposium), and - as an above commenter said - Sisko going apeshit over the death of one Romulan senator after not agonizing at all about all the young Romulan men and women who would soon be cannon fodder thanks to his lies. For me the most emotional moment of the episode was Garak relating that all his Cardassian contacts (whom I think must have been his last connection to the world he loves) had been murdered thanks to Sisko's scheme. In the fight scene when Sisko punched him, I really wanted Garak to retort, "You know, when all my friends died -- for YOU -- you didn't bat an eye. " Somewhere along the line (I think it was 'Waltz') I stopped seeing Sisko as a sympathetic character. Which is a shame.

"... and all it cost was the life of one Romulan senator, one criminal, and the self-respect of one Starfleet officer." Best line of the episode.

eastwest101

I would have loved to have given a 5 out-of 5 star rating for this episode, good story and executed well but all the brilliant work was undone by some Avery Brooks overacting (tm) - completely agree with V_is-for_Voyager's comments about Brookes stilted and forced performance.

Definitely a lot of reading in the comments for this episode. A lot of contention here and understandably so. However, I have been adding my two cents to some of these shows and, despite my many agreements/disagreements with some comments, I will keep it brief. This is about as top-notch as any Star Trek episode gets. Superbly written and directed with sociopolitical ramifications that evolve naturally and logically from what has been put before us so far. If I ever made a "best-of" list of Trek episodes; this one would get automatic inclusion into the top ten. Absolutely marvelous storytelling and a testament to what can happen when the strengths of the creative department are fully utilized. 4 stars.

@Vylora : I too shall stay away from the philosophical aspects of the episode in this post. May I then ask, by what standards do you judge the directing, writing (presumably the acting) to be "top-notch"? Ignoring the implications and focusing on the episode-specific content, why are the ramifications' natural and logical (from your perspective) evolution particularly superb? I am genuinely interested in your answer, but from my perspective, the logic in the episode is a bit wanting. Yes, the rôle of Garak and Vreenak and the entire ploy to get the Romulans involved in the war works quite well, and I commend the writers on this point, but the emotional core of the episode is about Sisko and his struggle with morality, which frankly comes out of left field. Frankly, if such an episode had aired in Seasons 1 or 2, it would be more logical to assume Sisko's writhing were warranted since our knowledge of him and his character would be more limited. We would have to rely on assumptions about his character based on his wearing a Starfleet uniform. But by Season 6, I've seen Sisko be rather amoral (The Maquis, Shattered Mirror, For the Cause, Rapture, Children of Time, Waltz) if not downright villainous (Blaze of Glory). The suspension of disbelief to empathise with his being bent out of shape over one oily Romulan Senator and one criminal who was sentenced to death anyway is too high for me to consider the episode truly excellent.

I didn't really feel that distraught by Sisko's actions. Maybe if the criminal he pardoned was a better person and not a murderer, then I would care more about Garak killing him. And I didn't really find the Romulan likable (no surprise there) so I didn't really feel like those two's deaths being on Sisko's conscience were such a big burden to bear. Now if the criminal was a kind-spirited innocent and the Romulan senator an amiable fellow NOT abetting the Dominion, maybe it would've felt more hard-hitting. So this episode wasn't as "I've become a mob kingpin" thing as Sisko's menacing raise of his glass at the end alluded to for me. It's like, okay... a murderer and someone benefiting your enemy died and it potentially saved everything and everyone in the world that you hold dear. It's morally wrong, but... I found the selling of that bio-gel more sinister than inadvertently killing those two, because who knows who that invaluable gel is being sent to, in what ways they'll use it, or what innocents will suffer from its use.

GREAT episode. Gene would probably be rolling in his grave over this, but let's face it, in wartime, idealistic morality is the first thing out the window, and I'm glad DS9 acknowledges that and faces it. What I liked: -Garak. Enough said. "And all it cost, was the life of one Romulan senator, one criminal...[sneering tone] and the self respect of one Starfleet officer. I don't know about you, but I'd call that a bargain." I still shudder when I think about that line. Sisko's face as Garak spoke those words said all that needed to be said. -Ruthless Sisko going all Darth Vader on Tolar - "I am altering the deal, pray I don't alter it any further!" - er, I mean, "I am making a new agreement!" (Plot hole: Tolar recorded the data on the rod right before Sisko said that. Wouldn't that render Sisko's threat basically pointless? No matter. As Garak said, it's best not to dwell on such minutae ;) ) In general, Sisko was great in this episode, especially with the log entries. -Vreenak. Such a sniveling arrogant jerk- perfect for the role. When he said "It's a FAAAAAAAAKE!" my stomach dropped. I genuinely wasn't sure if we'd get a happy ending at the end of the ep the first time I watched this. -The Dominion has taken BETAZED?! Holy crap. I guess the good part is, no more Luaxana Troi! (I read that the writers considered having Vulcan get taken over instead, but then decided Vulcan would carry *too* much weight.) -The final scene between Sisko and Garak. Highlight of the ep. -One quibble and it's more of a long term plotting thing - I wish previous eps has shown at least a token attempt to draw the Romulans in at least in the background, just a couple of throwaway lines per episode, no more. Now we suddenly have Our Heroes taking on this project just for kicks when Starfleet's top brass should have been on this from the get-go? Then again, I guess I'm spoiled with modern TV's trend towards heavy serialization (BSG, Lost, even light sitcoms like How I Met Your Mother). Garak's quote on such minutae also applies here. The folks at fiveminute.net also did a great parody of this ep: fiveminute.net/ds9/fiver.php?ep=inthepalemoonlight Call it a three-way tie with "Duet" and "Way of the Warrior" as one of my favorite DS9 episodes ever. PS: In hindsight, Garak's ruthlessness was foreshadowed in "Rocks and Shoals" when, on the subject of massacring the Jem'Hadar, he said "Humans have rules in war. Rules that tend to make victory a little harder to achieve, in my opinion." Come to think of it, seeing as to how Sisko in that ep decided, "We have no choice, we either kill them or they kill us", everything in that ep foreshadowed what transpired in ITPM, from a character perspective.

I don't blame Sisko for doing what had to be done to win the war. Although in season 3 the romulans tried to destroy the wormhole which would have saved millions of lives and Sisko stopped them. This is also the same Sisko who was willing to risk the life of his son the aliens in the wormhole could fight a battle on the space station. Picard would never have been duped by aliens. He definitely wouldn't have put his crew or family in jeopardy for the aliens. That's why in the great Trekkie debate about who the best captain is you gotta throw Sisko out

Elliot, this episode is not about saying that when pushed people will always violate their principles. This is not Sisko believing what he did is what was right. This is a man who believes in an ideology, pushed to the limits of that ideology. He's in a situation where the only way out is to do something wrong. And he knows this. Sisko is not telling us, the audience, about how he saved the Federation. He's confessing to us his crimes and submitting the events to us for judgement. Much like Dukat in Waltz. Sisko knows what he did is wrong but believes he can live with the guilt if it means that the end is good. No, the ends do not justify the means. And no, Sisko does not believe that.

Ultimately the episode, and indeed the show, is an anti-war narrative. It shows us the harsh cost of war through a battle with the anti-Federation: the Dominion. The Dominion does indeed do what the Federation does: assimilate worlds in a vast interplanetary alliance; but does it in the absolute antithesis of Federation values. It's run on subjugation, colonization, alien invasion, and most telling of all, complete absolute religions faith in the Founders. Indeed, it was Weyoun's unquestioning faith in the female Founder at the end that led to his downfall, despite his being a brilliant tactician and leader. But that's another story. DS9 is about the cost of such a war. Not just the cost in human lives as we see in such episodes as The Siege of Ar-558 or in the deaths of Jadzia or Ziyal (or the lists of the dead that Sisko routinely puts up). But also the cost of compromising ones morals. Doing that which you know is immoral because you believe it will help the greater good. This is also clearly echoed by Kai Winn's fall from grace in the final ten episodes because of her tragic flaw of lust for power, but most people seem to dislike this part so it's all good.

Wow! There is a war going on? About time we get back to it! Jammer: "Sisko is not the type of character that I normally equate with obsessions" Come on Jammer, 'For the Uniform' ring a bell? Jammer: "But what this episode all comes down to is Sisko." I'm not sure I totally agree. This episode DOES come down to one character, but it's not Sisko - it's GARAK! ... and does Sisko really change 'that' much? He's gone ape-shit before... he's hid things from Star Fleet before, he’s lied before... is this really that much of a stretch? Sisko knew that when Garak says “I’m in”, that means Garak is in for the long haul, and Sisko knows it. This simply does not happen is Garak is not on the station. Sisko knows this when he approaches Garak. (and I'm not knocking Sisko for doing this AT ALL) What I will knock Sisko down a little for is his reaction towards Garak for doing exactly what he recruited him to do. Getting the Romulans into the war. He goes all Kira on him, punching him repeatedly. Really? Little overboard do you think? How EPIC is this scene?!?!? "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." Damn straight. I don't think Sisko's "so I will learn to live with it. Because I can live with it. I can live with it. Computer, erase that entire personal log." is Sisko trying to cope with his transgressions, I think it's Sisko revealing to us that he's a bad ass and he's going to make sure we win this damn war. "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges" Sloan to Bashir: "You're also the reason Section Thirty one exists. Someone has to protect men like you from a universe that doesn't share your sense of right and wrong." I wonder how Sisko feels about Section 31 now. Incredible, brilliant episode! EASY 4 stars. I’m not going to get into the “Roddenberry trek” thing, that argument is just stupid. Only Gene could answer that. I have a feeling, as Gene was in the military and a police officer, he would have approved.

Tomás Foley: He can't add another star, its a 4 star-rating system.

After the previous episode, we see that Sisko has kept Garak as his own personal Section 31. My main gripe with Sisko is less with his moral compass, but with him essentially putting the fate of the galaxy into his own hands and not mitigating the risk of failure. Once he has decided there are no 'half measures' as they say, but he relied entirely on Garak doing his own thing. If Sisko didn't anticipate Garak doing what he did, then he was irresponsible. He had no idea if the forgery would work and he would have put The Federation into a hopeless situation.

@Hlau - "SISKO: Let's be very clear about this. You're not working for Starfleet. This entire matter is off the record. As far as you're concerned, you're working for me. " I always kind of felt that if the plan failed hard enough Sisko would spend the rest of his life in a Federation prison to appease the Romulans. Starfleet had plausible deniability.

The George Bush/Ronald Reagan strawman episode. Had to resort to fascism to justifiably save the one's you love? Sorry. Never happened, never will.

"The George Bush/Ronald Reagan strawman episode. Had to resort to fascism to justifiably save the one's you love? Sorry. Never happened, never will." Are you kidding me? Apples and oranges. But besides that, you can't possibly believe nobody has ever been tricked into entering a war. That's preposterous. Just one off the top of my head that's a maybe is h t t p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Lusitania#British_Government_deliberately_putting_the_Lusitania_at_risk I'm not a conspiracy nutter, but when you have Winston Churchill saying "most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores, in the hope especially of embroiling the United States with Germany" it leads one to imagine that even if the Lusitania WASN'T a British plot to get us to join the war there was a plot in place. In addition Napoleon is known to have tweaked the fires a bit to start the war of 1812 (between the US and Britain). Getting other countries to declare war against your enemies is pretty much priority #1 when you are in the middle of a war. I assure you this has happened throughout history.

zzybaloobah

Great episode. One of my all time favorite Treks. Brooks' acting aside (I thought he did fine, though some of the framing monologue was not great), Garak steals the show. Not since "Improbable Cause" has he had such freedom to act. And what a delightful web of treachery and deceit he weaves! Sisko doesn't have a chance -- which, given Garak's final speech, is probably just as well. My favorite character -- though I'd be terrified of him in RL. Sisko's conscience: After "For the Uniform", I'm having a hard time seeing this as a problem for him. The Federation's "conscience": The writers have made it plain: The Federation faces the END. They've made peace overtures; the Dominion wants TOTAL victory. Others can say "Picard would have found a way to negotiate", but that's just silly. In the face of what we've seen, there's no reason to assume the Dominion has any interest in negotiations. We've never seen the Federation in this kind of danger (Betazed down, Vulcan, Andor, Teller threatened -- we've even got a think-tank recommending surrender). We saw a not-quite-so-dark future in "Yesterday's Enterprise"; how far would have *that* Picard gone to save the Federation? Is it *really* the "ethical" position to condemn billions to Dominion slavery when you can "violate the rules of war" and prevent it? I'm with Garak on this one: When your back is against the wall, you do what it takes to survive. The only dirty trick in war is to start one in the first place. (And to jump ahead a season, yeah I'd consider bioweapons....) (Though I was appalled with Enterprise's "Damage" -- those people Archer condemned were completely innocent.) What would GR think? Would he *really* say "the Federation goes down swinging?". Or is the very concept of a stronger foe anti-GR? Maybe Kirk would have pulled some implausible rabbit out of his hat and saved the day?

A LOT has already been said about this one, and I'm not sure I want to get into any of the more incendiary debates that the other parties may never see. I'm just going to leave some stray comments about what makes this one really, really great. -This is the best paced episode of the series. Even in the best episodes, there's sometimes a bit too much piece-placing as the characters go about their day until they discover the problem. Not here, though. Right away, we start with Sisko's struggle. A lesser version of "In the Pale Moonlight" would start us with Sisko's friday morning ritual of posting the war casualties. Not here, though. Sisko's narrative beforehand gives that scene more weight. We already know a decision's been made in some way. We're not waiting to see where it goes since we know it already leads to Sisko's anguish in some way. The extra subtext throughout the whole episode adds dread and suspense to each scene. On a minute-by-minute basis, it's simply more entertaining than any other show DS9 has produced so far, with MAYBE the exception of "The Visitor" and "Far Beyond the Stars." Even "Duet" set its pieces up harmlessly at first. -Garak. Always awesome. Pairing him up with a regular character has almost never failed on this show. There's "The Wire" with Julian, "Improbable Cause/Die Is Cast" with Odo, "Purgatory/Inferno" with Worf, Martok, etc, and now "ItPM" with Sisko. It's not just that Robinson plays Garak pitch perfectly, it's that Garak and the world with which he was/is involved is such a harrowing contrast to what we're used to. Which is not to say that the default DS9 and Federation settings are bad, but that the drama that results between the collision of those settings is always game-changing. -It's a wonderful spiritual follow-up to "Inquisition." In the previous show, an implication was left at our feet - but here? "In the Pale Moonlight" takes everything that made us uncomfortable about the last episode's implications and turns the implications into actions. There's no going back from this. There's no mystery left. What's done is done, and it's really hard to disagree that it needed to be done. Sisko puts into action those hypothetical situations Sloan gave to Bashir. -The deed is done without depicting a single physical confrontation (except Sisko vs Garak after the fact, which I'll address). It's all under the table or discretely in a back room. Did we need to see Tolar or Vreenak die? Blow up or be shot by a space gun? Absolutely not. This isn't about brutality; it's about violating principles and being insulated while doing it. Less "Breaking Bad" and more "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas." -A small scene, but Bashir and Sisko are great when they're at odds. First in "Statistical Probabilities" and now here. The subtext of giving and receiving cryptic and potentially dangerous orders is not lost on either of these men. (As an aside, I'd argue that Sisko and Bashir are the two most interesting Federation characters the franchise has produced. Bashir especially, who might have the best arc in all of Trek.) I could go on for a while, but I'll leave it at that for now. 4 stars, easy. It's hard to say what the "best" episode of DS9 is since the show tells so many different types of stories from week to week. "Far Beyond the Stars" and "The Visitor" are top hours, but they're self-evidently unique outside the show's main narratives. "The Way of the Warrior" and the "Purgatory/Inferno" two-parter are also powerhouses, but their genre is revelation-and-action, fundamentally different than the quiet, dialogue-heavy hour of "Moonlight". So, for my money, "Moonlight" is the best standard hour of DS9, narrowly beating out "Duet" and "Rocks and Shoals."

@zzybaloobah

Hum... didn't take the rest of my post :D

Sorry. It doesn't work, I'm trying one last time... "Others can say "Picard would have found a way to negotiate", but that's just silly. In the face of what we've seen, there's no reason to assume the Dominion has any interest in negotiations." Here lies the problem ! Sisko is not Picard. Sisko lives in the moment, with the action. Picard is - usually - an educated diplomat. More over, all the negociations have been done with the Vortas, NOT the Changelings, which is a huge mistake and a waste of time (knowing that for them, Changelings are Gods !). Each time officers are face to face with a Changeling, they're adversarial and don't even try to start a discussion. For example, when Odo agrees to face judgement by his people, does Sisko take the opportunity to even ask why they're so bent on bringing order to the Alpha Quadrant ? Did he once try to negociate or try to understand the reasons behind their agressive policy by opening a dialogue ? Maybe, at that time, agreeing to close the wormhole would have been enough. Or maybe not, but at least we would have known that the war was indeed unavoidable. (And what about Odo ? We don't see him at least once try to talk peace to the female Changeling. But he's not Federation, so I'll let this one pass :p.) As for the episode in itself, I already said some years ago that it is a mixed-bag. By watching it again, I'll add this: I have no problem watching Garak pulling the Romulans to fit his agenda, because it fits the character perfectly and he does it with panache. I'd have no problem with Sisko going along with it behind the Federation's back (because that's how he's been portrayed, moral and self-righteous when he's not the one at fault, but highly immoral when it fits him). But I still can't accept the fact that the Federation would agree to manipulate a power in the Quadrant in such a fashion ! This episode would have been so much more if Sisko's struggle had not been about the lies, but about the philosophy behind the lies. Asking instead: "did I have the right to pull the Romulans into Our war, allowing their people to die as well as mine ? Is it really the greater good or is it just what I perceive as such ? Would I have done the same if, instead of Romulans, it was a race I didn't despise ? And finally, is the price of balancing the war by removing the free choice of the Romulans to be neutral worth it, just because I believe the Alpha Quadrant is better off without the Dominion - and so, all should think the same !!?"

You're proving the point, Robert. Vietnam, Gulf War 1 and 2 (WMDs and Baby Incubators) etc were all started by Imperialists faking a war crime in order to justify entering a war. The party doing the faking always lies and says they are "doing this to stop an existential threat", when in reality they are the Imperialists and they are the ones interested in stealing resources/land etc. In "Moonlight", Sisko pulls the Bush/Reagan defense. He is justified in faking WMDs, baby incubators, Gulf of Tonkins and what not, he thinks, because the enemy is even worse. The episode endorses the behaviour we see in the real world by making real the fantastical existential threat which those in the real world use to bolster their similar lies. The reason DS9 believes this is okay, is because DS9 literally thinks the Dominion is Germany in WW2. It gets away with this shallow thinking because most Westerners have a very cartoonish view of WW2, a conflict in which the West were complicit in the creation of fascism, and actively fanned the class warfare which let to Hitler (not to mention most subsequent dictators, terrorists etc across the globe). And of course the West in WW2 were, in aggregate, worse Imperialists than Germany. Britain would kill almost 2 billion in India over its 200 year rule there, not to mention it had colonies across the globe. America would itself commit genocides in the Phillipines and Indonesia and so forth. The point is, DS9 uses very well known real world behaviour but obscures the lessons we should learn from them. If DS9 were intellectually honest, it would LITERALLY DEAL with the Federation's slide into horrible fascism and vehemently denounce this as unnaceptable. Instead all the episodes like MOONLIGHT just tip-toe or abandon these issues. The Dominion as portrayed in DS9 is a fantasy. It does not and can not exist. To say it has a real world analogue is to insult the historical causes which led to whatever analogue you find, and to obscure the proper way to solve the end result of the historical causes which led to whatever analogue you find. Episodes like MOONLIGHT are anti-intellectual in the worst ways, because they bolster dangerous myths.

, a conflict in which the West were complicit in the creation of fascism ----------- Ah, here we go. More apologist nonsense. You can't go through life blaming every evil that comes along on the big bad West. I will agree that punishing Germany too long and in a silly way resulted in people of Germany uprising and voting Hitler... but that's the shallow way of looking at it. Hitler really did sort out the problems caused to the everyday people, while the governing parties of Germany ignored their electorate. THAT is the reason he came to power - along with the West (like Chamberlain) ignoring his threat and believing flowers would help.

"In "Moonlight", Sisko pulls the Bush/Reagan defense. He is justified in faking WMDs, baby incubators, Gulf of Tonkins and what not, he thinks, because the enemy is even worse. The episode endorses the behaviour we see in the real world by making real the fantastical existential threat which those in the real world use to bolster their similar lies." I said it above and I'll say it again. Apples and Oranges. Sisko did not lie to the Federation to get them to join the war. He lied to what is essentially an enemy of the Federation to get them to declare war on another enemy of the Federation. I don't care if it was all lies, that's just good business sense. It'd be like if we could have gotten Japan and Germany to declare war on each other in the middle of WW2. I don't care what we had to fabricate to do so, that would have been AWESOME. The Romulans are literally complicit in Dominion attacks coming out of their space. We aren't even lying to our allies. We're lying to our enemies to trick them into fighting each other. This episode is only "grey" and "dark" because of the twist that Garak had planned to murder the guy all along. Sisko ends up an accomplice to murder. If he had accepted the FAAAAAAAAAAKE the episode would have barely tipped into off white. Using spy tactics to make your enemies go to war with each other is barely even morally questionable..... As to us being complicit in the creation of Facism, I agree with DLPB. It's a bit shallow. The few world powers can be "butterfly effected" into causing anything. Because actions have a complex series of consequences. Coming out of "The Great War", which people of the time believed was the war to end all wars, appeasement seemed like a good idea because another world war was unfathomable. Until the stupid end they really thought they could prevent it. Hindsight is 20/20. And as to American Imperialism in the Philippines.... to call it genocide in a paragraph underneath the one where you talk about Hitler is about as horribly over exaggerating as you can get. War crimes? Sure. America has had a dark spots to it's history, no denying that(including the Native Americans). But genocide? Nah. As to Britain and India... I really don't know about about their histories to tell you that you're exaggerating, but if it's anything like your version of American history....

One of the best Sisko episodes. Some people want to say in "For the Uniform," was a moral or questionable behavior for Sisko, well I disagree somewhat, he did warn them and they were able to escape and put an end to Eddington's treachery. In the "Pale Moonlight" Sisko did what was necessary to save billions of people. The price was a bargain. Garak did pretty well in this episode, but I feel, "Broken Link" he was great.

This entire episode can be boiled down to this question: When faced with complete and total annihilation, do the ends justify the means? The answer is obvious: if you are interested in protecting your loved ones and your very way of life, you don't really have an option. Besides, do any of us believe that if the Dominion HAD defeated the Federation, they would have left the Romulans alone? From everything we know about the Founders and their motivations, the Romulans would have ended up fighting that war anyways. Sisko's choice was the correct one.

I know some hate political comments on real life events but... The government is protecting your money ( oil backed currency ), oil supply and world control, by controlling and manipulating its "Dominion" the middle east. You can blame the government for its deceptions ( just like you can blame Sisko for millions of Romulan deaths ) but... ... you have to allow government " to do the things you cannot do, the 'darker things' " ( like Garak ) Trek has always been about social commentary, and the best line ever in Trek is from Quark during the station battle - something like 'morals only apply in times of happiness and peace, people become more savage when they are on the brink of desperation' Conclusion: Sisko - acting like the American people during Iraq - moralizing evil acts by punching Garak and blaming him Garak - American government - doing what is necessary and no caring about morality, but reminding Sisko, our way of life cannot be preserved without immoral actions.

What I meant by the above in one sentence is: " People want to pretend to be moral, but secretly have blood on their hands, and blame the group rather then themselves, so they believe their own propaganda about being good people. "

Maybe I should have made this comment earlier when this happened but, why did just 20 ships weaken the Romulans and the Cardassians? These were superpowers. The Tal Shiar was just a secret branch just like the Obsidian Order and I am sure they weren't stupid enough to take all of there operatives on this mission. I can see where the Klingons devasted the Cardassians but not the Romulans. Does anyone see where I am coming from?

Icarus32Soar

Some of the nit-picking in this thread is so amusing. This is fiction and drama guys not a doco. It works metaphorically and dramatically. As such it has all the elements if an outstanding even legendary episode. It has both moral and dramatic ambiguity and conflict, which is what makes Shakespeare great. Tragedy is defined as good people doing evil things through force of circumstances. It's gritty and subversive,all great art is subversive because it takes us out of our comfort zone and makes us question our beliefs and values. Both evil and morality are relative.It's a matter of nuance and this ep runneth over with nuance. Any other view is just childish. Bravo to the brave scriptwriters. Brooks shines by and large,the theatrical mode of acting is not necessarily unsuitable for TV, Robinson is stellar as usual and Quark summarises the whole theme of the ep aptly:"I always knew there was a bit of Ferengi in you"& "every man has his price".A Ferengi rule of acquisition? I don't think so.A very human truth. That's the brilliance of ST: how all the different aliens represent different facets of humanity.A complex great ep all round , who says you can't give it more than 4 stars? At least 8 out of 4.

A great episode; what Icarus says, I second. And I do think it was one of Brooks' best performances. He erases the record while saying he can live with it. How conflicted can you get?

I am getting so tired of all the haters complaining about Avery Brooks' performances, especially in an episode like this one where he truly was spectacular (Beyond the Stars also was an amazing performance that is unfairly criticized on this site). This is undoubtedly one of the top 10 Trek episodes of all time (though I'd place Visitor and Stars ahead of it in DS9's run) and is simply spell-binding from start to finish. The story is another perfect job by Fields who also did perhaps my all time favorite Trek episode (The Inner Light) even if Moore may have taken a rewrite credit. I just can't say enough about this episode but I will try to nail down the important points: -First, while Avery Brooks was stellar in this reluctantly menacing turn as Sisko, the obvious super star of the episode was Andrew Robinson as Garak, as always. This guy is simply the finest actor on the series and his episodes truly never disappoint. The writing and performance come together here even more so than any other Garak episode I can think of (though "The Die is Cast" comes to mind as well) and the payoff is spellbinding television. -Second, the riveting suspense sustained throughout the episode is palpable and visceral. Jammer was not kidding about "being glued to the TV"! I truly feared for the survival of the Federation when Vreenak hissed, "It's a faaaaake!" Each act compounded the suspense and the twist end definitely caught me by surprise the first time I watched this way back in '98. -Third, the flashback style as narrated by Sisko trying to justify what he has done is a very effective plot device that gives the episode a foreboding foreshadowing quality that gives away just enough info to make the viewer wary as to what is coming without giving away the game. I totally agree with Jammer here that the final scene is palpable in its emotional context, giving us a glimpse of what this ordeal has done to Sisko and the emotional toll that has been exacted upon him throughout the entire Dominion war. I would argue that the immoral decisions he made during "For the Uniform" could also be ascribed to this sustained stress level he has been subjected to over such a sustained period of time. -Finally, I must comment on the resolution of the episode, which I find brilliant and so "Garak" in character. Always my favorite character of the series, this strikes me as just the sort of thing he would do, misdirecting everyone (even Sisko who was his "partner in crime" so to speak) while staying two steps ahead to ensure his goal was reached by any means necessary. This is exactly the sort of intelligent and devious plan that only he could have dreamed up, much less pulled off. I wonder if, when the writers first conjured up the idea of an Cardassian ex-spy recurring character, they had any idea how perfectly realized his potential would become over the run of DS9? Obviously the lion-share of credit must go to Robinson, who's smooth and powerful delivery allowed the writers the luxury of fully fleshing out the character in a way not often seen in a guest starring role. To be honest, Garak in many ways is a more complete and essential character in the show than some of the main cast. Well there you have it. I decided against going into my personal feelings regarding the controversial aspects of this episode vis-a-vis Rodenberry's vision and ITPM's "ends justify the means" mentality. To be honest, DS9's darker tone and penchant for showing how in real life there are no easy answers to complex questions set it apart from the other series and was a breath of fresh air in what had become a slightly stale franchise by the end of TNG's run. Sisko is my favorite Captain precisely because he seems so much more believable as a person than the others. I don't care how "evolved" we become as a society (and flat out reject the slavishly liberal tone of the rest of the series), when you face an existential crisis as acute as what has befallen the Federation during the Dominion War, you do what you have to to survive and that is an undeniable truth that I'm sure will exist in the 24th century just as it does in the 21st.

I am getting so tired of all the haters ------- I am getting tired of criticism being shouted down as "hating", or those criticizing being called "haters" by intolerant zealots.

Seriously? Intolerant zealots? Haters in modern slang is closer in meaning to "buzzkill" than anything worth getting worked up about. One might argue that it's easier to tear apart a bad episode than praise a good one. But when the majority of one's posts are negative, "buzzkill" is about right. Haters gonna hate and all that is just about not letting the negativity get you down. It's not about labeling the other person anything serious.

Is this episode bulletproof? No. Is it interesting & engaging? Yes. 3 out of 4 stars. The ideas & debates put forth are certainly entertaining.

A great episode, but reduced a bit by Sisko's physical assault of Garak at the end. There was really no excuse for that, and Sisko is lucky that it isn't Garak's style to press charges, because if he had, Odo certainly couldn't have ignored it.

Jack - I have to disagree with your assessment of Sisko's physical assault on Garak. That was the whole point of the episode. Sisko 'looses it' when he realizes that Garak's 'detour' was to plant a strategic bomb on the Romulan Spaceship. Sisko delivers some accusations. And Garak, with a bloodied face, comes back with the most important line in the episode - "That's why you came to me". The devious, the plotters, the 'Obsidian Order'. The episodically developed semi-symbiotic relationship between these two - neither good nor bad. Only real. That's the message I took from this episode. And this was a Garek episode (perfectly acted), not just a Sisko episode. IMO

It almost doesn't matter to me whether or not Brooks is a good actor (for the record, I love his acting) because the timbre if his voice on its own is so compelling. Therefore I love the framing device, cheesy as it is, for letting him monologue. And an episode placing Brooks and Robinson together and asking some tough questions about war and the Trek universe is of course going to have some over the top moments, since there's not that much subdued crew camaraderie. Still a great and compelling ep that held up to my 3rd rewatch. 4 stars for sure.

Dan said: "All it cost was the life of one romulan senator and one criminal" I guess the 4 romulan body guards don't count... Henchman never count in such things. Protaganists will have second thought about whether their conscience will let them go through with killing some Big Bad, but usually only after hacking through dozens of his goons to get that far...

@ Craig That doesn't really wash. From the outset, and also all along, Garak warned Sisko exactly what might be involved with all this business, even offering him a chance or two in the middle to back out...Sisko never did. For Sisko to decide to up and have a fit over it at the end was ridiculous.

@Jack, I think I'll have to join Craig on this one, but for different reasons. Yes Sisko did jump the gun and punch Garak, but Garak has gotten away with quite a bit. Sisko could have kicked Garak off the station when he blew up his shop or when he lied about the message he received from Tain and then proceeded to steal a runabout, he would have did it too, but the changling Bashir caught him. Another time in "Body Parts" Garak could have gotten them all killed if Worf had not caught him trying to fire into the Great Link. ITPM was more of a Sisko episode than a Garak one. Of course Andrew did well in this one, but he was much better in Body Parts, he even had better lines.

my favourite ds9 episode. just amazing. anyone else think section 31 is involved somehow? no matter how desperate, I can't see the federation approving Sisko's plan. Garak really should have been a regular. probably the most interesting character in the series.

@ canman I don't think they ever got any official approval though, did they? I think it was Sisko and Garak acting alone in this case. Although you'd think that Bashir would've had to report to somebody about the biomedic gel eventually. Hmmm. Agreed on Garak, too.

Love the episode but the amount of hypocrisy in it is unbelievable considering the attitude about section 31 and the attitude in later episodes about them. The way it all transpired was also very sloppy. If Sisko needed the gel why on earth would he go through Bashir. Surely if Bashir could get it so easily and surely if if it was supposed to be so important why didn't it go through more secret channels. It makes no sense. I do love the episode but you need to look past a lot of things as I could pull this epiose apart on just about every scene.

Bashir's steampunk brain

Sisko asked Bashir directly for the gel because his plans were vetted by the federation, as stated in the episode.

Diamond Dave

Stirring stuff. Good people doing questionable things to achieve justifiable ends always enters into the realm of impassioned debate - witness the comments here. Where this episode succeeds is that it shows not only the cost to Sisko - the "self-respect of one Starfleet officer" as Garak puts it - but also the tangible benefit. He knows that he's done the right thing - and he knows he hasn't. It's that contradiction that lies at the heart of that great final scene. Of course, to counterpoint that self-examination we need Garak, who has no qualms or remorse about doing what needs to be done. Here is the master of expediency, doing what he does best. Is Sisko like Garak then? Of course not, and again that's what creates the dramatic tension. It's a wonderful episode, beautifully written, acted and directed. "It's best not to dwell on such minutiae" indeed. 4 stars.

I'm not sure where to begin talking about the episode's broader implications, so I'll just say this: as a piece of drama and character work and mood, I was really impressed. This is some of the best material for Garak in the series -- entirely from Sisko's perspective, so that we miss *some* of Garak's nuances, but still wonderfully conveyed. This and "Inquisition" form quite the two-parter, a real uptick in quality for the season in terms of entertainment/character, and very troubling.

One thing I will say now is that I think Sisko is probably right that it's in the Romulans' best interests to join the war, but that his reasoning is entirely, as Dax puts it early on, self-serving. First of all, Sisko told Bajor to stay out of the Federation to avoid destruction, so we know that Sisko plays favourites and does make allowances for some powers to escape the conflict. Bajor is a minor power compared to Romulus, I'll grant, but there it is. He cannot genuinely know what is good for the Romulans, and I found Vreenak quite a sympathetic figure -- his initial sarcasm quickly was revealed as something of a shield and he seemed willing to hear Sisko out, while also recognizing that Sisko cannot genuinely speak for Romulan interests -- metaphorically represented by his congratulating Sisko on the very good replica of the Romulan drink, which only affected him "for a second." By contrast, Garak's reasoning is also self-serving, but first of all, he does not have a Starfleet Officer presumptive moral standard to uphold, and, well, Garak applies to the Romulans a somewhat similar standard he has for his own people -- he views them as fools for trusting the Dominion. Garak's willingness to work against and even kill Cardassians to save Cardassia as a whole makes his perspective that the Romulans must be manipulated in a way that ultimately helps them (the Alpha Quadrant) more consistent with his overriding belief system -- and he is not particularly making the claims that Sisko makes. One scene that really did not work for me: Sisko's bribing Quark. Quark's lines were good, but come on -- Sisko leveraged Quark's nephew's arrest to make Quark do what he wanted in episode one. Why is he behaving as such a shrinking violet at the prospect of dirty dealings with Quark now? For the most part, I believed Sisko's reactions throughout the episode, but this scene really pushed the idea of Sisko as a heretofore upstanding paragon of virtue who doesn't know how to bribe a man past the point of credulity given how willing Sisko generally is to be underhanded especially with Quark.

@William B Very insightful review. Garak is being more honest than Sisko is in his words and actions. Still, in Sisko's defense, every time I watch this episode I always try to think of a way to legitimately get the Romulans to side with the Federation, but haven't come up with one yet. As for Sisko and Quark, I think scene shows that Sisko was very preoccupied with the Dominion war (becoming an Adjutant surely changed his perspective). I think he lost part of himself from the whole conflict forgetting some of the gambits he pulled off as a mere Commander.

@Chrome, I agree with the first point -- the reality *is* that it's hard to know what would convince the Romulans. And I do believe that Sisko believes that it's in their best interests, to his credit. There are some episodes where I find Sisko's resorting to extreme measures hard to fathom -- the WMDing of the planet in "For the Uniform" -- but I get how this situation he takes the only course that seems to be open to him. I think you're right about the scene with Quark, though I'm not sure if it was executed well enough. I think the other thing is that in other conflicts with Quark, Sisko always believed he was right even when I don't think he was -- Sisko had a kind of brazen confidence blackmailing Quark into staying on the station in "Emissary," or making him kiss the Nagus' sceptre in "The Search," whereas here he really does think he's doing the wrong thing at the moment, though ironically I find this particular aspect (bribing Quark to drop charges) pretty low on his list of sins. I like how Sisko's discomfort with the small-scale things he has to do in the episode is really something of a mislead -- ok, so he's working with a slimy programmer, and that's unpleasant -- but it's something of a distraction from the real issue, the manufactured evidence and later the assassination. I suspect Sisko finds the details unnerving in a way because they are smaller sins than the bigger ones, and thus a little easier to contemplate.

1. Did we not JUST see, in the very preceding episode, a message about the *exact* opposite of this? Did DS9's "brilliant" writers not just spend an hour convincing us that the ends did *not* justify the means and that sisko et al, with great conviction, decided that section 31's approaches were wrong? Could you pick a worst back to back of two episodes? 2. This episode nicely sums up why DS9 is the worst trek. Zero stars.

Oh and don't get me wrong. This episode doesn't make ds9 the worst trek because of siskos plan. It makes it the worst because it really drives home the fact that the writers as a whole had no business creating or maintaining a universe. Ds9 is stumble after stumble, endless head scratching, bumbling, and contradictions. Poorly shaped arcs, consistently poor follow through, a feel that the universe does not exceed the bounds of ds9 force fields (it's like we're in another Wesley crusher warp core experiment), etc. Ds9 didn't even start getting half decent until it started rehashing TNG plots in one form or another.

@JC You could interpret it that Sisko was finally willing to go as far as Section 31 (albeit blindly) because of how bad the war was going for the the Federation. And I do want to emphasize that Sisko only had a vague idea of what methods Garrack would use, and probably felt like he hadn't crossed his moral event horizon until the end of the episode when found out he did. Oops!

@Chrome I could interpret it that way only if sisko deciding that section 31 was questionable wasnt, almost literally, the period at the end of the last episodes script. Now if the last episode, for example, had everybody on the crew questioning section 31s motives, except sisko (e.g. he slowly could turn to the "dark side" at the end), now that would have been a more interesting and consistent development. Even as some as ending it with a sisko sounding unsure, perhaps a shot of him staring thoughtfully out a window, or a log entry or conversation with Dax, anything to show that perhaps after further thought sisko was clearly the type of character who could be inspired by the section 31 actions that the rest of the crew despised. Or anything. But to jump straight from the last episode to this one and have sisko do an implied 180 between episodes? Blech.

I was just reminded today that earlier versions of this story focused on Jake uncovering a conspiracy as a reporter, and in particular that an intermediate draft had him uncovering what Sisko was doing. While I think it was the right decision not to have that happen in this episode given the amount of material there is, I can't tell you how much I would have loved to see the show Go There of having Jake uncovering Sisko's actions ala Watergate, maybe in season seven. Granting for the moment that the fact that Sisko succeeds is part of what makes this episode so chilling, the possibilities of another character, especially Jake, finding out about this and how their image of Sisko would adjust really excite me. An interesting might-have-been.

"At 0800 hours, station time, the Romulan Empire formally declared war against the Dominion." I'll admit, the very first time I saw this episode, that statement left me with my jaw on the floor in shock and awe. To this day it still sends a chill down my spine. Beautiful! There is something that really bothers me about "In the Pale Moonlight", however. Among the episode's detractors there exists a very vocal subset (not all the detractors, mind you, just a subset) who while decrying it as being a complete betrayal of Roddenberry's vision also fawn over AbramsTrek. Apparently, when somebody takes Kirk and turns him into a petulant, little, narcissistic man-child, Spock into a whiny momma's boy and a creepy perv who sleeps with his students while he's teaching at the Academy, Scotty into little more than comedic relief, Uhura into a foul-mouthed whore who literally sleeps her way to the top and Sulu and Chevok into cliched caricatures of themselves, (not to mention obliterating a HUGE part of the mythology by destroying Vulcan), that's apparently okay. But, craft a story that is a vital arc episode, an honest moral dilemma and a powerful character piece while simultaneously gluing you to your seat in rapt attention from the opening teaser to literally the final fade and that's a completely unacceptable sell-out and sheer treason against our one true Lord and Savior's blessed vision of what Trek is supposed to be? Call me crazy, but I think turning beloved characters on their heads is a worse offense than actually using Trek to examine a powerful aspect of the Human condition - our desire to quash evil wherever we find it. Which is better - to keep your high-minded principles intact but go down to inglorious defeat and/or slavery or live in a peaceful world where mutual respect, tolerance and understanding reign but which is all based on a lie? Personally, while I do agree that principles are important and a person should hold true to them (as long as they're moral principles), when faced with such an existential crisis like the Federation is facing here, maybe (just maybe), the ends can justify the means. After all, principles are nice, but if you aren't alive or free to practice them then they aren't of much use, are they? So, count me firmly in the camp that thinks Sisko made the right call here in doing what was necessary to bring the Romulans into the war. The very survival of the Federation (hell, the whole Alpha Quadrant) was at stake. Maybe that means that I'm also predisposed to agree with some of the tactics of Section 31 as well. If that's so, then like Sisko, I think I can live with it. This episode, unlike any other, shows just why Sisko is the man to be on the front lines of a total war - and why none of the other Trek captains could've possibly done the job he does. Kirk may have been willing to entertain the idea but would probably have ultimately decided not to go ahead with it. Picard would have undoubtedly rejected the idea completely out-of-hand. Janeway.... well, hell, I don't know how Janeway would respond; she's so inconsistently written. Archer might have done it (at least post-Xindi Archer), but I'm not sure. Sisko, however, is more than willing to get his hands dirty in order to get the job done. And unlike in "For the Uniform", here he is doing it for a legitimate reason, not just to satisfy a personal vendetta. Finally, the fall of Betazed shows just why I love world-building so much in my Trek. If this had been another planet-of-the-week, or even a lessor-known Federation world, it wouldn't have been anywhere near as impactful for the audience. Making the conquered world be a well-known location gives the audience an "oh shit" feeling in the pit of the stomach as well as the ability to really sympathize with what Sisko is both going through and doing. And for those who criticize the choice of Betazed over the original idea of having Vulcan be the planet to fall, that just proves my point - we need more world-building! What other planet could they have chosen? Aside from Earth itself, I'm hard pressed to see an alternative. Vulcan was rejected as it would carry "too much" weight for the viewers. If Earth was conquered, even the most ardent detractors of the episode would probably have been screaming for Sisko to not only lie to the Romulans but for the Federation to launch full-scale WMDs at Cardassia! BEST! EPISODE! YET! 10/10

@ Luke, Nice review, but I have one small quibble with this: "Kirk may have been willing to entertain the idea but would probably have ultimately decided not to go ahead with it." After watching "The Enterprise Incident" I don't think there can be much doubt that Kirk was quite willing to lie to the Romulans, steal their technology in violation of treaty, and in that case even do so right to their faces. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if that one incident was single reason for the clause in the Treaty of Algeron banning the Federation's use of cloaking technology.

Now that I've seen this episode a few times, I truly appreciate some of the moments of great acting and writing, particularly with Garak and Sisko in the lift, discussing the trade for the data rod. The glare Sisko throws after Garak's "The quantity I believe is negotiable," is priceless -- somewhere inside him he knows that Garak is capable of deep, multi-layered deception, and I think he can't quite believe that he's gotten himself in this situation, to the point of bartering with Garak's unseen contact for material that could be used for unauthorized genetic experimentation. And, "Uh, It's best not to dwell on such minutiae." I was howling. All that said, I wonder now if Garak didn't manipulate this from the very beginning. Perhaps his cadre of Cardassian informants weren't actually murdered, but Garak decided to to use this ploy to up the ante for Sisko -- human lives were expended from the outset, so more drastic measures would be required. Perhaps Garak knew from the beginning that evidence of Dominion treachery would never surface (in a form suitable to change Romulan minds at least), and that manufacturing the evidence would have a very small chance of succeeding, and so he developed a fast track plan -- and all he needed was the authority of a starbase commander, and the access to materials and currency that this brings.

A lot of the earlier comments on this episode & the previous one are about whether or not this fits in with Roddenberry's "vision" of the future. I think it depends on which Roddenberry you're talking about. It's clear that the guy in the 1980's, who ran TNG for the first 2 years, would not have allowed it. This Roddenberry said the TNG episode "Family" couldn't happen in his view of the future...humans had moved completely beyond conflict (somehow). Fortunately, he wasn't running the show at that time and "Family" got made, along with many other episodes that would not have fit with his vision of the future. It's no coincidence that TNG found its voice once 80's Roddenberry lost control of the series. Very little Trek actually lives up to 80's Roddenberry's ideals. Most of the episodes that don't violate those ideals are technobabble stories or "preach to aliens" episodes. I don't even think all of TNG's first 2 seasons lives up to his ideals; I think there are at least a few "mad admiral" stories that fail his vision. A more interesting question is whether Roddenberry of the 60's would have approved. It was this guy who created the franchise. He had a vision of an improved future, which was not so over-the-top utopian. Most (if not all) Trek fits with his vision of the future. I think he definitely would have appreciated these episodes as great drama, but would he have felt they fit into his vision? We'll never know for sure, but given all the instances of humans behaving badly in TOS (which others have partially listed in the comments for these episodes), I think he would have accepted it. Oh, and as to this episode, count me with those who think this is maybe the best DS9 episode. Count me also with those who think Brooks is great here.

What an astounding episode this was. I would place it in the upper 1-2% in the great pantheon of all Star Trek television series. It was just tremendous. I was completely engrossed and absorbed from the opening scene. It's always fun to see Garak in his element, doing his thing, however, watching Sisko grapple with his ethics and code of honor was truly mesmerizing. In my opinion, this was DS9's finest hour.

Great episode - a study in moral dilemmas whilst reaffirming why Garak is the best character in the series, if not the franchise. The ending was great as well - glad Vreenak got blown up and Romulan steel could now be used as cannon fodder.

Possibly the most affecting episode I've watched of DS9. By the end I was getting choked up. Not just at the torture you could feel he went through but out of sadness seeing a beloved character knowingly put a little darkness in his soul for "the greater good". I agree with every word of Jammers review. I'd add that without all the other episodes that have built this world and these people it would not have been as emotionally jarring and draining as it was. Considering everything that happened this will sound strange, but this was a pure joy to watch. Absolute masterpiece.

Supersized Scott

I find it amazing that nearly 9 years after the original comment was made on this episode that we're here still talking about it with such intrigue. Whether you liked the episode or not, it certainly goes to the quality of the story that this has happened.

Garak knows what he is - truly self-actualized. And that makes him, in a way, the most admirable of the DS-9 regulars. I'm getting a bit tired of all the plot-lines with our heroes revealing themselves capable of doing questionable, sometimes even despicable things, and having the writers try to rehabilitate them with a few minutes of handwringing - and then on to the next episode. Kira was a murderous terrorist who killed innocents. Not long ago she interfered with an official investigation of serial murders to go off on her own, while carrying an innocent baby in her womb, on some half-cocked revenge mission. She survived only because some writer figured out how to have her eat some herbs that would counteract a sedative that would prevent the murderer from cutting a non-viable fetus out of her womb before killing her too. How can anyone argue that Sisko's not the obsessive type? His reckless pursuit of Eddington, and now this craziness with him deciding, unilaterally, that billions of a species need to be on his side of a war, or else.... And for someone who's supposed to be such a great dad, let's not forget he not only introduced, but left alone, his son to his mother's "mirror-universe" counterpart. Even if she didn't kidnap him and almost cause his death, who thought it was a good idea to let his son deal with that kind of psychological weight on his own? "Old" Odo erased the existence of 8000 people beause he "loved" Kira so much. Yikes. Later in another episode he's so jazzed up getting gooey with a Founder that he completely neglects his duty and nearly gets everyone killed. In what is considered to be the finest episode of the series, Jake is more than willing to make sure that the woman he befriends and shows his work to will never exist, along with an entire timeline of other people and events, just because he wants his Daddy back. This may be the most self-centered group of TV series regulars since the Seinfeld crew. But thank goodness there's Garak. He makes no pretense about getting what he wants at any cost. He knows what he is, and he's very, very good at it. In a way, he's the moral center of the show. :)

First of all, before I start criticising it, this episode is worth at least 3 or 3.5 on dramatic value. Issues: - it seems unbelievable that Starfleet, which has a whole intelligence division (as well as Section 31), would approve such a ridiculous and risky plan (Sisko relying on a couple of ne'er-do-wells) to get the Romulans into the war. The fact it does totally backfire underscores this further. If Garak hadn't murdered Vreenak, which isn't especially credible in and of itself (I'd have thought Romulans were meticulous about scanning their vessels for bombs, and Vreenak could easily have recorded and sent an encrypted communication about what happened on DS9 before his ship was blown up), then Federation-Romulan relations would have been massively damaged to the detriment of the Federation's war chances. It doesn't make sense that the Romulans were so reluctant to join the war anyway. With the destruction of the Tal Shiar and changeling infiltration on Romulus, they understood right from the start that the Dominion represented a threat to them. I know the Romulans are calculating and pragmatic but it doesn't make sense for them to sit back while the Dominion attacks their neighbours and gets stronger and stronger. The ep is all about Sisko's moral dilemma, but it lets him off the hook at the end by having Garak commit the murders without his explicit knowledge or consent. If Sisko had indeed had his way, the entire scheme would have collapsed causing massive damage. Garak does what needs to be done in the situation to save the day. Which is why Sisko's entitled ethical outrage at Garak is so hypocritical - and indeed, Garak points this out. But Garak's actions truly save the Alpha Quadrant here, and Sisko rewards him for it with two punches in the face. This is a good episode, for me I guess it's a 3.5, but I wanted to address those issues given the way the episode has been fetishised over and above the rest of the series for its "darkness". I really think Starfleet's intelligence, diplomatic and defence arms should have and would have had a much more professional approach to the Romulan situation rather than allowing Sisko to put everything at stake like this.

Other side notes: The choice of Betazed is perfect, and Avery Brooks's skilful yet nonchalant impression of his father is a wonderful little detail - the speech mannerisms are absolutely perfect and really invoke Joseph Sisko's presence. It's a joyful, warm moment in one of the series's heavier episodes. Also Garak's "it may explode" is hilarious.

It occurred to me that Garak may have already possessed a data rod and was using the opportunity to do a side deal on the biomimetic gel. Wouldn't put it past him.,

dave johnson

Yeah, no question. I doubt the writers were thinking that deeply; however, it was made pretty clear the he had the assinnation planned from the beginning and was not transparent. So, anything could have been concocted including him saying all his contacts were dead. That could have been a ruse to get Sisko to cross the line to allow him to implement his real plan. I would have loved a book written that did a fill out of this story. From Garak contacting his people in Cardassia, to getting the rod, finding Tolar (even a chapter on their history together), planting the bomb, what happened to the gel, etc. I remember B5 did one complete novel just around the episode where they had the Technomages show up on the station, and it was pretty awesome to get all the ruses and "magic" they were doing to be explained.

Interesting yes but truly shows Jammers cynicism and degrading contempt for a brighter future. I mean really .

Wonderful episode. Highlight for Avery Brooks whom I have criticized in the past for his acting skills. He conveys the sense of self-berayal extremely well here. Garak's attempt at 'relieving' the captain of guilt was anice touch by the writers. Everything else, Jammer already said in his fantastic review. I echo the sentiments of Tomás in his comments from.. errr.. 9 years ago on Jammer's site and reviews..

I agree that the episode rigged it so that Sisko's actions are absolved of any real repercussions. Yes, he didn't expose Garak's murders, but he had no proof of them even if he decided to. Starfelet approved the plan, so his career wasn't at stake, and everything else he did was not that bad given the situation (Janeway had done far worse).

An absolute masterpiece. Love that tough decisions were made, and that the RIGHT decisions were made. I'm watching DS9 & Voyager concurrently, and compared to the Voyager eps around the same time, Janeway makes utter terrible decisions. She's a boyscout who wants to placate every species 84-whatever, after it tries to end everyones lives, even if that means getting the Voyager crew killed. Loving the gritty realism here instead on DS9.

Quarkissnyder

I was relieved when he erased the diary entry in the end. The entire episode I was thinking, "What, they don't have hackers in the future?" It still seems like a big security risk that he even created the entry in the first place.

Yay!!! A script written to allow Brooks to showcase his "acting:" 1. Emphasize every syl-la-ble in random and unexpected ways 2. Randomly quiver your voice to simulate the hu-man emotions of "sadness" and "anger" 3. Make sure your eyes never match the emotion you're trying to convey with your mouth. 4. End your sentences like you're holding back ejaculation. 5. Repeat. Garak shines as always.

Vulcan Logick

Just finished this episode again. Man it's powerful and badass. Jammer nails it perfectly in his review but I have to give props to Garaks character. The series in general does a good job with his complexity and cunning shadyness but this episode really highlights it. The way he orchestrates the series of events leading the Romulans entry into the war with a false flag operation is brilliant. The guy is like a magician and I enjoy him a lot in the series. Alright "his way" awaits

@William B I don't think Bajor is a "power" at all. Them joining the Federation would really make no difference. It's not really fair to call it playing favorites, since Bajor and Romulan Empire are not in the same position. I also don't believe Sisko before the war would be willing to go as far as this Sisko, who has been fighting a hopeless war for over a year. @Luke "when somebody takes Kirk and turns him into a petulant, little, narcissistic man-child" No argument there. "Spock into a whiny momma's boy" Because... He's angry his mom died? It's not like Spock was never shown to be sensitive on the subject of his mother. Given how much of Trek focuses on Daddy-son relationships, negative or positive (seriously, old as balls Jake changed decades long timeline to save his dad but Spock is somehow worse), deep bond between mother and son is precisely what it needs, especially given how easily disposed Kirk's mom is (IMO, fiction in general has or at least used to have pretty fucked up double standart regarding father-son and mother-son relationships). Admittedly, it could have done better than to just kill said mother off but that's besides the point. "and a creepy perv who sleeps with his students while he's teaching at the Academy" Admittedly, it is questionable, but they are both adults. I could see Spock trusting himself to have his objectivity as a teacher unaffected. "Scotty into little more than comedic relief" That's really not much more than he was in TOS or movies. At least Into Darkness used him as a moral center. "Uhura into a foul-mouthed whore who literally sleeps her way to the top" Okay, the hell is wrong with you? She didn't sleep her way to the top, she had a relationship with her teacher, yeah, but the movie made a point that she had qualification for the job and her relationship with Spock actually almost prevented her from getting it. And it's made clear she cares deeply for Spock (or what, was her comforting him in turbolift while crying supposed to be part of the facade). @JC Well, unlike Section 31, Sisko had Starfleet's blessing, while they claim to answer to nobody. And at least Sisko's decisions came out of desperation, while them doing these things we are told is their modus operandi. There is a difference. And given how deeply troubled Sisko is in this and we are shown this all started as pretty innocent plan to just reveal already existing plan of Dominion invasion, I don't think this is 180 turn between episodes, it's at least 180 turn through out this episode. @Peter G That is a different situation tho. If anything, Kirk was preventing war by doing it, since he was only making sure people who attacked them unprovoked wouldn't have decisive tactical advantage. Still, hard to say what Kirk would do in the face of Federation's destruction and Alpha Quadrant under the rule of a fascist empire....

{ By giving Sisko "their blessing," Starfleet has essentially condoned one officer to lie, cheat, bribe, and cover up the truth. I see that as much more challenging than the idea of Section 31. } Why is that worse than condoning many many people doing similar questionable things?

"{ By giving Sisko "their blessing," Starfleet has essentially condoned one officer to lie, cheat, bribe, and cover up the truth. I see that as much more challenging than the idea of Section 31. } Why is that worse than condoning many many people doing similar questionable things?" You don't see an inherent difference between the philosophy of a black ops organization and the Federation's primary forces? Clearly one of these organizations is more in line with public opinion.

People who hate DS9 are too used to the TNG paradigm - encounter resistance, shields at 30%, we will not compromise who we are, perhaps we can learn to co-exist, take us out of here warp 6 (the comfortable warp speed). DS9 shows you don't always have that luxury of moving on, you don't always wrap things up in 45mins - sorry every episode doesn't end with alien jellyfish embracing. The federation was built by people who wanted a better existence and the Dominion threaten that by going against everything the federation said no to (eugenics, domination etc) This episode is a major arc for Sisko, whether he realizes it or not, he has become Eddington. Quark quotes Rule of Acquisition 98 - every man has his price - Eddington's price were a bunch of displaced colonists, Sisko's is the Alpha Quadrant. Was what he did right? Depends. If you're religious then your God sets the morality, if you're not then some charter simply replaces a holy book. From a benthamite utilitarian aspect, Sisko did the right thing - the lives of a few Romulans, a criminal and Garak's contacts were worth dispensing with to turn the tide of a war that that by Bashir & co's predictions would have eventually claimed 9 billion lives. But the slippery slope is that once you say "just this once" it's harder to stick to that and your precedents can eventually have you acting in the same way as the great evil you originally intended to defeat for the sake of peace. The fact that DS9 invokes such thought and debate shows why it is the best Trek. TNG was too much of a rinse repeat idealistic fap-fest. Compare TOS to TNG and you see that unfortunately great creators in the old age become a bit more starry eyed and out of touch like Lucas with the original Star Wars trilogy compared to the prequels. TNG fanboys seem to think only DS9 isn't Trek for its "shades of grey" but I question how closely they watched TOS. Of course they retort "but by TNG we has evolved!" honestly, rewind history 400 years right now and tell me the people then were really *that* different than they are now. Why do you think the bible continues to be the most read, sold and translated book? Because the way people acted thousands of years before Christ has parallels even today. Cultures change, tech improves but humans at their core don't shift as much as TNG fanboys and Roddenberry 2.0 would like you to believe. Contest this? Best of both worlds, Worf and Data passed over as first officer for Shelby because it was war time against a formidable foe. Was that fair? I don't think so but I'm sure TNG fanboys will defend every single action and sentence in that series as being inspired by god Roddenberry while even the finest episodes of DS9 are not really Trek because of "shades of grey". Face it, when you can't warp 6 away from your problems after 45 mins with a nice "supplemental" about how much you've learnt you get DS9 and since no TNG fanboys can resolve all their real world problems on their lunchbreak and warp 6 away to the next adventure, they should realize how great DS9 is. "But 24th century we has evolved!" *smacks head*

Steve Finlay

I haven't read all the comments, so I apologize if this has already been noted: The frame of the story is nearly identical to the frame of the opera Billy Budd, by Benjamin Britten. In that opera, the frame is used to show that Captain Vere CANNOT live with the memory. I think it has the same meaning in this episode.

Startrekwatcher

3.5 stars I thought it was a well done episode. I liked how there was the fundamental shift in the war with the huge development of the Romulans joining the war. The Romulans are a bit obtuse if they believed that the Dominion wouldn't eventually go after them. Maybe not at the moment. But once they defeated the Federation and Klingons of course they'd turn their sights to those who signed nonaggression pacts like the Romulans and Tholians. The Dominion only agreed to the treaty to clear the field as much as possible. So joining the war now would give the Romulans the greatest chance of victory by throwing their lot in with the other powerful Alpha Quadrant players rather than waiting til after the Federation and Klingons were defeated then facing Dominion all alone I also loved the fact that a planet like Betazed we know and isn't a throwaway world is conquered by the Dominion. And Kira's comment about the Jem'Hadar now being just a stones throw away from key worlds as Vulcan, Andor and Tellar really sent home the bad way the war was going for the good guys I thought the visual of the Romulan ship's arrival was well done--Sisko sending up the landing pad then It was coming down with nothing then the ship decloaking. Makes sense that the Romulans wouldn't want the Dominion to know of their meeting with the Federation I generally don't have an issue with Aveey Brooks' acting but some of it in his log recording scenes was a bit much Overall I thought it was a solid episode. I don't see it as quite the classic many do. I'm not one to view Trek in a special bubble so don't give it extra credit for simply doing something radical in Roddenberry's universe I judge it just like I would any other program. So didn't find it as compelling or as dark which tends to be why some love it to pieces. Still it's a very involving hour in the Dominion arc

@Real Ric TNG is a late 80's wholesome Sci-Fi show that had trappings of its times. The dream of evolved human beings was subsequently overwritten. The TNG fan boys are optimists and we do need them in our dark world to plot a future ahead as we're stuck In the Pale Moonlight, we live a world with terrorism, fundamentalism, fanaticism, racism, elitism, and all the worst that mankind has created. We want to rise above all this and seek strange new worlds, but to do that, we must face some ugly truths, not everyone is Captain Picard or Janeway, most are Kirk and Sisko, soldiers fighting for a better way of life while mired in the war. @Chrome Why can't it be both? People know the CIA can be nasty and grotesque, they know the NSA is spying on them, and yet, they accept it still believing in Justice, Liberty, and Freedom in the US. Realistically, we gave up our moral high ground, but perspectively, we believe we're still right for compromising it. Section 31 and Sisko's actions are nothing more than what people have come to accept from our own intelligence agencies or military officers. If DS9 were produced in 207, this episode should have had a follow-up post dominion war. I'd love to think that Jake Sisko would discover this truth about his father and Garak's dealings, then pull a Snowden on both of them. Ultimately, the revelation in the 24th century as such revelations in 21st century, are meaningless, because We, the people, have accepted this reality (and our own acceptance also leads to denial into the Trump Administration's era)

"Why can't it be both? People know the CIA can be nasty and grotesque, they know the NSA is spying on them, and yet, they accept it still believing in Justice" I don't think those two agencies have anything to do with each other, which shows how little the common person actually knows how they operate. The army, on the other hand, gives a news story at least once a week. That's the difference.

Chrome, Those two agencies don't need to have anything to do with each other. The point seems to be that there are various nefarious things that go on in a "free" country and the people who accept it haven't sacrificed their idea that their country stands for justice. For my part it raises the question of what underlies that sense of justice still existing. Is it that justice isn't black and white and can include compromises, or is it more an issue of doublethink, where people can pretend anything they like, even contradictory things, in order to get by? From my reading of this episode, I think Sisko is alluding more to the latter, where he decides in the end that he must live with it and that he'll accept his actions as somehow being concordant with his values. On the one hand he knows he's guilty, but on the other he's decided to accept the belief that he's not and not to live wracked with guilt. I think the point of the episode isn't so much that there's really no such thing as justice, but rather that slow compromises in justice can be justified using all kinds of doublethink, and that this can lead to a progression towards what the Cardassians ended up being. They, too, feel that they serve justice, even though their version of it is by this point so distorted that it reads to us as Nazism. The lesson to me isn't that there isn't really any true morality, but rather that terrible events like wars cause an erosion in morality and that this can turn a good people bad.

"Those two agencies don't need to have anything to do with each other. The point seems to be that there are various nefarious things that go on" And my point is there's a difference between a classified agency and a standing force. That's why the CIA is different than the army. That's why Section 31 is different than Starfleet. The one that publishes its activities and lets the public react and complain to their elected officials (take the Vietnam War or even the War in Iraq as a good example) are the agencies that are more accountable. Getting back to Trekker's original line, it's obviously not Starfleet's regular course of business to lie, cheat, and bribe. That's part of why Sisko is so disturbed here.

Chrome, I see no reason to expect the CIA and the army to be held to different standards of morality based on which conducts more secret operations. The CIA's activities may be less public but they are still supposed to have oversight and to obey American and international law. It may be *easier* for them not to, but that's beside the point. Both the CIA and the army conduct black ops, secret missions, and do thing the general public doesn't know about. Both do things that would outrage the public, and both are supposedly under the control of the executive, which in turn is supposed to implement the law. The point here isn't which agency is more accountable as they're both supposed to be accountable. If one of them isn't anymore that's good evidence that Trekker is right and that people have accepted things that are bad but still believe justice is being upheld. In practice your comparison between Section 31 and the CIA is probably apt. But in principle it's not, because Section 31 isn't even supposed to exist, while the CIA is but goes beyond its legal mandate. Your suggestion was the the army going over the line would be more challenging than hearing about the CIA going over the line because maybe we sort of expect that from clandestine organizations, but again in practice I don't think you're right. People know all about various atrocities the military can do and it always blows over. They accept it, ignore it, or even allow it because the military is overall judged as being a force for good. With the CIA, though, most people barely know what it does and almost treat it like a spooky ghost story, like something from the movies with little reality to it. They're not concerned with the CIA for much the same reason the Federation citizens probably don't care about Section 31 - because they're not exposed to what they do. I think they'd be FAR more outraged to learn about secret black ops things (in the case of Section 31, of genocide!!) than to learn what they more or less already know, which is that the military occasionally does bad things like using banned weapons or torturing prisoners. The latter is practically old hat already. In the world of Star Trek it's a bit different because Starfleet isn't like that normally, but in the case of a war to the death I think they'd much more easily understand the rules of morality being bent than they would a shadow organization that accepts no rules whatsoever.

"I see no reason to expect the CIA and the army to be held to different standards of morality based on which conducts more secret operations." This isn't my point, but it sounds like an interesting topic for you to discuss with someone.

@N - If you think any of Sisko's actions had Starfleet clearance, then you would be wrong. One of the things that becomes startlingly clear by the final season of DS9 is that hardly anyone on Earth even knows Sisko is in command of DS9. Sisko gets all his "clearance" from just one man - Admiral Ross. And we all know that Ross has unofficially sanctioned Sisko to do Whatever it Takes to get the job done, Federation Charter and Prime Directive be damned.

@Jakob M. Mokoru I agree that "For the Uniform" showed Sisko making significantly worse decisions than in this episode. In this episode, it was easy to agree with his final conclusion, that the ends justify the means. But In "For the Uniform", I was mostly rooting for Eddington, which considering how grandiose he was acting and the fact that I never particularly cared for him on DS9, was a tall order. @Mat This may be overrated, but I think I would definitely include it in my top 10 DS9 episodes, which is not too shabby, considering how many total episodes there are. And I honestly wouldn't ever be able to put them in a definitive order, because different episodes are great for different reasons. This could be my favorite, or number 10, depending on my mood. That's one of the interesting things about DS9. I think it leaves more room for personal interpretation of the quality of various episodes than some of the other Treks. At least for the episodes at the top. I think a consensus on the top 5 TNG or top 5 VOY episodes would be easier to reach than one for the top 5 DS9 eps. Because we're all looking for different things, coming from a show that does a lot of different things, and includes way more grey characters and storylines than is customary for Trek. For me, DS9 is almost always at it's best when it focuses on the large story arcs, and this one is quite a turning point in the Dominion war, but yet also has more character revelation/development than most other episodes. I also love character stuff, like Duet and Waltz. Plus, I tend to like episodes with a strong focus on Garak a lot, especially when he's putting his sinister talents to good use. He's the most interesting character on the show, for me. I can't think of many other DS9 episodes that left me with so much to think about after they ended. And I just can't shake the last two scenes. The acting between Sisko and Garak when Sisko learns of the "real" plan is awesome. @Dan "'All it cost was the life of one romulan senator and one criminal.' I guess the 4 Romulan body guards don't count... " I thought the same thing! Also, whoever was hurt of killed by whatever the biomimetic gel was used for! They said it would likely be biological weapons or illegal experiments. @Marco P. "It is not only Star Trek's idealism (as envisioned by Roddenberry) that we are going against here, but MORALITY in general. A Jean-Luc Picard, despite perhaps being forced to choose the same path and sacrifice a few for the greater good of the many, would have commented on the moral ambiguity of this choice, stating something along the lines 'only time will tell if our choice was the right one... but at what price?' Sisko on the other hand, seems to accept the moral burden on his conscience far too easily, in a a way that is unbecoming of a StarFleet officer and even more so of a Trek lead character." I agree with you, that Sisko has stepped out of the realm of morality in this episode. I thought he did so to an even greater degree in "For the Uniform", due to his poisoning of that planet, even if no one died thanks to the evacuation. It was still a shitty thing to do. I think the point is that Sisko simply is not as moral a man as Picard. I don't accept that it's just the circumstances he finds himself in that makes him less moral than Picard. I believe Picard would have done more to find another way. Still, that doesn't make Sisko an evil man. He's just... grey. Like Kira, like Odo, like Quark, and like (the darker grey) Kai Winn, Gul Dukat, and Garak. Sisko is not an almost perfectly moral man, like our normal Star Trek heroes. But it may he that a completely moral man couldn't have made it all these years on Deep Space 9. He's working with and dealing with a LOT of morally ambiguous people and situations all the time. I like Sisko, but unlike Picard or Janeway, I don't look to him to be the moral compass of the show. And in fact, it's a bit difficult to find a moral compass on this show. Do any of the characters hold up to moral scrutiny?? I think this is why I tend to say DS9 is my third favorite of the Big Three Treks (TNG, VOY, DS9). It has lots of good episodes, more compelling arcs, and more layered characters. . . so why do I have less underlying affection for it? I guess I just really enjoy spending (viewing) time with some honest to god heroes and good guys, and the other Treks are chock full of them. Since DS9 claims to be Star Trek, I judge its characters based on lofty moral expectations, and they often come up short. I mean, I would say the main DS9 characters are all more moral than the Battlestar Galactica characters, for example. So I'm not calling them bad guys. But they're not "Star Trek" good.

Wow. Just wow. The ending blew me away. It's like the ending of "The Usual Suspects". When an episode leaves you thinking for hours after it's over, you know you've got a masterpiece. The whole idea of Sisko's personal log narration is brilliant. I'm not a fan of Brooks' acting but when he's doing his monologue, he's just himself and he comes across as very real. But when he huffs and puffs and chews scenery the rest of the time, that's where he fails as an actor. But in his ending when he sits on his couch, crosses his legs and says "I can live with it" and erases his recording -- it's one of the most powerful moments in all of Trek. This is brilliant stuff. Every step Sisko takes, he piles on the terrible deeds. Garak is terrific here -- we know he's a very shady character but Robinson's performance is awesome and the character exceeds expectations with the bombing of the Romulan shuttle. Have to wonder if Garak new the Cardassian rod would be found out to be a fraud so he decides to plant the bomb anyway. This is the right way to show the dark side of the Federation as opposed to what Discovery is doing. This episode was just so compelling from start to finish. We know humans in real life will stoop to very low levels when things get really bad, but to see that on Sisko's level was something else. I hope people don't take his deeds too seriously and think they can get away with being an accessory to murder etc. for some potential greater good. Sisko's journey to hell dwarfs anything Kirk, Picard, Janeway or Archer had to do. As for the "It's a fake!" -- I didn't know how bad things would get there -- prior to that you could cut the tension with a knife. Vreenkak, the Romulan senator, rightly comes across as an asshole and this also adds to the drama. And as for Sisko's confrontation with Garak in the end...incredibly well thought out to put all these pieces together. Easily 4 stars for "In the Pale Moonlight" -- for me, edges out "Duet" as the best DS9 episode. No contrivances, no technobabble, just real stuff about Sisko going down the road to hell with good intentions. The monologue was perhaps the best acting Brooks has done on DS9. A DS9 classic and one of the best hours of Trek.

Pierre Poirier

I can't remember if this episode was that controversial. I remember being stunned and completely fascinated by this episode back when it was first aired. They say the first casualty of war is truth. Well, this is a perfect exemple of it. This is to this day, my favorite, not DS9 episode, but trek episode. i rewatched it a few days ago. And the conclusion brings tears to my eyes. Here is a man, who did something taht, to hios face, was evil. But that ultimately can live with it, because he did it for the greater good. it is not Roddenberry Trek. So what ? This is great STar Trek.

I'm watching this favorite episode once again and had something click into place for me that I never saw before. Garak is first approached by Sisko to develop a plan to bring the Romulans into the war, and the type of plan Sisko requests is that Garak ask an informant to supply proof of Dominion duplicity. Garak appears to agree to try this plan...but does he really? The next piece of news we hear is that, to the shock of everyone, Betazed has fallen to the Dominion Three days later Garak reports, with unperturbed composure, that all operatives contacted by him were killed by Dominion security within a day of speaking with him. His mention of Dominion efficiency at first suggests that Garak is as cool a customer as they come, sardonic in the face of terrible results, and that's how I always read the scene. However right after this he outlines a new plan he's come up with since the old one had failed, which is to bring Vreenak to the station to show him a forged data crystal. Garak assures Sisko that he can arrange for both the forgery and for the Senator to agree, but only if the invitation comes from Sisko himself. Garak also knew in advance that Sisko would never have the stomach for something that Starfleet would refuse to back, and here comes the kicker: When Sisko mentions that Starfleet would have to approve such a plan Garak immediately reminds him that since Betazed has just fallen Starfleet will no doubt be amenable to such a plan where they might not have been before. Consider this: Betazed apparently fell so easily because the fleet guarding it happened to be away on training exercises, leaving the planetary system undefended. This is a pretty crazy thing to hear when one stops to think about it. It's a real wtf moment. They literally went off to train and lost a key star system for nothing within a day? That's not just a disaster, it's outrageous. To be honest I'd never given it much thought before. Just how did the Dominion get so lucky as to attack a key system that was normally defended at such a time as the fleet was away? The episode doesn't even address this question, and you'd think that the first thought would be that there was a Founder behind it or something like that, but the writers avoid discussing it altogether for some reason. It only clicked for me now for the first time after having seen this episode umpteen times. Here's the timeline: -Sisko approaches Garak to bring Romulus into the war. -Garak mentions that NO ONE wants the Dominion stopped more than him. -Betazed falls due to the Dominion magically knowing a fleet was momentarily out of position. -Garak presents a plan to Sisko that Starfleet would never had approved unless they had just lost a key system. There's no certainty here, but this explanations seems to me to fit better than any other: Garak knew that to approach him Sisko must be desperate. Garak knew of the training exercise, fed the Dominion the information necessary for them to easily capture Betazed, lied to Sisko about having tried to contact agents who then died, and presented to him what had been the real plan all along, knowing that Sisko basically had no choice but to accept. And the reason Garak required Sisko to go along with all this is because Vreenak would never have gone anywhere near Garak or the station unless someone as credible as Sisko invited him. The beauty of it is that Garak's plan had outstanding chances for success since realistically all that he needed to accomplish was (a) getting past security on Vreenak's ship, and (b) keeping Sisko from losing his head during the process. These were both reasonable things for him to expect he could do, and so giving away Betazed - as crazy as it sounds - would have been a safe sacrifice to make with immense potential returns. He had probably already concluded, as Jack and the mutants had, that without a decisive turn of events the war was unwinnable by the Federation, and so from that perspective even if the gambit had been a longshot it would still be better than nothing. It makes sense, but I'm wondering whether I'm connecting imaginary dots or whether the writers meant to imply this. If so then it was very subtle, but the clue is when Garak conspicuously mentions Betazed to Sisko right after telling him in a nonchalant manner that Sisko's version of the plan had failed.

Peter, I just rewatched this last week and I'm dumbfounded by your interpretation. It never occurred to me before but damn it makes sense. What does the director's commentary say?

I checked the script, and it looks like Garak was supposed to be "unusually subdued" during the scene where he informs Sisko all his informants were killed. Thus, I think this *might* be a rare case of Robinson not delivering his lines properly. We're also missing a piece of information for Peter's interpretation to work. Why would Garak know about the activity of Betazoid and also what would make him even think that would get Starfleet to accept his plan? Someone's probably thinking "Garak's a spy, he can get access to any records!", but without any indication Garak was fiddling with a Federation console or something, that speculation seems dubious at best. So, while I really agree Peter's interpretation is interesting, I think the showrunners were trying to tell us that the Dominion was so powerful, even Garak's usually handy abilities were initially thwarted.

I don't think Garak was responsible for the loss of Betazed. But, I do agree with what "Neil in LA" wrote above, that there is a good chance that Garak's plan was always the death of the Romulan ambassador; the alleged deaths of his informants may have only been a story Garak told Sisko to prepare him for the real plan. In this case the fall of Betazed would have been helpful to his plan, though he wouldn't have been the cause of it.

If I was Dax I'd be very suspicious. You, Sisko and others discuss how much a pain the Romulans are. Then in his office you go through a whole role play with him on how to bring them into the war, a role play in which it becomes crystal clear that something needs to happen before the Romulans will change their stance. A few days go by, and by an apparent remarkable coincidence an assassination that seems likely to bring the Romulans into the war happens, and instead of reacting like everyone else Sisko mysteriously storms off wordlessly on hearing the news. Hmm... On a separate note, even if the Senator had been taken in by the recording, how could the plan ever have involved Tolar staying alive? Garak obviously planned to kill him all along but what did Sisko plan to do? "He believed it, Tolar. You're free to go... Obviously don't tell anyone. The entire future of the war depends on you keeping quiet. Even if we win, the Romulans will go apeshit and attack us if they ever find out. You're not the kind of person to do anything unscrupulous and blurt it out are you? The sort who is reckless after a few drinks?" "Course I'm not! See you!"

The Sisko talks to the camera and acts overly-dramatic again shitshow.

Sleeper Agent

This is so amazingly, freakin', ass-kickin' good that it's beyond words.

Garak sold the biomimetic gel to Bashir's Lethian. Case closed.

Really disliked the monologues. As for plot: I'm on team Elliott. Sisko does what he want to get what he wants. Not so shocking. I did like how Garak played with Sisko and the final plot was nice. Two stars.

I remember watching this episode when it first aired. It was scary. It is easy to forget that back then DS9 was the only show dealing with the Federation in the Alpha quadrant. It was all new... there was no safety net of being a prequel and knowing "Kirk, Picard, etc. will all exist". There was a real fear that the Romulans could join the Dominion. It was all unknown. DS9 was definitely not playing by the usual rules of trek at the time. Today, serialized shows that routinely shake up the status quo are the norm. So it is easy to forget or overlook how different DS9 truly was from trek and the typical TV fare of the 90s. (Also great that these reviews were written as the episodes aired) This episode scared me, in a good way, for the future of the trek franchise. It was boldly going into uncharted waters. I miss that with current trek.

The final monologue referenced by Jammer is on Youtube. Watching it again, I was struck by Sisko saying he CAN live with it. But get this - Sisko joins the Prophets at the end of the series. He now has, presumably, immortality. So can his conscience last for eternity, regardless of the circumstances?

I understood Sisko's phrase "I CAN live with it" as one that introduces serious doubts about whether it was actually the right thing to do. If he was really sure he was morally in the right, he wouldn't have been going over it in his mind as he does throughout the episode. But as humans do, he is prone to try and justify it to himself, completely in private, almost as a style of confession. This is part of the reason this is one of the best DS9 episodes. If it had just been a straightforward story without the recollection aspect it wouldn't have held that same status.

"If there's one thing I've learned over the years, it's that bad news invariably comes in the middle of the night." So, so true.

(SPOILERS IN THIS POST) Hi! It was a great episode. But would it not have been protocol for Senator Vreenak to report the fake attempt on Starfleet’s behalf to force them to enter the Dominion War as soon as realised the deception? Meaning, he would have reported it via subspace communication BEFORE getting on his ship to Romulus, or as soon as he boarded at least. Therefore, explaining the ruse before he was killed in the destruction of his shuttle? (I know it ruins the episode if you think about it that way, but it is a pretty big plot hole)

@PayRise: "It's best not to dwell on such minutae." - Garak :)

Greg L. Turnquist

This is my favorite DS9 episode, possibly favorite episode of the entire ST franchise. The way it depicts Sisko in such an anti-hero fashion. With such a believable twist of character driven by the threat of war. Well...you have already captured that. But the fact that it cuts away the ensemble cast and lets Robinson and Avery have the full stage makes it a high quality play. Seeing the back and forth between Garek and Sisko gives me fuzzies. Everytime I rewatch DS9, I can't help but get excited in every episode which they place Garek. The acting is incredible. Compare that with something like Smallville, where the only "good" acting was the actor portraying Lex. The creator of DS9, Ira Behr, had always felt TOS and TNG were too "pure" and wanted a different environment. One subject to breakdowns and frailties. Well this episode really shines in depicting such a realistic visage. That combined with the Section 31 episodes + the moral ambiguities shown with Gul Dukat makes for a relishing series that quickly erased any initial concerns of "how can they create a Star Trek without a starship???"

Tour de force for me. I will watch this again, oh yes, and Garak is simply one of the best characters in all trek. That final scene with him and Sisko ....... Oh for a modern version of DS9.

Watching and commenting: --An intriguing beginning: " I was going to bring the Romulans into the war." --It's spooky, the way Sisko's talking right to me. --Ah, Garak, a man with a plan. --Quark lays it right on the line: "Every man has his price." --Huh. Talk of having to "forget the whole enterprise." Or is that meant to be "Enterprise," with a capital E? Because I have a feeling we are going to be "forgetting the Enterprise." --Sisko talks to Senator Vreenak like he's trying to seduce him. --Good job building tension. "It's a fake!!" --The Dominion assassinated Vreenak?? Uh, I don't think so. Yep. I agree, Ben. It was Garak. --Robinson is great. "That's why you came to me." --A good premise, a good ep . . . the presentation . . . with Ben talking to us, it doesn't entirely work. Overall, a wonderful, provoking way to make progress in the war-story, which has been suffering from little attention for many eps. The story itself, with its suspense and twists and turns, was top knotch.

@Springy, "--Huh. Talk of having to "forget the whole enterprise." Or is that meant to be "Enterprise," with a capital E? Because I have a feeling we are going to be "forgetting the Enterprise."" Ha! Great catch. I also think the target of Betazed was maybe thematically important, because of its tie to TNG and to Deanna. Obviously it is a longstanding, well established world.... But it fits this ep. There's a certain...TNG sensibility associated with Deanna's presence on the bridge, the idea of emotional openness and peace. Betazed with its weddings in the nude and open minds and peace and ship's counsellors are now (thematically) off the table. Time for cloak and dagger, lies, murder and secret confessionals to an impersonal log, never to be seen.

@William B --Ah, yes, the capture of Betazed signifying an end to the warm fuzzies, for the Federation. I like that thought a lot. --Here's the exchange I referred to: GARAK (referring to the gel for Tolar ): . . . I'm afraid we either give him what he wants or forget the whole enterprise.  SISKO: Then let's forget about it . . . Interesting, huh? Almost reads as Sisko is giving Garak am OK to "forget the Enterprise" since this thing with Tolar can't work. And it can't. And he does "forget the Enterprise," so to speak, planting the bomb, and suggests that's exactly why Sisko recruited him. Another ep ripe for a deeper analysis. Makes me miss doing that sorta thing. The 4 yr old starts kindergarten this Sep . . .

Betazed here was originally supposed to be Vulcan, but one of the higher-ups (Behr or Berman) nixed the idea, saying it was a step too far.

I think Vulcan and Betazed would serve similar purposes -- both as longstanding Federation planets, and as symbols of Federation values (logic, openness) that are threatened by the Dominion (and which the increasingly panicked Sisko loses over the course of the ep).

Am I the only one bothered by the complete lack of logic in this episode?? 1. In the holo meeting, it would not make sense for the Dominion-Cardassia to attack the Romulans while still in fighting with the Federation and Klingons. Furthermore, it would not make sense for the Romulans not to wait 3 weeks to find out if this info was correct, because at that time the Federation and Klingons would still be in the fighting. And It would not make sense that Sisko didn't realize that. 2. It would not make sense for Vreenak to inform Sisko that he knows it's a fake. 3. It would not make sense for Vreenak not to send a message to his gov the moment he left DS9. (I think that the explanation that he and the head of the Tal-Shiar were rivals is not clarified). 4. It would not make sense that Sisko would allow Garak to risk being captured inside Vreenak's shuttle just to get some info, when he believes that it's absolutely vital to be in Vreenak's favor. 5. It would not make sense that the Romulans would never post guards inside a shuttle. 6. It would not make sense that the Romulan gov would not know about Vreenak's making a stop at DS9 or at least that about his course change (or deduce it). 7. It doesn't make sense that Vreenak would not demand any answers regarding the method of obtaining the rod, because verifying its authenticity is too important to both sides so it outweighs any espionage revelation. 8. It would not make sense that the Dominion was aware of Garak's contacting his old friends on Cardassia, and not use it to (try to) prove what happened. 9. It doesn't make sense that the rod was readable after the explosion, and that this fact did not rose suspicion. 10. It doesn't make sense that the Dominion-Cardassians would have recorded such a sensitive meeting. 11. It would not make sense that Dax wouldn't have figured what happened anyway, as she knows what the original plan was. 12. It doesn't make sense that they say that only 2 men have been killed (forgetting the body-guards). I think that the creators may have done that purpose, as a way of saying don't lie. On that note, if it was certain that the Dominion was planning to attack the Romulans, then fabricating this evidence doesn't seems so harmful or deceitful toward them.

"2. It would not make sense for Vreenak to inform Sisko that he knows it's a fake." There are multiple possibilities. First of all, why not? If it's a fake, he's not going to enter into an alliance with the Federation. Simple as that. Sisko will know if Vreenak knows anyway. Second of all, it's possible that Vreenak doesn't know whether it's a fake or not, and he's doing it to gage Sisko's reaction. This fits with what we know about Garak's considerable talents in forgery and the Romulans' deception. "1. In the holo meeting, it would not make sense for the Dominion-Cardassia to attack the Romulans while still in fighting with the Federation and Klingons. Furthermore, it would not make sense for the Romulans not to wait 3 weeks to find out if this info was correct, because at that time the Federation and Klingons would still be in the fighting. And It would not make sense that Sisko didn't realize that." The entire point of the episode is that the rod, combined with the supposed assassination of Vreenak is what pushes the Romulans over the edge. Regardless of whether the attack plan makes sense, the fact that this senator who was holding a rod was killed in this manner looks extremely suspicious. "8. It would not make sense that the Dominion was aware of Garak's contacting his old friends on Cardassia, and not use it to (try to) prove what happened. " Big assumption: Garak actually contacted people on Cardassia. A major theory regarding this episode is that Garak lied about his contacts dying to Sisko. The evidence? Twofold. Firstly, Garak tells Sisko to give a speech to Vreenak with the whole 'many good men died to get this rod' schtick. Which is exactly what Garak would be doing if he were lying to Sisko about his contacts. Secondly, Garak's entire character. Lying is what he does, as established in "Improbable Cause"/"The Die is Cast". And I seriously doubt he'd risk getting everyone he knows on Cardassia killed. "10. It doesn't make sense that the Dominion-Cardassians would have recorded such a sensitive meeting. " They didn't, because it was a fake lie. Again, the main reason this pushed the Romulans into the war was the rod combined with Vreenak's assassination. It actually does make sense that the Romulans would rush into the war were one of their citizens killed-that's what great powers do. It all may seem too convenient that they buy into this-the Romulans are schemers, after all. And yet we've seen time and time again in the TNG era the Romulans being outwitted by the Federation. Since they can't ever actually succeed, they pretty much fail at everything they try to accomplish. Perhaps they're not as smart as they think they are. "9. It doesn't make sense that the rod was readable after the explosion, and that this fact did not rose suspicion. " This is applying real-world logic to a highly fictionalized setting. Sure, the episode asks us to believe a rod can survive an explosion, but it also asks us to believe a ship can fly faster than the speed of light. This is hardly the worst thing in a Trek episode. The episode asks us to believe it, and I can. "4. It would not make sense that Sisko would allow Garak to risk being captured inside Vreenak's shuttle just to get some info, when he believes that it's absolutely vital to be in Vreenak's favor. " No, but considering Sisko knows Garak was a member of the Obsidian Order, one of the most formidable intelligence agencies in the galaxy, I think he trusts him not to get caught. "11. It would not make sense that Dax wouldn't have figured what happened anyway, as she knows what the original plan was. " She doesn't believe Sisko is possible of such a thing (before this episode, he didn't either, unless you bring up "For the Uniform", which is a whole other can of worms), and she doesn't know about Garak's involvement. I could go on, but I'll just say that most of these are iffy, and less gaping than the holes you could poke in other Trek episodes, which have never been known for their tremendous logical coherence (as @Quarkissnyder aptly put it). Add that to the fact that plot holes/nitpicks really don't matter all that much unless they're gaping, and I really don't have a problem with anything about this episode (But your mileage may vary. I have a high suspension of disbelief in general, but particularly for Star Trek-people have poked holes in every classic Trek episode, from "The Inner Light" to "The Visitor" to "Yesterday's Enterprise". A the end of the day, the entire franchise requires a high suspension of disbelief. That's my reasoning). In fact, my opinion is the opposite of yours-I think this story has fewer plot holes than the vast majority of Trek episodes. But I respect your opinion nonetheless.

Out of all of these, the only thing that bothers me is that we are to assume Vreenak boarded his shuttle without any communication with Romulus and Garak's plan *depended* on that. It may be because this episode was a product of its time, while nowadays you can imagine Vreenak hopping on his mobile and texting "Dominion plan to attack us? FAKE NEWS! You should've seen Sisko's face, LOL!" Or - it was such sensitive information that Vreenak wasn't 100% sure it was a fake and didn't want to leak anything about it and risk someone tapping his line. I guess they could've tidied that bit up, but you know, the limitations of a 42 minute runtime.

“Should've seen Sisko’s face”, LOL. Out of your objections to my criticisms, only 1.5 are plausible. One of them is Vreenak’s fake outrage. It does goes well with him telling the bodyguard to leave the room before announcing it, and also with Garak’s not admitting at the end that the forgery was substandard, just that ‘any imperfections will be attributed to the explosion’. Yet, this possibility doesn’t sink my criticism, as there are much better ways to induce truth telling than simply announcing it and expecting the liar to conform. Just ask Garak, haha. The other one is that this was Garak’s plan from the beginning and that he lied that his contacts were dead. But this lie would be simple enough to detect; and it doesn’t serve a purpose because following the true plan from the beginning would save time. Regarding the other objections, they say in principle that there are other episodes with bigger holes. But one must differentiate between buying into the premise of the series (i.e., few hundred years into the future, faster than light travel is possible, time travel etc.) and assuming that people don’t react as they would have in “real life”. When you incorporate time travel into the story, you are almost bound to run into the grandfather paradox, so you can’t blame the creators for not dealing with it well, as it is a paradox. But you can’t expect people to do unexplained things, such as ignoring the complete unreasonableness of an evidence or not acting on one’s race’s best interest (by immediately contacting the gov). (I appreciate your comments to my comment, though)

"Regarding the other objections, they say in principle that there are other episodes with bigger holes. But one must differentiate between buying into the premise of the series (i.e., few hundred years into the future, faster than light travel is possible, time travel etc.) and assuming that people don’t react as they would have in “real life”. When you incorporate time travel into the story, you are almost bound to run into the grandfather paradox, so you can’t blame the creators for not dealing with it well, as it is a paradox. But you can’t expect people to do unexplained things, such as ignoring the complete unreasonableness of an evidence or not acting on one’s race’s best interest (by immediately contacting the gov)." Yeah, my point was that you have to have a high suspension of disbelief to watch Star Trek in the first place. It doesn't excuse plot holes, but I don't think most of yours actually are in this case. " One of them is Vreenak’s fake outrage. It does goes well with him telling the bodyguard to leave the room before announcing it, and also with Garak’s not admitting at the end that the forgery was substandard, just that ‘any imperfections will be attributed to the explosion’. Yet, this possibility doesn’t sink my criticism, as there are much better ways to induce truth telling than simply announcing it and expecting the liar to conform. Just ask Garak, haha." Just because there are other ways to induce truth doesn't preclude the possibility of Vreenak using the one he did-it was effective and got the job done. In my opinion, you're reaching. "The other one is that this was Garak’s plan from the beginning and that he lied that his contacts were dead. But this lie would be simple enough to detect; and it doesn’t serve a purpose because following the true plan from the beginning would save time. " Since no one else knows who Garak's contacts on Cardassia are, so it's not really verifiable at all. It does serve a purpose because he avoids risking his only connections to his beloved homeland. Following Sisko's plan would mean risking that. I stand by my original statement and respectfully disagree with your original post-most of these "plot holes" are nitpicks at best, as opposed to gaping logic flaws.

@Iceman “Since no one else knows who Garak's contacts on Cardassia are, so it's not really verifiable at all. It does serve a purpose because he avoids risking his only connections to his beloved homeland.” I think Lior’s point is there’s no real reason for him to lie to Sisko in the first place if he already had a plan that didn’t involve his contacts whatsoever. I mean you could argue that he was trying to cajole Sisko into desperation but nothing in the story suggests Sisko wouldn’t agree to Garak’s initial plan. Also, what’s wrong with Garak saying to Sisko “Sorry, my contacts wouldn’t even respond to me, security must be tight.” if he’s lying anyway.

The reason to lie to Sisko is simple: sunk cost fallacy. Get Sisko on board enough to feel somewhat committed. Then upon learning at how much the attempt has already cost them (lives of agents), coupled with the fact that Garak was only doing this to help Sisko and now it has cost him both his own power at home plus the lives of his countryment, and Garak has effectively leveraged this into Sisko feeling like he owes Garak something and ought to continue for his sake. And in fact this isn't a mere speculation, but is continued later on when Sisko has already accepted the data crystal plan, and Garak informs him of the difficulty in procuring Tolar's help and the need for the gel: the sunk cost fallacy rears its head yet again, where "we're already gone this far and spent so much...but if you won't do this then I guess it's all over then..." which is manipulative to a T. And the amazing part is Sisko knows exactly that he's doing it, and yet goes along because while manipulative it's Garak's ironic way of showing Sisko that the stakes had been this high already from the start, even though Sisko didn't want to see it that way. Garak eases him into accepting what he believed deep down at the episode's start: namely that we've come too far to chicken out on account of small things. Garak tells him this point blank: that he needed Garak because he could do the things Sisko couldn't. And this doesn't just include assassination, but almost more importantly means awakening that voice inside Sisko that knew they needed the Romulans. Garak's 'excuses' were the means to get Sisko to believe what he couldn't get himself to accept on his own. And this is exactly why Garak would have lied: because Sisko needed it. He needed to know how much was at stake, that much had been lost, and that backing out would be devastating to the Federation. Had Garak merely said from the start "well we'll just make a fake data crystal" Sisko wouldn't have been far enough along in believing his own conviction to accept that this was really what he wanted. So Garak had to develop his commitment a little first. I actually am inclined to believe this is what happened, and that it's not just my head canon.

@Peter G. I kind of saw the conversation was going to go this way which why I mentioned “canjoling Sisko into desperation” above. For the sake of not rehasing an old discussion, I ask this: does Garak utilize any contacts on Cardassia in following episodes (barring the housekeeper, which we can assume isn’t useful here)? Is there any evidence in following episodes Garak is lying about dead contacts?

@ Chrome, Fair question. In general I don't think the issue of Garak's actual assets is one I've ever given thought to, nor it is one I think I was meant to give thought to. It's mentioned here to give important to the mission at hand and for little other long-term purpose. Neither were these contacts mentioned before nor are they mentioned again - even in context of their absence. To the extent that the plot succeeded in turning the Romulans, that point sticks in the series; but to the extent of any minutiae that go down, such as Quark knowing SIsko has his price, or that Garak lost his operatives, or that Bashir had a major ethical grievance about the gel; or that Sisko's conscience weighs on him - all of these points are a one-off affair that aren't reprised. DS9 was serialized for the time, but not so serialized as that where small points would be mentioned again. And when minor points are re-used in the series, such as the dart board, the Alamo. beetle snuff, Sisko's baseball, Dax's penchant for dating weird people; all of these are made a big deal of to establish the continuity. Small points seem to rarely be re-used as story points since I suppose the series still had to pay general lip-service to the notion that new audience members could tune in anytime and not feel left out. Is that a reasonable answer to your question? Basically I think the contacts are irrelevant to the broader DS9 world and are useful only as a plot point in this one. My suggestion, at any rate, is not so much the plot point that Garak has lost much in this affair (which the actor surely doesn't play up if we're meant to buy into this idea) but rather that *Sisko* is meant to understand that much has now been lost but that it can be made to count for something.

@Iceman “It doesn't excuse plot holes, but I don't think most of yours actually are in this case”. You are right. My points are not holes per-se. But they do show the unreasonableness of the episode. “Just because there are other ways to induce truth doesn't preclude the possibility of Vreenak using the one he did-it was effective and got the job done”. That’s my point. In “real life” this method would have had little chance of success. “Since no one else knows who Garak's contacts on Cardassia are, so it's not really verifiable at all”. Death certificates (of people close to power), for instance. @Peter G. The sunk cost bias, at least in this case, is negligible. That’s because the fate of the entire alpha quadrant is at stake, so the death of a few men should not have altered Sisko’s state of mind. If anything, it only demonstrated the costs he was not willing to bear. You could argue that Garak lied in order to put Sisko in a time pressure, giving him no time to think things over. But that would not necessitate saying that the contacts were dead. There are many continuities: The alternate universe; the Jem’hadar’s characteristics; Kira’s relationships; the ship from the episode “the ship” is later used in episode “a time to stand”; etc. Overall, DS9 tied things together pretty well. @Iceman, I’d like to know which Star Trek episodes (except of TOS) has plot holes in them.

"Death certificates (of people close to power), for instance. " If they don't have the exact identity of his contacts, they can't prove anything. Simple as that. "That’s my point. In “real life” this method would have had little chance of success. " Two things. One, this isn't "real life". Two, I don't see your point. Gaging someone's reaction is a fine way to figure out the truth. If the rod was real, Sisko would be calm. "You could argue that Garak lied in order to put Sisko in a time pressure, giving him no time to think things over. But that would not necessitate saying that the contacts were dead." Again-Garak tells Sisko later in the episode "Make up a story. Tell him many brave men died to obtain this rod". It makes Sisko more likely to go along with Garak's plan. "@Iceman, I’d like to know which Star Trek episodes (except of TOS) has plot holes in them. " Look at @Quarkissnyder's comments for every DS9 episode-about 5 plot holes are pointed out per episode on average. Or at the comments of most Trek episodes on this website. -"All Good Things" -"The Inner Light" -"The Visitor" -The entire Dominion War arc -"Call to Arms" -""Treachery, Faith, and the Great River" -"Force of Nature" And countless others that can be found if you really want to look for them.

* Regarding the identity: they have to be people close to power that died within a few hours from Garak's contacting them. So it's not anyone. In addition, Garak would have used the station systems, so Sisko would have access to the logs. * Gaging someone' reaction is a credible way to figure out the truth, only when they are not suspecting it. That is not the case here. * Telling Sisko that the contacts were dead due to contacting them, and a made up story how they actually succeeded, are two very different things, and anyway, the made up story could have been different and even more elaborate. * I read the Quarkissnyder's comments (why did you mentioned his comments?) for the episodes you wrote and that I remember. His comments are interesting and valid, but they don't poke 5 holes in every episode on average. There are of course other plot holes, but mostly not within the same episode.

Bobbington Mc Bob

If Sisko had been 'High Ranking Starfleet Officer Who Is An Old Friend of the Crew But Turns Out To Be Evil' of the Week over on TNG, the final scene would have been a brutal dressing down and speech from Picard. Then a scene of Sisko being hauled away by that huge dude and tiny lady who were the unnamed security officers, followed by another scene where Picard receives a report of the admirals who sanctioned Sisko's acts being arrested. Very chilling, immensely gripping, and honestlu worrying where Sisko's mind is going. From Jesus to Saddam Hussein last season, and now he's basically an Obsidian Order chief. How the hell they will reconcile this down the line with his role as Bajor's Holy Messiah I have no clue.

@ Bobbington, "Very chilling, immensely gripping, and honestlu worrying where Sisko's mind is going. From Jesus to Saddam Hussein last season, and now he's basically an Obsidian Order chief. How the hell they will reconcile this down the line with his role as Bajor's Holy Messiah I have no clue." I think you may be seeing DS9 a bit too much as a serialized arc show (like LOST) when you ask this, because although DS9 did develop character arcs over time where self-learning played a large part, the sort of arc where a person goes from good to mixed to evil and so forth is not really the kind of long-form story that I think they were telling. So while it's fun and everything to think about these things in head canon, I don't think the writers were wondering about "so where will Sisko's turn to the dark side go next?" The one exception to this maybe Dukat. As far as Sisko being hauled away for crimes vis a vis Picard's POV, do remember that the question being asked in this ep is "what is good?" Is it good to personally protect your conscience at the cost of the Federation? Is the Federation worth protecting if it will do literally anything to survive? And if extraordinary steps are acceptable when being attacked, how do you justify to yourself each time you do it that it's ok? I don't think the episode tries to answer the questions with a conclusive "it was totally right" or "it was totally wrong". Sisko says he can live with it, but that's him. If you're looking at the meta level in this show also think about the fact that Sisko is the Emissary for the Prophets, whose whole thing is that they see things outside of time. The idea of stepping outside of the bounds of "can I do this right now" and looking at the long-term big picture is perhaps in accordance with their way of assessing good/bad results, so maybe there's something of that type of analysis in Sisko's choice. Picard wouldn't have done this, but then again he's not the Emissary and hasn't been tasked with trying to establish any particular future path. And for what it's worth, the one time Picard did put his ethics over Federation security in I, Borg he was chastened for it. Maybe it's a good thing the decision wasn't his in this show. This is similar to my view about Chain of Command, where I think it's lucky for Picard that someone like him wasn't commanding the Enterprise while he was being tortured. Jellico got the job done; he wouldn't have.

"This is similar to my view about Chain of Command, where I think it's lucky for Picard that someone like him wasn't commanding the Enterprise while he was being tortured. Jellico got the job done; he wouldn't have." Interesting, why would you say so? I don't realyl recall Jellico doing anything at the end Picard was above-the way he ran the ship didn't really factor in it.

@ Strejda, Most of Jellico's actions were preparatory, and maneuvering with the Cardassians bought them room. But the only action that ended the invasion and saved Picard was committing a preemptive act of war by entering the nebula to mine the Cardassian ships. Deployment of mines is already an act of war, no less *on Cardassians ships* with whom they had a treaty. Picard would never have done that, and therefore it took a bulldog like Jellico to get this done. Captain Maxwell would have been up to it as well.

@Peter G: I disagree Picard would never have done that. Maybe I don't remember all the details, but that doesn't seem to me much different than him going to destroy the Romulan base in The Defector

I think this episode was perfect except for one thing. The whole "I need to clear it with starfleet command" thing. It lets Sisko off the hook a bit for what happens.

@VEK FWIW, I believe Sisko only received Starfleet's blessing to give Vreenak the forged war plans. Given that Sisko deleted the Captain's log where he explains how Vreenak's murder was necessary for the plan to succeed, it seems like Starfleet never knew about that part (and probably would not condone it).

In the pale moonlight One of my very favorite ds9's. It is difficult to impress with a political intrigue episode but this one was effective and entertaining. Garak was used effectively. It was as if through the whole series garak was set up to be used in this episode, in this way. He was the real hero. Or, should have been but since sisko is the protagonist of the series the writers had to short garak a bit - Specifically by having sisko berate garak verbally and physically to show who is boss. But as far as i could tell sisko had neither the moral or personal justification - just frustration for which garak was made to pay. Skipping over his transgressions to garak, sisko was never made to pay for betraying his oath to starfleet either (the crime for which he himself persecuted eddington) nor for his part in the murder of grathon tolar nor for assassinating the romulans. Star trek makes its living off of exploring moral questions and delivering a pointed lesson on the consequences. Here in this episode sisko forever loses all of his moral authority in several important areas. For some reason star trek shied away from exploring the consequences (except for a claimed guilty conscience) as it usually does and instead only shows is the internal battle sisko has with himself. Which, by the way, neglects acknowledging sisko and eddington did the same thing - just for different reasons. At the end of the episode sisko claims garak was right about one thing but garak was right about everything it is just that sisko is given the credit and garak a broken jaw - courtesy of the man who claimed a thick skin from being in the company of and arrogant and acerbic garak.

This is a popular episode, with glowing reviews pretty much everywhere you look on the web. Personally, I strongly suspect it was inspired by Operation Mincement back in WW2, when the British dressed the body of a tramp in an officer's uniform, planted some forged papers on the body and then dumped it where the Germans could find it, in the hope of misleading their intelligence services. And the Germans did indeed end up shifting a significant chunk of their troops as a result, making the allied invasion much less costly. Credit also goes to Garak (and his actor), as he shines in his role as a reactivated intelligence operative. Plans within plans and secrets within secrets - all the way up to hiding his true intentions from Sisko. But I still don't like this episode. Partly, this is because as with much of this season, the plot feels very contrived, starting with the fact that the Dominion are now viewed to be winning this war. With what, pray tell? They have no access to resupply through the wormhole, their fleets have already been ravaged, their Cardassian allies had already been gutted by the Klingons, and while I’m willing to suspend disbelief around their abilities to force-grow Jem-Hadar soldiers, I find it much harder to believe that they’d have the manufacturing capabilities or supply chains needed to build ships quickly enough to make up for their naval losses, especially since DS9 battles now involve hundreds of ships on either side. (To partly counterbalance my argument, I’m guessing the Founders are willing to sanction the production of lower-quality ships, and to cut corners with the production techniques - after all, they’ll only be crewed by disposable solids. But we never really got any hints that they were actually doing things like this - and even then, quality can still beat quantity if you’re careful...) Leaving that aside, we’re also meant to buy into the idea that Star Fleet High Command is willing to let Sisko and Garak put together a high-risk plan which goes against pretty much every single Federation principle. Sisko is a captain with a history of questionable decisions and has gone native on Bajor, so much so that he now believes in their gods and has religious experiences which can sometimes actively work against Federation goals. And Garak is an ex-Cardassian secret agent with a highly questionable past, a tendency to play all sides and a character whose first loyalty is not to the Federation - in fact, his ultimate loyalties can’t be fully confirmed. And High Command decided to let this pair of loose cannons go ahead with this extremely unethical and incredibly high risk plan? It’d be one thing if Sisko had decided to proceed with this plan by himself, but if nothing else, the fact that he’s officially gone on record to get his plan approved means that it’s far more likely that the Romulans will discover evidence about this plot. At least if he’d ahead purely on his own authority, Star Fleet would be able to distance themselves from it and paint it as a rogue operation. (Equally, the fact that he asked for sanction weakens the story’s message; for all that he may have suggested the plan, arguably, the things which happened were at least partly the responsibility of the people who approved it! And indeed, all of the direct murders in this episode were carried out by Garak, without Sisko’s knowledge) Then too: a key element of this episode is around how Sisko is forced into making ever more questionable choices in his effort to make his plan succeed. But his actions feel incredibly out of character, starting with the scene where Quark smugly extorts a number of concessions from him in return for not pressing charges against the forger. Normally, Sisko would have something up his sleeve to push Quark into cooperating; here, he just sits dumbly while Quark makes a surprisingly small number of demands. But the thing which annoys me most is that the DS9 writers had already come up with a perfect way to explore Sisko’s descent down the road to Hell. Section 31. As literally introduced in the previous episode. A black-ops department which officially doesn’t exist and routinely performs illicit and unethical operations to protect the Federation. Imagine if Section 31 had come to DS9 with impeccable and unarguably authority. Imagine if they’d engaged Garak’s services in a plot like this, and ordered Sisko to support him by any and all means necessary. Imagine the conflict within Sisko of having to obey orders which he knows are morally wrong, but which could help end the war and save the Federation. Or imagine if Sisko wasn’t involved, but found out and had to choose between obeying his conscience or accepting their actions and keeping quiet about this conspiracy? In fact, the DS9 writers could have put together a plotline similar to that in The Dark Knight Returns (released a decade earlier), where Commissioner Gorden reflects on how he couldn’t pass judgement on Roosevelt’s actions in WW2, because what happened “was too big”. It wouldn’t have even involved any significant changes to the episode’s format; Sisko could have still flashback-monologued to camera about how he slowly discovered what had happened, and had to make a choice as to whether to support S31 or not. And at the end, he could have still stated that he was willing to live with the consequences of his decision. But they didn’t. And so we got an episode which somewhat works as a standalone piece, but sits very uncomfortably in Sisko’s personal-development arc and wastes a perfect opportunity to use DS9’s newest chess pieces. Worse (and without wanting to spoiler things), the big Reset Button is triggered at the end of this episode: the only thing which carries forward is the Romulan decision to join forces with the Klingons and Federation. Sisko doesn’t do any further introspection, the Romulans never appear to suspect anything and even Quark doesn’t attempt to extort anything further out of Sisko, despite now knowing that he’s susceptible to bribery and blackmail. So, yeah. It’s a popular episode. But I’m not convinced it’s a good one, and I do think it could have been much better...

EventualZen

@Jamie Mann >And High Command decided to let this pair of loose cannons go ahead with this extremely unethical and incredibly high risk plan? It’d be one thing if Sisko had decided to proceed with this plan by himself... The way I remember it, Sisko was acting as a rogue and did not have Starfleet's blessing. He even deleted his log at the end. This episode is what got me in to DS9. Previously I could never get in to DS9 despite loving all other trek franchises, I always found it cheesy. Then I read the article for In The Pale Moonlight on Memory-Alpha and was hooked. This episode really shows the dark side of Roddenberry's usually utopian vision of the Federation. 10/10 - One of Star Trek's finest.

> The way I remember it, Sisko was acting as a rogue and did not have Starfleet's blessing. He even deleted his log at the end. The initial plan is carried out as a black op, but when Garak suggests that they pass a forged data-rod to the Romulan Senator, Sisko decides to discuss his plan with Starfleet. To quote Memory Alpha's precis of the episode: ====== Sisko points out that he'll need approval from Starfleet to proceed with the plan, but Garak assures him that with the takeover of Betazed they should be more than willing to approve the plan, which ultimately they do. ====== You can argue that at this point Starfleet was desperate and would have approved any and all plans, but even so, something like this would surely have to go all the way up to the President for approval - and would vastly increase the risk of discovery. And either way, Sisko offloaded at least some of the responsibility (and/or blame) on whoever it was that gave approval for his plan...

@ Jamie Mann, "You can argue that at this point Starfleet was desperate and would have approved any and all plans, but even so, something like this would surely have to go all the way up to the President for approval - and would vastly increase the risk of discovery." I don't know about that. In contrast to TNG, both TOS and DS9 seem to portray Admiral or Commodore type high-ranking officers as having *a lot* of personal latitude in making decisions for the Federation. Granted, this move is a big deal for all concerned, however structurally speaking I think it could easily be the case that a particular high-ranking admiral received the advisory and personally made a decision without it going to Starfleet's top brass or to the Federation Council. I'm not saying this happened, but I feel like it could happen. Just imagine if an Admiral Leyton type was the one to receive the request? I doubt he'd pass it along to others to consult with them; he'd be jumping for joy and begging Sisko to do it, even though he'd know the President would nix it on principle. And then there are the SPOILERS moments with Admiral Ross when we also see that he sometimes receives orders from alternate channels, such as Section 31, and where these black ops are clearly not going through the main command structure of Starfleet Command. Good or bad, this is consistent with how DS9 portrays these things.

I think Jamie Mann’s point that Starfleet approval was cooked into the story is still important regardless if it’s an admiral or the Federation Council. DS9 again and again wants us to believe that the Federation relaxes its moral standards during wartime (see also the Federation denying the Founders the cure to a disease the Federation is directly/indirectly responsible for). What’s interesting is this breaks TNG/DS9 into a couple schools of thought about the norm for Federation values. One way of reading this is that Sisko would normally behave like Picard and uphold the highest standard of Federation values, but only in ideal circumstances. Another way of reading this is that Picard is somewhat of a preachy outlier who may have a higher (or simply different, depending on your POV) set of morals than the Federation itself. There’s another interpretation (which Elliott often espouses) that *Sisko* is the outlier and is more morally compromised than the average Federation citizen and he often pushes Starfleet into bad decisions. In the second reading, Sisko may actually be a better officer than Picard in that although he’s highly troubled by Starfleet orders at times (as shown by this episode), he doesn’t inject his own values as an excuse to disobey orders. Another point that I think is important that neither Jamie or Peter bring up is that Starfleet only gave its blessing to the original plan. It’s unclear, and also unlikely they’d agree to Garak’s assassination plan. This gives a little more weight to the third reading in that Sisko was operating outside Starfleet morals when he chose Garak to carry out the plan. Garak postulates that on some level Sisko knew Garak would bring success to the plan by breaking Federation morals Sisko couldn’t. If we believe Garak, Sisko is morally compromised here as he’d obviously be an accessory to the whole incident — beyond what Starfleet condoned.

All good points, Chrome. You wrote: "It’s unclear, and also unlikely they’d agree to Garak’s assassination plan." I agree. For what it's worth, I agree with Elliott: Sisko is the outlier, not Picard. You wrote: "What’s interesting is this breaks TNG/DS9 into a couple schools of thought about the norm for Federation values." One interesting fact about TNG is that the morally ambiguous Federation characters are all extremely driven individuals. They fall into two categories: i) either slightly unhinged or decidedly deranged: the likes of Dr Graves, Admiral Jameson, Captain Maxwell, Dr Marr, or Admiral Satie. ii) simply driven by personal and/or professional, intellectual and/or scientific ambition and pride: the likes of Director Mandl, Dr Farallon, Dr Kingsley, Dr Maddox, Dr Russell, or Dr Stubbs. Note, however, how all characters in ii) above are scientists, not Starfleet officers; and that all of them but Russell change their stance over the course of the episode as part of the moral lesson of the story, in the best tradition of Star Trek. In other words, the morally ambiguous Federation characters in TNG were either deranged individuals beyond hope, clinical if not criminal cases; or honest if overzealous scientists who suffer a change of heart as result of a moral lesson learnt: in other words, necessary and temporary evils only, in order for the Federation ethics of the 24th century to shine through in the end. The only Starfleet officer I can think of who was *not* somehow deranged or possessed and was clearly in violation of Starfleet and Federation ethics was Admiral Pressman—who appears halfway into the last season (after the launching of DS9), and of course in an episode written by Ronald D. Moore. Granted, Pressman was acting in collusion with top echelons in Starfleet. Yet although other Starfleet admirals might come off as slightly antagonistic—indeed, often even too much so—I find the claim so often made that there were plenty of shady characters in Starfleet to be false as far as TNG is concerned. Please correct me if I am wrong, someone. Am I forgetting anyone?

Correction: Maddox was a Starfleet officer, of course, but still a scientist. The argument stands.

@Andy's Friend: I don't disagree with the general thrust of your argument. I think the key thing that distinguishes TNG's "Evil Admirals" from the DS9 pragmatism is that TNG's evil admirals were generally shown to be wrong, whereas the DS9 ones were generally shown to be "ambiguous" in a way that often tacitly supported their actions. For a specific example of another case of a TNG admiral who doesn't fall into either camp you listed, Admiral Nechayev argues that Picard should have used Hugh to genocide the Borg, and while she's painted as an antagonistic character whom Picard dislikes, she's also not portrayed as crazy or unhinged and does not get any kind of comeuppance. Now of course this is in very late TNG, when DS9 has already premiered, and she's written by Ron Moore in this episode (and appears in both series) -- so we can put her in a similar category to Pressman, of being a development late in the series. Part 1 of Descent presents a conflict in which Picard may have done the wrong thing, and looking at the way the Borg in that episode behave suggests that Picard's actions with Hugh had unintended bad side effects, which further undermines the rectitude of Picard's initial choice and so calls into question whether Nechayev was right. Picard not only questions whether he did the right thing to do by doing the moral thing, but even agrees to Nechayev's order that he genocide the Borg if he gets another chance ("Yes sir"). I think that Descent Part 2 is meant to have Picard's values supported when he tells Data that Data's Lore-influenced position that one must kill several individuals in order to produce a good outcome is wrong (how can one do right by doing wrong?), though it's a bit lost in the shuffle of the scattershot script. By linking Nechayev's pragmatism to Lore and the emotion-mad addict version of Data, I think the two-part story Descent is meant to still validate Picard's POV and the general TNG ethos. That means that I think that Descent overall, in terms of intent anyway, falls within TNG bounds. Of course it can happen that good actions can have unintended negative effects, and Picard's appropriate self-examination as a result of seeing what the Borg have become leads him to the conclusion that he still did the right thing, but must now attempt to rectify the unintended consequences from his correct act, at least by encouraging Hugh to take on a more active leadership role and by removing the cult leader Lore who has taken the place of the old Collective for these Borg. I think it's (arguably) more a failure of the scripting rather than intent of part 2 that Picard does not more explicitly reject Nechayev's philosophy (i.e. by telling her that he will refuse to commit genocide, under any circumstances, and that Starfleet can remove him from his position if they wish but he will not violate his ethics, in contrast to part 1 where he says "yes sir"); however, I do think it's in line with late TNG/contemporary DS9 (e.g. Pressman) that Nechayev herself is never convinced by a Picard argument of the wrongness of her ways. It feels like a bit of a dangling thread -- for Picard to agree tacitly that he made the wrong choice in not destroying an enemy is a big enough moment that an ending in which Picard re-affirms his position *more explicitly* rather than in dialogue midway through the episode in an unrelated scene would probably be desirable. (Or, if the story actually went to prove that Picard should become more pragmatic -- which I don't believe that Part 2 is arguing -- it should commit to this point more strongly.) Arguably this *is* a period of greater serialization in which the story is not entirely resolved at the end of the two-parter, and Picard can spend several episodes mulling over Nechayev's requests and only by acting against *Pressman* can he effectively resolve the conflict created by her orders. I'm not sure how much this really came off.

Without getting into the I, Borg thing at length here, the other question at hand is whether the Borg really are an enemy race -- in which Picard's position is correct -- or if this is a misunderstanding of the Borg, and that they are essentially a viral malevolent force. The latter seems to be Nechayev's POV, in which case Nechayev may be consistent with Federation ethics, just that Picard makes a category error with the Borg. My feeling overall is that Nechayev is out of bounds of standard Federation ethics, but not insane, mad with power, deluded, etc., but believes that standard Federation ethics are inappropriate when dealing with an enemy as powerful and destructive as the Borg, which places her closer to Pressman (or to Sisko in ITPM) than to Jameson or Maddox.

Things don't strictly have to come down to pro/anti Trek ethos when it comes to the actions of one character. In fact this is one thing TNG routinely did well, which was to present different ideas and although Picard's was usually the most enlightened, it was only *able to be* enlightened by virtue of giving all the differing ideas a hearing. The senior staff meeting is literally the essence of TNG. It's not that Worf's aggressive attitude is "counter to" the Federation ethos; that would be a very inappropriate remark to make. The problem would be if *everyone* thought just as Worf does, in which case the Federation would be overly aggressive. But him alone having that personality and set of values is a healthy fit into the family of the Federation, so long as everyone is working together and pooling their ideas. Picard is the nexus of that pooling on the Enterprise, and this is why his crew is always so alarmed when they're on a mission and he declines to explain to them what's going on. So it would not be fair to Nechayev as a character, I think, to require her to somehow "represent" the values of the Federation, as some kind of corporate talking head. Each officer no doubt has a spectrum of leeway about which views and emphases they can have and still serve in Starfleet. I mean, Worf would definitely have been down with genociding the Borg, and no one's giving him the crook-eye as being somehow not a decent Starfleet officer. I feel this same way about Captains Maxwell and Jellico, who represent Starfleet's values *from the point of view* of a more militaristic and hard-hitting Captain. There is room for that, as long as they abide by Federation law and don't become Captain Garths. The biggest problem in looking at Nechayev in Decent, or Pressman in The Pegasus, and sussing what "what this is saying" about TNG's ethos, is that they are characters in a story, and it's the story, not the POV of the characters, that is supposed to tell the show's ethos (which ends up being the Federation's ethos). This confusion is at the heart of what's wrong with DISC and PIC, because both of those shows want to deify their central character and make their personal views *the singular statement* about what is right and what the show is about. This doesn't give them any room to be characters, and instead they become direct corporate spokespeople for the writers. And this is also why the peripheral characters in DISC and PIC are more or less irrelevant other than as aesthetic window dressing: they have no part to play in teaching us the show's values, because the shows are both about how one person is the only one who counts. And THAT is a position that is anti-Federation values, which put a premium on the voices of many being important, not the voice of one person. The Borg are such a frightening enemy because they are almost exactly following that principle, except for one detail: the Borg place zero value on the opinion of one drone, whereas the Senior Staff Meeting works by valuing highly the input of each person present. The individuality is what makes the collective in Trek, and Nechayev, Pressman, Maxwell, etc, can certainly be part of that collective and not be somehow 'against it' or need to be discussed in that way, because there are other voices, other races, and other views in the mix. So long as all voices are heard it's fine to have some be militant.

I just thought to mention one other detail: the reason Nechayev makes us bristle ever time she speaks with Picard isn't, I think, because she's assertive, hard-hitting, or militaristic. I think the reason she ends up being an antagonist is because it doesn't feel like she respects the Picard-type of Federation member, whose every move is shackled by having to ask moral questions, even oddball ones. I mean, Picard's Enterprise is willing to have debates about whether construction tools might be sentient, so I can see how this would rankle with officers whose main priority is to get things done. Picard is the futuristic version of that guy tying himself to a tree because it's wrong to cut it down. He might have a point, and might even be more in touch with nature than the loggers are, but at the same time there is going to be friction between Picard and them on occasion when he's blocking them accomplishing goals they want to pursue. I think that's the price of being the voice of ethics in all situations. Many officers obviously respect Picard, but I think those like Nechayev who irk us as an audience do so because they don't go in for his way of thinking. It's not her values that make her antagonistic to us, it's her lack of respect for Picard's views.

@Peter, I agree with what you say. My comment is more directed at Andy's Friend and takes his approach to TNG in which the characters are more archetypal with regard to their opposition to "Federation values" in mind. I actually don't mind whether Nechayev represents Federation values or not, though I do think Descent could have benefited by having Picard's arc be clearer.

@ William B, I see that. My comment wasn't so much directed at you so much as at people who are concerned whether a given individual correctly represents Trek values. Elliott in particular takes umbrage with Sisko and how because of his behavior DS9 seems to go against Trek values. Putting aside whether I agree with his assessment of Sisko, I don't think looking at one character - even the star - is quite the right way to look at it. DS9, just for instance, has representatives of *very* divergent points of view, only some of them from Starfleet, and yet their entire collective and their stories all told are the show's perspective, not just Sisko's opinions. Not that it's my mission to disagree with Elliott particularly, but I was more struck by how this notion of one character being 'it' is perhaps the great mistake both new Trek shows make, putting aside writing quality and the rest. They really did turn Trek into Star Wars.

I’m not really saying one person represents Federation values in this show either, just to be clear. I think it’s actually a great feature of DS9 that we can see different characters running the spectrum of Federation values but not quite reaching the ideal at times. As for STP being single-character driven, considering how many dressing-downs Picard gets, it’s hardly a fair description of the show. These shows are all ensemble shows, and I think it’s more accurate to say that the showrunners would like for us to learn about the Federation or Star Trek values through *the ensemble* working together.

@ Chrome, "As for STP being single-character driven, considering how many dressing-downs Picard gets, it’s hardly a fair description of the show." Yes, but isn't it all really just in context of whether Picard was right or wrong? They're upset when he's wrong because his opinion seems to be the one that matters. They're happy when he's right because he's the hero. He occasionally asks for opinions about tactical situations but I don't recall him ever asking anyone on the series so far what they thought of any issues. How much does Rios' personal view of life really impact their mission or Picard's perspective? Or what about the Admirals who dressed him down? I feel like he took those lumps but it's not like he's concerned about their point of view or wonders whether they had a point. The only person that he really seems to listen to is Raffi, so to that extent it feels like the hero/sidekick dynamic, as seen in The Force Awakens. Yes, that movie technically had a supporting cast too but their opinions were irrelevant when it came to Rey's decisions.

@Peter G. To the degree that Picard is important in STP is no different than in TOS where we rally around Kirk as the show’s ethos or Janeway as the only one who can make the tough decisions in Voyager. Of course these shows have a central authority figure who the audience generally sides with, but I don’t think the correct conclusion to be drawn from that is that the ensemble should be discounted. To take your Rios example, is it really important how much he motivates Picard, or can we learn something about Star Trek by the way Rios loyally goes beyond for his ship and crew? Does Miles O’Brien not getting a big say in Sisko’s command decisions make him less important as a main character of interest representing how Federation families work?

@ Chrome, Actually you raise a good point, which is to ask how much the star's decisions have been shaped by the views of those around them (Starfleet or otherwise). To the extent that Sisko, for instance, runs off half-cocked and doesn't care what anyone says (e.g. For the Uniform) he makes everyone concerned and they're not happy about it. Mostly though I think he takes O'Brien, Dax and Kira very seriously when they chime in. At her better moments Janeway is the mother figure, but in the more aggravating iterations of her writing she does whatever she wants and iignores all advice. To the extent that she does this she's a troubling and autocratic figure IMO. The TOS scenario suffers from this the least because the Bones vs Spock pressure is almost always there, and dramatically speaking nothing Kirk does happens outside of this context. The question isn't whether the star cares about the others, but whether the script goes out of it's way to include scenes where the star's view is being guided by these voices.

@Peter G. I see what you mean. I think the issue with Janeway is very much a writing issue because in the better episodes like “Tuvix” we’ll see Janeway talk over the decision and reach a sort of consensus before she makes the final say. Even if we didn’t agree with her decision in that episode, it’s clear weight was taken and I would consider that a Federation value-friendly decision. Contrast that with say, “Nothing Human”, where Janeway makes the most practical decision by forcing a valuable officer to undergo life-saving surgery. Janeway still goes through all the motions of thinking through her decision but then she also orders B’Elena to “get over it” after she makes a questionable decision that violates B’Elena. That’s not a Federation-friendly decision; indeed even the most callous of politicians in our time would be more considerate of civil liberties. So that’s just bad writing. Did Sisko consult anyone in this episode? Well, I suppose he talked the situation over with Starfleet, but mostly he made the calls and kept his mission hush. I don’t want to make a value judgement on Sisko here, but I think most would agree he’s acting in contrast with Federation values in this episode. I suppose we could even say if he had consulted Dax or O’Brien, he might’ve been talked out of his mission. But still I think the controversial non-Federation maneuvering by Sisko in this episode actually makes it quite engaging. I think the main difference here between Janeway in “Nothing Human” and Sisko here is that we can see Sisko is in pain over his decision. I don’t really want to get into the weeds too much about Star Trek: Picard because the show’s still in its infancy. I do think the writers are trying to have Picard revaluate his decisions in many episodes in a style very consistent with Federation values, but maybe the writers will mess it all up by the end of the season. :-)

Wow, this triggered a lot of new conversations :) > Another point that I think is important that neither Jamie or Peter bring up is that Starfleet only gave its blessing to the original plan True, but even then, they were still being asked to give their blessing to a plan which would outright lie to a neutral party (famed for being paranoid, to boot). If it failed, it'd almost certainly cause the Romulans to move towards actively supporting the Dominion; if it succeeded, then thousands of Romulans would be killed fighting for a lie. And it goes beyond that. Failure would mean certain defeat. Success might mean short-term survival, but could then lead to significant long term issues - after all, if the lie is ever discovered, what would the impact be? It could well be Star Fleet's Watergate, with political consequences which could tear the Federation apart. And then there's the impact it could have on the Federations's alliances - who knows how the Klingons would react, and as for the Romulans? If they ever discovered the lie, it could lead to a new war which could finally destroy the Federation, especially if it's already reeling politically and abandoned by it's usual allies. As I mentioned before, it's "too big", in much the same sense as Roosevelt's alleged knowledge about Japan's plan to attack Pearl Harbor. And that's why I think the plan should have come from Section 31. > What’s interesting is this breaks TNG/DS9 into a couple schools of thought about the norm for Federation values. One way of reading this is that Sisko would normally behave like Picard and uphold the highest standard of Federation values, but only in ideal circumstances. Another way of reading this is that Picard is somewhat of a preachy outlier who may have a higher (or simply different, depending on your POV) set of morals than the Federation itself I think it's perhaps simpler than that. Picard (and to a degree, Janeway in Voyager) represent the "exploration" aspect of Star Fleet: they look towards negotiation and diplomacy as the primary means of resolving issues. However, there's then the "military" aspect of Star Fleet, which is focused on dealing with threats, ideally permanently, and this is usually represented by the Admirals who pop up from time to time. Sisko generally fell somewhere between the two poles, depending on what the writers wanted to do that week.

Just rewatched this episode in the DS9 rerun on SYFY UK, still an outstanding episode. I have to slightly correct your review though. You implied Garak had to intervene with the bomb to save Sisko's plan when Vreenak found out the rod was fake. It wasn't an intervention, Garak had the explosion planned from the start knowing the fake rod wouldn't stand up without damage. And this ironic thing I love about Garak is that even though he's long been set up as the one character you never turn your back on, actually he's the one you can most rely on when the stakes are extremely high. That's why he finally gained Odo's respect in The Die is Cast. Garak KNEW Sisko would morally struggle to 'pull the necessary triggers' even for the sake of the Alpha Quadrant, so perfomed the acts himself and willingly took Sisko's outraged punches of attempted purged guilt. He's more like a true friend indeed.

@Kerr I'd push back a bit on your Garak as a friend take. "he's the one you can most rely on when the stakes are extremely high." It all depends if Garak's motivations are aligned with yours -- or in this case Sisko's. Garak wants a free Cardassia and wants the Dominion out of there. Sisko enlisting him gives him a chance to do something about it. "He's more like a true friend indeed." I recall participating in a discussion a while back about if you were living on DS9, whether or not you'd keep a safe distance from Garak. Personally I would. Garak was a high-ranking member of the Obsidian Order, basically like the KGB or SS. His morals/value system is messed up. What I also found very interesting is at the end of "Second Skin", the Cardassian Ghemor tells Kira something like don't ever trust Garak, don't ever turn your back on him even after Garak rescued Ghemor by phasering Entek. Presumably this is because of what Ghemor thinks of the OO and all those who once worked for it. No doubt Garak is one of the most enigmatic characters in all of Trek -- a wonderful creation of a former KGB/SS forced to live as a civilian away from his homeland. Some of his habits die hard.

@ Rahul I agree with your post. Garak is (was; kind of still is) a cold blooded murderer and god knows what. He did horrible things and enjoyed it. A great character, though. One correction. The Obsidian Order was not like the SS but the Gestapo (which means GEheime STAatsPOlizei= secret state police). The SS was not an intelligence organization but more or less a paramilitary organization that after Hitler took power became kind of it's own little military alongside the Wehrmacht.

@Rahul I didn't go as far as to say Garak was a true friend (I did use the word 'like') but how many times has he actually acted against the crew of DS9 and the Federation. Maybe when to rejoin his Enabran in the OO but was even that was more due to daddy issues? Even Enabran detected his son had changed. If he can plot a devious ruthless game to bring the Romulans to the party so easily, he could easily have plotted to improve his own situation at the cost of the crew a long time ago. And I remind you @Booming Kira was a cold blooded killer too.

"Kira was a cold blooded killer too." The main difference is Kira is a reformed soldier, in that she takes a conscious effort to be patient and not resort to violence anymore. It's not clear if Garak ever reformed per se, though I agree one possible ending we could imagine to his arc is that he gives up the spy game and tries to rebuild Cardassia (basically becoming like Kira at the beginning of DS9).

@Kerr That's semantics -- "like" a true friend or "as" a true friend. I think I got the gist of your initial post. Bottom line, I think most people would not get involved with Garak if they knew his history with the OO. There's also a difference between being a freedom fighter like Kira and a KGB henchman like Garak. I think most people would want Kira as a friend. The point I'm making is that Garak acts on his own interests. It just so happens that most of the time, he's one of the good guys as his interests jive with Sisko & co. But wanting to rejoin Enabran Tain at the expense of the rest of the DS9 team is an example where he diverges from Sisko & co. for his own motivations.

He also once tried to kill all the founders but Worf stopped him. ANd yeah the comparison between Kira and Garak is off for so many reasons. That's like saying a polish Jew fighting for his survival and killing many Nazis in the process is the same as a Nazi who actively participated in genocide.

Garak's history and the reason for his exile were never made clear but some of the stories he told in The Wire hint at a crisis of conscience being the reason and possible acts of compassion to the Bajoran people (which were seen as betrayal by Tain, hence the exile). Later in the series in The Dogs of War, his comments to Kira about Damar's illusions about the occupation and Cardassia's role in it also allude to a certain moral awareness that one would not expect from an amoral person. In The Die is Cast, Garak finds himself barely able to stand participating in Odo's torture / interrogation, again hinting at the fact that for whatever reason, he's not the same ruthless Obsidian Order agent he once was. I also recall the "root beer" conversation with Quark where he implies strongly that being around the Federation and its values could change a person (it's insidious!) This is not to excuse Garak or suggest that somehow war criminals should be forgiven just because they change and repent, but I do think it refutes the claim that Garak is amoral at the time we meet him in the series. He clearly has a moral code, and while it is not the same as Sisko et al. the evidence is pretty clear that it also isn't any longer that of a ruthless Obsidian Order operative. Incidentally, even if Garak were a monster, there's no basis to suppose that he'd be any more dangerous to associate with casually than anyone else. He may have been a murderer in his former career, but he wasn't some rabid dog. And I see no reason why one can't associate with immoral people - the very premise of this notion is distasteful to me. Being friends with someone isn't an endorsement of their lifestyle.

@Jason, I agree with much of what you say and I think that Garak does have a conscience. I think I'd say that he doesn't have a fully coherent "moral code," in that I think he's still kind of consciously operating on the Obsidian Order moral code some of the time but that he has compassionate impulses which interfere with what he thinks he should do. I think that his discovery in The Die is Cast that he can't really be a good agent anymore, and arguably his working through in In Purgatory's Shadow that much of his OO persona was from wanting Tain's approval and acknowledgment free him from this code and allows him to start to develop another one, though I still think he's still working on developing it. I disagree a bit with your last claim. There are lots of occasions where Garak puts himself into situations he "shouldn't" have been and pursues his own agenda, using friendship or information he overheard in social settings as a result. Profit and Loss, arguably; definitely Our Man Bashir, where because he's friends with Bashir he decides to illegally break into Bashir's program and then attempt to kill the DS9 crew trapped in the program to save their hides and to prove a point to Bashir. I'm not saying this is pure evil or anything -- he did the right thing seemingly in Profit and Loss, and he has a point in OMB -- but the latter especially shows that there are real dangers to having Garak as a friend, and Bashir had to be willing to shoot him in the face to get him to back down. That is, oddly, a great friend for *Bashir* to have, at least by this point in the series, but it's a risky proposition for anyone who isn't willing to shoot their friends in the face if a crisis comes up. This is in addition to times like Improbable Cause or Broken Link where Garak has some plausible official goal (investigation, talking with the Founders about the OO) which when new information arrives leads to Garak doing wildly dangerous or destructive things (torturing Odo, attempting to genocide the Founder's homeworld with the Defiant blowing up too). Odo never really lets his guard down around Garak much so the former is a bit of a wash, but the latter I think that the crew treating Garak as a friend/ally rather than a dangerous criminal who should be watched carefully around WMDs when in a sensitive situation was part of what almost led to a big problem. And again, this isn't even that Garak is evil. He has a point in Broken Link, and in The Die is Cast he can't go through with the torture as much as he wanted to. But dangerous? Absolutely.

It may be that, except for Our Man Bashir (and I think some other cases with Bashir), Garak is fine to be around as long as you never let him near a situation where he might betray you for some large goal, and if you can keep the social and professional interactions with him wholly separate. Broken Link is a case where they really don't, though; Garak comes on board the ship for "official" (seeking out the truth about Cardassia) and social (helping Odo while away the hours) reasons, and I suspect that it's partly the latter that lulls them into a sense of security on the former.

I like William B's points but I do sympathize with Jason R's position. Indeed, if Bashir had been too timid to befriend Garak, Garak might have turned out for the worse, actively working to undermine the DS9 crew. Interestingly, I think this episode itself illustrates that Garak is still a volatile person to have on your team. Sure, he got the job done, but he did it with multiple murders and a dangerous gambit that could've made things worse. I think the only reason Sisko asked Garak for help was that he was desperate and he knew Garak was capable of swaying the Romulans with means that he couldn't devise himself. Garak went behind Sisko's back to get the plan done, but it also seems like Sisko counted on Garak to do something like that. When you're dealing with Garak you basically need to expect a certain level of treachery and hope that his goals align with your own.

Yeah and Garak wasn't just an operative. He was the number 2 of the most feared secret service and lost all that because he wanted blame his father for something he did. @Jason "And I see no reason why one can't associate with immoral people - the very premise of this notion is distasteful to me. Being friends with someone isn't an endorsement of their lifestyle." That kind of depends on the level of immorality (and the definition). The relationship between Kira and Dukat is a good example. Kira could never be friends with Dukat because his is a horrible mass murderer. I don't think I could be friends with a mass murderer. And in Garak's case. He plays mind games with people which is a no no for me.

@Chrome, yeah I agree. Part of the reason I said it was good for Bashir is that I think not only does Garak benefit from Bashir's friendship, but Bashir benefits from Garak's, partly because Bashir's adventurousness, his own secrets, his own mind, his quick thinking, etc make him someone well suited to play the dangerous but rewarding game of being Garak's friend. The key thing is not that it's not rewarding but that it's not without dangers, and I think Bashir is eventually clear eyed about that. I think we often have to make smaller stakes cost benefit analyses with friendships, and decide when it's worth taking a chance on someone once we've found some evidence that they might be dangerous to be around under certain circumstances when our goals clash. This is a more extreme version of that. Something similar with Sisko in this ep (with aliance rather than friendship).

"I don't think I could be friends with a mass murderer." To be clear I am not suggesting that you or anyone *should* befriend a morally suspect person. I simply reject the notion that people should be condemned for befriending (even casually) bad people, as if casual acquaintance or friendship is equivalent to endorsement.

I've been thinking about this discussion, and it occurs to me that Kerr's original comment was that Garak is the kind of guy you can *trust* to get the job done. And insofar as he was going to follow through even when Sisko was despairing, he was like a "true friend indeed." But this doesn't seem to be arguing that he "was like" a true friend; it's a reference to "a friend in need is a friend indeed." Meaning, Sisko even at his lowest in this ep could never doubt for a moment that Garak was going to keep going right to the end. It's kind of like an addict going through withdrawal, which in this case was Sisko in withdrawal from the security and comfort of his Federation rules. Garak was the guy holding his head in the bucket even while demanding to be handed back the bottle. Within this context I think what Kerr said makes total sense: Garak was never going to back down, give up, change his mind, or lose his nerve. If what we're calling a friend is "someone you can rely on even when the odds are low" then he is that. If what we mean is "someone who's totally safe and who will never give you threat" then he is not that. Too often I think we consider friendship to be the latter, and personally I think this is a mistake. In fact, the extent to which we confine our actual friends into having to be something for us that we box them into is probably an issue to be examined. A person is not a security blanket. I think there was probably a time when Garak's training would have been self-preservation at all costs. Despite the Obsidian Order supposedly being the backbone of Cardassian security, I would personally expect that they created at least as many problems than they solved, if not many more. Their own power probably came at the expense of their world, as is often the case. I could well imagine Tain training Garak that he and Garak were worth more than all of Cardassia combined, in a wink-wink sort of way. This was much the mindset of the Guls we've seen, despite the state rhetoric about it all being about patriotism. What it was was systemic narcissism. So in the past I expect Garak would have turned tail and ran at the first sign of trouble; keep himself alive at all costs. But now we've seen him ready to go down with the Defiant to protect his people, or possibly at least to avenge his father. Whoever he was, that guy is gone. Granted we see a change of setting in Our Man Bashir, and at first glance we might assume that Garak really hasn't changed: after all he wants to turn tail to preserve himself at the first sign of real trouble. Seeing the episode as a Bashir episode it could be easy to see how Garak has a bit of the villain in him. But if we flip the diagram and look at it as a Garak episode, maybe it's about how Bashir is like that voice inside him insisting that he's not who he was; and that inner voice shoots the Garak that tries to run away, because there's no room for that Garak anymore. And the beauty of Garak's realization that you can "save the world by destroying it" is that being a loyal Cardassian, or even a good agent, doesn't actually require being a scoundrel. In fact those traits are probably harmful to an agent if that agent's agenda really is to protect his world. So Garak could sacrifice everything he thought he needed to be, and yet by doing so be much more the thing he always thought he was. He said that in his heart he never betrayed Cardassia, and I think that's the truth. Now his heart and his actions could be aligned. So when it comes to saving Sisko's Federation, I don't think it's merely the case that Garak's goals just happen to align with Sisko's. I legitimately think that Garak would not have turned tail, betraying Sisko, and sink the Federation on purpose in the process if that would have helped Garak's agenda. And that's because I think at this point Garak knows that his agenda can no longer include backstabbing everyone in sight for some small advancement for himself. Everyone loses - including you - if there's a race to the bottom. Maybe that's the insidious thing: it doesn't just smell fizzy and taste sweet, but it's actually good for you too. Only an idiot would go against that just on principle.

@Peter That's a lot of head canon. :) People always bring up that Garak wasn't happy torturing Odo. What does that tell us and Tain's dialog about torture? Garak really enjoyed torturing people. If some random schnuck had to be tortured I doubt that Garak would have had a problem with it. Who knows. Another point about him. You kind of play down what Garak did to Tain. He messed up somehow and probably in a big way, he stated that he wasn't protected anymore. Considering that he was basically the vice leader of the Obsidian Order, it must have been very significant. In desperation he pinned it on Tain who expected it but still let him live after his betrayal. That doesn't mean that he is a backstabber. He is obviously still a ruthless killer who murders people like it was nothing. Look at this episode. He kills six people without any remorse or hesitation. He actually planned to kill all these people from the beginning. Think about those four guards and their families. I guess they were on wrong shuttle at the wrong time. He had chosen a guy (Tolar) who was in prison, got him out, promised him freedom from persecution and then killed him after he the job was done. That is pretty evil. Like muhahahaha evil. Let's also not forget that he found a guy who wanted to do messed up stuff with that gel, maybe bioweapons and for what? For a rod that was never supposed to pass inspection. Fingers crossed that it is just some rich guy who wants 50 clones and not a psychopath who wants to know how it feels to annihilate an entire planet. That gel sounded really serious. And the last point. If Garak would have thought that killing Sisko would have achieved the mission, would he have done it? I think yes.

@ Booming, It's not *all* headcanon, especially the bit about the OO probably being responsible for more harms than help. We see in several episodes that the iron grip of both the Central Command and the OO are basically a one-way trip to civil revolt and eventually invasion. They stave it off as much as they can but the individual Cardassians are too treacherous to be trusted to value the commonwealth over their own power, for the most part. One quibble with your comment here: "Considering that he was basically the vice leader of the Obsidian Order, it must have been very significant. In desperation he pinned it on Tain who expected it but still let him live after his betrayal. That doesn't mean that he is a backstabber." For one thing I always got the impression that it really *was not* something significant by our standards. It could have been as little as Garak releasing a child set to be executed and Tain would have reacted just as he did: it's a betrayal of Cardassia, the OO, etc etc. But in reality it was just a betrayal of Tain, which is to say, exercising any free will other than being his little slave. We know that Garak was never shown affection (which most Cardassians do show) except once by accident, and that his entire upbringing was an exercise in narcissistic manipulation. I don't think it would take much at all to count as a 'betrayal' of Tain. If you deal with narcissists IRL, you'll find that anything contrary to their wishes will be seen as a betrayal. But the other point is that I do not believe it was ever asserted that Garak tried to pin anything on Tain. In The Die Is Cast we hear that Garak 'betrayed him' but that's all they say, and that could mean anything. I very much doubt it was pinning something unbelievable on the chief spymaster. More likely it was finally realizing that he couldn't be the son Tain wanted (i.e. an remorseless killing machine). To whatever extent Garak did enjoy doing so, we at least have perhaps an inkling that what he enjoyed was impressing his father, more so than the actual torture itself. I'm not sure I see much evidence in the series that Garak is actually sadistic.

@ Peter "especially the bit about the OO probably being responsible for more harms than help." If you mean with harm that the Cardassian Union wasn't prospering. Sure. On the other hand the Federation in STP has also stopped prospering, without the Obsidian Order. One could also say: All empires must fall. Ok, I'm just playing devils advocate. It is a corrupt military dictatorship with totalitarian elements. Naturally the corrupt elements: the Obsidian Order and the military are doing everything to destroy other potential power centers. That's bad for prosperity. :) And about Garak's past. The only things we really know are, that he was Tains son and protege, that Tain was an absent father, that Garak betrayed him and sent him into exile. Everything else is speculation... but considering that it is all made up anyway... ;)

"that Garak betrayed him and sent him into exile. " Hmm? Tain exiled Garak; Tain himself was never in exile.

@Jason I know. Badly write English no good in. :)

Aside from everything else that's been said, this episode has one of my very favorite exchanges when Sisko and Quark discuss the bribe. The self-loathing Brooks shows as he asks the favor, the way Armin Shimerman manipulates that huge prosthetic eyebrow and pauses just perfectly, and then launches into his fervent praise for Sisko releasing his inner Ferengi is wonderful. And then his glee at actually getting to negotiate with Sisko! This episode needs a little levity, and it was two minutes of pitch perfect success.

Baby Mandalorian

Great episode. Had flashbacks to the old "ITS A FAKE" meme that was around many years ago. Two things though, one has been mentioned- it's weird that given the technology that the Romulan ambassador wouldn't at least send a communiqué out either from DS9 or his ship after this with the details of what happened. Secondly, Sisko has done/engaged in exactly what section 31 do, yet wants to go against them in the previous episode and infiltrate them. I forget how this plays out in future episodes, but we'll see..

This is the very best episode in DS9 and no doubt one of the very best in the whole franchise. Right along Best of Both World for me.

The fall of Betazed was absolutely brilliant in a very brilliant episode. That was like literally jaw dropping to me. I was unaware before this thread that the writers had initially considered having Vulcan fall but thought that would be too weighty. I basically agree, but also I would have found it less plausible. Weighty, yes, because that’s a very core federation planet, right by Earth, and I would expect Starfleet to abandon 90% of the Federation and fall back to defending its core systems. Though, they would almost certainly still try to hold DS9.

I kind of wish Garak had given Sisko a good beating at the end of this one. Sisko is a fine character at times but rather naive - he comes across as being a bit too privileged and comfortable, the kind of comfort that keeps distance between the powerful and those dying for convenience's sake. Like his absurd idea to beam Jem Hadar survivors aboard, or attempting to negotiate with them...those rosy Boy Scout days are over for Starfleet. He needs to wake up and realize just what the Romulan said - the Federation is getting their asses handed to them. Sisko knew unconsciously that the Garak option was their best chance even if he didn't want to admit it to himself. Garak knows how to play the game and was probably never addled with illusions of peace. After Far Beyond the Stars, you'd think Sisko held a better understanding of fighting for existence against a merciless opponent. Drink up and kill some commies, Captain. And once again... where's Odo?

Dark Kirk's contribution on this thread is a very selfish one. Ever heard of a spoiler alert fella?

I hate this episode. Was it right when the Gulf of Tonkin incident was used to get the US into the Vietnam War? Was it right when George W. Bush used "weapons of mass destruction" which didn't exist to get the US involved militarily in Iraq? No. Deception used to justify war is very old and it is evil. So Captain Sisko's use of deception to bring the Romulans into war is the same dark immorality. We can be better than that. The point of Star Trek is that we can be better than that. Does Trek celebrate the racist? No, it says we can be better! So why should it celebrate, however darkly, the war deceiver?

That is really not a good comparison. Tonkin and WMD lies tricked the Americans themselves into the war not another power. Both wars were a superpower against a third world country for oil/propping up a puppet regime. The episode clearly depicts Siskos behavior as wrong. This is at bad as it gets (or should have gotten). I disliked the siege of ar something far more and I H A T E the Sisko gasses planets episode (The worst Trek episode). What does Sisko effectively do in this episode: Lying to a Romulan senator which Federation diplomats probably have to do all the time. (Ok he also threatens the blue guy and gives somebody else this nightmare gel) There are two deceptions going on. Siskos and Sisko being tricked into letting Garak do it's thing. The Federation would have been doomed without the Romulans. You could argue of course that creating such a situation in the first place is the actual problem. The bigger problem I have is that they never really follow up on it. Sisko never mentions it again.

Even though this is the best episode in all of Trek, I am actually sympathetic to Doody's argument since I am personally wary of lies that lead to war. Part of the problem is context, which the public never gets because they only hear what they're told. Sisko's position here is clearly not nefarious in its end goal: the Romulans are needed, because the side of democracy, freedom, and respect for individuality is in danger of losing the war. This is a bona fide "good cause", which we are privy to because we're watching the show. The problem in treating this as an allegory for contemporary events is that I do not particularly believe in the benevolence of modern wars (sorry, police actions). The argument made regarding Iraq 2.0, for instance, is that blatant lies were told to take America to war, for reasons other than national defense, but rather to effectively seize oil and resources. Assuming for the moment this is an accurate description, these two cases may look similar on the surface in terms of lying to go to war, but this isn't a case of "the ends justify the means" because the ends of both cases are different. Doing harsh or deceitful things to protect your way of life from existential threat is really not the same as doing so for greed. Not that it's ever good to lie to the people, however it's also fairly clear that if the decision is between the Federation ending outright or telling one big lie, it's a no-brainer unless the citizens of the Federation have knowingly signed up for martyrdom. Assuming they would vote to be protected at all costs, then implicitly there is actually a mandate to lie if that's what it takes to survive. I have a hard time believing all the Federation members would have knowingly joined if they were told that the Federation would not lie even if it meant sacrificing their member worlds. Security would have been the most basic fundamental, perhaps just after the Prime Directive if we're being finicky. So while I actually do agree that lying to go to war is very troubling, and ITPM makes it clear that Sisko finds it so, this is not equivalent to the sorts of horseplay seen in the 20th century. But it's cheating in a way, because here we're seeing Sisko's inner thoughts whereas in real life we'll never have that kind of assurance when we learn our leaders lied to go to war. How will we know that it was a Sisko-esque man of honor, and not a realpolitik power-monger?

Well Peter that is the fundamental problem - many of us agree that lies are wrong except to defeat an existential or otherwise dire threat, but of course we will never ever have the level of information in real life that permits us to understand definitively if a threat truly meets this high threshold. The vast majority would agree with Sisko, but only because of a level of knowledge that is impossible outside of fiction. This reminds me of the torture debate that arose in the Bush years after 911. Most of the public, if their feet were put to the fire, would probably endorse Jack Bauer style methods if it was a true ticking time bomb scenario like a suitcase nuke going off in Manhattan. But even in those rare situations the act of preventing the disaster precludes any certainty that said methods were the only way to do so. It's akin to an uncertainty principle, where the act of halting a disaster makes it impossible to know if you were justified in doing so and hence taints you with the moral implications of those methods. So we are all left with an ugly deal with the devil and a stark choice. Do we disclaim lies and torture, knowing that one day we may be destroyed as a consequence, or do we strike this deal, knowing that we will be tainted by it and become morally suspect with no chance for exoneration. This, incidentally, goes to the heart of the Rodenberrian "evolved" humanity as put forth by Picard in TNG. It's easy to be evolved when you're flying around in a night invicible Galaxy class starship or if you're a Q or Organian or something. But that vision is nothing unless it's tested. And Sisko fails the test. Or rather, he plunges his hands in the muck so that others don't have to (to borrow a metaphor).

I want to mention that the whole ticking bomb scenario has never happened and probably never will. The main reason that I never watched 24 is that it is so openly pro torture that it is just ridiculous. It is like an evil version of the trolley problem. Americans wanted to torture but also not feel bad about it. In comes the ticking time bomb scenario. Sisko on the other hand knows that the likelihood of the federation being overwhelmed are high and not some completely fictional scenario.

In the context of the show itself, Sisko can be defended. He's up against an existential threat. The question is why a writer from a country whose last few major wars were based on lies and trumped-up phony existential threats, would write a show in which the Goodies must do Bad Things to stop a Super Villain. This has all kinds of sneaky effects on an audience. It conditions an audience to think a certain way and approach problems a certain way. And it would anticipate the lies - used to sell Vietnam and Gulf War 1 - used to sell the second Gulf War. I mean, you're a writer living in a country which has a history of wrongly selling anything remotely different as an existential treat (they'll rape our women! They'll destroy our way of life!), and you choose to tell a story like DS9? And what's your defense? That the Federation is not like us? That it's different this time? That's a cool and refreshing angle for Trek. But IMO it's only responsible if you take the time to show when these arguments and tropes were used to massively negative effect. If you take the time to show why the Feds aren't like the contemporary nations or governments of the audience. And DS9 doesnt do this (at least in my memory of it; im re-watching the last 4 seasons now). It doesn't interrogate anything. Instead it tacitly endorses all kinds of scummy behavior. There's a reason you had a glut of shows like DS9, and films like Saving Private Ryan and Blackhawk Down in the lead up to Gulf War 2. American's were itching for another Dirty Harry and another righteous cause. And Ira Behr was itching to dirty up Roddenberry's view of the Federation, which he doesn't believe in. TNG's version of the Dominion war is basically those Crystalline Entity episodes ( "It's an unknown creature, capable of stripping all life from an entire world... insatiably ravenous for the life force found in intelligent forms like us!"). A mass murdering, planet gobbling alien and Picard priority is to talk to it. Picard woulda nuked that thing into a billion shards if push came to shove, but you saw him exhausting other options first. I've always felt this kind of writing was edgier and more subversive than what DS9 touted as "subversive" and "adult".

@Jason R. said: "The vast majority would agree with Sisko, but only because of a level of knowledge that is impossible outside of fiction." Great point, @Jason R. With Star Trek (and other scifi), we notice obvious incredible aspects like faster than light travel, or time travel, or transporters, or holodecks, etc. But one thing we don't immediately recognise how central to scifi Perfect Information is. Perfect Information, like faster than light travel, is impossible. Wouldn't it be amazing to know how things would turn out *for sure* in order to make a decision? Like Dr. Strange checking millions of possible outcomes in the middle of the Infinity War, before closing a course of action. Talk about fantasy. There are a lot of mechanisms in scifi for achieving perfect information. How about telepaths? Knowing what other people think is a huge informational fiction. Babylon 5 loved to use this. Or time travel? Especial with a reset button. Now you actually know *for sure* how things would have turned out if something had been different. Think TNG's "Tapestry". And of course In the Pale Moonlight is not different from ordinary fiction in providing a God's Eye View (https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/God%27s_eye_view), giving the audience perfect information with which to evaluate moral quandaries. People are very uncomfortable with making decisions with imperfect information. One of the biggest crutches we get in scifi in the fantasy of Perfect Information. There aren't too many examples of people in Star Trek making the wrong choice. Not wrong in the moral sense - wrong in the, oh fuck, things didn't work out sense. Because there is so often a time-travel reset button or some other informational cheat available. Worf is one of the few people who makes incorrect decisions. He did it when he chose to save Jadzia over completing the mission in "Change of Heart". And he did it when he destroys the the Klingon ship in "Rules of Engagement". But even in "Rules," the writers can't help but give Worf a scifi out - the crew manifest had been faked, there was no one aboard. nBSG did a slightly better job when they had Lee destroy the Olympic Carrier in "33". But maybe the best example of a wrong decision with permanent consequences and no Perfect Information cheat, was TNG's legendary "First Duty." Easily one of the best of the entire franchise.

"TNG's version of the Dominion war is basically those Crystalline Entity episodes ( "It's an unknown creature, capable of stripping all life from an entire world... insatiably ravenous for the life force found in intelligent forms like us!"). A mass murdering, planet gobbling alien and Picard priority is to talk to it. Picard woulda nuked that thing into a billion shards if push came to shove, but you saw him exhausting other options first. I've always felt this kind of writing was edgier and more subversive than what DS9 touted as "subversive" and "adult"." I agree to a point. Choosing to spare a planet destroying entity or even just a murderous rock blob a la the horta is very subversive and distinctly Trekkian. On the other hand even you qualify your statement "if push comes to shove..." thereby acknowledging that even Picard could not just stand by and permit people to die to avoid sullying his own hands by killing. In DS9, push comes to shove with the Dominion. It is subversive to subject an "evolved" society to the kinds of no-win scenarios that were always neatly sidestepped in TNG. Regarding the "ticking time bomb" this need not be a literal bomb but can be thought of as any extreme situation where survival necessitates violence or some other normally immoral response. Self-defence is the classic example as are numerous other scenarios carved out under the law from necessity to the battered wife pre-emptive "self-defence" argument. Mal is correct that scifi and fantasy cheats on this point by providing not only the protagonist but the viewer with perfect information, squeezing out the moral ambiguity. But on the other hand, these scenarios do certainly happen all the time, especially in wartime, which makes wartime leaders easy prey for revisionist smears and takedowns by charlatans and opportunists.

Speaking of the matter of information, I admit I always thought: isn't this a bit out of Sisko's paygrade? Shouldn't you consult with somebody from the Federation's "Romulan desk"? Does your position and level of security clearance really allow you to properly weigh the variables on this matter? I get it: it's a TV show, and the protagonists often have to do implausible things because they're the protagonists. But on DS9 it gets egregious -- Sisko seems to exceed his duties on a regular. I like this episode but I agree that it's troubling how appealing realpolitik can look if it's for "good reasons." Especially since the blowback of Sisko's treacherous actions never arrives.

Interesting discussion here about perfect information -- I like how Mal has put it regarding perfect information. Another way of thinking about it is Trek's oversimplification of a very complex, political and societal problem. It's television fiction of course and a story needs to be wrapped up in 1 hour and then we move on. So often times Trek will have a handful of people our protagonist deals with that represent the entire population of a society or a planet or even a planetary system -- a decision is made, action taken and that's it. Rarely do we follow up with consequences or second-order effects. I don't think that's a drawback necessarily as we as viewers have to look at it as telling a part of a larger story with plenty of details/motivations/consequences being left out. If we are overly meticulous in our scrutiny of a Trek episode, of course it can fall apart -- we have had to accept that spaceships carrying hundreds of people can travel hundreds or thousands of times faster than the speed of light, matter/energy scramblers in the transporters etc. Are we gonna call all of that BS and hate Trek? Of course not, so similarly, the oversimplification of a political conflict is part of the package or suspension of disbelief. I do think Sisko takes matters into his own hands to some extent but there are references to his contact with / approval from higher-ups. The bottom line is a good story is told of a man with the weight of the world on his shoulders feeling he has to violate his fundamental principles and morals -- and this is done all while keeping within the Trek paradigm. ITPM is a brilliant episode and one of the franchise's very best for me in terms of what it takes the viewer through.

Giving It a chance

Giving this episode a watch after all the great reviews, but gotta say, the start isn’t promising, with Sisko and Dax having a cringe-worthy back and forth on how to draw Romulus into a war. “And then...”. “But...” “Yeah, that’s the ticket!”. Egads, a major deceptive operation hashed out by two people having an 8th grade vocabulary conversation. Pffft.. I truly hope it gets better.

Man, am I ever getting annoyed by fans of the morally darker New Star Treks pointing to this and "For the Uniform" as justifications via "whataboutism" for "Discovery," "Picard" and "Lower Decks"'s reprehensible moral codes. These were the EXCEPTIONS to for Sisko, while being the rule for those series. Here is a whole EPISODE about Sisko reflecting on the damage he did and trying to come to an "ends justifying the means" reasoning, with his success in doing so VERY much in doubt. Characters in the new Trek don't even bat a friggin' eye at wanton murder. As for "For the Uniform" there's a whole tizzy about chemical warefare on civilians. Admittedly, not a good look, but also ignoring complete situational context. That was a COLONY world. By it's very nature such a world would not have large numbers of infirm upon it because it's not a difficult supposition to make that only able-bodies and fit people would sign up for frontier colonization, given that it would likely entail large amounts of physically demanding work. That plus the fact there was ample evacuation time and a whole other planet close by to evacuate to, makes Sisko's decision to do this, while not a great action, not the murderous genocide some make it out to be. And then there's the whole Dominion War. And if you need me to explain the difference between a period of sustained conflict against a singular enemy faction seeking to annihilate you with superior tech and numbers versus vaprizing every opponent in every hostile encounter, (when you have STUN settings no less) be it a gang of bounty hunters or an enemy vessel, then I really have to wonder what's wrong with you. Preferably we'd all want to do our best to avoid either, but the new Treks don't even try, or feel remorse. Not when they're too busy feeling fully justified for every murder because they tell themselves they have the moral high ground and were RIGHT. Pretty sure that thinking is what's lead to every religious conflict ever. Can't wait for Kurtzman's new Trek series, Star Trek: Crusades, where the plucky, failed upwards captain who is brave enough to show their feelings at every oppertunity leaves the Alpha through Gamma Quadrents awash in the blood of those that refused to come around to the Federations dogmatic, moralistic way of thinking. It'll be a real barn-buster of an action romp thst promises to truely resonate with 4% of it's audience and pats them on the head dhile telling them how right THEY are. Gaw, I wouldn't put it past him, I really wouldn't.

"Man, am I ever getting annoyed by fans of the morally darker New Star Treks pointing to this and "For the Uniform" as justifications via "whataboutism" for "Discovery," "Picard" and "Lower Decks"'s reprehensible moral codes. These were the EXCEPTIONS to for Sisko, while being the rule for those series." Yes. DS9 for all its reputation as a "dark" Trek isn't actually all that dark. We have to make a distinction between dark subject matter and what I would call a dark morality I e. nihilism. DS9 ventures into the former but almost never into the latter. In the Berman era shows killing was a big deal and Starfleet crew almost never did it if it could be helped. Voyager was notorious for this and it even became a bit comedic as Janeway would permit the rando alien hard-ass of the week to wail on the Voyager until its shields were down to 8% before ordering the return of fire - and then she'd just target their engines or something. DS9 wasn't all that different, although given the war setting, obviously Sisko wasn't able to be as accommodating when facing a wing of Jem'Hadar fighters. Compare this with the casual violence of 7 of 9 mowing down a dozen people in Stardust City Rag or Burnham setting her phaser to kill and shooting that Klingon in the back (no I'm never going to let that one go, cause it was way worse than the mutiny).

Outstandingly great within DS9, quite good for Star Trek. While I liked the ending, it still was a semi-easy way out (so typical for Star Trek) for Sisko and the good Federation as he did not have to make the hard call: Sisko is okay with - previously unbeknownst to him - someone else murder someone to help create a false pretense for his people to enter into war in the self interest of the Federation / presumed interest of the people in the Alpha Quadrant. The better question would be: had he also gone as far as killing the ambassador himself, maybe even plan it all that way? I think not (None of the other Captains would have) and Garak even said so but rather than looking THAT question in the eye, non-human/non-Federation Garak is the means to conveniently avoid that question and still reap the benefits. Typical ST. I love ST but it suffers from this flaw that, mostly, our heroes only can be morale heroes because they keep meeting loop holes and convenient turns of events that fix their problems for them. The means to an end question is seldomly truly explored just touched. The episode is positively different, dark and discomforting for ST standards. For real world standards its probably only skin deep.

@ Seb, I'm not entirely sure you're taking the argument made in this episode seriously enough. For Sisko to know he can't do the truly rotten things, but to allow Garak into the game, is a case not of ends justifying means, but of compartmentalizing responsibility. In the real world analogy, we might well say something similar to what Garak said, which is "what do you actually think the CIA is for? to do the things you don't want to know need to be done, because you won't do them yourself." Now this can be contested, and IMO the bedrock of the argument is to be found in other episodes such as the first Section 31 episode. Is it possible to actually compete in the real world without using advantages (such as the Obsidian Order, Tal Shiar, Section 31) that other major powers use? ITPM doesn't address that question directly, but it does suggest that people of conscience may need to let others *occasionally* step in to do some dirty work, knowing full well it may entail things they don't like, but also knowing those other people cannot run things. And maybe there is something here about illusion; maybe some actions are possible only if you blind yourself to them. Maybe certain dangerous jobs and plans would never come to fruition if one was too aware of their dangers; and maybe war would never be possible if we truly knew the pain we were causing. It's worth asking whether that disconnect is a good thing or not, just as Sisko asks whether being able to live with it justifies his actions. He didn't commit murder, Garak did, and the difference there is no trivial. Even if he would repeat it all again to achieve the same end, doesn't necessarily mean he would agree to do Garak's part in it with his own hands. And I'm not entirely sure that's an inconsistent or hypocritical position to take. Or at least - the episode asks whether it is.

Peter is right, I think, Seb. I'd like to gentle suggest you missed the point of the episode if you think the ending was meant to be taken as a simple Sisko is a "moral hero". He did some pretty grubby things and was responsible (how directly or indirectly is a matter for debate) for some even grubbier things - but it was supposedly all for the greater good. Sisko clearly thought it was a worthwhile trade but I don't think the writers want you to simply agree with him unthinkingly. Even he is clearly very troubled by it, despite that conclusion.

Please excuse me if someone mentioned this, but I view Sisko’s actions as being Garak’s enabler. This is the kind of scheme that Garak has always demonstrated he’s capable of implementing, and I’m sure he was pleased when Sisko went along with it. I agree with those who are annoyed by Brooks’ overacting, and Sisko’s previous actions make his handwringing rather inconsistent.

So, having just seen the episode, and thinking on it for a bit, I feel like, while a decent episode, with some nice character work, it wasn't quite the 'Top 10 Star Trek episode' that others have described it. The premise seems very much like your basic 'person becomes desperate, and makes a deal with the devil to try and fix it' scenario, with Garak being the devil in this instance, and Sisko as the desperate individual who's tricked by the Devil to performing various dark deeds, both directly and indirectly*. The difference here is that, being Star Trek, the dark deeds are limited to: Forging evidence (of something that was likely to happen anyway), Murder (of a death row criminal), and Blowing up a shuttle with a senator on board (one who was going to make the war that much harder to fight)** It being Star Trek is also the thing that makes that work, because from the perspective of an advanced society like The Federation, actions like this *would* still be concerning (and in fact, it's something that the show acknowledged in the previous episode). That said, two things that keep the episode from being great for me are: 1 - As others have pointed out, the actions shown here aren't that much worse than others taken in prior episodes in this show (the changeling's on Earth two-parter is a good example, where Sisko actively defends his actions by saying "It's easy to be a saint in Paradise", a stark contrast to his response here). 2 - Sisko is for the most part not very pro-active. Most of his actions in this episode are basically him agreeing to Garak's ideas, and/or generally playing along to Garak's tune, out of desperation, with the final act being conducted almost entirely by Garak, with Sisko as an unwitting accomplice at best. This, to me, undermines the theme of an individual performing dubious actions in service of the greater good, by essentially offloading most of the work to Garak. Had he started out this way, but then gradually began to make decisions of his own accord (somewhat like what he did with Quark, but worse) I feel the idea could've worked, but it instead seems to do the opposite. Overall, in isolation, the idea is an interesting one for Star Trek, and is still a decent enough episode overall, but it has some caveats that to me, keep it from being the all-time great that it's often described as. *Then again, Breaking Bad built an entire Emmy-winning show entirely on this very premise, so maybe originality in premise doesn't matter much if it's well-done? **Another factor is that the 'devil' in this instance is Garak, who is a series regular and someone (somewhat) sympathetic to Sisko's goals (that's also why each action comes with some sort of 'mitigating circumstance').

Given his basic personality, Sisko was doomed from the beginning to feel guilt concerning his actions in ITPM. The episode is bound to resonate among persons, who like Sisko, have a developed conscience. Since such persons do not like to deceive others, a line of work outside the military would be more suitable. Garak has a conscience which is comfortable with deception, duplicity even. Sisko has no stomach for one if the essential tenets of warfare (at least according to Sun Tzu ). However, what amazes me about the episode, is the Romulan's reaction to the intelligence he receives from Sisko, screaming "It's a fake!!!" or something to that effect. It is certainly powerfully acted; but is it true to a self-respecting Romulan, I wonder? ....IMO, a Romulan, schooled in some general staff college on Romulus, would have assumed that it was fake as a matter of principle. Therefore: (1) It is a stretch that he even made the trip to DS9. But since the writers force that one upon us, (2) Having viewed the record, he should have uttered the word, "fascinating" with a raised eyebrow, and simply departed, but opting to leave specially prepared cylinder behind. If for no other reason he, as a trainee in the operational art of war, would wish to convey at the very least, that one report would never be enough to trigger war. "Is this the best you've got?" comes to mind as his riposte. Still, it was a thought-provoking episode which is among the series' most watchable stories.

I suppose we could chalk up the "it's a fake!!!" to Sisko's own perception of the rejection of his offer. But if we don't want to be so theatrical in our presumption, then perhaps even that outraged attitude was itself a maneuver to see what Sisko would do in the face of such a reaction. As it turns out he did nothing, which perhaps was itself fascinating to the Romulan. He would think so, since from his perspective his opponent in the situation was Sisko, who appeared to back down. Little did he know who the real opponent was.

I think the anger was genuine. He clearly disliked the Federation already and now he sees them trying to sucker the Romulans into a bloody war with lies. Why wouldn't he be furious?

Watching this one again right now, and was hit by an alarming idea. Conveniently, right before Garak is set to pitch an outrageous plan to Sisko involving forgery and theft, Betazed just happens to fall due to the 10th fleet being away on a training exercise? I guess I always just assumed the Founders were one step ahead and had Changelings around to gather this kind of info. But...what if Garak fed it to them, to make the Federation desperate enough to go along with his way of planning? When Garak says to Sisko that Starfleet Command will probably go along with the plan after having just lost Betazed, it's almost too smooth, like he knew it was the perfect puzzle piece to fall into place to get him into the game his way. I could almost imagine him thinking, "how can I convince these fools to follow my lead so I can give them the tools they need to win the war?" Not sure if this point is exactly implied overtly...but man he is certainly confident in his plan being accepted, which it would not have been just one day earlier. Did Garak sell out Betazed to drive Starfleet to desperation?

I don't think so. Too complicated. Apart from former contacts he has very little resources and those contacts are mostly in the Cardassian Empire. Does he earn buckets full of Latinum with his tailor business? I don't think so. He is just presenting his case well. Making the Dominion attack a specific planet, changing fleet orders to fit that, not to forget the outdated planetary defenses, tricking Starfleet intelligence, Section 31 and more while sitting on DS9. That would be a gigantic operation, even for an entire spy organization. To me it sounded like the Dominion would have won anyway but it would have been harder for them if everything would have worked right for the Federation.

Well obviously I'm not sure about it, but it struck me that it was an amazing coincidence that the Federation suffered such a major blow right at the point when Garak sensed Sisko was ripe for coming to his way of thinking. Because I'm pretty sure that plan would have been torpedoed if the war had been in a holding pattern. Anyhow I don't think it's as big an operation as you think. All we need to do is assume Garak was privy to certain intelligence he wasn't supposed to have (not a stretch), and that he simply passed along word to the Dominion that an important Federation task force would be absent for training maneuvers.

Sure, but that would still mean that the Federation had to miss a major Dominion build up. The Dominion had to assemble a huge fleet, resources to supply an invading army and maintain an occupation of an entire system. But hey don't let me tell you what your head canon should be. ;) If we focus it on Garak then I would lean towards no. It's already quite past the time when he was incapable of torturing Odo, would the same guy willingly risk probably causing millions of death and enslaving billions to achieve his goal? Maybe.

OmicronThetaDeltaPhi

I got the impression that the fall of Betzed was - basically - a natural result in the progress of the Dominion fleet. And that Starfleet's inadequacy of dealing with that invasion was the result of being overtaxed by the ongoing war. I also don't see why the Dominion, with their excellent intelligence, would need someone like Garak to tell them about the training schedules of starfleet divisions. Also, as always with Garak, we need to ask the question of "what's in it for me?". Why would he do such a thing? I'm willing to buy him risking an entire planet to further his goals, but there needs to be some kind of logic in his actions. Would Garak really hand a key planet to the enemy, thereby risking a swifter defeat, just to change Sisko's mind? Doesn't seem very likely to me. Then again, with Garak, you can never know.

I suppose the argument would be something like that the Federation was going to lose with 100% certainty unless the Romulans joined, so any action at all would be worth it to reverse that. But no, if you watch the scene again where they discuss the fall of Betazed, they all look very surprised, as if to ask how it could have happened. It's played more like a stroke of bad luck than a regular type of progression toward their defeat. It's made to sound like an attack fleet they knew nothing about struck just at the moment where the defensive fleet was away on maneuvers. The implication is the Dominion could never have taken Betazed otherwise.

I won't say much given everyone pretty gave a topo on this episode, but looking at Avery Brook's face in the end scene when he's staring at us saying he can live with it.......I'm not convinced he cannot live with it, despite deleting the log. After introducing us to section 31 , pale moonlight pretty much sums up how mucky SF is willing to get to end the war with the Dominion (after all this was greenlighted by SF command). Despite this dark turn on the part of the Federation , Sisko still somehow grips with it's initial ideals in that final scene (from my point of view anyhow), which adds importance and credence to Garak's speech about how he alone could of done it giving Sisko complet exoneration.

It's possible that the fall of Betazed is all the more shocking, both to characters and audience, because everyone implicitly accepts that prescient & mind-reading Betazoids should have seen the attack coming, but were by the millions, unable to sense that the Dominion was anywhere near the place. Added shock factors include that the planet is a particularly idyllic locale, which is never shown having a standing army, i.e., the Tibet of the galaxy, like Alderaan in SW.

"It's possible that the fall of Betazed is all the more shocking, both to characters and audience, because everyone implicitly accepts that prescient & mind-reading Betazoids should have seen the attack coming, but were by the millions, unable to sense that the Dominion was anywhere near the place." If TNG is any guide to how useful these powers are at figuring out the non-obvious, only once all the ground troops had landed and slaughtered a couple of million people would some Betazoid would have said "I sense great hostility!".

Sad to say, that's a pretty good estimate! : )

Some were wondering how Garak was able to dispose of Graython Tolar (pretty shade of blue) without Odo noticing. That's a good question. Odo knows the station inside and out, but then Garak likely still knows it better. However, Odo is well aware of Tolar's presence and would likely take notice of him disappearing without a trace... But this may clear something up for me. When Tolar is detained for attacking Quark, Odo acknowledges to Sisko that wartime calls for secrecy yet insists he has to arrest Tolar because of matters of law, leading to Sisko bribing Quark to make the matter disappear. But, um, wut? I wondered why is Odo being a hard ass on this. His statements seem contradictory. Now I'm thinking Odo was just cleaning up the immediate situation. After all, Sisko should have notified Odo that Tolar was coming aboard, certainly if he was going to be allowed to waltz around the Promenade. It was too public and too big a deal to just wink wink, so it has to be handled. Sisko bribes Quark (who likely becomes extremely curious, but files the information away in his head because no way he'll cross Sisko). There remains an untold story about just how Garak disposed of Tolar without Odo knowing (?) but possibly it's as simple as declaring parts of the station off limits to everyone but Sisko, Garak AND Tolar, but no Odo, just as they do with Vreenak's shuttle.

I'd assume that like Vreenak, Garak killed Tolar remotely somehow. Like Tolar was just found dead in his quarters, no particular reason to suspect anyone in particular. I don't picture Garak personally strangling him to death or something like that.

Re-watching this episode for the first time in a long time. Still holds up very well. Just had a thought, although it’s idle speculation: I wonder if Jadzia ever suspected Sisko’s involvement in this whole affair? Consider things from her POV: Sisko involves her in some role-playing to game out what it would take to get the Romulans into the war. Then the Dominion conquer Betazed, which is a pretty big deal. A few days later, Sisko gives orders to seal off an entire section including a landing pad and tells Kira to await a coded signal with no explanation given. Sisko is unavailable for several hours after this. Three days later, a Romulan senator’s shuttle is blown up, apparently Dominion sabotage - dovetailing almost too perfectly with your role-playing with Sisko days before. When Sisko hears the news, instead of reacting with some degree of hopeful interest, turns really grim and excuses himself abruptly. Later it turns out that said senator was carrying proof of a Dominion plan to invade Romulus. And the entire time these events are taking place, Sisko, who normally considers you one of his closest friends and trusted confidants, barely talks to you. Is it idle speculation to think that she would suspect at least on a subconscious level? Just my two cents. Some years ago, I had an idea for a Trek episode that would involve the biomimetic gel traded away in this ep being used to carry out a horrific biological attack. Over the course of the episode, our heroes would trace the gel back to DS9 and then reconstruct the events of this ep, which would leave them a choice: tell the galaxy the truth, or let the dead rest to stave off a greater interstellar conflict? It’s definitely worth a discussion at the very least…

TheRealTrent

"In the Pale Moonlight" is generally regarded as one of the best Trek episodes, but I've always thought it was one of the worst and one of the most insidious. What is the point of this episode? That Sisko deviated from his ideals? He's been doing dubious stuff since season 3, none of which is re-visted, and none of which gets challenged. Maybe the point is that nations must, when push comes to shove, commit false flag operations in the name of self-preservation? Ideals are fine, after all, but sometimes you need to break free of them. But this is a truism in the same way that "there potentially exists a situation in which me murdering a 5 year old baby might protect the world from Martians" is also a truism. It's only true in a very silly and very contrived situation. Meanwhile, in the real world, we know that "superpowers lying to convince people to join a war" is overwhelmingly bad. For example, WMD lies bedrocked the second Iraq War. Fake "baby incubator" and "nurse testimonies" bedrocked the first Iraq war. Fake ship attacks and CIA bombings blamed on the NVA were used to justify the Vietnam War. Similar fake shenanigans started the Russo-Swedish war, the Japanese Invasion of Manchuria, and the German invasion of Poland (Gleiwitz incident). Countless similar false flags were used by various "dirty tricks" departments to instigate coups or toy with regimes. You'd struggle to find an example in history where this stuff is good, or leads to good outcomes, or was done altruistically. DS9, however, positions you to accept this behavior as a necessary evil which leads to good outcomes. So this episode's thesis on false-flags applies to our lives, and the real world, and history, and planet Earth, only insofar as it sells us a lie. The episode isn't "morally ambiguous" or "tackling the naivety of TNG", rather it is dishonest. Indeed, it is this episode which is naive and lacking in understanding. And it's all contrived for the specific purpose of giving TNG/Roddenberry the finger, and all reverse engineered for the specific purpose of selling its brand of "moral flexibility" ("Are you telling me you wouldn't waterboard the Pope if he had the nuclear disarmament codes!?"). I once read a book by the philosopher Umberto Eco on what constitutes modern fascist art, and it's remarkable how many tenets you could level at DS9 episodes like this. He'd talk about such art always hinging around the preservation of your hegemony, around some over-hyped existential threat, how it always adopts a tone of passive victimhood (the wagons are outnumbered by hordes of Indians, the British by hordes of Zulu, DS9 by hordes of Jem Hadar etc), how it aggressively collapses complex topics into simple choices etc etc. Two points in particular I've always remembered. Such art uses pseudo-religious blood sacrifices to heavily guilt-trip the audience into swearing fidelity to a future cause. So instead of Jesus' death for sinners you have soldiers dying upon the altar of freedom, and fittingly this episode begins with everyone teary-eyed and sad as they read the death notices of the hundreds of friends who've died to the Dominion (All this blood! Something must be done!). Eco also mentions how such art increasingly "outsources" or "downplays" specific things. We see that here with any evil done given to Garak, and without Sisko's knowledge, and in any case, only one Romulan died (or one ship). The Federation gets to wash its hands of everything ("It wasn't our fault, and even if it was, it was no big deal! And even it is, the outcome was positive!"). A similar thing would be done to the Founder's Virus, which simultaneously wins the war, and which our heroes get to nobly wash their hands of. "In the Pale Moonlight" also prefigures our current glut of amoral anti-heroes on TV, whose "edginess" is uncritically and matter-of-factly accepted as "just how things are". Drone bombing some brown kids for the greater good? Whatcha expect? The world's COMPLICATED! But such art only offers a false "complicatedness" in order to obfuscate real complexity. And there's always a double motion to such portrayals, the characters superficially condemned while the audience gets off on their lawlessness or their transgressions. Indeed, the lip-service toward condemnation is precisely what sanctions our consumption of these transgressions, and allows us to consume them with impunity. More than this, the more politically and socially impotent an audience becomes, the more it seeks to live vicariously through such art. It's the old Marcusian joke; the more subjugated the subject, the more fascist the dreams. Marcuse was talking about political impotency, but I suspect it applies to Ira Behr in a more literal sense. The more boxed in by TNG rules he became, the more he delighted in throwing mud. If "In the Pale Moonlight" were not so naive, it would recognize that the real lesson is not that one must sometimes hire criminals to false-flag rival superpowers into waging war on your enemies, it's that you should boot Sisko from Starfleet in season 3, respect Dominion space, ban Federation ships from crossing the wormhole, park a giant fleet by DS9, work overtime to bring Bajor and Cardassia into the Federation, and build a giant death star at the wormhole mouth. But that's what stories like "In the Pale Moonlight" have always historically done. They get you focusing on irrelevant nonsense, and then trap you into a spiral of other irreverent nonsense ("Ohh, maybe if Betazed had..." or "Ohh, if only Section 31 had done...", "I wonder if Sisko really meant for..." ). Who care? You're in a high-tech Federation with hundreds of worlds, access to limitless knowledge and technology, and you're OUTSOURCING THE FATE OF THE ALPHA QUADRANT TO A CARDASSIAN TAILOR with a PIPE BOMB? It's the silliest stuff ever, but it all postures as edgy and deep.

@ RealTrent While I agree that the later seasons of DS9 started the downward trend of Star Trek, this episode works very well as a morality play. As a Trek episode it is pretty awful, though. It is not fascist iconography or themes, that is really overdoing it. While the settlers or the British in their respective conflicts were outnumbered in some situations, they still were technologically superior and just a tiny part of a huge force. The Federation on the other hand is outnumbered and at best at the same level techwise and Sisko's behavior is not glorified. If it was fascist then it would be about how the strong does what is necessary. He doesn't question it, he knows it's right and that morality or doubt is for the weak.

That's all well and good, Trent, but you're supposing two things that you take to be true in the real world to also be true in this episod: 1) These false flag operations put nations into a bad war for bad reasons. 2) That the threat posed by the Dominion is an "over-hyped existential threat" (a la 1984). Putting aside the morality of lying for good reasons, which is sort of a side discussion IMO, your objections seem to be based on the idea that the situation Sisko is in mirrors the false flags you mention IRL. But is the issue of the false flags that they draw a nation into an improper conflict, or that they improperly draw a nation into a correct conflict? Because I don't think you'll find much support for the idea that conflicts are never correct. In the Pale Moonlight deals with the 2nd case, where a necessary alliance is brought about due to duplicity, but where that duplicity is actually in everyone's best interests strategically (other than the Dominion). So the parallel you want to draw shouldn't be with nations engaging in nefarious conflicts for their own selfish gain, and lying to do so; the correct parallel would be if a nation absolutely had to go to war, and would not obtain consent to do so under normal circumstances. For instance, what if the U.S. people would have objected to helping Europe in WWII? Would a propaganda campaign, or lie, have been justified to bring America into what most people consider a historically necessary conflict? So that brings up issues like transparency and whether lies can lead to good. These are valid questions to ask, but they are separate from what you seem to be saying, which is that lying = bad and so Sisko is an anti-hero. Now the Jack Bauer scenario if often referred to as a right-wing fantasy, where an existential threat is so severe that any tactic at all would be justified to prevent it (like torture, most often). Now while this type of thinking does create the possibility of a government pretending there is such a threat in order to justify...well, just about anything at all, on the other hand the fact they could lie about it doesn't actually mean such a scenario can't exist. It just means that abusing the public trust for bad purposes isn't all that hard for bad men to do. But what if good men are the leaders and find public support lacking for an absolutely necessary action? That is the scenario DS9 is portraying. You can question it, or say that Sisko is really a liar and the Dominion threat is trumped up; or that the scenario presented IRL would always be a lie so the DS9 one ends up being propaganda; or that Starfleet is not much different from a Cold War power for lying. But all of these objections ignore the actual facts in the series up until this point, ignore Sisko's character (which despite yours and Elliott's opinions, is that of a moderate, compassionate, and upstanding man), and treat the scenario as nefarious as you would imagine it to be IRL contrary to present facts. Yes, we get the god's eye view in a tv show, so we know Sisko's reasoning is on the level. We know it from his conversation with Jadzia. We know the Federation will lose if the Romulans don't join. We even know they Weyoun would push to exterminate all life on Earth if the Federation surrendered, just on principle, so the argument that the Federation and the Dominion are morally at parity cannot be made. And yes, IRL we don't get the god's eye view and so it's hard to take this type of reasoning at face value, i.e. that we need to do X or we all die. But it isn't an impossible scenario, and it's the one we have here. You have to simply accept this proposition: if you knew with 100% certainty you and all your nation's people would be exterminated unless you told a lie, would you tell it? Some very few would say that it's better to let humanity be wiped out rather than commit even a minor sin. Is that really your position, because I think it would have to be if you're really so against what Sisko does. I'm not saying there's no debate, or that what Sisko does is unambiguously good. I'm saying it's tough, and that I can't help but feel you're being reductionist and leaving out certain facts.

Trent is refering to this, I believe. https://www.openculture.com/2016/11/umberto-eco-makes-a-list-of-the-14-common-features-of-fascism.html

Thanks for the link, Booming. I see little or no similarity for any of those propositions (which are mostly reasonable) to the situation in this episode. To the extent that Trek teaches heroism as a basic concept, it's not the muscular dominating heroism of the macho Nazi regime, but heroism of reason and understanding. Not sure how any other clause is even remotely applicable here.

@TheRealTrent, fascinating write up. "What is the point of this episode?” To answer that, I’d take a step back and ask What is the point of Star Trek? There is of course the classic description from Picard in The Neutral Zone, PICARD: This is the twenty fourth century. Material needs no longer exist. RALPH: Then what's the challenge? PICARD: The challenge, Mister Offenhouse, is to improve yourself. And so TNG, especially, was about asking what do people do once they "are no longer obsessed with the accumulation of things”? TOS was about forging that New Man. You saw shades of it with Pike, BOYCE: Chris, you set standards for yourself no one could meet. You treat everyone on board like a human being except yourself. But it was most evident with how Commodore Stone treated Kirk in Court Martial, STONE: Stop recording. Now, look, Jim. Not one man in a million could do what you and I have done. Command a starship. A hundred decisions a day, hundreds of lives staked on you making every one of them right. For almost all of Trek up till DS9, we hardly saw any civilians. We saw life aboard a Starfleet vessel, and almost all the stories we saw were these new post-material men, molded by Starfleet Academy. These men weren’t born that way. They were made and molded - made by a society with no money, and molded by a militaristic education and training. So DS9 asked the fascinating question - is this New Man real? Picard said, "We have grown out of our infancy,” but you take away that society, will the training hold? Quark had his answer, a resounding NO, it ain’t real, QUARK: Let me tell you something about humans, nephew. They're a wonderful, friendly people as long as their bellies are full and their holosuites are working. But take away their creature comforts, deprive them of food, sleep, sonic showers, put their lives in jeopardy over an extended period of time, and those same friendly, intelligent, wonderful people will become as nasty and as violent as the most bloodthirsty Klingon. DS9’s thesis was that the TOS-TNG New Man was just a veneer. If push came to shove, you’ll find that nothing had really changed deep down in his soul. Even TNG, though, never really believed the changes were real. We saw that when the Federation was pushed to the brink in the Cardassian war, and Picard was sent on a very illegal mission (“Chain of Command Part I”). For that matter, even on TOS, Kirk and Spock were hardly above violating the neutral zone and stealing a cloaking device (“The Enterprise Incident”). Indeed, Starfleet seemed to break the rules (e.g., “Pegasus” cloak) with alarming frequency. Even undertaking ethnic cleansing, PICARD: What if these Indians refuse to be evacuated? NECHEYEV: Then your orders will be to remove them by whatever means are necessary. I understand your moral objections, Captain. If you wish, I can find someone else to command the Enterprise for this mission. PICARD: That will not be necessary, Admiral. And genocide, NECHAYEV: As I understand, it you found a single Borg at a crash site, brought it aboard the Enterprise, studied it, analysed it, and eventually found a way to send it back to the Borg with a programme that would have destroyed the entire collective once and for all. But instead, you nursed the Borg back to health, treated it like a guest, gave it a name, and then sent it home. Why? PICARD: When Hugh was separated from the Borg collective he began to grow and to evolve into something other than an automaton. He became a person. When that happened, I felt I had no choice but to respect his rights as an individual. NECHAYEV: Of course you had a choice. You could've taken the opportunity to rid the Federation of a mortal enemy, one that has killed tens of thousands of innocent people, and which may kill even more. PICARD: No one is more aware of the danger than I am. But I am also bound by my oath and my conscience to uphold certain principles. And I will not sacrifice them in order to NECHAYEV: Your priority is to safeguard the lives of Federation citizens, not to wrestle with your conscience. Now I want to make it clear that if you have a similar opportunity in the future, an opportunity to destroy the Borg, you are under orders to take advantage of it. Is that understood? PICARD: Yes, sir. Part of why VOY was so bland, was by design. VOY and DS9 ran in parallel, and VOY posited that those fundamental changes were real. That New Man would keep his post-materialistic nature even if he was separated from the society that made him. The answer was so ridiculous that they must have felt forced to throw in “Equinox," and we got the more realistic Captan Ransom to show that us that the crew of Voyager was a very exceptional case - there were definitely Federation citizens who would revert to their base nature if separated from the Federation’s creature comforts. Having asked in TOS how we make a post-materialist man, and having asked in TNG, what that post-materialist man would spend his time doing; Star Trek asked in DS9 if those changes were real, and its answer was NO. But the answer in VOY was Yes (or at least Maybe). Then we got to ENT. In ENT they asked a different question: what was man like before they started making him into the TOS/TNG New Man? It ended up being not a very interesting question, because of course those people are us, and we don’t need scifi for that. At the time ENT was on, there was another show that did ask an interesting question, Firefly. Firefly asked, what about all the people who refuse to go along with this plan to make and mold a post-materialistic Trek man? TEACHER: With so many social and medical advancements we can bring to the Independents, why would they fight so hard against us? RIVER: We meddle. TEACHER: River? RIVER: People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think. Don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. TEACHER: River, we're not telling people what to think. We're just trying to show them how. Other shows went in other directions. Babylon 5 went the opposite direction from Trek. B5 posited that people never change. In B5, yes man would eliminate hunger and poverty, but by an Orwellian slight of hand, JULIE MUSANTE: Earth doesn't have homeless. We don't have the problem. Well, yes, there are some displaced people, here and there, but they've chosen to be in their position. They're either lazy or they're criminal or they're mentally unstable. SHERIDAN: They can't get a job. JULIE MUSANTE: Earth-gov has promised a job to everyone that wants one. So, if someone doesn't have a job, they must not want one. SHERIDAN: Poverty? JULIE MUSANTE: It's the same. SHERIDAN: Crime? JULIE MUSANTE: Yes, there is some, but it's all caused by the mentally unstable. And we've just instituted correctional centers to filter them out at an early age. SHERIDAN: Prejudice? JULIE MUSANTE: No, we are just one happy planet. Other shows like nBSG went a different way, instead of making post-materialist man, they made men out of materials, called them Cylons, and used them as slaves. Plus ca change. The problem with nuTrek, and new scifi in general, is, what is the question they are asking?? What aspect of humanity are they exploring?? You talk about the "current glut of amoral anti-heroes on TV," and that nihilism is a symptom of that deeper problem. Discovery started with almost no grand vision at all, no curiosity into the human condition. No questions to ask. That’s part of the problem of this new woke era - they think they have all the answers. So there is nothing left to explore. The Spore drive is the perfect metaphor for that - you can go anywhere in the universe in a blink of an eye, but you end up in all the same places again and again and again. The interesting thing about The Burn was that there finally was a question! It was a slightly modified version of Quark’s observation in Siege of AR-558, but instead of taking away their holosuites and creature comforts, they took away faster-than-light travel. And almost overnight, the Federation collapsed. In a way The Burn was a very faithful homage to the Original Star Trek. If man was made anew thanks to dilithium, then man reverted to form when dilithium disappeared. That was the metaphor they were going for in TNG’s “Force of Nature." The only way for an organization - a society - like the Federation, and people like post-materialistic man, can exist, is if there is faster-than-light travel. The point of DS9’s "In the Pale Moonlight” @TheRealTrent, is that the Federation charter is not a suicide pact. As Admiral Nechayev once told Picard, NECHAYEV: Your priority is to safeguard the lives of Federation citizens, not to wrestle with your conscience. Now I want to make it clear that if you have a similar opportunity in the future, an opportunity to destroy the Borg, you are under orders to take advantage of it. Is that understood? Or as Thomas Jefferson wrote years earlier, "A strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means." Not that I would expect @TheRealTrent to agree with Jefferson, @TheRealTrent: That's a glib answer and a cheap way to avoid the fact that you've trampled on the very thing that those men and women are out there dying to protect! Does that not mean anything to you? ROSS: Inter arma enim silent leges. @TheRealTrent: In time of war, the law falls silent. Cicero. So is that what we have become? A twenty fourth century Rome driven by nothing more than the certainty that Caesar can do no wrong! Admiral Ross. Admiral Nechayev. You’d think the only point of the new Picard show is that one more pip really turns you into a horrible person, even if you started off as The Picard! DS9 - and evidently Discovery post-Burn - are both grounded in a belief that the New TOS/TNG Man is merely a product of a post-scarcity society, and that without limitless energy and fast-than-light travel, man will revert to form. What means are justified in preserving that way of life? Section 31 says even genocide would be justifiable. Sisko may not be willing to go quite that far. But lying, cheating, bribery, and murder? The point of "In the Pale Moonlight” is that yeah, if that’s what it takes, then this is the way. Earlier this season Bashir and is band of mutants calculated the Federation-Klingon alliances' best chances was to bring the Romulans into the war. Evidently there are enough Romulans like Chairman Koval of the Tal’Shiar who agree (ROSS: He's been providing the Federation with critical military intelligence for over a year. When he started working with Section Thirty one I don't know). The Cardassians and Garak agree. Do we think Ambassador Spock sitting on Romulas had no opinion on this? How many thousands (millions?) of others were involved in big ways and small ways to make this happen? You really think Sisko and Garak save the Alpha Quadrant all on their own? They aren’t Michael Burnham. If Sisko didn’t do the job, Starfleet would have just found someone else to do it. (SISKO: Starfleet Command had given the plan their blessing). We already know what kind of organization Starfleet is. We don’t need "In the Pale Moonlight” to tell us that. "In the Pale Moonlight” tells us what kind of man Sisko is. That’s the point. SHEPHERD BOOK: Live with a man 40 years. Share his house, his meals. Speak on every subject. Then tie him up, and hold him over the volcano's edge. And on that day, you will finally meet the man.

Booming said: "Trent is referring to this, I believe.." No, that list is just about fascism, not artwork. In the wake of 9/11, Eco released a book filled with essays which analyzed jingoistic WW2 art, and compared it to how a similar function is achieved in modern times sans all the traditional iconography. Booming said: "Sisko's behavior is not glorified." Eco's point is that it wouldn't be. Eco details how fascist art in the early 20th century mutates as time goes on. So there's no more patriotism (indeed, the work would seem apolitical), no more glory (people or institutions once glorified would be painted as incompetent and/or always screwing up), no more dying for nations (wider context collapses; you die only for the guy next to you) etc etc. The modern fascist "hero" would be like the stuff warned of at the end of "Full Metal Jacket", where an "intellectual" soldier who identifies himself as being morally opposed to and above the Military Industry Complex, nevertheless rationalizes killing an enemy girl (nation) out of mercy and compassion. The intellectual rationalizing parodied in that film, is how modern fascist art functions (and how modern complicity functions). Something like John Wayne's "Green Berets" wouldn't get made today. People are too sophisticated, like Sisko. To get a Sisko to do bad stuff, or rather sell it to an audience, similar sophistication is needed. Peter said: "But what if good men are the leaders and find public support lacking for an absolutely necessary action? That is the scenario DS9 is portraying. It's a false flag. And a bomb. To instigate a war. Versus evil villains. These are a very specific, and very loaded, set of tropes, with very specific connections to the real world. You do not use these tropes to "investigate what happens if the public refuses to support a necessary action", you historically use them to convince people to do bad stuff, for bogus reasons, and to prime people to believe in very specific "necessary evils". We criticize Jack Baur for waterboarding guys to stop the world blowing up from ticking bombs, because we recognize it as a bogus situation. DS9's false flag is the same thing. Confronted by this fact, people thus have to argue that "DS9 is just a fantasy" and is "not supposed to have real world analogues". But when you push the notion that a piece of art is representative of nothing but itself - typically done for shady reasons ("I'm not saying all Jews are evil and have big noses, just the one in this one particular film!") - you shut down most art criticism. And even if you accept that the episode's dilemma is being honestly posed ("I, Ira Behr, really am interested in how good men get support for..."), the answer is not "false flags". The answer is to make episodes explaining to the audience why Sisko should have acted properly, ten, fifteen, thirty dilemmas ago. After all, if good men need to resort to false flags, then an endless chain of errors have been made prior to getting to this position. DS9 never shows this chain of errors. Never even acknowledges they've taken place. Never calls out Starfleet or Sisko. That this doesn't happen, demonstrates that Behr has no real interest in moral philosophy, or warfare, or politics, or opposing Evil Empires. He's interested only in the Federation's survival being dependent on the false flag. The false flag is the raisen detre. Peter said: "Some very few would say that it's better to let humanity be wiped out rather than commit even a minor sin." This kind of emotional blackmailing is why this kind of art is so bad. It boxes you into its premise, asks you to forget about the wider universe, and then shunts you toward the only two false solutions it allows. DS9 never earns its right to false flags and other bad stuff. It is not meticulous enough in working its way through its own premise. You can't dodge the Dominion War for 17 episodes a season, then the handful of times you make an episode about it, it's coincidentally about false flags and Section 31 shenanigans. This tells the audience nothing, teaches nothing, and only inculcates a weird mix of naivety and cynicism. Peter says: "I'm saying it's tough, and that I can't help but feel you're being reductionist and leaving out certain facts." But it's DS9 which is reductionist and leaves out facts. I mean, it has you unironically espousing Kipling's White Man's Burden (it's tough! And a necessary evil! But somebody's gotta take on everybody's sins!). Sisko needs a false flag because Starfleet is incompetent for 5 seasons, and Ira Behr refuses to admit this. The correct lesson is not that "sometimes things are tough", it's that DS9's Starfleet is populated by idiots very similar to those who find themselves using false flags in the real world.

@ Mal, That's a very interesting write-up, and kudus on all the supporting comparative quotes. However I must fundamentally disagree that Trek, and DS9 in particular, is saying that this so-called evolved man is a mere veneer, a facade hiding the ugly truth. The reason I don't think that's what DS9 is saying is because I don't think most of Trek writing ever suggested that mans' 'soul' or fundamental nature had ever changed. In fact if it *had* suggested that it would invalidate all of the lessons Picard taught Data on TNG. What use would his lessons on humanity have for us if his humanity is fundamentally different from ours? The lesson of Shakespeare is that fundamentally we can related to humanity across the ages. But that doesn't mean nothing changes. And the reason for this is we don't exist in a vacuum, just as floating DNA. We have our bodies, our instincts and natures, but also our ecosystem, our culture, our history (which is like cultural DNA), and so on. All of these things pieces together form the matrix that will yield our reactions and provide the playing field for our choices. Change some of it and you get a different result; that's pretty much trivial. If a person born and educated in the Federation is taken out the Federation, do his circumstances change? Of course they do. How they change might depend. You can look at Colonel Nicholson in Bridge on the River Kwai for your stiff upper lip British officer, anticipating Picard's general comportment. Put him in a pit and he responds in a different way than you would. *But* even in his attempt to keep his training and his honor his choices go haywire. Put him in strange circumstances and navigating them becomes mired, where retaining his British honor ends up causing him to think it highlights British glory to build the Japanese bridge for them, betraying his side of the war. All this to say, things are really complicated. TOS was very clear that all our dark parts are still there, but that we can learn and work together to overcome them. This element of working together on it is very important, because the human community was a concept strongly emphasized on TOS. Now TNG did edge towards making grand claims about humans having overcome shallow emotions, but the writing on this point is inconsistent and occasionally far-fetched. Too many TNG episodes make it very clear that future humanity is what it is because of good tech and a good environment. And that's nothing to sneer at. In the culture wars, one culture showing its values, its brotherhood, and its success, is absolutely a monument to its greatness. There's no need to go beyond that and try to claim at the same time that its people are...genetically superior, or beyond evil inclinations? We should actually be scared to hear such claims. So in my view, and I think for others as well, what DS9 is doing is course-correcting on the more outlandish claims some TNG episodes made, and staying in synch with much of the other writing on that same show. When we ask whether Sisko is beyond breaking his principles, the answer should be simple: of course not, he's not a god, just a man. And sometimes he doesn't know the right answer and has to just make a choice. I don't think DS9 is saying that the human advances are merely a veneer. I think what it's saying is that they have *preconditions*. And I think what Quark is saying is similar to this: he's not saying that humans are really just like Klingons deep down; he's saying that they can be brought to that state under certain conditions. And that's not a revelation, just a reminder to Nog that being in Starfleet doesn't mean Nog is safe. Quark's speech is a warning about danger, not a repudiation of the claims the Federation makes about its people. I very much like the tenor of your remarks, and I think you're very right to want to inspect what various series are asking about humanity. I agree with you that B5 and Firefly, for example, have very different answers than Trek does about where we are - or where we should be - headed. Ironically Trek has perhaps the most cautionary premise of them all, because although B5 portrayed humans on Earth practically like Nazis, it was Trek that said we'd never learn our lessons until we blew ourselves to kingdom come in WWIII and almost lost Earth to engineered supermen. It's what I call a dystopian-utopian vision, and it's pretty particular. In my analysis of this episode, I ask the following: does Sisko have clearly defined values, is he aware of the disjunction between them and pure strategy, and does he measure what it will cost him to 'win' the war. My answer to all of these is yes, meaning it's thoughtful and analytic: a great start already. And despite the fact that Sisko does the 'wrong' thing to win, his moral calculus changes over the episode. Garak is the one who puts it to him plainly: is the self-respect of one officer worth countless lives? I challenge someone to solve that trolley problem trivially. How do you measure your own honor and values compared to pure lives on the table? Do you let a million people die so you can be a 'better person'? What does better even mean then? To that extent I think your Jefferson quote is quite apt. Even though the question may be hard, this episode asks it: what is it really to be a better person? How can your own morality be measured in a vacuum, without reference to other people and what becomes of them? Remember that all of Sisko's choices are prefaced by the death counts, and that each and every choice is only furthered in regard to that. This is not him just deciding what he thinks is right. This is him asking what he owes all those people who've died, and more importantly, what he owes the ones who are still alive. Is his self-respect more important than they are?

@ TheRealTrent, I guess my conclusion is that you seem to be condemning not this episode in this series but what you think its equivalent is right here and now. I can't blame you for condemning such in the here and now. But Trek is supposed to be about a different time with different people. By definition you can't assume their reasons are as corrupt as ours are now; they are better. We know they're better because it's the premise of the show. You can reject that and call Starfleet duplicitous, but then you're just rejecting the premise as ridiculous. As I've mentioned in the past in other threads, at that point you're essentially doing the same thing as rejecting warp drive and transporters. You can say Sisko isn't really making a choice between lives and his code of honor, since that scenario is a sham fantasy; but then you could also argue that fighting the Borg was also bogus because in real life the enemy isn't a collective evil unreasonable force but just people who scare you. According to this logic The Best of Both Worlds was really scare-mongering propaganda, since in the real world there is no such thing as an implacable foe. I guess I'm not seeing the point of transmuting what the show actually says into what you believe it must be saying after applying a cynical real-world filter onto it, and assuming the worst. I take Sisko's comments at face value, as given circumstances in the story. Reject those and there simply is no story. And I think the multitude of accolades this episode gets should suggest there is a story here.

Peter said: "I challenge someone to solve that trolley problem trivially. How do you measure your own honor and values compared to pure lives on the table? Do you let a million people die so you can be a 'better person'?" There are some speeches by Tony Blair, following the Iraq war ("I weighed the lives of British soldiers against Iraqis, and I believe I was right; only God can judge me..."), which echo Sisko in this episode. What's interesting is that actual British intelligence reports, and experts, and military scientists, were telling him that he was talking high-highfalutin nonsense. His appeals to "trolley problems" and "God" and "morality" were a kind of post-hoc rationalization following, or stemming from, a prior anti intellectualism, and a refusal to listen to experts. DS9 does a similar thing. The Federation is a highly advanced body with access to spectacular technology, tactics, scientists, anthropologists, psychologists, ambassadors, dedicated first contact teams, intelligence operatives, and hundreds of different worlds, super-weapons, massive fleets and so on. There is no way such a body handles the Dominion War as portrayed in DS9. The War is only portrayed this way because the show forces the Federation to turn its back on centuries worth of expertise, and basic common sense. Like Blair, Sisko's "moral conundrum" requires one to ignore experts, and ignore history. The moment the Federation lost that first Galaxy-class, that wormhole should have been secured. Sisko should have had a light switch in his office that collapses that thing at a moment's notice, or activated mines, or activated defense platforms. There should have been artificial gravity-well generators all around that wormhole designed to pull ships instantly out of warp should the need arise. Instead it takes the Federation years to act, and even then, it still falls upon ROM to invent a SELF-REPLICATING MINE. ROM. Starfleet is so incompetent, the Alpha Quadrant relied on ROM.

@ Trent, "What's interesting is that actual British intelligence reports, and experts, and military scientists, were telling him that he was talking high-highfalutin nonsense. His appeals to "trolley problems" and "God" and "morality" were a kind of post-hoc rationalization following, or stemming from, a prior anti intellectualism, and a refusal to listen to experts." What's stopping this analogy working is the facts. You are assuming that Blair was wrong because he was lying (or incorrect) about the situation in Iraq and whether in fact the UK was in danger. So his appeals to the lives of his countrymen was pure spin designed to sell something no one would buy if he was telling the truth. But to say he was lying is only to compare the actual facts against his words. But since Sisko's words do match the actual facts presented in DS9, I just don't see the point of this comparison. It's like, the analogy you'd like to apply here shows it's bad, even though the analogy is literally the opposite of our scenario, but you insist it's the same because the show is lying too? Or something like that. If you won't take the facts into consideration, or at least those presented in this one episode, then it's not really criticism. I will grant that when looking at a series such as this as a whole, there are certain types of flair, or writing style, which are varied rather than all strictly in line with each other. Since the show is not strictly serialized, and since we only get slices of an arc rather than a true B5-style through-line, I think you should take with a grain of salt the actual tenor of how Starfleet acted leading up until this point, when inspecting Sisko's moral dilemma here. Yes, this is part of an on-again-off-again war arc. But I still think it needs to be seen as a standalone in the sense that its premise and its writing are unified internally, not in regard to other episodes. The style, content, and even questions this episode is asking are unique to it, and it should be considered in that vein. Whether Starfleet acted properly back in season 3 really shouldn't weigh into how this story right here and now is being told, any more than our concern for Picard in Chain of Command should be weighed as being relevant to him acting like a dick in early S1. That story is that story.

@TheRealTrent said "You can't dodge the Dominion War for 17 episodes a season, then the handful of times you make an episode about it, it's coincidentally about false flags and Section 31 shenanigans.” I think you can. TNG dodged the entire Cardassian war. It only gave us a few scraps on the edges when it was essentially over, like “The Wounded.” And then when TNG did dive in, it was to justify an act of war in “Chain of Command” and an ethnic cleansing in “Journey’s End”. That was the TNG way with The Dominion War as well. We get nothing, and then suddenly “Insurrection." Things are so bad at the start of “Insurrection" that the Federation is cozying up to any old planet, TROI: Remember, they have a significantly less advanced technology than ours. They only achieved warp drive last year. CRUSHER: And the Federation Council decided to make them a protectorate so quickly? PICARD: In view of our losses to the Borg and the Dominion, the Council feels we need all the allies we can get these days. So aside from the Federation’s Section 31 planning a genocide of the Founders, and before the Federation ever brings the Romulans into the war, they have also approved the forced removal of the Sona from their homes, PICARD: I won't let you move them, Admiral. I will take this to the Federation Council. DOUGHERTY: I'm acting on orders from the Federation Council. Again, the Federation doesn't really care who they have to work with, PICARD: Our partners are nothing more than petty thugs. DOUGHERTY: On Earth, petroleum once turned petty thugs into world leaders. Warp drive transformed a bunch of Romulan thugs into an Empire. We can handle the Son'a. I'm not worried about that. PICARD: Someone probably said the same thing about the Romulans a century ago. So the question, @TheRealTrent, is are you with Picard, DOUGHERTY: Order them to surrender, and I promise you won't be court-martialled. PICARD: If a court-martial is the only way to let the people of the Federation know what is happening here, I welcome it. Or are you with Dougherty? @TheRealTrent says, "Sisko needs a false flag because Starfleet is incompetent for 5 seasons.” The Ba’ku believe something similar, but put it a little differently, RU'AFO: Federation support, Federation procedures, Federation rules. Look in the mirror, Admiral. The Federation is old. In the past twenty-four months, they've been challenged by every major power in the Quadrant. The Borg, the Cardassians, the Dominion. They all smell the scent of death on the Federation. That's why you've embraced our offer, because it will give your dear Federation new life. Well, how badly do you want it, Admiral? Because there are hard choices to be made. Now! There are hard choices to be made. Now! You might call them "a false flag. And a bomb. To instigate a war. Versus evil villains. These are a very specific, and very loaded, set of tropes, with very specific connections to the real world,” and that is certainly your right. But what would you do about it? Would you follow orders of the Federation Council, like Dougherty and Nacheyav and Ross and every other Admiral. Are these people "idiots very similar to those who find themselves using false flags in the real world.” Or would you disobey orders like the newly rejuvenated Picard in “Insurrection," who suddenly seems to have grown a new set of balls after forcing the Native Americans to move in “Journey’s End.” That’s the thing about Leadership. You’re tested again and again and again and again. And you don’t always make the same decisions. You also forget that people like Bashir who always “do what is right”, are very predictable, and bureaucracies staffed by mediocre people can easily work around them. @TheRealTrent said, "The answer is to make episodes explaining to the audience why Sisko should have acted properly, ten, fifteen, thirty dilemmas ago. After all, if good men need to resort to false flags, then an endless chain of errors have been made prior to getting to this position. DS9 never shows this chain of errors. Never even acknowledges they've taken place. Never calls out Starfleet or Sisko.” What were Sisko’s chain of errors? Do we know what Spock is doing to bring the Romulans into the war? Do we know what Koval and the Tal’Shiar are doing? Remember, it was the Romulan Tal’Shiar and the Cardassian Obsidian order that essentially declared war on the Dominion on behalf of the Alpha Quadrant (“Die is Cast”). And fuck, it was the Founders who encouraged them into declaring that war! This is a pretty tricky moral situation. I find it odd that you think it is so simple. ODO: Of course. This whole plan was the Founders' idea in the first place. You wanted the Tal Shiar and the Obsidian Order to combine forces and come into the Gamma Quadrant so you could wipe them out. LOVOK: Not exactly. Tain originated the plan, and when we learned of it we did everything we could to carry it forward. The Tal Shiar and the Obsidian Order are both ruthless, efficient organisations. A definite threat to us. ODO: But not after today. LOVOK: After today the only real threat to us from the Alpha Quadrant are the Klingons and the Federation. And I doubt that either of them will be a threat for much longer. And before you say, well, Sisko should have stopped him, again, it was Starfleet’s decision - not Sisko’s - to sit on their hands, TODDMAN: That message was intercepted by a Federation outpost earlier today. A similar message was sent to the Romulan Senate. Now, both governments are denying any prior knowledge of Tain's plans and calling this a rogue operation. BASHIR: Are they going to do anything to stop Tain? TODDMAN: Both the Romulans and the Cardassians claim to be studying ways to stop Tain, but we believe that they'll just sit back and wait to see if he succeeds or not. DAX: But sir, that could plunge Romulus and Cardassia into war with the Dominion. TODDMAN: Only if he fails, Lieutenant. His plan looks like it has a fair chance of success. He's commanding a fleet of twenty ships manned by combat veterans. They know the location of the Founders' homeworld and they've modified their cloaks so the Jem'Hadar can't detect their approach. KIRA: It sounds like you're hoping Tain will succeed. TODDMAN: I never hope for war, Major. But if it comes, I'd rather see the Dominion on the losing side. You seem to want to live in a world where treachery doesn’t exist. Star Trek may have warp drives and holodecks, but even those are more realistic than thinking human nature will ever change! If you stick by your principals in the face of evil, you may end up like @Peter G.’s Colonel Nicholson, https://youtu.be/tRHVMi3LxZE?t=34 Garak’s flexibility may have been infuriating, but neither Garak nor Tain would ever do anything to help the Dominion. Bashir, on the other hand, did try to help the Jemhadar in "Hippocratic Oath” and the Romulans in “Inter Arma”, even if that meant losing their support for the war, BASHIR: What I am about to say may be shocking. It may even damage the relations between our two peoples, but it's the truth. Of course, the irony I love is, bringing the Romulans into the war was Bashir’s idea! BASHIR: What we need is to bring the Romulans into the war on our side. With the combined forces of the Federation, the Klingons and the Romulans we could finally go on the offensive. What separates DS9 from fascist literature, is that Star Trek isn’t uniform. It isn't all Bashirs or all Sloans. There are men closer to Bashir, like Picard, who still slip up from time to time. There are officers closer to Sloan, like Nechayev, who still devote their lives to the Federation. This is not a banality of evil people just following orders. Each person comes up with a different answer. Indeed, sometimes the same person comes up with different solutions to different ticking time bombs. For every time Picard tried to ethnically cleanse the Natives, he also stood up for the Sona. For every time he fought for the rights of the accused (“The Drumhead”) and the individual (“Measure of a Man” and “The Offspring”), he begged an exception to the law (“Justice”) or hid behind a technicality (“Ensigns of Command”). “Insurrection" is the story of a man who has been pushed to the edge by Starfleet again and again, and has finally said enough is enough, this far, and no further. Sisko has his own story. It is a story of sacrifice. He lost his wife fighting the Borg. He lost his best friend to the Maquis. He lost his mentor to a Cadassian. He lost his life for the Prophets. He lost his self respect for the Federation. “In the Pale Moonlight” is the story of a man who gave everything to his job. SISKO: You realise I can't authorise a thing like this on my own. I'll have to clear it with Starfleet Command. That may be a good thing or a bad thing. But it isn’t out of nowhere.

@Trent Ok, lots of interesting responses. I strongly disagree with Eco's reinterpretation of what fascism means. Could you name the text? If you take out heroism, glory or dying for the fatherland, then you rip out the heart of what the word fascism really means. The things you state as new fascist art could be applied to most war and anti war movies. "Something like John Wayne's "Green Berets" wouldn't get made today." Well, there are movies like American Sniper which is using many fascist tropes. Sacrificing yourself for the nation, doubt is not allowed, the enemy is in-human, flag cult, being a MAN of action. 300 is famous for using fascist iconography. I therefore disagree that movies like that aren't made anymore. Both 300 and American Sniper were hugely successful. To give my general perspective on why Star Trek became the nihilist nightmare that it is now. Maybe that sentence of Picard that humanity has grown out of it's infancy, is the problem. I do not judge societies as good or bad, I differentiate them between better and worse. For example, the USA wasn't the good guys in WW2: a segregated army, racist internment camps and throwing A bombs on cities to just name a few horrible deeds. But they were better than Nazi Germany and fascist Japan. Sure, that is not a high bar but still the USA or the UK were the "better" guys. The Federation is not the perfect state or even good in a pure form but they are better, they represent something that is better than what is now. DS9 broke that, for all it's accomplishments, it began the implosion of Star Trek. That it ended with the Federation almost committing genocide and a red eyed Dukat fighting saint Sisko is really appropriate. It was the anti roddenberry star trek at that point and sure, people say Roddenberry had some terrible ideas but he also had some ideas that made Trek unique. There is another speech that Sisko once gives after Worf blows up that Klingon transport ship. Sisko: "We don't put civilians at risk, even potentially at risk to save ourselves. Sometimes that means we lose the battle and sometimes our lives" In season 4 DS9 was still walking the line, sometimes stumbling but still being a Trek show for the most part. In season 6 and season 7 it falls down the rabbit hole and often uses jingoistic war tropes. One point I want to correct though. What Sisko does here is not a false flag op. Garak does that. Sisko just lied to an adversary to get them to help because they certainly wouldn't help if asked nicely. Sisko didn't know that Garak was on a little murder spree. Also your interpretation is a little too post modernist for my taste. While I see your point, it also sounds like that you are saying that you can never make a war movie or show where you portray one side as better than the other without it being a sinister way of goading the populace into supporting wars. Meaning that if you portray a better, future society then that society can never come into any real conflict. Your criticism of the Federation and what they should have done is obviously correct but let's keep in mind that shows have to be made for a broad audience. Making everything too cerebral will put people off. I liked the early seasons of DS9 and the whole Bajor situation but the audience in general was not a big fan. I accept the fact that shows and films cannot be made for people like me because I represent a part of the audience that is too small to be financially viable.

"Sisko needs a false flag because Starfleet is incompetent for 5 seasons, and Ira Behr refuses to admit this. The correct lesson is not that "sometimes things are tough", it's that DS9's Starfleet is populated by idiots very similar to those who find themselves using false flags in the real world." Weren't you the one who rationalized burning down someone's business for the right cause? (Or was that the fake Trent posting?) If an individual finds himself burning down a building and destroying someone's livelihood in the process, perhaps he should have made better choices in his life leading up to that decision. And perhaps writing apologetics for that act .makes you morally bankrupt, like Sisko and Behr. DS9's premise is that sometimes there are no morally acceptable solutions to a problem. This is undeniably correct on an individual level as well as on the level of governments. You pose a counterfactual (the Federation could have easily stopped the Dominion without a war) and then hang the Federation and the writing on this (false) premise. You can fairly fault the show for its premise or you can fairly fault it for its approach to that premise but not both.

@TheRealTrent The Trolley Problem it strikes me is intimately involved in many, if not most time travel scenarios and also drives the political 'no good choice' story lines. Does the trolley not have a driver? Why is the non-professional innocent passer-by/onlooker the only one being judged? As Devil's advocate, do not the persons on the two tracks have eyes, ears or other senses to change outcomes? If the sole individual steps off the track, the passer-by/onlooker has an uncomplicated decision. Just once, I'd like to see these scenarios written differently. How about the 15 people on the other track running over to push the single person on the other track out of harm's way for a change? It boils down to laying all responsibility on the single player (the onlooker) when, it seems much more likely that we are swimming in a sea that is full of lazy, complacent, selfish beings who are incognizant of their own safety and that of others in most instances. Is it not these types of behavior that lie at the heart of a dystopic universe?

@Sigh2000 The goal of the trolley problem is not really about the problem aka who to save or who is responsible, because there is no absolute answer, but about why Humans more often choose one option over another. If you have the choice to steer the train towards one person to safe five then most people choose that option but when given the choice to push somebody in front of the train or let five people die the majority will let the five people die. There is an interesting experiment by Kahnemann and Tversky (famous study) where they asked people two questions. Outlined here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_effect_(psychology) The gist is that if you present people with two options for a medical treatment a and b, for which in both cases the outcome is identical, then a huge majority will choose the option a that frames the outcome as gains and if asked the same question but framing the outcome as losses almost the same amount will avoid option b. Same applies to the trolley problem. Pulling a lever to kill somebody to save five people is ok for most but most people aren't ready to push one person in front of a train to save five people. It is a paradox because there is not much difference between the two options. In both cases your actions lead to the death of one person to save five others. In the Kahnemann Tversky experiment it is even more glaring because there is absolutely no difference, it is just worded differently.

@Booming You explained that to me extremely well. It really comes down to framing. I've often thought that Jammer's initial review of a given episode 'frames' that episode for the rest of us. That would explain the number of times I have read reviews or comments on the site which emulate Jammer's or follow his original review pretty closely.

The whole dynamic with Jammer is interesting. This page is it's own little case study in how authority is created.

@Sigh2000 And because we are talking about the trolley problem, I feel obligated to share this scene https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtRhrfhP5b4&ab_channel=ComedyBites

@ Booming, @ Sigh2000, The trolley problem "about" which option people will pick more; it's not a statistical analysis or psych case study. It's a dilemma in moral philosophy, purely abstract and not related to its wording. Obviously quantitative methodology can use a classic scenario and try to see what people would do if you re-word it, etc, which is fine, but that's not what the trolley problem is fundamentally about. It's about how to weigh moral choices and what basis one has to judge one outcome superior to another. @ Sigh2000, The issue with the trolley problem isn't about why the people on the track don't act instead of you, that's a cop out. You don't even have to think of them as people, they can be considered as moral stakes, people being there is just an example. The point is you have to make choices in life, and regardless of all the advice you may receive it's you who have to choose, and you alone. No one can escape making choices, and if you let others make them for you that's a choice too, and IMO the more pernicious one. Also I think Babylon 5 (for those who've seen in) had a point when it said that certain people are a 'nexus' and cause huge movements based on their choices. Put a different way, some people end up being more important than others. I think that's a fairly uncontroversial statement, mechanically speaking. Im not saying some lives are morally worth more than others, merely that their actions create much greater waves, and therefore the consequences to all from a wrong choice are severe. Not everyone is the commander of DS9, for example.

@Booming 'Very reassuring'. Fan of Chidi. BTW, I liked the Chamberlain and troops marching to Gettysburg clip from that other thread. Chuckled.

@Peter G. I grant the “copped-out” nature of my own rant against the inactivity of others. It is pushing the trolley problem into the Kobayashi Maru department (especially with reference to Kirk reprogramming the computer to cheat his way out). Can I get out of the dilemma as designed by its designers, by refusing to accept its premises. This may border on facetiousness (I don’t intend a jab), but I make a choice in life by not accepting the premise. For example, can I awaken the sleeping trolley driver by allowing myself to fall under its wheels in the hope that my initial screams will have the desired effect of creating an alarm? The driver horrified at what has just happened to me, quickly stops the trolley before the other 6 people (1+5 on the two tracks) are hit. My original idea was to suggest that If society has done its job properly in the first place, we should have nobody near any tracks to begin with. Since the trolley problem has existed and been discussed, has anyone in a single public safety department done anything to eliminate the possibility of the scenario taking place? (An earnest question).

@ Sigh2000, The trolley problem isn't a department of transportation engineering issue... :p

@Peter "It's about how to weigh moral choices and what basis one has to judge one outcome superior to another." That is what I meant I wrote "because there is no absolute answer, but about why Humans more often choose one option over another." As I social scientist I obviously have a different perspective on the trolley problem than a moral philosopher. The Kahneman and Tversky thing has some similarities and is fascinating (used it in my thesis). I just try to push it in as many conversations AS POSSIBLE. :) @Sigh2000 When I posted it I chuckled,too. :D

@Peter G. I deserved that! : ) Your right. On the management of the moral issues .....“There’s nothing I can do today. " JLC 20th Maine Move out!” (h/t @Booming Thu, Dec 16, 2021, 9:00am).

Can we please not have another off-topic monster thread? I meant, it's great when you guys discuss deep non-Trek issues, but can you at least make an effort to tie your comments to the actual episode (or at least: the Star Trek universe as a whole)?

@Trent "What is the point of this episode? That Sisko deviated from his ideals? He's been doing dubious stuff since season 3, none of which is re-visted, and none of which gets challenged." What dubious stuff has he been doing? The only really bad thing he did, as far as I recall, is in "For the Uniform". That's a problem with *that* episode (I thought it was completely out of character for Sisko) rather than this one. "Maybe the point is that nations must, when push comes to shove, commit false flag operations in the name of self-preservation? But this is a truism..." The difference between your truism and the episode, is that this episode refers to a very specific situation: Very specific (and very high) stakes as well as a very specific breach of ethics (which - in my view - is entirely reasonable given the immediate danger). To refresh your memory: The situation was that a superior invasion force was literally hours from conquering the Federation and turning it into a living hell. Also, the Romulans themselves were at risk. It was quite clear that they would become the Dominion's next target, whether they believe it or not. We are not talking here about some fear-mongering assumptions of a politician. We are talking about an actual war which has been going for some time, and an actual invasion force which is already conquering key Federation planets. And now to the second half of the equation: What was Sisko willing to do in this situation? How far was he willing to breach his ethical code in order to get results? Well, the episode makes it clear that he wouldn't go as far as killing someone. He was *furious* when Garak booby-trapped the Romulan ship. Even though the freedom of the entire alpha quadrant was at stake, Sisko would not go as far as killing one man to achieve his goals. Yes, he lied. He cheated. He manufactured false evidence. But given the *enormous* stakes and the *immediate* danger (including danger to the Romulans), was he really wrong to do these things? Making comparisons to present day issues is laughable, because present day leaders lie and cheat and fake evidence all the time. What this episode *really* shows, is how far a 24th century Starfleet officer needs to be cornered in order for him to resort to such tactics. And quite frankly, I like what we see here. I would love to live in a world where our officials only resort to lying and faking evidence under such ultra-extreme circumstances. What's better: Sisko is clearly agonized by what he did. To me, given the stakes, it seems like an absurd over-reaction. Man, you've just saved the entire Alpha Quadrant from enslavement, give yourself a break! But that's just it: 24th Century Starfleet officers are made of better materials than we are. They get wretched by relatively minor breaches of ethics even under unbearable extreme circumstance, while our persent day leaders break the very same ethical rules a dozen times before breakfast. Or at least, this is the point that this episode tries to convey. It's undermined quite a bit by the section 31 plots, but that - again - is not a problem of this episode. P.S. Comparing this episode to the trolley problem is also misleading. Reducing "Choose between 'enslaving the entire alpha quadrant' and 'a deceitful plan where two people were killed due to complications" to the trolley problem is missing the entire point of the episode's scenario.

@OmicronThetaDeltaPhi "Man, you've just saved the entire Alpha Quadrant from enslavement, give yourself a break!" -Spoiler alert -!!! The problem Sisko faces in the episode is that his little lie was discovered. Consequently, he has to live with the reverberating memory of the Romulan's anger at having been betrayed by someone he believed to be honorable. Sisko, as someone who tries to be beyond reproach in all things, will tend to take the horror of the Romulan's reaction pretty hard. It doesn't help matters that the man is later handled in the way that Garak arranged.

@OmicronThetaDeltaPhi >Can we please not have another off-topic monster thread? Jammer should make a general chat board for these types of discussions.

Booming said: " I strongly disagree with Eco's reinterpretation of what fascism means." But do you agree with the Eco-list you posted? IMO that list is spot on. For the record, I wouldn't call DS9 or this episode "fascist". I would say this episode merely dishes out right-wing tropes that would become even more popular in the post 911 years; a kind of state apologia for "dirty tricks", which pushes you in a certain direction by dint of how it frames a problem, and how it decides where to start and stop its analysis of the problem. Agree with you on "300" and "American Sniper"; Eco was writing in the years just after 2001, though, and focused on fare like "Private Ryan", "Black Hawk Down", and various television series. Jason said: "Weren't you the one who rationalized burning down someone's business for the right cause?" This seems to bother you, because you seem to always bring it up I said the exclusionary nature of landed property, endogenously-created debt based monetary systems, arbitrary monopolies on credit, and the nature of capitalism itself (where rates of return on capital historically outpace growth), cause dispossession (landed property pooling into fewer hands), poverty, social exclusion, crime (and factors which lead to crime: poor diet, mental illness etc) and eventually riots. The science which demonstrates the aforementioned, is the science which would guide a hypothetical body like the Federation on how to deal with a hypothetical villain like the Dominion. Jason said: "an individual finds himself burning down a building and destroying someone's livelihood in the process, perhaps he should have made better choices in his life leading up to that decision." You're about 100 years behind economic theory and the social sciences' understanding of crime and poverty, and about 20 years behind neuroscience's understanding of free will. You have also just condemned the 80 percent of the human race who live on less than 1.25-1.45 dollars a day, to the "lazy" and "stupid" category. This kind of "make better choices" and "pull yourself up by yer bootstrap" thinking is also irrelevant in a class society. Over two thirds of all jobs globally are extreme poverty wages, and even in the world's superpower, 70 to 75 percent earn less than a living wage. One's station is not due to "choices" ("choice" is the posthoc rationalization humans apply to justify prejudices , and to obfuscate "impositions against one's will"), and is largely an inevitability based on how trophic triangles work. But again, this is my point regarding this DS9 episode. It frames things in a dumb way. Peter said: "The trolley problem isn't a department of transportation engineering issue... " Peter's joking, but Picard would make it one. DATA: Sir, this appears to be a no-win scenario! PICARD: What if we beam the trolleys away and hold them in stasis? DATA: :O !!! Jason said: "You can fairly fault the show for its premise or you can fairly fault it for its approach to that premise but not both." I don't fault the premise ("What if the Federation faces a evil power which tests its principles?") or the approach ("We need false flags and genocide viruses!"). I am in favor of false flags and outright genocide if I feel certain conditions have been met (I've never seen them met in the real world). I don't believe morals are absolute. What I criticize is the show's disinterest in working its way through its premise honestly and methodically (show us why every other solution failed before you deliver the false flag, and show us a Sisko who understands and is aware of his failures), and its readiness to uncritically endorse tropes which the wider real-world culture already holds, to negative effect. Omicron said: "What dubious stuff has he been doing?" Raped Mirror Dax for starters. He could have faked a headache or groin injury, but he was feeling rapey. The episode then plays this for laughs. I would say almost every decision he makes regarding the Dominion War in season 3 and 4 is bad and makes things worse. His failure to warn the Founders of the fleet, his brain scans in "The Search 2", and his repeated ordering of warships into Dominion space, confirms to the Dominion all their anti-solid prejudices. Omicron said: "But given the *enormous* stakes and the *immediate* danger..." This is what these kind of tales always do. They manipulate you into buying their "ticking clock" scenarios, then trick you into examining the wrong things. The Federation know the Romulans want the Dominion dead way back in season 3, and knows this with even more certainty when Sisko thwarts the Romulans' (arguably very sensible) plan to destroy the wormhole. It is the Federation's behavior which pushes the Romulans to therefore side with the Dominion. Any serious, enlightened, far-future organization would have doubled down on forming alliances with the Romulans and Cardassians the moment the size of the Dominion is established. When you know the Romulans are willing to risk war with the Federation to stop the Dominion, you double down further to placate their fears. Permanent Romulan observers on DS9, for example, or a combined-nation fleet at the wormhole, or emergency devices to quickly block or shut the route down etc etc. If Romulan ambassadors say this is not enough, then you know, 3 to 5 years in advance of the Dominion war, that you are inevitably on a course to war with the Romulans, or worse, a Romulan-Dominion and potentially Cardassian alliance. You know this. This is not something that can sneak up on you. These kinds of tales always telescope history. You're asked to ignore the past, because the politics and actions being begrudgingly sold to solve present problems, are what caused all your problems in the first place.

@Trent "But do you agree with the Eco-list you posted? IMO that list is spot on." I'm fairly certain that during some basic political science seminar I read something from Eco that had basically the same theme. It seems to be a fitting list of what fascists are. I was always reminded of this contrary believe of strength and weakness when it was argued that Obama is an all powerful tyrant who gets nothing done. :D "a kind of state apologia for "dirty tricks", which pushes you in a certain direction by dint of how it frames a problem, and how it decides where to start and stop its analysis of the problem." As I said. The later seasons of DS9 were already bordering on anti trek. "Raped Mirror Dax for starters." I disagree. He lied and then had sex. I find it far more disturbing that he is having sex with a close² friend. It is wrong on so many level but rape, no.

"You're about 100 years behind economic theory and the social sciences' understanding of crime and poverty, and about 20 years behind neuroscience's understanding of free will. You have also just condemned the 80 percent of the human race who live on less than 1.25-1.45 dollars a day, to the "lazy" and "stupid" category." @Trent I was making this point in the context of you handwaving away the necessity of the Federation using dirty tricks against the Dominion because supposedly they should have made better choices so as to avoid being in the dilemma they were in. (Your counter factual claim that the Federation could have saved itself by blockading the Wormhole or such) Basically your premise was that somehow empires and political bodies always have a choice to be moral in their dealings and that if they find they must be immoral in order to avoid annihilation (or enslavement or whatnot) that is a false dilemma borne of bad decisions they previously made. I found it ironic that you would make this kind of argument while at the same time rationalizing a looter burning down a business arguing that this person can't be held responsible for bad decisions because life circumstances left them no choice. The two positions seem dissonant to me. Like individuals, governments do face true no-win scenarios. Why should a rioter be absolved of his choices but not a government? Incidentally, in the original thread where you condoned burning businesses, it wasn't the fact of the looting and burning *as a consequence of injustice* that I objected to (which is a reiteration of the MLK idea of riots as the language of the unheard or whatnot) but your apparent belief that a business being burned down was itself nothing to be condemned. Saying riots are a natural consequence of injustice is not the same as saying that capitalist small business owners "had it coming". You seem to be saying the latter which is what put the bee in my bonnet. You never answered my original question of whether or not it would be ok for someone to burn down *your* house (or livelihood)

@Trent "Any serious, enlightened, far-future organization would have doubled down on forming alliances with the Romulans and Cardassians the moment the size of the Dominion is established." Perhaps the Federation did that off-screen and the Romulans said no? Given what we know about the relations between the Federation and the Romulans at this point, I wouldn't have expected them to agree to any kind of alliance. In fact, I'm willing to bet that the Federation did just that. After all, any serious, enlightened, far-future organization would have done that, right? You said so yourself :-) "These kinds of tales always telescope history. You're asked to ignore the past, because the politics and actions being begrudgingly sold to solve present problems, are what caused all your problems in the first place." How on earth does your statement connect to this episode? The actions being begrudgingly sold in this episode are lying, faking evidence, and (without Sisko's consent) the assassination of a Romulan official. Are you saying that the Federation is in the habit of faking evidence and assassinating foreign leaders? Seems to me that you're using the discussion of this episode as a disguise to discussing a real-world issue, and you're not noticing when that analogy breaks down.

Booming said: "I disagree. He lied and then had sex." I think that would still fall under Rape by Deception laws, unless I'm misremembering the episode. Jason said: "Why should a rioter be absolved of his choices but not a government?" The nature of riots, crime and poverty can be explained by looking at the factors which led to them. Things are contingent upon other things. You stop things happening, by stopping the things which they are contingent upon. Similarly, false flags, war crimes and so-called Necessary Evils, are a result of previous things. They are contingent upon, and intimately bound to, history. If you agree that false flags, war crimes and so-called Necessary Evils are bad things, then a piece of art which includes them, should make an effort to show how these things are contingent upon other things. And this art should explain how, if you wish to stop these bad things, you have to understand or stop the things which they are contingent upon. I could care less about whether a work of art "includes or endorses false flags or rioting or genocide" or whatever. What matters to me is the larger explanatory function of the art, otherwise you're just tacitly endorsing bad tropes, like "rioters are evil" or "sometimes you need to lie about WMDS". Jason said: "same as saying that capitalist small business owners "had it coming". You seem to be saying the latter which is what put the bee in my bonnet. " Because you view business and money as morally neutral things (the value of your dollar is intimately dependent upon, and benefits from, billions of humans having none), and property as sacrosanct, rather than forms of violence. These views are inculcated at birth. So rioters torching stuff strikes at something fundamental. Jason said: "You never answered my original question of whether or not it would be ok for someone to burn down *your* house (or livelihood) " Yes. A civilization has to meet very specific criteria for me to be able to philosophically justify an expectation that my house be protected. We'd have to be living in some kind of hyper-democracy for me to deem it an issue.

"Jason said: "same as saying that capitalist small business owners "had it coming". You seem to be saying the latter which is what put the bee in my bonnet. " Because you view business and money as morally neutral things (the value of your dollar is intimately dependent upon, and benefits from, billions of humans having none), and property as sacrosanct, rather than forms of violence. These views are inculcated at birth. So rioters torching stuff strikes at something fundamental." Understood. Or rather, I understand a bit of your underlying ideological premise now. And thank you for answering the question.

Out of curiosity Trent, how do you characterize your beliefs? I assume you are a Marxist but is that all?

Omicron said: "Perhaps the Federation did that off-screen and the Romulans said no?" As I said, then you start securing the wormhole immediately. The moment the Romulans turn you down - if they were asked, it would presumably be in season 3 - Sisko and the Feds have 3 priorities: Cardassian alliance, parking a fleet and other gear to guard the wormhole mouth, and devising a way to immediately collapse the wormhole on command. Omicron said: "Are you saying that the Federation is in the habit of faking evidence and assassinating foreign leaders?" The point was, the callous handling of the Romulans in this episode is a continuation of how we see the Federation handle everyone in the previous years. First contact with the Dominion itself begins with an act of Starfleet hubris ("Screw your sovereign territory! Nothing can stop us exploring the Gamma Quadrant!"). Regarding "assassinating foreign leaders", the Federation strikes up an alliance (to share intel and tech) with the Romulans in season 3. The Romulans then try to wipe out the leaders of the Dominion. Starfleet controls the wormhole, gives the Romulans the location of the Founder home, but does nothing to stop or interfere with the assassination force, or warn the Founders. Knowing that the Dominion now have reasonable grounds to hate all Alpha Quadrant powers, who they believe to be linked (the Cardassians working with the Romulans, the Romulans with an intel/tech alliance with the Feds), and who they believe to want to wipe them out, the Federation should see the writing on the wall. But they keep dithering their thumbs. The Feds' handling of the Klingons is equally bizarre. Our heroes recognize the divide-and-conquer game being played (Sisko points it out way back in Way of the Warrior). So why wait another 2 years? Why fight a proxy war with the Klingons inside your Cold War with the Dominion? You know the only place this can end up. So collapse the worm hole. Billions and billions of lives were lost because the Feds - the supposed grown ups in the room - were asleep.

@Trent "Yes. A civilization has to meet very specific criteria for me to be able to philosophically justify an expectation that my house be protected." With all do respect, stop bullshitting us. The simple fact is that you *do* expect it. You may not be able to "philosophically justify" it, but you expect it all the same. Otherwise, you wouldn't be sitting in *your* house typing those words on *your* computer. And when a storm hits your town, you wouldn't be sitting safely under *your* roof, certain in the knowledge that you are safe from the elements. It is quite apparent that as much as you hate the current system (and with good reason) you have no qualms about relying on it when it is convenient. So I guess these "evil property laws" sure come in handy, don't they? Now, you want to know why burning your house would be immoral? It's not because some stupid sh*t capitalist philosophy. It is, quite simply, because burning your house down will cause you suffering. And no, the fact that our current system causes a lot of grief is hardly an excuse to cause even *more* suffering. Why on earth would anybody think such a thing? "Because you view business and money as morally neutral things (the value of your dollar is intimately dependent upon, and benefits from, billions of humans having none), and property as sacrosanct, rather than forms of violence." Once again - I call this BS. Given your online presence, it is clear that you have no qualms using these "evil forms of violence" to buy a computer, connect to an ISP and so forth. You may abhor these concepts in principle, but you still rely on them. So when you say "it's okay to torch businesses", you're are saying that it is okay to destroy a thing that you - yourself - find indispensable. Which means that you are - once again - condoning an act that increases human suffering. Mantras such as "business/money is evil" do not excuse this, regardless of how justified they may be. Philosophical grandstanding is not an excuse harming actual human beings. (I'm downright amazed by the amount of people who take such morally repugnant arguments seriously)

@Trent Regarding the episode: I don't remember the ongoing arc well enough to intelligently discuss the war as a whole. Sorry, but I'll have to actually review the episodes in question before I continue on that line of discussion. At any rate, I don't see how your criticism (which may or may not be valid) has anything to do with this specific episode. I mean, you could certainly argue that the writers of DS9 didn't do a convincing job setting this episode's situation up, but the message of the episode itself is quite clear.

@ Trent, That analysis is all fine, and trying to link an episode like this into your particular worldview is sort of ok as a personal project. But it's bad art analysis. When inspecting a work of art it is absolutely the wrong question to ask how it fits into *your* schema of the proletariat, etc. That's the sort of game people played for decades trying to analyze Hamlet, and other famous works like that. It gets you nowhere because until you're asking where the writer is coming from what his piece's worldview is, and how this particular work speaks to his POV, you're just ignoring the art and trading in armchair philosophy. When I watch In the Pale Moonlight, my first question is - what was that experience like? Well my experience watching this one is - this is awesome! The acting is awesome, the writing is awesome, the directoral style and angles showing Sisko dictating the log are awesome, the flavors are all baked in AND we get a hero led through a door he doesn't realize he's entering until it's too late, led by a man we ruefully admire and respect but who makes no promises about the state of your soul on the other side. What a story! So my second question is to ask what the episode is trying to say within its own framework. It's underlined by this: I *can* live with it. Not that Sisko wants to, or feels it makes him a better person, but he literally can *live* with it, meaning he lives, and so do the Federation people he saved. This is saying that lives may be worth more than honor. It's saying that a great man might actually be great because he didn't let his pride get in the way of the job, rather than because he wanted to look like a paragon. And maybe it's saying that, as Jason R mentioned, in a situation with no good choices, it might be at minimum compassionate to go on the side with fewest lives lost. Maybe. These are all ok points. You can disagree that things are like this in real life, or that other episodes in the series match this theme, or worry that this is a right-wing dog whistle (although that is far-fetched, to say the least). These are ancillary points, perhaps worth noting to yourself, but you're writing as if the episode is nigh unwatchable because of all these illogical, immoral and un-strategic factors. Well I don't buy it. I don't buy that you could go in a Monet exhibit and start saying the paintings are bad because you don't care for Monet's politics. I don't buy that you could smell a flower and say it's dastardly because the seeds may have come from a farm using illegal labor. That's just not an open response to art. I think there is room for intellectual interpolation...once the primary experience registers. Wagner's music may accompany a rhetorical narrative that's proto-Nazi and anti-Semitic, but these facts should be kept separate - at least in analysis - from whether the music is beautiful and the stories are exciting. Now whether you should air it on an Israeli music station is another matter. I can't help but feel that your politics and worldview are overwhelming even the most basic appreciation of the TV product that's been put together. I can sympathize. When I watch the Godfather, which is a princely film, I can't help but feel that it romanticizes what is essentially an entirely corrupt and even disgusting culture. But these notions don't stop me still marveling at how incredible the film is. I think about it afterward, note these things; but they are not the film. A pure propaganda film is something else. If you think what you are watching is deliberately manipulating you into embracing something horrible, it might be right to sit back and refuse to engage, refuse to like it. That might be good self-protection. It's just that's not what this episode is doing. No way, not by a longshot. That's just misreading it by a mile and a half.

Very well said Peter G. "In the Pale Moonlight" is a tour-de-force episode and trying to examine it from some kind of Marxist lens and ripping it apart is just simply misguided. As you rightly say, it is about first understanding where the artist is coming from. And then I'd add, try to evaluate it from an unbiased perspective. This little exercise should also give an idea of how to interpret Trent's comments given his extremist / disingenuous stances.

@TheRealTrent ".....What matters to me is the larger explanatory function of the art, otherwise you're just tacitly endorsing bad tropes,....." In the Pale Moonlight is an expression of profound regret made by a man who, as shown, is, I think, on the verge of madness. Madness during confession. Whatever the outcome, Sisko knows that a part of him went to hell in the doing. We all know implicitly that we should avoid such a fate. Brooks breaks the 4th wall to communicate that. Could that be the larger explanatory function? Or is someone now aware that his better self has died, more or less, simply a bad trope?

@Peter "Trying to link an episode like this into your particular worldview is sort of ok as a personal project. But it's bad art analysis." I disagree with this blanket statement. Linking the Trekverse with our worldviews can deepen our understanding of both Star Trek and our own views. It could also result in interesting discussions. Of-course, the quality of the views in question matter. If you find a person's view to be utterly ridiculous in the real world, then you're unlikely to find their view any more palatable in the Trekverse. And to be frank, I don't think 1000-comment-long political debates become any more compelling just because we're using a thinly veiled Trek analogy to discuss them. That - really - is the crux of the problem here. Back to the episode: @Sigh2000 "In the Pale Moonlight is an expression of profound regret made by a man who, as shown, is, I think, on the verge of madness. Madness during confession. Whatever the outcome, Sisko knows that a part of him went to hell in the doing." That's part of it, yes. But there are grander themes in this episode as well. The question of "when - if at all - do the ends justify the means?" is a major theme here. The thing I like most here, is the episode doesn't give a clear-cut answer to this question. Was Sisko in the right? Is breaking your moral code (in a limited way) under such desperate circumstances, actually moral? It's a tough question. The way I see it, Sisko did what he had to do. I can't really fault him for taking the only sensible choice he had, yet it seems laughable to call what he did "moral". I'm now reminded of a very powerful moment, when Sisko said this: "But most damning thing of all, I think I can live with it. And if I had to do it all over again, I would." It's hard to watch, because many of us would the same thing when backed into such a corner. Any other course of action would seem positively stupid in this scenario. What else could you do? Sacrifice the entire alpha quadrant for your principles? So Sisko's self-torment becomes our own.

GARAK: "...I've also left him with the distinct impression that if he attempts to force the door open, it may explode." SISKO: "I hope that's just an impression." GARAK: "It's best not to dwell on such minutiae..." Garak = awesome character Andy Robinson = outstanding actor with great delivery

Best episode of DS9 hands-down, but it prominently features Garak so that's almost a given. I've seen it a dozen times over the past twenty years and every time its as good as the first time. Garak tries to warn Sisko that accomplishing their goal will be a "Very messy, very bloody business - Are you prepared for that?" to which Sisko replies that he's already in a very messy, very bloody business. At this point, Sisko accepts responsibility for whatever happens. He thinks that he's in control and he thinks that he knows exactly where the line is and he won't cross it, but that's just a mixture of huge arrogance and delusion. When he freaks out at the end and attacks Garak it provoked an angry response in me because it just goes to show how self-righteous and hypocritical Sisko is. Some of the greatest lines of the series are in this episode. "Are you in? Or out." "I'm in." "I hope you're not giving up that easily. After all, the stakes are much higher than a few dead operatives. The fate of the entire quadrant hangs in the balance - or at least that's the case you made to me." "If you want to guarantee evidence of a Dominion plot to attack the Romulans, I suggest that we manufacture that evidence yourself." "The Klingons were going to execute me tomorrow! Of course, they say that every day - it's one of the little games they play." "I'll be along to say...hello." "I find its best not to dwell on such minutiae." "I believe that the quantity is...open to negotiation." "It's a FAAAAAAKKKKEEEE!" "Think of them both as tragic victims of war." Sisko tries to act like he is responsible for bringing the Romulans into the war, but Garak did all the work and single-handedly saved the Federation and the rest of the Alpha and Beta Quadrants. Also, Andy Robinson is the best actor on this show. It's kind of a shame he was never made a full member of the cast.

Watching this again now, with the Ukraine war raging, where does one draw the line? Sisko was right.

With regards to the question as to the artistic merits of the episode I will answer indirectly. It has spawned a vibrant respectful intelligent discussion with differing viewpoints leading to introspection and debate across a wide spectrum of philosphic, moral, political, and artistic issues. In this regard then I would say it is a phenomenal episode (and I agree as well personally). That it has provided such a wonderful broad intelligent debate as well makes it high art as well. Finally as a social commentary, I read the entire stream over 15 years of comment. Differing feelings differing viewpoints ranging from Marxist to conservative with all in between with varying amounts of passion. All without vitriol, dismissing, cancelling. Kudos to all for an intelligent discussion. How is this so different than the usual threads? How is it that everyone above has been able to have passionate discussion? I suspect that those commenting above learned how to interact with differing people in person before social media became the dominant form of interaction between people. This is my personal lamentation and warning for the future

@ Bill clay, I would propose adding as a possible reason for the civilized discussion the actual quality of the episode itself. It may well be that when something commanding respect is the object of a discussion it will mediate to an extent how people engage about it. Imagine, by way of analogy, having a discussion with people in a beautiful church, or perhaps an art gallery. The environment itself would suggest a series of feelings, ranging from awe, to respect, to worship (even in a secular sense), and these in turn will place boundaries on what people will permit themselves to do. If I'm right then there would be a correlation between the quality of an episode or a show, and the quality of the discussion that emerges around it. I'm not sure if this holds, but it's a possible factor. Can you even imagine a screaming match over The Inner Light? Seems difficult to imagine.

100% four stars. This was exquisite. One of the few, if any, episodes, of ANY show, where I can't complain about nor would change even a second of either the plot or the execution. The retrospective style of narration, which I usually dislike, worked excellently here, in large part because it wasn't obtrusive and didn't detract from the story. The Cisco, whom I generally dislike on account of his lackadaisical personality, did a phenomenal job here: expressing his misgivings looking back while being assertive and resolute in seeing his plan through. Garak shone as the brightest of stars, as always. Spectacular. Now, as far as the...eye-roll, please!..."social commentary," sorry-not-sorry, I'm not going to entertain commentary on warfare strategies from anyone who never experienced any kind of war and whose most arduous struggle in life has been having to contend with Facebook being down for 25 minutes. Everyone else intrinsically understands that in a war, especially an existential one, you do absolutely anything to win. You fight dirty, you lie, you cheat, you bribe, you murder, you sacrifice innocents, and so, so much more that the chichi bien-pensants at Manhattan cocktail parties and academic conferences find oh-so utterly degoutant. An existential war is not a gentlemen's duel. The Cisco, instead of decking Garak, should have planted a big wet one on him. But them, it IS The Cisco after all... - although he redeems himself through the very self-aware synopsis at the end. Garak's own peroration was simply fantastic. Simply wonderful.

fOUR STARS? MAN FUCK YOU

Gilligan’s Starship

A superb episode. I watched this for the first time after having just recently watched the episode “One Way Out“ of the Andor series and was fascinated by the similar themes in both. Sisko & the character Luthen both had to compromise their morals and “use the tools of their enemy to defeat them”, find a way to rationalize it AND live with it. I’d heard people lauding this episode for years, but having seen it, itexceeded my expectations.

Buck Bartolik

Maybe Starfleet didn't approve it, or let Sisko know they couldn't do so openly. In short, if it works you're a hero. If it fails you're a traitor. But 46 minutes isn't much time for an episode with this much engine under the hood. There wasn't a wasted minute to be found. Also one of Garak's finest episodes. You don't want this guy mad at you.

He fights well... for a tailor.

I have to laugh at this comment from Garak and wonder if others caught this bit of foreshadowing. GARAK: One last thing, Captain. The man we need to forge this holoprogram is currently sitting in a Klingon prison awaiting execution. To save time and incidentally his life, I thought that perhaps you could contact Chancellor Gowron today and arrange a pardon. Saving time was Garak's priority and Grathon Tolar's life was incidental.

Incredible episode, and a wonderful discussion. I read it all - it's amazing to read comments going back so long, and see how they change to reflect current events. Anyways, I thought about this episode (and the discussion here) at a purely personal level: I am a vegetarian, and I have been for a long time, and it's important to me. On several levels, one of them being a moral level. I realize I have the luxury of these morals, this vegetarianism, because I am relatively well off and live in a society where I can be healthy being vegetarian due to the many options available to me. But, if the world (my world) would descend into chaos, and getting enough to eat every day was a real concern, I'm fairly certain I would eat whatever was available, including meat. Because I have to survive. My morality would be secondary in such a situation. I see that as the choice Sisko faces in this episode.

@splatomat Great quotes! My personal favorite: "So with a seemingly legitimate data rod in one hand, and a dead senator in the other, I ask you, Captain. What conclusion would you draw?"

Every time I watch this episode I’m waiting for the same three words - “It’s a faaake!” - love it 😆

Submit a comment

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine

In the Pale Moonlight

Cast & crew.

Andrew Robinson

Jeffrey Combs

Casey Biggs

Howard Shangraw

Grathon Tolar

Stephen McHattie

Information

© 2011 CBS Corp.

Accessibility

Copyright © 2024 Apple Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Internet Service Terms Apple TV & Privacy Cookie Policy Support

Why 'In the Pale Moonlight' Is An Important DS9 Episode

Your changes have been saved

Email Is sent

Please verify your email address.

You’ve reached your account maximum for followed topics.

Quick Links

'in the pale moonlight' comes from batman and real-world wartime deceit, benjamin sisko's slow-dance with the devil 'in the pale moonlight', did captain sisko know garak was going to commit murder, captain sisko did the wrong thing for the right reasons.

• Star Trek: Deep Space Nine was a broad series that balanced heavy emotion, social allegory, and the silliness and humor the franchise is known for.
• The episode "In the Pale Moonlight" is a classic, but what it says about Captain Sisko's character makes it the show's most important.
• Starfleet captains are paragons of virtue, but Sisko is put in an impossible position and how he reacts to it defines his character and the show.

Despite running for seven seasons and telling dynamic stories with myriad tones, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine earned the reputation as the "dark" show in the franchise. While this reputation is a bit overblown, one of the show's most important episodes likely helped that idea stick. Season 6's "In the Pale Moonlight," is a daring DS9 story that pushes Captain Benjamin Sisko, and the audience, into very uncomfortable territory.

Another contributor to Deep Space Nine 's legacy as the dark Star Trek series was it brought war to Gene Roddenberry's universe for the first time. Until then, any war mentioned in Star Trek was something that happened in the past. The Dominion, a kind of anti-Federation from the Gamma Quadrant, were formidable villains, and the fighting took a heavy toll on the characters. Many episodes dealt with what that was like throughout the series. Nog, the lovable Ferengi played by the late Aron Eisenberg, lost a leg and suffered post-traumatic stress. Starfleet was even corrupted by the fighting, using biological warfare and nearly committing genocide. However, "In the Pale Moonlight" takes things much further by injecting the show's greatest hero with the corrupting influence of war. It was a risky move, because it could've turned the audience against Captain Sisko if the episode hadn't been so expertly written. The audience could understand why things happen as they do and, like Sisko, they can live with it.

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine: When Was Julian Bashir Replaced by a Changeling?

One of the enduring mysteries of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine is when exactly Dr. Julian Bashir was replaced with a changeling imposter in Season 5.

Writer Michael Taylor came up with the original idea for the episode, and producers Peter Allan Fields and Ronald D. Moore helped shape it into its final form. Taylor brought up a telegram Germany sent to Mexico that led the US into World War I called the Zimmerman Note (once believed to have been fake), he told The 7th Rule podcast . The other writers looked to the Gulf of Tonkin incident, a false claim from the US government that led to the war in Vietnam and the Watergate hotel break-in that led to President Nixon's resignation, according to The Deep Space Nine Companion by Terry J. Erdmann with Paula M. Block.

The plan was for budding reporter Jake Sisko to discover his father and former Cardassian spy Garak was creating a false flag attack to bring the Romulans into the Dominion War. Not wanting to risk one of the series' most wholesome relationships, Jake was eventually cut from the story. Moore, who developed the framing of the episode with Sisko talking to the camera while recording a captain's log, wrote the final draft focused on how mounting casualties made him desperate. Every bit the ideal Starfleet captain, Sisko is drawn into an amoral plot by Garak.

The title is a direct reference to the Joker's infamous line from 1989's Batman , "Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?" Sisko is effectively dancing with the devil by orchestrating false evidence to draw Romulans into the war. If that wasn't bad enough, he becomes an accessory to murder twice over to accomplish the goal. It's one thing when the corrupting influence of war affects Starfleet characters the audience doesn't know. "In the Pale Moonlight" shows even the fans' beloved captain wasn't immune to it.

Why Bajor Never Joined the Federation on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine started with a mission to bring the planet Bajor into the Federation but the writers had no intention of making it happen.

The war is going poorly for Starfleet, with mounting casualties and losses of Federation territory. The Cardassians are aligned with the Dominion, and the Klingons have allied with Starfleet. This leaves the Romulans as the only major Alpha Quadrant power not yet in the war on one side or another. They signed a non-aggression pact with the Dominion, but Sisko knows it's as good as moot once the Dominion defeats the Federation and Klingons. In desperation, he goes to Garak, a simple Cardassian tailor living on the station who was also once a spy for Cardassia. He wants him to find "solid proof" of the Dominion's eventual betrayal, which proves impossible. So, Garak suggests they invent some.

Garak has Sisko use his authority to get a holographic forger named Tolar out of a Klingon prison. He later stabs Quark, but Sisko talks security chief Odo into releasing him. He also effectively bribes the Ferengi bartender not to press charges. Tolar works on the forgery, a phony video of a meeting of Dominion and Cardassian leaders discussing their eventual invasion of Romulus. Sisko intimidates and threatens Tolar, too. After presenting the phony recording to the Romulans, the Dominion-sympathetic Senator Vreenak identifies it as a "faaaaake."

It seems as if Sisko is about to reap what he's sown by his dance with the devil, expecting the Romulans to enter the war but on the side of the Dominion. He then discovers Garak sabotaged the Senator's shuttle, making it seem as if the Dominion assassinated him. The Romulans will discover the forgery, assuming the imperfections in the recording are merely damage from the explosion. At first, Sisko is enraged, but he eventually accepts what happened because it will turn the tide of the war. "All it cost," Garak tells him, "was the life of one Romulan senator, one criminal, and the self-respect of one Starfleet officer ." For the safety of the galaxy, Garak calls it "a bargain."

DS9 Shows How Una Chin-Riley Changed Starfleet's Attitude About Augments

Both Star Trek: Strange New Worlds and Deep Space Nine had genetically augmented Starfleet characters, but they were treated very differently.

There is no question that Captain Sisko is indeed an accessory to murder. Garak accuses him of knowing all along something like this was bound to happen, but Sisko had just punched him in the face. The meeting between Sisko and Vreenak was a secret, so the Romulans would believe he'd obtained the recording from the Dominion. However, not even the spy-turned-tailor knew for certain the plot would end with Vreenak's death. He told Sisko he "hoped" the forgery would work, but the assassination made success a certainty.

Tolar, however, is a different matter. Sisko told the forger if the recording didn't fool the Romulans, he was going to send him back to the Klingon prison . If it had worked, Sisko promised Tolar he could leave the station a free man. Yet, it's clear that Garak never planned to let such a loose end remain dangling in the wind. It's possible after years of working with Garak on one mission or another, Sisko believed the Cardassian would let the forger live. However, it's hard to believe such a savvy and experienced officer wouldn't expect Garak to "take care" of Tolar permanently.

At the very least, Sisko had "plausible deniability," where Tolar and Vreenak were concerned. He didn't know for certain they were going to be killed, but it's difficult to believe he never even considered the possibility. His rage at Garak after the deaths shows he's still the good and moral Starfleet officer he was at the start of the episode. Yet, as his final log entry makes clear, he doesn't feel all that guilty about it. "I think I can live with it," he says, raising a glass of liquor to the camera, and then he erases the entire log leaving no record of his perfidy.

Lower Decks Can Do Its Own Musical Episode with DS9's Weirdest Character

Star Trek: Lower Decks could repeat Strange New World's musical episode success using a certain holographic Vegas lounge singer from Deep Space Nine.

Fans can make a sincere case that Sisko is not liable for Garak's murders, but he definitely crossed a line. Throughout the story, he makes many tiny compromises that a Starfleet officer shouldn't. From using threats and intimidation to outright lying to start a war that will result in thousands, maybe even millions, of casualties is clearly the "wrong" thing to do. However, Sisko can live with it because he did those things for the right reasons.

If Starfleet fell, the Alpha Quadrant would suffer. The Federation, and its values, are worth protecting, even if he had to step outside the boundaries of that morality to do it. This is not a decision any other Starfleet captain could've made, largely because none of them had to live through a war. Despite episodes like "In the Pale Moonlight," Deep Space Nine was a deeply hopeful and aspirational series. It was just the first one to test the values at the core of Starfleet. Deep Space Nine revealed how fragile Gene Roddenberry's utopia might be , which is why someone like Sisko would go to any lengths to protect it.

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine is streaming on Paramount+ and is available to own digitally, on Blu-ray and DVD.

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine

In the vicinity of the liberated planet of Bajor, the Federation space station Deep Space Nine guards the opening of a stable wormhole to the far side of the galaxy.

How In The Pale Moonlight Proves That Sisko Is The Best Star Trek Captain

Everyone has their favorite "Star Trek" captain. Each has their own unique skills and flaws, and each comes with their own series and crew. Many argue for James Tiberius Kirk, originally portrayed by William Shatner in the original series, because he was the blueprint for all "Trek" captains who followed. Others are steadfast for Jean-Luc Picard (Patrick Stewart), who led the Enterprise on "Star Trek: The Next Generation," because he is an excellent explorer, diplomat, and ship's captain. 

However, no "Star Trek" captain has faced the same incredible trials as Captain Benjamin Sisko (Avery Brooks), who commands the titular space station on "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine." Every other captain, from Captain Jonathan Archer (Scott Bakula) on "Star Trek: Enterprise" all the way through to Captain Michael Burnham (Sonequa Martin-Green) on "Star Trek: Discovery," is on board a traveling ship, and while they have different missions, they're all capable of warp speeding away from at least some of their problems. Deep Space Nine, by contrast, is a pivotal outpost near both the planet Bajor, recently freed from Cardassian rule, and a newly discovered wormhole that connects them to the Gamma Quadrant (which is ruled by the fascistic, colonizing Dominion, who have decided to invade).

The season 6 episode "In the Pale Moonlight,"  set deep during the Dominion War, shows Captain Sisko at his most desperate and willing to fight dirty, and it also shows why he is the greatest "Star Trek" captain of them all. The episode is somewhat controversial because it shows a Starfleet officer doing some very non-Starfleet-like behavior and it basically had to be snuck past busy executives. Nevertheless, it's one of the best in the entire franchise exactly because it finally deals with morality in shades of gray.

Conspiring with some shady characters

Deep Space Nine (DS9) had one other major difference from ships like the Enterprise or Voyager — it wasn't 100% run by the Federation. In order to keep things peaceful with the new temporary Bajoran government, DS9's first officer is from their military and there are a number of Bajorans on board. There are plenty of civilians too, including the Cardassian tailor/spy Garak (Andrew Robinson) and Ferengi bartender Quark (Armin Shimerman). 

While Sisko is usually at odds with these two ne'er-do-wells, he is forced to work with them on their level during the events of "In the Pale Moonlight." In fact, when he feels pushed to act after the Dominion invade the peaceful planet Betazed (seriously, it's an entire planet of horny psychic hippies), he enlists Garak to help him find a forger so he can convince the Romulans to abandon their non-aggression pact with the Dominion, which would turn the tide of the war. It's a move that's impossible to imagine any other "Star Trek" captain making, in part because it's impossible to imagine any other captain even really  knowing someone as unscrupulous as Garak.

Garak and Sisko free forger Tolar (Howard Shangraw) from a Klingon prison and he ends up attacking Quark while drunk. In order to keep Quark from pressing charges and having Tolar appear on official records, Sisko bribes him. Quark is thrilled because it proves the 98th Rule of Acquisition: "Every man has his price."

A complex captain for a complex Star Trek

What Quark doesn't fully understand is that the price of bribing him is a lot more than the bars of latinum and help with import papers that he asked for. It's the first of many moments where the captain realizes that he is abandoning certain ideals and tarnishing his own morality in the name of the greater good. It's also the first dent in his self-respect. In the episode, Sisko addresses the audience directly as he records a personal log to the computer in an attempt to absolve himself of his actions, all the while drinking and stripping down out of his Starfleet uniform as he does. There's something about revealing a character's personal logs that feels almost invasive, yet Sisko's fourth-wall-breaking direct address instead lets him be vulnerable and in command at the same time.

Despite being a half-celestial god creature (it's a long story), he's somehow the most human of all of the "Star Trek" captains. He's passionate, he's angry, and he can be a bit of a dick sometimes. Perhaps his closest competitor is Captain Shaw (Todd Stashwick) from "Star Trek: Picard," who also happened to be at the absolutely horrific Battle of Wolf 359  and has a similarly gruff exterior, but he didn't get quite as much time to show audiences the full breadth of his humanity. Sisko may be flawed, but he's also a brilliant tactician who understands that sometimes the truly moral choices are the most difficult ones.

The real cost of freedom

While the writers took a couple of seasons to really find their groove with Sisko (and, initially, showrunner Ira Steven Behr thought he was "a tragic mistake" ), by season 6, he had become a truly compelling character whose writing matched Brooks' commanding screen presence. As Sisko recounts his version of events, he grows furious with his past self, saying, "People are dying out there every day! Entire worlds are struggling for their freedom, and here I am still worrying about the finer points of morality!" He realized that while he hemmed and hawed about some of the immoral things he had to do in order to force the Romulans to join their cause, numerous lives would be lost. Garak even tells him that his actions could change the fate of the entire quadrant, verbalizing just how high the stakes have become.

In the end, the Romulan emissary (Stephen McHattie) realizes that the forged data rod is, in fact, a fake, but his ship explodes before he can get anywhere with it. Garak sabotaged the ship and made it look like the Dominion did it, knowing that any discrepancies on the rod would just be attributed to damage from the explosion. He also kills Tolar, because loose ends cause problems. Sisko is furious and even punches him, but Garak explains that billions of lives were just saved, and the only sacrifices were "one senator, one criminal, and the self-respect of one Starfleet officer."

Garak has a point

Garak is no arbiter of morality, but he does have a point when it comes to the incredible victory that came at such a relatively small cost. It's not the kind of thinking that ever really appears in "Star Trek" because of creator Gene Roddenberry's idealism and the rules set in place by his successor, Rick Berman, but thankfully "Deep Space Nine" often allowed itself to get into the murkier, scarier side of science-fiction. It dealt with the difficulties faced during wartime and seemed to understand that often those embroiled in war didn't choose to be there. Sisko did not choose his unusual birth or place in the Bajoran faith, just as he didn't choose to end up being in charge of the outpost closest to a new invading force. But he's doing the best he can to minimize bloodshed and end the fighting, even when that means damning himself in the process.

Sisko is forced between a rock and a hard place at almost every turn, operating as an effective military leader while also taking care of all of the people aboard his space station, Federation, Bajoran militia, and civilian alike. It's difficult to imagine the space-faring explorers on their various ships even having the idea to plant evidence and force the Romulan's hands in the first place. And those who might, like Captain Pike (Anson Mount) of "Star Trek: Strange New Worlds," certainly wouldn't go through with it. But as Sisko tells us all (and the computer right before deleting the entire log), "I can live with it." He's made of stronger stuff than any of us, and he's the greatest Starfleet captain to have ever lived.

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (TV Series)

In the pale moonlight (1998), avery brooks: captain benjamin 'ben' sisko.

• Photos (12)
• Quotes (25)

Photos 

Quotes 

[last lines] 

Captain Sisko : So... I lied. I cheated. I bribed men to cover the crimes of other men. I am an accessory to murder. But the most damning thing of all... I think I can live with it. And if I had to do it all over again - I would. Garak was right about one thing: a guilty conscience is a small price to pay for the safety of the Alpha Quadrant. So I will learn to live with it... Because I can live with it... I can live with it... Computer - erase that entire personal log.

Captain Sisko : Who's watching Tolar?

Garak : I've locked him in his quarters. I've also left him with the distinct impression that if he attempts to force the door open, it may explode.

Captain Sisko : I hope that's just an impression.

Garak : It's best not to dwell on such minutiae.

Captain Sisko : Welcome aboard, Senator. I'm Captain Benjamin Sisko.

Vreenak : So - you're the Commander of Deep Space Nine; and the Emissary to the Prophets, decorated combat officer, widower, father, mentor... and, oh yes - the man who started the war with the Dominion. Somehow I thought you'd be taller.

Captain Sisko : Sorry to disappoint you.

Vreenak : To be honest, my opinion of Starfleet officers is so low, you'd have to work very hard indeed to disappoint me.

[a criminal working for Sisko just tried to kill Quark] 

Captain Sisko : Do you intend to press charges?

Quark : You bet I do.

Captain Sisko : What will it take, um... to, er, convince you otherwise?

Quark : Are you offering me... a bribe? I knew it. Captain, I've always liked you. I suspected that somewhere deep down in your heart of hearts there was a tiny bit of Ferengi just waiting to get out.

Captain Sisko : What's your price?

Quark : Well - let's start with replacing my clothes, and M'Pella's clothes...

Captain Sisko : All right.

Quark : I'm not finished. I think I should be compensated for the loss of business I suffered today, which I calculate as no less than... five bars of goldpressed latinum.

Captain Sisko : Done.

Quark : I'm also having a problem with station security. They're holding some cargo containers which I've been waiting for because of some missing... import license or something.

Captain Sisko : I'll handle it. Anything else?

Quark : No. I think we can call it a bribe. And thank you, Captain. Thank you for restoring my faith in the ninety-eighth Rule of Acquisition: "Every man has his price."

Garak : If you can allow your anger to subside for a moment, you'll see that they did *not* die in vain! The Romulans will enter the war!

Captain Sisko : There's no guarantee of that!

Garak : Oh, but I think that there is. You see, when the Tal Shiar finishes examining the wreckage of Vreenak's shuttle, they'll find the burnt remnants of a Cardassian optolythic data rod which somehow miraculously survived the explosion. After painstaking forensic examination, they'll discover that the rod contains a recording of a high-level Dominion meeting, at which the invasion of Romulus was being planned.

Captain Sisko : And then they'll discover that it is a *fraud*!

Garak : Oh, I don't think they will! Because any imperfections in the forgery will appear to be a result of the explosion. So - with a seemingly legitimate rod in one hand, and a dead senator in the other, I ask you, Captain - what conclusion would you draw?

Captain Sisko : [voice-over]  I need to talk about this... I have to justify what's happened, what I've done - at least to myself. I can't talk to anyone else, not even to Dax. Maybe if I just lay it all out in my log, it'll finally make sense. I can see where it all went wrong - where I went wrong.

Captain Sisko : People are dying out there, every day! Entire worlds are struggling for their freedom. And here I am, still worrying about the finer points of morality.

Garak : Vreenak believes he's on the winning side, so until you can prove otherwise, you may have to put up with a certain... acerbic attitude.

Captain Sisko : Er, Mr. Garak, after having spent a week with you, I have developed a very, very thick skin.

Captain Sisko : [voice-over]  If there is one thing I've learned over the years, it's that bad news invariably comes in the middle of the night.

Captain Sisko : [voice-over]  I'm not an impatient man. I'm not one to agonize over decisions once they're made. I got that from my father. He always says, "Worry and doubt are the greatest enemies of a great chef. The soufflé will either rise or it won't. There's not a damn thing you can do about it, so you might as well just sit back and wait, and see what happens."

Captain Sisko : At 0800 hours, station time, the Romulan Empire formally declared war against the Dominion. They've already struck fifteen bases along the Cardassian border. So, this is a huge victory for the good guys! This may even be the turning point of the entire war. There is even a "Welcome to the Fight"-party tonight in the wardroom!

Captain Sisko : [voice-over]  My father used to say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Captain Sisko : [in a hypothetical debate with a "Romulan" official]  You can't be naive enough to think that the Dominion is going to stop with the Federation. When they're finished with us, they're coming after you!

Lt. Commander Jadzia Dax : That's speculation.

Captain Sisko : The Founders see it as their sacred duty to bring order to the galaxy - their order. Do you think they'll sit idly by while you keep your chaotic Empire right next to their perfect order? No. If you watch us go under, then what you're really doing is signing your own death warrant.

Lt. Commander Jadzia Dax : But before I plunge my people into a conflict that will kill millions of loyal Romulan citizens, I need something more concrete than the self-serving argument of a Starfleet officer. I need proof of Dominion duplicity. Not more words. Proof.

Captain Sisko : [chuckles acknowledging]  Very good, old man. You would have made a decent Romulan.

Lt. Commander Jadzia Dax : I prefer the spots to the pointed ears.

Garak : The less I'm seen parading through Ops, the better.

Captain Sisko : I couldn't agree more.

Captain Sisko : [voice-over]  Every Friday morning, for the past three months, I've posted the official list of Starfleet personnel killed, wounded or missing in the war. It's become something of a grim ritual around here. Not a week goes by that someone doesn't find the name of a loved one, a friend or an acquaintance on that damned list. I've grown to hate Fridays.

Garak : To do what you're asking would use up every resource I have left on Cardassia. And it may be a very messy, very... bloody business. Are you prepared for that?

Captain Sisko : I posted my fourteenth casualty list this morning. I'm already involved in a very messy, very bloody business.

Captain Sisko : [voice-over]  It was like I had stepped through a door and locked it behind me: I was going to bring the Romulans into the war.

Captain Sisko : [in a debate with a real Romulan official]  Maybe you're right. Maybe the Dominion will win in the end. Then the Founders will control what we now call Cardassia, the Klingon Empire and the Federation. So, instead of facing three separate opponents with three separate agendas, you'll find yourselves facing the same opponent on every side. There is a word for that: surrounded.

Vreenak : [...]  You make some very good points, Captain. But it's still all speculation and theory - nothing that would warrant abrogating our treaty and plunging the Empire into war.

Captain Sisko : What if I told you that the Dominion is planning a sneak attack on the Romulan Empire at this very moment?

Vreenak : Mm... I'd want proof.

Tolar : [Tolar has just finished a holographic forgery showing the plan for a Dominion invasion of Romulus in order to trick the Romulans into joining the war against the Dominion]  Well, it's been a pleasure doing business with you gentlemen. Call me again if you ever need...

Captain Sisko : [interrupting]  You're not going anywhere.

Tolar : What do you mean?

Captain Sisko : I mean you're not leaving until your work has been accepted by our client.

Tolar : [flying into a tantrum]  That isn't fair! You can't keep me here against my will! I haven't done anything wrong! We had an agreement!

Captain Sisko : [Sisko grabs Tolar and slams him against a wall of the Holosuite]  I am making a new agreement. If that program passes inspection, you go free. But if there is even the tiniest flaw, I will send you back to that Klingon prison and tell Gowron to take his time when he executes you!

Tolar : [Tolar's bluster evaporates and he becomes much more obseqious]  It'll pass. You'll see. It will pass.

Garak : [pleasantly]  I sincerely hope so. Now, why don't you go wait in your quarters. I'll be along shortly to say... hello.

Garak : [in a holosuite, previewing the false record of Weyoun and Damar quarreling about Dukat while discussing the invasion of Romulus]  That's all the new material, the rest of the program plays exactly as you saw before. What do you think?

Captain Sisko : It's... better. They seem more real.

Garak : Yes, and all I had to do was add a little petty bickering and mutual loathing.

Captain Sisko : [voice-over]  I was the one who had to make it happen. I was the one who had to look Senator Vreenak in his eye, and convince him that a lie... was the truth.

Captain Sisko : So, it all blew up in my face.

[after Vreenak's analysis of his 'proof'] 

Garak : I made a few discrete inquiries among my former associates still living on Cardassia. As I anticipated, they shared my loathing for the current government and were willing to take on any assignment aimed at its destruction.

Captain Sisko : That sounds like progress to me.

Garak : Doesn't it? Unfortunately, they're all dead now.

Captain Sisko : What?

Garak : Yes, all killed within one day of speaking with me. I suppose that's a testament to the effectiveness of Dominion security.

Captain Sisko : That's what you planned to do all along, isn't it? You knew the data rod wouldn't hold up to scrutiny. You just wanted to get him on the station so that you could plant a bomb on his shuttle.

[first lines] 

Captain Sisko : Captain's personal log, stardate five one seven... thr-, uh... Five one seven... four - Computer, what day is it?

Cardassian Computer Voice : Stardate 51721.3.

Release Dates | Official Sites | Company Credits | Filming & Production | Technical Specs

• Full Cast and Crew
• Release Dates
• Official Sites
• Company Credits
• Filming & Production
• Technical Specs
• Plot Summary
• Plot Keywords
• Parents Guide

Did You Know?

• Crazy Credits
• Alternate Versions
• Connections
• Soundtracks

Photo & Video

• Photo Gallery
• Trailers and Videos
• User Reviews
• User Ratings
• External Reviews
• Metacritic Reviews

Related Items

• External Sites

Related lists from IMDb users

Recently Viewed

Suggested Searches

• Climate Change
• Expedition 64
• Mars perseverance
• SpaceX Crew-2
• International Space Station
• View All Topics A-Z

Humans in Space

Earth & climate, the solar system, the universe, aeronautics, learning resources, news & events.

NASA, Global Astronomers Await Rare Nova Explosion

NASA Scientists Take to the Seas to Study Air Quality

NASA to Change How It Points Hubble Space Telescope

• Search All NASA Missions
• A to Z List of Missions
• Upcoming Launches and Landings
• Spaceships and Rockets
• Communicating with Missions
• James Webb Space Telescope
• Hubble Space Telescope
• Why Go to Space
• Commercial Space
• Destinations
• Living in Space
• Explore Earth Science
• Earth, Our Planet
• Earth Science in Action
• Earth Multimedia
• Earth Science Researchers
• Pluto & Dwarf Planets
• Asteroids, Comets & Meteors
• The Kuiper Belt
• The Oort Cloud
• Skywatching
• The Search for Life in the Universe
• Black Holes
• The Big Bang
• Dark Energy & Dark Matter
• Earth Science
• Planetary Science
• Astrophysics & Space Science
• The Sun & Heliophysics
• Biological & Physical Sciences
• Lunar Science
• Citizen Science
• Astromaterials
• Aeronautics Research
• Human Space Travel Research
• Science in the Air
• NASA Aircraft
• Flight Innovation
• Supersonic Flight
• Air Traffic Solutions
• Green Aviation Tech
• Drones & You
• Technology Transfer & Spinoffs
• Space Travel Technology
• Technology Living in Space
• Manufacturing and Materials
• Science Instruments
• For Kids and Students
• For Educators
• For Colleges and Universities
• For Professionals
• Science for Everyone
• Requests for Exhibits, Artifacts, or Speakers
• STEM Engagement at NASA
• NASA's Impacts
• Centers and Facilities
• Directorates
• Organizations
• People of NASA
• Internships
• Our History
• Doing Business with NASA
• Get Involved
• Aeronáutica
• Ciencias Terrestres
• Sistema Solar
• All NASA News
• Video Series on NASA+
• Newsletters
• Social Media
• Media Resources
• Upcoming Launches & Landings
• Virtual Events
• Sounds and Ringtones
• Interactives
• STEM Multimedia

Hubble Examines a Barred Spiral’s Light

Webb Finds Plethora of Carbon Molecules Around Young Star

NASA Astronauts Practice Next Giant Leap for Artemis 

Former Astronaut David R. Scott

Space Station Research Advances NASA’s Plans to Explore the Moon, Mars

NASA Mission Flies Over Arctic to Study Sea Ice Melt Causes

Twin NASA Satellites Ready to Help Gauge Earth’s Energy Balance

Solid State Quantum Magnetometers—Seeking out water worlds from the quantum world

C.12 Planetary Instrument Concepts for the Advancement of Solar System Observations POC Change

B.10 Heliophysics Flight Opportunities Studies Correction

ARMD Solicitations

Winners Announced in Gateways to Blue Skies Aeronautics Competition

NASA, Industry to Start Designing More Sustainable Jet Engine Core

Tech Today: Measuring the Buzz, Hum, and Rattle

Artemis Generation Shines During NASA’s 2024 Lunabotics Challenge 

NASA Marshall Engineer Receives AIAA Honors Award

Meet the Simunauts: Ohio State Students to Test Space Food Solutions for NASA

Diez maneras en que los estudiantes pueden prepararse para ser astronautas

Astronauta de la NASA Marcos Berríos

Resultados científicos revolucionarios en la estación espacial de 2023

15 min read

55 Years Ago: Star Trek Final Episode Airs, Relationship with NASA Endures

Johnson space center.

The voyages of the Starship Enterprise came to a sudden and premature end on June 3, 1969, with the airing of the final episode of the Star Trek original television series. Ironically, the show’s cancellation came just six weeks before humanity embarked on its first voyage to land on another celestial body. Although the show ran for only three seasons, it generated a devoted fan base disappointed by the cancellation despite their write-in campaign to keep it on the air. But as things turned out, over the decades Star Trek evolved into a global phenomenon, first with the original episodes replayed in syndication, followed by a series of full-length motion pictures, and eventually a multitude of spin-off series. With its primary focus on space exploration, along with themes of diversity, inclusion, and innovation, the Star Trek fictional universe formed a natural association with NASA’s real life activities.

Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry first had the idea for a science fiction television series in 1964. He presented his idea, a show set in the 23 rd century aboard a starship with a crew dedicated to exploring the galaxy, to Desilu Productions, an independent television production company headed by Lucille Ball. They produced a pilot titled “The Cage,” selling it to the National Broadcasting Corporation (NBC) network that then bought a second pilot titled “Where No Man Has Gone Before.” NBC introduced the show to its fall 1966 lineup, with the first episode “The Man Trap” airing on Sep. 8. To put that date in perspective, NASA launched Gemini XI four days later, one of the missions that helped the agency achieve the Moon landing nearly three years later. Meanwhile, Star Trek’s Starship Enterprise continued its fictional five-year mission through the galaxy to “seek out new life and new civilizations.” The makeup of the Enterprise’s crew made the show particularly attractive to late 1960s television audiences. The major characters included an African American woman communications officer, an Asian American helmsman, and a half-human half-Vulcan science officer, later joined by a Russian-born ensign. While the show enjoyed good ratings during its first two seasons, cuts to its production budget resulted in lower quality episodes during its third season leading to lower ratings and, despite a concerted letter-writing campaign from its dedicated fans, eventual cancellation.

Despite the show’s cancellation, Star Trek lived on and prospered in syndication and attracted an ever-growing fan base, turning into a worldwide sensation. Often dubbed “trekkies,” these fans held the first of many Star Trek conventions in 1972. When in 1976 NASA announced that it would name its first space shuttle orbiter Constitution, in honor of its unveiling on the anniversary of the U. S. Constitution’s ratification, trekkies engaged in a dedicated letter writing campaign to have the orbiter named Enterprise, after the starship in the television series. This time the fans’ letter writing campaign succeeded. President Gerald R. Ford agreed with the trekkies and directed NASA to rechristen the first space shuttle. When on Sept. 17, 1976 , it rolled out of its manufacturing plant in Palmdale, California, appropriately accompanied by a band playing the show’s theme song, it bore the name Enterprise. Many of the original cast members of the show as well as its creator Rodenberry participated in the rollout ceremony, hosted by NASA Administrator James C. Fletcher . Thus began a lengthy relationship between the space agency and the Star Trek brand.

During the development of the space shuttle in the 1970s, the need arose to recruit a new group of astronauts to fly the vehicle, deploy the satellites, and perform the science experiments. When NASA released the call for the new astronaut selection on July 8, 1976, it specifically encouraged women and minorities to apply. To encourage those applicants, NASA chose Nichelle Nichols, who played communications officer Lt. Uhura on the Starship Enterprise, to record a recruiting video and speak to audiences nationwide. She came to NASA’s Johnson Space Center (JSC) in Houston in March 1977, and accompanied by Apollo 12 and Skylab 3 astronaut Alan L. Bean , toured the center and filmed scenes for the video in Mission Control and other facilities. NASA hoped that her stature and popularity would encourage women and minorities to apply, and indeed they did. In January 1978, when NASA announced the selection of 35 new astronauts from more than 8,000 applicants, for the first time the astronaut class included women and minorities. All distinguished themselves as NASA astronauts and paved the way for others in subsequent astronaut selections. Nichols returned to JSC in September 2010 with the Traveling Space Museum, an organization that partners with schools to promote space studies. She toured Mission Control and the International Space Station trainer accompanied by NASA astronaut B. Alvin Drew . She also flew aboard NASA’s Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA) airborne telescope aircraft managed by NASA’s Ames Research Center in Silicon Valley, California, in September 2015.

Meanwhile, the Star Trek brand renewed itself in 1979 as a full-length motion picture with the original TV series cast members reprising their roles. Over the years, several sequels followed this first film. And on the small screen, a reboot of sorts occurred in 1987 with the premiere of Star Trek: The Next Generation, a new series set in the 24 th century aboard the Enterprise-D, a next generation starship with a new crew. That series lasted seven seasons, followed by a near-bewildering array of spin-off series, all built on the Star Trek brand, that continue to this day.

James Doohan, the actor who played Lt. Cmdr. Montgomery “Scotty” Scott, the Starship Enterprise’s chief engineer, had early associations with NASA. In April 1967, Doohan visited NASA’s Dryden (now Armstrong) Flight Research Center in California, spending time with NASA test pilot Bruce A. Peterson. A month later, Peterson barely survived a horrific crash of the experimental M2-F2 lifting body aircraft. He inspired the 1970s TV series The Six-Million Dollar Man, and the show’s opening credits include film of the crash. Doohan narrated a documentary film about the space shuttle released shortly before Columbia made its first flight in April 1981. In January 1991, Doohan visited JSC and with NASA astronaut Mario Runco (who sometimes went by the nickname “Spock”) toured the shuttle trainers, Mission Control, and tried his hand at operating the shuttle’s robotic arm in the Manipulator Development Facility. In a unique tribute, astronaut Neil A. Armstrong , the first person to step on the lunar surface , spoke at Doohan’s retirement in 2004, addressing him as “one old engineer to another.”

George Takei, who played Enterprise helmsman Lt. Hikaru Sulu, and his husband Brad, visited JSC in May 2012. Invited by both Asian American and LGBTQ+ Employee Resource Groups, Takei spoke of leadership and inclusiveness, including overcoming challenges while in Japanese American internment camps during World War II and as a member of the LGBTQ+ community. He noted that Star Trek remained ahead of its time in creating a future when all members of society could equally participate in great undertakings, at a time when the country struggled through the Civil Rights movement and the conflict in Southeast Asia. The inclusiveness that is part of NASA’s culture greatly inspired him. JSC Director Michael L. Coats presented Takei with a plaque including a U.S. flag flown aboard space shuttle Atlantis’ STS-135 mission. He also visited Mission Control and spent some time with Robonaut.

Leonard Nimoy played the science officer aboard the Starship Enterprise, the half-human, half-Vulcan Mr. Spock. The actor watched in September 2012 when space shuttle Enterprise arrived at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York, on the last leg of its journey to the Intrepid Sea, Air and Space Museum, where it currently resides. “This is a reunion for me,” observed Nimoy. “Thirty-five years ago, I met the Enterprise for the first time.” As noted earlier, the Star Trek cast attended the first space shuttle’s rollout in 1976. Following his death in 2015, European Space Agency astronaut Samantha Cristoforetti paid tribute to Nimoy aboard the International Space Station by wearing a Star Trek science officer uniform, giving the Vulcan greeting, and proclaiming, “Of all the souls I have encountered … his was the most human.”

Captain James T. Kirk, played by actor William Shatner, a life-long advocate of science and space exploration, served at the helm of the Starship Enterprise. His relationship with NASA began during the original series, with references to the space agency incorporated into several story lines. In 2011, Shatner hosted and narrated a NASA documentary celebrating the 30 th anniversary of the Space Shuttle program , and gave his time and voice to other NASA documentaries. NASA recognized Shatner’s contributions in 2014 with a Distinguished Public Service Medal , the highest award NASA bestows on non-government individuals. NASA Deputy Associate Administrator for Communications Robert “Bob” N. Jacobs presented the medal to Shatner. The award’s citation read, “For outstanding generosity and dedication to inspiring new generations of explorers around the world, and for unwavering support for NASA and its missions of discovery.” In 2019, Shatner narrated the NASA video We Are Going , about NASA’s plans to return astronauts to the Moon. He has spoken at numerous NASA-themed events and moderated panels about NASA’s future plans. On Oct. 13, 2021, at the age of 90, Shatner reached the edge of space during the NS-18 suborbital flight of Blue Origin’s New Shepard vehicle, experiencing three minutes of weightlessness.

Elements of the Star Trek universe have made their way not only into popular culture but also into NASA culture. As noted above, Star Trek fans had a hand in naming the first space shuttle Enterprise. NASA’s Earth observation facility aboard the space station that makes use of its optical quality window bears the name the Window Observational Research Facility (WORF). The connection between that acronym and the name of a Klingon officer aboard the Enterprise in the Star Trek: The Next Generation TV series seemed like an opportunity not to be missed – the facility’s official patch bears its name in English and in Klingon. Several astronaut crews have embraced Star Trek themes for their unofficial photographs. The STS-54 crew dressed in the uniforms of Starship Enterprise officers from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn, the second full-length feature motion picture of the series. Space shuttle and space station crews created Space Flight Awareness (SFA) posters for their missions, and more than one embraced Star Trek themes. The Expedition 21 crew dressed in uniforms from the original series, while the STS-134 crew chose as their motif the 2009 reboot motion picture Star Trek.

As much as Star Trek has influenced NASA, in turn the agency has left its mark on the franchise, from episodes referencing actual and future spaceflight events to NASA astronauts making cameo appearances on the show. The first-season episode “Court Martial” that aired in February 1967 featured a photograph of the December 1965 Gemini VI launch adorning a wall aboard a star base. In the second-season episode “Return to Tomorrow,” airing in February 1968, Captain Kirk in a dialogue about risk-taking remarks, “Do you wish that the first Apollo mission hadn’t reached the Moon?” a prescient reference to the first Apollo mission to reach the Moon more than 10 months after the episode aired. Astronaut Mae C. Jemison , who credits Nichelle Nichols as her inspiration to become an astronaut, appeared in the 1993 episode “Second Chances” of Star Trek: The Next Generation , eight months after her actual spaceflight aboard space shuttle Endeavour. In May 2005, two other NASA astronauts, Terry W. Virts and E. Michael Fincke , appeared in “These are the Voyages…,” the final episode of the series Star Trek: Enterprise.

In the 2016 documentary “ NASA on the Edge of Forever: Science in Space ,” host NASA astronaut Victor J. Glover states, “Science and Star Trek go hand-in-hand.” The film explores how for 50 years, Star Trek influenced scientists, engineers, and even astronauts to reach beyond their potential. While the space station doesn’t speed through the galaxy like the Starship Enterprise, much of the research conducted aboard the orbiting facility can make the fiction of Star Trek come a little closer to reality. Several of the cast members from the original TV series share their viewpoints in the documentary, along with those of NASA managers and scientists. Over the years, NASA has created several videos highlighting the relationship between the agency and the Star Trek franchise. In 2016, NASA Administrator Charles F. Bolden led a video tribute to celebrate the 50 th anniversary of the first Star Trek episode.

In 2021, on the 100 th anniversary of Gene Roddenberry’s birth, his son Rod hosted a virtual panel discussion , introduced by NASA Administrator C. William “Bill” Nelson , about diversity and inspiration, two ideals the Star Trek creator infused into the series. Panelists included Star Trek actor Takei, Tracy D. Drain, flight systems engineer for the Europa Clipper spacecraft at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California, NASA astronaut Jonny Kim , Swati Mohan, guidance and operations lead for the Mars 2020 rover at JPL, and Hortense B. Diggs, Director of the Office of Communication and Public Engagement at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

The mutual attraction between NASA and Star Trek stems from, to paraphrase the opening voiceover from the TV series, that both seek to explore and discover new worlds, and to boldly go where no one has gone before. The diversity, inclusion, and inspiration involved in these endeavors ensure that they will live long and prosper.

Explore More

25 Years Ago: STS-96 Resupplies the Space Station

15 Years Ago: First Time all Partners Represented aboard the International Space Station

40 Years Ago: NASA Selects its 10th Group of Astronauts