swatkat

Since we were talking about harshness - are we, the Michael/Nikita fans, too harsh when it comes to Paul and Madeline? Even those of us who actually like and admire them (including myself)? We're always going on about their cruelty and how Michael or Nikita (Nikita for me *g*) would've done a better job as Operations - why is that so? Now that we know all about Oversight and Centre, wasn't what Paul and Madeline did for their own survival, just like the way Michael and Nikita fought to survive in Section? And what is the guarantee that Michael and Nikita wouldn't do the exact same things when they got the power? Your thoughts here. *g*

Nell, tell me why Nikita wouldn't fall in the same trap as Paul in order to survive.

Current Mood: awake
Current Music: Crappy comedy film on tv

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

nell65.livejournal.com

I would argue that both the instances you mentioned are a case of the few for the many - incidentally, something Nikita never seemed to get.

First, I think Nikita ‘got it’ – it isn’t that difficult to ‘get’ – but she neither agreed with it nor accepted it. After all, it isn’t as though it is a universally accepted moral, ethical or philosophical position – rather it remains an intensely debated one, and a good deal of the New Testament as well as various Buddhist theologies – to mention just two examples I’m familiar with -- reject that proposition altogether. Personally, I'm on the fence still on that one.

Second, the most famous western examples all follow the story of Christ – where the few or the one CHOOSES to sacrifice themselves/him or herself for the many, not are chosen by someone else – or at least, not another human being. And in specific case of "Love" in particular, "the many" strike me as entirely theoretical – Paul and Madeline didn’t appear to raise a hand to stop the later second public gas attack and then they ‘green listed’ Bauer. Which "many," exactly, were saved as a result of the actual lives lost in the office building?

"I think there is a difference between being reckless with the lives of operatives and the lives of bystanders."

As did Nikita, she appeared to have no problem being reckless with the lives of operatives, especially those in her own team, but had a huge problem with endangering the lives of bystanders. *wink*

Well – like I said, this is something I’m more comfortable with – though I don’t remember that she ever recklessly endangered the lives ‘of her own team’ in her efforts to protect bystanders. If you mean the operatives she killed to prevent the bombing of The Hague? Whatever that was, it wasn’t a result of ‘recklessness’ on her part.

From:

mscyanide.livejournal.com

"Actually – there is plenty of evidence that other ops didn’t trust them. Take Roger, from S1 – Suba had his son and was blackmailing him, and Roger was betraying Section’s secrets as a result – damaging members of his own teams. But Roger did not go to Operations for help. Or S2. Terry – pregnant and worried about what would happen to her child, did not trust Operations and Madeline with her predicament – also dealing information that undermined missions with the badguys. And the young operative who shot Operations for Petrosian in exchange for aid to his family clearly believed that Operations and Madeline would have dismissed his concerns, and would not have rewarded him equally well for coming to them once Petrosian approached him. Or O’Brien in the final season - worried about his mother and trying to hide his care of her from Section, sending Nikita on a wasted trip to prove he wasn’t a mole. These operatives didn’t trust Operations and Madeline."

See now I see these people as exceptions rather than the norm. Each one of those problems was personal rather than professional and each one of those people knowingly broke the rules and then, when things turned sour, attempted to cover their asses. They didn't play by the rules and didn't want to face the consequences.

I'm rather of the opinion that Roger, Terry and Kronen should have been identified as potential problems in training and cancelled on the spot - each one of them was inherently weak. As for O'Brien - he never should have been recruited.

"Also, as I saw it, Walter clearly didn’t trust them from the beginning and urged Nikita not to either, implicitly and explicitly, and if Birkoff did trust them in the beginning – he didn’t by the end."

Walter was a special case and while he didn't trust them neither did he move against them. Now, Birkoff...well, he actually did appear to be loyal even though he may not have trusted them.

"I do believe that when it came to missions, b/c Operations and Madeline’s lives also were at risk, the operatives felt they could trust them – if not individually, then for the mission to be as well designed as Operations and Madeline could make it."

That is the very reason I believe a large number of operatives did trust Paul and Madeline and were loyal to them.

"I agree that they had every reason to want to control the information sent out with operatives for exactly the reasons you mentioned. It was the stupid lies that couldn’t be sustained even mid-mission that irritated me – like not telling Nikita at the beginning who and what Chandler was."

I can understand why they choose to lie about that, what I don't understand is why they didn't cancel her after that mission. *g*

"That one was so early in the series that even if the exact situation wasn’t repeated very often, it made everything else Madeline and Paul ever said a about a target suspect for me – though lying about the rapist/president was certainly a clincher on that one."

I happen to be of the opinion that there are some people in this world who are vile, but perform an important function and must be tolerated. For me it didn't matter when/if they lied about a target because I had faith in Paul and Madeline and believed that their intentions were good. I really couldn't care less what they told Nikita or how betrayed she felt, she was there to do a job and they had to make her do it - lying happened to work a lot of the time.

C:"I would point out that in "Love," Michael implied that Bauer was likely to have had a back-up plan which would have caused more deaths and that is why they choose to allow them to die."

N:"I always thought Michael tossed that off on the spur of the moment just to appease Nikita."

You made an assumption which reflected your bias and I made another which reflected my own. *bg*

From:

mscyanide.livejournal.com

"Besides – my point was I think Madeline and Paul could have worked out a deception. Bauer’s only ‘proof’ that his gassing worked was a few hands feebly trying to break some windows, and presumably the sight of the rescue workers and later press reports…"

A lot of assuming. We don't know what kind of sources Bauer had access to, so we don't know if a Section deception would have worked. I prefer to assume that there was a chance such a deception would not have worked and Section decided not to take such a risk.

"Certainly, when Nikita rushed out to let him know the plan, the expression on Walter’s face suggested his conviction that Operations wouldn’t even try."

Perhaps because Walter knew it wasn't possible?

"Paul and Madeline didn’t appear to raise a hand to stop the later second public gas attack and then they ‘green listed’ Bauer. Which "many," exactly, were saved as a result of the actual lives lost in the office building?"

This highlights our differing POV's of Madeline, Paul and Section itself. Perhaps - I can't believe I'm going to say this - I'm more of an optimist than you are and more am therefore more inclined - in regards to Madeline, Paul and Section - to give them the benefit of the doubt.

"First, I think Nikita ‘got it’ – it isn’t that difficult to ‘get’ – but she neither agreed with it nor accepted it. After all, it isn’t as though it is a universally accepted moral, ethical or philosophical position – rather it remains an intensely debated one, and a good deal of the New Testament as well as various Buddhist theologies – to mention just two examples I’m familiar with -- reject that proposition altogether. Personally, I'm on the fence still on that one."

I'll avoid the religious references. I'm not on the fence on this issue. The most common 'test' question asked is this: "if you could cure cancer, but had to kill one innocent child in order to do it, would you?" I would, but if possible I would rather exchange my life for their's.

Then you have the whole if a terrorist is using someone as a shield would you shoot the hostage to prevent them from escaping situation. Again, I would, and if I was the hostage I would expect to be shot - I would prefer to be shot.

"I don’t remember that she ever recklessly endangered the lives ‘of her own team’ in her efforts to protect bystanders. If you mean the operatives she killed to prevent the bombing of The Hague? Whatever that was, it wasn’t a result of ‘recklessness’ on her part."

Every time she broke posistion she endangered the lives of her own team, and how many times did she do that?

From:

nell65.livejournal.com

The most common 'test' question asked is this: "if you could cure cancer, but had to kill one innocent child in order to do it, would you?" I would, but if possible I would rather exchange my life for their's.

This one is easy for me. I would not murder a child or an adult to cure cancer. Nor do I have the right, in my view, to saddle every person ever to be saved by that particular 'cure' with the responsiblity and guilt of that murder - which in my view they would indeed participate in. Some it wouldn't bother, others it would quite literally destroy - compounding the original murder exponentially.

Then you have the whole if a terrorist is using someone as a shield would you shoot the hostage to prevent them from escaping situation. Again, I would, and if I was the hostage I would expect to be shot - I would prefer to be shot.

No. I would not shoot the hostage - assuming the hostage is truly an otherwise uninvolved bystander - if the hostage were a cop or soldier or a spy, yes, I would.

When I said I was on the fence I was thinking of, for me, more difficult questions: like - you have a rapidly mutating infectious disease spreading rapidly through a population. You must throw up quarintine cordon to protect the rest of the population - but the area is large enough that you will trap many who do not yet have the disease - condeming them to catching it. Should you take the extra effort to let out those not yet infected? How do you weigh that against the time factor? Is there a difference to be split?

Or: There are three too many people for the life boat. How do you decide which three will die to save the rest? Should you, or should they all die? I think you should save the rest, and I could propose a rubric with which to make the choice...but what if they are all of the same age, gender and equally healthy? How do you choose, and choose quickly? Who gets to choose? Why?

In both these cases I do think the few do have to suffer and or die to save the many.

So - I am still on the fence, I think.