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:

jaybee65.livejournal.com

It is also important to remember that with the sole exception of Michael – none of the core six appear to have committed any crimes,

You're jumping to a conclusion there. We know that Nikita, Birkoff and Paul didn't, and that Michael did. We know absolutely nothing one way or the other about Madeline or Walter, so I think it's pushing things to say they "don't appear to have committed any crimes," because that phraseology suggests that they most likely did not.

and of the other operatives that we met whose stories we learned – Roger, Ben, Karen, Greg, the jr. operative kids, Sarah, Marco O’Brien, Jason, Jamie, David Fanning, Mick/Martin/Jones -- only Karen, Roger and Jamie had actually committed a conventional crime and been convicted to prison. For the rest of these people a basic apartment and high limit credit cards was never really going to be a ‘carrot’ or a substitute for their freedom.

I'm pretty sure the junior operative kids *had* committed crimes -- securities fraud for the computer whiz guy, and I can't remember the details of the others. Mick/Martin/Jones was Center, not Section One, so I don't think he's a good example. And David Fanning may not have gone through the formality of being convicted in court, but please! I think the fact that he was allowed to live at all would be a substitute for freedom, LOL. That leaves Jason, Ben, Greg, O'Brien and Sarah -- Jason isn't exactly representative, Greg brought his recruitment on himself, Sarah volunteered, and O'Brien was Nikita's idea! (Remember, Section was going to kill him.) In the ep where Ben was recruited, Nikita expressed a great deal of shock and dismay that a non-criminal was being recruited without any of the special circumstances that applied to the other cases mentioned above -- which to me is evidence that she had never come across any other operative without a criminal background. This means to me that Ben's style of recruitment was pretty unusual indeed.

Section obviously recruited many operatives from prison – but appeared to get a significant minority from other sources; and devising their personnel policies as though *all* of their people were thugs was, in my view, counterproductive.

For the reasons mentioned above, I don't think it was a significant minority, but rather a mere handful.

From:

nell65.livejournal.com

True - the securities fraud kid *had* committed a crime, but that was hardly a life sentence kind of crime, and he could realistically have expected to be free again someday. Lolipop girl and the big quiet boy were mission collalteral - younger siblings/relations of badguys who were swept up by housekeeping. Jasmine was a political prisoner - again, not a common criminal and not necessarily expecting life in prison given the shifts of fate that come in that context. I can't remember what the obnoixous boy did - but still 4 out 5 had done nothing to warrant a life in prison and had no reason to feel that an appearence of false freedom was a satisfactory substitute for what they might have had if Section had not interviened in their lives.

And while you and I might think living was more reward than David Fanning deserved - *he* didn't think so and accordingly planned his own escape - rather well, all things considered.

Jason, Ben, Greg, Sarah, O'Brien (and he was offered life in prison for a murder he didn't committ - not death) - it doesn't really matter that each recruiting situation was unique - my point is that there were a significant minority of other operatives in section who would have no reasonable cause to think that an apartment alone was reward enough for being alive - which was Cyanide's arguement.

As for Nikita being surprised about Ben - I always got the feeling that it wasn't kosher to just ask people how they got to Section...so honestly, none of us know.

But of the stories we *do* know - a large number were not your basic ill-educated criminal type who might very well be grateful for the education and life-style Section offered, they were already well educated and had lives and expectations that Section foiled, and an apartment isn't necessarily going to be enough to buy their support. Sarah - the happiest with her lot - got a lot more, for example. She got to do something exciting that she was convinced had value with the end of her life.

I'm also not sure that just because someone was in prison - even for a life term - makes them ill-educated or renders them without a desire to be truly free of supervision...again, I'm just arguing against the idea that there would be a large cadre of folks in section who might feel grateful for what Section did offer in exchange for their lives.

From:

jaybee65.livejournal.com

at the transcript, because it was making my brain itch...

Lolipop girl and the big quiet boy were mission collalteral - younger siblings/relations of badguys who were swept up by housekeeping.

All I could find in the transcript (unless my eyes glazed over looking for it, which is certainly possible) was a reference in the beginning to the fact that those two were already in Section custody. No reference to how or why they were picked up.

Jasmine was a political prisoner - again, not a common criminal and not necessarily expecting life in prison given the shifts of fate that come in that context.

While the statement was unclear, the description of her activities certainly suggested that the nature of her political activities might have been terrorist in nature. But she's an ambiguous one, I'll give you that.

I can't remember what the obnoixous boy did

Made a bomb.

Jason, Ben, Greg, Sarah, O'Brien (and he was offered life in prison for a murder he didn't committ - not death) - it doesn't really matter that each recruiting situation was unique - my point is that there were a significant minority of other operatives in section who would have no reasonable cause to think that an apartment alone was reward enough for being alive - which was Cyanide's arguement.

Thanks for the correction on O'Brien. But I don't believe non-criminals constituted a significant minority. There's no way to prove this one way or the other, but I think the bulk of the evidence suggests otherwise.

I'm also not sure that just because someone was in prison - even for a life term - makes them ill-educated or renders them without a desire to be truly free of supervision...again, I'm just arguing against the idea that there would be a large cadre of folks in section who might feel grateful for what Section did offer in exchange for their lives.

I don't really agree with the idea that a criminal would feel grateful, either. Actually, I'm going back to my earlier argument, which is the opposite -- since so many of Section's operatives were criminals, I think their psychological profile, on average, would make them less likely to become reliably loyal even if you treated them better than P&M did.

To quote Michael, I believe that the field ops, at least, would more often than not be "animals with guns".

From:

mscyanide.livejournal.com

"my point is that there were a significant minority of other operatives in section who would have no reasonable cause to think that an apartment alone was reward enough for being alive - which was Cyanide's arguement."

Actually my arguement was that Section did offer carrots. I gave some examples which some operatives might have valued, but didn't mean to imply that every operative would value them.

"As for Nikita being surprised about Ben - I always got the feeling that it wasn't kosher to just ask people how they got to Section...so honestly, none of us know."

Well Nikita asked Birkoff so it's not like such a thing is unheard of.

"But of the stories we *do* know - a large number were not your basic ill-educated criminal type who might very well be grateful for the education and life-style Section offered, they were already well educated and had lives and expectations that Section foiled, and an apartment isn't necessarily going to be enough to buy their support. Sarah - the happiest with her lot - got a lot more, for example. She got to do something exciting that she was convinced had value with the end of her life."

I think Section offered different things for different people. Nikita got an apartment and an education, Elizabeth and Henry got a stock of chemicals and some people to play with, Birkoff got a high tech computer system and Walter got explosives.

"I'm also not sure that just because someone was in prison - even for a life term - makes them ill-educated or renders them without a desire to be truly free of supervision...again, I'm just arguing against the idea that there would be a large cadre of folks in section who might feel grateful for what Section did offer in exchange for their lives."

I know that not all prisonners are ill-educated, but a lot of them are and personally I believe that a majority of the lowly Cold Ops were ill-educated prisonners.