Paul and Madeline

[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.

Comments

It's like a sickness. P1

[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*