This Star Trek article contains spoilers for Section 31.After an extremely long wait, which has seen it truncated from a spin-off show into a TV movie while Michelle Yeoh has gone and become an Oscar winner, Star Trek: Section 31 is finally here. We have reviewed it. We got the man who wrote a defense of Sub Rosa to review it. This article will not add anything to his assessment of its quality (or absolute lack thereof).But whatever your opinion of Section 31s execution, from the outset the film faced some pretty big hurdles in terms of its premise alone.Were not here to relitigate The concept of Section 31 good or bad? again either (the answer is depends if the storys any good), because that is not what Star Trek: Section 31 was ever actually about. What Section 31 is actually about is What if we did The Dirty Dozen but Star Trek?The Dirty Dozen, for those who dont know, is a 1967 movie about a top-secret wartime operation to recruit 12 of the US Armys worst convicts to form a crack Nazi murder team. Its a great premise, which is why it has been reused many times ever since.We love seeing a bunch of bad people forced to do good things. And right now, TV and film are both particularly in love with that as a premise. But does the format work when Star Trek tries to do it?Dozens of Dirty DozensWhen modern audiences think of the trope popularized by The Dirty Dozen, the first film that comes to mind probably isnt actually the 60s war movie, but DCs Suicide Squad. First adapted by David Ayer, it was then realized again but better by James Gunns The Suicide Squad. Gunn loves this tropeafter all, he also made three Guardians of the Galaxy movie, about a group of alien misfits who save the MCU time and again. After The Suicide Squad, he launched the spin-off series Peacemaker, and while John Cena is undeniably the star of that show, it took no time for him to form a morally questionable ensemble to perform deeds for a government that would like deniability.Gunn now holds the keys to the entire DC cinematic universe, which he relaunched with the animated series Creature Commandos, which is aboutyou guessed ita band of criminal misfits the government pressganged into doing morally dubious black ops missions.And even though it no longer has Gunn, the MCU still has the upcoming Thunderbolts movie, where each of the Avengers morally shady equivalents are teamed up to do something deniable for the Director of the CIA.The trope is popular for a few reasons, which will be ranked differently according to whos in the driving seat, but the main ones are:First, there is the common misconception that good characters are boring. The darker Batman is more interesting than Superman. Han Solo is more interesting than Luke. Everyone in your DnD party wants to play the Rogue, nobody wants to play the Templar. So if morally shady characters are more interesting, borderline actually evil characters must be even more interesting, right? Its a marketing reason to turn the bad guys into the heroes as opposed to a narrative reason, and any story leaning on this first and foremost is not going to deliver the goods.Join our mailing listGet the best of Den of Geek delivered right to your inbox!But there is another reason we return to these storylines time and again, and its because they conceal a critique of whatever setting you apply it to. What are the monstrous qualities your society condemns but ultimately needs? Who will you persecute until you have a use for them?Marvel and DC superheroes are (for the most part) fine upstanding citizens who save lives, see the potential for good in their enemies, and resort to violence only as a last resort. Their dark, correctional-facility-recruited counterparts are an acknowledgement that sometimes you just need to kill someone, or that the status quo your heroes are defending will happily deploy the villains theyre fighting if it suits their own ends.This brings us back to Section 31 and its cast of characters, including Yeohs genocidal maniac, a shapeshifter, a tiny little guy in a robot, a guy in a mech suit whos a cover for transphobic jokes, and a woman who the film regards as disposable because she has sex sometimes. Oh, and Rachel Garrett, because you have to include something for the fans.The appeal is clearStar Trek, but without the stodgy Starfleet regulations. A wackier, zanier, more anarchic take on the Alpha Quadrant. But when Star Trek tries to do a Dirty Dozen (or Suicide Squad, if you prefer) it has some issues to overcome.Rebels Without a CauseThe first problem is a big one. The Dirty Dozen trope is a critique of the society it takes place init shows which qualities the powers-that-be simultaneously condemn while exploiting where necessary. But Star Treks Federation is a utopia. It is the ultimate fair society, having disposed of all prejudice and inequality (with the exception of robots and holograms, naturally).It is not an insurmountable challenge, though. Iain M Bankss Culture novels are probably the closest literary equivalent to the level of utopia Star Trek promises, and having created the very definition of queer luxury space communism, Bankss novels are almost entirely concerned with the people who wont fit in. Its protagonists are mostly people (or sentient spaceships) who, when offered literally anything they want, and the chance to pursue any kind of life they please, decide that isnt for them. And frequently those people find themselves being used by Special Circumstances, the arm of the Culture that, like Section 31, operates in the exceptions and loopholes of that utopias lofty principles.But Banks has gone to great pains to define his utopia, how it works, and what its contradictions are. He points out, for example, that despite the Cultures post-scarcity, post-finance society, it also has the biggest stockpiles of currency in the galaxy.But the Federations utopian future is less clear. A lot like Ursula Le Guins Omelas (which Star Trek has merrily stolen from before), we are repeatedly told that this is the best of possible societies, having solved all the problems that plague the one we live in, but the franchise remains often frustratingly vague on the how. Hell, nobody even dared say the word socialist on screen until Strange New Worlds season 2s Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow.That vagueness makes specific and meaningful criticism difficult, but not impossible. The shows have come out gunning for the Federations ethical blind spots time and time againand not just over the Prime Directive. Star Trek: The Next Generations The Drumhead has Picard point out the seeds of fascism sprouting up right in the heart of Starfleet. We have already pointed out how many episodes have shown the Federation lawfully exploiting or discriminating against artificial life. Deep Space Nines Home Front two-parter also showed just how quickly the Federations utopian Earth could fall to martial law and tyranny if given the right provocation. The Maquis storyline that played out across The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine and Voyager showed that in the Federations pursuit of diplomacy and the greater good, smaller communities could frequently fall through the cracks.And of course, there are the original Deep Space Nine episodes about Section 31 itselfnot the cool black uniform-wearing badass version of Starfleet, but the entirely deniable organization within an organization, with no ships, no uniforms, and no paperwork. This Section 31 was just an unknown number of strategically placed people who were willing to do what the Federations ideals would not let it do, to protect the ideals the Federation stood for.By showing that, and showing how Starfleets powers that be simultaneously distanced themselves from it while obstructing further attempts to investigate it, the show was able to ask questions about just how idyllic the Federation was without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.Bashirs (Third of a) DozenBut perhaps the best parallel to Section 31s Dirty Dozen outfit is not any other iteration of Starfleets dirty secret, but the characters introduced in the Deep Space Nine episode Statistical Possibilities. In it, we meet four individuals who have been illegally genetically enhanced. There are longer discussions to be had about Star Treks problematic use of genetic enhancement and eugenics as a stand-in for persecuted minorities, but here other things are going on. These are not Khanian supermen. They are, frankly, massively autistic-coded.They are not shunned from society because they breach the Federations unimpeachable ideals around equality. Nor are they shunned because of a predilection for violence or deception. Their sin is far worse: Theyre awkward. They dont fit in. They are socially difficult. The Federations all-encompassing tolerance might take in Klingons, Androids and EMHs (to an extent), Changelings, and even the occasional Borg, but the line is drawn at people you might avoid at parties.But, as is always the case in these stories, on a foggy Christmas Eve it turns out that having a red nose is super handy. As much as the Federation is happy to shun these characters, it is willing to benefit from their insights into the Dominion conflict. And when it does, we the audience learn about the Federation, how it works, and what it stands for.So, returning to Section 31, what does it have to say about the Starfleet it is contrasting itself against? Or, to put it another way, what can this version of Section 31 do that regular Starfleet cant?Do you need someone to go undercover to carry out morally shady acts to chase down a weapon of mass destruction? Starfleets very own morality poster boy, Captain Picard, does this in Gambit (Parts 1 and 2). Okay, but maybe to get this WMD you need Section 31 to cross enemy lines, and for Starfleet to be able to disavow it should they be caught. You know, like Picard and his most upstanding officers did in Chain of Command. Hell, in I, Borg hes willing to unleash a weapon of mass destruction on a genocidal scale. Just like Sisko drops a WMD on an inhabited world to lure out a Maquis operative in For the Uniform. And thats not even touching the shit Sisko gets up to in In the Pale Moonlight.Compared to this, and a laundry list of other activities including secret weapons programs, undercover work, rogue admirals, so many Prime Directive violations we cannot count them, and of course, murdering Tuvix, Evil Georgiou and her band of misfits in Section 31 barely even qualify as hijinks.So if this Section 31 has no meaningful critique to make of Star Treks values or the Federation, and its characters dont do anything that even Picard wouldnt do, what is it for? Which brings us back to Morally bad characters are more interesting than morally good characters. To which the test isis Star Trek: Section 31 more interesting than any other Star Trek you care to name?Star Trek: Section 31 is streaming now on Paramount+.