Been rewatching Deep Space Nine here and there.
SPOILERS
If you want to see just how bad some of the actors truly are on Deep Space Nine, you should definitely check this one out. Not only is it an absolutely horrible Sisko episode about civil rights (what else) but everyone goes without make-up and they do (laughable) New York accents.
Another one is S06E23 'Profit and lace'. It's where they turn Quark into a tranny in order to salvage what's left of the Grand Nagus' authority after he gave females the right to wear clothes. Yes, that's right. Trannies & feminism. :')
(Not to mention parroting all the talking points about getting females into the workforce and doubling the economy, but for some reason they omitted the part where the birth rates would plummet as a consequence. rofl)
S06E24 is also hilariously bad. It's where they decide to send an eighteen-year-old Molly back into the time where she was left stranded for ten years and grew up all alone on an abandoned planet 300 years ago. Apparently, she would be better off there, instead of a Federation clinic, specifically designed to rehabilitate cases like hers. :') :')
Edit:
Season 6 was also the season where they decided to turn Dukat into a cartoon villain and make him the 'nemesis' of Sisko. It resulted in that ridiculous episode where Sisko and Dukat were stranded on a planet and Dukat was talking to himself the whole time. It ended with Sisko ignoring Dukat's mental status and declaring him an 'evil man', after his pride got wounded (once again).
This theme was further explored in S06E17. Where Dukat called up Kira out of nowhere and revealed that he was banging her mother during the occupation, rofl. And then to make it even more preposterous, Kira used the Orb of Time to travel back in time to confirm that her mother was really banging Dukat.
DS9 was really uneven. It gave us "Wrongs" but it also gave us "nobody leaves paradise'. Obviously its progressive writers' worldview seeping out, but back then they had a bit of skill and could produce good along with he bad. All that to say: B5 was better (and it was even more uneven with more ideal progressivism at times).
The guy playing Eddington was also a bad actor. He's so emotional.
The whole thing between Eddington and Sisko wasn't really about Eddington betraying his oath, uniform and Sisko. It was really about Eddington using Sisko's side-chick and exposing her criminal smuggling gig as a diversion to get those industrial replicators. Sisko poisoned a planet, because Eddington messed with his side-chick.
Sisko is black so it’s cool and edgy when he renders a planet uninhabitable!
They tried to rationalize it by claiming that he only poisoned the planet for humans. Just like the Maquis did with those Cardassian planets. Using a biogenic weapon to render them uninhabitable to only Cardassians.
Then they tried to even it out by saying that they could just switch planets.
Another argument was that the Maquis were planning to target every single last Cardassian planet that was previously in human hands. But Sisko ended up catching only Eddington. Not sure what happened to the rest of the biogenic weapons.
On the other hand, I thought it was completely legitimate.
Why not use the tactics your enemy is? Holding yourself to a higher standard doesn't work in the real world. And I thought DS9 showed that well there. Of course, in the ST universe, Sisko would have been sent to prison for it forever, but that's a different issue.
Everything leading up to it was retarded, and Eddington's decisions were sketchy at best the whole way through. The maquis idea is basically "but what if the rebels are the real good guys?", which is unfortunate. Like yeah, the cardissians were largely shitbags, as seen by their governments. That's a given. But the maquis weren't exactly good people either.
My issue is indeed with Sisko getting off Scott free. Much like worf joining up with terrorist on the vacation planet and nothing happening to him after. God that episode was terrible
The Maquis were just normal people in a hard place, and there were legit reasons to sympathize with their motivations or disagree with their actions. You don't have to like it, but they were very believable and the audience could understandably see both sides. Perhaps like the IRA during the troubles. Your "Why not use the tactics your enemy is? Holding yourself to a higher standard doesn't work in the real world." can apply to them and their choices too.
Your analysis actually gives the writers more credit than I would. I don't think Ira Steven Behr et al were skilled enough to try to do a "rebels are the good guys" but also let Sisko get away with what he did without some poetic justice. They wouldn't be able to help themselves. (and eventually Eddington did get his "just deserts" proving that they always wanted to make it clear he was on the wrong side)
I remember when the episode came out we had study Les Miserable in school. And they had the Javert/Valjean analogy. I felt odd as I kinda always appreciated Javert. And I didn't like them calling Javert a villain in the episode
Never read Les Miserable.
Javert was basically a dumbfuck who at the end killed himself because he couldn't handle that the law isn't perfect (and that sometimes good people can do bad things and still need to get punished for it).
He's not a villain though.