Robert Farley makes the case against the Cylon-Human alliance, arguing “that Vice President Zarek and Lieutenant Gaeta were correct to resist the Adama-Roslin military-political clique.”
I tend to agree on the policy merits. However, I think Farley is too quick to leap from policy agreement to endorsement of the Zarek/Gaeta coup. One could argue that, yes, since the very survival of the human race is called into question by this policy decision that one shouldn’t be bound by the law. However, the circumstances of post-genocide humanity are such that one could make that case regarding essentially every policy dispute. Nor am I by any means convinced that the anti-cylon faction had seriously exhausted the legal means available to them to try to fight this policy.
Second, I think Farley is too optimistic about the possibility of humans and cylons going their separate ways. The level of distrust and past bad acts is simply too high. If humanity rejects alliance with the rebel cylons, it seems likely to me that the cylon will conclude that humanity intends to destroy them. If so, they’ll try to destroy humanity. Meaning that humanity really may have no choice but to destroy the cylons. Nobody likes the security dilemma, but there it is, and it has been ever since the initial signing of the Armistice.