Are the Empire's actions legal?

User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15548
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Are the Empire's actions legal?

Post by Captain Seafort »

Atekimogus wrote:Maybe that's true but they don't seem to follow a specific chain of command. It's like medival monks being put in charge of a kings armies just because they are monks. No matter, I always found that their self assumed role of "Protectors of the Republic" is extremely fishy. What if the very same republic doesn't want them as protectors anymore? Are we to assume that they would yield their power and just withdraw to meditate and study the force or whatever?
Who knows? What we do know is that the Jedi were always depicted as agents of the state, reporting back to the Chancellor.
But be that as it may, the point could be made that the prequels are irrelevant to the discussion since the prequels predate the "Empire".
They depict the political process that created the Empire.
Sure, Palpatine played the various faction to gain power but again, apart from being "EVIL BECAUSE OF THE DARK SIDE blah" he actually doesn't do anything especially abhorrent. (He is not the first who starts a war to gain power and if history views him as a great man or not probably depends more on him being victorious or not, just as in the real world).
He's probably the first who was simultaneously Head of State of both sides in a war.
Well it seems that Alderaan was a major PR disaster for the Empire and I imagine if the deathstar and Tarkin would have survived, the Emperor would have had his head no matter if he secretly agree with Tarkin or not.
The Emperor personally authorised the DS project as part of his long-term plan to secure the New Order through the Tarkin Doctrine, and gave Tarkin authorisation in advance to deploy DS I against Alderaan. Moreover Vader was sent to the station as the Emperor's personal representative, so if destroying Alderaan had been contrary to the Emperor's wishes Tarkin would have suddenly found himself very short of breath well before he could have got the order out.
As for the widespread use of torture and summary execution.....we don't actually see that at all. All we see is one maniac - Vader - commiting or ordering all those things while it seems that the normal military and navy seems to work just normal.
One maniac who was Palpatine's effective second in command, who issued his orders while the regulars stood by and behaved as though this was routine. The conduct of the Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet had be reasonably taken to be official policy for said Fleet.
So what VAder does in the movies is removing some officers for gross incompetence in times of war (which he might have the legal authority to do, I must admit I am a bit in the dark as to his exact position in the empire except being Palpatines right hand man enforcer) and water-boarding a known criminal, smuggler and terrorist who was personally responsible for blowing up the death star. Nothing the CIA wouldn't do imho, for example.
Agreed. This is not exactly a ringing endorsement. In any even, Solo wasn't personally responsible for the Death Star's destruction - Luke was.
Well no, since they started killing them off, whereas the Empire seemed to be tolerant enough of their aliens for more then 20 years or so. (No idea how old Luke was in the first movie to be honest).
Read what I wrote - I specifically referred to the mid-30s.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Re: Are the Empire's actions legal?

Post by Deepcrush »

Captain Seafort wrote:Agreed, but that isn't what happened.
It is in fact, exactly what happened.
Captain Seafort wrote:No it didn't - the Empire, as a cohesive political entity with a continuous (albeit evolving) political structure, collapsed utterly. Pellaeon's Remnant had many similarities, and followed many of the same political principles, but it wasn't the same entity. It was formed out of Daala's warlord alliance, and had nothing to do with what was left of the political structure of the old Empire.
Daala's act of Reunification was eight years after the IR emerged. So yes, it did.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
Posts: 35635
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: Are the Empire's actions legal?

Post by Mikey »

Even the most egregious act discussed here - the destruction of Alderaan - can't be linked in legal liability to the Empire or, more specifically, Palps. He was a past master at playing angles and manipulating people to be in the right positions for his use; had Tarkin survived and the matter somehow been heard at space-Nuremberg, I have no doubt that by the letter of any applicable law, Palps would have made sure that there was no linkage between Alderaan and the Empire embodied in himself, instead being staged to look like the action of an unsanctioned and rogue Grand Moff.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
Atekimogus
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 1193
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:10 pm
Location: Vienna

Re: Are the Empire's actions legal?

Post by Atekimogus »

Captain Seafort wrote: Who knows? What we do know is that the Jedi were always depicted as agents of the state, reporting back to the Chancellor.
And would they have done so if Palpatine, the legally and lawfully ELECTED chancellor (long before he was really guilty of any wrongdoing and the clonewars) would have been open about him being a Sith? Or would they have removed him from office because of their philosophical differences? An interesting thought, isn't it?

Captain Seafort wrote:The Emperor personally authorised the DS project as part of his long-term plan to secure the New Order through the Tarkin Doctrine, and gave Tarkin authorisation in advance to deploy DS I against Alderaan. Moreover Vader was sent to the station as the Emperor's personal representative, so if destroying Alderaan had been contrary to the Emperor's wishes Tarkin would have suddenly found himself very short of breath well before he could have got the order out.
Irrelevant. If I may quote a dialoge from the film Conspiracy, a brilliant movie about the Wanneseekonferenz:
Kritzinger: No, that is not, that is contrary to what the Chancellory has been told! I have been told, I have... Purge the Jews, yes. But,to annihilate them... That we have undertaken to systematically annihilate all the Jews of Europe? No, that respnsibility has personally been denied, to me, by the Fuhrer!
Heydrich: And it will continue to be.
Kritzinger: Yes, I understand. Yes. He will continue to deny it.
The same applies here I believe. Palpatine must have been howling mad to accept responsibility for that if there was the chance that he could make Tarkin the scapegoat.

Captain Seafort wrote:One maniac who was Palpatine's effective second in command, who issued his orders while the regulars stood by and behaved as though this was routine. The conduct of the Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet had be reasonably taken to be official policy for said Fleet.
We must agree to disagree on this one since imho everyone - officers and crew alike - seem to have been shocked by Vaders behaviour, they were just to professional to let it show much. Piet certainly was uneasy with it and the Star Destroyer captain apologizing in person certainly didn't count on being choked to death. Which leads me to believe that Vaders behaviour was NOT routinly expected behaviour.

Captain Seafort wrote:Agreed. This is not exactly a ringing endorsement. In any even, Solo wasn't personally responsible for the Death Star's destruction - Luke was.
Well he singlehandedly destroyed a wing of tie-fighters who until then successfully thwarted every attempt at the DS and did it with an old freighter held together with spittle and prayers AND he did it for booty and not because the voices in his head told him to which makes him every kind of awesome in my book. He is as responsible for the DS destruction as anyone can be except for Luke and it's imho no surprise that they were equally honored in the end of the movie.

Captain Seafort wrote:Read what I wrote - I specifically referred to the mid-30s.
Unless you are saying that the empire would have started killing them off sooner or later I don't see how it would compare. Black people were also second class citizien but in the end they were not killed of and exiled but made equals and integrated and the same might have happened in time with the Empire.
I'm Commander Shepard and this is my favorite store on the Citadel.
User avatar
Griffin
Commander
Commander
Posts: 1209
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 7:52 pm
Location: Yorkshire!

Re: Are the Empire's actions legal?

Post by Griffin »

Atekimogus wrote: Or would they have removed him from office because of their philosophical differences? An interesting thought, isn't it?

I think being a sith is a bit more than a "philisophical difference".
We must agree to disagree on this one since imho everyone - officers and crew alike - seem to have been shocked by Vaders behaviour, they were just to professional to let it show much. Piet certainly was uneasy with it and the Star Destroyer captain apologizing in person certainly didn't count on being choked to death. Which leads me to believe that Vaders behaviour was NOT routinly expected behaviour.
Piett was uneasy with it since he could easily have been next, also IIRC the SD captain new full well what was coming, hence why he went personally, so he'd get it instead of the entire ship.


Back to the topic at hand; Are the Empires actions not simply legal by them being the ones who make the law?
Bite my shiny metal ass
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15548
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Are the Empire's actions legal?

Post by Captain Seafort »

Atekimogus wrote:And would they have done so if Palpatine, the legally and lawfully ELECTED chancellor (long before he was really guilty of any wrongdoing and the clonewars) would have been open about him being a Sith? Or would they have removed him from office because of their philosophical differences? An interesting thought, isn't it?
It is, but they'd have been fully justified, given that Sidious was directly responsible for the illegal invasion and occupation of a Republic member world.
Conspiracy, a brilliant movie
Absolutely agreed.
Kritzinger: No, that is not, that is contrary to what the Chancellory has been told! I have been told, I have... Purge the Jews, yes. But,to annihilate them... That we have undertaken to systematically annihilate all the Jews of Europe? No, that respnsibility has personally been denied, to me, by the Fuhrer!
Heydrich: And it will continue to be.
Kritzinger: Yes, I understand. Yes. He will continue to deny it.
The same applies here I believe. Palpatine must have been howling mad to accept responsibility for that if there was the chance that he could make Tarkin the scapegoat.
I wouldn't be surprised if that's what Palpatine did publicly after Yavin, but I doubt he'd have done so had Yavin IV been destroyed and the Death Star survived, any more than Truman denied responsibility for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The circumstances are, obviously, completely different, but Palpatine would have depicted Alderaan in that light - a severe but necessary action.
We must agree to disagree on this one since imho everyone - officers and crew alike - seem to have been shocked by Vaders behaviour, they were just to professional to let it show much. Piet certainly was uneasy with it and the Star Destroyer captain apologizing in person certainly didn't count on being choked to death. Which leads me to believe that Vaders behaviour was NOT routinly expected behaviour.
On the contrary - the crew weren't so much shocked as living in constant fear of who was next for the choke, and it's clear from Needa's reaction to the loss of the Falcon followed by Vader's demand for an update that he knew exactly what he was in for.
Well he singlehandedly destroyed a wing of tie-fighters who until then successfully thwarted every attempt at the DS and did it with an old freighter held together with spittle and prayers AND he did it for booty and not because the voices in his head told him to which makes him every kind of awesome in my book. He is as responsible for the DS destruction as anyone can be except for Luke and it's imho no surprise that they were equally honored in the end of the movie.
He played an important role, but he destroyed precisely one fighter, and did it because his conscience was nagging him - he'd already got his money and was legging it before he changed his mind. That doesn't change the fact that the individual directly responsible was Luke.
Unless you are saying that the empire would have started killing them off sooner or later I don't see how it would compare.
They'd have been far worse than that - Palpatine's end goal was to effectively use every living being in the galaxy as Force-batteries for himself.
Black people were also second class citizien but in the end they were not killed of and exiled but made equals and integrated and the same might have happened in time with the Empire.
The fact that the treatment of one group improved while that of the other group declined doesn't change the fact that there's little difference between the treatment of black US citizens in the 50s and German Jews in the 30s.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15548
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Are the Empire's actions legal?

Post by Captain Seafort »

Deepcrush wrote:Daala's act of Reunification was eight years after the IR emerged. So yes, it did.
No it wasn't - it was the Remnant. Daala murdered the major warlords and took control of their holdings eight years after Endor, fucked it up, and handed the reigns over to Pelly, as depicted in Darksaber. This was concurrent with the final collapse of the Interim Ruling Council as depicted in Crimson Empire.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
User avatar
Praeothmin
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
Posts: 634
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 3:04 pm
Location: Quebec City

Re: Are the Empire's actions legal?

Post by Praeothmin »

Atekimogus wrote:Sure, Palpatine played the various faction to gain power but again, apart from being "EVIL BECAUSE OF THE DARK SIDE blah" he actually doesn't do anything especially abhorrent. (He is not the first who starts a war to gain power and if history views him as a great man or not probably depends more on him being victorious or not, just as in the real world).
Are you kidding?
So starting a war, killing billions of innocent people, having opposing rivals assassinated, just to satisfy your lust for power isn't evil? :shock:
Luke's family, simple farmers with no ties to the Rebellion, was summarily executed for having bought two Droids for their farm, which interrogation of the Jawas would have confirmed...
Vader kills subordinates left and right at a whim without any consequences, acts the Empire's higher ups apparently have no qualms about...
Law and Order is maintained mostly in core worlds, while the outer worlds rot in criminal elements, under the control of a criminal Empire (the Hutts), which the Empire does nothing to curb...

And you say the Empire hasn't done anything "that bad"?
The truth always depends on which side of the fence you're standing... ;)
Atekimogus
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 1193
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:10 pm
Location: Vienna

Re: Are the Empire's actions legal?

Post by Atekimogus »

Captain Seafort wrote:
Atekimogus wrote:And would they have done so if Palpatine, the legally and lawfully ELECTED chancellor (long before he was really guilty of any wrongdoing and the clonewars) would have been open about him being a Sith? Or would they have removed him from office because of their philosophical differences? An interesting thought, isn't it?
It is, but they'd have been fully justified, given that Sidious was directly responsible for the illegal invasion and occupation of a Republic member world.
Ok, let's take a step back then, he isn't chancellor but the elected representative of naboo at which point he really hasn't done anything (we know of). Now if he'd be open about him being a Sith (which at that point seems to be soley a philosophical trait and not a racial one) what would the Jedi-Order have done?

(As to the illegal invasion of naboo.....I do have to admit that I watched the prequal movies a grand total of once, years ago.....they did not make much sense to me so I admit I am talking a bit out of ignorance when it cames to what Palpatine actually has or has not done which could be considered illegal at that point. HOWEVER I gladly concede to every point you make as long as I don't have to sit through them again :lol: .)

Captain Seafort wrote:On the contrary - the crew weren't so much shocked as living in constant fear of who was next for the choke, and it's clear from Needa's reaction to the loss of the Falcon followed by Vader's demand for an update that he knew exactly what he was in for.
I am sorry but that is not the vibe I got. On the contrary, given how navy and military personal treat Vader in the first movie (with open scorn and contempt) it seems clear to me that it is NOT the norm that top level officiers go around randomly killing people. Maybe a mayor defeat and the loss of the Death Star led to more stringent messures but still, to me it always seemed that Vader is acting OUT of the ordinary, which made him more threatening imho. If the crew lifed in constant fear they sooner or later would have been getting used to it and apathic or just snapped, none of which they showed.

Captain Seafort wrote:He played an important role, but he destroyed precisely one fighter, and did it because his conscience was nagging him - he'd already got his money and was legging it before he changed his mind. That doesn't change the fact that the individual directly responsible was Luke.
True, my point is that for his participation alone the empire has more than enough reason to treat him....unkindly. And since this unkind treatment was directly pointed at luring the man "directly" responsible into their trap I again say this is nothing certain agencies of civilized countries today wouldn't do.

Captain Seafort wrote:They'd have been far worse than that - Palpatine's end goal was to effectively use every living being in the galaxy as Force-batteries for himself.
Wait....what? Where does that come from? Please eleborate.
Captain Seafort wrote:The fact that the treatment of one group improved while that of the other group declined doesn't change the fact that there's little difference between the treatment of black US citizens in the 50s and German Jews in the 30s.
I see...well I would have assumed that black US citizens were treated better than jews in the 30s...my mistake.
I'm Commander Shepard and this is my favorite store on the Citadel.
stitch626
2 Star Admiral
2 Star Admiral
Posts: 9585
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 10:57 pm
Location: NY
Contact:

Re: Are the Empire's actions legal?

Post by stitch626 »

One thing I would like to point out.

The Empire did have labor camps. The entire Wookie race (aside from a few lucky ones) was enslaved for building the Death Star. They also used political prisoners (translated as disagreed with Imperial policy) in hard labor camps.
No trees were killed in transmission of this message. However, some electrons were mildly inconvenienced.
Atekimogus
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 1193
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:10 pm
Location: Vienna

Re: Are the Empire's actions legal?

Post by Atekimogus »

stitch626 wrote:One thing I would like to point out.

The Empire did have labor camps. The entire Wookie race (aside from a few lucky ones) was enslaved for building the Death Star. They also used political prisoners (translated as disagreed with Imperial policy) in hard labor camps.
Well better not getting into a discussion on what is canonical or not but going only by the films there is nothing to indicate such a thing.

(Besides, being a culture with access to droids I found the notion of non-droid slaves always a bit unreasonable. Everyone in the star wars universe if ok with owning and using slaves...they are called droids. Now considering how Luke treats droids when they buy them - despite them being clearly intelligent and self aware beings one could say that the republic isn't any better in that regard.)
I'm Commander Shepard and this is my favorite store on the Citadel.
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15548
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Are the Empire's actions legal?

Post by Captain Seafort »

Atekimogus wrote:Ok, let's take a step back then, he isn't chancellor but the elected representative of naboo at which point he really hasn't done anything (we know of). Now if he'd be open about him being a Sith (which at that point seems to be soley a philosophical trait and not a racial one) what would the Jedi-Order have done?
Probably nicked him for membership of a banned organisation, which the Sith almost certainly are given their track record of repeatedly attempting to overthrow the Republic.
I am sorry but that is not the vibe I got. On the contrary, given how navy and military personal treat Vader in the first movie (with open scorn and contempt) it seems clear to me that it is NOT the norm that top level officiers go around randomly killing people.
Vader obviously dissuaded them of that notion in the intervening years, and indeed even in ANH he would probably have killed Motti if Tarkin hadn't intervened. Later, Thrawn demonstrated that summary executions were by no means limited to Vader, by resorting to them himself, despite having about as softly-softly an approach to man-management as the Empire gets.
True, my point is that for his participation alone the empire has more than enough reason to treat him....unkindly. And since this unkind treatment was directly pointed at luring the man "directly" responsible into their trap I again say this is nothing certain agencies of civilized countries today wouldn't do.
On the contrary - their behaviour bears no resemblance to any civilised country's behaviour. If a country routinely resorts to torture to extract information from its prisoners then it only demonstrates that its a) stupid and b) uncivilised by definition.
Wait....what? Where does that come from? Please eleborate.
The Dark Empire Sourcebook. The plan was to effectively create a pyramid of Force-vampires, each tier draining the life force of those below them, with Palpatine himself at the peak, with the end result that he and the galaxy (or possibly the universe) would effectively be synonyms.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
Posts: 35635
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: Are the Empire's actions legal?

Post by Mikey »

Praeothmin wrote:
Atekimogus wrote:Sure, Palpatine played the various faction to gain power but again, apart from being "EVIL BECAUSE OF THE DARK SIDE blah" he actually doesn't do anything especially abhorrent. (He is not the first who starts a war to gain power and if history views him as a great man or not probably depends more on him being victorious or not, just as in the real world).
Are you kidding?
So starting a war, killing billions of innocent people, having opposing rivals assassinated, just to satisfy your lust for power isn't evil? :shock:
Luke's family, simple farmers with no ties to the Rebellion, was summarily executed for having bought two Droids for their farm, which interrogation of the Jawas would have confirmed...
Vader kills subordinates left and right at a whim without any consequences, acts the Empire's higher ups apparently have no qualms about...
Law and Order is maintained mostly in core worlds, while the outer worlds rot in criminal elements, under the control of a criminal Empire (the Hutts), which the Empire does nothing to curb...

And you say the Empire hasn't done anything "that bad"?
Slow your roll, road dog. You're way off topic. Nobody was talking about whether the Empire did things that were "good" or "evil." This discussion has been about the legality of certain actions, not about their moral rectitude.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15548
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Are the Empire's actions legal?

Post by Captain Seafort »

*Cough*
Atekimogus wrote:So except point 3 [Alderaan] I have to say that the Palpatine Empire isn't even close to an evil empire except the main heroes always telling us that they are or did I miss something?
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Re: Are the Empire's actions legal?

Post by Deepcrush »

Captain Seafort wrote:
Deepcrush wrote:Daala's act of Reunification was eight years after the IR emerged. So yes, it did.
No it wasn't - it was the Remnant. Daala murdered the major warlords and took control of their holdings eight years after Endor, fucked it up, and handed the reigns over to Pelly, as depicted in Darksaber. This was concurrent with the final collapse of the Interim Ruling Council as depicted in Crimson Empire.
The Council of Moffs and Sector Regents that led to the Interim Council that lead to the Council of Moffs that led to the Fel Dynasty... all still a part of the Empire.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
Post Reply