StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Preface: I was at Barnes & Noble last night, picking up a copy of Jedi vs. Sith: The Essential Guide to the Force, but I stopped to flip through a copy of Fury. I glanced through an excerpt where Leia Organa Solo confronts Jacen Solo about his recent dark side actions. They end up in an argument concerning Jacen's seizure of power in the Galactic Alliance, and both reference Palpatine's seizure of power decades before. While Jacen (in this book and previous) had never liked the comparisons made between him and Darth Sidious, he does attempt to justify the Sith Lord's tenure as Galactic Emperor saying that he "worked the system".

Scenario: Imagine that Anakin Skywalker and Mace Windu managed to subdue -- but not kill -- Darth Sidious during the events of Revenge of the Sith. Imagine that he was brought before you, the Supreme Court of the Republic. Now, the stipulation is that you not look at this from the audience perspective of "he's evil!". Was Palpatine's seizure of power during the Separatist crisis legal or not?

He's guilty of treason, in that he is responsible for the secession of thousands of worlds from the Republic. His actions and commands prompt the entire Clone Wars, which lead to the death of billions, if not trillions, of sapient beings.

Is he guilty for grabbing power? *shrug* Does that matter?

Terralthra wrote:He's guilty of treason, in that he is responsible for the secession of thousands of worlds from the Republic. His actions and commands prompt the entire Clone Wars, which lead to the death of billions, if not trillions, of sapient beings.

Is he guilty for grabbing power? *shrug* Does that matter?

I suppose the debate stems from Jacen's belief that Palpatine "worked the system". I don't think his actual seizure of power was illegal, but the foundation for which he was able to make those constitutional changes were. Would that yield a verdict of guilty?

Palpatine would need to be impeached before he could legally be put up on trial, given his position as supreme executive authority and the immunities that stem therefrom.

Furthermore, his actual "seizure of power" was entirely legitimate and had the nearly unanimous approval of the Senate. He was legally made chancellor, legally made dictator, and legally made Emperor.

As for his role in the Clone Wars, no one had any proof of it. Windu's actions were illegal, and they were treasonous.

TC Pilot wrote:Palpatine would need to be impeached before he could legally be put up on trial, given his position as supreme executive authority and the immunities that stem therefrom.

Furthermore, his actual "seizure of power" was entirely legitimate and had the nearly unanimous approval of the Senate. He was legally made chancellor, legally made dictator, and legally made Emperor.

As for his role in the Clone Wars, no one had any proof of it. Windu's actions were illegal, and they were treasonous.

Just to add, Windu had no idea that Palpatine was a Sith. He was just deeply unhappy with Palpatine's rule, and used the death of Grievous as an excuse for a palace coup.

Androsphinx wrote:

TC Pilot wrote:Palpatine would need to be impeached before he could legally be put up on trial, given his position as supreme executive authority and the immunities that stem therefrom.

Furthermore, his actual "seizure of power" was entirely legitimate and had the nearly unanimous approval of the Senate. He was legally made chancellor, legally made dictator, and legally made Emperor.

As for his role in the Clone Wars, no one had any proof of it. Windu's actions were illegal, and they were treasonous.

Just to add, Windu had no idea that Palpatine was a Sith. He was just deeply unhappy with Palpatine's rule, and used the death of Grievous as an excuse for a palace coup.

This is incorrect. Anakin Skywalker (who was well known to be one of Palpatine's confidants and closest friends) informed Mace Windu of Palpatine's Sith heritage. Not that his status as Dark Lord matters; as Palpatine himself says in the RotS novelization, the Constitution says nothing about the legality of being a Sith Lord.

Ah, but remember how much Windu trusted Lord Vader? "I don't think the boy can handle this. I don't trust him," and "if you are correct, you've earned my trust." Of course, he jumps at the chance to march into Palpatine's office and threaten him, and all he had to go on was hearsay.

TC Pilot wrote:Ah, but remember how much Windu trusted Lord Vader? "I don't think the boy can handle this. I don't trust him," and "if you are correct, you've earned my trust." Of course, he jumps at the chance to march into Palpatine's office and threaten him, and all he had to go on was hearsay.

True, but from a legal perspective, Anakin's relationship with the Chancellor would likely be brought up and a testimony against the Chancellor would be a declaration against his own interests since Palpatine was a close friend and mentor.

This is incorrect. Anakin Skywalker (who was well known to be one of Palpatine's confidants and closest friends) informed Mace Windu of Palpatine's Sith heritage.

That was in the movie? I guess it's been longer than I thought...

Androsphinx wrote:

This is incorrect. Anakin Skywalker (who was well known to be one of Palpatine's confidants and closest friends) informed Mace Windu of Palpatine's Sith heritage.

That was in the movie? I guess it's been longer than I thought...

Yep.

Alexian Cale wrote:True, but from a legal perspective, Anakin's relationship with the Chancellor would likely be brought up and a testimony against the Chancellor would be a declaration against his own interests since Palpatine was a close friend and mentor.

It's still simply hearsay. All Palpatine did was tell Anakin he was a Sith Lord (well, actually, he just figured out the implication), and it is just one person saying he did it. It depends now on what it takes to convict a person of treason in the Old Republic. There's no real proof of Palpatine's involvement with the Confederacy.

Palpatine was more than guilty of treason, but there was no way he was going to be convicted, not a chance. He was cheered as he became the absolute dictator with few dissenting. Any attempt to prosecute him would fail.

TC Pilot wrote:

Alexian Cale wrote:True, but from a legal perspective, Anakin's relationship with the Chancellor would likely be brought up and a testimony against the Chancellor would be a declaration against his own interests since Palpatine was a close friend and mentor.

It's still simply hearsay. All Palpatine did was tell Anakin he was a Sith Lord (well, actually, he just figured out the implication), and it is just one person saying he did it. It depends now on what it takes to convict a person of treason in the Old Republic. There's no real proof of Palpatine's involvement with the Confederacy.

Palpatine's attorneys would have to prevent Anakin from testifying against him. Because I can guarentee you that a statement coming from that particular Jedi would carry weight behind it, since he was lauded (all by Palpatine's doing) as the hero of the Republic, moreso than any other Jedi. That and their relationship was well known. Likewise, as I said, his being a Sith Lord isn't legal grounds for arrest. It could, however, go towards a statement of character. That he was willing to hide his heritage (with a well known hostility towards the Jedi).

Alexian Cale wrote:Was Palpatine's seizure of power during the Separatist crisis legal or not?

I guess it would depend on what's legal and what's not. Uh, what did the article bestowing Palpatine his emergency powers actually say? Is it something like the office of dictator in the Roman Republic? If so, and I would judge that it is, then Chancellor Palpatine's reorganization of the sector governments is most definately constituted with legal substance.

Converting the Republic into an Empire however, a virtually different state, makes me pause OTOH. Palpatine's emergency powers bestow him the ability to change the Republican Constitution, right? I'd be real interested in finding out how FAR these emergency powers went. If it's unlimited authority to change the constitution, word for word (as I believe it is), then what the hell is to stop the Chancellor from doing whatever the hell pleases him? If he can fathom some sort of reasonable excuse in order to deal with the emergency situation, then it's legal, based on its reasonability. I'm bringing up the "reasonablity of the excuse" issue mainly because I'm looking at this from a Jeffersonian point of view (i.e. American Declaration of Indepence), where the support of the people makes political actions TRULY legal.

IMHO, if you can't convince the citenzry that your actions are justified, no official backing of Senate is going to make the Empire legal without the ultimate consent of the rulers of any democracy, which are the people. As the long established decay of the Republic and Palpatine's staged civil war showed, there was definately a reasonable basis to declare the Empire. I'm sure Palpatine thought up of all this beforehand so that in addition to having the Senate declare him emperor-for-life, he probably had a plebiscite asking the people if they agreed and favoured his actions in the face of the emergency. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the Empire's constitution is the same as the Republic's. The article in the constitution giving the Chancellor his emergency powers is the ultimate source by which Palpatine carries out his actions as emperor. Why throw it away when it just adds more validity to your rule?

Likewise, as I said, his being a Sith Lord isn't legal grounds for arrest. It could, however, go towards a statement of character. That he was willing to hide his heritage (with a well known hostility towards the Jedi).

To heck with statement of character, you could then connect him to Dooku directly and with some of the vidence from Labyrinth of Evil (from the mechno chair left on Cato Neimoidia by Nute Gunray) you could connect him to the Separatist leadership and thus show he aided the CIS War Effort.

But it doesn't matter, because he controlled the courts, and any attempt by the senate to prosecute him is going to be blocked by his supporters.

Is there any way to figure out Palpatine was the one directing the Separatists? If so, offer Nute Gunray or some other person high up in the CIS immunity if they testify that they were taking their marching orders from Palpatine.

Once you were able to prove he was Darth Sidious, and find people willing to testify, there would be many things you could connect him too.

Heck, if you got Vilmarh Grahk on the stage, you could prove Palpatine's involvement in the Yinchorri Crisis.

Some good points that I never thought of. Anakin's testimony would ellicit Palpatine's identity as Darth Sidious. While Palpatine mentions that being a Sith Lord isn't unconstitutional or illegal, if the Jedi could capture Nute Gunray and the other Separatist leadership, they could potentially testify to the Courts that they followed Sidious's orders.

Remember, folks, the hypothetical situation is that you are the Supreme Justices in the Court. The only stipulation is that you have to base your finding on facts and evidence, which precludes your knowledge as an audience.

Darth Sidious is responsible for mass secession from the Republic, a militant movement against the Republic, and the murder (just via Grievous, who acted on his orders {after torture and surgical cooercion into obedience by San Hill and Dooku, no less} let alone the rest of the CIS) of trillions, possibly quadrillions, of Republic Citizens. That is High Treason if anything is. While the Jedi may not have been able to get solid evidence on that, (and one supposes, Jacen may not know of it) he was definately guilty.

Windu was most certainly justified in placing Palpatine under arrest. The seriousness of his crimes, which he had effectively confessed to an officer of the law, warrants detention while further evidence is gathered. The evidence already pointed to his associates, and such a confession is surely grounds for arrest. Whether Palpatine required some specific impeachment process before his arrest was legal is not known to me, but the film does not mention such a thing.

They probably couldn't make it stick, though, if what's said of Sidious' control of the courts is correct.

The scenario aside, I will say that the Galactic Empire was a more "legitimate" government than the New Republic. Let's face it, the Rebel Alliance/New Republic was "heir" to the Old Republic in ideals only. For continuity and legality, they were the insurgance, the terrorists, and the illegitimate ones. Leia's argument is moral only.

NecronLord wrote:Windu was most certainly justified in placing Palpatine under arrest.

His action was illegal and downright treason, and he acted on nothing more than unreliable hearsay. Windu had absolutely no right to threaten the chancellor, and certainly did not have the right to arrest him while still in office.

Alexian Cale wrote:The scenario aside, I will say that the Galactic Empire was a more "legitimate" government than the New Republic. Let's face it, the Rebel Alliance/New Republic was "heir" to the Old Republic in ideals only. For continuity and legality, they were the insurgance, the terrorists, and the illegitimate ones. Leia's argument is moral only.

Of course. The Empire is the legitimate and legal successor to the Old Republic, indisputably. The counterrevolutionary rebels were nothing but corrupt powermongers and tyrants bent on forcing themselves on the galaxy.

TC Pilot wrote:His action was illegal and downright treason, and he acted on nothing more than unreliable hearsay. Windu had absolutely no right to threaten the chancellor, and certainly did not have the right to arrest him while still in office.

Incorrect. A confession to an officer of the law is more than 'hearsay'. There was already evidence that someone living in his area, and part of his office, was Darth Sidious. If I walk into a police station, and confess to a murder that's taken place in my area, I expect to be arrested. Arrest does not equal conviction; the arrest of a Sith Lord, of whom there is reputedly only one left, who just happens to live in the same complex as the Sith Lord responible for the war, seems perfectly justified.

As for your claims that he does not have the legal right. Please give me a line reference in the Republic Constitution that says that's illegal? Whether it is technically legal or not is unknown to me. And I dare say, has never been addressed.

Of course. The Empire is the legitimate and legal successor to the Old Republic, indisputably. The counterrevolutionary rebels were nothing but corrupt powermongers and tyrants bent on forcing themselves on the galaxy.

Err... I wouldn't go that far. Emperor Palpatine and the upper echelon of the Empire were indisputably evil and vile.

Darth Servo wrote:Is there any way to figure out Palpatine was the one directing the Separatists? If so, offer Nute Gunray or some other person high up in the CIS immunity if they testify that they were taking their marching orders from Palpatine.

Assuming that it were preserved and kept safe, there are the transmissions from the mechno chair in Labyrinth of Evil.

edit:

As far as the movies would go, the only way to make the connection would be if the CIS leaders cooperated, or Dooku's admission to Obi Wan on Geonosis.

NecronLord wrote:

TC Pilot wrote:His action was illegal and downright treason, and he acted on nothing more than unreliable hearsay. Windu had absolutely no right to threaten the chancellor, and certainly did not have the right to arrest him while still in office.

Incorrect. A confession to an officer of the law is more than 'hearsay'. There was already evidence that someone living in his area, and part of his office, was Darth Sidious. If I walk into a police station, and confess to a murder that's taken place in my area, I expect to be arrested. Arrest does not equal conviction; the arrest of a Sith Lord, of whom there is reputedly only one left, who just happens to live in the same complex as the Sith Lord responible for the war, seems perfectly justified.

As for your claims that he does not have the legal right. Please give me a line reference in the Republic Constitution that says that's illegal? Whether it is technically legal or not is unknown to me. And I dare say, has never been addressed.

I don't know the exact line of the Republic Constitution, but I remember that actually Palpatine never said "I'm the Dark Lord of the Sith", he first told Anakin the history of 'Darth Plagueis the Wise' and then give him a guess, from what Anakin deduced that Palpatine is the former apprentice of Plagueis. When Mace Windu tried to arrest Palpatine, he acted illegally with inadequate 'evidences'. Only after the death of Windu Palpatine admitted to be the Dark Lord of the Sith making Anakin his apprentice, but he NEVER admitted to be the mastermind before the Clone Wars (altrough his knowledge of the location of the CIS leaders is clearly suspect, this isn't an evidence...).