"There goes another one" - EP IV question

[bz249]

This is very much true. But I am a moral absolutist, so I don't think it's particularly relevant. The Imperials' war to suppress the Rebellion either is or is not just; depending on which it is, the destruction of Alderaan to bring about a swift Imperial victory either is or is not justified.

In my opinion it is not justified, because the Galactic Empire violates my definition of legitimate governments, and since it is not fighting to protect its people from an existential threat. Against the invasion of the Yuuzhan Vong, the Empire would be fighting a just war; against the Rebels it is not. Therefore, in my opinion the destruction of Alderaan cannot be justified in the terms that make the destruction of Hiroshima or Nagasaki marginally justifiable*. A better analogy would be the firebombing of Dresden, or perhaps** the bombing of Rotterdam.

*marginally so, because the context was questionable enough that it cannot be shown with certainty whether it was the only way to end the war without greater casualties. Had the US been willing to accept a more conditional surrender, The Bomb might have been unnecessary.
** Depending heavily on how much of the bombing you blame on mixups in the German chain of command, stuff like that- it may be a borderline case. Not sure.

Now from a moral absolutionist point of view, does fighting against a bad guy makes someone a good guy? I don´t think so. In a situation when the Russian Maffia fight against the Italian Maffia (bad guys) to control the drug and prostitution market the Russian Maffia is hard to be considered the good guys, they are just another bunch of bad guys.

But this did not happen on the gang war levels, for example in the Spanish Civil War the Nationalists (indeed an outright Fascist group) were struggling against the Republicans (whom despite the name were trying to establish a Communist dictatorship), both sides tried to build an oppressive system, both sides commited massacraces against more or less innocent civilians, so neither group qualifies as good guys for me. The same holds for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan there the official government was an oppressive communist dictatorships, however the rebels were fighting for an oppressive theocratic dictartorship and/or a warlord state; again I see no good guys in this conflict. And at last the Second World War, where the main event was the struggle on the Eastern Front between the two evilest dictatorship (responsible the death in the range millions respectively, using ultraconservative estimates) of the twentieth century if not human history...

No back to the SW:

The Empire is ruled by the most powerful and evilest Sith Lord ever. They are by definition evil... however their actions shown in the movies are not exceptionally evil. They were shit about collateral damage, they mistreat prisoners for sure, but their targets are more or less openly fight against them. This I feel important, because against an exceptionally evil opponent anyone with realistic chances to dismember it automatically qualifies as a good guy. IMHO in SW this is not the case, however potentially the Empire is the greatest evil of all time, because of Palpatine.

Now to the Rebels, their goal is to restore the Old Republic, which according to the PT is an inept failed state incapable of preventing the growth of chaos and warlordism (okay one can say it was manipulated by Palpatine, but I think internal stress and problems would lead sooner or later to a galactic scale conflict). From the EU we knew they achieved this goal perfectly, the New Republic was a similarly inept failed state. Thus in my opinion the Rebels also qualifies as bad guys since their vision of galactic society and government is irrealistic and could only lead to chaos. Thus IMHO it is a power struggle between two groups of bad guys.

At the chokepoint of the OT however (Yavin and Endor) the situation is different, since an operational Death Star means the Empire will be impossible to overthrown (and since they are potentially the greatest evil of all time, this automatically means they are de facto the greatest evil of all time while being unoverthrowable), thus anyone with a realistic chance to destroy the DS is automatically becomes the good guy.

[Richelieu]

The Empire is ruled by the most powerful and evilest Sith Lord ever. They are by definition evil...

I am not sure the whole nation can be classified as evil because it happens to have an evil ruler. When the Alderaan ruler is a traitor, many think it's wrong to blast Alderaan. (note that I can't see how you could ever declare war following this moral principle, since by definition, when you attempt to do something to prevent part of country to do something, you can expect the whole army, 99% of it NOT taking part in the actions you want to stop, to defend its country... but I can totally see how one can think "all wars are evil by definition" ).

however their actions shown in the movies are not exceptionally evil. They were shit about collateral damage, they mistreat prisoners for sure, but their targets are more or less openly fight against them. This I feel important, because against an exceptionally evil opponent anyone with realistic chances to dismember it automatically qualifies as a good guy. IMHO in SW this is not the case, however potentially the Empire is the greatest evil of all time, because of Palpatine.

I was apparently wrong when I thought that Alderaan was openly providing support to the rebellion. Anyway, what were the goal of the attack on the planet? It couldn't be to extract information from their princess, since she had already surrendered the information asked. It could be an act of spite ("hey, little princess, look how I blast your little planet!") or an act of war. If it's an act of spite, I think it qualifies as evil, but it would also qualifies as incredibly stupid, since they are lowering the taxes and industrial production they could get from a functionnal world. I doubt it's the case, I can't see Tarking being so dense and doing that JUST to irritate Leia. If the attack was made to show the power of the Empire, in order to reduce escalation of the rebellion into a full blown civil war, which could claim many more lives, it's more open to discussion.

I thought Alderaan was more open in its support to the rebellion than it was, apparently, so it's not akin to nuking Richmond to prevent the South from seceding, and I understand it weakens my point. Granted. But if it's akin to nuking Seattle and saying : hey, look, Germans & Japanese, we have the biggest cojones around, so disarm and stop discriminating NOW (with a reasonable chance of the plan working, and not having the japanese and german generals all laugh at the face of the US ambassador explaining why Seattle is now reduced to smithereens), would have it been evil to nuke Seattle and prevent WWII? I can imagine no sane person would actually enact such a plan, because if want to use a deterrant weapon, you might as well use it on enemies instead of your own taxpayers, but from a moral point of view, how do you think? Don't the absolutists think nuking any city to show your mght is wrong or wrong-but-justifiable-if-done-for-good-reasons?

[bz249]

The Empire is ruled by the most powerful and evilest Sith Lord ever. They are by definition evil...

I am not sure the whole nation can be classified as evil because it happens to have an evil ruler. When the Alderaan ruler is a traitor, many think it's wrong to blast Alderaan. (note that I can't see how you could ever declare war following this moral principle, since by definition, when you attempt to do something to prevent part of country to do something, you can expect the whole army, 99% of it NOT taking part in the actions you want to stop, to defend its country... but I can totally see how one can think "all wars are evil by definition" ).

The situation is that the Empire as we can see it the OT is a brainchild of Palpatine and the main goal of the Empire is to project his power over the Galaxy.

however their actions shown in the movies are not exceptionally evil. They were shit about collateral damage, they mistreat prisoners for sure, but their targets are more or less openly fight against them. This I feel important, because against an exceptionally evil opponent anyone with realistic chances to dismember it automatically qualifies as a good guy. IMHO in SW this is not the case, however potentially the Empire is the greatest evil of all time, because of Palpatine.

I was apparently wrong when I thought that Alderaan was openly providing support to the rebellion. Anyway, what were the goal of the attack on the planet? It couldn't be to extract information from their princess, since she had already surrendered the information asked. It could be an act of spite ("hey, little princess, look how I blast your little planet!") or an act of war. If it's an act of spite, I think it qualifies as evil, but it would also qualifies as incredibly stupid, since they are lowering the taxes and industrial production they could get from a functionnal world. I doubt it's the case, I can't see Tarking being so dense and doing that JUST to irritate Leia. If the attack was made to show the power of the Empire, in order to reduce escalation of the rebellion into a full blown civil war, which could claim many more lives, it's more open to discussion.

I thought Alderaan was more open in its support to the rebellion than it was, apparently, so it's not akin to nuking Richmond to prevent the South from seceding, and I understand it weakens my point. Granted. But if it's akin to nuking Seattle and saying : hey, look, Germans & Japanese, we have the biggest cojones around, so disarm and stop discriminating NOW (with a reasonable chance of the plan working, and not having the japanese and german generals all laugh at the face of the US ambassador explaining why Seattle is now reduced to smithereens), would have it been evil to nuke Seattle and prevent WWII? I can imagine no sane person would actually enact such a plan, because if want to use a deterrant weapon, you might as well use it on enemies instead of your own taxpayers, but from a moral point of view, how do you think? Don't the absolutists think nuking any city to show your mght is wrong?

My argument was that there is nothing one can do against Palpatine if the Death Star is operational. It has nothing to do with the destruction of Alderaan (it is irrelevant from that point of view) the Death Star must be destroyed because it eliminates the chances of succes for any rebellion against Palpatine´s rule. Thus the evilest Sith Lord of all times would have a free reign over the Galaxy. This must be prevented by all possible means, one don´t have to be a sympathizer of the Rebel Alliance or the later New Republic to agree on these movements and support their attack. (note capital and non-capital ´r´-s as the first character of rebellion to differentiate between the actual Rebellion and a rebellion in a general meaning, not neccesarily for the recreation of the former Old Republic)

[Simon_Jester]

WWII- Battle of Britain- Dowding said it would be legal for the German pilots to machinegun parachuting RAF pilots if they were coming down over Britain and could return to duty, and he was suprised that they didn't do it more often then they actually did (i.e. almost never). In the same manner, the RAF attacked German seaplanes recovering pilots who landed in the channel, because they could be returned to duty.

What was Dowding's source? I mean, he comes from the same organization that gave the world Bomber Harris, so I'm not sure I consider him authoritative in his own right.

Now from a moral absolutionist point of view, does fighting against a bad guy makes someone a good guy?

Surely not.

The Empire is ruled by the most powerful and evilest Sith Lord ever. They are by definition evil... however their actions shown in the movies are not exceptionally evil.

Not up until Alderaan, at any rate.

Now to the Rebels, their goal is to restore the Old Republic, which according to the PT is an inept failed state incapable of preventing the growth of chaos and warlordism (okay one can say it was manipulated by Palpatine, but I think internal stress and problems would lead sooner or later to a galactic scale conflict).

It should be pointed out that the Republic existed for a LONG time before the events of the movies. There's nothing wrong with its basic structure, which worked for centuries. So a hypothetical Alliance to Restore the Republic might very well be trying to restore the old Old Republic, the one that worked. Sort of like the way that Cato the Younger was trying to restore the "old" Roman Republic, which functioned, not the "new" Republic, which did not function except under the leadership of powerful warlords who controlled private armies.

Of course, he failed, and was probably doomed to fail because his compatriots weren't playing along, but he definitely had an honorable goal in mind and was sincerely trying to set up a working government. Or, as he saw it, preserve the traditions of a government that would work if only it followed its own old traditions.

[Cato the Younger would have made a great Rebel Alliance leader: insanely ethical, insanely fearless, insanely annoying.]
__________

I am not sure the whole nation can be classified as evil because it happens to have an evil ruler.

A nation cannot; a government can. Especially a government which has had many years to staff its higher ranks with the sort of people who will support the evil ruler, like Tarkin (who's pretty damn evil himself, in a cold Adolf Eichmann kind of way instead of a cackling Palpatine way).

If the attack was made to show the power of the Empire, in order to reduce escalation of the rebellion into a full blown civil war, which could claim many more lives, it's more open to discussion.

This. I agree it's open to discussion, at least when the discussers have enough of an ethical compass to distinguish between right, wrong, and legal. So let's go for it.

[Richelieu]

My argument was that there is nothing one can do against Palpatine if the Death Star is operational. It has nothing to do with the destruction of Alderaan (it is irrelevant from that point of view) the Death Star must be destroyed because it eliminates the chances of succes for any rebellion against Palpatine´s rule. Thus the evilest Sith Lord of all times would have a free reign over the Galaxy.

Indeed, preventing Palpatine would be the ethical thing to do, once his evilness is apparent (I guess it was not until Alderaan that the general public would have known... After all, they justified eliminating the Jedi Order by protraying them as traitor, so they can be chased throughout the Galaxy... They have a great spin team, and I guess most of their actions up until Palpatine seized power or Alderaan was destroyed could have been explained to the general public without seeming to be particularly evil.

Even if the Death Star makes open rebellion and armed conflict a non-option, I can't see it a good weapon to remove the rebellion altogether. The emperor wants to rule the Galactic Empire, and having the option to blow planets here and there won't do him any good: it can only prevent rebellion if he's prepared to blow the whole planet for it. He might not be, because the empire would quickly turn to an asteroid fields. Even with the possibility of BDZing planets it was not the standard operating procedure... Using it would certainly prevent world from rebelling but would certainly create a lot of resentment and allow the rebellion to secretly recruit people for covert operations. Unfortunately, assassination against Palpatine would have a very low chance of success given his abilities (I can see how targetted assassinations can be ethical in certain cases).

[Bakustra]

My argument was that there is nothing one can do against Palpatine if the Death Star is operational. It has nothing to do with the destruction of Alderaan (it is irrelevant from that point of view) the Death Star must be destroyed because it eliminates the chances of succes for any rebellion against Palpatine´s rule. Thus the evilest Sith Lord of all times would have a free reign over the Galaxy.

Indeed, preventing Palpatine would be the ethical thing to do, once his evilness is apparent (I guess it was not until Alderaan that the general public would have known... After all, they justified eliminating the Jedi Order by protraying them as traitor, so they can be chased throughout the Galaxy... They have a great spin team, and I guess most of their actions up until Palpatine seized power or Alderaan was destroyed could have been explained to the general public without seeming to be particularly evil.

Even if the Death Star makes open rebellion and armed conflict a non-option, I can't see it a good weapon to remove the rebellion altogether. The emperor wants to rule the Galactic Empire, and having the option to blow planets here and there won't do him any good: it can only prevent rebellion if he's prepared to blow the whole planet for it. He might not be, because the empire would quickly turn to an asteroid fields. Even with the possibility of BDZing planets it was not the standard operating procedure... Using it would certainly prevent world from rebelling but would certainly create a lot of resentment and allow the rebellion to secretly recruit people for covert operations. Unfortunately, assassination against Palpatine would have a very low chance of success given his abilities (I can see how targetted assassinations can be ethical in certain cases).

The point of the Death Star was to drive potential Rebels underground and destroy their central headquarters. Once that was done they'd be reduced to a number of small cells and military facilities scattered around the galaxy, along with a fortified sector on the edge of the galaxy. The Death Star could crush the Mon Calamari, and conventional forces could handle the uncoordinated strikes of the remaining, disorganized Rebels.

[Patroklos]

It would be like the North nuking Richmond to prevent the South from seceding? I guess Lincoln would have done it, if he had had a WMD. Of course, we can posit that the rebellion was in no shape to actually threaten the Galactic Empire, but only 20 years before, the galaxy was torn by a dire civil war and it was on the brink of collapse. The very idea of letting a full scale rebellion should certainly scares the many loyal citizen of the empire.

No, this is akin to Lincoln nuking a city full of Southern sympathizers. Alderaan was not actively engaged in war against the Empire. There is nothing to suggest it was on the verge of doing so, either. It was providing arms to the Rebels, but covertly. Treasonous, but not on the scale of killing everyone on the planet for it. Unless we are to assume that every child on Alderaan was actively engaged in such activity?[/quote]

It would help if you guys actually pretended to research the topic before commenting...

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Corellian_Treaty

[Bounty]

Jesus Christ that's retarded. And I'm pretty damn sure that directly contradicts the movie, so it's out as evidence.

[Crazedwraith]

It would be like the North nuking Richmond to prevent the South from seceding? I guess Lincoln would have done it, if he had had a WMD. Of course, we can posit that the rebellion was in no shape to actually threaten the Galactic Empire, but only 20 years before, the galaxy was torn by a dire civil war and it was on the brink of collapse. The very idea of letting a full scale rebellion should certainly scares the many loyal citizen of the empire.

No, this is akin to Lincoln nuking a city full of Southern sympathizers. Alderaan was not actively engaged in war against the Empire. There is nothing to suggest it was on the verge of doing so, either. It was providing arms to the Rebels, but covertly. Treasonous, but not on the scale of killing everyone on the planet for it. Unless we are to assume that every child on Alderaan was actively engaged in such activity?

It would help if you guys actually pretended to research the topic before commenting...

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Corellian_Treaty

It would also help if you could use quote tags correctly...

Anyway, as far as I can tell that link only states that Bail Organa in addition to be the head of state of Alderaan's planetary government was the head of an organisation or Alderaanian Resistance fighters that then formed the Rebel Alliance. It does not state that every Alderaanian man, woman and child was a member of the Alliance and thus worthy of summary destruction. As I've previously stated Alderaan was not a military target. Even Tarkin says this in the film.

[Bakustra]

It would be like the North nuking Richmond to prevent the South from seceding? I guess Lincoln would have done it, if he had had a WMD. Of course, we can posit that the rebellion was in no shape to actually threaten the Galactic Empire, but only 20 years before, the galaxy was torn by a dire civil war and it was on the brink of collapse. The very idea of letting a full scale rebellion should certainly scares the many loyal citizen of the empire.

No, this is akin to Lincoln nuking a city full of Southern sympathizers. Alderaan was not actively engaged in war against the Empire. There is nothing to suggest it was on the verge of doing so, either. It was providing arms to the Rebels, but covertly. Treasonous, but not on the scale of killing everyone on the planet for it. Unless we are to assume that every child on Alderaan was actively engaged in such activity?

It would help if you guys actually pretended to research the topic before commenting...

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Corellian_Treaty

Fixed your quotes.
Wookiee is wrong. Corellia never formally declared war on the Empire, because Garm Bel Iblis is not, was not, and never was the "legitimate government" of Corellia, the Diktat. This casts some suspicion on Mothma representing Chandrila as a government. Organa at the least can be considered the legitimate head of government, but the formal declaration of war comes from The Force Unleashed, which contradicts every other source involving the formation of the Rebel Alliance and is incredibly stupid to boot. (Really, capturing Mothma, Bel Iblis, and Organa; bringing them before the Emperor, and then they are essentially let go [on the Death Star, at that!] after some dork Vader picked as his apprentice dies to rescue them? Please.) Other sources give the treaty as being a formal declaration of unification of the resistance groups that Mothma, Bel Iblis, Organa, and the other signers led, and not an openly available document, unlike the later Declaration of Rebellion. Furthermore, you didn't address the second part of my statement, so I will assume you consider the deaths of noncombatants perfectly acceptable collateral damage in any military strike, and deem treason such a serious crime that due process of law isn't enough, and summary executions are the only way to do it. How wonderful. Do you consider Windu's assassination attempt of Palpatine on the grounds that "he's too dangerous to live" to be legally acceptable?

Jesus Christ that's retarded. And I'm pretty damn sure that directly contradicts the movie, so it's out as evidence.

Not only that, but it's also contradicted by sanity. Somehow, after Corellia, Alderaan, and Chandrila declare war on the Empire, they still have Senatorial representation...somehow.

[Patroklos]

You would of course be wrong. I am noticing a trend here. I point out actual facts from the universe in question and then you guys deny them becasue they don't agree with your "absolutist" or whatever other personal beliefs you hold.

If you really want to understand why things work and happen they way they do in the SW universe you need to examine them from the perspective of the characters in that universe. You can certainly comment on the events from your personal perspective, but do not pretend they have any relevance to why thigs are in that universe.

I'll give you an example. A lot of you here continually wax on and on about legitimate government and what you think that should mena in the SWs galaxy. Dispite the fact that Senate elevated Palapantine to Emperor of its own free will you denounce the Empire because it is a Monarchy while at the same time whitewashing the fact that one of the three founders of the Alliance, Alderaan, is itself a nepotistic hereditary monarchy.

You guys can flame me all you want, but until you can provide in universe examples that political thought and normal governance in the SW galaxy follow the ideals that you hold so dearly in real life it is an exercise in futility to pretend that the SW galaxy should operate the same way.

[Crazedwraith]

Patroklus, well done for not addressing any of the points raised.

Your claim Palpatine was freely elected also ignores the evidence to the contrary that people have cited. In that senators that didn't vote for him were summarily arrested and even executed afterwards (well 'executed' is putting it a bit strongly, more accurately Vader murdered him without trial). This is from RotS novelisation and Dark Lord.

'Vote for me or die' is not the hallmark of a free or fair process.

[Patroklos]

Anyway, as far as I can tell that link only states that Bail Organa in addition to be the head of state of Alderaan's planetary government was the head of an organisation or Alderaanian Resistance fighters that then formed the Rebel Alliance. It does not state that every Alderaanian man, woman and child was a member of the Alliance and thus worthy of summary destruction. As I've previously stated Alderaan was not a military target. Even Tarkin says this in the film.

Alderaan is a hereditary monarchy which operates as the head of state. Additionally, the monarchy presides over the legislature and the high court (ironically, in an arrangement similar to how the Empire is organized). On top of that, the Organa family also has a hereditary hold of Alderaan's Senate seat. Whether this fits in with your own personal ideals concerning governace or not and the fact that it is hypocritical given the rhetoric of the republic is irrlevant, that is in fact the way Alderaan is run.

Alderaan's government official entered into a treaty with two other great powers to engage in open rebellion with the Empire. Whether or not the government of Alderaan decided to hold a referendum on this is not our concern, the people of Alderaan are by all accounts perfectly happy to live in their monarchy.

Now, the above facts having been provided I at no point said I personally agreed with the Empires actions. The fact that I might personally find it morally objectionable, however, has no relevance whatsoever as to what is considered legal or moral inside the Star Wars universe. If you want to figure that out you need to examine that universe itself via the characters we are given.

[Patroklos]

Patroklus, well done for not addressing any of the points raised.

I am sorry that I can't reply to several multi page posts within your personal timeframe. If you wish to join the flamers spouting unsupported BS personal opinions be my guest. I can only type so fast.

Your claim Palpatine was freely elected also ignores the evidence to the contrary that people have cited. In that senators that didn't vote for him were summarily arrested and even executed afterwards (well 'executed' is putting it a bit strongly, more accurately Vader murdered him without trial). This is from RotS novelisation and Dark Lord.

What claim? The events surrounding the proclomation of Palantine as emperor are well known, and there is nothing at all pointing to anything suggesting it was done by anything other than the Senate's own free will. He was victorious after the Clone Wars, and the Senate was stupid.

I have not read either of those books, and I freely admit I simply can't keep up with the flood of new Clone Wars stuff coming out, so if you would like to enlighten me as to the specifics of those books I am all ears.

[Crazedwraith]

Anyway, as far as I can tell that link only states that Bail Organa in addition to be the head of state of Alderaan's planetary government was the head of an organisation or Alderaanian Resistance fighters that then formed the Rebel Alliance. It does not state that every Alderaanian man, woman and child was a member of the Alliance and thus worthy of summary destruction. As I've previously stated Alderaan was not a military target. Even Tarkin says this in the film.

Alderaan is a hereditary monarchy which operates as the head of state. Additionally, the monarchy presides over the legislature and the high court (ironically, in an arrangement similar to how the Empire is organized). On top of that, the Organa family also has a hereditary hold of Alderaan's Senate seat. Whether this fits in with your own personal ideals concerning governace or not and the fact that it is hypocritical given the rhetoric of the republic is irrlevant, that is in fact the way Alderaan is run.

This is wrong. First in Episode I, Bail Antilles was the Senator for Alderaan, not an Organa. Second I recall numerous references that Leia was elected to the position not that she inherited. Just because two people from the same family were popular enough to be elected to the same position is not evidence that its hereditary (Is POTUS the hereditary title of the Bush family)

Alderaan's government official entered into a treaty with two other great powers to engage in open rebellion with the Empire. Whether or not the government of Alderaan decided to hold a referendum on this is not our concern, the people of Alderaan are by all accounts perfectly happy to live in their monarchy.

This a matter of hats. In entering in to the Rebel Alliance Organa, according to your source was not doing that as Head of State of Alderaan. He may also hold that position but it was not under that authority which he signed up. Instead he signed up as the head of a separate organisation: The alderaanian resistance. The people of Alderaan as a whole are not responsible for what their head of state does in his off time.

Edit:

What claim? The events surrounding the proclomation of Palantine as emperor are well known, and there is nothing at all pointing to anything suggesting it was done by anything other than the Senate's own free will. He was victorious after the Clone Wars, and the Senate was stupid.

This claim:

I'll give you an example. A lot of you here continually wax on and on about legitimate government and what you think that should mena in the SWs galaxy. Dispite the fact that Senate elevated Palapantine to Emperor of its own free will you denounce the Empire because it is a Monarchy while at the same time whitewashing the fact that one of the three founders of the Alliance, Alderaan, is itself a nepotistic hereditary monarchy.

Again: 'Elect me or be arrested' is not doing it of your own free will.

[Richelieu]

Wookiee is wrong.

As this is an important point, we need clarification and more sources regarding the status of Alderaan. The case for blowing it changes hugely whether it's a loyal planet with a few traitors on it, a majorly loyal planet whose government is having traitorious activities, or if it's a planet whose government just declared war on the Empire.

To answer clearly, yes, there are babies on Alderaan, yes Alderaan isn't a military target, but there were babies in Dresden and Hiroshima also, and the majority of the population (setting our societies' moral compass) doesn't see the bombings and the officers who decided them as "evil". "Necessary evil" at worst.

Furthermore, you didn't address the second part of my statement, so I will assume you consider the deaths of noncombatants perfectly acceptable collateral damage in any military strike, and deem treason such a serious crime that due process of law isn't enough, and summary executions are the only way to do it. How wonderful. Do you consider Windu's assassination attempt of Palpatine on the grounds that "he's too dangerous to live" to be legally acceptable?

Legally, can we really say? The Jedi seemed to have extended powers in the Old Republic, Morally isn't the same thing as legally, though.

Not only that, but it's also contradicted by sanity. Somehow, after Corellia, Alderaan, and Chandrila declare war on the Empire, they still have Senatorial representation...somehow.

This is not bothering me: I can totally see them declaring war and the vote to cast out their representative taking several years before being examined by the assembly... The Senate is weak, inefficient, and the situation certainly worsened under Palpatine. How long did it take to expel the Separatists from the Senate? Though a formal declaration of war is a bit extreme. I could easily see them rebelling while retaining their seat, but not declaring war. If this was the case, Leia would be insane to claim that the Senate would oppose her arrest.

[Bakustra]

You would of course be wrong. I am noticing a trend here. I point out actual facts from the universe in question and then you guys deny them becasue they don't agree with your "absolutist" or whatever other personal beliefs you hold.

If you really want to understand why things work and happen they way they do in the SW universe you need to examine them from the perspective of the characters in that universe. You can certainly comment on the events from your personal perspective, but do not pretend they have any relevance to why thigs are in that universe.

I'll give you an example. A lot of you here continually wax on and on about legitimate government and what you think that should mena in the SWs galaxy. Dispite the fact that Senate elevated Palapantine to Emperor of its own free will you denounce the Empire because it is a Monarchy while at the same time whitewashing the fact that one of the three founders of the Alliance, Alderaan, is itself a nepotistic hereditary monarchy.

You guys can flame me all you want, but until you can provide in universe examples that political thought and normal governance in the SW galaxy follow the ideals that you hold so dearly in real life it is an exercise in futility to pretend that the SW galaxy should operate the same way.

Still no response to baby-killing, eh? I don't know who you're talking to, really I don't. People denounce the Empire for being an authoritarian, repressive state, and a non-representative one. The Republics are what most people compare the Empire to, and they were representative, even if corrupt/ineffectual, respectively. Legitimate government, in my post, referred to Garm Bel Iblis not being the ruler of Corellia, which casts doubt on Mon Mothma being the chief of state of Chandrila.

My approach with regards to The Force Unleashed is that, given the insanity of Alderaan remaining in the Senate after its leader had supposedly declared war on the Empire, and the same with Chandrila, and the fact that Bel Iblis is unable to speak for the Corellian government, means that the treaty as described in the game is completely meaningless, contradictory with everything else, and frankly idiotic. The only rationalization is to declare Starkiller/Marek as misunderstanding the treaty, which we know from other sources to have merged the three largest resistance movements and set up a system of government for the three. The actual declaration of hostilities, by the resistance groups, not the planets, you will note, was the formal Declaration of Rebellion which listed grievances against the Imperial government.

Now, your statement of "we can't determine morality within the Star Wars universe without using the moral codes of the characters" is an interesting one, since we can declare genocide morally acceptable, since Thrawn, Tarkin, et al were A-OK with it, and so were the gunners on the Death Star, seeing as none of them committed suicide after Alderaan. You propose, rather than examining the characters motivations through our own perspective, simply look at the characters through theirs'. This would lead to the conclusion that everybody is a "good guy", so, in your case, you simply decide to look at the galaxy through Imperial eyes and conclude that, hey, the Rebels must be evil!

The legitimacy of Palpatine's government is not in question here, and please don't try and derail the thread with it. Most people will agree that he has political legitimacy, but not moral legitimacy.

Finally, this has been a relatively polite discussion so far, especially when you consider the usual standards of most "morality of Empire" debates.

Anyway, as far as I can tell that link only states that Bail Organa in addition to be the head of state of Alderaan's planetary government was the head of an organisation or Alderaanian Resistance fighters that then formed the Rebel Alliance. It does not state that every Alderaanian man, woman and child was a member of the Alliance and thus worthy of summary destruction. As I've previously stated Alderaan was not a military target. Even Tarkin says this in the film.

Alderaan is a hereditary monarchy which operates as the head of state. Additionally, the monarchy presides over the legislature and the high court (ironically, in an arrangement similar to how the Empire is organized). On top of that, the Organa family also has a hereditary hold of Alderaan's Senate seat. Whether this fits in with your own personal ideals concerning governace or not and the fact that it is hypocritical given the rhetoric of the republic is irrlevant, that is in fact the way Alderaan is run.

Alderaan's government official entered into a treaty with two other great powers to engage in open rebellion with the Empire. Whether or not the government of Alderaan decided to hold a referendum on this is not our concern, the people of Alderaan are by all accounts perfectly happy to live in their monarchy.

Now, the above facts having been provided I at no point said I personally agreed with the Empires actions. The fact that I might personally find it morally objectionable, however, has no relevance whatsoever as to what is considered legal or moral inside the Star Wars universe. If you want to figure that out you need to examine that universe itself via the characters we are given.

Examining the morality of the characters from their own perspective leads one to conclude everybody is on the side of good, possibly excepting the Emperor and Vader. You don't even do that, since at least that would be consistent. Instead, you pretend that the morals of an authoritarian state's military are necessarily the morals of the majority of society, allowing you to declare "Evil terrorist treasonous Rebels Alderaan deserved what it got" like your fellow apologists. Of course, if you continue to declare that people, when they evaluate the morality of fictitious actions through their own personal codes, are doing it completely, utterly wrong and only you know the way, I'm going to have to ask you why your way is superior.

I also love the way you ignore Tarkin pointing out Alderaan isn't a military target. As for the treaty, well, you are already sliding headlong into the brainless inclusionism that characterizes most of these debates, but read the rest of my post. Furthermore, prove that the majority of Alderaan's people were knowing and willingly engaged in treasonous activities. Prove there were no minors who couldn't commit treason because they are unable to comprehend it on the surface of Alderaan. Please explain why Tarkin didn't ask Alderaan to surrender. Then you would have an argument that it was justifiable. On the other hand, if you really consider it morally objectionable, why are you arguing in favor of baby-killing and summary executions?

[Anguirus]

You would of course be wrong. I am noticing a trend here. I point out actual facts from the universe in question and then you guys deny them becasue they don't agree with your "absolutist" or whatever other personal beliefs you hold.

So hey, I guess my list of massacres aren't actual facts.

In addition, even if we take the Force Unleashed Corellian Treaty (which contradicts other portrayals) as canon, you still haven't proven that every Alderaanian man, woman, and child needed to be put down like dogs.

The fact that I might personally find it morally objectionable, however, has no relevance whatsoever as to what is considered legal or moral inside the Star Wars universe.

Your legalistic wranglings are not relevant to anyone else who is participating in this thread. We're on the verge of what might be a rather enlightening discussion on whether it might be morally justified to use extreme force to maintain peace on a very large scale, and you are simply providing a sideshow of describing your broken moral system with inferred legal arguments from a fictional universe.

Luke Skywalker didn't care that his "wise" forbears in the Galactic Senate handed over control of the galaxy ("legally," although some of them were arrested for treason BEFORE THE VOTE) to a madman. All he saw were his unarmed, middle-aged aunt and uncle burned to a cinder.

[Patroklos]

Fixed your quotes.

Thank you, as I weed through baseless flames I sometimes get sloppy with format.

Wookiee is wrong. Corellia never formally declared war on the Empire, because Garm Bel Iblis is not, was not, and never was the "legitimate government" of Corellia, the Diktat.

Governments don't ususally send their actual heads of state to negotiate treaties.

This casts some suspicion on Mothma representing Chandrila as a government. Organa at the least can be considered the legitimate head of government, but the formal declaration of war comes from The Force Unleashed, which contradicts every other source involving the formation of the Rebel Alliance and is incredibly stupid to boot. (Really, capturing Mothma, Bel Iblis, and Organa; bringing them before the Emperor, and then they are essentially let go [on the Death Star, at that!] after some dork Vader picked as his apprentice dies to rescue them? Please.) Other sources give the treaty as being a formal declaration of unification of the resistance groups that Mothma, Bel Iblis, Organa, and the other signers led, and not an openly available document, unlike the later Declaration of Rebellion.

The Force Unleashed is hardly the original source of the Corellian treaty. It is long established cannon, there is no refuting the fact that the actual governments of all three of those powerful core worlds officially made a pact to provide support to the Rebellion.

quote]Furthermore, you didn't address the second part of my statement, so I will assume you consider the deaths of noncombatants perfectly acceptable collateral damage in any military strike,[/quote]

I certainly did, in multiple posts. You restating your objection in to way refutes my earlier rational. Noncombatant deaths have always been a part of warfare. All sides killed millions of civilians in the course of what were considered legitimate military operations in WWII. Stategic targets like the Ruhr and Tokyo that were doing nothing but providing material support for the war (like Alderaan) were leveled with countless noncombatant deaths.

You can object to the number of Alderaanians killed (I do as well), but in universe there is no way to deny that Alderaan was a legitimate target and that the Empire was more than justified in incuring some level of noncombatant deaths in the process of fighing a rebellious government.

and deem treason such a serious crime that due process of law isn't enough, and summary executions are the only way to do it. How wonderful. Do you consider Windu's assassination attempt of Palpatine on the grounds that "he's too dangerous to live" to be legally acceptable?

Wait, I said it was the ONLY way to go? Please stop putting words in my mouth. I personally don't find it acceptable, that has no relevance at all to what is acceptable in the SW universe.

As to Windu, no I don't find his assasination acceptable. However, as we see Jedi kill galactic citizens as they see fit throughout the SW canon I really don't think anyone inside the Republic would have cared one damn bit. As it it is they obviously have no problem with a totally unaccountable and unsupervised religious order doing whatever the hell it sees fit on a normal basis anyway.

Jesus Christ that's retarded. And I'm pretty damn sure that directly contradicts the movie, so it's out as evidence.

Retarded or not, it is in the EU. It is in fact from the orignal Rebel Source Book so it is very well established EU. However, if we are going to go down the line of "I can just disregard whatever I want" then whats the point of a tick for tac discussion?

I am probably about to learn a whole lot of new stuff from the new Clone Wars novels, it happens.

Not only that, but it's also contradicted by sanity. Somehow, after Corellia, Alderaan, and Chandrila declare war on the Empire, they still have Senatorial representation...somehow.[/quote]

[Bakustra]

Wookiee is wrong.

As this is an important point, we need clarification and more sources regarding the status of Alderaan. The case for blowing it changes hugely whether it's a loyal planet with a few traitors on it, a majorly loyal planet whose government is having traitorious activities, or if it's a planet whose government just declared war on the Empire.

To answer clearly, yes, there are babies on Alderaan, yes Alderaan isn't a military target, but there were babies in Dresden and Hiroshima also, and the majority of the population (setting our societies' moral compass) doesn't see the bombings and the officers who decided them as "evil". "Necessary evil" at worst.

Why do you feel the need to defend a ridiculous plot point that is tied up in incredible stupidity? In addition, many people give arguments of necessity rather than morality when it comes to Dresden and Hiroshima, and I, personally consider Alderaan, like Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, to be a hideous act of mass murder that could be justified on grounds of necessity. But none of you have argued that, instead going for the moral grounds.

Furthermore, you didn't address the second part of my statement, so I will assume you consider the deaths of noncombatants perfectly acceptable collateral damage in any military strike, and deem treason such a serious crime that due process of law isn't enough, and summary executions are the only way to do it. How wonderful. Do you consider Windu's assassination attempt of Palpatine on the grounds that "he's too dangerous to live" to be legally acceptable?

Legally, can we really say? The Jedi seemed to have extended powers in the Old Republic, Morally isn't the same thing as legally, though.[/quote]
Yes, we can legally say that the actions of the Jedi were illegal. Publius has done a great deal of analysis on the matter. I will agree that morality and legality are not fundamentally identical.

Not only that, but it's also contradicted by sanity. Somehow, after Corellia, Alderaan, and Chandrila declare war on the Empire, they still have Senatorial representation...somehow.

This is not bothering me: I can totally see them declaring war and the vote to cast out their representative taking several years before being examined by the assembly... The Senate is weak, inefficient, and the situation certainly worsened under Palpatine. How long did it take to expel the Separatists from the Senate?

They left the Senate of their own accord. Jesus Christ. The point of the Separatist movement was to leave the Republic, not to subvert it from within. If Alderaan, Corellia, and Chandrila the planets (as opposed to the resistance movements on the planets) had declared war on the Empire, they would probably have left of their own accord, like all secessionist states throughout history, and do you really think that a Senate that supports Palpatine and remembers the Separatists will just allow openly secessionist governments to retain representation? That's what I mean when I say TFU is contradicted by sanity. In addition, Palpatine also has the authority to remove Senators at will, as seen when Mon Mothma is forced to go into hiding when the Imperial Security Bureau prepares to arrest her for treason.

[Patroklos]

Still no response to baby-killing, eh? I don't know who you're talking to, really I don't. People denounce the Empire for being an authoritarian, repressive state, and a non-representative one. The Republics are what most people compare the Empire to, and they were representative, even if corrupt/ineffectual, respectively. Legitimate government, in my post, referred to Garm Bel Iblis not being the ruler of Corellia, which casts doubt on Mon Mothma being the chief of state of Chandrila.

Babys get killed in warfare, the fact tha babys die is not and has never been a war crime in and of itself. This being patently obvious, you can drop the fake appeal to emotion arguement.

SOME people denounce the Empire for being authoritarian, represive, and non representative. Primarily the Outer Rim. A good many though, and this is stated in the EU many times, are more than happy with the consistancy and stability the Empire provides in contrast to the Old Republic. Thats why I keep telling you to not assume what is considered good/bad in the SW universe matches our own moral leanings.

If the vast majority of the galactic citizenry are happy with their rule via monarchy then is the rule of monarchy immoral in the SW universe? If galactic warfare in the SW universe many times does involve the BDZ of planets and the deaths of billions are such actions actually considered war crimes in the SW universe?

You make the assumption that I am only trying to get the answers to these questions from Imperial perspective. This is obviously false because for the most part all we actually have is the Rebel perspective. I am not going to apologize for trying to get a better understanding of this galaxy by looking at the bigger picture and cast of characters.

My approach with regards to The Force Unleashed is that, given the insanity of Alderaan remaining in the Senate after its leader had supposedly declared war on the Empire, and the same with Chandrila, and the fact that Bel Iblis is unable to speak for the Corellian government, means that the treaty as described in the game is completely meaningless, contradictory with everything else, and frankly idiotic. The only rationalization is to declare Starkiller/Marek as misunderstanding the treaty, which we know from other sources to have merged the three largest resistance movements and set up a system of government for the three. The actual declaration of hostilities, by the resistance groups, not the planets, you will note, was the formal Declaration of Rebellion which listed grievances against the Imperial government.

When I say openly I mean that the deliberatly as a matter of policy negotiated a treaty with other great powers to support rebellion, not that they delivered that treaty with a bow to Palpantine's doorstep. Even if Palpantine does know it may be poloitically expediante to not make such a public challenge to his power public until he in fact does have his great power cracking weapon available.

Now, your statement of "we can't determine morality within the Star Wars universe without using the moral codes of the characters" is an interesting one, since we can declare genocide morally acceptable, since Thrawn, Tarkin, et al were A-OK with it, and so were the gunners on the Death Star, seeing as none of them committed suicide after Alderaan. You propose, rather than examining the characters motivations through our own perspective, simply look at the characters through theirs'. This would lead to the conclusion that everybody is a "good guy", so, in your case, you simply decide to look at the galaxy through Imperial eyes and conclude that, hey, the Rebels must be evil!

No, it wouldn't, it would lead us to understand what is considered acceptable in the SW galaxy as a whole. Genocide, razing cities, summary execution, etc. were not always considered bad things here in the real world. In a thousand years things we consider perfectly okay will be considere atrocities and visa vera.

Case in point, monarchies. We run into all sorts of monarchies throughout the EU. Royalty is readily accepted to legitimate by the Senate of all the galactic governments and in fact royal members themselves sit as Senators. On top of that we find all sorts of benevolant kings/dictoators/ruling families/corporate dominions that are no always, I dare say usually not, portrayes as being hated anachronistic entities incompatable with normal political feeling.

So I ask the question, is monarchy considered an outdated and generally negative concept in the SW universe like it is in most of the real world?

The legitimacy of Palpatine's government is not in question here, and please don't try and derail the thread with it. Most people will agree that he has political legitimacy, but not moral legitimacy.

There are several in this thread who have questioned it.

Finally, this has been a relatively polite discussion so far, especially when you consider the usual standards of most "morality of Empire" debates.

Indeed.

Examining the morality of the characters from their own perspective leads one to conclude everybody is on the side of good, possibly excepting the Emperor and Vader. You don't even do that, since at least that would be consistent. Instead, you pretend that the morals of an authoritarian state's military are necessarily the morals of the majority of society, allowing you to declare "Evil terrorist treasonous Rebels Alderaan deserved what it got" like your fellow apologists. Of course, if you continue to declare that people, when they evaluate the morality of fictitious actions through their own personal codes, are doing it completely, utterly wrong and only you know the way, I'm going to have to ask you why your way is superior.

I do no such thing. I look at the galaxy as a whole while most are just focusing on the Rebels and their immediat constituatnes, and I don't see where people on a galaxy wide basis seem all that disapproving of the general actions of the Empire as a whole. Surely the Outer Rim is up and arms because they are the people with the least power to make the Empire address their concerns or care about them, but the Core is usually portrayed to be accepting or even loyal to the Empire for the most part. Why is the entire galaxy not in an inflamed uproar if the actions of the Empire are indeed consideres so outside the norm?

I also love the way you ignore Tarkin pointing out Alderaan isn't a military target.

I don't have to ignore it. Alderaan is a strageic target, as Bail himself said they are there to fund the Rebellion, others are providing the actual fighting forces.

As for the treaty, well, you are already sliding headlong into the brainless inclusionism that characterizes most of these debates, but read the rest of my post. Furthermore, prove that the majority of Alderaan's people were knowing and willingly engaged in treasonous activities. Prove there were no minors who couldn't commit treason because they are unable to comprehend it on the surface of Alderaan. Please explain why Tarkin didn't ask Alderaan to surrender. Then you would have an argument that it was justifiable. On the other hand, if you really consider it morally objectionable, why are you arguing in favor of baby-killing and summary executions?

None of what you are asking me to "prove" is required, just as it is not required in the real world. The only way for you to prove that Alderaan was excessive to some unaccpetable degree is to show us what a normal planetary conquest looks like in contrast. If you can show it doesn't reasult in comple BDZ style destruction/burned out wastland in many cases then you will have proven that warfare that results in the dealths of billions is indeed outside the norm. I am totally willing to accept that, however the Clone Wars and Battle of Coruscant seem to speak to massive destuction being par for the course.

BTW, the Corellian Treaty is not ridiculous inclusionism, it has existed since the Rebel Source Book. I equally find the characterization of it in Force Unleashed to be absurd, but the older details are all that are needed to prove official Alderaanian involvment in rebellion.

[AniThyng]

"VADER: Alderaan is one of the foremost of the inner systems. The Emperor should be consulted.

TARKIN: Do not think to challenge me! You're not confronting Tagge or Motti now! The Emperor has placed me in charge of this affair with a free hand, and the decision is mine! And you will have your information that much sooner. "

Alderaan (and Corellia and Chandrillia) IS a Core world, so clearly not everyone thinks the Empire is within the norms.

Why is the entire galaxy not in an inflamed uproar if the actions of the Empire are indeed consideres so outside the norm?

I'm sure the fact that the Empire has just shown that it will blow a core world up has something to do with that.


Granted, this is an interesting debate, because everything used to defend the Galactic Empire can be just as easily used to defend any arbitrary ruthless regime on Earth, especially say, China or the former USSR because they had enough power and influence not to be pariah states, unlike say, Serbia or NK.

[Patroklos]

Alderaan (and Corellia and Chandrillia) IS a Core world, so clearly not everyone thinks the Empire is within the norms.

Yes, as I and others have said many times. There is no denying, however, that Palpantine was by and large considered a benevolant leader. People attribute this to lots of things; the force, downplaying the happening in the outer rim, most of the galaxy not caring about the outer rim anyway, actually providing for what most of the great powers want anyway, the restoration of effective government, various mechanizations of the Imperial conspiracy flavor of the week, and freely spending on charity have all been forwarded. But the fact reamains that for the most part the Empire was at peace and content with what was happening.

I'm sure the fact that the Empire has just shown that it will blow a core world up has something to do with that.

We are primarily talking about what has happening before the ANH. I agree, as a personal opinion, that destroying Alderaan was not the best course of action regardless of whether or not it was a legitimate target.

[Bounty]

Retarded or not, it is in the EU. It is in fact from the orignal Rebel Source Book so it is very well established EU. However, if we are going to go down the line of "I can just disregard whatever I want" then whats the point of a tick for tac discussion?

When in direct conflict, the original movies trump any evidence from a poorly-written videogame.

In ANH, Alderaan has a seat on the Senate it is supposedly at war with. Leia and the Tantive's captain were both expecting Vader to treat the crew with the diplomatic immunity they were entitled to. And more damningly, Leia fully expected the Senate - which, again, her planet supposedly declared war on - to be outraged by her capture.

When we then get to Alderaan, at no point does anyone mention it as a planet the Empire is at war with, even when the justification for its destruction is called into question. Indeed, when Tarkin breaks his word and decides to blow up Alderaan anyway, his one reason for continuing the attack is that it's a "demonstration" of the station's firepower, not an attack against a planet he is at war with!

Going by the highest canon there is no way you can claim Alderaan declared war on anything. The worst it can be accused of - and even the Imperials seem to agree with this - is that it has covert ties to the rebellion. End of story.

[Simon_Jester]

Why do you feel the need to defend a ridiculous plot point that is tied up in incredible stupidity? In addition, many people give arguments of necessity rather than morality when it comes to Dresden and Hiroshima, and I, personally consider Alderaan, like Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, to be a hideous act of mass murder that could be justified on grounds of necessity. But none of you have argued that, instead going for the moral grounds.

I do not think Alderaan can be justified on grounds of necessity, because I do not think the Empire has established that it has a right to prosecute a war rather than, say, ceding substantial power back to the Senate and in effect surrendering.

After all, there are always two ways to end a war: surrender and victory. If surrender will cause far less bloodshed than victory, you can't justify killing huge numbers of people to get victory with less death, because you've already skipped over the option that causes the least death.

"I killed people because I had to in order to win the war" is not a moral defense unless you can show that from a moral standpoint you had to win the war. Cases where the consequences of losing are less bad than those of winning don't qualify.

To be honest, I consider Hiroshima and Nagasaki to be borderline cases, where it can plausibly be suspected but not proven that the Allies could not secure lasting peace without resorting to demonstration nuclear strikes. Dresden was way over the line, an unnecessary evil, because Germany was already in the terminal stages of collapse. Destroying another city accomplished nothing worth destroying a city for.

========

You would of course be wrong. I am noticing a trend here. I point out actual facts from the universe in question and then you guys deny them becasue they don't agree with your "absolutist" or whatever other personal beliefs you hold.

Since you fail to distinguish between facts and philosophical arguments, and use one where the other is called for on a regular basis,

For instance, fuhrerprinzip (or, if you prefer, the "New Order" theory of legality and leadership) is a philosophical concept, not a fact. It is not objectively true in the sense that, say, the law of conservation of energy is true. And yet your basis for claiming that the Empire's actions are justified depends heavily on fuhrerprinzip- on the idea that anything which is legal is both acceptable and right. That legality can be determined by whoever happens to hold the power to enforce their own laws. That all this is not merely acceptable but desirable, for the sake of establishing a powerful State. And that whoever opposes this central heroic source of law is wrong, and therefore deserves whatever they get.

Without fuhrerprinzip, your entire interpretation of events in Star Wars falls apart... and yet fuhrerprinzip is a largely discredited ideology these days. The one time it was tried in real life, in a government whose structure approximates that of the Star Wars Empire more closely than any other, it was a disastrous failure that left its country in ruins, after committing atrocities on a scale that would shock the conscience of Ghengis Khan.

And that too, is a fact: that fuhrerprinzip doesn't work well enough to be used as a premise for arguments in political theory or to justify war crimes.
________

I'll give you an example. A lot of you here continually wax on and on about legitimate government and what you think that should mena in the SWs galaxy. Dispite the fact that Senate elevated Palapantine to Emperor of its own free will you denounce the Empire because it is a Monarchy while at the same time whitewashing the fact that one of the three founders of the Alliance, Alderaan, is itself a nepotistic hereditary monarchy.

Oh no. I denounce the Empire not because it is a monarchy, but because it is an unaccountable monarchy. There is no way to impeach Palpatine or remove him from office if he goes mad, for instance. I also denounce the Empire because the monarchy is plotting to overthrow the body that gave it its power in the first place. While the Senate may have delegated the powers of an emperor to Palpatine, it surely did NOT grant him the power to destroy itself. Not legally, at any rate.

So even in a context where Palpatine's powers as Emperor are considered lawful, his actions in Episode IV go beyond the bounds of those powers when he plots to overthrow the Senate and set up a military dictatorship in its place.