"There goes another one" - EP IV question

[bz249]

Leia and the Tantive's captain were both expecting Vader to treat the crew with the diplomatic immunity they were entitled to.

They lost their diplomatic immunity when they received the plans of the Death Star, because they acted like a combatant*, thus should be treated like a combattant. PoW status and fair trial (although not an open one, because there are sensible government information involved in their case).

*if the Empire has similar naval laws as we have. In our laws a hospital ship is not a legitimate target, however if the said hospital ship opens fire on anyone, transport war materials or gather intelligence...etc it loose the status of being a hospital ship and become a perfectly legitimate target.

[bz249]

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.

Such things can happen legally, the Ermächtigunsgesetz was a perfectly legal action, it used the weakness of the German Constitution of the Weimar Republic time, but it was possible under that legal framework

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933

In the current German Constitution they covered those gaps and there are explicitely stated unchangable paragraphs there, so such act would not be legally possible nowadays. Having such weakness in the legal system of a civilization with millenia long tradition while unlikely, it is not impossible.

[Patroklos]

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

Frist of all, the Correllian Treaty is sourced from the Rebel Source Book, the video game just uses it in its plot.

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.

Alderaan was in openly at war with the Empire within the Corellian treaty, ie not an individual power operating on their own. They declared there intentions to the bigger rebellion, as a matter of state policy, nobody said they informed the Empire of this.

The Empire knowing something and them deciding to make that public knowledge is two very different things. It is not very hard for one to think of very good political reasons to hold that knowledge for for a later date, the least of which is to wait for your new super weapon to be online so you can extinguish disent in one fell swoop instead of declaring it out in the open and letting is spread. Take your pick, Palpantine is not exactly an amatuer as far as convuluted political intrigue goes.

This is really not unique. How may Afghan warlords to you imagine we know are helping the Taliban but which it is politically or strategically expedient to allow to operate anyway for any number of reasons?

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!

Yet they did pick that planet as a demonstration, didn't they? From what you know of Leia would the threat have been any less effective it it had been any other world with multiple billion beings living there?

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.

Did anyone claim that it had overty delcared war against the Empire, or that it had simple decided to wage war against the Empire and the Empire knew about it?

There is nothing you can do about this. The treaty is canon and that is that.

[Patroklos]

You know what, even better, how many times did the USSR and US involve itself in third party conflicts directly as a matter of legitmate policy but not publically declare such involvement?

Hell, many nations do this now and not just the biggest power. Has the US decided to invade Iran for their official yet unacknowledged but still universally known material support to Iraqi insurgents?

[Bakustra]

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.

I was unaware that killing civilians indiscriminately is considered acceptable in wartime.

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.

The destruction of Alderaan increased general support for the Rebel Alliance, and convinced a number of worlds to begin covertly supporting the Rebels. You were saying? Also, you assume, 1) that Alderaan's monarchy is absolutist rather than constitutional, 2) that morality is determined by popular opinion, 3) that monarchies are inherently immoral, and 4) that the Galactic Empire was a monarchist state. Justify these statements, especially in light of the lack of any rules of succession to the throne of Galactic Emperor.

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.

The events detailed in The Force Unleashed show that the Death Star was complete when the Corellian Treaty was signed. You were saying?

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?

Most of the real world doesn't have a problem with constitutional monarchies. Many people have no problem with benevolent despots in principle either. You also ignore that the house of Organa didn't always retain the Senate seat of Alderaan, undermining your big example. In addition, why is morality determined by popular vote?

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?

The destruction of Alderaan actually increased general support for the Rebellion, so, no, people didn't ignore it, or claim that Alderaan deserved what it got.

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.

The relevance of this quote is that Alderaan wasn't considered a valid target under the rules of war, in Tarkin's view. Now who's implanting their own view of the laws of war on Star Wars?

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.

The involvement of members of the Alderaanian government in treason doesn't mean the entire government is involved, nor does the population bear the responsibility as well. Or would you like to claim that the existence of the 15 July plot against Hitler means that the entire German government, as well as the German people, could be considered to have betrayed Hitler?

Normal planetary conquests include the battles of Muunilist, Cato Neimoidia, Kashyyyk, and Mygeeto in the Clone Wars, all of which are notable for the lack of indiscriminate bombardment, slaughter of civilians, or leaving the planet a "burned-out" wasteland. Even the Empire, when setting out to be brutal in its invasion of Derilyn, merely conducted a limited bombardment of one of the cities, which still left behind habitable, if irradiated, ruins. Grievous' massive use of biological warfare and his slagging of Humbarine are considered atrocities in-universe, as was the BDZ of Caamas. Even deliberate, excessive punishments such as Gholondreine-beta and Toprawa still apparently left the planets habitable, if miserable to live on. How does Coruscant demonstrate massive planetary destruction? You'd have a better case with the accidental devastation of Honoghr.

Finally, the older version stated that it unified resistance groups. Now prove that the entire population of Alderaan, or a significant amount, were members of resistance groups. Of course, you are right that, in-universe, we have no clear statements on whether surrender is ever considered or not. It's quite possible that nobody in Star Wars has ever heard of the possibility, or considered its value. It's not like the captain of the Tantive IV shut down his main reactor and let the Empire board rather than risk destruction, no sir.

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.

Alderaan was in openly at war with the Empire within the Corellian treaty, ie not an individual power operating on their own. They declared there intentions to the bigger rebellion, as a matter of state policy, nobody said they informed the Empire of this.

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.

Did anyone claim that it had overty delcared war against the Empire, or that it had simple decided to wage war against the Empire and the Empire knew about it?

I see you've decided to continue insisting the the Alderaanian people and government joined the Rebellion openly and declared war, rather than Alderaanian resistance movements joining with Corellian and Chandrilan ones and pledging to support one another, which is the version presented in the Rebel Alliance Sourcebook, rather than the version from a source which has questionable accuracy. (TFU).

[Bounty]

Did anyone claim that it had overty delcared war against the Empire, or that it had simple decided to wage war against the Empire and the Empire knew about it?

What do you think a declaration of war is? Do you have any proof of this... shadow war that is apparently on-going between Alderaan and the Emperor behind the Senate's back? Any proof at all?

[Bakustra]

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

Frist of all, the Correllian Treaty is sourced from the Rebel Source Book, the video game just uses it in its plot.

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.

Alderaan was in openly at war with the Empire within the Corellian treaty, ie not an individual power operating on their own. They declared there intentions to the bigger rebellion, as a matter of state policy, nobody said they informed the Empire of this.

The Empire knowing something and them deciding to make that public knowledge is two very different things. It is not very hard for one to think of very good political reasons to hold that knowledge for for a later date, the least of which is to wait for your new super weapon to be online so you can extinguish disent in one fell swoop instead of declaring it out in the open and letting is spread. Take your pick, Palpantine is not exactly an amatuer as far as convuluted political intrigue goes.

This is really not unique. How may Afghan warlords to you imagine we know are helping the Taliban but which it is politically or strategically expedient to allow to operate anyway for any number of reasons?

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!

Yet they did pick that planet as a demonstration, didn't they? From what you know of Leia would the threat have been any less effective it it had been any other world with multiple billion beings living there?

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.

Did anyone claim that it had overty delcared war against the Empire, or that it had simple decided to wage war against the Empire and the Empire knew about it?

There is nothing you can do about this. The treaty is canon and that is that.

Why is your interpretation any better or more consistent than, say, mine, or anybody else'?

You know what, even better, how many times did the USSR and US involve itself in third party conflicts directly as a matter of legitmate policy but not publically declare such involvement?

Hell, many nations do this now and not just the biggest power. Has the US decided to invade Iran for their official yet unacknowledged but still universally known material support to Iraqi insurgents?

You know, those interventions were generally kept secret, because they were of dubious legality and would have discredited the nations involved. Furthermore, prove Iran is supporting insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[Bakustra]

Did anyone claim that it had overty delcared war against the Empire, or that it had simple decided to wage war against the Empire and the Empire knew about it?

What do you think a declaration of war is? Do you have any proof of this... shadow war that is apparently on-going between Alderaan and the Emperor behind the Senate's back? Any proof at all?

He's also misinterpreting the Corellian Treaty. It didn't involve Alderaan as a state at any point, only concerning itself with the resistance movement on Alderaan. He claims that Alderaan was involved because Bail Organa led the resistance movement, but if, say, the King of Denmark had led the Danish Resistance in WWII, does that mean that occupied Denmark was somehow still at war with the Nazis? Furthermore, the treaty was not a declaration of hostilities, that came later, in the imaginatively named Declaration of Rebellion, which lacked Organa and Bel Iblis' signatures, and may have been anonymous. Still, par for the course for apologists.

[Patroklos]

I was unaware that killing civilians indiscriminately is considered acceptable in wartime.

Thats good that you are unaware of that, as nobody in this thread at any point in time said any such thing. Rather it was pointed out to you that in the pursuit of legitimate targets babies, sometimes many hundreds of them, have been killed and nobody considers that a war crime. So again, the mere fact that babies have been killed does not in and of itself constitute a war crime.

The destruction of Alderaan increased general support for the Rebel Alliance, and convinced a number of worlds to begin covertly supporting the Rebels. You were saying?

It certainly did. I see you have actually used in universe reality to justify your assumptions of wha the morals of that universe are. However, we also watched the NR pretty much raze Coruscant to the ground via multiple invasions and defenses of the plant which was most certainly more destuctive than anything that existed on Alderaan, so apparenty long extremely destuctive planetary conquests are not unheard of.

1) that Alderaan's monarchy is absolutist rather than constitutional

I made no such assumption. I clearly stated that it is hereditary and that besides being the head of state specifically above the ruling councel, it also presides over the legeslature and the high court.

And the name of the leader is unimportant, depending on whether the heir is female or male the name of the ruler will change despite the fact that hereditary chain has remained unbroken.

2) that morality is determined by popular opinion,

Moral concepts, not at all. Which moral concepts are the accepted ones for the society in question, well pulic opinion is the only metric of determination.

3) that monarchies are inherently immoral

Not my debate, I am not the one saying the Empire illegitimate because it is a unrepresentative monarchy.

4) that the Galactic Empire was a monarchist state.

Seriously, you want proof that the Empire is a monarchist state? You understand that he is an all powerful emperor, correct?

Justify these statements, especially in light of the lack of any rules of succession to the throne of Galactic Emperor.

Why do you imagine the existance of rules of succession matter at all to any of those questions?

The events detailed in The Force Unleashed show that the Death Star was complete when the Corellian Treaty was signed. You were saying?

You appear to think you made a point here, but you did not.

Most of the real world doesn't have a problem with constitutional monarchies. Many people have no problem with benevolent despots in principle either. You also ignore that the house of Organa didn't always retain the Senate seat of Alderaan, undermining your big example. In addition, why is morality determined by popular vote?

Except we aren't seeing constitutional monarchies are we? Yeah, those dictators have such a great reputation here in the real world?!?!

And why does it matter who holds Alderaan's Senate seat, it has nothing to do with who is in charge of Alderaan, their hereditary monarch.

The relevance of this quote is that Alderaan wasn't considered a valid target under the rules of war, in Tarkin's view. Now who's implanting their own view of the laws of war on Star Wars?

Thats a great bit of fiction you just made up. All Tarkin said is that it wasn't a military target. And he is right, there were no ships or armies there. It was however, the bankroll of the Rebellion and is thus a strategic economic target.

The involvement of members of the Alderaanian government in treason doesn't mean the entire government is involved, nor does the population bear the responsibility as well.

Really, so why were we strategically bombing all those innocent German civilians in WWII?

Or would you like to claim that the existence of the 15 July plot against Hitler means that the entire German government, as well as the German people, could be considered to have betrayed Hitler?

You would have a point if Bail Organa and Mon Mothma were not in fact the head of their respective governments. Were any of those in the July 15 plot the head of their government?

Normal planetary conquests include the battles of Muunilist, Cato Neimoidia, Kashyyyk, and Mygeeto in the Clone Wars, all of which are notable for the lack of indiscriminate bombardment, slaughter of civilians, or leaving the planet a "burned-out" wasteland.

And there were plenty of German towns and cities that were not burned to the ground either, but then again there were many that were.

Even the Empire, when setting out to be brutal in its invasion of Derilyn, merely conducted a limited bombardment of one of the cities, which still left behind habitable, if irradiated, ruins. Grievous' massive use of biological warfare and his slagging of Humbarine are considered atrocities in-universe, as was the BDZ of Caamas. Even deliberate, excessive punishments such as Gholondreine-beta and Toprawa still apparently left the planets habitable, if miserable to live on.

Just because some planetary conquests were did not leave planets as devestated cinders does not mean others didn't.

How does Coruscant demonstrate massive planetary destruction? You'd have a better case with the accidental devastation of Honoghr.

Because the successive invasions from both sides left the planet utterly devestated.

Finally, the older version stated that it unified resistance groups. Now prove that the entire population of Alderaan, or a significant amount, were members of resistance groups. Of course, you are right that, in-universe, we have no clear statements on whether surrender is ever considered or not. It's quite possible that nobody in Star Wars has ever heard of the possibility, or considered its value. It's not like the captain of the Tantive IV shut down his main reactor and let the Empire board rather than risk destruction, no sir.

Again, this "not every citizen was asked" tripe is BS and is just an illustration of the fact that can't accept that the head of the Alderaanian government officially declared Alderaan as a member of the Alliance.

[Richelieu]

Why do you feel the need to defend a ridiculous plot point that is tied up in incredible stupidity?

At war, yes, they would have left, so we can probably rule out the third possibility. Openly rebelling while staying within the Senate is totally possible. They were not against the Senate, they were trying to reform the Republic. Leaving it would certainly be counterproductive to that goal. On the other hand, you make a good point: the Emperor would have the power to expel senators and would have done that if they had openly claimed to support the Rebellion.

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.

We could argue it if Alderaan was established to be a rebel state, and thus an acceptable target. If it was just a normal planet with their head of state committing treason on the side, there would be no moral gray area with this attack. Hence the necessity to know what's the position of Alderaan is before even arguing about it.

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.

Thank you for the link. I'll go and read that.

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.

Sorry, I meant the Trade Federation. They were blockading and invading another part of the Republic (so they were effectively at war with the Republic) and I remember Amidala complaining that Viceroy Gunray still had a senatorial seat long after that. The Rebels are not secessionist, they want to restore the republic. Hence leaving the senate, the last remnant of the Republic, on their own accord would seem odd.

I agree it's not compatible with posting a war declaration on the Senate's desk, but openly approving the rebellion could.

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.

The Senate would certainly initiate a motion to remove the pro-rebellion senators. It could easily take a long time before they can actually expel. I was going by the quote in the second trilogy, but you're right Palpy certainly gained extraordinary powers to remove senators in the meantime.

[Bakustra]

I was unaware that killing civilians indiscriminately is considered acceptable in wartime.

Thats good that you are unaware of that, as nobody in this thread at any point in time said any such thing. Rather it was pointed out to you that in the pursuit of legitimate targets babies, sometimes many hundreds of them, have been killed and nobody considers that a war crime. So again, the mere fact that babies have been killed does not in and of itself constitute a war crime.

Prove Alderaan was a legitimate target, using solely in-universe understanding of the rules of war. For that matter, being considered unacceptable in wartime doesn't mean that the action is a war crime. Furthermore, are you saying that there was nothing immoral about the Dresden firebombing?

The destruction of Alderaan increased general support for the Rebel Alliance, and convinced a number of worlds to begin covertly supporting the Rebels. You were saying?

It certainly did. I see you have actually used in universe reality to justify your assumptions of wha the morals of that universe are. However, we also watched the NR pretty much raze Coruscant to the ground via multiple invasions and defenses of the plant which was most certainly more destuctive than anything that existed on Alderaan, so apparenty long extremely destuctive planetary conquests are not unheard of.

Outright lies. The New Republic captured the planet intact. The only questionable action is the taking of the Imperial Palace, which is completely acceptable under your view of the laws of war. It was the Imperial reconquest and civil war which led to the devastation seen in Dark Empire.

1) that Alderaan's monarchy is absolutist rather than constitutional

I made no such assumption. I clearly stated that it is hereditary and that besides being the head of state specifically above the ruling councel, it also presides over the legeslature and the high court.

And the name of the leader is unimportant, depending on whether the heir is female or male the name of the ruler will change despite the fact that hereditary chain has remained unbroken.

2) that morality is determined by popular opinion,

Moral concepts, not at all. Which moral concepts are the accepted ones for the society in question, well pulic opinion is the only metric of determination.

3) that monarchies are inherently immoral

Not my debate, I am not the one saying the Empire illegitimate because it is a unrepresentative monarchy.

4) that the Galactic Empire was a monarchist state.

Seriously, you want proof that the Empire is a monarchist state? You understand that he is an all powerful emperor, correct?

Justify these statements, especially in light of the lack of any rules of succession to the throne of Galactic Emperor.

Why do you imagine the existance of rules of succession matter at all to any of those questions?

Yes, I want proof that "all-powerful emperor" is naturally a condition of monarchies. The existence of rules of succession are absolutely essential to any form of government that is not merely despotism. Palpatine lacked them, thereby making him not a monarch, but a despot.

The events detailed in The Force Unleashed show that the Death Star was complete when the Corellian Treaty was signed. You were saying?

You appear to think you made a point here, but you did not.

This is in response to your nitwit assertion that the Emperor was waiting for two years for the Death Star to be completed in order to strike against the Rebels when, according to TFU, the Death Star was fully operational by that point. So either TFU is untrustworthy, and with it your claim that Alderaan, as a planet, declared war on the Empire.

Most of the real world doesn't have a problem with constitutional monarchies. Many people have no problem with benevolent despots in principle either. You also ignore that the house of Organa didn't always retain the Senate seat of Alderaan, undermining your big example. In addition, why is morality determined by popular vote?

Except we aren't seeing constitutional monarchies are we? Yeah, those dictators have such a great reputation here in the real world?!?!

And why does it matter who holds Alderaan's Senate seat, it has nothing to do with who is in charge of Alderaan, their hereditary monarch.

Psst! Most dictators don't count as benevolent despots! The holder of the seat matters because that means that the actual representation of Alderaan to the Senate isn't a member of the royal family necessarily, suggesting popular elections.

The relevance of this quote is that Alderaan wasn't considered a valid target under the rules of war, in Tarkin's view. Now who's implanting their own view of the laws of war on Star Wars?

Thats a great bit of fiction you just made up. All Tarkin said is that it wasn't a military target. And he is right, there were no ships or armies there. It was however, the bankroll of the Rebellion and is thus a strategic economic target.

Prove it. Prove that under the internal laws of war within the Star Wars universe that economic targets are considered generally acceptable.

The involvement of members of the Alderaanian government in treason doesn't mean the entire government is involved, nor does the population bear the responsibility as well.

Really, so why were we strategically bombing all those innocent German civilians in WWII?

The two situations aren't comparable. Prove that Alderaan is conflatable with the resistance movements associated with the planet. Further, prove that terror bombing is moral.

Or would you like to claim that the existence of the 15 July plot against Hitler means that the entire German government, as well as the German people, could be considered to have betrayed Hitler?

You would have a point if Bail Organa and Mon Mothma were not in fact the head of their respective governments. Were any of those in the July 15 plot the head of their government?

Okay, let's use the American Civil War, since that fits better with the structure of the Republic/Empire. Does the existence of pro-secession members of Northern state legislatures prove that the entire populations of those states, or even the entire legislatures, could have been considered traitors and valid targets of war? Did people within seceded states lose all civil rights and immediately were considered targets.

Normal planetary conquests include the battles of Muunilist, Cato Neimoidia, Kashyyyk, and Mygeeto in the Clone Wars, all of which are notable for the lack of indiscriminate bombardment, slaughter of civilians, or leaving the planet a "burned-out" wasteland.

And there were plenty of German towns and cities that were not burned to the ground either, but then again there were many that were.

Provide evidence of planetary invasions that killed the majority of people on the planet in the Clone Wars.

Even the Empire, when setting out to be brutal in its invasion of Derilyn, merely conducted a limited bombardment of one of the cities, which still left behind habitable, if irradiated, ruins. Grievous' massive use of biological warfare and his slagging of Humbarine are considered atrocities in-universe, as was the BDZ of Caamas. Even deliberate, excessive punishments such as Gholondreine-beta and Toprawa still apparently left the planets habitable, if miserable to live on.

Just because some planetary conquests were did not leave planets as devestated cinders does not mean others didn't.

Provide evidence for Base-Delta-Zero levels of firepower being used consistently in the invasions of inhabited planets.

How does Coruscant demonstrate massive planetary destruction? You'd have a better case with the accidental devastation of Honoghr.

Because the successive invasions from both sides left the planet utterly devestated.

I thought you were talking about the ROTS battle. See above.

Finally, the older version stated that it unified resistance groups. Now prove that the entire population of Alderaan, or a significant amount, were members of resistance groups. Of course, you are right that, in-universe, we have no clear statements on whether surrender is ever considered or not. It's quite possible that nobody in Star Wars has ever heard of the possibility, or considered its value. It's not like the captain of the Tantive IV shut down his main reactor and let the Empire board rather than risk destruction, no sir.

Again, this "not every citizen was asked" tripe is BS and is just an illustration of the fact that can't accept that the head of the Alderaanian government officially declared Alderaan as a member of the Alliance.

No, he declared that the Corellian, Chandrilan and Alderaanian resistance movements would support each other, and accepted the provisional government under Mothma. Of course, you are a) ignoring the idea of demanding surrender and b) treating counterinsurgency actions as being functionally equivalent to a war against a nation-state.

[Bakustra]

Why do you feel the need to defend a ridiculous plot point that is tied up in incredible stupidity?

At war, yes, they would have left, so we can probably rule out the third possibility. Openly rebelling while staying within the Senate is totally possible. They were not against the Senate, they were trying to reform the Republic. Leaving it would certainly be counterproductive to that goal. On the other hand, you make a good point: the Emperor would have the power to expel senators and would have done that if they had openly claimed to support the Rebellion.

Thank you.

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.

We could argue it if Alderaan was established to be a rebel state, and thus an acceptable target. If it was just a normal planet with their head of state committing treason on the side, there would be no moral gray area with this attack. Hence the necessity to know what's the position of Alderaan is before even arguing about it.

What we have on the matter suggests that Alderaan was illegally providing materiel to the Rebels, but this still doesn't suggest that the average citizen was aware of the actions of the government.

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.

Sorry, I meant the Trade Federation. They were blockading and invading another part of the Republic (so they were effectively at war with the Republic) and I remember Amidala complaining that Viceroy Gunray still had a senatorial seat long after that. The Rebels are not secessionist, they want to restore the republic. Hence leaving the senate, the last remnant of the Republic, on their own accord would seem odd.

I agree it's not compatible with posting a war declaration on the Senate's desk, but openly approving the rebellion could.

1. The blockade of Naboo was legal, but the invasion was not. Gunray protests that the blockade is perfectly legal, but, as reaction to Palpatine's speech shows, invasion itself is beyond the pale. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the Republic can kick members out. The Trade Federation would remain regardless of the penalties they paid, if they have sufficient planets to warrant Senate representation.
2.Patroklos is (apparently) arguing that they were secessionist, as to declare war on a nation you're a member of seems... difficult.

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.

The Senate would certainly initiate a motion to remove the pro-rebellion senators. It could easily take a long time before they can actually expel. I was going by the quote in the second trilogy, but you're right Palpy certainly gained extraordinary powers to remove senators in the meantime.

Ahh, but you are presuming that the Senate is as ineffective as it was 33 years previously, after they had just been through a massive war from members of the Republic declaring themselves independent and declaring war on the Republic.

[Simon_Jester]

Bakustra, Richelieu, I would be interested to hear any comments you might have on my previous post. Or at least the parts NOT addressed to Patroklos, since most of that stuff is trivial-level analysis, not the deep interesting material.

Such things can happen legally, the Ermächtigunsgesetz was a perfectly legal action, it used the weakness of the German Constitution of the Weimar Republic time, but it was possible under that legal framework...In the current German Constitution they covered those gaps and there are explicitely stated unchangable paragraphs there, so such act would not be legally possible nowadays. Having such weakness in the legal system of a civilization with millenia long tradition while unlikely, it is not impossible.

True. But since we have no reason to expect that one of the powers the Senate handed to Palpatine was 'the power to disband the Senate,' and since we have considerable reasons to expect that they either would not or could not do so, given that they were formerly a constitutional republic...

I think my point still stands, at least as a point if not an irrefutable argument. Palpatine was almost certainly acting outside the power delegated to him by the Senate when he acted to disband the Senate and replace it with a military dictatorship. Thus, if the rebels are traitors for seeking to overthrow the Emperor and replace him with the Senate (who created the Emperor in the first place, and are thus 'senior' to him), the Emperor is doubly a traitor for seeking to usurp the remaining power of the Senate and rule in its place.

==========

I was unaware that killing civilians indiscriminately is considered acceptable in wartime.

Thats good that you are unaware of that, as nobody in this thread at any point in time said any such thing. Rather it was pointed out to you that in the pursuit of legitimate targets babies, sometimes many hundreds of them, have been killed and nobody considers that a war crime. So again, the mere fact that babies have been killed does not in and of itself constitute a war crime.

Fine, but context matters, as does the degree of effort the killer puts into avoiding the killing of babies. In this case, the context and degree of effort do not give the Imperials enough of a fig leaf to justify their actions. "Oh, well, those babies were on the same planet as some people we suspected of supporting our enemies and we couldn't be bothered to call on the planetary government to surrender because it was too important to shock Princess Leia" doesn't cut it.

4) that the Galactic Empire was a monarchist state.

Seriously, you want proof that the Empire is a monarchist state? You understand that he is an all powerful emperor, correct?

Justify these statements, especially in light of the lack of any rules of succession to the throne of Galactic Emperor.

Why do you imagine the existance of rules of succession matter at all to any of those questions?

I find your lack of political sophistication disturbing. Not all dictatorships are monarchies, and not all monarchs are all-powerful.

The key feature of a monarchy is that, at least in principle, there is a dynasty- some provision by which a series of autocratic rulers can rule one after the other, which automatically confers legitimacy on the heir to the throne. The monarch may be allowed to choose their own heirs by adoption, or the crown may automatically pass to their descendants, but there has to be some mechanism for peaceful transfers of power, generally one that involves family (adopted or natural-born).

Moreover, most (though not all) monarchies place limits on the power of the throne, by custom or law. The monarch has obligations to their subjects that they cannot ignore. While there have been a few absolute monarchs who claimed that this was not true, and that they could ignore their obligations at will, most of them were short-lived. It is far more common for a dictator to claim absolute power by force than for a monarch to claim it by invoking a dynasty or "divine right."

Now, there is nothing like that in the Galactic Empire. Palpatine does not have an heir (in the EU, it is revealed that this is because he plans to live forever). And there are no limits on Palpatine's power. Therefore, Palpatine's Empire is much less like a classical monarchy than it is like a classical dictatorship (despotism, tyranny, etc.)

[Richelieu]

I was unaware that killing civilians indiscriminately is considered acceptable in wartime.

Our own Geneva conventions states that you should take all necessary steps to prevent damage to civilian populations and civilian buildings, and if you must choose between targets of equal importance for the course of the war, you should choose whichever poses the less threat to civilian populations. If you rationalize that by saying that conventional invasion of the planets to purge the rebellion and the subsequent city warfare happening in thousands of world would be more harmful to civilian population due to the unevitable collateral damages city warfare do, especially when your troops have to overcome shields which make it a necessity to use high-energy weapons, then you'd be allowed to nuke Alderaan, killing billions of civilians to spare tens of billions. It's the reasoning behind the nuking of Japan. If it was done with the intent of shortening the war and lessening overall casualties compared to a full-blown invasion, then it might be ethical as well.

I am not saying avoiding civilian casualties was a big part of Tarkin's intent of course. But it might very well be within his intent to avoid spilling unnecessary blood: in a civil war, people you kill today won't pay taxes tomorrow. So he might be seriously thinking he has a brilliant plan and nuking Alderaan will avoid a more bloody conflict. He was wrong if it was the case.

In addition, why is morality determined by popular vote?

Our morality, we can discuss it without a problem. If we want to undersand the code of conduct of people within the Galactic Empire, then observing the behaviour of the majority seems to be sane. I am not the original poster of the quote you're answering, but I guess there's is nothing wrong with his approach if he wants to discuss the morality of citizens/subjects of the Galactic Empire. How can we guess what was the morality of 13th century knights without looking at how they behave and what they generally found acceptable? Of course, in the case of the Empire, we could very well conclude that their code of conduct is totally abhorrent to us and they are a large group of jerks. It woudn't invalidate their ethic code, just make it totally different from ours.

The destruction of Alderaan actually increased general support for the Rebellion, so, no, people didn't ignore it, or claim that Alderaan deserved what it got.

Which makes Tarkin an idiot if he really planned the destruction of Alderaan as a way to keep other worlds in reign. He was either trying to diminish the risk of rebellion and failing at it, or he was just a cackling evil guy destroying a planet to spite Leia.

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.

The relevance of this quote is that Alderaan wasn't considered a valid target under the rules of war, in Tarkin's view. Now who's implanting their own view of the laws of war on Star Wars?

Are Tarkin's law of war hinted at somewhere? I can see how "not being a military target" could not automatically mean "not a target under the rules of war". Imagine the morality of the Empire was "in a war, all actions are justified provided they hamper the actions of the ennemy". It would be moral, from the Empire's point of view, to attack a civilian target providing an industrial base and a financing base for the war effort. It would certainly not be moral to most of us, who think in a war, utmost effort should be made to protect civilians and attack only military targets.

To answer another post here (sorry I can't find the relevant quote) who said that if we define morality as the morality of a particular person in the universe, everyone is a good guy, except perhaps Vader and Palpatine who know better, I'd say it's not exactly how I define morality. Morality is the code of conduct of a society, not a single individual. And an individual knows when he's stepping outside the ethical norms of his society. I mean, people steals, and, even if some of them certainly rationalize stealing (I had nothing to eat, so I stole food [which is legal in our world, so it's not a good example], most of them just know they stole an ipod because they just wanted an ipod and they were "not nice" doing that. If I notice someone sitting next to me in the bus, getting up to leave and letting a large bill on his seat, coming obviously from his pocket, I would know I am not being ethical by waiting for him to leave and pocketing the money. I don't think people always think they are right, do they?

[Crazedwraith]

Our own Geneva conventions states that you should take all necessary steps to prevent damage to civilian populations and civilian buildings, and if you must choose between targets of equal importance for the course of the war, you should choose whichever poses the less threat to civilian populations. If you rationalize that by saying that conventional invasion of the planets to purge the rebellion and the subsequent city warfare happening in thousands of world would be more harmful to civilian population due to the unevitable collateral damages city warfare do, especially when your troops have to overcome shields which make it a necessity to use high-energy weapons, then you'd be allowed to nuke Alderaan, killing billions of civilians to spare tens of billions. It's the reasoning behind the nuking of Japan. If it was done with the intent of shortening the war and lessening overall casualties compared to a full-blown invasion, then it might be ethical as well.

I would like to point out that there's no way that using the Death Star to destroy Alderaan could result in less civilian causalities than a conventional bombardment and invasion. Less causalities total perhaps and taking causalities from both sides into account but certainly not civilian. As they were obviously completely wiped out in Alderaan's destruction.

[Bakustra]

Bakustra, Richelieu, I would be interested to hear any comments you might have on my previous post. Or at least the parts NOT addressed to Patroklos, since most of that stuff is trivial-level analysis, not the deep interesting material.

I think that Alderaan is justifiable if you have a ends-deserve-the-means philosophy, or it would be if it hadn't failed at suppressing pro-Rebel sentiment. But that isn't my personal philosophy. I must admit I was a little unclear; I was directing my statement more at the good cardinal and Patroklos. I'm certainly no moral philosopher, but I the only way I can think of that justifies Alderaan is if any action to suppress unrest is considered moral. However, that seems to be a purely ad-hoc philosophy, almost as though it were cooked up by a college student performing a brief thought experiment.

To be frank, the legitimacy of Palpatine's government depends on whether you're a legalist, in which case it is legitimate, or whether you aren't, in which case it lacks moral legitimacy. As for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I view them somewhat similarly, although I'm skepticla of just how effective they were. I agree on Dresden almost completely.

[Richelieu]

What we have on the matter suggests that Alderaan was illegally providing materiel to the Rebels, but this still doesn't suggest that the average citizen was aware of the actions of the government.

The general public is usually not aware of the most heinous acts its government commit, and they certainly suffer the consequences of the war caused by their governments' actions without clearly knowing why. I am pretty sure the citizen of Iraq didn't know their government was stockpiling WMD (let's suppose, for arguments' sake, that they were actually doing this), and they had to suffer the consequences of the military attack of Iraq anyway. I don't think we need to prove Alderaan's population was aware of their government's action to make its inclusion as a legitimate target acceptable. We need to prove that their government was doing traitorous activities as a government and not as private individual. That's, I think, the main point to establish to proceed.

However, there is no evidence to suggest that the Republic can kick members out. The Trade Federation would remain regardless of the penalties they paid, if they have sufficient planets to warrant Senate representation.

Indeed. In fact, I would even think there is no provision in the Republic to allow members to leave. I only saw the films, and I failed to see why the separatists didn't simply, well, secede, if all they wanted was to take their future in their own hands, and not conquer the Republic. But maybe the EU explains that in more details.

Ahh, but you are presuming that the Senate is as ineffective as it was 33 years previously, after they had just been through a massive war from members of the Republic declaring themselves independent and declaring war on the Republic.

Yes, I assumed that Palpatine had continued to make the Senate ineffective to keep justifying the transfer of more and more power to him, until he can just dissolve a senate noone really see as useful. But you're right he certainly didn't forget to increase his own regulating powers in the meantime. Having the ability to remove representative from the Senate seems extreme, but well within reason: when he removed the Senate, it's supposed just to be a symbolic assembly.

[Richelieu]

I would like to point out that there's no way that using the Death Star to destroy Alderaan could result in less civilian causalities than a conventional bombardment and invasion. Less causalities total perhaps and taking causalities from both sides into account but certainly not civilian. As they were obviously completely wiped out in Alderaan's destruction.

Sorry, I wasn't clear! I meant that one could say that killing everyone on Alderaan (population in the billions range) would cause less casualty than a regular invasion of 5,000 worlds each killing 10% of their billions-range population (through blockade of their planetary shields, which would lead to starvation of the more urbanized worlds before they surrender). Just an example of the line of thought that could make this act ethical, not saying it was Tarkin's intent to do so. His intent, at best, was certainly along "reducing his own casualties and limiting the time and effort to achieve his goals".

[Bakustra]

I was unaware that killing civilians indiscriminately is considered acceptable in wartime.

Our own Geneva conventions states that you should take all necessary steps to prevent damage to civilian populations and civilian buildings, and if you must choose between targets of equal importance for the course of the war, you should choose whichever poses the less threat to civilian populations. If you rationalize that by saying that conventional invasion of the planets to purge the rebellion and the subsequent city warfare happening in thousands of world would be more harmful to civilian population due to the unevitable collateral damages city warfare do, especially when your troops have to overcome shields which make it a necessity to use high-energy weapons, then you'd be allowed to nuke Alderaan, killing billions of civilians to spare tens of billions. It's the reasoning behind the nuking of Japan. If it was done with the intent of shortening the war and lessening overall casualties compared to a full-blown invasion, then it might be ethical as well.

I am not saying avoiding civilian casualties was a big part of Tarkin's intent of course. But it might very well be within his intent to avoid spilling unnecessary blood: in a civil war, people you kill today won't pay taxes tomorrow. So he might be seriously thinking he has a brilliant plan and nuking Alderaan will avoid a more bloody conflict. He was wrong if it was the case.

In addition, why is morality determined by popular vote?

Our morality, we can discuss it without a problem. If we want to undersand the code of conduct of people within the Galactic Empire, then observing the behaviour of the majority seems to be sane. I am not the original poster of the quote you're answering, but I guess there's is nothing wrong with his approach if he wants to discuss the morality of citizens/subjects of the Galactic Empire. How can we guess what was the morality of 13th century knights without looking at how they behave and what they generally found acceptable? Of course, in the case of the Empire, we could very well conclude that their code of conduct is totally abhorrent to us and they are a large group of jerks. It woudn't invalidate their ethic code, just make it totally different from ours.

The destruction of Alderaan actually increased general support for the Rebellion, so, no, people didn't ignore it, or claim that Alderaan deserved what it got.

Which makes Tarkin an idiot if he really planned the destruction of Alderaan as a way to keep other worlds in reign. He was either trying to diminish the risk of rebellion and failing at it, or he was just a cackling evil guy destroying a planet to spite Leia.

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.

The relevance of this quote is that Alderaan wasn't considered a valid target under the rules of war, in Tarkin's view. Now who's implanting their own view of the laws of war on Star Wars?

Are Tarkin's law of war hinted at somewhere? I can see how "not being a military target" could not automatically mean "not a target under the rules of war". Imagine the morality of the Empire was "in a war, all actions are justified provided they hamper the actions of the ennemy". It would be moral, from the Empire's point of view, to attack a civilian target providing an industrial base and a financing base for the war effort. It would certainly not be moral to most of us, who think in a war, utmost effort should be made to protect civilians and attack only military targets.

To answer another post here (sorry I can't find the relevant quote) who said that if we define morality as the morality of a particular person in the universe, everyone is a good guy, except perhaps Vader and Palpatine who know better, I'd say it's not exactly how I define morality. Morality is the code of conduct of a society, not a single individual. And an individual knows when he's stepping outside the ethical norms of his society. I mean, people steals, and, even if some of them certainly rationalize stealing (I had nothing to eat, so I stole food [which is legal in our world, so it's not a good example], most of them just know they stole an ipod because they just wanted an ipod and they were "not nice" doing that. If I notice someone sitting next to me in the bus, getting up to leave and letting a large bill on his seat, coming obviously from his pocket, I would know I am not being ethical by waiting for him to leave and pocketing the money. I don't think people always think they are right, do they?

My point is that no-one thinks of themselves as a villain (excepting possibly the Emperor and Vader). But I was a little hasty. Morality and ethics are distinct, mind, so morality is a consequence of the individual and ethics of the society. Let me amend the statement. Looking at the world through the morality of the individuals involved breaks down when you consider that Thrawn and Tarkin consider genocide acceptable, many people in SW are A-OK with slavery, the lack of droid rights within the galaxy at large, and so on. You can find a code of morality for any situation. Besides, I am unconvinced that there is the value in analyzing morality solely from in-universe perspectives that you and Patroklos grant the concept.

The point with the "laws of war" comment is that Patroklos' idea of "economic target, therefore valid" is one that is based on our own laws of war, which he has been trying to get everyone involved to ignore and focus entirely on the discernible laws within Star Wars.

[Bakustra]

What we have on the matter suggests that Alderaan was illegally providing materiel to the Rebels, but this still doesn't suggest that the average citizen was aware of the actions of the government.

The general public is usually not aware of the most heinous acts its government commit, and they certainly suffer the consequences of the war caused by their governments' actions without clearly knowing why. I am pretty sure the citizen of Iraq didn't know their government was stockpiling WMD (let's suppose, for arguments' sake, that they were actually doing this), and they had to suffer the consequences of the military attack of Iraq anyway. I don't think we need to prove Alderaan's population was aware of their government's action to make its inclusion as a legitimate target acceptable. We need to prove that their government was doing traitorous activities as a government and not as private individual. That's, I think, the main point to establish to proceed.

And that's the real bitch to prove, if you'll pardon my language. We have the chief of state complicit in the Rebellion, and an unknown number of the members of his government, but we have little idea of just how far things went. To a certain extent it's a matter of opinion too, as to whether Bail Organa can be separated from his status as the king when he is leading the resistance movement.

However, there is no evidence to suggest that the Republic can kick members out. The Trade Federation would remain regardless of the penalties they paid, if they have sufficient planets to warrant Senate representation.

Indeed. In fact, I would even think there is no provision in the Republic to allow members to leave. I only saw the films, and I failed to see why the separatists didn't simply, well, secede, if all they wanted was to take their future in their own hands, and not conquer the Republic. But maybe the EU explains that in more details.

Ahh, but you are presuming that the Senate is as ineffective as it was 33 years previously, after they had just been through a massive war from members of the Republic declaring themselves independent and declaring war on the Republic.

Yes, I assumed that Palpatine had continued to make the Senate ineffective to keep justifying the transfer of more and more power to him, until he can just dissolve a senate noone really see as useful. But you're right he certainly didn't forget to increase his own regulating powers in the meantime. Having the ability to remove representative from the Senate seems extreme, but well within reason: when he removed the Senate, it's supposed just to be a symbolic assembly.

The Separatists removed themselves from the Republic, so that would be legal, but it's doubtful that the Republic can just kick people out. Palpatine did have a large number of sycophants within the senate (having a supermajority in ROTS, which has no reason to go down after dissenting senators were arrested or removed), but it was powerful enough that he hid the existence of the Death Star from them, indicating they had the ability to stop it if necessary (through power of the purse if nothing else).

[Richelieu]

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.

I don't think you'll find anyone really asking themselves that question. When an ennemy appears, any society would put it down instead of really considering surrendering for the greater good. It might be the ethical thing to do, it might be the best way to avoid casualties, but it's not something that will be actually considered. Until Hitler's policy towards the Jews was widely known, it wasn't (AFAIK) considered a particularly evil leader (a ruthless one). He invaded Poland, and nobody expected Poland to surrender because it would certainly be the easiest way to protect civilians.

The Empire didn't start the war. By rebelling, the rebel did. They have to prove their rebellion was just to incarnate a just cause, which is not difficult since they are rebelling against the Empire, but I don't think the Empire, as the attacked party, has any need to justify resisting the rebellion.

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.

If I proclaimed myself Supreme Benevolent Leader of Earth and asked the leaders of the Western countries to surrender their power to me, it's nearly certain they would resist without considering the benefits of letting me rule and create a new era of enlightenment and prosperity without bloodshed. Can't say I blame them.

"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.

The Empire is the victim of the Rebellion. Defensive wars are always just, I guess, under our currently accepted theories on war.

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.

I think the ethicality comes from intent. We can't prove either way, but even if it was not the case and it can be demonstrated it was not the best course of action, if it was done with the intent of securing the peace at the least overall cost, it would be still be moral. "overall cost" introduces another problem, should any society takes into account equally the needs of people outside and inside the society.

[bz249]

I am not saying avoiding civilian casualties was a big part of Tarkin's intent of course. But it might very well be within his intent to avoid spilling unnecessary blood: in a civil war, people you kill today won't pay taxes tomorrow. So he might be seriously thinking he has a brilliant plan and nuking Alderaan will avoid a more bloody conflict. He was wrong if it was the case.

The destruction of Alderaan actually increased general support for the Rebellion, so, no, people didn't ignore it, or claim that Alderaan deserved what it got.

Which makes Tarkin an idiot if he really planned the destruction of Alderaan as a way to keep other worlds in reign. He was either trying to diminish the risk of rebellion and failing at it, or he was just a cackling evil guy destroying a planet to spite Leia.

Don't forget that the same Death Star which have blown up the Alderaan was destroyed in the battle of Yavin. So the psychological effect of an operational Death Star are unknown, judging from our history of WMD I think that would effectively suppress any meaningful rebellion. But after Yavin the Empire was in the worst possible condition: they demonstrated that they are willing to destroy a Core world, but they lost the ability to do so. If Tarkin made a stupid decision it was the attack against Yavin without watching the effects of the Alderaan strike.

[Richelieu]

Besides, I am unconvinced that there is the value in analyzing morality solely from in-universe perspectives that you and Patroklos grant the concept.

I see value in both. Looking at the actions with our own ethical compass answer one question, trying to understand the morality of the Empire helps answers another one (more academic, I guess). But the whole question with the evilness of the empire is rather academic, I guess. The intent of G. Lucas was certainly to make it appears evil to the audience.

[Bakustra]

I am not saying avoiding civilian casualties was a big part of Tarkin's intent of course. But it might very well be within his intent to avoid spilling unnecessary blood: in a civil war, people you kill today won't pay taxes tomorrow. So he might be seriously thinking he has a brilliant plan and nuking Alderaan will avoid a more bloody conflict. He was wrong if it was the case.

The destruction of Alderaan actually increased general support for the Rebellion, so, no, people didn't ignore it, or claim that Alderaan deserved what it got.

Which makes Tarkin an idiot if he really planned the destruction of Alderaan as a way to keep other worlds in reign. He was either trying to diminish the risk of rebellion and failing at it, or he was just a cackling evil guy destroying a planet to spite Leia.

Don't forget that the same Death Star which have blown up the Alderaan was destroyed in the battle of Yavin. So the psychological effect of an operational Death Star are unknown, judging from our history of WMD I think that would effectively suppress any meaningful rebellion. But after Yavin the Empire was in the worst possible condition: they demonstrated that they are willing to destroy a Core world, but they lost the ability to do so. If Tarkin made a stupid decision it was the attack against Yavin without watching the effects of the Alderaan strike.

Well, the effects of the Alderaan strike were to stir up support for the Rebels and increase anti-Imperial sentiment. An operational Death Star would have suppressed the effects of this, particularly with the destruction of important Rebel centers, but had Tarkin presented evidence of Alderaan supplying weapons to the Rebels beforehand, then the sympathy might have been markedly reduced.

[Bakustra]

Besides, I am unconvinced that there is the value in analyzing morality solely from in-universe perspectives that you and Patroklos grant the concept.

I see value in both. Looking at the actions with our own ethical compass answer one question, trying to understand the morality of the Empire helps answers another one (more academic, I guess). But the whole question with the evilness of the empire is rather academic, I guess. The intent of G. Lucas was certainly to make it appears evil to the audience.

Okay, that clarification makes a lot more sense. I see it as being for the purpose of understanding why the Empire would, say, declare the Mon Calamari non-sapient, or crush Derilyn, or destroy Alderaan, but I treat it very academically.