Bakustra wrote: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...
Now that's just ridiculous...
"Help! We're being attacked by a two mile long, hyperdrive-capable Star Cruiser! Call animal control!"
Richelieu wrote: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.
Yes. I know.
But if they start committing great evils in the process of putting down an enemy, they don't get a free pass purely because they were fighting someone. They have to be fighting someone dangerous enough that they can claim that the evils they committed really
were the lesser evils. Against the Rebels, the Empire cannot credibly make that claim, and so they do not get to hide all their atrocities under the shield of "but we were fighting a rebellion that sought to overthrow us!" That is not enough justification for actions like blowing up entire planets without bothering to call on them to surrender.
This isn't about whether I expect someone to fight- anyone can reasonably be expect to fight an enemy. It's about whether I can use "it was necessary to win the war" as a defense for my actions after the fact. By analogy, I can use self defense to justify wounding or even killing someone. But I cannot use it to justify killing their family. The fact that the person attacked me does not give me the right to do that, even if it would stop them from attacking me again. Likewise, I cannot use self defense to justify flaying an attacker alive after I have disabled them; that is an act of pure savagery that has nothing to do with my legimate need for self defense. Not all crimes can be erased by pleading self defense.
In this case, the Galactic Empire can reasonably be excused for
fighting a war to avoid being destroyed by the Rebels. But it cannot reasonably be excused for committing bloody-handed atrocities in the process of fighting that war, unless it can demonstrate that the atrocities really
were the lesser evil than surrender would have been.
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 can't either. But if they start carpet bombing cities to stop you, they dont get a "get out of jail free card" for doing so purely because they were fighting you. Not if they can't show that
you would have carpet bombed cities, or done comparably evil things.
It's not the decision to fight that is morally questionable here, it's the attempt to justify war crimes by pleading necessity in situations where they
aren't necessary.
Richelieu wrote:We also lack real world examples of people taking part in international heinous activities as private individuals while ruling a country to help us assess the situation through comparison.
I'd guess if it was simply the case, they should have asked Alderaan to surrender their king to the Empire for a proper trial. Which leads to another question: is it possible for Alderaan to allow their king to be investigated. Many real-world democratically elected leaders are immune for prosecution from higher courts according to their own constitution: I don't think we can conclude that asking Alderaan to send their king to be judged was a possible course of action, or that landing to arrest him would'nt lead to a regular war, even if the traitorous activities were done on the side.
If nothing else, it would make sense to issue an ultimatum: "We know your planet is scheming against the Empire. Hand over
- within 48 hours or we will vaporize you." It's not as if they're in that big a hurry.
Now, the ultimatum might require that Alderaan violate its own constitution, but it's far less of an atrocity to provoke a constitutional crisis within a nation than it is to kill everyone.