PT "I'm sorry sir, but it's time for you to leave.": Would the clones have killed Bail?

When Bail Organa arrives at the Jedi Temple, Order 66 is fully underway and the clones seem ready to shoot anyone who intervenes. When Bail arrives and demands to be let in, the clones level their blasters at him and tell him to leave at once.

It's only as Bail's leaving that Zett Jukassa attacks, kills a couple clones and is then shot. The troopers from the 501st aim their weapons at Bail, but Commander Appo orders them to let him go.

Why did the clones let Bail leave the Temple and if he'd continued to force entry, would they have killed him?

 

If he continued to force entry, they would kill him but since he agreed to leave, they didn't see the need to shoot him .

 

It's possible they would have simply killed him, but it's also possible they would have had the sense to simply stun him.

The clones probably didn't see any reason to stop him. I doubt their orders covered the involvement of a Senator, so they probably let him go to err on the side of caution. Really, there's little if any reason to stop Bail, he didn't do anything and he doesn't know anything special. What does he know? He knows they shot a Jedi, which was obvious at that point.

I guess the only reason to stop Bail would be to prevent him from aiding fugitive Jedi, but the clones couldn't assume that he would do that. If they can justify taking action against Bail, they could justify taking action against any witnesses, of which there were surely many, or anybody really. Almost anybody could be accused of being a Jedi sympathizer (even if they're the complete opposite, it's been done) or planning to aid the Jedi in some way.

 

The murder of the Jedi was justified on the (false) grounds that the Jedi were planning a coup against the legitimate government of the Republic, which includes the senate. So the clones were ostensibly protecting the senate. Killing a senator would be counter-productive. Palpatine wanted to keep them around to maintain a façade of legitimacy. Apparently, it took 20 years for him to feel he no longer needed that façade.

 

Order 66 was only a command to kill Jedi, no senators or other politicians. Let's say that Bail requested further entry into the temple, the clones would then have killed him because he would have intervened in their order. Seeing as he agreed to leave without any conflict, they saw it appropriate to let him go safely.

 

edit: I thought they shot at him after he yelled "No!" but apparently they did not. No witnesses, yet! But the one trooper says "Let him go."

 

His plot armor would still protect him.

 

I think the movie makes it pretty clear that he was lucky to get out of there. I would say the answer to your question is yes, they would have shot him. They almost shot him just with what he actually did.

 

No I don't believe they would of unless Bail didn't agree to leave, then maybe they would of shot him if he tried to get past them. But if Bail was a Jedi he would of been shot straight on the spot.

 

I agree with Captain Tom Coughlin, I think that they would have shot him just for wanting to come in, but he was lucky for them to let him go.

 

I sincerely doubt that their weapons were set to stun....

 

The Chancellor told them "Execute Order 66", and that was to kill the Jedi, no one else, and apparently it didn't include an order to hide what they were doing.

 

They might have killed him had he interfered with their operation (because then he could have been branded a traitor to the Republic/Empire), but since he technically peacefully went on about his business, they couldn't kill him without getting bad PR for killing a Senator.

 

I agree. Not only does having the clone troopers gun down Bail destroy PalpSidious' credibility for wiping out the Jedi Order, it would also expose him as a war criminal and the Sith lord that the Jedi were looking for since TPM. If Obi-wan and Yoda were to make it back to Coruscant like they did in ROTS, they would use the hologram footage of PalpSidious naming Anakin as Darth Vader to incriminate the yet-to-be-appointed emperor which would lead the senate to remove PalpSidious from office and he'll end up facing Jedi justice.

 

They could always say Bail was a Jedi sympathizer aiding the Jedi rebellion, which he was and everyone knew it (the sympathizer part). If the hologram footage was enough to do anything, presumably Yoda would have used it.

Wiping out the entire Jedi Order, including attacking the Temple and killing all the kids, was a war crime in itself, but the Senate applauded it.

 

Sith and Darth don't mean enough to the avg person and Sidious is far too smart to allow that holo recording to be used against him... Anakin would be painted as the loyal general who rooted out the evil Jedi plot to overthrow the Chancellor and Bail's friendship with the Jedi would have been twisted to justify his execution. Once order 66 was issued, it was over for the Jedi and anyone found to be helping them... Senators included.

 

Yeah I think the clone troopers could have shot Bail Organs even if he was a politician. He was at the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

I wouldn't have been surprised. Commander Cody opened fire on Kenobi a moment after a friendly exchange. They may have shot him up if they felt he was in getting in the way of their mission.

 

Yeah I think the clone troopers could have shot Bail Organs even if he was a politician.
----------

those organs are the worst thing to shoot at

 

They could have been punished for killing him without permission, you know?

 

In the novelization, the clone troopers did try to kill him. After he shouted no, one of the troopers turned to him and said "No witnesses," and the squad moved on him. He just barely made it out of there. I have to wonder if that was Lucas' original intention, but he changed his mind and reshot it.

 

Because at that moment, Bail had just seen them murder a child (Jedi nonwithstanding) and is screaming, 'NO' In their mind, he might be about to change his mind and intervene so they're preparing to kill him if necessary. Once he's clear of the Temple, they decided to let him go since it wasn't worth the hassle and their orders were to kill Jedi, not politicians.

Plus, Palpatine was planning on branding the Jedi as traitors so even if Bail went, 'OMFG I JUST SAW CLONES ATTACKING THE TEMPLE AND KILLING EVERYONE THEY EVEN KILLED A JEDI KID!!!!!" the people would be going, "Uh....yeah? They tried to overthrow the Republic. Your point?"

If he had insisted to be let into the Temple? Yes, they would've killed him.

 

Worth noting the film also portrays the Clones as Persecuting the Pau'an's and implicitly hunting Wookie's.
The essence of Order 66 is to kill Jedi but there's likely *something* else in there that makes them act outright fascists otherwise those details wouldn't be included.
I think they likely would have killed Senator Organa if given the chance. The "No Witnesses" line makes sense in the context that the emperor still cares about optics at that point. Bad Batch and other works set in that era show the Senate does in fact still have considerable influence and I doubt he wants it getting out the Clones were going around murdering children. (Though its never made clear in canon how much detail is public knowledge about Operation Knightfall, in Legends at least that fact was public knowledge).
It still looks *really* bad on him, and I imagine if asked about it he would probably dodge the question.

The average clone trooper was certainly willing to kill him I think, they were gunning for him right after finishing off the Padawan.
It just wasn't worth their effort to go out of their way to silence a single witness, as the senior officer does order them to let him go after he escapes.

 

I think it's basically anyone who "opposes" the empire.