PT Senator Decoys

i'm sure Padme can have a say on whether she wants people to die in her place or not.

 

Not if the head of the Republic (or the Queen who appoints her) orders it. US Presidents have to submit to a lot of security measures that they often disagree with, as well. Plus, people besides her decoy died in her place as well -- several of the security officers were caught in the blast as well and died. The same is true for the US Secret Service -- Presidents can't just send them away and they are expected to be willing to die to save the President. The POTUS doesn't have a choice in the matter.

 

what has the USA got to do with Star wars though?

I keep reading posts that say because USA do something Star Wars must also do the same,

 

It's an analogy. We are a democratic system as well and our leaders also have to submit to security matters. That alone does not make our politicians cowardly or self-centered -- it's part of the system and the job. Any person, no matter their ideals, would have to submit to it should they reach those positions.

Given that Star Wars draws a great deal from the American political system, I would say it's a worthwhile comparison.

What I'm saying as well is that most American posters here are just fine with the President having this level of security -- helicopter doubles, Secret Service, etc. And they pay for it because they recognize how dangerous the job is.

Edit: Plus, DarthkRud was making comparisons between Hitler and Stalin. I thought it would be worthwhile to point out that Padmé's use of voluntary doubles is much more similar to the POTUS's voluntary security team than it is to that of a dictatorship.

 

You could really substitute the nation of your choice. Heads of State deal with same issues everywhere. Which is the point, it would be true of their heads of state too.

 

don't really agree with the above statement,

but this isn't the senate forum

so i'll just say i agree with kRud

and leave it at that

 

Why though?

I don't see why Padmé's use of doubles is contentious when important politicians, movie stars, etc. readily hire security teams, helicopter doubles, and so on -- many of whom are ready and willing to die in their place. If the service wasn't voluntary or the doubles didn't have a full understanding of what the job entailed, then I would agree with you. But there's nothing in the films that indicates they are being forced (quite the opposite in fact).

It just seems as though it's an excuse to smear Padmé's character, to be perfectly honest.

 

are you talking about my point? My only point was that all heads of state deal with the same types of security questions, I'm not sure what is controversial about that.

 

My only point was that all heads of state deal with the same types of security questions, I'm not sure what is controversial about that.

---

I can assure you've i've never heard my head of state having a decoy in case of assassination attempts

--------------
It just seems as though it's an excuse to smear Padmé's character, to be perfectly honest.
-------------

that is your opinion, and you're entitled to it,

 

No, but your head of state -- I guarantee you -- has security employed that will voluntarily die in order to protect that head of state as part of their duty. I don't really see how Padmé's security is all that different, personally -- certainly not from the POTUS who uses helicopter decoys at any rate.

Well, if you agree with DarthkRud -- that Padmé is like Stalin or Hitler and values her life over those of others -- then that's pretty much a smear unless you qualify your statement somehow. That's all I'm really asking for.

 

well no I don't believe she's one of those kinds of people,

just something I think she would have a say in.

"I'll take the risk for my political belief" kind of person.

 

The decoy issue wasn't mine though. I said that the security questions are the same everywhere. I didn't say anything about decoys.

 

A while ago, I did a bit of reading online (and yes, on wikipedia, so I don't consider this actual research) on political decoys/body doubles in this world. While more than a few leaders are thought to have used them--Hitler is believed to have up to six people impersonating him--it's usually no more than speculation. Most information about decoys, in fact, is just that--because, after all, the whole point of a body double is that no one is to know they're *not* the person they are playing. It only seems to ever come out when the decoy later writes a book telling all. (So in the Star Wars galaxy, Sabé could write her tell-all memoir "I was Amidala." And yes, this would only ever happen in a satire.)

I rather doubt the President of the United States has a body double. But if he did, I am quite sure I would never hear of it. It's likely the same on Naboo--the general public probably hasn't any idea Amidala (and likely other politicians, though as it's never explicitly shown, this is only a guess on my part) use decoys.

I hadn't thought of Palpatine using decoys before, but now that I have, it seems likely that he would, at the least, have someone trained as a decoy in the event he needed one. It needn't be someone he was close to--or even knew. While Amidala's decoys may have also been her body servants and companions, in the real world, most known decoys never even met the person they were doubling for. They learned how to imitate them by watching videos.

PiettsHat has a point. And I agree that, whatever else I might think of body doubles, Amidala's decoys take on that role voluntarily, and willingly, and perhaps even proudly. But I still react negatively to the very idea. I don't think it's quite the same as the examples in this thread. Yes, even the helicopter decoys--that seems to more like creating a crowd for the president's helicopter to disappear into. Yes, the Secret Service would voluntarily die to protect the US president. The Royal Guards and the handmaidens (the ones not serving as decoys) would do the same for Amidala. But while they would die for their leaders, they wouldn't die *in their place*. That seems, to me, to be the difference.

I also can't help but think that if a secret service agent died saving his/her President, they would die a *hero*, with the accompanying funeral and such. People would know what they had done, and they would care. After Cordé (and the rest of the security personnel with her on that landing platform) died, they were forgotten within minutes. Yes, I know the Star Wars movies are action ones, and the plot doesn't have time to stop too long for feelings. But most of the audience forgot them swiftly as well. I allow that they're minor characters. But this is Star Wars--even the Ice Cream Guy in The Empire Strikes Back has fans.

But returning to the point--it occurs to me, in closing, that while the decoy might be a (voluntary) target, it seems to me that for the plan itself to work best, they must survive. If they do die--if the assassin thinks they've gotten their target at first, they'll learn soon enough that they're actually alive and well. They'll know the target uses decoys--as Zam Wesell did in Attack of the Clones--and remember: the whole point of having a decoy is that only a few people know they are the decoy. The decoy should have the full, and devoted, security detail that the person they appear to be would to make sure that doesn't happen.

I don't know if that last tends to happen with real life political decoys. But on Naboo--which has a far more idealistic, and simple, system than the complicated US government--I can't imagine that they wouldn't. They would know it's necessary for the deception to work. And I would hope that the decoy's life would matter, just enough, on its own, that they would want their sacrifice to stay an abstract possibility.

 

I'm sure you're not suggesting that the president of the USA is anywhere near as likely to be the target of a successful assassination attempt as a dictator in the Middle East?
No one is that ignorant.

 

The whole decoy concept was annoying. There is a thread about SW pet peeves, I have to add senate decoys to that thread. I agree with Krud, the whole idea behind her needing decoys in a free representative is counter to what we have seen in real life. Good observation.

 

Like I said and like the article said they COULD use doubles/look alikes but they didn't and they don't. When the US government starts doing it let me know.

 

The article never states that they didn't use doubles. It only says that the use of doubles was considered and given that this is a security measure, it's in their best interest for their decision (and their use of the double) to remain unknown to the public. Regardless, you never did answer my question.

And I hope you know that you need a better argument besides "Hitler ate sugar." Just because Hitler and Stalin did something doesn't make evil.

Basically you're saying:

Hitler used body doubles. Hitler was evil. Thus using body doubles is evil.

Which isn't an argument at all. Hitler and the Nazis also supported animal welfare laws. You have to address why the use of body doubles is evil and wrong. Especially since Padmé's doubles are fully aware of the risk and are offered the complete use of her security team when she goes off-world with Anakin. Captain Typho and everyone else stay behind to protect Dormé who is well aware of the danger she is putting herself in but is happy to serve.

 

I'm saying people like Saddam, Kim Jong and Hitler used body doubles because of certain national systemic and personality traits. Both the types of political systems and personalities these men had. When western representative democracies start doing it, as I said, let me know and you will "win" this "argument"

 

Again, though, you're still basically saying that Hitler ate sugar and thus eating sugar is evil.

Both Stalin and Hitler, for example, had very loving relationships with their mothers and difficult relationships with their fathers which contributed to the development of their personalities. This doesn't mean, though, that a person with a good maternal relationship and a bad paternal one is any more likely to be a dictator.

And, you haven't shown why it's more "despicable" to use a body double rather than say a helicopter double. Both achieve the exact same function in the same manner and have the same consequence -- possible death of the double should they be attacked.

The reason that the use of body doubles by dictators is maligned is because their doubles had no choice -- they were forced into the work with no regards to their desires.

I'm asking you to explain your reasoning -- how using a voluntary body double is any different than using a voluntary helicopter double.

Until then, your argument rests on a logical fallacy.

 

Star Wars...logical fallacies....serious "debates". Dude, here, watch this, Fart2D2 the magical trash can?

 

Was that it? Cuz I remember watching Ep. II and being all like "Hey, is that the same or different one who was the decoy in Ep. I?" I think for narrative purposes, it was supposed to be the same main decoy that was in TPM. So Knightly just balked at the idea of getting exploded in the first 2 minutes? Or had she already hitched her wagon to the Pirates franchise by this point.

 

That's a different decoy and wasn't played by Keira.

 

Keria's not the decoy in TPM? Now I'm officially confused. As for Ep. 2, I think it was supposed to be Keria's decoy but they went with "random decoy we haven't seen until that point" cuz they couldn't get her back.

 

She was in TPM, but not AotC