Full Series Jedi Legal: fair shake, or kangaroo court?

anakinfansince1983 You don't need special foreknowledge or to have seen the OT to know that expelling a Jedi from the Order without an internal investigation to appease the Senate and the media is a very, very poor way to treat that Jedi. If they look guilty on the surface it's all the more reason to have an internal investigation, then if she is guilty they just proved they are willing to convict their own members when it's warranted. Ahsoka was the pawn the Jedi sacrificed at that moment in their chess game.

Also, even though I think these real-life examples where people try to say "it seems like X is usually the case, ergo the opposite can never happen" are quite absurd on their face, the relationship between the Jedi Order and the Republic is not the same as that between a school board and higher level of government. I don't know how it works in NC, but where I'm from you have the school board as part of the municipal government, and then above that is county, state, and federal government. But they are designed as different levels of the same entity. The system is set up for things to happen as you said they do when someone gets in trouble because of that hierarchical relationship. The Jedi Order is not a puzzle piece that fits simply in the hierarchy of galactic government. As has been discussed thoroughly on this board, their relationship with the Senate in terms of the power dynamics isn't clearly defined.

 

It's not about taking hurt feelings into consideration, it's about expelling someone from an organization without doing the investigation that would show whether or not that action is warranted in the first place.

[/quote]Okay...but if the intergovernmental relationships are totally different as I just explained they are, that similarity doesn't prove anything.

 

The growing schism between the Jedi and the Chancellor, and the prosecutor at Ahsoka's trial openly despising the Jedi, are serious matters that the Jedi Council should have taken into consideration when deciding what would be their response to Ahsoka's situation. And they are not matters that the Jedi were unaware of in the series.

I'd rather that the Holonet had announced this: "Jedi Padawn Ahsoka Tano found attacking several clone troopers and with links to the Temple bomber who killed civilians. Jedi Council suspends Padawan Tano's membership in the Order pending the result of her upcoming trial in a Republic court. Master Windu says the Order hopes Padawan Tano will be found innocent, but insists it will abide by the trial's outcome."

 

When it's the prosecutor of a former member of the Jedi Order who openly displays anti-Jedi feelings, the defense, or at least those people who want Ahsoka to get a fair trial in the Republic court, should definitely take that into account when they consider how much support they'll give her.

No. What happened was: "Jedi Padawan Ahsoka Tano found attacking several clone troopers and with links to the Temple bomber who killed civilians. Jedi Council expels Padawan Tano from the Order, therefore washing its hands of her fate. Master Windu has no comment on the subject." What I first described is a Council that stands by Ahsoka, even if in a symbolic way, and offers her a clear path to return to the Order if she's found innocent. What I just described, and what actually happened, is Council that cuts all its ties to Ahsoka and completely abandons her.

 

It's not semantics. They didn't merely suspend her, they outright expelled her. There's a huge difference, a huge objective difference, between the two. And as for them offering her her position back into the Order, they only did that after she was found innocent at the last moment. To me, it was a face-saving bribe to avoid having to admit they'd been wrong about their treatment of her.

You keep trying to frame the discussion into consideration for Ahsoka's feelings and the feelings of other people - attempting to shift the goalposts, as it were. But I and others have pointed out time and again that the core issue, the Jedi Council's clear and abhorrent failure, was that they did not provide her with a fair internal trial, instead bringing up only the evidence against her to justify their decision to expel her. It's not about soothing Ahsoka's feelings, it's about the Jedi Council's failure to perform their legal duty toward a member of their Order.

As for Tarkin, while the Jedi might strive to not let their feelings influence their decision-making, expecting the same from a prosecutor who has already made public his very negative feelings toward the organization Ahsoka comes from and expecting/hoping that his feelings won't influence his prosecution of her is IMO naive at best.

 

The way they go back and forth about what to do means they have a decision to make, they aren't being forced. I don't mind rewatching to get quotes if you don't remember it that way.

 

They aren't being forced, because they've voluntarily - as an order - pledged service to the Republic. But just because the pledge was voluntary, doesn't mean the service isn't mandatory.

If you join the military reserve or a volunteer police force (like the Special Constables we have in the UK), you don't get to pick and choose what you do just because you're volunteering. You make a committment, and you are held to it. The Jedi Order is committed to serving the Senate and the Republic, and refusal to comply with any orders from that authority would only sow further dissension and strife between the two entities.

Jedi are not an 'all for one and one for all' group when it comes to each other. As a Jedi, Ahsoka is basically acceptable collateral damage when it comes to making sacrifices for the greater good - for the stability of the Republic, and the people the Jedi Order serves. In fact, were she simply a regular citizen and had never been pledge to the Jedi ideal, the Council would probably have been more motivated to resist Tarkin's demands because then she wouldn't have pledged herself to an ideal and a Code that promotes self-sacrifice for the sake of the greater good.

 

I've explained it time and again. The Jedi had a legal obligation, divorced from their feelings toward Ahsoka, to give her a fair and balanced internal trial, otherwise there's no point in even establishing a trial procedure in the first place. The Council failed to do that, instead twisting the trial into a horribly biased one with a foregone conclusion. As for Tarkin's feelings toward the Jedi, that is a matter separate from the Jedi Council's behavior and their feelings or lack thereof toward Ahsoka. What I pointed out is that Tarkin was certain to let his openly admitted anti-Jedi bias affect his prosecution of Ahsoka.

For me, the very fact that they bothered to give her an internal trial is proof positive that they had a legal obligation to do so to justify expelling her from the Order. If that weren't the case, they could simply have made a public declaration that Ahsoka had been expelled, without bothering to explain their reasoning. Feel free to provide a Wookieepedia link of your own that proves me wrong.

And what of it? Why shouldn't I judge the Jedi Council's behavior according to my moral code? Especially when their willingness, one might even say eagerness, to cut all ties to Ahsoka and sacrifice her to the "greater good" when I've pointed out they had at least one other, better option is IMO part of what eventually led to their Order's destruction?

 

There has been no other instance, because the need for a member of the Order to undergo a trial that the producers of the show/movies wanted us to see has never come up. If he had survived, I'm convinced Pong Krell would have faced a Jedi trial, on-screen or off-screen. The same goes for Barriss Offee had the show had a sixth season.

Given that the trial's outcome had already been decided beforehand, there was no logical reason for the Jedi Council to hold that trial unless they had a legal obligation to do so. That's all the proof I need.

If everything was just fine and dandy in the Jedi Temple and with the Jedi, then how come they didn't unmask the Sith Lord hiding right under their noses for decades, or succeed in halting the rise of the dark side, or stem the increasing chaos in the galaxy and corruption in the Senate? It's not just because the Sith were actively working to tilt the balance toward the dark side. It's because the Jedi were no longer fully in tune with the light side. I advise you to read Darth Plagueis, which explains all this in detail. The Jedi Council choosing expediency and their choice to sacrifice Ahsoka is part of a larger trend showing that the Jedi were no longer truly following the light side, which according to Wookieepedia is aligned with self-sacrifice. Not the sacrifice of others.

 

I don't believe that the Jedi were evil like the Sith, or that they deserved annihilation. But their behavior toward Ahsoka and in other matters certainly opened the door to their destruction. If someone keeps driving with impaired capacities the way the Jedi kept acting even though their connection to the light side was impaired due to their behavior, then no one should be surprised if that person has a fatal accident.

And how do you reconcile the Jedi's willingness to sacrifice Ahsoka when the light side emphasizes self-sacrifice?

 

That conversation seemed a bit out of place considering that Yoda could have captured/killed Dooku, which could have shortened or ended the war, had he not saved Anakin and Obi-Wan in AOTC.

 

I took it that Yoda would have won that duel had Dooku not put Anakin and Obi-Wan in jeopardy, and had Yoda not chosen to save their lives.

In ESB Luke wants to run off and save Han and Leia because they will die if he doesn't, and Obi-Wan insists that he doesn't KNOW that. Yoda couldn't see their fates, "always in motion is the future."

I thought this was somewhat the opposite. Yoda KNOWS that Obi-Wan and Anakin will die if he lets the crane fall on them. But he doesn't know how much damage he will cause by letting Dooku go.

Plus I thought Obi-Wan in scolding Anakin was a little harsh. I in no way feel that Anakin would have been expelled, even if he went back to save Padme and let Dooku go. Had Yoda wound up on the same gunship as Anakin to go confront Dooku, I can't picture Yoda threatening Anakin with expulsion. ("BE EXPELLED FROM THE JEDI ORDER, YOU WILL!")

I kind of got the feeling that Yoda was a little bit of an *** in TPM, but by the time of AOTC and especially ROTS, he seemed like a very approachable, friendly Jedi. Obi-Wan in TPM is disinterested in training Anakin based on the Council's misgivings, in AOTC he seems like a bit of a hard *** on Anakin, but then they are solidly friends come ROTS. Obi-Wan had no experience as a master and was given a troublesome student. He perhaps was too hard on Anakin.

As an aside: I would be curious to know what exactly was going through Lucas' mind with the character of Yoda. He's adamant in TPM about not training Anakin, sensing great danger, etc. Which is ironic since "always in motion is the future" and yet Yoda was going to let his misgivings about what MIGHT happen dictate his course of action.

But by the time of AOTC and ROTS, Yoda is defending Anakin a little bit when Obi-Wan is criticizing Anakin as arrogant, and Anakin goes to Yoda for guidance. Now in the Yoda arc preview we see that they regard each other highly, even so far as to call each other friends, and Yoda seems to laugh off Anakin's constant disobedience, rather than have grave misgivings about it. The dynamic between the two changes radically, without showing the catalyst for that change. Was that supposed to be the result of Yoda's communication with Qui-Gon?

 

To quote the novelization, "Dooku realized he wasn't the strongest after all." It's been a while since I've read it, but my understanding is Yoda wasn't even trying. Yoda also lasted a good while against Sidious, who I'd think is a great deal more powerful than Dooku, but that's another discussion I suppose.

Back to the Ahsoka trial, I do think they should have handed her over to the courts. But I think they should have told her up front that they didn't have much of a choice and that she'd be reinstated if found innocent. Helping Anakin with his search would have looked a little better too. I look at Ahsoka leaving the order as I would someone leaving a church, religion or group they've been involved in since they were very young. The whole "It was the will of the Force" (or IRL, insert preferred religious figure here) is a pretty good way to sour a person's beliefs if they've already been shaken, IMO. If I were in her shoes, I would have left too, though I wouldn't have cut contact with those I was close to.

 

A suspension-pending-trial-outcome in real life doesn't include a humiliating insignia-ripping ceremony. That's the kind of thing you get when someone is being busted down to private and drummed out on a DD. Which is invariably after their guilt has been decided at court martial.

 

If I were on trial because my blood was found at a murder scene, obviously it would be comforting to have someone, like a parent or friend, come to me and say, "I believe that you didn't do it." And I might feel a little betrayed if they come to me, do not trust me, and say "...I don't know what to think... The evidence is pretty clear."

Anakin was the only one that seemed to have unshakable faith in Ahsoka and her innocence. Ahsoka might be disappointed in the rest of the Jedi for not showing that same degree of blind faith and trust, and in the aforementioned analogy, if I am found not guilty, I still might be irritated with those that did not trust me. But to completely turn her back on what is essentially her family over it, and be completely incapable of seeing things from their perspective, that just makes it look like she has maturity issues. Which, given her age, would be understandable, but it makes me a little unsympathetic to her situation.

My blood is at a crime scene, my family doubts my innocence. I give them all the finger and disown them over their doubts based on convincing evidence, it just makes me look immature. Can I be disappointed? Sure. But to have so much pride that I turn my back on them, especially after they apologize, just would make me look bad, IMO. There's a reason why a jury should be held by peers and not family. That would appear easily corruptible.

"I didn't do it, trust me."
"Okay, we trust you. You couldn't have done this."