Is it illegal to be a Sith Lord?

Your argument is still based on a moral POV. The question is if they as sect are legal, not right

 

Repost...

Mace Windu: "You're under arrest"

Palps: "Really, Master Windu, you cannot be serious. Under what charge?"

Mace: "You're a sith lord".

Palps: "Am I? Even if true, that's hardly a crime. My philosophical outlook is a personal matter. In fact-the last time I read the constitution, anyway-we have very strict laws against this time of persecutution. So I ask you again: what is my alleged crime? How do you expect to justify your mutiny before the senate? Or do you intend to arrest the senate as well?"

Mace: We're not here to argue with you

Palps: No, you're here to imprison me without trial. Without even the pretense of legality. So this is the plan, at last:the jedi are taking over the republic.

Mace: Come with us now.

Palps: I shall do no such thing. If you intend to murder me, you can do so right here.

Mace: Don't try to resist

(sounds that have been identified by frequency resonances to be the ignition of several lightsabers...)


Taken from the novelization pages 324-25

 

So the Force is controlling the Galaxy, and it does not want the Sith to exist, so the Sith are defactop illegal. It does not really matter what the by-laws of the Republic say

So we are examining the divine right of the force now?

If the force controls the galaxy, then how did the Sith come to power?

It does matter what the by-laws of the Republic say. Why is not ok for Palpatine
to to bend the laws to his advantage, yet it is ok for the Jedi?

Palpatine, in the long run, DID bring peace and balance to the galaxy. The Jedi
plan would have crashed the galaxly into even more conflict.
The Rebellion, and their malcontented and displaced Senators, caused even greater
ruckus with their mindless attacks on military installations.

 

how did palpatine bring peace in the long run?

sure, it was peace...but it was also tyranny.

an enslaved populace fearful of the government. no individual rights and liberties. an elitist regime, that made non-humans second class citizens, stripping them of prior rights.

all this is implied in the movies.

sure its peace, but on his terms.

and i fail to see how the jedi plan would bring more unstability to the galaxy? they were going to take temporary control of the senate in the interim, to repair the damage done by palpatine. they didnt bring tyranny, they didnt bring elitism.

 

Now, now there is no need to consult the mods, I understand the cannon levels and the such. I understand GL checking the novel and the role it plays. It's just that the whole Palps vs. the posse scene is so different in the book than in the movie.

I guess the movie doesn't directly contradict the book, that was a poor choice of words, and probably incorrect.

"there is a huge difference between his saying, "You're the Sith Lord" and Mace's saying "You're a Sith Lord.""

The a vs. the difference doesn't really exist, due to the rule of two. Since the other Sith Lord was dead, saying that "You're a Sith Lord", is just as good as saying "You're the Sith Lord", since there is only one left. Since this is the case, saying that "You're a Sith Lord" doesn't mean that they are arresting him sinply because he is a Sith Lord, rather because of what he did. Huzzah semantics for covering my butt.

Edit: chozen I think we actually agree. To repeat what you said in your first post of this thread. The problem wasn't because he was a Sith, but because he was a Sith, the only other Sith, that they knew what he did.

 

Just because one is a tyrant doesn't mean that one can't bring peace. Look at Cuba.
Cuba is much more stable now than it was before Castro took over and after we stopped
trying to overthrow him.

Ever wondered why no one else seems to care too much in the OT about the Empire.
Slavery already existed before Palpatine came to power.

The Jedi plan would have torn the Republic apart. Palpatine had been slowly uniting
it with war. Remember what 9/11 did for US nationalism? They were so politically
maladapt at politics and their distrust of the Senate would have resulted in Anarchy.

 

Is it illegal?

Not in this Republic...heh heh.

To quote Sidious from TPM...." I will make it LEGAL. "

 

Yeah, that and a million questions. In my personal opinion I think Star Wars is creativity but ruined with the simplest fact. It has caused big expectations and big disappointments. No other but the jedi had considered the sith as a threat. It matters not to others as the sith have their basic origin from the jedi.

 

i see your point

and i cant even begin to speculate what would have become of the republic AFTER the jedi helped it back on its feet.

but perhaps, as mace and ki adi speculated, newer less courrupted senators would have helped restore people's faith in the republic.

and remeber, a government derives its power from the people. if the people are unhappy with a government, then they have the right to change it, and thats what the rebel alliance is doing.

and yes slavery existed...but outside the republic. now, this dispicible institution is being being utilized by the government as a policy....seems like a step back for society to me.

and i disagree about no one caring about the empire in the OT. remeber the cheering at the end of ROTJ? i think people were glad palpatine was dead, and the fact that his emipire was beggining to crumble.

also the little bit about sympathy growing for the rebellion in the senate. i wonder if its because palpatine was starting to show his true colors?

 

Nah, in the special, special edition, the imperial governors repeal prohibition
so the celebration just coincidentally coincides with Palpatine's death.
That's what all the cheering is for.

 

really?!?!?!


damn i need a beer

 

an enslaved populace fearful of the government. no individual rights and liberties. an elitist regime, that made non-humans second class citizens, stripping them of prior rights.

all this is implied in the movies.



Where do you see this in the OT, except for the word of a few thousand rebels ? (and droids of course, but they are always oppressed. ) Owen and Beru werent sent off to toil in some slave labor camp. Their standard of living looked in ANH to be as good or better than AOTC. The people in the canteena didnt seem oppressed to me. People in Cloud City were fine until just right before Han showed up. Cant see 20 years of oppression there and Lando would have been the one stripping the rights. Ewoks were doing just fine with their primitive culture until Luke and Han got them stirred up. No sign of fear from them or the stripping of their prior rights. I think youre projecting too much based on rebel and droid comments. Im sure that a lot of GFFA people in the OT were considering the rebels basic terrorists.

 

Palpatine did not bring peace. He brought oppression and tyranny to the galaxy. He unbalanced the Force. The Sith as a whole are not illegal, but doing what Palpatine did is illegal.

 

What over acts of oppression does Palpatine committ?
He blows up Alderaan because it was a seedbed of traitors and guerilla
subversivs. Alderaan was self defense.

 

Um, what? I don't think I understood you correctly.

 

Ask yourself this question.

Is it illegal to be a Nazi?
no
To have your own beliefs?
no


Kinda like that.

 

What over acts of oppression does Palpatine committ?
He blows up Alderaan because it was a seedbed of traitors and guerilla
subversivs. Alderaan was self defense.

Um, what? I don't think I understood you correctly.


Sorry, misspelled irony. I am merely commenting that the apparent acts
of oppression didn't occur until the rebellion flared up.

 

I think I can clear up this debate in just one image and 4 words:

[image=http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/tongorad/PDVD_004.jpg]

" I AM the Senate! "

 

These are all good points and somewhat related to the topic, but I think the real question pertains to the old republic and the freedom to be a Sith.

The question is a classic dilemma for democracies, a dilemma of asymmetry. For example, the communists in this country sought to usher in a system which completely abolished personal liberties and free expression, yet they depended and counted on those freedoms to be their primary tools. At what point does a person's choice to reject the basic foundation of the social covenant deny them the boons of that covenant? It may be that the Republic was forged in the prior days of the Sith and has integrated into its very DNA a rejection of the Sith as being outside the social covenant and therefore not protected by the republic. Therefore Palpatine could be tried effectively as a heretic of sorts.

The weight of the argument, in my mind, is that they would have to actually prove more than He Is A Sith: they would have to prove his actions to be illegal. Here is where it is important to recognize that a precondition for Palps plan is that the Republic is rampantly corrupt. Corruption != Law. Where there is corruption, law is just an empty form. Most of Africa or much of the United Nations for example. In fact laws become nothing more than gates which the corrupt can open and close at their will, and therefore demand more money and power in exchange. The Republic has moved into this twilight decadent stage where the ceremonies of democracy are the opportunities of corruption.

 

The body of Darth Maul only proves the Trade Federation hired a Sith, maybe for needed protection, not that the Sith are responsible for the attack on Naboo. If the Trade Federation used "the two Sith made me do it" as a defense, they would be laughed out of court.

When it is revealed that he is indeed the Sith Lord, then is readily apparent to the Jedi that the whole of the Clone Wars has been a ploy devised by the Sith

I certainly dont see where the Jedi, Obi-Wan or Yoda, ever, ever put that together.

 

Being a Sith should logically be considered a crime by the republic, since the the Sith's ideology by it's very nature is inherently subversive. Their like a virus, who serve no other function than to reak havoc on the immune system of the republic, the Jedi. The Sith's belief system is very hard-line, and dogmatic, much like radical Islam. And like radical Islam they do not deviate from their philosophy. Simply put, they are nothing but a menace, and common sense dictates they should either be killed or arrested on sight.

 

Here then, is the real litmus test:

If Palpatine were just a manipulative and savvy politician who capitalized
on loopholes and weaknesses in the senate to achieve power and NOT been a Sith,
would Mace have the grounds to arrest him? Would Mace have the grounds to kill him?

 

Awesome name VP.

Actually OB1 tells Padme, right before he finally figures out she is pregnant, that Anakin was deceived and that was why he turned, and that "we all were" deceived. He then describes Sidous plan pretty completely.

 

If Palpatine were just a manipulative and savvy politician who capitalized
on loopholes and weaknesses in the senate to achieve power and NOT been a Sith,
would Mace have the grounds to arrest him? Would Mace have the grounds to kill him?

After finding out that Palpatine was behind the War?,Yes, he does have the right to arrest him. But as for killing him , I say he has no right to do so, that is unless that Savvy politician wips out a Lightsaber and wastes three other Jedi, then lays some Lightening on you?. well then i say Yes, he does

 

But would the Jedi have the right to intervene based solely on Palpatine's behavior?
Why not leave it up to the the Republic legal process? He's in charge, etc etc etc.
Lots of Not-sith dictators have been removed.

I guess I'm saying, that we can dress it up how we want, because I've been guilty of
it too, that Mace's authority to do what he does is bases solely on the fact that
Palpatine is a Sith.