So the Empire was a legitimate government?

Wedge Antilles seems to think so in Rogue Squadron. You have the "Back then we were rebels against the legitimate government" line.

 

A legitimate government founded on a great big lie, but still a legitimate government.

The phrase "legitimate government" is however largely meaningless.

 

That's only because Wedge didn't watch the prequels.


You don't get to call your government "legitimate" when it's existence is based on crises of your own making like Palpatine did, and I'd also think that declaring sentient species non-sentient for the sole purpose of enslaving them, along with genocide, rampant corruption, and a general lack of the 'responsibility to protect' that's all the rage for governments nowadays can also be documented in Palpatine's Empire.

 

I think there are two issues.

1) Just because something's legal doesn't mean it should be legal or that it's moral. Decades and centuries ago a whole host of things were legal that these days would horrify us and they only became illegal because people fought the law and the establishment. Not that I think this is necessarily your point, I just mean to say that the Empire may very well have been legal technically while still something worth fighting against.

2) In terms of the Empire's technical legality, I don't know if we'll ever know since likely the decision to change the Republic into an Empire's legality would be based on the laws of the Republic and we don't know what those are. We also don't know what their procedures are when the Head of State creates, well, illegal laws. See the various stuff about wiretaps and torture in the Bush administration for an example of how complicated it would likely get. Did Palpatine break the laws of the Republic when he declared the Empire? I don't know. Probably, given how complicated we knew the Republic's laws and judicial system were, it could be argued compellingly both ways.

 

The Empire was just as legitimate as the New Republic was after it was formed after the Rebellion won


legitmate doesnt really mean much, just that you are recognized by others as what you are calling yourself



now moral, that is a different issue and i think more in line with what we would call "legitimate"

 

I think that the really clear point about the Empire's legality is that Palpatine created the circumstances that gave rise to the Empire and then benefited from it. At the very least, it's vote-tampering with the Naboo crisis, and given that Palpatine could read people's minds and therefore presumably see how they'd react to a given situation, I don't see how that wouldn't be blatantly illegal.

Plus: "Hundreds of Senators are now controlled by a Sith Lord called Darth Sidious." I doubt he's controlling them so he can get longer bathroom breaks in Senate sessions.


And of course, the legality (or lack thereof) of the Empire's formation is kindof a moot point, given how the Imperial government proceeded to enslave, exterminate, and oppress literally dozens of species. It's not clear if Palpatine had anything directly to do with most of that (although iirc he does order the Wookies to be enslaved in Dark Lord), and frankly, I think it's kindof iffy that a man who clearly views everyone who isn't him as an extension of his own will would really care what species you are, but it still happened under his government and the rules that he was able to define by decree.

 

The crises that allowed Palpatine to increase his powers until he was able to garner enough support to declare a "restructuring" of the republic to an empire and thus become an emperor, were contrived, false and illegal, so the empire was not a legitimate government as it had not developed through legitimate means for legitimate reasons.

 

The logic hoops some of you are jumping through to somehow attempt to legally justify rebelling against the Empire is hilarious. That the Trade Federation decided to blockade Naboo, that people decided to secede from the Republic and form the Confederacy, and that the Senate decided to support stronger and stronger measures to contain that Confederacy is nobody's fault but their own. Just because Palpatine originally created those ideas does not make him responsible for them. Of their own volition they danced to his tune. Palpatine was fairly elected, and his alterations to the government of the Galaxy were legally enacted by the Republic Senate.

Governments do morally objectionable things legally every day. Palpatine is simply very good at convincing people to do what he wants them to.

 

If I was a police officer and deliberately engineer a situation to get somebody who otherwise would not have broken into my home to break into my home just so that I can have an excuse to shoot them... yeah, the law isn't going to look very kindly on that. It's called entrapment.

People aren't going to look very kindly on said police officer if what he did was ever found out even if the guy had been a wanted criminal (yeah, in certain circumstances people end up deciding to just "look the other way", but that just sums up how fragile the whole notion of "legality" is in the first place). He might enjoy a perfectly "valid" promotion while his secret remains just that; but the moment his secret is out... yeah, his career is pretty much destined for the dogs. Kiss that gold plated pension and promotion to chief constable good-bye; say hello to law suits and damages payouts.

Palpatine was a Senator who deliberately provoked a trade guild into invading his planet just so he could win sympathy and obtain the powers he coveted to obliterate said trade guild and other rivals. He wouldn't have got very far in court if people hadn't gone along with it and bought into the self-aggrandizing spiel he fed them.

At the end of the day, it's a case of (i) Palpatine was the master of spin, coupled with (ii) members of the Senate were either (a) oblivious, or (ii) idiots. What he did was illegal, he just managed to convince the Senate to rubber stamp it all and give him a full senatorial pardon. Of course, at the time they had no idea what he'd done, so chances are as soon as evidence emerged that he had deliberately misled the Senate I doubt he'd have got very far.

But of course, by that stage he'd already secured total dictatorial control of every wheel of government, so there wasn't a whole lot the Mothmas and Organas of the galaxy could do by that point. "We petition for the Emperor's removal for having lied to the Senate!" Yeah... that'd have done a whole world of good.

So... Palpatine was (probably) legally elected Emperor for life (at least, one assumes that the Senate jumped through whatever constitutional hoops it needed to go through for them to rubber stamp the constitutional reorganisation from a republic into an empire). But getting legally elected is one thing; holding onto said appointment is something else. However, it clearly gets very messy when one considers that as Emperor one of the first things Palpatine probably did was repeal all the relevant laws that actually gave the Senate the power to have him deselected (or may well have slipped it all into the initial constitutional reform bills, which in their wolf whistling applause they may have just rubber stamped without even bothering to read).

Once you get to that question though you enter a totally different ball game of what is meant by the word "law". It'd have been legal as far as what the written documents said, but at that point you enter the cold reality that when the schutta well and truly hits the fan constitutions aren't worth the paper they're written on.

 

By the same token, however, the individual did break the law by breaking into the police officers' home and he did have a legal right to defend himself in his home. What did the police officer do to get this guy to break into his house? Display expensive property? legal. Tell the guy "You better not attempt to break into my house and steal my expensive HDTV!"? Also legal. Call the crook names and make fun of his mom? Still no law against that, that I can think of.

In the end, the blame clearly belongs to the thief. If he fell into the trap, then that's clearly his fault, and the law reflects that. If the Police Dept. or City decided the officer's conduct was inappropriate, then they are within their legal right to fire him, and if the Courts decide to find him civilly liable for the criminal's death, that's within their legal prerogative as well. The key word here, however, is prerogative. If the Police Dept & Courts don't object, then the Police Officer can polish his badge for another day on the beat.

 

So it isn't a crime unless you get caught?

Corruption is a crime. Lying under oath is a crime. Treason is a crime. Abuses of trust are crimes.

The rebellion was justified because the people in charge weren't doing their jobs properly. According to political science, "legitimacy" requires the consensus of consent of the people under the law.

 

The key thing with Palpatine is nobody actually knew what he'd done apart from that guy in LOE who made it into his hidden lair and learnt who Darth Sidious was, so people never got the chance to decide whether they felt he'd acted within the law or not.

Palpatine was still in the situation of the police and courts not knowing that he'd been making threats to the thief's wife; like the police officer, he initially would have been hailed as a hero in the context at the time of his election because the truth didn't emerge until years afterward.

Palpatine was also a step further up from even just making idle threats to the guy's wife... because he was actual the mafia boss who instructed the thief to go around to his house and beat him up. As the true leader of the Separatists, Palpatine was inherently complicit in everything they did since he was the one giving half the orders, "Go to X, nuke it; go to Y, enslave them; General Grievous do this; General Grievous do that..." and so on. Legalities aside, he was still ultimately guilty of war crimes by the existing Republic law at the time.

Which is why, as I said in my point about constitutions not being worth the paper they're written on, his actual "legal status" as Emperor is ultimately down to how many laws he convinced the Senate to repeal. If he got rid of the laws that made it possible for anybody to question the legality of his appointment, then nobody could question the legality of his appointment, and that's that. Which comes back to how issues of legitimacy are to a large extent a clinal matter depending on viewpoint. He'd legally be Emperor by what the new constitution said, but based on the former constitution it'd probably have been the case a Supreme Chancellor who got their job by lying would automatically be subject to a judicial review and probably impeachment.

When you turn your government into a dictatorship though, you've signed your own surrender in that respect, as even if the old government all came out saying "We take it back. Your election was illegal [by the old rules]. We no longer approve." it's at that point going to depend on the new guy actually giving a kriff and willingly stepping aside, since you've already handed him the keys to everything.

 

I'm saying there wasn't a law on the books for which Palpatine could be tried.

Corruption usually refers to the buying of votes or other influence. Palpatine did not.

I don't recall Palpatine lying to anyone, although they may have felt lied to.

misleading the Separatists so that they may be ultimately defeated by the Republic is the height of heroics, actually. We don't accuse double agents working for intelligence agencies of being traitors, do we?

I'm not sure what law applies to feeling like your trust was betrayed.

One can justify a lot of actions with that logic, including assassination & coup d'etats. In fact, that's exactly what Palpatine did in the first place: eliminated a bunch of bloated autocrats who weren't doing their jobs properly. The difference, of course, is that what Palpatine did was legal. Now, just because it was the law doesn't mean it was just, but it does mean that it was legal, and until the Rebellion convinced the Galaxy to turn against Palpatine, it was legitimate

 

I'd argue there's not an absolute relationship between legality and legitimacy personally, but then I fall somewhere in the middle of that cline. As far as the law itself goes, clearly legitimacy and legality are one and the same, but from a more socially legitimate perspective I'd argue that they're not necessarily always the same thing--hence why laws change as a result of particular judgements coming to become regarded as socially wrong.

But then the same goes about any law really. Look at India at the moment, just this week they've repealed an anti-homosexuality law that has been in force for over a century or so. I'm going to hazard a guess that as they've repealed it they probably haven't been actively enforcing it for a while anyway. Thus, homosexual acts have probably been illegal but still socially accepted as perfectly legitimate behaviour when put in context of more modern human rights laws and the like.

I shan't waffle any further though as I could get into an entire thesis about clinal relationships between legality and sociocultural attitudes otherwise.

I can't think of a specific "Breach of trust" law, as such, though a breach of trust would probably fall into the usual raft of things that someone in a public office can get impeached for (i.e. a breach of a general duty to always act in good faith, etc).

More likely than not though it'd just be a deciding factor in an actual specific law, as opposed to a law in and of itself. If anything, "breach of trust" on its own is more a tort than a criminal offence--to be a crime it'd actually need to be tied into something serious, which in Palpatine's case I assume would be "misleading the public/Senate" or something.

 

It seems to me that there are two rather different definitions of legitimate which could be used in this case...one is purely based on law, whether or not the government itself has a firm basis in law, has been formed in a "legal" manner, etc. Absent either a pre-existing set of laws or a larger set of "international" laws governing the conduct of individual governments, however, this definition has little or no meaning.

The second definition is rather larger in scope, and has to do considerations of morality, justice, and the nature of government itself. To put it broadly, legitimacy in Western thought has usually referred to the idea governments receive their power and authority not via their own laws or constitutions or their raw power and ability to enforce their will over a populace, but from some higher authority, beyond the scope of government itself. Depending upon the source--and I'm talking here about specifically Western sources, since the Eastern idea of governmental legitimacy is rather different in many respects-- this higher authority can be the Church, with the Church itself receiving its authority directly from God(in the case of medieval governance, and some later systems); God himself (as in the later Divine Right of Kings as exemplified by the jolly old tyrant Henry VIII ); or the will of the people being governed, as expressed through various outlets (as in the American tradition).

Or, to put it in less specifically Earthy terms, the three usual sources of authority are: a religious and moral institution receiving its power from a higher authority, a supernatural power (specifically a singular power, with a claim to authority that is in some ways universal, and not merely a local god), or from the people governed. In addition, a closely related concept, usually bound together with the former three, involves the idea of morality--under this system, an unjust or morally wrong law, even one passed by an otherwise legitimate government, is an illegitimate law (since it breaks the higher Moral Law), and is not considered binding. (Or, to put it as St. Augustine, "An unjust law is no law at all.") In like manner, a government which is continuously unjust and/or tyrannical, however legitimately established, removes its own legitimacy when it continuously behaves in an unjust fashion.

With this established, we can look at the Empire via both these definitions of legitimacy:

First of all, we have seen that the legal definition of legitimacy is meaningless where there is not either a pre-existing set of laws under which the current one was established, or a broader set of "international" laws set up by some larger "international" legal institution considered to have power over the government. In the case of the Empire, we have the former situation, since the Empire was established as an act of government, under the laws and Constitution of the Republic. The problem here is we have very little idea of whether or not this action was actually legal under the current laws of the Republic. We know that the Republic possessed a constitution, which almost definitely dictated a Republican (and not Imperial) form of government--this would at face value make the declaration of Empire an unconstitutional and hence illegal action, and the Empire an illegitimate government. However, we also know that there had been a number of amendments (presumably legally) made to the Constitution over the course of the Clone Wars via the Senate which dramatically increased the power of the executive. This would seem the indicate, strangely enough, that the Senate, in and of itself, had the power under the Republic to amend the Constitution at will--in such a case, all that would have to be done to make the Declaration of New Order legal would be for the Senate(largely controlled by Palpatine) to pass a law amending the Constitution in such a manner.
Otherwise, if the Senate did not have this power, and if the declaration of New Order was solely an executive action, the odds of leg

 

The problem with your excellently written dissertation, Cpt.Peabody, is that morality is open to subjective interpretation. Under what circumstances is it morally just to take another life? Under what circumstances may you take another's property? Under what circumstances may you refuse another aide? All these questions and more represent moral quandaries, which have no hard, definable answer.

One who argues that one should trust in the Force could easily be countered that the Emperor trusts in the Dark Side of the Force, and that is what directs his actions. One who argues that the Dark Side of the Force is evil only parrots the Jedi perspective, because the perspective of a Sith is not in agreement.

One is finally left with falling back upon the word of the author of the fictional work to determine whom is morally righteous, but to play devil's advocate, it is possible that even Mr. Lucas himself has played a grand trick on us and has deliberately deceived us of his true viewpoint.

In reality, there is no means to definitively establish a moral authority, either in fiction or real life.

 

The rebellion was justified because they won. With Palpatine dead and the Empire scattered, they could no longer enforce their laws and thus their laws are moot. So legally, it no longer matters whether they broke the law or not be rebelling because after they won, there is no one to enforce said Imperial law. After all, a law only holds more weight than the paper it's written on if they can enforce it. Otherwise it's just words.

The difference, of course, is that what Palpatine did was legal. Now, just because it was the law doesn't mean it was just, but it does mean that it was legal, and until the Rebellion convinced the Galaxy to turn against Palpatine, it was legitimate.

Maximillian_Veers, you place a lot of weight on legality and legitimacy, but legality and legitimacy are fleeting. All that "legality and legitimacy" didn't do Palpatine much, considering he's dead. He could flout legality all he wants, but a sizeable group hated him and his "legitimate" Empire and was able to back themselves up with a weapons and a Jedi, and demolished a good portion of his Empire and convinced his Supreme Commander to kill him.

Fat lot of good "legality and legitimacy" did him.

I would agree with Maximillian_Veers that we avoid the "morality" aspect as viewpoints are hardly objective and often irreconcilable in a academic debate.

 

Well, of course morality is open to interpretation, as are all other systems of laws, ideas, or principles--and as, indeed, is the system of facts and methodology that makes up the physical sciences. But, nevertheless, for something to be "open to interpretation" implies that the thing itself exists, and is not totally subjective. Morality is a system that proceeds from certain ideas and principles (as does any other system) which are then drawn out and applied to specific cases-- and so, as with any other such system, conclusions in specific cases will sometimes differ greatly depending on the person doing the extrapolating. But this does not mean that the system itself is non-existent, or that we cannot say anything about the matter covered by that system at all. Reasoning can be wrong--so can moral reasoning. That does not mean that either all reasoning is moot, and that there is no way we can ever logically deduce or know anything, or that there is no such thing as morality. Virtually all societies throughout time have agreed that taking a life is wrong in some cases--that it is murder. Societies and individuals have sometimes differed over which specific cases or situations constitute murder, and those that do not. But this does not mean that there is no such thing as murder, or that one may kill anyone you like at any time for any reason.

In like manner, it is perfectly possible, however difficult, to deduce the correct moral choice in various situations, including difficult moral quandaries such as the ones given above (and the ones given above are not necessarily that difficult), and to construct a system of morality that is more correct than that of, say, Osama Bin Laden--that is, one that more closely corresponds to reality than his. Would you not agree with this? In theory, it is even possible to construct an entire system of correct morality--though it is open to debate whether one such exists.

Come now: surely you realize that this is sheer, raving nonsense? If I decided that to bring about the Rapture and Second Coming of Jesus, I had to go out in the street and gun down a hundred people, then surely you would not accept the argument that from my perspective, these actions were correct and righteous, and that my perspective differed from yours, and so you could not judge me? Of course people have different perspectives on what is right and wrong, and different systems of morality--but different systems of morality can be compared and judged according to which one is more correct, by deduction from first principles of morality.

A bit off-topic, I'll admit. This is more to the point:

Nevertheless, we are not here talking about subtle matters of morality or difficult moral quandaries--we are talking about the basest, barest matters of right and wrong, the simplest and broadest idea of morality possible. And, presumably, you believe in at the very least such a broad system of morality--that is, if I entered your parent's house and killed your father with Sith Lightning, you would rightly consider this action objectively wrong. In like manner, I assume you would believe that Hitler, in murdering millions of Jews, was performing an objectively immoral and wrong act. It is these types of actions that we are discussing w

 

The Jedi are no more of a legitimate religious organization that the Sith. The fact they are intertwined with Republic history in no way means their presence is required for a government to be accepted. The thing that is needed most is the law, which Palpatine had and the support of the people, which Palpatine also had. While this support later eroded it doesn't change that fact the government was founded with the consent of the public.

Plenty of governments have done unjust things. That doesn't automatically make the government illegitmate. Are the United States and British governments no longer legit because of their previous support of slavery (Similiar to Palpatine's enslavement of the Wookies)? Does the fact the the U.S. has tortured people mean that no one should listen to them anymore (Similiar to that happened to Leia)?

1. Under that reasoning no Star Wars government is legit, the Old and New Republic's included.
2. The Jedi don't receive legitimacy from the Force. They don't even fully understand it, nor can they comprehend its will. That fact that they use the Force doesn't mean they are qualified to make decisions or lead on its behalf.

A moral judgment on which side is better means nothing. That's equivalent to a Muslim saying to a Christian "My religion is right and yours is wrong, therefore I should rule." Also, how can the Light Side alone be the Force itself if the Dark Side co-exists alongside it?

The people might have eventually turned against the Empire. However remember that their are times when people will not be happy with what the government is doing, and their displeasure does not automatically mean the government is now illegal.

 

No, I'm pretty sure that contributing support and giving away state secrets, let along actively leading, a government with which the Republic is at war constitutes treason. "Just because Palpatine led the Confederacy to war against the Republic doesn't mean he was responsible for it, so it's not illegal" is one of the more nonsensical arguments I've seen on here.

 

The ends justify the means, eh? Most Rebels would recoil at that sort of logic. Victory for victory's sake isn't much of a motivator unless you are a particularly power-hungry & greedy individual. I agree that a law remains relevent only so long as the government is strong enough to enforce it. What I was disagreeing with was the assertion that some people were making was that rebellion had legal justification. It did not. Moral justification, perhaps, but certainly not legal.

 

But Palpatine IS the Senate.

 

Ontological arguments are such fallacy. Just because I can concieve of a unicorn does not mean that one exists. Equally, because I can concieve of a concept like "absolute morality", that does not mean that such a thing exists in reality.

Likewise, almost every society has differed as to what activity does or does not constitute murder, based on their own subjective and dare I say it, self-centered viewpoint. One could argue that the concept of murder itself is simply the reaction of society to the death of a member of said society which the whole of the society found undesirable.

I would disagree that there is an objective, universal morality to which I am more privy than any other. Morality is based upon personal feelings and experiences which are wholely subjective.

The only basis behind my "moral" desire to stop you is my selfish desire for myself and my society to live. I am not privy to any special information which makes me your moral superior. I judge not your morality. I slay you for my survival, and the well being of my society.

I personally would find it wrong, because he is my father. There is nothing objective about my feelings for my father, a person for whom I have a great deal of personal emotional attachment. I do not understand your motivation for slaying my father, but I would likely emotionally assume that you were unjustified until it is proven that you were otherwise. I am, however, open to the idea that perhaps my father has done something so damaging to society that he should perish, because I leave that possibility open for anyone.

I think Hitler was acting according to whatever moral code he possessed, but was making an idiotic political & economic blunder, and was acting in a fashion I find evil because I consider all

 

All of those activities led to the eventual destruction of the Separatists, separatists elements who would likely have rebelled against the Republic or created other threats anyway. Instead, Palpatine played the role of ultimate double agent and brought them down, saving the Galaxy and restoring peace. I'd say that's pretty heroic, actually. Definitely nothing illegal.

 

Now you're letting subjective judgments of "heroism" determine what's legal or not? Palpatine aided and abetted enemies of the Republic to rebel against it in a vast, galaxy-encompassing war. A handful of lone, dissatisfied planets would have created the Clone Wars on their own anyway? Really? What basis have you for your claim? The InterGalactic Banking Clan would have rebelled all on its own? Really? It didn't take Dooku dangling the promise of unfettered corporate reign to tempt all those corporations into attempting to overthrow the government under which they profited? No, they obviously would have up and bombarded Humbarine on their own, so it's not Palpatine's fault at all that he staged a war that did tremendous damage to the Republic and cost millions of lives for the sole purpose of his own political advancement.

"I did it to root out the Republic's enemies and save it" might be Palpatine's defense at trial. It doesn't absolve him of guilt for treason. He led a war effort against the Republic for the purpose of self-aggrandizement. He didn't draw them out and have them arrested like any kind of halfway reasonable sting operation. He didn't use his absolute control of the leadership to send all the top conspirators to one place where they could be captured, use his codes to shut down their droid army, and hand the Republic a victory until three years into the war, once his personal objectives, which had nothing to do with protecting the Republic, had been met.

That argument is the purest nonsense. Palpatine is, by any definition, guilty of treason. Period. You can argue it was moral, or heroic treason, if you like. After all, it's all subjective! I'd suggest you gain some understanding of the law before you insist committing treason isn't illegal because you can make up counterfactual "heroic" motives which purport, but fail to, justify it. Morality might be subjective (doubtful, but some people buy into the nonsense and I don't feel like arguing it at the moment), but law is not. "But I did it for the greater good of America" is not going to get the President off the hook for agreeing to let Al Qaeda bomb Los Angeles, no matter how much bull gets spun.