Was Mace Windu technically committing treason or not?

Question

In Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, Chancellor Palpatine accuses Mace Windu and other Jedi Masters of treason for trying to arrest him. Were they actually committing treason though?

First of all, Palpatine had certainly broken the law. He assisted the Trade Federation and therefore had committed treason himself. He also took action to murder Obi-Wan Kenobi and Qui-Gon Jinn, which is surely illegal.

I don't know if Mace Windu was legally allowed to arrest Palpatine, but even if not he was trying to arrest a criminal, perhaps this could go down as a citizen's arrest.

So the question is: My lord, is that legal (to arrest Palpatine, or was it treason)?

Depending on the definition of treason, it might be neither legal nor treason - it might be some other crime. ("Coup d'etat" springs to mind as a description, but I'm not entirely sure how that would make it on a docket.) — Cadence, Dec 04 '19 at 00:29
I don't think we know enough of the legal particulars of the Republic. It was probably illegal (usually you at least need some kind of warrant to arrest the head of state). Probably not treason depending on its definition. When the plan changed to summary execution he was definitely going to be in trouble. — OrangeDog, Dec 04 '19 at 00:31
Palpatine had certainly broken the law. He assisted the Trade Federation and therefore had committed treason himself. ~> That's upto the courts to decide, not a Jedi. — user931, Dec 04 '19 at 07:10
@StopHarmingMonica We certainly need to know more: As the actions of which Palpatine was being accused did not seem to violate established law ("being a Sith Lord" not actually being illegal - "Colluding with the enemy" or "passing classified information to Separatist forces" would have been though), then under a USA-style system this falls within immunity from liability for civil damages - so threatening to arrest the president-expy would be treason unless he were impeached. Under a UK-style system, arresting the Prime Minister-expy in similar circumstances wouldn't be treason... — Chronocidal, Dec 04 '19 at 11:00
@NKCampbell In Episode 1, no - as the Trade Federation was still part of the Republic. As senator for Naboo, you can argue that it might have been a conflict of interest - or that he was in a position to legally agree to the blockade during renegotiations of whatever treaty the Trade Federation were claiming was broken. Actions in "The Clone Wars" TV show, where Sidious is seen actively passing classified intel to the Separatists, & organising/ordering terrorist attacks on Republic planets - including Coruscant - to further his own political agenda? Definitely treason - but, any proof? — Chronocidal, Dec 04 '19 at 11:07
Historically, treason has been a much-abused charge. Find out about what is known as constructive treason and old English common law definitions of treason. This is why it is impossible to answer an "Is this treason?" question without knowing the details of the law in the jurisdiction concerned. This question is asking about a fictional jurisdiction, whose creators might not have even thought of fleshing it out in this amount of detail. And one that slightly alludes to the Roman Republic and Empire, moreover, whose leges maiestatis were quite different to English common law. — JdeBP, Dec 04 '19 at 17:02
I can't possibly see how this is a duplicate of https://scifi.stackexchange.com/q/164080/110291 That one is asking whether or not it was legal for Palpatine to execute Order 66, this one is asking whether or not Mace Windu was legally allowed to arrest Palpatine. I guess they are related questions but that doesn't make them the same question. Even if order 66 was legal that doesn't necessarily mean that they couldn't arrest him. Perhaps an answer could draw upon that fact and reference the other question, but an answer to that question isn't likely to directly answer this as well. — Levi C. Olson, Dec 04 '19 at 20:40
to me it is the same answer since Order 66, as written, is invoked if the Jedi turn traitor against the Chancellor. If a question answers if Order 66 is legally invoked or not, it by defintion then answers whether the Jedi, legally speaking, were traitorous. — NKCampbell, Dec 05 '19 at 16:15
@NKCampbell Order 66, as written is "In the event of Jedi officers acting against the interests of the Republic" - which is a much lesser offense than treason. For example, the "Interests of the Republic" could - under certain circumstances - involve executing an individual or group, while the Jedi might prefer to capture and imprison them instead. "Exposing a prominent Politician in a time of open war" could be seen as "against the interests of the Republic", even if that politician is heavily corrupt - because it would be better delayed until it won't weaken the Republic against the CIS. — Chronocidal, Dec 05 '19 at 16:48
In reality, treason is whatever the people in charge SAY it is. — Omegacron, Dec 05 '19 at 23:42

score 30 · Answer 1 · edited Jun 16 '20 at 09:31

30

The novelisation has a very slightly different version of the conversation with Windu and Palpatine. It would appear that their stated reason for arresting him was flawed, hence their arrest procedure was flawed since you can't just arrest someone for their religious beliefs in the Republic.

PALPATINE: I beg your pardon? What I am? When last I checked, I was Supreme Chancellor of the Republic you are sworn to serve. I hope I misunderstand what you mean by custody, Master Windu. It smacks of treason.

MACE WINDU: You’re under arrest.

PALPATINE: Really, Master Windu, you cannot be serious. On what charge?

MACE WINDU: You’re a Sith Lord!

PALPATINE: 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 type of persecution. 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?

_{^{Revenge of the Sith: Official Novelisation}}

That being said, they also have evidence (from Anakin's testimony about Palpatine's admission) that Palpatine has been consorting with the enemy, so their decision to confront him was entirely valid. He's been committing treason and their intention was to arrest him for trial by the Senate rather than simply assassinating him.

MACE WINDU: In the name of the Galactic Senate of the Republic, you are under arrest, Chancellor.

MACE WINDU and the other JEDI ignite their lightsabers.

PALPATINE: Are you threatening me, Master Jedi?

MACE: The Senate will decide your fate.

_{^{RotS: Original Screenoplay}}

Without having a copy of the Republic Code of Justice in front of us, we can be reasonably certain that any decisions made in this matter would be political in nature, rather than being decided by recourse to the criminal courts, but their decision to arrest him immediately was a valid and proportionate one (and entirely legal), given the immediacy of his contact with the enemy and the severity of his crimes.

edited Jun 16 '20 at 09:31

Community

1

answered Dec 04 '19 at 06:44

Valorum

689,072
162
4,636
4,873

But did Jedi have an authority to arrest anyone? They weren't a police force IIRC. In both sources it looks like Jedi were lynching the Supreme Chancellor. – user28434 Dec 04 '19 at 11:49
2

@user28434 - The Jedi order works for (alongside?) the Judicial Department, from whom they also receive payment. This presumably gives them the right to arrest criminals. – Valorum Dec 04 '19 at 11:57
1

@user28434 so you think, it might be possible that Jedi are allowed to kill people (as we witness several times during Episode I to III), but not to arrest them? – Holger Dec 04 '19 at 12:39
@Holger, indeed. Also, that "Jedi business" remark in ep.II that calmed people down shows that they could just run around with sabers tackling people. So, the question now is: Do they have authority to arrest members of republican bureaucracy? Because there were no examples of it, except Palpatine case. And that thing exist in our world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_immunity. – user28434 Dec 04 '19 at 14:29
2

@user28434 - They were arresting him and binding him over for trial by the Senate. It would be for the Senate to judge both the crime and the legality/legitimacy of the arrest itself. – Valorum Dec 04 '19 at 14:42
2

@user28434 usually, immunity can be removed by the parliament or in case of the old republic in a galaxy far away, a long time ago, the Senate. And that’s where the Jedi wanted to bring him, initially. Ironically, letting the Senate decide the fate of the elected Supreme Chancellor should be part of the democratic process anyway, even without custody. And when he’s talking before the Senate, he could complain about the jurisdiction issue he has with the Jedi. The Jedi might not have the right to arrest the Supreme Chancellor, but the Supreme Chancellor hasn’t the right to kill traitors either. – Holger Dec 04 '19 at 15:05
@Holger, Supreme Chancellor may claim it was self defence. Well, he did exactly that. And, I think proper procedure for Jedi was to address Senate and make them start impeachment procedure first, and only then arrest and prosecute the Chancellor. I don't think urgently arresting him on the spot was necessary. – user28434 Dec 04 '19 at 15:11
1

@user28434 well he claimed “self defense” and there was no-one to object the new imperator, not to speak of the only witness being his new Sith apprentice. But doubting the legality of an arrest does not justify killing. It’s not like our real world courts never acquitted people because an arrest was deemed illegal. Now imagine, how our world looked like, if all of those persons killed the police men in “self defense” instead of letting the court decide… – Holger Dec 04 '19 at 15:18
@Holger, if regular people would kill police in "self defence", it would be a chaos. Elected officials on the other hand… are more socially signicant than regular person and even a policeman, and may be "allowed" to do so. Because world where any policeman can arrest without warrant/attack an elected official looks even worse. – user28434 Dec 04 '19 at 15:58
3

Or do you intend to arrest the Senate as well? Seeing Palpatine refer to himself in third person is pretty weird... – Reaper Dec 05 '19 at 20:41
@user28434 I'm not sure about their authority in that regard, but there is a plenty of examples of them arresting someone, so I guess the judicial system was ok with that? – Reaper Dec 05 '19 at 20:45

SpaceWolf1701 · Answer 2 · 2019-12-04T05:24:58.417

I can provide an answer for the Legends continuity.

Windu and his fellow Jedi were authorized by Yoda (per the Revenge of the Sith novelization) to carry out the arrest of the Supreme Chancellor. However, since they showed up at Palpatine's private office without any Senate guards or security forces in tow, nor with any apparent warrant or legal cause for Palpatine's arrest, it's quite possible that they were technically committing treason by forcibly deposing the Chancellor even if they were doing it with the Republic's best interests in mind. Without knowing the full extent of the Jedi Order's jurisdiction in arrests et cetera as applied to high-ranking Republic political figures, Palpatine's accusation of treason may have been legitimate or only been for his office's security feed to further push his narrative that the Jedi attempted a coup.

The Republic Commando books by Karen Traviss describe several "Contingency Orders for the GAR", two of which are Order 65 and the infamous Order 66. Order 65 reads as follows:

Order 65: In the event of either (i) a majority in the Senate declaring the Supreme Commander (Chancellor) to be unfit to issue orders, or (ii) the Security Council declaring him to be unfit to issue orders, and an authenticated order being received by the GAR, commanders shall be authorized to detain the Supreme Commander, with lethal force if necessary, and command of the GAR shall fall to the acting Chancellor until a successor is appointed or alternative authority identified as outlined in Section 6 (iv).

According to the Contingency Orders, it was legal to remove the Supreme Chancellor from office, but only with authorization from the Senate or the Security Council, neither of which was given when Windu attempted to arrest Palpatine. Taking matters into their own hands, despite Windu's conviction that Palpatine "[controlled] the Senate and the courts" and the Jedi's status as commanding officers in the GAR that would have allowed them to temporarily take command in the absence of the Chancellor, would probably count as a treasonous action under these circumstances.

It may be worth adding that the Jedi were explicitly officers of the GAR; Windu himself was a General. — Cadence, Dec 04 '19 at 02:38
It's entirely possible that accusations of treason had a different protocol. I'm blanking on specific examples but I feel like I remember Jedi making or attempting other arrests for treason without anyone's approval. Quinlan Vos, Barriss Offee, Ahsoka Tano, and Pong Krell in the Clone Wars cartoon come to mind as possibilities. — TheIronCheek, Dec 04 '19 at 17:44
@TheIronCheek Umm, but Pong Krell was arrested by clones, and with a good reason. Barriss outright attacked Anakin, so it's not like they had much choice. And Ahsoka was already on the wanted list, since she was thought to have killed some of the clones, breached out of the prison, etc. — Reaper, Dec 05 '19 at 21:01

Was Mace Windu technically committing treason or not?

2 Answers2

Linked

Related