This is something I've wondered about for 7 years now. Once the immediate threat to Naboo was removed, why didn't the Jedi council act to liberate Tatooine? That would seem to be part of their charter; saving the enslaved and the oppressed. Six Jedi knights should have been sufficient. Eight tops. After all; Qui-gonn and Kenobi effectively liberated Naboo. And any Jedi sent to the world of the Hutts, wouldn't have Sith lords to contend with! Are Jedi forbidden to act on a planet that is not a member of the republic? That doesn't appear to be the case. Remember, Padme was shocked that there was still slavery anywhere in the galaxy... It also seems like a really valid reason for Anakin to hold a grudge against the Jedi council. Fodder for Palpatine to use in turning Anakin against them.

To liberate Tatooine the jedi would of have to of taken on the Hutts, and yes they probably could of beaten them but can you imagine the back lash from that one. It would create a war in itself which the jedi do not want. As Qui-Gonn says in The Phantom Menace the jedi are not on Tatooine to free slaves.
Why would they just liberate Tatooine ? What about all the other planets that have slaves on them, wouldn't they have to liberate them too ? Unfortunately it was not the will of the force to free slaves, right up until Return of the jedi, slaves are still being used in the galaxy, as Leia finds out. Even Anakin never full fills his promise to free the slaves on Tattoine, i guess when your a jedi other things take priority.

The Jedi were the peace-keeping arm of the Galactic Republic. They didn't go anyplace unless they were on a specific assignment. Per the dinner scene in Episode 1, there are already governmental anti-slavery laws -- Padmé points this out -- but as Shmi replies, "The government doesn't exist out here."

Yes, the Jedi could've liberated Tatooine quite easily, but the Republic didn't care enough about Tatooine to assign them to the task. It's all part and parcel of how corrupt the Republic, which included the Jedi Order, had become, thus setting the stage for Palpatine to step in and take over.

Quinlan Vos; It's true they couldn't stop with just Tatooine, they should free all the slaves in the galaxy. However, I would think that's part of their charter! Saving the down-trodden, championing the defenseless... As for it starting a war with the Hutts, I doubt that would be much of a problem for Jedi Knights, even if the Hutts hired lots of bounty hunters. Jango Fett was the best of the best. Yet look at him, without his flying jet pack and without his cable emitter and without his son in the ship, SHOOTING LASER CANNONS at them, he wasn't so tough. Mace Windu made pretty quick work of him! Also, while freeing every slave in the galaxy might seem a daunting task, I would think that since the Jedi became AWARE of the situation on Tatooine, they might have done something, even if the rest of the galaxy's slave trade remained unaffected. Still pondering -Bob

Darth Bane - not every Jedi has abilities like Mace Windu and some races are Force-resistant, so a bunch of bounty hunters would do great harm to a group of Jedi - thermal detonators, for instance, can't be deflected by lightsabers and rifles have a better range than the sabers.

Ans sometimes, even if you are aware of a certain situation (and potentially able to stop it), you can't do a single thing about it because the consequences will be really dangerous.

Think of how the USA 'liberated' Iraq - they would've done nothing if it weren't for the oil.
Or think about North Korea - the Government keeps a very thight grip on the poverty-stricken people (much like the Hutts do on Tatooine or in Hutt Space), even minor offenses are punished severely.
Sounds definitely like "that's against the human rights!", right? Nobody does anything about it because of the consequences.

Freeing slaves when slavery is illegal is fine. Freeing them when slavery is allowed (or sanctioned by the Government) is quite another.
For instance, slavery was completely fine by the USA until the Civil War.

Actually, slavery was a major point of contention from the very beginning of the founding of the United States. If you look at the major compromises that came about regarding slave vs. free states you'd see that the U.S. Civil War was the end result of over 150 years of compromise after compromise between the North & the South as colonies of Britain & as free and independent States.

So slavery was not completely fine with the U.S. It was condoned by a minority of land owners who's only hold on Congress was the fact that they could claim 3/5th's of a person for House representation (a Constitutional Convention compromise btw) for every slave they owned. That is until secession of the Southern States from the Republic and the subsequent creation of the Confederacy.

Anyways, regarding the topic...

Being that the Jedi were the "enforcement" arm of the Senate they could only enforce Galactic Law in areas where planets were members. Tatooine was controlled by the Hutts, so even though slavery was supposedly illegal throughout the galaxy the Jedi and Senate had no oversight of Hutt Space.

That's why Qui Gonn could not just free Anakin and his Shmi from Watto in TPM.

Your right Darth Bane, winning a war against the Hutts wouldn't be a problem for Jedi but starting the war might be. I thought Jedi where mean't to be preservers of the peace not war mongers. I still think that the jedi fighting in the clone wars was part of the reason the jedi order failed. I don't know if you have heard of "the lost twenty" but they where jedi that renounced the jedi order in the clone wars because of what they where having to do. Many of them could not stand to see the loss of life caused by the war, so they left the order because they believed it was failing. So i think it is not a case of if they could start and win a war but if they should.It goes against what the jedi stand for.

Hi Quinlan. I hear you. I can't really argue without knowing more about the Hutts, I guess. I never thought they had a standing army. They seem more like actual gangsters, like the mafia. Lots of hitmen, but not a real huge militia. The Jedi could defeat them without starting a war. And I always had the impression the Jedi were ruled as much by their system of decency, as by what the senate wanted... And even if the government of the Republic has no interest in the outlying planets, they still are subject to rule of law. Just like moon-shiners in backwoods Tennesse or Kentucky. Just because the government doesn't know about it doesn't make it okay. Remember Padme's shock at finding out there was still slavery in the galaxy... And as for Force-resistant beings in the galaxy, Lucas never said there was any such thing. That was an invention of Timothy Zahn. (A great writer, but not the best storyteller for the Star Wars universe. Too much buildup and not enough action. The suspense was there, but not a real sense of fun or adventure.) -Bob

Tatoonie was not part of teh Republic.. And it wasn't part of the Empire either.
But as such The republic had no authroity there.. As such neitehr did the Jedi. could the Jedi have taken it upon themselves to free teh slaves. Sure.. But unless tatoonie was going to join the republic or the Jedi maintain a full time force to enforce the laws etc. what good would it have done. The huts would have moved back in or some other power.

Tatooine was nominally part of the Republic. But the Republic didn't care enough about it to enforce its anti-slavery laws.

Similarly, Tatooine was nominally part of the Empire. But until the Death Star plans landed on it in ANH, the Empire didn't care enough about it to do anything with it.

Do you have a source for that statement?
According to the books, the EU and GL himself, Tatooine wasn't part of the republic, but controlled by the Hutts.
It changed when the Empire took action.

My source: the movies, specifically TPM when Padmé says she can't believe there's still slavery in the galaxy, the Republic's anti-slavery laws are...and then Shmi interrupts saying that the Republic "doesn't exist out here." I took that to mean that Tatooine was nominally part of the Republic; they just didn't care enough about the planet to enforce its anti-slavery laws there.

I don't consider the EU a source: it's a parallel universe. (Quote from GL in "TV Guide.") As for GL saying that Tatooine wasn't part of the Republic, where/when did he say it?

A 14 year old child, even somehow 'elected' to be a queen, isn't that much knowledgeable about the Galaxy at large.
Shmi was right that the Republic didn't exist on Tatooine, but there were no troops of a Jedi to keep up the peace - it wasn't part of the Republic. The Empire annected it with a troop complement of 20 stormtroopers.
The history of Tatooine can be seen here Tatooine; if you won't consider the EU for advice, that's your choice, do as you want.

Padmé had been trained for galactic politics from a very young age, so while she certainly didn't know everything about them, she knew quite a bit.

Tatooine was part of the Republic, but the Republic didn't care enough about it to enforce anti-slavery laws, just like it didn't care enough about Naboo to expend more than the minimal effort to relieve the trade dispute.

Tatooine was certainly not part of the Old Republic - see my posted link above for details.

Wikipedia is hardly the most unimpeachable source, in no small part because its entries can be altered by anyone.

According to the movies, Tatooine was part of the Republic, but the Republic didn't care enough about it to enforce its anti-slavery laws.

Truthfully the Republic/Empire's control over Tatooine is debatable, regardless what source you choose. Even if there was representation in the Galactic Senate (something not addressed in the movies), the Hutts ruled Tatooine. That we know for sure.

Shmi mentioned in TPM: "The Republic doesn't exist out here… we must survive on our own."

So it's entirely an argument of semantics. Did the Republic claim Tatooine as a part of the charter? Probably. Could they control what happened on the planet? If you draw from what we know from the movies as a whole, I'm absolutely convinced they could not.

Fair enough, madison; I admit that even in the movies the wording isn't absolutely precise. I took the exchange between Padmé and Shmi to mean that Tatooine was part of the Republic, but only nominally -- the Hutts actually ran it and defied the anti-slavery laws because the Republic didn't care enough to stop them.

Anakin was the only one who once wanted to liberate Tatooine. But the jedi are to protect the Republic. Not to bring peace to the entire universe. That's only what Anakin tried to do. The Trade Federation was a really big threat to the entire galaxy. The hutts aren't. They don't even have an army. The Republic and the Jedi were to busy to fight the Trade Federation. They didn't have much time or men left for things like: 'Come on, let's do some good deeds and liberate Tatooine!'