Home Blog Page 19

The Rebel Bunch: The Legal Status of Rebel Fighters in Rogue One

1

 

Warning: Rogue One spoilers ahead.

“You’re all rebels, aren’t you?”

With all the moving pieces in Rogue One, don’t feel bad if you came away a little confused about how exactly the Rebel Alliance is composed. After all, even Jyn Erso had trouble making sense of it when she first arrived at the Rebel base. In the original trilogy films the good guys were really easy to tell apart from the bad ones—partly because of the Empire’s affinity for white, black, and various tones of grey. Rogue One muddied those waters.

Someone please tell Anakin to shove it.

In the original trilogy, the Rebellion was portrayed as a singular entity: a rag tag force that ducked, bobbed, and weaved around the galaxy. Rogue One changed that by showing us a fragile Rebel Alliance beset by divisiveness and extremist factions.

In this way Rogue One mirrors the real world, as conflicts have rarely been limited to two factions duking it out on the battlefield. The US experienced this in its own history, with irregular forces playing a role in almost every conflict from the American Revolution to operations in Afghanistan. Militias, extremists, and other irregular military forces often present complications that extend far past any single battle. Most recently, the “War on Terror” and Syrian Civil War have brought these complications into sharp focus as nations grapple with how to deal with different types of fighters.

Rogue One presents many of those same issues. While the larger Rebel Alliance struggles to throw off the Empire’s yoke, splinter elements like Saw Gerrera’s ruthless militia frustrate their efforts. The interplay between the Alliance and Saw’s forces poses an interesting question: What sort of legal status do the fighters in Rogue One have?

Darth Vader demonstrates his own method of determining one’s combatant status.

Fortunately, we don’t need K-2SO’s skills in strategic analysis to answer this one. Under the law of war, those who take direct part in fighting are considered combatants. But not all combatants are created equal under the law of war. “Privileged” (or “lawful”) combatants are those who meet certain traditional criteria established, in part, by The Hague and Geneva Conventions. Those requirements include (1) wearing a fixed distinctive sign or uniform; (2) operating under a military command; (3) carrying arms openly; and (4) abiding by the laws of war. Someone who fights but does not meet one or more of those requirements is considered an “unprivileged” (or “unlawful”) combatant. There is a big distinction between the two, as “privileged” combatants are entitled to prisoner of war (POW) status if captured and bear no criminal responsibility for acts within the bounds of the law of war.

Luckily for the Rebels, they fit the criteria for privileged combatants. First, while they may lack the polished white armor of Imperial stormtroopers (or the supremely badass Death Troopers’ black kits), the Rebels wear their own brand of uniform. We see a mix of these throughout Star Wars, from the iconic blaze orange flight suits of Red and Gold squadrons to the dapper button down and vest-wearing fleet troopers. Many Rebel pilots’ helmets are also emblazoned with the Rebellion’s iconic starbird symbol.

The latest in Rebel pilot and fleet trooper fashion.

The Rebel Special Forces (SpecForces) Soldiers who volunteered for the Scarif infiltration may not have REBELLION stitched on their backs, but they were still equipped in uniforms. Much like their brethren on Han Solo’s Endor strike team, their uniforms were meant to be utilitarian. Their shirts, vests, cargo pants, and combat boots are roughly similar to each other. The Continental Army faced similar circumstances during the American Revolution. American troops generally wore similar uniforms, but not every soldier had access to the same supplies, which sometimes resulted in ragtag-looking battle formations. As a whole, the Alliance’s uniforms are distinctive, which serves an important underlying purpose: It helps distinguish them from civilians on the battlefield.

Saw Gerrera’s militia force on Jedha provides a stark contrast. His forces forgo any type of uniform. This is best exemplified in the scene where Saw’s forces ambush an Imperial tank in the middle of Jedha City. His forces dress in clothing similar to Jedha civilians, wearing no type of uniform or distinctive insignia. Doing this surprises the Imperial troops when they hit the tank. After the ambush they again take advantage of their civilian appearance to melt back into the civilian population as Imperial reinforcements arrive.

Second, Alliance fighters operate under a military command. The Rebels in Rogue One have a clearly established chain of command, from lower enlisted troops like Corporal Bistan (everyone’s favorite space monkey door gunner on the U-Wing) all the way up to officers like crotchety General Draven and loveable Admiral Raddus. While one can certainly question the Alliance’s military decision-making (ahem, Admiral Raddus—we all saw you cowboy off to Scarif), there is no question that their forces are organized in roughly a traditional command structure. Those in authority maintain control over their forces and bear responsibility for their actions.

On the other hand, Saw’s forces are merely a loosely cobbled collection of denizens aligned around a similar goal. Saw is undoubtedly the leader of the group, but his position bears little resemblance to the type of military command contemplated by the law of war. To Saw Gerrera, this presents an advantage—the lack of rigid military command, control, and accountability gives his forces moral and tactical flexibility to more quickly achieve their objectives.

Besmirching Saw like that will get you sent straight to the bor gullet for a slimy tentacle hug.

Third, Alliance troops carry their arms openly. The requirement that privileged combatants carry arms openly helps distinguish them from civilians, just as with the uniform requirement. In Rogue One, the Rebel SpecForces on Scarif openly carried blasters as they maneuvered, fired, and displaced. The same went for the unfortunate Rebel troopers who rushed to download the Death Star plans before getting cut to ribbons by Darth Vader in quite possibly the most amazing Star Wars scene ever.

In comparison, Saw’s band of fighters only did so when it suited them. While some of his men are seen openly armed during the prisoner exchange with Bodhi, those involved in the Jedha City ambush conceal their arms until the last second. This quickly causes chaos, as the Imperials have trouble telling combatants apart from civilians in the fray. This confusion unnecessarily put civilians in harm’s way.

The Tin Man wanted a heart…poor K-2SO just wanted a shiny new Blastech blaster pistol.

Finally, although some of their actions were questionable, the Alliance abides by the law of war throughout Rogue One. For instance, they do not kill indiscriminately or target civilians. The Rebels contain their strikes to legitimate military targets, using force only when necessary. Conversely, Saw Gerrera’s forces appear to be at peace with violating the law of war if it helped achieve their objectives. The Jedha City ambush is a prime example, as many of Saw’s men disguise themselves as civilians before firing on stormtroopers. Under the Geneva Conventions Additional Protocol I, feigning protected civilian status to kill enemy combatants is considered perfidy, a treacherous act and breach of the law of war. Similarly, Saw’s use of the tentacled bor gullet creature to interrogate Bodhi Rook arguably constituted torture, which would violate tenets of international law such as the 1984 Convention Against Torture.

Ah, the face of an unprivileged combatant that only a mother could love.

Unlike Rebel Alliance soldiers, Gerrera’s band bears a striking resemblance to groups like the World War II French resistance groups Franc-Tireur and Francs-Tireurs et Partisans. These groups operated in small cells, wore no uniforms, and aimed to disrupt German occupation of France at all costs, much like Saw’s forces sought to do on Jedha. In the post-World War II Nuremberg Trials, many of the partisan fighters aligned with those groups were found to be unprivileged combatants. Saw’s forces would likely be treated the same given their composition.

In contrast, Rebel Alliance soldiers are classified as privileged combatants. This distinction is critically important to the Alliance because of the protections privileged combatants enjoy under the law. First and foremost, any captured Alliance soldiers would be entitled to POW status and granted the protections outlined in the Third Geneva Convention. Without this sort of protection captured Alliance forces would face a grim fate upon capture, including inhumane treatment, neglect, and summary execution. Although POW status would not magically prevent the Empire from committing abuses, it is nonetheless a vital right of lawful combatants.

Additionally, as lawful combatants, Alliance forces would bear no criminal responsibility for killing enemy personnel or destroying enemy property, provided the acts were done within the bounds of the law of war. Given the Alliance operations we see in Rogue One, this protection is critical. For example, Alliance pilots could not be held responsible for killing Imperial forces during their bombing run on Eadu. Similarly, had Scarif not been swatted by the Death Star, the Rebel SpecForces would be immune for their destructive efforts on the planet.

In the end, the Alliance’s concern for distinguishing itself from Saw’s band of fanatics goes far beyond the need for legal protections. Much like American forces during the Revolution, the Alliance’s struggle for legitimacy was just as important as any of their combat operations. Splinter factions like Saw Gerrera’s severely undermine the larger cause, as their extreme tactics helped the Empire’s effort in casting the Rebellion as a collection of terrorists and insurrectionists who deserve no quarter. It is therefore essential that the Alliance distance itself from those kinds of splinter groups by conducting its combat operations appropriately—even if the bad guys are led by a psychopathic Sith lord and his youngling-murdering half robot apprentice.

Conscripting Galen Erso to Build the Death Star

0

The opening scene of Rogue One is the forced conscription at gunpoint of Galen Erso by Director Orson Krennic and his Death Troopers. The work on the Death Star was stalled and Erso was needed to complete the project.

Was that legal?

The United States history with drafting citizens for military service offers a comparison for conscripting citizens for military service.

Civil War case law addressed the first draft cases in the United States. One Court described conscription as follows:

A conscript is one taken by lot from the conscription (or enrollment) list, “and compelled to serve as a soldier or sailor.” (Web. Dic. verb. “conscript.”) The power to raise an army by conscription or coercion (the words are nearly synonymous) rests alone on the idea that the power is unlimited, as to the means to be used, as well as to the numbers of which it may be composed. If there was no other power or principle in the instrument to be affected in its operation by such a view, there would be force in the idea. But the Constitution must be administered so that the whole may stand in full force, unimpaired by any particular portion.

Kneedler v. Lane, 1863 Pa. LEXIS 268, at *66 (Nov. 9, 1863).

Galen Erso’s service was needed to complete the Death Star. Erso recognized the weapon was being built to ensure peace through terror. Moreover, most people drafted were through the mail, not at gunpoint. Furthermore, U.S. citizens have been drafted when they strongly disagreed with the war they were being drafted to fight in. As the US Supreme Court said on this issue:

Other fields of legal obligation aside, it is undoubted that the nature of conscription, much less war itself, requires the personal desires and perhaps the dissenting views of those who must serve to be subordinated in some degree to the pursuit of public purposes.

Gillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437, 459 (1971).

The US Selective Service Act allows for retired military service members to be recalled to service for up to twenty-four months:

Until July 1, 1953, and subject to the limitations imposed by section 2 of the Selective Service Act of 1948, as amended, the President shall be authorized to order into the active military or naval service of the United States for a period of not to exceed twenty-four consecutive months, with or without their consent, any or all members and units of any or all Reserve components of the Armed Forces of the United States and retired personnel of the Regular Armed Forces.

50 U.S.C.S. § 3819.

Galen Erso had left the military and was objectively opposed to building the Death Star. That was clearly evidenced by moving his family to a remote farm, complete with early warning systems and a bunker to hide his daughter. However, the concept of drafting a retired service person is not unheard of for national defense. That being said, Director Krennic’s methods are highly problematic with threatening Erso at blaster-point to kidnap his entire family.

The Death Troopers shooting Lyra Erso raises multiple other issues. Lyra arguably had a defense of others for Galen, because multiple Death Troopers had weapons pointed at Galen. However, the Death Troopers could argue they were within their rights to 1) legally draft Galen and 2) acted in self-defense after Lyra drew a weapon at them. However, this would then require an Imperial Court to recognize kidnapping families at gunpoint is not forced labor, but a legitimate way to draft service members. A galaxy far, far, away might accept that, but not this one.

Galen Erso worked on the Death Star far beyond twenty-four months. As evidenced in his holographic recording, this long tenure could be attributed to Galen’s working on the Death Star project in order to sabotage it. The Empire likely did not allow for conscripts to leave the service, but the Empire should have reconsidered their “enhanced drafting” methods.

That’s No Moon, it the Imaginary Worlds Podcast on the Death Star

0

Judge Matthew Sciarrino and I had the privilege of being guests on the Imaginary Worlds podcast celebrating Star Wars. We each were asked about the famous discussion in Clerks about independent contractors killed on the second Death Star at the Battle of Endor. We also discussed war crimes, employee safety, and many other issues from Star Wars.

A big thank you to Eric Monlinsky for inviting me to participate for the second time to discuss the legal issues in a galaxy, far, far, away.

Did Governor Tarkin Commit a War Crime Destroying Alderaan?

0

Grand Moff Tarkin ordered the destruction of Alderaan on the military necessity to demonstrate the power of the Death Star. Tarkin’s stated intent was that no star system would oppose the Emperor after destroying a planet. Alderaan was selected based on the fact Princess Leia was from there and Tarkin’s suspicion that Leia was part of the Rebellion. Tarkin selected Alderaan over Dantooine, where Leia admitted there was a Rebel base, because the planet was “too remote for an effective demonstration.”

Was the destruction of Alderaan justified under the Empire’s “Doctrine of Fear”? Or was the destruction of an entire planet a war crime?

Governor Tarkin could argue that destroying Alderaan was done out of “military necessity” to instill fear in other star systems. This is a highly problematic argument, because Tarkin would be attempting to legitimize genocide.

The Doctrine of Fear in practice. Darth Vader used debris from Alderann as a “gift” to the new Queen Trios of Shu-torun, to remind her she served the Empire, in Darth Vader, Annual 1, February 2016, published by Marvel Worldwide, Inc.

“Military necessity” are the measures “relevant and proportionate” to securing the prompt submission of the enemy. See, LINCOLN, LIEBER AND THE LAWS OF WAR: THE ORIGINS AND LIMITS OF THE PRINCIPLE OF MILITARY NECESSITY, 92 A.J.I.L. 213, 215, fn 20.

Military necessity was the justification during World War II for US Citizens of Japanese, German, and Italian decent to remain under curfew.

The Government argued that the curfew orders were a “reasonable judgment of military necessity, because ‘cultural characteristics of the Japanese Americans, including religion and education, it was likely that some, though not all, American citizens of Japanese ancestry were disloyal.’” The Government further ordered that an entire group of US Citizens had to be “contained” because of an unknown number of individuals who could have been a threat to national security. Hirabayashi v. United States, 828 F.2d 591, 596 (9th Cir. 1987).

Later Courts recognized that the internment and curfew orders were done out of racial fears. Hirabayashi, at *601. Moreover, the argument that loyalties were unknown and “time was of the essence” was based on racist statements from General John L. DeWitt with evidence suppressed from the Supreme Court for forty years. Hirabayashi, at *603, citing Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 241 (1944).

Tarkin would take the justification for interning people based on race to a new level with destroying a planet because there was “no time to discern” who was loyal and disloyal to the Empire. The entire population was subject to summary execution because of Princess Leia’s involvement in stealing the Death Star plans.

In a case involving Texas Governor Ross Sterling, the Governor ordered controls on the production of oil to within 400,000 barrels based on military necessity, because according to Sterling, there would be warlike riots and insurrection, resulting in a state of war. Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378, 391-92 (1932).

The Supreme Court rejected the Governor’s justification of military necessity to deprive citizens of their right to operate their oil businesses under state law. The District Court had stated there was not a state of war or insurrection in any territory. The Court further stated:

The evidence shows no insurrection nor riot, in fact, existing at any time in the territory, no closure of the courts, no failure of civil authorities. It shows that at no time has there been in fact any condition resembling a state of war, and that, unless the Governor may by proclamation create an irrebuttable presumption that a state of war exists, the actions of the Governor and his staff may not be justified on the ground of military necessity.”

Sterling, at* 391-92.

Governor Tarkin could argue there was insurrection within the Empire. However, destroying Alderaan would violate the prohibition from killing civilians in war. See, Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.

Nations are prohibited from committing murder on “persons taking no active part in the hostilities.” USCS Geneva IV, Article 3, section (1)(a). Blowing up an entire planet to instill fear in other star systems is the complete abandonment of any notion of universal rights.

There was no legal justification for Grand Moff Tarkin to destroy Alderaan. One could imagine Tarkin saying, “the only way to stop the Rebels is to kill their families.” This was an extreme war crime that justified Rebellion against the Empire.

Would Jabba the Hutt be Liable for the Contract Killings in Star Wars: Battlefront?

0

Electronic Arts recently released DLC, or downloadable content, for Star Wars Battlefront in advance of Rogue One’s premiere this month.  The DLC is entitled “Rogue One: Scarif,” referencing the planet of Scarif where much of the new content (and the Rogue One movie) take place.  For those unfamiliar with Star Wars: Battlefront, the game and its DLC allow the player to participate in many of the epic battles which take place in Star Wars lore as some of the series’ most iconic characters.  Particularly notable about the Rogue One: Scarif DLC was the inclusion of Jyn’s Solution and Krennic’s Offense, two weapons available by completing the appropriate “Hutt Contracts” in game.  The “Hutt Contracts” are offered by the incomparable Jabba the Hutt, and are completed by killing other characters with certain weapons a specified number of times.  Though the in-game murders are perpetrated by the player’s character, Jabba would also be liable for the player’s criminal actions through the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”).

RICO states, in part, that “It is unlawful for anyone employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.” Racketeering activity is defined, in part, as “any act or threat involving murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene matter or dealing in a controlled substance…which is chargeable under State law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year.”  Effectively, RICO extends criminal liability to the leaders of a crime syndicate who ordered another to commit, or assisted another in committing, the serious, specified crimes.

In order to be found guilty of violating RICO, it must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) an enterprise existed; (2) the enterprise affected interstate commerce; (3) the defendant was associated with or employed by the enterprise; (4) the defendant engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity; and (5) the defendant conducted or participated in the conduct of the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity through the commission of at least  two acts of racketeering activity.

Jabba’s crime syndicate easily qualifies as an enterprise under RICO, which does not necessitate any sort of business entity, but merely a group of individuals associated in fact.  By virtue of Jabba offering the Hutt Contracts to players, the players and Jabba are an enterprise unto themselves.  Furthermore, as Jabba’s crime syndicate was substantial enough to be a primary source of wealth for Tatooine, it is safe to say that his criminal enterprise not only effected interstate commerce, but also interplanetary commerce.  The Hutt Contracts, in particular, are exemplary of how Jabba’s enterprise impacts interstate commerce.  Players who seek to complete the Hutt Contracts are not limited to one physical area to complete said contracts.  Instead, players are able to travel from planet to planet to obtain a sufficient number of kills to satisfy the contract.  As travel between planets to commit the murders is a necessary part of the gameplay, satisfaction of the Hutt Contracts necessitates an impact on interstate (and interplanetary) commerce.  Association with the criminal enterprise is given in this matter, as we are aware that Jabba is the head of the crime syndicate in question by his offering of the Hutt Contracts, and the players are associated by virtue of their acceptance of Jabba’s unlawful contracts to kill people.

Lastly, the player, at the behest of Jabba, engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity by committing multiple murders in order to fulfill any of the Hutt Contracts.  In order to establish a sufficient pattern, at least two acts of racketeering activity must be committed within ten years of each other, said activities must be related, and the activities must amount to or pose a threat of continued criminal activity.  In the matter of the Hutt Contracts, the murders are completed within a short amount of time, as one is able to complete a contract within several matches.  Furthermore, the racketeering activities of the Hutt Contracts are related, as they are offered proximately to one another, have similar goals, payments, methodologies, and rely upon similar repetition of unlawful actions.  The Hutt Contracts also pose a threat to continued racketeering activities by the very nature of offering many murder-for-hire contracts which are fulfilled in different ways.  One cannot simply complete all of the Hutt Contracts in the same manner.

Though Jabba could have been found liable for the many unlawful activities offered in the Hutt Contracts by means of the RICO doctrine, it is important to remember that Jabba’s criminal enterprise extended far beyond murder-for-hire.  Realistically, as one of the Outer Rim’s most notorious crime lords, Jabba’s exposure to potential RICO liability was sizeable. Though Jabba may have been liable for a variety of racketeering activity, he nonetheless evaded the court’s justice for prosecution under RICO.  Unfortunately for Jabba, he was unable to avoid Leia.

I had family on the Death Star! Who can I sue?

0

Every Star Wars fan knows the feeling from that epic moment when Luke fires his proton torpedoes and they go right into the exhaust port causing a chain reaction and blowing up the Death Star. When I attended the re-release many years ago the entire theatre cheered, however at some point you begin to wonder, “Who would design a massive battle weapon that could be blown up by any farm boy who could bullseye womp rats in Beggar’s Canyon in a T-16?” And, if you had family on that Death Star is there someone you could hold accountable for its poor design assuming the Empire were governed by U.S. law?

Who can you sue?

Rebels: Not for the exhaust port issue. There was a weakness, they exploited it and while they did blow up the Death Star they didn’t design it. So, while there are other grounds you may be able to sue them over it won’t be over the poor design of the Death Star. (Besides, even if you do get a judgment, how are you going to collect? You’d have to join up, convince them you had a death sentence on your head, and then hope they coughed up some credits so you could pay it off.)

Manufacturer: Probably not. Death Stars aren’t built for consumer use, at least not yet….

Contractor: Once again, probably not. It wasn’t shoddy work that caused it to explode. It was built as designed, which we know because the rebels are able to determine how to blow it up based on the stolen blueprints.

The Empire: Nope. Sovereign immunity says that legally the state can do no wrong, so you can’t sue it either criminally or civilly, unless it allows itself to be sued. Also, Darth Vader has killed people for less reason than that, so even if you could sue the Empire it would exponentially increase your chance of being choked to death by the force. But if a military contractor drew up the plans, you might possibly be able to hold them accountable….

Military Contractors scramble for cover

In Boyle v. United technologies, Inc., the Supreme Court held that “Liability for design defects in military equipment cannot be imposed pursuant to state law, when (1) the United States approved reasonably precise specifications; (2) the equipment conformed to those specifications; and (3) the supplier warned the United States about the dangers in the use of the equipment that were known to the supplier but not the United States.

So, if some planet had a law saying you could sue the empire for design defects in military equipment you might have a shot. We can be sure, in this situation, that the Empire approved reasonably precise specifications for the Death Star. They knew what the Death Star was, they knew what it was supposed to be able to do, and they were the ones who constructed the “technological terror.” Reasonably precise specifications doesn’t require a contractor to justify the location of every piston in an engine, and is unlikely to require a contractor to justify the location of every thermal exhaust port.

And the equipment conformed to the specifications. They wanted a battle station that could blow up a planet, and they got a battle station that could blow up a planet. Further, everything seems to work as intended. The trash compactor compacts. The tractor beam pulls ships in. The thing even follows the Millenium Falcon through hyperspace. It just has that one flaw, which no one seems to know about until the Rebels show up to exploit it.

It’s the third piece, where the supplier warns the government about the dangers in the use of the equipment that were known to the supplier but not the government where things really fall apart. If you design a tank that has a tendency to overheat, thus causing the engine to kill in the middle of maneuvers, that’s the kind of thing people should know about; if you design a battleship with a hull that collapses on impact with anything, that’s the kind of thing people should know about; and if your technological terror can be defeated by shooting two proton torpedoes, which are readily available throughout the galaxy, into a thermal exhaust port creating a chain reaction that will cause your entire battle station to blow up, that’s the kind of thing you should definitely know about.

The Rebellion is prominent enough that one would assume that sooner or later the Death Star will get attacked. And the Rebels, after only a little time with the blueprints are able to determine the way to blow up the Death Star is to hit a little two meter exhaust port. In the movies, Red Leader takes a shot and while it’s not a direct hit the entire Death Star keels to and fro like a drunken sailor. And, if you knew that one exhaust port would blow up the entire battle station, wouldn’t you put something in front of it like a huge metal wall, or an auto turret? Based on the fact that the Empire didn’t put anything in front of it to keep out proton torpedoes, the reasonable assumption is it was a design defect an architect or engineer knew about but didn’t bother to share. And, by not pointing out that a direct hit would cause a chain reaction blowing up the entire space station, they would be potentially liable for the deaths of all the people on the death star.

Engineers and Architects on Defense

But would the engineers or architects have any defenses to being sued?

Nonjusticable what?

There are some things the courts won’t review out of deference to the other branches of the government, military decisions are one of them. You don’t want your military leaders in the middle of the war worried about whether or not they’re going to get sued because someone slipped and broke their leg. If it’s a nonjusticable political question they can’t be held responsible, but if their actions don’t require an evaluation of a military decision then the case could go forward because it’s reviewable.  See McMahon v. Presidential Airways, Inc., 502 F.3d 1331, 1359-60 (11th Cir. 2007).

If the military is telling the contractor what to do then reviewing the contractors actions will require a review of the military order to the contractor, but if the military only provides general guidelines, allowing the contractor to use its own discretion in how something is done, then military decisions are not being questioned and the contractors actions are reviewable. See Harris v. Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., 724 F.3d 458, 466 (3rd Cir. 2013).

In the case of the Death Star it’s likely that a contractor would have been given significant discretion over how the Death Star systems were designed, and the Empire did not oversee the placement of every exhaust port, so the decision regarding the exhaust ports would be reviewable.

Things get messier then Jawa’s fighting over who saw a droid first.

This is not an area of settled law, and there are several tests available. We’ll go with the “combatant-activities, command-authority test” which has the most following at this point.  It consists of two prongs: “(1) Whether the contractor is integrated into the military’s combatant activities—this ensures that preemption occurs only when battlefield decisions are at issue – and (2) whether the contractor’s actions were the result of the military’s retention of command authority—this properly differentiates between the need to insulate the military’s battlefield decisions from state regulation and the permissible regulation of harm resulting solely from contractors’ actions.” Harris v. Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., 724 F.3d 458 (3rd Cir. 2013)

Combatant activities “include not only physical violence, but activities both necessary to and in direction connection with actual hostilities.” Johnson v. United States, 170 F.2d 767, 770 (9th Cir. 1948). ([S]upplying ammunition to fighting vessels in a combat area during war is undoubtedly a ‘combatant activity.’) The Court in Harris found that “Maintaining the electrical systems for a barracks in an active war zone is analogous to supplying ammunition to fighting vessels in a combat area and is certainly “necessary to and in direct connection” to the hostilities engaged in by the troops living in those barracks. Harris v. Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., 724 F.3d 458 (3rd Cir. 2013). In contrast, simply drawing up plans for a mobile battle station has little to do with actual hostilities, so likely does not fall under preemption.

Even if it did fall under preemption, the second prong, which asks whether the contractors actions were the result of the military’s retention of command authority, would still be unsatisfied.  In Saleh v. Titan Corp. the court found “Because performance-based statements of work describe the work in terms of the required results rather than either ‘how’ the work is to be accomplished or the number of hours to be provided, 48 C.F.R. § 37.602(b)(1), by definition, the military could not retain command authority nor operational control over contractors working on that basis and thus tort suits against such contractors would not be preempted under our holding.” 580 F.3d 1, pp 9-10 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (internal quotations omitted.) In other words, if the Empire told a contractor they wanted a Death Star and, instead of laying out the process for how it should be built let the contractor decide the best way to build it to meet the Empires’ specifications, there would be no preemption.

Conclusion:

A case could be brought against a contractor who drew up the plans for Death Star because of the poor placement of the one exhaust port that caused the entire station to blow up, the court would just need to get to the contractor before Lord Vader does.

The Case for Boba Fett as a Bail Bondsman

0
Image Source: The Empire Strikes Back

Fans across the world were filled with outrage and astonishment as they watched their hero Han Solo get carted off in Boba Fett’s Slave I at the end of The Empire Strikes Back. Who would be so evil as to turn in a hero of the rebellion to the Empire, just to have him frozen in carbonite? What if I told you that Boba Fett may not have been so evil? In fact, Boba Fett may have simply been carrying out a perfectly legitimate aspect of his employment as a bounty hunter.

Bounty Hunting Law

Bounty hunting is a profession which most people are most likely to hear about in movies or T.V.. However, bounty hunting is still a very real profession. The concept of bounty hunting people are familiar with is very different than actual bounty hunting. The idea that someone can abscond with a person after a price is put on his or her head sounds more like kidnapping than bounty hunting. The actual laws that govern bounty hunting in the United States date back well over 100 years. In 1872, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Taylor v. Taintor. 83 U.S. 366 (1872). As a part of that decision, the Court determined that the person to whom an accused is remanded as part of his or her bail has sweeping rights to the accused. This essentially gave bounty hunters carte blanche to do as they wanted.

Today, those sames laws are not necessarily held as precedent. In fact, as is the case for all bounty hunting laws, each individual state determines the powers and authority a bounty hunter has within its jurisdiction. The common core to all of these laws though, revolves around the idea of bails. Not to be confused with the hay variety, bails are executed in criminal cases when a bail bondsperson or an agent acts as a surety and pledges money or property as a promise for an accused person to appear in court. Typically the accused executes a contract with the bondsperson whereby they are obligated to pay the bondsperson the premium amount on the bond, while in exchange they get the freedom to leave police custody.

Ultimately, the government of any jurisdiction determines when a bond can issue, as well as what the terms are for retrieving someone who jumps on the bond. Not all states require that something be done. In fact, in 2007 four states banned the process for commercial bail bonds altogether (Illinois, Kentucky, Oregon, and Wisconsin). However, it would appear that that same ban did not reach the jurisdiction of the Empire.

Securing the Bounty

Image Source: The Empire Strikes Back

In the Empire Strikes Back, Darth Vader contacted bounty hunters in an effort to track down Han Solo and the crew of the Millennium Falcon.The likely motivation was to capture those close to Luke Skywalker so the Empire could eventually trap him. Darth Vader goes on to say that he wants the crew captured by any means necessary as long as they’re alive, “no disintegrations.” Contrary to what Bon Jovi would have you believe, not every fugitive is wanted dead or alive. Boba Fett made this distinction clear when he raised his concerns on carbonite freezing to Darth Vader. He made it clear that he could not bring Han Solo back to Jabba the Hutt unless he was alive. Thankfully, this is how actual bounty hunters operate, although the rules governing this can vary.

Although jurisdictions differ on bounty hunting regulations, Connecticut General Statutes Sec. 29-152o-1 is clear on the application process for becoming what the state calls a “bail enforcement agent.” Assuming the Empire has similar  regulations, the bounty hunters called by Darth Vader would need a license to enforce the bail laws set by the Empire, within the Empire’s jurisdiction.

Han Solo’s Bail Agreement

The first question is whether or not Han Solo had executed a bail agreement. Without a bail agreement, and without “skipping” on that agreement, then there would be no reason to apprehend Han Solo. It was made clear in A New Hope that Jabba was angered by Han Solo after he jettisoned cargo while his ship was threatened to be boarded by Imperial Authorities. Afterward, Jabba sent “bounty hunters” after him. Eventually, when Han Solo brokered a deal with Jabba to pay him back, plus interest, Jabba agreed to let Han Solo leave on his own recognizance. Ostensibly, Jabba is acting in his capacity as a crime lord, and is using Boba Fett to capture Han Solo so that he can “shake him down” for the money he owes him. Arguably though, if Boba Fett  is acting as a government body on Tatooine, then he may have been tracking Han Solo in the capacity of a bail enforcement agent.

Since the Desilijic clan seems to be the only acting authority on Tatooine (other than the Empire), they may be a legitimate government entity, which can set bail. If Han Solo’s actions were viewed as a crime, which I’m sure in Jabba’s eyes they were, then allowing Han Solo to leave and pay him back more money acts as a kind of bail. This makes sense as  after Jabba learns that Han Solo joined the Rebel Alliance, he sets another bounty on Han Solo because he has “skipped” on his bail. In this instance, the government entity would set the bail, as well as provide the bond. While this may seem unusual in the United States, the only countries that use a commercial bail bond system are the United States and the Philippines. In a global sense, other countries do not have privatized bail bonds, so Jabba’s issuance of a bond would not be that unusual.  

Executing a Bond in a Different Jurisdiction

Image Source: The Empire Strikes Back

The problem then arises as to whether or not Boba Fett could have legally gone to Cloud City to apprehend Han Solo. Depending on the laws of Bespin, unless Boba Fett was properly licensed to act as a bail enforcement agent, then his actions would have amounted to criminal abduction. The Virginia Supreme Court recently decided this issue in  Collins v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 720 S.E.2d 530 (2012). In that case, a bounty hunter from North Carolina travelled to Virginia to apprehend someone skipping bail.  The Court determined that a bail bondsman licensed in another state does not have the authority to apprehend a fugitive bailee in Virginia. Similarly, Boba Fett may not have been licensed to operate in Bespin, and thus was not authorized to apprehend Hans Solo in Cloud City.

However, since Bespin, like Tatooine, is an Outer Rim planet, and the Empire was exerting control over those territories, it serves to reason that if we are assuming Boba Fett is licensed as a bail enforcement agent under the jurisdiction of the Empire, then he legally had the ability to apprehend Han Solo on any of those planets.

At the end of the day, Jabba’s “bounty” on Han Solo may have simply been a crime lord trying to collect the money owed to him. However, if we conclude that Jabba was in fact operating as part of a governmental entity on Tatooine, then Boba Fett may have been justified in bringing the criminal Han Solo to justice. Whether or not we conclude any actions by the Empire to be “just” is an argument for another post.