Star Wars: The Legality of Vader’s Boarding Parties

By

-

May 4, 2017

It’s May the 4th, which means that all Star Wars fans are morally bound to immerse themselves in the galaxy far, far away for an entire 24 hours. The Legal Geeks is no exception, so let’s turn our attention to the ultimate symbol of power and general bad-assery in the universe: Darth Vader. As the perennial winner of the “Best Star Wars Character with a Breathing Problem” category (sorry, General Grievous), Lord Vader is a shining example of the Galactic Empire’s might and menace. However, despite his general awesomeness, he is not quite the best example of how to do pretty much anything legally.

Vader has no time for silly concepts like proper interrogation techniques or the due process of law.

One might argue Vader’s effectiveness is fueled by his penchant for taking action. He doesn’t take time to discuss things as a committee; he simply fires up his lightsaber and goes to work. Vader possessed that trait long before he donned the iconic armor—after all, Yoda could count on one of his three-fingered hands the number of times Anakin mindfully planned something out with an eye towards possible consequences.

One of his boldest gambles was chasing down and boarding Princess Leia’s ship at the beginning of A New Hope. Vader’s pursuit, capture, and boarding of the ship are undoubtedly some of the most iconic scenes in all of film. While Vader’s tactics were certainly decisive, were they legal?

You may not have realized it at the time, but some of the first lines in A New Hope allude to some very real legal issues that Vader created by capturing and boarding Leia’s ship, the Tantive IV.

Princess Leia and Captain Antilles (may his crumpled body rest in peace) are not just delivering catchy lines in those opening scenes. Their comments to Vader touch upon some very real laws. Unfortunately, even though there are actual laws governing outer space, those laws have not quite advanced to the point of dealing with conflict between manned space ships. Fortunately for us, there is an entire collection of international and domestic laws that govern civilian and military naval operations. That body of law provides an excellent framework for judging Vader.

When confronted by Vader, both Captain Antilles and Leia immediately tout the ship’s diplomatic status. Prior to A New Hope, Princess Leia took very careful steps to protect the Tantive IV’s status as a diplomatic vessel. The ship itself belonged to the House of Organa on Alderaan, making it a vessel of state. Its hull was marked with distinctive scarlet stripes, which were the standard galactic marker for diplomatic ships. Leia routinely used the ship to ferry her on diplomatic missions related to her service in the Imperial Senate.

You can’t see it, but the Tantive IV sports a bumper sticker that says “DEFINITELY NO REBEL TRAITORS IN HERE.”

There is a very good legal reason behind all of those actions. As a matter of customary international law, all vessels that are owned or operated by a state and used only for government service are entitled to sovereign immunity. As an official governmental vessel of Alderaan, a sovereign planet, the Tantive IV would enjoy sovereign immunity so long as it was used for government service. This is why Leia was especially cautious when using the Tantive IV for missions related to the Rebellion—because doing so would risk the ship’s immunity.

That immunity was of critical importance because of the protections that come along with it. Under international law, any vessel that has sovereign immunity cannot be arrested or searched, whether sailing in national or international waters. Additionally, that privilege protects the identity of personnel, stores, weapons, or other property on board the vessel. Given those substantial legal protections, you don’t have to be Yoda to understand how important it was for Leia to maintain her ship’s immunity. She was free to operate the ship without fear that Imperials would stop and board. Similarly, she could transport important personnel, weapons, and other material (*cough cough* Death Star plans) under the same umbrella of protection—so long as secrecy was maintained.

In the real world, both the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard adhere to the law surrounding sovereign immunity. The protection is taken very seriously and any decision to stop and board foreign vessels is made with the utmost care. Under normal circumstances, Darth Vader would have violated a serious tenet of international law if he had stopped and boarded Leia’s ship on a whim.

Obscure International Law 101: Any ship deemed to be “flying casual” is also immune from search and seizure.

Darth Vader made it clear that he seized the vessel because he believed it had received the Death Star plans from Rebel agents. Fans were left to wonder what sort of intelligence Vader was acting on when he chased down the Tantive IV—after all, Leia’s incredulous reaction certainly made it seem as if he had gone out on a limb.

Rogue One filled in that story gap and we now know that Vader personally witnessed the Tantive IV and its crew escape with the plans to the Empire’s prized battle station. This new chapter in the saga greatly weakens Leia’s legal position. Sovereign immunity is not an absolute right. State vessels risk losing those protections if they violate the law, which means they can then be stopped, boarded, and searched.

The act of intercepting a vessel at sea is known as a “maritime interception operation.” Maritime interception operations can include stopping, boarding, searching, and even seizing cargo from a vessel. There are a number of legal bases to conduct interception operations, including a state’s need to protect its forces and antiterrorism operations.

States can legally conduct maritime interception operations pursuant to international law in self-defense to protect its forces. Naval commanders have an inherent right and an obligation to defend their units and other nearby friendly forces from hostile acts or hostile intent. That means that a commander may stop and board another vessel if necessary in self-defense.

During the Battle of Scarif at the end of Rogue One, Rebel forces openly attacked a major Imperial facility and made off with critical classified intelligence. Darth Vader’s Star Destroyer exited hyperspace to a chaotic scene in which Alliance warships were still in open combat. Under the circumstances, Vader had ample reason to exercise the inherent right to self-defense and attack the Rebel fleet.

The Rebel flagship, The Profundity, presented the biggest threat, which meant that Vader could legally disable and seize the vessel. Even though his Star Destroyer made short work of disabling The Profundity, the Rebel flagship still housed enemy personnel and weapons, which presented a threat to Imperial forces. The theft of the Death Star plans also presented a threat to Imperial forces that arguably triggered the need to act in self-defense. The plans were critical classified information that, if exploited, could endanger the lives of millions of Imperials aboard the battle station. Given the Rebels’ evasive abilities, it was imperative that the plans be recovered as quickly as possible. Vader thus had sound legal footing to disable and board the Rebel flagship.

Vader prepares to defend himself against vicious and threatening Rebel terrorists.

In spite of Leia’s outrage at the start of A New Hope, Darth Vader was also on solid legal footing when he captured and boarded her ship. Even though Leia and her crew did not actively participate in combat above Scarif, their actions still forfeited the ship’s sovereign immunity.

Vessels can be legally intercepted if they take part in acts of terrorism. The 1988 United Nations Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (SUA) established a legal framework governing acts of violence against ships. The SUA convention happened in response to the 1986 hijacking of an Italian cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, in which an American tourist was killed. In 2005, major amendments were made to the SUA treaty in order to combat terrorism. Under SUA, a ship can be stopped, seized, and boarded if it has committed or taken part in terrorist acts, even if there is no need to do so in self-defense.

The Empire generally regarded the Rebel Alliance as a terrorist organization, which means the attack at Scarif would have been characterized as a major terrorist act. Darth Vader had absolute proof that Leia’s ship was involved in the attack, as he witnessed Leia’s ship receive the Death Star plans before narrowly escaping. After Vader caught up to the Tantive IV above Tatooine, there was no real need to stop the ship in self-defense. After all, Leia’s diminutive corvette posed little threat to Vader’s colossal Star Destroyer. However, Vader was legally justified to stop and board the Tantive IV because of its participation in a terrorist act.

Don’t you go lying to your father like that, General Organa. You’ll find yourself grounded aboard the Death Star.

The fact that Leia’s ship was branded as a Rebel vessel is also problematic for her. When Leia incredulously accuses Vader of boarding a diplomatic ship, he declares that she is part of the Rebel Alliance. This hints at a critical aspect of the law. Under international law, vessels that are not legitimately registered in any one nation are known as “stateless vessels.” They are not entitled to sovereign immunity and may be boarded by warships or other governmental vessels. Once Leia’s ship was declared part of a stateless terrorist organization, it lost its diplomatic protections. That is why it was so important for Leia to mask the ship’s participation in Rebel operations.

Even though we normally associate Vader with some of the worst war crimes in Star Wars, he actually managed to do things by the book when he stopped and boarded Leia’s ship. Just be sure not to tell him that unless you want to join Admiral Ozzel and Captain Needa in the throat hug club.

Tale as Old as Crime: Maurice’s False Imprisonment

By

Kean Zimmerman

-

April 25, 2017

0

While Beauty and the Beast is a tale as old as time, the fact is Beast may have violated some historically recognized criminal law. Most jurisdictions recognize claims for false arrest, also referred to as false imprisonment. For those familiar with the 1991 Disney animated film, Beast goes through a journey of self-discovery that ends with him becoming a much better person at the end. This change in character doesn’t absolve him of his earlier crimes though.

As you will recall, when Maurice, Belle’s father, was traversing the forest he fled to the safety of Beast’s castle to escape the wolves chasing him. Although he alerted the residents to his presence, Beast chose not to reveal himself at first. Lumiere, Mrs. Potts, and Chip, against the advice of Cogsworth, proceed to provide Maurice with shelter and tea. It is at this point that Maurice comes face to face with Beast. Promptly afterward he is thrown into a dungeon with as much thought as Lumiere put into dating a presumably flammable feather duster.

Falsely Imprisoning Maurice

By detaining Maurice, Beast may be guilty of what Connecticut calls false imprisonment. False imprisonment is the unlawful restraint by one person of the physical liberty of another. Felix v. Hall-Brooke Sanitarium, 140 Conn. 496, 499, 101 A.2d 500 (1953). To prove a claim of false imprisonment, the Plaintiff must be able to show, (1) that his or her physical liberty has been restrained by the defendant, and (2) that the restraint was against his or her will. Lo Sacco v. Young, 20 Conn. App. 6, 19 (1989).

As to the first point, it shouldn’t be too hard for Maurice to show that his physical liberty was restrained. A quick look to his predicament after entering the castle shows him confined behind bars in one of the castle’s holding cells (which should call into question how often this was occurring). As to the second point, whether or not this was against his will, this is evidenced in the conversation Belle had with Beast to release her father. Belle asks Beast to release him, and Beast promptly accuses Maurice of trespassing. Beast then refers to Maurice as his prisoner. It’s apparent at this point that Maurice was being held against his will.

Potential Claims Against Maurice

However, Beast may have a point in calling out Maurice for his trespass. Since Maurice clearly went past a gate which was designed to exclude intruders, and he remained in the castle without being licensed or privileged to do so, he may be liable for trespass. Connecticut General Statutes 53a – 107 to 109. However Connecticut General Statutes 53a-110 provides for affirmative defenses to criminal trespass, which include that “the actor reasonably believed that the owner of the premises, or a person empowered to license access thereto, would have licensed him to enter or remain.” The tricky issue here is whether or not Lumiere, or anyone in the castle could have given Maurice license to be in the castle. Even more of an issue is that, at that point per the power of the witch, no one in the castle was actually a “person” so Maurice’s defense may fall flat.

Beast could also claim that Maurice is guilty of violating statutes for home invasion or burglary. This would seem apropos as both would involve Maurice entering, or remaining unlawfully in a dwelling, with the intent to commit a crime therein; burglary would have the added element of Maurice coming under the cover of night. See Connecticut General Statutes 53a-100aa; see also Connecticut General Statutes 53a – 101. The entering element would certainly be satisfied, as would the “at night” element. However, Maurice would have to have intended to commit a crime. He would likely not be found to have the proper mens rea for this, as he himself thought he was being properly invited in by the staff of the castle. Without establishing the requisite intent to commit a crime, Maurice would not succumb to these claims.

A Defense of Citizen’s Arrest

Even if Maurice were found guilty of criminal trespass, this does not mitigate charges against Beast for false imprisonment. Beast may think that he was somehow able to perform a citizen’s arrest for Maurice’s wrongdoing, but he would be mistaken. The law for a citizen’s arrest is clear under Connecticut General Statutes 53a-22. Pursuant to the statute a private citizen may use reasonable force in arresting an individual whom he reasonably believes has committed an offense. State v. Smith, 63 Conn. App. 228, 238 (2001). Here Maurice would have committed an offense, however the statute also requires that the offense constitute a felony. Under Connecticut law though, all forms of trespass are misdemeanors; thus, even if Maurice committed trespass against Beast, Beast would still not be justified in detaining Maurice.

Conclusion

As a result, Beast would be susceptible to Maurice making a claim of false imprisonment. False imprisonment is an intentional tort, the remedy for which is an action for trespass. Green v. Donroe, 186 Conn. 265, 268 (1982). Ultimately, Maurice may be able to claim trespass against Beast, as a remedy for his false imprisonment, despite the fact that Maurice himself may be guilty of trespass. The fact that Maurice was later released does not extinguish the liability Beast would have for any term of imprisonment. Sure Belle and Beast may live happily ever after, but that won’t necessarily stop Maurice from taking Beast to court. In the grand scheme of things, having to pay out a settlement or even a jury verdict because of how you treat the people that come to your door for help is probably a lot easier to stomach than some quasi-botanical curse.

Star Trek Panel at Silicon Valley Comic Con

By

Josh Gilliland

-

April 24, 2017

0

We had an amazing time at our first Silicon Valley Comic Con. Thank you to everyone who filled our seminar room on Sunday morning. We were thrilled Rod Roddenberry even saw our discussion on Space Seed. Below please find the slides from our panel and the live recording of our presentation. Thank you Silicon Valley Comic Con for a great show; we hope to return in 2018.

SVCC_Star_Trek

What Countries Can X-23 Claim Citizenship?

By

Josh Gilliland

-

April 10, 2017

0

Logan is an excellent X-Men movie. One basic human question in the film is the legal status of the “new mutants” that were born in Mexico. The multi-national company Transigen genetically engineered these children. The children were conceived from the DNA of other mutants and born to mothers of Mexican women. Just what is their citizenship?

Laura, aka X-23, had a Mexican mother and her father genetically was James “Logan” Howlett, who was born in Canada in 1832. While she might have been conceived through genetic engineering, there is no doubt her father’s DNA was Logan.

Laura can claim citizenship in Mexico, because she was born in Mexico City, pursuant to the 30^th article of the Constitution of Mexico. However, Laura’s options do not end there.

The Canadian Citizenship Act allows for citizenship by descent to the first generation of a Canadian parent born abroad, pursuant to paragraph 3(1)(b). Logan technically is a Canadian citizen by birth (arguably the oldest one at 197 years old by the time of Logan). As such, Laura has a colorable claim to being a Canadian citizen due to her father.

There is also the possibility Laura could be a US Citizen. Logan served in the US military in the Civil War, World War I, World War II, and Vietnam (it is unclear if Logan also fought in the Spanish-American War or the Korean Conflict). Logan would have qualified for US Citizenship because of his military service dating back to at least World War I.

Logan could have been a naturalized citizen if (1) at the time of enlistment, reenlistment, extension of enlistment, or induction such person shall have been in the United States, the Canal Zone, American Samoa, or Swains Island, or on board a public vessel owned or operated by the United States for noncommercial service, whether or not he has been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence, or (2) at any time subsequent to enlistment or induction such person shall have been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence. 8 U.S.C.S. § 1440.

If Logan was a naturalized US Citizen, Laura could claim she is a “natural born” US Citizen, because her father was a naturalized citizen from his military service spanning 1861 to 1970.

Transigen argued that the “new mutants” were patents and copyrights, thus property, and ignoring their humanity. The United States fought a war over the belief that people could be property, which is effectively Transigen’s position. The 13^th Amendment to the United States Constitution specifically prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude. Slavery was abolished in Mexico in 1824 and Canada in 1833 by British Parliament across the entire United Kingdom. As such, no country in North America would recognize human children being “property” as patents and copyrights.

Laura has colorable claims to have dual citizenship with Mexico and either the United States or Canada. Logan did fight in over 90 years of wars for the United States and was eligible for citizenship, but it is not clear if he ever because an US Citizen. As such, the most likely scenario is Laura having dual citizenship with Mexico and Canada.

Data: The Measure of A Property Challenge

By

Stefan Zapf

-

April 5, 2017

1

In the Star Trek The Next Generation episode “The Measure of A Man,” Data is put on trial about whether he is a sentient being. Picard’s defense is among the best legal arguments in the history of science fiction. No one would question the excitement of the argument for Data’s sentience for other legal strategies, right? No one but lawyers that is, lawyers tend to get excited about legal nuances.

A Matter of Jurisdiction

First, let’s focus on the fact that Starfleet is a military organization. Military courts do not have general jurisdiction, but limited jurisdiction. In the US, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution establishes the power to create a military code and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) codifies that section. The UCMJ § 803 grants jurisdiction over “a person who is in a status in which the person is subject to this chapter and who committed an offense against this chapter.” The most important word here is “person,” it is about people who are or have been in the service or the reserve. Under Article 139 (10 U.S.C. § 939) property-related claims can be brought to the court, but then both parties must be subject to the military code. That is a general tenant of military justice: it applies to military personnel. Commander Maddox contention that “Data is a machine” actually challenges the very jurisdiction of the military court. The case should be a matter for a civil court, and the other party is overlooked in the proceedings.

A Matter of Property

Maddox contents that Data is “the property of Starfleet,” but is he?

Dr. Noonian Soong, a private citizen, built Data with his own funding. It follows that Data is the property first and foremost of Dr. Soong. Even if Dr. Soong is presumed dead, ownership of Data would be part of his estate. The Fifth Amendment will protect the Soong’ claim to Data against governmental or military appropriation without due process. In Star Trek, we never heard about an equivalent of condemnation proceedings regarding Data to use the power of eminent domain. Nor is Data abandoned. Data’s career in Starfleet clearly shows that he is a machine that can maintain itself without its creator’s supervision. Leaving Data to function autonomously on a planet is not an intent to relinquishing property claims but an intent to let Data function as designed. We learn in an episode about two years later (Brothers, Season 4, Episode 3) that Dr. Soong was still alive at the time of the proceedings and had the ability to recall Data to him at any time. Dr. Soong was still the owner of Data during the proceeding and has not in fact intended to relinquished all property claims as the recall mechanism shows. The least we should do is to try and find the other party before we simply assume him dead or assume abandonment.

Starfleet’s one and only claim of ownership over Data is based on Data’s decision to join Starfleet and become an officer. Starfleet cannot have it both ways: they cannot argue that Data is under Starfleet’s control and jurisdiction because he is a sentient Starfleet officer and that Starfleet can dismantle Data as he is not a sentient being. Either Data is a sentient being and can, therefore, leave Starfleet, or he is the property of a private citizen and cannot be expropriated without due process.

Starfleet’s goal to dismantle Data could very well be construed as property crime from theft to vandalism. Picard seems duty-bound to fulfill the superior order. That is similar to the UCMJ Article 92 that criminalizes the disobedience any lawful order. However as the Court of Military Appeals held in United States v. Keenan: “the justification for acts done pursuant to orders does not exist if the order was of such a nature that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know it to be illegal.” Picard may very well refuse to hand over Data based on the unlawfulness of the order to expropriate private property without due process.

A License to Command

Our argument, however, establishes an uneasy truth. Starfleet might have stolen Data and used a machine without the consent of its creator which could make them liable for gold-pressed damages. Our client Data would like to continue to serve in Starfleet. Can we both claim that Data is a machine, but he could still have autonomy in contracting with Starfleet his services?

In today’s High-Frequency Trading (HFT), algorithms of traders are already buying and selling stocks. Buying and selling stocks are property transfers. Although the traders have created the programs and therefore expressed a general will to contract, there’s no individual intent for each property transfer. In 2010 Flash Crash was a trillion dollar stock market caused in part by HFT. No trader claimed that they are not liable for the trades of their programs. The creators of the programs felt legally bound by the contracts formed by their programs. I propose a theory of attribution here. The acts of computer programs are attributed to the legal or natural personality that created the program as the programming itself is a representation of their will.

Even if Data is considered a machine and has no natural personality, he may have the ability to form contracts as those contracts are attributed to Dr. Soong. Data’s act of joining Starfleet can be construed as an implied or expressed license to use him. However, under which terms? Both Dr. Soong and Data conceive Data as a sentient being. Starfleet trained him like any other officer. He receives medals as if he were an officer in the fleet. If joining Starfleet is the basis for the license then the obligations and rights of Starfleet against its officers must be its terms. Starfleet has a license to command but not destroy Data.

I believe that Data is a sentient being and as such a Starfleet officer. However, even if Starfleet maintains that Data is a machine, Starfleet has only a license to use him as if he were an officer of Starfleet. An officer cannot be ordered to undergo a medical proceeding that may kill him. Whether or not Data is sentient, Starfleet must treat him as a man, and therefore he has a right to refuse the proceedings.

“The Measure of a Man” is a brilliant episode and it questioned the rights of AIs and that almost 20 years ago. However, Picard’s defense was not the safest path to victory ignoring the inherent flaws in Maddox argument. Nevertheless the episode is more relevant than ever. We are in the age of emerging AI and how we treat them will define our humanity. If others consider AIs as property, let us make sure that property law will protect their sentient rights rather than enslaving them. As Guinan pointed out to Picard:

“Consider that in the history of many worlds, there have always been disposable creatures. They do the dirty work. They do the work that no one else wants to do because it’s too difficult or too hazardous. And an army of Datas, all disposable… You don’t have to think about their welfare, you don’t think about how they feel. Whole generations of disposable people.”

It is our legal challenge to prove to Guinan that we are better than that.

Rogue One: The Jedha Ambush & The Law

By

Thomas Harper

-

April 4, 2017

0

The Empire’s vile use of the Death Star, enslavement of entire worlds, and wrinkly psychopathic ruler generally don’t make for good examples when it comes to abiding by the law of war. Nevertheless, just like a broken clock, the Empire occasionally gets things right when it fights. The Jedha City ambush scene from Rogue One is one of those instances where the Empire doesn’t royally screw things up from a legal perspective. With Rogue One’s release on Blu-Ray and DVD today, it’s a perfect time to break down one of the best scenes in the movie and take away some lessons about how the law of armed conflict impacts military operations.

Even if you haven’t watched Rogue One in a while (if that’s the case, you should immediately cease reading this article and go rectify that travesty), you probably remember the scene we’re talking about. Cassian Andor and Jyn Erso are on Jedha in search of an Imperial cargo pilot who has defected with possible information about the Empire’s new top-secret super weapon, the Death Star. They soon find themselves caught in the middle of a major firefight, as Saw Gerrera’s insurgent forces ambush an Imperial patrol. Heavy fighting and general on-screen awesomeness then ensues.

Anakin would have to wait to have his fun until later in the movie when a bunch of Rebel troopers got to see a real lightsaber up close and personal.

Pre-Ambush

Gather ’round and let the sweet sounds of Imperial propaganda fill your ears.

The Jedha ambush scene begins with a pretty routine Imperial operation. A squad of stormtroopers escorts an Imperial “occupier” assault tank, which is transporting a number of kyber crystals. Of course, the Imperials do so with typical flare, using a loud-speaker to broadcast a message touting the moral high ground the Empire supposedly occupied. There is nothing unlawful about the Imperials’ use of the loudspeaker.

Psychological operations, which are commonly known by the shorthand “PSYOPS,” can be legal in various forms. PSYOPS have been around in one form or another for nearly the entire history of warfare, ranging from leaflets to loudspeaker messages and beyond. They are often a highly effective non-lethal way to affect enemy morale or sway civilian attitudes. For example, U.S. forces dropped over 29 million leaflets to Iraqi forces during the first Gulf War in the early 1990s. The leaflets portrayed the futility of resistance, the inevitability of their defeat, and placed blame on Saddam Hussein. After the war, 88% of Iraqi forces said they believed the messages and roughly 70% said the leaflets affected their decision to surrender. Thus, if the Imperials had Judge Advocates within their ranks, they would have raised no issue about using a loudspeaker to broadcast PSYOPS messages to the denizens of Jedha.

As the convoy enters a small plaza, the ambush is already in motion, unbeknownst to the patrol. Saw Gerrera’s insurgents employ spotting techniques from several vantage points, observing and communicating information about the patrol.

Their actions constitute what is known as “hostile intent.” Hostile intent is the threat of imminent use of force against friendly forces. Although Gerrera’s men were disguised as civilians, their spotting effectively reveals their status as combatants, making them lawful targets. Spotting is considered a demonstration of hostile intent because of its purpose: to gather information about the enemy and facilitate attacks. It is a tactic often used by fighters to gather intelligence on enemy forces. Spotting is also commonly used in ambushes, where a spotter will relay information designed to precisely time the attack. The act of spotting is therefore a precursor to the use of force.

That is exactly what Saw’s forces are doing in this scene as they rapidly relay information to coordinate multiple prongs of their ambush. Therefore, the Imperials would not have to wait to be fired upon before attacking. Had they realized what was happening, they could have lawfully fired on the spotters even before the insurgents attacked.

The Ambush Begins

TK-255 and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day

Saw’s forces trigger the ambush with a grenade that is meant to surprise and confuse the Imperial patrol. The misdirection works, causing the stormtroopers to be preoccupied with locating the grenade’s source. Saw’s men seize the advantage, opening fire from all directions.

The insurgents’ deceptive tactic initially works well, as they inflict many casualties before the stormtroopers and tank can react. At this point, Saw’s men were committing hostile acts—attacks or other uses of force against friendly forces. The insurgents’ hostile acts make them lawful targets.

The patrol is within its legal right to fight back against the insurgents. Commanders retain the inherent right and obligation to exercise self-defense of their units in response to hostile acts. This also means that individual unit members retain the right to defend themselves and other members of the unit. Here, that means that each stormtrooper can use deadly force to defend themselves and other members of the unit. The Imperials in the patrol do just that, returning fire with blasters and the tank.

However, self-defense does not give soldiers a blank check to use unlimited force. Even in chaotic circumstances, the core principles of the law of armed conflict remain in effect. That includes the requirement to distinguish between civilians and military targets. To their credit, the Imperials maintain their discipline by focusing fire on the insurgents. While civilians are caught in the fray, Imperial troops distinguish their targets by returning fire on insurgent positions and not firing wildly all over the plaza.

Someone isn’t getting their security deposit back…

Additionally, the law of armed conflict requires military units to use proportional force in self-defense. That means the nature, duration, and scope of the force should be no more than is necessary to decisively counter the hostile act. This concept does not mean that the stormtroopers on Jedha could only return fire with blasters and grenades. The use of the tank to level the tower was lawful because of how the tower was being used. The patrol was taking heavy fire from insurgents in the tower, which provided excellent cover and concealment for Gerrera’s forces. The Imperials were therefore within their legal authority to fire on the tower with the tank, thereby quickly ending the insurgents’ strategic advantage.

Reinforcements Arrive

If only Saw Gerrera had recruited a few ewoks to fight on Jedha…

As the fighting raged on, the Imperials were eventually reinforced with more troops and an AT-ST. In the real world, the U.S. military coordinates combat operations on different levels. Tactical Operations Centers (TOCs) and Joint Operations Centers (JOCs) are used to ease that sort of coordination. Generally, TOCs and JOCs are the place where a commander plans, monitors, and directs tactical operations. TOCs and JOCs range from a group of connected tents to larger rooms that resemble a NASA mission control center.

TOCs and JOCs also play a key role in overseeing combat operations. For example, the JOC might display a live video feed from a drone that is providing surveillance for a convoy below. If that convoy gets attacked, the JOC will likely coordinate or direct close air support from nearby fighter jets. Judge Advocates are usually in TOCs and JOCs, advising commanders on the law of war every step of the way.

We see the effects of that sort of battlefield coordination on Jedha. As the ambush unfolded, the Imperial patrol would radio up to the TOC or JOC, which was likely housed inside the Star Destroyer looming over the city. The patrol would have reported “troops in contact,” or TIC. Declaring a TIC, as the practice is known, is an alert that friendly forces are engaged in combat. A TIC often triggers the rapid coordination of reinforcements and combat assets, such as close air support.

The concept of unit defense comes into play in situations like this one. Unit self-defense allows friendly forces to come to the defense of another unit. In the real world, that might occur when Apache attack helicopters provide air cover for a pinned down group of infantry. Here, Imperial forces lawfully called in support from an AT-ST and more troops to defend the patrol. Some of the stormtroopers from the original patrol were likely in need of medical evacuation and there were still other troops at risk in the immediate vicinity. The reinforcements ultimately had the desired effect, scattering Gerrera’s forces and allowing the Imperials to regroup.

Conclusion

Contrary to their general dastardly reputation, the Imperials actually managed to play by the rules during the Jedha ambush. Imperial haters should have no fear, as it wasn’t too long before Director Krennic and Governor Tarkin made sure everyone on Jedha knew what a real war crime looked like by obliterating Jedha City with the Death Star.

Can the Hand be Prosecuted for Distributing Synthetic Heroin?

By

Josh Gilliland

-

March 31, 2017

0

Marvel’s Iron Fist episode “Under Leaf Pluck Lotus,” included the Hand using Rand Enterprises as a front to sell synthetic heroin. The over-the-top sexy women pushing the drugs claimed to prospective dealers that the drug was “legal,” because it was synthetic. Better yet for the dealers, the human body would not develop a resistance to it.

Federal Courts, Congress, and the DEA would take issue with the Hand’s position that a synthetic drug with all of the effects of a Schedule I drug is somehow legal. The Bad Guys don’t get to make the call on what is legal and illegal.

The United States has a long history of battling heroin. Congress first banned the importation of crude opium for manufacturing heroin in 1909 and again in 1924. 68 P.L. 274.

Heroin is a Schedule I drug, which means: (A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse; (B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States; and (C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision. 21 U.S.C.S. § 812.

The factors applied by the Attorney General in determining whether to add or remove a drug from the schedules include:

(1) Its actual or relative potential for abuse.

(2) Scientific evidence of its pharmacological effect, if known.

(3) The state of current scientific knowledge regarding the drug or other substance.

(4) Its history and current pattern of abuse.

(5) The scope, duration, and significance of abuse.

(6) What, if any, risk there is to the public health.

(7) Its psychic or physiological dependence liability.

(8) Whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a substance already controlled under this title.

21 U.S.C.S. § 811.

Federal law also states it is unlawful for anyone to 1) “to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance;” or 2) “to create, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to distribute or dispense, a counterfeit substance.” 21 U.S.C.S. § 841.

There is no way around the fact the Courts would treat synthetic heroin like heroin. First, the Attorney General would classify it as a Schedule I drug because of its high potential for abuse, the lack of any medically accepted use for treatment, and the lack of any accepted safety for the use of the drug. The affects of the drug are the same as heroin, regardless of whether any crude opium is used.

New York Courts would also have no trouble prosecuting anyone selling the Hand’s synthetic heroin. Pursuant to New York Public Health Law § 3383, it is “unlawful for any person to manufacture, sell or possess with the intent to sell, an imitation controlled substance.” The synthetic heroin is an “imitation controlled substance.” New York’s finest [in the Marvel Cinematic Universe] would have legal authority to conduct drug busts and prosecute those selling the synthetic heroin.

No matter how much the Hand chases the dragon that the lack of crude opium somehow makes the drug legal, the synthetic heroin is technically a counterfeit drug under the law. Federal and State law enforcement would be upholding the law with massive raids to break the Hand’s synthetic heroin ring.