Vader's Trial

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2002-09-05 10:10pm

Further, your honor the prosecution would like to add the charge of aiding and abetting genocide whilst not preventing Grand Moff Tarken from destroying Alderaan.

Collective punishment resulting in the systematic killing of billions of Imperial citezens is genocide and as such Lord Vader is bound by the Military Code of Justice to prevent genocide.

The prosecution shall prove that Lord Vader aided and abetted Tarken, never attempting to take this demonstrated genocidal criminal into custody; being an accomplise both during and after the fact.

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2002-09-05 10:11pm

Your honor, I reiterate discretionary dismissal is for questions of law, questions of fact such as raised by the defense are not within the purview of discretionary dismissal.

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2002-09-05 10:26pm

we as the prosecution request that at this course of the trial the defense only state guilty or not guilty in regards to the charges and let the prosecution present their case

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2002-09-06 12:07am

As an informal advisor to the defense council, I would ask them to request a ruling from the court on the applicable sections of Imperial Military Law that apply to the charges.

I do not believe US common law could or should apply because of the fact that the Emperor disbanded the Senate and declared Martial Law before the acts in question were allegedly committed by Lord Vader.

The question of martial law vs. US common law would bear greatly on the legitimacy of the charges.

For example, Romulan military law allows the immediate execution of a dissenter by a commander once their imperial martial law has been invoked. However, such actions are not permitted under their normal civil and military law.

The question of martial vs. civil law also raises the question of ex post facto . Could Lord Vader be legally convicted of a crime that was not a crime at the time he allegedly committed the acts in question?

I advise the defense counsel to obtain a ruling on this question from the highest court.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2002-09-06 02:30am

If it pleases the court, I wish to submit my advice above as an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the Imperial Civil Liberties Union.

We would appreciate the Court's addressing the points raised in a expedient manner in order to not jeopardize Lord Vader's right to a speedy trial.

Thank You

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-09-06 07:43am

However the fact remains under Imperial Law and Regular US Law niether is allowed to excute Officers with-out a trial first

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2002-09-06 11:41am

However the fact remains under Imperial Law and Regular US Law niether is allowed to excute Officers with-out a trial first

Under regular US law, no. Under martial law?

Don't forget under regular US law, President Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus and imprisoned those who spoke out against the war.

After the Emperor invoked martial law and suspended the Senate, I'm sure that Lord Vader as his plenipotentiary exercised powers within the scope of his assigned mission as great as the Emperor himself would have had if he personally were there.

The Emperor himself tried to execute a rebel without a trial (see ROTJ). The Emperor is also alleged to have killed Officers who failed in their assigned missions. If the Emperor can execute persons without a trial (the highest law is the will of the Emperor, so he certainly could), then certainly his designated agent that posesses plenipotentiary powers in the Emperor's name may do so as well.

The fact that Lord Vader is alleged to have been more successful at it than the Emperor is irrelevant.

Any attempt to find otherwise, in my opinon, would violate US law. Specifically Article 1, Section 9:

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

This simply prohibits criminal penalty for conduct which was not considered criminal until after the fact.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-09-06 04:04pm

I think you need a bit of help in defintions here Glocksmen

Under martial law

As Websters defines it
1. Temporary rule by military authorities, imposed on a civilian population especially in time of war or when civil authority has broken down.
2. The law imposed on an occupied territory by occupying military forces.
[/quote]
The point I'm making is under IMPERAL(Not the Empires Law, the Armed Forces are always refered to as Imperials not Emprireals) Law you have to give them a trial. And even if we where to say use US Martial Law still, thats even worse as Mr Vadar could always be brought up on charges of deriliction of duity and abuse of power NTM Murder, under Imperial Law its mearly Abuse and Murder as derliction does not apply

Glock just because they are under Matrial Law does not suddenly mean its la-la land and anything the military does is legal

Anarchist Bunny · Post by **Anarchist Bunny** » 2002-09-06 06:52pm

Damn it, I don't have net for one fucking day and look what happens?

About Vader executing Imperial officers, it's not uncommon in the Empire, a AT-AT pilot that devised a technique to bow the AT-AT down, so any speeder tying up it's legs crash into it's side was executed for "bowing down before the enemy."

Also Tarkin and some other officer left a man in an space suit in orbit and set it so it was a toss up between him running out of air, or burning up in the atmosphere.

The Emporer also executed the designer of the Death Star very painfully, he cloned him after words, but the murder was still commited.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-09-06 07:45pm

About Vader executing Imperial officers, it's not uncommon in the Empire, a AT-AT pilot that devised a technique to bow the AT-AT down, so any speeder tying up it's legs crash into it's side was executed for "bowing down before the enemy."

He was given a trial however

Also Tarkin and some other officer left a man in an space suit in orbit and set it so it was a toss up between him running out of air, or burning up in the atmosphere.

Refuse to utter the name of DAALA do you bunny? Consider the source your talking about TARKIN here

The Emporer also executed the designer of the Death Star very painfully, he cloned him after words, but the murder was still commited.

Murder in SW is titled as a *permant cesesing of Sentaince, Thefore if you say Kill somone steal thier brain and put it in ooh a driod, you are not guilty of murder as long as that droid is kicking around, However you are guilty of quite a few other things...

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2002-09-06 07:53pm

Glock just because they are under Matrial Law does not suddenly mean its la-la land and anything the military does is legal

Normally I would agree with you. But we aren't talking about the US being under military law. The US Navy isn't the Imperial Navy. We're talking about the Empire. You can't tell me Palpatine ruled under US Common Law or the UCMJ.

Obviously something more severe than the US Uniform Code of Military Justice was at work.

Interestingly enough, the closest Earthly parallel to the Empire is 1933 Germany.

ARTICLE 1. In virtue of paragraph 2, article 48,* of the German Constitution, the following is decreed as a defensive measure against communist acts of violence , endangering the state:

Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. Thus, restrictions on personal liberty [114], on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press [118], on the right of assembly and the right of association [124], and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications [117], and warrants for house-searches [115], orders for confiscation as well as restrictions on property [153], are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.

Although Hitler won the office of German chancellor in legal fashion (the Nazis, after all, were the largest group in the Reichstag or lower house of parliament)), he was, of course, determined to rule Germany without the restraint of a democratically elected parliament. For this to happen he had to set aside the guarantees of civil rights and democratic procedures established by the Weimar Constitution, a tactic that required the approval of two-thirds of sitting representatives. This was achieved by calling a new election (which increased the Nazi vote) and using force and intimidation against the existing parties, especially those of the Socialists and Communists, many of whose elected representatives were jailed as political enemies or forced to flee the country. Once assured of the votes of the Catholic Center party, the two-thirds majority was assured. Thus, over the unavailing opposition of Socialist deputies, the March 24 session gave Hitler approval of legislation enabling him to exercise dictatorial rule for four years, leaving the Nazis free to suborn Germany's hitherto free institutions and subordinate both state and people to the ideological demands of the new regime. Of course the compliant Reichsrat (upper house) followed suit. Inevitably, the Act was renewed in 1937 and persisted until the collapse of Germany in 1945.
The official name of the Enabling legislation was "Law for the Removal of the Distress of People and Reich."

Change 'Hitler' to 'Palpatine', and we've got a model of the manuverings that were going on the Republic Senate prior to the formation of the Empire and the disbandment of the Senate.

The Nazi anaolgy isn't 100% accurate. The Empire under Palpatine is more like Stalin's USSR with the worst of Nazi Germany thrown in.

Think of Vader as a cross between Himmler and Beria.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2002-09-06 07:58pm

Taking the Stalin/Beria analogy a bit further, political officers during the Great Patriotic War were empowered to execute soldiers who failed in their duty to the Motherland by retreating or surrendering.

Vader as Beria and Stalin as Palaptine.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-09-06 08:14pm

Normaly I spend time debating you but in this case

We Will be doing the Trial under US Common Law

All I need to say

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-09-06 08:18pm

Your Honor, I request a ruling based on the information provided by the defense council. Furthermore, I object to the charges of genocide levied against my client; to have interefered with the operation would have been treason, as Tarkin was Lord Vader's superior aboard the Death Star.
If the prosecution intends to pursue my client through means of US Common Law, I demand that the charge of treason be dropped. If the prosecution intends to prove it's alleged claim on the basis of Imperial Martial law, I demand that a full and complete index of laws be provided.

Further, I demand the defense be allowed to pursue the defense of it's client to the furthest extent permissable by law.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-09-06 08:25pm

To respond to the Defense its assumed that since bascily everything else in SW is modeled after RL then Laws would be to which additnations for Energy Sucking Beings and werid shit but the basics remain the same

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2002-09-06 08:27pm

We Will be doing the Trial under US Common Law

You got me there.

What I'm doing is asking the court to reconsider the legal basis for the trial. Palpatine didn't rule by US law and to try Vader under a standard that didn't exist at the time violates the ex post facto clause in the US constitution that is the foundation of the law you are trying him under.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-09-06 08:37pm

If the prosecution will recall, the judge explicitatly stated that this court was not operating under US law.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-09-06 09:04pm

The prosectuion thefore requests what the hell Law we are trying this under as that was my impression when we came into this case

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2002-09-07 12:50am

Your honor, I would remind you that an amicus brief may not be filed pre-trial. Until official charges have been made and defense pleas have been formally entered, amicus standing cannot be granted.

Further I would like to remind the court that pre-trial hearings (before pleas are entered) are not open to questions of fact.

For instance the question of Captain Needa's alleged rebel sympathies is one of fact. The question of genocide or treason is one of law.

I wish to address said question at this time:
Following orders when said orders give rise to crimes against humanity is in and of itself treasonous. Treason is an act against the state disobeying the orders of a superior would be insubordination (with other more serious charges if the confrontation expanded). No official state of war existed between Alderaan and the Empire, indeed the residents were Imperial subjects. Collective punishment is not promitted and amble case log exists to justify retroactive should the Lord Vader have been perceived to be holding any special license in this regard (If your honor would review the precendent established at Nuremberg).

Therefore the prosecution holds that:
Grand Moff Tarkin was acting against Imperial subjects and as such his actions were clearly treasonous. Collective punishment through excessivbe collateral damage is only justified in times of official war, such as did not exist at the time of the Alderaan incident.

By aiding and abetting Tarkin, Lord Vader forswore his duty to protect the Imperial state by not attempting to halt Tarkin's assualt upon Imperial Subjects.

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2002-09-12 01:28pm

Mr Bean wrote:The prosectuion thefore requests what the hell Law we are trying this under as that was my impression when we came into this case

The prosecusion requests a deliberation on this point from the Judge so we can properly present our case