Would Luke Skywalker be considered a war criminal? [closed]

Question

If the Death Star was the size of a small moon, I think it's safe to assume there were hundreds of thousands- if not millions of individuals stationed inside. Does this make Luke a war criminal, considering a large amount of those on board were probably not enlisted in the ranks of the Imperial Army and were instead contractors, bounty hunters, those imprisoned, etc?

I've read a handful of novels but don't recall specific troop estimations ever being stated. Of course there is moral justifications in the Death Stars' destruction. I suppose if the U.S doesn't face charges for dropping two atomic bombs, then why should the Rebels have to answer for their actions?

Answer 1

War crimes are generally defined as actions taken during war time that violate agreements regarding what is and is not acceptable in war. Therefore, it's impossible to say how Luke's actions would be viewed without knowing what conventions of warfare (if any) are agreed upon in the Star Wars universe. However it seems highly unlikely that Luke's actions were far enough out of the ordinary to be considered a war crime.

Grand Moff Tarkin and the Emperor himself both referred to the Death Star as a "Battle Station," and considering its massive armament it is obvious that it was a military installation. Destroying it was therefore an ordinary event in the course of a war: the destruction of enemy military hardware. Just because there may have been civilians/non-military personnel on board doesn't make it any less of a valid target. The army doesn't take a look at the crew roster before sinking a ship: if it's a threat, it can be taken out.

Also, whatever the population of the Death Star, the population of Alderaan was far, far greater, and the Death Star's potential future victims could easily number in the trillions. It is explicitly stated that Alderaan was peaceful and was not a military threat to the Empire. Therefore, if anything, the destruction of Alderaan was a war crime.

Answer 2

The key concept that you are missing is proportionality. To quote Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Chief Prosecutor of the ICC, in 2006:

Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives, even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv)).

Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes:

Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated; Article 8(2)(b)(iv) draws on the principles in Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, but restricts the criminal prohibition to cases that are "clearly" excessive. The application of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) requires, inter alia, an assessment of:

(a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury;

(b) the anticipated military advantage;

(c) and whether (a) was "clearly excessive" in relation to (b)

In this respect, it is not the number of civilians you are likely to kill that matters. What matters more is the number of civilians you are likely to kill relative to the military advantage. In this case, destroying the Death Star would have been a decisive victory and was unavoidable in achieving that victory.

Answer 3

The Death Star was a flagged warship of one belligerent, the attackers were using clearly identifiable warships of their own. Therefore blowing it up is fair game, especially as it was currently attempting to destroy the attacker's planet.

The above applies the Geneva Convention to the situation. As other galaxies may not be signatories of that treaty ( or may have crumbled to dust several stellar lifetimes before the convention was written) we can also apply the concept of the victor generally decides what was a war crime, and what was not. From our own history, Hiroshima and Dresden were considered legitimate targets as the attacking side won. That same side also decided that Operation Reinhard etc. was rather bad form and had the organizers hanged for their (completely legal at the time and place) efforts.

If we rewrite history just a little bit, and have the Nazis not try to attack both the UK and Stalin at the same time, it's likely they would have ended WWII somewhere around 1943 with the Reich occupying most of Europe. Everyone on the war crimes list would have received medals instead.

So, by simple extrapolation we can conclude that Skywalker's actions would not be a war crime on account of his side won. If his side had lost he would not have lived long enough to be tried for his actions - his ship would have been blown up with him in it.

Answer 4

Yes, Skywalker would be treated as a potential war criminal, subject to trial by military tribunal.

The best way to see how someone like Luke Skywalker would be treated under U.S. law (buttressed by whatever international treaties the U.S. has signed) is to look at what happened to unaligned individuals who conducted similar attacks on large military installations and vessels. Unfortunately for this discussion, such attackers usually end up dead, either dying in a suicide attack or being killed by local police/military to end the attack.

Looking further up the hierarchy of the terrorist organizations behind such attacks, terrorist leaders are typically treated as unlawful enemy combatants. As an example, al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for the 2000 bombing attack of USS Cole. Under U.S. law, in particular the Military Commissions Act of 2006, members of al-Qaeda are classed as unlawful enemy combatants and are subject to trial under the military tribunal system that the MCA sets up. And so Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the alleged mastermind of the Cole bombing is being tried under that system today.

So Luke Skywalker, an unaligned and therefore unlawful enemy combatant, would likely be subject to trial under military tribunal if apprehended. He would also very likely be subject extra-judicial killing thanks to the AUMF which is how U.S. force is currently authorized to assassinate terrorist leaders.

Some good news for Skywalker: waterboarding and other previously authorized methods of "aggressive interrogation" were prohibited early in the Obama presidency. I note with satisfaction that in this at least the U.S. once again treats prisoners better than Emperor Palpatine.