Rob Stellar - War Criminal?
An excerpt of the Free Speech Association
Commonwealth Archives
Where does morality end and avarice begin? What is the line between self-defense and murder?
A person may claim that if a woman is attacked, she is within her rights to take a life to protect her own. Most would not consider this murder but self defense. However, if the woman were to merely 'feel' threatened, would she be within her rights to preemptively strike a man to prevent a perceived assault?
The man would have, in the second instance, not acted.
According to Commonwealth Law, the woman having acted based on what she thought might happen would have committed murder and be tried accordingly.
Under Commonwealth Law, for the most part, Intent is not compatable with Action. A man may find his wife cheating and become so angry that he wants to kill her but, after cooling down, does not act on the impulse.
He allows himself to make the conscious effort to refrain from acting on his impulse and it is considered a noble thing. So do we punish him still for having the impulse to begin with? If so, what would be the point for acting honorably, reasonably and with the wisdom of not allowing their emotions to overcome them if they are going to be punished whether they act or not?
It does not make sense and that is why there is wisdom in the current Commonwealth Law regarding Separation of Intent.
Separation of Intent allows lawmakers to draw the line between various crimes that are actionable and those that are not. It is important that the civil authorities and citizenry understand that even though there is a separation between Intent and Action, a person can still be arrested for Intent even if not acting on it.
An example: A terrorist may hate a government to the point of purchasing a weapon of mass destruction. Police and government officials raid the location of where the bomb is being kept and try the terrorist for the Intent to commit murder (along with other infractions such as purchasing a weapon of mass destruction or constructing a weapon of mass destruction).
The gray line where Intent and Action lay is the court where lawyers play and, when regarding crimes committed, court rulings on Intent and Action can very easily be understood.
But what about those instances where no crime has been committed?
Such as the selling of arms? Companies like Stellar Enterprises and CTI thrive on the fear of war and the threat of war to sustain their bottom line. It is in their best interests to thwart the efforts of diplomats by encouraging sales of bigger and more terrible weapons of destructive power.
And all in the name of defense!
Every government has a right to defense and every government has their own resources with which to build up such defenses.
But when there are weapons manufacturing companies that are willing to sell to both sides of a conflict under a banner of false neutrality, these companies show themselves to be morally bankrupt.
An employee cannot feed their family if they can't earn a paycheck. The company cannot give them a paycheck unless they sell their weapons. The weapons cannot be sold unless they are shown to be effective. The effectiveness cannot be determined in any real sense unless they are used.
So war becomes the motivating factor for an employee's family to eat?
How can the horrible actions of war be condemned when such war profiteers are encouraged and supported by such organizations like the Galactic Empire and the Coalition?
It is the opinion of this writer that both governments are cut from the same cloth. How can either government champion peace when they are both locked into an arms race and throw money at even independent weapons manufacturers?
I implore the Commonwealth to make the war profiteers accountable to the Law under the Articles of Intent! Such organizations are founded in the Intent that 'War is good for business'. It is up to us to show the fallacy of this way of thinking.
Rob Stellar and those of his ilk could care less who gets hurt with their weapons. They feel if they are not the ones firing the gun, they share no responsibility in the actions of murderers.
Well who gives the murderer's guns, Mr. Stellar? Who makes his gun for him with as much punch as money can buy?
We are appalled that the Coalition has decided to fund your murder by not only supplying funds but providing workers for your factories!
But we understand. It's all in the name of defense!
Isn't that why the Grand Army of the Republic was created?
Isn't that the foundation the Galactic Empire was formed?
It is because governments that support such war profiteering are so morally bankrupt that they will never succeed in being that shining beacon of light in the galaxy.
Of what benefit is it to the Coalition to decry the Dragon Imperium when their funds are directly going into building Rob Stellar's Weaponry Empire among their enemies?
Where is their high-minded morality? The Jedi Order is supposed to be the Coalition's morality police? Where is the arrest of the Coalition Prime Minister that allowed the Coalition to take part in war profiteering? Where is their shutting down of CTI and Stellar Enterprises sites?
What good is the throwing away of their soldier's lives against the Dragons and the Imperials if they make no move for the light to shine through in themselves?
Before looking at the tyranny abroad, look into the tyranny inside your own borders.
Vote for heavy sanctions for CTI!
University Student - Elrood Sector Acadamy
Application of Galactic Sociology