Your New Job: Defense Attorney

[Codename: Nymeria]

 

 

what the hell are you talking about ? If Sandor disobeyed or ignored Cersei's order would anything negative happen to him? what could Cersei possibly have done. She's not going to Robert and admit that she secretly gave Sandor and order to kill a child. Sandor is one of the most valuable assets the Lannister's have and Joffrey loves having him as his sworn shield . He has zero concern for his safety so the only reason he kills Mycah is because he wanted to , not because of any order . I know that interfers with some people romantic belief that Sandor is some kind of hero but that's the way it is. 

 

Um, no,she's going to go tell Robert that a) Mycah attacked Joffrey (which she did, in fact, do) and that B, Sandor isn't obeying her orders. Best case scenario for Sandor would be Robert dismissing him from service, leaving Sandor with no one to turn to and no means of providing for himself over than turning into a sellsword or bandit. Worst case, Robert executes him on the spot for not doing his job.

 

 

 

Robert would have no need to protect Sandor , Cersei would never go to him about this .  Sandor is not a nice person either , in fact he's a pretty scary guy and probably the most dangerous swordsman in the Kingdom , do you think that Cersei is going to do anything and take a chance on losing one of their best assets and her son's sworn shield for something that any other soldier would be able to do . 

Tywin would be pissed at Cersei for even ordering Sandor to do it , he would think that it was beneath Sandor's skills . 

What happens if Robert suddenly finds his backbone and decides to punish Sandor for killing Mycah then the Lannister have lost their best fighter for something their worst fighter could have done. 

If Cersei does anything to Sandor he could quit their service and join any of the other Lords , do you think Renly would not love to have the Hound's sword? 

 

This is just absurd. Cersei did go to Robert about this; that's how Lady died, remember? And while I appreciate you speaking on behalf of Tywin, that's not at all consistent with his character. Tywin would certainly end up making an example out of the Hound for disobeying orders; the "beneath his skills" thing is a non-argument. It's not like he had other obligations at the moment. Using the Hound, a professional (and agreed, scary dude) makes far more sense because he'd do it cleanly, and it rules out the likelihood of anything nutty happening. And Robert finding his backbone is not an issue, given that he couldn't find in in the following scene when Cersei berated him into killing a direwolf. When you hire someone to, say, do your taxes, do you want the accountant with the least experience absolutely necessary to do them? Or the one with the most experience?

 

That last sentence is laughable. "Oh, hey, it's the Hound - one of Tywin Lannister's most well-known and loyal servants for years, and incredibly deadly! I'm sure you have no ulterior motive for wanting to join me! Wait, let me give you all the information on my battle plans!" Please.

[Blackfish Tully]

 

Um, no,she's going to go tell Robert that a) Mycah attacked Joffrey (which she did, in fact, do) and that B, Sandor isn't obeying her orders. Best case scenario for Sandor would be Robert dismissing him from service, leaving Sandor with no one to turn to and no means of providing for himself over than turning into a sellsword or bandit. Worst case, Robert executes him on the spot for not doing his job.

 

I'm sorry but that is just not going to happen. Cersei would never admit to Robert that she ordered Sandor to do that knowing full well that she would be overstepping onto Robert's authority. 

If Sandor is dismissed how hard would it be for the most dangerous man in the Seven Kingdoms to find a job ? he would have lords lining up for him to join their service. 

As for Robert executing him that's not even remotely possible. Sanor's job is to defend Joffrey not murdering unarmed , defenseless children. Robert would be much more angry at Cersei then he would the Hound.

 

 

 

 

 

 

that last sentence is laughable. "Oh, hey, it's the Hound - one of Tywin Lannister's most well-known and loyal servants for years, and incredibly deadly! I'm sure you have no ulterior motive for wanting to join me! Wait, let me give you all the information on my battle plans!" Please.

 

Plenty of people switched sides in the War of Five Kings , some more then once so what is so laughable about the Hound switching sides? do you think that they would worry about Sandor being a double agent ? I doubt Sandor could pull that off . 

[Blackfish Tully]

 

 And while I appreciate you speaking on behalf of Tywin, that's not at all consistent with his character. Tywin would certainly end up making an example out of the Hound for disobeying orders; the "beneath his skills" thing is a non-argument.

 

so i can't speak for Tywin but you can? "Tywin would certainly end up making an example out of the Hound for disobeying orders;"   where do you get this from? Tywin was pissed at Cersei for all her dumb decisions and he would be just as angry for this stupid one. 

[SeanF]

Frankly, this thread is getting disgusting.
Martin clearly wants us to see Sandor's deed as horribly evil and repugnant. The author wants us to perceive Sandor as someone who relishes shocking people with his cruelty. And at the same time we get a demonstration that in this world commoners are worthless and have no rights at all. Sandor did not expect anyone of importance to care about that killing, order or not. Ned's disgust was an unexpected extra spice in Sandor's bloody dish.
So seriously building a defense not only on a rather academic in-story level but on a meta level with applying our present day moralities is appalling. Enjoy, I wonder who needs to find preemptive excuses just in case he or she might ever get an order to chop a child to pieces.
But that sensitivity against calling a horrible deed horrible goes directly against Martin's intention as writer.
There is no mitigation meant to be found for Sandor, we are supposed to see the murder of Mycah as especially cruel murder, plain and simple. Otherwise Sandor's story to come would simply be no story at all, pointless. Sandor would be reduced to a minor extra character. He followed orders, where is the conflict? Boring. The banality of evil.

Martin wants us to be disgusted by the *order* that Sandor was given. He wants us to be disgusted by the *person* who gave that order.

But Sandor himself is a sympathetic character.

[falcotron]

I've been thinking about this topic and come to the conclusion that in Westeroes whether you are guilty or not depends entirely on who is the King or Lord judging the case. The King or Lord is judge , jury and sometimes executioner (except in the rare case like Tyrion where there was three judges) . The facts of the case do not matter nearly as much as who is judging the case .

Agreed. The trial by lord/liege/king idea has obvious problems with bias. Jeyne Arryn found against Daemon on the grounds of "I hate you, everyone in the Vale hates you, so Rhea's nephew gets the castle--plus, you have to leave the Vale and never come back". Lysa basically told Tyrion he was guilty before the trial. The BwB's trial of Sandor was basically an argument that if the laws didn't make his actions illegal that must mean the laws are wrong. Even when people are trying to be fair, as with Bran and his advisors considering the Hornwood case, where they disappointedly agree they can't deny Ramsay's marriage by fiat, they still focus more on pragmatic issues than matters of fact or law.

Presumably, that's exactly why this thread has focused on the hypothetical pretense of using the American court system rather than the Westerosi to try these cases. While at first glance that may seem silly, because America has different laws, remember that the American system ultimately derives from a common law system that's designed to evaluate cases in terms of the relevant standards and precedents, so applying it to the standards and precedents of Westeros isn't impossible the way it would be with the French or Swedish system. The fact that people have made interesting arguments under this pretense shows that it's not pointless.

If you want to reject that pretense and hear the cases in Westeros, then yes, I'll agree with you that this is a pointless question, there was no good reason to ask it, and there's not much more to say.

[Codename: Nymeria]

so i can't speak for Tywin but you can? "Tywin would certainly end up making an example out of the Hound for disobeying orders;"   where do you get this from? Tywin was pissed at Cersei for all her dumb decisions and he would be just as angry for this stupid one. 

 

Tywin was mad at Cersei for decisions she made that harmed the Lannisters politically. This one did not, in any way. No one but the traveling party (and the butcher, presumably) even knew it happened. It only gets mentioned again because he makes Arya's death list. The large part of the arc of their story and the interplay between them is Arya learning to understand the complexities of "being a kliller". I don't think GRRM would have gone to the trouble of rehabilitating the character to that extent if we're meant to think of him as just some giant brute, like his brother.

 

I'm sorry but that is just not going to happen. Cersei would never admit to Robert that she ordered Sandor to do that knowing full well that she would be overstepping onto Robert's authority. 

If Sandor is dismissed how hard would it be for the most dangerous man in the Seven Kingdoms to find a job ? he would have lords lining up for him to join their service. 

As for Robert executing him that's not even remotely possible. Sanor's job is to defend Joffrey not murdering unarmed , defenseless children. Robert would be much more angry at Cersei then he would the Hound.

 

Is the argument here that Robert didn't allow innocent people to die? Or that he wasn't willing to kill innocent children when it suited him? Because again, seems to be contradicted by the text. And since when did Cersei ever give a shit about overstepping Robert's authority? The unspoken understanding between them is that he can't really discipline her because of how much money he owes to her father. These arguments would make far more sense if you didn't treat your personal opinion an unquestioned fact.

[falcotron]

I'd like a chestnut or a bay for my horse.

Negotiating the details of your fee before building the defense and holding the virtual trial proves that you know how to think like a lawyer, unlike most of the other people here. If I ever get arrested in Westeros, I'm hiring you.

But if it looks like you're going to lose, I'm ditching the hearing and hiring Arya Bolton to defend me in a trial by combat using piss streams as weapons. And in case that also fails, I'm hiring CodeNym to organize a group of sellturtlenecks to break me out. And that can't fail unless the queen has a cyborg or something.

As to the second argument, you're arguing modern morality in a medieval setting. The cases I cited on page 3 (notably, Calley) would suggest that, in today's world (or at least, today's USA), you can hold the acting party responsible for atrocities committed during war. But there's an enormous difference between a military chain of command, and a despotic one.

I'm curious what your take is on how an American court would treat feudal obligations. Agreed to become someone's sworn man, at least in terms of English fealty or French homage, means you are literally their man to do with as they please. Presumably, that gives you much more cover in the "following orders" defense than just being a soldier. But rejecting the surviving vestiges of that idea is part of the point of the entire American system. Has America ever tried a foreign citizen who was under an equivalent obligation? How would you deal with that?

[Daereon Lothston]

1. Sandor must take the black. 

2. He was aggrieved by the Young Wolf before so he must take the black and surrender all the possessions his house won in the war. 

3. His head must be removed from his head. 

4. The iron throne should be delivered to his grace. 

5. He must be given a little castle in Stony Shore where he can live his last years in peace. 

[Caspoi]

Daereon Lothson@ ... I don't Think that your clients would be very happy with your defense.

[Lady Blizzardborn]

Negotiating the details of your fee before building the defense and holding the virtual trial proves that you know how to think like a lawyer, unlike most of the other people here. If I ever get arrested in Westeros, I'm hiring you.

<snip

Actually I did post my defenses.  No one has commented on them though.  They all got hung up on whether or not a soldier is criminally responsible for following unlawful orders and ignored my brilliance.

 

But thank you, kind Ser.

[Woman of War]

I tell you what's disgusting here is your often blatant hypocrisy when it comes to Sandor and your favorite character.[

I have no idea what you are talking about. Quotes please or forget this argument! I have always insisted that I want my favorite characters in all their different facets in the show.
 

And I think it's interesting that you describe this whole argument as being "academic" when you've compared his actions to Eichmann many times. But, now that I've blown that comparison right out of the water, the debate is "academic". Interesting.
 .....

I do not at all think that you managed to blow the Eichmann comparison out of the water. But I think that Sandor himself would insist any time that he consciously chose to do the dark deed, order or not. And I seriously wonder what makes people want so desperately to defend a killer and his actions when they are constantly accusing the show of "whitewashing".
Why is it so important to you to dumb Sandor down, to describe him as someone brainlessly following orders instead of being an interesting character fully aware of his own evilness?

[Woman of War]

Martin wants us to be disgusted by the *order* that Sandor was given. He wants us to be disgusted by the *person* who gave that order.
But Sandor himself is a sympathetic character.

Sorry, Sean. I have to respectfully disagree. Sandor has never been meant to be a sympathetic character. Maybe you see show Sandor differently because he was so funny, because he never assaulted Sansa and because the black roadmovie comedy with Arya was so great. But book Sandor has been presented as being evil and knowing about it. Otherwise he would be as boring as some minion of Tywin.

[OldGimletEye]

 
I do not at all think that you managed to blow the Eichmann comparison out of the water.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I did. Because, I don't think you have the slightest clue why Eichmann got convicted and the reasons the Israeli court gave. And I don't think you had the slightest clue that the superior orders is a defense that still exist today. And I don't think you have the slightest clue that Israel, the state that rightly convicted Eichmann for his crimes, permits the superior orders doctrine and, in fact, it's an Israeli judge who was and is widely quoted in the litigation involving soldiers involved in war crimes.

 

 

 

 
Why is it so important to you to dumb Sandor down, to describe him as someone brainlessly following orders instead of being an interesting character fully aware of his own evilness?

You want to know why? I am going to guess here that you've probably never in your life ever sat down and really ever thought about the ethical obligations of soldiers in any meaningful manner. Hence, the inapt Eichmann comparisons. But, it's something has been an interest of mine ever since as a young marine lieutenant I heard a few awful stories from a chaplain, who was a marine rifleman in vietnam, and had to deal with a variety of morally complex issues. It's been an academic interest of mine for a while. And when I see people like you, oversimplify the issues, and make ignorant assertions, it just makes me annoyed because they really don't know what they're talking about.

 

And then there is the fact, that I think your opinions about Sandor are just way off the mark.

 

[Woman of War]

@Old Gimlet
I think you should stop to get personal. I am quite well informed about the Eichmann case and my personal reasons are at least as good as yours. While you are a potential Sandor I would be a potential Mycah here. Stop insisting that only your viewpoint counts, that way the debate is pointless and getting nasty.

Edit: I am out before throwing up.

[Codename: Nymeria]

 

I'm curious what your take is on how an American court would treat feudal obligations. Agreed to become someone's sworn man, at least in terms of English fealty or French homage, means you are literally their man to do with as they please. Presumably, that gives you much more cover in the "following orders" defense than just being a soldier. But rejecting the surviving vestiges of that idea is part of the point of the entire American system. Has America ever tried a foreign citizen who was under an equivalent obligation? How would you deal with that?

 

I mean, under US law, it's clearly illegal to bind yourself to someone in that way. You can agree to a service contract, but that has clear, defined terms that allow for ending the contract. Binding yourself in servitude would be meaningless, because it's not constitutional. That said, what I (and other, knowingly or not) are trying to do is apply the Erie doctrine, which (theoretically, it's obviously much more complicated than this in practice) allows for the application of US procedural law while the substantive law of the place where the trial is occurring is used. The "reasonable person" standard is procedural in its use, but the determination of what constitutes said reasonable person is substantive. Hence, I think there's an excellent case for the superior orders defense. Can't find any indication of any slave cases or anything of the sort that would have dealt with this is a non-military setting.

 

 

Why is it so important to you to dumb Sandor down, to describe him as someone brainlessly following orders instead of being an interesting character fully aware of his own evilness?

 

Sandor has never been meant to be a sympathetic character.

 

As to the first, you seem to be the one trying to dumb him down. There's far more complexity in the idea that he was doing something wrong as a result of an inevitable societal construct, rather than just a desire to do bad. More to the point, that second statement in what we call an opinion, and you shouldn't use that to tell people they're wrong, because that requires facts. My opinion, for instance, is that the whole point of his character is that he's actually a somewhat decent person who circumstances have twisted into something of a monster (the combination of his family and his size making him an ideal warrior in a a feudal, warrior-driven society). As I mentioned a few posts ago, his interaction with Arya is highly complex, and suggests that he is teaching Arya about what it means to be perceived as a "killer" and a "brute", and the way it effects his actions, much like Arya's destiny is shaped in many ways be being born to a noble family, and much of her resultant behavior is tied to, though not necessarily emanating from, that fact. There's far, far more complexity and thought in the idea that Sandor is a reasonable person, neither good or bad, and trying to learn why he would do something like that, then just saying, "He's evil, so he'd do it." It's not like Cersei couldn't have gotten someone else to.

 

Also, I don't know what your Eichmann comparison was, but I'll stick by the Jon Stewart rule that if you feel you need to compare someone to a Nazi to make your point, you probably need to re-think your point.

[OldGimletEye]

@Old Gimlet
I think you should stop to get personal. I am quite well informed about the Eichmann case and my personal reasons are at least as good as yours. While you are a potential Sandor I would be a potential Mycah here. Stop insisting that only your viewpoint counts, that way the debate is pointless and getting nasty.

1. I don't think so.

2. LOL. Just No.

3. Never said it did. But, I will certainly argue vigorously.

4. I'm a prick. Everyone knows it. I know it.

[Woman of War]

Also, I don't know what your Eichmann comparison was, but I'll stick by the Jon Stewart rule that if you feel you need to compare someone to a Nazi to make your point, you probably need to re-think your point.

Even John Stewart might rethink this argument given recent developments in US and Europe.

Have a good night

[falcotron]

Even John Stewart might rethink this argument given recent developments in US and Europe.

Doubtful. This really should be too obvious to need a rule. If Putin or the Blackwater Corporation or whoever does something evil, it's not evil because it's like Hitler, it's evil because it's evil. Maybe it's like Hitler because it's evil, but who cares? What matters is that it's evil. And you ought to be able to say why pretty easily.

DDR Ministerpräsident Otto Grotewohl, 1950: "Are there similarities between the imperialist West and our despised former regime? Surely. But if the hardliners can't explain what's wrong with America without needing to compare them to the former regime, then they aren't explaining what's wrong with America. The hyperbole is logically unnecessary, and rhetorically counterproductive."

If even East German Communists who personally remember the Nazi regime can figure this out, I believe Jon Stewart could.

[Nevets]

Sandor Clegane is not blindly following orders here.  He enjoys killing, but does so only in societally permitted settings. When he is given the order to kill Mycah (as I believe he was) he did so with pleasure, as he got to kill someone with justification.  He is not going to ask too closely about the justification for it, but as far as he's concerned he is entitled to kill Mycah because of the assault.  While he may not be a good guy, it hardly makes him evil.  As far as we can tell, he has not killed those he knows are innocents.

 

He would be covered under the manifest illegality defense.  Even if he likes killing Mycah, he still reasonably thinks he is entitled to do so

 

Also, I am unaware of any assault he made on Sansa.  He usually seemed interested in protecting her.  He frightened her at the Blackwater, but not an actual assault.

[Kaibaman]

No your Patton wife analogy is horrible. The reason is that said soldier would have no duty, recognized by any societal norm, to obey Patton's wife. That clearly wasn't the case between Cersei and Sandor.

 

I think a better analogy is if a street punk beat up the President's son. So in retaliation the First Lady orders a member of the Secret Service to shoot the kid. I'm pretty sure unlike a general's wife, the First Lady does have some authority over the Secret Service men guarding her.