Jon was rightfully "terminated" by the Watch

[cpg2016]

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Nobody forced you to address this topic. And there certainly enough of a parallel there to compare Jaime to Jon.

Eh I don't know.  Jaime's situation is one Martin plays with a LOT, notably in the Dunk and Egg stories and Sansa's plot.  What is the binding oath?  Is it the oath of knighthood, to protect the weak and innocent?  Or does the later Kingsguard oath trump that?  In killing Aerys, Jaime is living up to the one oath at the expense of the other, and he can't do both.  Same as with Dunk protecting the smallfolk instead of covering for an abusive royal.  Or Sansa's belief in a true knight.

Jon's is a little different, maybe even closer to Stannis' situation.  What is his duty?  If it is to the hidebound strictures of the Watch, than on it's face, attacking the Boltons is a violation of the traditions of the NW.  But if his duty is to protect mankind from the Others (which it is), then of course he's justified in intervening in Winterfell; Stannis has actively aided the Watch in the past, and is obviously aware of the true threat, and willing to aid them again.  Ramsay is a dangerous usurper at least (and reputedly much worse) who is actively imperiling the ability of the Watch to carry out it's all-important mission; the Pink Letter represents an absolute authority on the sovereignty of the Night's Watch, in addition to substantially weakening it.

[The Commentator]

3 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

Bowen Marsh was planning to kill Jon well before the Pink Letter.  In other words, before any of the justifications you cite.

Mance is not a criminal, first off.  He was a threat to the Night's Watch, but he broke no laws, as the laws of the Seven Kingdoms don't apply when not in the Seven Kingdoms.

And Ramsay Bolton had threatened the Night's Watch with physical violence if they didn't turn over certain guests of theirs.  The Boltons have already justified Jon's decision for him.  Any attack he makes on them is perfectly legal; they are holding a proverbial gun to his head.  It is far MORE of a betrayal to surrender the sovereignty of the Watch to the Boltons than it is to assault them for endangering the only mission the NW has, which is protecting the realm from the Others.  Right now, a number of Stannis' men are helping defend the Wall; the demand on the part of the Boltons that he effectively disarm and surrender these men is a direct threat on the primary goal of the Night's Watch.

Mance was a ranger of the Night's Watch.  Even then he was always skirting the lines and just barely staying within the rules.   He refused a perfectly reasonable order from his commander and became a deserter.  He then worked his way to become the leader of the wildlings, using the skill at arms that the watch had taught him to defeat his challengers.  The wildlings raided the north periodically during his reign.  His leadership brought death to many of his former NW brothers.  He led an attack on the wall.  Mance is a criminal.  One of the worst kinds of evil in the books.

[The Hoare]

9 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

Jon's is a little different, maybe even closer to Stannis' situation.  What is his duty?  If it is to the hidebound strictures of the Watch, than on it's face, attacking the Boltons is a violation of the traditions of the NW.  But if his duty is to protect mankind from the Others (which it is), then of course he's justified in intervening in Winterfell; Stannis has actively aided the Watch in the past, and is obviously aware of the true threat, and willing to aid them again.  Ramsay is a dangerous usurper at least (and reputedly much worse) who is actively imperiling the ability of the Watch to carry out it's all-important mission; the Pink Letter represents an absolute authority on the sovereignty of the Night's Watch, in addition to substantially weakening it.

If Jon believed in the Pink Letter, then Stannis is dead and any hope of defeating the Boltons is inexistent. With Stannis death, the only hope agains't the Others is if Lord Bolton helped them, but Jon isn't even trying to prove that the they exist.

The NW is not a sovereign order, they serve the realms of men. Kings have been dethroned oathbreaker lord commanders before. The Night's King is the most famous case.

[cpg2016]

1 hour ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

Mance was a ranger of the Night's Watch.  Even then he was always skirting the lines and just barely staying within the rules.   He refused a perfectly reasonable order from his commander and became a deserter.  He then worked his way to become the leader of the wildlings, using the skill at arms that the watch had taught him to defeat his challengers.  The wildlings raided the north periodically during his reign.  His leadership brought death to many of his former NW brothers.  He led an attack on the wall.  Mance is a criminal.  One of the worst kinds of evil in the books.

Haha I'll ignore the last comment which is obvious trolling.

But Mance never once betrayed the laws of the Seven Kingdoms.  Ramsay has absolutely no right to demand anything of Jon as it pertains to Mance.  We have no evidence at all that Mance has ever "sent" a wildling into the Seven Kingdoms.  At this point, the only law Mance has broken is the Watch's requirement that one wear all black.  That's it.  And the Night's Watch is not part of the Seven Kingdoms, it is legally separate and sovereign.

And Jon, having absolute authority over the Watch, is perfectly within his rights to pardon Mance, just as Mormont pardoned Jon for his desertion (and, it is implied, as all Lords Commander pardon deserters on their first desertion).  So yeah... Mance has been forgiven by the only authority whose laws he wronged. So why is Ramsay holding him?  He's broken, and this cannot be stressed enough, no laws that Ramsay has a right to enforce.  

[cpg2016]

1 hour ago, The Hoare said:

If Jon believed in the Pink Letter, then Stannis is dead and any hope of defeating the Boltons is inexistent. With Stannis death, the only hope agains't the Others is if Lord Bolton helped them, but Jon isn't even trying to prove that the they exist.

Says who?  And as far as Jon is concerned, proof has been sent of the Other's existence.  Some people, like Stannis, believed and came to help.  Everyone else laughed.  What exactly is he supposed to do?  If the definition of madness is indeed doing the same thing over and expecting different results, then we'd be more reasonable to condemn Jon if he had taken different actions.

And if Jon believes in the Pink Letter, then he knows the Boltons, knowingly or unknowingly, are working for/with the Others, since they're helping kill the only men defending the Wall and mankind.  So Jon is perfectly justified in assaulting them; the ONLY job of the NW is to fight the Others, and that includes their allies.

And we know the Boltons won't help Jon, as does he.  The very existence of the Pink Letter is proof of that; Ramsay is demanding, at swordpoint, that Jon surrender the sovereignty of the Watch and basically disarm the only people protecting the Wall (the Queens Men and the wildlings), since surrendering Selyse and Val will lose him the support of both.

Quote

The NW is not a sovereign order, they serve the realms of men. Kings have been dethroned oathbreaker lord commanders before. The Night's King is the most famous case.

The 100% are a sovereign order.  This isn't up for dispute.  They are not answerable to the Crown, as we hear when Cersei is figuring out a way to depose Jon, and they certainly aren't answerable to Winterfell.

Their oath to serve the realms of men is a euphemism.  What realms, exactly, do they serve?  If some Volantenes show up, do the NW owe them obedience?  They're men.  The whole oath is just evidence of their sovereignty; they're not a political actor, they stand aside from and above any of the various kingdoms that existed at their founding.

Yes, various Kings have had to depose traitorous Night's Watch commanders.  But only when they were conspiring with the Others.  The Night's King is the only example we have of a Lord Commander being deposed by outside forces.  Most of the rest were deposed by the brothers themselves, as befits a theoretically equal and meritocratic society.

[BalerionTheCat]

20 hours ago, sgtpimenta said:

How about we agree to disagree about this? It is off-topic, after all, I hope we can debate our asses out in another thread.

 

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Nobody forced you to address this topic. And there certainly enough of a parallel there to compare Jaime to Jon.

I would rather say: No one is forcing you to agree with him or her (either concerning Jaime or Jon.).
But, reciprocally, no one forbids you to express your PoV. Or force you to stay silent. Everyone is free of his/her ideas.

And yes, IMO, Jon and Jaime have some parallels. In ignoring the Law to do what they felt true.

[sgtpimenta]

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Nobody forced you to address this topic. And there certainly enough of a parallel there to compare Jaime to Jon.

There are parallels between Jaime's actions and Bowen's. Yet you seem eager to criticize one and give a pass to the other  

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There are no such reasons. People doubting that Ramsay is not the author of the Pink Letter have either too much time or too vivid an imagination. We don't even have proof that Mance can write. He is of common birth and never had any administrative duties in the Watch. And even Cotter Pyke, the commander of Eastwatch, cannot write. Why on earth should anybody believe Mance Rayder can write? Hell, historically, even Borros Baratheon, a historical Lord of Storm's End, could neither read nor write.

There are. Maybe you don't like them, maybe they are not good reasons (who's to say?); that's ok. But they exist.

You talk about vivid imagination of others as if you are the sole source of reason and objectivity

Maybe Mance can write, we don't know. Just because we haven't seen it doesn't mean it does not exist. Certainly you - who like to propose imaginary plans to the pyromancers and infer their motivations to drop off the Wildfire Plot without textual proof - can appreciate the need to some sort of inductive logic to complement one theory.

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Whether you believe Ramsay's promise in the letter is another matter. I don't. But you claim Ramsay didn't make any such promises and you are wrong on that. You falsely denied that Ramsay offered to leave Jon and his crows in peace if he met his demands and falsely claimed that Ramsay would come to the Wall to attack the NW under any circumstances. This simply has nothing to do with the book you were reading.

I was wrong, I admit. The letter do, indeed, promise that the NW will be left in peace. But - if Ramsay is the author, let's assume that, just for argument's sake - there's no chance in the seven hells that he'll just let the NW be. That's not Ramsay's MO. He has promised the ironborn safe passage home, and we know how that end up.

Even if we were to believe "Ramsay's" promises, the Watch can not comply with his demands. They literally can't, it is not in its power to give back someone who isn't with them. There's no safety to the Watch without a fight.

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There is no legal authority which could conduct a trial against the Lord Commander. Else the Night's King, Runcel Hightower, and other bad Lord Commanders could have been stripped of their office and sentenced to death by the brothers without the involvement of outside forces. But it seems that if you are the Lord Commander you decide what the people in the Watch do, and you can behead them if they refuse an order, can't you? In such a climate all you can to deal with a traitor and deserter like Jon Snow is to kill him before he corrupts more of your sworn brothers.

Just as you can't conduct a trial against a tyrannical king. All you can do is to rebel against him and hope that you win. Or you can murder him quietly - or not so quietly.

See? There are those parallels with the Kingslayer again. How can you call what Bowen Marsh did "rightful" and attack Jaime so relentless? Do you care to elaborate?

[The Hoare]

18 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

Says who?  And as far as Jon is concerned, proof has been sent of the Other's existence.  Some people, like Stannis, believed and came to help.  Everyone else laughed.  What exactly is he supposed to do?  If the definition of madness is indeed doing the same thing over and expecting different results, then we'd be more reasonable to condemn Jon if he had taken different actions.

Nobody ever saw the proof that the others exist. You cannot blame someone for not believing in ice zombies.

18 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

And if Jon believes in the Pink Letter, then he knows the Boltons, knowingly or unknowingly, are working for/with the Others, since they're helping kill the only men defending the Wall and mankind.  So Jon is perfectly justified in assaulting them; the ONLY job of the NW is to fight the Others, and that includes their allies.

And we know the Boltons won't help Jon, as does he.  The very existence of the Pink Letter is proof of that; Ramsay is demanding, at swordpoint, that Jon surrender the sovereignty of the Watch and basically disarm the only people protecting the Wall (the Queens Men and the wildlings), since surrendering Selyse and Val will lose him the support of both.

So, Jon is right in attacking someone that isn't fighting agains't enemies that they don't know that exist? He may as well declare war on the Iron Throne.

Everyone in the Seven Kingdoms believe that the Watch exist to keep the wildlings from raiding the south of the wall. In that point of view(which is obviously what the Boltons believe) Jon is a traitor as he's helping the enemy.

25 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

Yes, various Kings have had to depose traitorous Night's Watch commanders.  But only when they were conspiring with the Others.  The Night's King is the only example we have of a Lord Commander being deposed by outside forces.  Most of the rest were deposed by the brothers themselves, as befits a theoretically equal and meritocratic society.

 

That's what the legend says. It create a precedence where a traitor LC can be deposed by a foreign party.

Since everyone thinks that the Watch guard the realm agains't the wildlings, and some maesters believe that the Others were actualy a wildling tribe of old, it's not hard to believe that Jon was actualy not much better than the Night's King.

Either way, Jon was deposed by black brothers not by a Bolton.

[cpg2016]

3 minutes ago, The Hoare said:

Nobody ever saw the proof that the others exist. You cannot blame someone for not believing in ice zombies.

No, people just didn't believe.  Stannis believed.  Tyrion believed, but didn't want to be mocked.  What, exactly, would constitute proof to you?  A captured Other?  If you are saying that Jon requires people to come to the Wall to be shown proof, then we may as well admit that he cannot prove their existence.  

 

5 minutes ago, The Hoare said:

Everyone in the Seven Kingdoms believe that the Watch exist to keep the wildlings from raiding the south of the wall. In that point of view(which is obviously what the Boltons believe) Jon is a traitor as he's helping the enemy.

Everyone is wrong.  If everyone "knows" that Robert Baratheon is secretly an immortal Aegon I, does that make it true?  Obviously not.  Just the same, the mission of the Night's Watch is not determined by the common beliefs of the Seven Kingdoms, but by their mission.

We have no idea what the Boltons believe.  But they have no right to object to his disposition of the wildlings.  As Norrey and Flint make clear, as long as the wildlings stay off their land, they have no cause to complain.  The same goes for the Boltons.  The Gift & New Gift are lands belonging to the Watch, that they can do with as they will.

Quote

That's what the legend says. It create a precedence where a traitor LC can be deposed by a foreign party.

Which is not the same as having a legal right.  The fact that it has happened, doesn't mean it should happen again.  It's like saying that because the Night's King existed, it creates a precedent that the Night's Watch can ally with the Others.  

The Watch is independent of any of the Seven Kingdoms, or the Iron Throne.  Full stop.  Even Cersei understands that she cannot command them to depose Jon Snow, she has to do it by sending an assassin hit squad (which, incidentally, is probably what Bowen Marsh was waiting for to launch his coup pre-Pink Letter).

Quote

Since everyone thinks that the Watch guard the realm agains't the wildlings, and some maesters believe that the Others were actualy a wildling tribe of old, it's not hard to believe that Jon was actualy not much better than the Night's King.

It doesn't matter what is hard to believe.  It matters what is law and what isn't.  Ramsay has no right to demand that the Watch surrender their sovereignty by handing over Selyse.  And no legal right at all to demand that they hand over Val or Mance's kid.

 

11 minutes ago, The Hoare said:

Either way, Jon was deposed by black brothers not by a Bolton.

No, he was assassinated.  There is a vast chasm of difference.  No trial, no defense, no nothing.  Knives in the dark is not a deposition, it's an coup, pure and simple.

And again, those black brothers were conspiring to do exactly this since well before the Pink Letter, hence the pre-existence of a selected group of mutineers/assassins.

[sgtpimenta]

7 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

No, he was assassinated.  There is a vast chasm of difference.  No trial, no defense, no nothing.  Knives in the dark is not a deposition, it's an coup, pure and simple.

And again, those black brothers were conspiring to do exactly this since well before the Pink Letter, hence the pre-existence of a selected group of mutineers/assassins.

If nothing else, the timing of the mutiny - right after Jon's alleged desertion - and the ability to summon, impromptu, a gang of assassins, just proves that Marsh and his culprits were planning to murder his Lord Commander way before the pink letter.

[Lord Freypie]

It doesn't prove anything.

Marsh and his cronies left together during Jon's speech. They were already gathered, they just had to say "enough is enough" and decide to kill him (they had time to discuss, as wildlings spent time pledging to Jon).

They probably had discussed Jon's case several times previously, asking themselves what to do if he went too far in his revolutionnary policy, but there was no sign they were planning to kill Jon before the speech (and there's a big arguement against this theory : they would have done it before he opened the gates to Tormund).

 

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, sgtpimenta said:

There are parallels between Jaime's actions and Bowen's. Yet you seem eager to criticize one and give a pass to the other  

Sure. Bowen Marsh didn't swear a sacred vow to protect and obey his lord commander. Jaime swore such a vow to his king, Aerys II.

2 hours ago, sgtpimenta said:

There are. Maybe you don't like them, maybe they are not good reasons (who's to say?); that's ok. But they exist.

You talk about vivid imagination of others as if you are the sole source of reason and objectivity

I'm not the standard for objectivity but assuming Mance of all people wrote that letter is in the same ridiculous camp as the idea that the Howland Reed is the High Septon or Tom Bombadil the Witch-king of Angmar.

2 hours ago, sgtpimenta said:

Maybe Mance can write, we don't know. Just because we haven't seen it doesn't mean it does not exist. Certainly you - who like to propose imaginary plans to the pyromancers and infer their motivations to drop off the Wildfire Plot without textual proof - can appreciate the need to some sort of inductive logic to complement one theory.

Well, assuming people want to live and assuming people who didn't receive a proper education - which is the overwhelming majority in the Westeros - can read and write isn't the same. In fact, the ridiculous idea that Mance could have written that letter shows that whoever champions that idea doesn't really care (or give much thought) to the setting of the world.

2 hours ago, sgtpimenta said:

I was wrong, I admit. The letter do, indeed, promise that the NW will be left in peace. But - if Ramsay is the author, let's assume that, just for argument's sake - there's no chance in the seven hells that he'll just let the NW be. That's not Ramsay's MO. He has promised the ironborn safe passage home, and we know how that end up.

The Ironborn aren't sworn brothers of the Night's Watch, though. Whatever Ramsay is he is still a Northmen. And the Watch did stop Mance and his wildling army from invading the North.

I'm inclined to believe that he would most likely still kill Jon, being who he is. But we don't know that. And whether Jon lives or dies is not as important as the question whether the Night's Watch survives. If 

2 hours ago, sgtpimenta said:

Even if we were to believe "Ramsay's" promises, the Watch can not comply with his demands. They literally can't, it is not in its power to give back someone who isn't with them. There's no safety to the Watch without a fight.

Sure, but Jon could give Ramsay Melisandre, Selysen, and Shireen and promise him to give him 'Arya' and Theon, too, once he has them.

2 hours ago, sgtpimenta said:

See? There are those parallels with the Kingslayer again. How can you call what Bowen Marsh did "rightful" and attack Jaime so relentless? Do you care to elaborate?

Again, Jaime broke his Kingsguard vows. Marsh didn't swear similar vows to his lord commander. It was Jon who broke his vows, not Marsh.

[sgtpimenta]

8 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure. Bowen Marsh didn't swear a sacred vow to protect and obey his lord commander. Jaime swore such a vow to his king, Aerys II

I have seen some pretty lame excuses for Marsh's mutiny on this thread, but that one gotta be the worse. Are you saying that they have include a "I shall not betray and murder my lord commander" in the vows? That's it?

15 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, assuming people want to live and assuming people who didn't receive a proper education - which is the overwhelming majority in the Westeros - can read and write isn't the same. In fact, the ridiculous idea that Mance could have written that letter shows that whoever champions that idea doesn't really care (or give much thought) to the setting of the world.

You have some good points. I never said that the Mance-Rayder-is-the-pink-letter-author is perfect, it has its flaws. But it has its merits. The author sure spends a lot of time and energy with people of interest to the king beyond the wall. Why would Ramsay care about Val or MR' son?

I don't want spend too much time re-heating this discussion, as other (more intelligent than me) people have argued about this before me. I'll just share a link of a youtuber that has made some pretty good videos about the most popular theories about this.

25 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, but Jon could give Ramsay Melisandre, Selysen, and Shireen and promise him to give him 'Arya' and Theon, too, once he has them.

And betray the sacred rights of his guests? "Ramsay" has no right to even ask about them. cpg2016 has already covered this.

31 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Again, Jaime broke his Kingsguard vows. Marsh didn't swear similar vows to his lord commander. It was Jon who broke his vows, not Marsh.

Again, this is bullshit. A member of a order does not need to swear not-to-kill his commander. It is presumed that a brother of the NW (or of any order) will not conspire to commit treason or mutiny. Maybe they believed themselves right, maybe they had their reasons to do so, but, nonetheless, it is still murder.

[Here's Looking At You, Kid]

4 hours ago, BalerionTheCat said:

 

I would rather say: No one is forcing you to agree with him or her (either concerning Jaime or Jon.).
But, reciprocally, no one forbids you to express your PoV. Or force you to stay silent. Everyone is free of his/her ideas.

And yes, IMO, Jon and Jaime have some parallels. In ignoring the Law to do what they felt true.

Jon and Jaime are not really parallel.  Bowen and Jaime are parallel.  Both have had to kill their boss for the good of the many.

[Here's Looking At You, Kid]

6 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Mance is not a criminal, first off.  He was a threat to the Night's Watch, but he broke no laws, as the laws of the Seven Kingdoms don't apply when not in the Seven Kingdoms.

So I guess this means Arya committed murder when she killed Daeron because according to this logic, Daeron committed no crime because they weren't at the seven kingdoms.  Daeron's desertion can't be a crime and Arya had no authority to murder him. 

Of the crimes that Mance may have done on the far side of the wall, yeah, he gets away with those.  He could have raped and killed as many wildlings as he wanted and nobody in the 7K could do anything about it.  I believe what Arya did to Daeron was murder and she had no right to kill him. 

Unfortunately for Mance, the act of desertion happened at the Wall.  He brought his wildlings to wall and attacked, causing many of his old brothers to die.  So yeah those are two crimes that Mance is guilty of at the wall for which he can and should be held accountable for.  He also sneaked past the wall and trespassed when he attended Robert's feast at WF.

[cpg2016]

1 hour ago, Here's Looking At You, Kid said:

So I guess this means Arya committed murder when she killed Daeron because according to this logic, Daeron committed no crime because they weren't at the seven kingdoms.  Daeron's desertion can't be a crime and Arya had no authority to murder him. 

Of the crimes that Mance may have done on the far side of the wall, yeah, he gets away with those.  He could have raped and killed as many wildlings as he wanted and nobody in the 7K could do anything about it.  I believe what Arya did to Daeron was murder and she had no right to kill him. 

Unfortunately for Mance, the act of desertion happened at the Wall.  He brought his wildlings to wall and attacked, causing many of his old brothers to die.  So yeah those are two crimes that Mance is guilty of at the wall for which he can and should be held accountable for.  He also sneaked past the wall and trespassed when he attended Robert's feast at WF.

Arya absolutely commits a crime.  It isn't her place to murder Daeron, at all.  But more importantly, Daeron does desert, which means he HAS broken a law, which there seems to be a universal right to enforce.  The Watch certainly seems OK with Ned dispensing justice on their behalf.  That doesn't mean it's a two way street; if Jon isn't okay with surrendering any of his sovereignty, Ramsay doesn't have a right to demand it.

And my point about Mance isn't that he wasn't committing "crimes".  It's merely that Ramsay has no jurisdiction North of the Wall.  He can't demand anyone be  "brought to justice" or anything like that.  Just like Arya acts ethically but illegally.  Just the same, Ramsay wants to act illegally... but we know he isn't doing it for an ethical reason, which is a reason we judge him more harshly than Arya.

Unfortunately for your (awful) argument, Mance committed this "crime" against the Night's Watch, not Ramsay.  So again, Ramsay has no standing to be asking for any kind of justice against Mance.  You know who does?  Jon, the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch.  And what's that you say?  Oh... Jon pardoned Mance and sent him south?  Well isn't that dandy.

And there is no evidence that "trespassing" is a crime.  He was invited in and performed for his supper.  Is the Blue Bard trespassing because he's under an assumed name?  Obviously not; he's welcomed into Margaery's court.  Ditto Mance.  

So again, the only entity with the right to judge or sentence Mance is the Watch.  And the only person with judicial power within the Watch pardoned him.  SO take your bogus understand of legal standing elsewhere.

[Jon Ice-Eyes]

The way medieval law worked was that someone who was guilty, if he or she wasn't executed on the spot, would become an outlaw. This means that anyone can kill them with no repercussions. The law doesn't protect them anymore. 

So Arya killing a Night's Watch deserter is perfectly fine. He's an outlaw. And I see no indication that Braavos extends amnesty and protection to outlaws. 

The same would go for Mance if he weren't pardoned by the Night's Watch. Although it makes no difference if no one knows about the pardon or if they don't know who he is. Or, most importantly if they don't give a damn about that shit and kill him for, say, arranging to murder guardsmen. 

Sorry if this was all mentioned upthread.

[Son of Man]

5 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Arya absolutely commits a crime.  It isn't her place to murder Daeron, at all.  But more importantly, Daeron does desert, which means he HAS broken a law, which there seems to be a universal right to enforce.  The Watch certainly seems OK with Ned dispensing justice on their behalf.  That doesn't mean it's a two way street; if Jon isn't okay with surrendering any of his sovereignty, Ramsay doesn't have a right to demand it.

And my point about Mance isn't that he wasn't committing "crimes".  It's merely that Ramsay has no jurisdiction North of the Wall.  He can't demand anyone be  "brought to justice" or anything like that.  Just like Arya acts ethically but illegally.  Just the same, Ramsay wants to act illegally... but we know he isn't doing it for an ethical reason, which is a reason we judge him more harshly than Arya.

Unfortunately for your (awful) argument, Mance committed this "crime" against the Night's Watch, not Ramsay.  So again, Ramsay has no standing to be asking for any kind of justice against Mance.  You know who does?  Jon, the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch.  And what's that you say?  Oh... Jon pardoned Mance and sent him south?  Well isn't that dandy.

And there is no evidence that "trespassing" is a crime.  He was invited in and performed for his supper.  Is the Blue Bard trespassing because he's under an assumed name?  Obviously not; he's welcomed into Margaery's court.  Ditto Mance.  

So again, the only entity with the right to judge or sentence Mance is the Watch.  And the only person with judicial power within the Watch pardoned him.  SO take your bogus understand of legal standing elsewhere.

Jon has no authority to "rescue" Arya from her marriage.  Jon has no jurisdiction anywhere outside the wall.  That puts him in the wrong for sending his wildling "friends" to fetch her.  For that alone Jon is guilty of treason against the realm and against the watch.   Don't forget that the wildlings murdered several servants and possibly an innocent little fat boy. 

Your argument comes across as desperation.  And they're not very good.  So it's not trespassing for a wildling to cross the wall and enter a castle in disguise?  You do know Mance Rayder is a deserter and Ned had the duty to execute him on the spot like he did to the black brother in the first chapter of GoT.  Jon doesn't have the authority to pardon Mance Rayder. 

[Barbrey Dustin]

8 hours ago, Here's Looking At You, Kid said:

Jon and Jaime are not really parallel.  Bowen and Jaime are parallel.  Both have had to kill their boss for the good of the many.

Agreed!

[Lord Varys]

15 hours ago, sgtpimenta said:

I have seen some pretty lame excuses for Marsh's mutiny on this thread, but that one gotta be the worse. Are you saying that they have include a "I shall not betray and murder my lord commander" in the vows? That's it?

LOL, you are aware that Jaime Lannister is a member of the Kingsguard, right? And that all of Westeros, including the mortal enemies of King Aerys II Targaryen (like Eddard Stark and Robert Baratheon), despise the man for what he did. Nobody is going to despise Bowen Marsh in the same way for killing a Lord Commander of the Night's Watch who turned deserter.

A Kingsguard cannot kill the king under any circumstances and then think people will just applaud him. But there is nothing wrong if a sworn brother of the Night's Watch kills a lord commander who betrayed the Night's Watch and his own vows.

15 hours ago, sgtpimenta said:

You have some good points. I never said that the Mance-Rayder-is-the-pink-letter-author is perfect, it has its flaws. But it has its merits. The author sure spends a lot of time and energy with people of interest to the king beyond the wall. Why would Ramsay care about Val or MR' son?

Why shouldn't he? He might, after all, not have captured Mance Rayder despite the claims he makes in the letter. All of Ramsay's knowledge could have come from one of the spearwives he may have caught (and tortured). She would have told him about Mance, Val, Stannis' magic sword (which glowed very bright during the speech before 'Mance's' burning the captive wildlings all witnessed), Melisandre, Selyse, and Shireen.

But still, since Ramsay is a man of the Seven Kingdoms he might think the wildlings see Mance's son and 'the wildling princess' as somebody to follow, which would explain why he wants them, too.

15 hours ago, sgtpimenta said:

And betray the sacred rights of his guests? "Ramsay" has no right to even ask about them. cpg2016 has already covered this.

Guest right doesn't allow you to harbor traitors and outlaws. You can do it, of course, but then you are a traitor and outlaw, too, and are dealt with accordingly.

15 hours ago, sgtpimenta said:

Again, this is bullshit. A member of a order does not need to swear not-to-kill his commander. It is presumed that a brother of the NW (or of any order) will not conspire to commit treason or mutiny. Maybe they believed themselves right, maybe they had their reasons to do so, but, nonetheless, it is still murder.

I say it was the execution of a deserter, hardly different from what Ned did to Gared or Arya presumed to do with Dareon.