The (attempted) murder of Jon was legally justifiable.

[Lady Blizzardborn]

Is there any process for removing a NW commander from office? I was under the impression that a commander was chosen for life.

Well the 13th LC was removed but as all record of him has been erased from history we don't know if that was done before or after his death.

Still, I'm sure there's something in the bylaws about this kind of thing.

[butterbumps!]

Um, Bowen didn't kill Jon for "breaking vows" or "getting involved." The assassination is about how Jon had chosen a different side than Bowen-- Bowen thought Stannis was going to lose from the outset. So really, the mere idea of "breaking vows" isn't that relevant to the assassination.

The issue for discussion is one of who the victor would be-- if you think Stannis had a chance winning this, then Jon's not wrong and Bowen is. If you think Stannis never had a chance, then Jon was wrong. Both were thinking about the affairs of the realm.

Secondly: we don't actually know what Jon's plan is. I'm not referring to the meeting with Tormund we never see in detail. I mean that when Jon's in the Shiedhall, we only see the most cursory outline of a plan-- when was he planning to carry out this attack, what was truly involved in this attack, what was his strategy? When you look at it, all he did in the Shiedlhall was make sure he had men on his side to carry out some unspecified plan.

Thirdly: we don't actually know what Bowen's plan is. I'm not referring to a grand conspiracy. I'm saying that I know of at least one way he could have wiped out all the wildling leaders in one fell swoop (lock the doors of the shieldhall while they're drunk and set fire to it), so we have no idea of whether he does have a contingency to deal with fallout from the wildlings.

[Bedwyck]

For the sake of argument let's say Jon qualifies as a deserter.

Oh yes, I recall now in the very first Chapter of AGoT how Eddard Stark and three other men repeatedly stabbed that Night's Watch guy (in the back, no less) with absolutely no warning, no arrest, no sentence passed, no invocation of the authority and law that allowed the execution. :rolleyes:

but who has the authority to arrest a Lord Commander? I dont think that would ever work.

[Lady Blizzardborn]

The Night's Watch was already weary when Jon brought the Wildlings to the wall, and then he was going to bring the Wildlings beyond the Wall to wage battle against House Bolton in support of Stannis Baratheon to also save his baby half sister. The only way he could have been more in violation of his oath was if he was also sleeping with a wildling woman. It sucks because he was just getting interesting, but that's when major characters get killed off.

He wasn't bringing the Wildlings through to fight House Bolton, or to support Stannis. He brought them through to save their lives and reduce the number of wights in the Other Continental Army.

but who has the authority to arrest a Lord Commander? I dont think that would ever work.

I'm not sure, but you would think an organization thousands of years old would have some kind of rules about it. Sadly, the one to ask would be Sam and he's nowhere near the Wall right now.

[Greywolf2375]

Is there any process for removing a NW commander from office? I was under the impression that a commander was chosen for life.

There probably is - and I'd have to assume it is more formal than attacking and stabbing the LC. If he was killed because he was found guilty (by the NW rules) of breaking the vows, etc then his life would be forfeit. Doing what they did isn't within the law though - either the NW (based on what we know) or Westeros as a whole.

[Jairion Lannister]

While some could argue that Jon broke law by providing help to Stannis, he could argue he was within his rights due to the fact that Stannis was the only person who was willing to help him protect their entire race.

If Bowen had done things legally, then surely Jon should have been brought to trial, so he could be held accountable for his actions before a final verdict was made?

[Annara Snow]

Yes, of course, Bowen Marsh is a hero who did a noble deed by stabbing the evil dictator who did all sorts of horrible things to a previously mighty and noble organisation, like manning it with lots of new people, making provisions in food and making peace with the wildlings, and even going out of his way to save those people, who are, of course, vermin that needs to be exterminated. On top of that, Jon Snow brought politics into the NW, which was previously pure and free of it (in the good old days when influential people in it included fine chaps like Janos Slynt, hero of the battles against traitor Ned Stark and some dangerous children including a traitorous baby, who almost got elected as LC, and that's totally not because he was Tywin Lannisters man). The bastard provoked even such an honorable and peaceful man as Lord Ramsey Bolton, who was forced to threaten the Watch after Snow committed a grievous crime of allowing some people to go and try to steal Lord Ramsey lawful wife, Arya Bolton*, even though she was his legal property, and Lord Ramsey treated her very nicely, even though he didn't have to (a man can do what he wants with his property), taking care to provide oral sex to her and giving her lovely pet doggies to spend time with. Truly, the bastard deserved to die.

* That's presumably what King Stannis and the HBO Viewer's Guide would call her, and I consider those two the ultimate sources of wisdom (except when they're in conflict with Lord Ramsey, but that's probably the fault of bastard Jon Snow).

[The Wolves]

Jon seems to think he broke his vows with Ygritte though.

Jon is ridiculously honorable he takes shit to a whole new level concerning honor just like his father. And Jon is also melodramatic, he broke nothing with Ygritte

[butterbumps!]

Yes, of course, Bowen Marsh is a hero who did a noble deed by stabbing the evil dictator who did all sorts of horrible things to a previously mighty and noble organisation, like manning it with lots of new people, making provisions in food and making peace with the wildlings, and even going out of his way to save those people, who are, of course, vermin that needs to be exterminated. On top of that, Jon Snow brought politics into the NW, which was previously pure and free of it (in the good old days when influential people in it included fine chaps like Janos Slynt, hero of the battles against traitor Ned Stark and some dangerous children including a traitorous baby, who almost got elected as LC, and that's totally not because he was Tywin Lannisters man). The bastard provoked even such an honorable and peaceful man as Lord Ramsey Bolton, who was forced to threaten the Watch after Snow committed a grievous crime of allowing some people to go and try to steal Lord Ramsey lawful wife, Arya Bolton*, even though she was his legal property, and Lord Ramsey treated her very nicely, even though he didn't have to (a man can do what he wants with his property), taking care to provide oral sex to her and giving her lovely pet doggies to spend time with. Truly, the bastard deserved to die.

* That's presumably what King Stannis and the HBO Viewer's Guide would call her, and I consider those two the ultimate sources of wisdom (except when they're in conflict with Lord Ramsey, but that's probably the fault of bastard Jon Snow).

Yes, exactly (on the point that the Watch wasn't free from realm affairs). The conflict here is not truly about Jon's being involved in realm affairs versus Bowen who wants to keep it pure. It's about which side each one is backing, understanding that the state of the Watch depends on outside politics. From Bowen's own mouth, Jon III, DwD:

“Lord Stannis helped us when we needed help,” Marsh said doggedly, “but he is still a rebel, and his cause is doomed. As doomed as we’ll be if the Iron Throne marks us down as traitors. We must be certain that we do not choose the losing side.”

“It is not my intent to choose any side,” said Jon, “but I am not as certain of the outcome of this war as you seem to be, my lord. Not with Lord Tywin dead.”

Jon is ridiculously honorable he takes shit to a whole new level concerning honor just like his father. And Jon is also melodramatic, he broke nothing with Ygritte

I firmly disagree that Jon is "honorable" as a main motivator. Not explaining Ygritte is one of the cases where honor does appear. Shortly after that, though, he had made up his mind to go kill Mance, in Mance's own tent, in front of his wife (but changed his mind after Mance began explaining), because up to that point he thought killing Mance was for the greater good.

[SeanF]

We've been over the same ground many times. The neutrality of the Night's Watch is a ship that sailed prior to Jon becoming Lord Commander.

[Red Wedding Cake]

He wasn't bringing the Wildlings through to fight House Bolton, or to support Stannis. He brought them through to save their lives and reduce the number of wights in the Other Continental Army.

And Stannis wasn't attacking King's Landing, he was just arriving early for his nephew's wedding. These nuances don't enter into it. It's the letter of the law and the spirit of the law, and no matter how much we as readers believe in Jon's decisions they still involve taking a wildling army beyond the massive 700 feet wall of ice that has been manned for the last 8,000 years to keep wildlings from attacking northern houses...

[averde]

Is there any process for removing a NW commander from office? I was under the impression that a commander was chosen for life.

I would imagine there is since it's an elected position rather than something Jon inherited, like a lordship or kingship.

even if there's not I doubt it's legal for a few of the guys to get together and stab him to death Caesar style.

[Tagganaro]

And Stannis wasn't attacking King's Landing, he was just arriving early for his nephew's wedding. These nuances don't enter into it. It's the letter of the law and the spirit of the law, and no matter how much we as readers believe in Jon's decisions they still involve taking a wildling army beyond the massive 700 feet wall of ice that has been manned for the last 8,000 years to keep wildlings from attacking northern houses...

The spirit of the law is that the Wall was built to protect human beings from the Others. In practice that had gotten lost as the Others didn't appear forever, but the spirit is clearly that the Wall is there to protect humans. Mormont realized this as well before he died.

[RoamingRonin]

Jon was wrong but so was Bowen.

[DigitalCount]

And Stannis wasn't attacking King's Landing, he was just arriving early for his nephew's wedding. These nuances don't enter into it. It's the letter of the law and the spirit of the law, and no matter how much we as readers believe in Jon's decisions they still involve taking a wildling army beyond the massive 700 feet wall of ice that has been manned for the last 8,000 years to keep wildlings from attacking northern houses...

Really? That's what the Wall is for?

EDIT: Faceless'd

[JonisHenryTudor]

It has been awhile since I last posted (busy with research).

As the rules or laws of the NW go, with anything I believe it is down to interpretation. This is not so different than any given state's constitution, etc. I have been warned about going historical here, but often our understanding of laws which were written several hundred years earlier are not the same as those who originally composed them. Context is everything.

Martin tells us what the NW's "laws" are, but little is said about their understanding. Yes we get the recitation of "you know the laws" but do we actually know how the individual members interpreted them? I don't think so. We know men frequented Mole Town, etc. We also know several supported Jon. Again context and interpretation.

We don't have all that much information surrounding the stabbing. We know the events leading up to the stabbing, but very little underneath that. We might be able to see why it happened, but little real information as to why Bowen made it happen. Was their an impromptu court called by Marsh (unwritten by GRRM)? Why did the Jon's attackers shed tears? I don't think this is a case of law, something else seems to be occurring that may have nothing to do with the NW at all.

Consider this. When Jon returns from north of the wall, he is brought before a court hearing (also S4e1). Naturally he is LC by aDwD, but if this was a matter of NW Law why wasn't there a court hearing?

As with the rest of Westeros, chaos seems to have created a new set of established laws/rules that people are now following. I am not entirely convinced this has much to do with the NW, in spite of the call "for the NW". Bowen Marsh and Co. might be taking a side. With chaos the norm all over the kingdom why should the NW be any different. In book one we are told explicitly how pathetic the NW has become, so why should we expect the NW members to uphold oaths that were dear to the original members who were likely "greater" men.

[Kasporio]

Attempt on Jon's life is somewhat similar of the tyrannicide, which was theorized as the murder of a political ruler, illegally of course, because the said tyrant holds the authority anyway, for the greater/common good.

Of course, the common good is largely a matter of interpretation. But tyrranicide was often commited on leaders considered worthy, by people motivated by personnal interests, or working for foreign powers.

For Marsh : self-preservation, not crossing the lannisters.

The most famous tyrranicide is probably the assassination of Julius Cesar the day of the ides of march.

[Tormund GiantsMANE]

This is how I see it

Jon had the right to defend himself and the NW since Ramsay sent that letter. He threatened the NW and Val, the babies, Shireen, Selyse...they were all his guests. He did the same with Cregan Karstark, when he came to the Wall asking for Alys. He put him in jail, as he threatened her while she was his guest.

But I can understand why Bowen did what he did. He hadn't read the letter at the time; from his point of view, he probably thought Jon was joining Stannis for vengeance.

You can argue Qhorin ordered him to do whatever he needed to do to get himself inside Mance's army. That's why he didn't get killed; Qhorin gave him the orders.

It is, but Stannis SAVED the NW, while the others don't. I also would say that he isn't constantly supporting Stannis.

I think the law collapses here. Ramsay, Jon, and probably Bowen had the right to do what they did.

doesn't Jon say something to the effect that Stannis brought them an army and the Lannisters/Baratheons/Crown sent them Janos Slynt? Stannis helped defend the wall (ie the realm) against a wildling threat, as well as providing men to build and garrison some of the casltes alonf the wall. I also dunno if Jon's response to a letter from Tommen would be the same as a letter from the newly legitimized bastard son of the man who killed my half brother and step mom...vows or not.

[SeanF]

Jon is in his eyes an ally of Stannis, who is in his eyes a false king. Ramsay just enforces the law if he trys to kill Jon. Roose, as the Warden of the North has to retain peace in the North. For him, the NW are a bunch of rebels, allying with Wildlings and a false king, which threatens not only the North but the whole Seven Kingdoms.

If, however, Stannis is the king, then it's Roose and Ramsay who are acting unlawfully, and Jon who is acting lawfully.

[JesterX]

You can't stab a guy in the back in the midst of a diversion and call it "justified". To have a justified homicide, you would do it the way Jon executed Janos Slynt. Call the guy out for his crime and carry out sentence. What Bowen Marsh and crew did was nothing short of (attempted) murder.