The (Attempted) Muder of Jon was Legally Justifiable (Part II)

[butterbumps!]

@Mambru

For what it's worth, I actually think your appeal to "desertion" is the strongest legal case anyone's made against Jon, one we know the penalty is death. If the argument is that Jon was operating outside "LC Jon Snow," and therefore, no longer a Watchman but deserting and open to execution, I can kind of roll with that. However, Bowen's exact actions do not strike me as a "legal" response-- whether the "legal" response is to deliver the "deserter" to the LC or the Stark of Winterfell, or even to hang him publicly as a criminal (the 3 precedents we've seen), he didn't comply with any of those. And likely he didn't because any of those would be dicey in terms of accomplishing his goal of quickly removing what he considered a massive threat to the Watch's survival ("dicey," in part, because he might not have had enough of a consensus amongst Watchmen that would ratify his decision). Which puts us back to a pragmatic assessment of Bowen.

Personally, given the context, I think there's a major "problem" with Jon as the LC in the first place, which completely eliminates his ability to be perceived as just the LC or a Watchman by the rest of the realm. He's Ned's last remaining issue with a public presence. Both KL and the Boltons have good reason to see him as "Ned Stark's son" rather than "LC of the Watch." And very explicitly in the case of KL, they read the Watch's dealings with Stannis as treasonous, in part because of which House Jon came from.

The Boltons are even closer to this, and have even more reason to want Jon dead. Beyond the fact that Jon could easily identify Arya as a fake, the Boltons know their power in the North is tenuous, and that most of the North would work to put one of Ned's own in Winterfell instead of a Bolton. And this is not even accounting for whether Roose knows the contents of Robb's will (which I suspect he does).

Given who Jon is perceived as being -- Ned's Stark's son-- I think his mere existence at the helm of the Watch is seen as a threat by Lannister factions, such that they inherently politicize him, removing any ability for Jon to operate as "just a Watchman" because they're aware of the threat he could pose as Ned's son (as well as question any of his intentions and dismiss the notion of his being truly neutral no matter what he does).

Which is to say that I think the Watch, as long as Jon is at the helm, likely would be perceived as a threat no matter what (as a multiplication factor, Stannis' presence removed any residual possibility otherwise), and that there would be parties wanting to remove Jon from outside of the Watch simply because of this perceived threat. So, in a very real way, Jon could never be just "LC Snow" even if he wanted to, especially not after Stannis' arrival, because others do not recognize only that identity (for good and bad; Alys Karstark and some clansmen would be an example of how Jon's being Ned's son works to earn him favor).

Importantly, though, I'm not sure how much of this Jon is aware of as just a general state of being. That is, he shows awareness of his being a liability to the Watch, but there's a very direct trigger for this that he can place-- the Mance mission. If he believes that part of the letter, he'd see that Ramsay has a very direct reason for attacking Jon that can be traced back to a specific action on Jon's part (and not necessarily that he's more generally a liability because of who he is). And I think his reaction is about taking responsibility for the Mance mission, seeking to answer him not as "LC Snow" but as "Jon Snow" in order to separate the Watch from his actions.

But I think the reality is that as long as he'd be LC, such threats from the Boltons would be expected, regardless of the Mance mission. They'd have to be-- people in the North are recognizing Jon as a leader and Roose knows the North as a whole are mutinous. Jon would have to be taken out no matter what. I'm not sure, though, whether Jon suspects this reality or believes he came under scrutiny simply because of the Mance thing. ETA: I kind of suspect Jon does realize how politically people are seeing him, and wonder if this seemingly suicide mission south might entail his rallying Northmen to his cause-- that is, I wonder if that detail--having Northmen rally to him now-- is one of the pieces missing from our account of Jon's plan.

I guess where I'm going with this is that "desertion" of some sort might have actually been the thing Jon needed to do given all this, since he wasn't going to be recognized as an apolitical figure anyway.

[The Mother of The Others]

So for lo these many months of back-and-forth oathbreaking chat you've just been waiting to hear the term desertion? which amounts to the same thing. Okay, give me a sec to hop into my time machine and go back to the year 2525 so I can say desertion way back a while ago. It'll be neat to get the next book. Then some answers, maybe, that'll take the sting out of this sitch we're left to ponder at present.

Jon didn't know it was coming, but Mel or somebody else might have had him offed protectively as you were alluding to, once they saw the new direction he was steering in had a high probability of getting him killed. Maybe his wakeup will include an explanation speech like, "You're dead now, as far as the world knows, which means the Watch's lives have all just been saved, as well as yours....you can thank me later."

[butterbumps!]

So for lo these many months of back-and-forth oathbreaking chat you've just been waiting to hear the term desertion? which amounts to the same thing. Okay, give me a sec to hop into my time machine and go back to the year 2525 so I can say desertion way back a while ago. It'll be neat to get the next book. Then some answers, maybe, that'll take the sting out of this sitch we're left to ponder at present.

Jon didn't know it was coming, but Mel or somebody else might have had him offed protectively as you were alluding to, once they saw the new direction he was steering in had a high probability of getting him killed. Maybe his wakeup will include an explanation speech like, "You're dead now, as far as the world knows, which means the Watch's lives have all just been saved, as well as yours....you can thank me later."

is this directed at me? I'm pretty sure I said the "desertion" argument was the strongest "legal" case to pin on Jon, but went on to say that I'm not fully on board with it. And that "desertion" or whatever wasn't actually Bowen's rationale for this anyway.

Mambru's argument was different than the same old oathbreaking shit, just for the record. The standard oathbreaking argument is about Jon's breaking neutrality and whether neutrality is part of the actual oath.

[SeanF]

Well, if Jon says that the NW has no business fighting Ramsey Bolton (and he did say that), and he says that he doesn't want any brother to forswear his vows by doing so (he said that, too), and so he will fight Ramsey alone except for a lot of non-NW wildlings who WON'T be breaking vows by doing so - well, it sure SOUNDS like he thinks he's going to break his own NW vows by doing what he's doing.

When you add that JON HIMSELF thinks in his own private thoughts that what he did was very likely oathbreaking, and congratulates himself that he didn't

induce any NW brothers into doing the oathbreaking he alone did - well, IMO, Bowen might be forgiven for thinking (along with his fellow conspirators, me and Jon Snow himself) that MAYBE Jon really was oathbreaking. Remember, all Bowen Marsh needs to exonerate himself at trial is a reasonable doubt. ;

Dear Lady Blizzardborn, you shall have it, in the unlikely event that GRRM thinks that someone reading a rule book will make for an exciting scene, AND that the rule book backs up the idea that the only legal option for a NW member to remove a commander who's oathbreaking - and surrounded by a LOT of

dangerous non-NW wildlings aiding and abetting him - is to march up to him and demand his arrest - even if

such an effort is doomed to fail due to the oathbreaking LC's superiority in firepower.

Suppose Jon had said, "I have been sent an ultimatum to hand over allies to Ramsay Bolton, or he will attack the NW. This is a declaration of war, and I shall lead the Watch into battle against him."

Would you then be satisfied that Bowen Marsh's behaviour was unlawful?

[Lady Blizzardborn]

Dear Lady Blizzardborn, you shall have it, in the unlikely event that GRRM thinks that someone reading a rule book will make for an exciting scene, AND that the rule book backs up the idea that the only legal option for a NW member to remove a commander who's oathbreaking - and surrounded by a LOT of dangerous non-NW wildlings aiding and abetting him - is to march up to him and demand his arrest - even if such an effort is doomed to fail due to the oathbreaking LC's superiority in firepower.

Thank you. Though I credit GRRM with being able to work that info in without a scene of someone reading from a book. Really the only person likely to do that is Sam and he's not there.

I still disagree that he's breaking his oath, and I don't really care what Jon himself thinks in the matter. He knows nothing, Jon Snow. ;)

[mambru]

Suppose Jon had said, "I have been sent an ultimatum to hand over allies to Ramsay Bolton, or he will attack the NW. This is a declaration of war, and I shall lead the Watch into battle against him."

Would you then be satisfied that Bowen Marsh's behaviour was unlawful?

Actually, I said in my first couple of posts in this thread that Jon SHOULD'VE said something like that in his last speech to the NW (though if I were him, I'd've changed "allies" to "guests" and "deliverers" - nitpickers might quibble about how the word "allies" seems to indicate that the Watch is taking sides).

If Jon had presented his decision to go after Ramsey Snow as an action he had to take to protect the Watch, and given his very good reasons - well, Bowen and his pals wouldn't have been CONVINCED, but they might have been confused enough to disagree among themselves as to whether Jon should be taken down now.

Bowen Marsh has been grumbling at Jon's decisions. Letting wildlings through the Wall? Blasphemy. Letting them join the NW? Unheard of. Each time, Jon argued him down with the NEED for his decisions AND the fact that none of them broke the fundamental vows and rules of the NW - they only broke with traditions that hidebound Bowen Marsh had never thought to question. Each time, Marsh grudgingly gave way before Jon's reasoning and explanations - and though he doubtless gathered like-minded men and secretly planned for the possibility that Jon would one day CLEARLY go too far - he always ended up reluctantly conceding Jon's points and carrying out Jon's orders. Even "violating neutrality" isn't specifically spelled out in the vow for Bowen to point to as a clear violation of Jon's vows.

I think it's no coincidence that it was only when Jon himself did something he himself described as requiring as the 'forswearing of vows' did Marsh (and his men) act. Marsh has believed all along that Jon was making stupid decisions that would prove the ruin of the watch. But Bowen would not consider killing a commander who was merely acting stupidly and incompetently. (Remember, this is the man who left a senile 90 year old man in charge - incompetence as such is not something he considers a disqualifier). But Jon proclaiming the forswearing of his vows was the JUSTIFICATION for Marsh and his men to carry out their plan. And IMO, such could serve as their legal justification in the unlikely event they'll face a trial for what they did.

And yes, if Jon had presented his decision as acting as LC in confronting Ramsey - a grave threat to the NW that NEEDED to be dealt with - IMO it WOULD have been unlawful for Marsh and his men to act against Jon. But Jon gave them their justification...first, he conceded the point that "violating neutrality" by fighting Ramsey WAS a forswearing of NW vows - THEN he stated he was going go off and do exactly that...and by going off to fight Ramsey he is, by his own admission, going to fight a war that has nothing to do with the NW - and abandoning his post as NW LC to do so.