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

[Bedwyck]

Well, actually, that is what happens:

“The Night’s Watch is sworn to take no part in the wars of the Seven Kingdoms,” Pycelle reminded them. “For thousands of years the black brothers have upheld that tradition.”

“Until now,” said Cersei. “The bastard boy has written us to avow that the Night’s Watch takes no side, but his actions give the lie to his words. He has given Stannis food and shelter, yet has the insolence to plead with us for arms and men.”

“An outrage,” declared Lord Merryweather. “We cannot allow the Night’s Watch to join its strength to that of Lord Stannis.”

“We must declare this Snow a traitor and a rebel,” agreed Ser Harys Swyft. “The black brothers must remove him.”

Cersei cooks up a plot to kill Jon specifically, but it's very clear KL is taking the Watch's actions as involvement. The Boltons, appointed by the Lannisters and their allies, are enemies to the Lannister enemies, and the Lannisters just called the Watch enemies.

I think you can make the argument that the Mance mission hastened up the Bolton's involvement, but not a case that without this event, the Boltons would have never troubled the Watch.

From the rest of your comments, it looks like you take issue with the way Jon was thinking about the mission, executed it badly, and the fact that it failed. I think now we're getting somewhere; these are my complaints with it too. Are you now seeing the issue as one of execution of the mission, not necessarily condemning it for the mere fact that it was an example of "taking part?"

After they plot to kill Jon. Cersei decides this, "this is how an enemy should be dealt with: with a dagger, not a declaration." which means they did not name/declare the watch enemies of throne.

No, I take issue with the mission in and of itself. Notice the quote you provided from Pycelle, "The Nights Watch is sworn to take no part in the wars of the seven kingdoms." Now I know you've been arguing to death against this so I really dont want to get into it with you. I will only state that I agree with Pycelle's quote and that taking away Ramsay's bride is taking part in the wars of the seven kingdoms. Now I know Jon's not doing to influence the war. Hes doing it for "Arya", but it will influence the war nonetheless, and the fact of that matter was obvious when he made the decision.

Also, even if "taking part" isnt against their vows, it's still a stupid decision from a self-preservation stand point. Now, and back when Jon gave the go-ahead on the mission, conventional wisdom held/holds that Stannis is going to lose the Battle of Winterfell which means the Boltons are likely to continue reigning supreme in the north and Jon has just brought upon their wrath.

Furthermore, its not the method or the result of the mission thats at fault. Theres no way they could have done something like that without the risk of getting caught. Jon knew the risk he was taking and he ended up paying the price.

[butterbumps!]

After they plot to kill Jon. Cersei decides this, "this is how an enemy should be dealt with: with a dagger, not a declaration." which means they did not name/declare the watch enemies of throne.

No, I take issue with the mission in and of itself. Notice the quote you provided from Pycelle, "The Nights Watch is sworn to take no part in the wars of the seven kingdoms." Now I know you've been arguing to death against this so I really dont want to get into it with you. I will only state that I agree with Pycelle's quote and that taking away Ramsay's bride is taking part in the wars of the seven kingdoms. Now I know Jon's not doing to influence the war. Hes doing it for "Arya", but it will influence the war nonetheless, and the fact of that matter was obvious when he made the decision.

Also, even if "taking part" isnt against their vows, it's still a stupid decision from a self-preservation stand point. Now, and back when Jon gave the go-ahead on the mission, conventional wisdom held/holds that Stannis is going to lose the Battle of Winterfell which means the Boltons are likely to continue reigning supreme in the north and Jon has just brought upon their wrath.

Furthermore, its not the method or the result of the mission thats at fault. Theres no way they could have done something like that without the risk of getting caught. Jon knew the risk he was taking and he ended up paying the price.

I'm not into extending out the "is it in the vows" debate any further; I think the matter has been settled. But I agree with you that it's taken as custom and expectation that NW doesn't take part.

Further, I agree that Jon's involvement in sending for Arya is not in accordance with even the most loose construction of the spirit of the vow (oddly, though, he adheres to the words of the oath, but violates the oath's spirit). While I can argue that I think he's morally right to intervene, I'd equally argue that his reason for sending for her is in complete contradiction to the spirit of the vow. So I think at least on that part we agree.

If we fold the pragmatic debate into this, then yes, I also agree that the way it was handled-- from being understood as a personal rather than political mission, to execution of it-- was detrimental to the Watch.

But I disagree with the idea that because it was a risk, it makes it wrong. I do think there was an alignment of interests in this (Jon's personal one, a Northern interest, an interest in neutralizing a common enemy) that could have contributed to a larger picture, if designed for the larger picture at the outset, had a different execution (and players involved), and a contingency.

For instance, I don't think there would be a problem if Jon met with Mors Umber or the clansmen and discussed an Arya extraction mission, especially put into the context of the general priorities of the North. If Mance had to be involved, then instead of pretending he was taking no part, Jon should have delimited the mission, especially in terms of clarifying that this interception would occur outside of Bolton territory. I think Mance's involvement might have been a bad idea in general, because any given Northman is working for this goal anyway, and therefore, coming up with an Arya extraction plan with them wouldn't be traced to Jon or the Watch.

To be clear, however, I actually do think Mel would have sent Mance regardless of Jon's protests (because no matter what he says, she knows he'd be in her debt for bringing Arya), and I'm not fully sure who's behind Mance's arrival at Winterfell. Even accounting for the inevitability of this mission, I'm not excusing Jon's reaction to it, which was an irresponsible half measure.

I feel that I might also need to comment on the fact that Ramsay has no proof of Jon's involvement, and I'm really not sure how much Ramsay (if this letter is truly him) is just spewing accusations he doesn't entirely believe in order to provoke Jon. That is, this is all actually traceable to Mel, a Stannis minion, rather than Jon. As far as anyone, including the Boltons, know, Jon and Mance are sworn enemies, so why would Mance be stealing Ramsay's bride for Jon? He has a glamoured ruby from Stannis' counselor, and Stannis is the one attacking the Boltons with a direct goal of removing Arya. Not to mention, Stannis is the one who burned "Mance" in the first place. Why would Ramsay assume Jon is behind this rather than Stannis-via-Mel? I get that Ramsay might have flayed the remaining spearwives to extract the truth, but all the evidence connects back to Stannis, including much of what they'd have said. Personally, I'm very skeptical about what Ramsay actually knows of Jon's involvement. I'm not sure how this relates to the overall argument exactly, except to say that I'm not certain of exactly which parts of the PL are in direct relation to the Arya mission.

[SeanF]

Everything turns on whether one thinks the primary purpose of the Night's Watch is to protect the Realms of Men.

Or, whether it's primary purpose is to be neutral, regardless of whether that helps the realms of men or not.

I admit, I can't see the point of the latter.

[Mourneblade]

I'm not into extending out the "is it in the vows" debate any further; I think the matter has been settled. But I agree with you that it's taken as custom and expectation that NW doesn't take part.

Further, I agree that Jon's involvement in sending for Arya is not in accordance with even the most loose construction of the spirit of the vow (oddly, though, he adheres to the words of the oath, but violates the oath's spirit). While I can argue that I think he's morally right to intervene, I'd equally argue that his reason for sending for her is in complete contradiction to the spirit of the vow. So I think at least on that part we agree.

If we fold the pragmatic debate into this, then yes, I also agree that the way it was handled-- from being understood as a personal rather than political mission, to execution of it-- was detrimental to the Watch.

But I disagree with the idea that because it was a risk, it makes it wrong. I do think there was an alignment of interests in this (Jon's personal one, a Northern interest, an interest in neutralizing a common enemy) that could have contributed to a larger picture, if designed for the larger picture at the outset, had a different execution (and players involved), and a contingency.

For instance, I don't think there would be a problem if Jon met with Mors Umber or the clansmen and discussed an Arya extraction mission, especially put into the context of the general priorities of the North. If Mance had to be involved, then instead of pretending he was taking no part, Jon should have delimited the mission, especially in terms of clarifying that this interception would occur outside of Bolton territory. I think Mance's involvement might have been a bad idea in general, because any given Northman is working for this goal anyway, and therefore, coming up with an Arya extraction plan with them wouldn't be traced to Jon or the Watch.

To be clear, however, I actually do think Mel would have sent Mance regardless of Jon's protests (because no matter what he says, she knows he'd be in her debt for bringing Arya), and I'm not fully sure who's behind Mance's arrival at Winterfell. Even accounting for the inevitability of this mission, I'm not excusing Jon's reaction to it, which was an irresponsible half measure.

I feel that I might also need to comment on the fact that Ramsay has no proof of Jon's involvement, and I'm really not sure how much Ramsay (if this letter is truly him) is just spewing accusations he doesn't entirely believe in order to provoke Jon. That is, this is all actually traceable to Mel, a Stannis minion, rather than Jon. As far as anyone, including the Boltons, know, Jon and Mance are sworn enemies, so why would Mance be stealing Ramsay's bride for Jon? He has a glamoured ruby from Stannis' counselor, and Stannis is the one attacking the Boltons with a direct goal of removing Arya. Not to mention, Stannis is the one who burned "Mance" in the first place. Why would Ramsay assume Jon is behind this rather than Stannis-via-Mel? I get that Ramsay might have flayed the remaining spearwives to extract the truth, but all the evidence connects back to Stannis, including much of what they'd have said. Personally, I'm very skeptical about what Ramsay actually knows of Jon's involvement. I'm not sure how this relates to the overall argument exactly, except to say that I'm not certain of exactly which parts of the PL are in direct relation to the Arya mission.

I think Mance and Mel have their own agenda, which is why Mance ends up at Winterfell instead of finding the "Arya" he was supposed to be looking for near or in the Gift.

[mambru]

IMO, I think that the reason Bowen Marsh tried to kill Jon was not so much because he had violated the Watch's neutrality - but because he had deserted, in the conspirators' eyes - which IS a fundamental violation of his vows. 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.

Jon, however, explicitly disassociated himself from the Watch when he said he was going to attack Ramsey. He said he was acting on his own. He was, essentially, deserting his post. But a man of the Night's Watch is not suppose to leave his post till death. I'd guess that one clear violation crystallized all the doubts the conspirators already had about him and gave them a clear reason to convict him in their eyes.

As for the idea that Bowen not rebelling in an open vote meant his actions were unlawful - I doubt that the Night's King fell before a committee. The Watch elects its own commanders, but it's not such a democracy that it can vote its own fundamental laws out of existence because a popular commander says so. Even if most of the sailors on a ship participate in a mutiny, that doesn't make it lawful, nor does it make the outnumbered officers who try to put down the mutiny through military action criminals.

[Qhorin Halfhand and Yoren]

Bowen Marsh did not kill Jon Snow because Jon Snow violated NW neutrality but because in BM point of view, Jon Snow violated NW neutrality by siding with the losing side, the side that BM always thought would be the losing side and brought the winners of the war the Bolton's rage upon the NW. He also disagreed strongly with pretty much everything Jon Snow did or was about to do like the mission to Hardhome. Additionally, BM unlike Jon Snow does not take the threat of the Others as seriously.

There is no law that allows the death of a LC so it was not legally justified. Though the idea of assassination of a leader that will bring you to your doom, is seen as justified by those who see it that way. In the historical cases where you have an insane leader assassinated, we tend to sometimes see that assassination with some legitimacy. But I don't think BM assassination would make things better for the NW, so I don't think it was legitimate. So neither legitimate or legal.

[mambru]

There is no law that allows the death of a LC so it was not legally justified.

There is a law that states that ANY member of the NW's life is forfeit if he violates their fundamental vows. The Lord Commander IS a member of the NW. And I don't recall any law that states that a Lord Commander can violate NW vows with impunity.

[Qhorin Halfhand and Yoren]

There is a law that states that ANY member of the NW's life is forfeit if he violates their fundamental vows. The Lord Commander IS a member of the NW. And I don't recall any law that states that a Lord Commander can violate NW vows with impunity.

No, there is no such law for the Lord Commander who is the one who overseers command and justice of the NW. Due to the vows, and due to practical reality sure there is some grey area depending on what a LC actually does. So it depends on how clear exactly is his violation of the fundamental vows and it enters grey terittory perharps. Even so, the NW lacks the legal authority to remove the guy on top, as it is often with kings as well. Due to the democratic way of electing the LC, a challenge to his leadership has more legitimate ways to go than asassination due to the opinons of possible minority. The idea behing law, is some kind of more complicated procedure of determining abuse of law, than just some guys asassinating the guy of top. But maybe in some cases I might accept murder of LC as a way to get rid of a LC who violated the most fundamental NW laws and as a way to serve the NW duty. But it is more close to Night King case than Jon Snow's.

Here, I hardly see how asassinating the LC who created a fragile peace, who cares the most about the Others threat to not be a violation of NW vows to be the shield that protects the realm of men. I can see how BM side might see it that way, but they are making things worse.

And, in Jon Snow's case, facing Ramsay Snow who threatens the NW is not a clear case for desertion.

So there is really not a real legal justification here.

[mambru]

No, there is no such law for the Lord Commander who is the one who overseers command and justice of the NW.

You're saying that the Lord Commander - even though he has taken the vows all the other men have taken - is exempt from those vows. I'd say that's a pretty big assertion to make, so the onus is on you to prove that there's something in the books that says that once a Watchman becomes Lord Commander his vows don't apply to him anymore.

And, in Jon Snow's case, facing Ramsay Snow who threatens the NW is not a clear case for desertion.

Jon made Bowen's case FOR him, unfortunately. In Jon's own words:

"The Night's Watch takes no part in the wars of the Seven Kingdoms," Jon reminded them when some semblance of quiet had returned. "It is not for us to oppose the Bastard of Bolton, to avenge Stannis Baratheon, to defend his widow and his daughter. This creature who makes cloaks from the skins of women has sworn to cut my heart out, and I mean to make him answer for those words...but I will not ask my brothers to forswear their vows.

The Night's Watch will make for Hardhome. I ride to Winterfell alone, unless..." Jon paused. "...is there any man who will come stand with me?"

Now if Jon had made the case to the NW after reading Ramsey's letter that as LC he had to deal forcefully with Ramsey to protect the NW (a case that can be made pretty convincing if he tried) he might have confused his opposition enough that many wouldn't have acted against him.

But in Jon's speech he explicitly stated that the Night's Watch has no business fighting Ramsey. He states that any NW members who do so will be forswearing their vows. THEN he states that he's going to deal with Ramsey himself - thus saying that HE HIMSELF is forswearing his vows...abandoning his post to pursue a private vendetta that he JUST SAID is no concern of the NW. And NW men cannot abandon their posts - in the very words of their lifelong vow.

How is this NOT desertion in the eyes of a man as rigidly by-the-book as Bowen Marsh?

[bemused]

Jon flexed the fingers of his sword hand. The Night’s Watch takes no part. He closed his fist and opened it again. What you propose is nothing less than treason. He thought of Robb, with snowflakes melting in his hair. Kill the boy and let the man be born. He thought of Bran, clambering up a tower wall, agile as a monkey. Of Rickon’s breathless laughter. Of Sansa, brushing out Lady’s coat and singing to herself. You know nothing, Jon Snow. He thought of Arya, her hair as tangled as a bird’s nest. I made him a warm cloak from the skins of the six whores who came with him to Winterfell … I want my bride back … I want my bride back … I want my bride back …

Jon flexed the fingers of his sword hand.... He closed his fist and opened it again. ... Jon always does this when he's thinking through some knotty problem .. when he's weighing or wrestling with the pros and cons of a given situation ( or when his heart comes into conflict with itself ).

All of the thoughts GRRM has put in italics in this paragraph are not Jon's assessment of himself but things various people have said to him at various times.They're memories of direct communication interspersed with memories of his family , now ( as far as he knows ) all dead or missing.

The Night’s Watch takes no part. ..said by a number of characters, but we see that with the arrival of Stannis , that has become impossible to adhere to. He's wrestling with an impossible situation.

What you propose is nothing less than treason. ... this is verbatim from Bowen's mouth. Since Bowen had already made this charge in front of Flint and Norrey ( in regard to letting wildlings through the wall ), Jon knows that he will say it again ...and he thinks of Robb and the treason that was visited on him.

Kill the boy and let the man be born. ... Aemon's advice to Jon on how to become an effective LC ; advice he has been striving to apply to the changing situation. What would the boy do ? What should the man do?

You know nothing, Jon Snow. ... Ygritte's oft remembered saying. It's certainly not as true as when she first uttered it ..and is no doubt less true than even we know. Jon has been poring over books he retrieved from the vault. We don't know what books , or what information he has gleaned. Left out of his thoughts here , is Aemon's advice .... “Knowledge is a weapon, Jon. Arm yourself well before you ride forth to battle.” .. yet we know he took it to heart by the fact that he has been reading. ... Here, he thinks of Arya.. perhaps equating her wildness with Ygritte's, but we know another thought that has crossed his mind ... What if Bolton never had his sister? This wedding could well be just some ruse to lure Stannis into a trap.

I made him a warm cloak from the skins of the six whores who came with him to Winterfell … I want my bride back … I want my bride back … I want my bride back … directly from the Pink Letter , but in fact, we don't know who wrote it ... I'm sure Jon's wrestling with this passage ,since he never sent Mance to Winterfell. He meant to scoop Arya up and give her guest right as he did with Alys , while she was on the gift. If her pursuers persisted , they would be the agressors . They would be attacking the NW... and that he dwells repeatedly on I want my bride back implies awareness of What if Bolton never had his sister? , in my opinion.

Arya or not, that Jon keeps coming back to the phrase probably shows an increasing certainty that Ramsay is on his way. Jon understands that "Arya" is what cements the Bolton claim to Winterfell . (They could claim right of conquest, except they're trying to hide that , so as not to alienate the rest of the north.)

We know exactly what Jon's plans were in regard to Arya and I'd argue in regard to Ramsay's presumed foray to the wall , as well. In Ramsay's case , we have Jon's assessment of what would have been the best response to Styr - to attack him on his approach. ... I believe Jon's statement of intent to march on WF must be one purely made to win over the free folk - knowing what inspires them to follow a leader . In contrast, we've seen his advice to Stannis about beseiging the Dreadfort - and the same reasoning would apply to a manned WF. I think Jon would follow his own advice and instincts and was not actually considering marching on WF.

We know exactly what Bowen's ideas were for the Watch. Seal the gates , trust to the Wall for protection , and trust to the IT for support . The IT had been negligent in it's duties to the watch for a very long time , never more so than when under Lannister control ( as far as we know). I don't know how anyone can see this as anything less than potentially disastrous.

Bowen can't know the inner workings of Jon's mind even as well as we can , and since he already accused Jon of treason publicly , I don't buy that the reading of the letter by Jon really makes much difference to Bowen's opinions or intent. Really , the moment he moved from citing "folly" to citing "treason" openly , there could only be one outcome if his opinion should prevail. The relative severity of those words would be understood by Bowen . That he doesn't wait to see if his characterization will prevail , probably shows that it's not gaining as much traction as he would wish.

Judging by what has been revealed , the only way a LC can be removed from office is by death , natural or otherwise. If there's a precedent for any other method , we haven't seen it yet.

I'm sure that Bowen and his co-conspirators hope that the (attempted) assassination will be seen as justifiable after the fact , but they can't be sure of it . The rest of the NW will weigh in on their actions long before the IT/Lannisters/Boltons have time to react - hence Bowen's tears. ( Further , if Alliser Thorne is present , or in contact with Bowen ... Bowen may be being coerced to take action when he does and may even have been party to editing the Pink Letter in an attempt to accomplish the conspirators' goals..further cause for tears.)

Throughout the series we're repeatedly confronted by the grey areas inherent in the business of sworn oaths in general, e.g., see Jaime, Barristan ... or how about Lewyn Martell who kept a paramour , while the rest of the Kingsguard looked the other way.

“Prince Lewyn was my Sworn Brother. In those days there were few secrets amongst the

Kingsguard. I know he kept a paramour. He did not feel there was any shame in that.”

This is without adding the complication of an existential threat to human kind into the mix , as in the case of the NW oath... and without considering the possibility that the NW oath , or parts of it , may form part of the magic protecting the Wall .

We're meant to question oaths , as the characters do, but GRRM may have more of the history of the NW oath to reveal that will colour our perceptions of whether Jon or Bowen acted for the best. If so, my bets would not be on Bowen.

We don't know what further conversations Jon may have had with Mance before he left , but as of the end of Mel's chapter, Winterfell didn't figure in Jon's plan. We don't know if he ever went back and pressed Mance for clarification of the "certain ploy" he "had in mind". In Mel's chapter she and Mance evade elaborating on it , as they evade the matter of whether Stannis was in on the glamour.

Where Jon went wrong , IMO, was in trusting Mel and Mance too much, although I understand why he would have. Jon himself identifies this as a mistake... It seemed like madness now. He might have done better to strike down Mance the moment he

revealed himself. Jon had a certain grudging admiration for the late King-Beyond-the-Wall, but the man was an oathbreaker and a turncloak. He had even less trust in Melisandre.

... of course sometimes mistakes turn out for the best , and even here, the jury must be out until we learn more.

I'm not sure it would have been possible for Jon to engage with Mors Umber or others in regard to Arya while Stannis was still at the wall , and after he leaves , we have the "split" Umber situation and the next nearest possible collaborators ( the clans) committed to Stannis.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Everything turns on whether one thinks the primary purpose of the Night's Watch is to protect the Realms of Men.

Or, whether it's primary purpose is to be neutral, regardless of whether that helps the realms of men or not.

I admit, I can't see the point of the latter.

Something Tze wrote a while back served to show that following the latter purpose can actually severely undermine the former. For example, we know that Craster is sacrificing his male children to the Others. The Others presumably gain something from this, whatever it is. There is something "in it" for them. The main reason the Watch doesn't put a stop to this act is the excuse of non-involvement. "Not our problem, can't get involved." And yet, by standing aside and allowed Craster to sacrifice his children, the Watch's primary enemy is benefiting. In this situation, non-involvement actually hurts the Watch's mission. Likewise, failing to cooperate with Stannis when he is the only one to offer any sort of assistance would, I'd argue, hurt the Watch's mission.

This obsession with neutrality (only from Jon, curiously enough; no one ever complains about Bowen or Tywin or Cersei or anyone else failing to be neutral) at the expense of the overall primary mission -- protecting the realms of men -- is downright bizarre. The Watch doesn't exist to be neutral; it exists as a line of defense. Its neutrality should be observed only insofar as that neutrality helps it fulfill that overall primary mission. The neutrality is a means to an end -- being neutral can give the Watch more strength and keep it from being attacked -- but far too many people, including the original thread's OP, mistake it for an end unto itself, and it isn't.

[WierWood Wolf]

I thought you were asking me what I thought about that in some broader sense, not what Aemon was saying.

My interpretation of this is honestly very simple: Aemon's remarks about ravens suggest that nothing should get in the way of a Watchman's mission, and the Watchman must do all he can toward that end. I'm not trying to assert that Aemon is specifically enumerating "dos and don'ts" with this, but is framing his thoughts about the Watch from the perspective that their mission is what matters, and the Watchman must pursue pragmatic necessities in service to that mission.

Now, the debate about this really ought to have ended with my last post on the subject, because there is no logical way to maintain your view that "taking no part" is an intrinsic part of the vow, while simultaneously endorsing the Watch's "taking part" against a realm of men.

Unless you believe that the Watch was wrong to take arms against the wildlings over the course of the series and to involve themselves in the wildling's affairs throughout DwD, then your argument has obliterated itself.

Conversely, if you really want to keep disagreeing over this, then you can try to argue that the wildlings aren't covered under the "protect the realms of men clause," but you'd then have to answer how the Watch gets to pick and choose which "realms of men" they're sworn to protect. I'd advise against this path, as it necessitates very arbitrary distinctions that will actually end up supporting my side of the debate.

It looks like this is where you're going with it. If you justify the Watch's taking arms against this realm of men due to the fact that the wildlings are north of the Wall and a traditional enemy of the Watch, then how can you stop there? The Starks were the traditional defenders of the Watch, and the Boltons their sworn, historic enemies. Why is it ok to declare the wildlings an enemy of the Watch, and therefore, not under protection of the vow, but by the same arbitrary historic distinctions, not consider the Boltons one? Especially in light of how since Stannis' arrival the Boltons see the Watch as their enemy in a very current context? Not to mention, the Boltons' very direct and inescapable role in taking out the Starks?

Look-- either the Watch was oathbreaking when they took up arms against the wildlings throughout the series and involved themselves in their affairs, or "protecting the realms of MEN" by all practical measures is what the oath entails. Including, at times, defending the Watch against those the Watch has sworn to protect in order to fulfill their mission.

As an aside, if you accept that the true meaning of the vow had been lost and turned into custom, why are you so resistant to the idea that the "take no part" issue is intrinsically part of the vow and not similarly a pragmatic addition ingrained by custom?

Ok, if we're going to keep insisting that "take no part" is actually an intrinsic part of the vow, then the Watch has been oathbreaking for 8,000 years or whatever the hell it's been by virtue of the fact they've been taking up arms against a realm of men, so accusing anyone of "oathbreaking" is fairly meaningless. You could say Jon is part of a long and fulfilling tradition of constant oathbreaking, and therefore, completely in line with the spirit of the oathbreaking Watch, which has always "taken a part."

OR, we can be reasonable about this and look at the vows more critically, interpreting the sum of these prohibitions to yield something closer to "do nothing that will compromise your ability to defend the realms of men." Especially given that we have other cases where the vow had been misinterpreted over time to specify a wildling enemy, and exclude wildlings from the relamS the Watch is meant to defend.

Adjacently, we can examine what "taking no part" actually means, and whether such a concept even has meaning in the context of the Wot5K, especially after Stannis arrives at the Wall and no one views the Watch as "taking no part" from that point on.

Agree once Stannis threatens the Watch by trying to rush the selection of the Commander, all bets are off. The original vow IMO was to keep peace at the Wall . A good example of this would be Harren the Black and his brother the LC. The watch wasn't even supposed to root for an outcome and that's to keep the peac

[Qhorin Halfhand and Yoren]

You're saying that the Lord Commander - even though he has taken the vows all the other men have taken - is exempt from those vows. I'd say that's a pretty big assertion to make, so the onus is on you to prove that there's something in the books that says that once a Watchman becomes Lord Commander his vows don't apply to him anymore.

Jon made Bowen's case FOR him, unfortunately. In Jon's own words:

Now if Jon had made the case to the NW after reading Ramsey's letter that as LC he had to deal forcefully with Ramsey to protect the NW (a case that can be made pretty convincing if he tried) he might have confused his opposition enough that many wouldn't have acted against him.

But in Jon's speech he explicitly stated that the Night's Watch has no business fighting Ramsey. He states that any NW members who do so will be forswearing their vows. THEN he states that he's going to deal with Ramsey himself - thus saying that HE HIMSELF is forswearing his vows...abandoning his post to pursue a private vendetta that he JUST SAID is no concern of the NW. And NW men cannot abandon their posts - in the very words of their lifelong vow.

How is this NOT desertion in the eyes of a man as rigidly by-the-book as Bowen Marsh?

A word of advise, if you are going to say "you are saying" and create a strawman, it is better for you to say nothing and reread the post you are reading until you first understand it and then address what the other person is saying instead of trying to disagree and coming up with the strawmen to justify it.

The LC is given a lot more leeway as is the authority that enforces the rules and the laws. At such, the idea that there is a law allowing murder of LC whenever some other NWman under him arbitrarilly concludes they have broken the vows is something you pulled from somewhere else than the books because we never learn of that. We are given no indication of the men under him having the legal authority to assassinate him. When it comes to the man on top and how binding laws are, it is a complicated thing in medieval cases when there is no clear legal authority over him. That is all found in my previous posts. As I already explained for you to ignore, it enters grey teritorry when it comes to the idea of LC violating the vows and what legal authority exists to remove him (for which legal authority and procedures you provided zero proof) especially in far more grey circumstances than the Night King. I foresee much repeating of myself so I think you should read my previous post and repeat reading it when you think you can make a point by ignoring stuff, instead of understanding my arguement.

Now, Jon Snow is the LC who more than many likely alternatives acted in defending the NW against the Others with his wilding deals which fulfills the NW vow (yet Bowen also thought kind of traitorous), other than the whole Ramsay, sending Mance issue which is very major (although interfering with the realm is not actually a clear part of the vows but an implied extension out of the take no wives, crown, glory). And this is in a realm with plenty of intentions to interfere against the NW.

Now if Jon had made the case to the NW after reading Ramsey's letter that as LC he had to deal forcefully with Ramsey to protect the NW (a case that can be made pretty convincing if he tried) he might have confused his opposition enough that many wouldn't have acted against him.

But in Jon's speech he explicitly stated that the Night's Watch has no business fighting Ramsey. He states that any NW members who do so will be forswearing their vows. THEN he states that he's going to deal with Ramsey himself - thus saying that HE HIMSELF is forswearing his vows...abandoning his post to pursue a private vendetta that he JUST SAID is no concern of the NW. And NW men cannot abandon their posts - in the very words of their lifelong vow.

How is this NOT desertion in the eyes of a man as rigidly by-the-book as Bowen Marsh?

Jon Snow, going after Ramsay who has a vendetta against Jon Snow without binding his NW brothers to it, and the NW to it could be in the NW interests. Also, two wrongs don't make a right. Jon Snow not explaining himself fully, does not give Bowen Marsh the right to kill him. Nor is acting in the interests of the NW without explaining yourself necessarilly desertion. Remember the Qhorin Halfhand mission, From JS point of view, dying or beating Ramsay (or not facing Ramsay if Ramsay has not won and is no position to go against the NW as the letter claims) without bringing the NW to it, is what he does or at least tries to do.

Killing Jon Snow the LC of the NW breaks the NW vow to protect the realms of men and be the shield in the darkness. It is likely to cause a shitstorm of chaos in the wall and destroy the fragile peace with the wildlings and possibly even the queen's men. The point of vows is not for any random idiot to kill the LC of the NW regardless of circumstance or consequences because he thought the LC broke the vows. Flexibility is at the center of it. BM and his buddies have no legal authority to be judge,jury and executioner, and in this circumstance they are very much creating a situation that will not allow the NW to fulfill its duty.

How is this NOT desertion in the eyes of a man as rigidly by-the-book as Bowen Marsh?

In the eyes of "we should not pick a losing side" Bowen Marsh he is right about everything and is saving the NW. Unfortunately, he is very much wrong.

[MyaStoned]

Then - for the third time - why didn't they LEGALLY justify it? Through legal means. There's not two threads' worth of discussion here. It's very simple. It's not legal or they obviously wouldn't have resorted to assassination.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Then - for the third time - why didn't they LEGALLY justify it? Through legal means. There's not two threads' worth of discussion here. It's very simple. It's not legal or they obviously wouldn't have resorted to assassination.

That's the thing, isn't it. If Jon's execution was a no-brainer and had the full backing of the law, they wouldn't have had to carry it out in such a fashion: in a rush, a small group, without a trial or sentencing, during a period when everyone else was distracted. Just screams "Free, clear and legal" right?

[Disputatious]

As for the idea that Bowen not rebelling in an open vote meant his actions were unlawful - I doubt that the Night's King fell before a committee. The Watch elects its own commanders, but it's not such a democracy that it can vote its own fundamental laws out of existence because a popular commander says so. Even if most of the sailors on a ship participate in a mutiny, that doesn't make it lawful, nor does it make the outnumbered officers who try to put down the mutiny through military action criminals.

Except that this mutiny was by the Captain of the ship :)

[bemused]

Then - for the third time - why didn't they LEGALLY justify it? Through legal means. There's not two threads' worth of discussion here. It's very simple. It's not legal or they obviously wouldn't have resorted to assassination.

Absolutely . Likewise the cries of "desertion !" are completely off the mark. Jon was right there. He'd gone nowhere. He never even said he wouldn't return ,let alone actually desert. If a LC can order his men out to range, or to undertake long journeys in the interest of the Watch .. I don't see how this is any different. It's not in the interest of the Watch to let someone threaten the LC and the Watch by extension. This enemy would be approaching from their undefended side. Best to deal with him away from the wall.

Jon's problem here is that he can't do it alone. He knows that if he takes NW men with him , he'll give Bowen and Co. ammunition to claim that he's "taking a part", even though to do nothing leaves Castle Black open to attack.... If he's to rally any of the free folk to join him , he has to appeal to them in terms they'll respond to. Long winded explanations of tactics won't do it. A brave response , meeting threat with defiance and counter threat is exactly the way to go. He can't explain more fully to the NW under the circumstances , but he has every right to expect them to obey. He has a right to defend himself from a personal attack , and a duty to protect Castle Black from attack.

Claims that he could have dealt with the Boltons are simply not credible.

[Chaircat Meow]

Everything turns on whether one thinks the primary purpose of the Night's Watch is to protect the Realms of Men.

Or, whether it's primary purpose is to be neutral, regardless of whether that helps the realms of men or not.

I admit, I can't see the point of the latter.

Actually, it doesn't.

The argument is that protecting the realms of men and doing that by remaining neutral are equally the duty of the nw, and are both prescribed by the oath.

If there was a major conflict between these goals, such that choosing to do one or the other was completely unavoidable, then you could make a case. I'm pretty sure that there wasn't though, and especially not in xiii when Jon got stabbed, so Jon was oathbreaking and destroying the watch, and its mission.

[SeanF]

Actually, it doesn't.

The argument is that protecting the realms of men and doing that by remaining neutral are equally the duty of the nw, and are both prescribed by the oath.

If there was a major conflict between these goals, such that choosing to do one or the other was completely unavoidable, then you could make a case. I'm pretty sure

that there wasn't though, and especially not in xiii when Jon got stabbed, so Jon was oathbreaking and destroying the watch, and its mission.

So, what does the Watch do, if its explicit duty to defend the Realms of Men, and its long-standing custom of neutrality, come into conflict with each other?

And, I'd argue that it is very much the case that they have come into conflict with each other.

[SeanF]

There is a law that states that ANY member of the NW's life is forfeit if he violates their fundamental vows. The Lord Commander IS a member of the NW. And I don't recall any law that states that a Lord Commander can violate NW vows with impunity.

What law gives Bowen Marsh the right to act as judge, jury, and executioner? What if other officers of the Watch, and/or a majority of its members, deem that Jon has acted correctly?