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

[SeanF]

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.

Worse, they continue to turn a blind eye to Craster's evil as evidence mounts that the Others are real, not a myth. I wouldn't be surprised if Craster hadn't passed information about Mormont's expedition on to the Others.

[Chaircat Meow]

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.

If you want to ask a question about someone's point of view it is best to state their view correctly, no?

Assuming you really mean to ask me what do the watch do if two parts of their oath conflict then I would agree that they have to choose one or the other, and they should choose to defend the realm against the Others. However, it is important that, imo, both of these duties are entailed by the oath and that this fact has consequences. This means neutrality isn't just a policy that can be dropped when the lc deems it disadvantageous. He is not accorded discretion to alter the nw's stance as he sees fit. He needs to be faced with such an utter disharmony between the two sides of the oath that it is utterly impossible to try and fulfil both.

And I think that, wrt Jon, and especially Jon in xiii, this never happened and, actually, that even if we did regard taking no part as merely discretionary Jon would still have been oathbreaking by doing as he did because attempting to preserve neutrality was clearly in the best interests of the watch's duty to preserve the realm against the Others. And, in fact, in some ways denying take no part is in the oath (even though I disagree) even strengthens the case against Jon because this gives him less reason to worry about fulfilling some of Ramsay's demands. After all, honour is nothing if the realm is safe, right, even if one has to do some unsavoury things. So, actually, if you want to defend Jon in xiii you could even agree with me that take no part is in the oath, as you are not doing Jon any favours by saying it is not.

[Arya Targaryen]

And, in fact, in some ways denying take no part is in the oath (even though I disagree) even strengthens the case against Jon because this gives him less reason to worry about fulfilling some of Ramsay's demands.

You mean handing over Selyse and co? Or Val and the baby? Neutrality is not what keeps Jon from doing that. It' guest right, which is sacred in the north (and should be in the south as well).

And the fact that Ramsey does not only ask Arya and Reek from Jon but also Stannis' and Mance's family members as hostages indicates that this might have happened even if Arya wasn't rescued. When Stannis attacked the Boltons, (and Mance from the inside) Ramsey realises he could use some hostages. And because he knows something about Jon (he interfered with the Boltons, even if it was against his vow) he thinks he can blackmail Jon into handing over hostages under the radar and in return he (Ramsey) won't tell anybody the Mance thing, so Jon can keep his post as LC, and everybody is happy.

Ramsey is a sadistic idiot and it seems to be common knowledge in the North (so Jon knows this, too). So what would keep him from demanding hostages from Jon when Stannis attacks them? In that case he would only want Selyse, Shireen and Mel, but would know nothing about Val and the baby. But he still can threaten the Watch as the Warden of the North to hand over the family of a traitor or the Boltons will march on the Watch from the south and they won't have any chance to defend themselves. It would have happened sooner or later.

I'm not saying Jon did not break his vows,. He was walking a fine line and I think in the end (last chapter) he chose to make the decision he can live with, the "right thing" even if it meant oathbreaking. He, at least, thinks so. That does not mean his acts cannot be justified. Bowen does not know WHY Jon marches on the Boltons (doesn't know about Arya, at least not in detail). Jon hasn't "deserted" yet, so killing him because of desertion is a bit lame. Killing him for sending Mance is a bit better, however, it is not clear for anybody in the shield hall, how on earth could Jon send Mance when Mance was Stannis's prisoner and was burnt. A few questions should be asked first, I think.

Bowen's actions, as he thought, would prevent the Boltons from attacking the Watch, therefore the Watch is saved from an enemy from the south. However, the Watch will be sooner attacked from the "inside" (the wildlings), and all the infight will prevent them from successfully concentrate to do their only job that matters: fight the Others (and yes, Hardhome mission included, as its purpose is to weaken the Enemy)

So Bowen did not kill Jon because of Jon's actions (oathbreaking, marching on Wf, whatever). He did it because he's just learnt Stannis is dead, meaning they are on the loosing side. It had nothing to do with Mance or Arya or the wildlings.

[SeanF]

If you want to ask a question about someone's point of view it is best to state their view correctly, no?

Assuming you really mean to ask me what do the watch do if two parts of their oath conflict then I would agree that they have to choose one or the other, and they should choose to defend the realm against the Others. However, it is important that, imo, both of these duties are entailed by the oath and that this fact has

consequences. This means neutrality isn't just a policy that can be dropped when the lc deems it disadvantageous. He is not accorded discretion to alter the nw's stance as he sees fit. He needs to be faced with such an utter disharmony between the two sides of the oath that it is utterly impossible to try and fulfil both.

And I think that, wrt Jon, and especially Jon in xiii, this never happened and, actually, that even if we did regard taking no part as merely discretionary Jon would still have been oathbreaking by doing as he did because attempting to preserve neutrality was clearly in the best interests of the watch's duty to preserve the realm against the Others. And, in fact, in some ways denying take no part is in the oath (even though I disagree) even strengthens the case against Jon because this gives him less reason to worry about fulfilling some of Ramsay's demands. After all, honour is nothing if the realm is safe, right, even if one has to do some unsavoury

things. So, actually, if you want to defend Jon in xiii you could even agree with me that take no part is in the oath, as you are not doing Jon any favours by saying it is not.

The Night's Watch, as at the end of ADWD, is threatened from the North, and threatened from the South. It looks as though Jon wants to deal with both threats simultaneously. I think that that decision was stategically unsound, but taking a decision that is strategically unsound does not give Bowen & Co. any legal right to assassinate him. It gives them the right to argue against him, but no more than that.

Complying with Ramsay's demands would not assist the defence of the Wall. I imagine the Queens' Men would fight to prevent Selyse and Shireen from being handed over; I doubt if Melisandre would surrender; and I'm pretty sure that an attempt to hand over Val and the baby believed to be Mance's would provoke a very violent reaction from the wildlings. And, of course, neither "Arya" nor Reek are anywhere near the Wall. Jon can't hand them over, even supposing he wished to.

[mambru]

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.

But Jon does not say that confronting Ramsey could be in the NW interests, and therefore part of his duties as a LC. He explicitly denies that confronting Ramsey is anything the NW ought to be doing, and says that any man of the NW who does it would be forswearing his vows. He THEN says he is going to confront Ramsey - thus declaring that he is forswearing his vows. That's more than just doing something doubtful without fully explaining himself to the NW - that's a declaration that he's breaking his vows and deserting his post - a crime clearly delineated in the vows they took, and punishable by death.

For you to say that Bowen should just ignore that open declaration of oathbreaking, that Bowen has no right to act against Jon simply because he is the LC (despite his declared intention of deserting his post), that IS saying that the Lord Commander has the right to break his vows with impunity. And I still say that if you assert something of such magnitude, you need to provide proof with book quotes that the Lord Commander HAS that kind of unbridled authority.

Incidentally,

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

...did Marsh actually SAY the words you are quoting him as saying? Because if not, you're putting words in his mouth to prove your argument, when we don't actually have Bowen's POV and don't know what reasons he felt justified his actions to himself and his conspirators.

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?

If the Night's Watch were a democracy that could change its laws and its mission statement with a majority vote, of course Bowen would simply be a murderer. But they're not. They can elect their commanders, but they all took the same vows and they ALL are supposed to obey them till death. The fact that Jon has enough men on his side in the Watch to keep from just VOTING his execution does not mean that the vows they took before the gods they worshipped just don't count anymore because JON says they don't. To say that all NW men should let Jon do whatever he pleases even when he declares he's violating his oath - a crime punishable by death - is like saying that the NW did their duty in following the Night's King even though what he was doing subverted the Watch completely.

[SeanF]

But Jon does not say that confronting Ramsey could be in the NW interests, and therefore part of his duties as a LC. He explicitly denies that confronting Ramsey is anything the NW ought to be doing, and says that any man of the NW who does it would be forswearing his vows. He THEN says he is going to confront Ramsey - thus declaring that he is forswearing his vows. That's more than just doing something doubtful without fully explaining himself to the NW - that's a declaration that he's breaking his vows and deserting his post - a crime clearly delineated in the vows they took, and punishable by death.

For you to say that Bowen should just ignore that open declaration of oathbreaking, that Bowen has no right to act against Jon simply because he is the LC (despite his declared intention of deserting his post), that IS saying that the Lord Commander has the right to break his vows with impunity. And I still say that if you assert something of such magnitude, you need to provide proof with book quotes that the Lord Commander HAS that kind of unbridled authority.

Incidentally,

...did Marsh actually SAY the words you are quoting him as saying? Because if not, you're putting words in his mouth to prove your argument, when we don't actually have Bowen's POV and don't know what reasons he felt justified his actions to himself and his conspirators.

If the Night's Watch were a democracy that could change its laws and its mission statement with a majority vote, of course Bowen would simply be a murderer. But

they're not. They can elect their commanders, but they all took the same vows and they ALL are supposed to obey them till death. The fact that Jon has enough men on his side in the Watch to keep from just VOTING his execution does not mean that the vows they took before the gods they worshipped just don't count anymore because JON says they don't. To say that all NW men should let Jon do whatever he pleases even when he declares he's violating his oath - a crime punishable by death - is like saying that the NW did their duty in following the Night's King even though what he was doing subverted the Watch completely.

Who is to interpret the Night's Watch's duties, other than the LC? Jon has already radically reinterpreted its duties (against Bowen Marsh's wishes) by stating they must save Wildlings from the Others. He has violated hundreds of years of tradition. Does Bowen have the right to kill him for this? What makes Bowen the judge of what is good behaviour from a Lord Commander? What moral insight does he possess, that the rest lack?

[butterbumps!]

Who is to interpret the Night's Watch's duties, other than the LC? Jon has already radically reinterpreted its duties (against Bowen Marsh's wishes) by stating they must save Wildlings from the Others. He has violated hundreds of years of tradition. Does Bowen have the right to kill him for this? What makes Bowen the judge of what is good behaviour from a Lord Commander? What moral insight does he possess, that the rest lack?

I know you're just continuing the thread someone else made asking about the legal justification, but is asking about this as a legal issue at all a bit misleading? I mean, "the law" in Westeros is pretty meaningless, undefined and not invested with any sort of authority on its own. As for precedent of removing LC's for abuse of power, we only have cases where the Stark of Winterfell held that authority (NK, that Hightower who tried making the LC position hereditary, etc), so there isn't even anything we can draw from in terms of intra-Watch case studies.

[Lee-Sensei]

Are we still on this? Jon's reasons for wanting to leave are sympathetic, but he broke his oath and betrayed his brothers. Bowen Marsh heroically executed him for his desertion. The man who passes the sentence and all that.

[Arya Targaryen]

...did Marsh actually SAY the words you are quoting him as saying? Because if not, you're putting words in his mouth to prove your argument, when we don't actually have Bowen's POV and don't know what reasons he felt justified his actions to himself and his conspirators.

ADWD:

“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.”

[Formerly Tetrarch42]

... The man who passes the sentence and all that.

Would your opinion of Eddard Stark's execution of the Night's Watch deserter have changed if he was crying like a baby was he swung Ice towards the block?

[Lee-Sensei]

Would your opinion of Eddard Stark's execution of the Night's Watch deserter have changed if he was crying like a baby was he swung Ice towards the block?

I don't have much of an opinion on Ned executing deserters in the first place.:P I just think that we should accept that Bowen Marsh is heroic.

[SeanF]

Are we still on this? Jon's reasons for wanting to leave are sympathetic, but he broke his oath and betrayed his brothers. Bowen Marsh heroically executed him for his desertion. The man who passes the sentence and all that.

Do you think that the situation at the Wall will be improved, or worsened, if Jon is dead?

[butterbumps!]

I just think that we should accept that Bowen Marsh is heroic.

Is this a joke?

[Formerly Tetrarch42]

I don't have much of an opinion on Ned executing deserters in the first place.

As in you read that part of the book and had a completely flat affect? No emotional response whatsoever? You have no idea whether Ned was morally justified or not?

Not trying to assault you with rhetorical questions, I'm actually confused.

Edit: In any case, I think heroes generally act with resolve. They don't weep while they commit their ostensibly heroic act, or at least they don't weep about the heroic act itself.

I think that most people would question Eddard's moral principles and conviction if he were crying as he carried out the execution like Bowen Marsh was.

[SeanF]

I know you're just continuing the thread someone else made asking about the legal justification, but is asking about this as a legal issue at all a bit misleading? I mean, "the law" in Westeros is pretty meaningless, undefined and not invested with any sort of authority on its own. As for precedent of removing LC's for abuse of power, we only have cases where the Stark of Winterfell held that authority (NK, that Hightower who tried making the LC position hereditary, etc), so there isn't even anything we can draw from in terms of intra-Watch case studies.

I take those points.

[Arya Targaryen]

Is this a joke?

Yeah, well, heroic in a way that he did something he believed in and is very unlikely to survive :dunno: :P

[Lee-Sensei]

Do you think that the situation at the Wall will be improved, or worsened, if Jon is dead?

He was leaving either way.

Is this a joke?

He had to do it. Jon gave him no choice. He was crying.

As in you read that part of the book and had a completely flat affect? No emotional response whatsoever? You have no idea whether Ned was morally justified or not?

Not trying to assault you with rhetorical questions, I'm actually confused.

At first I was bothered by it, but no one seemed to mind. Even the deserter. I'm chalking it up to cultural differences.

[Arya Targaryen]

He was leaving either way.

He had to do it. Jon gave him no choice. He was crying.

At first I was bothered by it, but no one seemed to mind. Even the deserter. I'm chalking it up to cultural differences.

If he (Jon) lived, he would have taken most of the wildlings at CB with him, so the Watch wasn't threatened by them. And they wouldn't have had a reason anyway. With Jon dead, those wildlings who wanted a fight on Jon's side will fight those who killed Jon, namely the Watch (hopefully not all of them).

[Formerly Tetrarch42]

At first I was bothered by it, but no one seemed to mind. Even the deserter. I'm chalking it up to cultural differences.

If Bowen Marsh carries out his oaths to the very letter he's heroic but if Eddard Stark does you're bothered by it (at least initially)?

[Lee-Sensei]

If he (Jon) lived, he would have taken most of the wildlings at CB with him, so the Watch wasn't threatened by them. And they wouldn't have had a reason anyway. With Jon dead, those wildlings who wanted a fight on Jon's side will fight those who killed Jon, namely the Watch (hopefully not all of them).

Do you agree that Jon was breaking his oath?