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

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

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.

Are you joking? It's getting hard to tell. There's generally nothing heroic about a person whose primary impulse-driver is being on the winning side. We tend to categorize such fair-weather types as morally bankrupt cowards without conviction. They're not heroes, they're spineless.

ETA: My ultimate opinion on the Watch and its neutrality is this: Neutrality is a means to an end. It is not the end, it is not the goal and it is not the Watch's reason for existence. Their reason for existence and their goal is to protect the realms of men, all men. So long as neutrality helps them achieve that end, they can and should stick to it. But once neutrality becomes an impediment to that mission, it can and should be reconsidered. Adhering to neutrality even if it compromises the overall endgame is the epitome of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[Lady Blizzardborn]

Crying has nothing to do with charging or sentencing, your statement is false.

Marsh or any of the assassins have no authority to conspire to kill, or assassinate a Lord Commander. They must formally charge him, and hear testimony. This action is mutiny, nothing more, nothing less.

:agree: I haven't posted much on this version of the thread. Posted plenty along this line in the first thread though.

Big difference between what Ned did (questioned the man, announced his sentence, a quick and clean death with a sword and block in the light of day) and what Bowen and company did (no accusation, no questioning, no announcing a sentence, and multiple daggers in the night). One is a legal execution and somewhat merciful, the other is assassination and cold butchery.

Yes, I did use exactly the term GRRM used in the prologue to describe what the Others did to Ser Waymar Royce, but even they started with a one-on-one duel that has some kind of honor to it. The Others are more honorable than Bowen Marsh!

[Mourneblade]

But I'm not "excusing" Bowen. We don't have access to the Watch Book of Rules and Procedures, but we do have precedent stating that when the LC of the Watch misbehaves, it's the Stark of Winterfell who polices it (Jon wasn't the LC when Aemon appealed to Eastwatch to have Jon tried rather than executed instead).

If "the law" or custom is that the Watch is supposed to deliver/ detain/ whatever a "misbehaving" LC for the Lord of Winterfell to sort out, in this case, Ramsay, then I'd hardly throw hate stones at Bowen's method by pointing out "but he didn't follow procedure or justice!" Because "following procedure," based on the precedent we do know, would have been to deliver Jon to Ramsay.

In general, I don't really think judging characters against "the law" is remotely productive, since "the law" is not invested with any sort of authority, cobbles together contradictory precedents, and ultimately comes down to the decision of a lord or king.

Since you bring up the mess of the aftermath as a negative in this, why not advocate for the hearing/ trial/ detaining as a way of preventing an even worse result in a pragmatic sense (since Bowen was operating out of pragmatics) rather than appeal to these as "legal" measures.

Oh I do not lump you in with excusing it, it might seem as much in reflection, but its more a statement directed to everyone who feels the assassins were justified.

To you, I think to reach back 7000 years for precedent, just because its printed is a bit over reaching and over analyzing. It is implied there is a procedure, as Jon already had a committee charge him, and listen to testimony, that and a military organization that has lasted 8000 years has to have one.

Many things are implied in this story, it does not have to have actual written print for the reader to understand everything.

[bemused]

Are you joking? It's getting hard to tell. There's generally nothing heroic about a person whose primary impulse-driver is being on the winning side. We tend to categorize such fair-weather types as morally bankrupt cowards without conviction. They're not heroes, they're spineless.

ETA: My ultimate opinion on the Watch and its neutrality is this: Neutrality is a means to an end. It is not the end, it is not the goal and it is not the Watch's reason for existence. Their reason for existence and their goal is to protect the realms of men, all men. So long as neutrality helps them achieve that end, they can and should stick to it. But once neutrality becomes an impediment to that mission, it can and should be reconsidered. Adhering to neutrality even if it compromises the overall endgame is the epitome of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Exactly. Neutrality ensured that the 7 kingdoms would equally supply the NW with the men and supplies it needed to continue doing it's job. Lack of defenses to the south of the wall is basically a good will gesture to assure the various rulers that the Watch would not renege on it's side of neutrality ... but the gradual starving of the Watch of men and supplies meant that anyone with enough power could force the Watch out of its normal stance , as we see Stannis did, and Tywin had planned to do.

Contributing to the inevitable decline, is the long absence of the Others and wildlings subsequently being substituted into their role , and , I think , the events of the conquest hastening the whole sorry process.

ETA: Obviously the NW needs a reset , including a study and clarification of the oath, and it must stand against all threats , north or south , if it is to survive to perform its duty.

[fuem]

Are you joking? It's getting hard to tell. There's generally nothing heroic about a person whose primary impulse-driver is being on the winning side. We tend to categorize such fair-weather types as morally bankrupt cowards without conviction. They're not heroes, they're spineless.

ETA: My ultimate opinion on the Watch and its neutrality is this: Neutrality is a means to an end. It is not the end, it is not the goal and it is not the Watch's reason for existence. Their reason for existence and their goal is to protect the realms of men, all men. So long as neutrality helps them achieve that end, they can and should stick to it. But once neutrality becomes an impediment to that mission, it can and should be reconsidered. Adhering to neutrality even if it compromises the overall endgame is the epitome of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Aye :agree:

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Exactly. Neutrality ensured that the 7 kingdoms would equally supply the NW with the men and supplies it needed to continue doing it's job.

Yep. People forget that the oaths exist in the first place to help the Watch do its job. Guys can't be effective if they're doting on their wives, etc. The oaths only exist in order to further the Watch's mission. And if one of their rules eventually becomes an impediment to furthering that mission, then they shouldn't be obligated to keep it.

[mambru]

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?

Jon's not interpreting confronting Ramsey as part of his NW duty. He is plainly stating to all that doing so is the exact opposite...he plainly defines confronting Ramsey as an act that would entail forswearing NW vows....and then plainly states that he plans to do so anyway - thus plainly stating he is forswearing his oaths and deserting his NW post.

Hell, even if you said that Bowen could not act upon Jon's OPEN DECLARATION that he was forswearing his vows unless he read Jon's mind to make sure he rilly rilly means it (an impossible requirement), if Bowen DID actually read Jon's mind, it would confirm what he'd SAID OUT LOUD to the whole assembled NW...as we read in his last chapter, Jon himself thought of what he'd done as oathbreaking.

What makes Bowen the judge of what is good behaviour from a Lord Commander? What moral insight does he possess, that the rest lack?

So rank is the difference? If a low-ranking ranger sees a couple of superior officers riding south from the Wall, asks where they're going, and is told by them that they're deserting, bub-bye and fuck you very much, his responsibility is to meekly let them ride by instead of doing his level best to stop them by any means necessary? Because with his inferior firepower, he can't possibly hope to peacefully arrest them and drag them back on his own unharmed to face someone of higher rank. And after all, they outrank him, so he has no right to interfere with their lofty progress, in your view, and no right to stop them from violate their vows if they so choose. Is that what you think? Do you really think that any attempt by the ranger to stop the officers by violence is murder, because of that difference in rank? Can an army work that way?

No one outranks Jon. So does that mean that if he decides to break his vows, and gets enough men on his side to agree that it's NBD to do so, it's OK for Jon to break his vows, and all NW must obey him anyway? That means, IMO, that you think 'majority rules' and 'might makes right' in the NW. But the NW vows are not AFAIK subject to the commander's editing when he feels like it. Nor is a lifelong vow made before the gods subject to an "I changed my mind." And IMO, the commander getting a majority of his soldiers to agree with him in breaking those vows does not change either of those facts. Saying it DOES is saying that the long-ago NW SHOULD have obeyed the Night King no matter how he abused his own vows.

Mind you, I'm not saying that Bowen did either the RIGHT thing or the SMART thing. I think, in the long run, it was godawful dumb and destructive. But the question that this thread asks is: Did Bowen Marsh do a legally defensible thing? And IMO, if Bowen Marsh were ever dragged before some impartial court for his actions, he'd have at least a solid legal foothold of defense, even if he ultimately lost his case. I'd guess his lawyer would say something like:

1) Jon said he was forswearing his vows, deserting his post as LC to go engage in a battle that BY HIS OWN ADMISSION had nothing to do with the affairs of the Watch...hence he became a deserter, subject to the death penalty.

2) No, the majority of the NW men did not agree that it was the right thing to do, hence the conspiracy by a minority. So? Does the fact that majority of men agree that oathbreaking is no big deal to them make breaking your NW oaths to the gods all right and no crime? Without affirmative input from the gods, probably not.

3) If Jon says he's forswearing his vows - he ceases to be Lord Commander. Hence Marsh's obligation to respect and obey him vanishes and he can treat him as a mere deserter.

Granted,none of these arguments might win over a jury trial - but given a good enough lawyer, a very good defense could be mounted for Bowen Marsh.

[Mourneblade]

Jon's not interpreting confronting Ramsey as part of his NW duty. He is plainly stating to all that doing so is the exact opposite...he plainly defines confronting Ramsey as an act that would entail forswearing NW vows....and then plainly states that he plans to do so anyway - thus plainly stating he is forswearing his oaths and deserting his NW post.

Hell. even if you said that Bowen could not act upon Jon's OPEN DECLARATION that he was forswearing his vows unless he read Jon's mind to make sure he rilly rilly means it (an impossible requirement), if Bowen DID actually read Jon's mind, it would confirm what he'd SAID OUT LOUD to the whole assembled NW...as we read in his last chapter, Jon himself thought of what he'd done as oathbreaking.

So rank is the difference? If a low-ranking ranger sees a couple of superior officers riding south from the Wall, asks where they're going, and is told by them that they're deserting, bub-bye and fuck you very much, his responsibility is to meekly let them ride by instead of doing his level best to stop them by any means necessary? Because with his inferior firepower, he can't possibly hope to peacefully arrest them and drag them back on his own unharmed to face someone of higher rank. And after all, they outrank him, so he has no right to interfere with their lofty progress, in your view, and no right to stop them from violate their vows if they so choose. Is that what you think? Do you really think that any attempt by the ranger to stop the officers by violence is murder, because of that difference in rank? Can an army work that way?

No one outranks Jon. So does that mean that if he decides to break his vows, and gets enough men on his side to agree that it's NBD to do so, it's OK for Jon to break his vows, and all NW must obey him anyway? That means, IMO, that you think 'majority rules' and 'might makes right' in the NW. But the NW vows are not AFAIK subject to the commander's editing when he feels like it. Nor is a lifelong vow made before the gods subject to an "I changed my mind." And IMO, the commander getting a majority of his soldiers to agree with him in breaking those vows does not change either of those facts. Saying it DOES is saying that the long-ago NW SHOULD have obeyed the Night King no matter how he abused his own vows.

Mind you, I'm not saying that Bowen did either the RIGHT thing or the SMART thing. I think, in the long run, it was godawful dumb and destructive. But the question that this thread asks is: Did Bowen Marsh do a legally defensible thing? And IMO, if Bowen Marsh were ever dragged before some impartial court for his actions, he'd have at least a solid legal foothold of defense, even if he ultimately lost his case. I'd guess his lawyer would say something like:

1) Jon said he was forswearing his vows, deserting his post as LC to go engage in a battle that BY HIS OWN ADMISSION had nothing to do with the affairs of the Watch...hence he became a deserter, subject to the death penalty.

2) No, the majority of the NW men did not agree that it was the right thing to do, hence the conspiracy by a minority. So? Does the fact that majority of men agree that oathbreaking is no big deal to them make breaking your NW oaths to the gods all right and no crime? Without affirmative input from the gods, probably not.

3) If Jon says he's forswearing his vows - he ceases to be Lord Commander. Hence Marsh's obligation to respect and obey him vanishes and he can treat him as a mere deserter.

Granted,none of these arguments might win over a jury trial - but given a good enough lawyer, a very good defense could be mounted for Bowen Marsh.

You presume a lot of things but prove very little.

You presume that Jon forswears his vows, he might be or might not be, but a hearing is required to decide.

You presume that anyone can kill anyone in the Nights Watch for supposed desertion, that is not the case, a hearing would be required, or a Lords Sentence.

You presume that a Lord Commander who is accused of a crime is no longer Lord Commander, that is not the case, a hearing would decide.

As to your final line, Marsh Conspired to assassinate the Lord Commander. Even the OJ team could not get him acquitted.

[Arya Targaryen]

Jon's not interpreting confronting Ramsey as part of his NW duty. He is plainly stating to all that doing so is the exact opposite...he plainly defines confronting Ramsey as an act that would entail forswearing NW vows....and then plainly states that he plans to do so anyway - thus plainly stating he is forswearing his oaths and deserting his NW post.

Hell, even if you said that Bowen could not act upon Jon's OPEN DECLARATION that he was forswearing his vows unless he read Jon's mind to make sure he rilly rilly means it (an impossible requirement), if Bowen DID actually read Jon's mind, it would confirm what he'd SAID OUT LOUD to the whole assembled NW...as we read in his last chapter, Jon himself thought of what he'd done as oathbreaking.

So rank is the difference? If a low-ranking ranger sees a couple of superior officers riding south from the Wall, asks where they're going, and is told by them that they're deserting, bub-bye and fuck you very much, his responsibility is to meekly let them ride by instead of doing his level best to stop them by any means necessary? Because with his inferior firepower, he can't possibly hope to peacefully arrest them and drag them back on his own unharmed to face someone of higher rank. And after all, they outrank him, so he has no right to interfere with their lofty progress, in your view, and no right to stop them from violate their vows if they so choose. Is that what you think? Do you really think that any attempt by the ranger to stop the officers by violence is murder, because of that difference in rank? Can an army work that way?

No one outranks Jon. So does that mean that if he decides to break his vows, and gets enough men on his side to agree that it's NBD to do so, it's OK for Jon to break his vows, and all NW must obey him anyway? That means, IMO, that you think 'majority rules' and 'might makes right' in the NW. But the NW vows are not AFAIK subject to the commander's editing when he feels like it. Nor is a lifelong vow made before the gods subject to an "I changed my mind." And IMO, the commander getting a majority of his soldiers to agree with him in breaking those vows does not change either of those facts. Saying it DOES is saying that the long-ago NW SHOULD have obeyed the Night King no matter how he abused his own vows.

Mind you, I'm not saying that Bowen did either the RIGHT thing or the SMART thing. I think, in the long run, it was godawful dumb and destructive. But the question that this thread asks is: Did Bowen Marsh do a legally defensible thing? And IMO, if Bowen Marsh were ever dragged before some impartial court for his actions, he'd have at least a solid legal foothold of defense, even if he ultimately lost his case. I'd guess his lawyer would say something like:

1) Jon said he was forswearing his vows, deserting his post as LC to go engage in a battle that BY HIS OWN ADMISSION had nothing to do with the affairs of the Watch...hence he became a deserter, subject to the death penalty.

2) No, the majority of the NW men did not agree that it was the right thing to do, hence the conspiracy by a minority. So? Does the fact that majority of men agree that oathbreaking is no big deal to them make breaking your NW oaths to the gods all right and no crime? Without affirmative input from the gods, probably not.

3) If Jon says he's forswearing his vows - he ceases to be Lord Commander. Hence Marsh's obligation to respect and obey him vanishes and he can treat him as a mere deserter.

Granted,none of these arguments might win over a jury trial - but given a good enough lawyer, a very good defense could be mounted for Bowen Marsh.

And you presume that Marsh killed Jon for oathbreaking. But he did not. He did it because Stannis' death meant the Watch ended up on the loser's side, and Marsh didn't want to be on the losers side.

I highly doubt that he assassinated Jon if the letter was written by Stannis, stating he won the war, Boltons are dead, but he needs Jon to do something for him at Wf, and promises more man for the Watch.

Jon was personally threatened by Ramsey. Obviously it's not the Watch's job to answer to a threat made by the Lord of Wf to the LC. I'd argue that even if Jon involved the Watch in the Ramsey business, it might have had some legal ground. But one could easily argue that. Jon didn't want to force any of the NW to do something they might think is oathbreaking. However, he, personally, was threatened, and as LC he has the right to sort things out with the Lord of Winterfell. For him, it's definitely not oathbreaking or deserting. And even if it was, Marsh has no right to act on it, until Jon physically leaves the Watch and goes south (and leaves the Gift... - the LC may have duties concerning the Gift, as that is their territory).

[butterbumps!]

Oh I do not lump you in with excusing it, it might seem as much in reflection, but its more a statement directed to everyone who feels the assassins were justified.

To you, I think to reach back 7000 years for precedent, just because its printed is a bit over reaching and over analyzing. It is implied there is a procedure, as Jon already had a committee charge him, and listen to testimony, that and a military organization that has lasted 8000 years has to have one.

Many things are implied in this story, it does not have to have actual written print for the reader to understand everything.

I fear the point I'm making might be getting lost.

First, I'm arguing that trying to use a legal rubric to judge anything in ASOIAF is pointless. This rubric is inconsistent, undefined, and ultimately, usually comes down to the word of a lord. So it doesn't work as a rubric.

Secondly, I'm saying that in this particular circumstance, we have no idea what the Watch's "law" states, but that we do have precedentS, including but not limited to the NK, that suggest the "legal" procedure for dealing with a misbehaving LC is to have the Stark of Winterfell deal with it. This goes beyond one single event 7k years ago:

“It can’t [be defended from the south],” his uncle told him. “That is the point. The Night’s Watch is pledged to take no part in the quarrels of the realm. Yet over the centuries certain Lords Commander, more proud than wise, forgot their vows and near destroyed us all with their ambitions. Lord Commander Runcel Hightower tried to bequeathe the Watch to his bastard son. Lord Commander Rodrik Flint thought to make himself King-beyond-the-Wall. Tristan Mudd, Mad Marq Rankenfell, Robin Hill . . . did you know that six hundred years ago, the commanders at Snowgate and the Nightfort went to war against each other? And when the Lord Commander tried to stop them, they joined forces to murder him? The Stark in Winterfell had to take a hand . . . and both their heads. Which he did easily, because their strongholds were not defensible."

We can infer from aSoS that when a member of the Watch misbehaves, it's up to the LC to discipline them. But, that is a question separate from how to discipline an LC. And from what I excerpted, we know that the Watch has no defenses to the south so that the Stark of Winterfell can intervene to police the Watch and deal with this issue.

So, what I'm saying is that we have no idea what the "legal" procedure for this actually is, but given the fact that Winterfell has intervened on many occasions when the issue is an LC, arguing that Bowen should have upheld "the law" may actually end up unintentionally advocating that Bowen should have delivered Jon to Ramsay.

So, my point is that we shouldn't just advocate that Bowen should have upheld "the law" for the sake of upholding the "the law," because A. we have no idea what "the law" here is, B. "the law" isn't a synonym for "what's right" inherently, C. we have some reason to believe "the law" may be to have had Ramsay discipline Jon.

Do I think the manner of the assassination was poorly done? Yes-- make the argument against honor, pragmatics, and an the fact that all of this is about a communication breakdown. Suggest other methods of detaining Jon because they're more decent and practical. But don't assume that "the law" states an LC is supposed to have an intra-Watch tribunal, and advocate on those terms, as a legal argument tends to be meaningless, and may end up unintentionally supporting an argument that demands Jon be delivered to the Boltons, based on other precedent.

[mambru]

You presume a lot of things but prove very little.

You presume that Jon forswears his vows, he might be or might not be, but a hearing is required to decide.

You presume that anyone can kill anyone in the Nights Watch for supposed desertion, that is not the case, a hearing would be required, or a Lords Sentence.

You presume that a Lord Commander who is accused of a crime is no longer Lord Commander, that is not the case, a hearing would decide.

As to your final line, Marsh Conspired to assassinate the Lord Commander. Even the OJ team could not get him acquitted.

Indeed I presume a lot. If you're correcting me from superior knowledge, then you have access to the NW Rule of Law Handbook (or its equivalent in quotes from the novels) to counter my mere presumptions with actual facts that contradict them. So please quote them, they would be of great use in this conversation. If you can't - well, then you're presuming, too (not that there's anything wrong with that).

You presume that Jon forswears his vows, he might be or might not be, but a hearing is required to decide.

Dude, he said it in plain words before the entire assembled NW. There's precious little "might or might not be," in Jon's speech, when he says he will do something that he admitted would constitute "forswearing" vows.

And if you say that the only legal response Bowen could possibly make is to call a hearing of the committee to publically study whether Jon REALLY DID SAY everything they all heard him say and determine his proper punishment, then you must quote from your copy of the Handbook where it says that THIS is Bowen's only legal option - including subparagraph B, where it explains what the inferior officer should do when the LC is publically renouncing his vows and has too many soldiers on his side (including many who aren't even IN the NW) to just put him under arrest and hold a formal hearing.

The question remains - what is the LEGAL responsibility of an inferior soldier when a superior officer with a greater number of men on his side tells him, "I'm deserting, stand aside."? If the soldier is outnumbered, he can't just grab the offending officer by the collar and hale him off unharmed to a tribunal. Does that mean the humble soldier must meekly stand aside and let the deserting officer ride off with his men, due to his respect for the officer's NW rank (even though the officer himself is spitting on his NW vows by his speech and action?) Do you really think that the ranger who shoots the deserting officers with arrows is a murderer because he didn't call a hearing when he was alone in the snow before he shot them?

I think it's as butterbumps says - we really know very little of the laws involved, so we're just guessing what the actual legal violations of Jon and Bowen are. But grey areas in the law are exactly what good lawyers exploit to get their clients acquitted, or at least a reduced sentence. And in the meantime, arguing about the validity of our guesses can be fun.

Speaking strictly for myself, I'd say that your presumption that Bowen's only legal choice is to publically call for a hearing (and get clapped in a cell by Jon's army, at best) OR to meekly obey the Commander who has forsworn his vows and is therefore no real commander of the NW anymore - seems to endorse the idea that it's perfectly legal for any NW commander to go rogue and break his vows as long as he can convince enough men to go rogue with him. IMO, that seems an unlikely presumption to me - certainly no way to run a holy order intent on their vows to save mankind.

[Arya Targaryen]

The question remains - what is the LEGAL responsibility of an inferior soldier when a superior officer with a greater number of men on his side tells him, "I'm deserting, stand aside."? If the soldier is outnumbered, he can't just grab the offending officer by the collar and hale him off unharmed to a tribunal. Does that mean the humble soldier must meekly stand aside and let the deserting officer ride off with his men, due to his respect for the officer's NW rank (even though the officer himself is spitting on his NW vows by his speech and action?) Do you really think that the ranger who shoots the deserting officers with arrows is a murderer because he didn't call a hearing when he was alone in the snow before he shot them?

I am pretty sure that stabbing him in the back before he committed anything is not legal. Shooting arrows in the back of a deserting officer while still on NW territory (especially if he is the LC - as he doesn't need permission to go anywhere) is murder, no matter what he said before.

Killing Jon, even if Bowen was sure he is going to desert (he did not - he just had some affair with Ramsey, LCs can go to sort things out with the Lord of Winterfell, and neutrality is NOT in the vows, even if Jon and everybody else takes this as law - it is not included in the oath), so killing him before he did something reminds me of a movie "Minority report" where they executed criminals a day before they committed the crime.

And again: Bowen was pretty sure that letting the wildlings through the gate is oathbreaking. Giving Stannis food and shelter is oathbreaking. Giving castles to wildling leaders is oathbreaking. (going to Mole's town for "buried treasure" is oathbreaking...). And he did nothing to stop Jon.

So why did he kill him in the last chapter? Because he learnt that Stannis is dead. Period. Not because oathbreaking, Bowen never cared if Jon takes part in politics - he just wanted to do it on the winner's side. And (as far as Bowen knew): Stannis lost.

[mambru]

I am pretty sure that stabbing him in the back before he committed anything is not legal. Shooting arrows in the back of a deserting officer while still on NW territory (especially if he is the LC - as he doesn't need permission to go anywhere) is murder, no matter what he said before.

And if the ranger is alone or outnumbered by the officer who has declared his intention to desert and is surrounded by men aiding and abetting him in this intention? So that the ranger and anyone with him WILL be overcome by those men if they try to arrest the officer and drag him unharmed to Castle Black for judging by his betters? If the ranger's only other legal choice is to let the officer go while he himself rides back to Castle Black and tells his superiors what the officer has done, then the officer would have gotten away with his intention to desert. If a lowly sentry's hands are tied when an officer declares he is deserting, is prepared to desert, and WILL desert if the sentry doesn't act promptly and forcefully, the officers of the NW could have deserted en masse long ago.

And you presume that Marsh killed Jon for oathbreaking.

Sure, we know that Marsh had the pragmatic idea that the Watch had to pick the winning side. We know he thought Jon was risking the Watch with what he thought were stupid decisions. BUT the fact is that he always eventually followed Jon's orders, however grudgingly and with insubordinate public protest. He did this UNTIL Jon openly stated he was doing something he acknowledged was forswearing his vows. THEN Bowen acted. Without knowing Bowen's thought process in that action, we can't say for sure if he acted SOLELY because of pragmatic motives, or because he was waiting for Jon's final open break with his NW vows that would justify his planned actions in his own conscience. Also, if Bowen faced a trial, he would've been tried with his fellow conspirators, about whose motives we know NOTHING.

Just because we can understand Marsh's motives does not, nor will ever, excuse his actions. This is a very Julius Caesar type killing, and history has shown us the hell that the aftermath of that created.

I know a lot of people have treated Lee-Sensei's opinion that Marsh acted "heroically" as a joke. But if you look at the actions of Marsh and his fellow conspirators, it's not necessarily the way cowards would act. Marsh and his men knew that Jon had plenty of people on his side (including many wildlings) and he and his conspirators knew that there would be a violent backlash against them in which they would very likely be killed. They did it anyway. IMO, that took courage (however misplaced). I think the play Julius Caesar is actually a good illustration of whether Bowen's actions are heroic or not. Is Brutus the hero of the play? He acted on the highest motives against Caesar, at the risk of his life - but he was mistaken and misled in his assumptions. Is Brutus the villain of the play, then? Generations of scholars have argued about it - there is therefore room for doubt.

[Mourneblade]

I fear the point I'm making might be getting lost.

First, I'm arguing that trying to use a legal rubric to judge anything in ASOIAF is pointless. This rubric is inconsistent, undefined, and ultimately, usually comes down to the word of a lord. So it doesn't work as a rubric.

Secondly, I'm saying that in this particular circumstance, we have no idea what the Watch's "law" states, but that we do have precedentS, including but not limited to the NK, that suggest the "legal" procedure for dealing with a misbehaving LC is to have the Stark of Winterfell deal with it. This goes beyond one single event 7k years ago:

“It can’t [be defended from the south],” his uncle told him. “That is the point. The Night’s Watch is pledged to take no part in the quarrels of the realm. Yet over the centuries certain Lords Commander, more proud than wise, forgot their vows and near destroyed us all with their ambitions. Lord Commander Runcel Hightower tried to bequeathe the Watch to his bastard son. Lord Commander Rodrik Flint thought to make himself King-beyond-the-Wall. Tristan Mudd, Mad Marq Rankenfell, Robin Hill . . . did you know that six hundred years ago, the commanders at Snowgate and the Nightfort went to war against each other? And when the Lord Commander tried to stop them, they joined forces to murder him? The Stark in Winterfell had to take a hand . . . and both their heads. Which he did easily, because their strongholds were not defensible."

We can infer from aSoS that when a member of the Watch misbehaves, it's up to the LC to discipline them. But, that is a question separate from how to discipline an LC. And from what I excerpted, we know that the Watch has no defenses to the south so that the Stark of Winterfell can intervene to police the Watch and deal with this issue.

So, what I'm saying is that we have no idea what the "legal" procedure for this actually is, but given the fact that Winterfell has intervened on many occasions when the issue is an LC, arguing that Bowen should have upheld "the law" may actually end up unintentionally advocating that Bowen should have delivered Jon to Ramsay.

So, my point is that we shouldn't just advocate that Bowen should have upheld "the law" for the sake of upholding the "the law," because A. we have no idea what "the law" here is, B. "the law" isn't a synonym for "what's right" inherently, C. we have some reason to believe "the law" may be to have had Ramsay discipline Jon.

Do I think the manner of the assassination was poorly done? Yes-- make the argument against honor, pragmatics, and an the fact that all of this is about a communication breakdown. Suggest other methods of detaining Jon because they're more decent and practical. But don't assume that "the law" states an LC is supposed to have an intra-Watch tribunal, and advocate on those terms, as a legal argument tends to be meaningless, and may end up unintentionally supporting an argument that demands Jon be delivered to the Boltons, based on other precedent.

Indeed I presume a lot. If you're correcting me from superior knowledge, then you have access to the NW Rule of Law Handbook (or its equivalent in quotes from the novels) to counter my mere presumptions with actual facts that contradict them. So please quote them, they would be of great use in this conversation. If you can't - well, then you're presuming, too (not that there's anything wrong with that).

Dude, he said it in plain words before the entire assembled NW. There's precious little "might or might not be," in Jon's speech, when he says he will do something that he admitted would constitute "forswearing" vows.

And if you say that the only legal response Bowen could possibly make is to call a hearing of the committee to publically study whether Jon REALLY DID SAY everything they all heard him say and determine his proper punishment, then you must quote from your copy of the Handbook where it says that THIS is Bowen's only legal option - including subparagraph B, where it explains what the inferior officer should do when the LC is publically renouncing his vows and has too many soldiers on his side (including many who aren't even IN the NW) to just put him under arrest and hold a formal hearing.

The question remains - what is the LEGAL responsibility of an inferior soldier when a superior officer with a greater number of men on his side tells him, "I'm deserting, stand aside."? If the soldier is outnumbered, he can't just grab the offending officer by the collar and hale him off unharmed to a tribunal. Does that mean the humble soldier must meekly stand aside and let the deserting officer ride off with his men, due to his respect for the officer's NW rank (even though the officer himself is spitting on his NW vows by his speech and action?) Do you really think that the ranger who shoots the deserting officers with arrows is a murderer because he didn't call a hearing when he was alone in the snow before he shot them?

I think it's as butterbumps says - we really know very little of the laws involved, so we're just guessing what the actual legal violations of Jon and Bowen are. But grey areas in the law are exactly what good lawyers exploit to get their clients acquitted, or at least a reduced sentence. And in the meantime, arguing about the validity of our guesses can be fun.

Speaking strictly for myself, I'd say that your presumption that Bowen's only legal choice is to publically call for a hearing (and get clapped in a cell by Jon's army, at best) OR to meekly obey the Commander who has forsworn his vows and is therefore no real commander of the NW anymore - seems to endorse the idea that it's perfectly legal for any NW commander to go rogue and break his vows as long as he can convince enough men to go rogue with him. IMO, that seems an unlikely presumption to me - certainly no way to run a holy order intent on their vows to save mankind.

Both of you seem to need exact legalese.... sorry it is not going to happen. It is IMPLIED. The reader understands that this is not justice, but an assassination, the reader also understands that the actions of Marsh and Company are done out of fear, and not justice. It is plain as day, in print, that Marsh does not want to be on the losing side, he is afraid of starving, of the wildlings, of the wraith of the Boltons. I am sorry if you missed all these things.

I am also sorry neither of you seem able to understand that due process that is IMPLIED because there is no printed legal document. In all the dealings of criminal nature, people are subjected to Lord's decree or a committee, at least main characters are. Laws can be vague in this world as well as oaths, which is why Lords and committees have made decisions all through out the story with testimony.

Jon never says he "Forswears his Vows" that is also IMPLIED. How do you accept that being implied and not the rest of what is implied? Its also implied that members of the Nights Watch can break their vows under certain circumstances, which again points to why they have a process and do not just execute anyone who goes to moles town, and why no one executed Jon for having sex with Ygrette, or for his desertion early in the story. Even when Jon executes Janos there is a process, and he does it publicly, not with assassination.

[butterbumps!]

Both of you seem to need exact legalese.... sorry it is not going to happen. It is IMPLIED. The reader understands that this is not justice, but an assassination, the reader also understands that the actions of Marsh and Company are done out of fear, and not justice. It is plain as day, in print, that Marsh does not want to be on the losing side, he is afraid of starving, of the wildlings, of the wraith of the Boltons. I am sorry if you missed all these things.

I am also sorry neither of you seem able to understand that due process that is IMPLIED because there is no printed legal document. In all the dealings of criminal nature, people are subjected to Lord's decree or a committee, at least main characters are. Laws can be vague in this world as well as oaths, which is why Lords and committees have made decisions all through out the story with testimony.

Jon never says he "Forswears his Vows" that is also IMPLIED. How do you accept that being implied and not the rest of what is implied? Its also implied that members of the Nights Watch can break their vows under certain circumstances, which again points to why they have a process and do not just execute anyone who goes to moles town, and why no one executed Jon for having sex with Ygrette, or for his desertion early in the story. Even when Jon executes Janos there is a process, and he does it publicly, not with assassination.

I don't need a condescending lesson in reading literature generally or subtext particularly. I think you need to pause and look at what I'm actually saying.

1. There is no such thing as "due process" in Westeros. The "law" is undefined and not deterministic.

2. However, based on explicitly outlined precedent Bowen should have delievered Jon to the Lord of Winterfell.

3. Invocation of "the law," as you are doing, would seem to support a position stating Bowen should have let Ramsay sort it out.

4. When Aemon intervenes to give Jon a hearing in aSoS, Jon is not the LC, so what is "implied" as procedure for a member of the Watch is not identical to what is "procedure" for an LC

5. I don't think Bowen handled this the right way, but not because he did so outside of a legal framework

I'm telling you that I agree with the conclusion that Bowen handled this wrongly, but stating that this argument shouldn't rest on legal merits or an appeal to a "due process" we don't even know exists FOR AN LC, and examples of precedent that actually point away from such a process.

[bemused]

mambru .. You keep saying that Jon declared his intention to desert and to break his vows. He did not . He never says he's going and not coming back.

He knows that some in the NW ( e.g. Bowen) will interpret his actions as oathbreaking , and he remembers , word for word ,what Bowen said to him before , "What you propose is nothing less than treason." ...this is not self - accusation , but memory ... simply awareness of what some others might think , and the charges they might be expected to make , if he involved the NW.

Accordingly , he addresses the assembly ..

“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.

In other words, he won't ask them to go against what may be their personal understanding ,nor will he leave them open to the accusations of those who do hold that view. He specifically says that he is answering a personal threat to him by Ramsay. That is the case he makes.

He's doing the best he can. He's giving the NW a verbal sheild , by stating this is purely personal , and should things go wrong, by only using the free folk as backup , he's making sure the NW has "clean hands."

ETA: ... re: due process.. when we see Slynt and Thorne trying to sit in judgement of Jon , it's because there is no LC at the moment . Pyke would have been expecting their opinion , but not necessarily that they would take any action. Mormont had been murdered , and the man he left in command was lying injured at the Shadow Tower... that's why Aemon was able to thwart them. They actually had no authority ( or not enough for a complicated case)...When Bowen returns,knowing there are conflicting opinions, he waits to let any decision concerning Jon be on the new LC's record.

[Arya Targaryen]

He did this UNTIL Jon openly stated he was doing something he acknowledged was forswearing his vows.

But since Jon never stated openly that "I go against my oath, I desert now whatsoever", you must accept that this couldn't be Bowen's reason for the stabbing. And we know that he outright stated he doesn't want to be on the loser's side and he just learnt Stannis is dead, so it is much more likely he acted because of that. Especially as it makes sense, the former doesn't.

Bowen might draw some conclusions from what Jon said, but he did the same for the better part of ADWD, thinking Jon is oathbreaking, or at least very close to it, and did nothing.

And as others had pointed out upthread, the legal course of action is that the Lord of Wf decides what to do with a deserting (or misbehaving) LC. Bowen, as a high ranking officer, should know that, as it was the common practise for about 8000 years. And you know what Jon was just about to do? Seek out Ramsey, who is the Lord of Winterfell. Its not like Jon is announcing he deserts and then disappears only gods know where. He is announcing his intention to go to the Lord of Winterfell. The logical course of action under the circumstances is to let him go. Maybe sending a letter to Ramsey, informing him about the situation, but that can be done after Jon left. But since Jon is going to Ramsey, and he is the one who should judge Jon, Bowen shouldn't do anything at all.

ETA: But since he did stab Jon, that proves the "oathbreaking and judging your LC" wasn't his reason.

(also spelling)

[bemused]

mambru ..Something I meant to include in my previous post :

No man can ever say I made my brothers break their vows. If this is oathbreaking, the crime is mine and mine alone.

The first sentence shows that Jon intends to protect his brothers from any retribution from hardliners. The IF I stressed shows that Jon doesn't think it's oathbreaking , but he knows others might.

As Lord Commander , he has the right to expect Bowen ( or others like him ) to obey orders in spite of personal disagreement or disapproval.

[Mourneblade]

I don't need a condescending lesson in reading literature generally or subtext particularly. I think you need to pause and look at what I'm actually saying.

1. There is no such thing as "due process" in Westeros. The "law" is undefined and not deterministic.

2. However, based on explicitly outlined precedent Bowen should have delievered Jon to the Lord of Winterfell.

3. Invocation of "the law," as you are doing, would seem to support a position stating Bowen should have let Ramsay sort it out.

4. When Aemon intervenes to give Jon a hearing in aSoS, Jon is not the LC, so what is "implied" as procedure for a member of the Watch is not identical to what is "procedure" for an LC

5. I don't think Bowen handled this the right way, but not because he did so outside of a legal framework

I'm telling you that I agree with the conclusion that Bowen handled this wrongly, but stating that this argument shouldn't rest on legal merits or an appeal to a "due process" we don't even know exists FOR AN LC, and examples of precedent that actually point away from such a process.

I am not condescending I apologize if I come across that way but you continue to make incorrect statements and it is a bit frustrating.

1. There is law and process, maybe not exactly like ours, no magna carta, but there is a legal system, and a process that the nights Watch follows. They have shown multiple times how they do things when dealing with criminal allegations, I cannot understand why you have not been able to see this process throughout the entire story. Is is because it is not expressly defined in print?

2. Once again you grasp at the only thing written in print and tie it as precedent, and totally lose sight of what is implied in the books. As if this one thing that happened 7000+ years ago could be the only possible way it could happen.

3. You jump to this conclusion and put words in my mouth when I stated no such thing. I specifically said, for this to be legal, That Marsh needed to formally charge Jon. <------------ that is what I said and that is what I mean. Stop changing what I am saying please.

4. You are only speculating this point, and there fore I will disagree with your assumption.

5. You are right about him handling it wrongly, but incorrect about the legality.

Again our breakdown is not about Marsh's Motives as you explain them perfectly well, our breakdown is that I can see and can grasp what is implied in the legal system in Westeros, or the Nights Watch and you cannot. It is not black and white for sure, but an organization, that has lasted for 8000 years, has a process. I am sorry if you choose not to agree with this, just because it has not been spelled out for you in print.

[butterbumps!]

I am not condescending I apologize if I come across that way but you continue to make incorrect statements and it is a bit frustrating.

1. There is law and process, maybe not exactly like ours, no magna carta, but there is a legal system, and a process that the nights Watch follows. They have shown multiple times how they do things when dealing with criminal allegations, I cannot understand why you have not been able to see this process throughout the entire story. Is is because it is not expressly defined in print?

2. Once again you grasp at the only thing written in print and tie it as precedent, and totally lose sight of what is implied in the books. As if this one thing that happened 7000+ years ago could be the only possible way it could happen.

3. You jump to this conclusion and put words in my mouth when I stated no such thing. I specifically said, for this to be legal, That Marsh needed to formally charge Jon. <------------ that is what I said and that is what I mean. Stop changing what I am saying please.

4. You are only speculating this point, and there fore I will disagree with your assumption.

5. You are right about him handling it wrongly, but incorrect about the legality.

Again our breakdown is not about Marsh's Motives as you explain them perfectly well, our breakdown is that I can see and can grasp what is implied in the legal system in Westeros, or the Nights Watch and you cannot. It is not black and white for sure, but an organization, that has lasted for 8000 years, has a process. I am sorry if you choose not to agree with this, just because it has not been spelled out for you in print.

Seriously, if you're going to keep telling me I'm incorrect, at least have an idea what I've even posited, ffs. It's very clear you don't even know what you're disagreeing with.

1. You do realize I haven't argued that the Watch definitely does not have any sort of disciplinary procedure, right?

2. I've said that we can see there's some hint of due process in terms of disciplining a Watchman, but that we shouldn't jump to conclusions that this is the case for an LC

3. The fact that you keep accusing me of being so obtuse as to cling to precedent that happened once 7k years ago is mind-numblingly obnoxious. Why don't you actually read the passage I quoted for you detailing out how the lord of Winterfell dealt with disciplinary action of a LC on multiple occasions and is not a single one time event that occurred thousands of years ago:

“It can’t [be defended from the south],” his uncle told him. “That is the point. The Night’s Watch is pledged to take no part in the quarrels of the realm. Yet over the centuries certain Lords Commander, more proud than wise, forgot their vows and near destroyed us all with their ambitions. Lord Commander Runcel Hightower tried to bequeathe the Watch to his bastard son. Lord Commander Rodrik Flint thought to make himself King-beyond-the-Wall. Tristan Mudd, Mad Marq Rankenfell, Robin Hill . . . did you know that six hundred years ago, the commanders at Snowgate and the Nightfort went to war against each other? And when the Lord Commander tried to stop them, they joined forces to murder him? The Stark in Winterfell had to take a hand . . . and both their heads. Which he did easily, because their strongholds were not defensible."

4. It's utterly ridiculous that you keep telling me I'm "incorrect" for pointing to something that is black and white in text as a precedent, yet also tell me "I'm speculating" when I say we shouldn't assume the procedure we see to discipline a Watchman is the same for an LC? wtf?

5. You do realize that I haven't actually said that "the law states the lord of Winterfell must discipline the LC rather than the Watch," right? You know that I've only pointed out that this is the only example of precedent we have wrt LC disciplinary action, so that IF this is what constitutes the "law," then maybe we don't really want to argue anything that might unintentionally ratify the notion that Bowen should have given Jon to Ramsay.

I have no real idea what you think I've been arguing. I've only said that making this a legal argument is pointless, since we don't actually know what "the law" is, that "the law" in Westeros in general is not deterministic or defined as it is, and that Bowen's actions should more productively be measured from a moral and pragmatic framework than a legal one. Especially as how he wasn't trying to perform justice here, but working from pragmatics in the first place.

If you really feel the need to completely speculate on the exact due process of removing an LC and judge this as a legal issue than be my guest. I want no part of that argument though, because I think it's really pointless. In the future though, please refrain from telling me I'm "unable to grasp" something that is right now complete speculation. Or your rudeness more generally (i.e. "I can see and can grasp what is implied in the legal system in Westeros, or the Nights Watch and you cannot. It is not black and white for sure, but an organization, that has lasted for 8000 years, has a process. I am sorry if you choose not to agree with this, just because it has not been spelled out for you in print." like seriously, wtf?)