Jon is a traitor to the Night Watch

[Greg B]

13 minutes ago, Thersites said:

or if a prisoner taken from him by Stannis and disguised by Melisandre takes it upon himself to infiltrate Winterfell, it is simply not his problem.

But I digress. Assuming that by the end of ADWD Jon is executed for sneezing at Ramsay's general direction, and the perfect Lord Commander takes over. An ideal one, not one of the possible alternatives. How would he handle the situation? Waiting to verify the threat could leave the Watch completely undefended. Throwing oneself at the mercy of Ramsay I-made-lady-Hornwood-eat-her-fingers Bolton is not an optimal survival strategy. Neither is "Sorry, your princess is in another castle.".

For the first part, it will have to suffice that Jon disagrees with you. "A grey girl on a dying horse, fleeing from her marriage. On the strength of those words he had loosed Mance Rayder and six spearwives on the north." Again, you can try to lawyer him out of this responsibility, but to his credit Jon doesn't do this. He is responsible. He has the command at the Wall. He deceived his brothers.

For the second part, are we assuming the Night's Watch and the wildlings didn't massacre each other after the conspirators murdered Jon in plain sight after he just incited the wildlings to war? If we're not assuming that, the ideal lord commander will be as dead as all his brothers, so Ramsay Bolton will be just one of the cares of the world from which he is released.

If we do assume there is no massacre, the ideal lord commander must restore the Night's Watch's neutrality. The Watch is "completely undefended" anyway, should Ramsay decide to attack the Wall from the south, but the key points are that a neutral Watch needn't defend itself from the lord of the Dreadfort -- that's not its job -- and the Watch must insure that it has given Lord Bolton no reason to attack it. As I said, this doesn't mean the lord commander is required to hand over hostages, but it does mean he can't offer political figures the protection of the Night's Watch. He may want to; he may feel bad about it. But that doesn't matter -- the Night's Watch takes no part. They have other wars to fight. The people Bolton wants have to leave. Where they go is not the lord commander's concern. Once they're gone, a raven can be sent to Winterfell notifying Bolton that the loyal brothers of the Night's Watch have executed Jon Snow and the hostages Bolton seeks are not at the Wall.

If Bolton nevertheless desires to lead a host to the Wall, that's fine. Let him come in and see for himself that his hostages are not there. Hand over the traitor Jon Snow's body so Bolton can mount his head on a spike. Could Bolton still decide to slaughter the brothers of the Night's Watch because LOL? Sure -- that's one reason it's so important for the Night's Watch to maintain its neutrality in the first place.

Now, here's the important bit: I'm glad Jon Snow didn't do this! His transformation into a warlord is somewhat gradual, and you're right that it begins at least when his military advice prevents Stannis from blundering into yet another defeat. The way he completes this transformation and crosses the Rubicon in the Shieldhall is moronic, but again I try to blame that on a chopped up ending with poor editing. By the end of ADWD, the Night's Watch is effectively finished as an organization capable of shielding the realms of men, so it's a good thing that Jon goes warlord. But that's no reason to pretend he's acting responsibly and dutifully as lord commander of the Night's Watch. He's not -- he's acting as a rebel warlord leading a wildling army against the crown.

 

[Philokles]

19 minutes ago, Greg B said:

For the first part, it will have to suffice that Jon disagrees with you. "A grey girl on a dying horse, fleeing from her marriage. On the strength of those words he had loosed Mance Rayder and six spearwives on the north." Again, you can try to lawyer him out of this responsibility, but to his credit Jon doesn't do this. He is responsible. He has the command at the Wall. He deceived his brothers.

For the second part, are we assuming the Night's Watch and the wildlings didn't massacre each other after the conspirators murdered Jon in plain sight after he just incited the wildlings to war? If we're not assuming that, the ideal lord commander will be as dead as all his brothers, so Ramsay Bolton will be just one of the cares of the world from which he is released.

If we do assume there is no massacre, the ideal lord commander must restore the Night's Watch's neutrality. The Watch is "completely undefended" anyway, should Ramsay decide to attack the Wall from the south, but the key points are that a neutral Watch needn't defend itself from the lord of the Dreadfort -- that's not its job -- and the Watch must insure that it has given Lord Bolton no reason to attack it. As I said, this doesn't mean the lord commander is required to hand over hostages, but it does mean he can't offer political figures the protection of the Night's Watch. He may want to; he may feel bad about it. But that doesn't matter -- the Night's Watch takes no part. They have other wars to fight. The people Bolton wants have to leave. Where they go is not the lord commander's concern. Once they're gone, a raven can be sent to Winterfell notifying Bolton that the loyal brothers of the Night's Watch have executed Jon Snow and the hostages Bolton seeks are not at the Wall.

If Bolton nevertheless desires to lead a host to the Wall, that's fine. Let him come in and see for himself that his hostages are not there. Hand over the traitor Jon Snow's body so Bolton can mount his head on a spike. Could Bolton still decide to slaughter the brothers of the Night's Watch because LOL? Sure -- that's one reason it's so important for the Night's Watch to maintain its neutrality in the first place.

Now, here's the important bit: I'm glad Jon Snow didn't do this! His transformation into a warlord is somewhat gradual, and you're right that it begins at least when his military advice prevents Stannis from blundering into yet another defeat. The way he completes this transformation and crosses the Rubicon in the Shieldhall is moronic, but again I try to blame that on a chopped up ending with poor editing. By the end of ADWD, the Night's Watch is effectively finished as an organization capable of shielding the realms of men, so it's a good thing that Jon goes warlord. But that's no reason to pretend he's acting responsibly and dutifully as lord commander of the Night's Watch. He's not -- he's acting as a rebel warlord leading a wildling army against the crown.

 

Nothing the Night's Watch does can ever be neutral when dealing with two opposing forces like this. Expelling supporters of one side into the waiting arms of the other is just as partisan as protecting them. There simply is no neutral middle ground. Especially when both the believed and real parentage of Jon is a death sentence in the eyes of the supporters of one of those sides.

Luckily maintaining political neutrality is not the primary objective of the watch - instead it is defending against the Others. Having a united North under the rule of a man who is willing to let the best candidate for LC get on with his job is an absolute necessity, and if getting that involves breaking political neutrality then so be it. Yes Jon is an oathbreaker, but he is certainly not a traitor.

[Greg B]

6 minutes ago, Sept Sev said:

Nothing the Night's Watch does can ever be neutral when dealing with two opposing forces like this. Expelling supporters of one side into the waiting arms of the other is just as partisan as protecting them.

I don't think that's true at all. "We can't give you the Night's Watch's protection and we can't hand you over as hostages" would seem to meet fair standards of neutrality.

ETA: I should have responded to your second point. Jon is an oathbreaker for leaving his post and a traitor for inciting a wildling army to open rebellion against the crown.

[Roswell]

It's important to note that Jon wasn't just a traitor to the Night Watch.  He was also a traitor to the realm that he has sworn to protect.  He let his personal feelings get in the way.  He never should have tried to rescue fArya.  That was his downfall.   He betrayed his sworn brothers and he basically declared war on the warden of the north.  He deserved his execution from Marsh and his men.

[Shierak Qiya]

On 5/22/2016 at 11:55 AM, Steelshanks Walton said:

I'm in agreement with you.  I would go so far as to say Jon is also partly guilty of the violation of guest rights.  Mance was acting under Jon's orders.  Mance was sheltered in Winterfell when he committed murders and stole the bride of his hosts.  That's breaking guest rights. 

Thank you for your comment.  I agree.  Mance violated guest rights and he was operating under Jon's orders. 

[Ser Not Appearing]

A commander defines the rules. That's the nature of command. There is no balance of power and authority. He is it.

[The Lord of the Crossing]

On 6/1/2016 at 6:13 AM, The Transporter said:

It's important to note that Jon wasn't just a traitor to the Night Watch.  He was also a traitor to the realm that he has sworn to protect.  He let his personal feelings get in the way.  He never should have tried to rescue fArya.  That was his downfall.   He betrayed his sworn brothers and he basically declared war on the warden of the north.  He deserved his execution from Marsh and his men.

This is another example of how George sets up the story.  I was not surprised when Jon started interfering with Ramsay's business.  He's not good at living under rules.  He should live among the wildlings.  He has no business being in charge of anything.  He's a failure as a steward and an even bigger one as Lord Commander.  He needs a simple life north of the wall among the savage wildlings.

[Brianstorm]

Jaime wasn't only speaking for himself when he went off on oaths. The whole point of the NW is they are traitors to their original mission.

[BalerionTheCat]

Yes, he did that. And I'm glad he did it. Is Arnolf Karstark and Ramsey Snow unhappy with that? Good, because I want these 2 fuckers dead. If the NW vows prevent someone to do the right thing, then these vows are wrong. It is vows like that which made mad kings burning people, without anyone doing anything.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

16 hours ago, Franklin VI said:

Thank you for your comment.  I agree.  Mance violated guest rights and he was operating under Jon's orders. 

Can you give me a quote that is mentioned that Mance acted under Jon's orders?

59 minutes ago, BalerionTheCat said:

Yes, he did that. And I'm glad he did it. Is Arnolf Karstark and Ramsey Snow unhappy with that? Good, because I want these 2 fuckers dead. If the NW vows prevent someone to do the right thing, then these vows are wrong. It is vows like that which made mad kings burning people, without anyone doing anything.

Like.

[haemonculus]

In my opinion it does not matter if he is technically a traitor or not. The organization he supposedly betrayed was so corrupt and unfit to do what it was originally, created to do (and the vows were written down for), that everyone who was not blinded by hatred and pride should have welcomed the changes Jon made.

Given what they know about the impending zombie-apocalypse, it is just inexcusably stupid to still think the wildlings are the bigger problem, when they are, in reality, the one chance they maybe might have to at least put up a fight.

 

[Lord Estermont]

Technically speaking, he's a traitor.But noone really cares, we care about Jon. For all i care the Night's Watch could be abolished, i dont have any emotional affection towards that kind of organization, Jon was/is one of the few "good" people in it

[The Wolves]

20 hours ago, Lame Lothar Frey said:

This is another example of how George sets up the story.  I was not surprised when Jon started interfering with Ramsay's business.  He's not good at living under rules.  He should live among the wildlings.  He has no business being in charge of anything.  He's a failure as a steward and an even bigger one as Lord Commander.  He needs a simple life north of the wall among the savage wildlings.

To the bolded yes he does. 

The Wildlings are better humans than anyone south of the Wall. 

[UnViserion]

Aye, he is a traitor and a bastard. Murdered Janos Slynt as well. 

[Wolf's Bane]

On 5/22/2016 at 0:16 PM, Fox of House McCloud said:

Are we defining what technically makes him a traitor, or what makes the men of the Watch consider him a traitor?

He's a traitor technically and practically.

[Wolf's Bane]

On 6/4/2016 at 1:40 PM, Lord Estermont said:

Technically speaking, he's a traitor.But noone really cares, we care about Jon. For all i care the Night's Watch could be abolished, i dont have any emotional affection towards that kind of organization, Jon was/is one of the few "good" people in it

I don't care about Jon at all.  He got what he deserved from Bowen Marsh and Co.

[Julia H.]

On 2016. 05. 28. at 0:02 AM, Thersites said:

But I digress. Assuming that by the end of ADWD Jon is executed for sneezing at Ramsay's general direction, and the perfect Lord Commander takes over. An ideal one, not one of the possible alternatives. How would he handle the situation? Waiting to verify the threat could leave the Watch completely undefended. Throwing oneself at the mercy of Ramsay I-made-lady-Hornwood-eat-her-fingers Bolton is not an optimal survival strategy. Neither is "Sorry, your princess is in another castle.".

Yes.  

Frankly, I don't see why it is treason for anyone to want to rescue his sister (or, for that matter, a complete stranger even). Jon received information that his sister was on her way to him and in mortal danger. As Lord Commander, he didn't want to leave his post to rescue her, so he sent someone else. He never told Mance to infiltrate Winterfell since he thought Arya was on her way to him.

He does feel responsible for Mance and Co., and he would be - as a Lord Commander and the number one leader of the Watch, he is responsible for everything and everybody. He is responsible for what Mance does - it doesn't matter whether Mance attacks Winterfell, goes to Skagos, joins the pirates or decides to spend the winter in a cosy pub. But his responsibility comes from his authority, not from ordering Mance to go to Winterfell and steal a woman, which he didn't do. 

Some men of the Night's Watch rescued Alys Karstark, a woman riding on a dying horse (near Mole Town), fleeing from marriage, exhausted by fatigue and hunger. As far as I know, no one has suggested that these men committed treason by rescuing that woman. What Jon told Mance to do was essentially the same thing - the only difference was that Jon sent Mance out to find a family member. 

It is nowhere in the vows that a man of the Night's Watch must not help a woman in distress, that a man of the Night's Watch mustn't help a family member in any way. It is understood that a man of the Night's Watch must not leave his post and must not stop defending the realm to help a family member.

It is one thing to give up your family for a noble purpose when you sacrifice your own advantage. Abandoning a little sister who is turning to you in mortal danger when you are her only and last hope is quite another. Yet, when Jon sent out Mance to find Arya, he never intended to give up his Night's Watch duties: he was still doing his regular job, he was still organizing the defense of the realm. 

When the Pink Letter came, neutrality was impossible. It is not in the vows that the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch must meekly let the organization be slaughtered on a whim. Castle Black has been made indefensible from the south in order to prevent the Night's Watch from attacking the realm, but it does not mean that the Night's Watch has no moral right to self-defense. 

On 2016. 05. 28. at 0:41 AM, Chaircat Meow said:

It is worth noting that Jon claimed that the nw are under no obligation to help Selyse, Shireen and co in his speech to the shieldhall. Granted, you could argue he doesn't privately believe this, but if it was so obvious that standing aside and letting Ramsay have them was wrong he is very unlikely to have said this.

Jon wanted to keep the Watch out of the conflict as much as possible. His Shield Hall speech is designed to discourage the NW men from joining him and at the same to invite the wildlings to do just that. That was a way to protect that NW as an organization - if anyone was blamed, Jon would be the one alone. That is a decision that required great moral courage.

Of course, it would be wrong to hand over a group of women and a baby to a psychopathic killer and a notorious torturer! It would be wrong even if the women and the baby weren't your guests. It is probably doubly wrong when it is your vocation to protect people against inhuman monsters.

There is law and there is morality. The law is made and enforced by those who are in power. If immoral people are in power, then following their orders may be a completely immoral thing to do even if in accordance with the law. Ramsey is in power, yet, from a  moral viewpoint, he is nobody. 

[Wolf's Bane]

On 5/22/2016 at 6:29 PM, Danka Fan said:

 

Ramsay wanted to attack the wall because Jon sent his men to steal his bride!  Jon started that fight.  Sending your men to steal a lord's wife and kill his armsmen in the process is an act of war.

 

This.  Thank you.

[Leticia Stark]

On 04/06/2016 at 10:40 AM, BalerionTheCat said:

Yes, he did that. And I'm glad he did it. Is Arnolf Karstark and Ramsey Snow unhappy with that? Good, because I want these 2 fuckers dead. If the NW vows prevent someone to do the right thing, then these vows are wrong. It is vows like that which made mad kings burning people, without anyone doing anything.

Amen.

[Texas Hold Em]

On 5/21/2016 at 5:59 PM, Franklin VI said:

Jon betrayed the Night Watch when he engaged in illegal activities to help fake Arya get away from her husband. 

1. He allowed a murdered and a night watch traitor like Mance Rayder to escape from execution so he can help Arya.
2. The act of sending your agents to steal the wife of a nobleman is an act of war.  Jon basically declared war on the Boltons.
3. Jon immediately forms an army of wildlings after reading the Pink Letter.  He announced his intentions to ride out and fight the Boltons.  His own thoughts reveal that he was willing to commit treason to help Arya.

 

Sure and that is why he had to be removed from command and stopped.  Justice is done if he stays dead.