Rickon Stark The Aulë Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 46 minutes ago, HallowedMarcus said: Please, what an absurd comparison! No it is not, you only say that because it points out a flaw in your thinking. Congressmen -Democratically elected -Is a leader and representative of the people who voted him in power. -Can be punished with criminal charges if they are tried for a very serious crime ie Treason Jon Snow Lord Commander -Democratically elected -Is a leader and representative of the people who voted him in power. -Can be punished with criminal charges if they are tried for a very serious crime ie Treason The comparison is pretty clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HallowedMarcus Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 11 minutes ago, Rickon Stark The Aulë said: No it is not, you only say that because it points out a flaw in your thinking. One is a feudal system the other is not. GRRM never wrote in his books that an LC of the Watch could get a trial by his own members. This does not happen and it did not happen in Jon's case. Have you ever heard about the Great Council of AC 101 when a few Targaryens were passed over and Viserys Targaryen was ultimately chosen by the assembled nobility? He was chosen/elected by vote. After he was crowned he was King and game over. The Great Council could not depose or get him arrested and tried him! They elected him and...so what? The fact that they elected him does not mean they can undo it or have a trial because of what he did/does. Yes, a Lord Commander of the Night's Watch is elected, but he is elected for life. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rickon Stark The Aulë Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 6 hours ago, HallowedMarcus said: One is a feudal system the other is not. GRRM never wrote in his books that an LC of the Watch could get a trial by his own members. This does not happen and it did not happen in Jon's case. Have you ever heard about the Great Council of AC 101 when a few Targaryens were passed over and Viserys Targaryen was ultimately chosen by the assembled nobility? He was chosen/elected by vote. After he was crowned he was King and game over. The Great Council could not depose or get him arrested and tried him! They elected him and...so what? The fact that they elected him does not mean they can undo it or have a trial because of what he did/does. Yes, a Lord Commander of the Night's Watch is elected, but he is elected for life. Period. I am not going to repeat myself [personalised insult deleted]. If you don't understand the comparison or just deny it because it points out flaws in your thinking then so be it. Deal with it. Congressmen -Democratically elected -Is a leader and representative of the people who voted him in power. -Can be punished with criminal charges if they are tried for a very serious crime ie Treason Jon Snow Lord Commander -Democratically elected -Is a leader and representative of the people who voted him in power. -Can be punished with criminal charges if they are tried for a very serious crime ie Treason The comparison is pretty clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtpimenta Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 5 hours ago, Rickon Stark The Aulë said: I am not going to repeat myself [personalised insult deleted]. If you don't understand the comparison or just deny it because it points out flaws in your thinking then so be it. Deal with it. Congressmen -Democratically elected -Is a leader and representative of the people who voted him in power. -Can be punished with criminal charges if they are tried for a very serious crime ie Treason Jon Snow Lord Commander -Democratically elected -Is a leader and representative of the people who voted him in power. -Can be punished with criminal charges if they are tried for a very serious crime ie Treason The comparison is pretty clear. There are similarities, sure; but there are some differences as well. There's no denial. Was Jon always right? No. He would be a boring hero if he hadn't some conflicts of his own. But I find past odd that people around here can nitpick the hell out of Jon's actions while simultaneously trying to justify treason and murder. Which leads me to the OP and the title of this thread: a weird euphemism, to say the least. Now, some have said that the "noble" and "loyal" Bowen Marsh had no other (honorable) options. To what I answer: Even if we accept that Marsh could not challenge or confront his Lord Commander like a trustworthy fellow nightwatchman, still we must call his action by what it was: murder. Not "removal" nor "impeachment", nor any other disingenuous euphemism. Now, with that out of the way, we can argue about the gist of the question, which is: is murder, sometimes the right thing to do? Was it so in this scenario? Whatever Jon did, it justified his cowardly assassination by the coward Bowen Marsh? I, myself, don't think so. Certainly not by the reasons presented here so far. I think it's very hard to get on the same side of the likes of Ramsay Bolton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFDanny Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 12 hours ago, Rickon Stark The Aulë said: I am not going to repeat myself to a nitwit. If you don't understand the comparison or just deny it because it points out flaws in your thinking then so be it. Deal with it. Congressmen -Democratically elected -Is a leader and representative of the people who voted him in power. -Can be punished with criminal charges if they are tried for a very serious crime ie Treason Jon Snow Lord Commander -Democratically elected -Is a leader and representative of the people who voted him in power. -Can be punished with criminal charges if they are tried for a very serious crime ie Treason The comparison is pretty clear. The comparison is false. Yes, the Lord Commander is democratically elected, but once he is, he is in effect endowed with all the powers of a monarch over the Watch and its lands. He doesn't serve at the pleasure of any Lord or King and cannot lawfully be replaced by them. Nor is there any mechanism to replace him by his fellow brother's of the Watch. The only mechanism for choosing a new Lord Commander is by vote after his death. All of which is clear as can be. None of which means there isn't a history of plots, conspiracies, and wars in which Lord Commanders have been killed and replaced - sometime for good cause. That doesn't make it right to do so every case, or in this case in particular. Nor does it remove the taint of treason to members of the Watch in any instance in which sworn brothers conspired to kill their Lord Commander. it just means that in a very few cases, treason might have been the right choice. That is not the case here. Here we have a group of men who plot Jon's death based on their hatred for the wildlings. Jon is right in his inclusion of the Free Folk as part of the mission of saving the realms of men - the central core of the Night's Watch's mission. It is clear that it is treason committed on the part of Marsh and his conspirators. The only thing that could justify a conspiracy to kill the Lord Commander is if he is aiding and abetting the Others in the war against humanity. Not a disagreement over internal policy of the Watch, not a disagreement of how the Lord Commander reacts to threats from Ramsay Bolton, and certainly not how the Lord Commander chooses to make alliances and rally forces to fight against the Others. All of this is for the Lord Commander to decide. Let me remind everyone that that Night's Watch was a creation from the distant past in a time when there were hundreds of petty kingdoms across Westeros. In that regard, it makes sense that it was not only the Lord Commander's job to command the men on the Wall, but to coordinate the many forces from many different kingdoms should the threat of the Others return. Coordinate, and most likely, to command those forces. That is exactly what Jon is trying to do with Stannis and Free Folk. That is what he is trying to do in getting others to join with the Watch in the upcoming war. The main problem Jon faces is how to unify the Watch, Stannis's forces, the Free Folk, and the lords and people of the North. The biggest stumbling block to all of this is the Boltons and their attempt to gain power in the North. That is the major reason for Jon's decision to march on Winterfell. Not his concern for Arya - who he is told is free from the Bolton's hold and likely coming to him on her own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kissdbyfire Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 9 hours ago, Rickon Stark The Aulë said: You don't have any evidence for that. We aren't talking about some random innocents, I have already gone over why he can't exterminate the Nights Watch. Go read my other comments, I am tired of repeating myself. Ok so don't hate on Bowen Marsh when he kills Jon, Bowen was clearly in the right. END OF STORY. Thank you for ending this argument. Yay, seems you *won* another argument! 9 hours ago, Adam Yozza said: No he wasn't and that wasn't what kissdbyfire said at all. “There is no worse blind man than the one who doesn’t want to see. There is no worse deaf man than the one who doesn’t want to hear. And there is no worse madman than the one who doesn’t want to understand.” -Ancient Proverb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elaena Targaryen Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 On 6/30/2017 at 9:29 PM, JonSnow4President said: While I think he made the right choice, it is blatantly involving himself (and thus the Watch, as he is its most senior officer) in the affairs of the realm, directly planning to kidnap the wife of the reigning Lord Paramount of the North. So from the perspective of a law abiding Watchmen, Jon deserves to be executed. On 7/3/2017 at 6:40 AM, Rickon Stark The Aulë said: He essentially committed Treason, since the Wall is in the North that makes Justice fall to the ruling Lord Paramount or Lord of Winterfell which would be a Bolton. That would make Ramsay well within his rights to kill the Lord Commander for Treason. Just a small point but Ramsay is not the Lord Paramount of the North. The Boltons were not given that title by the crown nor has any northern seat ever had it. The name Stark itself was title enough since they were kings, same for the Lannisters of the westerlands and the vale of Arryn. Now a Lord Paramount could be named under certain circumstances but right now everyone seems more concerned about marrying into the family through the daughters. Roose was given the title of Warden of the North but that is a non hereditary military title, though traditionally kept in the family the crown was not going to name Sansa or Arya, and it was one of Roose's conditions. It only means Roose is the war leader. I'm also not sure that "Arya" couldn't go to the Wall seeking sanctuary nor that it would be treason to aid her... we just don't have enough information here. IIRC the real Arya thinks about going to the Wall throughout the entire series and the Kindly Man offers to send her there, Brienne thinks Sansa could have gone to the Wall when she was wanted for regicide, Alys Karstark also fled to the Wall for help. I'm also curious about the idea of wives leaving their husbands. The only two cases I recall off the top of my head are Alannys Harlaw and Lady Mellario which being of the Iron Islands and Dorne may not be a standard for evidence of the possibility. 10 hours ago, Rickon Stark The Aulë said: No it is not, you only say that because it points out a flaw in your thinking. Congressmen -Democratically elected -Is a leader and representative of the people who voted him in power. -Can be punished with criminal charges if they are tried for a very serious crime ie Treason Jon Snow Lord Commander -Democratically elected -Is a leader and representative of the people who voted him in power. -Can be punished with criminal charges if they are tried for a very serious crime ie Treason The comparison is pretty clear. I don't find that a fitting comparison either. The Night's Watch is a military order so the Lord Commander is the equivalent to a supreme general not a congressman. Just a technicality. The overriding mandate of the NW is to hold the Wall. The only thing that needs to be debated is who was trying to hold the Wall? Is the disagreement between Bowen and Jon only about how best to hold the Wall? Who's actions, for good or ill, most effected the brothers ability to hold the Wall? I do wonder who would be the commander in a fight against the Wight Walkers. Would it be the LC or one of the wardens or the king? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Man Racey Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 On Invalid Date at 0:13 PM, Rickon Stark The Aulë said: Your proof of this is... Roose literally says that it was Ramsay. Proof enough for you? Quote Ramsay killed him. A sickness of the bowels, Maester Uthor says, but I say poison. Roose Bolton to Theon, ADwD, Ch 32 Or you can keep insisting that nobody really believes that Ramsay is guilty of the murder of his own brother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpg2016 Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 On 6/30/2017 at 4:11 PM, Damsel in Distress said: Mance is acting on Jon's behalf on the mission that Jon gave him. Jon is responsible for what Mance and his women do while performing the job that he sent them to do. So yeah, Jon is as guilty of the violation of guest rights as Mance is Not sure how you get this. Guest right is an obligation on the part of a host towards one's guest. And perhaps on the part of a guest towards one's host. We also know there are formalities surrounding it; giving of salt and bread on arrival, or the guest gift on departures. We don't know anything about Mance being given these things, and moreover, it is debatable whether his obligation extends towards fellow guests. And either way, we know that the Boltons and Freys have essentially forfeited their right to guest right due to their actions are the Red Wedding (the Frey's especially). So no, Jon is not in violation of guest right. Arya/Jeyne is not a guest, she is a captive, and ditto Theon, and he doesn't order Mance to kill any of the men inside the walls. Try again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Commentator Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 13 hours ago, BRANDON GREYSTARK said: Bowen Marsh was wrong to remove Jon by assassination , but right trying to remove Jon Snow. Marsh should have done it the right way , find a legal reason to arrest him , then after the appointment of a new lord commander , then try him . The way Marsh did it , now he and every future lord commander must expect an assassin in his future . What reason could he give to have Jon removed ? Taking sides in the war of the five kings . Good grief, that Jon committed enough treason to have him removed many times over. He gave the most dangerous criminal in the yes of the kingdom, Mance Rayder, a pass for the sake of his sister. I would have removed his head for that, were I a member of the Night's Watch. It shows how big of a hypocrite Jon is. He held Slynt to a very strict standard. Sending the man to chill out in a cell for a few days was the more accepted way to handle such a situation. But Jon chose the strictest route and executed him. Not by hanging but by beheading. That was clearly personal and a perversion of justice. And that perversion of justice was magnified many times over when he gave Mance a get-out-of-punishment-card in return for a get-my-sister-out-of-a-bad-marriage favor. Jon's offenses against the Watch is a hundred times worse than Slynt's and that hypocrite expected to get away with it. Furthermore, he was about to magnify his wrongdoings and attack House Bolton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpg2016 Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 12 hours ago, Rickon Stark The Aulë said: I am not going to repeat myself [personalised insult deleted]. If you don't understand the comparison or just deny it because it points out flaws in your thinking then so be it. Deal with it. Congressmen -Democratically elected -Is a leader and representative of the people who voted him in power. -Can be punished with criminal charges if they are tried for a very serious crime ie Treason Jon Snow Lord Commander -Democratically elected -Is a leader and representative of the people who voted him in power. -Can be punished with criminal charges if they are tried for a very serious crime ie Treason The comparison is pretty clear. No, it isn't, and I pity the state of our public education system if this is as far as your knowledge of government goes. First off, Congressmen aren't elected for life, they are elected for a set period, Jon isn't. Second, and much more importantly, Congressmen aren't vested with supreme judicial and executive power, whereas the Lord Commander is. Jon is a king in all but name. An elective king, but a king nonetheless. Third, the fact that the NW doesn't vote by secret ballot undermines the democratic nature of the process. Jon is not a "representative" of the Night's Watch. He is it's supreme executive, it's only judicial authority, and it's legislative branch all rolled into one. Representatives are theoretically supposed to look out for the specific interests of their individual municipal unit. The POTUS, for example, does not. His job is to make a decision that he thinks is in the best interests of the country, not a constituency. Similarly, Jon's job is not to represent the brothers of the Watch; his job is to command them in their fight against the Others. That, and only that, is his job description. He can do whatever he wants with respect to the wildlings, with respect to the Seven Kingdoms, etc as long as he thinks it will serve that one goal. Obviously in normal circumstances it is wise to manage your command well to not provoke a mutiny, but Jon will be killed no matter what, because Bowen Marsh is unhappy with the one policy which unquestionably furthers the goals of the Watch; the rescue and integration of the wildlings into the army of humanity. That is Jon's great triumph (overcoming deep prejudice to understand the wildlings are not the enemy), but it's also the one thing which is getting him killed, because Bowen Marsh has forgotten his oaths. He would rather let humanity die than give up his bigotry. Moreover, even IF all you said was true, it requires a trial to depose a Congressman or Supreme Court Justice or President or anyone else. If I, as a Congressman, go out and kill someone in broad daylight, it is still VERY illegal to kill me the next day, despite the obviousness of my criminality. And while I unfortunately missed this thread because the last one closed and I couldn't find it, we need to always keep this in mind: Bowen Marsh was plotting treason long before the Pink Letter. He never states that the Pink Letter is the proximate cause for the assassination, and the speed with which he assembles reliably co-conspirators make it downright impossible that this is an act of passion. Marsh has been pissed off for a while about Jon letting wildlings through the Wall, and moreover, putting them in positions of high authority within the Watch hierarchy. He's obviously been soliciting other disaffected brothers, which is why he can go straight to them in the aftermath of Jon's decision in the Shield Hall (which again, there is nothing illegal about him going South, it is in support of his only mission). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpg2016 Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 21 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said: Good grief, that Jon committed enough treason to have him removed many times over. He gave the most dangerous criminal in the yes of the kingdom, Mance Rayder, a pass for the sake of his sister. I would have removed his head for that, were I a member of the Night's Watch. It shows how big of a hypocrite Jon is. He held Slynt to a very strict standard. Sending the man to chill out in a cell for a few days was the more accepted way to handle such a situation. But Jon chose the strictest route and executed him. Not by hanging but by beheading. That was clearly personal and a perversion of justice. And that perversion of justice was magnified many times over when he gave Mance a get-out-of-punishment-card in return for a get-my-sister-out-of-a-bad-marriage favor. Jon's offenses against the Watch is a hundred times worse than Slynt's and that hypocrite expected to get away with it. Furthermore, he was about to magnify his wrongdoings and attack House Bolton. This is not true. Jon is legally allowed to pardon whoever the hell he wants. Janos Slynt swore an oath to obey, and broke it. Jon gave him a bunch of chances, and his whole point is that he knows pardoning him will forever undermine his authority. Slynt mutinied, and got punished. And beheading is considering a more honorable form of death than hanging, by the way, so that's undermining your (very weak) argument. And it isn't a perversion of justice; mutiny is often punished by death, because it undermines authority and is dangerous. Washington shot a number of mutineers in the Revolutionary War (the equivalent of a beheading; Major Andre was hung as a spy as a less honorable death), and didn't others, it depended on his assessment of why people mutinied. Slynt is being given command of a castle, which is a position of high authority; he's very clearly refusing to go so he can stay close to the center of power and plot to take Jon's position. And it is unfair to say that Jon gives Mance a full pass. He acquiesces to his execution, after all, and it's only after the fact that he realizes he isn't dead. But again, the point here, legally speaking, is that Jon has every right to pardon Mance. It's within his legal purview, and it does support his main goal of fighting the Others. A lot of people on these boards seem to be the same kinds of bigots that Bowen Marsh is. Jon has one obligation, and one obligation only; to protect human beings from the Others. Anything he does in pursuit of this goal is legal, since he has absolutely authority over the Watch. He literally decides what is law and what is not for the Watch. I guess he also can't sire children or take a crown, but he clearly hasn't done either of those things either. So again, tell me where he's wrong? Bowen Marsh doesn't have the right to assassinate anyone in the dark, but certainly not because he disagrees with his Lord Commander's decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Commentator Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 57 minutes ago, cpg2016 said: This is not true. Jon is legally allowed to pardon whoever the hell he wants. Janos Slynt swore an oath to obey, and broke it. Jon gave him a bunch of chances, and his whole point is that he knows pardoning him will forever undermine his authority. Slynt mutinied, and got punished. And beheading is considering a more honorable form of death than hanging, by the way, so that's undermining your (very weak) argument. And it isn't a perversion of justice; mutiny is often punished by death, because it undermines authority and is dangerous. Washington shot a number of mutineers in the Revolutionary War (the equivalent of a beheading; Major Andre was hung as a spy as a less honorable death), and didn't others, it depended on his assessment of why people mutinied. Slynt is being given command of a castle, which is a position of high authority; he's very clearly refusing to go so he can stay close to the center of power and plot to take Jon's position. And it is unfair to say that Jon gives Mance a full pass. He acquiesces to his execution, after all, and it's only after the fact that he realizes he isn't dead. But again, the point here, legally speaking, is that Jon has every right to pardon Mance. It's within his legal purview, and it does support his main goal of fighting the Others. A lot of people on these boards seem to be the same kinds of bigots that Bowen Marsh is. Jon has one obligation, and one obligation only; to protect human beings from the Others. Anything he does in pursuit of this goal is legal, since he has absolutely authority over the Watch. He literally decides what is law and what is not for the Watch. I guess he also can't sire children or take a crown, but he clearly hasn't done either of those things either. So again, tell me where he's wrong? Bowen Marsh doesn't have the right to assassinate anyone in the dark, but certainly not because he disagrees with his Lord Commander's decisions. Jon is a brother of the Night's Watch and thus obligated to uphold its laws and operate within the parameters of those rules. And it is fair to criticize and condemn Jon for the way he handled the situation with the two men. Slynt's offenses are nothing to compared to what Mance Rayder has done. Letting one go after killing the other is a perversion of justice. Jon's behavior was unethical. The way he handled Slynt was driven by personal feelings. The way he handled Mance Rayder was driven by personal feelings because he let the man get away with his crimes for the sole benefit of his sister. Jon does not have absolute authority over the watch. He is an elected officer. He gets one vote, the same as everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferocious Veldt Roarer Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 1 hour ago, Widowmaker 811 said: Good grief, that Jon committed enough treason to have him removed many times over. He gave the most dangerous criminal in the yes of the kingdom, Mance Rayder, a pass for the sake of his sister. I would have removed his head for that, were I a member of the Night's Watch. It shows how big of a hypocrite Jon is. He held Slynt to a very strict standard. Sending the man to chill out in a cell for a few days was the more accepted way to handle such a situation. But Jon chose the strictest route and executed him. Not by hanging but by beheading. That was clearly personal and a perversion of justice. And that perversion of justice was magnified many times over when he gave Mance a get-out-of-punishment-card in return for a get-my-sister-out-of-a-bad-marriage favor. Jon's offenses against the Watch is a hundred times worse than Slynt's and that hypocrite expected to get away with it. Furthermore, he was about to magnify his wrongdoings and attack House Bolton. Yes, yes. Jon Snow is clearly the villain of the story, with the Boltons and Bowen Marsh unexpected heroes. This is exactly the story GRRM is writing. (Tangent note - kudos for the, quite original, argument "execution by beheading - so much badder than hanging". That was new. You neglected to explain how that makes sense, but I'm not greedy). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Commentator Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 On 7/3/2017 at 10:39 PM, 300 H&H Magnum said: Good Morning Clegane's Pup, Happy 4th of July if you're in the states. I don't have a soft spot for Jon. I dislike him. But I will be fair. Jon sent the wildlings to get Arya from Ramsay. He was not planning on taking Arya and then sending her back to Ramsay, was he? Jon would be less wrong if he was planning to return Arya to Ramsay. You know he was not. He was planning to take Arya away. Does it matter where they find Arya? Not really. Jon was willing to do anything to get his sister. He knew perfectly well that Mance should be executed. He knew perfectly well that sending anybody to take Arya from Ramsay is treason and he knew better than anybody that it's the equivalent of declaring war with House Bolton. Please consider this. Jon had a chance to consider before saying the words and taking his vows. He said his vows. He took the oath. He could have refused the position of LC. He didn't. Jon should respect the limitations and the boundaries of the organization that he joined. If a rule needed to be changed, then change it first, amend it, and make it formal before you take any action that exceeds the limits of that rule. In other words, change the rule and then act. That's not Jon's way, unfortunately. At least not when he's all emotional about his family. I think he knew that what he was about to do would never pass. He would have had a rebellion on his hands if he told the brothers he will let Mance walk and send him to steal his sister from her husband. But he should have tried. That is the proper way to do things. Going off like a he did and hellbent on getting his sister was completely wrong. True Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpg2016 Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 20 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said: Jon is a brother of the Night's Watch and thus obligated to uphold its laws and operate within the parameters of those rules. And it is fair to criticize and condemn Jon for the way he handled the situation with the two men. Slynt's offenses are nothing to compared to what Mance Rayder has done. Letting one go after killing the other is a perversion of justice. Jon's behavior was unethical. The way he handled Slynt was driven by personal feelings. The way he handled Mance Rayder was driven by personal feelings because he let the man get away with his crimes for the sole benefit of his sister. We have no evidence of any laws of the Night's Watch except (a) don't abandon your post, (b) don't marry or sire legitimate children, and (c) wear no crowns. That's it. So don't tell me Jon broke any laws. And it is not fair to criticize Jon's handling. He does as he want. Mance Rayder's only "crime" was desertion. Anything he does North of the Wall is his own business, as Stannis, the arch-legalist, admits.. Slynt is a mutineer. It's a much worse crime; much worse. Janos Slynt refused to obey an order. Whether Jon is pissed about that or not, he doesn't have a choice; to let Slynt live encourages further mutiny, because anyone can disobey for any reason and get away with it. And mind you, don't tell me Jon was acting out of personal dislike - he had just agreed to make Slynt one of the most senior personnel in the Watch despite his dislike, because he thought he'd be qualified! And the way he handled Mance was because he had a unique asset; someone who knew Winterfell and could get in, but also someone who had to trust Jon absolutely or risk being killed. 28 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said: Jon does not have absolute authority over the watch. He is an elected officer. He gets one vote, the same as everyone. This is 100% wrong. He gets one vote in who he elects. Jeor Mormont needed no vote for anything he did. Every piece of evidence says that Lord Commander's have supreme executive authority. Show me one instance of elections or voting outside of the voting for Lord Commander and I'll agree. Every single glimpse we get of the Watch's command structure says that Jon does have absolutely authority, just as previous Lord Commanders did before. In military matters, they get to make the decisions. In judicial matters, they get to make the decisions. There is no standing electoral or legislative body. There are a number of traditions the Watch has adhered to, wrongly in some cases, rightly in others, but only three laws and one of them, we know, is a forgivable offense (desertion). So don't give me this nonsense. If you disagree, quote the text. Otherwise, all we know is that the LC is expected to be obeyed, absolutely, and in all circumstances, no matter how bad. Mormont's killing was clearly a mutiny. We also know the Lord Commander has sole authority to be both judge, jury, and when he desires, executioner. Those are irrefutable facts, however much they may conflict with your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpg2016 Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 13 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said: Please consider this. Jon had a chance to consider before saying the words and taking his vows. He said his vows. He took the oath. He could have refused the position of LC. He didn't. Jon should respect the limitations and the boundaries of the organization that he joined. If a rule needed to be changed, then change it first, amend it, and make it formal before you take any action that exceeds the limits of that rule. In other words, change the rule and then act. That's not Jon's way, unfortunately. At least not when he's all emotional about his family. I think he knew that what he was about to do would never pass. He would have had a rebellion on his hands if he told the brothers he will let Mance walk and send him to steal his sister from her husband. But he should have tried. That is the proper way to do things. Going off like a he did a And again, you've talked a big game about the limitations and boundaries of the organization he joined, but you completely ignore what those are. I haven't. Name me one reason Jon can't send Mance to go get Arya? He isn't prohibited from intervening in affairs south of the Wall, that is just a tradition. and courtesy. His only job is to fight the Others; since Stannis is an active ally, any action he takes in supporting Stannis against a neutral party can be considered as part of his mission parameter. Moreover, Mance is no longer a criminal. He was pardoned implicitly for his desertion. He has never committed another crime. And Arya/Jeyne is a prisoner who is being tortured, so from a legal perspective, he isn't "stealing" anyone. He's liberating her. Whether he knew it would pass muster with his brothers or not is immaterial. He had every right to act as he did, and even if he hadn't, his brothers were going to kill him anyway, as I think has been well reasoned out. So show me where he changed one rule and I'll give your thought some credence. But you haven't. You've spouted a lot of nice-sounding ideas about the limits of elected absolutism and the laws of the Nights Watch, but haven't actually managed to back those up with one piece of evidence. Your whole theory is a straw man. Take one look at the vows of the Nights Watch, which are the only laws we hear of, and your whole point falls apart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Commentator Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 2 minutes ago, cpg2016 said: We have no evidence of any laws of the Night's Watch except (a) don't abandon your post, (b) don't marry or sire legitimate children, and (c) wear no crowns. That's it. So don't tell me Jon broke any laws. I will tell you that Jon broke laws because he did. And it is not fair to criticize Jon's handling. He does as he want. Mance Rayder's only "crime" was desertion. Anything he does North of the Wall is his own business, as Stannis, the arch-legalist, admits.. Slynt is a mutineer. It's a much worse crime; much worse. Need I remind you that Mance Rayder was a habitual trespasser to the kingdom that he betrayed? It was Mance Rayder who led the Wildlngs to attack the watch. Deliberate desertion is worse than being disrespectful. Mance was disrespectful to his superior officer when refused to remove the red cloth and then he left. There is a world's difference between a NW brother who goes to Mole's town for a date, intends to come back in a few hours, and indeed comes back, to Mance Rayder who not only permanently leaves but leads the wildlngs to kill his old comrades. Janos Slynt refused to obey an order. Whether Jon is pissed about that or not, he doesn't have a choice; to let Slynt live encourages further mutiny, because anyone can disobey for any reason and get away with it. And mind you, don't tell me Jon was acting out of personal dislike - he had just agreed to make Slynt one of the most senior personnel in the Watch despite his dislike, because he thought he'd be qualified! And the way he handled Mance was because he had a unique asset; someone who knew Winterfell and could get in, but also someone who had to trust Jon absolutely or risk being killed. There you go. This is what many of us Jon critics have been saying all along. Jon took the opportunity because the one man who could go in and out of anywhere fell on his hands. Indeed Jon sent Mance to get his sister. This is 100% wrong. He gets one vote in who he elects. Jeor Mormont needed no vote for anything he did. Every piece of evidence says that Lord Commander's have supreme executive authority. Show me one instance of elections or voting outside of the voting for Lord Commander and I'll agree. Every single glimpse we get of the Watch's command structure says that Jon does have absolutely authority, just as previous Lord Commanders did before. In military matters, they get to make the decisions. In judicial matters, they get to make the decisions. There is no standing electoral or legislative body. There are a number of traditions the Watch has adhered to, wrongly in some cases, rightly in others, but only three laws and one of them, we know, is a forgivable offense (desertion). Sorry, you are incorrect. IF this were true then the Night's King would have been well within his rights to do what he did. And it could be argued, and has, that what Jon was doing was worse than what the Night's King did. More harmful to the realm in any case. So don't give me this nonsense. If you disagree, quote the text. Otherwise, all we know is that the LC is expected to be obeyed, absolutely, and in all circumstances, no matter how bad. Mormont's killing was clearly a mutiny. We also know the Lord Commander has sole authority to be both judge, jury, and when he desires, executioner. Those are irrefutable facts, however much they may conflict with your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Commentator Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 6 minutes ago, cpg2016 said: And again, you've talked a big game about the limitations and boundaries of the organization he joined, but you completely ignore what those are. I haven't. Name me one reason Jon can't send Mance to go get Arya? He isn't prohibited from intervening in affairs south of the Wall, that is just a tradition. and courtesy. His only job is to fight the Others; since Stannis is an active ally, any action he takes in supporting Stannis against a neutral party can be considered as part of his mission parameter. Moreover, Mance is no longer a criminal. He was pardoned implicitly for his desertion. He has never committed another crime. And Arya/Jeyne is a prisoner who is being tortured, so from a legal perspective, he isn't "stealing" anyone. He's liberating her. Whether he knew it would pass muster with his brothers or not is immaterial. He had every right to act as he did, and even if he hadn't, his brothers were going to kill him anyway, as I think has been well reasoned out. So show me where he changed one rule and I'll give your thought some credence. But you haven't. You've spouted a lot of nice-sounding ideas about the limits of elected absolutism and the laws of the Nights Watch, but haven't actually managed to back those up with one piece of evidence. Your whole theory is a straw man. Take one look at the vows of the Nights Watch, which are the only laws we hear of, and your whole point falls apart. That is tantamount to declaring war on House Bolton. No house would tolerate this kind of interference from the Night's Watch. I agree. His only job is to fight the Others. And he was doing fine until he got it into that thick head of his to steal Arya from Ramsay. That got the whole snowball of tragedies rolling. It was all Jon's fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpg2016 Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 1 minute ago, Widowmaker 811 said: I will tell you that Jon broke laws because he did. Ok... which laws? 1 minute ago, Widowmaker 811 said: Need I remind you that Mance Rayder was a habitual trespasser to the kingdom that he betrayed? It was Mance Rayder who led the Wildlngs to attack the watch. Deliberate desertion is worse than being disrespectful. Mance was disrespectful to his superior officer when refused to remove the red cloth and then he left. There is a world's difference between a NW brother who goes to Mole's town for a date, intends to come back in a few hours, and indeed comes back, to Mance Rayder who not only permanently leaves but leads the wildlngs to kill his old comrades. Well, there isn't anything illegal about wildlings being in the Seven Kingdoms. Once they are there they have to obey any laws, but we have no evidence Mance did so. He was welcomed into Winterfell and did his job and sang some songs. Where's the crime? All he did was desert. Which is a pardonable offense, full stop. And he didn't betray the Seven Kingdoms, he betrayed the Night's Watch. I can tell you're having difficulty with this, but the NW is not part of the Seven Kingdoms, it's an autonomous entity with it's own laws and regulations. Which I've listed. Jon wasn't intending to go to Mole's Town, he was full on deserting to join Robb. Just as bad as Mance. And he gets a pardon and, eventually, a promotion 4 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said: There you go. This is what many of us Jon critics have been saying all along. Jon took the opportunity because the one man who could go in and out of anywhere fell on his hands. Indeed Jon sent Mance to get his sister. OK? And where, exactly, is the crime in that? His "sister" is being held against her will, is being tortured, and this is being done by a family that is actively conspiring to help the Others, whether they know it or not. Weakening the Boltons is actually permissible by the terms of his oath. Quote Sorry, you are incorrect. IF this were true then the Night's King would have been well within his rights to do what he did. And it could be argued, and has, that what Jon was doing was worse than what the Night's King did. More harmful to the realm in any case. This is wrong. The NW has one mission: fight the Others. The Night's King allied with them. Hence, he was taken down. I understand that you don't have a great grasp of legal technicalities, but make an attempt. You have yet to prove any or all of the following: - Did Jon break an explicit law of the Night's Watch? - Did Jon deviate or stray from his only mission parameter, which is to defeat the Others? - Did Jon not have the authority to pardon Mance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.