Daenerys & Mirri Maaz Duur

[sweetsunray]

Just now, SeanF said:

Which would indeed be a crime - on the part of Drogo.  Drogo gives those orders, not Daenerys.

Once Dany is a conspiritor then yes she agrees to it by not disagreeing when Drogo makes that promise.

[SeanF]

4 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

Conspiring to genocide and using rape as war method is crime.

If Daenerys were to give such orders, certainly.  Would you say that genocide and mass rape are the methods she adopts, when she is in command?

[SeanF]

Just now, sweetsunray said:

Once Dany is a conspiritor then yes she agrees to it by not disagreeing when Drogo makes that promise.

It would be a very unusual wife who disagreed with her husband's decree, in a Khalasar, or in Westeros.  That's not a reasonable expectation.

[sweetsunray]

9 minutes ago, SeanF said:

If Daenerys were to give such orders, certainly.  Would you say that genocide and mass rape are the methods she adopts, when she is in command?

No, you are wrong Sean. Here is the explanation on conspiracy (ETA link to conspiracy)

Quote

 

A criminal conspiracy exists when two or more people agree to commit almost any unlawful act, then take some action toward its completion. The action taken need not itself be a crime, but it must indicate that those involved in the conspiracy knew of the plan and intended to break the law. A person may be convicted of conspiracy even if the actual crime was never committed.

For example, Jason, Alice and Hank plan a bank robbery. They 1) visit the bank first to assess its security, and 2) pool their money and buy a gun. All three can be charged with conspiracy to commit robbery, regardless of whether the robbery itself is ever attempted or completed.

The "Agreement" Requirement

You might be wondering how exactly an agreement between two co-conspirators is formed. There's no need for formalities. For instance, in the above example, Hank isn't required to tell Jason and Alice in unequivocal terms, "I agree to commit a crime with you" (although that statement would surely be a prosecutor's dream). Instead, an agreement may be implied from the circumstances, such as where Hank and his two companions hold a meeting to plan the crime.

The Element of "Intent"

As with other specific intent crimes, a person's intention is key. But the court will also care about the mental states of the alleged partners in crime. Other individuals in the conspiracy must intend to agree, and all must intend to achieve the outcome.

Merely associating with people known to be involved in crime doesn't make you a co-conspirator. For instance, just because your friend tells you he is going to burglarize a house doesn't mean you are part of the conspiracy. Not unless you also agree to participate by acting as a getaway driver or helping him scope out the property ahead of time.

The "Overt Act" Requirement

In most jurisdictions, at least one co-conspirator must take some concrete step in furtherance of the plan. In the bank robbery example, this could be rental of a car to use in the crime. The requirement of an overt act prevents people from being thrown in jail for merely talking about a crime. If three drunken friends at a bar speculate about how they would rob a bank together, and none of them ever undertakes any sort of actual action, there's no criminal conspiracy. The intent requirement likely wouldn't be satisfied in that scenario, either.

Penalties

Under the federal conspiracy statute, the offense is punishable by up to five years imprisonment, plus fines. A significantly lower penalty applies if the object of the conspiracy was merely a misdemeanor (e.g., you conspire to commit vandalism); in that case the sentence for conspiracy can't exceed the maximum penalty for the misdemeanor. Under state law, the punishments for conspiracy vary.

Prosecutors commonly charge conspiracy whenever two or more offenders act in tandem. A person can be convicted both of an underlying crime and of conspiracy to commit it, and receive separate punishments for each offense.

 

 

[sweetsunray]

3 minutes ago, SeanF said:

It would be a very unusual wife who disagreed with her husband's decree, in a Khalasar, or in Westeros.  That's not a reasonable expectation.

Dany defies your reasonable expectation by acting as 2nd in command at the village of the Lhazareen and debating twice in public with Drogo over how to proceed further on: on the spoils, and his wound. Dany proves herself to be unusual.

[SeanF]

2 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

Dany defies your reasonable expectation by acting as 2nd in command at the village of the Lhazareen and debating twice in public with Drogo over how to proceed further on: on the spoils, and his wound. Dany proves herself to be unusual.

Dany is not second in command of the Khalasar. That is absurd.

And you condemn her for doing what almost no girl would do in this world, at risk to herself, because she did not do even more, or do it quickly enough, or because she was thinking the wrong thoughts.  That is totally unreasonable.

[Rose of Red Lake]

44 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Yeah she is totally fine with it that's why she feels like crying, why she stops the rape, why she tries to harden her heart against it. 

I don't understand what the posters arguing she is "totally fine with it" hope to gain? She isn't totally fine with it, she expresses that more than once. She is trying to convince herself that this is the price for the IT, that this is war (which it is) in an attempt to feel better about the situation but even that doesn't work as she still cannot stop from speaking up. 

You are right about the pillaging though, it was going to happen regardless if Daenerys wants the IT or not. The pillaging went a different direction depending on Drogo's decisions but it was going to happen whether Daenerys was there or no. 

My point was that she is deciding to intervene over the rape right in front of her, but not in the selling of the slaves to market in a place she's never seen. She's resolved herself to accept some spoils of war, but not others. This at the very least is contradictory (some would say hypocritical). 

Still, the IT is what she values most of all because that's when "the price" comes up and this is what she's willing to pay. She conveniently doesn't have to deal with rape as a price, yet, but it makes no sense for the author to continue to present her with easy choices so she can continue to make conquest without a cost. 

[sweetsunray]

5 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Dany is not second in command of the Khalasar. That is absurd.

And you condemn her for doing what almost no girl would do in this world, at risk to herself, because she did not do even more, or do it quickly enough, or because she was thinking the wrong thoughts.  That is totally unreasonable.

I did not claim Dany is second in command, but that she acted like a second in command, including threatening one of Drogo's bloodriders.

Each case needs to be investigated per individual, not as a blanket for all situation, female or male. It is unreasonable to claim that just because she's a wife or a woman/girl she is by definition innocent.

 

[SeanF]

16 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

No, you are wrong Sean. Here is the explanation on conspiracy (ETA link to conspiracy)

 

Where the case collapses is that Daenerys did not enter into an agreement with any other person to commit rape or genocide or mass murder, or indeed any other criminal offence.    That is what you have to show, in order to convict a person of such serious offences.  At least there's no evidence for it in the text (one can't be certain what she and Drogo discussed in bed).  You need, as it were, to point to the smoking gun.  It's why quite a lot of war crimes trials fail.  Actually, there's more, (at least under English law):-

Lord Bridge in R v Anderson – quoted in R v Hussain said:

"Beyond the mere fact of agreement [to commit the crime] the necessary mens rea [ ie criminal intent] of the crime ...is established if and only if it is shown the accused, when he entered into the agreement, intended to play some part in the agreed course of conduct in furtherance of the criminal purpose, which the agreed course of action was intended to achieve."

So, what is required here is (a) an agreement to commit a crime, between Daenerys and at least one other and (b) intention to play some part in the furtherance of the criminal purpose.  I don't think either (a) or (b) apply in this case.

Nor is she is in the position of the getaway car driver, or lookout,  who abets a theft.   She is not assisting or facilitating murder or rape at the village.  You could say she is guilty of enslavement, but the purpose for taking slaves is to prevent rape and murder, so she would have the defence of necessity.

At the village, she was at best, in command of Ser Jorah and her khas, who she employed trying to prevent crimes, rather than trying to commit them.

Where you are perhaps on slightly firmer ground is in relation to the issue of incitement.  She certainly incited Drogo to go to war with the Seven Kingdoms.  But, I would argue that would not be illegal.  Especially as said government treated her family as public enemies, and had already murdered members of her family. The government in Kings Landing was certainly acting illegally in trying to assassinate her, and Drogo would be entitled to view that attempt as an act of war.

I'm willing to accept there is a degree of moral (if not legal) culpability on her part, on the basis that she did not to her utmost to prevent war crimes from occurring.  Anybody in this world will know that civilians are likely to die in war, and she did not stress to Drogo the need to keep civilian casualties to a minimum.  But, that is a very limited degree of culpability.

PS A very good example of a conspiracy to commit a terrible crime is provided by the television play of that name, about the Wannsee Conference.  Everyone present is discussing the commission of a war crime (the extermination of European Jewry) , voting in favour of it (even if some are unhappy about it) , and discussing and agreeing their allotted roles in the process.  Nothing similar applies to Daenerys' behaviour among the Dothraki.

[Rose of Red Lake]

20 hours ago, SeanF said:

Whether you find Daenerys sympathetic or not (and obviously I do) I think most people would agree that she's the most likely to be killed, of the main six, towards the end of the story.

I think she will fight  against Arianne, and fAegon, kill them and win the Iron Throne.  Which is a pity, because I like Arianne as well.  I think she will play some heroic role in the fight against the Others.  If you were to ask me what will bring her down, I'd suggest it would be trying to enact Egg's reforms, with the firepower that he never had, and then going to far in bringing fire and blood to the nobility.

Can't really complain with that theory, and I wouldn't mind reading it. But I think deep down, Dany doesn't care a fig about reforms in Westeros, she only cares about one thing. She may talk a good game about liberation and freedom but she really just wants to live out Viserys' dreams of returning victorious to the IT and live out the fantasy of the blood of the dragon (that is actually a symbol of oppression). And I think plots will align to show that she has a monster inside of her. Vince Gilligan's interview circuit for Breaking Bad made me think of Dany: "Success not so much changes you as it reveals your true self. And that's what happened with Walter White...there was a monster residing within, and if certain elements hadn't come to pass in just the right way, the monster would have never revealed himself." 

[SeanF]

13 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

I did not claim Dany is second in command, but that she acted like a second in command, including threatening one of Drogo's bloodriders.

Each case needs to be investigated per individual, not as a blanket for all situation, female or male. It is unreasonable to claim that just because she's a wife or a woman/girl she is by definition innocent.

 

The argument seems to be that if she looked on and did nothing, at the village, she'd be in the clear.

But because she intervened to prevent some atrocities, she's to be condemned for not preventing more atrocities.

And while I would not necessarily say married girls are innocent, considerable allowance must be made for their subservient status in this world.  Like everyone else, Daenerys has been brought up to believe that women are inferior to men.

[The Green Bard]

I think that there are 2 angles that haven’t been discussed here wrt Mirri’s actions here.   First, I take her at her word that she was motivated in the tent to end Drogo’s line and its destructive future.   We can take from Dany’s House of the Undying vision that Rheago did have a future if not for the events in that tent.   
 

Then, let’s consider what we know happened in the tent.  The very first thing that she did was kill his horse.  Think about that.  She killed the mount of a man called “Aegon the Dragonlord come again.”  The man he symbolizes was the most famous magically bonded human in recent history.  
I would suggest that Drogo was likely able to skinchange his horse.  That means that she killed the vessel for his second life.   She killed the horse that his consciousness might have been able to reside in when his body died, the thing that would have enable a real resurrection like we all expect will happen with Jon Snow.   Read this way, I see clear intent for MMD to end Drogo.  

So, then, logically, she probably did think that Rhaego was always the price, as she tells Dany, to revive Drogo, but without Any of Drogo in there.  So, then, we all seem to expect she was doing “blood magic” in the tent.  There were also dancing shadows that Dany see.   Nobody really knows what blood magic is, but we can presume that blood is required.  I am going to make a swag that Rhaego gave the magical equivalent of a blood transfusion.  Consider his condition:

“When I touched him, the flesh sloughed off the bone, and inside he was full of graveworms and the stink of corruption. He had been dead for year.”

While MMD is clearly embellishing here, it suggests to me that she replaced the babe’s blood with the corruption that had erstwhile been in his father.  So, I suggest that she wove a spell that transferred the living blood from the son to the father, healing the body, and she transferred the corruption from the father to the son, killing the son.  As far as Drogo’s consciousness, well, I haven’t worked out exactly what the possibilities are, but we know for sure that it wasn’t in his body in the end. Shadow-binding was involved too, so who knows?

[corbon]

4 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Conspiring to genocide and using rape as war method is crime. That was what Drogo promised and what Dany agreed to at the time.

You do realise that the Dothraki don't have the same laws, or even morality, than the modern United States? Westeros is perhaps closer, but even there, war is a very nasty, dirty, brutal business, despite the higher ideals of some. 

Genocide and rape as or during war have been the "normal" standard for most of human history. Only(?) the rise of judeo-christian ethics changed that - at least, for most of the world. Its pretty hard to find a real human culture, not influenced by judeo-christian ethics, that didn't commit widespread genocide, rape and/or slavery when it was at war (and many even when they were not formally at war).

Dany didn't 'conspire' to these horrible things. Just war, which is horrible itself, but a fact of the human condition, with no more than an abstract understanding of all that entails. When actively faced with the reality of what war entails, rather than the abstract knowledge, she acted to change things as much as she could, taking risks to do so.

She ain't perfect.  
But its pretty embarrassing to see people damning a naive 14 year old girl for not understanding the paradigms she was born with before she'd experienced them.

[The Sleeper]

@ corbon you may want to check just how many people have been butchered throughout history in the name of those "judeo-christian ethics" (the quotes apply to both the "judeo-christian" as the "ethics" part), because frankly it reads like joke in extremely poor taste. 

[corbon]

4 minutes ago, The Sleeper said:

@ corbon you may want to check just how many people have been butchered throughout history in the name of those "judeo-christian ethics" (the quotes apply to both the "judeo-christian" as the "ethics" part), because frankly it reads like joke in extremely poor taste. 

People are people, and those in power almost always corrupted by it. They'll do butchery in whatever name they can use for their purposes regardless of the actual ethics behind that name. This includes theoretical 'Christians" (who often don't actually practice the ethics inherent to that name) as much as anyone else.

What other ethical force, in history, has acted against the institution of slavery, has made any effort to apply self limiting rules on warfare and butchery?
Romans, Greeks, Persians, Huns, Celts, Germanic tribes, Central American civilisations, Zulus, other african tribes, muslims throughout their history, the central and southeast asian civilisations that I can think of, the Chinese civilisations... the only force outlawing slavery and reducing genocide and rape as weapons of war has been the slow emergence of judeo-christian ethics to actually be applied in the nations with that heritage, and to the rule of Law.

An aggressively-ignorant blind eye to this fact is a characteristic of post-modern, post-truth teaching.

 

 

[The Sleeper]

37 minutes ago, corbon said:

People are people, and those in power almost always corrupted by it. They'll do butchery in whatever name they can use for their purposes regardless of the actual ethics behind that name. This includes theoretical 'Christians" (who often don't actually practice the ethics inherent to that name) as much as anyone else.

What other ethical force, in history, has acted against the institution of slavery, has made any effort to apply self limiting rules on warfare and butchery?
Romans, Greeks, Persians, Huns, Celts, Germanic tribes, Central American civilisations, Zulus, other african tribes, muslims throughout their history, the central and southeast asian civilisations that I can think of, the Chinese civilisations... the only force outlawing slavery and reducing genocide and rape as weapons of war has been the slow emergence of judeo-christian ethics to actually be applied in the nations with that heritage, and to the rule of Law.

An aggressively-ignorant blind eye to this fact is a characteristic of post-modern, post-truth teaching.

 

 

I'm really not sure why I'm discussing this, but the emergence of Christianity two thousand years ago did not make any appreciable difference in excersise of warfare. It served as an excuse for it as much as anything else did. The early church in particular reached what constitutes modern dogma by exterminating anyone who had a different understanding of it. 

Generally speaking non Christian people did not always do the worst they could nor did Christian peoples refrain from it.

As for the spread of the rule of Law (and Christianity for that matter) you might want to check those nasty Romans you are so dismissive about.

Of course the unavoidable question would be who exactly is this occupant of this moral highgound who emerged and saved the world from those nasty heathens. Hmm? 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

18 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

No, because Jorah's was the closing comment. And his comment shows that Dany informed Drogo on everything else: the wine seller, the poison, who wants her and their son assassinated.

Yes, the text tells us Dany told Drogo of the wine seller & poison. But the 'this is the first of many attempts' came from Jorah & Dany doesn't chime in there. I'm honestly not sure what the disagreement is here; I said Dany tried to persuade Drogo earlier & Jorah uses some manipulation here. 

18 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

And George did not write the whole conversation, because that's bad writing - too repetitive in one and the same chapter.

... Yeah, Dany told him but she doesn't chime in on Jorah's comment about there going to be more attempts on her life- which is the part of the conversation that makes Drogo change his mind right? 

18 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Her supportive thoughts are how she sees any Dothraki as someone she respects, even Ogo's captured "women and men", how the Lhazareen are cowards (or are you now so agreeing with Dany's POV that you truly believe those are factually cowards?) and aliens to her.

Why do that? It overshadows, what might have been, an otherwise sound argument, to suggest things I have not suggested or implied. 

I wouldn't call respecting the Dothraki or seeing some of the Lhazareen "supportive" thoughts on the attack on them. Certainly, it shows her frame of mind in regards to the two people. She lives with one & is dependent on them, has grown somewhat accustomed to their ways & taken on some of their viewpoints. 

 

18 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

George wrote a POV who starts of curious, wants to see for herself, fascinated, non-sceptic, non-critical except the "enemy". The only half-sympathetic thoughts for the Lhazareen that she has initially is that she "pities" the newly captured Lhazareen survivors being rounded up, and she pities them because they are fearful. She doesn't pity them for the families they lost, their crop, sheep and home destroyed, or even their loss of freedom. She equates these people's fears with the fear of her wedding night. Those are supportive thoughts and feelings on what happened and is happening.

Again, I don't know how any of this is supportive thoughts. She is curious, non-skeptic, wants to see for herself -> pities them, sympathizes with them -> empathizes with them -> stops some of the abuse. 

She equates their fears with the most fearful she has ever been, that is empathizing no? Not anything supportive there. 

If your argument is the reason she pities them, I don't really understand it. She pities them for what she can relate to; fear. 

18 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Her support starts to waver when she sees a girl near her age being gang-raped. That was her worst fear when she was to wed Khal Drogo, and so for the very first time she starts to truly identify with one of the victims there. And when Jorah tells her that the supposed bravest of Dothraki men (the fighters, the riders) fled from battle (Ogo's riders), she gives into this surge of empathy she felt, an empathy that she isn't shown to feel before, except for pitying the rounded Lhazareen captives for being fearful.

I disagree there was any support shown to begin with but I do agree this is when she fully starts to identify with one of the victims. I don't comprehend why it matters whether she pities them for being fearful or for losing crops & family. Nor do I understand what bearing the catalyst for giving into her empathy was. 

It would make a difference to me if this was the 3rd attack she was riding through the aftermath of & had never done anything to stop it or felt any empathy or sympathy before & now, after seeing some of the Dothraki flee, decided the Lhazareen were worth of her empathy. But she feels empathy & sympathy as soon as she assesses the situation & soon after speaks up. 

18 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Which is the point: she doesn't emote for the first two pages.

Yes, but you used this lack of emoting as evidence that she was fine with what was going on (in an earlier post, this post you call it curious, wanting to see for herself etc) My contention is that the lack of emotion is no more evidence toward her being fine with it than it is her being not fine with it. 

18 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

I never claimed "she has witnessed this before". I claimed, quite logically, that her retinue (handmaidens and khas) and Drogo informed her on that long way between Vaes Dothrak and the village of the Lhazareen what the Dothraki way of warfare is. Her handmaidens and khas and Drogo have been educating her about what to expect and what will come since before her arrival at Vaes Dothrak: what life is like at Vaes Dothrak, the laws, later the eating of the heart. There's just no reason to believe they haven't done so off-page in between Vaes Dothrak and the village of the Lhazareen, unless in your mind you cling to Dany being a complete blank slate, an accidental bystander who reports to the reader.

IIRC, my statement that she hadn't seen this sort of thing before was what prompted your past, present, & future tense argument. There was likely some conversation in regards to what would happen but do you think everything has been detailed out for her bit by bit? Down to who & when will pull the arrows from the dead bodies? I think that would be a little silly. Surely she asked some questions, was told some things, & picked up other things; besides being old enough to understand what war means. She was not completely ignorant of what was going to happen, no. But again, hearing is not seeing. There are great many number of things that people react differently to when being told it happened vs if they saw it happen or saw the aftermath of it. 

18 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

You called this "baseless speculation," because it's not on page. It is on page, but it's not written as a chapter, because it's bad writing if George would have written a chapter of conversation and "it is knowns" where Dany learns that Drogo is not directly riding for Meereen or Volantis to board ships; that it requires a lot of gold to pay for ships for 10000 men and women and as much horses; that they will have to raise money by capturing slaves and thus attack settlements; where Dany thinks "oops, didn't realize that earlier on, but makes sense. Well, I guess that's the price for the Iron Throne"; where she inquires with her khas and her handmaids how Dothrakis tend to attack, etc... 

When something isn't on page but implied, we cannot attribute details to it. We can give it broad strokes & educated guesses as to what happened but what I understood you to mean is that Dany knew exactly what was going to happen in the attack & since she didn't say anything against it she was fine with it. I'm saying sure, she knows they need a lot of gold to pay for ships, at some point she was told that gold would come from selling people into slavery, at some point she became aware they were attacking the Lhazareen. The issue here is that she has no say in any of this so to not be told of her being against it doesn't mean she was ok with it. I think her inner monologue makes it clear she is not ok with it but is trying to convince herself she is or that it is the price she must pay for the IT.

19 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Really, Lyanna<3Rhaegar, does it truly require George to become a bad writer who has to write every conversation out line per line at any moment of her voyage for you to come to terms with the fact that Dany is being informed by her retinue and Drogo on things to come? Do you truly believe that George would use the wrong tense to describe what is happening at the time that Dany sees it? And you're the one criticising my reading abilities?

Of course not, Dany was not bound & blindfolded. She could see around her, hear around her, she was able to ask questions & obtain answers. But that doesn't mean she was completely informed on every detail, nor that she was completely prepared to witness it. 

I have not intended to criticize your reading abilities & whatever I've said that has given you that impression, I sincerely apologize for. 

19 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Your opinion is wrong.

I stand corrected. 

19 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

She does more than "note the differences". They look "alien" to her. And no, I don't think that's normal. I have backpacked central and south America for years on my own, often months on end, stayed and lived in remote villages with their own dress and particular local identifiers. I've revisited those villages over the years and noticed the differences: going from cultural native attire to everyday modern hairdos and attire. Not ever did people look "alien" when I noticed the differences. Instead it always feels as "familiar" to me (a second home), despite the differences over time or between this region and that region. 

Your experience doesn't fit here though. Dany isn't looking at 2 groups of people she is familiar with & calling one "alien" 

This would be a kin to, before you had ever spent any time in any remote villages, looking at the people from different villages & thinking they are the same, they look the same. Then later, after spending time with one group, coming upon another group & thinking "Wow, I can't believe I ever thought these two peoples were the same or looked the same. There are clearly differences here, so much so that this new group of people are unfamiliar to me" 

19 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

You accuse me of bias, but you're the one who says "I don't think she sees them as alien", despite the quote I quoted twice now explicitly saying "they looked alien to her", and "George uses future past tense to describe what Dany is seeing in her present." I get that you cling to "what is not explicitly written I can call baseless speculation," but well turns out that even if George explicitly writes something, you deny it too.

To be fair, I still don't attribute the meaning to that word that you do. I read this as her noting that the Lhazareen are unfamiliar to her when once she wouldn't have been able to tell them & the Dothraki apart. 

I don't cling to anything not expressly written is baseless speculation, nor do I deny things explicitly written. I didn't recall the quote, simple as that. 

19 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

But he did agree with her to go to Westeros, eventually. If Drogo doesn't agree with her one moment, she either nags him over it repeatedly, uses whatever opportunity that presents itself to her advantage, orders her khas and Jorah to kill any of Drogo's riders if they resist her command, and threatens Drogo's bloodrider in front of Drogo with "dragons eating horses and sheep alike". 

He doesn't agree with her, her argument falls on deaf ears, else why would Jorah's argument be needed? 

When does she tell her khas  & Jorah to kill any of Drogo's riders that resist her? 

Yes, her threatening the bloodrider is within the same instance that we are talking about. 

She could just as well have gotten Jorah & her khas killed when she told them to stop the others. It was by skill & luck that she didn't. Jorah & the khas skill must've surpassed the riders they were stopping & luck that Drogo sided with her. 

Using whatever opportunity presents itself to her advantage is innovation, not power. 

19 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Do you truly want me to also quote 2 pages of Dany ordering her khas and Jorah and Dothraki riders that she can take the women for her own spoils, and the whole conversation with Drogo over it, including the several mentions that she's the blood of the dragon and nobody tells her what she can and cannot do? And not solely on the matter of the Lhazareen women she claims, but on Drogo being seen to immediately.

No, I want you to quote some of the "plenty" of times she speaks bluntly & against the Dothraki, other than the one time we are speaking on; you list them "2 pages of ordering her khas & Jorah, convo w/ Drogo, being blood of the dragon, can't tell her what to do" as if this is more than one instance. These things were all said in this one instance. 

Yeah, she wants Drogo seen to immediately by one of the khalasar healers & they ignore her. Mirri steps up & Dany asks the Khal to let her tend to him. This is not speaking bluntly nor is it holding any power. Do you not see the difference in ordering the riders to stop raping & claiming the women for herself & expressing that she wants the khal attended to? One thing is going against Dothraki custom & is an order, the other is done in worry for her husband the Khal & is ignored. If she had any power would she not order the healers to come tend Drogo? Order Drogo to let Mirri tend him? 

19 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Sure, Drogo has the ultimate say over it, but Dany certainly is not powerless, not in any way that you argument.

She absolutely has no power. She isn't mistreated anymore, true but every single bit of any agency she holds is through Drogo. If Drogo disagrees with her, her word is nothing. This is evidenced by what happens when Drogo dies - Daenerys is nothing, she holds no power on her own.  It is very odd to me that a woman who was sold by her brother to a horselord & forced to marry, was raped repeatedly, has conformed to the Dothraki ways, but gets her way because she is pregnant with the Khals prophecied son could be seen as having any power, whatsoever. 

I think you are confusing Drogo's "kindness" with Dany's power. The fact of the matter is if Drogo wanted to abuse her every day & night, wanted to allow his khalasar to use & abuse her, wanted to have her whipped or otherwise punished for stopping the riders rape, wanted to kill her & her unborn child - he would be seen as perfectly within his rights to do so. Because Drogo seemingly cares for her, these things do not happen but they certainly aren't stopped because of any power Dany has. 

19 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

No, the first time she makes Drogo go against custom is when she manages to have him agree to cross the poisoned waters. Nor is it the only time. Immediately after she presses Drogo into being treated for his wound immediately.

"managing to have him agree" & "pressing him" are not "making" him. She has some persuasion over him, yes. She uses that to her advantage, but she cannot "make" Drogo do anything unless Drogo allows him self to be made. 

We don't know if custom decrees the Khal is treated last after a battle, it seems more likely the custom is the other way around, but still she does not get her way. She wants the Khal to be treated first by the healers & is ignored. He then agrees to be treated by Mirri, to appease her. If he did not care about appeasing her or if he were a different man he would have ignored this just like he ignored her pleas to go to Westeros. 

It was Jorah's argument that ultimately convinced the Khal, does Jorah hold power in the khalasar too?

19 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

The point is that if Dany feels it strongly and deems it necessary, she will speak out and depending on the circumstances act as if she has the power and authority. If she can do this when she does, Dany is fully capable of doing it at other times too.

She is always capable of it, she just always isn't going to get her way. The only reason she is capable of it is because Drogo allows it. Would you not, choose your commands wisely & sparingly knowing that there is just as much chance that you will be overridden & potentially punished as there is you will be agreed with? 

The stance that because Daenerys gets away with it once means she could have gotten away with it all the time is just unfounded. 

20 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

es, Drogo rationalizes it. He boasts that his son is making her fierce. The reason he agrees in that instant is because she's fierce, like a Dothraki. And that makes Dothraki respond positively.

Yes but either way it is still his decision to make. She had no idea if he would or wouldn't see things this way & was lucky he did. She was brave to step up not knowing. 

20 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

But no, you keep arguing that Dany is powerless "in theory", but half an hour before that, and "powerless" a day before that, etc. Practically, she's not, and she has learned to use the power she has to make Drogo agree and make others do what she wants to happen, when she deems it necessary for a long while already. 

She has no power to make Drogo agree - that's the issue here. She uses persuasion to try to get him to agree but she can never make him. If he disagrees, he disagrees & that is that. She holds some power over Jorah & her handmaidens certainly. But she holds no power over Drogo & his khalasar. I'm sorry but we are maybe just not going to see eye to eye on this & may need to just agree to disagree. 

Being able to persuade someone, occasionally, to do what you want them to do is a far cry from holding power over them. If she truly held any power she could & would command Drogo & the khalasar to do what she wants. 

20 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

In theory they hold zero power. In practice, women can exert power within a khalasar.

Not at all. Women can, as evidenced by Dany, try to get their husband to see their way, to agree with & back them in their assertion. This is not exerting power. 

20 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

You argued as if Dany's a complete innocent bystander, who's powerless and could never dissuade Drogo from attacking, killing and raping the Lhazareen, and only matter-of-factly reporting what she sees. You argue as if she was dragged to and dropped in unaware and utterly powerless out of thin air.

She is powerless & couldn't dissuade Drogo from attacking the Lhazareen. At one point he may have considered what she had to say if she were arguing to attack some other village rather than the Lhazareen but Drogo is a Dothraki horse lord. He is not going to be dissuaded from doing what their entire culture is built on & after the attempt on Dany & Rhaego's life & Drogo's decision to go to Westeros to destroy that threat he would not have been persuaded otherwise. 

Was she not dragged & dropped, powerless & pretty unaware into her situation? She was sold to Drogo for an army. She was made to marry him & consummate that marriage by threat of harm. 

She doesn't even succeed in persuading Drogo to not rape the Lhazareen, only to leave the women she has claimed alone. He basically tells his riders to go find someone else to rape. 

At the point of the attack on the Lhazareen she is no longer so unaware but she is still very much a captive. Is she free to go as she pleases? Is she free to not be married to the Khal or not partake in their way of life? 

20 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

My point is that this picture of Dany you paint is a myth. Dany doesn't live in a bubble in the khalasar. She's not completely innocent, she's not powerless, doesn't act powerless, came prepared and informed, and isn't utterly naive either. She isn't the khal either, didn't actively participate in the killing and eventually does act and speak against some of the atrocities done. Dany's complicity is somewhere in the middle of this. She's more complicit than her handmaidens, she proves herself to have more power than Drogo's bloodriders, and she wasn't against the attack until well after it was done. She only acts against what happens to some of the "spoils".

The handmaidens are being forced to be there just as she is. Because Dany is treated "kindly" by Drogo at this point does not negate the fact that she was forced into that life. She is kind to her handmaidens as well but they have no more choice than she does in living life among the khalasar. 

She doesn't prove herself to have more power than the bloodriders. Her threat to them is if they don't obey the Khal will know why. If she is more powerful than them in her own right why the need to threaten them with the Khal? 

She only acts against that which she sees. 

20 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

My point of Dany's choice of timing of speaking up is that this does make her complicit. And to go back to the op, that if this was a modern day robbery, she'd be the girlfriend of the leader of the gangsters who on the one hand convinced her boyfriend to give her something, that requires him to commit the robbery and that she's basically the look-out with her own bodyguard on the scene who berates her boyfriend's gangsters for getting people killed and has her bodyguard kill a fellow gangster for raping one of the hostages. When the police arrives at such a scene and arrests people, she'd be arrested and risks being charged as a complicitory of murder (including murder of the robberers).

But you are leaving out, entirely, that she is a captive & not there on her own freewill. Given her circumstance the fact that she had the courage to attempt to stop anything is utterly amazing. 

20 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Even when a fellow robberer or bystander gets shot by a policeman, both a conspiritor or an accomplice of the robbery can be charged with "first degree murder" under the felony murder rule, even if they're not actually present at the crime scene. And for conspiracy the actual crime agreed to (let's say invading Westeros) doesn't need to have been acted out yet. Crimes and actions done in preparation of it can cause a conspiritor to end up being charged with first degree murder under the felony murder rule.

Again, though the issue with this is she isn't a fellow robber, she is a captive among these people in every real sense of the word even by Westeros standards, but even more so by today's standards. 

If we are judging by in universe standards she is not guilty because it is not seen as a crime what the Dothraki do, it's their way of life & no one tries to punish them for it. By todays standards she is not guilty because she has been forced to be a part of these people & do what she can to survive among them. 

20 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Dany becomes a main conspiritor when she gets Drogo to agree to invade Westeros. She, Jorah and Drogo are conspiritors. The attack on the Lhazareen is not a separate crime. It's a concrete step taken to further "invading Westeros". The felony murder rule holds that when one person intends one wrongful act they also intend the consequences of it, even if they did not foresee it. Hence, it's enough for just Drogo to decide and execute it, for Dany to be convicted of conspiracy. She could get up to 5 years imprisonment for it and fines, even though Drogo never got to invade Westeros.

I don't want to sound like a parrot but to apply you would need to cite the laws in regards to captives. If a captive persuades a captor to do something in which will gain her some power in her own right, is she to be held responsible for the crimes the captor commits to get to that goal?

20 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

That's the hard-line prosecutor's loophole in either charging or threatening Dany with the charge of aiding and abetting. That's where the arguments come in whether Dany had that power. Defence would argue - she was a child bride to this violent khal and women have no authority or power. The prosecution only has to show that Dany commanded warriors and enforced her will. Since she did that, trying to stop further rape, then the prosecution can indeed argue that Dany was in some capacity to prevent the attack altogether, and that she failed to do it, despite being able to use many other tactics to persuade Drogo from doing what she wants, despite having been informed of what will happen in the village of the Lhazareen. She's now charged with being an accomplice, with aiding and abetting.

Defense would be correct in arguing she was a child bride to this violent khal, that women have no authority or power, & that she did what was within her means to stop what she could. I think it would be a very ill advised & misguided case for a prosecutor to argue that because Dany, sold into marriage with a violent horselord in command of a violent army, was overwhelmed to the point that she put her own self at risk to stop the rapes of the women she was witnessing is an accomplice for not doing more. It would be very easy IMO to argue that she didn't know if she would get away with what she did, let alone more. I cannot imagine a jury convicting such a woman under these circumstances & if they did, shame on them. 

20 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Indifference is a peculiar term. Someone witnessing a crime being committed, reporting it, and failing to act to stop it, is acting "indifferent", though it is not necessarily "reckless indifference"

How is reporting a crime being indifferent to it? You are not required to intervene if harm can come to you while doing so. 

20 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

She acts with reckles indifference to Drogo's promise of raping and pillaging Westerosi and the unforeseen deadly consequences for others along the way to it. She acts indifferent to the life of a human boy. She is not indifferent to rape, but in the process orders men killed if they refuse to obey her command. 

If she has no ability to report the crime or Drogo's intentions & that is a prerequisite of being reckless indifference than how can she be acting with reckless indifference? 

Not acting on the abuse to the little boy is not acting indifferent if you do not have the power to stop it. She acted on a whim with the rapes & it turned out good for her but there was no guarantee it would. 

Quote

 

"Make them stop," she commanded Ser Jorah

"Khaleesi?" The knight sounded perplexed.

"You heard my words," she said. "Stop them." She spoke to her khas in the harsh accents of Dothraki. "Jhogo, Quaro, you will aid Ser Jorah. I want no rape."

The warriors exchanged a baffled look.

Jorah Mormont spurred his horse closer. "Princess," he said "you have a gentle heart, but you do not understand. This is how it has always been. Those men have shed blood for the khal. Now they claim their reward."

...

"She is a lamb girl," Quaro said in Dothraki. "She is nothing, Khaleesi. The riders do her honor. The Lamb Men lay with sheep, it is known."

"It is known," her handmaid Irri echoed.

"It is known," agreed Jhogo, astride the tall grey stallion Drogo had given him. "If her wailing offends your ears, Khaleesi, Jhogo will bring you her tongue." He drew his arakh. 

"I will not have her harmed," Dany said. "I claim her. Do as I command you, or Khal Drogo will know the reason why." 

 

When & where does she order men killed if they refuse to obey her command? 

20 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

For me, Dany conspired to something with unforeseen consequences, but that does not make her entirely innocent of those consequences, even if Drogo decided it and she did not actively participate in it.

Ok, so I can agree with this. I can agree she conspired to something with unforeseen consequences & my biggest argument against her in this whole thing is that she still wanted the IT after witnessing the aftermath of the Lhazareen, after knowing how she felt watching the women be raped. 

While I don't think she could have stopped Drogo from continuing on his journey, because an attempt on his Khaleesi's life is likely seen as a grave insult that a Khal cannot let go unanswered, we could have gotten internal monologue from her saying something to the affect that this isn't worth it, that she doesn't want the throne anymore, not if this is what it cost her. Instead we have her thinking that this could be her home if only she wasn't meant to sit the throne or something to that affect, & that is where she becomes totally complicit here IMO. She would have been told previously to an extent, yes but after seeing it, witnessing it, feeling it, still wanting to continue (whether or not she had any sway over continuing) is proof positive that there is no cost too great, nothing she will not pay for the IT. 

Because what she was asking before this, she didn't know the cost of, not totally, I cannot, in good faith, blame her for attempting to retake what she believes to be her birthright. There are too many others believing they are claiming their birthright or that they are fighting on the side of justice that know exactly the cost; Stannis, Renly, Robert, Robb, Balon, & choosing to do it anyway for me to fault Daenerys who knows very little of war in comparison to the rest of them. 

20 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

However, apart from having one of Drogo's raping warriors killed, she was also not an active participant, nor could she have aided Drogo and his warriors in any significant manner. This makes her share of responsibility all in all very minor. I just utterly disagree that she has no share of responsibility in it whatsoever.

Quote

I don't recall this. I've skimmed the chapter looking for it but either I'm missing it or you are mistaken. 

20 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Euhm what? Being ok with your husband massacring a town is entirely different with being ok with a man begging for change.

Absolutely that was my stance. You, first, compared the man begging for change & someone not feeling empathy to towards them to the boy being tortured & killed & someone not feeling empathy toward them to argue against my assertion that someone  watching the latter & feeling nothing is a sociopath. The two things are too far off from each other to make any meaningful comparison. 

21 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Dany becomes the cops at some point, telling her khas to shoot any rider not following her command, and them actually doing that.

What I believe you are referring to is in the next chapter when she tells her khas to kill Qotho when he is trying to enter the tent to kill Mirri. She doesn't tell them to kill any rider not following her command & while this does, on the surface show some semblance of power in her own right, the khas are guarding their Khal, Mirri is said to be helping & healing him. The power there still lies with Drogo. 

 

She does become the cops at some point but it is after Drogo dies, after the attack on the Lhazareen, when she is ruling in her own right. 

21 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

And as I have shown above, at least in the US, your mental state, your feelings towards someone else's murders when you are either at the scene, a participant or influencer of that murderer do dtermine whether you are complicit of their actions or not in the eyes of criminal law or not. So, your claim that your feelings, your mental state do not dictate in the slightest whether you're complicit or not is completely WRONG. This mental state, these feelings, have in the past determined whether someone ended up on death row or not.

How you felt in a certain situation cannot be proved in a court of law. Only your actions. Your mental state (which I didn't argue against) is used but is assessed via a trained psychologist & therefore can be stated with some certainty. My feelings or Daeneryss feelings have absolutely nothing to do with it. You have to behave indifferently, behave maliciously etc. It is not enough to say someone "felt" indifferent. To begin with the person being accused can just say that  isn't how they felt & there are none who can prove it wrong. Secondly, one can feel indifferent but behave otherwise, for various reasons & vice versa one can feel very distressed at the situation but behave indifferently, for various reason. If someone feels indifferently but acts otherwise they are not judged on how they may have felt, thus feelings cannot & do not determine whether someone ends up on death row. There has to be some proof of feeling, some action & that is what they are being judged on, their actions, not their feelings. 

 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

21 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

I'm not criticising her for the "if she must". I'm not even criticising her for not being eager to sacrifice her life. I'm criticising her for her "Do it" the moment she is reassured it won't be her life being sacrificed, but that of others. And there's nothing odd about criticising someone who decides immediately and with conviction that others will have to pay with their lives so Drogo at death's door may live a life that is unkinder than death.

You find it normal that people have no qualm at someone else dying just so their husband can live?

I see, no not necessarily normal. But she is in a distressed, tragic state of mind, desperate to keep her husband alive. I think there would be more people than you think willing to let someone else die for their loved one to be saved, especially if they didn't have to kill them themselves. 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

21 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

This has nothing to do with "good Samaritan" laws, but the "felony murder rule". See my prior post.

The felony murder rule you posted just doesn't apply here. You aren't using all the information. She is a captive & has a very reasonable fear of harm &/or consequences to herself for defying the Dothraki. 

 

[SeanF]

54 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

 

 

All good points, but I wish to address, once again, the issue of "conspiracy".  There is no crime called conspiracy.

There is an offence of Conspiracy to Commit...…..any number of offences, such as conspiracy to murder, conspiracy to defraud etc.  The fundamental points are that Daenerys did not (a) agree to commit a crime with at least one other person and (b) intend to play some part in the furtherance of a criminal purpose.

You could charge her with conspiracy to commit murder/theft/enslavement etc. if she had been sitting in on strategy meetings with Drogo and his commanders, at which they discussed the murders and thefts and enslavement which they would be committing, she was commenting and putting forward suggestions,  and she had agreed to take some part in this - ie killing and robbing, or organising the logistics for the people who were killing and robbing.

You are also correct to raise the point that she was essentially a captive, even if her captor grew to love her.  

You can't charge her with conspiracy to wage war against the Seven Kingdoms, because that is no crime.  Especially not in a world in which war is considered an entirely legitimate way of resolving political disputes.