Legal Justification for the NW to march on WF

[The Young Maester]

6 hours ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

True, but the laws they do have pertaining to the NW prohibit what Jon wanted to do. 

Sure, but who decides this. Because Jon can just say he was protecting the realm by attacking the Boltons since they are considered a threat for a united front.

[Frey family reunion]

16 hours ago, SeanF said:

The Boltons and Freys committed treason, and the Freys breached guest right.  The regime in whose name they acted usurped power.  Jon provided military aid to the man with the most lawful claim to the Iron Throne.  So far as the law means anything, it’s on Jon’s side.

I think the issue is, that it doesn’t matter what these Lords did to each other, once you take the Night’s Watch oath, you vow not to get involved in these matters of politics, no matter who is right or who is wrong.  

[Here's Looking At You, Kid]

What Jon did cannot be justified in legal terms.  He broke the laws of Westeros and the rules of the Night's Watch.  He put his love for Arya ahead of his duties at the wall.  The stories of Jon and Robb are examples of leaders who failed because they lacked inner strength.  They had fatal character defects which made them unsuitable for leadership.

[Brynden"Bloodraven" Rivers]

1 hour ago, Here's Looking At You, Kid said:

What Jon did cannot be justified in legal terms.  He broke the laws of Westeros and the rules of the Night's Watch.  He put his love for Arya ahead of his duties at the wall.  The stories of Jon and Robb are examples of leaders who failed because they lacked inner strength.  They had fatal character defects which made them unsuitable for leadership.

No, he didn’t do it because of Arya. There is literally no thoughts of Arya in Jon’s head when he declares a March against the Boltons. He knows Ramsay doesn’t even have Arya. It is stated in the Pink Letter. Jon does this mostly for vengeance and survival. Jon cannot fight three enemies at once. The Weeper, the Others and the Boltons. Here, the Boltons are the easiest to defeat because they are already wounded by Stannis(pink letter not official canon). There is also the right of self defense against attack by a minor lordling. Ramsay has no jurisdiction. He cannot command the Watch to do anything. If the letter came from Roose however, Jon should turn over prisoners and try to act accordingly with Roose’s instructions. It comes from Ramsay who has no authority or jurisdiction to command anyone except for the peasants on the land he is allotted 

[Jaenara Belarys]

20 hours ago, Targaryeninkingslanding said:

Legal justification is a tricky thing. As @Lord Lannister says, in Westeros, might is often right. One major consequences of this is regime change. This is important because alliances and treaties are not often between realms in themselves, but between houses and organizations. Regime change offers the opportunity to break said alliances.

 

I realize that, and that's why a put an emphasis on the word "legal". 

14 hours ago, Daenerysthegreat said:

If a dog bites you do you bite the dog? 

The dog gets put down. Simple. 

2 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

Sure, but who decides this. Because Jon can just say he was protecting the realm by attacking the Boltons since they are considered a threat for a united front.

Jon can't say that. As I said in the first page, he might be able to justify to the Northern Lords, but nobody in KL will give whit when they send an army to whack his head off to robbing them of the North which they just pulled back into the fold. Assuming, of course, anyone cares enough. 

[SeanF]

4 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

I think the issue is, that it doesn’t matter what these Lords did to each other, once you take the Night’s Watch oath, you vow not to get involved in these matters of politics, no matter who is right or who is wrong.  

The Oath contains no such promise.

[Jaenara Belarys]

23 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The Oath contains no such promise.

The Night's Watch feared no attack from the south because of their vow not to take part in the wars of the Seven Kingdoms.[19][30]

 

This implies that they're neutral, and it's been said repeatedly that the NW takes no sides. You can see that simply by the "To the five kings" letter. 

[SeanF]

12 minutes ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

The Night's Watch feared no attack from the south because of their vow not to take part in the wars of the Seven Kingdoms.[19][30]

 

This implies that they're neutral, and it's been said repeatedly that the NW takes no sides. You can see that simply by the "To the five kings" letter. 

Sure, but that’s not in the wording of the Oath.

Nights Watch neutrality is a tradition, and traditions change.  

 

[Jaenara Belarys]

3 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Nights Watch neutrality is a tradition, and traditions change.  

 

Doesn't it take a long time for a tradition to die out? And there has to be a good reason for this reason to die out. Plus, we have the "Old traditions die hard" saying. 

[Daenerysthegreat]

4 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Sure, but that’s not in the wording of the Oath.

Nights Watch neutrality is a tradition, and traditions change.  

 

That tradition is important as it's a guarantee of the nights watch safety. Break the tradition and the nights watch will be open to destruction and attack. 

The others are coming this is definitely not the time to break traditions

[Frey family reunion]

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

The Oath contains no such promise.

You’re right technically not a vow, but a pledge:

Quote

“The men who formed the Night’s Watch knew that only their courage shielded the realm from the darkness to the north. They knew they must have no divided loyalties to weaken their resolve. So they vowed they would have no wives nor children.
“Yet brothers they had, and sisters. Mothers who gave them birth, fathers who gave them names. They came from a hundred quarrelsome kingdoms, and they knew times may change, but men do not. So they pledged as well that the Night’s Watch would take no part in the battles of the realms it guarded.”

 

[Daenerysthegreat]

24 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

You’re right technically not a vow, but a pledge:

 

That pledge is the thing that erases their past crimes. 80 percent of the nights watch are criminals. Break the oath and we are free to look back into their past crimes and kill them

[Frey family reunion]

1 minute ago, Daenerysthegreat said:

That pledge is the thing that erases their past crimes. 80 percent of the nights watch are criminals. Break the oath and we are free to look back into their past crimes and kill them

I’m not arguing with you.  I think the pledge that Aemon refers to carries as much weight as the oath.  Jon also seems to imply that they swore a vow not to get involved in what he planned for the Bastard of Bolton:

Quote

“The Night’s Watch takes no part in the wars of the Seven Kingdoms,” Jon reminded them when some semblance of quiet had returned. “It is not for us to oppose the Bastard of Bolton, to avenge Stannis Baratheon, to defend his widow and his daughter. This creature who makes cloaks from the skins of women has sworn to cut my heart out, and I mean to make him answer for those words … but I will not ask my brothers to forswear their vows.”

Quote

“Yarwyck and Marsh were slipping out, he saw, and all their men behind them. It made no matter. He did not need them now. He did not want them. No man can ever say I made my brothers break their vows. If this is oathbreaking, the crime is mine and mine alone.

 

[The Young Maester]

5 hours ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

Jon can't say that. As I said in the first page, he might be able to justify to the Northern Lords, but nobody in KL will give whit when they send an army to whack his head off to robbing them of the North which they just pulled back into the fold. Assuming, of course, anyone cares enough.

So the south would be angry simply because Jon overthrew the loyal wardens of the north, but they wont be angry about him breaking his oath?

They won’t lift a finger, and once the ice demons come they’ll probably applaud him for breaking his oaths.

Some lords might call him oathbreaker (both sides of the neck). Whilst others will accuse the Boltons of basically declaring war on the nights watch.

Fact is that these oaths can be taken for different meanings, and anyone can find a loophole to exploit them.

[Daeron the Daring]

1 hour ago, Frey family reunion said:

I’m not arguing with you.  I think the pledge that Aemon refers to carries as much weight as the oath.  Jon also seems to imply that they swore a vow not to get involved in what he planned for the Bastard of Bolton:

 

I think everyone should read those 2 quotes and the case can be closed. Jon knew what he did. 

It's another thing that he found justification in other grounds for his actions. I can sympathise with that, but it still doesn't make it legally justified to me (altough the reason I read the books was him). Nor it did to him, ever.

[SeanF]

4 hours ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

Doesn't it take a long time for a tradition to die out? And there has to be a good reason for this reason to die out. Plus, we have the "Old traditions die hard" saying. 

Once they appealed for aid to every claimant to the Iron Throne;  welcomed, fed, and provisioned Stannis and his men;  elected Jon Snow in place of Janos Slynt, they had become enemies to the government in Kings Landing, in the eyes of that government.  Neutrality was over and done.  Tywin was willing to see Mance invade the North, and Cersei planned to assassinate Jon.

The battle lines were already drawn, at the point that Jon became Lord Commander.  You can’t remain neutral when you are already seen as an enemy.