Daenerys and Torture

[sarah.jenice]

That's part of the problem though. As evidenced by Jon's POVs, the vast majority of these people would just die more painfully in a trial by combat because they would have no training or experience and likely be fighting knights.

With regards to the Wall... I can't remember, are all criminals allowed to request to join the Watch, or is it only when there are recruiters around?

I am pretty certain that all criminals are allowed to go to the Wall if they ask, but I think the ultimate decision is up to the lord and the Northern lords are more likely to let someone go if they ask. Remember that Joffrey was supposed to let Ned take the black and Tywin said he would let Tyrion and they were both accused of treason (and Tyrion of regicide).

In Clash, Maester Luwin urges Theon to take the black and tells him "Ser Rodrik has served House Stark all his life, and House Stark has always been a friend to the Watch. He will not deny you. Open your gates, lay down your arms, accept his terms, and he must let you take the black."

That tells me that Northmen hold that request to join the Watch in very high regard and will not deny it. Theon is supposed to have murdered Bran and Rickon and Maester Luwin still thinks Ser Rodrik would let him go.

On trial by combat, it seems like they always give that option because it leaves the judgement of guilt or innocence in the hands of the gods.

[ab aeterno]

I am pretty certain that all criminals are allowed to go to the Wall if they ask, but I think the ultimate decision is up to the lord and the Northern lords are more likely to let someone go if they ask. Remember that Joffrey was supposed to let Ned take the black and Tywin said he would let Tyrion and they were both accused of treason (and Tyrion of regicide).

In Clash, Maester Luwin urges Theon to take the black and tells him "Ser Rodrik has served House Stark all his life, and House Stark has always been a friend to the Watch. He will not deny you. Open your gates, lay down your arms, accept his terms, and he must let you take the black."

That tells me that Northmen hold that request to join the Watch in very high regard and will not deny it. Theon is supposed to have murdered Bran and Rickon and Maester Luwin still thinks Ser Rodrik would let him go.

On trial by combat, it seems like they always give that option because it leaves the judgement of guilt or innocence in the hands of the gods.

I think that's probably all quite right, though I suspect that the southern lords wouldn't be inclined to make the offer very often. But to be very clear, I meant that most lords probably wouldn't let peasants/commoners go to the wall when they could just execute them, but they might be more inclined to allow it for non-capital crimes. For high lords it makes more sense because executing a lord is dangerous.

[SeanF]

I don't see how her taking child hostages is so appalling for Dany when it seems to be pretty common practice in this world. Balon Greyjoy rebelled against the Iron Throne and Ned got Theon as a hostage when he was a child. It is stated multiple times that Ned would have beheaded Theon if Balon rebelled again (and since it is Ned, he would have done it personally).

In Dance, Jon takes hostages from the Wildlings - 100 boys between the ages of eight and sixteen. This dialogue shows a lot about how the North and the Starks felt about this. They were not above killing children to keep their liege lords in line:

A Dance with Dragons - Jon Pg. 714

"My blood price he called it," said Jon Snow, "but he will pay." "Aye, and why not?" Old Flint stomped his cane against the ice. "Wards, we always called them, when Winterfell demanded boys of us, but they were hostages, and none of them worse for it." "None but them whose sire displeased the Kings o' Winter," said The Norrey. "Those came home shorter by a head. So you tell me boy...if these wildling friends o' yours prove false, do you have the belly to do what needs to be done?" Ask Janos Slynt. "Tormund Giantsbane knows better than to try me. I may seem a green boy in your eyes, Lord Norrey, but I am still a son of Eddard Stark."

So according to Jon, a son of Eddard Stark would not flinch when it comes to beheading a child whose father's loyalty is in question. I am not pointing this out because I want to prove the Starks are bad people. I just think people are being too hard on Dany. This is the world they live in. A world where torture is some times necessary and where even noble, honorable lords kill innocent children to pay for the sins of their fathers. And to Dany's credit, she couldn't bring herself to kill the children she takes in. Jon Snow makes it clear that he will.

I agree with another posters who said he don't know how Jon or Robb or even Ned would have acted if they faced what Dany does. This gorilla warfare with murder in the shadows isn't something they are used to and I don't know the best way to face it. Dany got herself into a very bad situation in Meereen. She can't see that she isn't wanted and that nothing she does will ever fix their hatred of her.

Those are all really good points, and I did think about Ned and Theon, and Jon and the Wildlings before posting. I really don't think that either Ned, or Jon, would have gone through with it, whatever they may say.

As Hand of the King, Ned's duty is to arrest Cersei and her children, once he becomes aware that they're the products of incest. She and the children would have been executed, without a shadow of a doubt., as Ned is aware. No one would have blamed him for this, and his behaviour would have been regarded as honourable, and correct. Yet, he prefers (disastrously as it turns out) to give Cersei the option of saving her own life and those of her children. He's prepared to place compassion above the dictates of duty, in order to save the lives of three children who are innocent. In the light of this, my own view is that he'd have found some excuse not to execute Theon, had Balon rebelled again.

Jon, in his exchange with Flint and Norrey is actually evading their question quite cleverly. He's citing his execution of Janos Slynt in order to show how tough he is, but Janos earned death by wilfully disobeying an order. He wasn't an innocent child, paying the price for the crimes of another.

However, most lords probably would execute child hostages, so why would it be worse for Dany to do so? For this reason, IMHO:-

Dany isn't much older than a child herself. She loves children, and gets on well with them. She treats Missandei as a younger sister, and really likes the child hostages. I think this is related to the fact that she thinks that she is doomed to be barren, and so, if she can't have children of her own, she can at least befriend them.

By ordering the cold-blooded execution of children, I think she'd be killing off anything that was kind and compassinate in herself, and walking down a very dark path.

[Chaircat Meow]

Jon, in his exchange with Flint and Norrey is actually evading their question quite cleverly. He's citing his execution of Janos Slynt in order to show how tough he is, but Janos earned death by wilfully disobeying an order. He wasn't an innocent child, paying the price for the crimes of another.

Well, he just thinks that, he doesn't say it to the Norrey and the Flint.

I actually don't know whether Jon is just thinking 'yes, I do have the belly to do what needs to be done, ask Slynt' but just doesn't think child hostages could ever need executing anyway, or he does actually think, in his own mind, killing Slynt is good evidence he could kill child hostages. I read it as the latter when I first saw it.

[SeanF]

My mistake. I thought he said it. He's still evading the question, though.

Thinking again, another example of Ned refusing to countenance the murder of a child is of course Daenerys herself.

[Chaircat Meow]

My mistake. I thought he said it. He's still evading the question, though.

I'm far from convinced he was evading it. But anyway. I agree that he wouldn't be able to kill the hostages though, I just think he might think he can. So we agree really.

Thinking again, another example of Ned refusing to countenance the murder of a child is of course Daenerys herself.

What would Ned have done if Balon rebelled when Theon was 17?

[The BlackBear]

Why do we doubt that Ned would execute a ward he swore to kill if certain conditions are breached?

I believe the difference was the similarity to the Targ murders during the sack, besides if the kids escape it doesn't change much really. Whereas if he doesn't kill a ward, he's shown to be too much of a pussy to live up to his word.

I think Jon as well would kill the hostages.

[Chaircat Meow]

Why do we doubt that Ned would execute a ward he swore to kill if certain conditions are breached?

I believe the difference was the similarity to the Targ murders during the sack, besides if the kids escape it doesn't change much really. Whereas if he doesn't kill a ward, he's shown to be too much of a pussy to live up to his word.

I think Jon as well would kill the hostages.

I think you have a point here. Ned would never be able to guarantee security with hostages ever again if he failed to execute Theon.

Jon endangered his mission by not killing the old man at Queenscrown. Unlike his decision to release Ygritte (where he did argue to Qhorin she was not a big threat) that incident seemed to show there are certain things Jon won't do, even if the greater good seems to demand it.

[ab aeterno]

Why do we doubt that Ned would execute a ward he swore to kill if certain conditions are breached?

I believe the difference was the similarity to the Targ murders during the sack, besides if the kids escape it doesn't change much really. Whereas if he doesn't kill a ward, he's shown to be too much of a pussy to live up to his word.

I think Jon as well would kill the hostages.

I believe that it is made quite clear that Ned never got close to Theon because he knew that he might have to kill him. I can't remember who tells us though, I don't think that it is Ned...

[The BlackBear]

Jon endangered his mission by not killing the old man at Queenscrown. Unlike his decision to release Ygritte (where he did argue to Qhorin she was not a big threat) that incident seemed to show there are certain things Jon won't do, even if the greater good seems to demand it.

Y'gritte's death would have served little purpose, and she'd surrendered. Not like the bloody TV version :bang:

The difference is the vow thing, he swore to do it he'll do it. He didn't swear to kill the old man.

I believe that it is made quite clear that Ned never got close to Theon because he knew that he might have to kill him. I can't remember who tells us though, I don't think that it is Ned...

It was Theon, during his really quite sad 'boy coming home a stranger' phase.

[Kosh Naranek]

Well, taking "hostages" was a common medieval practice. The defeated were often forced to give up their children. It was an added incentive for them to keep the new peace. In my book, Dany gets points for not allowing children to be slaughtered with no evidence. The Shavepate would have been choosing children blindly, with no evidence that their families had done anything wrong.

The wineseller gave me pause though. It made me wonder if she was becoming a bit of a monster. As does keeping the Shavepate around. Was she so desperate to have a Meereenese on her side that she turned a blind eye?

I hold Tywin accoutable for the Mountain because he had no illusions about what Gregor was up to. Tywin also employed the Bloody Mummers.

I don't think all Starks are saints but I think Ned tried to be fair to all. He said that a lord was like a father to his people, and he probably did not march against his own bannermen because all he had was rumors and no proof. Bolton was cunning, and Ned did not hear anything distressing about the Greatjon. (I thought all the rumors surrounding the Umbers had more to do with Crowfood and Whoresbane in their youth, but I may be wrong.)

So, keeping the Shavepate is a mark against her. One rotten apple will spoil the lot given time.

[ab aeterno]

It was Theon, during his really quite sad 'boy coming home a stranger' phase.

Oh yeah, I remember now. Thanks. One thing I would definitely add is that we know that Ned is overwhelmingly concerned about honor; if he had promised to kill a hostage- i.e. Theon, it would be dishonorable for him not to do it. Likewise, Balon, or anyone else, would be an oathbreaker/traitor if they went against the king or their lord, and the penalty would be the hostages life. In the latter instance as well, Ned would be doing his honorable duty by killing the hostage.

[Arland]

all he had was rumors and no proof[ly

Shouldn't he try to investigate?

I posted above that there is no evidence on how where this Harpy's sons selected (I could be wrong though!) but this doesn't make this any better.

If there is no concrete evidence that innocent people were taken at random and tortured then you cannot assign blame. And use of forcefull investigations with regard to terrorists (as opposed to clearly innoccent person) is even now an issue of difficult moral debate with many PRO's an d CON's. As a fact almost any modern state use it in some way or another.

In any police work there can be mistakes, and being falsely convicted and sent to jail for many years is not much better then being "questioned sharply" what ever that means (and we don't really know what how "sharply it is"). BTW going trough nowdays police invistigation or pre trial detention is also not very pleasant experience, and yet we as a society agree that these are nessessery evil.

[Barty]

Isn't Theon protected by Guest Right at winterfell?? He does eat and drink with the Starks

[Chaircat Meow]

Isn't Theon protected by Guest Right at winterfell?? He does eat and drink with the Starks

That is an interesting question. However, given we do know lords execute hostages it just seems like there are certain exceptions to guest right. In addition, it could be it's just understood Theon's life is forfeit if x,y,z happens but that he enjoys full protection in all other instances. Finally, you must be able to serve notice on guest right, even if it's by refusing to offer someone food and drink one evening.

[ab aeterno]

That is an interesting question. However, given we do know lords execute hostages it just seems like there are certain exceptions to guest right. In addition, it could be it's just understood Theon's life is forfeit if x,y,z happens but that he enjoys full protection in all other instances. Finally, you must be able to serve notice on guest right, even if it's by refusing to offer someone food and drink one evening.

I think Manderly suggests you do it with a parting gift, but we're also told that if a lord receives someone with their sword bared across their lap then the lord is explicitly refusing someone the guest right, even if they give them food, I believe.

[Kosh Naranek]

Shouldn't he try to investigate?

That is a good point. I don't have my Kindle with me. Ned had some suspicions about Bolton and the Umbers, if I recall correctly. For the Umbers it was first night, but I don't remember what there was about Roose? Or, am I remembering Roose's statements about hiding things?

I took the "sharply" in a mediveal sense. I thought someone was going to have a tooth or teeth taken, perhaps some racking or broken bones.

I think I ended up more disappointed in her than anything else. She was surrounded by monsters that so litte valued human life that they nailed children up as sign posts. I felt she was sinking to their level.

[Arland]

I think there was something about roumors that Boltons still had flaying room in their castle.

While I definitely was saddened by Dany;s choice to allow "sharp" questioning of winesellers daughter, I think there is a still a huge distance between her and slavers level. She is still far above then and above most of other lords in Westros.

[Foxhound]

No, the rumors about the Umbers comes from Roose Bolton in Dance. Ned doesn't think about any suspicions about Bolton or Umber. And while thinking about the stories told about Gregor Clegane, he doesn't put much stock in gossip (but that the ones about him are disturbing). Some rumors in the series turn out to be true, some turn out to be complete lies. The comment Roose makes about a flayed man having no secrets is said to Theon via Reek. Theon notes that the Boltons are supposed to have given up flaying a thousand years ago, but that old ways die hard.

Also, Dany did not stop the torture. She only comments it's not producing any useful names and forbids the Shavepate from torturing Hizdahr. If the torture stopped it's because the Sons of the Harpy stop killing. As for the prisoners themselves, given that the first people tortured are of dubious guilt, and that the Shavepate is both the one torturing and the one overseeing their arrests, I don't see why we should believe they're all guilty. They go from having no Sons caught to dozens when the Shavepate is put in charge and assembles his own watch. Maybe he's just an incredibly effective counter-insurgent, or maybe not.

[Leto]

BTW going trough nowdays police invistigation or pre trial detention is also not very pleasant experience, and yet we as a society agree that these are nessessery evil.

Being detained and questioned while awaiting a trial does not equal torture in any sense of the word. And there is definately no concensus that torture is an nessecarry evil regardless of what crime the person is accused of. i.e if the police investigation gets 'sharp' it is not condoned and not considered an nessessary evil. In fact the 'sharp' police would be quite guilty of voilent crimes.