Official Court of Law: Stannis Baratheon

[Castel]

Still, certain laws of war do apply, unless one wants to see the situation degrade into unrestrained carnage and chaos, where anything is permitted and the realm basically destroys itself.

The situation would descend into carnage if there was equality of power.There is not. It's also the reason that the Targaryens didn't destroy society, they avoid the whole state of nature issue because they have exclusive control of dragons and a better military. Stannis alone has shadowbabies No one can just outright kill him.

As for people being assassinated, this doesn't happen because of practical reasons. Tywin would have assassinated Robb normally if he could. Aerys was also kidnapped and the guest right broken. Robert could have killed Dany.Not everyone has moral problems with these actions, they just can't do it, when they can or are crazy enough they do.

Even so, I think you overestimate how quickly the social fabric will fall apart. No one has absolute power, they won't go crazy and try to wipe out everyone else.

Plus this being a fantasy series, we can't exactly discount the fact that creating or summoning some shadow-thing to do your killing involves unleashing supernatural powers that may be malevolent to the point where it harms the greater good.

As far as we can tell that's baseless speculation based on meta-experience than anything within the story. And that's what I think the problem is, people take for granted that because this causes problems in the rest of fantasy and Davos finds it abominable then it must be like Dark Magic in HP. We've got no evidence and Davos is exactly the sort of person to have those prejudices. It's not that it's not icky, it's that we have no good evidence that it's bad beyond "It's too cowardly", which I find hilarious.

[Ame]

I wonder how many of the people saying it's too cowardly have the courage to write to their congressman advising we don't have enough casualties and should go back to sending in mass infantry; no tanks because our enemies don't have enough tanks to make a difference, no air support our enemies have none, no artillery except what out enemy has; while our military doctrine needs to import pakistani military doctrine so we don't have any unfair training advantages.

War isn't about fairness; Romans, Greeks, Carthaginians, Persians, Venitians, Genoese, Arabs, Turks, Russians, Poles, English, Spanish; everyone in history has used whatever advantage they could get; expecting anyone to fight "fair" is stupid and ahistorical.

Drones today save lives; and if they could be 100% accurate without any collateral damage we would have a tiny fraction of the casualties war brings.

[Lord Bronn Stokeworth]

EDIT: Decided against starting a debate about drones.

[The Blue Knight]

1.Maleficium:

1.1Not Guilty The defendant does not know of his involvement in this act, and was coaxed by Melisandre of Asshai into helping create the Shadow Assassin.

1.2 Guilty The defendant knowingly sent a Shadow Assassin to kill the traitor Renly Baratheon. However, the birthing of the Shadow was a dark and despicable act.

2.Treason:

2.1 Not Guilty Joffrey Baratheon (Waters) is the bastard born of incest between Cersei and Jaime Lannister. He has no claim to the throne of Westeros, and therefore by law, his presumed uncle Stannis Baratheon is the rightful king.

2.2 Not Guilty Roose Bolton was appointed Warden of the North by the usurper Joffrey Baratheon (Waters) and therefore his title holds no credibility. Furthermore, he is a traitor to both his rightful king Stannis, and Robb Stark, the King in the North.

Murder:

3.1 Not Guilty Despite being conducted through a dark method, Lord Renly Baratheon's assassination should not be considered a murder for he was a traitor to his rightful king Stannis.

3.2 Not Guilty As above, the assassination through means of Shadows is excused do to the fact that Ser Cortney was a traitor to his rightful king.

3.3 Not Guilty Lord Alester Florent was a traitor by attempting to pass a proposal of yielding to the usurper, without the consent of his king.

3.4 Not Guilty Lord Sunglass was executed by the defendants wife, Selyse Florent, without his direct consent while he was at the Battle of Blackwater.

3.5 Not Guilty The defendant did not believe he was executing the Lord of Bones, rather the Night's Watch deserter Mance Rayder.

3.6 Not Guilty The executed were criminals for cannibalism, a vile crime in the eyes of many gods. They deserved death.

Torture:

4 Not Guilty The executed were both dealt with in a law-abiding manor and were traitors and criminals

Sacrilege:

5 Guilty The defendant disregarded the harmony of religions of Westeros by desecrating holy places of both the Old Gods and the Seven.

Verdict: I find Stannis Baratheon, Rightful King of the Andals, Rhoynar, and the First Me, guilty of two charges of sacrilege and one of Maleficium. He is to issue a sufficient payment for the restoration of the holy places he desecrated, and if possible to dismiss Melisandre of Asshai from his court, exiling her to Essos.

[Stannis 4 Prez]

All charges should be dismissed. Stannis is the rightful King by way of blood. Therefore, all of his actions are lawful and valid. There are no separation of powers in an absolute monarchy.

In fact I consider this whole thread treasonous! May The Lord of light have mercy on your souls.

[mcb]

All charges should be dismissed. Stannis is the rightful King by way of blood. Therefore, all of his actions are lawful and valid. There are no separation of powers in an absolute monarchy.

That's what his cousin Aerys thought. Boy, was he surprised!

[Stannis 4 Prez]

That's what his cousin Aerys thought. Boy, was he surprised!

Yeah Aerys was a lunatic. But technically not a criminal. And when you're dealing with the law you can't kind of be something. He was still the king and the law.

[Winds of Winter blow cold]

Yep...need a mistrail.

[Alester Florent]

Yeah Aerys was a lunatic. But technically not a criminal. And when you're dealing with the law you can't kind of be something. He was still the king and the law.

Following the precedents of Re Charles Stuart [1649 AD], Orange & Stuart v Stuart [1689 AD], Gens v Capet [1793 AD], Baratheon v Targaryen [283 AL] and Drogo v Targaryen [298 AL] there is a separation between the person of the monarch and the legal persona of the monarch. A head of state can still be prosecuted and sentenced personally for crimes committed as an individual, even though the sovereign entity remains the fount of legal authority

[juanml82]

1. Maleficium:-

Two Counts.

It is alleged that through the agency of the Medium, Melisandre of Asshai, the Defendant procured the deaths of:-

1.1 Lord Renly Baratheon

1.2 Ser Courtney Penrose

By means of the Diabolical Arts.

Not guilty. Maleficium is not recorded as a crime is Westeros.

2. Treason

Two Counts.

2.1 It is alleged that the Defendant unlawfully rose in rebellion against His Grace, Joffrey Baratheon, First of His Name, in violation of his oaths of fealty.

Guilty. Lord Stannis Baratheon has yet to produce serious evidence, verified by the knowledge of the maesters of the Citadel or lawful testimonies regarding Joffrey Baratheon's bastardy. Since neither occured and testimonies given by both Cersei and Jaime Lannister to House Stark were not under oath and, as such, not valid as evidence, this juror can not uphold Joffrey's bastardy as a fact. Furthermore, had Robert Baratheon died without heirs, an argument can be done about Westerosi's Lords' obligation to fetch Daennerys Stormborn Targaryen, last heir of House Targaryen, to assume the Queenship of the Seven Kingdoms.

The defendant produced no evidence of Joffrey Baratheon's bastardy, gave no indication on the means he used to find it out, if any, and did not seek Lady Targaryen. As such, this juror deems his as a rebel seeking legitimacy through libel.

2.2 It is further alleged that the Defendant unlawfully waged war against Lord Roose Bolton, the lawfully appointed Warden of the North.

Not guilty. The defendant has yet to engage in battle against House Bolton. Furthermore, even if he did, Ramsay Bolton, currently residing at Lord Baratheon' stated destination, is wanted for the charges of kidnapping abandonment of person against the late Lady Hornwood. Even if Stannis had commanded his host to attack House Bolton, his actions could be understood as rightful actions by a High Lord to execute the King's justice.

3. Murder.

Six Counts:-

It is alleged that the Defendant intentionally, and unlawfully, killed the following people:-

3.1 Lord Renly Baratheon

3.2 Ser Courtney Penrose

3.3 Lord Alester Florent

3.4 Lord Guncer Sunglass

3.5 The Lord of Bones alias “Rattleshirt”

3.6 Three unnamed soldiers during the march to Winterfell.

The last four by means of burning alive.

Not guilty on all charges. Regarding cases 3.1 and 3.2 this juror understand there is enough evidence to prove the defendants' guilt in case 3.2. Evidence in case 3.1 is circumstantial and there is margin for reasonable doubt. However, this juror also understands that a state of War existed between Renly Baratheon, mistitled 'Lord' and 'King of the Seven Kingdoms' and Lord Stannis Baratheon. As such, the assassinations qualify as acts of war and peacetime laws are, then, inapplicable.

Regarding case 3.3 Lord Alaster Florent has sworn his loyalty to the defendant. Regardless of the legality of the defendant's rebellion, Lord Alaster Florent actions constitute treason against his liege lord and thus, his death counts as lawful execution, not assasination.

On case 3.4, Lord Guncer Sunglass was executed under Lady Selyse Baratheon neé Florent commands. The defendant has no responsability for his death.

3.5 constitutes a case of miscarriage of justice due the illegal actions of Melissandre of Asshai, who helped the deserter Mance Rayder, King beyond the Wall, escape. As it was, the defendant thought he was lawfully executing the afromentioned King.

The three soldiers on case 3.6 were lawfully executed by the crime of cannibalism.

4. Torture

One count. It is alleged that burning alive, without due process of law, as set out in charges 3.3 to 3.6 above, amounts to torture.

Charge dismissed. This very court considers death by burning a lawful execution method.

5. Sacrilege

Two counts:-

5.1 The Defendant unlawfully destroyed the Sept on Dragonstone with its statues of the Seven.

Guilty.

5.2 The Defendant unlawfully desecrated Weirwood trees in the North.

Dismissed. This juror understand there is enough evidence to prove the defendant's guild on the charge. However, the actions were commited beyond Westerosi jurisdiction and, therefore are subject to the laws of the Free Folk. Since the Free Folk have no law, nor recognize ownership upon the land, this juror understand there is no applicable law regarding this act.

This juror finds the defandant guilty on the charge of treason, and sentence him to a life of service at the Wall.

This juror finds the defendant guilty on charges of sacrilege regarding the Sept on Dragonstone and sentence him to a monetary fine consisting on the funds necessary to rebuild it and double the amount for moral damages.

[Winds of Winter blow cold]

He destroyed Weirwood trees on both sides of the Wall. Didn't he?

[StannisandDaeny]

Stannis Baratheon is guilty of following whichever religion he damn well wants to, being hated and despised by his brothers and everyone else for no apparent reason, guilty of serving the realm, guilty of crushing the Iron Fleet and thus stopping Balon's Rebellion, doing his duty and almost losing his life doing so, not getting the castle he was entitled to, defending himself from usurpers and trying to save Westeros (more specifically, the North) of malevolent dictators who base their claims of rulership on lies and lies alone and fulfilling his duties as the one true King by defending the kingdom from a Wildling invasion while everyone else was leaving the Night's Watch to rot and being pretty much the only character with a shred of honor and morality left standing on the continent of Westeros.

[Penguin king]

I wonder how many of the people saying it's too cowardly have the courage to write to their congressman advising we don't have enough casualties and should go back to sending in mass infantry; no tanks because our enemies don't have enough tanks to make a difference, no air support our enemies have none, no artillery except what out enemy has; while our military doctrine needs to import pakistani military doctrine so we don't have any unfair training advantages.

War isn't about fairness; Romans, Greeks, Carthaginians, Persians, Venitians, Genoese, Arabs, Turks, Russians, Poles, English, Spanish; everyone in history has used whatever advantage they could get; expecting anyone to fight "fair" is stupid and ahistorical.

Drones today save lives; and if they could be 100% accurate without any collateral damage we would have a tiny fraction of the casualties war brings.

Does your anything goes approach to war also include things like land mines, dirty bombs, IEDs, child soldiers, suicide bombers, rape squads, biological warfare, and flying planes into buildings? I mean anything for a tactical advantage. There's no such thing as warcrimes right?

[Castel]

Following the precedents of Re Charles Stuart [1649 AD], Orange & Stuart v Stuart [1689 AD], Gens v Capet [1793 AD], Baratheon v Targaryen [283 AL] and Drogo v Targaryen [298 AL] there is a separation between the person of the monarch and the legal persona of the monarch. A head of state can still be prosecuted and sentenced personally for crimes committed as an individual, even though the sovereign entity remains the fount of legal authority

Except no? The cases you mention aren't relevant to Westeros. There is no set of rules that we know of, only some social contract, which has no set punishment. Citing real world cases is pointless Charles,iirc had to maintain some parliament by law, as is citing cases that happened after the fact and were retroactively legalised.

[E-Ro]

Does your anything goes approach to war also include things like land mines, dirty bombs, IEDs, child soldiers, suicide bombers, rape squads, biological warfare, and flying planes into buildings? I mean anything for a tactical advantage. There's no such thing as warcrimes right?

They are only war crimes if you lose. Considering Stannis has neither lost nor won yet we will have to see, its not as if anyone in westeros even knows about the shadowbaby, the stories are wild and non of them agree, its commonly thought it was brienne or cat.

As well, i find it amusing you compare assassination of one man to things like rape squads and child soldiers. Not even comparable.

[StannisandDaeny]

Does your anything goes approach to war also include things like land mines, dirty bombs, IEDs, child soldiers, suicide bombers, rape squads, biological warfare, and flying planes into buildings? I mean anything for a tactical advantage. There's no such thing as warcrimes right?

Nuclear F****** Weapons.

[Ame]

Does your anything goes approach to war also include things like land mines, dirty bombs, IEDs, child soldiers, suicide bombers, rape squads, biological warfare, and flying planes into buildings? I mean anything for a tactical advantage. There's no such thing as warcrimes right?

No I don't aprove of collateral damage; I approve of things that target the actual enemy and does a great job at it. All of the things you said are just designed to cause as much pain and suffering as possible for the enemy civilian population.

The idea that there is anything morale or intelligent about "fighting fair" is just silly. The Starks themselves you brought up do not fight fair, neither do Baratheons or well any other house in Westeros.

Shadow Babies unlike Drones cause no collateral damage, and if a scientist developed a drone that could match that I would support her or him getting a medal for rescuing countless people.

[Chaircat Meow]

Following the precedents of Re Charles Stuart [1649 AD], Orange & Stuart v Stuart [1689 AD], Gens v Capet [1793 AD], Baratheon v Targaryen [283 AL] and Drogo v Targaryen [298 AL] there is a separation between the person of the monarch and the legal persona of the monarch. A head of state can still be prosecuted and sentenced personally for crimes committed as an individual, even though the sovereign entity remains the fount of legal authority

I've no idea what the English examples prove. James II 'abdicated' if you didn't know (ahem, apparently, although really no one could decide what happened) and it's a struggle to imagine the court that tried Charles I could have any legitimacy given it could only be created following Pride's purge of Parliament.

[E-Ro]

I really am struggling to understand the huge moral issue there is with the shadowbaby. It conserved lives by avoiding a battle, kept the soldiers safe, a traitor was punished, there was no collateral damage at all it was a precise killing, renlys suffering was minimal(compared to being fed to a fucking dragon).

[Penguin king]

They are only war crimes if you lose. Considering Stannis has neither lost nor won yet we will have to see, its not as if anyone in westeros even knows about the shadowbaby, the stories are wild and non of them agree, its commonly thought it was brienne or cat.

As well, i find it amusing you compare assassination of one man to things like rape squads and child soldiers. Not even comparable.

I never said they were directly comparible, I'm just asking where the line is drawn. There seems to be an idea shared by some posters that anything that gives you a tactical advantage in war is fair play. I was just wondering if 'anything' literally means 'anything'