Official Court of Law: Stannis Baratheon

[Associate Maester]

1. Renly declared himself king for pretty much the same reasons Robb did. The Lannisters killed his Brother and Joffrey was their puppet. He might have believed Joffrey was Roberts heir, but he knew who was really running the show. Sure stannis was above him in succession, but He was the one with the holdings and connections to raise an army whereas Stannis was still hiding on dragonstone, If he was going to take the throne by right of conquest why give it to his unpopular older brother.

2. Like I I say, it's not as if "I must kill renly so that the pesants may eat" was ever running through his mind.

So it is okay for Renly to go against Westerosi law and custom? Although, given you argue Stannis was "hiding." I get the sense you're not out to make a reasoned argument. You just don't like Stannis. Which is fine of course. Just be honest about it.

[Chaircat Meow]

We also don't sentence people who order or commit assassinations in war. For example, Obama and the Navy Seals who took out Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden was not on a battlefield. He was in his home. The President ordered him dead and the Navy Seals carried it out. I don't see anyone trying to claim Obama was wrong for ordering the hit.

You should try living in the UK. It was all half of our political commentators could bring themselves to talk about.

[Associate Maester]

No, our military does not use such things! Our soldiers march out there in nothing but diapers 300 style and engage the enemy in hand to hand with nothing but their fists. Each soldier is weighed and he is put up against an opponent of the same weight, that way no one fights a bigger man as that would be an unfair advantage.

Its not like we spend tons of money to assure our brave men and woman have the best advantage possible in wars and the best shot at surviving, internet tough guys will tell you all about it, from the safety and convenience of their computers.

And the enemy soldiers get extra water breaks! Seriously though, I hear you. My father was a general and taught military tactics. We'd have these moral/ethical/tactical debates/discussions over dinner.

[Lord Bronn Stokeworth]

1. Renly declared himself king for pretty much the same reasons Robb did. The Lannisters killed his Brother and Joffrey was their puppet. He might have believed Joffrey was Roberts heir, but he knew who was really running the show. Sure stannis was above him in succession, but He was the one with the holdings and connections to raise an army whereas Stannis was still hiding on dragonstone, If he was going to take the throne by right of conquest why give it to his unpopular older brother.

2. Like I I say, it's not as if "I must kill renly so that the pesants may eat" was ever running through his mind.

1. Did he contact Stannis? Did he do anything to see what his brother was going to do? Nope. He went to declare himself king. It's hypocritical to blame Stannis for not reaching out to Renly but not hold Renly to the same standard. The last bit kinda proves my point. Even if Stannis reached out to him, he had the men. Why would he give the crown to Stannis? If he was willing, wouldn't make sense that he would have at least contacted his brother before declaring himself king?

2. OK? Ame's point wasn't that Stannis was trying to. But that going by modern (and frankly Westerosi) morality, Renly was committing a monstrous act that Stannis helped bring to an end (if unintentionally).

[Penguin king]

So it is okay for Renly to go against Westerosi law and custom? Although, given you argue Stannis was "hiding." I get the sense you're not out to make a reasoned argument. You just don't like Stannis. Which is fine of course. Just be honest about it.

He was only doing what robert did before him. I'm pretty sure that taking up arms against tyrants is seen in a much more favourable light than Kin-slaying and assasination

Hiding is being generous the other alternative is that he was trying to raise a secret army while Robert still lived. If you've got a better idea for what he was up to while Nedd was running around trying to peice together what Stannis already knew then fill me in.

[Ame]

1. Renly declared himself king for pretty much the same reasons Robb did. The Lannisters killed his Brother and Joffrey was their puppet. He might have believed Joffrey was Roberts heir, but he knew who was really running the show. Sure stannis was above him in succession, but He was the one with the holdings and connections to raise an army whereas Stannis was still hiding on dragonstone, If he was going to take the throne by right of conquest why give it to his unpopular older brother.

2. Like I I say, it's not as if "I must kill renly so that the pesants may eat" was ever running through his mind.

That flies in the face of everything Renly was doing in AGoT and everything Renly says in ACoK

Renly makes snide remarks about Stannis' letter not being worth reading because it is too convenient for Stannis, and he was trying to get Cersei Tommen Myrcella and Joffrey killed in AgoT and replace Cersei with Margaery.

Actually, I'm English. I used Obama in my hypothetical cause I figured more people would get the reference. For what it matters I voted for a Lib Dem candidate in the last general election, though it seems like all our major parties are pretty interchangable these days

Back on topic, Renly was only an enemy because Stannis made him so. Maybe if he'd worked closer with his brothers from the start instead of skulking off to dragonstone the Lannisters could have been delt with before Robert died. You can hardly blame renly for deciding to take matters into his own hands with Stannis nowhere to be seen.

The food embago ended because the Tyrells decided to side with the Lannisters. Somehow I don't think that's what Stannis was planning when he had renly killed.

Just because it happened in history doesn't make it right. The medieval church was strongly against catholic nations going to war, but we all know how well that was stuck to. Likewise I could give you a long list of serial killers from the last 50 years, but I don't think that would prove that indiscriminate slaughter is an ethical way to vent your frustrations.

My apologies; although when your nation went to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands and your sovereignty it didn't give up any advantages; you know like requesting the jamming code for exocet missiles from France, and importing specially designed bunker busters from the United States that it needed to win. Should the Iron Lady have fought fair and made it purely a matter of the UK against Argentina; or was getting assistance from US and French technical now how a no brainer for her?

The food embago ended because the Tyrells decided to side with the Lannisters. Somehow I don't think that's what Stannis was planning when he had renly killed.

Stannis states to Cat that he will assault Kings Landing as soon as he has Renly's men; so yes he did intend to change tactics from starvation to assault; it was openly stated to Cat.

Just because it happened in history doesn't make it right. The medieval church was strongly against catholic nations going to war, but we all know how well that was stuck to. Likewise I could give you a long list of serial killers from the last 50 years, but I don't think that would prove that indiscriminate slaughter is an ethical way to vent your frustrations.

No but I would argue that attacking the head is as old as warfare itself and has always been a respectable and common tactic; while morally it means saving lives. The allies could be called unfair for inventing tanks in World War One when Germany had no tanks.

Furthermore Renly was out to kill his family and claim the throne; and made it clear that he felt might makes right. Why is it nobody is allowed to wage war on him and he is allows to wage war on everyone else?

Cat makes an offer to Renly that her son will lay down his crown if he and Stannis lay down theirs; he rejects it and states his army is all that matters. Stannis was also very open that he intends to use an assault to take Kings Landing instead of starvation; which morally puts him miles above Renly.

[Associate Maester]

He was only doing what robert did before him. I'm pretty sure that taking up arms against tyrants is seen in a much more favourable light than Kin-slaying and assasination

Hiding is being generous the other alternative is that he was trying to raise a secret army while Robert still lived. If you've got a better idea for what he was up to while Nedd was running around trying to peice together what Stannis already knew then fill me in.

Even from the point-of-view of right of conquest Stannis is the victor. Renly lost.

[Lion of Judah]

Seeing as past courts only charged Daenerys Targaryen and Melisandre of Asshai with murder and torture when they burnt people to fuel magic, not maleficium and sacrilege, I'm not sure why we're double dipping with these new charges on Stannis. I'd say charges 1 and 4 need to be dismissed entirely.

Thus we come to;

Not guilty. Stannis swore no oath of fealty to Joffrey, and had a reasonable (and correct) belief Joffrey wasn't the lawful heir.

Not guilty. Roose Bolton's authority is derived from the same illegitimate source.

Not guilty. All eight were guilty of either treason, or in the case of the last three, cannibalism. All eight confessed to their treason, and were executed. The only miscarriage of justice that you might be able to nitpick here is that Stannis believed he was executing Mance, not Rattleshirt, but then this is something Melisandre should have been charged with.

Again I have to rule Not Guilty by deferring to past judgements. If Daenerys was found Not Guilty for tortuing MMD by burning her to death, nor can Stannis be, especially since the evidence for the people Stannis executed is superior.

In fact, this very court provides it as an option for execution. Is this court guilty of torture?

OBJECTION-The court only carries out executions that are unanimously voted on by fellow judges, such recourse is justified when the accused is given a fair opportunity to be defended.

On the subject of charges 1.1 and 1.2 where you cited the cases of Daenerys and Melisandre, I can agree with that application to 1.1, but not 1.2. Reason being that Stannis was openly challenged to fair combat by Ser Penrose an act that was legal and honorable. So how can it not be viewed as illegal through the eyes of this court when Stannis refused the challenge only to have the man killed by alternate means. The act of being challenged set that situation apart from the other cases you have mentioned IMO. So tell me how is that not a fair interpretation?

[MoscQuetier]

I suppose, if you are concerned with honor you don't favor your country's military using planes or technology that the opposing side might not possess?

My country barely have some weapons... but yeah, I don't support "modern warfare" (pun intended) It's honourless... anyone is a soldier nowadays

[Associate Maester]

My country barely have some weapons... but yeah, I don't support "modern warfare" (pun intended) It's honourless... anyone is a soldier nowadays

I'm sure honor would be very comforting to the families of soldiers that died because of "fighting fairly."

[Associate Maester]

OBJECTION-The court only carries out executions that are unanimously voted on by fellow judges, such recourse is justified when the accused is given a fair opportunity to be defended.

On the subject of charges 1.1 and 1.2 where you cited the cases of Daenerys and Melisandre, I can agree with that application to 1.1, but not 1.2. Reason being that Stannis was openly challenged to fair combat by Ser Penrose an act that was legal and honorable. So how can it not be viewed as illegal through the eyes of this court when Stannis refused the challenge only to have the man killed by alternate means. The act of being challenged set that situation apart from the other cases you have mentioned IMO. So tell me how is that not a fair interpretation?

Last I checked not choosing single combat (the honorable choice) and choosing a different strategy (assassination) are not crimes. Again, brilliant strategy. Not illegal. Not honorable. Very effective.

[Ame]

My country barely have some weapons... but yeah, I don't support "modern warfare" (pun intended) It's honourless... anyone is a soldier nowadays

Do you think Romans were fair with their steel armor and weapons where non-noble enemies had to make due with whatever they could pick up, and their artillery and their vast amounts of money and manpower? Was Venice fair when it diverted the 4th Crusade to fight it's trade rivals? Were the Turks fair to bring the full brunt of an empire against Constantinople? I am struggling to find this time when men were men and men were soldiers; I see a lot more of powers using whatever advantage they could find; no matter how primitive the technology involved.

[MoscQuetier]

I'm sure honor would be very comforting to the families of soldiers that died because of "fighting fairly."

Comfort, meaby not. But people who fight a war are usually remembered like heroes and at least, you can be proud of your family, it's not much, but it's better than knowing that your dad/bro/uncle died without honour.

An example, even when it is a little to "modern" to my taste, is the war of Malvinas, the Argentinian side fought (hopelessly) with honour, or at least as much honour as a soldier can have in a modern war... and the brits on the other side... yeah. see, that's the diference, honour at least stays when you're dead

[Associate Maester]

Comfort, meaby not. But people who fight a war are usually remembered like heroes and at least, you can be proud of your family, it's not much, but it's better than knowing that your dad/bro/uncle died without honour.

An example, even when it is a little to "modern" to my taste, is the war of Malvinas, the Argentinian side fought (hopelessly) with honour, or at least as much honour as a soldier can have in a modern war... and the brits on the other side... yeah. see, that's the diference, honour at least stays when you're dead

You can't eat honor. Honor does not support one's family or make up for the loss of a loved one. I'm grateful that my siblings were in a military that favored using all technology and tactis possible. Honor is a laudable goal. However, war is not honorable. It is not pretty. It is ugly and terrible and sadly a fact of human existence. I'm a pacifist--but realistic about it. Pacifism is also an ideological luxury I can make because of my position in a stable democratic society. People fighting for freedom from oppression and injustice often don't have the luxury of that. The latest example of course being Syrians fighting against the Assad regime.

[Associate Maester]

Comfort, meaby not. But people who fight a war are usually remembered like heroes and at least, you can be proud of your family, it's not much, but it's better than knowing that your dad/bro/uncle died without honour.

An example, even when it is a little to "modern" to my taste, is the war of Malvinas, the Argentinian side fought (hopelessly) with honour, or at least as much honour as a soldier can have in a modern war... and the brits on the other side... yeah. see, that's the diference, honour at least stays when you're dead

I'd also like to apologize to you if I'm come across as an ass on this topic. It happens to be one I feel strongly about and didn't realize...my strident tone till a reread.

[Golden Hand]

Not guilty on all counts.He's the king.

[Ame]

Comfort, meaby not. But people who fight a war are usually remembered like heroes and at least, you can be proud of your family, it's not much, but it's better than knowing that your dad/bro/uncle died without honour.

An example, even when it is a little to "modern" to my taste, is the war of Malvinas, the Argentinian side fought (hopelessly) with honour, or at least as much honour as a soldier can have in a modern war... and the brits on the other side... yeah. see, that's the diference, honour at least stays when you're dead

I see; Argentina lost a modern war were it was waging a war of aggression and as a patriot you therefore see modern warriors as inferior to their ancestors so could you point out when war was honorable so I could sink the already horrible ship of reaction? Because there is no point where any nation or state with an advantage in a war didn't exploit it fully.

Modern soldiers don't as an army rape; and if they do as individuals they are punished by the law; they don't enslave people, they don't massacre people, they don't hold cities to ransom.

Modern armies feed populations they encounter who are starving; see for example desert storm.

The modern soldier is superior on every morale level to the ancient medieval gunpowder and early modern soldier; and by modern I include wars were the United States exploited it's advantage of production to give the Germans and Japanese a defeat.

It does use the latest technology; just like the Romans just like the Greeks etc etc etc. There has never been an age where technological and other advantages have not been used and exploited besides perhaps the stone age

[Lion of Judah]

Last I checked not choosing single combat (the honorable choice) and choosing a different strategy (assassination) are not crimes. Again, brilliant strategy. Not illegal. Not honorable. Very effective.

Last you checked what? The court you're posting in has challenged the legality of this act because it has found issue with the method that the accused used to achieve his very effective outcome. The fact is that he was challenged and by turning that challenge down, he may have forfeited any right to further push any issue he had with Ser Penrose.

[Lion of Judah]

Not guilty on all counts.He's the king.

Posts like this are running the thread into the ground. This is not a reasonable argument and won't be counted towards the final verdict.

[Associate Maester]

Last you checked what? The court you're posting in has challenged the legality of this act because it has found issue with the method that the accused used to achieve his very effective outcome. The fact is that he was challenged and turning that challenge he may have forfeited any right to further push any issue he had with Ser Penrose.

I was referring to Westerosi law. As far as I know there is nothing illegal about selecting assassination over single combat. Why the hostility?