YUCK!!! As distastful as it seems - IN DEFENSE OF ELIDA!

[Tyrell]

 

Instead, they concocted a deceitful charge (actually, a complete lie ... I'm not sure how they did it, unless Alviarin risked exposure, or it was passed down third hand to alter the wording somehow) that Siuan aided the escape of the False Dragon Mazrim Taim.

 

 

Simple, just go up to whoever you want to have announcing the reason for Suian's deposition, the master of the heralds or the local towncryer or whatever and say "You will announce that Suian was deposed for aiding the escape of the False Dragon Mazrim Taim." It isn't a statement of fact, it's a command, so by the Aes Sedai laws of 'its okay aslong as it isn't explicitly forbidden, and all lies except a direct one are a-okay' it's perfectly acceptable and gets around the letter of the oath against lying, just, while ripping the spirit to shreds, but when has an Aes Sedai actually followed the spirit of any law let alone the three oaths, when she could get away with it?

[DuDZiK]

First off I ask you to remember that there are two issues here and not the one, though they are closely enmeshed:

 

1) The issue of whether it was legal to depose Siuan as Amyrlin

2) The issue of whether the charges against Siuan of treason and such were gone about in a legal manner.

 

Siuan was deposed BECAUSE of the charges laid against her, but those charges were based on mere suspicion and half truths and actual lies not on any concrete proof. To legally depose Siuan based on those charges, Elaida must first put Siuan on a proper trial with the chance to defend herself.

 

Secretly rounding up support against the Amerlyn is not treason.

 

Secretly rounding up support so you can stage an essential coup is.

 

Moreover, she got enough support to get the minimum vote to oust Siuan, this is neither treason nor illegal.

 

Not by the letter of the law, maybe, though I have doubts even of that. It most certainly violates the spirit of the law. What Elaida did was nothing short of an injustice. She sentenced Siuan as guilty before there was even a trial, after concocting a whole slew of half-truths and embellishments and outright lies. Deposing an Amyrlin is one thing, but what she also did was charge her with the crime of treason, for which she acted incredibly illegally.

 

Getting information through putting the deposed Amerlyn "the question" is ambiguous legally at worst. Elaida's illegality came when she was raised without a blue voting for her. If she had waited to get herself elected until after the torturing of Siuan and the rebels attempt to free her, then the rest of the Hall could of ruled the entire blue Ajah in open rebellion, suspended their right to have a Sitters and had a good legal argument for electing Elaida Amerlyn without a blue.  This failure cuopled with the Halls acquiesance in Elaida's banning of the blue gave the rebels the legal technicality to claim that Elaida's election was illegal and question the legitimacy of the Hall.

 

I'm going to have to pull a RAW here, and ask you to quote me all these laws you are bringing up.

 

In addiution, I seriously doubt that the "Custom" surrounding the deposing of an Amerlyn requires that a full meeting of the Hall be called or that the Amerlyn be given the rights under anglo-american law to defend herself.  Dealings in the Hall seem to have two characteristics meeting the minimal requirements of the letter of the law and playing hardball politics.  The Hall is not a debating society and they are not goiverned by robert's Rules of Order.

 

The full meeting of the Hall is ALWAYS prefered, ESPECIALLY on matters that are deemed important. For things of lesser importance they may say that the bare minimum is alright, such as Romanda and co said regarding the sitting of the Hall to hear the reports from what happened at Shadar Logoth, but notice they insisted on waiting until most of the Hall was sitting for other, more important matters. Furthermore, another aspect of Tower Law, is that the petition is put before the Full Hall so that they can gain a general consensus if the petition gains a majority vote, so that even those who did not support it could have their input. Elaida basically ran roughshod over all of this custom and law.

 

Now I believe Elaida needs to be stilled, executed and demonized but not because she was a hypocrite, ambitous or a bit of a fool.

 

Even though she is all of these things::)

 

Under that criteria there might be a brown stuck in a library or a white debating logic that might escape the executioners ax. elaida needs to be deposed because she made a bad situation(a Tower where the real power was in the Ajahs and Ajah jeolousies were barely under control) to a slplit in the Tower(between Tower and Rebel forces)and into almost total Ajah    warfare. She also mismanaged relations with the Dragon Reborn, her own ego blinded her to the real size of the Black Tower and the threat of the Black Ajah. And her deft handling of relations with Randland Rulers also was less then optimal. For these failures she deserves death.

 

By the Tower law that you seem to love to use, yet fail to provide actual quotes of the laws? ;)

 

While I find Siuan a much more sympathetic character, I think that if she had not been deposed her lack of coalition building and her penchent for secrecy would also have lead to disaster.  Siuan was also willing to admit that her actions objectively viewed might lead to her being stilled.

 

Here's the issue: as far as I know, there isn't really any law to say when you can or can't depose an Amyrlin, which by the way doesn't always demand that she be stilled (there is the case of that one Amyrlin who was deposed but continually plotted to be re-raised until she was killed), and if there is they are ambiguous citing cases of 'incompetency' or something, and leaving interpretation to the sisters in the Tower.

 

So Elaida may have been 'right' to depose Siuan, though she never gave her the chance to defend herself, such a thing is hinted at even for the Black Ajah, but she was NOT right to still her and THEN conduct a trial. The Aes Sedai said to Perrin: She must stand trial in the Tower presided over by three (or some number) Sitters. Now unless your idea of a 'trial' is to covertly gather a few sitters together, absent the defendent herself, and condemn her without a chance to defend herself, then Elaida acted illegally.

[RobertAlexWillis]

Secretly rounding up support against the Amerlyn is not treason.

 

Secretly rounding up support to depose her on false charges is.  If Siuan had broken the law, then it wouldn't be.  But she didn't.

 

Once again, you have failed to name a law that Siuan broke.  You say that "Possibly no "crime" need be proved evidence of mafeasence in office may be enough" ... I know Wikipedia is not the most reliable source, but sometimes it is correct.  This is the definition there: "Malfeasance in office, or official misconduct, is the commission of an unlawful act, done in an official capacity, which affects the performance of official duties. Malfeasance in office is often grounds for a for cause removal of an elected official by statute or recall election."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malfeasance_in_office

 

So, um ... she needs to have committed a crime to be guilty of malfeasance in office.  Just to offset the fact that Wikipedia is not the most reliable of witnesses, here's some corroborating definitions:

 

"Doing something that is illegal. This term is often used when a professional or public official commits an illegal act that interferes with the performance of his or her duties. For example, an elected official who accepts a bribe in exchange for political favors has committed malfeasance."

 

http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/E7EAA402-5E12-4C29-B6A862D491BB6A95/alpha/M/

 

"Malfeasance is the act of doing something which one should not do or which one is prohibited from doing by a legal or moral obligation, with an intention to do wrong."

 

http://www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/malfeasance.htm

 

Siuan did not break the law, and was deposed using false charges that the accusers knew were false.  Elaida broke the law to depose her, broke the law in dissolving the Blue Ajah, and broke the law by taking the Amyrlin Seat.

 

I can't really find any fault with Egwene for being named Amyrlin by the rebels. After all, she didn't have any say in the matter

 

Good people can still break the law.  In fact, you can break the law doing what is morally "right". The fact that it isn't Egwene's "fault" doesn't mean that she didn't break the law.  Her ascension to the Amyrlin Seat is illegal.  That won't really matter after she wins, because laws are silent in the face of arms.

 

Its quite clear that in her dellusions of grandure Elaida sincerely believed that she and her "talents" were essential to the Tower in the coming years.

 

Every ambitious person rationalizes their ambitions in a similar way.  Elaida plotted to put herself on the Amyrlin Seat before she even knew whether or not Siuan had a plan, what that plan was, or had looked at the merits of that plan.  When you simply assume that you are the best person for the job, and plan to put yourself there illegally, your "reasons" are nothing more than a rationalization to satisfy your ambition.

 

 

 

 

 

[CUBAREY]

Quote:

 

So, um ... she needs to have committed a crime to be guilty of malfeasance in office.

 

Merriam-Websters Dictionary of Law defines the word as:

 

". Main Entry: mal·fea·sance

Pronunciation: "mal-'fEz-&ns

Function: noun

Etymology: mal- bad + obsolete English feasance doing, execution, from Old French faisance, from fais-, stem of faire to make, do, from Latin facere

: the commission (as by a public official) of a wrongful or unlawful act involving or affecting the performance of one's duties.

 

Please note that it includes wrongful and unlawful acts.

 

Committing an act that is immoral, places the organization in a bad light,making arbitrary decisions, not following the common practices or customs of an organization have all been considered to be malfeasance and justified the removal from office of leaders. Thus even if she committed no crime Siuan definitely could be seen by reasonable A.S. as having committed malfeasance and could have been legally deposed.

 

Quote:

 

Secretly rounding up support to depose her on false charges is.  If Siuan had broken the law, then it wouldn't be.  But she didn't.

 

Actually a successful coup detat is never deemed to be treason only unsuccessful ones are so described.

[RobertAlexWillis]

Committing an act that is immoral, places the organization in a bad light,making arbitrary decisions, not following the common practices or customs of an organization have all been considered to be malfeasance and justified the removal from office of leaders. Thus even if she committed no crime Siuan definitely could be seen by reasonable A.S. as having committed malfeasance and could have been legally deposed.

 

If acknowledging the Dragon and working to control him is immoral, then Elaida is as guilty as Siuan.  The only thing that differs is the method each chose to employ.  If you are contending that Elaida's approach is somehow more inherently moral than Siuan's ... well, then I'm glad you don't agree with me.

 

Actually a successful coup detat is never deemed to be treason only unsuccessful ones are so described.

 

LOL ... thats not a result of what is "legal", though, or even of what is "right".  Its a result of who wins.  No one is disputing that Elaida was successful in ousting Siuan.  ::)

[CUBAREY]

Quote:

 

If you are contending that Elaida's approach is somehow more inherently moral than Siuan's ... well, then I'm glad you don't agree with me.

 

I'm argiung that the vast majority of A.S., at the time, would of viewed anything less then sequestering the Dragon Reborn physically in the White Tower as immoral, way to dangerous, wreckless and unacceptible. What you and I believe (as omnicent readers of the saga) is irrelevent, what's important is how the A.S. would of viewed the matter.

 

 

LOL ... thats not a result of what is "legal", though, or even of what is "right".  Its a result of who wins.  No one is disputing that Elaida was successful in ousting Siuan. 

 

Well what you have previously said about the force of arms and Egwene's legitimacy applies here. In a coup tetat, rebellion, or revolution the winner gets to decide what "treason" is. This is because treason is in the eye of the beholder. As Ben Franlin stated a "traiter" is always refered in the third person. My patriot, your traiter.

 

 

Quote:

 

Siuan was deposed BECAUSE of the charges laid against her, but those charges were based on mere suspicion and half truths and actual lies not on any concrete proof. To legally depose Siuan based on those charges, Elaida must first put Siuan on a proper trial with the chance to defend herself.

 

First, your bias for an anglo-American concept of a just trial (modern day civil-law jurisdictions while not based on anglo-american concepts of a just trial still provide the essential safeguards so I would include them in the definition) is quite evident but is it logical in a Medevil Universe especially where we are talking about an organization of opinionated people that believe that "if its not specificly prohibited its allowed".

 

Quote:

 

Not by the letter of the law, maybe, though I have doubts even of that. It most certainly violates the spirit of the law.

 

A.S.do not care about the spirit of the law their only concern is whether they have met the minimum requirements of the letter of the law. Look at the Three oaths and how they all sidestep the spirit of the prohibitions but still comply with the oaths.

 

Quote:

 

The full meeting of the Hall is ALWAYS prefered, ESPECIALLY on matters that are deemed important.

 

Yes preferred but not technically required. In a pinch all A.S. seem to fall back on the letter of the law as the only true requirement.

 

Quote:

 

I'm going to have to pull a RAW here, and ask you to quote me all these laws you are bringing up.

 

 

My point was that if they had deposed Siuan, "Questioned her", then put the evidence in front of the full Hall and the Blues then rebelled the rest of the Hall could have quite reasonably viewed the blues rebellion as a forefiture of their right to have a say in picing a new Amerlyn. Obviously my views on the ability to susopend or terminate the rights of a rebel Ajah are supposition, but they are based on the "reasonable" assumption that the Tower would not simply acquiese to the wishes of a bebel Ajah and that considering the facts disclosed in the BWB concerning the founding of the Tower some way of dealing with a rebel Ajah must have been at least contemplated in Tower Law.

 

 

 

Quote:

 

By the Tower law that you seem to love to use, yet fail to provide actual quotes of the laws?

 

No by the law of the jungle.

 

 

[so Elaida may have been 'right' to depose Siuan, though she never gave her the chance to defend herself, such a thing is hinted at even for the Black Ajah, but she was NOT right to still her and THEN conduct a trial. /i]

 

Siuan was stilled after the minimum number of Sitters had met and deposed her. True she did not receive an anglo-american trial with right to present witnesses and face her accusers but she was tried by what appears to be a tribunal that met the minimum legal requirements. Was this "just", no but as I have argued the A.S. are not about doing the "just" thing they are about doing what they want as long as they meet the minimum legal requirements.

 

Quote:

 

Now unless your idea of a 'trial' is to covertly gather a few sitters together, absent the defendent herself, and condemn her without a chance to defend herself, then Elaida acted illegally.

 

Its not my idea of a "fair trial" but it seems to be the type of thing that A.S. would consider meeting the mimimum requirements of Tower law (remember even the Rebel Hall admitted that Siuan's trial had met the minimum legal requirements).

 

As I previously said I believe that Elaida is an egomaniac, fool and incompetent and deserves death. But not because she acted like an A.S. in scheming to depose Siuan but rather because she has botched the job of being Amerlyn and made a succesful strike against the DO much more difficult.

 

[RobertAlexWillis]

I'm argiung that the vast majority of A.S., at the time, would of viewed anything less then sequestering the Dragon Reborn physically in the White Tower as immoral, way to dangerous, wreckless and unacceptible.

 

Given the fact that two thirds of the Aes Sedai in the world are not approaching it that way, I'd say that you're dead wrong.  Elaida has that view ... and she used it to rationalize breaking the Tower.

 

Well what you have previously said about the force of arms and Egwene's legitimacy applies here. In a coup tetat, rebellion, or revolution the winner gets to decide what "treason" is. This is because treason is in the eye of the beholder. As Ben Franlin stated a "traiter" is always refered in the third person. My patriot, your traiter.

 

Yes, I know.  None of that has to do with whether what Elaida did was legal or illegal.  Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and the others were traitors, in the legal sense.  They rebelled against their king.  Some, like Washington, had even sworn an oath of loyalty in the past.  But they were morally right.  I've said consistently that Egwene is guilty of breaking the law, but morally in the right.  Elaida is guilty of breaking the law, and morally in the wrong.

 

Morality and law rarely have more than a passing acquaintance.  A lawyer, of all people, should know that.  ::)

 

especially where we are talking about an organization of opinionated people that believe that "if its not specificly prohibited its allowed".

 

If that is truly their attitude, then what Siuan did should be allowed ... unless you're contending that her specific actions are prohibited by law?  (Since you haven't named that law yet, after so many chances, I'll assume you can't ... because it doesn't exist.)  Therefore, Siuan's removal was both illegal and immoral, and driven not by moral concern for the Tower, or just concern for the law, but by the ambition of Elaida do Avriny a'Roihan.

[CUBAREY]

Quote:

 

Morality and law rarely have more than a passing acquaintance.  A lawyer, of all people, should know that. 

 

Actually, you are dead wrong almost all laws are based on morality. The administration of the Law is quite flawed but thats because its administered by humans. And are you now lowering yourself to lawyer bating? ;D ;D

 

Quote:

 

Given the fact that two thirds of the Aes Sedai in the world are not approaching it that way, I'd say that you're dead wrong.  Elaida has that view ... and she used it to rationalize breaking the Tower.

 

One third are rebels but most of them seem to be of the view that Siuan brought about her own destruction and only rebelled because they see Elaida as an even worse choice to be Anerlyn. The second third are sitting out the battle but if Cadsuanne's bunch is indicative (and I think it is) they abhor Elaida but look down upon the rebels even more for splitting the Tower (in a public and dejure manner) even more.

 

Quote:

 

Some, like Washington, had even sworn an oath of loyalty in the past.  But they were morally right.

 

Look I support what the American founding Fathers did, I am American and therefore view them as patriots.  But to say that they were in any sense "morally right" is to take patriatism to the level of religion.  Whatever the propoganda they did not rebel against a despotic Monarch they rebelled against a Parliament that was following policies (specifically taxing policies) that did not favor Colonial interests. That seperation was necessary in practical terms to enhance the interets of the colonies is I believe true but it was not a "moral" choice it was an economic and pragmatic one.

[RobertAlexWillis]

Actually, you are dead wrong almost all laws are based on morality.

 

If there is such a thing as "correct objective morality" (which I believe) then the wide variety of laws that have been enacted throughout human history are evidence that law and morality are not really related.

 

If there is no such thing as "correct objective morality", then morality is anything anyone wants to say it is, and since laws are things agreed upon as standards by a group, the two also bear no relation.

 

Law and morality should be linked (according to my morality  ;D ) but rarely are.

 

One third are rebels but most of them seem to be of the view that Siuan brought about her own destruction and only rebelled because they see Elaida as an even worse choice to be Anerlyn.

 

... which has nothing at all to do with what you were asserting, that is, that "the vast majority of A.S., at the time, would of viewed anything less then sequestering the Dragon Reborn physically in the White Tower as immoral, way to dangerous, wreckless and unacceptible."

 

Certainly their actions since the split have not been toward "sequestering the Dragon Reborn physically".

 

The second third are sitting out the battle but if Cadsuanne's bunch is indicative (and I think it is) they abhor Elaida but look down upon the rebels even more for splitting the Tower (in a public and dejure manner) even more.

 

Again, irrelevant to the statement under discussion.  That third is also not trying to "[sequester] the Dragon Reborn physically".  Indeed, if "Cadsuane's bunch" is indicative, they actively support him.

 

Look I support what the American founding Fathers did, I am American and therefore view them as patriots.

 

If you view them as patriots just because you're American, then you're an intentionally unthinking idiot.  If you view them as patriots (as I do) because you agree with what they wrote in the Declaration of Independence and admire the government constructed under the US Constitution, then they were morally right, and King George (and the British Parliament) were violating the human and governmental rights of the people in this country.

 

The American Revolution was about more than merely "Taxation without Representation".

 

That seperation was necessary in practical terms to enhance the interets of the colonies is I believe true but it was not a "moral" choice it was an economic and pragmatic one.

 

So ... you would admire a traitor who broke the law, making ... not a "moral" choice, but a pragamatic economic one?  Thats an odd stance for a lawyer ... unless you're a defense lawyer?

[CUBAREY]

Quote:

 

what they wrote in the Declaration of Independence and admire the government constructed under the US Constitution, then they were morally right, and King George (and the British Parliament) were violating the human and governmental rights of the people in this country.

 

The Declaration of Independence and Constitution are indeed documents that encompass certain awe inspiring concepts and they set up a government that has worked for over 225 years. However, they were political documents (and rather flawed ones at that-- the 3/5th compromise) not moral/religious tracts. Moreover, the British Parliamentary system while flawed has also been a bulwark of freedom. I remind you that the British abolished slavery several decades before our civil war, the franchise in England was extended in 1830's and women got the vote earlier then in the U.S.

 

Also, at the beginning of the revolution (if not until the end of the civil war) most colonists if they distinguished themselves from there English brethren at all did so by calling themselves (and having primary allegiance to) Virginians, New Yorkers, etc.  Possibly the only two persons who considered themselves "American" at that point were Ben Franklin and John Adams.

 

Quote:

 

So ... you would admire a traitor who broke the law, making ... not a "moral" choice, but a pragmatic economic one?  That's an odd stance for a lawyer ... unless you're a defense lawyer?

 

Well I'm a man who's father could be said to have committed "treason" by working with the CIA and other elements of a hostile foreign government in ill-fated attempts to topple his countries government which at the time (at least) had popular support. He did so partly out of moral commitment but primarily because he viewed his governments policies as leading not only to his own impoverishment but the impoverishment of his children in particular and the nation as a whole. Thus in my view "treason" is a subjective term given to those you disagree with and "Patriot" a term you give to those whose actions support your own beliefs.

 

And no I am not a defense attorney, but in defense of them, I will say that they play a very important role in the justice system and have found them, as a whole, to be a hell of a lot more idealistic and moral then those who defame them. Now some are gutter-rats but you find that sort in every profession.

 

Going back on topic, my argument was that at the time that Elaida deposed Siuan the vast majority of A.S. believed that the Dragon Reborn had to be physically restrained in the White Tower. That thereafter the rebels and Cadsuanne's bunch came to the conclusion that Rand had to have freedom is irrelevant  (Moreover, its clear that even some of the Tower A.S. have now correctly taken this view).

[RobertAlexWillis]

You are correct that this isn't the place to argue the moral base for the US government, so I'll skip straight to this:

 

Going back on topic, my argument was that at the time that Elaida deposed Siuan the vast majority of A.S. believed that the Dragon Reborn had to be physically restrained in the White Tower

 

Considering that the Tower split over this very issue, on the very day in question, I think your assertion that the "vast majority" agreed with Elaida is suspect, at best.  If they believed it then, why didn't they all fall in behind Elaida?  After all, the Blue Ajah is almost the smallest of the Ajahs ... and yet as many followed them out of the Tower as stayed with Elaida.  Given the numbers belonging to each respective Ajah, it seems that the Red Ajah is the only one that stayed in any signifigant numbers ... while a majority of Reds may have believed as you said, it seems clear that a majority of Aes Sedai did not then, and certainly do not now, believe that the Dragon must be "physically restrained in the White Tower".  In fact, given how important keeping the Tower whole seems to be to them, they must disagree strongly if they are willing to break with Elaida over it.

[lou]

what was posted after elaida's coup is suspect, but may have been deception along the lines of what suian did upon arrival at salidar, with logain. it may be that suian was deposed for other reasons than taim and that was sealed to the hall. the treason may have been the knowledge and aid of the dragon reborn, and not reporting information to the hall of the tower.

i dont believe the tower split over whether or not to support rand, but because the full hall was not notified before deposing the amyrlin.

[RobertAlexWillis]

i dont believe the tower split over whether or not to support rand, but because the full hall was not notified before deposing the amyrlin.

 

The reason that the full Hall wasn't notified, is that the full Hall wouldn't have supported deposing Siuan, because the rationale used in the Hall was that Siuan was mishandling the situation with Rand.  The Tower split over how to deal with Rand al'Thor, plain and simple, and, given time and orders to return, barely a third of the Aes Sedai have come home to Elaida (and there are hardly any Sisters in the Tower outside the Red Ajah ... the Reds account for about a fifth of all Aes Sedai, or about 200, and there are barely 300 in the Tower ... even if a few Red Sisters haven't made it back yet, or aren't coming back, the Reds alone still outnumber all other Ajahs combined).  It makes no sense at all that a "vast majority" would agree with Elaida's policy regarding Rand, but then not return to the Tower when she called.  And CUBAREY's implication that somehow they've changed their mind in the interim, that they agreed with Elaida "at the time" but don't now is absurd on the face of it ... what, they changed their mind because someone who agreed with them came to power?

 

Elaida manipulated events, with the help of Alviarin, Galina, Mesaana, and the Black Ajah (although she did not know those last two bits, of course) to get herself and people who supported her ideas into a tiny window of opportunity to put her own agenda forward.  There are 21 Sitters in a full Hall, and Elaida managed to convince 10 others ... barely ... thats hardly a "vast majority", even within the Hall, and the response among the Sisters as a whole has been less than the temporary bare majority that Elaida managed to convince "at the time".

 

As a procedural note ... to confirm the illegality of Elaida's plan as a whole:

 

As a Sitter, Elaida was able to call a sitting of the Hall while making sure that only the Sitters she wanted to attend actually received notification. Elaida is a forceful and effective speaker, and her arguments to this bare quorum in favor of deposing Siuan were also her campaign for being raised to the Amyrlin Seat herself, so the vote to depose Siuan was followed immediately by the vote to make Elaida the new Amyrlin.

 

RJ on Elaida's ascension, http://www.wotmania.com/faqtopic.asp?ID=152

 

The fact that the meeting to depose Siuan did not have a sitter from the Blue Ajah may not have been technically illegal, at least as to the number of people attending it (the reasons used are another issue), but the same meeting immediately electing Elaida as the new Amyrlin without someone from the Blue Ajah is illegal in both form and substance ... so Elaida was planning to break the law from the start.

[CUBAREY]

Quote:

 

  If they believed it then, why didn't they all fall in behind Elaida? 

I fave already stated the reason:

 

One third are rebels but most of them seem to be of the view that Siuan brought about her own destruction and only rebelled because they see Elaida as an even worse choice to be Anerlyn. The second third are sitting out the battle but if Cadsuanne's bunch is indicative (and I think it is) they abhor Elaida but look down upon the rebels even more for splitting the Tower (in a public and dejure manner).

 

 

The Rebels believed Elaida would be a total disaster as Amerlyn. As I previously posted if she would have devided the deposing of Siuan and her own elevation she very likey would have been succesful. (Depose Siuan, have the Hall make a public announcement, "question" Siuan, put the facts in front of the full Hall.) She has 11 voets and she's a convenient patsy for the Black Ajah. The blue would be hard pressed to deny her the Amerlyn's seat.(That's even presuming that one of the blue sitters was not black, which is always a possibility).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RobertAlexWillis]

Uh huh ... not so fast my friend.

 

One third are rebels but most of them seem to be of the view that Siuan brought about her own destruction and only rebelled because they see Elaida as an even worse choice to be Anerlyn.

 

OK ... and why did they see Elaida as an even worse choice than Siuan?  Because they disagreed with the way that she viewed dealing with the Dragon Reborn.  Which is precisely what I said.

 

You say that they thought Elaida was a bad choice for Amyrlin, but then claim that the "vast majority" agreed with Elaida on the most pivotal issue surrounding Siuan's removal, and the most important issue of the time.  If they agreed with Elaida, why did they think she was a bad choice for Amyrlin?  ::)

 

As I previously posted if she would have devided the deposing of Siuan and her own elevation she very likey would have been succesful. (Depose Siuan, have the Hall make a public announcement, "question" Siuan, put the facts in front of the full Hall.)

 

Obviously, she didn't think that would work out well at all, which is why she broke the Law to have herself raised without a full Hall.  I happen to agree with her assessment.  If nothing else, Delana or another Black

 

The blue would be hard pressed to deny her the Amerlyn's seat.(That's even presuming that one of the blue sitters was not black, which is always a possibility).

 

Um, thats actually very, VERY unlikely.  If one of the Blue Sitters was Black, that one would likely have been instructed to deny Elaida as hard as she could ... because Mesaana and Alviarin wanted the split, not Elaida with any valid support.

 

In fact, that may well turn out to be what happened with Lelaine, if she does turn out to be Black Ajah.

 

---

 

OK.  This has gone past the point of being productive.  I bid this thread adieu.

[Guest cw]

In a POV Siuan states that if the facts were to come out even Leane(sp?) would turn her in for deposing and stilling. Siuan knew that what she was doing would be viewed as treason.

 

She was expressing doubts.  Leane kept following her after the details were known and she had been stilled.  Siuan and Moiraine were afraid (rightly so) that the fear of men channeling (ingrained for over 3000 years) would override both the letter and the spirit of the law, not to mention common sense.

 

All this said, we obviously disagree.  I find your points ... less than compelling, to put it mildly.  But, so be it.

 

To be frank, there is no justification for Elaida’s actions.  She set her own path over 20 years earlier while she was still an Accepted and decided not to reveal her foretelling about the Royal Line of Andor.  She knew Tarmon Gai'don was coming soon and made a conscious decision not to tell anyone.  Rather, she saw it as a way that she could personally control events to her own liking.  Her motivations were purely self-serving, long before Padan Fain and Alviaran/Mesaana were able to touch her.  We first see a mark of her character in the Eye of the World when she meets Rand.  She started forming her plans to move against Suian after Moiraine snuck Rand away from Caemlyn under her very nose.

 

Anyway, I quoted the above piece because of the fact that it mentioned Leane, yet seems to miss the mark where Elaida is concerned.  To my best recollection, Leane didn’t know about Rand being the Dragon, or even being able to Channel, until shortly before, or even the same time as, they Hall of the Tower found out.  You have been arguing about if Suian and Moiraine acted illegally, but what was Leane’s crime?  Under what Law was Leane tried that could have justified the penalty of Stilling?  Knowing that, can anyone honestly think Elaida cared about and was motivated by truth and justice?

 

Addition:  I don't know if this was mentioned, but Elaida was, if not the actual pertetrator, an knowing and willful accessory to murder when Suian was deposed.  Alric, Suian's warder, was murdered in cold blood prior to Suian being seized.  There were other methods they could have used for dealing with him pending a trial of some form.  It would have required fabrication of more charges, but she wasn't above doing that.

[CUBAREY]

Quote:

 

To my best recollection, Leane didn’t know about Rand being the Dragon, or even being able to Channel, until shortly before, or even the same time as, they Hall of the Tower found out.  You have been arguing about if Suian and Moiraine acted illegally, but what was Leane’s crime?  Under what Law was Leane tried that could have justified the penalty of Stilling?  Knowing that, can anyone honestly think Elaida cared about and was motivated by truth and justice?

 

Addition:  I don't know if this was mentioned, but Elaida was, if not the actual pertetrator, an knowing and willful accessory to murder when Suian was deposed.  Alric, Suian's warder, was murdered in cold blood prior to Suian being seized.  There were other methods they could have used for dealing with him pending a trial of some form.  It would have required fabrication of more charges, but she wasn't above doing that.

 

First, motivated by truth and justce?" Well no but none of these characters were motivated by such modern motives. At best Siuan and Morraine can be said to be motivated by the motivation to see that the light was triumphent at TG. Moirraine for one made repeated statements that "nothing" could be permiied to stand in the way of that objective. So there moral stance might be described not as wanting truth and justiice but, the ends justify the means.

 

Leanne and Alric could have been serious obsticles in the way of deposing and stilling Siuan. Basicly, Elaida and her cohorts took the view that the ends justified the means.

 

I initially came to Elaida's defense only to the extent that I believed that she was using Tower law and attitudes in the typical Aes Sadei way.  They are all hypocrites and show a rather low concern for normal concepts such as "justice and truth".  Elaida should be deposed not because she more or less a practitioner of these normal A.S. practices but because she is incompetent, a fool and poses a very real obsticle in the way of the forces of light winning TG. 

[BrainFireBob]

Collusion is also outright illegal- and Elaida seems to have colluded with some of her bare minimum quorum. That's the other element.

[CUBAREY]

Quote:

 

Collusion is also outright illegal-

 

How? Planning in secret how to carry out a legal act is not a conspiracy and therefore not per se illegal. Only if the underlying Act being planned are themselves illegal is planning how to carry them out illegal. Planning how to depose Siuan is therefore not illegal. Moreover, neuither are discussions on who and how to raise a new Amerlyn once Siuan is deposed, even if these discussions occur while Siuan is still Amerlyn.

[RobertAlexWillis]

Basicly, Elaida and her cohorts took the view that the ends justified the means.

 

::)  So do most criminals.  ::)

[CUBAREY]

Quote"

 

Basicly, Elaida and her cohorts took the view that the ends justified the means.

 

  So do most criminals. 

 

Moiraine's oft quoted commented that she would do what had to be done, is a similar "Ends justify the means" statement.  Most A.S. seem to be pretty blase about acting in adherence to "moral" principles as long as their objectives are met in the end.

[RobertAlexWillis]

The difference being that Moiraine's willingness to "do what must be done" was for an essentially selfless moral end; saving the world, no matter the cost to anyone, herself included (as demonstrated by her actions on the docks in Cairhien).  Elaida's willingness to "do what must be done" was for an essentially selfish desire to satisfy her own ambition, not any moral "higher good".

 

Aes Sedai like Elaida don't care about moral principles, or law.  Aes Sedai like Moiraine value moral principles, above law.  The ones like Moiraine are, admittedly, much rarer.  But there is a very significant difference.

 

As a side note, since Elaida's plan included her being raised as Amyrlin, without any member of the Blue Ajah present (which is purely illegal), the conspiracy did include collusion to commit illegal acts.

[CUBAREY]

Quote:

 

As a side note, since Elaida's plan included her being raised as Amyrlin, without any member of the Blue Ajah present (which is purely illegal), the conspiracy did include collusion to commit illegal acts

 

I would put it as Elaida and her cronies colluded in conspiring to commit illegal acts. The crimes she (and the rest of the group) committed was thus conspiracy to illegally raising am Amerlyn and illegally raising an Amerlyn . It's a nitpicky distinction but I'm a lawyer and making nitpicky distinctions is how I make a living. ::) ::)

[RobertAlexWillis]

I would put it as Elaida and her cronies colluded in conspiring to commit illegal acts. The crimes she (and the rest of the group) committed was thus conspiracy to illegally raising am Amerlyn and illegally raising an Amerlyn . It's a nitpicky distinction but I'm a lawyer and making nitpicky distinctions is how I make a living.

 

Thank you for justifying every lawyer joke ... ever.  ;D

[BrainFireBob]

CUBAREY-

 

You forget that by White Tower law, collusion is illegal. Period.Which is why I brought it up. In America it's not, but in the White Tower, it is.