Most hated character

KNick wrote:Sorry, Rose. As a former sailor I must agree at least in part with Exiled. Sonja committed at least two and possibly three criminal acts with her vote.
First: dereliction of duty. If Young was guilty of the crimes he was charged with, it was her responsibility to see that he suffered the punishment for those crimes. If, for any reason, she felt she could not impose that sentence she should have recused herself. As the charges were specified, if he was guilty of one, he was guilty of all of them. Since she felt he was guilty (she must have in order to propose the solution she did), she should have so voted, from the start.
Second: Conduct unbecoming an Officer. By allowing political pressure to sway her vote, she violated her commissioning oath. In fact, under the strict interpretation of the law, all six were guilty of this charge.
Third (possibly). Conspiracy to commit a crime. If she discussed her decision with anyone, she is guilty of this. However, I do not know if there were any "off screen" discussions. It is implied that there are, but that is unconfirmed in her case.

All of that said, I believe that she has risen above that period of her life, not in spite of but because of, the effects of that decision. She had her nose rubbed in the fact that she was wrong and is doing her best to atone for her mistake.

So? By that logic Honor should have been court-martialed as well; she issued orders that were not hers to give and did it under false pretenses. If we're giving leeway to Honor because of other considerations under the circumstances - that passing command would have scrambled the squadron enough to cause defeat - then we owe Sonja the same consideration.

In addition, if you're going to throw stones at someone for caving to political pressure, it shouldn't be Sonja Hemphill. Jurgens and Lemaitre blatantly voted in a partisan manner despite knowing Young was, because of what he knew at the time, absolutely guilty of cowardice and desertion. White Haven and Kuzak conveniently chose to ignore Honor's irregular actions during the battle and let them slide because of political pressure from the other side. Nobody on that jury was impartial.

In ideal conditions, yes, Sonja should have voted to convict, because we as the readers knew that Young was in the wrong and Honor was in the right. But the military doesn't exist in a vacuum. Had Young been executed, any chance of getting a declaration of war against Haven through Parliament would have been impossible. Sonja knew that. She had her reasons for not wanting Young executed. Were they the most noble of reasons? Not necessarily. But they were her reasons, and she believed in them strongly enough to broker a compromise that would draw fire from both sides and satisfy nobody, because at least it was something, and she wanted him punished.

She didn't recuse herself because she knew that if she did, any chance of punishing Young at all might well go straight out the window. So she took the only visible way out. In hindsight, maybe she wishes she'd made a different choice; we don't know. But she acted in good faith, on the information she had, with the only options she saw available to her, and she made the best of it. This wasn't something Sonja has to redeem herself from. It was the start of her redemption.

Other people on this thread have defended her far more eloquently than I ever could, and I'd ask you to go back and read those posts as well, because she deserves it.

I've never painted her as a saint. But the idea that she acted in her own self-interest or that she faltered under pressure is one I cannot and will not ever believe.

Rose. You are correct in your interpretation of what should have happened to Honor. In fact, the fact that she wasn't charged was in and of itself a political decision made by the Admiralty. The charges against Young were shaped by that decision. The very way that the particulars of the charges were written makes that clear. However, the fact that the civilian government made that choice has no impact on Sonja's military duty. Every member of the Court was at least guilty of allowing politics to interfere with their duty. What probably should have happened was a formal Board of Inquiry on Honor's actions at Hancock. Only after that should Young have been charged. However, Adm. Parks charged Captain Young before either one left Hancock, omitting or short stopping a formal Board by the Admiralty. By holding his own Board in Hancock, Adm. Parks opened the door to everything that followed. Instead of relieving just Young of command of Warlock, he should have relieved both of them pending the outcome of a formal Admiralty Board, where the decision of who should be charged with what would be made. Once the specifications were written, however, their political repercussions are supposed to be ignored by the officers of a formal Court Martial, for good or ill. That is where Sonja and all the others came up short. The fact that Sonja was recalled to head up the WDB by Whitehaven is a reflection of the fact that he knew this and did not hold it against her, since he was as guilty as she was of that particular omission.

KNick wrote:Rose. You are correct in your interpretation of what should have happened to Honor. In fact, the fact that she wasn't charged was in and of itself a political decision made by the Admiralty. The charges against Young were shaped by that decision. The very way that the particulars of the charges were written makes that clear. However, the fact that the civilian government made that choice has no impact on Sonja's military duty. Every member of the Court was at least guilty of allowing politics to interfere with their duty. What probably should have happened was a formal Board of Inquiry on Honor's actions at Hancock. Only after that should Young have been charged. However, Adm. Parks charged Captain Young before either one left Hancock, omitting or short stopping a formal Board by the Admiralty. By holding his own Board in Hancock, Adm. Parks opened the door to everything that followed. Instead of relieving just Young of command of Warlock, he should have relieved both of them pending the outcome of a formal Admiralty Board, where the decision of who should be charged with what would be made. Once the specifications were written, however, their political repercussions are supposed to be ignored by the officers of a formal Court Martial, for good or ill. That is where Sonja and all the others came up short. The fact that Sonja was recalled to head up the WDB by Whitehaven is a reflection of the fact that he knew this and did not hold it against her, since he was as guilty as she was of that particular omission.

Now that I can agree with.

In other news, am I the only one who wants to strangle Midshipman Grigovakis with my bare hands?

KNick wrote:As the charges were specified, if he was guilty of one, he was guilty of all of them.

Rereading the charges, I don't think it's an all or nothing proposition.
1) Broke formation w/o orders
2) Ignored flagships orders to rejoin
3) 1&2 compromised defense and cost lives
4) 1,2,&3 resulted from personal cowardliness
5) 1&2 constitute desertion in the face of the enemy.

One is clearly true, no orders were transmitted to break formation.

Two is the dicey one because there's a legit question of whether Honor had the right to issue the orders, and whether it's illegal to ignore an order that wasn't legal to issue.

There can't be any question that the result of Young's actions did cause the destruction and death mentioned in 3; but if 2 doesn't apply the specification as written is flawed and weakened.

Four seems pretty straight forward given the recordings, but it doesn't have to flow from 1 or 2.

But if you decide he's not guilty of 2, then a Captain invoking a preplanned move; slightly early and w/o specific order (rather than in defiance of them) is harder to see a necessarily desertion.


Sure, my view is that he's guilty in every detail of them. But I don't see that someone has to see the 5 as all or nothing.

Uroboros wrote:She's quite headstrong, with very few social barriers. However, you can see how she's mellowed from House of Steel, and she did visibly split with the High Ridge government in War of Honor, despite nominally considering herself a conservative.

She's one of the most complex ancillary characters, too. She is one of those people who seems to have a strong opinion on any subject that comes her way.

As for the court in question? I have a lot of respect for her for breaking the way she did. In her case, I do not think it was entirely political pressure. I think that it was one of the few times in the series she was utterly unsure of her own opinion. She's quiet all throughout the deliberations, until she finally speaks up at the end.

At one point, she has her convictions that the Conservative Association truly shares her values. Up until this point, she had no reason to doubt this. Until she is told unequivocally to vote a certain way in the case of Young. I'll leave you to imagine how the conversation between High Ridge and Hemphill went.

And then you have Young, who is completely guilty of all charges. He's killed hundreds of officers, possibly more, by his cowardly act. His entire defense lies on a technicality. She knows this. And, she probably expects her Conservative buddies on the panel to realize this as well. Except they swallow that line, and back it to the hilt.

For one of the first times in her life, she's got to be wrong. But what could she be wrong about? You see how quiet she is during the deliberations, which is utterly unlike the headstrong, abrasive, and vocal woman we've seen (and heard about) up to this point.

And then she offers a compromise. Sonja, who is about as undiplomatic an officer as you can get, does something completely out of her character.

Thinking more about this now, I think there might have been an additional factor in her thinking.

I know we all feel that Young is a despicable person, and a coward who panicked and got a bunch of people unnecessarily killed. But keep in mind there was a technical oddity in that case; the technicallity of his violation depended on his belief that Honor was relaying orders from his superior officer, which in fact wasn't the case.

Engineers and technical people often tend towards literalness, and preferring hard facts. It's possible Hemphill was uncomfortable breaking judicial ground to find Young guilty of violating orders based on his subjecting knowledge/belief rather that based on the objective facts.

I know, in the end, she said that the technicality was immaterial to her decision; but I'm not so sure that during the early deliberation it really was.

So that comfort with hard facts, as much as her unexamined conservative party political leanings, could have explained the her delay. Weighing the good of the service against the ambiguity of whether Young really was obligated to follow Honor's orders could have led her to believe that a compromise was honestly in order.




That said it would have been interesting to see how she would have voted in some alternate arrangement of the Board where she wouldn't know that a not-guilty vote, early on, was basically a vote to deadlock (along party lines) and continue deliberating. But we'll never know that.
(Certainly I'd have had even more understanding for her position if she'd made up her mind to make the compromise on voting for some, but not all, of the charges on the first vote)

John. That is exactly what I was talking about when I said there was great care taken when the specifications were written. He ignored an order from the flagship. Unless he knew Sarnow was incapacitated, the correct interpretation is that the order came from him, relayed through Honor. Whether the order came through Honor because of damage to the flag bridge equipment or because Sarnow was doing something else, as far as Young knew at the moment the order was given, she had every right to be issuing that order. The fact that she did not have that right, at the moment it was given, does not excuse the fact that Young did not obey an order that, as far as he knew, was legitimate. For all that Young knew at the moment the order was given, Sarnow was giving the order. If Sarnow had been capable of giving the order and Young had continued as he actually did, there would have been no question of his guilt, even if Honor had been the one giving the actual order. The specification was written as it was in an attempt to avoid that very ambiguity. Hence the word flagship, rather than the name Sarnow.

KNick wrote:Sorry, Rose. As a former sailor I must agree at least in part with Exiled. Sonja committed at least two and possibly three criminal acts with her vote.

Indeed she did, and indeed she came out and said so; that's part of what I respect about her. She did not try to hide behind the technicalities, like the other two who voted not guilty. Instead, she showed the moral courage to do what her conscience required of her, even at the risk of her career. That is courage that is respected elsewhere, when characters have shown it in combat.

My read on her actions is this. She knew that if Young were executed, there would be no declaration of war, a circumstance that would undoubtedly end up costing more lives. She knew that there was no way the other judges would be changing their votes, and that the only alternative would be a mistrial, which would be just as damaging. Neither of these were palatable options, but neither was letting Young off the hook, so she sought a fourth option.

I think it's telling that White Haven noted in the text that she had abandoned her sworn impartiality. He could certainly, as president of the court, have brought her up on charges for that statement; the fact that he didn't suggests to me that he appreciated the moral courage it took for her to do what she thought was right, regardless of the possible ramifications.

KNick wrote:Rose. You are correct in your interpretation of what should have happened to Honor. In fact, the fact that she wasn't charged was in and of itself a political decision made by the Admiralty. The charges against Young were shaped by that decision. The very way that the particulars of the charges were written makes that clear. However, the fact that the civilian government made that choice has no impact on Sonja's military duty. Every member of the Court was at least guilty of allowing politics to interfere with their duty. What probably should have happened was a formal Board of Inquiry on Honor's actions at Hancock. Only after that should Young have been charged. However, Adm. Parks charged Captain Young before either one left Hancock, omitting or short stopping a formal Board by the Admiralty. By holding his own Board in Hancock, Adm. Parks opened the door to everything that followed. Instead of relieving just Young of command of Warlock, he should have relieved both of them pending the outcome of a formal Admiralty Board, where the decision of who should be charged with what would be made. Once the specifications were written, however, their political repercussions are supposed to be ignored by the officers of a formal Court Martial, for good or ill. That is where Sonja and all the others came up short. The fact that Sonja was recalled to head up the WDB by Whitehaven is a reflection of the fact that he knew this and did not hold it against her, since he was as guilty as she was of that particular omission.

Actually, I have to take a bit of an issue to this stance.
You are making the mistake of equating the current laws and regulations of the armed forces you are familiar with to those of a fictional country in a theoretical future.

It has been stated throughout the books that the sheer distances involved and lack of direct contact with their superiors it entails, forces the navies of honorverse to place a great degree of autonomy upon the serving officers. To put it bluntly the idea that board of inquiry has to be made by the admiralty is impractical in those conditions. You will note that neither the judge advocate general nor the sixth space lord made any comments to the nature that the convened board was in any way irregular or unusual. Those persons are not civilian but military authorities. You will note that the recommendations the board made did clearly take into account the irregularities of cpt. Harrington's actions and allowed for extenuating circumstances. Admiralty had the option of disregarding the recommendations of Hanckock board of inquiry and convening their own and chose not, but to proceed with convening the court of inquiry based on those recommendations. Whether it was politically motivated or not, at this point does not matter in the legal sense. The admiralty is the overriding authority upon the legal matters in question. Remember: "When laws become shackles of freedom, tyranny is born."
From that point outwards, the trial was about cpt. Young, not cpt. Harrington. Thus only the actions of admirals Hemphil, Jurgens and commodore Lemaitre were in violation to the rules and regulations.
Furthermore, the argument that saving Young was in effort to secure the declaration of war falls short. It was clearly demonstrated that High Ridge had no intention of supporting it, and only Pavel Young's action prompted him into doing so. To suggest that someone as intelligent as adm. Hemphil would not be aware of that is an insult to the admiral.
Third - rose - the idea that reservations against death penalty entered into her decisions is patently absurd. This is a naval officer. A serving naval officer. To put it quite bluntly their jobs are killing people and finding more efficient and/or equitable ways of killing people. This is also an officer who championed the idea that sending in swarms of fragile craft with heavy weaponry against ships of the wall, fully knowing that a percentage of them were going to be lost with all crew aboard.

All that said, I'm realist enough to understand and appreciate the position and decisions that drove adm. Hemphil's decision and I hold no rancor towards her.

Uroboros wrote:Damien Harahap, aka "Firebrand." His absolute lack of morals is stunning to behold. After growing up, his first choice for a job is to be a part of an organization he despises. Why? The pay is good. And when a group of even more repulsive people come along and offer him a job worth more money, he takes it.

The man is without any moral backbone. Unlike my previous choice, he actually has real, genuine emotions. He just generally doesn't care about them, as long as the money's good enough.

I've wondered if Damien Harahap/Firebrand may have an agenda of his own. Helping to destroy the MA. I think he saw, as a younger man, the nature of the MA. He spent the time working his way into the organization until he began to set up situations for the MA, then sets up another situation that leads the GA to the first situation. A variation of the supervisors ploy of giving someone enough rope to hang themselves in order to get rid of a person that does not fit into the organization.

I just can't shake the sinking feeling that Firebrand has something up his sleeves. I am waiting for the other shoe to drop and somehow I am certain that Michelle Henke ia going to get caught deep in it, morally dealing with him. I am worried that she may make a wrong decision. The right decision for the situation but the wrong one politically and Elizabeth will have no other option but to disavow her. I feel it..deep inside my bones.

Great admirals don't make wars great, bad admirals make great admirals' wars great.
-cthia