Alright, I have read this entire thread, and I've concluded a great deal of the arguing is completely pointless. I'm not saying that @Timandm and @lykopis agree on everything, but you agree on enough and are arguing semantics in a way which can't possibly go anywhere.
Tony Stark is absolutely responsible -- in that, had he not been involved, it would not have happened -- for the breaking up of the PF and thus, indirectly, the possession of the five and their actions.
However had Tony done nothing, it is quite likely that the result would have been even more catastrophic. So damned if you do, damned if you don't: we must see the fallout from Stark's actions as the lesser of two very undesirable options, and at least we can understand why he did it, because he didn't know it would backfire and result in the repercussions. This is the difference between, say, 1st Degree murder and 3rd Degree. Tony is responsible for the crime -- he holds the smoking gun -- but he didn't mean to hurt anyone; the fallout was not his intention.
So like someone who just happens to kill someone, Stark is responsible but not wholly responsible. And the PF acts of its own accord -- so again, he may have averted a much greater disaster. His actions, even if we call them wrong, can still be justified in that they precluded a vaster evil from occurring.
And so we come to the five, and I think a very strong case has been made that regardless of the role agency plays no one under the influence of PF is truly acting as themselves. At best they are in the same shoes as Stark: indirectly responsible insomuch that no one else can be called responsible, but still lacking the autonomy to do otherwise than what they did. The PF is euphoric, it makes its hosts revel in the power. Some more than others, but still: even the enthusiasm must be seen as a side effect of the "drug."
So we have Stark, and we have the five, and we can say that all of them are both responsible (insomuch as their actions led to atrocity) and not responsible (insomuch as their actions weren't premeditated, intentional, or even within their control). Even if we could find a jurisdiction to place their actions under, what good would it achieve? What can Tony do to pay penance for his role, especially given the very real likelihood that his inaction would have made things even worse? And what will arresting Scott or Emma achieve, aside from taking away the one force standing between new mutants and a dystopian iron fist that has emerged to keep them from becoming a possible threat, worldwide?
I loved Emma's speech not because it proved that she and Scott were completely innocent, but because it established that for every accusation the Avengers have against the X-Men, there's an equal charge to be levied against the Avengers. Neither is right -- both are equally wrong. Both did things, or caused things, they regret. But punishing them for it solves nothing whatsoever and allows greater evils to flourish. As "the legal thing" is clearly not on anyone's radar, let's look at the morally "right thing" to do: given the options, can anyone really say that Scott and Emma's arrest and subsequent imprisonment (which, quite honestly, would not involve a fair trial -- and again, even if there were jurisdiction to operate that trial under) would be the best possible route? Or even a good one? In a jury-driven trial you look for unbiased jurors: where are you going to find them? The world hates mutants, and mutants look out for their own. So unless your jurors are disinterested aliens, you're not going to get a sentence driven by anything other than preconceived notions of who was right or wrong. Can you say hung jury?
So again: I don't even know what's being debated. Both sides are arguing for all the reasons why the other side is wrong, but no one can actually exculpate the side they support. If everyone's guilty, why are we even trying to find "justice?" Isn't it inevitably going to be one-sided, and therefore unjust?
Log in to comment