Because the world conveniently divides into "the Children" and "their enemies", by mutual agreement. - Edit 1
Before modification by Joel at 03/06/2011 01:52:08 AM
Of course the Tower and their advocates and friends are going to harp on the torture and whatnot. The Tower does the same however, and for worse reasons - they do it simply to terrorize petty criminals into fleeing the city or refraining from their activities, because it interferes with their image as omnipotent and benevolent protectors. The Tower is worse in at least one other way as well - initiates are protected by their laws, no matter what crimes they are known to be guilty of. While even a high-ranking Inquisitor may fall under the question for suspect activity, a proven-beyond-all-doubt Darkfriend has extensive legal protections. The chair-ter'angreal the Tower routinely uses to psychologically scar pickpockets is being 'misused' when coercing a Darkfriend to admit her proven and certain crimes against the Light and the Tower, all because she is in the special category of "initiate of the White Tower." The woman who gained practice with the chair tormenting minor offenders is anticipating serious punishment for using it to root out a dangerous traitor. Don't go telling me that their methods condemn the Children beyond all others in the world of WoT. In addition, the torture and so forth are only carried out by the Hand of the Light, which the rest of the Children hold in contempt. While that does not entirely excuse them from guilt by association, who is clear of that taint in the world of WoT, aside from maybe Andorans?
Yes, there is much wrong with the Tower, but that does nothing to exonerate the Whitecloaks. Not that the standards in place to prevent the Tower abusing members make criminals immune from justice, they just deter the witch hunts and kangaroo courts that brought down Siuan. Intimidating criminals whom they're under a geas not to harm with the Power isn't worse than using red hot pokers to torture confessions from innocents, and the Whitecloaks as an institution aren't just guilty by association: The Questioners are a subordinate organization within the larger Whitecloak body and subject to the same Lord Captain Commanders authority; his refusal to exert that authority to restrain their brutality makes him and those loyal to him complicit. Whatever the Tower does or doesn't do doesn't justify any evil by the Whitecloaks, any more than the Tower can excuse its abuses and faults by saying, "It doesn't matter because the Whitecloaks accuse innocents of being Darkfriends, then torture, maim and murder them!"
As for the mindset or fanaticism, brutality and zealotry, those depend entirely on where you aim them. Galad is an extremist and a zealot for honorable and righteous behavior, and that is a good thing, which makes him a good person. You may be right in that he accepts the Children because he recognizes people with similar qualities (especially after spending a quarter of a century with people who seem to hold those qualities against him), but he does not misuse them. As for Elayne's sensing something off or wrong with him, she eventually retracts that view. Extremism in defense of the Light is no vice, so long as you do not actually abandon the Light as in the case of Shadar Logoth. Galad, it is made clear, is not the sort to do that. He would never commit an act of personal immorality, as even his detractors concede. In that light, I have to reject your assessment of his meeting with Elayne and Nynaeve in Amadicia. There is no proof of such a self-serving mindset at work, as even a woman who claims to hate him concedes is not his character. If he felt their ability to channel reflected on him, he would have confessed that - he is not the sort of let wrongdoing slide to cover his own ass. The only motivation that works with the common portrayal of his character is that Elayne misinterpreted his mentality and motivation, and that he never would have allowed the Children to harm her.
Name one country apart from Amadicia where everyone familiar with Whitecloaks doesn't great them with resentment or outright hostility. Which one generally depends on how capable people think the particular Whitecloaks in question are of draconian retaliation on the grounds that "you're either with us or you're with the Shadow". Whitecloaks were welcome enough in the Two Rivers because no one hand first hand experience with them--and the former remained true only as long as the latter. Once they got to know them as the kind of people who'll lead an entire regiment to try taking over whole villages for the sake of a personal vendetta, whose word is only as good as ones ability to hold them to it, they started comparing them (rightly) to the Coplins and Congars. Galad's very lucky that that remains between him and Perrin (if in fact it does); while Morgase was dispensing justice maybe she should have spared a few words for Bornhalds Whitecloak invasion of Andor (I'd not be surprised if Queen Elayne does).
I STRONGLY disagree that extremism, brutality and zealotry on behalf of hte right faction are legitimate. Impartial standards are integral to both morality and rule of law, and the moment we accept all reprehensible acts provided they're done by the right person to the right person we've abandoned rule of law for rule of force, and morality for self interest. If the power to imprison and torture whole families on suspicion or mere accusation also conveys authority, right and legitimacy we're no longer debating morality, but which amoral flag to follow. Extremism in the pursuit of power is an unpardonable vice, and moderation in administering justice the highest virtue. Attaching "as long as you don't abandon the Light as in the case of Shadar Logoth" completely misses the point of the Shadar Logoth story: Condoning extremism and brutality as necessary evils to serve the Light was PRECISELY how they did abandon it, despite never giving active allegiance to the Dark One. There is no "third way", and in that sense you ARE either with the Light or the Shadow, but adopting the Shadows methods to oppose it (almost a verbatim quote of how Jordan defines Shadar Logoth) is, in fact, joining it. That gives the Shadow victory; whether YOU win or lose the resulting world will operate according to the Shadows order, not the Lights. You asked earlier why I take the real world political positions I do: As we've previously discussed, this is a lot of the answer. When you become the enemy, surrender: They've won.
Galad hasn't traveled to the ruinous end of that road, and Morgases conversation with him is clearly meant to forever divert him from it, but he was well on the way until then. He'd never found himself in a position where his wit and ability couldn't resolve conflicting obligations, but his insistence on putting himself in situations conducive to that meant it was coming, because he was continually raising the stakes. And, yes, it could have happened long before; again, while he clearly didn't feel Nynaeve and his sisters ABILITY to channel reflected on him, had they been foolish enough to begin channeling when they met him with his cohorts he would have had two choices:
1) Hand his sister and her friend over to the fate Whitecloaks drawing swords on them while screaming, "DARKFRIEND!" would inflict, or
2) Forsake his oaths to the Whitecloaks and defend the very lives of his sister and her friend.
Those would have been the equally unacceptable options he created for himself: Allow his sister to be tortured to death or slay his sworn brethren. We can choose to ignore that as deftly as Galad always has, but if we're willing to confront it we can't deny it.