They weren't discussing government oversight as a theory and under what circumstances they would and wouldn't be willing to do it. They were discussing whether they should sign a particular document they'd been handed.
No even when the Accords where first brought to them, and they hadn't read the actual papers yet, but just the idea of what they were about was presented to them for the very first time, Steve showed a hostile position to them and made his first general arguments about governments, agendas and responsibility. That was before reading the accords, after just learning what they were about.
Rhodey said he was in favor of oversight and trusted the U.N. Does that mean that if they told him to go kill some innocent civilians, he'd just go right ahead because a good soldier always does what they're told? No, I'm going to assume that he actually has his limits rather than take what he said completely literally. Soldiers in the military are supposed to follow orders in general, but they're actually supposed to disobey wrong orders. If the Accords doesn't account for personal judgment, then they're inherently problematic.
I agree. Which makes Steve's complete "what if they wanted us to do something we don't like/ not wanted us to go somewhere we wanted to go"-Argument redundant.
There's no way Steve acted on no intel at all, when he's talking about five more winter soldiers. And the topic of where Steve got his information never came up on either side. The conversation was short and mostly one sided while Tony joked around and acted dismissive.
He acted on no intel at all, when he thought Bucky was not the one at fault here. Yeah, the way he spoke sounds much like he had some kind of information from Bucky. But there's still a difference between intel and ... well information. Yeah... Bucky might have told him there were 5 more WS somewhere... but that doesn't mean that anyone wanted to activate them. What if Steve knew for a long time that there were 5 more WS, but deemed them no threat for the time being - he doesn't deem Bucky a threat after all... So what if he's only acting on the hunch, that now they are a threat?
And no, it's not reasonable to assume things when the livelihoods of your friends as well as potentially the cost of human lives is at stake. Tony had a convenient way of finding out, and it would have taken him all of five seconds to confirm where Steve got his information. And Steve is working with others, so he could have had someone else gathering information. Or Bucky could have shown him proof, or led him somewhere where he was able to find it.
But IF Bucky had shown him proof, why didn't Steve send this proof to the authorities, like any normal citizen would? Why didn't he call Tony, if he had clear evidence or undeniable proof, or even good intel on a situation? Why couldn't he just show his proof on the airport if there was any? The truth is, Steve had no proof. None whatsoever. Had Steve had any better proof than Bucky's word, he'd have shown that to Tony, because Tony despite what you might think, is not unreasonable. Apparently Tony still trusts Steve to come to him, if he actually has information that concerns them both - hence his betrayed feelings when he found out Steve never told him about his parents.
It's not Tony's job to ask him to explain himself, it's Tony's job to stop them. And if Steve doesn't want to be stopped, he better show his undeniable proof that he doesn't have. If he has no proof... well maybe he should have stopped fighting and explain everything in a more peaceful environment and leave it to Tony to check.
Like I said, Tony hadn't presented himself as trustworthy. Steve is trying to get Tony to see his side now because Tony's inserting himself into the situation. It's not like he walked up to Tony on the street and said, "We need to go with Bucky to fight winter soldiers. No time to explain." He didn't have no time to explain at all. Tony has twelve hours to bring him in, and I'm sure if they apprehended them and called in, it wouldn't matter that they hadn't gotten back yet. What is General Ross going to do, attack the Quinjet with the prisoners onboard? Steve's the one who's in a hurry to reach Siberia before the doctor and the winter soldiers leave, and he's willing to take the time to come to try to find a peaceful way out. But I guess because he didn't speak fast enough, that makes him in the wrong?
Exactly... Tony had 12 hours and Steve knew that. So why didn't he say: 'Alright Tony. We give up. You can take us into custody. But first I want you to use those twelve hours to follow me to this place because there's this and that.' It would have been the perfect chance to use those 12 hours to get to Siberia all together. They might have even been able to find a deal for Wanda, Clint and Scott, that they could just leave and go home, because at that point they hadn't done anything yet. The only thing Steve needed to do, would be to tell Tony, that he was willing to give up. But he didn't. He kept insisting that he had to go.
Steve had time to explain. It's not about speaking fast enough, but talking at all. And clearly Steve was not trying to surrender to Tony. Or trying to make a deal that would in the end give the UN what they wanted. He wanted to get to Siberia, and he wanted Tony to let him go. He didn't want to give up and strike a deal with Tony.
And why should Steve be patient when Tony started the airfield dialogue by quipping about meeting people at the airport?
So doing a good job at saving the world is less important, when somebody makes a joke. He didn't need to be patient.
Right, Tony didn't do his best job negotiating. But neither did Cap. Yeah, Tony could have asked more questions, before calling spidey (although they could have still talked after that. Spideys attack wasn't particularly aggresive. Nobody was hurt and everything was still fine.) Yeah, Tony could have tried to have more trust in Steve. But that goes both ways. Steve could have tried to give Tony what he needed, he should have had more trust in Tony and he could have tried to explain Bucky's whole situation better. Those were to people who talked past each other, one not particularly eager to wait for the whole story, the other not particularly eager to tell the whole story... So that's that. But the failure lies on both sides.
First, it's the doctor, he's the badguy. Second, Bucky's innocent. Third, if you don't believe Bucky's innocent, well, what about these five other winter soldiers?
Third is wrong... Third is: More winter Soldiers. I have to stop the doctor. I can't let him win. I have to do this PERSONALLY. I'm not willing to submit to you, Tony, because I can't.
Tony: First: I have to bring you in. Help me out, because I don't particularly want to fight you. Second: Your Judgement is askew because he's your best friend. But he's dangerous. I have to bring him in.
Then Natasha: We can't let you go. You know this. (We've just told you.) Do you really want to go through with this, because if you really need to do it personally, you have to go through us.
Steve's "I can't, Tony, I can't" is pretty much where on Tony's side every further argument is useless, because if Steve doesn't want to do something. He won't. That's Steve in a nutshell. So whatever Arguments Tony or Natasha might have brought at that point is useless, because Steve had it in his head that he had to go on, no matter what. So Natashas final attempt is to beg him, to stop. Because else they'd fight friend vs. friend. But if you know Steve, at that point you know already, what the answer is going to be, because Steve stands up to what he thinks is right and does what he thinks he needs to do... And yeah, Tony's impatient and doesn't wait to hear that answer, but at that point, it was pretty clear, where this was going.
Also, he doesn't need to have physically assaulted her for it to be false imprisonment. The implication made by saying he can't let her leave when she's made it clear that she is leaving would be enough.
In very specific cases... probably. But there's always a line where something is less of a criminal offense and more of a bagatelle. A wife telling her husband, if you leave I'm going to get my divorce, is nothing. A wife telling her husband, if you leave, I'll get a divorce and all your money and the children, is... probably still nothing - though in this situation the husband is probably in a worse situation than dear old Wanda. A wife telling grabbing her physically stronger husband by the arm and telling him, he won't let her leave, him tearing away and going... is probably... a bagatelle? Now, immagine our dear wife rasing her fist and saying no, I won't let you leave, and he just hits her in the face and goes... well what's that? You see... it's not always that easy. You could also say Wanda's guilty of criminal damage and excessive force, since she could just phase him and go through him... she pretty much prove that by phasing him and let Clint slip through.
(I'm using Vision as the wife here, because he's the weaker one.)
Also, false imprisonment can be a product of coercion, and putting her in a position where she has to fight someone, knowing that she wouldn't want to do that and using it to keep her there, is a form of coercion.
But she was not really kept their by threatening her she'd have to fight if she'd go. For the most part she was kept their by giving her a fun time. Only after somebody broke into the compound, and started placing shock traps, and telling her she had to go, did Vision say, he wouldn't let her leave. He didn't even say her, she'd have to fight him if she wanted to go. He doesn't want to fight her himself. That's why when she starts fighting him, he looks quite shocked and doesn't like not at all fight back. And she knows it, too... It's not like she seems surprised that he doesn't fight back. It's not like they don't know she can defeat him. Wanda, until Clint basically asked her to fight, did not WANT to go. Only when Clint told her that she should please leave the compound did she also want to do it. And then she didn't hesitate very long to do it with force... If at all it was the worst kind of coercion. Pretty much: 'I won't let you leave' - 'I don't care.'
But I guess it wouldn't serve to further argue about it. I'm pretty sure, what Vision did was hardly more than Bagatelle... but you obviously see it differently. And I already conceded that it was indeed morally questionable, even if we can't find common ground on the legal issue.
Second, they can't do too much with her legal status because the Accords are a worldwide concern.
Unless of course they'd want to charge her with... whatever she did as Hydra assasin. Or the people of Sokovia could try to charge her for the damage there... They didn't get their hands on Tony after all. It's not like the her immigration status is the worst, they could charge her for.
And yeah they'd obviously try to use that to make her sign. But they'd bring her into custody first. First they'd say immigration issue. Then they'd say, but Sokovia doesn't want you back (did you know, countries apparently don't have to take there illegal immigrants back
), then they'd say, they'd keep her in custody for public security. Then it would get legally questionable... So they'd pull something else out of their hats, until she'd sign. Those are possibilities...
There may be possible explanations, but you said (or at least seemed to be saying) that I was approaching Steve's actions from a more lenient viewpoint than Tony's, giving him more credit.
Yup
However, here you're basically saying that the situation could have been one where Tony was right to think that. Are we supposed to take his word for it? Steve's decisions are being second-guessed, whether he should have tried to get government help to go after Zemo, whether Tony would have believed him if he'd told him earlier.
I don't really understand what you mean. I don't think we should just take Tony's decision or his opinions without second guessing that.
In the quote you used, I'm basically saying, that I assume, Tony had some political sway due to his status as 'officially recognized' Avenger, that could be the reason why the USA would tolerate Wandas presence on the compound.
However, they're talking about Wanda being confined, Tony says she has no visa, Steve says she's just a kid. I'm starting to think that Tony was saying that it was okay for him to hold her because she's an illegal immigrant. Which simply isn't true.
...
So whether Tony was using that as a (likely impromptu) excuse for his behavior, or whether he was trying to protect her from it, he was treating like his child, like she had no say in her own life.
The arguement between Steve and Tony was very heated. At that point both of them are getting rather vile. Tony said to Wanda (maybe to Cap to, I don't know don't want to rewatch the movie) that he wanted to protect her. Vision said he wanted to protect the public. And I think he wanted both. He might not have chosen the best way to do that, and they definitally should have asked her before protecting her (just like Steve should probably ask the world before protecting it) Then Cap and Tony start argueing over it, and both say some awful stuff. Tony tries to justifies himself with the immigration thing, Steve says, she's a kid... Which is if we're honest just as bad. Because Wanda is no kid. She's an adult. Which means she has to take full responsibility for her actions, and if she gets in trouble with the law she'll find out (as she does in the movie), that even though Steve calls her a Kid, she'll be treated like an adult anyway. Calling her a kid is denieing her her self-responsibility, just like Tony does... Interestingly enough, none of those two actually ask her about her thought about the accords, or what she wants to do... And both treat her just like a child. Even Tony giving her 'house arrest' in a way, is treating her like a child. They are both wrong. If Wanda grown up, she has to stand up to her mistakes herself, and suffer the consequences - that's what steve doesn't want to see. Because yeah, even if he sees a kid in her, she still is an illegal immigrant... but not actually a child. And Tony is wrong to decide over her head to keep her out of the debate and confined to the compound, even if he does it to protect her. I also think he knows he's wrong, that's why he gives this 'she's an illegal immigrant' reason to give himself some righteousness. But he thinks it's for the best anyway...
I think Tony over the whole course of the Movie tried to do the right thing, and tried to protect his friends. Until they pretty clearly showed him, that they didn't care for his protection.
And he made some questionable decisions along the way. Like deciding over Wandas head. But there's no reason to believe, that he actually wanted her imprisoned, or punished for her 'crimes', because there's nothing in his behaviour or in the way Wanda was actually confined that would resemble punishment. Even when he asks Ross to have him capture Cap, he does it to protect them. Not because he's particularly eager to throw them into prison himself.
I also think, that he was supporting the accords, mainly because he believed in them, but also, because he thought that way he could protect the others. He obviously knew, that Steve wouldn't like them. That's why he tried to coax him into signing by talking about the pen not the content of the papers. But he also begged Steve to sign, because the alternative (whatever that was) was apparently worse. At least that's what he believed.
Lastly I also think... to a degree it's true that he was swayed to sign a bit by his own guilt. I don't think it makes the accords themselves or his decision any less right or wrong. Some fans seem to dismiss his decision as 'he only acted out of guilt and wasn't thinking straight.' I don't, but I think, it also played a role. But not his own guilt. But somehow wanting to protect his former team mates to make the same mistakes. Because you can see in the movie, that his mistakes haunt him. He brings it up himself two or three times, how he screwed up with ultron. Not to mention the times somebody else brings it up. It haunts him, and he doesn't want his team mates to suffer the same. This I think is also a reason. Steve also brings it up at some point. But it's not selfish, so Tony wouldn't need to feel guilt anymore. Because Accords or no it wouldn't undo Ultron. He'd still be guilty of that. Nothing would change there. And Tony is not really an Avenger anymore. So it's not to prevent himself from doing a mistake, not to deminish his own guilt, but to prevent the same thing from happening to them. And again I think Tony should have talked to his team mates about this earlier on. I think they should have talked about Ultron way earlier. They never really discussed the whole thing as a team. Tony just accepted the blame and left. The rest of the team has no real idea, what it's like. Because they don't really feel guilty. None of them feel responsible for Ultron, because Tony took all the blame, and with everything else they can diminish their guilt, by weighing the lifes they possibly saved against those lost. But it's not that easy, and it shouldn't be that easy. And I think, they as a Team should have talked about that way earlier. And especially I think they should have talked about it with Wanda.
