[HPforGrownups] When is AK "necessary"?

[Richard Thorp]

No: HPFGUIDX 45192

Thursday, October 10, 2002, 8:03:43 PM, heiditandy, wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Richard Thorp [mailto:obby at blueyonder.co.uk] 
>> Someone else mentioned about Voldemort, and if he could be 
>> AK'ed... I would guess that even if he could, the "good guys" 
>> wouldn't do it, because it is stooping to Voldemorts level... 
>> To draw a real world paralell it would be like decrying the 
>> use of landmines, and then planting them yourself.

h> However, in GoF, Sirius points out that during Voldemort's first reign
h> of terror, Mr Crouch obtained authorisation for aurors to use
h> unforgivable curses. He also says that Moody didn't kill unless it was
h> necessary. Of course, that implies that when it was necessary, Moody did
h> kill Death Eaters (and possibly others as well). 

h> So where does that put the dividing line?

h> Heidi

I would have said it's the same distinction as terrorists and
soldiers.. The Aurors were soldiers/police, designed to protect
against Dark stuffs. The DE's and such, on the other hand, can be
closestly (is that a word? :) linked to terrorists, with their
indiscriminate use of force... I expect there would have been debate
about allowing the use of the unforgivables by the Aurors.. even the
wizard world must have its left wingers :)

-Rich
www.mindchanger.net
Richard Thorp
msn: obbles at hotmail.com