What would a successful AK mean?

[lealess]

No: HPFGUIDX 142861

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" <bob.oliver at c...> wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
> So, if it really was a true AK, what would that mean?  Would it be 
> possible for Snape to be truly and completely on the side of light 
> if he indeed used a real unforgiveable?  I think many people sense 
> that the answer to that is "No," and hence we have an argument about 
> whether he really cast an AK.
> 
> As I see it we have three possibilities if the AK was genuine and 
> successful:
> 
> <SNIP>
> 
> 2) Snape is good and his use of the AK is a special case, as with 
> the Aurors.  Okay, but that's hard to swallow, especially as Snape 
> isn't an auror and even the aurors' use of unforgiveables is  
> presented to us in a way that makes them seem morally questionable.  
> Why would a good Snape who wanted to kill Dumbledore use an AK?  
> There would be many other ways to kill the man without resorting to 
> an Unforgiveable.  Is that because it's what a DE would do?  But why 
> did the DEs in the ministry at the end of OOTP seem so reluctant to 
> use them?
> 

Picking up on No. 2, why use an AK?  Because it seems to be a quick
and therefore perhaps painless way to kill, especially in a situation
that called for a rapid response.  This follows the greater good
defense for an AK, the soldier following orders in a time of war, the
man cornered into making an impossible choice.  If the killing was
done to put Dumbledore out of some misery, i.e., a mercy killing, a
quick and perhaps therefore painless death is also a good choice. 
Neither of these makes Snape into an evil person.

What other ways could Snape have dispatched the Headmaster?  Bring
him to Voldemort to be tortured to death?  He didn't do that with
Harry, either.  Throw him to the werewolf?  That wouldn't have
guaranteed death.  Leave him there to let a painful and perhaps
mentally-debilitating poison do its worst?  Harry was the one who
forced him to drink the potion, after all, under orders.  Drop him
from a tower? 

But, I am of the ever-hopeful, not-an-AK camp, believing Dumbledore
chose to die and Snape facilitated this, for many reasons, not
necessarily using an AK.

> 3)  We are supposed to take the word "Unforgiveable" as being 
> literal, morally if not always legally.  Thus if Snape did indeed 
> use an Unforgiveable he's not good in a moral and magical sense. 
> Of course a not-good Snape need not be loyal to Voldemort.  
> 
> <SNIP>

There are three Unforgivables, of course.  Cruciatus we have seen in
abundance, and even Harry tries it.  Imperius we have seen in
abundance.  Crouch Sr. used it to keep his son in line.  Not purely
evil people use Unforgivables.  If Hermione continues to believe the
ends justify the means, I wouldn't put it past her to try Imperius as
expediency.

AK – we have several examples.  It is quick and seems to be painless,
except for the look of terror, which is not explained.  I wonder why
it is more unforgivable than, say, torturing someone to death or
throwing someone to the werewolves or using an insidious poison or
dropping someone from a tower (which probably wouldn't kill the
average wizard, anyway).  Why isn't killing in general frowned upon?
Why is AK singled out?  Because it's foolproof -- except for baby
Harry, Fawkes, and the immortal Voldemort?

Are there consequences to AK of which we are unaware, like a soul
being cast into perpetual limbo or some kind of hell, or being held in
a wand forever?  If that is the case, would a simple Prior Incantato
release the soul?

Just wondering.

lealess