DD and Draco's murder attempts WAS: Draco and Harry

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 153413

> >>Pippin:
> <snip>
> Proof is not necessary for belief. Dumbledore knows that Draco 
> has a motive, and he can see that Draco is behaving suspiciously, 
> dodging appointments with Snape, crying in the bathrooms, missing 
> Quidditch games, looking distraught and so forth.  Draco is not
> acting like an innocent boy.  But that  is not proof. 
> Dumbledore believes that people must be treated as innocent 
> until proven guilty. 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I think, though, that this is a good example of Dumbledore wearing 
two different hats, and that when those two hats collide, he goes 
more for the "Leader of the Order" role, rather than the "Headmaster 
of Hogwarts" role.

Because, for all intents and purposes, Dumbledore *has* proof.  At 
least, enough for him to be sure of Draco's activities.  Assuming 
DDM!Snape (which I do), Dumbledore would know what Snape knew.  It's 
not enough for a legal trial (possibly, though in the WW, who knows 
<g>), but it's certainly enough, I'd think, for Dumbledore to feel 
he knew what Draco was attempting.

I was trying to think about how a headmaster would come at this 
situation in RL.  He's told by the FBI (or MI-5 <g>) that one of his 
students has been recruited by a terrorist group to assassinate 
someone at his school.  However, not to worry, they've got their 
best undercover agent working with the student.  And that agent will 
make sure no one actually gets hurt while they work to recruit the 
young student to become an informer.  *Maybe* the Headmaster would 
okay it.  Especially considering the pressure I'd imagine the agency 
would put on him.  

However, as soon as the Katie Bell incident occurred (a student 
nearly killed and rushed to the hospital for a lengthy stay), I 
cannot imagine the headmaster who'd allow the known would-be 
assassin to stay.  Proof or no proof, evidence or no evidence, the 
headmaster would worry less about the ramifications for the legal 
case and much more for the safety of his students.  If only because 
his job depends on it.

However, if Dumbledore was the FBI guy, then he'd possibly find the 
risk acceptable.  But not because of Draco.  I think the worry would 
be protecting that undercover agent (Snape).  So he'd try and 
convince the headmaster that there's nothing to point to Draco being 
responsible for Katie's injuries (after all, there are terrorist 
attacks occuring all over), and put more pressure on Snape to win 
his way into Draco's confidence.  Which is what Dumbledore of the 
books does.

(Though honestly, I have a strong suspicion that putting school-
children in danger is a pretty big no-no for the FBI or MI-5 or 
whomever.  I suspect in real life, Draco and Narcissa would find 
themselves swooped into protective custody and under immense 
pressure to tell all they know.) 

> >>Pippin:
> I don't see how you can argue that it isn't in the interest of the 
> students above everything else to see that Voldemort is defeated. 
> They are in mortal peril -- kicking out everyone who is suspected 
> of supporting Voldemort will not make them safer. 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
But why would Dumbledore merely kick Draco out?  Why wouldn't he 
just kidnap Draco, disappear him and his mother as he claims the 
Order can do?  Because Draco has gone beyond just "supporting" 
Voldemort.  He's actively working for him.

And now I'm going to answer my own question <g>. The text requires 
it.  Draco *must* be given the opportunity to reach a crossroads 
where he's forced to finally take an active role in his own life.  
It supports the theme of the books and makes for interesting 
reading. (Imagine HBP if Draco had suddenly disappeared after Katie 
got hurt.)  Just as in PS/SS the text required that Dumbledore hide 
the Stone at his school and give Quirrell free rein even *after* 
Harry is nearly assassinated on the school grounds.  And just as the 
text required Dumbledore to keep Tom Riddle's psychopathic 
tendencies to himself even after a family of Muggles of the same 
name are murdered.

Of course, it does make for a rather Machiavellian!Dumbledore.  But 
most, if not all, old guys with a beard have to be a bit 
Machiavellian.  They are, after all, sending their students into a 
life or death struggle during which the students may well suffer 
irreparable damage.  Even if they win.

So yeah, Dumbledore's actions are often foolish and inexcusable (or 
cold-hearted and manipulative) in real life.  But in this sort of 
book, they're par the course.  Unfortunately, I think JKR tries to 
have her cake and eat it too, and the logic of Dumbledore's 
character suffers for it.

Betsy Hp