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

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 153463

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip>
> > What Dumbledore could have done was pro-actively take Draco and 
> > Narcissa into the Order's custody.  This would have been the    
> > best move to ensure the safety of his school.  I'm not sure that 
> > it would have been the best move for the Order, in that I think 
> > Draco would have been lost to them if he'd been interfered with 
> > that early. Plus, Snape may have died (that pesky Vow <g>).
 
> >>Pippin:
> ::boggles:: You want the Order to set up its own little relocation 
> camp?

Betsy Hp:
Doesn't the Order already have such a thing?  Dumbledore says as 
much on the Tower to Draco when he's offering the Order's 
protection.  They have the means to make Draco and his mother 
effectively disappear, thereby protecting them both from Voldemort.  
I'm not suggesting Dumbledore do something he'd find abhorent, 
merely do sooner what he offers to do at the end of the school year.

> >>Pippin:
> Oh dear. I think JKR dealt rather extensively with the problems    
> of 'protective custody' in OOP...

Betsy Hp:
Does she?  Is it definitively stated that Dumbledore was *wrong* to 
keep Sirius protected?  Is it even stated that Dumbledore was doing 
so against Sirius's will?

> >>Pippin:
> ...but if that's not enough for you, there's a link to Amnesty    
> International on JKR's website, and there you will find article 9 
> of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: 
> No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I wasn't suggesting Draco suffer either arbitrary arrest, detention 
or exile.  I was suggesting he be put into protective custody, a 
witness protection program, etc. (This could strike you as to-may-
toh, to-mah-toh.)

The key is though, JKR may support Amnesty International, but 
nothing we've seen suggests Dumbledore does.  That's the rub.

> >>Pippin:
> There are rules like this  because people like JKR think they're 
> a good idea. I would be very surprised if Dumbledore didn't think 
> so too. 

Betsy Hp:
Dumbledore is perfectly willing to risk the lives of children (and 
other innocents) to further his own goals.  He'll (apparently, per 
text) allow a child to enter an arena beyond his skill level that 
could lead to that child's death.  As a test of character.  I'm 
fairly sure Amnesty International would not approve.  Neither do I 
think it'd approve of Dumbledore feeding a suspect truth serum 
without benefit of counsel.

> >>Pippin: 
> Trusting Snape would be arbitrary, because though Dumbledore
> trusts Snape to be honest with him, he does *not* trust Snape
> to interpret evidence correctly.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Was Draco's role as Dumbledore's assassin supposed to be a mystery 
to Dumbledore?  I never got that sense.  The text seems to support 
Dumbledore knowing that Draco had been given the mission by 
Voldemort and why.  I never got the sense that Dumbledore was 
confused about who sent the cursed necklace, or that he questioned 
what Snape told him.

> >>Pippin:
> Even as a practical matter, putting Draco in custody wouldn't have
> protected the students. It was Dumbledore's location, not Draco's,
> that made Hogwarts a target. Draco could have continued his 
> mission, or rather his feeble but dangerous attempts at it,  
> from anywhere. 

Betsy Hp:
I don't think I understand what you're saying here.  If Draco was 
removed from Hogwarts, the students of Hogwarts would still be in 
danger from him?  How?

> >>xuxunette:
> <snip>
> I think a comparison more appropriate would be to cast DD in the   
> role of a father. What is a loving father to do if he discovers    
> that one of his sons is turning bad? DD's answer is obviously not 
> to cast rejection on him.

Betsy Hp:
I love this idea, xuxunette: Draco as prodigal son.  It especially 
makes sense with Draco being the Slytherin representative. 
(Slytherine being the rejected house, the scapegoat house.)  And 
yes, per the story I think this is exactly what JKR was trying to 
show. Dumbledore wisely and compassionately giving Draco a chance to 
realize something about himself that Dumbledore seems to already 
know: Draco is an innocent; he is not a killer.

So Dumbledore as spiritual leader, the leader of the good side, the 
side of light, etc. does exactly the right thing.  Because he's 
battling beyond mere life and death.  (Dumbledore has often scorned 
a too strong attachment to life.)  So, for Dumbledore, Draco's soul 
is worth more than the absolute safety of his students.

> >>xuxunette:
> Of course, the peculiar parameters of the war situation they are  
> in have to be considered here and I guess that Dumbledore must    
> also believe that having Draco on the side of good would be       
> tactically a good move.

Betsy Hp:
I agree.  Though it does paint a more Machiavellian!Dumbledore who 
places his role as Leader of the Order above his role as 
Headmaster.  (Though an argument could be made that by actively 
fighting Voldemort he's more effectively safe-guarding his students 
in the long term.  A Machiavellian argument. <g>)

> >>xuxunette:
> But in the end, I think that what is more important to DD - which 
> is also what makes Dumbledore such a good man, different from a   
> cold headed calculating general, and furthest from evil - is for  
> him to be able to offer mercy to Draco; a piece of freely given   
> love and forgiveness Draco may remember in the future and help him 
> making take the good path again.

Betsy Hp:
I think the issue with this view of Dumbledore is the taint of 
Katie's and Ron's very near deaths.  I believe the near deaths were 
necessary for Draco's development (he needed the reality check), but 
that Dumbledore allowed the leeway for Draco to get that sort of 
development *does* suggest a bit of cold calculation under the 
kindly gleam.  The lion lurking inside the lamb, perhaps?

Betsy Hp