[HPforGrownups] The unforgivable curse argument

[Phyllis Stevens]

No: HPFGUIDX 174344

Sherry wrote:
> As it was war, I could have accepted even Harry using the killing 
> curse. It's the Imperius and Cruciatus that bothered me. Cruciatus 
> is a torture curse, inflicting terrible agony in every fiber of 
> someone's body. That isn't self defense or fighting fire with 
> fire. We have soldiers facing court martials for torturing 
> prisoners. Torture is wrong, in my opinion, and I hated seeing 
> the hero, the good guy using it. I didn't mind Molly offing Bella, 
> because it was war, and soldiers do kill in war. That's their
> job. I didn't want Harry to have to kill, but that would have 
> been far easier to accept than cruciatus for me.

---
Catlady1949 now:

I think that the DE's would not have hesitated to use 
unforgiveables on Harry and Co., so I was glad when he 
did them. I wouldn't call these situations torture in 
the situations where these curses were used, since I 
truly do not believe that Harry meant to torture, but 
to either move a DE to get through a place, situation, 
whatever.  Besides, I feel that he had a right to finally 
get to use his abilities with no holes barred! I don't 
equate any of this to The U.S. or Britain's involvement 
with the Iraq situation.

catlady1949 at comcast.net