[HPforGrownups] Re: Unforgivables.

[Lee Kaiwen]

No: HPFGUIDX 173419

Charles Walker Jr blessed us with this gem On 27/07/2007 05:47:

CWJ> So we're to believe that the ministry got it right here?

In a word, yes. Why is that such a problem for you?

In your comments you have mashed together a number of issues which 
clearly need to be disambiguated. But rather than addressing them point 
for point, I think it really boils down to one question:

Is there any act, or category of acts, so barbarous that it cannot, 
under ANY circumstances, be justified?

If, as I would hope any clear-thinking person would, your answer is yes, 
then really this whole discussion boils down to whether the UCs belong 
to such a category.

It is clear to me that, in the Potter universe, the UCs were, for most 
of six books, clearly consigned to such a category. You may disagree 
with that consignment, but the main problem is JKR's inconsistency on 
this point. Up until the end of HBP, the UCs were, well, Unforgivable. 
But then at the end of book six we have Harry attempting to cast an AK  
though you might argue he was confused by anger and grief  and suddenly 
in book 7 the good guys begin throwing them around so casually they 
may as well have been conjuring up ice cream cones for their friends. 
Even my ten-year-old picked up on the shifting moralities.

As to Harry's use of the Cruciatus against Carrow, the question is 
neither what crimes Carrow committed in the past nor what acts he might 
commit in the future. Even wars have rules (just read the Geneva 
Conventions), and the only relevant question is whether Carrow presented 
a clear and present danger at the moment Harry ambushed him. Clearly he 
did not.

Even if, for the sake of argument, you DID manage to successfully 
prosecute the clear and present danger test, you still have to 
demonstrate that Harry's responsive was not excessive. With so many less 
drastic but equally effective options available to Harry  well, I can 
only say good luck.

CJ