Moody's death (was: Dumbledore's authority WAS: Re: Fees for Harry)

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 179453

> Pippin:
> It didn't? Did anyone, with the possible exception of Peter 
Pettigrew,
> not realize that joining the Order means you're expendable? 

a_svirn:
I don't know. Do you? Personally I find it most improbable that any 
sane person would join an organisation under such terms. No doubt the 
Dark Lord thought his death eaters and their nearest and dearest 
*expendable*, but the good guys are supposed to be different, aren't 
they? Being ready and even eager to risk your life is not the same 
thing as being *expendable*. If you appreciate the distinction. 

As for Fletcher, it is painfully obvious that he does *not* want to 
sacrifice himself. He is compelled to do so by the other members of 
the Order. Because they think him expendable. Which is not only 
immoral, but also stupid, because force and compulsion can only help 
so far. Surely after the Kreacher debacle they shoul have learned 
their lesson? If Moody wanted to get rid of the most unreliable 
member of the order he would have done better to simply kill him. It 
would have been just as immoral but far more practical. 

> Pippin:
Moody
> certainly knew that. Sirius put it directly in OOP when he was 
explaining 
> to the twins that their father wouldn't thank them for putting his 
interests 
> ahead of the Order's.

a_svirn:
And that made them *expendable*? I can't say that I follow you.

> Pippin:
> Dung didn't want out of the operation after all, he was only 
angling for 
> what he thought would be a safer position. He accepted Moody's 
> argument that he'd be safer as a decoy than a protector, and that 
turned 
> out to be true.

a_svirn:
Nope. Nobody asked his acceptance. He was told that he was going with 
Moody and that was that. 

> Pippin:
> As Moody's decoy he was in a more exposed position but he also had 
the
> strongest  protector. 

a_svirn:
I wonder why this thought failed to console him? 

> Pippin:
The same goes for Hermione, with the added
> factor that she was on a thestral while the DE's would know that 
Harry
> prefers a broom.

a_svirn:
That's what you say. Moody didn't take that into account and he was 
right. As he predicted the death eaters came first after him and then 
after Kingsley. 

 
> > a_svirn:
> > And even if he didn't, they still had no right to sacrifice 
others to 
> > improve Snape's standing. 
> 
> Pippin:
> Why not? The lives of a thousand children are at stake. We saw that 
the
> Hogwarts defenses are not mighty enough to repel an attack by 
Voldemort.
> Subterfuge was their only protection. 

a_svirn:
Because it's immoral? Oops, sorry, I keep forgetting the Greater 
Good. But in any case, this argument doesn't hold water, you know. 
Dumbledore didn't give a damn about thousands of lives. He was only 
interested in his plan. 

> > 
> > a_svirn:
> > Personally I don't understand what was stopping Harry from 
waiting 
> > until he's seventeen (perhaps last couple of hours with the Cloak 
on, 
> > just in case) and apparating – as soon as the Trace broke – to 
some 
> > safe location.
> 
> Pippin:
> The ministry had placed anti-apparation spells around Privet Drive 
> supposedly to protect Harry but actually to hinder his escape. Your
> plan would result in his being trapped inside the anti-apparation
> ring when the Privet Drive protection broke, unless I'm missing 
> something.  

a_svirn:
Not if he walked under the cloak outside the range of the anti-
apparition spell. Not to mention, that he could summon Kreacher and 
told him to apparate himself to the Tonks's place or even straight to 
the Burrow. 

> Pippin: 
> In any case, the books are entertainment, not a manual on how to 
> conduct a war. 

a_svirn:
Well, if I can't enjoy DH, I can at least entertain myself in finding 
flaws in it.