[HPforGrownups] Re: Blowing his cover

[Lee Kaiwen]

No: HPFGUIDX 181460

Steve blessed us with this gem On 11/02/2008 05:13:

> Sorry, I'm just not buy this, not any part of it. Surely
> you have heard the expression 'the straw that broke the
> camel's back'....
> 
> ... up until the 'Spit', Harry has some underlying 
 > assumption that McGonagall has some control over the situation.

I, in turn, am not buying it. We have Harry's admission on the one hand. 
We have speculations about straws and camels on the other. The passage 
is clear that at the point of greatest danger to the students -- when 
Amycus comes bursting through the door breathing threats and fire, and 
the students are scattering in terror -- Harry does nothing.

 > That she will, if necessary, defend the students when the time
> comes. 

The time both came and went. At the moment Harry Cruciates, there ARE no 
students in the room; thus, defense of students could not have been his 
motive.

 > But, once Amycus spits at McGonagall it become clear
> that McGonagall has lost all authority and respect at the
> school. She is going to be powerless to stop what Amycus
> is professing.

She hadn't lost her wand, had she? The immediate threat wasn't from what 
Amycus might do at some future date. It was in the present. Any response 
to that doesn't require authority, it requires a wand, as Harry 
demonstrated.

> And so, it has gone too far, the situation is about to
> get out of control, and likely McGonagall is in real
> danger.

 From a mouthful of spit? There is absolutely no indication of any 
danger to McGonagall in the passage I read. The implication of your 
statement is that Harry is somehow in a better position to defend 
McGonagall than McGonagall herself, and I just don't see that in the 
passage anywhere. McGonagall has her wand and, as she demonstrates a 
short time later against Snape, is more than capable of using it.

There WAS an immediate and present danger to the Ravenclaws as Amycus 
burst in, but as we've seen, Harry wasn't concerned enough to do 
anything about THAT.

> Also, I thoroughly object to the characterization that Harry
> 'tortured' Amycus. ... Yes, Harry used the 'Pain' curse...

Look up the Latin. It's not the "pain" curse. Crucio -- "I torture". 
Latin has a perfectly good word for pain; "cruciatus" ain't it. If my 
characterization bothers you, you should take it up with JKR.

> And this is very much a War Time situation. Amycus and Alecto
> as well as others have brutally abused staff and students,
> and that is only a taste of what is to come if they win.

But now you're waffling between defense and vigilantism, if what you're 
suggesting is either that Harry was torturing Amycus for past or 
potential future actions, or because Amycus deserved it.

> Not to mention VOLDEMORT IS ON HIS WAY!

And how does Cruciating Amycus solve that?

We have two possibilities. Either Harry is Cruciating Amycus to remove a 
clear and present danger, or he is Cruciating Amycus in response to past 
and/or potential future dangers (or, as you suggest, some amalgam of the 
two). Cruciating Amycus for past injustices is not defense, it's 
retribution. Nor is it any more effective than a half-dozen other spells 
Harry might have used (say a good Disarming/Binding combo) at dealing 
with any potential future threat.

Even if I subscribe to your theory that Harry was responding to a clear 
and present danger to McGonagall, it still doesn't justify torture. If 
Harry were simply acting in defense there were any number of equally 
effective options open to him. More effective, in fact, since Harry was 
quite adept at Disarming, whereas his only previous attempts at 
Cruciating had been dismal failures. Why not simply Stun him, as Luna 
had just done with Alecto?

> ... likely the Boss and a ton of re-enforcements are going to 
 > be on their way. If this wasn't a justifiable emergency
 > situation, then no emergency has ever existed.

At risk of repeating myself, the point of greatest danger was the moment 
Amycus burst through the common room door, NOT when he was clearing his 
mouth in Minerva's direction. In any case, none of what you mention 
justifies torture, nor does Cruciating Amycus change any of it. Even 
with Amycus lying crumpled on the floor both the Boss and his 
reinforcements are still on their way.

> We don't crucify our heroes, not in the face of victory.

(Interesting choice of words -- "crucify".)

I'm trying to imagine this scenario. Having won WWII, Douglas MacArthur 
comes home to a tickertape parade down the streets of New York city. 
He's feted in Washington, celebrated around the nation and the world. 
And THEN it's discovered that he authorized -- perhaps even personally 
conducted -- torture against German POWs. Or we discover Winston 
Churchill authorized torture against Nazi spies -- waterboarding, racks, 
psychotropics, Ozzie Osborne, the whole nine yards.

Are you really suggesting we would -- and should -- look the other way? 
Ignore war crimes simply because they were committed by people we 
otherwise like? And even if we do choose to do so, does that in any way 
change the nature of their actions?

Yes, I agree it would be politically very difficult to prosecute Harry. 
I'm not interested in politics.

Mike now:
 > Well, Harry's Crucio acted like a stunning spell. How do you
 > know that's not what Harry was thinking about when he wonders
 > if he should stun Carrow at this point?

Because the text doesn't say "stun", it says "Stun" with a capital S:

"Then, just as Harry was wondering whether he ought not to blast the 
door open and Stun Amycus..."

Harry was specifically considering the Stunning Spell, which he had just 
seen Luna use effectively against Alecto. Why would Harry be casting (no 
pun intended :) ) around for an effective stunning spell when the WW 
already had an effective Stunning Spell?

 > Here, once again, I'd like to point out that using Sirius Black
 > as your moral guide with regards to the MoM's actions is
 > akin to asking O.J. what he thinks of the L.A.P.D.

And who better to ask than someone with experience?

But I take Sirius at this point as the authorial voice speaking through 
her character. If Sirius were simply speaking through and from his pain, 
I would have expected indicators of that in the passage, say bitterness 
in his voice, or anger in his eyes. What I see in the passage, however, 
is a calm, reasonable Sirius, not a bitter, spiteful one. YMMV, but I 
think any other reading is eisogeting.

And now Carol:
 > A Crucio was overkill

Worse -- it was foolish. Harry had never successfully Cruciated. He WAS 
quite adept at Disarming, however. So why, in this crisis moment -- if 
his only concern was removal of an immediate threat -- would Harry 
suddenly abandon his signature spell for a spell which, based on his 
track record, he couldn't even do? Particularly when, for the purpose at 
hand -- neutralizing Carrow -- the Cruciatus had no obvious advantage 
over either Expelliarmus or Stunning.

CJ