Harry, Crucio, and emotion in Spellcasting

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 181640

---  "Mike" <mcrudele78 at ...> wrote:
>...
> 
>...
> 
> > CJ
> > <snip> 
> > then he has stepped beyond the role of soldier and elected
> > himself judge, jury and executioner. 
> 
> Mike:
> I disagree, Harry is fighting a known enemy in a war. The 
> war hadn't stopped simply because they were sheltered in 
> the Ravenclaw common room. Our difference lies in you 
> believing Harry has "tortured" Carrow, and that makes it a 
> war crime in your eyes. I don't believe it was torture. ...

bboyminn:

I have to agree with Mike, as I already have said in post
#181451. What Harry did doesn't rise to any real definition
of torture. Like I asked before, even if you use torture
methods, can you really torture someone for one second?
I just don't see it. 

"Let's put him on the Rack."

"Ready prisoner, we are going to torture you?"

"OW!"

"Well, that's it then, we're done. You can go now."

By any means, torture that only causes one seconds pain just
doesn't make it into the realm of real torture. 

As to the war aspect, do you really think for one second
Carrow would not have immediately incapacitated Harry and
later without question subjected him to PROLONGED torture, and
eventually Death? Carrow is the enemy, and in war, you don't 
wait for the enemy to make a move against you. If you see him,
you kill him; that's why they call it war. 

As for Harry torturing Carrow into unconsciousness, really,
do you believe one seconds torture in enough to put you in
unconsciousness? I don't think so. Carrow was knocked 
unconscious when he hit the wall.

Yes, I see that many others do see this as torture, and seem
unwilling to yield in that opinion; so be it, but I think you
have a very low threshold in your definition of what constitutes
torture. 

What separates Harry's action, in my eyes, from real torture is
that Harry didn't sustain it. Yes, he used the Torture Curse,
but just enough to incapacitate Carrow, and in my reading of
the events that lasted about one second;...BANG...it's over. If 
he had punched him in the nose, and Carrow had gone unconscious
from hitting the wall, would you still call it torture? He 
still caused pain in an effort to punish, isn't that your 
definition of torture? 

I think the reason McGonagall didn't react more strongly is
because she saw Harry's actions in perspective. If Harry had in
anyway attempted to sustain the Crucio Curse, McGonagall would
have step in instantly, and despite despising Carrow, would 
have stopped him. Since he didn't, she didn't. This is not
McGonagall's approval of torture. This is McGonagall's limited
approval of extreme measures in extreme circumstances, and
Harry in a castle full of Death Eaters with Voldemort on the
way certainly qualifies as Extreme Circumstances. 

Hey...I'm just saying.

Steve/bluewizard