Goddamn, this is a civil war, not a martial arts contest!

 

The consequences of Dumbledore's restraint from killing aren't shown. Sparing an enemy, who then goes on to kill an innocent, is usually a big scene in most books and movies dealing with the theme of "you should not kill". That this is not a theme in Harry Potter is kind of telling. It also means we can't be sure how Dumbledore dealt with that - if he did.

 

The Death Eaters are like skipjacks* in canon. The same DEs get stunned in the department of mysteries. And again the department of mysteries. And again at the beginning of Deathly Hallows. think Dolohov get's defeated like, four times until the end. One side uses stunners, the other side uses killing curses. Combatants from one side die, while the others ... don't. At least until the final battle.

We can't really say wheter that was Dumbledore's doing or not. All the good guys used stunners pretty much all the time. Or at least there's no indication the DEs woudn't be fine after a quick charm.

*I hope this is the right word. Something that keeps standing up no matter how often you push it down.

 

You guys DO realize the civil war was only open for like... 2 years? It sometimes boggles my mind how bloodthirsty people are on the internet, and without any kind of thought to the legal system in place.

No on in Dumbledore's close circle of associates is above the law. We know that there are numerous ways to corrupt or bend the legal system in the wizarding world to make small charges (like underage magic) get a large trial with potentially serious reprecussions. If Fudge's top advisor was suddenly killed within the ministry, how hard do you really think it would be for the Death Eater's mask to disappear from evidence ? Suddenly Arthur Weasley (or some other convenient scapegoat from the Order) was caught assassinating his political/family rival Lucius Malfoy in the Department of Mysteries (where he may or may not have any business being found within in the first place). Even if the charges don't stick it could ruin his career and reputation for YEARS, possibly losing him his job.

TL: DR It's much safer while the British MoM was still in power to try and take people prisoner if you can, since if you can kill them you can also capture them. If you DO kill them however, there's a chance the corrupt ministry will destroy you.

 

Bloodthirsty?

Corrupt ministry destroying you is a good point, on the other hand, the wand isn't just flimsy piece of wood. Every time a wizard turns to you with a wand in his hand, he can be metaphorically holding anything from bouquet of flowers to loaded weapon, not to mention more destructive magic.

In society where two words mean you're dead if you're not ready or do not think fast enough, "reasonable force" in self-defense is entirely different beast than with muggles, I would think.

 

That's faintly irrelevant really. We're not talking about the right to defend your home or self when you obviously come under attack. The Order of the Phoenix is a very different kettle of fish. It's a vigilante group (generally not popular with established governments or law enforcement agencies) and is going out seeking Death Eaters (kinda, the Battle of the Department of Mysteries cannot come under the heading of self defence because they chose to go there in the knowledge that there would be a fight).

The Ministry would never openly condone the actions of the Order because no government would ever support the the populace taking the law into their own hands. They might, however, overlook it and not actively pursue its members if they're not causing direct damage. As soon as the Order starts killing it becomes another terrorist group and has to be faced.

By not going around killing people willy nilly they can maintain respectability among the government and populace while still making a difference.

 

All arguments proposing that the Order would be more effective at reducing terrorism if they violated human rights apply just as much to real world law-enforcement.

As such, the counter-arguments are kinda obvious.

 

Uh, No. People generally do not escape easily from prison in our world. Here, capturing terrorists is as effective as killing them, as far as removing them as a threat is concerned.

That is obviously not the case in Wizarding Britain. Especially after Voldemort had broken out his inner circle from Azkaban, and nothing indicated the prison was rendered more secure in response to that.

 

I understand your arguments against lethal force and for jail time so long as the ministrys still standing.

But this ones just not true. The wizarding war is referred to as a war in universe all the time. Most notably when Fudge met the prime minister. And when the terrorists secretly take over the goverment and pass all kind of progroms, I'm pretty sure you can't talk about normal law enforcement any longer.

 

Oh, yes. How secure a prison is affects how moral it is to leave murderers who will, given the chance, kill innocents again, alive and in said prison. If you can reasonably expect that a caught murderer will not be a danger to anyone again, killing him (outside self-defense) is immoral.

If though you can expect said murderer to easily be broken out of prison again, and continue to murder innocents, capturing him instead of killing him becomes a questionable act. Even for a state. Once killing a murderer becomes the only way to save lives, not killing becomes immoral. And how secure prisons are is tied to that question.

 

Remember that many supporters were already in azkaban for years and with the living conditions there. It would probably account to many more years in a normal prison.

 

It's not about how much they suffer, but about how likely it is they'll escape again. And after Voldemort broke out his inner circle the answer to that is "very likely".

 

Sesc — I originally asked this question in regards to fights already in progress, therefore morality and lawfulness of eradication of all terorists and supporters is rather irrelevant.

I was pretty much talking about the self-defence, really, but this interests me as well.
Does not defending third party under attack come into play under the same laws?

 

You realise that mass prison escapes are a thing that have happened? The Maze Prison Escape saw 38 terrorists escape from a maximum security prison. Bizarrely that wasn't seen as a good enough reason to start killing people.

 

They are under an immoral regime in DH.

And just to clarify, I wasn't talking about morals in my earlier post.

 

"Civil rights"? You mean the "right" to kill anyone they want with minimal to no repercussions?

Which would automatically make killing terrorists hellbent on genocide the only moral thing to do.