Really? Why?

 

Because what you're saying is you are the best judge of who deserves a bullet to the head. Are you?

 

Nope.

/10char

 

We're cool then. Lets move on.

 

Yes, because Dumbledore had the ability to see fifteen years into the future when a breakout would happen. I'm talking about the time of capture.

 

I am talking about Years 5 (after Christmas) and 6, when it was proven that Azkaban wouldn't hold Death Eaters.

Also, people really think the OotP was a legal organisation? Under a regime that banned even study groups?

 

Umbridge had jurisdiction only in Hogwarts and only in the PoA.

 

I don't understand what you're trying to imply here. How does the illegality of OotP give Dumbledore the right to decide where to send the Death Eaters, or what to do with them?

 

He seems ti imply, that since he has a (actually not really) illegal vigilante organization, he tends not to give a shit about him having the right or not to do stuff.

 

OotP wasn't illegal people. Stop calling it so. And from what we know of them they really weren't breaking any laws. Whatever they did to undermine Voldemort seemed to be within the bounds.

 

Yeah, basically just assisted self-defense or stuff like that (no idea, if they did citizens arrest, but even Lupin's commentary about foregoing stunners would be completely legal, since every jurisdiction I know of allows to kill someone who wants to kill you or someone else).

 

The Order of the Phönix never got forbidden, because the ministry never (officially) knew they existed.

That would have changed had they arrested, killed or imprisoned people, even if said people were DEs.

 

Whether Dumbledore gives a shit about doing the right or not, it still doesn't change the fact that Dumbledore doesn't have the authority to send anyone to any kind of Ministry prison.

Neither does OotP. It might not be an illegal group, but that doesn't make it a ministry sanctioned law enforcement group.

---------- Post automerged at 10:26 ---------- Previous post was at 10:24 ----------

Agreed, but such killing would also come with additional legal scrutiny and bureaucracy. You don't simply kill someone, call it self defense and walk away. I don't believe it would have been good PR to do it too many times.

 

I think some of the Order members like Moody could get away with it. Aurors did get special powers during Crouch's regime.
But you've to keep in mind that it wasn't the Ministry laws that kept the Order in line but their moral compass personified by Dumbledore.

 

Yes, Moody could have probably gotten away with it, when he was an auror. He might get away with it even after he retired, but I doubt it.
EDIT: The point I'm trying to make is that Moody was part of a ministry sanctioned law enforcement group, so were Kingsley and Tonks, so they might have gotten away with it. That doesn't carry over to the rest of the order.

I don't agree with your second point completely. Dumbledore might have influenced the thought process of Order members, but I don't think an Order without Dumbledore would have gone about killing Death Eaters either. I don't really see most of the Order members going about rampant killings, even in self defense.

 

What I meant was that Dumbledore chose people with strong moral values as members of the Order. It was because of this that the Order survived even after his death.
I agree that they wouldn't have lasted as a vigilante group so they did whatever they could within the confines of the law. It probably helped that a lot of the members were ministry employees.

 

If the Order went out to kill Death Eaters, it's premeditated murder. If the Order placed themselves in the way of Death Eaters specifically for the purpose of fighting them and then killed some, that's still murder.

The law applies to all men, otherwise it's just another form of tyranny. You could claim that since this was a civil war more than anything else (though not as we know it) that their actions were justified, but that doesn't have an impact upon the legality of the act at the time it took place. Of course, the fighters were probably granted amnesty in the wake of Voldemort's defeat, as their actions were justified.

That said, this has no bearing on the morality of the act. Death can be the pragmatic solution to a problem. It can even be justified, such as in self defence. It can never, however, be a moral act. Taking someone's life is not something that any moral, legal or religious code has ever claimed to be so and I firmly believe that it can never be either.

That doesn't mean it isn't necessary. Some people just can't separate the two.

 

Nope, it's self-defense.

If a moral code makes a necessity immoral, than this moral code is crap.

 

All that you've said the way the Order functions is speculation and I can't bring myself to agree with you on grounds of morality.
Violence can be moral when it is committed in defence of the weak/nation/principles.

At the same time the act of standing around watching bad things happen is considered immoral.
Every action/inaction has moral implications that makes morality a relatively subjective matter. There is no right answer. Every person has a line they won't ever want to cross.

 

You are surely joking… Or do you by "any moral, legal or religious code ever" consider laws and morality of 20th century?