Chuckg said:
nixofcyzerra said:
Ok, let's return to the original point, and flip it around. How about you show me, with reference to book, chapter and page number, that Sirius (prior to Halloween 1981) knew:
A: vital information that could have been damaging to the now-disbanded and defunct order if leaked to the Death Eaters (that said Death Eaters couldn't have already known or easily found out themselves,)
or:
B: incredibly advanced magic, the sort of thing that Voldemort himself would cast, that would allow him to put a curse on something like Voldemort did the Defense position?
Go on, I'll wait.
And, you go straight for the straw-man
again.
I didn't say that Sirius
actually did any of this, because, of course, Sirius was not actually the traitor.
So, of course, you just arrogantly demanded proof of something that you know not only didn't happen, but that I wasn't actually saying happened.
What was I saying? Why, that Dumbledore should have investigated this possibility because
as far as Dumbledore knew at the time, it
could have happened (which, y'know, it could have, had Sirius actually been the traitor)... and that if he'd done this, he would have, in the process, discovered that Sirius was actually innocent.
And that, of course, 'going back and investigating anything a suspected traitor actually touched in hindsight' is standard operating procedure for any competent organization.
Look, it's very simple. The books state that Dumbledore is intelligent and a relatively good leader. It's widely-held opinion in the books and word of JK has confirmed it in the past. Ergo, for you to claim otherwise, you have the onus of proof. You have to conclusively show that Dumbledore failed when someone else available could have succeeded. That's on you.
You're arguing that Dumbledore f'ed up in regards to the Sirius situation, and failed to reach a certain standard of competence. If you can't conclusively prove it, then you have to conclude that there were off-screen actions and circumstances that could give the illusion of incompetence from the limited view we have (i.e, almost 100% Harry's perspective.)
I have the easy job, as I'm arguing in the defense of canon. All I have to do is establish reasonable doubt in your arguments and point out potential holes in your theories. Which I'm doing.
Fact: Sirius resents Crouch Senior for failing to give him a trial.
Fact: Sirius shows no sign of blaming Dumbledore.
Fact: After Halloween of 1981, the Order of the Phoenix was temporarily disbanded due to the apparent lack of any further threat. Therefore, Dumbledore technically bears no responsibility for the actions or safety of the former members until the Order is reconvened 14 years later.
Conclusion: Dumbledore had no real responsibility in the Sirius Black case, and didn't fail to live up to any other responsibilities he did have in regards to Sirius.
Fact: According to Pottermore, a
canonical source (deal with it,) the Council of Magical Law was the court which tried most Death Eaters, including Crouch Junior.
Conclusion: Sirius's fate was decided in the lower courts (Crouch chucked him into Azkaban without a trial,) and never actually reached the Wizengamot (and Dumbledore's desk.)
Fact: Dumbledore knew Snape was a spy (as he recruited him.)
Fact: Dumbledore presented evidence to the Council of Magical Law that Snape was a spy for him. There is no mention of Dumbledore just unilaterally Pardoning him.
Conclusion: The only way Dumbledore could have interfered in Sirius's trial is if he had evidence that Sirius was innocent, which he did not.
Supposition: Dumbledore had no desire to participate in the trial of someone who had apparently betrayed him when there was overwhelming evidence that said someone was guilty, and thus was not a member of the council that arranged or oversaw (or would have overseen) Sirius's trial. Ergo, Dumbledore actually wasn't even aware that Sirius didn't get a trial.
Now, either conclusively prove that Dumbledore had an obligation regarding Sirius and failed to live up to it, or conclusively disprove, or cast reasonable doubt upon, my supposition.
Oh, and while you're at it, how about you also cite some evidence that Dumbledore didn't look into [...]
You really are a total stranger to honest debate, aren't you?
Hint: if you're going to make claims about someone's alleged competence, you don't demand that other people prove that they didn't do things.
You do the work to
prove that those characters
did do things.
Well, no. I'm just poking holes in your arguments and casting reasonable doubt upon them. Part of my process for doing so is devising possible scenarios that could have potentially occured off-screen.
I don't have to prove that Dumbledore is competent. You have to prove that he's incompetent. Conclusively.
time-bombs that "Evil-Sirius" could have left ticking, through good old-fashioned detective work and magical analysis, rather than having to deal with Dementors and having to confront someone he trusted, in a prison like the one his former lover is in, who may or may not be proficient in Occulmency?
If I were Dumbledore, I wouldn't want to go to interrogate Sirius if there was a reasonable alternative.
And yet again you circle back to 'Dumbledore's desire to avoid anything that might be emotionally distressing is a valid excuse for
Dumbledore not doing his work'.
Wow, Dumbledore really is a precious little snowflake in your world, isn't he? He's so sensitive and delicate! Its all right if he wraps himself up like Shinji-hedgehog and sits their avoiding any possibility of having to expose himself to things that might be harsh or awful!
Prove that it was his job, and also prove that if it was his job, that he failed to do it, by not even using an alternate method to going to Azkaban and interrogating Sirius.
Feh. What kind of a commander is this?
Dumbledore expects Harry to endure years of abuse at the hands of the Dursleys and eventually to die on cue. Dumbledore expects Snape to pretend to serve a man he hates, surrounded by the worst people on Earth, having to fake all of his behavior and pretend to love it. Dumbledore expects his Order members to face hardened killers who casually use the Unforgivables, who casually torture and murder. Dumbledore even expects some of his people to be outright suicide bombers. In short, Dumbledore expects the people under his command to go through a fucking shit ton of emotional and even physical pain, because that's what's needed to get the job done.
Not really fair if Dumbledore expects that much from everybody else, but keeps using the 'Oh, I couldn't do that! That would be emotionally distressing!' excuse for himself, isn't it? No. Its not fair at all.
Dumbledore thought that Harry was a dead man walking, and that there was no way to save him once Voldemort had returned, whether Harry be 14 or 40 when it happened, all the way up to the end of GoF. He placed Harry with the Dursleys so the blood protection would keep him alive until Harry was an adult in the Wizarding World. He seemed damn sure in the DH flashback that the
only way for the Horcurx in Harry's head to be removed was for Harry to die, which implies he researched other options and didn't come up with anything. Pretty much the second he learns that Voldemort took Harry's blood and bound the two together further, he gets a "gleam of something like triumph" in his eyes (HOLY SHIT HOLY SHIT I MIGHT HAVE A CHANCE TO ENSURE HARRY CAN SURVIVE ANOTHER AK GOTTA COME UP WITH A PLAN!)
Snape was the asshole who leaked half the prophecy and got James and Lily killed (and nearly got little baby Harry killed,) and then only seemed to care that Lily was gone. He admits that he begged LV to spare Lily, but didn't give a shit about an innocent 1 year-old baby dying just because he was the kid of his school rival.
21 year-old Snape was the pinnacle of douchebaggery. He was scum of the highest order. Why the hell should Dumbledore give a flying f*ck about Snape feeling bad? He straight up plans to use Snape as a tool against LV when he returns, and manipulates Snape into going along it through emotional blackmail.
It isn't until much later that Dumbledore starts to repect Snape ("Perhaps we sort too soon,") and perhaps even begins to regret that Severus is on such a self-destructive path and try to guide him away from it, to no avail.
And oh yeah, he's a magical prodigy, so there probably was.
So, immediately after you said 'Let's get back to showing proof!', you needed about five minute to segue into 'Hey, let's assume that Dumbledore can just do whatever he needs to do off-stage using magic that Rowling never wrote about because why not'.
*rolleyes*
Burden of proof is on you. I just have to posit reasonable alternative theories to cast doubt on your conclusions. Dumbledore is innocent (competent) until proven guilty (incompetent) by the prosecution (You.)
I also love how later on in your post you go on to argue 'Dumbledore is just a schoolteacher!' when *I* was going 'Man, Dumbledore knows entirely enough magic to solve /this/ problem here'. So, which is Dumbledore? The magical genius who can do whatever? Or the guy who's just a schoolteacher and can't be expected to do so much as dig up evidence of corruption at the Ministry? (And Ministry politicians are /not/, by and large, magical geniuses with awesome protections on their stuff. Just look at Umbridge.)
How about somewhere in the middle? An experienced wizard, a prodigy in Transfiguration, and knowledgeable in several rather obscure branches of magic, such as magic involving the mind and soul, self-sacrifice, and the protection that blood can provide.
He's not ignorant, but he's not someone who knows every spell on the planet and can do anything either.
Sirius blames himself first and foremost, but still resents Crouch for not giving him a trial, but doesn't resent Dumbledore. Judges don't send people to trial, they oversee trials.
*rolleyes*
Your basic ignorance of the law is an epic thing.
Hint: Who issues and signs arrest warrants? Judges. Who presides over arraignment hearings? Judges. Who do lawyers go to to apply for habeas corpus? Judges.
Oh. I wasn't aware that the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales (or prior to 1995, the Lord Chancellor,) does that for every court case in Britain. Man, when does that guy find the time to eat? /Sarcasm.
So when someone brings them an arrest warrant they sign them. When a lawyer (or Solicitor or Barrister, as this is the UK we're talking about,) goes to a Judge with an application for Habeas corpus, they approve and grant them the writ. They don't track down someone who hasn't petitioned for one and throw it in their face.
Judges are entirely one of the two groups of people that decide whether or not something goes to trial, you idiot. The other people are, of course, prosecutors. But in the conventional Western legal system the prosecutor can't nol pros something without a judge's agreement. This also works in reverse, via habeas corpus, i.e., the demand of the judiciary system that someone be brought into court for a trial even if the cops & prosecutor want to keep him in pre-trial confinement forever. Not only is this exactly what Sirius needed, judges are precisely the people who issue this writ.
All true (except for me being an idiot. That part's a filthy, filthy lie.)
But Dumbledore isn't the only Judge in Wizarding Britain.
tldr: your statement that 'judges don't send people to trial' is 200% backwards from the truth.
So yes. Assuming a system that even vaguely resembles British Common Law, then there are indeed two people to blame for Sirius' never getting a trial. One of them is the prosecutor (Barty Crouch Sr.) The other one is... the judge. (Albus Dumbledore). Sirius' ignorance of how the legal system works does nothing to change this.
"Albus Dumbledore, the only Judge in Wizarding Britain, died today after collapsing from over-exhaustion. If only our society could have more than a single Judge!"
Now, you can try to say that 'Magical Britain's legal system is different and doesn't involve the judge at any point in the arraignment process, it's all up to prosecutors'. I might even believe that... if you could show any canon for it... OH WAIT, Harry's underage magical trial. Only made possible because Dumbledore wasn't made Chief Warlock anymore... Fudge had to get him out of the way first before even trying to use the system to screw Harry.
And Dumbledore showed up and spiked the whole thing anyway, despite not being Chief Warlock anymore, simply because he's that good a lawyer whenever he actually tries to be!
You're using Harry's hearing as an example of how the Wizarding Justice system normally works? I... I... I have no words for how stupid that is.
Pottermore (which is canon) said:
Courtroom 10, which is where the Council of Magical Law and the Wizengamot both meet.
OoTP said:
Those courtrooms haven't been used in years,' said Mr Weasley angrily. 'I can't think why they're doing it down there - unless - but no - '
OoTP said:
'Of course they can,' said Dumbledore, inclining his head. 'And you certainly seem to be making many changes, Cornelius. Why, in the few short weeks since I was asked to leave the Wizengamot, it has already become the practice to hold a full criminal trial to deal with a simple matter of underage magic!'
Conclusion: Harry's trial is the first time that the full Wizengamot has convened in years.
Fudge acted as Chief Warlock in that trial. He convened the Wizengamot and appointed himself the Judge in Harry's hearing by it. Had Dumbledore not lost the Chief Warlock position, Fudge likely would have convened a lower court, which Dumbledore wouldn't have been able to preside over without accusations of bias. Dumbledore would likely have just ended up acting as a "witness for the defence" (not an actual Defence Counsel) for Harry anyway.
And Dumbledore's the Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot, which is Wizarding Britain's highest court of law. Whixh means that the only cases that end up there are the ones that lower Wizarding courts can't solve.
Annnnd, you're proven wrong in canon again! You can take an ordinary underage magic case -- something that doesn't even normally get a trial, but is heard in summary judgement by a juvenile welfare official -- all the way to the Wizengamot as your first stop, without any lower courts even touching this first. If you really want to. Because that's exactly what happened to Harry.
Seriously, now you're just saying stuff where the books openly say the opposite.
Do we know that "Fudge the Minister" didn't order Harry's case to be handled by the highest court, which "Fudge the temporary Chief Warlock" then presided over? Because I haven't seen any evidence that the Chief Warlock alone can just swan into any trial and go "Sup, bitches. Move over, this is Dumbledore's show now."
But O.K, let's assume without conclusive proof that Dumbledore could have "pulled a Fudge" and dragged Sirius's case all the way up to the full Wizengamot (or attempted to and discover that Sirius hadn't even received one.)
Why would he? What reason does he have to believe that the Council of Magical Law isn't handling Sirius's trial perfectly adequately?
And I know that there was never any mention of lower Wizarding courts in the books, but according to Pottermore
I
said "books or go home". Gee, thanks for yet again doing whatever the hell you want to do. So much for arguing in good faith, huh?
Books, JK interviews and Pottermore are all equally canonical, provided that one doesn't contradict another. Film and Game adaptations are less, but can be considered canon if they don't contradict the books. That's, like, the most elementary rule when it comes to debating a work of fiction.
But even if we let that in, you still torpedo yourself right here...
Arthur was very surprised that Harry was being tried in Courtroom 10, which is where the Council of Magical Law and the Wizengamot both meet.
I find it hilarious that you yourself refer to the canon proof that any criminal manner can be taken directly to the Wizengamot and leapfrog any lower courts if they want it to be, while at the same time basing an argument on the assumption that it can't. Dude, seriously, you're beating yourself up again.
We don't know who can do it (Minister, Chief Warlock, or both,) and we don't know how it's done. You're basing conclusions on assumptions.
In the UK, Crown Prosecutors are the ones who arrange for accused to be put on trial. They're Britain's versions of District Attorneys. Crouch Senior was the Head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement, and part of his duties must include being the Wizarding equivalent.
Yes. But if we're using UK law, then Crouch's actions are hideously illegal and only total negligence at the judicial level explains how he gets away with them. The Crown Prosecution Service cannot sentence someone to prison indefinitely without a trial... the only way "no trial" occurs by CPS fiat is if its accompanied by "and we're dropping the charges". Britain are the people who
invented habeas corpus, dude. In the 17th century.
"The evidence is so obvious that there's no point in holding a trial" is only possible in British law when they're talking about 'it is so obvious this guy is INNOCENT'. There is no 'its so obvious this guy is guilty, skip the trial' provision. No matter how blatant the dude is, he gets a judge and a jury anyway. The jury might deliberate for all of ten days or ten seconds before reaching a verdict, but before that happens both sides have a chance to make their cases and present evidence and all.
Of course, there is no dispute that Crouch's actions are hilariously illegal.
All true, and I don't dispute it.
The dispute is over whether any of that negligence attaches to Dumbledore. And I say 'yes', because prosecutors can't put people in jail without at least one judge's cooperation, which means Crouch's bullshit is as much a failure of the judiciary as the prosecution service. And Dumbledore, as the highest official of that judiciary, ultimately bears responsibility.
Source? It's my understanding that Chief Justices are required to order inquiries and investigations into any miscarriages of justice that are brought to their attention, but they're not held personally responsible if one occurs.
At this point the question is 'Can Dumbledore legitimately plead that he did not know this was going on, because the case was not one with his personal attention?' And the answer is '... fuck no. While normally he doesn't handle every case, Sirius was not only a suspected Death Eater -- which were all cases Dumbledore sat on personally -- Sirius was also a member of the Order of the Phoenix, meaning he used to work for Dumbledore directly, and so Dumbledore has every reason to follow Sirius' case personally and with the greatest of interest'.
Or he could have just (quite reasonably) decided that, seeing as every other DE was getting a trial, that he wasn't required to have anything else to do with the trial of a guy who personally betrayed him. Expecting fellow professionals to be professional and carry out correct procedure isn't a failing, especially when the fellow professional in question has a flawless record. It was thought that Crouch might be the next Minister of Magic, remember? The man appeared to be very good at his job.
You might argue that this personal involvement would recuse Dumbledore from sitting on Sirius' judgement panel. You'd even be right there. However, you don't actually have to be the presiding judge to follow a case in progress, and to realize "hey, this guy isn't even GETTING a trial! somebody file a fucking writ of habeas corpus already!", as witness Dumbledore's pro bono publico lawyer performance at Harry's trial, when he wasn't even a judge anymore.
You also don't have to. Dumbledore had no requirement to follow Sirius's trial. Why would he? So he can hear "Evil-Sirius" brag about the look on James's face when he realised that his best friend and Secret Keeper had betrayed him? So he can be a victim of "Evil-Sirius's" vitriol as he talks about how he had Dumbledore completely fooled? So he can lambaste himself for not making different decisions during the whole Snape-Lupin Werewolf incident?
What reason did Dumbledore have to expose himself to that kind of potential pain? I mean, if he had a good reason, sure he should have sucked it up and tried to go, but as far as I can see, he didn't.
Then he acted as the defence in Snape's trial like he did in Harry's, temporarily forgoing his position as one of the judges to avoid any accusations of bias affecting the verdict.
And he could easily have done the same thing at Lucius' trial -- whether he was a judge or just an observer -- by volunteering to be a prosecution expert witness, thus destroying Lucius' whole perjury re: the Imperius, which Dumbledore
knew was entirely false. But he doesn't.
This is entirely based on the precept that Legilimency is admissible in court, which you haven't conclusively proved.
What kind of judge sits there, watches a defendant lie his ass off, knows he's lying his ass off, and does absolutely nothing to prevent a blatant miscarriage of justice in his courtroom? A shitty one.
One that can't prove it.
And as I mentioned in my last post, there's no conclusive evidence that mind-reading is admissible in court.
Only if I accept your claim, which you entireyl failed to prove, that Dumbledore didn't use legilimency. (Hint:
pensieve do not work that way!)
Fine, then show me a transcript of Dumbledore's appeal to the Ministry regarding Morfin's trial, as well as a copy of the legislation regarding use of Legilimancy and Pensieves in court. Oh, wait, you can't? Well, can you prove to me conclusively that either are allowed to be used in court via other sources? No? Oh well. I guess we'll have to use logic to conclude that they aren't eligible to be used in court, as otherwise far too many legal outcomes in the HP-verse make no sense. Like Fudge not ordering a Ministry Legilimens to mind-probe Harry and prove that he was lying about the Dementors (seeing as he did actually think that Harry was lying, as Umbridge sent them without his knowledge.)
Pensieve memories can be faked (Slughorn,) someone good enough at Occlumency can apparently use it to convince a Legilimens who's currently mind-probing them that they aren't lying (Snape and Voldemort,) and Occlumency can also beat Veritaserum (Pottermore/JK interview.)
I guess Wizarding Courts have to rely on testimony and evidence just like Muggle courts.
Except that Dumbledore isn't an Auror or a Hitwizard, which are the closest things to soldiers the Wizarding Worlds have, so really we should be judging him by the standards of a civilian
Dumbledore, of his own free will, chose to form a private army (the Order of the Phoenix) and appoint himself as the commander of it. Hey, guess the fuck what. At this point the "it's not my job!" defense doesn't apply, because Dumbledore chose to MAKE it his job. If you decide to start your own PMC, you get to be judged like any other military commander, because its your profession now!
As Dumbledore never received military training, and his Militia wasn't associated or linked to any military, I'm not sure you can accuse him of failing to live up to the standards of a military. You can express opinions of his command ability, but Dumbledore couldn't have been dragged before a military tribunal in canon (if anything he probably could have assembled a tribunal and court-martialed members of the Order if he wanted to.)
(seeing as Judge, National Representative and Schoolteacher aren't military roles) who was the head of a voluntary Militia.
Militia commanders are commanders too, and expected to be either good enough to not lead their troops like idiots, or responsible enough to go 'holy shit, I'm getting my people mulched because I don't know what I'm doing,
I'd better step back and let someone better take charge'.
You've yet to name someone who exists in canon who you think would have been a superior Commander, that Dumbledore could have ceded leadership of the OoTP to.
He wasn't a professional, he never claimed to be a professional, and if the professionals could have handled it, he would have left it to them.
So, your entire defense is based upon 'Dumbledore knew that someone had to be better than the Aurors and Hitwizards because they weren't up to the job', while you're simultaneously going 'But Dumbledore needs to be excused for not being as good as an Auror or Hitwizard, because he never had the training'. Both things you're saying at once?
That is the logical equivalent of an Escher drawing.
No, I'm saying: "Hypothetical Wizards/Witches who've been to an actual Military academy and have studied the art of war as a career" > Dumbledore > Hitwizards/Aurors. It's just there weren't any of the first group in canon.
PS: Dumbledore, unlike any other person in Magical Britain at the time Voldemort kicks off his first war, is a veteran of the war against Grindelwald. The guy who won the pivotal battle of that war, in fact. I actually do have a legitimate reason for expecting him to be at least as combat-experienced as anybody else in this fucking mess.
Except that Albus wasn't "General Dumbledore" in WW2, and didn't fight for most of it. He just tracked down Gellert right at the end, and kicked his ass in what people would call "the greatest wizarding duel of all time." That doesn't require the ability to command troups, that requires the ability to be a Beast of a Duellist.
So you know what? I revise my earlier statement. Dumbledore wasn't a General of an Army. He was the Commander of a Militia.
Wouldn't matter if he was the commander of a
platoon, dude -- fuck, wouldn't matter if he was a squad leader. He fails basic military leadership principles at
any level. (Such as, oh, loyalty up and loyalty down, contingency planning, not overextending your forces, reacting in a timely manner, proactive vs. reactive, identifying core objectives, the list goes on and on!)
Feel free to hold that opinion. I personally think that if someone does their best at something, and there wasn't anyone around who could have done a better job, then we shouldn't condemn them if they make some mistakes, as you weren't in their position and have an outside perspective that lets you see stuff that they, at the time, couldn't.
And I personally think that if somebody takes command during a war and makes avoidable mistakes that leave people dead on the ground, that dude should be cashiered, no matter what if hindsight, or couldn't have done a better job or he did his best. You know who else thinks so? The Army. And the Navy, the Air Force, the Marine Corps, and even the Coast Guard.
War is hell, dude. And the judgement standards are harsh. In fact, you could say its the ultimate pass-fail exam.
First of all, I don't actually know whether leaders of Militias unaffiliated with any national/state Military can be tried under military law. Their (technically illegal due to being unsanctioned) Militia can be forcibly disbanded and they can be tried under civilian law, sure, but an amateur non-professional with no official military status being court-martialed? That doesn't sound right to me.
Two: In order for Dumbledore to be court-martialed, he would need to found guilty under military law. The military doesn't court-martial someone for failing a mission or completing a mission with unacceptable losses, if either the mission failure or the losses are deemed as either having been unavoidable, or it is concluded to be unreasonable to expect the subject of the hearing to have been able to avoid them, given his training. That said, you can judge Dumbledore, a man who is never shown to have received any form of Command or Tactical training, by the standards of a Military General, but as any Military Tribunal would take into account the factor of Hindsight bias, and the difficulty of the mission in question, you probably should too. Soldiers don't get court-martialed for failing a mission
if the mission was completely FUBAR.
So is it unreasonable to expect Dumbledore to react to the standards of someone who has undergone Command/Tactical training and has superior intel, when the entire and complete particulars of the mission "defeat Voldemort" also aren't known?
In my opinion, yes.
O.K, first of all,
here, because you apparently have no idea what a Straw Man Argument actually is, and you're just using it as some sort of Buzz word to make my points look weaker.
And now you're a blatant liar.
A straw man argument is, according to your own source...
The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.
This is
exactly what you are doing every time you get on the 'Dumbledore can't stop being Chief Warlock!' train, when you know perfectly well I was never
on the 'Dumbledore should quit being Chief Warlock' train, and am in fact saying the exact opposite.
I mean, that's entirely a straw man. That's the classic definition, in fact -- arguing back against a claim that your debate opponent never actually made.
So, having established you are a complete and total stranger to the truth or honesty, I have to ask myself, why am I even bothering to talk to you.
Except we're not two political opponents trying to score points on the other to look better to the public. I'm defending canon, which means that you present arguments that attempt to conclusively prove something, and I try to refute your arguments by poking holes in them.
Second of all, I'm not disputing the fact that of the 3 jobs Dumbledore held, the Chief Warlock position was the most important, and that that's the last one he should give up. I'm claiming that for two of his three jobs, there was no-one who would make a decent successor.
Solution is thus obvious -- dump the third.
As I've already mentioned, it's possible that this was unnecessary, a bad tactical decision, or not really feasible due to public opinion. Prove that it was none of those things.
So, same question, but for Supreme Mugwump instead of Chief Warlock. Who should Dumbledore have chosen to suggest to the Minister (or the Wizengamot) that they be the next appointed representative of the British Ministry of Magic, and worked to ensure that they were elected? Name someone.
Anybody with a pulse. Supreme Mugwump, as shown in the series, is clearly a job of total irrelevance to the plot. It never affects things either way. Unlike the Headmaster or Chief Warlock's positions, we don't see any junction points where intervention by this person could have decided a plot event. The ICW is 200% offstage to the entire thing and never shows up ever, either for good or ill.
You realise that just because things are happening off-stage doesn't mean they aren't important, right? And considering that Voldemort was a Dark Lord, and the last Dark Lord helped start WW2 in the HP-verse, I would think that maintaining the UK's diplomatic presence is actually damn important. Arguing that Dumbledore's work at the International Confederation of Wizards was irrelevant just because our main viewpoint is a school-boy with zero interest in international politics is somewhat foolish IMO.
And I would argue that if the ICW was so irrelevant, Dumbledore would have quit. Since he didn't, you'll have to conclusively prove that his international diplomatic work was useless and futile. Good luck with that.
For all we know, Dumbledore helped prevent trade with Foreign Wizarding Governments from being restricted, which would have had a catastrophic effect on the Wizarding Economy (the UK is an island nation after all.)
And so Dumbledore can let anybody who isn't Lucius Malfoy take that job over, because apparently all it does is waste his time. Fuck, put Elphias Doge in that thing, dude will rubber-stamp anything Dumbledore says and he seems to be mostly retired anyway. And I suppose a 'Special Advisor to the Wizengamot' is senior enough he can be plausibly nominated for this. But it doesn't have to be him... really, he can let Fudge have it for all we care. Hell, maybe that will actually help, by letting Fudge be kicked upstairs to where he can't fuck anything up.
Daily Prophet Headlines: "ICW sanctions UK, All members declare War/announce Trade embargoes; We're F*cked, Fudge blamed."
"French Veela and all Foreign Dark Creatures swear loyalty to You-Know-Who. Lucius Malfoy: I don't know what went wrong."
So really, the reasons that he placed Harry at the Dursleys are threefold, the first of which he mentioned in chapter 1 of Philsopher's stone. To stop Harry from growing up big-headed.
A job any family such as the Weasleys or the Tonkses could have managed. There was no need to deliberately place him into a cruel situation.
The Weasleys are poor Blood Traitors. Andromeda Tonks was disowned by her family. An extreme importance is placed on the sanctity of blood and blood relations in the HP-verse. It's possible that Wizarding Britain wouldn't accept the Boy-Who-Lived being raised by them, while they would his blood relatives (even if they were Muggles.)
Enter Lucius Malfoy, Philanthropist extraordinaire! "Despite having been a victim of You-Know-Who himself, being controlled by the Unforgivable Imperius Curse, Lucius has always felt a need for redemption, which he has expressed via his extremely generous donations to multiple charitable causes. However, Mr Malfoy feels that mere money cannot make up for the harm he unwillingly caused. Therefore, he has expressed a desire to raise Harry Potter, the Boy-Who-Lived, himself, feeling that helping the son of the last victims of You-Know-Who grow into a proud and respectable member of Wizarding society will help lay the demons that haunt him firmly to rest."
As I've said before, Lucius Malfoy is like Bruce Wayne in Gotham. In the eyes of the vast majority of the Wizarding British public, he can do no wrong. He's on the Hogwarts Board of Governers. He's trusted with having an important say in the lives of their children.
A situation, btw, which Dumbledore entirely knew about.
"You did not do as I asked. You have never treated Harry as a son. He has known nothing but neglect and often cruelty at your hands."
-- Half-Blood Prince
Except we don't know when he found this out. Before Harry arrived at Hogwarts? He says in OotP that he knew that he was condemning Harry to "ten dark and difficult years," but that doesn't necessarily mean that he knew they were abusive. What did Dumbledore even know about the Dursleys? He knew that Petunia desperately wanted to go to Hogwarts, and was bitter that she didn't get to go, and that McGonagall disapproved of them. Arabella Figg was assigned to keep watch, and knew that the Dursleys would never have let Harry come over to her house if they'd thought he enjoyed it.
So, basically, he knew they were dicks, and they wouldn't treat him as one of their own. That's enough for Harry's childhood to qualify as "dark and difficult." That doesn't mean that he knew they were abusive. I imagine the first time that Madame Pomfrey examined Harry could have been fairly enlightening, although possibly not even then, as Wizards are canonically much hardier than Muggles, and Harry canonically has never been shown to suffer from scars (inflicted by the Dursleys,) malnutrition, or stunted growth.
So maybe Dumbledore only realised in book 1 that the Dursleys were full-on abusive and not just emotionally neglectful, and by then Harry owned a wand and would only spend another 6 summers with the Dursleys. Dumbledore would probably consider the blood protection worth that.
The second, to make sure he didn't grow up as Harry Malfoy or Harry Fudge.
Back at the time Harry's custody decision was made, Fudge was a junior department head in Magical Catastrophes and Lucius Malfoy was a guy desperately bribing people to avoid going to Azkaban for life. Their rise to political power did not occur until later. And the people who
were in office at the time, despite their own personal flaws, were still no friends of the Death Eaters.
Harry Bagnold or Harry Crouch, then. This is more nitpicking than anything else. Also, Dumbledore could have seen the way the wind was blowing politically and planned ahead.
And the third, the fact that Harry living with his relatives for 16 years means Voldemort can't touch him for 16 years
If Dumbledore isn't even sure Voldemort is alive, why does this matter? Or if Dumbledore is
so sure of Tom's being alive that he will allow Harry to deliberately stay in an abusive situation because things are that desperate, how does any of Dumbledore's
other inactions make sense?
This is the crux of the matter here. Keeping Harry at the Dursleys, given the abuse that Harry undergoes there and that Dumbledore by his own admission entirely knows about, is an act of desperation. It can only
begin to be justified only if you absolutely believe as a fact that Voldemort
is out there and
will one day return.
Which means anything else Dumbledore does in the interim should also be judged on that basis, which means you forfeit the 'But Dumbledore didn't knooooooooooooow!' defense.
You can't have it both ways. Either Dumbledore deliberately kept a child in an abusive situation based merely on a theoretical possibility, OR Dumbledore was pretty damn sure that Tom would come back even before he could prove it absolutely.
And in either case, some of Dumbledore's decisions look very questionable. The only thing that changes is which decisions.
OotP said:
'You might ask - and with good reason - why it had to be so. Why could some wizarding family not have taken you in? Many would have done so more than gladly, would have been honoured and delighted to raise you as a son.
'My answer is that my priority was to keep you alive. You were in more danger than perhaps anyone but I realised. Voldemort had been vanquished hours before, but his supporters - and many of them are almost as terrible as he - were still at large, angry, desperate and violent. And I had to make my decision, too, with regard to the years ahead. Did I believe that Voldemort was gone for ever? No. I knew not whether it would be ten, twenty or fifty years before he returned, but I was sure he would do so, and I was sure, too, knowing him as I have done, that he would not rest until he killed you.
'I knew that Voldemort's knowledge of magic is perhaps more extensive than any wizard alive. I knew that even my most complex and powerful protective spells and charms were unlikely to be invincible if he ever returned to full power.
'But I knew, too, where Voldemort was weak. And so I made my decision. You would be protected by an ancient magic of which he knows, which he despises, and which he has always, therefore, underestimated - to his cost. I am speaking, of course, of the fact that your mother died to save you. She gave you a lingering protection he never expected, a protection that flows in your veins to this day. I put my trust, therefore, in your mother's blood. I delivered you to her sister, her only remaining relative.'
Didn't want Bellatrix Lestrange (or any other, equally sadistic DE like Alecto Carrow) Crucio-ing little baby Harry's brains out.
Was confident that Voldemort might return (but didn't know for sure that LV wasn't just completely dead until Quirrell aftermath,) wasn't sure when Voldemort might return (Harry could have been a grown man with a family for all he knew.)
Super-magic blood protection prevents the former (if I had to guess the mechanics of it, I would guess that the Dark Mark essentially causes DE's to be considered extensions of LV, meaning the blood protection protects against them too. Albus probably tested it with Snape.)
Super-magic blood protection also ensures that Harry would be at least 17 before Voldemort can go after him (or it would if Tom hadn't taken Harry's blood.)
Explain to me where the book says that Dumbledore being a full-time Judge would allow him to root out corruption.
That is precisely what and how we've already been arguing about half the day yesterday. Not surprised you'd suddenly pretend to have amnesia about it now.
No, it's just you've yet to actually convince me with your arguments.
Actually, explain to me how being a Judge allows you to actively seek out corruption, instead of merely passing judgement on it when it appears before your court.
Well, for one thing, you become one of the people who can sign search warrants... which is a great way to help fight corruption if you happen to have friends and allies who are, oh, senior police investigators.
Oh, I see. Writing Writs is so difficult and time-consuming that he could never get it all done fast enough to still have no problem holding other positions. /Sarcasm.
If anything, you should be arguing that Dumbledore should have accepted the nominations to be the Minister of Magic (which he wouldn't because CHILDHOOD TRAUMA.)
Actually, that entirely would have helped too. Thank you for reminding me, I'd overlooked that. Yes, Dumbledore should entirely have done this.
And boo-hoo 'CHILDHOOD TRAUMA'. Yet again we're back to "Dumbledore is such an oh-so-special snowflake that his own emotions are more important than stepping up to serve his nation when it so desperately needs him". Fuck, YOU'RE the guy who keeps underlining that 'only Dumbledore could possibly do this job!' Dude, if I actually go along with that, then that means there is NO excuse for Dumbledore NOT doing the job! Yes, not even "CHILDHOOD TRAUMA!"
Note that I don't actually defend Dumbledore's decison to not take up the Minister role, just point out the canon reason why he didn't do it. I do actually think he should have manned up (possibly after getting some counselling first) and taken the Minister role, and then proceeded to completely clean up Wizarding Britain, making it as difficult as possible for Voldemort in the eventuality he returns.
No, but considering that it's the only canonical source we have for Dumbledore's "mad Warlocking skillz,"
... because the first four books, where we actually see Dumbledore's
actions (or, rather,
lack of action) as Chief Warlock, aren't canon?
Seriously?
Dude, in a contest of "show" vs. "tell", "show" wins every time. Sure, Elphias Doge (not even an omniscient third-person narrator, but an unreliable first person narrator)
tells us that, in his opinion, Dumbledore was awesome. But when we read the books, we see very little -- if any -- of Dumbledore
showing he was awesome. And all that awesome is about Dumbledore as a powerful wizard (which nobody disputes), and none of it is about Dumbledore as a leader or a politician.
Hell's bells, Dumbledore doesn't even get any muggleborn protection laws passed, despite being Chief Warlock.
Arthur Weasley has to do that job, and he's just a minor sub-department head. Wow, Albus.
So no, we have canon. Its called 'the whole fucking plot'.
Add: Shit, in addition to everything else we already have, let's look at book 2. Fudge throws Hagrid's ass into Azkaban on zero evidence and with no trial, right in front of Dumbledore, and Dumbledore -- who is still the Chief Warlock this year -- leaves him there for six months. Dumbledore doesn't start any investigation, or demand that Hagrid get a hearing, or anything. He's able to bust the case vs. Harry open in a day because Harry is actually somebody who matters to Dumbledore's plan. But Hagrid? Nah, never mind that he's an innocent man who's served me loyally for years, I have no skin in this game, let him sit there.
Feh. Way to go, Dumbledore. Whenever prompt action is needed, you're there on the spot to do... absolutely nothing.
Also, when you only have direct one source about something, referring to it isn't "Cherry-picking."
When I have multiple books of sources and yuo focus on only one in-story newspaper article, it damn sure is.
A Direct source in Doge, a lack of critisism from Rita Skeeter (who doesn't appear to say anything about Dumbledore's actions as Chief Warlock) and Word of JK all trump your subjective opinion of canon, unless you can conclusively prove that they're wrong.
In case you're wondering, you haven't as of yet.
Also, Judges don't make laws. They pass them if there's enough support. Arthur helped write it, and tried to get it signed into law, which he did.
Nooo. Seeing as Lucius never ended up in court with Dumbledore presiding in any of the five books (unless it happened at the end of OoTP when Lucius was sentenced to Azakaban,) Lucius being free isn't an indication that Albus doesn't know how to Warlock like nothing you've ever seen before.
Harry proves that somebody senior in the government feels like, no matter how trivial the case is, so you're wrong yet again. Dumbledore
could have handled that case, if he'd
wanted to. But the entire criticism is "Dumbledore failed to take action when", and so, he didn't.
No, Harry's trial proves that a case can be taken to the entire Wizengamot anytime
the Minister feels like it. You do know that the Prime Minister has way more power than the Lord Chief Justice, right?
*sings*Citation pleeeaaase!
"The books. As in, all of them". 'Dumbledore is never actually seen doing much in any of his positions' is all through them. We never see him actually do any Chief Warlocking, his Headmaster duties seem to revolve around being the guy who presides at feasts (I mean, God
knows it doesn't seem to involve reviewing the staff's in-class performance and correcting irregularities *coughSnapecough*, maintaining high standards of curriculum in all classes *coughTrelawneycough*, or hiring and firing quality staff members *coughBinnscough*, three things you'd think would be on a busy headmaster's to-do list) and occasionally intervening to give Harry house points, and the ICW is totally absent from the plot.
So if you want to show me Dumbledore actually putting in a full days' work at all of them, well, to quote you, 'citation pleaaaaaaaaaase!'
So you're saying that the fact that Harry wasn't peering over Albus's shoulder while he worked proves that Albus didn't actually do anything?
Sounds Legit. /So much Sarcasm.
Except that Hermione was travelling back an hour at a time to attend extra classes, and wasn't allocating extra time for more meals and sleep. Dumbledore could spend a day working in the Headmaster's office (with meal breaks and sleep,) Time-Turn back a whole 24 hours the next day, spend a whole day working at the ICW, and then again at the Ministry. 3 full days for everybody else's one.
Citation pleaaaaaaaaaaaaaase!
HP Wiki article on Hour-Reversal Charm said:
Professor Saul Croaker: "As our investigations currently stand, the longest period that may be relived without the possibility of serious harm to the traveller or to time itself is around five hours. We have been able to encase single Hour-Reversal Charms, which are unstable and benefit from containment, in small, enchanted hour-glasses that may be worn around a witch or wizard's neck and revolved according to the number of hours the user wishes to relive." (Source
ottermore.)
So OK, he could only turn every five hours into ten. That's still enough that abuse of it could allow him to work three full-time jobs if he had to.
I'm not saying that he did do that, but he could, so
'I'm not going to say it happened except I will totally base an argument on that's what happened.'
Wow, you really want to be able to claim whatever you want without proving it, don't you.
Did you not notice the use of the word "could" in my sentence? You claim, with no evidence but
your own opinions, that Dumbledore had a time managment problem, and I have provided a canonical solution for time management problems that Albus could potentially use if your supposition is correct, which it necessarily isn't.
So now please conclusively prove that Albus Dumbledore had time managment problems
so bad that even being able to travel back in time 5 hours, almost 5 times a day (5x5 being 1 more than 24) wasn't enough to solve them.
All true. But Dumbledore didn't own the Ministry building
Irrelevant -- his only need is to destroy or steal the orb before Voldemort can (and leave a decoy behind), which means the only thing he needs to be is 'a guy who can do a B&E before the Death Eaters can'.
And if the Death Eaters can hack those alarms, Dumbledore definitely can -- he's better at magic than any of them. Or anyone.
Oh? Please provide evidence that shows he's better at disarming magical alarms than the Death Eaters, whom we barely know anything about.
While you're at it, seeing as you claim that Dumbledore is "best at Magic!," please cite evidence that he's a better Potioneer than Snape, or a better Curse-Breaker than Bill Weasley, or even a better Arithmancer than Septima Vector.
Dumbledore can't be good at
everything, and expecting him to be is silly.
There's also that for years before OotP begins, he had legitimate access to the Ministry building, and at least some amount of favors to trade.
The DoM is a section of the Ministry of Magic that carries out
confidential research. Most of its operations are carried out in
total secrecy. Hardly any Ministry employees even have the faintest clue about what goes on there.
Arthur Weasley said:
that's Bode and Croaker...they're Unspeakables...from the Department of Mysteries, top secret, no idea what they get up to..."
Even Arthur, a department head, hasn't got the foggiest clue as to what goes on there. The "Unspeakables" are called that becuase they're forbidden "from discussing their jobs or disclosing any information about their department, hence the name "Unspeakable."
Even the Chief Justice would probably have to recieve a special dispension from the Minister to speak to anyone from the DoM. And Albus probably wouldn't want Fudge (and Lucius through him) to have any knowledge that Albus has displayed any sort of interest in the Department.
Fuck, since his purpose, unlike the Death Eaters, is not harmful to Magical Britain, he could just ask the Unspeakables. Voldemort can't, he's the enemy. Dumbledore is not the enemy.
They probably would have let Dumbledore take Harry in to get it. Doesn't mean that they'll let him just swan off with it.
Remember:
HBP said:
HARRY POTTER: THE CHOSEN ONE?
Rumors continue to fly about the mysterious recent disturbance at the Ministry of Magic, during which He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named was sighted once more.
"We're not allowed to talk about it, don't ask me anything" said one agitated Obliviator, who refused to give his name as he left the Ministry last night.
Nevertheless, highly placed sources within the Ministry have confirmed that the disturbance centered on the fabled Hall of Prophecy.
Though Ministry spokes wizards have hitherto refused even to confirm the existence of such a place, a growing number of the Wizarding community believe that the Death Eaters now serving sentences in Azkaban for trespass and attempted theft were attempting to steal a prophecy.
Unspeakable don't even want to admit this place exists. The only way that Dumbledore probably could have gotten into the DoM to destroy the prophecy orb is if he tells an Unspeakable that Voldemort's not dead. And he had no proof.
and thus couldn't act with impunity as a Site Security Manager could. Sturgis and Arthur weren't supposed to be there, and if they'd been caught by an employee that was neither a DE/Pureblood-supremacist or loyal to Dumbledore, they would have been questioned as to what they were doing there/escorted out/fired. Less people = less chance of being caught.
You do realize this is part of the point I'm making, right? Dumbledore
cannot rationally expect to be able to guard the thing as it sits in the DoM,
because his people have no legitimate access to the building. They're as much intruders as the DEs are.
So what should he do? Tell Fudge?
" Yo, Corny, FYI you might want to up the security around the DoM."
Fudge: "Why?"
Albus: "Well, Voldemort-"
Fudge: "Get out."
So, Dumbledore is in a situation where the DEs only have to be successful burglars once, but Dumbledore's people have to successfully sneak into the place every single night.
That is not a sustainable situation and it gives all the advantage to the enemy. As was repeatedly proven every time they easily took out one of his sentries. Or at the end, when they walked right into the DoM past NO Order guard on the last night of the plot, because you'd think whoever was teh Order guard on duty that night would have said something about Harry being there! Apparently, Dumbledore withdrew all his people after Arthur Weasley went down.
Uh:
Chuckg said:
Except if this goes wrong
There's a word for generals who never actually advance on the enemy because they're trying to guarantee nothing might go wrong. In fact, there's a phrase. It's called "command paralysis" and its one of the biggest flaws a commander can have.
War is a bunch of calculated risks, dude. If you can't deal with that, don't try to command anything.
Well, holy shit, Dumbledore's plan for the last lap of OotP was 'hey, let's just NOT guard it, and hope that Voldemort doesn't get it?'
... wow. Just wow. Every time I look more at Dumbledore's leadership and planning, it gets worse.
...And? What, should he just not even try? I mean, even if you fail, at least you tried and got
some intel out of it.
The DE's couldn't conclusively know that Dumbledore could repeat the tactic
... just stop embarassing yourself.
Hint: If you find one enemy patrolling a particular place, and you know they haven't given up in the interim, you can reasonably expect to find another enemy there the next time you go there. So of COURSE you would be more on alert going back into there.
PS: If they think Dumbledore has changed his deployments, then that's only MORE reason for them to cast 'hominem revalio' on every single corner of the damn room, because they DON'T think they know where the new guy is. Won't they be surprised when they find out '... fuck, Dumbledore didn't even move him? Wow. Make it easy for us, why don't you Albus.'
Doesn't change the fact they need to do
something.
If anything it's more a sign of Arthur's bravery for signing up for a job that's become much more dangerous. He's got guts (as Nagini could probably tell you
.)
Nobody's questioning Arthur's bravery... just the competence of the guy who put him out there. I mean, one of the tragedies of war is when brave and good men march to their deaths at the hands of idiot commanders who didn't even need to waste their efforts like that.
There's no indication that Albus didn't explicitedly spell out the dangers, only for Arthur to agree to go the mission anyway, due to having the kind of giant brass balls that allowed him to sire seven children. He might not be as deadly with a wand as his wife apparently is, but he's still kind of a badass.
*sigh* Remember what Harry did all those times he was nearly caught under his cloak? He froze and tried to make as little noise as possible.
Yes, and remember that this is when Harry didn't know a silencing charm.
IDK, we have no idea how exactly Sturgis got Imperio'd, but it's probably 'cause he f'd up, not Albus. Maybe he didn't apply a silencing charm because he wasn't an Auror and thus didn't pass the Concealment and Disguise course that Tonks aced, and he's terribad at silent magic so he couldn't do it once Lucius showed up.
Actually, tell you what. Go find a tranparent piece of plastic/cloth, and then experiment to see A; how hard it is to throw it off and point a weapon at someone in one smooth motion, and B; how hard it is to grapple with someone while wearing it.
I don't need to experiment. I already have a canon example of an Invisibility Cloak ambush -- in OotP! The one Lucius and Bellatrix pull on Harry.
Didn't seem to hamper their style any. I guess Voldemort just trains his people better.
OotP said:
Beyond the Veil
Black shapes were emerging out of thin air all around them, blocking their way left and right; eyes glinted through slits in hoods, a dozen lit wand tips were pointing directly at their hearts; Ginny gave a gasp of horror.
I ain't seeing no Demiguise pelts.
So one guy couldn't even get through a door, and was caught and subdued by a security guard, and the other, an employee, fell victim to the spells on the Orb, and ended up in Saint Mungo's, all of his colleagues thinking that he'd just had an accident.
Why exactly would anyone feel that they need to up-grade the security?
You do realize that you just proved my point, right? The DoM visibly is complacent about their security. Even after they get intruders, they don't make any new efforts.
Because the single intruder they know about made almost no progress and was subdued by a night-watchman. If I find a guy trying to break into my house who's been stymied by the
front gate, I'm not going to feel the need to change the locks on my front door.
So, if you can hack the existing door locks -- which Dumbledore can --
Please point me to the part in the books where Dumbledore was shown to be a Master Thief, capable of breaking into the most high-security locations. Tom's cave, with the blood thing? 'Cause that was more Tom being sadistic enough to make people cut themselves to gain entrance, and thinking an easily-healed cut would somehow slow his enemies down (IDK why, Tom's a weird guy.)
and if you're not worried about the shelf protections because you don't intend to actually use the orb, just smash it in place -- which Dumbledore would be -- then NOTHING stops you from doing whatever you feel like. Because they have no security beyond those and don't feel the need for any.
Except apparently those security spells are no joke. Maybe even Dumbledore couldn't bypass them, meaning that it would have to be Tom or Harry.
Which security spells, the one on the door or the one on the shelf? Lucius can probably get himself, Bellatrix, and an entire team past the door, so Dumbledore can as well.
And the ones on the shelf doesn't stop you from just smashing an orb with a stray spell, because Bellatrix does that, on-camera, in OotP.
Since Dumbledore only needs to destroy the orb, not pick it up and listen to it, *boom*!
Except that by OoTP he can't even get into the Ministry easily, let alone the DoM. He was a fugitive. If the DoM does have anything like the Thief's Waterfall, he'd be screwed.
As to prior to OoTP, I still think my "If Tom's obsessed with the Prophecy he's not murdering f*ck-tons of muggles" theory is correct, seeing as once learning the Prophecy is no longer an option for Tom, he proceeds to, you guessed it, murder a f*ck-ton of muggles (See chapter 1 of HBP.)
As to Albus not taking Harry into the DoM once Tom showed up possessing Quirrel, I guess the DoM might not want to let an 11 year-old in, and Albus doesn't want Harry wondering what the shiny orb is.
Except that A; the lobby might not have as high security as the rooms further in do, and B; any security measures would have been turned off by the DEs before Harry and co. arrived. So they would be able to hang around Disillusioned.
So, basically, even if there was this security measure, Dumbledore could get past it anyway, because the Death Eaters were able to and he's at least as good as any of them.
So, I'm right.
Citation that Dumbledore could teach a Master Class of Magical B&E, please.
Also, if Lucius placed Bode under the Imperius, what's stopping Malfoy from making Bode tell him exactly how to get into the DoM?
Prove she was as pure as the white snow. All we know about her is that she did her best to make sure Harry's trial was fair, and she was impressed that Harry could cast a corporeal Patronus.
Exactly. Everything we've ever heard or seen her do in canon is consistent with honesty and shows no corruption. So, by your standards of proof that you use for yourself all the time, I've already done my job. For you to claim that she is secretly corrupt, you must have...
*drum roll*
Citation pleaaaaaaaaaase!
And you don't.
Except you're not just claiming that she's innocent and uncorrupted enough to not let a schoolboy be expelled without justification, you're claiming that she's such a pinnacle of integrity that she's willing to risk her job to investigate her boss for evidence of corruption and abuse of power. That's two very different things. If she was that ethical, then why wasn't she willing to join the OotP, or liaise with them, just in case Tom Riddle had returned? Instead there's no indication that she wasn't directing the DLME's attempts to catch Dumbledore during the 2nd half of OotP.
Onus of proof rests on you. Prove it.
Actually, considering that she wasn't a member of the OotP, she probably didn't think that Voldemort had returned, and was shocked and horrified when he turned up to kill her.
Gee, if only somebody had sent his Order people to guard
her house too. Or given her a warning. Or, fuck, I dunno,
invited her to join the Order. I mean, shit, she was at
least as qualified as Molly Weasley was, right? And its not like Dumbledore had any problem recruiting senior Aurors before.
Conclusive evidence that Dumbledore
didn't do just that, please.
Harry's eyes were shut, and he didn't hear an Apparition crack or pop. So, uh, no he didn't.
Harry is also in agony from his scar and not alert to his surroundings. Remember, just a few pages later he doesn't hear Voldemort disapparate either when he leaves, for exactly the same reason.
You mean when he was possessed? That's entirely different from Harry just having scar pains. Either way, it doesn't really matter, as Albus was deep in the DoM when Harry ran after Bellatrix, and it's a perfectly logical assumption that you can't Disapparate from or Apparate to the bowels of the DoM, as otherwise, what's stopping the Order or Dumbledore from just warping in to back up Harry and co. instead of bursting through the door?
Continued in next post because I hit the word count limit.