I've elected to not respond to some of your arguments, Chuckg, which I'd normally consider being both quite rude, and something that could be taken as an admission that it was my ability to respond to your arguments that had been compromised rather than my desire to.
However, seeing as you did it first, I might as well just go for it.
Chuckg said:
Is precisely that -- your interpretation. Not Rowling's canon. Your. Interpretation.
I don't see your name on these books as co-author. So, your interpretation is not Word of God.
Except that people's words can actually sometimes be up to interpretation, at least when it comes to fine distinctions, and sometimes you have to infer
exactly what someone means from the context. Can you look at what's written and conclusively prove your assertion that "Dumbledore definitely meant this?"
Except that at that point Dumbledore had no way of knowing that Harry could just no-sell Voldemort's attempts to possess him.
Completely irrelevant. Dumbledore's only reason for not telling Harry stuff is 'Voldemort might hear this!'
No it was also "I don't want to tell a 15 year-old that he's going to have to kill or be killed," and "even if I tell Harry only the bare minimum of information, he's still both curious as f*ck and in the past four years has repeatedly shown the ability to find information and figure stuff out. If I give him an inch, he could take a mile. Best not risk it."
So, nothing stops Dumbledore from talking about any of this at any time. Voldemort could possess Harry all he wants, he's not going to find out anything new here.
And Snape, for all his ranting and raving, never stops to mention the most important part -- that the visions can be faked as well as real. That is the critical piece of knowledge that Harry lacked, and the one that, if he'd had it, wouldn't have followed the vision to the DoM.
Citation that Dumbledore actually knew for a fact that Voldemort was capable of transmitting actual fake visions, seeing as during Harry's and Dumbledore's conversation at the end of OotP, he only says:
"I believed it could not be long before Voldemort attempted to force his way into your mind, to manipulate and misdirect your thoughts, and I was not eager to give him more incentives to do so. I was sure that if he realised that our relationship was - or had ever been - closer than that of headmaster and pupil, he would seize his chance to use you as a means to spy on me. I feared the uses to which he would put you, the possibility that he might try and possess you. Harry, I believe I was right to think that Voldemort would have made use of you in such a way. On those rare occasions when we had close contact, I thought I saw a shadow of him stir behind your eyes . . .'
Harry remembered the feeling that a dormant snake had risen in him, ready to strike, in those moments when he and Dumbledore had made eye-contact.
Examples of the bolded part would be the flashes of emotion that Harry occasionally felt, such as the surge of joy harry feels after the Azkaban break-out, as well as the uncharacteristic thoughts that would suddenly come to him, such as the "dormant snake" mentioned.
Dumbledore never actually says "I knew that Voldemort could send you artificial, fabricated versions of the type of visions you've occasionally had since shortly before the start of your fourth year," and I'm not seeing anything that proves that he did know.
And now you're reduced to blaming Dumbledore for the failings of his subordinates!
That is how the military works, dude. Commanders
are responsible for when their troops fuck up. This is why when a bunch of privates and a sergeant fucked around with prisoners at Abu Ghraib, it wasn't just the privates and the sergeant that got court-martialed, but in addition about half a dozen officers got relieved and a brigadier general ended up having to take early retirement.
So, yeah, the simple fact that you're actually surprised I said this only highlights that you don't know even the simplest things about military leadership.
Yeah, its not fun being an officer sometimes.
There is a world of difference between a superior officer being unaware that the men under his command were torturing prisoners, and a superior officer being held responsible for his subordinates failing a mission that was never certain to succeed.
You do realise that
this is a perfect example of a Straw Man argument, right?
OK, hotshot, who, out of the people Dumbledore had access to, do you think would have made a better envoy the giants than the two half-giants, and would have been better at talking to the Werewolves than the actual Werewolf? I'm morbidly curious as to what your answer will be?
My answer is, 'the operation had such a low chance of success Dumbledore shouldn't have sent anybody, because it was just a waste of their time and exposed them to potential risks for no gain'.
So when I say that Dumbledore shouldn't order a mission because it's too risky for too little potential gain (or too little chance of gaining significant potential gain) he's inflicted with command paralysis, but when you say that Dumbledore shouldn't have sent anybody on a particular mission, for the same damn reasons, it's good tactical sense?:huh:
And attempting to deny Voldemort alliances with the Giants and Werewolves is in no way a waste of time. If Hagrid had succeeded, then that Brock-dale Bridge wouldn't have "worn out" and there wouldn't have been that "hurricane." You know, the stuff mentioned at the start of HBP?
Albus: "Canon Dumbledore? Hah, no wonder you thought you could just walk in here."
Right. That's why, during the DoM duel, "For the first time, Dumbledore sounded frightened." Because he knew he could just stun Harry.
Not because Dumbledore's and Voldemort's duelling abilities are damn close, Harry has great reflexes, and Tom not having to care about potential damage done to his body (due to it not actually being his,) and Albus having to hold back due to not wanting to hurt Harry, are actually massive advantages.
If Harry hadn't suddenly turned out to be possession-proof, Voldemort would have either killed Dumbledore while possessing Harry, right there in the atrium (and while the Minister was watching to boot,) or much more likely, forced Dumbledore to kill Harry simply by making Albus go all out to defend himself and blocking any attempts Dumbledore makes to subdue "VoldeHarry."
Or are you saying that it's just as easy for a Police Officer to arrest someone as it is for them to just shoot them?
That's not a fight Dumbledore wants, or should want to have. At all.
Actually, no. See, I, unlike you apparently, can make the distinction between "the emotional trauma of not knowing if either you or your lover killed your sister, causing causing you to develop a pathological aversion to the root cause of the events that led to your sister's death, the conscious pursuit of power" and "not wanting to have to watch a man you trusted mock you for being foolish for doing so."
So, your excuse in the Sirius case was that Dumbledore would flee even a SMALLER emotional trauma. One that's even relatively INSIGNIFICANT compared to his issues about Ariana's death.
... OK, if you say so, but that only makes Dumbledore look
worse.
No, that he wouldn't rush in to face any emotional trauma when he
doesn't see the need to. Who would?
Oh, and while we're back on the subject of Sirius's trial, do you have a counter for either my point that, judging by the conversation about Sirius in chapter 10 of PoA, Sirius was probably caught and sent to Azkaban while Dumbledore was making arrangements for Harry at Privet Drive
Yes. According to the conversation in chapter 10, Sirius doesn't confront Pettigrew and get caught by the Ministry until the day AFTER Hagrid takes Harry to Privet Drive, meaning those arrangements are already done.
Remember, Hagrid meets Sirius at Godric's Hollow, borrows his motorcyle, and uses it to fly straight to Dumbledore. Sirius then goes off after Pettigrew, and catches up to him "the next day" according to Madam Rosmerta when she and Fudge are talking about it.
Except that Harry doesn't arrive at the Dursley's until more than 24 hours after James and Lily were killed, late in the evening of November 1st. The "missing 24 hours" has been discussed since, like, book 2.
Which means that if Sirius was caught during the afternoon of November 1st, he could have been in Azkaban by the time Dumbledore's done securing Harry.
or my point that as Dumbledore isn't a member of the Wizarding equivalent of the Judicial Conduct Investigation Office, he shouldn't be expected to investigate Crouch for any sign of corruption?
Irrelevant. It is the duty of any citizen to report a serious crime that
he knows happened. This duty is only stronger if that citizen is also an officer of the court or a judge. What you're doing is the equivalent of claiming 'because Dumbledore specifically wasn't in Internal Affairs, its OK he walked right past that dirty cop'. That is
not how it works in real-world law enforcement, m'man.
Oh, wow. If only I had been arguing this whole time that Dumbledore had no idea that Sirius hadn't had a trial until at least PoA. Oh wait,
I fucking have.
Incidentally, if it is illegal to sentence someone to prison/execution in Wizarding Britain without a trial, how do you explain the fact that
Fudge was able to immediately have Barty Crouch Junior kissed by a Dementor without any form of trial, and was never shown to face any sort of consequences for it, despite Dumbledore and McGonagall being visibly horrified by it?
So yeah, apparently the Minister of Magic
can just throw anyone into prison or execute someone without a trial, as long as he's not going to get crucified in the court of public opinion for it.
Or will this be another point I make that you decide not to answer, not because you're conceding the point, but because you've "lost patience with my 'fanwanking' and don't want to bother?" -_-
Well, as I just pointed out, either he wasn't working that tirelessly, or alternately that the "best of his ability" is still pretty miniscule. Because, man, the wizarding government is seven shades of fucked up. Bribes, corruption, total lack of respect for habeas corpus, miscarriages of justice all over the place, and Death Eaters as senior ministry advisors... ugh! Dumbledore, can't you clean up any of this mess?
"Best of his ability", huh? Doesn't look like it. But even if it is... well, shit. If that's really your best, Albus, you're still not very good.
So now you're claiming that Dumbledore's either responsible for all corruption in the Wizarding Government, or he's a failure for not single-handedly cleaning it up?
You do remember when you were accusing me of Straw-manning, right?
Thinking outside the box is only useful if thinking outside the box produces results. Otherwise its just another way of saying wasted effort.
You do realise that that if you apply this opinion, i.e, "only results count," universally, that you're essentially calling every single leader in history who ever ordered a creative tactic to be carried out but still ultimately lost idiots, right? So if any of, say,
these tactics (or
these or
these) had failed, then the people who devised them were idiots and not simply unlucky.
Not his tactical abilities. Or did you already forget about the part where I noted that three different sources, Forbes, Military.com, and FUCKING SUN TZU don't mention tactical ability in their list of qualities that a leader needs?
We're doing that thing again where you only quote the parts that agree with you. Because you have obviously overlooked a
lot of FUCKING SUN TZU.
From now on, please stop saying that Sun Tzu didn't think tactics or strategy were important. His entire treatise is based on strategy and how to make it. I mean, fuck, what do you think "The Art of War" refers to, painting flags?
Except that Sun Tzu made the distinction between "General" and "Leader." One of the Key Points of "The Art of War" is the proper relationship between the Ruler and the General. Sun Tzu holds the ruler should not interfere in military affairs, which is fair. However, he doesn't explain what to do if
the Ruler can't find a General that has superior tactical abilities to him, which is the situation Dumbledore seems to have found himself in in canon. Seeing as you've
still not given a name of a canon "Light-side" character that actually has superior tactical ability to Albus.
I've been arguing that Dumbledore is a good leader, while all you're doing is arguing that he's a bad general. And almost all of the quotes of Sun Tzu you've just posted refer to the use of strategy that Sun Tzu says should be the General's domain.
And, once again, before you start that particular argument
yet again, you can't blame Dumbledore for not being a tactical mastermind. You could blame him for not ceding leadership of the OotP to someone with superior tactical abilities, but you haven't named someone who both possessed such abilities and that Albus actually had access to.
You are correct sir. Creativity is not necessarily a sign of good tactical ability.
So, why are you talking about it in a discussion of whether Dumbledore is a good tactician or not?
I'm not. I'm taking about it in a discussion of whether Dumbledore is a good
leader or not.
...No. Lily created a counter-charm through self-sacrifice that personally protected Harry from Voldemort.
Yes, and, this wasn't good enough by itself why?
Because Voldemort could still drop a house on him Wizard of Oz style? Whereas Harry being at Privet Drive meant that not only could Tom not touch Harry or hurt him with spells, but that Tom couldn't even go anywhere near Privet Drive until Harry was 17? Or how about the fact that Privet Drive was still Voldemort-proof even after Tom took Harry's blood?
I love how first its all 'Harry was a special case!', and then I point out Snape, and now its 'Harry and Snape were both special cases!' If I find a third, will there suddenly be three special cases?
BTW, I can find a third and a fourth. Ron and Hermione. Dumbledore left the entire Horcrux Hunt team hanging in the wind when he could have found much less ambiguous ways to communicate things to them. The simplest way simply being to give them a note, or the fucking Sword of Gryffindor, right before he died. Or, y'know, instead of just leaving a cryptic symbol in the diary and a surly painting of a dead headmaster that only spoke up when it felt like it, he could have written it all down in a note that would only appear if the person reading it swore they were solemnly up to no good or something.
Right, obviously Dumbledore should tell Ron and Hermione things and then make them promise not to tell Harry. That would have worked out perfectly. /Sarcasm.
And did you forget that Dumbledore tried to leave Harry the Sword of Gryffindor in his will, only for Scrimgeour to f*ck it up? Except that it was only a replica, 'cause Dumbledore totally saw that sh*t coming? And so came up with the alternate strategy of having Snape deliver it via "Doe Patronus" beacon?
Anything that he willed to the trio would have been given a thorough examination by the Ministry. Do Not Want!
And as for "right before he died," you do realise that he was caught off-guard by Malfoy getting all those DE's into the castle, right? He didn't expect to die
that day.
And what would Dumbledore's plan have been if Snape hadn't lived long to pass his dying memories on to Harry? Harry was only extreeeeeeeemely lucky he was actually there to see Snape off. One minute later showing up and Snape's a corpse and Harry dunno shit, and so misses the last vital clue, and oh shit last Horcrux never gets destroyed and WHOLE WIZARDING WORLD BE FUCKED.
Except that even if Harry hadn't got Snape's memories, Harry and his saving people thing still would have gone to throw himself on Tom's wand (Ugh, bad mental image.) He just would have been a lot more surprised during the explanation at the "Train Station."
Or it just means that Voldemort couldn't cast spells without a wand
Voldemort was doing advanced wandless magic even before Dumbledore showed up with his Hogwarts letter, remember?
Fine, then allow me to revise the wording of "without a wand" to "while stuck as a leech on the back of someone's head." I figured that you'd be smart enough to realise that young Tom casting wandless magic and Voldemort on the back of Quirrell's head not casting wandless magic are different enough that directly comparing the two is pointless, but I guess I was wrong.
and it's impossible for you to confound yourself so Quirrell couldn't do it?
A soul fragment of Voldemort possessing someone else is still separate from that person, and can still confund that person, manipulate their mind, and affect their memory. See "Diary-Tom and Ginny Weasley".
Non-existent citation that Voldemort inhabiting the back of Quirrell's head works in any way at all similar to the young Tom Riddle Horcrux possessing Ginny, please. Because I must have missed the scene where 17 year-old Tom's face was growing beneath Ginny's hairline.
Or that, as the Mirror of Erised is supposed to reveal the "deepest, most desperate desire of our hearts," and thus can be said to have a much more powerful/deeper analysis ability than the Goblet of Fire (which can't differentiate between people who enter names and thus needs an Age Line to prevent under-age Wizards from entering,) just confounding the mirror wouldn't work?
Since I was talking about confunding the guy standing in front of the mirror, and not the mirror itself, you're doing that thing where you answer an argument I never actually made again.
Irrelevant bullshit 1, nixof 0.
I know, I was answering the potential question "Why didn't Quirrellmort just confound the mirror?" before it was brought up. Which, seeing as I had already provided answers to the question you actually asked, is completely acceptable.
Watsonian Explanation: James got so caught up in playing a clever shell game with Sirius and Peter that he forgot the simplest way of doing things. Which would be totally in-character for James, to skip "what would be common sense" in favor of "what would be the best prank".
Is your go-to answer for every unanswered question in this book: "X was an idiot?"
Doylist Explanation: Plot hole.
Wow, if only there was some way to kind of way to fill those holes. Some sort of "theories" that, although seeming to be the "obvious" or "only" interpretation of canonical facts, aren't actually part of the canon, but
still prove that logical potential explanations for the plot holes can be thought up, thus invalidating just calling something a "plot hole," or "a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that creates a paradox in the story
that cannot be reconciled with any explanation." (Source of last quote: Wikipedia.)
Some sort of "fan canon." If only... -_-
I might point out that in this instance, it is your responsibility to prove that a Fidelius Charm wouldn't work for hiding the Philosopher's Stone, because all the canon we have about it is that it can hide things really well. Rowling never actually goes into any limitations it has, except for 'You must have a Secret-Keeper' and 'if the original caster dies, everybody who was told the secret is now a Secret-Keeper'.
Uh, no. Still not my responsibility. Potential "plot hole:" (see definition above) Dumbledore didn't use the Fidelius Charm to hide the stone.
Potential explanation for potential "plot hole" that makes said "plot hole" no longer a "plot hole" if said explanation makes sense: The Fidelius charm
couldn't be used to hide the stone and Dumbledore (and Flitwick who knew about the charm, and Flamel, who's had over 600 years of protecting the stone to figure out ways to protect it) isn't (aren't) an idiot (idiots) for not realising that.
So now
you prove that the explanation that I provided doesn't or can't "fill the plot hole and make it no longer a plot hole." In other words, conclusively prove that the Fidelius Charm could have been used to protect the Stone.
...Good luck with that!
Except the mirror is canonically a perfect defence for the stone,
A perfect defense is one that never fails. The defense did fail, as soon as Harry was put in front of it.
*sigh* Canonically a perfect defence
against any who would wish to take the stone for personal profit, whether it be direct (using the Stone for major cash dollah/immortality) or indirect (wanting to give the stone to someone so they'll reward you.)
If Harry had been motivated by thoughts of glory (being known as the guy who protected the stone from the forces of darkness,) or even just was doing it to get a pat on the head from Dumbledore, he wouldn't have been able to get the Stone out of the Mirror.
Logic/Reading Comprehension: 20 billion, Chuckg: 0.
and all the other traps were basically there as a bonus, and possibly just to prevent people who were trying to get the stone out of the mirror getting away before Dumbledore shows up to hand them their ass.
Except that in canon, Voldemort
did escape before Dumbledore showed up to hand him his ass.
:huh:...
As a Wraith/Bodiless Spirit.
I seriously have to ask, are you trolling me by being this obtuse
intentionally?
Grab a Death Eater, grab a Horcrux, allow the Horcrux to possess the Death Eater (after first, y'know, making sure the Death Eater can't escape... I hear that vanishing the bones from a guy's arms and legs is in vogue this time of year), and shazam, you now have a guy to test all your Horcrux-removing strategies on. If he dies? Welp, go get another Death Eater. Its not like there's a shortage.
And Dumbledore first gets his hands on a legitimate Horcrux that hadn't already been destroyed (the diary)
when?
That's right, just before he died. Oh wait, that one was a fake too!
There isn't a face-palm gif in existence that expresses the sheer level of exasperation I'm feeling right now.
Not to mention that he essentially started trying to figure out a way to cure Harry of a terminal disease
Yeah, said cure being 'I will set you up to be murdered by the Dark Lord, let's hope your death is only temporary'.
Yeah, except that canonically the only other methods we've seen of destroying a Horcrux are Basilisk venom and Fiendfyre.
Seeing as Harry actually got poisoned by Basilisk venom and precisely jack happened to his Horcrux scar (although a well-written AU where that happened would be fantastic to read, as Dumbledore's game plan would entirely change once Harry doesn't have to die in order for Voldemort to,) are you now going to suggest that Dumbledore should have tried to figure out a way for Harry to survive getting his head fried off by Fiendfyre?
No? Oh. Guess Albus had better get back to the "make sure the next AK Harry's hit with is by Voldemort, ensuring that their strengthened bond allows Harry to survive, and also granting the entire Wizarding World a version of Lily's protection" plan then.
Also, the "cure" is something that landed on Harry by pure luck at the age of 14, and that Dumbledore could not possibly have seen coming. Meaning that for the first 14 years of Harry's life, Dumbledore's plan was for Harry to die with NO cure.
...No sh*t, Sherlock. I haven't disputed that. He couldn't save Harry, and instead did his best to ensure Harry's death would mean as much as possible (protection from Voldemort for
everyone.) Then the moment the situation changes and he
can save Harry, he incorporates it into the plan.
I suppose he could have placed Harry's life above the safety of the entire Wizarding World. Because that's definitely what a leader of men should do. /Sarcasm.
Albus Dumbledore: Cold As Ice.
Chuckg is preaching to the f'ing choir. Let's see how long it takes him to notice!
I'm not sure I'd agree with that, as Dumbledore is a big proponent of doing the right thing over the easy thing
He does
preach it, but does he
practice it? Not as often as he should have.
and refusing the ministry position is the only canonical example of Dumbledore not following that creed that I can think of.
Right Thing: The people I placed Harry with are abusing him. I should go there and make it plain that I am keeping an eye on them and that if they don't shape up, I will do everything I can short of actually taking their children away
Easy Thing: But its a lot easier just to never confront them at all. Maybe I can send a howler. Once. After 15 years of nothing.
Prove that Dumbledore knew prior to Philsopher's Stone. Also prove that after PS that exposing Harry's summers to constant threat of DE attacks is better than only receiving the bare minimum of care from the Dursley's.
Right Thing: Hagrid is innocent, I should do what it takes to get him a fair trial.
Easy Thing: Don't politically challenge the Minister
Judging by Barty Junior receiving the Dementor's Kiss without any sort of a trial, apparently the Minister can execute people on the spot if he really wants to. Prove that Dumbledore could undertake any official action that would free Hagrid from being temporarily remanded.
Right Thing: Even though I sincerely believed otherwise for 14 years, I have just found that Sirius actually was innocent. I should find some way to clear his name.
Easy Thing: But I got other shit to work on, Sirius can just wait. Its not like he'll die or anything before I finally get around to it.
Dumbledore: "If only I had some of that pesky 'evidence.' Like if Pettigrew hadn't escaped. Then I'd have Sirius declared innocent in two shakes of a Hippogriff's tail."
Oh, and Chuckg? If you're going to start claiming that Pensieve memories/Testimony of Legilimency/Veritaserum are admissible in court, you'd best explain why Fudge didn't order Legilimency used on Harry during his trial in Book 5 first. Just saying.
Right Thing: The government is full of corruption. As a senior, if not the seniormost, official in the judiciary, I should do anything within my power to reduce the influence of the Death Eaters upon the lawful democratic process.
Easy Thing: Apparently, 'anything within my power' is 'virtually indistinguishable from nothing'.
Citation that without Dumbledore's efforts the Ministry wouldn't have practically looked like it did in Book 7, all the way back in book 1. Or did you forget just how quickly the Ministry went to sh*t once Dumbledore died? Keep in mind that there weren't that many Death Eaters in Ministry positions in book 7. Yaxley was DLME head, and there were a couple of others, but that's it. Just having Pius Thicknesse under the Imperius Curse allowed all kinds of stuff to happen. Umbridge was in charge of the Muggle-Born Registration Commission. Not a DE,
Umbridge.
Add this to the fact that apparently Dumbledore had no allies amongst the Wizengamot during Harry's trial, and this pretty much implies that the Ministry was a "hive of scum and villainy" going back for years.
And Dumbledore, alone, with apparently only one minor department head, Arthur Weasley, as an ally, is supposed to clean this sh*t up?
That seems "a little unreasonable" in the same way that Vernon Dursley is "a little overweight."
Citation that there's any tactical classes anywhere in the Wizarding World even in Auror Training, or that there are even any books on tactics.
Don't be so pureblood! What, Albus Dumbledore, the great egalitarian, son of a Muggle-Born mother, can't think to go into a muggle bookstore every now and then? Does he have no interest in learning the ways of the neighboring culture? Especially when so many of his students are new immigrants from that culture?
Unless there are, the only way that Dumbledore could get any training is if it actually occurs to him to go and buy some military books (and seeing as he doesn't even like fighting, he's hardly going to read them for fun,) or some bright spark of a muggleborn who reads Tom Clancy novels buys him one.
...Damn it Hermione! *shakes fist*
Hermione isn't even the first brilliant muggleborn he's known. Apparently he paid no attention to Lily Evans, either!
Point, although as I mentioned in other arguments, was there a significant reason for this to occur to him? Were the losses of the 1st Wizarding War easily avoidable if Dumbledore had studied military tactics a little more? Or are losses basically unavoidable in a war where you're fighting terrorists?
Sirius Black said:
"Imagine that Voldemort's powerful now. You don't know who his supporters are, you don't know who's working for him and who isn't; you know he can control people so that they do terrible things without being able to stop themselves. You're scared for yourself, and your family, and your friends. Every week, news comes of more deaths, more disappearances, more torturing… The Ministry of Magic's in disarray, they don't know what to do, they're trying to keep everything hidden from the Muggles, but meanwhile, Muggles are dying too. Terror everywhere… panic… confusion… that's how it used to be."
Voldemort would have won the first war if it wasn't for Harry. So if Voldemort canonically kicked the Ministry's (and Auror's) collective ass then, why are we supposed to expect Dumbledore to be able to lead the "OotP 2.0" to triumph?
Keep in mind that a Militia in a country that already has a standing military force is only really expected to support the actual Military by taking on less vital roles, and would only actually be called up to active service in the absolute direst of circumstances. Like, for example, the Home Guard, which existed from 1940 to 1944 and 1951 to 1957. So the "OotP 1.0" would really only have been created to support the Aurors.
It isn't until after Fudge has denied Voldemort's return (and thus the mobilisation of the Aurors) that we even see actual Aurors like Shacklebolt and Tonks show up as Order members. They were identified as Aurors who believed Dumbledore when he said Voldemort was back, and then recruited as part of Dumbledore's attempt to convert the OotP from a support-based organisation to a "Special Op's" organisation, that had missions such as protecting resources vital to the war effort (Harry) and trying to deny Voldemort resources through diplomacy (envoys to Giants and Werewolves.)
Have you ever seen an episode of an old British show called "Dad's Army?" Because you're basically arguing that Dumbledore should have fought Terrorists (the Death Eater's) with the magical equivalent of
those guys. Or if he used the D.A, the magical equivalent of the
Cub Scouts.
Right, because ruling through fear and frequent application of torture is fantastic management strategy. /Sarcasm
I didn't say he was
perfect, but the Death Eaters did still seem to be somewhat more organized than the Order of the Phoenix was, and much better disciplined.
Which is kinda sad when you think about it. I mean, fuck, when you're applying the descriptor "better disciplined" to any organization that includes Bellatrix Lestrange and Fenrir Greyback, the people you're comparing them to must really really really suck at it.
Except that comparing a terrorist organisation that utilises torture to maintain discipline to the magical equivalent of the Home Service Force (which has a training obligation of only 4-5 weekends per year) is actually really unfair.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Too long to quote here, just read it.
*sigh* No it doesn't.
"In modern debate the onus of proof generally resides on the person who makes the positive affirmation, not on the one who makes the negative affirmation." Source:
here.
You're the one making the "positive affirmation" (trying to prove that Dumbledore is a bad leader.) Ergo, onus of proof resides on you.
And if that's not enough, from
here:
The Legal Burden of Proof
In legal settings, the burden of proof is linked to the presumption of innocence.
In a criminal case, the defendant is presumed innocent until the prosecution shows otherwise. The prosecutor thus has the legal burden of proof.
The Philosophical Burden of Proof
Who holds the burden of proof in philosophy?
As in science, it’s whoever is making a claim.
It doesn’t matter whether you’re:
asserting the existence or non-existence of Plato’s Forms,
claiming the truth or falsity of a particular view of epistemology, or
asserting that moral judgments are just expressions of emotion or something else.
The principle remains the same: The burden is on you to argue for your own claims.
Philosophy may use a different method than science, but its assignation of the burden of proof is the same.
Technically speaking, for an
Atheist to disprove anything in the bible, they have to bear the Onus of Proof. They would offer the presupposition is that there is no God, and would have to prove it.
While I am in no way particularly religious (agnostic, if anyone cares,) the concept remains the same: You are trying to prove a supposition that goes directly against the canon that is JK's books and other official, canonical supplemental materials such as interviews and Pottermore. Ergo, the burden/onus of proof
lays on you. Period. If I suggest any form of counter argument, you're the one who has to disprove it (or at least cause it to be considered unlikely beyond reasonable doubt.)
Period.
I don't have to prove Jack.
PERIOD!
So now McGonagall, who barely knows Harry at this point, is suppose to explain to Harry how a complex magical object works and that said complex magical object in involved in the defences around the stone, and also predict that Harry, an 11 year-old child, would try to prevent any attempted thefts that couldn't have succeeded by going for the stone himself even after being told "Look kid, some of the best and brightest of the Wizarding World designed this sh*t. No single wizard is going to get past."
OR she could have just said:
"It is a trap. We want him to go there. Then we will catch him. You do not need to help."
Shazam, I just explained everything the 11-year-old needs to know, and I was able to use all one-syllable words. Even Harry Potter ain't gonna misunderstand this.
I'm pretty sure that you're now bringing up the fanon that the Stone was a trap for Voldemort. There's a difference between a store having a security gate that drops down once an alarm is tripped so the attempted thief can't quickly run out the door, and said store specifically setting out to trap potential thieves for the lulz.
Quirrellmort has to get Hagrid drunk just for the secret of how to get past Fluffy. The so-called "Darkest Dark Lord evar!" is reduced to buying Hagrid enough pints that his lips start to loosen. I mean, really? That's got to be a new low for Tom.
Remember back when I was pointing out that Albus and Tom were having a stupid contest, and they were pretty much neck-and-neck all the way down?
This is another one of those things supporting that theory. Because, yeah, you could write an essay on the dumb shit going on in Philosopher's Stone. On both sides.
Or it's just evidence that Fluffy = "Bestest Guard Dog Evar!" Which, seeing as Fluffy's a
Cerberus, makes sense.
In order to get past the Stone's defences, you'd have to be able to wrangle (or KO) Fluffy, a cerburus, which Quirrellmort wasn't up to handling and needed drunken advice from Hagrid to pull off
Gee, if only there was this giant basilisk he could have gone and asked in Parseltongue to help eat the cerberus for him or something.
Seriously, Tom was not impressing anybody that year.
Citation that the Basilisk wouldn't just have eaten Quirrellmort, and/or citation that Quirrellmort can move a, what, 60 foot, Basilisk up to the 3rd floor without being noticed by teachers, students, portraits, House-elves or ghosts. And I know the basilisk moved through the pipes, but I didn't see no sink or toilet in Fluffy's room.
escape some Devil's Snare (that would probably have restricted the trio's wand-arms if they hadn't been so damn small at the time,) get on a broom and show some seeker-level skill at catching a key, outplay a very talented giant-sized enchanted Wizarding Chess Set that'll knock you the f*ck out if the piece you're standing in for gets taken, punch-out a troll, and then beat a logic puzzle.
All of which, in canon, he clearly had problem no doing, seeing as how he'd waltzed that far without breathing hard.
And how long did it take him? How much of a lead did Quirrellmort have on the trio, when they only set off after everyone else went to bed? An hour? Two?
And then you're stuck with the Mirror of Erised.
Which he got Harry to hack for him and only lost the Stone because of blood protections he didn't know about.
So you're admitting that Quirrelmort couldn't have hacked the Mirror if Harry hadn't shown up to effectively do it for him?
And you can't say 'All according to Dumbledore's plan' because I think Dumbledore's plan wasn't for Harry to be anywhere near there. (And if it was, well, holy shit, ruthless motherfucker much, Albus? He's eleven years old! Wait until he's older before throwing him in the fucking Thunderdome with the Dark Lord, why don't you!)
Uh, no. Even if the Stone was an actual "lure them inside" trap for Tom (which canon has never confirmed,) then Dumbledore's plan would have involved arriving to see Quirrellmort poking the mirror with a stick, and then proceeding to hand him his ass. On a silver platter. If the Stone was a trap (still not saying it was,) then
Harry F'ed it up (or would have if it was an actual trap.)
They're like a natural counter. I'm honestly not sure that any of the Hogwarts staff (aside from Dumbledore) could pull it off solo. I mean, Snape's a capable wizard, and he didn't get past Fluffy.
Snape got distracted and made a mistake. I mean, he
had to know how to get past Fluffy, he helped set up the traps! Which means at minimum, he had to be there once when Hagrid helped him get past Fluffy, so he could go set up his own. I'm sure its kinda hard to miss a half-giant singing.
Citation that Snape was present when Fluffy was brought in, and knew how to get past all of the defences. Actually, wouldn't it make sense for the innermost defences to be set up first? So considering that Snape's logic puzzle was the penultimate defense, he should know
less about the defences than the other staff (except Albus) do!
Citation that McGonagall didn't already know exactly how the mirror worked and just didn't feel like explaining it to Harry, a 11 year-old first-year student.
You could call it either way, Rowling never tells us enough to know for sure, but all that does is put the failure of communication on McGonagall, it doesn't change the part where there was one.
I really can't endorse the idea that McGonagall
should have explained the workings of the defences surrounding the stone to three 11 year-olds. I can endorse the idea that she should have listened to the trio (if only to find out how they knew about the Stone in the first place!) Unfortunately, if she had listened, what would the trio have told her?:
Trio: Snape's trying to steal the Stone!
McGonagall: Yer arse and parsley! (I love Gaelic sayings/swear words/phrases, btw.)
Trio: Huh?
McGonagall: Ahem. I mean, that's a serious accusation, I'll have you know. What's led you to believe this?
Trio: *inchoherent babble as they all try to talk at once*
McGonagall: Haud yer wheesht, ye wee devils!
D)
Trio: :huh:
McG: One at a time, please.
Hermione: Harry overheard Snape threatening Quirrell!
McG: Ah. You see, for a long time Professor Snape has expressed a desire to obtain the DADA-
Harry: About how to get past Fluffy!
Old Minnie: Well, I'll certainly have to speak to him about that, but that isn't conclusive by itself. What makes you think that Snape is actually trying to steal the Stone?
Ron: He's Teh Evil!
McG: :mellow:
What?
Ron: He's so mean looking! And so horrible to Harry during Potions!
McG: Lord save me from First-years and Sassenachs! (muttering under her breath.)
McG: *Take a deep breath, then delivers a long lecture about how one's physical appearance has no impact on their moral alignment, and that someone having an admittedly unimpressive teaching demeanour still doesn't make them evil*
McG: Now Professor Dumbledore has full confidence in Professor Snape, but to assuage your fears, I will mention it to the Headmaster once he returns this evening.
Harry: But Professor, what if Snape goes for the stone tonight?
McG: The staff of Hogwarts consists of some of the best and brightest in Wizarding Britain, and they have all contributed to it's defence. It would almost be impossible for the Stone to be stolen before Professor Dumbledore returns.
*McG leaves*
*Harry still decides to go for the Stone due to being a precocious little Oik*
*groan* But we've already discussed how him moving it or denying it might not be an option!
If by "discussed" you mean "you came up with a ton of theories that were never mentioned in canon as to why it was allegedly possible, some of which were even contradicted by canon, and then you demanded I treat it all as canon and refused to listen to me when I said no way I would do that because you don't get to make stuff up just because you want to", then yes, we discussed it.
See my above references on the definition of "Plot Holes" and "how I can too make stuff (theories) up if I want to and you can't do sh*t about it," and cite which theories that I postulated actually contradict canon ('cause I had a look and can't see any.)
Otherwise, no.
And you still haven't replied to my point that Bode might have
As soon as you used the word "might" you left canon behind, and thus left all my interest behind with it.
Except that you can't do that without abandoning your attempts to conclusively prove that canon is wrong. You have to disprove any theory I come up with, or show it as being completely illogical and improbable.
The only reason you have provided for me to think that Voldemort took up residence in a fixed location after OoTP, and not instead after Dumbledore died, is that Bella gave Draco Occlumency lessons.
There's also that Voldemort has a choice of living in a decaying shack owned by his dead father, whose very memory he hates, or of living in the most luxurious mansion in Magical Britain, and which one do you
think he's going to choose? The only reason he didn't go there in book 4 is he didn't trust Malfoy to take care of him while he was still a weakened homonculous. He gets his strength back and can push Malfoy around, he's gonna help himself to the good stuff all he wants, 'cause he's the Dark Lord.
Wizarding tents. One of them at the World Cup was an extravagant silk palace surrounded by live peacocks. Your argument is invalid.
I then pointed out that Dracro could have regularly visited her safe house (or even temporarily moved in, I guess) instead, to which you didn't reply.
Um, yeah, I did say I was summarizing, y'know. Posts were getting too long.
...Would you care to respond now?
So citation that Voldemort was chillin' at Malfoy Manor during HBP.
I was 'filling in the blanks', like you love to do. *g*
Except that I can, due to being the one defending canon, and you can't, due to you being the one attempting to conclusively disprove canon.
So, sucks to be you, I guess.
But, OK, fine, Voldemort is staying somewhere else. Snape just tells the Order to go there. After all, he knows where Voldemort is. Indeed, the beginning of HBP has Snape telling Bellatrix that the Dark Lord has told Snape more about his upcoming plans than he's told even her. *g*
And if its not at Malfoy Manor, they don't even have to worry about aurors. Its not like a call for help from a Muggle mansion that's supposed to be deserted is going to be taken seriously.
OK, so Snape tells Albus that Voldemort's planted his bitchin' magical tent (and Jesus that sounds dirty) in some field somewhere, or somewhere where Dumbledore never would have been able to track him down normally.
So Dumbledore takes his Magical Home Service Force (with a couple of extra "heavys" that he was able to convince to join,) that although legal in the 1st war, is currently unsanctioned due to the Minister refusing to recognise Voldemort's return, to attack Voldemort while he's just chillin' out in his crib.
So it's Albus vs. Tom, where neither of them really knows who the winner's going to be, and a group of hardened Terrorists... vs Magical "Dad's Army," a couple of actual soldiers, and a retired Badass (Moody.)
...Place your bets, people! £50 says the DE's literally have the Order's guts for garters! Bella seems like she'd be up for that kind of freaky sh*t.
The order failed to overcome and rally against a sudden sneak attack lead by Voldemort himself.
When they knew Voldemort was coming six weeks in advance.
On second thoughts, I can't actually defend this. Because even though:
- the Imperius'd Pius Thicknesse made it an imprisonable offence to connect Privet Drive to the Floo Network, or to place a Portkey there, or even to Apparate in or out,
- the Trace was in effect, so if Harry or anyone around him cast a spell to get him out of there, Thicknesse, and thus the DE's, would know about it straight away,
- the Order was moving Harry on the 27th July, 4 days before the Blood Protection was supposed to end,
- the Order was relying on the "7 Potters" plan, a plan that they thought Mundungus Fletcher(!) had come up with after Snape's betrayal, to confuse and disorientate the DE's, and were caught off-guard when it stopped working after Harry cast his "trademark" Disarming charm,
...Dobby or Kreacher could have just taken Harry to the Tonk's place.
House-elves: Hax. Wizards not abusing the hell out of this: Stupid.
What's pathetic is that they sent Harry back to the Dursley's house in the first place.
Think about it. The only reason to send Harry back there is to recharge the blood protections for the next year. But the blood protections expire at the end of that summer. There is no 'next year' to recharge them FOR!
They could have just portkeyed Harry straight from the front gate of Hogwarts at end of term directly to whatever Order safe house they were going to use, after having quietly slipped the Dursleys out the day before. Shazam. Voldemort spends six weeks waiting for Harry's birthday, triumphantly arrives at an empty house, and is left sucking his wand because he has no idea where on God's green Earth Harry Potter is now.
Also, nobody dies.
Sun Tzu has a few quotes about fighting battles when you don't need to. Short version: he's down on it.
I guess this means that Dumbledore was just
so much better at tactics compared to the rest of the Order that they were lost without him.
Not to mention the fact that Dumbledore's Order should have just been support for the Aurors, instead of having to work around them. So, fuck Fudge, basically.
Well, yes, but when something goes wrong, the bad leader sits and sucks his thumb, and the good leader does his best to work around it.
So Dumbledore is supposed to turn his "Dad's Army"-esque Order into a fighting force that can defeat Death Eaters in a couple of months?
I think we're edging back into "Blame Dumbledore for not being a miracle worker" territory.
But there's a difference between
You're talking about something else than I was talking about, again. Hint: home invasions? Who's going to raid who when?
*sigh*
There's a difference between "paralysed by risk" and cautious. I claim he's the latter, while you claim he's the former. So Citation please.
How can you simultaneously claim he's just cautious while at the same time talking about how willing he is to take risks? You're making two arguments at once.
My argument is that Dumbledore is very poor at realistically judging risks (hence excess timidity where boldness is called for, and excess boldness where caution is called for), which is at least consistent. In both cases, Dumbledore is screwing up because he can't tell the difference between a big risk and a small one. You, OTOH, are not consistent, in that you are at one point saying 'no, Dumbledore is totally bold!', while at the same time saying 'no, Dumbledore is historically cautious!'
I will admit I could have been clearer that I was talking about poor judgement in general than passivity in specificness, with passivity merely as the primary and not the only example, so, fine, we'll call it a draw on this one. But for the record and from now on, when I complain about Dumbledore's poor skills at risk assessment and evaluation, I mean across the board, up and down.
But there's a difference between risking one or two guys on a infiltration/surveillance mission, and risking the entirety of your forces on an all-out assault where the possibility of success is unknown. I was arguing that Dumbledore was willing to let members volunteer for a risky mission where, despite the danger, it has to be done, but not willing to risk it all by "going all in," to use a Poker Metaphor.
You're talking about something else than I was talking about, again. Hint: home invasions? Who's going to raid who when?
He's willing to let members of the Order volunteer for a dangerous mission (guard the DoM door) because it had to be done, but wouldn't be willing to send the entirety of the Order on an all-out assault, as the potential risk is too great. Willing to risk the former, but not the latter.
And even if all the DE's are living seperately at this point, if Albus takes the entire Order to assualt one guy's house, then all the other DE's will elect to stick together because of safety in numbers. Meaning that the second time Dumbledore tries this strategy it'll erupt into a full-out battle where it's the Order (that primarily consists of non-combatants) vs Hardened Terrorists.
So one DE taken down in exchange for severe escalation. Doesn't seem like a good trade, does it?
There's a difference between being "sure" of something "I was sure that that horse was a winner," "I had a Full House! It was a sure thing!," and knowing incontrovertibly that something's going to happen (by having proof.) I apologise if I didn't make the distinction clear.
So, canon is sacred and not to be questioned -- unless you're asking the questions.
For a guy who claims to defend canon so much, you sure don't want to listen to it.
Look, the only way that anyone can be absolutely completely 100% sure about something is if they have proof, right? So the only way that Dumbledore could be 100% certain that Voldemort would return is if he had proof. Seeing as he says that he didn't during HBP:
Dumbledore paused for a moment, marshaling his thought, and then said, "Four years ago, I received what I considered certain proof that Voldemort had split his soul."
"Where?" asked Harry. "How?"
"You handed it to me, Harry," said Dumbledore. "The diary, Riddles diary, the one giving instructions on how to reopen the Chamber of Secrets."
when he told Snape that he was "sure that Voldemort would return," he must have meant "sure," in the "extremely good guess I'm 99.9% sure my guesses are really very good" sense.
You think your "plot-hole plugs" are as good as canon, and that nobody can argue with them unless they can prove them wrong with canon.
They're not. They're just fanwank. And the burden of proof for them is on you, not your opponent.
First of all, see my above linked sources on where the burden of proof lies in debates.
Second of all:
"Fan Wank" article on TV Tropes said:
Many of the fan theories which make their way into Fanfic seek to "fix" something the writer believes to be wrong with the source. The fans usually put a lot more thought into this than the show's writers ever did (though show writers have gotten a lot more attentive in recent years, primarily because of the growth of this kind of fan activity). They often come up with answers to questions that either make not a whit of difference in the end, or are more fun without an answer than with.
Naturally, these theories often venture way out into fantasyland. When the theory makes you say, "Oh come on!", the fanfic author has stepped over the line into Fan Wank.
Seeing as I'm not trying to "fix" canon by changing something wrong with it, and instead arguing there's nothing wrong with it in the first place, I cannot be participating in Fan Wank.
I could argue that you technically are by insisting that Dumbledore should have transformed himself into Magical George S. Patton.
I said at the beginning of this argument, "books or go home". Your fanon is no more sacred than anybody else's fanon.
And I'll keep saying it.
These two
individuals have spent far more effort considering this question than I currently care to.
However, in just about every fandom, the
vast majority of fans tend to consider supplemental materials like interviews and Pottermore canon. Word of God is a trope for a reason. In the second of the two articles I linked, someone, who apparently like yourself (thanks for clarifying that so early on, btw<_<) considers only the 7 books canon, admits that:
I am fully aware that of the MILLIONS of fans of Harry Potter, I am in a definite minority on this topic, and while I am not looking to alter anyone’s opinion on the subject, I do ask that you maintain an open mind to the end.
So, yeah. If you really only do think that the 7 books are canon, then I seriously wish that you had told me at the beginning of this argument, as I would never have even bothered to participate had I known.
Also, thanks for not answering this:
If you disagree on such a basic concept as whether JK's interviews and supplemental material like Pottermore is counted as canon, even when JK herself has declared it so, then why are we even arguing? We're never going to reach any form of solution or compromise, and might as well just agree to disagree.
I mean, do you even think that Dumbledore is gay? 'Cause that was only revealed in the interviews, but it has a massive influence on the interpretation of the relationship, platonic or otherwise, between Dumbledore and Grindelweld.
If you had, we could have clarified this a bit sooner.
...
*considers the point further*
Shit, that's actually a damn good point. That said, the battle of the Wizarding World was also an ideological war, with Light vs. Dark, and "Importance of Blood-purity" vs. "Choices define us far more than our circumstances of birth."
Well, if we're going to discuss Dumbledore's qualities as a spiritual leader, I'll agree that he's not too awful there.
Still doesn't stop him from being a military disaster, though.
Oh, if only
he'd left someone handle the war side of things for them, and actually listened to them.
But, that never happened in canon.
FOR THE LAST TIME,
WHO? WHO IS THIS TACTICAL MASTERMIND THAT DUMBLEDORE SHOULD HAVE LISTENED TO MORE? MICHAEL McDOESN'T-EXIST?
Chuckg said:
Agh, I missed this yesterday. Welp, let's get on it.
Recap: This is the one where we are discussing the merits of a hypothetical alternate strategy that did not happen in canon, but I think would have worked better than some of the things they actually did try in canon.
nixofcyzerra said:
Except there's just one problem. Voldemort knows for sure that the attack is fake.
Of course he does. What's he going to do about it? He can't call the Aurors and say that he had an alibi, and having Lucius do it is sorta pointless because in canon, Fudge stopped believing anything Lucius said the instant Voldemort revealed himself at the Ministry.
Voldemort sends a random DE to random Ministry worker #842, and confounds him into accusing Dumbledore of faking the attack.
So all he has to do is have one his followers either directly accuse Dumbledore of faking the attack (which he did!)
Why didn't they do this after the real Voldemort sighting in the Ministry?
Oh, right, because it wouldn't have worked. Once a crowd of wizards actually saw Voldemort in the flesh, public opinion did a 180 right on the spot.
Seeing "Voldemort" should have the exact same effect, unless Tonks fucks up and forgets to change her hair from being pink or something.
Because Dumbledore would be able to prove that he didn't, unlike if he had actually orchestrated the attack. Then public opinion does another 180, so Albus ends up right back where he started, but worse, because now there's "proof" that he's been lying about Tom's return.
Duh.
in order to promote hysteria and inspire a panic for his own sinister ends, (or even just have anyone suggest to a Ministry worker that the attack was fake so that they accuse him.) Fudge, of course, leaps on the idea like a starving wolf leaps on a steak.
The problem with this theory is that in canon -- you know, that thing you allegedly defend -- all it took for Fudge to change his mind on the Voldemort issue was actually seeing -- fuck,
glimpsing -- Voldemort in the flesh during an attack. That's what he actually did in OotP, which is canon.
Yes... and if someone had had the bright idea to accuse Dumbledore of faking the Voldemort, we would have had this annoying sub-plot until Dumbledore proved his innocence.
So, as soon as he sees "Voldemort" in this example, why doesn't he do the same thing? It's not like he has the skills to tell a real one from a fake one, especially seeing as how he's never actually met the real Voldemort before.
Because the prophecy was smashed. Voldemort didn't want people denying his return anymore, he wanted to murder some peeps.
Then Dumbledore has to prove that he didn't arrange for it
By this same logic, Dumbledore in canon should have had to prove that he didn't arrange for the DoM fight.
Except he didn't. Voldemort gets seen by witnesses once, and BAM, everybody forgives Dumbledore instantly and believes Voldemort is back and reinstates Dumbledore to all his positions and boom.
So, basically, your theory is all 'What if the wizards suddenly act 180 degrees opposite from the way they did in canon when an extremely similar situation occurred'.
Again, it's possible it could have happened, thus annoying, tedious sub-plot, but Voldemort wanted to murder people and have people covering under their beds. Prophecy's gone. He can't get his hands on it anymore.
Why bother? They already knew Bellatrix had escaped, thanks to that dastardly Sirius Black, the cur!
Because she adds credibility to the idea that that other guy is Voldemort, of course. Only the real Voldemort could possibly command the loyalty of Bellatrix Lestrange!
Not even the "late" Voldemort's number one guy, Sirius Black? That f*cker basically lied to the guy he called his best friend for a decade! The man's got ice-water in his veins. He's Hardcore!
Edit: Still waiting for answers to the questions about why Fudge didn't order Legilimency used on Harry if it's legal
Because he didn't want to know, of course. That's also why they had to slap Fudge in the face with seeing Voldemort directly with his own two eyes before he'd finally get off his ass. Because Fudge was deliberately NOT investigating.
Asking 'why didn't Fudge use this method of investigation' requires assuming that Fudge was even interested in TRYING to investigate in the first place. Hint: In canon, he wasn't.
Except that Fudge also wanted to discredit Harry/Albus, because he thought Albus was trying to inspire a panic so he could "finally take the minister position like he always wanted!"
Hence the smear campaign.
Fasted way to silence Harry/Albus: Prove they're full of sh*t. Fastest way to do that: produce iron-clad proof that they're full of sh*t. Ministry Legilimans reading Harry's mind and finding "Oh look, he's full of Sh*t:" fastest way to do that.
But he didn't. Because he couldn't. Nothing that Fudge did in book 5 was technically illegal. Violated the spirit of the law so hard I'm surprised it didn't conceive, but he did follow the letter of the law. Ergo: Evidence or Testimony gathered via Legilimency is inadmissible in court.
and why Bode couldn't have spilled his guts to Malfoy about the DoM defences while under the Imperius.
Because it doesn't matter if he did or not, as even if your theory is correct, your argument is still based on the assumption 'Dumbledore, aka the great Legilimencer in the world, also couldn't go get information from an Unspeakable if he needed to'. He wouldn't even need to let the guy know he was doing it, unless all Unspeakables are also Occlumens, and hey, guess what canon never says.
Add: Or, y'know, spike the guy's tea with some veritaserum, then Obliviate him after you're done so he doesn't call the Aurors or anything. Hey, does Dumbledore know anybody who can make veritaserum, or who knows memory charms? There's lots more ways to get info from someone than just an Imperius. In fact, does anybody in canon ever actually use an Imperius to make people tell them things, as opposed to making them do things?
And you're assuming that the top-secret government think-tank doesn't have procedures for this sort of thing in place, just because they don't have procedures in place for an Unforgivable Curse.