(30-01-2011 11:55 AM)Silktie Wrote:  So Binkie, you can stop apologising for the views you express here. The Harry fans on this forum are quite a friendly bunch.

Any excuse to discuss Harry. That's the whole point of the forum, isn't it?

I have been thinking about Harry quite a lot lately, and why I like his character. Something occurred to me that Harry can be a cold-blooded murderer. Think back to Kachimov in 7.2. Kachimov was unarmed, defenseless and willing to come-over to the British side, but Harry shot him in cold-blood, when Kachimov's only crime had been not sharing information with Harry. And in 9.2, Harry murdered Nicholas Blake, again Blake was unarmed and defenseless, and Harry pre-planned this murder. When did Harry become judge, jury and executioner?
Really do love Harry, honest.....

Well, Kachimov was behind the bomb that killed Adam, wasn't he? And Nicholas Blake did nothing to save Ros. It was Harry's way of getting justice for his friends.

(31-01-2011 02:49 PM)HellsBells Wrote:  I have been thinking about Harry quite a lot lately, and why I like his character. Something occurred to me that Harry can be a cold-blooded murderer. Think back to Kachimov in 7.2. Kachimov was unarmed, defenseless and willing to come-over to the British side, but Harry shot him in cold-blood, when Kachimov's only crime had been not sharing information with Harry. And in 9.2, Harry murdered Nicholas Blake, again Blake was unarmed and defenseless, and Harry pre-planned this murder. When did Harry become judge, jury and executioner?
Really do love Harry, honest.....

(31-01-2011 02:54 PM)Annie Wrote:  Well, Kachimov was behind the bomb that killed Adam, wasn't he? And Nicholas Blake did nothing to save Ros. It was Harry's way of getting justice for his friends.

That is very true that Harry did say before that he will do whatever it takes to protect his people and bring those who harm them to justice, and he certainly had justified reasons to want both Kachimov and Blake dead.

But there lies the danger that the character falls into......like HellsBells said, when did it deemed that Harry is the judge, jury, and executioner? When it did become that he gets to stand on high moral grounds and rain down judgment? When did it become that he gets to be above the law?

Yes he is a heroic character and yes as the leader of Section D, sometimes he has to make hard choices, but where do you place the line between justice and cold-blooded murder? And what happens when you cross those lines and take things into your own hands?

How can Harry, as a character, judge others for their ruthlessness and decisions when he has made choices, however justified they might be, that too were against the law?

I don't disagree with Harry's decisions to kill Kachimov or Blake for what they had done, but one has to wonder, who keeps a check on Harry then? Why does he get to run around and make his own decisions without consequences when others can't? How does he judge others for breaking the law when he has done the same?

Are we assuming that Harry made these decisions on his own? I always assumed he was acting on instructions from above. That because of the high-level nature of the assassinations he had to take them on himself rather than delegating them to a junior. He doesn't flinch from the tough decisions. He does what is required of him to protect the country and suffers the consequences. Shades of "I was only following orders", I know, but I feel with Harry that he doesn't just follow orders - he uses his judgement as well. It's a finely balanced act that few could pull off. That's what makes him a hero.

(31-01-2011 05:39 PM)DogSoSmall Wrote:  Are we assuming that Harry made these decisions on his own? I always assumed he was acting on instructions from above. That because of the high-level nature of the assassinations he had to take them on himself rather than delegating them to a junior. He doesn't flinch from the tough decisions. He does what is required of him to protect the country and suffers the consequences. Shades of "I was only following orders", I know, but I feel with Harry that he doesn't just follow orders - he uses his judgement as well. It's a finely balanced act that few could pull off. That's what makes him a hero.

It never seemed like someone told him to, I mean, if he was instructed, then why all the cloak and dagger and secrecy with his own team? Why pretend nothing happened to Ruth when Blake died? Why did Dolby, who is as high in the level of command as Harry, not know about Kachimov? Why did Harry had to hide under so much secrecy then?

Maybe he did have orders, but his actions makes it suspicious.

I'm quite sure he acts on his own, nobody told him to bump off Nicholas Blake.

The difference with Harry's actions is that he acts for the greater good. Nothing he does (until perhaps Albany when he was saving Ruth for personal reasons) is for his own gain - you can always apply Regnum Defende, however thinly!

I'm sorry, Bravonine, I know how much you respected Lucas, but the things he did were not for the greater good, they were for John. Harry can't seem to abide people killing and deceiving for themselves.

(31-01-2011 07:11 PM)Naivety Wrote:  I'm quite sure he acts on his own, nobody told him to bump off Nicholas Blake.

The difference with Harry's actions is that he acts for the greater good. Nothing he does (until perhaps Albany when he was saving Ruth for personal reasons) is for his own gain - you can always apply Regnum Defende, however thinly!

I'm sorry, Bravonine, I know how much you respected Lucas, but the things he did were not for the greater good, they were for John. Harry can't seem to abide people killing and deceiving for themselves.

I don't disagree that Harry's actions are for the greater good, but the question remains who is he to make them? Is it because he is experienced and leads Section D that he believes he has a right? Why not let those who judge on things decide?

And also, my "respect" for Lucas has nothing to do with this discussion, nor was I making comparisons between Lucas and Harry. I specifically was talking about Harry's decision-making which has nothing to do with Lucas. Just because I am a Lucas fan does not mean Lucas must be on my mind in every discussion or that I am trying to make Lucas seem better by questioning Harry, so please don't assume.

I ask these questions because I want to know how and why Harry is allowed to make these kind of decisions unchecked, not because of my "love" for Lucas.

Bravo and HellsBells, I think you make a very good point that I have thought about myself. Harry is just this side of a cold blooded murderer when it comes to Kachimov and Blake. I think he did those things all by his little self, with a bit of back up from Ros in the case of Kachimov. I cannot defend those actions because to me, they are reprehensible, and not a part of Harry that I like. In the same breath, and taking this back to binkies original questions, why do "we" forgive Harry for these actions so quickly/easily? My answer is I don't. I think he chose to give a piece of his morality and soul away for the sake of the memory of Adam and Ros. What makes him fascinating when he does these kinds of brutal things, as Silktie has mentioned above, he is not afraid to sell his soul. Perhaps this is why he has survived so long? He doesn't tell Ruth about killing Blake to give her a bit of plausible deniability as well as the the fact that, I think, he knows the actions were wrong in the operational sense.

I also don't think that Harry is the only who has made these kinds of brutal nearly murderous choices, but I'd have to go find back up for that before I crow too much about it.

---

(30-01-2011 01:17 AM)binkie Wrote:  [ Avoiding the very substantial temptation to launch into some kind of historical review of all the ways in which pre-humanist philosophy has explored and rejected the concept of death as the easier option ]

Heh, heh, heh...by all means, binkie, PM it to me! You know I love it! I always learn a lot from you. I assume you are referring to scholaticism (I *think*?) so I suppose that is no surprise either. I guess there is the vein of the Secular Humanist in me.

What I think is interesting is that Harry has done some dubious things and yet, for some people, the very fact he's done them enhances is appeal as the hero. I differ from A Cousin's opinion in that I can forgive Harry for them, understand his motivations and almost say 'what a man' for doing them. And this really surprises me as my personal ethics would not normally condone eye for an eye (in which case the whole world would become blind) but here it seems to.

Naivety suggests it's because we're aware he does these things without personal gain, and doesn't do them lightly, losing some of himself in the process. The fact he's prepared to sell his soul, make the decisions and ultimately act where so many others would falter.

It's the honour among thieves idea. Even in reprehensible acts there can be honour and principle. It's all very interesting with Kudos and PF doing an excellent job with this dilemma.