Thoughts about Hub and Devereaux
-
DarrenDirt — 9 years ago(April 18, 2016 03:32 PM)
Along those same lines of thinking/controversy also see Unthinkable (2010). Not exactly a black-or-white issue, handled quite "realistically" (I would presume).
Chipping away at a mountain of pop culture trivia,
Darren Dirt. -
RynoII — 15 years ago(October 28, 2010 02:34 PM)
If Deveraux only answers to the President, maybe The President was outraged at how far Deveraux went, and ordered him placed under arrested. The word got to Hub and Hub was all too happy to slap the cuffs on him himself.
-
ave_roma2004 — 11 years ago(March 17, 2015 03:49 AM)
The man murdered and tortured an American citizen. CASE CLOSED
I don't give a s#it how right-winged you are, the man was a cruel general who went over the line. And Denzel got his number at the end!
It's as simple as that. And I absolutely loved this movie.
You're wrong. Case closed.
You're a sheltered nobody who is protected on a daily basis by people who will harm other human beings on your behalf.
You're not pragmatic enough to be successful in either politics or the military, obviously.
The old saying "Free a hundred guilty men so that one innocent man doesn't suffer" doesn't apply in the real world. In the real world, calculations are made that determine risk vs reward, and the worth of a human life.
If one innocent person is tortured to death to potentially save hundreds of lives, that's an acceptable loss. If you do not agree, then stay behind your computer screen being protected by soldiers, taking comfort in the thought that you're a worthless person.
At first I assumed that the people who cry foul are all worthless teenagers who don't understand the world, then I realized something - those teenagers grow up to be fairies who would be getting raped, beheaded, beaten, enslaved, executed, etc, without the militaristic people they condemn.
Enjoy the freedom to presume you can judge another person for doing something that your pansy little soul couldn't handle. Meanwhile, I'm sitting on the side of the fence that would kill you without hesitation.
Disclaimer: I do not claim a political faction or leaning. I do not care about who the president is, nor do I advocate social programs/cutthroat capitalism. I am simply making observations about a spoiled portion of the American population who have blinders on to the real world and how it works. -
servercat — 21 years ago(April 27, 2004 10:10 PM)
It is a fine line between peace of mind and Big Brother. I think the movie did a nice job of going over thisstill though. I think Hub messed things up more then anything else
I don't think Deveraux was as blood thirsty as most people seem to make him out to be. He said himself that he was hesitant to use the miltary to control the situation and I also got the impression that he was holding himself back giving Hub a chance to put an end to it.
cest la vie
Awesome film and thanks for the responses ^_^
-Servercat -
roguewookiee — 21 years ago(May 01, 2004 01:46 PM)
I don't know if anyone remembers but the people begged Devereaux to come into New York city. That is one reason why we don't let the Military operate inside our borders loke that. Like he said the army is a broadsword not a scalpel. In my opinion they should have run checks on everyone of that nationality coming in from another countries if something seemed fishy investigate and if you know certainly that they were terrorists then you either send in the FBI unless they are all dead and then they have anti-terrorist teams trained to take out cells for example Navy SEALs which would have been better than the Army. I don't disagree with Dx's methods he warned them it would happen and he did his job.
-
servercat — 21 years ago(June 03, 2004 11:52 AM)
No disagreement there. Deveraux method's were harsh.
However .I still think Hub got in the way, or at the very least made some bad calls which led to Deveraux's actions- It was Hub and Elise that were protecting the last cell ie. Samir.
- Hub majorly screwed up the chance to locate other cells before they struck. By apprehending Samir so early, they more then likely could have located additional cells or at the very least discovered the truth about Samir.
- Hub's team ruined the sting operation on the money carrier, which could have possibly stopped a cell.
The other thing is, unless I am mistaken, it was again Hub that really lead to the loss of rights for the New york city citizens. Because of his mistakes, martial law was declared over the city. Martial law means that all authority rests upon the military. No other law applies(even the constitution) and deveraux was answerable only to his peers and the president.
-
Explorerfrey10 — 20 years ago(October 05, 2005 03:56 PM)
I think there are things to put straight in the movie.
1.It was Elise who protected the last cell. She made her job bad because she let her feelings get in her way. Hub was only the newcomer that slowly began to suspect him.
2. Deveraux didnt inform Hub about the sheikh 6 months ago when he kidnapped him. Therefore he was not prepared for the terrorist invasion and when he began to notice it, it was already too late.
3. Hubs guilt is irrelevant compared to Deverauxs and Elises guilt (She did not share information with him about the sheikh and the terrorist cell in New York in the early stages of the movie. She should have cooperated earlier).
4. Elises actions are forgivable, Deverauxs actions not.
t least this is my point of view. -
jooba7 — 20 years ago(October 08, 2005 10:48 AM)
once again, you guys awe as to how well you've kept the discussion in the right places. I'm learning so much from your take of what you understand about the law, martial law and pure judgement of human actions. I have no additions nor subtractions as to what you guys are saying. I hope one day hollywood would come out with yet another amazing movie depicting the FBI in an accurate fashion, and if the premise deals with terrorism then so be it. Nice chat people, I whatever the problems this country continuously suffers on a regular basis, I'm proud to be an AMERICAN!
-
pdigaudio — 20 years ago(October 21, 2005 11:18 PM)
What is lost in all of this is that terrorism is an act of war, not a criminal/law enforcement matter. It was handled as a criminal/law enforcement matter all through the 1990s, when the Sudan offered bin Laden to us 3 times and Clinton and Janet Reno passed because they didn't think they had any evidence to hold him (all the while Justice Dept. bureaucrats were fretting over an ergonomically comfortable chair for Usama) and continuing to 1999, when military intelligence pinpointed bin Laden in Afghanistan and Clinton refused to order a strike for fear of killing Al Qaeda children (funny that Clinton and Reno didn't think twice about sending tanks to kill American children in Waco apparently terrorists' children were more important). Personally I wouldn't have given a rat's behind if a Devereaux-like character had taken out bin Laden, or Atta, or any of the 9/11 terrorists. This movie was clearly aimed to portray the war as a criminal/law enforcement matter if you are an Al Qaeda terrorist, who do you fear more? the Marines? or a onslaught of US attorneys in Brooks Brothers suits armed with grand jury subpoenas?
-
mythicfox — 21 years ago(May 25, 2004 03:47 AM)
Will you allow yourself to become so frightened one day that, when someone says to you, "I can take the fear away, if only you will give up your freedom," you will actually consider it?
Sadly, if online polls like the sort you see on AOL are any indication, enough people think that it's perfectly okay that it just might happen. -
ElectricEye — 21 years ago(October 07, 2004 08:51 PM)
As presented in the film, I don't remember Deveraux methods to be effective: he found out who SOME terrorist were, by spying on the FBI (Hub). In the end, the "Last Cell" is also discovered by the FBI. The military acomplished NOTHING, they only got involved in the KILLING of US Citizens.
Protective, Detective, Electric Eye -
Jalea — 20 years ago(October 16, 2005 12:26 PM)
spoilersIn the film, Devereaux's methods were not effective. Remember, Hub and Elise led Devereaux to the terrorist cells. Elise was working with Devereaux at first. Then Elise joined Hub's team. Devereaux tracked and monitored their activities because Hub and Elise knew more than they were telling. add, Hub and Elise worked around them (by writing notes). In addition, Hub evaded Devereaux by use of a decoy. In the end, it was Hub and Elise that located and took down the single member of the last cell.
In Devereaux's defense, he warned the city officals that Miltary involvement was not a good idea. But the officials did not listen. The terrorist activity ironically was in retaliation to Devereaux's activities (kidnapping an Arab leader). The movie, in my opinion, does not adequately explain why he did this, although it is hinted that the president was aware and sanctioned the action.
Devereaux was operating under a set of rules that did not fit in with civilian life. And he knew it, but, once they called him in, he did his thing. Does that justify what he did? No. Have not American soldiers once captured been tortured or killed? One thing this film illustrates to me is that it does not matter who is torturing whom for what reason it is still horribly dehumanizing. -
NovaIncognito — 13 years ago(March 12, 2013 12:29 AM)
Um, wasn't it Devereaux himself who said the Army was a broad sword, and this kind of matter required a scalpel? Wasn't it HE who warned them not to use martial law and said an American city is no place for the Army? He just did his job when he was ordered to do it, just like any soldier in his place would do when ordered by their commander in chief (which means more to them than "president" - its a silly military thing where they think they are "exceptional" - you know, that absurd American exceptionalism bit).
Duh der dee I like to make metaphors about fly swatters only to realize that Devereaux's metaphor IN THE MOVIE was much better written and wittier than yours..leaving you making no point that wasn't already made in the movieleaving you adding NOTHING but your "opionion," which is another way of American idiots these days saying "I don't care if I am wrong, I am an American, and becuase of that, my wrong is juts as good as your right!"
(I am an American by the way, I am just sickened by the fact that I live in a country full of conservative brainless idiots, or conservative brilliant, but greedy evil bastards, and liberal cowards who are too stupid or cowardly to put these conservative morons or ghouls in their place becuase they don't want to seem "mean" or "controversial." Enough said.)
Sorry, no animals in the discussion hall. You have to dismount your high horse to participate. -
ShoulderDevils — 12 years ago(October 19, 2013 03:51 PM)
Well that made me feel better. I was about to go off on the "way to go guys, you are all so great for throwing out your opinions and I am just so proud to be an American!" fella but realized that person is dead.
I mean, you know, these tea party clowns are like children, it doesn't take much to get them to drive 1800 miles and march against their own government. You just have to push all those "This is America, right? We are the best right? Do you want someone else being better? No! Ok! Let's go out and win this gamI mean, lets go out and march against our government!"
And considering this was posted in March, with you foreseeing Putin's op-ed about the American exceptionalism thing. Nicely done. Me thinks Putin must troll around the IMDB boards! He probably even came on here after he watched this movieI believe it was on his list of "Movies to watch to better understand American thinking." Those Russians may be some nutty vodka drinking sons of bitches, but they can be ruthlessly cold and calculating too.