Was he allowed to arrest him (spoilers)?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — The Siege
sth78 — 12 years ago(February 27, 2014 01:23 PM)
When a city is under martial law, doesn't that mean that the military chain of command sets aside civilian law, hence a general could only be placed under arrest, if his superior (the President) ordered it?
-
the_la_baker — 11 years ago(June 27, 2014 10:57 AM)
When a city is under martial law, doesn't that mean that the military chain of command sets aside civilian law, hence a general could only be placed under arrest, if his superior (the President) ordered it?
These complications are what make Martial law so feared.
In full-scale martial law, the highest-ranking military officer would take over, or be installed, as the military governor or as head of the government, thus removing all power from the previous executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government.
So, even the president would lose control. The question becomes, if the military is violating its own rules and regulations, who would step in?
Who knows lets hope we never find out.
Dictators are born in such ways. -
facebook-336-885041 — 10 years ago(October 23, 2015 03:13 PM)
Wrong in part. The President is the highest military commander (Commander-in-Chief) and therefore retains authority over the military under Martial Law. It doesn't somehow transfer to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
-
AwaixJvd — 11 years ago(July 28, 2014 06:07 PM)
Well your point is really gripping and i was thinking about it too. Apparently @the_la_baker has made the answer more complex and confusing rather than answering it.
I apologize that i don't know about the martial law rules but to my knowledge, when there is military rule on Full scale, then there is no one else than Superior Army Chief and he is all in all.
Provided in this film, it was said that the city of Brooklyn is under martial law and i SUPPOSE it was partial because even during that time FBI was working and they were allowed in many places to pass through the tress-passes. So it was not a full scale martial law.
Now comes the question was Hub eligible to make that arrest of an army chief when FBI comes under him in that condition. But remember that he talked the words saying that he was using unnecessary means or even brutal acts to bring the situation under control. That's why he arrested him. The only confusing point here is - does law permits an FBI agent to arrest army chief? -
the_la_baker — 11 years ago(July 29, 2014 03:21 PM)
Well your point is really gripping and i was thinking about it too. Apparently @the_la_baker has made the answer more complex and confusing rather than answering it.
The film never was clear on the matter.
If the General really had complete martial law over NY, that would make it as if it were its own nation, under rule by him. When he tells Hub, his authority supersedes the courts, he would have been correct. There must have been some sort of hidden clause the General
and his lawyers
were unaware of that allowed the government to remove his power at anytime. If that's the case, there never was any martial law in the first place, simply a military police force.
The film really failed in that sense.