Thoughts about Hub and Devereaux
-
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. -
srogerscat — 21 years ago(June 05, 2004 03:07 PM)
No way would the FBI have been able to barge into Devereaux's headquarters and place him under arrest with triggering a bloodbath. All those heavily armed soldiers and FBI agents pointing guns at each otherall it takes is somebody squeezing his trigger when he didn't mean to and hell breaks loose. And I'm not saying for a minute that an FBI man would start it. And then there is the non-probability of a large number of plainclothed men getting into the command center in the first place, it had already been established that the Army isn't accepting "We're FBI" as the magic password the FBI is used to.
-
gdzks — 21 years ago(September 06, 2004 10:17 AM)
Realistic it is and plausible, because it has been done many times in hitory. The thing that makes it horrid, is that it makes generalizations(which has good and points) about the ethnicity of the terrorists.
But the other hand, it is reasonably plausible, consideing hte bombings were all about the sheik, ven considering the many ethnic groups that follow the religions. I think that manily arabs would be the ones more in a uproar over the sheik. But then again, im falling into the trap. It's a mucky area. -
jooba7 — 21 years ago(October 06, 2004 07:37 PM)
yes, first off, i would like to say that this is an honor to be among so many intellectuals for once; all the other posts and boards are nothing but crap. for once, i agree with everyone's reasoning on why they feel the way they feel. however, i do have a disagreement or two and would like to add my two cents also.
snipolk, the comment you made about arabs being placed in detention camps is actually inaccurate. a known, but not so talked about fact is that the americans too also kept certain people in "concentration camps" in our history. during world war 2, japanese-americans were placed in concentration like camps in i think california after the pearl harbor attack, taking away their property, possessions and rights also. scary but true, huh? wonder why they were so shocked about the nazis keeping jews in concentration camps during the war, especially since americans were prejudice of jews anyway (jeez, their racist/prejudice to just about everybody huh?)
i feel the general (who was played remarkebly by bruce willis) felt what he was doing was right, but overall i dont think it was necessary to kill tarik. u just dont do that. if you need information, you keep your prisoner alive. the necessity to kill tarik was useless and wasteful. and although ASAC Hubbard (denzel is by far my most favorite actor of all time!) made some mistakes, i dont think that takes away from what he was doing in finding the terrorists. first of all, elise was hardly ever truthful to him anyway, so information coming from her was almost useless. the general was definetly in the way; although he is a soldier and i'm sure he had CID and intelligence with him in finding the terrorists, the FBI is renowned for their counterterrorism operations worldwide. i think the work the FBI were doing was realistically portrayed, because while the FBI consist of great thinkers and anaylsts, they are not perfect nor are they psychic.
this movie is part of my top 3 greatest movies of all time. i remember watching for the first time about 5 months before september 11, and thinking in awe, surprise and fear at how accurate the film was to current events. i say fear because i find it scary that hollywood knew more about our immient safety concerns on terror than our own government! i think politicians should watch this movie, not for excitement purposes, but to have an idea of what they may be doing wrong (i dont know, im just talking out of my @$$! whatever, i loved this movie, 10 stars) -
ajpike23 — 20 years ago(October 10, 2005 09:30 AM)
you said:
"Placing all the arabs into camps was not very realistic"
How about the japanese work camps during WWII? Or Indian Reservations and removal tactics of the federal government during the 1800s? Realistic indeed.