Thoughts about Hub and Devereaux
-
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. -
moxmonkeys — 20 years ago(January 21, 2006 02:38 PM)
Placing all the arabs into camps was not very realistic
Ask some older Japanese-Americans about that. Better yet, watch Snow Falling on Cedars. Better yet, read up on some history.
http://www.vle.org/ -
xEkute — 17 years ago(June 04, 2008 05:02 AM)
heard of racial profiling? African Americans frisked more often at security checks than caucasians?. If just to prevent burglary we(I'm not a US citizen but speaking generally) are ready to resort to bigotry, preventing an explosion would definitely lead us to resort to stringer actions. Also, its not unprecedented. Japanese in US in mid 20th century rings any bell?
-
jejones1 — 21 years ago(October 07, 2004 02:06 AM)
Nothing really changes the fact that Devereaux tortured and then shot in the head an innocent Arab who was a citizen of the US. Now, while I'm no expert on the law either, murder is still murder, which is why Hub explained himself to Devereaux during the Mexican standoff at the end. And if according to martial law the military is answerable only to itself, it would seem to me that military officers shooting detainees in the head when they gained nothing from the detainees isn't very good policy. It would seem to me that that sort of policy makes the military look like a bunch of psychopaths who shouldn't be let anywhere near a gun or position of power. It is my understanding that martial law is used to restore order. Shooting innocent people in the head just because of their race would appear to clearly contradict the restoration of order.
-
servercat — 21 years ago(October 12, 2004 07:14 PM)
All good points
Though here is my take. (p.s. I'm severcat by the way)
Murder is never just murder. Murder implies to kill unlawfully or with malcious intent. Deveraux's killing of Tarik Husieni(side thought. though it is a somewhat comman last name, Using a variation of the name Hussein, does take a certain edge off the actual kill in a subtle manner) comes across to me as more of execution/mercy kill.
My reason for that- In Deveraux's mind Tarik is a terrorist or at the very least a terrorist accomplice. Under the standard interrogations, nothing new was revealed. Hence the whole scene about which stronger interrogation to use. To Deveraux and the President(or more likely his cabinet) the FBI's current methods were felt to be inadequate(or too slow, given the rapid pace of attacks), which is why Deveraux was placed in control.
(This brings up my whole other line of thought about Hub's huge mistake with capturing Samir early.)
So with that frame of mind and the fact that there are severly pressed time wise with locating the remaining cells. He had to take a drastic step with his only apparant remaining lead, Tarik. To him Tarik is nothing more then a terrorist, not a citizen. To Deveraux, Tarik had no U.S constittional rights , or even more rights then human conscience allows.
And so it all comes down, to a point of will and a need for information. Was Tarik exactly as he was presented, as nothing more then a unwitting accomplice? Quite possibly and it's squemish to think about the sad consquences of that.
But what if Deveraux was right. What if Tarik really did know more then he let on with Hub. The movie glossed over this point, with Tarik's screaming and Hub standing the hallway.but what if..just if Tarik gave something up in between the screams of pain.
It's something to think about and this brings me back to the orignal train of thought. What if Deveraux was right and Tarik was really a terrorist. Then the gunshot would have been a summary execution. Perfectly legal and tidy.
On the other hand, we go with the moive presented Hub assumption. Tarik was truly innocent of the dealings. This leaves Tarik undoubtly shattered and in ruins. With out hesitation I would say Deveraux's method was severly brutal and certainly disfiguring, and more then likely fatal. To put tarik out of his misery quickly would have been the kindest apology I think. Not pleasant at all, but given the situation I don't think Deveraux or in fact many people would do any different.
Given the scope of the situation, I would not be surprised at all. And this really brings up a point, some one mentioned early in the thread. This is really wha the movie is about, Just what exactly are we willing to sacrifice in order to be secure, to keep America safe.
- In Deveraux's mind Tarik is a terrorist or at the very least a terrorist accomplice. Under the standard interrogations, nothing new was revealed. Hence the whole scene about which stronger interrogation to use. To Deveraux and the President(or more likely his cabinet) the FBI's current methods were felt to be inadequate(or too slow, given the rapid pace of attacks), which is why Deveraux was placed in control.
-
servercat — 21 years ago(October 21, 2004 06:32 PM)
Innocent until proven guilty is only for the public, under military judicial code the burden of proof is upon the accused(To note, the American innocence first, is a rarity. Most countries, even democratic ones go by the guilty till proven innocent style)
Which goes back to my orignal thought, legally Deveraux did nothing wrong(at least as far as Hub is concerned. Any disconduct is for the military to decide not the FBI. The Declaration of Martial law, makes Deveraux effectivly above Hub and 'the law', answerable only to his peers and the President(more likely his cabinet..but thats another can of worms )
You make a good point with Samir and Deveraux, never thought to look at Samir that way, makes a for good moral relativity debates -
MrMopar — 21 years ago(March 06, 2005 07:26 PM)
No one needs Miranda Rights under Martial Law. The point is that the military is in charge to ensure public safety no matter the tactics needed to do this. It's in unpleasant time to be sure, but temporary Martial Law on occasions that call for it prevents the existance of permanent anarchy.