I was watching this movie last night(its one of my favorites :) )and it got me thinking about some things. So i started
-
pevans0 — 20 years ago(February 19, 2006 03:11 PM)
So, if one man knew of a plot to kill 1000 children (including yours), and that man was an American citizen, you wouldn't want wood shoved under his finger nails for answers? Would you want his civil liberties to be protected at your childs expense? It really is an easy answer.
-
the_la_baker — 11 years ago(October 07, 2014 01:12 PM)
So, if one man knew of a plot to kill 1000 children (including yours), and that man was an American citizen, you wouldn't want wood shoved under his finger nails for answers? Would you want his civil liberties to be protected at your childs expense? It really is an easy answer.
What about 2 men, or 10, or 100? Where do you draw the line?
That is the point. Once you go down that road, horrible things are going to happen.
I think most people would like some sort of laws regarding procreation, but once you go down that road you start getting to some really ambiguous forks in the road with potentially malevolent ethical implications.
America tried it, the Nazis copied us, and then we abandoned our eugenics program. -
yo_el_padrino-982-288755 — 11 years ago(March 25, 2015 02:48 AM)
For me the line ends with my family, and anyone I like personally in my life.
The problem is, that everyone reasons this way and thus to some faceless nobody who I couldn't care less for, I'm also a faceless nobody who he couldn't care less for, it's the problem of living in such large groups, we aren't programmed to live in such big tribes -
the_la_baker — 10 years ago(May 26, 2015 11:41 PM)
For me the line ends with my family, and anyone I like personally in my life.
And how about the people that are related and personally know the person you are torturing/killing? Under your rationale they could now do the same in retaliation.
"In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."
-Martin Luther King, Jr. -
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?