I don't believe the FBI was deciding anything. The FBI had an order from a United States District Court. Martial Law may
-
servercat — 20 years ago(June 04, 2005 08:02 PM)
I don't believe that Deveraux saw himself as above the law, but AS the law.
According to Wikipedia:
"In United States law, martial law is limited by several court decisions handed down during the American Civil War and World War II. In Ex Parte Milligan 71 US 2 1866, the Supreme Court of the United States held that martial law could not be instituted within the United States when its civilian courts are in operation. The United States has not been in a declared state of national emergency since March 9, 1933 (see Senate Report 93-549 (http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/6216.pdf))."
That means that nothing locally could be done to stop without a Federal and/or military mandate. Effectivily If he told you to jump, then you better be through the roof before you even thought of asking "How High?".
I agree that Hub is playing on the unsureness of the soldier, but I think he was grasping at straws.(whether he was conscious of it or not)
As for the President becoming a Dicator, the President can not just declare Martial law and be in charge. The declaration must be backed by Congress or it is invalid. ( Howsomeever, according to what I read that approval can be automatically given, by Congress failing to act, either for or against.)
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_mlaw.html -
mondo758-1 — 20 years ago(June 21, 2005 01:34 AM)
In any case, it is the provence of the courts to say what the law is.
Ex parte Milligan does not strip the courts of the power to issue a binding order. It merely says that martial law can only be in effect where the civil courts of a jurisdiction are out of operation. Here, we know the civil courts are operational because Hub has an order from one of them. Even the writ of habeus corpus, which CAN be suspended in dire situations, still issues automatically. It is up to the court that recieves the application for the writ to then issue or deny based on the legal situation. A court order cannot be ignored as a matter of pure governmental power (subject to the enforcement problems of the moment - i.e., a bunch of men with guns pointed at Hub).
As for the problem of the president as dictator, a declaration of war requires the consent of congress. Recent presidents have gotten around this requirement by fighting undeclared wars. It is not so strange to envision a president instituting martial law without congress approving. It would then be the duty of the courts to declare whether the president overstepped his/her authority or not.
Absent some strange doctrinal twist in one of the World War II cases alluded to by Wikipedia (I wish I knew their names), I can't fathom Devereaux being in the right in the scenario we are discussing. -
jasoncox — 20 years ago(September 01, 2005 02:00 PM)
Martial law could only be enforced under limited powers. Under the rules laid out by the Supreme Court, as long as the civil court system exists, the military must abide by its powers. Hub was an agent with the FBI and the Federal Court that oversees that district was still sitting. There for his writ was legally binding and Devereaux was breaking the law. In Ex Parte Milligan, the use of Martial Law is limited to detaining only. Because of the sitting civil court, they would only be able to arrest and hold people. They cannot try or sentence any civilian and Habeas Corpus could not be suspended.
No one here has even pointed out that it is illegal to use the military as a police force within the United States. The Posse Comitatus Act forbids it and yes the President or Congress can wave in certain situations it as was done during the LA riots 1992, but under the situations in the movie it would be ruled illegal. Only the National Guard can be used under the direction of the Governor of that State for posse comitatus, as long as they remain under the command of the Governor. The declaration of Martial Law in that situation was illegal. The use of the US Army to enforce Martial Law and act as a police force was illegal. -
servercat — 20 years ago(September 13, 2005 06:24 PM)
It was my understanding that Martial law(via Ex parte milligan) cannot be exercised in so long as the civil system is still functioning.
So that means, that Hub should not have been able to get the writ. Unless, Martial Law had been suspended(possible, and slightly implied by the conversation) finally. -
mejercit — 18 years ago(December 30, 2007 06:20 PM)
That is why he plays the only card he has; he tells Deveraux to order the military to fire on the FBI.
And if Deveraux simply refused to leave his post?
Would Hub have ordered his agents to use force to take the general into custody?
Michael -
SarcasticCajun — 20 years ago(October 09, 2005 09:43 AM)
The generals methods first of all are not effective, torture motivates bogus answers so that they can just escape more pain, AND these people are willing to die, so I'm not sure how many of them will suddenly tell you everything just because you cut off a toe.
The generals methods were not ONLY ineffective, but they violate the constitution and defeats the purpose of defending freedoms. IT shows our desperation and in that sense, the terrorists win. They make us throw away our rights.
His methods also violate the geneva convention and he was given direct OUTSIDE authority to be taken down by our government outside of New York.
If you guys think we can start making exceptions to the Bill of RIghts, you are incredibly misguided and violate everything our country was founded on. -
servercat — 20 years ago(October 14, 2005 02:03 PM)
The US is not bound by Geneva in respects to armed civilians and/or armed disputes within the nation.
Though the US signed the 1977 amendments to Geneva protocol, it was not ratified, which means nothing Deveraux did violated
international
standards.
Secondly, new york was under Martial law, which means the Bill of Rights, Constitution are SUSPENDED, so that the military can gain control upon the emergency situation. -
BlackJeebus — 20 years ago(March 17, 2006 11:39 PM)
You're an idiot. That is why no one except for this idealistic fool is replying to you.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/93.htm
you're wrong about the geneva protocal. read it.
and whether his actions violated your so called democracy and respect for freedom is for your country to decide. That was the bloody point of the movie, you idiot. Personally - I think you deserve men like Deveraux. My only desire is that you leave the rest of the world out of it.
Oh - and your bias shows through with allowing Deveraux's actions to be acceptible because they were effective. However, Hub's actions - which were more effective because they worked in the end, are not effective in your argument. Why not? -
servercat — 19 years ago(April 07, 2006 02:02 PM)
You misssed my point. It doesn't matter what the protocols say, they do not apply to the U.S.(in a purely legel sense). The U.S. signed the protocol, but it was not ratified by the government. Meaning US is not duty bound to obey them, however the military does obey it because it helps ensure reciprocation from a hostile/nuetral nation.
Long story short, The generals actions were unethical and abhorant, but was not illegal until martial law was rescinded. -
Duese — 19 years ago(March 04, 2007 10:27 PM)
Just for the sake of discussion, the proper action by Dev. in this instance would have been to have Hubs men removed from the area which could have easily been done without firing a gun considering the manpower that Dev had at his disposal. Any investigation into the military would be just that, a military investigation. The military is always under a different set of laws than a normal citizen. You sign your rights away when you sign up for the military.
Just as Hub told the men to fire on him, Dev could have said the same thing and the FBI would have backed down just the same.
In regards to torture or killing, just because someone isn't holding a gun doesn't mean that they aren't just as dangerous. It seems that people have no problems with killing someone holding a gun (cue Hub/Sammir fight scene in the bathhouse) but the second they don't have a gun, it's automatically wrong.
Knowledge is power and that power can be used to kill in the wrong hands, just as much as having a gun. -
eprophet2 — 19 years ago(March 13, 2007 04:29 PM)
just a small note, having watched this film again this week (our daughter is studying terrorism in history class, and this film is, I believe, an essential tool for discussing the topic)
I'm not sure of the legality of the War Powers Act and Martial law, but the scene right before Hub confronts Sharon/Elise about her involvement with the terrorists, he is standing outside in the shadows with the President's Chief of Staff and tells him something to the effect that you don't let ANY murderers go free.
The implication being that they agreed Devereaux was guilty of murder in some context, and the Chief of Staff gave the OK for HUB to arrest Devereaux in exchange for letting Hub work with Elise to take down the last terrorist cell. -
tbeller80 — 18 years ago(November 16, 2007 05:57 AM)
Tariq Husseini was implicated by Samir (who actually was a terrorist) for requesting a visa for one of the bus bombers - nothing else. For all we the viewers know Samir requested the visa and knew Tariq from poker night and dropped his name to throw the FBI off of him. One of Tariq's employees had a grenade in his jacket, but we can only guess what his deal was. We never learned how well Tariq knew the bus bomber, could have been a childhood friend, could be they were accomplices. Samir got visas for arabs, and Tariq asking him to get one for someone he knew is not a crime (if that even was the case - after all we're relying on Samir's word). The Constitution guarantees you to due process - period. It doesn't make a distinction between crimes. Last year the courts shut down several Gitmo prosecutions because there was no legal definition in existence to "unlawful combatant." The term was invented after 9/11 out of thin air. Congress had to make a law last fall that defined the situation. Our Constutition is set up with checks & balances and is meant to be slow and cumbersome in order to prevent such a dangerous precedent. We know nothing about Tariq's true story, only that he was an American citizen and within a couple hours of being arrested he was tortured and killed. Just like Hubbard argued "What about 2 people, 6 people?" Every time you get away with breaking a rule, no matter how minor, it becomes easier to break another, and another until you finally commit an atrocity and everything leading up to seemed perfectly reasonable.
Some have argued Hub had no authority to arrest Devereaux because martial law suspends the Constitution. However, you could argue against the whole premise of the movie because one of the Senators argued that the Supreme Court declared Lincoln's martial law actions unconstitutional. I suppose in the movie their argument was that Devereaux could hold martial law until the right people in the government said enough. Hub got a writ from the court which probably had the implicit approval of the White House and Congressional leaders who knew what Devereaux was up to. -
servercat — 18 years ago(November 29, 2007 04:31 PM)
This is why I love imdb, get a lot of good insights and thoughts about these things
More on topic, I think deveraux's operation can be best described by a quote from Iain M. Banks
"in Special Circumstances we deal in the moral equivalent of black holes, where the normal laws - the rules of right and wrong that people imagine apply everywhere else in the universe - break down; beyond those metaphysical event-horizons, there exist special circumstances. [] That's us. That's our territory; our domain" -
fr1-2 — 18 years ago(January 12, 2008 08:29 PM)
I'm not sure of the legality of the War Powers Act and Martial law, but the scene right before Hub confronts Sharon/Elise about her involvement with the terrorists, he is standing outside in the shadows with the President's Chief of Staff and tells him something to the effect that you don't let ANY murderers go free.
I believe Hub was talking about the Sheik.
Sharon considered releasing the Sheik to stop the terror. But Hub said they shouldnt do that becoz the Sheik is a murderer, and "you don't let ANY murderers go free".
CMIIW