I don't believe the FBI was deciding anything. The FBI had an order from a United States District Court. Martial Law may
-
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Long story short, The generals actions were unethical and abhorant, but was not illegal until martial law was rescinded.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 -
DreTam2000 — 13 years ago(December 17, 2012 03:13 AM)
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.
Listen to that conversation again and pay close attention. Hub is referring to the Sheik in that comment.
He is implying that the Sheik is a murderer, although the movie never hints at this in the slightest, and (I believe) even makes attempts to portray him innocently for the sake of raising discussion.
I'm not a control freak, I just like things my way -
fr1-2 — 18 years ago(January 12, 2008 08:26 PM)
Let me say my 2cents here
American like Hubbard is the ones who make America vulnerable to these terrorist. Be reasonable to reasonable people. With those fanatics there are no need to reason at all!
I grew up in a place where moslem extremists are everywhere, so pls forgive me if i dont have any sympathy on them.
I am agree to TS that Hubbard actually can't arrest the general since 1) Tariq was ACTUALLY one of the terrorist; and 2) Devereaux is immune to FBI since the martial law was declared. What Hubbart can do, is talk to the president and ask him to lift the martial law.
Anyway i think this is the moral of the story "the one who is most committed wins". Hub chose a twisted way, but since he just blindly rushed in and point a gun at general face, there is no use to talk with him. And bcoz the general was 'less committed' then the general lost. If I were Devereaux I will shoot those FBI without no longer talking , one warning, then SHOOT! Becoz i am right according to martial law in any sense.
The general already warned that military is dangerous. Is the president invite the beast in the house to 'chase the mouse' he should be willing to let the house ruined. Remember as Beckett (Sniper 3) said: "Freedom is not free". Well, in my opinion tis is entirely true! People on america, u should stop whining if human rights were sacrificed while going on war with this terrorist. Your freedom has cost, and you should be willing to pay for it. -
jymn-and-clerk — 18 years ago(January 27, 2008 10:53 PM)
i have reservations about taking someone seriously if they can't spell 'because'
anyway the phrase "freedom isn't free" always seems to be used by people who think it's alright to sacrifice civil liberties and human rights to protect freedom. Talk about throwing out the baby with the bath water. I'm not really sure what freedoms they think they're protecting
It's true that freedom isn't free. People who have freedom have to make sacrifices to keep it. We sacrifice our people as soldiers and sometimes even as ciitizens in the case of 9/11. But killing people in other countries and torturing people doesn't cost us anything. Why should others have to suffer as the cost of our freedom?
Whether Devereaux was legally right or not, torture is morally wrong and not particularily effective. (although to be fair, i didn't think shooting Tariq afterwards was immoral, considering what they'd just done to him and what his future prospects were) -
zeocrash — 17 years ago(May 02, 2008 02:12 AM)
I always did feel a bit bad for devreaux in this film. He was forced into running the martial law.
If you remeber the briefing scene, devreaux tells the senators that the army is not a policing machine and that martial law would not be pretty. He also tells them that he would not like to do the job. Despite this they impose martial law, put him in charge and then hang him out to dry when the situation is over -
tbeller80 — 17 years ago(May 14, 2008 09:57 PM)
Given what we saw about Devereax's character, I always considered that scene with Congress to be a bit of reverse psychology on his part to get the job. Capturing the Shaq, mass arrests, bugging the FBI's phones, torture, murder - these were all original ideas of his. The white house official (with the glasses) was willing to let him continue his operations for as long as he needed to. It didn't end until Hubbard arrested him.
-
ghorn88 — 17 years ago(July 05, 2008 02:11 AM)
I think he was sincere in his stated beliefs in the conference, but his strong belief in the chain of command and getting the job done trumps whatever personal beliefs on appropriate force.
Whether he was justified, hard to say. Its completely opinion-based. If the FBI followed it's path of finding the cells, that would mean they wouldn't find the next cell until they struck again. Once the general took over, there were no more attacks. That is something to consider.
I don't think the question the film proposes is on what methods work. Its clear that the General's ways were effective. The film asks what the viewer thinks is too far. While the movie does decide for itself, I think the more intellectual viewer can look deeper into the issue and decide for himself.
Frankly, with the interrogation. While I agree that torture is wrong and inhumane and he shouldn't have been killed. I don't agree that the General was wrong for doing it. I mean, he was a terrorist and the only lead they had. It would be negligant if they DIDN'T exercise all their methods to try and find information on the last cell. Whether they actually went to far, well thats for the viewer to decide. -
tbeller80 — 17 years ago(July 13, 2008 06:03 PM)
I mean, he was a terrorist and the only lead they had
Ghorn, not to sound like an ass but this is my biggest pet peeve on this board. We don't know if the guy they picked up was a terrorist. All Devereaux had was his name. That's it. They knew jack else about him. Samir (the bomber at the end of the movie) gave Denzel his name. What's that say about the credibility of the tip? And all the tip was "Tarik asked Samir to give the dead bus bomber a visa." For all we the viewer know, Samir was talking about himself and throwing everyone off the trail. At the auto shop, one of the mechanics had a grenade. Obviously that guy was a bad person. But it doesn't make Tarik a terrorist.
I'm glad you recognize that "how far do you take it" is a serious question to ask. Especially since Tarik was a US citizen. Regardless of what you think he might have done, he's entitled to his Consitutional rights (unless you think martial law negates this). -
ShelbyTMItchell — 17 years ago(September 07, 2008 09:35 AM)
In the end, I think that Hub
Took out the General and glad
Hub didn't mention the death penalty in front of him.
Because Hub was doing his best to give Devereaux a fair trial.
Something Devereaux denied that man.
The military clearly outnumbered the feds.
Even though I am no FBI fan as they are played as villians usually.
But in this movie, they are played as rare good guys.
The FBI was trying to stop the military from treating the Arabs like WWII the Japan internment.
Plus, the military, if they murdered the feds with their huge guns, despite following Devereaux's orders.
Would possibly be charged with murdering a federal officer(s).
But Hub was trying to give Devereaux a fair trial.
Look at it that way.
