I don't believe the FBI was deciding anything. The FBI had an order from a United States District Court. Martial Law may
-
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. -
commanderkai — 17 years ago(October 29, 2008 09:33 PM)
I always figured Tariq was a cell, considering one of his employees had a grenade on him. Tariq survived with Hub, and like it or not, the fact that Tariq was sponsoring visas, and the grenade incident basically said he wasn't innocent. From what Elize said, he didn't know anything, but I always figured that was about the last cell. Either way, I always saw him as a guilty party.
Hub, like it or not, was basically so-so effective. The fact he helped protect the last cell is the biggest downfall. He wasn't useless, considering he did take down the cell that was responsible for the bus bombing, but after that, he was basically ineffective as a pawn of the last cell. -
koffeenkreame41-1 — 13 years ago(March 05, 2013 09:46 AM)
You may be right on that, it wouldn't be that far-fetched to think Deveraux would do something like that. I really loved that last scene with Denzel & Willis facing off. So intense!
"I am the ultimate badass, you do not wanna*beep*wit me!"- Hudson in Aliens. -
fr1-2 — 16 years ago(September 19, 2009 08:29 AM)
i have reservations about taking someone seriously if they can't spell 'because'
Then you are missing the point - just bcoz i used some mispelling doesnt mean i cant think
This is not some goddamned research papers for christsake geez -
canuckteach — 10 years ago(March 12, 2016 11:56 AM)
First tenet of terrorism:
political means must be turned into military means
. Hence, in this movie, rational talk, judicial process & law enforcement are successfully transformed into martial law, which includes heavy-handed arrests of ethnic groups. In the end, responsible law enforcement agents like Hub were bitterly opposed to it, but so was the public, who rose as a united throng protesting the violation of constitutional rights.
Interesting that a
potential constitutional crisis
did
arise
after 9/11, and the Americans survived without martial law, although the Terrorists did more harm to their cause by producing a 'carte-blanche' excuse for the Americans to topple 2 mid-eastern Muslim regimes. The Terrorists also engendered a wave of American mationalism, whereby U.S. Leaders were able to squander countless lives abroad (including American), and billions of $, all with public support. Question for you 9/11 guys:
how's that attack on U.S. soil working for you?
Just an afterthought: Yes, the General played by Willis was arrested.
That doesn't mean he would be convicted or punished.
canuckteach
