Why did they shoot? (SPOILER)
Why did the army execute the arab man to get him to talk? Don't they know that if you kill someone, they can't talk? Why not just torture him more? It made no sense.
shareThey were finished torturing him. Annette Benning said he knew nothing. So after who knows how long of cutting him up, they had nothing for their efforts. They killed him so he couldn't tell anyone he was tortured.
shareThat makes no sense, cause there were witnesses like Hub, who Devereau couldn't trust to keep his mouth shut. Why would he murder a man in front of a witness?
shareAt the time Deveraux kinda had absolute power and an ego to match. He probably figured the ends justified the means and he'd be vindicated in whatever steps he took.
shareHow does he think he has absolute power if Hub could just legally walk in the next day with a warrant for his arrest? His power was obviously limited.
sharePlot hole. If there truly was martial law in Brooklyn, then Devereux had absolute power. The only way Hubbard could arrest him would be if martial law was lifted by the President and the President authorized the FBI to arrest him. I honestly don't know the intricacies of martial law in the United States, but there would have to be some kind of clause that would allow the Justice Department to hold Devereux accountable for his actions. Since they don't discuss it in the movie, we can only guess.
shareAbsolute power exists in martial law? What if the general ordered his men to kill every millions of arabs in the city, on sight? Could he not be touched legally?
shareHaving never lived under martial law, I'm guessing. But it seems that "martial law" means the military is in charge and all civil government institutions take a back seat. Like I said earlier, if this means there are clauses that give the civilian government power to hold the military accountable for their actions it is not explicitly stated. General Devereux certainly behaves as if he has absolute power and seems confident he can get away with whatever actions he is taking.
shareI don't think they would give a general absolute power, cause there is not telling what he will do if given it. Look at what the general did in Dr. Strangelove.
sharethe way i would reckon it... would be that in a time of martial law - there would be certain powers the military have which would allow them to operate outside the bounds of civilian and other laws.
the military would not have 'absolute power' because they would still have to adhere to certain humanitarian laws - the Geneva Conventions, etc.
im not sure that the Geneva Conventions apply specifically in a time of martial law, but i assume there would some governing laws for these times.
so all the arresting and hording of 'suspects' was within the military's power, but the illegal (on all levels) interrogation techniques (torture), and subsequent murder of the innocent 'suspect' was clearly breaking all laws (civil, humanitarian, etc).
So i guess the way i would sum it up would be to say that Willis' character had extended power to take precedence and over-ride other authorities, but still had to act within what ever law is still applicable under martial law.
cheers ey.