Enemy of the State
Sunday, February 7th, 2010|
IMDB rating: 7.10 Plot: Tony Scott torna alle atmosfere thriller e senza tregua delle sue opere precedenti con un film tutto giocato sulla critica alle possibili privazioni della liberta del cittadino comune da parte dello Stato. Robert Dean e un giovane e promettente avvocato, che si trova coinvolto in un assurdo gioco di spie, perche un vecchio amico di scuola gli infila fra i regali di Natale un dischetto contenente le immagini di un omicidio commesso da un dirigente ambizioso e senza scrupoli della National Security Agency (potente organismo governativo responsabile delle operazioni spionistiche piu complesse). La vita del protagonista e sconvolta e continuamente in pericolo. Un ex agente della NSA, interverra in aiuto del giovane. Dopo essere sfuggiti numerose volte alla morte, i due si salveranno in un finale pieno di suspense e…con un po’ di furbizia! Grande cast e grande azione per un film solido e ben girato. |
Actors: Caan Scott,Lee Jason,Hackman Gene,Wilson Stuart,Voight Jon,Pepper Barry,Smith Will,Dean Loren,Hart Ian,Busey Jake,Byrne Gabriel,LeGros James,Drama,Action,Thriller,
Should persons who are declared to be "enemy combatants" be able to contest their detentions before a judge?
Basically, should an American citizen who takes arms against the United States in another country be able to ask for American rights when captured and taken to America?
They shouldn’t even be allowed back to America just like a foreign person would never be allowed back to their country if they were captured in America
nsw105 | Jan 31, 2010
Yes, the person is an American citizen. The person has the right to stand trial and present his/her case before a judge. In any case.
Didn’t John Walker Lindh get a US trial? If the defendant has an understandable explanation. (suppose the defendant did what he did under duress. Suppose the enemy captured the defendant and gave the defendant a last chance to survive if and only if he joined as an combatant for the other side?
then he’d have a self-defense argument that could hold up in court
Eric S | Jan 31, 2010
They are able to do that already but in a military court.
L.C. | Jan 31, 2010
yes because even criminals have rights.. Doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t relieve the maximum punishment for their crimes, but yes they are tech innocent until proven guilty and should be treated that way..
Chaz's Lady | Jan 31, 2010
They should be tried in a military court, and not in the united states. Then shot at sunrise.
Jake Rather | Jan 31, 2010
If they are placed in that arena by an incompetent administration they can accept the misplaced largess at our expense.
Rod J | Jan 31, 2010
When they take up arms against America in another country they have renounced their citizenship and no long given the same rights and US citizens. The only court allowed them by the constitution is a military tribunal.
Chris | Jan 31, 2010
Your question(s) are very misleading, even deceptive. There is no way an American can take up arms against the United States in another country, unless it is in a congressional declaration of war that has been declared against that country. The U.S. has not been in a declared war since 1945. All others have been unconstitutional wars that should not be or have been fought. Authorization is not declaration.
Garthwaite | Jan 31, 2010