5 ms·

Lots of criticism in this thread and a shortage of empathy for the position that the FBI finds itself in trying to do its job to protect the public. The followi

Lots of criticism in this thread and a shortage of empathy for the position that the FBI finds itself in trying to do its job to protect the public. The following quote from "A Few Good Men" encapsulates my feelings about the subject. “We live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who’s gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a great responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. The luxury of the blind. The luxury of not knowing what I know: That Santiago’s death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and uncomprehensible to you, saves lives. You can’t handle it. Because deep down, in places you don’t talk about, you want me on that wall. You need me there. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as a backbone to a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I’d prefer you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I’d suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post.”

PrimeMcFly 3y ago
Breaking the law is no justification for enforcing the law or protecting the public. Jack Nicholson was not the good guy in that movie.
- DirectorKrennic 3y ago
  I agree on both counts, but even the bad guy can make a good point.
  - cliffy 3y ago
    He doesn't make a good point. I'd rather have people of high moral character responsible for enforcing the law.
AlexandrB 3y ago
This is a megalomaniacal rant delivered by a character responsible for the murder of one of the soldiers under his command. The "walls" are meant to protect society from the Jesseps of the world, not glorify them and put them in positions of power.
cliffy 3y ago
This speech by Colonel Jessep is meant to be revealing of his true thoughts and character. Jessep rationalizes the evil and immoral acts he commits or orders because he's "protecting" the rest of society. He lied to cover up his own malfeasance. A soldier died under his command, murdered, as a direct consequence of illegal orders he gave. How do you completely twist the plot of this movie to arrive at the conclusion that Colonel Jessep's worldview is one to be admired instead of reviled?
- nonrepeating 3y ago
  For a mainstream Hollywood film, "A Few Good Men" is quite nuanced. Colonel Jessup's actions are plainly illegal, and in the end he is arrested for them, but his point still has merit: society must be protected, and perhaps necessarily, it is protected by people who must do things that society would disapprove of. The actual courtroom proceedings of the movie are less interesting than the philosophical debate, and ultimately one can admire both viewpoints.
- NickC25 3y ago
  Exactly. The whole quote can be boiled down to "the ends justify whatever means I want them to". Yet the key takeaway relative to today's world is this - society needs to know what measures are being taken on their dime to ensure their "freedom" (loaded term), as they, as taxpayers, are indeed on the hook for reparations of any and all kinds. The US military destabilized Iraq and Afghanistan and spent untold billions if not trillions trying to rebuild it - yet I have a strong feeling that the Colonels, Generals, etc... didn't liquidate their stock portfolios to fund such an operation - they took that money from taxpayers. The Colonel doesn't personally pay for the damages to society he caused - that's the taxpayer's job, and they should be, in his mind, grateful for that. But what he misses is that society at large has no time for people who think like that - that's why he's the bad guy. He doesn't care about the risks, and claims we should happily accept whatever comes next because in his mind, he's helping defend the country.
wrycoder 3y ago
This might be applicable, if the FBI had a group of upstanding g-men at its core, as was once popularly believed. But, it seems that the entire organization is corrupt at this point.

PrimeMcFly 3y ago

Breaking the law is no justification for enforcing the law or protecting the public. Jack Nicholson was not the good guy in that movie.

DirectorKrennic 3y ago
I agree on both counts, but even the bad guy can make a good point.
- cliffy 3y ago
  He doesn't make a good point. I'd rather have people of high moral character responsible for enforcing the law.

AlexandrB 3y ago

This is a megalomaniacal rant delivered by a character responsible for the murder of one of the soldiers under his command. The "walls" are meant to protect society from the Jesseps of the world, not glorify them and put them in positions of power.

cliffy 3y ago

This speech by Colonel Jessep is meant to be revealing of his true thoughts and character. Jessep rationalizes the evil and immoral acts he commits or orders because he's "protecting" the rest of society. He lied to cover up his own malfeasance. A soldier died under his command, murdered, as a direct consequence of illegal orders he gave. How do you completely twist the plot of this movie to arrive at the conclusion that Colonel Jessep's worldview is one to be admired instead of reviled?

nonrepeating 3y ago
For a mainstream Hollywood film, "A Few Good Men" is quite nuanced. Colonel Jessup's actions are plainly illegal, and in the end he is arrested for them, but his point still has merit: society must be protected, and perhaps necessarily, it is protected by people who must do things that society would disapprove of. The actual courtroom proceedings of the movie are less interesting than the philosophical debate, and ultimately one can admire both viewpoints.
NickC25 3y ago
Exactly. The whole quote can be boiled down to "the ends justify whatever means I want them to". Yet the key takeaway relative to today's world is this - society needs to know what measures are being taken on their dime to ensure their "freedom" (loaded term), as they, as taxpayers, are indeed on the hook for reparations of any and all kinds. The US military destabilized Iraq and Afghanistan and spent untold billions if not trillions trying to rebuild it - yet I have a strong feeling that the Colonels, Generals, etc... didn't liquidate their stock portfolios to fund such an operation - they took that money from taxpayers. The Colonel doesn't personally pay for the damages to society he caused - that's the taxpayer's job, and they should be, in his mind, grateful for that. But what he misses is that society at large has no time for people who think like that - that's why he's the bad guy. He doesn't care about the risks, and claims we should happily accept whatever comes next because in his mind, he's helping defend the country.

wrycoder 3y ago

This might be applicable, if the FBI had a group of upstanding g-men at its core, as was once popularly believed. But, it seems that the entire organization is corrupt at this point.