The world of indie documentary making has been riven over the last few months by a film about Guantanamo detainees undergoing ‘re-habilitation’ in Saudi Arabia. The film, originally titled Jihad Rehab and now renamed The UnRedacted is showing at the Art House in Crouch End, North London tomorrow and Thursday – and no where else – in the world.
The film follows four Yemenis, trained by al-Qaeda, detained for 15 years at Guantanamo, transferred to a rehabilitation centre in Saudi Arabia and finally released back into Saudi society. It was made by American director Meg Straker and premiered at the Sundance Festival this year. But it then was withdrawn from the festival following protests by a group of Muslim film makers who objected to Sundance screening a film about Muslims made by a white American (albeit one who had lived in the Yemen for some years, had studied Islam and spoke Arabic) – but no films by Muslim film makers. Their objection to the fact that Sundance had accepted no films by Muslim film makers may be entirely justified; it was unfortunate for Meg Straker that her film got caught up in the controversy. A controversy that precipitated a more than usually vitriolic Twitter storm as a result of which not only was her film withdrawn by Sundance, but it has been unable to find distribution since.
I cannot pretend to understand all the complexities of the arguments that have raged over the film but unlike, it appears, 95% of the objectors – I have seen it. Thanks to a brief mention on the Today programme last week and the fact that I live 15 minutes away from Crouch End.
What is the film about?
The film focuses on the Mohammad Bin Naif Counseling and Care Center – now renamed the Counseling and Care Center – in Saudi Arabia. The facility was set up in 2005 (it is now widely replicated in countries around the world) to deradicalise and rehabilitate terrorists, specifically, as far as the film is concerned, Islamic terrorists trained by al-Qaeda.
It follows four Yemenis who had been transferred to the centre, all of whom had been detained at Guantanamo without charge or trial for 15 years. Here, although they remain incarcerated, they live for a year in comfort with good food, access to sports facilites, art therapies and spend a good deal of time learning interpersonal skills and processing their experiences. After a year three of the four are ‘released’ into Saudi society and initially provided with an income, a car, somewhere to live and the possibility of a job and a ‘normal’ life. However, they are not allowed to leave Saudi and they can only be released if they are ‘sponsered’ – a member of their family or a friend stands surety for their good behaviour. (Given the very strong loyalty ties among both family and friends in Muslim society, this is powerful incentive to toe the line.) However, under the new regime led by MBS, not only has the initial support been dramatically reduced but they are no longer allowed to work which makes their ‘free’ lives very difficult.
What does the film show?
The film consists of in depth interviews conducted by Meg Straker with each of the four detainees over their time in the centre and since their release – along with a previous ‘graduate’ of the centre who has repurposed his training in making bombs for jihad into making car alarms in civilian life.
What becomes very clear as the interviews progress is that only one of the four, who, during the course of the interviews, first refuses to anwer Straker’s more probing questions and finally withdraws from the project, really fits our concept of a Jihadi terrorist. Of the other three, one was only 16 when he left home to follow his older brother whom he worshipped and who had already gone to Afghanistan. He was picked up by the Americans within two weeks of arrival. The other two were young men without much in the way of prospects who joined al-Qaeda because it offered (as does the military to young men in many countries) a job, money, excitement, travel, education, friendship and a sense of belonging.
We do not learn much about the background of the one ‘graduate’ from the centre but while he admits that after Guantanamo he just wanted to ‘kill Americans’ – he also said that when he watched films of the destruction of the Twin Towers and the people jumping from windows, he felt shame and that he believed that that was wrong.
Why are people objecting to it?
The objectors to the film, who include the lawyer Clive Stafford Smith who has worked with many Guantanamo detainees, make the following points:
- It is a film about Muslims made by a white Amercian non Muslim.
- Such films should be made by Muslims not by non-Muslim white Americans.
- It is not clear how relevant the fact that films made by Muslim film makers had been rejected by Sundance while Straker’s film had been accepted is to this objection.
- The interviewees were coerced into the project, the full story of their brutal years in Guantanomo is not told and it puts their lives in danger.
- It appears that Staker went through an extremely long and rigorous selection process and that the four gave their full consent to participating in the film. Indeed she points out that the one who chose not to continue with the interviews was allowed to withdraw without hindrance. However, given their vulnerability it is certainly possible to ask whether they were in a position to give full and free consent.
- Are, or could their lives, be in danger? They do make comments which could be construed as criticisms of the current Saudi regime. Straker remains in touch with them and although their lives are difficult as they cannot work or leave the country, they do not appear to be in danger. However, were the film to get wider distribution, might that change?
- Questions are raised about Saudi Arabia’s relationship to the film.
- Does it paint Saudi Arabia, a country with a notoriously bad human rights record, in too rosy a light?
- How come that such a secretive regime even allowed her this kind of access? Straker says that it took years of negotiation – Clive Stafford Smith suggests that the Saudis were merely using her as a propoganda tool.
- What sort of control did the Saudi regime exercise over the making of the film? Straker maintains that she retained total editorial control.
The arguments are still raging and if you want to follow them in more depth, read this long article by Noah Yachot in the Guardian in October or this one by Mike Fleming in Deadline in December. Or take a look at the JihadRehab site where you can also watch a short trailer of the film.
The take home message
Whatever about the rights and wrongs of this film it does seem to make one thing very clear – that treating all members of terrorist organisations as die hard religious fanatics whose only desire is to kill as many of us as they can, is not only to misunderstand much of their motivation but is very counter productive. It has been the prevailing attitude in the west, and especially in America since 9/11 – and – since the early years of this century the numbers of terrorists world wide has grown from hundreds to closer to 100,000.
Instead of tracking down these young men and women and locking them up in conditions which would give them very justifiable reasons for wanting to kills us, offering them better opportunities and access to a better life might be more productive. It certainly could not be less so.
If you want to see for yourself what all the fuss is about, The UnRedacted is showing at the Art House in Crouch End at 17.30 tomorrow, Wednesday and at 15.00 on Thursday (29th).
Doing their bit for the planet