A group of former Guantánamo prisoners are calling for the film Jihad Rehab to be withdrawn. In an open letter, the men express their “discomfort with the content of the film and its methods of production.”
The letter was published after the film was screened at the Doc Edge festival in New Zealand under a new name, The UnRedacted. “Changing the title of the film doesn’t change its harmful narrative or lazy stereotyping,” says Moazzam Begg, a former prisoner and director of the Cage advocacy group. “Following widespread criticism, the team behind Jihad Rehab had an opportunity to listen and learn. Yet this has been met with little corrective action or even acknowledgment.”
Filmed over several years, Jihad Rehab follows four ex-Guantánamo inmates, who are detained at a rehabilitation centre in Saudi Arabia. Despite not being convicted of any terror charges, the film introduces each of the men alongside a list of alleged crimes that were used to detain them without trial in Guantánamo for over a decade.
The film was condemned after its Sundance premiere earlier this year, which resulted in two Sundance staffers resigning in protest and a public apology from Abigail Disney, the film’s executive producer, as well as the festival itself. In her apology, Disney said she regrets not insisting “on a full fact-checking process to ensure that the highest standards of accuracy were being met” and that the film’s interviewees “cannot freely consent to anything in a carceral system, particularly one in a notoriously violent dictatorship”.
Critics have highlighted the ethics of interviewing the men after they have spent nearly half their lives at Guantánamo, where they faced physical and psychological torture. One of the men still talks with his hands together as if they are in handcuffs. Jihad Rehab has also been criticised over its failure to dispel offensive stereotypes of Muslim men – and more serious claims that it jeopardises the safety and security of its subjects.
Mohammed Al-Hamiri, one of the men featured in the film, told the Guardian that he wasn’t aware the film would be accessible internationally and only found out that it had been made available online after its showing at Sundance. “My life is already difficult but this film poses a serious threat to my life and that of my family,” said Al-Hamiri. Another man said that he had explicitly told the film-maker that he did not want to be featured in the film but his wishes had been disregarded. The film’s director Meg Smaker says that all the participants in the film signed consent documents and denied that the men expressed any fears in correspondence with her.
After the film’s premiere, Smaker teamed up with FAIR (Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism) to argue that her film is being targeted for being directed by a white non-Muslim woman; they claim they are standing up for free expression and against those trying to censor it.
In an interview with Variety, Smaker said that Jihad Rehab seeks to humanise the men by allowing them to tell their side of the story. In the film, she asks: “Do you think you’re a good person or a bad person?” Yet the presumption of the men’s guilt is never in question. “Would you commit jihad again?” The line of questioning clearly upsets the men; at one point one gets up and leaves – and refuses any further contact with the film-maker.
Mansoor Adayfi, who signed the open letter, says Smaker’s film was distressing for him to watch and brought back painful memories. “The interrogation-like interviewing and presumption of guilt is evocative of what we had to endure every single day,” says Adayfi. “The film is a stark reminder that even as free men, we are never truly free from the shackles of Guantánamo.”
Human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smith told the Guardian that he spoke with Smaker directly but felt his concerns were dismissed: “She appeared very defensive, although she admitted that elements of her film could put one of the men’s lives in jeopardy.” Smaker denies she made such comments.
Smith added that he was shocked that Smaker’s team hadn’t engaged with any of the men’s lawyers regarding their involvement in the film. He said he feared that such an approach was “manifestly unethical”.
Critics also suggest that Smaker’s questions are designed to invite criticism of the Saudi regime, ignoring the men’s obvious discomfort, and apparently oblivious to their situation as men held under a repressive, authoritarian government.
In the film’s press notes, Smaker’s team emphasised the protections and procedures they put in place, including allowing a Saudi Arabian co-producer and film crew to remain anonymous, presumably to protect them from potential state persecution – unlike the film’s interviewees.
Gail Helt, a former CIA analyst who supported efforts to close Guantánamo told the Guardian: “If the film-makers think this film will not get to people who could cause harm to these men, that’s just another indicator that they seem ill-equipped to tackle this subject matter. The failings of this film are enormous, and it should never be allowed to circulate or be shown to a wider audience.”
