I had fallen asleep and woke up about 10 minutes into the film, and it caught my attention until its end, when I rewound the DVR and caught its beginning.
I am not sure what to make of Abu Jandal’s decision to cooperate with US authorities and provide intelligence to the U.S. in September and October 2001 while continuing to maintain his revolutionary political positions.
I’ve recently watched Steven Soderbergh’s Che (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0374569/). Listening to the commentary, which is essentially a historian critiquing the Che Guevara’s autobiography on which the film is based, I hear Abu Jandal as one of the former revolutionaries who survived and now has either changed views entirely or is doing mental gymnastics to justify his abandonment of the field.
To me, the obvious implication of this film is that even people within Al-Qa’ida were divided about the wisdom and justice of the September 11, 2001 attack and that the US military response which has led to the occupation of Afghanistan, and the totally unnecessary and unrelated colonial oil war in Iraq, was counter-productive.
To those who have responded with the desire to treat Abu Jandal and Salim Hamdan as if they were responsible for September 11, 2010, I hope you can put yourselves in the shoes of the families of the hundreds of thousands of dead and the millions of displaced peoples from our interventions in Africa and Asia for decades.
War is not the answer.
Another point the film moves us towards is understanding that militant movements are concerned with the governments in the Muslim majority countries, and as (James Michael from Boca Raton, FL
September 21, 2010, 11:55 PM) pointed out, we need to end support of allies whose actions antagonize whole populations against us.
Finally, at what point are we going to get some truth out of the entire military tribunal system? Surely releasing intelligence that is more than 5 years or 8 years can no longer be considered a national security risk.