The Road To Guantanamo

I'm currently reading another book on terrorism for the book club (and some Balzac for fun) and thought that The Road To Guantanamo might be a good movie to watch to get me in the mood. However, this book is about the history of terrorism and the mind of the people who are driven to such acts.

The movie is about some English-Pakistani young adults who wander into Afghanistan and are captured and imprisoned in Guantanamo. So, ther really wasn't any connction between the two. I guess the most interesting aspect of the film for me was that Michael Winterbottom directed it-you never know what he'll come up with next-he's made some really great films (24 Hour Party People, Welcome To Sarajevo) and some real crap ones (8 Songs), but no two are ever the same. But it feels like anti-American propaganda, granted their treatment of enemy combatants has been horrible-so maybe it is well-deseved. But I can't help but think these guys were a little messed in the head and naive to go into a war zone without considering the consequences-much like the Japanese backpacker who got beheaded when he went to visit a friend there. Did they deserve it ? Were they teated correctly? No, but it could have been avoided if they hadn't felt the need to find adventure in awar zone. They said they went o help with out a plan no contacts or organizational plan or money-sounds suspicious to me. Interesting blend of documentary footage and dramatic re-creation.

Comments

[mike]

Wether people like it or not those that are held in Guantanamo are some seriously dangerous and despicable people! I highly doubt that there are any naive innocents amongst them.

[Edward]

I don't know Mike - I think the Australian experience helps to dispell this myth. An Aussie called David Hicks has been in Guantanamo for the full 5 years now, and a locally made documentary about him showed with little doubt that he was indeed one of these naive types. He'd converted to Islam, and was in the Middle East looking for something meaningful to do with his life (also looking for a place to fit in). When the sh*t hit the fan he thought he was being asked to fight a civil war against the tribes, and really had no choice in it anyway. He was eventually picked up by the local fighters while manning an observation post - then handed over to the Americans. I wonder how many of the other fighters believed they were simply defending their country or faith against the enemy, and where part of the that country's army effectively. I find it's very convenient to label everyone as terrorists when prior to Sept 11th most would have been considered guerillas at worst. Not many of the dangerous terrorist types were fighting man to man in Afghanistan against some of the world's most well equipped and highly trained soldiers - instead they kept a low profile and targeted civilians, perhaps killing themselves in the process. So I doubt whether many of the inmates in Guantanamo are terrorists. They might have been the enemy - but that's quite a different story.

[Mike]

Hi Edward, I might have to disagree with you on this one. I believe that Mr Hicks was potrayed in a very soft light and that a bit of scrutiny will show that there was a lot of editing to potray him as naive(stupid yes but not naive). Too much of what occurs in the world cannot be placed into categories of right or wrong, Guantanamo is one of those...

[Edward]

Mike, that's possible, but don't you think they should hurry up and find out who's a risk and who's not? The idea of keeping prisoners of war is generally okay, so I don't have a problem with that, but after all these years most of them are still there with no obvious progress. Also note that the British guys were all brought home - our man Hicks is still there, though I doubt he's any more dangerous than the Brits (...will we ever know?). There's so many double standards in Guantanamo, and yet I doubt whether they'll be able to effectively filter out the bad guys from the rest anyway - so I wonder what's it all for?