The Oath is a very powerful documentary made by filmmaker Laura Poitras for the PBS series P.O.V. (and later released in theaters). This is the second installment in what is supposed to be a three-part series of life in the Middle East and America in the so-called "post-9/11" world. This is the follow-up to her brilliant documentary in 2006 called My Country, My Country, about the first post-Saddam election in Iraq.
This film is formed around two parallel stories of two men who were once very closely linked in terrorism, but now are less so. Salim Hamdan, a Yemeni man, was arrested in Afghanistan during the initial American invasion there in 2001. He has become known as "Osama bin Laden's driver" and was brought up on charges of providing material support for terrorism. (Ultimately he became better known for challenging the terms of his imprisonment and trial. The U.S. Supreme Court found in his favor, which led to a more standard military court marshal trial.) We see his legal team of American military officers fighting in his favor and speaking to the press at his trial in Guantanamo Bay.
Separately, we see Nasser al-Bahri (a.k.a. Abu Jandal) who was at one point Osama bin Laden's bodyguard. Also a Yemeni, he was involved in Al Qaeda in the late 1990s and was arrested in Yemen in 2000 in connection to the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole. He was ultimately released in 2002 after it was clear he was not directly involved in that action, however during his time in detention, he was instrumental in giving interrogators information on the architecture of Al Qaeda and locations for their bases in Afghanistan. Most of the film is spent with al-Bahri in his home in Sanaa, Yemen as he teaches a new generation of young men about his views of Islam and Jihad.
Al-Bahri still deeply believes in the Jihadi struggle against the West and is still a general supporter of Al Qaeda and its actions around the world, but does not feel good about the tremendous loss of human life its attacks have created. He is very torn on this issue. He talks very frankly about how bad he feels when innocents die, but he knows it is for a bigger purpose. He says that he won't be able to stop all the violence and that it's coming regardless of what he does and says. He advocates that people read and study more than fight, but that he'll be ready to fight when the battle gets to his doorstep.
Much of what he talks about also relates to the oath he gave to bin Laden that he would be a soldier in his Jihad. Many in the jihadi world and in Al Qaeda see him as an apostate and a scoundrel because they believe he has backtracked on his oath, which in fundamentalist Islam is an offense punishable by death. He struggles with his because he is also a fundamentalist and he knows what he has done. He talks in circles about how he didn't so much play with the West against Al Qaeda because he doesn't believe he should be forced to kill people. He is clearly a very reluctant soldier, and his humanity comes through strongly as worries about death and damnation.
What is fascinating, of course is how the two stories are shown next to one another. The two men (who are brothers-in-law through al-Bahri's sister, by the way) were on the same path at one point (I believe al-Bahri got Hamdan into Al Qaeda) rising up the power ladder of Al Qaeda together. Then al-Bahri slipped and changed direction leaving his comrade on the field of battle. What is even sadder is that Hamdan was at most a driver, a rather low-level worker in the greater Al Qaeda machine, while al-Bahri is out as a free man - and he's talking about continuing with jihad. In basic terms, the man who couldn't stand the heat of battle and quit is now the free man paying less for his actions than his more devoted brother-in-law.
Poitras is an absolutely brilliant editor and director when it comes to creating powerful juxtapositions. She shines in transition, particularly with the beautiful landscape shots of Sanaa and Gitmo. She'll follow an important statement by al-Bahri or Hamdan's lawyers with a beautifully colored sky, say, that helps to seal the meaning of what was just said. It is because of beautiful transitions like this that this is not really just a political/historical/current events documentary. This is a really gorgeous film to watch.
I also love the juxtaposition we see between al-Bahri's constant questioning of his faith and his actions and the Pentagon's sureness of itself with regard to the fairness of holding Hamdan for seven years without a trial and the honesty of the trial itself. These two parts are beautifully cut back and forth to show how the former is a constant struggle, while the latter is barely examined and totally a done deal.
There is also a very sensible, easy-to-follow story structure to this work, that is not only reminiscent of a good newspaper article, but also a powerful narrative drama. Poitras lays out all the information we need very carefully and slowly so we can get a grip on who each person is and how he relates to others and to the bigger story. I don't believe she is really giving us a specific view one way or the other about how to think of these men. We don't come out thinking that one man was screwed, say, and one man was guilty. It's much more gray here, so we see how al-Bahri has some good and powerful points about jihad and Al Qaeda and he's neither a villain nor a hero. He's just a man, full of fear and doubt.
At one point, when talking to his students, al-Bhari says about Americans, "They can't live without planes, girlfriends, pizza, macaroni. A jihadist can live on stale bread." This is a very important point, very well said and a clear definition of the Jihahi's view of the world. It is made even more powerful when Poitras shows him taking a swig of a Coke bottle moments after he finishes speaking.
(One interesting note, is that al-Bahri says that the United 93 plane that crashed in Pennsylvania was actually intended for the White House rather than the U.S. Capitol building. I had never heard this before, but it is interesting.)
Al-Bahri is not a robot. He is a man with normal human emotions. This is important, I think, in an age when politics and international media have settled on treating terrorists as mindless drones doing the bidding of higher-ups. We see here that sometimes these pawns are actually fully-formed humans who share the feelings we all would. Blind faith is so challenging and even in the situation of jihad, it is not a binary black or white dilemma.
Poitras presents for us here a magnificent balance of two men who took divergent paths and had different faiths. One is in a jail cell in Gitmo serving his time (he was ultimately released in 2009) and the other is sitting in his living room in Sanaa talking to students... and to a filmmaker. They are both men of deep faith and belief, but are very different. It is very interesting that Hamdan is never on screen here, but his story comes across just as powerfully, through his lawyers and his back story.There are lots of elegant parallels and intersections in this film. It is well worth watching.
Stars: 3.5 of 4
