Terrorism may be seen as the curse of our time. In reality it has been a significant part of the landscape for the last half century. Because it targets innocent civilians, many people consider terrorism inexcusable, yet it continues to be used by those who think what they do is necessary. When terrorists (or dictators who also maintain power through a different reign of terror) are brought to trial, what kind of defense can be offered for their heinous acts, and who would be willing to defend them? Terror’s Advocate gives us an insight into one of the people who has defended those we think indefensible.

Jacques Vergès has been defending such people since the Battle of Algiers over fifty years ago. One of his early clients was Djamila Bouhired, who placed a bomb in a milk bar and was condemned to death. Vergès managed to win her release from prison and went on to defend others through the years such as Nazi war criminal Klaus Barbie, Magdalena Koop (an associate of Carlos the Jackal), Serbian President Slobodan Miloševi?, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, and various Palestinians.

His defense is not about the facts of the case and making sure it is the right person. Most of his clients acknowledge what they have done. Rather he challenges the structure of society, especially of colonialism and its aftermath. Rather than seeking mercy for his clients, he portrays their actions as the proper response to a world that is oppressive. It is called the “rupture defense.” Vergès summarizes that approach in the film: “You have no right to judge me. You are an occupier. I am a patriot.”

Vergès, a Communist and anti-colonialist, certainly isn’t someone that many Westerners will appreciate. His defenses and his thoughts are for the most part antithetical to the very foundations of our society. But still, there is something interesting about him. This is a man who was at home with people like Mao Zedong and Pol Pot. Very early in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Vergès identified the Palestinians as today’s version of the Algerians (with whom he had a special affinity). There is an eight year period during which Vergès was not seen. Rumors of those years include him being in Cambodia advising Pol Pot; in top secret Palestinian camps; working for STASI, the East German secret police; and other exotic possibilities. Vergès twice married his terrorist defendants.

Vergès is also a provocative figure. Certainly the kinds of people he represents are confrontational, but in the film Vergès himself seems at times to provoke the viewer. At one point he reflects about people asking him if he would have represented Hitler. His response is, “I would even defend Bush, but only if he agreed to plead guilty.” Certainly that is provocative, but it also represents Vergès’ approach as in the rupture defense.

But Terror’s Advocate ends up as a film that never quite reaches its potential. It could have been an exploration of terrorism—its history, roots, goals, and philosophy. It could have been a study of the oppression of colonialism and ways that continues to manifest itself. It could have been a look at the ways justice is often perverted by those who subvert the system. It could have been a film that challenged us to seek the human in what we see as inhuman. It could have been an insight into this man of mystery and international intrigue. But because it only scratches the surface of all of these possibilities, it remains a film that could have been.