Snowden Movie

booman

booman

Grand High Exalted Mystic Emperor of Linux Gaming
Staff member
I just watched the Edward Snowden movie on Amazon Prime
https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/detail/B01LY9MZ2B

It was very interesting and really good. Of course... when its an Oliver Stone movie, it has to be right?
I have a feeling there was a bit of Hollywood to dramatize the story...

It seemed like a really big budget movie as well... huge sets and huge on-site filming. Or at least really good 3D to make the sets seem huge.

I was curious about the bombing in the film. Would America actually bomb an individual with a cell phone right in the middle of town like that? Even with innocent standing near by?

Also, did Snowden's co-worker actually see the mini Flash disk and put his foot on it? Knowing it was suspicious?

I imagined him using a VPN or secure channel from home to access the files and send them to himself... honestly.

I also read that Ed went through the "proper channels" in order to stop it, but the movie didn't even imply anything about it. It basically showed him telling his girlfriend then walking out with the data.
 
I'll check it out Boo.
But rest assured that once a man or woman is absolutely sure God is on his side there is no end to the evil to come.
 
Politics. Why don't we Americans support our whistle blowers.? Without them we would know practically nothing of the dirty underbelly of politics.

As the whistle blowers almost always really eat it at the hands of Government I have to think of them as sacrificial patriots.
 
The first movie about Mr Snowden was "Citizen Four." It's more of a documentary and less of a hagiography and good as well as Oliver Stone's dramatization of the story. I admire Oliver Stone, I think "Platoon" is the most accurate film about Viet-Nam, and Oliver Stone is a Viet-Nam veteran.

"Hagiography" means, oh, you look it up. Kidding, it means a work full of praise for its subject.
I admire Edward Snowden quite a bit. In posting this I've just put myself on the government's sheeite list. By invoking the 1917 Espionage Act, the gummint persecutes truth tellers unto death. This law is being improperly invoked, but civil rights SURE aren't what they used to be.

Would our military forces (in this case the CIA) kill a man from our drones simply for holding a cell phone that's on the watch list? Ask Mr Obama. If he answers honestly the answer to the question is "yes." And repeatedly.

I don't know if a co-worker of Mr Snowden's covered that tiny Flash chip with his shoe or not. It makes my heart soar like an eagle to think he did.

VPN's and secure channels don't exist as far as the NSA is concerned. But it's fine if we think they do. Cough.

Ed Snowden knew better than to try to reform the NSA from the inside. Others tried and were severely punished for doing so.
 
Last edited:
I've long pondered the question of whistle blowers and those who hunt them.
On the one hand we as a nation have real and urgent national security issues with any one disclosing top secret material.
On the the other hand Daniel Elsburg and Snowden both brought to light great evils that we surly needed to address.
And clouding both issues is the fact that those in power usually act to protect themselves rather than the nation.

but only usually. Sometimes we need act to squash those who would reveal our secrets.

So it's pretty easy to see there are two sides here. And that both sides need protection from undue exposure.

The problem as I see must be addressed on a need tn know basis. We the people need to know, we just don't need the specifics.

We just don't seem to have in-place a fair and unbiased way to determine when A whistle blower is a traitor and when he is a patriot.

Patriots in the past sacrificed themselves to tell us what they felt we needed to know. This works after a fashion.
No one is going to though themselves away if they don't feel it extremely important to the nation to get the word out.
It does however often leave us punishing those who helped us most.

What disappoints me is the lack of understanding that our Government when dealing with "Leaks" shows.

Shouldn't our government be capable of looking at someone and their actions and ascertaining their probable motive? In my view whistle blowers break the law and THAT HAS to be looked into.

But why would what is most often a career bureaucrat put everything on the line to tell us something?

If there were monies involved we would be talking treason there almost never is with whistle blowers.So ironically what's needed are whistle blowers who know how to keep their mouths shut.

And we need those who hunt them to speak up when someone reveals us to be committing crimes the General population can not continence.

We need these for honest government seems always just out of reach. While it remains so we will need informants who stand ready to give up their lives that the truth should be known.

And we will need spy hunters who can root them out to assure us that they acted in our defense and not at the behest of our enemies.,

So, no solution presents itself to me, only a regrettable but inescapable situation.We need whistle blowers and we need to punish them to insure that they are not frivolous in their disclosures.

When they act for the American people we should show great leniency that we don't discourage future revelations.But we need to always ask is this in our best interest that this or that be known??
 
Snowdon seems to me to be nothing more than a disgruntled employee, or an actual traitor who was working with Russia.

There's nothing smart or clever about stealing your employers data, very easy to do, like a shop worker stealing from the cash register. Most people don't do these things, not because it is difficult but because they can be trusted.

Snowdon showed us that the CIA monitors who contacts who via email, telephone, etc. Surely it was always obvious that they could and most likely were doing that. Why would they not? I think the media sensationalized this because this is how journalists make a name for themselves.

Then he supposedly gets stuck in Russia by chance, and is offered asylum. How convenient that he just happened to be in Russia when his passport was revoked, just about the only country where he would have a good chance of being protected.

IMO, a real whistleblower doesn't run, they want to have their day in court to explain why they did what they did.

I have far more empathy for Chelsea Manning, who faced the music and quite rightly had her sentence commuted by Obama.
 
Chelsea Manning is an American hero. Please recall that she had 23 more years to serve in Leavenworth. I'm very glad that Obama pardoned her. She never would have lasted for all those years. The military treated her like dog droppings, they would have eventually killed her.

I can see where some might think "traitor- hang him high" is the correct way to go. IMO, Snowdon is an American Hero. He worked for the NSA. No Such Agency. They have no legal right to spy upon any American inside America. The CIA has no right to operate within the United States. This is the law, pure and simple. Now that Democracy is but a memory, very much thanks to our "Intelligence Agencies," THEY do what they want. All the time. We have very, very few Civil Rights left to us. They can be abrogated at will by those who are really in charge. And are.

Edward Snowdon along with Julian Assange deserve GREAT praise for what they have done.
Sorry, neither man will EVER "get their day in court." "Day in court" is an EXTINCT civil right. That is a simple and horribly true fact.

What many people simply don't understand is that nearly all whistle blowers are severely punished. For simply telling us what we MUST know. In truth, the public was shocked and surprised to learn just how far those gummint cameras were up EVERYONE'S rectum.

""We should have assumed?""

Maybe so. But as an American I assumed that less pervasive surveillance was happening. WRONG. And I don't like that.
 
Last edited:
I was just a bit disgusted by the treatment given Chelsea. A perfect example of NOT taking motive into account. Of Not asking was this something we needed to know?

Oh have you heard? There was collusion.
But as it's an old favorite you can still hear it just like old times":O}

Let's sing it together!

"There was no collusion!"
Can still be heard at Trupmmy dog and pony shows all over the country side.
 
Sorry for opening a can-of-worms here :)
Thanks for your comments guys.
 
Daniel~ said:
Julian Assange, What did he ever do for you George?
Click to expand...
Julian Assange let the truth be told to all with ears who wished to hear and eyes who wished to see it. He broke the story from Chelsea Manning of that US Army helicopter executing the innocent in Baghdad--as well as the undisguised glee from the pilot or gunner as well as higher command at this multiple murder of the innocent. Two of those cut down were AP reporters.

This "highly secure" proof of what the USA was REALLY doing in Iraq was made available by Chelsea Manning to WikiLeaks.
So I think Julian Assange is a hero as well. If the press in the United States does NOT defend Julian Assange from the Mark of the Beast(that's us, by the way. Not just Trump.) it will prove that the press itself has no intention of defending our First Amendment rights. Freedom of speech--who gives a hoot? ME.
 
Ok. I can see where one might think that.

But consider how he used Clinton's E-mail, gained from Russia. He sat on it and waited until she would have no time to respond in any way.
He weaponized Wiki. There are those in intelligence that think they have good reason to believe that he works with Russia against American Interests. When he stared he said he would publish leaks from or about any one. But he has not done that, Like Trummpy he will speak no evil against Russia or republicans.

He's not an American, what's he doing taking such a large part in our election?

Now for the second part of your post. If the press doesn't see this as you do, that proves they don't support the part of our constitution that protects them?

You do realize that there is someone else making that argument?
Someone else that wants to discredit the fake news simply because the news isn't to his liking? Doesn't support the causes he likes.

The reason thy don't support him is that he is not a news outlet he is a propaganda tool of Russian intelligence... If it looks like a duck...

This I think will only become more apparent over time.

But this is of course is my opinion and should take up no more space than the facts that support it. a penny is only as good as what it may buy.
 
That this info was given to WikiLeaks by the hated Russia is the equivalent of an old wive's tale. A person with access to the Democratic Party's power elite gave this information to WikiLeaks. A true fact. And he could have been murdered for this.

""There are those in intelligence who..."" Fer God's sake, it would be wonderful if the American public simply woke up and let the scales of baloney fall away from their eyes.

This is simple. We are brainwashed, yes brainwashed into believing a LOT of complete bull.

As many will always choose to not pick up the clue phone, let them continue to be ignorant. It's their right as Americans.
 
Wow! I had no idea that the true source of enlightenment was so near at hand!

Prove it.

"Extraordinary claims require extortionate prof."

You may be brainwashed, That's for you to say. But I am not and have no clue how you might have been.

What makes you think the source that tells you these things is any better grounded in reality
than say, a comic book.
I believe my sources as they ground themselves in demonstrable facts. Documentation , film, eye witnesses, sworn affidavits.

There are no facts to support your claim that some unnamed, might be murdered Dem did it all.
How do I know this. Because i have taken the time to acquaint myself with the reality of fact.. Not one major news source has a clue, but you do? You know exactly where Asange got them?

We actually do KNOW who what and where. Your one of the many who have not taken the time to find out

Please rejoin the fact based world.





Sorry George but as the young would say if they are still saying it...I call bullshit on this one.
 
I don't know whether or not Russia has been controlling certain people from the very beginning, or if they're simply providing safety and assistance to them after the fact, in order to rub it in the faces of Western governments.

I used to support Wikileaks in the early days, but now I am not so keen on Julian Assange, mostly because I would say he is narcissistic and that is what motivates him.

He lives in the Ecuadorian embassy, and it makes no sense that Ecuador would give him refuge until you consider that Ecuador is in bed with Russia. Ecuador is simply taking orders from Putin in the hope that Russia imports a lot of their goods.

Ecuador was also offering to take in Snowdon before his passport was revoked.

You might also note that Nigel Farage visited Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy not long after Trump was elected, and Nigel Farage is Trump's eyes and ears in the UK. He refused to say anything about that visit to the press.
 
Sorry, but I'm afraid that I know more about this than some seem to grasp. The Dunning-Kruger affect is far more prevalent than I hoped.

Mr Assange is about to be kicked out of the Ecuadorian embassy in London. Australia refuses to help him, therefore he'll most likely be handed over the the minions of injustice. Think what you like folks, yet the last token of the freedom of the press will be silenced. Who needs that First Amendment of the Constitution? You and I do.
 
Last edited:
Daniel~ said:
Wow! I had no idea that the true source of enlightenment was so near at hand!

Prove it.

"Extraordinary claims require extortionate prof."

You may be brainwashed, That's for you to say. But I am not and have no clue how you might have been.

What makes you think the source that tells you these things is any better grounded in reality
than say, a comic book.
I believe my sources as they ground themselves in demonstrable facts. Documentation , film, eye witnesses, sworn affidavits.

There are no facts to support your claim that some unnamed, might be murdered Dem did it all.
How do I know this. Because i have taken the time to acquaint myself with the reality of fact.. Not one major news source has a clue, but you do? You know exactly where Asange got them?

We actually do KNOW who what and where. Your one of the many who have not taken the time to find out

Please rejoin the fact based world.





Sorry George but as the young would say if they are still saying it...I call bullshit on this one.
Click to expand...


Call BS as loudly as you like. Does that mean that you REALLY know what's happening?

You've cited your news sources, iirc, you name a few broadcast news outlets. If this is what you rely on to stay informed... You are simply not informed.
 
Last edited:
Once fact is abandon, there can be no agreement.
Please say just what it is that makes you think the two sights you mention
have a lock on what is happening.

That you chose to believe that the news at large is as Trummpy says fake news
but your two sources are harbingers of truth is your choice.

I make my own determination by
watching to see if there is consistency over time.

Do they tell a story and then change it when it sautes someone unknown and hidden from me.

And George they don't do that.. With the exception of Rat news (Fox)

I get a clear picture that has confirmation from several sources....most of the time and most of the time when they don't, they say so and they ACTIVELY SEEK that confirmation.

I haven't looked yet at the sources you recommend. But I do have a fairly firm grasp upon reality.

If they depart to much from my collective sources I will reject them unless they have extraordinary proof.

And George that's almost always lacking in web "News" Proof of any kind. I get supposition after supposition, but I don't get confirmation from "Reliable sources"

sources that do offer confirmation from several sources are not always right, but I am convinced that they try to be.

But you made an assertion that I asked you to verify. You see that's the problem with using sources because for the moment your in agreement with what is said.

They never prove, they never verify. They just move on to the next thing you are unlikely to actually check because you've already heard what you wanted to.

I'll check out you source. But I don't think they will reverse what I've taken a lifetime to understand.

It's not the main stream media that attempts to deceive us, but those who attack the news.

I know you didn't want to hear this from me. That's the trouble with real news you only seldom really want to hear it.



.
 
Are you kidding me!??

This is your "they don't have an agenda just the real news site?

What the **** is this doing on objective news site?


"Do not bring sorrow to the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Rid yourself of all bitterness, rage, and anger, fighting and slander, and every form of spiteful maliciousness. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other just as God has forgiven you. Follow God's example as His cherished children, and live a life of love, as the Lord has loved us, and laid down his life for you." Eph 4:30-5:2

Yeah, that's pretty good for a sermon. But it's death to the news. if you can't see why, you need to spend more time on this.

Your friend the know it all.":O}
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top